Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 183

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

Gurjala, Anandev N., Geringer, Matthew R., Seth, Akhil K., Hong, Seok J., Smeltzer, Mark S., Galiano, Robert D., Leung, Kai P., Mustoe, Thomas A.·2011·Wound Repair and Regeneration

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1524-475x.2011.00690.x

Cites

5 of 5 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Show all 5 references

Cited by

See all 183

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.