4.7 Article

Identifying Vancomycin as an Effective Antibiotic for Killing Borrelia burgdorferi

期刊

出版社

AMER SOC MICROBIOLOGY
DOI: 10.1128/AAC.01201-18

关键词

Borrelia burgdorferi; Lyme disease; antimicrobial activity

资金

  1. Global Lyme Alliance
  2. Steven & Alexandra Cohen Foundation
  3. NIH [R01AI122286]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Borrelia burgdorferi is the causative agent of Lyme borreliosis. Antibiotic therapy of early acute infection is effective for most patients, but 10 to 20% go on to develop posttreatment Lyme disease syndrome (PTLDS). The nature of PTLDS remains unknown, but currently approved antibiotics for the treatment of Lyme disease do not appear to impact these symptoms after they have developed. We reason that minimizing the time the pathogen interacts with the host will diminish the probability of developing PTLDS, irrespective of its nature. This calls for an efficient eradication of the pathogen during acute infection. In search of a superior killing antibiotic, we examined approved antibiotics for their ability to kill B. burgdorferi. Vancomycin proved more effective in killing the pathogen in vitro than ceftriaxone, the standard of care for disseminated B. burgdorferi infection. Both compounds were also the most effective in killing stationary-phase cells. This is surprising, given that inhibitors of cell wall biosynthesis are known to only kill growing bacteria. We found that peptidoglycan synthesis continues in stationary-phase cells of B. burgdorferi, explaining this paradox. A combination of vancomycin and gemifloxacin sterilized a stationary-phase culture of B. burgdorferi. Examination of the action of antibiotics in severe combined immunodeficient (SCID) mice showed that doxycycline, a standard of care for uncomplicated acute infection, did not clear the pathogen. In contrast, both ceftriaxone and vancomycin cleared the infection. A trial examining the early use of more potent antibiotics on the development of PTLDS may be warranted.

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