A guide to the ecological limitations of phage therapy of bacterial biofilms: Is what's best for the phage best for the physician?
- 1Department of Microbiology The Ohio State University Mansfield OH USA
Abstract
Bacterial biofilms—structured communities of bacteria encased in self‐produced polymeric matrices—present formidable challenges in clinical medicine. The resistance of biofilms to conventional antibiotics stems from multiple factors. These include limited drug penetration and the presence of metabolically dormant bacteria that survive treatments, despite their retaining sensitivity under standard laboratory conditions. Bacteriophages (phages), the viruses that infect and kill bacteria, have emerged as promising alternatives or adjuncts to antibiotic therapy, including against bacterial biofilms. Phages, nonetheless, likely evolved to optimize especially their dissemination between spatially separated bacteria, including spatially separated biofilms, rather than to become specialists at eradicating all targeted bacteria from biofilms. By contrast, complete bacterial elimination from the body is the standard goal of antibacterial therapies. Considered here is how an understanding of these competing goals—virion dissemination vs. complete bacterial eradication—can inform our development of phage‐based anti‐biofilm therapies.
Related
- Biofilms promote tolerance and stability in gut bacterial communities during bile acid stress
- Optimizing Lavandula mairei-mediated silver nanoparticle synthesis for effective inhibition and eradication of multidrug-resistant bacterial biofilms
- Contrasting ecological responses of abundant and rare bacterial and fungal subcommunities along an alpine marsh wetland degradation gradient
- Clinical and ecological significance of bacterial dormancy in human pathogens
- Environmental sensing capacity predicts bacterial ecological strategies and environmental preferences
BibTeX
@article{abedon2026guide,
title = {{A guide to the ecological limitations of phage therapy of bacterial biofilms: Is what's best for the phage best for the physician?}},
author = {Stephen T. Abedon},
journal = {The Febs Journal},
year = {2026},
month = jun,
doi = {10.1111/febs.70615},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1111/febs.70615},
note = {CC BY 4.0},
}
RIS
TY - JOUR
TI - A guide to the ecological limitations of phage therapy of bacterial biofilms: Is what's best for the phage best for the physician?
AU - Stephen T. Abedon
PY - 2026
DA - 2026/06/08
JO - The Febs Journal
DO - 10.1111/febs.70615
UR - https://doi.org/10.1111/febs.70615
AB - Bacterial biofilms—structured communities of bacteria encased in self‐produced polymeric matrices—present formidable challenges in clinical medicine. The resistance of biofilms to conventional antibiotics stems from multiple factors. These include limited drug penetration and the presence of metabolically dormant bacteria that survive treatments, despite their retaining sensitivity under standard laboratory conditions. Bacteriophages (phages), the viruses that infect and kill bacteria, have emerged as promising alternatives or adjuncts to antibiotic therapy, including against bacterial biofilms. Phages, nonetheless, likely evolved to optimize especially their dissemination between spatially separated bacteria, including spatially separated biofilms, rather than to become specialists at eradicating all targeted bacteria from biofilms. By contrast, complete bacterial elimination from the body is the standard goal of antibacterial therapies. Considered here is how an understanding of these competing goals—virion dissemination vs. complete bacterial eradication—can inform our development of phage‐based anti‐biofilm therapies.
SN - 1742-464X
SN - 1742-4658
ER -