ArticlePloS one2024
Comparison of the antibiotic resistance mechanisms in a gram-positive and a gram-negative bacterium by gene networks analysis.
Article in PloS one, 2024. 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.
- Hexane extract ofRSC advances · 2026Article
- Lipid II unlocked: strategies for obtaining a major antibiotic target.Chemical communications (Cambridge, England) · 2025Review
- Evaluating a Targeted Antimicrobial Stewardship Program and Its Temporal Association with Resistance Trends in a Veterinary Referral Hospital.Veterinary sciences · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Nowadays, the emergence of some microbial species resistant to antibiotics, both gram-positive and gram-negative bacteria, is due to changes in molecular activities, biological processes and their cellular structure in order to survive. The aim of the gene network analysis for the drug-resistant Enterococcus faecium as gram-positive and Salmonella Typhimurium as gram-negative bacteria was to gain insights into the important interactions between hub genes involved in key molecular pathways associated with cellular adaptations and the comparison of survival mechanisms of these two bacteria exposed to ciprofloxacin. To identify the gene clusters and hub genes, the gene networks in drug-resistant E. faecium and S. Typhimurium were analyzed using Cytoscape. Subsequently, the putative regulatory elements were found by examining the promoter regions of the hub genes and their gene ontology (GO) was determined. In addition, the interaction between milRNAs and up-regulated genes was predicted. RcsC and D920_01853 have been identified as the most important of the hub genes in S. Typhimurium and E. faecium, respectively. The enrichment analysis of hub genes revealed the importance of efflux pumps, and different enzymatic and binding activities in both bacteria. However, E. faecium specifically increases phospholipid biosynthesis and isopentenyl diphosphate biosynthesis, whereas S. Typhimurium focuses on phosphorelay signal transduction, transcriptional regulation, and protein autophosphorylation. The similarities in the GO findings of the promoters suggest common pathways for survival and basic physiological functions of both bacteria, including peptidoglycan production, glucose transport and cellular homeostasis. The genes with the most interactions with milRNAs include dpiB, rcsC and kdpD in S. Typhimurium and EFAU004_01228, EFAU004_02016 and EFAU004_00870 in E. faecium, respectively. The results showed that gram-positive and gram-negative bacteria have different mechanisms to survive under antibiotic stress. By deciphering their intricate adaptations, we can develop more effective therapeutic approaches and combat the challenges posed by multidrug-resistant bacteria.
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.