No retraction, correction or concern found when last checked on Oct 22, 2026.
Communication is the key: biofilms, quorum sensing, formation and prevention
1Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, University of Bucharest, Faculty of Biology, Bucharest, Romania, Veronica Georgiana Preda, Oana Săndulescu and 1 more
Discoveries · 2019 · Review
Abstract
Antibiotic resistance is a relevant topic nowadays, representing one of the main causes of infection-related mortality and morbidity at a global level. This phenomenon is worrisome and represents an area of interest for both clinical practice and fundamental research. One important mechanism whereby bacteria acquire resistance to antibiotics and evade the immune system is by forming biofilms. It is estimated that ~80% of the bacteria producing chronic infections can form biofilms. During the process of biofilm formation microorganisms have the ability to communicate with each other through quorum sensing. Quorum sensing regulates the metabolic activity of planktonic cells, and it can induce microbial biofilm formation and increased virulence. In this review we describe the biofilm formation process, quorum sensing, quorum quenching, several key infectious bacteria producing biofilm, methods of prevention and their challenges and limitations. Although progress has been made in the prevention and treatment of biofilm-driven infections, new strategies are required and have to be further developed.
Full text
From PubMed Central, U.S. National Library of Medicine, as current on Oct 22, 2026. Paragraph numbers are ours, so an answer can point at one.
SUMMARY
1. Introduction
2. Biofilm-producing bacteria
2.1 Staphylococcus aureus
2.2 Pseudomonas aeruginosa
2.3 Other bacteria
3. Biofilm development, quorum sensing and quorum quenching
4. Prevention of biofilm formation
5. Challenges and Limitations
6. Conclusion
1. Introduction
Bacterial biofilm is produced by ~80% of bacteria responsible for chronic infections and it is an important virulence mechanism, inducing resistance to antimicrobials and evasion from the host’s immune system. The bacteria producing biofilm comprise a diverse group of organisms, including both Gram-negative and Gram-positive bacteria, aerobic and anaerobic, motile and non-motile, just to name a few.
Biofilm has a remarkable complexity and three-dimensional organization and forms when biofilm-producing bacteria in an aqueous environment adhere to solid surfaces and produce a network of extracellular polymeric substances (EPS), adopting a “multicellular lifestyle”. These substances include but are not limited to: proteins, polysaccharides, lipids, DNA and form a protective matrix around bacteria, supporting their integrity and survival. The microorganisms occupy about 10-30% of the biofilm volume. Approximately 97% of the biofilm is water, which is responsible for the flow of nutrients required for bacterial survival within the biofilmsl. Some types of microorganisms first form aggregates of planktonic/free cells in an aqueous environment, as a first step inbiofilm formation.
Biofilm is a useful adaptation of micro-organisms, enabling them to survive in certain environments. Generally, microorganisms inside the biofilm are more difficult to eradicate than when present as single cells. This resilience is primarily due to the tolerance mediated by the biofilm-related extracellular network, metabolic dormancy and other potential mechanisms. Genetic factors do not play a major role in this type of resistance, although the close proximity of the cells may also facilitate the transfer of resistance genes.
Both Gram-positive bacteria, such as Staphylococcus aureus and Gram-negative bacteria, such as Pseudomonas aeruginosa can be very difficult to eradicate when forming biofilms. Biofilm formation has significant implications and it is a serious problem in a few different fields, including healthcare/clinical care and food industry. In the hospital setting, there are specific bacteria, including Staphylococcus epidermidis, Pseudomonas aeruginosa and many others which colonize tissue from patients with chronic diseases, implants and/or catheters. Most device-associated infections are due to microbial biofilm formation. In the food industry, the biofilm and the biofilm-producing bacteria can alter the food quality and compromise food safety. The biofilm can be found inside food recipients such as vats, mixing tanks or utensils used in food preparation.
Current biofilm control strategies employed in both hospitals and food industry (e.g., cleaning, disinfection, surface preconditioning) are efficient to some extent. However, they are still far from the desired effect and control, and biofilm-driven infections commonly recur. New strategies for targeting biofilms are thus required. One such strategy is the targeting of the quorum sensing system, which disrupts cell-to-cell communication, conjugation, nutrient acquisition and even motility and production of certain metabolites.
2. Biofilm-producing bacteria and infections
Based on the National Institute of Health (NIH)’s statistics, biofilm formation is present in about 65% of all bacterial infections and approximately 80% of all chronic infections (Table 1).
Evaluation of the device-related infections resulted in several estimates, including 40% for ventricular-assist devices, 2% for joint prostheses, 4% for mechanical heart valves and 6% for ventricular shunts. Moreover, bacterial colonization of the indwelling devices was associated with infections in 4% of the cases when pacemakers and defibrillators were utilized, but also in 2% of breast implant cases.
Infective valve endocarditis is an infection of the heart which usually occurs as the result of the adherence of bacteria to the endothelium. The most common germs involved in infective endocarditis arestaphylococci and streptococci, members of the HACEK group,Gram-negative bacteria but fungal strains have also been described. Seeding of the endothelium generally occurs from colonization or infection of different tracts, for example the genitourinary and gastrointestinal tract, or through direct crossing of the skin barrier either due to wounds or through injecting drug use.
Other types of biofilm-driven infections include chronic wounds, diabetic foot infections, or pulmonary infections in patients with cystic fibrosis, to name only a few.
2.1 Staphylococcus aureus
Staphylococcus aureus is a Gram-positive coccus that causes infections in certain conditions and is also part of the normal flora of the human body, such as the skin or the nasal mucosa.The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention report that methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) is in top two typical hospital-acquired infections in the USA.
Recently, a staphylococcal aggressiveness score has been defined, based on the presence of three main characteristics: tetrad formation, aggregative adherence and resistance to methicillin. While higher scores are associated with fulminant infection, lower scores are seen in biofilm-drive and relapse-prone infections.
2.2 Pseudomonas aeruginosa
Pseudomonas aeruginosa is a Gram-negative rod, facultatively anaerobe, present in a wide range of environments, including a part of the normal human flora, such as the gut flora. It commonly presents resistance towards multiple antibiotics, such as cephalosporins and, potentially, carbapenems, leading to extremely drug-resistant (XDR) infections, where the association of colistin to the antimicrobial regimen generally including a carbapenem such as meropenem may lead to synergic activity. However, colistin has been associated with neurotoxicity and nephrotoxicity.
Pseudomonas aeruginosa’s potential of forming biofilm on medical device surfaces makes it a frequent agent of ventilator-associated pneumonia, or of other device-related infections, for example catheter-associated urinary tract infections.
2.3 Other bacteria
Many types of bacteria can produce biofilms, and some can also be involved in hospital-acquired infections. Examples include Staphylococcus aureus, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Escherichia coli, Klebsiella pneumoniae, Acinetobacter baumannii, Clostridioides difficile and Enterococcus spp. Other examples of biofilm forming bacteria are presented in Table 1.
3. Biofilm development, quorum sensing and quorum quenching
Formation of the biofilm comprises several steps, namely, the attachment, cell-to-cell adhesion, expansion maturation and dispersal (Figure 1). Bacterial multiplication leads to the development of microcolonies, which become encapsulated in a layer of hydrogel, that functions as a boundary between the microbial community and the external environment. Table 2 indicates the main characteristics of the biofilm formation phases. Within the bacterial community, cells communicate with each other through quorum sensing (QS) systems, communication based on chemical signal. The role of communication is to modulate cellular functions, population density-based pathogenesis, nutrient acquisition, transfer of genetic material between the cells, motility and synthesis of secondary metabolites. The biofilm matures in parallel with the accumulation of extracellular polymeric substances. The final step involves the detachment of bacterial strains from the microcolonies, potentially leading to the formation of a new biofilm colony in a distinct location.
Organic extracellular molecules are produced by the microbial strains within the biofilms and released as both soluble (soluble microbial products (SMPs)) and insoluble materials (organic extracellular polymeric substances (EPS)) in the extracellular media.These substances originate from the substrate metabolism, being microbial byproducts and waste, but also cellular residual content from damaged cells. Insoluble materials or EPS are polysaccharides, extracellular DNA (eDNA) and/or proteins secreted by strains during the establishment and life of biofilms. Yet, most often the difference between the secreted molecules and those composing the microbial biofilm in not obvious.
As biofilms have captured the attention of the scientific community, this extensive research field demands new data management and deeper analysis methodologies. The Minimum Information About a Biofilm Experiment (MIABiE) initiative (http://www.miabie.org), brings together an international group of experts, working on the development of guidelines to document bacterial biofilms investigations, as well as the standardization of the current nomenclature, the development and improvement of oriented computational resources and toolsfor deep-understanding, as well as for targeted biofilm research.
Quorum Sensing
Gram-positive bacteria use oligopeptides as signaling molecules to form biofilms, using QS for intraspecies communication. The QS system is a paramount target for the treatment of biofilm associated infections. There are at least three main types of QS systems to be distinguished: the acyl homoserine lactone QS system (AHL) in Gram-negative bacteria, the autoinducing peptide (AIP) QS system in Gram-positive bacteria and the autoinducer-2 (AI-2) system in both Gram-negative and -positive bacteria.
Homoserine lactones are a class of important cellular signaling molecules involved in QS and acyl homoserine lactone-dependent QS system is used primarily by Gram-negative bacteria. The AHL molecules have in common the homoserine lactone ring, although they vary in length and substitutes. Remarkably, AHLs are synthesized by a specific cognate AHL synthetase. Interestingly, an increased concentration of AHL was correlated to a significant bacterial growth.
AIPs are signal molecules secreted by membrane transporters and synthesized by Gram-positive bacteria. As the environmental concentration of AIPs increases, these AIPs bind to the histidine kinase sensor, which phosphorylates, and as a consequence alters target gene expression. In Staphylococcus aureus quorum sensing signals are stringently regulated by the accessory gene regulator or agr which is associated with AIPs secretion. These genes are responsible for the production of numerous toxins and degradable exoenzymes.
As part of their cooperation and communication, microorganisms have the ability to sense and translate the signals from distinct strains in AI-2 or autoinducer-2 interspecific signals, catalyzed by LuxS synthase. Moreover, LuxS is involved in the activation of the methylation cycle, being demonstrated to control the expressions of hundreds of genes associated with the microbial processes of surface adhesion, detachment, and toxin production.
4. Prevention of biofilm formation
Both in healthcare and the food industry, the main strategy to tackle bacterial biofilms is to prevent their development. In order to do this, there are several ways (e.g., cleaning, sterilization) of preventing bacteria from reaching or proliferating in critical locations. In many cases, especially in food processing, sterility of the environment is not entirely possible and is not cost-effective. Measured taken involve thermal, chemical or mechanical strategies for bacterial biofilm prevention.
However, even with the best existing prevention measures adopted, biofilm may form and biofilm-producing bacteria could potentially be a problem. Thus, efficient diagnosis and treatment of biofilm-related infections is important in clinical settings. Several recommendations and guidelines exist and we recommend the summary presented Kamaruzzaman NF et al. For example, the European Society for Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases provides guidelines for the diagnosis of these infections, which implies both laboratory and clinical diagnosis methods.
5. Challenges and Limitations
Despite important advances in our current knowledge on biofilm-producing bacteria and the organization and function of the biofilm itself, significant research remains to be performed. This is in part due to the prior focus on the investigation of planktonic bacteria, not on the biofilm formation. Together with this adaptation of the research focus, new methods (imagistic or molecular) are now available and under development for the investigation of biofilms and their components. Moreover, in silico methods may be a good solution in solving medical or technological challenges related to biofilm formation, prevention or treatment. Such methods comprise the biofilm consortia metabolic models, designed for the prediction of biofilm formation stages based on the components and their concentration or the molecular docking software for designing and predicting the efficiency of new drugs.
New prevention and treatment strategies have to be further developed. Table 3 summarizes the main mechanisms of resistance to antibiotics. The ability of biofilm-forming bacteria to adapt to the human environment is also related to immune system evasion. Bacteria from the biofilm can avoid recognition by immune system and avoid phagocytosis. Biofilm can obscure recognition of bacterial products such as lipopolysaccharides, lipoproteins and nucleic acids. Neutrophils migrate towards the biofilm produced by bacteria, such as S. aureus and P. aeruginosa. However, decreased phagocytosis and bacterial cell killing is observed upon this migration. Interestingly, the glycolipids implicated in quorum sensing by P. aeruginosa can induce necrosis of neutrophils and disruption of this process by using quorum sensing inhibitors promotes phagocytosis. Thus, new biofilm targeting treatments addressing evasion from the immune system can be developed.
An important limitation in biofilm prevention, treatment and investigation is its physiological heterogeneity. Although individual cells can be isolated and investigated from the biofilm, the spatial relation, structure and properties are not preserved. Thus, it is imperative to use techniques which preserve the spatial relationships between cells. The characteristics and physiology of bacterial cells from the biofilm can significantly differ based on their localization within the biofilm. This is not only important in investigation of the biofilm, e.g., -omic profiling resulting in average results for a diverse biofilm population but can also contribute to biofilm resistance to preventive and treatment measures.
However, although many of the biofilms are regarded as harmful to humans, biofilms can also play a useful role, contributing for example to the genetic and natural diversity through cell to cell interactions within the biofilm, of protecting different organisms (e.g., marine algae) against pathogens.
Control of the formation of biofilms that have negative effects on human health remains a challenge, with few treatment options clinically available.
6. Conclusion
Biofilms enable bacteria to survive in specific environments, confer resistance or tolerance to treatment and the capacity to evade the host immune system. They represent a challenge in prevention and treatment of infections. Biofilms also confer to bacteria the property to resist standard cleaning procedures in the food industry. Thus, it is important to better understand how it can be prevented and managed and to develop effective targeted therapies.
Investigation of biofilm’s complex 3D structure, function, development, maturation and all characteristics of involved cells (proteomic, genomic data) is required for a better understanding of these processes. Attacking the biofilm should take into consideration not only targeting the bacteria inside the biofilm but also its extracellular components. Drug design, delivery and in silico methods can be used to predict or measure the efficacy of anti-microbial drugs when biofilm is present.
New anti-biofilm strategies are required and have to be further developed. These new treatments have to present high specificity, low toxicity on normal eukaryotic cells and host microbiota and be efficient in treating infection caused by the biofilm-causing organisms.
KEY POINTS
◊ Approximately 80% of the bacteria producing chronic infections can form biofilms, inducing resistance to antibiotics and immune system evasion
◊ Quorum sensing regulates the metabolic activity of planktonic cells, and it can induce microbial biofilm formation and increased virulence
◊ New strategies are required in order to target the biofilm and biofilm-producing bacteria
References 81
- 1.
Koo Hyun, Allan Raymond N., Howlin Robert P., Stoodley Paul, Hall-Stoodley Luanne. Targeting microbial biofilms: current and prospective therapeutic strategies. Nature Reviews Microbiology. 2017;15(12):740-755.
Not in our library10.1038/nrmicro.2017.99
- 2.
Stacy Apollo, McNally Luke, Darch Sophie E., Brown Sam P., Whiteley Marvin. The biogeography of polymicrobial infection. Nature Reviews Microbiology. 2015;14(2):93-105.
Not in our library10.1038/nrmicro.2015.8
- 3.
Claessen Dennis, Rozen Daniel E., Kuipers Oscar P., Søgaard-Andersen Lotte, van Wezel Gilles P. Bacterial solutions to multicellularity: a tale of biofilms, filaments and fruiting bodies. Nature Reviews Microbiology. 2014;12(2):115-124.
Not in our library10.1038/nrmicro3178
- 4.
- 5.
Lu T. K., Collins J. J. Dispersing biofilms with engineered enzymatic bacteriophage. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 2007;104(27):11197-11202.
Not in our library10.1073/pnas.0704624104
- 6.
Sutherland I. The biofilm matrix – an immobilized but dynamic microbial environment. Trends in Microbiology. 2001;9(5):222-227.
Not in our library10.1016/s0966-842x(01)02012-1
- 7.
Melaugh Gavin, Hutchison Jaime, Kragh Kasper Nørskov, Irie Yasuhiko, Roberts Aled, Bjarnsholt Thomas, Diggle Stephen P., Gordon Vernita D., Allen Rosalind J. Shaping the Growth Behaviour of Biofilms Initiated from Bacterial Aggregates. PLOS ONE. 2016;11(3):e0149683.
Not in our library10.1371/journal.pone.0149683
- 8.
Flemming Hans-Curt, Wingender Jost, Szewzyk Ulrich, Steinberg Peter, Rice Scott A., Kjelleberg Staffan. Biofilms: an emergent form of bacterial life. Nature Reviews Microbiology. 2016;14(9):563-575.
Not in our library10.1038/nrmicro.2016.94
- 9.
Stewart Philip S, William Costerton J. Antibiotic resistance of bacteria in biofilms. The Lancet. 2001;358(9276):135-138.
Not in our library10.1016/s0140-6736(01)05321-1
- 10.
Das Tapas, Das Manash C., Das Antu, Bhowmik Sukhen, Sandhu Padmani, Akhter Yusuf, Bhattacharjee Surajit, De Utpal Ch. Modulation of S. aureus and P. aeruginosa biofilm: an in vitro study with new coumarin derivatives. World Journal of Microbiology and Biotechnology. 2018;34(11).
Not in our library10.1007/s11274-018-2545-1
- 11.
Bhattacharya Mohini, Wozniak Daniel J, Stoodley Paul, Hall-Stoodley Luanne. Prevention and treatment ofStaphylococcus aureusbiofilms. Expert Review of Anti-infective Therapy. 2015;13(12):1499-1516.
Not in our library10.1586/14787210.2015.1100533
- 12.
Moormeier Derek E., Bayles Kenneth W. Staphylococcus aureusbiofilm: a complex developmental organism. Molecular Microbiology. 2017;104(3):365-376.
Not in our library10.1111/mmi.13634
- 13.
Arber Nadir, Militianu Arie, Ben-Yehuda Arie, Krivoy Norberto, Plnkhas Jack, Sidi Yechezkel. Native valve staphylococcus epidermidis endocarditis: report of seven cases and review of the literature. The American Journal of Medicine. 1991;90(6):758-762.
Not in our library
- 14.
- 15.
Fournier P.-E., Gouriet F., Gimenez G., Robert C., Raoult D. Deciphering Genomic Virulence Traits of a Staphylococcus epidermidis Strain Causing Native-Valve Endocarditis. Journal of Clinical Microbiology. 2013;51(5):1617-1621.
Not in our library10.1128/jcm.02820-12
- 16.
Pougnet Richard, Sapin Jeanne, De Parscau Loïc, Pougnet Laurence. Streptococcus pneumoniae urinary tract infection in pedeatrics. Annales de biologie clinique. 2017;75(3):348-350.
Not in our library10.1684/abc.2017.1241
- 17.
Puga Carmen H., Orgaz Belen, SanJose Carmen. Listeria monocytogenes Impact on Mature or Old Pseudomonas fluorescens Biofilms During Growth at 4 and 20°C. Frontiers in Microbiology. 2016;7.
Not in our library10.3389/fmicb.2016.00134
- 18.
Zarei Mehdi, Maktabi Siavash, Ghorbanpour Masoud. Prevalence of Listeria monocytogenes, Vibrio parahaemolyticus, Staphylococcus aureus, and Salmonella spp. in Seafood Products Using Multiplex Polymerase Chain Reaction. Foodborne Pathogens and Disease. 2012;9(2):108-112.
Not in our library10.1089/fpd.2011.0989
- 19.
Baul Shuvra Neel, De Rajib, MANDAL PRAKAS KUMAR, Roy Swagnik, Dolai Tuphan Kanti, Chakrabarti Prantar. OUTBREAK OF BURKHOLDERIA CEPACIA INFECTION: A SYSTEMATIC STUDY IN A HEMATOLOGY-ONCOLOGY UNIT OF A TERTIARY CARE HOSPITAL FROM EASTERN INDIA. Mediterranean Journal of Hematology and Infectious Diseases. 2018;10(1):e2018051.
Not in our library10.4084/mjhid.2018.051
- 20.
Michelli Elvia, Millán Adriana, Rodulfo Hectorina, Michelli Mirian, Luiggi Jesús, Carreño Numirin, De Donato Marcos. Identificación de Escherichia coli enteropatógena en niños con síndrome diarreico agudo del Estado Sucre, Venezuela. Biomédica. 2016;36.
Not in our library10.7705/biomedica.v36i0.2928
- 21.
STOTKA JENNIFER L., RUPP MARK E. Klebsiella pneumoniae Urinary Tract Infection Complicated by Endophthalmitis, Perinephric Abscess, and Ecthyma Gangrenosum. Southern Medical Journal. 1991;84(6):790-792.
Not in our library10.1097/00007611-199106000-00032
- 22.
Kim SE, Park SH, Park HB, Park KH, Kim SH, Jung SI, Shin JH, Jang HC, Kang SJ. Nosocomial Pseudomonas putida Bacteremia: High Rates of Carbapenem Resistance and Mortality. Chonnam Med J. 2012;48(2):91-95.
Not in our library10.4068/cmj.2012.48.2.91
- 23.
Kl Shobha, L Ramachandra, Rao Amita Shobha, Km Anand, S Gowrish Rao. PSEUDOMONAS SPECIES CAUSING URINARY TRACT INFECTION AND ITS ANTIBIOGRAM AT A TERTIARY CARE HOSPITAL. Asian Journal of Pharmaceutical and Clinical Research. 2017;10(11):50.
Not in our library
- 24.
Naseby D.C., Way J.A., Bainton N.J., Lynch J.M. Biocontrol of Pythium in the pea rhizosphere by antifungal metabolite producing and non-producing Pseudomonas strains. Journal of Applied Microbiology. 2001;90(3):421-429.
Not in our library10.1046/j.1365-2672.2001.01260.x
- 25.
Pour Mojde Moradi, Saberi-Riseh Roohallah, Mohammadinejad Reza, Hosseini Ahmad. Investigating the formulation of alginate- gelatin encapsulated Pseudomonas fluorescens (VUPF5 and T17-4 strains) for controlling Fusarium solani on potato. International Journal of Biological Macromolecules. 2019;133:603-613.
Not in our library10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2019.04.071
- 26.
Matthijs Sandra, Vander Wauven Corinne, Cornu Bertrand, Ye Lumeng, Cornelis Pierre, Thomas Christopher M., Ongena Marc. Antimicrobial properties of Pseudomonas strains producing the antibiotic mupirocin. Research in Microbiology. 2014;165(8):695-704.
Not in our library10.1016/j.resmic.2014.09.009
- 27.
Huang H. C., Erickson R. S. Effect of Seed Treatment with Rhizobium leguminosarum on Pythium Damping-off, Seedling Height, Root Nodulation, Root Biomass, Shoot Biomass, and Seed Yield of Pea and Lentil. Journal of Phytopathology. 2007;155(1):31-37.
Not in our library
- 28.
Wagner R. Doug, Johnson Shemedia J. Probiotic bacteria prevent Salmonella – induced suppression of lymphoproliferation in mice by an immunomodulatory mechanism. BMC Microbiology. 2017;17(1).
Not in our library10.1186/s12866-017-0990-x
- 29.
- 30.
Jamal Muhsin, Ahmad Wisal, Andleeb Saadia, Jalil Fazal, Imran Muhammad, Nawaz Muhammad Asif, Hussain Tahir, Ali Muhammad, Rafiq Muhammad, Kamil Muhammad Atif. Bacterial biofilm and associated infections. Journal of the Chinese Medical Association. 2018;81(1):7-11.
Not in our library10.1016/j.jcma.2017.07.012
- 31.
- 32.
Darouiche Rabih O. Treatment of Infections Associated with Surgical Implants. New England Journal of Medicine. 2004;350(14):1422-1429.
Not in our library10.1056/nejmra035415
- 33.
Ellis M. E., Al-Abdely H., Sandridge A., Greer W., Ventura W. Fungal Endocarditis: Evidence in the World Literature, 1965-1995. Clinical Infectious Diseases. 2001;32(1):50-62.
Not in our library10.1086/317550
- 34.
Donlan R. M., Costerton J. W. Biofilms: Survival Mechanisms of Clinically Relevant Microorganisms. Clinical Microbiology Reviews. 2002;15(2):167-193.
Not in our library10.1128/cmr.15.2.167-193.2002
- 35.
- 36.
Săndulescu Oana, Bleotu Coralia, Matei Lilia, Streinu-Cercel Anca, Oprea Mihaela, Drăgulescu Elena Carmina, Chifiriuc Mariana Carmen, Rafila Alexandru, Pirici Daniel, Tălăpan Daniela, Dorobăţ Olga Mihaela, Neguţ Alina Cristina, Oţelea Dan, Berciu Ioana, Ion Daniela Adriana, Codiţă Irina, Calistru Petre Iacob, Streinu-Cercel Adrian. Comparative evaluation of aggressiveness traits in staphylococcal strains from severe infections versus nasopharyngeal carriage. Microbial Pathogenesis. 2017;102:45-53.
Not in our library10.1016/j.micpath.2016.11.006
- 37.
Streinu-Cercel Adrian. Colistin in the management of severe infections with multidrug resistant Gram-negative bacilli. GERMS. 2014;4(1):7-8.
Not in our library10.11599/germs.2014.1048
- 38.
Kamaruzzaman Nor, Tan Li, Mat Yazid Khairun, Saeed Shamsaldeen, Hamdan Ruhil, Choong Siew, Wong Weng, Chivu Alexandru, Gibson Amanda. Targeting the Bacterial Protective Armour; Challenges and Novel Strategies in the Treatment of Microbial Biofilm. Materials. 2018;11(9):1705.
Not in our library10.3390/ma11091705
- 39.
Săndulescu Oana. Managing sticky situations – anti-biofilm agents. GERMS. 2016;6(2):49-49.
Not in our library10.11599/germs.2016.1088
- 40.
Boulané‐Petermann Laurence. Processes of bioadhesion on stainless steel surfaces and cleanability: A review with special reference to the food industry. Biofouling. 1996;10(4):275-300.
Not in our library10.1080/08927019609386287
Cited by papers we hold 2
Reads
Read by people on this page
None yet.
Checked or read by AI through naulon
None yet.
A person counts once a day per paper. We keep no cookie and no address: a reader is a hash that changes every day. Any month under five reads shows no number.
Are you an author?
Is this your paper?
Claim it to add your note and be paid when agents cite it. Free.