• Open Access
    Mini Review

    Advantages of using biofilms to obtain high-value molecules by microbial biotransformations

    Nicoly Subtil de Oliveira 1,2
    Romeu Cassiano Pucci da Silva Ramos 1,3
    Rafaela Caldas de Paula 1,3
    Matheus Gonçalves da Costa Pereira 1
    Rosimeire Takaki Rosa 1
    Luiz Fernando Bianchini 1
    Edvaldo Antonio Ribeiro Rosa 1,2,3*

    Explor Drug Sci. 2025;3:100884 DOI: https://doi.org/10.37349/eds.2025.100884

    Received: July 30, 2024 Accepted: September 26, 2024 Published: January 14, 2025

    Academic Editor: Alessandra Tolomelli, University of Bologna, Italy

    This article belongs to the special issue Greening Drug Manufacturing for a Sustainable Healthcare

    Abstract

    Microbial biotransformations are valuable tools from “green chemistry” and involve converting parental molecules into new daughter ones with unique physical, chemical, or pharmacological properties. These reactions are often carried out by cells grown under a planktonic phenotype. However, microbial cells grown under a phenotype of biofilm can improve biotransformation bioprocesses once they form more biomass per volume, are more resistant to extreme conditions (pH, temperature, and toxic substances), remain active for extended periods, are less prone to cell washouts, and reduce re-inoculation demands, leading to increased production rates due to their unique physiological features. In addition, experience has shown that biofilms may furnish a broader array of new daughter molecules. This review highlighted the benefits of using biofilms in microbial biotransformations to obtain a variety of bioactives.

    Comparison between planktonic and biofilm biotransformation rates of a hypothetical parental molecule

    Keywords

    Microbial biotransformation, biofilms, pharmaceuticals, fine chemicals

    Introduction

    High-value molecules such as pharmaceuticals, cosmeceuticals, and other fine chemicals had their needs increased in recent decades. To attend to such an increasing demand, academia and industry enrolled in a rat race toward discovering new molecules. Although large molecules such as recombinant proteins, monoclonal antibodies, antibody-drug conjugates, fusion proteins, and vaccines received significant attention, small molar mass molecules were in the sight of many companies [1].

    The industrial production of small molecules that respond to more than 90% of therapeutic drugs involves their discovery, design, and development [2]. Biotransformations are energy-efficient, environmentally friendly processes that yield high-value molecules [3], attending to most of the Green Chemistry principles for sustainable pharmaceutical production [4].

    When microbes carry out biotransformations in two-stage fermentations, significant amounts of final products can be achieved [5], even overcoming restrictions associated with microbial strains [6].

    Microbial biotransformations

    In microbial bioprocesses, cells can be presented in various phenotypes, free or immobilised, growing or resting [7]. As living organisms, they must transform the surrounding matter to produce biomass [8] and energy [9, 10] or to detoxify growth-limiting molecules [11]. All these targets are achieved by simple or intricate chemical reactions arranged in pathways. Such microbial cellular reactions involve metabolic reactions or biotransformations.

    Metabolic reactions are multi-step coupled reactions that convert a particular molecule into some others to produce energy and biomass (primary metabolism) or additional advantageous molecules (secondary metabolites) [12]. The production of acetone using Clostridium acetobutylicum or C. beijerinkii [13], the growth of the edible mycelium of Rhizopus microsporus var. oligosporus [14], and bacterial enzymes used for therapeutical (e.g., L-asparaginase and nattokinase) [1517] or nutraceutical (e.g., phytases) [18] purposes are examples of metabolic end-points of sequential reactions from primary and secondary metabolisms.

    In turn, biotransformations are one-step reactions (eventually, few-step reactions) that modify a specific molecule that is not a growth substrate, neither involved in energy or biomass production nor secondary metabolites by a biological agent [19]. Indeed, the reactions involved in biotransformation phenomena attempt to detoxify xenobiotics so those already grown living cells are exposed [20, 21]. Figure 1 shows the dynamics of metabolic and biotransformation reactions considering the growth curve of a microorganism. Notice that cells produce energy and biomass immediately required for cell divisions during previous phases. Secondary metabolites (e.g., pigments, antibiotics, etc.) are molecules produced early in the log phase and prolonged throughout the following phases, conferring some advantages to environmental challenges. Biotransformations are carried out only after reaching or quasi-reaching stationary growth phase when the central metabolism is reduced, and the production of biotransformed molecules (daughter molecules) may demand several days to get a beneficial amount. Metabolically engineered strains have changed such a scenario with considerably reduced overall production time [22].

    Microbial growth curve presenting when primary, secondary, and biotransformed xenobiotics are produced

    Note. Adapted with permission from [23], © 2021 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

    Biotransformation reactions are an interesting way to obtain high-value molecules, such as pharmaceuticals and fine chemicals, under mild operational and environment-friendly conditions [24]. Redox reactions such as hydroxylations, dihydroxylations, and epoxidations with significant demand for oxygen in the late logarithmic-to-stationary transient phase are the most commonly occurring during xenobiotic biotransformations [25, 26].

    In some circumstances, using whole microbial cells to carry out biotransformations seems more efficient and cost-effective than using isolated enzymes. This is because the latter requires expensive cofactors to be recycled and renewed biocatalysts necessary for extended periods. Additionally, changes in environmental conditions, such as pH, can have a negative impact on enzymatic activity [27].

    Using living microbial cells for biotransformations has many benefits, such as a high surface-volume ratio, fast processing times, fast rate of metabolic transformation, and easy control over the process [28]. Not only does it eliminate the need for multiple enzyme extraction and purification steps, but it also has positive effects on activity and stability [29].

    Numerous articles have explored the potential of microorganisms to convert parental molecules (xenobiotics) into therapeutically or fine chemical high-valued daughter molecules, proving that this is a reliable manner to obtain such molecules in easy-to-control conditions [3036].

    Nevertheless, bioprocesses using whole cells may involve free-living planktonic cells, cells immobilised in a matrix by passive entrapment, and cells self-entrapped in biofilms. Cell morphology, adherence mechanisms, surface properties, and bioreactor flow patterns drive microbial growth to planktonic or sessile lifestyles [37].

    The most common bioprocesses for obtaining fine chemicals and pharmaceuticals are submerged fermentations (SmF) with planktonic bacterial, fungal, actinomycetal, or algal cells [38, 39]. Bioprocesses to get metabolites from primary and secondary metabolism tend to use planktonic cells due to the immediate consumption of nutrients. On the other hand, when cells are in an immobilised matrix, such nutrient consumption occurs slower [30], demanding more time to accomplish.

    The advantages of using immobilised over planktonic cells include easy removal and reuse of the biocatalyst, decreased operational costs, the ability to use continuous flow reactors, increased biocatalyst concentration, and higher reagent flow compared to batch reactors. Additionally, whole cells avoid producing secondary reactions that could diminish the reaction yield in a non-growing state. Regarding production, a yield comparison between immobilised vs. planktonic cells showed higher production rates of the first for some compounds [40]. All these benefits become more attractive for biotransformation ends.

    Cell immobilisation refers to confining cells within a designated space while maintaining their catalytic activity and viability. Mass transfer of substrates or reaction products is often the rate-controlling contributing factor, and immobilisation may also cause reaction inhibition by initial or end products [41].

    Various methods for immobilising whole cells include passive adsorption onto solid surfaces, covalent binding to solid surfaces, crosslinking between the cell and polymers, and whole-cell trapping by membranes [42], as presented in Figure 2. A common characteristic of all those methods is that the cells are “put” in contact with the immobilising surface and become attached by simple surface interactions. In none of them, microbial cells act to favour such binding by producing a colonisation factor that enables the active establishment of an adherent microbial community.

    Different manners to immobilise microbial cells. EPS: extracellular polymeric substance

    Note. Adapted with permission from [42], © 2001 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

    When whole cells adhere and grow entrapped within an extracellular polymeric substance (EPS), the resulting community is known as a biofilm [43]. Figure 3 presents some features of bacterial and fungal biofilms. In both cases, microbial cells are surrounded by a variable mixture of substances (the EPS), such as insoluble polysaccharides, proteins, nucleic acids, and a significant amount of solvating water.

    Steps of microbial biotransformation of xenobiotics in microbial (fungal and bacterial) biofilms. EPS: extracellular polymeric substance; CYPs: cytochrome P450; CPR: cytochrome P450 reductases

    Productive biofilms

    Unlike planktonic and passively immobilised cells, EPS protects biofilm-grown cells against extreme pH, temperature, and toxic substances [44, 45]. Also, these protected cells remain active for extended periods [46]. These characteristics make biofilms more effective in overcoming common challenges in biotrans-formations, including the toxicity of substrates and products and shorter biocatalytic stability when under planktonic phenotype [47]. Other positive points in favour of biofilms are the ability to allow the obtaining five to ten-fold more biomass per unit volume of the bioreactor, reduced risks of cell washout at high dilution rates in continuous processes, and the elimination of the need for re-inoculation during repeated batches were presented as determinants for the best results obtained with this growth phenotype [48, 49].

    Regarding the last supposed advantage, although some studies indicated that the production of bio-products and bioremediation could be carried out using pre-formed biofilms by renewing nutrients [5052], even with fluctuation of yields amongst batches [53], to our knowledge, such revitalisations for new biotransformations were not addressed yet. It is likely that during the late stationary phase in which biotransformation reactions generally occur, the culture would experience inhibition, thus reducing productivity.

    Downstream processes involve capturing and purifying a target molecule, accounting for anywhere from 50% to over 90% of the overall production cost [54]. As biofilm cells are entrapped within the matrix, cell separations are unnecessary, reducing expenses in continuous and even batch biotransformation processes.

    Figure 3 shows the path of xenobiotics from the bulk fluid to the bacterial cytosol or the fungal smooth endoplasmic reticulum and the inverse return to liquid bulk and to EPS, where a significant amount of biotransformed molecules become entrapped. At first sight, this retention in EPS may appear to be a trouble once separations in liquid bulk are relatively easy to carry out [55]. However, as most EPS is formed by solvating water, it may act as a concentrator of biotransformed molecules, demanding no complex procedures of filtration or centrifugation to recover such molecules.

    Much experience has been acquired with planktonic-growing cells, but only a few studies have evaluated the bioconversion ability of biofilms, probably due to methodological constraints [56].

    Table 1 briefly compiles manuscripts published in the last ten years (2013–2023) involving biotransformations conducted using fungal and bacterial biofilms. Others have already compiled older published papers of the same nature [5759]. The present compilation solely focused on immobilised microbial communities for high-value production. It did not cover topics such as biodegradation, bioremediation, effluent treatment, biofuel production, and host/microbiota-related issues concerning microbial biotransformation and biofilms.

    Compilation of ten years (2013–2023) of published studies concerning microbial biotransformations conducted by biofilms to produce high-value molecules

    GroupStrainParental molecule(s)Daughter molecule(s)UseScaffoldReference
    FungiCandida viswanathii NBRC10321CitronellalCitronellic acidIngredient used in perfumesMicrospheres of PMMA[60]
    Cunninghamella echinulata ATCC9244HesperetinHesperetin 7-O-glycosideArome of sweet orangeStainless steel wool[61]
    Cunninghamella echinulata ATCC9244LQFM-021N-glycosylated LQFM-021Phosphodiesterase-3 inhibitorStainless steel mesh[62]
    Cunninghamella elegans DSM1908Diclofenac4’-HydroxydiclofenacCox-2 inhibitorStainless steel springs[63]
    Cunninghamella elegans DSM1908Diclofenac4’-HydroxydiclofenacCox-2 inhibitorStainless steel mesh[57]
    Cunninghamella elegans DSM1908Flurbiprofen4-HydroxyflurbiprofenStandart for purity assaysStainless steel springs[64]
    Lasiodiplodia (Botryodiplodia) theobromae 1368(+)-Valencene(+)-NootkatoneArome of grapefruitPermeable silicon rubber[65]
    Mucor circinelloides URM4182Babassu oil lipidesEthyl esters (various)Diverse applicationsPolyurethane foams[66]
    Pichia kluyveri NBRC1165CitronellolCitronellyl acetateMosquito repellentMicrospheres of PMMA[60]
    Yarrowia lipolytica W29 (ATCC 20460)Methylricinoleate3-Hydroxy-γ-decalactoneAromatic compoundGroupons of PMMA[67]
    BacteriaLactobacillus brevis RK03Monosodium glutamateγ-Aminobutyric acid (GABA)Anti-seizure and anti-anxiety drugGroupons of HEMA/PEGDA[68]
    Bacillus subtilis BS-7Ferulic acidVanilinAromatic compoundCarbon fiber textiles[69]
    Bacillus subtilis BS-7 SFerulic acidVanilinAromatic compoundActive carbon fiber[70]
    Escherichia coli BL215-Nitrononane-2,8-dione(R)-syn/anti-hydroketoneDiverse applicationsPDMS[71]
    Escherichia coli BL21(DE3)IndoleTryptophanAmino acidCellulose sponge [72]
    Escherichia coli MG16555-Haloindole5-HalotryptophanPharmaceutical intermediaryGlass slides with poly-L-lysine[73]
    Pseudomonas diminuta ATCC19146Ethylene glycolGlycolic acidAnti-aging agentStainless steel structured packing[74]
    Pseudomonas putida GS1(R)-(+)-Limonene(R)-(+)-Perillic acidAntineoplastic agentSilicon membrane[75]
    Pseudomonas taiwanensis VLB120 B83 T7Glucose(S)-3-Hydroxyisobutyric acidIntermediate in the metabolism of valineSilicon tubing[75]
    Rhodococcus hoagii NBRC37302-Octanol2-OctanoneIngredient used in perfumesMicrospheres of PMMA[76]
    AssociationsSynechocystis sp. PCC 6803 plusCyclohexaneCyclohexanolPlasticizer agentBorosilicate glass[77]
    Pseudomonas sp. VLB120[78]
    Display full size

    LQFM-021: 5-(1-(3-Fluorophenyl)-1H-pyrazol-4-yl)-2H-tetrazole; PMMA: methyl-polymethacrylate; HEMA/PEGDA: hydroxyethyl methacrylate/polyethylene glycol diacrylate; PDMS: polydimethylsiloxane

    It is noticeable that the studies have been centred on a few microbial species. In the case of fungi, the genera employed belong to divisions Ascomycota (Candida, Lasiodiplodia, Pichia, and Yarrowia) or Zygomycota (Cunninghamella and Mucor). Biofilm-driven bacterial biotransformations were carried out by Bacillus subtilis, Escherichia coli, Lactobacillus brevis, Pseudomonas spp., and Rhodococcus hoagii.

    Biotransformations involved one [57, 6065, 6973, 77, 78], two [66, 68], three [74, 75], or multiple reactional steps [67, 76].

    Scaffolds used for biofilm formation varied from glass without any treatment [77, 78] to diverse presentations of stainless steel [57, 5963, 73] and intricated polymers such as methyl-polymethacrylate (PMMA) [60, 67, 69], silicon [65, 71, 75, 76], and polyurethane foams [66].

    Although relatively little information is available regarding biofilms and biotransformations to obtain high-value goods, the combinations of microbial species/strains, xenobiotics, biofilm scaffolds, and types of bioreactors generate many possibilities to prospect.

    When selecting a candidate for biofilm-based industrial biotransformations, the microorganism must fill in specific criteria. The organism must be non-pathogenic, genetically stable, able to quickly form a well-attached biofilm in an inexpensive cultivation medium, and not have an excessive formation of the EPS, which can decrease the catalytic rate [24].

    Once the biofilm is formed, it should be highly porous to allow for the diffusion of nutrients, dissolved oxygen, and biotransformation substrates and products [46, 57, 79]. Failure to do so can lead to considerable physiological heterogeneity, negatively impacting conversion rates [80].

    Various biofilm bioreactors have been designed for microbial biotransformations. Most biocatalytic biofilms demand immersion, quasi-immersion, or temporary immersion in liquid bulks where xenobiotics are dissolved; thus, bioreactors designed for solid-state fermentation (SSF) are not practical for obtaining ingredients for the biopharma industry. SSF is valuable for obtaining enzymes, antioxidants, biofuel, and secondary metabolites [81], but not for strictu senso biotransformations.

    High-quality reviews regarding biofilm bioreactors have been published [80, 8284]. Special attention must be paid to Rosche et al. [24] review covering biofilm reactors for biotransformations. Those authors depict the various features of many bioreactors, presenting their pros and cons and their applicability to produce high-value molecules.

    The surface characteristics of supports over which biofilms will be formed drive the success of the bioprocess. Fungal biofilms grown on certain surfaces, such as corrugated stainless-steel structures [8587] and stainless-steel pads [88], can enhance production. Similarly, bacteria form biofilms on surfaces like cellulose acetate, hydrophilic and hydrophobic polyvinylidene difluoride, and polycarbonate membranes [89]. These surfaces are often arranged in fixed-bed bioreactors or similar, which experience less shear stress than traditional stirred-tank reactors.

    Biofilms can improve the production of pharmaceuticals through biotransformation reactions. As presented in Table 1, some non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAID) are easily hydroxylated and dihydroxylated by Cunninghamella spp. biofilms formed onto stainless steel compression springs [57, 58], with bioconversion rates reaching up to 43%. Due to its extreme simplicity, such support does not allow the formation of large biofilms, limiting the biotransformation rates, but serves primary screening purposes. Scaffolds with an enlarged area improve the biofilm formation. However, surface dimensions and corrugation must be considered to obtain productive biofilms [90]. Corrugation increases the colonisable area and creates retentive niches in which biofilms become protected from shear forces [91].

    Our group recently proposed a low-cost and highly efficient bioprocess that involves a hybrid fixed bed-airlift. This process allows fungal biofilms to form onto a stainless-steel screen baffle [57]. Once the cells have attached and early biofilm formation occurs (usually within 24 h), the bioreactor mechanically functions as an airlift bioreactor. The resulting inner baffle now contains metabolically active cells that biotransform xenobiotics, so it can also be considered a fixed-bed bioreactor. Our yield showed that 29.6% of biotransformed molecules were free in liquid bulk, while 61.3% were trapped in the biofilm EPS. Combined, these parcels generated approximately 91% of 4’-hydroxilated daughter molecules. Combining a well-aerated system and appropriate support for biofilm growth improves the biotransformation rates and the scalability of the process.

    Perspectives in biofilm biotransformations

    A promising strategy for enhancing biofilm cells’ productivity through genetic manipulation has been proposed [92]. While there are established protocols for obtaining recombinant proteins and fine chemicals using planktonic bacteria, yeasts, and fungi, there is limited research on biofilms for this purpose [80]. However, it is already known that genetically engineered cells within biofilms can produce daughter molecules efficiently and cost-effectively [93]. For instance, Escherichia coli biofilms expressing the tryptophan synthase trpBA gene can biotransform 5-haloindoles into 5-halotryptophans, which are pharmaceutical intermediates, at a conversion rate three to four times higher than planktonic cells [73].

    Biofilm engineering is a comprehensive method that manipulates the growth and functions of biofilms to promote biocatalytic processes. This approach includes various aspects such as monitoring intercellular communications using quorum sensing (QS) and quorum quenching (QQ) signalling molecules, regulating second inter and intracellular messenger networks, and forming the biofilm matrix [58].

    Another feature that is poorly investigated is the possibility of using nanoparticles. Depending on their size and net charge, they can penetrate the biofilm matrix composed of highly hydrated exopolysaccharides [94, 95] and deliver parental molecules to deep biofilm-resident cells. This could increase the biotransformation rate of biofilms.

    Differences in bioreactor architectures, bioreactor feedings, biofilm scaffolds, the chemical nature of parental and daughter molecules, the type of microorganisms, oxygen demands, and others make comparisons among bioreactors challenging. The best combination of parameters must be stated for each particular necessity.

    The benefits of biotransformations in biofilm reactors are evident. However, more laboratories will still need to dedicate themselves to the search for new molecules through microbial biotransformation. Most studies are still in the screening phase using conical flasks, with limitations for transferring experiences to the industrial sector [96]. More profound obstacles that must be overcome when translating lab experiments into industrial reality include population heterogeneity caused by substrate and oxygen diffusion, ensuring strain stability and purity across multiple operations, scaling up the process, and improving downstream processes [80].

    Conclusions

    After considering the statements above, we are confident that advances in biotransforming biofilms will occur by creating specialised bioreactors, identifying new producing and biotransforming species/strains, and manipulating microbial genomes.

    Abbreviations

    EPS:

    extracellular polymeric substance

    SSF:

    solid-state fermentation

    Declarations

    Acknowledgments

    NSO, RCPSR, and RCP had scholarships from the Coordination for the Improvement of Higher Education Personnel (CAPES-Brazil financial code 001). MGCP had a scholarship from the National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq-Brazil).

    Author contributions

    NSdO: Data curation, Writing—original draft. RCPdSR, RCdP, MGdCP, and RTR: Data curation. LFB and EARR: Writing—review & editing.

    Conflicts of interest

    The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

    Ethical approval

    Not applicable.

    Consent to participate

    Not applicable.

    Consent to publication

    Not applicable.

    Availability of data and materials

    Not applicable.

    Funding

    Not applicable.

    Copyright

    © The Author(s) 2025.

    Publisher’s note

    Open Exploration maintains a neutral stance on jurisdictional claims in published institutional affiliations and maps. All opinions expressed in this article are the personal views of the author(s) and do not represent the stance of the editorial team or the publisher.

    References

    Why small-molecule drug discovery is having a moment [Internet]. Pittstown: www.aceglass.com; c2024 [cited 2024 May 21]. Available from: https://cen.acs.org/pharmaceuticals/drug-discovery/small-molecule-drug-discovery-having/101/i36
    Southey MW, Brunavs M. Introduction to small molecule drug discovery and preclinical development. Front Drug Discov. 2023;3:1314077. [DOI]
    Kharissova OV, Kharisov BI, González CMO, Méndez YP, López I. Greener synthesis of chemical compounds and materials. R Soc Open Sci. 2019;6:191378. [DOI] [PubMed] [PMC]
    Martinengo B, Diamanti E, Uliassi E, Bolognesi ML. Harnessing the 12 Green Chemistry Principles for Sustainable Antiparasitic Drugs: Toward the One Health Approach. ACS Infect Dis. 2024;10:185670. [DOI] [PubMed] [PMC]
    Woodley JM. Towards the sustainable production of bulk-chemicals using biotechnology. N Biotechnol. 2020;59:5964. [DOI] [PubMed]
    Winkler CK, Schrittwieser JH, Kroutil W. Power of Biocatalysis for Organic Synthesis. ACS Cent Sci. 2021;7:5571. [DOI] [PubMed] [PMC]
    Maksimova YG. Microbial biofilms in biotechnological processes. Appl Biochem Microbiol. 2014;50:75060. [DOI]
    Saadat NP, Nies T, Rousset Y, Ebenhöh O. Thermodynamic Limits and Optimality of Microbial Growth. Entropy (Basel). 2020;22:277. [DOI] [PubMed] [PMC]
    Srivastava RK, Shetti NP, Reddy KR, Aminabhavi TM. Sustainable energy from waste organic matters via efficient microbial processes. Sci Total Environ. 2020;722:137927. [DOI] [PubMed]
    Li G, Zhu Q, Niu Q, Meng Q, Yan H, Wang S, et al. The degradation of organic matter coupled with the functional characteristics of microbial community during composting with different surfactants. Bioresour Technol. 2021;321:124446. [DOI] [PubMed]
    Ujor VC, Okonkwo CC. Microbial detoxification of lignocellulosic biomass hydrolysates: Biochemical and molecular aspects, challenges, exploits and future perspectives. Front Bioeng Biotechnol. 2022;10:1061667. [DOI] [PubMed] [PMC]
    Carvalho FM, Azevedo A, Ferreira MM, Mergulhão FJM, Gomes LC. Advances on Bacterial and Fungal Biofilms for the Production of Added-Value Compounds. Biology (Basel). 2022;11:1126. [DOI] [PubMed] [PMC]
    Liberato V, Benevenuti C, Coelho F, Botelho A, Amaral P, Junior NP, et al. Clostridium sp. as bio-catalyst for fuels and chemicals production in a biorefinery context. Catalysts. 2019;9:962. [DOI]
    Wainaina S, Kisworini AD, Fanani M, Wikandari R, Millati R, Niklasson C, et al. Utilization of food waste-derived volatile fatty acids for production of edible Rhizopus oligosporus fungal biomass. Bioresour Technol. 2020;310:123444. [DOI] [PubMed]
    Castro D, Marques ASC, Almeida MR, Paiva GBd, Bento HBS, Pedrolli DB, et al. L-asparaginase production review: bioprocess design and biochemical characteristics. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol. 2021;105:451534. [DOI] [PubMed]
    Ju S, Cao Z, Wong C, Liu Y, Foda MF, Zhang Z, et al. Isolation and Optimal Fermentation Condition of the Bacillus subtilis Subsp. natto Strain WTC016 for Nattokinase Production. Fermentation. 2019;54:92. [DOI]
    Sheng Y, Yang J, Wang C, Sun X, Yan L. Microbial nattokinase: from synthesis to potential application. Food Funct. 2023;14:256885. [DOI] [PubMed]
    Kumari N, Bansal S. Statistical modeling and optimization of microbial phytase production towards utilization as a feed supplement. Biomass Convers Biorefin. 2023;139:833949. [DOI]
    Wohlgemuth R. Biocatalysis - Key enabling tools from biocatalytic one-step and multi-step reactions to biocatalytic total synthesis. N Biotechnol. 2021;60:11323. [DOI] [PubMed]
    Abraham N, Chan ETS, Zhou T, Seah SYK. Microbial detoxification of mycotoxins in food. Front Microbiol. 2022;13:957148. [DOI] [PubMed] [PMC]
    Vogel M, Fischer S, Maffert A, Hübner R, Scheinost AC, Franzen C, et al. Biotransformation and detoxification of selenite by microbial biogenesis of selenium-sulfur nanoparticles. J Hazard Mater. 2018;344:74957. [DOI] [PubMed]
    Qin D, Dong J. Multi-Level Optimization and Strategies in Microbial Biotransformation of Nature Products. Molecules. 2023;28:2619. [DOI] [PubMed] [PMC]
    Abo Elsoud MMA. Classification and Production of Microbial Surfactants. In: Inamuddin, Ahamed MI, Prasad R, editors. Microbial Biosurfactants. Environmental and Microbial Biotechnology. Singapore: Springer; 2021.
    Rosche B, Li XZ, Hauer B, Schmid A, Buehler K. Microbial biofilms: a concept for industrial catalysis? Trends Biotechnol. 2009;27:63643. [DOI] [PubMed]
    Boyd DR, Sharma ND, Stevenson PJ, Hoering P, Allen CCR, Dansette PM. Monooxygenase- and Dioxygenase-Catalyzed Oxidative Dearomatization of Thiophenes by Sulfoxidation, cis-Dihydroxylation and Epoxidation. Int J Mol Sci. 2022;23:909. [DOI] [PubMed] [PMC]
    Chaput G, Billings AF, DeDiego L, Orellana R, Adkins JN, Nicora CD, et al. Lignin induced iron reduction by novel sp., Tolumonas lignolytic BRL6-1. PLoS One. 2020;15:e0233823. [DOI] [PubMed] [PMC]
    Tong X, Barberi TT, Botting CH, Sharma SV, Simmons MJH, Overton TW, et al. Rapid enzyme regeneration results in the striking catalytic longevity of an engineered, single species, biocatalytic biofilm. Microb Cell Fact. 2016;15:180. [DOI] [PubMed] [PMC]
    Smitha MS, Singh S. Microbial bio transformation: a process for chemical alterations. J Bacteriol Mycol Open Access. 2017;4:4751. [DOI]
    Junter G, Jouenne T. Immobilized viable microbial cells: from the process to the proteome… or the cart before the horse. Biotechnol Adv. 2004;22:63358. [DOI] [PubMed]
    Kieslich K. Production of drugs by microbial biosynthesis and biotransformation. Possibilities, limits and future developments (1st communication). Arzneimittelforschung. 1986;36:7748. [PubMed]
    Azerad R. Microbial models for drug metabolism. In: Faber K, editor. Biotransformations. Advances in Biochemical Engineering/Biotechnology. Berlin: Springer; 1999. pp. 169–218.
    Abourashed EA, Clark AM, Hufford CD. Microbial models of mammalian metabolism of xenobiotics: An updated review. Curr Med Chem. 1999;6:35974. [DOI] [PubMed]
    Venisetty RK, Ciddi V. Application of microbial biotransformation for the new drug discovery using natural drugs as substrates. Curr Pharm Biotechnol. 2003;4:15367. [DOI] [PubMed]
    Pervaiz I, Ahmad S, Madni MA, Ahmad H, Khaliq FH. Microbial biotransformation: a tool for drug designing (Review). Prikl Biokhim Mikrobiol. 2013;49:43549. [DOI] [PubMed]
    Bianchini LF, Arruda MFC, Vieira SR, Campelo PMS, Grégio AMT, Rosa EAR. Microbial Biotransformation to Obtain New Antifungals. Front Microbiol. 2015;6:1433. [DOI] [PubMed] [PMC]
    Yousuf M, Jamil W, Mammadova K. Microbial Bioconversion: A Regio-specific Method for Novel Drug Design and Toxicological Study of Metabolites. Curr Pharm Biotechnol. 2019;20:115662. [DOI] [PubMed]
    Wheeler JD, Secchi E, Rusconi R, Stocker R. Not Just Going with the Flow: The Effects of Fluid Flow on Bacteria and Plankton. Annu Rev Cell Dev Biol. 2019;35:21337. [DOI] [PubMed]
    Webb C, Manan MA. Design aspects of solid-state fermentation as applied to microbial bioprocessing. J Appl Biotechnol Bioeng. 2017;4:51132. [DOI]
    Moore-Ott JA, Chiu S, Amchin DB, Bhattacharjee T, Datta SS. A biophysical threshold for biofilm formation. Elife. 2022;11:e76380. [DOI] [PubMed] [PMC]
    Berlanga M, Guerrero R. Living together in biofilms: the microbial cell factory and its biotechnological implications. Microb Cell Fact. 2016;15:165. [DOI] [PubMed] [PMC]
    Carballeira JD, Fernandez-Lucas J, Quezada MA, Hernaiz MJ, Alcantara A, Simeó Y, et al. Biotransformations. In: Schaechter M, editor. Encyclopedia of Microbiology-Annual Reports Section B (Organic Chemistry). Amsterdam: Elsevier; 2009. pp. 212–51.
    Nedovic VA, Obradovic B, Leskosek-Cukalovic I, Vunjak-Novakovic G. Immobilized yeast bioreactor systems for brewing—Recent achievements. In: Hofman M, Thonart P, editors. Engineering and manufacturing for biotechnology. Focus on Biotechnology. Dordrecht: Springer; 2001. pp. 227–92.
    Donlan RM. Biofilms: microbial life on surfaces. Emerg Infect Dis. 2002;8:88190. [DOI] [PubMed] [PMC]
    Li XZ, Webb JS, Kjelleberg S, Rosche B. Enhanced benzaldehyde tolerance in Zymomonas mobilis biofilms and the potential of biofilm applications in fine-chemical production. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2006;72:163944. [DOI] [PubMed] [PMC]
    Branda SS, Vik S, Friedman L, Kolter R. Biofilms: the matrix revisited. Trends Microbiol. 2005;13:206. [DOI] [PubMed]
    Gross R, Hauer B, Otto K, Schmid A. Microbial biofilms: new catalysts for maximizing productivity of long-term biotransformations. Biotechnol Bioeng. 2007;98:112334. [DOI] [PubMed]
    Halan B, Buehler K, Schmid A. Biofilms as living catalysts in continuous chemical syntheses. Trends Biotechnol. 2012;30:45365. [DOI] [PubMed]
    Qureshi N, Annous BA, Ezeji TC, Karcher P, Maddox IS. Biofilm reactors for industrial bioconversion processes: employing potential of enhanced reaction rates. Microb Cell Fact. 2005;4:24. [DOI] [PubMed] [PMC]
    Ercan D, Demirci A. Current and future trends for biofilm reactors for fermentation processes. Crit Rev Biotechnol. 2015;35:114. [DOI] [PubMed]
    Cao N, Du J, Chen C, Gong CS, Tsao GT. Production of fumaric acid by immobilized Rhizopus using rotary biofilm contactor. Appl Biochem Biotechnol. 1997;63:38794. [DOI] [PubMed]
    Aziani G, Terenzi HF, Jorge JA, Henrique L, Souza Guimarães LH. Production of Fructooligosaccharides by Aspergillus phoenicis Biofilm on Polyethylene as inert Support. Food Technol Biotechnol. 2012;50:405.
    Sonawane JM, Rai AK, Sharma M, Tripathi M, Prasad R. Microbial biofilms: Recent advances and progress in environmental bioremediation. Sci Total Environ. 2022;824:153843. [DOI] [PubMed]
    Demirci A, Palmettos AL III. Repeated-batch fermentation in biofilm reactors with plastic-composite supports for lactic acid production. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol. 1995;44:5859. [DOI]
    Strieth D, Ulber R, Muffler K. Application of phototrophic biofilms: from fundamentals to processes. Bioprocess Biosyst Eng. 2018;41:295312. [DOI] [PubMed]
    Yenkie KM, Wu W, Maravelias CT. Synthesis and analysis of separation networks for the recovery of intracellular chemicals generated from microbial-based conversions. Biotechnol Biofuels. 2017;10:119. [DOI] [PubMed] [PMC]
    Cheng K, Demirci A, Catchmark JM. Advances in biofilm reactors for production of value-added products. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol. 2010;87:44556. [DOI] [PubMed]
    Bianchini LF, da Silva Ramos RC, de Oliveira NS, de Paula RC, Rosa RT, Glassey J, et al. Drug biotransformation process favoured by fungal biofilms formed on a proposed fixed bed‐airlift hybrid reactor. J Chem Technol Biotechnol. 2021;96:9991006. [DOI]
    Tsoligkas AN, Winn M, Bowen J, Overton TW, Simmons MJH, Goss RJM. Engineering biofilms for biocatalysis. Chembiochem. 2011;12:13915. [DOI] [PubMed]
    Seelbach K, Liese A, Wandrey C, editors. Industrial Biotransformations. 2nd ed. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons; 2006. p. 570.
    Oda S, Nakanishi M, Ishikawa A, Baba T. Modified liquid–liquid interface cultivation system with floating microspheres and binder micro-pieces for slow-growing or unicellular microorganisms: application to interfacial bioconversions with an actinomycete and yeasts. Process Biochem. 2019;80:18. [DOI]
    Cordeiro KCFA. Fungal biotransformation of hesperetin and its application in the production of active metabolites. In: Federal University of Goias, editor. Nenhuma Miniatura disponívelFungal. Brasil: LA Referencia; 2019. p. 128.
    Souza PLdM, Arruda EL, Pazini F, Menegatti R, Vaz BG, Lião LM, et al. One step N-glycosylation by filamentous fungi biofilm in bioreactor of a new phosphodiesterase-3 inhibitor tetrazole. Bioorg Med Chem Lett. 2016;26:317781. [DOI] [PubMed]
    Quinn L, Dempsey R, Casey E, Kane A, Murphy CD. Production of drug metabolites by immobilised Cunninghamella elegans: from screening to scale up. J Ind Microbiol Biotechnol. 2015;42:799806. [DOI] [PubMed]
    Amadio J, Casey E, Murphy CD. Filamentous fungal biofilm for production of human drug metabolites. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol. 2013;97:595563. [DOI] [PubMed]
    Palmerín-Carreño DM, Rutiaga-Quiñones OM, Verde-Calvo JR, Huerta-Ochoa S. Biconversion of (+)-nootkatone by Botryodiplodia theobromae using a membrane aerated biofilm reactor. Rev Mex Ing Quim. 2014;13:75764.
    Soares MS, Rico ALL, Andrade GSS, de Castro HF, Oliveira PC. Synthesis, characterization and application of a polyurethane-based support for immobilizing membrane-bound lipase. Braz J Chem Eng. 2017;34:2939. [DOI]
    Escamilla-García E, O’Riordan S, Gomes N, Aguedo M, Belo I, Teixeira J, et al. An air-lift biofilm reactor for the production of γ-decalactones by Yarrowia lipolytica. rocess Biochem. 2014;49:137782. [DOI]
    Hsueh Y, Liaw W, Kuo J, Deng C, Wu C. Hydrogel Film-Immobilized Lactobacillus brevis RK03 for γ-Aminobutyric Acid Production. Int J Mol Sci. 2017;18:2324. [DOI] [PubMed] [PMC]
    Chen P, Yan L, Zhang S, Wu Z, Li S, Yan X, et al. Optimizing bioconversion of ferulic acid to vanillin by Bacillus subtilis in the stirred packed reactor using Box-Behnken design and desirability function. Food Sci Biotechnol. 2017;26:14352. [DOI] [PubMed] [PMC]
    Yan L, Chen P, Zhang S, Li S, Yan X, Wang N, et al. Biotransformation of ferulic acid to vanillin in the packed bed-stirred fermentors. Sci Rep. 2016;6:34644. [DOI] [PubMed] [PMC]
    Peschke T, Bitterwolf P, Hansen SH, Gasmi J, Rabe KS, Niemeyer CM. Self-immobilizing biocatalysts maximize space–time yields in flow reactors. Catalysts. 2019;9:164. [DOI]
    Hu Y, Liu X, Ren ATM, Gu J, Cao B. Optogenetic Modulation of a Catalytic Biofilm for the Biotransformation of Indole into Tryptophan. ChemSusChem. 2019;12:51428. [DOI] [PubMed]
    Perni S, Hackett L, Goss RJ, Simmons MJ, Overton TW. Optimisation of engineered Escherichia coli biofilms for enzymatic biosynthesis of L-halotryptophans. AMB Express. 2013;3:66. [DOI] [PubMed] [PMC]
    Li XZ, Hauer B, Rosche B. Catalytic biofilms on structured packing for the production of glycolic acid. J Microbiol Biotechnol. 2013;23:195204. [DOI] [PubMed]
    Willrodt C, Halan B, Karthaus L, Rehdorf J, Julsing MK, Buehler K, et al. Continuous multistep synthesis of perillic acid from limonene by catalytic biofilms under segmented flow. Biotechnol Bioeng. 2017;114:28190. [DOI] [PubMed]
    Lang K, Buehler K, Schmid A. Multistep synthesis of (S)‐3‐hydroxyisobutyric acid from glucose using Pseudomonas taiwanensis VLB120 B83 T7 catalytic biofilms. Adv Synth Catal. 2015;357:191927. [DOI]
    Heuschkel I, Dagini R, Karande R, Bühler K. The Impact of Glass Material on Growth and Biocatalytic Performance of Mixed-Species Biofilms in Capillary Reactors for Continuous Cyclohexanol Production. Front Bioeng Biotechnol. 2020;8:588729. [DOI] [PubMed] [PMC]
    Hoschek A, Heuschkel I, Schmid A, Bühler B, Karande R, Bühler K. Mixed-species biofilms for high-cell-density application of Synechocystis sp. PCC 6803 in capillary reactors for continuous cyclohexane oxidation to cyclohexanol. Bioresour Technol. 2019;282:1718. [DOI] [PubMed]
    Halan B, Schmid A, Buehler K. Maximizing the productivity of catalytic biofilms on solid supports in membrane aerated reactors. Biotechnol Bioeng. 2010;106:51627. [DOI] [PubMed]
    Carvalho CCCRd. Whole cell biocatalysts: essential workers from Nature to the industry. Microb Biotechnol. 2017;10:25063. [DOI] [PubMed] [PMC]
    Yafetto L. Application of solid-state fermentation by microbial biotechnology for bioprocessing of agro-industrial wastes from 1970 to 2020: A review and bibliometric analysis. Heliyon. 2022;8:e09173. [DOI] [PubMed] [PMC]
    Muffler K, Lakatos M, Schlegel C, Strieth D, Kuhne S, Ulber R. Application of biofilm bioreactors in white biotechnology. Adv Biochem Eng Biotechnol. 2014;146:12361. [DOI] [PubMed]
    Germec M, Demirci A, Turhan I. Biofilm reactors for value-added products production: an in-depth review. Biocatal Agric Biotechnol. 2020;27:101662. [DOI]
    Schmeckebier A, Zayed A, Ulber R. Productive biofilms: from prokaryotic to eukaryotic systems. J Chem Technol Biotechnol. 2022;97:304964. [DOI]
    Quentina Z, Alisonb B, Marcc O, Dominiqued T, Philippeb T, Frank D. Biofilm formation on metal structured packing for the production of high added value biomolecules. Récent Progr en Génie Procédés. 2013;104:sfgp20131201651-7.
    Musoni M, Destain J, Thonart P, Bahama JB, Delvigne F. Bioreactor design and implementation strategies for the cultivation of filamentous fungi and the production of fungal metabolites: from traditional methods to engineered systems. Biotechnol Agron Soc Environ. 2015;19:43042.
    Brück HL, Coutte F, Dhulster P, Gofflot S, Jacques P, Delvigne F. Growth Dynamics of Bacterial Populations in a Two-Compartment Biofilm Bioreactor Designed for Continuous Surfactin Biosynthesis. Microorganisms. 2020;8:679. [DOI] [PubMed] [PMC]
    Lara-Juache HR, Ávila-Hernández JG, Rodríguez-Durán LV, Michel MR, Wong-Paz JE, Muñiz-Márquez DB, et al. Characterization of a Biofilm Bioreactor Designed for the Single-Step Production of Aerial Conidia and Oosporein by Beauveria bassiana PQ2. J Fungi (Basel). 2021;7:582. [DOI] [PubMed] [PMC]
    Kretschmer M, Hayta EN, Ertelt MJ, Würbser MA, Boekhoven J, Lieleg O. A rotating bioreactor for the production of biofilms at the solid-air interface. Biotechnol Bioeng. 2022;119:895906. [DOI] [PubMed]
    Krsmanovic M, Biswas D, Ali H, Kumar A, Ghosh R, Dickerson AK. Hydrodynamics and surface properties influence biofilm proliferation. Adv Colloid Interface Sci. 2021;288:102336. [DOI] [PubMed]
    Sriyutha Murthy P, Venkatesan R. Industrial biofilms and their control. In: Springer Series on Biofilms. Berlin: Springer; 2008.
    Winn M, Foulkes JM, Perni S, Simmons MJ, Overton TW, Goss RJ. Biofilms and their engineered counterparts: A new generation of immobilised biocatalysts. Catal Sci Technol. 2012;2:15447. [DOI]
    Mukherjee M, Cao B. Engineering controllable biofilms for biotechnological applications. Microb Biotechnol. 2021;14:748. [DOI] [PubMed] [PMC]
    Peulen T, Wilkinson KJ. Diffusion of nanoparticles in a biofilm. Environ Sci Technol. 2011;45:336773. [DOI] [PubMed]
    Su H, Chou C, Hung D, Lin S, Pao I, Lin J, et al. The disruption of bacterial membrane integrity through ROS generation induced by nanohybrids of silver and clay. Biomaterials. 2009;30:597987. [DOI] [PubMed]
    de Oliveira NS, da Silva GPL, Furlan O, Peña LC, Bianchini LF, Parahitiyawa N, et al. The song remains the same. The lab bench dilemma of using shaken flasks in microbial biotransformation experiments. Biocatal Biotransform. 2024;42:56590. [DOI]