4.5 Article

Membrane-damaging potential of natural L-(-)-usnic acid in Staphylococcus aureus

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10096-012-1706-7

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The purpose of this investigation was to try to understand the antibacterial mechanism of L-(-)-usnic acid isolated for the first time from fruticose lichen Usnea subfloridana using clinical isolates of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA). The minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) of L-(-)-usnic acid against the clinical isolates of MRSA and reference strain S. aureus MTCC-96 (SA-96) was in the range 25-50 mu g/ml. Treatment of both reference and clinical strains (MRSA-ST 2071) with four-fold MIC concentrations (100-200 mu g/ml) of L-(-)-usnic acid reduced the viability of cells without damaging the cell wall. However, the loss of 260 nm absorbing material and increase in propidium iodide uptake was observed in both of the strains. Similarly, a combined effect of L-(-)-usnic acid (25-50 mu g/ml) and 7.5 % NaCl resulted in a reduced number of viable cells within 24 h in comparison to the control. These observations clearly indicate that L-(-)-usnic acid exerts its action by disruption of the bacterial membrane. Further, in vivo efficacy showed that L-(-)-usnic acid significantly (p < 0.001) lowered the microbial load of spleen at doses ranging from 1 to 5 mg/kg. Further, toxicity studies in infected mice at doses 20 times higher than the efficacious dose indicated L-(-)usnic acid to be safe. Paradoxically, L-(-)usnic acid exhibited changes in serum triglycerides, alkaline phosphatase (ALKP) and liver organ weight in the healthy mice administered with only 25 mg/kg body weight. The results obtained in this study showed that natural L-(-)-usnic acid exerts its antibacterial activity against MRSA by disruption of the cell membrane. Further, the natural L-(-)-usnic acid was found to be safe up to 100 mg/kg body weight, thereby, making it a probable candidate for treating S. aureus infections.

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

4.5
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