The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Development of a novel, highly quantitative in vivo model for the study of biofilm‐impaired cutaneous wound healing
Abstract
A growing body of evidence suggests that in addition to hypoxia, ischemia‐reperfusion injury, and intrinsic host factors, bacterial biofilms represent a fourth major pillar in chronic wound pathogenesis. Given that most studies to date rely on in vitro or observational clinical data, our aim was to develop a novel, quantitative animal model enabling further investigation of the biofilm hypothesis in vivo. Dermal punch wounds were created in New Zealand rabbit ears, and used as uninfected controls, or inoculated with green fluorescent protein‐labeled Staphylococcus aureus to form wounds with bacteria predominantly in the planktonic or biofilm phase. Epifluorescence and scanning electron microscopy revealed that S. aureus rapidly forms mature biofilm in wounds within 24 hours of inoculation, with persistence of biofilm viability over time seen through serial bacterial count measurement and laser scanning confocal imaging at different time points postwounding and inoculation. Inflammatory markers confirmed that the biofilm phenotype creates a characteristic, sustained, low‐grade inflammatory response, and that over time biofilm impairs epithelial migration and granulation tissue in‐growth, as shown histologically. We have established and validated a highly quantitative, reproducible in vivo biofilm model, while providing evidence that the biofilm phenotype specifically contributes to profound cutaneous wound healing impairment. Our model highlights the importance of bacterial biofilms in chronic wound pathogenesis, providing an in vivo platform for further inquiry into the basic biology of bacterial biofilm–host interaction and high‐throughput testing of antibiofilm therapeutics.
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
Edwards, R., & Harding, K. G. (2004) · Current Opinion in Infectious Diseases · doi:10.1097/00001432-200404000-00004 · Cited by 1,099
Menke, N. B., Ward, K. R., Witten, T. M., Bonchev, D. G., & Diegelmann, R. F. (2007) · Clinics in Dermatology · doi:10.1016/j.clindermatol.2006.12.005 · Cited by 792
Chronic Wound Pathogenesis and Current Treatment Strategies: A Unifying Hypothesis
Mustoe, T. A., O??Shaughnessy, K., & Kloeters, O. (2006) · Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery · doi:10.1097/01.prs.0000225431.63010.1b · Cited by 653
Self-citationMicroscopic and physiologic evidence for biofilm-associated wound colonization in vivo
Davis, S. C., Ricotti, C., Cazzaniga, A., Welsh, E., Eaglstein, W. H., & Mertz, P. M. (2008) · Wound Repair and Regeneration · doi:10.1111/j.1524-475x.2007.00303.x · Cited by 393
Schierle, C. F., De la Garza, M., Mustoe, T. A., & Galiano, R. D. (2009) · Wound Repair and Regeneration · doi:10.1111/j.1524-475x.2009.00489.x · Cited by 311 · cited 3×
“Previously published models have utilized fluid impermeable, occlusive dressings for their infected wounds without an underlying absorptive gauze pad.(19,20) Clinical observations, as well as our own pilot studies, demonstrate that placement of occlusive dressings over this developing fluid collection creates a seroma…”
BackgroundMethodSelf-citation
Cited by
Biofilms and Inflammation in Chronic Wounds
Zhao, G., Usui, M. L., Lippman, S. I., James, G. A., Stewart, P. S., Fleckman, P., & Olerud, J. E. (2013) · Advances in Wound Care · doi:10.1089/wound.2012.0381 · Cited by 448
Pastar, I., Nusbaum, A. G., Gil, J., Patel, S. B., Chen, J., Valdes, J., Stojadinovic, O., Plano, L. R., Tomic-Canic, M., & Davis, S. C. (2013) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0056846 · Cited by 391
Consensus guidelines for the identification and treatment of biofilms in chronic nonhealing wounds
Schultz, G., Bjarnsholt, T., James, G. A., Leaper, D. J., McBain, A. J., Malone, M., Stoodley, P., Swanson, T., Tachi, M., Wolcott, R. D., et al. (2017) · Wound Repair and Regeneration · doi:10.1111/wrr.12590 · Cited by 337
Biofilm-Innate Immune Interface: Contribution to Chronic Wound Formation
Versey, Z., da Cruz Nizer, W. S., Russell, E., Zigic, S., DeZeeuw, K. G., Marek, J. E., Overhage, J., & Cassol, E. (2021) · Frontiers in Immunology · doi:10.3389/fimmu.2021.648554 · Cited by 253
Mixed‐species biofilm compromises wound healing by disrupting epidermal barrier function
Roy, S., Elgharably, H., Sinha, M., Ganesh, K., Chaney, S., Mann, E., Miller, C., Khanna, S., Bergdall, V. K., Powell, H. M., et al. (2014) · The Journal of Pathology · doi:10.1002/path.4360 · Cited by 208
“At present, all experimental systems addressing skin wound biofilms in pigs are short in duration and therefore inadequate to understand the long-term, clinically relevant host responses to wound biofilms [12,37].”
Background
Metadata
- Authors
- Gurjala, A. N., Geringer, M. R., Seth, A. K., Hong, S. J., Smeltzer, M. S., Galiano, R. D., Leung, K. P., & Mustoe, T. A.
- Venue
- Wound Repair and Regeneration
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2011-04-21
- Volume
- 19
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 400-410
- ISSN
- 1067-1927 (ISSN-L)
- 1524-475X
- OpenAlex
- W1749073278
- Cited by
- 183
- References
- 5
- FWCI
- 5.41
- 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: Development of a novel, highly quantitative in vivo model for the study of biofilm‐impaired cutaneous wound healing. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1524-475x.2011.00690.x
- The paper
- Gurjala, A. N., Geringer, M. R., Seth, A. K., Hong, S. J., Smeltzer, M. S., Galiano, R. D., Leung, K. P., & Mustoe, T. A. (2011). Development of a novel, highly quantitative in vivo model for the study of biofilm‐impaired cutaneous wound healing. Wound Repair and Regeneration. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1524-475x.2011.00690.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.