Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35690881›Full record

ReviewBiotechnology progress2022

Immobilized enzymes as potent antibiofilm agent.

Dibyajit Lahiri, Moupriya Nag, Ankita Dey, Tanmay Sarkar, Rina Rani Ray, Maksim Rebezov, Mohammad Ali Shariati, Muthu Thiruvengadam, Jesus Simal-Gandara

Open access · hybridAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Biotechnology progress, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed
4.1field-weighted citation impact, top 6% 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

14 citing papers in PubMed, 33 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. One-Step Immobilized Phage Depolymerase Coatings for Catheter-Related Bloodstream Infections.Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) · 2026
    Article
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Use ofMembranes · 2023
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. The Bovhyaluronidase Azoximer (LongidazaMedicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2022
    Article
  13. Review
  14. Review
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

9 authors at 7 institutions in 5 countries.

Dibyajit LahiriDepartment of Biotechnology, University of Engineering & Management, Kolkata, West Bengal, India.
Moupriya NagDepartment of Biotechnology, University of Engineering & Management, Kolkata, West Bengal, India.
Ankita DeyDepartment of Microbiology, Belle Vue Clinics, Kolkata, West Bengal, India.
Tanmay SarkarDepartment of Food Processing Technology, Malda Polytechnic, West Bengal State Council of Technical Education, Govtment of West Bengal, Malda, 732102, India.
Rina Rani RayDepartment of Biotechnology, Maulana Abul Kalam Azad University of Technology, Haringhata, West Bengal, India.
Maksim RebezovV. M. Gorbatov Federal Research Center for Food Systems, Moscow, Russian Federation.
Mohammad Ali ShariatiLiaocheng University, Liaocheng, Shandong, China.
Muthu ThiruvengadamDepartment of Crop Science, College of Sanghuh Life Science, Konkuk University, Seoul, South Korea.
Jesus Simal-GandaraUniversidade de Vigo, Nutrition and Bromatology Group, Analytical Chemistry and Food Science Department, Faculty of Science, Ourense, Spain.ORCID 0000-0001-9215-9737
Liaocheng University · CNUniversity of Engineering & Management · INInstitute of Environmental Studies & Wetland Management · INKonkuk University · KRMaulana Abul Kalam Azad University of Technology, West Bengal · INUniversidade de Vigo · ESWest Bengal State Council of Technical Education · IN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Biofilm has been a point of concern in hospitals and various industries. They not only cause various chronic infections but are also responsible for the degradation of various medical appliances. Since the last decade, various alternate strategies are being adopted to combat the biofilm formed on various biotic and abiotic surfaces. The use of enzymes as a potent anti-fouling agent is proved to be of utmost importance as the enzymes can inhibit biofilm formation in an eco-friendly and cost-effective way. The physical and chemical immobilization of the enzyme not only leads to the improvement of thermostability and reusability of the enzyme, but also gains better efficiency of biofilm removal. Immobilization of amylase, cellobiohydrolase, pectinase, subtilisin A and β-N-acetyl-glucosaminidase (DspB) are proved to be most effective in inhibition of biofilm formation and removal of matured biofilm than their free forms. Hence, these immobilized enzymes provide greater eradication of biofilm formed on various surfaces and are coming up to be the potent antibiofilm agent.

Indexed as

Enzymes, ImmobilizedPolygalacturonaseAmylasesBiofilmsCellulose 1,4-beta-CellobiosidaseHexosaminidasesSubtilisinsAmylasesCellulose 1,4-beta-CellobiosidaseEnzymes, ImmobilizedHexosaminidasesPolygalacturonaseSubtilisinsantibiofilmcovalent crosslinkingenzymegel entrapmentimmobilization

Identifiers

PMID35690881
PMCPMC9786792
OpenAlexW4281754329

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.