**Table 1.**

**91**

*Innovative Strategies for the Control of Biofilm Formation in Clinical Settings*

Another anti-biofilm approach is the dissociation of the biofilm matrix which accounts for around 90% of biofilm dry mass. This dissociation will ultimately expose the sessile bacteria to the antibiotics as well as host immune defense. The enzymes majorly employed for biofilm matrix-degradation can be divided into three categories Proteases, nucleases and polysaccharide degrading enzymes [33]. Moreover, the surfactants also possess the antibiofilm activities as the cetyltri

methylammonium bromide (CTAB), sodium dodecyl sulfate (SDS) and Tween 20 have been found to promote the detachment or dispersal of biofilms. Surfactin; a biosurfactant produced by the *Bacillus subtilis* was shown to inhibit the biofilm

Bacteriophages are considered as the largest creature in the biosphere, because of antibiotic resistance development, bacteriophages play an important role in the destruction of microbes. Use of bacteriophages is now considered as an alter

native strategy to antibiotics, particularly for disruption or biofilm inhibition. Bacteriophages are beneficial than chemical agents and antibiotics. The isolation of bacteriophage is simple and fast, furthermore, its production is also cheap, and these are very distinct against a host or either host range, therefore, do not disrupt the normal flora. Bacteriophages are ecologically friendly, so with the persistence of

host bacteria, they can replicate at the target site and have no adverse effects.

Bacteriophages also considered as potent antibiofilm mediators, e.g., phage T4 can cause infection and replicates within *E. coli* biofilms and by destroying micro

bial cells it can disturb the biofilm matrix. Doolittle and colleagues reported a study and demonstrated the interaction of phages with biofilms. The interaction among biofilm and phage is a dynamic as well as a sequential process. Phage adsorption with the target bacterial receptors is the significant phase in phage infection. The EPS matrix suggests a potent challenge for bacteriophages as EPS must be enough penetrated so that bacteriophages can attach with and reach to the particular host receptors. Furthermore, the EPS matrix also helps in the protection of bacteria in the biofilm. Moreover, by diffusion or through phage derived enzymes, for exam

ple, polysaccharide depolymerase can easily penetrate the EPS layer because these enzymes have the ability to destroy the structure of biofilm so that these phages can readily anchor to outer membrane receptors, lipopolysaccharides, or other proteins that are essential for replication process [34]. It is surely suggested that these phages

dispersal in *E. coli*, *Proteus mirabilis,* and *S. typhimurium* [33].

**6. Bacteriophages as antibiofilm agents**





*DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.89310*

**5. Removal of biofilms**

*An overview of the different anti-biofilm strategies.*

**Figure 1.**

*Anti-biofilm compounds for various clinically important bacteria.*

*Innovative Strategies for the Control of Biofilm Formation in Clinical Settings DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.89310*

**Figure 1.**

*Bacterial Biofilms*

**References**

[62]

**90**

**Bacteria** *S. aureus* and *C. albicans*

*Streptococcus pneumoniae*

*Enterococcus faecalis*

**Table 1.**

*Anti-biofilm compounds for various clinically important bacteria.*

Quercetin

Protein translation and folding pathways

Quercetin

SrtA gene

'*Hymenocallis littoralis*'

leaf extract

**Compound**

**Mechanism** Adhesin proteins

**Antibiofilm activity**

Antimicrobial and anti-biofilm activity

The blockage of SrtA gene function, impairment of biofilm

Blocked the protein translation and folding pathways

[64]

[63]

formation

*An overview of the different anti-biofilm strategies.*
