Cited by 93Bacterial biofilms and quorum sensingEvolutionary Game Theory and CooperationEvolution and Genetic Dynamics

Shaping the growth behaviour of biofilms initiated from bacterial aggregates

Open access
Melaugh, Gavin, Hutchison, Jaime, Kragh, Kasper Nørskov, Irie, Yasuhiko, Roberts, Aled, Bjarnsholt, Thomas, Diggle, Stephen P., Gordon, Vernita D. +1 more·2016·PLoS ONE

Abstract

Bacterial biofilms are usually assumed to originate from individual cells deposited on a surface. However, many biofilm-forming bacteria tend to aggregate in the planktonic phase so that it is possible that many natural and infectious biofilms originate wholly or partially from pre-formed cell aggregates. Here, we use agent-based computer simulations to investigate the role of pre-formed aggregates in biofilm development. Focusing on the initial shape the aggregate forms on the surface, we find that the degree of spreading of an aggregate on a surface can play an important role in determining its eventual fate during biofilm development. Specifically, initially spread aggregates perform better when competition with surrounding unaggregated bacterial cells is low, while initially rounded aggregates perform better when competition with surrounding unaggregated cells is high. These contrasting outcomes are governed by a trade-off between aggregate surface area and height. Our results provide new insight into biofilm formation and development, and reveal new factors that may be at play in the social evolution of biofilm communities.

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.0149683

Cites

71 of 71 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 shape of the aggregate is predicted to affect competition: rounded aggregates fare better at higher cell densities, whereas more spread aggregates that maximise surface area have an advantage when competition is low.

    “The shape of the aggregate is also predicted to affect competition: rounded aggregates fare better at higher cell densities, whereas more spread aggregates that maximise surface area have an advantage when competition is low [96].”

    From Bacterial autoaggregation (2018) · cites this paper as [96]

    The Results section ('Competition for nutrient favours rounded aggregates'; page unavailable) reports that spread aggregates produce more progeny without surrounding competitors, partly because of their greater exposed surface area, while rounded aggregates do better as competitor-cell density increases. The Discussion (page unavailable) qualifies the rounded aggregate’s advantage: under strong competition, it emerges only over longer periods of biofilm growth; spread aggregates grow faster initially. The claim omits that time qualification. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Large spherical aggregates would be favoured only when all bacteria are related.

    “Large, spherical aggregates would thus be favoured only in the situation where all the bacteria are related [96].”

    From Bacterial autoaggregation (2018) · cites this paper as [96]

    The Discussion predicts that rounded aggregates might be favourable when cells within them are closely related. It does not say they are favoured only when all bacteria are related. The Results also find an advantage for rounded aggregates under strong competition without making relatedness a condition. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [35]Characklis WG, Marshall KC. Biofilms. New York: Wiley Interscience; 1990.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Melaugh, G., Hutchison, J., Kragh, K. N., Irie, Y., Roberts, A., Bjarnsholt, T., Diggle, S. P., Gordon, V. D., & Allen, R. J.
Affiliations
  • University of Edinburgh (GB)
  • The University of Texas at Austin (US)
  • University of Copenhagen (DK)
  • University of Nottingham (GB)
Corresponding author
  • Melaugh, Gavin
  • Hutchison, Jaime
  • Kragh, Kasper Nørskov
  • Irie, Yasuhiko
  • Roberts, Aled
  • Bjarnsholt, Thomas
  • Diggle, Stephen P.
  • Gordon, Vernita D.
  • Allen, Rosalind J.
Venue
PLoS ONE
Published
2016-03-02
Volume
11
Issue
3
Pages
e0149683
ISSN
1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2230685186
Cited by
93
References
71
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 15 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 12 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 8
FWCI
5.68
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)
  • Research at the University of Copenhagen (University of Copenhagen) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • The University of Bath Online Publications Store (The University of Bath) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Edinburgh Research Explorer (University of Edinburgh) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Pure (University of Bath) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Texas ScholarWorks (Texas Digital Library) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
  • Texas Digital Library (University of Texas)
Funders
  • Lundbeckfonden
  • Oticon Fonden
  • Knud Højgaards Fond
  • H. Lundbeck A/S
  • Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EP/J007404, J007404, EP/J007404/1)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Bacterial biofilms and quorum sensing
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Evolutionary Game Theory and Cooperation
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Evolution and Genetic Dynamics
Keywords
bacterial biofilms, bacterial aggregates, biofilm initiation, aggregate shape, agent-based modeling, aggregate surface area
MeSH terms
Bacterial Adhesion, Biological Phenomena, Computer Simulation, Physiological Phenomena, Plankton, Biofilms

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