Loading [MathJax]/jax/output/SVG/jax.js
Review

P. aeruginosa interactions with other microbes in biofilms during co-infection

  • This review addresses the topic of biofilms, including their development and the interaction between different counterparts. There is evidence that various diseases, such as cystic fibrosis, otitis media, diabetic foot wound infections, and certain cancers, are promoted and aggravated by the presence of polymicrobial biofilms. Biofilms are composed by heterogeneous communities of microorganisms protected by a matrix of polysaccharides. The different types of interactions between microorganisms gives rise to an increased resistance to antimicrobials and to the host's defense mechanisms, with the consequent worsening of disease symptoms. Therefore, infections caused by polymicrobial biofilms affecting different human organs and systems will be discussed, as well as the role of the interactions between the gram-negative bacteria Pseudomonas aeruginosa, which is at the base of major polymicrobial infections, and other bacteria, fungi, and viruses in the establishment of human infections and diseases. Considering that polymicrobial biofilms are key to bacterial pathogenicity, it is fundamental to evaluate which microbes are involved in a certain disease to convey an appropriate and efficacious antimicrobial therapy.

    Citation: Manuela Oliveira, Eva Cunha, Luís Tavares, Isa Serrano. P. aeruginosa interactions with other microbes in biofilms during co-infection[J]. AIMS Microbiology, 2023, 9(4): 612-646. doi: 10.3934/microbiol.2023032

    Related Papers:

    [1] Xiaowen Jia, Jingxia Chen, Kexin Liu, Qian Wang, Jialing He . Multimodal depression detection based on an attention graph convolution and transformer. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2025, 22(3): 652-676. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2025024
    [2] Zhongwei Li, Wenqi Jiang, Xiaosheng Liu, Kai Tan, Xianji Jin, Ming Yang . GAN model using field fuzz mutation for in-vehicle CAN bus intrusion detection. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2022, 19(7): 6996-7018. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2022330
    [3] Jing Zhang, Ting Fan, Ding Lang, Yuguang Xu, Hong-an Li, Xuewen Li . Intelligent crowd sensing pickpocketing group identification using remote sensing data for secure smart cities. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2023, 20(8): 13777-13797. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2023613
    [4] Xing Hu, Minghui Yao, Dawei Zhang . Road crack segmentation using an attention residual U-Net with generative adversarial learning. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2021, 18(6): 9669-9684. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2021473
    [5] Bingyu Liu, Jiani Hu, Weihong Deng . Attention distraction with gradient sharpening for multi-task adversarial attack. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2023, 20(8): 13562-13580. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2023605
    [6] Jia Yu, Huiling Peng, Guoqiang Wang, Nianfeng Shi . A topical VAEGAN-IHMM approach for automatic story segmentation. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2024, 21(7): 6608-6630. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2024289
    [7] Qi Cui, Ruohan Meng, Zhili Zhou, Xingming Sun, Kaiwen Zhu . An anti-forensic scheme on computer graphic images and natural images using generative adversarial networks. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2019, 16(5): 4923-4935. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2019248
    [8] Paula Mercurio, Di Liu . Identifying transition states of chemical kinetic systems using network embedding techniques. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2021, 18(1): 868-887. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2021046
    [9] Shi Liu, Kaiyang Li, Yaoying Wang, Tianyou Zhu, Jiwei Li, Zhenyu Chen . Knowledge graph embedding by fusing multimodal content via cross-modal learning. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2023, 20(8): 14180-14200. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2023634
    [10] Sadia Anjum, Lal Hussain, Mushtaq Ali, Adeel Ahmed Abbasi, Tim Q. Duong . Automated multi-class brain tumor types detection by extracting RICA based features and employing machine learning techniques. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2021, 18(3): 2882-2908. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2021146
  • This review addresses the topic of biofilms, including their development and the interaction between different counterparts. There is evidence that various diseases, such as cystic fibrosis, otitis media, diabetic foot wound infections, and certain cancers, are promoted and aggravated by the presence of polymicrobial biofilms. Biofilms are composed by heterogeneous communities of microorganisms protected by a matrix of polysaccharides. The different types of interactions between microorganisms gives rise to an increased resistance to antimicrobials and to the host's defense mechanisms, with the consequent worsening of disease symptoms. Therefore, infections caused by polymicrobial biofilms affecting different human organs and systems will be discussed, as well as the role of the interactions between the gram-negative bacteria Pseudomonas aeruginosa, which is at the base of major polymicrobial infections, and other bacteria, fungi, and viruses in the establishment of human infections and diseases. Considering that polymicrobial biofilms are key to bacterial pathogenicity, it is fundamental to evaluate which microbes are involved in a certain disease to convey an appropriate and efficacious antimicrobial therapy.



    The role of water quality in streams, lakes, and seas can be stated as organic, synthetic, and environmental condition of waterbody [1,2]. The items for water quality include the diverse features such as dissolved oxygen (DO), chemical oxygen demand (COD), biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5), total organic carbon (TOC), total phosphorus (T-P), total nitrogen (T-N), suspended solids (SS), turbidity (TU), potential of Hydrogen (pH), electrical conductivity (EC), water temperature (WT), and chlorophyll-a (Chl-a) and so on. The quantitative evaluation of water quality items is significant for the transaction of integrated water resources [3].

    The water quality items can be identified in three ways: situ-measurement class (e.g., TU, pH, EC, DO, and WT), lab-measurement class (e.g., T-P, T-N, TOC, SS, COD, and Chl-a), and incubated-measurement class (e.g., BOD5). Among water quality items, BOD5, the representative incubated-measurement indicator, was considered as a reference to appraise the organic pollution of waterbody by the American Public Health Association Standard Methods Committee (APHASMC) [4]. Also, the concentration of BOD5 can be recommended as the necessity of DO to cut down the organic matter of fluid at specific temperature [5]. It can, therefore, be estimated using the quantity of oxygen used up per liter of inspected data dependent on the 5-day period at 20 Celsius (℃) [6], and was assessed as one of essential river water quality items for the preservation and management of eco-environmental systems [7].

    Although different machine learning and deep learning paradigms have been implemented for estimating the incubated-measurement indicator in rivers, this article proposes the unique technique for the accurate prediction of BOD5 concentration. Hybrid neuroscience approaches involving the diverse data preprocessing coupled with the neuroscience techniques promote the evolution of more complex models based on the higher precision of estimated problems in natural behavior [2,8]. The double-stage synthesis models, one of hybrid neuroscience approaches, combining the wavelet transformation (WT) and different neuroscience models were developed and implemented to boost the predictive accuracy of BOD5 concentration in Hwangji and Toilchun stations, South Korea. The standalone models such as extreme learning machine (ELM), support vector regression (SVR), and deep echo state network (Deep ESN) were also employed for integrating and evaluating novel double-stage synthesis model's scheme clearly. The novel double-stage synthesis models (i.e., Wavelet-ELM, Wavelet-SVR, and Wavelet-Deep ESN), therefore, demonstrates the efficient and accurate estimation of highly complex and nonstationary problem in rivers. The distinguished attraction of double-stage synthesis models motivates to explore the accurate prediction of BOD5 concentration.

    To the best of our knowledge and recognition from the previous information such as published articles, documents and reports, the double-stage synthesis models in the addressed article have not been frequently implemented for predicting BOD5 concentration among the various water quality items. This article discusses the performance of implemented models (ELM, SVR, Deep ESN, Wavelet-ELM, Wavelet-SVR, and Wavelet-Deep ESN) for predicting BOD5 concentration. They are evaluated by utilizing three mathematical formulae (R2, NS, and RMSE) and four graphical aids (Scatter diagram, boxplot, violin plot, and Taylor diagram), respectively.

    The rest of addressed research is arranged as follows. A brief review of BOD5 concentration estimation and prediction is presented in section 2. The detailed description of machine learning and deep learning paradigms are provided in section 3. Also, the wavelet transformation is discussed. In section 4, report for data available and the criteria of model assessment are provided in detail. In section 5, a case study is presented by using the standalone and double-stage synthesis models based on water quantity and quality items collected in Hwangji and Toilchun stations, South Korea. In section 6, the advantages of standalone and double-stage synthesis models using mathematical formulae and graphical aids are discussed. In the end, the conclusions are drawn up.

    Various machine learning and deep learning paradigms for the estimation and prediction issues of water quality have been extensively reported in numerous articles and documents. [9] developed the hybrid model utilizing SVR and firefly algorithm (FFA) for predicting water quality indicator in the Euphrates River, Iraq. They found that the SVR-FFA model could predict the water quality indicator accurately. [10] implemented four standalone and twelve hybrid models to predict the Iran water quality indicator. The BA-RT, one of hybrid models, provided the best performance to predict the Iran water quality indicator. [11] employed seven standalone and three hybrid models to predict the diverse water quality indicators in China. Results showed that the decision tree (DT), random forest (RF), and deep cascade forest (DCF) models produced the outstanding achievements to predict water quality indicators in major rivers and lakes. [12] reviewed the recent advances in water quality remote sensing system using 200 datasets of water quality indicators. They demonstrated that the deep learning model outperformed the other proposed models to predict water quality indicators in Midwestern United States. [13] investigated the ELM, RF, group method of data handling (GMDH), classification and regression tree (CART), and Bat-ELM models to predict the chlorophyll-a concentration in river and lake systems, USA. They concluded that the Bat-ELM model predicted the chlorophyll-a concentration precisely compared to other models. [14] proposed the deep learning models including the recurrent neural network (RNN), long-short term memory (LSTM), and gated recurrent unit (GRU) to predict the drainage water quality indicator in Southern China. They showed that the deep learning models produced better prediction compared to the multiple linear regression (MLR) and multilayer perception (MLP) models.

    However, limited techniques and methods have been implemented to estimate and predict BOD5 concentration [15,16,17,18]. [19] employed the regression tree (RT) and SVR models to estimate total suspended solids (TSS), total dissolved solid (TDS), COD, and BOD5 concentration using the datasets from National Stormwater Quality Database (NSQD), USA. Results showed that the applied models could estimate BOD5 concentration accurately. [20] developed the adaptive neuro-fuzzy inference system (ANFIS) and wavelet SVR (WSVR) models to predict BOD5 concentration in Karun River, Iran. They demonstrated that the WSVR model provided better prediction compared to the ANFIS model. [1] estimated BOD5 concentration employing the RF, gradient boosting regression tree (GBRT), ELM, and Deep ESN in the Han River, South Korea. It can be found from [1]'s article that the Deep ESN5 model supplied the most accurate predictions of BOD5 concentration among the developed models. Also, [2] developed two-stage and standalone neuroscience models to predict BOD5 concentration in the Nakdong River, South Korea. Considering the developed models, the DWT-RF5 and DWT-GRNN4 models were the best model for predicting BOD5 concentration. [21] utilized the SVR, RF, artificial neural networks (ANNs), long short-term memory (LSTM), convolutional neural networks (CNN)-LSTM, and Bi-LSTM models for forecasting COD and BOD5 concentrations in the Yamuna River, India. This investigation provided that the Bi-LSTM model supplied the best performance for forecasting COD and BOD5 concentrations. [22] implemented four standalone (ANN, RF, support vector machines (SVMs), and gradient boosting machines (GBM)) and six hybrid (RF-SVMs, ANN-SVMs, GBM-SVMs, RF-ANNs, GBM-ANNs, and RF-GBM) models to predict BOD5 concentration in the Buriganga River, Bangladesh. They found that the RF-SVMs model provided the best predictive accuracy among the developed models. In contrast with the above-mentioned machine learning and deep learning paradigms, the novel double-stage synthesis models were introduced to find the optimal models between BOD5 concentration and well-known water quality items based on five input associations. The addressed research can highlight how the novel double-stage synthesis models enhance the predictive results of BOD5 concentration.

    The implemented models in the addressed article were machine learning (ELM and SVR) and deep learning (Deep ESN) paradigms, and the supplementary method was classified as the wavelet transformation, which is one of data preprocessing techniques used in various research fields. It can be seen from Figure 1 that the comprehensive mechanism of research process is underlined. Successive sub-phases explain the implemented models and supplementary method.

    Figure 1.  Comprehensive mechanism of research process.

    [23] initially recommended the ELM model as a rapid and effective category of feedforward neural networks (FFNN) (refer to Figure 2). It involves a single-middle-layer, which receives a particular scheme for training the parameters of networks compared to the conventional multilayer perceptron (MLP) model. The ELM model can map using a single-middle-layer with M independent input indicators and be written as follows:

    f(x)=Mj=1Li=1βigi(wixj+b) (1)
    Figure 2.  A schematic diagram of extreme learning machine (ELM) model.

    where g(.) is the activation function, which supplies the output in the middle layer; βi is the weight of output for connecting the middle neurons to the output neuron; and L is the neuron number of the middle layer. The output indicator can be given by the following formula (2):

    y=Mj=1Li=1βigi(wixj+b)=t+ε (2)

    where ε is the error. The Gaussian and sigmoid functions are the most employed mapping ones in the ELM model's category. The underlying formula (3) expresses the Gaussian function:

    g(xi)=h(a,c,xi)=exp(axic2) (3)

    where a and c refer to the activation functions. During training phase, the connection weight is fixed in the ELM model's category. That is, random values are allowed directly to neurons' activation functions instead of requesting an iterative process to update them. The connection weights for output neuron can be achieved continuously utilizing the least squares method. In other words, the fitting error ought to be reduced by computing HββT2 for the connection weight (ββ), where T is the matrix for target and H is the randomized matrix corresponding to the middle layer:

    H=[g(x1)..g(xN)],T=[tT1..tTN] (4)

    The connection weight for output is resolved, based on the linear equation system such as ββ = H + T, where H +  is the generalized inverse function of Moore-Penrose [1,24].

    The SVR model (refer to Figure 3), which is a special type of SVMs, has been applied in various fields, including stock index prediction, bioinformatics engineering, chemical synthesis, and production process control and so on [25,26]. The generalization of conventional ANNs models may reduce to a local optimized generalization, while a universal optimization is insured for the SVR model [27,28,29].

    Figure 3.  A schematic diagram of support vector regression (SVR) model.

    The fundamental concepts of SVR model are as follows. Recognizing the training sample (xiyi), where xin is a specific value of input indicator x, and yin is the matching value of surveyed model output. Also, a nonlinear transfer function (Φ()) and a linear function (f()) can be defined between input and output indicators. The actual output, therefore, is expressed by formula (5):

    ¯y=f(x)=wTΦ(x)+B (5)

    where ¯y is the actual output; and w and B are the adjustable parameters of the model. In the SVR model, the empirical risk can be written as the following formula (6):

    Remp=1NNi=1|yi¯yi|ε (6)

    where Remp is the empirical risk; and |yi¯yi|ε is Vapnik's ε-insensitive loss function. The adjustable parameters (i.e., w and B in formula (5)) of the model can be calculated by obtaining the minimum cost function [27]. In the addressed article, the following cost function was used:

    ψε(w,ξ,ξ)=12wTw+CNi=1(ξi+ξi) (7)

    where ψε(w,ξ,ξ) is the cost function; ξi,ξi are the positive slack variables; and C is the cost constant. In addition, the constraints for formula (7) can be classified as: (1) yi¯yiε+ξi i = 1, 2, ..., N; (2) yi+¯yiε+ξi i = 1, 2, ..., N; and (3) ξi,ξi0 i = 1, 2, ..., N.

    The recurrent neural networks (RNN), including the echo state network (ESN), has the most broadly utilized reservoir computing (RC) method [1,31,32]. Since the RNN model is powerful and accurate for computing the complicated and nonlinear problems, the Deep ESN model is effective for historical data. The Deep ESN model contains an order of deformed recurrent layers named as reservoir, where every layer output performs as the following layer input. Figure 4 explains a conceptual diagram of Deep ESN model with the recurrent structure of reservoir from the viewpoint of a discrete-time dynamic system. The reservoir dynamic state can be renewed by recognizing the leaky integration ESN (i.e., LI-ESN) as below:

    x(t)=(1α)x(t1)+αtanh(Winu(t)+WRx(t1)) (8)
    Figure 4.  A conceptual diagram of deep echo state network (Deep ESN) model [1].

    where α is the leaky coefficient; u(t) is the outside input based on time t; x(t) is the reservoir state in the corresponding layer based on time t; Win is the matrix of input connection weight for the reservoir; and WR is the matrix of recurrent connection weight. Because the input indicator to the following reservoir can be supplied by the output indicator of its prior reservoir, an ordinary equation for the Deep ESN model is organized for expanding the function of state transition as below.

    x(t)=(1α)x(t1)+αtanh(Wi(t)+WRx(t1));i0(t)=u(t)&i(t)=x1(t);=1,2,...,L (9)

    where is a layer (reservoir) in the structure of RC; WR are the connection weights between the layer and the prior one 1; and L is the quantity for the layers of reservoir [1,32,33]. Here, five layers were employed in the reservoir for the Deep ESN model to estimate BOD5 concentration.

    The WT method, which is one of multi-resolution signal procedure methods, is employed to build the double-stage synthesis models. The original data can be isolated into various frequency components involving an approximation and numerous details handling the WT method. In the addressed article, discrete-based wavelet transformation, which has been utilized for the data preprocessing in diverse fields, was selected. In fact, the discrete-based WT method can be accomplished by implementing the Mallat method [34]. The bottom line of Mallat method is two-route filters comprising two filters as low-pass and high-pass [2,35]. [36] defined that the coefficients for the wavelet (high-pass) and scaling (low-pass) in the jth level of decomposition is outlined as

    Wj,tL1l=0hlVj1,2t+1lmodNj1,Vj,tL1l=0glVj1,2t+1lmodNj1,t=0,1,,Nj1 (10)

    where Wj,t and Vj,t are the elements for corresponding Wj and Vj. The WT decomposes the complex and original input time series into the components (approximation and details) which show relatively simpler patterns than the original input time series. The different components obtained from WT were implemented as input association of corresponding double-stage synthesis model. Evolving double-stage synthesis models for the components separately and summing their predicted values can improve the predictive accuracy of double-stage synthesis models compared to performance of standalone models for the original input time series with high complexity. A flowchart for dual-step discrete-based WT is shown in figure 5. Here, two details (D1 and D2) and an approximation (A2) are achieved from the original input time series. Also, Figure 6 illustrates the sequential diagram for evolving the double-stage synthesis models.

    Figure 5.  Dual-step discrete-based WT decomposition.
    Figure 6.  Sequential diagram for evolving double-stage synthesis models.

    The original data can be isolated into various frequency In the addressed article, Hwangji (longitude 129°05′07″E; latitude 37°06′74″N) and Toilchun (longitude 128°44′46″E; latitude 36°47′09″N) stations were employed to predict BOD5 concentration using diverse physical and chemical variables such as T-N, T-P, TOC, DO, WT, SS, COD, pH, EC, and station discharge (DIS) in South Korea. Figure 7 shows the illustrative map of Hwangji and Toilchun stations.

    Figure 7.  Illustrative map of Hwangji and Toilchun stations.

    The surveyed data (2008/02-2020/12 for Hwangji and 2011/07-2020/12 for Toilchun stations) for water quantity and quality items can be directly accessed and collected from official website (http://water.nier.go.kr) of National Institute of Environmental Research (NIER), South Korea. The full data file consisted of training and validation samples. The training sample involved 80% (data = 398 from Hwangji and data = 294 from Toilchun stations) and the validation sample applied the last 20% (data = 99 from Hwangji and data = 74 from Toilchun stations) of full data file.

    Recognizing the source code and software of machine learning and deep learning paradigms, the ELM model was evolved by employing the R (https://www.r-project.org, a free software environment for statistical computing and graphics) package and the elmNNRcpp (https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/elmNNRcpp/index.html). In case of SVR model, it was implemented by the DTREG predictive modeling software (www.dtreg.com). In addition, the Deep ESN model was developed by utilizing the MATLAB programing language (https://www.mathworks.com), which is a freely available MATLAB toolbox for the Deep ESN (https://it.mathworks.com/matlabcentral/fileexchange/69402-deepesn).

    The optimal number of hidden nodes for the ELM and Wavelet-ELM models was determined using a trial and error process. As the number of hidden nodes was changed from 1 to 5m (where, m is the number of input indicators), the number of hidden nodes with the minimum RMSE value was decided as the optimal value. The logistic sigmoid function and linear function were used for activating hidden and output nodes, respectively. In addition, epsilon type of SVR model with radial basis function (RBF) kernel was employed for predicting BOD5 concentration using the SVR and Wavelet-SVR models. Also, the V-fold cross-validation were applied to validate the SVR and Wavelet-SVR models, and the grid search algorithm found the optimal parameters by minimizing total errors. Finally, the optimal number of layers and reservoirs units were decided based on the trial and error process for the Deep ESN and Wavelet-Deep ESN models.

    Table 1 explains the computed results for the correlation coefficients and P values between individual input indicators and BOD5 concentration. It can be judged from Table 1 that TOC (e.g., CC = 0.721, P value = 0.0001 at Hwangji and CC = 0.563, P value = 0.0001 at Toilchun stations) and COD (e.g., CC = 0.721, P value = 0.0001 at Hwangji and CC = 0.626, P value = 0.0001 at Toilchun stations) items exhibited high correlation and statistically significant with BOD5 concentration among various input indicators. In the addressed article, all indicators can be categorized as class 1 (i.e., in situ-measurement items (pH, EC, DO, and WT), class 2 (i.e., lab-measurement items (SS, COD, T-N, T-P, and TOC) and incubated-measurement item (BOD5)), and class 3 (i.e., water quantity item (river discharge)), respectively.

    Table 1.  Correlation coefficients and P values between corresponding input indicators and BOD5 concentration.
    Class Input indicators BOD5 concentration
    Hwangji Toilchun
    CC P-value CC P-value
    1 pH
    EC
    DO
    WT
    -0.003
    0.088
    0.036
    -0.074
    0.9491
    0.0494
    0.4185
    0.0974
    0.073
    -0.262
    -0.064
    0.123
    0.1024
    0.0001
    0.1565
    0.0058
    2 SS
    COD
    T-N
    T-P
    TOC
    0.120
    0.721
    0.163
    0.349
    0.721
    0.0069
    0.0001
    0.0003
    0.0001
    0.0001
    0.462
    0.626
    -0.195
    0.479
    0.563
    0.0001
    0.0001
    0.0001
    0.0001
    0.0001
    3 DIS -0.042 0.3494 0.184 0.0001

     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV

    To assess the performance of standalone (ELM, SVR, and Deep ESN) and double-stage synthesis (Wavelet-ELM, Wavelet-SVR, and Wavelet-Deep ESN) models, three mathematical formulae, which have been recognized and utilized worldwide, were employed. The coefficient of determination (R2) criterion [37,38] is clarified as the square of correlation between surveyed and estimated BOD5 concentrations (see formula (11)). The Nash-Sutcliffe (NS) efficiency criterion [39] can resolve the models' effectiveness between surveyed and estimated BOD5 concentrations (see formula (12)). Also, the disparity between surveyed and estimated BOD5 concentrations can be referred by handling the root mean square error (RMSE) criterion [40]. The RMSE criterion can be computed by employing formula (13).

    R2=(1nni=1(BODsur¯BODsur)(BODest¯BODest)1nni=1(BODsur¯BODsur)21nni=1(BODest¯BODest)2)2 (11)
    NS=1ni=1[BODsurBODest]2ni=1[BODsur¯BODsur]2 (12)
    RMSE=1nni=1[BODsurBODest]2 (13)

    where BODsur and BODest = surveyed and estimated BOD5 concentrations; ¯BODsur and ¯BODest = surveyed and estimated mean BOD5 concentrations; and n = the number of full data available.

    The addressed article utilized the miscellaneous water quantity and quality items to predict BOD5 concentration in Hwangji and Toilchun stations, South Korea. As defined formerly, the assessment of standalone and double-stage synthesis models to estimate BOD5 concentration was the essential view of this article.

    Among water quality items, some indicators, including pH, EC, DO, and WT, were directly surveyed by utilizing a commercial mechanical tool. Also, the indicators including SS, COD, T-N, T-P, and TOC were surveyed through the laboratory assistant system indirectly. BOD5 concentration, however, can be indirectly surveyed via the incubation system, based on the 20 ℃ for the 5-day period [41]. Since the plan of addressed article was scheduled to predict BOD5 concentration utilizing the standalone and double-stage synthesis models, this behavior could save and protect the time and effort to estimate and incubate BOD5 concentration.

    From the correlation coefficients and P values of water quantity and quality items (refer to Table 1), divergent organizations were provided to choose the best input association for given stations. To employ the same input indicators on both stations among them, some input indicators with positive (e.g., COD, TOC, T-P, and SS) and negative (e.g., WT, pH, and DIS) correlations were selected for diverse input associations in Hwangji station because input indicators with negative correlations can also contribute for predicting BOD5 concentration. However, many input indicators based on positive (e.g., COD, TOC, T-P, SS, WT, pH, and DIS) correlation were implemented for different input associations in Toilchun station.

    Hence, the standalone and double-stage synthesis models were evolved for predicting BOD5 concentration, based on five input associations (so called, 1st–5th distributions). Because TOC and COD items were picked out as the underlying water quality items for given stations, the addressed article determined the consolidation of TOC and COD items as the 1st distribution. Table 2 presents the diverse input associations of water quantity and quality items to predict BOD5 concentration. All developed models in Table 2 can be categorized into five distributions.

    Table 2.  Diverse input associations of developed models for predicting BOD5 concentration.
    Classification Division Model Distribution Input association
    Standalone Machine
    learning
    ELM ELM1
    ELM2
    ELM3
    ELM4
    ELM5
    COD+TOC
    COD+TOC+T-P+SS
    COD+TOC+WT+pH
    COD+TOC+T-P+SS+WT+pH
    COD+TOC+T-P+SS+WT+pH+DIS
    Machine
    learning
    SVR SVR1
    SVR2
    SVR3
    SVR4
    SVR5
    COD+TOC
    COD+TOC+T-P+SS
    COD+TOC+WT+pH
    COD+TOC+T-P+SS+WT+pH
    COD+TOC+T-P+SS+WT+pH+DIS
    Deep
    learning
    Deep ESN Deep ESN1
    Deep ESN2
    Deep ESN3
    Deep ESN4
    Deep ESN5
    COD+TOC
    COD+TOC+T-P+SS
    COD+TOC+WT+pH
    COD+TOC+T-P+SS+WT+pH
    COD+TOC+T-P+SS+WT+pH+DIS






    Double-stage synthesis
    Machine
    learning
    Wavelet-ELM Wavelet-ELM1
    Wavelet-ELM2
    Wavelet-ELM3
    Wavelet-ELM4
    Wavelet-ELM5
    COD+TOC
    COD+TOC+T-P+SS
    COD+TOC+WT+pH
    COD+TOC+T-P+SS+WT+pH
    COD+TOC+T-P+SS+WT+pH+DIS
    Machine
    learning
    Wavelet-SVR Wavelet-SVR1
    Wavelet-SVR2
    Wavelet-SVR3
    Wavelet-SVR4
    Wavelet-SVR5
    COD+TOC
    COD+TOC+T-P+SS
    COD+TOC+WT+pH
    COD+TOC+T-P+SS+WT+pH
    COD+TOC+T-P+SS+WT+pH+DIS
    Deep
    learning
    Wavelet-Deep ESN Wavelet-Deep ESN1
    Wavelet-Deep ESN2
    Wavelet-Deep ESN3
    Wavelet-Deep ESN4
    Wavelet-Deep ESN5
    COD+TOC
    COD+TOC+T-P+SS
    COD+TOC+WT+pH
    COD+TOC+T-P+SS+WT+pH
    COD+TOC+T-P+SS+WT+pH+DIS

     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV

    The results of three mathematical formulae (R2, NS, and RMSE) for the standalone models are summed up in Table 3 for Hwangji station. Table 3 explains that the outcomes of SVR1 (R2 = 0.905, NS = 0.891, and RMSE = 0.299 mg/L) are more excellent than the ELM1 and Deep ESN1 in the validation phase dependent on the 1st distribution. In the 2nd distribution, the SVR2 (R2 = 0.908, NS = 0.905, and RMSE = 0.279 mg/L) performs more excellent than the ELM2 and Deep ESN2. And, the SVR3 (R2 = 0.925, NS = 0.915, and RMSE = 0.264 mg/L) surpasses the ELM3 and Deep ESN3 clearly in the validation phase for the 3rd distribution. The contrast of standalone models in the 4th distribution, furthermore, indicates that the ELM4 (R2 = 0.902, NS = 0.893, and RMSE = 0.295 mg/L) dominates the SVR4 and Deep ESN4 in the validation phase. In the end, the SVR5 (R2 = 0.905, NS = 0.884, and RMSE = 0.309 mg/L) is more accurate than ELM5 and Deep ESN5 in the validation phase for the 5th distribution.

    Table 3.  Results of three mathematical criteria using the standalone models at Hwangji station.
    Classification Distribution Validation phase
    R2 NS RMSE
    (mg/L)
    Standalone ELM1
    ELM2
    ELM3
    ELM4
    ELM5
    0.900
    0.895
    0.898
    0.902
    0.879
    0.835
    0.879
    0.837
    0.893
    0.855
    0.368
    0.315
    0.365
    0.295
    0.344
    SVR1
    SVR2
    SVR3
    SVR4
    SVR5
    0.905
    0.908
    0.925
    0.908
    0.905
    0.891
    0.905
    0.915
    0.882
    0.884
    0.299
    0.279
    0.264
    0.310
    0.309
    Deep ESN1
    Deep ESN2
    Deep ESN3
    Deep ESN4
    Deep ESN5
    0.871
    0.884
    0.845
    0.857
    0.886
    0.806
    0.831
    0.805
    0.769
    0.809
    0.398
    0.371
    0.399
    0.434
    0.394

     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV

    Recognizing the impressive models from the 1st–5th distributions, the best accomplishment of standalone models can be found from the ELM (the 4th distribution), SVR (the 3rd distribution), and Deep ESN (the 2nd distribution) among diverse input associations in the validation phase. Table 3 tells us that the desirable performance of SVR3 gives more accurate than ELM4 and Deep ESN2 in the validation phase. Therefore, it can be said that the SVR3 is the most accurate for predicting BOD5 concentration among the desirable standalone models at Hwangji station.

    The results of three mathematical criteria for the double-stage synthesis models are also arranged in Table 4 at Hwangji station. From Table 4, it is clear that the outcomes of Wavelet-SVR1 (R2 = 0.904, NS = 0.895, and RMSE = 0.293 mg/L) are more dominant compared to the Wavelet-ELM1 and Wavelet-Deep ESN1 in the validation phase dependent on the 1st distribution. Based on the 2nd distribution, the Wavelet-SVR2 (R2 = 0.911, NS = 0.911, and RMSE = 0.271 mg/L) is more excellent than the Wavelet-ELM2 and Wavelet-Deep ESN2. Also, the Wavelet-SVR3 (R2 = 0.920, NS = 0.912, and RMSE = 0.269 mg/L) outperforms the Wavelet-ELM3 and Wavelet-Deep ESN3 regarding the 3rd distribution in the validation phase. Moreover, the contrast of double-stage synthesis models in the 4th distribution demonstrates that the Wavelet-SVR4 (R2 = 0.926, NS = 0.915, and RMSE = 0.264 mg/L) performs superior to the Wavelet-ELM4 and Wavelet-Deep ESN4 in the validation phase. In the end, Wavelet-SVR4 (R2 = 0.919, NS = 0.914, and RMSE = 0.266 mg/L) is more efficient than the Wavelet-ELM5 and Wavelet-Deep ESN5 in the validation phase for the 5th distribution.

    Table 4.  Results of three mathematical criteria using the double-stage synthesis models at Hwangji station.
    Classification Distribution Validation phase
    R2 NS RMSE
    (mg/L)
    Double-stage synthesis Wavelet-ELM1
    Wavelet-ELM2
    Wavelet-ELM3
    Wavelet-ELM4
    Wavelet-ELM5
    0.837
    0.816
    0.831
    0.796
    0.734
    0.776
    0.812
    0.772
    0.777
    0.717
    0.428
    0.393
    0.432
    0.427
    0.481
    Wavelet-SVR1
    Wavelet-SVR2
    Wavelet-SVR3
    Wavelet-SVR4
    Wavelet-SVR5
    0.904
    0.911
    0.920
    0.926
    0.919
    0.895
    0.911
    0.912
    0.915
    0.914
    0.293
    0.271
    0.269
    0.264
    0.266
    Wavelet-Deep ESN1
    Wavelet-Deep ESN2
    Wavelet-Deep ESN3
    Wavelet-Deep ESN4
    Wavelet-Deep ESN5
    0.869
    0.863
    0.860
    0.846
    0.851
    0.826
    0.832
    0.833
    0.815
    0.817
    0.377
    0.370
    0.369
    0.388
    0.386

     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV

    Contemplating the outstanding models from the 1st-5th distributions, the admirable performance of double-stage synthesis models can be judged from the Wavelet-ELM (the 2nd distribution), Wavelet-SVR (the 4th distribution), and Wavelet-Deep ESN (the 3rd distribution) among diverse input associations in the validation phase. It can be noticed from Table 4 that the Wavelet-SVR4 provides more effective outcomes than the Wavelet-ELM2 and Wavelet-Deep ESN3 in the validation phase. For that reason, the Wavelet-SVR4 is more trustworthy than the Wavelet-ELM2 and Wavelet-Deep ESN3 for predicting BOD5 concentration among the desirable double-stage synthesis models at Hwangji station.

    To verify the accuracy of desirable standalone and double-stage synthesis models using graphical aids, Figures 8(a)(f) present the scatterplots for the surveyed and estimated BOD5 concentration values at Hwangji station. The linear functions and values of NS efficiency criterion are presented for the corresponding standalone and double-stage synthesis models, respectively. It can be concluded from NS values and the slopes of linear functions that an apparent discrepancy can be followed among the desirable standalone and double-stage synthesis models (ELM4, SVR3, Deep ESN2, Wavelet-ELM2, Wavelet-SVR4, and Wavelet-Deep ESN3). Therefore, the SVR3 and Wavelt-SVR4 performs the most reliable accuracy for predicting BOD5 concentration values clearly, whereas the Wavelet-ELM2 was the worst among the desirable models at Hwangji station.

    Figure 8.  Scatterplots for the desirable standalone and double-stage synthesis models in the validation phase (Hwangji station).

    Additional portraits can evaluate the performance of standalone and double-stage synthesis models using the boxplot, violin plot [42], and Taylor diagram [43]. Figures 9(a)(c) show the diverse graphical aids for the desirable standalone and double-stage synthesis models at Hwangji station. It can be found from Figure 9(a) that the estimated BOD5 concentrations of SVR3 and Wavelet-SVR4 yield more analogous configuration to the surveyed values for median, interquartile ranges and dispersion, adjacent values, and sign of skewness compared to other desirable models. Another graphical aid for the distribution of surveyed and estimated BOD5 concentration values utilizing the desirable models can be provided with the violin plots (Figure 9(b)). The violin plot can be defined as one of approaches to discern the distribution of assigned numerical values. Figure 9(b) supplies a close shape pattern for the SVR3 and Wavelet-SVR4 concerning the median, interquartile, and distribution of assigned values. In addition, the Taylor diagram (Figure 9(c)) utilizes three statistical indices, including correlation coefficient, normalized standard deviation, and root mean square error. The principal approach of Taylor diagram can be explained as to find the closest estimated model with the corresponding surveyed BOD5 concentration based on standard deviation (polar axis) and correlation coefficient (radial axis). The Taylor diagram, therefore, demonstrates the accuracy and efficiency of SVR3 and Wavelet-SVR4 over the other desirable models (ELM4, Deep ESN2, Wavelet-ELM2, and Wavelet-Deep ESN3).

    .

    Figure 9.  Boxplots, violin plots, and Taylor diagram for the desirable standalone and double-stage synthesis models in the validation phase (Hwangji station).

    The outputs of three mathematical formulae (R2, NS, and RMSE) for the standalone models are summed up in Table 5 for Toilchun station. Table 5 shows that the estimates of ELM1 (R2 = 0.571, NS = 0.472, and RMSE = 0.472 mg/L) are preferable to the SVM1 and Deep ESN1 in the validation phase considering the 1st distribution. During the 2nd distribution, the SVR2 model (R2 = 0.722, NS = 0.691, and RMSE = 0.361 mg/L) are more remarkable compared to the ELM2 and Deep ESN2. Also, the performance of SVR3 (R2 = 0.701, NS = 0.661, and RMSE = 0.378 mg/L) exceeds the ELM3 and Deep ESN3 obviously regarding the 3rd distribution in the validation phase. The contradiction of standalone models subjected to the 4th distribution, besides, approves that the SVR4 (R2 = 0.868, NS = 0.854, and RMSE = 0.248 mg/L) outperforms the ELM4 and Deep ESN4 in the validation phase. Eventually, the SVR5 (R2 = 0.876, NS = 0.870, and RMSE = 0.234 mg/L) is more reliable than ELM5 and Deep ESN5 in the validation phase with the 5th distribution.

    Table 5.  Results of three mathematical criteria using the standalone models at Toilchun station.
    Classification Distribution Validation phase
    R2 NS RMSE
    (mg/L)
    Standalone ELM1
    ELM2
    ELM3
    ELM4
    ELM5
    0.571
    0.671
    0.677
    0.739
    0.808
    0.472
    0.630
    0.641
    0.738
    0.807
    0.472
    0.395
    0.389
    0.332
    0.285
    SVR1
    SVR2
    SVR3
    SVR4
    SVR5
    0.534
    0.722
    0.701
    0.868
    0.876
    0.477
    0.691
    0.661
    0.854
    0.870
    0.469
    0.361
    0.378
    0.248
    0.234
    Deep ESN1
    Deep ESN2
    Deep ESN3
    Deep ESN4
    Deep ESN5
    0.376
    0.637
    0.491
    0.491
    0.608
    0.359
    0.547
    0.417
    0.461
    0.606
    0.520
    0.437
    0.496
    0.476
    0.408

     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV

    Contemplating the magnificent models among the 1st–5th distributions, the best capability of standalone models can be discovered from the ELM (the 5th distribution), SVR (the 5th distribution), and Deep ESN (the 5th distribution) among diverse input associations in the validation phase. As seen from Table 5, the improved performance of SVR5 contributes better prediction compared to the ELM5 and Deep ESN5 in the validation phase. As a result, the SVR5 is most reliable for predicting BOD5 concentration among the improved standalone models at Toilchun station.

    The outputs of three mathematical criteria for the double-stage synthesis models are still organized as in Table 6 at Toilchun station. As observed from Table 6, the estimates of Wavelet-SVR1 (R2 = 0.662, NS = 0.647, and RMSE = 0.386 mg/L) are more prevalent than the Wavelet-ELM1 and Wavelet-Deep ESN1 in the validation phase utilizing the 1st distribution. Favoring the 2nd distribution, the Wavelet-SVR2 (R2 = 0.866, NS = 0.845, and RMSE = 0.255 mg/L) is more exquisite than the Wavelet-ELM2 and Wavelet-Deep ESN2. Likewise, the performance of Wavelet-SVR3 (R2 = 0.688, NS = 0.646, and RMSE = 0.386 mg/L) exceeds the Wavelet-ELM3 and Wavelet-Deep ESN3 viewing the 3rd distribution during validation phase. Likewise, the contradiction of double-stage synthesis models in the 4th distribution demonstrates that the Wavelet-SVR4 (R2 = 0.922, NS = 0.917, and RMSE = 0.187 mg/L) surpasses the Wavelet-ELM4 and Wavelet-Deep ESN4 definitely in the validation phase. Eventually, the Wavelet-SVR5 (R2 = 0.780, NS = 0.775, and RMSE = 0.308 mg/L) is more effective than the Wavelet-ELM5 and Wavelet-Deep ESN5 in the validation phase with the 5th distribution.

    Table 6.  Results of three mathematical criteria using the double-stage synthesis models at Toilchun station.
    Classification Distribution Validation phase
    R2 NS RMSE
    (mg/L)
    Double-stage synthesis Wavelet-ELM1
    Wavelet-ELM2
    Wavelet-ELM3
    Wavelet-ELM4
    Wavelet-ELM5
    0.608
    0.539
    0.665
    0.541
    0.698
    0.565
    0.530
    0.627
    0.522
    0.689
    0.428
    0.445
    0.397
    0.449
    0.362
    Wavelet-SVR1
    Wavelet-SVR2
    Wavelet-SVR3
    Wavelet-SVR4
    Wavelet-SVR5
    0.662
    0.866
    0.688
    0.922
    0.780
    0.647
    0.845
    0.646
    0.917
    0.775
    0.386
    0.255
    0.386
    0.187
    0.308
    Wavelet-Deep ESN1
    Wavelet-Deep ESN2
    Wavelet-Deep ESN3
    Wavelet-Deep ESN4
    Wavelet-Deep ESN5
    0.473
    0.579
    0.596
    0.498
    0.663
    0.471
    0.550
    0.570
    0.477
    0.660
    0.472
    0.435
    0.426
    0.470
    0.379

     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV

    Envisaging the eminent models from the 1st–5th distributions, the attractive performance of double-stage synthesis models can be evaluated from the Wavelet-ELM (the 5th distribution), Wavelet-SVR (the 4th distribution), and Wavelet-Deep ESN (the 5th distribution) among various input associations in the validation phase. It can be seen from Table 6 that the Wavelet-SVR4 yields more reliable outcomes compared to the Wavelet-ELM5 and Wavelet-Deep ESN5 in the validation phase. As a result, the Wavelet-SVR4 performs superior to the Wavelet-ELM5 and Wavelet-Deep ESN5 for predicting BOD5 concentration among the enhanced double-stage synthesis models at Toilchun station.

    To validate the precision of desirable standalone and double-stage synthesis models using visual aids, Figures 10(a)(f) provide the scatterplots for the surveyed and estimated BOD5 concentration values employing the desirable standalone and double-stage synthesis models at Toilchun station. The linear formulae and values of NS efficiency criterion are inserted for the corresponding standalone and double-stage synthesis models, respectively. It can be inferred from NS values and the slopes of linear formulae that a definite inconsistency can be traced among the desirable standalone and double-stage synthesis models (ELM5, SVR5, Deep ESN5, Wavelet-ELM5, Wavelet-SVR4, and Wavelet-Deep ESN5). Therefore, the Wavelet-SVR4 accomplishes the most reliable precision for predicting BOD5 concentration values obviously, while the Deep ESN5 yields the least precise among the desirable models at Toilchun station.

    Figure 10.  Scatterplots for the desirable standalone and double-stage synthesis models in the validation phase (Toilchun station).

    Additional pictures can anticipate the performance of standalone and double-stage synthesis models using the boxplot, violin plot, and Taylor diagram. Figures 11(a)(c) support the various visual aids for the desirable standalone and double-stage synthesis models at Toilchun station. It can be seen from Figure 11(a) that the boxplots of estimated BOD5 concentration utilizing the Wavelet-SVR4 can resemble that of surveyed BOD5 concentration intimately. Another visual aid for the distribution of surveyed and estimated BOD5 concentration values employing the desirable models can be displayed with the violin plots (Figure 11(b)). The violin plot can be described as one of schematic techniques to reveal the distribution of mandated numerical values. Figure 11(b) demonstrates a similar contour pattern for the Wavelet-SVR4 employing the median, interquartile, and distribution of mandated values. Figure 11(c) supplies the Taylor diagram employing the desirable standalone and double-stage synthesis models for Toilchun station. It can be seen from Figure 11(c) that the point of Wavelet-SVR4 which has the minimal RMSE value visualizes the straight distance from the surveyed one, while the point of Deep ESN5 displays the longest distance from the surveyed point.

    Figure 11.  Boxplots, violin plots, and Taylor diagram for the optimal standalone and double-stage synthesis models during validation phase (Toilchun station).

    The addressed research explored the nonlinear behavior (e.g., hard to predict) of BOD5 concentration employing standalone and double-stage synthesis models in Hwangji and Toilchun stations, South Korea. Since both stations (i.e., Hwangji and Toilchun) yielded the different high-quality accuracies for the desirable standalone models, it was hard to judge which model predicted BOD5 concentration with accuracy. Also, the outputs of three mathematical formulae explained that the SVM models with diverse input associations could predict BOD5 concentration precisely compared to the ELM and Deep ESN models based on the corresponding distribution on both stations. Because all standalone models enforced the various theoretical structures and inference, the accurate prediction was changed for diverse input associations of standalone models.

    The main aim for developing the double-stage synthesis models was to enhance the accurate prediction of BOD5 concentration compared to corresponding standalone models. Unfortunately, the Wavelet-ELM models could not boost the accurate prediction for corresponding ELM models from the perspective of double-stage synthesis models' performance, based on NS values at Hwangji station. Among the Wavelet-SVR models, the Wavelet-SVR1 (0.4% for SVR1), Wavelet-SVR2 (0.7% for SVR2), Wavelet-SVR4 (3.7% for SVR4), and Wavelet-SVR5 (3.4% for SVR5) models slightly enhanced the accurate prediction. Also, all the Wavelet-Deep ESN models increased the predictive accuracy on a small scale, including the Wavelet-Deep ESN1 (2.5% for Deep ESN1), Wavelet-Deep ESN2 (0.1% for Deep ESN2), Wavelet-Deep ESN3 (3.5% for Deep ESN3), Wavelet-Deep ESN4 (6.0% for Deep ESN4), and Wavelet-Deep ESN5 (1.0% for Deep ESN5). Noticing the desirable models' categorization for the standalone and double-stage synthesis models, the Wavelet-SVR4 model, which yielded the best accuracy, improved the accurate prediction by 12.7% (Wavelet-ELM2), 9.8% (Wavelet-Deep ESN3), 2.5% (ELM4), and 10.1% (Deep ESN2), respectively.

    Regarding the performance evaluation of double-stage synthesis models by NS values at Toilchun station, only the Wavelet-ELM1 (19.7% for ELM1) model could boost the estimated efficiency obviously among the Wavelet-ELM models. Also, Wavelet-SVR1 (35.6% for SVR1), Wavelet-SVR2 (22.3% for SVR2), and Wavelet-SVR4 (7.4% for SVR4) models increased the accurate prediction clearly among the Wavelet-SVR models. In addition, all the Wavelet-Deep ESN models, including the Wavelet-Deep ESN1 (31.2% for Deep ESN1), Wavelet-Deep ESN2 (0.5% for Deep ESN2), Wavelet-Deep ESN3 (36.7% for Deep ESN3), Wavelet-Deep ESN4 (3.5% for Deep ESN4), and Wavelet-Deep ESN5 (8.9% for Deep ESN5) models, boosted the precise efficiency, respectively. Considering the desirable models' categorization for the standalone and double-stage synthesis models, the Wavelet-SVR4 model which produced the best accuracy, reinforced the accurate prediction by 32.8% (Wavelet-ELM5), 38.6% (Wavelet-Deep ESN5), 13.4% (ELM5), 5.2% (SVR5), and 51.0% (Deep ESN5), respectively. The double-stage synthesis models, therefore, could not always reinforce the accurate prediction of corresponding standalone models on both stations. This experience pursued the previous works of [2] and [44]. [44] predicted DO concentration employing the single and hybrid machine learning models in Florida, USA. Results demonstrated that the hybrid machine learning models could not regularly improve the predicted accuracy of single machine learning models. Also, [2] implemented the single and combinational paradigm to predict BOD5 concentration in South Korea. They found that the combinational paradigm could not always increase the predictive accuracy of single models clearly.

    Therefore, the process which embeds the different data preprocessing algorithms [45,46,47,48,49] in the diverse standalone (i.e., machine learning and deep learning) models, is required to increase the accurate prediction and efficiency of BOD5 concentration for the continuous research.

    The addressed research explored the precision and efficiency of the standalone and double-stage synthesis models for predicting BOD5 concentration in Hwangji and Toilchun stations, South Korea. Five input associations (1st–5th distributions) were resolved for developing the standalone and double-stage synthesis models based on seven water quantity and quality items. For the modeling and prediction of standalone and double-stage synthesis models, the assembled data were divided into training and validation samples, respectively. Three mathematical formulae (R2, NS, and RMSE) and four graphical aids (scatter diagram, boxplot, violin plot, and Taylor diagram) were used to evaluate the accurate prediction of addressed models.

    Considering the best models from the 1st-5th distributions, the SVR3 (R2 = 0.925, NS = 0.915, and RMSE = 0.264 mg/L) and Wavelet-SVR4 (R2 = 0.926, NS = 0.915, and RMSE = 0.264 mg/L) models were the most precise compared to other desirable models (ELM4, Deep ESN2, Wavelet-ELM2, and Wavelet-Deep ESN3) based on standalone and double-stage synthesis models in the validation phase at Hwangji station. Also, the Wavelet-SVR4 model (R2 = 0.922, NS = 0.917, and RMSE = 0.162 mg/L) provided more precise results than other desirable models (ELM5, SVR5, Deep ESN5, Wavelet-ELM5, and Wavelet-Deep ESN5) for predicting BOD5 concentration in the validation phase at Toilchun station. However, it was found the addressed research that explained that the precision and efficiency of BOD5 concentration estimated by the standalone models could not be reinforced by the double-stage synthesis models on both stations. Therefore, using the credible water quantity and quality items from the available data groups can confirm the outputs of the addressed research, and perform the best prediction of BOD5 concentration employing the different standalone and double-stage synthesis models in river.

    The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.


    Acknowledgments



    Authors would like to acknowledge CIISA—Centro de Investigação Interdisciplinar em Sanidade Animal, Faculdade de Medicina Veterinária, Universidade de Lisboa, Lisboa, Portugal and Laboratório Associado para a Ciência Animal e Veterinária.

    Conflict of interest



    The authors declare no conflict of interest.

    Author contributions



    Conceptualization, M.O., E.C., L.T., and I.S.; Writing—original draft preparation, I.S.; Writing—review and editing, M.O., E.C., L.T., and I.S.; Visualization, I.S.; Project administration, L.T. and M.O.

    [1] Pouget C, Dunyach-Remy C, Pantel A, et al. (2020) Biofilms in diabetic foot ulcers: Significance and clinical relevance. Microorganisms 8. https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms8101580
    [2] Costerton JW, Stewart PS, Greenberg EP (1999) Bacterial biofilms: A common cause of persistent infections. Science 284: 1318-1322. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.284.5418.1318
    [3] Lam JS, MacDonald LA, Lam MY, et al. (1987) Production and characterization of monoclonal antibodies against serotype strains of Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Infect Immun 55: 1051-1057. https://doi.org/10.1128/iai.55.5.1051-1057.1987
    [4] Leid JG, Willson CJ, Shirtliff ME, et al. (2005) The exopolysaccharide alginate protects Pseudomonas aeruginosa biofilm bacteria from IFN-γ-mediated macrophage killing1. J Immunol 175: 7512-7518. https://doi.org/10.4049/jimmunol.175.11.7512
    [5] Wolcott R, Costerton JW, Raoult D, et al. (2013) The polymicrobial nature of biofilm infection. Clin Microbiol Infect 19: 107-112. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-0691.2012.04001.x
    [6] Bjarnsholt T (2013) The role of bacterial biofilms in chronic infections. APMIS Suppl : 1-51. https://doi.org/10.1111/apm.12099
    [7] Brogden KA, Guthmiller JM, Taylor CE (2005) Human polymicrobial infections. Lancet 365: 253-255. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(05)17745-9
    [8] Larsen MK, Thomsen TR, Moser C, et al. (2008) Use of cultivation-dependent and -independent techniques to assess contamination of central venous catheters: a pilot study. BMC Clin Pathol 8: 10. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6890-8-10
    [9] Kumar A, Seenivasan MK, Inbarajan A (2021) A literature review on biofilm formation on silicone and poymethyl methacrylate used for maxillofacial prostheses. Cureus 13: e20029. https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.20029
    [10] Rohacek M, Weisser M, Kobza R, et al. (2010) Bacterial colonization and infection of electrophysiological cardiac devices detected with sonication and swab culture. Circulation 121: 1691-1697. https://doi.org/10.1161/circulationaha.109.906461
    [11] Peters BM, Jabra-Rizk MA, O'May GA, et al. (2012) Polymicrobial interactions: impact on pathogenesis and human disease. Clin Microbiol Rev 25: 193-213. https://doi.org/10.1128/cmr.00013-11
    [12] Percival SL, McCarty SM, Lipsky B (2015) Biofilms and wounds: An overview of the evidence. Adv Wound Care New Rochelle 4: 373-381. https://doi.org/10.1089/wound.2014.0557
    [13] Beaudoin T, Yau YCW, Stapleton PJ, et al. (2017) Staphylococcus aureus interaction with Pseudomonas aeruginosa biofilm enhances tobramycin resistance. NPJ Biofilms Microbiomes 3: 25. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41522-017-0035-0
    [14] Windels EM, Michiels JE, Van den Bergh B, et al. (2019) Antibiotics: combatting tolerance to stop resistance. mBio 10. https://doi.org/10.1128/mbio.02095-19
    [15] Tay WH, Chong KK, Kline KA (2016) Polymicrobial-host interactions during infection. J Mol Biol 428: 3355-3371. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmb.2016.05.006
    [16] Wimmer MD, Friedrich MJ, Randau TM, et al. (2016) Polymicrobial infections reduce the cure rate in prosthetic joint infections: outcome analysis with two-stage exchange and follow-up ≥two years. Int Orthop 40: 1367-1373. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-015-2871-y
    [17] Dowd SE, Wolcott RD, Sun Y, et al. (2008) Polymicrobial nature of chronic diabetic foot ulcer biofilm infections determined using bacterial tag encoded FLX amplicon pyrosequencing (bTEFAP). PLoS One 3: e3326. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0003326
    [18] Solano C, Echeverz M, Lasa I (2014) Biofilm dispersion and quorum sensing. Curr Opin Microbiol 18: 96-104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mib.2014.02.008
    [19] Hibbing ME, Fuqua C, Parsek MR, et al. (2010) Bacterial competition: surviving and thriving in the microbial jungle. Nat Rev Microbiol 8: 15-25. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrmicro2259
    [20] Smith H (1982) The role of microbial interactions in infectious disease. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 297: 551-561. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.1982.0060
    [21] Hajishengallis G, Liang S, Payne MA, et al. (2011) Low-abundance biofilm species orchestrates inflammatory periodontal disease through the commensal microbiota and complement. Cell Host Microbe 10: 497-506. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chom.2011.10.006
    [22] Korgaonkar A, Trivedi U, Rumbaugh KP, et al. (2013) Community surveillance enhances Pseudomonas aeruginosa virulence during polymicrobial infection. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 110: 1059-1064. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1214550110
    [23] Stacy A, McNally L, Darch SE, et al. (2016) The biogeography of polymicrobial infection. Nat Rev Microbiol 14: 93-105. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrmicro.2015.8
    [24] Simón-Soro A, Mira A (2015) Solving the etiology of dental caries. Trends Microbiol 23: 76-82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tim.2014.10.010
    [25] Yung DBY, Sircombe KJ, Pletzer D (2021) Friends or enemies? The complicated relationship between Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Staphylococcus aureus. Mol Microbiol 116: 1-15. https://doi.org/10.1111/mmi.14699
    [26] DeLeon S, Clinton A, Fowler H, et al. (2014) Synergistic interactions of Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Staphylococcus aureus in an in vitro wound model. Infect Immun 82: 4718-4728. https://doi.org/10.1128/iai.02198-14
    [27] Short FL, Murdoch SL, Ryan RP (2014) Polybacterial human disease: the ills of social networking. Trends Microbiol 22: 508-516. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tim.2014.05.007
    [28] Peleg AY, Hogan DA, Mylonakis E (2010) Medically important bacterial-fungal interactions. Nat Rev Microbiol 8: 340-349. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrmicro2313
    [29] Murray JL, Connell JL, Stacy A, et al. (2014) Mechanisms of synergy in polymicrobial infections. J Microbiol 52: 188-199. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12275-014-4067-3
    [30] Griffiths EC, Pedersen AB, Fenton A, et al. (2011) The nature and consequences of coinfection in humans. J Infect 63: 200-206. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jinf.2011.06.005
    [31] Hogan DA, Kolter R (2002) Pseudomonas-Candida interactions: an ecological role for virulence factors. Science 296: 2229-2232. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1070784
    [32] Trivedi U, Parameswaran S, Armstrong A, et al. (2014) Prevalence of multiple antibiotic resistant infections in Diabetic versus nondiabetic wounds. J Pathog 2014: 173053. https://doi.org/10.1155/2014/173053
    [33] Costello EK, Lauber CL, Hamady M, et al. (2009) Bacterial community variation in human body habitats across space and time. Science 326: 1694-1697. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1177486
    [34] Nemergut DR, Schmidt SK, Fukami T, et al. (2013) Patterns and processes of microbial community assembly. Microbiol Mol Biol Rev 77: 342-356. https://doi.org/10.1128/mmbr.00051-12
    [35] Vellend M (2010) Conceptual synthesis in community ecology. Q Rev Biol 85: 183-206. https://doi.org/10.1086/652373
    [36] 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. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrmicro2381
    [37] Valm AM, Mark Welch JL, Rieken CW, et al. (2011) Systems-level analysis of microbial community organization through combinatorial labeling and spectral imaging. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 108: 4152-4157. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1101134108
    [38] Egland PG, Palmer RJ, Kolenbrander PE (2004) Interspecies communication in Streptococcus gordonii-Veillonella atypica biofilms: signaling in flow conditions requires juxtaposition. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 101: 16917-16922. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0407457101
    [39] Jakubovics NS, Gill SR, Iobst SE, et al. (2008) Regulation of gene expression in a mixed-genus community: stabilized arginine biosynthesis in Streptococcus gordonii by coaggregation with Actinomyces naeslundii. J Bacteriol 190: 3646-3657. https://doi.org/10.1128/jb.00088-08
    [40] He X, McLean JS, Edlund A, et al. (2015) Cultivation of a human-associated TM7 phylotype reveals a reduced genome and epibiotic parasitic lifestyle. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 112: 244-249. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1419038112
    [41] Momeni B, Brileya KA, Fields MW, et al. (2013) Strong inter-population cooperation leads to partner intermixing in microbial communities. Elife 2: e00230. https://doi.org/10.7554/elife.00230
    [42] Estrela S, Brown SP (2013) Metabolic and demographic feedbacks shape the emergent spatial structure and function of microbial communities. PLoS Comput Biol 9: e1003398. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1003398
    [43] Connell JL, Ritschdorff ET, Whiteley M, et al. (2013) 3D printing of microscopic bacterial communities. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 110: 18380-18385. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1309729110
    [44] Stacy A, Everett J, Jorth P, et al. (2014) Bacterial fight-and-flight responses enhance virulence in a polymicrobial infection. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 111: 7819-7824. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1400586111
    [45] Schillinger C, Petrich A, Lux R, et al. (2012) Co-localized or randomly distributed? Pair cross correlation of in vivo grown subgingival biofilm bacteria quantified by digital image analysis. PLoS One 7: e37583. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0037583
    [46] Settem RP, El-Hassan AT, Honma K, et al. (2012) Fusobacterium nucleatum and Tannerella forsythia induce synergistic alveolar bone loss in a mouse periodontitis model. Infect Immun 80: 2436-2443. https://doi.org/10.1128/iai.06276-11
    [47] Liu X, Ramsey MM, Chen X, et al. (2011) Real-time mapping of a hydrogen peroxide concentration profile across a polymicrobial bacterial biofilm using scanning electrochemical microscopy. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 108: 2668-2673. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1018391108
    [48] Fazli M, Bjarnsholt T, Kirketerp-Møller K, et al. (2009) Nonrandom distribution of Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Staphylococcus aureus in chronic wounds. J Clin Microbiol 47: 4084-4089. https://doi.org/10.1128/jcm.01395-09
    [49] Kim W, Racimo F, Schluter J, et al. (2014) Importance of positioning for microbial evolution. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 111: E1639-47. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1323632111
    [50] Eberl L, Tümmler B (2004) Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Burkholderia cepacia in cystic fibrosis: genome evolution, interactions and adaptation. Int J Med Microbiol 294: 123-131. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmm.2004.06.022
    [51] Bragonzi A, Farulla I, Paroni M, et al. (2012) Modelling co-infection of the cystic fibrosis lung by Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Burkholderia cenocepacia reveals influences on biofilm formation and host response. PLoS One 7: e52330. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0052330
    [52] Markussen T, Marvig RL, Gómez-Lozano M, et al. (2014) Environmental heterogeneity drives within-host diversification and evolution of Pseudomonas aeruginosa. mBio 5: e01592-14. https://doi.org/10.1128/mbio.01592-14
    [53] Huse HK, Kwon T, Zlosnik JE, et al. (2013) Pseudomonas aeruginosa enhances production of a non-alginate exopolysaccharide during long-term colonization of the cystic fibrosis lung. PLoS One 8: e82621. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0082621
    [54] Guilhen C, Forestier C, Balestrino D (2017) Biofilm dispersal: multiple elaborate strategies for dissemination of bacteria with unique properties. Mol Microbiol 105: 188-210. https://doi.org/10.1111/mmi.13698
    [55] Baishya J, Wakeman CA (2019) Selective pressures during chronic infection drive microbial competition and cooperation. NPJ Biofilms Microbiomes 5: 16. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41522-019-0089-2
    [56] How KY, Song KP, Chan KG (2016) Porphyromonas gingivalis: An overview of periodontopathic pathogen below the gum line. Front Microbiol 7: 53. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2016.00053
    [57] Swidsinski A, Weber J, Loening-Baucke V, et al. (2005) Spatial organization and composition of the mucosal flora in patients with inflammatory bowel disease. J Clin Microbiol 43: 3380-3389. https://doi.org/10.1128/jcm.43.7.3380-3389.2005
    [58] Bezine E, Vignard J, Mirey G (2014) The cytolethal distending toxin effects on Mammalian cells: a DNA damage perspective. Cells 3: 592-615. https://doi.org/10.3390/cells3020592
    [59] Martin OCB, Frisan T (2020) Bacterial genotoxin-induced DNA damage and modulation of the host immune microenvironment. Toxins Basel 12. https://doi.org/10.3390/toxins12020063
    [60] Weitzman MD, Weitzman JB (2014) What's the damage? The impact of pathogens on pathways that maintain host genome integrity. Cell Host Microbe 15: 283-294. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chom.2014.02.010
    [61] Miller RA, Betteken MI, Guo X, et al. (2018) The typhoid toxin produced by the nontyphoidal Salmonella enterica serotype javiana is required for induction of a DNA damage response in vitro and systemic spread in vivo. mBio 9. https://doi.org/10.1128/mbio.00467-18
    [62] Del Bel Belluz L, Guidi R, Pateras IS, et al. (2016) The typhoid toxin promotes host survival and the establishment of a persistent asymptomatic infection. PLoS Pathog 12: e1005528. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.ppat.1005528
    [63] Frisan T (2021) Co- and polymicrobial infections in the gut mucosa: The host-microbiota-pathogen perspective. Cell Microbiol 23: e13279. https://doi.org/10.1111/cmi.13279
    [64] Wang B, Kohli J, Demaria M (2020) Senescent cells in cancer therapy: Friends or foes?. Trends Cancer 6: 838-857. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trecan.2020.05.004
    [65] Gorgoulis V, Adams PD, Alimonti A, et al. (2019) Cellular senescence: Defining a path forward. Cell 179: 813-827. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2019.10.005
    [66] Ahn SH, Cho SH, Song JE, et al. (2017) Caveolin-1 serves as a negative effector in senescent human gingival fibroblasts during Fusobacterium nucleatum infection. Mol Oral Microbiol 32: 236-249. https://doi.org/10.1111/omi.12167
    [67] Kim JA, Seong RK, Shin OS (2016) Enhanced viral replication by cellular replicative senescence. Immune Netw 16: 286-295. https://doi.org/10.4110/in.2016.16.5.286
    [68] Shivshankar P, Boyd AR, Le Saux CJ, et al. (2011) Cellular senescence increases expression of bacterial ligands in the lungs and is positively correlated with increased susceptibility to pneumococcal pneumonia. Aging Cell 10: 798-806. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1474-9726.2011.00720.x
    [69] Murphy TF, Bakaletz LO, Smeesters PR (2009) Microbial interactions in the respiratory tract. Pediatr Infect J 28: S121-6. https://doi.org/10.1097/inf.0b013e3181b6d7ec
    [70] Preza D, Olsen I, Aas JA, et al. (2008) Bacterial profiles of root caries in elderly patients. J Clin Microbiol 46: 2015-2021. https://doi.org/10.1128/jcm.02411-07
    [71] Becker MR, Paster BJ, Leys EJ, et al. (2002) Molecular analysis of bacterial species associated with childhood caries. J Clin Microbiol 40: 1001-1009. https://doi.org/10.1128/jcm.40.3.1001-1009.2002
    [72] de Carvalho FG, Silva DS, Hebling J, et al. (2006) Presence of mutans streptococci and Candida spp. in dental plaque/dentine of carious teeth and early childhood caries. Arch Oral Biol 51: 1024-1028. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.archoralbio.2006.06.001
    [73] Baena-Monroy T, Moreno-Maldonado V, Franco-Martínez F, et al. (2005) Candida albicans, Staphylococcus aureus and Streptococcus mutans colonization in patients wearing dental prosthesis. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal 10 Suppl1: E27-39.
    [74] Armitage GC, Cullinan MP (2010) Comparison of the clinical features of chronic and aggressive periodontitis. Periodontol 2000 53: 12-27. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0757.2010.00353.x
    [75] RJ G (1996) Consensus report. Periodontal diseases: pathogenesis and microbial factors. Ann Periodontol 1: 926-932. https://doi.org/10.1902/annals.1996.1.1.926
    [76] Saito A, Inagaki S, Kimizuka R, et al. (2008) Fusobacterium nucleatum enhances invasion of human gingival epithelial and aortic endothelial cells by Porphyromonas gingivalis. FEMS Immunol Med Microbiol 54: 349-355. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1574-695x.2008.00481.x
    [77] O'May GA, Reynolds N, Smith AR, et al. (2005) Effect of pH and antibiotics on microbial overgrowth in the stomachs and duodena of patients undergoing percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy feeding. J Clin Microbiol 43: 3059-3065. https://doi.org/10.1128/jcm.43.7.3059-3065.2005
    [78] Jacques I, Derelle J, Weber M, et al. (1998) Pulmonary evolution of cystic fibrosis patients colonized by Pseudomonas aeruginosa and/or Burkholderia cepacia. Eur J Pediatr 157: 427-431. https://doi.org/10.1007/s004310050844
    [79] Liou TG, Adler FR, Fitzsimmons SC, et al. (2001) Predictive 5-year survivorship model of cystic fibrosis. Am J Epidemiol 153: 345-352. https://doi.org/10.1093/aje/153.4.345
    [80] Duan K, Dammel C, Stein J, et al. (2003) Modulation of Pseudomonas aeruginosa gene expression by host microflora through interspecies communication. Mol Microbiol 50: 1477-1491. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2958.2003.03803.x
    [81] Brand A, Barnes JD, Mackenzie KS, et al. (2008) Cell wall glycans and soluble factors determine the interactions between the hyphae of Candida albicans and Pseudomonas aeruginosa. FEMS Microbiol Lett 287: 48-55. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1574-6968.2008.01301.x
    [82] Chotirmall SH, McElvaney NG (2014) Fungi in the cystic fibrosis lung: bystanders or pathogens?. Int J Biochem Cell Biol 52: 161-173. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocel.2014.03.001
    [83] Van Ewijk BE, Wolfs TF, Aerts PC, et al. (2007) RSV mediates Pseudomonas aeruginosa binding to cystic fibrosis and normal epithelial cells. Pediatr Res 61: 398-403. https://doi.org/10.1203/pdr.0b013e3180332d1c
    [84] Sibley CD, Rabin H, Surette MG (2006) Cystic fibrosis: a polymicrobial infectious disease. Future Microbiol 1: 53-61. https://doi.org/10.2217/17460913.1.1.53
    [85] Tunney MM, Field TR, Moriarty TF, et al. (2008) Detection of anaerobic bacteria in high numbers in sputum from patients with cystic fibrosis. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 177: 995-1001. https://doi.org/10.1164/rccm.200708-1151oc
    [86] Dejea CM, Fathi P, Craig JM, et al. (2018) Patients with familial adenomatous polyposis harbor colonic biofilms containing tumorigenic bacteria. Science 359: 592-597. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aah3648
    [87] Drewes JL, White JR, Dejea CM, et al. (2017) High-resolution bacterial 16S rRNA gene profile meta-analysis and biofilm status reveal common colorectal cancer consortia. NPJ Biofilms Microbiomes 3: 34. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41522-017-0040-3
    [88] Palusiak A (2022) Proteus mirabilis and Klebsiella pneumoniae as pathogens capable of causing co-infections and exhibiting similarities in their virulence factors. Front Cell Infect Microbiol 12: 991657. https://doi.org/10.3389/fcimb.2022.991657
    [89] Singh N, Mishra S, Mondal A, et al. (2022) Potential of desert medicinal plants for combating resistant biofilms in urinary tract infections. Appl Biochem Biotechnol . https://doi.org/10.1007/s12010-022-03950-4
    [90] James GA, Swogger E, Wolcott R, et al. (2008) Biofilms in chronic wounds. Wound Repair Regen 16: 37-44. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1524-475x.2007.00321.x
    [91] Citron DM, Goldstein EJ, Merriam CV, et al. (2007) Bacteriology of moderate-to-severe diabetic foot infections and in vitro activity of antimicrobial agents. J Clin Microbiol 45: 2819-2828. https://doi.org/10.1128/jcm.00551-07
    [92] Segal N, Leibovitz E, Dagan R, et al. (2005) Acute otitis media-diagnosis and treatment in the era of antibiotic resistant organisms: updated clinical practice guidelines. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol 69: 1311-1319. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijporl.2005.05.003
    [93] Klein JO (2000) The burden of otitis media. Vaccine 19 Suppl 1: S2-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0264-410x(00)00271-1
    [94] Faden H, Duffy L, Wasielewski R, et al. (1997) Relationship between nasopharyngeal colonization and the development of otitis media in children. Tonawanda/Williamsville Pediatrics. J Infect Dis 175: 1440-1445. https://doi.org/10.1086/516477
    [95] Hament JM, Kimpen JL, Fleer A, et al. (1999) Respiratory viral infection predisposing for bacterial disease: a concise review. FEMS Immunol Med Microbiol 26: 189-195. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1574-695x.1999.tb01389.x
    [96] Abramson JS, Wheeler JG (1994) Virus-induced neutrophil dysfunction: role in the pathogenesis of bacterial infections. Pediatr Infect J 13: 643-652.
    [97] Laufer AS, Metlay JP, Gent JF, et al. (2011) Microbial communities of the upper respiratory tract and otitis media in children. mBio 2: e00245-10. https://doi.org/10.1128/mbio.00245-10
    [98] Muñoz-Elías EJ, Marcano J, Camilli A (2008) Isolation of Streptococcus pneumoniae biofilm mutants and their characterization during nasopharyngeal colonization. Infect Immun 76: 5049-5061. https://doi.org/10.1128/iai.00425-08
    [99] Vidal JE, Ludewick HP, Kunkel RM, et al. (2011) The LuxS-dependent quorum-sensing system regulates early biofilm formation by Streptococcus pneumoniae strain D39. Infect Immun 79: 4050-4060. https://doi.org/10.1128/iai.05186-11
    [100] Shak JR, Vidal JE, Klugman KP (2013) Influence of bacterial interactions on pneumococcal colonization of the nasopharynx. Trends Microbiol 21: 129-135. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tim.2012.11.005
    [101] Guiral S, Mitchell TJ, Martin B, et al. (2005) Competence-programmed predation of noncompetent cells in the human pathogen Streptococcus pneumoniae: genetic requirements. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 102: 8710-8715. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0500879102
    [102] Johnsborg O, Håvarstein LS (2009) Regulation of natural genetic transformation and acquisition of transforming DNA in Streptococcus pneumoniae. FEMS Microbiol Rev 33: 627-642. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1574-6976.2009.00167.x
    [103] Weimer KE, Juneau RA, Murrah KA, et al. (2011) Divergent mechanisms for passive pneumococcal resistance to β-lactam antibiotics in the presence of Haemophilus influenzae. J Infect Dis 203: 549-555. https://doi.org/10.1093/infdis/jiq087
    [104] Pereira CS, Thompson JA, Xavier KB (2013) AI-2-mediated signalling in bacteria. FEMS Microbiol Rev 37: 156-181. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1574-6976.2012.00345.x
    [105] Dejea CM, Wick EC, Hechenbleikner EM, et al. (2014) Microbiota organization is a distinct feature of proximal colorectal cancers. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 111: 18321-18326. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1406199111
    [106] Wick EC, Rabizadeh S, Albesiano E, et al. (2014) Stat3 activation in murine colitis induced by enterotoxigenic Bacteroides fragilis. Inflamm Bowel Dis 20: 821-834. https://doi.org/10.1097/mib.0000000000000019
    [107] Wild S, Roglic G, Green A, et al. (2004) Global prevalence of diabetes: estimates for the year 2000 and projections for 2030. Diabetes Care 27: 1047-1053. https://doi.org/10.2337/diacare.27.5.1047
    [108] Armstrong DG, Boulton AJM, Bus SA (2017) Diabetic foot ulcers and their recurrence. N Engl J Med 376: 2367-2375. https://doi.org/10.1056/nejmra1615439
    [109] Adler AI, Boyko EJ, Ahroni JH, et al. (1999) Lower-extremity amputation in diabetes. The independent effects of peripheral vascular disease, sensory neuropathy, and foot ulcers. Diabetes Care 22: 1029-1035. https://doi.org/10.2337/diacare.22.7.1029
    [110] Oates A, Bowling FL, Boulton AJ, et al. (2012) Molecular and culture-based assessment of the microbial diversity of diabetic chronic foot wounds and contralateral skin sites. J Clin Microbiol 50: 2263-2271. https://doi.org/10.1128/jcm.06599-11
    [111] Gontcharova V, Youn E, Sun Y, et al. (2010) A comparison of bacterial composition in diabetic ulcers and contralateral intact skin. Open Microbiol J 4: 8-19. https://doi.org/10.2174/1874285801004010008
    [112] Percival SL, Malone M, Mayer D, et al. (2018) Role of anaerobes in polymicrobial communities and biofilms complicating diabetic foot ulcers. Int Wound J 15: 776-782. https://doi.org/10.1111/iwj.12926
    [113] Wolcott RD, Hanson JD, Rees EJ, et al. (2016) Analysis of the chronic wound microbiota of 2,963 patients by 16S rDNA pyrosequencing. Wound Repair Regen 24: 163-174. https://doi.org/10.1111/wrr.12370
    [114] Loesche M, Gardner SE, Kalan L, et al. (2017) Temporal stability in chronic wound microbiota is associated with poor healing. J Invest Dermatol 137: 237-244. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jid.2016.08.009
    [115] Ndosi M, Wright-Hughes A, Brown S, et al. (2018) Prognosis of the infected diabetic foot ulcer: a 12-month prospective observational study. Diabet Med 35: 78-88. https://doi.org/10.1111/dme.13537
    [116] Malone M, Johani K, Jensen SO, et al. (2017) Next generation DNA sequencing of tissues from infected diabetic foot ulcers. EBioMedicine 21: 142-149. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ebiom.2017.06.026
    [117] Shanmugam P, Jeva M, Susan SL (2013) The bacteriology of diabetic foot ulcers, with a special reference to multidrug resistant strains. J Clin Diagn Res 7: 441-445. https://doi.org/10.7860/jcdr/2013/5091.2794
    [118] Gardner SE, Hillis SL, Heilmann K, et al. (2013) The neuropathic diabetic foot ulcer microbiome is associated with clinical factors. Diabetes 62: 923-930. https://doi.org/10.2337/db12-0771
    [119] Jneid J, Lavigne JP, La Scola B, et al. (2017) The diabetic foot microbiota: A review. Hum Microbiome J 5–6: 1-6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.humic.2017.09.002
    [120] Cogen AL, Nizet V, Gallo RL (2008) Skin microbiota: a source of disease or defence?. Br J Dermatol 158: 442-455. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2133.2008.08437.x
    [121] Kalan L, Loesche M, Hodkinson BP, et al. (2016) Redefining the chronic-wound microbiome: fungal communities are prevalent, dynamic, and associated with delayed healing. mBio 7. https://doi.org/10.1128/mbio.01058-16
    [122] Mottola C, Mendes JJ, Cristino JM, et al. (2016) Polymicrobial biofilms by diabetic foot clinical isolates. Folia Microbiol (Praha) 61: 35-43. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12223-015-0401-3
    [123] Davies JC, Alton EW, Bush A (2007) Cystic fibrosis. Bmj 335: 1255-1259. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.39391.713229.ad
    [124] Anderson MP, Gregory RJ, Thompson S, et al. (1991) Demonstration that CFTR is a chloride channel by alteration of its anion selectivity. Science 253: 202-205. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1712984
    [125] Mortensen J, Hansen A, Falk M, et al. (1993) Reduced effect of inhaled beta 2-adrenergic agonists on lung mucociliary clearance in patients with cystic fibrosis. Chest 103: 805-811. https://doi.org/10.1378/chest.103.3.805
    [126] Arias SL, Brito IL (2021) Biophysical determinants of biofilm formation in the gut. Curr Opin Biomed Eng 18: 100275. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cobme.2021.100275
    [127] Schwarz-Linek J, Winkler A, Wilson LG, et al. (2010) Polymer-induced phase separation in Escherichia coli suspensions. Soft Matter 6: 4540-4549. https://doi.org/10.1039/C0SM00214C
    [128] Secor PR, Michaels LA, Ratjen A, et al. (2018) Entropically driven aggregation of bacteria by host polymers promotes antibiotic tolerance in Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 115: 10780-10785. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1806005115
    [129] Hubert D, Réglier-Poupet H, Sermet-Gaudelus I, et al. (2013) Association between Staphylococcus aureus alone or combined with Pseudomonas aeruginosa and the clinical condition of patients with cystic fibrosis. J Cyst Fibros 12: 497-503. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcf.2012.12.003
    [130] Razvi S, Quittell L, Sewall A, et al. (2009) Respiratory microbiology of patients with cystic fibrosis in the United States, 1995 to 2005. Chest 136: 1554-1560. https://doi.org/10.1378/chest.09-0132
    [131] Folkesson A, Jelsbak L, Yang L, et al. (2012) Adaptation of Pseudomonas aeruginosa to the cystic fibrosis airway: an evolutionary perspective. Nat Rev Microbiol 10: 841-851. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrmicro2907
    [132] Harrison F (2007) Microbial ecology of the cystic fibrosis lung. Microbiol Read 153: 917-923. https://doi.org/10.1099/mic.0.2006/004077-0
    [133] Clark SE (2020) Commensal bacteria in the upper respiratory tract regulate susceptibility to infection. Curr Opin Immunol 66: 42-49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.coi.2020.03.010
    [134] Davies JC (2002) Pseudomonas aeruginosa in cystic fibrosis: pathogenesis and persistence. Paediatr Respir Rev 3: 128-134. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1526-0550(02)00003-3
    [135] O'Brien S, Fothergill JL (2017) The role of multispecies social interactions in shaping Pseudomonas aeruginosa pathogenicity in the cystic fibrosis lung. FEMS Microbiol Lett 364. https://doi.org/10.1093/femsle/fnx128
    [136] Valenza G, Tappe D, Turnwald D, et al. (2008) Prevalence and antimicrobial susceptibility of microorganisms isolated from sputa of patients with cystic fibrosis. J Cyst Fibros 7: 123-127. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcf.2007.06.006
    [137] Briaud P, Camus L, Bastien S, et al. (2019) Coexistence with Pseudomonas aeruginosa alters Staphylococcus aureus transcriptome, antibiotic resistance and internalization into epithelial cells. Sci Rep 9: 16564. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-52975-z
    [138] Fischer AJ, Singh SB, LaMarche MM, et al. (2021) Sustained coinfections with Staphylococcus aureus and Pseudomonas aeruginosa in cystic fibrosis. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 203: 328-338. https://doi.org/10.1164/rccm.202004-1322oc
    [139] Briaud P, Bastien S, Camus L, et al. (2020) Impact of coexistence phenotype between Staphylococcus aureus and Pseudomonas aeruginosa isolates on clinical outcomes among cystic fibrosis patients. Front Cell Infect Microbiol 10: 266. https://doi.org/10.3389/fcimb.2020.00266
    [140] Emerson J, Rosenfeld M, McNamara S, et al. (2002) Pseudomonas aeruginosa and other predictors of mortality and morbidity in young children with cystic fibrosis. Pediatr Pulmonol 34: 91-100. https://doi.org/10.1002/ppul.10127
    [141] Sajjan U, Thanassoulis G, Cherapanov V, et al. (2001) Enhanced susceptibility to pulmonary infection with Burkholderia cepacia in Cftr(-/-) mice. Infect Immun 69: 5138-5150. https://doi.org/10.1128/iai.69.8.5138-5150.2001
    [142] De Soyza A, McDowell A, Archer L, et al. (2001) Burkholderia cepacia complex genomovars and pulmonary transplantation outcomes in patients with cystic fibrosis. Lancet 358: 1780-1781. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(01)06808-8
    [143] Chotirmall SH, O'Donoghue E, Bennett K, et al. (2010) Sputum Candida albicans presages FEV1 decline and hospital-treated exacerbations in cystic fibrosis. Chest 138: 1186-1195. https://doi.org/10.1378/chest.09-2996
    [144] Pihet M, Carrere J, Cimon B, et al. (2009) Occurrence and relevance of filamentous fungi in respiratory secretions of patients with cystic fibrosis–a review. Med Mycol 47: 387-397. https://doi.org/10.1080/13693780802609604
    [145] Hogan DA, Vik A, Kolter R (2004) A Pseudomonas aeruginosa quorum-sensing molecule influences Candida albicans morphology. Mol Microbiol 54: 1212-1223. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2958.2004.04349.x
    [146] Reece E, Segurado R, Jackson A, et al. (2017) Co-colonisation with Aspergillus fumigatus and Pseudomonas aeruginosa is associated with poorer health in cystic fibrosis patients: an Irish registry analysis. BMC Pulm Med 17: 70. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12890-017-0416-4
    [147] Coman I, Bilodeau L, Lavoie A, et al. (2017) Ralstonia mannitolilytica in cystic fibrosis: A new predictor of worse outcomes. Respir Med Case Rep 20: 48-50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rmcr.2016.11.014
    [148] Lim YW, Evangelista JS, Schmieder R, et al. (2014) Clinical insights from metagenomic analysis of sputum samples from patients with cystic fibrosis. J Clin Microbiol 52: 425-437. https://doi.org/10.1128/jcm.02204-13
    [149] Billard L, Le Berre R, Pilorgé L, et al. (2017) Viruses in cystic fibrosis patients' airways. Crit Rev Microbiol 43: 690-708. https://doi.org/10.1080/1040841x.2017.1297763
    [150] Lopes SP, Ceri H, Azevedo NF, et al. (2012) Antibiotic resistance of mixed biofilms in cystic fibrosis: impact of emerging microorganisms on treatment of infection. Int J Antimicrob Agents 40: 260-263. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijantimicag.2012.04.020
    [151] Verdial C, Serrano I, Tavares L, et al. (2023) Mechanisms of antibiotic and biocide resistance that contribute to Pseudomonas aeruginosa persistence in the hospital environment. Biomedicines 11. https://doi.org/10.3390/biomedicines11041221
    [152] Aloke C, Achilonu I (2023) Coping with the ESKAPE pathogens: Evolving strategies, challenges and future prospects. Microb Pathog 175: 105963. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.micpath.2022.105963
    [153] Ciofu O, Tolker-Nielsen T (2019) Tolerance and resistance of Pseudomonas aeruginosa biofilms to antimicrobial agents-how P. aeruginosa can escape antibiotics. Front Microbiol 10: 913. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2019.00913
    [154] Akita S, Tanaka K, Hirano A (2006) Lower extremity reconstruction after necrotising fasciitis and necrotic skin lesions using a porcine-derived skin substitute. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 59: 759-763. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bjps.2005.11.021
    [155] Levine EG, Manders SM (2005) Life-threatening necrotizing fasciitis. Clin Dermatol 23: 144-147. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clindermatol.2004.06.014
    [156] Pastar I, Nusbaum AG, Gil J, et al. (2013) Interactions of methicillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus USA300 and Pseudomonas aeruginosa in polymicrobial wound infection. PLoS One 8: e56846. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0056846
    [157] Filkins LM, O'Toole GA (2015) Cystic fibrosis lung infections: polymicrobial, complex, and hard to treat. PLoS Pathog 11: e1005258. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.ppat.1005258
    [158] Kirketerp-Møller K, Jensen P, Fazli M, et al. (2008) Distribution, organization, and ecology of bacteria in chronic wounds. J Clin Microbiol 46: 2717-2722. https://doi.org/10.1128/jcm.00501-08
    [159] Trizna EY, Yarullina MN, Baidamshina DR, et al. (2020) Bidirectional alterations in antibiotics susceptibility in Staphylococcus aureus-Pseudomonas aeruginosa dual-species biofilm. Sci Rep 10: 14849. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-71834-w
    [160] Biswas L, Götz F (2021) Molecular mechanisms of Staphylococcus and Pseudomonas interactions in cystic fibrosis. Front Cell Infect Microbiol 11: 824042. https://doi.org/10.3389/fcimb.2021.824042
    [161] Kessler E, Safrin M, Olson JC, et al. (1993) Secreted LasA of Pseudomonas aeruginosa is a staphylolytic protease. J Biol Chem 268: 7503-7508. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0021-9258(18)53203-8
    [162] Hotterbeekx A, Kumar-Singh S, Goossens H, et al. (2017) In vivo and In vitro interactions between Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Staphylococcus spp. Front Cell Infect Microbiol 7: 106. https://doi.org/10.3389/fcimb.2017.00106
    [163] Wood TL, Gong T, Zhu L, et al. (2018) Rhamnolipids from Pseudomonas aeruginosa disperse the biofilms of sulfate-reducing bacteria. NPJ Biofilms Microbiomes 4: 22. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41522-018-0066-1
    [164] Marques CN, Morozov A, Planzos P, et al. (2014) The fatty acid signaling molecule cis-2-decenoic acid increases metabolic activity and reverts persister cells to an antimicrobial-susceptible state. Appl Env Microbiol 80: 6976-6991. https://doi.org/10.1128/aem.01576-14
    [165] Qazi S, Middleton B, Muharram SH, et al. (2006) N-acylhomoserine lactones antagonize virulence gene expression and quorum sensing in Staphylococcus aureus. Infect Immun 74: 910-919. https://doi.org/10.1128/iai.74.2.910-919.2006
    [166] Voggu L, Schlag S, Biswas R, et al. (2006) Microevolution of cytochrome bd oxidase in Staphylococci and its implication in resistance to respiratory toxins released by Pseudomonas. J Bacteriol 188: 8079-8086. https://doi.org/10.1128/jb.00858-06
    [167] Noto MJ, Burns WJ, Beavers WN, et al. (2017) Mechanisms of pyocyanin toxicity and genetic determinants of resistance in Staphylococcus aureus. J Bacteriol 199. https://doi.org/10.1128/jb.00221-17
    [168] Machan ZA, Taylor GW, Pitt TL, et al. (1992) 2-Heptyl-4-hydroxyquinoline N-oxide, an antistaphylococcal agent produced by Pseudomonas aeruginosa. J Antimicrob Chemother 30: 615-623. https://doi.org/10.1093/jac/30.5.615
    [169] Szamosvári D, Böttcher T (2017) An unsaturated quinolone N-Oxide of Pseudomonas aeruginosa modulates growth and virulence of Staphylococcus aureus. Angew Chem Int Ed Engl 56: 7271-7275. https://doi.org/10.1002/anie.201702944
    [170] Hoffman LR, Déziel E, D'Argenio DA, et al. (2006) Selection for Staphylococcus aureus small-colony variants due to growth in the presence of Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 103: 19890-19895. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0606756104
    [171] Falcon MA, Mansito TB, Carnicero A, et al. (1989) L-form-like colonies of Staphylococcus aureus induced by an extracellular lytic enzyme from Pseudomonas aeruginosa. J Clin Microbiol 27: 1650-1654. https://doi.org/10.1128/jcm.27.7.1650-1654.1989
    [172] Pallett R, Leslie LJ, Lambert PA, et al. (2019) Anaerobiosis influences virulence properties of Pseudomonas aeruginosa cystic fibrosis isolates and the interaction with Staphylococcus aureus. Sci Rep 9: 6748. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-42952-x
    [173] Armbruster CR, Wolter DJ, Mishra M, et al. (2016) Staphylococcus aureus protein A mediates interspecies interactions at the cell surface of Pseudomonas aeruginosa. mBio 7. https://doi.org/10.1128/mbio.00538-16
    [174] Price CE, Brown DG, Limoli DH, et al. (2020) Exogenous alginate protects Staphylococcus aureus from killing by Pseudomonas aeruginosa. J Bacteriol 202. https://doi.org/10.1128/jb.00559-19
    [175] Limoli DH, Whitfield GB, Kitao T, et al. (2017) Pseudomonas aeruginosa alginate overproduction promotes coexistence with Staphylococcus aureus in a model of cystic fibrosis respiratory infection. mBio 8. https://doi.org/10.1128/mbio.00186-17
    [176] Orazi G, Ruoff KL, O'Toole GA (2019) Pseudomonas aeruginosa increases the sensitivity of biofilm-grown Staphylococcus aureus to membrane-targeting antiseptics and antibiotics. mBio 10. https://doi.org/10.1128/mbio.01501-19
    [177] Orazi G, O'Toole GA (2017) Pseudomonas aeruginosa alters Staphylococcus aureus sensitivity to vancomycin in a biofilm model of cystic fibrosis infection. mBio 8. https://doi.org/10.1128/mbio.00873-17
    [178] Baldan R, Cigana C, Testa F, et al. (2014) Adaptation of Pseudomonas aeruginosa in Cystic Fibrosis airways influences virulence of Staphylococcus aureus in vitro and murine models of co-infection. PLoS One 9: e89614. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0089614
    [179] Zhao K, Du L, Lin J, et al. (2018) Pseudomonas aeruginosa quorum-sensing and type VI secretion system can direct interspecific coexistence during evolution. Front Microbiol 9: 2287. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2018.02287
    [180] Soares A, Alexandre K, Etienne M (2020) Tolerance and persistence of Pseudomonas aeruginosa in biofilms exposed to antibiotics: Molecular mechanisms, antibiotic strategies and therapeutic perspectives. Front Microbiol 11: 2057. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2020.02057
    [181] Fisher RA, Gollan B, Helaine S (2017) Persistent bacterial infections and persister cells. Nat Rev Microbiol 15: 453-464. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrmicro.2017.42
    [182] Grassi L, Di Luca M, Maisetta G, et al. (2017) Generation of persister cells of Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Staphylococcus aureus by chemical treatment and evaluation of their susceptibility to membrane-targeting agents. Front Microbiol 8: 1917. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2017.01917
    [183] Mulcahy LR, Burns JL, Lory S, et al. (2010) Emergence of Pseudomonas aeruginosa strains producing high levels of persister cells in patients with cystic fibrosis. J Bacteriol 192: 6191-6199. https://doi.org/10.1128/jb.01651-09
    [184] Tamber S, Cheung AL (2009) SarZ promotes the expression of virulence factors and represses biofilm formation by modulating SarA and agr in Staphylococcus aureus. Infect Immun 77: 419-428. https://doi.org/10.1128/iai.00859-08
    [185] Melter O, Radojevič B (2010) Small colony variants of Staphylococcus aureus–review. Folia Microbiol Praha 55: 548-558. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12223-010-0089-3
    [186] Pagels M, Fuchs S, Pané-Farré J, et al. (2010) Redox sensing by a Rex-family repressor is involved in the regulation of anaerobic gene expression in Staphylococcus aureus. Mol Microbiol 76: 1142-1161. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2958.2010.07105.x
    [187] Tuchscherr L, Löffler B, Proctor RA (2020) Persistence of Staphylococcus aureus: Multiple metabolic pathways impact the expression of virulence factors in small-colony variants (SCVs). Front Microbiol 11: 1028. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2020.01028
    [188] Besier S, Smaczny C, von Mallinckrodt C, et al. (2007) Prevalence and clinical significance of Staphylococcus aureus small-colony variants in cystic fibrosis lung disease. J Clin Microbiol 45: 168-172. https://doi.org/10.1128/jcm.01510-06
    [189] Painter KL, Strange E, Parkhill J, et al. (2015) Staphylococcus aureus adapts to oxidative stress by producing H2O2-resistant small-colony variants via the SOS response. Infect Immun 83: 1830-1844. https://doi.org/10.1128/iai.03016-14
    [190] Wolter DJ, Emerson JC, McNamara S, et al. (2013) Staphylococcus aureus small-colony variants are independently associated with worse lung disease in children with cystic fibrosis. Clin Infect Dis 57: 384-391. https://doi.org/10.1093/cid/cit270
    [191] Xu Y, Zhang B, Wang L, et al. (2020) Unusual features and molecular pathways of Staphylococcus aureus L-form bacteria. Microb Pathog 140: 103970. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.micpath.2020.103970
    [192] Michailova L, Kussovsky V, Radoucheva T, et al. (2007) Persistence of Staphylococcus aureus L-form during experimental lung infection in rats. FEMS Microbiol Lett 268: 88-97. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1574-6968.2006.00567.x
    [193] Malhotra S, Limoli DH, English AE, et al. (2018) Mixed communities of mucoid and nonmucoid Pseudomonas aeruginosa exhibit enhanced resistance to host antimicrobials. mBio 9. https://doi.org/10.1128/mbio.00275-18
    [194] Yang N, Cao Q, Hu S, et al. (2020) Alteration of protein homeostasis mediates the interaction of Pseudomonas aeruginosa with Staphylococcus aureus. Mol Microbiol 114: 423-442. https://doi.org/10.1111/mmi.14519
    [195] Mashburn LM, Jett AM, Akins DR, et al. (2005) Staphylococcus aureus serves as an iron source for Pseudomonas aeruginosa during in vivo coculture. J Bacteriol 187: 554-566. https://doi.org/10.1128/jb.187.2.554-566.2005
    [196] Samad T, Billings N, Birjiniuk A, et al. (2017) Swimming bacteria promote dispersal of non-motile staphylococcal species. Isme J 11: 1933-1937. https://doi.org/10.1038/ismej.2017.23
    [197] Pernet E, Guillemot L, Burgel PR, et al. (2014) Pseudomonas aeruginosa eradicates Staphylococcus aureus by manipulating the host immunity. Nat Commun 5: 5105. https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms6105
    [198] Nevalainen TJ, Graham GG, Scott KF (2008) Antibacterial actions of secreted phospholipases A2. Review. Biochim Biophys Acta 1781: 1-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbalip.2007.12.001
    [199] Mottola C, Semedo-Lemsaddek T, Mendes JJ, et al. (2016) Molecular typing, virulence traits and antimicrobial resistance of diabetic foot staphylococci. J Biomed Sci 23: 33. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12929-016-0250-7
    [200] WHO Regional Office for Europe/European Centre for Disease Prevention and ControlAntimicrobial resistance surveillance in Europe 2022–2020 data, Copenhagen, DN, WHO Regional Office for Europe (2022).
    [201] Pletzer D, Hancock RE (2016) Antibiofilm peptides: potential as broad-spectrum agents. J Bacteriol 198: 2572-2578. https://doi.org/10.1128/jb.00017-16
    [202] Wu H, Moser C, Wang HZ, et al. (2015) Strategies for combating bacterial biofilm infections. Int J Oral Sci 7: 1-7. https://doi.org/10.1038/ijos.2014.65
    [203] Yin W, Wang Y, Liu L, et al. (2019) Biofilms: The microbial ‘protective clothing’ in extreme environments. Int J Mol Sci 20. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms20143423
    [204] Truong-Bolduc QC, Khan NS, Vyas JM, et al. (2017) Tet38 efflux pump affects Staphylococcus aureus internalization by epithelial cells through interaction with CD36 and contributes to bacterial escape from acidic and nonacidic phagolysosomes. Infect Immun 85. https://doi.org/10.1128/iai.00862-16
    [205] Tognon M, Köhler T, Gdaniec BG, et al. (2017) Co-evolution with Staphylococcus aureus leads to lipopolysaccharide alterations in Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Isme J 11: 2233-2243. https://doi.org/10.1038/ismej.2017.83
    [206] Edwards AM (2012) Phenotype switching is a natural consequence of Staphylococcus aureus replication. J Bacteriol 194: 5404-5412. https://doi.org/10.1128/jb.00948-12
    [207] Depoorter E, Bull MJ, Peeters C, et al. (2016) Burkholderia: an update on taxonomy and biotechnological potential as antibiotic producers. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 100: 5215-5229. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00253-016-7520-x
    [208] Mahenthiralingam E, Urban TA, Goldberg JB (2005) The multifarious, multireplicon Burkholderia cepacia complex. Nat Rev Microbiol 3: 144-156. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrmicro1085
    [209] Schwab U, Abdullah LH, Perlmutt OS, et al. (2014) Localization of Burkholderia cepacia complex bacteria in cystic fibrosis lungs and interactions with Pseudomonas aeruginosa in hypoxic mucus. Infect Immun 82: 4729-4745. https://doi.org/10.1128/iai.01876-14
    [210] Costello A, Reen FJ, O'Gara F, et al. (2014) Inhibition of co-colonizing cystic fibrosis-associated pathogens by Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Burkholderia multivorans. Microbiol Read 160: 1474-1487. https://doi.org/10.1099/mic.0.074203-0
    [211] Bakkal S, Robinson SM, Ordonez CL, et al. (2010) Role of bacteriocins in mediating interactions of bacterial isolates taken from cystic fibrosis patients. Microbiol Read 156: 2058-2067. https://doi.org/10.1099/mic.0.036848-0
    [212] Tomlin KL, Coll OP, Ceri H (2001) Interspecies biofilms of Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Burkholderia cepacia. Can J Microbiol 47: 949-954. https://doi.org/10.1139/w01-095
    [213] McKenney D, Brown KE, Allison DG (1995) Influence of Pseudomonas aeruginosa exoproducts on virulence factor production in Burkholderia cepacia: evidence of interspecies communication. J Bacteriol 177: 6989-6992. https://doi.org/10.1128/jb.177.23.6989-6992.1995
    [214] Riedel K, Hentzer M, Geisenberger O, et al. (2001) N-acylhomoserine-lactone-mediated communication between Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Burkholderia cepacia in mixed biofilms. Microbiol Read 147: 3249-3262. https://doi.org/10.1099/00221287-147-12-3249
    [215] Lewenza S, Visser MB, Sokol PA (2002) Interspecies communication between Burkholderia cepacia and Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Can J Microbiol 48: 707-716. https://doi.org/10.1139/w02-068
    [216] Chattoraj SS, Murthy R, Ganesan S, et al. (2010) Pseudomonas aeruginosa alginate promotes Burkholderia cenocepacia persistence in cystic fibrosis transmembrane conductance regulator knockout mice. Infect Immun 78: 984-993. https://doi.org/10.1128/iai.01192-09
    [217] Kaplan NM, Khader YS, Ghabashineh DM (2022) Laboratory diagnosis, antimicrobial susceptibility and genuine clinical spectrum of Streptococcus anginosus group; our experience at a university hospital. Med Arch Sarajevo Bosnia Herzeg 76: 252-258. https://doi.org/10.5455/medarh.2022.76.252-258
    [218] Pilarczyk-Zurek M, Sitkiewicz I, Koziel J (2022) The clinical view on Streptococcus anginosus group-opportunistic pathogens coming out of hiding. Front Microbiol 13: 956677. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2022.956677
    [219] Sibley CD, Grinwis ME, Field TR, et al. (2010) McKay agar enables routine quantification of the ‘Streptococcus milleri’ group in cystic fibrosis patients. J Med Microbiol 59: 534-540. https://doi.org/10.1099/jmm.0.016592-0
    [220] Agarwal R, Chakrabarti A, Shah A, et al. (2013) Allergic bronchopulmonary aspergillosis: review of literature and proposal of new diagnostic and classification criteria. Clin Exp Allergy 43: 850-873. https://doi.org/10.1111/cea.12141
    [221] Amin R, Dupuis A, Aaron SD, et al. (2010) The effect of chronic infection with Aspergillus fumigatus on lung function and hospitalization in patients with cystic fibrosis. Chest 137: 171-176. https://doi.org/10.1378/chest.09-1103
    [222] Moree WJ, Phelan VV, Wu CH, et al. (2012) Interkingdom metabolic transformations captured by microbial imaging mass spectrometry. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 109: 13811-13816. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1206855109
    [223] Briard B, Bomme P, Lechner BE, et al. (2015) Pseudomonas aeruginosa manipulates redox and iron homeostasis of its microbiota partner Aspergillus fumigatus via phenazines. Sci Rep 5: 8220. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep08220
    [224] Wang Y, Wilks JC, Danhorn T, et al. (2011) Phenazine-1-carboxylic acid promotes bacterial biofilm development via ferrous iron acquisition. J Bacteriol 193: 3606-3617. https://doi.org/10.1128/jb.00396-11
    [225] Marvig RL, Damkiær S, Khademi SM, et al. (2014) Within-host evolution of Pseudomonas aeruginosa reveals adaptation toward iron acquisition from hemoglobin. mBio 5: e00966-14. https://doi.org/10.1128/mbio.00966-14
    [226] Talapko J, Juzbašić M, Matijević T, et al. (2021) Candida albicans-The virulence factors and clinical manifestations of infection. J Fungi Basel 7. https://doi.org/10.3390/jof7020079
    [227] Jayatilake JA, Samaranayake YH, Samaranayake LP (2008) A comparative study of candidal invasion in rabbit tongue mucosal explants and reconstituted human oral epithelium. Mycopathologia 165: 373-380. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11046-008-9096-1
    [228] Richard ML, Nobile CJ, Bruno VM, et al. (2005) Candida albicans biofilm-defective mutants. Eukaryot Cell 4: 1493-1502. https://doi.org/10.1128/ec.4.8.1493-1502.2005
    [229] Bjarnsholt T, Jensen P, Jakobsen TH, et al. (2010) Quorum sensing and virulence of Pseudomonas aeruginosa during lung infection of cystic fibrosis patients. PLoS One 5: e10115. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0010115
    [230] McAlester G, O'Gara F, Morrissey JP (2008) Signal-mediated interactions between Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Candida albicans. J Med Microbiol 57: 563-569. https://doi.org/10.1099/jmm.0.47705-0
    [231] Morales DK, Grahl N, Okegbe C, et al. (2013) Control of Candida albicans metabolism and biofilm formation by Pseudomonas aeruginosa phenazines. mBio 4: e00526-12. https://doi.org/10.1128/mbio.00526-12
    [232] DeVault JD, Kimbara K, Chakrabarty AM (1990) Pulmonary dehydration and infection in cystic fibrosis: evidence that ethanol activates alginate gene expression and induction of mucoidy in Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Mol Microbiol 4: 737-745. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2958.1990.tb00644.x
    [233] Greenberg SS, Zhao X, Hua L, et al. (1999) Ethanol inhibits lung clearance of Pseudomonas aeruginosa by a neutrophil and nitric oxide-dependent mechanism, in vivo. Alcohol Clin Exp Res 23: 735-744. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1530-0277.1999.tb04177.x
    [234] Goral J, Karavitis J, Kovacs EJ (2008) Exposure-dependent effects of ethanol on the innate immune system. Alcohol 42: 237-247. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.alcohol.2008.02.003
    [235] Korem M, Gov Y, Rosenberg M (2010) Global gene expression in Staphylococcus aureus following exposure to alcohol. Microb Pathog 48: 74-84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.micpath.2009.11.002
    [236] Nwugo CC, Arivett BA, Zimbler DL, et al. (2012) Effect of ethanol on differential protein production and expression of potential virulence functions in the opportunistic pathogen Acinetobacter baumannii. PLoS One 7: e51936. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0051936
    [237] Cugini C, Calfee MW, Farrow JM, et al. (2007) Farnesol, a common sesquiterpene, inhibits PQS production in Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Mol Microbiol 65: 896-906. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2958.2007.05840.x
    [238] Kerr JR, Taylor GW, Rutman A, et al. (1999) Pseudomonas aeruginosa pyocyanin and 1-hydroxyphenazine inhibit fungal growth. J Clin Pathol 52: 385-387. https://doi.org/10.1136/jcp.52.5.385
    [239] Lopez-Medina E, Fan D, Coughlin LA, et al. (2015) Candida albicans inhibits Pseudomonas aeruginosa virulence through suppression of pyochelin and pyoverdine biosynthesis. PLoS Pathog 11: e1005129. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.ppat.1005129
    [240] Wat D, Gelder C, Hibbitts S, et al. (2008) The role of respiratory viruses in cystic fibrosis. J Cyst Fibros 7: 320-328. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcf.2007.12.002
    [241] de Vrankrijker AM, Wolfs TF, Ciofu O, et al. (2009) Respiratory syncytial virus infection facilitates acute colonization of Pseudomonas aeruginosa in mice. J Med Virol 81: 2096-2103. https://doi.org/10.1002/jmv.21623
    [242] Oliver BG, Lim S, Wark P, et al. (2008) Rhinovirus exposure impairs immune responses to bacterial products in human alveolar macrophages. Thorax 63: 519-525. https://doi.org/10.1136/thx.2007.081752
  • This article has been cited by:

    1. Qiankun Zuo, Libin Lu, Lin Wang, Jiahui Zuo, Tao Ouyang, Constructing brain functional network by Adversarial Temporal-Spatial Aligned Transformer for early AD analysis, 2022, 16, 1662-453X, 10.3389/fnins.2022.1087176
    2. Changwei Gong, Changhong Jing, Xin-an Liu, Victoria X. Wang, Cheuk Ying Tang, Paul J. Kenny, Ye Li, Zuxin Chen, Shuqiang Wang, Generative artificial intelligence-enabled dynamic detection of rat nicotine-related circuits, 2024, 36, 0941-0643, 4693, 10.1007/s00521-023-09307-0
    3. Changwei Gong, Changhong Jing, Xuhang Chen, Chi Man Pun, Guoli Huang, Ashirbani Saha, Martin Nieuwoudt, Han-Xiong Li, Yong Hu, Shuqiang Wang, Generative AI for brain image computing and brain network computing: a review, 2023, 17, 1662-453X, 10.3389/fnins.2023.1203104
  • Reader Comments
  • © 2023 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)
通讯作者: 陈斌, bchen63@163.com
  • 1. 

    沈阳化工大学材料科学与工程学院 沈阳 110142

  1. 本站搜索
  2. 百度学术搜索
  3. 万方数据库搜索
  4. CNKI搜索

Metrics

Article views(3546) PDF downloads(367) Cited by(5)

Figures and Tables

Figures(1)  /  Tables(2)

Other Articles By Authors

/

DownLoad:  Full-Size Img  PowerPoint
Return
Return

Catalog