Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home

Aspergillus fumigatus Biofilms: a Comparison of Processing Techniques for Scanning Electron Microscopy of Fungal Mycelium and Extracellular Matrix

  • Lydia-Marie Joubert (a1), Jose AG Ferreira (a2) (a3), David A Stevens (a3) and Lynette Cegelski (a4)
    • Send article to Kindle

      To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

      Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

      Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

      Aspergillus fumigatus Biofilms: a Comparison of Processing Techniques for Scanning Electron Microscopy of Fungal Mycelium and Extracellular Matrix
      Available formats
      ×

      Send article to Dropbox

      To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

      Aspergillus fumigatus Biofilms: a Comparison of Processing Techniques for Scanning Electron Microscopy of Fungal Mycelium and Extracellular Matrix
      Available formats
      ×

      Send article to Google Drive

      To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

      Aspergillus fumigatus Biofilms: a Comparison of Processing Techniques for Scanning Electron Microscopy of Fungal Mycelium and Extracellular Matrix
      Available formats
      ×

Abstract

  • An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided below. To view the full text please use the links above to select your preferred format.

Copyright

References

Hide All
[1] Costerton, JW, et al, Annual Rev Microbiol 49 (1995). p 711.
[2] Lappin-Scott, H, Burton, S & Stoodley, P, Nature Reviews Microbiology 12 (2014). p 781.
[3] Muller, FM, Seidler, M & Beauvais, A, Med Mycol 49 (2011) Suppl 1), S96.
[4] Speirs, JJ, , JJ, van der Ent, CK & Beekman, JM, Curr Opin Pulm Med 18 (2012). p 632.
[5] Vrankenrijker, AM de, et al, Clin Mircobiol Infect 17 (2011). p 1381.
[6] Kaur, S & Singh, S, Med Mycol 52 (2014). p 2.
[7] Alhede, M, et al, FEMS Immunol Med Microbiol 65 (2012). p 335.
[8] Bray, DF, Bagu, J & Koegler, P, Microscopy Research and Technique 26 (1993). p 489.
[9] Priester, JH, et al, J Microbiol Methods 68 (2007). p 577.
[10] Weber, K, et al, FEMS Microbiol Lett 350 (2014). p 175.
[11] Asahi, Y, et al., AMB Express 5 (2015). p 6.
[12] The authors acknowledge Beckman Center (LMJ), The Child Health Research Institute, Stanford Interdisciplinary Initiatives Program (DAS), a gift from Mr John Flatley (DAS) and NIH Director's New Innovator Award (LC, grant DP2OD007488) for financial support.

Aspergillus fumigatus Biofilms: a Comparison of Processing Techniques for Scanning Electron Microscopy of Fungal Mycelium and Extracellular Matrix

  • Lydia-Marie Joubert (a1), Jose AG Ferreira (a2) (a3), David A Stevens (a3) and Lynette Cegelski (a4)

Metrics

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed.