standard 01

03

blue The first evidence we have of the recognition of biofilms is found in the writings of: none false Robert Hooke No. Hooke was an early microscopist and did indeed draw pictures of cells, but he did not describe biofilms. false Arthur Henrici No. Henrici did recognize the fact that most aquatic bacteria are attached to the substratum and thus knew about what we today call biofilms but he was not the first to do so. false William Charaklis No. Charaklis was a pioneer in biofilm microbiology and made many significant contributions to the field bue he was not the first to describe biofilms. true Anthony van Leeuwenhoek D. Yes, In 1683, van Leeuwenhoek described the organisms in the “scruff of a mans teeth” and thus is given credit for the first description of what we today call biofilms. Robert Koch was a pioneering physician and microbiologist who made many contributions to medical science and our understanding of disease. Which of these ideas were fostered by the work of R. Koch? none true Pure culture microbiology was the key to the identification of human pathogens. Yes. The pure culture concept was very successful in identifying the causal organisms in a great number of principally planktonic infections true One must isolate a specific pathogen and show that it is the cause of a particular disease (Koch’s Postulates). Yes, the isolation of a pure culture was the first step in identifying the causal organism of certain infectious diseases. true Solid media permitted the isolation of pure cultures of microorganisms. Yes, solid media permitted the formation of individual colonies of organisms which arose from single cells, that is pure cultures. true If you weren’t doing pure culture microbiology, you weren’t doing science. Yes, unfortunately, the emphasis on pure culture microbiology drew scientists away from studying microorganisms in their native state (mixed culture biofilms) and slowed the advance of our understanding of biofilm microbiology.