Prevention of Clostridium difficilespore formation by sub-inhibitory concentrations of tigecycline and piperacillin/tazobactam
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Sporulation of Clostridium difficile during infection and persistence of spores within the gut could partly explain treatment failures and recurrence. However, the influence of antibiotics on sporulation is unclear. The objective of our study was to evaluate the impact of ciprofloxacin, metronidazole, piperacillin/tazobactam, tigecycline, and vancomycin on C. difficile sporulation in vitro. METHODS: The reference strains ATCC 9689, 630, VPI 10463, and seven other clinical isolates of C. difficile were used, including three epidemic NAP1/027 isolates. Minimum inhibitory concentrations (MIC) were determined and sporulation was assessed after growth in the absence or presence of ≤0.5x MIC concentrations of each antibiotic. RESULTS: All strains were sensitive to the antibiotics tested, except ribotype 027 isolates that were resistant to ciprofloxacin (MIC = 128 mg/L). Metronidazole and vancomycin generally did not significantly affect spore production in C. difficile, although vancomycin slightly affected sporulation of a few isolates. Ciprofloxacin inhibited sporulation of ribotype 027 isolates mainly. Interestingly, sub-MIC concentrations of piperacillin/tazobactam reduced spore formation in several isolates. However, the most striking observation was made with tigecycline, with an important reduction of spore formation in most isolates. CONCLUSIONS: The capacity of C. difficile to sporulate can be significantly affected by certain antibiotics. The reduced sporulation observed with tigecycline and piperacillin/tazobactam might explain why these antibiotics are generally associated with lower risk of C. difficile infections. In addition, the inhibition of sporulation might partly explain the apparent efficacy of tigecycline for treatment of patients with recurrent infection.
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) | 0.001 | 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".