1887

Journal of Medical Microbiology logo

Volume 69, Issue 1

activities of telithromycin against biofilms compared with azithromycin, clindamycin, vancomycin and daptomycin Free

Abstract

biofilms are difficult to treat and the effect of telithromycin treatment is still unclear.

This study aimed to explore the effect of telithromycin against biofilms compared with azithromycin, clindamycin, vancomycin and daptomycin.

Eight methicillin-susceptible and eight methicillin-resistant isolates (MSSA and MRSA, respectively) were used for this study. Biofilm biomasses were detected by crystal violet staining and the adherent cells in the established biofilms were quantified by determination of colony-forming units (c.f.u.). The RNA levels of biofilm formation-related genes were determined by RT-qPCR.

Telithromycin [8× minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC)] eradicated more established biofilms than azithromycin or clindamycin in the four MSSA isolates, and eliminated the established biofilms of six MRSA isolates more effectively than vancomycin or daptomycin. Telithromycin (8× MIC) killed more adherent cells in the established biofilms than azithromycin or clindamycin in the six MSSA isolates, and killed more adherent cells than vancomycin in all eight MRSA isolates. Daptomycin also showed an excellent effect on the adherent cells of MRSA isolates, with similarresults to telithromycin. The effect of a subinhibitory concentration of telithromycin (1/4× MIC) was significantly superior to that of azithromycin or clindamycin, inhibiting the biofilm formation of six MSSA isolates and seven MRSA isolates more effectively than vancomycin or daptomycin. The RNA levels of , , , and decreased when treated with telithromycin (1/4× MIC).

Telithromycin is more effective than azithromycin, clindamycin, vancomycin, or daptomycin against biofilms.

  • Received:
  • Accepted:
  • Published Online:
Keyword(s): adherent cells , biofilm , Staphylococcus aureus , subinhibitory concentrations and telithromycin
© 2020 The Authors
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journal/jmm/10.1099/jmm.0.001122
2020-01-01
2024-04-24
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/jmm/69/1/120.html?itemId=/content/journal/jmm/10.1099/jmm.0.001122&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

References

  1. Moormeier DE, Bayles KW. Staphylococcus aureus biofilm: a complex developmental organism. Mol Microbiol 2017; 104:365–376 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Figueiredo AMS, Ferreira FA, Beltrame CO, Côrtes MF. The role of biofilms in persistent infections and factors involved in ica-independent biofilm development and gene regulation in Staphylococcus aureus . Crit Rev Microbiol 2017; 43:602–620 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Speziale P, Pietrocola G, Foster TJ, Geoghegan JA. Protein-Based biofilm matrices in staphylococci. Front Cell Infect Microbiol 2014; 4:171 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Gui Z, Wang H, Ding T, Zhu W, Zhuang X et al. Azithromycin reduces the production of α-hemolysin and biofilm formation in Staphylococcus aureus . Indian J Microbiol 2014; 54:114–117 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Schilcher K, Andreoni F, Dengler Haunreiter V, Seidl K, Hasse B et al. Modulation of Staphylococcus aureus biofilm matrix by subinhibitory concentrations of clindamycin. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2016; 60:5957–5967 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Belfield K, Bayston R, Hajduk N, Levell G, Birchall JP et al. Evaluation of combinations of putative anti-biofilm agents and antibiotics to eradicate biofilms of Staphylococcus aureus and Pseudomonas aeruginosa . J Antimicrob Chemother 2017; 72:2531–2538 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Boudjemaa R, Briandet R, Revest M, Jacqueline C, Caillon J et al. New insight into daptomycin bioavailability and localization in Staphylococcus aureus biofilms by dynamic fluorescence imaging. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2016; 60:4983–4990 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  8. Luther MK, LaPlante KL. Observed antagonistic effect of linezolid on daptomycin or vancomycin activity against biofilm-forming methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in an in vitro pharmacodynamic model. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2015; 59:7790–7794 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  9. Nguyen M, Chung EP. Telithromycin: the first ketolide antimicrobial. Clin Ther 2005; 27:1144–1163 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Zuckerman JM, Qamar F, Bono BR. Review of macrolides (azithromycin, clarithromycin), ketolids (telithromycin) and Glycylcyclines (tigecycline). Med Clin North Am 2011; 95:761–791 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Woo S-G, Lee S-Y, Lee S-M, Lim K-H, Ha E-J et al. Activity of novel inhibitors of Staphylococcus aureus biofilms. Folia Microbiol 2017; 62:157–167 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  12. Bauer J, Siala W, Tulkens PM, Van Bambeke F. A combined pharmacodynamic quantitative and qualitative model reveals the potent activity of daptomycin and delafloxacin against Staphylococcus aureus biofilms. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2013; 57:2726–2737 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Sun X, Lin Z-W, Hu X-X, Yao W-M, Bai B et al. Biofilm formation in erythromycin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus and the relationship with antimicrobial susceptibility and molecular characteristics. Microb Pathog 2018; 124:47–53 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  14. Zheng J-X, Sun X, Lin Z-W, Qi G-B, Tu H-P et al. In vitro activities of daptomycin combined with fosfomycin or rifampin on planktonic and adherent linezolid-resistant isolates of Enterococcus faecalis . J Med Microbiol 2019; 68:493–502 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  15. Wang X, Han H, Lv Z, Lin Z, Shang Y et al. PhoU2 but Not PhoU1 as an important regulator of biofilm formation and tolerance to multiple stresses by participating in various fundamental metabolic processes in Staphylococcus epidermidis . J Bacteriol 2017; 199:pii: e00219-17 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  16. Mlynek KD, Callahan MT, Shimkevitch AV, Farmer JT, Endres JL et al. Effects of low-dose amoxicillin on Staphylococcus aureus USA300 biofilms. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2016; 60:2639–2651 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  17. Majidpour A, Fathizadeh S, Afshar M, Rahbar M, Boustanshenas M et al. Dose-dependent effects of common antibiotics used to treat Staphylococcus aureus on Biofilm Formation. Iran J Pathol 2017; 12:362–370
     [Google Scholar]
  18. Huang Q, Yu H-J, Liu G-D, Huang X-K, Zhang L-Y et al. Comparison of the effects of human β-defensin 3, vancomycin, and clindamycin on Staphylococcus aureus biofilm formation. Orthopedics 2012; 35:e53–60 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  19. LaPlante KL, Mermel LA. In vitro activities of telavancin and vancomycin against biofilm-producing Staphylococcus aureus, S. epidermidis, and Enterococcus faecalis strains. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2009; 53:3166–3169 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  20. Bayer AS, Abdelhady W, Li L, Gonzales R, Xiong YQ. Comparative efficacies of tedizolid phosphate, linezolid, and vancomycin in a murine model of subcutaneous catheter-related biofilm infection due to methicillin-susceptible and -resistant Staphylococcus aureus . Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2016; 60:5092–5096 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  21. Alonso B, Cruces R, Perez A, Fernandez-Cruz A, Guembe M. Activity of maltodextrin and vancomycin against staphylococcus aureus biofilm. Front Biosci 2018; 10:300–308 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  22. Post V, Wahl P, Richards RG, Moriarty TF. Vancomycin displays time-dependent eradication of mature Staphylococcus aureus biofilms. J Orthop Res 2017; 35:381–388 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  23. Raad I, Hanna H, Jiang Y, Dvorak T, Reitzel R et al. Comparative activities of daptomycin, linezolid, and tigecycline against catheter-related methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus bacteremic isolates embedded in biofilm. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2007; 51:1656–1660 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  24. Parra-Ruiz J, Bravo-Molina A, Peña-Monje A, Hernández-Quero J. Activity of linezolid and high-dose daptomycin, alone or in combination, in an in vitro model of Staphylococcus aureus biofilm. J Antimicrob Chemother 2012; 67:2682–2685 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  25. Kullar R, Casapao AM, Davis SL, Levine DP, Zhao JJ et al. A multicentre evaluation of the effectiveness and safety of high-dose daptomycin for the treatment of infective endocarditis. J Antimicrob Chemother 2013; 68:2921–2926 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  26. Seidl K, Goerke C, Wolz C, Mack D, Berger-Bächi B et al. Staphylococcus aureus CcpA affects biofilm formation. Infect Immun 2008; 76:2044–2050 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  27. Tan L, Li SR, Jiang B, Hu XM, Li S. Therapeutic targeting of the Staphylococcus aureus Accessory Gene Regulator (agr) system. Front Microbiol 2018; 9:55 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  28. Weiss EC, Zielinska A, Beenken KE, Spencer HJ, Daily SJ et al. Impact of sarA on daptomycin susceptibility of Staphylococcus aureus biofilms in vivo . Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2009; 53:4096–4102 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  29. Atwood DN, Beenken KE, Lantz TL, Meeker DG, Lynn WB et al. Regulatory mutations impacting antibiotic susceptibility in an established Staphylococcus aureus biofilm. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2016; 60:1826–1829 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  30. Beenken KE, Mrak LN, Griffin LM, Zielinska AK, Shaw LN et al. Epistatic relationships between sarA and agr in Staphylococcus aureus biofilm formation. PLoS One 2010; 5:e10790 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  31. Baldry M, Nielsen A, Bojer MS, Zhao Y, Friberg C et al. Norlichexanthone reduces virulence gene expression and biofilm formation in Staphylococcus aureus . PLoS One 2016; 11:e0168305 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journal/jmm/10.1099/jmm.0.001122
Loading
In vitro activities of telithromycin against Staphylococcus aureus biofilms compared with azithromycin, clindamycin, vancomycin and daptomycin
J. Med. Microbiol. 69, 120 (2020); https://doi.org/10.1099/jmm.0.001122
/content/journal/jmm/10.1099/jmm.0.001122
/content/journal/jmm/10.1099/jmm.0.001122
Loading

Data & Media loading...

Supplements

Supplementary material 1

PDF

Most cited Most Cited RSS feed

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error