Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26295945›Full record

ArticlePloS one2015

Adhesion Potential of Intestinal Microbes Predicted by Physico-Chemical Characterization Methods.

Tomas de Wouters, Christoph Jans, Tobias Niederberger, Peter Fischer, Patrick Alberto Rühs

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed
5.9field-weighted citation impact, top 5% 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

23 citing papers in PubMed, 53 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Pharmacokinetic Profiling UsingInternational journal of molecular sciences · 2025
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Adhesion ofVeterinary sciences · 2024
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Ultrasound can increase biofilm formation byFrontiers in microbiology · 2023
    Article
  10. Frontiers in microbiology · 2023
    Article
  11. Frontiers in microbiology · 2023
    Article
  12. Review
  13. Ex-Vivo Adhesion ofAnimals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2021
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Microencapsulation ofFoods (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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 1 institution in 1 country.

Tomas de WoutersLaboratory of Food Biotechnology, ETH Zurich, Institute of Food, Nutrition and Health, Schmelzbergstrasse 9, 8092, Zurich, Switzerland.
Christoph JansLaboratory of Food Biotechnology, ETH Zurich, Institute of Food, Nutrition and Health, Schmelzbergstrasse 9, 8092, Zurich, Switzerland.
Tobias NiederbergerLaboratory of Food Biotechnology, ETH Zurich, Institute of Food, Nutrition and Health, Schmelzbergstrasse 9, 8092, Zurich, Switzerland.
Peter FischerLaboratory of Food Process Engineering, ETH Zurich, Institute of Food, Nutrition and Health, Schmelzbergstrasse 9, 8092, Zurich, Switzerland.
Patrick Alberto RühsLaboratory of Food Process Engineering, ETH Zurich, Institute of Food, Nutrition and Health, Schmelzbergstrasse 9, 8092, Zurich, Switzerland.
ETH Zurich · CH

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Bacterial adhesion to epithelial surfaces affects retention time in the human gastro-intestinal tract and therefore significantly contributes to interactions between bacteria and their hosts. Bacterial adhesion among other factors is strongly influenced by physico-chemical factors. The accurate quantification of these physico-chemical factors in adhesion is however limited by the available measuring techniques. We evaluated surface charge, interfacial rheology and tensiometry (interfacial tension) as novel approaches to quantify these interactions and evaluated their biological significance via an adhesion assay using intestinal epithelial surface molecules (IESM) for a set of model organisms present in the human gastrointestinal tract. Strain pairs of Lactobacillus plantarum WCFS1 with its sortase knockout mutant Lb. plantarum NZ7114 and Lb. rhamnosus GG with Lb. rhamnosus DSM 20021T were used with Enterococcus faecalis JH2-2 as control organism. Intra-species comparison revealed significantly higher abilities for Lb. plantarum WCSF1 and Lb. rhamnosus GG vs. Lb. plantarum NZ7114 and Lb. rhamnosus DSM 20021T to dynamically increase interfacial elasticity (10-2 vs. 10-3 Pa*m) and reduce interfacial tension (32 vs. 38 mN/m). This further correlated for Lb. plantarum WCSF1 and Lb. rhamnosus GG vs. Lb. plantarum NZ7114 and Lb. rhamnosus DSM 20021T with the decrease of relative hydrophobicity (80-85% vs. 57-63%), Zeta potential (-2.9 to -4.5 mV vs. -8.0 to -13.8 mV) and higher relative adhesion capacity to IESM (3.0-5.0 vs 1.5-2.2). Highest adhesion to the IESM collagen I and fibronectin was found for Lb. plantarum WCFS1 (5.0) and E. faecalis JH2-2 (4.2) whereas Lb. rhamnosus GG showed highest adhesion to type II mucus (3.8). Significantly reduced adhesion (2 fold) to the tested IESM was observed for Lb. plantarum NZ7114 and Lb. rhamnosus DSM 20021T corresponding with lower relative hydrophobicity, Zeta potential and abilities to modify interfacial elasticity and tension. Conclusively, the use of Zeta potential, interfacial elasticity and interfacial tension are proposed as suitable novel descriptive and predictive parameters to study the interactions of intestinal microbes with their hosts.

Indexed as

Bacterial AdhesionBiomechanical PhenomenaCollagen Type IElasticityEnterococcus faecalisFibronectinsHumansHydrophobic and Hydrophilic InteractionsIntestinesLacticaseibacillus rhamnosusLactiplantibacillus plantarumMicrobiotaModels, BiologicalMucusStatic ElectricitySurface TensionCollagen Type IFibronectins

Identifiers

PMID26295945
PMCPMC4546672
OpenAlexW1880055508

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.