Cited by 118Nosocomial Infections in ICUBacterial Identification and Susceptibility TestingPneumonia and Respiratory Infections

Repertoire of intensive care unit pneumonia microbiota

Open access
Bousbia, Sabri, Papazian, Laurent, Saux, Pierre, Forel, Jean Marie, Auffray, Jean-Pierre, Martin, Claude, Raoult, Didier, La Scola, Bernard·2012·PLoS ONE

Abstract

Despite the considerable number of studies reported to date, the causative agents of pneumonia are not completely identified. We comprehensively applied modern and traditional laboratory diagnostic techniques to identify microbiota in patients who were admitted to or developed pneumonia in intensive care units (ICUs). During a three-year period, we tested the bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL) of patients with ventilator-associated pneumonia, community-acquired pneumonia, non-ventilator ICU pneumonia and aspiration pneumonia, and compared the results with those from patients without pneumonia (controls). Samples were tested by amplification of 16S rDNA, 18S rDNA genes followed by cloning and sequencing and by PCR to target specific pathogens. We also included culture, amoeba co-culture, detection of antibodies to selected agents and urinary antigen tests. Based on molecular testing, we identified a wide repertoire of 160 bacterial species of which 73 have not been previously reported in pneumonia. Moreover, we found 37 putative new bacterial phylotypes with a 16S rDNA gene divergence ≥ 98% from known phylotypes. We also identified 24 fungal species of which 6 have not been previously reported in pneumonia and 7 viruses. Patients can present up to 16 different microorganisms in a single BAL (mean ± SD; 3.77 ± 2.93). Some pathogens considered to be typical for ICU pneumonia such as Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Streptococcus species can be detected as commonly in controls as in pneumonia patients which strikingly highlights the existence of a core pulmonary microbiota. Differences in the microbiota of different forms of pneumonia were documented.

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 · 10.1371/journal.pone.0032486

Cites

54 of 54 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The predicted effect of ecological forces in the lungs of critically ill patients is a state of increased immigration, decreased elimination, and favourable growth conditions for potential pathogens.

    “The predicted effect of these ecological forces in the lungs, therefore, is a state of increased immigration, decreased elimination, and favourable growth conditions for potential pathogens.”

    From The microbiome and critical illness (2016) · cites this paper as [82]

  • Many daily therapies and interventions in intensive care increase intestinal permeability, bacterial translocation, and bacterial virulence.

    “Many daily therapies and interventions in intensive care increase intestinal permeability (eg, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs109 and parenteral feeding55,82), bacterial translocation (eg, antibiotics,65 corticosteroids,110 and opiates111), and bacterial virulence (eg, opiates19 and catecholamines22,51).”

    From The microbiome and critical illness (2016) · cites this paper as [82]

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Bousbia, S., Papazian, L., Saux, P., Forel, J. M., Auffray, J.-P., Martin, C., Raoult, D., & La Scola, B.
Affiliations
  • Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (FR)
  • Hôpital Nord (FR)
  • Hôpital de la Timone (FR)
Venue
PLoS ONE
Published
2012-02-28
Volume
7
Issue
2
Pages
e32486
ISSN
1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2062970569
Cited by
118
References
54
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 12 · 2019: 13 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 11 · 2015: 10 · 2014: 11 · 2013: 14 · 2012: 2
FWCI
9.89
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • PLoS ONE (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Critical Care and Intensive Care Medicine › Nosocomial Infections in ICU
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Clinical Biochemistry › Bacterial Identification and Susceptibility Testing
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Pneumonia and Respiratory Infections
Keywords
ventilator-associated pneumonia, community-acquired pneumonia, aspiration pneumonia, fungal pathogens, viral pathogens, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Streptococcus, 16S rRNA gene, 18S rDNA, urinary antigen test
MeSH terms
Bacteria, Bronchoalveolar Lavage Fluid, DNA, Ribosomal, Humans, Intensive Care Units, Molecular Sequence Data, Phylogeny, Pneumonia

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