CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 121Oral microbiology and periodontitis researchBacterial biofilms and quorum sensingPeriodontal Regeneration and Treatments

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 51 of the 51 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Porphyromonas gingivalis and Treponema denticola Synergistic Polymicrobial Biofilm Development

Open access
Zhu, Ying, Dashper, Stuart G., Chen, Yu-Yen, Crawford, Simon, Slakeski, Nada, Reynolds, Eric C.·2013·PLoS ONE
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0071727PMC PMC3753311
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Chronic periodontitis has a polymicrobial biofilm aetiology and interactions between key bacterial species are strongly implicated as contributing to disease progression. Porphyromonas gingivalis, Treponema denticola and Tannerella forsythia have all been implicated as playing roles in disease progression. P. gingivalis cell-surface-located protease/adhesins, the gingipains, have been suggested to be involved in its interactions with several other bacterial species. The aims of this study were to determine polymicrobial biofilm formation by P. gingivalis, T. denticola and T. forsythia, as well as the role of P. gingivalis gingipains in biofilm formation by using a gingipain null triple mutant. To determine homotypic and polymicrobial biofilm formation a flow cell system was employed and the biofilms imaged and quantified by fluorescent in situ hybridization using DNA species-specific probes and confocal scanning laser microscopy imaging. Of the three species, only P. gingivalis and T. denticola formed mature, homotypic biofilms, and a strong synergy was observed between P. gingivalis and T. denticola in polymicrobial biofilm formation. This synergy was demonstrated by significant increases in biovolume, average biofilm thickness and maximum biofilm thickness of both species. In addition there was a morphological change of T. denticola in polymicrobial biofilms when compared with homotypic biofilms, suggesting reduced motility in homotypic biofilms. P. gingivalis gingipains were shown to play an essential role in synergistic polymicrobial biofilm formation with T. denticola.

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 · 10.1371/journal.pone.0071727

Cites

51 of 51 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Figures

Figure 1 Representative images. Representative images of mature homotypic and polymicrobial biofilms involving P. gingivalis, T. denticola and T. forsythia. Biofilm images were taken 90 h after inoculation of a flow cell. (a) P. gingivalis homotypic biofilm (b) T. denticola homotypic biofilm (c) Polymicrobial biofilms. Bacterial cells were stained with species-specific FISH probes (red, T. denticola; green, P. gingivalis). 3D CSLM images are on the left and SEM images are on the right.
Figure 1 Representative images. Representative images of mature homotypic and polymicrobial biofilms involving P. gingivalis, T. denticola and T. forsythia. Biofilm images were taken 90 h after inoculation of a flow cell. (a) P. gingivalis homotypic biofilm (b) T. denticola homotypic biofilm (c) Polymicrobial biofilms. Bacterial cells were stained with species-specific FISH probes (red, T. denticola; green, P. gingivalis). 3D CSLM images are on the left and SEM images are on the right.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 2 Synergistic P. gingivalis and T. denticola biofilm formation. Both polymicrobial and homotypic biofilms were produced using a flow cell under identical conditions. The two sets of bars above the species name refer to the biometric parameters measured using the species-specific fluorescent probe for the species grown either as part of the polymicrobial biofilm or as a homotypic biofilm. The primary vertical axis (left) is for maximum (grey bars) and average (black bars) biofilm thickness (μm) and the secondary vertical axis (right) is for biovolume (white bars) (μm3/μm2). Data are expressed as means ± standard deviations of five CLSM images at random positions from biological replicates. All images were analysed using COMSTAT software.
Figure 2 Synergistic P. gingivalis and T. denticola biofilm formation. Both polymicrobial and homotypic biofilms were produced using a flow cell under identical conditions. The two sets of bars above the species name refer to the biometric parameters measured using the species-specific fluorescent probe for the species grown either as part of the polymicrobial biofilm or as a homotypic biofilm. The primary vertical axis (left) is for maximum (grey bars) and average (black bars) biofilm thickness (μm) and the secondary vertical axis (right) is for biovolume (white bars) (μm3/μm2). Data are expressed as means ± standard deviations of five CLSM images at random positions from biological replicates. All images were analysed using COMSTAT software.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 3 P. gingivalis W50ABK biofilm development. (a) 3D rendered confocal fluorescence image of P. gingivalis W50ABK homotypic biofilm stained with Syto 9 DNA dye. (b) 3D rendered confocal fluorescence image of a representative polymicrobial biofilm containing P. gingivalis W50ABK, T. denticola and T. forsythia, harvested at 90 h. Bacterial cells were stained with species-specific FISH probes (red, T. denticola; green, P. gingivalis). (c) SEM image of a representative gold-coated P. gingivalis W50ABK, T. denticola and T. forsythia polymicrobial biofilm.
Figure 3 P. gingivalis W50ABK biofilm development. (a) 3D rendered confocal fluorescence image of P. gingivalis W50ABK homotypic biofilm stained with Syto 9 DNA dye. (b) 3D rendered confocal fluorescence image of a representative polymicrobial biofilm containing P. gingivalis W50ABK, T. denticola and T. forsythia, harvested at 90 h. Bacterial cells were stained with species-specific FISH probes (red, T. denticola; green, P. gingivalis). (c) SEM image of a representative gold-coated P. gingivalis W50ABK, T. denticola and T. forsythia polymicrobial biofilm.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 4 SEM micrographs of polymicrobial biofilms involving wild-type P. gingivalis, T. denticola and T. forsythia. T. dencicola, the long thin spirochaete; P. gingivalis, the smaller grape-like coccobacillus and T. forsythia the larger fusiform rod. Panels B and C are higher magnifications of sections in Panel A. (a) T. denticola forming bridges. (b) P. gingivalis attached to the ends of T. denticola projecting out of the microcolonies. (c) Outer membrane vesicles on the surface of P. gingivalis.
Figure 4 SEM micrographs of polymicrobial biofilms involving wild-type P. gingivalis, T. denticola and T. forsythia. T. dencicola, the long thin spirochaete; P. gingivalis, the smaller grape-like coccobacillus and T. forsythia the larger fusiform rod. Panels B and C are higher magnifications of sections in Panel A. (a) T. denticola forming bridges. (b) P. gingivalis attached to the ends of T. denticola projecting out of the microcolonies. (c) Outer membrane vesicles on the surface of P. gingivalis.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 5 SEM micrographs of polymicrobial biofilms involving P. gingivalis W50ABK mutant, T. denticola and T. forsythia. The left pannel shows P. gingivalis W50ABK mutant cells associated with a T. denticola microcolony and the right pannel shows P. gingivalis cells at the outer edge of a T. denticola microcolony. It has been confirmed by FISH that no T. forsythia was detected in these biofilms (data not shown).
Figure 5 SEM micrographs of polymicrobial biofilms involving P. gingivalis W50ABK mutant, T. denticola and T. forsythia. The left pannel shows P. gingivalis W50ABK mutant cells associated with a T. denticola microcolony and the right pannel shows P. gingivalis cells at the outer edge of a T. denticola microcolony. It has been confirmed by FISH that no T. forsythia was detected in these biofilms (data not shown).CC BY · PubMed Central

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

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?

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 51 references

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Zhu, Y., Dashper, S. G., Chen, Y.-Y., Crawford, S., Slakeski, N., & Reynolds, E. C.
Affiliations
The University of Melbourne (AU)
Corresponding author
Reynolds, Eric C.
ORCID
Venue
PLoS ONE
Publisher
Public Library of Science (PLoS)
Published
2013-08-26
Volume
8
Issue
8
Pages
e71727
ISSN
1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1371/journal.pone.0071727
PMC
PMC3753311
OpenAlex
W1977824944
Cited by
121
References
51
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 15 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 12 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 10 · 2015: 11 · 2014: 8 · 2013: 1
FWCI
12.12
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • PLoS ONE (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Minerva Access (University of Melbourne) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Minerva Access (University of Melbourne) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Medical Research Council
  • National Health and Medical Research Council
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Dentistry › Periodontics › Oral microbiology and periodontitis research
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Bacterial biofilms and quorum sensing
  • Health Sciences › Dentistry › Periodontics › Periodontal Regeneration and Treatments
Keywords
Porphyromonas gingivalis, Treponema denticola, Tannerella forsythia, polymicrobial biofilms, chronic periodontitis, gingipains, bacterial adhesins, bacterial synergy, bacterial motility
MeSH terms
Gingipain Cysteine Endopeptidases, Cysteine Endopeptidases, Microscopy, Electron, Scanning, Mutation, Species Specificity, Treponema, Porphyromonas gingivalis, In Situ Hybridization, Fluorescence, Biofilms, Microscopy, Confocal, Adhesins, Bacterial, Treponema denticola, Chronic Periodontitis

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