ABSTRACT
Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Staphylococcus aureus are opportunistic pathogens and are commonly found in polymicrobial biofilm-associated diseases, namely chronic wounds. Their co-existence in a biofilm contributes to an increased tolerance of the biofilm to antibiotics. Combined treatments of bacteriophages and antibiotics have shown a promising antibiofilm activity, due to the profound differences in their mechanisms of action. In this study, 48 h old mono and dual-species biofilms were treated with a newly isolated P. aeruginosa infecting phage (EPA1) and seven different antibiotics (gentamicin, kanamycin, tetracycline, chloramphenicol, erythromycin, ciprofloxacin, and meropenem), alone and in simultaneous or sequential combinations. The therapeutic efficacy of the tested antimicrobials was determined. Phage or antibiotics alone had a modest effect in reducing biofilm bacteria. However, when applied simultaneously, a profound improvement in the killing effect was observed. Moreover, an impressive biofilm reduction (below the detection limit) was observed when gentamicin or ciprofloxacin were added sequentially after 6 h of phage treatment. The effect observed does not depend on the type of antibiotic but is influenced by its concentration. Moreover, in dual-species biofilms it was necessary to increase gentamicin concentration to obtain a similar killing effect as occurs in mono-species. Overall, combining phages with antibiotics can be synergistic in reducing the bacterial density in biofilms. However, the concentration of antibiotic and the time of antibiotic application are essential factors that need to be considered in the combined treatments.
ABSTRACT
Journal based metrics is known not to be ideal for the measurement of the quality of individual researcher's scientific output. In the current report 16 contributors from Hong Kong SAR, India, Korea, Taiwan, Russia, Germany, Japan, Turkey, Belgium, France, Italy, UK, The Netherlands, Malaysia, and USA are invited. The following six questions were asked: (I) is Web of Sciences journal impact factor (IF) and Institute for Scientific Information (ISI) citation the main academic output performance evaluation tool in your institution? and your country? (II) How does Google citation count in your institution? and your country? (III) If paper is published in a non-SCI journal but it is included in PubMed and searchable by Google scholar, how it is valued when compared with a paper published in a journal with an IF? (IV) Do you value to publish a piece of your work in a non-SCI journal as much as a paper published in a journal with an IF? (V) What is your personal view on the metric measurement of scientific output? (VI) Overall, do you think Web of Sciences journal IF is beneficial, or actually it is doing more harm? The results show that IF and ISI citation is heavily affecting the academic life in most of the institutions. Google citation and evaluation, while is being used and convenient and speedy, has not gain wide 'official' recognition as a tool for scientific output evaluation.
