AEM
Home Help [Feedback] [For Subscribers] [Archive] [Search] [Contents]
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowReprints and Permissions
Right arrow Copyright Information
Right arrow Books from ASM Press
Right arrow MicrobeWorld
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Chambless, J. D.
Right arrow Articles by Stewart, P. S.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Chambless, J. D.
Right arrow Articles by Stewart, P. S.
Agricola
Right arrow Articles by Chambless, J. D.
Right arrow Articles by Stewart, P. S.

 Previous Article  |  Next Article 

Applied and Environmental Microbiology, March 2006, p. 2005-2013, Vol. 72, No. 3
0099-2240/06/$08.00+0     doi:10.1128/AEM.72.3.2005-2013.2006
Copyright © 2006, American Society for Microbiology. All Rights Reserved.

A Three-Dimensional Computer Model of Four Hypothetical Mechanisms Protecting Biofilms from Antimicrobials

Jason D. Chambless, Stephen M. Hunt, and Philip S. Stewart*

Center for Biofilm Engineering and Department of Chemical and Biological Engineering, Montana State University—Bozeman, Bozeman, Montana 59717-3980

Received 31 August 2005/ Accepted 29 November 2005

Four hypothetical mechanisms for protection of biofilms against antimicrobials were incorporated into a three-dimensional model of biofilm growth and development. The model integrated processes of substrate utilization, diffusion, growth, cell migration, death, and detachment in a cellular automaton framework. Compared to simulations of unprotected biofilms, each of the protective mechanisms provided some tolerance to antimicrobial action. When the mechanisms were compared to each other, the behaviors of the four protective mechanisms produced distinct shapes of killing curves, nonuniform spatial patterns of survival and cell type distribution, and anticipated susceptibility patterns for dispersed biofilm cells. The differences between the protective mechanisms predicted in these simulations could guide the design of experiments to discriminate antimicrobial tolerance mechanisms in biofilms. Each of the mechanisms could be a plausible avenue of biofilm protection.

* Corresponding author. Mailing address: Center for Biofilm Engineering and Department of Chemical and Biological Engineering, Montana State University—Bozeman, Bozeman, MT 59717-3980. Phone: (406) 994-1960. Fax: (406) 994-6098. E-mail: phil_s{at}erc.montana.edu.

Applied and Environmental Microbiology, March 2006, p. 2005-2013, Vol. 72, No. 3
0099-2240/06/$08.00+0     doi:10.1128/AEM.72.3.2005-2013.2006
Copyright © 2006, American Society for Microbiology. All Rights Reserved.



This article has been cited by other articles:



Home Help [Feedback] [For Subscribers] [Archive] [Search] [Contents]
J. Bacteriol. Microbiol. Mol. Biol. Rev. Eukaryot. Cell All ASM Journals

Copyright © 2006 by the American Society for Microbiology. All rights reserved.