Back to Journals » ImmunoTargets and Therapy » Volume 13

Mycobacterium tuberculosis Biofilms: Immune Responses, Role in TB Pathology, and Potential Treatment

Authors Assefa M , Girmay G 

Received 5 January 2024

Accepted for publication 28 June 2024

Published 3 July 2024 Volume 2024:13 Pages 335—342

DOI https://doi.org/10.2147/ITT.S455744

Checked for plagiarism Yes

Review by Single anonymous peer review

Peer reviewer comments 2

Editor who approved publication: Dr Sarah Wheeler



Muluneh Assefa,1 Getu Girmay2

1Department of Medical Microbiology, School of Biomedical and Laboratory Sciences, College of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of Gondar, Gondar, Ethiopia; 2Department of Immunology and Molecular Biology, School of Biomedical and Laboratory Sciences, College of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of Gondar, Gondar, Ethiopia

Correspondence: Muluneh Assefa, Email [email protected]

Abstract: Tuberculosis (TB) is a major public health problem worldwide, and the burden of drug-resistant TB is rapidly increasing. Although there are literatures about the Mtb biofilms, their impact on immune responses has not yet been summarized. This review article provides recent knowledge on Mycobacterium tuberculosis (Mtb) biofilm-immunity interactions, their importance in pulmonary TB pathology, and immune-based therapy targeting Mtb biofilms. Pellicle/biofilm formation in Mtb contributes to drug resistance, persistence, chronicity, surface attachment, transfer of resistance genes, and modulation of the immune response, including reduced complement activation, changes in the expression of antigenic proteins, enhanced activation of T-lymphocytes, elevated local IFNγ+ T cells, and strong antibody production. The combination of anti-TB drugs and anti-biofilm agents has recently become an effective strategy to improve TB treatment. Additionally, immune-targeted therapy and biofilm-based vaccines are crucial for TB prevention.

Keywords: Mycobacterium tuberculosis, immune response, biofilm, treatment

Background

Mycobacterium tuberculosis (Mtb), an intracellular pathogen that causes tuberculosis (TB), continues to be a global public health concern.1 According to the latest report from the World Health Organization (WHO), approximately 10.6 million people received a TB diagnosis in 2021, an increase of 4.5% from 2020, and 1.6 million people died of the disease (including 187,000 HIV-positive individuals).2 The highest percentage of TB cases was found in the WHO regions of Southeast Asia (44%), Africa (25%), and the Western Pacific (18%).3 Between 2020 and 2021, the burden of drug-resistant TB increased by 3%, with 450,000 new cases of rifampicin-resistant TB in 2021.2,4 The mechanisms of Mtb survival under antibiotic therapy include the acquisition of gene mutations conferring drug resistance, cell wall structure alteration, production of certain efflux pumps, and biofilm formation.5

Costerton et al first described the modern concept of biofilm in 1978.6 Today, as reviewed by Flores-Valdez et al, research on Mtb biofilms/pellicles is receiving more attention, which is engaged in antibiotic resistance, persistence, chronicity, surface attachment, and transfer of resistance genes.7,8 However, the immunological effects of Mtb biofilms have not yet been thoroughly investigated. Studying about biofilm-immunity interactions is crucial to improve TB treatment, modify host immunity, and applying new vaccine strategies. In this review article, Mtb pellicle/biofilm formation, their interaction with host immunity, and their role in TB pathology are described. Moreover, indications for the application of immune-based therapies and biofilm-based vaccines targeting Mtb biofilms to enhance host defense mechanisms against TB infection are discussed.

Literature Search Method

This narrative review of recent literature was performed using Google Scholar and PubMed databases on available articles published without publication year restrictions. The following keywords were used: (“immune response” OR “immunity” OR “innate immunity” OR “adaptive immunity” OR “antibody” OR “vaccine”) AND (“tuberculosis” OR “TB” OR “Mycobacterium tuberculosis” OR “M. tuberculosis” OR “Mtb” OR “pulmonary tuberculosis”) AND (“biofilm” OR “pellicle”). Although the search and study selection were not conducted systematically, the articles were restricted to the English language and full text, and the references of the included literature were also assessed. Search results were precisely summarized using the following headings: “biofilm formation in Mtb”, “how Mtb biofilms involve and affect the lung phenomenon?”, “Mtb biofilms and the immune system”, “current solutions for Mtb biofilms”, and “application of biofilm-based vaccines: future perspectives”.

Biofilm Formation in Mtb

Recently, research on mycobacterial biofilms revealed that M. tuberculosis can form multicellular biofilms composed of bacteria and the extracellular polymeric substances (EPSs) they produce, including proteins, DNA, and polysaccharides.9,10 Mycobacteria can aggregate on surfaces (biofilms), and Mtb typically grows in the liquid–air interface (pellicles), which is related to the distinctive features of the mycobacterial cell wall, including the high lipid content that enables bacteria to live in unfavorable environments.11 Beginning with bacterial adhesion, Mtb biofilms develop in a series of stages including surface attachment, sessile growth, matrix production, and dispersal.12 It is regulated by molecules including polysaccharides, structural proteins, glycopeptidolipids, GroEL1 chaperones, shorter-chain mycolic acids, genetic material, and environmental conditions (nutrients, ions, and carbon sources).9,11

The presence of biofilms lowers the susceptibility of Mtb to drugs, which is supported by a study demonstrating that the pellicle-defective Mtb1mma A4 mutant strain is more susceptible to rifampicin in vitro.13 Leukocyte extracts favor Mtb biofilm production and drug tolerance in vitro.14 Intracellular thiol reductive stress induces Mtb biofilm development in vitro, which includes drug-tolerant but metabolically active bacteria.15 Moreover, mutation analysis revealed that isonitrile lipopeptide (INLP) is essential for the architectural formation of Mtb biofilms, providing insight into the resilience of biofilms to antibiotic exposure and identifying INLP as a possible biomarker.16 Polyketide synthase (Pks1) gene and Mtb protein tig (Rv2462c) are involved in Mtb biofilm formation.17,18 The Mtb disease reactivation and inhibition of antimicrobial treatment attributed to the smoking-induced enhancement of biofilm formation.19 Additionally, the Protein O-mannosyltransferase Rv1002c decreases cell permeability and promotes biofilm formation.20

How Do Mtb Biofilms Involve and Affect the Lung Phenomenon?

Pulmonary infection with Mtb causes granulomatous lesions that develop in lung tissue. Inhalation of Mtb droplets leads to the formation of granuloma in the alveolar macrophages at 4 weeks post-infection (termed original granulomas) and then becomes mature. A granuloma is a dense immunological structure primarily composed of macrophages at the center that can differentiate into other cells such as foamy macrophages and multinucleated giant cells with lipid droplets. The periphery of the granuloma is comprised of T and B lymphocytes. The Mtb bacilli can form a biofilm structure at the periphery of the TB granuloma near T and B lymphocytes, which is composed of an extracellular matrix. Those Mtb biofilms interferes with anti-TB drugs (Isoniazid and Rifampicin), affect host defense mechanisms by hindering the entrance of immune cells, and they are a source of TB persistent cells.21

The growth of Mtb pellicles/biofilms in lung cavities could be clinically essential in the pathogenesis of TB contributing to caseous necrosis and cavity formation in lung tissue, Mtb persistence in the infected host, and expansion of drug tolerance.22 During the transmission of Mtb, expectorated aerosols can harbor single cells, which may be shed from pellicle-like biofilms growing in the Mtb cavities.23,24 These mycobacteria can persist for a long time, possibly within pellicles/biofilms, and hidden from immune cells. It has been hypothesized that the extracellular Mtb microcolonies seen in animal models are biofilms that develop in vivo.25,26 Some sources suggest that pellicles may be present in the lung–air interface when humans develop secondary tuberculosis.22 Furthermore, a study found that the ability to form biofilms is common among Mtb isolates, suggesting that this trait is important for TB propagation or persistence.17

Mtb Biofilms and the Immune System

Innate Immune Responses

Innate immunity, the non-specific defense, fights infections from the moment of first contact without previous exposure.27 The earliest innate immune cells involved in lung infection primarily include macrophages (MΦs), dendritic cells, monocytes, and neutrophils, which readily phagocytose and degrade Mtb.28 Although there is a higher clinical significance of biofilms, studies at large have focused on the immune response to microorganisms in the planktonic state than on pathogenic biofilms.29 Therefore, it is imperative to comprehend the interplay between Mtb biofilms and defense mechanisms to identify novel targets and approaches for immune intervention against biofilm-associated pulmonary complications.

MΦ, neutrophils, dendritic cells, natural killer cells, mast cells, and complement are the main players of innate immunity and airway epithelial cells also participate in the defense effort against Mtb and could be considered components of innate immunity.30 Recently, shreds of evidence on biofilm-immunity interactions among different pathogenic bacteria have been developed in vitro and in vivo experimental models. Kaya et al established an in vitro host cell-biofilm interaction model and demonstrated that not only Pseudomonas aeruginosa biofilms induced higher activation and response of human peripheral blood mononuclear cell response (PBMC), but also PBMC or their supernatants significantly increased biofilm-associated P. aeruginosa, indicating a complex reciprocal relationship between host blood cells and the bacterium.31 Another study by Gries et al using a novel murine model of Staphylococcus aureus implant-associated infection demonstrated that S. aureus biofilms inhibit neutrophil chemotaxis, redirecting their migratory patterns to prevent biofilm invasion.32 In vitro, biofilms aid Mycobacterium avium complex in epithelial cell invasion, protect from phagocytosis, and cause premature apoptosis in macrophages.33

Similarly, Mtb pellicles/biofilms also had an interaction with host immunity.8 The development of biofilm made Mtb more resilient to host immunity and increased the difficulty of its treatment and cure.34 Small molecules that bacteria release when they change from planktonic to biofilm-associated might exacerbate inflammation, cause cell death, or even result in necrosis.35 Biofilms minimize the activity of both polymorphonuclear neutrophils and macrophages. Additionally, in the presence of these cells, biofilm formation is actively enhanced, and components of the host immune cells are assimilated into the EPS matrix.35 The TB bacilli in the lung cavities are also separated from the host’s immune defense by the cavity wall that keeps the penetration of viable cells.36

The role of the complement cascade in infection and Mtb disease progression is largely unknown, but C5 and C7 components likely play a protective role, and high expression of C1q correlates with worsening clinical status and is associated with latent TB and active TB, but its significance remains uncertain in terms of pathogenesis.37 A study highlighted the role of carbohydrate alterations during the biofilm growth of Mtb and subsequent modulation of the innate immune response through avoiding of phagocytosis due to a reduced complement activation with lower C3b/iC3b deposition.38

Adaptive Immune Responses

The adaptive immune response, also known as specific resistance, recognizes identical or similar pathogens through memory cells.39 In planktonic bacteria, the activation of adaptive immunity often results in the clearance of the infection, due to the combined activity of the innate and adaptive immune reactions. But in the case of biofilm infections, it is very difficult to clear the pathogen.40 Dendritic cells are essential in linking the innate and adaptive immune systems and have the exclusive capacity to prime naïve T cells into subsequent Th1, Th2, or Th17 cells and responses.41

The protective immunity against Mtb has been suggested to be associated with polyfunctional T cells. Notably, the quantity of T cells specific to Mtb that generate a mix of IFN-gamma, IL-2, and/or TNF-alpha has been observed to be associated with the mycobacterial load; additionally, other research has connected the existence of this particular functional profile as a sign of TB disease activity.42 It is generally accepted that CD8+ T cells contribute to immunity and protection, even if their exact role in tuberculosis (TB) is less understood than that of CD4+ T cells.43 The CD4+ T cell helps promote CD8+ T cell effector functions and prevents exhaustion, and the helped CD8+ T cells restrict intracellular mycobacterial growth. The synergy between CD4+ and CD8+ T cells promotes Mtb survival during murine tuberculosis.44

A study indicated that nonclassical CD8+ T cells other than the known M3, CD1, and MR1-restricted CD8 +T cells contribute to host immune responses against Mtb infection.45 Chávez-Galán et al reported that TB patients had a high frequency of CD8+ cells in peripheral blood.46 The relative and absolute number of the effector memory type 1 CD3+CD8+ cells increased in the peripheral blood of patients with pulmonary tuberculosis compared to the control group.47 Immunization with a BCG1416c mutant raises IFN-gamma+ in CD4+ and CD8+ lymphocytes.48 In comparison to the BCG wild type, the BCG1419c and BCG1416c strains grown as surface pellicles, which is the condition used to manufacture the BCG vaccine, both altered the expression of antigenic proteins like DnaK, HbhA, PstS2, 35KDa antigen, GroEL2, as well as AcpM, a protein involved in the synthesis of mycolic acids, molecules relevant to modulating inflammatory responses.48

Although the exact role of humoral adaptive immunity in tuberculosis remains unknown, new research indicates that humoral immunity and B cells may be able to control the immune response to a variety of intracellular infections, including Mtb.49 According to a study, mice exposed intradermally to an exoproteome extract of an exopolysaccharide-dependent S. aureus biofilm developed a humoral immune response and produced IL-10 and IL-17.50 Moreover, vaccination of BALB/c mice with immune structural proteins extracted from Mtb biofilm elicited a strong humoral immune response with high IgG1 and IgG2a titers and showed a higher Th1 response relative to a control group that had more Th2/Treg responses51 (Table 1).

Table 1 The Relationship Between Mtb Pellicle/Biofilm and Immune Response

Current Solutions for Mtb Biofilms

The microbial biofilm serves as the best model for analyzing the effectiveness of antibacterial therapies. Scientists have shown the effects of different agents against many Mycobacterium species, but in this review, we have focused on recent targets against Mtb biofilms (Table 2). As reviewed by Oluyori et al, the administration of anti-TB drugs along with anti-biofilm agents such as bioactive natural products and synthetic analogs has been a recent effective strategy to improve TB treatment.55 In a study of the nanobiotechnology approach, the biofilm formation of Mtb is inhibited by titanium dioxide (TiO2) nanoparticles, and an increase in TiO2 nanoparticle concentration was found to cause a three- to four-fold decrease in mycobacteria metabolic activity.56 The inhibition of the trehalose catalytic shift, which is required for Mtb persister formation in the biofilm model, is a viable strategy to target persisters using trehalose analogs.57 A gene expression profile analysis showed inhibition of the Rv1217c and Rv1218c gene expression repressed Mtb biofilm formation.58

Table 2 Key Studies Reported Anti-Biofilm Inhibitors of Mtb

Application of Biofilm-Based Vaccines: Future Perspectives

Nowadays, several vaccine candidates for the prevention of TB have been identified. However, no effective vaccine is available to prevent infection with drug-resistant Mtb strain.67 Despite the significance of biofilms in disease, vaccines are typically prepared from bacteria grown as planktonic cells in the laboratory. Vaccines based on planktonic bacteria may not be enough to protect biofilm-associated infections.68 Several studies demonstrated new strategies against Mycobacteria biofilms to enhance patient outcomes and treatment effectiveness. This narrative review gives insight into preparing vaccines from biofilm sources in addition to planktonic cells. Finding viable vaccines and immunological therapies to end TB requires examining the immune response to Mtb biofilms.69

By applying immunology to compare the cellular and humoral immune responses mounted by immunized subjects/models in vivo and/or ex vivo toward particular components relevant to biofilm production, novel vaccine candidates may arise from specific analyses around the biofilm mode of growth.70 A five-sub-unit biofilm vaccine formulation elicited a strong immune humoral response and reduced lung burden in animals vaccinated with the purified antigen subunits and DDA/MPL adjuvant.51 Further confirmation of those vaccines is needed for their application in vivo. Vaccines prepared from Mtb biofilms will be more efficacious for protecting in vivo biofilm growth during the pathogenesis of TB and more effective against drug-resistant strains, and different stages of the clinical disease such as the chronic state.

Conclusion

Mycobacteria can aggregate on surfaces as biofilms and they tend to develop as pellicles at the liquid–air interface. According to the reports, biofilms can stimulate a unique immune response than planktonic cells. The Mtb pellicles/biofilms alter both innate and adaptive immune responses such as reduced complement activation with lower C3b/iC3b deposition, change in the expression of antigenic proteins, a better activation of specific T lymphocytes, increased local IFN-gamma+ T cells, and strong antibody production. A combination of anti-TB drugs with anti-biofilm agents has been a recent effective strategy to improve TB treatment. Additionally, immune-targeted therapy and biofilm-based vaccines should be considered as a new candidate to prevent TB.

Abbreviations

EPSs, Extracellular polymeric substances; INLP, Isonitrile Lipopeptide; Mtb, Mycobacterium tuberculosis; MΦs, Macrophages; PBMC, Peripheral blood mononuclear cell; TB, Tuberculosis, WHO, World Health Organization.

Data Sharing Statement

All the necessary data are freely assessed online in the referenced literature and provided upon a reasonable request to the corresponding author.

Acknowledgments

Biofilm-immunity interaction is a recent field of interest, which requires further research and the authors thank any scientific authors whose research was not cited in this review.

Author Contributions

All authors made a significant contribution to the work reported, whether that is in the conception, study design, execution, acquisition of data, analysis and interpretation, or in all these areas; took part in drafting, revising or critically reviewing the article; gave final approval of the version to be published; have agreed on the journal to which the article has been submitted; and agree to be accountable for all aspects of the work.

Disclosure

The authors report no conflicts of interest in this work.

References

1. Ogodo AC, Tatah VS, Ebuara FU, Ogodo CF. Therapeutic potentials of phytochemicals against Mycobacterium tuberculosis, the causative agent of tuberculosis. In: Neglected Tropical Diseases and Phytochemicals in Drug Discovery. Wiley Online Library; 2021:543–569.

2. Organisation WH. Tuberculosis deaths and disease increase during the COVID-19 pandemic 2022; 2022. Available from: https://www.who.int/news/item/27-10-2022-tuberculosis-deaths-and-disease-increase-during-The-covid-19-pandemic. Accessed July 1, 2024.

3. Chakaya J, Khan M, Ntoumi F, et al. Global tuberculosis report 2020–reflections on the global TB burden, treatment and prevention efforts. Int J Infect Dis. 2021;113:S7–S12. doi:10.1016/j.ijid.2021.02.107

4. Malik AA, Khan U, Khan P, et al. Drug-resistant tuberculosis treatment outcomes among children and adolescents in Karachi, Pakistan. Trop Med Infect Dis. 2022;7(12):418. doi:10.3390/tropicalmed7120418

5. Ben-Kahla I, Sahal A-H. Drug-resistant tuberculosis viewed from bacterial and host genomes. Int J Antimicrob Agents. 2016;48(4):353–360. doi:10.1016/j.ijantimicag.2016.07.010

6. Costerton JW, Geesey GG, Cheng K-J. How bacteria stick. Sci Am. 1978;238(1):86–95. doi:10.1038/scientificamerican0178-86

7. Alberto Flores-Valdez M. Editorial from guest editor (thematic issue: current approaches and models to develop and evaluate new vaccines and drugs against tuberculosis). Curr Respir Med Rev. 2014;10(2):73. doi:10.2174/1573398X1002141114102626

8. Niño-Padilla EI, Velazquez C, Garibay-Escobar A. Mycobacterial biofilms as players in human infections: a review. Biofouling. 2021;37(4):410–432. doi:10.1080/08927014.2021.1925886

9. Esteban J, García-Coca M. Mycobacterium biofilms. Front Microbiol. 2018;8:2651. doi:10.3389/fmicb.2017.02651

10. Chakraborty P, Kumar A. The extracellular matrix of mycobacterial biofilms: could we shorten the treatment of mycobacterial infections? Microb Cell. 2019;6(2):105. doi:10.15698/mic2019.02.667

11. Chaubey KK, Abdullah M, Gupta S, Navabharath M, Singh SV. Mycobacterium Biofilms Synthesis, Ultrastructure, and Their Perspectives in Drug Tolerance, Environment, and Medicine. Microbial Polymers: Springer; 2021:465–478.

12. Richards JP, Ojha AK. Mycobacterial biofilms. Microbiol Spectr. 2014;2(5):2.5.16. doi:10.1128/microbiolspec.MGM2-0004-2013

13. Sambandan D, Dao DN, Weinrick BC, et al. Keto-mycolic acid-dependent pellicle formation confers tolerance to drug-sensitive Mycobacterium tuberculosis. MBio. 2013;4(3):e00222–13. doi:10.1128/mBio.00222-13

14. Ackart DF, Hascall-Dove L, Caceres SM, et al. Expression of antimicrobial drug tolerance by attached communities of Mycobacterium tuberculosis. Pathog Dis. 2014a;70(3):359–369. doi:10.1111/2049-632X.12144

15. Trivedi A, Mavi PS, Bhatt D, Kumar A. Thiol reductive stress induces cellulose-anchored biofilm formation in Mycobacterium tuberculosis. Nat Commun. 2016;7(1):1–15. doi:10.1038/ncomms11392

16. Richards JP, Cai W, Zill NA, Zhang W, Ojha AK. Adaptation of Mycobacterium tuberculosis to biofilm growth is genetically linked to drug tolerance. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2019;63(11):e01213–19. doi:10.1128/AAC.01213-19

17. Pang JM, Layre E, Sweet L, et al. The polyketide Pks1 contributes to biofilm formation in Mycobacterium tuberculosis. J Bacteriol. 2012;194(3):715–721. doi:10.1128/JB.06304-11

18. Khawary M, Rakshit R, Bahl A, et al. M. tb-Rv2462c of Mycobacterium tuberculosis shows chaperone-like activity and plays a role in stress adaptation and immunomodulation. Biology. 2023;12(1):69. doi:10.3390/biology12010069

19. Cholo MC, Rasehlo SS, Venter E, Venter C, Anderson R. Effects of cigarette smoke condensate on growth and biofilm formation by Mycobacterium tuberculosis. Biomed Res Int. 2020;2020:1–7. doi:10.1155/2020/8237402

20. Yang S, Sui S, Qin Y, et al. Protein O‐mannosyltransferase Rv1002c contributes to low cell permeability, biofilm formation in vitro, and mycobacterial survival in mice. APMIS. 2022;130(3):181–192. doi:10.1111/apm.13204

21. Chakraborty P, Bajeli S, Kaushal D, Radotra BD, Kumar A. Biofilm formation in the lung contributes to virulence and drug tolerance of Mycobacterium tuberculosis. Nat Commun. 2021;12(1):1606. doi:10.1038/s41467-021-21748-6

22. Hunter RL, Actor JK, Hwang S-A, Karev V, Jagannath C. Pathogenesis of post primary tuberculosis: immunity and hypersensitivity in the development of cavities. Ann Clin Lab Sci. 2014;44(4):365–387.

23. Fennelly KP, Jones-López EC. Quantity and quality of inhaled dose predicts immunopathology in tuberculosis. Front Immunol. 2015;6:313. doi:10.3389/fimmu.2015.00313

24. Orme IM. A new unifying theory of the pathogenesis of tuberculosis. Tuberculosis. 2014;94(1):8–14. doi:10.1016/j.tube.2013.07.004

25. Dalton JP, Uy B, Phummarin N, et al. Effect of common and experimental anti-tuberculosis treatments on Mycobacterium tuberculosis growing as biofilms. PeerJ. 2016;4:e2717. doi:10.7717/peerj.2717

26. Lenaerts AJ, Hoff D, Aly S, et al. Location of persisting mycobacteria in a Guinea pig model of tuberculosis revealed by r207910. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2007;51(9):3338–3345. doi:10.1128/AAC.00276-07

27. Hira P. Overview of Immune System. In: An Interplay of Cellular and Molecular Components of Immunology. CRC Press; 2022:1–26.

28. Sia JK, Rengarajan J. Immunology of Mycobacterium tuberculosis infections. Microbiol Spectr. 2019;7(4):7.4.6.

29. Batoni G, Martinez-Pomares L, Esin S. Immune response to biofilms. Front Immunol. 2021;12:696356. doi:10.3389/fimmu.2021.696356

30. De Martino M, Lodi L, Galli L, Chiappini E. Immune response to Mycobacterium tuberculosis: a narrative review. Front Pediatr. 2019;7:350. doi:10.3389/fped.2019.00350

31. Kaya E, Grassi L, Benedetti A, et al. In vitro interaction of Pseudomonas aeruginosa biofilms with human peripheral blood mononuclear cells. Front Cell Infect Microbiol. 2020;10:187. doi:10.3389/fcimb.2020.00187

32. Gries CM, Rivas Z, Chen J, Lo DD. Intravital multiphoton examination of implant-associated Staphylococcus aureus biofilm infection. Front Cell Infect Microbiol. 2020;10:574092. doi:10.3389/fcimb.2020.574092

33. Weathered C, Pennington K, Escalante P, Pienaar E. The role of biofilms, bacterial phenotypes, and innate immune response in Mycobacterium avium colonization to infection. J Theor Biol. 2022;534:110949. doi:10.1016/j.jtbi.2021.110949

34. Bekier A, Kawka M, Lach J, et al. Imidazole-thiosemicarbazide derivatives as potent Anti-Mycobacterium tuberculosis compounds with antibiofilm activity. Cells. 2021;10(12):3476. doi:10.3390/cells10123476

35. Watters C, Fleming D, Bishop D, Rumbaugh K. Host responses to biofilm. Prog Mol Biol Transl Sci. 2016;142:193–239.

36. Eldholm V, Balloux F. Antimicrobial resistance in Mycobacterium tuberculosis: the odd one out. Trends Microbiol. 2016;24(8):637–648. doi:10.1016/j.tim.2016.03.007

37. Cai Y, Yang Q, Tang Y, et al. Increased complement C1q level marks active disease in human tuberculosis. PLoS One. 2014;9(3):e92340. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0092340

38. Keating T, Lethbridge S, Allnutt JC, et al. Mycobacterium tuberculosis modifies cell wall carbohydrates during biofilm growth with a concomitant reduction in complement activation. Cell Surface. 2021;7:100065. doi:10.1016/j.tcsw.2021.100065

39. Netea MG, Schlitzer A, Placek K, Joosten LA, Schultze JL. Innate and adaptive immune memory: an evolutionary continuum in the host’s response to pathogens. Cell Host Microbe. 2019;25(1):13–26. doi:10.1016/j.chom.2018.12.006

40. Moser C, Jensen PØ, Thomsen K, et al. Immune responses to Pseudomonas aeruginosa biofilm infections. Front Immunol. 2021;12:625597. doi:10.3389/fimmu.2021.625597

41. McDaniel MM, Meibers HE, Pasare C. Innate control of adaptive immunity and adaptive instruction of innate immunity: bi-directional flow of information. Curr Opin Immunol. 2021;73:25–33. doi:10.1016/j.coi.2021.07.013

42. Tebruegge M, Ritz N, Donath S, et al. Mycobacteria-specific mono- and polyfunctional CD4+ T cell profiles in children with latent and active tuberculosis: a prospective proof-of-concept study. Front Immunol. 2019;10:431. doi:10.3389/fimmu.2019.00431

43. Prezzemolo T, Guggino G, La Manna MP, Di Liberto D, Dieli F, Caccamo N. Functional signatures of human CD4 and CD8 T cell responses to Mycobacterium tuberculosis. Front Immunol. 2014;5:180. doi:10.3389/fimmu.2014.00180

44. Lu YJ, Barreira-Silva P, Boyce S, Powers J, Cavallo K, Behar SM. CD4 T cell help prevents CD8 T cell exhaustion and promotes control of Mycobacterium tuberculosis infection. Cell Rep. 2021;36(11):109696. doi:10.1016/j.celrep.2021.109696

45. Shang S, Siddiqui S, Bian Y, Zhao J, Wang CR. Nonclassical MHC Ib-restricted CD8+ T Cells recognize Mycobacterium tuberculosis-derived protein antigens and contribute to protection against infection. PLoS Pathog. 2016;12(6):e1005688. doi:10.1371/journal.ppat.1005688

46. Ocaña-Guzmán R, Téllez-Navarrete NA, Ramón-Luing LA, et al. Leukocytes from patients with drug-sensitive and multidrug-resistant tuberculosis exhibit distinctive profiles of chemokine receptor expression and migration capacity. J Immunol Res. 2021;2021:6654220. doi:10.1155/2021/6654220

47. Kudryavtsev I, Zinchenko Y, Serebriakova M, et al. A key role of CD8+ T cells in controlling of tuberculosis infection. Diagnostics. 2023;13(18):2961. doi:10.3390/diagnostics13182961

48. Segura-Cerda CA, de Jesús Aceves-Sánchez M, Marquina-Castillo B, et al. Immune response elicited by two rBCG strains devoid of genes involved in c-di-GMP metabolism affect protection versus challenge with M. tuberculosis strains of different virulence. Vaccine. 2018;36(16):2069–2078. doi:10.1016/j.vaccine.2018.03.014

49. Kozakiewicz L, Phuah J, Flynn J, Chan J. The role of B cells and humoral immunity in Mycobacterium tuberculosis infection. In: The New Paradigm of Immunity to Tuberculosis. Springer; 2013:225–250.

50. Gil C, Solano C, Burgui S, et al. Biofilm matrix exoproteins induce a protective immune response against Staphylococcus aureus biofilm infection. Infect Immun. 2014;82(3):1017–1029. doi:10.1128/IAI.01419-13

51. Kerns PW. Development and Testing of a Five-Subunit Biofilm Vaccine for the Prevention of Pulmonary Tuberculosis. Baltimore: University of Maryland; 2014b.

52. Mishra R, Hannebelle M, Patil VP, et al. Mechanopathology of biofilm-like Mycobacterium tuberculosis cords. Cell. 2023;186(23):5135–50.e28. doi:10.1016/j.cell.2023.09.016

53. Pedroza-Roldán C, Guapillo C, Barrios-Payán J, et al. The BCGΔBCG1419c strain, which produces more pellicle in vitro, improves control of chronic tuberculosis in vivo. Vaccine. 2016;34(40):4763–4770. doi:10.1016/j.vaccine.2016.08.035

54. Kerns PW, Ackhart DF, Basaraba RJ, Leid JG, Shirtliff ME. Mycobacterium tuberculosis pellicles express unique proteins recognized by the host humoral response. Pathog Dis. 2014a;70(3):347–358. doi:10.1111/2049-632X.12142

55. Oluyori AP, Rode HB. Mycobacterium tuberculosis biofilm inhibitors. Future Med Chem. 2022;14(4):203–205. doi:10.4155/fmc-2021-0281

56. Ramalingam V, Sundaramahalingam S, Rajaram R. Size-dependent antimycobacterial activity of titanium oxide nanoparticles against Mycobacterium tuberculosis. J Mat Chem B. 2019;7(27):4338–4346.

57. Kalera K, Liu R, Lim J, et al. Targeting Mycobacterium tuberculosis Persistence through Inhibition of the Trehalose Catalytic Shift. ACS Infect Dis. 2024;10(4):1391–1404. doi:10.1021/acsinfecdis.4c00138

58. Ma F, Zhou H, Yang Z, et al. Gene expression profile analysis and target gene discovery of Mycobacterium tuberculosis biofilm. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol. 2021;105(12):5123–5134. doi:10.1007/s00253-021-11361-4

59. Kumar R, Singh N, Chauhan A, Kumar M, Bhatta RS, Singh SK. Mycobacterium tuberculosis survival and biofilm formation studies: effect of d-amino acids, d-cycloserine and its components. J Antibiot. 2022;75(1):1–8. doi:10.1038/s41429-021-00483-6

60. Mashele SA, Steel HC, Matjokotja MT, Rasehlo SS, Anderson R, Cholo MC. Assessment of the efficacy of clofazimine alone and in combination with primary agents against Mycobacterium tuberculosis in vitro. J Global Antimicrob Resist. 2022;29:343–352. doi:10.1016/j.jgar.2022.03.008

61. Jiang C-H, Gan M-L, An -T-T, Yang Z-C. Bioassay-guided isolation of a Mycobacterium tuberculosis biofilm inhibitor from Arisaema sinii Krause. Microb Pathog. 2019;126:351–356. doi:10.1016/j.micpath.2018.11.022

62. Kumar A, Alam A, Grover S, et al. Peptidyl-prolyl isomerase-B is involved in Mycobacterium tuberculosis biofilm formation and a generic target for drug repurposing-based intervention. NPJ Biofilms Microbiomes. 2019;5(1):1–11. doi:10.1038/s41522-018-0075-0

63. Wang C, Zhang Q, Tang X, et al. Effects of CwlM on autolysis and biofilm formation in Mycobacterium tuberculosis and Mycobacterium smegmatis. Int J Med Microbiol. 2019;309(1):73–83. doi:10.1016/j.ijmm.2018.12.002

64. Ackart DF, Lindsey EA, Podell BK, Melander RJ, Basaraba RJ, Melander C. Reversal of Mycobacterium tuberculosis phenotypic drug resistance by 2-aminoimidazole-based small molecules. Pathog Dis. 2014b;70(3):370–378. doi:10.1111/2049-632X.12143

65. Dalton JP, Uy B, Swift S, Wiles S Effect of ascorbic acid on Mycobacterium tuberculosis biofilms. PeerJ PrePrints; 2014.

66. Wang F, Sambandan D, Halder R, et al. Identification of a small molecule with activity against drug-resistant and persistent tuberculosis. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2013;110(27):E2510–E7.

67. Srivastava S, Dey S, Mukhopadhyay S. Vaccines against Tuberculosis: where are we now? Vaccines. 2023;11(5):1013. doi:10.3390/vaccines11051013

68. Loera-Muro A, Guerrero-Barrera A, Tremblay DNY, Hathroubi S, Angulo C. Bacterial biofilm-derived antigens: a new strategy for vaccine development against infectious diseases. Expert Rev Vaccines. 2021;20(4):385–396. doi:10.1080/14760584.2021.1892492

69. Kiran D, Podell BK, Chambers M, Basaraba RJ, editors. Host-directed therapy targeting the Mycobacterium tuberculosis granuloma: a review. In: Semin Immunopathol. Springer; 2016:167–183.

70. Flores-Valdez MA. Vaccines directed against microorganisms or their products present during biofilm lifestyle: can we make a translation as a broad biological model to tuberculosis? Front Microbiol. 2016;7:14. doi:10.3389/fmicb.2016.00014

Creative Commons License © 2024 The Author(s). This work is published and licensed by Dove Medical Press Limited. The full terms of this license are available at https://www.dovepress.com/terms.php and incorporate the Creative Commons Attribution - Non Commercial (unported, v3.0) License. By accessing the work you hereby accept the Terms. Non-commercial uses of the work are permitted without any further permission from Dove Medical Press Limited, provided the work is properly attributed. For permission for commercial use of this work, please see paragraphs 4.2 and 5 of our Terms.