The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Staphylococcus aureus CcpA Affects Biofilm Formation
Open accessAbstract
Biofilm formation in Staphylococcus aureus under in vitro growth conditions is generally promoted by high concentrations of sugar and/or salts. The addition of glucose to routinely used complex growth media triggered biofilm formation in S. aureus strain SA113. Deletion of ccpA , coding for the catabolite control protein A (CcpA), which regulates gene expression in response to the carbon source, abolished the capacity of SA113 to form a biofilm under static and flow conditions, while still allowing primary attachment to polystyrene surfaces. This suggested that CcpA mainly affects biofilm accumulation and intercellular aggregation. trans -Complementation of the mutant with the wild-type ccpA allele fully restored the biofilm formation. The biofilm produced by SA113 was susceptible to sodium metaperiodate, DNase I, and proteinase K treatment, indicating the presence of polysaccharide intercellular adhesin (PIA), protein factors, and extracellular DNA (eDNA). The investigation of several factors which were reported to influence biofilm formation in S. aureus ( arlRS , mgrA , rbf , sarA , atl , ica , citZ , citB , and cidABC ) showed that CcpA up-regulated the transcription of cidA , which was recently shown to contribute to eDNA production. Moreover, we showed that CcpA increased icaA expression and PIA production, presumably over the down-regulation of the tricarboxylic acid cycle genes citB and citZ .
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
Izano, E. A., Amarante, M. A., Kher, W. B., & Kaplan, J. B. (2008) · Applied and Environmental Microbiology · doi:10.1128/aem.02073-07 · Cited by 553
Sadovskaya, I., Vinogradov, E., Flahaut, S., Kogan, G., & Jabbouri, S. (2005) · Infection and Immunity · doi:10.1128/iai.73.5.3007-3017.2005 · Cited by 188
Cited by
Signals, Regulatory Networks, and Materials That Build and Break Bacterial Biofilms
Karatan, E., & Watnick, P. (2009) · Microbiology and Molecular Biology Reviews · doi:10.1128/mmbr.00041-08 · Cited by 1,048
Pozzi, C., Waters, E. M., Rudkin, J. K., Schaeffer, C. R., Lohan, A. J., Tong, P., Loftus, B. J., Pier, G. B., Fey, P. D., Massey, R. C., et al. (2012) · PLoS Pathogens · doi:10.1371/journal.ppat.1002626 · Cited by 294
Staphylococcal response to oxidative stress
Gaupp, R., Ledala, N., & Somerville, G. A. (2012) · Frontiers in Cellular and Infection Microbiology · doi:10.3389/fcimb.2012.00033 · Cited by 253
Therapeutic Potential of Biofilm-Dispersing Enzymes
Kaplan, J. B. (2009) · The International Journal of Artificial Organs · doi:10.1177/039139880903200903 · Cited by 217
Planktonic Aggregates of Staphylococcus aureus Protect against Common Antibiotics
Haaber, J., Cohn, M. T., Frees, D., Andersen, T. J., & Ingmer, H. (2012) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0041075 · Cited by 187
Metadata
- Authors
- Seidl, K., Goerke, C., Wolz, C., Mack, D., Berger-Bächi, B., & Bischoff, M.
- Venue
- Infection and Immunity
- Publisher
- American Society for Microbiology
- Published
- 2008-05
- Volume
- 76
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 2044-2050
- ISSN
- 0019-9567 (ISSN-L)
- 1098-5522
- OpenAlex
- W2158350324
- Cited by
- 179
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 3.85
- 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: Staphylococcus aureus CcpA Affects Biofilm Formation. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1128/iai.00035-08
- The paper
- Seidl, K., Goerke, C., Wolz, C., Mack, D., Berger-Bächi, B., & Bischoff, M. (2008). Staphylococcus aureus CcpA Affects Biofilm Formation. Infection and Immunity. https://doi.org/10.1128/iai.00035-08
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.