Hostname: page-component-77f85d65b8-6c7dr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-03-27T20:12:04.784Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Saccharide sources do not influence the biofilm formation in Scedosporium/Lomentospora species

Subject: Life Science and Biomedicine

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 March 2020

Thaís Pereira de Mello
Affiliation:
Laboratório de Estudos Avançados de Microrganismos Emergentes e Resistentes, Departamento de Microbiologia Geral, Instituto de Microbiologia Paulo de Góes, Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
Marta Helena Branquinha
Affiliation:
Programa de Pós-Graduação em Bioquímica, Instituto de Química, UFRJ, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
André Luis Souza dos Santos*
Affiliation:
Laboratório de Estudos Avançados de Microrganismos Emergentes e Resistentes, Departamento de Microbiologia Geral, Instituto de Microbiologia Paulo de Góes, Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil Programa de Pós-Graduação em Bioquímica, Instituto de Química, UFRJ, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
*
*Corresponding author: Email: andre@micro.ufrj.br

Abstract

Scedosporium and Lomentospora species are ubiquitous saprophytic filamentous fungi that emerged as human pathogens with impressive multidrug-resistance profile. The ability to form biofilm over several biotic and abiotic surfaces is one of the characteristics that contributes to their resistance patterns against almost all currently available antifungals. Herein, we have demonstrated that Scedosporium apiospermum, Scedosporium minutisporum, Scedosporium aurantiacum and Lomentospora prolificans were able to form biofilm, in similar amounts, when conidial cells were incubated in a polystyrene substrate containing Sabouraud medium supplemented or not with different concentrations (2%, 5% and 10%) of glucose, fructose, sucrose and lactose. Likewise, the glucose supplementation of culture media primarily composed of amino acids (SCFM, synthetic cystic fibrosis medium) and salts (YNB, yeast nitrogen base) did not modulate the biofilm formation of Scedosporium/Lomentospora species. Collectively, the present data reinforce the ability of these opportunistic fungi to colonize and to build biofilm structures under different environmental conditions.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Result type: Novel result, Negative result
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Copyright
© The Author(s) 2020
Figure 0

Figure 1. Biofilm formation by S. apiospermum (Sap), S. minutisporum (Sm), S. aurantiacum (Sau) and L. prolificans (Lp) under different glucose concentrations. Conidia (106) were placed to interact with polystyrene for 72 h in Sabouraud containing different glucose concentrations (0%, 2%, 5% and 10%) at 37˚C. Subsequently, in order to assess biofilm formation, the following parameters were spectrophotometrically inspected: biomass was measured in a methanol-fixed biofilm using crystal violet dye (590 nm) as well as extracellular matrix and metabolic activity (viability) were quantified in non-fixed biofilm by safranin incorporation (530 nm) and XTT metabolization (492 nm), respectively. Scanning electron microscopy images of the fungal mature biofilms formed in polystyrene containing Sabouraud supplemented with 2% of glucose were also shown.

Figure 1

Figure 2. Biofilm formation by S. apiospermum (Sap), S. minutisporum (Sm), S. aurantiacum (Sau) and L. prolificans (Lp) under different saccharide sources. Conidia (106) were placed to interact with polystyrene for 72 h at 37˚C in Sabouraud supplemented with different concentrations (0%, 2%, 5% and 10%) of fructose (A), sucrose (B) and lactose (C). Then, the systems were processed in order to detect the fungal biomass by incorporation of crystal violet in methanol-fixed biofilms at 590 nm.

Figure 2

Figure 3. Biofilm formation by S. apiospermum (Sap), S. minutisporum (Sm), S. aurantiacum (Sau) and L. prolificans (Lp) in different culture media. Conidia (106) were placed to interact with polystyrene containing SCFM or YNB media supplemented or not with 2% of glucose for 72 h at 37˚C. Posteriorly, the systems were processed in order to detect the fungal biomass by incorporation of crystal violet in methanol-fixed biofilms at 590 nm.

Reviewing editor:  Michael Nevels University of St Andrews, Biomolecular Sciences Building, Fife, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, KY16 9ST
This article has been accepted because it is deemed to be scientifically sound, has the correct controls, has appropriate methodology and is statistically valid, and met required revisions.

Review 1: Saccharide sources do not influence the biofilm formation in Scedosporium/Lomentospora species

Conflict of interest statement

Reviewer declares none

Comments

Comments to the Author: In this study, the authors demonstrated that Scedosporium apiospermum, Scedosporium minutisporum, Scedosporium, aurantiacum and Lomentospora prolificans were able to form biofilm, in similar amounts, when conidial cells were incubated in an abiotic substrate containing Sabouraud medium supplemented or not with different concentrations of glucose, fructose, sucrose and lactose. The problem is significant and it can provide a better understanding of the molecular mechanisms involved in resistance to antifungal agents. The paper presents a good discussion and has scientific merit. The article should be accept.

Presentation

Overall score 5 out of 5
Is the article written in clear and proper English? (30%)
5 out of 5
Is the data presented in the most useful manner? (40%)
5 out of 5
Does the paper cite relevant and related articles appropriately? (30%)
5 out of 5

Context

Overall score 4.8 out of 5
Does the title suitably represent the article? (25%)
5 out of 5
Does the abstract correctly embody the content of the article? (25%)
5 out of 5
Does the introduction give appropriate context? (25%)
4 out of 5
Is the objective of the experiment clearly defined? (25%)
5 out of 5

Analysis

Overall score 4.8 out of 5
Does the discussion adequately interpret the results presented? (40%)
5 out of 5
Is the conclusion consistent with the results and discussion? (40%)
5 out of 5
Are the limitations of the experiment as well as the contributions of the experiment clearly outlined? (20%)
4 out of 5

Review 2: Saccharide sources do not influence the biofilm formation in Scedosporium/Lomentospora species

Conflict of interest statement

Reviewer declares none

Comments

Comments to the Author: In the manuscript entitled “Saccharide sources do not influence the biofilm formation in Scedosporium/Lomentospora species”, the authors demonstrate that S. apiospermum, S. minutisporum, S. aurantiacum and L. prolificans are able to form similar biofilms in Sabouraud, SCFM and YNB supplemented with different concentration of carbohydrates.

Although no differences were found between the different conditions studied, these findings may be interesting as they point out that, in contrast to what have been described for other fungal species, the ability of these fungal pathogens to form biofilms under different nutrients concentration is not altered.

In opinion of this reviewer, only a few details must be modified:

Minor comments:

  • Abstract, line 36. Contributes instead of corroborates

  • Discussion section should be increased to give more examples to what happen in other species and explain the alterations suffered in biofilm formation under similar variations in environmental conditions (mainly nutrient concentration). In this way, by comparison with the species studied here, the importance of the results found by the authors will be highlighted.

Presentation

Overall score 4 out of 5
Is the article written in clear and proper English? (30%)
4 out of 5
Is the data presented in the most useful manner? (40%)
4 out of 5
Does the paper cite relevant and related articles appropriately? (30%)
4 out of 5

Context

Overall score 4 out of 5
Does the title suitably represent the article? (25%)
4 out of 5
Does the abstract correctly embody the content of the article? (25%)
4 out of 5
Does the introduction give appropriate context? (25%)
4 out of 5
Is the objective of the experiment clearly defined? (25%)
4 out of 5

Analysis

Overall score 4 out of 5
Does the discussion adequately interpret the results presented? (40%)
4 out of 5
Is the conclusion consistent with the results and discussion? (40%)
4 out of 5
Are the limitations of the experiment as well as the contributions of the experiment clearly outlined? (20%)
4 out of 5