Skip to main content
  • ASM
    • Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy
    • Applied and Environmental Microbiology
    • Clinical Microbiology Reviews
    • Clinical and Vaccine Immunology
    • EcoSal Plus
    • Eukaryotic Cell
    • Infection and Immunity
    • Journal of Bacteriology
    • Journal of Clinical Microbiology
    • Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education
    • Journal of Virology
    • mBio
    • Microbiology and Molecular Biology Reviews
    • Microbiology Resource Announcements
    • Microbiology Spectrum
    • Molecular and Cellular Biology
    • mSphere
    • mSystems
  • Log in
  • My alerts
  • My Cart

Main menu

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Current Issue
    • Accepted Manuscripts
    • COVID-19 Special Collection
    • Archive
    • Minireviews
  • For Authors
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Scope
    • Editorial Policy
    • Submission, Review, & Publication Processes
    • Organization and Format
    • Errata, Author Corrections, Retractions
    • Illustrations and Tables
    • Nomenclature
    • Abbreviations and Conventions
    • Publication Fees
    • Ethics Resources and Policies
  • About the Journal
    • About AAC
    • Editor in Chief
    • Editorial Board
    • For Reviewers
    • For the Media
    • For Librarians
    • For Advertisers
    • Alerts
    • AAC Podcast
    • RSS
    • FAQ
  • Subscribe
    • Members
    • Institutions
  • ASM
    • Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy
    • Applied and Environmental Microbiology
    • Clinical Microbiology Reviews
    • Clinical and Vaccine Immunology
    • EcoSal Plus
    • Eukaryotic Cell
    • Infection and Immunity
    • Journal of Bacteriology
    • Journal of Clinical Microbiology
    • Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education
    • Journal of Virology
    • mBio
    • Microbiology and Molecular Biology Reviews
    • Microbiology Resource Announcements
    • Microbiology Spectrum
    • Molecular and Cellular Biology
    • mSphere
    • mSystems

User menu

  • Log in
  • My alerts
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy
publisher-logosite-logo

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Current Issue
    • Accepted Manuscripts
    • COVID-19 Special Collection
    • Archive
    • Minireviews
  • For Authors
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Scope
    • Editorial Policy
    • Submission, Review, & Publication Processes
    • Organization and Format
    • Errata, Author Corrections, Retractions
    • Illustrations and Tables
    • Nomenclature
    • Abbreviations and Conventions
    • Publication Fees
    • Ethics Resources and Policies
  • About the Journal
    • About AAC
    • Editor in Chief
    • Editorial Board
    • For Reviewers
    • For the Media
    • For Librarians
    • For Advertisers
    • Alerts
    • AAC Podcast
    • RSS
    • FAQ
  • Subscribe
    • Members
    • Institutions
Experimental Therapeutics

Pharmacological Inhibition of the Pseudomonas aeruginosa MvfR Quorum-Sensing System Interferes with Biofilm Formation and Potentiates Antibiotic-Mediated Biofilm Disruption

Damien Maura, Laurence G. Rahme
Damien Maura
Departments of Surgery and Microbiology and Immunobiology, Harvard Medical School and Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, USA, and Shriners Hospitals for Children Boston, Boston, Massachusetts, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Laurence G. Rahme
Departments of Surgery and Microbiology and Immunobiology, Harvard Medical School and Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, USA, and Shriners Hospitals for Children Boston, Boston, Massachusetts, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
DOI: 10.1128/AAC.01362-17
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

ABSTRACT

Pseudomonas aeruginosa biofilms contribute to its survival on biotic and abiotic surfaces and represent a major clinical threat due to their high tolerance to antibiotics. Therefore, the discovery of antibiofilm agents may hold great promise. We show that pharmacological inhibition of the P. aeruginosa quorum-sensing regulator MvfR (PqsR) using a benzamide-benzimidazole compound interferes with biofilm formation and potentiates biofilm sensitivity to antibiotics. Such a strategy could have great potential against P. aeruginosa persistence in diverse environments.

TEXT

Pseudomonas aeruginosa, a Gram-negative bacterium, is an opportunistic human pathogen commonly isolated from soil and water. This pathogen may be problematic due to its ability to form biofilms—multicellular aggregates embedded in self-produced polymeric substances—that shield bacterial cells from antibacterial agents (such as disinfectants in water premise plumbing [1], host immune defenses [2, 3]). It is well documented that biofilms greatly contribute to the establishment of chronic infections, including chronic pneumonia in cystic fibrosis patients, relapsing and chronic wound and ear infections, as well as medical device-related infections (3). Such infections are difficult to treat because biofilms are highly tolerant to antibiotics (2, 4, 5), calling for an urgent need to develop novel approaches to combat P. aeruginosa biofilms.

One possible approach is the use of small molecules that interfere with the ability of P. aeruginosa to form biofilms. Several targets for antibiofilm drug development in P. aeruginosa have been proposed (3, 6), including the understudied MvfR quorum-sensing (QS) system. This QS system is controlled by the transcriptional regulator MvfR (also known as PqsR) that regulates the pqsABCDE operon responsible for the synthesis of ∼60 QS molecules called hydroxyl-2-alkyl-quinolines (HAQs) (7–10). The HAQ 3,4-hydroxy-2-heptyl-quinoline (PQS) as well as the enzymes PqsA and PqsD have been previously reported to play a role in biofilm formation, although their mechanism of action is not clear (11–13). We recently showed that another HAQ, 2-n-heptyl-4-hydroxyquinoline-N-oxide (HQNO), promotes biofilm formation and biofilm tolerance to antibiotics by inducing eDNA release that occurs as a result of autolysis due to self-poisoning of the respiratory chain by this molecule (14). A few studies have reported that inhibitors of PqsD or MvfR interfere with biofilm formation, but their antibiofilm potency was limited to the high micromolar range (11, 15–17). We recently described a benzamide-benzimidazole (BB) series of highly potent and cell-permeable inhibitors of MvfR (18). Here, we used one representative BB compound, M64, to evaluate the antibiofilm potential of this chemical family against P. aeruginosa and test its efficacy in potentiating antibiotic action against biofilm.

First, we sought to verify whether the transcriptional regulator MvfR itself is important in biofilm formation since MvfR directly controls several components contributing to biofilm formation. If so, the small molecules we have identified that target MvfR could be used against biofilm. To this end, we used an adaptation of the Calgary Biofilm Device (19) where biofilms are grown on peg lids in microtiter plates containing M63 minimal media supplemented with 0.2% glucose, 0.5% Casamino Acids, and 1 mM MgSO4, as previously described (14, 20, 21). Crystal violet (CV) staining and CFU counts were used to quantify biofilm biomass and viable cells, respectively, as described elsewhere (14, 20). The same setting was used throughout the study. Data presented in Fig. 1 show that the mvfR mutant cells produced a biofilm (mvfR− biofilm) at 24 h with a significantly lower biomass (P < 0.001) (Fig. 1a) and fewer viable cells (P < 0.001) (Fig. 1d) than the parental strain PA14. This demonstrates that the transcriptional regulator MvfR plays a significant role in P. aeruginosa biofilm formation, corroborating previous observations on the role of components of the MvfR QS system—PqsA, PqsD, PQS, and HQNO—in this phenomenon (11–14) and indicating that MvfR could be a promising antibiofilm target.

FIG 1
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
FIG 1

The MvfR inhibitor M64 interferes with P. aeruginosa biofilm formation. Biofilm biomass (a, b, and c) or biofilm viable cells (d and e) were measured by crystal violet staining or CFU counts, respectively, after 24 (a to e), 48, and 72 (e) hours of growth in the presence or absence of 0.1, 1, or 10 μM M64 (a to c and e) or 10 μM M65 (b). Untreated PA14 (a, b, d, and e) or PAO1 (c) biofilms are shown in black, M64-treated biofilms in green, and mvfR− biofilms in red. Shown is the average +/− standard error of the mean (SEM) of at least 5 replicates. Statistical significance was assessed using one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) plus Dunnett's posttest for multiple comparisons to PA14 or unpaired t test for single comparisons to mvfR− or PAO1. **, P < 0.01; ***, P < 0.001; ns, not statistically significant; -, not treated.

Next, we evaluated the potential of the MvfR inhibitor M64 in interfering with biofilm formation. Biofilms were grown for 24 h in the presence or absence of 0.1, 1, or 10 μM M64, then both biofilm biomass and biofilm viable cells were quantified as described above. Biofilm biomass quantification showed that M64 inhibited PA14 biofilm formation in a dose-dependent manner by 49.7%, 33.5%, or 11.6%, respectively, for 10 μM, 1 μM, or 0.1 μM M64 (P < 0.001) (Fig. 1a). Accordingly, we estimated the relative biofilm 50% inhibitory concentration (IC50) of M64 at 1 μM. Quantification of biofilm viable cells further support these data, as M64 also significantly reduced PA14 biofilm formation in a dose-dependent manner (P < 0.01) (Fig. 1d). Further data indicate that the M64-mediated reduction in biofilm formation is due to MvfR inhibition, as (i) M64 did not significantly modulate biofilm formation in the mvfR mutant (Fig. 1a and d) (P > 0.05), and (ii) the inactive M64 analogue M65 (18) did not interfere with PA14 biofilm formation (Fig. 1b) (P > 0.05). Biofilm formation kinetics performed over 72 h showed that 24 h was the time point when both M64-treated PA14 or mvfR− biofilms were the lowest (Fig. 1e), indicating that inhibition of the MvfR QS system significantly affects the early steps of biofilm formation and supporting the notion that MvfR inhibitors could be used preventively against the initiation of biofilm formation. M64 also interfered with PAO1 biofilm formation, indicating that its activity is not limited to only one strain (Fig. 1c) (P < 0.001). Compared to different chemical families of MvfR and PqsD inhibitors reported in several sources (11, 15–17), the BB compound M64 is at least 100 times more potent at reducing biofilm formation, and therefore the BB chemical family represents a significant step forward in the development of highly efficacious biofilm inhibitors targeting the MvfR QS system.

We previously reported that the MvfR QS system promotes biofilm tolerance to antibiotic via HQNO-mediated autolysis and eDNA release (14). Thus, we tested here whether chemical inhibition of the MvfR QS system could sensitize biofilms to antibiotics. To this end, biofilms were grown for 48 h in the presence or absence of 10 μM M64 then treated for 24 h with 10 μg/ml of meropenem or tobramycin, antibiotics frequently used against P. aeruginosa infections (22–24). Biofilm viable cells were quantified before and after antibiotic treatment. PA14 biofilm appeared highly tolerant to meropenem, as no biofilm cells were killed by this antibiotic (Fig. 2a). However, M64-treated or mvfR− biofilms were both significantly more susceptible to meropenem, as the number of biofilm viable cells decreased by 9.1-fold or 42.6-fold, respectively, following antibiotic treatment (Fig. 2a). A similar pattern was observed with tobramycin, as this antibiotic reduced biofilm viable cells 195-fold and 352-fold in M64-treated and mvfR− biofilms, respectively, compared to only 11.8-fold in PA14 biofilm (Fig. 2b). These data support our previous observation that the MvfR QS system is critical for the tolerance of biofilms to antibiotics (14) and demonstrate that chemical inhibition of MvfR significantly increases the ability of antibiotics to kill antibiotic-tolerant P. aeruginosa biofilms.

FIG 2
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
FIG 2

M64 pretreatment sensitizes P. aeruginosa biofilms to the antibiotics meropenem and tobramycin. Biofilms were grown for 48 h in the presence or absence of 10 μM M64 then treated with 10 μg/ml meropenem (a) or 10 μg/ml tobramycin (b) for 24 h. Biofilm CFU were quantified preantibiotic treatment (48 h, lighter colors) and postantibiotic treatment (72 h, darker colors). PA14 biofilms are shown in gray, PA14 + M64 biofilms in green, and mvfR− biofilms in red. Data show the average +/− SEM of at least 20 replicates. Statistical significance was assessed using the Kruskal-Wallis test plus Dunn's posttest. ***, P < 0.001; +, treated; -, not treated.

To further evaluate the utility of BB compounds, we then asked whether they could disrupt preformed biofilms. Biofilms were grown for 48 h then treated with 10 μM M64 or dimethyl sulfoxide (DMSO) vehicle control for 24 h. As shown in Fig. 3a, M64 treatment reduced the increase in biofilm CFU that occurred between 48 and 72 h by 50% relative to the DMSO control (P < 0.01). However, M64 did not reduce biofilm CFU below the level of before treatment, indicating that M64 alone can interfere with further biofilm development but does not disrupt a preformed PA14 biofilm.

FIG 3
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
FIG 3

Treatment of preformed biofilms with M64 potentiates antibiotic-mediated biofilm disruption. (a) Biofilm CFU were quantified before (24 h or 48 h) or after (72 h) treatment with 10 μM M64. (b and c) Biofilm CFU were quantified before (48 h) or after (72 h) treatment with a combination of 10 μM M64 and 10 μg/ml antibiotic. Data show the average +/− SEM of at least 6 replicates. Statistical significance was assessed using the unpaired t test. **, P < 0.01; ***, P < 0.001; +, treated; -, not treated.

We then sought to determine whether concomitant addition of M64 and antibiotics would still increase the antibiotic efficacy against preformed biofilms, or whether M64 could be active only when added prophylactically as shown in Fig. 2. Biofilms were grown for 48 h then simultaneously treated with 10 μM M64 and 10 μg/ml of meropenem or tobramycin for 24 h. As shown in Fig. 3b, biofilm CFU were 178 times lower in the group treated with M64 and meropenem than in the group treated with meropenem alone (P < 0.001). A similar profile was observed with tobramycin, as biofilm CFU were 17 times lower in the group treated with M64 and tobramycin than in the group treated with tobramycin alone (P < 0.01) (Fig. 3c). These data indicate that when used in combination with the antibiotics meropenem and tobramycin, M64 greatly potentiates the biofilm disruption ability of both.

Altogether, this study demonstrated that the BB MvfR inhibitor M64 interferes with P. aeruginosa biofilm formation and potentiates the antibiofilm activity of antibiotics. Based on these results, M64 or M64-like compounds of the BB chemical family hold great promise as antibiofilm agents and have a great potential to be used either alone or as antibiotic adjuvants to treat established chronic infections where biofilms render antibiotic treatments particularly ineffective (2, 4). Indeed, to treat chronic infections, the dose of antibiotic is often increased but can still fail to clear the infection, frequently leading to high-level antibiotic resistance (25). The use of an efficacious anti-MvfR small molecule like M64 may therefore provide a solution to this problem in view of its ability to potentiate antibiotic efficacy against biofilms. Coating indwelling medical devices could be another application for these agents, where they may prevent P. aeruginosa biofilm buildups, which are highly problematic in catheter-associated urinary tract infections or ventilator-associated pneumonia (26, 27). Overall, this study opens new avenues for the treatment of biofilms on both biotic and abiotic surfaces and reinforces the relevance of the MvfR QS system in chronic infection and tolerance to antibiotics. It further demonstrates the clinical potential of antivirulence strategies targeting this pathway and opens possibilities for application in environmental settings, livestock, and agriculture.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This work was supported by Shriners Hospital Postdoctoral Fellowship no. 84206 to D.M. and by the research grants Shriners no. 8770, Cystic Fibrosis Foundation no. 11P0, and NIAID R33AI105902 to L.G.R.

FOOTNOTES

    • Received 3 July 2017.
    • Returned for modification 24 July 2017.
    • Accepted 14 September 2017.
    • Accepted manuscript posted online 18 September 2017.
  • Copyright © 2017 American Society for Microbiology.

All Rights Reserved .

REFERENCES

  1. 1.↵
    1. Bedard E,
    2. Prevost M,
    3. Deziel E
    . 2016. Pseudomonas aeruginosa in premise plumbing of large buildings. Microbiologyopen5:937–956. doi:10.1002/mbo3.391.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  2. 2.↵
    1. Mulcahy LR,
    2. Isabella VM,
    3. Lewis K
    . 2014. Pseudomonas aeruginosa biofilms in disease. Microb Ecol68:1–12. doi:10.1007/s00248-013-0297-x.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  3. 3.↵
    1. Tolker-Nielsen T
    . 2014. Pseudomonas aeruginosa biofilm infections: from molecular biofilm biology to new treatment possibilities. APMIS Suppl:1–51. doi:10.1111/apm.12335.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  4. 4.↵
    1. Costerton JW,
    2. Stewart PS,
    3. Greenberg EP
    . 1999. Bacterial biofilms: a common cause of persistent infections. Science284:1318–1322. doi:10.1126/science.284.5418.1318.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  5. 5.↵
    1. Lebeaux D,
    2. Ghigo JM,
    3. Beloin C
    . 2014. Biofilm-related infections: bridging the gap between clinical management and fundamental aspects of recalcitrance toward antibiotics. Microbiol Mol Biol Rev78:510–543. doi:10.1128/MMBR.00013-14.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  6. 6.↵
    1. Masak J,
    2. Cejkova A,
    3. Schreiberova O,
    4. Rezanka T
    . 2014. Pseudomonas biofilms: possibilities of their control. FEMS Microbiol Ecol89:1–14. doi:10.1111/1574-6941.12344.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  7. 7.↵
    1. Heeb S,
    2. Fletcher MP,
    3. Chhabra SR,
    4. Diggle SP,
    5. Williams P,
    6. Camara M
    . 2011. Quinolones: from antibiotics to autoinducers. FEMS Microbiol Rev35:247–274. doi:10.1111/j.1574-6976.2010.00247.x.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  8. 8.↵
    1. Cao H,
    2. Krishnan G,
    3. Goumnerov B,
    4. Tsongalis J,
    5. Tompkins R,
    6. Rahme LG
    . 2001. A quorum sensing-associated virulence gene of Pseudomonas aeruginosa encodes a LysR-like transcription regulator with a unique self-regulatory mechanism. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A98:14613–14618. doi:10.1073/pnas.251465298.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  9. 9.↵
    1. Deziel E,
    2. Lepine F,
    3. Milot S,
    4. He J,
    5. Mindrinos MN,
    6. Tompkins RG,
    7. Rahme LG
    . 2004. Analysis of Pseudomonas aeruginosa 4-hydroxy-2-alkylquinolines (HAQs) reveals a role for 4-hydroxy-2-heptylquinoline in cell-to-cell communication. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A101:1339–1344. doi:10.1073/pnas.0307694100.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  10. 10.↵
    1. Lepine F,
    2. Dekimpe V,
    3. Lesic B,
    4. Milot S,
    5. Lesimple A,
    6. Mamer OA,
    7. Rahme LG,
    8. Deziel E
    . 2007. PqsA is required for the biosynthesis of 2,4-dihydroxyquinoline (DHQ), a newly identified metabolite produced by Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Burkholderia thailandensis. Biol Chem388:839–845. doi:10.1515/BC.2007.100.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  11. 11.↵
    1. Storz MP,
    2. Maurer CK,
    3. Zimmer C,
    4. Wagner N,
    5. Brengel C,
    6. de Jong JC,
    7. Lucas S,
    8. Musken M,
    9. Haussler S,
    10. Steinbach A,
    11. Hartmann RW
    . 2012. Validation of PqsD as an anti-biofilm target in Pseudomonas aeruginosa by development of small-molecule inhibitors. J Am Chem Soc134:16143–16146. doi:10.1021/ja3072397.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  12. 12.↵
    1. Allesen-Holm M,
    2. Barken KB,
    3. Yang L,
    4. Klausen M,
    5. Webb JS,
    6. Kjelleberg S,
    7. Molin S,
    8. Givskov M,
    9. Tolker-Nielsen T
    . 2006. A characterization of DNA release in Pseudomonas aeruginosa cultures and biofilms. Mol Microbiol59:1114–1128. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2958.2005.05008.x.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  13. 13.↵
    1. Yang L,
    2. Nilsson M,
    3. Gjermansen M,
    4. Givskov M,
    5. Tolker-Nielsen T
    . 2009. Pyoverdine and PQS mediated subpopulation interactions involved in Pseudomonas aeruginosa biofilm formation. Mol Microbiol74:1380–1392. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2958.2009.06934.x.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  14. 14.↵
    1. Hazan R,
    2. Que YA,
    3. Maura D,
    4. Strobel B,
    5. Majcherczyk PA,
    6. Hopper LR,
    7. Wilbur DJ,
    8. Hreha TN,
    9. Barquera B,
    10. Rahme LG
    . 2016. Auto poisoning of the respiratory chain by a quorum-sensing-regulated molecule favors biofilm formation and antibiotic tolerance. Curr Biol26:195–206. doi:10.1016/j.cub.2015.11.056.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  15. 15.↵
    1. Ilangovan A,
    2. Fletcher M,
    3. Rampioni G,
    4. Pustelny C,
    5. Rumbaugh K,
    6. Heeb S,
    7. Camara M,
    8. Truman A,
    9. Chhabra SR,
    10. Emsley J,
    11. Williams P
    . 2013. Structural basis for native agonist and synthetic inhibitor recognition by the Pseudomonas aeruginosa quorum sensing regulator PqsR (MvfR). PLoS Pathog9:e1003508. doi:10.1371/journal.ppat.1003508.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  16. 16.↵
    1. Thomann A,
    2. de Mello Martins AG,
    3. Brengel C,
    4. Empting M,
    5. Hartmann RW
    . 2016. Application of dual inhibition concept within looped autoregulatory systems toward antivirulence agents against Pseudomonas aeruginosa infections. ACS Chem Biol11:1279–1286. doi:10.1021/acschembio.6b00117.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  17. 17.↵
    1. Thomann A,
    2. Brengel C,
    3. Borger C,
    4. Kail D,
    5. Steinbach A,
    6. Empting M,
    7. Hartmann RW
    . 2016. Structure-activity relationships of 2-sufonylpyrimidines as quorum-sensing inhibitors to tackle biofilm formation and eDNA release of Pseudomonas aeruginosa. ChemMedChem11:2522–2533. doi:10.1002/cmdc.201600419.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  18. 18.↵
    1. Starkey M,
    2. Lepine F,
    3. Maura D,
    4. Bandyopadhaya A,
    5. Lesic B,
    6. He J,
    7. Kitao T,
    8. Righi V,
    9. Milot S,
    10. Tzika A,
    11. Rahme L
    . 2014. Identification of anti-virulence compounds that disrupt quorum-sensing regulated acute and persistent pathogenicity. PLoS Pathog10:e1004321. doi:10.1371/journal.ppat.1004321.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  19. 19.↵
    1. Harrison JJ,
    2. Stremick CA,
    3. Turner RJ,
    4. Allan ND,
    5. Olson ME,
    6. Ceri H
    . 2010. Microtiter susceptibility testing of microbes growing on peg lids: a miniaturized biofilm model for high-throughput screening. Nat Protoc5:1236–1254. doi:10.1038/nprot.2010.71.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  20. 20.↵
    1. Maura D,
    2. Morello E,
    3. du Merle L,
    4. Bomme P,
    5. Le Bouguenec C,
    6. Debarbieux L
    . 2012. Intestinal colonization by enteroaggregative Escherichia coli supports long-term bacteriophage replication in mice. Environ Microbiol14:1844–1854. doi:10.1111/j.1462-2920.2011.02644.x.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  21. 21.↵
    1. Tre-Hardy M,
    2. Vanderbist F,
    3. Traore H,
    4. Devleeschouwer MJ
    . 2008. In vitro activity of antibiotic combinations against Pseudomonas aeruginosa biofilm and planktonic cultures. Int J Antimicrob Agents31:329–336. doi:10.1016/j.ijantimicag.2007.12.005.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  22. 22.↵
    1. Pankuch GA,
    2. Lin G,
    3. Seifert H,
    4. Appelbaum PC
    . 2008. Activity of meropenem with and without ciprofloxacin and colistin against Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Acinetobacter baumannii. Antimicrob Agents Chemother52:333–336. doi:10.1128/AAC.00689-07.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  23. 23.↵
    1. Ratjen F,
    2. Brockhaus F,
    3. Angyalosi G
    . 2009. Aminoglycoside therapy against Pseudomonas aeruginosa in cystic fibrosis: a review. J Cyst Fibros8:361–369. doi:10.1016/j.jcf.2009.08.004.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  24. 24.↵
    1. Maselli DJ,
    2. Keyt H,
    3. Restrepo MI
    . 2017. Inhaled antibiotic therapy in chronic respiratory diseases. Int J Mol Sci18:E1062. doi:10.3390/ijms18051062.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  25. 25.↵
    1. Hoiby N,
    2. Ciofu O,
    3. Johansen HK,
    4. Song ZJ,
    5. Moser C,
    6. Jensen PO,
    7. Molin S,
    8. Givskov M,
    9. Tolker-Nielsen T,
    10. Bjarnsholt T
    . 2011. The clinical impact of bacterial biofilms. Int J Oral Sci3:55–65. doi:10.4248/IJOS11026.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  26. 26.↵
    1. Mittal R,
    2. Aggarwal S,
    3. Sharma S,
    4. Chhibber S,
    5. Harjai K
    . 2009. Urinary tract infections caused by Pseudomonas aeruginosa: a minireview. J Infect Public Health2:101–111. doi:10.1016/j.jiph.2009.08.003.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  27. 27.↵
    1. Koenig SM,
    2. Truwit JD
    . 2006. Ventilator-associated pneumonia: diagnosis, treatment, and prevention. Clin Microbiol Rev19:637–657. doi:10.1128/CMR.00051-05.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
View Abstract
PreviousNext
Back to top
Download PDF
Citation Tools
Pharmacological Inhibition of the Pseudomonas aeruginosa MvfR Quorum-Sensing System Interferes with Biofilm Formation and Potentiates Antibiotic-Mediated Biofilm Disruption
Damien Maura, Laurence G. Rahme
Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy Nov 2017, 61 (12) e01362-17; DOI: 10.1128/AAC.01362-17

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Print

Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email

Thank you for sharing this Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy article.

NOTE: We request your email address only to inform the recipient that it was you who recommended this article, and that it is not junk mail. We do not retain these email addresses.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Pharmacological Inhibition of the Pseudomonas aeruginosa MvfR Quorum-Sensing System Interferes with Biofilm Formation and Potentiates Antibiotic-Mediated Biofilm Disruption
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy
(Your Name) thought you would be interested in this article in Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Share
Pharmacological Inhibition of the Pseudomonas aeruginosa MvfR Quorum-Sensing System Interferes with Biofilm Formation and Potentiates Antibiotic-Mediated Biofilm Disruption
Damien Maura, Laurence G. Rahme
Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy Nov 2017, 61 (12) e01362-17; DOI: 10.1128/AAC.01362-17
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Top
  • Article
    • ABSTRACT
    • TEXT
    • ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
    • FOOTNOTES
    • REFERENCES
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

KEYWORDS

Anti-Bacterial Agents
Bacterial Proteins
biofilms
Gene Expression Regulation, Bacterial
Pseudomonas aeruginosa
quorum sensing
MvfR
PqsR
biofilm
antibiotic tolerance
antibiotic adjuvant
antibiotic potentiation
Pseudomonas aeruginosa
M64
antivirulence

Related Articles

Cited By...

About

  • About AAC
  • Editor in Chief
  • Editorial Board
  • Policies
  • For Reviewers
  • For the Media
  • For Librarians
  • For Advertisers
  • Alerts
  • AAC Podcast
  • RSS
  • FAQ
  • Permissions
  • Journal Announcements

Authors

  • ASM Author Center
  • Submit a Manuscript
  • Article Types
  • Ethics
  • Contact Us

Follow #AACJournal

@ASMicrobiology

       

ASM Journals

ASM journals are the most prominent publications in the field, delivering up-to-date and authoritative coverage of both basic and clinical microbiology.

About ASM | Contact Us | Press Room

 

ASM is a member of

Scientific Society Publisher Alliance

 

American Society for Microbiology
1752 N St. NW
Washington, DC 20036
Phone: (202) 737-3600

Copyright © 2021 American Society for Microbiology | Privacy Policy | Website feedback

Print ISSN: 0066-4804; Online ISSN: 1098-6596