Research topic title: In vitro antimicrobial activity testing of novel antimicrobial peptides
Summary report
Project Leader (Signed): Wang Ting Date: 202411.12
Trial start and end dates: 202 4.09.18 to 202410.18
Research topic title: In vitro antimicrobial activity testing of novel antimicrobial peptides
Summary report
Table of Contents
1. Research topic name and code 3
3 for the test and reference 3
4.1 Test strains and their cultivation methods4
4.2 In vitro antimicrobial test method 5
5.1 Main reagents and culture medium8
7 Conclusion of the experiment 28
Abbreviations
|
|
ATCC | American Type Culture Collection |
BMD | Broth Microdilution |
CICC | China Center of Industrial Culture Collection |
CAMHB | Cation Adjusted Mueller-Hinton Broth |
CFU | Colony Forming Unit |
CLSI | Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute |
DMSO | Dimethyl Sulfoxide |
EUCAST | European Committee on Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing |
I | Intermediate |
LRSA | Linezolid – resistant Staphylococcus aureus |
MHA | Mueller-Hinton Agar |
MSSA | Methicillin-sensitive Staphylococcus aureus |
MRSA | Methicillin- resistant Staphylococcus aureus |
MIC | Minimal Inhibitory Concentration |
MOPS | Molar (3-(N-morpholino)-propanesulphonic acid |
R | Resistant |
RPMI | Rosewell Park MemorialInstitute |
S | Susceptible |
SDA | Sabouraud Dextrose Agar |
The name of the research topic
Feature Title: In vitro testing of novel antimicrobial peptides
Objectives:
To evaluate the in vitro antimicrobial activity of the novel antimicrobial peptide iCAMP016 against clinically isolated pathogenic bacteria (48 strains) and fungi (48 strains) in China in the past three years. The in vitro antimicrobial activity of marketed antibiotics was compared to provide a reference for the feasibility of the development and marketing of this product.
Test and reference substances
The information of the test sample and the positive control substance is detailed in Table 1.
Table 1 Information on test samples and positive controls
|
|
|
|
|
|
| iCAMP016 |
| >99% | 20240520 |
|
| BF-30 |
| 20240520 | ||
iCAMP018 |
| 20240520 | |||
PL-18 |
| 20240520 | |||
|
| 100 mg | 87.2% | 130422-201807 |
|
| 100 mg | 97.1% | 130455-202108 | ||
| 1000 mg | ≥98% | F0214D |
| |
| 200 mg | ≥99% | D1207D3 | ||
|
| 1000 mg | >98% | J0506A | |
| 1000 mg | >98.5% | J0118B | ||
| 100 mg | 99.9% | A0420DS |
Note: The remaining test samples and positive control substances will be returned to the test room on the day of the end of the test, and will be disposed of by the test room in a unified manner.
In vitro antimicrobial test
Test strains and their cultivation methods
Test strains
The types and quantities of test strains in vitro antimicrobial testing are shown in Table 2, and 48 strains of clinically isolated fine bacteria and clinically isolated yeast fungi were tested. All clinically isolated pathogens were collected clinically isolated and collected in China in the past three years. In the collection unit, it was identified by the VITEK-60 automatic microbial identification instrument, and then re-identified by the conventional method in the laboratory. The quality control strains were purchased from ATCC (American Type Culture Collection), China Center of Industrial Culture Collection, CICC®)。
Table 2 Inventory of test strains
|
|
|
|
| 12 |
| 9 | |
| 9 | |
| 9 | |
| 9 | |
|
| 12 |
| 9 | |
| 9 | |
| 9 | |
| 9 | |
|
| 4 |
|
| 4 |
Culture medium and culture conditions
Bacterial medium: For resuscitation, MHA (Mueller-Hinton Agar) medium was used and incubated at 35 °C for 20-24 h. For MIC testing, CAMHB medium (Cation Adjusted Mueller-Hinton Broth) was used. Incubate at 35-37°C for 16-20 h.
Fungal medium: For strain recovery, yeast fungi were incubated at 35°C for 24h using SDA medium. For MIC testing, a liquid medium of fully synthetic medium RPMI-1640 (containing glutamine, without bicarbonate, with phenol red as a pH indicator) was used.
CAMHB Formula: Acid Hydrolyzed Casein (17.5g/L), Beef Powder (3.0 g/L) , soluble starch (1.5g/L), calcium ions (20-25 mg.) /L), magnesium ion (1 0-12.5 mg/L).
Preparation method of SDA and MHA medium: According to the instructions, take an appropriate amount of dry powder, add an appropriate amount of distilled water, and mix well. After boiling to completely dissolve, autoclave at 121°C for 15min. Mix well and pour into a sterile dish.
Preparation method of RPMI1640 liquid medium: take 10.4g of 1640 powder, add 900mL of distilled water to dissolve, and then addMOPS buffer (final concentration of 0.165mol/L, 34.53g), stir and mix well, and adjust with 1mol/L sodium hydroxideThe pH of the section was 7.0 (25°C), and then sterile ultrapure water was added to the volume to 1000 mL. Finally, sterilize with 0.22μm filter membrane (the filtered solution is divided into sterile triangular bottles) and stored at 4°C for later use.
In vitro antimicrobial test methods
The Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI) protocol for antimicrobial susceptibility testing was usedMethods for Dilution Antimicrobial Susceptibility Tests for Bacteria That Grow Aerobically; Approved Standard-Eleventh Edition, M07- A11 ,2018】The recommended microbroth dilution method tests the minimum inhibitory concentration of antimicrobial peptide APIs and controls against bacteria Concentration,MIC)。 [Reference Method for Broth DilutionAntifungal Susceptibility Testing of Yeasts; Approved Standard—Forth Edition, M27,4th Edition, 2017] Recommended microbroth dilution method for the determination of test and reference substancesThe minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) for fungi was analyzed using the susceptibility resistance criteria recommended by CLSI (see Table 4).Resistance of the positive control drug to the strain.
(1) Preparation of test samples
Weigh an appropriate amount of the test sample powder, and use sterile pure water or DMSO to prepare the mother liquor with a concentration of 5120 mg/L (test sample and antimicrobial polypeptide positive control) or, according to the solubility1280 mg/L (the rest of the positive controls). Ten-fold dilution to 512 mg/L or 2 with sterile broth (CAMHB medium for bacteria and RPMI1640 medium for fungi) respectively 128 mg/L, half of the volume of the solution was divided into a 96-well filling tank, and the other half volume of the solution was diluted twice with the corresponding sterile broth and added to 96Inside the well loading tank. Repeat the above steps so that the concentrations of the test sample and the positive control of antimicrobial polypeptide in the 1st to 1st well in the loading tank are 512 and 256 respectively、128、64、32、16、8、4、2, 1, 0.5mg/L, and the concentrations of the remaining positive controls were 128, 64, and 32, respectively、16、8、4、2、1、0.5、0.25、0.125 mg/L。 Ready-to-use.
(2) Preparation of inoculum
Preparation of bacterial sylvestres: MH agar (Mueller-Hinton Agar) cultured from 18-24 hSelect a few colonies in a flat dish and make a bacterial suspension directly in sterile normal saline, and adjust the concentration of the bacterial suspension to 0.5 McS. The corrected bacterial solution was diluted to (4~8)×105 CFU/mL with broth, and it was prepared for immediate use.
Preparation of fungal solution: After inoculating the test bacteria into Shasser's glucose agar medium (SDA) and incubating at 35°C for 24 h, select a few colonies from the plate and prepare the bacterial suspension directly in sterile normal saline. Adjust the concentration of the bacterial suspension to 0.5 McClavins (equivalent to (1-5)×106CFU/ml). The calibrated bacterial solution was diluted 100-fold with normal saline, and then diluted 10-fold with sterile RPMI1640 liquid medium to (1~5)×103 CFU/mL, ready to use.
(3) Sampling and inoculation
Pipette 100μL of the above different concentrations of the test sample solution into the 1st to 11th wells of a sterile 96-well polystyrene plate, and take another 100 of the above inoculum μL was added to holes 1 through 11. The concentrations of the test sample and the positive control of antimicrobial polypeptide in the well were 256, 128, 64 and 32, respectively、16、8、4、2、1、0.5、0.25 mg/L, and the concentrations of the remaining positive controls were 16, 8, 4, 2, and 1 in turn、0.5、0.25、0.125、0.06、0.03、0.015 mg/L。 The concentration of the final bacteria is (2~4)×105CFU/mL, and the concentration of yeast fungi is(0.5~2.5)×103 CFU/mL。 Wells 1 and 2 were set up as growth control wells, and the wells contained 100 μL of inoculum and 100 μL Sterile broth. The test substance and inoculum in each well are mixed and sealed.
(4) Incubation
Bacterial incubation: The inoculated 96-well plate was incubated in a 37°C incubator for 16-20 h.
Fungal incubation: Place the inoculated 96-well plate at 35 °C for 24-48 h.
(5) Interpretation of MIC endpoints
Bacterial key interpretation: Endpoint interpretation: After the end of culture, the growth of bacteria in each well was observed. All drugs are given the lowest inhibitory concentration (MIC) at the lowest drug concentration that completely inhibits bacterial growth within the pore.
Interpretation of fungal endpoints: After the end of culture, the growth of bacteria in each well was observed. iCAMP016, BF-30, iCAMP018 and PL-18 were the lowest inhibitory concentrations (MICs) at the lowest drug concentration that completely inhibited the growth of bacteria in the wells。 Clotrimazole, fluconazole, and voriconazole are the lowest inhibitory concentrations (MIC) at the lowest drug concentration that inhibits the growth of 50% of bacteria in the wells.
Table 3 Sample Preparation Information
|
|
|
|
iCAMP016 |
| 5120 | 0.25-256 |
BF-30 | |||
iCAMP018 | |||
PL-18 | |||
|
| 1280 | 0.015-16 |
| |||
| |||
| |||
| DMSO | 1280 | 0.015-16 |
| |||
|
Table 4 Criteria for judging susceptibility and resistance of positive controls such as clindamycin
|
|
|
| |||
S | SDD | I | R | |||
| ≤0.5 | - | 1-2 | ≥4 |
| CLSI |
≤0.25 | - | 0.5 | ≥1 |
| CLSI | |
| ≤1 | - | 2 | ≥4 |
| CLSI |
≤2 | - | 4 | ≥8 |
| CLSI | |
| ≤0.5 | - | 1 | ≥2 |
| CLSI |
| ≤2 | - | - | ≥8 |
| CLSI |
- | - | - | ≥64 |
| CLSI | |
| ≤0.12 | - | 0.25-0.5 | ≥1 |
| CLSI |
≤0.5 | - | 1 | ≥2 |
| CLSI |
Remarks: S, susceptible; I, intermediate; R, resistant; SDD,Susceptible-dose Dependent。
quality control
For bacterial MIC testing, clindamycin was used as the quality control compound and Staphylococcus aureus ATCC 29213 was used as the quality control strain. For the MIC reference values and susceptibility resistance judgment standards of quality control antibiotics to quality control strains, please refer to CLSI 2024 (Performance standards for Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing: 34th Information Supplement. M100)。 The MIC reference value of clindamycin against Staphylococcus aureus ATCC 29213 was 0.06-0.25 mg/L.
For fungal MIC testing, voriconazole was used as the quality control compound and Candida kritul ATCC 6258 was used as the quality control strain. Reference Method for Broth Dilution Antifungal Susceptibility Testing of Yeasts; Approved Standard—Forth Edition, M27,4th Edition ,2017】。 The reference MIC value of voriconazole against Candida kritis ATCC 6258 ranged from 0.06 to 0.5 mg/L.
The MIC value of Clindamycin against Staphylococcus aureus ATCC 29213 was 0.125 mg/L for Clindamycin and 0.125 mg/L for Clindamycin ATCC 6258The MC value is 025 mg/L, all within the quality control range specified by CL SI, indicating that the test system is stable and the data is reliable.
Reagents & Instruments
Main reagents and culture media
Table 5 Information on the main test agents and culture media
|
|
|
|
CAMHB | 1242967 | 2025.07.31 |
|
MHA | 3207590 | 2025.12.14 | OXOID |
Sabouraud Dextrose Agar | 3543794 | 2027.09 | OXOID |
RPMI1640 Medium | SLCL5374 | 2024.07.25 | SIGMA-ALDRICH CHEMIE GmbH, Riedstr |
| 20231222 |
|
|
| L222062008 | 2025.05 |
|
| 3704823 | 2025.08 | OXOID |
| 2024/01 | 2025.12 | Beijing Biotopped Science&technolog Co. Ltd |
DMSO | 2023010401 | 2026.10 |
|
Main instruments
Table 6 Main instrument information
|
|
|
| 30-300 μL/ 100-1000 μL | Eppendorf |
| Multiskan FC | THERMO FISHER |
| HR40-IIA2 |
|
| DHP-9272 |
|
| YXQ-LS-100G |
|
| 1011s |
|
Test results
Analysis of antimicrobial activity of antimicrobial peptide iCAMP016 and control drug on 48 strains of clinically isolated bacteria in vitro
The in vitro MIC values of the antimicrobial polypeptide iCAMP016 and the control drug against 48 strains of clinically isolated bacteria are shown in Table 7 and Table 8.
(1) Staphylococcus aureus
The MIC values of the antimicrobial peptide iCAMP016 against the 12 strains of Staphylococcus aureus tested ranged from 8 to 32 mg/L. Its antibacterial activity is comparable to iCAMP018 and PL-18, stronger than clindamycin and BF-30, and weaker than the control drug levofloxacin, moxifloxacin hydrochloride and cefuroxime sodium.
Clindamycin was effective against 12 strains of Staphylococcus aureus tested (including 6 strains of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, 5 strains of methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus, and linezolid-resistant Staphylococcus aureus). 1 strain) with a MIC value range of 0.06->16 mg/L, and the resistance rate75.0%; The MIC value of cefuroxime sodium ranged from 1->16 mg/L; Most of the MIC values of levofloxacin and moxifloxacin hydrochloride are 0.03-1 mg/L, and the resistance rate is high Both were 8.3%. The MIC values of BF-30 were all >256 mg/L, and there was no obvious antibacterial activity.
(2) Enterococcus faecalis
The MIC value of the antimicrobial polypeptide iCAMP016 against the 9 strains of Enterococcus faecalis tested was 16-32 mg/L. Its antibacterial activity is stronger than iCAMP018, PL-18 and BF-30, and comparable to that of the control drugs clindamycin and cefuroxime sodium. Weaker than the control drugs levofloxacin and moxifloxacin hydrochloride.
The MIC values of the control product iCAMP018 against the 9 strains of Enterococcus faecalis were 32-64 mg/L. The MIC values of BF-30 and PL-18 ranged from 64->256 mg/L. The MIC values of clindamycin and cefuroxime sodium ranged from 16->16 mg/L; The MIC value of levofloxacin ranged from 0.5->16 mg/L, and the drug resistance rate was 33.3%. The MIC values of moxifloxacin hydrochloride ranged from 0.125->16 mg/L.
(3) Enterococcus faecium
The MIC value of the antimicrobial polypeptide iCAMP016 against the 9 strains of Enterococcus faecium tested was 2 mg/L. Its antibacterial activity is stronger than that of the control products iCAMP018, PL-18 and BF-30, and stronger than levofloxacin and moxifloxacin hydrochloride, clindamycin and cefuroximeSodium.
The MIC values of the control products iCAMP018 and PL-18 against the 9 strains of Enterococcus faecium tested ranged from 2-8 mg/L. faeces。 BF-30 has MIC values ranging from 8 to 32 mg/L. The MIC values of clindamycin, levofloxacin, cefuroxime sodium, and moxifloxacin hydrochloride were mostly 16->16 mg/L, The drug resistance rate of levofloxacin was 100.0%.
(4) Streptococcus agalactiae
The MIC value of the antimicrobial polypeptide iCAMP016 against the 9 strains of Streptococcus agalactiae tested was 2-8 mg/L. Its antibacterial activity is stronger than that of the control products iCAMP018, PL-18 and BF-30, and weaker than that of the control drugs levofloxacin and moxifloxacin hydrochlorideClindamycin and cefuroxime sodium.
The MIC values of the control products iCAMP018 and PL-18 against the 9 strains of Streptococcus agalactiae ranged from 8 to 64 mg/L. lactiae, the MIC value of BF-30 ranged from 128->256 mg/L. The MIC values of cefuroxime sodium and moxifloxacin hydrochloride ranged from 0.03 to 4 mg/L; The MIC value of levofloxacin ranged from 0.5->16 mg/L, and its resistance rate was 22.2%.; The MIC value of clindamycin ranged from 0.06->16 mg/L, and its resistance rate was 55.5%.
(5) Escherichia coli
The MIC value of the antimicrobial polypeptide iCAMP016 against the 9 strains of Escherichia coli was 2-8 mg/LIts antibacterial activity is comparable to that of the control drugs BF-30, iCAMP018 and PL-18, stronger than the control drugs clindamycin and cefuroxime sodium, and comparable to the control drugs levofloxacin and moxifloxacin hydrochlorideor weaker.
The MIC values of clindamycin against 9 strains of Escherichia coli were >16 mg/L. The MIC values of moxifloxacin hydrochloride ranged from 0.03->16 mg/L; The MIC value of levofloxacin was 0.03->16 mg/L, and its drug resistance rate was 66.7%. The MIC value of cefuroxime sodium ranged from 4->16 mg/L, and its resistance rate was 55.6%.
TABLE 7 Minimum inhibitory concentration and resistance rate of antimicrobial polypeptide iCAMP016 and control drugs against 48 strains of clinically isolated bacteria in vitro-MIC50 MIC90、MICrange(mg/L)
|
|
| MIC(mg/L) |
|
|
| |||||
|
|
| MIC50 | MIC90 | MICrange |
| |||||
| iCAMP016 | - | - | - | 8 | 8 | 8-32 | 8 | - | - | - |
BF-30 | - | - | - | >256 | >256 | >256 | >256 | - | - | - | |
iCAMP018 | - | - | - | 8 | 16 | 8-32 | 8 | - | - | - | |
PL-18 | - | - | - | 16 | 16 | 8-32 | 16 | - | - | - | |
| ≤0.5 | 1-2 | ≥4 | >16 | >16 | 0.06->16 | >16 | 75.0 | 0.0 | 25.0 | |
| ≤1 | 2 | ≥4 | 0.25 | 1 | 0.125->16 | 0.25 | 8.3 | 0.0 | 91.7 | |
| - | - | - | 2 | >16 | 1->16 | 2 | - | - | - | |
| ≤0.5 | 1 | ≥2 | 0.06 | 0.25 | 0.03-8 | 0.06 | 8.3 | 0.0 | 91.7 | |
| iCAMP016 | - | - | - | 32 | 32 | 16-32 | 32 | - | - | - |
BF-30 | - | - | - | >256 | >256 | 128->256 | >256 | - | - | - | |
iCAMP018 | - | - | - | 32 | 64 | 32-64 | 32 | - | - | - | |
PL-18 | - | - | - | >256 | >256 | 64->256 | >256 | - | - | - | |
| - | - | - | >16 | >16 | 16->16 | >16 | - | - | - | |
| ≤2 | 4 | ≥8 | 1 | >16 | 0.5->16 | 1 | 33.3 | 0.0 | 66.7 | |
| - | - | - | >16 | >16 | >16 | >16 | - | - | - | |
| - | - | - | 0.25 | >16 | 0.125->16 | 0.25 | - | - | - |
Continued from Table 7
|
|
| MIC(mg/L) |
|
|
| |||||
|
|
| MIC50 | MIC90 | MICrange |
| |||||
| iCAMP016 | - | - | - | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | - | - | - |
BF-30 | - | - | - | 32 | 32 | 8-32 | 32 | - | - | - | |
iCAMP018 | - | - | - | 4 | 4 | 2-4 | 4 | - | - | - | |
PL-18 | - | - | - | 4 | 8 | 4-8 | 4 | - | - | - | |
| - | - | - | >16 | >16 | 0.06->16 | >16 | - | - | - | |
| ≤2 | 4 | ≥8 | >16 | >16 | >16 | >16 | 100.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | |
| - | - | - | >16 | >16 | >16 | >16 | - | - | - | |
| - | - | - | >16 | >16 | 2->16 | >16 | - | - | - | |
| iCAMP016 | - | - | - | 2 | 8 | 2-8 | 2 | - | - | - |
BF-30 | - | - | - | 256 | >256 | 128->256 | >256 | - | - | - | |
iCAMP018 | - | - | - | 8 | 16 | 8-16 | 8 | - | - | - | |
PL-18 | - | - | - | 16 | 64 | 8-64 | 16 | - | - | - | |
| ≤0.25 | 0.5 | ≥1 | 1 | 32 | 0.06->16 | >16 | 44.4 | 11.1 | 44.4 | |
| ≤2 | 4 | ≥8 | 1 | >16 | 0.5->16 | 0.5 | 22.2 | 0.0 | 77.8 | |
| - | - | - | 0.03 | 0.06 | 0.03-0.06 | 0.03 | - | - | - | |
| - | - | - | 0.25 | 4 | 0.06-4 | 0.125,0.25 | - | - | - |
Continued from Table 7
|
|
| MIC(mg/L) |
|
|
| |||||
|
|
| MIC50 | MIC90 | MICrange |
| |||||
| iCAMP016 | - | - | - | 2 | 8 | 2-8 | 2 | - | - | - |
BF-30 | - | - | - | 2 | 4 | 2-4 | 2 | - | - | - | |
iCAMP018 | - | - | - | 8 | 16 | 4-16 | 4,8 | - | - | - | |
PL-18 | - | - | - | 8 | 16 | 4-16 | 8 | - | - | - | |
| - | - | - | >16 | >16 | >16 | >16 | - | - | - | |
| ≤0.5 | 1 | ≥2 | 4 | >16 | 0.03->16 | 0.5,8 | 55.6 | 11.1 | 33.3 | |
| ≤8 | 16 | ≥32 | >16 | >16 | 4->16 | >16 | 55.6 | 0.0 | 44.4 | |
| - | - | - | 4 | >16 | 0.03->16 | 0.5,16,>16 | - | - | - |
Table 8-1 MIC distribution and cumulative inhibition rate of 12 strains of Staphylococcus aureus by antimicrobial peptide iCAMP016 and control drug (%)
|
| MIC(mg/L) | |||||||||||||||
| >256 | 256 | 128 | 64 | 32 | >16 | 16 | 8 | 4 | 2 | 1 | 0.5 | 0.25 | 0.125 | 0.06 | 0.03 | |
iCAMP016 |
|
|
|
|
| 1 |
| 1 | 10 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 12 |
| 11 | 10 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| 100.0 |
| 91.7 | 83.3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
BF-30 |
| 12 |
| ||||||||||||||
| 12 |
| |||||||||||||||
| 100.0 |
| |||||||||||||||
iCAMP018 |
|
|
|
|
| 1 |
| 3 | 8 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 12 |
| 11 | 8 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| 100.0 |
| 91.7 | 66.7 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
PL-18 |
|
|
|
|
| 1 |
| 6 | 5 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 12 |
| 11 | 5 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| 100.0 |
| 91.7 | 41.7 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 9 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 1 | 2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 12 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 3 | 2 |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
| 100.0 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 25.0 | 16.7 |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 1 |
|
|
|
| 1 | 2 | 5 | 3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 12 |
|
|
|
| 11 | 10 | 8 | 3 |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
| 100.0 |
|
|
|
| 91.7 | 83.3 | 66.7 | 25.0 |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 4 |
|
|
| 7 | 1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 12 |
|
|
| 8 | 1 |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
| 100.0 |
|
|
| 66.7 | 8.3 |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 1 |
|
|
|
| 1 | 1 | 8 | 1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 12 |
|
|
|
| 11 | 10 | 9 | 1 | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 100.0 |
|
|
|
| 91.7 | 83.3 | 75.0 | 8.3 |
Table 8-2 MIC distribution and cumulative inhibition rate (%) of the antimicrobial polypeptide iCAMP016 and the control drug against 9 strains of Enterococcus faecalis
|
| MIC(mg/L) | |||||||||||||||
| >256 | 256 | 128 | 64 | 32 | >16 | 16 | 8 | 4 | 2 | 1 | 0.5 | 0.25 | 0.125 | 0.06 | 0.03 | |
iCAMP016 |
| 5 | 4 | ||||||||||||||
| 9 | 4 | |||||||||||||||
| 100.0 | 44.4 | |||||||||||||||
BF-30 |
| 8 | 1 | ||||||||||||||
| 9 | 1 | |||||||||||||||
| 100.0 | 11.1 | |||||||||||||||
iCAMP018 |
| 1 | 8 | ||||||||||||||
| 9 | 8 | |||||||||||||||
| 100.0 | 88.9 | |||||||||||||||
PL-18 |
| 6 | 1 | 2 | |||||||||||||
| 9 | 3 | 2 | ||||||||||||||
| 100.0 | 33.3 | 22.2 | ||||||||||||||
|
| 5 | 4 | ||||||||||||||
| 9 | 4 | |||||||||||||||
| 100.0 | 44.4 | |||||||||||||||
|
| 3 | 1 | 4 | 1 | ||||||||||||
| 9 | 6 | 5 | 1 | |||||||||||||
| 100.0 | 66.7 | 55.6 | 11.1 | |||||||||||||
|
| 9 | |||||||||||||||
| 9 | ||||||||||||||||
| 100.0 | ||||||||||||||||
|
| 1 | 1 | 1 | 5 | 1 | |||||||||||
| 9 | 8 | 7 | 6 | 1 | ||||||||||||
| 100.0 | 88.9 | 77.8 | 66.7 | 11.1 |
Table 8-3 MIC distribution and cumulative inhibition rate (%) of antimicrobial polypeptide iCAMP016 and control drug against 9 strains of Enterococcus faecali
|
| MIC(mg/L) | |||||||||||||||
| >256 | 256 | 128 | 64 | 32 | >16 | 16 | 8 | 4 | 2 | 1 | 0.5 | 0.25 | 0.125 | 0.06 | 0.03 | |
iCAMP016 |
| 9 | |||||||||||||||
| 9 | ||||||||||||||||
| 100.0 | ||||||||||||||||
BF-30 |
| 6 | 2 | 1 | |||||||||||||
| 9 | 3 | 1 | ||||||||||||||
| 100.0 | 33.3 | 11.1 | ||||||||||||||
iCAMP018 |
| 7 | 2 | ||||||||||||||
| 9 | 2 | |||||||||||||||
| 100.0 | 22.2 | |||||||||||||||
PL-18 |
| 3 | 6 | ||||||||||||||
| 9 | 6 | |||||||||||||||
| 100.0 | 66.7 | |||||||||||||||
|
| 8 | 1 | ||||||||||||||
| 9 | 1 | |||||||||||||||
| 100.0 | 11.1 | |||||||||||||||
|
| 9 | |||||||||||||||
| 9 | ||||||||||||||||
| 100.0 | ||||||||||||||||
|
| 9 | |||||||||||||||
| 9 | ||||||||||||||||
| 100.0 | ||||||||||||||||
|
| 6 | 2 | 1 | |||||||||||||
| 9 | 3 | 1 | ||||||||||||||
| 100.0 | 33.3 | 11.1 |
Table 8-4 MIC distribution and cumulative inhibition rate (%) of the antimicrobial polypeptide iCAMP016 and the control drug against 9 strains of Streptococcus agalactiae
|
| MIC(mg/L) | |||||||||||||||
| >256 | 256 | 128 | 64 | 32 | >16 | 16 | 8 | 4 | 2 | 1 | 0.5 | 0.25 | 0.125 | 0.06 | 0.03 | |
iCAMP016 |
| 1 | 3 | 5 | |||||||||||||
| 9 | 8 | 5 | ||||||||||||||
| 100.0 | 88.9 | 55.6 | ||||||||||||||
BF-30 |
| 4 | 3 | 2 | |||||||||||||
| 9 | 5 | 2 | ||||||||||||||
| 100.0 | 55.6 | 22.2 | ||||||||||||||
iCAMP018 |
| 1 | 8 | ||||||||||||||
| 9 | 8 | |||||||||||||||
| 100.0 | 88.9 | |||||||||||||||
PL-18 |
| 1 | 1 | 4 | 3 | ||||||||||||
| 9 | 8 | 7 | 3 | |||||||||||||
| 100.0 | 88.9 | 77.8 | 33.3 | |||||||||||||
|
| 4 | 1 | 1 | 3 | ||||||||||||
| 9 | 5 | 4 | 3 | |||||||||||||
| 100.0 | 55.6 | 44.4 | 33.3 | |||||||||||||
|
|