Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31596855›Full record

ArticlePloS one2019

The dialogue between protozoa and bacteria in a microfluidic device.

Anna Gaines, Miranda Ludovice, Jie Xu, Marc Zanghi, Richard J Meinersmann, Mark Berrang, Wayne Daley, Doug Britton

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
1.6field-weighted citation impact, top 18% of its field
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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 22 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Random encounters and amoeba locomotion drive the predation ofProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2022
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. PeerJ · 2021
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
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

8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Anna GainesAerospace, Transportation and Advanced Systems Laboratory, Georgia Tech Research Institute, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, Georgia, United States of America.
Miranda LudoviceAerospace, Transportation and Advanced Systems Laboratory, Georgia Tech Research Institute, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, Georgia, United States of America.
Jie XuAerospace, Transportation and Advanced Systems Laboratory, Georgia Tech Research Institute, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, Georgia, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0002-9155-4097
Marc ZanghiAerospace, Transportation and Advanced Systems Laboratory, Georgia Tech Research Institute, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, Georgia, United States of America.
Richard J MeinersmannRichard B. Russell Research Center, Agricultural Research Service, United States Department of Agriculture, Athens, Georgia, United States of America.
Mark BerrangRichard B. Russell Research Center, Agricultural Research Service, United States Department of Agriculture, Athens, Georgia, United States of America.
Wayne DaleyAerospace, Transportation and Advanced Systems Laboratory, Georgia Tech Research Institute, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, Georgia, United States of America.
Doug BrittonAerospace, Transportation and Advanced Systems Laboratory, Georgia Tech Research Institute, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, Georgia, United States of America.
Georgia Institute of Technology · USAgricultural Research Service · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In nature, protozoa play a major role in controlling bacterial populations. This paper proposes a microfluidic device for the study of protozoa behaviors change due to their chemotactic response in the presence of bacterial cells. A three-channel microfluidic device was designed using a nitrocellulose membrane into which channels were cut using a laser cutter. The membrane was sandwiched between two glass slides; a Euglena suspension was then allowed to flow through the central channel. The two side channels were filled with either, 0.1% peptone as a negative control, or a Listeria suspension respectively. The membrane design prevented direct interaction but allowed Euglena cells to detect Listeria cells as secretions diffused through the nitrocellulose membrane. A significant number of Euglena cells migrated toward the chambers near the bacterial cells, indicating a positive chemotactic response of Euglena toward chemical cues released from Listeria cells. Filtrates collected from Listeria suspension with a series of molecular weight cutoffs (3k, 10k and 100k) were examined in Euglena chemotaxis tests. Euglena cells were attracted to all filtrates collected from the membrane filtration with different molecular weight cutoffs, suggesting small molecules from Listeria might be the chemical cues to attract protozoa. Headspace volatile organic compounds (VOC) released from Listeria were collected, spiked to 0.1% peptone and tested as the chemotactic effectors. It was discovered that the Euglena cells responded quickly to Listeria VOCs including decanal, 3,5- dimethylbenzaldehyde, ethyl acetate, indicating bacterial VOCs were used by Euglena to track the location of bacteria.

Indexed as

Lab-On-A-Chip DevicesChemotactic FactorsEuglenaListeriaMicrospheresVolatile Organic CompoundsChemotactic FactorsVolatile Organic Compounds

Identifiers

PMID31596855
PMCPMC6784911
OpenAlexW2979772778

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC0
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.