search.noResults

search.searching

dataCollection.invalidEmail
note.createNoteMessage

search.noResults

search.searching

orderForm.title

orderForm.productCode
orderForm.description
orderForm.quantity
orderForm.itemPrice
orderForm.price
orderForm.totalPrice
orderForm.deliveryDetails.billingAddress
orderForm.deliveryDetails.deliveryAddress
orderForm.noItems
NEW


NEWSNEWS


ANTIMICROBIALS


Silencing rogue bacteria


CATH O’DRISCOLL


Bacteria like talking to each other. They also like hanging out together in rogue communities known as biofilms that wreak havoc everywhere from medical devices to industry pipelines and bathrooms. But now scientists claim to have hit


on a way to stop bacteria from being so gregarious – and potentially to block biofilms from forming before they even get started, according to Neil Parry, research programme director at Unilever R&D, speaking at the EFIB meeting in October 2017. The secret, he revealed, lies inside


seaweeds and sponges in the oceans. ‘Sponges and seaweeds keep themselves


clean because they harbour in their microbiomes a single species of bacteria that tells other bacteria not to sit down and contaminate it. That bacteria species is present only in the oceans and is to be found nowhere on land.’ This message warding away other bacteria is the opposite of what usually happens. Biofilms usually form when bacteria land on a surface and ‘as soon as they realise it’s a good place to sit, they start making communication and making a matrix that signals their chums to come and join me,’ Parry said.


Most of the current arsenal of commercial


antimicrobials are tested in solution, but Unilever researchers are hopeful their research should lead to new products that take effect much sooner, before the bacteria ‘sit down’. ‘We currently sell cleaning products, what


we don’t sell are surfaces [to stop biofilms from forming],’ Parry said. ‘If we can start to offer self-cleaning surfaces or products that enable easier- to-clean surfaces, it would be a huge benefit across industry.’ Unilever bought the initial technology


from a biotech in Australia back in 2011. While Parry didn’t reveal the exact details, it is thought that the bacteria species in sponges and seaweeds releases a range of different molecules into the surrounding environment that tell other unwanted bacteria to stay away. All the various molecules involved have


now been identified, Parry continued, as well as a common mechanism how the process of bacterial communication – known as quorum sensing – is disrupted. They are active at low levels against a wide range of bacteria and work in cold water, he said. The risk of antimicrobial resistance is thought to be low because of their mode of action, but needs further study. Potential applications range from ‘self-


preserving systems’ for Unilever products such as Cif wipes to biofilm-resistant packaging for soaps and toiletries, biofilm- ready paints or even in protecting medical equipment such as stents and other implants from infection. And in the oil and gas sector, to reduce the formation of bacterial biofilms that accelerate pipeline corrosion. In tests with a lead anti-biofilm agent


derived from this work, Parry said it prevented biofilm formation by slow release from a plastic ‘coextruded’ with the compound; significantly improved the effectiveness of other antimicrobials; and even stopped a biofilm from forming in flow – which would be hugely valuable in a variety of industrial manufacturing processes. Better yet, the agent also acted to prevent fungal growth on packaging – a feat attributed to the fact fungi like ‘listening in on bacterial communications’, Parry believes. The technology could lead to better washing machine cleaning products that avoid the unsightly black patches that appear on the inner plastic drum. ‘We’ve done a full transcriptomic analysis


of every bug in washing machines,’ Parry said. ‘We know exactly which bugs cause problems… If we can understand the full cycle how microbes get on surfaces maybe we can start to control them.’ Regarding the agent’s mode of action,


Parry referred to an Innovate UK funded project to model and visualise the entire process of biofilm inhibition – from start to finish – to understand where it takes effect. With Pseudomonas bacteria, for example, researchers discovered the compound led to ‘downregulation’ of the genes involved in motility, he reported. Pseudomonas infection is a major problem in hospitals, where biofilm formation can render antibiotics only weakly effective. An Innovate UK grant proposal for funding


from May 2016 to Jan 2017 detailed a project by University of York mathematicians, in partnership with Unilever, to study the effects of a lactam analogue derived from the red seaweed Delisea pulchra on biofilm formation. The proposal noted that a library of over 600 furanone-derived lactam analogues from D. pulchra has already been evaluated, with a number of compounds found to disrupt bacterial communication, without inducing microbial adaptation. ‘As part of the scoping for this project, the commercial partner (Unilever) has predicted that a lactam-analogue-based laundry liquid could be viable for launch by 2021,’ the York grant proposal noted (http://gtr.rcuk.ac.uk/ projects?ref=BB/N024095/1). Damage from biofilms is estimated to


cost tens of billions of pounds every year, according to a report, Biofilms strategic opportunity, on the BBSRC website. Meanwhile, the ultimate testing ground for any new biofilm prevention technology is likely to be in space, Parry pointed out, where ‘biofilms grow twice as fast as on Earth’.


09 | 2017 11


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52