The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Characterization of Tn917 insertion mutants of Staphylococcus epidermidis affected in biofilm formation
Open accessAbstract
Biofilm formation is thought to result from the concerted action of primary attachment to a specific surface and accumulation in multilayered cell clusters. Here we describe the isolation and characterization of transposon (Tn917) mutants of Staphylococcus epidermidis O-47 which were biofilm negative in the polystyrene microtiter plate assay. Among 5,000 Tn917 insertion mutants, 4 biofilm-negative mutants were isolated. Each mutant carried one copy of Tn917. The mutants were divided into two phenotypic classes: class A (mut1 and mut1a) and class B (mut2 and mut2a). Mutants of phenotypic class A lacked four cell surface proteins, were less hydrophobic, and were affected in primary attachment to polystyrene, but were still able to form multilayered cell clusters. They were able to form a biofilm on a glass surface, a trait that was even more pronounced than in the wild-type stain O-47. Loss of several surface proteins might have led to the reduced surface hydrophilic structures, thus favoring primary attachment to a glass surface and leading to subsequent biofilm formation. Mutants of phenotype class B were able to attach to polystyrene but were unable to form multilayered cell clusters, had unchanged cell surface proteins and hydrophobicity, and were unable to form a biofilm on a glass surface, mut1 and mut2 could be complemented by wild-type DNA fragments containing the Tn917 insertion sites of mut1 and mut2, respectively. The complemented biofilm-positive clone mut1 (pRC20) produced a 60-kDa protein which is postulated to function as the adhesin for binding to plastic. The traits of binding to polystyrene and the ability to form multilayered cell clusters are phenotypically and genetically distinct.
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
Cited by
Biofilm formation as microbial development
O'Toole, G., Kaplan, H. B., & Kolter, R. (2000) · Annual Review of Microbiology · doi:10.1146/annurev.micro.54.1.49 · Cited by 3,571
Bacterial adhesion: seen any good biofilms lately
Dunne, W. M. (2002) · Clinical Microbiology Reviews · doi:10.1128/cmr.15.2.155-166.2002 · Cited by 1,516
Navarre, W. W., & Schneewind, O. (1999) · Microbiology and Molecular Biology Reviews · doi:10.1128/mmbr.63.1.174-229.1999 · Cited by 1,391
Biofilm formation by Pseudomonas aeruginosa wild type, flagella and type IV pili mutants
Klausen, M., Heydorn, A., Ragas, P., Lambertsen, L., Aaes‐Jørgensen, A., Molin, S., & Tolker‐Nielsen, T. (2003) · Molecular Microbiology · doi:10.1046/j.1365-2958.2003.03525.x · Cited by 1,020
Sharma, S., Mohler, J., Mahajan, S. D., Schwartz, S. A., Bruggemann, L., & Aalinkeel, R. (2023) · Microorganisms · doi:10.3390/microorganisms11061614 · Cited by 993
Metadata
- Authors
- Heilmann, C., Gerke, C., Perdreau-Remington, F., & Götz, F.
- Venue
- Infection and Immunity
- Publisher
- American Society for Microbiology
- Published
- 1996-01
- Volume
- 64
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 277-282
- ISSN
- 0019-9567 (ISSN-L)
- 1098-5522
- OpenAlex
- W2135736506
- Cited by
- 352
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 4.45
- 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: Characterization of Tn917 insertion mutants of Staphylococcus epidermidis affected in biofilm formation. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1128/iai.64.1.277-282.1996
- The paper
- Heilmann, C., Gerke, C., Perdreau-Remington, F., & Götz, F. (1996). Characterization of Tn917 insertion mutants of Staphylococcus epidermidis affected in biofilm formation. Infection and Immunity. https://doi.org/10.1128/iai.64.1.277-282.1996
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.