Interaction between Staphylococcus aureus and Pseudomonas aeruginosa is beneficial for colonisation and pathogenicity in a mixed biofilm

Debate regarding the co-existence of Staphylococcus aureus and Pseudomonas aeruginosa in wounds remains contentious, with the dominant hypothesis describing a situation akin to niche partitioning, whereby both microorganisms are present but occupy distinct regions of the wound without interacting. In contrast, we hypothesised that these microorganisms do interact during early co-colonisation in a manner beneficial to both bacteria. We assessed competitive interaction between S. aureus and P. aeruginosa in biofilm cultured for 24-72 h and bacterial aggregates analogous to those observed in early (<24 h) biofilm formation, and interaction with human keratinocytes. We observed that S. aureus predominated in biofilm and non-attached bacterial aggregates, acting as a pioneer for the attachment of P. aeruginosa. We report for the first time that S. aureus mediates a significant (P < 0.05) increase in the attachment of P. aeruginosa to human keratinocytes, and that P. aeruginosa promotes an invasive phenotype in S. aureus. We show that co-infected keratinocytes exhibit an intermediate inflammatory response concurrent with impaired wound closure that is in keeping with a sustained proinflammatory response which allows for persistent microbial colonisation. These studies demonstrate that, contrary to the dominant hypothesis, interactions between S. aureus and P. aeruginosa may be an important factor for both colonisation and pathogenicity in the chronic infected wound.

[1]  H. Goossens,et al.  In vivo and In vitro Interactions between Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Staphylococcus spp. , 2017, Front. Cell. Infect. Microbiol..

[2]  J. Goldberg,et al.  Pseudomonas aeruginosa Alginate Overproduction Promotes Coexistence with Staphylococcus aureus in a Model of Cystic Fibrosis Respiratory Infection , 2017, mBio.

[3]  P. Bowler,et al.  Clinician perceptions of wound biofilm , 2016, International wound journal.

[4]  Jin Chen,et al.  Metabolic modeling of a chronic wound biofilm consortium predicts spatial partitioning of bacterial species , 2016, BMC Systems Biology.

[5]  Catherine A. Wakeman,et al.  The innate immune protein calprotectin promotes Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Staphylococcus aureus interaction , 2016, Nature Communications.

[6]  Gennifer E. Merrihew,et al.  Staphylococcus aureus Protein A Mediates Interspecies Interactions at the Cell Surface of Pseudomonas aeruginosa , 2016, mBio.

[7]  N. McCarty,et al.  A longitudinal analysis of chronic MRSA and Pseudomonas aeruginosa co-infection in cystic fibrosis: A single-center study. , 2016, Journal of cystic fibrosis : official journal of the European Cystic Fibrosis Society.

[8]  Thomas Bjarnsholt,et al.  Role of Multicellular Aggregates in Biofilm Formation , 2016, mBio.

[9]  J. Goldberg,et al.  Staphylococcus aureus and Pseudomonas aeruginosa co-infection is associated with cystic fibrosis-related diabetes and poor clinical outcomes , 2016, European Journal of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases.

[10]  R. Coimbra,et al.  Do Polymicrobial Intra-Abdominal Infections Have Worse Outcomes than Monomicrobial Intra-Abdominal Infections? , 2016, Surgical infections.

[11]  Y. Ting,et al.  Presence of Pseudomonas aeruginosa influences biofilm formation and surface protein expression of Staphylococcus aureus. , 2015, Environmental microbiology.

[12]  S. Diggle,et al.  Shaping the Growth Behaviour of Biofilms Initiated from Bacterial Aggregates , 2015, PloS one.

[13]  L. Lands,et al.  Clinical outcomes associated with Staphylococcus aureus and Pseudomonas aeruginosa airway infections in adult cystic fibrosis patients , 2015, BMC Pulmonary Medicine.

[14]  A. Oliver,et al.  ESCMID guideline for the diagnosis and treatment of biofilm infections 2014. , 2015, Clinical microbiology and infection : the official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases.

[15]  L. Lynd,et al.  Coculture of Staphylococcus aureus with Pseudomonas aeruginosa Drives S. aureus towards Fermentative Metabolism and Reduced Viability in a Cystic Fibrosis Model , 2015, Journal of bacteriology.

[16]  M. Whiteley,et al.  Iron-Mediated Control of Pseudomonas aeruginosa-Staphylococcus aureus Interactions in the Cystic Fibrosis Lung , 2015, Journal of Bacteriology.

[17]  R. Serra,et al.  Chronic wound infections: the role of Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Staphylococcus aureus , 2015, Expert review of anti-infective therapy.

[18]  Scott N. Dean,et al.  Analysis of mixed biofilm (Staphylococcus aureus and Pseudomonas aeruginosa) by laser ablation electrospray ionization mass spectrometry , 2015, Biofouling.

[19]  F. Gottrup,et al.  Antimicrobials and Non-Healing Wounds. Evidence, controversies and suggestions-key messages. , 2014, Journal of wound care.

[20]  K. Rumbaugh,et al.  Synergistic Interactions of Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Staphylococcus aureus in an In Vitro Wound Model , 2014, Infection and Immunity.

[21]  J. Weese,et al.  Collagen and hyaluronan at wound sites influence early polymicrobial biofilm adhesive events , 2014, BMC Microbiology.

[22]  C. Di Serio,et al.  Adaptation of Pseudomonas aeruginosa in Cystic Fibrosis Airways Influences Virulence of Staphylococcus aureus In Vitro and Murine Models of Co-Infection , 2014, PloS one.

[23]  J. Klockgether,et al.  Advances in understanding Pseudomonas , 2014, F1000prime reports.

[24]  G. Mitchell,et al.  Interspecific Small Molecule Interactions between Clinical Isolates of Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Staphylococcus aureus from Adult Cystic Fibrosis Patients , 2014, PloS one.

[25]  M. Pihl,et al.  Biofilm formation by Staphylococcus epidermidis on peritoneal dialysis catheters and the effects of extracellular products from Pseudomonas aeruginosa. , 2013, Pathogens and disease.

[26]  O. Stojadinović,et al.  Interactions of Methicillin Resistant Staphylococcus aureus USA300 and Pseudomonas aeruginosa in Polymicrobial Wound Infection , 2013, PloS one.

[27]  P. Diaz,et al.  Strain-specific colonization patterns and serum modulation of multi-species oral biofilm development. , 2012, Anaerobe.

[28]  P. Stewart,et al.  Development and application of a polymicrobial, in vitro, wound biofilm model , 2012, Journal of applied microbiology.

[29]  B. Peters,et al.  Polymicrobial Interactions: Impact on Pathogenesis and Human Disease , 2012, Clinical Microbiology Reviews.

[30]  F. Vandenesch,et al.  Impact of sub-inhibitory antibiotics on fibronectin-mediated host cell adhesion and invasion by Staphylococcus aureus , 2011, BMC Microbiology.

[31]  S. Dowd,et al.  An In Vivo Polymicrobial Biofilm Wound Infection Model to Study Interspecies Interactions , 2011, PloS one.

[32]  M. Guggenheim,et al.  Validation of the Zürich burn-biofilm model. , 2011, Burns : journal of the International Society for Burn Injuries.

[33]  S. Molin,et al.  Pattern differentiation in co-culture biofilms formed by Staphylococcus aureus and Pseudomonas aeruginosa. , 2011, FEMS immunology and medical microbiology.

[34]  Huanchun Chen,et al.  The staphylococcal nuclease prevents biofilm formation in Staphylococcus aureus and other biofilm-forming bacteria , 2011, Science China Life Sciences.

[35]  M. Pihl,et al.  Differential effects of Pseudomonas aeruginosa on biofilm formation by different strains of Staphylococcus epidermidis. , 2010, FEMS immunology and medical microbiology.

[36]  Robert J. Palmer,et al.  Oral multispecies biofilm development and the key role of cell–cell distance , 2010, Nature Reviews Microbiology.

[37]  Thomas Bjarnsholt,et al.  Antibiotic resistance of bacterial biofilms. , 2010, International journal of antimicrobial agents.

[38]  T. Tolker-Nielsen,et al.  Nonrandom Distribution of Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Staphylococcus aureus in Chronic Wounds , 2009, Journal of Clinical Microbiology.

[39]  P. Dohmen Antibiotic resistance in common pathogens reinforces the need to minimise surgical site infections. , 2008, The Journal of hospital infection.

[40]  S. Percival,et al.  Biofilms in wounds: management strategies. , 2008, Journal of wound care.

[41]  T. Davies,et al.  Evolutionary Ecology: When Relatives Cannot Live Together , 2006, Current Biology.

[42]  M. Whiteley,et al.  Staphylococcus aureus Serves as an Iron Source for Pseudomonas aeruginosa during In Vivo Coculture , 2005, Journal of bacteriology.

[43]  M. Akçay,et al.  The time-related changes of antimicrobial resistance patterns and predominant bacterial profiles of burn wounds and body flora of burned patients. , 2004, Burns : journal of the International Society for Burn Injuries.

[44]  L. Téot World Union of Wound Healing Societies , 2003, The international journal of lower extremity wounds.

[45]  N. High,et al.  Bacterial coaggregation: an integral process in the development of multi-species biofilms. , 2003, Trends in microbiology.

[46]  G. Christensen,et al.  Synergy Between Staphylococcus aureus and Pseudomonas aeruginosa in a Rat Model of Complex Orthopaedic Wounds , 2001, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume.

[47]  P. Randerson,et al.  Flow cytometry and other techniques show that Staphylococcus aureus undergoes significant physiological changes in the early stages of surface-attached culture. , 1999, Microbiology.

[48]  D. Lloyd,et al.  The effects of adherence to silicone surfaces on antibiotic susceptibility in Staphylococcus aureus. , 1997, Microbiology.

[49]  A. Prince,et al.  Adhesins and receptors of Pseudomonas aeruginosa associated with infection of the respiratory tract. , 1992, Microbial pathogenesis.

[50]  H. Morton,et al.  Staphylococcus aureus , 1948, Proceedings of the Society for Experimental Biology and Medicine. Society for Experimental Biology and Medicine.

[51]  J. O. Irwin,et al.  The estimation of the bactericidal power of the blood , 1938, Epidemiology and Infection.

[52]  W. Witte,et al.  Antibiotic resistance. , 2013, International journal of medical microbiology : IJMM.

[53]  S. Foster,et al.  Surface adhesins of Staphylococcus aureus. , 2006, Advances in microbial physiology.