ArticleScientific reports2018
Co-culture models illustrate the digestion of Gemmata spp. by phagocytes.
Article in Scientific reports, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Planctomycetes as Host-Associated Bacteria: A Perspective That Holds Promise for Their Future Isolations, by Mimicking Their Native Environmental Niches in Clinical Microbiology Laboratories.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2020Pooled it
- Hydrogel Skin-Covered Neurons Self-Assembled with Gustatory Cells for Selective Taste Stimulation.ACS omega · 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
4 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Gemmata spp. bacteria thrive in the same aquatic environments as free-living amoebae. DNA-based detection of Gemmata spp. sequences in the microbiota of the human digestive tract and blood further questioned the susceptibility of Gemmata spp. to phagocytes. Here, Gemmata obscuriglobus and Gemmata massiliana were co-cultured with the amoebae Acanthamoeba polyphaga, Acanthamoeba castellanii, Acanthamoeba griffini and THP-1 macrophage-like phagocytes. All experiments were performed in five independant replicates. The ratio amoeba/bacteria was 1:20 and the ratio THP-1/bacteria was 1:10. After a 2-hour co-culture, extracellular bacteria were killed by kanamycin or amikacin and eliminated. The intracellular location of Gemmata bacteria was specified by confocal microscopy. Microscopic enumerations and culture-based enumerations of colony-forming units were performed at T = 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 8, 16, 24, 48 and 72 hours post-infection. Then, Gemmata bacteria were engulfed into the phagocytes' cytoplasmic vacuoles, more than (98 ± 2)% of Gemmata bacteria, compared to controls, were destroyed by phagocytic cells after a 48-h co-culture according to microscopy and culture results, and no positive culture was observed at T = 72-hours. Under our co-culture conditions, Gemmata bacteria were therefore susceptible to the environmental and host phagocytes here investigated. These data suggest that these Acanthamoeba species and THP-1 cells cannot be used to isolate G. massiliana and G. obscuriglobus under the co-culture conditions applied in this study. Although the THP-1 response can point towards potential responses that might occur in vivo, these responses should first bevalidated by in vivo studies to draw definite conclusions.
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.