Next Article in Journal
Antimicrobial Use and Epidemiological Resistance Profiles of Commensal Escherichia coli from Swine Farms in Córdoba, Argentina
Previous Article in Journal
The Antimicrobial Peptide CRAMP-34 Eradicates Escherichia coli Biofilms by Interfering with the kduD-Dependent Network
Previous Article in Special Issue
Retargeting Gram-Positive-Only Adarotene-Derived Antibacterials to Broad-Spectrum Antibiotics
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Antibiotics
Volume 15
Issue 1
10.3390/antibiotics15010085
antibiotics-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

An Unexpected Inverse Relationship Between Biofilm Formation and Antibiotic Resistance in Stenotrophomonas maltophilia

by
Arianna Pompilio
1,2 and
Giovanni Di Bonaventura
1,2,*
1
Department of Medical, Oral, and Biotechnological Sciences, “G. d’Annunzio” University of Chieti-Pescara, 66100 Chieti, Italy
2
Center of Advanced Studies and Technology, “G. d’Annunzio” University of Chieti-Pescara, 66100 Chieti, Italy
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Antibiotics 2026, 15(1), 85; https://doi.org/10.3390/antibiotics15010085
Submission received: 23 December 2025 / Revised: 12 January 2026 / Accepted: 13 January 2026 / Published: 15 January 2026
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Antibiotic Resistance and Virulence Mechanisms in Gram-Negative Bacteria: An Alliance for Success)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

Background/Objectives: Stenotrophomonas maltophilia is an opportunistic pathogen causing severe infections, particularly in patients with cystic fibrosis (CF). Its intrinsic multidrug resistance and biofilm-forming capacity complicate treatment. Although biofilms are generally associated with antimicrobial tolerance, the relationship between biofilm formation and planktonic antibiotic resistance in S. maltophilia remains poorly understood. This study investigated the association between antibiotic resistance profiles and biofilm production in clinical isolates from CF and non-CF patients. Methods: A total of 86 clinical isolates (40 from CF airways and 46 from non-CF patients) were analyzed. Susceptibility to seven antibiotics was assessed by disk diffusion, and multidrug resistance profiles were defined using standard criteria. Biofilm formation was quantified after 24 h using a crystal violet microtiter plate assay and categorized by using a semiquantitative scale. Results: High resistance rates were observed, particularly to meropenem (87.2%), ciprofloxacin (80.2%), and rifampicin (72.1%). CF isolates exhibited significantly higher resistance to piperacillin/tazobactam and a greater prevalence of multidrug resistance. Biofilm formation was detected in 94.2% of isolates, with strong or powerful producers predominating. However, CF isolates formed significantly less biofilm than non-CF isolates. Notably, resistance to piperacillin/tazobactam and meropenem was associated with reduced biofilm biomass and a lower proportion of high biofilm producers. Across all isolates, an inverse correlation was observed between the number of antibiotic resistances and biofilm biomass. These trends persisted after stratification by clinical origin, although some comparisons did not reach statistical significance. Conclusions: This study reveals an unexpected inverse relationship between planktonic antibiotic resistance and biofilm-forming capacity in S. maltophilia. Enhanced biofilm production may represent an alternative persistence strategy in more antibiotic-susceptible strains, with important implications for infection management and therapeutic failure.

Graphical Abstract

1. Introduction

Once regarded as a low-virulence microorganism, Stenotrophomonas maltophilia has emerged as a clinically relevant opportunistic pathogen responsible for a broad range of infections involving multiple organ systems, including the respiratory, gastrointestinal, and urinary tracts. Clinical manifestations include pneumonia, catheter-associated bacteremia and septicemia, osteochondritis, mastoiditis, meningitis, and endocarditis [1]. The bacterium is particularly prevalent in patients with cystic fibrosis (CF), in whom it is frequently isolated from the respiratory tract, with reported prevalence rates ranging from approximately 10% to 30% [2].
The treatment of S. maltophilia infections remains a major clinical challenge because of the bacterium’s extensive intrinsic and acquired antibiotic resistance mechanisms, including the chromosomally encoded L1 and L2 β-lactamases and multiple multidrug efflux pump systems (e.g., SmeDEF), which together confer resistance to a wide range of broad-spectrum antimicrobial agents [3]. In addition, S. maltophilia readily forms biofilms on both abiotic and host tissues, a phenotype that further compromises the efficacy of clinically relevant antibiotics, including aminoglycosides, fluoroquinolones, and tetracyclines [4,5,6].
Biofilm growth is widely recognized as a major contributor to antimicrobial tolerance because it limits antibiotic penetration, promotes antibiotic inactivation, and fosters physiological heterogeneity within bacterial populations [7,8]. The elevated cell density and oxidative stress characteristics of biofilms can increase mutation rates and facilitate horizontal gene transfer [9]. Compared with their planktonic counterparts, bacteria in biofilms exhibit greater resistance to nutrient starvation, pH fluctuations, and oxidative stress [10]. Biofilms may also increase resistance by altering the expression of pre-existing antibiotic resistance genes [11] and by increasing the proportion of tolerant or persister cells within the population, due to reduced bacterial metabolic activity within the biofilm interior [12].
Despite extensive evidence linking biofilm formation to increased antibiotic tolerance, the relationship between biofilm-forming capacity and antibiotic resistance in S. maltophilia planktonic cells remains poorly defined, leaving unresolved whether strong biofilm formation is consistently associated with increased planktonic resistance or whether trade-offs between these phenotypes may exist. Moreover, potential differences between isolates from CF and non-CF clinical settings have not been systematically explored.
In this study, we address these gaps by conducting a comparative analysis of a large and diverse collection of S. maltophilia clinical isolates obtained from the airways of CF patients and from multiple anatomical sites in non-CF patients. By jointly assessing biofilm-forming ability and efficiency, planktonic antibiotic resistance profiles, and clinical origin, our work provides new insight into the interplay among these traits, revealing an unexpected relationship between biofilm formation and antibiotic resistance and setting the stage for the results presented below.

2. Results

2.1. Antibiotic Resistance

Antibiotic susceptibility testing results for the 86 isolates tested (40 from CF patients and 46 from non-CF patients) are summarized in Table 1 and Table S1 (Supplementary Materials). Overall, resistance to meropenem, ciprofloxacin, rifampicin, piperacillin/tazobactam, chloramphenicol, levofloxacin, and cotrimoxazole was observed in 87.2%, 80.2%, 72.1%, 50%, 47.7%, 26.7%, and 18.6% of isolates, respectively (Table 1). Stratified by patient type, CF isolates exhibited a significantly higher resistance rate to piperacillin/tazobactam than non-CF isolates (90.0 vs. 52.2%; p = 0.0001) (Table 1).
Regarding resistance to multiple antimicrobial agents, the multidrug-resistant (MDR) phenotype was observed in a significantly higher proportion of CF isolates than of non-CF isolates (97.5 vs. 67.4%, respectively; p = 0.0002) (Table 1). CF isolates also exhibited higher rates of the extensively drug-resistant (XDR) and pan-drug-resistant (PDR) phenotypes than the non-CF group, although the differences were not statistically significant (XDR: 60% vs. 54.3%; PDR: 15% vs. 4.3%, respectively, for CF and non-CF isolates) (Table 1).
The antibiotic resistance patterns showed that most isolates had a high frequency of MDR; specifically, 62 of 86 isolates (72.1%) were resistant to at least 6 of the 7 antibiotics tested. However, no differences in multi-resistance levels were observed between the CF and non-CF groups (Table 1).

2.2. Biofilm Formation

Results of the biofilm formation assay are summarized in Table S1 (Supplementary Materials). The cut-off for biofilm formation—i.e., ODc = mean OD of negative control + (3 × SD of negative control)—was 0.076. This indicated a weak biofilm producer if 0.076 < OD492 ≤ 0.152, a moderate producer if 0.152 < OD492 ≤ 0.304, a strong producer if 0.304 < OD492 ≤ 0.608, and a powerful producer if OD492 > 0.608.
Most S. maltophilia isolates tested (81 out of 86, 94.2%) formed biofilm, with strong and powerful biofilm producer classes being the most prevalent (40.7% and 33.7%, respectively; p values at least 0.0009 vs. other classes). However, trends varied by patient source.
Although CF and non-CF isolates showed comparable biofilm-forming capabilities (90% vs. 97.8%, respectively), CF isolates were less efficient (OD492, median: 0.395 vs. 0.615 for CF and non-CF isolates, respectively; p = 0.006). Confirming these findings, a significantly higher proportion of powerful biofilm producers was observed among non-CF isolates than among CF isolates (50% vs. 15%, respectively; p = 0.0007). Conversely, moderate biofilm producers were found more frequently among CF than non-CF isolates (22.5% vs. 2.2%, respectively; p = 0.005).

2.3. Correlation Between Antibiotic Resistance and Biofilm Formation

Considering the isolates as a whole, those resistant to piperacillin/tazobactam or meropenem produced significantly less biofilm than susceptible isolates (median OD492; piperacillin/tazobactam: 0.446 vs. 0.793, p < 0.0001; meropenem: 0.598 vs. 0.847, p = 0.048, respectively, for resistant and susceptible isolates) (Figure 1). Confirming these findings, a significantly lower proportion of powerful producers was observed in piperacillin/tazobactam-resistant compared to susceptible isolates (18.3% vs. 69.2%, respectively; p = 0.0001). No significant differences were found for other antibiotics.
Stratified by patient type and isolation site, airway isolates from non-CF patients that were resistant to piperacillin/tazobactam produced less biofilm than susceptible isolates (OD492, median: 0.470 vs. 0.788, respectively; p = 0.012) (Figure 1). No significant differences were observed among the biofilm producer groups. Notably, the percentage of isolates categorized as strong biofilm producers was nearly double among susceptible isolates compared to resistant isolates (63.6% vs. 33.3%, respectively); however, this difference did not reach statistical significance due to the small sample size.
Among isolates collected from the airways of CF patients, the proportion unable to form biofilm was significantly lower among resistant than among susceptible isolates for meropenem (0% vs. 100%; p = 0.03), ciprofloxacin, and piperacillin/tazobactam (0% vs. 50%; p = 0.002).
No statistically significant differences in median biofilm amount were observed among non-MDR, MDR, XDR, and PDR isolates, regardless of the patient group considered (Figure 2). A similar trend was observed in the proportion of biofilm-producing groups among non-MDR, XDR, and PDR isolates. The percentage of non-MDR isolates classified as powerful producers was higher than that observed in MDR, XDR, and PDR isolates, although statistical significance was achieved only in the latter group (50% vs. 0%, p = 0.022; for non-MDR and PDR, respectively). The percentage of powerful and strong producers was comparable between MDR and XDR (MDR: 30% vs. 42.9%; XDR: 28.6% vs. 44.9%), but was significantly higher than in other groups (MDR: p at least 0.04 vs. other classes; XDR: p at least 0.004 vs. other classes). PDR isolates were not seen as powerful producers, while the proportion of strong producers was higher than that of moderate and non-producers (75% vs. 12.5% and 12.5%, respectively; p = 0.004).
The overall multidrug resistance level—i.e., the number of resistances displayed by an isolate—was negatively associated with the amount of biofilm formed, as indicated by linear regression analysis (p = 0.003) (Figure 2). A similar trend was observed after stratification by CF and non-CF isolates; however, it did not reach statistical significance.

3. Discussion

Antibiotic resistance in S. maltophilia is an increasing concern, particularly in the lungs of people with CF, where its prevalence is rising. This study reported high levels of resistance to meropenem (87.2%), ciprofloxacin (80.2%), rifampicin (72.1%), piperacillin/tazobactam (50%), and chloramphenicol (47.7%), confirming previous studies [13]. Notably, CF isolates showed higher resistance to piperacillin/tazobactam than non-CF isolates. This finding likely reflects the frequent use of piperacillin/tazobactam as an antipseudomonal agent in patients with CF experiencing pulmonary exacerbations [14].
The antibiotic resistance of S. maltophilia was also indicated by the overall prevalence of the MDR phenotype, which was 81.4%. Interestingly, MDR isolates were more common in CF than in non-CF isolates. As is well known for Pseudomonas aeruginosa, the development of MDR in S. maltophilia lung isolates from CF patients can be attributed to its ability to adapt to the CF airway microenvironment through various genotypic changes and to develop mutational resistance under high selective pressure [15,16].
Our findings indicated that trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole and levofloxacin were the most effective drugs tested. However, the susceptibility rates we observed (81.4% and 73.7%, respectively, for trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole and levofloxacin) were lower than those reported in previous studies from other countries [17,18]. Rhee et al. [19] reported even higher resistance rates, over 30%, for both antibiotics. These findings indicate increasing resistance to the last-resort drug for treating multidrug-resistant S. maltophilia infections, underscoring the importance of robust control policies to limit the dissemination of resistant S. maltophilia strains and the need for further research to develop new treatments.
Most bacteria in nature exist in aggregated communities known as biofilms. Cells within a biofilm exhibit significant physiological changes compared with their planktonic counterparts [20]. Biofilms are associated with numerous infections that can severely impact patients [21]. Indeed, infections involving biofilm formation are often chronic and highly resistant to antibiotic therapy [21]. Several studies have shown that biofilms are crucial to the persistence of S. maltophilia healthcare-associated infections, especially in patients with mechanical ventilation devices and CF patients [22,23]. Our findings confirmed that S. maltophilia has a significant propensity to form biofilms [22]. Over 94% of isolates produced biofilm. Notably, most isolates exhibited high biofilm-forming efficiency and were classified as strong or powerful producers. Decreased efficiency is a distinctive feature of isolates from CF patients, as indicated by a significantly lower proportion of powerful biofilm producers and a higher proportion of moderate biofilm producers compared with isolates from non-CF patients. These findings confirm that S. maltophilia adapts to a stressed environment, such as the CF lung [24].
The correlation between antibiotic resistance and the biofilm-forming ability of planktonic cells has been studied in Gram-positive and Gram-negative pathogens [25,26,27], raising questions about the mechanisms underlying the balance between these biological phenomena. Here, we evaluated, for the first time, the potential relationship between antibiotic resistance and the biofilm-forming capacity of S. maltophilia, leading to several conclusions.
First, isolates resistant to piperacillin/tazobactam or meropenem produced less biofilm than susceptible isolates, as indicated by differences in median biofilm quantity and the prevalence of the high-producing class. A similar trend appears to be specific to non-CF isolates. In contrast to our findings, Liaw et al. [28], evaluating the roles of integrons, efflux pumps, SpgM, melanin, and biofilm in MDR among 40 clinical isolates of S. maltophilia, observed that MDR isolates formed biofilm more readily than non-MDR isolates. Additionally, high biofilm formation was more prevalent among resistant than among susceptible isolates to piperacillin/tazobactam, whereas no difference was observed with meropenem. Differences in growth conditions (i.e., Luria–Bertani rather than TSB) and susceptibility breakpoints (i.e., established by CLSI rather than EUCAST) may explain the discrepancies from our findings.
Second, the percentage of non-CF isolates classified as high biofilm producers was nearly double among susceptible isolates compared with resistant isolates, and the proportion of CF isolates unable to form biofilm was significantly lower among resistant isolates than among susceptible isolates for meropenem, ciprofloxacin, and piperacillin/tazobactam.
Third, although the prevalence of high- and strong-producer classes was higher among MDR and XDR isolates than among non-MDR isolates, the number of resistances exhibited by an isolate was negatively correlated with the amount of biofilm produced.
Together, these results indicate that in S. maltophilia, there is a negative correlation between antibiotic resistance and biofilm-forming efficacy. Biofilms are known to confer greater antibiotic resistance and enhanced host immunity on microorganisms. From this perspective, high biofilm-forming efficiency may be considered an alternative strategy that antibiotic-susceptible strains adopt to evade antimicrobial treatments and persist longer within the host [25]. This adaptive strategy could be responsible for unexplained treatment failures and recurrences in susceptible isolates [29].

4. Materials and Methods

4.1. Bacterial Strains

Eighty-six S. maltophilia isolates were investigated: 40 from respiratory specimens collected from CF patients and 46 from non-CF patients at different sites (i.e., 29 from the respiratory tract, 11 from blood, and 6 from other sources) (Table S1, Supplementary materials).

4.2. Antibiotic Susceptibility Tests

The agar disk-diffusion technique was used to evaluate the antibiotic susceptibility of S. maltophilia isolates as described by EUCAST [30]. Antibiotic discs used for susceptibility testing were meropenem (10 µg), ciprofloxacin (5 µg), rifampicin (5 µg), piperacillin/tazobactam (30/6 µg), chloramphenicol (10 µg), levofloxacin (5 µg), and trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole (1.25/23.75 µg) (Liofilchem srl, Roseto degli Abruzzi, Italy). Escherichia coli ATCC 25922 and Pseudomonas aeruginosa ATCC 27853 were used as control strains.
Interpretation of zone diameters was based on the current EUCAST breakpoint [30]. When no EUCAST breakpoints were available, CLSI breakpoints were used [31]. In accordance with Magiorakos et al. [32], a bacterial isolate was considered non-susceptible to an antimicrobial agent when it tested as resistant, intermediate, or non-susceptible using clinical breakpoints as interpretive criteria provided by the EUCAST or CLSI. Multidrug resistance (MDR) was defined as nonsusceptibility to ≥1 agent in ≥3 antimicrobial categories; extensively drug resistance (XDR) as susceptibility limited to ≤2 categories; pan drug resistance (PDR), as nonsusceptibility to all agents in all antimicrobial categories [32].

4.3. Biofilm Formation Assay

The ability of each isolate to form biofilm was assessed in a 96-well microtiter plate assay after 24 h of incubation at 37 °C and quantified as optical density at 492 nm (OD492) using a crystal violet colorimetric assay, as previously described [22]. The cut-off value for biofilm formation (ODc) was calculated as three standard deviations (SD) above the mean OD of the negative control: ODc = average OD of negative control + (3 × SD of negative control). Negative values were recorded as zero, and any positive value indicated biofilm production. Isolates were classified according to Stepanovic et al. [33] with minor modifications: OD ≤ ODc = no biofilm producer; ODc < OD ≤ 2 × ODc = weak biofilm producer; 2 × ODc < OD ≤ 4 × ODc = moderate biofilm producer; 4 × ODc < OD ≤ 8 × ODc = strong biofilm producer; and 8 × ODc < OD = powerful biofilm producer.

4.4. Statistical Analysis

Each experiment was performed in triplicate and repeated twice (n = 6). The D’Agostino & Pearson normality test indicated that the data were not normally distributed. Therefore, the Mann–Whitney test was used to evaluate differences in median biofilm biomass between the CF and non-CF groups and between susceptible and resistant isolates. Fisher’s exact test was used to evaluate differences in proportions. The correlation between biofilm formation efficiency and antibiotic resistance level was assessed using linear regression. Statistical analyses were performed using Prism software, version 7 (GraphPad Software, Boston, MA, USA), with p-values < 0.05 considered statistically significant.

5. Conclusions

This study demonstrates an unexpected inverse relationship between planktonic antibiotic resistance and biofilm-forming capacity in S. maltophilia. Clinical isolates with higher levels of resistance, particularly to piperacillin/tazobactam and meropenem, and with increasing multidrug resistance generally produced less biofilm, whereas more antibiotic-susceptible isolates exhibited enhanced biofilm formation. These findings suggest that biofilm formation may serve as an alternative persistence strategy in susceptible strains rather than merely accompany increased resistance.
Clinically, this underscores the limitations of relying solely on planktonic susceptibility testing to predict therapeutic outcomes in S. maltophilia infections, as strong biofilm producers may persist and cause treatment failure despite apparent susceptibility. Further studies are needed to elucidate the molecular basis of this trade-off and to assess its implications for infection management and the development of antibiofilm-based therapeutic strategies.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/antibiotics15010085/s1. Table S1. Antibiotic susceptibility profiles, multidrug resistance classification, and biofilm-forming capacity of 86 Stenotrophomonas maltophilia clinical isolates (46 from non-cystic fibrosis patients and 40 from cystic fibrosis patients).

Author Contributions

A.P. and G.D.B. conceived the study, contributed to conceptualization, designed and conducted the experiments, visualized the results, acquired funds, and wrote the original manuscript, as well as edited the revised version. A.P. contributed to writing the original version of the manuscript. G.D.B. contributed to editing both the original and revised manuscripts. G.D.B. supervised experimental activity. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This study has been partially funded by the Department of Medical, Oral and Biotechnological Sciences, University of Chieti-Pescara (“ex-60%, FAR 2023” grant).

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Data is unavailable due to privacy and ethical restrictions.

Acknowledgments

During the preparation of this manuscript, the authors used ChatGPT 5.2 to create the graphical abstract. The authors have reviewed and edited the output and take full responsibility for the content of this publication.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Abbreviations

The following abbreviations are used in this manuscript:
CFCystic fibrosis
ODOptical density
MDRMultidrug resistance
XDRExtensively drug resistance
PDRPandrug resistance
EUCASTEuropean committee for antimicrobial susceptibility testing
CLSIClinical laboratory standards institute

References

  1. Brooke, J.S. Advances in the Microbiology of Stenotrophomonas maltophilia. Clin. Microbiol. Rev. 2021, 34, e0003019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Blanchard, A.C.; Waters, V.J. Opportunistic Pathogens in Cystic Fibrosis: Epidemiology and Pathogenesis of Lung Infection. J. Pediatr. Infect. Dis. Soc. 2022, 11, S3–S12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Monardo, R.; Mojica, M.F.; Ripa, M.; Aitken, S.L.; Bonomo, R.A.; van Duin, D. How do I manage a patient with Stenotrophomonas maltophilia infection? Clin. Microbiol. Infect. 2025, 31, 1291–1297. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Di Bonaventura, G.; Spedicato, I.; D’Antonio, D.; Robuffo, I.; Piccolomini, R. Biofilm formation by Stenotrophomonas maltophilia: Modulation by quinolones, trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole, and ceftazidime. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 2004, 48, 151–160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Pompilio, A.; Crocetta, V.; Confalone, P.; Nicoletti, M.; Petrucca, A.; Guarnieri, S.; Fiscarelli, E.; Savini, V.; Piccolomini, R.; Di Bonaventura, G. Adhesion to and biofilm formation on IB3-1 bronchial cells by Stenotrophomonas maltophilia isolates from cystic fibrosis patients. BMC Microbiol. 2010, 10, 102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Sun, E.; Liang, G.; Wang, L.; Wei, W.; Lei, M.; Song, S.; Han, R.; Wang, Y.; Qi, W. Antimicrobial susceptibility of hospital acquired Stenotrophomonas maltophilia isolate biofilms. Braz. J. Infect. Dis. 2016, 20, 365–373. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Amanatidou, E.; Matthews, A.C.; Kuhlicke, U.; Neu, T.R.; McEvoy, J.P.; Raymond, B. Biofilms facilitate cheating and social exploitation of β-lactam resistance in Escherichia coli. NPJ Biofilms Microbiomes 2019, 5, 36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  8. Liu, H.Y.; Prentice, E.L.; Webber, M.A. Mechanisms of antimicrobial resistance in biofilms. NPJ Antimicrob. Resist. 2024, 2, 27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  9. Michaelis, C.; Grohmann, E. Horizontal Gene Transfer of Antibiotic Resistance Genes in Biofilms. Antibiotics 2023, 12, 328. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  10. Zhao, A.; Sun, J.; Liu, Y. Understanding bacterial biofilms: From definition to treatment strategies. Front. Cell. Infect. Microbiol. 2023, 13, 1137947. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Høiby, N.; Bjarnsholt, T.; Givskov, M.; Molin, S.; Ciofu, O. Antibiotic resistance of bacterial biofilms. Int. J. Antimicrob. Agents 2010, 35, 322–332. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Wood, T.K.; Knabel, S.J.; Kwan, B.W. Bacterial persister cell formation and dormancy. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2013, 79, 7116–7121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Farrell, D.J.; Sader, H.S.; Jones, R.N. Antimicrobial susceptibilities of a worldwide collection of Stenotrophomonas maltophilia isolates tested against tigecycline and agents commonly used for S. maltophilia infections. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 2010, 54, 2735–2737. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Rolsma, S.L.; Sokolow, A.; Patel, P.C.; Sokolow, K.; Jimenez-Truque, N.; Fissell, W.H.; Ryan, V.; Kirkpatrick, C.M.; Nation, R.L.; Gu, K.; et al. Population Pharmacokinetic Modeling of Cefepime, Meropenem, and Piperacillin-Tazobactam in Patients with Cystic Fibrosis. J. Infect. Dis. 2025, 231, e364–e374. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Marvig, R.L.; Sommer, L.M.; Molin, S.; Johansen, H.K. Convergent evolution and adaptation of Pseudomonas aeruginosa within patients with cystic fibrosis. Nat. Genet. 2015, 47, 57–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Sanz-Garcia, F.; Hernando-Amado, S.; Martinez, J.L. Mutation-driven evolution of Pseudomonas aeruginosa in the presence of either ceftazidime or ceftazidime/avibactam. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 2018, 10, 62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Duan, Z.; Qin, J.; Liu, Y.; Li, C.; Ying, C. Molecular epidemiology and risk factors of Stenotrophomonas maltophilia infections in a Chinese teaching hospital. BMC Microbiol. 2020, 20, 294. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Bostanghadiri, N.; Ardebili, A.; Ghalavand, Z.; Teymouri, S.; Mirzarazi, M.; Goudarzi, M.; Ghasemi, E.; Hashemi, A. Antibiotic resistance, biofilm formation, and biofilm-associated genes among Stenotrophomonas maltophilia clinical isolates. BMC Res. Notes 2021, 14, 151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Rhee, J.Y.; Song, J.H.; Ko, K.S. Current Situation of Antimicrobial Resistance and Genetic Differences in Stenotrophomonas maltophilia Complex Isolates by Multilocus Variable Number of Tandem Repeat Analysis. Infect. Chemother. 2016, 48, 285–293. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Squyres, G.R.; Newman, D.K. Biofilms as more than the sum of their parts: Lessons from developmental biology. Curr. Opin. Microbiol. 2024, 82, 102537. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  21. Schulze, A.; Mitterer, F.; Pombo, J.P.; Schild, S. Biofilms by bacterial human pathogens: Clinical relevance—Development, composition and regulation—Therapeutical strategies. Microb. Cell 2021, 8, 28–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Pompilio, A.; Ranalli, M.; Piccirilli, A.; Perilli, M.; Vukovic, D.; Savic, B.; Krutova, M.; Drevinek, P.; Jonas, D.; Fiscarelli, E.V.; et al. Biofilm Formation among Stenotrophomonas maltophilia Isolates Has Clinical Relevance: The ANSELM Prospective Multicenter Study. Microorganisms 2020, 9, 49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Mikhailovich, V.; Heydarov, R.; Zimenkov, D.; Chebotar, I. Stenotrophomonas maltophilia virulence: A current view. Front. Microbiol. 2024, 15, 1385631. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Esposito, A.; Pompilio, A.; Bettua, C.; Crocetta, V.; Giacobazzi, E.; Fiscarelli, E.; Jousson, O.; Di Bonaventura, G. Evolution of Stenotrophomonas maltophilia in Cystic Fibrosis Lung over Chronic Infection: A Genomic and Phenotypic Population Study. Front. Microbiol. 2017, 8, 1590. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Qi, L.; Li, H.; Zhang, C.; Liang, B.; Li, J.; Wang, L.; Du, X.; Liu, X.; Qiu, S.; Song, H. Relationship between Antibiotic Resistance, Biofilm Formation, and Biofilm-Specific Resistance in Acinetobacter baumannii. Front. Microbiol. 2016, 7, 483. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Kwon, A.S.; Park, G.C.; Ryu, S.Y.; Lim, D.H.; Lim, D.Y.; Choi, C.H.; Park, Y.; Lim, Y. Higher biofilm formation in multidrug-resistant clinical isolates of Staphylococcus aureus. Int. J. Antimicrob. Agents 2008, 32, 68–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. García-Castillo, M.; Morosini, M.I.; Valverde, A.; Almaraz, F.; Baquero, F.; Cantón, R.; del Campo, R. Differences in biofilm development and antibiotic susceptibility among Streptococcus pneumoniae isolates from cystic fibrosis samples and blood cultures. J. Antimicrob. Chemother. 2007, 59, 301–304. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Liaw, S.J.; Lee, Y.L.; Hsueh, P.R. Multidrug resistance in clinical isolates of Stenotrophomonas maltophilia: Roles of integrons, efflux pumps, phosphoglucomutase (SpgM), and melanin and biofilm formation. Int. J. Antimicrob. Agents 2010, 35, 126–130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  29. Junco, S.J.; Bowman, M.C.; Turner, R.B. Clinical outcomes of Stenotrophomonas maltophilia infection treated with trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole, minocycline, or fluoroquinolone monotherapy. Int. J. Antimicrob. Agents 2021, 58, 106367. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. EUCAST. Disk Diffusion Method for Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing. Version 13.0 (January 2025). 2025. Available online: www.eucast.org (accessed on 15 September 2025).
  31. CLSI M02; Performance Standards for Antimicrobial Disk Susceptibility Tests. Clinical Laboratory Standards Institute: Wayne, PA, USA, 2024.
  32. Magiorakos, A.P.; Srinivasan, A.; Carey, R.B.; Carmeli, Y.; Falagas, M.E.; Giske, C.G.; Harbarth, S.; Hindler, J.F.; Kahlmeter, G.; Olsson-Liljequist, B.; et al. Multidrug-resistant, extensively drug-resistant and pandrug-resistant bacteria: An international expert proposal for interim standard definitions for acquired resistance. Clin. Microbiol. Infect. 2012, 18, 268–281. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Stepanović, S.; Vuković, D.; Hola, V.; Di Bonaventura, G.; Djukić, S.; Cirković, I.; Ruzicka, F. Quantification of biofilm in microtiter plates: Overview of testing conditions and practical recommendations for assessment of biofilm production by staphylococci. APMIS 2007, 115, 891–899. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Antibiotics 15 00085 g001
Figure 1. Biofilm formation of S. maltophilia according to susceptibility (S) or resistance (R) to several antibiotics, and stratified by patient type (CF, cystic fibrosis; non-FC, noncystic fibrosis). Results are shown as box-and-whisker plots; each box shows the median, with the bottom and top edges indicating the 25th and 75th percentiles, respectively, and the whiskers extend to the most extreme data points not considered outliers. Statistical significance by Mann–Whitney test: * p < 0.05, **** p < 0.0001.
Figure 1. Biofilm formation of S. maltophilia according to susceptibility (S) or resistance (R) to several antibiotics, and stratified by patient type (CF, cystic fibrosis; non-FC, noncystic fibrosis). Results are shown as box-and-whisker plots; each box shows the median, with the bottom and top edges indicating the 25th and 75th percentiles, respectively, and the whiskers extend to the most extreme data points not considered outliers. Statistical significance by Mann–Whitney test: * p < 0.05, **** p < 0.0001.
Antibiotics 15 00085 g001
Antibiotics 15 00085 g002
Figure 2. Biofilm formation and multidrug resistance (MDR, multidrug resistance; XDR, extensively drug resistance; PDR, pandrug resistance) in S. maltophilia isolated from cystic fibrosis (CF) and non-CF patients. Left side: results are shown as box-and-whisker plots (the central mark indicates the median, the bottom and top edges of the box indicate the 25th and 75th percentiles, respectively, and the whiskers extend to the most extreme data points not considered outliers). Right side: correlation between biofilm formation efficiency and antibiotic resistance level, as assessed by linear regression analysis.
Figure 2. Biofilm formation and multidrug resistance (MDR, multidrug resistance; XDR, extensively drug resistance; PDR, pandrug resistance) in S. maltophilia isolated from cystic fibrosis (CF) and non-CF patients. Left side: results are shown as box-and-whisker plots (the central mark indicates the median, the bottom and top edges of the box indicate the 25th and 75th percentiles, respectively, and the whiskers extend to the most extreme data points not considered outliers). Right side: correlation between biofilm formation efficiency and antibiotic resistance level, as assessed by linear regression analysis.
Antibiotics 15 00085 g002
Table 1. Frequency of antibiotic-resistance and multidrug-resistance phenotypes among S. maltophilia strains from patients with cystic fibrosis (CF) and patients without cystic fibrosis (non-CF).
Table 1. Frequency of antibiotic-resistance and multidrug-resistance phenotypes among S. maltophilia strains from patients with cystic fibrosis (CF) and patients without cystic fibrosis (non-CF).
Overall (n = 86)CF (n = 40)non-CF (n = 46)Fisher’s Exact Test (p; CF vs. non-CF)
Antibioticn%n%n%
meropenem7587.23895.03780.4NS a
ciprofloxacin6980.23690.03371.7NS
rifampicin6272.13382.52963.0NS
piperacillin/tazobactam4957.03690.02452.20.0001
chloramphenicol4147.71845.02452.2NS
levofloxacin2326.71332.51021.7NS
cotrimoxazole1618.61025.0613.0NS
Multidrug-resistant phenotypes
MDR7081.43997.53167.40.0002
XDR4956.924602554.3NS
PDR89.361524.3NS
a NS, not significant.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Pompilio, A.; Di Bonaventura, G. An Unexpected Inverse Relationship Between Biofilm Formation and Antibiotic Resistance in Stenotrophomonas maltophilia. Antibiotics 2026, 15, 85. https://doi.org/10.3390/antibiotics15010085

AMA Style

Pompilio A, Di Bonaventura G. An Unexpected Inverse Relationship Between Biofilm Formation and Antibiotic Resistance in Stenotrophomonas maltophilia. Antibiotics. 2026; 15(1):85. https://doi.org/10.3390/antibiotics15010085

Chicago/Turabian Style

Pompilio, Arianna, and Giovanni Di Bonaventura. 2026. "An Unexpected Inverse Relationship Between Biofilm Formation and Antibiotic Resistance in Stenotrophomonas maltophilia" Antibiotics 15, no. 1: 85. https://doi.org/10.3390/antibiotics15010085

APA Style

Pompilio, A., & Di Bonaventura, G. (2026). An Unexpected Inverse Relationship Between Biofilm Formation and Antibiotic Resistance in Stenotrophomonas maltophilia. Antibiotics, 15(1), 85. https://doi.org/10.3390/antibiotics15010085

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop