4.6 Article

Evolution of resistance to cationic biocides in Streptococcus mutans and Enterococcus faecalis

Journal

JOURNAL OF DENTISTRY
Volume 47, Issue -, Pages 18-22

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jdent.2016.02.008

Keywords

Drug resistance; Enterococcus faecalis; Cationic biocides

Funding

  1. Japan Society for the Promotion of Science [26293409, 26893140, 15K20402]
  2. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [15K20402, 26893140, 26293409] Funding Source: KAKEN

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objectives: The aim of this study was to investigate whether Streptococcus mutans and Enterococcus faecalis develop resistance to the cationic biocides chlorhexidine (CHX), cetylpyridinium chloride (CPC), and 12-methacryloyloxydodecylpyridinium bromide (MDPB). Methods: The minimum inhibitory concentrations (MICs) of CHX, CPC, and MDPB were assessed after repeated exposure of S. mutans and E. faecalis to these biocides. Cell-surface hydrophobicity and protein expression profiles of bacterial cells were examined to elucidate possible resistance mechanisms. Results: The MIC of CHX against E. faecalis showed constant increases up to 10 passages. No changes in the MICs of CPC and MDPB against E. faecalis were observed. The MICs of CHX, CPC, and MDPB against S. mutans did not increase. The surface hydrophobicity of E. faecalis significantly increased with increasing exposure to CHX and CPC. However, changes in protein expression profiles were only found in CHX-adapted E. faecalis, as evidenced by the emergence of a novel, approximately 19-kDa band following sodium dodecyl sulfate-polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis. Conclusions: While E. faecalis and S. mutans did not exhibit increased resistance to CPC or MDPB, repeated exposure of E. faecalis to CHX led to resistance. It is likely that the acquisition of resistance is related to an altered protein composition. (C) 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available