2014
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0104561
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Comparison of Biofilm Formation between Major Clonal Lineages of Methicillin Resistant Staphylococcus aureus

Abstract: ObjectivesEpidemic methicillin-resistant S. aureus (MRSA) clones cause infections in both hospital and community settings. As a biofilm phenotype further facilitates evasion of the host immune system and antibiotics, we compared the biofilm-forming capacities of various MRSA clones.MethodsSeventy-six MRSA classified into 13 clones (USA300, EMRSA-15, Hungarian/Brazilian etc.), and isolated from infections or from carriers were studied for biofilm formation under static and dynamic conditions. Static biofilms in… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
4

Citation Types

6
38
0
1

Year Published

2016
2016
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
7
1
1

Relationship

1
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 49 publications
(45 citation statements)
references
References 23 publications
6
38
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…All of the MRSA strains that harbored SCCmec types other than type III (i.e., types I, IV, and V) were capable of biofilm formation. These results are in accordance with those obtained by Vanhommerig et al in 2014 and Cirkovic et al in 2015 (24, 25). …”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 94%
“…All of the MRSA strains that harbored SCCmec types other than type III (i.e., types I, IV, and V) were capable of biofilm formation. These results are in accordance with those obtained by Vanhommerig et al in 2014 and Cirkovic et al in 2015 (24, 25). …”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 94%
“…The comparison between biofilm formation under static and dynamic conditions is even more complicated. In clinical isolates, only 19% of the isolates behaved similarly under both static and dynamic conditions (Vanhommerig et al, 2014), which is similar to our results (Table 5). Factors including incubation time, growth surface, and nutrients are thought to influence biofilm formation in staphylococci measured by static or dynamic model assays (Stepanović et al, 2001;Vanhommerig et al, 2014;Van Kerckhoven et al, 2016).…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 92%
“…In clinical isolates, only 19% of the isolates behaved similarly under both static and dynamic conditions (Vanhommerig et al, 2014), which is similar to our results (Table 5). Factors including incubation time, growth surface, and nutrients are thought to influence biofilm formation in staphylococci measured by static or dynamic model assays (Stepanović et al, 2001;Vanhommerig et al, 2014;Van Kerckhoven et al, 2016). Furthermore, we have recently shown similar results on biofilm formation of E. coli dairy isolates, noting a lack of correlation between static and dynamic conditions (Marti et al, 2017).…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 92%
“…To study adhesion (6 h) and biofilm formation (24 h) under static conditions, the crystal violet method was used (10) with some modifications. Briefly, inoculum was prepared by adjusting exponential cultures grown in Luria-Bertani (LB) broth to a 0.5 McFarland standard, and this was followed by a 1:10 dilution in LB broth.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%