Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 365

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

Comparative study of the intestinal mucus barrier in normal and inflamed colon

Open access
Swidsinski, A., Loening-Baucke, V., Theissig, F., Engelhardt, H., Bengmark, S., Koch, S., Lochs, H., Dorffel, Y.·2007·Gut

Abstract

AIM: To study the role of mucus in the spatial separation of intestinal bacteria from mucosa. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Mucus barrier characteristics were evaluated using histological material obtained by biopsy from purged colon, colon prepared with enema and material from untreated appendices fixed with non-aqueous Carnoy solution. Bacteria were evaluated using fluorescence in situ hybridization, with bacterial 16S RNA probes and related to the periodic acid Schiff alcian blue stain. Biopsies from controls (n = 20), patients with self-limiting colitis (SLC; n = 20), ulcerative colitis (n = 20) and 60 randomly selected appendices were investigated. RESULTS: The mucosal surface beneath the mucus layer was free of bacteria in > or =80% of the normal appendices and biopsies from controls. The thickness of the mucus layer and its spread decreased with increasing severity of the inflammation; the epithelial surface showed bacterial adherence, epithelial tissue defects and deep mucosal infiltration with bacteria and leucocytes. Bacteria and leucocytes were found within mucus in all biopsy specimens from patients with ulcerative colitis, SLC, and acute appendicitis. The concentration of bacteria within mucus was inversely correlated to the numbers of leucocytes. CONCLUSIONS: The large bowel mucus layer effectively prevents contact between the highly concentrated luminal bacteria and the epithelial cells in all parts of the normal colon. Colonic inflammation is always accompanied by breaks in the mucus barrier. Although the inflammatory response gradually reduces the number of bacteria in mucus and faeces, the inflammation itself is not capable of preventing bacterial migration, adherence to and invasion of the mucosa.

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 · 10.1136/gut.2006.098160

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 365

Metadata

Authors
Swidsinski, A., Loening-Baucke, V., Theissig, F., Engelhardt, H., Bengmark, S., Koch, S., Lochs, H., & Dorffel, Y.
Venue
Gut
Publisher
BMJ
Published
2007-03-01
Volume
56
Issue
3
Pages
343-350
ISSN
0017-5749 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2114813730
Cited by
365
References
2
FWCI
6.54
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: Comparative study of the intestinal mucus barrier in normal and inflamed colon. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1136/gut.2006.098160
The paper
Swidsinski, A., Loening-Baucke, V., Theissig, F., Engelhardt, H., Bengmark, S., Koch, S., Lochs, H., & Dorffel, Y. (2007). Comparative study of the intestinal mucus barrier in normal and inflamed colon. Gut. https://doi.org/10.1136/gut.2006.098160

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.