ArticleBiofilm2023
In vitro study to assess modulation of
Article in Biofilm, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Mixed Infections in the Female Lower Genital Tract: Unlocking the Current Landscape and Future Directions.Current medical science · 2025Review
- Editorial: Women in infectious agents and disease: 2024.Frontiers in microbiology · 2025Article
- New insights in the role ofFrontiers in microbiology · 2025Article
- Advancements in vaginal microbiota,Microbial cell (Graz, Austria) · 2025Review
- Assessment of the anti-biofilm effect of UV-C irradiation (254 nm) against healthcare associated infections related microorganisms.Frontiers in microbiology · 2025Article
- Eurobiofilms 2022: A translational perspective of biofilm-related persistent infections.Biofilm · 2024Article
- Impact of interkingdom microbial interactions in the vaginal tract.PLoS pathogens · 2024Article
- Synthesis of current pediatric urinary microbiome research.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
9 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Vulvovaginal candidiasis (VVC) is caused by biofilm formation and epithelial invasion. In addition, Methods: We prospectively collected CA and EC isolates from vaginal swabs over 6 months. We selected positive cultures with both CA and EC (cases) and a comparator group with either CA or EC (controls). We analyzed overall biomass production and metabolic activity in single cultures and in co-cultures based on staining assays, confocal laser scanning microscopy (CLSM) and scanning electron microscopy (SEM) to assess biofilm occupation. We also analyzed clinical manifestations. Results: We cultured 455 samples, 16 (3.5%) of which had CA and EC (cases); only CA or EC (controls) was detected, respectively, in 72 (15.8%) and 98 (21.5%). Biomass production and metabolic activity were significantly more pronounced in co-cultures in both groups. CLSM and SEM, on the other hand, showed the biofilm of each species to be significantly reduced when they were cultured together, with higher values in CA (percentage biofilm reduction: CA, 95.8% vs. EC, 36.2%, p < 0.001). There were no clinically significant differences between co-infected patients and patients infected only by Conclusion: Ours is the first study assessing co-cultures of CA and EC in a large collection of samples. We observed that coinfection of CA and EC was unusual (3.5%) and promoted high biomass, whereas microscopy enabled us to detect a reduction in biofilm production when microorganisms were co-cultured. No differences in symptoms were observed.
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.