ArticleBMC infectious diseases2019
SPS-neutralization in tissue samples for efficacy testing of antimicrobial peptides.
Article in BMC infectious diseases, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Bacteriophage therapy reducesAntimicrobial agents and chemotherapy · 2024Article
- Clinical relevance of topical antibiotic use in co-selecting for multidrug-resistantAntimicrobial agents and chemotherapy · 2023Article
- Evaluation of new formulations for neutralizing antimicrobial preservatives in pharmaceutical preparations.Heliyon · 2023Article
- The impact of bacterial contamination on the host response towards fully absorbable poly-4-hydroxybutyrate and nonabsorbable polypropylene pelvic floor implants.Materials today. Bio · 2022Article
- Efficacy of sodium polyanethol sulfonate on herpes simplex virus-1 infection in vitro.Molecular vision · 2022Article
- Potential factors contributing to the poor antimicrobial efficacy of SAAP-148 in a rat wound infection model.Annals of clinical microbiology and antimicrobials · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundAccurate determination of the efficacy of antimicrobial agents requires neutralization of residual antimicrobial activity in the samples before microbiological assessment of the number of surviving bacteria. Sodium polyanethol sulfonate (SPS) is a known neutralizer for the antimicrobial activity of aminoglycosides and polymyxins. In this study, we evaluated the ability of SPS to neutralize residual antimicrobial activity of antimicrobial peptides [SAAP-148 and pexiganan; 1% (wt/v) in PBS], antibiotics [mupirocin (Bactroban) and fusidic acid (Fucidin) in ointments; 2% (wt/wt))] and disinfectants [2% (wt/wt) silver sulfadiazine cream (SSD) and 0.5% (v/v) chlorhexidine in 70% alcohol].
methodsHomogenates of human skin models that had been exposed to various antimicrobial agents for 1 h were pipetted on top of Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) on agar plates to determine whether the antimicrobial agents display residual activity. To determine the optimal concentration of SPS for neutralization, antimicrobial agents were mixed with PBS or increasing doses of SPS in PBS (0.05-1% wt/v) and then 10
resultsAll tested antimicrobials displayed residual activity in tissue samples, resulting in a lower recovery of surviving bacteria on agar. SPS concentrations at ≥0.05% (wt/v) were able to neutralize the antimicrobial activity of SAAP-148, pexiganan and chlorhexidine, but not of SSD, Bactroban and Fucidin. Finally, SPS-neutralization in in vitro and ex vivo efficacy tests of SAAP-148, pexiganan and chlorhexidine against gram-positive and gram-negative bacteria resulted in significantly higher numbers of CFU compared to control samples without SPS-neutralization.
conclusionsSPS was successfully used to neutralize residual activity of SAAP-148, pexiganan and chlorhexidine and this prevented an overestimation of their efficacy.
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.