Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28076372›Full record

ArticlePloS one2017

Bad to the Bone: On In Vitro and Ex Vivo Microbial Biofilm Ability to Directly Destroy Colonized Bone Surfaces without Participation of Host Immunity or Osteoclastogenesis.

Adam Junka, Patrycja Szymczyk, Grzegorz Ziółkowski, Ewa Karuga-Kuzniewska, Danuta Smutnicka, Iwona Bil-Lula, Marzenna Bartoszewicz, Susan Mahabady, Parish Paymon Sedghizadeh

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 31 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
31citing papers in PubMed
5.2field-weighted citation impact, top 4% 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

31 citing papers in PubMed, 53 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Biofilm-Induced Bone Degradation in Osteomyelitis:Sultan Qaboos University medical journal · 2025
    Article
  4. Evidence for the Presence ofMicroorganisms · 2024
    Article
  5. World journal of orthopedics · 2023
    Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. How to study biofilms: technological advancements in clinical biofilm research.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2023
    Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  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

9 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Adam JunkaDepartment of Pharmaceutical Microbiology and Parasitology, Wroclaw Medical University, Wroclaw, Poland.
Patrycja SzymczykCenter for Advanced Manufacturing Technologies (CAMT/FPC), Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, Wroclaw University of Technology, Wroclaw, Poland.
Grzegorz ZiółkowskiCenter for Advanced Manufacturing Technologies (CAMT/FPC), Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, Wroclaw University of Technology, Wroclaw, Poland.
Ewa Karuga-KuzniewskaDivision of Infectious Diseases of Animals and Veterinary Administration, Wroclaw University, Wroclaw, Poland.
Danuta SmutnickaDepartment of Pharmaceutical Microbiology and Parasitology, Wroclaw Medical University, Wroclaw, Poland.
Iwona Bil-LulaDepartment of Clinical Chemistry, Wroclaw Medical University, Wroclaw, Poland.
Marzenna BartoszewiczDepartment of Pharmaceutical Microbiology and Parasitology, Wroclaw Medical University, Wroclaw, Poland.
Susan MahabadyCenter for Biofilms and Craniofacial Molecular Biology, Ostrow School of Dentistry of University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California, United States of America.
Parish Paymon SedghizadehCenter for Biofilms and Craniofacial Molecular Biology, Ostrow School of Dentistry of University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California, United States of America.
Wroclaw Medical University · PLUniversity of Southern California · USWrocław University of Science and Technology · PL

Funding

DOCTORAL AND POST-DOCTORAL TRAINING IN CRANIOFACIAL BIOLOGYT90DE021982 · NIDCR · UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA · PI PAINE, MICHAEL LANSDELL · 2011 to 2025
$6.2M
NIDCR NIH HHS T90 DE021982NIMHD NIH HHS L32 MD003617
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Bone infections are a significant public health burden associated with morbidity and mortality in patients. Microbial biofilm pathogens are the causative agents in chronic osteomyelitis. Research on the pathogenesis of osteomyelitis has focused on indirect bone destruction by host immune cells and cytokines secondary to microbial insult. Direct bone resorption by biofilm pathogens has not yet been seriously considered. In this study, common osteomyelitis pathogens (Staphylococcus aureus, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Candida albicans, and Streptococcus mutans) were grown as biofilms in multiple in vitro and ex vivo experiments to analyze quantitative and qualitative aspects of bone destruction during infection. Pathogens were grown as single or mixed species biofilms on the following substrates: hydroxyapatite, rat jawbone, or polystyrene wells, and in various media. Biofilm growth was evaluated by scanning electron microscopy and pH levels were monitored over time. Histomorphologic and quantitative effects of biofilms on tested substrates were analyzed by microcomputed tomography and quantitative cultures. All tested biofilms demonstrated significant damage to bone. Scanning electron microscopy indicated that all strains formed mature biofilms within 7 days on all substrate surfaces regardless of media. Experimental conditions impacted pH levels, although this had no impact on biofilm growth or bone destruction. Presence of biofilm led to bone dissolution with a decrease of total volume by 20.17±2.93% upon microcomputed tomography analysis, which was statistically significant as compared to controls (p <0.05, ANOVA). Quantitative cultures indicated that media and substrate did not impact biofilm formation (Kruskall-Wallis test, post-hoc Dunne's test; p <0.05). Overall, these results indicate that biofilms associated with osteomyelitis have the ability to directly resorb bone. These findings should lead to a more complete understanding of the etiopathogenesis of osteomyelitis, where direct bone resorption by biofilm is considered in addition to the well-known osteoclastic and host cell destruction of bone.

Indexed as

AnimalsBiofilmsCandida albicansDurapatiteJawMaleOsteoblastsOsteomyelitisPolystyrenesPseudomonas aeruginosaRatsRats, WistarStaphylococcus aureusDurapatitePolystyrenes

Identifiers

PMID28076372
PMCPMC5226730
OpenAlexW2574343446

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.