The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Murine model of cutaneous infection with gram-positive cocci
Open accessAbstract
Staphylococcus aureus has remained an important cause of nosocomial wound infections, but standardized or reproducible systems for analyzing cutaneous infections caused by S. aureus do not exist. A variety of foreign materials, variable inocula, and skin traumas have been used to promote infection. To minimize these variables and ensure reproducibility, we chose a model using subcutaneous injections of a fixed quantity of dextran microbeads (Cytodex) as the foreign material added to standardized broth suspensions of S. aureus. Suspensions (0.2 ml) injected into an outbred strain of immunocompetent hairless mice generated reproducible, measurable lesions. With S. aureus Smith Diffuse, fluctuant, erythematous lesions with a peak diameter of 15 mm were observed; these lesions yielded purulent material containing gram-positive cocci and neutrophils and yielded growth of S. aureus on culture. Lesion size was proportional to the bacterial inoculum size. Histologic examination of excised lesions revealed typical abscesses. A second strain of S. aureus (SLC3) produced dermonecrosis instead of abscesses at an inoculum size of 10(7) CFU. Control injections with a sterile Cytodex suspension regularly produced nondraining, nonerythematous nodules with maximum diameters of less than or equal to 5 mm. Streptococcus pyogenes produced late-onset necrotic lesions and abscesses. Using a foreign substance, this model generates easily observed and reproducible cutaneous infection with S. aureus and streptococci that can potentially discriminate between inter- and intrastrain differences. Such a model could be used to test the pathogenicity of isogeneic strains of these bacterial species and to evaluate the efficacy of antimicrobial agents.
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
Patel, A. H., Nowlan, P., Weavers, E. D., & Foster, T. (1987) · Infection and Immunity · doi:10.1128/iai.55.12.3103-3110.1987 · Cited by 280
Cited by
Quorum Sensing in Staphylococci
Novick, R. P., & Geisinger, E. (2008) · Annual Review of Genetics · doi:10.1146/annurev.genet.42.110807.091640 · Cited by 958
Liu, G. Y., Essex, A., Buchanan, J. T., Datta, V., Hoffman, H. M., Bastian, J. F., Fierer, J., & Nizet, V. (2005) · The Journal of Experimental Medicine · doi:10.1084/jem.20050846 · Cited by 752
Voyich, J. M., Otto, M., Mathema, B., Braughton, K. R., Whitney, A. R., Welty, D., Long, R. D., Dorward, D. W., Gardner, D. J., Lina, G., et al. (2006) · The Journal of Infectious Diseases · doi:10.1086/509506 · Cited by 565
Quorum sensing in Staphylococcus infections
Yarwood, J. M., & Schlievert, P. M. (2003) · Journal of Clinical Investigation · doi:10.1172/jci200320442 · Cited by 400
Kennedy, A. D., Wardenburg, J. B., Gardner, D. J., Long, D., Whitney, A. R., Braughton, K. R., Schneewind, O., & DeLeo, F. R. (2010) · The Journal of Infectious Diseases · doi:10.1086/656043 · Cited by 335
Metadata
- Authors
- Bunce, C., Wheeler, L., Reed, G., Musser, J., & Barg, N.
- Venue
- Infection and Immunity
- Publisher
- American Society for Microbiology
- Published
- 1992-07
- Volume
- 60
- Issue
- 7
- Pages
- 2636-2640
- ISSN
- 0019-9567 (ISSN-L)
- 1098-5522
- OpenAlex
- W2103342359
- Cited by
- 186
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 1.03
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
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: Murine model of cutaneous infection with gram-positive cocci. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1128/iai.60.7.2636-2640.1992
- The paper
- Bunce, C., Wheeler, L., Reed, G., Musser, J., & Barg, N. (1992). Murine model of cutaneous infection with gram-positive cocci. Infection and Immunity. https://doi.org/10.1128/iai.60.7.2636-2640.1992
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.