2017
DOI: 10.1016/j.micpath.2017.09.046
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Melittin and its potential in the destruction and inhibition of the biofilm formation by Staphylococcus aureus , Escherichia coli and Pseudomonas aeruginosa isolated from bovine milk

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

4
50
2
4

Year Published

2018
2018
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
3
2
1

Relationship

0
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 77 publications
(60 citation statements)
references
References 36 publications
4
50
2
4
Order By: Relevance
“…The hypothesis behind this experiment was that the DNase I would break down the matrix of the biofilm and allow the melittin greater penetration, and therefore give it greater efficacy. Results showed that melittin was not an effective treatment for E. coli biofilms, in contrast to previous literature(Picoli et al, 2017), but that DNase I potentially was. A possible reason for the DNase I being significantly different from the melittin but not from the buffer is that when sub-inhibitory concentrations of treatments were applied to biofilms, they can actually slightly promote biofilm growth (Picoli et al, 2017; Jolivet-Gougeon & Bonnaure-Mallet, 2014).…”
Section: Discussioncontrasting
confidence: 98%
See 4 more Smart Citations
“…The hypothesis behind this experiment was that the DNase I would break down the matrix of the biofilm and allow the melittin greater penetration, and therefore give it greater efficacy. Results showed that melittin was not an effective treatment for E. coli biofilms, in contrast to previous literature(Picoli et al, 2017), but that DNase I potentially was. A possible reason for the DNase I being significantly different from the melittin but not from the buffer is that when sub-inhibitory concentrations of treatments were applied to biofilms, they can actually slightly promote biofilm growth (Picoli et al, 2017; Jolivet-Gougeon & Bonnaure-Mallet, 2014).…”
Section: Discussioncontrasting
confidence: 98%
“…Results showed that melittin was not an effective treatment for E. coli biofilms, in contrast to previous literature(Picoli et al, 2017), but that DNase I potentially was. A possible reason for the DNase I being significantly different from the melittin but not from the buffer is that when sub-inhibitory concentrations of treatments were applied to biofilms, they can actually slightly promote biofilm growth (Picoli et al, 2017; Jolivet-Gougeon & Bonnaure-Mallet, 2014). This result indicates that the melittin concentration could have been too low, which could have been caused by mishandling of the protein.…”
Section: Discussioncontrasting
confidence: 98%
See 3 more Smart Citations