Abstract
A biofilm is a collection of microorganisms organized in a matrix of extracellular polymeric material. Biofilms consist of microbial cells that attach to both surfaces and each other, whether they are living or non-living. These microbial biofilms can lead to hospital-acquired infections and are generally detrimental. They possess the ability to resist the human immune system and antibiotics. The National Institute of Health (NIH) states that biofilm formation is associated with 65% of all microbial illnesses and 80% of chronic illnesses. Additionally, non-device-related microbial biofilm infections include conditions like cystic fibrosis, otitis media, infective endocarditis, and chronic inflammatory disorders. This review aims to provide an overview of research on chronic infections caused by microbial biofilms, methods used for biofilm detection, recent approaches to combat biofilms, and future perspectives, including the development of innovative antimicrobial strategies such as antimicrobial peptides, bacteriophages, and agents that disrupt biofilms.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Introduction
Biofilms are known to be the prevalent form of microbial life, with most of the microbes living as biofilm communities in diverse surroundings, within host organisms (Flemming et al. 2016). Microbes display two kinds of growth: free-living planktonic; surface attached within biofilms, which are structured communities enclosed in a self-produced or extracellular polymeric matrix composed of water and extracellular polymeric substances (EPS), primarily polysaccharides, proteins and DNA (Rumbaugh and Sauer 2020). Biofilm formation begins when planktonic microorganisms attach to surfaces, marking a crucial stage in the transition of individual microorganisms into a structured community. This adherence process initiates the development of the microorganisms from their free-floating state into a cohesive and organized biofilm structure (Haggag 2010). In the early phase of biofilm formation, microorganisms attach to surfaces in a loosely bound and reversible manner. This stage is characterized by the presence of microorganisms attached to surfaces in a polar manner. Subsequently, the microorganisms reorient themselves to lie flat on the surfaces, establishing irreversible attachment. This irreversible attachment leads to the development of resistance against various physical factors that could otherwise impede the formation of the biofilm (Banerjee et al. 2015). Following the successful attachment of microorganisms to surfaces, the adhered microorganisms initiate multiplication and aggregation within the extracellular polymeric substance (EPS) they produce. This process leads to the formation of microcolonies, especially in the presence of a high concentration of c-di-GMP. Interactions between microorganisms and surfaces rely on the movements facilitated by flagella and type IV pili-mediated motilities. Flagella are crucial for the microorganisms' interactions with surfaces, while type IV pili play a significant role in cell-to-cell aggregations, facilitating the formation of microcolonies (Rabin et al. 2015). The extracellular polymeric substance (EPS) plays a vital role in the maturation of biofilms by fulfilling several functions. It aids in the attachment of microbes to surfaces, providing stability to the three-dimensional structure of the biofilm. Additionally, EPS facilitates the clustering of cells together, offering protection against various stresses such as the immune system response of the host, antimicrobial agents, oxidative damage, and metallic cations. Furthermore, EPS serves as a protective capsule, encapsulating signalling molecules necessary for quorum sensing, as well as metabolic products and enzymes essential for biofilm function (Toyofuku et al. 2016). Ultimately, mature biofilms undergo dispersion, either actively through mechanisms involving motility and degradation of the extracellular polymeric substance (EPS), or passively through physical factors such as liquid flow. This dispersion process allows the microorganisms within the biofilm to disperse and initiate a new cycle of biofilm formation elsewhere. Several factors contribute to the dispersion of mature biofilms, including an overgrown population, intense competition among microorganisms, and a scarcity of nutrients. These factors primarily drive the dispersal of the mature biofilm, facilitating the colonization of new surfaces and the initiation of biofilm formation (Rabin et al. 2015) Biofilm formation is a significant virulence mechanism and a hallmark feature of problematic pathogens that are multidrug resistant (MDR) in hospital settings (Roy et al. 2022). Microorganisms that can form complex structures called biofilms can colonize biotic and abiotic surfaces for prolonged periods of time, and can grow and replicate even under unfavourable conditions (Eze et al. 2018). These organisms could persist in adverse environmental conditions such as hospital settings where there is excessive use of antibiotics and disinfectants (Roy et al. 2022). They also have diverse tools to facilitate and maintain the formation of biofilms in the hospital environment. The development of biofilm is a highly regulated process that is due to the relative contributions and interactions of genetics (active response) and environmental conditions (passive response) (Bjarnsholt et al. 2018).
Chronic infections caused by multidrug-resistant (MDR) pathogens present a great challenge for eradication due to their resistance to conventional antibiotics, as well as their ability to form biofilms and persistance over time. Furthermore, these infections can also influence the host's immune response. (Singh et al. 2022). Persistent biofilm-related infections pose a clinical threat in terms of the morbidity and mortality rates of patients and healthcare-associated costs (Assefa and Amare 2022). Microbial biofilms in hospital settings can be produced in the hospital wastewater, solid surfaces, and medical devices (Assefa and Amare 2022). It is noteworthy to mention that device-related infections with a biofilm aetiology were the first clinical infections to be recognized (Hall-Stoodley et al. 2004). Several biofilm-related infections such as foreign body-located blood stream infections due to central venous catheter, ventilator-associated pneumonia due to endotracheal tubes, foreign body-located chronic wounds due to soft tissue implants, tissue-located sinusitis due to cystic fibrosis, chronic urinary tract infections due to urinary tract catheterization, and foreign body-located infection due to drainage associated infections have been recognized in the clinical settings (Ciofu et al. 2022). Examples of common pathogens that are involved in the biofilm-related infections are Escherichia coli, Staphylococcus aureus, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Enterobacteriaceae, coagulase-negative staphylococci, Acinetobacter spp. and Enterococcus spp. (Ciofu et al. 2022). Additionally, the establishment of biofilms will consequently lead to tolerance to both immune system by shielding the embedded microbes even in the presence of both innate and adaptive immune response and tolerance to antimicrobials which necessitates elevated concentrations of antibiotics administered for a longer period, resulting in chronic persistent infections.
Accordingly, the implementation of new antimicrobial strategies to eradicate microbial biofilms as natural products such as phytochemicals and antimicrobial peptides will facilitate the tackling of biofilm-related infections (Quintieri et al. 2022). These natural compounds possess a broad spectrum of activity, are more stable, reliable, and less liable to produce resistance, and may be subjected to chemical modification to achieve better pharmacological and pharmacokinetic properties. Many studies have worked on bioactive compounds from medicinal plants for finding novel natural compounds that act on biofilms with very promising results (Lu et al. 2019; Panda et al. 2020). Unfortunately, not a single FDA-approved drug was manufactured even with this huge work. The solution might be the combination of natural agents together with antibiotics to achieve an inhibitory effect on biofilms (Mishra et al. 2020).
Further investigation is still needed to understand the relationship between biofilms and emerging treatment approaches. As a result, there is a growing interest in studying the ecology of microbial biofilms, especially in the context of their exposure to antibiotics. This review summarizes the recent research on biofilm-associated chronic infections, methods to detect biofilm production, recent approaches to combat biofilms, and future outlook of therapeutic strategy including the development of antimicrobial strategies such as antimicrobial peptides, bacteriophages and biofilm-disrupting agents.
Biofilms: challenges in antibiotic treatment
Antimicrobial resistance mechanisms can be categorized into four primary groups: (1) restricting the entry of a drug; (2) modifying the target of a drug; (3) rendering a drug inactive; and (4) actively expelling a drug from the cell. Intrinsic resistance relies on limiting drug uptake, drug inactivation, and drug efflux, while acquired resistance mechanisms may involve drug target modification, drug inactivation, and drug efflux. The specific mechanisms utilized by Gram-negative bacteria and Gram-positive bacteria exhibit variations due to differences in their structures and other factors. Gram-negative bacteria employ all four major resistance mechanisms, whereas Gram-positive bacteria less frequently employ strategies to limit drug uptake (as they lack an outer membrane composed of lipopolysaccharides) and may have limitations in certain types of drug efflux mechanisms (Fig. 1) (Chancey et al. 2012).
It is well known that microbes demonstrating a biofilm phenotype are difficult to manage and their response to antimicrobial therapy is challenging. Consequently, the biofilm development and the resistance to antimicrobial treatment is quietly related (Sharma et al. 2019). The management of microbial resistance is threatened by three main conditions: increase of persistent biofilm-related infections, expansion of antimicrobial resistance and the lack of appropriate therapy (Blanco-Cabra et al. 2021).
It was mentioned that almost 80% of chronic infections in animals and humans are associated with biofilm formation (Sharma et al. 2019). By 2050, the death of 10 million people is expected due to increased rates of morbidity and mortality because of infections caused by MDR pathogens that are the outcome of the misuse of antibiotics together with chronic biofilm-related infections (Inoue 2019). There is significant difference in the susceptibility to antimicrobial therapy of free-living microbes and microbes growing in biofilms. Microbes embedded in a biofilm show higher antibiotic resistance rates than planktonic microbes (Hall and Mah 2017). Importantly, one of the most crucial mechanisms responsible for biofilm recalcitrance to antibiotics is the tolerance of biofilms to antimicrobials. The tolerance of biofilms to antibiotics is coupled to the biofilm’s mode of growth, and if microbes from a biofilm are cultured in planktonic conditions, they will demonstrate susceptibility to the antimicrobial used (Roberts and Stewart 2004).
Therefore, biofilm-related antimicrobial tolerance differs basically from antimicrobial resistance, which can be shown by microbes grown in planktonic culture (Ciofu et al. 2017). This antimicrobial tolerance is attributed to many factors such as restricted penetration of the antibiotic through the biofilm matrix, physiological heterogenicity of microbial cells (it is expected that biofilms hold cells in several states simultaneously: growing, stress adapted, dormant, inactive), expression of biofilm-specific genes in the microbes and the reduced metabolism of the persisters (Ciofu et al. 2017). In addition to all the mentioned mechanisms, in vivo antimicrobial tolerance of biofilms does exist which is much complicated due to the host immune system, access to nutrients and oxygen, and the antibiotics must penetrate different compartments to get the biofilm microbes (Crabbé et al. 2019).
Lately, biofilm was considered as a third compartment, after the tissue (second compartment) and blood (first compartment) that the antibiotics should pass to reach their microbial cells (Cao et al. 2015). The concentration of the local biofilm antibiotic depends on the size and location of the biofilm and on individual drug metabolization. Subinhibitory concentrations of antibiotics at the biofilm site of infection possibly will increase the chance of the occurrence of antibiotic resistance due to selective pressure and increased mutagenesis (Wassermann et al. 2016). Therefore, longer periods of antibiotic therapy together with increasing dosages of antibiotic combinations are highly recommended (Crabbé et al. 2019).
The increased activation of antibiotic resistance mechanisms in biofilms when exposed to antibiotics, as well as their decreased activity in the absence of antibiotic molecules due to metabolism and elimination, plays a significant role in the persistent resistance of biofilms to antibiotic therapy (Ciofu et al. 2017). All the above-mentioned factors related to tolerance of biofilm to antibiotic treatment play a role in the rise of antibiotic-resistant mutants in the normal microbial flora and at the site of infection of the biofilm (Giwercman et al. 1990; Gustafsson et al. 2003).
Quorum sensing and biofilm formation
Microbial attachment to both living organisms and inanimate surfaces has become a growing concern in our daily lives (Drenkard 2003). The quorum sensing signalling is vital at different stages of biofilm growth, encompassing initiation, formation of the matrix, maturation and detachment. It also has an impact on collective behaviours that shape the structural properties of biofilms, such as surface movement, as well as the synthesis of exopolysaccharides (EPSs) and other adhesive molecules (Hooshdar et al. 2020). As a result, diagnosing and treating biofilm infections can be challenging, often necessitating complex multidrug treatment approaches that frequently prove ineffective in resolving the infection. Targeting individual cells and their quorum sensing (QS) mechanisms has emerged as a highly promising approach for discovering innovative and effective strategies against biofilms (Thabit et al. 2022a, b; Cavalu et al. 2022; Elfaky et al. 2023).
Microbial biofilms associated with chronic infections
Chronic infections progress more slowly than acute infections, and they frequently have ambiguous signs. With antibiotics, they are extremely challenging to treat. An acquired inflammatory response, which is predominately composed of IgG antibodies and mononuclear leucocytes, is typically what distinguishes chronic inflammation. A persistent inflammatory response and ongoing recruitment of polymorphonuclear leucocytes are features of the inflammatory response in several chronic infections (PMNs). Before the discovery of antibiotics, the most common chronic illnesses were leprosy and tuberculosis, which steadily deteriorated the tissue and damaged the organs (such as the lungs) of patients before causing death (William Costerton 2007).
Patients with illnesses or disorders that impair the principal protective barriers are susceptible to developing chronic infections (innate immunity). The inflammatory anatomical and physiological barriers, such as the skin, mucous membranes and cilia, as well as phagocytic abnormalities, are all affected by this (e.g. PMNs and macrophages). (And et al. 1987; Anwar et al. 1989; Costerton et al. 1999; Donlan 2002; Zimmerli and Trampuz 2011).
Chronic wounds
Diabetes and cardiovascular disorders have also increased in tandem with the global rise in obesity. These individuals are especially vulnerable to developing chronic wounds, which may host a variety of microbial species (Davies et al. 2004; Gjødsbøl et al. 2006; James et al. 2008; Dowd et al. 2008). Numerous microbial species are found in the deep dermal tissues of all chronic wounds, according to many reported studies (Gjødsbøl et al. 2006; Dowd et al. 2008; Price et al. 2009; Frankel et al. 2009; Thomsen et al. 2010). S. aureus is the most frequent bacterium discovered in wounds, while P. aeruginosa was found in more than half of the chronic wounds examined (V) (Gjødsbøl et al. 2006; Dowd et al. 2008; Price et al. 2009; Frankel et al. 2009; Thomsen et al. 2010). The area of P. aeruginosa-infected wounds was likewise noticeably bigger than that of uninfected wounds, and P. aeruginosa similarly appeared to slow or perhaps impede the healing process (Halbert et al. 1992; Madsen et al. 1996; Høgsberg et al. 2011).
According to estimates, 1% and 2% of the populations in Denmark and the USA, respectively, have a wound that is not healing (Gottrup 2004). As a result, chronic wounds are a burden on the healthcare system, and patients who have them suffer, lose their jobs and have a lower quality of life.
Cystic fibrosis
At the Copenhagen CF Centre, rigorous treatment with high antibiotic doses has been used successfully since 1976 to treat CF patients with persistent P. aeruginosa lung infection. Initially, 14 days of routine intravenous anti-P. aeruginosa therapy was administered every third month to accomplish this. Daily antibiotic inhalation has been added since 1987. Before 1976, only 50% of CF patients would make it through a persistent P. aeruginosa lung infection of 5 years. Most CF patients today have chronic P. aeruginosa infections and live for decades (Burmølle et al. 2010).
Chronic P. aeruginosa infections require aggressive therapy, yet the germs still exist. The intense treatment delays and lessens the harm that the persistent infection causes, but cannot completely cure it. The lung tissue continues to deteriorate in CF patients with a persistent P. aeruginosa infection. Both the infection and the inflammatory processes contribute to the development of this. Lung function deterioration, which is CF patients' leading cause of death, is the result. It is thought that while the Copenhagen CF Centre's current aggressive antibiotic therapy for chronic P. aeruginosa infections confines microorganisms to the conductive zone, but does not completely eradicate them. The remaining healthy respiratory zone seems to have long been shielded from severe biofilm infection. This clearly shows that the conductive zone functions as a microbial reservoir, with the microbes structured in mucoid biofilms within the mucus and shielded from antibiotics and host defences (Burmølle et al. 2010).
The idea that biofilms grow in the lungs of CF patients is supported by quite a lot of in vivo investigations. Autopsies, endobronchial lung tissue sections, lung abscesses, freshly removed lung sections and sputum from CF patients have all yielded P. aeruginosa clusters. P. aeruginosa clusters are comparable to the microbial microcolonies that form a biofilm on inanimate surfaces (Høiby et al. 2010). Additionally, anaerobic or microaerophilic conditions are thought to exist on the mucosal surfaces where P. aeruginosa strains have been diagnosed.
P. aeruginosa thrives in anaerobic mucosal layers of CF patients' lungs and low oxygen settings in general (Hassett et al. 2009).
Chronic otitis media
Chronic suppurative otitis media (CSOM) refers to a persistent infection in the middle ear characterized by the presence of a perforated tympanic membrane and the secretion of fluid or discharge from the ear lasting for a duration exceeding 2 months, occurring either continuously or periodically (Artono et al. 2020).
The middle ear infection known without tympanostomy tube insertion is characterized by recurring chronic suppuration, followed by silent dry intervals of varied lengths. Patients with chronic otitis media with dry perforations (COM) or those who have had episodes of acute otitis media (AOM) where treatment has failed or has not been started are at risk for developing CSOM. Once CSOM has developed, the condition is frequently difficult to treat and resistant. Polymicrobial aerobic and anaerobic microbes frequently cause CSOM (Swords et al. 2004). P. aeruginosa, E. coli, S. aureus, and other common aerobic pathogenic microbes found in CSOM, such as pneumococci and Haemophilus influenzae, are all recognized as potential biofilm makers. In many chronic middle ear infections over the past 10 years, biofilm is morphologically established experimentally and clinically. The first demonstration was done experimentally on chinchillas having chronic otitis media with effusion (COME) in their middle ear (Rayner et al. 1998; Jurcisek et al. 2005; Reid et al. 2009) and later directly on human clinical mucosal surface lining samples from kids with COME and recurring acute otitis media (rAOM) (Post 2001; Chole and Faddis 2002; Hall-Stoodley et al. 2006).
A common middle ear condition in young children is COME. Additionally, biofilm has been discovered in experimentally produced cholesteatomas in gerbils as well as in human cholesteatoma, a different chronic middle ear condition (Saidi et al. 2016). Biofilm is regularly discovered on prostheses and implanted medical equipment, and it was also discovered on a human cochlear implant (Pawlowski et al. 2005; Bakaletz 2007; Bothwell et al. 2016). Consequently, several chronic infectious middle ear illnesses have been linked to biofilm (Brady et al. 2008). The source and connection of these disorders, as well as the potential harmful role of biofilm, still need to be clarified.
Osteomyelitis (Perloff and Palmer 2018), rhinosinusitis (Connell et al. 2016), urinary tract infections (Trampuz and Zimmerli 2008), and all infections related to foreign bodies inserted into the human body are other chronic infections that have been linked to the biofilm phenotype.
Infective endocarditis
The mortality rate for infective endocarditis in hospitals is over 20%, despite advances in surgical and medical treatment methods (Beynon et al. 2006). Infective endocarditis is notoriously difficult to treat because it frequently remains resistant to high-concentration intravenous antibiotics for extended periods of time. Up to 50% of infective endocarditis cases require surgical interventions to improve cardiac function and control the infections (Yusuf et al. 2014). The pathogenicity of this infection has been attributed to the microbial ability to bind to damaged prosthetic and natural valves as well as other foreign devices, producing colonization.
The ability of microbes to build biofilms is one of the microbial virulence factors linked to infective endocarditis that is crucially important. There is evidence to support the idea that the infectious colonization that many microbes create on cardiac surfaces to cause infective endocarditis are in fact massive biofilms (Elgharably et al. 2016; Polewczyk et al. 2017).
The following table (Table 1) summarizes some important studies of biofilm associated with chronic infections.
Detection of biofilm formation
Phenotypic detection of biofilm formation
Biofilm formation is considered to be one of the major batteries of saprophytic microbiota to become opportunistic pathogen (Kloos and Bannerman 1994; Mertens and Ghebremedhin 2013; Manandhar et al. 2021). Some of the bacteria, such as coagulase-negative staphylococci (CNS) (Staphylococcus epidermis and S. aureus) possess the ability to aggregate and form biofilms by virtue of their secreted mucoid extracellular polymeric substance called polysaccharide intercellular adhesion (PIA) matrix encoded by the icaA, icaD icaB, and icaC genes (Arciola et al. 2014; Manandhar et al. 2021). On the other hand, the biofilm-associated protein (bap) found in A. baumannii is both a cell surface protein and a virulence factor. It is a large protein (854 kDa) that shares similarities with proteins found in Staphylococcus bacteria. Bap has been extensively studied in other bacterial genera, particularly in those associated with hospital-acquired infections, including Enterococcus spp. and Pseudomonas spp. The presence of bap is crucial for the formation and maturation of biofilms on both living (biotic) and non-living (abiotic) surfaces (Sharon Goh et al. 2013). Candida albicans possesses a diverse array of virulence factors and adaptive characteristics that enable it to successfully infect hosts residing in various environments. The virulence characteristics of C. albicans arise from its ability to undergo morphological transitions between two primary forms: yeast and hyphae. The yeast form is crucial for clonal expansion, whereas the invasive hyphal form plays a critical role in promoting virulence. Furthermore, the success of C. albicans as a pathogen is attributed to various factors, including the presence of adhesins and invasions on its cell surface, the ability to form biofilms, thigmotropism (response to physical contact), secretion of hydrolytic enzymes, rapid adaptation to changes in environmental pH, metabolic versatility, efficient nutrient acquisition systems, and robust stress responses (Sudbery et al. 2004).The detection of these biofilms could be phenotypic or genotypic (Fig. 2).
Microtitre plate test
Among the phenotypic techniques, the microtitre plate (MtP) test is one of the quantitative tests, conducted in 1970 on the biofilm, especially caused by CNS. The MtP test involves the inoculation of biofilm-producing microbes in the 96-well microtitre plate containing tryptic soy broth medium. The inoculated broth is incubated for 18 h. Following the incubation, the microbial layer coating the plastic surface of the wells is washed, fixed and stained with crystal violet and alcian blue or safranin-o that binds to the microbial cell and slime (glycosoaminoglycans), respectively. After the excess stain is removed, the spectrophotometric (OD570 nm) measurements are performed with different OD thresholds that classifies the strains as non-adherent non-producers of slime (OD ≤ 0.120), low adherent intermediary slime producers (0.120 < OD < 0.240) or strongly adherent slime producers (OD > 0.240) (Christensen et al. 1985; Deighton et al. 2001; Arciola et al. 2014). Notably, the values chosen for intermediary slime producers are based on the statistical analysis and not on phenotypic observation, which could be one of the limitations of this technique.
Congo red agar test
The other phenotypic quantitative in vitro chromatic assessment approach, Congo red agar (CRA) test, has been developed as an alternative to MtP test and is also used to screen the biofilm producing microbes. Precisely, the microbial colonies are cultured on the CRA plates and incubated for 24–48 h, followed by the colour determination of the microbial colonies with deep black to almost black and pink to Bordeaux for slime producers and non-producers, respectively (Freeman et al. 1989). In the recent past a six-colour reference scale has been proposed to facilitate the assessment of colony colour classifications (Arciola et al. 2002). However, the molecular mechanisms underpinning the colour formation of the microbes is still in its initial stage.
It could be possible that Congo red dye directly interacts with certain polysaccharides that brings some metabolic changes in the dye to form a secondary product causing colour variation of the colonies. Notably, this technique also allows direct monitoring of the colonies on the plate of the phase-variant microbes, which is evidenced as pink spikes (virulence factor) on the surface of dark colonies (Ziebuhr et al. 1997) and makes this technique unique for research on microbial physiology. Although the incubation time is prolonged, the CRA approach is still considered to be sensitive and easy to perform in comparison to MtP.
Electrochemical impedance spectroscopy
Electrochemical impedance spectroscopy (EIS) has emerged as a powerful tool for the label-free and real-time monitoring of biofilm formation and growth. EIS is a non-destructive and label-free technique that measures the impedance response of an electrochemical system to an applied alternating current (AC) signal. By analysing the impedance spectra, valuable information about the physicochemical properties of the system under study, including biofilm formation and growth, can be obtained (Koo et al. 2022).
Several EIS-based biosensors have been developed for the phenotypic detection of microbial biofilms. These biosensors typically consist of an electrode surface modified with biofilm-specific ligands or antibodies, which selectively capture the target microbes or biofilm components. The impedance changes resulting from microbial binding and biofilm formation are then measured and analysed (Naresh and Lee 2021).
Isobaric tags for relative and absolute quantitation-based proteomics
iTRAQ (Isobaric Tags for Relative and Absolute Quantitation)-based quantitative proteomics has emerged as a powerful tool for studying the proteome of microbial biofilms. iTRAQ is a mass spectrometry-based technique that enables relative and absolute quantification of proteins in complex samples. It involves labelling peptides from different samples with isobaric tags, which allows multiplexing and simultaneous analysis. The labelled peptides are then combined, digested, and analysed by mass spectrometry for protein identification and quantification (Asma et al. 2022).
The workflow of iTRAQ-based proteomics for biofilm analysis typically involves biofilm sample collection, protein extraction, digestion, iTRAQ labelling, peptide fractionation, mass spectrometry analysis, and data interpretation. Various sample preparation techniques, such as sonication and enzymatic digestion, can be employed to ensure efficient protein extraction and digestion from biofilm samples. iTRAQ-based proteomics has been widely used to investigate the proteome dynamics of microbial biofilms. It enables the identification and quantification of differentially expressed proteins during biofilm formation, maturation, and dispersal stages. This approach has provided insights into the mechanisms underlying biofilm development, interactions with host cells, and antibiotic resistance. Additionally, iTRAQ-based proteomics has been employed to compare the proteomes of biofilm-associated drug-resistant strains with their planktonic counterparts, revealing potential drug targets and resistance mechanisms (Scorza et al. 2008).
Antibodies targeting EPS
Antibodies targeting specific EPS components have emerged as valuable tools for the detection and characterization of microbial biofilms. Antibodies are versatile biomolecules that can recognize and bind to specific target molecules with high affinity and specificity. Antibody-based detection methods, such as enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (ELISAs), immunofluorescence microscopy, and flow cytometry, can be employed for the detection and quantification of biofilms. By targeting specific EPS components, these antibodies allow selective detection of biofilm structures. The EPS matrix of microbial biofilms consist of various components, including polysaccharides, proteins, and DNA. Antibodies can be generated against specific EPS components, such as exopolysaccharides (e.g. alginate, cellulose), adhesive proteins (e.g. lectins, adhesins), and extracellular DNA (eDNA). These antibodies can be used individually or in combination to target different aspects of biofilm structure and function (Flemming et al. 2016).
Genotypic detection of biofilm formation
On the other hand, the genotypic approach is based on the identification of the genes encoding for the PIA production as indicated above (Gerke et al. 1998; Götz 2002). All the four genes icaA, icaD icaB, and icaC are organized as the intercellular adhesion icaADBC operon along with icaR, which is the repressor gene. The individual functionalities of these genes have not been deciphered yet, but it has been known that the contrascription of icaA and icaD is required for the N-acetyl-glucosaminyltransfarese activity for the PIA polysaccharides oligomer (20 amino acids residues) synthesis. Furthermore, icaC gene essentially extends the polysaccharide oligomer to long chain PIA (Gerke et al. 1998).
Notably, the function of icaB is still at its infancy; however a plausible hypothesis of de-acetylation of the amino sugars of the PIA chain has been cited. The first typing of these gene was carried out by Southern blotting and hybridization. Thereafter, several primer sets were designed to PCR-amplify icaA, icaD and icaC genes on the extracted genomic DNA directly from the microbial colony and found to be effective in identifying the virulent strains such as of S. epidermis and S. aureus (Arciola et al. 2014). However, it has been observed that in the phase variant microbes, despite the presence of ica genes, a slime-negative phenotype was evidenced. This is possible because although the ica genes are responsible for the polysaccharide production, it has been hypothesized that the phenotypic expression and the virulence effect of the polysaccharide is conditioned by certain regulatory genes such as atlE, sarA, agrA and mecA that could potentially modulate PIA functions (Mack et al. 2000). Despite all these limitations, the PCR-based approach is more reliable and accurate in comparison to the phenotypic observation. However, it should be noted that both phenotypic and genotypic approaches should be conducted in parallel to obtain the best biofilm detection option (Arciola et al. 2014).
Natural compounds with biofilm formation inhibitory potential
For centuries, different civilizations have used natural metabolites and herbal treatments to prevent and treat infectious diseases (Lau and Plotkin 2013; Dhama et al. 2018; Anand et al. 2019). Plants, fungi, and marine organisms demonstrated their potential as abundant sources of novel compounds for preventing the formation of biofilms by various microbial strains (Lu et al. 2019). It has been demonstrated that several of these metabolites prevent QS and control the development of biofilm (Artini et al. 2012; Kouidhi et al. 2015; Asfour 2018). Natural metabolites were said to be able to prevent the development of biofilms in numerous ways, including by preventing the synthesis of peptidoglycans and polymer matrix, interrupting the production of extracellular matrix, repressing cell adhesion and attachment, damaging the structure of microbial membranes, and reducing the production of virulence factors. This would prevent the QS network and biofilm formation (Artini et al. 2012; Asfour 2018; Dong et al. 2018).
Fortunately, clinical and preclinical evaluations of some of them have shown that they have a significant ability to treat or prevent a variety of infectious diseases. It is imperative to create fresh antibiofilm from natural source to increase the microbial resistance resulting from biofilm formation. An overview of a few of the most recent reports on natural biofilm inhibitors was provided in the current review. These metabolites may be used as potent therapeutic agents to increase the effectiveness of antibiotics against biofilm-related illnesses (Figs. 3, 4). Significant antibiofilm potential was found in phenolics, polyacetylenes, terpenoids, alkaloids, lectins, and polypeptides (Yong et al. 2019). Condensed tannins particularly among the phenolics demonstrated antibiofilm activity (Trentin et al. 2011).
In recent years, rising rates of HIV infection, organ transplantation, diabetes, dentures, and the use of anti-cancer, corticosteroid, and broad-spectrum antibiotics have all been linked to rising oral candidiasis occurrence (Chanda et al. 2017). Due to the potential toxicity of clinically used antifungals and the emergence of drug resistance, their treatment is a significant challenge.
Flavonoids
One of the main flavones isolated from the root of Scutellaria baicalensis is called baicalin (1) (Zhao et al. 2016). It repressed the QS system by reducing the expression of the rpoS (sigma-S) and H-NS (histone-like nucleoid-structuring) genes through prohibition of AI-2 (autoinducer-2) production. By interfering with the curli-specific genes (csgB and csgA) (Guan et al. 2015), it also interfered with the growth of curli pili and negatively impacted microbial binding and biofilm formation (Peng et al. 2019). In a different investigation, it was found that decreasing the expression of the fimB gene might suppress the synthesis of type 1 pili (Brackman et al. 2009). The Burkholderia cepacian gene CepI increases the production of the QS system-enhancing AHLs (N-acyl-homoserine lactone) signalling molecules C8-HSL (Noctanoyl-homoserine lactone) and C6-HSL (N-hexanoyl-homoserine lactone) by complex formation with their receptors. Baicalin's CepI inhibition suppressed the growth of biofilm by inhibiting the QS system, which prevented the microbial cells from adhering to body surfaces (Slachmuylders et al. 2018).
In addition, the flavonoid-C-glucoside isovitexin (2) shows significant Srt-A inhibition (IC50 28.98 µg/mL) capacity, resulting in a decrease in the amount of SpA (staphylococcal-protein A, which was discovered in S. aureus 40 years ago, and has the ability to bind to the constant regions of antibodies, making it a valuable tool for extracting immunoglobulins) on the cell surface, indicating the possibility of using it as an anti-S. aureus infection agent (Mu et al. 2018). Additionally, it was discovered that the flavonoid, morin (3) may be able to inhibit Srt-A in S. aureus. Huang et al. showed that it likewise had an inhibitory effect on S. mutans Srt-A (IC50 27.2 µM), but had no effect on the survival or expansion of the microbes. At Conc. 30 µM, it partially increased the release of the Pac protein, a cell surface protein antigen c of S. mutans, which is determined by the pac gene, has been found to show a connection with cellular hydrophobicity and adhesion to tooth surfaces that is not dependent on sucrose, and decreased the mass of the S. mutans biofilm without affecting viability. These findings suggested that morin could be valuable as a novel caries-prevention agent (Huang et al. 2009).
The dihydrochalcone, phloretin (4), prohibited L. monocytogenes biofilm generation (%inhibition 60%, conc. 20 μg/mL), biofilm adhesion, and aggregation, as well as the biofilm thickness as it reduced the agr-system genes by 50% in QS (Wei et al. 2020).
In comparison to tetracycline and ciprofloxacin, the flavanone glycoside naringin (5) isolated from grape and citrus fruits showed more effective biofilms influence against P. aeruginosa. On catheter surfaces, it was discovered to reduce EPS (extra polymeric substance) biofilm, speed up antimicrobial diffusion, reduce pellicle formation, and reduce microbial flagellar movement. Its combination with antibiotics may be advantageous for newly developed, effective topical antimicrobials as well as for catheter wrapping to fend off infection brought on by biofilms as a result of catheterization (Dey et al. 2020).
Phenolics
Magnolol (6), a previously described polyphenol from the bark of Magnolia officinalis, was evaluated in comparison to many oral and common Candida spp. isolates. Magnolol displayed significant antifungal (MICs 16.0–64.0 g/mL) and antibiofilm capability against four tested strains with an average 69.5% inhibition was discovered. Additionally, it resulted in the rupture of plasma membranes and cell walls, the release of intracellular contents, and swelling of the cell walls. It also demonstrated reduced haemolytic activity (%lysis = 11.9%) against red blood cells compared to amphotericin B (%lysis = 25.4%). The molecular docking investigation showed that it interacted with the ergosterol in fungal cell walls to produce its effects (Behbehani et al. 2017). Furthermore, it demonstrated synergism with azoles against C. albicans (Sun et al. 2015a) and showed considerable suppression on yeast hyphal transformation, adhesion, and biofilm formation (Sun et al. 2015b). Through pili proteins and/or surface proteins, some pathogenic microbes influence the tissues and cells of the host, playing a crucial role in the infection (Asadi et al. 2018). Staphylococcal species use the sortase A enzyme to adhere surface proteins to their cell walls (Thappeta et al. 2020). Consequently, the binding capacity of S. aureus to lgG, fibrinogen, and fibronectin is hindered, thereby diminishing the pathogenicity of the bacterium. The presence of Srt-A also enhances the rate of biofilm formation in certain species of Staphylococci. (Thappeta et al. 2020). In a study conducted by Hu et al. (2013), the potential of curcumin (7) to suppress S. mutans biofilm was examined. The findings revealed that curcumin effectively inhibited S. mutans Srt-A, with an IC50 value of 10.2 µM/L. Moreover, when applied at a concentration of 15 µM/L, curcumin reduced the formation of S. mutans biofilm and led to the release of the PAc protein. These results indicate that curcumin exhibits anti-inflammatory effects through a mechanism that hinders bacterial adhesion. (Hu et al. 2013).
Macrocyclic bisbibenzyls (MBBs)
Riccardin D (8), a naturally occurring macrocyclic-bisbibenzyl derivative, was discovered in Dumortiera hirsuta and demonstrated in vitro antibiofilm efficacy. Based on XTT (2,3-bis(2-methoxy-4-nitro-5-sulfo-phenyl)-2H-tetrazolium-5-carboxanilide) reduction assay results using CVC (central venous catheter)-infected rabbit model, it has therapeutic and preventative capacity against C. albicans biofilm development. This substance inhibited the expression of hypha-related genes, including as ALS3, ALS1, EFG1, ECE1, CDC35, and HWP1, demonstrating that the inhibition of the Ras/cAMP/Efg pathway was the cause of the delayed hypha formation and the defect in biofilm development. Additionally, the fluconazole–riccardin D combination showed increased antifungal potential (Li et al. 2012).
Stilbenes
Wu et al. evaluated the efficiency of oxyresveratrol (9), which was isolated from the heartwood of Artocarpus lakoocha, in comparison to S. mutans in 2020. The findings showed that this substance (Conc. 250 µg/ mL) decreased bacterial survival rates, hampered the synthesis of H2O-insoluble glucans, disrupted the formation of biofilms, and noticeably suppressed the expression of gtfB (glucosyltransferase-I) and gtfC (glucosyltransferase-SI). On the other hand, it increased the expression of ldh and atpD (ATP-synthase subunit-beta) (lactate- dehydrogenase). Additionally, it increased gtfD (glucosyltransferase-S) expression, which aided in the production of glucan that is water soluble. LiaR, vicR, comE, and comD were activated, which improved the self-protective process (Wu et al. 2020). In 2018, Dong et al. demonstrated that tannic acid (10), a phenolic molecule, exhibited an exceptional antibiofilm efficiency against S. aureus at sub-MIC concentrations by targeting peptidoglycan and causing the integrity of the cell wall to be destroyed. Because of this, it may be a good choice for treating infections brought on by MDR S. aureus (Dong et al. 2018). Wu et al. investigation confirmed that it also prevented FabG (β-ketoacyl-ACP-reductase), a crucial enzyme in the production of fatty acids by bacteria (Wu et al. 2010).
Anthraquinones
Chrysazin (11) and alizarin (12), according to Manoharan et al. (2017), have antibiofilm capability against C. albicans due to a C1 hydroxyl group with toxic influence. Various biofilm-related and hyphal-specific genes are downregulated by it (e.g. ECE1, ALS3, RBT1, and ECE2). Additionally, they (Conc. 2 mg/mL) effectively reduced yeast, to, and hyphal development and increased the Caenorhabditis elegans survival rate when infected with C. albicans (Manoharan et al. 2017).
In 2019, Jin et al. stated that concanavalin A (Canavalia ensiformis`s lectin) had notable antibiofilm effectiveness versus Listeria monocytogenes and E. coli through its mannose-bound affinity (Jin et al. 2019).
Monoterpenes
Sabinene (13), a component of Chamaecyparis obtusa essential oil was reported to repress Streptococcus mutans biofilm production and related genes (e.g. gtfB, gtfD, gtfC, brpA, relA, and vicR) expression, suggesting its usage S. mutans cariogenic potential inhibitor in oral care products c (Park et al. 2019).
Aspergillus fumigatus is a pathogenic fungus that causes a number of serious lung conditions, such as aspergilloma, allergic bronchopulmonary aspergillosis, and invasive pulmonary aspergillosis in people with weakened immune systems who are also hypersensitive to it. It was discovered that this fungus creates a hydrophobic biofilm in the lungs that is made up of several coils of hyphae wrapped in ECM (Tseung and Zhao 2016).
Fatty aldehydes
Thuja orientalis, Myristica fragrans, Cuminum cyminum, and Pentaclethra macrophylla all included the compound cis-9-hexadecenal (14). In the broth micro-dilution assay, it prevented 90% of A. fumigatus planktonic growth at 0.078 mg/mL (Hoda 2019). In vitro, the checkerboard assay demonstrated that its combination with amphotericin B had increased activity against A. fumigatus. In the MTT experiment, it had a 0.156 mg/mL MBEC80 (minimal-biofilm-eradicating concentration-80) vs A. fumigatus and scanning electron microscopy revealed the absence of tangled hyphae and ECM in the cis 9-hexadecenal-treated biofilm (Hoda 2019). Additionally, it was harmless to L-132 (a normal human lung epithelial cell line) up to 0.62 mg/mL in the cytotoxicity experiment, suggesting that it could be an exceptional therapeutic agent for disorders linked to A. fumigatus (Hoda 2019).
Sulphonates
Besides sodium houttuyfonate (15), a compound produced by Houttuynia cordata, inhibited P. aeruginosa motility and biofilm formation while also significantly obstructing the growth of S. epidermidis and C. albicans (Shao et al. 2012, 2013). It also worked in concert with levofloxacin and Na2-EDTA to prevent the formation of biofilms (Huang et al. 2009; Shao et al. 2012). It effectively prevented P. aeruginosa biofilm dispersion and BdlA (biofilm dispersion locus A) gene and protein expression, which allowed it to infiltrate P. aeruginosa biofilm and suppress the biofilm's life cycle in in vitro research.
Saponins
Dioscin (16), a natural saponin isolated from Dioscorea panthaica, suppressed the generation of extracellular phospholipase, the yeast-to-hyphal transition, adhesion to abiotic surfaces, and the formation of biofilms. At high concentrations, it even decreased the viability of preformed biofilms (Yang et al. 2018).
It is noteworthy that several metabolites produced by different actinomycete species demonstrated antibiofilm capability by disrupting cell wall and cell–cell communication (Azman et al. 2019).
Benzoyl nitrophenylpiperazines
According to Fazly et al., filastatin (17) prevented the yeast-to-hyphal transition and hindered the adherence of fungal cells to diverse biomaterials by suppressing HWP1, a hyphal-specific promoter. It's interesting to note that its combination with fluconazole protected C. elegans from C. albicans infection in vivo. Additionally, it prevented the growth of biofilm in mice with vulvovaginal Candida infection (Fazly et al. 2013).
Methylxanthines
Additionally, caffeine (18) has shown a strong antimicrobial effect against P. aeruginosa (MIC 200 µg/mL). Using swarming motility targeting, which was discovered to interact with QS proteins (LasI and LasR), it demonstrated considerable inhibition (Conc. 40 and 80 µg/mL) of P. aeruginosa biofilm development and decreased the release of virulence factors. However, it can yet be improved as an antibiofilm agent to manage infections caused by P. aeruginosa (Chakraborty et al. 2020).
Recent advances in biofilm control
Alternative therapies have been sought in an effort to remove or inhibit biofilms because the majority of antibiotics do not work to treat them. From the time the biofilm is formed until it has reached maturity, there are several points where intervention is feasible. Numerous natural substances impair QS, have anti-adhesin activity, stop the formation of films, or have general antimicrobial characteristics. Other treatments involve the use of bacteriophages, viruses that target particular microbes, or enzymes that break down the extracellular biofilm matrix (Sahli et al. 2022).
Phage therapy
The basis of phage therapy is the use of bacteriophages. The risk of opportunistic infections is decreased because these viruses do not infect humans. Their size typically ranges from 20 to 200 nm, and they are made up of a protein capsid, a typically variable-length tail via which the genetic material is delivered, and fibres at the tail that ensure the host is recognized (pili can be receptors) (Pires et al. 2016).
By utilizing depolymerases, bacteriophages are capable of modifying polysaccharides in biofilms, boosting their penetration into the matrix of the biofilm and hence their effectiveness (Pires et al. 2016). Bacteriophages can also readily move through the biofilm's water channels. Bacteriophages do not have the same antibiotic-like spectrum of action and are specific to certain species population (Sutherland et al. 2004).
Phage-resistant subpopulations can develop within the biofilm community similarly to how they do in planktonic cultures (Fu et al. 2010). After being exposed to anti-Pseudomonas bacteriophages, P. aeruginosa biofilms develop phage-resistant mutants due to mutations in the genes encoding the phage receptors (Oechslin et al. 2017).
The Soviet Union (USSR) invested in bacteriophages during the twentieth century to treat microbial illnesses. The USSR concentrated on alternative methods of treating its population since it could not afford antibiotics, which are mostly produced by Western nations. Because of this, the Eliava Institute in Georgia, which was formerly a part of the USSR, today boasts one of the largest collections of bacteriophages. The institute began its research on bacteriophages in 1923, just a few years after they were discovered (Oechslin et al. 2017).
Bacteriophages exhibit a high degree of specificity towards their target microbes. They can recognize and infect the specific microbial strains present in biofilms, while leaving beneficial microbes unharmed. This specificity reduces the risk of disrupting the natural microbiota and helps avoid collateral damage to the host. They also have the ability to penetrate the extracellular polymeric matrix that surrounds microbial biofilms. They can target and infect microbes residing deep within the biofilm structure, where antibiotics often struggle to reach. They have the capacity to rapidly evolve and adapt to changes in microbial populations. They can develop new phage variants that overcome microbial resistance mechanisms, including those present in biofilms. This adaptability allows phage therapy to potentially overcome the antibiotic resistance commonly observed in biofilm-associated infections (Furfaro et al. 2018).
While phage therapy holds significant potential for various applications, it is not without its inherent limitations. These limitations include a limited range of hosts, clearance by the immune system, and the emergence of bacterial strains that are resistant to phage treatment (Lin et al. 2022). To advance this rapidly growing industry, it is crucial to address these limitations by implementing well-considered strategies. A comprehensive understanding of phage properties and their interactions with the host is essential to overcome these challenges and drive further development in this field.
Biofilm-dispersing enzymes
The matrix of the biofilm is a desirable target for antibiofilm therapy because of its porous structure and exposure to the outside environment. The polymers in the biofilm matrix are capable of being broken down by certain enzymes. This stops them from forming, loosens the matrix that has built up on a surface, and makes the microbes in the biofilms more susceptible to antimicrobials (Sahli et al. 2022).
ROCHE laboratory sells Pulmozyme®, a medication, in France as a solution. It is used to treat P. aeruginosa infections in people with cystic fibrosis and is based on DNase I. When used against S. aureus and P. aeruginosa, this medication demonstrates biofilm detachment action (Sahli et al. 2022).
A naturally produced dispersin B by A. actinomycetemcomitans which break downs the extracellular polysaccharide poly-(1,6)-N-acetylglucosamine (PNAG), which is generated by a variety of microbes, including S. aureus, S. epidermidis and a variety of Gram-negative Proteobacteria. The breakdown of the biofilm matrix causes it to disperse and makes the remaining microbes more susceptible to an antibiotic's effect (Izano et al. 2008).
The clinical translation of biofilm-dispersing enzymes faces several challenges, including their vulnerability to denaturation, degradation, and clearance when administered in living organisms. To overcome these limitations, drug delivery systems are being developed to encapsulate and protect the enzymes, thereby preserving their enzymatic activity. These systems aim to stabilize the enzymes and shield them from the external environment. Additionally, smart drug delivery systems provide the advantage of targeted specificity, enabling the release of therapeutic payloads specifically at the site of infection while minimizing unnecessary systemic exposure (Thorn et al. 2021).
Nanotechnology and biofilm prevention
In addition to the traditional approaches for treating microbial biofilms, innovative technologies have also been developed. The design and study of materials at the nanoscale scale, typically between 1 and 1000 nm, can be referred to as nanotechnology. Unique physicochemical and biological features are produced by the nanoscale nature. Their high surface-to-volume ratios, which give properties distinct from those of the bulk, are to blame for this. Nanotechnologies have a wide range of uses, including in the fields of health, energy, military, environment, and information storage (Juang and Bogy 2005; Hussein 2015; Sharon 2019; Khan 2020; Saleem and Zaidi 2020).
In the area of medicine delivery, nanoformulations have various benefits because they allow delivery of medications with low water solubility, safeguarding the medication against enzymatic reactions and medication delivery to the targeted organ, and hence minimizing potential harm and crossing of several membranes that are impervious to conventional drugs; large macromolecules can be delivered intracellularly and transcellularly. Since biofilm pores typically have a width of 50 nm (this value depends on the density of the biofilm), nanomaterials with diameters below this value can easily penetrate the biofilm matrix and get to the microbes that are present in its interior. Drugs that are encapsulated have a distinct biokinetics from those that are free, which concentrates antibiotic action on the biofilm and reduces exposure to human cells. Nanomedicines can decrease doses and toxicity of related medication formulations while also improving the efficacy, specificity, and biodistribution (Peulen and Wilkinson 2011).
Nanomaterial surface functionalization also affects diffusion inside the biofilm. Hydrophobic particles are more evenly distributed within biofilms than hydrophilic ones, and positively charged nanomaterials are better able to enter biofilms with a negatively charged matrix. Additionally, nanoparticles' physical characteristics can be used to combat biofilm. It is possible to employ some inorganic nanomaterials' inherent microbial toxicity or their ability to locally create heat to kill microbes. The concept of a multifunctional nanomaterial combining therapy and diagnosis (theranostics) has evolved in the ongoing quest to enhance therapies while lowering the doses delivered (Li et al. 2014).
Nanoformulations encounter several challenges as they progress from the laboratory to the market. These challenges include the unclear understanding of how nanomedicines interact with biofilms, the complex biological environment within the body, potential toxicity associated with nanomaterials, and limitations in batch production (Thorn et al. 2021). In the future, one potential solution is to utilize more nanocarriers that incorporate biofilm dispersants. This approach can address issues related to the poor stability and hydrophobicity of dispersants, while also potentially mitigating the development of drug resistance.
Photothermal therapy and photodynamic therapy
Photodynamic therapy (PDT) and photothermal therapy (PTT) have garnered considerable attention and are recognized as successful approaches for treating biofilm infections. PTT enhances the infiltration of antimicrobial agents into biofilms and hampers the emergence of antibiotic resistance. Near-infrared (NIR) light reduces biofilm by approximately 50%, indicating the therapeutic efficacy of heat and precise antimicrobial exposure, with a substantial reduction of up to 90%. However, the high doses of irradiation and concentrations of photosensitizers employed in PTT and PDT to eliminate biofilms can potentially lead to severe tissue damage and inflammation (García et al. 2021; Cai et al. 2021).
Although there is substantial interest in photothermal therapy (PTT), there are still significant challenges that need to be addressed before PTT can be widely implemented in practical applications. One major obstacle is the need for high temperatures (≥ 60 °C) to effectively eliminate bacteria (Huo et al. 2021). However, prolonged exposure to such high temperatures can lead to thermal damage to normal tissues surrounding the bacterial infection sites (Zhu et al. 2016). To overcome this, a more strategic approach is required, involving the optimization of treatment conditions. For instance, shorter treatment times at lower temperatures (around 50 °C) could be explored as a means to achieve effective bacterial eradication while minimizing thermal harm to healthy tissues.
On the other hand, the thickness of human tissue poses a challenge to the application of PDT for antimicrobial infections. This is due to the limited penetration ability or shallow depth of short-wavelength light, or sometimes both factors combined (Gao et al. 2022). To overcome this limitation, the use of longer-wavelength light sources could offer improved tissue penetration, enabling the effective application of PDT in human tissues.
Laser irradiation
Complete degradation of S. aureus and P. aeruginosa biofilms is made possible by hybrid metal–polymer nanoparticles (NPs), using laser-induced forward transfer (LIFT). The LIFT method, driven by a pulsed laser beam, deposits a thin layer of an organic or inorganic donor substrate onto a material with high spatial resolution. This transfer might take place in either the solid or liquid phases. S. aureus and P. aeruginosa biofilms were in contact with a metal NP–polymer composite with LIFT that was constructed of a thin polyethylene terephthalate substrate covered in a layer of silver, copper, or gold metal. These biofilms serve as receptors. The biofilms were not impacted by the laser alone. In contrast, the copper and silver NPs killed them entirely (Nastulyavichus et al. 2020).
Magnetic disturbance
The matrix of methicillin-resistant S. aureus (MRSA) biofilms is damaged by IONPs (Fe3O4 and γ-Fe2O3) when a magnetic field is applied, according to a recent article (Li et al. 2019). The IONPs are directed and focused at a specific location by the magnetic field. In comparison to 8 nm and 70 nm, 11 nm IONPs exhibit the highest antibiofilm activity, and both the AC and DC magnetic fields that are used to remove the biofilm are more effective than direct contact. IONPs only operate upon the physical breakdown of the biofilm, removing the biofilm from the surface, failing to kill the planktonic MRSA germs. Biofilms can be best dispersed by a spinning DC magnetic field. Due to the IONPs' extended contact with the matrix made possible by the low rotation rate, the biofilm is subjected to strong shearing stresses. Therefore, the IONPs and magnetic field serve as "shield breakers." S. epidermidis is penetrated by a nanocarrier called a polymersome that contains IONPS and methicillin. By enhancing the antibiotic's interaction with the biofilm, the IONPs partially deconstruct it, which enhances the synergistic destruction of the sessile population by the antibiotic (Geilich et al. 2017). Magnetic hyperthermia is the process of heating IONPs by applying an AC magnetic field. The separation of the biofilm is caused by local heating caused by IONPs that is substantially greater than that of the medium. The sensitivity of S. aureus towards conventional antibiotics is enhanced by mild magnetic NP hyperthermia (Alumutairi et al. 2020). Figure 5 summarizes the advanced control strategies against biofilms.
Future perspectives
Many studies have worked on bioactive compounds from medicinal plants to find novel natural compounds that act on biofilms, and the results were promising. Unfortunately, not a single FDA-approved drug has been manufactured, even with the considerable amount of research done. Therefore, extended antibiotic therapy and increased antibiotic combinations are highly recommended at the moment, and physicians should be made aware of this.
There are many questions regarding the mechanisms through which microbes maintain a balance between biofilm formation capacity and antibiotic resistance, as well as how resistant strains achieve high levels of biofilm-specific resistance despite producing weak biofilms. Further studies are also needed to determine how the gain of antimicrobial resistance affects biofilm formation. Deeper explorations of plasmid maps and genetic regulation, such as identifying genes involved in biofilm-specific resistance and persisters, would improve our understanding of these processes.
Looking ahead, from our perspectives, there are several promising future strategies for biofilm control, most importantly, combining different treatment modalities, such as PDT, PTT, or other biofilm-targeting strategies, with conventional antibiotics or antimicrobial agents that may prove to be more effective in eradicating biofilms. Synergistic effects between different treatments could enhance biofilm penetration and reduce the risk of antibiotic resistance; developing antibiotics that specifically target biofilms is another potential avenue. These antibiotics would be designed to penetrate biofilm matrices and effectively eradicate the microbes within the biofilm, addressing the challenge of antibiotic tolerance exhibited by biofilm-associated microorganisms.
Conclusion
The management of microbial resistance is threatened by three main conditions: increased biofilm-related infections, expansion of antimicrobial resistance, and the lack of appropriate therapy. It was mentioned that almost 80% of chronic infections in animals and humans are associated with biofilm formation. Biofilm-related antimicrobial tolerance differs from antimicrobial resistance, shown by microbes grown in planktonic culture.
Alternative therapies have been sought to remove or inhibit biofilms because most antibiotics are not able to treat them. From the time the biofilm is formed until it has reached maturity, there are several points where intervention is feasible. Natural metabolites were able to prevent the development of biofilms in several ways, by preventing the synthesis of peptidoglycans and polymer matrix, interrupting the production of the extracellular matrix, repressing cell adhesion and attachment, damaging the structure of microbial membranes, and reducing the production of virulence factors. A significant antibiofilm potential was found in phenolics, polyacetylenes, terpenoids, alkaloids, lectins, and polypeptides. Condensed tannins, in particular among the phenolics, demonstrated antibiofilm activity.
Some microbes, such as coagulase-negative staphylococci (CNS) (S. epidermis) and S. aureus, possess the ability to aggregate and form biofilms by their secreted mucoid extracellular polymeric substance called polysaccharide intercellular adhesion (PIA) matrix. Among the phenotypic techniques, the microtitre plate (MtP) test is one of the quantitative tests. Another phenotypic quantitative in vitro chromatic assessment approach, Congo red agar (CRA) test, has been developed as an alternative to the MtP test.
Extended antibiotic therapy and increased antibiotic combinations are highly recommended to deal with biofilm formations. Future studies should focus on the dynamic between biofilm formation and MDR, by, for example, investigating plasmid maps and genetic regulation.
Data availability
Not applicable.
References
Alumutairi L, Yu B, Filka M, Nayfach J, Kim MH (2020) Mild magnetic nanoparticle hyperthermia enhances the susceptibility of Staphylococcus aureus biofilm to antibiotics. Int J Hyperth 37(1):66–75. https://doi.org/10.1080/02656736.2019.1707886
Anand U, Jacobo-Herrera N, Altemimi A, Lakhssassi N (2019) A comprehensive review on medicinal plants as antimicrobial therapeutics: potential avenues of biocompatible drug discovery. Metabolites 9(11):258. https://doi.org/10.3390/METABO9110258
And N, William Costerton D I, Cheng K-L, Geesey GG, Ladd TL, Dasgupta M, Marrie TI (1987) Bacterial biofilms in. Ann Rev Microbiol 41:43564
Angrist AA, Oka M, Nakao K, Marquiss J (1960) Studies in experimental endocarditis: I. Production of valvular lesions by mechanisms not involving infection or sensitivity factors. Am J Pathol 36(2):181
Anwar H, Van Biesen T, Dasgupta M, Lam K, Costerton JW (1989) Interaction of biofilm bacteria with antibiotics in a novel in vitro chemostat system. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 33(10):1824–1826. https://doi.org/10.1128/AAC.33.10.1824
Arciola CR, Campoccia D, Gamberini S, Cervellati M, Donati E, Montanaro L (2002) Detection of slime production by means of an optimised Congo red agar plate test based on a colourimetric scale in Staphylococcus epidermidis clinical isolates genotyped for ica locus. Biomaterials 23(21):4233–4239. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0142-9612(02)00171-0
Arciola CR, Campoccia D, Montanaro L (2014) Detection of biofilm-forming strains of Staphylococcus epidermidis and S. aureus. Expert Rev Mol Diagn 2(5):478–484. https://doi.org/10.1586/14737159.2.5.478
Artini M, Papa R, Barbato G, Scoarughi GL, Cellini A, Morazzoni P, Bombardelli E, Selan L (2012) Bacterial biofilm formation inhibitory activity revealed for plant derived natural compounds. Bioorg Med Chem 20(2):920–926. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.BMC.2011.11.052
Artono SB, Purnami N, Hutahaen F, Mahardhika MR (2020) The association of IL-1 alpha level and TNF alpha expressions on bone destruction in chronic suppurative otitis media and cholesteatoma. Indian J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 72(1):1–7. https://doi.org/10.1007/S12070-019-01704-Z/TABLES/5
Asadi A, Razavi S, Talebi M, Gholami M (2018) A review on anti-adhesion therapies of bacterial diseases. Infection 47(1):13–23. https://doi.org/10.1007/S15010-018-1222-5
Asfour HZ (2018) Anti-quorum sensing natural compounds. J Microsc Ultrastruct 6(1):1. https://doi.org/10.4103/JMAU.JMAU_10_18
Asma ST, Imre K, Morar A, Herman V, Acaroz U, Mukhtar H, Arslan-Acaroz D, Shah SRA, Gerlach R (2022) An overview of biofilm formation-combating strategies and mechanisms of action of antibiofilm agents. Life 12(8):1110. https://doi.org/10.3390/LIFE12081110
Assefa M, Amare A (2022) Biofilm-associated multi-drug resistance in hospital-acquired infections: a review. Infect Drug Resist 15:5061–5068. https://doi.org/10.2147/IDR.S379502
Azman AS, Mawang CI, Khairat JE, AbuBakar S (2019) Actinobacteria—a promising natural source of anti-biofilm agents. Int Microbiol 22(4):403–409. https://doi.org/10.1007/S10123-019-00066-4/TABLES/1
Bakaletz LO (2007) Bacterial biofilms in otitis media: evidence and relevance. Pediatr Infect Dis J 26(SUPPL10):S17. https://doi.org/10.1097/INF.0B013E318154B273
Banerjee P, Singh M, Sharma V (2015) Biofilm formation: a comprehensive review. Int J Pharma Res Health Sci 3(2):556–560
Behbehani J, Shreaz S, Irshad M, Karched M (2017) The natural compound magnolol affects growth, biofilm formation, and ultrastructure of oral Candida isolates. Microb Pathog 113:209–217. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.MICPATH.2017.10.040
Beynon RP, Bahl VK, Prendergast BD (2006) Infective endocarditis. BMJ 333(7563):334–339. https://doi.org/10.1136/BMJ.333.7563.334
Bjarnsholt T, Buhlin K, Dufrêne YF, Gomelsky M, Moroni A, Ramstedt M, Rumbaugh KP, Schulte T, Sun L, Åkerlund B, Römling U (2018) Biofilm formation—what we can learn from recent developments. J Intern Med 284(4):332–345. https://doi.org/10.1111/JOIM.12782
Blanco-Cabra N, López-Martínez MJ, Arévalo-Jaimes BV, Martin-Gómez MT, Samitier J, Torrents E (2021) A new BiofilmChip device for testing biofilm formation and antibiotic susceptibility. Npj Biofilms Microb 7(1):1–9. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41522-021-00236-1
Bothwell MR, Smith AL, Phillips T (2016) Recalcitrant otorrhea due to pseudomonas biofilm. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 129(5):599–601. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0194-59980301395-0
Brackman G, Hillaert U, Van Calenbergh S, Nelis HJ, Coenye T (2009) Use of quorum sensing inhibitors to interfere with biofilm formation and development in Burkholderia multivorans and Burkholderia cenocepacia. Res Microbiol 160(2):144–151. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.RESMIC.2008.12.003
Brady RA, Leid JG, Calhoun JH, Costerton JW, Shirtliff ME (2008) Osteomyelitis and the role of biofilms in chronic infection. FEMS Immunol Med Microbiol 52(1):13–22. https://doi.org/10.1111/J.1574-695X.2007.00357.X
Burmølle M, Thomsen TR, Fazli M, Dige I, Christensen L, Homøe P, Tvede M, Nyvad B, Tolker-Nielsen T, Givskov M, Moser C, Kirketerp-Møller K, Johansen HK, Høiby N, Jensen PØ, Sørensen SJ, Bjarnsholt T (2010) Biofilms in chronic infections—a matter of opportunity—monospecies biofilms in multispecies infections. FEMS Immunol Med Microbiol 59(3):324–336. https://doi.org/10.1111/J.1574-695X.2010.00714.X
Cai X, Tian J, Zhu J, Chen J, Li L, Yang C, Chen J, Chen D (2021) Photodynamic and photothermal co-driven CO-enhanced multi-mode synergistic antibacterial nanoplatform to effectively fight against biofilm infections. Chem Eng J 426:131919. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.CEJ.2021.131919
Campana S, Taccetti G, Ravenni N, Masi I, Audino S, Sisi B, Repetto T, Döring G, de Martino M (2004) Molecular epidemiology of Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Burkholderia cepacia complex and methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in a cystic fibrosis center. J Cyst Fibros 3(3):159–163. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JCF.2004.03.010
Cao B, Christophersen L, Thomsen K, Sønderholm M, Bjarnsholt T, Jensen PØ, Høiby N, Moser C (2015) Antibiotic penetration and bacterial killing in a Pseudomonas aeruginosa biofilm model. J Antimicrob Chemother 70(7):2057–2063. https://doi.org/10.1093/JAC/DKV058
Cavalu S, Elbaramawi SS, Eissa AG, Radwan MF, Ibrahim ST, Khafagy ES, Lopes BS, Ali MAM, Hegazy WAH, Elfaky MA (2022) Characterization of the anti-biofilm and anti-quorum sensing activities of the β-adrenoreceptor antagonist atenolol against gram-negative bacterial pathogens. Int J Mol Sci 23(21):13088. https://doi.org/10.3390/IJMS232113088
Chakraborty P, Dastidar DG, Paul P, Dutta S, Basu D, Sharma SR, Basu S, Sarker RK, Sen A, Sarkar A, Tribedi P (2020) Inhibition of biofilm formation of Pseudomonas aeruginosa by caffeine: a potential approach for sustainable management of biofilm. Arch Microbiol 202(3):623–635. https://doi.org/10.1007/S00203-019-01775-0/FIGURES/7
Chancey ST, Zähner D, Stephens DS (2012) Acquired inducible antimicrobial resistance in gram-positive bacteria. Future Microbiol 7(8):959–978. https://doi.org/10.2217/FMB.12.63
Chanda W, Joseph TP, Wang W, Padhiar AA, Zhong M (2017) The potential management of oral candidiasis using anti-biofilm therapies. Med Hypotheses 106:15–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.MEHY.2017.06.029
Chole RA, Faddis BT (2002) Evidence for microbial biofilms in cholesteatomas. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 128(10):1129–1133. https://doi.org/10.1001/ARCHOTOL.128.10.1129
Christensen GD, Simpson WA, Younger JJ, Baddour LM, Barrett FF, Melton DM, Beachey EH, Christensen GD, Simpson WA, Beachey EH, Bisno AL, Barrett FF (1985) Adherence of coagulase-negative staphylococci to plastic tissue culture plates: a quantitative model for the adherence of staphylococci to medical devices. J Clin Microbiol 22(6):996–1006. https://doi.org/10.1128/JCM.22.6.996-1006.1985
Ciofu O, Rojo-Molinero E, Macià MD, Oliver A (2017) Antibiotic treatment of biofilm infections. APMIS 125(4):304–319. https://doi.org/10.1111/APM.12673
Ciofu O, Moser C, Jensen PØ, Høiby N (2022) Tolerance and resistance of microbial biofilms. Nat Rev Microbiol 20(10):621–635. https://doi.org/10.1038/S41579-022-00682-4
Connell H, Hedlund M, Agace W, Svanborg C (2016) Bacterial attachment to uro-epithelial cells: mechanisms and consequences. Adv Dent Res 11(1):50–58. https://doi.org/10.1177/08959374970110011701
Costerton JW, Stewart PS, Greenberg EP (1999) Bacterial Biofilms: a common cause of persistent infections. Science 284(5418):1318–1322. https://doi.org/10.1126/SCIENCE.284.5418.1318
Crabbé A, Jensen PØ, Bjarnsholt T, Coenye T (2019) Antimicrobial tolerance and metabolic adaptations in microbial biofilms. Trends Microbiol 27(10):850–863. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.TIM.2019.05.003
Davies CE, Hill KE, Wilson MJ, Stephens P, Hill CM, Harding KG, Thomas DW (2004) Use of 16S ribosomal DNA PCR and denaturing gradient gel electrophoresis for analysis of the microfloras of healing and nonhealing chronic venous leg ulcers. J Clin Microbiol 42(8):3549–3557. https://doi.org/10.1128/JCM.42.8.3549-3557.2004/ASSET/754DAF0F-3CF0-4788-A76D-A135FA25B983/ASSETS/GRAPHIC/ZJM0080444260002.JPEG
Deighton MA, Capstick J, Domalewski E, Van Nguyen T (2001) [17] Methods for studying biofilms produced by staphylococcus epidermidis. Methods Enzymol 336:177–195. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0076-6879(01)36589-8
Dey P, Parai D, Banerjee M, Hossain ST, Mukherjee SK (2020) Naringin sensitizes the antibiofilm effect of ciprofloxacin and tetracycline against Pseudomonas aeruginosa biofilm. Int J Med Microbiol 310(3):151410. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.IJMM.2020.151410
Dhama K, Karthik K, Khandia R, Munjal A, Tiwari R, Rana R, Khurana SK, Ullah S, Khan RU, Alagawany M, Farag MR, Dadar M, Joshi SK (2018) Medicinal and therapeutic potential of herbs and plant metabolites / extracts countering viral pathogens—current knowledge and future prospects. Curr Drug Metab. https://doi.org/10.2174/1389200219666180129145252
Dohar JE, Hebda PA, Veeh R, Awad M, Costerton JW, Hayes J, Ehrlich GD (2005) Mucosal biofilm formation on middle-ear mucosa in a nonhuman primate model of chronic Suppurative otitis media. Laryngoscope 115(8):1469–1472. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.MLG.0000172036.82897.D4
Dong G, Liu H, Yu X, Zhang X, Lu H, Zhou T, Cao J (2018) Antimicrobial and anti-biofilm activity of tannic acid against Staphylococcus aureus. Nat Prod Res 32(18):2225–2228. https://doi.org/10.1080/14786419.2017.1366485/SUPPL_FILE/GNPL_A_1366485_SM0419.PDF
Donlan RM (2002) Biofilms: microbial life on surfaces. Emerg Infect Dis 8(9):881. https://doi.org/10.3201/EID0809.020063
Dowd SE, Sun Y, Secor PR, Rhoads DD, Wolcott BM, James GA, Wolcott RD (2008) Survey of bacterial diversity in chronic wounds using pyrosequencing, DGGE, and full ribosome shotgun sequencing. BMC Microbiol 8(1):1–15. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2180-8-43/TABLES/10
Drenkard E (2003) Antimicrobial resistance of Pseudomonas aeruginosa biofilms. Microbes Infect 5(13):1213–1219. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.MICINF.2003.08.009
Elfaky MA, Elbaramawi SS, Eissa AG, Ibrahim TS, Khafagy ES, Ali MAM, Hegazy WAH (2023) Drug repositioning: doxazosin attenuates the virulence factors and biofilm formation in Gram-negative bacteria. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 107(11):3763–3778. https://doi.org/10.1007/S00253-023-12522-3/METRICS
Elgharably H, Hussain ST, Shrestha NK, Blackstone EH, Pettersson GB (2016) Current hypotheses in cardiac surgery: biofilm in infective endocarditis. Semin Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 28(1):56–59. https://doi.org/10.1053/J.SEMTCVS.2015.12.005
Eze EC, Chenia HY, El Zowalaty ME (2018) Acinetobacter baumannii biofilms: effects of physicochemical factors, virulence, antibiotic resistance determinants, gene regulation, and future antimicrobial treatments. Infect Drug Resist 11:2277. https://doi.org/10.2147/IDR.S169894
Fazly A, Jain C, Dehner AC, Issi L, Lilly EA, Ali A, Cao H, Fidel PL, Rao RP, Kaufman PD (2013) Chemical screening identifies filastatin, a small molecule inhibitor of Candida albicans adhesion, morphogenesis, and pathogenesis. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 110(33):13594–13599. https://doi.org/10.1073/PNAS.1305982110/SUPPL_FILE/PNAS.201305982SI.PDF
Flemming HC, Wingender J, Szewzyk U, Steinberg P, Rice SA, Kjelleberg S (2016a) Biofilms: an emergent form of bacterial life. Nat Rev Microbiol 14(9):563–575. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrmicro.2016.94
Frankel YM, Melendez JH, Wang NY, Price LB, Zenilman JM, Lazarus GS (2009) Defining wound microbial flora: molecular microbiology opening new horizons. Arch Dermatol 145(10):1193–1195. https://doi.org/10.1001/ARCHDERMATOL.2009.246
Freeman DJ, Falkiner FR, Keane CT (1989) New method for detecting slime production by coagulase negative staphylococci. J Clin Pathol 42(8):872–874. https://doi.org/10.1136/JCP.42.8.872
Fu W, Forster T, Mayer O, Curtin JJ, Lehman SM, Donlan RM (2010) Bacteriophage cocktail for the prevention of biofilm formation by Pseudomonas aeruginosa on catheters in an in vitro model system. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 54(1):397–404. https://doi.org/10.1128/AAC.00669-09/ASSET/9109678A-BD65-4BDA-B0E1-600C2795A20F/ASSETS/GRAPHIC/ZAC001108700004B.JPEG
Furfaro LL, Payne MS, Chang BJ (2018) Bacteriophage therapy: clinical trials and regulatory hurdles. Front Cell Infect Microbiol 8:418978. https://doi.org/10.3389/FCIMB.2018.00376/BIBTEX
Gao J, Chen Z, Li X, Yang M, Lv J, Li H, Yuan Z (2022) Chemiluminescence in combination with organic photosensitizers: beyond the light penetration depth limit of photodynamic therapy. Int J Mol Sci 202(20):12556. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms232012556
García A, González B, Harvey C, Izquierdo-Barba I, Vallet-Regí M (2021) Effective reduction of biofilm through photothermal therapy by gold core@shell based mesoporous silica nanoparticles. Microporous Mesoporous Mater 328:111489. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.MICROMESO.2021.111489
Geilich BM, Gelfat I, Sridhar S, van de Ven AL, Webster TJ (2017) Superparamagnetic iron oxide-encapsulating polymersome nanocarriers for biofilm eradication. Biomaterials 119:78–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.BIOMATERIALS.2016.12.011
Gerke C, Kraft A, Süßmuth R, Schweitzer O, Götz F (1998) Characterization of the N-Acetylglucosaminyltransferase activity involved in the biosynthesis of the Staphylococcus epidermidis polysaccharide intercellular adhesin. J Biol Chem 273(29):18586–18593. https://doi.org/10.1074/jbc.273.29.18586
Giwercman B, Lambert PA, Rosdahl VT, Shand GH, Heiby N (1990) Rapid emergence of resistance in Pseudomonas aeruginosa in cystic fibrosis patients due to in-vivo selection of stable partially derepressed β-lactamase producing strains. J Antimicrob Chemother 26(2):247–259. https://doi.org/10.1093/JAC/26.2.247
Gjødsbøl K, Christensen JJ, Karlsmark T, Jørgensen B, Klein BM, Krogfelt KA (2006) Multiple bacterial species reside in chronic wounds: a longitudinal study. Int Wound J 3(3):225–231. https://doi.org/10.1111/J.1742-481X.2006.00159.X
Gottrup F (2004) A specialized wound-healing center concept: importance of a multidisciplinary department structure and surgical treatment facilities in the treatment of chronic wounds. Am J Surg 187(5):S38–S43. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0002-9610(03)00303-9
Götz F (2002) Staphylococcus and biofilms. Mol Microbiol 43(6):1367–1378. https://doi.org/10.1046/J.1365-2958.2002.02827.X
Guan J, Xiao X, Xu S, Gao F, Wang J, Wang T, Song Y, Pan J, Shen X, Wang Y (2015) Roles of RpoS in Yersinia pseudotuberculosis stress survival, motility, biofilm formation and type VI secretion system expression. J Microbiol 53(9):633–642. https://doi.org/10.1007/S12275-015-0099-6
Gustafsson I, Sjölund M, Torell E, Johannesson M, Engstrand L, Cars O, Andersson DI (2003) Bacteria with increased mutation frequency and antibiotic resistance are enriched in the commensal flora of patients with high antibiotic usage. J Antimicrob Chemother 52(4):645–650. https://doi.org/10.1093/JAC/DKG427
Haggag W (2010) The role of biofilm exopolysaccharides on biocontrol of plant diseases. Biopolymers. https://doi.org/10.5772/10266
Halbert AR, Stacey MC, Rohr JB, Jopp-Mckay A (1992) The effect of bacterial colonization on venous ulcer healing. Australas J Dermatol 33(2):75–80. https://doi.org/10.1111/J.1440-0960.1992.TB00083.X
Hall CW, Mah TF (2017) Molecular mechanisms of biofilm-based antibiotic resistance and tolerance in pathogenic bacteria. FEMS Microbiol Rev 41(3):276–301. https://doi.org/10.1093/FEMSRE/FUX010
Hall-Stoodley L, Hu FZ, Gieseke A, Nistico L, Nguyen D, Hayes J, Forbes M, Greenberg DP, Dice B, Burrows A, Wackym PA, Stoodley P, Post JC, Ehrlich GD, Kerschner JE (2006) Direct detection of bacterial biofilms on the middle-ear mucosa of children with chronic otitis media. JAMA 296(2):202–211. https://doi.org/10.1001/JAMA.296.2.202
Hall-Stoodley L, Costerton JW, Stoodley P (2004) Bacterial biofilms: from the natural environment to infectious diseases. Nat Rev Microbiol 2(2):95–108. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrmicro821
Hassett DJ, Sutton MD, Schurr MJ, Herr AB, Caldwell CC, Matu JO (2009) Pseudomonas aeruginosa hypoxic or anaerobic biofilm infections within cystic fibrosis airways. Trends Microbiol 17(3):130–138. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.TIM.2008.12.003
Hoda S et al (2019) Inhibition of Aspergillus fumigatus biofilm and cytotoxicity study of natural compound Cis-9-hexadecenal. J Pure Appl Microbiol 13:1207. https://doi.org/10.22207/JPAM.13.2.61
Høgsberg T, Bjarnsholt T, Thomsen JS, Kirketerp-Møller K (2011) Success rate of split-thickness skin grafting of chronic venous leg ulcers depends on the presence of Pseudomonas aeruginosa: a retrospective study. PLoS ONE 6(5):e20492. https://doi.org/10.1371/JOURNAL.PONE.0020492
Høiby N, Ciofu O, Bjarnsholt T (2010) Pseudomonas aeruginosa biofilms in cystic fibrosis. Future Microbiol 5(11):1663–1674. https://doi.org/10.2217/FMB.10.125
Homøe P, Bjarnsholt T, Wessman M, Sørensen HCF, Johansen HK (2009) Morphological evidence of biofilm formation in greenlanders with chronic suppurative otitis media. Eur Arch Oto-Rhino-Laryngol 266(10):1533–1538. https://doi.org/10.1007/S00405-009-0940-9
Hooshdar P, Kermanshahi RK, Ghadam P, Khosravi-Darani K (2020) A review on production of exopolysaccharide and biofilm in probiotics like lactobacilli and methods of analysis. Review 10(5):6058–6075. https://doi.org/10.33263/BRIAC105.60586075
Hu P, Huang P, Chen MW (2013) Curcumin reduces Streptococcus mutans biofilm formation by inhibiting sortase A activity. Arch Oral Biol 58(10):1343–1348. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ARCHORALBIO.2013.05.004
Huang W, Duan Q, Li F, Shao J, Cheng H, Wu D (2009) Sodium houttuyfonate and EDTA-Na-2 in combination effectively inhibits Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Staphylococcus aureus and Candida albicans in vitro and in vivo. Bioorg Med Chem Lett 25(1):142–147. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.BMCL.2014.10.072
Huo J, Jia Q, Huang H, Zhang J, Li P, Dong X, Huang W (2021) Emerging photothermal-derived multimodal synergistic therapy in combating bacterial infections. Chem Soc Rev 50(15):8762–8789. https://doi.org/10.1039/D1CS00074H
Hussein AK (2015) Applications of nanotechnology in renewable energies—a comprehensive overview and understanding. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 42:460–476. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.RSER.2014.10.027
Inoue H (2019) Strategic approach for combating antimicrobial resistance (AMR). Glob Health Med 1(2):61–64. https://doi.org/10.35772/GHM.2019.01026
Izano EA, Sadovskaya I, Wang H, Vinogradov E, Ragunath C, Ramasubbu N, Jabbouri S, Perry MB, Kaplan JB (2008) Poly-N-acetylglucosamine mediates biofilm formation and detergent resistance in Aggregatibacter actinomycetemcomitans. Microb Pathog 44(1):52–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.MICPATH.2007.08.004
James GA, Swogger E, Wolcott R, Pulcini ED, Secor P, Sestrich J, Costerton JW, Stewart PS (2008) Biofilms in chronic wounds. Wound Repair Regen 16(1):37–44. https://doi.org/10.1111/J.1524-475X.2007.00321.X
Jin X, Lee YJ, Hong SH (2019) Canavalia ensiformis-derived lectin inhibits biofilm formation of enterohemorrhagic Escherichia coli and Listeria monocytogenes. J Appl Microbiol 126(1):300–310. https://doi.org/10.1111/JAM.14108
Juang JY, Bogy DB (2005) Nanotechnology advances and applications in information storage. Microsyst Technol 11(8–10):950–957. https://doi.org/10.1007/S00542-005-0563-Z/FIGURES/12
Jurcisek J, Greiner L, Watanabe H, Zaleski A, Apicella MA, Bakaletz LO (2005) Role of sialic acid and complex carbohydrate biosynthesis in biofilm formation by nontypeable Haemophilus influenzae in the chinchilla middle ear. Infect Immun 73(6):3210–3218. https://doi.org/10.1128/IAI.73.6.3210-3218.2005/ASSET/F482FEEF-4663-43FE-AD58-F4EE4B8C9DCF/ASSETS/GRAPHIC/ZII0060548800006.JPEG
Khan FA (2020) Major nano-based products: nanomedicine, nanosensors, and nanodiagnostics. Appl Nanomater Hum Health. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-4802-4_11
Kloos WE, Bannerman TL (1994) Update on clinical significance of coagulase-negative staphylococci. Clin Microbiol Rev 7(1):117–140. https://doi.org/10.1128/CMR.7.1.117
Koo KM, Kim CD, Ju FN, Kim H, Kim CH, Kim TH (2022) Recent advances in electrochemical biosensors for monitoring animal cell function and viability. Biosensors 12(12):1162. https://doi.org/10.3390/BIOS12121162
Kouidhi B, Al Qurashi YMA, Chaieb K (2015) Drug resistance of bacterial dental biofilm and the potential use of natural compounds as alternative for prevention and treatment. Microb Pathog 80:39–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.MICPATH.2015.02.007
Kwiecinski J, Kahlmeter G, Jin T (2015) Biofilm formation by staphylococcus aureus isolates from skin and soft tissue infections. Curr Microbiol 70(5):698–703. https://doi.org/10.1007/S00284-014-0770-X/FIGURES/2
Lau D, Plotkin BJ (2013) Antimicrobial and biofilm effects of herbs used in traditional chinese medicine. Nat Prod Commun 8(11):1617–1620. https://doi.org/10.1177/1934578X1300801129
Lee MR, Pawlowski KS, Luong A, Furze AD, Roland PS (2009) Biofilm presence in humans with chronic suppurative otitis media. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 141(5):567–571. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.OTOHNS.2009.08.010
Li Y, Ma Y, Zhang L, Guo F, Ren L, Yang R, Li Y, Lou H (2012) In Vivo inhibitory effect on the biofilm formation of Candida albicans by liverwort derived riccardin D. PLoS ONE 7(4):e35543. https://doi.org/10.1371/JOURNAL.PONE.0035543
Li X, Yeh YC, Giri K, Mout R, Landis RF, Prakash YS, Rotello VM (2014) Control of nanoparticle penetration into biofilms through surface design. Chem Commun 51(2):282–285. https://doi.org/10.1039/C4CC07737G
Li J, Nickel R, Wu J, Lin F, Van Lierop J, Liu S (2019) A new tool to attack biofilms: driving magnetic iron-oxide nanoparticles to disrupt the matrix. Nanoscale 11(14):6905–6915. https://doi.org/10.1039/C8NR09802F
Lin J, Du F, Long M, Li P (2022) Limitations of phage therapy and corresponding optimization strategies: a review. Molecules 27(6):1857. https://doi.org/10.3390/MOLECULES27061857
Lu L, Hu W, Tian Z, Yuan D, Yi G, Zhou Y, Cheng Q, Zhu J, Li M (2019a) Developing natural products as potential anti-biofilm agents. Chin Med (united Kingdom) 14(1):1–17. https://doi.org/10.1186/S13020-019-0232-2/TABLES/3
Mack D, Rohde H, Dobinsky S, Riedewald J, Nedelmann M, Knobloch JKM, Elsner HA, Feucht HH (2000) Identification of three essential regulatory gene loci governing expression of Staphylococcus epidermidis polysaccharide intercellular adhesin and biofilm formation. Infect Immun 68(7):3799–3807. https://doi.org/10.1128/IAI.68.7.3799-3807.2000/ASSET/CF9B0F2A-1A09-47FC-AF2D-DA84F46CAB99/ASSETS/GRAPHIC/II0700040005.JPEG
Madsen SM, Westh H, Danielsen L, Rosdahl VT (1996) Bacterial colonization and healing of venous leg ulcers. APMIS 104(7–8):895–899. https://doi.org/10.1111/J.1699-0463.1996.TB04955.X
Manandhar S, Singh A, Varma A, Pandey S, Shrivastava N (2021) Phenotypic and genotypic characterization of biofilm producing clinical coagulase negative staphylococci from Nepal and their antibiotic susceptibility pattern. Ann Clin Microbiol Antimicrob 20(1):1–11. https://doi.org/10.1186/S12941-021-00447-6/TABLES/6
Manoharan RK, Lee JH, Kim YG, Lee J (2017) Alizarin and chrysazin inhibit biofilm and hyphal formation by Candida albicans. Front Cell Infect Microbiol 7(OCT):447. https://doi.org/10.3389/FCIMB.2017.00447/BIBTEX
Marrie TJ, Cooper JH, Costerton JW (1987) Ultrastructure of cardiac bacterial vegetations on native valves with emphasis on alterations in bacterial morphology following antibiotic treatment. Can J Cardiol 3(6):275–280
Mertens A, Ghebremedhin B (2013) Genetic determinants and biofilm formation of clinical Staphylococcus epidermidis isolates from blood cultures and indwelling devises. Eur J Microbiol Immunol (bp) 3(2):111–119. https://doi.org/10.1556/EUJMI.3.2013.2.4
Mishra R, Panda AK, De Mandal S, Shakeel M, Bisht SS, Khan J (2020) Natural anti-biofilm agents: strategies to control biofilm-forming pathogens. Front Microbiol 11:2640. https://doi.org/10.3389/FMICB.2020.566325/BIBTEX
Morris AJ, Drinkovic D, Pottumarthy S, Strickett MG, MacCulloch D, Lambie N, Kerr AR (2003) Gram stain, culture, and histopathological examination findings for heart valves removed because of infective endocarditis. Clin Infect Dis 36(6):697–704. https://doi.org/10.1086/367842/2/36-6-697-TBL004.GIF
Mu D, Xiang H, Dong H, Wang D, Wang T (2018) Isovitexin, a potential candidate inhibitor of sortase A of Staphylococcus aureus USA300. J Microbiol Biotechnol 28(9):1426–1432. https://doi.org/10.4014/JMB.1802.02014
Naresh V, Lee N (2021) A review on biosensors and recent development of nanostructured materials-enabled biosensors. Sensors 21(4):1109. https://doi.org/10.3390/S21041109
Nastulyavichus A, Tolordava E, Rudenko A, Zazymkina D, Shakhov P, Busleev N, Romanova Y, Ionin A, Kudryashov S (2020) In Vitro destruction of pathogenic bacterial biofilms by bactericidal metallic nanoparticles via laser-induced forward transfer. Nanomaterials 10(11):2259. https://doi.org/10.3390/NANO10112259
Oechslin F, Piccardi P, Mancini S, Gabard J, Moreillon P, Entenza JM, Resch G, Que YA (2017) synergistic interaction between phage therapy and antibiotics clears Pseudomonas aeruginosa infection in endocarditis and reduces virulence. J Infect Dis 215(5):703–712. https://doi.org/10.1093/INFDIS/JIW632
Panda SK, Das R, Lavigne R, Luyten W (2020) Indian medicinal plant extracts to control multidrug-resistant S. aureus, including in biofilms. S Afr J Bot 128:283–291. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.SAJB.2019.11.019
Park BI, Kim BS, Kim KJ, You YO (2019) Sabinene suppresses growth, biofilm formation, and adhesion of Streptococcus mutans by inhibiting cariogenic virulence factors. J Oral Microbiol 11(1):1632101. https://doi.org/10.1080/20002297.2019.1632101
Pawlowski KS, Wawro D, Roland PS (2005) Bacterial biofilm formation on a human cochlear implant. Otol Neurotol 26(5):972–975. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.MAO.0000169047.38759.8B
Peng LY, Yuan M, Wu ZM, Song K, Zhang CL, An Q, Xia F, Yu JL, Yi PF, Fu BD, Shen HQ (2019) Anti-bacterial activity of baicalin against APEC through inhibition of quorum sensing and inflammatory responses. Sci Rep 9(1):1–11. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-40684-6
Perloff JR, Palmer JN (2018) Evidence of Bacterial biofilms on frontal recess stents in patients with chronic rhinosinusitis. Am J Rhinol Allergy 18(6):377–380. https://doi.org/10.1177/194589240401800607
Peulen TO, Wilkinson KJ (2011) Diffusion of nanoparticles in a biofilm. Environ Sci Technol 45(8):3367–3373. https://doi.org/10.1021/ES103450G/SUPPL_FILE/ES103450G_SI_001.PDF
Pires DP, Oliveira H, Melo LDR, Sillankorva S, Azeredo J (2016) Bacteriophage-encoded depolymerases: their diversity and biotechnological applications. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 100(5):2141–2151. https://doi.org/10.1007/S00253-015-7247-0
Polewczyk A, Jachec W, Tomaszewski A, Brzozowski W, Czajkowski M, Polewczyk AM, Janion M, Kutarski A (2017) Lead-related infective endocarditis: factors influencing the formation of large vegetations. EP Europace 19(6):1022–1030. https://doi.org/10.1093/EUROPACE/EUW121
Post JC (2001) Direct evidence of bacterial biofilms in otitis media. Laryngoscope 111(12):2083–2094. https://doi.org/10.1097/00005537-200112000-00001
Price LB, Liu CM, Melendez JH, Frankel YM, Engelthaler D, Aziz M, Bowers J, Rattray R, Ravel J, Kingsley C, Keim PS, Lazarus GS, Zenilman JM (2009) Community analysis of chronic wound bacteria using 16S rRNA gene-based pyrosequencing: impact of diabetes and antibiotics on chronic wound microbiota. PLoS ONE 4(7):e6462. https://doi.org/10.1371/JOURNAL.PONE.0006462
Quintieri L, Mani S, Lentini G, Maisetta G (2022) Editorial: Advances in the discovery of natural molecules and their analogues against microbial infection-related biofilms. Front Microbiol 13:4774. https://doi.org/10.3389/FMICB.2022.1092209
Rabin N, Zheng Y, Opoku-Temeng C, Du Y, Bonsu E, Sintim HO (2015) Biofilm formation mechanisms and targets for developing antibiofilm agents. Future Med Chem 7(4):493–512. https://doi.org/10.4155/FMC.15.6
Rayner MG, Zhang Y, Gorry MC, Chen Y, Post JC, Ehrlich GD (1998) Evidence of bacterial metabolic activity in culture-negative otitis media with effusion. JAMA 279(4):296–299. https://doi.org/10.1001/JAMA.279.4.296
Reid SD, Hong W, Dew KE, Winn DR, Pang B, Watt J, Glover DT, Hollingshead SK, Swords WE (2009) Streptococcus pneumoniae forms surface-attached communities in the middle ear of experimentally infected chinchillas. J Infect Dis 199(6):786–794. https://doi.org/10.1086/597042
Roberts ME, Stewart PS (2004) Modeling antibiotic tolerance in biofilms by accounting for nutrient limitation. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 48(1):48–52. https://doi.org/10.1128/AAC.48.1.48-52.2004/ASSET/9F87A3DE-2153-46B5-B1ED-3AB63EDC33AD/ASSETS/GRAPHIC/ZAC0010400270008.JPEG
Römling U, Fiedler B, Boßhammer J, Grothues D, Greipel J, Von der Hardt H, Tümmler B (1994) Epidemiology of chronic pseudomonas aeruginosa infections in cystic fibrosis. J Infect Dis 170(6):1616–1621. https://doi.org/10.1093/INFDIS/170.6.1616
Roy S, Chowdhury G, Mukhopadhyay AK, Dutta S, Basu S (2022) Convergence of biofilm formation and antibiotic resistance in acinetobacter baumannii infection. Front Med (lausanne) 9:793615. https://doi.org/10.3389/FMED.2022.793615
Rumbaugh KP, Sauer K (2020) Biofilm dispersion. Nat Rev Microbiol 18(10):571–586. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41579-020-0385-0
Sahli C, Moya SE, Lomas JS, Gravier-Pelletier C, Briandet R, Hémadi M (2022) Recent advances in nanotechnology for eradicating bacterial biofilm. Theranostics 12(5):2383. https://doi.org/10.7150/THNO.67296
Saidi IS, Biedlingmaier JF, Whelan P (2016) In vivo resistance to bacterial biofilm formation on tympanostomy tubes as a function of tube material. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 120(5):621–627. https://doi.org/10.1053/HN.1999.V120.A94162
Saleem H, Zaidi SJ (2020) Developments in the application of nanomaterials for water treatment and their impact on the environment. Nanomaterials 10(9):1764. https://doi.org/10.3390/NANO10091764
Schultz G, Bjarnsholt T, James GA, Leaper DJ, McBain AJ, Malone M, Stoodley P, Swanson T, Tachi M, Wolcott RD (2017) Consensus guidelines for the identification and treatment of biofilms in chronic nonhealing wounds. Wound Repair Regen 25(5):744–757. https://doi.org/10.1111/WRR.12590
Scorza FB, Doro F, Rodríguez-Ortega MJ, Stella M, Liberatori S, Taddei AR, Serino L, Moriel DG, Nesta B, Fontana MR, Spagnuolo A, Pizza M, Norais N, Grandi G (2008) Proteomics characterization of outer membrane vesicles from the extraintestinal pathogenic Escherichia coli ΔtolR IHE3034 mutant. Mol Cell Proteomics 7(3):473–485. https://doi.org/10.1074/mcp.M700295-MCP200
Shao J, Cheng H, Wu D, Wang C, Zhu L, Sun Z, Duan Q, Huang W, Huang J (2013) Antimicrobial effect of sodium houttuyfonate on Staphylococcus epidermidis and Candida albicans biofilms. J Tradit Chin Med 33(6):798–803. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0254-6272(14)60015-7
Shao J, Cheng H, Wang C, Wang Y (2012) A phytoanticipin derivative, sodium houttuyfonate, induces in vitro synergistic effects with levofloxacin against biofilm formation by Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Molecules 17(9):11242–11254. https://doi.org/10.3390/MOLECULES170911242
Sharma D, Misba L, Khan AU (2019) Antibiotics versus biofilm: an emerging battleground in microbial communities. Antimicrob Resist Infect Control 8(1):1–10. https://doi.org/10.1186/S13756-019-0533-3
Sharon Goh HM, Beatson SA, Totsika M, Moriel DG, Phan MD, Szubert J, Runnegar N, Sidjabat HE, Paterson DL, Nimmo GR, Lipman J, Schembri MA (2013) Molecular analysis of the Acinetobacter baumannii biofilm-associated protein. Appl Environ Microbiol 79(21):6535. https://doi.org/10.1128/AEM.01402-13
Sharon M (2019) Nanotechnology’s entry into the defense arena. Nanotechnol Defense Ind. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119460503.CH1
Singh VK, Almpani M, Maura D, Kitao T, Ferrari L, Fontana S, Bergamini G, Calcaterra E, Pignaffo C, Negri M, de Oliveira PT, Skinner F, Gkikas M, Andreotti D, Felici A, Déziel E, Lépine F, Rahme LG (2022) Tackling recalcitrant Pseudomonas aeruginosa infections in critical illness via anti-virulence monotherapy. Nat Commun 13(1):1–15. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-022-32833-9
Slachmuylders L, Van Acker H, Brackman G, Sass A, Van Nieuwerburgh F, Coenye T (2018) Elucidation of the mechanism behind the potentiating activity of baicalin against Burkholderia cenocepacia biofilms. PLoS ONE 13(1):e0190533. https://doi.org/10.1371/JOURNAL.PONE.0190533
Sudbery P, Gow N, Berman J (2004) The distinct morphogenic states of Candida albicans. Trends Microbiol 12(7):317–324. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.TIM.2004.05.008
Sun L, Liao K, Wang D (2015a) Effects of magnolol and honokiol on adhesion, yeast-hyphal transition, and formation of biofilm by Candida albicans. PLoS ONE 10(2):e0117695. https://doi.org/10.1371/JOURNAL.PONE.0117695
Sun LM, Liao K, Liang S, Yu PH, Wang DY (2015b) Synergistic activity of magnolol with azoles and its possible antifungal mechanism against Candida albicans. J Appl Microbiol 118(4):826–838. https://doi.org/10.1111/JAM.12737
Sutherland IW, Hughes KA, Skillman LC, Tait K (2004) The interaction of phage and biofilms. FEMS Microbiol Lett 232(1):1–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-1097(04)00041-2
Swords WE, Moore ML, Godzicki L, Bukofzer G, Mitten MJ, VonCannon J (2004) Sialylation of lipooligosaccharides promotes biofilm formation by nontypeable Haemophilus influenzae. Infect Immun 72(1):106–113. https://doi.org/10.1128/IAI.72.1.106-113.2004
Thabit AK, Eljaaly K, Zawawi A, Ibrahim TS, Eissa AG, Elbaramawi SS, Hegazy WAH, Elfaky MA (2022b) Silencing of salmonella typhimurium pathogenesis: atenolol acquires efficient anti-virulence activities. Microorganisms 10(10):1976. https://doi.org/10.3390/MICROORGANISMS10101976/S1
Thabit AK, Eljaaly K, Zawawi A, Ibrahim TS, Eissa AG, Elbaramawi SS, Hegazy WAH, Elfaky MA (2022a) Muting bacterial communication: evaluation of prazosin anti-quorum sensing activities against gram-negative bacteria Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Proteus mirabilis, and Serratia marcescens. Biology 11(9):1349. https://doi.org/10.3390/BIOLOGY11091349
Thappeta KRV, Zhao LN, Nge CE, Crasta S, Leong CY, Ng V, Kanagasundaram Y, Fan H, Ng SB (2020) In-silico identified new natural sortase A inhibitors disrupt S. aureus biofilm formation. Int J Mol Sci 21(22):8601. https://doi.org/10.3390/IJMS21228601
Thomsen TR, Aasholm MS, Rudkjøbing VB, Saunders AM, Bjarnsholt T, Givskov M, Kirketerp-Møller K, Nielsen PH (2010) The bacteriology of chronic venous leg ulcer examined by culture-independent molecular methods. Wound Repair Regen 18(1):38–49. https://doi.org/10.1111/J.1524-475X.2009.00561.X
Thorn CR, Howell PL, Wozniak DJ, Prestidge CA, Thomas N (2021) Enhancing the therapeutic use of biofilm-dispersing enzymes with smart drug delivery systems. Adv Drug Deliv Rev 179:113916. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ADDR.2021.113916
Toyofuku M, Inaba T, Kiyokawa T, Obana N, Yawata Y, Nomura N (2016) Environmental factors that shape biofilm formation. Biosci Biotechnol Biochem 80(1):7–12. https://doi.org/10.1080/09168451.2015.1058701
Trampuz A, Zimmerli W (2008) Diagnosis and treatment of implant-associated septic arthritis and osteomyelitis. Curr Infect Dis Rep 10(5):394–403. https://doi.org/10.1007/S11908-008-0064-1
Trentin DDS, Giordani RB, Zimmer KR, Da Silva AG, Da Silva MV, Correia MTDS, Baumvol IJR, MacEdo AJ (2011) Potential of medicinal plants from the Brazilian semi-arid region (Caatinga) against Staphylococcus epidermidis planktonic and biofilm lifestyles. J Ethnopharmacol 137(1):327–335. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JEP.2011.05.030
Tseung KSYNH, Zhao J (2016) Update on the fungal biofilm drug resistance and its alternative treatment. J Biosci Med (irvine) 04(05):37–47. https://doi.org/10.4236/JBM.2016.45004
Wassermann T, Jørgensen KM, Ivanyshyn K, Bjarnsholt T, Hossein Khademi SM, Jelsbak L, Høiby N, Ciofu O (2016) The phenotypic evolution of pseudomonas aeruginosa populations changes in the presence of subinhibitory concentrations of ciprofloxacin. Microbiology (united Kingdom) 162(5):865–875. https://doi.org/10.1099/MIC.0.000273/CITE/REFWORKS
Wei LN, Shi CZ, Luo CX, Hu CY, Meng YH (2020) Phloretin inhibits biofilm formation by affecting quorum sensing under different temperature. LWT 131:109668. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.LWT.2020.109668
William Costerton J (2007) Replacement of acute planctonic by chronic biofilm diseases. Biofilm Primer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-68022-2_5
Worlitzsch D, Tarran R, Ulrich M, Schwab U, Cekici A, Meyer KC, Birrer P, Bellon G, Berger J, Weiss T, Botzenhart K, Yankaskas JR, Randell S, Boucher RC, Döring G (2002) Effects of reduced mucus oxygen concentration in airway pseudomonas infections of cystic fibrosis patients. J Clin Invest 109(3):317–325. https://doi.org/10.1172/JCI13870
Wu D, Wu XD, You XF, Ma XF, Tian WX (2010) Inhibitory effects on bacterial growth and b-ketoacyl-ACP reductase by different species of maple leaf extracts and tannic acid. Phytother Res 24(S1):S35–S41. https://doi.org/10.1002/PTR.2873
Wu J, Fan Y, Wang X, Jiang X, Zou J, Huang R (2020) Effects of the natural compound, oxyresveratrol, on the growth of Streptococcus mutans, and on biofilm formation, acid production, and virulence gene expression. Eur J Oral Sci 128(1):18–26. https://doi.org/10.1111/EOS.12667
Yang L, Liu X, Zhong L, Sui Y, Quan G, Huang Y, Wang F, Ma T (2018) Dioscin inhibits virulence factors of Candida albicans. Biomed Res Int. https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/4651726
Yong YY, Dykes GA, Choo WS (2019) Biofilm formation by staphylococci in health-related environments and recent reports on their control using natural compounds. Crit Rev Microbiol 45(2):201–222. https://doi.org/10.1080/1040841X.2019.1573802
Yusuf SW, Sharma J, Durand JB, Banchs J (2014) Endocarditis and myocarditis: a brief review. Expert Rev Cardiovasc Ther 10(9):1153–1164. https://doi.org/10.1586/ERC.12.107
Zhao Q, Chen XY, Martin C (2016) Scutellaria baicalensis, the golden herb from the garden of Chinese medicinal plants. Sci Bull (beijing) 61(18):1391–1398. https://doi.org/10.1007/S11434-016-1136-5
Zhu X, Feng W, Chang J, Tan YW, Li J, Chen M, Sun Y, Li F (2016) Temperature-feedback upconversion nanocomposite for accurate photothermal therapy at facile temperature. Nat Commun. https://doi.org/10.1038/NCOMMS10437
Ziebuhr W, Heilmann C, Götz F, Meyer P, Wilms K, Straube E, Hacker J (1997) Detection of the intercellular adhesion gene cluster (ica) and phase variation in Staphylococcus epidermidis blood culture strains and mucosal isolates. Infect Immun 65(3):890–896. https://doi.org/10.1128/IAI.65.3.890-896.1997
Zimmerli W, Trampuz A (2011) Implant-associated infection. Biofilm Infect. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-6084-9_5/TABLES/1
Funding
Open access funding provided by The Science, Technology & Innovation Funding Authority (STDF) in cooperation with The Egyptian Knowledge Bank (EKB).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
MZ, GM, SI, SG, CB, and ME contributed substantially to the conception of the article and to interpretation of data presented. All authors critically reviewed the manuscript for important intellectual content. The authors take full responsibility for the scientific content of the paper and have all approved the submitted version.
Corresponding authors
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors have no relevant financial or non-financial interests to disclose.
Consent to participate
Not applicable.
Ethical approval
Not applicable.
Consent to publication
Not applicable.
Additional information
Communicated by Yusuf Akhter.
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Zafer, M.M., Mohamed, G.A., Ibrahim, S.R.M. et al. Biofilm-mediated infections by multidrug-resistant microbes: a comprehensive exploration and forward perspectives. Arch Microbiol 206, 101 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00203-023-03826-z
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00203-023-03826-z