3.9 Article

Lytic Bacteriophages Against Bacterial Biofilms Formed by Multidrug-Resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Escherichia coli, Klebsiella pneumoniae, and Staphylococcus aureus Isolated from Burn Wounds

期刊

PHAGE-THERAPY APPLICATIONS AND RESEARCH
卷 2, 期 3, 页码 120-130

出版社

MARY ANN LIEBERT, INC
DOI: 10.1089/phage.2021.0004

关键词

bacteriophages; multidrug resistance; antibiotic resistance; alternative antimicrobials; biomass; colony-forming units

资金

  1. University Grants Commission

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study demonstrated that under dynamic growth conditions, bacteriophages can effectively reduce biofilm formation by Staphylococcus aureus, Pseudomona aeruginosa, Klebsiella pneumoniae, and Escherichia coli. These results support the concept of developing bacteriophages as alternatives to antibiotics for treating bacterial infections.
Background: Use of bacteriophages as antibiofilm agents to tackle multidrug-resistant bacteria has gained importance in recent years.Materials and Methods: In this study, biofilm formation by Staphylococcus aureus, Pseudomona aeruginosa, Klebsiella pneumoniae, and Escherichia coli under different growth conditions was studied. Furthermore, the ability of bacteriophages to inhibit biofilm formation was analyzed.Results: Under dynamic growth condition, wherein the medium is renewed for every 12 h, the amount of biomass produced and log(10) colony-forming unit counts of all bacterial species studied was highest when compared with other growth conditions tested. Biomass of biofilms produced was drastically reduced when incubated for 2 or 4 h with bacteriophages vB_SAnS_SADP1, vB_PAnP_PADP4, vB_KPnM_KPDP1, and vB_ECnM_ECDP3. Scanning electron microscopy and confocal laser scanning microscopy analyses indicated that the reduction in biomass was due to the lytic action of the bacteriophages.Conclusions: Results of our study reinforce the concept of developing bacteriophages as alternatives to antibiotics to treat bacterial 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

3.9
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