↓ Skip to main content

The efficacy of lyticase and β-glucosidase enzymes on biofilm degradation of Pseudomonas aeruginosa strains with different gene profiles

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Microbiology, December 2019
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
24 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
52 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
The efficacy of lyticase and β-glucosidase enzymes on biofilm degradation of Pseudomonas aeruginosa strains with different gene profiles
Published in
BMC Microbiology, December 2019
DOI 10.1186/s12866-019-1662-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Maryam Banar, Mohammad Emaneini, Reza Beigverdi, Rima Fanaei Pirlar, Narges Node Farahani, Willem B. van Leeuwen, Fereshteh Jabalameli

Abstract

Pseudomonas aeruginosa is a nosocomial pathogen that causes severe infections in immunocompromised patients. Biofilm plays a significant role in the resistance of this bacterium and complicates the treatment of its infections. In this study, the effect of lyticase and β-glucosidase enzymes on the degradation of biofilms of P. aeruginosa strains isolated from cystic fibrosis and burn wound infections were assessed. Moreover, the decrease of ceftazidime minimum biofilm eliminating concentrations (MBEC) after enzymatic treatment was evaluated. This study demonstrated the effectiveness of both enzymes in degrading the biofilms of P. aeruginosa. In contrast to the lyticase enzyme, β-glucosidase reduced the ceftazidime MBECs significantly (P < 0.05). Both enzymes had no cytotoxic effect on the A-549 human lung carcinoma epithelial cell lines and A-431 human epidermoid carcinoma cell lines. Considering the characteristics of the β-glucosidase enzyme, which includes the notable degradation of P. aeruginosa biofilms and a significant decrease in the ceftazidime MBECs and non-toxicity for eukaryotic cells, this enzyme can be a promising therapeutic candidate for degradation of biofilms in burn wound patients, but further studies are needed.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 52 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 52 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 6 12%
Researcher 4 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 6%
Student > Postgraduate 2 4%
Professor 2 4%
Other 8 15%
Unknown 27 52%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 10%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 8%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 8%
Immunology and Microbiology 4 8%
Engineering 2 4%
Other 3 6%
Unknown 30 58%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 14 December 2019.
All research outputs
#18,041,836
of 23,182,015 outputs
Outputs from BMC Microbiology
#2,028
of 3,224 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#318,152
of 459,477 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Microbiology
#49
of 93 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,182,015 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,224 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.1. This one is in the 29th percentile – i.e., 29% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 459,477 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 93 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.