↓ Skip to main content

Mathematical modeling of dormant cell formation in growing biofilm

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Microbiology, May 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (85th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (91st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
18 X users

Readers on

mendeley
59 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Mathematical modeling of dormant cell formation in growing biofilm
Published in
Frontiers in Microbiology, May 2015
DOI 10.3389/fmicb.2015.00534
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kotaro Chihara, Shinya Matsumoto, Yuki Kagawa, Satoshi Tsuneda

Abstract

Understanding the dynamics of dormant cells in microbial biofilms, in which the bacteria are embedded in extracellular matrix, is important for developing successful antibiotic therapies against pathogenic bacteria. Although some of the molecular mechanisms leading to bacterial persistence have been speculated in planktonic bacterial cell, how dormant cells emerge in the biofilms of pathogenic bacteria such as Pseudomonas aeruginosa remains unclear. The present study proposes four hypotheses of dormant cell formation; stochastic process, nutrient-dependent, oxygen-dependent, and time-dependent processes. These hypotheses were implemented into a three-dimensional individual-based model of biofilm formation. Numerical simulations of the different mechanisms yielded qualitatively different spatiotemporal distributions of dormant cells in the growing biofilm. Based on these simulation results, we discuss what kinds of experimental studies are effective for discriminating dormant cell formation mechanisms in biofilms.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 18 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 59 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 3%
Unknown 57 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 14 24%
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 24%
Researcher 11 19%
Student > Bachelor 8 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 3%
Other 4 7%
Unknown 6 10%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 13 22%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 11 19%
Mathematics 5 8%
Engineering 5 8%
Environmental Science 4 7%
Other 13 22%
Unknown 8 14%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. 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 11 March 2017.
All research outputs
#2,787,667
of 22,803,211 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Microbiology
#2,432
of 24,751 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#37,577
of 266,683 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Microbiology
#32
of 387 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,803,211 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 24,751 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.3. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% 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 266,683 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 387 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its contemporaries.