| Literature DB >> 33369759 |
Kazuaki Okamoto1,2, Shoji Kanayama2,3, Fumiaki Ikeda4, Koki Fujikawa3, Shiori Fujiwara4, Naoki Nozawa4, Sachi Mori3, Tatsumi Matsumoto4, Naoki Hayashi2,3, Masataka Oda2.
Abstract
The in vitro microbicidal activity of benzoyl peroxide against Cutibacterium acnes, Staphylococcus aureus, Staphylococcus epidermidis, Escherichia coli, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Candida albicans, Malassezia furfur, Malassezia restricta, and Malassezia globosa was investigated. These strains were incubated for 1 h in the presence of 0.25, 0.5, 1, or 2 mmol/L benzoyl peroxide in phosphate buffered saline supplemented with 0.1% glycerol and 2% Tween 80. After exposure to benzoyl peroxide, counts of viable Gram-positive bacteria and fungi were markedly decreased, whereas counts of Gram-negative bacteria were unchanged. Transmission electron microscopy images showed a decrease in electron density and the destruction of C. acnes and M. restricta cell walls after exposure to 2 mmol/L benzoyl peroxide. In conclusion, this study showed that benzoyl peroxide has a potent and rapid microbicidal activity against Gram-positive bacteria and fungi that are associated with various cutaneous diseases. This suggests that the direct destruction of bacterial cell walls by benzoyl peroxide is an essential mechanism of its rapid and potent microbicidal activity against microorganisms.Entities:
Keywords: zzm321990Cutibacteriumzzm321990; zzm321990Malasseziazzm321990; zzm321990Staphylococcuszzm321990; Benzoyl peroxide; microbicidal
Year: 2020 PMID: 33369759 PMCID: PMC8048985 DOI: 10.1111/1346-8138.15739
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Dermatol ISSN: 0385-2407 Impact factor: 4.005
Figure 1Microbicidal activity of benzoyl peroxide against various bacterial strains. Cutibacterium acnes ATCC11827 (a), Staphylococcus aureus ATCC29213 (b), Staphylococcus epidermidis ATCC12228 (c), Escherichia coli ATCC25922 (d), and Pseudomonas aeruginosa ATCC27853 (e) were incubated for 1 h with 0.25, 0.5, 1, or 2m mol/L benzoyl peroxide (BPO). After incubation, the bacterial suspensions were collected and plated onto agar plates to calculate viable counts. Data indicate the mean ± standard deviation of three repeated experiments. CFU, colony forming unit; C, control; BDL, below the detection limit (<1.60 log CFU/mL). *P < 0.05, **P < 0.01 compared with the control group (Dunnett's multiple comparison test, 2‐sided)
Figure 2Microbicidal activity of benzoyl peroxide against various fungal strains. Cutibacterium albicans ATCC90028 (a), Malassezia furfur ATCC14521 (b), Malassezia restricta ATCC MYA‐4611 (c), and Malassezia globosa ATCC MYA‐4612 (d) were incubated for 1 h with 0.25, 0.5, 1, or 2 mmol/L benzoyl peroxide (BPO). After incubation, the fungal suspensions were collected and plated onto agar plates to calculate the viable counts. Data indicate the mean ± standard deviation of three repeated experiments. CFU, colony forming unit; C, control; BDL, below the detection limit (<1.60 log CFU/mL). **P < 0.01, compared with the control group (Dunnett's multiple comparison test, 2‐sided)
Figure 3Morphological changes of Cutibacterium acnes and Malassezia restricta after exposure to benzoyl peroxide. C. acnes and M. restricta were exposed to 2 mmol/L benzoyl peroxide (BPO) for 1 h and morphological changes were observed by transmission electron microscopy. Control C. acnes (a), 2 mmol/L BPO‐treated C. acnes (magnification: ×60 000) (b), control M. restricta (c), and 2 mmol/L BPO‐treated M. restricta (magnification, ×20 000) (d)