Recent Progress in Biointerfaces with Controlled Bacterial Adhesion by Using Chemical and Physical Methods

Abstract

Biointerfaces with the controlled adhesion of bacteria are highly important, owing to their wide applications, which range from decreasing the probability of infection to promoting higher efficiency and sensitivity in biocatalysts and biosensors. In this Focus Review, we summarize the recent progress in chemically and physically designed biointerfaces with controlled bacterial adhesion. On one hand, several smart-responsive biointerfaces that can be switched between bacteria-adhesive states and bacteria-resistant states by applying an external stimulus have been rationally designed and developed for adhering and detaching bacteria, whilst, on the other hand, the adhesive behavior of bacteria can be controlled by regulating the topography of the biointerface. In addition, new technologies (i.e., biosensors) and materials (i.e., graphene) provide promising approaches for efficiently controlling the adhesion of bacteria for practical applications.

Designing Bioinspired Anti‐Biofouling Surfaces based on a Superwettability Strategy

“…In addition, physical strategy, in particular engineering surface topographies, such as channels, pillars, ribs and hierarchically wrinkles with appropriate topographical features, provides an alternative method for anti-biofouling by affecting the topographical interactions between fouling organisms and material surfaces. [17][18][19][20] However, these strategies have substantial weaknesses. For instance, owing to the sustained release of biocidal compounds, this strategy usually causes serious environmental and health problems.…”

Graphene‐Oxide‐Decorated Microporous Polyetheretherketone with Superior Antibacterial Capability and In Vitro Osteogenesis for Orthopedic Implant

“…Nevertheless, the nanotoxic danger has raised a live issue discussion. For biomaterials, physically interacting with cell membranes toxicity cascades will likely be triggered as first the disruption of the membrane integrity, then the leakage of intracellular enzymes (e.g., lactate dehydrogenase (LDH)), and finally apoptosis or even cell death . It is proved that the biological response will vary depending on GO's layer number, lateral size, stiffness, hydrophobicity, surface functionalization, and dose.…”

“…For biomaterials, physically interacting with cell membranes toxicity cascades will likely be triggered as first the disruption of the membrane integrity, then the leakage of intracellular enzymes (e.g., lactate dehydrogenase (LDH)), and finally apoptosis or even cell death. [41] It is proved that the biological response will vary depending on GO's layer number, lateral size, stiffness, hydrophobicity, surface functionalization, and dose. Generation of reactive oxygen species (ROS) in target cells is a potential mechanism for toxicity, although the extremely high hydrophobic surface area of GO may also lead to significant interactions with membrane lipids leading to direct physical toxicity or adsorption of biological molecules leading to indirect toxicity.…”

Nepenthes-inspired multifunctional nanoblades with mechanical bactericidal, self-cleaning and insect anti-adhesive characteristics

“…This mechanically-based bactericidal action is both non-toxic and does not induce drug resistance, and so attracted much attention. [16][17][18][19][20] Previously reports in this eld mainly focus on the discovery of new natural micronano bactericidal structures 1,[10][11][12][13] the correlation between the morphology of nanorod array and bactericidal performance, 13,21,22 and the study of the physical bactericidal mechanism. 23,24 However, the impact of the cell debris le on the mechanical bactericidal surface has yet been investigated systematically, from the perspective of a sustainable and effective antibacterial surfaces.…”