Abstract
Bacteria represent a group of biological organisms responsible for causing a myriad of human illnesses such as bacteremia, pneumonia, meningitis, and skin infections. Although there have been substantial improvements in treating bacterial diseases, addressing diseases associated with the formation of physiological communities called biofilms remains a challenge. This is due to the complexity of biofilms, both structurally and phenotypically, which complicates the development of comprehensive prophylactic and therapeutic interventions. This situation is exacerbated by the inability of current in vitro and in vivo biofilm models to accurately represent physiological conditions. Unsurprisingly, antigen discovery and validation using such systems often translate poorly into both in vivo and clinical studies. Subsequently, current vaccine solutions often attempt to prevent disease by averting the initial colonization of bacteria, and antibiotics are prescribed to treat infections caused by bacteria that have dispersed from biofilms (e.g., pneumonia and bacteremia); however, these strategies provide an opportunity for niche replacement by non-vaccine-type bacteria and increased antibiotic resistance, respectively. In this article, we provide an overview of the role that biofilms play in bacterial infections and the limitations of current models used to study them. We then highlight recent developments that have improved the accuracy of biofilm models and provide recommendations for using such models for the development of improved vaccine and therapeutic strategies.
Similar content being viewed by others
Human diseases caused by colonizing bacterial pathogens remain hard to treat due to the complexity of the biofilm communities they form. |
We summarize how a better understanding of these communities, along with advances in biofilm models and reverse vaccinology, can be applied towards the development of innovative anti-biofilm vaccines. |
1 Introduction
It is well-understood that bacteria can form complex communities known as biofilms; however, in recent years it was discovered that numerous diseases result from bacteria released by these biofilm structures as opposed to the structure itself [1]. This discovery advanced our understanding of widely prevalent conditions, such as pneumococcal pneumonia, meningitis, and otitis media, all of which have been linked with biofilm formation [2]. According to the National Institutes of Health, biofilms are associated with 80% of all infections [3]. As a result, a new appreciation for the involvement of biofilm formation in bacterial infections has given way to a broader field of research focused on the characterization of biofilms in physiological environments and their role in disease progression.
When combatting bacterial illnesses, an array of prescribed antibiotics have been successful at treating acute infections associated with planktonic bacteria (i.e., floating as single cells in solution). However, most antibiotics do not effectively clear bacterial biofilms due to the protection offered by the biofilm matrix, as well as the formation of metabolically dormant persister cells that can repopulate the biofilm [4]. Due to the challenges associated with using antibiotics to clear biofilms, vaccines have been developed that specifically seek to prevent biofilm formation. This is exemplified by the Prevnar family of pneumococcal conjugate vaccines (PCVs), which have significantly reduced the incidence of invasive pneumococcal disease (IPD) in countries with a high vaccination rate, such as the USA [5, 6]. In Prevnar 7 (PCV7) and Prevnar 13® (PCV13), capsular polysaccharides (CPSs) expressed during colonization are chemically conjugated to an immunogenic protein (CRM197). At the time of introduction, the selected CPSs in these vaccines were implicated in over 80% of IPDs [7]. Although this strategy dramatically reduced the rate of IPD, there has been an increase in IPDs caused by less virulent non-vaccine-type (NVT) serotypes due to niche replacement [8]. While the impact of these NVT serotypes is moderate when compared to the vaccine-type serotypes [8], this phenomenon raises concerns about the long-term efficacy of vaccine strategies based on antigens with variability across bacterial strains.
The development of a truly comprehensive vaccine could account for the numerous complexities associated with the biofilm phase, such as strain and phenotype diversity seen during the growth and release phases to provide direct protection directly against the disease-causing phenotype of bacteria. One significant challenge in the development of vaccines against biofilm-associated bacteria is the poor translation of current models with the in vivo reality [9]. Consequently, data collected using these models, such as transcriptional analysis, may be misleading and hinder antigen discovery. To overcome these challenges, this review proposes an application of improved methodologies for creating biofilms models that more accurately represent in vivo colonization and enable the application of reverse vaccinology towards the development of truly selective vaccines against biofilm-forming pathogens.
2 Selecting Which Stage of Pathogenesis to Target
One of the challenges to developing selective vaccines against biofilm-forming bacteria is identifying which stage of pathogenesis should be targeted. Targeting specific stages of pathogenesis may provide different advantages to combating disease and may differ across bacterial species. However, the biofilm formation process can be generalized for all bacterial species into four stages: (1) reversible adhesion; (2) irreversible attachment; (3) maturation; and (4) dispersion (Fig. 1) [10]. These stages can be considered individually when designing targeted vaccines.
As a biofilm develops, each phase will exhibit unique characteristics that must be considered when developing vaccines against biofilm-forming bacteria. The initial reversible adhesion of colonizing bacteria, for example, is non-specific to host cell type [11] and is typically promoted by environmental factors such as temperature, pH, and charge interactions between the pathogen and host cell [12]. Afterwards, a fraction of loosely adherent cells will become irreversibly attached with the aid of various bacterial factors, such as surface anchor proteins [13] and pili [14,15,16]. Following the initial adhesion to host tissue, the biofilm structure matures as the cells within the community produce a matrix composed of polysaccharides, extracellular DNA (eDNA), lipids, and proteins that are collectively termed the ‘extracellular polymeric substances’ (EPS) [17]. After maturation of the biofilm, bacterial cells can disperse from the biofilm matrix in response to environmental cues that include changes in temperature, pH, nutrient concentration, biofilm cell density, and host tissue damage [18,19,20,21,22]. This release of bacteria leads to the development of invasive diseases (e.g., sepsis) as the bacteria disseminate to normally sterile anatomical regions, causing episodes of acute infections (Fig. 1) [23].
Identifying the optimal phase of biofilm development that should be targeted in vaccine and therapeutic development is also highly dependent on the clinical manifestation of the bacteria. For example, Staphylococcus aureus infections include soft tissue and skin infections, pneumonia, osteomyelitis, endovascular infections, septic arthritis, surgical implant-/foreign body-associated infections, septicemia, and toxic shock syndrome [24]. In treating surgical implant infections, it is preferable to target either the adhesion or mature biofilm phase [25]. However, the other infections listed, including soft tissue and skin infections, have been linked with bacterial dissemination from asymptomatic S. aureus biofilms located within the nasal cavities [26, 27]. Consequently, a vaccine targeting nasal S. aureus biofilms would provide an effective approach to reducing the burden of diverse staphylococcal diseases since these colonies represent a common initial stage among the various infectious caused by S. aureus.
The association between staphylococcal infections and the release of S. aureus from biofilms provides further confirmation of studies conducted on Streptococcus pneumoniae that demonstrated the importance of biofilms in progression of bacterial diseases [21, 28]. For example, one study showed that influenza A virus (IAV) infections or elevated temperatures (i.e., febrile) induced dispersion of virulent S. pneumoniae which led to bacterial pneumonia [21], a behavior that was later observed in S. aureus [29]. Despite the accepted belief that biofilm dispersion is critical to the spread of infectious disease [22, 23, 30], this phase has been overlooked in vaccine design in the past (e.g., Prevnar). Since biofilms formed by nasopharynx colonizers are often asymptomatic and could potentially offer protection against opportunistic pathogens [31], vaccine strategies specifically targeting biofilm-released bacteria have potential advantages.
3 Developing In Vivo and In Vitro Biofilm Models
To develop and evaluate novel vaccines accounting for the biofilm phase, it is essential to possess biofilm models that accurately represent physiological conditions. Currently, biofilm studies can be segmented into two primary categories: in vitro and in vivo models. For in vitro models, the most common adhesion surfaces are abiotic [32]. However, results from studies characterizing biofilms on abiotic surfaces, such as plastics, have shown negligible correlation to in vivo conditions except when modelling biofilms on medical implants. Consequently, using conventional in vitro models for the study of gut or nasopharynx biofilms is generally impractical [33, 34]. In addition, bacteria isolated from these in vitro models demonstrate reduced virulence when introduced into in vivo models [21, 35]. These cells also tend to form less structured biofilms that are more susceptible to antibiotics and reduce the trustworthiness of such studies for vaccine development [34]. These results show that any virulence or pathogenesis data obtained in such in vitro systems is unreliable in a clinical setting.
Models containing biological adherent surfaces, such as tissue cultures, provide a more accurate representation of the environments found within the host than their abiotic counterparts and represent a more realistic biofilm formation. For example, a study conducted by Marks et al. [34] demonstrated that S. pneumoniae biofilms grown on human nasopharynx cells showed extracellular matrix production, antibiotic resistance, and the formation of highly structured colonies similar to those observed in vivo. However, it has been shown that some bacterial species, such as Pseudomonas aeruginosa, grown in this manner can dedifferentiate and lose specialization [36], which is detrimental if bacterial adhesion is dependent upon a specific host cell surface compound [37]. An interesting recent alternative is the development of three-dimensional models that incorporate live tissues or organs [36, 38]. One particular study utilized a biocompatible scaffold to culture bronchial epithelial cells, which was used in a bioreactor environment that was capable of recreating a non-typeable Haemophilus influenzae (NTHi) infection with the invasive phenotype observed in human explants [39]. While there are limitations to utilizing in vitro models to study bacterial biofilms, this last example demonstrates that methods which closely mimic the host environment yield more relevant outcomes.
In contrast to in vitro models, biofilm studies conducted in in vivo animal models provide an even more accurate representation of disease pathogenesis in a biological host. Furthermore, specific animal models have been developed and validated for their capacity to best mimic the complex interplay between host and pathogen [38, 40]. Chinchillas, for example, have become the golden standard in vivo model for otitis media since their ear structure is large, easily accessible, and is highly similar to that of humans [38, 41]. In addition, chronic lung infections have been replicated in cystic fibrosis (CF) C57Bl/6NCrl mice by immobilizing P. aeruginosa on agar beads and intratracheally installing these beads into the lungs. This technique mimics the biofilm formation in CF patients and can be used to evaluate potential therapeutics [42]. However, such animal models are often limited by their immunological differences from humans (e.g., mice and rats) [43]. For example, clinical isolates of biofilm-forming pathogens, including many strains of S. pneumoniae, are incapable of colonizing or causing invasive disease in rodents [44], making it difficult to accurately test the potential efficacy of a vaccine.
An interesting solution that overcomes the limitations of the models discussed above is the combination of in vivo and in vitro models. Klug et al. [45], for example, demonstrated that biofilm bacteria, when introduced into in vitro systems, were able to retain aspects of their natural complexity. Transplanting bacteria from in vitro surfaces into in vivo models has also proven effective at closely mimicking bacterial disease pathogenesis in humans. This has recently been demonstrated using strains of S. pneumoniae which cannot naturally cause infectious disease in mice. When clinical isolates of S. pneumoniae are conditioned using an in vitro biofilm release model and introduced into a murine model, these strains demonstrated characteristic colonization and disease progression to both sepsis and pneumonia. Consequently, this model allows for in vivo vaccine efficacy studies against clinical isolates that are normally not infectious in mice [44]. This enabled the development of a compressive opsonophagocytic assay (OPA), which is the most widely accepted correlate of protection for pneumoniae [46].
4 Rational Selection of Vaccine Antigens
One of the most important stages in vaccine development is the initial selection of the antigen(s). However, this step is often complicated by the dynamic gene expression profiles that are observed throughout biofilm development [47]. In the context of vaccine design, this means that a single antigen is unlikely to address all phases of biofilm formation and dispersion, often requiring vaccines to target a specific stage, as discussed in Sect. 2. Many recent vaccination attempts have made use of adhesion-associated antigens to prevent colonization, as demonstrated by the use of pili antigens to immunize against Streptococcus pyogenes (Table 1), thus reducing the risk of disease while providing herd immunity [48]. This strategy has also been exemplified by the PCVs developed by Pfizer, which utilize CPSs expressed during the adhesion phase [49, 50] and shed shortly thereafter [51]. However, as these vaccines only target up to 13 of the > 95 disease-causing serotypes, NVT S. pneumoniae can still adhere, form biofilms, change serotypes (i.e., CPS), and cause disease [52].
Bacterial cells within maturing biofilms can be further broken down into discrete phenotypes, which can complicate development of vaccines targeting the mature biofilm. For example, it has been demonstrated that gene expression within cells in mature biofilms are dependent upon the cell’s location within the biofilm [53]. This is due to the expression of potential antigens that are influenced by nutrient and oxygen gradients present within the biofilm [53, 54]; thus, any vaccine developed using such antigens would potentially ignore cells not expressing the antigen, hindering the vaccination efficacy. This was demonstrated by a study conducted by Brady et al. [55], which analyzed four antigens expressed by S. aureus (Table 1). The authors concluded that each protein was not homogeneously expressed throughout the biofilm [55], thus demonstrating the need to confirm universal expression of an antigen throughout the biofilm or develop multivalent vaccines to cover all phenotypes within the colony. Otherwise, vaccines will fail to completely clear the bacteria and the resulting biofilm disruption could lead to infectious disease.
5 Application of Reverse Vaccinology
One method with the potential to overcome the antigen selection challenges introduced by genetic diversity in the biofilm phase is a process known as reverse vaccinology. This strategy involves the use of proteomics and genomics to analyze bacterial protein expression and predict optimal vaccine antigens [56, 57]. Selection criteria, such as surface accessibility, non-homology to human proteins, B cell and T cell epitopes, and homology across bacterial strains, are often applied during reverse vaccinology [58, 59]. Each of these criteria have a large impact on the efficacy of a vaccine. Surface accessibility of an antigen, for example, allows for antibodies generated by immunization to interact with surface-exposed proteins on a pathogen [60]. An ideal vaccine antigen also must not have homology to human proteins, thus preventing the generation of autoimmunity, and requires epitopes for B and T cells that elicit a strong immune response [61]. Finally, to cover as many strains as possible, a vaccine antigen should be conserved amongst strains, which is a good indication of broad coverage [62].
The first pathogen subjected to reverse vaccinology was Neisseria meningitidis (Table 1), a common cause of bacterial meningitis. Utilizing whole-genome sequencing, 600 potential antigens were identified and tested for immunogenicity [63]. Through this high-throughput characterization, five antigens were selected and combined into the 5CVMB vaccine [64]. This vaccine was later combined with an outer membrane vehicle to create the 4CMenB vaccine [65, 66], which is now licensed under the name Bexsero® [67,68,69]. More recently, reverse vaccinology was employed to characterize potent and selective vaccine antigens for S. pneumoniae. Using transcriptomic data, researchers identified antigens that were upregulated during both biofilm and biofilm-released phases [20]. From the transcriptomic data, Li et al. [44] identified two surface-accessible antigens that were upregulated during biofilm release; thus, the resulting vaccine was able to specifically target only the virulent biofilm-released bacteria while leaving the asymptomatic biofilm in place (Table 1). Both proteins were conserved throughout pneumococcal strains and that elicited universal protection against pneumococcal pneumonia in murine models [44].
6 Conclusion
The considerations enumerated in this article will enable researchers to specifically target any phase of disease pathogenesis associated with biofilm-forming bacteria. This could potentially usher in a new generation of smart vaccines that effectively combat pathogens that have evaded prior vaccination efforts. The development of an S. aureus vaccine, for example, has been complicated by the vast number of virulence factors associated with S. aureus and the diversity of diseases it causes [54]. However, studying how these bacteria colonize and disseminate from biofilms located in their major reservoir, the nasal passages [24], and identifying potential antigens associated with each phase can facilitate the development of vaccines targeting specific or diverse staphylococcal infections. However, there are still many aspects of biofilm formation that are poorly understood, such as gene expression within multispecies biofilms and host–pathogen interactions, which hinder vaccine development. Overcoming these limitations while taking the complexity of physiological biofilms into consideration has the potential to dramatically improve the development of vaccines and therapeutics against bacterial pathogens.
References
Hall-Stoodley L, Hu FZ, Gieseke A, Nistico L, Nguyen D, Hayes J, et al. Direct detection of bacterial biofilms on the middle-ear mucosa of children with chronic otitis media. JAMA. 2006;296(2):202–11. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.296.2.202.
Moriyama S, Hotomi M, Shimada J, Billal DS, Fujihara K, Yamanaka N. Formation of biofilm by Haemophilus influenzae isolated from pediatric intractable otitis media. Auris Nasus Larynx. 2009;36(5):525–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anl.2008.10.010.
Research on microbial biofilms. National Institute of Health. 2002; PA-03-047. http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/pa-files/PA-03-047.html. Acccessed 10 Oct 2017.
Stewart PS, Costerton JW. Antibiotic resistance of bacteria in biofilms. Lancet. 2001;358(9276):135–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(01)05321-1.
Reingold A, Hadler J, Farley MM, Harrison L, Lynfield R, Besser J, et al. Direct and indirect effects of routine vaccination of children with 7-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine on incidence of invasive pneumococcal disease–United States, 1998–2003. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2005;54(36):893–7.
Whitney CG, Farley MM, Hadler J, Harrison LH, Bennett NM, Lynfield R, et al. Decline in invasive pneumococcal disease after the introduction of protein–polysaccharide conjugate vaccine. N Engl J Med. 2003;348(18):1737–46. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa022823.
Paradiso PR. Advances in pneumococcal disease prevention: 13-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine for infants and children. Clin Infect Dis. 2011;52(10):1241–7. https://doi.org/10.1093/cid/cir142.
Weinberger DM, Malley R, Lipsitch M. Serotype replacement in disease after pneumococcal vaccination. Lancet. 2011;378(9807):1962–73. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(10)62225-8.
Roberts AE, Kragh KN, Bjarnsholt T, Diggle SP. The limitations of in vitro experimentation in understanding biofilms and chronic infection. J Mol Biol. 2015;427(23):3646–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmb.2015.09.002.
Landini P, Antoniani D, Burgess JG, Nijland R. Molecular mechanisms of compounds affecting bacterial biofilm formation and dispersal. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol. 2010;86(3):813–23. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00253-010-2468-8.
Krachler AM, Orth K. Targeting the bacteria–host interface: strategies in anti-adhesion therapy. Virulence. 2013;4(4):284–94. https://doi.org/10.4161/viru.24606.
Garrett TR, Bhakoo M, Zhang Z. Bacterial adhesion and biofilms on surfaces. Prog Nat Sci. 2008;18(9):1049–56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pnsc.2008.04.001.
Patti JM, Allen BL, McGavin MJ, Hook M. MSCRAMM-mediated adherence of microorganisms to host tissues. Annu Rev Microbiol. 1994;48:585–617. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.mi.48.100194.003101.
Abbot EL, Smith WD, Siou GP, Chiriboga C, Smith RJ, Wilson JA, et al. Pili mediate specific adhesion of Streptococcus pyogenes to human tonsil and skin. Cell Microbiol. 2007;9(7):1822–33. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1462-5822.2007.00918.x.
Maisey HC, Hensler M, Nizet V, Doran KS. Group B streptococcal pilus proteins contribute to adherence to and invasion of brain microvascular endothelial cells. J Bacteriol. 2007;189(4):1464–7. https://doi.org/10.1128/JB.01153-06.
Manetti AG, Zingaretti C, Falugi F, Capo S, Bombaci M, Bagnoli F, et al. Streptococcus pyogenes pili promote pharyngeal cell adhesion and biofilm formation. Mol Microbiol. 2007;64(4):968–83. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2958.2007.05704.x.
Flemming HC, Wingender J. The biofilm matrix. Nat Rev Microbiol. 2010;8(9):623–33. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrmicro2415.
Klugman KP, Chien YW, Madhi SA. Pneumococcal pneumonia and influenza: a deadly combination. Vaccine. 2009;27(Suppl 3):C9–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vaccine.2009.06.007.
McCullers JA, Rehg JE. Lethal synergism between influenza virus and Streptococcus pneumoniae: characterization of a mouse model and the role of platelet-activating factor receptor. J Infect Dis. 2002;186(3):341–50. https://doi.org/10.1086/341462.
Pettigrew MM, Marks LR, Kong Y, Gent JF, Roche-Hakansson H, Hakansson AP. Dynamic changes in the Streptococcus pneumoniae transcriptome during transition from biofilm formation to invasive disease upon influenza A virus infection. Infect Immun. 2014;82(11):4607–19. https://doi.org/10.1128/IAI.02225-14.
Marks LR, Davidson BA, Knight PR, Hakansson AP. Interkingdom signaling induces Streptococcus pneumoniae biofilm dispersion and transition from asymptomatic colonization to disease. MBio. 2013;4(4). https://doi.org/10.1128/mBio.00438-13.
Kaplan JB. Biofilm dispersal: mechanisms, clinical implications, and potential therapeutic uses. J Dent Res. 2010;89(3):205–18. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022034509359403.
Hall-Stoodley L, Stoodley P. Biofilm formation and dispersal and the transmission of human pathogens. Trends Microbiol. 2005;13(1):7–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tim.2004.11.004.
Wertheim HFL, Melles DC, Vos MC, van Leeuwen W, van Belkum A, Verbrugh HA, et al. The role of nasal carriage in Staphylococcus aureus infections. Lancet Infect Dis. 2005;5(12):751–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1473-3099(05)70295-4.
Bhattacharya M, Wozniak DJ, Stoodley P, Hall-Stoodley L. Prevention and treatment of Staphylococcus aureus biofilms. Expert Rev Anti Infect Ther. 2015;13(12):1499–516. https://doi.org/10.1586/14787210.2015.1100533.
White A. Increased infection rates in heavy nasal carriers of coagulase-positive staphylococci. Antimicrob Agents Chemother (Bethesda). 1963;161:667–70.
Mulcahy ME, McLoughlin RM. Staphylococcus aureus and influenza A virus: partners in coinfection. MBio. 2016;7(6). https://doi.org/10.1128/mBio.02068-16.
Oggioni MR, Trappetti C, Kadioglu A, Cassone M, Iannelli F, Ricci S, et al. Switch from planktonic to sessile life: a major event in pneumococcal pathogenesis. Mol Microbiol. 2006;61(5):1196–210. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2958.2006.05310.x.
Reddinger RM, Luke-Marshall NR, Hakansson AP, Campagnari AA. Host physiologic changes induced by influenza A virus lead to Staphylococcus aureus biofilm dispersion and transition from asymptomatic colonization to invasive disease. MBio. 2016;7(4). https://doi.org/10.1128/mBio.01235-16.
Chua SL, Liu Y, Yam JK, Chen Y, Vejborg RM, Tan BG, et al. Dispersed cells represent a distinct stage in the transition from bacterial biofilm to planktonic lifestyles. Nat Commun. 2014;5:4462. https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms5462.
Hall-Stoodley L, Stoodley P. Evolving concepts in biofilm infections. Cell Microbiol. 2009;11(7):1034–43. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1462-5822.2009.01323.x.
Chao Y, Marks LR, Pettigrew MM, Hakansson AP. Streptococcus pneumoniae biofilm formation and dispersion during colonization and disease. Front Cell Infect Microbiol. 2014;4:194. https://doi.org/10.3389/fcimb.2014.00194.
Lizcano A, Chin T, Sauer K, Tuomanen EI, Orihuela CJ. Early biofilm formation on microtiter plates is not correlated with the invasive disease potential of Streptococcus pneumoniae. Microb Pathog. 2010;48(3–4):124–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.micpath.2010.01.002.
Marks LR, Parameswaran GI, Hakansson AP. Pneumococcal interactions with epithelial cells are crucial for optimal biofilm formation and colonization in vitro and in vivo. Infect Immun. 2012;80(8):2744–60. https://doi.org/10.1128/IAI.00488-12.
Gilley RP, Orihuela CJ. Pneumococci in biofilms are non-invasive: implications on nasopharyngeal colonization. Front Cell Infect Microbiol. 2014;4:163. https://doi.org/10.3389/fcimb.2014.00163.
Carterson AJ, Höner zu Bentrup K, Ott CM, Clarke MS, Pierson DL, Vanderburg CR, et al. A549 lung epithelial cells grown as three-dimensional aggregates: alternative tissue culture model for Pseudomonas aeruginosa Pathogenesis. Infect Immun. 2005;73(2):1129–40. https://doi.org/10.1128/iai.73.2.1129-1140.2005.
Finlay BB, Cossart P. Exploitation of mammalian host cell functions by bacterial pathogens. Science. 1997;276:718–25.
Lebeaux D, Chauhan A, Rendueles O, Beloin C. From in vitro to in vivo models of bacterial biofilm-related infections. Pathogens. 2013;2(2):288–356. https://doi.org/10.3390/pathogens2020288.
Marrazzo P, Maccari S, Taddei A, Bevan L, Telford J, Soriani M, et al. 3D reconstruction of the human airway mucosa in vitro as an experimental model to study NTHi infections. PLoS One. 2016;11(4):e0153985. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0153985.
Bjarnsholt T, Alhede M, Alhede M, Eickhardt-Sørensen SR, Moser C, Kühl M et al. The in vivo biofilm. Trends Microbiol. 2013;21(9):466–74. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tim.2013.06.002.
Bakaletz LO. Chinchilla as a robust, reproducible and polymicrobial model of otitis media and its prevention. Expert Rev Vaccines. 2009;8(8):1063–82. https://doi.org/10.1586/erv.09.63.
Facchini M, De Fino I, Riva C, Bragonzi A. Long term chronic Pseudomonas aeruginosa airway infection in mice. J Vis Exp. 2014;85:51019. https://doi.org/10.3791/51019.
Mestas J, Hughes CCW. Of mice and not men: differences between mouse and human immunology. J Immunol. 2004;172(5):2731–8. https://doi.org/10.4049/jimmunol.172.5.2731.
Li Y, Hill A, Beitelshees M, Shao S, Lovell JF, Davidson BA, et al. Directed vaccination against pneumococcal disease. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2016;113(25):6898–903. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1603007113.
Klug B, Santigli E, Westendorf C, Tangl S, Wimmer G, Grube M. From mouth to model: combining in vivo and in vitro oral biofilm growth. Front Microbiol. 2016;7:1448. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2016.01448.
Jones CH, Zhang G, Nayerhoda R, Beitelshees M, Hill A, Rostami P et al. Comprehensive vaccine design for commensal disease progression. Sci Adv. 2017;3(10). https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.1701797.
Kostakioti M, Hadjifrangiskou M, Hultgren SJ. Bacterial biofilms: development, dispersal, and therapeutic strategies in the dawn of the postantibiotic era. Cold Spring Harb Perspect Med. 2013;3(4):a010306. https://doi.org/10.1101/cshperspect.a010306.
Mora M, Bensi G, Capo S, Falugi F, Zingaretti C, Manetti AGO, et al. Group A Streptococcus produce pilus-like structures containing protective antigens and Lancefield T antigens. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2005;102(43):15641–6. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0507808102.
Black S, Shinefield H, Fireman B, Lewis E, Ray P, Hansen JR, et al. Efficacy, safety and immunogenicity of heptavalent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine in children. Pediatr Infect Dis J. 2000;19(3):187–95.
Falkenhorst G, Remschmidt C, Harder T, Hummers-Pradier E, Wichmann O, Bogdan C. Effectiveness of the 23-valent pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine (PPV23) against pneumococcal disease in the elderly: systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS One. 2017;12(1):e0169368. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0169368.
Hammerschmidt S, Wolff S, Hocke A, Rosseau S, Müller E, Rohde M. Illustration of pneumococcal polysaccharide capsule during adherence and invasion of epithelial cells. Infect Immun. 2005;73(8):4653–67. https://doi.org/10.1128/IAI.73.8.4653-4667.2005.
Hanage WP. Serotype replacement in invasive pneumococcal disease: where do we go from here? J Infect Dis. 2007;196(9):1282–4. https://doi.org/10.1086/521630.
Stewart PS, Franklin MJ. Physiological heterogeneity in biofilms. Nat Rev Microbiol. 2008;6:199–210.
Harro JM, Peters BM, O’May GA, Archer N, Kerns P, Prabhakara R, et al. Vaccine development in Staphylococcus aureus: taking the biofilm phenotype into consideration. FEMS Immunol Med Microbiol. 2010;59(3):306–23. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1574-695X.2010.00708.x.
Brady RA, Leid JG, Kofonow J, Costerton JW, Shirtliff ME. Immunoglobulins to surface-associated biofilm immunogens provide a novel means of visualization of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus biofilms. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2007;73(20):6612–9. https://doi.org/10.1128/AEM.00855-07.
Sette A, Rappuoli R. Reverse vaccinology: developing vaccines in the era of genomics. Immunity. 2010;33(4):530–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.immuni.2010.09.017.
Flower DR, Macdonald IK, Ramakrishnan K, Davies MN, Doytchinova IA. Computer aided selection of candidate vaccine antigens. Immunome Res. 2010;6(Suppl 2):S1. https://doi.org/10.1186/1745-7580-6-S2-S1.
Rashid MI, Naz A, Ali A, Andleeb S. Prediction of vaccine candidates against Pseudomonas aeruginosa: an integrated genomics and proteomics approach. Genomics. 2017;109(3):274–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ygeno.2017.05.001.
Zeng L, Wang D, Hu N, Zhu Q, Chen K, Dong K, et al. A novel pan-genome reverse vaccinology approach employing a negative-selection strategy for screening surface-exposed antigens against leptospirosis. Front Microbiol. 2017;8:396. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2017.00396.
Rodríguez-Ortega MJ, Norais N, Bensi G, Liberatori S, Capo S, Mora M, et al. Characterization and identification of vaccine candidate proteins through analysis of the group A Streptococcus surface proteome. Nat Biotechnol. 2006;24(2):191–7. https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt1179.
Chaudhuri R, Kulshreshtha D, Raghunandanan MV, Ramachandran S. Integrative immunoinformatics for mycobacterial diseases in R platform. Syst Synth Biol. 2014;8(1):27–39. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11693-014-9135-9.
Bogaert D, Hermans PWM, Adrian PV, Rümke HC, de Groot R. Pneumococcal vaccines: an update on current strategies. Vaccine. 2004;22(17):2209–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vaccine.2003.11.038.
Tettelin H, Saunders NJ, Heidelberg J, Jeffries AC, Nelson KE, Eisen JA, et al. Complete genome sequence of Neisseria meningitidis serogroup B strain MC58. Science. 2000;287(5459):1809–15. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.287.5459.1809.
Giuliani MM, Adu-Bobie J, Comanducci M, Aricò B, Savino S, Santini L, et al. A universal vaccine for serogroup B meningococcus. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2006;103(29):10834–9. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0603940103.
Shea MW. The long road to an effective vaccine for meningococcus group B (MenB). Ann Med Surg. 2013;2(2):53–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2049-0801(13)70037-2.
Perrett KP, McVernon J, Richmond PC, Marshall H, Nissen M, August A, et al. Immune responses to a recombinant, four-component, meningococcal serogroup B vaccine (4CMenB) in adolescents: a phase III, randomized, multicentre, lot-to-lot consistency study. Vaccine. 2015;33(39):5217–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vaccine.2015.06.103.
Banzhoff A. Multicomponent meningococcal B vaccination (4CMenB) of adolescents and college students in the United States. Ther Adv Vaccines. 2017;5(1):3–14. https://doi.org/10.1177/2051013616681365.
Capecchi B, Adu-Bobie J, Di Marcello F, Ciucchi L, Masignani V, Taddei A, et al. Neisseria meningitidis NadA is a new invasin which promotes bacterial adhesion to and penetration into human epithelial cells. Mol Microbiol. 2005;55(3):687–98. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2958.2004.04423.x.
Vacca I, Del Tordello E, Gasperini G, Pezzicoli A, Di Fede M, Rossi Paccani S, et al. Neisserial heparin binding antigen (NHBA) contributes to the adhesion of Neisseria meningitidis to human epithelial cells. PLoS One. 2016;11(10):e0162878. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0162878.
Funding
The authors recognize the support from National Institutes of Health (NIH) awards AI088485 and AI117309 (to B.A.P.) and the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) award R41AI124851 (to C.H.J.).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding authors
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
C.H.J., A.H., and B.A.P. are co-founders of Abcombi Biosciences Inc., a company focused on vaccine design. M.B. and P.R. declare that they have no competing interests.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Beitelshees, M., Hill, A., Rostami, P. et al. A Transition to Targeted or ‘Smart’ Vaccines: How Understanding Commensal Colonization Can Lead to Selective Vaccination. Pharm Med 32, 95–102 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40290-018-0225-y
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40290-018-0225-y