ArticleJournal of oral microbiology2020
Identification and functional analysis of glutamine transporter in
Article in Journal of oral microbiology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Identification of immunostimulatory antigens in Group AProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2026Article
- In Vitro Evaluation of the Antibacterial Effect and Influence on the Bacterial Biofilm Formation of Glutamic Acid and Some Structural Analogues.Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Human saliva modifies growth, biofilm architecture, and competitive behaviors of oral streptococci.mSphere · 2024Article
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 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
background
objectiveIn this study, we characterized the function of the glutamine transporter in
methodsThe SMU.732 gene, corresponding to
resultsGrowth of GEMR was similar in the presence and absence of glutamine, whereas the growth rates of MT8148 and comp-GEMR were significantly lower in the presence of glutamine as compared to its absence. Furthermore, biofilms formed by MT8148 and comp-GEMR were significantly thicker than that formed by GEMR, while the GEMR strain showed a significantly lower survival rate in an acidic environment than the other strains. Addition of n-phenyl-2-naphthylamine, used to label of the membrane, led to increased fluorescence intensity of MT8148 and GEMR, albeit that was significantly lower in the latter.
conclusionsThese results suggest that
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.