4.2 Article

Oncocin Onc72 is efficacious against antibiotic-susceptible Klebsiella pneumoniae ATCC 43816 in a murine thigh infection model

期刊

BIOPOLYMERS
卷 104, 期 6, 页码 707-711

出版社

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1002/bip.22668

关键词

antimicrobial peptide; Klebsiella pneumonia; meropenem; oncocin; proline-rich; thigh infection

资金

  1. Bundesministerium fur Bildung und Forschung (BMBF) [Foerderkennzeichen 01GU1104A]
  2. European Fund for Regional Structure Development (EFRE) [10012675]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Oncocins and apidaecins are short proline-rich antimicrobial peptides (PrAMPs) representing novel antibiotic drug lead compounds that kill bacteria after internalization and inhibition of intracellular targets (e.g. 70S ribosome and DnaK). Oncocin Onc72 is highly active against Gram-negative bacteria in vitro and in vivo protecting mice in systemic infection models with Escherichia coli and KPC-producing Klebsiella pneumoniae. Here we studied its efficacy in a murine thigh infection model using meropenem as antibiotic comparator that had a 44-fold higher molar in vitro activity than Onc72. Male CD1 mice were rendered neutropenic using cyclophosphamide for four days before intramuscular infection with K. pneumoniae ATCC 43816. After 75min oncocin Onc72 or the antibiotic comparator meropenem were administered subcutaneously with 100mg (43 mu mol) and 25mg (65 mu mol) per kg of body weight, respectively, six times every 75min. Onc72 and meropenem administered subcutaneously reduced the thigh tissue burden of K. pneumoniae ATCC 43816 in neutropenic mice significantly by 4.14 and 4.65 a log(10) cfu/g, respectively. The bacterial counts were approximate to 0.5 and approximate to 1 log(10) below the pre-treatment burden, respectively, indicating bactericidal effects for both compounds. Thus, Onc72 was as efficacious as meropenem in vivo despite its much lower in vitro activity determined according to CLSI standard antimicrobial activity tests. (c) 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Biopolymers (Pept Sci) 104:707-711, 2015.

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

4.2
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