The DOI matches its Crossref record.
The Penetration of Antibiotics into Aggregates of Mucoid and Non-mucoid Pseudomonas aeruginosa
Abstract
Cells of mucoid and non-mucoid Pseudomonas aeruginosa in colonies were at least one-thousandfold less sensitive to the antibiotics tobramycin or cefsulodin than were cells of the same bacteria in dispersed suspension. We did not detect any difference between the mucoid form and the non-mucoid form in the antibiotic sensitivity of colonies, from which we infer that the exopolysaccharide of the mucoid form does not contribute to colony-resistance by forming a barrier to antibiotic diffusion. Mathematical models were constructed in order to estimate time-courses of penetration of tobramycin and cefsulodin into biofilms and microcolonies of mucoid and non-mucoid P. aeruginosa. For tobramycin penetration, adsorption of antibiotic to the exopolysaccharide of the glycocalyx and antibiotic uptake by cells were taken into account in the calculations. The longest time-period for the concentration of tobramycin at the base of a biofilm 100 micron deep to rise to 90% of the concentration outside the biofilm was predicted to be 2.4 h. For cefsulodin penetration, irreversible hydrolysis catalysed by beta-lactamase was taken into account, using beta-lactamase levels taken from the literature. The calculations predicted that the cefsulodin concentration at the base of a biofilm 100 micron deep would rise to 90% of the external concentration in 29 s when the beta-lactamase was synthesized at the basal level. For a similar biofilm of bacteria synthesizing enhanced levels of beta-lactamase ('derepressed'), the concentration of cefsulodin at the base was calculated to rise to 41% of the external concentration in about 50 s and then remain at that level. This was despite the fact that cefsulodin is a poor substrate for this beta-lactamase.
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
Cited by
Dental biofilms: difficult therapeutic targets
SOCRANSKY, S. S., & HAFFAJEE, A. D. (2002) · Periodontology 2000 · doi:10.1034/j.1600-0757.2002.280102.x · Cited by 1,273
Anderl, J. N., Franklin, M. J., & Stewart, P. S. (2000) · Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy · doi:10.1128/aac.44.7.1818-1824.2000 · Cited by 958
Lewis, K. (2000) · Microbiology and Molecular Biology Reviews · doi:10.1128/mmbr.64.3.503-514.2000 · Cited by 616
Biofilm formation by Candida species on the surface of catheter materials in vitro
Hawser, S. P., & Douglas, L. J. (1994) · Infection and Immunity · doi:10.1128/iai.62.3.915-921.1994 · Cited by 599
Tseng, B. S., Zhang, W., Harrison, J. J., Quach, T. P., Song, J. L., Penterman, J., Singh, P. K., Chopp, D. L., Packman, A. I., & Parsek, M. R. (2013) · Environmental Microbiology · doi:10.1111/1462-2920.12155 · Cited by 466
Metadata
- Authors
- Nichols, W. W., Evans, M. J., Slack, M. P. E., & Walmsley, H. L.
- Venue
- Microbiology
- Publisher
- Microbiology Society
- Published
- 1989-05-01
- Volume
- 135
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 1291-1303
- ISSN
- 1350-0872 (ISSN-L)
- 1465-2080
- OpenAlex
- W2147507723
- Cited by
- 249
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 3.72
- 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: The Penetration of Antibiotics into Aggregates of Mucoid and Non-mucoid Pseudomonas aeruginosa. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1099/00221287-135-5-1291
- The paper
- Nichols, W. W., Evans, M. J., Slack, M. P. E., & Walmsley, H. L. (1989). The Penetration of Antibiotics into Aggregates of Mucoid and Non-mucoid Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Microbiology. https://doi.org/10.1099/00221287-135-5-1291
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.