Cargando…

Comparison of Staphylococcus aureus tolerance between antimicrobial blue light, levofloxacin, and rifampin

BACKGROUND: Bacterial biofilms readily develop on all medical implants, including percutaneous osseointegrated (OI) implants. With the growing rate of antibiotic resistance, exploring alternative options for managing biofilm-related infections is necessary. Antimicrobial blue light (aBL) is a unique...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Ong, Jemi, Godfrey, Rose, Nazarian, Alexa, Tam, Joshua, Isaacson, Brad M., Pasquina, Paul F., Williams, Dustin L.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Frontiers Media S.A. 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10248220/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37303789
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2023.1158558
_version_ 1785055325564436480
author Ong, Jemi
Godfrey, Rose
Nazarian, Alexa
Tam, Joshua
Isaacson, Brad M.
Pasquina, Paul F.
Williams, Dustin L.
author_facet Ong, Jemi
Godfrey, Rose
Nazarian, Alexa
Tam, Joshua
Isaacson, Brad M.
Pasquina, Paul F.
Williams, Dustin L.
author_sort Ong, Jemi
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Bacterial biofilms readily develop on all medical implants, including percutaneous osseointegrated (OI) implants. With the growing rate of antibiotic resistance, exploring alternative options for managing biofilm-related infections is necessary. Antimicrobial blue light (aBL) is a unique therapy that can potentially manage biofilm-related infections at the skin-implant interface of OI implants. Antibiotics are known to have antimicrobial efficacy disparities between the planktonic and biofilm bacterial phenotypes, but it is unknown if this characteristic also pertains to aBL. In response, we developed experiments to explore this aspect of aBL therapy. METHODS: We determined minimum bactericidal concentrations (MBCs) and antibiofilm efficacies for aBL, levofloxacin, and rifampin against Staphylococcus aureus ATCC 6538 planktonic and biofilm bacteria. Using student t-tests (p < 0.05), we compared the efficacy profiles between the planktonic and biofilm states for the three independent treatments and a levofloxacin + rifampin combination. Additionally, we compared antimicrobial efficacy patterns for levofloxacin and aBL against biofilms as dosages increased. RESULTS: aBL had the most significant efficacy disparity between the planktonic and biofilm phenotypes (a 2.5 log(10) unit difference). However, further testing against biofilms revealed that aBL had a positive correlation between increasing efficacy and exposure time, while levofloxacin encountered a plateau. While aBL efficacy was affected the most by the biofilm phenotype, its antimicrobial efficacy did not reach a maximum. DISCUSSION/CONCLUSION: We determined that phenotype is an important characteristic to consider when determining aBL parameters for treating OI implant infections. Future research would benefit from expanding these findings against clinical S. aureus isolates and other bacterial strains, as well as the safety of long aBL exposures on human cells.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10248220
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher Frontiers Media S.A.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-102482202023-06-09 Comparison of Staphylococcus aureus tolerance between antimicrobial blue light, levofloxacin, and rifampin Ong, Jemi Godfrey, Rose Nazarian, Alexa Tam, Joshua Isaacson, Brad M. Pasquina, Paul F. Williams, Dustin L. Front Microbiol Microbiology BACKGROUND: Bacterial biofilms readily develop on all medical implants, including percutaneous osseointegrated (OI) implants. With the growing rate of antibiotic resistance, exploring alternative options for managing biofilm-related infections is necessary. Antimicrobial blue light (aBL) is a unique therapy that can potentially manage biofilm-related infections at the skin-implant interface of OI implants. Antibiotics are known to have antimicrobial efficacy disparities between the planktonic and biofilm bacterial phenotypes, but it is unknown if this characteristic also pertains to aBL. In response, we developed experiments to explore this aspect of aBL therapy. METHODS: We determined minimum bactericidal concentrations (MBCs) and antibiofilm efficacies for aBL, levofloxacin, and rifampin against Staphylococcus aureus ATCC 6538 planktonic and biofilm bacteria. Using student t-tests (p < 0.05), we compared the efficacy profiles between the planktonic and biofilm states for the three independent treatments and a levofloxacin + rifampin combination. Additionally, we compared antimicrobial efficacy patterns for levofloxacin and aBL against biofilms as dosages increased. RESULTS: aBL had the most significant efficacy disparity between the planktonic and biofilm phenotypes (a 2.5 log(10) unit difference). However, further testing against biofilms revealed that aBL had a positive correlation between increasing efficacy and exposure time, while levofloxacin encountered a plateau. While aBL efficacy was affected the most by the biofilm phenotype, its antimicrobial efficacy did not reach a maximum. DISCUSSION/CONCLUSION: We determined that phenotype is an important characteristic to consider when determining aBL parameters for treating OI implant infections. Future research would benefit from expanding these findings against clinical S. aureus isolates and other bacterial strains, as well as the safety of long aBL exposures on human cells. Frontiers Media S.A. 2023-05-25 /pmc/articles/PMC10248220/ /pubmed/37303789 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2023.1158558 Text en Copyright © 2023 Ong, Godfrey, Nazarian, Tam, Isaacson, Pasquina and Williams. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
spellingShingle Microbiology
Ong, Jemi
Godfrey, Rose
Nazarian, Alexa
Tam, Joshua
Isaacson, Brad M.
Pasquina, Paul F.
Williams, Dustin L.
Comparison of Staphylococcus aureus tolerance between antimicrobial blue light, levofloxacin, and rifampin
title Comparison of Staphylococcus aureus tolerance between antimicrobial blue light, levofloxacin, and rifampin
title_full Comparison of Staphylococcus aureus tolerance between antimicrobial blue light, levofloxacin, and rifampin
title_fullStr Comparison of Staphylococcus aureus tolerance between antimicrobial blue light, levofloxacin, and rifampin
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of Staphylococcus aureus tolerance between antimicrobial blue light, levofloxacin, and rifampin
title_short Comparison of Staphylococcus aureus tolerance between antimicrobial blue light, levofloxacin, and rifampin
title_sort comparison of staphylococcus aureus tolerance between antimicrobial blue light, levofloxacin, and rifampin
topic Microbiology
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10248220/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37303789
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2023.1158558
work_keys_str_mv AT ongjemi comparisonofstaphylococcusaureustolerancebetweenantimicrobialbluelightlevofloxacinandrifampin
AT godfreyrose comparisonofstaphylococcusaureustolerancebetweenantimicrobialbluelightlevofloxacinandrifampin
AT nazarianalexa comparisonofstaphylococcusaureustolerancebetweenantimicrobialbluelightlevofloxacinandrifampin
AT tamjoshua comparisonofstaphylococcusaureustolerancebetweenantimicrobialbluelightlevofloxacinandrifampin
AT isaacsonbradm comparisonofstaphylococcusaureustolerancebetweenantimicrobialbluelightlevofloxacinandrifampin
AT pasquinapaulf comparisonofstaphylococcusaureustolerancebetweenantimicrobialbluelightlevofloxacinandrifampin
AT williamsdustinl comparisonofstaphylococcusaureustolerancebetweenantimicrobialbluelightlevofloxacinandrifampin