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
Pharmacology

Evaluation of a Library of FDA-Approved Drugs for Their Ability To Potentiate Antibiotics against Multidrug-Resistant Gram-Negative Pathogens

Charlotte K. Hind, Christopher G. Dowson, J. Mark Sutton, Thomas Jackson, Melanie Clifford, R. Colin Garner, Lloyd Czaplewski
Charlotte K. Hind
aResearch and Development Institute, National Infection Service, Public Health England, Porton Down, United Kingdom
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Christopher G. Dowson
bLife Sciences, University of Warwick, Coventry, United Kingdom
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
J. Mark Sutton
aResearch and Development Institute, National Infection Service, Public Health England, Porton Down, United Kingdom
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Thomas Jackson
cRadcliffe Department of Medicine, MRC Molecular Haematology Unit, MRC Weatherall Institute of Molecular Medicine, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Melanie Clifford
aResearch and Development Institute, National Infection Service, Public Health England, Porton Down, United Kingdom
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
R. Colin Garner
dAntibiotic Research UK, York, United Kingdom
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Lloyd Czaplewski
eChemical Biology Ventures Ltd., Abingdon, United Kingdom
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
DOI: 10.1128/AAC.00769-19
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

ABSTRACT

The Prestwick library was screened for antibacterial activity or “antibiotic resistance breaker” (ARB) potential against four species of Gram-negative pathogens. Discounting known antibacterials, the screen identified very few ARB hits, which were strain/drug specific. These ARB hits included antimetabolites (zidovudine, floxuridine, didanosine, and gemcitabine), anthracyclines (daunorubicin, mitoxantrone, and epirubicin), and psychoactive drugs (gabapentin, fluspirilene, and oxethazaine). These findings suggest that there are few approved drugs that could be directly repositioned as adjunct antibacterials, and these will need robust testing to validate efficacy.

TEXT

The need for new antibiotics is driven by the rapid spread of multidrug-resistant (MDR) bacterial pathogens, and the absence of new antibiotics in the clinical development pathway is significant cause for concern. The idea of repurposing existing drugs that are currently being used as treatments for other diseases is attractive because, due to the known safety profiles of approved drugs, the cost and time to the clinic could be significantly less than for novel scaffolds (1). Successful repurposing screens, outside of the antibacterial area, have produced candidates for Ebola virus, Zika virus, and anticancer therapies (2–4). Recent studies for the identification of new antibacterial leads have focused on two key areas, i.e., (i) identification of direct antibacterial hits for one or more target bacteria (5, 6) and (ii) screening for compounds that synergize with existing antibiotics, thereby restoring activity of the antibiotic against strains/species that are currently resistant to their use (7). Several previous studies identified antibacterial activities that are too weak to be effective on their own and would require exposures greater than the maximum concentration achievable with their primary pharmacology and recommended safe dosing (7), possibly because of the bacterial membrane barriers.

The current study aimed to identify either direct-acting antibiotics or compounds that sensitize resistant Gram-negative strains to one or more antibiotics, looking to identify “antibiotic resistance breakers” (ARBs). A high-throughput combination screen (HTCS) of potential ARBs and antibiotics was performed in a 384-well format, from the Prestwick library of 1,280 selected compounds in combination with 5 antibiotics or 0.1% dimethyl sulfoxide (DMSO), in duplicate. Each replicate was from independent dilution plates, using independent inocula on different days. The potential ARBs were tested at two concentrations, 20 μM and 7 μM, in combination with antibiotics at 0.125× MIC. Concentrations were selected to balance the probability of achieving a significant number of hits with realistic concentrations that aligned with the likely maximum concentration for a typical drug. When the MIC was >128 mg/liter, the antibiotic was tested at 16 mg/liter. The MICs of test articles were determined in cation-adjusted Mueller-Hinton broth (Oxoid), according to Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI) guidelines (8, 9).

Clinical isolates of Escherichia coli, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Klebsiella pneumoniae, and Acinetobacter baumannii (which were recently highlighted by the World Health Organization as priority pathogens for which new antibiotics are urgently required [10]) that were resistant to each antibiotic were selected. For some species (K. pneumoniae and A. baumannii), this involved the use of two strains to cover all resistance profiles, and some resistance profiles were not available (see Table S1 in the supplemental material).

During the HTCS, bacterial growth was determined by reading at 600 nm, on a modal reader (Infinite 500; Tecan), after 24 h of incubation. For each plate, measurements of the optical density at 600 nm (OD600) were made at two time points, i.e., at 0 h (to determine the background signal related to the colored compounds) and at 24 h (at the end of the incubation). After blank substitution, calculated by subtracting the OD600 at 0 h from the OD600 at 24 h, a normalization step was carried out for OD600 values obtained in wells containing the compounds, compared with values obtained in control wells (DMSO wells – maximal growth). Data analysis for each run was performed with Genedata Screener software. The workflow from the raw data associated with the plate map up to the normalization step was fully automated, allowing complete tracking of all data. The Z′ factor and assay window were determined for each plate, between the positive control in the presence of antibiotic at 0.125× MIC and the negative control (11). The Z′ factor for each combination of strain and antibiotic was between 0.5 and 0.8, and plates displaying Z′ factors of <0.5 were automatically retested.

After statistical analysis, hits were defined as data points with activities greater than the hit threshold, based on the sigma method (mean + 3 standard deviations), unless otherwise stated. Results were expressed as percent growth inhibition, compared to the growth of untreated controls (exposed to 0.1% DMSO only), as assessed by optical density.

Firstly, compounds from the library were tested for direct antimicrobial activity at two concentrations, 7 μM and 20 μM, in the presence of 0.1% DMSO (Fig. S1 and S2). The number of direct hits at either concentration varied considerably between species, with 29 hits for E. coli, 16 hits for P. aeruginosa, 85 hits for the two A. baumannii strains combined, and 53 hits for the two K. pneumoniae strains (discounting overlapping hits between the two strains of the same species and between the two concentrations tested) (Table S2). As might be expected, we saw three scenarios with respect to dose-response relationships, i.e., (i) compounds that were equally effective at the two concentrations, (ii) compounds that were effective at 20 μM but were not effective as either direct antibacterials or ARBs at 7 μM, and (iii) compounds that were ARBs at 7 μM but were directly antibacterial at 20 μM.

Compounds at 7 μM or 20 μM were also tested in combination with antibiotics at concentrations of 0.125× MIC. There were few hits that overlapped between species (Fig. 1). Most of the compounds that did overlap were known antimicrobials or antiseptics (Tables S5 to S10). A number of compounds showed interesting potentiation; these are discussed below and in the supplemental material.

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

Heat map showing ARB hits by species and antibiotic potentiated. The heat map is colored according to the amount of growth inhibition caused in each species in combination with each antibiotic (gray indicates that the combination was not tested). Few ARB hits show any conservation across species or with specific antibiotics. CIP, ciprofloxacin; MEM, meropenem; GEN, gentamicin; CST, colistin; TGC, tigecycline.

Three anthracycline-related molecules, namely, daunorubicin, mitoxantrone, and epirubicin, showed potentiation with one or more combinations of drug and species (Table 1). The pattern of activity differed between the three molecules tested, with no evidence of direct antibacterial activity but differing levels of potentiation for other antibiotics.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
  • Download powerpoint
TABLE 1

Structures and antimicrobial profiles of interesting hits from the screena

Several nucleotide/nucleoside analogues, identified as antimetabolites and/or antiviral agents, also showed potentiation with one or more antibiotic (Table 1). While simplistically such molecules might be expected to have similar effects via interference with DNA/RNA metabolism in the cell, there were clear differences in the spectra of activity of the compounds.

Two psychoactive compounds, fluspirilene and oxethazaine, were also found to act as ARBs with colistin and merited further investigation, given the possibility that their mode of action might be different from that of cationic compounds identified previously as being able to potentiate colistin (for example, pentamidine [12], which was not found to potentiate colistin activity in this study, and cysteamine, which was not included in this study [13]). The MICs of colistin, alone and in combination with set concentrations of fluspirilene and oxethazaine, were determined as described above but using non-cation-adjusted Mueller-Hinton broth (Oxoid) and polypropylene plates, with incubation for 20 h at 37°C (14).

Colistin potentiation by fluspirilene and oxethazaine in a larger panel of colistin-resistant strains of K. pneumoniae and a smaller number of other Gram-negative pathogens was tested as an example of compounds that were clear ARBs with very little direct antimicrobial activity (Table S3). The studies were designed as fixed concentration-synergy experiments, looking for ARB activity. Initially, MICs and growth curves were used to analyze the direct effects of the two compounds. In most cases, the MICs were >160 μM for Klebsiella sp. and P. aeruginosa isolates. For E. coli, all strains had MICs of 160 μM or above for oxethazaine, but two strains (LEC001 and 319238/UR) had MICs of 80 μM for fluspirilene. The notable exceptions to the high MIC values identified were the A. baumannii strains, which showed MICs of 20 μM for both oxethazaine and fluspirilene in both colistin-resistant strains (Table S4).

Despite being ARB hits with the original colistin-resistant K. pneumoniae strain used in the HTCS, there were few examples of clear colistin potentiation with either compound within the larger panel of Klebsiella isolates. Only strains NCTC 13439 CST 2A (4-fold), MGH 78578 CST A (8-fold), and m109 CST 1B (32-fold) showed >2-fold potentiation of colistin with fluspirilene (Fig. 2; also see Table S3), and no strains showed this level of potentiation with oxethazaine.

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

Colistin ARB potential of fluspirilene. A larger panel of colistin-resistant strains was tested in the presence of fluspirilene. Although the K. pneumoniae strain used in the HTCS showed colistin potentiation by fluspirilene, this was not reflected in the larger panel. However, fluspirilene did potentiate colistin in other Gram-negative species. Arrows in the K. pneumoniae panel indicate the changes in MICs for two specific strains. This represents an example in which fluspirilene is antagonistic to colistin but the MIC is in the same range as in some strains where potentiation is observed. CST, colistin; F, fluspirilene.

In contrast, fluspirilene showed potentiation of colistin with all of the other Gram-negative species tested, with levels ranging from 4-fold (A. baumannii W1 CST_R) to >128-fold (E. coli LEC001). The latter strain was also the only strain that showed potentiation with oxethazaine, again with >128-fold increased susceptibility to colistin. Whether derivatives of fluspirilene merit further investigation as standalone antibiotics or as ARBs may depend on the novelty of the mechanism of action. The developability is hampered by the relatively high concentration required to achieve potentiation of colistin (for example, around 20 μM [equivalent to 9.5 mg/liter] against K. pneumoniae), compared to the daily dose (10 mg per day, intramuscularly).

The current screen, in line with many other studies, suggests that there might be very few licensed drug compounds that could simply be repositioned and have immediate benefit as adjunct therapies. This finding does not preclude future studies looking at other antimicrobial strategies, such as biofilm disruption (5), antivirulence activity (15), or efflux pump inhibition (16), but it does suggest that such studies must be carefully designed to generate useful information. The screening of existing approved drugs, while attractive from a regulatory standpoint and as rapid route to market, does not directly address the challenges of antimicrobial drug development, including the permeability issue, which affects drug uptake into Gram-negative bacteria (17), or the relatively limited chemical space inhabited by most classical drugs (18).

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We thank Pia Thommes, Kirsty Skinner, Corinne Lafon, Stephanie Sandiford, and Peter Warn of Evotec AG and Ed Siegwart of LGC for their suggestions on designing the protocol for this study, as well as help in interpreting the data. We also thank those members of the Antibiotic Research UK Science Committee who provided advice on the study design and data interpretation.

FOOTNOTES

    • Received 10 April 2019.
    • Returned for modification 23 April 2019.
    • Accepted 17 May 2019.
    • Accepted manuscript posted online 3 June 2019.
  • Supplemental material for this article may be found at https://doi.org/10.1128/AAC.00769-19.

  • © Crown copyright 2019.

This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license.

REFERENCES

  1. 1.↵
    1. Miro-Canturri A,
    2. Ayerbe-Algaba R,
    3. Smani Y
    . 2019. Drug repurposing for the treatment of bacterial and fungal infections. Front Microbiol 10:41. doi:10.3389/fmicb.2019.00041.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  2. 2.↵
    1. Johansen LM,
    2. DeWald LE,
    3. Shoemaker CJ,
    4. Hoffstrom BG,
    5. Lear-Rooney CM,
    6. Stossel A,
    7. Nelson E,
    8. Delos SE,
    9. Simmons JA,
    10. Grenier JM,
    11. Pierce LT,
    12. Pajouhesh H,
    13. Lehar J,
    14. Hensley LE,
    15. Glass PJ,
    16. White JM,
    17. Olinger GG
    . 2015. A screen of approved drugs and molecular probes identifies therapeutics with anti-Ebola virus activity. Sci Transl Med 7:290ra289. doi:10.1126/scitranslmed.aaa5597.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  3. 3.↵
    1. Barrows NJ,
    2. Campos RK,
    3. Powell ST,
    4. Prasanth KR,
    5. Schott-Lerner G,
    6. Soto-Acosta R,
    7. Galarza-Munoz G,
    8. McGrath EL,
    9. Urrabaz-Garza R,
    10. Gao J,
    11. Wu P,
    12. Menon R,
    13. Saade G,
    14. Fernandez-Salas I,
    15. Rossi SL,
    16. Vasilakis N,
    17. Routh A,
    18. Bradrick SS,
    19. Garcia-Blanco MA
    . 2016. A screen of FDA-approved drugs for inhibitors of Zika virus infection. Cell Host Microbe 20:259–270. doi:10.1016/j.chom.2016.07.004.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  4. 4.↵
    1. Shahar OD,
    2. Kalousi A,
    3. Eini L,
    4. Fisher B,
    5. Weiss A,
    6. Darr J,
    7. Mazina O,
    8. Bramson S,
    9. Kupiec M,
    10. Eden A,
    11. Meshorer E,
    12. Mazin AV,
    13. Brino L,
    14. Goldberg M,
    15. Soutoglou E
    . 2014. A high-throughput chemical screen with FDA approved drugs reveals that the antihypertensive drug spironolactone impairs cancer cell survival by inhibiting homology directed repair. Nucleic Acids Res 42:5689–5701. doi:10.1093/nar/gku217.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  5. 5.↵
    1. Torres NS,
    2. Abercrombie JJ,
    3. Srinivasan A,
    4. Lopez-Ribot JL,
    5. Ramasubramanian AK,
    6. Leung KP
    . 2016. Screening a commercial library of pharmacologically active small molecules against Staphylococcus aureus biofilms. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 60:5663–5672. doi:10.1128/AAC.00377-16.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  6. 6.↵
    1. Trombetta RP,
    2. Dunman PM,
    3. Schwarz EM,
    4. Kates SL,
    5. Awad HA
    . 2018. A high-throughput screening approach to repurpose FDA-approved drugs for bactericidal applications against Staphylococcus aureus small-colony variants. mSphere 3:e00422-18. doi:10.1128/mSphere.00422-18.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  7. 7.↵
    1. Torres NS,
    2. Montelongo-Jauregui D,
    3. Abercrombie JJ,
    4. Srinivasan A,
    5. Lopez-Ribot JL,
    6. Ramasubramanian AK,
    7. Leung KP
    . 2018. Antimicrobial and antibiofilm activity of synergistic combinations of a commercially available small compound library with colistin against Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Front Microbiol 9:2541. doi:10.3389/fmicb.2018.02541.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  8. 8.↵
    Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute. 2015. Methods for dilution antimicrobial susceptibility tests for bacteria that grow aerobically; approved standard—10th ed. CLSI document M07-A10. Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute, Wayne, PA.
  9. 9.↵
    Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute. 2016. Performance standards for antimicrobial susceptibility testing; 26th informational supplement. CLSI document M100-S26. Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute, Wayne, PA.
  10. 10.↵
    World Health Organization. 2017. Global priority list of antibiotic-resistant bacteria to guide research, discovery, and development of new antibiotics. World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland.
  11. 11.↵
    1. Zhang JH,
    2. Chung TD,
    3. Oldenburg KR
    . 1999. A simple statistical parameter for use in evaluation and validation of high throughput screening assays. J Biomol Screen 4:67–73. doi:10.1177/108705719900400206.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  12. 12.↵
    1. Stokes JM,
    2. MacNair CR,
    3. Ilyas B,
    4. French S,
    5. Cote JP,
    6. Bouwman C,
    7. Farha MA,
    8. Sieron AO,
    9. Whitfield C,
    10. Coombes BK,
    11. Brown ED
    . 2017. Pentamidine sensitizes Gram-negative pathogens to antibiotics and overcomes acquired colistin resistance. Nat Microbiol 2:17028. doi:10.1038/nmicrobiol.2017.28.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  13. 13.↵
    1. Fraser-Pitt DJ,
    2. Mercer DK,
    3. Smith D,
    4. Kowalczuk A,
    5. Robertson J,
    6. Lovie E,
    7. Perenyi P,
    8. Cole M,
    9. Doumith M,
    10. Hill RLR,
    11. Hopkins KL,
    12. Woodford N,
    13. O'Neil DA
    . 2018. Cysteamine, an endogenous aminothiol, and cystamine, the disulfide product of oxidation, increase Pseudomonas aeruginosa sensitivity to reactive oxygen and nitrogen species and potentiate therapeutic antibiotics against bacterial infection. Infect Immun 86:e00947-17. doi:10.1128/IAI.00947-17.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  14. 14.↵
    1. Bock LJ,
    2. Hind CK,
    3. Sutton JM,
    4. Wand ME
    . 2018. Growth media and assay plate material can impact on the effectiveness of cationic biocides and antibiotics against different bacterial species. Lett Appl Microbiol 66:368–377. doi:10.1111/lam.12863.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  15. 15.↵
    1. D'Angelo F,
    2. Baldelli V,
    3. Halliday N,
    4. Pantalone P,
    5. Polticelli F,
    6. Fiscarelli E,
    7. Williams P,
    8. Visca P,
    9. Leoni L,
    10. Rampioni G
    . 2018. Identification of FDA-approved drugs as antivirulence agents targeting the pqs quorum-sensing system of Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 62:e01296-18. doi:10.1128/AAC.01296-18.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  16. 16.↵
    1. Nzakizwanayo J,
    2. Scavone P,
    3. Jamshidi S,
    4. Hawthorne JA,
    5. Pelling H,
    6. Dedi C,
    7. Salvage JP,
    8. Hind CK,
    9. Guppy FM,
    10. Barnes LM,
    11. Patel BA,
    12. Rahman KM,
    13. Sutton MJ,
    14. Jones BV
    . 2017. Fluoxetine and thioridazine inhibit efflux and attenuate crystalline biofilm formation by Proteus mirabilis. Sci Rep 7:12222. doi:10.1038/s41598-017-12445-w.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  17. 17.↵
    1. Silver LL
    . 2016. A Gestalt approach to Gram-negative entry. Bioorg Med Chem 24:6379–6389. doi:10.1016/j.bmc.2016.06.044.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  18. 18.↵
    1. Butler MS,
    2. Blaskovich MA,
    3. Owen JG,
    4. Cooper MA
    . 2016. Old dogs and new tricks in antimicrobial discovery. Curr Opin Microbiol 33:25–34. doi:10.1016/j.mib.2016.05.011.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
View Abstract
PreviousNext
Back to top
Download PDF
Citation Tools
Evaluation of a Library of FDA-Approved Drugs for Their Ability To Potentiate Antibiotics against Multidrug-Resistant Gram-Negative Pathogens
Charlotte K. Hind, Christopher G. Dowson, J. Mark Sutton, Thomas Jackson, Melanie Clifford, R. Colin Garner, Lloyd Czaplewski
Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy Jul 2019, 63 (8) e00769-19; DOI: 10.1128/AAC.00769-19

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.
Evaluation of a Library of FDA-Approved Drugs for Their Ability To Potentiate Antibiotics against Multidrug-Resistant Gram-Negative Pathogens
(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
Evaluation of a Library of FDA-Approved Drugs for Their Ability To Potentiate Antibiotics against Multidrug-Resistant Gram-Negative Pathogens
Charlotte K. Hind, Christopher G. Dowson, J. Mark Sutton, Thomas Jackson, Melanie Clifford, R. Colin Garner, Lloyd Czaplewski
Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy Jul 2019, 63 (8) e00769-19; DOI: 10.1128/AAC.00769-19
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

repurposing
antibiotic resistance breakers
antimicrobial combinations

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