Biofilm-coated microbeads and the mouse ear skin: An innovative model for analysing anti-biofilm immune response in vivo

Léo Sauvat; Aizat Iman Abdul Hamid; Christelle Blavignac; Jérôme Josse; Olivier Lesens; Pascale Gueirard

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0243500

. 2020 Dec 4;15(12):e0243500. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0243500

Biofilm-coated microbeads and the mouse ear skin: An innovative model for analysing anti-biofilm immune response in vivo

Léo Sauvat ^1,², Aizat Iman Abdul Hamid ¹, Christelle Blavignac ³, Jérôme Josse ⁴, Olivier Lesens ^1,², Pascale Gueirard ^1,^*

Editor: Amitava Mukherjee⁵

PMCID: PMC7717515 PMID: 33275636

Abstract

Owing to its ability to form biofilms, Staphylococcus aureus is responsible for an increasing number of infections on implantable medical devices. The aim of this study was to develop a mouse model using microbeads coated with S. aureus biofilm to simulate such infections and to analyse the dynamics of anti-biofilm inflammatory responses by intravital imaging. Scanning electron microscopy and flow cytometry were used in vitro to study the ability of an mCherry fluorescent strain of S. aureus to coat silica microbeads. Biofilm-coated microbeads were then inoculated intradermally into the ear tissue of LysM-EGFP transgenic mice (EGFP fluorescent immune cells). General and specific real-time inflammatory responses were studied in ear tissue by confocal microscopy at early (4-6h) and late time points (after 24h) after injection. The displacement properties of immune cells were analysed. The responses were compared with those obtained in control mice injected with only microbeads. In vitro, our protocol was capable of generating reproducible inocula of biofilm-coated microbeads verified by labelling matrix components, observing biofilm ultrastructure and confirmed in vivo and in situ with a matrix specific fluorescent probe. In vivo, a major inflammatory response was observed in the mouse ear pinna at both time points. Real-time observations of cell recruitment at injection sites showed that immune cells had difficulty in accessing biofilm bacteria and highlighted areas of direct interaction. The average speed of cells was lower in infected mice compared to control mice and in tissue areas where direct contact between immune cells and bacteria was observed, the average cell velocity and linearity were decreased in comparison to cells in areas where no bacteria were visible. This model provides an innovative way to analyse specific immune responses against biofilm infections on medical devices. It paves the way for live evaluation of the effectiveness of immunomodulatory therapies combined with antibiotics.

Introduction

The implantation of invasive medical devices occurs routinely in almost all fields of medicine. However, these medical procedures considerably increase the risk of microbial infections for patients. In hospitals, the prevalence of nosocomial infections is therefore high (about 5%), with 32% of clinical cases being caused by foreign body-related infections (FBRIs) [1]. Staphylococcus aureus (S. aureus) is the second most incriminated microorganism in nosocomial infections and the most incriminated pathogen in surgical site infections (SSIs) after prosthetic joint implantations [2]. These infections require heavy, costly and sometimes functionally deleterious surgery, associated with long-term antibiotic treatments [3]. A prosthetic joint infection, for example, will multiply by three the initial cost of surgery [4].

Like many other bacterial species, S. aureus is able to adhere to different types of biotic/abiotic surfaces, promoting the formation of microbial communities called biofilms. This property is one of the most important features of its pathogenicity [5]. Biofilms represent one of the two radically different lifestyles that bacteria can adopt, as opposed to the isolated and free-floating form in liquid medium called planktonic bacteria. Biofilms are the most common form of bacteria and are responsible for 80% of human chronic bacterial infections in developed countries [6]. Thus, understanding the pathophysiology of S. aureus FBRIs and developing preventive strategies for SSIs are currently active fields of research [7].

One key element of S. aureus pathophysiology is the ability of biofilms to circumvent host immune attacks [8]. During S. aureus cutaneous infections, tissue-resident mast cells recruit neutrophils and monocytes/macrophages from the bloodstream [9] along with monocytic myeloid-derived suppressor cells (M-MDSCs) in interaction with natural killer (NK) cells to promote the first level of inflammatory responses [10]. S. aureus is able to decrease these innate immune responses by acting on complement activation and phagocyte recruitment, and by secreting immune-evasion proteins [8]. The planktonic to biofilm developmental transition also represents one of the primary immune-evasion mechanisms that allow neutralization of neutrophil effector functions [11]. Finally, the complexity of biofilm structure contributes to the increased resistance of biofilm bacteria to host immune defences and to appropriate antibiotic treatments, giving rise to the concept of "biofilm-related disease" [12, 13].

The few studies performed in vivo to analyse the inflammatory response to S. aureus biofilm bacteria are still in the development phase and the dynamic aspects of the responses are almost unexplored [14]. A better understanding of the different biofilm immune evasion mechanisms is therefore required to develop suitable therapeutic strategies [15].

A mouse ear skin model was previously designed to analyse the dynamics of innate immune responses against S. aureus biofilms. In this model, biofilms were micro-injected into the mouse ear pinna, a cutaneous tissue widely used to analyse dynamic interactions between microorganisms and resident or recruited myeloid cells by intravital imaging [16]. This mouse model evidenced inflammatory responses specific to biofilms. The aim of our work was to improve the model by introducing a support made from a comparable material to that used for orthopedic prostheses, so as to mimic biofilm infections on medical devices in humans. We chose silica microbeads as miniaturized inert supports because they have a ceramic-like structure and are compatible with the intradermal micro-injection of biofilms into the ear pinna of LysM-EGFP transgenic mice. In a first step, we optimized the preparation of biofilm-coated microbeads and then analysed biofilm properties on the surface of microbeads. We further compared the dynamics of inflammatory responses against biofilm-coated microbeads or against a mixture of uncoated microbeads and planktonic bacteria injected into the mouse ear pinna.

Materials and methods

Materials

Mice and ethical statement

C57BL/6 WT mice (6–8 week-old males and females) were purchased from Charles River Laboratories. LysM-EGFP transgenic mice (6–8 week-old males and females) were obtained from the bacteria-cell interactions unit of the Pasteur Institute (Paris, France). Mice were bred in the animal care facility at Clermont Auvergne University (Clermont-Ferrand, France). All experiments were approved by the local Ethics Committee on Animal Experimentation (Auvergne C2E2A, Clermont-Ferrand, France, agreement number: 1725) and were carried out in accordance with the applicable guidelines and regulations. All mice were provided an appropriate environment including shelter in cages, a comfortable resting area, sufficient space (not more than 5 animals per cage) and ready access to fresh water and food to maintain full health and vigour. Animal welfare was observed on a daily basis to ensure optimal conditions and treatment which avoid suffering. Littermates destined to be inoculated were housed in separate cages with access to the same facilities previously stated. The anaesthetic used during experiments was chosen in order to promote deep anaesthesia. During and after imaging sessions, mice were kept warm in order to prevent any risks related to hypothermia. Euthanasia by cervical dislocation on the anesthetized animal was performed at the end of the infection period.

mCherry and GFP-tagged strain construction

The S. aureus SH1000 mCherry-tagged strain (named mCherry-SH1000) was constructed after insertion of the pCtuf-mCherry plasmid [17] by electroporation into the SH1000 strain isolated from a corneal ulcer [18], as described previously [19]. The mCherry-SH1000 strain was then selected onto Luria-Bertani (LB) agar containing chloramphenicol (10 μg/mL). Clones were grown overnight with shaking in Trypticase Soja (TS) culture medium containing chloramphenicol (10 μg/mL) and stored at −80°C in the same medium with 15% glycerol. Fluorescence was detected in bacterial suspensions by fluorescence microscopy. The S. aureus SH1000 GFP-tagged fluorescent strain (named GFP-SH1000) was constructed in the same way with the pCN47-GFP plasmid [20] but using erythromycin (10 μg/mL) in place of chloramphenicol.

Microbeads

As an abiotic support for the preparation of biofilms (Monodisperse Silica Microspheres, Cospheric), we chose silica microspheres (microbeads) with the following characteristics: 2.0g/cc, d50 = 4.3μm, CV = 2.7%, <1% doubles. The absence of local or systemic toxicity of the silica microbeads was ascertained after intravenous injection in mice [21]. The stock sample consisted of a mixture of 50 mg of microbead powder from the commercial sample in 2 mL of PBS.

Biofilm preparation and analysis

Inoculum preparation

GFP and mCherry fluorescent SH1000 strains were used in all the experiments performed. Planktonic bacterial cultures were prepared from an aliquot of frozen bacteria in Trypticase Soy (TS) culture medium supplemented with chloramphenicol or erythromycin for mCherry-SH1000 and GFP-SH1000 strains, respectively. The bacterial culture was placed overnight at 37°C with agitation under aerobic conditions.

Planktonic mCherry-SH1000 were prepared from overnight cultures. After homogenization, the bacterial concentration (Colony Forming Unit/mL or CFU/mL) of overnight cultures was estimated by measuring the Optical Density at a wavelength of 600 nm (OD_600nm) and multiplying it by the known titre of the strain (1.35x10⁸ CFU/OD_600nm units). The corresponding volume of overnight culture containing 5x10⁶ CFUs was withdrawn and centrifuged at 3000 g for 5 minutes. The pellet was resuspended in 3.8 μL of Phosphate-Buffered Saline (PBS) containing 10⁵ microbeads.

Biofilm inocula (mCherry and GFP-SH1000) were prepared after adjusting an overnight culture to OD_600nm = 1 ± 0.05 in TS culture medium. The suspension was then diluted 100x and placed in at least two flat-bottomed-wells in a 24-well cell culture plate (1 mL per well). Microbeads were added to each well (4x10⁶), which were then placed at 37°C in a humidity chamber for 24 hours at 20 rpm of horizontal agitation. The biofilm formed on the surface of the microbeads was then steam-washed for 40 minutes as described previously [22]. Biofilms were recovered by flushing and scraping the bottom of the well in 200 μL of PBS. This suspension was then transferred to a second steam-washed biofilm well using the same biofilm recovery technique. The resulting suspension was washed twice by centrifuging at 100 g and then resuspending the pellet in 1 mL of PBS at room temperature. After the final wash, the inoculum was resuspended in 50 μL of PBS, of which 3.8 μL (corresponding to 10⁵ microbeads) were used as the inoculum.

Consequently, at this stage of preparation, 3 kinds of inocula were microinjected: “planktonic bacteria and microbeads”, “biofilm-coated microbeads” and the control group consisting of 10⁵ microbeads suspended in 3,8 μL of PBS.

In order to quantify planktonic or biofilm inocula by titration, the samples were first diluted 10x in PBS. The diluted biofilm was vortexed for 30 seconds, sonicated for 10 minutes and then vortexed again for a further 30 seconds (Fisher Scientific, 80W, 37kHz). Inocula titrations were determined by serial dilutions and plating on LB agar medium containing chloramphenicol or erythromycin. CFUs were counted after 24 hours of incubation at 37°C.

Control inocula consisting of microbeads resuspended in PBS were obtained by diluting the stock sample to a concentration of 2.6x10⁴ microbeads/μL of PBS, verified by KOVA® cell counts, of which 3.8 μL were used as the inoculum.

Observation of bacterial inocula by fluorescence microscopy, flow cytometry and Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM)

The coating efficiency of biofilms on microbeads was first studied by fluorescence microscopy (LEICA MM AF microscope, objective X63). Biofilms formed on microbeads by the mCherry-SH1000 strain were observed before and after passing through the 34G injection needle.

For flow cytometry analysis, samples of each type of inocula were studied with a FACSAria Fusion SORP (BD BioSciences) equipped with FACSDIVA 8 software (BD Sciences). A 100 μm nozzle and a 1.5 neutral density filter were used. Excitation sources were 488 and 561 nm lasers. Emission of mCherry fluorescence was collected with a set of 600nm Long Pass and 610/20 nm Band Pass filters. All signals were collected and analysed on logarithmic scales. The threshold was set at 200 on the Forward Scatter (FSC) parameter. The gating strategy first excluded cell debris. Beads were then gated on Forward/ Side Scatter (FSC/SSC) parameters and bacteria were gated as a “non-bead” population. Data were acquired for one minute at flow rate 4 (30μL/minute).

For SEM analysis, mCherry-SH1000 biofilms were prepared during the process described above with 3 different samples. Two kinds of inoculum of “biofilm-coated microbeads”, were prepared as described above. The first kind of sample was analysed before inoculum passing through the 34-gauge (34G) needle used for micro-injection into the mouse ear tissue and the second after passing through the needle. The comparison between these 2 samples was necessary in order to confirm that the morphological characteristics of the inoculum are maintained after micro-injection. The last kind of sample was studied after sonication in order to confirm that biofilm aggregates were absent from the inoculum. Microdroplets of this sample were deposited on SEM Pore filters (DTM9305, Jeol) either with a 34G needle fitted to a NanoFil syringe (World Precision Instruments) (after micro-injection) [23] or a pipette (before micro-injection) and passively diffused (slowly/gently) through it. After absorption on the filters, the bacteria were fixed for 12 hours at 4°C in 0.2 mol/L sodium cacodylate buffer, pH 7.4, that contained 1.6% glutaraldehyde. They were then washed 30 minutes in sodium cacodylate buffer (0.2 mol/L, pH 7.4) and post-fixed 1 hour with 1% osmium tetroxide in the same buffer. After rinsing for 20 minutes in distilled water, dehydration by graded ethanol was performed from 25° to 100° in progressive steps of 10 minutes to finish in hexamethyldisilazane (HMDS) for 10 minutes. Samples were then sputter-coated with gold-palladium (JFC-1300, JEOL, Japan). Observations were made with a JSM-6060LV scanning electron microscope (Jeol, Japan) at 5kV in high-vacuum mode.

Matrix labelling with WGA-Alexa 488 and the CDy11 fluorescent probe

Biofilms of mCherry-SH1000 were prepared according to the protocol described. Just after the steam wash, 200 μL of Wheat Germ Agglutinin (WGA)-Alexa 488 (5 μg/mL in PBS) were added to the wells and incubated for 10 minutes at 37°C. The wells were then gently rinsed with water and scraped according to the usual inoculum preparation protocol. After diluting and spreading of 10 μL of the solution on a glass slide, the samples were analysed on the Leica MMAF Imaging System Microscope at X20.

Labelling with the CDy11 fluorescent probe [16] was carried out on GFP-SH1000 biofilms. Samples were prepared as previously described. A 10 mM stock solution of the fluorescent probe was prepared in dimethyl sulfoxide (DMSO). The solution was then diluted in PBS to prepare a 100 μM solution. In vitro labelling was carried out by adding 10 μL of the diluted probe to biofilm samples, which were gently vortexed and incubated for 45 minutes in the dark at room temperature. Marked samples were then micro-injected into the ear pinna of mice. After 30 minutes, the inner side of the ear was flattened on a glass slide as previously described [24] and observed on the ZEISS Spinning Disk Cell Observer (SD) (Carl Zeiss Microscopy, Germany) confocal microscope. Video acquisition was carried out with two different lasers to observe GFP and CDy11 fluorescence (excitation at 488 and 590 nm, emission at 509 and 612 nm, with exposure times set at 100 and 300 ms, respectively). Images were acquired with the 10X objective lens. Multiple fields of observation were imaged to observe the entire injection site. In vivo labelling was carried out by the same method except for the 45-minute incubation period.

Intravital imaging by confocal microscopy

Time-lapse video and mosaic acquisition

Mice were anaesthetized by intraperitoneal injection of a ketamine and xylazine mixture. Planktonic or biofilm inocula or PBS were injected intradermally as previously described, into the ear tissue of LysM-Enhanced Green Fluorescent Protein or LysM-EGFP transgenic mice [23]. Three to five hours after injection of the inocula, the animals were again anaesthetized. Mosaic and video time-lapse acquisition was carried out on the ZEISS LSM 800 (LSM 800) (Carl Zeiss Microscopy, Germany) and SD confocal microscopes, respectively, as previously described [25].

Analysis of in vivo confocal imaging

Images acquired on the LSM 800 were stitched together with ZEN software to reconstruct an entire image of the ear tissue at early and late time points. The images shown represent the Z-projected maximal intensity signal of a reconstituted image of the ear tissue for the EGFP channel. Images were then analysed, as previously described [25].

Images and videos acquired on the SD with the 10X objective lens were first stitched using ZEN software. Images shown correspond to the Z-projected maximum intensity signal for each channel. Time-lapse videos at 20X and 10X were analysed with Imaris software as previously described, to analyse two different parameters (average speed and straightness) of immune cell dynamics [25].

Statistical analysis

Data generated were analysed with Prism 5 software (GraphPad Software, Inc.) and a non-parametric Mann-Whitney two-tailed statistical test. p≤0.05 was considered statistically significant (symbols: ****p≤0.0001; ***p≤0.001; **p≤0.01; *≤0.05; ns = non-significant).

Results

Preparation and characterization of Staphylococcus aureus biofilm-coated microbeads

The first set of experiments enabled us to obtain calibrated inocula of mCherry-SH1000 biofilms coated on an abiotic surface. The selected inert surfaces were 4.3 μm² microbeads, compatible with the micro-injection of very small volumes of bacterial inocula into the mouse ear pinna, as previously described [25]. A number of crucial steps were optimized to obtain standardized preparations of biofilm-coated silica microbeads. First, as microbeads moved around in their wells, horizontal agitation was slowed down to allow the planktonic bacteria to adhere and form persistent biofilms on the surface of microbeads. Biofilm-covered microbeads were gently steamed to eliminate free-floating planktonic bacteria and also to prevent biofilms covering the microbeads from becoming detached. Different sets of uncoated (Fig 1A and 1B) or coated microbeads were imaged by confocal microscopy and by SEM to analyse biofilm coverage. After washing and homogenization, the suspension of potentially biofilm-coated microbeads was analysed at the ultrastructural level by SEM. It mainly contained microbeads trapped inside biofilm aggregates (Fig 1C and S1A Fig), and also some small clusters of detached or planktonic bacteria. Adherent viable fluorescent bacteria were also clearly visible at the surface of the microbeads by confocal microscopy (Fig 2A). At high magnification by SEM, the extracellular matrix was clearly visible at the microbead surface (Fig 1D and S1B–S1D Fig). In particular, glucidic matrix components were detected at the surface of the microbeads after labelling with WGA and observation by confocal microscopy (Fig 2A).

Fig 1 — SEM micrographs of uncoated microbeads at X800 **(A)** and X5000 **(B)** magnification, biofilm-coated microbeads before passing through the 34G needle used for microinjections at X2000 **(C)** and X4000 **(D)** magnification, biofilm-coated microbeads after passing through the 34G needle used for microinjections at X2000 **(E)** and X3700 **(F)** magnification, and sonicated biofilm-coated microbeads at X2000 **(G)** and X8000 **(H)** magnification. Filled red arrowheads in C and E indicate microbeads and red arrows in C and E indicate biofilm extracellular matrix. Scale bar: 20 μm **(A)**, 10 μm **(C, E, G)**, 5 μm **(B, D, F)**, 2 μm **(H)**.

Fig 2 — Confocal images **(A)** of biofilm-coated microbeads, after passing through the micro-injection needle, treated with Alexa Fluor 488 WGA at X63 magnification. Images show microbeads and maximum intensity projections of mCherry (magenta) and Alexa Fluor 488 WGA (green) fluorescence. The merged image shows maximum intensity projections for both fluorescence channels. Scale bar: 5 μm. Representative FACS plots showing the gates used to determine uncoated microbeads **(B)**, planktonic bacteria and microbeads **(C)** and biofilm-coated microbead **(D)** populations. The subsequent counts for each population are also presented according to their fluorescence intensities.

In parallel to the qualitative analysis carried out by SEM, we also wanted to quantitatively characterize our biofilm inoculum. To do this, a flow cytometry protocol was designed to quantify the proportion of biofilm-coated microbeads in the suspension. The number of mCherry fluorescent bacteria associated with microbeads was compared in three different samples: uncoated microbeads, a freshly prepared mix of uncoated microbeads and planktonic bacteria, and biofilm-coated microbeads. The acquisition of a great number of events (3.7x10⁶) showed a high percentage (82.5%) of biofilm–coated microbeads in our inocula compared to that of control samples (Fig 2B–2D).

Thus, our biofilm inoculum, presenting the characteristics previously described, was hereafter referred to as “biofilm-coated microbeads”. Fig 1E and 1F show that the morphological characteristics of the inoculum are maintained after passing through the 34-gauge (34G) needle used for micro-injection into the mouse ear tissue. We also set up a sonication protocol to titrate our inoculum. When used on biofilm-coated microbeads, bacterial aggregates were absent from the surface of microbeads, reflecting biofilm dispersion, with only a few adherent bacteria attached to microbeads (Fig 1G and 1H), a result that therefore validates our inoculum titration protocol.

In a second set of experiments, the biofilm-coated microbead inoculum was characterized in vivo. A 3.8 μl calibrated inoculum containing 10⁵ biofilm-coated microbeads was microinjected into the ear pinna of LysM-EGFP transgenic mice. In parallel, control groups of mice received 10⁵ uncoated microbeads mixed with planktonic bacteria just before micro-injection, hereafter designated “Planktonic bacteria & microbead” inoculum. Titration of both types of inocula revealed comparable titres, equal to 2.04 x10⁷ ± 1.49 x10⁷ and 1.97x10⁷ ± 3.07x10⁷, respectively, for biofilm-coated microbeads and planktonic bacteria & microbeads. Fluorescent bacteria coated on microbeads were visualized at the injection site by confocal microscopy as previously described [25]. Matrix components (amyloid fibrils) were also detected in vivo on biofilm-coated microbeads pre-incubated/pre-labelled with the fluorescent probe CDy11 in vitro (Fig 3B). Co-localization was sometimes observed between the green signal (bacteria) and the red signal (matrix components). In the next step, amyloid fibrils were labelled in situ by co-injecting biofilm-coated microbeads and the CDy11 fluorescent probe into the ear pinna. As illustrated in Fig 3B (in vitro labelling) and 3c (in vivo labelling), comparable images were observed at the injection site, in terms both of intensity of the fluorescent red signal and of fluorescence co-localization (as compared to the control in Fig 3A). This novel finding means that, using our model, it is possible for the first time to follow biofilm development in vivo by injecting the CDy11 fluorescent probe into the cutaneous tissue and in situ by labelling matrix components inside biofilm-coated microbeads.

Fig 3 — Intravital confocal imaging after microinjection of only the CDy11 fluorescent probe **(A)**, of biofilm-coated microbeads after *in vitro* CDy11 labelling **(B)** or of biofilm-coated microbeads after *in vivo* CDy11 labelling **(C)** in the ear pinna of WT C57BL/6 mice. **(A to C)** Images show maximum intensity projections of GFP (green) and CDy11 (red) fluorescence. The merged image shows maximum intensity projections for both fluorescence channels. Scale bar: 100 μm.

Characterization of inflammatory responses after the microinjection of Staphylococcus aureus biofilm-coated microbeads in the mouse ear pinna

The mouse ear skin model previously developed to analyse immune responses against S. aureus biofilms was redesigned to make it better adapted to the context of biofilm infections on medical devices. After the addition of microbeads to the biofilm cultures, imaging protocols were applied to the new model to compare inflammatory responses at the tissue and cellular levels [25]. LysM-EGFP transgenic mice were inoculated intradermally with 10⁵ biofilm-coated microbeads, with a mix of 10⁵ uncoated microbeads and a theoretical preparation of 10⁷ CFU of planktonic bacteria, or with PBS containing 10⁵ uncoated microbeads as a control.

The inflammatory response was explored in the entire tissue at early (6h) and late (26h) time points by analysing the EGFP signal corresponding to the recruitment of innate immune cells at the injection site, as previously described [25]. At both time points, EGFP+ cells were recruited in infected mice (Fig 4A–4C), with a highly significant increase between early and late time points, and no significant difference between the “Planktonic bacteria & microbead” group and the “Biofilm-coated microbead” group at late time points. At early time-points, the EGFP signal wads statistically significant only for the biofilm group (Fig 4D).

Fig 4 — Reconstituted confocal images of LyM-EGFP transgenic mice ear pinna tissue after microinjection of either PBS (control) **(A)**, planktonic bacteria and microbeads **(B)** or biofilm-coated microbeads **(C)** at early (6 hours post-infection or 6 hpi) and late time points (after 26 hpi). Images show maximum intensity projections of EGFP (green) fluorescence that correspond to phagocytic cells (neutrophils and macrophages). The yellow line indicates the Region of Interest (ROI) where the “Sum of EGFP fluorescence intensities” was measured. One representative experiment is shown for each group of mice from four independent experiments. Scale bar: 2 mm. **(D)** Ratio of the sum of EGFP fluorescence intensities to ROI area. Data are expressed as median and interquartile ranges for four mice per group. p≤0.05 was considered statistically significant (symbols: ****p≤0.0001; ***p≤0.001; **p≤0.01; *≤0.05; ns = non-significant).

The inflammatory response was further analysed at the cellular level at early time points (4 to 6h post-infection) using the intravital imaging approach and the previously devised confocal acquisition protocol. The aim of this second set of experiments was to study the impact of the presence of microbeads on the dynamics of innate immune responses against S. aureus biofilms by comparing the results with our previous data [25]. In control mice inoculated with PBS, low recruitment was observed at the injection sites, owing to microinjection trauma (S1 Movie). An influx of EGFP+ phagocytic cells was observed in the two infected groups, “Planktonic bacteria & microbeads” and “Biofilm-coated microbeads” (Fig 5A and 5B, white circles, S2 and S3 Movies), and the phenotype of our previous observations without microbeads was reproduced. The recruited cells covered most of the injection area when planktonic bacteria were inoculated, with multiple contact points between cells and bacteria (Fig 5A, white arrowheads, Fig 5C and 5D) while behaving differently for the biofilm-coated microbead inoculum. The cells clearly remained at the periphery of the inoculum, and the contact points were less numerous (Fig 5B, white arrowheads). Thus, use of biofilm-coated microbeads and of the intravital imaging approach identified a specific phenotype for the dynamics of innate immune responses against biofilms.

Fig 5 — Live confocal imaging after microinjection of planktonic bacteria and microbeads **(A, B)** in the ear pinna of LysM-EGFP transgenic mice at early time points (4–6 hpi). Innate immune cell recruitment towards injection sites was observed between 4.35 **(A)** to 5.05 hpi **(B)**. Live confocal imaging after microinjection of biofilm-coated microbeads **(C, D, E, F)** in the ear pinna of LysM-EGFP transgenic mice at early time points (4–6 hpi). Innate immune cell recruitment towards injection sites was observed between 4.15 **(C)** to 4.45 hpi **(D)**. Images show maximum intensity projections of EGFP (green) and mCherry (magenta) fluorescence. A progressive recruitment of EGFP+ innate immune cells was observed (white empty circles) at the injection sites with cell-bacteria contact areas (filled white arrowheads). *: autofluorescent hair (also in magenta). Filled white arrowheads indicate cell-bacteria contact. Live confocal imaging of two additional experiments at early time points after microinjection of biofilm-coated microbeads, at 4.15 hpi **(E)** and 4.00 hpi **(F)**. Scale bar: 100 μm.

Analysis of the dynamic properties of immune cell recruitment after microinjection of Staphylococcus aureus biofilm-coated microbeads into the mouse ear pinna

In the last set of experiments, the previously designed tracking protocol was used to analyse the motility properties of recruited EGFP+ cells [25]. The average speed and straightness of the trajectory of phagocytic cells were analysed for the three groups of mice at early time points (4 to 6h post-infection). Average speed was significantly lower for the two bacterial forms than in control mice (Fig 6A), indicating that phagocytic cells were arrested at the injection site to interact with bacteria, irrespective of the bacterial form. However, the straightness of their trajectories was significantly decreased only for the biofilm-coated microbead group (Fig 6B). A separate analysis of the motility properties of cells interacting (bacteria contact) or not (no bacteria contact) with bacteria showed that for both bacterial forms the cells significantly slowed down when in contact with bacteria. Interestingly, cells not in contact with bacteria had significantly lower speed values in the biofilm group than in the planktonic group (Fig 6C). When there was no interaction with bacteria, the trajectory straightness of the recruited cells was significantly greater for both bacterial forms (Fig 6D). Taken together, these findings enabled us to identify the specific cell dynamics of the inflammatory response against the biofilm-coated microbead inoculum and show that our model is a powerful tool to analyse the way in which biofilms can circumvent host immune attacks.

Fig 6 — Average speed **(A and C)** and straightness **(B and D)** of EGFP+ cells recruited to injection sites at early time points after microinjection of PBS (control), planktonic bacteria and microbeads, or biofilm-coated microbeads. Data are expressed as median and interquartile ranges pooled from three different mice in three independent experiments for each group. Average speed **(A)** and straightness **(B)** of all cells (in contact with visible bacteria or not) in infected and control mice. Number of cells (N) analysed for each group at early time points: Control: N = 190 cells; Planktonic form: N = 721 cells; Biofilm form: N = 771. Average speed **(C)** and straightness **(D)** of cells either in contact (bacteria contact) or not (no bacteria contact) with planktonic or biofilm bacteria at early time points. Number of cells (N) analysed at early time points that were in contact or not in contact with bacteria, respectively: Planktonic form: N = 238 and 386 cells; Biofilm form: N = 433 and 276 cells. p≤0.05 was considered statistically significant (symbols: ****p≤0.0001; ***p≤0.001; **p≤0.01; *≤0.05; ns = non-significant).

Discussion

In this work, we devised a new ear skin model using microbeads coated by S. aureus biofilm to mimic biofilm infections on medical devices in humans. The model allowed us to analyse the dynamics of the inflammatory responses against S. aureus biofilms. Rodent laboratory models previously designed to analyse these responses used devices such as silicone implants and catheters that were pre-colonized or not [14]. To mimic S. aureus SSI of prosthetic joints in mice, implants [26] or steel pins colonized before insertion in the tibial region have also been used [27]. We chose microbeads as a support because their micrometric size is compatible with the mouse ear skin model. Previous studies described the specific adhesion of S. aureus biofilms on glass beads [28] or of P. aeruginosa biofilms on ceramic beads [29]. In vitro, 5mm diameter glass beads were also used to evaluate the efficacy of different antiseptic solutions against P. aeruginosa biofilm [30]. We adapted this protocol to standardize the different steps of biofilm preparation according to the microbead support (biofilm culture, analysis of biofilm formation, use of sonication). To have neutral material such as the ceramides used in orthopedic prostheses, we selected 4.3 μm diameter silica dioxide microbeads. This choice allowed us to inoculate very small volumes of biofilm-coated microbeads into the ear tissue of mice [25]. Other groups of mice received the same volume of a mix containing an equivalent CFU number of planktonic bacteria and of uncoated microbeads, as in the biofilm-coated microbead inoculum. The major difference between the two inocula was the presence of matrix components detectable at the surface of biofilm-coated microbeads by both SEM and the CDy11 probe. The latter is a particularly valuable tool to detect matrix components such as amyloid fibrils in vivo. The model we developed enabled us to compare immune responses in the skin specific to S. aureus planktonic form and to biofilm coated on an abiotic support. Using the CDY11 probe, we were also able to detect biofilms at the surface of microbeads in situ and in the cutaneous tissue, and to follow its development in vivo.

After inoculation, the inflammatory response to S. aureus was analysed at the tissue and cellular levels over time. At the tissue level, our new model showed that both bacterial forms induced a measurable inflammatory response at cutaneous injection sites in LysM-EGFP transgenic mice, as compared to control mice. EGFP+ phagocytic cells, namely neutrophils and monocyte/macrophages, were recruited and detected after 6h, and the inflammatory response was marked and comparable for both inocula after 26h. These results are consistent with those of previous in vivo studies analysing qualitatively and quantitatively the inflammatory responses against S. aureus biofilm in rodents, and sometimes the associated cytokine and chemokine profile [14, 31–35]. In most models, an implanted infected support was used (K-wire, catheter, pin) and large numbers of neutrophils and monocytes/macrophages were observed to migrate.

At the cellular level, using the intravital imaging approach, we confirmed our previous observations regarding the dynamics of recruitment of EGFP+ cells. A specific phenotype was clearly identified for the biofilm-coated microbead group of mice. Recruited cells had difficulty in accessing biofilm bacteria and the contact areas between phagocytes and bacteria were less numerous than in the planktonic group. These results illustrate two major characteristics of biofilm physiology: the notion that biofilms represent a physical barrier for phagocytes [31] and that consequently phagocytosis is ineffective [36].

Our new ear skin model finally enabled us to quantify the motility parameters (speed, straightness) of EGFP+ recruited phagocytes at the injection site through a maximum thickness of around 150 μm. The analysis was performed at the tissue injection site taking into account technical parameters such as fluorescence intensity of cells, cell location and cell number [25]. For each cell, the trajectory calculated by the Imaris software was checked manually point by point. Continuous movements of each cell were also followed throughout the acquisition time to ensure that there were no automatic assignment errors by the software. The exact trajectory of immune cells was difficult to analyse when the cells were too numerous, as previously reported [37]. Analysis of the entire population of cells at the injection site (cells interacting with bacteria or not) showed that both inocula modified cell motility parameters by decreasing cell speed, as compared to the control group. However, decreased straightness of trajectory was observed only in the biofilm-coated microbead group, which indicates that the biofilm inoculum had a greater effect on cell motility than planktonic bacteria, even when the latter were co-injected with uncoated beads, because it modified both cell speed and straightness. When cells interacted with bacteria, both inocula decreased cell speed and straightness, so that engulfment and phagocytosis of bacteria (adherent or not to microbeads) occurred in all cases. This observation is consistent with previous results obtained with uncoated biofilms [25]. In the absence of visible cell-bacteria contact, the decrease in cell speed was greater in the biofilm-coated microbead group, suggestive of a biofilm effect at a distance from the recruited phagocytes. Recent reviews have reported both a direct effect of biofilm by physical interactions and an indirect effect (small molecules) on recruited immune cells [8]. The staphylococcal complement inhibitor is one example of a soluble factor that can diffuse at the early stage of biofilm formation and act as an immunomodulator [38].

In conclusion, we devised a new ear skin model of S. aureus biofilm infection using microbeads as a support for bacterial development. Using the intravital imaging approach, we provide evidence that the biofilm-coated microbead inoculum induces a different qualitative and quantitative inflammatory response, respectively, at the tissue and cellular levels, than the planktonic inoculum. This novel in vivo model of S. aureus biofilm infection on a material support in combination with an analysis of the dynamics of innate immune responses opens up various development perspectives. In particular, it paves the way to a better understanding of the immunobiology of biofilms and will make it possible to test in real time the efficacy of new anti- S. aureus biofilm therapies [39, 40].

Supporting information

S1 Fig. SEM micrographs of biofilm-coated microbeads.

SEM micrographs of biofilm-coated microbeads at X2000 (A), X4000 (B), X7000 (C) and X8000 (D) magnification. Filled red arrowheads in (A) indicate microbeads and red arrows in (B), (C) and (D) indicate biofilm extracellular matrix. Scale bar: 10 μm (A), 5 μm (B), 2 μm (C), 2 μm (D).

(TIF)

Click here for additional data file.^{(2.8MB, tif)}

S1 Movie. Imaging of immune cell migration after microbead injection.

In vivo confocal time-lapse imaging of immune cell migration in LysM-EGFP transgenic mice ear tissue injected with microbeads in PBS from 5.30 hpi to 5.55 hpi. Maximum projections of time-lapse images. Z-stacks collected 77.73 seconds apart. Scale bar: 100 μm.

(MP4)

Click here for additional data file.^{(1.8MB, mp4)}

S2 Movie. Imaging of immune cell migration after planktonic and microbeads injection.

In vivo confocal time-lapse imaging of immune cell migration in LysM-EGFP transgenic mice ear tissue injected with planktonic bacteria and microbeads from 4.35 hpi to 5.05 hpi. Maximum projections of time-lapse images. Z-stacks collected 77.11 seconds apart. Scale bar: 100 μm.

(MP4)

Click here for additional data file.^{(2.6MB, mp4)}

S3 Movie. Imaging of immune cell migration after biofilm-coated microbeads injection.

In vivo confocal time-lapse imaging of immune cell migration in LysM-EGFP transgenic mice ear tissue injected with biofilm-coated microbeads from 4.15 hpi to 4.44 hpi. Maximum projections of time-lapse images. Z-stacks collected 51.92 seconds apart. Scale bar: 100 μm.

(MP4)

Click here for additional data file.^{(3MB, mp4)}

S1 Table. Raw data of inocula titrations.

Table presenting raw data used for the preparation of calibrated Staphylococcus aureus biofilm-coated microbeads and planktonic inocula.

(XLSX)

Click here for additional data file.^{(9.8KB, xlsx)}

S2 Table. Raw data used for Fig 4D.

Table presenting raw data used to measure the ratio of the sum of EGFP fluorescence intensities to ROI areas.

(XLSX)

Click here for additional data file.^{(11.5KB, xlsx)}

S3 Table. Raw data used for Fig 6A.

Table presenting the average speed of all cells in infected and control mice at early time points. Raw data extracted from Imaris software.

(XLSX)

Click here for additional data file.^{(36.3KB, xlsx)}

S4 Table. Raw data used for Fig 6B.

Table presenting the straightness of all cells in infected and control mice at early time points. Raw data extracted from Imaris software.

(XLSX)

Click here for additional data file.^{(34.9KB, xlsx)}

S5 Table. Raw data used for Fig 6C.

Table presenting the average speed of cells in contact with bacteria or not in infected mice at early time points. Raw data extracted from Imaris software.

(XLSX)

Click here for additional data file.^{(28.7KB, xlsx)}

S6 Table. Raw data used for Fig 6D.

Table presenting the straightness of cells in contact with bacteria or not in infected mice at early time points. Raw data extracted from Imaris software.

(XLSX)

Click here for additional data file.^{(27.9KB, xlsx)}

Acknowledgments

We wish to thank Alexander R. Horswill (Department of Immunology and Microbiology, University of Colorado, Denver, USA) for pAH9 plasmid, Ivo Boneca (Bacteria-Cell Interactions Unit, Pasteur Institute, Paris, France) for the LysM-EGFP transgenic mouse line, Michael Givskov and Youg-Tae Chang for the CDy11b probe, Caroline Vachias and Pierre Pouchin (Confocal Microscopy Facility CLIC, University Clermont Auvergne) for their help with setting up image acquisition settings and image analysis and processing, Hermine Billard for help with FACS analysis (UCA Partner CYSTEM platform), Frédéric Laurent, Alan Diot and Andréa Cara for helpful discussions, and Karim Alloui for care of the animal housing facility.

Data Availability

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

Funding Statement

PG Pack research Ambition 2017-IMMUNOFILM-Staph project (Auvergne Rhones Alpes Region) https://aaprecherche.auvergnerhonealpes.fr/ The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

1.National Survey of Prevalence of Nosocomial Infections and Anti-Infective Treatments in Health Facilities (2017): Regional Summary of Findings. Santé publique France, 2019. Available from https://www.santepubliquefrance.fr.
2.Lindeque B, Hartman Z, Noshchenko A, Cruse M. Infection after primary total hip arthroplasty. Orthopedics. 2014. April;37(4):257–65. 10.3928/01477447-20140401-08 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
3.Wu H, Moser C, Wang H-Z, Høiby N, Song Z-J. Strategies for combating bacterial biofilm infections. Int J Oral Sci. 2015;7(1):1–7. 10.1038/ijos.2014.65 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
4.Peel TN, Dowsey MM, Buising KL, Liew D, Choong PFM. Cost analysis of debridement and retention for management of prosthetic joint infection. Clin Microbiol Infect Off Publ Eur Soc Clin Microbiol Infect Dis. 2013;19(2):181–6. 10.1111/j.1469-0691.2011.03758.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
5.Arciola CR, Campoccia D, Montanaro L. Implant infections: adhesion, biofilm formation and immune evasion. Nat Rev Microbiol. 2018;16(7): 397–409. 10.1038/s41579-018-0019-y [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
6.Jamal M, Ahmad W, Andleeb S, Jalil F, Imran M, Nawaz MA, et al. Bacterial biofilm and associated infections. J Chin Med Assoc JCMA. 2018;81(1): 7–11. 10.1016/j.jcma.2017.07.012 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
7.Oliveira WF, Silva PMS, Silva RCS, Silva GMM, Machado G, Coelho LCBB, et al. Staphylococcus aureus and Staphylococcus epidermidis infections on implants. J Hosp Infect. 2018;98(2): 111–7. 10.1016/j.jhin.2017.11.008 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
8.de Vor L, Rooijakkers SHM, van Strijp JAG. Staphylococci evade the innate immune response by disarming neutrophils and forming biofilms. FEBS Lett. 2020; 10.1002/1873-3468.13767 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
9.Kobayashi SD, Malachowa N, DeLeo FR. Pathogenesis of Staphylococcus aureus abscesses. Am J Pathol. 2015. June;185(6): 1518–27. 10.1016/j.ajpath.2014.11.030 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
10.Dorhoi A, Du Plessis N. Monocytic Myeloid-Derived Suppressor Cells in Chronic Infections. Front Immunol. 2017;8: 1895 10.3389/fimmu.2017.01895 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
11.Le KY, Park MD, Otto M. Immune Evasion Mechanisms of Staphylococcus epidermidis Biofilm Infection. Front Microbiol. 2018;9: 359 10.3389/fmicb.2018.00359 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
12.Del Pozo JL. Biofilm-related disease. Expert Rev Anti Infect Ther. 2018;16(1): 51–65. 10.1080/14787210.2018.1417036 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
13.Gries CM, Kielian T. Staphylococcal Biofilms and Immune Polarization During Prosthetic Joint Infection. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2017;25 Suppl 1(Suppl 1): S20–S24. 10.5435/JAAOS-D-16-00636 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
14.Forestier C, Billard E, Milon G, Gueirard P. Unveiling and Characterizing Early Bilateral Interactions between Biofilm and the Mouse Innate Immune System. Front Microbiol. 2017;8: 2309 10.3389/fmicb.2017.02309 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
15.Resch A, Rosenstein R, Nerz C, Gotz F. Differential Gene Expression Profiling of Staphylococcus aureus Cultivated under Biofilm and Planktonic Conditions. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2005;71(5): 2663–76 10.1128/AEM.71.5.2663-2676.2005 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
16.Peters NC, Egen JG, Secundino N, Debrabant A, Kimblin N, Kamhawi S, et al. In vivo imaging reveals an essential role for neutrophils in leishmaniasis transmitted by sand flies. Science. 2008;321(5891): 970–4. 10.1126/science.1159194 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
17.Mauthe M, Yu W, Krut O, Krönke M, Götz F, Robenek H, et al. WIPI-1 Positive Autophagosome-Like Vesicles Entrap Pathogenic Staphylococcus aureus for Lysosomal Degradation. Int J Cell Biol. 2012;2012: 179207 10.1155/2012/179207 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
18.O’Neill AJ. Staphylococcus aureus SH1000 and 8325–4: comparative genome sequences of key laboratory strains in staphylococcal research. Lett Appl Microbiol. 2010;51(3): 358–61. 10.1111/j.1472-765X.2010.02885.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
19.Schenk S, Laddaga RA. Improved method for electroporation of Staphylococcus aureus. FEMS Microbiol Lett. 1992;73(1–2): 133–8. 10.1016/0378-1097(92)90596-g [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
20.Charpentier E, Anton AI, Barry P, Alfonso B, Fang Y, Novick RP. Novel cassette-based shuttle vector system for gram-positive bacteria. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2004;70(10): 6076–85. 10.1128/AEM.70.10.6076-6085.2004 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
21.Chan W-T, Liu C-C, Chiang Chiau J-S, Tsai S-T, Liang C-K, Cheng M-L, et al. In vivo toxicologic study of larger silica nanoparticles in mice. Int J Nanomedicine. 2017;12: 3421–32. 10.2147/IJN.S126823 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
22.Tasse J, Cara A, Saglio M, Villet R, Laurent F. A steam-based method to investigate biofilm. Sci Rep. 2018;8(1): 13040 10.1038/s41598-018-31437-y [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
23.Mac-Daniel L, Buckwalter MR, Gueirard P, Ménard R. Myeloid Cell Isolation from Mouse Skin and Draining Lymph Node Following Intradermal Immunization with Live Attenuated Plasmodium Sporozoites. J Vis Exp. 2016;(111): 53796 10.3791/53796 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
24.Amino R, Thiberge S, Blazquez S, Baldacci P, Renaud O, Shorte S, et al. Imaging malaria sporozoites in the dermis of the mammalian host. Nat Protoc. 2007;2(7): 1705–12. 10.1038/nprot.2007.120 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
25.Abdul Hamid AI, Nakusi L, Givskov M, Chang Y-T, Marquès C, Gueirard P. A mouse ear skin model to study the dynamics of innate immune responses against Staphylococcus aureus biofilms. BMC Microbiol. 2020;20(1): 22 10.1186/s12866-019-1635-z [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
26.Nishitani K, Sutipornpalangkul W, de Mesy Bentley KL, Varrone JJ, Bello-Irizarry SN, Ito H, et al. Quantifying the natural history of biofilm formation in vivo during the establishment of chronic implant-associated Staphylococcus aureus osteomyelitis in mice to identify critical pathogen and host factors. J Orthop Res Off Publ Orthop Res Soc. 2015;33(9): 1311–9. 10.1002/jor.22907 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
27.Prabhakara R, Harro JM, Leid JG, Harris M, Shirtliff ME. Murine immune response to a chronic Staphylococcus aureus biofilm infection. Infect Immun. 2011;79(4): 1789–96. 10.1128/IAI.01386-10 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
28.Dakheel KH, Abdul Rahim R, Neela VK, Al-Obaidi JR, Hun TG, Yusoff K. Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus Biofilms and Their Influence on Bacterial Adhesion and Cohesion. BioMed Res Int. 2016;2016: 4708425 10.1155/2016/4708425 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
29.Crabbé A, De Boever P, Van Houdt R, Moors H, Mergeay M, Cornelis P. Use of the rotating wall vessel technology to study the effect of shear stress on growth behaviour of Pseudomonas aeruginosa PA01. Environ Microbiol. 2008;10(8): 2098–110. 10.1111/j.1462-2920.2008.01631.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
30.Konrat K, Schwebke I, Laue M, Dittmann C, Levin K, Andrich R, et al. The Bead Assay for Biofilms: A Quick, Easy and Robust Method for Testing Disinfectants. PloS One. 2016;11(6): e0157663 10.1371/journal.pone.0157663 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
31.Thurlow LR, Hanke ML, Fritz T, Angle A, Aldrich A, Williams SH, et al. Staphylococcus aureus biofilms prevent macrophage phagocytosis and attenuate inflammation in vivo. J Immunol Baltim Md 1950. 2011;186(11): 6585–96. 10.4049/jimmunol.1002794 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
32.Scherr TD, Hanke ML, Huang O, James DBA, Horswill AR, Bayles KW, et al. Staphylococcus aureus Biofilms Induce Macrophage Dysfunction Through Leukocidin AB and Alpha-Toxin. mBio. 2015;6(4): e01021–15. 10.1128/mBio.01021-15 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
33.Heim CE, Vidlak D, Scherr TD, Kozel JA, Holzapfel M, Muirhead DE, et al. Myeloid-derived suppressor cells contribute to Staphylococcus aureus orthopedic biofilm infection. J Immunol Baltim Md 1950. 2014;192(8): 3778–92. 10.4049/jimmunol.1303408 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
34.van Gennip M, Christensen LD, Alhede M, Qvortrup K, Jensen PØ, Høiby N, et al. Interactions between polymorphonuclear leukocytes and Pseudomonas aeruginosa biofilms on silicone implants in vivo. Infect Immun. 2012;80(8): 2601–7. 10.1128/IAI.06215-11 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
35.Gutierrez Jauregui R, Fleige H, Bubke A, Rohde M, Weiss S, Förster R. IL-1β Promotes Staphylococcus aureus Biofilms on Implants in vivo. Front Immunol. 2019;10: 1082 10.3389/fimmu.2019.01082 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
36.Costerton JW. Bacterial Biofilms: A Common Cause of Persistent Infections. Science. 1999;284(5418): 1318–22. 10.1126/science.284.5418.1318 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
37.Svensson C-M, Medyukhina A, Belyaev I, Al-Zaben N, Figge MT. Untangling cell tracks: Quantifying cell migration by time lapse image data analysis. Cytom Part J Int Soc Anal Cytol. 2018;93(3): 357–70. 10.1002/cyto.a.23249 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
38.Sultan AR, Swierstra JW, Lemmens-den Toom NA, Snijders SV, Hansenová Maňásková S, Verbon A, et al. Production of Staphylococcal Complement Inhibitor (SCIN) and Other Immune Modulators during the Early Stages of Staphylococcus aureus Biofilm Formation in a Mammalian Cell Culture Medium. Infect Immun. 2018;86(8): e00352–18. 10.1128/IAI.00352-18 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
39.Josse J, Valour F, Maali Y, Diot A, Batailler C, Ferry T, et al. Interaction Between Staphylococcal Biofilm and Bone: How Does the Presence of Biofilm Promote Prosthesis Loosening? Front Microbiol. 2019;10: 1602 10.3389/fmicb.2019.01602 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
40.Suresh MK, Biswas R, Biswas L. An update on recent developments in the prevention and treatment of Staphylococcus aureus biofilms. Int J Med Microbiol. 2019;309(1): 1–12. 10.1016/j.ijmm.2018.11.002 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

PLoS One. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0243500.r001

Decision Letter 0

Amitava Mukherjee

5 Oct 2020

PONE-D-20-26002

Biofilm-coated microbeads and the mouse ear skin: an innovative model for analysing anti-biofilm immune response

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Gueirard,

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.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Nov 19 2020 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're 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.

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). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

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

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Amitava Mukherjee, ME, 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

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Please amend either the title on the online submission form (via Edit Submission) or the title in the manuscript so that they are identical.

[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: Partly

**********

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

Reviewer #1: No

**********

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

**********

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

**********

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: The approach of using established biofilms as initial inocula and assessing the immune response will be of significant interest to the research community. The paper is well-written. Some clarifying points are provided below that I believe will help readers follow better and derive clearer information.

--Line 64: Confirm context of the 80%. I believe it’s in developing countries, not in overall infections.

--Line 138: What is 4.106? Is it 4 x 106, or 4.16? Just clarifying.

--Lines 137 – 145: What’s the rationale for disrupting the biofilms? If they grew on the surface, why not inoculate in their state of formation, rather than collection, spinning, and resuspending? By disrupting, the basal dormant layer it could make the shift to planktonic-type metabolism and not fully reflect a biofilm state.

--Line 156: Were these biofilms imaged following the same resuspension, spinning, etc. process?

--Line 166: Same question; all processed the same prior to imaging?

--Line 186: Did the vortex process disrupt the biofilm? Do you think it was still in the same state as when growth completed?

--Line 228: How does steaming prevent biofilm detachment? This may be in the literature; I’m not familiar with it.

--Lines 253 – 257: This paragraph is confusing. Did you want the biofilms on or off the beads? As questioned above, it’s not fully clear in what state biofilms were when they were inoculated in vivo. Were they sonicated prior to inoculation so only a few adherent colonies were present? Maybe clarify the steps indicating in what state biofilms were on microbeads for inoculation.

--Figure 1: What is the porous substrate on which the microbeads are sitting? The biofilm appears to be attached to it more so than the beads.

--p values needed throughout, for example lines 298 – 299 are needed. They refer to Figure 4, but it doesn’t have p values. The intensity signals look highly different, but authors suggest there is no significant difference (line 298).

--Figure 5: Are these six separate panels? Only label four of them with A, B, C, D.

--Overall, nicely done and informative.

**********

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: 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.]

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 PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2020 Dec 4;15(12):e0243500. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0243500.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0

26 Oct 2020

Reply: We thank the academic editor and the reviewer for their careful reading of the manuscript and their constructive remarks. We have taken the comments on board to improve and clarify the manuscript. Please find below a detailed point-by-point response to all comments (line and page numbering refers to the revised manuscript).

Journal requirements:

Academic Editor: Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming.

Reply: The authors have made changes to the manuscript in order to agree with the PLOS ONE’s style requirements including those for file naming. Firstly, by adding an asterisk for the corresponding author (line 5). Then, by changing the order of department and institution (lines 6 and 8). The authors have changed the presentation of the corresponding author (lines 13 and 14) with the author’s initials. Postal codes have been removed (line 10).

Concerning supporting information citation, we have changed lines 328 and 329 to conform to file naming guidelines. We have also changed the reference number for S1, S2, S3 movies in lines 567, 571, 575 respectively, and also S1, S2, S3, S4, S5, S6 Tables in lines 579, 582, 585, 588, 591, 594 respectively. According to these changes, corresponding files have been uploaded with their names changed.

Academic Editor: Please amend either the title on the online submission form (via Edit Submission) or the title in the manuscript so that they are identical.

Reply: The authors apologize for the difference between title on the online submission form and the manuscript. The term in vivo was missing in the title on the online submission form and it has been fixed with the PLOS ONE’s style requirements including those for file naming.

Comments to the Author:

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

Reviewer #1: Partly

Reply: In the responses to the reviewer’s comments, the authors have brought precise answers on technical aspects of their work and on statistical analyses performed, so that the raised conclusions were adapted to the data presented. The corresponding changes have also been made in the revised version of the manuscript.

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

Reviewer #1: No

Reply : As described in the “Statistical analysis” section of the Materials and Methods, “Data generated were analysed with Prism 5 software (GraphPad Software, Inc.) and a non-parametric Mann-Whitney two-tailed statistical test. p≤0.05 was considered statistically significant (symbols: ****p≤0.0001; ***p≤0.001; **p≤0.01; *≤0.05; ns = non-significant)”. For experiments that required statistical analysis, the sentence “p≤0.05 was considered statistically significant (symbols: ****p≤0.0001; ***p≤0.001; **p≤0.01; *≤0.05; ns = non-significant)” was added to figure legends (figures 4 and 6).

5. Review Comments to the Author

Reviewer (Page 3 Line 64): Confirm context of the 80%. I believe it’s in developing countries, not in overall infections.

Reply: The authors agree with the reviewer’s remark concerning the lack of accuracy of the 80%. To go further, The National Institutes of Health (NIH) report that in developed countries, biofilms account for over 80 % of microbial infection in humans according to the report in 2002 entitled Research on Microbial Biofilms (Report No. PA-03-047). The authors have taken into account the lack of precision and have added “in developed countries” in lines 63 – 64.

Reviewer (Line 138): What is 4.106? Is it 4 x 106, or 4.16? Just clarifying.

Reply: The authors have taken into account the mistake made in the number formatting. We have subsequently changed “4.106” to “4x106” in line 137 and also “1.35.108” to “1.35x108” in line 132.

Reviewer (Lines 137 – 145): What’s the rationale for disrupting the biofilms? If they grew on the surface, why not inoculate in their state of formation, rather than collection, spinning, and resuspending? By disrupting, the basal dormant layer it could make the shift to planktonic-type metabolism and not fully reflect a biofilm state.

Reply: The protocol used to recover biofilms after the 24-hour growth period consisted of a soft washing method involving steam, previously developed by Tasse et al in 2018. This method allowed us to preserve biofilm integrity and to remove planktonic bacteria not attached to the bottom of the well in the microplate. The biofilm was then recovered in a tube by flushing and scraping the bottom of the well. The resulting suspension was then washed twice by soft centrifugation at 100 x g at room temperature (changes made to line 142-143) in order to eliminate any biofilm not grown on microbeads. Then, the pellet was further resuspended in 50 µL of PBS to concentrate our inocula, as we microinjected a very small volume into the mouse ear pinna. Centrifugation was carried out at a low speed to limit any disruption of the biofilm ultrastructure and to avoid the shift to planktonic–type metabolism. The resulting suspension was defined as “biofilm-coated microbeads” in the manuscript and used as our inocula.

Reviewer (Line 156): Were these biofilms imaged following the same resuspension, spinning, etc. process?

Reply: In this set of experiments, the authors wanted to observe the final inocula with as little modification as possible to the initial protocol described in the “Inoculum preparation” section in the Materials and Methods. More precisely, for observations of biofilm glucidic matrix components, an additional step of incubation with WGA-Alexa 488 and then washing was added before flushing and scraping the bottom of the well. The labelled biofilm was then washed twice by soft centrifugation, as described above. Ten µL of the final suspension was spread on a glass slide to be observed on the LEICA MM AF to evaluate microbeads coating efficiency.

Reviewer (Line 166): Same question; all processed the same prior to imaging?

Reply: In Figure 1, the authors wanted to verify that the “biofilm-coated microbeads” inoculum was not altered after passing through the 34G needle used for micro-injection (figures 1C-F), and if the sonication protocol used to disrupt biofilms was effective (figures 1G-H). Samples observed in figures 1C-D show biofilm-coated microbeads prepared as described above with the following sequential steps: steam washing, flushing, scraping and resuspension after soft centrifugation. A small volume (5 µL) was withdrawn with a pipette and deposited on SEM Pore filters (DTM9305, Jeol) corresponding to the condition “biofilm-coated microbeads before micro-injection”. After passive absorption on the filters, the samples were then treated as described in the Materials and Methods section (lines 169-177). Sample observations were made directly on filters. Figures 1E-F show samples that were prepared and treated exactly as described previously, except that samples were withdrawn and deposited on SEM Pore filters after slowly passing through a 34G needle fitted to a NanoFil syringe (World Precision Instruments) (corresponding to “biofilm-coated microbeads after micro-injection”). The images shown in figures 1C-F illustrate that the transit of the “biofilm-coated microbeads” inoculum in the needle of the syringe did not disrupt the biofilm ultrastructure.

In figures 1G-H, we wanted to show that our sonication protocol was able to dissociate all bacteria from the surface of “biofilm-coated microbeads”, in order to validate our biofilm titration protocol. Samples observed were prepared as described above (steam washing, flushing, scraping, resuspension after soft centrifugation), then sonicated for 10 minutes and vortexed for 30 seconds before and after this process. A small volume (5 µL) was withdrawn with a pipette and deposited on SEM Pore filters. After passive absorption on the filters, the samples were then treated as described in the Materials and Methods section (lines 169-177).

Reviewer (Line 186): Did the vortex process disrupt the biofilm? Do you think it was still in the same state as when growth completed?

Reply: In vivo labelling with the CDy11 probe was carried out on “biofilm-coated microbeads” samples prepared as described previously. After resuspension of biofilms in 50 µL of PBS, 10 µL of the diluted probe was added to the tube. The vortex was then set to minimal speed and the tube was vortexed for 2 seconds (gentle vortex) in order to minimize any alteration to the biofilm-coated microbeads. Images of CDy11 labelled biofilm-coated microbeads in the ear tissue (figures 3B and C) show that matrix components such as amyloid fibrils are still present in the inoculum, proving that the biofilm structure was not disrupted following the short vortex. These matrix components were less abundant for the planktonic form of the LYO-S2 strain of S. aureus, as previously shown in figures 1C-D for the LYO-S2 strain of S. aureus in Abdul Hamid et al 2020.

Reviewer (Line 228): How does steaming prevent biofilm detachment? This may be in the literature; I’m not familiar with it.

Reply: The technique used to wash biofilm-coated microbeads in our manuscript is a new steam-based method to investigate biofilms developed by Tasse et al in 2018. In their article, they presented a simple and robust method, adapted for microplates, in which steam is used as a soft washing method to preserve biofilm integrity and to improve reproducibility of biofilm preparation. Presented below is an illustration of the system from the paper. Biofilm-coated microbeads formed at the bottom of the well stay attached even after steam washing. We wanted to study innate immune responses elicited specifically against biofilms coated on microbeads and this method allowed us to eliminate any non-attached bacteria that have not made the transition towards biofilm-type metabolism. Thus, the aim of this steaming technique is to clear the inoculum from planktonic bacteria and not to prevent biofilm detachment.

Reviewer (Lines 253 – 257): This paragraph is confusing. Did you want the biofilms on or off the beads? As questioned above, it’s not fully clear in what state biofilms were when they were inoculated in vivo. Were they sonicated prior to inoculation so only a few adherent colonies were present? Maybe clarify the steps indicating in what state biofilms were on microbeads for inoculation.

Reply: The aims of figures 1 and 2 respectively were to qualitatively and quantitatively characterize the biofilm-coated microbeads. In figures 1A-B, we show images of uncoated microbeads compared to images of biofilm-coated microbeads (figures 1C-F). To ensure that the immune response elicited from both types of inocula (planktonic bacteria & microbeads or biofilm-coated microbeads) were comparable, we quantified the number of microinjected bacteria for each experiment. To do this, after inoculum preparation and micro-injection into the mouse ear pinna, we diluted an aliquot of the sample tenfold in PBS. The diluted biofilm-coated microbeads sample was then vortexed for 30 seconds followed by a 10-minute sonication and another vortex for 30 seconds. Inocula titrations were then determined by serial dilutions and plating on LB agar medium. CFUs were enumerated after 24 hours of incubation at 37°C. Since directly plating biofilm-coated microbeads on agar plates could induce bias during titration, we added a sonication step to our protocol and verified whether it was successful at detaching bacteria from the microbeads’ surface. Figures 1G-H show that bacteria were fully detached from microbeads after the sonication protocol.

In figure 2, we wanted to further characterize our different inocula. We first labelled sialic acid and N-acetylglucosaminyl residues that are found in the biofilm extracellular matrix by using WGA-Alexa Fluor 488 dye. We also performed an analysis to quantify the number of microbeads covered with biofilm using flow cytometry (FACS). Figure 2 shows the gates used to determine the proportion of uncoated microbeads (B), planktonic bacteria & microbeads (C) and biofilm-coated microbeads (D) populations. The inset in the top right corner of the left panels in figures 2B- D show gates used to select microbeads (appear in light blue). The right panels in figures 2B-D represent the subsequent counts for each population according to their fluorescence intensities. Thanks to this technique, we confirmed that we have a high percentage (82.5%) of biofilm–coated microbeads in our inocula as compared to the “planktonic bacteria & microbeads” sample.

The authors apologize for the confusion and have modified the manuscript from lines 247 to 260 to make it easier for readers to understand.

Reviewer (Figure 1): What is the porous substrate on which the microbeads are sitting? The biofilm appears to be attached to it more so than the beads.

Reply: In SEM micrographs, the porous substrate in figure 1 on which microbeads are sitting correspond to the SEM PORE filters (DTM9305, Jeol) which have 500nm diameter holes (a picture of the filters is seen below). Biofilm microdroplets were deposited on these filters with a needle or a pipette and passively diffused through the filter. The biofilm was not grown on these filters, it was only deposited on them and then fixed for SEM analysis. Bacteria and beads are therefore not adherent to these filters. All samples shown were prepared as described in MM and then deposited on filters, which is essential for SEM observations.

The authors have revised the section “Observation of bacterial inocula by fluorescence microscopy, flow cytometry and scanning electron microscopy (SEM)” of the Materials and Methods (lines 169-177) to make it easier for readers to understand.

Reviewer: --p values needed throughout, for example lines 298 – 299 are needed. They refer to Figure 4, but it doesn’t have p values. The intensity signals look highly different, but authors suggest there is no significant difference (line 298).

Reply : The authors have added the p values for statistical analysis carried out in figure 4 (Lines 321 – 322) and 6 (Lines 374 – 376).

The protocol used to study the global inflammation in the inoculated ear tissue (figure 4) consisted of drawing a region of interest (ROI) around the EGFP+ zone of the late time-point image of a single experiment. The ROI was then saved and applied on the early time-point image of the same experiment. The sum of EGFP fluorescence intensities of each pixel in the ROI was measured for both time points and then divided by the area of the ROI. This step allowed us to normalize the fluorescence intensities between experiments. Each experiment was performed four times for each group of mice, which allowed us to create figure 4D. The images shown in figures 4A-C represent one of the four experiments performed for each group. Since the sum of fluorescence intensities was divided by the area of the ROI, this means that there is no direct correlation between the values presented in figure 4D and the fluorescence intensities of the images. Using this semi-quantitative method, we therefore measured the overall inflammation of the mouse ear pinna tissue over time. We have attached the raw data for each experiment as a supplementary table in the latest submission of our manuscript (S6 Table).

--Figure 5: Are these six separate panels? Only label four of them with A, B, C, D.

Reply: The aim of figure 5 is to analyze the immune response at the injection site by observing the cellular behavior against planktonic bacteria & microbeads or biofilm-coated microbeads. Specifically, we analyzed the behavior of recruited cells interacting with bacteria or not, at the injection site. This original in vivo study performed by intravital imaging allowed us to follow cell movement during a long period of time (30 minutes), at each time point and for each bacterial form.

Figure 5 illustrates live confocal imaging after inoculation of planktonic bacteria & microbeads (A) or biofilm-coated microbeads (B) in the ear pinna of LysM-EGFP transgenic mice at early time points (4-6 hpi). Images show maximal intensity projections of EGFP (green) and mCherry (magenta) fluorescence at different time during the acquisition at T0 for each time point and 30 minutes later.

Firstly, in figure 5A, innate immune cell recruitment after inoculation of planktonic bacteria & microbeads was observed between 4.35 and to 5.05 hpi. Secondly, in figure 5B, innate immune cell recruitment after inoculation of biofilm-coated microbeads was observed between 4.15 and 4.45 hpi. Live confocal imaging of two additional experiments at early time points after inoculation of biofilm-coated microbeads were provided in figures 5 C and D at 4.15 hpi and 4.00 hpi.

The authors apologize for the confusing annotation of confocal images and have revised the legend of figure 5 and have added a letter corresponding to each image on the figure to make it easier for readers to understand (Lines 336 - 346).

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Click here for additional data file.^{(517.2KB, docx)}

PLoS One. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0243500.r003

Decision Letter 1

Amitava Mukherjee

23 Nov 2020

Biofilm-coated microbeads and the mouse ear skin: an innovative model for analysing anti-biofilm immune response in vivo

PONE-D-20-26002R1

Dear Dr. Gueirard,

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

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. 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 help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- 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.

Kind regards,

Amitava Mukherjee, ME, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

**********

7. 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: No

PLoS One. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0243500.r004

Acceptance letter

Amitava Mukherjee

26 Nov 2020

PONE-D-20-26002R1

Biofilm-coated microbeads and the mouse ear skin: an innovative model for analysing anti-biofilm immune response in vivo

Dear Dr. Gueirard:

I'm 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 let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, 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.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Professor Dr. Amitava Mukherjee

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 Fig. SEM micrographs of biofilm-coated microbeads.

(TIF)

Click here for additional data file.^{(2.8MB, tif)}

S1 Movie. Imaging of immune cell migration after microbead injection.

(MP4)

Click here for additional data file.^{(1.8MB, mp4)}

S2 Movie. Imaging of immune cell migration after planktonic and microbeads injection.

(MP4)

Click here for additional data file.^{(2.6MB, mp4)}

S3 Movie. Imaging of immune cell migration after biofilm-coated microbeads injection.

(MP4)

Click here for additional data file.^{(3MB, mp4)}

S1 Table. Raw data of inocula titrations.

Table presenting raw data used for the preparation of calibrated Staphylococcus aureus biofilm-coated microbeads and planktonic inocula.

(XLSX)

Click here for additional data file.^{(9.8KB, xlsx)}

S2 Table. Raw data used for Fig 4D.

Table presenting raw data used to measure the ratio of the sum of EGFP fluorescence intensities to ROI areas.

(XLSX)

Click here for additional data file.^{(11.5KB, xlsx)}

S3 Table. Raw data used for Fig 6A.

Table presenting the average speed of all cells in infected and control mice at early time points. Raw data extracted from Imaris software.

(XLSX)

Click here for additional data file.^{(36.3KB, xlsx)}

S4 Table. Raw data used for Fig 6B.

Table presenting the straightness of all cells in infected and control mice at early time points. Raw data extracted from Imaris software.

(XLSX)

Click here for additional data file.^{(34.9KB, xlsx)}

S5 Table. Raw data used for Fig 6C.

Table presenting the average speed of cells in contact with bacteria or not in infected mice at early time points. Raw data extracted from Imaris software.

(XLSX)

Click here for additional data file.^{(28.7KB, xlsx)}

S6 Table. Raw data used for Fig 6D.

Table presenting the straightness of cells in contact with bacteria or not in infected mice at early time points. Raw data extracted from Imaris software.

(XLSX)

Click here for additional data file.^{(27.9KB, xlsx)}

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Click here for additional data file.^{(517.2KB, docx)}

Data Availability Statement

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

[pone.0243500.ref001] 1.National Survey of Prevalence of Nosocomial Infections and Anti-Infective Treatments in Health Facilities (2017): Regional Summary of Findings. Santé publique France, 2019. Available from https://www.santepubliquefrance.fr.

[pone.0243500.ref002] 2.Lindeque B, Hartman Z, Noshchenko A, Cruse M. Infection after primary total hip arthroplasty. Orthopedics. 2014. April;37(4):257–65. 10.3928/01477447-20140401-08 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0243500.ref003] 3.Wu H, Moser C, Wang H-Z, Høiby N, Song Z-J. Strategies for combating bacterial biofilm infections. Int J Oral Sci. 2015;7(1):1–7. 10.1038/ijos.2014.65 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0243500.ref004] 4.Peel TN, Dowsey MM, Buising KL, Liew D, Choong PFM. Cost analysis of debridement and retention for management of prosthetic joint infection. Clin Microbiol Infect Off Publ Eur Soc Clin Microbiol Infect Dis. 2013;19(2):181–6. 10.1111/j.1469-0691.2011.03758.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0243500.ref005] 5.Arciola CR, Campoccia D, Montanaro L. Implant infections: adhesion, biofilm formation and immune evasion. Nat Rev Microbiol. 2018;16(7): 397–409. 10.1038/s41579-018-0019-y [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0243500.ref006] 6.Jamal M, Ahmad W, Andleeb S, Jalil F, Imran M, Nawaz MA, et al. Bacterial biofilm and associated infections. J Chin Med Assoc JCMA. 2018;81(1): 7–11. 10.1016/j.jcma.2017.07.012 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0243500.ref007] 7.Oliveira WF, Silva PMS, Silva RCS, Silva GMM, Machado G, Coelho LCBB, et al. Staphylococcus aureus and Staphylococcus epidermidis infections on implants. J Hosp Infect. 2018;98(2): 111–7. 10.1016/j.jhin.2017.11.008 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0243500.ref008] 8.de Vor L, Rooijakkers SHM, van Strijp JAG. Staphylococci evade the innate immune response by disarming neutrophils and forming biofilms. FEBS Lett. 2020; 10.1002/1873-3468.13767 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0243500.ref009] 9.Kobayashi SD, Malachowa N, DeLeo FR. Pathogenesis of Staphylococcus aureus abscesses. Am J Pathol. 2015. June;185(6): 1518–27. 10.1016/j.ajpath.2014.11.030 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0243500.ref010] 10.Dorhoi A, Du Plessis N. Monocytic Myeloid-Derived Suppressor Cells in Chronic Infections. Front Immunol. 2017;8: 1895 10.3389/fimmu.2017.01895 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0243500.ref011] 11.Le KY, Park MD, Otto M. Immune Evasion Mechanisms of Staphylococcus epidermidis Biofilm Infection. Front Microbiol. 2018;9: 359 10.3389/fmicb.2018.00359 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0243500.ref012] 12.Del Pozo JL. Biofilm-related disease. Expert Rev Anti Infect Ther. 2018;16(1): 51–65. 10.1080/14787210.2018.1417036 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0243500.ref013] 13.Gries CM, Kielian T. Staphylococcal Biofilms and Immune Polarization During Prosthetic Joint Infection. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2017;25 Suppl 1(Suppl 1): S20–S24. 10.5435/JAAOS-D-16-00636 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0243500.ref014] 14.Forestier C, Billard E, Milon G, Gueirard P. Unveiling and Characterizing Early Bilateral Interactions between Biofilm and the Mouse Innate Immune System. Front Microbiol. 2017;8: 2309 10.3389/fmicb.2017.02309 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0243500.ref015] 15.Resch A, Rosenstein R, Nerz C, Gotz F. Differential Gene Expression Profiling of Staphylococcus aureus Cultivated under Biofilm and Planktonic Conditions. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2005;71(5): 2663–76 10.1128/AEM.71.5.2663-2676.2005 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0243500.ref016] 16.Peters NC, Egen JG, Secundino N, Debrabant A, Kimblin N, Kamhawi S, et al. In vivo imaging reveals an essential role for neutrophils in leishmaniasis transmitted by sand flies. Science. 2008;321(5891): 970–4. 10.1126/science.1159194 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0243500.ref017] 17.Mauthe M, Yu W, Krut O, Krönke M, Götz F, Robenek H, et al. WIPI-1 Positive Autophagosome-Like Vesicles Entrap Pathogenic Staphylococcus aureus for Lysosomal Degradation. Int J Cell Biol. 2012;2012: 179207 10.1155/2012/179207 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0243500.ref018] 18.O’Neill AJ. Staphylococcus aureus SH1000 and 8325–4: comparative genome sequences of key laboratory strains in staphylococcal research. Lett Appl Microbiol. 2010;51(3): 358–61. 10.1111/j.1472-765X.2010.02885.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0243500.ref019] 19.Schenk S, Laddaga RA. Improved method for electroporation of Staphylococcus aureus. FEMS Microbiol Lett. 1992;73(1–2): 133–8. 10.1016/0378-1097(92)90596-g [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0243500.ref020] 20.Charpentier E, Anton AI, Barry P, Alfonso B, Fang Y, Novick RP. Novel cassette-based shuttle vector system for gram-positive bacteria. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2004;70(10): 6076–85. 10.1128/AEM.70.10.6076-6085.2004 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0243500.ref021] 21.Chan W-T, Liu C-C, Chiang Chiau J-S, Tsai S-T, Liang C-K, Cheng M-L, et al. In vivo toxicologic study of larger silica nanoparticles in mice. Int J Nanomedicine. 2017;12: 3421–32. 10.2147/IJN.S126823 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0243500.ref022] 22.Tasse J, Cara A, Saglio M, Villet R, Laurent F. A steam-based method to investigate biofilm. Sci Rep. 2018;8(1): 13040 10.1038/s41598-018-31437-y [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0243500.ref023] 23.Mac-Daniel L, Buckwalter MR, Gueirard P, Ménard R. Myeloid Cell Isolation from Mouse Skin and Draining Lymph Node Following Intradermal Immunization with Live Attenuated Plasmodium Sporozoites. J Vis Exp. 2016;(111): 53796 10.3791/53796 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0243500.ref024] 24.Amino R, Thiberge S, Blazquez S, Baldacci P, Renaud O, Shorte S, et al. Imaging malaria sporozoites in the dermis of the mammalian host. Nat Protoc. 2007;2(7): 1705–12. 10.1038/nprot.2007.120 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0243500.ref025] 25.Abdul Hamid AI, Nakusi L, Givskov M, Chang Y-T, Marquès C, Gueirard P. A mouse ear skin model to study the dynamics of innate immune responses against Staphylococcus aureus biofilms. BMC Microbiol. 2020;20(1): 22 10.1186/s12866-019-1635-z [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0243500.ref026] 26.Nishitani K, Sutipornpalangkul W, de Mesy Bentley KL, Varrone JJ, Bello-Irizarry SN, Ito H, et al. Quantifying the natural history of biofilm formation in vivo during the establishment of chronic implant-associated Staphylococcus aureus osteomyelitis in mice to identify critical pathogen and host factors. J Orthop Res Off Publ Orthop Res Soc. 2015;33(9): 1311–9. 10.1002/jor.22907 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0243500.ref027] 27.Prabhakara R, Harro JM, Leid JG, Harris M, Shirtliff ME. Murine immune response to a chronic Staphylococcus aureus biofilm infection. Infect Immun. 2011;79(4): 1789–96. 10.1128/IAI.01386-10 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0243500.ref028] 28.Dakheel KH, Abdul Rahim R, Neela VK, Al-Obaidi JR, Hun TG, Yusoff K. Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus Biofilms and Their Influence on Bacterial Adhesion and Cohesion. BioMed Res Int. 2016;2016: 4708425 10.1155/2016/4708425 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0243500.ref029] 29.Crabbé A, De Boever P, Van Houdt R, Moors H, Mergeay M, Cornelis P. Use of the rotating wall vessel technology to study the effect of shear stress on growth behaviour of Pseudomonas aeruginosa PA01. Environ Microbiol. 2008;10(8): 2098–110. 10.1111/j.1462-2920.2008.01631.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0243500.ref030] 30.Konrat K, Schwebke I, Laue M, Dittmann C, Levin K, Andrich R, et al. The Bead Assay for Biofilms: A Quick, Easy and Robust Method for Testing Disinfectants. PloS One. 2016;11(6): e0157663 10.1371/journal.pone.0157663 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0243500.ref031] 31.Thurlow LR, Hanke ML, Fritz T, Angle A, Aldrich A, Williams SH, et al. Staphylococcus aureus biofilms prevent macrophage phagocytosis and attenuate inflammation in vivo. J Immunol Baltim Md 1950. 2011;186(11): 6585–96. 10.4049/jimmunol.1002794 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0243500.ref032] 32.Scherr TD, Hanke ML, Huang O, James DBA, Horswill AR, Bayles KW, et al. Staphylococcus aureus Biofilms Induce Macrophage Dysfunction Through Leukocidin AB and Alpha-Toxin. mBio. 2015;6(4): e01021–15. 10.1128/mBio.01021-15 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0243500.ref033] 33.Heim CE, Vidlak D, Scherr TD, Kozel JA, Holzapfel M, Muirhead DE, et al. Myeloid-derived suppressor cells contribute to Staphylococcus aureus orthopedic biofilm infection. J Immunol Baltim Md 1950. 2014;192(8): 3778–92. 10.4049/jimmunol.1303408 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0243500.ref034] 34.van Gennip M, Christensen LD, Alhede M, Qvortrup K, Jensen PØ, Høiby N, et al. Interactions between polymorphonuclear leukocytes and Pseudomonas aeruginosa biofilms on silicone implants in vivo. Infect Immun. 2012;80(8): 2601–7. 10.1128/IAI.06215-11 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0243500.ref035] 35.Gutierrez Jauregui R, Fleige H, Bubke A, Rohde M, Weiss S, Förster R. IL-1β Promotes Staphylococcus aureus Biofilms on Implants in vivo. Front Immunol. 2019;10: 1082 10.3389/fimmu.2019.01082 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0243500.ref036] 36.Costerton JW. Bacterial Biofilms: A Common Cause of Persistent Infections. Science. 1999;284(5418): 1318–22. 10.1126/science.284.5418.1318 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0243500.ref037] 37.Svensson C-M, Medyukhina A, Belyaev I, Al-Zaben N, Figge MT. Untangling cell tracks: Quantifying cell migration by time lapse image data analysis. Cytom Part J Int Soc Anal Cytol. 2018;93(3): 357–70. 10.1002/cyto.a.23249 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0243500.ref038] 38.Sultan AR, Swierstra JW, Lemmens-den Toom NA, Snijders SV, Hansenová Maňásková S, Verbon A, et al. Production of Staphylococcal Complement Inhibitor (SCIN) and Other Immune Modulators during the Early Stages of Staphylococcus aureus Biofilm Formation in a Mammalian Cell Culture Medium. Infect Immun. 2018;86(8): e00352–18. 10.1128/IAI.00352-18 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0243500.ref039] 39.Josse J, Valour F, Maali Y, Diot A, Batailler C, Ferry T, et al. Interaction Between Staphylococcal Biofilm and Bone: How Does the Presence of Biofilm Promote Prosthesis Loosening? Front Microbiol. 2019;10: 1602 10.3389/fmicb.2019.01602 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0243500.ref040] 40.Suresh MK, Biswas R, Biswas L. An update on recent developments in the prevention and treatment of Staphylococcus aureus biofilms. Int J Med Microbiol. 2019;309(1): 1–12. 10.1016/j.ijmm.2018.11.002 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

PERMALINK

Biofilm-coated microbeads and the mouse ear skin: An innovative model for analysing anti-biofilm immune response in vivo

Léo Sauvat

Aizat Iman Abdul Hamid

Christelle Blavignac

Jérôme Josse

Olivier Lesens

Pascale Gueirard

Roles

Abstract

Introduction

Materials and methods

Materials

Mice and ethical statement

mCherry and GFP-tagged strain construction

Microbeads

Biofilm preparation and analysis

Inoculum preparation

Observation of bacterial inocula by fluorescence microscopy, flow cytometry and Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM)

Matrix labelling with WGA-Alexa 488 and the CDy11 fluorescent probe

Intravital imaging by confocal microscopy

Time-lapse video and mosaic acquisition

Analysis of in vivo confocal imaging

Statistical analysis

Results

Preparation and characterization of Staphylococcus aureus biofilm-coated microbeads

Fig 1. SEM micrographs of uncoated and biofilm-coated microbeads before and after microinjection, and after sonication.

Fig 2. Confocal images of a biofilm-coated microbead and representative flow cytometry plots verifying coating of microbeads.

Fig 3. Intravital confocal imaging of CDy11 labelled biofilm-coated microbeads.

Characterization of inflammatory responses after the microinjection of Staphylococcus aureus biofilm-coated microbeads in the mouse ear pinna

Fig 4. Global inflammatory response after microinjection of different inocula into the transgenic mice ear.

Fig 5. Live confocal imaging of innate immune responses after microinjection of the different inocula.

Analysis of the dynamic properties of immune cell recruitment after microinjection of Staphylococcus aureus biofilm-coated microbeads into the mouse ear pinna

Fig 6. Analysis of average speed and straightness of innate immune cells in the mouse ear pinna.

Discussion

Supporting information

Acknowledgments

Data Availability

Funding Statement

References

Decision Letter 0

Amitava Mukherjee

Roles

Author response to Decision Letter 0

Decision Letter 1

Amitava Mukherjee

Roles

Acceptance letter

Amitava Mukherjee

Roles

Associated Data

Supplementary Materials

Data Availability Statement

ACTIONS

PERMALINK

RESOURCES

Similar articles

Cited by other articles

Links to NCBI Databases