4.7 Article

Hyperbaric Oxygen Sensitizes Anoxic Pseudomonas aeruginosa Biofilm to Ciprofloxacin

期刊

出版社

AMER SOC MICROBIOLOGY
DOI: 10.1128/AAC.01024-17

关键词

biofilms; ciprofloxacin; hyperbaric oxygen; oxygen radicals; Pseudomonas aeruginosa

资金

  1. UC-CARE ( University of Copenhagen Center for Antimicrobial Research) [50061804231-F16]
  2. Human Frontiers Science Program [RGY0081/2012]
  3. Lundbeck Foundation [R105-A9791]
  4. Danish Council for Independent Research Natural Sciences (FNU) [DFF-1323-00065B]
  5. Technology and Production Sciences (FTP) [DFF-4184-00515]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Chronic Pseudomonas aeruginosa lung infection is characterized by the presence of endobronchial antibiotic-tolerant biofilm, which is subject to strong oxygen (O-2) depletion due to the activity of surrounding polymorphonuclear leukocytes. The exact mechanisms affecting the antibiotic susceptibility of biofilms remain unclear, but accumulating evidence suggests that the efficacy of several bactericidal antibiotics is enhanced by stimulation of aerobic respiration of pathogens, while lack of O-2 increases their tolerance. In fact, the bactericidal effect of several antibiotics depends on active aerobic metabolism activity and the endogenous formation of reactive O-2 radicals (ROS). In this study, we aimed to apply hyperbaric oxygen treatment (HBOT) to sensitize anoxic P. aeruginosa agarose biofilms established to mimic situations with intense O-2 consumption by the host response in the cystic fibrosis (CF) lung. Application of HBOT resulted in enhanced bactericidal activity of ciprofloxacin at clinically relevant durations and was accompanied by indications of restored aerobic respiration, involvement of endogenous lethal oxidative stress, and increased bacterial growth. The findings highlight that oxygenation by HBOT improves the bactericidal activity of ciprofloxacin on P. aeruginosa biofilm and suggest that bacterial biofilms are sensitized to antibiotics by supplying hyperbaric O-2.

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