ArticleFrontiers in microbiology2024
Inactivation of antibiotic-resistant bacteria
Article in Frontiers in microbiology, 2024. 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, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
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
Introduction: In modern times, bacterial infections have become a growing problem in the medical community due to the emergence of antibiotic-resistant bacteria. In fact, the overuse and improper disposal of antibiotics have led to bacterial resistance and the presence of such bacteria in wastewater. Therefore, it is critical to develop effective strategies for dealing with antibiotic-resistant bacteria in wastewater. Electroporation has been found to be one of the most promising complementary techniques for bacterial inactivation because it is effective against a wide range of bacteria, is non-chemical and is highly optimizable. Many studies have demonstrated electroporation-assisted inactivation of bacteria, but rarely have clinical antibiotics or bacteria resistant to these antibiotics been used in the study. Therefore, the motivation for our study was to use a treatment regimen that combines antibiotics and electroporation to inactivate antibiotic-resistant bacteria. Methods: We separately combined two antibiotics (tetracycline and chloramphenicol) to which the bacteria are resistant (with a different resistance mode) and electric pulses. We used three different concentrations of antibiotics (40, 80 and 150 µg/ml for tetracycline and 100, 500 and 2000 µg/ml for chloramphenicol, respectively) and four different electric field strengths (5, 10, 15 and 20 kV/cm) for electroporation. Results and discussion: Our results show that electroporation effectively enhances the effect of antibiotics and inactivates antibiotic-resistant bacteria. The inactivation rate for tetracycline or chloramphenicol was found to be different and to increase with the strength of the pulsed electric field and/or the concentration of the antibiotic. In addition, we show that electroporation has a longer lasting effect (up to 24 hours), making bacteria vulnerable for a considerable time. The present work provides new insights into the use of electroporation to inactivate antibiotic-resistant bacteria in the aquatic environment.
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.