Chemomicrobiomic analysis of glucosamine sulfate, prebiotics and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs

O. Gromova, I. Torshin, A. Naumov, V. A. Maksimov
{"title":"Chemomicrobiomic analysis of glucosamine sulfate, prebiotics and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs","authors":"O. Gromova, I. Torshin, A. Naumov, V. A. Maksimov","doi":"10.17749/2070-4909/farmakoekonomika.2020.049","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Introduction. The pharmaceutical drugs used in the treatment of osteoarthritis (OA) differ not only in the mechanisms of anti-inflammatory action but also in the effects on the human microbiome.Purpose. Evaluation of the influence of some drugs used in the therapy of OA on the human microbiome by the method of chemoinformation analysis.Materials and methods. Сomparative chemomicrobiome analysis of glucosamine sulfate (GS), diclofenac, acetylsalicylic acid (ASA), and three prebiotics (lactose, lactulose, fructose) as molecules of comparison. For each substance, estimates of the area under the curve (AUC) were obtained for a representative sampling of human microbiota (38 commensal bacteria). The minimum inhibitory concentrations (MIC) were established for more than 120 pathogenic bacteria.Results. On average, according to a representative sampling of microbiota, the profile of the action of GS on the microbiome was almost identical to the profile of the action of lactose (AUC=0.23±0.18). The most effective growth of the microbiome was provided by fructose and lactulose (AUC=0.58±0.21). The effects of diclofenac and ASA on the commensals of microbiome were comparable to the effects of GS (AUC=0.27±0.22). However, the analysis of the obtained MIC values for pathogenic bacteria showed that diclofenac supported the growth of the pathogenic flora (MIC=35±1.4 μg/ml) to a greater extent than GS (MIC=16±1.5 μg/ml) and ASA (MIC=23±2.2 μg/ml).Conclusion. The effects of GS on the microbiome are comparable to the effects of the prebiotic lactose whereas the inhibitory effect of GS and ASA on pathogenic bacteria is more pronounced than that of diclofenac. The inhibition of pathogenic bacteria by the GS helps to reduce inflammation.","PeriodicalId":201824,"journal":{"name":"FARMAKOEKONOMIKA. Modern Pharmacoeconomic and Pharmacoepidemiology","volume":"30 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-11-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"5","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"FARMAKOEKONOMIKA. Modern Pharmacoeconomic and Pharmacoepidemiology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.17749/2070-4909/farmakoekonomika.2020.049","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 5

Abstract

Introduction. The pharmaceutical drugs used in the treatment of osteoarthritis (OA) differ not only in the mechanisms of anti-inflammatory action but also in the effects on the human microbiome.Purpose. Evaluation of the influence of some drugs used in the therapy of OA on the human microbiome by the method of chemoinformation analysis.Materials and methods. Сomparative chemomicrobiome analysis of glucosamine sulfate (GS), diclofenac, acetylsalicylic acid (ASA), and three prebiotics (lactose, lactulose, fructose) as molecules of comparison. For each substance, estimates of the area under the curve (AUC) were obtained for a representative sampling of human microbiota (38 commensal bacteria). The minimum inhibitory concentrations (MIC) were established for more than 120 pathogenic bacteria.Results. On average, according to a representative sampling of microbiota, the profile of the action of GS on the microbiome was almost identical to the profile of the action of lactose (AUC=0.23±0.18). The most effective growth of the microbiome was provided by fructose and lactulose (AUC=0.58±0.21). The effects of diclofenac and ASA on the commensals of microbiome were comparable to the effects of GS (AUC=0.27±0.22). However, the analysis of the obtained MIC values for pathogenic bacteria showed that diclofenac supported the growth of the pathogenic flora (MIC=35±1.4 μg/ml) to a greater extent than GS (MIC=16±1.5 μg/ml) and ASA (MIC=23±2.2 μg/ml).Conclusion. The effects of GS on the microbiome are comparable to the effects of the prebiotic lactose whereas the inhibitory effect of GS and ASA on pathogenic bacteria is more pronounced than that of diclofenac. The inhibition of pathogenic bacteria by the GS helps to reduce inflammation.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
硫酸氨基葡萄糖、益生元和非甾体抗炎药的化学微生物学分析
介绍。用于治疗骨关节炎(OA)的药物不仅在抗炎作用机制上存在差异,而且对人体微生物群的影响也存在差异。用化学信息分析方法评价OA治疗中一些药物对人体微生物组的影响。材料和方法。Сomparative化学微生物组分析硫酸氨基葡萄糖(GS)、双氯芬酸、乙酰水杨酸(ASA)和三种益生元(乳糖、乳果糖、果糖)作为分子比较。对于每种物质,对人类微生物群(38种共生细菌)的代表性采样获得曲线下面积(AUC)的估计。建立了对120多种病原菌的最低抑菌浓度(MIC)。平均而言,根据具有代表性的微生物群取样,GS对微生物群的作用谱与乳糖的作用谱几乎相同(AUC=0.23±0.18)。果糖和乳果糖的生长效果最好(AUC=0.58±0.21)。双氯芬酸和ASA对微生物群落的影响与GS相当(AUC=0.27±0.22)。结果表明,双氯芬酸对病原菌的MIC值(MIC=35±1.4 μg/ml)的支持作用大于GS (MIC=16±1.5 μg/ml)和ASA (MIC=23±2.2 μg/ml)。GS对微生物组的影响与益生元乳糖相当,而GS和ASA对致病菌的抑制作用比双氯芬酸更明显。GS对致病菌的抑制作用有助于减轻炎症。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Chemoreactome screening of pharmaceutical effects on SARS-CoV-2 and human virome to help decide on drug-based COVID-19 therapy Impact of disease information (Ebola and COVID-19) on the pharmaceutical sector in Russia and USA Analysis of the availability and affordability of pharmaceuticals for children in need of palliative care Comparative effectiveness of simultaneous and staged operations in patients with atherosclerotic lesions of carotid and coronary arteries Systematic computer analysis of published literature on nutritional support for vaccination
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1