4.5 Article

Effects of vancomycin versus nafcillin in enhancing killing of methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus causing bacteremia by human cathelicidin LL-37

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10096-016-2682-0

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Institute of Child Health and Human Development on Developmental and Translational Pharmacology of Pediatric Antimicrobial Therapy [U54 HD071600-01 09/26/2011-06/30/2016]
  2. National Institute of Allergy And Infectious Diseases [K23AI089978]
  3. Great Lakes Regional Center for Excellence in Biodefense and Emerging Infectious Disease Research [AI057153]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Recent studies have demonstrated that antistaphylococcal beta-lactam antibiotics, like nafcillin, render methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) more susceptible to killing by innate host defense peptides (HDPs), such as cathelicidin LL-37. We compared the effects of growth in 1/4 minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) of nafcillin or vancomycin on the LL-37 killing of 92 methicillin-susceptible S. aureus (MSSA) isolates. For three randomly selected strains among these, we examined the effects of nafcillin, vancomycin, daptomycin, or linezolid on LL-37 killing and autolysis. Growth in the presence of subinhibitory nafcillin significantly enhanced LL-37 killing of MSSA compared to vancomycin and antibiotic-free controls. Nafcillin also reduced MSSA production of the golden staphylococcal pigment staphyloxanthin in 39% of pigmented strains vs. 14% for vancomycin. Among the antibiotics tested, only nafcillin resulted in significantly increased MSSA autolysis. These studies point to additional mechanisms of antistaphylococcal activity of nafcillin beyond direct bactericidal activity, properties that vancomycin and other antibiotic classes do not exhibit. The ability of nafcillin to enhance sensitivity to innate HDPs may contribute to its superior effectiveness against MSSA, as suggested by studies comparing clinical outcomes to vancomycin treatment.

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