Advertisement

Probiotics and Antimicrobial Proteins

, Volume 11, Issue 3, pp 1009–1014 | Cite as

The Effect of Vancomycin on the Viability and Osteogenic Potential of Bone-Derived Mesenchymal Stem Cells

  • Elzaan Booysen
  • Hanél Sadie-Van Gijsen
  • Shelly M. Deane
  • William Ferris
  • Leon M. T. DicksEmail author
Article

Abstract

Traditionally, methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) is treated with vancomycin, administrated intravenously or applied directly onto infected tissue. The effect of direct (as opposed to systemic) vancomycin treatment on bone formation and remodelling is largely unknown. The minimal inhibitory concentration (MIC) of vancomycin was determined by adding 200 μL of different concentrations (1–20 μg/mL) to actively growing cultures of S. aureus Xen 31 (methicillin-resistant) and S. aureus Xen 36 (methicillin-sensitive), respectively, and recording changes in optical density over 24 h. Bone marrow-derived and proximal femur-derived mesenchymal stem cells (bmMSCs and pfMSCs) from rat femora were exposed to 1 × MIC (5 μg/mL) and 4 × MIC (20 μg/mL) of vancomycin for 7 days. Cell viability was determined by staining with crystal violet and MTT (3-(4,5-dimethylthiazol-2-yl)-2,5-diphenyltetrazolium bromide), respectively, and osteogenic differentiation by staining with Alizarin Red S. Vancomycin had no effect on the viability of bmMSCs and pfMSCs, even at high levels (20 μg/mL). The osteogenic differentiation of pfMSCs was partially inhibited, while osteogenesis in bmMSCs was not severely affected. The direct application of vancomycin to infected bone tissue, even at excessive levels, may preserve the viability of resident MSC populations.

Keywords

Vancomycin Mesenchymal stem cells Viability 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The research was funded by the National Research Foundation, South Africa. Grants were allocated to H Sadie-Van Gijsen and LMT Dicks. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and interpretation, or the decision to submit the work for publication.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no competing interest.

References

  1. 1.
    Kujala UM, Kaprio J, Sarna S (1994) Osteoarthritis of weight bearing joints of lower limbs in former élite male athletes. Br Med J 308:231–234CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Crowninshield RD, Johnston RC, Andrews JG, Brand RA (1978) A biomechanical investigation of the human hip. J Biomech 11:75–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Sato T, Sato N (2015) Clinical relevance of the hip joint: part I—review of the anatomy of the hip joint. Int Musculoskelet Med 37:141–145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Zhang Y, Jordan JM (2010) Epidemiology of osteoarthritis. Clin Geriatr Med 26:355–369CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Song Z, Borgwardt L, Høiby N, Wu H, Sørensen TS, Borgwardt A (2013) Prosthesis infections after orthopedic joint replacement: the possible role of bacterial biofilms. Orthop Rev (Pavia) 5:65–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Siopack JS, Jergesen HE (1995) Total hip arthroplasty. West J Med 162:243–249Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Knight SR, Aujla R, Biswas SP (2011) Total hip arthroplasty—over 100 years of operative history. Orthop Rev (Pavia) 3:72–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Pivec R, Johnson AJ, Mears SC, Mont MA (2012) Hip arthroplasty. Lancet 380:1768–1777CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Lentino JR (2003) Prosthetic joint infections: bane of orthopedists, challenge for infectious disease specialists. Clin Infect Dis 36:1157–1161CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Tande AJ, Patel R (2014) Prosthetic joint infection. Clin Microbiol Rev 27:302–345CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Høiby N, Bjarnsholt T, Givskov M, Molin S, Ciofu O (2010) Antibiotic resistance of bacterial biofilms. Int J Antimicrob Agents 35:322–332CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Pulido L, Ghanem E, Joshi A, Purtill JJ, Parvizi J (2008) Periprosthetic joint infection: the incidence, timing, and predisposing factors. Clin Orthop Relat Res 466:1710–1715CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Parvizi J, Aggarwal V, Rasouli M (2013) Periprosthetic joint infection: current concept. Indian J Orthop 47:10–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Wolf M, Clar H, Friesenbichler J, Schwantzer G, Bernhardt G, Gruber G, Glehr M, Leithner A, Sadoghi P (2014) Prosthetic joint infection following total hip replacement: results of one-stage versus two-stage exchange. Int Orthop 38:1363–1368CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Siljander MP, Sobh AH, Baker KC, Baker EA, Kaplan LM (2018) Multidrug-resistant organisms in the setting of periprosthetic joint infection—diagnosis, prevention, and treatment. J Arthroplast 33:185–194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ravi S, Zhu M, Luey C, Young SW (2016) Antibiotic resistance in early periprosthetic joint infection. Orthop Surg 86:1014–1018Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Parvizi J, Alijanipour P, Barberi EF, Hickok NJ, Phillips KS, Shapiro IM, Schwarz EM, Stevens MH, Wang Y, Shirtliff ME (2015) Novel developments in the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of periprosthetic joint infections. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 23:32–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kirby A, Graham R, Williams NJ, Wootton M, Broughton CM, Alanazi M, Anson J, Neal TJ, Parry CM (2010) Staphylococcus aureus with reduced glycopeptide susceptibility in Liverpool, UK. J Antimicrob Chemother 65:721–724CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Gu H, Ho PL, Tong E, Wang L, Xu B (2003) Presenting vancomycin on nanoparticles to enhance antimicrobial activities. Nano Lett 3:1261–1263CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Zakeri-milani P, Loveymi BD, Jelvehgari M, Valizadeh H (2013) The characteristics and improved intestinal permeability of vancomycin PLGA-nanoparticles as colloidal drug delivery system. Colloids and Surfaces B: Biointerfaces 103:174–181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Lotfipour F, Abdollahi S, Jelvehgari M, Valizadeh H, Hassan M, Milani M (2013) Study of antimicrobial effects of vancomycin loaded PLGA nanoparticles against Enterococcus clinical isolates. Drug Res (Stuttg) 64:348–352CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Song C, Guo Z, Ma Q, Chen Z, Liu Z, Jia H, Dang G (2003) Simvastatin induces osteoblastic differentiation and inhibits adipocytic differentiation in mouse bone marrow stromal cells. Biochem Biophys Res Commun 308:458–462CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Heim M, Frank O, Kampmann G, Sochocky N, Pennimpede T, Fuchs P, Hunziker W, Weber P, Martin I, Bendik I (2004) The phytoestrogen genistein enhances osteogenesis and represses adipogenic differentiation of human primary bone marrow stromal cells. Endocrinology 145:848–859CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Duque G, Rivas D (2007) Alendronate has an anabolic effect on bone through the differentiation of mesenchymal stem cells. J Bone Miner Res 22:1603–1611CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Jacobs FA, Sadie-Van Gijsen H, van de Vyver M, Ferris WF (2016) Vanadate impedes adipogenesis in mesenchymal stem cells derived from different depots within bone. Front Endocrinol (Lausanne) 7:1–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Andrews JM (2001) Determination of minimum inhibitory concentrations. J Antimicrob Chemother 48:5–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Prakash V, Lewis JS, Jorgensen JH (2008) Vancomycin MICs for methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus isolates differ based upon the susceptibility test method used. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 52:4528CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Wang G, Hindler JF, Ward KW, Bruckner DA (2006) Increased vancomycin MICs for Staphylococcus aureus clinical isolates from a university hospital during a 5-year period. J Clin Microbiol 44:3883–3886CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Fair RJ, Tor Y (2014) Antibiotics and bacterial resistance in the 21st century. Perspect Medicin Chem 6:25–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Elzaan Booysen
    • 1
  • Hanél Sadie-Van Gijsen
    • 2
    • 3
  • Shelly M. Deane
    • 1
  • William Ferris
    • 2
  • Leon M. T. Dicks
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Department of Microbiology, Faculty of Natural SciencesStellenbosch UniversityStellenboschSouth Africa
  2. 2.Division of Endocrinology, Department of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine and Health SciencesStellenbosch University Tygerberg CampusParowSouth Africa
  3. 3.Division of Medical Physiology, Department of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine and Health SciencesStellenbosch University Tygerberg CampusParowSouth Africa

Personalised recommendations