ArticleFolia microbiologica2015
A flow cytometric approach to quantify biofilms.
Article in Folia microbiologica, 2015. 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, 38 citations in OpenAlex.
- Repurposing antimicrobials with ultrasound-triggered nanoscale systems for targeted biofilm drug delivery.npj antimicrobials and resistance · 2025Article
- Release of extracellular DNA byiScience · 2025Article
- Opportunities in optical and electrical single-cell technologies to study microbial ecosystems.Frontiers in microbiology · 2023Review
- Biofilm-Forming Ability ofFoods (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- Pathogens electrogenicity as a tool for in-situ metabolic activity monitoring and drug assessment in biofilms.iScience · 2021Review
- Pitfalls Associated with Discriminating Mixed-Species Biofilms by Flow Cytometry.Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020Article
- Nanovectorized Microalgal Extracts to FightAntibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020Article
- Quantitative assessment of bacterial growth phase utilizing flow cytometry.Journal of microbiological methods · 2019Article
- Testing Anti-Biofilm Polymeric Surfaces: Where to Start?International journal of molecular sciences · 2019Review
- Isothermal microcalorimetry for thermal viable count of microorganisms in pure cultures and stabilized formulations.BMC microbiology · 2019Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Since biofilms are important in many clinical, industrial, and environmental settings, reliable methods to quantify these sessile microbial populations are crucial. Most of the currently available techniques do not allow the enumeration of the viable cell fraction within the biofilm and are often time consuming. This paper proposes flow cytometry (FCM) using the single-stain viability dye TO-PRO(®)-3 iodide as a fast and precise alternative. Mature biofilms of Candida albicans and Escherichia coli were used to optimize biofilm removal and dissociation, as a single-cell suspension is needed for accurate FCM enumeration. To assess the feasibility of FCM quantification of biofilms, E. coli and C. albicans biofilms were analyzed using FCM and crystal violet staining at different time points. A combination of scraping and rinsing proved to be the most efficient technique for biofilm removal. Sonicating for 10 min eliminated the remaining aggregates, resulting in a single-cell suspension. Repeated FCM measurements of biofilm samples revealed a good intraday precision of approximately 5 %. FCM quantification and the crystal violet assay yielded similar biofilm growth curves for both microorganisms, confirming the applicability of our technique. These results show that FCM using TO-PRO(®)-3 iodide as a single-stain viability dye is a valid fast alternative for the quantification of viable cells in a biofilm.
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.