Comparison of Congo Red Agar methods and tube turbidity in biofilm formation in Klebsiella pneumoniae isolates from cases of urinary tract infections in Samen Al-Aeme Hospital Bojnourd

Authors
Majid Jamshidian-Mojaver 1
Hamidreza Farzin 1
Hamidreza Farzin 2
1 Razi Vaccine and Serum Research Institute, Agricultural Research, Education and Extension Organization (AREEO), Mashhad Branch, Iran
2 Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Shahid Bahonar University of Kerman, Kerman, Iran
Abstract
Introduction

Biofilm can be called a bacterial community that often forms on living or non-living surfaces and is common in natural, industrial, and hospital environments. Klebsiella pneumoniae as a pathogen has the potential to produce biofilms. Understanding biofilm formation in biofilm-forming bacteria is important. The aim of this study was to investigate the biofilm formation in isolates of Klebsiella pneumoniae from urinary tract infections of Samen Al-Aeme Hospital in Bojnourd using two phenotypic methods: Concord agar and tube turbidity.

Materials and Methods

The present study examined 30 samples of positive cultures with Klebsiella pneumoniae isolation from patients with urinary tract infections referred to Samen Al-Aeme Hospital in Bojnourd. Biochemical tests such as gram stain, urea, simon citrate, and TSI were performed to confirm the isolates. Isolations for biofilm formation were investigated by the Congo Red Agar method and tube testing.

Results

In this study, 50% of the isolates had strong biofilm and 16.66% had moderate biofilm. Also, in the turbidity method, 33.33% of the pipes had strong biofilm and 40% had medium biofilm.

Conclusion

In the two methods studied, the studied isolates were able to produce biofilm. Due to the production of biofilm in bacteria and its importance in pathogenesis and increasing bacterial resistance against common antibiotics, it is very important to study the production of biofilm.
Keywords
Klebsiella pneumoniae
Urinary tract infection
Biofilm Formation
Congo Red Agar
tubular turbidity
1. Giaouris E, Heir E, Hébraud M, Chorianopoulos N, Langsrud S, Møretrø T, et al. Attachment and biofilm formation by foodborne bacteria in meat processing environments: causes, implications, role of bacterial interactions and control by alternative novel methods. Meat Science. 2014; 97(3):298-309. www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0309174013002179
2. Adabi M, Talebi Taher M, Arbabi L, Afshar M, Fathizadeh S, Minaeian S, et al. Determination of antibiotic resistance pattern of Pseudomonas aeruginosa strains isolated from patients with burn wounds. JArUMS. 2015; 15(1):66-74. [Persian]. http://jarums.arums.ac.ir/
3. Costerton JW, Stewart PS, Greenberg EP. Bacterial biofilms: a common cause of persistent infections. Science. 1999; 284(5418):1318-22. https://science.sciencemag.org/content/284/5418/1318
4. Hall-Stoodley L, Costerton JW, Stoodley P. Bacterial biofilms: from the natural environment to infectious diseases. Nature. 2004; 2(2):95-108. https://www.nature.com/articles/nrmicro821
5. Costerton JW, Lewandowski Z, Caldwell DE, Korber DR, Lappin-Scott HM. Microbial biofilms. Annu Rev Microbiol. 1995; 49(1):711-45. https://www.annualreviews.org
6. Høiby N, Bjarnsholt T, Givskov M, Molin S, Ciofu O. Antibiotic resistance of bacterial biofilms. Int. J Antimicrob Agents. 2010; 35(4):322-32. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0924857910000099
7. Potter A, Ceotto H, Giambiagi-deMarval M, dos Santos KR, Nes IF, de Freire Bastos MD. The gene bap, involved in biofilm production, is present in Staphylococcus spp. strains from nosocomial infections. J. Microbiol. 2009; 47(3):319-26. link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12275-009-0008.
8. Gabrilska RA, Rumbaugh KP. Biofilm models of polymicrobial infection. Future microbiology. 2015; 10(12):1997-2015. https://www.futuremedicine.com/doi/abs/10.2217/fmb.15.109
9. Kawamura H, Nishi J, Imuta N, Tokuda K, Miyanohara H, Hashiguchi T, et al. Quantitative analysis of biofilm formation of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) strains from patients with orthopaedic device-related infections. Immunol Med Microbiol. 2011; 63(1):100-105. https://academic.oup.com/femspd/article/63/1/10/549024
10. Joo HS, Otto M. Molecular basis of in vivo biofilm formation by bacterial pathogens. Chemistry & biology. 2012; 19(12):1503-13. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1074552112004231
11. Hancock V, Dahl M, Klemm P. Abolition of biofilm formation in urinary tract Escherichia coli and Klebsiella isolates by metal interference through competition for fur. AEM. 2010; 76(12):3836-41. https://aem.asm.org/content/76/12/3836.short
12. Moori-Bakhtiari N, Moslemi M. Phenotypic evaluation of biofilm producing ability in Methicillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus. FEYZ. 2017; 20(6):525-31. [Persian] http://feyz.kaums.ac.ir/browse.php?a_id=3226&sid=1&slc_lang=en
13. Hansen DS, Aucken HM, Abiola T, Podschun R. Recommended test panel for differentiation of Klebsiella species on the basis of a trilateral interlaboratory evaluation of 18 biochemical tests. JCM. 2004; 42(8):3665-9. https://jcm.asm.org/content/42/8/3665.short
14. Borkar SG, Ajayasree TS. Biochemical characteristics of plant pathogenic Klebsiella pneumoniae causing root bark necrosis and wilt in pomegranate. JABB. 2018; 5(4):222-5. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Biochemical-characteristics-of-plant-pathogenic-and-Sg-Ts/b918fc598a1c86ad9e3aef93720bb71a4a9cbaf0
15. Nosrati N, Honarmand Jahromy S, Zare Karizi S. Comparison of Tissue Culture Plate, Congo red Agar and Tube Methods for Evaluation of Biofilm Formation among Uropathogenic E. coli Isolates. IJM. 2017; 11(3):49-58. [Persian] https://ijmm.ir/article-1-641-en.html
16. Dadgar T, Vahedi Z, Yazdansetad S, Kiaei E, Asaadi H. Phenotypic Investigation of Biofilm Formation and the Prevalence of icaA and icaD Genes in Staphylococcus epidermidis Isolates. IJM. 2019; 12(6):371-81. [Persian] https://ijmm.ir/browse.php?a_id=894&sid=1&slc_lang=en
17. Nosrati N, Honarmand Jahromy S, Zare Karizi S. Comparison of Tissue Culture Plate, Congo red Agar and Tube Methods for Evaluation of Biofilm Formation among Uropathogenic E. coli Isolates. IJM. 2017; 11(3):49-58. [Persian]. https://ijmm.ir/article-1-641-en.html
18. Karigoudar RM, Karigoudar MH, Wavare SM, Mangalgi SS. Detection of biofilm among uropathogenic Escherichia coli and its correlation with antibiotic resistance pattern. JLP. 2019; 11(1):17-23. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6437818/
19. Panda PS, Chaudhary U, Dube SK. Comparison of four different methods for detection of biofilm formation by uropathogens. IJPM. 2016; 59(2):177-182. http://www.ijpmonline.org/article.asp?issn=03774929;year=2016;volume=59;issue=2;spage=177;epage=179;aulast=Panda