Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27071769›Full record

ArticleBMC research notes2016

An optimized staining technique for the detection of Gram positive and Gram negative bacteria within tissue.

Sandra C Becerra, Daniel C Roy, Carlos J Sanchez, Robert J Christy, David M Burmeister

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC research notes, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 58 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
58citing papers in PubMed
2.6field-weighted citation impact, top 12% 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

58 citing papers in PubMed, 149 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Microbiology spectrum · 2026
    Article
  8. Selective anticancer activity ofFrontiers in nutrition · 2026
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Contamination of meat and its products byOpen veterinary journal · 2025
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  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.

Sandra C BecerraExtremity Trauma and Regenerative Medicine Task Area, United States Army Institute of Surgical Research, 3650 Chambers Pass, JBSA Fort Sam Houston, TX, 78234, USA.
Daniel C RoyExtremity Trauma and Regenerative Medicine Task Area, United States Army Institute of Surgical Research, 3650 Chambers Pass, JBSA Fort Sam Houston, TX, 78234, USA.
Carlos J SanchezExtremity Trauma and Regenerative Medicine Task Area, United States Army Institute of Surgical Research, 3650 Chambers Pass, JBSA Fort Sam Houston, TX, 78234, USA.
Robert J ChristyExtremity Trauma and Regenerative Medicine Task Area, United States Army Institute of Surgical Research, 3650 Chambers Pass, JBSA Fort Sam Houston, TX, 78234, USA.
David M BurmeisterExtremity Trauma and Regenerative Medicine Task Area, United States Army Institute of Surgical Research, 3650 Chambers Pass, JBSA Fort Sam Houston, TX, 78234, USA. david.m.burmeister3.civ@mail.mil.
United States Army Institute of Surgical Research · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundBacterial infections are a common clinical problem in both acute and chronic wounds. With growing concerns over antibiotic resistance, treatment of bacterial infections should only occur after positive diagnosis. Currently, diagnosis is delayed due to lengthy culturing methods which may also fail to identify the presence of bacteria. While newer costly bacterial identification methods are being explored, a simple and inexpensive diagnostic tool would aid in immediate and accurate treatments for bacterial infections. Histologically, hematoxylin and eosin (H&E) and Gram stains have been employed, but are far from optimal when analyzing tissue samples due to non-specific staining. The goal of the current study was to develop a modification of the Gram stain that enhances the contrast between bacteria and host tissue.

findingsA modified Gram stain was developed and tested as an alternative to Gram stain that improves the contrast between Gram positive bacteria, Gram negative bacteria and host tissue. Initially, clinically relevant strains of Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Staphylococcus aureus were visualized in vitro and in biopsies of infected, porcine burns using routine Gram stain, and immunohistochemistry techniques involving bacterial strain-specific fluorescent antibodies as validation tools. H&E and Gram stain of serial biopsy sections were then compared to a modification of the Gram stain incorporating a counterstain that highlights collagen found in tissue. The modified Gram stain clearly identified both Gram positive and Gram negative bacteria, and when compared to H&E or Gram stain alone provided excellent contrast between bacteria and non-viable burn eschar. Moreover, when applied to surgical biopsies from patients that underwent burn debridement this technique was able to clearly detect bacterial morphology within host tissue.

conclusionsWe describe a modification of the Gram stain that provides improved contrast of Gram positive and Gram negative microorganisms within host tissue. The samples used in this study demonstrate that this staining technique has laboratory and clinical applicability. This modification only adds minutes to traditional Gram stain with reusable reagents, and results in a cost- and time-efficient technique for identifying bacteria in any clinical biopsy containing connective tissue.

Indexed as

AnimalsBacterial InfectionsBurnsEosine Yellowish-(YS)Gentian VioletGram-Positive BacteriaHematoxylinHost-Pathogen InteractionsHumansImmunohistochemistryMicroscopy, VideoPhenazinesPseudomonas aeruginosaReproducibility of ResultsSensitivity and SpecificitySkinEosine Yellowish-(YS)Gentian VioletGram's stainHematoxylinPhenazinesBurnGram’s stainHistologyInfectionPseudomonas aeruginosaStaphylococcus aureus

Identifiers

PMID27071769
PMCPMC4828829
OpenAlexW2337957905

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.