| Literature DB >> 35656035 |
Ya Wang1,2, Shuang Wu1, Le Wang1, Youhua Wang1, Dongsheng Liu1, Yingjun Fu2, Yong Xie1.
Abstract
Helicobacter pylori (H. pylori) infection is associated with a variety of gastrointestinal diseases. Here, we focused on the activity of a novel nanomedicine-liposomal linolenic acid (LipoLLA) against H. pylori and its impact on human fecal bacteria in vitro. The minimum inhibitory concentrations (MICs) of LipoLLA against 30 H. pylori clinical strains were determined in combination with amoxicillin (AMX), metronidazole (MTZ), levofloxacin (LVFX) and clarithromycin (CAM). Bactericidal activity was measured by generating concentration-bactericidal curves at different times and pH values. Leakage of glucose (GLU) and aspartate aminotransferase (AST) was detected, combined with detection of changes in morphology by electron microscopy, to study the mechanism of action of LipoLLA against H. pylori. The effect of LipoLLA on human fecal bacteria was studied by high-throughput sequencing of fecal samples. We observed a synergistic or additive effect when LipoLLA was combined with AMX, MTZ, LVFX and CAM. The concentration-sterilization curves were pH and time dependent. After treatment with LipoLLA, GLU and AST levels were increased (P<0.05), and the morphology of H. pylori changed significantly. Moreover, LipoLLA activity led to no significant changes in the intestinal flora in terms of alpha diversity, species composition, beta diversity, etc. In conclusion, LipoLLA showed good anti-H. pylori effects. It destroyed the outer membrane barrier and caused leakage of the bacterial contents to achieve anti-H. pylori effects. And LipoLLA had little effect on human fecal bacteria in vitro.Entities:
Keywords: Helicobacter pylori; antibacterial action; human fecal bacteria; in vitro; liposomal linolenic acid
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35656035 PMCID: PMC9152453 DOI: 10.3389/fcimb.2022.865320
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Cell Infect Microbiol ISSN: 2235-2988 Impact factor: 6.073
MICs of LipoLLA, AMX, MTZ, LVFX and CAM against H. pylori strains.
| strains | MIC(μg/mL) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| LipoLLA | AMX | MTZ | LVFX | CAM | |
| S1 | 7.500 | 0.016 | 1.000 | 0.250 | 0.063 |
| S2 | 7.500 | 0.016 | 1.000 | 0.125 | 0.063 |
| S3 | 7.500 | 0.016 | 4.000 | 0.032 | 0.125 |
| S4 | 7.500 | 0.016 | 1.000 | 0.032 | 0.063 |
| S5 | 7.500 | 0.032 | 2.000 | 0.250 | 0.063 |
| MTZ1 | 7.500 | 0.016 | 8.000 | 0.032 | 0.063 |
| MTZ2 | 7.500 | 0.063 | 16.000 | 0.125 | 0.063 |
| MTZ3 | 7.500 | 0.032 | 32.000 | 0.250 | 0.500 |
| MTZ4 | 7.500 | 0.016 | 32.000 | 0.250 | 0.063 |
| MTZ5 | 7.500 | 0.016 | 128.000 | 0.250 | 0.063 |
| MTZ6 | 7.500 | 0.016 | 256.000 | 0.250 | 0.063 |
| LVFX1 | 15.000 | 0.032 | 0.500 | 32.000 | 0.125 |
| LVFX2 | 7.500 | 0.016 | 4.000 | 128.000 | 0.063 |
| LVFX3 | 15.000 | 0.016 | 2.000 | 128.000 | 0.063 |
| LVFX4 | 15.000 | 0.016 | 4.000 | 128.000 | 0.016 |
| LVFX5 | 7.500 | 0.016 | 1.000 | 128.000 | 0.063 |
| CAM1 | 7.500 | 0.032 | 2.000 | 0.125 | 8.000 |
| CAM2 | 7.500 | 0.032 | 2.000 | 0.250 | 8.000 |
| CAM3 | 7.500 | 0.016 | 2.000 | 0.125 | 256.000 |
| CAM4 | 7.500 | 0.016 | 2.000 | 0.063 | 256.000 |
| CAM5 | 7.500 | 0.016 | 2.000 | 0.125 | 256.000 |
| DR1 | 7.500 | 0.016 | 2.000 | 2.000 | 1.000 |
| DR2 | 3.750 | 0.016 | 8.000 | 0.250 | 1.000 |
| DR3 | 7.500 | 0.016 | 32.000 | 1.000 | 0.063 |
| MDR1 | 3.750 | 0.016 | 8.000 | 128.000 | 8.000 |
| MDR2 | 7.500 | 0.016 | 32.000 | 128.000 | 8.000 |
| MDR3 | 7.500 | 0.016 | 32.000 | 32.000 | 8.000 |
| MDR4 | 7.500 | 0.063 | 32.000 | 2.000 | 16.000 |
| MDR5 | 7.500 | 0.125 | 256.000 | 128.000 | 8.000 |
| MDR6 | 7.500 | 1.000 | 256.000 | 128.000 | 256.000 |
The MICs of 30 clinically isolated H. pylori strains were determined. 5 sensitive strains (S1-S5), 6 MTZ-resistant strains (MTZ1-MTZ6), 5 LVFX- resistant strains (LVFX1-LVFX5), 5 were CAM-resistant strains (CAM1-CAM5), 3 dual drug-resistance strains (DR1-DR3), and 6 multidrug resistant strains (MDR1-MDR6). MIC, minimum inhibitory concentration; AMX, amoxicillin; MTZ, metronidazole; LVFX, levofloxacin; CAM, clarithromycin; S, sensitive strain; DR, dual drug-resistant strain; MDR, multidrug-resistant strain.
Figure 1Synergistic effects of LipoLLA with antibiotics against H. pylori. The MICs of LipoLLA and four antibiotics against H. pylori were significantly decreased after the combination of LipoLLA with AMX, MTZ, LVFX and CAM respectively. (A) After AMX was used in combination with LipoLLA, MICs of AMX(A(A)) and LipoLLA(A(B)) were significantly reduced compared with the two alone. (B) When LipoLLA was combined with MTZ, the MICs of MTZ(B(A)) and LipoLLA(B(B)) decreased significantly with alone. (C) When LipoLLA was combined with LVFX, MICs of LVFX(C(A)) and LipoLLA(C(B)) were significantly reduced compared with the two alone. (D) After CAM combined with LipoLLA, the MICs of CAM(D(A)) and LipoLLA(D(B)) decreased significantly with alone. AMX (alone), the MICs of amoxicillin against 30 H. pylori strains when used alone; AMX (combination), the MICs of amoxicillin against 30 H. pylori strains when combined with LipoLLA; LipoLLA (alone), the MICs of LipoLLA against 30 H. pylori strains when used alone; LipoLLA (combination), the MICs of LipoLLA against 30 H. pylori strains when combined with amoxicillin. ***P<0.001.
Figure 2Concentration sterilization curves of LipoLLA against H. pylori strains with different drug resistance. Eight H. pylori strains were co-cultured with LipoLLA respectively to observe the antibacterial activity of LipoLLA against H. pylori with different drug resistance. (A) Concentration sterilization curves of LipoLLA against SS1. (B) Concentration sterilization curves of LipoLLA against sensitive strain S3. (C) Concentration sterilization curves of LipoLLA against MTZ-resistant strain MTZ6. (D) Concentration sterilization curves of LipoLLA against LVFX-resistant strain LVFX1. (E) Concentration sterilization curves of LipoLLA against CAM-resistant strain CAM2. (F) Concentration sterilization curves of LipoLLA against dual drug-resistant strain DR1. (G) Concentration sterilization curves of LipoLLA against triple drug-resistant strain MDR2. (H) Concentration sterilization curves of LipoLLA against quadruple drug-resistant strain MDR4.
Figure 3Influence of pH and time on the bactericidal effect of LipoLLA. The concentration bactericidal curve of LipoLLA to SS1 (A) and a multidrug resistant strain MDR2 (B) at different pH. Time sterilization curves of SS1 with different concentrations of LipoLLA (C). *P < 0.05; **P < 0.01, the number of viable bacterial colonies at pH=5 or pH=6 was significantly different from that at pH=7.
Figure 4Effect of LipoLLA on the outer membrane barrier and ultrastructure of H. pylori. Levels of aspartate aminotransferase (A) and glucose (B) in SS1 supernatant after LipoLLA treatment, *P < 0.05; **P < 0.01. Scanning electron microscopy images of SS1 after LipoLLA treatment (C). Transmission electron microscopy images of SS1 after LipoLLA treatment (D). Scale bars represent 5 um and 1 um respectively.
Figure 5Bactericidal effect of LipoLLA on probiotics. Antibacterial activity of LipoLLA against Lactobacillus BG-2-2 (A) and Bifidobacterium WBIN03 (B). ns, P > 0.05, The viable count after LipoLLA treatment was not significantly different from that in the control group.
Figure 6Effect of LipoLLA on the human fecal flora. The alpha diversity indices of the fecal flora after four treatments (A). PCA analysis was predicted to assess Beta diversity of the species after four treatments (B). Analysis of community composition under genus level of four treatment groups (C). The linear discrimination analysis coupled with effect size (LEfSe) analysis of four treatment groups, linear discriminant analysis (LDA analysis) showed the enrichment of different species in each group (D). ns, no significance.