4.3 Article

Ciprofloxacin provokes SOS-dependent changes in respiration and membrane potential and causes alterations in the redox status of Escherichia coli

期刊

RESEARCH IN MICROBIOLOGY
卷 168, 期 1, 页码 64-73

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.resmic.2016.07.008

关键词

Ciprofloxacin; Respiration; Membrane potential; K+ efflux channels; Glutathione; Escherichia coli

资金

  1. Ural Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences [15-4-4-16]
  2. Russian Foundation of Basic Research [16-04-00762, 14-04-96031]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

An in-depth understanding of the physiological response of bacteria to antibiotic-induced stress is needed for development of new approaches to combatting microbial infections. Fluoroquinolone ciprofloxacin causes phase alterations in Escherichia colt respiration and membrane potential that strongly depend on its concentration. Concentrations lower than the optimal bactericidal concentration (OBC) do not inhibit respiration during the first phase. A dose higher than the OBC provokes immediate SOS-independent inhibition of respiration and growth that can contribute to a decreased SOS response and lowered susceptibility to high concentrations of ciprofloxacin. Cells retain their metabolic activity, membrane potential and accelerated K+ uptake and produce low levels of superoxide and H202 during the first phase. The time before initiation of the second phase is inversely correlated with the ciprofloxacin concentration. The second phase is SOS-dependent and characterized by respiratory inhibition, membrane depolarization, K+ and glutathione leakage and cessation of glucose consumption and may be considered as cell death. atpA, gshA and kefBkefC knockouts, which perturb fluxes of protons and K+, can modify the degree and duration of respiratory inhibition and potassium retention. Loss of K+ efflux channels Kern and KefC enhances the susceptibility of E. colt to ciprofloxacin. (C) 2016 Institut Pasteur. Published by Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.

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

4.3
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