Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31294207›Full record

ReviewAIMS microbiology2018

Bacterial autoaggregation.

Thomas Trunk, Hawzeen S Khalil, Jack C Leo

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in AIMS microbiology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 212 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
212citing 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

212 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Metabolic engineering ofSynthetic and systems biotechnology · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Characterization ofJournal of bacteriology · 2026
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

152 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

3 authors.

Thomas TrunkBacterial Cell Surface Group, Section for Genetics and Evolutionary Biology, Department of Biosciences, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway.
Hawzeen S KhalilBacterial Cell Surface Group, Section for Genetics and Evolutionary Biology, Department of Biosciences, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway.
Jack C LeoBacterial Cell Surface Group, Section for Genetics and Evolutionary Biology, Department of Biosciences, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Many bacteria, both environmental and pathogenic, exhibit the property of autoaggregation. In autoaggregation (sometimes also called autoagglutination or flocculation), bacteria of the same type form multicellular clumps that eventually settle at the bottom of culture tubes. Autoaggregation is generally mediated by self-recognising surface structures, such as proteins and exopolysaccharides, which we term collectively as autoagglutinins. Although a widespread phenomenon, in most cases the function of autoaggregation is poorly understood, though there is evidence to show that aggregating bacteria are protected from environmental stresses or host responses. Autoaggregation is also often among the first steps in forming biofilms. Here, we review the current knowledge on autoaggregation, the role of autoaggregation in biofilm formation and pathogenesis, and molecular mechanisms leading to aggregation using specific examples.

Indexed as

autoagglutinationautoaggregationbacterial stress responsesbiofilmflocculationmicrocolony formationself-recognition

Identifiers

PMID31294207
PMCPMC6605025

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.