4.5 Article

Functional synergy of α-helical antimicrobial peptides and traditional antibiotics against Gram-negative and Gram-positive bacteria in vitro and in vivo

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10096-014-2219-3

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [81373445]
  2. Innovative Team of Peptide Drugs of Jilin Province [20121807]
  3. Natural Science Foundation of Jilin Province [20140101042JC]
  4. Basic Scientific Research Grant from Jilin University

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In this study, the antimicrobial activities based on the synergistic effects of traditional antibiotics (imipenem, cefepime, levofloxacin hydrochloride and vancomycin) and antimicrobial peptides (AMPs; PL-5, PL-31, PL-32, PL-18, PL-29 and PL-26), alone or in combination, against three Gram-positive bacteria (Staphylococcus aureus, Streptococcus pneumoniae and Staphylococcus epidermidis) and three Gram-negative bacteria (Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Escherichia coli and Klebsiella pneumoniae) were investigated. In addition, the antimicrobial activity that was based on the synergistic effects of levofloxacin hydrochloride and PL-5 against Staphylococcus aureus in vivo was explored in a mouse infection model. Traditional antibiotics and AMPs showed significant synergistic effects on the antibacterial activities against the different Gram-positive and Gram-negative bacteria in vitro. A strong synergistic effect in the PL-5 and levofloxacin hydrochloride combination against Staphylococcus aureus was observed in the mouse infection model in vivo. The mechanism of synergistic action was due to the different targets of AMPs and traditional antibiotics. The combination of AMPs and traditional antibiotics can dramatically enhance antimicrobial activity and may help prevent or delay the emergence of antibiotic resistance. Thus, this combination therapy could be a promising approach to treat bacterial infections, particularly mixed infections and multi-antibiotic-resistant infections, in the clinics.

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