Cited by 16Actinomycetales infections and treatmentOral microbiology and periodontitis researchBacterial Identification and Susceptibility Testing

Comparative Ultrastructure of Certain Actinomyces Species, Arachnia, Bacterionema and Rothia

Lai, C.‐H., Listgarten, M. A.·1980·Journal of Periodontology

Abstract

A comparative ultrastructural study was carried out on several species of Actinomyces and related Gram‐positive rods including Arachnia, Bacterionema, Rothia and Leptotrichia. A total of 52 well characterized strains were examined by transmission electron microscopy. Particular attention was paid to the ultrastructure of the cell periphery, that is the plasma membrane, periplasmic space, the cell wall per se and extramural structures, including surface “fuzz”. In addition, the ultrastructure of various features of the cytoplasm were also examined. A good correlation appeared to exist between certain ultrastructural characteristics of the microorganisms and their taxonomic position as determined by other criteria. It should be noted, however, that the ultrastructure of certain strains differed markedly from that of the remaining strains of the species. This observation raises some doubt on the appropriateness of the current classification for these particular strains. The ultrastructural features of the cell periphery were found to be particularly stable for all strains grown under standard conditions. For this reason, ultrastructural features of the cell wall and associated structures are probably a more reliable source of morphological criteria for identification purposes than the ultrastructural characteristics of the cytoplasmic components which tend to be more variable. The results suggest that certain ultrastructural features are useful criteria for the identification and classification of these Gram‐positive rods.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1902/jop.1980.51.3.136

Cites

24 of 24 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • Many oral bacteria, including Bacterionema matruchotii, contain dark-staining, electron-dense granules 15 to 500 nm in diameter, probably polyphosphate granules.

    “many, including Bacterionema matruchotii, contained “dark-staining, electron-dense granules. . . 15 to 500 nm in diameter, probably polyphosphate granules” [101].”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Lai, C. ‐., & Listgarten, M. A.
Affiliations
University of Pennsylvania (US)
Corresponding author
Listgarten, M. A.
Venue
Journal of Periodontology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
1980-03
Volume
51
Issue
3
Pages
136-154
ISSN
  • 0022-3492 (ISSN-L)
  • 1943-3670
OpenAlex
W2022960419
Cited by
16
References
24
Citations by year
2015: 2 · 2013: 1 · 2012: 1
FWCI
3.85
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Periodontology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Microbiology › Actinomycetales infections and treatment
  • Health Sciences › Dentistry › Periodontics › Oral microbiology and periodontitis research
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Clinical Biochemistry › Bacterial Identification and Susceptibility Testing
Keywords
Actinomyces, Rothia, Leptotrichia, Gram-positive rods, bacterial ultrastructure, cell wall, plasma membrane, periplasm, cytoplasmic ultrastructure, bacterial identification, bacterial classification, periodontal pathogens
MeSH terms
Actinomyces, Actinomycetaceae, Bacteroidaceae, Cell Membrane, Cell Nucleus, Cytoplasmic Granules, Intracellular Membranes, Microscopy, Electron, Pseudopodia

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