Depriving Bacterial Adhesion‐Related Molecule to Inhibit Biofilm Formation Using CeO₂‐Decorated Metal‐Organic Frameworks

Abstract

The formation of bacterial biofilm is one of the causes of antimicrobial resistance, often leading to persistent infections and a high fatality rate. Therefore, there is an urgent need to develop novel and effective strategies to inhibit biofilm formation. Adenosine triphosphate (ATP) plays an important role in bacterial adhesion and biofilm formation through stimulating cell lysis and extracellular DNA (eDNA) release. Herein, a simple and robust strategy for inhibiting biofilm formation is developed using CeO2‐decorated porphyrin‐based metal‐organic frameworks (MOFs). The function of extracellular ATP (eATP) can be inhibited by CeO2 nanoparticles, leading to the disruption of the initial adhesion of bacteria. Furthermore, planktonic bacteria can be killed by cytotoxic reactive oxygen species (ROS) generated by MOFs. As a consequence, the synergic effect of eATP deprivation and ROS generation presents excellent capacity to prevent biofilm formation, which may provide a new direction for designing flexible and effective biofilm‐inhibiting systems.

Antimicrobial Photoinactivation Approach Based on Natural Agents for Control of Bacteria Biofilms in Spacecraft

“…(2) chemical [56][57][58]; (3) physical [59,60]; (4) physicochemical [61][62][63]; (5) physical in combination with natural [64], and (6) natural in combination with chemical [65]. A summary of the bacterial biofilm inhibition/control methods described in the past two years is shown in Figure 1.…”

“…In order not to exclude search results that could be significant for the investigation, a general search term (keyword) "biofilm" was used. According to the scientific articles found in the PubMed database regarding biofilm inhibition and control, all methods, based on their nature, can be divided into six groups: (1) natural (biological) [53][54][55]; (2) chemical [56][57][58]; (3) physical [59,60]; (4) physicochemical [61][62][63]; (5) physical in combination with natural [64], and (6) natural in combination with chemical [65]. A summary of the bacterial biofilm inhibition/control methods described in the past two years is shown in Figure 1.…”

Cerium and Its Oxidant-Based Nanomaterials for Antibacterial Applications: A State-of-the-Art Review

“…Cerium-or cerium oxide-decorated materials could effectively inhibit the formation of biofilm, disturb the established biofilm, and eliminate the biofilm (Chen et al, 2016;Liu et al, 2019;Qiu et al, 2019). Herein, CeO 2 -decorated porphyrin-based MOFs were designed to inhibit biofilm formation (Qiu et al, 2019). A 40% reduction in biomass was found in 50 µg/ml of the MOF@CeO 2 NP group, and after light irradiation for 5 min, the inhibition of the formation of biofilm is over 70%.…”

“…Bacterial biofilm is one of the primary causes of antibiotic resistance and immune response resistance, which led to persistent infections and increase in the difficulties for clinical treatment (Wu et al, 2015;Liu et al, 2019). Cerium-or cerium oxide-decorated materials could effectively inhibit the formation of biofilm, disturb the established biofilm, and eliminate the biofilm (Chen et al, 2016;Liu et al, 2019;Qiu et al, 2019). Herein, CeO 2 -decorated porphyrin-based MOFs were designed to inhibit biofilm formation (Qiu et al, 2019).…”

Titanium Incorporation into Zr‐Porphyrinic Metal–Organic Frameworks with Enhanced Antibacterial Activity against Multidrug‐Resistant Pathogens

“…However, the photocatalytic performance of porph‐MOFs for ROS generation is still unsatisfactory for treating bacteria especially in the visible region. Recently, researchers designed MOFs‐based PDT materials cooperating with Ag NPs, glucose oxidase, CeO 2 or Prussian blue to increase antibacterial ability. These nanomaterials, though quite useful and potentially clinically applicable, have low biocompatibility, high cost, poor stability, or dual light illumination needed and no validated effects against MDR bacteria.…”