Skip to main content
  • ASM
    • Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy
    • Applied and Environmental Microbiology
    • Clinical Microbiology Reviews
    • Clinical and Vaccine Immunology
    • EcoSal Plus
    • Eukaryotic Cell
    • Infection and Immunity
    • Journal of Bacteriology
    • Journal of Clinical Microbiology
    • Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education
    • Journal of Virology
    • mBio
    • Microbiology and Molecular Biology Reviews
    • Microbiology Resource Announcements
    • Microbiology Spectrum
    • Molecular and Cellular Biology
    • mSphere
    • mSystems
  • Log in
  • My alerts
  • My Cart

Main menu

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Current Issue
    • Accepted Manuscripts
    • COVID-19 Special Collection
    • Archive
    • Minireviews
  • For Authors
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Scope
    • Editorial Policy
    • Submission, Review, & Publication Processes
    • Organization and Format
    • Errata, Author Corrections, Retractions
    • Illustrations and Tables
    • Nomenclature
    • Abbreviations and Conventions
    • Publication Fees
    • Ethics Resources and Policies
  • About the Journal
    • About JCM
    • Editor in Chief
    • Editorial Board
    • For Reviewers
    • For the Media
    • For Librarians
    • For Advertisers
    • Alerts
    • RSS
    • FAQ
  • Subscribe
    • Members
    • Institutions
  • ASM
    • Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy
    • Applied and Environmental Microbiology
    • Clinical Microbiology Reviews
    • Clinical and Vaccine Immunology
    • EcoSal Plus
    • Eukaryotic Cell
    • Infection and Immunity
    • Journal of Bacteriology
    • Journal of Clinical Microbiology
    • Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education
    • Journal of Virology
    • mBio
    • Microbiology and Molecular Biology Reviews
    • Microbiology Resource Announcements
    • Microbiology Spectrum
    • Molecular and Cellular Biology
    • mSphere
    • mSystems

User menu

  • Log in
  • My alerts
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Journal of Clinical Microbiology
publisher-logosite-logo

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Current Issue
    • Accepted Manuscripts
    • COVID-19 Special Collection
    • Archive
    • Minireviews
  • For Authors
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Scope
    • Editorial Policy
    • Submission, Review, & Publication Processes
    • Organization and Format
    • Errata, Author Corrections, Retractions
    • Illustrations and Tables
    • Nomenclature
    • Abbreviations and Conventions
    • Publication Fees
    • Ethics Resources and Policies
  • About the Journal
    • About JCM
    • Editor in Chief
    • Editorial Board
    • For Reviewers
    • For the Media
    • For Librarians
    • For Advertisers
    • Alerts
    • RSS
    • FAQ
  • Subscribe
    • Members
    • Institutions
Bacteriology

Azithromycin Retards Pseudomonas aeruginosa Biofilm Formation

Richard J. Gillis, Barbara H. Iglewski
Richard J. Gillis
Department of Microbiology and Immunology, University of Rochester School of Medicine and Dentistry, Rochester, New York
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Barbara H. Iglewski
Department of Microbiology and Immunology, University of Rochester School of Medicine and Dentistry, Rochester, New York
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: bigl@mail.rochester.edu
DOI: 10.1128/JCM.42.12.5842-5845.2004
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

ABSTRACT

Using a flow cell biofilm model, we showed that a sub-MIC of azithromycin (AZM) can delay but not inhibit Pseudomonas aeruginosa biofilm formation and results in the development of a stable AZM resistance phenotype. Furthermore, mature biofilms were not affected by AZM.

The opportunistic pathogen Pseudomonas aeruginosa is the leading cause of morbidity and mortality in patients with cystic fibrosis (CF) (1). P. aeruginosa infections can be difficult to eradicate due to their propensity to form biofilms (10) and their inherent resistance to antibiotics. Treatment regimens generally involve a rigorous and aggressive antibiotic assault to minimize the detrimental cycle of infection, inflammation, and subsequent scar tissue formation. The use of azithromycin (AZM), a macrolide antibiotic, in treating chronic infections of P. aeruginosa in the lungs of CF patients has been gaining favor due to the improved outcome of CF patients treated with this antibiotic (5, 15, 20). AZM is approved for treatment of acute pulmonary bacterial infections but not against P. aeruginosa, as MICs are significantly higher than the 8-μg/ml concentration achievable in the lung tissue (7). Although the exact mechanism by which AZM may be acting to improve CF patient outcome remains elusive, both the anti-inflammatory and antimicrobial characteristics of the drug have been implicated (14, 16).

Previous studies using short-term static biofilm models suggest that a sub-MIC of AZM can alter or inhibit biofilm development by P. aeruginosa (3, 6, 11, 13). We investigated the effectiveness of a sub-MIC of AZM against both nascent and mature P. aeruginosa PAO1 biofilms by a previously described method of flow cells and confocal microscopy (4) over an extended time frame. FAB medium (8) amended with 20 μM KNO3 and, when specified, AZM (a generous gift from Pfizer, Groton, Conn.) at 2 or 8 μg/ml was used for all flow cell studies. Addition of AZM (2 μg/ml) delayed initial biofilm formation in comparison to that of the unexposed control (Fig. 1A and B) and corroborated the results of previous static biofilm studies (3, 6, 11). This finding was particularly impressive since the MIC for our PAO1 strain was 128 μg/ml. Interestingly, the effects of a sub-MIC of AZM appear to be specific to the initial stages of biofilm development since, after 48 h, a resistance phenotype was able to subvert the inhibitory effect of AZM and result in a very robust biofilm (Fig. 1B). This result is in contrast to previous reports suggesting biofilm inhibition by this drug (11, 19). These previous observations may have been biased by the use of static biofilm models in which nutrients are finite, thereby limiting the practical application of this technique. Thus, the static model system may not have provided sufficient time for a biofilm variant to develop and be detected.

To determine if the resistance phenotype we observed was a stable inheritable trait, cells derived from a biofilm developed in the presence of 2 μg of AZM/ml (PAO1-BV) were harvested and passaged 10 times planktonically in Luria-Bertani broth containing 200 μg of carbenicillin/ml (to maintain the pTdK-borne gfp). In the absence of AZM, biofilm formation by PAO1-BV (Fig. 1C) appeared to be both temporally and architecturally similar to that of PAO1 (Fig. 1A). In the presence of 2 μg of AZM/ml, biofilm formation by PAO1-BV was not delayed (Fig. 1D) in contrast to that which we observed for PAO1 (Fig. 1B). The stability of the PAO1-BV phenotype even after repeated passage in the absence of AZM implies the presence of a stably inherited trait. As the images shown in Fig. 1 are merely representative of a single image area, we monitored five randomly selected areas per biofilm and performed a quantitative comparison of PAO1 and PAO1-BV architectures by previously described methods (9). We measured the total biomass, average thickness, and surface roughness parameters of each image area (Fig. 2). These compiled data quantitatively support our microscopic observations in that they clearly indicate that AZM delays biofilm formation in PAO1, as evidenced by decreased biomass and depth and increased surface roughness. Conversely, the measurements of these parameters for PAO1-BV grown in the presence of drug were similar to the data observed for PAO1 in the absence of drug.

While exposure to 2 μg of AZM/ml causes a delay in initial PAO1 biofilm development, mature biofilms were not affected by the presence of 8 μg of AZM/ml (Fig. 3), the highest clinically achievable level in lung tissue (7). PAO1 biofilms were cultivated in flow cells for 3 days as described above and then exposed to 8 μg of AZM/ml for 24 h. Biofilms were stained identically with BacLight Live/Dead stain (12), examined by confocal microscopy, and compared to non-AZM-exposed biofilms treated in the same way. In this experiment, plasmid pTdK was not present in the strains tested in order to alleviate interference between green fluorescent protein and the Live/Dead stain fluorophores. In addition, viable plate counts of bacteria scraped from biofilms of PAO1 either exposed (6.5 ± 1.9 109 CFU [mean ± standard deviation]) or not exposed (1.9 ± 0.5 × 109) to 8 μg of AZM/ml showed no significant difference. Taken together, our data lead to us to conclude that 8 μg of AZM/ml is not effective in killing mature P. aeruginosa biofilms.

Using biofilm methods that allow for observations over longer periods of time, we have demonstrated that AZM, at a sub-MIC, has the ability to retard, but not prevent, biofilm formation. Although the exact mechanism by which AZM affects P. aeruginosa during this stage of biofilm development is unknown, AZM has been shown to affect production of P. aeruginosa outer membrane proteins, pili, and alginate (11, 18, 21). Subtle alterations in these components may influence the initial adherence of the bacteria, resulting in altered biofilm development. A link between AZM sensitivity and quorum sensing has also been suggested (6, 17).

Investigations into the potential mechanisms of AZM resistance by the biofilm variant are ongoing. The stability of PAO1-BV supports the acquisition of a stable mutation(s), or the presence of an inherent persistent population, defined as a naturally hyperresistant subset of the population (2). Although AZM was not effective against mature biofilms, it does appear to be initially effective against nascent biofilms, which may occur during acute stages of infection when biofilm bacteria are sloughing and colonizing new regions of the lung. Thus, AZM may aid in limiting the spread of the infection within the lung.

FIG. 1.
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
FIG. 1.

Scanning confocal micrographs of P. aeruginosa PAO1 biofilms fluorescing green fluorescent protein cultivated in flow cells with or without continuous exposure to 2 μg of AZM/ml. Images are representative of one area of the biofilm monitored throughout the duration of the experiment. (A) PAO1 without AZM; (B) PAO1 with AZM; (C) PAO1-BV without AZM; (D) PAO1-BV with AZM. Bar, 20 μm.

FIG. 2.
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
FIG. 2.

Comparison of characteristics of PAO1 and PAO1-BV biofilms calculated from image stacks cultivated in flow cells and imaged by confocal laser scanning microscopy. (A) Total biomass; (B) average thickness; (C) surface roughness. Symbols: ⧫, PAO1; ▪, PAO1 exposed to 2 μg of AZM/ml; ▴, PAO1-BV; ○, PAO1-BV exposed to 2 μg of AZM/ml. Each data point represents the average of five image stacks collected from randomly selected areas ± 1 standard deviation. An asterisk indicates that surface roughness could not be calculated at earlier time points when only monolayers of biofilm thickness existed.

FIG. 3.
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
FIG. 3.

Scanning confocal micrographs of 4-day PAO1 biofilms cultivated in flow cells and then stained with BacLight Live/Dead stain. (A) Exposure to 8 μg of AZM/ml for 24 h; (B) no exposure to AZM. Images represent overlays of green (Live) and red (Dead) signals collected by confocal laser scanning microscopy at a magnification of ×400.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We gratefully acknowledge L. Passador and M. J. Filiatrault for review of this manuscript.

This work was supported by grants from the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation Therapeutics (IGLEWS03FG1 and IGLEWSS00G0) and the National Institutes of Health (NIH R37AI33713) to B.H.I. R.J.G was supported by a National Institutes of Health Training Grant (5T32A107362).

FOOTNOTES

    • Received 14 June 2004.
    • Returned for modification 2 August 2004.
    • Accepted 23 August 2004.
  • Copyright © 2004 American Society for Microbiology

REFERENCES

  1. 1.↵
    Brennan, A. L., and D. M. Geddes. 2002. Cystic fibrosis. Curr. Opin. Infect. Dis.15:175-182.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  2. 2.↵
    Brooun, A., S. Liu, and K. Lewis. 2000. A dose-response study of antibiotic resistance in Pseudomonas aeruginosa biofilms. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother.44:640-646.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  3. 3.↵
    Carfartan, G., P. Gerardin, D. Turck, and M. O. Husson. 2004. Effect of subinhibitory concentrations of azithromycin on adherence of Pseudomonas aeruginosa to bronchial mucins collected from cystic fibrosis patients. J. Antimicrob. Chemother.53:686-688. (First published 3 March 2004.)
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  4. 4.↵
    De Kievit, T. R., R. Gillis, S. Marx, C. Brown, and B. H. Iglewski. 2001. Quorum-sensing genes in Pseudomonas aeruginosa biofilms: their role and expression patterns. Appl. Environ. Microbiol.67:1865-1873.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  5. 5.↵
    Equi, A., I. M. Balfour-Lynn, A. Bush, and M. Rosenthal. 2002. Long term azithromycin in children with cystic fibrosis: a randomised, placebo-controlled crossover trial. Lancet360:978-984.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  6. 6.↵
    Favre-Bonte, S., T. Kohler, and C. Van Delden. 2003. Biofilm formation by Pseudomonas aeruginosa: role of the C4-HSL cell-to-cell signal and inhibition by azithromycin. J. Antimicrob. Chemother.52:598-604.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  7. 7.↵
    Girard, A. E., D. Girard, A. R. English, T. D. Gootz, C. R. Cimochowski, J. A. Faiella, S. L. Haskell, and J. A. Retsema. 1987. Pharmacokinetic and in vivo studies with azithromycin (CP-62,993), a new macrolide with an extended half-life and excellent tissue distribution. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother.31:1948-1954.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  8. 8.↵
    Heydorn, A., B. K. Ersboll, M. Hentzer, M. R. Parsek, M. Givskov, and S. Molin. 2000. Experimental reproducibility in flow-chamber biofilms. Microbiology146:2409-2415.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  9. 9.↵
    Heydorn, A., A. T. Nielsen, M. Hentzer, C. Sternberg, M. Givskov, B. K. Ersboll, and S. Molin. 2000. Quantification of biofilm structures by the novel computer program COMSTAT. Microbiology146:2395-2407.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  10. 10.↵
    Hoiby, N., H. Krogh Johansen, C. Moser, Z. Song, O. Ciofu, and A. Kharazmi. 2001. Pseudomonas aeruginosa and the in vitro and in vivo biofilm mode of growth. Microbes Infect.3:23-35.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  11. 11.↵
    Ichimiya, T., K. Takeoka, K. Hiramatsu, K. Hirai, T. Yamasaki, and M. Nasu. 1996. The influence of azithromycin on the biofilm formation of Pseudomonas aeruginosa in vitro. Chemotherapy42:186-191.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  12. 12.↵
    Mah, T. F., B. Pitts, B. Pellock, G. C. Walker, P. S. Stewart, and G. A. O'Toole. 2003. A genetic basis for Pseudomonas aeruginosa biofilm antibiotic resistance. Nature426:306-310.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  13. 13.↵
    Moskowitz, S. M., J. M. Foster, J. Emerson, and J. L. Burns. 2004. Clinically feasible biofilm susceptibility assay for isolates of Pseudomonas aeruginosa from patients with cystic fibrosis. J. Clin. Microbiol.42:1915-1922.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  14. 14.↵
    Nguyen, T., S. G. Louie, P. M. Beringer, and M. A. Gill. 2002. Potential role of macrolide antibiotics in the management of cystic fibrosis lung disease. Curr. Opin Pulm. Med.8:521-528.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  15. 15.↵
    Saiman, L., B. C. Marshall, N. Mayer-Hamblett, J. L. Burns, A. L. Quittner, D. A. Cibene, S. Coquillette, A. Y. Fieberg, F. J. Accurso, and P. W. Campbell III. 2003. Azithromycin in patients with cystic fibrosis chronically infected with Pseudomonas aeruginosa: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA290:1749-1756.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  16. 16.↵
    Swords, W. E., and B. K. Rubin. 2003. Macrolide antibiotics, bacterial populations and inflammatory airway disease. Neth. J. Med.61:242-248.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  17. 17.↵
    Tateda, K., R. Comte, J. C. Pechere, T. Kohler, K. Yamaguchi, and C. Van Delden. 2001. Azithromycin inhibits quorum sensing in Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother.45:1930-1933.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  18. 18.↵
    Tateda, K., Y. Ishii, Y. Hirakata, T. Matsumoto, A. Ohno, and K. Yamaguchi. 1994. Profiles of outer membrane proteins and lipopolysaccharide of Pseudomonas aeruginosa grown in the presence of sub-MICs of macrolide antibiotics and their relation to enhanced serum sensitivity. J. Antimicrob. Chemother.34:931-942.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  19. 19.↵
    Vranes, J. 2000. Effect of subminimal inhibitory concentrations of azithromycin on adherence of Pseudomonas aeruginosa to polystyrene. J. Chemother.12:280-285.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  20. 20.↵
    Wolter, J., S. Seeney, S. Bell, S. Bowler, P. Masel, and J. McCormack. 2002. Effect of long term treatment with azithromycin on disease parameters in cystic fibrosis: a randomised trial. Thorax57:212-216.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  21. 21.↵
    Wolter, J. M., and J. G. McCormack. 1998. The effect of subinhibitory concentrations of antibiotics on adherence of Pseudomonas aeruginosa to cystic fibrosis (CF) and non-CF-affected tracheal epithelial cells. J. Infect.37:217-223.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
PreviousNext
Back to top
Download PDF
Citation Tools
Azithromycin Retards Pseudomonas aeruginosa Biofilm Formation
Richard J. Gillis, Barbara H. Iglewski
Journal of Clinical Microbiology Dec 2004, 42 (12) 5842-5845; DOI: 10.1128/JCM.42.12.5842-5845.2004

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Print

Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email

Thank you for sharing this Journal of Clinical Microbiology article.

NOTE: We request your email address only to inform the recipient that it was you who recommended this article, and that it is not junk mail. We do not retain these email addresses.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Azithromycin Retards Pseudomonas aeruginosa Biofilm Formation
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from Journal of Clinical Microbiology
(Your Name) thought you would be interested in this article in Journal of Clinical Microbiology.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Share
Azithromycin Retards Pseudomonas aeruginosa Biofilm Formation
Richard J. Gillis, Barbara H. Iglewski
Journal of Clinical Microbiology Dec 2004, 42 (12) 5842-5845; DOI: 10.1128/JCM.42.12.5842-5845.2004
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Top
  • Article
    • ABSTRACT
    • ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
    • FOOTNOTES
    • REFERENCES
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

KEYWORDS

Anti-Bacterial Agents
azithromycin
biofilms
Pseudomonas aeruginosa

Related Articles

Cited By...

About

  • About JCM
  • Editor in Chief
  • Board of Editors
  • Editor Conflicts of Interest
  • For Reviewers
  • For the Media
  • For Librarians
  • For Advertisers
  • Alerts
  • RSS
  • FAQ
  • Permissions
  • Journal Announcements

Authors

  • ASM Author Center
  • Submit a Manuscript
  • Article Types
  • Resources for Clinical Microbiologists
  • Ethics
  • Contact Us

Follow #JClinMicro

@ASMicrobiology

       

ASM Journals

ASM journals are the most prominent publications in the field, delivering up-to-date and authoritative coverage of both basic and clinical microbiology.

About ASM | Contact Us | Press Room

 

ASM is a member of

Scientific Society Publisher Alliance

 

American Society for Microbiology
1752 N St. NW
Washington, DC 20036
Phone: (202) 737-3600

 

Copyright © 2021 American Society for Microbiology | Privacy Policy | Website feedback

Print ISSN: 0095-1137; Online ISSN: 1098-660X