| Literature DB >> 27502110 |
Wenhui Cai1,2, Yingmei Fu1,3, Wenli Zhang1, Xiaobei Chen1,3, Jizi Zhao1,3, Wuqi Song1,3, Yujun Li1,3, Ying Huang1, Zheng Wu1, Rui Sun1, Chunping Dong1, Fengmin Zhang4,5.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Generation of extended- spectrum β- lactamases is one of the major mechanisms by which clinical Klebsiella pneumoniae develop resistance to antibiotics. Combined antibiotics prove to be a relatively effective method of controlling such resistant strains. Some of Chinese herbal active ingredients are known to have synergistic antibacterial effects. This study is aimed to investigate synergistic effects of Chinese herbal active ingredients with cefotaxime on the extended- spectrum β- lactamase positive strains of Klebsiella pneumoniae, and to analyze mechanism of synergistic action, providing experimental evidence for clinical application of antimicrobial drugs.Entities:
Keywords: Baicalein; CTX-M-1 gene; Extended- spectrum β- lactamases; Klebsiella pneumoniae; Synergistic antibacterial action
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27502110 PMCID: PMC4977660 DOI: 10.1186/s12866-016-0797-1
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Microbiol ISSN: 1471-2180 Impact factor: 3.605
Primers for ESBLs detection by PCR
| Primer | Sequence(5’ → 3’) | Nuleotide position | Tm | Genbank accession No. | Size |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SHV-F | TCTCCCTGTTAGCCACCCTG | 224-243 | 59 °C | AF124984 | 593 bp |
| SHV-R | CCACTGCAGCAGCTGCCGTT | 797-816 | |||
| TEM-F | GTATCCGCTCATGAGACAATA | 154-174 | 56 °C | AB194682 | 717 bp |
| TEM-R | AGAAGTGGTCCTGCAACTTT | 851-870 | |||
| CTX-M1-F | CGCTTTGCGATGTGCAG | 264-280 | 56 °C | X92506 | 551 bp |
| CTX-M1-R | ACCGCGATATCGTTGGT | 798-814 | |||
| CTX-M9-F | ATGGTGACAAAGAGAGTGCA | 132-151 | 56 °C | AJ416345 | 868 bp |
| CTX-M9-R | CCCTTCGGCGATGATTCTC | 983-1000 |
Interactive effects of Chinese herbal active ingredients with cefotaxime on antibiotic resistant K. pneumoniae
| Strains No. | MICalone(μg/mL) | MICcombined(μg/mL) | aFICI | MICcombined(μg/mL) | aFICI | MICcombined(μg/mL) | aFICI | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| bBai | cMat | dCla | Cefotaxime | bBai | cefotaxime | cMat | cefotaxime | dCla | cefotaxime | ||||
| 28 | >256 | >256 | 16 | 128 | 128 | 128 | 1.5 | 2 | 128 | 1.008 | 0.5 | 4 | 0.063* |
| 30 | >256 | >256 | 8 | 128 | 64 | 64 | 0.75* | 2 | 128 | 1.008 | 0.5 | 4 | 0.094* |
| 58 | >256 | >256 | 32 | 256 | 128 | 128 | 1 | 2 | 256 | 1.008 | 0.5 | 8 | 0.047* |
| 64 | >256 | >256 | 32 | 256 | 1 | 256 | 1.004 | 2 | 256 | 1.008 | 0.5 | 8 | 0.047* |
| 80 | >256 | >256 | 32 | 512 | 64 | 256 | 0.75* | 2 | 1024 | 2.008 | 0.5 | 16 | 0.047* |
| 90 | >256 | >256 | 8 | 1024 | 128 | 1024 | 1.5 | 2 | 1024 | 1.008 | 0.5 | 32 | 0.094* |
| 102 | >256 | >256 | 16 | 128 | 32 | 64 | 0.63* | 2 | 128 | 1.008 | 0.5 | 4 | 0.063* |
| 116 | >256 | >256 | 8 | 128 | 128 | 64 | 1 | 2 | 128 | 1.008 | 0.5 | 4 | 0.094* |
| 171 | >256 | >256 | 16 | 128 | 128 | 64 | 1 | 2 | 128 | 1.008 | 0.5 | 4 | 0.063* |
| 179 | >256 | >256 | 8 | 1024 | 64 | 256 | 0.5* | 2 | 1024 | 1.008 | 0.5 | 32 | 0.094* |
| 210 | >256 | >256 | 8 | 256 | 128 | 64 | 0.75* | 2 | 256 | 1.008 | 0.5 | 8 | 0.094* |
| 219 | >256 | >256 | 8 | 1024 | 1 | 1024 | 1.004 | 2 | 1024 | 1.008 | 0.5 | 32 | 0.094* |
| 796 | >256 | >256 | 8 | 256 | 32 | 64 | 0.38* | 2 | 256 | 1.008 | 0.5 | 8 | 0.094* |
| 826 | >256 | >256 | 8 | 1024 | 128 | 256 | 0.75* | 2 | 1024 | 1.008 | 0.5 | 32 | 0.094* |
| 863 | >256 | >256 | 8 | 256 | 128 | 64 | 0.75* | 2 | 256 | 1.008 | 0.5 | 8 | 0.094* |
| 700603 | >256 | >256 | 8 | 4 | 4 | 2 | 0.52* | 2 | 4 | 1.010 | 1 | 1 | 0.38* |
*FICI ≤0.75 means synergy group including both synergy and partial synergy
aFICI≤0.5 synergy, 0.5
bBai:baicalein; cMat:matrine; dCla:clavulanate acid
Fig. 1Synergy comparison and correlation analysis of FICI with cefotaxime MIC value decrease. (The synergy testing of baicalein, matrine, and clavulanic acid with cefotaxime in bacterial inhibition showed that different synergy rates, which is the percentage of synergistic strains among the total strains studied, were observed with cefotaxime (a). Correlation between the FICI of baicalein with cefotaxime and baicalein-induced cefotaxime MIC decrease percentage was analyzed using SPSS (b). X-axis denotes the FICI of baicalein with cefotaxime, Y-axis means cefotaxime MIC decrease percentage)
Fig. 2Effects of interactive concentration baicalein on the growth of K. pneumoniae. (For each strain, Bai (+) and Bai (−) were compared. Bai (+) denotes baicalein treated strain; Bai (−) denotes blank control strain. Each experiment was conducted in triplicate. X-axis denotes bacterial strain ID; Y-axis means log10 value of bacterial numbers)
Fig. 3Comparison of ESBL gene percentage among different groups. (The percentage of four common ESBL resistance genes in the synergy group and non-synergy group was compared using Fisher’s Exact Test with SPSS software, p <0.05 was considered statistically significant. Black columns represent the percentage of the target genes in the synergy group, while white columns denote the percentage of the target genes in the non-synergy group)
Fig. 4Effect of baicalein on the mRNA expression of TEM. (Bai (+) denotes baicalein treated strain in black columns; Bai (−) means blank control strain in white columns. Each strain was divided into baicalein treated and blank control subgroups for comparison of the effect of baicalein on mRNA expression. RT-PCR products were analyzed using Image J software. The mRNA level was expressed as the gray value of target gene relative to that of the 16SrRNA. Each experiment was done in triplicate. The mRNA value was expressed as mean ± standard deviation. The difference was analyzed using Student’s t test. *p < 0.05 meaning statistically significant)
Fig. 5Effect of baicalein on the mRNA expression of CTX-M-1. (same as Fig. 4 in explanation)
Fig. 6Effect of baicalein on the mRNA expression of CTX-M-9. (same as Fig. 4 in explanation)
Relationship of combined baicalein with cefotaxime and the mRNA level of resistant genes
| Group | Synergy | Non- synergy |
| ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Inhibition(%) | Non- inhibition (%) | Inhibition(%) | Non- inhibition(%) | ||
| TEM mRNA | 100(6/6) | 0(0/6) | 33.3(2/6) | 66.7(4/6) | 0.061 |
| CTX-M-1 mRNA | 100(5/5) | 0(0/5) | 25(1/4) | 75(3/4) | 0.048* |
| CTX-M-9 mRNA | 100(5/5) | 0(0/5) | 75(3/4) | 25(1/4) | 0.444 |
Based on the information in the Figs. 4, 5 and 6, the percentage of inhibited strains for each gene in synergy group and non-synergy group was compared using Fisher’s Exact Test with SPSS
*p <0.05 statistically significant