Evidence map›Paper›PMID 20542901›Full record

ArticleThe Journal of antimicrobial chemotherapy2010

A novel approach to the antimicrobial activity of maggot debridement therapy.

Anders S Andersen, Dorthe Sandvang, Kirk M Schnorr, Thomas Kruse, Søren Neve, Bo Joergensen, Tonny Karlsmark, Karen A Krogfelt

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The Journal of antimicrobial chemotherapy, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 31 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
31citing papers in PubMed
9.9field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

31 citing papers in PubMed, 138 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Sarconesin:Frontiers in microbiology · 2018
    Article
  15. Pharmacological Properties of the Medical Maggot: A Novel Therapy Overview.Evidence-based complementary and alternative medicine : eCAM · 2018
    Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. TIME management by medicinal larvae.International wound journal · 2016
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Anders S AndersenDepartment of Microbiological Surveillance and Research, Statens Serum Institut, Artillerivej 5, 2300 Copenhagen S, Denmark.
Dorthe Sandvang
Kirk M Schnorr
Thomas Kruse
Søren Neve
Bo Joergensen
Tonny Karlsmark
Karen A Krogfelt
Novozymes (Denmark) · DKBispebjerg Hospital · DKStatens Serum Institut · DK

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesCommercially produced sterile green bottle fly Lucilia sericata maggots are successfully employed by practitioners worldwide to clean a multitude of chronic necrotic wounds and reduce wound bacterial burdens during maggot debridement therapy (MDT). Secretions from the maggots exhibit antimicrobial activity along with other activities beneficial for wound healing. With the rise of multidrug-resistant bacteria, new approaches to identifying the active compounds responsible for the antimicrobial activity within this treatment are imperative. Therefore, the aim of this study was to use a novel approach to investigate the output of secreted proteins from the maggots under conditions mimicking clinical treatments.

methodscDNA libraries constructed from microdissected salivary glands and whole maggots, respectively, were treated with transposon-assisted signal trapping (TAST), a technique selecting for the identification of secreted proteins. Several putative secreted components of insect immunity were identified, including a defensin named lucifensin, which was produced recombinantly as a Trx-fusion protein in Escherichia coli, purified using immobilized metal affinity chromatography and reverse-phase HPLC, and tested in vitro against Gram-positive and Gram-negative bacterial strains.

resultsLucifensin was active against Staphylococcus carnosus, Streptococcus pyogenes and Streptococcus pneumoniae (MIC 2 mg/L), as well as Staphylococcus aureus (MIC 16 mg/L). The peptide did not show antimicrobial activity towards Gram-negative bacteria. The MIC of lucifensin for the methicillin-resistant S. aureus and glycopeptide-intermediate S. aureus isolates tested ranged from 8 to >128 mg/L.

conclusionsThe TAST results did not reveal any highly secreted compounds with putative antimicrobial activity, implying an alternative antimicrobial activity of MDT. Lucifensin showed antimicrobial activities comparable to other defensins and could have potential as a future drug candidate scaffold, for redesign for other applications besides the topical treatment of infected wounds.

Indexed as

AnimalsAnti-Bacterial AgentsChromatography, AffinityChromatography, High Pressure LiquidCloning, MolecularDefensinsDipteraDNA, ComplementaryEscherichia coliGene ExpressionGram-Negative BacteriaGram-Positive BacteriaInsect ProteinsLarvaMicrobial Sensitivity TestsMolecular Sequence DataAnti-Bacterial AgentsDefensinsDNA, ComplementaryInsect ProteinsRecombinant Proteins

Identifiers

PMID20542901
PMCPMC2904663
OpenAlexW2150198659

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.