ArticleComparative medicine2014
Comparison of 3 real-time, quantitative murine models of staphylococcal biofilm infection by using in vivo bioluminescent imaging.
Article in Comparative medicine, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Immune Activated Cellular Therapy for Drug Resistant Infections: Rationale, Mechanisms, and Implications for Veterinary Medicine.Veterinary sciences · 2022Review
- Cholic Acid-Peptide Conjugates as Potent Antimicrobials against Interkingdom Polymicrobial Biofilms.Antimicrobial agents and chemotherapy · 2019Article
- Options and Limitations in Clinical Investigation of Bacterial Biofilms.Clinical microbiology reviews · 2018Review
- Comparison of the immune response during acute and chronic Staphylococcus aureus infection.PloS one · 2018Article
- Novel rat tail discitis model using bioluminescent Staphylococcus aureus.Journal of orthopaedic research : official publication of the Orthopaedic Research Society · 2017Article
- Activated Mesenchymal Stem Cells Interact with Antibiotics and Host Innate Immune Responses to Control Chronic Bacterial Infections.Scientific reports · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Biofilm formation represents a unique mechanism by which Staphylococcus aureus and other microorganisms avoid antimicrobial clearance and establish chronic infections. Treatment of these infections can be challenging, because the bacteria in the biofilm state are often resistant to therapies that are effective against planktonic bacteria of the same species. Effective animal models for the study of biofilm infections and novel therapeutics are needed. In addition, there is substantial interest in the use of noninvasive, in vivo data collection techniques to decrease the animal numbers required for the execution of infectious disease studies. To ad- dress these needs, we evaluated 3 murine models of implant-associated biofilm infection by using in vivo bioluminescent imaging techniques. The goal of these studies was to identify the model that was most amenable to development of sustained infections that could be imaged repeatedly in vivo by using bioluminescent technology. We found that the subcutaneous mesh and tibial intramedullary pin models both maintained consistent levels of bioluminescence for as long as 35 d after infection, with no implant loss experienced in either model. In contrast, a subcutaneous catheter model demonstrated significant incidence of incisional ab- scessation and implant loss by day 20 after infection. The correlation of bioluminescent measurements and bacterial enumeration was strongest with the subcutaneous mesh model. Among the 3 models we evaluated, the subcutaneous mesh model is the most appropriate animal model for prolonged study of biofilm infections by using bioluminescent imaging.
Indexed as
Identifiers
24512958PMC3929216W341074669What 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.