Potential for repurposing the personal care product preservatives bronopol and bronidox as broad-spectrum antibiofilm agents for topical application
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Bacterial biofilms represent a major impediment to healing in chronic wounds and are largely refractory to the antibacterial agents currently used in wound management. From a repurposing screen of compounds considered safe for topical application in humans, we report the identification of the personal care product preservatives bronopol and bronidox as broad-spectrum antibiofilm agents and potential candidates for reducing biofilm burden in chronic wounds. METHODS: Antibiofilm activity was assessed by viable counting against single-species biofilms of Staphylococcus aureus and Pseudomonas aeruginosa in the Calgary Biofilm Device, and against mixed-species biofilms of the two organisms growing on nitrocellulose discs. RESULTS: Bronopol and bronidox exhibited broad-spectrum antibiofilm activity that encompassed the two major wound pathogens, S. aureus and P. aeruginosa. When impregnated into gauze dressings at their existing maximum authorized concentrations for safe use and placed onto an established mixed-species biofilm, bronopol and bronidox completely eradicated P. aeruginosa and achieved an ∼5 log10 reduction in the S. aureus population. The antibiofilm action of bronopol and bronidox was attributed to their ability to kill slow- or non-growing bacteria found in biofilms, and both compounds exhibited synergistic antibiofilm effects in combination with established wound-treatment agents. CONCLUSIONS: Bronopol and bronidox kill bacteria regardless of growth state, a property that endows them with broad-spectrum antibiofilm activity. As this effect is observed at concentrations authorized for use on human skin, these compounds represent promising candidates for the treatment of chronic wounds.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".