Expert Opinion on Therapeutic Patents

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ietp20

Antibiotic resistance and bacterial biofilm

Rossella Grande , Valentina Puca & Raffaella Muraro

To cite this article: Rossella Grande , Valentina Puca & Raffaella Muraro (2020):
Antibiotic resistance and bacterial biofilm, Expert Opinion on Therapeutic Patents, DOI:
10.1080/13543776.2020.1830060

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/13543776.2020.1830060

Accepted author version posted online: 26

Sep 2020.

Submit your article to this journal

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ietp20
 Publisher: Taylor & Francis & Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group

Journal: Expert Opinion on Therapeutic Patents

DOI: 10.1080/13543776.2020.1830060

Antibiotic resistance and bacterial biofilm

Rossella Grandea,b*, Valentina Pucab,c, Raffaella Murarod

T
IP
a
Department of Pharmacy, University “G. d’Annunzio” of Chieti-Pescara, 66100 Chieti, Italy

R
SC
b
Center for Advanced Studies and Technology (CAST), “G. d’Annunzio” University of Chieti-
Pescara, Chieti, Italy
c

U
Department of Medicine and Aging Science, “G. d’Annunzio” University of Chieti-Pescara, Chieti,
AN
Italy
d
Department of Medical, Oral, and Biotechnological Sciences, “G. d’Annunzio” University of
M

Chieti-Pescara, Chieti, Italy

D

Corresponding author:
TE

Rossella Grande,

Department of Pharmacy, University “G. d’Annunzio” of Chieti-Pescara, Via dei Vestini 31, 66100
EP

Chieti, Italy
C

Email: rossella.grande@unich.it
AC

Keywords: antibiofilm strategies, AMPs, biofilm, drug resistance, EPS-degrading enzymes,

nanosystems, persisters, Quorum-sensing, tolerance.

Information Classification: General

 1. Introduction

A biofilm can be defined as a microbial community embedded in a self-produced matrix of

Extracellular Polymeric Substances (EPS), adhered to a biotic or abiotic surface [1] (Figure 1).

The biofilm phenotype represents a microbial survival strategy that arises as a result of stressful

conditions that induce cells to organize and cooperate with each other [2]. The development of a

T
biofilm is a multistep regulated process in which cell adhesion, EPS production and the detachment

IP
of microorganisms from the mature biofilm involve the expression of specific genes. Biofilm is a

complex, highly hydrated three-dimensional structure, in which water represents the main

R
SC
component, up to 97%, together with polysaccharides, proteins, lipids, nucleic acids, as well as

insoluble components such as amyloids, fimbriae, pili and flagelli [3]. In particular, it has been

U
widely documented that extracellular DNA (eDNA) plays an important role in biofilm
AN
establishment and structural stability [4-8] as well as in the horizontal gene transfer and nutrition as

phosphate source [9]. The origin of eDNA has been hypothesized to result from multiple
M

mechanisms of DNA release, such as the production of extracellular vesicles [10-13], prophage-
D

mediated cell death as in Pseudomonas aeruginosa biofilms [14] and controlled cellular lysis
TE

occurring during biofilm formation, as in the case of Staphylococcus aureus [7]. In Helicobacter

pylori, the eDNA associated with extracellular vesicles might also has a role in cell aggregation as
EP

well as in biofilm formation [12,15]. The production of a matrix is a dynamic process and is

influenced by the availability of nutrients, the microbial competition and the mechanism of
C

secretion [3]. The nature and composition of EPS matrix depend on bacterial strains, culture
AC

conditions, and biofilm age [2].

Microbial biofilm has been described as an “arcane behavior of bacterial populations”, therefore,

cannot only be considered as an enemy to fight against. Many studies, in fact, demonstrated the key

important role of biofilms developed by the microorganisms of the human microbiota. It has been

demonstrated that the development of Lactobacillus spp. biofilm is associated with beneficial

properties such as a stable, long-term colonization of the microorganisms which protects the host by

Information Classification: General

 pathogenic bacteria colonization trough different mechanisms, including the immunomodulation

and the secretion of molecules with antimicrobial activity [16-18]. At the same time, biofilm has

been recognized also as “a principle virulence factor in many localized chronic infections” that are

recalcitrant and generally recur after long periods of clinical quiescence [19]. The biofilm

persistence in the environment and in the host, is due to the high microbial cell density which also

includes “persister cells”, characterized by a dormancy state. The EPS matrix preserves microbial

T
IP
cells from external stressful stimuli and promotes the horizontal genetic exchange. Therefore, the

microorganisms residing in a biofilm develop protection from the host immune system and

R
SC
tolerance to antimicrobials trough different mechanisms such as slow penetration of drugs through

the biofilm matrix, the presence of cells in a dormancy state and the presence of altered

microenvironments.
U
AN
Tolerance towards antimicrobials, unlike resistance which is genetic-based and can be acquired

through point mutations or horizontal gene transfer mechanisms such as conjugation, transformation
M

or phage transduction, can be defined as that condition in which, in order to kill or inhibit microbial
D

cells sensitive to antimicrobials, but aggregated within a biofilm, concentrations up to 4 times the
TE

Minimal Inhibitory Concentration (MIC) are required. Tolerance, which we can also define as

“phenotypic resistance” to drugs can be lost when biofilm disperse and microbial cells reacquire the
EP

planktonic phenotype.

The variability in the biofilm composition as well as tolerance versus the antimicrobial drugs
C

commonly used in conventional therapies suggest the need for multi-targeted or combinational
AC

therapies aimed at the eradication of biofilms; furthermore, polymicrobial biofilms represent a

further concern that needs to be addressed. Among the different approaches aimed at biofilm

inhibition and/or eradication we can distinguish different strategies like the ones that target the EPS

or dormant cells or the quorum sensing mechanism as well as the use of nanoparticles or surfaces

modification [20].

Information Classification: General

 EPS-targeting strategies are based on both the inhibition of the cellular adhesion affecting biofilm

development and on the EPS degradation in a mature biofilm. The inhibition of extracellular and

intracellular signalling as well as the inhibition of non-signalling mechanisms, which are involved

in the secretion of the EPS, could surely represent an effective strategy. For example, cyclic-di-

GMP and cyclic-di-AMP are regulated enzymes involved in the production of biofilm matrix

T
components like polysaccharides and adhesins. Small molecules as peptides or mannosides have

IP
been proven to be active versus bacterial and fungal biofilm associated with infections [19-22].

Furthermore, the use of EPS-degrading enzymes as glucanohydrolases, dispesin B or DNase I have

R
SC
proven equally effective [23-25]. In particular, the recombinant human DNase I (dornase alfa) is

used in clinical therapy because it is capable of reducing the viscosity associated with the DNA

U
released by neutrophil and microorganisms in the sputum of patients affected by cystic fibrosis. The
AN
degradation of the DNA promotes a significant improvement of lung function in the

abovementioned patients [26-27]. The degrading enzymes can be used for the biofilm matrix
M

degradation facilitating the diffusion of the antimicrobial drugs into the EPS. The combination of
D

antimicrobials and Exopolysaccharides (EP)-degrading enzymes has been demonstrated a

TE

successful strategy in the eradication of a mature biofilm [28]. Therefore, the knowledge of the

composition of the EPS matrix developed by a single or a mixture of microbial species/genera may
EP

contribute to the identification of the best association between degrading enzymes and type/class of

antimicrobials. Microbial cells communicate each other by using small molecules named
C

autoinducers. The Quorum Sensing (QS) system is a mechanism of regulation of cell density and,
AC

thus, biofilm formation. Gram-negative bacteria produce Acyl-Homoserine Lactone (AHL)

molecules while Gram-positive bacteria release small peptides. The use of inhibitors of QS, like

RNA III inhibiting peptide (RIP) or benzamidine-benzimidazole derivative (M64) or the

autoinducing peptide I (AIP-I), alone or in combination with antimicrobial drugs, may represent a

valid and promising therapeutic treatment.

Information Classification: General

 Persisters cells within a biofilm showed tolerance to antimicrobials due to their dormancy status,

therefore, targeting dormant cells trough the disruption or inhibition of key molecules, may

represent an alternative approach to overcome one of the antibiotic tolerance mechanisms exhibited

by the biofilms.

Morphological variability is related to adaptation of microorganisms to stressful environmental

T
conditions and increased tolerance to antimicrobial drugs. In H. pylori, the coccoid phenotype

IP
allows to the microorganism to avoid the immune system detection and to promote therapeutic

failures [28]. Antimicrobial peptides (AMP), for example, represent a valid approach in the

R
SC
bacterial and fungal biofilm treatment regardless by cellular metabolic activity, in fact, it has been

demonstrated that the capability of forming pore affects metabolically active, dormant and persister

U
cells [19]. AMPs can increase the effect of conventional antimicrobial therapies, therefore, a
AN
combination with other antibiofilm approaches which target the EPS matrix, as for example the use

of digestive enzymes, might increase the diffusion of AMPs inside a biofilm.

M

Nanoparticles can be considered an innovative and versatile procedure for biofilm eradication.
D

Therefore, the use of them, as a biofilm-targeting strategy is widely studied. Inorganic and organic
TE

nanoparticles can be used alone or in combination with antimicrobial drugs. Silver nanoparticles

displayed a strong antimicrobial activity against several Gram-positive and Gram-negative

EP

microorganisms as well as an antibiofilm effect [30-32]. In particular, it has been recently

demonstrated that Silver Ultra-NanoClusters (SUNCs), showing low toxicity versus human cells,
C

were effective in eradicating H. pylori mature biofilm suggesting that they could represent a novel
AC

strategy for the treatment of H. pylori infections both alone and in combination with metronidazole

[33]. Among organic nanoparticles, liposomes, made up of phospholipid bilayers, are biocompatible

and are widely used for drug delivery since they fuse with bacterial outer membrane and directly

release the antibiotic into the cell cytoplasm, increasing therapeutic effects and minimizing

cytotoxicity [34]. In addition, lyposomes can easily penetrate trough the biofilm matrix reaching the

Information Classification: General

 target cells and protecting the antimicrobial drug from degradation or enzymatic inactivation. It has

been shown that they are effective against biofilms developed by several bacterial species [34,35].

Finally, to eradicate biofilms and limit the spread of antibiotic resistance, the study of compounds

or molecules of natural origin is increasingly widespread. Alkaloids, terpenoids, tannins, steroids,

coumarins and flavonoids [36], which do not normally cause resistance [37] as well as Essential

T
Oils (EO) from parsley, lovage, basil, thyme and hemp, have been studied for their antimicrobial

IP
and antibiofilm activities [37-40]. The latter cause an increase in cell permeability, alterations in the

bacterial cell wall and membrane, ATP loss, inhibition of protein synthesis, pH alterations, DNA

R
SC
damage and inhibition of the QS in several bacterial species such as Bacillus cereus, S. aureus, P.

aeruginosa, Escherichia coli and Salmonella enterica serovar typhimurium [40].

U
AN
M
D
TE
EP
C

Figure 1. A. Illustration of a bacterial biofilm. The microcolonies of bacterial cells are matrix-
AC

enclosed communities that may be composed of 10–25% cells and 75–90% EPS matrix. Bacterial
cells within the matrix do not have Brownian movement, and show a tower-like shape. Most of the
cells are localized in the top of the tower and very few, among them, the persisters are localized in
the bottom. B. Representative image of H. pylori biofilm stained with Live/Dead Baclight kit and
analyzed using fluorescence microscopy. The green fluorescence indicates the live cells. Scale bar:
5 µm.

Information Classification: General

 2. Expert opinion

The microbial biofilm is associated with hospital acquire infection, is subtle and often depends by

an interaction between the opportunistic pathogens, the host immune system and microbiota.

The high variability and multi-factoriality of the microbial biofilms represent a limit and make

biofilms clinically difficult to treat, therefore, combination therapies that target different

T
components of the biofilm microenvironment, are required [19].

IP
An in-depth study of the content and the amount of the components of EPS matrix developed by the

single microorganism or a mix of microorganisms under experimental conditions that reproduce as

R
SC
much as possible in vivo conditions such as surface of colonization, pH condition and hypoxia

might help scientists to identify the more appropriate antimicrobial strategies aimed at biofilm

U
eradication. Once confirmed in “in vivo models” this approach would result in time saving, a
AN
rational use of drugs, the outline of treatment guidelines and a reduction of healthcare costs.

Not less important is the role of the human microbiota and the possible interplay between the
M

resident microbes and the opportunistic pathogens. The microbiota represents a community of
D

microbes in which mutualistic and commensal microorganisms co-exist with potential pathogens
TE

and when this balance fails infection might develop. Therefore, new results could be obtained by

the study of the human microbiome as well as by the use of new molecules or compounds produced
EP

by probiotic strains. In addition, a multi-target approach that include the host immunomodulation

therapies might be significantly effective.

C

Unfortunately, the effect of new antimicrobial molecules, on the human microbiota is rarely
AC

evaluated, thus, the identification of molecules that possess a selective toxicity between pathogens

and some components of the human microbiota might represent an important turning point in the

field of microbiological research.

On the basis of these concerns, the collaboration between scientists with different expertise such as

chemists, biologists, clinicians and engineers may contribute to obtain promising results in the

biofilm field.

Information Classification: General

 Future directions should focus on identifying of multi-target approaches, developed on the basis of

knowledge obtained in the study of biofilm formed in in vivo-like environments. Such approaches

should comply requirements such as stability, selectivity, minimal toxicity and low-cost

formulations.

The present special issue is publishing a series of research articles on anti-biofilm strategies which

T
include synthetic and natural quorum sensing inhibitors, antimicrobial peptides, natural compounds,

IP
carbonic anhydrase inhibitors, nanosystems and biomaterials. The large numbers of papers

published in the biofilm research field confirm the key role of the microbial biofilms in human

R
SC
health and disease.

Funding
U
AN
This paper was not funded.
M

Declaration of interests
D

The authors have no relevant affiliations or financial involvement with any organization or entity
TE

with a financial interest in or financial conflict with the subject matter or materials discussed in the

manuscript. This includes employment, consultancies, honoraria, stock ownership or options, expert
EP

testimony, grants or patents received or pending, or royalties.

C

Reviewer disclosures
AC

Peer reviewers on this manuscript have no relevant financial or other relationships to disclose.

References

Paper of special note have been highlighted as either of interest (●) or of considerable interest (●●)

to readers

1. Costerton JW. Introduction to biofilm. Int J Antimicrob Agents. 1999;11(3-4):217-221.

Information Classification: General

 ●●
A milestone in the biofilm research field.

2. Hall‐Stoodley L, Costerton JW, Stoodley P. Bacterial biofilms: from the natural

environment to infectious diseases. Nat Rev Microbiol. 2004;2:95–108.

●●
A complete and in-depth review of the biofilm world.

3. Flemming HC, Wingender J, Szewzyk U, et al. Biofilms: an emergent form of bacterial life.

T
Nat Rev Microbiol. 2016;14(9):563-575.

IP
●●
A complete and in-depth review of the biofilm world.

4. Moscoso M, García E, López R. Biofilm formation by Streptococcus pneumoniae: role of

R
SC
choline, extracellular DNA, and capsular polysaccharide in microbial accretion. J Bacteriol.

2006;188(22):7785-7795.

U
5. Izano EA, Amarante MA, Kher WB, et al. Differential roles of poly-N-acetylglucosamine
AN
surface polysaccharide and extracellular DNA in Staphylococcus aureus and Staphylococcus

epidermidis biofilms. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2008;74(2):470-476.

M

6. Hall-Stoodley L, Nistico L, Sambanthamoorthy K, et al. Characterization of biofilm matrix,

D

degradation by DNase treatment and evidence of capsule downregulation in Streptococcus

TE

pneumoniae clinical isolates. BMC Microbiol. 2008;8:173.

7. Rice KC, Mann EE, Endres JL, et al. The cidA murein hydrolase regulator contributes to
EP

DNA release and biofilm development in Staphylococcus aureus. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A.

2007;104(19):8113-8118.
C

8. Grande R, Nistico L, Sambanthamoorthy K, et al. Temporal expression of agrB, cidA, and

AC

alsS in the early development of Staphylococcus aureus UAMS-1 biofilm formation and

structural role of extracellular DNA and carbohydrates. Pathog Dis. 2014;70:414–422.

9. Vorkapic D, Pressler K, Schild S. Multifaceted roles of extracellular DNA in bacterial

physiology. Curr Genet. 2016;62(1):71-79.

Information Classification: General

 10. Renelli M, Matias V, Lo RY, et al. DNA-containing membrane vesicles of Pseudomonas

aeruginosa PAO1 and their genetic transformation potential. Microbiology.

2004;150(Pt7):2161-2169.

11. Manning AJ, Kuehn MJ. Functional advantages conferred by extracellular prokaryotic

membrane vesicles. J Mol Microbiol Biotechnol. 2013;23(1-2):131-141.

T
12. Grande R, Di Marcantonio MC, Robuffo I, et al. Helicobacter pylori ATCC 43629/NCTC

IP
11639 Outer Membrane Vesicles (OMVs) from Biofilm and Planktonic Phase Associated

with Extracellular DNA (eDNA). Front Microbiol. 2015;6:1369.

R
SC
13. Puca V, Ercolino E, Celia C, et al. Detection and Quantification of eDNA-Associated

Bacterial Membrane Vesicles by Flow Cytometry. Int J Mol Sci. 2019;20(21):5307.

U
14. Webb JS, Lau M, Kjelleberg S. Bacteriophage and phenotypic variation in Pseudomonas
AN
aeruginosa biofilm development. J Bacteriol. 2004;186(23):8066-8073.

15. Yonezawa H, Osaki T, Kurata S, et al. Outer membrane vesicles of Helicobacter pylori
M

TK1402 are involved in biofilm formation. BMC Microbiol. 2009;9:197.

D

16. Rieu A, Aoudia N, Jego G, et al. The biofilm mode of life boosts the anti‐inflammatory
TE

properties of Lactobacillus. Cell Microbiol. 2014;16(12):1836-1853.

17. Salas-Jara MJ, Ilabaca A, Vega M, et al. Biofilm Forming Lactobacillus: New Challenges
EP

for the Development of Probiotics. Microorganisms. 2016;4(3):35.

18. Chamignon C, Gueneau V, Medina S, et al. Evaluation of the probiotic properties and the
C

capacity to form biofilms of various Lactobacillus strains. Microorganisms. 2020;8(7):1053.

AC

19. Koo H, Allan RN, Howlin RP, et al. Targeting microbial biofilms: current and prospective

therapeutic strategies. Nat Rev Microbiol. 2017;15(12):740-755.

●●
Detailed review article which analyzes the more promising antibiofilm strategies.

20. Parrino B, Schillaci D, Carnevale I, et al. Synthetic small molecules as antibiofilm agents in

the struggle against antibiotic resistance. Eur J Med. Chem. 2019,161:154-178.

Information Classification: General

 21. Totsika M, Kostakioti M, Hannan TJ, et al. A FimH inhibitor prevents acute bladder

infection and treats chronic cystitis caused by multidrug-resistant uropathogenic Escherichia

coli ST131. J Infect Dis. 2013;208(6):921-8.

22. Nett JE, Cabezas-Olcoz J, Marchillo K, et al. Targeting Fibronectin To Disrupt In Vivo

Candida albicans Biofilms. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2016;60(5):3152-3155.

T
23. Kaplan JB. Biofilm matrix-degrading enzymes. Methods Mol Biol. 2014;1147:203-13.

IP
●
The chapter provides a brief overview of the most commonly used biofilm matrix-

R
degrading enzymes and presents examples of their applications in biofilm research.

SC
24. Fleming D, Chahin L, Rumbaugh K. Glycoside Hydrolases Degrade Polymicrobial Bacterial

Biofilms in Wounds. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2017;61(2):e01998-16.

U
25. Okshevsky M, Regina VR, Meyer RL. Extracellular DNA as a target for biofilm control.
AN
Curr Opin Biotechnol. 2015;33:73–80.

26. Manzenreiter R, Kienberger F, Marcos V et al. Ultrastructural characterization of cystic

M

fibrosis sputum using atomic force and scanning electron microscopy. J Cyst Fibros.
D

2012;11(2): 84-92.
TE

27. Konstan MW, Ratjen F. Effect of dornase alfa on inflammation and lung function: potential

role in the early treatment of cystic fibrosis. J Cyst Fibros. 2012;11:78–83.

EP

28. Baelo A, Levato R, Julián E, et al. Disassembling bacterial extracellular matrix with DNase-

coated nanoparticles to enhance antibiotic delivery in biofilm infections. J Control Release.

C

2015;209:150-158.
AC

29. Krzyżek P, Grande R. Transformation of Helicobacter pylori into Coccoid Forms as a

Challenge for Research Determining Activity of Antimicrobial Substances. Pathogens.

2020;9(3):184.

30. Sondi I, Salopek-Sondi B. Silver nanoparticles as antimicrobial agent: a case study on E.

coli as a model for Gram-negative bacteria. J Colloid Interface Sci. 2004;275(1):177-182.

Information Classification: General

 31. Jain J, Arora S, Rajwade JM, et al. Silver nanoparticles in therapeutics: development of an

antimicrobial gel formulation for topical use. Mol Pharm. 2009;6(5):1388-1401.

32. Puca V, Traini T, Guarnieri S, et al. The Antibiofilm Effect of a Medical Device Containing

TIAB on Microorganisms Associated with Surgical Site Infection. Molecules.

2019;24(12):2280.

T
33. Grande R, Sisto F, Puca V, et al. Antimicrobial and antibiofilm activities of new synthesized

IP
silver ultra-nanoclusters (SUNCs) against Helicobacter pylori. Front Microbiol.

2020;11:1705.

R
SC
34. Forier K, Raemdonck K, De Smedt SC, Demeester J, Coenye T, Braeckmans K. Lipid and

polymer nanoparticles for drug delivery to bacterial biofilms. J Control Release.

2014;190:607-623.
U
AN
35. Rukavina Z, Vanić Ž. Current Trends in Development of Liposomes for Targeting Bacterial

Biofilms. Pharmaceutics. 2016;8(2):18.

M

36. Lewis K, Ausubel FM. Prospects for plant-derived antibacterials. Nat Biotechnol.
D

2006;24(12):1504-1507.
TE

37. AlSheikh HMA, Sultan I, Kumar V, et al. Plant-Based Phytochemicals as Possible

Alternative to Antibiotics in Combating Bacterial Drug Resistance. Antibiotics (Basel).

EP

2020;9(8):E480.

38. Zengin G, Menghini L, Di Sotto A, et al. Chromatographic Analyses, In Vitro Biological

C

Activities, and Cytotoxicity of Cannabis sativa L. Essential Oil: A Multidisciplinary Study.

AC

Molecules. 2018;23(12):3266.

39. Mocan A, Cairone F, Locatelli M, et al. Polyphenols from Lycium barbarum (Goji) Fruit

European Cultivars at Different Maturation Steps: Extraction, HPLC-DAD Analyses, and

Biological Evaluation. Antioxidants (Basel). 2019;8(11):562.

Information Classification: General

 40. Semeniuc CA, Pop CR, Rotar AM. Antibacterial activity and interactions of plant essential

oil combinations against Gram-positive and Gram-negative bacteria. J Food Drug Anal.

2017;25(2):403-408.

T
IP
R
SC
U
AN
M
D
TE
EP
C
AC

Information Classification: General