Next Article in Journal
Soy Metabolism by Gut Microbiota from Patients with Precancerous Intestinal Lesions
Next Article in Special Issue
Molecular Characterization and Pathogenicity of Staphylococcus aureus Isolated from Benin-City, Nigeria
Previous Article in Journal
Fodinicola acaciae sp. nov., an Endophytic Actinomycete Isolated from the Roots of Acacia mangium Willd. and Its Genome Analysis
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Microorganisms
Volume 8
Issue 4
10.3390/microorganisms8040468
microorganisms-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Steroid Derivatives as Potential Antimicrobial Agents against Staphylococcus aureus Planktonic Cells

by
Adriana Vollaro
1,
Anna Esposito
2,
Eleni Antonaki
1,
Vita Dora Iula
3,
Daniele D’Alonzo
2,
Annalisa Guaragna
2,* and
Eliana De Gregorio
1,*
1
Department of Molecular Medicine and Medical Biotechnology, University of Naples Federico II, Via S. Pansini 5, 80131 Naples, Italy
2
Department of Chemical Sciences, University of Naples Federico II, Via Cintia, 80126 Naples, Italy
3
Complex Operative Unit of Clinical Pathology, “Ospedale del Mare-ASL NA1 Centro”, 80147 Naples, Italy
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Microorganisms 2020, 8(4), 468; https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms8040468
Submission received: 5 March 2020 / Revised: 22 March 2020 / Accepted: 23 March 2020 / Published: 25 March 2020
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Biology and Pathogenesis of Staphylococcus Infection II)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
In this work, the antibacterial activity of deflazacort and several of its synthetic precursors was tested against a panel of bacterial pathogens responsible for most drug-resistant infections including Staphylococcus aureus, Enterococcus spp., Acinetobacter baumannii, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Klebsiella pneumoniae, Escherichia coli, and Enterobacter spp. The derivative of deflazacort, PYED-1 (pregnadiene-11-hydroxy-16α,17α-epoxy-3,20-dione-1) showed the best antibacterial activity in a dose-dependent way. We focused on the action of PYED-1 against S. aureus cells. PYED-1 exhibited an additive antimicrobial effect with gentamicin and oxacillin against the methicillin-resistant S. aureus isolate 00717. In addition to its antimicrobial effect, PYED-1 was found to repress the expression of several virulence factors of S. aureus, including toxins encoded by the hla (alpha-haemolysin), hlb (beta-haemolysin), lukE-D (leucotoxins E-D), and sea (staphylococcal enterotoxin A) genes, and cell surface factors (fnbB (fibronectin-binding protein B) and capC (capsule biosynthesis protein C)). The expression levels of autolysin isaA (immunodominant staphylococcal antigen) were also increased.

1. Introduction

Hospital-acquired infections represent a major problem in high or upper-middle income countries, with an incidence rate of 5% in the United States and 7.1% in Europe [1]. The therapeutic options for infections caused by multidrug-resistant (MDR) pathogens are often extremely limited. Despite intensive searches for new antimicrobial agents, there are, to date, a few active candidates [2], and new antibacterial substances acting through non-conventional mechanisms are needed [3].
Steroids, a family of naturally-occurring secondary metabolites characterized by a four-fused ring structure, have exhibited a wide range of biological activities and have been shown to function as antitumoral, antiviral, antibacterial, and antioxidant agents [4]. The heterocyclic corticosteroid deflazacort (DFZ, Figure 1), an oxazoline-derivative of prednisolone, has been recently approved for the treatment of Duchenne dystrophy [5] showing high efficacy and good tolerability.
In the frame of a study devoted to the development of a novel and convenient synthetic strategy for the preparation of DFZ, we recently found that a DFZ synthetic precursor called PYED-1 (pregnadiene-11-hydroxy-16α,17α-epoxy-3,20-dione-1), exhibited a good antibacterial activity against Staphylococcus aureus ATCC 29213 and Acinetobacter baumannii ATCC 17978 without showing cytotoxicity [6]. In addition, we demonstrated that PYED-1 has a weak effect against Stenotrophomonas maltophilia clinical isolates but at sub-inhibitory concentrations it inhibits biofilm formation of the reference S. maltophilia K279a strain [7].
Here, an improved protocol for the synthesis of PYED-1 has been reported, along with the evaluation of the in vitro antimicrobial activity of PYED-1 and some steroidal synthetic precursors and analogues of DFZ against a panel of bacterial pathogens responsible for most drug-resistant infections, including Staphylococcus aureus, Enterococcus spp., Acinetobacter baumannii, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Klebsiella pneumoniae, Escherichia coli, and Enterobacter spp. We focused our attention on the activity of PYED-1 against S. aureus. This microorganism causes a variety of infections that range from topical to life-threatening infections and represents a major problem in both the hospital and community settings [8,9]. S. aureus has rapidly-acquired resistance to many antibiotic drug classes, causing infections that are difficult to eradicate [10]. Additive antimicrobial activity with conventional antibiotics against S. aureus cells by checkerboard microdilution method was assessed. Finally, real-time PCR was performed to evaluate the effect of PYED-1 on S. aureus genes involved in the virulence factor production.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Chemicals and Reagents

All chemicals and solvents were purchased with the highest degree of purity (Sigma-Aldrich, Alfa Aesar, VWR) and used without further purification. The reactions were monitored by TLC (precoated silica gel plate F254, Merck) and the products were detected by exposure to ultraviolet radiation, iodine vapor, and chromic mixture. The purity of the compounds was determined by CHNS analysis and was ≥95% in all cases. NMR spectra were recorded on NMR spectrometers operating at 400 MHz (Bruker DRX, Bruker AVANCE) using CDCl3 solutions. Coupling constant values (J) were reported in Hz. Chemical synthesis and structural characterization of compounds 3 to 7 has been realized as previously reported [6].
2-((4aS,4bR,5S,6aS,6bS,7aR)-4b-bromo-5-hydroxy-4a,6a-dimethyl-2-oxo-2,4a,4b,5,6,6a,7a,8,8a,8b,9,10-dodecahydro-6bH-naphtho [2’,1’:4,5]indeno[1-b]oxiren-6b-yl)-2-oxoethyl acetate (compound 10). Phthalic anhydride (0.13 g, 0.86 mmol) was added in one portion to a stirred solution of compound 9 (provided by Symbiotec Pharmalab PVT) in dichloromethane (DCM) 2.0 mL at room temperature. After few minutes, phthalic anhydride was completely dissolved to give a yellow clear solution. At the same temperature 50% aqueous H2O2 was then added dropwise in 2h and the mixture was then heated to reflux temperature, until formation of a white precipitate was observed. The reaction mixture was stirred at the in-refluxing DCM for 24 h. Water and solid sodium bicarbonate (NaHCO3) were added to the cooled reaction mixture until pH 7 was reached, and then the mixture extracted with dichloromethane (CH2Cl2). The organic layer was washed with brine while the aqueous phase was again extracted with chloroform/methanol (CHCl3/MeOH, 9/1). The resulting organic layers were washed with brine. All the organic phases were combined, dried with sodium sulfate anhydrous (Na2SO4) and concentrated under reduced pressure to give a yellow solid. Ethyl acetate was added to the crude residue. The resulting precipitate was decanted, and the orange mother liquors removed. This operation was repeated until a white powder was obtained. All the mother liquors previously obtained were combined and concentrated. The resulting precipitate was decanted, separated from the mother liquors and repeatedly washed with ethyl acetate until to obtain epoxide derivative 10 as a white powder (85 mg, 82%yield). 1H NMR (400 MHz): δ 1.41 (s, 3H, H-18), 1.48-1.55 (m, 1H, H-14), 1.70 (s, 3H, H-19), 1.71-1.82 (m, 2H, H-7), 1.94-2.05 (m, 3H, H-12a, H-15), 2.15 (s, 3H, H-23), 2.16–2.25 (m, 1H, H-8), 2.36–2.49 (m, 2H, H-12b, H-6a), 2.55–2.68 (m, 1H, H-6b), 3.85 (s, 1H, H-16), 4.59 (d, J = 13.4, 1H, H-21a), 4.67 (d, J = 13.4, 1H, H-21b), 4.76 (bs, 1H, H-11), 6.07 (bs, 1H, H-4), 6.32 (d, J = 10.1, 1H, H-2), 7.21 (d, J = 10.1, 1H, H-1). 13C NMR (100 MHz): 18.3, 20.4, 24.9, 27.0, 28.3, 30.4, 33.5, 37.3, 39.3, 42.1, 50.2, 61.1, 65.7, 70.5, 75.9, 85.3, 125.1, 129.3, 152.3, 165.5, 170.4, 186.2, and 198.9. Anal. calcd for C23H27BrO6: C, 57.63; H, 5.68; Br, and 16.67. Found: C, 57.75; H, 5.66; and Br, 16.62.
2-((4aR,5S,6aS,6bS,7aR)-5-hydroxy-4a,6a-dimethyl-2-oxo-2,4a,4b,5,6,6a,7a,8,8a,8b,9,10-dodecahydro-6bH-naphtho[2’,1’:4,5]indeno[1,2-b]oxiren-6b-yl)-2-oxoethyl acetate (PYED-1) was prepared from compound 10 by treatment with tributyltin hydride (Bu3SnH) and azobisisobutyronitrile (AIBN) according to the procedure previously reported [6].

2.2. Biological Screening

2.2.1. Bacterial Strains and Growth Conditions

Bacterial clinical isolates belong to a collection previously established at the Department of Molecular Medicine and Medical Biotechnology, University of Naples Federico II. In accordance with European regulations, each isolate was associated with a unique ID and subsequently anonymized. Epidemiological features of strains were in accordance to previous publications [11,12,13,14]. No ethical approval was required for the study because there was no access to patient data. Antimicrobial susceptibility to conventional antibiotics of all isolates was determined using the VITEK 2 system (BioMérieux) and/or the Phoenix microbiology system (BD Diagnostics) and the results were interpreted in accordance with the European Committee on Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing [15] guidelines. The minimal inhibitory concentration (MIC) of colistin of A. baumannii isolates was determined by broth microdilution assay according to Clinical Laboratory Standards Institute guidelines [16]. The MIC of oxacillin was determined by broth microdilution method in cation-adjusted Mueller–Hinton broth (CA-MHB) supplemented with 2% NaCl. The plates were incubated at 35 °C and the MIC was determined after 24 and 48 h of incubation. The presence of the staphylococcal cassette chromosome mec (SCCmec) in methicillin-resistant S. aureus (MRSA) isolates was assessed using the Xpert MRSA kit (Cepheid, Sunnyvale, CA). The kit contains primers and probes for the detection of the spa, mecA, and SCCmec sequences inserted into the SA chromosomal attB site. The Xpert MRSA assay was performed using a GeneXpert Dx system and the analysis was performed as per the manufacturer’s protocol.

2.2.2. Antimicrobial Activity of Steroidal Compounds

MIC values of steroidal compounds against planktonic bacteria were examined by a broth microdilution method previously described [17]. Briefly, compounds were dissolved in dimethyl sulfoxide (DMSO) to the concentration of 50 mg/mL. Two-fold serial dilutions ranging from 2 μg/mL to 1000 mg/mL of the compounds were prepared in triplicate and placed into a polystyrene 96-well plate. Bacterial cell suspensions were prepared at 0.5 McFarland standard using BD PhoenixSpec™ nephelometer and were subsequently diluted in cation-adjusted Mueller–Hinton broth (CA-MHB) to final culture density of approximately 5 × 106 colony forming unit (CFU)/mL. One hundred microliter of bacteria (5 x 105 CFU) were then added to the microtiter plates containing 100 μL of serial dilutions of steroidal compounds. Only CA-MHB was added in negative control wells. Wells with no compounds were used on each plate as positive growth control. Plates were incubated at 37 °C for 18–24 h under shaking (300 rpm). To evaluate microbial growth, the optical density at 595 nm was measured by using a microplate reader (Bio-Rad Laboratories S.r.l.). The effects of DMSO concentrations, ranging from 0.1% to 1%, on bacteria growth kinetics were separately tested. To calculate the minimum bactericidal concentration (MBC), bacterial suspensions from MIC assay microtiter wells were diluted in PBS and spot-plated on TSA plates to count colonies after incubation at 37 °C for 18 h. The MBC was determined as the lowest concentration of substance, which produced ≥99.9% killing (≥3log10) after 24 h of incubation as compared to the colony count of the starting inoculum. All tests were performed in triplicate and repeated three times.

2.2.3. Time Kill Assay

The killing kinetics of PYED-1 at 1 x, 2 x, and 4 x MIC were determined against S. aureus ATCC 29213 strain, as previously described [18]. Tubes containing CA-MHB with different concentrations of PYED-1 were inoculated with S. aureus ATCC 29213 to a density of approximately 5 x 106 CFU/mL and incubated at 37 °C under shaking (300 rpm). The tube without PYED-1 was a growth control. Viable bacterial counts were performed after 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, and 24 h incubation by plating serial 10-fold dilutions of broth cultures onto TSA plates.

2.2.4. Checkerboard Assay

A checkerboard method in 96-well microtiter plates containing CA-MHB was used to test the effects of the interactions of PYED-1 with either oxacillin or gentamicin against methicillin-resistant S. aureus (MRSA). In brief, PYED-1 and each tested antibiotic were serially diluted in microtiter plate wells along the y and x axes. Checkerboard plates with a concentration of 106 CFU/mL of the tested bacteria were incubated overnight at 37 °C. To evaluate microbial growth, the optical density at 595 nm was measured by using a microplate reader (Bio-Rad Laboratories S.r.l.). The effect of the interactions of PYED-1 with each of the tested antibiotics was quantified by calculating the fractional inhibitory concentration (FIC) index as follows: FIC index = FIC of PYED-1 + FIC of antibiotic, where FIC of PYED-1 (or antibiotic) is the ratio of MIC of PYED-1 (or antibiotic) in combination and MIC of PYED-1 (or antibiotic) alone. The following intervals of FIC index were used to interpret the experimental outcomes: ≤0.5, synergistic; >0.5 to ≤1.0, additive; >1.0 to ≤2.0, indifferent; and >2.0, antagonistic effects [19]. All experiments were repeated three times.

2.2.5. RNA

Total RNA was isolated from S. aureus ATCC 29213 cells grown overnight in CA-MHB were diluted to an OD600 of 0.05 and grown at 37 °C at 200 rpm to an OD600 of 0.3–0.4. The culture was subsequently split into two tubes, treated with either PYED-1 at the concentration of 4 μg/mL or 0.008% DMSO, and incubated at 37 °C at 200 rpm for a further 3 h. Two volumes of RNAprotect Bacteria Reagent was added to the cell suspensions and incubated for 5 min at room temperature. Next, the cell suspensions were centrifuged at 5000× g for 10 min and the supernatant was decanted. RNA was purified according to the previously-reported method [20] with minor modifications. Bacterial cells were resuspended in 200 μL of 20 mg/mL proteinase K and 200 μL TE buffer (30 mM Tris HCl, 1 mM EDTA, pH 8.0) containing 20 mg/mL lysozyme and 12.5 μg/mL lysostaphin and incubated at 37 °C for 1 h. The resulting protoplasts were used for RNA isolation with the RNeasy Mini Kit, following recommendation of the manufacturer (Qiagen, Germany). Residual DNA were removed with DNase Max Kit (Qiagen). RNA was quantified using a Nano-drop instrument (Thermo Fisher).

2.2.6. RT-PCR

Total RNA was reverse transcribed into cDNA using QuantiTect Reverse Transcription Kit (Qiagen), according to the manufacturer’s protocol. The RT-PCR was performed as previously described [13], using a SYBR Green master mix (Applied Biosystems). The primer pairs used in PCR experiments are reported in Table 1.
The rpoB gene was used as the housekeeping control to normalize the expressions of genes of interest. RNA samples not treated with reverse transcriptase were routinely included as no template controls. Changes in transcript levels were determined using the 2−ΔΔCT method [21]. RNA expression levels were determined by using three independent cultures and all analyses were performed in triplicate.

2.2.7. Statistical Analysis

Each experiment was performed in triplicate and repeated at least three time on different days. Arithmetic means and standard deviations were used to statistically analyze continuous variables. Student’s t test was used to determine statistical differences between two means.

3. Results

3.1. Chemistry

To deeply study the biological potential of PYED-1, an improved protocol for its preparation was first designed (Figure 2).
As previously described [6], C16–C17 double bond oxidation of 9-bromotriene acetate (compound 9) with meta-chloroperbenzoic acid (mCPBA) led to the corresponding PYED-1, albeit with uncomplete conversion (47% yield). With the aim to improve the reaction yield, the use of a different organic peroxy acid, i.e., monoperphthalic acid, was investigated [22]. As shown in Figure 2, treatment of compound 9 with phthalic anhydride in the presence of 50% of aqueous H2O2 in refluxing DCM gave, after 24 h, the corresponding brominated epoxide (compound 10) in better yields (82%). Debromination of this latter was then accomplished by treatment with Bu3SnH and AIBN in refluxing tetrahydrofuran (THF) affording the pure PYED-1 in 93% yield.

3.2. Antimicrobial Activity of a Panel of Steroid Derivatives

PYED-1 was shown to be effective against both S. aureus and A. baumannii [6]. Here, we have chosen to extend the antimicrobial activity study of DFZ and its precursors (Figure 3) against a panel of bacterial pathogens including S. aureus, Enterococcus spp., A. baumannii, P. aeruginosa, K. pneumoniae, E. coli, and Enterobacter spp.
The MIC of all steroid derivatives was determined by broth microdilution assay. The antibacterial activity of steroid derivatives against selected bacteria varied significantly, MIC values ranging from 4 to 750 μg/mL (Table 2).
PYED-1 proved to be the most effective growth inhibitor, with 4 and 16 μg/mL MIC values against Enterococcus faecalis and S. aureus respectively, instead shown a 16 μg/mL MIC values against A. baumannii and 128 μg/mL against both E. coli and Pseudomonas aeruginosa. No antimicrobial activity was found for DFZ and compound 4. The intermediates 3 and 5 showed only a weak antimicrobial activity against E. faecalis and S. aureus, and only the compound 3 showed a weak antimicrobial activity against P. aeruginosa. All compounds did not exert any appreciable inhibition of the other Gram-negative bacteria tested, K. pneumoniae and E. aerogenes, up to the concentration of 1000 mg/mL. To examine whether the inhibition of bacterial growth could be related to the DMSO used to dissolve the compounds tested, the bacterial growth was measured in the presence of increasing concentrations of DMSO. No growth differences were observed in the presence of any of the DMSO concentrations used (data not shown).
With the aim to identify which functionalities could be responsible for the antimicrobial activity of PYED-1 we evaluated the biological potential of compounds 6, 7, and 8, which share common residues with PYED-1. Compound 6, in which the epoxy function at C16–C17 positions was replaced by a double bond (Figure 3), exhibited antibacterial activity against S. aureus, E. faecalis, A. baumannii, P. aeruginosa, and E. coli strains, but at much higher concentration than PYED-1 (Table 2). In contrast, both compound 7, in which the hydroxyl function at C10 position is absent, and compound 8 (PD) in which the acetyl group at 21 hydroxyl function is missing, functioned only at concentration of 1 mg/mL, or more (Table 2). Data directly imply that the epoxy function on C16–C17 positions of the steroidal scaffold, the C10 hydroxyl group, and the acetyl residue are all crucial for the antimicrobial activity exhibited by PYED-1.
To test whether PYED-1 was also active against clinical strains, we selected for each tested species 8 to 11 clinical isolates exhibiting different antibiotic resistance profiles. For all species, the results obtained with clinical isolates were comparable to those obtained using PYED-1 against the reference ATCC strain (Table 3).

3.3. Activity of PYED-1 against S. aureus

We focused our attention to the inhibitory effect of PYED-1 against S. aureus. The inhibition of bacterial growth by PYED-1 was characterized by means of time–kill assays for the S. aureus ATCC 29213. S. aureus cells treated with PYED-1 at 4 x MIC (64 μg/mL) and 2 x MIC (32 μg/mL) were killed at 3 and 5 h, respectively. After 7 h exposure to 1 x MIC (16 μg/mL), the amount of S. aureus cells dropped to 2 × 10 CFU/mL. After 24 h, there was a total growth inhibition (Figure 4).
Antibiotic combination therapy is frequently used as a possible method of outmaneuvering recalcitrant bacterial pathogens, to improve the antibiotic efficiency as well as to reduce antibiotic doses used [23]. Synergy experiments using combinations of PYED-1 with conventional antibiotics were conducted in order to potentiate or restore the antibacterial activity of currently available antibiotics against S. aureus, a pathogen that is difficult to treat due to the rising number of drug- resistant strains. PYED-1 antibacterial activity was tested in combination with gentamicin and oxacillin against MRSA 00717, an isolate resistant to the selected antibiotics. The MIC value of PYED-1 was 16 μg/mL while the MIC value of gentamicin and oxacillin was 256 μg/mL and 16 μg/mL, respectively. In the checkerboard dilution test, PYED-1 markedly lowered the MICs of gentamicin (from 256 to 16 μg/mL) and oxacillin (from 16 to 1 μg/mL) against the MRSA 00717 isolate. The combination of PYED-1 with either gentamicin or oxacillin had an additive effect, as the FIC values were 0.5625 and 0.5156, respectively (Table 4).

3.4. Transcriptional Changes Induced by PYED-1 in S. aureus

To investigate the anti-virulence activity of PYED-1 the expression levels of known S. aureus virulence and regulatory genes [24] were investigated by qRT-PCR (Table 5).
RNA was extracted from exponential S. aureus cells (5 × 108 CFU/mL) untreated and treated at sub-MIC concentration (4 μg/mL) of PYED-1 for 3 h. No growth differences between treated and untreated cells were observed. The expression of spa (surface protein A) and clfB (clumping factor B) genes was not affected, but significant downregulation of fnbB (fibronectin-binding protein B) and capC (capsule biosynthesis protein C) genes was observed. As shown in Table 5, the levels of toxin genes hla (alpha-haemolysin), hlb (beta-haemolysin) lukE-D (leucotoxins E-D), and sea (staphylococcal enterotoxin A) were notably reduced. Downregulation of the transcript levels of agrA (accessory gene regulator protein A), saeR (response regulator SaeR), and sigB (RNA polymerase sigma factor B) genes after PYED-1 treatment by a factor of 2.29, 8.66, and 2.11, respectively, was also noted. Significant upregulation of isaA (immunodominant staphylococcal antigen) gene was observed. The expression of lytM (peptidoglycan hydrolase) and aur (aureolysin) genes was not affected (Table 5).

4. Discussion

PYED-1 is a promising novel antimicrobial agent [6]. Here we extended our initial studies on the antimicrobial activity of this compound, by testing its efficacy against a panel of Gram-negative and Gram-positive pathogens, including S. aureus, Enterococcus spp., A. baumannii, P. aeruginosa, K. pneumoniae, E. coli, and Enterobacter spp. PYED-1 exerted a good inhibitory activity against E. faecalis, S. aureus, and A. baumannii, low to moderate activity against E. coli and P. aeruginosa, while it did not exert any appreciable inhibition against K. pneumoniae and E. aerogenes ( Table 2 and Table 3). A weak effect was also observed in a previous report against S. maltophilia [7].
According to the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control, S. aureus is one of the most difficult-to-treat pathogens due to the increasing number of drug-resistant strains [10]. The time-kill curve analysis against S. aureus demonstrated a concentration-dependent rapid bactericidal activity of PYED-1 (Figure 4). In line with this, we have previously shown that PYED-1 exhibited bactericidal activity against S. maltophilia, and that the permeabilization of the bacterial membrane might contribute to the effect [7]. Our study demonstrated additivity of PYED-1/gentamicin and PYED-1/oxacillin combinations by checkerboard assay. Data also revealed that PYED-1 has the potential to restore the effectiveness of oxacillin against MRSA strains. This result is an important finding because restoring activity to conventional antibiotics using combinations would enable the clinical use of conventional antibiotics for the treatment of S. aureus infections.
Many studies suggested that drugs targeting virulence factors (e.g., enterotoxins, hemolysins, and adhesins) represent an alternative approach to treat infections caused by MDR bacteria [25]. Intriguingly, we observed that PYED-1 impinges on the expression levels of several virulence factors and regulatory genes involved in S. aureus virulence (Table 5). The pathogenicity of S. aureus depends on the production of numerous extracellular virulence factors. S. aureus produces a series of hemolysins including α- and β-hemolysins. Alpha-hemolysin is the most studied pore-forming toxin and it plays a significant role in skin and soft tissue infections in animal models of staphylococcal infection [26]. Highly virulent S. aureus strains can produce up to five different bicomponent leukotoxins, by which S. aureus targets and kills neutrophils. The pore-forming leukocidin LukE-D is a critical virulence factor involved in S. aureus bloodstream infection [27].
The regulation of virulence factors induced by an antibiotic may result in either worsening or mitigation of the infection. For diseases caused by S. aureus, the regulation of secretion of toxins, and the selection of antibiotic according to its ability to affect these properties could be very important for the outcome of S. aureus diseases. At suboptimal concentrations, linezolid and clindamycin significantly inhibits the production of α-hemolysin and staphylococcal enterotoxins (A and B). Investigation of the expression of several toxins of S. aureus in the presence of PYED-1 showed protein A [28,29]. In contrast, β-lactams and glycopeptides induce the expression of α-hemolysin, enterotoxins and toxic shock syndrome toxin-1 [30]. We found that the levels of hla, hlb lukD, lukE, and sea genes were notably reduced (Table 5). The combination of PYED-1, which downregulates toxins expression, with β-lactams antibiotics, is able to induce expression of α-hemolysin and enterotoxins at subinhibitory concentrations and may therefore be highly beneficial for the treatment of S. aureus infections.
In S. aureus, the expression of several virulence genes is regulated by two-component systems, such Agr operon and SaeRS, the DNA-binding protein SarA and the alternative sigma factor SigB. These regulators coordinately control hla expression [31,32]. SaeRS also activates the expression of the leukotoxins LukE-D [33]. We observed that treatment with PYED-1 resulted in reduced expression of agrA, saeR, and sigB genes (Table 5). This nicely explains the downregulation of the transcript levels of controlled hla, hlb, lukD, lukE, and sea genes. These results are in accord with literature data. Duan et al. [34] showed subinhibitory concentration of resveratrol decreased the expression of hla and inhibited the regulation of saeRS. Subinhibitory concentrations of thymol significantly inhibited the transcription of hla, sea, and seb in S. aureus and acted partly through the agr locus [35].
Many antibiotics can affect the expression of S. aureus surface proteins. Tigecycline treatment downregulated the expression of the cap genes, which mediate the synthesis of the capsule polysaccharide [36]. Oxacillin, moxifloxacin, and linezolid led to the development of a hyper-adhesive phenotype due to an increase in fnbA/B transcription [37]. The presence of PYED-1 also reduced the level of other virulence-associated genes in S. aureus, such as fnbB and capC genes in planktonic cells (Table 5), influencing the adherence properties of S. aureus. Since microbial adherence is the initial step of S. aureus pathogenicity, the ability of PYED-1 to affect this property may be an important factor for attenuation of bacterial infections.
Autolysins have been implicated in many cellular functions [38]. IsaA is a lytic transglycosylase involved in cellular elongation, septation, recycling of muropeptides, and pore formation [39,40]. The expression levels of the autolysin gene isaA were notably upregulated after PYED-1 treatment (Table 5). Overexpression of isaA could lead to a reduction in biofilm formation, a major virulence factor involved in S. aureus pathogenicity. These results are in accord to Payne et al. [41] that showed tannic acid inhibits the formation of biofilms by increasing the extracellular level of IsaA.
In light of the results obtained with S. aureus, further research on the anti-virulence activity of PYED-1 against other multidrug pathogens is merited.

5. Conclusions

The results of the present study revealed that PYED-1, alone or in combination with antibiotics, exerts a strong antimicrobial activity against S. aureus growth. PYED-1 has also the potential to restore the effectiveness of oxacillin against MRSA strains. Moreover, the finding that PYED-1 affects the expression levels of S. aureus virulence genes make this drug a promising candidate for the treatment of S. aureus infectious diseases.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, E.D.G. and A.G.; methodology, A.V., A.E., E.A., V.D.I., and D.D.; validation, A.V. and E.D.G; formal analysis, A.V. and E.D.G.; investigation, A.V., A.E., E.A., V.D.I., and D.D.; resources, A.E., E.A., V.D.I., and D.D.; data curation, A.V. and E.D.G.; writing—original draft preparation, A.G. and E.D.G.; visualization, A.G. and E.D.G.; supervision, A.G. and E.D.G. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Acknowledgments

We gratefully acknowledge Pierpaolo Di Nocera for comments and critical reading of the manuscript.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Boev, C.; Kiss, E. Hospital-Acquired Infections. Crit. Care Nurs. Clin. North Am. 2017, 29, 51–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Tommasi, R.; Brown, D.G.; Walkup, G.K.; Manchester, J.I.; Miller, A.A. ESKAPEing the labyrinth of antibacterial discovery. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 2015, 14, 529–542. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Schroeder, M.; Brooks, B.D.; Brooks, A.E. The Complex Relationship between Virulence and Antibiotic Resistance. Genes 2017, 8, 39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  4. Ke, S. Recent Progress of Novel Steroid Derivatives and Their Potential Biological Properties. Mini-Rev. Med. Chem. 2018, 18, 745–775. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Shieh, P.B.; McIntosh, J.; Jin, F.; Souza, M.; Elfring, G.; Narayanan, S.; Trifillis, P.; Peltz, S.W.; McDonald, C.; Darras, B.; et al. Deflazacort versus prednisone/prednisolone for maintaining motor function and delaying loss of ambulation: A post HOC analysis from the ACT DMD trial. Muscle Nerve 2018, 58, 639–645. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  6. Esposito, A.; De Gregorio, E.; De Fenza, M.; D’Alonzo, D.; Satawani, A.; Guaragna, A. Expeditious synthesis and preliminary antimicrobial activity of deflazacort and its precursors. RSC Adv. 2019, 9, 21519–21524. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  7. Esposito, A.; Vollaro, A.; Esposito, E.P.; D’Alonzo, D.; Guaragna, A.; Zarrilli, R.; De Gregorio, E. Antibacterial and Antivirulence Activity of Glucocorticoid PYED-1 against Stenotrophomonas maltophilia. Antibiot. 2020, 9, 105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  8. David, M.Z.; Daum, R.S. Treatment of Staphylococcus aureus Infections. Curr. Top. Microbiol. Immunol. 2017, 409, 325–383. [Google Scholar]
  9. Turner, N.A.; Sharma-Kuinkel, B.K.; Maskarinec, S.A.; Eichenberger, E.M.; Shah, P.P.; Carugati, M.; Holland, T.L.; Fowler, V.G. Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus: An overview of basic and clinical research. Nat. Rev. Genet. 2019, 17, 203–218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  10. Vestergaard, M.; Frees, D.; Ingmer, H. Antibiotic Resistance and the MRSA Problem. Microbiol. Spectr. 2019, 7, 747–765. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  11. De Gregorio, E.; Roscetto, E.; Iula, V.D.; Martinucci, M.; Zarrilli, R.; Di Nocera, P.P.; Catania, M.R. Development of a real-time PCR assay for the rapid detection of Acinetobacter baumannii from whole blood samples. New Microbiol. 2015, 38, 251–257. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  12. Giannouli, M.; Cuccurullo, S.; Crivaro, V.; Di Popolo, A.; Bernardo, M.; Tomasone, F.; Amato, G.; Brisse, S.; Triassi, M.; Utili, R.; et al. Molecular Epidemiology of Multidrug-Resistant Acinetobacter baumannii in a Tertiary Care Hospital in Naples, Italy, Shows the Emergence of a Novel Epidemic Clone. J. Clin. Microbiol. 2010, 48, 1223–1230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  13. Martinucci, M.; Roscetto, E.; Iula, V.D.; Votsi, A.; Catania, M.R.; De Gregorio, E. Accurate identification of members of the Burkholderia cepacia complex in cystic fibrosis sputum. Lett. Appl. Microbiol. 2016, 62, 221–229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  14. Sahl, J.W.; Del Franco, M.; Pournaras, S.; Colman, R.E.; Karah, N.; Dijkshoorn, L.; Zarrilli, R. Phylogenetic and genomic diversity in isolates from the globally distributed Acinetobacter baumannii ST25 lineage. Sci. Rep. 2015, 5, 15188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  15. European Committee on Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing (EUCAST) Clinical Breakpoints. Available online: http://www.eucast.org/clinical_breakpoints/ (accessed on 15 September 2012).
  16. CLSI (2015) Methods for Dilution Antimicrobial Susceptibility Tests for Bacteria that Grow Aerobically; Approved Standard—Tenth edition; CLSI document M07-A10; Clinical Laboratory Standards Institute: Wayne, IN, USA, 2015.
  17. Pane, K.; Cafaro, V.; Avitabile, A.; Torres, M.; Vollaro, A.; De Gregorio, E.; Catania, M.R.; Di Maro, A.; Bosso, A.; Gallo, G.; et al. Identification of Novel Cryptic Multifunctional Antimicrobial Peptides from the Human Stomach Enabled by a Computational–Experimental Platform. ACS Synth. Boil. 2018, 7, 2105–2115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Ferrazzano, G.F.; Scioscia, E.; Sateriale, D.; Pastore, G.; Colicchio, R.; Pagliuca, C.; Cantile, T.; Alcidi, B.; Coda, M.; Ingenito, A.; et al. In Vitro Antibacterial Activity of Pomegranate Juice and Peel Extracts on Cariogenic Bacteria. BioMed Res. Int. 2017, 2017, 1–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  19. Moellering, R.C. Antimicrobial Combinations. Rinsho Yakuri/Japanese J. Clin. Pharmacol. Ther. 1993, 24, 293–300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. De Gregorio, E.; Esposito, E.P.; Zarrilli, R.; Di Nocera, P.P. Contact-Dependent Growth Inhibition Proteins in Acinetobacter baylyi ADP1. Curr. Microbiol. 2018, 75, 1434–1440. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  21. Livak, K.J.; Schmittgen, T.D. Analysis of relative gene expression data using real-time quantitative PCR and the 2(-Delta Delta C(T)) method. Methods 2001, 25, 402–408. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Swern, D. Epoxidation and Hydroxylation of Ethylenic Compounds with Organic Peracids. In Organic Reactions; Wiley Online Library: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2011; pp. 378–434. [Google Scholar]
  23. Tängdén, T. Combination antibiotic therapy for multidrug-resistant Gram-negative bacteria. Upsala J. Med. Sci. 2014, 119, 149–153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Jenul, C.; Horswill, A.R. Regulation of Staphylococcus aureus Virulence. Microbiol. Spectr. 2018, 6, 669–686. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Jiang, L.; Yi, T.; Shen, Z.; Teng, Z.; Wang, J. Aloe-emodin Attenuates Staphylococcus aureus Pathogenicity by Interfering With the Oligomerization of α-Toxin. Front. Microbiol. 2019, 9, 157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Kebaier, C.; Chamberland, R.R.; Allen, I.C.; Gao, X.; Broglie, P.M.; Hall, J.D.; Jania, C.; Doerschuk, C.M.; Tilley, S.L.; Duncan, J. Staphylococcus aureus α-Hemolysin Mediates Virulence in a Murine Model of Severe Pneumonia Through Activation of the NLRP3 Inflammasome. J. Infect. Dis. 2012, 205, 807–817. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Alonzo, F.; Torres, V.J. Bacterial Survival Amidst an Immune Onslaught: The Contribution of the Staphylococcus aureus Leukotoxins. PLoS Pathog. 2013, 9, 1003143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  28. Herbert, S.; Barry, P.; Novick, R.P. Subinhibitory Clindamycin Differentially Inhibits Transcription of Exoprotein Genes in Staphylococcus aureus. Infect. Immun. 2001, 69, 2996–3003. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  29. Bernardo, K.; Pakulat, N.; Fleer, S.; Schnaith, A.; Utermöhlen, O.; Krut, O.; Müller, S.; Krönke, M. Subinhibitory Concentrations of Linezolid Reduce Staphylococcus aureus Virulence Factor Expression. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 2004, 48, 546–555. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  30. Stevens, D.L.; Ma, Y.; Salmi, D.B.; McIndoo, E.; Wallace, R.J.; Bryant, A.E. Impact of Antibiotics on Expression of Virulence? Associated Exotoxin Genes in Methicillin? Sensitive and Methicillin? Resistant Staphylococcus aureus. J. Infect. Dis. 2007, 195, 202–211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  31. Xiong, Y.Q.; Willard, J.; Yeaman, M.R.; Cheung, A.L.; Bayer, A.S. Regulation of Staphylococcus aureusα-Toxin Gene(hla)Expression byagr, sarA, andsaeIn Vitro and in Experimental Infective Endocarditis. J. Infect. Dis. 2006, 194, 1267–1275. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  32. Liu, Q.; Yeo, W.; Bae, T. The SaeRS Two-Component System of Staphylococcus aureus. Genes 2016, 7, 81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  33. Nygaard, T.K.; Pallister, K.B.; Ruzevich, P.; Griffith, S.; Vuong, C.; Voyich, J.M. SaeR binds a consensus sequence within virulence gene promoters to advance USA300 pathogenesis. J. Infect. Dis. 2010, 201, 241–254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  34. Duan, J.; Li, M.; Hao, Z.; Shen, X.; Liu, L.; Jin, Y.; Wang, S.; Guo, Y.; Yang, L.; Wang, L.; et al. Subinhibitory concentrations of resveratrol reduce alpha-hemolysin production in Staphylococcus aureus isolates by downregulating saeRS. Emerg. Microbes Infect. 2018, 7, 136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  35. Qiu, J.; Wang, D.; Xiang, H.; Feng, H.; Jiang, Y.; Xia, L.; Dong, J.; Lu, J.; Yu, L.; Deng, X. Subinhibitory Concentrations of Thymol Reduce Enterotoxins A and B and α-Hemolysin Production in Staphylococcus aureus Isolates. PLoS ONE 2010, 5, e9736. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  36. Smith, K.; Gould, K.A.; Ramage, G.; Gemmell, C.G.; Hinds, J.; Lang, S. Influence of Tigecycline on Expression of Virulence Factors in Biofilm-Associated Cells of Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 2009, 54, 380–387. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  37. Rasigade, J.-P.; Moulay, A.; Lhoste, Y.; Tristan, A.; Bes, M.; Vandenesch, F.; Etienne, J.; Lina, G.; Laurent, F.; Dumitrescu, O. Impact of sub-inhibitory antibiotics on fibronectin-mediated host cell adhesion and invasion by Staphylococcus aureus. BMC Microbiol. 2011, 11, 263. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  38. Smith, T.; Blackman, S.A.; Foster, S.J. Autolysins of Bacillus subtilis: Multiple enzymes with multiple functions. Microbiology 2000, 146, 249–262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  39. Stapleton, M.R.; Horsburgh, M.J.; Hayhurst, E.J.; Wright, L.; Jonsson, I.-M.; Tarkowski, A.; Kokai-Kun, J.F.; Mond, J.J.; Foster, S.J. Characterization of IsaA and SceD, Two Putative Lytic Transglycosylases of Staphylococcus aureus. J. Bacteriol. 2007, 189, 7316–7325. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  40. Scheurwater, E.; Reid, C.W.; Clarke, A. Lytic transglycosylases: Bacterial space-making autolysins. Int. J. Biochem. Cell Boil. 2008, 40, 586–591. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  41. Payne, D.E.; Martin, N.R.; Parzych, K.R.; Rickard, A.H.; Underwood, A.; Boles, B.R. Tannic Acid Inhibits Staphylococcus aureus Surface Colonization in an IsaA-Dependent Manner. Infect. Immun. 2012, 81, 496–504. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
Microorganisms 08 00468 g001 550
Figure 1. Deflazacort and its synthetic precursor PYED-1 (pregnadiene-11-hydroxy-16α,17α-epoxy-3,20-dione-1).
Figure 1. Deflazacort and its synthetic precursor PYED-1 (pregnadiene-11-hydroxy-16α,17α-epoxy-3,20-dione-1).
Microorganisms 08 00468 g001
Microorganisms 08 00468 g002 550
Figure 2. Synthetic transformations from brominated compound 9 to epoxide PYED-1.
Figure 2. Synthetic transformations from brominated compound 9 to epoxide PYED-1.
Microorganisms 08 00468 g002
Microorganisms 08 00468 g003 550
Figure 3. Deflazacort (DFZ) glucocorticoid precursors and analogues.
Figure 3. Deflazacort (DFZ) glucocorticoid precursors and analogues.
Microorganisms 08 00468 g003
Microorganisms 08 00468 g004 550
Figure 4. Killing kinetics for S. aureus following treatment with the PYED-1. Growth kinetics were monitored following exposure to PYED-1 at 1 x MIC, 2 x MIC, and 4 x MIC.
Figure 4. Killing kinetics for S. aureus following treatment with the PYED-1. Growth kinetics were monitored following exposure to PYED-1 at 1 x MIC, 2 x MIC, and 4 x MIC.
Microorganisms 08 00468 g004
Table
Table 1. Gene target list and oligonucleotide sequences.
Table 1. Gene target list and oligonucleotide sequences.
GenePrimer Sequence
agrA FwTGCGAAGACGATCCAAAAC
agrA RvTTTAGCTTGCTCAAGCACCTC
aur FwGATGGTCGCACATTCACAAG
aur RvCGCCTGACTGGTCCTTATATTC
capC FwCATCCAGAGCGGAATAAAGC
capC RvCGGAAATACCCGCTAATGAC
clfB FwTTATGGTGGTGGAAGTGCTG
clfB RvTGGACTTGGTTCTGGATCTG
fnbB FwGAACATGGTCAAGCACAAGG
fnbB RvACGCCATAATTACCGTGACC
hla FwTCTTGGAACCCGGTATATGG
hla RvAGCGAAGTCTGGTGAAAACC
hlb FwGTGCCAAAGCCGAATCTAAG
hlb RvATCAGCGCGTTTATATTGTCC
isaA FwTCCGACAAACACTGTTGACC
isaA RvAATCCCCAAGCACCTAAACC
lytM FwACGGTGTCGACTATGCAATG
lytM RvATTGCCGCCACCATAGTTAC
lukD FwGTACTTAAGGCAGCCGGAAAC
lukD RvCGCCCCAATAAAACTGTGAG
lukE FwATGGGGTGTTAAAGCAAACG
lukE RvTCTCTTGCTGAACCTGTTGG
rpoB FwACAACCACTTGGCGGTAAAG
rpoB RvATGCTTCAAGTGCCCATACC
saeR FwCCAAGGGAACTCGTTTTACG
saeR RvACGCATAGGGACTTCGTGAC
sea FwATTGCCCTAACGTGGACAAC
sea RvTGCTCCCTGCAATTCAGAC
sigB FwTGATCGCGAACGAGAAATC
sigB RvATTGCCGTTCTCTGAAGTCG
spa FwAGATGACCCAAGCCAAAGTG
spa RvCTTTCGGTGCTTGAGATTCATT
Table
Table 2. Minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) (μg/mL) and minimum bactericidal concentration (MBC) (μg/mL) values of PD, DFZ and its precursors against a panel of Gram-negative and Gram-positive pathogens.
Table 2. Minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) (μg/mL) and minimum bactericidal concentration (MBC) (μg/mL) values of PD, DFZ and its precursors against a panel of Gram-negative and Gram-positive pathogens.
BacteriaCompound
PYED-12 (DFZ)345678 (PD)
MICMBCMICMBCMICMBCMICMBCMICMBCMICMBCMICMBCMICMBC
Staphylococcus aureus
ATCC 29213		1616>1000>1000375>1000>1000>1000750>100025651210001000>1000>1000
Enterococcus faecalis
ATCC 29212		416>1000>1000187>1000>1000>1000375>100012825610001000>1000>1000
Acinetobacter baumannii
ATCC 17978		1616>1000>1000>1000>1000>1000>1000>1000>100051251210001000>1000>1000
Pseudomonas aeruginosa
ATCC 27859		1281000>1000>1000750>1000>1000>1000>1000>10001000100010001000>1000>1000
Escherichia coli
ATCC 25922		128128>1000>1000>1000>1000>1000>1000>1000>10001000100010001000>1000>1000
Klebsiella pneumoniae
ATCC 700603		>1000>1000>1000>1000>1000>1000>1000>1000>1000>1000>1000>1000>1000>1000>1000>1000
Enterobacter aerogenes
ATCC 13048		>1000>1000>1000>1000>1000>1000>1000>1000>1000>1000>1000>1000>1000>1000>1000>1000
Table
Table 3. MIC (μg/mL) and MBC (μg/mL) values of PYED-1 on a panel of Gram-negative and Gram-positive multidrug pathogens.
Table 3. MIC (μg/mL) and MBC (μg/mL) values of PYED-1 on a panel of Gram-negative and Gram-positive multidrug pathogens.
BacteriaMICMBCBacteriaMICMBC
S. aureus ATCC 292131616A. baumannii ATCC 179781616
S. aureus 007171616A. baumannii AYE1616
S. aureus 001421616A. baumannii 607943232
S. aureus 903561632A. baumannii 300313232
S. aureus 901593232A. baumannii 300321616
S. aureus 903191616A. baumannii 904073264
S. aureus 007093232A. baumannii 701203264
S. aureus 906231616A. baumannii 622581616
S. aureus 902463232A. baumannii 39093232
S. aureus 610351616A. baumannii 39903216
S. aureus 61486816A. baumannii 41901632
S. aureus 644281616A. baumannii NM31632
E. faecalis ATCC 29212416E. coli ATCC 25922128128
E. faecalis 90709816E. coli 90117128128
E. faecalis 30818816E. coli 01283128512
E. faecium 90725816E. coli 010292561000
E. faecium 90122816E. coli 66570128512
E. faecalis 90842816E. coli 919472561000
E. faecalis 90837816E. coli 900502561000
E. faecium 62179832E. coli 65964128256
E. faecium 63131816E. coli 65026128512
P. aeruginosa ATCC 278591281000
P. aeruginosa 010181281000
P. aeruginosa 014931281000
P. aeruginosa 00865641000
P. aeruginosa 91631256>1000
P. aeruginosa RP73641000
P. aeruginosa 661481281000
P. aeruginosa 661491281000
P. aeruginosa 00445256>1000
P. aeruginosa 00173256>1000
Table
Table 4. Additive effects of the compound PYED-1 with antibiotics against S. aureus.
Table 4. Additive effects of the compound PYED-1 with antibiotics against S. aureus.
Bacterial StrainCombinationMICa (μg/mL)MICc (μg/mL)FIC
S. aureus 00717PYED-1/gentamicin16/2568/160.5625
PYED-1/oxacillin16/1288/20.5156
MICa, MIC of one sample alone; MICc, MIC of samples in combination; FIC, fractional inhibitory concentration.
Table
Table 5. RT-PCR analysis of virulence factors gene expression in S. aureus ATCC 29,213 in the presence of PYED-1.
Table 5. RT-PCR analysis of virulence factors gene expression in S. aureus ATCC 29,213 in the presence of PYED-1.
GeneDescriptionFold Changea ± SDp Value
capCCapsule biosynthesis protein C–2.95 ± 0.130.0153
fnbBFibronectin-binding protein B–2.11 ± 0.040.0139
clfBClumping factor B+1.44 ± 0.250.1988
spaSurface protein A–1.51 ± 0.020.0213
lytMPeptidoglycan hydrolase+1.39 ± 0.320.2177
aurAureolysin, zinc metalloproteinase–1.38 ± 0.220.0765
isaAImmunodominant staphylococcal antigen+4.18 ± 1.240.0022
hlaAlpha-haemolysin–10.17 ± 0.020.0002
hlbBeta-haemolysin–21.17 ± 0.010.0132
lukDPore-forming leukocidin–10.96 ± 0.01<0.0001
lukEPore-forming leukocidin–13.52 ± 0.005<0.0001
seaStaphylococcal enterotoxin A–2.46 ± 0.020.0115
agrAAccessory gene regulator protein A–2.29 ± 0.10.0146
sigBRNA polymerase sigma factor B–2.11 ± 0.090.0006
saeRResponse regulator SaeR–8.66 ± 0.03<0.0001
a—indicates reduction and + indicates increase.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Vollaro, A.; Esposito, A.; Antonaki, E.; Iula, V.D.; D’Alonzo, D.; Guaragna, A.; De Gregorio, E. Steroid Derivatives as Potential Antimicrobial Agents against Staphylococcus aureus Planktonic Cells. Microorganisms 2020, 8, 468. https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms8040468

AMA Style

Vollaro A, Esposito A, Antonaki E, Iula VD, D’Alonzo D, Guaragna A, De Gregorio E. Steroid Derivatives as Potential Antimicrobial Agents against Staphylococcus aureus Planktonic Cells. Microorganisms. 2020; 8(4):468. https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms8040468

Chicago/Turabian Style

Vollaro, Adriana, Anna Esposito, Eleni Antonaki, Vita Dora Iula, Daniele D’Alonzo, Annalisa Guaragna, and Eliana De Gregorio. 2020. "Steroid Derivatives as Potential Antimicrobial Agents against Staphylococcus aureus Planktonic Cells" Microorganisms 8, no. 4: 468. https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms8040468

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop