Brief Report
4 February 2013

Patterned Hydrophobic Domains in the Exopolymer Matrix of Shewanella oneidensis MR-1 Biofilms

ABSTRACT

Water-dispersible amphiphilic surface-engineered quantum dots (QDs) were found to be strongly accumulated within discrete zones of the exopolymer network of Shewanella oneidensis MR-1 biofilms, but not on the cell surfaces. These microdomains showed a patterned distribution in the exopolymer matrix, which led to a restricted diffusion of the amphiphilic nanoparticles.

TEXT

The self-produced matrix of organic exopolymeric substances (EPS) contributes to biofilm three-dimensional (3D) architecture and stability. It is composed of proteins capable of carrying out enzymatic activities, polysaccharides, lipids, nucleic acids, and heteropolymers (14). The EPS entanglement is mostly hydrated (5), and its cohesiveness is governed by many interactions, including hydrogen bonding, cross-linking by multivalent cations, and hydrophobic associations (6). These interactions dramatically influence the process of diffusion of ions, molecules, and particles through the three-dimensional organization of the biofilm framework (711). The EPS matrix behaves as hydrophobically modified hydrogels (12), and the distribution of the hydrophobic regions of the matrix should be quite heterogeneous, as pointed out by previous reports (3, 11). It is suspected that these hydrophobic domains contribute to the accumulation of poorly soluble compounds (1315) and to the adhesion of hydrophobic cells (16). Their distribution in the EPS matrix and/or on the cell surfaces is, however, still an open question.
Recently we have reported the use of amphiphilic CdSe/ZnS (core/shell) quantum dots (QDs) capped with dihydrolipoic acid (DHLA) linked to phenylalanine amino acid (CdSe/ZnS–DHLA-Phe) for the exploration of the hydrophilic/hydrophobic balance in bacterial biofilms (17). We found that the heterogeneous distribution of these QDs within the biofilm depended on their surface amphiphilicity without demonstrating their exact localization. Here, we built on those findings and report the use of these red-emitting amphiphilic QDs to explore their interaction with planktonic cells and their localization within Shewanella oneidensis biofilms. These amphiphilic QDs were used to target unambiguously the presence of hydrophobic domains in the EPS of biofilms and show the heterogeneity of these compartments organized under the control of living bacterial cells. For this purpose, the amphiphilic QD diffusion was analyzed noninvasively by fluorescence correlation spectroscopy (FCS) and QD accumulation was imaged by laser scanning confocal microscopy (LSCM).

Amphiphilic QDs did not interact with planktonically grown Shewanella oneidensis cell envelopes.

Shewanella oneidensis MR-1, used in this study, belongs to a genus represented by many members, whose surface properties (charge, hydrophobicity) may differ significantly according to the species or the environment (18). The Shewanella genus is ubiquitous; it has been found in marine water and freshwater (Lake Oneida, NY) and associated with sediments and is known to form biofilms (19). Moreover, it represents an ideal candidate for our study because of its aerobic and anaerobic physiology, which may reinforce its adaptation to biofilm growth and activity stratification.
S. oneidensis MR-1 cells were grown at 30°C for 18 h in nutritive medium supplemented with lactate and fumarate (LML+F) and washed twice by centrifugation/suspension in MgSO4 solution (10 mM). We ascertained by FCS measurements that the red-emitting CdSe/ZnS–DHLA-Phe QDs (hydrodynamic diameter, ∼20 nm) did not interact with the cell surface of these laboratory-grown bacteria (Fig. 1). FCS experiments were performed on an SP5 (Leica Microsystems, France) confocal microscope using an excitation wavelength of 488 nm, leading to a photoluminescence centered at 600 nm as detailed in reference 17. The fluorescence autocorrelation curves [g(τ)] were fitted by a two-component diffusion model (7). The QD diffusion times (τ1D) and coefficients (D) in water dispersion and in S. oneidensis suspension were quite similar (τ1D = 0.55 ± 0.05 ms, D = 2.4 ± 0.3 × 10−11 m2/s and τ1D = 0.64 ± 0.05 ms, D = 2.1 ± 0.3 × 10−11 m2/s, respectively). The slightly distorted correlation signal observed corresponds to QD aggregates both in water and in bacterial suspensions with respective amounts of 16% and 28% and a mean diffusion time (τ2D) of ∼8.0 ± 3 ms. Moreover, neither surface degradation nor loss of fluorescence due to changes in the electronic environment was detected for the amphiphilic QDs used. Thus, the noninteraction of our negatively charged QDs with the planktonic cells could be explained by the presence of hydrophilic capsular polysaccharides (18).
Fig 1
Fig 1 Fluorescence autocorrelation curves [g(τ)] of 250 nM amphiphilic QDs in water and in the presence of planktonic cells.

CdSe/ZnS–DHLA-Phe QDs accumulated in microdomains in the EPS matrix of Shewanella oneidensis MR-1 biofilms.

The mobility of the amphiphilic QDs in the biofilm was found to be drastically reduced, as revealed by the distortion of the FCS curves measured at different points through the biofilm in comparison with that obtained for QDs dispersed in water (Fig. 2). In addition, the diffusion kinetics of QDs inside the biofilm was monitored by time course fluorescence imaging for 75 min. By assessing the diffusion kinetics of QDs inside the biofilm using time course fluorescence imaging for 75 min, we found that the QDs accumulate in every part of the biofilm, with a more pronounced concentration at the periphery than at the center of bacterial aggregates (see Fig. S1 in the supplemental material), contrary to what has been previously shown with hydrophilic QDs (17).
Fig 2
Fig 2 Fluorescence autocorrelation curves [g(τ)] of QDs in four points in the biofilm, measured with respect to a separation distance of 10 μm, and in pure water (the lowest curve).
In order to specify the biofilm parts labeled by the amphiphilic QDs, i.e., extracellular microdomains of S. oneidensis MR-1 biofilms and/or cell surface of the bacteria, a dual staining was performed with both 2.5 μM Syto 9, a cell-permeant nucleic acid stain which allows easy observation of the cells, and the QDs. Confocal microscopy imaging was performed using a beam line from a continuous argon ion laser as the sole source of excitation at 488 nm (17). The Syto 9 and CdSe/ZnS–DHLA-Phe QD fluorescence signals were collected at 495 to 530 nm and 580 to 610 nm, respectively. Furthermore, we applied a spectral reassignment procedure based on a Bio-Rad algorithm to reduce the inherent fluorescence overlap of each chromophore. Figure 3, as well as Fig. S2 in the supplemental material, shows clearly that the cells are easy to recognize due to the green fluorescence of Syto 9 and uniformly distributed in the biofilm, while the amphiphilic QDs are unevenly accumulated and form clusters in the extracellular space between the bacterial cells. Some of the tagged areas (see Fig. S2B in the supplemental material) are large (5 to 15 μm). This QD overaccumulation could be partly attributed to probe-probe interactions. According to previous semivariogram calculations carried out on the whole biofilm (17), the pseudoperiodic distribution of the amphiphilic QDs should be attributed to the EPS matrix only. The QD accumulation in the exopolymeric matrix of the biofilm reveals irregularly shaped, micrometric (average extent, ca. 4 ± 2.2 μm), closely spaced (2 to 5 μm side to side), and patterned hydrophobic microdomains (Fig. 4). The frontier of the exopolymeric matrix in Fig. 4 is based on the outline estimated on the basis of the threshold of gray levels of wide-field images. This consistent information suggests a high density of hydrophobic microdomains per unit volume (up to 106 per mm3) of the S. oneidensis biofilm matrix. We have also checked the distribution of the hydrophobic domains in biofilms grown under higher (ca. 6 mg/liter) versus lower (ca. 1 mg/liter) dioxygen concentrations, as the concentration of dioxygen has been reported to be one determinant parameter of biofilm cohesiveness (20). However, similar patterns of QD cluster distribution were observed (data not shown), suggesting the same matrix architecture with respect to hydrophobic microdomains even with the lowest dioxygen concentration tested here.
Fig 3
Fig 3 Confocal microscopy image taken at 30 μm from the bottom glass slide after dual staining of a Shewanella biofilm with 2.5 μM Syto 9 (green) and 250 nM amphiphilic CdSe/ZnS–DHLA-Phe QDs (red).
Fig 4
Fig 4 Schematic representation of Shewanella biofilm texture showing structure pattern of hydrophobic domains within EPS matrix (blue regions). Clustered hydrophobic domains (red) generate pseudoperiodic structures in the whole polymeric architecture (blue). Sd, average microdomain spacing; ec, cluster extent. The green objects represent bacterial cells and their distribution.
To summarize, using a surface-functionalized amphiphilic quantum dot we demonstrated the presence of a high density of hydrophobic microdomains with a patterned distribution throughout the exopolymer matrix of S. oneidensis MR-1 biofilms. This hydrophobic texture (i.e., arrangement and size of microdomains) in such a highly hydrated network should allow a protective accumulation of poorly soluble xenobiotics (e.g., steroids, hydrocarbons, etc.) outside the cells.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

This work was supported by the Agence Nationale pour la Recherche (ANR blanc 07, DYNABIO project).

Supplemental Material

File (zam999104101so1.pdf)
ASM does not own the copyrights to Supplemental Material that may be linked to, or accessed through, an article. The authors have granted ASM a non-exclusive, world-wide license to publish the Supplemental Material files. Please contact the corresponding author directly for reuse.

REFERENCES

1.
Adav SS, Chun-Te Lin J, Yang Z, Whiteley CG, Lee DJ, Peng XF, and Zhang ZP. 2010. Stereological assessment of extracellular polymeric substances, exo-enzymes, and specific bacterial strains in bioaggregates using fluorescence experiments. Biotechnol. Adv. 28:255–280.
2.
Cao B, Brown RN, Xiong Y, Fredrickson JK, Romine MF, Marshall MJ, Lipton MS, and Beyenal H. 2011. Extracellular polymeric substances from Shewanella sp. HRCR-1 biofilms: characterization by infrared spectroscopy and proteomics. Environ. Microbiol. 13:1018–1031.
3.
Lawrence JR, Swerhone GDW, Kuhliche U, and Neu TR. 2007. In situ evidence for microdomains in the polymer matrix of bacterial microcolonies. Can. J. Microbiol. 53:450–458.
4.
Wagner M, Ivleva NP, Haisch C, Niessner R, and Horn H. 2009. Combined use of confocal laser microscopy (CSLM) and Raman microscopy (RM): investigations on EPS-matrix. Water Res. 43:63–76.
5.
Dohnalkova AC, Marshall MJ, Arey BW, Williams KH, Buck EC, and Fredrickson JK. 2011. Imaging hydrated microbial extracellular polymers: comparative analysis by electron microscopy. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 77:1254–1262.
6.
Flemming HC and Wingender J. 2010. The biofilm matrix. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 8:623–633.
7.
Briandet R, Lacroix-Gueu P, Renault M, Lecart S, Meylheuc T, Bidnenko E, Steenkeste K, Bellon-Fontaine MN, and Fontaine-Aupart MP. 2008. Fluorescence correlation spectroscopy to study diffusion and reaction of bacteriophages inside biofilms. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 74:2135–2143.
8.
Takenaka S, Pitts B, Trivedi HM, and Stewart PS. 2009. Diffusion of macromolecules in model oral biofilms. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 75:1750–1753.
9.
Tourney J, Ngwenya BT, Moselmans JWF, Tetley L, and Cowie GL. 2008. The effect of extra cellular polymers (EPS) on the proton adsorption characteristics of the thermophile Bacillus licheniformis S-86. Chem. Geol. 247:1–15.
10.
Waharte F, Steenkeste K, Briandet R, and Fontaine-Aupart MP. 2010. Diffusion measurements inside biofilms by imaged-based fluorescence recovery after photobleaching (FRAP) analysis with a commercial confocal laser scanning microscope. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 76:5860–5869.
11.
Wolfaardt GM, Lawrence JR, Robarts RD, and Caldwell DE. 1998. In situ characterization of biofilm exopolymers involved in the accumulation of chlorinated organics. Microb. Ecol. 35:213–223.
12.
Miquelard-Garnier G, Creton C, and Hourdet D. 2007. Synthesis and viscoelastic properties of hydrophobically modified hydrogels. Macromol. Symp. 265:189–194.
13.
Späth R, Flemming HC, and Wuertz W. 1998. Sorption properties of biofilms. Water Sci. Technol. 37:207–210.
14.
Wicke D, Böckelmann U, and Reemstsma T. 2008. Environmental influences on the partitioning and diffusion of hydrophobic organic contaminants. Environ. Sci. Technol. 42:1990–1996.
15.
Writer JH, Ryan JN, and Barber LB. 2011. Role of biofilms in sorptive removal of steroidal hormones and 4-nonylphenol compounds from stream. Environ. Sci. Technol. 45:7275–7283.
16.
Zita A and Hermansson M. 1997. Effect of bacterial cell surface structure and hydrophobicity on attachment to activated sludge flocs. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 63:1168–1170.
17.
Aldeek F, Mustin C, Balan L, Roques-Carmes T, Fontaine-Aupart MP, and Schneider R. 2011. Surface-engineered quantum dots for the labelling of hydrophobic microdomains in bacterial biofilms. Biomaterials 32:5459–5470.
18.
Korenevsky A and Beveridge TJ. 2007. The surface physicochemistry and adhesiveness of Shewanella are affected by their surface polysaccharides. Microbiology 153:1872–1883.
19.
Hau HH and Gralnick JA. 2007. Ecology and biotechnology of the genus Shewanella. Annu. Rev. Microbiol. 61:237–258.
20.
McLean JS, Pinchuck GE, Geydebrekht OV, Bllski CL, Zkrajsek BA, Hill EA, Saffarini DA, Romine MF, Gorby YA, Fredrickson JK, and Bellaev AS. 2008. Oxygen-dependent autoaggregation in Shewanella oneidensis MR-1. Environ. Microbiol. 10:1861–1876.

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image Applied and Environmental Microbiology
Applied and Environmental Microbiology
Volume 79Number 415 February 2013
Pages: 1400 - 1402
PubMed: 23220957

History

Received: 4 October 2012
Accepted: 2 December 2012
Published online: 4 February 2013

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Contributors

Authors

Fadi Aldeek
Université de Lorraine and CNRS, LCPME, UMR 7564, Villers-lès-Nancy, France
Université de Lorraine and CNRS, LRGP, UPR 3349, Nancy, France
Raphaël Schneider
Université de Lorraine and CNRS, LRGP, UPR 3349, Nancy, France
Marie-Pierre Fontaine-Aupart
Université Paris-Sud and CNRS, ISMO, Orsay, France
Christian Mustin
Université de Lorraine and CNRS, LIMOS, UMR 7137, Vandoeuvre-lès-Nancy, France
Sandrine Lécart
CPBM/CLUPS/LUMAT Université Paris-Sud FR2764, Orsay, France
Christophe Merlin
Université de Lorraine and CNRS, LCPME, UMR 7564, Villers-lès-Nancy, France
Jean-Claude Block
Université de Lorraine and CNRS, LCPME, UMR 7564, Villers-lès-Nancy, France

Notes

Address correspondence to Jean-Claude Block, [email protected].

Metrics & Citations

Metrics

Note:

  • For recently published articles, the TOTAL download count will appear as zero until a new month starts.
  • There is a 3- to 4-day delay in article usage, so article usage will not appear immediately after publication.
  • Citation counts come from the Crossref Cited by service.

Citations

If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice. For an editable text file, please select Medlars format which will download as a .txt file. Simply select your manager software from the list below and click Download.

View Options

Figures

Tables

Media

Share

Share

Share the article link

Share with email

Email a colleague

Share on social media

American Society for Microbiology ("ASM") is committed to maintaining your confidence and trust with respect to the information we collect from you on websites owned and operated by ASM ("ASM Web Sites") and other sources. This Privacy Policy sets forth the information we collect about you, how we use this information and the choices you have about how we use such information.
FIND OUT MORE about the privacy policy