Cited by 15Bacterial biofilms and quorum sensingProbiotics and Fermented FoodsInfection Control in Healthcare

ESKAPEE Pathogen Biofilm Control on Surfaces with Probiotic Lactobacillaceae and Bacillus species

Open access
Neidhöfer, Claudio, Rathore, Kamni, Parčina, Marijo, Sieber, Martin A.·2023·Antibiotics

Abstract

Combatting the rapidly growing threat of antimicrobial resistance and reducing prevalence and transmission of ESKAPEE pathogens in healthcare settings requires innovative strategies, one of which is displacing these pathogens using beneficial microorganisms. Our review comprehensively examines the evidence of probiotic bacteria displacing ESKAPEE pathogens, with a focus on inanimate surfaces. A systematic search was conducted using the PubMed and Web of Science databases on 21 December 2021, and 143 studies were identified examining the effects of Lactobacillaceae and Bacillus spp. cells and products on the growth, colonization, and survival of ESKAPEE pathogens. While the diversity of study methods limits evidence analysis, results presented by narrative synthesis demonstrate that several species have the potential as cells or their products or supernatants to displace nosocomial infection-causing organisms in a variety of in vitro and in vivo settings. Our review aims to aid the development of new promising approaches to control pathogen biofilms in medical settings by informing researchers and policymakers about the potential of probiotics to combat nosocomial infections. More targeted studies are needed to assess safety and efficacy of different probiotic formulations, followed by large-scale studies to assess utility in infection control and medical practice.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3390/antibiotics12050871

Cites

189 of 189 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Other PBS formulations including Bacillus probiotics are generally more effective in controlling nosocomial pathogens and AMR than disinfectants or other detergents.

    “Similar results were obtained when other PBS formulations, including Bacillus probiotics, were used, revealing their generally greater effectiveness in controlling nosocomial pathogens and AMR [37] than disinfectants or other detergents [38].”

    From Profiling the resistome and virulome of Bacillus strains used for probiotic-based sanitation: a multicenter WGS analysis (2025) · cites this paper as [37]

    The Introduction and Conclusions (pages unavailable) report that probiotic cleaning formulations, including those using Bacillus species, may suppress hospital pathogens and potentially reduce AMR-related risks. They do not establish that these formulations are generally more effective; the Conclusions say the evidence does not permit a conclusive assessment of efficacy on hospital surfaces. The comparison with disinfectants or detergents is attached to a different citation, [38]. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

1 retracted

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Neidhöfer, C., Rathore, K., Parčina, M., & Sieber, M. A.
Affiliations
  • University Hospital Bonn (DE)
  • Hochschule Bonn-Rhein-Sieg (DE)
Corresponding author
Neidhöfer, Claudio
Venue
Antibiotics
Publisher
MDPI AG
Published
2023-05-08
Volume
12
Issue
5
Pages
871
ISSN
2079-6382 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4378516080
Cited by
15
References
189
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 6
FWCI
0.40
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Antibiotics (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Publication Server of Bonn-Rhein-Sieg University of Applied Sciences (Bonn-Rhein-Sieg University of Applied Sciences) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Bacterial biofilms and quorum sensing
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Food Science › Probiotics and Fermented Foods
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Infectious Diseases › Infection Control in Healthcare
Keywords
ESKAPEE pathogens, probiotics, Lactobacillaceae, Bacillus, biofilm control, surface disinfection, nosocomial infections, antimicrobial resistance, competitive exclusion, probiotic supernatant

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review