Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26648910›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in microbiology2015

Bacterial Colonies in Solid Media and Foods: A Review on Their Growth and Interactions with the Micro-Environment.

Sophie Jeanson, Juliane Floury, Valérie Gagnaire, Sylvie Lortal, Anne Thierry

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in microbiology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 41 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
41citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

41 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. iScience · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Uncoupling growth and division inISME communications · 2025
    Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. 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.

Sophie JeansonINRA, UMR1253, Science and Technology of Milk and Eggs Rennes, France ; AGROCAMPUS OUEST, UMR1253, Science and Technology of Milk and Eggs Rennes, France.
Juliane FlouryINRA, UMR1253, Science and Technology of Milk and Eggs Rennes, France ; AGROCAMPUS OUEST, UMR1253, Science and Technology of Milk and Eggs Rennes, France.
Valérie GagnaireINRA, UMR1253, Science and Technology of Milk and Eggs Rennes, France ; AGROCAMPUS OUEST, UMR1253, Science and Technology of Milk and Eggs Rennes, France.
Sylvie LortalINRA, UMR1253, Science and Technology of Milk and Eggs Rennes, France ; AGROCAMPUS OUEST, UMR1253, Science and Technology of Milk and Eggs Rennes, France.
Anne ThierryINRA, UMR1253, Science and Technology of Milk and Eggs Rennes, France ; AGROCAMPUS OUEST, UMR1253, Science and Technology of Milk and Eggs Rennes, France.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Bacteria, either indigenous or added, are immobilized in solid foods where they grow as colonies. Since the 80's, relatively few research groups have explored the implications of bacteria growing as colonies and mostly focused on pathogens in large colonies on agar/gelatine media. It is only recently that high resolution imaging techniques and biophysical characterization techniques increased the understanding of the growth of bacterial colonies, for different sizes of colonies, at the microscopic level and even down to the molecular level. This review covers the studies on bacterial colony growth in agar or gelatine media mimicking the food environment and in model cheese. The following conclusions have been brought to light. Firstly, under unfavorable conditions, mimicking food conditions, the immobilization of bacteria always constrains their growth in comparison with planktonic growth and increases the sensibility of bacteria to environmental stresses. Secondly, the spatial distribution describes both the distance between colonies and the size of the colonies as a function of the initial level of population. By studying the literature, we concluded that there systematically exists a threshold that distinguishes micro-colonies (radius < 100-200 μm) from macro-colonies (radius >200 μm). Micro-colonies growth resembles planktonic growth and no pH microgradients could be observed. Macro-colonies growth is slower than planktonic growth and pH microgradients could be observed in and around them due to diffusion limitations which occur around, but also inside the macro-colonies. Diffusion limitations of milk proteins have been demonstrated in a model cheese around and in the bacterial colonies. In conclusion, the impact of immobilization is predominant for macro-colonies in comparison with micro-colonies. However, the interaction between the colonies and the food matrix itself remains to be further investigated at the microscopic scale.

Indexed as

bacterial colonycheesediffusion limitationGrowthporosityspatial distribution

Identifiers

PMID26648910
PMCPMC4664638

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.