Antimicrobial properties of liposomal azithromycin for Pseudomonas infections in cystic fibrosis patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: This work was carried out to construct a novel liposomal azithromycin formulation and examine its antimicrobial effects against Pseudomonas aeruginosa. METHODS: The liposomal azithromycin formulation was prepared by the dehydration-rehydration vesicle method and its characterizations were tested. The MIC and the MBC of the liposomal formulation were determined by the microbroth dilution method. Liposomal azithromycin activity against biofilm-forming P. aeruginosa was assessed using a Calgary biofilm device. The effect of subinhibitory concentrations of liposomal azithromycin on bacterial virulence factors and motility studies was tested on P. aeruginosa strains. The bacteria and liposome interactions were studied using flow cytometry analysis. The toxicities of the liposomal formulation on erythrocytes and A549 lung cells were evaluated in vitro. RESULTS: The average diameter of the liposomal azithromycin was 406.07 ± 45 nm and the encapsulation efficiency was 23.8% ± 0.2%. The MIC and MBC values of liposomal azithromycin were significantly lower than those of free azithromycin. The liposomal azithromycin significantly reduced the bacteria in the biofilm and attenuated the production of different virulence factors; it also reduced the different patterns of bacterial motilities. By flow cytometry analysis data, it was shown that there are interactions of liposomes with the bacterial membranes. No significant haemolysis or cell toxicity was observed with the liposomal formulation. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this research indicate that this novel liposomal azithromycin formulation could be a useful therapy to enhance the safety and efficacy of azithromycin against P. aeruginosa-infected persons.
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".