The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Differential Gene Expression Profiling of Staphylococcus aureus Cultivated under Biofilm and Planktonic Conditions
Open accessAbstract
It is well known that biofilm formation by pathogenic staphylococci on implanted medical devices leads to “chronic polymer-associated infections.” Bacteria in these biofilms are more resistant to antibiotics and the immune defense system than their planktonic counterparts, which suggests that the cells in a biofilm have altered metabolic activity. To determine which genes are up-regulated in Staphylococcus aureus biofilm cells, we carried out a comparative transcriptome analysis. Biofilm growth was simulated on dialysis membranes laid on agar plates. Staphylococci were cultivated planktonically in Erlenmeyer flasks with shaking. mRNA was isolated at five time points from cells grown under both conditions and used for hybridization with DNA microarrays. The gene expression patterns of several gene groups differed under the two growth conditions. In biofilm cells, the cell envelope appeared to be a very active compartment since genes encoding binding proteins, proteins involved in the synthesis of murein and glucosaminoglycan polysaccharide intercellular adhesin, and other enzymes involved in cell envelope synthesis and function were significantly up-regulated. In addition, evidence was obtained that formate fermentation, urease activity, the response to oxidative stress, and, as a consequence thereof, acid and ammonium production are up-regulated in a biofilm. These factors might contribute to survival, persistence, and growth in a biofilm environment. Interestingly, toxins and proteases were up-regulated under planktonic growth conditions. Physiological and biochemical tests for the up-regulation of urease, formate dehydrogenase, proteases, and the synthesis of staphyloxanthin confirmed the microarray data.
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
Heilmann, C., Hussain, M., Peters, G., & Götz, F. (1997) · Molecular Microbiology · doi:10.1046/j.1365-2958.1997.4101774.x · Cited by 700
Self-citation
Cited by
Backer, R., Rokem, J. S., Ilangumaran, G., Lamont, J., Praslickova, D., Ricci, E., Subramanian, S., & Smith, D. L. (2018) · Frontiers in Plant Science · doi:10.3389/fpls.2018.01473 · Cited by 2,114
Diep, B. A., Gill, S. R., Chang, R. F., Phan, T. H., Chen, J. H., Davidson, M. G., Lin, F., Lin, J., Carleton, H. A., Mongodin, E. F., et al. (2006) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(06)68231-7 · Cited by 1,633
Hurdle, J. G., O'Neill, A. J., Chopra, I., & Lee, R. E. (2011) · Nature Reviews Microbiology · doi:10.1038/nrmicro2474 · Cited by 871
Antibiotic alternatives: the substitution of antibiotics in animal husbandry?
Cheng, G., Hao, H., Xie, S., Wang, X., Dai, M., Huang, L., & Yuan, Z. (2014) · Frontiers in Microbiology · doi:10.3389/fmicb.2014.00217 · Cited by 622
The developmental model of microbial biofilms: ten years of a paradigm up for review
Monds, R. D., & O’Toole, G. A. (2009) · Trends in Microbiology · doi:10.1016/j.tim.2008.11.001 · Cited by 532
Metadata
- Authors
- Resch, A., Rosenstein, R., Nerz, C., & Götz, F.
- Venue
- Applied and Environmental Microbiology
- Publisher
- American Society for Microbiology
- Published
- 2005-05
- Volume
- 71
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 2663-2676
- ISSN
- 0099-2240 (ISSN-L)
- 1098-5336
- OpenAlex
- W2158458733
- Cited by
- 492
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 6.22
- 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: Differential Gene Expression Profiling of Staphylococcus aureus Cultivated under Biofilm and Planktonic Conditions. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1128/aem.71.5.2663-2676.2005
- The paper
- Resch, A., Rosenstein, R., Nerz, C., & Götz, F. (2005). Differential Gene Expression Profiling of Staphylococcus aureus Cultivated under Biofilm and Planktonic Conditions. Applied and Environmental Microbiology. https://doi.org/10.1128/aem.71.5.2663-2676.2005
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.