Otitis externa (OE) is a frequently reported disorder in dogs associated with secondary infections by Staphylococcus, Pseudomonas and yeast pathogens. The presence of biofilms may play an important role in the resistance of otic pathogens to antimicrobial agents. Biofilm production of twenty Staphylococcus pseudintermedius and twenty Pseudomonas aeruginosa canine otic isolates was determined quantitatively using a microtiter plate assay, and each isolate was classified as a strong, moderate, weak or nonbiofilm producer. Minimum biofilm eradication concentration (MBEC) of two ionophores (narasin and monensin) and three adjuvants (N-acetylcysteine (NAC), Tris-EDTA and disodium EDTA) were investigated spectrophotometrically (OD570nm ) and quantitatively (CFU/ml) against selected Staphylococcus and Pseudomonas biofilm cultures. Concurrently, minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) and minimum bactericidal concentration (MBC) of planktonic cultures were assessed. 16/20 of the S. pseudintermedius clinical isolates were weak biofilm producers. 19/20 P. aeruginosa clinical isolates produced biofilms and were distributed almost equally as weak, moderate and strong biofilm producers. While significant antibiofilm activity was observed, no MBEC was achieved with narasin or monensin. The MBEC for NAC ranged from 5,000-10,000 µg/ml and from 20,000-80,000 µg/ml against S. pseudintermedius and P. aeruginosa, respectively. Tris-EDTA eradicated P. aeruginosa biofilms at concentrations ranging from 6,000/1,900 to 12,000/3,800 µg/ml. The MBEC was up to 16-fold and eightfold higher than the MIC/MBC of NAC and Tris-EDTA, respectively. Disodium EDTA reduced biofilm growth of both strains at concentrations of 470 µg/ml and higher. It can be concluded that biofilm production is common in pathogens associated with canine OE. NAC and Tris-EDTA are effective antibiofilm agents in vitro that could be considered for the treatment of biofilm-associated OE in dogs.
In recent years, especially since the COVID-19 pandemic, the number of predatory journals has increased significantly. Predatory journals exploit the "open-access model" by engaging in deceptive practices such as charging high publication fees without providing the expected quality and performing insufficient or no peer review. Such behaviors undermine the integrity of scientific research and can result in researchers having trouble identifying reputable publication opportunities, particularly early-career researchers who struggle to understand and establish the correct criteria for publication in reputable journals. Publishing in journals that do not fully cover the criteria for scientific publication is also an ethical issue. This review aimed to describe the characteristics of predatory journals, differentiate between reliable and predatory journals, investigate the reasons that lead researchers to publish in predatory journals, evaluate the negative impact of predatory publications on the scientific community, and explore future perspectives. The authors also provide some considerations for researchers (particularly early-career researchers) when selecting journals for publication, explaining the role of metrics, databases, and artificial intelligence in manuscript preparation, with a specific focus on and relevance to publication in veterinary medicine.