ArticleBMC microbiology2013
Comparative analysis of Staphylococcus aureus and Escherichia coli microcalorimetric growth.
Article in BMC microbiology, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 35 citations in OpenAlex.
- 2D MoSNano convergence · 2026Article
- Novel lytic phages improve the antibiofilm activity of dalbavancin, daptomycin, and fosfomycin against vancomycin-resistant enterococci.Microbiology spectrum · 2026Article
- Isothermal microcalorimetry analysis of microencapsulated Yamadazyma mexicana LPa14: release and antifungal activity against Colletotrichum gloeosporioides.Archives of microbiology · 2025Article
- Low-cost gelatin/collagen scaffolds for bacterial growth in bioreactors for biotechnology.Applied microbiology and biotechnology · 2025Article
- Practical management of renal cell carcinoma: integrating current approaches with advances in bone metastasis treatment.EFORT open reviews · 2024Review
- Enabling direct microcalorimetric measurement of metabolic activity and exothermic reactions onto microfluidic platforms via heat flux sensor integration.Microsystems & nanoengineering · 2023Article
- Understanding orthopedic infections through a different perspective: Microcalorimetry growth curves.Experimental and therapeutic medicine · 2022Article
- Isothermal Microcalorimetry of Tumor Cells: Enhanced Thermogenesis by Metastatic Cells.Frontiers in oncology · 2019Article
- Rapid Calorimetric Detection of Bacterial Contamination: Influence of the Cultivation Technique.Frontiers in microbiology · 2019Article
- A decay effect of the growth rate associated with genome reduction in Escherichia coli.BMC microbiology · 2018Article
- Isothermal microcalorimetry accurately detects bacteria, tumorous microtissues, and parasitic worms in a label-free well-plate assay.Biotechnology journal · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMicrocalorimetric bacterial growth studies have illustrated that thermograms differ significantly with both culture media and strain. The present contribution examines the possibility of discriminating between certain bacterial strains by microcalorimetry and the qualitative and quantitative contribution of the sample volume to the observed thermograms. Growth patterns of samples of Staphylococcus aureus (ATCC 25923) and Escherichia coli (ATCC 25922) were analyzed. Certain features of the thermograms that may serve to distinguish between these bacterial strains were identified.
resultsThe thermograms of the two bacterial strains with sample volumes ranging from 0.3 to 0.7 ml and same initial bacterial concentration were analyzed. Both strains exhibit a roughly 2-peak shape that differs by peak amplitude and position along the time scale. Seven parameters corresponding to the thermogram key points related to time and heat flow values were proposed and statistically analyzed. The most relevant parameters appear to be the time to reach a heat flow of 0.05 mW (1.67 ± 0.46 h in E. coli vs. 2.99 ± 0.53 h in S. aureus, p < 0.0001), the time to reach the first peak (3.84 ± 0.5 h vs. 5.17 ± 0.49 h, p < 0.0001) and the first peak value (0.19 ± 0.02 mW vs. 0.086 ± 0.012 mW, p < 0.0001). The statistical analysis on 4 parameters of volume-normalized heat flow thermograms showed that the time to reach a volume-normalized heat flow of 0.1 mW/ml (1.75 ± 0.37 h in E. coli vs. 2.87 ± 0.65 h in S. aureus, p < 0.005), the time to reach the first volume-normalized peak (3.78 ± 0.47 h vs. 5.12 ± 0.52 h, p < 0.0001) and the first volume-normalized peak value (0.35 ± 0.05 mW/ml vs. 0.181 ± 0.040 mW/ml, p < 0.0001) seem to be the most relevant. Peakfit® decomposition and analysis of the observed thermograms complements the statistical analysis via quantitative arguments, indicating that: (1) the first peak pertains to a faster, "dissolved oxygen" bacterial growth (where the dissolved oxygen in the initial suspension acts as a limiting factor); (2) the second peak indicates a slower "diffused oxygen" growth that involves transport of oxygen contained in the unfilled part of the microcalorimetric cell; (3) a strictly fermentative growth component may slightly contribute to the observed complex thermal signal.
conclusionThe investigated strains of Staphylococcus aureus and Escherichia coli display, under similar experimental conditions, distinct thermal growth patterns. The two strains can be easily differentiated using a selection of the proposed parameters. The presented Peakfit analysis of the complex thermal signal provides the necessary means for establishing the optimal growth conditions of various bacterial strains. These conditions are needed for the standardization of the isothermal microcalorimetry method in view of its further use in qualitative and quantitative estimation of bacterial growth.
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.