Inhibition of Biofilm Formation by Esomeprazole in Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Staphylococcus aureus
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Staphylococcus aureus and Pseudomonas aeruginosa are common nosocomial pathogens responsible for biofilm-associated infections. Proton pump inhibitors (PPI), such as esomeprazole, may have novel antimicrobial properties. The objective of this study was to assess whether esomeprazole prevents sessile bacterial growth and biofilm formation and whether it may have synergistic killing effects with standard antibiotics. The antibiofilm activity of esomeprazole at 0.25 mM was tested against two strains each of S. aureus and P. aeruginosa. Bacterial biofilms were prepared using a commercially available 96-peg-plate Calgary biofilm device. Sessile bacterial CFU counts and biomass were assessed during 72 hours of esomeprazole exposure. The killing activities after an additional 24 hours of vancomycin (against S. aureus) and meropenem (against P. aeruginosa) treatment with or without preexposure to esomeprazole were also assessed by CFU and biomass analyses. P. aeruginosa and S. aureus strains exposed to esomeprazole displayed decreased sessile bacterial growth and biomass (P < 0.001, each parameter). After 72 h of exposure, there was a 1-log(10) decrease in the CFU/ml of esomeprazole-exposed P. aeruginosa and S. aureus strains compared to controls (P < 0.001). After 72 h of exposure, measured absorbance was 100% greater in P. aeruginosa control strains than in esomeprazole-exposed strains (P < 0.001). Increased killing and decreased biomass were observed for esomeprazole-treated bacteria compared to untreated controls exposed to conventional antibiotics (P < 0.001, each parameter). Reduced biofilm growth after 24 h was visibly apparent by light micrographs for P. aeruginosa and S. aureus isolates exposed to esomeprazole compared to untreated controls. In conclusion, esomeprazole demonstrated an antibiofilm effect against biofilm-producing S. aureus and P. aeruginosa.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".