The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Biofilm formation by clinical isolates and the implications in chronic infections
Open accessAbstract
BACKGROUND: Biofilm formation is a major virulence factor contributing to the chronicity of infections. To date few studies have evaluated biofilm formation in infecting isolates of patients including both Gram-positive and Gram-negative multidrug-resistant (MDR) species in the context of numerous types of infectious syndromes. Herein, we investigated the biofilm forming capacity in a large collection of single patient infecting isolates and compared the relationship between biofilm formation to various strain characteristics. METHODS: The biofilm-forming capacity of 205 randomly sampled clinical isolates from patients, collected from various anatomical sites, admitted for treatment at Brooke Army Medical Center (BAMC) from 2004-2011, including methicillin-resistant/methicillin susceptible Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA/MSSA) (n=23), Acinetobacter baumannii (n=53), Pseudomonas aeruginosa (n=36), Klebsiella pneumoniae (n=54), and Escherichia coli (n=39), were evaluated for biofilm formation using the high-throughput microtiter plate assay and scanning electron microscopy (SEM). Relationships between biofilm formation to clonal type, site of isolate collection, and MDR phenotype were evaluated. Furthermore, in patients with relapsing infections, serial strains were assessed for their ability to form biofilms in vitro. RESULTS: Of the 205 clinical isolates tested, 126 strains (61.4%) were observed to form biofilms in vitro at levels greater than or equal to the Staphylococcus epidermidis, positive biofilm producing strain, with P. aeruginosa and S. aureus having the greatest number of biofilm producing strains. Biofilm formation was significantly associated with specific clonal types, the site of isolate collection, and strains positive for biofilm formation were more frequently observed to be MDR. In patients with relapsing infections, the majority of serial isolates recovered from these individuals were observed to be strong biofilm producers in vitro. CONCLUSIONS: This study is the first to evaluate biofilm formation in a large collection of infecting clinical isolates representing diverse types of infections. Our results demonstrate: (1) biofilm formation is a heterogeneous property amongst clinical strains which is associated with certain clonal types, (2) biofilm forming strains are more frequently isolated from non-fluid tissues, in particular bone and soft tissues, (3) MDR pathogens are more often biofilm formers, and (4) strains from patients with persistent infections are positive for biofilm formation.
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
Bacterial Biofilms: A Common Cause of Persistent Infections
Costerton, J. W., Stewart, P. S., & Greenberg, E. P. (1999) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.284.5418.1318 · Cited by 12,167
Biofilms: Survival Mechanisms of Clinically Relevant Microorganisms
Donlan, R. M., & Costerton, J. W. (2002) · Clinical Microbiology Reviews · doi:10.1128/cmr.15.2.167-193.2002 · Cited by 6,644
Pseudomonas aeruginosa Displays Multiple Phenotypes during Development as a Biofilm
Sauer, K., Camper, A. K., Ehrlich, G. D., Costerton, J. W., & Davies, D. G. (2002) · Journal of Bacteriology · doi:10.1128/jb.184.4.1140-1154.2002 · Cited by 1,691 · cited 1×
“Adaptation to surface attached growth within a biofilm is accompanied by significant changes in gene and protein expression, as well as metabolic activity [7,8] which confers resistance to antimicrobial therapy [9,10] and host mechanisms of clearance [11,12].”
BackgroundEdwards, R., & Harding, K. G. (2004) · Current Opinion in Infectious Diseases · doi:10.1097/00001432-200404000-00004 · Cited by 1,099
Microscopic and physiologic evidence for biofilm-associated wound colonization in vivo
Davis, S. C., Ricotti, C., Cazzaniga, A., Welsh, E., Eaglstein, W. H., & Mertz, P. M. (2008) · Wound Repair and Regeneration · doi:10.1111/j.1524-475x.2007.00303.x · Cited by 393
Cited by
Antibiotic Resistance Related to Biofilm Formation in Klebsiella pneumoniae
Vuotto, C., Longo, F., Balice, M., Donelli, G., & Varaldo, P. (2014) · Pathogens · doi:10.3390/pathogens3030743 · Cited by 324
Biofilm formation and antibiotic resistance in Klebsiella pneumoniae urinary strains
Vuotto, C., Longo, F., Pascolini, C., Donelli, G., Balice, M. P., Libori, M. F., Tiracchia, V., Salvia, A., & Varaldo, P. E. (2017) · Journal of Applied Microbiology · doi:10.1111/jam.13533 · Cited by 300
Bacterial Biofilm in Chronic Wounds and Possible Therapeutic Approaches
Cavallo, I., Sivori, F., Mastrofrancesco, A., Abril, E., Pontone, M., Di Domenico, E. G., & Pimpinelli, F. (2024) · Biology · doi:10.3390/biology13020109 · Cited by 213
Janek, T., Krasowska, A., Czyżnikowska, Ż., & Łukaszewicz, M. (2018) · Frontiers in Microbiology · doi:10.3389/fmicb.2018.02441 · Cited by 78
Metadata
- Authors
- Sanchez, C. J., Mende, K., Beckius, M. L., Akers, K. S., Romano, D. R., Wenke, J. C., & Murray, C. K.
- Venue
- BMC Infectious Diseases
- Published
- 2013-01-29
- Volume
- 13
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 47-47
- ISSN
- 1471-2334 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2028784466
- Cited by
- 390
- References
- 5
- FWCI
- 13.31
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
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: Biofilm formation by clinical isolates and the implications in chronic infections. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1186/1471-2334-13-47
- The paper
- Sanchez, C. J., Mende, K., Beckius, M. L., Akers, K. S., Romano, D. R., Wenke, J. C., & Murray, C. K. (2013). Biofilm formation by clinical isolates and the implications in chronic infections. BMC Infectious Diseases. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2334-13-47
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.