Evidence map›Paper›PMID 10225869›Full record

ArticleInfection and immunity1999

Survival of Enterococcus faecalis in mouse peritoneal macrophages.

C R Gentry-Weeks, R Karkhoff-Schweizer, A Pikis, M Estay, J M Keith

Open access · bronzeAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Infection and immunity, 1999. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 60 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
60citing papers in PubMed
0.6field-weighted citation impact, top 32% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

60 citing papers in PubMed, 134 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Infection and immunity · 2026
    Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Preclinical evaluation ofFrontiers in immunology · 2025
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Microbiology and molecular biology reviews : MMBR · 2024
    Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. From the Friend to the Foe-International journal of molecular sciences · 2024
    Review
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Microorganisms · 2021
    Review
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

C R Gentry-WeeksDepartment of Microbiology, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado, USA. cgweeks@cvmbs.colostate.edu
R Karkhoff-Schweizer
A Pikis
M Estay
J M Keith
Colorado State University · USChildren's National · USNational Institutes of Health · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Enterococcus faecalis was tested for the ability to persist in mouse peritoneal macrophages in two separate studies. In the first study, the intracellular survival of serum-passaged E. faecalis 418 and two isogenic mutants [cytolytic strain FA2-2(pAM714) and non-cytolytic strain FA2-2(pAM771)] was compared with that of Escherichia coli DH5alpha by infecting BALB/c mice intraperitoneally and then monitoring the survival of the bacteria within lavaged peritoneal macrophages over a 72-h period. All E. faecalis isolates were serum passaged to enhance the production of cytolysin. E. faecalis 418, FA2-2(pAM714), and FA2-2(pAM771) survived at a significantly higher level (P = 0.0001) than did E. coli DH5alpha at 24, 48, and 72 h. Internalized E. faecalis 418, FA2-2(pAM714), and FA2-2(pAM771) decreased 10-, 55-, and 31-fold, respectively, over the 72-h infection period, while internalized E. coli DH5alpha decreased 20, 542-fold. The difference in the rate of survival of E. faecalis strains and E. coli DH5alpha was most prominent between 6 and 48 h postinfection (P = 0.0001); however, no significant difference in killing was observed between 48 and 72 h postinfection. In the second study, additional E. faecalis strains from clinical sources, including DS16C2, MGH-2, OG1X, and the cytolytic strain FA2-2(pAM714), were compared with the nonpathogenic gram-positive bacterium, Lactococcus lactis K1, for the ability to survive in mouse peritoneal macrophages. In these experiments, the E. faecalis strains and L. lactis K1 were grown in brain heart infusion (BHI) broth to ensure that there were equal quantities of injected bacteria. E. faecalis FA2-2(pAM714), DS16C2, MGH-2, and OG1X survived significantly better (P < 0.0001) than did L. lactis K1 at each time point. L. lactis K1 was rapidly destroyed by the macrophages, and by 24 h postinfection, viable L. lactis could not be recovered. E. faecalis FA2-2(pAM714), DS16C2, MGH-2, and OG1X declined at an equivalent rate over the 72-h infection period, and there was no significant difference in survival or rate of decline among the strains. E. faecalis FA2-2(pAM714), MGH-2, DS16C2, and OG1X exhibited an overall decrease of 25-, 55-, 186-, and 129-fold respectively, between 6 and 72 h postinfection. The overall reduction by 1.3 to 2.27 log units is slightly higher than that seen for serum-passaged E. faecalis strains and may be attributable to the higher level of uptake of serum-passaged E. faecalis than of E. faecalis grown in BHI broth. Electron microscopy of infected macrophages revealed that E. faecalis 418 was present within an intact phagocytic vacuole at 6 h postinfection but that by 24 h the infected macrophages were disorganized, the vacuolar membrane was degraded, and the bacterial cells had entered the cytoplasm. Macrophage destruction occurred by 48 h, and the bacteria were released. In conclusion, the results of these experiments indicate that E. faecalis can persist for an extended period in mouse peritoneal macrophages.

Indexed as

AnimalsEnterococcus faecalisEscherichia coliLactococcus lactisMacrophages, PeritonealMaleMiceMice, Inbred BALB CMicroscopy, ElectronMutationSpecies SpecificityTime Factors

Identifiers

PMID10225869
PMCPMC115952
OpenAlexW2125314436

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.