Nonetheless, our results suggest that genes associated with stressful environmental conditions and the synthesis of molecular chaperones, as well as cell wall-associated proteins and adhesion-promoting genes, seem to be responsible for biofilm generation on different surfaces. Biofilm formation as a complex developmental process is characterized by intricate interplay of gene expression pattern; hence, the bacteria

have very sophisticated ways to be better adjusted to particular surface by manipulating their gene expression pattern. We have tested only representatives of dental CUDC-907 in vivo surfaces natural (HA), implant (Ti) and restorative material (composite), it is conceivable that biofilm formation accompanied by gene and signal changes would occur also on other types of dental surfaces. Selleck GDC 0068 Conclusions Transcriptional profiling revealed broadly based changes in the patterns of gene expression during biofilm development of S. mutans on different solid surfaces, which manifest the physiological state of bacteria influenced by the type of attachment substance. Moreover, the stressful circumstances of adjustment to a particular surface may stimulate the bacteria to enhance intercellular signaling and surface dependent biofilm formation. Acknowledgements Microarrays were provided by the NIDCR through the PFGRC at TIGR. This study was partially supported by the Norton-Ross Foundation of IADR. We are grateful to Dr. Miriam Kott-Gutkowski for her excellent technical

assistance. Electronic supplementary material Additional

file 1: Figure S1. Schematic diagram showing construction Evofosfamide in vivo of DNA-microarray experiments for gene expression studies of biofilms on various surfaces. (DOC 36 KB) Additional file 2: Table S1. Nucleotide sequences of primers for genes whose expression was compared. Table S2. The differentially expressed (P < 0.05) genes of S. mutans biofilms on HA vs. polystyrene surfaces. Table S3. The differentially expressed (P < 0.05) genes of S. mutans biofilms on composite vs. polystyrene surfaces. Table S4. The differentially expressed (P < 0.05) genes of S. mutans biofilm on Ti vs. polystyrene surfaces. (DOC 344 KB) References 1. Gristina AG: Biomaterial-centered this website infection: microbial adhesion versus tissue integration. Science 1987,237(4822):1588–1595.PubMedCrossRef 2. Palmer RJ Jr, Gordon SM, Cisar JO, Kolenbrander PE: Coaggregation-mediated interactions of streptococci and actinomyces detected in initial human dental plaque. J Bacteriol 2003,185(11):3400–3409.PubMedCrossRef 3. Gristina AG, Hobgood CD, Webb LX, Myrvik QN: Adhesive colonization of biomaterials and antibiotic resistance. Biomaterials 1987,8(6):423–426.PubMedCrossRef 4. Hall-Stoodley L, Costerton JW, Stoodley P: Bacterial biofilms: from the natural environment to infectious diseases. Nat Rev Microbiol 2004,2(2):95–108.PubMedCrossRef 5. Palmer J, Flint S, Brooks J: Bacterial cell attachment, the beginning of a biofilm. J Ind Microbiol Biotechnol 2007,34(9):577–588.PubMedCrossRef 6.