Evidence map›Paper›PMID 19348775›Full record

ArticleBiophysical journal2009

Absolute quantitation of bacterial biofilm adhesion and viscoelasticity by microbead force spectroscopy.

Peter C Y Lau, John R Dutcher, Terry J Beveridge, Joseph S Lam

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Biophysical journal, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 48 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
48citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.6field-weighted citation impact, top 6% 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

48 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 165 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Guideline
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Impact of rheological properties on bacterial streamer formation.Journal of the Royal Society, Interface · 2021
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Bio-inert Properties of TEG Modified Dendrimer Interface.Analytical sciences : the international journal of the Japan Society for Analytical Chemistry · 2021
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. The Role ofPathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2019
    Review
  13. Review
  14. Testing Anti-Biofilm Polymeric Surfaces: Where to Start?International journal of molecular sciences · 2019
    Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  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

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Peter C Y LauBiophysics Interdepartmental Group, University of Guelph, Guelph, ON N1G2W1, Canada.
John R Dutcher
Terry J Beveridge
Joseph S Lam
University of Guelph · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Bacterial biofilms are the most prevalent mode of bacterial growth in nature. Adhesive and viscoelastic properties of bacteria play important roles at different stages of biofilm development. Following irreversible attachment of bacterial cells onto a surface, a biofilm can grow in which its matrix viscoelasticity helps to maintain structural integrity, determine stress resistance, and control ease of dispersion. In this study, a novel application of force spectroscopy was developed to characterize the surface adhesion and viscoelasticity of bacterial cells in biofilms. By performing microbead force spectroscopy with a closed-loop atomic force microscope, we accurately quantified these properties over a defined contact area. Using the model gram-negative bacterium Pseudomonas aeruginosa, we observed that the adhesive and viscoelastic properties of an isogenic lipopolysaccharide mutant wapR biofilm were significantly different from those measured for the wild-type strain PAO1 biofilm. Moreover, biofilm maturation in either strain also led to prominent changes in adhesion and viscoelasticity. To minimize variability in force measurements resulting from experimental parameter changes, we developed standardized conditions for microbead force spectroscopy to enable meaningful comparison of data obtained in different experiments. Force plots measured under standard conditions showed that the adhesive pressures of PAO1 and wapR early biofilms were 34 +/- 15 Pa and 332 +/- 47 Pa, respectively, whereas those of PAO1 and wapR mature biofilms were 19 +/- 7 Pa and 80 +/- 22 Pa, respectively. Fitting of creep data to a Voigt Standard Linear Solid viscoelasticity model revealed that the instantaneous and delayed elastic moduli in P. aeruginosa were drastically reduced by lipopolysaccharide deficiency and biofilm maturation, whereas viscosity was decreased only for biofilm maturation. In conclusion, we have introduced a direct biophysical method for simultaneously quantifying adhesion and viscoelasticity in bacterial biofilms under native conditions. This method could prove valuable for elucidating the contribution of genetic backgrounds, growth conditions, and environmental stresses to microbial community physiology.

Indexed as

Bacterial AdhesionBiofilmsElasticityMicrospheresBiomechanical PhenomenaCosts and Cost AnalysisGene Expression Regulation, BacterialGlassLipopolysaccharidesMicroscopy, Atomic ForceMutationPseudomonas aeruginosaSensitivity and SpecificitySurface PropertiesTime FactorsViscosityLipopolysaccharides

Identifiers

PMID19348775
PMCPMC2711294
OpenAlexW2096678231

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.