Evidence map›Paper›PMID 17220307›Full record

ArticleInfection and immunity2007

Native microbial colonization of Drosophila melanogaster and its use as a model of Enterococcus faecalis pathogenesis.

Christopher R Cox, Michael S Gilmore

Open access · greenAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Infection and immunity, 2007. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 155 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
155citing papers in PubMed
17.2field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

155 citing papers in PubMed, 309 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Insights into ecology, pathogenesis, and biofilm formation ofMicrobiology and molecular biology reviews : MMBR · 2025
    Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

95 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Christopher R CoxThe Schepens Eye Research Institute, 20 Staniford Street, Boston, MA 02114, USA.
Michael S Gilmore
Massachusetts Eye and Ear Infirmary · USSmith-Kettlewell Eye Research Institute · US

Funding

NOVEL ENTEROCOCCAL TOXIN--REGULATION OF EXPRESSIONR01AI041108 · NIAID · UNIVERSITY OF OKLAHOMA HLTH SCIENCES CTR · PI GILMORE, MICHAEL S · 1998 to 2007
$2.5M
Drosophila model of antibiotic resistant infectionR21RR020596 · NCRR · SCHEPENS EYE RESEARCH INSTITUTE · PI GILMORE, MICHAEL S. · 2005 to 2006
$532k
Resistant Enterococci in the GI tract ConsortiumR21AI054614 · NIAID · UNIVERSITY OF OKLAHOMA HLTH SCIENCES CTR · PI GILMORE, MICHAEL S. · 2003 to 2004
$440k
NCRR NIH HHS 1RR 020596-01A1NCRR NIH HHS R21 RR020596NIAID NIH HHS AI 054614NIAID NIH HHS AI 41108NIAID NIH HHS R01 AI041108NIAID NIH HHS R21 AI054614
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Enterococci are commensal organisms of the gastrointestinal (GI) tracts of a broad range of mammalian and insect hosts, but they are also leading causes of nosocomial infection. Little is known about the ecological role of enterococci in the GI tract consortia. To develop a tractable model for studying the roles of these organisms as commensals and pathogens, we characterized the Drosophila melanogaster microflora and examined the occurrence of enterococci in the gastrointestinal consortium of Drosophila. In a survey of laboratory-reared Drosophila and wild-captured flies, we found that Drosophila was naturally colonized by representatives of five bacterial phyla. Among these organisms were several species of enterococci, including Enterococcus faecalis, Enterococcus faecium, Enterococcus gallinaraum, and Enterococcus durans, as well as a previously detected but uncultured Enterococcus species. Drosophila could be cured of enterococcal carriage by antibiotic treatment and could be reassociated with laboratory strains. High-level colonization by a well-characterized strain expressing the enterococcal cytolysin was found to be detrimental to Drosophila compared to the effect of an isogenic, noncytolytic control. The anatomical distribution of enterococci in the Drosophila GI tract was determined by immunohistochemical staining of thin sections of naturally colonized and reassociated flies.

Indexed as

AnimalsBacteriaBacterial ProteinsBacteriocinsColony Count, MicrobialDrosophila melanogasterEnterococcusEnterococcus faecalisGastrointestinal TractImmunohistochemistryVirulence FactorsBacterial ProteinsBacteriocinscytolysin, Enterococcus faecalisVirulence Factors

Identifiers

PMID17220307
PMCPMC1865669
OpenAlexW2099030642

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.