Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34214528›Full record

ArticleBiophysical journal2021

Unraveling the mechanism of octenidine and chlorhexidine on membranes: Does electrostatics matter?

Mateusz Rzycki, Dominik Drabik, Kamila Szostak-Paluch, Beata Hanus-Lorenz, Sebastian Kraszewski

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Biophysical journal, 2021. 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
–field-weighted citation impact
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.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Does alternate-day bathing with 2% chlorhexidine improve clinical outcomes in critically ill patients? A systematic review and meta-analysis.European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology · 2026
    Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

5 authors.

Mateusz RzyckiDepartment of Experimental Physics, Faculty of Fundamental Problems of Technology, Wroclaw University of Science and Technology, Wroclaw, Poland; Department of Biomedical Engineering, Faculty of Fundamental Problems of Technology, Wroclaw University of Science and Technology, Wroclaw, Poland. Electronic address: mateusz.rzycki@pwr.edu.pl.
Dominik DrabikDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, Faculty of Fundamental Problems of Technology, Wroclaw University of Science and Technology, Wroclaw, Poland; Laboratory of Cytobiochemistry, Faculty of Biotechnology, University of Wroclaw, Wroclaw, Poland.
Kamila Szostak-PaluchDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, Faculty of Fundamental Problems of Technology, Wroclaw University of Science and Technology, Wroclaw, Poland; Research and Development Center, Regional Specialized Hospital, Wroclaw, Poland.
Beata Hanus-LorenzDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, Faculty of Fundamental Problems of Technology, Wroclaw University of Science and Technology, Wroclaw, Poland.
Sebastian KraszewskiDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, Faculty of Fundamental Problems of Technology, Wroclaw University of Science and Technology, Wroclaw, Poland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The increasing problem of antibiotic resistance in bacteria requires the development of new antimicrobial candidates. There are several well-known substances with commercial use, but their molecular mode of action is not fully understood. In this work, we focus on two commonly used antimicrobial agents from the detergent family-octenidine dichloride (OCT) and chlorhexidine digluconate (CHX). Both of them are reported to be agents selectively attacking the cell membrane through interaction inducing membrane disruption by emulsification. They are believed to present electrostatic selectivity toward charged lipids. In this study, we tested this hypothesis and revised previously proposed molecular mechanisms of action. Employing a variety of techniques such as molecular dynamics, ζ potential with dynamic light scattering, vesicle fluctuation spectroscopy, carboxyfluorescein leakage measurement, and fluorescence trimethylammonium-diphenylhexatriene- and diphenylhexatriene-based studies for determination of OCT and CHX membrane location, we performed experimental studies using two model membrane systems-zwitterionic PC and negatively charged PG (18:1/18:1):PC (16:0/18:1) 3:7, respectively. These studies were extended by molecular dynamics simulations performed on a three-component bacterial membrane model system to further test interactions with another negatively charged lipid, cardiolipin. In summary, our study demonstrated that detergent selectivity is far more complicated than supposed simple electrostatic interactions. Although OCT does disrupt the membrane, our results suggest that its primary selectivity was more linked to mechanical properties of the membrane. On the other hand, CHX did not disrupt membranes as a primary activity, nor did it show any sign of electrostatic selectivity toward negatively charged membranes at any stage of interactions, which suggests membrane disruption by influencing more discrete membrane properties.

Indexed as

ChlorhexidinePyridinesCell MembraneIminesLipid BilayersStatic ElectricityChlorhexidineIminesLipid BilayersoctenidinePyridines

Identifiers

PMID34214528
PMCPMC8391085

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.