CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 86

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Diagnosis of biofilm infections: current methods used, challenges and perspectives for the future

Silva, N.B.S., Marques, L.A., Röder, D.D.B.·2021·Journal of Applied Microbiology
DOI 10.1111/jam.15049
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

The diagnosis of biofilms continues to be a challenge, and there is no standardized protocol for such a diagnosis in clinical practice. In addition, some proposed methodologies are expensive to require significant amounts of time and a high number of trained staff, making them impracticable for clinical practice. In recent years, mass spectrophotometry/matrix-assisted laser desorption ionization time of flight (MALDI-TOF) has been applied it in biofilm studies. However, due to several problems and limitations of the technique, MALDI-TOF is far from being the gold standard for identifying biofilm formation. The omics analysis may prove to be a promising strategy for the diagnosis of biofilms in clinical laboratories since it allows the identification of pathogens in less time than needed for conventional techniques and in a more specific manner. However, omic tools are expensive and require qualified technical expertise, and an analysis of the data obtained needs to be careful not to neglect subpopulations in the biofilm. More studies must therefore be developed for creating a protocol that guarantees rapid biofilm identification, ensuring greater chances of success in infection control. This review discusses the current methods of microbial biofilm detection and future perspectives for its diagnosis in clinical practice.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/jam.15049

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Verification

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?

Citations

Cites

Show all 3 references

Research works printed but not linked: 70

  1. 10.1016/j.mimet.2017.06.004 · DOI
  2. 10.1080/1040841X.2016.1208146 · DOI
  3. 10.1016/j.apjtb.2016.04.006 · DOI
  4. Bernardi S., 2019, Streptococcus spp. and Fusobacterium nucleatum in tongue dorsum biofilm from halitosis patients: a fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) and confocal laser scanning microscopy (CLSM) study, New Microbiol, 42, 108
  5. 10.3390/ijerph15081695 · DOI
  6. 10.1038/s41522-017-0012-7 · DOI
  7. 10.1089/mdr.2018.0027 · DOI
  8. 10.1093/mmy/myx111 · DOI
  9. 10.1016/j.cmi.2018.01.003 · DOI
  10. 10.3390/jof3020022 · DOI
  11. 10.1080/14787210.2018.1417036 · DOI
  12. 10.1073/pnas.1822018116 · DOI
  13. 10.1093/femsyr/foy025 · DOI
  14. 10.1007/5584_2017_34 · DOI
  15. 10.3390/cells8101129 · DOI
  16. 10.1111/jam.13368 · DOI
  17. 10.3109/1040841X.2016.1169990 · DOI
  18. 10.1111/coa.13141 · DOI
  19. 10.1016/j.mimet.2018.01.003 · DOI
  20. Grela E., 2015, Interferences in the optimization of the MTT assay for viability estimation of Proteus mirabilis, Avicenna J Med Biotechnol, 7, 159
  21. 10.3889/oamjms.2018.246 · DOI
  22. 10.1556/030.66.2019.026 · DOI
  23. 10.1016/j.cmi.2014.10.024 · DOI · Paper page
  24. Hrdlickova R., 2017, RNA‐Seq methods for transcriptome analysis, Adv Rev, 8, e1364
  25. 10.1016/j.jcma.2017.07.012 · DOI
  26. 10.1038/s41564-017-0065-7 · DOI
  27. 10.3390/ma11091705 · DOI
  28. 10.1016/j.genrep.2019.100561 · DOI
  29. 10.1016/j.mimet.2015.08.012 · DOI
  30. 10.1039/c2an15931g · DOI
  31. 10.1111/1750-3841.13017 · DOI
  32. 10.1128/9781555817466.ch11 · DOI
  33. 10.7717/peerj.780 · DOI
  34. 10.1007/978-1-4939-2851-4_1 · DOI
  35. 10.1590/S1517-83822013005000031 · DOI
  36. 10.1007/s12223-016-0458-7 · DOI
  37. 10.1590/0037-8682-0214-2019 · DOI
  38. 10.1002/mbo3.455 · DOI
  39. 10.1002/jor.24019 · DOI
  40. 10.1177/0022034517701902 · DOI
  41. 10.2147/IJGM.S153268 · DOI
  42. 10.1016/j.tim.2014.12.010 · DOI
  43. 10.3390/pathogens8010014 · DOI
  44. 10.1016/j.mimet.2017.08.003 · DOI
  45. 10.1126/scitranslmed.aax8251 · DOI
  46. 10.2217/fmb-2018-0293 · DOI
  47. 10.1016/j.mib.2012.02.005 · DOI
  48. 10.14348/molcells.2017.0017 · DOI
  49. 10.1016/j.mimet.2007.11.010 · DOI
  50. 10.1002/bjs.10433 · DOI
  51. 10.1016/j.micpath.2015.07.005 · DOI
  52. 10.1016/j.tibtech.2016.09.001 · DOI
  53. 10.1039/C8AN01488D · DOI
  54. 10.1080/1120009X.2019.1601801 · DOI
  55. 10.1016/j.mimet.2016.03.002 · DOI
  56. Shahmoradi M., 2019, Determining the biofilm forming gene profile of Staphylococcus aureus clinical isolates via multiplex colony PCR method, Rep Biochem Mol Biol, 7, 181
  57. Shukla S.K., 2017, An improved crystal violet assay for biofilm quantification in 96‐well microtitre plate, Biorxiv
  58. 10.2174/1874285801711010053 · DOI
  59. 10.3389/fmicb.2015.00791 · DOI
  60. 10.1186/s13568-015-0134-3 · DOI
  61. 10.1111/j.1600-0463.2007.apm_630.x · DOI
  62. 10.1016/B978-0-08-100382-4.00001-0 · DOI
  63. 10.1038/srep25889 · DOI
  64. 10.1111/jam.13533 · DOI
  65. 10.1016/j.tiv.2011.07.007 · DOI
  66. 10.3390/ijms17060870 · DOI
  67. 10.1007/s00284-016-1081-1 · DOI
  68. Yadav M.K., 2020, New and Future Developments in Microbial Biotechnology and Bioengineering: Microbial Biofilms, 15, 10.1016/B978-0-444-64279-0.00002-5 · DOI
  69. 10.1007/978-981-13-0529-0_1 · DOI
  70. 10.4155/fmc.12.59 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 86

Metadata

Authors
Silva, N. B. S., Marques, L. A., & Röder, D. D. B.
Venue
Journal of Applied Microbiology
Publisher
Oxford University Press (OUP)
Published
2021-03-08
Volume
131
Issue
5
Pages
2148-2160
ISSN
  • 1364-5072
  • 1365-2672
DOI
10.1111/jam.15049
Cited by
86
References
3
Language
en
Licence

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: Diagnosis of biofilm infections: current methods used, challenges and perspectives for the future. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/jam.15049
The paper
Silva, N. B. S., Marques, L. A., & Röder, D. D. B. (2021). Diagnosis of biofilm infections: current methods used, challenges and perspectives for the future. Journal of Applied Microbiology. https://doi.org/10.1111/jam.15049