The attachment and biofilm formation on surfaces causes bacterial resistance to inappropriate conditions such as antibiotics and immune response (
27,
28). All of the 98 MRSA isolates were examined for their potential for biofilm formation. Using the Mtp method, 62 (63.3%) isolates were found to be biofilm producers among which, 9 (9.2%) strains were highly biofilm-positive (OD630 > 0.1) and 53 (54.1%) were low-grade biofilm producer, while 36 (36.7%) strains produced no biofilm. Other studies have reported a slightly higher number of biofilm producers among
Staphylococcal species (
23,
29).
In the CRA method, biofilm formation was observed in 80 (81.6%) isolates whereas 17 (17.3%) strains did not show any biofilm formation. This finding is in agreement with that of the study by Turkyilmaz et al. who detected biofilm production in 74.4% of isolates using CRA method (
30). Among the phenotypic methods, Mtp assay has been reported as the gold standard for biofilm formation (
14). CRA method is easy to perform and interpret, but due to its low specificity and sensitivity, we do not recommend it for detection of biofilm formation (
31). When
S. aureus assumes the biofilm phenotype, the associated infections are often extremely difficult to treat (
32).
In the present study, antimicrobial resistance was 100% for penicillin and cefoxitin, 57% for erythromycin, 54% for clindamycin, 24% for trimethoprim- sulfamethoxazole, 22% for gentamycin, 12% for rifampicin, and 6% for minocycline, but all these isolates were susceptible to vancomycin and linezolid. Therefore, vancomycin, linezolid, and other glycopeptide drugs have remained the last resorts for treatment of
S. aureus, especially MRSA-induced infections (
33). A similar study was performed by Yousefi and his colleagues in 2016 in Iran. They determined the biofilm formation and antibiotic resistance pattern of
Staphylococcus aureus isolated from urinary tract infection. They reported that 69.2% of
S. aureus isolates were biofilm producers and resistance to four antibiotics, namely nitrofurantoin (71.4%/28.6%), tetracycline (57.7%/42.3%), erythromycin, and ciprofloxacin (56%/44) was higher among biofilm producers than among non-biofilm producers (
29). These findings were consistent with our findings in the present study.
CharanKaur and Khare conducted a similar study in 2013 in India on biofilm investigation and antimicrobial susceptibility of MRSA isolates. Out of 231 isolates, 182 (78.8%) of the Methicillin resistant
Staphylococcus aureus isolates were found to form biofilm (
34).
In our study, the antibiotic resistance pattern was higher in biofilm-producing MRSA than in non-biofilm-producers (
Figure 2) although statistical analysis showed no significant relationship between biofilm formation and some antibiotic resistance; a finding that was previously reported by other researchers, too (
9,
35).
The increased resistance of biofilm producing strains to antibiotics may be because the biofilm bacteria exhibit a slow rate of metabolism and divide infrequently, resulting in the decreased sensitivity to antibiotics targeted at cell wall synthesis (
36). However, even antibiotics that target cellular functions, such as protein and DNA synthesis, cannot be effective on biofilm-producing organisms as they are at a quiescent state (
37).