Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33504794›Full record

ReviewNPJ biofilms and microbiomes2021

Who put the film in biofilm? The migration of a term from wastewater engineering to medicine and beyond.

Hans-Curt Flemming, Philippe Baveye, Thomas R Neu, Paul Stoodley, Ulrich Szewzyk, Jost Wingender, Stefan Wuertz

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in NPJ biofilms and microbiomes, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 53 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
53citing papers in PubMed
7.1field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

53 citing papers in PubMed, 125 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Widespread Distribution of Carbapenem-ResistantAntibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025
    Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Carbapenem-ResistantAntibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025
    Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 5 institutions in 4 countries.

Hans-Curt FlemmingSingapore Centre for Environmental Life Sciences Engineering (SCELSE), Nanyang Technological University Singapore, 60 Nanyang Drive, Singapore, 637551, Singapore. hc.flemming@uni-due.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3670-9236
Philippe BaveyeSaint Loup Research Institute, 7 rue des chênes, 79600, Saint Loup Lamairé, France.
Thomas R NeuDepartment of River Ecology, Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research-UFZ, Magdeburg, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6990-8787
Paul StoodleyDepartment of Microbial Infection and Immunity and the Department of Orthopaedics, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, 43210, USA.
Ulrich SzewzykTechnical University of Berlin, Department of Environmental Microbiology, Ernst-Reuter-Platz 1, D-10587, Berlin, Germany.
Jost WingenderUniversity of Duisburg-Essen, Biofilm Centre, Universitätsstrasse 5, 45131, Essen, Germany.
Stefan WuertzSingapore Centre for Environmental Life Sciences Engineering (SCELSE), Nanyang Technological University Singapore, 60 Nanyang Drive, Singapore, 637551, Singapore.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3415-6199
Nanyang Technological University · SGHelmholtz Centre for Environmental Research · DETechnische Universität Berlin · DEUniversity of Duisburg-Essen · DEUniversity of Southampton · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Sessile microorganisms were described as early as the seventeenth century. However, the term biofilm arose only in the 1960s in wastewater treatment research and was adopted later in marine fouling and in medical and dental microbiology. The sessile mode of microbial life was gradually recognized to be predominant on Earth, and the term biofilm became established for the growth of microorganisms in aggregates, frequently associated with interfaces, although many, if not the majority, of them not being continuous "films" in the strict sense. In this sessile form of life, microorganisms live in close proximity in a matrix of extracellular polymeric substances (EPS). They share emerging properties, clearly distinct from solitary free floating planktonic microbial cells. Common characteristics include the formation of synergistic microconsortia, using the EPS matrix as an external digestion system, the formation of gradients and high biodiversity over microscopically small distances, resource capture and retention, facilitated gene exchange as well as intercellular communication, and enhanced tolerance to antimicrobials. Thus, biofilms belong to the class of collective systems in biology, like forests, beehives, or coral reefs, although the term film addresses only one form of the various manifestations of microbial aggregates. The uncertainty of this term is discussed, and it is acknowledged that it will not likely be replaced soon, but it is recommended to understand these communities in the broader sense of microbial aggregates.

Indexed as

BiofilmsExtracellular Polymeric Substance MatrixMicrobial ConsortiaTerminology as Topic

Identifiers

PMID33504794
PMCPMC7840925
OpenAlexW3124989605

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.