4.0 Article

In vitro activity of exebacase against methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus biofilms on orthopedic Kirschner wires

期刊

BMC RESEARCH NOTES
卷 16, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

SPRINGERNATURE
DOI: 10.1186/s13104-023-06468-y

关键词

MRSA; Lysins; Exebacase; Biofilms; Staphylococcus

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Orthopedic foreign body-associated infection is challenging to treat due to the formation of biofilms. A study found that exebacase, an antistaphylococcal lysin, showed significant reduction and bactericidal activity against MRSA biofilms. This supports further evaluation of exebacase as a potential treatment for orthopedic implant infections.
Orthopedic foreign body-associated infection can be difficult to treat due to the formation of biofilms protecting microorganisms from both antimicrobials and the immune system. Exebacase is an antistaphylococcal lysin (cell wall hydrolase) under consideration for local treatment for biofilm-based infections caused by methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA). To determine the activity of exebacase, we formed MRSA biofilms on orthopedic Kirschner wires and exposed them to varying concentrations (0.098, 0.98, 9.8 mg/ml) of exebacase and/or daptomycin over 24 h. The biofilm consisted of 5.49 log10 colony forming units (cfu)/K-wire prior to treatment and remained steady throughout the experiment. Exebacase showed significant biofilm reduction at all timepoints (up to 5.78 log(10) cfu/K-wire; P < 0.0495) compared to the controls at all concentrations and all time points with bactericidal activity (> 3 log(10) cfu/K-wire reduction) observed for up to 12 h for the 0.098 and 0.98 mg/ ml concentrations and at 24 h for 9.8 mg/ml. Daptomycin showed significant biofilm reduction, although non-bactericidal, at all time points for 0.98 and 9.8 mg/ml and at 4 and 8 h with 0.098 mg/ml (P < 0.0495). This study supports further evaluation of local administration of exebacase as a potential treatment for orthopedic implant infections.

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

4.0
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