ArticleFrontiers in microbiology2024
Antibiotic's target site affects the potentiation of
Article in Frontiers in microbiology, 2024. 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.
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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Antibiotic resistance represents a growing global threat, and thus the motivation to develop novel and combined methods of bacterial inactivation is increasing. Electroporation is a technique in which electric pulses of sufficient strength are applied to permeabilize cells, including bacteria. Combining antibacterials with electroporation is a promising strategy to potentiate their bactericidal and bacteriostatic effectiveness. This approach has already proved useful for increasing bacterial inactivation, yet most studies so far have mainly focused on the maximal achievable effects, and less on the underlying mechanisms. We recently demonstrated that in the Gram-negative (G-) bacterium Methods: We used antibiotic concentrations ranging from 0 to 30 × MIC (minimum inhibitory concentration that we predetermined for each antibiotic), a single 1-ms electric pulse with an amplitude from 0 to 20 kV/cm, and post-pulse pre-dilution incubation of 24 h or 1 h. Results: Electroporation increased the inhibition and inactivation efficiency of both antibiotics, but this was more pronounced for tetracycline, with statistical significance mostly limited to 24-h incubation. In general, both inhibition and inactivation grew stronger with increasing antibiotic concentration and electric field amplitude. Discussion: Our results indicate that electroporation potentiates inactivation of G+ bacteria to a larger extent for antibiotics that inhibit intracellular processes and require transport into the cytoplasm, and to a smaller extent for antibiotics that inhibit cell-wall synthesis. This is the inverse of the relation observed in G- bacteria, and can be explained by the difference in the envelope structure: in G- bacteria the outer membrane must be breached for wall-inhibiting antibiotics to access their target, whereas in G+ bacteria the wall is inherently accessible from the outside and permeabilization does not affect this access.
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.