ReviewCurrent opinion in ophthalmology2026
Eying up predatory bacteria: living antimicrobials for ocular infections.
Review in Current opinion in ophthalmology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purpose of reviewThe growing threat of antibiotic-resistant pathogens, particularly in ocular infections like bacterial keratitis, necessitates alternative therapeutic strategies. This review evaluates the potential therapeutic role of predatory bacteria as novel live antimicrobials, offering a timely exploration of their potential in overcoming resistance mechanisms such as biofilm formation and persister cell development. RECENT
findingsPredatory bacteria, including Bdellovibrio bacterovorus and Micavibrio aerguinosavorus selectively target Gram-negative bacteria, including Pseudomonas aeruginosa , while sparing Gram-positive ocular surface. They exhibit rapid bactericidal activity and efficacy against biofilms, persister cells, and antibiotic-resistant pathogens, but induce little inflammation. Advances in storage and delivery methods, such as lyophilization, cryomicroneedles, and thermoresponsive hydrogels, have potential to increase their therapeutic feasibility. However, in-vivo efficacy remains variable and their narrow spectrum limits effectiveness against Gram-positive pathogens. SUMMARY: Predatory bacteria present a promising alternative to traditional antibiotics in ocular therapeutics, particularly for drug-resistant infections. Integration of predatory bacteria with bacteriophages or conventional antibiotics may further optimize their potential. Continued translational research is essential to address current limitation and to validate their safety and efficacy for human or veterinary applications.
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.