4.2 Article

An Independent Evaluation of a Novel Peptide Mimetic, Brilacidin (PMX30063), for Ocular Anti-infective

期刊

出版社

MARY ANN LIEBERT, INC
DOI: 10.1089/jop.2015.0098

关键词

-

资金

  1. Pennsylvania Lions Club
  2. Eye and Ear Foundation of Pittsburgh, PA
  3. National Institutes of Health [P30 EY008098]
  4. Research to Prevent Blindness, New York, NY
  5. PolyMedix, Inc.

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: Brilacidin (BRI), a novel defensin mimetic, was evaluated as an ocular anti-infective. Methods:In vitro: Potency based on MIC(90)s was compared for 50 Staphylococcus aureus (SA), 50 Staphylococcus epidermidis (SE), and 25 each of Streptococcus pneumonia (SP), Streptococcus viridans (SV), Moraxella (MS), Haemophilus influenzae (HI), Pseudomonas aeruginosa (PA), and Serratia marcescens (SM). In vivo: Using established methods, ocular toxicity was graded with Draize testing. For efficacy testing, both corneas of 24 rabbits were infected with methicillin-resistant S. aureus (MRSA), whereas the corneal epithelium was removed in the left eye. After 4h, 21 topical drops over 5h were administered to 4 groups: BRI 0.5%, vancomycin (VAN) 5%, saline, and no treatment. The eyes were clinically graded and the corneas were harvested for colony counts. Results:In vitro: Both SA and SE had the lowest minimum inhibitory concentrations among the bacterial groups. The MIC(90)s to BRI for SP, SV, MS, HI, PA, and SM were 4, 32, 256, 32, 16, and 128-fold higher, respectively, than SA and SE. In vivo: Draize testing determined BRI 0.5% to be minimally irritating. For abraded corneas, BRI was not statistically different from VAN for reducing MRSA. BRI was bactericidal. For intact corneas, VAN reduced more CFU than BRI. BRI reduced CFU in abraded corneas more than intact corneas suggesting poor corneal penetration. Conclusions: BRI has Gram-positive in vitro activity; topical BRI 0.5% was minimally irritating; and BRI 0.5% was equally efficacious as VAN in a MRSA keratitis model when the corneal epithelium was removed.

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