
Biofilms are aggregates of bacteria, in most cases, which are resistant usually to broad-spectrum antibiotics in their typical concentrations or even in higher doses. A trend of increasing multi-drug resistance in biofilms, which are responsible for emerging life-threatening nosocomial infections, is becoming a serious problem. Biofilms, however, are at various sensitivity levels to environmental factors and are versatile in infectivity depending on virulence factors. This review presents the fundamental information about biofilms: formation, antibiotic resistance, impacts on public health and alternatives to conventional approaches. Novel developments in micro-biosystems that help reveal the new treatment tools by sensing and characterization of biofilms will also be discussed. Understanding the formation, structure, physiology and properties of biofilms better helps eliminate them by the usage of appropriate antibiotics or their control by novel therapy approaches, such as anti-biofilm molecules, effective gene editing, drug-delivery systems and probiotics.
Citation: Ruba Mirghani, Tania Saba, Hebba Khaliq, Jennifer Mitchell, Lan Do, Liz Chambi, Kelly Diaz, Taylor Kennedy, Katia Alkassab, Thuhue Huynh, Mohamed Elmi, Jennifer Martinez, Suad Sawan, Girdhari Rijal. Biofilms: Formation, drug resistance and alternatives to conventional approaches[J]. AIMS Microbiology, 2022, 8(3): 239-277. doi: 10.3934/microbiol.2022019
[1] | Stephen T. Abedon . Phage “delay” towards enhancing bacterial escape from biofilms: a more comprehensive way of viewing resistance to bacteriophages. AIMS Microbiology, 2017, 3(2): 186-226. doi: 10.3934/microbiol.2017.2.186 |
[2] | Meiliyana Wijaya, Ryan Halleyantoro, Jane Florida Kalumpiu . Biofilm: The invisible culprit in catheter-induced candidemia. AIMS Microbiology, 2023, 9(3): 467-485. doi: 10.3934/microbiol.2023025 |
[3] | Kholoud Baraka, Rania Abozahra, Eman Khalaf, Mahmoud Elsayed Bennaya, Sarah M. Abdelhamid . Repurposing of paroxetine and fluoxetine for their antibacterial effects against clinical Pseudomonas aeruginosa isolates in Egypt. AIMS Microbiology, 2025, 11(1): 126-149. doi: 10.3934/microbiol.2025007 |
[4] | Alexandra Soares, Ana Azevedo, Luciana C. Gomes, Filipe J. Mergulhão . Recombinant protein expression in biofilms. AIMS Microbiology, 2019, 5(3): 232-250. doi: 10.3934/microbiol.2019.3.232 |
[5] | Joseph O. Falkinham . Mycobacterium avium complex: Adherence as a way of life. AIMS Microbiology, 2018, 4(3): 428-438. doi: 10.3934/microbiol.2018.3.428 |
[6] | Oriana Simonetti, Samuele Marasca, Matteo Candelora, Giulio Rizzetto, Giulia Radi, Elisa Molinelli, Lucia Brescini, Oscar Cirioni, Annamaria Offidani . Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus as a cause of chronic wound infections: Alternative strategies for management. AIMS Microbiology, 2022, 8(2): 125-137. doi: 10.3934/microbiol.2022011 |
[7] | Kamila Tomoko Yuyama, Thaís Souto Paula da Costa Neves, Marina Torquato Memória, Iago Toledo Tartuci, Wolf-Rainer Abraham . Aurantiogliocladin inhibits biofilm formation at subtoxic concentrations. AIMS Microbiology, 2017, 3(1): 50-60. doi: 10.3934/microbiol.2017.1.50 |
[8] | Manuela Oliveira, Eva Cunha, Luís Tavares, Isa Serrano . P. aeruginosa interactions with other microbes in biofilms during co-infection. AIMS Microbiology, 2023, 9(4): 612-646. doi: 10.3934/microbiol.2023032 |
[9] | Ahmed A. Radwan, Osama M. Darwesh, Maha T. Emam, Karima A. Mohamed, Hala M. Abu Shady . A combined treatment of Proteinase K and biosynthesized ZnO-NPs for eradication of dairy biofilm of sporeformers. AIMS Microbiology, 2022, 8(4): 507-527. doi: 10.3934/microbiol.2022033 |
[10] | Joice Cavalcanti Lima, Lívia de Souza Ramos, Pedro Fernandes Barbosa, Iuri Casemiro Barcellos, Marta Helena Branquinha, André Luis Souza dos Santos . Biofilm production by the multidrug-resistant fungus Candida haemulonii is affected by aspartic peptidase inhibitor. AIMS Microbiology, 2025, 11(1): 228-241. doi: 10.3934/microbiol.2025012 |
Biofilms are aggregates of bacteria, in most cases, which are resistant usually to broad-spectrum antibiotics in their typical concentrations or even in higher doses. A trend of increasing multi-drug resistance in biofilms, which are responsible for emerging life-threatening nosocomial infections, is becoming a serious problem. Biofilms, however, are at various sensitivity levels to environmental factors and are versatile in infectivity depending on virulence factors. This review presents the fundamental information about biofilms: formation, antibiotic resistance, impacts on public health and alternatives to conventional approaches. Novel developments in micro-biosystems that help reveal the new treatment tools by sensing and characterization of biofilms will also be discussed. Understanding the formation, structure, physiology and properties of biofilms better helps eliminate them by the usage of appropriate antibiotics or their control by novel therapy approaches, such as anti-biofilm molecules, effective gene editing, drug-delivery systems and probiotics.
Biofilms are networks of aggregated living microorganisms that are formed either on biotic or abiotic moist surfaces [1],[2]. They are well-known predominating micro-ecosystems which are not only distributed widely in most natural environments but can be adapted to survive in extreme environmental conditions, such as UV radiation, high salinity, poor nutrients, high temperature, high pH and antibiotics [3],[4]. Because of their power of adaptation in extreme conditions, they are assumed to have developed self-protective mechanisms, creating an environment for their growth and survival, in addition to enhancing the communications among the microcolonies within the biofilms [3],[5]. Three-dimensional structure of biofilms is established by the layer which is formed by the aggregation and composition of the secretory insoluble substances produced by the associated microorganisms. The layer made of extracellular substances is collectively known as the extracellular polymeric substance (EPS), which has an indispensable role in the formation of biofilms [3],[6]. EPS also supports the transformation of biofilms from reversible to irreversible and establishes the biofilm on a suitable surface [7],[8]. Thus, the slimy EPS not only helps organisms adhere to each other but also protects biofilms from any adverse synthetic reactions [8],[9]. Biofilms are diverse, depending on organism types and environmental factors [9]. Most of the biofilms are aggregations of similar or different bacterial species, but they can also be composed of other organisms, such as fungi, algae, or protozoa [9]–[11]. They are usually tangled as a mass of prolonged and infectious organisms, along with their capacity to guard themselves against various antimicrobial drugs. Sugars, proteins and nucleic acids present in the EPS are used by some organisms for their metabolism, and their metabolic end products serve as the nutritional sources for other types of organisms living in the proximity bounded by the EPS [12],[13]. In addition, EPS supports cell-cell and cell-matrix communications, creating the synergistic interactions. The extracellular matrices of the biofilms give protection to the microbes from different factors in their surrounding environment [14],[15]. EPS, therefore, has a significant role in biofilm formation and its protection besides limiting the diffusion of antibiotics [16]. Interestingly, not all the organisms can be a part of the biofilm; only organisms which favor the association with other organisms are a part of a biofilm [2],[17]. The main function of the biofilms is the support for the propagation of diverse microorganisms and their survival [3],[14]. The biological and environmental factors in biofilms for microorganisms are substantially different from those in planktonic environment [18].
Biofilm formation is a dynamic complex process that constitutes a multifaceted nature [2],[19],[20], and it is triggered, modulated and dispersed by the microorganisms themselves which are associated with and participate in a biofilm community [3]. The planktonic phenotype of the microorganism, which appears during initial colonization on a new surface, is considered as the floating or the drifting type of microorganism that can be moved to new habitats at various depths. It can adhere to the surface, populate and become a sessile biofilm, depending on the environmental factors [21]. A sessile community is permanently or covalently bonded to a surface, forming a matrix phenotype or a buoyant. The acquired pellicle, however, is a unique first stage in biofilm formation on an aqueous surface which provides an ideal growth environment, supporting rapid biofilm growth within minutes, such as the pellicle formed closed to the enamel in the oral cavity [2],[22].
Regarding bacterial involvement, both Gram-positive and Gram-negative bacteria can form biofilms, such as Staphylococcus and Pseudomonas species. Formation of biofilm starts after some free moving microorganisms come into contact with a suitable surface and establish the communication roots to gather sources of nutrients and the production of a slimy material known as EPS [17],[23]. Overall, biofilm formation has five steps: 1) initial reversible attachment between the bacteria and the friendly surface; 2) irreversible attachment that leads to the formation of monolayer surface of extracellular matrix (ECM) comprising proteins, cellular debris, nucleic acids and polysaccharides; 3) maturation stage I, exhibiting biofilm growth and quorum sensing (QS); 4) maturation stage II, leading to formation of EPS to encase the biofilm and helping with cell-cell and cell-matrix interactions; and 5) dispersion stage, separating from parent biofilms and repeating the cycle in another place [3],[24]–[26]. (Figure 1).
Bacterial attachment on the abiotic or biotic surface starts the biofilm formation. Initial reversible attachment is converted to irreversible attachment by binding of bacteria to the surface by the polymeric matrix, which is made of various exoproteins and substances released by the bacteria themselves. For example, exopolysaccharide substances (EPSs), proteins, nucleic acids and other substances help bacterial adherence on the surfaces. In addition, certain bacterial surface proteins, such as Aap, sortase and SasG, also play vital roles in irreversible attachment. After irreversible attachment, bacteria start division with the release of various extracellular matrix proteins (ECMs) for biofilm growth. Proteins, carbohydrates, DNA and EPS are some major components of ECMs that support bacterial growth during biofilm extension. Various QS response systems, with the help of transcription receptors and autoinducers, support cell-to-cell communications during biofilm maturation. Finally, because of nutritional deficiency and over-population, bacterial colonies start dispersion from the matured biofilm to move to a different place, ultimately leading to the expansion of biofilm.
The detailed explanation of biofilm formation is beyond the scope of this paper. Briefly, bacteria must be close enough to the surface (biotic or abiotic) which allows the attractive and repulsive force that ultimately accepts the interactions with the organisms through various physical mediators. Bacterial mediators, such as flagella, support the initial interactions with the surface, and type IV pili help twitch, adhere and form microcolonies [27],[28] (Figures 1 and 2). Certain human pathogens, such as S. epidermidis and S. aureus, have adhesive genes that recognize the body surface (matrix proteins) for attachments. The number of adhesive genes is variable. For example, S. aureus has over 20 genes and S. epidermidis has only 6 genes [29],[30]. The initial reversible stage changes to the irreversible stage by the strong physical and chemical forces that lead to the formation and maturation of biofilms [31],[32]. Once cells attach irreversibly to the surface, they begin cell division to form microcolonies and secrete EPS, which helps biofilm formation [17],[33] (Figures 1 and 2). Once the first layer of biofilm has been established, cells from the same or different species participate to extend the biofilm further. Biofilm grows outward into a mushroom-like or tower-like formation [34],[35]. Participation of a new bacterial species or strains in the biofilm adds additional substances, such as polysaccharide biopolymers, DNA and proteins in the biofilm, forming complex EPS, and supports biofilm survival in adverse conditions [7],[8],[36].
Microorganisms are coordinated with each other and can share their individual survival skills, adding several protective advantages [3],[36]. Development of a biofilm community can be completed within hours, but its size depends on the microorganism types, source of nutrients and biotic or abiotic contact surfaces [17],[37]. Nutritional deficiency leads to dispersal of biofilm organisms to another location, which is known as a seeding dispersal for the search for nutrients [38]–[41]. Biofilm formation is thus a defensive mechanism of the bacteria in a stressful environment [36].
The alternative lifestyle of microorganisms in biofilm not only prolongs lifespan in diverse environments but enables them to linger and persist for a longer period. Anaerobic bacteria can eventually join the thicker biofilm, which has over 100 layers, by entering its deeper layer [42],[43]. Mature biofilms turn eventually into a bacterial community. Active dispersal is a critical step not only to start biofilm at new sites but also to prevent nutritional deficiency and over-population in former established sites [41]. Many other non-organisms associated factors, such as pH, temperature, ionic strength and nutritional availability, play significant roles in affecting the biofilm formation rate [2],[14],[36].
As stated above, biofilms may have single or multiple microbial species. A single species biofilm assumes a temporary lifestyle where each organism participates in a group facilitating survivability in adverse conditions. Multiple species biofilm, such as dental biofilm, may have over 500 bacterial taxa, creating resistance with longer survivability compared to single species biofilms [44]–[46]. Within the biofilms, bacteria are encased by a self- produced EPS, forming microcolonies. Studies demonstrate that microcolonies not only include the same or different bacterial species but also have different organisms, such as fungi [47],[48]. EPS also contains water that helps regulate the flow of the substances and nutrients and maintains the hydrophilic and hydrophobic natures within the biofilms [49],[50]. The water channels separate microcolonies from each other, providing the heterogenous layers of biofilms [2],[51]. In addition, the polysaccharides present in EPS contribute to the ionic bonding with minerals, such as calcium and magnesium [8],[52]. However, the polysaccharides of Gram-positive bacteria display cationic properties [53]. Biofilms show polymorphic appearances with different growth patterns based on the availability of nutrients. For example, microcolonies grow exponentially when glucose is at a high level, facilitating a thick biofilm [2],[54]. Nitrifying bacteria in biofilms also supports biofilm adhesion on positively charged surfaces and increases the biofilm thickness within a short time [55],[56] (Figure 2). Microcolonies indicate a significant growth; however, the biofilms become thinner when there are not sufficient nutrients in their microenvironment [2],[57]. Importantly, EPS arranges in such a way that can shield microcolonies against negative environmental disturbances, such as UV radiation, and against abrupt changes in certain microenvironmental conditions, such as pH [52],[58] (Figure 2).
Biofilm formation starts after attachment of bacteria on the surfaces of biotic or abiotic substances, where they start nutrient absorption, cellular debris utilization and matrix stabilization for biofilm maturation. Gradients of oxygen, pH, QS and nutrition determine the biofilm microenvironment that influences its maturity stages, size and depth. Therefore, biofilm can be a suitable environment for the growth of various types of microorganisms, such as aerobic to anaerobic, alkaliphilic to acidophilic and normal to nutrient-deficient bacteria. Versatile types of bacterial populations in a biofilm contribute to complexity of the ECM, which has various types of enzyme-digested end products of substances, supporting the survival of bacteria in adverse environmental conditions.
Biofilm is a complex and dynamic matrix network made of combinations of exopolysaccharides, proteins, lipids and environmental DNA (eDNA) synthesized by different associated microorganisms [2],[59]. The rigidity and structure of ECM can vary within different microbial species, such as Escherichia coli, Bacillus subtilis, Staphylococcus aureus and Vibrio cholerae [2],[14],[60]. Complexity of biofilms can be studied at molecular levels and demonstrated by spectroscopy [61],[62]. For example, E. coli, a biofilm creator, has been studied in detail and is capable of synthesizing a variety of autotransporter adhesins at the beginning of biofilm formation [63],[64]. Antigen 43, an autotransporter adhesin, is encoded by the gene agn43 and has two subunits: α and β. The α subunit is on the superficial surface of the cell and connects the β subunit, an integral outer membrane protein [65],[66]. The L-shaped proteins of α subunits and helical structures of β subunits are stabilized by hydrogen bonds, forming salt bridges. They connect with each other through physio-mechanical processes that are established by self-association and self-aggregation of microbes. A major component of E. coli biofilms is curli fibers [67],[68]. These fibers have two components, CsgB and CsgA, which are encoded by csgBAC [68]. The two major accessory proteins (CsgE and CsgF), and two components (CsgD and CsgG) are produced by csgDEFD. CsgD regulates cellulose and curli fibers, and CsgG plays a role in CsgA translocation [68]. The curli fibers are abundant in a β-sheet structure. The resulting protein network provides integrity of a biofilm, resisting denaturation. Cellulose, another major component of the biofilm matrix, is synthesized by cellulose synthase and is regulated by the bcsABZC [69]. Cellulose provides rigidity and protects from adverse environmental conditions [69]. Environmental DNA (eDNA), another biofilm component, has two layers: outer and inner, as seen in P. aeruginosa and S. aureus biofilms. The outer slime layer provides stability to the biofilm and helps transport nutrients through its pores [14],[70]. The inner layer increases antibiotic resistance by supporting the transfer of genetic information [71].
It is apparent that bacterial biofilms are pathogenic and can have detrimental effects on an individual's health in addition to resistance to certain drugs [72]. The nature of a biofilm depends on bacteria types, their strains and environmental conditions [14],[73]. Biofilms are composed of microbes, DNA and RNA, polysaccharides, proteins including enzymes and water [60],[74]. Cationic exopolysaccharides, which are suggested to be a polysaccharides rich in glucose, support the biofilm formation [75]. Pentasaccharides enhance the cross-linking between cells and between cells and the surfaces of both biotic and abiotic materials [75],[76]. Mycolic acid, on the other hand, is another vital molecule that protects the organisms in a biofilm by its immune resistance activity [77]. EPS is formed through the complex extra- and intra-cellular processes in microorganisms and plays an important role in biofilm shaping, cell communication (QS) and flow of nutrients [2],[8]. QS is extremely important in the microcolonies of the biofilm and accelerates bacterial gene expression, increasing the bacterial virulence and pathogenicity [2],[78]. It also helps with DNA transformation or plasmid transconjugation from one organism to another, facilitating and increasing the antibiotic resistance among different organisms in biofilm [79]. In addition, QS is widely known for regulating physiological activities of the bacteria through small diffusible signal molecules to increase the social interactions and biofilm pathogenicity [78]. In some bacteria, swarming motility appears to be responsible for the early development of a biofilm because of rapid surface motility [80]. Some components in EPS are exoenzymes that handle the modification, utilization and the formation of EPS layers by acting specifically on extracellular polysaccharides, proteins, lipids and eDNA [81],[82]. Not all bacteria or organisms form EPS, such as mycobacteria. They do not have the matrix structures seen in other biofilms but have other structures that are like EPS [79],[83].
Since biofilms are extremely sensitive to environmental factors, their physiologies and functions are variable, creating challenges for effective control or elimination. Microsystems have emerged to control the fluctuations of different environmental factors, hoping to minimize variance among repeated experiments. The optical, electrochemical and mechanical microsystems which are in use to characterize biofilms will be briefly discussed.
Optical microsystems have been standardized and optimized recently to study biofilms. The traditional optical microsystems, such as confocal microscopy, crystal violet staining and scanning electron microscopy (SEM), support end-point measurements of biofilms. Real time, non-invasive, non-destructive and label free optical systems have been developed to monitor the biofilm formation. For example, the modified confocal reflection microscopy (CRM) system allows the visualization of microbial growth in a biofilm over a period [84]. The dynamics of biofilms with high spatial resolution showing chemical bond signatures in biomolecules can be studied through synchrotron radiation-based Fourier transform infrared (SR-FITR) spectromicroscopy [85]. Mechanical properties of a biofilm, such as stiffness of the matrix, have been studied through the Brillouin micro-spectroscopy and Raman micro-spectroscopy [86]. In addition, biofilm physiology can be characterized by surface plasmon resonance (SPR) [87]. It is further advanced as electrochemical SPR, which can help study the formation of electroactive biofilms [88],[89].
The electrochemical biosensors are well-evaluated under three broad categories of operating principle: impedimetric (non-faradaic), potentiometric (faradaic), and amperometric (faradaic) transducers. Impedimetric transducers detect and quantify the bacteria in real time at a temperature by sensing biological samples via impedance [90]. Electrochemical impedance spectroscopy (EIS) extends the study about the adhesion properties of bacteria biofilms [91]. Measurements of concentrations of sodium and potassium ions, oxygen and pH levels within biofilms are possible through multi-electrode systems in a complex environment [92],[93]. Faradaic microsystems are useful in real-time sensing of biofilms and depend on the faradaic current generated because of the redox reaction [94]. Chemical distribution can be monitored through faradaic microsystems, which can characterize the biochemical and regulation processes in microcolonies [90],[95].
Mechanical microsystems, which usually use a thin-film piezoelectric material that can respond to electrical signals in real-time, are commonly used for biofilm sensing. Quartz crystal microbalances (QCMs), surface acoustic wave sensors and quartz tuning for oscillators are applicable to continuously monitoring the bacterial cell attachment, biofilm growth and complex cell-surface interactions [90],[96]–[98].
Biofilms have both positive and negative impacts on public health issues [72]. They can be beneficial by protecting our bodies from certain harmful agents present in an environment through remediation of soil and groundwater. They are also helpful for plant protection, wastewater treatment and inhibition of corrosion [99]. However, biofilms are considered detrimental agents to our health. An example would be the formation of dental plaque, leading to serious oral and systemic health problems. Medical devices, such as pacemakers, catheters, prosthetic heart valves, contact lenses, breast implants and cerebrospinal fluid shunts, are the most common abiotic surfaces for biofilm formation. Biofilms can also grow on biotic surfaces, such as teeth, lungs and bone [2],[100]–[102]. Biofilms that grow in water systems supplying healthcare facilities are a serious problem, such as biofilms of Pseudomonas aeruginosa in metal water pipes [103],[104]. Such biofilms transferred to an individual are usually related to life-threatening infections, such as cystic fibrosis, periodontitis, infective endocarditis, otitis media, osteomyelitis and chronic wounds [105],[106]. Biofilms account for up to 80% of microbial infections according to the National Institutes of Health (NIH). Staphylococcal species are the leading cause of implantable device-associated infections [107],[108]. Biofilms play a significant role in various diseases, such as chronic respiratory infection, chronic lung disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and ventilator associated pneumonia [109],[110]. Secondary infections can sometimes cause severe bacteremia or septicemia after biofilm organisms enter into the blood through implanted devices [111],[112].
Scientists have realized the biofilm risks to public health. The health and safety issues can be divided into four categories: 1) resistance that leads to increased tolerance to most commonly used antibiotics [113], 2) persistent diseases favoring biofilm extension and modification with variable microcolonies and routinely shifted EPSs [8],[114], 3) failure of the host immune system to destroy biofilms [115] and 4) the cross contamination of clinical instruments that leads to a complex and novel biofilm depositing new and different EPS layers that protect organisms from adverse conditions [79],[116].
Biofilms are resistant to hosts' immune systems, and external stressors such as pH, osmolarity, nutrients and mechanical and shear forces [3],[36]. Resistance and survival, even in adverse conditions, help microbes colonize in various implantable materials, such as dental implants and catheters [100]. Most organisms in a biofilm are protected by the EPS layers and are resistant to various antimicrobial drugs [79],[117],[118]. The glycocalyx can trap antibacterial drugs at their maximum capacity, reducing the effectiveness of the drugs against the organisms present in a biofilm as well as plays an antimicrobial role [30],[118]. Some biofilms release enzyme-like substances that can transform certain antibacterial drugs into non-toxic materials that have no effect on the biofilm organisms [119],[120]. Certain bacteria in biofilms have metal degrading abilities that can convert active-state minerals like copper, zinc and silver to non-active states [121],[122].
Infections related to bacterial biofilms are categorized into two types: device and non-device related. Infections associated with different medical devices, such as catheters, contact lenses, pacemakers and prosthetics, are mild to severe and may include septicemia and keratitis [111],[123]. The most encountered cause of infection due to bacterial biofilm is often associated with indwelling catheters [22],[102]. Catheters used for less than 10 days have a high chance of biofilm formation on their external surfaces, while catheters used for over 30 days are more likely to develop biofilms in their lumens [2],[23]. Bacteria that grow in catheters depend on the fluid compositions administered through the catheter [22],[124]. The most common species are Gram-negative bacteria, such as P. aeruginosa, Enterobacter and Klebsiella species, which can easily grow in intravenous fluids [125]. The most commonly used catheter is the urinary catheter, which is inserted through the urethra into the bladder and is usually composed of latex or silicon, which favors bacterial attachment [126]. An open system catheter is more prone to bacterial contamination and, therefore, transfers of diseases, such as urinary tract infections (UTIs). E. coli, Enterococcus faecalis and Proteus mirabilis are among the most common pathogens in UTIs [127]. Contact lenses are also susceptible to bacterial biofilm growth because of the adhesive nature of both the lenses and the containers used to keep cleaning lens solution [128]. Bacteria, such as E. coli, S. aureus, Serratia and Proteus, are responsible for biofilm formation in contact lenses and cause severe infections, such as keratitis. In addition, P. aeruginosa may lead to blindness following severe keratitis [128],[129]. Other organisms, such as Streptococcus, Enterococcus and Candida, can form biofilms on mechanical heart valves and cause endocarditis [130],[131].
Non-device related diseases associated with biofilms occur when our own organs provide suitable biotic surfaces to organisms for attachment and support for the release of extracellular proteins which form EPS. For example, Fusobacterium nucleatum and P. aerobicus infect the gingiva and cause periodontitis when oral hygiene is poor [132],[133]. The biofilms established on the tooth surface interfere with the flow of calcium in the epithelial cells, ultimately forming plaque or tartar, which is a mineralized biofilm made of mainly calcium and phosphate ions [132],[134]. Osteomyelitis is another example of non-device related disease that can be caused by biofilms transported to the bone metaphysis through the bloodstream [135]. Immune reactions to the microorganism further deteriorate the bone tissue, leading to fracture [135]–[137]. In addition, the biofilms formed in open wounds of diabetic patients lead to chronic disease. Anaerobic bacteria colonize the interior while aerobic bacteria forms biofilms at the surfaces of deep wounds [138],[139].
Various studies have shown that biofilms are often responsible for chronic infections [72],[140],[141]. S. aureus and P. aeruginosa are most common biofilm organisms for chronic diseases in diabetic patients. Biofilms may delay treatment for years due to antibiotic resistance [139],[142]. Interestingly, the abnormal collection of water in some internal organs supports the reduction of tissue viscosity and accelerates biofilm formation [143]. For example, P. aeruginosa biofilms can cause serious lung infection in patients with cystic fibrosis (CF) that is often difficult to treat [144],[145]. Staphylococci, Streptococci, Gram-negative bacteria, and some fungi can form biofilms in intravenous catheters, and cause prosthetic valve endocarditis (PVE) and native valve endocarditis (NVE) in recipients. Both PVE and NVE can further extend to non-bacterial immune-related thrombotic endocarditis [72]. Coagulase-negative Staphylococcus (CoNS) can cause endocarditis, either by its circulation to the heart from local chronic wounds or by its direct transmission to the heart by contaminated cardiac valve prostheses [146]. Various Gram-positive and Gram-negative microorganisms are constant occupants in beds and often produce chronic polymicrobial infections, such as bed sores [147]. A few clinical circumstances exemplify the concern that biofilms resistant to pro-inflammatory reactions are responsible for severe diseases [148],[149]. The presence of microbial biofilms, which may go unnoticed during diagnosis and treatment phase, can lead to misdiagnosis and severe health consequences [140],[150].
Diseases caused by microbial biofilms are serious public health issues because of the increasing antimicrobial resistance. It has been demonstrated that bacteria in biofilms are a thousand times more resistant to antibacterial drugs compared to those in the planktonic state [151]. The capsule-like outer EPS layer increases the resilience of organisms by restricting the entry of various antibacterial drugs, in addition to managing various regulatory systems. EPS can expel the harmful molecules out instead of allowing their entry into the biofilms according to the study by Mosaddad et al. [152]. It also acts as a barrier not allowing polar charged antibiotics [119]. The physiological components of a biofilm, such as nutrients and oxygen circulating through water channels in the EPS, also contribute to drug resistance [79],[120]. Over time, biofilms grow in size and shape, leading to the development of an interior anaerobic environment with minimal supply of nutrients and other molecules [42],[54]. Some antibiotics, such as β-lactams, fluoroquinolones and aminoglycosides, are ineffective to the inner anaerobic biofilm since they are inactive in the absence of oxygen and nutrients [153],[154]. Biofilms support gene transfer among microorganisms through their various connection channels, developing antibiotic resistance [118],[155].
Biofilms are structurally and dynamically complex, and they are resistant to common antibiotics [156]. In addition, biofilms have multiple tolerance mechanisms, such as impermeability, rapid growth, differential nutrient gradients and gene transfer [155]. Antibiotic penetration into biofilms primarily relies on the EPS structure that can confer impermeability to large molecules of aminoglycosides [52],[79]. In addition, EPS can quench antibiotic activities through certain mechanisms, such as diffusion-reaction inhibition and enzymatic degradation pathways [52],[157]. Even though EPS composition varies among the different biofilms, it usually contains lipopolysaccharide and alginate, both acting together as a barrier for antibacterial drug diffusion [155],[158]. Increased alginate in the EPS of the biofilm made of a mixed variant of P. aeruginosa helps overcome the immune system, ultimately extending the infection to the more chronic disease state [42],[159]. Mannuronic acid and guluronic acid residues present in the EPS of some biofilms act as potential virulence factors to prolong infections by suppressing immune responses and by protecting the biofilms from antibiotics, such as ciprofloxacin, gentamicin and ceftazidime.
Over time, bacteria can adapt to new adverse environments after horizontal gene transfer among microcolonies with no changes in biofilm [160]. P. aeruginosa is one of the bacteria that possesses a high level of antibiotic resistance. Because of its capacity for frequent spontaneous mutation, it can increase the production of β-lactamase, inactivating the β-lactam antibiotics [161]. Mutation also facilitates adjacent microcolonies in a biofilm taking up free DNA, making more antibiotic resistant biofilms [71]. eDNA increases biofilm resistance by two different mechanisms: 1) changing the outer membrane composition of the biofilm and 2) chelating cations, such as calcium and magnesium, as seen in P. aeruginosa, S. aureus, Enterococcus faecium, Klebsiella pneumoniae, Acinetobacter baumannii, Enterobacter species and Salmonella enterica [162],[163]. All pathogens are responsible for drug-resistant biofilm associated infections.
E. faecium causes biofilm mediated infections in patients implanted with medical devices. It releases eDNA for biofilm attachment and stability by autolysis of its subpopulation through the QS system, similar to S. aureus and S. epidermidis. This process is called fratricide and is mediated by autolysis or murein hydrolase [164],[165]. Low permeability of its cell wall to large molecule aminoglycosides and overexpression of low-affinity penicillin-binding proteins are responsible for antibacterial resistance in E. faecium to aminoglycosides and β-lactam antibiotics, respectively [166]. Rearrangement of the adherent biofilm cells in the monolayers because of genetic alternation in the presence of antibiotics-induced stress also leads to higher resistance [167]. Cell heterogeneity with different QS expression patterns with antibiotic persister cells in a biofilm of S. aureus leads to cell survival in the presence of antibiotics without development of resistance [168],[169]. Antibiotic persister S. aureus has low metabolic activity producing less ATP in the presence of low oxygen and nutrition, which eventually contributes to elevated antibiotic tolerance in biofilm [170]. Certain enzymes, such as proteases and nucleases produced by S. aureus, disperse in the biofilm, enhancing the survivability of the biofilm cells [171].
K. pneumoniae produces a thick layer of extracellular biofilm on both biotic and abiotic surfaces, increasing antibiotic tolerance [172]. Virulence factors, such as polysaccharides, lipopolysaccharides, fimbriae and outer membrane proteins participate in the biofilm formation [173]. K. pneumoniae is a greater biofilm producer than Enterobacter, which is moderate biofilm producer in vitro [174]. Similar to K. pneumoniae, A. baumannii in biofilm is more antibiotic resistant than Enterobacter and causes nosocomial infection after its entry through vascular catheters or Foley catheters. It adheres to the host cells with the help of fibronectin [175],[176]. The surface protein, AbOmpA, is present in the wall surface of A. baumannii. It is responsible for the pore formation in eukaryotic cells, supporting adhesion and biofilm formation along with other adhesion proteins and extracellular polymeric compounds [177]. The pathogens that cause nosocomial infections in hospitals usually form the biofilms which are resistant to multi-drug antibiotics. Among Gram-negative bacteria, E. coli (38%) is a predominant clinical isolate that forms biofilms, along with Acinetobacter species (20%), Klebsiella species (16%) and Pseudomonas species (12%) [178].
Metabolically active organisms release more enzymes and enhance the biofilm growth, influencing drug resistance, while slow-growing organisms have minimal or negligible concentrations of enzymes without affecting drug resistance [179]–[181]. The metabolically active organisms are, however, more susceptible to antibiotics compared to the less active organisms. For example, slow-growing organisms are less susceptible to antibiotics with more efficacy in drug resistance [182]. Most sessile organisms with negligible metabolic activity are categorized as persisters. Unlike mutants, they are at the state of no growth and represent a tiny part of the population with high resistance to antibiotics [156]. Some aerobic organisms, such as P. aeruginosa, become resistant to antibiotics (e.g., ciprofloxacin and tobramycin) when less oxygen is available in the microenvironment [183],[184].
Biofilm resistance and tolerance to antibiotics created by anti-penetration properties of the matrix, presence of polysaccharides, antibiotic-modifying enzymes, eDNA and bacteriophages have been well studied by Hall and Mah [185]. They also mentioned that physiological heterogeneity and hypoxic conditions increase the antibacterial resistance [185]. The heterogeneity creates a nutritional deficiency for certain bacterial populations, which favors more resistance [186]. Biofilm heterogeneity with both genotype and phenotype is one of the most important factors that provide resistance to the bacterial communities in biofilms against many antibacterial drugs [185],[187]. Antibiotic resistance in biofilms can be transferred among the biofilm organisms through external mechanisms such as QS and EPS. They can regulate the bacteria behavior through signaling cascades and gene expression [188],[189].
Finding an effective way to control biofilm related diseases is a challenge, but failure to do so will only increase mortality and morbidity rates [190]. Developing new strategies to control biofilms is important for healthcare facilities because of the misuse and overuse of antibiotics, favoring biofilms overcoming the current antibiotics and leading to recurrent infections [191]. In-depth knowledge and understanding of the mechanisms of biofilm matrix formation, its structural components and how communication occurs aid in developing better methods to impede colonization on medical or non-medical devices [69]. Constructing future novel alternative antibiotics or even vaccines targeting these areas can only minimize biofilm long-term infection [2]. Previous studies have demonstrated that combined traditional antibiotics have stronger antibiofilm potency [190]. Strategies depend on the stage of the biofilm, from its attachment to its dispersion, as shown in Figures 1 and 3. Prevention of bacterial adhesion can be accomplished through various strategies, such as coating antimicrobial drugs on implants, presurgical precautions and surface engineering that inhibits the microorganism attachment [192],[193]. Biofilm formation can be disrupted in the initial stage by various antibacterial molecules, food additives and surface treatment, in addition to alterations in other various environmental factors [119],[194] (Figure 3). Elimination of established biofilms is relatively challenging, but there are many approaches, such as EPS inhibitors, detachment promoters, vaccine therapy and mechanical removal of visible biofilms [195]–[198] (Figure 3). Degradation of mature biofilms through various physical, biological, chemical and synergistic methods has been applied in clinical practice [120],[199] (Figure 3).
Biofilm formation can be inhibited at any stage of biofilm formation, as described in Figure 3. Bacterial adhesion can be prevented by various approaches, such as release of antimicrobial drugs, presurgical precautions, anti-biofilms and surface engineering. Biofilm formation can be disrupted by using various antibacterial agents, food additives, surface treatments and alterations in environmental factors, etc. Disruption of formed biofilm is challenging compared to that of the immature biofilm. Different strategies have been applied for this purpose: for example, inhibition of EPS formation by application of antipathogenic drugs, upregulation of biofilm detachment promoters, antibody therapy and use of synthetic peptide vaccine and removal of biofilm organisms by routine cleansing procedures. There are various methods that can be applied for the degradation of matured biofilm: for example, physical (e.g., ultrasound, shear stress, heat shock treatment), biological (e.g., anti-pathogenic biofilm, bacteriophage), chemical (e.g., application of enzymes, such as nucleases, proteases and galactase) and synergistic approaches (e.g., enzymes plus bacteriophages and sanitizers plus abrasives) and prevention from dispersal (e.g., application of environmental factors to dysregulate nutrients and QS system).
The failure of classic antibiotic therapies has led to worsening situations globally, such as antibiotic resistance of biofilms in medical implants and catheters. Biofilms dynamically modify their EPS, which makes them impervious to various antibiotics (Figure 4). Orally administered β-lactams, quinolones, aminoglycosides and macrolide antibiotics are prime examples of treatment failures. β-lactams are hydrolyzed by bacterial β-lactamases, so they are ineffective and cannot penetrate biofilms [200]. Quinolones, aminoglycosides and macrolides are transported out of bacterial cells by efflux pumps [201]. In addition, quinolones are not more effective in the anaerobic environment of the biofilm [202]. Although difficult to treat with classic antibiotic therapy, biofilms have shown susceptibility to certain classes of drugs, when delivered correctly and in high doses. To treat these infections, many combination therapies, such as high dose topical treatments or antibiotic adjuvants, have been used [202]. Cephalosporins, aminoglycosides, monobactams, polymyxins, tetracyclines and glycylglycines have been proven to be effective against biofilms through topical administration in higher doses [203]. Biofilm infections in the lungs have been treated successfully through the inhalation of colistin, tobramycin, aztreonam, ciprofloxacin, levofloxacin and gentamicin. Some antibiotics, such as vancomycin, minocycline, linezolid, daptomycin, tigecycline, rifampicin and cephalosporins, applied directly to tubing or medical devices have been shown to prevent biofilm formation [202],[204].
Many new methods of prevention and treatment are being studied and developed because of biofilm resistance to conventional antibiotics. There are various approaches to developing novel antibiofilm agents, such as small molecules capable of inhibiting some virulence factors, and enzymes targeting the matrix. DNase, proteinase K and trypsin are some enzymes that target matrix proteins and degrade eDNA, decreasing the rigidity and stability of the biofilm, as seen in S. epidermidis biofilm [119],[205]. Benzimidazole and N-acetylcysteine are chemicals that inhibit synthesis of EPS and support biofilm degradation [206],[207]. Microbial adherence can be inhibited by using certain chelators that bind ions, such as calcium and magnesium, preventing bacterial attachment to surfaces [208]. Bactericidal or bacteriostatic agents are used to coat the surfaces of medical devices. For example, metal implants are coated with broad-spectrum antibiotics, such as vancomycin, to inhibit biofilm formation. Studies showed effective results in inhibiting S. epidermidis biofilms, but some reports show that bacteria could develop resistance to vancomycin [209],[210]. Some bactericidal agents, such as silver, may inhibit biofilm formation by damaging DNA and microbial proteins [211]. Even though coating medical devices with silver nanoparticles showed good results, the use of high doses can also damage human cells because of their toxic effects [212]. The bio-inspired quercetin nanoparticles act as anti-adhesive agents against certain bacteria (e.g., Bacillus subtilis), preventing surface attachment [213]. Another coating antimicrobial agent is furanone, which shows good results in inhibiting biofilm formation by S. epidermidis [214]. Devices made of silicone rubber are usually coated by trimethoxysilyl propyldimethyloctadecyl ammonium chloride (QAS-30), which has bactericidal and bacteriostatic effects through its quaternary ammonium groups [215]. Another approach for inhibiting biofilm formation in medical devices and prosthetics is the repulsion of microbes from surfaces, which is accomplished by applying an anti-adhesion layer. The coating creates a rough texture or a charged surface, making it less compatible to proteins [216]. Some examples of these coating compounds are trimethylsilane (TMS), selenocyanatodiacetic acid (SCAA), and polymer brush [217]. Medical devices, such as implants, made of stainless steel and titanium coated with TMS showed significant inhibition of microbial biofilms, especially those produced by S. epidermidis. SCAA is an organo-selenium compound that releases superoxide radicals and inhibits biofilm formation in coated surfaces of hemodialysis catheters [218]. Another type of anti-adhesion is polymer brush coating made of polyethylene oxide (PEO), which creates a repulsive osmotic pressure to repel bacteria and proteins. This reduces microbial adhesion in vitro, but it shows no effect in vivo because of its weak attachable capacity to the moisturized medical devices since microbial flagella and pili help movement and adhesion [217]. Most opportunistic organisms that form biofilms can cause infection, but some actually protect against more infectious pathogens [219].
The novel antibiofilm agents are composed of both natural and synthetic molecules, which include halimane diterpenoids, imidazole and indole derivatives, plant extracts, peptides and polysaccharides [42]. Several degrading enzymes, drug delivery nanoparticles and cell-damaging photodynamic therapy (PDT) have also been recently investigated in treating biofilms [79]. Perhaps the most pervasive natural antibiofilm agents are halimane diterpenoids, which can be found in terrestrial plants, marine organisms and bacteria. They are versatile compounds and are used industrially for agricultural, pharmaceutical and beauty products, with their ability for antibacterial and antimycobacterial effects [220],[221]. 2-aminoimidazole, a natural imidazole derivative, has also been used to prevent and dissipate the biofilms formed by methicillin-resistant S. aureus (MRSA), A. baumannii, P. aeruginosa, V. cholerae, K. pneumonia, and Shigella boydii. Besides imidazole derivatives, indole derivatives have been shown to be effective against biofilms by affecting bacterial cell signaling and gene expression [42]. Interestingly, various natural plant extracts, including garlic, hordenine, limonoids and quercetin, are effective against biofilms by inhibiting the transcription of certain genes required for QS. Certain products, such as cranberry polyphenols, inhibit the production of virulence factors that are required for bacterial adhesion and bacterial structures needed for the formation of biofilms [222]. An antibiofilm peptide produced by the human body, called LL-37, stops bacteria from attaching and forming biofilms on mucosal surfaces. LL-37 has been shown to be effective against strains of P. aeruginosa, group A Streptococcus (GAS) and S. epidermidis. Larger polysaccharide molecules, such as galactan and galactose, can also have effects on biofilm formation. Galactan is produced by Kingella kingae and prevents other species of bacteria from forming biofilms [42],[223]. Ethylcholine, one of the novel cholines, inhibits biofilm formation without decreasing bacterial growth, as seen in P. aeruginosa [224]. Some other alternate products are outlined in the Figure 4.
Because of increasing biofilm resistance against currently available antibiotics, different new approaches have been studied, as shown in Figure 4. Conventional methods (1) usually contain antibiotics. Biofilms become more resistant because of the failure of most antibiotics to penetrate the biofilm EPS, and another reason could be a hypoxic environment that hinders effective distribution of antibiotics throughout the biofilm. Phage therapy (2) is another conventional method that disrupts the biofilm and its formation by depolarization of EPS; however, biofilms become resistant against phage therapy. Certain mature biofilms are resistant to phage therapy, and bacteria in biofilms can release anti-phage substances that neutralize the phage. In addition, the immune system clears the phage proteins rapidly from the body, so it is less effective on the biofilm. Another important limitation of phage therapy is that it is more specific to certain bacterial strains, so it is not applicable to other biofilm types. New, emerging strategies have been applied to disrupt biofilm. For example, QS system inhibitors (3), monoclonal antibody treatment (4) and use of nature products (5) are being studied extensively to control and eliminate biofilm. New nature products are under evaluation for their efficacy in eliminating the bacterial biofilms which are more resistant to commonly used broad-spectrum antibiotics. For example, chloroform, andrographolide, ethanol extract of Houttuynia cordata poultice (HCP), sodium houttuyfonate, emodin methyl ether, emodin and ajoene inhibit biofilm formation of different bacteria, such as P. aeruginosa and S. aureus, by suppressing various factors that are responsible for bacterial survival and virulence, as shown in Figure 4.
Understanding microorganisms and their biofilm formation mechanisms might lead to the development of certain micromolecules. Such a strategy has been studied by dentists through the process of cavity formation by Streptococcus sobrinus and S. mutans [225]. This strategy has also been used in other fields to minimize the cases of biofilm infection. However, the rise of drug-resistant bacteria has led to the reassessment of the bacterial mechanisms and new developments by genetic alterations [196],[226].
Phage therapy has been used as an alternate approach for controlling biofilm formation. It works by depolarizing the EPS, leading to the disruption of the biofilm. Mero et al. and Dickey et al. have described phage therapy as an alternative strategy to control biofilm [227],[228]. This method has certain limitations, including resistance by mature biofilms, rapid clearance by the host immune system, ineffectiveness against certain bacterial strains and fast development of phage-resistant subpopulations within a short time period [228]–[230] (Figure 4).
QS is a microbial communication mechanism based on molecular signatures and is responsible for the regulation of biological functions, including the production of virulence factors and formation of biofilms [231] (Figure 4). QS system inhibitors are effective in inhibiting regulatory genes and virulence factors [232]. Commercially available anti-QS compounds could increase bacterial biofilm susceptibility to antibiotics both in vivo and in vitro, as demonstrated by Brackman et al. [233]. QS-inhibitors, such as N-(4-[4-fluoroanilno]butanoyl)-L-homoserine lactone (FABHL) and N-(4-[4-chlororoanilno]butanoyl)-L-homoserine lactone (CABHL), can effectively disable the QS system of Pseudomonas aeruginosa by down-regulating the expression levels of lasR and rhlR genes [234]. QS-inhibitors increase the efficacy of certain drugs by acting synergistically to control biofilm formation. This has been demonstrated by experiments with polypeptides [235], cephalosporins [236], aminoglycosides [237] and quinolones [238].
Antibody-based antibiofilm therapy has been implemented and has shown promise in preclinical models that target several components present in biofilms. However, this method has been limited by target specificity and infusion reactions [239] (Figure 4). Pooled monoclonal antibody treatment significantly decreases biofilm formation and demonstrates promising therapeutic effects to prevent biofilm infection. For example, monoclonal antibodies 12C6, 12A1 and 3C1 were used against S. epidermidis, where they specifically bind to the bacterial accumulation-associated protein (AAP) to inhibit the biofilm formation [240]. A native human monoclonal antibody, TRL1068, binds to the DNABII proteins from both Gram-positive and Gram-negative bacteria and disturbs the biofilms of S. aureus and P. aeruginosa [241]. Together with antibiotics, TRL1068 would support the control of biofilm formation [241]. Monoclonal antibodies target specific antigens, such as adhesin proteins (ClFA, FnBPA, Can, SasG), to disrupt the formation of biofilms [242]–[245]. They also bind specifically with cell wall-modifying enzymes (Atl, Atl-Amd, Atl-Gmd, IsaA) and inactivate them to inhibit dynamic changes in the EPS [246]–[249]. Monoclonal antibodies against glycopolymers (WTA, CP and LTA) have been shown to promote opsonophagocytic killing (OPK) effects [250],[251]. Anti-matrix component antibodies such as PNAG and DNABII, immune evasion proteins such as Spa, toxins such as HIa and LukAB and proteins such as PhnD have also been studied [252].
Biofilm formation by multi-drug resistant microorganisms is a major concern faced by clinicians and scientists in establishing potential antibacterial therapeutics. Several bioactive compounds exhibiting antibacterial activity have been extracted, purified and subjected to clinical testing to check their efficacy in inhibiting biofilms [253]. Natural products, such as chloroform extract, andrographolide, ethanol extract, sodium houttuyfonate, emodin methyl ether and emodin, inhibit the biofilms through various mechanisms that target bacterial cell signatures, as illustrated in figure 4. Chloroform extract of Andrographis paniculata has shown a significant reduction of the QS-controlled extracellular virulence factors in P. aeruginosa infections. It also has the potential to inhibit swarming motility and biofilm formation by decreasing p38 and ERK expression levels in the MAPK signal pathway [254] (Figure 4). Andrographolide disrupts the biofilm of S. aureus by inhibiting the transcriptional factor SarA and also works against E. coli by inhibiting fimA and pap (TSH) [255],[256]. In addition, natural product extracts in ethanol have been widely used for the control and elimination of anaerobic biofilms, such as in the suppression of P. gingivalis through the inhibition of IL-8 and CCL [257],[258]. Sodium houttuyfonate obtained from the oil of the plant Houttuynia cordata has been used for many years in clinical practices as an antimicrobial agent. It has been found to inhibit the biofilms of S. aureus and S. pneumoniae by suppressing the transcription levels of autolysis cidA [259]. Natural medicines, such as emodin and ajoene, have been shown to control the biofilms of various microorganisms (e.g., P. aeruginosa, E. coli and S. aureus) [260]–[263].
Probiotics are live microorganisms that confer health benefits to the host when they are administered in adequate amounts. Microorganisms, which show inhibitory activities against some pathogens, adherence to epithelial cells and resistance to certain concentrations of bile and acid, are usually considered as probiotics [264],[265]. In addition, they should be able to withstand antibiotics and bind to pathogens sufficiently to inactivate them [266]. Due to increased antibiotic resistance, probiotics that can inhibit biofilm formation have garnered attention. E. faecium WB2000, Bifidobacterium BB12 and Bifidobacterium adolescentis SPM1005 are some probiotics that have been considered for their role in inhibiting bacterial biofilm formation [267]–[269]. As shown in Figure 5, probiotics provide different molecules that help to suppress colonization [270],[271], reduce bacterial adhesion [271], boost the immune system [272], release bacteriocin to inhibit bacterial growth [273], maintain lactic acid in the environment that reduces bacterial virulence signaling systems [274], suppress EPS from pathogens [275] and increase the indole in the biofilm which down-regulates the QS system [276] and lipase inhibitor production [277]. Products of probiotics, such as bacteriocin, can lyse the pathogens by making pores into their cell walls [278]. In addition, hydrogen peroxide (H2O2) might be harmful to certain pathogenic microcolonies within the biofilm [279]. Probiotics, therefore, may play a vital role in inhibiting pathogenic biofilm from its initial stage of attachment and development to its dispersion. This occurs through various mechanisms, such as anti-adhesion activities, QS system suppressors and formation of non-infectious biofilms, that can compete with the nutrients and pH change, as illustrated in Figure 5 [280]–[282]. Probiotics can act as anti-pathogenic biofilms in both tissue-related and device-related infections [283]–[285].
Probiotics support pathogenic biofilm inhibition in various ways, as shown in the figure. Their colonization and release of biosurfactants and bacteriocin supports the inhibition of pathogenic bacteria adhesion and growth. Probiotics produce certain acids, such as lactic acid, that alter the pH in the biofilm microenvironment, suppressing various bacterial signaling systems which are responsible for the QS system, virulence and EPS secretion. In addition, probiotics signal host immune systems to release various inflammatory factors (e.g. IL-1B, IL-6, TNF, interferons) which help to inhibit bacterial growth and biofilm formation. Broadly, probiotics inhibit biofilm formation through various ways, such as reducing virulence of pathogenic bacteria, suppressing QS systems, producing anti-adhesion substances and altering biofilm optimal microenvironment by changing pH, nutrition and oxygen gradient, as shown in the figure. Probiotics would be effective for both tissue and device-related infections caused by various pathogenic biofilms. CoNS: Coagulase negative Staphylococci.
Genetic alterations on biofilm pathogens might be possible through gene editing tools like short palindromic repeat-CRISPR- associated (CRISPR-Cas) systems, which could make them less virulent over time [286],[287]. CRISPR-Cas has been used in the engineering of bacterial genetics and the reversal of antibiotic resistance by targeting appropriate genes [288],[289]. The details of CRISPR-Cas gene editing techniques are beyond the scope of this review paper. This technique has been applied to minimize the resistance to various antibacterial drugs carried by plasmids of some infectious bacteria, such as E. coli, and also to target the specific genes in virulence and antibiotic resistance in bacterial populations [290]–[292]. Further, the CRISPR-Cas system has been used to neutralize the bacterial genes responsible for antibiotic resistance [291],[293]. Gene editing techniques are being developed to deliver polymeric nanoparticles effectively and target the virulent gene efficiently, with or without combination with other delivery systems, such as phage delivery or conjugative delivery [294]. Recently, anti-biofilm applications of gene editing techniques have been studied, such as by Zuberi et al. to inhibit E. coli biofilm formation [295], by Tang et al. to inhibit S. mutans biofilm formation [296], and by Garrido et al. to eliminate S. aureus biofilms in vivo [297].
A less virulent pathogen becomes more virulent, acquiring more antibacterial resistance when it is part of a biofilm. Genetic transfer in a biofilm community modifies the bacterial population, enhancing secretion of various secretory substances and changing cell signatures, which increases the bacterial resistance. Treatment failure is due to acquired resistance through various secretory substances and cell signatures. The spread of multi-drug resistant microorganisms found in biofilms is worsening situations all around the globe and emerging as a new threat to public health. We have discussed how biofilms become more virulent, the roles of various factors responsible for biofilm formation, chronic infections related to biofilms, new strategies that are promising for treating the pathogenic biofilms and various other alternatives such as, natural medicines and probiotics, that act synergistically with antibacterial drugs to combat spreading biofilm infections. In addition, other alternative approaches, such as highly diffusible nano-antibodies or micromolecule formulations, novel anti-pathogenic biofilm agents and CRISPR gene editing technologies, might be future options to treat the multi-drug resistant biofilms. Furthermore, the development of microsystems that mimic the aerobic and anaerobic biofilm microenvironment could support microanalysis of environmental factors, such as pH, nutrients, temperatures and metabolites, that play roles in microbial sensing, virulence and resistance. Controlled guidance systems from microsystems would help to formulate new drugs and set a dose to eliminate the infectious biofilms effectively from both biotic and abiotic substrates.
[1] |
Silva VO, Soares LO, Silva Júnior A, et al. (2014) Biofilm formation on biotic and abiotic surfaces in the presence of antimicrobials by Escherichia coli isolates from cases of bovine mastitis. Appl Environ Microbiol 80: 6136-6145. https://doi.org/10.1128/aem.01953-14 ![]() |
[2] |
Donlan RM (2002) Biofilms: microbial life on surfaces. Emerging Infect Dis 8: 881-890. https://doi.org/10.3201/eid0809.020063 ![]() |
[3] |
Yin W, Wang Y, Liu L, et al. (2019) Biofilms: The microbial “protective clothing” in extreme environments. Int J Mol Sci 20: 3423. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms20143423 ![]() |
[4] |
Koerdt A, Gödeke J, Berger J, et al. (2010) Crenarchaeal biofilm formation under extreme conditions. PLoS One 5: e14104. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0014104 ![]() |
[5] |
Chen Y, Yan F, Chai Y, et al. (2013) Biocontrol of tomato wilt disease by Bacillus subtilis isolates from natural environments depends on conserved genes mediating biofilm formation. Environ Microbiol 15: 848-864. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1462-2920.2012.02860.x ![]() |
[6] |
Van Houdt R, Michiels CW (2010) Biofilm formation and the food industry, a focus on the bacterial outer surface. J Appl Microbiol 109: 1117-1131. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2672.2010.04756.x ![]() |
[7] |
Di Martino P (2018) Extracellular polymeric substances, a key element in understanding biofilm phenotype. AIMS Microbiol 4: 274-288. https://doi.org/10.3934/microbiol.2018.2.274 ![]() |
[8] |
Decho AW, Gutierrez T (2017) Microbial extracellular polymeric substances (EPSs) in ocean systems. Front Microbiol 8. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2017.00922 ![]() |
[9] |
Flemming HC (2016) EPS-Then and Now. Microorganisms 4: 41. https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms4040041 ![]() |
[10] |
Kragh KN, Hutchison JB, Melaugh G, et al. (2016) Role of multicellular aggregates in biofilm formation. mBio 7: e00237-00216. https://doi.org/10.1128/mBio.00237-16 ![]() |
[11] |
Taylor M, Ross K, Bentham R (2009) Legionella, Protozoa and Biofilms: Interactions within complex microbial systems. Microbiol Ecol 58: 538-547. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00248-009-9514-z ![]() |
[12] |
de Alexandre Sebastião F, Pilarski F, Lemos MVF (2013) Composition of extracellular polymeric substances (EPS) produced by flavobacterium columnare isolated from tropical fish in Brazil. Braz J Microbiol 44: 861-864. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1517-83822013005000058 ![]() |
[13] |
McSwain BS, Irvine RL, Hausner M, et al. (2005) Composition and distribution of extracellular polymeric substances in aerobic flocs and granular sludge. Appl Environ Microbiol 71: 1051. https://doi.org/10.1128/AEM.71.2.1051-1057.2005 ![]() |
[14] |
López D, Vlamakis H, Kolter R (2010) Biofilms. Cold Spring Harbor Perspect Biol 2: a000398. https://doi.org/10.1101/cshperspect.a000398 ![]() |
[15] |
Nadell CD, Drescher K, Wingreen NS, et al. (2015) Extracellular matrix structure governs invasion resistance in bacterial biofilms. ISME J 9: 1700-1709. https://doi.org/10.1038/ismej.2014.246 ![]() |
[16] |
Davenport EK, Call DR, Beyenal H (2014) Differential protection from tobramycin by extracellular polymeric substances from Acinetobacter baumannii and Staphylococcus aureus biofilms. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 58: 4755-4761. https://doi.org/10.1128/AAC.03071-14 ![]() |
[17] |
Donlan RM (2001) Biofilm formation: A clinically relevant microbiological process. Clin Infect Dis 33: 1387-1392. https://doi.org/10.1086/322972 ![]() |
[18] |
Lewis K (2010) Persister cells. Annu Rev Microbiol 64: 357-372. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.micro.112408.134306 ![]() |
[19] |
Rumbaugh KP, Sauer K (2020) Biofilm dispersion. Nat Rev Microbiol 18: 571-586. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41579-020-0385-0 ![]() |
[20] |
Rice SA, Tan CH, Mikkelsen PJ, et al. (2009) The biofilm life cycle and virulence of Pseudomonas aeruginosa are dependent on a filamentous prophage. ISME J 3: 271-282. https://doi.org/10.1038/ismej.2008.109 ![]() |
[21] |
Garrett TR, Bhakoo M, Zhang Z (2008) Bacterial adhesion and biofilms on surfaces. Prog Nat Sci 18: 1049-1056. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pnsc.2008.04.001 ![]() |
[22] |
Donlan RM (2001) Biofilms and device-associated infections. Emerg Infect Dis 7: 277-281. https://doi.org/10.3201/eid0702.010226 ![]() |
[23] |
Donlan RM, Costerton JW (2002) Biofilms: survival mechanisms of clinically relevant microorganisms. Clin Microbiol Rev 15: 167-193. https://doi.org/10.1128/cmr.15.2.167-193.2002 ![]() |
[24] |
Armbruster CR, Parsek MR (2018) New insight into the early stages of biofilm formation. Proc Natl Acad Sci 115: 4317. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1804084115 ![]() |
[25] |
Da Cunda P, Iribarnegaray V, Papa-Ezdra R, et al. (2019) Characterization of the different stages of biofilm formation and antibiotic susceptibility in a clinical acinetobacter baumannii Strain. Microb Drug Resist 26: 569-575. https://doi.org/10.1089/mdr.2019.0145 ![]() |
[26] |
Rasamiravaka T, Labtani Q, Duez P, et al. (2015) The formation of biofilms by Pseudomonas aeruginosa: a review of the natural and synthetic compounds interfering with control mechanisms. Biomed Res Int 2015: 759348. https://doi.org/10.1155/2015/759348 ![]() |
[27] |
Koczan JM, Lenneman BR, McGrath MJ, et al. (2011) Cell surface attachment structures contribute to biofilm formation and xylem colonization by Erwinia amylovora. Appl Environ Microbiol 77: 7031-7039. https://doi.org/10.1128/AEM.05138-11 ![]() |
[28] |
Mandlik A, Swierczynski A, Das A, et al. (2008) Pili in Gram-positive bacteria: assembly, involvement in colonization and biofilm development. Trends Microbiol 16: 33-40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tim.2007.10.010 ![]() |
[29] |
Berne C, Ducret A, Hardy GG, et al. (2015) Adhesins involved in attachment to abiotic surfaces by Gram-Negative bacteria. Microbiol Spectrum 3: 10. https://doi.org/10.1128/microbiolspec.MB-0018-2015 ![]() |
[30] |
Dunne WM (2002) Bacterial adhesion: seen any good biofilms lately?. Clin Microbiol Rev 15: 155-166. https://doi.org/10.1128/cmr.15.2.155-166.2002 ![]() |
[31] |
Renner LD, Weibel DB (2011) Physicochemical regulation of biofilm formation. MRS Bull 36: 347-355. https://doi.org/10.1557/mrs.2011.65 ![]() |
[32] |
Hinsa SM, Espinosa-Urgel M, Ramos JL, et al. (2003) Transition from reversible to irreversible attachment during biofilm formation by Pseudomonas fluorescens WCS365 requires an ABC transporter and a large secreted protein. Mol Microbiol 49: 905-918. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2958.2003.03615.x ![]() |
[33] |
Petrova OE, Sauer K (2012) Sticky situations: key components that control bacterial surface attachment. J Bacteriol Res 194: 2413-2425. https://doi.org/10.1128/JB.00003-12 ![]() |
[34] |
Miller JK, Badawy HT, Clemons C, et al. (2012) Development of the Pseudomonas aeruginosa mushroom morphology and cavity formation by iron-starvation: a mathematical modeling study. J Theor Biol 308: 68-78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtbi.2012.05.029 ![]() |
[35] |
Abebe GM (2020) The role of bacterial biofilm in antibiotic resistance and food contamination. Int J Microbiol 2020: 1705814. https://doi.org/10.1155/2020/1705814 ![]() |
[36] |
Jefferson KK (2004) What drives bacteria to produce a biofilm?. FEMS Microbiol Lett 236: 163-173. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1574-6968.2004.tb09643.x ![]() |
[37] |
Kurmoo Y, Hook AL, Harvey D, et al. (2020) Real time monitoring of biofilm formation on coated medical devices for the reduction and interception of bacterial infections. Biomater Sci 8: 1464-1477. https://doi.org/10.1039/c9bm00875f ![]() |
[38] |
Salgar-Chaparro SJ, Lepkova K, Pojtanabuntoeng T, et al. (2020) Nutrient level determines biofilm characteristics and subsequent impact on microbial corrosion and biocide effectiveness. Appl Environ Microbiol 86: e02885-02819. https://doi.org/10.1128/AEM.02885-19 ![]() |
[39] | Wilson C, Lukowicz R, Merchant S, et al. (2017) Quantitative and qualitative assessment methods for biofilm growth: A mini-review. Res Rev J Eng Technol 6. Available from: http://www.rroij.com/open-access/quantitative-and-qualitative-assessment-methods-for-biofilm-growth-a-minireview-.pdf |
[40] |
Haney EF, Trimble MJ, Cheng JT, et al. (2018) Critical assessment of methods to quantify biofilm growth and evaluate antibiofilm activity of host defence peptides. Biomolecules 8: 29. https://doi.org/10.3390/biom8020029 ![]() |
[41] |
Kaplan JB (2010) Biofilm dispersal: mechanisms, clinical implications, and potential therapeutic uses. J Dent Res 89: 205-218. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022034509359403 ![]() |
[42] |
Rabin N, Zheng Y, Opoku-Temeng C, et al. (2015) Biofilm formation mechanisms and targets for developing antibiofilm agents. Future Med Chem 7: 493-512. https://doi.org/10.4155/fmc.15.6 ![]() |
[43] |
Sharpton TJ, Combrink L, Arnold HK, et al. (2021) Erratum to “Harnessing the gut microbiome in the fight against anthelminthic drug resistance”. Curr Opin Microbiol 53: 26-34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mib.2021.01.003 ![]() |
[44] |
Seth AK, Geringer MR, Hong SJ, et al. (2012) Comparative analysis of single-species and polybacterial wound biofilms using a quantitative, in vivo, rabbit ear model. PLoS One 7: e42897. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0042897 ![]() |
[45] |
Yang L, Liu Y, Wu H, et al. (2011) Current understanding of multi-species biofilms. Int J Oral Sci 3: 74-81. https://doi.org/10.4248/IJOS11027 ![]() |
[46] |
Lohse MB, Gulati M, Johnson AD, et al. (2018) Development and regulation of single- and multi-species Candida albicans biofilms. Nat Rev Microbiol 16: 19-31. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrmicro.2017.107 ![]() |
[47] |
Lynch AS, Robertson GT (2008) Bacterial and fungal biofilm infections. Annu Rev Med 59: 415-428. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.med.59.110106.132000 ![]() |
[48] |
Seneviratne G, Zavahir JS, Bandara WMMS, et al. (2007) Fungal-bacterial biofilms: their development for novel biotechnological applications. World J Microbiol Biotechnol 24: 739. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11274-007-9539-8 ![]() |
[49] | Guo YS, Furrer JM, Kadilak AL, et al. (2018) Bacterial extracellular polymeric substances amplify water content variability at the pore scale. Front Environ Sci 6. https://doi.org/10.3389/fenvs.2018.00093 |
[50] | Wingender J, Neu TR, Flemming HC, et al. (1999) What are bacterial extracellular polymeric substances?. Microbial extracellular polymeric substances: Characterization, structure and function. Berlin: Springer Berlin Heidelberg 1-19. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-60147-7_1 |
[51] |
Wilking JN, Zaburdaev V, De Volder M, et al. (2013) Liquid transport facilitated by channels in Bacillus subtilis biofilms. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 110: 848-852. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1216376110 ![]() |
[52] |
Costa OYA, Raaijmakers JM, Kuramae EE (2018) Microbial extracellular polymeric substances: ecological function and impact on soil aggregation. Front Microbiol 9: 1636-1636. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2018.01636 ![]() |
[53] |
Navarre WW, Schneewind O (1999) Surface proteins of gram-positive bacteria and mechanisms of their targeting to the cell wall envelope. Microbiol Mol Biol Rev 63: 174. https://doi.org/10.1128/MMBR.63.1.174-229.1999 ![]() |
[54] |
Davey ME, O'Toole GA (2000) Microbial biofilms: from ecology to molecular genetics. Microbiol Mol Biol Rev: MMBR 64: 847-867. https://doi.org/10.1128/mmbr.64.4.847-867.2000 ![]() |
[55] |
Hibiya K, Tsuneda S, Hirata A (2000) Formation and characteristics of nitrifying biofilm on a membrane modified with positively-charged polymer chains. Colloids Surf, B 18: 105-112. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0927-7765(99)00141-1 ![]() |
[56] |
Navada S, Knutsen MF, Bakke I, et al. (2020) Nitrifying biofilms deprived of organic carbon show higher functional resilience to increases in carbon supply. Sci Rep 10: 7121. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-64027-y ![]() |
[57] |
Hunt SM, Werner EM, Huang B, et al. (2004) Hypothesis for the role of nutrient starvation in biofilm detachment. Appl Environ Microbiol 70: 7418-7425. https://doi.org/10.1128/AEM.70.12.7418-7425.2004 ![]() |
[58] |
Maddela NR, Zhou Z, Yu Z, et al. (2018) Functional determinants of extracellular polymeric substances in membrane biofouling: Experimental evidence from pure-cultured sludge bacteria. Appl Environ Microbiol 84: e00756-00718. https://doi.org/10.1128/AEM.00756-18 ![]() |
[59] |
Stoodley P, Sauer K, Davies DG, et al. (2002) Biofilms as complex differentiated communities. Annu Rev Microbiol 56: 187-209. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.micro.56.012302.160705 ![]() |
[60] |
Limoli DH, Jones CJ, Wozniak DJ (2015) Bacterial extracellular polysaccharides in biofilm formation and function. Microbiol Spectrum 3: 10. https://doi.org/10.1128/microbiolspec.MB-0011-2014 ![]() |
[61] |
Magana M, Sereti C, Ioannidis A, et al. (2018) Options and limitations in clinical investigation of bacterial biofilms. Clin Microbiol Rev 31: e00084-16. https://doi.org/10.1128/CMR.00084-16 ![]() |
[62] |
Denef VJ, Mueller RS, Banfield JF (2010) AMD biofilms: using model communities to study microbial evolution and ecological complexity in nature. ISME J 4: 599-610. https://doi.org/10.1038/ismej.2009.158 ![]() |
[63] |
Martinez-Gil M, Goh KGK, Rackaityte E, et al. (2017) YeeJ is an inverse autotransporter from Escherichia coli that binds to peptidoglycan and promotes biofilm formation. Sci Rep 7: 11326. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-10902-0 ![]() |
[64] | Beloin C, Roux A, Ghigo JM (2008) Escherichia coli biofilms. Curr Top Microbio Immunol 322: 249-289. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-75418-3_12 |
[65] |
Klemm P, Hjerrild L, Gjermansen M, et al. (2004) Structure-function analysis of the self-recognizing Antigen 43 autotransporter protein from Escherichia coli. Mol Microbiol 51: 283-296. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2958.2003.03833.x ![]() |
[66] |
Müller D, Benz I, Tapadar D, et al. (2005) Arrangement of the translocator of the autotransporter adhesin involved in diffuse adherence on the bacterial surface. Infect Immun 73: 3851-3859. https://doi.org/10.1128/IAI.73.7.3851-3859.2005 ![]() |
[67] |
Barnhart MM, Chapman MR (2006) Curli biogenesis and function. Annu Rev Microbiol 60: 131-147. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.micro.60.080805.142106 ![]() |
[68] |
Tursi SA, Tükel Ç (2018) Curli-Containing enteric biofilms inside and out: Matrix composition, immune recognition, and disease implications. Microbiol Mol Biol Rev 82: e00028-18. https://doi.org/10.1128/MMBR.00028-18 ![]() |
[69] |
Hobley L, Harkins C, MacPhee CE, et al. (2015) Giving structure to the biofilm matrix: an overview of individual strategies and emerging common themes. FEMS Microbiol Rev 39: 649-669. https://doi.org/10.1093/femsre/fuv015 ![]() |
[70] |
Chen XD, Zhang CK, Zhou Z, et al. (2017) Stabilizing effects of bacterial biofilms: EPS penetration and redistribution of bed stability down the sediment profile. J Geophys Res: Biogeosci 122: 3113-3125. https://doi.org/10.1002/2017JG004050 ![]() |
[71] |
Ibáñez de Aldecoa AL, Zafra O, González-Pastor JE (2017) Mechanisms and regulation of extracellular DNA release and its biological roles in microbial communities. Front Microbiol 8: 1390-1390. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2017.01390 ![]() |
[72] |
Jamal M, Ahmad W, Andleeb S, et al. (2018) Bacterial biofilm and associated infections. J Chin Med Assoc 81: 7-11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcma.2017.07.012 ![]() |
[73] |
Toyofuku M, Inaba T, Kiyokawa T, et al. (2016) Environmental factors that shape biofilm formation. Biosci Biotechnol Biochem 80: 7-12. https://doi.org/10.1080/09168451.2015.1058701 ![]() |
[74] |
Vu B, Chen M, Crawford RJ, et al. (2009) Bacterial extracellular polysaccharides involved in biofilm formation. Molecules (Basel,Switz) 14: 2535-2554. https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules14072535 ![]() |
[75] |
Skariyachan S, Sridhar VS, Packirisamy S, et al. (2018) Recent perspectives on the molecular basis of biofilm formation by Pseudomonas aeruginosa and approaches for treatment and biofilm dispersal. Folia Microbiol 63: 413-432. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12223-018-0585-4 ![]() |
[76] |
Mann EE, Wozniak DJ (2012) Pseudomonas biofilm matrix composition and niche biology. FEMS Microbiol Rev 36: 893-916. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1574-6976.2011.00322.x ![]() |
[77] |
Zambrano MM, Kolter R (2005) Mycobacterial biofilms: A greasy way to hold it together. Cell 123: 762-764. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2005.11.011 ![]() |
[78] |
Li YH, Tian X (2012) Quorum sensing and bacterial social interactions in biofilms. Sensors (Basel,Switz) 12: 2519-2538. https://doi.org/10.3390/s120302519 ![]() |
[79] |
Sharma D, Misba L, Khan AU (2019) Antibiotics versus biofilm: an emerging battleground in microbial communities. Antimicrob Resist Infect Control 8: 76. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13756-019-0533-3 ![]() |
[80] |
Shrout JD, Chopp DL, Just CL, et al. (2006) The impact of quorum sensing and swarming motility on Pseudomonas aeruginosa biofilm formation is nutritionally conditional. Mol Microbiol 62: 1264-1277. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2958.2006.05421.x ![]() |
[81] |
Saygin H, Baysal A (2020) Biofilm formation of clinically important bacteria on bio-based and conventional micro/submicron-sized plastics. Bull Environ Contam Toxicol 105: 18-25. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00128-020-02876-z ![]() |
[82] |
Fulaz S, Vitale S, Quinn L, et al. (2019) Nanoparticle-Biofilm interactions: The role of the EPS matrix. Trends Microbiol 27: 915-926. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tim.2019.07.004 ![]() |
[83] |
Chakraborty P, Kumar A (2019) The extracellular matrix of mycobacterial biofilms: could we shorten the treatment of mycobacterial infections?. Microb Cell (Graz,Austria) 6: 105-122. https://doi.org/10.15698/mic2019.02.667 ![]() |
[84] |
Yawata Y, Uchiyama H, Nomura N (2010) Visualizing the effects of biofilm structures on the influx of fluorescent material using combined confocal reflection and fluorescent microscopy. Microbes Environ 25: 49-52. https://doi.org/10.1264/jsme2.me09169 ![]() |
[85] |
Holman HY, Miles R, Hao Z, et al. (2009) Real-time chemical imaging of bacterial activity in biofilms using open-channel microfluidics and synchrotron FTIR spectromicroscopy. Anal Chem 81: 8564-8570. https://doi.org/10.1021/ac9015424 ![]() |
[86] |
Mattana S, Alunni Cardinali M, Caponi S, et al. (2017) High-contrast brillouin and raman micro-spectroscopy for simultaneous mechanical and chemical investigation of microbial biofilms. Biophys Chem 229: 123-129. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bpc.2017.06.008 ![]() |
[87] |
Abadian PN, Tandogan N, Jamieson JJ, et al. (2014) Using surface plasmon resonance imaging to study bacterial biofilms. Biomicrofluidics 8: 021804. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4867739 ![]() |
[88] |
McGoverin C, Vanholsbeeck F, Dawes JM, et al. (2020) Asia-pacific optical sensors conference: focus issue introduction. Opt Express 28: 21745-21748. https://doi.org/10.1364/OE.401277 ![]() |
[89] |
Yuan Y, Guo T, Qiu X, et al. (2016) Electrochemical surface plasmon resonance fiber-optic sensor: In situ detection of electroactive biofilms. Anal Chem 88: 7609-7616. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.analchem.6b01314 ![]() |
[90] |
Subramanian S, Huiszoon RC, Chu S, et al. (2019) Microsystems for biofilm characterization and sensing-A review. Biofilm 2: 100015. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bioflm.2019.100015 ![]() |
[91] |
Stöckl M, Schlegel C, Sydow A, et al. (2016) Membrane separated flow cell for parallelized electrochemical impedance spectroscopy and confocal laser scanning microscopy to characterize electro-active microorganisms. Electrochim Acta 220: 444-452. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.electacta.2016.10.057 ![]() |
[92] |
Estrada-Leypon O, Moya A, Guimera A, et al. (2015) Simultaneous monitoring of Staphylococcus aureus growth in a multi-parametric microfluidic platform using microscopy and impedance spectroscopy. Bioelectrochemistry 105: 56-64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bioelechem.2015.05.006 ![]() |
[93] |
Huiszoon RC, Subramanian S, Ramiah Rajasekaran P, et al. (2019) Flexible platform for in situ impedimetric detection and bioelectric effect treatment of Escherichia coli biofilms. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 66: 1337-1345. https://doi.org/10.1109/tbme.2018.2872896 ![]() |
[94] |
Bayoudh S, Othmane A, Ponsonnet L, et al. (2008) Electrical detection and characterization of bacterial adhesion using electrochemical impedance spectroscopy-based flow chamber. Colloids Surf, A 318: 291-300. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.colsurfa.2008.01.005 ![]() |
[95] |
Bellin DL, Sakhtah H, Zhang Y, et al. (2016) Electrochemical camera chip for simultaneous imaging of multiple metabolites in biofilms. Nat Commun 7: 10535. https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms10535 ![]() |
[96] |
Marcus IM, Herzberg M, Walker SL, et al. (2012) Pseudomonas aeruginosa attachment on QCM-D sensors: the role of cell and surface hydrophobicities. Langmuir 28: 6396-6402. https://doi.org/10.1021/la300333c ![]() |
[97] |
Olsson AL, van der Mei HC, Busscher HJ, et al. (2009) Influence of cell surface appendages on the bacterium-substratum interface measured real-time using QCM-D. Langmuir 25: 1627-1632. https://doi.org/10.1021/la803301q ![]() |
[98] |
Piasecki T, Guła G, Markwitz P, et al. (2016) Autonomous system for in situ assay of antibiotic activity on bacterial biofilms using viscosity and density sensing quartz tuning forks. Procedia Eng 168: 745-748. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2016.11.267 ![]() |
[99] |
Sfaelou S, Karapanagioti HK, Vakros J (2015) Studying the formation of biofilms on supports with different polarity and their efficiency to treat wastewater. J Chem 2015: 734384. https://doi.org/10.1155/2015/734384 ![]() |
[100] |
Khatoon Z, McTiernan CD, Suuronen EJ, et al. (2018) Bacterial biofilm formation on implantable devices and approaches to its treatment and prevention. Heliyon 4: e01067. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2018.e01067 ![]() |
[101] | Revdiwala S, Rajdev BM, Mulla S (2012) Characterization of bacterial etiologic agents of biofilm formation in medical devices in critical care setup. Crit Care Res Pract 2012: 945805. https://doi.org/10.1155/2012/945805 |
[102] |
Trautner BW, Darouiche RO (2004) Role of biofilm in catheter-associated urinary tract infection. Am J Infect Control 32: 177-183. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajic.2003.08.005 ![]() |
[103] |
Liu S, Gunawan C, Barraud N, et al. (2016) Understanding, monitoring, and controlling biofilm growth in drinking water distribution systems. Environ Sci Technol 50: 8954-8976. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.6b00835 ![]() |
[104] |
Maes S, Vackier T, Nguyen Huu S, et al. (2019) Occurrence and characterisation of biofilms in drinking water systems of broiler houses. BMC Microbiol 19: 77. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12866-019-1451-5 ![]() |
[105] |
Muhammad MH, Idris AL, Fan X, et al. (2020) Beyond risk: bacterial biofilms and their regulating approaches. Front Microbiol 11: 928-928. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2020.00928 ![]() |
[106] |
Ashbolt NJ (2015) Microbial contamination of drinking water and human health from community water systems. Curr Environ Health Rep 2: 95-106. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40572-014-0037-5 ![]() |
[107] |
Archer NK, Mazaitis MJ, Costerton JW, et al. (2011) Staphylococcus aureus biofilms: properties, regulation, and roles in human disease. Virulence 2: 445-459. https://doi.org/10.4161/viru.2.5.17724 ![]() |
[108] |
Arciola CR, Campoccia D, Montanaro L (2018) Implant infections: adhesion, biofilm formation and immune evasion. Nat Rev Microbiol 16: 397-409. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41579-018-0019-y ![]() |
[109] |
Boisvert AA, Cheng MP, Sheppard DC, et al. (2016) Microbial biofilms in pulmonary and critical care diseases. Ann Am Thorac Soc 13: 1615-1623. https://doi.org/10.1513/AnnalsATS.201603-194FR ![]() |
[110] |
Gnanadhas DP, Elango M, Datey A, et al. (2015) Chronic lung infection by Pseudomonas aeruginosa biofilm is cured by L-Methionine in combination with antibiotic therapy. Sci Rep 5: 16043. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep16043 ![]() |
[111] |
Minasyan H (2019) Sepsis: mechanisms of bacterial injury to the patient. Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med 27: 19. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13049-019-0596-4 ![]() |
[112] |
VanEpps JS, Younger JG (2016) Implantable device-related infection. Shock (Augusta,Ga) 46: 597-608. https://doi.org/10.1097/SHK.0000000000000692 ![]() |
[113] |
Stewart PS (2002) Mechanisms of antibiotic resistance in bacterial biofilms. Int J Med Microbiol 292: 107-113. https://doi.org/10.1078/1438-4221-00196 ![]() |
[114] |
Vestby LK, Grønseth T, Simm R, et al. (2020) Bacterial biofilm and its role in the pathogenesis of disease. Antibiotics (Basel,Switz) 9: 59. https://doi.org/10.3390/antibiotics9020059 ![]() |
[115] |
González JF, Hahn MM, Gunn JS (2018) Chronic biofilm-based infections: skewing of the immune response. Pathog Dis 76: fty023. https://doi.org/10.1093/femspd/fty023 ![]() |
[116] |
Elias S, Banin E (2012) Multi-species biofilms: living with friendly neighbors. FEMS Microbiol Rev 36: 990-1004. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1574-6976.2012.00325.x ![]() |
[117] | Hu X, Kang F, Yang B, et al. (2019) Extracellular polymeric substances acting as a permeable barrier hinder the lateral transfer of antibiotic resistance genes. Front Microbiol 10. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2019.00736 |
[118] |
Singh S, Singh SK, Chowdhury I, et al. (2017) Understanding the mechanism of bacterial biofilms resistance to antimicrobial agents. Open Microbiol J 11: 53-62. https://doi.org/10.2174/1874285801711010053 ![]() |
[119] |
Roy R, Tiwari M, Donelli G, et al. (2018) Strategies for combating bacterial biofilms: A focus on anti-biofilm agents and their mechanisms of action. Virulence 9: 522-554. https://doi.org/10.1080/21505594.2017.1313372 ![]() |
[120] |
Koo H, Allan RN, Howlin RP, et al. (2017) Targeting microbial biofilms: current and prospective therapeutic strategies. Nat Rev Microbiol 15: 740-755. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrmicro.2017.99 ![]() |
[121] |
Igiri BE, Okoduwa SIR, Idoko GO, et al. (2018) Toxicity and bioremediation of heavy metals contaminated ecosystem from tannery wastewater: A review. J Toxicol 2018: 2568038. https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/2568038 ![]() |
[122] |
Singh R, Paul D, Jain RK (2006) Biofilms: implications in bioremediation. Trends Microbiol 14: 389-397. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tim.2006.07.001 ![]() |
[123] | Bispo PJM, Haas W, Gilmore MS (2015) Biofilms in infections of the eye. Pathogens (Basel,Switz) 4: 111-136. https://doi.org/10.3390/pathogens4010111 |
[124] | Nickel JC, Costerton JW (1992) Bacterial biofilms and catheters: A key to understanding bacterial strategies in catheter-associated urinary tract infection. Can J Infect Dis 3: 261-267. https://doi.org/10.1155/1992/517456 |
[125] | Guynn JB, Poretz DM, Duma RJ (1973) Growth of various bacteria in a variety of intravenous fluids. Am J Hosp Pharm 30: 321-325. https://doi.org/10.1093/ajhp/30.4.321 |
[126] |
Ferrières L, Hancock V, Klemm P (2007) Specific selection for virulent urinary tract infectious Escherichia coli strains during catheter-associated biofilm formation. FEMS Immunol Med Microbiol 51: 212-219. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1574-695X.2007.00296.x ![]() |
[127] | Delcaru C, Alexandru I, Podgoreanu P, et al. (2016) Microbial biofilms in urinary tract infections and prostatitis: Etiology, pathogenicity, and combating strategies. Pathogens (Basel,Switz) 5: 65. https://doi.org/10.3390/pathogens5040065 |
[128] |
Wiley L, Bridge DR, Wiley LA, et al. (2012) Bacterial biofilm diversity in contact lens-related disease: Emerging role of achromobacter, stenotrophomonas, and delftia. Invest Ophthalmol Visual Sci 53: 3896-3905. https://doi.org/10.1167/iovs.11-8762 ![]() |
[129] |
Robertson DM, Parks QM, Young RL, et al. (2011) Disruption of contact lens-associated Pseudomonas aeruginosa biofilms formed in the presence of neutrophils. Invest Ophthalmol Visual Sci 52: 2844-2850. https://doi.org/10.1167/iovs.10-6469 ![]() |
[130] |
Litzler PY, Benard L, Barbier-Frebourg N, et al. (2007) Biofilm formation on pyrolytic carbon heart valves: influence of surface free energy, roughness, and bacterial species. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 134: 1025-1032. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtcvs.2007.06.013 ![]() |
[131] | Piper C, Körfer R, Horstkotte D (2001) Prosthetic valve endocarditis. Heart 85: 590. https://doi.org/10.1136/heart.85.5.590 |
[132] |
Schaudinn C, Gorur A, Keller D, et al. (2009) Periodontitis: an archetypical biofilm disease. J Am Dent Assoc 140: 978-986. https://doi.org/10.14219/jada.archive.2009.0307 ![]() |
[133] |
Naginyte M, Do T, Meade J, et al. (2019) Enrichment of periodontal pathogens from the biofilms of healthy adults. Sci Rep 9: 5491. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-41882-y ![]() |
[134] |
Chandki R, Banthia P, Banthia R (2011) Biofilms: A microbial home. J Indian Soc Periodontol 15: 111-114. https://doi.org/10.4103/0972-124X.84377 ![]() |
[135] |
Brady RA, Leid JG, Calhoun JH, et al. (2008) Osteomyelitis and the role of biofilms in chronic infection. FEMS Immunol Med Microbiol 52: 13-22. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1574-695X.2007.00357.x ![]() |
[136] |
Masters EA, Trombetta RP, de Mesy Bentley KL, et al. (2019) Evolving concepts in bone infection: redefining “biofilm”, “acute vs. chronic osteomyelitis”, “the immune proteome” and “local antibiotic therapy”. Bone Res 7: 20. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41413-019-0061-z ![]() |
[137] |
Rochford ETJ, Sabaté Brescó M, Zeiter S, et al. (2016) Monitoring immune responses in a mouse model of fracture fixation with and without Staphylococcus aureus osteomyelitis. Bone 83: 82-92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bone.2015.10.014 ![]() |
[138] |
Oates A, Bowling FL, Boulton AJM, et al. (2014) The visualization of biofilms in chronic diabetic foot wounds using routine diagnostic microscopy methods. J Diabetes Res 2014: 153586. https://doi.org/10.1155/2014/153586 ![]() |
[139] |
Clinton A, Carter T (2015) Chronic wound biofilms: Pathogenesis and potential therapies. Lab Med 46: 277-284. https://doi.org/10.1309/lmbnswkui4jpn7so ![]() |
[140] |
Bjarnsholt T (2013) The role of bacterial biofilms in chronic infections. APMIS Suppl : 1-51. https://doi.org/10.1111/apm.12099 ![]() |
[141] |
Burmølle M, Thomsen TR, Fazli M, et al. (2010) Biofilms in chronic infections-a matter of opportunity-monospecies biofilms in multispecies infections. FEMS Immunol Med Microbiol 59: 324-336. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1574-695X.2010.00714.x ![]() |
[142] |
Percival SL, McCarty SM, Lipsky B (2015) Biofilms and wounds: An overview of the evidence. Adv Wound Care 4: 373-381. https://doi.org/10.1089/wound.2014.0557 ![]() |
[143] |
Abdel-Nour M, Duncan C, Low DE, et al. (2013) Biofilms: the stronghold of Legionella pneumophila. Int J Mol Sci 14: 21660-21675. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms141121660 ![]() |
[144] |
Høiby N, Ciofu O, Bjarnsholt T (2010) Pseudomonas aeruginosa biofilms in cystic fibrosis. Future Microbiol 5: 1663-1674. https://doi.org/10.2217/fmb.10.125 ![]() |
[145] |
Moreau-Marquis S, Stanton BA, O'Toole GA (2008) Pseudomonas aeruginosa biofilm formation in the cystic fibrosis airway. Pulm Pharmacol Ther 21: 595-599. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pupt.2007.12.001 ![]() |
[146] |
Lalani T, Kanafani ZA, Chu VH, et al. (2006) Prosthetic valve endocarditis due to coagulase-negative staphylococci: findings from the international collaboration on endocarditis merged database. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis 25: 365-368. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10096-006-0141-z ![]() |
[147] |
van Steenbergen TJM, van Winkelhoff AJ, de Graaff J (1984) Pathogenic synergy: mixed infections in the oral cavity. Antonie van Leeuwenhoek 50: 789-798. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02386241 ![]() |
[148] |
Chen L, Deng H, Cui H, et al. (2017) Inflammatory responses and inflammation-associated diseases in organs. Oncotarget 9: 7204-7218. https://doi.org/10.18632/oncotarget.23208 ![]() |
[149] |
Kany S, Vollrath JT, Relja B (2019) Cytokines in inflammatory disease. Int J Mol Sci 20: 6008. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms20236008 ![]() |
[150] |
Hall-Stoodley L, Stoodley P, Kathju S, et al. (2012) Towards diagnostic guidelines for biofilm-associated infections. FEMS Immunol Med Microbiol 65: 127-145. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1574-695X.2012.00968.x ![]() |
[151] | Olson ME, Ceri H, Morck DW, et al. (2002) Biofilm bacteria: formation and comparative susceptibility to antibiotics. Can J Vet Res 66: 86-92. |
[152] |
Mosaddad SA, Tahmasebi E, Yazdanian A, et al. (2019) Oral microbial biofilms: an update. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis 38: 2005-2019. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10096-019-03641-9 ![]() |
[153] | Fair RJ, Tor Y (2014) Antibiotics and bacterial resistance in the 21st century. Perspect Med Chem 6: 25-64. https://doi.org/10.4137/PMC.S14459 |
[154] |
Hedberg M, Nord CE (1996) Beta-lactam resistance in anaerobic bacteria: a review. J Chemother 8: 3-16. https://doi.org/10.1179/joc.1996.8.1.3 ![]() |
[155] |
Macià MD, Rojo-Molinero E, Oliver A (2014) Antimicrobial susceptibility testing in biofilm-growing bacteria. Clin Microbiol Infect 20: 981-990. https://doi.org/10.1111/1469-0691.12651 ![]() |
[156] |
Lewis K (2001) Riddle of biofilm resistance. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 45: 999. https://doi.org/10.1128/AAC.45.4.999-1007.2001 ![]() |
[157] |
Kaplan JB, Mlynek KD, Hettiarachchi H, et al. (2018) Extracellular polymeric substance (EPS)-degrading enzymes reduce Staphylococcal surface attachment and biocide resistance on pig skin in vivo. PLoS One 13: e0205526. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0205526 ![]() |
[158] |
Powell LC, Pritchard MF, Ferguson EL, et al. (2018) Targeted disruption of the extracellular polymeric network of Pseudomonas aeruginosa biofilms by alginate oligosaccharides. npj Biofilms Microbiomes 4: 13. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41522-018-0056-3 ![]() |
[159] |
Wozniak DJ, Wyckoff TJ, Starkey M, et al. (2003) Alginate is not a significant component of the extracellular polysaccharide matrix of PA14 and PAO1 Pseudomonas aeruginosa biofilms. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 100: 7907-7912. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1231792100 ![]() |
[160] |
Madsen JS, Burmølle M, Hansen LH, et al. (2012) The interconnection between biofilm formation and horizontal gene transfer. FEMS Immunol Med Microbiol 65: 183-195. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1574-695X.2012.00960.x ![]() |
[161] |
Lister PD, Wolter DJ, Hanson ND (2009) Antibacterial-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa: clinical impact and complex regulation of chromosomally encoded resistance mechanisms. Clin Microbiol Rev 22: 582-610. https://doi.org/10.1128/CMR.00040-09 ![]() |
[162] |
Wilton M, Charron-Mazenod L, Moore R, et al. (2015) Extracellular DNA acidifies biofilms and induces aminoglycoside resistance in Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 60: 544-553. https://doi.org/10.1128/AAC.01650-15 ![]() |
[163] |
Mulcahy H, Charron-Mazenod L, Lewenza S (2008) Extracellular DNA chelates cations and induces antibiotic resistance in Pseudomonas aeruginosa biofilms. PLoS Pathog 4: e1000213. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.ppat.1000213 ![]() |
[164] |
Heilmann C, Hartleib J, Hussain MS, et al. (2005) The multifunctional Staphylococcus aureus autolysin aaa mediates adherence to immobilized fibrinogen and fibronectin. Infect Immunol 73: 4793-4802. https://doi.org/10.1128/iai.73.8.4793-4802.2005 ![]() |
[165] |
Heilmann C, Hussain M, Peters G, et al. (1997) Evidence for autolysin-mediated primary attachment of Staphylococcus epidermidis to a polystyrene surface. Mol Microbiol 24: 1013-1024. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2958.1997.4101774.x ![]() |
[166] |
Ch'ng JH, Chong KKL, Lam LN, et al. (2019) Biofilm-associated infection by enterococci. Nat Rev Microbiol 17: 82-94. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41579-018-0107-z ![]() |
[167] |
Dale JL, Nilson JL, Barnes AMT, et al. (2017) Restructuring of Enterococcus faecalis biofilm architecture in response to antibiotic-induced stress. npj Biofilms Microbiomes 3: 15. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41522-017-0023-4 ![]() |
[168] |
Balaban NQ, Helaine S, Lewis K, et al. (2019) Definitions and guidelines for research on antibiotic persistence. Nat Rev Microbiol 17: 441-448. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41579-019-0196-3 ![]() |
[169] |
Schilcher K, Horswill AR (2020) Staphylococcal biofilm development: Structure, regulation, and treatment strategies. Microbiol Mol Biol Rev 84: e00026-19. https://doi.org/doi:10.1128/MMBR.00026-19 ![]() |
[170] |
Waters EM, Rowe SE, O'Gara JP, et al. (2016) Convergence of Staphylococcus aureus persister and biofilm research: Can biofilms be defined as communities of adherent persister cells?. PLoS Pathog 12: e1006012. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.ppat.1006012 ![]() |
[171] |
Lister JL, Horswill AR (2014) Staphylococcus aureus biofilms: recent developments in biofilm dispersal. Front Cell Infect Microbiol 4. https://doi.org/10.3389/fcimb.2014.00178 ![]() |
[172] |
Vuotto C, Longo F, Balice MP, et al. (2014) Antibiotic resistance related to biofilm formation in Klebsiella pneumoniae. Pathogens 3: 743-758. https://doi.org/10.3390/pathogens3030743 ![]() |
[173] |
Nirwati H, Sinanjung K, Fahrunissa F, et al. (2019) Biofilm formation and antibiotic resistance of Klebsiella pneumoniae isolated from clinical samples in a tertiary care hospital, Klaten, Indonesia. BMC Proc 13: 20. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12919-019-0176-7 ![]() |
[174] |
Ramos-Vivas J, Chapartegui-González I, Fernández-Martínez M, et al. (2019) Biofilm formation by multidrug resistant Enterobacteriaceae strains isolated from solid organ transplant recipients. Sci Rep 9: 8928. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-45060-y ![]() |
[175] |
Yang CH, Su PW, Moi SH, et al. (2019) Biofilm formation in acinetobacter baumannii: genotype-phenotype correlation. Molecules (Basel,Switz) 24: 1849. https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules24101849 ![]() |
[176] |
Smani Y, McConnell MJ, Pachón J, et al. (2012) Role of fibronectin in the adhesion of Acinetobacter baumannii to host cells. PLoS One 7: e33073. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0033073 ![]() |
[177] |
Gaddy JA, Tomaras AP, Actis LA (2009) The Acinetobacter baumannii 19606 OmpA protein plays a role in biofilm formation on abiotic surfaces and in the interaction of this pathogen with eukaryotic cells. Infect Immun 77: 3150-3160. https://doi.org/10.1128/iai.00096-09 ![]() |
[178] |
Dumaru R, Baral R, Shrestha LB (2019) Study of biofilm formation and antibiotic resistance pattern of gram-negative Bacilli among the clinical isolates at BPKIHS, Dharan. BMC Res Notes 12: 38. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13104-019-4084-8 ![]() |
[179] |
Poulsen LK, Ballard G, Stahl DA (1993) Use of rRNA fluorescence in situ hybridization for measuring the activity of single cells in young and established biofilms. Appl Environ Microbiol 59: 1354-1360. https://doi.org/10.1128/aem.59.5.1354-1360.1993 ![]() |
[180] |
Sternberg C, Christensen BB, Johansen T, et al. (1999) Distribution of bacterial growth activity in flow-chamber biofilms. Appl Environ Microbiol 65: 4108-4117. https://doi.org/10.1128/aem.65.9.4108-4117.1999 ![]() |
[181] |
Mitchison JM (1969) Enzyme synthesis in synchronous cultures. Science 165: 657-663. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.165.3894.657 ![]() |
[182] | Gilbert P, Maira-Litran T, McBain AJ, et al. (2002) The physiology and collective recalcitrance of microbial biofilm communities. Adv Microb Physiol 46: 202-256. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2911(02)46005-5 |
[183] |
Walters MC, Roe F, Bugnicourt A, et al. (2003) Contributions of antibiotic penetration, oxygen limitation, and low metabolic activity to tolerance of Pseudomonas aeruginosa biofilms to ciprofloxacin and tobramycin. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 47: 317-323. https://doi.org/10.1128/aac.47.1.317-323.2003 ![]() |
[184] |
Tresse O, Jouenne T, Junter GA (1995) The role of oxygen limitation in the resistance of agar-entrapped, sessile-like Escherichia coli to aminoglycoside and beta-lactam antibiotics. J Antimicrob Chemother 36: 521-526. https://doi.org/10.1093/jac/36.3.521 ![]() |
[185] |
Hall CW, Mah TF (2017) Molecular mechanisms of biofilm-based antibiotic resistance and tolerance in pathogenic bacteria. FEMS Microbiol Rev 41: 276-301. https://doi.org/10.1093/femsre/fux010 ![]() |
[186] |
Zheng Z, Stewart PS (2004) Growth limitation of Staphylococcus epidermidis in biofilms contributes to rifampin tolerance. Biofilms 1: 31-35. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1479050503001042 ![]() |
[187] |
Mah TFC, O'Toole GA (2001) Mechanisms of biofilm resistance to antimicrobial agents. Trends Microbiol 9: 34-39. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0966-842X(00)01913-2 ![]() |
[188] |
Zhao X, Yu Z, Ding T (2020) Quorum-Sensing regulation of antimicrobial resistance in bacteria. Microorganisms 8: 425. https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms8030425 ![]() |
[189] |
Shih PC, Huang CT (2002) Effects of quorum-sensing deficiency on Pseudomonas aeruginosa biofilm formation and antibiotic resistance. J Antimicrob Chemother 49: 309-314. https://doi.org/10.1093/jac/49.2.309 ![]() |
[190] | Algburi A, Comito N, Kashtanov D, et al. (2017) Control of biofilm formation: Antibiotics and beyond. Appl Environ Microbiol 83: e02508-02516. https://doi.org/10.1128/AEM.02508-16 |
[191] |
Jiao Y, Tay FR, Niu Ln, et al. (2019) Advancing antimicrobial strategies for managing oral biofilm infections. Int J Oral Sci 11: 28. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41368-019-0062-1 ![]() |
[192] |
Klemm P, Vejborg RM, Hancock V (2010) Prevention of bacterial adhesion. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 88: 451-459. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00253-010-2805-y ![]() |
[193] |
Veerachamy S, Yarlagadda T, Manivasagam G, et al. (2014) Bacterial adherence and biofilm formation on medical implants: A review. Proc Inst Mech Eng, Part H 228: 1083-1099. https://doi.org/10.1177/0954411914556137 ![]() |
[194] |
Chow JY, Yang Y, Tay SB, et al. (2014) Disruption of biofilm formation by the human pathogen Acinetobacter baumannii using engineered quorum-quenching lactonases. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 58: 1802-1805. https://doi.org/10.1128/AAC.02410-13 ![]() |
[195] |
Brown HL, Reuter M, Hanman K, et al. (2015) Prevention of biofilm formation and removal of existing biofilms by extracellular DNases of campylobacter jejuni. PLoS One 10: e0121680. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0121680 ![]() |
[196] | Jiang Y, Geng M, Bai L (2020) Targeting biofilms therapy: Current research strategies and development hurdles. Microorganisms 8. https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms8081222 |
[197] |
Gil C, Solano C, Burgui S, et al. (2014) Biofilm matrix exoproteins induce a protective immune response against Staphylococcus aureus biofilm infection. Infect Immun 82: 1017-1029. https://doi.org/10.1128/IAI.01419-13 ![]() |
[198] | Jiang Q, Jin Z, Sun B (2018) MgrA negatively regulates biofilm formation and detachment by repressing the expression of psm operons in Staphylococcus aureus. Appl Environ Microbiol 84. https://doi.org/10.1128/aem.01008-18 |
[199] |
Fleming D, Rumbaugh KP (2017) Approaches to dispersing medical biofilms. Microorganisms 5: 15. https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms5020015 ![]() |
[200] |
Gallant CV, Daniels C, Leung JM, et al. (2005) Common beta-lactamases inhibit bacterial biofilm formation. Mol Microbiol 58: 1012-1024. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2958.2005.04892.x ![]() |
[201] |
Reza A, Sutton JM, Rahman KM (2019) Effectiveness of efflux pump inhibitors as biofilm disruptors and resistance breakers in Gram-Negative (ESKAPEE) bacteria. Antibiotics (Basel,Switz) 8: 229. https://doi.org/10.3390/antibiotics8040229 ![]() |
[202] |
Ciofu O, Rojo-Molinero E, Macià MD, et al. (2017) Antibiotic treatment of biofilm infections. APMIS 125: 304-319. https://doi.org/10.1111/apm.12673 ![]() |
[203] |
Brooun A, Liu S, Lewis K (2000) A dose-response study of antibiotic resistance in Pseudomonas aeruginosa biofilms. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 44: 640-646. https://doi.org/10.1128/aac.44.3.640-646.2000 ![]() |
[204] |
Danese PN (2002) Antibiofilm Approaches: Prevention of Catheter Colonization. Chem Biol 9: 873-880. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1074-5521(02)00192-8 ![]() |
[205] |
Flemming HC, Ridgway H (2009) Biofilm control: Conventional and alternative approaches. Marine and Industrial Biofouling. Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg 103-117. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-69796-1_5 ![]() |
[206] |
Sambanthamoorthy K, Gokhale AA, Lao W, et al. (2011) Identification of a novel benzimidazole that inhibits bacterial biofilm formation in a broad-spectrum manner. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 55: 4369. https://doi.org/10.1128/AAC.00583-11 ![]() |
[207] | Dinicola S, De Grazia S, Carlomagno G, et al. (2014) N-acetylcysteine as powerful molecule to destroy bacterial biofilms. A systematic review. Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci 18: 2942-2948. Available from: https://europepmc.org/article/MED/25339490 |
[208] |
Abraham NM, Lamlertthon S, Fowler VG, et al. (2012) Chelating agents exert distinct effects on biofilm formation in Staphylococcus aureus depending on strain background: role for clumping factor B. J Med Microbiol 61: 1062-1070. https://doi.org/10.1099/jmm.0.040758-0 ![]() |
[209] |
Antoci V, Adams CS, Parvizi J, et al. (2008) The inhibition of Staphylococcus epidermidis biofilm formation by vancomycin-modified titanium alloy and implications for the treatment of periprosthetic infection. Biomaterials 29: 4684-4690. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biomaterials.2008.08.016 ![]() |
[210] |
Ma Y, Chen M, Jones JE, et al. (2012) Inhibition of Staphylococcus epidermidis biofilm by trimethylsilane plasma coating. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 56: 5923-5937. https://doi.org/10.1128/aac.01739-12 ![]() |
[211] |
Sanyasi S, Majhi RK, Kumar S, et al. (2016) Polysaccharide-capped silver nanoparticles inhibit biofilm formation and eliminate multi-drug-resistant bacteria by disrupting bacterial cytoskeleton with reduced cytotoxicity towards mammalian cells. Sci Rep 6: 24929. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep24929 ![]() |
[212] |
AshaRani PV, Low Kah Mun G, Hande MP, et al. (2009) Cytotoxicity and genotoxicity of silver nanoparticles in human cells. ACS Nano 3: 279-290. https://doi.org/10.1021/nn800596w ![]() |
[213] |
Raie DS, Mhatre E, Thiele M, et al. (2017) Application of quercetin and its bio-inspired nanoparticles as anti-adhesive agents against Bacillus subtilis attachment to surface. Mater Sci Eng, C 70: 753-762. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.msec.2016.09.038 ![]() |
[214] |
Hume EB, Baveja J, Muir B, et al. (2004) The control of Staphylococcus epidermidis biofilm formation and in vivo infection rates by covalently bound furanones. Biomaterials 25: 5023-5030. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biomaterials.2004.01.048 ![]() |
[215] |
Li H, Bao H, Bok KX, et al. (2016) High durability and low toxicity antimicrobial coatings fabricated by quaternary ammonium silane copolymers. Biomater Sci 4: 299-309. https://doi.org/10.1039/C5BM00353A ![]() |
[216] |
Trentin DS, Silva DB, Frasson AP, et al. (2015) Natural green coating inhibits adhesion of clinically important bacteria. Sci Rep 5: 8287. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep08287 ![]() |
[217] |
Chen M, Yu Q, Sun H (2013) Novel strategies for the prevention and treatment of biofilm related infections. Int J Mol Sci 14: 18488-18501. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms140918488 ![]() |
[218] |
Tran PL, Lowry N, Campbell T, et al. (2012) An organoselenium compound inhibits Staphylococcus aureus biofilms on hemodialysis catheters in vivo. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 56: 972-978. https://doi.org/10.1128/aac.05680-11 ![]() |
[219] |
Zhao X, Zhao F, Wang J, et al. (2017) Biofilm formation and control strategies of foodborne pathogens: food safety perspectives. RSC Adv 7: 36670-36683. https://doi.org/10.1039/C7RA02497E ![]() |
[220] |
de Sousa DG, Harvey LA, Dorsch S, et al. (2018) Interventions involving repetitive practice improve strength after stroke: a systematic review. J Physiother 64: 210-221. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jphys.2018.08.004 ![]() |
[221] |
Chappell TC, Nair NU (2020) Engineered lactobacilli display anti-biofilm and growth suppressing activities against Pseudomonas aeruginosa. npj Biofilms Microbiomes 6: 48. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41522-020-00156-6 ![]() |
[222] |
Lu L, Hu W, Tian Z, et al. (2019) Developing natural products as potential anti-biofilm agents. Chin Med 14: 11. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13020-019-0232-2 ![]() |
[223] |
Bendaoud M, Vinogradov E, Balashova NV, et al. (2011) Broad-spectrum biofilm inhibition by Kingella kingae exopolysaccharide. J Bacteriol Res 193: 3879-3886. https://doi.org/10.1128/JB.00311-11 ![]() |
[224] |
Mi L, Licina GA, Jiang S (2014) Nonantibiotic-Based Pseudomonas aeruginosa biofilm inhibition with osmoprotectant analogues. ACS Sustainable Chem Eng 2: 2448-2453. https://doi.org/10.1021/sc500468a ![]() |
[225] |
Kuang X, Chen V, Xu X (2018) Novel approaches to the control of oral microbial biofilms. BioMed Res Int 2018: 6498932. https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/6498932 ![]() |
[226] |
Chen H, Zhang B, Weir MD, et al. (2020) S. mutans gene-modification and antibacterial resin composite as dual strategy to suppress biofilm acid production and inhibit caries. J Dent 93: 103278. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2020.103278 ![]() |
[227] |
Pires DP, Melo LDR, Vilas Boas D, et al. (2017) Phage therapy as an alternative or complementary strategy to prevent and control biofilm-related infections. Curr Opin Microbiol 39: 48-56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mib.2017.09.004 ![]() |
[228] |
Dickey J, Perrot V (2019) Adjunct phage treatment enhances the effectiveness of low antibiotic concentration against Staphylococcus aureus biofilms in vitro. PLoS One 14: e0209390. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0209390 ![]() |
[229] |
Pires DP, Vilas Boas D, Sillankorva S, et al. (2015) Phage therapy: a step forward in the treatment of Pseudomonas aeruginosa infections. J Virol 89: 7449-7456. https://doi.org/10.1128/jvi.00385-15 ![]() |
[230] |
Fu W, Forster T, Mayer O, et al. (2010) Bacteriophage cocktail for the prevention of biofilm formation by Pseudomonas aeruginosa on catheters in an in vitro model system. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 54: 397-404. https://doi.org/10.1128/aac.00669-09 ![]() |
[231] |
Paluch E, Rewak-Soroczyńska J, Jędrusik I, et al. (2020) Prevention of biofilm formation by quorum quenching. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 104: 1871-1881. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00253-020-10349-w ![]() |
[232] | Singh VK, Mishra A, Jha B (2017) Anti-quorum sensing and anti-biofilm activity of delftia tsuruhatensis extract by attenuating the quorum sensing-controlled virulence factor production in Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Front Cell Infect Microbiol 7. https://doi.org/10.3389/fcimb.2017.00337 |
[233] |
Brackman G, Defoirdt T, Miyamoto C, et al. (2008) Cinnamaldehyde and cinnamaldehyde derivatives reduce virulence in Vibrio spp. by decreasing the DNA-binding activity of the quorum sensing response regulator LuxR. BMC Microbiol 8: 149. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2180-8-149 ![]() |
[234] |
Kalaiarasan E, Thirumalaswamy K, Harish BN, et al. (2017) Inhibition of quorum sensing-controlled biofilm formation in Pseudomonas aeruginosa by quorum-sensing inhibitors. Microb Pathog 111: 99-107. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.micpath.2017.08.017 ![]() |
[235] | Bulman ZP, Ly NS, Lenhard JR, et al. (2017) Influence of rhlR and lasR on polymyxin pharmacodynamics in Pseudomonas aeruginosa and implications for quorum sensing inhibition with azithromycin. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 61. https://doi.org/10.1128/aac.00096-16 |
[236] |
Maura D, Rahme LG (2017) Pharmacological inhibition of the Pseudomonas aeruginosa MvfR quorum-sensing system interferes with biofilm formation and potentiates antibiotic-mediated biofilm disruption. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 61. https://doi.org/10.1128/aac.01362-17 ![]() |
[237] |
Stenvang M, Dueholm MS, Vad BS, et al. (2016) Epigallocatechin gallate remodels overexpressed functional amyloids in Pseudomonas aeruginosa and increases biofilm susceptibility to antibiotic treatment*. J Biol Chem 291: 26540-26553. https://doi.org/10.1074/jbc.M116.739953 ![]() |
[238] |
Guo Q, Wei Y, Xia B, et al. (2016) Identification of a small molecule that simultaneously suppresses virulence and antibiotic resistance of Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Sci Rep 6: 19141. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep19141 ![]() |
[239] |
Freire MO, Devaraj A, Young A, et al. (2017) A bacterial-biofilm-induced oral osteolytic infection can be successfully treated by immuno-targeting an extracellular nucleoid-associated protein. Mol Oral Microbiol 32: 74-88. https://doi.org/10.1111/omi.12155 ![]() |
[240] | Sun D, Accavitti MA, Bryers JD (2005) Inhibition of biofilm formation by monoclonal antibodies against Staphylococcus epidermidis RP62A accumulation-associated protein. Clin Diagn Lab Immunol 12: 93-100. https://doi.org/10.1128/CDLI.12.1.93-100.2005 |
[241] |
Estellés A, Woischnig AK, Liu K, et al. (2016) A high-affinity native human antibody disrupts biofilm from Staphylococcus aureus bacteria and potentiates antibiotic efficacy in a mouse implant infection model. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 60: 2292-2301. https://doi.org/10.1128/aac.02588-15 ![]() |
[242] |
Hall AE, Domanski PJ, Patel PR, et al. (2003) Characterization of a protective monoclonal antibody recognizing Staphylococcus aureus MSCRAMM protein clumping factor A. Infect Immun 71: 6864-6870. https://doi.org/10.1128/iai.71.12.6864-6870.2003 ![]() |
[243] |
Visai L, Xu Y, Casolini F, et al. (2000) Monoclonal antibodies to CNA, a collagen-binding microbial surface component recognizing adhesive matrix molecules, detach Staphylococcus aureus from a collagen substrate. J Biol Chem 275: 39837-39845. https://doi.org/10.1074/jbc.M005297200 ![]() |
[244] |
Rennermalm A, Li YH, Bohaufs L, et al. (2001) Antibodies against a truncated Staphylococcus aureus fibronectin-binding protein protect against dissemination of infection in the rat. Vaccine 19: 3376-3383. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0264-410x(01)00080-9 ![]() |
[245] |
Belyi Y, Rybolovlev I, Polyakov N, et al. (2018) Staphylococcus aureus surface protein G is an immunodominant protein and a possible target in an anti-biofilm drug development. Open Microbiol J 12: 94-106. https://doi.org/10.2174/1874285801812010094 ![]() |
[246] |
Haghighat S, Siadat SD, Sorkhabadi SM, et al. (2017) Cloning, expression and purification of autolysin from methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus: potency and challenge study in Balb/c mice. Mol Immunol 82: 10-18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.molimm.2016.12.013 ![]() |
[247] |
Nair N, Vinod V, Suresh MK, et al. (2015) Amidase, a cell wall hydrolase, elicits protective immunity against Staphylococcus aureus and S. epidermidis. Int J Biol Macromol 77: 314-321. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2015.03.047 ![]() |
[248] |
Varrone JJ, de Mesy Bentley KL, Bello-Irizarry SN, et al. (2014) Passive immunization with anti-glucosaminidase monoclonal antibodies protects mice from implant-associated osteomyelitis by mediating opsonophagocytosis of Staphylococcus aureus megaclusters. J Orthop Res 32: 1389-1396. https://doi.org/10.1002/jor.22672 ![]() |
[249] |
van den Berg S, Bonarius HP, van Kessel KP, et al. (2015) A human monoclonal antibody targeting the conserved Staphylococcal antigen IsaA protects mice against Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia. Int J Med Microbiol 305: 55-64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmm.2014.11.002 ![]() |
[250] |
Liu B, Park S, Thompson CD, et al. (2017) Antibodies to Staphylococcus aureus capsular polysaccharides 5 and 8 perform similarly in vitro but are functionally distinct in vivo. Virulence 8: 859-874. https://doi.org/10.1080/21505594.2016.1270494 ![]() |
[251] |
Weisman LE (2007) Antibody for the prevention of neonatal noscocomial Staphylococcal infection: a review of the literature. Arch Pediatr 14 Suppl 1: S31-34. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0929-693x(07)80008-x ![]() |
[252] |
Raafat D, Otto M, Reppschläger K, et al. (2019) Fighting Staphylococcus aureus biofilms with monoclonal antibodies. Trends Microbiol 27: 303-322. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tim.2018.12.009 ![]() |
[253] |
Freire-Moran L, Aronsson B, Manz C, et al. (2011) Critical shortage of new antibiotics in development against multidrug-resistant bacteria-time to react is now. Drug Resist Updat 14: 118-124. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drup.2011.02.003 ![]() |
[254] |
Banerjee M, Moulick S, Bhattacharya KK, et al. (2017) Attenuation of Pseudomonas aeruginosa quorum sensing, virulence and biofilm formation by extracts of Andrographis paniculata. Microb Pathog 113: 85-93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.micpath.2017.10.023 ![]() |
[255] |
Zhang L, Bao M, Liu B, et al. (2020) Effect of andrographolide and its analogs on bacterial infection: A review. Pharmacology 105: 123-134. https://doi.org/10.1159/000503410 ![]() |
[256] |
Rasool U, SP, Parveen A, et al. (2018) Efficacy of andrographis paniculata against extended spectrum β-lactamase (ESBL) producing E. coli. BMC Complementary Altern Med 18: 244-244. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12906-018-2312-8 ![]() |
[257] |
Carrol DH, Chassagne F, Dettweiler M, et al. (2020) Antibacterial activity of plant species used for oral health against Porphyromonas gingivalis. PLoS One 15: e0239316. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0239316 ![]() |
[258] |
Gerits E, Verstraeten N, Michiels J (2017) New approaches to combat Porphyromonas gingivalis biofilms. J Oral Microbiol 9: 1300366. https://doi.org/10.1080/20002297.2017.1300366 ![]() |
[259] |
Liu G, Xiang H, Tang X, et al. (2011) Transcriptional and functional analysis shows sodium houttuyfonate-mediated inhibition of autolysis in Staphylococcus aureus. Molecules (Basel,Switz) 16: 8848-8865. https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules16108848 ![]() |
[260] |
Zhou J, Bi S, Chen H, et al. (2017) Anti-Biofilm and antivirulence activities of metabolites from plectosphaerella cucumerina against Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Front Microbiol 8: 769. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2017.00769 ![]() |
[261] |
Rabin N, Zheng Y, Opoku-Temeng C, et al. (2015) Agents that inhibit bacterial biofilm formation. Future Med Chem 7: 647-671. https://doi.org/10.4155/fmc.15.7 ![]() |
[262] |
Xiang H, Cao F, Ming D, et al. (2017) Aloe-emodin inhibits Staphylococcus aureus biofilms and extracellular protein production at the initial adhesion stage of biofilm development. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 101: 6671-6681. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00253-017-8403-5 ![]() |
[263] |
Jakobsen TH, van Gennip M, Phipps RK, et al. (2012) Ajoene, a sulfur-rich molecule from garlic, inhibits genes controlled by quorum sensing. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 56: 2314-2325. https://doi.org/10.1128/AAC.05919-11 ![]() |
[264] |
Balcázar JL, Vendrell D, de Blas I, et al. (2008) Characterization of probiotic properties of lactic acid bacteria isolated from intestinal microbiota of fish. Aquaculture 278: 188-191. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2008.03.014 ![]() |
[265] |
Didinen BI, Onuk EE, Metin S, et al. (2018) Identification and characterization of lactic acid bacteria isolated from rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss, Walbaum 1792), with inhibitory activity against Vagococcus salmoninarum and Lactococcus garvieae. Aquacult Nutr 24: 400-407. https://doi.org/10.1111/anu.12571 ![]() |
[266] |
Ben Taheur F, Kouidhi B, Fdhila K, et al. (2016) Anti-bacterial and anti-biofilm activity of probiotic bacteria against oral pathogens. Microb Pathog 97: 213-220. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.micpath.2016.06.018 ![]() |
[267] |
Lee DK, Park SY, An HM, et al. (2011) Antimicrobial activity of Bifidobacterium spp. isolated from healthy adult Koreans against cariogenic microflora. Arch Oral Biol 56: 1047-1054. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.archoralbio.2011.03.002 ![]() |
[268] |
Schwendicke F, Horb K, Kneist S, et al. (2014) Effects of heat-inactivated Bifidobacterium BB12 on cariogenicity of Streptococcus mutans in vitro. Arch Oral Biol 59: 1384-1390. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.archoralbio.2014.08.012 ![]() |
[269] |
Suzuki N, Yoneda M, Hatano Y, et al. (2011) Enterococcus faecium WB2000 inhibits biofilm formation by oral cariogenic Streptococci. Int J Dent 2011: 834151. https://doi.org/10.1155/2011/834151 ![]() |
[270] |
Sassone-Corsi M, Raffatellu M (2015) No vacancy: how beneficial microbes cooperate with immunity to provide colonization resistance to pathogens. J immunol 194: 4081-4087. https://doi.org/10.4049/jimmunol.1403169 ![]() |
[271] |
Tuomola EM, Ouwehand AC, Salminen SJ (1999) The effect of probiotic bacteria on the adhesion of pathogens to human intestinal mucus. FEMS Immunol Med Microbiol 26: 137-142. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1574-695X.1999.tb01381.x ![]() |
[272] |
Yan F, Polk DB (2011) Probiotics and immune health. Curr Opin Gastroenterol 27: 496-501. https://doi.org/10.1097/MOG.0b013e32834baa4d ![]() |
[273] |
Hegarty JW, Guinane CM, Ross RP, et al. (2016) Bacteriocin production: a relatively unharnessed probiotic trait?. F1000Res 5: 2587. https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.9615.1 ![]() |
[274] |
Corcoran BM, Stanton C, Fitzgerald GF, et al. (2005) Survival of probiotic lactobacilli in acidic environments is enhanced in the presence of metabolizable sugars. Appl Environ Microbiol 71: 3060-3067. https://doi.org/10.1128/AEM.71.6.3060-3067.2005 ![]() |
[275] |
Vuotto C, Longo F, Donelli G (2014) Probiotics to counteract biofilm-associated infections: promising and conflicting data. Int J Oral Sci 6: 189-194. https://doi.org/10.1038/ijos.2014.52 ![]() |
[276] |
Fang K, Jin X, Hong SH (2018) Probiotic Escherichia coli inhibits biofilm formation of pathogenic E. coli via extracellular activity of DegP. Sci Rep 8: 4939. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-23180-1 ![]() |
[277] |
Jaffar N, Ishikawa Y, Mizuno K, et al. (2016) Mature biofilm degradation by potential probiotics: Aggregatibacter actinomycetemcomitans versus LactoBacillus spp. PLoS One 11: e0159466. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0159466 ![]() |
[278] |
Mathur H, Field D, Rea MC, et al. (2018) Fighting biofilms with lantibiotics and other groups of bacteriocins. npj Biofilms Microbiomes 4: 9. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41522-018-0053-6 ![]() |
[279] |
Hertzberger R, Arents J, Dekker Henk L, et al. (2014) H2O2 production in species of the LactoBacillus acidophilus group: a central role for a novel NADH-Dependent flavin reductase. Appl Environ Microbiol 80: 2229-2239. https://doi.org/10.1128/AEM.04272-13 ![]() |
[280] |
Salas-Jara MJ, Ilabaca A, Vega M, et al. (2016) Biofilm forming LactoBacillus: New challenges for the development of probiotics. Microorganisms 4: 35. https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms4030035 ![]() |
[281] |
Jones SE, Versalovic J (2009) Probiotic LactoBacillus reuteribiofilms produce antimicrobial and anti-inflammatory factors. BMC Microbiol 9: 35. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2180-9-35 ![]() |
[282] |
Barzegari A, Kheyrolahzadeh K, Hosseiniyan Khatibi SM, et al. (2020) The battle of probiotics and their derivatives against biofilms. Infect Drug Resist 13: 659-672. https://doi.org/10.2147/IDR.S232982 ![]() |
[283] |
Miquel S, Lagrafeuille R, Souweine B, et al. (2016) Anti-biofilm activity as a health issue. Front Microbiol 7: 592-592. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2016.00592 ![]() |
[284] |
Tan L, Fu J, Feng F, et al. (2020) Engineered probiotics biofilm enhances osseointegration via immunoregulation and anti-infection. Sci Adv 6: eaba5723. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aba5723 ![]() |
[285] |
Carvalho FM, Teixeira-Santos R, Mergulhão FJM, et al. (2020) The use of probiotics to fight biofilms in medical devices: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Microorganisms 9. https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms9010027 ![]() |
[286] |
Gholizadeh P, Aghazadeh M, Asgharzadeh M, et al. (2017) Suppressing the CRISPR/Cas adaptive immune system in bacterial infections. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis 36: 2043-2051. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10096-017-3036-2 ![]() |
[287] |
Yao R, Liu D, Jia X, et al. (2018) CRISPR-Cas9/Cas12a biotechnology and application in bacteria. Synth Syst Biotechnol 3: 135-149. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.synbio.2018.09.004 ![]() |
[288] |
Jiang W, Bikard D, Cox D, et al. (2013) RNA-guided editing of bacterial genomes using CRISPR-Cas systems. Nat Biotechnol 31: 233-239. https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt.2508 ![]() |
[289] |
Goren M, Yosef I, Qimron U (2017) Sensitizing pathogens to antibiotics using the CRISPR-Cas system. Drug Resist Updat 30: 1-6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drup.2016.11.001 ![]() |
[290] |
Touchon M, Charpentier S, Pognard D, et al. (2012) Antibiotic resistance plasmids spread among natural isolates of Escherichia coli in spite of CRISPR elements. Microbiology (Reading) 158: 2997-3004. https://doi.org/10.1099/mic.0.060814-0 ![]() |
[291] |
Hale CR, Majumdar S, Elmore J, et al. (2012) Essential features and rational design of CRISPR RNAs that function with the Cas RAMP module complex to cleave RNAs. Mol Cell 45: 292-302. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.molcel.2011.10.023 ![]() |
[292] |
Bikard D, Euler CW, Jiang W, et al. (2014) Exploiting CRISPR-Cas nucleases to produce sequence-specific antimicrobials. Nat Biotechnol 32: 1146-1150. https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt.3043 ![]() |
[293] |
Vercoe RB, Chang JT, Dy RL, et al. (2013) Cytotoxic chromosomal targeting by CRISPR/Cas systems can reshape bacterial genomes and expel or remodel pathogenicity islands. PLoS Genet 9: e1003454. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgen.1003454 ![]() |
[294] |
Gholizadeh P, Köse Ş, Dao S, et al. (2020) How CRISPR-Cas system could be used to combat antimicrobial resistance. Infect Drug Resist 13: 1111-1121. https://doi.org/10.2147/IDR.S247271 ![]() |
[295] |
Zuberi A, Misba L, Khan AU (2017) CRISPR interference (CRISPRi) inhibition of luxS gene expression in E. coli: An approach to inhibit biofilm. Front Cell Infect Microbiol 7. https://doi.org/10.3389/fcimb.2017.00214 ![]() |
[296] |
Gong T, Tang B, Zhou X, et al. (2018) Genome editing in Streptococcus mutans through self-targeting CRISPR arrays. Mol Oral Microbiol 33: 440-449. https://doi.org/10.1111/omi.12247 ![]() |
[297] |
Garrido V, Piñero-Lambea C, Rodriguez-Arce I, et al. (2021) Engineering a genome-reduced bacterium to eliminate Staphylococcus aureus biofilms in vivo. Mol Syst Biol 17: e10145. https://doi.org/10.15252/msb.202010145 ![]() |
1. | Ting Li, Zhenlong Wang, Jianhua Guo, Cesar de la Fuente-Nunez, Jinquan Wang, Bing Han, Hui Tao, Jie Liu, Xiumin Wang, Bacterial resistance to antibacterial agents: Mechanisms, control strategies, and implications for global health, 2023, 860, 00489697, 160461, 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.160461 | |
2. | Tamar Barak, Eden Sharon, Doron Steinberg, Mark Feldman, Ronit Vogt Sionov, Miriam Shalish, Anti-Bacterial Effect of Cannabidiol against the Cariogenic Streptococcus mutans Bacterium: An In Vitro Study, 2022, 23, 1422-0067, 15878, 10.3390/ijms232415878 | |
3. | Francesca Algieri, Nina Tanaskovic, Cindy Cardenas Rincon, Elisabetta Notario, Daniele Braga, Graziano Pesole, Roberto Rusconi, Giuseppe Penna, Maria Rescigno, Lactobacillus paracasei CNCM I-5220-derived postbiotic protects from the leaky-gut, 2023, 14, 1664-302X, 10.3389/fmicb.2023.1157164 | |
4. | Li Zeng, Fei Lin, Baodong Ling, Effect of traditional Chinese medicine monomers interfering with quorum-sensing on virulence factors of extensively drug-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii, 2023, 14, 1663-9812, 10.3389/fphar.2023.1135180 | |
5. | Rumena Stancheva, Tsvetelina Paunova-Krasteva, Tanya Topouzova-Hristova, Stoyanka Stoitsova, Petar Petrov, Emi Haladjova, Ciprofloxacin-Loaded Mixed Polymeric Micelles as Antibiofilm Agents, 2023, 15, 1999-4923, 1147, 10.3390/pharmaceutics15041147 | |
6. | Hanan M. Abbas, Radhouane Gdoura, Mohammed F. Al-Marjani, Unveiling the High Prevalence of Antibiotic Resistance and Quorum Sensing Genes in Uropathogenic Escherichia coli, 2024, 35, 2521-3520, 38, 10.23851/mjs.v35i1.1429 | |
7. | Satish Sharma, James Mohler, Supriya D. Mahajan, Stanley A. Schwartz, Liana Bruggemann, Ravikumar Aalinkeel, Microbial Biofilm: A Review on Formation, Infection, Antibiotic Resistance, Control Measures, and Innovative Treatment, 2023, 11, 2076-2607, 1614, 10.3390/microorganisms11061614 | |
8. | Yasser Fakri Mustafa, Modern Developments in the Application and Function of Metal/Metal Oxide Nanocomposite–Based Antibacterial Agents, 2023, 13, 2191-1630, 840, 10.1007/s12668-023-01100-6 | |
9. | Renganathan Senthil, Govindaraju Archunan, Dharmaraj Vithya, Konda Mani Saravanan, Hexadecanoic acid analogs as potential CviR-mediated quorum sensing inhibitors in Chromobacterium violaceum : an in silico study , 2024, 0739-1102, 1, 10.1080/07391102.2023.2299945 | |
10. | Vincenzo Zammuto, Antonio Spanò, Eleonora Agostino, Angela Macrì, Claudia De Pasquale, Guido Ferlazzo, Maria Giovanna Rizzo, Marco Sebastiano Nicolò, Salvatore Guglielmino, Concetta Gugliandolo, Anti-Bacterial Adhesion on Abiotic and Biotic Surfaces of the Exopolysaccharide from the Marine Bacillus licheniformis B3-15, 2023, 21, 1660-3397, 313, 10.3390/md21050313 | |
11. | Noha K. El Dougdoug, Mohamed S. Attia, Mohamed N. Malash, Mostafa A. Abdel-Maksoud, Abdul Malik, Bushra H. Kiani, Abeer A. Fesal, Samar H. Rizk, Gharieb S. El-Sayyad, Nashwa Harb, Aspergillus fumigatus-induced biogenic silver nanoparticles' efficacy as antimicrobial and antibiofilm agents with potential anticancer activity: An in vitro investigation, 2024, 08824010, 106950, 10.1016/j.micpath.2024.106950 | |
12. | Mohammed Hamouda, Sina Zarrintan, Nishita Vootukuru, Sneha Thandra, Jon G. Quatromoni, Mahmoud B. Malas, Ann C. Gaffey, Outcomes of Prosthetic and Biological Grafts Compared to Arm Vein Grafts in Patients with Chronic Limb Threatening Ischemia, 2024, 07415214, 10.1016/j.jvs.2024.10.069 | |
13. | Arul Dhayalan, Awadhesh Prajapati, Revanaiah Yogisharadhya, Mohammed Mudassar Chanda, Sathish Bhadravati Shivachandra, Anti-quorum sensing and anti-biofilm activities of Pasteurella multocida strains, 2024, 197, 08824010, 107085, 10.1016/j.micpath.2024.107085 | |
14. | Ayşegül Akkoyunlu, Gorkem Dulger, Antimicrobial, Anti-quorum sensing and Antibiofilm Potentials of Lamium galeobdolon (L.) L. and Lamium purpureum L. Ethanolic Extracts, 2024, 7, 2667-4734, 1, 10.35206/jan.1457624 | |
15. | El-Hadj Driche, Boubekeur Badji, Christian Bijani, Saïd Belghit, Frédéric Pont, Florence Mathieu, Abdelghani Zitouni, Antibacterial and antibiofilm properties of two cyclic dipeptides produced by a new desert Streptomyces sp. HG-17 strain against multidrug-resistant pathogenic bacteria, 2024, 1618-1905, 10.1007/s10123-024-00533-7 | |
16. | Ruibang Wu, Zheng Liu, Yong Huang, Leizhen Huang, Juehan Wang, Hong Ding, Zhe Wang, Qiujiang Li, Ce Zhu, Limin Liu, Li Zhang, Ganjun Feng, Hollow Cobalt Sulfide Nanospheres with Highly Enzyme-like Antibacterial Activities to Accelerate Infected Wound Healing, 2023, 34, 1043-1802, 1902, 10.1021/acs.bioconjchem.3c00403 | |
17. | Rita Toshe, Esteban Charria-Girón, Artit Khonsanit, Janet Jennifer Luangsa-ard, Syeda Javariya Khalid, Hedda Schrey, Sherif S. Ebada, Marc Stadler, Bioprospection of Tenellins Produced by the Entomopathogenic Fungus Beauveria neobassiana, 2024, 10, 2309-608X, 69, 10.3390/jof10010069 | |
18. | Tarcílio Lima de Sousa, Douglas Dourado, Júlia Soares Rodrigues, Juliana de Souza Rebouças, Marcos Antônio Japiassú Resende Montes, Fabio Rocha Formiga, Treatment of periodontal disease: does drug delivery matter?, 2024, 12, 2296-4185, 10.3389/fbioe.2024.1427758 | |
19. | L. V. Muzychka, N. I. Humeniuk, I. O. Boiko, N. O. Vrynchanu, O. B. Smolii, Synthesis and antibiofilm activity of novel 1,4-dihydropyrido[1,2-a]pyrrolo[2,3-d]pyrimidine-2-carboxamides, 2024, 40, 02337657, 68, 10.7124/bc.000AAB | |
20. | Neelam Amit Kungwani, Jibanjyoti Panda, Awdhesh Kumar Mishra, Nilam Chavda, Sudhir Shukla, Kalyani Vikhe, Gunjan Sharma, Yugal Kishore Mohanta, Majid Sharifi-Rad, Combating bacterial biofilms and related drug resistance: Role of phyto-derived adjuvant and nanomaterials, 2024, 195, 08824010, 106874, 10.1016/j.micpath.2024.106874 | |
21. | Vaijayanthi Saravanan, Vinoj Gopalakrishnan, Maria Infant Majula Shifani Mahendran, Rajan Vaithianathan, Sowmya Srinivasan, Vinoth Boopathy, SriKrishna Krishnamurthy, Biofilm mediated integrin activation and directing acceleration of colorectal cancer, 2024, 132, 0903-4641, 688, 10.1111/apm.13466 | |
22. | Rubia Noori, Nagmi Bano, Shaban Ahmad, Kainat Mirza, Jahirul Ahmed Mazumder, Mohammad Perwez, Khalid Raza, Nikhat Manzoor, Meryam Sardar, Microbial Biofilm Inhibition Using Magnetic Cross-Linked Polyphenol Oxidase Aggregates, 2024, 7, 2576-6422, 3164, 10.1021/acsabm.4c00175 | |
23. | Gharieb S. El-Sayyad, Ahmed M. El-Khawaga, Huda R. M. Rashdan, Gamma-irradiated copper-based metal organic framework nanocomposites for photocatalytic degradation of water pollutants and disinfection of some pathogenic bacteria and fungi, 2024, 24, 1471-2180, 10.1186/s12866-024-03587-9 | |
24. | Akshaya Rani Augustus, Sudipta Jana, Malik Basha Samsudeen, Hari Prasath Nagaiah, Karutha Pandian Shunmugiah, In vitro and in vivo evaluation of the anti-infective potential of the essential oil extracted from the leaves of Plectranthus amboinicus (lour.) spreng against Klebsiella pneumoniae and elucidation of its mechanism of action through proteomics approach, 2024, 330, 03788741, 118202, 10.1016/j.jep.2024.118202 | |
25. | Finn McMahon, Robert S. Ware, Keith Grimwood, John M. Atack, Haemophilus influenzae and pneumococci: Co‐colonization, interactions, cooperation and competition, 2024, 8755-6863, 10.1002/ppul.27318 | |
26. | Kunle Okaiyeto, Maria Rosa Gigliobianco, Piera Di Martino, Biogenic Zinc Oxide Nanoparticles as a Promising Antibacterial Agent: Synthesis and Characterization, 2024, 25, 1422-0067, 9500, 10.3390/ijms25179500 | |
27. | Ayushi Ghosh Moulic, Prasad Deshmukh, Sagar S Gaurkar , A Comprehensive Review on Biofilms in Otorhinolaryngology: Understanding the Pathogenesis, Diagnosis, and Treatment Strategies, 2024, 2168-8184, 10.7759/cureus.57634 | |
28. | Sagar Gautam, Nirmala Subedi, Kabita Dhakal, Pankaj Koirala, Dev Raj Acharya, Om Prakash Malav, Fahad Al‐Asmari, Soottawat Benjakul, Nilesh Nirmal, Bacterial biofilm formation in seafood: Mechanisms and inhibition through novel non‐thermal techniques, 2024, 16, 1753-5123, 1840, 10.1111/raq.12925 | |
29. | Francesco Petrillo, Marica Sinoca, Antonio Maria Fea, Marilena Galdiero, Angela Maione, Emilia Galdiero, Marco Guida, Michele Reibaldi, Candida Biofilm Eye Infection: Main Aspects and Advance in Novel Agents as Potential Source of Treatment, 2023, 12, 2079-6382, 1277, 10.3390/antibiotics12081277 | |
30. | Yasser Fakri Mustafa, Coumarins from carcinogenic phenol: synthesis, characterization, in silico, biosafety, anticancer, antioxidant, and anti-inflammatory assessments, 2024, 78, 0366-6352, 493, 10.1007/s11696-023-03105-7 | |
31. | Widad Bouguenoun, Fethi Benbelaid, Salsabil Mebarki, Imane Bouguenoun, Sara Boulmaiz, Abdelmonaim Khadir, Mohammed Yassine Benziane, Mourad Bendahou, Alain Muselli, Selected antimicrobial essential oils to eradicate multi-drug resistant bacterial biofilms involved in human nosocomial infections, 2023, 39, 0892-7014, 816, 10.1080/08927014.2023.2269551 | |
32. | Agatha Ngukuran Jikah, Great Iruoghene Edo, Raghda S. Makia, Emad Yousif, Tayser Sumer Gaaz, Endurance Fegor Isoje, Rapheal Ajiri Opiti, Patrick Othuke Akpoghelie, Ufuoma Augustina Igbuku, Joseph Oghenewogaga Owheruo, Ufuoma Ugbune, Arthur Efeoghene Athan Essaghah, Huzaifa Umar, A review of the therapeutic potential of sulfur compounds in Allium sativum, 2024, 15, 27722759, 100195, 10.1016/j.meafoo.2024.100195 | |
33. | M.M. Lebeloane, I.M. Famuyide, J.P. Dzoyem, R.O. Adeyemo, F.N. Makhubu, E.E. Elgorashi, K.G. Kgosana, L.J. McGaw, Influence of selected plant extracts on bacterial motility, aggregation, hydrophobicity, exopolysaccharide production and quorum sensing during biofilm formation of enterohaemorrhagic Escherichia coli O157:H7, 2024, 167, 02546299, 197, 10.1016/j.sajb.2024.02.022 | |
34. | Reem Mahdi Saleh, Omar Mohammed Hassan, Antibacterial, Antibiofilm, and Quorum Quenching Properties of Biogenic Chitosan Silver Nanoparticles Against Staphylococcus aureus, 2024, 14, 2191-1630, 4456, 10.1007/s12668-024-01573-z | |
35. | Balbina J. Plotkin, Scott Halkyard, Emily Spoolstra, Amanda Micklo, Amber Kaminski, Ira M. Sigar, Monika I. Konaklieva, The Role of the Insulin/Glucose Ratio in the Regulation of Pathogen Biofilm Formation, 2023, 12, 2079-7737, 1432, 10.3390/biology12111432 | |
36. | Nameer Mazin Zeki, Yasser Fakri Mustafa, Synthesis and evaluation of novel ring-conjugated coumarins as biosafe broad-spectrum antimicrobial candidates, 2024, 1309, 00222860, 138192, 10.1016/j.molstruc.2024.138192 | |
37. | Atefeh Zarepour, Meenakshi R. Venkateswaran, Arezoo Khosravi, Siavash Iravani, Ali Zarrabi, Bioinspired Nanomaterials to Combat Microbial Biofilm and Pathogen Challenges: A Review, 2024, 2574-0970, 10.1021/acsanm.4c04806 | |
38. | Radwa N. Morgan, Amer Al Ali, Mohammad Y. Alshahrani, Khaled M. Aboshanab, New Insights on Biological Activities, Chemical Compositions, and Classifications of Marine Actinomycetes Antifouling Agents, 2023, 11, 2076-2607, 2444, 10.3390/microorganisms11102444 | |
39. | D. Allen-Taylor, G. Boro, P.M. Cabato, C. Mai, K. Nguyen, G. Rijal, Staphylococcus epidermidis biofilm in inflammatory breast cancer and its treatment strategies, 2024, 8, 25902075, 100220, 10.1016/j.bioflm.2024.100220 | |
40. | Neda Pirbonyeh, Amir Emami, Fatemeh Javanmardi, 2024, 0, 2631-6188, 10.5772/intechopen.114396 | |
41. | Linnea Samsø Bavnhøj, Beritt Bach Pedersen, Henriette Jensen, Lone Jørgensen, Niels Henrik Bruun, Lotte Sander, The effect of preoperative oral hygiene on postoperative infections after cystectomy and urethroplasty—A quasi‐experimental study, 2024, 18, 1749-7701, 10.1111/ijun.12392 | |
42. | Gaurisha alias Resha Ramnath Naik, Amrita Arup Roy, Srinivas Mutalik, Namdev Dhas, Unleashing the power of polymeric nanoparticles — Creative triumph against antibiotic resistance: A review, 2024, 278, 01418130, 134977, 10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2024.134977 | |
43. | Abeni Beshiru, Isoken H. Igbinosa, Olajide Akinnibosun, Abraham G. Ogofure, Afamefuna Dunkwu-Okafor, Kate E. Uwhuba, Etinosa O. Igbinosa, Characterization of resistance and virulence factors in livestock-associated methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, 2024, 14, 2045-2322, 10.1038/s41598-024-63963-3 | |
44. | Fatini Mat Arisah, Norhayati Ramli, Hidayah Ariffin, Toshinari Maeda, Mohammed Abdillah Ahmad Farid, Mohd Zulkhairi Mohd Yusoff, Pseudomonas aeruginosa -mediated cr(VI) bioremediation: mechanistic insights and future directions , 2024, 1088-9868, 1, 10.1080/10889868.2024.2420071 | |
45. | Oyibo Joel Enupe, Christiana Micah Umar, Manbyen Philip, Emmanuel Musa, Victor Baba Oti, Asif Khaliq, Evaluation of the Antibacterial and Antibiofilm Activity of Erythrina senegalensis Leaf Extract Against Multidrug-Resistant Bacteria, 2024, 69, 2813-9054, 258, 10.3390/amh69040024 | |
46. | Geum-Jae Jeong, Muzamil Ahmad Rather, Fazlurrahman Khan, Nazia Tabassum, Manabendra Mandal, Young-Mog Kim, pH-responsive polymeric nanomaterials for the treatment of oral biofilm infections, 2024, 234, 09277765, 113727, 10.1016/j.colsurfb.2023.113727 | |
47. | Zahraddeen Kabir Sani, Fatma Azgin, Esra Sunduz Yigittekin, Sadik Dincer, Thriving against the odds: Exploring halotolerant rhizobacteria in the saline rhizosphere of Tuzla lagoon's halophytes, 2024, 2, 29501946, 100036, 10.1016/j.microb.2024.100036 | |
48. | Amira I. Abousaty, Fifi M. Reda, Wessam A. Hassanin, Walaa M. Felifel, Walaa H. El-Shwiniy, Heba M. R. M. Selim, Mahmoud M. Bendary, Sorbate metal complexes as newer antibacterial, antibiofilm, and anticancer compounds, 2024, 24, 1471-2180, 10.1186/s12866-024-03370-w | |
49. | M. Abd Elkodous, Sobhy S. Abdel-Fatah, Gharieb S. El-Sayyad, Gamma-Rays Empowered the Antimicrobial Potential of TiO2/Fe3O4/MIL-101(Cr) Nanocomposite against Drug-Resistant Bacteria and Pathogenic Fungi, 2024, 1574-1443, 10.1007/s10904-024-03076-6 | |
50. | Nikhila S. Jayawardena, Orli Wargon, Artiene H. Tatian, Review: the spectrum of antimicrobial resistance in bacteria isolated from wounds of patients with epidermolysis bullosa, 2024, 35, 0954-6634, 10.1080/09546634.2024.2370424 | |
51. | Abdalrahman Khalifa, Manal M. Anwar, Walaa A. Alshareef, Eman A. El-Gebaly, Samia A. Elseginy, Sameh H. Abdelwahed, Design, Synthesis, and Antimicrobial Evaluation of New Thiopyrimidine–Benzenesulfonamide Compounds, 2024, 29, 1420-3049, 4778, 10.3390/molecules29194778 | |
52. | Devaraj Bharathi, Jin-Hyung Lee, Jintae Lee, Enhancement of antimicrobial and antibiofilm activities of liposomal fatty acids, 2024, 234, 09277765, 113698, 10.1016/j.colsurfb.2023.113698 | |
53. | Guofang Yu, Huimin Xi, Tianle Sheng, Jin Lin, Zhaoxia Luo, Jianqing Xu, Sub-inhibitory concentrations of tetrabromobisphenol A induce the biofilm formation of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, 2024, 206, 0302-8933, 10.1007/s00203-024-04022-3 | |
54. | Pooja Pandey, Lawanya Rao, Bipin R. Shekhar, Dhanjit K. Das, Sirisha L. Vavilala, Molecular insights into flavone-mediated quorum sensing interference: A novel strategy against Serratia marcescens biofilm-induced antibiotic resistance", 2024, 396, 00092797, 111027, 10.1016/j.cbi.2024.111027 | |
55. | Furkan Eker, Hatice Duman, Emir Akdaşçi, Anna Maria Witkowska, Mikhael Bechelany, Sercan Karav, Silver Nanoparticles in Therapeutics and Beyond: A Review of Mechanism Insights and Applications, 2024, 14, 2079-4991, 1618, 10.3390/nano14201618 | |
56. | Edyta Juszczuk-Kubiak, Molecular Aspects of the Functioning of Pathogenic Bacteria Biofilm Based on Quorum Sensing (QS) Signal-Response System and Innovative Non-Antibiotic Strategies for Their Elimination, 2024, 25, 1422-0067, 2655, 10.3390/ijms25052655 | |
57. | Nameer Mazin Zeki, Yasser Fakri Mustafa, Novel heterocyclic coumarin annulates: synthesis and figuring their roles in biomedicine, bench-to-bedside investigation, 2024, 78, 0366-6352, 4935, 10.1007/s11696-024-03441-2 | |
58. | Akanksha Mishra, Nazia Tabassum, Ashish Aggarwal, Young-Mog Kim, Fazlurrahman Khan, Artificial Intelligence-Driven Analysis of Antimicrobial-Resistant and Biofilm-Forming Pathogens on Biotic and Abiotic Surfaces, 2024, 13, 2079-6382, 788, 10.3390/antibiotics13080788 | |
59. | Jinhui Wang, Linzhu Su, Yuanfeng Li, Yong Liu, Lingping Xie, Nanoscale fluconazole-constructed metal-organic frameworks with smart drug release for eradication of Candida biofilms in vulvovaginitis infection, 2025, 245, 09277765, 114238, 10.1016/j.colsurfb.2024.114238 | |
60. | Kaushik Sahoo, Supriya Meshram, Biofilm Formation in Chronic Infections: A Comprehensive Review of Pathogenesis, Clinical Implications, and Novel Therapeutic Approaches, 2024, 2168-8184, 10.7759/cureus.70629 | |
61. | H. S. Yaseen, Q. N. Thweni, Z. M. Jassim, Features of Proteus mirabilis clinical isolates and genetic relations inside the group , 2024, 15, 2520-2588, 605, 10.15421/022485 | |
62. | Bruno Mendes, Charlotte Edwards-Gayle, Glyn Barrett, Peptide lipidation and shortening optimises antibacterial, antibiofilm and membranolytic actions of an amphiphilic polylysine-polyphenyalanine octapeptide, 2024, 8, 25902628, 100240, 10.1016/j.crbiot.2024.100240 | |
63. | Vincenzo Giordano, Peter V. Giannoudis, Biofilm Formation, Antibiotic Resistance, and Infection (BARI): The Triangle of Death, 2024, 13, 2077-0383, 5779, 10.3390/jcm13195779 | |
64. | Lailema Ahmady, Manisha Gothwal, Muhammed Mushthaque Mukkoli, Vinay Kumar Bari, Antifungal drug resistance in Candida: a special emphasis on amphotericin B, 2024, 132, 0903-4641, 291, 10.1111/apm.13389 | |
65. | Antonella Iaconis, Laura Maria De Plano, Antonella Caccamo, Domenico Franco, Sabrina Conoci, Anti-Biofilm Strategies: A Focused Review on Innovative Approaches, 2024, 12, 2076-2607, 639, 10.3390/microorganisms12040639 | |
66. | Melvin Roberto Tapia-Rodriguez, Ernesto Uriel Cantu-Soto, Francisco Javier Vazquez-Armenta, Ariadna Thalia Bernal-Mercado, Jesus Fernando Ayala-Zavala, Inhibition of Acinetobacter baumannii Biofilm Formation by Terpenes from Oregano (Lippia graveolens) Essential Oil, 2023, 12, 2079-6382, 1539, 10.3390/antibiotics12101539 | |
67. | Irene Berger, Adina Kagan, Rebecca Bock, Zvi G. Loewy, Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: Biofilm Mediated Exacerbation and Innovative Therapeutic Approaches, 2023, 2054-3166, 99, 10.33590/emjrespir/10305099 | |
68. | Suthi Subbarayudu, S. Karthick Raja Namasivayam, Jesu Arockiaraj, Immunomodulation in Non-traditional Therapies for Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) Management, 2024, 81, 0343-8651, 10.1007/s00284-024-03875-7 | |
69. | Subham Chakraborty, Murali Krishna Paidi, Inbakandan Dhinakarasamy, Manikandan Sivakumar, Clarita Clements, Naren Kumar Thirumurugan, Lakshminarayanan Sivakumar, Adaptive mechanism of the marine bacterium Pseudomonas sihuiensis-BFB-6S towards pCO2 variation: Insights into synthesis of extracellular polymeric substances and physiochemical modulation, 2024, 261, 01418130, 129860, 10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2024.129860 | |
70. | Rana Naeem Jibroo, Yasser Fakri Mustafa, Wejdan Al-Shakarchi, Synthesis and evaluation of linearly fused thiadiazolocoumarins as prospects with broad-spectrum bioactivity, 2024, 7, 22117156, 101494, 10.1016/j.rechem.2024.101494 | |
71. | Cindy Jia yung Kho, Melinda Mei Lin Lau, Hung Hui Chung, Koji Fukui, Selection of vaccine candidates against Pseudomonas koreensis using reverse vaccinology and a preliminary efficacy trial in Empurau (Tor tambroides), 2024, 151, 10504648, 109688, 10.1016/j.fsi.2024.109688 | |
72. | Sharad Sawant, Sanjay V Deshpande, Bhushan Patil, Hitendra Wamborikar, Vivek H Jadawala, Anmol Suneja, Sachin Goel, Tranexamic Acid as a Preventive Strategy Against Periprosthetic Joint Infection in Aseptic Revision Arthroplasty: A Comprehensive Review, 2024, 2168-8184, 10.7759/cureus.70796 | |
73. | Dorria H. Mohamed, Haitham Mohammed, Reem H. El-Gebaly, Mohamed Adam, Fadel M. Ali, Pulsed electric field at resonance frequency combat Klebsiella pneumonia biofilms, 2024, 108, 0175-7598, 10.1007/s00253-024-13330-z | |
74. | Giuseppe Mancuso, Marilena Trinchera, Angelina Midiri, Sebastiana Zummo, Giulia Vitale, Carmelo Biondo, Novel Antimicrobial Approaches to Combat Bacterial Biofilms Associated with Urinary Tract Infections, 2024, 13, 2079-6382, 154, 10.3390/antibiotics13020154 | |
75. | Huimin Xi, Zhaoxia Luo, Mei-fang Liu, Qiang Chen, Qing Zhu, Lei yuan, Yi-yun Sheng, Rui Zhao, Diclofenac sodium effectively inhibits the biofilm formation of Staphylococcus epidermidis, 2024, 206, 0302-8933, 10.1007/s00203-024-04020-5 | |
76. | Vincenzo Zammuto, Eleonora Agostino, Angela Macrì, Antonio Spanò, Emanuela Grillo, Marco Sebastiano Nicolò, Concetta Gugliandolo, Synergistic Antibiofilm Effects of Exopolymers Produced by the Marine, Thermotolerant Bacillus licheniformis B3-15 and Their Potential Medical Applications, 2023, 11, 2077-1312, 1660, 10.3390/jmse11091660 | |
77. | Popat Mohite, Shubham Munde, Md. Jamir Uddin, Anil Pawar, Sudarshan Singh, 2024, 978-1-83767-434-3, 336, 10.1039/9781837675555-00336 | |
78. | Nazia Tabassum, Geum-Jae Jeong, Du-Min Jo, Fazlurrahman Khan, Young-Mog Kim, Treatment of Staphylococcus aureus and Candida albicans polymicrobial biofilms by phloroglucinol-gold nanoparticles, 2023, 185, 08824010, 106416, 10.1016/j.micpath.2023.106416 | |
79. | Shu Liang, Lingyun Xiao, Yixuan Fang, Tian Chen, Yuan Xie, Zhangwen Peng, Meiying Wu, Yang Liu, Julin Xie, Yichu Nie, Xizhe Zhao, Yang Deng, Chao Zhao, Yang Mai, A nanocomposite hydrogel for co-delivery of multiple anti-biofilm therapeutics to enhance the treatment of bacterial biofilm-related infections, 2024, 649, 03785173, 123638, 10.1016/j.ijpharm.2023.123638 | |
80. | Mildred Azucena Rivera-Galindo, Félix Aguirre-Garrido, Ulises Garza-Ramos, José Geiser Villavicencio-Pulido, Francisco José Fernández Perrino, Marcos López-Pérez, Relevance of the Adjuvant Effect between Cellular Homeostasis and Resistance to Antibiotics in Gram-Negative Bacteria with Pathogenic Capacity: A Study of Klebsiella pneumoniae, 2024, 13, 2079-6382, 490, 10.3390/antibiotics13060490 | |
81. | Aayushi Laliwala, Ritika Gupta, Denis Svechkarev, Kenneth W. Bayles, Marat R. Sadykov, Aaron M. Mohs, Machine learning assisted identification of antibiotic-resistant Staphylococcus aureus strains using a paper-based ratiometric sensor array, 2024, 206, 0026265X, 111395, 10.1016/j.microc.2024.111395 | |
82. | Enas M. Ali, Peramaiyan Rajendran, Basem M. Abdallah, Mycosynthesis of silver nanoparticles from endophytic Aspergillus parasiticus and their antibacterial activity against methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in vitro and in vivo, 2024, 15, 1664-302X, 10.3389/fmicb.2024.1483637 | |
83. | Gharieb S. El-Sayyad, The need for smart bimetallic nanoparticles in the battle against pathogenic multi-drug resistant bacteria: a brief communication, 2024, 1, 3004-9768, 10.1007/s44351-024-00002-6 | |
84. | Mba Ifeanyi Elibe, Nweze Emeka Innocent, 2024, Chapter 9, 978-981-97-4908-9, 239, 10.1007/978-981-97-4909-6_9 | |
85. | Nawal M. Al Musayeib, Musarat Amina, Hanan M. Al-Yousef, Mohsin ul Haq, Sooad Al-Daihan, Ramesa Shafi Bhat, Rhus microphylla-mediated biosynthesis of copper oxide nanoparticles for enhanced antibacterial and antibiofilm efficacy, 2024, 13, 2191-9550, 10.1515/gps-2024-0102 | |
86. | Abdulaziz Al-Anazi, Ahmed M. El-Khawaga, Changseok Han, Gharieb S. El-Sayyad, Development of g-C3N4 Coated Eggshell Waste-Derived Ca(OH)2 Nanoparticles as a Photocatalyst for the Degradation of Eriochrome Cyanin R with Promising Antibacterial Activity, 2024, 1574-1443, 10.1007/s10904-024-03493-7 | |
87. | Ahmad Almatroudi, Investigating Biofilms: Advanced Methods for Comprehending Microbial Behavior and Antibiotic Resistance, 2024, 29, 2768-6701, 10.31083/j.fbl2904133 | |
88. | Ahmed A. Abdelaziz, Amal M. Abo-Kamar, Alaa E. Ashour, Moataz A. Shaldam, Engy Elekhnawy, Unveiling the antibacterial action of ambroxol against Staphylococcus aureus bacteria: in vitro, in vivo, and in silico investigation, 2024, 24, 1471-2180, 10.1186/s12866-024-03666-x | |
89. | Humaira Parveen, Sayeed Mukhtar, Mona O. Albalawi, Syed Khasim, Aijaz Ahmad, Mohmmad Younus Wani, Concomitant Inhibition and Collaring of Dual-Species Biofilms Formed by Candida auris and Staphylococcus aureus by Triazole Based Small Molecule Inhibitors, 2024, 16, 1999-4923, 1570, 10.3390/pharmaceutics16121570 | |
90. | Olajide J. Akinjogunla, A. Y. Itah, GC-MS PROFILING AND In vitro ANTIBACTERIAL EFFICACY OF AQUEOUS LEAF EXTRACTS OF Ocimum gratissimum Linn. AND Vernonia amygdalina Del, 2024, 8, 2616-1370, 346, 10.33003/fjs-2024-0806-2995 | |
91. | Qianwen Zhang, Qida Zong, Xinke Feng, Min Luo, Wei Sun, Yinglei Zhai, Antibacterial and antifouling materials for urinary catheter coatings, 2024, 17427061, 10.1016/j.actbio.2024.12.040 | |
92. | Firoz Ahmad Ansari, Fohad Mabood Husain, John Pichtel, Ram Pratap Meena, Mohd Hashim Khan, Asma Sattar Khan, Naushad Alam, Withania somnifera (L.) Dunal: A medicinally important plant inhibits pathogenic biofilms, 2024, 29501946, 100227, 10.1016/j.microb.2024.100227 | |
93. | Caroline Bachlechner, Leonarda Vukonić, Elena Zand, Theresa Kauer, Rosa Maria Nothnagel, Tímea Váradi, Manel Rodríguez Ripoll, Philipp L. Fuhrmann, Henry Jäger, Rheological and tribological characterisation of Microbacterium lacticum biofilms and imitations to tailor rapid cleaning control systems in the food industry, 2025, 5, 27725022, 100652, 10.1016/j.afres.2024.100652 | |
94. | Samane Teymouri, Mohammad Hasan Yousefi, SeyedeMozhgan Heidari, Simin Farokhi, Hamed Afkhami, Mojtaba Kashfi, Beyond antibiotics: mesenchymal stem cells and bacteriophages-new approaches to combat bacterial resistance in wound infections, 2025, 52, 0301-4851, 10.1007/s11033-024-10163-x | |
95. | Olga I. Guliy, Stella S. Evstigneeva, Bacterial Communities and Their Role in Bacterial Infections, 2024, 16, 1945-0494, 10.31083/j.fbe1604036 | |
96. | Kateřina Štěpánková, Markéta Müllerová, Štěpán Žídek, Hana Pištěková, Pavel Urbánek, Pavel Sťahel, David Trunec, Anton Popelka, Nithusha Kallingal, Miran Mozetič, Marian Lehocky, Plasma Polymerization of Pentane and Hexane for Antibacterial and Biocompatible Thin Films, 2024, 1612-8850, 10.1002/ppap.202400266 | |
97. | Haojie Ge, Min Wang, Xiaolong Wei, Xu‐Lin Chen, Xianwen Wang, Copper‐Based Nanozymes: Potential Therapies for Infectious Wounds, 2025, 1613-6810, 10.1002/smll.202407195 | |
98. | Shifa Firdous, Aminur Rahman Sarkar, Rakshit Manhas, Rubina Chowdhary, Arti Rathore, Jyoti Kumari, Rajkishor Rai, Avisek Mahapa, Synthesis, Characterization, and Antimicrobial Activity of Urea-Containing α/β Hybrid Peptides against Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus, 2025, 2470-1343, 10.1021/acsomega.4c08680 | |
99. | Marwa S. Ahmed, Nehia N. Hussein, Ghassan M. Sulaiman, Riaz A. Khan, Hamdoon A. Mohammed, Piperacillin-loaded amine functionalized mesoporous silica nanoparticles: A new frontier in combating multidrug-resistant pathogenic bacteria through value-added piperacillin antibiotic, 2025, 105, 17732247, 106580, 10.1016/j.jddst.2024.106580 | |
100. | Leandro de Oliveira Amaral, Luan Ribeiro Santiago, Wesley Vieira Ferreira, José Domingos Santos da Silva, Adailton J. Bortoluzzi, Maiara Bernardes Marques, Moan Jéfter Fernandes Costa, Pedro Henrique Sette-de-Souza, Sérgio Macedo Soares, Novel palladium(II) complexes with Schiff bases derived from 4,5-methylenedioxy-2-nitrobenzaldehyde and 5-Bromo-2-hydroxybenzaldehyde as potential antimicrobial agents: Synthesis, characterization and studies in vitro, 2025, 1328, 00222860, 141403, 10.1016/j.molstruc.2025.141403 | |
101. | Lumin Yu, Hui Wang, Xinglin Zhang, Ting Xue, Two-component system UhpAB facilitates the pathogenicity of avian pathogenic Escherichia coli through biofilm formation and stress responses , 2025, 0307-9457, 1, 10.1080/03079457.2024.2442704 | |
102. | Carolina Sabença, Rani de la Rivière, Paulo Barros, João Alexandre Cabral, Roberto Sargo, Luís Sousa, Maria de Lurdes Enes Dapkevicius, Filipe Silva, Filipa Lopes, Ana Carolina Abrantes, Madalena Vieira-Pinto, Manuela Caniça, Gilberto Igrejas, Carmen Torres, Patrícia Poeta, Assessment of Antibiotic Resistance Among Isolates of Klebsiella spp. and Raoultella spp. in Wildlife and Their Environment from Portugal: A Positive Epidemiologic Outcome, 2025, 14, 2076-0817, 99, 10.3390/pathogens14010099 | |
103. | Bao Chi Wong, Hock Siew Tan, Shigella sonnei and Shigella flexneri infection in Caenorhabditis elegans led to species-specific regulatory responses in the host and pathogen, 2025, 11, 2057-5858, 10.1099/mgen.0.001339 | |
104. | Md. Mominul Islam, Md. Imran Hossain, Md. Sadequl Islam, Md. Golam Azam, Sajeda Sultana, Prevalence, Antibiotic Resistance Patterns, and Virulence Factors of Staphylococcus aureus Isolates Associated with Bovine Mastitis in Northern Bangladesh, 2025, 24058440, e42107, 10.1016/j.heliyon.2025.e42107 | |
105. | Lucas Bidinotto, Marcia Guimarães Da Silva, Maria Eduarda Pierre, Camila Moreira Gomes, Luciana Souza Jorge, Relato de caso de endocardite por Priestia megaterium, 2024, 7, 2596-3031, 19, 10.59255/mmed.2024.93 | |
106. | Chayapol Pontanayodsakorn, Chatchakorn Eurtivong, Pimsumon Jiamboonsri, Antibacterial and antibiofilm activities of kaffir lime essential oils and their active constituents against Staphylococcus aureus focusing on sortase A, 2025, 11, 24058440, e41977, 10.1016/j.heliyon.2025.e41977 | |
107. | Md. Ashek Ullah, Md. Saiful Islam, Md. Liton Rana, Jayedul Hassan, Md. Tanvir Rahman, Genomic Insights Into a Strong Biofilm‐Forming Enterococcus faecalis MTR_EFS01 Strain Isolated From a Shrimp in Bangladesh, 2025, 2835-5075, 10.1002/aro2.101 | |
108. | Ao Yang, Yalin Bai, Yuntao Zhang, Runsha Xiao, Hanli Zhang, Fei Chen, Wenbin Zeng, Detection and Treatment with Peptide Power: A New Weapon Against Bacterial Biofilms, 2025, 2373-9878, 10.1021/acsbiomaterials.4c02199 | |
109. | Hazrat Bilal, Cai-Xiang Zhang, Muhammad Iqbal Choudhary, Sukanya Del-adisai, Yanghan Liu, Zhen-Feng Chen, Copper(II) carboxylate complexes inhibit Staphylococcus aureus biofilm formation by targeting extracellular proteins, 2025, 01620134, 112835, 10.1016/j.jinorgbio.2025.112835 | |
110. | Prabhu Manickam Natarajan, Computational Studies on Recent Congeners of Fluoroquinolones and Nitroimidazoles for Their Use in Periodontal Therapy, 2024, 16, 0976-4879, S4731, 10.4103/jpbs.jpbs_1235_24 | |
111. | Jinwoo Na, Hwan D. Kim, Electrical stimulation of bone regeneration in infected defects: biomaterial approaches, 2025, 1598-5032, 10.1007/s13233-025-00382-x | |
112. | Deepak Chandra Joshi, Sonima Prasad, Anuraag Sharma, Nirmal Joshi, 2025, Chapter 3, 978-3-031-82578-1, 43, 10.1007/978-3-031-82579-8_3 | |
113. | Nada Tawfig Hashim, Rasha Babiker, Nallan C. S. K. Chaitanya, Riham Mohammed, Sivan Padma Priya, Vivek Padmanabhan, Ayman Ahmed, Shahista Parveen Dasnadi, Md Sofiqul Islam, Bakri Gobara Gismalla, Muhammed Mustahsen Rahman, New Insights in Natural Bioactive Compounds for Periodontal Disease: Advanced Molecular Mechanisms and Therapeutic Potential, 2025, 30, 1420-3049, 807, 10.3390/molecules30040807 | |
114. | Kamala Kannan, Sivaperumal Pitchiah, BIOPROSPECTING ANTARCTIC ACTINOBACTERIA:DISCOVERY OF FUNCTIONAL CRYOPROTECTIVE PROTEINS FOR INNOVATIONS IN FOOD SCIENCES AND BIOMEDICAL APPLICATIONS, 2025, 22124292, 106134, 10.1016/j.fbio.2025.106134 | |
115. | An'nan Hu, Jian Zhou, Functional Silver‐Loaded Porous Composite Scaffold for Bone Tissue Bacterial Infection, 2025, 2699-9307, 10.1002/anbr.202500004 | |
116. | Shan-Shan Su, Chao-Na An, Gao-Juan Lin, Hai-Qing Li, Fangqian Yin, Xiao-Liu Li, Ke-Rang Wang, Amphiphilic lysine-based glycopeptides exert antibacterial effects on Pseudomonas aeruginosa, 2025, 2050-750X, 10.1039/D4TB02771J | |
117. | Meshari A. Alsuwat, Assar Ali Shah, Shakeeb Ullah, Rifat Ullah Khan, Mohammed Alissa, Muhammad Shuaib Khan, Microbial Biofilm Formation to Mitigate Foodborne Pathogens Strategies and Control Measures, 2025, 0046-8991, 10.1007/s12088-025-01461-4 | |
118. | I. A. Ruslyakova, E. Z. Shamsutdinova, O. V. Dmitrieva, K. I. Shirokov, Yu. V. Borzova, A. E. Orishak, N. V. Vasilyeva, Predictors and etiology of healthcare-associated infections in patients with severe community-acquired pneumonia, 2025, 22, 2541-8653, 40, 10.24884/2078-5658-2025-22-1-40-56 | |
119. | 敏 魏, Progress in Pathogenesis and Treatment of Protracted Bacterial Bronchitis in Children, 2025, 15, 2161-8712, 709, 10.12677/acm.2025.153669 | |
120. | Huma Fatima, Sarthak Gupta, Sunil Kumar Khare, Meropenem incorporated nanoflowers as nano antibiotics: A promising strategy for combating antimicrobial resistance and biofilm-associated infections, 2025, 13877003, 114362, 10.1016/j.inoche.2025.114362 | |
121. | Mariana Sousa, Idalina Machado, Lúcia C. Simões, Manuel Simões, Biocides as Drivers of Antibiotic Resistance: A Critical Review of Environmental Implications and Public Health Risks, 2025, 26664984, 100557, 10.1016/j.ese.2025.100557 | |
122. | Vahab Hassan Kaviar, Zahra Farshadzadeh, Azar Dokht Khosravi, Mohammad Hossein Haddadi, Somayeh Karamolahi, Marzieh Hashemian, Nazanin Omidi, Moloudsadat Motahar, Nourkhoda Sadeghifard, Saeed Khoshnood, Fatemeh Shahi, Antibiotic resistance pattern and biofilm formation among clinical Acinetobacter baumannii isolates: A cross-sectional study, 2025, 14, 2221-6189, 10.4103/jad.jad_104_24 | |
123. | Mahmoud A. Mosleh, Gharieb S. El-Sayyad, Mohamed A. Gobara, Yasmeen A. Hasanien, Elham H. El-Hakim, Emad H. Borai, Synthesis, Characterization, and Gamma-Irradiation of Silica Nanoparticles from White Sand and Their Application as a Hydrophobic Antibacterial Material, 2025, 15, 2191-1630, 10.1007/s12668-025-01880-z | |
124. | Christy E. Manyi-Loh, Ryk Lues, Listeria monocytogenes and Listeriosis: The Global Enigma, 2025, 14, 2304-8158, 1266, 10.3390/foods14071266 | |
125. | V. I. Nahaichuk, V. V. Bebyk, T. V. Denysko, R. M. Chornopyshchuk, V. V. Nagaichuk, Yu. V. Leichenko, O. A. Nazarchuk, Дослідження впливу біогальванічного струму на біоплівкоутворення полірезистентних клінічних штамів умовно-патогенних збудників ранової інфекції, 2025, 6, 2708-6623, 139, 10.46847/ujmm.2025.1(6)-139 | |
126. | EDWARD KEVIN BRAGAIS, Kiana Alika Co, Daphne Noreen Enriquez, Aubrey Love Labarda, Reanne Eden Manongsong, Edward Kevin B. Bragais, Phytochemical analysis, antioxidant, and antibacterial activities of crude and partially purified extracts of Portulaca oleracea leaves, 2025, 47, 2815-5920, 11, 10.15625/2615-9023/21657 | |
127. | Volodymyr Hryn, Roman Ustenko, Nataliia Svintsytska, Andrii Piliuhin, Igor Fedorchenko, Yana Tarasenko, Volodymyr Lytovka, ANALYSIS OF DATA ABOUT THE DIGESTIVE TRACT MICROFLORA OF THE HUMANS AND WHITE RATS, 2025, 13, 26644231, 28, 10.21272/eumj.2025;13(1):28-38 | |
128. | Neha Sahu, Prabhat Upadhyay, 2025, 978-1-83767-452-7, 123, 10.1039/9781837677047-00123 | |
129. | Suhani Mandhare, Kritika Mangesh Tarle, Kanchanlata Tungare, Mustansir Bhori, Renitta Jobby, Vinothkannan Ravichandran, 2025, Chapter 21, 978-981-96-1884-2, 497, 10.1007/978-981-96-1885-9_21 | |
130. | Rajsekhar Adhikary, Indrani Sarkar, Dhara Patel, Sishir Gang, Uttam Kumar Nath, Saugata Hazra, Deciphering antibiotic resistance, quorum sensing, and biofilm forming genes of Micrococcus luteus from hemodialysis tunneled cuffed catheter tips of renal failure patients, 2025, 207, 0302-8933, 10.1007/s00203-025-04310-6 | |
131. | Majid Al‐Qurahi, Derek Fleming, Won‐Jun Kim, Ibrahim Bozyel, Robin Patel, Haluk Beyenal, Electrochemical Catheter Hub Operated by a Wearable Micropotentiostat Prevents Acinetobacter baumannii Infection In Vitro, 2025, 0006-3592, 10.1002/bit.28990 | |
132. | Nada Tawfig Hashim, Rasha Babiker, Vivek Padmanabhan, Azza Tagelsir Ahmed, Nallan C. S. K. Chaitanya, Riham Mohammed, Sivan Padma Priya, Ayman Ahmed, Shadi El Bahra, Md Sofiqul Islam, Bakri Gobara Gismalla, Muhammed Mustahsen Rahman, The Global Burden of Periodontal Disease: A Narrative Review on Unveiling Socioeconomic and Health Challenges, 2025, 22, 1660-4601, 624, 10.3390/ijerph22040624 | |
133. | Ankita Sharma, Alka Rana, Binoy Kumar, Poonam Kumari, Kanika Choudhary, Sunil Kumar, Dixit Sharma, Unraveling microbial pathogenesis through omics technologies for better therapeutic interventions, 2025, 29501946, 100347, 10.1016/j.microb.2025.100347 | |
134. | Manel Lina Djendi, Chahrazed Benzaid, Malika Berredjem, Ismahene Grib, Rania Bahadi, Seif‐Eddine Djouad, Khadidja Otmane Rachedi, Kheir Eddine Ouali, Ajmal R. Bhat, Anissa Acidi, α‐Aminophosphonates: Antimicrobial, Anti‐Inflammatory, Antioxidant Activities, Molecular Docking, and DFT Studies, 2025, 10, 2365-6549, 10.1002/slct.202500015 | |
135. | Fatemeh Mojtahedi, Mohammad Reza Nasiri, Saba Naeimaei Ali, Azadeh Mohammadgholi, Shekoufe Mohebbi, Zahra Shahbazi, Reza Behfar, Saina Namazifard, Hassan Noorbazargan, Fahimeh Baghbani-Arani, Novel Chitosan-Alginate Dressings with UIO-66-NH2 Nanoparticles and Ferula gummosa Extracts for Effective Wound Healing, 2025, 09277757, 137004, 10.1016/j.colsurfa.2025.137004 | |
136. | Njomza Gashi, Zsombor Szőke, Péter Fauszt, Péter Dávid, Maja Mikolás, Ferenc Gál, László Stündl, Judit Remenyik, Melinda Paholcsek, Bioaerosols in Agriculture: A Comprehensive Approach for Sustainable Crop Health and Environmental Balance, 2025, 15, 2073-4395, 1003, 10.3390/agronomy15051003 | |
137. | Shaik Abdul Munnaf, Madeeha Iqbal, Eun Ha Choi, Seunghun Jung, United effect of nonthermal plasma driven O3 water and phenolic compounds for bacterial biofilm quorum sensing reduction under the O3 processed nitro-hydroxylation and norfloxacin remediation via oxidation, 2025, 74, 22147144, 107756, 10.1016/j.jwpe.2025.107756 | |
138. | Jagoda Kurowiak, Krystian Piesik, Tomasz Klekiel, Current State of Knowledge Regarding the Treatment of Cranial Bone Defects: An Overview, 2025, 18, 1996-1944, 2021, 10.3390/ma18092021 | |
139. | Maude Jans, Lars Vereecke, Physiological drivers of pks+ E. coli in colorectal cancer, 2025, 0966842X, 10.1016/j.tim.2025.04.010 | |
140. | Sambuddha Chakraborty, I. Dinakaran, Anusha Karunasagar, Wasim Ahmed, Juliet Mohan Raj, Indrani Karunasagar, Medhavi Vashisth, Ashwini Chauhan, WGS of a lytic phage targeting biofilm-forming carbapenem-resistant Klebsiella pneumoniae prevalent in a tertiary healthcare setup, 2025, 08824010, 107680, 10.1016/j.micpath.2025.107680 | |
141. | Wenyu Wang, Huancai Lin, Yina Cao, Effects of opuB on the growth and biofilm formation of Streptococcus mutans under acid stress, 2025, 08824010, 107674, 10.1016/j.micpath.2025.107674 | |
142. | Emad Kosarieh, Sahar Sattari Khavas, Dusan Hirjak, Nasim Chiniforush, Shima Afrasiabi, Optimizing of photodynamic parameters: determining the key factors for effective inactivation of Streptococcus mutans biofilms with phycocyanin, 2025, 40, 1435-604X, 10.1007/s10103-025-04479-8 | |
143. | Subhasis Chakrabarty, Joyeeta Bhattacharya, Asim Halder, Partha Roy, Soma Das, 2025, Chapter 8, 978-3-031-85204-6, 175, 10.1007/978-3-031-85205-3_8 | |
144. | Yusuke Iwabuchi, Hiroko Yoshida, Shuichiro Kamei, Toshiki Uematsu, Masanori Saito, Hidenobu Senpuku, Formation of Mono-Organismal and Mixed Staphylococcus aureus and Streptococcus mutans Biofilms in the Presence of NaCl, 2025, 13, 2076-2607, 1118, 10.3390/microorganisms13051118 | |
145. | Vanessa Silva, Catarina Freitas, Jessica Ribeiro, Gilberto Igrejas, Patricia Poeta, Comparative analysis of antibiotic resistance and biofilm formation in Enterococcus spp. across One Health domains, 2025, 6, 2633-6685, 10.1093/femsmc/xtaf005 |