Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 542

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Distribution, Organization, and Ecology of Bacteria in Chronic Wounds

Open access
Kirketerp-Møller, Klaus, Jensen, Peter Ø., Fazli, Mustafa, Madsen, Kit G., Pedersen, Jette, Moser, Claus, Tolker-Nielsen, Tim, Høiby, Niels, Givskov, Michael, Bjarnsholt, Thomas·2008·Journal of Clinical Microbiology

Abstract

Between 1 and 2% of the population in the developed world experiences a nonhealing or chronic wound characterized by an apparent arrest in a stage dominated by inflammatory processes. Lately, research groups have proposed that bacteria might be involved in and contribute to the lack of healing of these wounds. To investigate this, we collected and examined samples from chronic wounds obtained from 22 different patients, all selected because of suspicion of Pseudomonas aeruginosa colonization. These wound samples were investigated by standard culturing methods and peptide nucleic acid-based fluorescence in situ hybridization (PNA FISH) for direct identification of bacteria. By means of the culturing methods, Staphylococcus aureus was detected in the majority of the wounds, whereas P. aeruginosa was observed less frequently. In contrast, using PNA FISH, we found that a large fraction of the wounds contained P. aeruginosa . Furthermore, PNA FISH revealed the structural organization of bacteria in the samples. It appeared that P. aeruginosa aggregated as microcolonies imbedded in the matrix component alginate, which is a characteristic hallmark of the biofilm mode of growth. The present investigation suggests that bacteria present within these wounds tend to be aggregated in microcolonies imbedded in a self-produced matrix, characteristic of the biofilm mode of growth. Additionally, we must conclude that there exists no good correlation between bacteria detected by standard culturing methods and those detected by direct detection methods such as PNA FISH. This strongly supports the development of new diagnostic and treatment strategies for chronic wounds.

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/jcm.00501-08

Cites

3 of 3 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 3 references

Cited by

See all 542

Metadata

Authors
Kirketerp-Møller, K., Jensen, P. Ø., Fazli, M., Madsen, K. G., Pedersen, J., Moser, C., Tolker-Nielsen, T., Høiby, N., Givskov, M., & Bjarnsholt, T.
Venue
Journal of Clinical Microbiology
Published
2008-08
Volume
46
Issue
8
Pages
2717-2722
ISSN
  • 0095-1137 (ISSN-L)
  • 1098-660X
OpenAlex
W2167307872
Cited by
542
References
3
FWCI
7.69
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: Distribution, Organization, and Ecology of Bacteria in Chronic Wounds. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1128/jcm.00501-08
The paper
Kirketerp-Møller, K., Jensen, P. Ø., Fazli, M., Madsen, K. G., Pedersen, J., Moser, C., Tolker-Nielsen, T., Høiby, N., Givskov, M., & Bjarnsholt, T. (2008). Distribution, Organization, and Ecology of Bacteria in Chronic Wounds. Journal of Clinical Microbiology. https://doi.org/10.1128/jcm.00501-08

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.