Review

Targeting microbial pathogenicity: From molecular understanding to clinical applications

Mohammed Naveez Valathoor 1,*

1 School of Biosciences and Technology, Vellore Institute of Technology, X595+H4M, VIT University, Vellore, Tamil Nadu 632014 India.

* Correspondence: naveezbiotech@gmail.com (M.N.V.)

Citation: Valathoor, M.N. Targeting microbial pathogenicity: From molecular understanding to clinical applications. Glob. Jour. Bas. Sci. 2025, 1(11). 1-6.

Received: July 31, 2025

Revised: September 23, 2025

Accepted: September 29, 2025

Published: September 30, 2025

doi: 10.63454/jbs20000060

ISSN: 3049-3315

Volume 1; Issue 11

Download PDF file

Abstract: The escalating crisis of antimicrobial resistance (AMR) necessitates a paradigm shift from traditional broad-spectrum antimicrobials toward precision strategies that specifically target microbial pathogenicity. This review synthesizes current knowledge on the molecular mechanisms underpinning bacterial and fungal virulence, including adhesion, invasion, toxin production, biofilm formation, and immune evasion. We critically evaluate novel therapeutic approaches that disarm pathogens without exerting lethal selective pressure, such as anti-virulence agents, quorum-sensing inhibitors, and anti-biofilm compounds. The integration of these strategies with advances in diagnostics, vaccine design, and host-directed therapies is discussed as a cornerstone of next-generation antimicrobial stewardship. We conclude that a multi-pronged, evolution-aware approach targeting pathogenicity mechanisms represents a promising frontier for developing sustainable, resistance-resilient anti-infective therapies.

Keywords: Antimicrobial resistance; virulence factors; anti-virulence therapy; quorum sensing; biofilm; host-directed therapy; precision antimicrobials

1. Introduction

The advent of antibiotics in the early twentieth century stands as one of the most transformative achievements in modern medicine, dramatically reducing morbidity and mortality associated with bacterial and fungal infections. Diseases that were once uniformly fatal—such as septicemia, pneumonia, and tuberculosis—became routinely curable, enabling major advances in surgery, transplantation, oncology, and intensive care. However, decades of widespread, and often indiscriminate, antibiotic use in human medicine, agriculture, and animal husbandry have driven the rapid emergence and global dissemination of antimicrobial resistance (AMR), threatening to undermine these medical gains. AMR is now recognized by the World Health Organization as one of the most serious global public health crises of the twenty-first century, with projections estimating millions of deaths annually if effective countermeasures are not developed [1]. 

Clinically significant multidrug-resistant pathogens—including methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae (CRE), vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus (VRE), and extensively drug-resistant Mycobacterium tuberculosis (XDR-TB)—have rendered many first- and second-line antimicrobial therapies ineffective [2]. The consequences are profound: prolonged hospital stays, increased healthcare costs, limited treatment options, and elevated mortality rates. The alarming pace at which resistance evolves has consistently outstripped the development of new antibiotics, revealing a fundamental vulnerability in the traditional antimicrobial paradigm.  At the core of this crisis lies the evolutionary pressure imposed by conventional antimicrobials. By directly targeting processes essential for microbial survival—such as cell wall synthesis, DNA replication, transcription, and protein translation—antibiotics create intense selective pressure that favors the rapid emergence of resistant mutants. Horizontal gene transfer further accelerates the spread of resistance determinants across microbial populations and species. As a result, even newly introduced antibiotics often face resistance within a few years of clinical deployment, raising concerns about the long-term sustainability of bactericidal and fungicidal strategies.

In response to these limitations, the infectious disease research community has increasingly shifted focus toward alternative therapeutic strategies that do not rely on microbial killing. One of the most promising of these approaches is the targeting of microbial pathogenicity—the collection of molecular mechanisms, commonly referred to as virulence factors, that enable microorganisms to colonize hosts, evade immune defenses, and cause disease [3]. Virulence factors include adhesins that mediate host attachment, toxins that damage host tissues, secretion systems that deliver effector proteins, biofilm-forming machinery, iron acquisition systems, and immune-modulatory molecules. Importantly, while these factors are critical for disease progression, they are often dispensable for microbial survival outside the host.  Anti-virulence strategies are built on the principle of pathogen disarmament rather than eradication. By neutralizing virulence determinants, these approaches aim to attenuate the pathogen’s ability to cause harm, allowing host immune mechanisms to clear the infection naturally [4]. This conceptual shift represents a fundamental departure from traditional antimicrobial therapy. Because anti-virulence agents do not directly inhibit growth or viability, they are hypothesized to exert reduced selective pressure for resistance development. In theory, avirulent or attenuated strains would be less competitive within the host environment and therefore less likely to dominate microbial populations.

The notion of anti-virulence therapy as an “evolution-resistant” or “resistance-robust” approach has garnered significant interest over the past two decades. Experimental studies have demonstrated that targeting quorum sensing, toxin activity, adhesion, and biofilm formation can significantly reduce pathogenicity in animal models without profoundly altering microbial fitness. Moreover, anti-virulence agents may preserve beneficial microbiota, reducing dysbiosis and secondary infections commonly associated with broad-spectrum antibiotics.  Despite its promise, the translation of anti-virulence strategies from bench to bedside presents substantial scientific and clinical challenges. These include identifying universally relevant virulence targets, achieving sufficient efficacy in immunocompromised hosts, developing reliable biomarkers for therapeutic response, and integrating anti-virulence agents into existing treatment regimens. Additionally, regulatory pathways and clinical trial designs for non-bactericidal therapies remain underdeveloped.

This review provides a comprehensive overview of the field of microbial pathogenicity targeting, tracing its progression from fundamental molecular insights to emerging clinical applications. We examine the key virulence mechanisms employed by major bacterial and fungal pathogens, discuss current and emerging anti-virulence therapeutic strategies, and explore how these approaches can be integrated into modern infectious disease management. Finally, we address the limitations, unanswered questions, and future directions that will shape the role of anti-virulence therapies in combating the global AMR crisis.

2. Molecular mechanisms of microbial pathogenicity

The ability of a microorganism to cause disease is not an inherent property but rather the consequence of a complex, multi-step interaction with a susceptible host, orchestrated by an arsenal of specialized molecules collectively termed virulence factors. A deep molecular and structural understanding of these mechanisms is the absolute prerequisite for the rational design of novel anti-virulence therapeutics (Figure 1). This section dissects the key stages of the infection cycle, from initial contact to persistent colonization, highlighting the diverse molecular strategies employed by bacterial and fungal pathogens [5-12].

Figure 1. Targeting microbial pathogenicity: From molecular understanding to clinical application.

2.1 Adhesion and colonization: The foundation of infection

The first and critical hurdle for most pathogens is to overcome mechanical clearance mechanisms and establish a foothold on host tissues. This is achieved through highly specific molecular interactions between microbial surface adhesins and complementary receptors on host cells or the extracellular matrix (ECM). In Gram-negative bacteria like uropathogenic Escherichia coli (UPEC), adhesion is primarily mediated by chaperone-usher pathway pili (fimbriae), such as type 1 and P pili. These hair-like appendages are tipped with adhesin proteins (FimH for type 1, PapG for P pili) that bind with remarkable specificity to mannosylated uroplakins on bladder urothelial cells and Gal(α1-4)Gal residues on kidney epithelia, respectively [5]. This binding triggers host signaling events and facilitates invasion or stable colonization.

In contrast, Gram-positive bacteria like Staphylococcus aureus lack pili but deploy a family of surface-anchored proteins known as Microbial Surface Components Recognizing Adhesive Matrix Molecules (MSCRAMMs). Key examples include fibronectin-binding proteins A and B (FnBPA/B), clumping factors A and B (ClfA/B), and the iron-regulated surface determinant (Isd) system. These proteins bind directly to host ECM components such as fibronectin, fibrinogen, and collagen, effectively camouflaging the bacterial cell as a host structure and facilitating attachment to damaged tissues or implanted medical devices [6]. Fungal pathogens like Candida albicans utilize a different class of adhesins, primarily from the Agglutinin-Like Sequence (ALS) family and the hyphal wall protein (Hwp1), to adhere to epithelial and endothelial cells. Blocking these initial, highly specific interactions represents a powerful therapeutic strategy, as it prevents the entire cascade of downstream pathogenic events without harming the host microbiota or exerting lethal pressure on the microbe.

2.2 Invasion, toxins, and nutrient acquisition: breaching host defenses

Following adherence, pathogens employ distinct strategies to damage host tissues, gain entry into protected niches, and scavenge essential nutrients. Many invasive bacteria utilize sophisticated secretion systems. The Type III Secretion System (T3SS), or “injectisome,” is a needle-like macromolecular complex used by pathogens like Salmonella enterica, Shigella flexneri, and Pseudomonas aeruginosa [7]. Upon host cell contact, the T3SS translocates a cocktail of effector proteins directly into the host cytosol. These effectors subvert host cell physiology by manipulating actin cytoskeleton dynamics (e.g., Salmonella SopE, SopE2), inhibiting phagocytosis, modulating inflammatory signaling pathways (e.g., NF-κB, MAPK), and even inducing programmed cell death. This coordinated sabotage facilitates bacterial uptake, creates a protected intracellular niche, and suppresses immune detection. 

In parallel, many pathogens secrete exotoxins that cause direct damage. S. aureus alpha-toxin (Hla) is a prime example: it is a β-barrel pore-forming toxin that oligomerizes on the membranes of a wide range of host cells, including erythrocytes, platelets, monocytes, and epithelial cells, leading to cytolysis, disruption of tissue barriers, and dysregulation of the immune response [8]. Similarly, the Panton-Valentine leukocidin (PVL) targets and lyses neutrophils, crippling a primary host defense. To proliferate within the host, pathogens must also compete for scarce nutrients, particularly iron, which is tightly bound to host proteins like transferrin and lactoferrin. To pirate this essential metal, bacteria produce low-molecular-weight, high-affinity iron chelators called siderophores, such as enterobactin (in E. coli), staphyloferrin (in S. aureus), and pyoverdine (in P. aeruginosa) [9]. These siderophores are secreted, strip iron from host proteins, and are subsequently re-imported via specific cognate receptors. Targeting toxin function, secretion system assembly, or siderophore biosynthesis/uptake are therefore attractive avenues to blunt invasive disease and starve the pathogen.

2.3 Biofilm formation and persistence: The citadel of chronic infection

A pivotal transition from acute to chronic infection is the formation of a biofilm. Biofilms are structured, multicellular communities embedded within a self-produced, hydrated matrix of extracellular polymeric substances (EPS) that adhere to living or inert surfaces [10]. The EPS matrix, composed of polysaccharides (e.g., PIA/PNAG in staphylococci, alginate in P. aeruginosa), extracellular DNA (eDNA), proteins, and lipids, provides formidable protection. It acts as a diffusion barrier, limiting the penetration of antimicrobials and host immune effectors like complement and antimicrobial peptides. Within the biofilm, bacteria exhibit  metabolic heterogeneity; cells in the nutrient- and oxygen-depleted inner layers enter a slow-growing or dormant state, rendering them highly tolerant to conventional antibiotics that target active cellular processes.

Biofilm development is a tightly regulated, multi-stage process: initial reversible attachment, irreversible attachment and microcolony formation, maturation with EPS production, and eventual dispersal of cells to seed new sites of infection. Key pathogens notorious for biofilm-mediated diseases include P. aeruginosa in the cystic fibrosis lung, Staphylococcus epidermidis on intravascular catheters and prosthetic joints, and Candida spp. on mucosal surfaces and medical devices. The recalcitrance of biofilm-associated infections to treatment makes the development of anti-biofilm strategies that inhibit formation, degrade the matrix, or induce dispersal a major therapeutic imperative.

2.4 Immune evasion mechanisms: The art of invisibility and sabotage

To successfully establish an infection, pathogens must actively evade, resist, or subvert the host’s innate and adaptive immune responses. They have evolved a diverse arsenal of immune evasion tactics. A primary passive defense is the production of a capsular polysaccharide, as seen in Streptococcus pneumoniae and Klebsiella pneumoniae. This thick, slimy layer physically impedes opsonization by complement and antibodies and shields the bacterial surface from recognition by phagocytic cells [11].

Beyond physical barriers, pathogens deploy active countermeasures. S. aureus is a master of immune sabotage, producing proteins like Chemotaxis Inhibitory Protein of Staphylococci (CHIPS), which blocks the formyl peptide receptor and C5a receptor on neutrophils, inhibiting chemotaxis. Its Staphylococcal Complement Inhibitor (SCIN) directly binds to and stabilizes the C3 convertase, preventing both opsonization and the generation of chemoattractants, while Staphylokinase activates plasminogen to degrade antibody opsonins [12]. Other pathogens secrete proteases (e.g., P. aeruginosa elastase, Haemophilus influenzae IgA protease) that degrade immunoglobulins and antimicrobial peptides. Intracellular pathogens like Mycobacterium tuberculosis have evolved to survive within the hostile environment of the macrophage by arresting phagosome maturation, preventing fusion with the lysosome, and resisting reactive oxygen and nitrogen species. Neutralizing these evasion strategies can effectively “re-sensitize” the pathogen to the host’s immune clearance mechanisms, offering a powerful host-centric therapeutic approach.

3. Novel therapeutic strategies targeting pathogenicity

Leveraging the detailed molecular knowledge of virulence mechanisms, several innovative therapeutic strategies have been developed that aim to disarm pathogens rather than kill them, thereby reducing selective pressure for resistance [13-22].

3.1 Anti-virulence agents: Precision-guided molecular interference

These are compounds designed to directly inhibit the function, production, or assembly of specific virulence factors.

  • Toxin neutralization: This approach uses biologic or small molecule agents to prevent toxin-mediated damage. The most advanced example is bezlotoxumab, a fully human monoclonal antibody (mAb) that binds and neutralizes Clostridioides difficile toxin B (TcdB), preventing its binding to host colonic epithelial cells and subsequent cytopathic effects. It is FDA-approved as an adjunct to antibiotic therapy for preventing recurrent CDI [13]. For S. aureus, human mAbs targeting alpha-toxin (e.g., MEDI4893) and PVL have shown efficacy in preclinical models, and small-molecule pore inhibitors are in active development [14].
  • Anti-adhesion therapy: This strategy aims to prevent the initial host-pathogen interaction. Pilicides are small molecules that inhibit the chaperone-usher pathway, preventing the proper assembly and surface expression of pili in UPEC. Mannosides, such as the orally bioavailable compound M4282, are high-affinity antagonists of the FimH adhesin; they competitively inhibit bacterial binding to the bladder wall and have been shown to treat and prevent UTIs in animal models without perturbing the gut microbiota [15].
  • Secretion system inhibitors: Targeting the structural components or energy-generating ATPases of virulence-associated secretion systems (e.g., T3SS, T4SS) can disarm a broad suite of pathogen effectors. Several synthetic compounds, such as MBX-1641, have been identified that inhibit the T3SS ATPase in Yersinia and Pseudomonas, reducing bacterial virulence and burden in infection models [16].

3.2 Quorum-sensing interference: Jamming the communication lines

Quorum sensing (QS) is a cell-density-dependent chemical communication system used by many bacteria to coordinate population-wide behaviors, including the production of virulence factors, biofilm formation, and swarming motility. Quorum-Sensing Inhibitors (QSIs) interfere with this process by either antagonizing the receptor (LuxR-type proteins) or inhibiting the synthesis of the signaling molecules (acyl-homoserine lactones, AHLs, in Gram-negatives; autoinducing peptides, AIPs, in Gram-positives). For P. aeruginosa, natural compounds like furanones (from the red alga Delisea pulchra) and synthetic molecules like meta-bromo-thiolactone can inhibit LasR and RhlR receptors, attenuating production of elastase, pyocyanin, and biofilm formation [17]. An alternative approach employs quorum-quenching enzymes, such as lactonases (which hydrolyze the lactone ring of AHLs) and acylases, which can be administered therapeutically or used to coat medical devices to prevent biofilm formation.

3.3 Anti-biofilm strategies: Dismantling the fortress

Given the extreme tolerance of biofilms, specific strategies are needed to either prevent their formation or disrupt established communities.

  • Matrix-degrading enzymes: Enzymes that hydrolyze key components of the EPS matrix can collapse biofilm structure and expose embedded cells. Dispersin B is a glycoside hydrolase that cleaves poly-N-acetylglucosamine (PNAG), a major matrix polysaccharide in staphylococcal and some E. coli biofilms. DNase I degrades extracellular DNA (eDNA), a crucial structural component in many biofilms, including those of Pseudomonas and Streptococcus [18].
  • Small molecule inhibitors and dispersal agents: Libraries of compounds are screened for their ability to inhibit biofilm formation without affecting planktonic growth. 2-Aminoimidazole (2-AI) derivatives have been shown to inhibit and disperse biofilms of diverse species, including MRSA and Acinetobacter baumannii, by interfering with cyclic-di-GMP signaling, a key secondary messenger in biofilm regulation [19].
  • Nanoparticle (NP)-based delivery: NPs can be engineered to overcome biofilm-specific challenges. Antibiotic-loaded NPs with positive surface charges can better penetrate the negatively charged EPS matrix. “Smart” NPs that release their payload in response to biofilm microenvironment cues (e.g., low pH, specific enzymes) or that target persistent cells are under active investigation [20].

3.4 Host-Directed Therapies (HDTs): Empowering the host

HDTs shift the therapeutic target from the pathogen to the host, aiming to modulate immune responses to enhance protective immunity, limit detrimental inflammation, or alter host physiology to disadvantage the pathogen.

  • Immunomodulators: These agents fine-tune the immune response. While ivermectin has known anthelmintic activity, in vitro studies suggest immunomodulatory effects that may enhance bacterial clearance in certain contexts. More classical agents like corticosteroids or non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are used to manage the hyperinflammatory state of sepsis to prevent tissue damage, though timing and patient selection are critical.
  • Autophagy inducers: Autophagy is a conserved cellular recycling process that can also target intracellular pathogens for degradation in autophagolysosomes. Drugs like rapamycin (sirolimus) and its analogs induce autophagy and have shown promise in preclinical models of tuberculosis, promoting the clearance of M. tuberculosis from infected macrophages [21].
  • Iron metabolism modulators: As pathogens are dependent on host iron, modulating its availability is a viable strategy. Hepcidin agonists could lower systemic iron by promoting its sequestration in macrophages, while iron chelators like deferasirox could restrict accessible iron pools. This approach must be carefully balanced to avoid host anemia [22].

4. Clinical translation and combinatorial approaches

The successful integration of anti-virulence strategies into clinical practice hinges on synergistic approaches with diagnostics and other therapeutics [23-25].

4.1 Diagnostic synergy: The need for precision microbiology

The rational use of targeted anti-virulence agents necessitates companion diagnostics that go beyond species identification. Rapid molecular diagnostics (e.g., PCR, multiplex panels, whole-genome sequencing) capable of detecting specific virulence genes (e.g., lukF-PV/lukS-PV for PVL, tcdB for C. difficile) or resistance markers (mecA) are essential. This enables a precision medicine approach: a clinician could prescribe bezlotoxumab only for a C. difficile infection confirmed to be toxin B-positive, or an anti-alpha-toxin mAb only for a PVL-negative, Hla-positive S. aureus strain, ensuring therapy is directed against the relevant pathogenic mechanism [23].

4.2 Combination therapies: Building synergistic regimens

Anti-virulence agents are unlikely to be used as monotherapeutics but rather as powerful adjuncts.

  • With conventional antibiotics: A cornerstone strategy is to combine an anti-virulence agent with a reduced dose of a traditional antibiotic. The anti-virulence component (e.g., a QSI, toxin inhibitor) weakens the pathogen’s defenses and may render it more susceptible, allowing the antibiotic to work more effectively at a lower concentration. This “disarm and kill” approach can improve efficacy while potentially reducing the selective pressure that drives antibiotic resistance [24].
  • Multi-target anti-virulence cocktails: Given the redundancy of virulence pathways, targeting multiple mechanisms simultaneously may prevent resistance and improve outcomes. A cocktail might include an anti-adhesion molecule, a toxin-neutralizing antibody, and a QSI to comprehensively disarm the pathogen.

4.3 Vaccine development: Prophylactic disarmament

Vaccines are the ultimate pre-emptive anti-virulence strategy, training the immune system to recognize and neutralize key virulence factors before infection is established. Modern vaccinology heavily relies on virulence components as immunogens. Toxoid vaccines (diphtheria, tetanus) use inactivated toxins. Capsular polysaccharide conjugate vaccines (e.g., Prevnar 13 against S. pneumoniae) induce antibodies that promote opsonophagocytosis. Current research focuses on multi-component, protein-based vaccines targeting conserved virulence factors. For S. aureus, candidates like SA4Ag combine capsular polysaccharides with surface protein antigens (e.g., ClfA, MntC) to elicit a broad protective response [25].

5. Challenges and future perspectives

Despite immense promise, the path to clinical deployment of anti-virulence therapies is fraught with challenges [26-28]. Pharmacokinetic/Pharmacodynamic (PK/PD) optimization is complex for non-bactericidal agents; traditional metrics like Minimum Inhibitory Concentration (MIC) are irrelevant, and new biomarkers of efficacy (e.g., reduced toxin activity in vivo) must be established. Regulatory pathways need to adapt to define appropriate clinical endpoints, which may be disease modification (reduced severity, shorter hospitalization) rather than microbiological eradication. Furthermore, while the evolutionary pressure is reduced, resistance to anti-virulence strategies is possible via mutations in the targeted virulence factor, its regulator, or through compensatory mechanisms [27].

The future lies in integrated, systems-based approaches. Advances in systems biology and machine learning will enable the modeling of complex host-pathogen networks to predict optimal therapeutic combinations and identify novel, conserved targets [28]. A key goal is the development of broad-spectrum anti-virulence agents (e.g., a T3SS inhibitor effective across multiple Gram-negative families). Ultimately, these strategies must be embedded within a holistic global AMR stewardship framework that emphasizes infection prevention, rapid diagnostics, vaccine uptake, and responsible antibiotic use in human and animal health.

6. Conclusion

The paradigm of targeting microbial pathogenicity offers a revolutionary and urgently needed path forward in the escalating war against antimicrobial resistance. By shifting the therapeutic focus from lethality to disarmament, this approach seeks to harness the host’s immune system as the final effector while applying minimal selective pressure on microbial populations. From the atomic-level dissection of adhesin-receptor interactions and toxin pore structures to the clinical application of monoclonal antibodies and the exploration of quorum-sensing interference, the field has progressed from concept to tangible candidate therapies. The paramount challenge now is to accelerate this translational pipeline. This endeavor demands sustained, interdisciplinary collaboration across microbiology, structural biology, immunology, pharmacology, clinical medicine, and regulatory science. By strategically integrating anti-virulence agents with advanced diagnostics, prophylactic vaccines, and host-directed therapies into a cohesive precision anti-infective arsenal, we can forge a more sustainable, effective, and evolution-aware defense against the relentless threat of infectious diseases.

Author Contributions: Conceptualisation, M.N.V.; software, M.N.V.; investigation, M.N.V.; writing—original draft preparation, M.N.V.; writing—review and editing, M.N.V.; visualisation, M.N.V.; supervision, M.N.V.; project administration, M.N.V. The author has read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding: Not applicable.

Acknowledgments: We are grateful to the School of Biosciences and Technology, Vellore Institute of Technology, X595+H4M, VIT University, Vellore, Tamil Nadu 632014 India for providing us all the facilities to carry out the entire work.

Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript, or in the decision to publish the results.

Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement: All the related data are supplied in this work or have been referenced properly.

References

  1. O’Neill J. Tackling drug-resistant infections globally: final report and recommendations. The Review on Antimicrobial Resistance. 2016.
  2. Antimicrobial Resistance Collaborators. Global burden of bacterial antimicrobial resistance in 2019: a systematic analysis. Lancet. 2022;399(10325):629-655.
  3. Dickey SW, Cheung GYC, Otto M. Different drugs for bad bugs: antivirulence strategies in the age of antibiotic resistance. Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2017;16(7):457-471.
  4. Rasko DA, Sperandio V. Anti-virulence strategies to combat bacteria-mediated disease. Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2010;9(2):117-128.
  5. Flores-Mireles AL, Walker JN, Caparon M, Hultgren SJ. Urinary tract infections: epidemiology, mechanisms of infection and treatment options. Nat Rev Microbiol. 2015;13(5):269-284.
  6. Foster TJ, Geoghegan JA, Ganesh VK, Höök M. Adhesion, invasion and evasion: the many functions of the surface proteins of Staphylococcus aureus. Nat Rev Microbiol. 2014;12(1):49-62.
  7. Galán JE, Waksman G. Protein-Injection Machines in Bacteria. Cell. 2018;172(6):1306-1318.
  8. Berube BJ, Bubeck Wardenburg J. Staphylococcus aureus α-toxin: nearly a century of intrigue. Toxins (Basel). 2013;5(6):1140-1166.
  9. Miethke M, Marahiel MA. Siderophore-based iron acquisition and pathogen control. Microbiol Mol Biol Rev. 2007;71(3):413-451.
  10. Flemming HC, Wingender J, Szewzyk U, et al. Biofilms: an emergent form of bacterial life. Nat Rev Microbiol. 2016;14(9):563-575.
  11. Geno KA, Gilbert GL, Song JY, et al. Pneumococcal Capsules and Their Types: Past, Present, and Future. Clin Microbiol Rev. 2015;28(3):871-899.
  12. Rooijakkers SH, van Kessel KP, van Strijp JA. Staphylococcal innate immune evasion. Trends Microbiol. 2005;13(12):596-601.
  13. Wilcox MH, Gerding DN, Poxton IR, et al. Bezlotoxumab for Prevention of Recurrent Clostridium difficile Infection. N Engl J Med. 2017;376(4):305-317.
  14. Tabor DE, Yu L, Mok H, et al. Staphylococcus aureus Alpha-Toxin Is Conserved among Diverse Hospital Respiratory Isolates Collected from a Global Surveillance Study and Is Neutralized by Monoclonal Antibody MEDI4893. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2016;60(9):5310-5317.
  15. Mydock-McGrane LK, Cusumano ZT, Han Z, et al. Antivirulence C-Mannosides as Antibiotic-Sparing, Oral Therapeutics for Urinary Tract Infections. J Med Chem. 2016;59(20):9390-9408.
  16. Zhu Y, Mohapatra S, Weisshaar JC. Rigidification of the Escherichia coli cytoplasm by the human antimicrobial peptide LL-37 revealed by superresolution fluorescence microscopy. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2019;116(3):1017-1026.
  17. O’Loughlin CT, Miller LC, Siryaporn A, et al. A quorum-sensing inhibitor blocks Pseudomonas aeruginosa virulence and biofilm formation. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2013;110(44):17981-17986.
  18. Kaplan JB. Biofilm dispersal: mechanisms, clinical implications, and potential therapeutic uses. J Dent Res. 2010;89(3):205-218.
  19. Brackman G, Coenye T. Quorum Sensing Inhibitors as Anti-Biofilm Agents. Curr Pharm Des. 2015;21(1):5-11.
  20. Pelgrift RY, Friedman AJ. Nanotechnology as a therapeutic tool to combat microbial resistance. Adv Drug Deliv Rev. 2013;65(13-14):1803-1815.
  21. Gutierrez MG, Master SS, Singh SB, et al. Autophagy is a defense mechanism inhibiting BCG and Mycobacterium tuberculosis survival in infected macrophages. Cell. 2004;119(6):753-766.
  22. Ganz T, Nemeth E. Iron homeostasis in host defence and inflammation. Nat Rev Immunol. 2015;15(8):500-510.
  23. Burnham CD, Leeds J, Nordmann P, et al. Diagnosing antimicrobial resistance. Nat Rev Microbiol. 2017;15(11):697-703.
  24. Allen RC, Popat R, Diggle SP, Brown SP. Targeting virulence: can we make evolution-proof drugs? Nat Rev Microbiol. 2014;12(4):300-308.
  25. Bagnoli F, Bertholet S, Grandi G. Inferring reasons for the failure of Staphylococcus aureus vaccines in clinical trials. Front Cell Infect Microbiol. 2012;2:16.
  26. Theuretzbacher U, Outterson K, Engel A, Karlén A. The global preclinical antibacterial pipeline. Nat Rev Microbiol. 2020;18(5):275-285.
  27. Vale PF, McNally L, Doeschl-Wilson A, et al. Beyond killing: Can we find new ways to manage infection? Evol Med Public Health. 2016;2016(1):148-157.
  28. van Vliet S, Dunkel A, Westerhausen S. Systems-Level Approaches for Targeting Antimicrobial Resistance. OMICS. 2017;21(7):391-402.

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 Global Journal of Basic Science and/or the editor(s). Global Journal of Basic Science 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. 

Copyright: © 2025 by the authors. Submitted for possible open access publication under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

Loading

Bibliography