ArticleScientific reports2017
Rapid in situ imaging and whole genome sequencing of biofilm in neonatal feeding tubes: A clinical proof of concept.
Article in Scientific reports, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- ESBL-producingEpidemiology and infection · 2025Observational
- Genetic characteristics and risk factors of extended-spectrum β-lactamase-producingMicrobiology spectrum · 2025Observational
- Significant changes in gut microbiota and SCFAs among patients with newly diagnosed acute myeloid leukemia.Frontiers in microbiology · 2025Article
- Article
- Nasogastric enteral feeding tubes modulate preterm colonization in early life.Pediatric research · 2022Article
- Interspecies relationships between nosocomial pathogens associated to preterm infants and lactic acid bacteria in dual-species biofilms.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2022Article
- Article
- Testing Anti-Biofilm Polymeric Surfaces: Where to Start?International journal of molecular sciences · 2019Review
- Bacterial Density and Biofilm Structure Determined by Optical Coherence Tomography.Scientific reports · 2019Article
- Bacterial colonization and antimicrobial resistance genes in neonatal enteral feeding tubes.FEMS microbiology ecology · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The bacterial flora of nasogastric feeding tubes and faecal samples were analysed for a low-birth weight (725 g) neonate EGA 25 weeks in intensive care. Samples were collected at age 6 and 8 weeks of life. Optical coherence tomography (OCT) was used to visualise bacterial biofilms inside the nasogastric feeding tubes. The biofilm was heterogeneously distributed along the tube lumen wall, and had a depth of up to 500 µm. The bacterial biofilm and faecal samples included Enterococcus faecalis and Enterobacter hormaechei. Representative strains, recovered from both feeding tubes and faecal samples, were whole genome sequenced using Illumina, Mi-Seq, which revealed indistinguishable strains, each with less than 28 SNP differences, of E. faecalis and E. hormaechei. The E. faecalis strains were from two sequence types (ST191 and ST211) and encoded for a number of traits related to biofilm formation (BopD), adherence (Epb pili), virulence (cps loci, gelatinase, SprE) and antibiotic resistances (IsaA, tetM). The E. hormaechei were all ST106, and encoded for blaACT-15 β-lactamase and fosfomycin resistance (fosA). This proof of concept study demonstrates that bacterial flora within the neonatal feeding tubes may influence the bacterial colonisation of the intestinal tract and can be visualised non-destructively using OCT.
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.