ReviewBiomolecules2026
Innovative Strategies to Abolish Microbial Persistence in Biofilm Fortresses.
Review in Biomolecules, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- SIOOTAntibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Biofilms are structured communities of microorganisms embedded in a self-produced extracellular polymeric substance (EPS) matrix, whose development significantly enhances microbial resistance to antibiotics, disinfectants, and host immune defenses, posing major challenges in clinical, industrial, and environmental settings. Compared with planktonic cells, biofilm-associated microorganisms can exhibit up to 10- to 1000-fold increased tolerance to antimicrobial agents, contributing to the persistence of biofilm-associated infections (BAIs). These infections remain difficult to eradicate due to reduced penetration, altered metabolic states, and the presence of dormant or persister cells. Anti-biofilm strategies can be broadly classified into physical approaches (e.g., ultrasound, mechanical stress, and light-based approaches) that target biofilm structure; chemical and enzymatic methods (e.g., EPS-degrading enzymes) that destabilize the matrix; and biological and molecular strategies (e.g., quorum-sensing (QS) inhibitors, anti-virulence agents, bacteriophages, phage-derived antimicrobial molecules, antimicrobial peptides, and natural bioactive compounds) that modulate biofilm development and integrity by targeting regulatory pathways and matrix stability through distinct mechanisms of action. Natural compounds, including lactoferrin, lactoferrin-derived peptides, and probiotic and postbiotic fractions of lactic acid bacteria (LAB), as well as plant-derived metabolites, have shown promising anti-biofilm effects, with efficacy often enhanced through complementary or potentially synergistic interactions. However, despite these advancements, clinical translation remains limited. For example, BAIs account for approximately 80% of chronic infections, with high recurrence rates and therapeutic failure reported in device-associated infections and chronic wounds. These limitations highlight the need for clinically translatable, multimodal approaches that integrate structural biofilm disruption, antimicrobial targeting, and host response modulation to design more effective and sustainable anti-biofilm strategies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.