Skip to content
1887

Abstract

Antibiotic resistance is a major threat to public health, particularly with methicillin-resistant (MRSA) being a leading cause of antimicrobial resistance. To combat this problem, drug repurposing offers a promising solution for the discovery of new antibacterial agents.

Menadione exhibits antibacterial activity against methicillin-sensitive and methicillin-resistant strains, both alone and in combination with oxacillin. Its primary mechanism of action involves inducing oxidative stress.

Sensitivity assays were performed using broth microdilution. The interaction between menadione, oxacillin, and antioxidants was assessed using checkerboard technique. Mechanism of action was evaluated using flow cytometry, fluorescence microscopy, and analysis.

The aim of this study was to evaluate the antibacterial potential of menadione against planktonic and biofilm forms of methicillin-sensitive and resistant strains. It also examined its role as a modulator of oxacillin activity and investigated the mechanism of action involved in its activity.

Menadione showed antibacterial activity against planktonic cells at concentrations ranging from 2 to 32 µg ml, with bacteriostatic action. When combined with oxacillin, it exhibited an additive and synergistic effect against the tested strains. Menadione also demonstrated antibiofilm activity at subinhibitory concentrations and effectively combated biofilms with reduced sensitivity to oxacillin alone. Its mechanism of action involves the production of reactive oxygen species (ROS) and DNA damage. It also showed interactions with important targets, such as DNA gyrase and dehydroesqualene synthase. The presence of ascorbic acid reversed its effects.

Menadione exhibited antibacterial and antibiofilm activity against MRSA strains, suggesting its potential as an adjunct in the treatment of infections. The main mechanism of action involves the production of ROS, which subsequently leads to DNA damage. Additionally, the activity of menadione can be complemented by its interaction with important virulence targets.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journal/jmm/10.1099/jmm.0.001751
2023-09-14
2025-02-06
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Marston HD, Dixon DM, Knisely JM, Palmore TN, Fauci AS. Antimicrobial resistance. JAMA 2016; 316:1193–1204 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Hutchings MI, Truman AW, Wilkinson B. Antibiotics: past, present and future. Curr Opin Microbiol 2019; 51:72–80 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Durand GA, Raoult D, Dubourg G. Antibiotic discovery: history, methods and perspectives. Int J Antimicrob Agents 2019; 53:371–382 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Yılmaz Ç, Özcengiz G. Antibiotics: pharmacokinetics, toxicity, resistance and multidrug efflux pumps. Biochem Pharmacol 2017; 133:43–62 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Tenover FC. Mechanisms of antimicrobial resistance in bacteria. Am J Med 2006; 119:S3–S10 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Hassoun A, Linden PK, Friedman B. Incidence, prevalence, and management of MRSA bacteremia across patient populations-a review of recent developments in MRSA management and treatment. Crit Care 2017; 21:211 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Pushpakom S, Iorio F, Eyers PA, Escott KJ, Hopper S et al. Drug repurposing: progress, challenges and recommendations. Nat Rev Drug Discov 2019; 18:41–58 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Andersson DI, Hughes D. Antibiotic resistance and its cost: is it possible to reverse resistance?. Nat Rev Microbiol 2010; 8:260–271 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Lowy FD. Antimicrobial resistance: the example of Staphylococcus aureus. J Clin Invest 2003; 111:1265–1273 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Pereira-Franchi EPL, Barreira MRN, Costa N de S da, Fortaleza C, Cunha M de L de S da. Prevalence of and risk factors associated with the presence of Staphylococcus aureus in the chronic wounds of patients treated in primary health care settings in Brazil. Rev Soc Bras Med Trop 2017; 50:833–838 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Otto M. MRSA virulence and spread. Cell Microbiol 2012; 14:1513–1521 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Harkins CP, Pichon B, Doumith M, Parkhill J, Westh H et al. Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus emerged long before the introduction of methicillin into clinical practice. Genome Biol 2017; 18:1–11 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  13. WHO Prioritization of pathogens to guide discovery, research and development of new antibiotics for drug-resistant bacterial infections, including tuberculosis 2017 https://www.who.int/medicines/areas/rational_use/PPLreport_2017_09_19.pdf?ua=1 accessed 3 March 2023
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Sun W, Sanderson PE, Zheng W. Drug combination therapy increases successful drug repositioning. Drug Discov Today 2016; 21:1189–1195 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  15. do Av Sá LG, da Silva CR, S Campos R de, de A Neto JB, Sampaio LS et al. Synergistic anticandidal activity of etomidate and azoles against clinical fluconazole-resistant isolates. Future Microbiol 2019; 14:1477–1488 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Farha MA, Brown ED. Drug repurposing for antimicrobial discovery. Nat Microbiol 2019; 4:565–577 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Sánchez-Calvo JM, Barbero GR, Guerrero-Vásquez G, Durán AG, Macías M et al. Synthesis, antibacterial and antifungal activities of naphthoquinone derivatives: a structure–activity relationship study. Med Chem Res 2016; 25:1274–1285 [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Dey D, Ray R, Hazra B. Antitubercular and antibacterial activity of quinonoid natural products against multi-drug resistant clinical isolates. Phytother Res 2014; 28:1014–1021 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Tandon VK, Yadav DB, Singh RV, Vaish M, Chaturvedi AK et al. Synthesis and biological evaluation of novel 1,4-naphthoquinone derivatives as antibacterial and antiviral agents. Bioorg Med Chem Lett 2005; 15:3463–3466 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Mone N, Bhagwat S, Sharma D, Chaskar M, Patil R et al. Naphthoquinones and their derivatives: emerging trends in combating microbial pathogens. Coatings 2021; 11:434 [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Ganjun Y, Xiaoyi Z, Peibo L, Qinghua Z, Jincheng C. New activity for old drug: In vitro activities of vitamin K3 and menadione sodium bisulfite against methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. Afr J Pharm Pharmacol 2014; 8:451–454 [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Mone NS, Kamble EE, Pardesi KR, Satpute SK. Antibacterial and antibiofilm potency of menadione against multidrug-resistant S. aureus. Curr Microbiol 2022; 79:1–14 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Kaźmierczak-Barańska J, Karwowski BT. Vitamin K contribution to DNA damage-advantage or disadvantage? a human health response. Nutrients 2022; 14:4219 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Negri LB, Mannaa Y, Korupolu S, Farinelli WA, Anderson RR et al. Vitamin K3 (Menadione) is a multifunctional microbicide acting as a photosensitizer and synergizing with blue light to kill drug-resistant bacteria in biofilms. J Photochem Photobiol B Biol 2023; 244:112720 [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Benzer F, Kandemir FM, Kucukler S, Comaklı S, Caglayan C. Chemoprotective effects of curcumin on doxorubicin-induced nephrotoxicity in wistar rats: by modulating inflammatory cytokines, apoptosis, oxidative stress and oxidative DNA damage. Arch Physiol Biochem 2018; 124:448–457 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Souliotis VL, Vlachogiannis NI, Pappa M, Argyriou A, Ntouros PA et al. DNA damage response and oxidative stress in systemic autoimmunity. Int J Mol Sci 2020; 21:1–24 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Andrade JC, Morais Braga MFB, Guedes GMM, Tintino SR, Freitas MA et al. Menadione (vitamin K) enhances the antibiotic activity of drugs by cell membrane permeabilization mechanism. Saudi J Biol Sci 2017; 24:59–64 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Tintino SR, Oliveira-Tintino CDM, Campina FF, Weslley Limaverde P, Pereira PS et al. Vitamin K enhances the effect of antibiotics inhibiting the efflux pumps of Staphylococcus aureus strains. Med Chem Res 2018; 27:261–267 [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Song R, Yu B, Friedrich D, Li J, Shen H et al. Naphthoquinone-derivative as a synthetic compound to overcome the antibiotic resistance of methicillin-resistant S. aureus. Commun Biol 2020; 3:529 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  30. CLSI Methods for dilution antimicrobial susceptibility tests for bacteria that grow aerobically; approved standard. In CLSI Document M07-A10 2015 pp 1–110
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Performance Standards for Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing. Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute 2021; 8:1–352
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Parvekar P, Palaskar J, Metgud S, Maria R, Dutta S. The minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) and minimum bactericidal concentration (MBC) of silver nanoparticles against Staphylococcus aureus. Biomater Investig Dent 2020; 7:105–109 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Das B, Mandal D, Dash SK, Chattopadhyay S, Tripathy S et al. Eugenol provokes ROS-mediated membrane damage-associated antibacterial activity against clinically isolated multidrug-resistant Staphylococcus aureus strains. Infect Dis 2016; 9:11–19 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Chan BCL, Ip M, Lau CBS, Lui SL, Jolivalt C et al. Synergistic effects of baicalein with ciprofloxacin against NorA over-expressed methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) and inhibition of MRSA pyruvate kinase. J Ethnopharmacol 2011; 137:767–773 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Jorge P, Grzywacz D, Kamysz W, Lourenço A, Pereira MO. Searching for new strategies against biofilm infections: colistin-AMP combinations against Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Staphylococcus aureus single- and double-species biofilms. PLoS One 2017; 12:e0174654 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Queiroz HA, da Silva CR, de Andrade Neto JB, do Av Sá LG, do Nascimento FB et al. Synergistic activity of diclofenac sodium with oxacillin against planktonic cells and biofilm of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus strains. Future Microbiol 2021; 16:375–387 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Blando F, Russo R, Negro C, De Bellis L, Frassinetti S. Antimicrobial and antibiofilm activity against Staphylococcus aureus of Opuntia ficus-indica (L.) mill. cladode polyphenolic extracts. Antioxidants 2019; 8:117 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Brambilla LZS, Endo EH, Cortez DAG, Dias Filho BP. Anti-biofilm activity against Staphylococcus aureus MRSA and MSSA of neolignans and extract of Piper regnellii. Revista Brasileira de Farmacognosia 2017; 27:112–117 [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
  39. de Andrade Neto JB, da Silva CR, Barroso FD, do Amaral Valente Sá LG, de Sousa Campos R et al. Synergistic effects of ketamine and azole derivatives on Candida spp. resistance to fluconazole. Future Microbiol 2020; 15:177–188 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  40. da Silva CR, de Andrade Neto JB, Sidrim JJC, Angelo MRF, Magalhães HIF et al. Synergistic effects of amiodarone and fluconazole on Candida tropicalis resistant to fluconazole. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2013; 57:1691–1700 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Shi L, Günther S, Hübschmann T, Wick LY, Harms H et al. Limits of propidium iodide as a cell viability indicator for environmental bacteria. Cytometry 2007; 71A:592–598 [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Silva LJ, Silva CR, LG, Barroso FD, Cândido TM et al. Antifungal activity of dexamethasone against fluconazole-resistant Candida albicans and its activity against biofilms. Future Microbiol 2022; 17:607–620 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Batista de Andrade Neto J, Alexandre Josino MA, Rocha da Silva C, de Sousa Campos R, Aires do Nascimento FBS et al. A mechanistic approach to the in-vitro resistance modulating effects of fluoxetine against meticillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus strains. Microb Pathog 2019; 127:335–340 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Neto JBA, da Silva CR, Neta MAS, Campos RS, Siebra JT et al. Antifungal activity of naphthoquinoidal compounds in vitro against fluconazole-resistant strains of different Candida species: a special emphasis on mechanisms of action on Candida tropicalis. PLoS One 2014; 9:e93698 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Miloshev G, Mihaylov I, Anachkova B. Application of the single cell gel electrophoresis on yeast cells. Mutat Res 2002; 513:69–74 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Burlinson B, Tice RR, Speit G, Agurell E, Brendler-Schwaab SY et al. Fourth international workgroup on genotoxicity testing: results of the in vivo comet assay workgroup. Mutat Res 2007; 627:31–35 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Collins AR. The comet assay for DNA damage and repair: principles, applications, and limitations. Appl Biochem Biotechnol - part B. Mol Biotechnol 2004; 26:
    [Google Scholar]
  48. Pinzi L, Rastelli G. Molecular docking: shifting paradigms in drug discovery. Int J Mol Sci 2019; 20:4331 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  49. Csizmadia P. Marvinsketch and marvinview: molecule applets for the world wide web. Int J Mol Sci 2019; 20:
    [Google Scholar]
  50. ChemAxon Marvin A Full Featured Chemical Editor for Making Science Accessible on All Platforms 2019 pp 1–17
    [Google Scholar]
  51. Hanwell MD, Curtis DE, Lonie DC, Vandermeersch T, Zurek E et al. Avogadro: an advanced semantic chemical editor, visualization, and analysis platform. J Cheminform 2012; 4: [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
  52. Heaslet H, Harris M, Fahnoe K, Sarver R, Putz H et al. Structural comparison of chromosomal and exogenous dihydrofolate reductase from Staphylococcus aureus in complex with the potent inhibitor trimethoprim. Proteins 2009; 76:706–717 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  53. Batista de Andrade Neto J, Pessoa de Farias Cabral V, Brito Nogueira LF, Rocha da Silva C, Gurgel do Amaral Valente Sá L et al. Anti-MRSA activity of curcumin in planktonic cells and biofilms and determination of possible action mechanisms. Microbial Pathogenesis 2021; 155:104892 [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
  54. Singh SB, Kaelin DE, Wu J, Miesel L, Tan CM et al. Tricyclic 1,5-naphthyridinone oxabicyclooctane-linked novel bacterial topoisomerase inhibitors as broad-spectrum antibacterial agents-SAR of left-hand-side moiety (Part-2). Bioorg Med Chem Lett 2015; 25:1831–1835 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  55. Bax BD, Chan PF, Eggleston DS, Fosberry A, Gentry DR et al. Type IIA topoisomerase inhibition by a new class of antibacterial agents. Nature 2010; 466:935–940 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  56. Liu C-I, Liu GY, Song Y, Yin F, Hensler ME et al. A cholesterol biosynthesis inhibitor blocks Staphylococcus aureus virulence. Science 2008; 319:1391–1394 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  57. Gao P, Davies J, Kao RYT. Dehydrosqualene desaturase as a novel target for anti-virulence therapy against Staphylococcus aureus. mBio 2017; 8:e01224-17 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  58. Pelz A, Wieland K-P, Putzbach K, Hentschel P, Albert K et al. Structure and biosynthesis of staphyloxanthin from Staphylococcus aureus. J Biol Chem 2005; 280:32493–32498 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  59. Fujita J, Maeda Y, Nagao C, Tsuchiya Y, Miyazaki Y et al. Crystal structure of FtsA from Staphylococcus aureus. FEBS Lett 2014; 588:1879–1885 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  60. Caballero AR, Foletti DL, Bierdeman MA, Tang A, Arana AM et al. Effectiveness of alpha-toxin fab monoclonal antibody therapy in limiting the pathology of Staphylococcus aureus keratitis. Ocul Immunol Inflamm 2015; 23:297–303 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  61. Foletti D, Strop P, Shaughnessy L, Hasa-Moreno A, Casas MG et al. Mechanism of action and in vivo efficacy of a human-derived antibody against Staphylococcus aureus α-hemolysin. J Mol Biol 2013; 425:1641–1654 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  62. Otero LH, Rojas-Altuve A, Llarrull LI, Carrasco-López C, Kumarasiri M et al. How allosteric control of Staphylococcus aureus penicillin binding protein 2a enables methicillin resistance and physiological function. Proc Natl Acad Sci 2013; 110:16808–16813 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  63. Yan J, Zhang G, Pan J, Wang Y. α-Glucosidase inhibition by luteolin: kinetics, interaction and molecular docking. Int J Biol Macromol 2014; 64:213–223 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  64. Huey R, Morris GM, Forli S. Using autodock 4 and autodock vina with autodocktools: a tutorial. Scripps Res Inst Mol 2012; 32:
    [Google Scholar]
  65. Trott O, Olson AJ. AutoDock vina: improving the speed and accuracy of docking with a new scoring function, efficient optimization, and multithreading. J Comput Chem 2010; 31:455–461 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  66. Dassault Systèmes BIOVIA. Discovery Studio Modeling Environment, Release 2017 San Diego: Dassault Systèmes; 2016
    [Google Scholar]
  67. Delano WL. The PyMOL molecular graphics system, version 2.3. In Schrödinger LLC
    [Google Scholar]
  68. Pettersen EF, Goddard TD, Huang CC, Couch GS, Greenblatt DM et al. UCSF Chimera--A visualization system for exploratory research and analysis. J Comput Chem 2004; 25:1605–1612 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  69. Yusuf D, Davis AM, Kleywegt GJ, Schmitt S. An alternative method for the evaluation of docking performance: RSR vs RMSD. J Chem Inf Model 2008; 48:1411–1422 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  70. Shityakov S, Förster C. In silico predictive model to determine vector-mediated transport properties for the blood-brain barrier choline transporter. Adv Appl Bioinform Chem 2014; 7:23–36 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  71. Schlievert PM, Merriman JA, Salgado-Pabón W, Mueller EA, Spaulding AR et al. Menaquinone analogs inhibit growth of bacterial pathogens. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2013; 57:5432–5437 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  72. Rondevaldova J, Novy P, Kokoska L. In vitro combinatory antimicrobial effect of plumbagin with oxacillin and tetracycline against Staphylococcus aureus. Phytother Res 2015; 29:144–147 [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
  73. Yap JKY, Tan SYY, Tang SQ, Thien VK, Chan EWL. Synergistic antibacterial activity between 1,4-naphthoquinone and β-lactam antibiotics against methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. Microb Drug Resist 2021; 27:234–240 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  74. Schieber A. Reactions of quinones-mechanisms, structures, and prospects for food research. J Agric Food Chem 2018; 66:13051–13055 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  75. Cong Y, Yang S, Rao X. Vancomycin resistant Staphylococcus aureus infections: a review of case updating and clinical features. J Adv Res 2020; 21:169–176 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  76. Gajdács M. The continuing threat of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. Antibiotics 2019; 8:52 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  77. Götz F. Staphylococcus and biofilms. Mol Microbiol 2002; 43:1367–1378 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  78. O’Toole G, Kaplan HB, Kolter R. Biofilm formation as microbial development. Annu Rev Microbiol 2000; 54:49–79 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  79. Cáp M, Váchová L, Palková Z. Reactive oxygen species in the signaling and adaptation of multicellular microbial communities. Oxid Med Cell Longev 2012; 2012:976753 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  80. Memar MY, Ghotaslou R, Samiei M, Adibkia K. Antimicrobial use of reactive oxygen therapy: current insights. Infect Drug Resist 2018; 11:567–576 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  81. Bolton JL, Trush MA, Penning TM, Dryhurst G, Monks TJ. Role of quinones in toxicology. Chem Res Toxicol 2000; 13:135–160 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  82. Juan CA, Pérez de la Lastra JM, Plou FJ, Pérez-Lebeña E. The chemistry of reactive oxygen species (ros) revisited: outlining their role in biological macromolecules (dna, lipids and proteins) and induced pathologies. Int J Mol Sci 2021; 22:4642 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  83. Ravichandiran P, Masłyk M, Sheet S, Janeczko M, Premnath D et al. Synthesis and antimicrobial evaluation of 1,4-naphthoquinone derivatives as potential antibacterial agents. ChemistryOpen 2019; 8:589–600 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  84. Wang J, Cheng Y, Wu R, Jiang D, Bai B et al. Antibacterial activity of juglone against Staphylococcus aureus: from apparent to proteomic. Int J Mol Sci 2016; 17:965 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  85. Linzner N, Fritsch VN, Busche T, Tung QN, Loi VV et al. The plant-derived naphthoquinone lapachol causes an oxidative stress response in Staphylococcus aureus. Free Radic Biol Med 2020; 158:126–136 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  86. Paul P, Chakraborty P, Chatterjee A, Sarker RK, Dastidar DG et al. 1,4-Naphthoquinone accumulates reactive oxygen species in Staphylococcus aureus: a promising approach towards effective management of biofilm threat. Arch Microbiol 2021; 203:1183–1193 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  87. Ribeiro LMBC, Fumagalli F, Mello RB, Froes TQ, da Silva MVS et al. Structure-activity relationships and mechanism of action of tetragomycin derivatives as inhibitors of Staphylococcus aureus staphyloxanthin biosynthesis. Microb Pathog 2020; 144:104127 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  88. Elmesseri RA, Saleh SE, Elsherif HM, Yahia IS, Aboshanab KM. Staphyloxanthin as a potential novel target for deciphering promising anti-Staphylococcus aureus agents. Antibiotics 2022; 11:298 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  89. Nutter LM, Ngo E, Fisher GR, Gutierrez PL. DNA strand scission and free radical production in menadione- treated cells. J Biol Chem 1992; 267:2474–2479
    [Google Scholar]
  90. Dwyer DJ, Camacho DM, Kohanski MA, Callura JM, Collins JJ. Antibiotic-induced bacterial cell death exhibits physiological and biochemical hallmarks of apoptosis. Mol Cell 2012; 46:561–572 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  91. Reece RJ, Maxwell A. DNA gyrase: structure and function. Crit Rev Biochem Mol Biol 1991; 26:335–375 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  92. Karkare S, Chung TTH, Collin F, Mitchenall LA, McKay AR et al. The naphthoquinone diospyrin is an inhibitor of DNA gyrase with a novel mechanism of action. J Biol Chem 2013; 288:5149–5156 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  93. Chiou TJ, Tzeng WF. The roles of glutathione and antioxidant enzymes in menadione-induced oxidative stress. Toxicology 2000; 154:75–84 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  94. Criddle DN, Gillies S, Baumgartner-Wilson HK, Jaffar M, Chinje EC et al. Menadione-induced reactive oxygen species generation via redox cycling promotes apoptosis of murine pancreatic acinar cells. J Biol Chem 2006; 281:40485–40492 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  95. Samuni Y, Goldstein S, Dean OM, Berk M. The chemistry and biological activities of N-acetylcysteine. Biochim Biophys Acta 2013; 1830:4117–4129 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  96. Arrigoni O, De Tullio MC. Ascorbic acid: much more than just an antioxidant. Biochim Biophys Acta 2002; 1569:1–9 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  97. Fahey RC, Brown WC, Adams WB, Worsham MB. Occurrence of glutathione in bacteria. J Bacteriol 1978; 133:1126–1129 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  98. Smirnova GV, Oktyabrsky ON. Glutathione in bacteria. Biochemistry 2005; 70:1199–1211 [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
  99. Masip L, Veeravalli K, Georgiou G. The many faces of glutathione in bacteria. Antioxid Redox Signal 2006; 8:753–762 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  100. Yap CH, Lim SK, Chan YL, Chee CF, Tay ST. Potential application of menadione for antimicrobial coating of surgical sutures. Biotechnol Notes 2023; 4:20–27 [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
  101. Adusei EBA, Adosraku RK, Oppong-Kyekyeku J, Amengor CDK, Jibira Y. Resistance modulation action, time-kill kinetics assay, and inhibition of biofilm formation effects of plumbagin from Plumbago zeylanica linn. J Trop Med 2019; 2019:1250645 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  102. Riffel A, Medina LF, Stefani V, Santos RC, Bizani D et al. In vitro antimicrobial activity of a new series of 1,4-naphthoquinones. Braz J Med Biol Res 2002; 35:811–818 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  103. Imlay JA. The molecular mechanisms and physiological consequences of oxidative stress: lessons from a model bacterium. Nat Rev Microbiol 2013; 11:443–454 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
/content/journal/jmm/10.1099/jmm.0.001751
Loading
/content/journal/jmm/10.1099/jmm.0.001751
Loading

Data & Media loading...

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