Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28378043›Full record

ReviewCellular and molecular life sciences : CMLS2017

Defining motility in the Staphylococci.

Eric J G Pollitt, Stephen P Diggle

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Cellular and molecular life sciences : CMLS, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 44 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
44citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

44 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Antimicrobial and Antibiofilm Potential ofPlants (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Impact of cell-free supernatant ofFrontiers in veterinary science · 2023
    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

2 authors.

Eric J G PollittDepartment of Biomedical Science, Western Bank, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.
Stephen P DiggleSchool of Biological Sciences, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA, USA. stephen.diggle@biosci.gatech.edu.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The ability of bacteria to move is critical for their survival in diverse environments and multiple ways have evolved to achieve this. Two forms of motility have recently been described for Staphylococcus aureus, an organism previously considered to be non-motile. One form is called spreading, which is a type of sliding motility and the second form involves comet formation, which has many observable characteristics associated with gliding motility. Darting motility has also been observed in Staphylococcus epidermidis. This review describes how motility is defined and how we distinguish between passive and active motility. We discuss the characteristics of the various forms of Staphylococci motility, the molecular mechanisms involved and the potential future research directions.

Indexed as

Bacterial AdhesionQuorum SensingAnimalsBacterial ToxinsCell WallHumansStaphylococcal InfectionsStaphylococcusStaphylococcus aureusBacterial Toxinsstaphylococcal delta toxinGlidingMotilityQuorum sensingStaphylococcus aureus

Identifiers

PMID28378043
PMCPMC5501909

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.