Puxeddu Silvia, Canton Serena, Scano Alessandra, Delogu Ilenia, Pibiri Andrea, Cabriolu Cristiana, Vascellari Sarah, Pettinau Francesca, Pivetta Tiziana, Ennas Guido, Manzin Aldo, Angius Fabrizio
Department of Biomedical Sciences, Section of Microbiology and Virology, University of Cagliari, 09042 Cagliari, Italy.
Department of Chemical and Geological Sciences, University of Cagliari, 09042 Cagliari, Italy.
Antibiotics (Basel). 2025 Aug 21;14(8):848. doi: 10.3390/antibiotics14080848.
: Antimicrobial resistance is a growing global health concern that requires multiple strategies to be tackled effectively. While the discovery of new antimicrobial molecules is essential, the repurposing of existing compounds also plays a significant role. Standard methods to evaluate antimicrobial efficacy, regulated by the Committee on Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing (EUCAST) and the Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI), such as the determination of minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) and minimum bactericidal concentration (MBC), are available. However, several potential antimicrobics show interference with these standard methods, resulting in underestimated activity and their premature dismissal from further studies. This work compares reference methods in evaluating different compounds with unique physico-chemical characteristics. We aim to demonstrate that combining different susceptibility tests is mandatory for a successful preclinical screening of antimicrobial compounds. : A selection of substances including natural extracts, both free and in the form of nanocomposites with fumed silica, ionic liquids, ozonated oils, commercial and pure antibiotics, was tested using broth microdilution, disk diffusion, and agar dilution. These methods were chosen following EUCAST and CLSI guidelines, and comparisons were made to evaluate their applicability and limitations for non-conventional substances. : The study highlighted significant variability in the outcomes depending on the method used, especially for substances with intrinsic properties such as high viscosity, poor solubility, or specific interactions with the testing medium. In several cases, the use of a single standard method failed to accurately reflect the real antimicrobial activity, leading to potential misinterpretation of effectiveness. : A combined methodological approach is recommended to overcome the limitations of individual techniques. The integration of multiple reference methods offers a more accurate screening strategy for identifying and characterizing new and repurposed antimicrobials.
抗菌药物耐药性是一个日益严重的全球健康问题,需要多种策略才能有效应对。虽然发现新的抗菌分子至关重要,但现有化合物的重新利用也起着重要作用。由抗菌药物敏感性测试委员会(EUCAST)和临床与实验室标准协会(CLSI)规定的评估抗菌效果的标准方法,如最低抑菌浓度(MIC)和最低杀菌浓度(MBC)的测定,是可行的。然而,一些潜在的抗菌药物显示出对这些标准方法的干扰,导致活性被低估,并过早地被排除在进一步研究之外。这项工作比较了评估具有独特物理化学特性的不同化合物的参考方法。我们旨在证明,结合不同的敏感性测试对于抗菌化合物的成功临床前筛选是必不可少的。
选择了包括天然提取物(游离形式和与气相二氧化硅的纳米复合材料形式)、离子液体、臭氧化油、商业和纯抗生素在内的一系列物质,使用肉汤微量稀释法、纸片扩散法和琼脂稀释法进行测试。这些方法是根据EUCAST和CLSI指南选择的,并进行了比较,以评估它们对非常规物质的适用性和局限性。
该研究强调,根据所使用的方法,结果存在显著差异,特别是对于具有高粘度、低溶解度或与测试介质有特定相互作用等固有特性的物质。在几种情况下,使用单一标准方法未能准确反映实际抗菌活性,导致对有效性的潜在误解。
建议采用综合方法来克服个别技术的局限性。整合多种参考方法为鉴定和表征新的和重新利用的抗菌药物提供了一种更准确的筛选策略。