Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 359

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Thickness and Elasticity of Gram-Negative Murein Sacculi Measured by Atomic Force Microscopy

Open access
Yao, X., Jericho, M., Pink, D., Beveridge, T.·1999·Journal of Bacteriology

Abstract

Atomic force microscopy was used to measure the thickness of air-dried, collapsed murein sacculi from Escherichia coli K-12 and Pseudomonas aeruginosa PAO1. Air-dried sacculi from E. coli had a thickness of 3.0 nm, whereas those from P. aeruginosa were 1.5 nm thick. When rehydrated, the sacculi of both bacteria swelled to double their anhydrous thickness. Computer simulation of a section of a model single-layer peptidoglycan network in an aqueous solution with a Debye shielding length of 0.3 nm gave a mass distribution full width at half height of 2.4 nm, in essential agreement with these results. When E. coli sacculi were suspended over a narrow groove that had been etched into a silicon surface and the tip of the atomic force microscope used to depress and stretch the peptidoglycan, an elastic modulus of 2.5 × 10 7 N/m 2 was determined for hydrated sacculi; they were perfectly elastic, springing back to their original position when the tip was removed. Dried sacculi were more rigid with a modulus of 3 × 10 8 to 4 × 10 8 N/m 2 and at times could be broken by the atomic force microscope tip. Sacculi aligned over the groove with their long axis at right angles to the channel axis were more deformable than those with their long axis parallel to the groove axis, as would be expected if the peptidoglycan strands in the sacculus were oriented at right angles to the long cell axis of this gram-negative rod. Polar caps were not found to be more rigid structures but collapsed to the same thickness as the cylindrical portions of the sacculi. The elasticity of intact E. coli sacculi is such that, if the peptidoglycan strands are aligned in unison, the interstrand spacing should increase by 12% with every 1 atm increase in (turgor) pressure. Assuming an unstressed hydrated interstrand spacing of 1.3 nm (R. E. Burge, A. G. Fowler, and D. A. Reaveley, J. Mol. Biol. 117:927–953, 1977) and an internal turgor pressure of 3 to 5 atm (or 304 to 507 kPa) (A. L. Koch, Adv. Microbial Physiol. 24:301–366, 1983), the natural interstrand spacing in cells would be 1.6 to 2.0 nm. Clearly, if large macromolecules of a diameter greater than these spacings are secreted through this layer, the local ordering of the peptidoglycan must somehow be disrupted.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1128/jb.181.22.6865-6875.1999

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Show all 2 references

Cited by

See all 359

Metadata

Authors
Yao, X., Jericho, M., Pink, D., & Beveridge, T.
Venue
Journal of Bacteriology
Published
1999-11-15
Volume
181
Issue
22
Pages
6865-6875
ISSN
  • 0021-9193 (ISSN-L)
  • 1098-5530
OpenAlex
W2119711877
Cited by
359
References
2
FWCI
5.61
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: Thickness and Elasticity of Gram-Negative Murein Sacculi Measured by Atomic Force Microscopy. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1128/jb.181.22.6865-6875.1999
The paper
Yao, X., Jericho, M., Pink, D., & Beveridge, T. (1999). Thickness and Elasticity of Gram-Negative Murein Sacculi Measured by Atomic Force Microscopy. Journal of Bacteriology. https://doi.org/10.1128/jb.181.22.6865-6875.1999

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.