METHODS: The probiotic characteristics of Ld45E were evaluated by examining its morphology, pH tolerance, adhesive ability onto HeLa cells, hemolytic activity, antibiotic susceptibility, and autoaggregation ability. Then, the antimicrobial activity of Ld45E was determined using Ld45E culture, cell-free supernatant, and crude bacteriocin solution. Co-aggregation and competition ability assays against various pathogens were conducted. The immunoregulatory effects of Ld45E were analyzed by measuring the proinflammatory cytokine IL-17. A p-value less than 0.05 was considered statistical significance.
RESULTS: Ld45E is 3-5 mm in diameter and round with a flat-shaped colony. pH 4 and 4.5 were the most favorable range for Ld45E growth within 12 h of incubation. Ld45E showed a strong adhesion ability onto HeLa cells (86%) and negative hemolytic activities. Ld45E was also sensitive to ceftriaxone, cefuroxime, ciprofloxacin, and doxycycline. We found that it had a good autoaggregation ability of 80%. Regarding antagonistic properties, Ld45E culture showed strong antimicrobial activity against GBS, E. coli, and Klebsiella spp. but only a moderate effect on C. parapsilosis. Cell-free supernatant of Ld45E exerted the most potent inhibitory effects at 40 °C against all genital pathogens, whereas bacteriocin showed a robust inhibition at 37 °C and 40 °C. The highest co-aggregation affinity was observed with GBS (81%) and E. coli (40%). Competition ability against the adhesion of GBS (80%), E. coli (76%), Klebsiella (72%), and C. parapsilosis (58%) was found. Ld45E was able to reduce the induction of the proinflammatory protein IL-17.
CONCLUSIONS: Ld45E possessed antimicrobial and immunoregulatory properties, with better cell-on-cell activity than supernatant activity. Thus, Ld45E is a potential probiotic candidate for adjunct therapy to address vaginal infections.
KEY FINDINGS: Majority of antimicrobials have been discovered from prokaryotes and those which are of eukaryotic origin are derived mainly from fungal and plant sources. With this in mind, it is important to note that pests, such as cockroaches come across pathogenic bacteria routinely, yet thrive in polluted environments. Other animals, such as snakes thrive from feeding on germ-infested rodents. Logically, such species must have developed an approach to protect themselves from these pathogens, yet they have largely been ignored as a potential source of antimicrobials despite their remarkable capability to fight disease-causing organisms.
SUMMARY: Animals living in polluted environments are an underutilized source for potential antimicrobials, hence it is believed that several novel bioactive molecule(s) will be identified from these sources to counter increasingly resistant bacterial infections. Further research will be necessary in the development of novel antimicrobial(s) from these unusual sources which will have huge clinical impact worldwide.
OBJECTIVES: We assessed the effectiveness and safety of antimicrobial (antiseptic or antibiotic) dressings in reducing CVC-related infections in newborn infants. Had there been relevant data, we would have evaluated the effects of antimicrobial dressings in different subgroups, including infants who received different types of CVCs, infants who required CVC for different durations, infants with CVCs with and without other antimicrobial modifications, and infants who received an antimicrobial dressing with and without a clearly defined co-intervention.
SEARCH METHODS: We used the standard search strategy of the Cochrane Neonatal Review Group (CNRG). We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library 2015, Issue 9), MEDLINE (PubMed), EMBASE (EBCHOST), CINAHL and references cited in our short-listed articles using keywords and MeSH headings, up to September 2015.
SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials that compared an antimicrobial CVC dressing against no dressing or another dressing in newborn infants.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We extracted data using the standard methods of the CNRG. Two review authors independently assessed the eligibility and risk of bias of the retrieved records. We expressed our results using risk difference (RD) and risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).
MAIN RESULTS: Out of 173 articles screened, three studies were included. There were two comparisons: chlorhexidine dressing following alcohol cleansing versus polyurethane dressing following povidone-iodine cleansing (one study); and silver-alginate patch versus control (two studies). A total of 855 infants from level III neonatal intensive care units (NICUs) were evaluated, 705 of whom were from a single study. All studies were at high risk of bias for blinding of care personnel or unclear risk of bias for blinding of outcome assessors. There was moderate-quality evidence for all major outcomes.The single study comparing chlorhexidine dressing/alcohol cleansing against polyurethane dressing/povidone-iodine cleansing showed no significant difference in the risk of CRBSI (RR 1.18, 95% CI 0.53 to 2.65; RD 0.01, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.03; 655 infants, moderate-quality evidence) and sepsis without a source (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.52; RD 0.01, 95% CI -0.04 to 0.06; 705 infants, moderate-quality evidence). There was a significant reduction in the risk of catheter colonisation favouring chlorhexidine dressing/alcohol cleansing group (RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.86; RD -0.09, 95% CI -0.15 to -0.03; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) 11, 95% CI 7 to 33; 655 infants, moderate-quality evidence). However, infants in the chlorhexidine dressing/alcohol cleansing group were significantly more likely to develop contact dermatitis, with 19 infants in the chlorhexidine dressing/alcohol cleansing group having developed contact dermatitis compared to none in the polyurethane dressing/povidone-iodine cleansing group (RR 43.06, 95% CI 2.61 to 710.44; RD 0.06, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.08; number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome (NNTH) 17, 95% CI 13 to 33; 705 infants, moderate-quality evidence). The roles of chlorhexidine dressing in the outcomes reported were unclear, as the two assigned groups received different co-interventions in the form of different skin cleansing agents prior to catheter insertion and during each dressing change.In the other comparison, silver-alginate patch versus control, the data for CRBSI were analysed separately in two subgroups as the two included studies reported the outcome using different denominators: one using infants and another using catheters. There were no significant differences between infants who received silver-alginate patch against infants who received standard line dressing in CRBSI, whether expressed as the number of infants (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.14 to 1.78; RD -0.12, 95% CI -0.33 to 0.09; 1 study, 50 participants, moderate-quality evidence) or as the number of catheters (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.27 to 1.89; RD -0.05, 95% CI -0.20 to 0.10; 1 study, 118 participants, moderate-quality evidence). There was also no significant difference between the two groups in mortality (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.15 to 2.05; RD -0.04, 95% CI -0.13 to 0.05; two studies, 150 infants, I² = 0%, moderate-quality evidence). No adverse skin reaction was recorded in either group.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Based on moderate-quality evidence, chlorhexidine dressing/alcohol skin cleansing reduced catheter colonisation, but made no significant difference in major outcomes like sepsis and CRBSI compared to polyurethane dressing/povidone-iodine cleansing. Chlorhexidine dressing/alcohol cleansing posed a substantial risk of contact dermatitis in preterm infants, although it was unclear whether this was contributed mainly by the dressing material or the cleansing agent. While silver-alginate patch appeared safe, evidence is still insufficient for a recommendation in practice. Future research that evaluates antimicrobial dressing should ensure blinding of caregivers and outcome assessors and ensure that all participants receive the same co-interventions, such as the skin cleansing agent. Major outcomes like sepsis, CRBSI and mortality should be assessed in infants of different gestation and birth weight.
Materials and methods: QOS collagen nanofibers were electrospun by incorporating various concentrations of QOS (0.1%-10% w/w) and were cross-linked in situ after exposure to ammonium carbonate. The QOS cross-linked scaffolds were characterized and their biological properties were evaluated in terms of their biocompatibility, cellular adhesion and metabolic activity for primary human dermal fibroblasts and human fetal osteoblasts.
Results and discussion: The study revealed that 1) QOS cross-linking increased the flexibility of otherwise rigid collagen nanofibers and improved the thermal stability; 2) QOS cross-linked mats displayed potent antibacterial activity and 3) the biocompatibility of the composite mats depended on the amount of QOS present in dope solution - at low QOS concentrations (0.1% w/w), the mats promoted mammalian cell proliferation and growth, whereas at higher QOS concentrations, cytotoxic effect was observed.
Conclusion: This study demonstrates that QOS cross-linked mats possess anti-infective properties and confer niches for cellular growth and proliferation, thus offering a useful approach, which is important for hard and soft tissue engineering and regenerative medicine.