4.5 Article

Riccardin C derivatives cause cell leakage in Staphylococcus aureus

期刊

BIOCHIMICA ET BIOPHYSICA ACTA-BIOMEMBRANES
卷 1848, 期 10, 页码 2057-2064

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.bbamem.2015.05.008

关键词

Riccardin C; MRSA; Cell leakage; Mesosome; Macrocyclic bis(bibenzyl)

资金

  1. Drug Discovery Project for Intractable Infectious Diseases of Okayama University (IIDPO)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) is a major problem in clinical settings, and because it is resistant to most antimicrobial agents, MRSA infections are difficult to treat. We previously reported that synthetic macrocyclic bis(bibenzyl) derivatives, which were originally discovered in liverworts, had anti-MRSA activity. However, the action mechanism responsible was unclear. In the present study, we elucidated the action mechanism of macrocyclic bis(bibenzyl) RC-112 and its partial structure, IDPO-9 (2-phenoxyphenol). Survival experiments demonstrated that RC-112 had a bactericidal effect on MRSA, whereas IDPO-9 had bacteriostatic effects. IDPO-9-resistant mutants exhibited cross-resistance to triclosan, but not to RC-112. The mutation was identified in the fabI, enoyl-acyl carrier protein reductase gene, a target of triclosan. We have not yet isolated the RC-112-resistant mutant. On the other hand, the addition of RC-112, unlike IDPO-9, caused the inflow of ethidium and propidium into S. aureus cells. RC-112-dependent ethidium outflow was observed in ethidium-loaded S. aureus cells. Transmission electron microscopy also revealed that S. aureus cells treated with RC-112 had intracellular lamellar mesosomal-like structures. Intracellular Na+ and K+ concentrations were significantly changed by the RC-112 treatment. These results indicated that RC-112 increased membrane permeability to ethidium, propidium, Na+, and K+, and also that the action mechanism of IDPO-9 was different from those of the other compounds. (C) 2015 Elsevier B.V. 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

4.5
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