Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27463203›Full record

ArticlePloS one2016

New Insights into the Enterococcus faecium and Streptococcus gallolyticus subsp. gallolyticus Host Interaction Mechanisms.

Ana María Sánchez-Díaz, Beatriz Romero-Hernández, Elisa Conde-Moreno, Young-Keun Kwak, Javier Zamora, Patricia Colque-Navarro, Roland Möllby, Patricia Ruiz-Garbajosa, Rafael Cantón, Laura García-Bermejo and 1 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
0.9field-weighted citation impact, top 25% 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Clinical, genomic, and functional characterization of vancomycin-resistantFrontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2025
    Article
  2. Microbiology and molecular biology reviews : MMBR · 2024
    Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Draft Genome Sequence of a ClinicalGenome announcements · 2017
    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

11 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Ana María Sánchez-DíazServicio de Microbiología, Hospital Universitario Ramón y Cajal and Instituto Ramón y Cajal de Investigación Sanitaria (IRYCIS), Madrid, Spain.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5625-6900
Beatriz Romero-HernándezServicio de Microbiología, Hospital Universitario Ramón y Cajal and Instituto Ramón y Cajal de Investigación Sanitaria (IRYCIS), Madrid, Spain.
Elisa Conde-MorenoGrupo de Biomarcadores y Dianas Terapéuticas, Hospital Universitario Ramón y Cajal and IRYCIS, Madrid, Spain.
Young-Keun KwakMicrobiology Tumor and Cell Biology Department (MTC), Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.
Javier ZamoraUnidad de Bioestadística Clínica, Hospital Universitario Ramón y Cajal and IRYCIS, Madrid, Spain.
Patricia Colque-NavarroMicrobiology Tumor and Cell Biology Department (MTC), Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.
Roland MöllbyMicrobiology Tumor and Cell Biology Department (MTC), Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.
Patricia Ruiz-GarbajosaServicio de Microbiología, Hospital Universitario Ramón y Cajal and Instituto Ramón y Cajal de Investigación Sanitaria (IRYCIS), Madrid, Spain.
Rafael CantónServicio de Microbiología, Hospital Universitario Ramón y Cajal and Instituto Ramón y Cajal de Investigación Sanitaria (IRYCIS), Madrid, Spain.
Laura García-BermejoGrupo de Biomarcadores y Dianas Terapéuticas, Hospital Universitario Ramón y Cajal and IRYCIS, Madrid, Spain.
Rosa Del CampoServicio de Microbiología, Hospital Universitario Ramón y Cajal and Instituto Ramón y Cajal de Investigación Sanitaria (IRYCIS), Madrid, Spain.
Instituto Ramón y Cajal de Investigación Sanitaria · ESRed Espanola de Investigacion en Patologia Infecciosa · ESKarolinska Institutet · SE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Host-Pathogen InteractionsBiofilmsCaco-2 CellsEnterococcus faeciumHumansStreptococcus gallolyticus

Identifiers

PMID27463203
PMCPMC4963119
OpenAlexW2489752273

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.