Abstract
Hundreds of thousands of human implant procedures require surgical revision each year due to infection. Infections are difficult to treat with conventional antibiotics due to the formation of biofilm on the implant surface. We have developed a noninvasive method to eliminate biofilm on metal implants using heat generated by intermittent alternating magnetic fields (iAMF). Here, we demonstrate that heat and antibiotics are synergistic in biofilm elimination. For Pseudomonas aeruginosa biofilm, bacterial burden was reduced >3 log with iAMF and ciprofloxacin after 24āh compared with either treatment alone (pā<ā0.0001). This effect was not limited by pathogen or antibiotic as similar biofilm reductions were seen with iAMF and either linezolid or ceftriaxone in Staphylococcus aureus. iAMF and antibiotic efficacy was seen across various iAMF settings, including different iAMF target temperatures, dose durations, and dosing intervals. Initial mechanistic studies revealed membrane disruption as one factor important for AMF enhanced antibacterial activity in the biofilm setting. This study demonstrates the potential of utilizing a noninvasive approach to reduce biofilm off of metallic implants.
Similar content being viewed by others
Introduction
Metal implants such as prosthetic joints, bone fixation hardware, and dental implants, are widely used in medicine to replace damaged or diseased tissue1. In aggregate, millions of metal devices are implanted into humans every year globally2. In the case of total knee arthroplasty, over one million procedures are performed in the US each year, and the number is projected to reach ~3.5 million by the year 2030 due to population and health trends3. Approximately, 1ā2% of these implants become infected. This serious complication is challenging to treat3. Currently, the treatment of prosthetic joint infections (PJI) mainly relies on multiple revision surgeries. Initial surgery is performed to remove the infected implant and a temporary spacer is placed4. Antibiotics are administered for several weeks to clear the residual infection. Once the patient is confirmed to be free of infection, a final surgery is performed to implant a new prosthesis5. Treatment of PJI is highly invasive with a significant negative impact on patientsā quality of life. Moreover, the failure rate of these multistage surgeries is currently over 10%6,7. In addition, the projected cost of treating PJI is 1.6 billion USD in 2020 in the United States alone, creating a significant economic burden to the health care system8.
A primary reason that antibiotic treatment of metal implant infections (MII) (such as PJI) is ineffective is due to the formation of biofilm on the implant surface9. Biofilm is a thin (tens to hundreds of micrometers) aggregate of bacteria and extracellular polymeric substances (EPS)10. EPS is generated by bacteria and forms a barrier to the surrounding environment, rendering these organisms up to 1000-fold more resistant to antibiotics as well as providing protection from the immune system11. Importantly, increasing antibiotic resistance only further complicates this problem. Aside from PJI, biofilm also plays an important role in the infection of other widely used medical implants, including catheters, mechanical heart valves, and bone fixation hardware1,12,13.
Nonsurgical means of eradicating biofilm would be a significant advance in the treatment of MII. Several physical approaches for eliminating biofilm have been proposed including electrical current14,15,16, ultrasound17, heat18,19,20, and shock waves21. However, these methods are either hard to apply in vivo or have limitations for use on metal implants. A potentially safer and more effective method of biofilm removal off of metal implants is through the use of alternating magnetic fields (AMF). AMF can be delivered from outside the body and does not suffer from penetration depth limitations or complex wave distortions through tissue boundaries. When metal implants are exposed to AMF, electrical currents are induced on the surface, resulting in the generation of heat. Previous studies have shown the feasibility and effectiveness of biofilm elimination by AMF19,22. After just a few minutes of AMF treatment, the biofilm on a stainless-steel washer was reduced significantly22.
However, the necessity to sustain temperatures ranging from 50 to 80āĀ°C for several minutes to achieve biofilm reduction presents challenges for AMF to be utilized clinically. In addition, incomplete eradication of bacteria via AMF results in regrowth within a short period of time22. One approach to overcoming this obstacle is to consider combination therapy with antibiotics. In vitro studies have demonstrated a greater and sustained reduction in bacterial burden. As such, AMF and ciprofloxacin in combination were observed to be more effective than AMF or ciprofloxacin alone in reducing biofilm and prevented its recurrence for up to 24āh post treatment20,23,24. In addition, utilizing brief, intermittent AMF exposures could address the issue of elevated implant temperatures and safety. As shown previously in a murine model, elevating a metal implant to a target temperature quickly and for a brief period resulted in much less tissue injury compared to longer duration exposures25. Further, these short duration exposures can be delivered repeatedly with sufficient cool-down time in between exposures to allow for thermal doses that are therapeutic on the implant surface without a concomitant rise in tissue thermal dose. This approach is referred to as intermittent AMF (iAMF).
Here, we investigate the efficacy of iAMF exposures in combination with antibiotics to eliminate biofilm on metal surfaces in vitro. We determine the relationship between AMF parameters (temperature, duration, # of exposures) and antibiotics (drug, concentration, dosing). We explore this approach in both prototypic Gram-positive and Gram-negative pathogens and begin to explore the mechanisms that underlie this relationship by attempting to rescue multidrug-resistant pathogens (MDR) with iAMF.
Results
Characterization of the iAMF system
iAMF exposures were produced using an in vitro system (Supplementary Fig. 1a, b) designed to heat metal rings with precisely controlled exposure durations, and with specified exposure and dosing intervals. The system is comprised of 32 identical solenoid coils, capable of generating a uniform AMF (10.2āĀ±ā0.3āmT) at the center of each coil. In addition, the measured magnetic field agreed well with the predictions from simulation (11.2āĀ±ā0.4āmT). Metal rings were chosen since they were heated uniformly in the magnetic field of a solenoid when oriented along the axis of the coil as shown in Fig. 1a. The finite-element simulation results in Fig. 1c depict the uniformity of heating that can be achieved. The surface temperature distribution on the rings after 1.2, 3, and 6ās of heating are shown, with uniform temperatures around the circumference of the ring, and a standard deviation of no more than 2āĀ°C between the top and middle. Further, the simulations highlight that for this short duration of heating, the media surrounding the rings is not significantly heated, which was also observed by actual measurement (Supplementary Fig. 2b). Cumulative equivalent minutes at 43āĀ°C (CEM43) are used for evaluating mammalian cell thermal damage26. Usually, 240āmin is considered as the threshold for permanent damage in muscle tissue27,28. Because the heat transfer from the rings to the adjacent media is governed by heat conduction and convection, we calculated the CEM43 around the ring with the assumption that the ring was surrounded by muscle tissue (i.e., only heat conduction). The CEM43 did not exceed 240āmin at 2āmm from the ring under iAMF with Tmaxā=ā80āĀ°C and at 1āmm under 12 iAMF exposures of Tmaxā=ā65āĀ°C, suggesting no permanent tissue damage at this distance (Supplementary Fig. 3).
Elimination of biofilm by iAMF and antibiotics
Having characterized the dynamics of ring heating with the iAMF system, we investigated its ability to eradicate biofilm from the ring surface (Fig. 2). Each of the three iAMF treatments investigated (dotted blue lines) were able to reduce Pseudomonas aeruginosa PA01 biofilm by approximately 1ā2 log after each dose. However, between doses, CFU levels reverted to baseline. The rings exposed to 0.5āĪ¼gāmLā1 of ciprofloxacin alone (solid black line) showed a steady CFU reduction over the first 12āh of almost 3-log, followed by a plateauing after that. Strikingly, the iAMF exposures combined with ciprofloxacin (solid blue lines) demonstrated a consistent reduction in biofilm down to the limit of detection. The reduction in CFU immediately after each dose was equal or larger for combined therapy compared with iAMF alone. In between the AMF doses at time 0 and 12āh, there was a further reduction in CFU, presumably as ciprofloxacin demonstrated enhanced activity in biofilm. Of note, the CFU reduction at 0 and 12āh were of a similar magnitude suggesting a consistent AMF treatment effect after each dose. This trend was observed for three different treatment strategies in which the target temperature (Tmax), and a number of exposures (Nexp) was altered. Furthermore, more exposures were required at lower temperatures to observe an equivalent reduction in biofilm after 2 doses (Fig. 2b, c, d). At 24āh, the difference in CFU between the combined treatment group and all other groups was highly significant (pā<ā0.0001). The same treatment strategy with iAMF at Tmaxā=ā65āĀ°C and ciprofloxacin combined was conducted on equally sized plastic rings or Grade 5 titanium rings with P. aeruginosa biofilm. On plastic rings, biofilm CFU showed no significant difference when treated with iAMF and ciprofloxacin compared to ciprofloxacin incubation alone (Supplementary Fig. 4). For biofilms on titanium rings, a material that is widely used in medical implants, biofilm reduction from iAMF and ciprofloxacin treatment was similar as that seen on stainless steel rings (Supplementary Fig. 5).
To evaluate whether a synergistic relationship exists between heat and antibiotics on biofilm, an experiment was conducted using a temperature-controlled water bath. Biofilms were exposed to varying durations of heating at specified temperatures, and then the CFU reduction in bacteria in the presence and absence of various antibiotic concentrations was quantified (see Supplementary Methods). The MBEC (minimal biofilm eradication concentration) was used to quantitatively study the synergistic effect of heat and ciprofloxacin as previously described29. The results demonstrated synergy with fractional inhibitory concentration (FIC) index values that were below 0.5 (the definition for synergy) for various combinations of heat treatment time and ciprofloxacin concentrations at both 12 and 24āh post single heat treatment30,31. This suggests that heat and ciprofloxacin display synergistic activity in the biofilm setting (Supplementary Fig. 6)29.
The enhanced reduction in biofilm to combined iAMF and antibiotics was also observed visually utilizing laser scanning confocal microscopy (Fig. 3). GFP-PAO1 biofilms were treated using iAMF (Tmaxā=ā65āĀ°C, Ītexpā=ā5āmin, Nexpā=ā12) and 0.5āĪ¼gāmLā1 ciprofloxacin. GFP-PAO1 cells are represented in green and ConcanavalinA-Alexa Fluor 647 stained EPS was shown as red. This allowed for the morphology of bacterial cells to be observed under different treatment conditions. With ciprofloxacin only (Fig. 3b), the bacteria showed slight elongation compared to iAMF only (Fig. 3b) and control (Fig. 3d) at 12āh post-treatment. While the iAMF only group displayed diffuse ConcanavalinA-Alexa Fluor 647 stained EPS, the combined treatment of iAMF and ciprofloxacin (Fig. 3c) had less dense EPS staining. In addition, there were increased numbers of GFP-expressing cells that were elongated, a visual representation of Pseudomonas during quinolone treatment32,33.
The impact of iAMF dose duration was investigated in more detail. P. aeruginosa biofilms were treated with iAMF (Tmaxā=ā65āĀ°C) for dosing durations that ranged from 15āmin to 1āh in combination with 0.5āĪ¼gāmLā1 ciprofloxacin following the same treatment scheme as in Fig. 2a. Exposures were spaced apart by 5āminutes in each of the treatments. Immediately after combined iAMF and antibiotic treatment, reduction in CFU demonstrated a dose-dependent response with longer durations of iAMF resulting in greater decreases (Fig. 4, pā=ā0.0318 for 15āmin iAMF and pā<ā0.0001 for 30 and 60āmin iAMF). After 15āmin of iAMF there was a 1.41 log reduction that increased to a 2.68 log reduction after the 1āh dose. After 24āh, there was a 2.7 log reduction in biofilm treated with ciprofloxacin only, whereas the combination therapy achieved a greater than 5 log reduction, approaching the limit of detection for all iAMF treatment durations (pā<ā0.0001 for all the three dosing durations). These results showed that biofilm can be effectively eliminated through combined treatment of iAMF and ciprofloxacin at a variety of dosing durations. Indeed, only three 3-s iAMF exposures over 15āmin together with ciprofloxacin were sufficient to effectively eliminate P. aeruginosa biofilm.
Similar patterns were observed for iAMF and antibiotic treatment of Staphylococcus aureus biofilm. In addition to being a Gram-positive pathogen with several structural and metabolic differences compared to P. aeruginosa, S. aureus has clinical importance as one of the more common pathogens associated with MII. S. aureus (UAMS1) biofilms were treated with iAMF and antibiotics alone and in combination. Two antibiotics commonly used clinically were selected: ceftriaxone (2āĪ¼gāmLā1) and linezolid (2āĪ¼gāmLā1). These concentrations represented the minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) for this strain. As in previous experiments, iAMF doses were delivered at 0 and 12āh. Each dose was composed of iAMF exposures with the following specifications: Tmaxā=ā65āĀ°C, Ītexpā=ā5āmin, tdoseā=ā15āmin. For treatment with iAMF and 2āĪ¼gāmLā1 ceftriaxone (Fig. 5a), biofilm CFU initially decreased by over 3 logs, suggesting that S. aureus biofilm has a greater sensitivity to iAMF dosing alone (3.29 log reduction) compared with P. aeruginosa (0.96 log reduction) with the same 15āmin iAMF dose. As observed with PA01, in between doses, biofilm CFU returned to control levels for iAMF only groups. Incubation with ceftriaxone alone only led to approximately a 2-log reduction after 24āh. However, CFU reduction was significantly larger after 24āh when treated in combination with iAMF (pā<ā0.0001) with CFU approaching the limit of detection. At 24āh, iAMF and ceftriaxone (2āĪ¼gāmLā1) or iAMF and linezolid (2āĪ¼gāmLā1) showed significantly lower CFU than with antibiotics alone (Fig. 5b; pā<ā0.0001 ceftriaxone and for linezolid).
The age of the biofilm can vary in real-life clinical situations. We investigated if the combination of iAMF and antibiotics could eliminate more mature biofilms beyond 48-h (2-day) old ones. 7-day P. aeruginosa (PAO1) and S. aureus (UAMS1) biofilms were cultured and the same experimental conditions were performed with iAMF at Tmaxā=ā65āĀ°C as for 2-day biofilms. Similar reductions in CFU to 2-day biofilms were seen. When treated with the same iAMF dose (Tmaxā=ā65āĀ°C, Ītexpā=ā5āmin, tdoseā=ā15āmin) as used with the 2-day biofilm and antibiotics (0.5āĪ¼gāmLā1 ciprofloxacin for PAO1, and 2āĪ¼gāmLā1 linezolid for UAMS1), the CFU change followed the same trend as was seen previously (Fig. 6a, b). There was no significant difference in the magnitude of the reduction of biofilm to iAMF and antibiotics for 2 and 7-day biofilms (Fig. 6c, d).
Specific resistance mechanisms determine synergy between iAMF and antibiotics
Antibiotic resistance is becoming increasingly common. MDR only further complicates the treatment of biofilm-associated implant infections. The mechanism of the synergistic response between antibiotics and iAMF remains unknown. We hypothesized that one possible mechanism could relate to heat-induced membrane disruption allowing for increased uptake of the antibiotic. To test whether iAMF could enhance antibiotic activity in MDR pathogens and rescue activity of specific antibiotics depending on the resistance mechanism present, we utilized an MDR P. aeruginosa isolate (MB699) that was genomically and phenotypically characterized. This clinical isolate was genome sequenced as described previously34. It is an MDR isolate with a MIC of 64āĪ¼gāmLā1 for both ciprofloxacin and meropenem. Analysis of the genome revealed mutations in DNA gyrase (gyrA, p.Thr83Ile) and topoisomerase IV (parC, p.Ser87Leu), which are associated with ciprofloxacin resistance, as well as loss of function mutations in the porin oprD, that are associated with carbapenem resistance. It was hypothesized that iAMF would enhance the activity of meropenem but not ciprofloxacin. MB699 biofilm was treated with iAMF using the following parameters: Tmaxā=ā65āĀ°C, Ītexpā=ā5āmin, Nexpā=ā12, Ndoseā=ā2, Ītdoseā=ā24āh. Antibiotic administration followed the same protocol as for the PAO1 experiments and each antibiotic was dosed at its MIC (Supplementary Table 3). After two doses (0 and 24āh) and determining CFU at 48āh, bacterial burden approached the limit of detection for treatment with iAMF and meropenem, while ciprofloxacin and iAMF did not result in a further reduction of CFU compared to either iAMF or antibiotic alone (Fig. 7a). The rescue of meropenem with iAMF was also seen at sub-MIC concentrations (32āĪ¼gāmLā1) as well (pā<ā0.0001; Fig. 7b). Increasing the concentrations of ciprofloxacin did not lead to enhanced CFU decreases in combination with iAMF. The effects of iAMF and meropenem versus ciprofloxacin on MB699 were observed by scanning electron microscopy (SEM). At 12āh post-treatment of MB699 biofilm with iAMF (Tmaxā=ā65āĀ°C, Ītexpā=ā5āmin, Nexpā=ā12) and continuous incubation with 64āĪ¼gāmLā1 of ciprofloxacin or meropenem, biofilms were fixed as described and imaged. For treatment with ciprofloxacin, meropenem, or iAMF alone, no obvious morphological changes were observed in the bacteria. With iAMF and ciprofloxacin, some changes were observed, with slight lengthening of bacteria and increased wrinkling of the membrane. Treatment with iAMF and meropenem displayed fragmented and deformed bacterial cells (Supplementary Fig. S7).
Discussion
Although the effects of heat on bacterial killing have been known for years, major hurdles exist in order to utilize heat for antibacterial effects in the human body. Studies conducted by our group and others have demonstrated a strong therapeutic effect of heat generated via AMF and antibiotics on the eradication of biofilm20,23,24. A previous study by our group demonstrated that P. aeruginosa biofilm was more susceptible to ciprofloxacin after AMF treatment22. Pijls et al.24,35 reported similar results as was seen in this study, that there was an enhanced effect with AMF and antibiotics in Staphylococcus epidermidis and S. aureus biofilms on titanium alloy than with either treatment alone. One concern for the clinical adoption of AMF relates to therapeutic index, specifically the ability to reduce biofilm through thermal effects while minimizing neighboring tissue damage. In this study, we developed a method, intermittent AMF, that could deliver AMF to infected metal implants that could aid in moving towards these goals of maintaining efficacy while limiting any toxicity. The premise of iAMF is that brief exposures to the surface of an implant with sufficient cool-down time in between exposures will result in a therapeutic dose capable of eradicating biofilm while protecting surrounding tissues from damage.
We demonstrate that even iAMF exposures of a few seconds can reduce biofilm burden by 1ā2 log in vitro. However, in the absence of more frequent dosing, there is regrowth back to baseline within 12āh. While more frequent dosing with iAMF could be used, an alternative approach would be to use iAMF to enhance the activity of antibiotics. As has been previously reported, the antibiotics used in this study were not affected by the heat generated by iAMF and maintain stability at these temperatures36,37. In combination, iAMF and antibiotics resulted in a dramatic decrease in biofilm burden over either treatment alone. Importantly, this effect was not limited to one pathogen or one antibiotic. We demonstrated that both clinically important Gram-positive (S. aureus) and Gram-negative pathogens (P. aeruginosa) and various antibiotics had their activity enhanced with iAMF. As diseases such as PJI are caused by a number of different bacterial pathogens, one goal of developing iAMF is to have a treatment that is efficacious regardless of the pathogen that is found. We also demonstrated that the combination of iAMF and antibiotics can effectively eliminate biofilms of different ages. Importantly, this treatment effect was not seen on plastic rings, indicating the underlying principle of current generation between AMF and metals. In addition to the quantitative reduction in bacterial burden, microscopy qualitatively supported the enhanced impact that iAMF and antibiotics had.
Biofilms are recalcitrant to antibiotic therapy for a number of reasons. This includes the difficulty in getting adequate concentrations of the drug to the target (bacteria) embedded within the biofilm matrix as well as difficulty in immune cells reaching these pathogens. This creates an environment where a biofilm-associated pathogen can be functionally antibiotic-resistant. The increasing rate of antibiotic resistance that is being seen worldwide will only further complicate the treatment of biofilm-associated infections. One of the most striking findings of this study was the ability to rescue certain multidrug-resistant bacteria based on the mechanism of resistance. We utilized a genomically and phenotypically characterized Pseudomonas strain to begin to understand what the mechanism of action is that explains iAMF synergy with antibiotics. One hypothesis is that iAMF disrupts bacterial membranes. If this is indeed the case, then it might be possible to rescue an MDR strain with an antibiotic if the mechanism of resistance was membrane-based (i.e., porins or efflux mechanisms). However, chromosomally based mechanisms of resistance (i.e., gyrase mutations) would not be impacted by an iAMF and antibiotic combination compared to either one alone. Our studies supported this hypothesis. We were able to show a synergistic effect with iAMF and meropenem in this MDR strain with known mutations in the porin oprD but not with ciprofloxacin as the strain contained DNA gyrase gyrA and topoisomerase IV parC mutations. Although, there are other potential mechanisms that could explain the interactions between iAMF and antibiotics in the biofilm setting, this data supports that membrane disruption is likely one important component. Future studies will more deeply investigate the mechanisms of antibiotic and AMF interactions.
Although we effectively eliminated biofilm using iAMF with antibiotics on metal implants in vitro, there are still some limitations of this study. Because of the treatment design of iAMF, determining the synergy of iAMF and antibiotics in the biofilm context is challenging. However, our water bath experiments combined with defining heating exposure time as the ādoseā of an antimicrobial did in fact support that synergistic interactions between iAMF and antibiotics are being seen. Also, as this study was only performed in vitro, it is not clear how iAMF and antibiotics will translate in vivo. These studies are currently ongoing. Finally, it remains unclear whether the non-heat-related component of iAMF, specifically current deposition itself, has any role in disrupting biofilm.
There remain a number of unknowns regarding the ultimate deployment of iAMF in the clinical setting. This includes the optimal number of doses of iAMF that would lead to a durable treatment response as well as the optimal target temperature that would maintain efficacy while minimizing any potential safety concerns. Future and ongoing studies include exploring iAMF for safety and efficacy in a large animal model of implant infection. The translation to real-life medical implants could be challenging: first, the positioning of the implant may vary for different patients, even between treatments for the same patient, which can lead to inconsistent treatments. Second, because of the complexity of the implant, it can be difficult to achieve uniform heating for predictable biofilm elimination, which requires a more sophisticated coil design customized for a particular implant. In addition, other possible mechanisms of this interaction remain to be explored. This includes determining whether heat activates or results in stress response in pathogens in a way that makes them more responsive to particular antibiotics. Finally, current studies are focused on determining the response of iAMF and particular antibiotics in various strains of the same genus and species in order to determine the range of CFU reduction that will likely be achieved under various parameters. The hope is in the not too distant future, a non-invasive approach such as iAMF could be used with antibiotics to treat PJI without removal of the infected implant.
Methods
In vitro AMF system
A custom-designed system composed of multiple solenoid coils was constructed to deliver programmed AMF exposures to stainless-steel rings with existing biofilm held in 50āmL conical tubes. The parameters of AMF exposure were assigned using custom-developed software operating on a personal computer. A function generator (33250A, Agilent Technologies) was used to produce an RF signal. The signal was input into a 1000āW RF amplifier (1140LA, Electronics & Innovation), and the amplified signal was directed to the appropriate coil using a USB-controlled relay system. Each coil was constructed using 0.25-in. diameter copper tubing formed into a 6-turn solenoid with 1ācm pitch between turns (Fig. 1a). The coil diameter was chosen to accommodate a 50āmL conical tube holding the infected ring and media. A plastic holder was included in each conical tube to hold the ring in place, so the orientation was maintained across all coils. The coils were driven electrically as a parallel resonant circuit using a capacitor selected to tune the resonant frequency to approximately 500ākHz. The working frequencies of the coils ranged from 507 to 522ākHz. A matching inductor was also included in series with the resonant circuit to transform the impedance of each coil to 50 ohms for efficient power transfer. The complete system included four insulated boxes each containing eight coils, enabling the treatment of up to 32 samples with iAMF in a single experiment (Supplementary Fig. 1). The coils worked at 8 Vpp with a 50% duty cycle (100āms per 200āms) for the experiments described in this paper. A circulating fan with an integrated heater (Miller Manufacturing, MN, USA) was also incorporated into each box to keep the samples at 37āĀ°C during extended-length experiments.
The strength of the AMF in the coil was characterized using a commercial 2D magnetic field probe (AMF Lifesystems, Inc., MI, USA). A Rogowski current probe (TRCP3000 current probes, Tektronix Inc., OR, USA) was used to measure the electrical current through the coils during operation.
To characterize AMF heating, uninfected metal rings were exposed for varying durations to reach desired maximum temperatures. The temperature of each ring exposed to AMF was measured using a fiber-optic temperature sensor (PRB-G40-2M-STM-MRI, Osensa Innovations, Burnaby, BC, Canada) attached to the center of the inner surface of the ring with high-temperature epoxy (Epotek 353ND, Epoxy Technologies, CA, USA. Tests were performed to confirm that the epoxy was unaffected by the AMF and did not produce false heating. See Supplementary Methods. Supplementary Fig. 2a). Ring temperatures were recorded at a rate of 2āHz using a laptop computer. The temperature change during iAMF of media was also measured by placing the thermal sensor located in the center of the ring immersed in media (Supplementary Fig. 2b). The use of fiberoptic temperature sensors enabled accurate temperature characterization during AMF exposures since they are immune to electromagnetic interference.
Finite element simulations were performed using the commercial simulation software COMSOL Multiphysics (Comsol v5.5, Los Angeles, CA, USA) to model the interaction between AMF and a metal implant and to study the uniformity and magnitude of AMF-induced heating. A quasi-static approximation of Maxwellās equation and Penneās bioheat transfer model was used for electromagnetic and thermal simulations. The thermal dose is calculated as cumulative equivalent minutes (CEM43)38which gives the timeātemperature relation in equivalent minutes as
where, R is the temperature dependence of the rate of cell death (Rā=ā0.5 for Tā>ā43, Rā=ā0.25 for 43āā„āTāā„ā39), dt is the time interval, to and tfinal are initial and final heating periods respectively in minutes. The thermal toxicity due to implant heating is determined based on the tissue damage radius CEM 240āmin (irreversible damage)27,28 from the implant surface.
Figure 1a shows the 3D physical model used for simulation of the metal ring in aqueous biological media in the coil. The coil geometry and current measured in the section above were used for 3D modeling and initial conditions of 37āĀ°C were selected for simulations. The physical properties used for simulations are listed in Supplementary Table 125,39. Simulations were performed using free tetrahedral meshing with boundary layers. Grid independent studies were performed from coarser to finer meshes, settling on an optimal number of 186,634 elements to be used for analysis.
In vitro AMF treatment
iAMF treatment parameters for the treatment were determined. The structure and timing of iAMF treatments are shown in Fig. 1b. Treatments were organized as a series of doses each separated by a fixed time (Ītdose). The length of an iAMF dose ranges from 15āmin to a few hours. Ndose is the number of doses in the whole treatment. Each iAMF dose is composed of multiple AMF exposures. During each exposure, AMF is on for a few seconds and the rings are heated. The exposures are separated by fixed time intervals (Ītexp) to allow rings to cool to the initial temperature between exposures. (Nexp) is the number of exposures performed in one iAMF dose. The heating from a typical exposure is shown with a specified target temperature, Tmax, and a cool down back to the baseline temperature over 3ā5āmin. The temperature profile for three different Tmax values (50, 65, and 80) are also shown. The target temperatures were achieved by varying the duration of AMF exposure in the coil. For iAMF treatments at Tmaxā=ā80āĀ°C, the temperature reached 80āĀ°C in 6ās and was held until 12ās during the initial construction of the system. Therefore, this iAMF heating pattern was used in the Tmaxā=ā80āĀ°C iAMF experiments described below.
Biofilm was grown on stainless steel rings (316āL, 3/4ā³ OD, 0.035ā³ wall thickness, 0.2ā³ height, cut from McMaster Carr, P/N 89785K857, USA) or Titanium rings (Grade 5, 3/4ā³ OD, 0.035ā³ wall thickness, 0.2ā³ height, cut from McMaster Carr, P/N 89835K93, USA) using the Gram-negative pathogen P. aeruginosa (PAO1: ATCC strain. PAO1-GFP: provided by Joanna Goldberg, MB699: provided by Sam Shelburne) or Gram-positive pathogen S. aureus (UAMS1, provided by M. Smeltzer). For P. aeruginosa biofilm, an isolated colony was inoculated into 3āmL of cation-adjusted Mueller Hinton II (MHII) media (Becton-Dickinson by Thermo-Fisher Scientific) and incubated at 37āĀ°C for 18āh at 220 RPM. A working solution was made by adding culture to sterile phosphate-buffered saline (PBS). The bacterial concentration was adjusted with MHII using a UV spectrophotometer (Genesys 20, Thermal Scientific) at 600ānm until the optical density (OD) read between 0.07 and 0.08, indicating a concentration of ~ā108āCFUāmLā1. The working solution was then diluted to obtain a bacterial concentration of 5āĆā105āCFUāmLā1. Biofilm was prepared on each metal ring by placing the ring in 5āmL of the bacterial solution in a 50āmL conical tube. The submerged ring was then incubated at 37āĀ°C for 48āh at 110 RPM in a shaking incubator (Innova42, New Brunswick Scientific). Media was replenished midway at 24āh by exchanging the solution with 5āmL of fresh MHII. Biofilm prepared with S. aureus followed the same protocol using Tryptic Soy Broth (TSB, Becton-Dickinson by Thermo-Fisher Scientific). Biofilms other than the 7-day old biofilm in this study were prepared using this protocol. For the 7-day old biofilm, the rings were cultured similarly but the culture time was prolonged to 7 days with media replenishment every 24āh.
The biofilms were prepared, treated, and quantified as follows. The multi-coil system described above was used to investigate the response of biofilm (P. aeruginosa or S. aureus) grown on stainless-steel rings to AMF. Biofilm-coated rings were transferred to 50āmL conical tubes each with 10āmL fresh media containing antibiotics at set concentrations. Prior to the transfer, the tubes of fresh media were pre-warmed in the multi-coil system to 37āĀ°C. After the rings were transferred to the tubes, sterile 3D-printed ring holders were placed on the top of the rings to maintain their orientation in the coil during AMF exposures. The rings were then exposed to intermittent AMF according to treatment protocols. After each intermittent dose, the rings were rinsed in 10āmL fresh antibiotic-containing media to remove planktonic bacteria. Then the rings were transferred again to 10āmL of fresh antibiotic-containing media and incubated at 37āĀ°C. After a fixed time period (typically 12ā24āh), the rings were exposed to a second dose of AMF using the same protocol, and the rings were again incubated in 10āmL media with antibiotics at 37āĀ°C for another 12ā24āh. Before and after each iAMF dose, and at the treatment endpoint, the rings were harvested and rinsed in 5āmL PBS and then transferred to 4āmL PBS. The rings were sonicated in an ultrasonic water bath for 5āmin and bacterial density on the ring surface was quantified by plating on blood agar plates (TSA w/sheep blood, Thermo Fisher Scientific) using a standard serial dilution drip method. Three biological replicates were obtained for each experimental condition, and three technical replicates were utilized per experiment. Control groups for all studies included rings unexposed to antibiotics or AMF, and rings exposed to iAMF or antibiotics as monotherapy. All control groups went through the multiple rinse and transfer steps to account for any bacterial loss. A two-way ANOVA model was used to compare bacterial burden at different time points for single or combined therapy.
A final control group involved iAMF treatment of infected plastic rings with the same dimensions as the metal rings, to establish the observed effects were arising from the interactions between AMF and metal. See Supplementary Information for further details.
Experiments were performed with different AMF target temperatures (Tmax). Three unique iAMF treatment algorithms were delivered to rings infected with PA01 biofilm. The rings were incubated with ciprofloxacin (0.5āĪ¼gāmLā1) in 10āmL MHII media at 37āĀ°C for all treatments. Each treatment reached a different target temperature and had a different number of exposures in each dose, as described in Supplementary Table 2. Doses were repeated at 0 and 12āh.
Although multiple parameters were varied in each setting, the goal was to balance the maximum temperature with the number of exposures to maintain a level of safety. Each of these AMF treatment combinations was predicted to be safe in terms of tissue damage around the implant base on simulation (Supplementary Fig. 3).
Experiments with variable AMF dose durations in combination with antibiotic treatment were also conducted. Biofilms of P. aeruginosa strain PAO1 were prepared on stainless steel rings using the same culturing protocol as above and incubated with 0.5āĪ¼g mLā1 of ciprofloxacin in 10āmL MHII media at 37āĀ°C. Rings were exposed to iAMF to a Tmax of 65āĀ°C with an exposure interval of 5āmin. The duration of each iAMF dose ranged from 15āmin to 1āh (3ā12 exposures). Doses were delivered at 0 and 12āh and ring biofilm burden was quantified at various time points as above. For S. aureus experiments, a biofilm of UAMS1 was prepared on stainless steel rings according to the culturing protocol and incubated with 2āĪ¼gāmLā1 of ceftriaxone or 2āĪ¼gāmLā1 of linezolid, in 10āmL TSB media. The rings were exposed to iAMF to a Tmax of 65āĀ°C with 5āmin between each exposure, for a duration of 15āmin per dose (3 exposures). Doses were delivered at 0 and 12āh and biofilm burden were quantified at 24āh.
Biofilms of MB699, an MDR-strain of P. aeruginosa, were incubated with ciprofloxacin (64 or 128āĪ¼gāmLā1) or meropenem (32 or 64āĪ¼gāmLā1) in 10āmL MHII media. The rings were exposed to iAMF to a Tmax of 65āĀ°C with 5āmin between exposures for a duration of 1āh per dose. Doses were delivered at 0 and 24āh and ring biofilm burden was quantified at 48āh.
Imaging
Laser scanning confocal microscopy was performed on biofilms during iAMF treatment. Biofilms cultured from green-fluorescent protein (GFP) expressing PAO1 P. aeruginosa (GFP-PAO1) were prepared on rings using the above protocol, then exposed to iAMF (Tmaxā=ā65āĀ°C, Ītexpā=ā5āmin, dosing duration 1āh) and incubated in 10āmL MHII media with 0.5āĪ¼gāmLā1 ciprofloxacin for 12āh. After rinsing in 5āmL DPBS, rings were then fixed in 5% glutaraldehyde (Sigma Aldrich, St. Louis, MO) at 37āĀ°C for 30āmin and protected from light. Rings were then rinsed in 5āml of DPBS to remove excess glutaraldehyde and incubated in 200āĪ¼gāmLā1 ConcanavalinA-Alexa Fluor 647 conjugate (Life Technologies, Grand Island, NY) for 15āmin at room temperature in the dark to stain the EPS. After staining, rings were mounted on a 50āmm glass-bottom plate, and images were captured with a Zeiss LSM880 Airyscan laser confocal microscope. The GFP-PAO1 bacteria and ConcanavalinA-Alexa Fluor 647-stained EPS were imaged using a 40Ć objective lens. Multiple regions of the ring surface were randomly selected, and Z-stacks were acquired with slice step size of 0.5āĪ¼m. Before image processing, the z-stacks were deconvolved using Autoquant Ć3 (Media Cybernetics, MD, USA) to improve the image resolution in X, Y, and Z directions. The deconvolved images were analyzed with Imaris x64 9.1.2 (Bitplane AG, Zurich, Switzerland).
SEM was conducted as follows. Biofilms cultured from P. aeruginosa (MB699) were prepared on rings and exposed to iAMF (Tmaxā=ā65āĀ°C, Ītexpā=ā5āmin, dosing duration 1āh) and incubated in 10āmL MHII media with 64āĪ¼gāmLā1 ciprofloxacin or 64āĪ¼gāmLā1 meropenem for 12āh. Then the rings with biofilm were prepared for SEM, following a similar protocol described previously40. The rings were carefully transferred to 4āmL PBS, rinsed in 4āmL of 0.1āM sodium cacodylate buffer three times, and fixed for 24āh in 4āmL of 2% glutaraldehyde, 2% paraformaldehyde in 0.1āM sodium cacodylate buffer. After rinsing in 4āmL of cacodylate buffer three times, the samples were re-fixed in 4āmL of 2% osmium in 0.1āM sodium cacodylate buffer for 2āh. Then the rings were further rinsed with 4āmL of deionized water five times and dehydrated at room temperature in five steps by placing the rings in 4āmL of 50%, 70% (twice), 85%, 95% (twice), and 100% ethanol, respectively for 5āmin per solution. The rings were then transferred to 4āmL of 25%, 50%, 75%, and 100% (twice) hexamethyldisilazane (HMDS) in ethanol consecutively for 15āmin each. Finally, the samples were left to dry for 24āh in a fume hood. The specimens were mounted on aluminum stubs, gold/palladium sputter-coated, and examined using a Zeiss Sigma VP scanning electron microscope. The images were acquired at 10ākV with a magnification of approximately 35,000Ć.
Statistics
Significance was determined as described for in vitro AMF treatment by two-way ANOVA followed by Tukeyās multiple comparisons test. The ānā indicates the number of biological replicates. 2 or 3 technical replicates were conducted for each biological replicate. All analyses were performed using GraphPad Prism version 8.4.3 (San Diego, CA), and a p-value ofā<ā0.05 was considered statistically significant.
Reporting summary
Further information on research design is available in the Nature Research Reporting Summary linked to this article.
Data availability
The datasets generated during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.
References
Arciola, C. R., Campoccia, D. & Montanaro, L. Implant infections: adhesion, biofilm formation and immune evasion. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 16, 397ā409 (2018).
Darouiche, R. O. Increase in viral gastroenteritis outbreaks in Europe and epidemic spread of new norovirus variant. Infect. Dis. Clin. Pract. 12, 283ā284 (2004).
Kurtz, S., Ong, K., Lau, E., Mowat, F. & Halpern, M. Projections of primary and revision hip and knee arthroplasty in the United States from 2005 to 2030. J. Bone Jt. Surg. Ser. A 89, 780ā785 (2007).
Cui, Q., Mihalko, W. M., Shields, J. S., Ries, M. & Saleh, K. J. Antibiotic-impregnated cement spacers for the treatment of infection associated with total hip or knee arthroplasty. J. Bone Jt. Surg. Ser. A 89, 871ā882 (2007).
OāToole, P., Maltenfort, M. G., Chen, A. F. & Parvizi, J. Projected increase in periprosthetic joint infections secondary to rise in diabetes and obesity. J. Arthroplast. 31, 7ā10 (2016).
Beam, E. & Osmon, D. Prosthetic joint infection update. Infect. Dis. Clin. North Am. 32, 843ā859 (2018).
Lee, J. et al. Risk factors for treatment failure in patients with prosthetic joint infections. J. Hosp. Infect. 75, 273ā276 (2010).
Hall-Stoodley, L., Costerton, J. W. & Stoodley, P. Bacterial biofilms: from the natural environment to infectious diseases. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 2, 95ā108 (2004).
Tan, L. et al. Rapid biofilm eradication on bone implants using red phosphorus and near-infrared light. Adv. Mater. 30, 1ā10 (2018).
Jabbouri, S. & Sadovskaya, I. Characteristics of the biofilm matrix and its role as a possible target for the detection and eradication of Staphylococcus epidermidis associated with medical implant infections. FEMS Immunol. Med. Microbiol. 59, 280ā291 (2010).
Stewart, P. S. & Costerton, J. W. Antibiotic resistance of bacteria in biofilms. Lancet 358, 135ā138 (2001).
Bartlett, J. G. Treatment of infections associated with surgical implants. Infect. Dis. Clin. Pract. 12, 258ā259 (2004).
Zimmerli, W., Trampuz, A. & Ochsner, P. E. Prosthetic-joint infections. N. Engl. J. Med. 351, 1645ā1654 (2004).
Jass, J. & Lappin-Scott, H. M. The efficacy of antibiotics enhanced by electrical currents against Pseudomonas aeruginosa biofilms. J. Antimicrob. Chemother. 38, 987ā1000 (1996).
Blenkinsopp, S. A., Khoury, A. E. & Costerton, J. W. Electrical enhancement of biocide efficacy against Pseudomonas aeruginosa biofilms. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 58, 3770ā3773 (1992).
Van Der Borden, A. J., Van Der Werf, H., Van Der Mei, H. C. & Busscher, H. J. Electric current-induced detachment of Staphylococcus epidermidis biofilms from surgical stainless steel. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 70, 6871ā6874 (2004).
Carmen, J. C. et al. Treatment of biofilm infections on implants with low-frequency ultrasound and antibiotics. Am. J. Infect. Control 33, 78ā82 (2005).
Ricker, E. B., Aljaafari, H. A. S., Bader, T. M. & Hundley, B. S. Thermal shock susceptibility and regrowth of Pseudomonas aeruginosa biofilms. Int. J. Hyperth. 0, 168ā176 (2018).
OāToole, A., Ricker, E. B. & Nuxoll, E. Thermal mitigation of Pseudomonas aeruginosa biofilms. Biofouling 31, 665ā675 (2015).
Alumutairi, L., Yu, B., Filka, M., Nayfach, J. & Kim, M. H. Mild magnetic nanoparticle hyperthermia enhances the susceptibility of Staphylococcus aureus biofilm to antibiotics. Int. J. Hyperth. 37, 66ā75 (2020).
Gerdesmeyer, L. et al. Antibacterial effects of extracorporeal shock waves. Ultrasound Med. Biol. 31, 115ā119 (2005).
Chopra, R. et al. Employing high-frequency alternating magnetic fields for the non-invasive treatment of prosthetic joint infections. Sci. Rep. 7, 1ā14 (2017).
Ricker, E. B. & Nuxoll, E. Synergistic effects of heat and antibiotics on Pseudomonas aeruginosa biofilms. Biofouling 33, 855ā866 (2017).
Pijls, B. G., Sanders, I. M. J. G., Kuijper, E. J. & Nelissen, R. G. H. H. Synergy between induction heating, antibiotics, and N -acetylcysteine eradicates Staphylococcus aureus from biofilm. Int. J. Hyperth. 37, 130ā136 (2020).
Cheng, B. et al. Remote acoustic sensing as a safety mechanism during exposure of metal implants to alternating magnetic fields. PLoS ONE 13, 1ā20 (2018).
van Rhoon, G. C. et al. CEM43Ā°C thermal dose thresholds: a potential guide for magnetic resonance radiofrequency exposure levels? Eur. Radiol. 23, 2215ā2227 (2013).
Chung, A. H., Jolesz, F. A. & Hynynen, K. Thermal dosimetry of a focused ultrasound beam in vivo by magnetic resonance imaging. Med. Phys. 26, 2017ā2026 (1999).
Kƶhler, M. O. et al. Volumetric HIFU ablation under 3D guidance of rapid MRI thermometry. Med. Phys. 36, 3521ā3535 (2009).
Habash, M. B., Park, A. J., Vis, E. C., Harris, R. J. & Khursigara, C. M. Synergy of silver nanoparticles and aztreonam against Pseudomonas aeruginosa PAO1 Biofilms. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 58, 5818ā5830 (2014).
Berenbaum, M. C. A method for testing for synergy with any number of agents. J. Infect. Dis. 137, 122ā130 (1978).
den Hollander, J. G., Mouton, J. W. & Verbrugh, H. A. Use of pharmacodynamic parameters to predict efficacy of combination therapy by using fractional inhibitory concentration kinetics. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 42, 744ā748 (1998).
Soboh, F., Khoury, A. E., Zamboni, A. C., Davidson, D. & Mittelman, M. W. Effects of ciprofloxacin and protamine sulfate combinations against catheter-associated Pseudomonas aeruginosa biofilms. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 39, 1281ā1286 (1995).
Reid, G. et al. Effects of ciprofloxacin, norfloxacin, and ofloxacin on in vitro adhesion and survival of Pseudomonas aeruginosa AK1 on urinary catheters. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 38, 1490ā1495 (1994).
Shelburne, S. A. et al. Whole-genome sequencing accurately identifies resistance to extended-spectrum Ī²-lactams for major gram-negative bacterial pathogens. Clin. Infect. Dis. 65, 738ā745 (2017).
Pijls, B. G., Sanders, I. M. J. G., Kujiper, E. J. & Nelissen, R. G. H. H. Induction heating for eradicating Staphylococcus epidermidis from biofilm. Bone Jt. Res. 9, 192ā199 (2020).
Roca, M., Castillo, M., Marti, P., Althaus, R. L. & Molina, M. P. Effect of heating on the stability of quinolones in milk. J. Agric. Food Chem. 58, 5427ā5431 (2010).
Samara, E. et al. Antibiotic stability over six weeks in aqueous solution at body temperature with and without heat treatment that mimics the curing of bone cement. Bone Jt. Res. 6, 296ā306 (2017).
Sapareto, S. A. & Dewey, W. C. Thermal dose determination in cancer therapy. Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. 10, 787ā800 (1984).
Mitchell, B. S. An Introduction To Materials Engineering and Science for Chemical and Materials Engineers. (John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2004).
Munaweera, I. et al. Temperature-sensitive liposomal ciprofloxacin for the treatment of biofilm on infected metal implants using alternating magnetic fields. Int. J. Hyperth. 34, 189ā200 (2018).
Acknowledgements
This research was supported by Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) grant 1R44AI155291. We would like to acknowledge the UT Southwestern Live Cell Imaging Facility (Kate Luby-Phelps, Director) for use of the Zeiss laser scanning confocal microscope and scanning electron microscope. We also thank the Texas Advanced Computing Center (http://www.tacc.utexas.edu) at the University of Texas, Austin, Texas, for data storage of microscopy files.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
D.E.G., R.C., and Q.W. conceived and planned the experiments. Q.W., J.V., B.P., and C.P. carried out the experiments. Q.W., J.V., N.L., D.E.G., and R.C. contributed to the interpretation of the results. R.C. and D.E.G. supervised the project. Q.W. wrote the paper with support from N.L., R.C., and D.E.G. All authors provided critical feedback and helped shape the research, analysis, and paper.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
Dr. David E. Greenberg and Dr. Rajiv Chopra are inventors of the technology related to AMF, holds patents related to this technology, and are the founders of Solenic Medical. Dr. David E. Greenberg serves as Chief Medical Officer and Dr. Rajiv Chopra serves as Chief Technology Officer at Solenic Medical.
Additional information
Publisherās note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Supplementary information
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the articleās Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the articleās Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Wang, Q., Vachon, J., Prasad, B. et al. Alternating magnetic fields and antibiotics eradicate biofilm on metal in a synergistic fashion. npj Biofilms Microbiomes 7, 68 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41522-021-00239-y
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41522-021-00239-y
This article is cited by
-
Intermittent alternating magnetic fields diminish metal-associated biofilm in vivo
Scientific Reports (2023)
Comments
By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.