Skip to main content
NCBI home page
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2020 Apr 17;15(4):e0231791. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0231791

Investigation of synovial fluid induced Staphylococcus aureus aggregate development and its impact on surface attachment and biofilm formation

Matthew J Pestrak 1, Tripti Thapa Gupta 1, Devendra H Dusane 1, Doug V Guzior 1, Amelia Staats 1, Jan Harro 2, Alexander R Horswill 3, Paul Stoodley 1,4,5,*
Editor: Abdelwahab Omri6
PMCID: PMC7164621  PMID: 32302361

Abstract

Periprosthetic joint infections (PJIs) are a devastating complication that occurs in 2% of patients following joint replacement. These infections are costly and difficult to treat, often requiring multiple corrective surgeries and prolonged antimicrobial treatments. The Gram-positive bacterium Staphylococcus aureus is one of the most common causes of PJIs, and it is often resistant to a number of commonly used antimicrobials. This tolerance can be partially attributed to the ability of S. aureus to form biofilms. Biofilms associated with the surface of indwelling medical devices have been observed on components removed during chronic infection, however, the development and localization of biofilms during PJIs remains unclear. Prior studies have demonstrated that synovial fluid, in the joint cavity, promotes the development of bacterial aggregates with many biofilm-like properties, including antibiotic resistance. We anticipate these aggregates have an important role in biofilm formation and antibiotic tolerance during PJIs. Therefore, we sought to determine specifically how synovial fluid promotes aggregate formation and the impact of this process on surface attachment. Using flow cytometry and microscopy, we quantified the aggregation of various clinical S. aureus strains following exposure to purified synovial fluid components. We determined that fibrinogen and fibronectin promoted bacterial aggregation, while cell free DNA, serum albumin, and hyaluronic acid had minimal effect. To determine how synovial fluid mediated aggregation affects surface attachment, we utilized microscopy to measure bacterial attachment. Surprisingly, we found that synovial fluid significantly impeded bacterial surface attachment to a variety of materials. We conclude from this study that fibrinogen and fibronectin in synovial fluid have a crucial role in promoting bacterial aggregation and inhibiting surface adhesion during PJI. Collectively, we propose that synovial fluid may have conflicting protective roles for the host by preventing adhesion to surfaces, but by promoting bacterial aggregation is also contributing to the development of antibiotic tolerance.

Introduction

Periprosthetic joint infections (PJIs) are a devastating complication of joint replacement surgeries, occurring in approximately 2% of all cases [1,2]. These infections often require multiple surgeries and extensive antibiotic treatments resulting in longer hospitalization and higher costs for the patient [2]. In addition to the economic burden associated with PJIs, nearly 26% of patients with PJIs requiring additional interventions die within 5 years of the initial surgery [3]. The Gram-positive bacterial species Staphylococcus are the most common cause of infection in these patients, accounting for nearly 45% of all PJIs [3,4]. S. aureus in particular is frequently isolated from these patients, and is often incredibly difficult to treat due to the development of antimicrobial tolerance [5]. S. aureus utilizes a number of strategies to impede antimicrobial killing and subvert the host immune system including, secreted proteases, surface factors, and biofilm development [5,6].

Biofilms are aggregated protective communities of bacteria that are surrounded by an extracellular matrix. The biofilm matrix is a complex structure of bacterial and host components consisting of extracellular DNA, proteins, and polysaccharides [7]. Once encased in the biofilm matrix, the bacteria exhibit enhanced tolerance to antimicrobials and the host immune system [8–10]. During PJI, S. aureus biofilms and aggregates have been observed on the surface of implanted joint devices and the surrounding tissue [11]. Although biofilms previously were defined as surface-associated communities, recent studies have demonstrated that bacterial aggregates function similarly protecting bacterial cells from the same external stressors [12–16]. Furthermore, bacterial aggregates have been observed in both wound and lung infections, indicating they have an important role during infection [17–20]. In the context of PJIs, S. aureus and S. epidermidis form dense aggregate structures in the presence of synovial fluid, a viscous lubricant present in the joint space [21,22]. Similar to surface associated biofilms, aggregation in synovial fluid provides the bacteria with enhanced tolerance to antimicrobial treatment and phagocytosis [12,23,24]. Therefore, it is essential to understand how synovial fluid promotes aggregation and influences the establishment of chronic infections.

A role for a number of S. aureus factors in this process have been identified [23], but many aspects S. aureus aggregate formation in synovial fluid remain unclear. In this study, we examined the kinetics of aggregate formation in synovial fluid and identified which host factors are involved in this process. Utilizing flow cytometry to quantify aggregate formation, we determined that S. aureus aggregates within minutes of synovial fluid exposure. Furthermore, we determined this process is mediated predominately by S. aureus interaction with host fibrinogen and fibronectin. Finally, as surface-associated biofilms have been observed on implants during PJI, we investigated the effects of synovial fluid on S. aureus surface adhesion. Interestingly, synovial fluid drastically inhibited surface attachment to plastic, glass, titanium, steel, and hydroxyapatite. Collectively, we propose that synovial fluid may have conflicting protective roles for the host by preventing adhesion to surfaces, but by promoting bacterial aggregation is also contributing to the development of antibiotic tolerance.

Methods

Bacterial growth conditions and bacterial strains

In all experiments, S. aureus was grown in tryptic soy broth at 37°C in a shaking incubator operating at 200 RPM for 17–18 hours. The coupon adherence assays were completed with the GFP tagged S. aureus strain AH1726 [25]. All other experiments were completed using the clinical S. aureus isolate CGS.Sa03 [26].

Bacterial aggregate quantification

The optical density at 600 nm was measured for each culture and 0.75 OD600 of cells from stationary phase cultures was pelleted at 21,000 xg and suspended in 1 mL of Ringer’s solution buffer (BR0052G, Fisher Scientific). Cells were stained with SYTO9 (Invitrogen, Thermo Fisher Scientific, Waltham MA, USA) for 10 min at room temperature and washed three times in Ringer’s solution. Next, the cells were suspended in 500 μl of Ringer’s solution or 10% bovine synovial fluid (Lampire Biological Laboratories, Pipersville,PA, USA) in Ringer’s solution. For treatments with purified synovial fluid components, 19 mg/ml of BSA (Fisher, BP1600), 1 mg/ml of DNA (Ambion Salmon Sperm DNA, AM9680) (to mimic native circulating cell free DNA (ccfDNA)), 3 mg/ml of hyaluronic acid (Fisher, AAJ60566MA), 0.172 mg/ml of human fibrinogen (Invitrogen, PIRP43142), or 450 ug/ml of fibronectin (Alfa Aesar, BT 226) was added to bacterial suspensions which are in the range of these components reported in patient arthritic knee synovial fluid [27–31]. Cells were then incubated at room temperature for 5 to 120 minutes as indicated. Following incubation, 100 μl of the cells was collected from the bottom of the microcentrifuge tube and transferred slowly to a 5 ml round bottom polystyrene tube. Single bacterial cells can be differentiated from cell aggregates using flow cytometry [32], so we quantified bacterial aggregation using a BD FACsCanto II flow cytometer (BD sciences), as previously described [14]. The forward and side scatter of the SYTO9+ population was quantified to exclude unstained synovial fluid debris and quantify only the bacterial population. All flow cytometry data was quantified using FlowJo 9.0. The population of single cells was determined by gating a population single bacterial cells in the negative control confirmed by light microscopy. The percentage of the population existing as aggregates was calculated by subtracting the single celled population from the total population. To determine the average size of aggregates within a population, the median fluorescence intensity (MFI) of the forward scatter was calculated. At least 10,000 events were measured for each sample in triplicate in at least two independent experiments. Statistical significance was determined by Student’s T-test or one-way ANOVA followed by Dunnett’s multiple comparison test to compare means against the untreated control when applicable.

Confocal microscopy

250μl of stationary phase cultures were pelleted, washed, and suspended in 250 μl of Ringer’s solution. Cells were stained with SYTO9 for 10 minutes at room temperature. Stained cells were washed three times and suspended in 250 μl of Ringer’s solution. 50 μl of cells were suspended in 600 μl of Ringer’s solution or 10% bovine synovial fluid in Ringer’s solution. Cells were incubated at room temperature in confocal cover-glass bottom petri dishes for 5–60 minutes allowing for aggregation to occur. Imaging of cells and aggregates were taken at multiple time points under 60x magnification using a Olympus FluoView FV10i Confocal Laser Scanning Microscope.

Quantification of bacterial surface attachment

For both S. aureus strains, 0.75 OD600 of overnight stationary phase cultures were pelleted by centrifugation at 21,000 xg for 1 minute and suspended in 500 μl of Ringer’s solution or 10% synovial fluid in Ringer’s solution. The cells were incubated for 30 minutes at room temperature and then diluted in 50 ml of Ringer’s solution. A peristaltic pump was used to flow the cultures through a 6-well IBIDI flow cell with a constant shear stress of 8.4 mPa unless otherwise specified. Using an inverted epifluorescence microscope (EVOS, Thermo Fisher Scientific Inc., Waltham MA USA), three images were taken per channel and averaged together for each condition after 5 minutes. All experiments were completed in triplicate in at least two independent experiments, and statistical significance was determined by two-way ANOVA followed by Tukey’s multiple comparisons test.

To measure bacterial adhesion to different surface types, overnight cultures of GFP producing S. aureus cells were centrifuged at 21,000 xg for 1 minute. The supernatant was removed, and the pellet was washed in PBS and suspended in 10% synovial fluid in ringer’s solution. The suspension was then incubated for 1 hour to form aggregates. The attachment of single cells and aggregates under flow was observed using a Leica DM2700 M upright microscope on different coupon materials: Titanium (Ti), stainless steel (316L), and hydroxyapatite (HA) (10 mm diameter and 2mm thickness; BioSurface Technologies) using a 20X objective. To ensure similar roughness, all coupons were sanded using Grainger P600 aluminum oxide sandpaper for 4–5 minutes. Using a peristaltic pump, the bacteria were pumped through the flow cell at a constant shear stress of 15 mPa for 5 minutes. Time lapse videos were recorded at 30 fps using Micromanager software and QIClick CCD digital camera. Using ImageJ, ten frames were analyzed and the number of attached bacterial particles was quantified after 5 minutes. A threshold was applied to each video and the average intensity of GFP signal was quantified across all frames. Particles with a low average intensity indicated the bacteria did not adhere and was present the liquid phase. Therefore, low intensity particles were excluded, and high intensity attached particles were quantified to determine how much bacteria was present on the coupon surface. All experiments were done in triplicate and statistical significance was determined by Student’s T-test.

Proteinase K and heat treatment of synovial fluid

To disrupt proteins in the synovial fluid 250 μg/ml of proteinase K was added to 1 ml of synovial fluid and incubated at 37°C for one hour. For heat treatment, 1 ml of synovial fluid was boiled at 100°C for 30 minutes. After protein disruption cells were treated with synovial fluid for 30 minutes as described previously.

Statistical analysis

Prism (Graphpad v7.04 software) was used for all statistical analysis. The threshold for significance was set at P value < 0.05. Statistically significant differences were determined using the test specified in the corresponding methods sections. All error bars indicate standard error of the mean.

Results

Synovial fluid induces S. aureus aggregation

Flow cytometry was utilized to assess S. aureus aggregate formation of the clinical isolate CGS.Sa03 following exposure to synovial fluid. Compared to the untreated, single cell control culture, synovial fluid induced the formation of large bacterial aggregates as indicated by increased average forward and side scatter (Fig 1A–1D). While the percent population indicates the relative number of aggregates compared to single cells, it does not provide an indication of aggregate size. In order to better assess particle sizes, the median fluorescence intensity (MFI) was calculated for each population (Fig 1C and 1D). We observe increased MFI following synovial fluid exposure indicating particle size was increased. Finally, these observations were confirmed using light microscopy. As expected, cells in the untreated controls existed predominately as single cells, while synovial fluid treated cultures contained many large aggregated bacterial clusters (Fig 1A).

Fig 1. Synovial fluid promotes S. aureus aggregation.

Fig 1

Open in a new tab

A) Image of CGS.Sa03 in ringer’s solution +/- 10% synovial fluid. B) Flow cytometry was used to determine the aggregation index of CGS.Sa03 in 10% synovial fluid after 1 hour of incubation. CD) The median forward scatter signal intensity was quantified as an indicator of the relative size of aggregates in a given population. Error bars indicate mean ± SEM. Statistical significance was determined by Student’s T-test. ****p<0.0001.

Aggregates form rapidly in synovial fluid

Considering aggregation promotes antimicrobial tolerance, it is important to understand how quickly these aggregates form during an infection. Therefore, we sought to determine the rate of aggregation formation in synovial fluid using flow cytometry and confocal microscopy. After 15 minutes, nearly 40% of the bacterial population was incorporated into an aggregate structure (Fig 2A). The percentage of aggregates in the population appeared to continue increasing over 60 minutes (Fig 2B), but this rate appeared to level off after a certain amount of time. This could indicate that S. aureus aggregates reached a maximum size and could no longer incorporate additional cells, due to either physical limitations or quorum-sensing mediated biofilm dispersal mechanisms [33]. Alternatively, we did not observe any aggregation above 60% in our studies, which may indicate an upper limit of detection with this method.

Fig 2. Synovial fluid promotes aggregation in a cell concentration and time-dependent manner.

Fig 2

Open in a new tab

AB) S. aureus cells were treated with 10% synovial fluid in Ringer’s solution and flow cytometry was used to quantify the aggregation index at the indicated times over a two hour period. C) Aggregate formation was observed using confocal microscopy. Error bars indicate mean ± SEM. Statistical significance was determined by one-way ANOVA followed by Dunnett’s multiple comparison test to compare means against the untreated control. *p<0.05, ****p<0.0001.

These results were further confirmed with confocal microscopy by imaging aggregate development of SYTO9 stained S. aureus cells in the presence of 10% synovial fluid (Fig 2C). Aggregate formed rapidly and were visible after 15 minutes. Therefore, we conclude that S. aureus will form aggregates within minutes of contact with synovial fluid exposure. Considering aggregates provides the bacteria with protection for immune clearance and drug treatment, we anticipate the rapid nature this process may have a crucial role in the establishment of PJI infections.

Fibronectin and fibrinogen are sufficient to induce S. aureus aggregation

While it is now established that synovial fluid promotes aggregate formation [21], it remains unclear which components in synovial fluid promote aggregation. A study by Dastgheyb et al. determined that S. aureus transposon mutants deficient in binding fibrinogen and fibronectin aggregated poorly in synovial fluid [12]. Similarly, S. aureus aggregation has been observed in serum due to the interaction between surface receptors and fibrinogen [20,34]. Another study determined that hyaluronic acid promoted aggregation in strains lacking hyaluronidase production [22]. Taken together, these studies indicate S. aureus interaction with host factors may be important for aggregation in synovial fluid, but it remains unclear specifically which synovial fluid factors promote S. aureus aggregation. To better elucidate which factors are sufficient to cause aggregation, we treated S. aureus with purified synovial components at concentrations similar to the observed level in the human joint space [27,28,30,35]. In agreement with previous reports, we observe that both fibrinogen and fibronectin are sufficient to promote S. aureus aggregation (Fig 3). Additionally, we observe slightly increased aggregation in the presence of serum albumin. While high concentrations of hyaluronic acid (3 mg/ml) promotes S. aureus aggregation in strains lacking hyaluronidase [22], we did not observe significant aggregation of CGS.Sa03 following treatment with hyaluronic acid. Similarly, cell free DNA did not appear to stimulate aggregation. These data indicate that hyaluronic acid and cell free host DNA may not have a crucial role in synovial fluid mediated aggregate development in some clinical strains of S. aureus. One limitation of this experiment is that we used DNA purified from Salmon sperm, which is likely different than the cell free DNA found in synovial fluid. Furthermore, S. aureus produces a number of nucleases that degrade extracellular DNA [36,37]. While cell free DNA and hyaluronic acid did not cause CGS.Sa03 to aggregate, these factors may have an important role in aggregation for strains or growth conditions leading to low nuclease or hyaluronidase production. That being said, fibronectin and fibrinogen were sufficient to induce aggregation to levels similar to 10% synovial fluid for the clinical strain CGS.Sa03. This likely indicates these factors have a major role in aggregate formation during PJI.

Fig 3. Fibronectin contributes to S. aureus aggregation.

Fig 3

Open in a new tab

Aggregation was quantified using flow cytometry following 30 minute treatment with physiologically relevant concentrations of the indicated synovial fluid components. Error bars indicate mean ± SEM. Statistical significance was determined by one-way ANOVA followed by Dunnett’s multiple comparison test to compare means against the untreated control. **p<0.01, ****p<0.0001.

Synovial fluid aggregation inhibits bacterial surface attachment

Biofilms form on the surface of implanted medical devices and prosthetic joint components [10,11], but how this process occurs during PJI remains unclear. The initiation of biofilm formation first requires bacteria to adhere to the surface. Considering free-floating aggregates rapidly form after contact with synovial fluid (Fig 2), we hypothesized these aggregates could function as proto-biofilms that adhere to the implant and transition to a surface-associated biofilm. Therefore, to determine how synovial fluid affects surface attachment, we measured CGS.Sa03 cell surface attachment to plastic under various shear stresses. While the exact shear stresses and fluid movement in the joint space has not been reported, we expect a range of stresses would be present depending on joint activity and the relative location within the joint. To replicate the conditions within the joint, we examined attachment under various flow conditions. Using shear stresses between 0.77–816 mPa, attachment was assessed ranging from nearly static conditions to stresses similar to the human artery [38]. Unexpectedly, we observe a significant decrease in S. aureus attachment following synovial fluid exposure regardless of the shear stress (Fig 4).

Fig 4. Synovial fluid aggregation inhibits bacterial surface attachment.

Fig 4

Open in a new tab

A) Representative images of CGS.Sa03 surface attachment and quantification (B) after 5 minutes in flow conditions (mPa 8.4). Error bars indicate mean ± SEM. Statistical significance was determined by two-way ANOVA followed by Tukey’s multiple comparisons test. ****p<0.0001.

Synovial fluid inhibits attachment to multiple surface types

Joint implants typically consist of multiple components and are often made out of polyethylene, titanium, steel, and cobalt-chromium, which are then cemented into place with hydroxyapatite. To determine if synovial fluid inhibits attachment to surfaces other than plastic, we utilized a BioSurface flow cell system with coupon inserts of titanium, stainless steel (alloy 316L), and hydroxyapatite. Regardless of the material, synovial fluid significantly reduces the ability of S. aureus AH1726 to adhere to a surface (Fig 5). These data suggest this phenotype is not specific to just one surface type and synovial fluid likely inhibits attachment to the implant during PJI.

Fig 5. Synovial fluid inhibits attachment to various orthopedic material.

Fig 5

Open in a new tab

S. aureus surface attachment to the titanium (Ti), hydroxyapatite (HA), and stainless steel (316L) was quantified after 5 minutes under constant shear tress of 15 mPa. Error bars indicate mean ± SEM. Statistical significance was determined by Student’s T-test. ***p<0.001.

Synovial fluid components inhibit bacterial surface attachment

To better understand how synovial fluid inhibits S. aureus surface attachment, CGS.Sa03 cells were treated with purified components of synovial fluid at physiologically relevant concentrations [27,28,30,35]. We observe reduced S. aureus attachment following treatment with fibronectin, fibrinogen, and serum albumin, but not after treatment with cell free DNA and hyaluronic acid (Fig 6A). To confirm that synovial fluid proteins are responsible for decreased surface attachment, synovial fluid proteins were degraded prior to bacterial treatment with heat or proteinase K treatment. In both cases, we see partially restored bacterial surface adhesion, indicating that these protein factors are inhibiting surface attachment (Fig 6B). Based on our flow cytometry analysis, fibronectin, fibrinogen, and to a lesser extent BSA all promoted aggregation (Fig 3). This could suggest that bacterial aggregation limits surface attachment. One explanation for this observation could be that increased particle size leads to higher drag forces reducing attachment.

Fig 6. The protein components in synovial fluid impede bacterial surface attachment.

Fig 6

Open in a new tab

A) S. aureus was treated with the indicated synovial fluid component and bacterial attachment was quantified after 5 minutes of flow (8.4mPa). B) Bacteria was treated with boiled synovial fluid and surface attachment was quantified. Error bars indicate mean ± SEM. Statistical significance was determined by one-way ANOVA followed by Dunnett’s multiple comparison test to compare means against the untreated control (A) or Tukey’s multiple comparisons test (B). ****p<0.0001.

Discussion

We have previously reported that bacterial aggregates are present during periprosthetic joint infection [11]. Nearly 50% of S. aureus PJI infections exhibit antibiotic tolerance, and the development of S. aureus aggregates enhances tolerance towards antibiotics and the host immune system [6,12,23,24,39–41]. Herein, we utilized a novel method for precise quantification of synovial fluid induced aggregation using flow cytometry (Figs 1–3). In agreement with previous studies [13,21,22], we observe that S. aureus aggregates readily in synovial fluid (Fig 1). Furthermore, we demonstrate this process occurs within minutes (Fig 2), which could have important implications for single cells entering the joint space following surgery. Based on these findings, we anticipate synovial fluid has a crucial role in the establishment of PJI infections, and that preventing aggregate formation may be an effective strategy for preventing S. aureus colonization and improving antimicrobial efficacy.

Currently, chemical and enzymatic therapeutics for biofilm dispersion is a major focus of drug development, which includes proteases and DNases [5,42–44]. These dispersal agents have shown promise in treating infections for a variety of bacterial species including S. aureus [44–47]. Herein, we report that fibrinogen or fibronectin was sufficient to generate large S. aureus aggregates. Since the aggregate matrix appears to be predominately composed of host factors, it may be difficult to develop therapeutics directly targeting these structures. However, disrupting S. aureus surface factors that bind to fibrinogen and fibronectin may be an effective alternative for preventing aggregate formation. S. aureus produces a number of structurally similar surface factors known as microbial surface components recognizing adhesive matrix molecules (MSCRAMMs). As their name suggests, these factors have an important role in surface adhesion, but they are also important for host immune evasion, host cell invasion, and biofilm formation [48,49]. In the context of synovial fluid aggregation, loss of functional FnbA, FnbB, ClfA, and ClfB resulted in decreased aggregate size [23,50]. In addition to these surface factors role during infection, they all directly bind to fibrinogen and fibronectin [20]. Considering we observe substantial aggregation in purified fibrinogen and fibronectin (Fig 3), these data provide further evidence that S. aureus interaction with host factors has an important role in aggregate and biofilm formation during infection.

Abiotic implant surfaces in the host environment are rapidly coated in a “conditioning film” of host proteins, which includes fibronectin and fibrinogen [51,52]. During infection, it is thought that bacterial cells directly interact with the conditioning film rather than the implant’s surface [1,51]. Thus, MSCRAMMs likely have an important role in surface adhesion by binding to host factors in the conditioning film. Interestingly, we observed a significant decrease in S. aureus surface adhesion following exposure to synovial fluid (Figs 4 & 5), which could be partially restored by degrading synovial fluid proteins (Fig 6). Considering S. aureus binds to fibrinogen and fibronectin, reduced attachment may be due to synovial fluid sequestering surface receptors or steric hindrance that are required for surface adhesion. A previous study demonstrated the risk of infection is reduced if bacterial adhesion to an implant is delayed [53]. Therefore, synovial fluid may have a protective role for the host by preventing S. aureus from binding to the implant surface and subsequently inhibiting biofilm formation.

Considerable work has been done studying bacterial infections in the context of planktonic single cells and surface associated biofilms. In the conventional biofilm model, a single bacterial cell adheres to an inert surface and develop into a surface associated biofilm [7,9]. While this may often occur during infection, recent studies have identified the presence of large bacterial aggregates during infection [19,54]. In addition to synovial fluid mediated aggregation, there is evidence suggesting aggregated bacterial clusters disseminate from mature biofilms to seed new areas during growth [55,56]. Collectively, these studies suggest aggregates have a major role during infection and in biofilm development. Our findings here further demonstrate that studying aggregates in the context of infection will be necessary to fully understand how chronic infections develop. Based on the paradigm that single cells initiate biofilm formation, a multitude of studies have addressed how single cells attach to surfaces. As we continue to develop our understanding of the role aggregates play during infection, it may be necessary to reevaluate which factors are important to consider when predicting if an implant will become infected. Considering we observe minimal attachment to surfaces in the presence of synovial fluid (Figs 4 & 5), it could indicate larger scale features, such as crevices or grooves, in the implant or tissue are more relevant than individual cell interactions for trapping aggregates in place. While we predict synovial fluid mediated aggregation has a key role in the development of biofilms during PJI, we anticipate this role is limited to infections at sites where synovial fluid is present. Thus, S. aureus likely utilizes different mechanisms for biofilm formation depending on the body site, as emphasized by the various biofilm structures observed during different types of infection, such as Staphylococcus abscess communities [33,57].

In conclusion, given the difficult nature of treating biofilm infections, methods for preventing and treating these infections has become increasingly important as multi-drug resistance becomes more common. Although still largely in the preclinical stages of development, efficacy has been demonstrated for bandage and implant coatings that prevent bacterial colonization and promote host cell attachment on implant materials [5,6,58–60]. While we acknowledge that future in vivo studies will be necessary to fully understand the extent of synovial fluid’s role during PJI, our study provides evidence that S. aureus interaction with synovial fluid has an important role during PJI. We report that synovial fluid promotes bacterial aggregation, while simultaneously impeding surface attachment. While preventing adhesion to the implant surface is beneficial to the host, the formation of aggregates and subsequent antibiotic tolerance can be detrimental. Therapeutics that merely prevent aggregation in synovial fluid may result in increased adhesion and biofilm formation. While we anticipate disrupting S. aureus aggregates will be crucial improving antimicrobial efficacy, it may be necessary to additionally focus on strategies that inhibit adhesion to surfaces in the host environment.

Supporting information

S1 Data

(XLSX)

Click here for additional data file. (15.9KB, xlsx)

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.

Funding Statement

This work was supported by the National Institutes of Health grant R01GM124436 (PS).

References

  • 1.Zimmerli W. Clinical presentation and treatment of orthopaedic implant-associated infection. J Intern Med. 2014;276(2):111–9. 10.1111/joim.12233 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Schwarz EM, Parvizi J, Gehrke T, Aiyer A, Battenberg A, Brown SA, et al. 2018 International Consensus Meeting on Musculoskeletal Infection: Research Priorities from the General Assembly Questions. J Orthop Res. 2019;37(5):997–1006. 10.1002/jor.24293 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Zmistowski B, Karam JA, Durinka JB, Casper DS, Parvizi J. Periprosthetic Joint Infection Increases the Risk of One-Year Mortality. JBJS. 2013;95(24). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Peel TN, Cheng AC, Buising KL, Choong PFM. Microbiological aetiology, epidemiology, and clinical profile of prosthetic joint infections: Are current antibiotic prophylaxis guidelines effective? Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2012;56(5):2386–91. 10.1128/AAC.06246-11 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Bhattacharya M, Wozniak DJ, Stoodley P, Hall-Stoodley L. Prevention and treatment of Staphylococcus aureus biofilms. Expert Rev Anti Infect Ther. 2015. November;13(12):1499–516. 10.1586/14787210.2015.1100533 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Ricciardi BF, Muthukrishnan G, Masters E, Ninomiya M, Lee CC, Schwarz EM. Staphylococcus aureus Evasion of Host Immunity in the Setting of Prosthetic Joint Infection: Biofilm and Beyond. Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med. 2018;11(3):389–400. 10.1007/s12178-018-9501-4 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Costerton JW, Lewandowski Z, Caldwell DE, Korber DR, Lappin-Scott HM. Microbial biofilms. Annu Rev Microbiol. 1995;49:711–45. 10.1146/annurev.mi.49.100195.003431 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Fux CA, Costerton JW, Stewart PS, Stoodley P. Survival strategies of infectious biofilms. Trends Microbiol. 2005;13(1):34–40. 10.1016/j.tim.2004.11.010 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Costerton JW, Stewart PS, Greenberg EP. Bacterial biofilms: A common cause of persistent infections. Science (80-). 1999;284(5418):1318–22. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Hall-Stoodley L, Costerton JW, Stoodley P. Bacterial biofilms: From the natural environment to infectious diseases. Nat Rev Microbiol. 2004;2(2):95–108. 10.1038/nrmicro821 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Stoodley P, Conti SF, Demeo PJ, Nistico L, Melton-Kreft R, Johnson S, et al. Characterization of a mixed MRSA/MRSE biofilm in an explanted total ankle arthroplasty. FEMS Immunol Med Microbiol. 2011;62(1):66–74. 10.1111/j.1574-695X.2011.00793.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Dastgheyb S, Parvizi J, Shapiro IM, Hickok NJ, Otto M. Effect of Biofilms on Recalcitrance of Staphylococcal Joint Infection to Antibiotic Treatment. J Infect Dis. 2015;211:641–50. 10.1093/infdis/jiu514 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Gilbertie J, Schnabel L V, Hickok NJ, Jacob ME, Conlon BP, Shapiro IM, et al. Equine or porcine synovial fluid as a novel ex vivo model for the study of bacterial free-floating biofilms that form in human joint infections. PLoS One. 2019;1–19. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Pestrak MJ, Chaney SB, Eggleston HC, Dellos-Nolan S, Dixit S, Mathew-Steiner SS, et al. Pseudomonas aeruginosa rugose small-colony variants evade host clearance, are hyper- inflammatory, and persist in multiple host environments. PLoS Pathog. 2018;14(2):1–22. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Alhede M, Kragh KN, Qvortrup K, Allesen-holm M, Gennip M Van, Christensen LD, et al. Phenotypes of Non-Attached Pseudomonas aeruginosa Aggregates Resemble Surface Attached Biofilm. PLoS One. 2011;6(11). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Saeed K, McLaren AC, Schwarz EM, Antoci V, Arnold W V., Chen AF, et al. 2018 international consensus meeting on musculoskeletal infection: Summary from the biofilm workgroup and consensus on biofilm related musculoskeletal infections. J Orthop Res. 2019;37(5):1007–17. 10.1002/jor.24229 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Bay L, Kragh KN, Eickhardt SR, Poulsen SS, Gjerdrum LMR, Ghathian K, et al. Bacterial Aggregates Establish at the Edges of Acute Epidermal Wounds. Adv Wound Care. 2018. January 30;7(4):105–13. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Kirketerp-Møller K, Jensen P, Fazli M, Madsen KG, Pedersen J, Moser C, et al. Distribution, organization, and ecology of bacteria in chronic wounds. J Clin Microbiol. 2008;46(8):2717–22. 10.1128/JCM.00501-08 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Fazli M, Bjarnsholt T, Kirketerp-Møller K, Jørgensen B, Andersen AS, Krogfelt KA, et al. Nonrandom distribution of Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Staphylococcus aureus in chronic wounds. J Clin Microbiol. 2009. December;47(12):4084–9. 10.1128/JCM.01395-09 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Crosby HA, Kwiecinski J, Horswill AR. Staphylococcus aureus Aggregation and Coagulation Mechanisms, and Their Function in Host Pathogen Interactions. Vol. 96, Advances in Applied Microbiology. Elsevier Ltd; 2016. 1–41 p. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Perez K, Patel R. Biofilm-Like Aggregation of Staphylococcus epidermidis in Synovial Fluid. JID. 2015;212:335–6. 10.1093/infdis/jiv096 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Ibberson CB, Parlet CP, Kwiecinski J, Crosby HA, Meyerholz DK, Horswill AR. Hyaluronan Modulation Impacts Staphylococcus aureus Biofilm Infection. 2016;84(6):1917–29. 10.1128/IAI.01418-15 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Dastgheyb SS, Hammoud S, Ketonis C, Liu Y, Fitzgerald K, Parvizi J, et al. Staphylococcal Persistence Due to Biofilm Formation in Synovial. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2015;59(4):2122–8. 10.1128/AAC.04579-14 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Simon GL, Miller HG, Borenstein DG. Synovial Fluid Inhibits Killing of Staphylococcus aureus by Neutrophils. Infect Immun. 1983;40(3):1004–10. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Chiu I, Heesters B, Ghasemlou N, Hehn C von, Zhao F, Tran J, et al. Bacteria activate sensory neurons that modulate pain and inflammation. Nature. 2013;501(7465):52–7. 10.1038/nature12479 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Stoodley P, Sidhu S, Nistico L, Mather M, Boucek A, Hall-Stoodley L, et al. Kinetics and morphology of polymicrobial biofilm formation on polypropylene mesh. FEMS Immunol Med Microbiol. 2012. July 1;65(2):283–90. 10.1111/j.1574-695X.2012.00948.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Gormsen J, Andersen RB, Feddersen C. Fibrinogen‐fibrin breakdown products in pathologic synovial fluids. An immunologic study. Arthritis Rheum. 1971;14(4):503–12. 10.1002/art.1780140410 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Weinberger A, Simkin PA. Plasma proteins in synovial fluids of normal human joints. Semin Arthritis Rheum. 1989. August;19(1):66–76. 10.1016/0049-0172(89)90087-5 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Vartio T, Vaheri A, Essen R, Heikki I, Stenman S. Fibronectin in synovial fluid and tissue in rheumatoid arthritis. Eur J Clin Invest. 1981. June 1;11(3):207–12. 10.1111/j.1365-2362.1981.tb01842.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Decker B, McGuckin W, McKenzie B, Slocumb C. Concentration of hyaluronic acid in synovial fluid. Clin Chem. 1959;5:465–9. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Hashimoto T, Yoshida K, Hashimoto N, Nakai A, Kaneshiro K, Suzuki K, et al. Circulating cell free DNA: a marker to predict the therapeutic response for biological DMARDs in rheumatoid arthritis. Int J Rheum Dis. 2017;20(6):722–30. 10.1111/1756-185X.12959 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Ambriz-Aviña V, Contreras-Garduño JA, Pedraza-Reyes M. Applications of Flow Cytometry to Characterize Bacterial Physiological Responses. Biomed Res Int. 2014;2014. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Cheng A, DeDent A, Schneewind O, Missiakas D. A play in four acts: Staphylococcus aureus abscess formation. Trends Microbiol. 2011;19(5):225–32. 10.1016/j.tim.2011.01.007 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Hawiger J, Timmons S, Strong DD, Cottrell BA, Riley M, Doolittle RF. Identification of a region of human fibrinogen interacting with staphylococcal clumping factor. Biochemistry. 1982. March;21(6):1407–13. 10.1021/bi00535a047 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Vartio T, Vaheri A, Essen R, Heikki I, Stenman S. Fibronectin in synovial fluid and tissue in rheumatoid arthritis. Eur J Clin Invest. 1981. June;11(3):207–12. 10.1111/j.1365-2362.1981.tb01842.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Kiedrowski MR, Crosby HA, Hernandez FJ, Malone CL, McNamara JO, Horswill AR. Staphylococcus aureus Nuc2 is a functional, surface-attached extracellular nuclease. PLoS One. 2014;9(4). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Bronner S, Monteil H, Prevost G. Regulation of virulence determinants in Staphylococcus aureus: complexity and applications. FEMS Microbiol Rev. 2004. May;28(2):183–200. 10.1016/j.femsre.2003.09.003 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Doriot P-A, Dorsaz P-A, Dorsaz L, De Benedetti E, Chatelain P, Delafontaine P. In vivo measurements of wall shear stress in human coronary arteries. Coron Artery Dis. 2000;11(6). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Kaplan SL. Recent lessons for the management of bone and joint infections. J Infect. 2014. January 1;68:S51–6. 10.1016/j.jinf.2013.09.014 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Pulido L, Ghanem E, Joshi A, Purtill JJ, Parvizi J. Periprosthetic Joint Infection: The Incidence, Timing, and Predisposing Factors. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2008;466(7):1710–5. 10.1007/s11999-008-0209-4 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Inabathula A, Dilley JE, Ziemba-Davis M, Warth LC, Azzam KA, Ireland PH, et al. Extended Oral Antibiotic Prophylaxis in High-Risk Patients Substantially Reduces Primary Total Hip and Knee Arthroplasty 90-Day Infection Rate. JBJS. 2018;100(24). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Boles BR, Horswill AR. Staphylococcal biofilm disassembly. Trends Microbiol. 2011;19(9):449–55. 10.1016/j.tim.2011.06.004 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Mann EE, Rice KC, Boles BR, Endres JL, Ranjit D, Chandramohan L, et al. Modulation of eDNA Release and Degradation Affects Staphylococcus aureus Biofilm Maturation. PLoS One. 2009. June 9;4(6):e5822 10.1371/journal.pone.0005822 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Gawande P V, Leung KP, Madhyastha S. Antibiofilm and Antimicrobial Efficacy of DispersinB®-KSL-W Peptide-Based Wound Gel Against Chronic Wound Infection Associated Bacteria. Curr Microbiol. 2014;68(5):635–41. 10.1007/s00284-014-0519-6 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Hogan S, Zapotoczna M, Stevens NT, Humphreys H, O’Gara JP, O’Neill E. Potential use of targeted enzymatic agents in the treatment of Staphylococcus aureus biofilm-related infections. J Hosp Infect. 2017. June 1;96(2):177–82. 10.1016/j.jhin.2017.02.008 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Pestrak MJ, Baker P, Dellos-Nolan S, Hill PJ, Passos da Silva D, Silver H, et al. Treatment with the Pseudomonas aeruginosa Glycoside Hydrolase PslG Combats Wound Infection by Improving Antibiotic Efficacy and Host Innate Immune Activity. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2019. June 1;63(6):e00234–19. 10.1128/AAC.00234-19 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Fleming D, Chahin L, Rumbaugh K. Glycoside hydrolases degrade polymicrobial bacterial biofilms in wounds. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2017;61(2):1–9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Foster T, Geoghegan J, Ganesh V, Hook M. Adhesion, invasion and evasion: the many functions of the surface proteins of Staphylococcus aureus. Nat Rev Microbiol. 2014;12(1):49–62. 10.1038/nrmicro3161 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Cheng AG, Kim HK, Burts ML, Krausz T, Schneewind O, Missiakas DM. Genetic requirements for Staphylococcus aureus abscess formation and persistence in host tissues. FASEB J. 2009;23(10):3393–404. 10.1096/fj.09-135467 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Schwarz-Linek U, Höök M, Potts JR. The molecular basis of fibronectin-mediated bacterial adherence to host cells. Mol Microbiol. 2004;52(3):631–41. 10.1111/j.1365-2958.2004.04027.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Petrova OE, Sauer K. Sticky situations: Key components that control bacterial surface attachment. J Bacteriol. 2012;194(10):2413–25. 10.1128/JB.00003-12 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Donlan RM. Biofilms: microbial life on surfaces. Emerg Infect Diseases. Emerg Infect Dis. 2002;8(9):881–90. 10.3201/eid0809.020063 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Gristina AG. Biomaterial- Centered Infection: Microbial Adhesion Versus Tissue Integration. Science (80-). 1987;237(4822):1588–95. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Bjarnsholt T, Jensen PØ, Fiandaca MJ, Pedersen J, Hansen CR, Andersen CB, et al. Pseudomonas aeruginosa biofilms in the respiratory tract of cystic fibrosis patients. Pediatr Pulmonol. 2009. June;44(6):547–58. 10.1002/ppul.21011 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Kragh KN, Hutchison JB, Melaugh G, Rodesney C, Roberts AEL, Irie Y, et al. Role of multicellular aggregates in biofilm formation. MBio. 2016;7(2):1–11. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Stoodley P, Wilson S, Hall-Stoodley L, Boyle JD, Lappin-Scott HM, Costerton JW. Growth and Detachment of Cell Clusters from Mature Mixed-Species Biofilms. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2001;67(12):5608–13. 10.1128/AEM.67.12.5608-5613.2001 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Schwarz EM, McLaren AC, Sculco TP, Brause B, Bostrom M, Kates SL, et al. Adjuvant Antibiotic‐Loaded Bone Cement: Concerns with Current Use and Research to Make it Work. J Orthop Res. 2020;(December 2019). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Kucharíková S, Gerits E, De Brucker K, Braem A, Ceh K, Majdič G, et al. Covalent immobilization of antimicrobial agents on titanium prevents Staphylococcus aureus and Candida albicans colonization and biofilm formation. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2016;71(4):936–45. 10.1093/jac/dkv437 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 59.Zhao L, Chu PK, Zhang Y, Wu Z. Antibacterial coatings on titanium implants. J Biomed Mater Res Part B Appl Biomater. 2009. October;91B(1):470–80. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 60.Harris LG, Tosatti S, Wieland M, Textor M, Richards RG. Staphylococcus aureus adhesion to titanium oxide surfaces coated with non-functionalized and peptide-functionalized poly(l-lysine)-grafted-poly(ethylene glycol) copolymers. Biomaterials. 2004. August 1;25(18):4135–48. 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2003.11.033 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Abdelwahab Omri

3 Mar 2020

PONE-D-20-01923

Investigation of synovial fluid induced Staphylococcus aureus aggregate development and its impact on surface attachment and biofilm formation

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Paul Stoodley,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

We would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript by Apr 17 2020 11:59PM. When you are ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter.

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that if applicable you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). This letter should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Manuscript'.

Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Abdelwahab Omri, Pharm B, Ph.D

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements:

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at http://www.plosone.org/attachments/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and http://www.plosone.org/attachments/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: This manuscript reports a study that sheds new light on prosthetic joint infections with S. aureus biofilms. The role of synovial fluid in reducing biofilm formation through the formation of cell aggregates has not been reported previously and is somewhat unexpected. Aggregation of bacteria is often associated with biofilm formation but that relates to interactions between the cells without the involvement of extrinsic factors such as synovial fluid. The observation in this manuscript is interesting in that it suggests a natural defence mechanism to reduce biofilm formation on prosthetic joint materials. As a reviewer I am not familiar with the amount of synovial fluid present during prosthetic joint surgery but this manuscript suggests that the presence of synovial fluid should be encouraged. The effect of cell aggregation in preventing biofilm formation may be due to a number of factors including synovial fluid sequestering surface receptors or the size of the aggregates, initiating forces that prevent the binding of these aggregates to surface. The authors have discussed these possibilities. Some study of the aggregates - there structure, chemistry and physical nature will be important. This may lead to novel biofilm preventative measures in other environments.

The issue of antibiotic resistance of the aggregates is something that needs to be investigated.

The manuscript is well written. Only a few minor - recommendations and these all relate to the need for bacterial names to be italicized in the reference list. References 14, 20 and 40 all have bacterial names that have not been italicized.

Reviewer #2: The manuscript by Pestrak et al entitled “Investigation of synovial fluid induced Staphylococcus aureus aggregate development and its impact on surface attachment and biofilm formation” is a well-focused in vitro study by experts in the field. As it is current unknown how PJI biofilm formation commences, which is a significant question from both a scientific and clinical standpoint, the authors addressed this in vitro by demonstrating that fibrinogen and fibronectin promoted bacterial aggregation, while cell free DNA, serum albumin, and hyaluronic acid had minimal effect. Additionally, they used microscopy to measure bacterial attachment to implants and found that synovial fluid significantly impeded bacterial surface attachment to a variety of materials. Based on this, the authors conclude that: aggregation in synovial fluid is very rapid, has a threshold of ~60%, fibrinogen and fibronectin in synovial fluid have a crucial role in promoting bacterial aggregation and inhibiting surface adhesion during PJI, and that synovial fluid may have conflicting protective roles for the host by preventing adhesion and promoting bacterial aggregation. As their results support these novel conclusion, the manuscript is considered to be an important advance in this field. However, there are a few points that the authors should address.

1) The authors cite dated literature in the Introduction, which could be markedly improved.

Current data on the incidence and costs of PJI have recently been reported [1], and there is new consensus information of biofilm formation in PJI [2].

2) While the authors’ focused study on synovial fluid aggregates and implant biofilm formation is justified, it is now know that S. aureus utilizes four distinct mechanisms of biofilm formation during PJI [3]. Thus, the lack of studies on Staphylococcus abscess communities (SACs) and colonization of osteocytic canalicular networks in cortical bone need to be acknowledged as limitations.

3) The absence of in vivo studies should also be acknowledge as a limitation.

4) The authors conclude that the aggregation threshold of 60% in their studies is due to a size limit or an upper limit of detection with their method. However, this could also be due to Agr mediated emigration.

1. Schwarz EM, Parvizi J, Gehrke T, Aiyer A, Battenberg A, Brown SA, et al. 2018 International Consensus Meeting on Musculoskeletal Infection: Research Priorities from the General Assembly Questions. J Orthop Res. 2019;37(5):997-1006. Epub 2019/04/13. doi: 10.1002/jor.24293. PubMed PMID: 30977537.

2. Saeed K, McLaren AC, Schwarz EM, Antoci V, Arnold WV, Chen AF, et al. 2018 international consensus meeting on musculoskeletal infection: Summary from the biofilm workgroup and consensus on biofilm related musculoskeletal infections. J Orthop Res. 2019;37(5):1007-17. Epub 2019/01/23. doi: 10.1002/jor.24229. PubMed PMID: 30667567.

3. Schwarz EM, McLaren AC, Sculco TP, Brause B, Bostrom M, Kates SL, et al. Adjuvant Antibiotic-Loaded Bone Cement: Concerns with Current Use and Research to Make it Work. J Orthop Res. 2020. Epub 2020/01/31. doi: 10.1002/jor.24616. PubMed PMID: 31997412.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: Yes: Steve Flint

Reviewer #2: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files to be viewed.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email us at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2020 Apr 17;15(4):e0231791. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0231791.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0

26 Mar 2020

Dear Dr. Abdelwahab Omri,

Please find uploaded our revised manuscript, PONE-D-20-01923 “Investigation of synovial fluid induced Staphylococcus aureus aggregate development and its impact on surface attachment and biofilm formation.”

We have responded to each of the critiques outlined by the reviewers. We found the reviews to

be accurate and helpful in the development of this manuscript and sincerely appreciate the

constructive comments, which have helped to clarify several important points in the manuscript

and present the data more clearly and concisely to the readers. We trust that the corrections

made to the manuscript make it acceptable for publication.

Below is an item-by-item response to the critique:

Reviewer #1

Comment: Only a few minor - recommendations and these all relate to the need for bacterial names to be italicized in the reference list. References 14, 20 and 40 all have bacterial names that have not been italicized.

Response: The bacterial names in the references have been italicized.

Reviewer #2:

Comment: The authors cite dated literature in the Introduction, which could be markedly improved. Current data on the incidence and costs of PJI have recently been reported [1], and there is new consensus information of biofilm formation in PJI [2].

Response: We thank the reviewer for this correction, and we have included these references and updated the text accordingly (see Lines 59, 61, & 76)

Comment: While the authors’ focused study on synovial fluid aggregates and implant biofilm formation is justified, it is now known that S. aureus utilizes four distinct mechanisms of biofilm formation during PJI [3]. Thus, the lack of studies on Staphylococcus abscess communities (SACs) and colonization of osteocytic canalicular networks in cortical bone need to be acknowledged as limitations.

Response: We agree with the reviewer that this is a limitation of our study, and discussion of this limitation has been included in the discussion (see Lines 335-339).

Comment: The absence of in vivo studies should also be acknowledged as a limitation.

Response: We also agree that this is another limitation of the study, and discussion of this has been included in the discussion (see Lines 344-346).

Comment: The authors conclude that the aggregation threshold of 60% in their studies is due to a size limit or an upper limit of detection with their method. However, this could also be due to Agr mediated emigration.

Response: We agree that this is another possible explanation for our observations, and we have included this interpretation in the results section (see Lines 199-200).

Attachment

Submitted filename: PLos One Response to Reviewers (1).docx

Click here for additional data file. (17KB, docx)

Decision Letter 1

Abdelwahab Omri

1 Apr 2020

Investigation of synovial fluid induced Staphylococcus aureus aggregate development and its impact on surface attachment and biofilm formation

PONE-D-20-01923R1

Dear Dr. Paul Stoodley,

We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it complies with all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you will receive an e-mail containing information on the amendments required prior to publication. When all required modifications have been addressed, you will receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will proceed to our production department and be scheduled for publication.

Shortly after the formal acceptance letter is sent, an invoice for payment will follow. To ensure an efficient production and billing process, please log into Editorial Manager at https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the "Update My Information" link at the top of the page, and update your user information. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to enable them to help maximize its impact. If they will be preparing press materials for this manuscript, you must inform our press team as soon as possible and no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

With kind regards,

Abdelwahab Omri, Pharm B, Ph.D

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Acceptance letter

Abdelwahab Omri

6 Apr 2020

PONE-D-20-01923R1

Investigation of synovial fluid induced Staphylococcus aureus aggregate development and its impact on surface attachment and biofilm formation

Dear Dr. Stoodley:

I am pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper at this point, to enable them to help maximize its impact. If they will be preparing press materials for this manuscript, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

For any other questions or concerns, please email plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE.

With kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Abdelwahab Omri

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Data

    (XLSX)

    Click here for additional data file. (15.9KB, xlsx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: PLos One Response to Reviewers (1).docx

    Click here for additional data file. (17KB, docx)

    Data Availability Statement

    All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.

    Articles from PLoS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES