a mucus layer also can result in development of a biofilm infection. Adherence to host tissue can lead to a number of diseases, like chronic wound infection, chronic otitis media, chronic osteomyelitisitis, chronic rhinosinusitis, recurrent urinary tract infection, endocarditis and cystic fibrosis-associated lung infection [10]. Biofilm-forming bacteria are also associated with chronic inflammatory diseases such as [PERSON]'s disease as well as dental caries and periodontitis [11; 12]. The second type portrays colonization of bacteria on abiotic surfaces such as those of indwelling medical implants. Despite the steady developments in surgical practices and biomaterial design, biomaterial-associated infections account for a large portion of all nosocomial infections and pose an enormous global economic burden, as they can compromise or even cause the failure of the medical implant. In case of infected implants, the best and often only option is removal and replacement, which often require surgical procedures, thus imposing greater costs to healthcare system providers, as well as inconvenience and increased risk for the patient [13]. The surface of medical implants can be colonized by bacteria during the implantation process, or at a later time point [14; 15], putting the performance and longevity of the implant at risk. For example, in catheterized patients, catheter-associated urinary tract infections account for roughly a quarter of the infections in intensive care units [16; 17]. Conventional approaches, including prophylactic and systemic administration of antibiotics, or even combinations of them, fail to adequately treat biofilm-associated infections. Additionally, none of the antibiotics currently available in the clinic have been specifically designed to eradicate microbial biofilms. For example, despite aggressive and intensive antibiotic therapy, chronic _Pseudomonas aeruginosa_ lung infection in cystic fibrosis patients is almost never fully eradicated [18; 19]. Similar trends are observed in combating infections on medical implants, due to failure of establishment of a sufficient antibiotic concentration at the implant site [20; 21; 22]. Hence, a novel therapeutic approach for biofilm eradication as well as localized delivery of antimicrobial agents, which will tackle the problems of systemic drug administration is highly desirable [15; 23; 24; 25]. Therefore, in the wake of the growing antimicrobial resistance and the severe lack of new antibiotics, antimicrobial peptides (AMPs) have emerged as an attractive tool to combat both bacterial biofilms and antibiotic resistant strains [26]. As a part of innate immune system, AMPs exhibit broad-spectrum activity and provide a first line of defense of virtually all organisms [27]. Today, all reported naturally occurring and synthetic AMPs are collected in databases, e.g., Data Repository of Antimicrobial Peptides (DRAMP), which contains more than 4500 sequences of antimicrobial peptides [28]. AMPs are typically composed of cationic and hydrophobic amino acids, comprising a total length of 12-50 residues and they are generally amphipathic. Notably, not only the presence of cationic and hydrophobic residues but also their distribution in the peptide sequence can influence both antimicrobial activity and cytotoxicity [29]. Even though the precise mechanism of action of AMPs is still unknown, they are believed to permeabilize the bacterial membrane, leading to no specificity in targeting, hence less chance of development of antimicrobial resistance [30]. Positively charged AMPs interact with the negatively charged bacterial membrane, via electrostatic forces. In several proposed models, AMPs either bind [31], insert themselves into the membrane [32] or cover the membrane in a detergent-like manner [33].