Literature DB >> 14688048

Mutant prevention concentration of nalidixic acid, ciprofloxacin, clinafloxacin, levofloxacin, norfloxacin, ofloxacin, sparfloxacin or trovafloxacin for Escherichia coli under different growth conditions.

Hans-Jörg Linde1, Norbert Lehn.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: We used two different strains of Escherichia coli, E.coli ATCC 25922 and a recent urinary isolate from a clinical sample, to investigate in vitro how the MIC and mutant prevention concentration (MPC) are affected by different temperatures (37 or 20 degrees C) or oxygen tension (aerobic or anaerobic atmosphere; MIC, MIC(an); MPC, MPC(an)).
MATERIALS AND METHODS: MIC and MPC for E.coli ATCC 25922 and the clinical isolate were determined on agar containing ciprofloxacin or levofloxacin, and for the ATCC strain on agar supplemented with nalidixic acid, norfloxacin, ofloxacin, sparfloxacin, trovafloxacin or clinafloxacin.
RESULTS: Results for the ATCC strain and the clinical strain for ciprofloxacin or levofloxacin were similar. The MPC values for E.coli ATCC 25922 were 2 x MIC (trovafloxacin), 4 x MIC (ciprofloxacin, norfloxacin, ofloxacin), 8 x MIC (clinafloxacin, levofloxacin), 16 x MIC (sparfloxacin) and 32 x MIC (nalidixic acid) at 37 degrees C and under aerobic conditions. Generally, a 37 degrees C aerobic atmosphere was associated with the highest MPC values. As an exception, both the MIC and the MPC of ciprofloxacin were higher under anaerobic versus aerobic conditions (MIC(an) approximately 8 x MIC; MPC(an) = 4 x MPC) for both E.coli isolates. Irrespective of the quinolone or growth conditions, the MIC for mutants was 1-256 x wild-type MIC. Calculated from published serum half-lives and the MPC values from this study, a putative selection period, in which resistant mutants might be selected, was calculated to be 14 h for nalidixic acid, 16 h for norfloxacin and ciprofloxacin, 28 h for ofloxacin, 30 h for trovafloxacin, 35 h for levofloxacin, 40 h for clinafloxacin, and 120 h for sparfloxacin.
CONCLUSIONS: As calculated from our model in respect to the length of the selection period, long serum half-lives of recently developed compounds could not be compensated for by a more favourable activity in terms of MPC. Higher concentrations of ciprofloxacin may be required under an anaerobic atmosphere to prevent the emergence of resistant mutants among 10(10) cfu.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2003        PMID: 14688048     DOI: 10.1093/jac/dkh036

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Antimicrob Chemother        ISSN: 0305-7453            Impact factor:   5.790


  15 in total

1.  Assessing sensitivity to antibacterial topoisomerase II inhibitors.

Authors:  Sonia K Morgan-Linnell; Hiroshi Hiasa; Lynn Zechiedrich; John L Nitiss
Journal:  Curr Protoc Pharmacol       Date:  2007-12

2.  Low correlation between MIC and mutant prevention concentration.

Authors:  Karl Drlica; Xilin Zhao; Joseph M Blondeau; Christine Hesje
Journal:  Antimicrob Agents Chemother       Date:  2006-01       Impact factor: 5.191

3.  Drug interactions modulate the potential for evolution of resistance.

Authors:  Jean-Baptiste Michel; Pamela J Yeh; Remy Chait; Robert C Moellering; Roy Kishony
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2008-09-24       Impact factor: 11.205

4.  Mutant prevention concentration-based pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic indices as dosing targets for suppressing the enrichment of levofloxacin-resistant subpopulations of Staphylococcus aureus.

Authors:  Beibei Liang; Nan Bai; Yun Cai; Rui Wang; Karl Drlica; Xilin Zhao
Journal:  Antimicrob Agents Chemother       Date:  2011-02-22       Impact factor: 5.191

5.  Evaluation of meropenem regimens suppressing emergence of resistance in Acinetobacter baumannii with human simulated exposure in an in vitro intravenous-infusion hollow-fiber infection model.

Authors:  Xin Li; Lin Wang; Xian-Jia Zhang; Yang Yang; Wei-Tao Gong; Bin Xu; Ying-Qun Zhu; Wei Liu
Journal:  Antimicrob Agents Chemother       Date:  2014-09-02       Impact factor: 5.191

Review 6.  Drug interactions and the evolution of antibiotic resistance.

Authors:  Pamela J Yeh; Matthew J Hegreness; Aviva Presser Aiden; Roy Kishony
Journal:  Nat Rev Microbiol       Date:  2009-06       Impact factor: 60.633

7.  Comparison of the selection of antimicrobial resistance in fecal Escherichia coli during enrofloxacin administration with a local drug delivery system or with intramuscular injections in a swine model.

Authors:  Romain Béraud; Louis Huneault; Dave Bernier; Francis Beaudry; Ann Letellier; Jérôme R E del Castillo
Journal:  Can J Vet Res       Date:  2008-07       Impact factor: 1.310

8.  Urinary Tract Physiological Conditions Promote Ciprofloxacin Resistance in Low-Level-Quinolone-Resistant Escherichia coli.

Authors:  Guillermo Martín-Gutiérrez; Jerónimo Rodríguez-Beltrán; José Manuel Rodríguez-Martínez; Coloma Costas; Javier Aznar; Álvaro Pascual; Jesús Blázquez
Journal:  Antimicrob Agents Chemother       Date:  2016-06-20       Impact factor: 5.191

9.  Testing the mutant selection window hypothesis with Escherichia coli exposed to levofloxacin in a rabbit tissue cage infection model.

Authors:  W Ni; X Song; J Cui
Journal:  Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis       Date:  2013-09-14       Impact factor: 3.267

10.  The role of RamA on the development of ciprofloxacin resistance in Salmonella enterica serovar Typhimurium.

Authors:  Yawei Sun; Menghong Dai; Haihong Hao; Yulian Wang; Lingli Huang; Yassir A Almofti; Zhenli Liu; Zonghui Yuan
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2011-08-12       Impact factor: 3.240

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.