4.7 Article

Accumulation of garenoxacin by Bacteroides fragilis compared with that of five fluoroquinolones

期刊

JOURNAL OF ANTIMICROBIAL CHEMOTHERAPY
卷 52, 期 4, 页码 605-609

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/jac/dkg418

关键词

efflux pump inhibitors; antibiotic accumulation; quinolones

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives: Garenoxacin is a novel des-F(6)-quinolone with good anti-anaerobe activity. The accumulation of garenoxacin and five other quinolones in the presence and absence of a variety of efflux pump inhibitors, including carbonyl cyanide m-chlorophenyl hydrazone (CCCP: 100 muM), verapamil (25 muM), reserpine (20 mg/L), sodium orthovanadate (50 muM) and Phe-Arg-beta-naphthylamide (MC-207110) (20 mg/L) was investigated. Methods: Bacteroides fragilis was grown in Wilkins Chalgren broth (Oxoid Ltd, UK) in a MKII anaerobic workstation (Don Whitley, Shipley, UK). Susceptibility testing was performed, according to the agar doubling dilution method, using Wilkins Chalgren agar supplemented with 5% horse blood. A fluorometric assay was used to measure the accumulation of quinolones (10 mg/L) by B. fragilis. Results: The activity of the agents for B. fragilis NCTC 9343/ATCC 25285 was clinafloxacin > garenoxacin > levofloxacin = gatifloxacin > moxifloxacin > ciprofloxacin. A weak correlation was observed between the molecular size of the free form and the MIC, the steady state concentration (SSC) and the initial rate of accumulation, but not for the hydrophobicity of each agent. In the presence of reserpine, the SSC of all agents increased. The addition of CCCP had no effect upon garenoxacin or clinafloxacin accumulation, but significantly increased the SSC of ciprofloxacin, moxifloxacin, gatifloxacin and levofloxacin. Verapamil increased the SSC of garenoxacin, whereas sodium orthovanadate had no effect on the concentration of accumulated garenoxacin. Conclusions: These data suggest that there is probably more than one type of efflux pump in B. fragilis that exports quinolones.

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