Cited by 103Oral microbiology and periodontitis researchGut microbiota and healthBacterial biofilms and quorum sensing

Nitrate-reducing bacteria on rat tongues

Open access
Li, H, Duncan, C, Townend, J, Killham, K, Smith, L M, Johnston, P, Dykhuizen, R, Kelly, D +3 more·1997·Applied and Environmental Microbiology

Abstract

Nitrite-producing bacteria (NPB) were isolated from tongues of laboratory rats. The most commonly found nitrite-producing organism was Staphylococcus sciuri, followed by Staphylococcus intermedius, Pasteurella spp., and finally Streptococcus spp. Both morphometric quantification of bacteria on tongue sections and enumeration of culturable bacteria (CFU) showed an increase in the density of bacteria towards the posterior tongue. Up to 65% of bacteria were located in the deep clefts on the posterior tongue. The proportion of culturable NPB in the total culturable microbial population increased from 6% (10(5) CFU cm-2) on the anterior tongue to 65% (10(7) CFU cm-2) on the posterior tongue. Different species compositions of NPB were found on different tongue sections with S. intermedius populations decreasing and S. sciuri and Pasteurella populations increasing towards the posterior tongue. Nitrite production was sensitive to oxygen, and significant nitrite production was only detected on the posterior tongue where the majority of bacteria are situated in deep clefts in the tongue surface. This study suggests the importance of bacteria in nitrite production, from nitrate, on the tongue. Nitrite produced on the tongue may subsequently form nitric oxide in the acidic environment of the stomach. Because of the antimicrobial properties of nitric oxide, a key role for nitrate-reducing tongue bacteria in host animal defense against food-borne pathogens in proposed.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1128/aem.63.3.924-930.1997

Cites

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, 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?

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 18 · Cited by 103

Authors
Li, H., Duncan, C., Townend, J., Killham, K., Smith, L. M., Johnston, P., Dykhuizen, R., Kelly, D., Golden, M., Benjamin, N., & Leifert, C.
Affiliations
University of Aberdeen (GB)
Venue
Applied and Environmental Microbiology
Published
1997-03
Volume
63
Issue
3
Pages
924-930
ISSN
  • 0099-2240 (ISSN-L)
  • 1098-5336
OpenAlex
W1497814715
Cited by
103
References
18
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 5 · 2012: 5
FWCI
8.54
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Applied and Environmental Microbiology (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Lancaster EPrints (Lancaster University) (submittedVersion)
  • Newcastle University ePrints (Newcastle Univesity)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Dentistry › Periodontics › Oral microbiology and periodontitis research
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Gut microbiota and health
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Bacterial biofilms and quorum sensing
Keywords
nitrate-reducing bacteria, nitrite production, tongue microbiota, Staphylococcus sciuri, Staphylococcus intermedius, Pasteurella, Streptococcus, oxygen sensitivity, nitric oxide, rat tongue
MeSH terms
Animals, Bacteria, Male, Nitrates, Nitrites, Oxidation-Reduction, Tongue, Rats, Sprague-Dawley, Rats

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