Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27316966›Full record

ArticleApplied and environmental microbiology2016

Differential Utilization of Basic Proline-Rich Glycoproteins during Growth of Oral Bacteria in Saliva.

Yuan Zhou, Jinghua Yang, Luxia Zhang, Xuedong Zhou, John O Cisar, Robert J Palmer

Open access · bronzeAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Applied and environmental microbiology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed
2.4field-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

18 citing papers in PubMed, 35 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Evaluation of aJournal of oral microbiology · 2024
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. [Research progress on carbohydrate active enzymes of human microbiome].Hua xi kou qiang yi xue za zhi = Huaxi kouqiang yixue zazhi = West China journal of stomatology · 2019
    Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. 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

6 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Yuan ZhouMicrobial Receptors Section, Laboratory of Cell and Developmental Biology, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland, USA.
Jinghua YangMicrobial Receptors Section, Laboratory of Cell and Developmental Biology, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-7140-5548
Luxia ZhangMicrobial Receptors Section, Laboratory of Cell and Developmental Biology, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland, USA.
Xuedong ZhouState Key Laboratory of Oral Diseases, West China Hospital of Stomatology, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China.
John O CisarMicrobial Receptors Section, Laboratory of Cell and Developmental Biology, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland, USA.
Robert J PalmerMicrobial Receptors Section, Laboratory of Cell and Developmental Biology, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland, USA rjpalmer@dir.nidcr.nih.gov.
National Institutes of Health · USSichuan University · CN

Funding

Molecular Biology of Oral Microbial Adhesins and ReceptorsZIADE000672 · NIDCR · NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF DENTAL & CRANIOFACIAL RESEARCH · PI CISAR, JOHN O · 2009 to 2016
$6.9M
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

unlabelledAlthough saliva is widely recognized as a primary source of carbon and nitrogen for growth of the dental plaque biofilm community, little is known about how different oral bacteria utilize specific salivary components. To address this question, 32 strains representing 16 genera commonly isolated from early plaque biofilms were compared for growth over two transfers in stimulated (by chewing Parafilm) whole saliva that was stabilized by heat treatment and dialysis. The cell densities, measured by quantitative PCR (qPCR), ranged from ∼1 × 10(6) to 1 × 10(7)/ml for strains of Streptococcus gordonii, Streptococcus oralis, and Streptococcus mitis and one strain of Streptococcus sanguinis Strains of Streptococcus mutans, Gemella haemolysans, and Granulicatella adiacens reached ∼1 × 10(5) to 1 × 10(6)/ml. In contrast, little or no growth was noted for three other strains of S. sanguinis, as well as for strains of Streptococcus parasanguinis, Streptococcus salivarius, Streptococcus vestibularis, Streptococcus sobrinus, Actinomyces spp., Abiotrophia defectiva, and Rothia dentocariosa SDS-PAGE, lectin blotting, and two-dimensional gel electrophoresis of saliva from cultures of S. gordonii, S. oralis, and S. mitis revealed species-specific differences in the degradation of basic proline-rich glycoproteins (PRG). In contrast, saliva from cultures of other bacteria was indistinguishable from control saliva. Species-dependent differences in the utilization of individual host sugars were minor. Thus, differences in salivary glycan foraging between oral species may be important to cross-feeding and cooperation between organisms in dental plaque biofilm development. IMPORTANCE: Bacteria in the mouth use saliva for nutrition. How each of the many types of bacteria uses saliva is not clear. We show that a major protein in saliva, called PRG, is an important nutrition source for certain bacteria but not for others. PRG has many sugar molecules linked in chains, but the sugar is not available for bacteria until the chains are degraded. The bacteria that can grow by digesting this protein break the sugar chains into parts which not only support their own growth but could also be available to support the growth of those bacteria that cannot use the intact protein.

Indexed as

BacteriaGlycoproteinsHumansProlineSalivaGlycoproteinsProline

Identifiers

PMID27316966
PMCPMC4988208
OpenAlexW2421280540

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.