Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32631824›Full record

ArticleAntimicrobial agents and chemotherapy2020

Use of a Fluorescence-Based Assay To Measure Escherichia coli Membrane Potential Changes in High Throughput.

M Ashley Hudson, Deborah A Siegele, Steve W Lockless

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Antimicrobial agents and chemotherapy, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 28 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
28citing papers in PubMed
2.1field-weighted citation impact, top 12% 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

28 citing papers in PubMed, 57 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. TXA11114: Discovery of anAntibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. EngineeredmSphere · 2025
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022
    Article
  20. Article
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.

M Ashley HudsonDepartment of Biology, Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-2852-4979
Deborah A SiegeleDepartment of Biology, Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-8935-0696
Steve W LocklessDepartment of Biology, Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas, USA lockless@bio.tamu.edu.ORCID 0000-0001-7683-6339
Texas A&M University · US

Funding

Physiological Role for Cation Channels in BacteriaR01GM132436 · NIGMS · TEXAS A&M UNIVERSITY · PI SIEGELE, DEBORAH A. · 2019 to 2022
$1.6M
NIGMS NIH HHS R01 GM132436
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Bacterial membrane potential is difficult to measure using classical electrophysiology techniques due to the small cell size and the presence of the peptidoglycan cell wall. Instead, chemical probes are often used to study membrane potential changes under conditions of interest. Many of these probes are fluorescent molecules that accumulate in a charge-dependent manner, and the resulting fluorescence change can be analyzed via flow cytometry or using a fluorescence microplate reader. Although this technique works well in many Gram-positive bacteria, it generates fairly low signal-to-noise ratios in Gram-negative bacteria due to dye exclusion by the outer membrane. We detail an optimized workflow that uses the membrane potential probe, 3,3'-diethyloxacarbocyanine iodide [DiOC

Indexed as

Biological AssayEscherichia coliMembrane PotentialsGram-Negative BacteriaValinomycinValinomycinamlodipineantimycinbarium chlorideCCCPDiOC2(3)E. coliGram-negativehigh throughputmembrane potentialvalinomycin

Identifiers

PMID32631824
PMCPMC7449193
OpenAlexW3039163615

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.