Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

In vitro Activity of Daptomycin, Linezolid and Rifampicin on Staphylococcus epidermidis Biofilms

  • Published:
Current Microbiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Owing to their massive use, Staphylococcus epidermidis has recently developed significant resistance to several antibiotics, and became one of the leading causes of hospital-acquired infections. Current antibiotics are typically ineffective in the eradication of bacteria in biofilm-associated persistent infections. Accordingly, the paucity of effective treatment against cells in this mode of growth is a key factor that potentiates the need for new agents active in the prevention or eradication of biofilms. Daptomycin and linezolid belong to the novel antibiotic therapies that are active against gram-positive cocci. On the other hand, rifampicin has been shown to be one of the most potent, prevalent antibiotics against S. epidermidis biofilms. Therefore, the main aim of this study was to study the susceptibility of S. epidermidis biofilm cells to the two newer antimicrobial agents previously mentioned, and compare the results obtained with the antimicrobial effect of rifampicin, widely used in the prevention/treatment of indwelling medical device infections. To this end the in vitro activities of daptomycin, linezolid, and rifampicin on S. epidermidis biofilms were accessed, using these antibiotics at MIC and peak serum concentrations. The results demonstrated that at MIC concentration, rifampicin was the most effective antibiotic tested. At peak serum concentration, both strains demonstrated similar susceptibility to rifampicin and daptomycin, with colony-forming units (CFUs) reductions of approximately 3–4 log10, with a slightly lower response to linezolid, which was also more strain dependent. However, considering all the parameters studied, daptomycin was considered the most effective antibiotic tested, demonstrating an excellent in vitro activity against S. epidermidis biofilm cells. In conclusion, this antibiotic can be strongly considered as an acceptable therapeutic option for S. epidermidis biofilm-associated infections and can represent a potential alternative to rifampicin in serious infections where rifampicin resistance becomes prevalent.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Vuong C, Otto M (2002) Staphylococcus epidermidis infections. Microbes Infect 4:481–489

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Costerton JW, Stewart PS, Greenberg EP (1999) Bacterial biofilms: a common cause of persistent infections. Science 284:1318–1322

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Raad I, Alrahwan A, Rolston K (1998) Staphylococcus epidermidis: emerging resistance and need for alternative agents. Clin Infect Dis 26:1182–1187

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Jones RN (2003) Global epidemiology of antimicrobial resistance among community-acquired and nosocomial pathogens: a five-year summary from the SENTRY Antimicrobial Surveillance Program (1997–2001). Semin Respir Crit Care Med 24:121–134

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Moellering RC (1991) The enterococcus: a classic example of the impact of antimicrobial resistance on therapeutic options. J Antimicrob Chemother 28:1–12

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Rybak MJ, Hershberger E, Moldovan T et al (2000) In vitro activities of daptomycin, vancomycin, linezolid, and quinupristin–dalfopristin against Staphylococci and Enterococci, including vancomycin-intermediate and -resistant strains. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 44:1062–1066

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Johnson AP, Tysall L, Stockdale MV et al (2002) Emerging linezolid-resistant Enterococcus faecalis and Enterococcus faecium isolated from two austrian patients in the same intensive care unit. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis 21:751–754

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Pillai SK, Sakoulas G, Wennersten C et al (2002) Linezolid resistance in Staphylococcus aureus: characterization and stability of resistant phenotype. J Infect Dis 186:1603–1607

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Srinivasan S, Sheela D, Shashikala et al (2006) Risk factors and associated problems in the management of infections with methicillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus. Indian J Med Microbiol 24:182–185

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Aboshkiwa M, Rowland G, Coleman G (1995) Nucleotide sequence of the Staphylococcus aureus RNA polymerase rpoB gene and comparison of its predicted amino acid sequence with those of other bacteria. Biochim Biophys Acta 1262:73–78

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Aubry-Damon H, Soussy C, Courvalin P (1998) Characterization of mutations in the rpoB gene that confer rifampin resistance in Staphylococcus aureus. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 42:2590–2594

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Cerca N, Martins S, Cerca F et al (2005) Comparative assessment of antibiotic susceptibility of coagulase-negative staphylococci in biofilm versus planktonic culture as assessed by bacterial enumeration or rapid XTT colorimetry. J Antimicrob Chemother 56:331–336

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Saginur R, St. Denis M, Ferris W et al (2006) Multiple combination bactericidal testing of Staphylococcal biofilms from implant-associated infections. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 50:55–61

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Cerca N, Pier GB, Vilanova M et al (2005) Quantitative analysis of adhesion and biofilm formation on hydrophilic and hydrophobic surfaces of clinical isolates of Staphylococcus epidermidis. Res Microbiol 156:506–514

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Cafini F, Aguilar L, González N et al (2007) In vitro effect of the presence of human albumin or human serum on the bactericidal activity of daptomycin against strains with the main resistance phenotypes in Gram-positives. J Antimicrob Chemother 59:1185–1189

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Murillo O, Garrigós C, Pachón ME et al (2009) Efficacy of high doses of daptomycin versus alternative therapies against experimental foreign-body infection by methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 53:4252–4257

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Stubbings W, Labischinski H (2009) New antibiotics for antibiotic-resistant bacteria. F1000 Biol Rep 1:40

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Mah TC, O’Toole GA (2001) Mechanisms of biofilm resistance to antimicrobial agents. Trends Microbiol 9:34–39

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Jefferson KK (2004) What drives bacteria to produce a biofilm? FEMS Microbiol Lett 236:163–173

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Kim J, Pitts B, Stewart PS et al (2008) Comparison of the antimicrobial effects of chlorine, silver ion, and tobramycin on biofilm. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 52:1446–1453

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Tetz GV, Artemenko NK, Tetz VV (2009) Effect of DNase and antibiotics on biofilm characteristics. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 53:1204–1209

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Aslam S, Trautner BW, Ramanathan V et al (2007) Combination of tigecycline and N-acetylcysteine reduces biofilm-embedded bacteria on vascular catheters. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 51:1556–1558

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Raad I, Hanna H, Jiang Y et al (2007) Comparative activities of daptomycin, linezolid, and tigecycline against catheter-related methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus bacteremic isolates embedded in biofilm. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 51:1656–1660

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Prydal JI, Jenkins DR, Lovering A et al (2005) The pharmacokinetics of linezolid in the non257 inflamed human eye. Br J Ophthalmol 89:1418–1419

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

Bruna Leite acknowledges the financial support from ISAC/Program Erasmus Munds External Cooperation and the IBB-Institute for Biotechnology and Bioengineering, Centre of Biological Engineering, University of Minho, Campus of Gualtar. Fernanda Gomes and Pilar Teixeira fully acknowledge the financial support from Fundação para a Ciência e Tecnologia (FCT) through the grants SFRH/BD/32126/2006 and SFRH/BPD/26803/2006, respectively.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. IBB-Institute for Biotechnology and Bioengineering, Centre of Biological Engineering, University of Minho, Campus de Gualtar, 4710-057, Braga, Portugal

    Bruna Leite, Fernanda Gomes, Pilar Teixeira & Rosário Oliveira

  2. Department of Biotechnology, Federal University of São Carlos, São Carlos, Brazil

    Bruna Leite, Clovis Souza & Elisabeth Pizzolitto

  3. Faculty of Pharmaceutical Sciences, São Paulo State University, Araraquara, Brazil

    Elisabeth Pizzolitto

Authors
  1. Bruna Leite
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Fernanda Gomes
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Pilar Teixeira
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Clovis Souza
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Elisabeth Pizzolitto
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Rosário Oliveira
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Rosário Oliveira.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Leite, B., Gomes, F., Teixeira, P. et al. In vitro Activity of Daptomycin, Linezolid and Rifampicin on Staphylococcus epidermidis Biofilms. Curr Microbiol 63, 313–317 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00284-011-9980-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00284-011-9980-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation