Recent advances in dental biofilm: impacts of microbial interactions on the biofilm ecology and pathogenesis

Yung-Hua Li; Xingxing Huang; Xiao-Lin Tian; Yung-Hua Li; Xingxing Huang; Xiao-Lin Tian

doi:10.3934/bioeng.2017.3.335

AIMS Bioengineering

2017, Volume 4, Issue 3: 335-350. doi: 10.3934/bioeng.2017.3.335

Previous Article Next Article

Review Topical Sections

Recent advances in dental biofilm: impacts of microbial interactions on the biofilm ecology and pathogenesis

1.
Department of Applied Oral Sciences, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Canada
2.
Department of Microbiology and Immunology, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Canada
3.
Shenzhen Maternity and Child Healthcare Hospital, Shenzhen, China

Received: 03 April 2017 Accepted: 10 May 2017 Published: 15 May 2017

The human oral cavity is a complex ecosystem harboring hundreds species of microbes that are largely living on the tooth surfaces as dental biofilms. Most microbes in dental biofilms promote oral health by stimulating the immune system or by preventing invasion of pathogens. Species diversity, high cell density and close proximity of cells are typical of life in dental biofilms, where microbes interact with each other and develop complex interactions that can be either competitive or cooperative. Competition between species is a well-recognized ecological force to drive microbial metabolism, species diversity and evolution. However, it was not until recently that microbial cooperative activities are also recognized to play important roles in microbial physiology and ecology. Importantly, these interactions profoundly affect the overall biomass, function, diversity and the pathogenesis in dental biofilms. It is now recognized that every human body contains a personalized oral microbiome that is essential to maintaining the oral health. Remarkably, the indigenous species in dental biofilms often maintain a relatively stable and harmless relationship with the host, despite regular exposure to environmental perturbations and the host defense factors. Such stability or homeostasis results from a dynamic balance of microbial-microbial and microbial-host interactions. Under certain circumstances, however, the homeostasis may breakdown, predisposing a site to diseases. In this review, we describe several examples of microbial interactions and their impacts on the homeostasis and pathogenesis of dental biofilms. We hope to encourage research on microbial interactions in the regulation of the homeostasis in biofilms.
- biofilms,
- microbial interactions,
- homeostasis,
- microbiome,
- pathogenesis,
- community-based diseases
Citation: Yung-Hua Li, Xingxing Huang, Xiao-Lin Tian. Recent advances in dental biofilm: impacts of microbial interactions on the biofilm ecology and pathogenesis[J]. AIMS Bioengineering, 2017, 4(3): 335-350. doi: 10.3934/bioeng.2017.3.335

Related Papers:

Abstract

The human oral cavity is a complex ecosystem harboring hundreds species of microbes that are largely living on the tooth surfaces as dental biofilms. Most microbes in dental biofilms promote oral health by stimulating the immune system or by preventing invasion of pathogens. Species diversity, high cell density and close proximity of cells are typical of life in dental biofilms, where microbes interact with each other and develop complex interactions that can be either competitive or cooperative. Competition between species is a well-recognized ecological force to drive microbial metabolism, species diversity and evolution. However, it was not until recently that microbial cooperative activities are also recognized to play important roles in microbial physiology and ecology. Importantly, these interactions profoundly affect the overall biomass, function, diversity and the pathogenesis in dental biofilms. It is now recognized that every human body contains a personalized oral microbiome that is essential to maintaining the oral health. Remarkably, the indigenous species in dental biofilms often maintain a relatively stable and harmless relationship with the host, despite regular exposure to environmental perturbations and the host defense factors. Such stability or homeostasis results from a dynamic balance of microbial-microbial and microbial-host interactions. Under certain circumstances, however, the homeostasis may breakdown, predisposing a site to diseases. In this review, we describe several examples of microbial interactions and their impacts on the homeostasis and pathogenesis of dental biofilms. We hope to encourage research on microbial interactions in the regulation of the homeostasis in biofilms.

References

[1]	Huttenhower C, Gevers D, Knight R, et al. (2012) Structure, function and diversity of the healthy human microbiome. Nature 486: 207–214. doi: 10.1038/nature11234
[2]	Pflughoeft KJ, Versalovic J (2012) Human microbiome in health and disease. Annu RevPathol Mech 7: 99–122.
[3]	Zarco MF, Vess TJ, Ginsburg GS (2012) The oral microbiome in health and disease and the potential impact on personalized dental medicine. Oral Dis 18: 109–120. doi: 10.1111/j.1601-0825.2011.01851.x
[4]	Burmolle M, Ren D, Bjarnsholt T, et al. (2014) Interactions in multispecies biofilms: do they actually matter? Trends Microbiol 22: 84–91. doi: 10.1016/j.tim.2013.12.004
[5]	Freilich S, Zarecki R, Eilam O, et al. (2011) Competitive and cooperative metabolic interactions in bacterial communities. Nat Commun 2: 589–595. doi: 10.1038/ncomms1597
[6]	Overman PR (2000) Biofilm: a new view of plaque. JCDP 1: 18–29
[7]	Coyte KZ, Schluter J, Roster KR (2015) The ecology of the microbiome: networks, competition, and stability. Science 350: 663–666. doi: 10.1126/science.aad2602
[8]	Marsh PD (1994) Microbial ecology of dental plaque and its significance in heath and disease. Adv Dent Res 82: 263–271.
[9]	Davey ME, O'Toole GA (2000) Microbial biofilms: from ecology to molecular genetics. Microbiol Mol Biol Rev 64: 847–867. doi: 10.1128/MMBR.64.4.847-867.2000
[10]	Kolenbrander PE, Palmer RJ, Periasamy S, et al. (2010) Oral multispecies biofilm development and the key role of cell-cell distance. Nat Rev Microbiol 8: 471–480. doi: 10.1038/nrmicro2381
[11]	Robison CJ, Bohannan BJM, Yong VB (2010) From structure to function: the ecology of host-associated microbial communities. Microbiol Mol Biol Rev 74: 453–476. doi: 10.1128/MMBR.00014-10
[12]	Kuramitsu HK, He X, Lux R, et al. (2007) Interspecies interactions within oral microbial communities. Microbiol Mol Biol Rev 71: 653–670. doi: 10.1128/MMBR.00024-07
[13]	Costerton JW, Stewart PS, Greenberg EP (1999) Bacterial biofilms: a common cause of persistent infections. Science 284: 1318–1322. doi: 10.1126/science.284.5418.1318
[14]	Cvitkovitch DG, Li YH, Ellen RP (2003) Quorum sensing and biofilm formation in streptococcal infections. J Clin Invest 112: 1626–1632. doi: 10.1172/JCI200320430
[15]	Miller MB, Bassler BL (2001) Quorum sensing in bacteria. Annu Rev Microbiol 55: 165–199. doi: 10.1146/annurev.micro.55.1.165
[16]	Parsek MR, Greenberg EP (2005) Sociomicrobiology: the connections between quorum sensing and biofilms. Trends Microbiol 13: 27–33. doi: 10.1016/j.tim.2004.11.007
[17]	Nadell CD, Xavier JB, Foster KR (2009) The sociobiology of biofilms. FEMS Microbiol Rev 33: 206–224. doi: 10.1111/j.1574-6976.2008.00150.x
[18]	Antunes LC, Ferreira RB, Buckner MM, et al. (2010) Quorum sensing in bacterial virulence. Microbiology 156: 2271–2282. doi: 10.1099/mic.0.038794-0
[19]	Webb JS, Givskov M, Kjelleberg S (2003) Bacterial biofilms: prokaryotic adventures in multicellularity. Curr Opin Microbiol 6: 578–585. doi: 10.1016/j.mib.2003.10.014
[20]	Watnick P, Kolter R (2000) Biofilm, city of microbes. J Bacteriol 182: 2675–2679. doi: 10.1128/JB.182.10.2675-2679.2000
[21]	Moons P, Michiels CW, Aertsen A (2009) Bacterial interactions in biofilms. Crit Rev Microbiol 35: 157–168. doi: 10.1080/10408410902809431
[22]	Flemming HC, Wingender J (2010) The biofilm matrix. Nat Rev Microbiol 8: 623–633.
[23]	Hobley L, Harkins C, MacPhee CE, et al. (2015) Giving structure to the biofilm matrix: an overview of individual strategies and emerging common themes. FEMS Microbiol Rev 39: 649–669. doi: 10.1093/femsre/fuv015
[24]	Celiker H, Gore J (2013) Cellular cooperation: insights from microbes. Trends Cell Biol 23: 9–15. doi: 10.1016/j.tcb.2012.08.010
[25]	Guo L, He X, Shi W (2014) Intercellular communications in multispecies oral microbial communities. Front Microbiol 5: 328–340.
[26]	Foster KR, Bell T (2012) Competition, not cooperation, dominates interactions among microbial species. Curr Biol 22: 1845–1850. doi: 10.1016/j.cub.2012.08.005
[27]	Hibbing ME, Fuqua C, Parsek MR, et al. (2010) Bacterial competition: surviving and thriving in the microbial jungle. Nat Rev Microbiol 8: 15–25. doi: 10.1038/nrmicro2259
[28]	Griffin AS, West SA, Buckling A (2004) Cooperation and competition in pathogenic bacteria. Nature 430: 1024–1027. doi: 10.1038/nature02744
[29]	MacLean RG, Gudelj I (2006) Resource competition and social conflict in experimental population of yeast. Nature 441: 498–501. doi: 10.1038/nature04624
[30]	Celiker H, Gore J (2012) Competition between species can stabilize public-good cooperation within a species. Mol Syst Biol 8: 621–629.
[31]	Faust K, Raes J (2012) Microbial interactions: from networks to models. Nat Rev Microbiol 10: 538–550. doi: 10.1038/nrmicro2832
[32]	Kreth J, Merritt J, Shi WJ, et al. (2005) Competition and coexistence between Streptococcus mutans and Streptococcus sanguinis in the dental biofilm. J Bacteriol 187: 7193–7203. doi: 10.1128/JB.187.21.7193-7203.2005
[33]	Marsh PD, Moter A, Devine DA (2011) Dental plaque biofilms: communities, conflicts and control. Periodontol 55: 16–35. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0757.2009.00339.x
[34]	McNally L, Brown SP (2016) Microbiome: ecology of stable gut communities. Nat Microbiol 1: 1–2.
[35]	Embree M, Liu JK, Al-Bassam MM, et al. (2015) Networks of energetic and metabolic interactions define dynamics in microbial communities. PNAS 112: 15450–15455. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1506034112
[36]	Hansen SK, Rainey PB, Haagensen JAJ, et al. (2007) Evolution of species interactions in a biofilm community. Nature 445: 533–536. doi: 10.1038/nature05514
[37]	Hajishengallis G, Darveau RP, Cutis MA (2012) The keystone-pathogen hypothesis. Nat Microbiol 10: 717–725. doi: 10.1038/nrmicro2873
[38]	Davies J, Spiegeiman GB, Yim G (2006) The world of subinhibitory antibiotic concentrations. Curr Opin Microbiol 9: 445–453. doi: 10.1016/j.mib.2006.08.006
[39]	Hajishengllis G (2014) Immunomicrobial pathogenesis of periodontitis: keystones, pathobionts and the host response. Trends Immunol 35: 3–11. doi: 10.1016/j.it.2013.09.001
[40]	Jiao Y, Hasegawa M, Inohara N (2014) The role of oral pathobionts in dysbiosis during periodontitis development. J Dent Res 93: 539–546. doi: 10.1177/0022034514528212
[41]	Darveau RP (2010) Periodontitis: a polymicrobial disruption of host homeostasis. Nat Rev Microbiol 8: 481–490. doi: 10.1038/nrmicro2337
[42]	Peter BM, Jabra-Rizk MA, O'May GA, et al. (2012) Polymicrobial interactions: impact on pathogenesis and human disease. Clin Microbiol Rev 25: 193–213. doi: 10.1128/CMR.00013-11
[43]	Rogers GB, Hoffman LR, Whiteley M (2010) Revealing the dynamics of polymicrobial infections: implications for antibiotic therapy. Trends Microbiol 18: 357–364. doi: 10.1016/j.tim.2010.04.005
[44]	He X, Lux R, Kutamitsu HK, et al. (2009) Achieving probiotic effects via modulating oral microbial ecology. Adv Dent Res 21: 53–56. doi: 10.1177/0895937409335626
[45]	Daliri EB, Lee BH (2015) New perspectives on probiotics in health and disease. Food Sci Human Wellness 4: 56–65. doi: 10.1016/j.fshw.2015.06.002
[46]	Reid G, Jass J, Sebulsky MT, et al. (2003) Potential uses of probiotics in clinical practice. Clin Microbiol Rev 16: 188–196.
[47]	Hentzer M, Givskov M (2003) Pharmacological inhibition of quorum sensing for the treatment of chronic bacterial infections. J Clin Invest 112: 1300–1307. doi: 10.1172/JCI20074
[48]	LaSarre B, Federie MJ (2013) Exploiting quorum sensing to confuse bacterial pathogens. Microbiol Mol Biol Rev 77: 73–111. doi: 10.1128/MMBR.00046-12
[49]	Kalia VC, Purohit HJ (2011) Quenching the quorum sensing system: potential antibacterial drug targets. Crit Rev Microbiol 37: 121–140. doi: 10.3109/1040841X.2010.532479
[50]	Eckert R, Qi F, Yarbrough DK, et al. (2006) Adding selectivity to antimicrobial peptides: rational design of a multidomain peptide against Pseudomonas spp.. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 50: 1480–1488. doi: 10.1128/AAC.50.4.1480-1488.2006
[51]	Li YH, Tian XL (2015) An alternative strategy as QSI: pheromone-guided antimicrobial peptides. In: Kalia VC edit. Quorum sensing vs quorum quenching: a battle with no end in sight. Springer, 327–334.
[52]	Mai J, Tian XL, Gallant JW, et al. (2011) A novel target-specific, salt-resistant antimicrobial peptide against the cariogenic pathogen Streptococcus mutans. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 55: 5205–5213. doi: 10.1128/AAC.05175-11
[53]	Sullivan R, Santarpia P, Lavender S, et al. (2011) Clinical efficacy of a specifically targeted antimicrobial peptide mouth rinse: targeted elimination of Streptococcus mutans and prevention of demineralization. Caries Res 45: 415–428. doi: 10.1159/000330510

Reader Comments

Your name:*

Email:*
© 2017 the Author(s), licensee AIMS Press. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0)