4.3 Article

Selectivity in the potentiation of antibacterial activity of α-peptide/β-peptoid peptidomimetics and antimicrobial peptides by human blood plasma

期刊

RESEARCH IN MICROBIOLOGY
卷 164, 期 9, 页码 933-940

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.resmic.2013.08.002

关键词

Peptidomimetics; Plasma; Synergy; Escherichia coli; Staphylococcus aureus

资金

  1. Technical University of Denmark
  2. Danish Research Council for Technology and Production [09-065902, 09-066098]
  3. Brodrene Hartmanns Fond

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Antimicrobial peptides (AMPs) are promising leads for novel antibiotics; however, their activity is often compromised under physiological conditions. The purpose of this study was to determine the activity of alpha-peptide/beta-peptoid peptidomimetics and AMPs against Escherichia coli and Staphylococcus aureus in the presence of human blood-derived matrices and immune effectors. The minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) of two peptidomimetics against E. coli decreased by up to one order of magnitude when determined in 50% blood plasma as compared to MHB media. The MIC of a membrane-active AMP, LL-I/3, also decreased, whereas two intracellularly acting AMPs were not potentiated by plasma. Blood serum had no effect on activity against E. coli and neither matrix had an effect on activity against S. aureus. Unexpectedly, physiological concentrations of human serum albumin did not influence activity. Plasma potentiation was not mediated by an LL-37 analogue, lysozyme or hydrogen peroxide; however, plasma potentiation of activity was abolished when the complement system was heat-inactivated. Time-course experiments indicated that potentiation was due to plasma-mediated effects on bacterial cells prior to activities of peptidomimetics. The unexpected enhancement of antibacterial activity of peptidomimetics and AMPs under physiological conditions significantly increases the therapeutic potential of these compounds. (C) 2013 Institut Pasteur. Published by Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据