Cited by 311Bacterial biofilms and quorum sensingWound Healing and TreatmentsAntimicrobial Resistance in Staphylococcus

Staphylococcal biofilms impair wound healing by delaying reepithelialization in a murine cutaneous wound model

Schierle, Clark F., De la Garza, Mauricio, Mustoe, Thomas A., Galiano, Robert D.·2009·Wound Repair and Regeneration

Abstract

Bacterial biofilms have gained increasing visibility in recent years as a ubiquitous form of survival for microorganisms in myriad environments. A number of in vivo models exist for the study of biofilms in the setting of medically relevant implanted foreign bodies. Growing evidence has demonstrated the presence of bacterial biofilms in the setting of a number of chronic wound states including pressure sores, diabetic foot ulcers, and venous stasis ulcers. Here we present a novel murine cutaneous wound system that directly demonstrates delayed reepithelialization caused by the presence of a bacterial biofilm. We established biofilms using either Staphylococcus aureus or Staphylococcus epidermidis in splinted cutaneous punch wounds created on the backs of normal C57Bl6/J mice. Wound reepithelialization was significantly delayed by bacterial biofilms. This effect was specifically dependent on the ability of the bacteria to form biofilms as demonstrated by exogenous administration of biofilm inhibiting peptides and the use of mutant Staphylococcus spp. deficient in biofilm formation. This represents the first direct evidence for the effect of bacterial biofilms on cutaneous wound healing.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1524-475x.2009.00489.x

Cites

43 of 43 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?

  • Many bacteria, including both commensal bacteria such as S. epidermidis and opportunistic microbes, are capable of forming biofilms.

    “However many bacteria, including both commensal bacteria, such as S. epidermidis, and opportunistic microbes are capable of forming biofilms.10”

    From The Innate Immune System in Acute and Chronic Wounds (2016) · cites this paper as [10]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Schierle, C. F., De la Garza, M., Mustoe, T. A., & Galiano, R. D.
Affiliations
Northwestern University (US)
Corresponding author
Galiano, Robert D.
Venue
Wound Repair and Regeneration
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2009-05
Volume
17
Issue
3
Pages
354-359
ISSN
  • 1067-1927 (ISSN-L)
  • 1524-475X
OpenAlex
W1986560085
Cited by
311
References
43
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 17 · 2023: 20 · 2022: 20 · 2021: 25 · 2020: 19 · 2019: 22 · 2018: 28 · 2017: 21 · 2016: 26 · 2015: 12 · 2014: 18 · 2013: 21 · 2012: 23
FWCI
6.15
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Wound Repair and Regeneration (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Bacterial biofilms and quorum sensing
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Rehabilitation › Wound Healing and Treatments
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Infectious Diseases › Antimicrobial Resistance in Staphylococcus
Keywords
bacterial biofilms, Staphylococcus aureus, Staphylococcus epidermidis, skin wound healing, re-epithelialization, chronic wounds, pressure ulcers, diabetic foot ulcer, venous leg ulcers
MeSH terms
Animals, Disease Models, Animal, Male, Mice, Inbred C57BL, Skin, Staphylococcal Infections, Staphylococcus aureus, Staphylococcus epidermidis, Wound Healing, Wound Infection, Wounds and Injuries, Biofilms, 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