4.6 Article

Membrane damage to bacteria caused by single and combined biocides

期刊

JOURNAL OF APPLIED MICROBIOLOGY
卷 94, 期 6, 页码 1015-1023

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-2672.2003.01923.x

关键词

inhibition; Staphylococcus aureus; synergy

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Aims: To examine the effect on the leakage of low molecular weight cytoplasmic constituents from Staphylococcus aureus using phenolics singly and in combination, and to see if the observations could be modelled using a non-linear dose response. Methods and Results: The rate of potassium, phosphate and adenosine triphosphate leakage was examined in the presence of chlorocresol and m -cresol. Individually, leakage was observed only at long contact times or high concentrations. Combined at these ineffective concentrations, the cytoplasmic pool of all constituents studied was released within minutes. Both chlorocresol and m -cresol were shown to have non-linear dose responses. A rate model for the combinations, which takes account of these non-linear responses, accurately predicted the observations. Conclusions: Antimicrobials, which when used alone exhibit a non-linear dose response, will also give a non-linear dose response in combination. The simple linear-additive model ignores the concept of the dilution coefficient and will always describe the phenomenon of synergy for combinations where one or more of the components has a dilution coefficient greater than one. This has been borne out by examination of the purported prime lesion of chlorocresol and m -cresol, alone and in combination. Significance and Impact of the Study: Studies aimed at producing synergistic mixtures of antimicrobials, which ignore the non-linear additive effect, may waste valuable research effort looking for a physiological explanation for an apparent synergy, where none, in-fact, exists. Patents granted on the basis of analyses using the linear-additive model for combinations of compounds with non-linear dose responses may no longer be supportable.

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

4.6
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