↓ Skip to main content

Chestnut Honey and Bacteriophage Application to Control Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Escherichia coli Biofilms: Evaluation in an ex vivo Wound Model

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Microbiology, July 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

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

Mentioned by

twitter
6 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
63 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
147 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
Chestnut Honey and Bacteriophage Application to Control Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Escherichia coli Biofilms: Evaluation in an ex vivo Wound Model
Published in
Frontiers in Microbiology, July 2018
DOI 10.3389/fmicb.2018.01725
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ana Oliveira, Jéssica C. Sousa, Ana C. Silva, Luís D. R. Melo, Sanna Sillankorva

Abstract

Chronic skin wounds represent a major burn both economically and socially. Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Escherichia coli are among the most common colonizers of infected wounds and are prolific biofilm formers. Biofilms are a major problem in infections due to their increasingly difficult control and eradication, and tolerance to multiple prescribed drugs. As so, alternative methods are necessary. Bacteriophages (phages) and honey are both seen as a promising approach for biofilm related infections. Phages have specificity toward a bacterial genus, species or even strain, self-replicating nature, and avoid dysbiosis. Honey has gained acknowledgment due to its antibacterial, antioxidant and anti-inflammatory and wound healing properties. In this work, the effect of E. coli and P. aeruginosa phages vB_EcoS_CEB_EC3a and vB_PaeP_PAO1-D and chestnut honey, alone and combined, were tested using in vitro (polystyrene) and ex vivo (porcine skin) models and against mono and dual-species biofilms of these bacteria. In general, colonization was higher in the porcine skins and the presence of a second microorganism in a consortium of species did not affect the effectiveness of the treatments. The antibacterial effect of combined therapy against dual-species biofilms led to bacterial reductions that were greater for biofilms formed on polystyrene than on skin. Monospecies biofilms of E. coli were better destroyed with phages and honey than P. aeruginosa monospecies biofilms. Overall, the combined phage-honey formulations resulted in higher efficacies possibly due to honey's capacity to damage the bacterial cell membrane and also to its ability to penetrate the biofilm matrix, promoting and enhancing the subsequent phage infection.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 147 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 147 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 25 17%
Student > Master 25 17%
Student > Bachelor 17 12%
Researcher 12 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 8 5%
Other 16 11%
Unknown 44 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Immunology and Microbiology 20 14%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 19 13%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 17 12%
Medicine and Dentistry 9 6%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 8 5%
Other 24 16%
Unknown 50 34%
Attention Score in Context

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 16 August 2018.
All research outputs
#14,422,246
of 23,099,576 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Microbiology
#12,612
of 25,274 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#185,666
of 329,833 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Microbiology
#404
of 743 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,099,576 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 25,274 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.4. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% 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 329,833 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 743 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.