ArticleIranian biomedical journal2016
Comparison of Biofilm Formation between Methicillin-Resistant and Methicillin-Susceptible Isolates of Staphylococcus aureus.
Article in Iranian biomedical journal, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 36 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
36 citing papers in PubMed.
- Genetic Diversity and Epidemiological Overlap of Staphylococcus aureus at the Animal-Food-Environment-Human Interface Within a One Health Framework.MicrobiologyOpen · 2026Article
- Biofilm producing and antibiotic resistant coagulase negative staphylococci in clinical samples isolated from tertiary care hospital of Nepal.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Diterpenoids from Isodon serra with promising anti-MRSA activities.International microbiology : the official journal of the Spanish Society for Microbiology · 2025Article
- Genotypic and phenotypic characterization of virulence in methicillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus isolated from a local hospital of Ahmedabad, Gujarat, India.BMC microbiology · 2025Article
- Biofilm formation, methicillin resistance and SCCmec types among Staphylococcus aureus isolated from clinical samples from a tertiary care hospital, in Nepal.BMC infectious diseases · 2025Article
- Virulence, Susceptibility Profile, and Clinical Characteristics of Pathogenic Coagulase-Negative Staphylococci.Cureus · 2024Article
- Differences in Biofilm Formation by Methicillin-Resistant and Methicillin-SusceptibleDiseases (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- Effect of Quorum Sensing Molecule Farnesol on Mixed Biofilms ofAntibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Serrapeptase impairs biofilm, wall, and phospho-homeostasis of resistant and susceptible Staphylococcus aureus.Applied microbiology and biotechnology · 2023Article
- Molecular Characterization of Community- and Hospital- Acquired Methicillin-ResistantAntibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Phenotypic detection of methicillin resistance, biofilm production, and inducible clindamycin resistance in Staphylococcus aureus clinical isolates in Kathmandu, Nepal.Tropical medicine and health · 2022Article
- Nickel Nanoparticles: Applications and Antimicrobial Role against Methicillin-ResistantAntibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
- Incidence of biofilm formation among MRSA and MSSA clinical isolates from hospitalized patients in Israel.Journal of applied microbiology · 2022Article
- No Correlation between Biofilm-Forming Capacity and Antibiotic Resistance in EnvironmentalPathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Biofilm Formation by Pathogenic Bacteria: Applying aPathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
- The Association betweenAntibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Evaluation of Total Phenolic and Flavonoid Contents, Antibacterial and Antibiofilm Activities of Hungarian Propolis Ethanolic Extract againstMolecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- The Correlation Between Biofilm-Forming Ability of Community-Acquired Methicillin-ResistantInfection and drug resistance · 2022Article
- Relationship between Biofilm Formation and Antibiotic Resistance and Adherence Genes inInternational journal of microbiology · 2022Article
- Inducible Clindamycin Resistance and Biofilm Production among Staphylococci Isolated from Tertiary Care Hospitals in Nepal.Infectious disease reports · 2021Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe aim of this study was to compare the biofilm formation and the prevalence of biofilm-associated genes between the isolates of methicillin-resistant (MRSA) and methicillin-susceptible (MSSA) Staphylococcus aureus.
methodsIn total, 209 S. aureus isolates were collected. The antibiotic susceptibility test was conducted using nine antibiotics according to the guidelines of Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute. Phenotypic biofilm formation was performed with microtiter plate assay. The polymerase chain reaction was employed to detect icaA, icaD, icaB, icaC, clfA, clfB, fnbA, fnbB, fib, cna, eno, ebps, bbp, mecA, and SCCmec types as well as agr group genes with specific primers.
resultsSixty-four (30.62%) isolates were resistant to methicillin, and 54 (83%) MRSA harbored SCCmec III. Furthermore, 122 (58.3%) isolates belonged to agr group I. Twenty-six (36.1%) MRSA and 42 (28.9%) MSSA isolates were strong biofilm producers (no significant difference). The prevalence of icaA, icaD, icaB, and icaC genes in MSSA isolates was 71, 41, 76, and 72%, respectively. The frequency of clfA, clfB, fnbA, fnbB, fib, cna, eno, ebps, and bbp in MSSA was 100, 100, 56, 46, 74, 54, 78, 11, and 1%, respectively. However, in MRSA isolates, the frequency was 97, 97, 64, 51, 76, 56, 79, and 12% with no track of bbp, respectively.
conclusionStatistical difference between MSSA and MRSA regarding biofilm formation and the frequency of all biofilm-encoding genes was not significant. The majority of the S. aureus isolates harbored clfA, clfB, eno, fib, icaA, and icaD genes.
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.