ArticleAMB Express2025
Repurposing rupatadine as topical treatment against methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus.
Article in AMB Express, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study evaluates the potential of repurposed non-antibiotic drugs as possible treatments for methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) skin infection, through a comprehensive approach combining in silico, in vitro, and in vivo methodologies. From 198 protein targets previously identified through multi-omics analysis, 10 essential, druggable, broad-spectrum targets were selected. Three promising non-antibiotic ligands (rupatadine, orlistat, and citric acid) were evaluated through minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC), minimum bactericidal concentration (MBC), molecular docking, cytotoxicity testing, and a murine model of MRSA skin infection. Rupatadine, orlistat, and citric acid showed MICs of 0.031 mg/mL, 1.5 mg/mL, and 2.5 mg/mL, respectively. Rupatadine demonstrated the most potent anti-MRSA activity, with molecular docking revealing favorable binding energy (- 3.45 kcal/mol) to Aminoacyl transferase (FemA). Serial passage experiments over eight passages showed no resistance development against rupatadine in one MRSA strain and only twofold increase in another, compared to 8-13 fold increases observed with conventional antibiotics. Checkerboard assays revealed synergistic effects between rupatadine and β-lactam antibiotics (cefazolin and cefotaxime, FICI = 0.3). FemA is essential in cell wall biosynthesis and represents an essential target for anti-MRSA agents. Functional enrichment and pathway network analyses revealed significant disruption of biological processes governing peptidoglycan biosynthesis and cell wall biogenesis, which indicates the possibility of rupatadine compromising S. aureus cell wall integrity through interference with peptidoglycan assembly pathways, supporting its potential as a repurposed anti-MRSA agent. Rupatadine showed favorable tolerance on human skin fibroblast cells (IC
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.