Open access peer-reviewed chapter

Antimicrobial and Anti-Adhesive Potential of a Biosurfactants Produced by Candida Species

Written By

Raquel Diniz Rufino, Juliana Moura de Luna, Leonie Asfora Sarubbo, Lígia Raquel Marona Rodrigues, José Antônio C. Teixeira and Galba Maria de Campos-Takaki

Submitted: December 21st, 2011 Reviewed: August 22nd, 2012 Published: January 9th, 2013

DOI: 10.5772/52578

From the Edited Volume

Practical Applications in Biomedical Engineering

Edited by Adriano O. Andrade, Adriano Alves Pereira, Eduardo L. M. Naves and Alcimar B. Soares

Chapter metrics overview

4,811 Chapter Downloads

View Full Metrics

1. Introduction

Several compounds with tensioactive properties are synthesized by living organisms, from plants (e.g. saponins) to microorganisms (e.g. glycolipids) and humans (e.g. surface-active lipoprotein complex), being considered natural surfactants [1]. Additionally, these compounds have been produced through biotechnological processes broadening their diversity and potential applications [2]. Surfactants are usually organic compounds that are amphiphilic, meaning they contain both hydrophobic groups (tails) and hydrophilic groups (heads), and that act preferably in the interface of fluid phases with different levels of polarity and bridges of hydrogen, such as oil/water or air/water interfaces. Many microbes appear to produce a complex mixture of biosurfactants, particularly during their stationary growth on water-immiscible substrates. Generally, biosurfactants are secondary metabolites with the typical amphiphilic structure of a surfactant, where the hydrophobic moiety is either a long-chain fatty-acid, hydroxyl fatty acid, or α-alkyl-β-hydroxy fatty acid and the hydrophilic moiety can be a carbohydrate, an amino acid, a cyclic peptide, a phosphate, a carboxylic acid, or alcohol, among others [1].

Physical and chemical properties, surface tension reduction, and stability of the emulsion formed are important characteristics in biosurfactant that make possible its use in countless biological applications. Most work on biosurfactant applications has been focused on their use in environmental applications owing to their diversity, environmentally friendly nature, suitability for large-scale production and selectivity [3]. Biosurfactants have several advantages over chemical surfactants, such as lower toxicity, higher biodegradability and effectiveness at extreme temperatures or pH values [4]. Many of the potential applications that have been considered for biosurfactants depend on whether they can be produced economically; however, much effort in process optimization and at the engineering and biological levels have been carried out [5]. Despite their potential and biological origin only a few studies have been carried out on applications related to the biomedical field [6]. Some biosurfactants are suitable alternatives to synthetic medicines and antimicrobial agents and may be used as safe and effective therapeutic agents [6].

Furthermore, biosurfactants have been found to inhibit the adhesion of pathogenic organisms to solid surfaces or to infection sites hampering biofilm formation that is the cause of many diseases, as for example cystic fibrosis [7]. Therefore, prior adhesion of biosurfactants to solid surfaces might constitute a new and effective means of combating colonization by pathogenic microorganisms and subsequent biofilm formation [8,9].

Pre-coating vinyl urethral catheters by running a surfactin solution through them before inoculation with media resulted in a decrease in the amount of biofilm formed by Salmonella typhimurium, S. enterica, Escherichia coliand Proteus mirabilis[10]. Given the importance of opportunistic infections with Salmonellaspecies, including urinary tract infections of AIDS patients, these results have great potential for practical applications. In addition, the use of lactobacilli as a probiotic for the prevention of urogenital infections has been widely studied [11].

Microbial surfactants are not yet competitive with those produced by the chemical industry, but efforts should be made on the different production aspects to find suitable and economic substrates and to develop new strategies to increase the volumetric productivity. We have shown that the co-utilization of ground-nut oil refinery residue and corn steep liquor is an attractive choice for biosurfactant production. The biosurfactant adhesive mechanism is based in the inhibition of microorganisms to different surfaces can interact with interfaces of the molecule. In this sense, they are an alternative to synthetic surface-active agents because of their low toxicity and biodegradability [7,12].

Considering the lack of studies with yeasts biosurfactants for medical purposes, and is an attractive characteristics showed by produced by the Candida lipolytica(Rufisan) and Candida sphaerica(Lunasan). In this sense the revision shown the role and applications of rufisan and lunasan biosurfactant as a antimicrobial and antiadhesive activities were investigated against pathogenic and nonpathogenic microorganisms, and indicated the therapeutic perspectives.. Results gathered in the current work showed the potential of those molecules in this field of application; however, its use still remains limited, possibly as due to high production costs, as well as on their toxicity towards human systems.

Advertisement

2. Adhesion and microbial biofilms

The interest of biosurfactants as alternative medicines and antimicrobial agents increased considering the safe use as effective therapeutic agent on human and animal cells [12]. In consequence, the microbial adhesion is mediated by specific interactions between cells surface structures and molecular mass on the substratum surface, or by non-specific interaction forces, including electrostatic forces, acid-base interactions and Vander Waals forces [13].

during exponential growth, presumably as a result of increased cell wall hydrophobicity during this growth phase

The conditioning film on the biomaterial surface (and on the bacterial cell surface) plays an important role, as it changes the physicochemical properties of the interacting surfaces. Albumin is a strong adhesion inhibitor, for unknown reasons, although changes in hydrophobiciy and sterical hindrance are proposed as mechanisms [14].

The adhesion of microorganisms to a surface is one of the first stages in the development of a biofilm and is believed to be influenced by a number of factors. As the substrate is essential in the development of a biofilm, an understanding of how substrate properties affected the adherence of bacterial cells my assist in designing or modifying substrates inhibitory to bacterial adhesion. Many of these molecules are proteinaceous constitution, such as serum albumin, fibrogen and collagen, and some have been shown to affect subsequent bacterial adhesion [13].

The formation of infectious biofilm on biomaterial appeared to involve several sequential steps. Immediately after exposure of a device to body fluids, such as blood, saliva, or urine, macromolecular components adsorb to form a conditioning film [15]. The most microbial surfactants are complex molecules, comprising different structures that include peptides, glycolipids, glycopeptides, fatty acids and phospolipids, as reviewed recently. Among the many classes of biosurfactants, lipopeptides are particularly interesting because their high surface activities and antibiotic potential. Lipopeptides are molecules act as antibiotics, antiviral and antitumoral agents, and enzyme inhibitors. Those molecules enhance or decrease the bacterial surface hydrophobicity following that the surface is less or more hydrophobic[16]. Morikawa et al. [17] identified and characterized a biosurfactant, arthrofactin, produced by Arthrobacter.

Glycolipids are the most common class of biosurfactans of which the most effective from the point of view of surface active properties arethe trehalose lipids of Mycobacteriumand related bacteria, the rhamnolipids of Pseudomonassp and the sophorolipids of yeasts [18]. Otto et al. [19] described the production of sophorose lipids from deproteinized whey concentrate by a two-stage process. Several antimicrobial, immunological and neurological properties have been attributed to mannosylerythritol lipid (MEL), a yeast glycolipid biosurfactant, produced from vegetable oils by Candidastrains.

Advertisement

3. Antimicrobial activity of biosurfactant

Several biosurfactants which exhibit antimicrobial activity against various microorganisms have been previously described. They include surfactin and iturin produced by Bacillus subtilisstrains [20], rhamnolipids from Pseudomonasspecies [21], mannosylerythritol lipids from C. antarctica[22] and biosurfactants produced by some fungi [23].

Among the genus Bacillus, B. subtilisproduces a broad spectrum of bioactive lipopeptides which have a great potential for biotechnological and biopharmaceutical applications. The characteristic structure of lipopeptides is a fatty acid combined with an amino-acid moiety. Several lipopeptides have potent antibiotic activity and have been the subject of several studies on the discovery of new antibiotics. The list includes surfactin, produced by B. subtilis, the most powerful of biosurfactant known to date. These compounds have many pharmacological activities: antibacterial, antifungal, antiviral, and antimycoplasma properties; inhibition of the fibrin clot formation and hemolysis; formation of ion channels in lipid bilayer membranes [24]; antitumour activity against Ehrlich’s ascites carcinoma cells; and inhibition of the cyclic adenosine 3,5-monophosphate phosphodiesterase [25].

The evaluation of the antimicrobial activity of these compounds was carried out against 29 bacteria. Enterococcus faecalis(11 strains), Staphylococcus aureus(6 strains) and Pseudomonas aeruginosa(7 strains) and Escherichia coliCI 18 (1 strain) displayed a profile of well defined drug resistance. All strains were sensitive to the surfactants, in particular Enterococcus faecalis. The results demonstrated that lipopeptides have a broad spectrum ofaction, including antimicrobial activity against microorganisms with multidrug-resistant profiles [26].

The antimicrobial activity of the crude biosurfactant isolated from Candida lipolyticaUCP 0988 was determined by measuring the growth inhibition percentages obtained for several microorganisms (Table 1).

Table 1.

Percentages of growth inhibition obtained with the biosurfactant Rufisan isolated from Candida lipolyticaat different concentrations (mg/l). Results are expressed as means ± standard deviations of values obtained from triplicate experiments

The biosurfactant was effective against the microorganisms tested, albeit to different degrees. The highest anti-adhesive percentages were obtained for a biosurfactant concentration of 12 mg/l or 4xCMC. Non-pathogenic species associated with the oral cavity of Streptococcuswere used (S. mutansHG – 64.9%; S. oralisJ22 – 62.8%; S. mutans– 58%; S. sanguis12 – 48%; S. mutansNS – 46%). On the other hand, the biosurfactant did not show an effective antimicrobial activity against the Lactobacillusstrains studied. It inhibited only 32.1% of the growth of L. reuteriML1 at the maximum concentration tested (12 mg/l).

The growth of the other microorganisms tested was poorly inhibited. Percentages of 5%, 5%, 15%, 16% and 18% were observed for C. albicans, E. coli, S. aureus, P. aeruginosaand S. epidermidis, respectively.

The antimicrobial activity of the biosurfactant isolated from Candida sphaericawas determined by measuring the growth inhibition percentages obtained for several microorganisms (Table 2).

Table 2.

Percentages of growth inhibition obtained with the crude biosurfactant Lunasan isolated from Candida sphaericaat different concentrations (mg/l). Results are expressed as means ± standard deviations of values obtained from triplicate experiments

The tested biosurfactant presented antimicrobial activity against all microorganisms used, although, depending on the microorganism, the biosurfactant presents different effective concentrations. The highest concentration of biosurfactant tested (10 mg ml-1) showed high percentages of inhibition for Streptococcus oralisJ22 (68%), C. albicans(57%) and Staphylococcus epidermidis (57.6%). The antimicrobial activity of the crude biosurfactant isolated from Candida sphaericawith concentrations between 5 and 10 mg ml1 against C. albicans, Staph. aureusand Staph. epidermidiswas less to that obtained with the biosurfactants isolated from Lact. paracaseissp A20, which completely inhibited the growth of those microrganisms with concentrations between 25 and 50 mg ml-1) [27].

The crude biosurfactant showed antimicrobial activity against a broad range of micro-organisms, including Gram-positive and Gram-negative bacteria and yeasts.

Biosurfactants antimicrobial activity has been described, as for example surfactin, a cycliclipopeptide produced by Bacillus subtilis[28]. The antimicrobial activity of surfactin was tested against several microbes. All tested bacteria, except for B. subtilis, showed susceptibility to surfactin. P. aeruginosawas the most sensitive Gram-negative bacteria, while E. coli, Salmonella choterasiusand Serratia marcescenswere inhibited in a lower level. Also, the lipopeptide affected the growth of Gram-positive bacteria, especially Micrococcus luteusand Bacillus cereus[18]. Other examples have been reported by Rodrigues and co-workers [8, 27]. Crude biosurfactants isolated from Lactococcus lactis53 and Streptococcus thermophilusA showed antimicrobial activity against C. troplicalisGB in low concentrations.

Some biosurfactants are able, even in low concentrations, to destabilize the microorganism’s membranes, killing them or disabling their growth [29, 30]. The interest in biosurfactants was first expressed due to its potential antimicrobial properties, being the first reported and actually the most studied biosurfactants, rhamnolipid and surfactin [31]. Gram-positive bacteria are more sensitive to biosurfactants than Gram-negative bacteria, which are weakly inhibited or not inhibited at all [32]. C. bombicolaand C. apicolawere reported to produce a glycolipid-type biosurfactant (sophorolipid) that inhibit the growth of B. subtilis, S. epidermidisand Streptococcus faeciumin concentrations between 6 and 29 mg/l [33]. Other glycolipids inhibit not only the growth of Gram-positive bacteria, but also Gram-negative ones, such as E. coliand S. marcescens[31]. Kitamoto et al. [34] reported in their work an antimicrobial activity against S. aureus, E. coli, P. aeruginosaand C. albicansfor a mannosylerythritol roduced by C. antarctica, a sophorolipid produced by C. apicolaand a rhamnolipid produced by P. aeruginosa.

Several biosurfactants that exhibit antimicrobial activity have been previously described. However, there are few reports about the antimicrobial activity of biosurfactants isolated from Candida;only biosurfactants obtained from S. thermophilusA and L. lactis53 showed significant antimicrobial activity against several bacterial and yeast strains isolated from explanted voice prostheses [35].

Advertisement

4. Anti-adhesive activity of biosurfactant

Involvement of biosurfactants in microbial adhesion and desorption has been widely described, and adsorption of biosurfactants to solid surfaces might constitute an effective strategy to reduce microbial adhesion and combating colonization by pathogenic microorganisms, not only in the biomedical field, but also in other areas, such as the food industry [36, 37].

Biosurfactants have been found to inhibit the adhesion of pathogenic organisms to solid surfacesor to infection sites, thus prior adhesion of biosurfactant to solid surfaces might constitute a new and effective means of combating colonization by pathogenic microorganisms [12]. Precoating vinyl urethral catheters by running a surfactin solution through them before inoculation with media resulted in a decrease of the amount of biofilm formed by Salmonella typhimurium, Salmonella enteric, Escherichia coliand Proteus mirabilis[38]. Given the importance of opportunistic infections with Salmonellaspecies, including urinary tract infections of AIDS patients, these results have great potential for practical applications.

In addition to the antimicrobial properties, the anti-adhesive activity of the biosurfactant was evaluated against a variety of bacterial and fungal strains. The biosurfactant showed anti-adhesive activity against most of the microorganisms tested, but the anti-adhesive effect depends on the concentration and the micro-organism tested (Table 3).

Table 3.

Anti-adhesive properties of crude biosurfactant isolated from Candida lipolytica. Negative controls were set at 0% to indicate the absence of biosurfactant. Positive percentages indicate the reductions in microbial adhesion when compared to the control. Results are expressed as means ± standard deviation of results from triplicate experiments

The crude biosurfactant showed anti-adhesive activity against most of the microorganisms tested from the minimum concentration used (0.75 mg/l). The anti-adhesive property was proportional to the concentration of the biosurfactant. For the microorganisms of the Lactobacillusanti-adhesive values around 81% were observed at the minor concentration tested (0.75 mg/l). The major anti-adhesive specificity was observed against L. caseiwith values of 91% and 99% with the minimum concentration used. Low inhibitions were observed for S. epidermidisand E. coli, with values of 27% and 21%, respectively, at the maximum biosurfactant concentration. For the other microorganisms, the anti-adhesive activity was above 45%.

Gudina et al. [24] observed an anti-adhesive activity for the biosurfactant from Lactobacillus paracaseiagainst several pathogenic microorganisms such as S. aureus, S. epidermidisand S. agalactiae. However, this biosurfactant showed low anti-adhesive activity against E. coli, C. albicansand P. aeruginosa, in contrast with the antimicrobial activity exhibited against these strains at the same biosurfactant concentrations.

The use and potential commercial applications of biosurfactants in the medical field has increased considerably in the last years. Their antimicrobial and anti-adhesive properties make them relevant molecules for use in combating many diseases and infections and as therapeutic agents [18].

Table 4.

Anti-adhesive properties of crude biosurfactant isolated from Candida sphaerica. Negative controls were set at 0% to indicate the absence of biosurfactant. Positive percentages indicate the reductions in microbial adhesion when compared to the control

Adhesion to surfaces and subsequent biofilm formation consist in a surviving strategy used by microorganisms in several hostile environments, protecting them from dehydration, predators, biocides and extreme conditions [22]. The antiadhesive activity of this biosurfactant was evaluated against a variety of bacterial and fungal strains. The biosurfactant showed antiadhesive activity against most of the microrganisms tested, but the antiadhesive effect depends on the concentration and the microrganism tested (Table 4).

This biosurfactant was effective against all the microorganisms tested, albeit to different degree. With regard to the Lactobacillusstrains, the antiadhesive activity was higher against Lact. casei( 90%), Lact. casei72 (72%), Lact. reuteri104R (55%) and Lact. reuteriML1 (40%). For the pathogenic bacteria studied (Streptococcus agalactiae, Streptococcus mutans, Streptococcus mutansNS, Streptococcus sanguis12, Streptococcus salivariusGB and Echerichia coli), a complete inhibition of adhesion was also achieved with biosurfactant concentrations of 10 mg ml-1.

Regarding the yeast, a total inhibition of adhesion was also observed for C. tropicalisGB at a biosurfactant concentration of 10 mg ml-1. The highest percentages of adhesion inhibition were obtained for P. aeruginosa(92%), Staphylococcus aureus(92%), Streptococcus oralisJ22 (97%) and Rothia dentocariosaGBJ (72%), while low activity was obtained for Streptococcus mutansHG 985(50%) and Staphylococcus epidermidisGB(22%).

The antiadhesive activity of the crude biosurfactant isolated from C. sphaericacompletely inhibited the adesion with a concentration of 10 mg ml -1 against Streptococcus agalactiae, Streptococcus mutans, Streptococcus mutansNS, Streptococcus sanguis12, Streptococcus salivariusGB and Echerichia coli.These results were higher to that obtained with the biosurfactants isolated from Lact. paracaseissp A20 [24]. A role of biosurfactants as defense weapons in competition with post-adhesion has been suggested for biosurfactants produced by Streptococcus mitisand S. mutans[39].

Besides possessing antifungal, antibacterial and antiviral activities, biosurfactants have also proved to be great inhibitors of microbial adhesion and of biofilm formation. For example, the biosurfactant released by S. mitiswas found to reduce the adhesion of Streptococcus. mutans[40]. Similarly, Lactobacillus fermentumRC-14 releases surfactant compounds that can inhibit the adhesion of uropathogenic bacteria,including Enterococcus faecalis.

The adsorption of a biosurfactant on surface was found to change its hydrophobicity, which might caused interference in the adhesion and desorption processes [41]. Furthermore, Velraeds et al. [42] reported the inhibition of adhesion of pathogenic enteric bacteria by a biosurfactant produced by Lactobacillus fermetumRC-14. The authors suggested the use of this anti-adhesive agent in catheters aiming at decreasingbiofilm formation.Falagas and Makris [37] have proposed the application of biosurfactants isolated from probiotic bacteria to patient care equipments (such as catheters and other medical insertional devices) in hospitals, with the aim of decreasing colonization by microorganisms responsible for nosocomial infections.

Advertisement

5. Conclusion

In conclusion, in this work we have demonstrated the antimicrobial and anti-adhesive properties of the crude biosurfactant isolated from C. lipolyticaUCP0988 against several pathogenic and nonpathogenic microorganisms, including bacteria, yeasts and filamentous fungi. The results obtained suggest the possible use of this biosurfactant as an alternative antimicrobial agent in the medical field for applications against microorganisms responsible for diseases and infections, making it a suitable alternative to conventional antibiotics.

Acknowledgement

This work was financially supported by Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior (CAPES), Fundação de Amparo à Ciência e Tecnologia do Estado de Pernambuco (FACEPE), Institute for Biotechnology and Bioengineering, Centre of Biological Engineering, Universidade do Minho, Braga, Portugal. We are grateful to Núcleo de Pesquisas em Ciências Ambientais (NPCIAMB) laboratories, Universidade Católica de Pernambuco, Brazil.

References

  1. 1. RufinoR. DSarubboL. ABarros-netoBCampos-takakiG. MExperimental design for the production of tensio-active agent byCandida lipolytica. Journal Industrial Microbiology and Biotechnology200835907914
  2. 2. LunaJ. MRufinoR. DSarubboL. ARodrigues LRM, Teixeira JAC, Campos-Takaki GM. Evaluation Antimicrobial and Antiadhesive Properties of the Biosurfactant Lunasan Produced byCandida sphaericaUCP 0995. Current Microbiology20116215271534
  3. 3. SarubboL. AFarias CBB, Campos-Takaki GM. Co-utilization of canola oil and glucose on the production of a surfactant byCandida lipolytica. Current Microbiology2007546873
  4. 4. Sobrinho HBSRufino RD, Luna JM, Salgueiro AA, Campos-takaki GM, Leite LFC, Sarubbo LA. Utilization of two agroindustrial by-products for the production of a surfactant byCandida sphaericaUCP0995. Process Biochemistry2008912917
  5. 5. Rahman KSMGakpe E. Production, characterization and applications of biosurfactants- Review. Biotechnology20087360370
  6. 6. BenincasaMRhamnolipid produced from agroindustrial wastes enhances hydrocarbon biodegradation in soil. Curr Microbial200756445449
  7. 7. DasPMukherjeeSSenRAntiadhesive action of a marine microbial surfactant. Colloids and Surfaces B: Biointerfaces200971183186
  8. 8. RodriguesL. RMoldesATeixeiraJ. AOliveiraRKinetic study of fermentative biosurfactant production byLactobacillusstrains. Biochemical Engineering Journal2006e28109116
  9. 9. RodriguesL. RVan Der MeiH. CTeixeiraJ. AOliveiraRInfluence of biosurfactants from probiotic bacteria on formation of biofilms on voice prostheses. Applied and Environmental Microbiology2004b7044084410
  10. 10. MirelesJ. RToguchiAHarsheyR. MSalmonella enterica serovar Typhimurium swarming mutants with altered biofilm-forming abilities: surfactin inhibits biofilm formation. J Bacteriol2001183584854
  11. 11. BorisSBarbes CRole played by lactobacilli in controlling the population of vaginal pathogens. Microbes Infect.20002543546
  12. 12. SinghPCameotra S Potential applications of microbial surfactants in biomedical sciences. Trends Biotechnol2004221426
  13. 13. RodriguesL. RBiosurfactants production by probiotic bacteria and inhibition of voice prostheses microbial colonization. PhD Thesis. Universidade do Minho;2005
  14. 14. KulakovskayaTKulakovskayaEGolubevWATP leakage from yeast cells treated by extracellular glycolipids ofPseudozyma fusiformata. FEMS Yeast Res20033401404
  15. 15. ReidGIn vitro testing ofLactobacillus acidophilusNCFM as a possible probiotic for the urogenital tract. Int Dairy200010415419
  16. 16. RufinoR. DLunaJ. MSarubboL. ARodrigues LRM, Teixeira JAC, Campos-Takaki GM. Antimicrobial and anti-adhesive potential of a biosurfactant Rufisan produced byCandida lipolyticaUCP 0988. Colloids and surfaces B: Biointerfaces20118415
  17. 17. GolubevW. IKulakovskayaT. VGolubevaWThe yeastPseudozyma fusiformataVKM Y-2821 producing an antifungal glycolipid. Microbiol200170553556
  18. 18. RodriguesL. RTeixeiraJ. AVan Der MeiH. COliveiraRIsolation and partial characterization of a biosurfactant produced byStreptococcus thermophilusA. Colloids and Surfaces B: Biointerfaces2006a53105112
  19. 19. Dunne Jr WMBacterial adhesion: seen any good biofilms lately. Clin. Microbiol Rev2002200215155
  20. 20. AhimouFJacquesPDeleuMSurfactin and iturin A effects onBacillus subtilissurface hydrophobicity. Enzyme and Microbial Technology200127749754
  21. 21. AbalosAPinazoAInfanteM. RPhysicochemical and anti-microbial properties of new rhamnolipds produced byPseudomonas aeruginosaAT10 from soybean oil refinery wastes. Langmuir20011713671371
  22. 22. WrightJ. RPulmonary surfactant: a front line of lung host defense. J Clin Invest200311114531455
  23. 23. BaiGBrusseauM. LMillerR. MInfluence of a rhamnolipid biosurfactant on the transport of bacteria through a sandy soil. Appl Environ Microbiol19976318661873
  24. 24. GudinaE. JRochaVTeixeiraJ. ARodriguesL. RAntimicrobial and antiadhesive properties of a biosurfactant isolated fromLactobacillus paracaseiSSP. Paracasei A20. Applied Microbiology2010a50419424
  25. 25. FernandesAArrudaI. RSantos AFAB, Araújo A, Maior AM, Ximenes EA. Antimicrobial activity of surfactants produced byBacillus subtilisr14 against multidrug-resistant bacteria Brazilian Journal of Microbiology200738704709
  26. 26. GudinaE. JTeixeiraJ. ARodriguesL. RIsolation and functional characterization of a biosurfactant produced byLactobacillus paracasei. Colloids and Surfaces B: Biointerfaces201076298304
  27. 27. RodriguesL. RBanatI. MVan Der MeiH. CTeixeiraJ. AOliveira R Interference in adhesion of bacteria and yeasts isolated from explanted voice prostheses to silicone rubber by rhamnolipid biosurfactants. Journal of Applied Microbiology2006 d100470480
  28. 28. ElvingG. JVan Der MeiH. CBusscherH. JVan WeissenbruchRAlbersF. WComparision of the microbial composition of voice prosthesis biofilms from patients requiring frequent versus infrequent replacement. Annals of Otology, Rihinol Laryngol2002111200203
  29. 29. CalvoCManzaneraMSilva-castroG. AGonzález-lopézJApplication of bioemulsifiers in soil oil bioremediation processes. Future Prospects. Science of the Total Envrironment200940736343640
  30. 30. CarriloCTeruelJ. AArandaF. JOrtiz A Molecular mechanism of membrane permeabilization by the peptide antibiotic surfactin. Biochimica et Biophysica Acta200316119197
  31. 31. SinghAVan HammeJ. DWardO. PSurfactants in microbiology and biotechnology: Part 2. Application aspects Biotechnol20072599121
  32. 32. ElvingG. JVan Der MeiH. CBusscherH. JAmerogenE. CVan WeissenbruchRAlbersF. WAntimicrobial activity of synthetic salivary peptides against voice prosthetic microorganisms Laryngoscope2000110321324
  33. 33. LangSKatsiwelaEWagnerFAntimicrobial effects of biosurfactants. Fat Science Technology19899363366
  34. 34. KitamotoDIsodaHNakaharaTFunctions and potential applications of glycolipid biosurfactants- from energy-saving materials to gene delivery carriers. Journal of Bioscience and Bioengineering200294187201
  35. 35. BusscherH. JVan HoogmoedC. GGeertsema-doornbuschG. IVan Der Kuijl-booijMVan Der Mei HC Streptococcus thermophilus and its biosurfactants inhibit adhesion by Candida spp. On silicone rubber. Applied Environ Microbiol19976338103817
  36. 36. NitschkeMFerrazCPastoreG. MSelection of microorganisms for biosurfactant production using agroindustrial wastes. Brazilian Journal of Microbiology200435336341
  37. 37. FalagasM. FMakrisG. CProbiotic bacteria and biosurfactants for nosocomial infection control: a hypothesis. Journal Hosp Infect200971301306
  38. 38. MirelesJ. RToguchiAHarsheyR. MSalmonella enterica serovar Typhimurium swarming mutants with altered biofilm-forming abilities: surfactin inhibits biofilm formation. J Bacteriol2001183584854
  39. 39. BusscherH. JVan HoogmoedC. GGeertsema-doornbuschG. IVan Der Kuijl-booijMVan Der MeiH. CStreptococcus thermophilusand its biosurfactants inhibit adhesion by Candida spp. On silicone rubber. Applied Environ Microbiol19976338103817
  40. 40. Pratt- TerpstraI. HBusscherH. JMicrobial factors in a thermodynamic approach of oral streptococcal adhesion to solid substrata. Journal Colloid Interface Science1989129568574
  41. 41. FischerWMolecular analysis of lipid macroamphiphiles by hydrophobic interaction chromatography. Journal of Microbiological Methods199625129144
  42. 42. VelraedsMVan Der MeiH. CReidGInterference in initial adhesion of uropathogenic bacteria and yeasts to silicone rubber by aLactobacillus acidophilusbiosurfactant. J Med Microbiol19984710811085

Written By

Raquel Diniz Rufino, Juliana Moura de Luna, Leonie Asfora Sarubbo, Lígia Raquel Marona Rodrigues, José Antônio C. Teixeira and Galba Maria de Campos-Takaki

Submitted: December 21st, 2011 Reviewed: August 22nd, 2012 Published: January 9th, 2013