Advanced Nanotechnological Approaches for Biofilm Prevention and Control
Source abstract
Abstract
Biofilm-associated infections present a significant challenge in modern medicine, primarily due to their resilience and resistance to conventional treatments. These infections occur when bacteria form biofilms, protective layers formed by bacterial communities, which are notoriously resistant to traditional antibiotics on surfaces such as medical implants and biological surfaces, making eradication with standard antibiotics difficult. This resilience leads to persistent infections, imposing a substantial economic burden on healthcare systems. The urgency to find alternative treatments is critical as current methods are insufficient and costly. Innovative approaches, such as nanotechnology-based therapies, offer promising alternatives by targeting biofilms more effectively and reducing the need for invasive procedures. Nanocarriers hold significant promise in the fight against biofilm-associated infections. Nanocarriers can penetrate biofilms more effectively than conventional treatments, delivering higher concentrations of antibiotics or other antimicrobial agents precisely where they are needed. This targeted approach not only enhances the efficacy of treatments but also minimizes potential side effects. The development of nanocarrier-based therapies is crucial for overcoming the limitations of current treatments and ultimately improving patient outcomes and reducing the economic burden of biofilm-associated infections on healthcare systems. In this review, nanotechnology-based systems, their characteristics, limitations, and potential benefits are explored to address biofilms-related infections. Additionally, biofilm evaluation models and the tests necessary for the preclinical validation of these nanosystems to facilitate their clinical application are addressed.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Bacterial biofilms and quorum sensing · Nanoparticles: synthesis and applications · Nanoplatforms for cancer theranostics
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
Affiliations
Department of Metallurgical and Materials Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, University of Porto, 4200-465 Porto, Portugal
i3S—Institute for Research and Innovation in Health, University of Porto, 4200-135 Porto, Portugal
INEB—Biomedical Engineering Institute, University of Porto, 4200-135 Porto, Portugal
References (100+)
Show source-provided references
1. Barros, J., Monteiro, F.J., and Ferraz, M.P. (2022). Bioengineering Approaches to Fight against Orthopedic Biomaterials Related-Infections. Int. J. Mol. Sci., 23.10.3390/ijms231911658 ↗
2. Staphylococcus aureus and Escherichia coli dual-species biofilms on nanohydroxyapatite loaded with CHX or ZnO nanoparticles10.1002/jbm.a.35925 ↗
3. Krukiewicz, K., Kazek-Kesik, A., Brzychczy-Wloch, M., Los, M.J., Ateba, C.N., Mehrbod, P., Ghavami, S., and Shyntum, D.Y. (2022). Recent Advances in the Control of Clinically Important Biofilms. Int. J. Mol. Sci., 23.10.3390/ijms23179526 ↗
4. Biofilm formation: A clinically relevant microbiological process10.1086/322972 ↗
5. The inflammatory response to bone infection—A review based on animal models and human patients10.1111/apm.13027 ↗
6. Bacterial and fungal biofilm infections10.1146/annurev.med.59.110106.132000 ↗
7. To be or not to be planktonic? Self-inhibition of biofilm development10.1111/1462-2920.12583 ↗
8. Searching for new strategies against polymicrobial biofilm infections: Guanylated polymethacrylates kill mixed fungal/bacterial biofilms10.1093/jac/dkv334 ↗
9. Impact of nanosystems in Staphylococcus aureus biofilms treatment10.1093/femsre/fuz021 ↗
10. Polymicrobial interaction in biofilm: Mechanistic insights10.1093/femspd/ftac010 ↗
11. Price, B.L., Morley, R., Bowling, F.L., Lovering, A.M., and Dobson, C.B. (2020). Susceptibility of monomicrobial or polymicrobial biofilms derived from infected diabetic foot ulcers to topical or systemic antibiotics in vitro. PLoS ONE, 15.10.1371/journal.pone.0228704 ↗
12. Anju, V.T., Busi, S., Imchen, M., Kumavath, R., Mohan, M.S., Salim, S.A., Subhaswaraj, P., and Dyavaiah, M. (2022). Polymicrobial Infections and Biofilms: Clinical Significance and Eradication Strategies. Antibiotics, 11.10.3390/antibiotics11121731 ↗
13. Tshikantwa, T.S., Ullah, M.W., He, F., and Yang, G. (2018). Current Trends and Potential Applications of Microbial Interactions for Human Welfare. Front. Microbiol., 9.10.3389/fmicb.2018.01156 ↗
14. Biofilms—A microbial life perspective: A critical review10.1615/CritRevTherDrugCarrierSyst.v24.i5.10 ↗
15. Eating for two: How metabolism establishes interspecies interactions in the gut10.1016/j.chom.2011.10.002 ↗
16. Divergent mechanisms for passive pneumococcal resistance to beta-lactam antibiotics in the presence of Haemophilus influenzae10.1093/infdis/jiq087 ↗
17. The polymicrobial nature of biofilm infection10.1111/j.1469-0691.2012.04001.x ↗
18. Biofilm models of polymicrobial infection10.2217/fmb.15.109 ↗
19. Lobo, C.I.V., Rinaldi, T.B., Christiano, C.M.S., De Sales Leite, L., Barbugli, P.A., and Klein, M.I. (2019). Dual-species biofilms of Streptococcus mutans and Candida albicans exhibit more biomass and are mutually beneficial compared with single-species biofilms. J. Oral Microbiol., 11.10.1080/20002297.2019.1581520 ↗
20. Quorum Sensing in Fungal Species10.1146/annurev-micro-060321-045510 ↗
21. Sadiq, F.A., De Reu, K., Burmolle, M., Maes, S., and Heyndrickx, M. (2023). Synergistic interactions in multispecies biofilm combinations of bacterial isolates recovered from diverse food processing industries. Front. Microbiol., 14.10.3389/fmicb.2023.1159434 ↗
22. Biofilm Development
23. Sharma, S., Mohler, J., Mahajan, S.D., Schwartz, S.A., Bruggemann, L., and Aalinkeel, R. (2023). Microbial Biofilm: A Review on Formation, Infection, Antibiotic Resistance, Control Measures, and Innovative Treatment. Microorganisms, 11.10.3390/microorganisms11061614 ↗
24. Zhao, A.L., Sun, J.Z., and Liu, Y.P. (2023). Understanding bacterial biofilms: From definition to treatment strategies. Front. Cell. Infect. Microbiol., 13.10.3389/fcimb.2023.1137947 ↗
25. Targeting microbial quorum sensing: The next frontier to hinder bacterial driven gastrointestinal infections10.1080/19490976.2023.2252780 ↗
26. Huang, L., Jin, Y., Zhou, D., Liu, L., Huang, S., Zhao, Y., and Chen, Y. (2022). A Review of the Role of Extracellular Polymeric Substances (EPS) in Wastewater Treatment Systems. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health, 19.10.3390/ijerph191912191 ↗
27. Kunnath, A.P., Suodha Suoodh, M., Chellappan, D.K., Chellian, J., and Palaniveloo, K. (2024). Bacterial Persister Cells and Development of Antibiotic Resistance in Chronic Infections: An Update. Br. J. Biomed. Sci., 81.10.3389/bjbs.2024.12958 ↗
28. Quantitative and Qualitative Assessment Methods for Biofilm Growth: A Mini-review
29. Infection of orthopedic implants with emphasis on bacterial adhesion process and techniques used in studying bacterial-material interactions10.4161/biom.22905 ↗
30. Coraca-Huber, D.C., Kreidl, L., Steixner, S., Hinz, M., Dammerer, D., and Fille, M. (2020). Identification and Morphological Characterization of Biofilms Formed by Strains Causing Infection in Orthopedic Implants. Pathogens, 9.10.3390/pathogens9080649 ↗
31. Optimization of staining with SYTO 9/propidium iodide: Interplay, kinetics and impact on Brevibacillus brevis10.2144/btn-2020-0036 ↗
32. A method for quantitative determination of biofilm viability10.3390/jfb3020418 ↗
33. Anti-sessile bacterial and cytocompatibility properties of CHX-loaded nanohydroxyapatite10.1016/j.colsurfb.2015.04.034 ↗
34. Poly(DL-lactic acid) scaffolds as a bone targeting platform for the co-delivery of antimicrobial agents against S. aureus-C. albicans mixed biofilms10.1016/j.ijpharm.2022.121832 ↗
35. Is biofilm removal properly assessed? Comparison of different quantification methods in a 96-well plate system10.1007/s00253-016-7396-9 ↗
36. Stiefel, P., Schmidt-Emrich, S., Maniura-Weber, K., and Ren, Q. (2015). Critical aspects of using bacterial cell viability assays with the fluorophores SYTO9 and propidium iodide. BMC Microbiol., 15.10.1186/s12866-015-0376-x ↗
37. Robertson, J., McGoverin, C., Vanholsbeeck, F., and Swift, S. (2019). Optimisation of the Protocol for the LIVE/DEAD((R)) BacLight(TM) Bacterial Viability Kit for Rapid Determination of Bacterial Load. Front. Microbiol., 10.10.3389/fmicb.2019.00801 ↗
38. Barbosa, A., Miranda, S., Azevedo, N.F., Cerqueira, L., and Azevedo, A.S. (2023). Imaging biofilms using fluorescence in situ hybridization: Seeing is believing. Front. Cell. Infect. Microbiol., 13.10.3389/fcimb.2023.1195803 ↗
39. Achinas, S., Yska, S.K., Charalampogiannis, N., Krooneman, J., and Euverink, G.J.W. (2020). A Technological Understanding of Biofilm Detection Techniques: A Review. Materials, 13.10.3390/ma13143147 ↗
40. QCM-D characterization of time-dependence of bacterial adhesion10.1016/j.tcsw.2019.100024 ↗
41. Detecting Escherichia coli Biofilm Development Stages on Gold and Titanium by Quartz Crystal Microbalance10.1021/acsomega.9b03540 ↗
42. Salazar, J., Amer, M.A., Turó, A., Castro, N., Navarro, M., Soto, S., Gabasa, Y., López, Y., and Chávez, J.A. (2023). Real-Time Detection of the Bacterial Biofilm Formation Stages Using QCM-Based Sensors. Chemosensors, 11.10.3390/chemosensors11010068 ↗
43. Preparation and antibiofilm studies of curcumin loaded chitosan nanoparticles against polymicrobial biofilms of Candida albicans and Staphylococcus aureus10.1016/j.carbpol.2020.116254 ↗
44. Optimization of tetrazolium salt assay for Pseudomonas aeruginosa biofilm using microtiter plate method10.1016/j.mimet.2014.07.024 ↗
45. Haney, E.F., Trimble, M.J., Cheng, J.T., Valle, Q., and Hancock, R.E.W. (2018). Critical Assessment of Methods to Quantify Biofilm Growth and Evaluate Antibiofilm Activity of Host Defence Peptides. Biomolecules, 8.10.3390/biom8020029 ↗
46. Cerqueira, F., Medeiros, R., Lopes, I., Campos, C., Ferraz, M.P., Silva, F., Alves, L.G., and Pinto, E. (2024). A Cyclam Salt as an Antifungal Agent: Interference with Candida spp. and Cryptococcus neoformans Mechanisms of Virulence. Antibiotics, 13.10.3390/antibiotics13030222 ↗
47. Validation of ATP bioluminescence as a tool to assess antimicrobial effects of mouthrinses in an in vitro subgingival-biofilm model10.4317/medoral.18376 ↗
48. Arroyo, M.G., Ferreira, A.M., Frota, O.P., Rigotti, M.A., de Andrade, D., Brizzotti, N.S., Peresi, J.T.M., Castilho, E.M., and de Almeida, M.T.G. (2017). Effectiveness of ATP bioluminescence assay for presumptive identification of microorganisms in hospital water sources. BMC Infect. Dis., 17.10.1186/s12879-017-2562-y ↗
49. Effectiveness of ATP bioluminescence to assess hospital cleaning: A review
50. Current progress and prospects of organic nanoparticles against bacterial biofilm10.1016/j.cis.2021.102475 ↗
51. Medical biofilms10.1002/bit.21838 ↗
52. Biofilm infections, their resilience to therapy and innovative treatment strategies10.1111/joim.12004 ↗
53. Pietrocola, G., Campoccia, D., Motta, C., Montanaro, L., Arciola, C.R., and Speziale, P. (2022). Colonization and Infection of Indwelling Medical Devices by Staphylococcus aureus with an Emphasis on Orthopedic Implants. Int. J. Mol. Sci., 23.10.3390/ijms23115958 ↗
54. Dadi, N.C.T., Radochova, B., Vargova, J., and Bujdakova, H. (2021). Impact of Healthcare-Associated Infections Connected to Medical Devices-An Update. Microorganisms, 9.10.3390/microorganisms9112332 ↗
55. Yasir, M., Willcox, M.D.P., and Dutta, D. (2018). Action of Antimicrobial Peptides against Bacterial Biofilms. Materials, 11.10.3390/ma11122468 ↗
56. Almasri, D., and Dahman, Y. (2023). Prosthetic Joint Infections: Biofilm Formation, Management, and the Potential of Mesoporous Bioactive Glass as a New Treatment Option. Pharmaceutics, 15.10.3390/pharmaceutics15051401 ↗
57. The use of microscopy and three-dimensional visualization to evaluate the structure of microbial biofilms cultivated in the Calgary Biofilm Device10.1251/bpo127 ↗
58. Single particle tracking reveals spatial and dynamic organization of the E. coli biofilm matrix10.1088/1367-2630/16/8/085014 ↗
59. Todoric, O., Pezo, L., Saric, L., Kolarov, V., Varga, A., Cabarkapa, I., and Kocic-Tanackov, S. (2023). Comparison of the Efficiency of Selected Disinfectants against Planktonic and Biofilm Populations of Escherichia coli and Staphylococcus aureus. Microorganisms, 11.10.3390/microorganisms11061593 ↗
60. Extended spectrum beta-lactamases, carbapenemases and mobile genetic elements responsible for antibiotics resistance in Gram-negative bacteria10.3109/1040841X.2012.691870 ↗
61. In-host evolution of Staphylococcus epidermidis in a pacemaker-associated endocarditis resulting in increased antibiotic tolerance10.1038/s41467-019-09053-9 ↗
62. Khan, J., Tarar, S.M., Gul, I., Nawaz, U., and Arshad, M. (2021). Challenges of antibiotic resistance biofilms and potential combating strategies: A review. 3 Biotech, 11.10.1007/s13205-021-02707-w ↗
63. Uruen, C., Chopo-Escuin, G., Tommassen, J., Mainar-Jaime, R.C., and Arenas, J. (2020). Biofilms as Promoters of Bacterial Antibiotic Resistance and Tolerance. Antibiotics, 10.10.3390/antibiotics10010003 ↗
64. Liu, Z., Zhang, P., Qin, Y., Zhang, N., Teng, Y., Venter, H., and Ma, S. (2020). Design and synthesis of aryl-substituted pyrrolidone derivatives as quorum sensing inhibitors. Bioorganic Chem., 105.10.1016/j.bioorg.2020.104376 ↗
65. Lytic bacteriophages against multidrug-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, Enterococcus faecalis and Escherichia coli isolates from orthopaedic implant-associated infections10.1016/j.ijantimicag.2019.06.007 ↗
66. Efficacy of isolated bacteriophage against biofilm embedded colistin-resistant10.1016/j.genrep.2020.100984 ↗
67. Different effects of matrix degrading enzymes towards biofilms formed by E. faecalis and E. faecium clinical isolates10.1016/j.colsurfb.2017.07.010 ↗
68. Surfactants: Role in biofilm management and cellular behaviour10.1111/iwj.13093 ↗
69. A dynamic covalent polymeric antimicrobial for conquering drug-resistant bacterial infection10.1002/EXP.20210145 ↗
70. Metal organic framework-loaded biohybrid magnetic microrobots for enhanced antibacterial treatment10.1016/j.colsurfa.2024.133295 ↗
71. Escaping the ESKAPE pathogens: A review on antibiofilm potential of nanoparticles10.1016/j.micpath.2024.106842 ↗
72. Confessor, M.V.A., Agreles, M.A.A., Campos, L.A.D., Neto, A.F.S., Borges, J.C., Martins, R.M., Scavuzzi, A.M.L., Lopes, A.C.S., Kretzschmar, E.A.D., and Cavalcanti, I.M.F. (2024). Olive oil nanoemulsion containing curcumin: Antimicrobial agent against multidrug-resistant bacteria. Appl. Microbiol. Biot., 108.10.1007/s00253-024-13057-x ↗
73. Manobala, T. (2024). Peptide-based strategies for overcoming biofilm-associated infections: A comprehensive review. Crit. Rev. Microbiol.10.1080/1040841X.2024.2390597 ↗
74. Wen, F.L., Wu, Y., Yuan, Y., Yang, X.T., Ran, Q.M., Gan, X.Y., Guo, Y.D., Wang, X.R., Chu, Y.W., and Zhao, K.L. (2024). Discovery of psoralen as a quorum sensing inhibitor suppresses virulence. Appl. Microbiol. Biot., 108.10.1007/s00253-024-13067-9 ↗
75. Gonzalez-Prada, I., Borges, A., Santos-Torres, B., Magariños, B., Simoes, M., Concheiro, A., and Alvarez-Lorenzo, C. (2024). Antimicrobial cyclodextrin-assisted electrospun fibers loaded with carvacrol, citronellol and cinnamic acid for wound healing. Int. J. Biol. Macromol., 277.10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2024.134154 ↗
76. Leaching-Free durable antibacterial composite films constructed via delicate balance between potent contact sterilization and low adhesion10.1016/j.apsusc.2024.160812 ↗
77. Yusuf, A., Almotairy, A.R.Z., Henidi, H., Alshehri, O.Y., and Aldughaim, M.S. (2023). Nanoparticles as Drug Delivery Systems: A Review of the Implication of Nanoparticles’ Physicochemical Properties on Responses in Biological Systems. Polymers, 15.10.3390/polym15071596 ↗
78. Ahsan, A., Thomas, N., Barnes, T.J., Subramaniam, S., Loh, T.C., Joyce, P., and Prestidge, C.A. (2024). Lipid Nanocarriers-Enabled Delivery of Antibiotics and Antimicrobial Adjuvants to Overcome Bacterial Biofilms. Pharmaceutics, 16.10.3390/pharmaceutics16030396 ↗
79. Targeting biofilm infections in humans using small scale robotics10.1016/j.tibtech.2023.10.004 ↗
80. Penetration of topically used antimicrobials through Staphylococcus aureus biofilms: A comparative study using different models10.1016/j.jddst.2018.10.015 ↗
81. A modular reactor to simulate biofilm development in orthopedic materials
82. Possibilities and impossibilities of magnetic nanoparticle use in the control of infectious biofilms10.1016/j.jmst.2020.08.031 ↗
83. Abdalla, A.K., Ayyash, M.M., Olaimat, A.N., Osaili, T.M., Al-Nabulsi, A.A., Shah, N.P., and Holley, R. (2021). Exopolysaccharides as Antimicrobial Agents: Mechanism and Spectrum of Activity. Front. Microbiol., 12.10.3389/fmicb.2021.664395 ↗
84. Recent advances and future challenges in the use of nanoparticles for the dispersal of infectious biofilms10.1016/j.jmst.2021.02.007 ↗
85. Anacardic acid encapsulated solid lipid nanoparticles for Staphylococcus aureus biofilm therapy: Chitosan and DNase coating improves antimicrobial activity10.1007/s13346-020-00795-4 ↗
86. Tan, Y., Ma, S., Leonhard, M., Moser, D., Ludwig, R., and Schneider-Stickler, B. (2020). Co-immobilization of cellobiose dehydrogenase and deoxyribonuclease I on chitosan nanoparticles against fungal/bacterial polymicrobial biofilms targeting both biofilm matrix and microorganisms. Mater. Sci. Eng. C Mater. Biol. Appl., 108.10.1016/j.msec.2019.110499 ↗
87. Lipid and polymer nanoparticles for drug delivery to bacterial biofilms10.1016/j.jconrel.2014.03.055 ↗
88. Mechanism of enhanced activity of liposome-entrapped aminoglycosides against resistant strains of Pseudomonas aeruginosa10.1128/AAC.01547-05 ↗
89. The antimicrobial activity of nanoparticles: Present situation and prospects for the future10.2147/IJN.S121956 ↗
90. Mikusova, V., and Mikus, P. (2021). Advances in Chitosan-Based Nanoparticles for Drug Delivery. Int. J. Mol. Sci., 22.10.3390/ijms22179652 ↗
91. Chitosan-based nanosystems and their exploited antimicrobial activity10.1016/j.ejps.2018.01.046 ↗
92. Chitosan disrupts biofilm formation and promotes biofilm eradication in Staphylococcus species isolated from bovine mastitis10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2018.12.159 ↗
93. The role of nanotechnology in combating biofilm-based antibiotic resistance10.1016/j.jddst.2020.101880 ↗
94. Nanotechnology-based drug delivery systems for control of microbial biofilms: A review10.2147/IJN.S146195 ↗
95. Nanotechnology-based antimicrobials and delivery systems for biofilm-infection control10.1039/C7CS00807D ↗
96. Eradication of Helicobacter pylori: Past, present and future10.1016/j.jconrel.2014.06.020 ↗
97. Ferreira, M., Ogren, M., Dias, J.N.R., Silva, M., Gil, S., Tavares, L., Aires-da-Silva, F., Gaspar, M.M., and Aguiar, S.I. (2021). Liposomes as Antibiotic Delivery Systems: A Promising Nanotechnological Strategy against Antimicrobial Resistance. Molecules, 26.10.3390/molecules26072047 ↗
98. Pinilla, C.M.B., Lopes, N.A., and Brandelli, A. (2021). Lipid-Based Nanostructures for the Delivery of Natural Antimicrobials. Molecules, 26.10.3390/molecules26123587 ↗
99. Lin, L., Zhang, P., Li, C.Z., Hua, Z.C., and Cui, H.Y. (2022). Inhibitory effect of calcium phosphate-coated high-affinity liposomes on Staphylococcus aureus and its biofilms. Food Biosci., 50.10.1016/j.fbio.2022.102101 ↗
100. Liu, P., Chen, G.L., and Zhang, J.C. (2022). A Review of Liposomes as a Drug Delivery System: Current Status of Approved Products, Regulatory Environments, and Future Perspectives. Molecules, 27.10.3390/molecules27041372 ↗