Thanks to visit codestin.com
Credit goes to link.springer.com

Skip to main content
Log in

The Inhibitory Effects of Amylase and Streptokinase on Minimum Inhibitory Concentration of Antibiotics Used to Treat Gram Negative Bacteria Biofilm Infection on Indwelling Devices

  • ORIGINAL RESEARCH ARTICLE
  • Published:
Indian Journal of Microbiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The study evaluated and compared the effect of adding streptokinase and amylase to antibiotics that are already used in clinical practice to treat Gram negative bacteria biofilm infection on indwelling devices on the antibiotics' minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC). 24 h-old biofilms were developed on 96-well plate with eight clinical isolates. MIC of amikacin, cefepime, ceftazidime, colistin, meropenem, and piperacillin–tazobactam, on biofilms were measured before and after the addition of 25 U/ml streptokinase and 25 μg/ml amylase with microplate reader. The addition of streptokinase reduces the MICs of cefepime, ceftazidime, colistin, meropenem from (16, 16, 8, 4 μg/ml) to (8, 1, 1, 0.5 μg/ml) in Escherichia coli (isolate 1). While the addition of amylase reduces the MICs of only cefepime, ceftazidime from (16, 16 μg/ml) to (2, 4 μg/ml) in E. coli (isolate 1). In Pseudomonas aeruginosa (isolate 4), the MICs of amikacin, cefepime, ceftazidime, colistin and meropenem (64, 16, 32, 4, 32 μg/ml) reduced to (2, 1, 0.5, 0.25, 0.5 μg/ml) with streptokinase and (4, 4, 4, 2, 0.5 μg/ml) with amylase respectively. Similar inhibitions were seen in Pseudomonas putida, Proteus mirabilis. We can conclude that the addition of streptokinase and amylase were effective in reducing the MICs of antibiotics that are commonly used to treat Gram negative bacteria biofilm infection on indwelling devices, thereby increasing susceptibility of bacteria to antibiotics. Streptokinase obviously had a greater effect than amylase, implying that it should be prioritized in future in vivo and clinical studies to obtain successful therapy with antibiotics on biofilm infections.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Subscribe and save

Springer+
from £29.99 /Month
  • Starting from 10 chapters or articles per month
  • Access and download chapters and articles from more than 300k books and 2,500 journals
  • Cancel anytime
View plans

Buy Now

Price includes VAT (United Kingdom)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Data Availability

The datasets generated during and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

References

  1. O’Toole G, Kaplan HB, Kolter R (2000) Biofilm formation as microbial development. Annu Rev Microbiol 54:49–79. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.micro.54.1.49

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Hall-Stoodley L, Stoodley P (2009) Evolving concepts in biofilm infections. Cell Microbiol 11:1034–1043. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1462-5822.2009.01323.x

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Jamal M, Ahmad W, Andleeb S et al (2018) Bacterial biofilm and associated infections. J Chin Med Assoc 81:7–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcma.2017.07.012

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Kokare CR, Chakraborty S, Khopade AN, Mahadik KR (2009) Biofilm: importance and applications. Indian J Biotechnol 6:159–168

    Google Scholar 

  5. Perciva S, Williams D, Cooper T, Randle J (2014) Biofilms in infection prevention and control a healthcare handbook. Academic Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts

    Google Scholar 

  6. Tran PL, Lowry N, Campbell T et al (2012) An organoselenium compound inhibits Staphylococcus aureus biofilms on hemodialysis catheters in vivo. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 56:972–978. https://doi.org/10.1128/AAC.05680-11

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Høiby N, Bjarnsholt T, Givskov M et al (2010) Antibiotic resistance of bacterial biofilms. Int J Antimicrob Agents 35:322–332. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijantimicag.2009.12.011

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Hengzhuang W, Wu H, Ciofu O et al (2011) Pharmacokinetics/pharmacodynamics of colistin and imipenem on mucoid and nonmucoid Pseudomonas aeruginosa biofilms. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 55:4469–4474. https://doi.org/10.1128/AAC.00126-11

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Roy R, Tiwari M, Donelli G, Tiwari V (2018) Strategies for combating bacterial biofilms: a focus on anti-biofilm agents and their mechanisms of action. Virulence 9:522–554. https://doi.org/10.1080/21505594.2017.1313372

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Pieper-Bigelow C, Strocchi A, Levitt MD (1990) Where does serum amylase come from and where does it go? Gastroenterol Clin North Am 19:793–810

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Azzopardi E, Lloyd C, Teixeira SR et al (2016) Clinical applications of amylase: novel perspectives. Surgery 160:26–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.surg.2016.01.005

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Schachtele CF, Staat RH, Harlander SK (1975) Dextranases from oral bacteria: inhibition of water-insoluble glucan production and adherence to smooth surfaces by Streptococcus mutans. Infect Immun 12:309–317. https://doi.org/10.1128/iai.12.2.309-317.1975

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Lembre P, Lorentz C, Di P (2012) Exopolysaccharides of the biofilm matrix: a complex biophysical world. In: Karunaratne DN (Ed) The complex world of polysaccharides. InTechOpen, London, pp 371–392. https://doi.org/10.5772/51213

  14. Kalpana BJ, Aarthy S, Pandian SK (2012) Antibiofilm activity of α-amylase from Bacillus subtilis S8–18 against biofilm forming human bacterial pathogens. Appl Biochem Biotechnol 167:1778–1794. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12010-011-9526-2

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Jee S-C, Kim M, Sung J-S, Kadam AA (2020) Efficient biofilms eradication by enzymatic-cocktail of pancreatic protease type-I and bacterial α-amylase. Polymers (Basel) 12:3032. https://doi.org/10.3390/polym12123032

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Solihin J, Waturangi DE, Purwadaria T (2021) Induction of amylase and protease as antibiofilm agents by starch, casein, and yeast extract in Arthrobacter sp. CW01. BMC Microbiol 21:232. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12866-021-02294-z

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Nemoto K, Hirota K, Ono T et al (2000) Effect of varidase (streptokinase) on biofilm formed by Staphylococcus aureus. Chemotherapy 46:111–115. https://doi.org/10.1159/000007264

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Vanassche T, Peetermans M, Van Aelst LNL et al (2013) The role of staphylothrombin-mediated fibrin deposition in catheter-related Staphylococcus aureus infections. J Infect Dis 208:92–100. https://doi.org/10.1093/infdis/jit130

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Kwiecinski J, Peetermans M, Liesenborghs L et al (2016) Staphylokinase control of Staphylococcus aureus biofilm formation and detachment through host plasminogen activation. J Infect Dis 213:139–148. https://doi.org/10.1093/infdis/jiv360

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Zapotoczna M, McCarthy H, Rudkin JK et al (2015) An essential role for coagulase in Staphylococcus aureus biofilm development reveals new therapeutic possibilities for device-related infections. J Infect Dis 212:1883–1893. https://doi.org/10.1093/infdis/jiv319

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Baldassarri L, Creti R, Recchia S et al (2006) Therapeutic failures of antibiotics used to treat macrolide-susceptible Streptococcus pyogenes infections may be due to biofilm formation. J Clin Microbiol 44:2721–2727. https://doi.org/10.1128/JCM.00512-06

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Antunes ALS, Trentın DS, Bonfanti JW et al (2010) Application of a feasible method for determination of biofilm antimicrobial susceptibility in Staphylococci. APMIS 118:873–877. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0463.2010.02681.x

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Aksoy N, Vatansever C, Zengin Ersoy G et al (2022) The effect of biofilm inhibitor N-acetylcysteine on the minimum inhibitory concentration of antibiotics used in Gram-negative bacteria in the biofilm developed on catheters. Int J Artif Organs 45:865–870. https://doi.org/10.1177/03913988221112969

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Stamm WE (1978) Infections related to medical devices. Ann Intern Med 89:764. https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-89-5-764

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Donlan RM, Costerton JW (2002) Biofilms: survival mechanisms of clinically relevant microorganisms. Clin Microbiol Rev 15:167–193. https://doi.org/10.1128/CMR.15.2.167-193.2002

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. Lewis K (2007) Persister cells, dormancy and infectious disease. Nat Rev Microbiol 5:48–56. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrmicro1557

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Lewis K (2001) Riddle of biofilm resistance. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 45:999–1007. https://doi.org/10.1128/AAC.45.4.999-1007.2001

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. Jørgensen N, Zobek N, Dreier C et al (2016) Streptokinase treatment reverses biofilm-associated antibiotic resistance in Staphylococcus aureus. Microorganisms 4:36. https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms4030036

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  29. Kwiecinski J, Na M, Jarneborn A et al (2016) Tissue plasminogen activator coating on implant surfaces reduces Staphylococcus aureus biofilm formation. Appl Environ Microbiol 82:394–401. https://doi.org/10.1128/AEM.02803-15

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Limoli DH, Jones CJ, Wozniak DJ (2015) Bacterial extracellular polysaccharides in biofilm formation and function. Microbiol Spectr. https://doi.org/10.1128/microbiolspec.MB-0011-2014

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Eke PI, Rotimi VO, Odugbemi TO, Dosunmu-Ogunbi OO (1984) Effects of saliva and alpha-amylase on antibiotic sensitivity of bacteria. Afr J Med Med Sci 13:15–20

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Craigen B, Dashiff A, Kadouri DE (2011) The use of commercially available alpha-amylase compounds to inhibit and remove Staphylococcus aureus biofilms. Open Microbiol J 5:21–31. https://doi.org/10.2174/1874285801105010021

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  33. Bradford C (2011) The use of commercially available alpha-amylase compounds to inhibit and remove Staphylococcus aureus biofilms. Open Microbiol J 5:21–31. https://doi.org/10.2174/1874285801105010021

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The author would like to thank Nur Öztürk for her ongoing assistance as well as Altınbaş University Scientific Research Fund for their financial support.

Funding

This research project was supported by Altınbaş University Scientific Research Fund. Project Number: PB2018-GÜZ-ECZ-7.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

All authors contributed to the concept and design of the study. Material preparation, data collection and analysis were performed by [NA], [CV], [CA], [BAA] and [TF]. [NA] wrote the first draft of the manuscript, and all contributors provided feedback on prior drafts. The final manuscript has been reviewed and approved by all writers.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Nilay Aksoy.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of ınterests

There are no relevant financial or non-monetary interests to report for the authors.

Ethics Approval

This study was carried out in conformity with the principles of the Helsinki Declaration. Approved by the Istinye University Ethics Committee (date 30.11.2018/No 2018/7).

Constent for Publication

There are no figures or tables taken from any other resources.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Aksoy, N., Vatansever, C., Adalı, C. et al. The Inhibitory Effects of Amylase and Streptokinase on Minimum Inhibitory Concentration of Antibiotics Used to Treat Gram Negative Bacteria Biofilm Infection on Indwelling Devices. Indian J Microbiol 63, 533–540 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12088-023-01109-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12088-023-01109-1

Keywords