ArticleCurrent microbiology2017
Interaction Between Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) and Acanthamoeba polyphaga.
Article in Current microbiology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 25 citations in OpenAlex.
- A history of over 40 years of potentially pathogenic free-living amoeba studies in Brazil - a systematic review.Memorias do Instituto Oswaldo Cruz · 2022Pooled it
- Enhancement of capsular hypermucoviscosity in Klebsiella pneumoniae by Acanthamoeba.PLoS neglected tropical diseases · 2023Article
- Clinical and molecular diagnosis of Acanthamoeba keratitis in contact lens wearers in southern Brazil reveals the presence of an endosymbiont.Parasitology research · 2022Article
- War of the microbial world: Acanthamoeba spp. interactions with microorganisms.Folia microbiologica · 2021Review
- Marine Bacteria Display Different Escape Mechanisms When Facing Their Protozoan Predators.Microorganisms · 2020Article
- Busting biofilms: free-living amoebae disrupt preformed methicillin-resistantMicrobiology (Reading, England) · 2020Article
- Can Free LivingIranian journal of parasitologyReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The interactions that occur between bacteria and amoebae can give through mutual relations, where both organisms benefit from the association or parasitic in which one organism benefits at the expense of the other. When these organisms share the same environment, it can result in some changes in the growth of organisms, in adaptation patterns, in morphology, development or even in their ability to synthesize proteins and other substances. In this study, the interaction between Acanthamoeba polyphaga and Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) was evaluated using a co-culture model at different incubation times. The results showed that 89% of amoebic cells remained viable after contact with the bacteria. The bacterial isolate was visualized inside the amoeba through confocal microscopy and fluorescence for up to 216 h of co-cultivation. The lysate of amoebic culture increased the growth of S. aureus (MRSA), and the effect of supernatant of culture inhibited bacterial growth over the incubation times, suggesting that A. polyphaga produced some metabolite, that inhibited the growth of bacteria. Moreover, the encystment of the A. polyphaga was increased by the bacteria presence. The results show that A. polyphaga and S. aureus interaction may have an important influence on survival of both, and specially indicate a possible effect on the metabolics characteristics each other.
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.