The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Lysostaphin Disrupts Staphylococcus aureus and Staphylococcus epidermidis Biofilms on Artificial Surfaces
Open accessAbstract
Staphylococci often form biofilms, sessile communities of microcolonies encased in an extracellular matrix that adhere to biomedical implants or damaged tissue. Infections associated with biofilms are difficult to treat, and it is estimated that sessile bacteria in biofilms are 1,000 to 1,500 times more resistant to antibiotics than their planktonic counterparts. This antibiotic resistance of biofilms often leads to the failure of conventional antibiotic therapy and necessitates the removal of infected devices. Lysostaphin is a glycylglycine endopeptidase which specifically cleaves the pentaglycine cross bridges found in the staphylococcal peptidoglycan. Lysostaphin kills Staphylococcus aureus within minutes (MIC at which 90% of the strains are inhibited [MIC 90 ], 0.001 to 0.064 μg/ml) and is also effective against Staphylococcus epidermidis at higher concentrations (MIC 90 , 12.5 to 64 μg/ml). The activity of lysostaphin against staphylococci present in biofilms compared to those of other antibiotics was, however, never explored. Surprisingly, lysostaphin not only killed S. aureus in biofilms but also disrupted the extracellular matrix of S. aureus biofilms in vitro on plastic and glass surfaces at concentrations as low as 1 μg/ml. Scanning electron microscopy confirmed that lysostaphin eradicated both the sessile cells and the extracellular matrix of the biofilm. This disruption of S. aureus biofilms was specific for lysostaphin-sensitive S. aureus , as biofilms of lysostaphin-resistant S. aureus were not affected. High concentrations of oxacillin (400 μg/ml), vancomycin (800 μg/ml), and clindamycin (800 μg/ml) had no effect on the established S. aureus biofilms in this system, even after 24 h. Higher concentrations of lysostaphin also disrupted S. epidermidis biofilms.
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
Biofilms: Survival Mechanisms of Clinically Relevant Microorganisms
Donlan, R. M., & Costerton, J. W. (2002) · Clinical Microbiology Reviews · doi:10.1128/cmr.15.2.167-193.2002 · Cited by 6,644
LYSOSTAPHIN: A NEW BACTERIOLYTIC AGENT FOR THE STAPHYLOCOCCUS
Schindler, C. A., & Schuhardt, V. T. (1964) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.51.3.414 · Cited by 482
Cited by
Hassan, M., Kjos, M., Nes, I. F., Diep, D. B., & Lotfipour, F. (2012) · Journal of Applied Microbiology · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2672.2012.05338.x · Cited by 402
LaPlante, K. L., & Rybak, M. J. (2004) · Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy · doi:10.1128/aac.48.12.4665-4672.2004 · Cited by 284
New approaches for treating staphylococcal biofilm infections
Kiedrowski, M. R., & Horswill, A. R. (2011) · Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1111/j.1749-6632.2011.06281.x · Cited by 288
Kirby, A. E., Garner, K., & Levin, B. R. (2012) · Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy · doi:10.1128/aac.06480-11 · Cited by 72
Metadata
- Authors
- Wu, J. A., Kusuma, C., Mond, J. J., & Kokai-Kun, J. F.
- Venue
- Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy
- Publisher
- American Society for Microbiology
- Published
- 2003-11
- Volume
- 47
- Issue
- 11
- Pages
- 3407-3414
- ISSN
- 0066-4804 (ISSN-L)
- 1098-6596
- OpenAlex
- W2121138643
- Cited by
- 289
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 3.00
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
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: Lysostaphin Disrupts Staphylococcus aureus and Staphylococcus epidermidis Biofilms on Artificial Surfaces. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1128/aac.47.11.3407-3414.2003
- The paper
- Wu, J. A., Kusuma, C., Mond, J. J., & Kokai-Kun, J. F. (2003). Lysostaphin Disrupts Staphylococcus aureus and Staphylococcus epidermidis Biofilms on Artificial Surfaces. Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy. https://doi.org/10.1128/aac.47.11.3407-3414.2003
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.