ArticlePloS one2016
New Insights into the Enterococcus faecium and Streptococcus gallolyticus subsp. gallolyticus Host Interaction Mechanisms.
Article in PloS one, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Clinical, genomic, and functional characterization of vancomycin-resistantFrontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2025Article
- Review
- Biofilm formation and transcriptome analysis of Streptococcus gallolyticus subsp. gallolyticus in response to lysozyme.PloS one · 2018Article
- The Road to Infection: Host-Microbe Interactions Defining the Pathogenicity ofFrontiers in microbiology · 2018Review
- Draft Genome Sequence of a ClinicalGenome announcements · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Enterococcus faecium and Streptococcus gallolyticus subsp. gallolyticus (S. gallolyticus) were classically clustered into the Lancefield Group D streptococci and despite their taxonomic reclassification still share a similar genetic content and environment. Both species are considered as opportunistic pathogens. E. faecium is often associated with nosocomial bacteraemia, and S. gallolyticus is sporadically found in endocarditis of colorectal cancer patients. In both cases, the source of infection is commonly endogenous with a translocation process that launches through the intestinal barrier. To get new insights into the pathological processes preceding infection development of both organisms, we used an in vitro model with Caco-2 cells to study and compare the adhesion, invasion and translocation inherent abilities of 6 E. faecium and 4 S. gallolyticus well-characterized isolates. Additionally, biofilm formation on polystyrene, collagen I and IV was also explored. Overall results showed that E. faecium translocated more efficiently than S. gallolyticus, inducing a destabilization of the intestinal monolayer. Isolates Efm106, Efm121 and Efm113 (p < .001 compared to Ef222) exhibited the higher translocation ability and were able to adhere 2-3 times higher than S. gallolyticus isolates. Both species preferred the collagen IV coated surfaces to form biofilm but the S. gallolyticus structures were more compact (p = .01). These results may support a relationship between biofilm formation and vegetation establishment in S. gallolyticus endocarditis, whereas the high translocation ability of E. faecium high-risk clones might partially explain the increasing number of bacteraemia.
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.