4.7 Article

Synergistic effects of mupirocin and an isoflavanone isolated from Erythrina variegata on growth and recovery of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus

期刊

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijantimicag.2004.03.020

关键词

bidwillon B; mupirocin; anti-MRSA activity; synergistic effects; bactericidal action

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The phytochemical 2',4-dihydroxy-8- gamma,-gamma-dimethylallyl-2,2-dimethylpyrano[5,6:6,7]isoflavanone (bidwillon B) was isolated from Erythrina variegata and its antibacterial properties against methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) were investigated. Bidwillon B inhibited the growth of 12 MRSA strains at minimum inhibitory concentrations (MICs) of 3.13-6.25 mg/l, while MICs of mupirocin were 0.20-3.13 mg/l. The minimum bactericidal concentration (MBC) for bidwillon B and mupirocin against MRSA were 6.25-25 mg/l (MBC90: 12.5 mg/l) and 3.13-25 mg/l (MBC90: 25 mg/l), respectively. When bidwillon B and mupirocin were combined, synergistic effects were observed for I I strains of MRSA (fractional inhibitory concentration indices, 0.5-0.75). The MBCs of mupirocin in the presence of bidwillon B (3.13 mg/l) were reduced to 0.05-1.56 mg/l. Bidwillon B at MIC values strongly inhibited incorporation of radio-labelled thymidine, uridine, glucose and isoleucine into MRSA cells. Mupirocin showed lower inhibitory effects than bidwillon B on thymidine, uridine and glucose incorporation, but incorporation of isoleucine was completely blocked with this antibiotic. These results indicate that bidwillon B possesses sufficient anti-MRSA activity for inhibiting growth and recovery, and that the compound acts synergistically with mupirocin. The results also suggest that both compounds act on MRSA via different mechanisms. Bidwillon B may prove to be a potent phytotherapeutic and/or combination agent with mupirocin in the elimination of nasal and skin carriage of MRSA. (C) 2004 Elsevier B.V. and the International Society of Chemotherapy. 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

4.7
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