| Literature DB >> 30658481 |
Malgorzata Anna Paduszynska1, Magdalena Maciejewska2,3, Katarzyna Ewa Greber4, Wieslaw Sawicki5, Wojciech Kamysz6.
Abstract
The widespread use of biomaterials such as contact lenses is associated with the development of biofilm-related infections which are very difficult to manage with standard therapies. The formation of bacterial biofilms on the surface of biomaterials is associated with increased antibiotic resistance. Owing to their promising antimicrobial potential, lipoEntities:
Keywords: biofilm; biofilm on contact lenses; lipopeptides; ocular infections; persister cells
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2019 PMID: 30658481 PMCID: PMC6358866 DOI: 10.3390/ijms20020393
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Mol Sci ISSN: 1422-0067 Impact factor: 5.923
Figure 1Activity of the lipopeptide and conventional antimicrobials applied at concentrations of 1–256 mg/L against SE biofilms formed on polystyrene (A) results read after 24 h exposure to compounds; and (B) results read after the withdrawal of compounds and an additional 24 h of incubation in MHB II. The results are presented as the percentage of metabolic activity in comparison to positive (100%) and negative (0%) controls; RSD ≤ 15%.
Activities of conventional antimicrobials and the lipopeptide—(C10)2-KKKK-NH2 against bacterial biofilms formed on polystyrene plates presented as MBEC—minimum biofilm eradication concentration (mg/L); MBEC 90—the lowest concentration which allowed to reduce the metabolic activity of bacteria by at least 90 ± 5%; MBEC 90 II – the lowest concentration which resulted in permanent reduction of metabolic activity by at last 90 ± 5%; MBEC 50—the lowest concentration which allowed to reduce the metabolic activity by at least 50 ± 5%; MBEC 50 II—the lowest concentration resulted in permanent reduction of the metabolic activity by at least 50 ± 5%.
| Compound | MBEC 90 | MBEC II 90 | MBEC 50 | MBEC II 50 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| ||||
| Ciprofloxacin | 16 | 256 | ≤1 | 128 |
| Chloramphenicol | 256 | >256 | 32 | >256 |
| Neomycin | 16 | 16 | ≤1 | 8 |
| Lipopeptide | 16 | 16 | 16 | 16 |
|
| ||||
| Ciprofloxacin | >256 | >256 | 16 | 128 |
| Chloramphenicol | >256 | >256 | 128 | >256 |
| Neomycin | 64 | 64 | 4 | 64 |
| Lipopeptide | 32 | 32 | 8 | 16 |
|
| ||||
| Ciprofloxacin | >256 | >256 | 64 | 256 |
| Chloramphenicol | >256 | >256 | 32 | >256 |
| Neomycin | >256 | >256 | 64 | >256 |
| Lipopeptide | 32 | 32 | 16 | 32 |
|
| ||||
| Ciprofloxacin | 32 | 32 | ≤1 | ≤1 |
| Chloramphenicol | 16 | >256 | 8 | >256 |
| Neomycin | >256 | >256 | 8 | >256 |
| Lipopeptide | 64 | 64 | 64 | 64 |
|
| ||||
| Ciprofloxacin | ≤1 | 32 | ≤1 | 16 |
| Chloramphenicol | 128 | >256 | 4 | 256 |
| Neomycin | 64 | >256 | 8 | 128 |
| Lipopeptide | 256 | >256 | 64 | 64 |
Figure 2Activity of the lipopeptide and conventional antimicrobials applied at concentrations of 1–256 mg/L against SA biofilms formed on polystyrene (A) results read after 24 h exposure to compounds; and (B) results read after the withdrawal of compounds and an additional 24 h of incubation in MHB II. The results are presented as the percentage of metabolic activity in comparison to positive (100%) and negative (0%) controls; RSD ≤ 15%.
Figure 3Activity of the lipopeptide and conventional antimicrobials applied at concentrations of 1–256 mg/L against EF biofilms formed on polystyrene (A) results read after 24 h exposure to compounds; and (B) results read after the withdrawal of compounds and an additional 24 h of incubation in MHB II. The results are presented as the percentage of metabolic activity in comparison to positive (100%) and negative (0%) controls; RSD ≤ 15%.
Figure 4Activity of the lipopeptide and conventional antimicrobials applied at concentrations of 1–256 mg/L against EC biofilms formed on polystyrene (A) results read after 24 h exposure to compounds; and (B) results read after the withdrawal of compounds and additional 24 h of incubation in MHB II. The results are presented as the percentage of metabolic activity in comparison to positive (100%) and negative (0%) controls; RSD ≤ 15%.
Figure 5Activity of the lipopeptide and conventional antimicrobials applied at concentrations of 1–256 mg/L against PA biofilms formed on polystyrene (A) results read after 24 h exposure to compounds; and (B) results read after the withdrawal of compounds and additional 24 h of incubation in MHB II). The results are presented as the percentage of metabolic activity in comparison to positive (100%) and negative (0%) controls; RSD ≤ 15%.
Figure 6Activity of the lipopeptide applied at concentrations 4–128 mg/L against biofilms formed on CLs. The results are presented as the percentage of metabolic activity in comparison to positive (100%) and negative (0%) controls; RSD ≤ 20%.
Figure 7Activity of CL liquids alone and supplemented with the lipopeptide applied at concentrations of 1–128 mg/L against biofilms formed on polystyrene plates by: (A) SE; (B) SA; (C) EF; (D) EC; and (E) PA. The results are presented as the percentage of metabolic activity in comparison to positive (100%) and negative (0%) controls; RSD ≤ 15%.
Figure 8Activity of CL liquids alone and supplemented with the lipopeptide applied at concentrations of 4–32 mg/L against biofilms formed on CL by: (A) SE; (B) SA; (C) EF; (D) EC; and (E) PA. The results are presented as the percentage of metabolic activity in comparison to positive (100%) and negative (0%) controls; RSD ≤ 20%.