Submitted Successfully!
Thank you for your contribution! You can also upload a video entry or images related to this topic.
Ver. Summary Created by Modification Content Size Created at Operation
1 + 3680 word(s) 3680 2021-10-09 11:35:36 |
2 format correct Meta information modification 3680 2021-10-13 03:23:28 |

Video Upload Options

Do you have a full video?


Are you sure to Delete?
If you have any further questions, please contact Encyclopedia Editorial Office.
Abubakar, A. Mechanisms and Impact of Biofilms. Encyclopedia. Available online: (accessed on 01 December 2023).
Abubakar A. Mechanisms and Impact of Biofilms. Encyclopedia. Available at: Accessed December 01, 2023.
Abubakar, Amira. "Mechanisms and Impact of Biofilms" Encyclopedia, (accessed December 01, 2023).
Abubakar, A.(2021, October 12). Mechanisms and Impact of Biofilms. In Encyclopedia.
Abubakar, Amira. "Mechanisms and Impact of Biofilms." Encyclopedia. Web. 12 October, 2021.
Mechanisms and Impact of Biofilms

Biofilms comprising aggregates of microorganisms or multicellular communities have been a major issue as they cause resistance against antimicrobial agents and biofouling. To date, numerous biofilm-forming microorganisms have been identified, which have been shown to result in major effects including biofouling and biofilm-related infections. Quorum sensing (which describes the cell communication within biofilms) plays a vital role in the regulation of biofilm formation and its virulence. As such, elucidating the various mechanisms responsible for biofilm resistance (including quorum sensing) will assist in developing strategies to inhibit and control the formation of biofilms in nature. Employing biological control measures (such as the use of bioactive compounds) in targeting biofilms is of great interest since they naturally possess antimicrobial activity among other favorable attributes and can also possibly act as potent antibiofilm agents.

biofilms quorum sensing biofouling biofilm-related Infections biological control bioactive compounds antibiofilm agents

1. Introduction

Biofilms are defined as aggregates of microorganisms or multicellular communities that are embedded in extracellular matrix produced by the microorganisms themselves [1][2]. Some biofilms contain only a single species, while some others contain a multitude of species [3]. The matrix in which microorganisms are encased is composed of extracellular polymeric substances (EPS) typically consisting of polysaccharides, proteins or peptides, lipids, as well as deoxyribonucleic acids (DNA). These biofilm components facilitate the coherence of cells and cell surface attachment [4][5]. Biofilm formation is not only attributed to bacteria, but also to fungi and protists [3][6]. Some of the examples of biofilm-forming bacteria, fungi, and protists are shown in Figure 1.
Figure 1. Types of biofilm-forming microorganisms [3][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17].
Biofilms can be formed on any surfaces, including both biotic and abiotic surfaces [2]. Biotic surfaces such as the teeth of animals, a most common sites for bacteria to form biofilm. Biofilm formation on abiotic surfaces is prevalent in industrial and medical settings, whereby they are evidently found in industrial pipes and equipment for clinical use [2]. Among all the microorganisms, bacterial biofilm is highly associated with nosocomial diseases due to the colonization of bacteria on the surface of medical equipment, most commonly seen in indwelling urinary catheters and implantable medical devices [18][19].
Biofilm formation is the protective mechanism of microorganisms that is involved in stress coping [20]. Their survival can be prolonged in unfavourable conditions as they are able to withstand the stress when they are within biofilms. This does not happen to planktonic cells as they can easily die in such conditions [20]. The presence of any stress can trigger the formation of biofilm and cause free-floating (planktonic) bacteria to switch to the biofilm mode of growth [21]. Some common stressful conditions that are faced by the organisms include nutrient deprivation, changes in pH, and the presence of antibiotics in their surroundings, which are discussed later in this review [20].
The formation of biofilms in the human body is associated with high morbidity and mortality rates [18]. One of the reasons is because they are capable of resisting phagocytosis. Therefore, the clearing of biofilms away from the host is of great difficulty, allowing them to persist and cause chronic infections [22]. A common example is the formation of dental plaque, a type of bacterial biofilm that forms on the teeth, responsible for tooth decay and gum-related diseases [23]. Besides that, diseases caused by biofilm-forming organisms are very difficult to treat due to the organisms’ increased resistance against antibiotics. As such, it is a great challenge for researchers and physicians to search for alternative compounds or substances to target biofilms [19]. In this review, we focused on the uses of various bioactive compounds in targeting biofilm, alongside with the factors triggering and contributing to biofilm formation and its impact.

2. Stages in Biofilm Formation and Its Development

The development of biofilm involves four main stages, starting with cellular attachment, to formation of microcolonies, then biofilm maturation, and finally dispersion [17].

2.1. Cellular Attachment

Attachment of bacteria onto a surface is the initial step of biofilm formation [24]. In order for an organism to bind to a surface, they have to overcome the repulsive forces caused by the negatively charged bacterial membrane and the surface [25]. A hydrophobic surface such as plastic has a reduced force of repulsion as compared to a hydrophilic surface, for example glass and metal. The reduction in repulsive forces corresponds to increased strength of attachment [17]. Attachment is achieved by the presence of flagella and pili on the bacterial membrane [17][25]. The attachment phase involving the structural support is called a reversible attachment. The binding is reversible as bacteria are only poorly bound to a surface and are able to leave the surface at this stage. The bacteria leaving a surface return to their planktonic lifestyle [26]. For bacteria that stays on the surface, they undergo irreversible attachment, a step that is important for the transition from a planktonic to biofilm lifestyle. The adhesion of cells to a surface is aided by the surface proteins of the bacterial cells, resulting in irreversible binding [27]. As a result, the biofilm is now able to withstand stronger chemical and physical shear forces [28].

2.2. Microcolonies Formation

After bacterial cells have attached irreversibly onto a surface, they start to divide and produce EPS [1]. The production of EPS leads to the formation of a biofilm matrix, a ‘shelter’ where all the attached cells are living in [29]. EPS is involved in the adhesion of cells to surfaces, contributing to permanent attachment [27]. Recently, it was found that matrix proteins of a biofilm possess adhesin-like properties that mediate cellular attachment. Drescher et al. [30] showed that RbmA, one of the matrix proteins found in the Vibrio cholerae biofilm, acts as a mediator in this process. In addition to that, EPS mediates cellular cohesion in which bacterial cells are brought together and form microcolonies, the second step of biofilm formation [31]. Usually, a biofilm contains more than one type of micro-community and involves coordination between one community to another. This coordination is important for substrate exchange, the distribution of essential metabolic products, and also the excretion of harmful substances [17].

2.3. Biofilm Maturation

Cellular division with continuous production of EPS leads to the formation of an early biofilm, which becomes mature after some time and ultimately becomes a three-dimensional (3-D) structure. The aforementioned 3-D structure is contributed to by the EPS (produced by the embedded cells), and they are also responsible for maintaining this architecture [32]. The maturation process involves cell-to-cell communication, in which cells embedded in the biofilm release signaling molecules called auto-inducers to facilitate quorum sensing [17][33]. Cells that receive the signals and then express their genes coding for EPS. With the increased production of EPS, biofilms acquire the previously described 3-D structure [17][34]. Besides that, a mature biofilm also contains water channels in the matrix acting as a circulatory system. The functions of these channels include nutrient distribution and the removal of waste products [35][36].

2.4. Detachment of Biofilm

Following maturation, biofilms undergo a process known as dispersion. At this stage, some of the cells leave the biofilm and return to their planktonic lifestyle [37]. As these cells return to their free-floating form, they are now able to attach onto a new surface, and the cycle starts all over again [21]. Cells can either detach from the biofilm actively or passively. Passive dispersal of a biofilm is mediated by mechanical forces or external forces such as abrasion, fluid shear, and solid shear [38][39]. In active dispersal, it involves the upregulation and downregulation of genes. Several environmental triggers are found to be related to the dispersal of biofilms, which include nutrient starvation, insufficient oxygen supply, and changes in temperature [40]. Under these conditions, genes responsible for flagella synthesis are upregulated and this provides the bacterial cells the ability to leave the biofilm [41]. Besides that, production of dispersin B is also enhanced. This enzyme is present in the extracellular matrix and functionally acts to hydrolyze polysaccharides, resulting in EPS degradation. Increased secretion of dispersin B into the matrix negatively impacts biofilm formation and allows adherent cells to leave the biofilm easily [41][42]Figure 2, as shown, summarizes the stages in biofilm formation.
Figure 2. Stages in biofilm formation.

3. Quorum Sensing in Biofilm Formation

The term quorum sensing (QS) was first described by W.C. Fuqua, denoting the cell–cell interaction of bacteria [43]. His findings were based on research from Tomasz and Nealson (as early as 1965 and 1970, respectively) who reported the discovery of autoinducer activity in Vibrio fischeri [44]. QS is crucial in microbial communities as bacteria can collectively obtain information about their population density, coordinate population behavior, and perform gene expression in response to variations of the surrounding population density [45]. QS is extremely beneficial for microorganisms as certain biological processes are much more expensive and unproductive for a single bacterial cell to carry out [46][47]. For instance, the execution of activities such as bioluminescence, virulence factor production, and biofilm formation require a higher population density of bacteria for maximal performance [48].
Extracellular signaling molecules known as autoinducers (AIs) govern the communication among cells through their secretion, detection, and responses [49]. The concentration of AIs is monitored by the population density of bacteria in the environment. The concentration of AIs is said to be directly proportional to the bacterial community density as the increment of bacterial population contributes to an elevation in AIs concentration [50].
The principle of the QS system in bacteria is closely dependent on the release of AIs by bacteria in a particular community. The overall mechanism of AI release is different in low cell density (LCD) and high cell density (HCD) environments [51]. As described previously, the larger the population density, the higher the concentration of secreted AIs. Hence, the concentration of AIs in HCD is comparatively higher than that in LCD, and the threshold of detection and response by receptors that are present in the bacterial membrane or cytoplasm can be attained easily. It is a circular loop denominated as a ‘feed-forward AIs loop’, which describes the detection of sufficient concentrations of AIs that enable bacteria to proceed into activation of gene expression alteration that could further promote more secretion of AI molecules [52]. This loop is most probably the key to stimulating and maintaining synchrony in bacterial populations [53].
From within bacterial cells, AHLs (acyl-homoserine lactones) and AIPs (auto-inducer peptides) are produced and processed before they are secreted into the extracellular space [48]. When the extracellular concentration of AIs is elevated in HCD environments, these signaling molecules bind to the two-component histidine kinase receptor that is bound with the cognate membrane [54][55]. This activates a cascade reaction that has been activated initially through autophosphorylation to the cognate response regulator in the cytoplasm, then the activated regulator further activates transcription in the bacterial gene [53]Figure 3 illustrates the binding mechanism of AI molecules (bacterial QS) in LCD and HCD environments.
Figure 3. The binding mechanism of AIs molecules (bacterial QS) in LCD and HCD environments [53][54][55].
Despite QS being recognized as a general feature of bacteria, the mechanism still differs in terms of the signaling molecules involved; namely, AI-1 and AI-2. AI-1 molecules govern intraspecies communication and it involves the acyl-homoserine lactones (AHLs)-based interaction whereas AI-2 is produced by both type of bacteria, which is the furanosyl borate diester [56]. Apart from that, studies have also differentiated the mechanism of AIs according to the types of bacteria [57]. Gram-positive bacteria such as Staphylococcus spp. and Enterococcus spp. specifically synthesize AIPs for communication [58]Pseudomonas spp. and Acinetobacter spp. are Gram-negative bacteria that produce AHLs as their signaling molecules; the composition of AHLs consist of a lactone ring with varying lengths of aliphatic acyl chain [59]. In addition, these bacteria can also be controlled by other molecules that depend on S-adenosylmethionine as a substrate for their production [53]Figure 4 demonstrates the different types of AIs that are released by different bacteria [48][60]. For example, Xanthomonas uses diffusible signal factor (DSF) [61], whereas hydroxy palmitic acid methyl ester (3-OH PAME) is used by Ralstonia spp. [62].
Figure 4. Different types of AIs in Gram-positive and Gram-negative bacteria [48][56][60][61][62].

4. Consequences of Biofilm Formation

4.1. Biofouling

In various industrial fields (including water, food, medical, shipping, and oil industries), one of the most common problem of biofilm formation is biofouling [63][64]. Biofouling (also known as biological fouling) is generally defined as the unwanted growth and agglomeration of living organisms on surfaces [65]. Based on recent studies, it is now widely recognized that biofouling has negative impacts in many industries and can cost them their profitability [66]. Biofouling in medical industries only involves biofilm formation, which contrasts with biofouling in marine, manufacturing industries, and food industries as it involves a combination of biofilm formation, macrofouling, and scaling [67]. The physical and chemical properties of surfaces can influence the extent of bacterial adhesion [68]. The morphology of biofouling can be distinguished based on the thickness, bioadhesive strength, density, and type of fouling organisms [67]. For the most part, biofouling elicits a high cost in various industrial sectors due to its wide range of detrimental effects. The subsequent subsections review the aforesaid effects in more detail.

4.1.1. Biofouling in Marine Industries

Globally, more than four thousand marine species have been associated with causing biofouling, subsequently posing a more than a serious threat in marine parks and aquacultures [69][70][71]. Marine biofouling can be categorized as microfouling (which involves the accumulation of microorganisms) and macrofouling (which involves the accumulation of macro-organisms such as invertebrates), which can further be divided into soft and hard macrofouling [68][72]. Soft macrofouling invertebrates comprise corals, tunicates, sponges, and hydroids, whereas hard macrofouling invertebrates include mussels, tubeworms, and barnacles [73][74]. These marine fouling organisms dwell better in temperate and tropical environmental conditions, but this can fluctuate according to seasonal variations [75]. According to Lebret et al. [76], marine algae is predominant among these organisms as they colonize the fastest, adhere to a broad range of surfaces, and produce numerous metabolites that have antifungal and antimicrofouling properties. Notably, some studies have described microorganisms as being involved in biofouling forms microlayers, which then initiates the adhesion of macro-organisms that can subsequently develop into macrofouling [64][68][73]Figure 5 shows the classification of marine biofouling.
Figure 5. Classification of marine biofouling.
Marine biofouling appears as the visible aquatic growth of living organisms on seashore rocks, ships, boats, buoys, and underwater structures, which over time can incur physical stress on ship engines, stimulate biocorrosion of ship vessels, and interfere with mariculture environments [67][71]. A biofilm of 1 mm thickness is able to increase the friction drag of ship hulls by 80%, resulting in an overall 15% speed loss [77]. Since biofouling creates surface roughness at ship hulls, this can cause elevated ship resistance, which increases the fuel consumption (with emission of greenhouse gases), leading to high maintenance costs. To reinforce this, a study conducted by Baciocco [78] revealed that in the year 1974, the US Navy spent 200 million dollars to cover shipping maintenance and marine deterioration costs, both of which were elevated due to biofouling.
Biofouling can accelerate the decay of ship coatings due to the colonization of fouling marine species, further affecting the ship’s performance (causing unwanted noises, reduced speed, and an increase in fuel usage). This leads to an increment in unnecessary dry-docking procedures (a method of ship repair) and repainting, increasing the overall burden for more maintenance costs [71][75]. According to Munk et al. [79], ship vessel owners spend millions of dollars every three to five years just to cover the costs for dry-docking procedures, which involves the replacement of the hull coating, the cleaning of hulls, and the polishing of propellers. The accumulation of biofouling algae communities on ship walkways and structures can create a slippery-like coating, which may pose a potential safety hazard if one is not carefully onboard [67].

4.1.2. Biofouling in Food and Beverage Industries

In the food industry, biofouling is prominent in processing appliances and piping systems, which gives rise to contamination, poor hygiene standards, corrosion of food equipment, food spoilage, decreased shelf-life of food products, and foodborne diseases [66][80][81]. This in turn generates functional and hygienic complications with pronounced financial losses and risks to human health [82]. These foodborne illnesses are a high risk for those who mostly consume raw food or ready-to-eat (RTE) products [83]. The severity of the diseases can range from mild gastroenteritis to life-threatening complications including liver abnormalities, meningitis, thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpura, and many others. The various environmental parameters as well as the EPS favors the persistence of biofilms in food industries, causing the overall deterioration of biofouling-susceptible appliances (pipelines, tanks, packing tools, storage materials, dispensing tubes, and pasteurizer plates) that are made of metals and alloys [84]. Sixty percent of foodborne infections were due to biofilm transfer from food-processing equipment to processed food items (which are then consumed by unsuspecting individuals) [85]. Furthermore, these surface-attached microorganisms cannot be easily eliminated as they are highly resistant to antimicrobials, ultimately contributing to severe health risks [66]. Among the various bacteria that form biofilms, Escherichia coli has been reported as the most tenacious foodborne pathogen commonly found in meat industries, vegetable processing industries, and preserved products [82]. Other notable bacteria that form resilient biofilms on food surfaces and are potential foodborne pathogens include L. monocytogenesS. entericaC. jejuniC. coliS. typhimuriumS. enteritidisB. cereus, and Pseudomonas spp. [82][83][84][85][86][87][88][89][90][91][92][93][94][95][96]Table 1 summarizes the various foodborne infections caused by biofilms in different types of food industry.
Table 1. Effects of biofouling in food and beverage industries.
Type of Food Industry Prominent Bacteria Effects References
Dairy Industry L. monocytogenes
Styphimurium and Senteritidis
E. coli (STEC)
B. cereus
Gastroenteritis or listeriosis
Enterohemorrhagic gastroenteritis or hemolytic uremic syndrome (HUS)
Gastroenteritis or occasionally acute liver failure
Poultry Industry S. enterica
C. jejuni and C. coli
Gastroenteritis or septicemia
Enterocolitis or gastroenteritis
Meat Industry E. coli O157:H7
L. Monocytogenes
Salmonella spp.
Hemorrhagic colitis or thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpura (TTP)
Gastroenteritis or listeriosis
Fish and Seafood Industry Vibrio cholerae
Aeromonas spp.
Pseudomonas spp.
Cholera or gastroenteritis
Epizootic ulcerative syndrome (EUS)

4.1.3. Biofouling in Medical Industries

In medical industries, biofouling can occur in medical devices including urinary catheters, contact lenses, prosthetic implants, breast implants, dental implants, tissue fillers, cerebrospinal fluid shunts, and biosensors. As the use of these medical devices increases, the risk of biofilm infections has also increased [97]. Most of these medical devices are made of polymers, ceramics, and composites materials [18]. Biofouling in implanted devices initiates soon after the insertion of device, whereby the host-derived adhesins form a conditional layer and attracts the planktonic cells to attach onto the implant surface. Following the stages on how biofilm forms, signaling occurs, and the bacteria persists [98]Figure 6 shows an example of how biofouling can develop on implanted medical devices. Biofilms on medical devices can arise from the patient’s skin, healthcare workers, or the surrounding environment [99]. This can cause various detrimental effects of medical biofouling, especially implant-related diseases, malfunction of devices, and implant rejection [67][100].
Figure 6. Biofouling on medical implant devices.
The malfunction of medical implanted devices results in costly surgical removal and replacement procedures [101][102]. According to Bixler and Bhushan [67], approximately 45% of nosocomial infections are attributed to implant-related diseases with over 5000 deaths per annum. The mortality rates associated with these diseases are especially high for those with contaminated cardiovascular implants i.e., prosthetic heart valves and aortic grafts [98]. In a US survey, results showed that almost 25% of blood infection-related mortality resulted from implanted vascular catheters [99]. For the most part, surgical removal is required for those implants infected by different organisms [98]. In fact, approximately two-thirds of medical implant-related infections are a result of S. aureus or the coagulase negative Staphylococci [98].
Apart from that, both the Gram-positive and Gram-negative bacteria can adhere onto medical devices and form biofilms. Some notable and well-known biofilm-forming bacteria that can cause medical implant infections include E. coliP. aeruginosaC. albicansK. pneumoniaeS. aureus, and S. epidermidis [18][67][99]. An adherent biofilm can develop and lead to acute fungemia. Several studies have shown that the cells detach from a biofilm are related to mortality and cytotoxicity. Infections caused by Candida spp. are very common in devices like catheters. Aspergillus spp. are commonly attributed to infections involving cardiac pacemakers, joint replacements, breast implants, and cardiac valves. Cryptococcus neoformans can also colonize devices similar to the aforementioned examples and cause severe infections [103].

4.2. Biofilm-Related Infections

Approximately 65% of infections that are caused by bacteria are associated with biofilms [17]. Some of the common non-device-related biofilm infections are discussed in the following subsections.

4.2.1. Periodontitis

Periodontitis is an infection of the gums whereby the soft tissues and the bones supporting the teeth gets damaged as a result of the infection. This could develop due to poor oral hygiene, which may also result in tooth loss. The infectious agents behind this infection are Pseudomonas aerobicus and Fusobacterium nucleatum [17]. These bacteria can form biofilms in the mucosal surfaces of the mouth. Through this way, they can invade the cells, release their toxins, and form plaques in a couple of weeks [17]. Moreover, the formation of lesions may be present due to the infection. The result of the treatment may be influenced by the size of the lesion [104]. Antimicrobial treatment is enough in the case of minor infections, but special treatment may be required when the infection becomes severe [105].

4.2.2. Rhinosinusitis

The inflammation of the paranasal sinuses is referred to as sinusitis or rhinosinusitis. Depending on the severity of the infection, it can be classified as acute or chronic. It is said that most of this infection is caused by the colonization of bacteria. However, some studies have also stated that fungal biofilms might also be involved. Both Aspergillus fumigatus and Staphylococcus aureus have been discovered to be involved in causing rhinosinusitis [106]. It has also been stated that the patients that have undergone surgical procedures are more likely to be infected with the infection related to biofilms. Biofilms are formed in the presence of more eosinophil cells. Moreover, bacteria such as P. aeruginosaS. pneumoniaeS. aureus, and H. influenza are also involved in causing chronic rhinosinusitis [107]. The most dominant species is S. aureus, which was proven in a study conducted by Schurmann et al. [108]. It was further concluded that most of the chronic rhinosinusitis infections are associated with microbiomes comprising of multiple different species.

4.2.3. Cystic Fibrosis (CF)

Cystic fibrosis is an autosomal recessive disease caused by a mutation in the gene coding for the cystic fibrosis transmembrane conductance regulator (CFTR) protein. The most affected areas are the gut and pancreas in which there is a failure to remove the mucous secretions. It mainly involves constant coughing, and the lungs tend to be more prone to infections [109]. Almost 80% of infections seen in cystic fibrosis are related to biofilms. The lung environment of a CF patient is favorable to P. aeruginosa and that is why the bacterium is able to dominate in the airways. Their resistance to antibiotics occurs due to increased production of EPS [110]. Studies have shown that the presence of the microbial agent leads to poor prognosis in CF patients. P. aeruginosa is able to form drug-resistant biofilms, which makes antibacterial therapy useless [111][112].


  1. Armbruster, C.R.; Parsek, M.R. New insight into the early stages of biofilm formation. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2018, 115, 4317–4319.
  2. Vasudevan, R. Biofilms: Microbial cities of scientific significance. J. Microbiol. Exp. 2014, 1, 84–98.
  3. Tasneem, U.; Yasin, N.; Nisa, I.; Shah, F.; Rasheed, U.; Momin, F.; Zaman, S.; Qasim, M. Biofilm producing bacteria: A serious threat to public health in developing countries. J. Food Sci. Nutr. 2018, 1, 25–31.
  4. Flemming, H.C.; Wingender, J. The biofilm matrix. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 2010, 8, 623–663.
  5. Karygianni, L.; Ren, Z.; Koo, H.; Thurnheer, T. Biofilm Matrixome: Extracellular components in structured microbial communities. Trends Microbiol. 2020, 28, 668–681.
  6. Costa-Orlandi, C.B.; Sardi, J.; Pitangui, N.S.; de Oliveira, H.C.; Scozorni, L.; Galeane, M.C.; Medina-Alarcón, K.P.; Melo, W.; Marcelino, M.Y.; Braz, J.D.; et al. Fungal biofilms and polymicrobial diseases. J. Fungi 2017, 3, 22.
  7. Bonaventura, G.D.; Piccolomini, R.; Paludi, D.; D’Orio, V.; Vergara, A.; Conter, M.; Ianieri, A. Influence of temperature on biofilm formation by Listeria monocytogenes on various food-contact surfaces: Relationship with motility and cell surface hydrophobicity. J. Appl. Microbiol. 2008, 104, 1552–1561.
  8. Hostacká, A.; Ciznar, I.; Mária Štefkoviková, M. Temperature and pH Affect the Production of Bacterial Biofilm. Folia Microbiol. 2010, 55, 75–78.
  9. Singh, R.; Shivaprakash, M.R.; Chakrabarti, A. Biofilm formation by zygomycetes: Quantification, structure and matrix composition. Microbiology 2011, 157, 2611–2618.
  10. Fanning, S.; Mitchell, A.P. Fungal biofilms. PLoS Pathog. 2012, 8, e1002585.
  11. D’Urzo, N.; Martinelli, M.; Pezzicoli, A.; De Cesare, V.; Pinto, V.; Margarit, I.; Telford, J.L.; Maione, D. Acidic pH strongly enhances in vitro biofilm formation by a subset of hypervirulent ST-17 Streptococcus agalactiae strains. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2014, 80, 2176–2185.
  12. Sarah, L.S.; Pryjma, M.; Gaynor, E.C. Flagella-mediated adhesion and extracellular DNA release contribute to biofilm formation and stress tolerance of Campylobacter jejuni. PLoS ONE 2014, 9, e106063.
  13. Zhang, W.B.; Seminara, A.; Suaris, M.; Brenner, M.P.; Weitz, D.A.; Angelini, T.E. Nutrient depletion in Bacillus subtilis biofilms triggers matrix production. New J. Phys. 2014, 16, 15028.
  14. Luo, L.M.; Wu, L.J.; Xiao, Y.L.; Zhao, D.; Chen, Z.X.; Kang, M.; Zhang, Q.; Xie, Y. Enhancing pili assembly and biofilm formation in Acinetobacter baumannii ATCC19606 using non-native acyl-homoserine lactones. BMC Microbiol. 2015, 15, 62.
  15. Maldarelli, G.A.; Piepenbrink, K.H.; Scott, A.J.; Freiberg, J.A.; Song, Y.; Achermann, Y.; Ernst, R.K.; Shirtliff, M.E.; Sundberg, E.J.; Donnenberg, M.S.; et al. Type IV pili promote early biofilm formation by Clostridium difficile. Pathog. Dis. 2016, 74, 1–10.
  16. Kirchhoff, L.; Olsowski, M.; Zilmans, K.; Dittmer, S.; Haase, G.; Sedlacek, L.; Steinmann, E.; Buer, J.; Rath, P.M.; Steinmann, J. Biofilm formation of the black yeast-like fungus Exophiala dermatitidis and its susceptibility to antiinfective agents. Sci. Rep. 2017, 7, 42886.
  17. Jamal, M.; Ahmad, W.; Andleeb, S.; Jalil, F.; Imran, M.; Nawaz, M.A.; Hussain, T.; Ali, M.; Rafiq, M.; Kamil, M.A. Bacterial biofilm and associated infections. J. Chin. Med. Assoc. 2018, 81, 7–11.
  18. Khatoon, Z.; McTiernan, C.; Suuronen, E.; Mah, T.; Alarcon, E. Bacterial biofilm formation on implantable devices and approaches to its treatment and prevention. Heliyon 2018, 4, e01067.
  19. Sharma, D.; Misba, L.; Khan, A.U. Antibiotics versus biofilm: An emerging battleground in microbial communities. Antimicrob. Resist. Infect. Control 2019, 8, 1–10.
  20. Yin, W.; Wang, Y.; Liu, L.; He, J. Biofilms: The microbial “protective clothing” in extreme environments. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2019, 20, 3423.
  21. Rumbaugh, K.P.; Sauer, K. Biofilm dispersion. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 2020, 18, 571–586.
  22. Domenech, M.; Ramos-Sevillano, E.; García, E.; Moscoso, M.; Yuste, J. Biofilm formation avoids complement immunity and phagocytosis of Streptococcus pneumoniae. Infect. Immun. 2013, 81, 2606–2615.
  23. Larsen, T.; Fiehn, N.E. Dental biofilm infections—An update. J. Pathol. Microbiol. Immunol. 2017, 125, 376–384.
  24. Crouzet, M.; Le Senechal, C.; Brözel, V.S.; Costaglioli, P.; Barthe, C.; Bonneu, M.; Garbay, B.; Vilain, S. Exploring early steps in biofilm formation: Set-up of an experimental system for molecular studies. BMC Microbiol. 2014, 14, 253.
  25. Palmer, J.; Flint, S.; Brooks, J. Bacterial cell attachment, the beginning of a biofilm. J. Ind. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2007, 34, 577–588.
  26. Petrova, O.E.; Sauer, K. Sticky situations: Key components that control bacterial surface attachment. J. Bacteriol. 2012, 194, 2413–2425.
  27. Caiazza, N.C.; O’Toole, G.A. SadB is required for the transition from reversible to irreversible attachment during biofilm formation by Pseudomonas aeruginosa PA14. J. Bacteriol. 2004, 186, 4476–4485.
  28. Rabin, N.; Zheng, Y.; Opoku, T.C.; Du, Y.X.; Bonsu, F.; Sintim, H.O. Biofilm formation mechanisms and targets for developing antibiofilm agents. Future Med. Chem. 2015, 7, 493–512.
  29. Flemming, H.; Neu, T.; Wozniak, D. The EPS matrix: The “house of biofilm cells”. J. Bacteriol. 2007, 189, 7945–7947.
  30. Drescher, K.; Dunkel, J.; Nadell, C.D.; Teeffelen, S.; Grnja, I.; Wingreen, N.S.; Stone, H.A.; Bassler, B.L. Architectural transitions in Vibrio cholerae biofilms at single-cell resolution. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2016, 113, E2066–E2072.
  31. Bowen, W.; Burne, R.; Wu, H.; Koo, H. Oral biofilms: Pathogens, matrix, and polymicrobial interactions in microenvironments. Trends Microbiol. 2018, 26, 229–242.
  32. Hobley, L.; Harkins, C.; MacPhee, C.; Stanley-Wall, N. Giving structure to the biofilm matrix: An overview of individual strategies and emerging common themes. FEMS Microbiol. Rev. 2015, 39, 649–669.
  33. Preda, V.G.; Săndulescu, O. Communication is the key: Biofilms, quorum sensing, formation and prevention. Discoveries 2019, 7, e100.
  34. Saxena, P.; Joshi, Y.; Rawat, K.; Bisht, R. Biofilms: Architecture, resistance, quorum sensing and control mechanisms. Indian J. Microbiol. 2019, 59, 3–12.
  35. Wilking, J.N.; Zaburdaev, V.; De Volder, M.; Losick, R.; Brenner, M.P.; Weitz, D.A. Liquid transport facilitated by channels in Bacillus subtilis biofilms. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2013, 110, 848–852.
  36. Parsek, M.; Singh, P. Bacterial biofilms: An emerging link to disease pathogenesis. Annu. Rev. Microbiol. 2003, 57, 677–701.
  37. Chua, S.L.; Liu, Y.; Yam, J.K.H.; Chen, Y.C.; Veiborg, R.M.; Tan, B.G.C.; Kjelleberg, S.; Tolker-Nielsen, T.; Givskov, M.; Yang, L. Dispersed cells represent a distinct stage in the transition from bacterial biofilm to planktonic lifestyles. Nat. Commun. 2014, 5, 4462.
  38. Kaplan, J.B. Biofilm dispersal: Mechanisms, clinical implications, and potential therapeutic uses. J. Dent. Res. 2010, 89, 205–218.
  39. Fleming, D.; Rumbaugh, K.P. Approaches to dispersing medical biofilms. Microorganisms 2017, 5, 15.
  40. Kostakioti, M.; Hadjifrangiskou, M.; Hultgren, S.J. Bacterial biofilms: Development, dispersal, and therapeutic strategies in the dawn of the postantibiotic era. Cold Spring Harb. Perspect. Med. 2013, 3, a010306.
  41. Guilhen, C.; Forestier, C.; Balestrino, D. Biofilm dispersal: Multiple elaborate strategies for dissemination of bacteria with unique properties. Mol. Microbiol. 2017, 105, 188–210.
  42. Pirrone, M.; Pinciroli, R.; Berra, L. Microbiome, biofilms, and pneumonia in the ICU. Curr. Opin. Infect. Diseases 2016, 29, 160–166.
  43. Shrikant, P.; Chandrajit, L. Quorum sensing: An imperative longevity weapon in bacteria. Afr. J. Microbiol. Res. 2018, 12, 96–104.
  44. Tommonaro, G. Quorum Sensing: Molecular Mechanism and Biotechnological Application; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2019; pp. 3–22.
  45. Zhang, J.; Feng, T.; Wang, J.; Wang, Y.; Zhang, X. The mechanisms and applications of quorum sensing (QS) and quorum quenching (QQ). J. Ocean Univ. China 2019, 18, 1427–1442.
  46. Mangwani, N.; Dash, H.; Chauhan, A.; Das, S. Bacterial quorum sensing: Functional features and potential applications in biotechnology. J. Mol. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2012, 22, 215–227.
  47. Terwagne, M.; Mirabella, A.; Lemaire, J.; Deschamps, C.; De Bolle, X.; Letesson, J. Quorum sensing and self-quorum quenching in the intracellular pathogen brucellamelitensis. PLoS ONE 2013, 8, e82514.
  48. Papenfort, K.; Bassler, B. Quorum sensing signal–response systems in Gram-negative bacteria. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 2016, 14, 576–588.
  49. Rémy, B.; Mion, S.; Plener, L.; Elias, M.; Chabrière, E.; Daudé, D. Interference in bacterial quorum sensing: A biopharmaceutical perspective. Front. Pharmacol. 2018, 9, 203.
  50. Moreno-Gámez, S.; Sorg, R.; Domenech, A.; Kjos, M.; Weissing, F.; van Doorn, G.; Veening, J. Quorum sensing integrates environmental cues, cell density and cell history to control bacterial competence. Nat. Commun. 2017, 8, 854.
  51. Ng, W.; Bassler, B. Bacterial quorum-sensing network architectures. Annu. Rev. Genet. 2009, 43, 197–222.
  52. Hence, B.; Schuster, M. Core principles of bacterial autoinducer systems. Microbiol. Mol. Biol. Rev. 2015, 79, 153–169.
  53. Rutherford, S.; Bassler, B. Bacterial quorum sensing: Its role in virulence and possibilities for its control. Cold Spring Harb. Perspect. Med. 2012, 2, a012427.
  54. Trajtenberg, F.; Albanesi, D.; Ruétalo, N.; Botti, H.; Mechaly, A.; Nieves, M.; Aguilar, P.; Cybulski, L.; Larrieux, N.; de Mendoza, D.; et al. Allosteric activation of bacterial response regulators: The role of the cognate histidine kinase beyond phosphorylation. mBio 2014, 5, e02105-14.
  55. Della Sala, G.; Teta, R.; Esposito, G.; Costantino, V. The chemical language of gram-negative bacteria. Quor. Sens. 2019, 3–28.
  56. Jacobi, C.; Grundler, S.; Hsieh, C.; Frick, J.; Adam, P.; Lamprecht, G.; Autenrieth, I.; Gregor, M.; Malfertheiner, P. Quorum sensing in the probiotic bacterium Escherichia coli Nissle 1917 (Mutaflor)—evidence that furanosyl borate diester (AI-2) is influencing the cytokine expression in the DSS colitis mouse model. Gut Pathog. 2012, 4, 8.
  57. Asfour, H. Anti-quorum sensing natural compounds. J. Microsc. Ultrastruct. 2018, 6, 1.
  58. Monnet, V.; Juillard, V.; Gardan, R. Peptide conversations in Gram-positive bacteria. Crit. Rev. Microbiol. 2016, 42, 339–351.
  59. Schuster, M.; Joseph Sexton, D.; Diggle, S.; Peter Greenberg, E. Acyl-homoserine lactone quorum sensing: From evolution to application. Annu. Rev. Microbiol. 2013, 67, 43–63.
  60. Fuqua, C.; Winans, S.; Greenberg, E. Census and consensus in bacterial ecosystems: The LuxR-LuxI family of quorum-sensing transcriptional regulators. Annu. Rev. Microbiol. 1996, 50, 727–751.
  61. Zhou, S.; Zhang, A.; Yin, H.; Chu, W. Bacillus sp. QSI-1 modulate quorum sensing signals reduce aeromonas hydrophila level and alter gut microbial community structure in fish. Front. Cell. Infect. Microbiol. 2016, 6, 184.
  62. Achari, G.; Ramesh, R. Characterization of bacteria degrading 3-hydroxy palmitic acid methyl ester (3OH-PAME), a quorum sensing molecule of Ralstonia solanacearum. Lett. Appl. Microbiol. 2015, 60, 447–455.
  63. Flemming, H.C.; Murthy, P.S.; Venkatesan, R.; Cooksey, K. Marine and Industrial Biofouling; Springer: Los Angeles, CA, USA, 2009.
  64. Plouguerné, E.; Hellio, C.; Deslandes, E.; Véron, B.; Stiger-Pouvreau, V. Anti-microfouling activities in extracts of two invasive algae: Grateloupia turuturu and Sargassum muticum. Bot. Mar. 2008, 51, 202–208.
  65. Flemming, H. Microbial biofouling: Unsolved problems, insufficient approaches, and possible solutions. In Springer Series on Biofilms; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2011; pp. 81–109.
  66. Cloete, E.; Molobela, I.; Van Der Merwe, A.; Richards, M. Biofilms in the food and beverage industries: An introduction. In Biofilms in the Food and Beverage Industries; Woodhead Publishing: Sawston, UK, 2009; pp. 3–41.
  67. Bixler, G.; Bhushan, B. Biofouling: Lessons from nature. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. A Math. Phys. Eng. Sci. 2012, 370, 2381–2417.
  68. Gu, J. Biofouling and Prevention. In Handbook of Environmental Degradation of Materials; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2012; pp. 243–282.
  69. Dobretsov, S.; Dahms, H.; Qian, P. Inhibition of biofouling by marine microorganisms and their metabolites. Biofouling 2006, 22, 43–54.
  70. Dobretsov, S. Inhibition and induction of marine biofouling by biofilms. In Springer Series on Biofilms; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2008; pp. 293–313.
  71. Bressy, C.; Lejars, M. Marine fouling: An overview. J. Ocean Technol. 2014, 9, 19–28.
  72. Daal, L.; de Vos, F.; Soons, J.; de Vries, T. Membrane technologies for water treatment and reuse in the power industries. In Advances in Membrane Technologies for Water Treatment; Woodhead Publishing: Sawston, UK, 2015; pp. 605–624.
  73. De Carvalho, C. Marine biofilms: A successful microbial strategy with economic implications. Front. Mar. Sci. 2018, 5, 5.
  74. Doble, M.; Venkatesan, R.; Vijaya Kumar, N.; Kumar, R. Polymers in a Marine Environment; Smithers Information: Shawbury, UK, 2014.
  75. Salta, M.; Chambers, L.; Wharton, J.; Wood, R.; Briand, J.F.; Blache, Y.; Stokes, K.R. Marine fouling organisms and their use in antifouling bioassays. In Proceedings of the EUROCORR, Nice, France, 6–9 September 2009.
  76. Lebret, K.; Thabard, M.; Hellio, C. Algae as marine fouling organisms: Adhesion damage and prevention. In Advances in Marine Antifouling Coatings and Technologies; Woodhead Publishing: Sawston, UK, 2009; pp. 80–112.
  77. Gordon, D.P.; Mawatari, S.F. Atlas of marine-fouling Bryozoa of New-Zealand ports and harbours. Misc. Publ. N. Z. Oceanogr. Inst. 1992, 107, 1–52.
  78. Baciocco, A.J. ‘Keynote address’. In Marine Biodeterioration: An Interdisciplinary Study; Costlow, J.D., Tipper, R.C., Eds.; Naval Institute Press: Annapolis, MD, USA, 1984; pp. 9–21.
  79. Munk, T.; Kane, D.; Yebra, D. The effects of corrosion and fouling on the performance of ocean-going vessels: A naval architectural perspective. In Advances in Marine Antifouling Coatings and Technologies; Woodhead Publishing: Sawston, UK, 2009; pp. 148–176.
  80. Moreira, J.; Gomes, L.; Simões, M.; Melo, L.; Mergulhão, F. The impact of material properties, nutrient load and shear stress on biofouling in food industries. Food Bioprod. Process. 2015, 95, 228–236.
  81. Verran, J. Biofouling in food processing: Biofilm or bio transfer potential? Food Bioprod. Process. 2002, 80, 292–298.
  82. Gule, N.; Begum, N.; Klumperman, B. Advances in biofouling mitigation: A review. Crit. Rev. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2016, 46, 535–555.
  83. Mizan, M.; Jahid, I.; Ha, S. Microbial biofilms in seafood: A food-hygiene challenge. Food Microbiol. 2015, 49, 41–55.
  84. Galié, S.; García-Gutiérrez, C.; Miguélez, E.; Villar, C.; Lombó, F. Biofilms in the food industry: Health aspects and control methods. Front. Microbiol. 2018, 9, 898.
  85. Bridier, A.; Sanchez-Vizuete, P.; Guilbaud, M.; Piard, J.; Naïtali, M.; Briandet, R. Biofilm-associated persistence of food-borne pathogens. Food Microbiol. 2015, 45, 167–178.
  86. Srey, S.; Jahid, I.; Ha, S. Biofilm formation in food industries: A food safety concern. Food Control 2013, 31, 572–585.
  87. Umaraw, P.; Prajapati, A.; Verma, A.; Pathak, V.; Singh, V. Control of campylobacter in poultry industry from farm to poultry processing unit: A review. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 2015, 57, 659–665.
  88. Wang, H.; Ding, S.; Dong, Y.; Ye, K.; Xu, X.; Zhou, G. Biofilm formation of salmonella serotypes in simulated meat processing environments and its relationship to cell characteristics. J. Food Prot. 2013, 76, 1784–1789.
  89. Rajkowski, K. Biofilms in fish processing. In Biofilms in the Food and Beverage Industries; Woodhead Publishing: Sawston, UK, 2009; pp. 499–516.
  90. Hickey, C.; Sheehan, J.; Wilkinson, M.; Auty, M. Growth and location of bacterial colonies within dairy foods using microscopy techniques: A review. Front. Microbiol. 2015, 6, 99.
  91. Jessen, B.; Lammert, L. Biofilm and disinfection in meat processing plants. Int. Biodeterior. Biodegrad. 2003, 51, 265–269.
  92. Marotta, F.; Garofolo, G.; Di Donato, G.; Aprea, G.; Platone, I.; Cianciavicchia, S.; Alessiani, A.; Di Giannatale, E. Population diversity of campylobacter jejuni poultry and its dynamic of contamination in chicken meat. BioMed Res. Int. 2015, 2015, 859845.
  93. Ehling-Schulz, M.; Frenzel, E.; Gohar, M. Food–bacteria interplay: Pathometabolism of emetic Bacillus cereus. Front. Microbiol. 2015, 6, 704.
  94. Gamazo, C.; Solano, C.; Lasa, I. Biofilm formation by Salmonella in food processing environments. In Biofilms in the Food and Beverage Industries; Woodhead Publishing: Sawston, UK, 2009; pp. 226–249.
  95. Linscott, A. Food-borne illnesses. Clin. Microbiol. Newsl. 2011, 33, 41–45.
  96. Giaouris, E.; Heir, E.; Hébraud, M.; Chorianopoulos, N.; Langsrud, S.; Møretrø, T.; Habimana, O.; Desvaux, M.; Renier, S.; Nychas, G. Attachment and biofilm formation by foodborne bacteria in meat processing environments: Causes, implications, role of bacterial interactions and control by alternative novel methods. Meat Sci. 2014, 97, 298–309.
  97. Pozo, J.L.D. Biofilm-related disease. Expert Rev. Anti-Infect. Ther. 2017, 16, 51–65.
  98. Darouiche, R. Treatment of infections associated with surgical implants. N. Engl. J. Med. 2004, 350, 1422–1429.
  99. LoVetri, K.; Gawande, P.V.; Yakandawala, N.; Madhyastha, S. Biofouling and anti-fouling of medical devices. In Biofouling: Types, Impact and Anti-Fouling; Nova Science Pub Inc.: Hauppauge, NY, USA, 2010; pp. 105–128.
  100. Trinidad, A.; Ibanez, A.; Gomez, D.; Garcia-Berrocal, J.R.; Ramirez-Camacho, R. Application of environmental scanning electron microscopy for study of biofilms in medical devices. Microsc. Sci. Technol. Appl. Educ. 2010, 1, 204–210.
  101. Mukherji, R.; Patil, A.; Prabhune, A. Role of extracellular proteases in biofilm disruption of gram positive bacteria with special emphasis on Staphylococcus aureus biofilms. Enz. Eng. 2015, 4.
  102. Harding, J.; Reynolds, M. Combating medical device fouling. Trends Biotechnol. 2014, 32, 140–146.
  103. Williams, C.; Ramage, G. Fungal Biofilms in Human Disease. Biofilm-Based Healthcare-Associated Infections, 2nd ed.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2015.
  104. Strindberg, L.Z. The dependence of the results of pulp therapy on certain factors. Acta Odontol. Scand. 1956, 14, 1–75.
  105. Torabinejad, M.; Walton, R.E.; Fouad, A.F. Endodontics: Principles and Practice, 5th ed.; Elsevier: Beijing, China, 2015.
  106. Williams, C.; Rajendran, R.; Ramage, G. Aspergillus Biofilms in Human Disease. Fungal Biofilms and Related Infections, 3rd ed.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2016.
  107. Toretto, S.; Pignataro, L. The Role of Biofilms in Upper Respiratory Tract Infections. Infections of the Ears, Nose, Throat, and Sinuses; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2018.
  108. Schurmann, M.; Oppel, F.; Gottaschalk, M.; Buker, B.; Jantos, C.A.; Knabbe, C.; Hutten, A.; Kaltschmidt, B.; Kaltschmidt, C.; Sudhoff, H. The therapeutic effect of 1, 8-cineol on pathogenic bacteria species present in chronic rhinosinusitis. Front. Microbiol. 2019, 10, 1–12.
  109. Brussow, H. Pseudomonas biofilms, cystic fibrosis, and phage: A silver lining? mBio 2012, 3, 1–2.
  110. McDaniel, C.T.; Panmanee, W.; Hassett, D.J. An Overview of Infections in Cystic Fibrosis Airways and the Role of Environmental Conditions on Pseudomonas aeruginosa Biofilm Formation and Viability. Cystic Fibrosis in the Light of New Research; Intech Open: Rijeka, Croatia, 2015.
  111. Romling, U.; Fiedler, B.; Bosshammer, J.; Grothues, D.; Greipel, J.; von der Hardt, H.; Tummler, B. Epidemiology of chronic pseudomonas aeruginosa infections in cystic fibrosis. J. Infect. Dis. 1994, 170, 1616–1621.
  112. Costerton, J.W.; Stewart, P.S.; Greenberg, E.P. Bacterial biofilms: A common cause of persistent infections. Science 1999, 284, 1318–1322.
Contributor MDPI registered users' name will be linked to their SciProfiles pages. To register with us, please refer to :
View Times: 803
Revisions: 2 times (View History)
Update Date: 13 Oct 2021