The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Effective Removal of Staphylococcal Biofilms by the Endolysin LysH5
Open accessAbstract
Staphylococcal biofilms are a major concern in both clinical and food settings because they are an important source of contamination. The efficacy of established cleaning procedures is often hindered due to the ability of some antimicrobial compounds to induce biofilm formation, and to the presence of persister cells, a small bacterial subpopulation that exhibits multidrug tolerance. Phage lytic enzymes have demonstrated antimicrobial activity against planktonic and sessile bacteria. However, their ability to lyse and/or select persister cells remains largely unexplored so far. In this work, the lytic activity of the endolysin LysH5 against Staphylococcus aureus and Staphylococcus epidermidis biofilms was confirmed. LysH5 reduced staphylococcal sessile cell counts by 1-3 log units, compared with the untreated control, and sub-inhibitory concentrations of this protein did not induce biofilm formation. LysH5-surviving cells were not resistant to the lytic activity of this protein, suggesting that no persister cells were selected. Moreover, to prove the lytic ability of LysH5 against this subpopulation, both S. aureus exponential cultures and persister cells obtained after treatment with rifampicin and ciprofloxacin were subsequently treated with LysH5. The results demonstrated that besides the notable activity of endolysin LysH5 against staphylococcal biofilms, persister cells were also inhibited, which raises new opportunities as an adjuvant for some antibiotics.
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
Lewis, K. (2010) · Annual Review of Microbiology · doi:10.1146/annurev.micro.112408.134306 · Cited by 1,858
Bacteriophage lysins as effective antibacterials
Fischetti, V. A. (2008) · Current Opinion in Microbiology · doi:10.1016/j.mib.2008.09.012 · Cited by 477
Fauvart, M., De Groote, V. N., & Michiels, J. (2011) · Journal of Medical Microbiology · doi:10.1099/jmm.0.030932-0 · Cited by 425
Enzymatic Detachment of Staphylococcus epidermidis Biofilms
Kaplan, J. B., Ragunath, C., Velliyagounder, K., Fine, D. H., & Ramasubbu, N. (2004) · Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy · doi:10.1128/aac.48.7.2633-2636.2004 · Cited by 332
Bacteriophage virion-associated peptidoglycan hydrolases: potential new enzybiotics
Rodríguez-Rubio, L., Martínez, B., Donovan, D. M., Rodríguez, A., & García, P. (2013) · Critical Reviews in Microbiology · doi:10.3109/1040841x.2012.723675 · Cited by 173
Self-citation
Cited by
Biofilms in the Food Industry: Health Aspects and Control Methods
Galié, S., García-Gutiérrez, C., Miguélez, E. M., Villar, C. J., & Lombó, F. (2018) · Frontiers in Microbiology · doi:10.3389/fmicb.2018.00898 · Cited by 964
Antibiotic resistance and persistence—implications for human health and treatment perspectives
Huemer, M., Mairpady Shambat, S., Brugger, S. D., & Zinkernagel, A. S. (2020) · The EMBO Reports · doi:10.15252/embr.202051034 · Cited by 850
Fighting bacterial persistence: Current and emerging anti-persister strategies and therapeutics
Defraine, V., Fauvart, M., & Michiels, J. (2018) · Drug Resistance Updates · doi:10.1016/j.drup.2018.03.002 · Cited by 222
Maciejewska, B., Olszak, T., & Drulis-Kawa, Z. (2018) · Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology · doi:10.1007/s00253-018-8811-1 · Cited by 222
Metadata
- Authors
- Gutiérrez, D., Ruas-Madiedo, P., Martínez, B., Rodríguez, A., & García, P.
- Venue
- PLoS ONE
- Publisher
- Public Library of Science (PLoS)
- Published
- 2014-09-09
- Volume
- 9
- Issue
- 9
- Pages
- e107307
- ISSN
- 1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2055607275
- Cited by
- 217
- References
- 5
- FWCI
- 9.23
- 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: Effective Removal of Staphylococcal Biofilms by the Endolysin LysH5. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1371/journal.pone.0107307
- The paper
- Gutiérrez, D., Ruas-Madiedo, P., Martínez, B., Rodríguez, A., & García, P. (2014). Effective Removal of Staphylococcal Biofilms by the Endolysin LysH5. PLoS ONE. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0107307
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.