| Title |
Microbial inhibition of oral epithelial wound recovery: potential role for quorum sensing molecules?
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
AMB Express, May 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13568-015-0116-5 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Tine De Ryck, Eline Vanlancker, Charlotte Grootaert, Bart I. Roman, Laurens M De Coen, Isabel Vandenberghe, Christian V Stevens, Marc Bracke, Tom Van de Wiele, Barbara Vanhoecke |
| Abstract |
Awareness of the impact of microbiota in both health and disease is growing. Using a new in vitro oral mucosa co-culture model, we recently showed a clear inhibition of epithelial wound healing in the presence of an oral microbial community. In this paper, we have used the same model in combination with specific oral microbial species to obtain a better insight into the role of the oral microbiota in wound healing. Monocultures of Klebsiella oxytoca and Lactobacillus salivarius significantly inhibited wound healing with ~20%, whereas Streptococcus mitis and S. oralis enhanced the healing process with ~15% in 24 h. Yet, neither S. oralis or S. mitis were able to counteract the inhibitory effects from K. oxytoca on wound healing. Other tested microbial species had no effect on wound healing. Apart from this species-dependency, the inhibitory effect on wound healing depended on a microbial threshold concentration. Further mechanistic experiments with K. oxytoca excluded different microbial factors and hypothesized that quorum sensing molecules might play a role in the inter-kingdom signalling during wound healing. These results are important for the development of new strategies for the management of (infected) wounds and ulcerations. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 2 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 38 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 38 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 7 | 18% |
| Researcher | 7 | 18% |
| Student > Bachelor | 6 | 16% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 4 | 11% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 3 | 8% |
| Other | 4 | 11% |
| Unknown | 7 | 18% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 9 | 24% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 6 | 16% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 6 | 16% |
| Chemistry | 5 | 13% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 2 | 5% |
| Other | 2 | 5% |
| Unknown | 8 | 21% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 23 May 2015.
All research outputs
#14,812,046
of 22,805,349 outputs
Outputs from AMB Express
#346
of 1,234 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#147,721
of 266,745 outputs
Outputs of similar age from AMB Express
#7
of 17 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,805,349 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,234 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 266,745 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 17 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.