ArticleBiomaterials2019
Biomaterial surfaces self-defensive against bacteria by contact transfer of antimicrobials.
Article in Biomaterials, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed, 27 citations in OpenAlex.
- Strategies and applications of antibacterial surface-modified biomaterials.Bioactive materials · 2025Review
- Supramolecular Peptoid Structure Strengthens Complexation with Polyacrylic Acid Microgels.Biomacromolecules · 2024Article
- Smart Bacteria-Responsive Drug Delivery Systems in Medical Implants.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2022Review
- Nanogels: A novel approach in antimicrobial delivery systems and antimicrobial coatings.Bioactive materials · 2021Review
- Polyphosphazenes enable durable, hemocompatible, highly efficient antibacterial coatings.Biomaterials · 2021Article
- Self-defensive antimicrobial biomaterial surfaces.Colloids and surfaces. B, Biointerfaces · 2020Article
- A New Antibacterial Agent-Releasing Polydimethylsiloxane Coating for Polymethyl Methacrylate Dental Restorations.Journal of clinical medicine · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Despite extensive engineering of tissue-contacting biomedical devices to control healing, these devices remain susceptible to bacterial colonization, biofilm formation, and chronic infection. The threat of selecting for resistance genes largely precludes sustained antimicrobial elution as a wide-spread clinical solution. In response, self-defensive surfaces have been developed where antimicrobial is released only when and where there is a bacterial challenge. We explore a new self-defensive approach using anionic microgels into which small-molecule cationic antimicrobials are loaded by complexation. We identify conditions where antimicrobial remains sequestered within the microgels for periods as long as weeks. However, bacterial contact triggers release and leads to local bacterial killing. We speculate that the close proximity of bacteria alters the local thermodynamic environment and interferes with the microgel-antimicrobial complexation. The contact-transfer approach does not require bacterial metabolism but instead appears to be driven by differences between the microgels and the bacterial cell envelope where there is a high concentration of negative charge and hydrophobicity. Contact with metabolizing macrophages or osteoblasts is, however, insufficient to trigger antimicrobial release, indicating that contact transfer can be specific to bacteria and suggesting an avenue to biomedical device surfaces that can simultaneously promote healing and resist infection.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.