The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Detection of Differential Gene Expression in Biofilm-Forming versus Planktonic Populations of Staphylococcus aureus Using Micro-Representational-Difference Analysis
Open accessAbstract
Microbial proliferation and biofilm formation on biologic or inert substrates are characteristics of invasive Staphylococcus aureus infections and is associated with phenotypic alterations such as reduced antimicrobial susceptibility. To identify genes which are typically expressed in biofilms, a micro-representational-difference analysis (micro-RDA) was adapted for gram-positive bacteria and used with cDNA derived from populations of S. aureus DSM 20231 growing in a biofilm or plankonically. In comparison to previously described cDNA RDA protocols, micro-RDA has the advantages that only minimal quantities of total RNA are needed and, most importantly, that total RNA can be used since the large amount of rRNA in total RNA does not interfere with the micro-RDA procedure. Using a series of spiked controls with various amounts of MS2 RNA in a background of total RNA from S. aureus, the equivalent of five copies of MS2 per cell were detectable after three rounds of subtractive enrichment. Five genes were identified as being differentially expressed in biofilm versus planktonic cultures. These genes revealed homology to a threonyl-tRNA synthetase, a phosphoglycerate mutase, a triosephosphate isomerase, an alcohol dehydrogenase I, and a ClpC ATPase. Differential levels of expression were subsequently confirmed by standard Northern blotting. In conclusion, micro-RDA is a sensitive and specific method to detect transcripts differentially expressed as a function of different S. aureus growth conditions.
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
Bacterial Biofilms: A Common Cause of Persistent Infections
Costerton, J. W., Stewart, P. S., & Greenberg, E. P. (1999) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.284.5418.1318 · Cited by 12,167
Cited by
Biofilms: Microbial Life on Surfaces
Donlan, R. M. (2002) · Emerging Infectious Diseases · doi:10.3201/eid0809.020063 · Cited by 4,145
Lew, D. P., & Waldvogel, F. A. (2004) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(04)16727-5 · Cited by 1,883
Osteomyelitis and the role of biofilms in chronic infection
Brady, R. A., Leid, J. G., Calhoun, J. H., Costerton, J. W., & Shirtliff, M. E. (2008) · FEMS Immunology & Medical Microbiology · doi:10.1111/j.1574-695x.2007.00357.x · Cited by 400
Iraqui, I., Garcia‐Sanchez, S., Aubert, S., Dromer, F., Ghigo, J., D’Enfert, C., & Janbon, G. (2005) · Molecular Microbiology · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2958.2004.04475.x · Cited by 126
Jia, F.-F., Zhang, L.-J., Pang, X.-H., Gu, X.-X., Abdelazez, A., Liang, Y., Sun, S.-R., & Meng, X.-C. (2017) · Genomics · doi:10.1016/j.ygeno.2017.06.008 · Cited by 82
Metadata
- Authors
- Becker, P., Hufnagle, W., Peters, G., & Herrmann, M.
- Venue
- Applied and Environmental Microbiology
- Publisher
- American Society for Microbiology
- Published
- 2001-07
- Volume
- 67
- Issue
- 7
- Pages
- 2958-2965
- ISSN
- 0099-2240 (ISSN-L)
- 1098-5336
- OpenAlex
- W2156842573
- Cited by
- 183
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 5.00
- 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: Detection of Differential Gene Expression in Biofilm-Forming versus Planktonic Populations of Staphylococcus aureus Using Micro-Representational-Difference Analysis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1128/aem.67.7.2958-2965.2001
- The paper
- Becker, P., Hufnagle, W., Peters, G., & Herrmann, M. (2001). Detection of Differential Gene Expression in Biofilm-Forming versus Planktonic Populations of Staphylococcus aureus Using Micro-Representational-Difference Analysis. Applied and Environmental Microbiology. https://doi.org/10.1128/aem.67.7.2958-2965.2001
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.