The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Adhesion of the positively charged bacterium Stenotrophomonas (Xanthomonas) maltophilia 70401 to glass and Teflon
Open accessAbstract
Medical implants are often colonized by bacteria which may cause severe infections. The initial step in the colonization, the adhesion of bacteria to the artificial solid surface, is governed mainly by long-range van der Waals and electrostatic interactions between the solid surface and the bacterial cell. While van der Waals forces are generally attractive, the usually negative charge of bacteria and solid surfaces leads to electrostatic repulsion. We report here on the adhesion of a clinical isolate, Stenotrophomonas maltophilia 70401, which is, at physiological pH, positively charged. S. maltophilia has an electrophoretic mobility of +0.3 x 10(-8) m2 V-1 s-1 at pH 7 and an overall surface isoelectric point at pH 11. The positive charge probably originates from proteins located in the outer membrane. For this bacterium, both long-range forces involved in adhesion are attractive. Consequently, adhesion of S. maltophilia to negatively charged surfaces such as glass and Teflon is much favored compared with the negatively charged bacterium Pseudomonas putida mt2. While adhesion of negatively charged bacteria is impeded in media of low ionic strength because of a thick negatively charged diffuse layer, adhesion of S. maltophilia was particularly favored in dilute medium. The adhesion efficiencies of S. maltophilia at various ionic strengths could be explained in terms of calculated long-range interaction energies between S. maltophilia and glass or Teflon.
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
The role of bacterial cell wall hydrophobicity in adhesion
van Loosdrecht, M. C., Lyklema, J., Norde, W., Schraa, G., & Zehnder, A. J. (1987) · Applied and Environmental Microbiology · doi:10.1128/aem.53.8.1893-1897.1987 · Cited by 959
Self-citationvan Loosdrecht, M. C., Lyklema, J., Norde, W., Schraa, G., & Zehnder, A. J. (1987) · Applied and Environmental Microbiology · doi:10.1128/aem.53.8.1898-1901.1987 · Cited by 725
Self-citation
Cited by
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
Physico-chemistry of initial microbial adhesive interactions – its mechanisms and methods for study
Bos, R. (1999) · FEMS Microbiology Reviews · doi:10.1111/j.1574-6976.1999.tb00396.x · Cited by 1,216
The DLVO theory in microbial adhesion
Hermansson, M. (1999) · Colloids and Surfaces B: Biointerfaces · doi:10.1016/s0927-7765(99)00029-6 · Cited by 1,004
Gottenbos, B. (2001) · Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy · doi:10.1093/jac/48.1.7 · Cited by 587
Key Role of Teichoic Acid Net Charge in Staphylococcus aureus Colonization of Artificial Surfaces
Gross, M., Cramton, S. E., Götz, F., & Peschel, A. (2001) · Infection and Immunity · doi:10.1128/iai.69.5.3423-3426.2001 · Cited by 554
Metadata
- Authors
- Jucker, B. A., Harms, H., & Zehnder, A. J.
- Venue
- Journal of Bacteriology
- Publisher
- American Society for Microbiology
- Published
- 1996-09
- Volume
- 178
- Issue
- 18
- Pages
- 5472-5479
- ISSN
- 0021-9193 (ISSN-L)
- 1098-5530
- OpenAlex
- W2126168690
- Cited by
- 342
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 1.86
- 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: Adhesion of the positively charged bacterium Stenotrophomonas (Xanthomonas) maltophilia 70401 to glass and Teflon. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1128/jb.178.18.5472-5479.1996
- The paper
- Jucker, B. A., Harms, H., & Zehnder, A. J. (1996). Adhesion of the positively charged bacterium Stenotrophomonas (Xanthomonas) maltophilia 70401 to glass and Teflon. Journal of Bacteriology. https://doi.org/10.1128/jb.178.18.5472-5479.1996
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.