Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35840757›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2022

Applying fluorescent dye assays to discriminate Escherichia coli chlorhexidine resistance phenotypes from porin and mlaA deletions and efflux pumps.

Branden S J Gregorchuk, Shelby L Reimer, Carmine J Slipski, Kieran A Milner, Shannon L Hiebert, Daniel R Beniac, Timothy F Booth, George G Zhanel, Denice C Bay

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
0.8field-weighted citation impact, top 34% 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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. 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
  2. Article
  3. 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

9 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Branden S J GregorchukDepartment of Medical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, MB, Canada.
Shelby L ReimerDepartment of Medical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, MB, Canada.
Carmine J SlipskiDepartment of Medical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, MB, Canada.
Kieran A MilnerDepartment of Medical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, MB, Canada.
Shannon L HiebertNational Microbiology Laboratory, Public Health Agency of Canada, Winnipeg, MB, Canada.
Daniel R BeniacNational Microbiology Laboratory, Public Health Agency of Canada, Winnipeg, MB, Canada.
Timothy F BoothNational Microbiology Laboratory, Public Health Agency of Canada, Winnipeg, MB, Canada.
George G ZhanelDepartment of Medical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, MB, Canada.
Denice C BayDepartment of Medical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, MB, Canada. Denice.Bay@umanitoba.ca.
University of Manitoba · CAPublic Health Agency of Canada · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Bacterial resistance to the antiseptic chlorhexidine (CHX), is a growing problem, recently shown to be caused by deleterious mutations to the phospholipid transport system component (mlaA) as well as efflux pump overexpression. Comparisons of CHX resistance mechanisms, such as porin deletions (ompCF), and over-expressed efflux pumps (acrB, qacE, aceI), are lacking and may be distinguishable using antiseptic rapid fluorescent dye testing assays. Using E. coli K-12 CHX adapted isolates (CHXR1), gene deletion mutants, and over-expressed transformants the phenotypes of these CHX resistance genes were compared using antimicrobial susceptibility tests (AST), rapid fluorescent propidium iodide dye-based membrane integrity assays (RFDMIA), and scanning electron microscopy (SEM). AST findings showed CHXR1, ΔacrB, ΔompCF, and transformants pCA24N-aceI and pCA24N-mlaA conferred greater (two to fourfold) MIC changes when compared to matched controls. Examination of these mutants/transformants using CHX RFDMIA showed that porin dual-deletions (ΔompCF) and mlaA alterations (ΔmlaA; pCA24N-mlaA, CHXR1) were distinguishable from controls. Results for over-expressed (pMS119EH-aceI) and deleted (ΔacrB) efflux pump RFDMIA could not be distinguished with propidium iodide, only with ethidium bromide, suggesting propidium iodide is better suited for detecting porin and mlaA associated CHX resistance mechanisms. SEM of CHXR1 and unadapted E. coli cells exposed to increasing CHX concentrations revealed that CHX does not visibly damage cell envelope integrity at any tested concentration but did identify elongated CHXR1 cells. ΔmlaA confers similar levels of CHX resistance as efflux overexpression and porin deletions, however, only outer membrane-altering porin and mlaA deletions can be reliably distinguished using RFDMIA.

Indexed as

Anti-Infective Agents, LocalEscherichia coli ProteinsAnti-Bacterial AgentsATP-Binding Cassette, Sub-Family C ProteinsBacterial ProteinsChlorhexidineDrug Resistance, Multiple, BacterialEscherichia coliFluorescent DyesMembrane Transport ProteinsMicrobial Sensitivity TestsPhenotypePorinsPropidiumAcrB protein, E coliAnti-Bacterial AgentsAnti-Infective Agents, LocalATP-Binding Cassette, Sub-Family C ProteinsBacterial ProteinsChlorhexidineEscherichia coli ProteinsFluorescent DyesMembrane Transport ProteinsPorinsPropidium

Identifiers

PMID35840757
PMCPMC9287405
OpenAlexW4285491333

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.