How Bacteria Adhere to Brushy PEG Surfaces: Clinging to Flaws and Compressing the Brush

This study examined the compression of solvated polymer brushes on bioengineered surfaces during the initial stages of Staphylococcus aureus (S. aureus) adhesion from gentle flow. A series of PEG [poly(ethylene glycol)] brushes, 7–17 nm in height and completely nonadhesive to proteins and bacteria,...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Macromolecules 2012-10, Vol.45 (20), p.8373-8381
Hauptverfasser: Gon, S, Kumar, Kushi-Nidhi, Nüsslein, Klaus, Santore, Maria M
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 8381
container_issue 20
container_start_page 8373
container_title Macromolecules
container_volume 45
creator Gon, S
Kumar, Kushi-Nidhi
Nüsslein, Klaus
Santore, Maria M
description This study examined the compression of solvated polymer brushes on bioengineered surfaces during the initial stages of Staphylococcus aureus (S. aureus) adhesion from gentle flow. A series of PEG [poly(ethylene glycol)] brushes, 7–17 nm in height and completely nonadhesive to proteins and bacteria, were modified by the incorporation of sparse isolated ∼10 nm cationic polymer “patches” at their bases. These nanoscale regions, which lacked PEG tethers, were electrostatically attractive toward negative bacteria or proteins. S. aureus drawn to the interface by multiple adhesive patches compressed the PEG brush in the remaining contact region. The observed onset of bacterial or fibrinogen capture with increases in patch content was compared with calculations. Balancing the attraction energy (proportional to the number of patches engaging a bacterium during capture) against steric forces (calculated using the Alexander–DeGennes treatment) provided perspective on the brush compression. The results were consistent with a bacteria–surface gap on the order of the Debye length in these studies. In this limit of strong brush compression, structural features (height, persistence length) of the brush were unimportant so that osmotic pressure dominated the steric repulsion. Thus, the dominant factor for bacterial repulsion was the mass of PEG in the brush. This result explains empirical reports in the literature that identify the total PEG content of a brush as a criteria for prevention of bioadhesion, independent of tether length and spacing, within a reasonable range for those parameters. Bacterial capture was also compared to that of protein capture. It was found, surprisingly, that the patchy brushes were more protein- than bacteria-resistant. S. aureus adhesion was explained by the bacteria’s greater tendency to compress large areas of brush to interact with many patches. By contrast, proteins are thought to penetrate the brush at a few sites of PEO-free patches. The finding provides a mechanism for the literature reports that in vitro protein resistance is a poor predictor of in vitro implant failure related to cell–surface adhesion.
doi_str_mv 10.1021/ma300981r
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_pubme</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_3494094</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2084083610</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-a534t-fc3e604ae724b9e3c530188312acf5d45338c0a6d96229fcf9439d1213e4a5063</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqF0d9rFDEQB_Agij1PH_wHJC9CfVg7ySR7iQ9Ce_SHUFBQ8TFMs9nelt3Nmey29L_vtndeFQpCIA_zyWSSL2NvBXwUIMVBRwhgjUjP2ExoCYU2qJ-zGYBUhZV2scde5XwFIIRW-JLtSRTKCLmYsV9n8YYfkR9CaogfVquQAh8iP0pjXt3yb8en_PuYavIhf-LLtukvp3UPTlq6yZz6ii9jt04h54fCKmyOvmYvampzeLPd5-znyfGP5Vlx_vX0y_LwvCCNaihqj6EERWEh1YUN6DWCMAaFJF_rSmlE44HKypZS2trXVqGthBQYFGkocc4-b_qux4suVD70Q6LWrVPTUbp1kRr3b6VvVu4yXjtUVsHUbc72tw1S_D2GPLiuyT60LfUhjtlJMAoMlgL-S4WRpS7FNOlEP2yoTzHnFOrdRALcfWZul9lk3_39hJ38E9IE3m8BZU9tnaj3TX50pQajAR8d-eyu4pj66eefuPAOyI6o_w</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1826561622</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>How Bacteria Adhere to Brushy PEG Surfaces: Clinging to Flaws and Compressing the Brush</title><source>ACS Publications</source><creator>Gon, S ; Kumar, Kushi-Nidhi ; Nüsslein, Klaus ; Santore, Maria M</creator><creatorcontrib>Gon, S ; Kumar, Kushi-Nidhi ; Nüsslein, Klaus ; Santore, Maria M</creatorcontrib><description>This study examined the compression of solvated polymer brushes on bioengineered surfaces during the initial stages of Staphylococcus aureus (S. aureus) adhesion from gentle flow. A series of PEG [poly(ethylene glycol)] brushes, 7–17 nm in height and completely nonadhesive to proteins and bacteria, were modified by the incorporation of sparse isolated ∼10 nm cationic polymer “patches” at their bases. These nanoscale regions, which lacked PEG tethers, were electrostatically attractive toward negative bacteria or proteins. S. aureus drawn to the interface by multiple adhesive patches compressed the PEG brush in the remaining contact region. The observed onset of bacterial or fibrinogen capture with increases in patch content was compared with calculations. Balancing the attraction energy (proportional to the number of patches engaging a bacterium during capture) against steric forces (calculated using the Alexander–DeGennes treatment) provided perspective on the brush compression. The results were consistent with a bacteria–surface gap on the order of the Debye length in these studies. In this limit of strong brush compression, structural features (height, persistence length) of the brush were unimportant so that osmotic pressure dominated the steric repulsion. Thus, the dominant factor for bacterial repulsion was the mass of PEG in the brush. This result explains empirical reports in the literature that identify the total PEG content of a brush as a criteria for prevention of bioadhesion, independent of tether length and spacing, within a reasonable range for those parameters. Bacterial capture was also compared to that of protein capture. It was found, surprisingly, that the patchy brushes were more protein- than bacteria-resistant. S. aureus adhesion was explained by the bacteria’s greater tendency to compress large areas of brush to interact with many patches. By contrast, proteins are thought to penetrate the brush at a few sites of PEO-free patches. The finding provides a mechanism for the literature reports that in vitro protein resistance is a poor predictor of in vitro implant failure related to cell–surface adhesion.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0024-9297</identifier><identifier>ISSN: 1520-5835</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1520-5835</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1021/ma300981r</identifier><identifier>PMID: 23148127</identifier><identifier>CODEN: MAMOBX</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Washington, DC: American Chemical Society</publisher><subject>Applied sciences ; bacteria ; bioadhesion ; energy ; Exact sciences and technology ; fibrinogen ; Organic polymers ; osmotic pressure ; Physicochemistry of polymers ; polyethylene glycol ; Properties and characterization ; Staphylococcus aureus ; Surface properties</subject><ispartof>Macromolecules, 2012-10, Vol.45 (20), p.8373-8381</ispartof><rights>Copyright © 2012 American Chemical Society</rights><rights>2015 INIST-CNRS</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-a534t-fc3e604ae724b9e3c530188312acf5d45338c0a6d96229fcf9439d1213e4a5063</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-a534t-fc3e604ae724b9e3c530188312acf5d45338c0a6d96229fcf9439d1213e4a5063</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdf/10.1021/ma300981r$$EPDF$$P50$$Gacs$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/ma300981r$$EHTML$$P50$$Gacs$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,778,782,883,2754,27059,27907,27908,56721,56771</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://pascal-francis.inist.fr/vibad/index.php?action=getRecordDetail&amp;idt=26508503$$DView record in Pascal Francis$$Hfree_for_read</backlink><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23148127$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Gon, S</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kumar, Kushi-Nidhi</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Nüsslein, Klaus</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Santore, Maria M</creatorcontrib><title>How Bacteria Adhere to Brushy PEG Surfaces: Clinging to Flaws and Compressing the Brush</title><title>Macromolecules</title><addtitle>Macromolecules</addtitle><description>This study examined the compression of solvated polymer brushes on bioengineered surfaces during the initial stages of Staphylococcus aureus (S. aureus) adhesion from gentle flow. A series of PEG [poly(ethylene glycol)] brushes, 7–17 nm in height and completely nonadhesive to proteins and bacteria, were modified by the incorporation of sparse isolated ∼10 nm cationic polymer “patches” at their bases. These nanoscale regions, which lacked PEG tethers, were electrostatically attractive toward negative bacteria or proteins. S. aureus drawn to the interface by multiple adhesive patches compressed the PEG brush in the remaining contact region. The observed onset of bacterial or fibrinogen capture with increases in patch content was compared with calculations. Balancing the attraction energy (proportional to the number of patches engaging a bacterium during capture) against steric forces (calculated using the Alexander–DeGennes treatment) provided perspective on the brush compression. The results were consistent with a bacteria–surface gap on the order of the Debye length in these studies. In this limit of strong brush compression, structural features (height, persistence length) of the brush were unimportant so that osmotic pressure dominated the steric repulsion. Thus, the dominant factor for bacterial repulsion was the mass of PEG in the brush. This result explains empirical reports in the literature that identify the total PEG content of a brush as a criteria for prevention of bioadhesion, independent of tether length and spacing, within a reasonable range for those parameters. Bacterial capture was also compared to that of protein capture. It was found, surprisingly, that the patchy brushes were more protein- than bacteria-resistant. S. aureus adhesion was explained by the bacteria’s greater tendency to compress large areas of brush to interact with many patches. By contrast, proteins are thought to penetrate the brush at a few sites of PEO-free patches. The finding provides a mechanism for the literature reports that in vitro protein resistance is a poor predictor of in vitro implant failure related to cell–surface adhesion.</description><subject>Applied sciences</subject><subject>bacteria</subject><subject>bioadhesion</subject><subject>energy</subject><subject>Exact sciences and technology</subject><subject>fibrinogen</subject><subject>Organic polymers</subject><subject>osmotic pressure</subject><subject>Physicochemistry of polymers</subject><subject>polyethylene glycol</subject><subject>Properties and characterization</subject><subject>Staphylococcus aureus</subject><subject>Surface properties</subject><issn>0024-9297</issn><issn>1520-5835</issn><issn>1520-5835</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2012</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNqF0d9rFDEQB_Agij1PH_wHJC9CfVg7ySR7iQ9Ce_SHUFBQ8TFMs9nelt3Nmey29L_vtndeFQpCIA_zyWSSL2NvBXwUIMVBRwhgjUjP2ExoCYU2qJ-zGYBUhZV2scde5XwFIIRW-JLtSRTKCLmYsV9n8YYfkR9CaogfVquQAh8iP0pjXt3yb8en_PuYavIhf-LLtukvp3UPTlq6yZz6ii9jt04h54fCKmyOvmYvampzeLPd5-znyfGP5Vlx_vX0y_LwvCCNaihqj6EERWEh1YUN6DWCMAaFJF_rSmlE44HKypZS2trXVqGthBQYFGkocc4-b_qux4suVD70Q6LWrVPTUbp1kRr3b6VvVu4yXjtUVsHUbc72tw1S_D2GPLiuyT60LfUhjtlJMAoMlgL-S4WRpS7FNOlEP2yoTzHnFOrdRALcfWZul9lk3_39hJ38E9IE3m8BZU9tnaj3TX50pQajAR8d-eyu4pj66eefuPAOyI6o_w</recordid><startdate>20121023</startdate><enddate>20121023</enddate><creator>Gon, S</creator><creator>Kumar, Kushi-Nidhi</creator><creator>Nüsslein, Klaus</creator><creator>Santore, Maria M</creator><general>American Chemical Society</general><scope>IQODW</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>7S9</scope><scope>L.6</scope><scope>5PM</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20121023</creationdate><title>How Bacteria Adhere to Brushy PEG Surfaces: Clinging to Flaws and Compressing the Brush</title><author>Gon, S ; Kumar, Kushi-Nidhi ; Nüsslein, Klaus ; Santore, Maria M</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-a534t-fc3e604ae724b9e3c530188312acf5d45338c0a6d96229fcf9439d1213e4a5063</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2012</creationdate><topic>Applied sciences</topic><topic>bacteria</topic><topic>bioadhesion</topic><topic>energy</topic><topic>Exact sciences and technology</topic><topic>fibrinogen</topic><topic>Organic polymers</topic><topic>osmotic pressure</topic><topic>Physicochemistry of polymers</topic><topic>polyethylene glycol</topic><topic>Properties and characterization</topic><topic>Staphylococcus aureus</topic><topic>Surface properties</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Gon, S</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kumar, Kushi-Nidhi</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Nüsslein, Klaus</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Santore, Maria M</creatorcontrib><collection>Pascal-Francis</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>AGRICOLA</collection><collection>AGRICOLA - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><jtitle>Macromolecules</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Gon, S</au><au>Kumar, Kushi-Nidhi</au><au>Nüsslein, Klaus</au><au>Santore, Maria M</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>How Bacteria Adhere to Brushy PEG Surfaces: Clinging to Flaws and Compressing the Brush</atitle><jtitle>Macromolecules</jtitle><addtitle>Macromolecules</addtitle><date>2012-10-23</date><risdate>2012</risdate><volume>45</volume><issue>20</issue><spage>8373</spage><epage>8381</epage><pages>8373-8381</pages><issn>0024-9297</issn><issn>1520-5835</issn><eissn>1520-5835</eissn><coden>MAMOBX</coden><abstract>This study examined the compression of solvated polymer brushes on bioengineered surfaces during the initial stages of Staphylococcus aureus (S. aureus) adhesion from gentle flow. A series of PEG [poly(ethylene glycol)] brushes, 7–17 nm in height and completely nonadhesive to proteins and bacteria, were modified by the incorporation of sparse isolated ∼10 nm cationic polymer “patches” at their bases. These nanoscale regions, which lacked PEG tethers, were electrostatically attractive toward negative bacteria or proteins. S. aureus drawn to the interface by multiple adhesive patches compressed the PEG brush in the remaining contact region. The observed onset of bacterial or fibrinogen capture with increases in patch content was compared with calculations. Balancing the attraction energy (proportional to the number of patches engaging a bacterium during capture) against steric forces (calculated using the Alexander–DeGennes treatment) provided perspective on the brush compression. The results were consistent with a bacteria–surface gap on the order of the Debye length in these studies. In this limit of strong brush compression, structural features (height, persistence length) of the brush were unimportant so that osmotic pressure dominated the steric repulsion. Thus, the dominant factor for bacterial repulsion was the mass of PEG in the brush. This result explains empirical reports in the literature that identify the total PEG content of a brush as a criteria for prevention of bioadhesion, independent of tether length and spacing, within a reasonable range for those parameters. Bacterial capture was also compared to that of protein capture. It was found, surprisingly, that the patchy brushes were more protein- than bacteria-resistant. S. aureus adhesion was explained by the bacteria’s greater tendency to compress large areas of brush to interact with many patches. By contrast, proteins are thought to penetrate the brush at a few sites of PEO-free patches. The finding provides a mechanism for the literature reports that in vitro protein resistance is a poor predictor of in vitro implant failure related to cell–surface adhesion.</abstract><cop>Washington, DC</cop><pub>American Chemical Society</pub><pmid>23148127</pmid><doi>10.1021/ma300981r</doi><tpages>9</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0024-9297
ispartof Macromolecules, 2012-10, Vol.45 (20), p.8373-8381
issn 0024-9297
1520-5835
1520-5835
language eng
recordid cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_3494094
source ACS Publications
subjects Applied sciences
bacteria
bioadhesion
energy
Exact sciences and technology
fibrinogen
Organic polymers
osmotic pressure
Physicochemistry of polymers
polyethylene glycol
Properties and characterization
Staphylococcus aureus
Surface properties
title How Bacteria Adhere to Brushy PEG Surfaces: Clinging to Flaws and Compressing the Brush
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-17T00%3A52%3A58IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_pubme&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=How%20Bacteria%20Adhere%20to%20Brushy%20PEG%20Surfaces:%20Clinging%20to%20Flaws%20and%20Compressing%20the%20Brush&rft.jtitle=Macromolecules&rft.au=Gon,%20S&rft.date=2012-10-23&rft.volume=45&rft.issue=20&rft.spage=8373&rft.epage=8381&rft.pages=8373-8381&rft.issn=0024-9297&rft.eissn=1520-5835&rft.coden=MAMOBX&rft_id=info:doi/10.1021/ma300981r&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_pubme%3E2084083610%3C/proquest_pubme%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1826561622&rft_id=info:pmid/23148127&rfr_iscdi=true