Cited by 78Oral microbiology and periodontitis researchMicrobial infections and disease researchBacterial biofilms and quorum sensing

Effect of co-aggregation on the pathogenicity of oral bacteria

Ochiai, K., Kurita-Ochiai, T., Kamino, Y., Ikeda, T.·1993·Journal of Medical Microbiology

Abstract

The pathogenicity of oral bacteria was studied by measuring the development of subcutaneous abscesses in mice after infection with Actinomyces viscosus and Streptococcus mitis either singly or as co-aggregated pairs. Heat-treated cells were also tested. The pathogenicity of the co-aggregates was examined in various viable and heat-treated combinations of the two bacterial species. More abscesses were formed by A. viscosus than S. mitis at all the bacterial concentrations tested. Also, abscess formation by co-aggregates of the two strains produced a higher percentage of abscess formation than those caused by infection with pure suspensions of A. viscosus or S. mitis. Co-aggregated cells were more resistant to phagocytosis and killing by neutrophils in vitro and in vivo. Furthermore, A. viscosus in co-aggregates were resistant to killing after engulfment by neutrophils. These results suggest that oral bacteria that are able to co-aggregate may resist phagocytosis, and this ability may be linked with pathogenicity.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1099/00222615-39-3-183

Cites

19 of 19 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Co-aggregation of oral bacteria increased resistance to phagocytosis and promoted abscess formation in a mouse subcutaneous infection model.

    “Consistent with this, co-aggregation of oral bacteria increased resistance to phagocytosis and promoted abscess formation in a mouse subcutaneous infection model [4].”

    From Bacterial autoaggregation (2018) · cites this paper as [4]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Ochiai, K., Kurita-Ochiai, T., Kamino, Y., & Ikeda, T.
Affiliations
Nihon University (JP)
Corresponding author
Kamino, Y.
Venue
Journal of Medical Microbiology
Published
1993-09-01
Volume
39
Issue
3
Pages
183-190
ISSN
  • 0022-2615 (ISSN-L)
  • 1473-5644
OpenAlex
W2141517634
Cited by
78
References
19
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 9 · 2013: 2 · 2012: 1
FWCI
0.50
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Medical Microbiology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Dentistry › Periodontics › Oral microbiology and periodontitis research
  • Life Sciences › Immunology and Microbiology › Microbiology › Microbial infections and disease research
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Bacterial biofilms and quorum sensing
Keywords
oral bacteria, pathogenicity, Actinomyces viscosus, Streptococcus mitis, phagocytosis resistance, neutrophil killing, bacterial virulence
MeSH terms
Abscess, Actinomyces, Actinomycosis, Agglutination, Animals, Dental Caries, Dental Plaque, Humans, Male, Mouth, Neutrophils, Periodontal Pocket, Phagocytosis, Streptococcal Infections, Streptococcus, Mice

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