Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 88 references

Imaging biofilms in three dimensions: modalities, quantitative readouts, and the path to four-dimensional measurement

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-02 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read This paper argues that antimicrobial action on biofilms is a four-dimensional imaging problem, reducible to four structured questions, and that the live, label-free, four-dimensional imaging quadrant — though occupied by five complementary

desk verdict A genuinely useful organizing frame for biofilm imaging, but the central 'unreported gap' claims are undercut by an internal inconsistency about what counts as label-free. read the letter →

arxiv 2606.15254 v2 pith:TRVSYJK7 submitted 2026-06-13 physics.bio-ph

Seongsoo Lee , YongKeun Park This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.bio-ph
keywords biofilmantimicrobialresistancelabel-freeimagingholotomographyfour-dimensionalpeptidesquantitativeopticalcoherencetomography
topics The Measurement Problem
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This review claims that the standard planktonic MIC and bulk endpoint assays are the wrong measurement paradigm for biofilms, which are three-dimensional by definition and four-dimensional whenever an antimicrobial engages them. It reorganizes the imaging landscape into four quadrants defined by two axes — static 3D vs live 4D, and label-based vs label-free — and argues that the live, label-free, 4D quadrant is the best-aligned with four structured questions that matter: where the drug goes, where it kills, what it does to the matrix, and whether the community reassembles. Five modalities occupy that quadrant — OCT, holotomography, SRS, Brillouin microscopy, and in-liquid AFM — but none answers all four questions, and several combinations (e.g., live label-free 4D antimicrobial penetration in a mature biofilm) remain, to the authors' knowledge, unpublished. If correct, the field should reorient around a validated measurement architecture that pairs a low-perturbation label-free volumetric backbone with sparse, spatially registered molecular validation, and should build a community-standard quantitative parameter set for label-free 3D biofilm images.

What carries the argument

The organizing device is a two-axis classification of biofilm imaging: the temporal axis (3D static vs 4D live) and the contrast axis (label-based vs label-free intrinsic). Their intersection defines the live, label-free, four-dimensional quadrant that the paper treats as the actionable space. Within that quadrant, the argument is carried by four structured questions — where the antimicrobial goes, where it kills, what it does to the matrix, and whether the community reassembles — which serve as the evaluation criteria for each modality's demonstrated capability. The paper also relies on the quantitative relation between refractive-index increment and dry-mass concentration as the basis for

What would settle it

A single published report of live, label-free, four-dimensional tracking of an antimicrobial penetrating a mature multilayer biofilm — or a controlled experiment showing that a fluorescently tagged cationic AMP penetrates and kills identically to its unlabeled parent — would directly contradict the paper's central gap and label-perturbation claims.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is a mapping: biofilm–antimicrobial evaluation is a four-dimensional measurement problem that can be decomposed into four spatially and temporally structured questions (penetration, depth-resolved killing, matrix remodeling, community reassembly), and the imaging technology landscape, sorted by temporal capability and label dependence, exposes a single live, label-free, four-dimensional quadrant. The quadrant is occupied by five complementary modalities — optical coherence tomography, holotomography, stimulated Raman scattering, Brillouin microscopy, and in-liquid atomic force microscopy — none of which individually answers all four questions.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the 'unreported' gaps are genuinely absent from the literature — the authors define 'unreported' as no published demonstration known to them at the time of writing, not as the result of a formal systematic search; if any key combination (e.g., live, label-free, 4D antimicrobial penetration in a mature biofilm) has in fact been published, the opportunity map and the quadrant's uniqueness claims are overstated.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Antimicrobial efficacy against biofilms should be reported as four spatially and temporally resolved answers, not a single MIC value; bulk endpoints average away depth-stratified tolerance and post-treatment regrowth.
  • For cationic antimicrobial peptides, fluorescent conjugation should be treated as a perturbing variable; label-free intrinsic-contrast modalities are the appropriate primary measurements when the unperturbed dynamics matter.
  • A community-standard set of quantitative parameters for label-free 3D biofilm images is needed to make results cross-laboratory comparable, analogous to the standardization that confocal biofilm image analysis achieved.
  • Correlative multimodal acquisition on a single biofilm specimen — pairing refractive-index dry mass with Raman chemical specificity, Brillouin modulus, or atmospheric-SEM ultrastructure — would let each contrast supply what the others cannot.
  • Live, label-free, 4D tracking of antimicrobial penetration in mature biofilms is an open opportunity; demonstrating it would directly test the paper's central gap claim.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the paper's 'unreported' gaps are real, then the first laboratory that demonstrates live, label-free 4D antimicrobial penetration in a mature multilayer biofilm will not only fill a gap but also establish the measurement architecture as a standard; the paper itself stops at identifying the opportunity.
  • The two-axis formalism can be transferred to other spatially structured microbial or tissue systems — e.g., fungal biofilms, tumor spheroids, or gut mucosal communities — where depth-stratified drug action and label perturbation are equally at issue; the paper only discusses bacterial biofilms.
  • The emphasis on refractive-index and dry-mass readouts suggests that AI-based virtual staining of label-free 3D images could eventually replace fixation-dependent FISH for polymicrobial biofilm identity, but this is an extrapolation the paper flags as an open question.
  • The weakest point is the absence claim: because 'unreported' is defined as 'no published demonstration known to us at the time of writing,' a single missed prior report would shrink the opportunity map; readers should treat the gap list as a hypothesis to be tested, not an established fact.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. This Perspective argues that biofilm–antimicrobial evaluation should be reorganized around four spatially and temporally structured questions—penetration, depth-resolved killing, matrix remodeling, and community reassembly—and that the modality landscape can be organized along two orthogonal axes (temporal capability and label dependence). The intersection of these axes, the live, label-free, four-dimensional quadrant, is occupied by five complementary modalities (OCT, holotomography, SRS, Brillouin microscopy, in-liquid AFM), none of which individually answers all four questions. The paper proposes an integrated measurement architecture pairing a low-perturbation volumetric backbone with sparse molecularly specific validation, a community-wide label-free quantification standard, and a bench-to-bedside pipeline via bioluminescence and 99mTc-UBI SPECT/PET. The central opportunity claims rest on assertions that several key combinations are 'unreported' in the literature, with the caveat that 'unreported' means not known to the authors rather than established by systematic search.

Significance. If the gap map is correct, the paper provides a useful synthesis and a concrete research agenda that could shift biofilm antimicrobial evaluation away from bulk planktonic assays. Strengths include the explicit disclosure of the non-systematic search, the separation in Table 1 between demonstrated and extrapolated capability, the clear conflict-of-interest statement, and the emphasis on quantitative readouts and standardization. The four-question framing is a genuinely useful organizing device. However, the load-bearing opportunity claims are absence-of-literature assertions, and at least one such assertion appears internally inconsistent with the paper's own modality classification; the lack of a systematic search compounds this risk. The framework itself would survive a single counterexample, but the specific 'unreported' claims would not.

major comments (3)
  1. ['The label-dependency axis' vs Table 1] The paper's label-free classification is internally inconsistent. The text explicitly places SRS with D2O or alkyne tags in a 'minimally perturbative ... not strictly intrinsic' class, yet Table 1 Group 1 lists SRS under 'Label-free: Yes — intrinsic via isotopic tag'. Since SRS is one of the five anchor modalities in the live, label-free quadrant, this contradiction changes the quadrant's composition. On the inclusive Table 1 reading, Ref. 20 (hyperspectral SRS of alkyne-tagged vancomycin in live S. aureus biofilm) appears to be a published live, label-free 4D antimicrobial-penetration measurement, contradicting the Introduction's claim that none exists. On the exclusive reading, SRS should not be in the focus quadrant, reducing the claimed five modalities to four. This needs to be resolved explicitly.
  2. [Introduction and Modality survey (absence claims)] The paper states that 'unreported' means 'no published demonstration is known to us at the time of writing, rather than as the result of a formal systematic search.' Yet the Introduction's strong claim—'To our knowledge, no published report tracks antimicrobial penetration in a mature biofilm live, label-free, in four dimensions'—and the Concluding remarks' uniqueness claims are factual absence assertions. Given that Ref. 20 is described in the same paper as real-time monitoring of antibiotic pharmacokinetics in biofilm with Raman-tagged SRS, the authors must either demonstrate that Ref. 20 fails the mature-biofilm/4D criteria, or qualify the claim. Without this, the central opportunity map is not internally secured. A formalized search protocol or a precise scoping of exclusion criteria is needed.
  3. [Figure 3f] Figure 3f presents previously unpublished time-lapse RI tomograms of a live P. aeruginosa biofilm as evidence that holotomography reaches the live-biofilm regime. No methods are provided: culture conditions, sample preparation, acquisition parameters, RI reconstruction procedure, scale bar definition, number of replicates, or any quantitative readout. In a Perspective that repeatedly emphasizes quantitative standards, presenting unreviewed original data without methods or reproducibility details is an evidentiary gap. At minimum, the authors should either provide a methods paragraph or re-label this as an illustrative example and remove any quantitative claim based on it.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Figure 2] The caption states that fill encodes label dependence, with SRS hatched as minimally perturbative. This is consistent with the text but conflicts with Table 1, where SRS is listed as label-free. Please harmonize the two representations.
  2. [Introduction, sentence containing Ref. 21] Ref. 21 (Stewart, Growth rates of bacteria in vivo) does not appear to support the sentence 'To our knowledge, no published report tracks antimicrobial penetration...'; it seems thematically unrelated. Please verify the citation or replace it.
  3. [Figure 1 caption and text] The text refers to 'Fig s. 1b−c' but the figure appears to have panels (a)–(c). Please correct the typo and ensure panel references are consistent.
  4. [Table 1, Group 1 SRS row] The 'Label-free' entry 'Yes — intrinsic via isotopic tag' is internally oxymoronic and should be reworded to reflect the three-tier classification described in the text.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No circular derivation chain: the quadrant/four-question framework is a literature synthesis, holotomography support is partly external, and the only close concern is minor non-load-bearing self-citation plus an internal SRS label-free classification inconsistency that is a factual caveat, not a circular step.

full rationale

This is a Perspective/review paper, not a derivation with equations or fitted parameters, so most circularity patterns do not apply. The load-bearing claims are literature-absence claims, and the authors explicitly limit them: 'we describe a combination as unreported when no published demonstration is known to us at the time of writing, rather than as the result of a formal systematic search' (Modality survey). That is an honest epistemic limitation, not a circular reduction. The two-axis quadrant and four-question decomposition are organizational claims, not predictions derived from their own inputs. Holotomography, the area with the most author self-citation, is supported by external Wroclaw-group studies (refs 28, 55) as well as self-cited work, and the previously unpublished HT-X1 time-lapse data (Fig. 3f) is new data rather than a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction. The senior author's Tomocube affiliation is disclosed in the Conflict of Interest statement and is a financial-conflict concern, not a circularity of reasoning. The skeptical concern that SRS with isotopic tags is called both label-free (Table 1: 'Yes — intrinsic via isotopic tag') and not strictly intrinsic ('We place stimulated Raman scattering with its tracers in the second class', The label-dependency axis) is a genuine internal inconsistency that could affect the truth of the central 'no published report' claim, but it is a definitional/factual correctness issue rather than a case of a result being equivalent to its inputs by construction. Accordingly, I find no specific circular step satisfying the quoted-reduction standard; the score reflects only the minor, non-load-bearing self-citation overlap.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No free parameters or invented entities; the paper is a review. The framework rests on domain assumptions about the burden and mechanism of biofilm infections, the sufficiency of the four-question decomposition, and the accuracy of the authors' informal gap search; the gap-search assumption is the most load-bearing.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Biofilm-associated infection is predominantly a chronic-infection problem with substantial clinical/economic burden (65–80% of chronic infections; ~$4T annually).
    Introduction cites estimates (refs 5,6,8); central motivation for the framework, not derived in the paper.
  • ad hoc to paper The four structured questions (penetration, depth-resolved killing, matrix remodeling, reassembly) are sufficient to isolate the spatially/temporally distributed processes that imaging can resolve for antimicrobial evaluation.
    Authors state this is an 'imaging-centered decomposition rather than a complete mechanistic account' (Introduction); the sufficiency of the four-question set is a framing choice.
  • domain assumption Fluorescent conjugation of cationic AMPs systematically alters partitioning, kill kinetics, and penetration, so label-free modalities are the appropriate primary measurement for AMP–biofilm encounters.
    Based on cited ref 43 (Choi et al.) for planktonic systems; extrapolated to 3D biofilm matrix interactions (section 'Why label perturbation matters').
  • ad hoc to paper The 'unreported' status of key combinations is accurate despite the absence of a systematic search.
    Authors disclose they did not perform a formal systematic search; the gap claims carry the paper's opportunity analysis.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Imaging biofilms in three dimensions: modalities, quantitative readouts, and the path to four-dimensional measurement." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/TRVSYJK7

@misc{pith2026260615254,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Imaging biofilms in three dimensions: modalities, quantitative readouts, and the path to four-dimensional measurement},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/TRVSYJK7}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2606.15254}
}
read the original abstract

Biofilms are spatially structured microbial communities whose architecture, chemistry, mechanics, and cellular states evolve over time. Bulk assays and two-dimensional projections remain useful, but cannot alone resolve how these properties vary with depth or change during growth, treatment, dispersal, and regrowth. Imaging provides complementary routes to three-dimensional measurement: fluorescence microscopy supplies molecular, taxonomic, and functional specificity; optical coherence tomography resolves mesoscale architecture and dynamics; quantitative phase imaging and holotomography report refractive index and biomass-related changes; Raman methods provide chemical and metabolic contrast; and Brillouin microscopy probes mechanical response. We compare these modalities using four independent descriptors-contrast provenance, live volumetric capability, perturbation, and demonstrated biofilm use-and connect their signals to quantitative biological readouts. No single modality simultaneously maximizes spatial coverage, resolution, acquisition speed, molecular specificity, and low perturbation. Implementations from any contrast class can serve as a longitudinal backbone when perturbation is empirically controlled at the relevant spatial and temporal scale, while molecularly specific measurements remain indispensable for identifying species, molecules, and functional states. We therefore frame four-dimensional biofilm measurement as a validated measurement architecture that integrates a low-perturbation volumetric backbone with spatially registered, molecularly specific measurements acquired continuously or at predefined validation points. Achieving this integration will require compatible cultivation formats, controlled imaging dose, shared quantitative parameters, and robust cross-modality registration.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.15254 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Antimicrobial action on a biofilm is a four [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The live, label-free, four-dimensional gap in biofilm imaging. Spatial resolution (vertical axis; finer upward) versus volumetric acquisition speed (horizontal axis; shorter time per three-dimensional volume, hence faster, toward the right) for the principal imaging modalities applied to biofilms. Each modality is drawn as a box spanning its lateral-to-axial resolution and its fastest-to-slowest reported acquisition… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Multimodal visualization of biofilm structure, disruption, molecular composition, mechanics, and label-free three-dimensional dynamics. Representative imaging modalities used to study bacterial biofilms across length scales and contrast mechanisms. (a) Scanning electron microscopy of preformed Pseudomonas aeruginosa DRPa 4007 biofilm, showing the disruptive effect of oxacillin and PS antimicrobial peptides (PS1-2/5/… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

88 extracted references

  1. [1]

    W., Lewandowski, Z., Caldwell, D

    Costerton, J. W., Lewandowski, Z., Caldwell, D. E., Korber, D. R. & Lappin-Scott, H. M. MICROBIAL BIOFILMS. Annu. Rev. Microbiol. 49, 711–745 (1995)

    1995

  2. [2]

    Hall-Stoodley, L., Costerton, J. W. & Stoodley, P. Bacterial biofilms: from the natural environment to infectious diseases. Nat Rev Microbiol 2, 95–108 (2004)

    2004

  3. [3]

    Flemming, H. C. et al. Biofilms: an emergent form of bacterial life. Nat Rev Microbiol 14, 563–75 (2016)

    2016

  4. [4]

    Rumbaugh, K. P. & Sauer, K. Biofilm dispersion. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 18, 571–586 (2020)

    2020

  5. [5]

    & Hancock, R

    De La Fuente-Nunez, C., Cesaro, A. & Hancock, R. E. W. Antibiotic failure: Beyond antimicrobial resistance. Drug Resist. Updat. 71, 101012 (2023)

    2023

  6. [6]

    W., Stewart, P

    Costerton, J. W., Stewart, P. S. & Greenberg, E. P. Bacterial Biofilms: A Common Cause of Persistent Infections. Science 284, 1318– 1322 (1999)

    1999

  7. [7]

    Sati, H. et al. The WHO Bacterial Priority Pathogens List 2024: a prioritisation study to guide research, development, and public health strategies against antimicrobial resistance. Lancet Infect. Dis. 25, 1033–1043 (2025)

    2024

  8. [8]

    Cámara, M. et al. Economic significance of biofilms: a multidisciplinary and cross-sectoral challenge. Npj Biofilms Microbiomes 8, 42 (2022)

    2022

Show all 88 references
  1. [9]

    Magana, M. et al. The value of antimicrobial peptides in the age of resistance. Lancet Infect. Dis. 20, e216–e230 (2020)

    2020

  2. [10]

    Ju, Y. et al. Advances of Antimicrobial Peptides in the Treatment of Multidrug-Resistant Bacteria. BioDrugs 39, 899–922 (2025)

    2025

  3. [11]

    A., Haagsman, H

    Mookherjee, N., Anderson, M. A., Haagsman, H. P. & Davidson, D. J. Antimicrobial host defence peptides: functions and clinical potential. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 19, 311–332 (2020)

    2020

  4. [12]

    Stewart, P. S. & Franklin, M. J. Physiological heterogeneity in biofilms. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 6, 199–210 (2008)

    2008

  5. [13]

    Persister Cells

    Lewis, K. Persister Cells. Annu. Rev. Microbiol. 64, 357–372 (2010)

    2010

  6. [14]

    & Balaban, N

    Brauner, A., Fridman, O., Gefen, O. & Balaban, N. Q. Distinguishing between resistance, tolerance and persistence to antibiotic treatment. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 14, 320–330 (2016)

    2016

  7. [15]

    Sauer, K. et al. The biofilm life cycle: expanding the conceptual model of biofilm formation. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 20, 608–620 (2022)

    2022

  8. [16]

    Stewart, P. S. Diffusion in Biofilms. J. Bacteriol. 185, 1485–1491 (2003)

    2003

  9. [17]

    C., Roe, F., Bugnicourt, A., Franklin, M

    Walters, M. C., Roe, F., Bugnicourt, A., Franklin, M. J. & Stewart, P. S. Contributions of Antibiotic Penetration, Oxygen Limitation, and Low Metabolic Activity to Tolerance of Pseudomonas aeruginosa Biofilms to Ciprofloxacin and Tobramycin. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 47, 3...

    2003

  10. [18]

    Tseng, B. S. et al. The extracellular matrix protects P seudomonas aeruginosa biofilms by limiting the penetration of tobramycin. Environ. Microbiol. 15, 2865–2878 (2013)

    2013

  11. [19]

    Davies, S. K. et al. Visualizing Antimicrobials in Bacterial Biofilms: Three-Dimensional Biochemical Imaging Using TOF-SIMS. mSphere 2, e00211-17 (2017)

    2017

  12. [20]

    & Huang, Z

    Bae, K., Zheng, W., Ma, Y. & Huang, Z. Real-Time Monitoring of Pharmacokinetics of Antibiotics in Biofilms with Raman-Tagged Hyperspectral Stimulated Raman Scattering Microscopy. Theranostics 9, 1348–1357 (2019)

    2019

  13. [21]

    Stewart, P. S. Growth rates of bacteria in vivo. Trends Microbiol. 33, 1056–1063 (2025)

    2025

  14. [22]

    Dí az-Pascual, F. et al. Breakdown of Vibrio cholerae biofilm architecture induced by antibiotics disrupts community barrier function. Nat. Microbiol. 4, 2136–2145 (2019)

    2019

  15. [23]

    Schiessl, K. T. et al. Phenazine production promotes antibiotic tolerance and metabolic heterogeneity in Pseudomonas aeruginosa biofilms. Nat. Commun. 10, 762 (2019)

    2019

  16. [24]

    & Thurnheer, T

    Karygianni, L., Ren, Z., Koo, H. & Thurnheer, T. Biofilm Matrixome: Extracellular Components in Structured Microbial Communities. Trends Microbiol. 28, 668–681 (2020)

    2020

  17. [25]

    & Wingender, J

    Flemming, H.-C. & Wingender, J. The biofilm matrix. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 8, 623–633 (2010)

    2010

  18. [26]

    Relucenti, M. et al. Microscopy Methods for Biofilm Imaging: Focus on SEM and VP-SEM Pros and Cons. Biology 10, 51 (2021)

    2021

  19. [27]

    Van Hoogstraten, S. W. G., Kuik, C., Arts, J. J. C. & Cillero-Pastor, B. Molecular imaging of bacterial biofilms—a systematic review. Crit. Rev. Microbiol. 50, 971–992 (2024)

    2024

  20. [28]

    Buzalewicz, I. et al. Quantifying the Dynamics of Bacterial Biofilm Formation on the Surface of Soft Contact Lens Materials Using Digital Holographic Tomography to Advance Biofilm Research. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 25, 2653 (2024)

    2024

  21. [29]

    Karampatzakis, A. et al. Probing the internal micromechanical properties of Pseudomonas aeruginosa biofilms by Brillouin imaging. Npj Biofilms Microbiomes 3, 20 (2017)

    2017

  22. [30]

    A., Fei, C

    Bridges, A. A., Fei, C. & Bassler, B. L. Identification of signaling pathways, matrix-digestion enzymes, and motility components controlling Vibrio cholerae biofilm dispersal. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 117, 32639–32647 (2020)

    2020

  23. [31]

    Qin, B. et al. Cell position fates and collective fountain flow in bacterial biofilms revealed by light-sheet microscopy. Science 369, 71–77 (2020)

    2020

  24. [32]

    Espinoza Miranda, S. S. et al. Resolving spatiotemporal dynamics in bacterial multicellular populations: approaches and challenges. Microbiol. Mol. Biol. Rev. 89, e00138-24 (2025)

    2025

  25. [33]

    Melia, C. E. et al. Architecture of cell–cell junctions in situ reveals a mechanism for bacterial biofilm inhibition. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 118, e2109940118 (2021)

    2021

  26. [34]

    Zhang, F. et al. Rapid Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing on Clinical Urine Samples by Video-Based Object Scattering Intensity Detection. Anal. Chem. 93, 7011–7021 (2021)

    2021

  27. [35]

    Shen, Y. et al. High-resolution 3D spatial distribution of complex microbial colonies revealed by mass spectrometry imaging. J. Adv. Res. 73, 329–340 (2025)

    2025

  28. [36]

    Chatzimpinou, A. et al. Soft X-ray tomography reveals variations in B. subtilis biofilm structure upon tasA deletion. Npj Biofilms Microbiomes 11, 23 (2025)

    2025

  29. [37]

    Berk, V. et al. Molecular Architecture and Assembly Principles of Vibrio cholerae Biofilms. Science 337, 236–239 (2012)

    2012

  30. [38]

    & Kolodkin-Gal, I

    Keren-Paz, A., Brumfeld, V., Oppenheimer-Shaanan, Y. & Kolodkin-Gal, I. Micro-CT X-ray imaging exposes structured diffusion barriers within biofilms. Npj Biofilms Microbiomes 4, 8 (2018)

    2018

  31. [39]

    & Kaushik, K

    Mhade, S. & Kaushik, K. S. Tools of the Trade: Image Analysis Programs for Confocal Laser-Scanning Microscopy Studies of Biofilms and Considerations for Their Use by Experimental Researchers. ACS Omega 8, 20163–20177 (2023)

    2023

  32. [40]

    Drescher, K. et al. Architectural transitions in Vibrio cholerae biofilms at single-cell resolution. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 113, (2016)

    2016

  33. [41]

    M., Rivas, Z., Chen, J

    Gries, C. M., Rivas, Z., Chen, J. & Lo, D. D. Intravital Multiphoton Examination of Implant-Associated Staphylococcus aureus Biofilm Infection. Front. Cell. Infect. Microbiol. 10, 574092 (2020)

    2020

  34. [42]

    Avci, P. et al. In-vivo monitoring of infectious diseases in living animals using bioluminescence imaging. Virulence 9, 28–63 (2018)

    2018

  35. [43]

    & Weisshaar, J

    Choi, H., Rangarajan, N. & Weisshaar, J. C. Lights, Camera, Action! Antimicrobial Peptide Mechanisms Imaged in Space and Time. Trends Microbiol. 24, 111–122 (2016)

    2016

  36. [44]

    & Parsek, M

    Reichhardt, C. & Parsek, M. R. Confocal Laser Scanning Microscopy for Analysis of Pseudomonas aeruginosa Biofilm Architecture and Matrix Localization. Front. Microbiol. 10, 677 (2019)

    2019

  37. [45]

    & Horn, H

    Wagner, M. & Horn, H. Optical coherence tomography in biofilm research: A comprehensive review. Biotechnol. Bioeng. 114, 1386– 1402 (2017)

    2017

  38. [46]

    Valladares Linares, R. et al. Compaction and relaxation of biofilms. Desalination Water Treat. 57, 12902–12914 (2016)

    2016

  39. [47]

    Dsouza, R. et al. In vivo detection of endotracheal tube biofilms in intubated critical care patients using catheter‐based optical coherence tomography. J. Biophotonics 12, e201800307 (2019)

    2019

  40. [48]

    Demidov, V. V. et al. Integrating optical coherence tomography and bioluminescence with predictive modeling for quantitative assessment of methicillin-resistant S. aureus biofilms. J. Biomed. Opt. 30, (2025)

    2025

  41. [49]

    Bodelón, G. et al. Detection and imaging of quorum sensing in Pseudomonas aeruginosa biofilm communities by surface-enhanced resonance Raman scattering. Nat. Mater. 15, 1203–1211 (2016)

    2016

  42. [50]

    Ge, X. et al. SRS-FISH: A high-throughput platform linking microbiome metabolism to identity at the single-cell level. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 119, e2203519119 (2022)

    2022

  43. [51]

    Determination of dry mass, thickness, solid and water concentration in living cells

    Barer, R. Determination of dry mass, thickness, solid and water concentration in living cells. Nature 172, 1097–1098 (1953)

    1953

  44. [52]

    Kim, G. et al. Holotomography. Nat. Rev. Methods Primer 4, 51 (2024)

    2024

  45. [53]

    Oh, J. et al. Three-dimensional label-free observation of individual bacteria upon antibiotic treatment using optical diffraction tomography. Biomed. Opt. Express 11, 1257–1267 (2020)

    2020

  46. [54]

    Kim, M. et al. Real‐Time Monitoring of Multitarget Antimicrobial Mechanisms of Peptoids Using Label‐Free Imaging with Optical Diffraction Tomography. Adv. Sci. 2302483 (2023)

    2023

  47. [55]

    & Żyłka, P

    Buzalewicz, I., Ulatowska-Jarża, A., Gąsior-Głogowska, M., Wolf-Baca, M. & Żyłka, P. New measurements modalities for multi- parametric, label-free and non-contact detection of biofilm formation on stainless steel and glass surfaces. Measurement 210, 112588 (2023)

    2023

  48. [56]

    Kumar, S. D. et al. Novel Leech Antimicrobial Peptides, Hirunipins: Real‐Time 3D Monitoring of Antimicrobial and Antibiofilm Mechanisms Using Optical Diffraction Tomography. Adv. Sci. 12, 2409803 (2025)

    2025

  49. [57]

    & Antonacci, G

    Prevedel, R., Diz-Muñoz, A., Ruocco, G. & Antonacci, G. Brillouin microscopy: an emerging tool for mechanobiology. Nat. Methods 16, 969–977 (2019)

    2019

  50. [58]

    Kabakova, I. et al. Brillouin microscopy. Nat. Rev. Methods Primer 4, 8 (2024)

    2024

  51. [59]

    Mattana, S. et al. High-contrast Brillouin and Raman micro-spectroscopy for simultaneous mechanical and chemical investigation of microbial biofilms. Biophys. Chem. 229, 123–129 (2017)

    2017

  52. [60]

    Dufrêne, Y. F. & Persat, A. Mechanomicrobiology: how bacteria sense and respond to forces. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 18, 227–240 (2020)

    2020

  53. [61]

    Beaussart, A. et al. Quantifying the forces guiding microbial cell adhesion using single-cell force spectroscopy. Nat. Protoc. 9, 1049– 1055 (2014)

    2014

  54. [62]

    E., Barbero, R

    Fantner, G. E., Barbero, R. J., Gray, D. S. & Belcher, A. M. Kinetics of antimicrobial peptide activity measured on individual bacterial cells using high-speed atomic force microscopy. Nat. Nanotechnol. 5, 280–285 (2010)

    2010

  55. [63]

    & Humbert, F

    Quilès, F., Saadi, S., Francius, G., Bacharouche, J. & Humbert, F. In situ and real time investigation of the evolution of a Pseudomonas fluorescens nascent biofilm in the presence of an antimicrobial peptide. Biochim. Biophys. Acta BBA - Biomembr. 1858, 75–84 (2016)

    2016

  56. [64]

    Ohmura, T. et al. In Vivo Microrheology Reveals Local Elastic and Plastic Responses Inside 3D Bacterial Biofilms. Adv. Mater. 36, 2314059 (2024)

    2024

  57. [65]

    Sugimoto, S. et al. Imaging of bacterial multicellular behaviour in biofilms in liquid by atmospheric scanning electron microscopy. Sci. Rep. 6, 25889 (2016)

    2016

  58. [66]

    Nishiyama, H. et al. Atmospheric scanning electron microscope system with an open sample chamber: Configuration and applications. Ultramicroscopy 147, 86–97 (2014)

    2014

  59. [67]

    Heydorn, A. et al. Quantification of biofilm structures by the novel computer program comstat. Microbiology 146, 2395–2407 (2000)

    2000

  60. [68]

    N., De Brouwer, J

    Mueller, L. N., De Brouwer, J. F., Almeida, J. S., Stal, L. J. & Xavier, J. B. Analysis of a marine phototrophic biofilm by confocal laser scanning microscopy using the new image quantification software PHLIP. BMC Ecol. 6, 1 (2006)

    2006

  61. [69]

    & Wagner, M

    Daims, H., Lücker, S. & Wagner, M. daime , a novel image analysis program for microbial ecology and biofilm research. Environ. Microbiol. 8, 200–213 (2006)

    2006

  62. [70]

    Zhang, M. et al. Non-invasive single-cell morphometry in living bacterial biofilms. Nat. Commun. 11, 6151 (2020)

    2020

  63. [71]

    Hartmann, R. et al. Quantitative image analysis of microbial communities with BiofilmQ. Nat. Microbiol. 6, 151–156 (2021)

    2021

  64. [72]

    Allkja, J. et al. Minimum information guideline for spectrophotometric and fluorometric methods to assess biofilm formation in microplates. Biofilm 2, 100010 (2020)

    2020

  65. [73]

    Narciso, D. A. C. et al. 3D Optical Coherence Tomography image processing in BISCAP: characterization of biofilm structure and properties. Bioinformatics 40, btae041 (2024)

    2024

  66. [74]

    Krentzel, D. et al. CLEM-Reg: an automated point cloud-based registration algorithm for volume correlative light and electron microscopy. Nat. Methods 22, 1923–1934 (2025)

    1923

  67. [75]

    Işıl, Ç. et al. Virtual Gram staining of label-free bacteria using dark-field microscopy and deep learning. Sci. Adv. 11, eads2757 (2025)

    2025

  68. [76]

    Sedaghat, Z. et al. HoloMoA: a holography and deep learning tool for the identification of antimicrobial mechanisms of action and the detection of novel MoA. Front. Microbiol. 16, 1640252 (2025)

    2025

  69. [77]

    Jo, Y. et al. Holographic deep learning for rapid optical screening of anthrax spores

  70. [78]

    Holicheva, A. A. et al. Deep generative modeling of annotated bacterial biofilm images. Npj Biofilms Microbiomes 11, 16 (2025)

    2025

  71. [79]

    & Newman, D

    Dar, D., Dar, N., Cai, L. & Newman, D. K. Spatial transcriptomics of planktonic and sessile bacterial populations at single-cell resolution. Science 373, eabi4882 (2021)

    2021

  72. [80]

    Shi, H. et al. Highly multiplexed spatial mapping of microbial communities. Nature 588, 676–681 (2020)

    2020

  73. [81]

    Bernthal, N. M. et al. A Mouse Model of Post-Arthroplasty Staphylococcus aureus Joint Infection to Evaluate In Vivo the Efficacy of Antimicrobial Implant Coatings. PLoS ONE 5, e12580 (2010)

    2010

  74. [82]

    Wang, Y. et al. Mouse model of hematogenous implant-related Staphylococcus aureus biofilm infection reveals therapeutic targets. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 114, (2017)

    2017

  75. [83]

    Ordonez, A. A. et al. Molecular imaging of bacterial infections: Overcoming the barriers to clinical translation. Sci. Transl. Med. 11, eaax8251 (2019)

    2019

  76. [84]

    Welling, M. M. et al. Radiochemical and biological characteristics of 99mTc-UBI 29–41 for imaging of bacterial infections. Nucl. Med. Biol. 29, 413–422 (2002)

    2002

  77. [85]

    Sathekge, M. et al. Molecular imaging in musculoskeletal infections with 99mTc-UBI 29-41 SPECT/CT. Ann. Nucl. Med. 32, 54–59 (2018)

    2018

  78. [86]

    Maruyama, Y. et al. Direct Observation of Protein Microcrystals in Crystallization Buffer by Atmospheric Scanning Electron Microscopy. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 13, 10553–10567 (2012)

    2012

  79. [87]

    Park, S.-C. et al. Anti-Biofilm Effects of Synthetic Antimicrobial Peptides Against Drug-Resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Staphylococcus aureus Planktonic Cells and Biofilm. Molecules 24, 4560 (2019)

    2019

  80. [88]

    Zhang, J. et al. Cryo-OrbiSIMS for 3D Molecular Imaging of a Bacterial Biofilm in Its Native State. Anal. Chem. 92, 9008–9015 (2020). Figures Figure 1. Antimicrobial action on a biofilm is a four-dimensional measurement problem. Four panels map biofilm biology onto the four st...

    2020

Pith tools

Reviewed August 2, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.