ArticleBMC microbiology2025
Cefmetazole, flomoxef, and meropenem are effective against planktonic cells but not biofilms of extended-spectrum β-lactamase-producing Escherichia coli.
Article in BMC microbiology, 2025. 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundExtended-spectrum β-lactamase (ESBL)-producing Escherichia coli is a potential public health threat through its spread into the environment. Cefmetazole (CMZ) and flomoxef (FMOX) are highly effective alternatives to meropenem (MEM) for the management of ESBL-producing E. coli infections. However, their antimicrobial effects on biofilms remain unclear. Therefore, this study aimed to elucidate the inhibitory and bactericidal effects of CMZ, FMOX, and MEM on the biofilms formed by ESBL-producing E. coli.
methodsThree ESBL-producing E. coli clinical isolates with biofilm-forming abilities (strains F6, F11, and U3) were used in the present study. Biofilm formation and viability assay kits were used to assess the inhibitory and bactericidal effects of these antibiotics on the biofilm-dispersed and biofilm cells of these strains. Scanning electron microscopy (SEM) was used to acquire images of the biofilms treated with these antibiotics.
resultsCMZ and MEM exerted significant inhibitory effects on the growth of biofilm-dispersed cells of all three strains at 1 × minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC). FMOX also exerted significant inhibitory effects on the growth of biofilm-dispersed cells of F11 strain at 1 × MIC; however, it exerted inhibitory effects on the growth of biofilm-dispersed cells of strains F6 and U3 in a concentration-dependent manner. CMZ, FMOX, and MEM exerted different bactericidal effects on biofilm-dispersed cells. CMZ exerted significant inhibitory effects on biofilm formation in all strains at 1 × MIC, whereas MEM exerted significant inhibitory effects on biofilm formation in the F6 and F11 strains at 1 × MIC. FMOX induced biofilm formation in F6 and U3 strains at concentrations between 1 × and 4 × MICs. Notably, CMZ, FMOX, and MEM did not exert bactericidal effects on the biofilm cells of any strain. SEM analysis revealed the induction of bacterial filamentation in the presence of CMZ and FMOX and spheroplast formation in the presence of MEM at 1 × MIC.
conclusionsCMZ, FMOX, and MEM exhibited varying antimicrobial effects against ESBL-producing E. coli biofilms. Notably, FMOX may increase biofilm formation by inducing strong morphological changes. CMZ and FMOX are effective alternatives to MEM for ESBL-producing E. coli infections; however, their use requires the consideration of biofilm formation.
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.