Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 276

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 27 of the 27 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Comparison of the invasion strategies used by Salmonella cholerae-suis, Shigella flexneri and Yersinia enterocolitica to enter cultured animal cells: endosome acidification is not required for bacterial invasion or intracellular replication

Open access
Finlay, B.Brett, Falkow, Stanley·1988·Biochimie
DOI 10.1016/0300-9084(88)90271-4
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Strains of Escherichia, Salmonella, Shigella and Yersinia actively enter eukaryotic cells. Several techniques were used to compare and contrast the invasion mechanisms of Salmonella cholerae-suis, Yersinia enterocolitica and Shigella flexneri. Three animal cell lines (CHO, HEp-2 and MDCK) were examined for susceptibility to bacterial entry by these strains. Levels of intracellular bacteria varied widely between cell lines, but CHO cells were the most susceptible to bacterial invasion, HEp-2 invasion levels were intermediary, whereas polarized MDCK cells were invaded to a lesser extent. This illustrates that tissue culture models can be optimized to study bacterial invasion and intracellular replication. We used these tissue culture models to examine the interactions between host cells and these invasive bacteria. The use of lysosomotropic agents (methylamine and ammonium chloride), cationic ionophores (monensin) and acidification-defective CHO cell lines demonstrated that endosome acidification is not required for bacterial invasion or intracellular replication. Drugs which inhibited microfilament formation (cytochalasins B and D) prevented internalization of S. cholerae-suis, Y. enterocolitica and S. flexneri, indicating that invasion is a microfilament-dependent event. The microtubule inhibitors, colchicine, vincristine and vinblastine, did not affect bacterial internalization.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/0300-9084(88)90271-4

Cites

27 of 27 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 27 references

Cited by

See all 276

Metadata

Authors
Finlay, B. B., & Falkow, S.
Venue
Biochimie
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
1988-08
Volume
70
Issue
8
Pages
1089-1099
ISSN
  • 0037-9042 (ISSN-L)
  • 0300-9084
DOI
10.1016/0300-9084(88)90271-4
OpenAlex
W2019284054
Cited by
276
References
27
FWCI
8.85
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
hybrid

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Comparison of the invasion strategies used by Salmonella cholerae-suis, Shigella flexneri and Yersinia enterocolitica to enter cultured animal cells: endosome acidification is not required for bacterial invasion or intracellular replication. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/0300-9084(88)90271-4
The paper
Finlay, B. B., & Falkow, S. (1988). Comparison of the invasion strategies used by Salmonella cholerae-suis, Shigella flexneri and Yersinia enterocolitica to enter cultured animal cells: endosome acidification is not required for bacterial invasion or intracellular replication. Biochimie. https://doi.org/10.1016/0300-9084(88)90271-4

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.