Back

Metabolic flux fingerprinting differentiates planktonic and biofilm states of Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Staphylococcus aureus

Lichtenberg, M.; Kragh, K. N.; Fritz, B. G.; Bier Kirkegaard, J.; Bjarnsholt, T.

2020-07-15 microbiology
10.1101/2020.07.15.203828 bioRxiv
Show abstract

The challenges of defining the biofilm phenotype has been clear for decades. Many biomarkers for biofilm are known, but methods for identifying these are often invasive and/or complicated. These methods often rely on disrupting the biofilm matrix or examining virulence factors and compounds, which may only be expressed under certain conditions. We used microcalorimetric measurements of metabolic energy release to investigate whether unchallenged, planktonic Pseudomonas aeruginosa displayed differences in metabolism compared to surface-bound and non-attached biofilms. The pattern of energy release observed in the recorded microcalorimetric thermograms clearly depended on growth state, though the total energy expenditure was not different between growth states. To characterize these differences, we developed a classification pipeline utilizing machine learning algorithms to classify growth state, based on the observed patterns of energy release. With this approach, we could with high accuracy detect the growth form of blinded samples. To challenge the algorithm, we attempted to limit the amount of training data. By training the algorithm with only a single data point from each growth form, we obtained a mean accuracy of 90.5% using two principal components. Further validation of the classification pipeline showed that the approach was not limited to P. aeruginosa but could also be used for detection of gram-positive Staphylococcus aureus biofilm. We propose that microcalorimetric measurements, in combination with this new quantitative framework, can be used as a non-invasive biomarker to detect the presence of biofilm. These results could have a significant potential in clinical settings where the detection of biofilms in infections often means a different outcome and treatment regime for the patient.

Matching journals

The top 4 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
npj Biofilms and Microbiomes
56 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
18.1%
2
Biofilm
15 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
12.2%
3
mSystems
361 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
12.0%
4
Microbiology Spectrum
435 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
8.0%
50% of probability mass above
5
mSphere
281 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
6.2%
6
Frontiers in Microbiology
375 papers in training set
Top 2%
3.9%
7
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 39%
3.5%
8
mBio
750 papers in training set
Top 5%
3.0%
9
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 49%
2.0%
10
Journal of Microbiological Methods
11 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
2.0%
11
Frontiers in Cellular and Infection Microbiology
98 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.7%
12
Water Research
74 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
1.7%
13
Microbiology
57 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
1.6%
14
Applied and Environmental Microbiology
301 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.2%
15
iScience
1063 papers in training set
Top 24%
1.1%
16
PLOS Computational Biology
1633 papers in training set
Top 22%
0.9%
17
eLife
5422 papers in training set
Top 54%
0.9%
18
MicrobiologyOpen
18 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
0.8%
19
PLOS Biology
408 papers in training set
Top 19%
0.8%
20
ACS Infectious Diseases
74 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.7%
21
BMC Genomics
328 papers in training set
Top 6%
0.7%
22
Microbial Genomics
204 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.7%
23
Journal of Bacteriology
190 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
0.7%
24
Environmental Pollution
35 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.6%
25
Nature Communications
4913 papers in training set
Top 66%
0.6%