Biofilms and Their Multidimensional Impacts: From Combating Industrial and Clinical Risks to Unlocking Opportunities in Sustainable Agriculture (2025)

What is Open Access?

Open Access is an initiative that aims to make scientific research freely available to all. To date our community has made over 100 million downloads. It’s based on principles of collaboration, unobstructed discovery, and, most importantly, scientific progression. As PhD students, we found it difficult to access the research we needed, so we decided to create a new Open Access publisher that levels the playing field for scientists across the world. How? By making research easy to access, and puts the academic needs of the researchers before the business interests of publishers.

Authors, Editors and Institutions

We are a community of more than 103,000 authors and editors from 3,291 institutions spanning 160 countries, including Nobel Prize winners and some of the world’s most-cited researchers. Publishing on IntechOpen allows authors to earn citations and find new collaborators, meaning more people see your work not only from your own field of study, but from other related fields too.

Content Alerts

Brief introduction to this section that descibes Open Access especially from an IntechOpen perspective

How it Works Manage preferences

Contact

Want to get in touch? Contact our London head office or media team here

Careers

Our team is growing all the time, so we’re always on the lookout for smart people who want to help us reshape the world of scientific publishing.

Home > Books > Exploring Bacterial Biofilms [Working Title]

Biofilms and Their Multidimensional Impacts: From Combating Industrial and Clinical Risks to Unlocking Opportunities in Sustainable Agriculture (2)Open access peer-reviewed chapter - ONLINE FIRST

Written By

Atiye Karadoğan, Fatma Azgin, Esra Sündüz Yiğittekin and Sadik Dinçer

Submitted: 31 December 2024 Reviewed: 09 April 2025 Published: 13 May 2025

DOI: 10.5772/intechopen.1010579

Biofilms and Their Multidimensional Impacts: From Combating Industrial and Clinical Risks to Unlocking Opportunities in Sustainable Agriculture (3)

Exploring Bacterial Biofilms

Edited by Sadık Dincer

From the Edited Volume

Exploring Bacterial Biofilms [Working Title]

Prof. Sadık Dincer, Associate Prof. Melis Sumengen Ozdenefe and Dr. Hatice Aysun Mercimek Takci

Chapter metrics overview

10 Chapter Downloads

View Full Metrics

Abstract

Biofilms are microbial communities embedded in a matrix of extracellular polymeric substances (EPS) that irreversibly adhere to surfaces in natural, industrial, and clinical environments. Their formation involves a dynamic, multi-step process influenced by microbial interactions, EPS production, and surface properties. Biofilms provide microorganisms with protection against environmental stresses and antimicrobial agents, creating significant challenges in healthcare and industry. In industrial settings, Microbial Induced Corrosion (MIC) is a major issue, with biofilms contributing to the degradation of metallic and nonmetallic surfaces through mechanisms like electrochemical cell formation and the production of corrosive metabolites. Sulfate-reducing bacteria (SRB) and other microbes accelerate this process, impacting the lifespan of pipelines, marine structures, and industrial equipment. Clinically, biofilm-associated infections constitute 70% of all infections, resisting antibiotics and immune responses. These infections complicate treatment, impair medical implants, and are linked to chronic conditions like cystic fibrosis and diabetic foot ulcers. Emerging diagnostic tools, such as biosensors, and treatments like nanoparticles, conjugated antimicrobials, and phage therapy, offer promising solutions. In agriculture, biofilms enhance the virulence of pathogens but also support beneficial effects. Plant Growth Promoting Bacteria (PGPB) within biofilms help plants combat biotic and abiotic stresses while promoting growth through beneficial metabolite production.

Keywords

  • extracellular polymeric substance (EPS)
  • exopolysaccharide
  • microbial induced corrosion (MIC)
  • quorum sensing (QS)
  • antibiotic resistance
  • ESKAPE
  • plant growth promoting Bacteria (PGPB)

Author Information

Show +

  • Atiye Karadoğan

    • Biology Department, Faculty of Art and Science, Çukurova University, Adana, Turkey
  • Fatma Azgin

    • Biology Department, Faculty of Art and Science, Çukurova University, Adana, Turkey
  • Esra Sündüz Yiğittekin

    • Biology Department, Faculty of Art and Science, Çukurova University, Adana, Turkey
  • Sadik Dinçer *

    • Biology Department, Faculty of Art and Science, Çukurova University, Adana, Turkey

*Address all correspondence to: sdincer@cu.edu.tr

1. Introduction

A biofilm is a community of cells organized in microcolonies, irreversibly attached to a surface and embedded in an organic polymer matrix of microbial origin formed at the interface between a liquid medium and a surface [1, 2]. Bacteria form biofilms in natural and industrial environments as a defense mechanism against antibacterial chemicals, environmental bacteriophages, and phagocytes. Biofilms are capable of developing on various surfaces, including living tissues, medical devices, pipelines in industrial or drinking water systems, and natural water sources. The solid-liquid interface provides an ideal environment for microorganisms to adhere and multiply [3].

The formation of biofilms is a complex and dynamic process that begins with the following steps: Planktonic bacteria are delivered to solid surfaces through hydrodynamic forces and mechanisms of physical or chemical adsorption. Extracellular structures such as flagella, folds, fimbriae or pili, and outer membrane proteins facilitate bacterial recognition and interaction with surfaces. These interactions are crucial for biofilm development as they allow bacterial cells to overcome long-range repulsive forces near the surface. Additionally, these processes are modulated by the physicochemical properties of the substrate surface, including factors such as charge and hydrophobicity. At this stage, bacteria typically show Brownian motion and can be easily removed from the surface by shear forces. Once initial attachment occurs, flagellar movement is restricted, and attached cells begin to produce extracellular polymeric substances (EPS) (Figure 1). EPS production shifts bacterial attachment from a reversible to an irreversible state. Due to the EPS matrix, these attached cells become increasingly difficult to detach from the surface. The composition of EPS varies depending on the bacterial species and growth conditions. As cells proliferate and accumulate more EPS, these micron-scale aggregates grow into mature biofilms, forming three-dimensional structures [4].

Biofilms and Their Multidimensional Impacts: From Combating Industrial and Clinical Risks to Unlocking Opportunities in Sustainable Agriculture (4)

The extracellular polymeric substances (EPS) play a critical role in biofilm architecture by anchoring biofilm cells and maintaining them in proximity. This close spatial arrangement promotes intense interactions, including intercellular communication and the establishment of synergistic micro-consortia [5]. The composition of EPS includes polysaccharides, proteins, extracellular DNA (eDNA), and lipids. The structural integrity of the biofilm matrix is preserved through non-covalent interactions, which are mediated by weak physicochemical forces between the components of the EPS [1].

Advertisement

2. Biofilms in industry

Impacts corrosion is a harmful process that occurs when metals undergo chemical or electrochemical reactions with their environment. This electrochemical phenomenon involves the release of electrons from the metal at anodic sites and their acquisition at cathodic sites [6, 7].

MM2++2eAnodic reactionE1

1/2O2+H2O+2e2OHCathodic reactionatneutral or alkaline pHE2

Microbial Induced Corrosion (MIC) is a type of corrosion caused by the presence and activities of microorganisms, leading to the deterioration of both metallic and nonmetallic materials [7]. MIC is considered the direct cause of severe corrosion failures and leads to damage costs reaching billions of U.S. dollars annually. Microorganisms such as bacteria, fungi, archaea, and microalgae can directly or indirectly influence corrosion, depending on specific interactions between the microorganism, the material, and the electrolyte [8].

Biofilms actively contribute to corrosion through various mechanisms such as accumulation of cells at different concentrations, production of corrosive substances, changes in anion ratios, and inactivation of corrosion inhibitors [7].

When a metal surface is covered by a biofilm, the portion of the metal outside the biofilm remains exposed to oxygen, while the metal beneath the biofilm is shielded from oxygen exposure. This disparity in oxygen availability results in the formation of a corrosion cell within the anodic zone under the biofilm, where metal ions are generated, leading to localized pitting corrosion. Electrons migrate to the metal surface outside the biofilm to facilitate oxygen reduction (cathodic reaction), during which hydroxyl ions are produced (Figure 2). These systems are referred to as oxygen concentration cells and are frequently linked to microbially influenced corrosion. Liu et al. [9] demonstrated that the adhesion of Vibrio natriegens to a surface enhances the anodic reaction rate, thereby accelerating the dissolution of aluminum.

Biofilms and Their Multidimensional Impacts: From Combating Industrial and Clinical Risks to Unlocking Opportunities in Sustainable Agriculture (5)

Biofilms diminish the efficacy of corrosion inhibitors by establishing a diffusion barrier that obstructs direct interaction between the metal surface and the inhibitors present in the environment. Additionally, microorganisms are capable of degrading specific corrosion inhibitors, such as aliphatic amines and nitrites. This microbial degradation not only compromises the performance of the inhibitors but also facilitates the proliferation of microbial populations, thereby accelerating the corrosion process [10].

Microorganisms produce both inorganic and organic acids that can have corrosive effects on metals. The primary inorganic acid involved in metal corrosion is sulfuric acid, which is produced by acidophilic and sulfur-oxidizing bacteria. These bacteria thrive in environments where sulfur compounds are reduced and can produce very low pH levels (pH2–5) when oxygen is present. Important microorganisms include Thiobacillus thiooxidans and Thiobacillus ferrooxidans; the latter is often associated with acidic mine drainage [11].

Sulfate-reducing bacteria (SRB) are the microorganisms most strongly linked to microbial-induced corrosion (MIC). These bacteria utilize sulfate as a terminal electron acceptor in their metabolic processes, resulting in the production of hydrogen sulfide (H₂S). They belong to a diverse group of anaerobic microorganisms that inhabit a wide range of environments. The metabolic activities of SRB contribute to the accumulation of sulfur compounds near metal surfaces, significantly accelerating the corrosion process. SRBs are a critical area of focus in MIC research, with several corrosion mechanisms attributed to their activity, including:

  • Cathodic depolarization via dehydrogenase enzymes

  • Anodic depolarization processes

  • Secretion of exopolysaccharides that bind metal ions

  • Sulfur-induced stress corrosion cracking

  • Hydrogen-induced cracking and bubbling

  • Formation of metal sulfides

These effects of SRB play an important role in the degradation of metal surfaces [10].

von Wolzogen Kuhr and van der Vlugt [12] proposed the following electrochemical reactions related to the MIC performed by SRB:

4Fe4Fe2++8eanodic reactionE3

8H2O8H++8OHwater dissociationE4

8H++8e8Hcathodic reactionE5

SO42+8HS2+4H2Obacterial consumptionE6

Fe2++S2FeScorrosion productsE7

4Fe+SO42+4H2O3FeOH2+FeS+2OHE8

Ilhan-Sungur et al. [13] showed that sulfate-reducing bacteria (Desulfovibrio sp.) are responsible for corrosion of galvanized steel.

Cetin and Aksu conducted a study demonstrating that the corrosion rate of steel samples significantly increased when exposed to Desulfotomaculum sp. bacteria. Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM) and Energy Dispersive X-ray Spectroscopy (EDS) analyses revealed that these bacteria caused severe corrosion on the steel surface [14].

Misoni and Ihejirika investigated the microbiologically influenced corrosion of mild steel and aluminum in seawater caused by the sulfate-reducing bacterium Desulfotomaculum sp. Their findings revealed that in the presence of SRB, the average corrosion rate of mild steel and aluminum coupons was four times higher compared to those in environments without Desulfotomaculum sp. [15].

Anandkumar et al. investigated the presence of the sulfate-reducing bacterium Desulfobulbus propionicus in the cooling towers of a petroleum refinery and analyzed its corrosion behavior on steel. Electrochemical and weight loss analyses revealed that D. propionicus significantly increased pitting corrosion in cooling towers. Their findings also demonstrated that the presence of this bacterium accelerated the corrosion rate through the production of corrosive H₂S [16].

While SRB are among the most extensively studied microorganisms in MIC, other bacterial groups have also been implicated in metal deterioration.

Aruliah and Ting conducted a study aimed at characterizing the corrosive bacterial communities present in water samples collected from a cooling tower. They identified seven aerobic bacterial species: Pseudomonas putida, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Massilia timonae, Massilia albidiflava, Pseudomonas mosselii, Massilia sp., and Pseudomonas sp. Notably, the Massilia genus was detected for the first time in cooling tower water, and it was observed to form a thin bacterial biofilm and cause pitting corrosion on copper metal surfaces [17].

MIC is common in a variety of environments such as soil, freshwater and seawater, and in numerous industries, including petroleum, power generation and marine sectors. Systems with high microbial populations that are not effectively controlled, systems operating in stagnant or low flow conditions, and environments with temperatures that support microbial life are more susceptible to MIC. This susceptibility is often seen in industries such as power plants, refineries, petrochemical plants, steel mills, paper and pulp mills, and marine infrastructure [8, 18].

Given all these problems caused by MIC, it is necessary to develop an effective prevention strategy. Appropriate treatment methods should be selected to prevent biofilm formation or eliminate existing biofilm. Microbial Influenced Corrosion (MIC) is estimated to be responsible for approximately 20% of corrosion-related damage. In the UK, 10% of corrosion incidents are believed to be caused by biocorrosion. In addition, the lifespan of flowlines in Western Australia has been reduced from the intended 20+years to less than 3years due to MIC. Microbial corrosion is also considered one of the main causes of corrosion problems in underground pipelines [18].

Various methods are used to reduce biofilm accumulation on engineering surfaces. These methods include adding oxidizing or nonoxidizing biocides to water to eliminate microorganisms from entering the system or slow their growth within the biofilm, mechanically removing biofilms from surfaces using tools such as sponge balls or brushes, and treating water by aeration or deaeration to reduce the number and types of microorganisms [10].

The most common method used in industries to prevent biofilm formation and thus microbial corrosion is the use of biocides that inhibit the growth of microorganisms or kill them.

Biocides used in industrial water treatment are inevitably released into the environment over time. Ideally, a biocide should only target the specific microorganisms for which it is intended. However, all chemicals have different degrees of impact on plant and animal life depending on their concentration. It is generally assumed that dilution and natural degradation will neutralize biocides. Laboratory studies have shown that commercially available biocides are biodegradable. However, these findings do not necessarily mean that such degradation will readily occur in the natural environment [19].

Considering all these factors, the use of environmentally friendly products should be encouraged. Prevention of biofilm formation using plant extracts and coating metal surfaces with metabolites of lactic acid bacteria with biosurfactant properties can be preferred as an alternative to the use of biocides.

Advertisement

3. Biofilms as a health concern

It is estimated that approximately 70% of clinically significant infections are biofilm-associated. Compared to their planktonic forms, bacteria within biofilms exhibit higher resistance to physical and chemical factors, complicating treatment, prolonging hospital stays, increasing healthcare costs, and ultimately categorizing them as an economic and social issue [20].

Current diagnostic methods still primarily focus on isolating bacteria, which can lead to the oversight of infections that develop on a biofilm basis. Bacteria in biofilm form can tolerate antibiotics up to 1000 times more effectively, rendering antibiotic treatment insufficient and increasing the likelihood of resistance development. When infections are identified as biofilm-based, a change in therapeutic direction becomes necessary. The global spread of antibiotic resistance and the insufficiency of antibiotics in combating biofilm-associated infections have laid the groundwork for the development of novel therapeutic approaches and antimicrobial/anti-biofilm agents. The development of materials to prevent biofilm formation for medical device manufacturing is considered a preventive measure. The development of electrochemical biosensors, particularly Electrochemical Impedance Spectroscopy (EIS), has shown promising results. This method is projected to support significant research, especially in detecting biofilms without causing tissue damage, developing anti-biofilm agents, and monitoring treatment progress [21].

The three-dimensional structure of biofilms includes a region deep within the biofilm containing dormant bacteria known as “persister” cells. These cells constitute approximately 1% of the biofilm. In the event of chemical or physical damage to the biofilm, persister cells can restore the biofilm structure once conditions return to normal. Due to their slowed metabolism, these cells are unaffected by antimicrobials [22].

Exopolysaccharides form a matrix structure that retains water, facilitating the transport of nutrients, gene transfer, and the distribution of signaling molecules within the biofilm. Data indicate that Pseudomonas aeruginosa polysaccharides are associated with virulence [23]. The extracellular DNA (eDNA) within biofilms was once thought to be a gene pool enabling horizontal gene transfer or merely remnants of dead bacteria. However, it has been shown that eDNA molecules are part of supramolecular structures, such as stable filamentous networks, common to both environmental and pathogenic biofilms. These molecules contribute to escaping immune responses, neutralizing antimicrobials, and serving as an energy source during starvation. However, the mechanisms of eDNA release and regulation within biofilms remain unknown. The discovery of programmed cell lysis within biofilms suggests it may contribute to the biofilm’s polymeric structure [24]. The use of DNase has been shown to inhibit biofilms of P. aeruginosa and Staphylococcus aureus [25], as well as to enhance the penetration of antibiotics into biofilms, making it effective in immature biofilm structures [26].

Lipids within the matrix contribute to biofilm formation by reducing surface tension, allowing biofilms to adhere to challenging surfaces.

The insufficiency of biofilm detection underlying infections, coupled with increasing research data on biofilm structure and function, inspires the development of new methodologies. The development of electrochemical biosensors, particularly EIS, has shown promising results. The identification of biofilm-based infection foci in clinical settings will facilitate accurate diagnosis and treatment decisions.

In biofilm formation, both Gram-negative and Gram-positive bacteria produce “biofilm-associated proteins” (bap) that exhibit structural and functional similarities. Bap, a bacterial surface protein of high molecular weight, plays a role in maintaining cell surface hydrophobicity, a key factor in biofilm formation. It promotes strong intercellular adhesion by forming amyloid structures under environmental conditions [27].

Quorum Sensing (QS) is a chemical communication system through which bacteria within biofilms coordinate gene expression. QS employs signal molecules, known as autoinducers (AIs), which accumulate to a threshold level to facilitate bacterial coordination in response to population density and changes in the host environment. QS enables biofilms to function as multicellular structures. Autoinducers are classified into three main categories: autoinducing peptides (AIPs) found in Gram-positive bacteria, acyl-homoserine lactones (AHLs) present in Gram-negative bacteria, and autoinducer-2 (AI-2), which is common to both types [28].

Divalent cations such as Ca/Mg contribute to the physical stability of the anionic EPS structure, playing significant roles in the maturation phase of biofilms [29].

In 2017, the World Health Organization (WHO) published a list of antibiotic-resistant microorganisms requiring urgent development of new antimicrobial therapies. These bacteria, collectively referred to as ESKAPE, include Enterococcus faecium, Staphylococcus aureus, Klebsiella pneumoniae, Acinetobacter baumannii, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, and Enterobacter spp. The shared characteristic among these bacteria is their ability to develop biofilm-based infections [30].

3.1 Biofilm-associated diseases

Microorganisms can attach to a variety of tissue surfaces in the body, including skin, connective tissues, intestinal mucosa, heart valves, and the oral cavity, where they can form biofilms that persist and spread until an inflammatory response is triggered. These biofilm formations may enter the circulatory system, potentially causing embolism, impacting other organs, and posing severe life-threatening risks to patients.

In the oral cavity, microorganisms adhere to structures such as enamel, dentin, and mucosal epithelial tissues, creating biofilms commonly referred to as dental plaque. In advanced stages, this biofilm can contribute to significant dental issues, including tooth loss [31].

One complication of diabetes mellitus, diabetic foot ulcers (DFUs), occurs in 15–25% of cases. DFUs have been shown to be biofilm-based infections [32]. Studies of diabetic foot microbiota have revealed less diversity and a higher prevalence of opportunistic pathogens compared to healthy individuals [33].

Infective Endocarditis (IE) is a highly fatal biofilm-based infection affecting heart valves, with approximately 25% of patients succumbing to the disease. Implants used in treatment can also cause similar issues, with S. aureus being the primary causative agent in nearly all IE cases.

Biofilms forming over the thick mucus layer that acts as a barrier between the intestinal microbiota and tissue have not been associated with any pathogenesis. These biofilms may exhibit commensal behavior, competing for space and nutrients and producing inhibitory metabolites such as acetate or butyrate to limit pathogenic colonization. However, disruption of the mucus layer due to host genetics or dietary factors can lead to bacterial contact with epithelial tissue and the formation of biofilms associated with intestinal dysbiosis, colorectal tumors, and Crohn’s disease [34]. Helicobacter pylori, a causative agent of peptic ulcers and gastric cancer, has been shown to cover 97% of urease-positive biopsy surfaces in ulcer patients with biofilms, compared to only 1.6% in urease-negative controls [35]. This highlights the potential severity of biofilm-associated pathogenesis.

Cystic fibrosis (CF) is an autosomal recessive genetic disorder resulting from mutations in the gene responsible for encoding the cystic fibrosis transmembrane conductance regulator (CFTR) protein. Dysfunction of CFTR damages epithelial tissues and mucus-covered surfaces, including the lungs, leading to chronic inflammation. CF patients are infected by biofilm-forming pathogens, initially S. aureus, followed by P. aeruginosa. In CF, biofilm structures display three-dimensional architecture, remaining suspended within lung tissues rather than adhering to surfaces [36]. P. aeruginosa’s biofilm strategy involves producing at least three polysaccharides—alginate, Psl, and Pel. These polysaccharides contribute to adhesion, immune evasion, and resistance against antibiotics, demonstrating a close relationship between their ratios and biofilm virulence [23].

Osteomyelitis, involving bone tissue infection, can occur endogenously through hematologic spread or exogenously via implants. While S. aureus is commonly implicated in hematologic osteomyelitis, biofilms involving multiple species such as P. aeruginosa and Escherichia coli can cause chronic osteomyelitis.

3.2 Medical device-associated biofilm infections

Implants such as cochlear devices, dental implants, orthopedic implants (e.g., knee and hip prostheses), heart valves, and vascular stents, particularly in association with surgical interventions, frequently develop biofilm-based infections involving ESKAPE bacteria. Devices used in invasive procedures, such as urinary catheters, central venous catheters, and intrauterine devices, provide a liquid-solid interface conducive to bacterial colonization and biofilm formation. These complications can endanger patients’ lives, often necessitating implant removal [37].

3.3 Treatment strategies for biofilm-associated infections

Treatment of biofilm-associated infections has become more effective with the elucidation of biofilm structure and physiology. However, traditional treatment methods are increasingly insufficient, necessitating the urgent development of new antimicrobial agents and anti-biofilm materials.

The biofilm’s matrix structure, composed of common components such as polysaccharides, lipids, proteins, and eDNA, forms the primary framework during biofilm’s lifecycle, from initial microbial colonization to maturation and virulence expression. Therapeutics targeting the matrix structure can enhance antibiotic efficacy, activate immune responses, and eliminate multispecies biofilms. Mechanical disruption of the matrix structure, as in dental cleaning or wound debridement, can increase treatment effectiveness.

Antimicrobial peptides (AMPs) have gained attention as alternatives to traditional antibiotics. AMPs are synthesized by various organisms, ranging from plants to animals, with molecular weights between 1 and 5kDa. Their nonspecific mechanisms, targeting multiple sites, reduce the likelihood of resistance development. However, to enhance their effectiveness and resistance to proteases, modifications or synthetic production methods are employed [38].

Methods targeting the QS mechanism, known as quorum quenching (QQ), aim to disrupt biofilm formation and disassemble existing biofilms by inhibiting signal production, degrading signal molecules, or blocking receptors. Compounds like farnesol and triclosan inhibit QS signal molecule production, while enzymes such as AHL lactonases degrade signal molecules. Receptor blockers such as furanones and naringenin prevent QS signaling. While promising, challenges such as selectivity, resistance development, and unintended virulence increases necessitate further research (Figure 3) [39].

Biofilms and Their Multidimensional Impacts: From Combating Industrial and Clinical Risks to Unlocking Opportunities in Sustainable Agriculture (6)

Nanoparticles, with dimensions of 1–100nm, offer innovative and effective solutions for both antimicrobial and anti-biofilm targets. Nanoparticles can penetrate biofilm matrixes, disrupt extracellular polymeric substances, and neutralize persister cells with reactive oxygen species. They also block efflux pumps, increase bacterial membrane permeability, and interfere with quorum sensing. Despite their advantages, concerns regarding biocompatibility and toxicity, especially at high concentrations, remain. Strategies such as surface modification and green synthesis are being developed to address these issues [30].

Enhancing the anti-biofilm properties of medical implants is a preferred preventive measure. Surface coating techniques, drug delivery systems, antibacterial substances, and nanotechnology-based approaches aim to prevent biofilm formation, reduce microbial adhesion, and decrease antibiotic dependency. Challenges such as improving the mechanical durability and biocompatibility of coatings must still be overcome [27].

Probiotics such as Lactobacillus species and natural compounds like plant extracts have been shown to inhibit biofilms. Phage therapy, due to its specificity and non-toxicity, is another potential approach for combating biofilms. However, challenges such as dosage determination, evaluation of combination therapies, toxicity, and insufficient in vivo studies necessitate further development.

Advertisement

4. Biofilms in agriculture

With the increase in the world population, agricultural production needs to increase by approximately 50% by 2050 in order to meet the food demand [40]. However, the intensification of production to achieve this goal leads to excessive use of chemical fertilizers [41]. Farmers intensively use chemical fertilizers and pesticides to increase productivity and meet food demand. The overuse of these chemicals threatens sustainable agriculture by causing environmental degradation, changes in soil pH, and excess fertilizer leaching into groundwater and damaging aquatic ecosystems [42].

A healthy soil is essential for plant growth. Functions of soil microorganisms such as nutrient cycling, organic matter decomposition, plant nutrition and disease resistance contribute to soil health. Soil microorganisms interact both with each other and with plants to improve soil structure and increase plant resistance to harsh environmental conditions [43].

Plant Growth Promoting Bacteria (PGPB) are a group of beneficial bacteria commonly found in the root environment of plants that promote plant growth and the absorption and utilization of mineral nutrients. Playing an important role in soil health and agricultural sustainability, PGPBs include well-characterized species such as Pseudomonas fluorescens, Bacillus subtilis, Azospirillum brasilense, Rhizobium leguminosarum, Streptomyces lydicus, and Burkholderia phytofirmans [44, 45]. These microorganisms establish either symbiotic relationships with plant roots or thrive as free-living organisms in the rhizosphere.

The mechanisms of action of PGPBs and the molecular mechanism of the symbiotic relationship they form with plants and the development of methods of their use in agricultural fields have become of increasing research interest in recent years.

One of the most desirable characteristics of PGPBs is their ability to effectively colonize plant roots and leaf surfaces. This colonization is possible only if the bacteria form a biofilm structure. In nature, bacteria develop biofilm organizations rather than planktonic forms. A biofilm is a form of colonization in which different species often have synergistic relationships. Biofilms refer to communities of microorganisms organized in extracellular polymeric substance (EPS) that they produce by attaching to a living or nonliving surface. Although the structure of EPS varies according to abiotic conditions and the diversity of microorganisms gathered, it generally contains exopolysaccharides, protein, lipid, and eDNA (Figure 4) [46].

Biofilms and Their Multidimensional Impacts: From Combating Industrial and Clinical Risks to Unlocking Opportunities in Sustainable Agriculture (7)

It has been shown that QS molecules of PGPB bacteria are active in regulating gene expression of activities such as nitrogen fixation, ACC deaminase activity, and phytohormone synthesis [47]. Furthermore, among these QS molecules, AHLs significantly enhance plant defense responses, thereby increasing resistance against pathogens. These molecules activate the Mitogen-Activated Protein Kinase (MAPK) signaling cascade (particularly MPK3/MPK6), triggering various defense mechanisms, including callose deposition, stomatal closure, and phytoalexin production [48]. Notably, specific AHLs such as 3-oxo-C8-HSL coordinate both salicylic acid (SA) and jasmonic acid/ethylene (JA/ET) pathways, reducing Pseudomonas syringae proliferation by up to 70% [49]. These findings demonstrate the potential of AHL-based biostimulants as sustainable alternatives to chemical pesticides in agricultural applications.

Induced Systemic Resistance (ISR) is a natural resistance mechanism of plants against pathogens. Compounds such as lipopolysaccharide, siderophore, and volatile organic compound (VOC) that enable the plant to generate an ISR response by PGPBs have been characterized. PGPBs regulate the signaling pathways that enable the synthesis of these compounds within the biofilm more strongly compared to mutants with inhibited biofilm formation [50, 51].

The skeleton of the biofilm structure is formed by exopolysaccharides with high water retention capacity. Exopolysaccharides function in biotic and abiotic stress management of PGPB bacteria. Global Climate Change (GCC) is exposing crops to more abiotic stresses and risks from extreme weather events.

As a result of the GCC, surface waters are decreasing with increasing temperatures and excessive evaporation. While this situation causes drought, it leads to increased precipitation and floods in areas where vapors are concentrated. The decrease in surface water and the change in the world water distribution result in drought, which is the abiotic stress that affects agricultural areas the most. Strategies to manage drought include the development of drought-tolerant crops as well as the use of PGPB bacteria that show stress-reducing activities. Drought in the microenvironment of PGPB bacteria causes changes in the composition of the exopolysaccharides they produce. Azospirillum brasilense Sp245, a rhizospheric bacterium, with the modification of producing carbohydrate complexes with high molecular weight (lipopolysaccharide-protein and polysaccharide-lipid complexes), forms a biofilm layer with high water retention capacity, increasing the water content of the rhizosphere and thus allowing the plant metabolism to adapt to drought [52].

The soil aggregation formed by the biofilm structures of PGPBs in the rhizospheric area facilitates the uptake of water and minerals from the roots and forms a barrier to prevent the plant from being affected by the lack of water in the bulk soil. There are studies showing that increasing the D-glucuronate content of polysaccharides in the EPS structure under drought conditions promotes plant growth by increasing water retention capacity. It has been suggested that modifications in the functional groups of bacterial exopolysaccharides may trigger antioxidant mechanisms that manage stress in plants [53].

Globally, 20% of irrigated agricultural land is degraded due to salinity, and this is projected to reach 50% by 2050. Sodium is the most common and most harmful agent in soil salinization. In the biofilms of plant growth promoting bacteria (PGPB) present in the rhizospheric zone, exopolysaccharides (EPS) play a critical role by binding cations, including Na+, and preventing their uptake by plant roots. This mechanism helps maintain the K+/Na+ balance and protects plants from the adverse effects of salinity. Numerous studies have demonstrated that EPS can render Na+ inaccessible to plant roots through sodium chelation in the soil [54]. For instance, EPS produced by Pseudomonas sp. AK-1 has been shown to bind free Na+ in soil, effectively reducing its uptake by soybean plants and promoting normal growth even under saline conditions of up to 200mM NaCl [55]. Additionally, plants in saline soils increase the exudation of specific sugars, such as rhamnose and trehalose, from their roots, which attract salt-tolerant bacteria to the root zone, further enhancing their resilience to salinity.

Soil is contaminated with heavy metals due to industrial activities, excessive use of pesticides, and nitrogen-phosphorus-potassium (NPK) fertilizers. Heavy metals, which are a permanent threat due to their non-biodegradability, can have toxic effects even in trace amounts on living organisms in nature. Biofilm structure adsorbs heavy metals and acts as a barrier, preventing their bioavailability to plants [56]. Heavy metals can be immobilized and detoxified by biofilms through mechanisms such as biosorption, reduction, oxidation, and precipitation. With these mechanisms, metals can be transformed into less harmful forms, as well as removing metals from soil and water. In addition, it has been shown that bacteria that improve the growth of plants used in phytoremediation have high biofilm formation abilities [57].

The ability of plant pathogens to form biofilms is seen as part of their virulence. Biofilm-forming pathogens are able to neutralize immune responses and antimicrobials synthesized by the plant. The extremely slow metabolism of persister cells within the biofilm makes it almost impossible for biofilms to be completely eradicated in the face of changing conditions such as UV radiation, drought, and insufficient nutrient availability. The advanced survival strategies of biofilm-forming phytopathogens make them more detrimental to crop yield and quality [58].

Rosmarinic acid, one of the plant defense compounds, is effective against planktonic pathogens [59]. The biofilm structure of pathogens makes them resistant to this compound. Pseudomonas syringae pv. Syringae is the causal agent of brown spot disease on leaves, and biofilms have been shown to play an important role in its virulence [60]. Xanthomonas campestris pv. Campestris causes black rot disease of cruciferous crops by colonizing the xylem. Biofilm colonization of these bacteria is mediated by virulence factors such as degrading enzymes and xanthan gum, an exopolysaccharide [61]. Clavibacter michiganensis subsp. Sepedonicus causes bacterial ring rot by forming biofilm on potato plants through exopolysaccharides [62].

Advertisement

5. Conclusion

Biofilms are complex microbial communities with significant impacts in industrial, clinical, and agricultural fields. Their formation processes, driven by microbial interactions and the production of extracellular polymeric substances (EPS), enable microorganisms to acquire resistance to environmental stresses but also pose significant challenges. In industrial systems, biofilms are the primary cause of microbial-induced corrosion (MIC), leading to material degradation and economic losses. The mechanisms of MIC, such as the production of corrosive metabolites, inactivation of inhibitors, and the formation of localized electrochemical cells, highlight the need for effective control strategies. In clinical settings, biofilm-based infections show increasing resistance to antibiotics and immune responses, complicating treatment and increasing healthcare costs. The development of innovative diagnostics, such as biosensors, could enable the identification of biofilm structures without compromising tissue integrity. Nanoparticles that target the biofilm structure and eliminate infections, the development of antimicrobial agents, and effective treatment methods to be conjugated with conventional therapies are being studied. Phage therapies also target the biofilm structure. It is important for medical device developers to develop materials with anti-biofilm properties. The biofilm formation of PGPBs is crucial to improve plant growth and make plants more resistant to biotic and abiotic stresses. However, they increase the virulence of phytopathogens, making biofilms an agricultural problem.

Effective biofilm management requires a multidisciplinary approach that combines environmental sustainability with technological innovation. Environmentally friendly solutions such as plant-derived biocides, biosurfactants, and advanced coatings hold promise as alternatives to conventional chemical treatments. Future research should prioritize the development of cost-effective, environmentally friendly, and scalable strategies to address the diverse challenges presented by biofilms, increase the lifespan and efficiency of industrial systems, improve clinical outcomes, and support sustainable agricultural practices.

References

  1. 1. Martino D, Patrick. Extracellular polymeric substances, a key element in understanding biofilm phenotype. AIMS Microbiology. 2018;4(2):274. DOI: 10.3934/microbiol.2018.2.274
  2. 2. Donlan RM. Biofilms: Microbial life on surfaces. Emerging Infectious Diseases. 2002;8(9):881. DOI: 10.3201/eid0809.020063
  3. 3. Arampatzi SI, Giannoglou G, Diza E. Biofilm formation: A complicated microbiological process. Aristotle University Medical Journal. 2011;38(2):21-29
  4. 4. Chapman J. Microstructures of biofilm. In: Biofilm and Materials Science. Cham: Springer International Publishing; 2015. pp. 35-43. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-14565-5_5
  5. 5. Flemming H-C, Wingender J. The biofilm matrix. Nature Reviews Microbiology. 2010;8(9):623-633. DOI: 10.1038/nrmicro2415
  6. 6. Uhlig HH, Revie RW. Corrosion and Corrosion Control. 3rd ed. New York: Wiley; 1985. DOI: 10.1002/9780470277270
  7. 7. Zarasvand KA, Rai VR. Microorganisms: Induction and inhibition of corrosion in metals. International Biodeterioration & Biodegradation. 2014;87:66-74. DOI: 10.1016/j.ibiod.2013.10.023
  8. 8. Little BJ et al. Microbially influenced corrosion—Any progress? Corrosion Science. 2020;170:108641. DOI: 10.1016/j.corsci.2020.108641
  9. 9. Liu T et al. Investigations on reducing microbiologically-influenced corrosion of aluminum by using super-hydrophobic surfaces. Electrochimica Acta. 2010;55(18):5281-5285. DOI: 10.1016/j.electacta.2010.04.082
  10. 10. Little BJ, Lee JS. Microbiologically influenced corrosion. In: Kirk-Othmer Encyclopedia of Chemical Technology. Hoboken: Wiley; 2009. DOI: 10.1002/0471238961.micrlitt.a01
  11. 11. Iverson WP. Microbial corrosion of metals. Advances in Applied Microbiology. 1987;32:1-36. DOI: 10.1016/S0065-2164(08)70077-7
  12. 12. Von Wolzogen Kühr CAH, Van Der Vlugt LS. Aerobic and anaerobic iron corrosion in water mains. Journal of American Water Works Association. 1953;45(1):33-46. Available from: https://www.jstor.org/stable/41253241
  13. 13. Ilhan-Sungur E, Cansever N, Cotuk A. Microbial corrosion of galvanized steel by a freshwater strain of sulphate reducing bacteria (Desulfovibrio sp.). Corrosion Science. 2007;49(3):1097-1109
  14. 14. Cetin D, Aksu ML. Corrosion behavior of low-alloy steel in the presence of Desulfotomaculum sp. Corrosion Science. 2009;51(8):1584-1588. DOI: 10.1016/j.corsci.2009.04.001
  15. 15. Misoni PJ, Ihejirika CE. Effects of Desulfotomaculum sp on corrosion behaviour of mild steel and aluminium in sea water. Zastita Materijala. 2023;64(2):190-197. DOI: 10.5937/zasmat2302190I
  16. 16. Anandkumar B et al. Corrosion behavior of SRB Desulfobulbus propionicus isolated from an Indian petroleum refinery on mild steel. Materials and Corrosion. 2012;63(4):355-362. DOI: 10.1002/maco.201005883
  17. 17. Aruliah R, Ting Y-P. Characterization of corrosive bacterial consortia isolated from water in a cooling tower. International Scholarly Research Notices. 2014;2014(1):803219. DOI: 10.1155/2014/803219
  18. 18. Javaherdashti R. Microbiologically influenced corrosion (MIC). In: Javaherdashti R, editor. Microbiologically Influenced Corrosion. Engineering Materials and Processes. Cham: Springer; 2017. pp. 61-102. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-44306-5_4
  19. 19. Cloete TE. Biofouling control in industrial water systems: What we know and what we need to know. Materials and Corrosion. 2003;54(7):520-526. DOI: 10.1002/maco.200390115
  20. 20. Ben-Amram H, Azrad M, Cohen-Assodi J, Sharabi-Nov A, Edelstein S, Agay-Shay K, et al. Biofilm formation by hospital-acquired resistant bacteria isolated from respiratory samples. Journal of Epidemiology and Global Health. 2024;14(2):291-297. DOI: 10.1007/s44197-024-00215-7
  21. 21. Ameer S, Ibrahim H, Yaseen MU, Kulsoom F, Cinti S, Sher M. Electrochemical impedance spectroscopy-based sensing of biofilms: A comprehensive review. Biosensors-Basel. 2023;13(8):777. DOI: 10.3390/bios13080777
  22. 22. Wood TK, Knabel SJ, Kwan BW. Bacterial persister cell formation and dormancy. Applied and Environmental Microbiology. 2013;79(23):7116-7121. DOI: 10.1128/AEM.02636-13
  23. 23. Jennings LK, Dreifus JE, Reichhardt C, Storek KM, Secor PR, Wozniak DJ, et al. Pseudomonas aeruginosa aggregates in cystic fibrosis sputum produce exopolysaccharides that likely impede current therapies. Cell Reports. 2021;36(3):108782. DOI: 10.1016/j.celrep.2021.108782
  24. 24. Turnbull L, Toyofuku M, Hynen AL, Kurosawa M, Pessi G, Petty NK, et al. Explosive cell lysis as a mechanism for the biogenesis of bacterial membrane vesicles and biofilms. Nature Communications. 2016;7:11220. DOI: 10.1038/ncomms11220
  25. 25. Sharma K, Singh AP. Antibiofilm effect of DNase against single and mixed species biofilm. Food. 2018;7(3):42. DOI: 10.3390/foods7030042
  26. 26. Das T, Simone M, Ibugo AI, Witting PK, Manefield M, Manos J. Glutathione enhances antibiotic efficiency and effectiveness of DNase I in disrupting Pseudomonas aeruginosa biofilms while also inhibiting pyocyanin activity, thus facilitating restoration of cell enzymatic activity, confluence and viability. Frontiers in Microbiology. 2017;8:2429. DOI: 10.3389/fmicb.2017.02429
  27. 27. Negut I, Albu C, Bita B. Advances in antimicrobial coatings for preventing infections of head-related implantable medical devices. Coatings. 2024;14(3):256. DOI: 10.3390/coatings14030256
  28. 28. Papenfort K, Bassler BL. Quorum sensing signal–response systems in Gram-negative bacteria. Nature Reviews. Microbiology. 2016;14(9):576-588. DOI: 10.1038/nrmicro.2016.89
  29. 29. Wu RX, Zhang Y, Guo ZQ, Zhao B, Guo JS. Role of Ca2+ and Mg2+ in changing biofilm structure and enhancing biofilm formation of P. stutzeri strain XL-2. Colloids and Surfaces. B, Biointerfaces. 2022;220:112972. DOI: 10.1016/j.colsurfb.2022.112972
  30. 30. Sarkar S, Roy A, Mitra R, Kundu S, Banerjee P, Acharya Chowdhury A, et al. Escaping the ESKAPE pathogens: A review on antibiofilm potential of nanoparticles. Microbial Pathogenesis. 2024;194:106842. DOI: 10.1016/j.micpath.2024.106842
  31. 31. Mirzaei R, Mohammadzadeh R, Alikhani MY, Shokri Moghadam M, Karampoor S, Kazemi S, et al. The biofilm-associated bacterial infections unrelated to indwelling devices. IUBMB Life. 2020;72(7):1271-1285. DOI: 10.1002/iub.2266
  32. 32. Malik A, Mohammad Z, Ahmad J. The diabetic foot infections: Biofilms and antimicrobial resistance. Diabetes and Metabolic Syndrome: Clinical Research and Reviews. 2013;7:101-107. DOI: 10.1016/j.dsx.2013.02.006
  33. 33. Gontcharova V, Youn E, Sun Y, Wolcott RD, Dowd SE. A comparison of bacterial composition in diabetic ulcers and contralateral intact skin. The Open Microbiology Journal. 2010;4:8-19. DOI: 10.2174/1874285801004010008
  34. 34. Jandl B, Dighe S, Baumgartner M, Makristathis A, Gasche C, Muttenthaler M. Gastrointestinal biofilms: Endoscopic detection, disease relevance, and therapeutic strategies. Gastroenterology. 2024;167(6):1098-1112.e5. DOI: 10.1016/j.gastro.2024.07.023
  35. 35. Coticchia JM, Sugawa C, Tran VR, et al. Presence and density of Helicobacter pylori biofilms in human gastric mucosa in patients with peptic ulcer disease. Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery. 2006;10(6):883-889. DOI: 10.1016/j.gassur.2006.01.003
  36. 36. Cheng T, Torres NS, Chen P, Srinivasan A, Cardona S, Lee GC, et al. A facile high-throughput model of surface-independent Staphyl-ococcus aureus biofilms by spontaneous aggregation. mSphere. 2021;6(3):e00186-21. DOI: 10.1128/mSphere.00186-21
  37. 37. Bouhrour N, Nibbering PH, Bendali F. Medical device-associated biofilm infections and multidrug-resistant pathogens. Pathogens. 2024;13(5):393. DOI: 10.3390/pathogens13050393
  38. 38. Di Somma A, Moretta A, Canè C, Cirillo A, Duilio A. Antimicrobial and antibiofilm peptides. Biomolecules. 2020;10(4):652. DOI: 10.3390/biom10040652
  39. 39. Krzyżek P. Challenges and limitations of anti-quorum sensing therapies. Frontiers in Microbiology. 2019;10:2473. DOI: 10.3389/fmicb.2019.02473
  40. 40. Alexandratos N, Bruinsma J. World Agriculture towards 2030/2050: The 2012 Revision. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO); 2012. ESA Working Paper No. 12-03. DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.288998
  41. 41. Canfield DE, Glazer AN, Falkowski PG. Theevolution andfuture of Earth’s nitrogen cycle. Science. 2010;330:192-196. DOI: 10.1126/science.1186120
  42. 42. Angus AA, Hirsch AM. Biofilm formation in the rhizosphere: Multispecies interactions and implications for plant growth. Molecular Microbial Ecology of the Rhizosphere. 2013;2:701-712. DOI: 10.1002/9781118297674.ch66
  43. 43. Chen Q, Song Y, An Y, Lu Y, Zhong G. Soil microorganisms: Their role in enhancing crop nutrition and health. Diversity. 2024;16(12):734
  44. 44. Glick BR. Plant growth-promoting bacteria: Mechanisms and applications. Scientifica. 2012; Article ID 963401. DOI: 10.6064/2012/963401
  45. 45. Sahu PK, Singh DP, Prabha R, Meena KK, Abhilash PC. Connecting microbial capabilities with the soil and plant health: Options for agricultural sustainability. Ecological Indicators. 2019;105:601-612. DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2018.05.084
  46. 46. Rafique M, Naveed M, Mumtaz MZ, et al. Unlocking the potential of biofilm-forming plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria for growth and yield enhancement in wheat (Triticum aestivum L.). Scientific Reports. 2024;14:15546. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-024-66562-4
  47. 47. Jung BK, Ibal JC, Pham HQ, Kim MC, Park GS, Hong SJ, et al. Quorum sensing system affects the plant growth promotion traits of Serratia fonticola GS2. Frontiers in Microbiology. 2020;11:536865. DOI: 10.3389/fmicb.2020.536865
  48. 48. Lazarus HPS, Easwaran N. Molecular insights into PGPR fluorescent Pseudomonads complex mediated intercellular and interkingdom signal transduction mechanisms in promoting plant's immunity. Research in Microbiology. 2024;175:104218. DOI: 10.1016/j.resmic.2024.104218
  49. 49. Shrestha A, Grimm M, Ojiro I, Krumwiede J, Schikora A. Impact of quorum sensing molecules on plant growth and immune system. Frontiers in Microbiology. 2020;11:1545. DOI: 10.3389/fmicb.2020.01545
  50. 50. Salwan R, Sharma M, Sharma A, Sharma V. Insights into plant beneficial microorganism-triggered induced systemic resistance. Plant Stress. 2023;7:100140. DOI: 10.1016/j.stress.2023.100140
  51. 51. Zhu L, Huang J, Lu X, Zhou C. Development of plant systemic resistance by beneficial rhizobacteria: Recognition, initiation, elicitation, and regulation. Frontiers in Plant Science. 2022;13:952397. DOI: 10.3389/fpls.2022.952397. Correction in: Front Plant Sci. 2023; 13:1118073
  52. 52. Fedonenko YP, Zdorovenko EL, Konnova SA, et al. A comparison of the lipopolysaccharides and O-specific polysaccharides of Azospirillum brasilense Sp245 and its Omegon-Km mutants KM018 and KM252. Microbiology. 2004;73:143-149. DOI: 10.1023/B:MICI.0000023980.08347.ee
  53. 53. Ajijah N, Fiodor A, Pandey AK, Rana A, Pranaw K. Plant growth-promoting bacteria (PGPB) with biofilm-forming ability: A multifaceted agent for sustainable agriculture. Diversity. 2023;15(1):112. DOI: 10.3390/d15010112
  54. 54. Li Y, Narayanan M, Shi X, Chen X, Li Z, Ma Y. Biofilms formation in plant growth-promoting bacteria for alleviating agro-environmental stress. Science of The Total Environment. 2024;907:167774. DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.167774
  55. 55. Kasotia A, Varma A, Choudhary DK. Pseudomonas-mediated mitigation of salt stress and growth promotion in Glycine max. Agricultural Research. 2015;4:31-41. DOI: 10.1007/s40003-014-0139-1
  56. 56. Xing Y, Tan S, Liu S, Xu S, Wan W, Huang Q, et al. Effective immobilization of heavy metals via reactive barrier by rhizosphere bacteria and their biofilms. Environmental Research. 2022;207:112080. DOI: 10.1016/j.envres.2021.112080
  57. 57. Roy B, Maitra D, Sarkar S, Podder R, Das T, Ghosh J, Mitra AK. Biofilm and metallothioneins: A dual approach to bioremediate the heavy metal menace. Environmental Quality Management. 2024;33(4):659-676. DOI: 10.1002/tqem.22139
  58. 58. Carezzano ME, Paletti Rovey MF, Cappellari LR, Gallarato LA, Bogino P, Oliva MM, et al. Biofilm-forming ability of phytopathogenic bacteria: A review of its involvement in plant stress. Plants. 2023;12(11):2207. DOI: 10.3390/plants12112207
  59. 59. Walker TS, Bais HP, Déziel E, Schweizer HP, Rahme LG, Fall R, et al. Pseudomonas aeruginosa-plant root interactions. Pathogenicity, biofilm formation, and root exudation. Plant Physiology. 2004;134:320-331
  60. 60. Monier J-M, Lindow SE. Frequency, size, and localization of bacterial aggregates on bean leaf surfaces. Applied and Environmental Microbiology. 2004;70:346-355. DOI: 10.1128/AEM.70.1.346-355.2004
  61. 61. Dow JM, Crossman L, Findlay K, He Y-Q, Feng J-X, Tang J-L. Biofilm dispersal in Xanthomonas campestris is controlled by cell-cell signaling and is required for full virulence to plants. Proceedings. National Academy of Sciences. United States of America. 2003;100:10995-11000
  62. 62. Marques L, De Boer S, Ceri H, Olson M. Evaluation of biofilms formed by Clavibacter michiganensis subsp sepedonicus. Phytopathology. 2003;93:S57

Written By

Atiye Karadoğan, Fatma Azgin, Esra Sündüz Yiğittekin and Sadik Dinçer

Submitted: 31 December 2024 Reviewed: 09 April 2025 Published: 13 May 2025

© The Author(s). Licensee IntechOpen. This content is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Biofilms and Their Multidimensional Impacts: From Combating Industrial and Clinical Risks to Unlocking Opportunities in Sustainable Agriculture (2025)
Top Articles
Latest Posts
Recommended Articles
Article information

Author: Dean Jakubowski Ret

Last Updated:

Views: 5738

Rating: 5 / 5 (70 voted)

Reviews: 85% of readers found this page helpful

Author information

Name: Dean Jakubowski Ret

Birthday: 1996-05-10

Address: Apt. 425 4346 Santiago Islands, Shariside, AK 38830-1874

Phone: +96313309894162

Job: Legacy Sales Designer

Hobby: Baseball, Wood carving, Candle making, Jigsaw puzzles, Lacemaking, Parkour, Drawing

Introduction: My name is Dean Jakubowski Ret, I am a enthusiastic, friendly, homely, handsome, zealous, brainy, elegant person who loves writing and wants to share my knowledge and understanding with you.