4.6 Article

Teicoplanin Suppresses Vegetative Clostridioides difficile and Spore Outgrowth

期刊

ANTIBIOTICS-BASEL
卷 10, 期 8, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/antibiotics10080984

关键词

teicoplanin; Clostridioides difficile; spore; antibiotics

资金

  1. Mahidol University
  2. Faculty of Tropical Medicine, Mahidol University

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study found that teicoplanin had lower MICs compared to vancomycin in all tested isolates. Antimicrobial agents did not affect the initiation of spore germination, but inhibited the outgrowth to vegetative cells. This highlights the efficiency of teicoplanin for treatment of C. difficile by preventing the outgrowth of vegetative cells.
In recent decades, the incidence of Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI) has remained high in both community and health-care settings. With the increasing rate of treatment failures and its ability to form spores, an alternative treatment for CDI has become a global priority. We used the microdilution assay to determine minimal inhibitory concentrations (MICs) of vancomycin and teicoplanin against 30 distinct C. difficile strains isolated from various host origins. We also examined the effect of drugs on spore germination and outgrowth by following the development of OD600. Finally, we confirmed the spore germination and cell stages by microscopy. We showed that teicoplanin exhibited lower MICs compared to vancomycin in all tested isolates. MICs of teicoplanin ranged from 0.03-0.25 mu g/mL, while vancomycin ranged from 0.5-4 mu g/mL. Exposure of C. difficile spores to broth supplemented with various concentrations of antimicrobial agents did not affect the initiation of germination, but the outgrowth to vegetative cells was inhibited by all test compounds. This finding was concordant with aberrant vegetative cells after antibiotic treatment observed by light microscopy. This work highlights the efficiency of teicoplanin for treatment of C. difficile through prevention of vegetative cell outgrowth.

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

4.6
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