ArticleAnnals of clinical microbiology and antimicrobials2011
Antimicrobial activity and mechanism of action of Nu-3, a protonated modified nucleotide.
Article in Annals of clinical microbiology and antimicrobials, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 62 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
background"Nubiotics" are synthetic oligonucleotides and nucleotides with nuclease-resistant backbones, and are fully protonated for enhanced ability to be taken up by bacterial cells. Nu-3 [butyl-phosphate-5'-thymidine-3'-phosphate-butyl], one of the family members of Nubiotics was efficacious in the treatment of burn-wound infections by Pseudomonas aeruginosa in mice. Subsequent studies revealed that Nu-3 had a favorable toxicological profile for use as a pharmaceutical agent. This study evaluated the antibacterial activity of Nu-3 in vitro and its efficacy as a topical antibiotic. In addition, we investigated the possible mechanisms of Nu-3 action at the levels of DNA synthesis and bacterial membrane changes.
methodsAntimicrobial minimum inhibitory concentrations (MIC) experiments with Nu-3 and controls were measured against a range of Gram-positive and Gram-negative bacteria, including some hospital isolates according to Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI) guidelines. Analysis of the killing kinetics of Nu-3 was also performed against two strains (Staphylococcus aureus cvcc 2248 and Pseudomonas aeruginosa cvcc 5668). The mouse skin suture-wound infection model was used to evaluate the antibacterial activity of Nu-3. We used a 5-Bromo-2'-deoxy-uridine Labeling and Detection Kit III (Roche, Switzerland) to analyze DNA replication in bacteria according to the manufacturer's instruction. The BacLight™ Bacterial Membrane Potential Kit (Invitrogen) was used to measure the bacterial membrane potential in S. aureus.
resultsNu-3 had a wide antibacterial spectrum to Gram-positive, Gram-negative and some resistant bacteria. The MIC values of Nu-3 against all tested MRSA and MSSA were roughly in a same range while MICs of Oxacillin and Vancomycin varied between the bacteria tested. In the mouse model of skin wound infection study, the treatment with 5% Nu-3 glycerine solution also showed comparable therapeutic effects to Ciprofloxacin Hydrochloride Ointment. While Nu-3 had no effect on DNA synthesis of the tested bacteria as demonstrated in a BrdU assay, it could cause bacterial cell membrane depolarization, as measured using a BacLight™ Bacterial Membrane Potential Kit.
conclusionsThese results provide additional experimental data that are consistent with the hypothesis that Nu-3 represents a new class of antibacterial agents for treating topical infections and acts via a different mechanism from conventional antibiotics.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.