Synetar E. A.

LITERATURE REVIEWS

Scentific article

The review is devoted to the study of the stages of the formation of Enterococcus faecalis and Candida albicans biofilms on the surface of medical catheters. The data of adhesive activity of potential pathogens of infectious-inflammatory processes of urinary tract, including enterococci, yeast and gram-negative bacteria are given. According to research results, the author emphasizes that high adhesive ability of the studied cultures can promote both colonization of the mucous membranes of the urogenital tract, and the colonization of the surface of urological catheters, which threatens chronic infectious process and unsatisfactory results of antibiotic therapy. An experimental study of the biofilm growth of Enterococcus faecalis and Candida albicans on the surface of silicone and latex catheters using scanning electron microscopy allowed to establish the dynamics, attachment phases and subsequent formation of biofilm on the catheter for 24, 48 and 72 hours of incubation. It has been proved that bacterial cells and yeast-like mushroom cells are attached to the surface of catheters by adhesion, then form microcoloniosis, then agglomerates and developed biofilms. According to research results, the advantage of using latex catheters in comparison with silicones, which is substantiated by the lower level of adhesion of E. faecalis and C. albicans cells, as well as the slower dynamics of biofilm formation, is shown.

microorganisms, biofilm, urinary catheters

1. Golovko SV. Klinichni aspekty kateter-asocijovanoi’ bakteriurii’. Vijs’kova medycyna Ukrai’ny. 2005;2(5):74-80. [in Ukrainian].
2. Bouza EА. European perspective on nosocomial urinary tract infections II. Report on the microbiology workload, etiology and antimicrobial susceptibility (ESGNI 004 study). Clin. Microbiol. Infect. 2001;7(10):532-42.
3. Shulutko EM, Bulanov AJu, Kljasova GA. Kateter-associirovannaja infekcija mochevyvodjashhih putej: faktory riska i metody profilaktiki. Vestn. intensivnoj terapii. 2005;4:73-7. [in Russian].
4. Sernjak JuP, Fukszon AS, Roshchin YuV, Kryshtap MV. Problema kateter-associirovannyh infekcij mochevogo trakta i bakterial’nyh biologicheskih plenok v sovremennoj urologii. Zdorov’e muzhchiny. 2005;2:40-4. [in Russian].
5. Mohamed JA, Huang DB. Biofilm formation by enterococci. J Med Microbiol. 2007;12(56):1581-8.
6. Xu W, Flores-Mireles AL, Cusumano ZT, Takagi E, Hultgren SJ, Caparon MG. Host and bacterial proteases influence biofilm formation and virulence in a murine model of enterococcal catheter-associated urinary tract infection. NPJ Biofilms Microbiomes. 2017;6:3-28.
7. Gostev VV, Sydorenko SV. Bakterial’nyye bioplenki i infektsii. Zhurnal infektologii. 2010;3(2):4-15. [in Russian].
8. O’Toole G, Kaplan NV, Kolter R. Biofilm formation as microbial development. Annu. Rev. Microbiol. 2000;54:49-79.
9. Dobrokhotskiy ON, Khomyakov YuN, Khomyakova TI. Epidemiologicheskoye znachenie formirovanija bioplenok v tehnicheskih sistemah. Zhizn’ bez opasnostej. Zdorov’e. Profilaktika. Dolgoletie. 2008;4:78-80. [in Russian].
10. Donlon RM, Costerton JW. Biofilms: survival mechanisms of clinically relevant microorganisms. Clin. Microbiol. Rev. 2002;15:167-93.
11. Flemming HC, Neu TR, Wozniak DJ. The EPS matrix: the “house of biofilm cell”. J. Bacteriol. 2007;22(189):7945-7.
12. Salmanov AH, Mariyevskyy VF, Boyko VV, Ioffe IV, Taraban IA. Antybiotykorezystentnist v khirurhiyi: Monohrafiya NTMT Kharkiv; 2012. 431 s. [in Ukrainian].
13. Randall D, Wolcott MD, Garth D, Ehrlich PhD. Biofilms and chronic Infections. JAMA. 2008;299(22):2682-4.
14. Chambless J, Hunt S, Stewart P. A three-dimensional computer model of four hypothetical mechanisms protecting biofilms from antimicrobials. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2006;72(3):2005-13.
15. Fux CA, Costerton JW, Stewart PS, Stoodley P. Survival strategies of infectious biofilms. Trends Microbiol. 2005;13(1):34-40.
16. Vorobyey YeS, Voronkova OS, Vinnikov AI. Bakterialni bioplivky. Quorum sensing – “vidchuttya kvorumu» u bakteriy v bioplivkakh. Visnyk Dnipropetrovskoho universytetu. Biolohiya. Ekolohiya. 2012;1(20):13-22. [in Ukrainian].
17. Ivanytsya VO, Halkin MB. Suchasni uyavlennya shchodo mekhanizmiv formuvannya bioplivky. Mikrobiolohiya i biotekhnolohiya. 2011;2:8-22. [in Ukrainian].
18. Hentzer M, Givskov M, Eberl L. Quorum sensing in biofilms: gossip in slimecity. In: Ghannoum M., and O’Toole G.A., eds., Microbial biofilms. Washington. D.C.: ASM Press. 2004:118-40.
19. Miller MB, Bassler BL. Quorum sensing in bacteria. Annu. Rev. Microbiol. 2001;55:165-99.
20. Chen X, Schauder S, Potier N, Van Dorsselaer A, Pelczer I, Bassler BL, et al. Structural identification of a bacterial quorum-sensing signal containing boron. Nature. 2002;415:545-9.
21. Jakobsen TH, van Gennip M, Christensen LD, Bjarnsholt T, Givskov M. Qualitative and quantitative determination of quorum-sensing inhibition in vitro. Quorum-sensing: methods and protocols. Methods in Molecular Biology. 2011;692:253-63.
22. Vinnik YuS, Per’yanova OV, Onzul’ YeV, Teplyakova OV. Mikrobnyye bioplenki v khirurgii: mekhanizmy obrazovavaniya, lekarstvennaya ustoychivost’, puti resheniya problemy. Novosti khirurgii. 2010;6(8):115-25. [in Russian].
23. Cogan NG, Keener JP. The role of the biofilm matrix in structural development. Mathem. Med. And Biol. 2004;2(21):147-66.
24. Sutherland IW. The biofilm – an immobilized but dynamic microbial environment. Trends in Microbiology. 2001;5(9):222-7.
25. Chebotar’ IV, Mayanskiy AN, Konchakova YeD, Lazareva AV, Chistyakovo VP. Antibiotikorezistentnost’ bioplonochnykh bakteríy. Klin. mikrobiol. antimikrob. khimioter. 2012;1(14):51-7. [in Russian].
26. Chebotar’ IV, Gur’yev YeL. Laboratornaya diagnostika klinicheski znachimykh bioplenochnykh protsessov. Voprosy diagnostiki v pediatrii. 2012;4(4):15-20. [in Russian].
27. Gabrielyan NI, Gorskaya YeM, Romanova NI, Tsirul’nikova OM. Gospital’naya mikroflora i bioplenki. Vestnik transplantologii i iskusstvennykh organov. 2012;3(14):83-91. [in Russian].
28. Rishpana MS, Kabbin JS. Candiduria in Catheter Associated Urinary Tract Infection with Special Reference to Biofilm Production. J. Clin. Diagn. Res. 2015;9(10).
29. Mokiyenko AV, Pushkina VA. Bioplenki i nozokomial’nyye infektsii: k otsenke vzaimosvyazi. Voda: gigiyena i yekologiya. 2013;1(1):141-58. [in Russian].
30. Trautner BW, Darouiche RO. Role of biofilm in catheter-associated urinary tract infection. Am. J. Infect. Control. 2004;3(32):177-83.
31. Lyamin AV, Botkin YeA, Zhestkov AV. Metody vyyavleniya bioplenok v meditsine: vozmozhnosti i perspektivy. Klin. mikrobiol. antimikrob. khimioter. 2012;1(14):17-22. [in Russian].
32. Nikolayev YuA, Plakunov VK. Bioplenka – «gorod mikrobov» ili analog mnogokletochnogo organizma? Mikrobioligiya. 2007;2(76):149-63. [in Russian].
33. Murugan K, Selvanayaki K, Al-Sohaibani S. Urinary catheter indwelling clinical pathogen biofilm formation, exopolysaccharide characterization and their growth influencing parameters. Saudi J Biol Sci. 2016;23(1):150-9.
34. Tenke P, Kovac B, Johansen Bjerklund TE, Matsumoto T, Tamby PA, Naber KG. Yevropeysko-Aziatskiye rekomendatsii po vedeniyu patsiyentov s infektsiyami, svyazannymi s uretral’nym kateterom, i po profilaktike kateter-assotsiirovannykh infektsiy. Klinich. mikrobiologiya i antimikrobnaya khimioterapiya. 2008;3(10):201-15. [in Russian].
35. Synetar EА, Avdyeyeva LV. Stupin prykriplennya klityn C. albicans do poverkhni medychnykh kateteriv z riznykh polimernykh materialiv. Hihiyena naselenykh mists. 2014;63:320-4. [in Ukrainian].
36. Synetar EА, Brych OI. Dynamika bioplivkovoho obroshchennya kateteriv Enterococcus faecalis. Visnyk Dnipropetrovskoho universytetu. Biolohiya. Medytsyna. 2015;6(2):146-50. [in Ukrainian].
37. Synetar EА, Avdyeyeva LV, Skoryk MA, Brych OI. Formuvannya bioplivky Candida albicans na poverkhni medychnykh kateteriv: doslidzhennya in vitro. Dovkillya ta zdorovya. 2014;1(68):28-32. [in Ukrainian].
38. Adaptovana klinichna nastanova z krashchoyi praktyka, diahnostyky, likuvanya tu profilaktyky infektsoho sechovyi sitey u zhinok [Internet]. Ukrayinkyy zhurnal nefrolhiyi toy dialzet. 2012;2(34):53-80. [in Ukrainian].
39. Kerivnytstvo Yevropeyskoyi asotsiatsiyi urolohiv z likuvannya infektsiyi sechovoyi systemy. Ukrayinskyy zhurnal nefrolohiyi ta dializu. 2017;2:53-9. [in Ukrainian].
40. Argumenty i fakty v nefrologii. Adgeziya bakteriy kak faktor uropatogenosti pri infektsiyakh mochevykh putey [Internet]. Ukraí̈ns’kiy medichniy chasopis. 2014;6(104):88. [in Ukrainian].
41. Shifris IM, Dudar IO, Loboda OM, Krot VF, Krasyuk EK, Bryzhachenko TP, ta in. Infektsiyi sechovoyi systemy u doroslykh: shlyakhy optymizatsiyi kompleksnoyi terapiyi. Semeynaya medytsyna. 2016;5(67):18-25. [in Ukrainian].
42. Dobryk OO, Secunda MO, Derkach IM, Gorgota OM, Halaniya CE, Dobrik DS. Suchasni pidkhody do likuvannya infektsiyi sechovykh shlyakhiv u ditey z urakhuvannyam utvorennya bakterialnykh bioplivok. Zdorove rebenka. 2017;4(12):475-85. [in Ukrainian].
43. Synetar EO, Loskutova MM. Vplyv preparatu «Aflazyn®» na adhezyvni vlastyvosti mikroorhanizmiv – zbudnykiv kateter-asotsiyovanykh infektsiy. Zdorove zhenshchyny. 2013;3(79):210-3. [in Ukrainian].
44. Synetar EO, Pokas OV, Avdyeyeva LV. Vplyv nanoselenu na bioplivkoutvorennya E. faecalis i C. albicans v asotsiatsiyi. Dovkillya ta Zdorovya. 2014;4(71):42-5. [in Ukrainian].

«Bulletin of problems biology and medicine» Issue 2 (144), 2018 year, 59-63 pages, index UDK 579.22:577.151.6-083.1/532.692

10.29254/2077-4214-2018-2-144-59-63