Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27458448›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in microbiology2016

Bacillus cereus Biofilms-Same, Only Different.

Racha Majed, Christine Faille, Mireille Kallassy, Michel Gohar

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in microbiology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 102 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
102citing papers in PubMed
9.2field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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

102 citing papers in PubMed, 230 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Bioinformatic Analysis ofInternational journal of molecular sciences · 2026
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. In Situ Electrochemical Monitoring ofChemical & biomedical imaging · 2026
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Complete genome sequence ofMicrobiology resource announcements · 2026
    Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Sigma B regulated motility and chemotaxis inMicrobiology (Reading, England) · 2026
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

42 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

4 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Racha MajedMicalis Institute, INRA, AgroParisTech, CNRS, Université Paris-SaclayJouy-en-Josas, France; Unité de Recherche Technologies et Valorisation Alimentaire, Laboratoire de Biotechnologie, Université Saint-JosephBeirut, Lebanon.
Christine FailleUMR UMET: Unité Matériaux et Transformations, Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique, Université de Lille Villeneuve d'Ascq, France.
Mireille KallassyUnité de Recherche Technologies et Valorisation Alimentaire, Laboratoire de Biotechnologie, Université Saint-Joseph Beirut, Lebanon.
Michel GoharMicalis Institute, INRA, AgroParisTech, CNRS, Université Paris-SaclayJouy-en-Josas, France; Unité de Recherche Technologies et Valorisation Alimentaire, Laboratoire de Biotechnologie, Université Saint-JosephBeirut, Lebanon.
Saint Joseph University · LBUnité Matériaux et Transformations · FR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Bacillus cereus displays a high diversity of lifestyles and ecological niches and include beneficial as well as pathogenic strains. These strains are widespread in the environment, are found on inert as well as on living surfaces and contaminate persistently the production lines of the food industry. Biofilms are suspected to play a key role in this ubiquitous distribution and in this persistency. Indeed, B. cereus produces a variety of biofilms which differ in their architecture and mechanism of formation, possibly reflecting an adaptation to various environments. Depending on the strain, B. cereus has the ability to grow as immersed or floating biofilms, and to secrete within the biofilm a vast array of metabolites, surfactants, bacteriocins, enzymes, and toxins, all compounds susceptible to act on the biofilm itself and/or on its environment. Within the biofilm, B. cereus exists in different physiological states and is able to generate highly resistant and adhesive spores, which themselves will increase the resistance of the bacterium to antimicrobials or to cleaning procedures. Current researches show that, despite similarities with the regulation processes and effector molecules involved in the initiation and maturation of the extensively studied Bacillus subtilis biofilm, important differences exists between the two species. The present review summarizes the up to date knowledge on biofilms produced by B. cereus and by two closely related pathogens, Bacillus thuringiensis and Bacillus anthracis. Economic issues caused by B. cereus biofilms and management strategies implemented to control these biofilms are included in this review, which also discuss the ecological and functional roles of biofilms in the lifecycle of these bacterial species and explore future developments in this important research area.

Indexed as

anthracisBacillusbiofilmcereusecologyfoodregulationthuringiensis

Identifiers

PMID27458448
PMCPMC4935679
OpenAlexW2467375270

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.