Emergence of phenotypic resistance to ciprofloxacin and levofloxacin in methicillin-resistant and methicillin-sensitive Staphylococcus aureus strains
Celal Bayar Üniversitesi, Saruhan, Manisa, TurkeyInternational Journal of Antimicrobial Agents (Impact Factor: 4.3). 06/2003; 21(5):420-4. DOI: 10.1016/S0924-8579(03)00006-2
The emergence of phenotypic resistance to ciprofloxacin and levofloxacin in methicillin-sensitive and methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) strains was studied. Twenty MRSA and 77 methicillin-sensitive S.aureus (MSSA) strains susceptible to both quinolones were investigated for resistance after single step or serial passages. No growth of 20 MRSA strains was observed at 4xMIC of levofloxacin after 48 h incubation, but 4 of 77 (5%) MSSA strains grew at the same concentration. At 4xMIC concentration of ciprofloxacin, 10 MSSA (13%) and five MRSA (25%) strains were grown. In the serial passages of MRSA strains, resistance to ciprofloxacin was 75 and 5% for levofloxacin by the third passage. In the seventh passage this resistance was 100 and 15%, respectively. In MSSA strains, resistance to ciprofloxacin was 75 and 19% to levofloxacin at the third passage and at the seventh passage, 100 and 61%, respectively. Emergence of ciprofloxacin resistance was more common and developed more rapidly than resistance to levofloxacin in both MRSA and MSSA strains.
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
- "Among the labeled antibiotics ciprofloxacin was the most successful specific bacterial localization agent which showed sensitivity of 85.4% and specificity of 81.7% . However, emerging antibiotic resistance against antibiotics is also associated with ciprofloxacin . False uptake of 99mTc-ciprofloxacin in sterile inflammation is also a big disadvantage . "
ABSTRACT: Nuclear medicine imaging techniques offer whole body imaging for localization of number and site of infective foci inspite of limitation of spatial resolution. The innate human immune system contains a large member of important elements including antimicrobial peptides to combat any form of infection. However, development of antibiotics against bacteria progressed rapidly and gained popularity over antimicrobial peptides but even powerful antimicrobials failed to reduce morbidity and mortality due to emergence of mutant strains of bacteria resulting in antimicrobial resistance. Differentiation between infection and inflammation using radiolabeled compounds with nuclear medicine techniques has always been a dilemma which is still to be resolved. Starting from nonspecific tracers to specific radiolabeled tracers, the question is still unanswered. Specific radiolabeled tracers included antibiotics and antimicrobial peptides which bind directly to the bacteria for efficient localization with advanced nuclear medicine equipments. However, there are merits and demerits attributed to each. In the current paper, radiolabeled antibiotics and radiolabeled peptides for infection localization have been discussed starting with the background of primitive nonspecific tracers. Radiolabeled antimicrobial peptides have certain merits compared with labeled antibiotics which make them superior agents for localization of infective focus.International Journal of Peptides 05/2012; 2012(8):965238. DOI:10.1155/2012/965238
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: 99mTc-Labeled antimicrobial peptide ubiquicidin, (99m)Tc-UBI (29-41) in a freeze-dried kit, was evaluated as a bacterial infection-seeking agent in Staphlococcus aureus- and Escherichia coli-induced infections. Thirty-three rabbits were classified in 3 groups. Biodistribution of (99m)Tc-UBI (29-41) was studied in 3 animals (group I). Uptake of peptide was determined by counting radioactivity in anatomically fitted regions drawn over the liver, kidneys, urinary bladder, and whole body and expressed as the percentage uptake per organ. Experimental thigh muscle infection was induced by injecting 2 x 10(8) colony-forming units of live S. aureus or E. coli bacteria into the right thigh muscle in 20 rabbits (group II). Turpentine oil and formalin-killed S. aureus were used for inducing sterile thigh muscle inflammation in 10 rabbits (group III). On scintigrams, anatomically adjusted regions of interest were drawn over infected/inflamed (target) and noninfected/noninflamed (nontarget) thigh, and accumulation of (99m)Tc-UBI (29-41) at sites of infection/inflammation was expressed as a target-to-nontarget (T/NT) ratio. A biodistribution study of (99m)Tc-UBI (29-41) revealed rapid removal of tracer from the circulation via the kidneys (10.6% +/- 2.1% at 5 min and 5.9% +/- 0.8% at 60 min) with accumulation of the major part in the urinary bladder within the first hour after injection (66.6% +/- 7.2%). A significantly higher (P < 0.05) accumulation of (99m)Tc-UBI (29-41) was seen at sites of S. aureus-infected animals (T/NT ratio, 2.2 +/- 0.5) compared with that of E. coli-infected animals (T/NT ratio, 1.7 +/- 0.4). The maximum tracer accumulation was observed at 60 min after injection followed by a gradual decline. No significant accumulation was noticed in thighs of rabbits injected with either turpentine oil or killed S. aureus with markedly lower T/NT ratios (P < 0.05) compared with that of S. aureus- and E. coli-infected thighs. A (99m)Tc-UBI (29-41) freeze-dried kit can be used for differentiating infections with S. aureus and E. coli with significantly higher scintigraphic intensity (P < 0.05) compared with that of sterile inflammatory sites. The optimum time for infection imaging is 60 min after injection. Relatively low (T/NT) ratios were observed in E. coli infections compared with those of the S. aureus group, which may be due to a low virulence of the former; however, other possible reasons may include low affinity of this peptide for E. coli microbial membranes.Journal of Nuclear Medicine 06/2004; 45(5):849-56. · 6.16 Impact Factor
Data provided are for informational purposes only. Although carefully collected, accuracy cannot be guaranteed. The impact factor represents a rough estimation of the journal's impact factor and does not reflect the actual current impact factor. Publisher conditions are provided by RoMEO. Differing provisions from the publisher's actual policy or licence agreement may be applicable.