ArticleGut microbes2019
Motility and biofilm formation of the emerging gastrointestinal pathogen Campylobacter concisus differs under microaerophilic and anaerobic environments.
Article in Gut microbes, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Exploring flagellar contributions to motility and virulence in Arcobacter butzleri.World journal of microbiology & biotechnology · 2024Article
- Biofilm Formation inMicroorganisms · 2023Article
- Effect of Atmospheric Conditions on Pathogenic Phenotypes ofMicroorganisms · 2022Article
- Insight into the Relationship between Oral Microbiota and the Inflammatory Bowel Disease.Microorganisms · 2022Review
- Diurnal and eating-associated microbial patterns revealed via high-frequency saliva sampling.Genome research · 2022Article
- Review on Stress Tolerance inFrontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2020Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Campylobacter concisus has been isolated from patients with gastroenteritis and inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), as well as healthy subjects. While strain differences may plausibly explain virulence differentials, an alternative hypothesis posits that the pathogenic potential of this species may depend on altered ecosystem conditions in the inflamed gut. One potential difference is oxygen availability, which is frequently increased under conditions of inflammation and is known to regulate bacterial virulence. Hence, we hypothesized that oxygen influences C. concisus physiology. We therefore characterized the effect of microaerophilic or anaerobic environments on C. concisus motility and biofilm formation, two important determinants of host colonization and dissemination. C. concisus isolates (n = 46) sourced from saliva, gut mucosal biopsies and feces of patients with IBD (n = 23), gastroenteritis (n = 8) and healthy subjects (n = 13), were used for this study. Capacity to form biofilms was determined using crystal violet assay, while assessment of dispersion through soft agar permitted motility to be assessed. No association existed between GI disease and either motility or biofilm forming capacity. Oral isolates exhibited significantly greater capacity for biofilm formation compared to fecal isolates (p<0.03), and showed a strong negative correlation between motility and biofilm formation (r = -0.7; p = 0.01). Motility significantly increased when strains were cultured under microaerophilic compared to anaerobic conditions (p<0.001). Increased biofilm formation under microaerophillic conditions was also observed for a subset of isolates. Hence, differences in oxygen availability appear to influence key physiological aspects of the opportunistic gastrointestinal pathogen C. concisus.
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.