Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://hdl.handle.net/2440/117854
Citations
Scopus Web of ScienceĀ® Altmetric
?
?
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorNaderi, J.-
dc.contributor.authorGiles, C.-
dc.contributor.authorSaboohi, S.-
dc.contributor.authorGriesser, H.-
dc.contributor.authorCoad, B.-
dc.date.issued2018-
dc.identifier.citationBiointerphases: an open access journal for the biomaterials interface community, 2018; 13(6):06E409-1-06E409-9-
dc.identifier.issn1559-4106-
dc.identifier.issn1559-4106-
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/2440/117854-
dc.description.abstractAntimicrobial surface coatings that act through a contact-killing mechanism (not diffusive release) could offer many advantages to the design of medical device coatings that prevent microbial colonization and infections. However, as the authors show here, to prevent arriving at an incorrect conclusion about their mechanism of action, it is essential to employ thorough washing protocols validated by surface analytical data. Antimicrobial surface coatings were fabricated by covalently attaching polyene antifungal drugs to surface coatings. Thorough washing (often considered to be sufficient to remove noncovalently attached molecules) was used after immobilization and produced samples that showed a strong antifungal effect, with a log 6 reduction in Candida albicans colony forming units. However, when an additional washing step using surfactants and warmed solutions was used, more firmly adsorbed compounds were eluted from the surface as evidenced by XPS and ToF-SIMS, resulting in reduction and complete elimination of in vitro antifungal activity. Thus, polyene molecules covalently attached to surfaces appear not to have a contact-killing effect, probably because they fail to reach their membrane target. Without additional stringent washing and surface analysis, the initial favorable antimicrobial testing results could have been misinterpreted as evidencing activity of covalently grafted polyenes, while in reality activity arose from desorbing physisorbed molecules. To avoid unintentional confirmation bias, they suggest that binding and washing protocols be analytically verified by qualitative/quantitative instrumental methods, rather than relying on false assumptions of the rigors of washing/soaking protocols.-
dc.description.statementofresponsibilityJavad Naderi, Carla Giles, Solmaz Saboohi, Hans J. Griesser and Bryan R. Coad-
dc.language.isoen-
dc.publisherAIP Publishing; American Vacuum Society-
dc.rightsCopyright Status Unknown-
dc.source.urihttp://dx.doi.org/10.1116/1.5050043-
dc.subjectCandida albicans-
dc.subjectPolyenes-
dc.subjectCoated Materials, Biocompatible-
dc.subjectAntifungal Agents-
dc.subjectSpectrometry, Mass, Secondary Ion-
dc.subjectColony Count, Microbial-
dc.subjectSurface Properties-
dc.subjectPhotoelectron Spectroscopy-
dc.titleSurface-grafted antimicrobial drugs: possible misinterpretation of mechanism of action-
dc.typeJournal article-
dc.identifier.doi10.1116/1.5050043-
dc.relation.granthttp://purl.org/au-research/grants/arc/DP150101674-
pubs.publication-statusPublished-
dc.identifier.orcidCoad, B. [0000-0003-3297-3977]-
Appears in Collections:Agriculture, Food and Wine publications
Aurora harvest 3

Files in This Item:
There are no files associated with this item.


Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.