4.7 Article

Polydatin prevent lung epithelial cell from Carbapenem-resistant Klebsiella pneumoniae injury by inhibiting biofilm formation and oxidative stress

期刊

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
卷 13, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-023-44836-7

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study evaluated the inhibitory effects of polydatin on carbapenem-resistant Klebsiella pneumoniae (CRKP). The results showed that polydatin can inhibit CRKP biofilm formation and efflux pump expression, and suppress bacterial-induced cell damage by regulating antioxidant pathways.
Carbapenem-resistant Klebsiella pneumoniae (CRKP) causes severe inflammation in various infectious diseases, such as bloodstream infections, respiratory and urinary tract infections, which leads to high mortality. Polydatin (PD), an active ingredient of Yinhuapinggan granule, has attracted worldwide attention for its powerful antioxidant, anti-inflammatory, antitumor, and antibacterial capacity. However, very little is known about the effect of PD on CRKP. In this research, we evaluated the inhibitory effects of PD on both the bacterial level and the bacterial-cell co-culture level on anti-biofilm and efflux pumps and the other was the inhibitory effect on apoptosis, reactive oxygen species (ROS), mitochondrial membrane potential (MMP) after CRKP induction. Additionally, we validated the mechanism of action by qRT-PCR and western blot in human lung epithelial cells. Firstly, PD was observed to have an inhibitory effect on the biofilm of CRKP and the efflux pump AcrAB-TolC. Mechanically, CRKP not only inhibited the activation of Nuclear Factor erythroid 2-Related Factor 2 (Nrf-2) but also increased the level of ROS in cells. These results showed that PD could inhibit ROS and activate Nrf-2 production. Together, our research demonstrated that PD inhibited bacterial biofilm formation and efflux pump AcrAB-TolC expression and inhibited CRKP-induced cell damage by regulating ROS and Nrf-2-regulated antioxidant pathways.

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

4.7
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