Facultatively Anaerobic Staphylococci Enable Anaerobic Cutibacterium Species to Grow and Form Biofilms Under Aerobic Conditions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Facultatively anaerobic Staphylococcus spp. and anaerobic Cutibacterium spp. are among the most prominent bacteria on human skin. Although skin microbes generally grow as multispecies biofilms, few studies have investigated the interaction between staphylococci and Cutibacterium spp. in dual-species biofilms. Here, we measured the mono- and dual-species biofilm formation of four staphylococcal species (S. epidermidis, S. hominis, S. capitis, and S. aureus) and two Cutibacterium spp. (C. acnes and C. avidum) cultured in vitro under both aerobic and anaerobic conditions. The biofilms were quantitated by rinsing them to remove planktonic cells, detaching the biofilm bacteria via sonication, and enumerating the cells by dilution plating. When cultured alone, staphylococci formed biofilms under both aerobic and anaerobic conditions, whereas Cutibacterium spp. formed biofilms only under anaerobic conditions. In co-culture, staphylococcal biofilm formation was unaffected by the presence of Cutibacterium spp., regardless of oxygen availability. However, Cutibacterium spp. biofilm formation was significantly enhanced in the presence of staphylococci, enabling robust growth under both anaerobic and aerobic conditions. Fluorescence confocal microscopy of the aerobic dual-species biofilms suggested that staphylococci create anaerobic niches at the base of the biofilm where C. acnes can grow. These findings demonstrate that staphylococci facilitate the colonization of Cutibacterium spp. in oxygen-rich environments, potentially explaining their presence in high numbers on the oxygen-exposed stratum corneum.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".