Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42056482›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2026

Differential antimicrobial responses in polymicrobial triple-species biofilms associated with persistent urinary tract infections.

Cathrina Geldard, Jessica Browne, Andrea Bugarcic

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Cathrina GeldardNational Centre for Naturopathic Medicine, Faculty of Health, Southern Cross University, Lismore, Australia.
Jessica BrowneFaculty of Health, Southern Cross University, Gold Coast, Australia.
Andrea BugarcicNational Centre for Naturopathic Medicine, Faculty of Health, Southern Cross University, Lismore, Australia. andrea.bugarcic@scu.edu.au.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Polymicrobial urinary tract infections (UTIs) pose significant treatment challenges due to interspecies interactions within biofilms. To address this, we developed a static, triple-species biofilm model comprising Escherichia coli, Enterococcus faecalis, and Candida albicans to simulate recurrent UTI communities. Biofilms were treated with ampicillin, ciprofloxacin, fluconazole, ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA), and N-acetylcysteine (NAC), and evaluated for biomass (crystal violet assay) and viability (CFU/mL). Ampicillin and ciprofloxacin reduced bacterial viability by > 90%, but had limited impact on C. albicans, while EDTA disrupted biomass by ≈ 45% and variably reduced viability across species. Fluconazole elicited non-monotonic effects on biomass and viability, and NAC increased microbial viability despite structural disruption. These results reveal that biofilm disruption did not consistently correlate with reductions in microbial viability in this model, highlighting the importance of evaluating both biomass and viable cell counts when assessing antimicrobial effects on polymicrobial biofilms relevant to persistent UTIs.

Indexed as

Anti-Bacterial AgentsAnti-Infective AgentsBiofilmsCandida albicansPersistent InfectionUrinary Tract InfectionsAcetylcysteineAmpicillinCiprofloxacinCoinfectionEdetic AcidEnterococcus faecalisEscherichia coliFluconazoleHumansMicrobial Sensitivity TestsAcetylcysteineAmpicillinAnti-Bacterial AgentsAnti-Infective AgentsCiprofloxacinEdetic AcidFluconazoleCandida albicansEnterococcus faecalisEscherichia coliInter-kingdomPolymicrobialRecurrent UTIUPECUTI

Identifiers

PMID42056482
PMCPMC13319473

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.