ArticleScientific reports2022
Immobilised teicoplanin does not demonstrate antimicrobial activity against Staphylococcus aureus.
Article in Scientific reports, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
Antibacterial bone biomaterial coatings appeal to orthopaedics, dentistry and veterinary medicine. Achieving the successful, stable conjugation of suitable compounds to biomaterial surfaces is a major challenge. A pragmatic starting point is to make use of existing, approved antibiotics which are known to remain functional in a stationary, immobilised state. This includes the macrocyclic glycopeptide, teicoplanin, following the discovery, in the 1990's, that it could be used as a chiral selector in chromatographic enantiomeric separations. Importantly teicoplanin works at the level of the bacterial cell wall making it a potential candidate for biomaterial functionalisations. We initially sought to functionalise titanium (Ti) with polydopamine and use this platform to capture teicoplanin, however we were unable to avoid the natural affinity of the antibiotic to the oxide surface of the metal. Whilst the interaction between teicoplanin and Ti was robust, we found that phosphate resulted in antibiotic loss. Before contemplating the covalent attachment of teicoplanin to Ti we examined whether a commercial teicoplanin stationary phase could kill staphylococci. Whilst this commercially available material could bind N-Acetyl-L-Lys-D-Ala-D-Ala it was unable to kill bacteria. We therefore strongly discourage attempts at covalently immobilising teicoplanin and/or other glycopeptide antibiotics in the pursuit of novel antibacterial bone biomaterials.
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.