抗菌剂 cetylpyridinium-chloride 和 miramistin 在体外实验中与现有的伤口护理抗菌剂相比没有劣势,也没有 "蛋白质错误"。

IF 2.7 Q3 MICROBIOLOGY AIMS Microbiology Pub Date : 2022-10-24 eCollection Date: 2022-01-01 DOI:10.3934/microbiol.2022026
Julian-Dario Rembe, Vivian-Denise Thompson, Ewa Klara Stuermer
{"title":"抗菌剂 cetylpyridinium-chloride 和 miramistin 在体外实验中与现有的伤口护理抗菌剂相比没有劣势,也没有 \"蛋白质错误\"。","authors":"Julian-Dario Rembe, Vivian-Denise Thompson, Ewa Klara Stuermer","doi":"10.3934/microbiol.2022026","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Concern about microbial tolerance and resistance to established antimicrobials drives research into alternatives for local antiseptic wound treatment. Precise efficacy profiles are thereby important in the evaluation of potential alternative antimicrobials, and protein interference (\"protein error\") is a key factor. Here, the antimicrobial efficacy of cetylpyridinium chloride (CPC) and miramistin (MST) was compared to the established antimicrobials octenidine (OCT), povidon-iodine (PVP-I), polyhexamethylene-biguanide (PHMB) and chlorhexidine (CHX). Efficacy was evaluated after 0.5, 1, 3, 5 and 10 min against <i>Staphylococcus aureus</i>, <i>Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Escherichia coli</i>, <i>Enterococcus faecium</i> and <i>Candida albicans</i> using an in vitro quantitative suspension method (based on DIN EN 13727). To investigate protein interference, 0.3% or 3% bovine albumin was used as the challenge. OCT and PVP-I demonstrated a significant efficacy within 0.5 min, regardless of the microbial organism and protein challenge (<i>p</i> < 0.01). CPC and MST showed no inferiority in efficacy, with only MST needing up to 3 min to achieve the same microbial reduction. PHMB and CHX also achieved significant reduction rates over the tested time-course, yet demonstrated a necessity for prolonged exposure (up to 10 min) for comparable reduction. A protein interference was predominantly observed for PHMB against <i>S. aureus</i>, but without statistically significant differences in antimicrobial efficacy between the 0.3% and 3% protein challenges. All other tested agents showed no relevant interference with the presence of protein. CPC and MST proved to be non-inferior to established wound antiseptics agents in vitro. In fact, CPC showed a more efficient reduction than PHMB and CHX despite there being an introduced protein challenge. Both agents demonstrated no significant \"protein error\" under challenging conditions (3% albumin), posing them as valid potential candidates for alternative antimicrobials in wound management.</p>","PeriodicalId":46108,"journal":{"name":"AIMS Microbiology","volume":"8 4","pages":"372-387"},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2022-10-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9834083/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Antimicrobials cetylpyridinium-chloride and miramistin demonstrate non-inferiority and no \\\"protein-error\\\" compared to established wound care antiseptics <i>in vitro</i>.\",\"authors\":\"Julian-Dario Rembe, Vivian-Denise Thompson, Ewa Klara Stuermer\",\"doi\":\"10.3934/microbiol.2022026\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Concern about microbial tolerance and resistance to established antimicrobials drives research into alternatives for local antiseptic wound treatment. Precise efficacy profiles are thereby important in the evaluation of potential alternative antimicrobials, and protein interference (\\\"protein error\\\") is a key factor. Here, the antimicrobial efficacy of cetylpyridinium chloride (CPC) and miramistin (MST) was compared to the established antimicrobials octenidine (OCT), povidon-iodine (PVP-I), polyhexamethylene-biguanide (PHMB) and chlorhexidine (CHX). Efficacy was evaluated after 0.5, 1, 3, 5 and 10 min against <i>Staphylococcus aureus</i>, <i>Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Escherichia coli</i>, <i>Enterococcus faecium</i> and <i>Candida albicans</i> using an in vitro quantitative suspension method (based on DIN EN 13727). To investigate protein interference, 0.3% or 3% bovine albumin was used as the challenge. OCT and PVP-I demonstrated a significant efficacy within 0.5 min, regardless of the microbial organism and protein challenge (<i>p</i> < 0.01). CPC and MST showed no inferiority in efficacy, with only MST needing up to 3 min to achieve the same microbial reduction. PHMB and CHX also achieved significant reduction rates over the tested time-course, yet demonstrated a necessity for prolonged exposure (up to 10 min) for comparable reduction. A protein interference was predominantly observed for PHMB against <i>S. aureus</i>, but without statistically significant differences in antimicrobial efficacy between the 0.3% and 3% protein challenges. All other tested agents showed no relevant interference with the presence of protein. CPC and MST proved to be non-inferior to established wound antiseptics agents in vitro. In fact, CPC showed a more efficient reduction than PHMB and CHX despite there being an introduced protein challenge. Both agents demonstrated no significant \\\"protein error\\\" under challenging conditions (3% albumin), posing them as valid potential candidates for alternative antimicrobials in wound management.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":46108,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"AIMS Microbiology\",\"volume\":\"8 4\",\"pages\":\"372-387\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-10-24\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9834083/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"AIMS Microbiology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3934/microbiol.2022026\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2022/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"MICROBIOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"AIMS Microbiology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3934/microbiol.2022026","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2022/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"MICROBIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

由于担心微生物对既有抗菌剂产生耐受性和抗药性,人们开始研究局部伤口消毒处理的替代品。因此,在评估潜在的替代抗菌剂时,精确的药效曲线非常重要,而蛋白质干扰("蛋白质误差")是一个关键因素。在此,我们将十六烷基氯化吡啶(CPC)和米拉米星(MST)的抗菌功效与已有的抗菌剂辛烯胺(OCT)、聚维碘(PVP-I)、聚六亚甲基双胍(PHMB)和洗必泰(CHX)进行了比较。采用体外定量悬浮法(基于 DIN EN 13727),在 0.5、1、3、5 和 10 分钟后对金黄色葡萄球菌、铜绿假单胞菌、大肠杆菌、粪肠球菌和白色念珠菌的功效进行了评估。为了研究蛋白质的干扰,使用了 0.3% 或 3% 的牛白蛋白作为挑战。在 0.5 分钟内,OCT 和 PVP-I 显示出明显的疗效,与微生物和蛋白质挑战无关(p < 0.01)。CPC 和 MST 的疗效并不逊色,只有 MST 需要长达 3 分钟才能达到同样的微生物减少效果。PHMB 和 CHX 在测试的时间过程中也达到了显著的减少率,但需要长时间接触(长达 10 分钟)才能达到相同的减少率。PHMB 对金黄色葡萄球菌的抗菌效果主要受到蛋白质的干扰,但在 0.3% 和 3% 蛋白质挑战中,抗菌效果没有明显的统计学差异。所有其他测试药剂均未显示出与蛋白质存在相关的干扰。事实证明,CPC 和 MST 在体外测试中并不逊色于已有的伤口抗菌剂。事实上,尽管引入了蛋白质挑战,但 CPC 比 PHMB 和 CHX 更有效地减少了蛋白质。在具有挑战性的条件下(3% 的白蛋白),这两种制剂都没有表现出明显的 "蛋白质误差",因此它们有可能成为伤口管理中的替代抗菌剂。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

摘要图片

摘要图片

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
Antimicrobials cetylpyridinium-chloride and miramistin demonstrate non-inferiority and no "protein-error" compared to established wound care antiseptics in vitro.

Concern about microbial tolerance and resistance to established antimicrobials drives research into alternatives for local antiseptic wound treatment. Precise efficacy profiles are thereby important in the evaluation of potential alternative antimicrobials, and protein interference ("protein error") is a key factor. Here, the antimicrobial efficacy of cetylpyridinium chloride (CPC) and miramistin (MST) was compared to the established antimicrobials octenidine (OCT), povidon-iodine (PVP-I), polyhexamethylene-biguanide (PHMB) and chlorhexidine (CHX). Efficacy was evaluated after 0.5, 1, 3, 5 and 10 min against Staphylococcus aureus, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Escherichia coli, Enterococcus faecium and Candida albicans using an in vitro quantitative suspension method (based on DIN EN 13727). To investigate protein interference, 0.3% or 3% bovine albumin was used as the challenge. OCT and PVP-I demonstrated a significant efficacy within 0.5 min, regardless of the microbial organism and protein challenge (p < 0.01). CPC and MST showed no inferiority in efficacy, with only MST needing up to 3 min to achieve the same microbial reduction. PHMB and CHX also achieved significant reduction rates over the tested time-course, yet demonstrated a necessity for prolonged exposure (up to 10 min) for comparable reduction. A protein interference was predominantly observed for PHMB against S. aureus, but without statistically significant differences in antimicrobial efficacy between the 0.3% and 3% protein challenges. All other tested agents showed no relevant interference with the presence of protein. CPC and MST proved to be non-inferior to established wound antiseptics agents in vitro. In fact, CPC showed a more efficient reduction than PHMB and CHX despite there being an introduced protein challenge. Both agents demonstrated no significant "protein error" under challenging conditions (3% albumin), posing them as valid potential candidates for alternative antimicrobials in wound management.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
AIMS Microbiology
AIMS Microbiology MICROBIOLOGY-
CiteScore
7.00
自引率
2.10%
发文量
22
审稿时长
8 weeks
期刊最新文献
Microbes' role in environmental pollution and remediation: a bioeconomy focus approach. Fungal photoinactivation doses for UV radiation and visible light-a data collection. The reduction of abiotic stress in food crops through climate-smart mycorrhiza-enriched biofertilizer. Marine microfossils: Tiny archives of ocean changes through deep time. Genetic diversity of Listeria monocytogenes from seafood products, its processing environment, and clinical origin in the Western Cape, South Africa using whole genome sequencing.
×
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