Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22591918›Full record

ArticleBMC research notes2012

Confocal laser scanning microscopy analysis of S. epidermidis biofilms exposed to farnesol, vancomycin and rifampicin.

Nuno Cerca, Fernanda Gomes, Sofia Pereira, Pilar Teixeira, Rosário Oliveira

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC research notes, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed
1.1field-weighted citation impact, top 24% 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

19 citing papers in PubMed, 60 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Unlocking the potential ofFrontiers in microbiology · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Anti-PeerJ · 2020
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. 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 2 institutions in 1 country.

Nuno CercaInstitute for Biotechnology and Bioengineering, Centre of Biological Engineering, University of Minho, Campus de Gualtar, Braga, Portugal. nunocerca@ceb.uminho.pt
Fernanda Gomes
Sofia Pereira
Pilar Teixeira
Rosário Oliveira
Institute for Biotechnology and Bioengineering · PTUniversity of Minho · PT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundStaphylococcus epidermidis is the major bacterial species found in biofilm-related infections on indwelling medical devices. Microbial biofilms are communities of bacteria adhered to a surface and surrounded by an extracellular polymeric matrix. Biofilms have been associated with increased antibiotic tolerance to the immune system. This increased resistance to conventional antibiotic therapy has lead to the search for new antimicrobial therapeutical agents. Farnesol, a quorum-sensing molecule in Candida albicans, has been described as impairing growth of several different microorganisms and we have previously shown its potential as an adjuvant in antimicrobial therapy against S. epidermidis. However, its mechanism of action in S. epidermidis is not fully known. In this work we better elucidate the role of farnesol against S: epidermidis biofilms using confocal laser scanning microscopy (CLSM).

findings24 h biofilms were exposed to farnesol, vancomycin or rifampicin and were analysed by CLSM, after stained with a Live/Dead stain, a known indicator of cell viability, related with cell membrane integrity. Biofilms were also disrupted by sonication and viable and cultivable cells were quantified by colony forming units (CFU) plating. Farnesol showed a similar effect as vancomycin, both causing little reduction of cell viability but at the same time inducing significant changes in the biofilm structure. On the other hand, rifampicin showed a distinct action in S. epidermidis biofilms, by killing a significant proportion of biofilm bacteria.

conclusionsWhile farnesol is not very efficient at killing biofilm bacteria, it damages cell membrane, as determined by the live/dead staining, in a similar way as vancomycin. Furthermore, farnesol might induce biofilm detachment, as determined by the reduced biofilm biomass, which can partially explain the previous findings regarding its role as a possible chemotherapy adjuvant.

Indexed as

Anti-Bacterial AgentsBiofilmsColony Count, MicrobialFarnesolFluorescent DyesMicrobial Sensitivity TestsMicrobial ViabilityMicroscopy, ConfocalRifampinStaphylococcus epidermidisVancomycinAnti-Bacterial AgentsFarnesolFluorescent DyesRifampinVancomycin

Identifiers

PMID22591918
PMCPMC3481475
OpenAlexW2103327113

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.