Skip to main content
Journal of Central South University Medical Sciences logoLink to Journal of Central South University Medical Sciences
. 2023 Jun 28;48(6):868–876. [Article in Chinese] doi: 10.11817/j.issn.1672-7347.2023.220644

西咪匹韦对表皮葡萄球菌及其生物膜的体外抑制作用

Inhibitory effects of simeprevir on Staphylococcus epidermidis and itsbiofilm in vitro

LI Yingjia 1,2, CAI Chaoni 1,2, LIU Zixin 1,3, TANG Xichang 1, QU Lin 1, WU Yuan 1, WU Pingyun 1, DUAN Yao 1, SHE Pengfei 1,
Editor: 田 朴
PMCID: PMC10930433  PMID: 37587072

Abstract

Objective

Staphylococcus epidermidis (S. epidermidis) is a Gram-positive opportunistic pathogen that often causes hospital infections. With the abuse of antibiotics, the resistance of S. epidermidis gradually increases, and drug repurposing has become a research hotspot in the treating of refractory drug-resistant bacterial infections. This study aims to study the antimicrobial and antibiofilm effects of simeprevir, an antiviral hepatitis drug, on S. epidermidis in vitro.

Methods

The micro-dilution assay was used to determine the minimal inhibitory concentration (MIC) and minimal bactericidal concentration (MBC) of simeprevir against S. epidermidis. Crystal violet staining assay was used to detect the biofilm inhibitory effect of simeprevir. The antimicrobial activity of simeprevir against S. epidermidis and its biofilm were explored by SYTO9/PI fluorescent staining. The combined effect between simeprevir and gentamycin was assessed by checkerboard assay and was confirmed by time-inhibition assay.

Results

Simeprevir showed significant antimicrobial effects against S. epidermidis type strains and clinical isolates with the MIC and MBC at 2-16 μg/mL and 4-32 μg/mL, respectively. The antimicrobial effects of simeprevir were confirmed by SYTO9/PI staining. Simeprevir at MIC could significantly inhibit and break the biofilm on cover slides. Similarly, simeprevir also significantly inhibit the biofilm formation on the surface of urine catheters either in TSB [from (0.700±0.020) to (0.050±0.004)] (t=54.03, P<0.001), or horse serum [from (1.00±0.02) to (0.13±0.01)] (t=82.78, P<0.001). Synergistic antimicrobial effect was found between simeprevir and gentamycin against S. epidermidis with the fractional inhibitory concentration index of 0.5.

Conclusion

Simeprevir shows antimicrobial effect and anti-biofilm activities against S. epidermidis.

Keywords: simeprevir, Staphylococcus epidermidis, biofilm, drug repurposing, synergistic effect


表皮葡萄球菌是一种革兰氏阳性条件致病菌,可黏附在生物体的皮肤和/或黏膜表面而与宿主共存[1]。在医院内,表皮葡萄球菌还能黏附于各种医疗器械表面,随着气管插管、导尿管、人工关节和人工心瓣膜等侵入性操作的广泛使用,表皮葡萄球菌引起的院内感染屡见不鲜[2-3]。因此,表皮葡萄球菌是院内感染的重要来源之一,其致死率已经逐渐接近金黄色葡萄球菌[2]。近年来,随着抗生素的不合理使用,表皮葡萄球菌的耐药性逐渐增高,耐甲氧西林表皮葡萄球菌也随之在全球范围内呈现上升趋势[4]

与金黄色葡萄球菌不同,表皮葡萄球菌在大多数情况下不能分泌毒素,其最主要的致病因素是生物膜[5]。生物膜也称之为生物被膜,是由细菌附着在物体表面,通过自身分泌的多糖基质和纤维蛋白等相互聚集包裹而形成的具有三维结构的膜样物质。生物膜能够显著增强细菌对外界不良条件和抗生素的抵抗能力,是表皮葡萄球菌的主要致病因子,也是其导致慢性持续性院内感染的重要原因之一[6]。表皮葡萄球菌对抗生素的耐药性逐年增高及针对多重耐药菌和生物膜的抗生素研发难度增加,市场上可利用的抗生素严重短缺[6]。因此,药物再利用逐渐成为针对难治性耐药菌感染治疗的研究热点。

西咪匹韦(simeprevir,SIM)是一种美国食品和药品管理局(Food and Drug Administration,FDA)批准证的抗病毒药物,临床上主要用于治疗丙型肝炎病毒引起的感染,其作用机制主要涉及肝炎病毒NS3/4A蛋白酶的抑制作用[7]。本课题组前期研究[8]表明:SIM对金黄色葡萄球菌具有一定的抗菌活性,其在一定程度上能够抑制耐甲氧西林金黄色葡萄球菌的增殖。据笔者所知,目前尚无文献报道其对表皮葡萄球菌及其生物膜形成的抗菌作用。因此,本研究拟通过微量肉汤稀释实验、生物膜抑制实验和棋盘稀释实验等探讨西咪匹韦对表皮葡萄球菌及其生物膜形成的体外抑制作用。

1. 材料与方法

1.1. 菌株来源及培养条件

表皮葡萄球菌生物膜成膜能力阳性标准菌株RP62A和成膜能力阴性标准菌株ATCC 12228由上海交通大学瞿涤教授惠赠。表皮葡萄球菌临床菌株于2018年至2020年分离自中南大学湘雅三医院住院患者痰液标本。所有菌株均接种于甘油磁珠中并于-80 ℃保存,并于羊血琼脂平板上连续传代2次后,挑取单个菌落进行实验。

1.2. 主要仪器和试剂

羊血琼脂平板购自郑州安图生物有限公司;96孔板、6孔板和50 mL离心管均购自美国康宁公司;EXL 800全自动酶标仪购自美国Bio-Tek公司;LSM 800激光共聚焦显微镜购自德国Zeiss公司;全自动麦氏比浊仪购自法国梅里埃公司;SIM和庆大霉素(gentamycin,GEN)均购自美国MCE公司;SYTO9和PI荧光染料购自美国赛默飞公司;结晶紫染液购自上海碧云天生物技术有限公司;Tryptic Soy Broth(TSB)肉汤和Mueller-Hinton(MH)肉汤均购自上海索莱宝生物技术有限公司;马血清购自武汉普诺赛生命科技有限公司。

1.3. 方法

1.3.1. 微量肉汤稀释实验

挑取羊血平板上的单个菌落于无菌生理盐水中,用麦氏比浊仪调为0.5麦氏浊度(McFarland,McF),并用MH肉汤稀释100倍备用。将SIM用MH肉汤倍比稀释(0、2、4、8、16、32、64和128 μg/mL)后,分别加50 μL于96孔板中,再分别加入50 μL备用菌悬液。将96孔板放置于湿盒中,于37 ℃静置孵育16~18 h后,读取最低抑菌浓度(minimal inhibitory concentration,MIC),即肉眼可见能抑制细菌增殖的最低药物浓度。同时,从1×MIC浓度开始至最高测试浓度,每孔吸取10 μL培养液至羊血琼脂平板上,于37 ℃过夜孵育后读取最低杀菌浓度(minimal bactericidal concentration,MBC),即与未加药的对照组相比较,杀灭99.99%活菌的最低药物浓度[9]

1.3.2. SYTO9和PI荧光染色检测SIM的杀菌作用

挑取羊血平板上的单个菌落于TSB肉汤中过夜摇菌培养,并用TSB肉汤1꞉100稀释后向50 mL离心管中各加入5 mL备用。再向菌液中加入5 mL含有SIM(浓度为2×MIC)的TSB肉汤,对照组设置为不含SIM的TSB肉汤。混匀后,放置于恒温摇床上以37 ℃、180 r/min孵育24 h。4 000 g离心10 min后取细菌沉淀,用无菌生理盐水漂洗2次后,加入1 mL含有终浓度为10 μmoL/L的SYTO9和PI染液,于37 ℃避光孵育 15 min后,用无菌生理盐水漂洗3次以去除多余染液。蘸取少量菌液涂布于载玻片上,并于激光共聚焦显微镜观察细菌状态。SYTO9和PI的检测波长分别设置为488 nm/550 nm(激发波长/发射波长)和540 nm/620 nm (激发波长/发射波长)[10]

1.3.3. 结晶紫染色检测SIM的生物膜形成抑制作用

将表皮葡萄球菌生物膜成膜能力阳性标准菌株RP62A用TSB肉汤以37 ℃、180 r/min摇菌培养24 h,并用TSB肉汤1꞉100稀释备用。用新鲜TSB肉汤将SIM倍比稀释至1~64 μg/mL,于96孔板中每孔加入50 μL,再分别加入50 μL的备用菌。将96孔板置于湿盒中,于37 ℃中静置孵育24 h。弃上清液,用无菌生理盐水漂洗3次,每孔加入200 μL 0.25%结晶紫溶液,静置孵育10 min后,弃多余结晶紫,用生理盐水漂洗3次。于酶标仪检测570 nm处的吸光度值,同时拍照记录[11]

1.3.4. 表皮葡萄球菌黏附于导尿管实验

将表皮葡萄球菌置于TSB肉汤中,于37 ℃下以180 r/min培养24 h后,用含有SIM的新鲜TSB肉汤或100%马血清进行1꞉200稀释,使SIM的终浓度为1×MIC,并向6孔板中每孔加入4 mL。将无菌Foley’s硅胶导尿管裁剪至长度1 cm,并放置于6孔板中,使其完全浸入含菌培养基中。再将6孔板置于湿盒中,于37 ℃下静置孵育24 h构建生物膜。用镊子夹取导尿管,用无菌生理盐水漂洗3次以去除未与管壁结合的细菌,并将导尿管放入一新6孔板中。每孔再加入2 mL的0.25%结晶紫溶液,静置孵育10 min后,弃多余结晶紫,用生理盐水漂洗3次。拍照后,每孔加入2 mL 95%乙醇溶液,于室温下孵育20 min后,吸取200 μL于96孔板中,并于酶标仪检测570 nm处的吸光度值[12]

1.3.5. SYTO9和PI荧光染色检测SIM对表皮葡萄球菌生物膜形成的抑制作用

将表皮葡萄球菌置于TSB肉汤中,于37 ℃以180 r/min培养24 h后,用含有SIM的新鲜TSB肉汤或100%马血清进行1꞉200稀释,使SIM的终浓度为1×MIC,并加入2 mL/孔至6孔板中。每孔再加1 cm×1 cm无菌盖玻片,于37 ℃下静置孵育24 h构建生物膜。弃上清液,用无菌生理盐水漂洗3次后,加入500 μL 10 μmoL/L的SYTO9/PI染液,于37 ℃下避光静置孵育10 min后,用生理盐水继续漂洗3次以去除多余染液。随后用激光共聚焦显微镜观察细菌状态。SYTO9和PI的激发波长和发射波长同上[13]

1.3.6. 棋盘稀释实验

用新鲜MH肉汤将SIM进行倍比稀释(1/8×MIC~2×MIC),将96孔板的每竖排添加同一浓度SIM。将表皮葡萄球菌于TSB肉汤中以37 ℃、180 r/min培养至对数生长期,用无菌生理盐水调为0.5麦氏浊度,并用MH肉汤进行1꞉100稀释。再用已稀释好的悬液将GEN进行倍比稀释(1/8×MIC~2×MIC),向96孔板中每横排分别加50 μL,且每横排设置为同一浓度。将该96孔板放置于湿盒中,于37 ℃恒温下培养16~18 h,肉眼观察细菌的生长浊度,记录各药物抑制细菌增殖的最低浓度,记录联用后的MIC,并计算协同抑菌指数(fractional inhibitory concentration index,FICI)=MICA联用/MICA单用+ MICB联用/MICB单用。其中,A和B分别为2种联用的抗菌药物。FICI≤0.5为协同作用,0.5<FICI≤4为无关作用,FICI>4为拮抗作用[14]

1.3.7. 时间-抑菌曲线

挑取表皮葡萄球菌单个菌落于TSB肉汤中,以37 ℃、180 r/min培养4~6 h至对数生长期。用无菌生理盐水调为0.5麦氏浊度,再用新鲜TSB肉汤1꞉200进行稀释,向50 mL大离心管中每管加入10 mL,每管再分别加入SIM和GEN存储液,使其终浓度为 1/4×MIC。将大离心管放置于恒温摇床上,于37 ℃以180 r/min进行摇菌培养,分别在0、0.5、1、2、4、8、12和24 h时间点吸取100 μL细菌悬浊液于96孔板中,并用酶标仪检测630 nm处的吸光度值[15]

1.4. 统计学处理

采用GraphPad 8.0软件进行数据分析。计量资料用均数±标准差( x¯ ±s)表示。两组间比较采用Student’s t检验,多组间比较采用单因素方差分析(analysis of variance,ANOVA),多组间的两两比较采用Dunnett-t检验。P<0.05为差异有统计学意义。

2. 结 果

2.1. SIM对表皮葡萄球菌具有显著的抗菌作用

微量肉汤稀释实验显示:SIM对表皮葡萄球菌标准菌株RP62A和ATCC 12228的MIC和MBC分别为4 μg/mL和8 μg/mL。SIM对表皮葡萄球菌临床菌株的MIC和MBC分别为2~16 μg/mL和4~32 μg/mL(表1)。2 μg/mL的SIM即可显著抑制表皮葡萄球菌的增殖;当其浓度为4 μg/mL时,可完全抑制其增殖(图1A、1C)。与未加药的对照组相比较,8 μg/mL的SIM即可表现出有效的杀菌活性(图1B、1D)。

表1.

表皮葡萄球菌对SIM的敏感性

Table 1 Antimicrobial susceptibility of SIM against S. epidermidis

Strains MIC/(μg·mL-1) MBC/(μg·mL-1)
RP62A 4 8
ATCC 12228 4 8
SE1 16 32
SE2 8 16
SE3 8 8
SE4 8 8
SE5 8 16
SE6 8 16
SE7 2 8
SE8 4 16
SE9 2 4
SE10 2 4
SE11 8 16

Strains of SE 1-11 are from clinical patient. SIM: Simeprevir; MIC: Minimal inhibitory concentration; MBC: Minimal bactericidal concentration.

图1.

图1

SIM对表皮葡萄球菌浮游菌的抗菌活性

Figure 1 Antimicrobial effects of SIM against S. epidermidis planktonic cells

A: Growth inhibition activity of SIM against RP62A; B: Antimicrobial activity of SIM against RP62A; C: Growth inhibition activity of SIM against ATCC 12228; D: Antimicrobial activity of SIM against ATCC 12228. ***P<0.001. SIM: Simeprevir.

SYTO9和PI荧光双染色结果显示:与未加药的对照组相比较,1×MIC处理表皮葡萄球菌RP62A 24 h后,其PI红色荧光(死亡细菌)的比例明显增加(图2)。

图2.

图2

SYTO9PI双荧光染色观察SIM对表皮葡萄球菌RP62A浮游菌的杀菌活性

Figure 2 Determination of antimicrobial activity against S. epidermidis RP62A planktonic cells by SIM via SYTO9 and PI

Bacterial cells were treated with SIM for 24 h at the concentration of 1×MIC. The red and green fluorescence are represented with SYTO9 and PI, respectively. SIM: Simeprevir; Ctrl: Control; MIC: Minimal inhibitory concentration; PI: Propidium iodide.

2.2. SIM具有表皮葡萄球菌生物膜形成抑制作用

表皮葡萄球菌生物膜结合结晶紫染色结果显示:0.5 μg/mL的SIM即可显著抑制RP62A生物膜的形成,并使其生物膜的形成量(570 nm处吸光度值)从1.61±0.09减少到1.05±0.14(t=10.49,P<0.001),且随着SIM的浓度升高,其生物膜抑制作用增强(图3A、3B)。SYTO9和PI荧光染色显示:成膜能力阴性标准菌株ATCC 12228几乎不形成生物膜,未加药处理的成膜能力阳性菌株RP62A相互聚集形成团块状生物膜。而SIM处理组明显降低生物膜的总量,并破坏生物膜的正常结构,使其散在分布(图3C)。荧光定量分析显示:SIM处理后生物膜的活菌占比从90.24%± 2.59%降低到37.21%±5.66%(t=16.23,P<0.001)。

图3.

图3

SIM对表皮葡萄球菌生物膜形成的抑制作用

Figure 3 Biofilm inhibitory effects of SIM against S. epidermidis

A: Quantification of biofilm inhibitory activity of SIM against RP62A; B: Representative image of the biofilm inhibitory effects of SIM against RP62A by crystal violet staining; C: Biofilm inhibitory effects of SIM at the concentration of 1×MIC for 24 h observed by SYTO9 and PI staining. ***P<0.001. Ctrl: Control; SIM: Simeprevir; MIC: Minimal inhibitory concentration; PI: Propidium iodide.

2.3. SIM抑制表皮葡萄球菌黏附于导尿管表面

硅胶导尿管结合结晶紫染色结果显示:无论是在TSB肉汤(图4A)中还是马血清培养基(图4C)中,ATCC 12228几乎不黏附于导尿管表面,而RP62A有较强的黏附能力。1×MIC的SIM可明显抑制RP62A的黏附能力。与之类似,通过检测570 nm处吸光度值,发现1×MIC的SIM可使TSB肉汤中RP62A的黏附量从0.700±0.020减少到0.050±0.004(t=54.03,P<0.001);并可使马血清培养基中的RP62A的黏附量从1.00±0.02减少到0.13±0.01(t=82.78,P<0.001;图4B、4D)。

图4.

图4

SIM抑制表皮葡萄球菌黏附于导尿管表面

Figure 4 Inhibited effect of SIM on the adherence on the surface of catheters by S. epidermidis

A: Adherence inhibitory effects of SIM against S. epidermidis cultured in TSB were observed by crystal violet staining. B: Quantification of the adherent bacterial biomass cultured in TSB. C: Adherence inhibitory effects of SIM against S. epidermidis cultured in horse serum were observed by crystal violet staining. D: Quantification of the adherent bacterial biomass cultured in horse serum. ***P<0.001. SIM: Simeprevir.

2.4. SIMGEN联用具有协同抑菌作用

将SIM与GEN联用,并未发现“无关作用”或“拮抗作用”。SIM与GEN联用对表皮葡萄球菌RP62A具有明显的协同抑菌作用(图5A),其FICI为0.5(图5B)。与之类似,SIM与GEN联用对表皮葡萄球菌ATCC 12228也具有显著的协同抗菌作用(图5C),其FICI亦为0.5(图5D)。

图5.

图5

棋盘稀释法检测SIMGEN联用抗表皮葡萄球菌效果

Figure 5 Drug combination activity between SIM and GEN determined by checkerboard assay

A: Combinational antimicrobial effects between SIM and GEN against RP62A detected by checkerboard assay; B: Quantification of the checkerboard assay of RP62A; C: Combinational antimicrobial effects between SIM and GEN against ATCC 12228 detected by checkerboard assay; D: Quantification of the checkerboard assay of ATCC 12228. The red and white squares indicate bacterial turbidity and clear medium respectively by naked eyes. GEN: Gentamycin; SIM: Simeprevir; FICI: Fractional inhibitory concentration index; MIC: Minimal inhibitory concentration.

时间-抑菌曲线进一步验证了SIM与GEN的协同抗菌作用(图6)。亚抑菌浓度的SIM(1/4×MIC)或GEN(1/4×MIC)对RP62A的增殖几乎无或仅有轻度的抑制。而两药联用完全抑制RP62A的增殖(图6A、6B)。与之类似,1/4×MIC浓度的SIM或GEN对ATCC 12228仅具有轻中度的增殖抑制作用,而两药联用可完全抑制细菌增殖(图6C、6D)。

图6.

图6

时间-抑菌曲线检测SIMGEN的联用效果

Figure 6 Combination effects between SIM and GEN detected by time-growth inhibition assay

A: Growth inhibition effects of SIM and GEN alone or in combination against S. epidermidis RP62A; B: Bacterial turbidity of RP62A at the time point of 24 h; C: Growth inhibition effects of SIM and GEN alone or in combination against S. epidermidis ATCC 12228; D: Bacterial turbidity of ATCC 12228 at the time point of 24 h. Ctrl: Control; GEN: Gentamycin; SIM: Simeprevir.

3. 讨 论

表皮葡萄球菌易黏附于医疗器械表面并相互聚集形成生物膜,细菌一旦形成生物膜,其对抗生素的耐药性将显著增加[16]。目前,临床上尚无有效针对细菌生物膜的抗菌药物。因此,研究针对生物膜的抗菌药物具有重要的临床价值。本研究通过体外药敏实验、结晶紫染色法和激光共聚焦显微镜等检测手段,发现抗病毒性肝炎的药物SIM对表皮葡萄球菌具有良好的抗菌活性,并能显著抑制表皮葡萄球菌在盖玻片和导尿管表面的黏附作用。

传统模式的抗生素研发途径往往需要耗资20亿美元,耗时10~12年,且抗生素的研发速度远不及细菌耐药进化的速度[17]。近年来,因上市药物已经具有成熟的合成途径、完善的毒理学数据和药代动力学数据等,药物再利用极大地提高了抗生素的研发效率,已成为当下的研究热点[18]。Kim等[19]发现类视黄醇类抗肿瘤药物CD437可通过选择性破坏细菌细胞膜而对金黄色葡萄球菌及其持留菌具有显著的杀菌活性;She等[20]发现抗肿瘤药物伊达比星可分别通过破坏细菌细胞膜和干扰拓扑异构酶的生理学功能而对金黄色葡萄球菌发挥高效的抗菌作用;Tharmalingam等[21]通过高通量筛选室验,发现抗类风湿性关节炎药物金诺芬可通过干扰细菌硫醇代谢而对金黄色葡萄球菌具有显著的杀菌活性。与这些研究类似,本研究发现抗丙型肝炎病毒药物SIM对表皮葡萄球菌具有杀菌作用,其MIC为4~16 μg/mL,且MIC的SIM还能显著抑制表皮葡萄球菌生物膜的形成。

SIM为FDA批准上市的抗肝炎病毒药物,其对人体毒性较低[8]。III期临床试验[22]报道SIM在治疗病毒性肝炎时可引起轻到中度的皮疹和低发型光敏反应。究其原因,可能是SIM用于治疗肝炎病毒的用药周期长,常需4~8周以上且用药剂量较高(每人 150 mg/d)。而作为抗菌药物应用时,其使用周期往往较短,从而引起毒性反应的概率更小。此外,可以通过局部用药和抗生素联用等方式,进一步提高其利用度并降低其体内毒性。本研究发现SIM与GEN联用具有协同抗菌作用。因此,SIM同时联用GEN将有效提高其抗菌活性。

GEN是一种氨基糖苷类抗生素,具有广谱抗菌活性。然而,GEN存在治疗窗较窄、易诱导细菌耐药产生、肾毒性和耳毒性等缺点,限制了其临床应用[23]。GEM和SIM联用将极大增强实用性:一是可在降低用药量的前提下提高抗生素的抗菌活性;二是可降低抗生素诱导细菌耐药突变的频率;三是能降低抗菌药物的体内毒性[24]。本研究通过棋盘稀释室验,发现亚抑菌浓度的GEN和SIM联用对表皮葡萄球菌具有显著的协同抗菌作用,其FICI为0.5。通过时间-抑菌曲线可知,亚抑菌浓度的GEN与SIM的联用效果显著,可持续24 h抑制细菌增殖。因此,低剂量的SIM可作为抗生素佐剂,提高GEN的抗菌效率并降低其毒性,具有较高的临床应用价值。虽然SIM对表皮葡萄球菌在体外具有显著的抗菌活性,但其作为抗菌药物使用时,SIM的体内代谢动力学参数、给药剂量优化和体内抗菌效果均需要进行进一步的研究。此外,在后续的研究中,还可进一步改造和优化SIM的结构,使其抗菌活性增强而毒性降低,提高其成药潜力和临床适用性。

生物膜的形成是表皮葡萄球菌的主要毒力因子。目前,临床上尚无有效治疗生物膜感染的抗菌药物。本研究通过结晶紫染色、激光共聚焦显微镜和棋盘稀释实验等方法,发现了抗丙肝炎病毒药物SIM对表皮葡萄球菌有显著的抗菌作用,且对其生物膜的形成有显著的抑制作用。因此,SIM有望成为临床难治性表皮葡萄球菌生物膜相关感染的替代药物。

基金资助

湖南省自然科学基金(2021JJ40944)。

This work was supported by the Natural Science Foundation of Hunan Province (2021JJ40944), China.

利益冲突声明

作者声称无任何利益冲突。

作者贡献

李颖佳 研究设计,数据分析,论文撰写与修改;蔡超妮、刘子欣、汤锡昌、屈琳 数据采集;吴苑、吴娉芸、段瑶 研究设计与论文修改;佘鹏飞 研究设计,数据分析和论文指导。所有作者阅读并同意最终的文本。

原文网址

http://xbyxb.csu.edu.cn/xbwk/fileup/PDF/202306868.pdf

参考文献

  • 1. Brown MM, Horswill AR. Staphylococcus epidermidis-skin friend or foe?[J/OL] PLoS Pathog, 2020, 16(11): e1009026[2022-12-02]. 10.1371/journal.ppat.1009026. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2. Schilcher K, Horswill AR. Staphylococcal biofilm development: structure, regulation, and treatment strategies[J/OL]. Microbiol Mol Biol Rev, 2020, 84(3): e00026-19[2022-12-02]. 10.1128/MMBR.00026-19. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3. Peixoto PB, Massinhani FH, Netto Dos Santos KR, et al. Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus epidermidis isolates with reduced vancomycin susceptibility from bloodstream infections in a neonatal intensive care unit[J]. J Med Microbiol, 2020, 69(1): 41-45. 10.1099/jmm.0.001117. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4. Tang B, Gong T, Cui Y, et al. Characteristics of oral methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus epidermidis isolated from dental plaque[J]. Int J Oral Sci, 2020, 12(1): 15. 10.1038/s41368-020-0079-5. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5. Oliveira WF, Silva PMS, Silva RCS, et al. Staphylococcus aureus and Staphylococcus epidermidis infections on implants[J]. J Hosp Infect, 2018, 98(2): 111-117. 10.1016/j.jhin.2017.11.008. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6. Otto M. Staphylococcal biofilms[J]. Microbiol Spectr, 2018, 6(4): 10. 10.1128/microbiolspec.GPP3-0023-2018. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7. Ouwerkerk-Mahadevan S, Snoeys J, Peeters M, et al. Drug-drug interactions with the NS3/4A protease inhibitor simeprevir[J]. Clin Pharmacokinet, 2016, 55(2): 197-208. 10.1007/s40262-015-0314-y. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8. Li Y, She P, Xu L, et al. Anti-hepatitis C virus drug simeprevir: a promising antimicrobial agent against MRSA[J]. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol, 2022, 106(7): 2689-2702. 10.1007/s00253-022-11878-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9. Liu Y, She P, Xu L, et al. Antimicrobial, antibiofilm, and anti-persister activities of penfluridol against Staphylococcus aureus [J]. Front Microbiol, 2021, 12: 727692. 10.3389/fmicb.2021.727692. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10. She P, Li Z, Li Y, et al. Pixantrone sensitizes gram-negative pathogens to rifampin[J/OL]. Microbiol Spectr, 2022: e0211422[2022-12-03]. 10.1128/spectrum.02114-22. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11. She P, Chen L, Qi Y, et al. Effects of human serum and apo-Transferrin on Staphylococcus epidermidis RP62A biofilm formation[J]. Microbiologyopen, 2016, 5(6): 957-966. 10.1002/mbo3.379. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12. Qu L, She P, Wang Y, et al. Effects of norspermidine on Pseudomonas aeruginosa biofilm formation and eradication[J]. Microbiologyopen, 2016, 5(3): 402-412. 10.1002/mbo3.338. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13. She P, Luo Z, Chen L, et al. Efficacy of levofloxacin against biofilms of Pseudomonas aeruginosa isolated from patients with respiratory tract infectionsin vitro[J/OL]. Microbiologyopen, 2019, 8(5): e00720[2022-12-05]. 10.1002/mbo3.720. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14. Mataraci E, Dosler S. In vitro activities of antibiotics and antimicrobial cationic peptides alone and in combination against methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus biofilms[J]. Antimicrob Agents Chemother, 2012, 56(12): 6366-6371. 10.1128/AAC.01180-12. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15. Carcamo-Noriega EN, Sathyamoorthi S, Banerjee S, et al. 1, 4-Benzoquinone antimicrobial agents against Staphylococcus aureus and Mycobacterium tuberculosis derived from scorpion venom[J]. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA, 2019, 116(26): 12642-12647. 10.1073/pnas.1812334116. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16. Severn MM, Horswill AR. Staphylococcus epidermidis and its dual lifestyle in skin health and infection[J]. Nat Rev Microbiol. 2023, 21(2): 97-111. 10.1038/s41579-022-00780-3. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17. Boyd NK, Teng C, Frei CR. Brief overview of approaches and challenges in new antibiotic development: a focus on drug repurposing[J]. Front Cell Infect Microbiol, 2021, 11: 684515. 10.3389/fcimb.2021.684515. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18. Pushpakom S, Iorio F, Eyers PA, et al. Drug repurposing: progress, challenges and recommendations[J]. Nat Rev Drug Discov, 2019, 18(1): 41-58. 10.1038/nrd.2018.168. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19. Kim W, Zhu W, Hendricks GL, et al. A new class of synthetic retinoid antibiotics effective against bacterial persisters[J]. Nature, 2018, 556(7699): 103-107. 10.1038/nature26157. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20. She P, Li S, Zhou L, et al. Insights into idarubicin antimicrobial activity against methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus [J]. Virulence, 2020, 11(1): 636-651. 10.1080/21505594.2020.1770493. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21. Tharmalingam N, Ribeiro NQ, da Silva DL, et al. Auranofin is an effective agent against clinical isolates of Staphylococcus aureus [J]. Future Med Chem, 2019, 11(12): 1417-1425. 10.4155/fmc-2018-0544. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22. Borgia F, Cacciola I, Filomia R, et al. Mucocutaneous toxicity during simeprevir treatment for hepatitis C. A single institution, retrospective case series[J]. Br J Clin Pharmacol, 2017, 83(5): 1152-1154. 10.1111/bcp.13221. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23. Petejova N, Martinek A, Zadrazil J, et al. Acute kidney injury in septic patients treated by selected nephrotoxic antibiotic agents-pathophysiology and biomarkers: a review[J]. Int J Mol Sci, 2020, 21(19): 7115. 10.3390/ijms21197115. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24. Coates ARM, Hu Y, Holt J, et al. Antibiotic combination therapy against resistant bacterial infections: synergy, rejuvenation and resistance reduction[J]. Expert Rev Anti Infect Ther, 2020, 18(1): 5-15. 10.1080/14787210.2020.1705155. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Journal of Central South University Medical Sciences are provided here courtesy of Central South University

RESOURCES