ArticlePloS one2013
Interactions among quorum sensing inhibitors.
Article in PloS one, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed, 27 citations in OpenAlex.
- Formation and sustenance mechanism of bacterial diversity in nutrient-deficient environment of indoor stadium.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Natural quorum sensing inhibitors effectively downregulate gene expression of Pseudomonas aeruginosa virulence factors.Applied microbiology and biotechnology · 2019Article
- Anti-infective potential of hydroalcoholic extract ofF1000Research · 2019Article
- Information transmission in microbial and fungal communication: from classical to quantum.Journal of cell communication and signaling · 2018Article
- In Silico Evaluation of the Impacts of Quorum Sensing Inhibition (QSI) on Strain Competition and Development of QSI Resistance.Scientific reports · 2016Article
- Bacterial signaling ecology and potential applications during aquatic biofilm construction.Microbial ecology · 2014Review
- A high-throughput screen for quorum-sensing inhibitors that target acyl-homoserine lactone synthases.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2013Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Many pathogenic bacteria use quorum sensing (QS) systems to regulate the expression of virulence genes in a density-dependent manner. In one widespread QS paradigm the enzyme LuxI generates a small diffusible molecule of the acyl-homoserine lactone (AHL) family; high cell densities lead to high AHL levels; AHL binds the transcription factor LuxR, triggering it to activate gene expression at a virulence promoter. The emergence of antibiotic resistance has generated interest in alternative anti-microbial therapies that target QS. Inhibitors of LuxI and LuxR have been developed and tested in vivo, and can act at various levels: inhibiting the synthesis of AHL by LuxI, competitively or non-competitively inhibiting LuxR, or increasing the turnover of LuxI, LuxR, or AHL. Here use an experimentally validated computational model of LuxI/LuxR QS to study the effects of using inhibitors individually and in combination. The model includes the effect of transcriptional feedback, which generates highly non-linear responses as inhibitor levels are increased. For the ubiquitous LuxI-feedback virulence systems, inhibitors of LuxI are more effective than those of LuxR when used individually. Paradoxically, we find that LuxR competitive inhibitors, either individually or in combination with other inhibitors, can sometimes increase virulence by weakly activating LuxR. For both LuxI-feedback and LuxR-feedback systems, a combination of LuxR non-competitive inhibitors and LuxI inhibitors act multiplicatively over a broad parameter range. In our analysis, this final strategy emerges as the only robust therapeutic option.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.