The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Staphylococcus and biofilms
Abstract
Summary: The genetic and molecular basis of biofilm formation in staphylococci is multifaceted. The ability to form a biofilm affords at least two properties: the adherence of cells to a surface and accumulation to form multilayered cell clusters. A trademark is the production of the slime substance PIA, a polysaccharide composed of β‐1,6‐linked N‐acetylglucosamines with partly deacetylated residues, in which the cells are embedded and protected against the host’s immune defence and antibiotic treatment. Mutations in the corresponding biosynthesis genes (ica operon) lead to a pleiotropic phenotype; the cells are biofilm and haemagglutination negative, less virulent and less adhesive on hydrophilic surfaces. ica expression is modulated by various environmental conditions, appears to be controlled by SigB and can be turned on and off by insertion sequence (IS) elements. A number of biofilm‐negative mutants have been isolated in which polysaccharide intercellular adhesin (PIA) production appears to be unaffected. Two of the characterized mutants are affected in the major autolysin (atlE) and in D‐alanine esterification of teichoic acids (dltA). Proteins have been identified that are also involved in biofilm formation, such as the accumulation‐associated protein (AAP), the clumping factor A (ClfA), the staphylococcal surface protein (SSP1) and the biofilm‐associated protein (Bap). Concepts for the prevention of obstinate polymer‐associated infections include the search for new anti‐infectives active in biofilms and new biocompatible materials that complicate biofilm formation and the development of vaccines.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Heilmann, C., Hussain, M., Peters, G., & Götz, F. (1997) · Molecular Microbiology · doi:10.1046/j.1365-2958.1997.4101774.x · Cited by 700
Self-citation
Cited by
Flemming, H.-C., & Wingender, J. (2010) · Nature Reviews Microbiology · doi:10.1038/nrmicro2415 · Cited by 10,137
James, G. A., Swogger, E., Wolcott, R., Pulcini, E. D., Secor, P., Sestrich, J., Costerton, J. W., & Stewart, P. S. (2008) · Wound Repair and Regeneration · doi:10.1111/j.1524-475x.2007.00321.x · Cited by 1,543
Izano, E. A., Amarante, M. A., Kher, W. B., & Kaplan, J. B. (2008) · Applied and Environmental Microbiology · doi:10.1128/aem.02073-07 · Cited by 553
Al-Fattani, M. A., & Douglas, L. J. (2006) · Journal of Medical Microbiology · doi:10.1099/jmm.0.46569-0 · Cited by 548
Biofilm, pathogenesis and prevention—a journey to break the wall: a review
Gupta, P., Sarkar, S., Das, B., Bhattacharjee, S., & Tribedi, P. (2016) · Archives of Microbiology · doi:10.1007/s00203-015-1148-6 · Cited by 493
Metadata
- Authors
- Götz, F.
- Venue
- Molecular Microbiology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2002-03
- Volume
- 43
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 1367-1378
- ISSN
- 0950-382X (ISSN-L)
- 1365-2958
- OpenAlex
- W2037918377
- Cited by
- 1,178
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 13.82
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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: Staphylococcus and biofilms. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1046/j.1365-2958.2002.02827.x
- The paper
- Götz, F. (2002). Staphylococcus and biofilms. Molecular Microbiology. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2958.2002.02827.x
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.