Loading [MathJax]/jax/output/SVG/jax.js
Communication Special Issues

Graphene derivatives potentiate the activity of antibiotics against Enterococcus faecium, Klebsiella pneumoniae and Escherichia coli

  • Received: 24 April 2020 Accepted: 26 May 2020 Published: 03 June 2020
  • Antibiotic resistance in bacteria is developing at a faster rate than new antibiotics can be discovered. This study investigated the antimicrobial activity of several carbon-based derivative compounds alone and in combination with clinically relevant antibiotics against key ESKAPE pathogens Enterococcus faecium, Klebsiella pneumoniae and Escherichia coli. Three compounds, graphite, graphene and graphene oxide, in conjunction with ciprofloxacin (CIP), chloramphenicol (CHL) and piperacillin/tazobactam (TZP) were examined using fractional inhibitory concentration (FIC) testing. CIP combined with graphene demonstrated additive antimicrobial activity against E. faecium compared to individual application. Furthermore, CIP supplemented with graphene, graphene oxide or graphite showed additive activity with ∑FIC values of 1.0 against K. pneumoniae, whereas only TZP showed ∑FIC values <1.0 with graphene oxide. For E. coli, the antibiotic activity of CIP was enhanced with graphene, graphene oxide or graphite, whereas only graphite and graphene enhanced the activity of CHL and TZP respectively. Graphite and graphene oxide caused significant antagonism (∑FIC > 4.0) in conjunction with TZP against E. coli. In conclusion, the results demonstrate the potential to supplement clinically relevant antibiotics with carbon-based graphene, graphene oxide derivative or graphite for use as an additive supplement for novel systemic or topical treatment solutions against key priority pathogens.

    Citation: Jonathan A. Butler, Lauren Osborne, Mohamed El Mohtadi, Kathryn A. Whitehead. Graphene derivatives potentiate the activity of antibiotics against Enterococcus faecium, Klebsiella pneumoniae and Escherichia coli[J]. AIMS Bioengineering, 2020, 7(2): 106-113. doi: 10.3934/bioeng.2020010

    Related Papers:

    [1] Lamia Saeed Alqahtani, Akram Ali . The eigenvalues of β-Laplacian of slant submanifolds in complex space forms. AIMS Mathematics, 2024, 9(2): 3426-3439. doi: 10.3934/math.2024168
    [2] Noura Alhouiti . Existence and uniqueness theorems for pointwise-slant immersions in Sasakian space forms. AIMS Mathematics, 2023, 8(8): 17470-17483. doi: 10.3934/math.2023892
    [3] Ibrahim Al-Dayel, Meraj Ali Khan . Ricci curvature of contact CR-warped product submanifolds in generalized Sasakian space forms admitting nearly Sasakian structure. AIMS Mathematics, 2021, 6(3): 2132-2151. doi: 10.3934/math.2021130
    [4] Ali H. Alkhaldi, Akram Ali, Jae Won Lee . The Lawson-Simons' theorem on warped product submanifolds with geometric information. AIMS Mathematics, 2021, 6(6): 5886-5895. doi: 10.3934/math.2021348
    [5] Tanumoy Pal, Ibrahim Al-Dayel, Meraj Ali Khan, Biswabismita Bag, Shyamal Kumar Hui, Foued Aloui . Generalized warped product submanifolds of Lorentzian concircular structure manifolds. AIMS Mathematics, 2024, 9(7): 17997-18012. doi: 10.3934/math.2024877
    [6] Noura Alhouiti . Theorems of existence and uniqueness for pointwise-slant immersions in Kenmotsu space forms. AIMS Mathematics, 2024, 9(7): 17489-17503. doi: 10.3934/math.2024850
    [7] Fatimah Alghamdi, Fatemah Mofarreh, Akram Ali, Mohamed Lemine Bouleryah . Some rigidity theorems for totally real submanifolds in complex space forms. AIMS Mathematics, 2025, 10(4): 8191-8202. doi: 10.3934/math.2025376
    [8] Amira A. Ishan, Meraj Ali Khan . Chen-Ricci inequality for biwarped product submanifolds in complex space forms. AIMS Mathematics, 2021, 6(5): 5256-5274. doi: 10.3934/math.2021311
    [9] Rifaqat Ali, Nadia Alluhaibi, Khaled Mohamed Khedher, Fatemah Mofarreh, Wan Ainun Mior Othman . Role of shape operator in warped product submanifolds of nearly cosymplectic manifolds. AIMS Mathematics, 2020, 5(6): 6313-6324. doi: 10.3934/math.2020406
    [10] Oğuzhan Bahadır . On lightlike geometry of indefinite Sasakian statistical manifolds. AIMS Mathematics, 2021, 6(11): 12845-12862. doi: 10.3934/math.2021741
  • Antibiotic resistance in bacteria is developing at a faster rate than new antibiotics can be discovered. This study investigated the antimicrobial activity of several carbon-based derivative compounds alone and in combination with clinically relevant antibiotics against key ESKAPE pathogens Enterococcus faecium, Klebsiella pneumoniae and Escherichia coli. Three compounds, graphite, graphene and graphene oxide, in conjunction with ciprofloxacin (CIP), chloramphenicol (CHL) and piperacillin/tazobactam (TZP) were examined using fractional inhibitory concentration (FIC) testing. CIP combined with graphene demonstrated additive antimicrobial activity against E. faecium compared to individual application. Furthermore, CIP supplemented with graphene, graphene oxide or graphite showed additive activity with ∑FIC values of 1.0 against K. pneumoniae, whereas only TZP showed ∑FIC values <1.0 with graphene oxide. For E. coli, the antibiotic activity of CIP was enhanced with graphene, graphene oxide or graphite, whereas only graphite and graphene enhanced the activity of CHL and TZP respectively. Graphite and graphene oxide caused significant antagonism (∑FIC > 4.0) in conjunction with TZP against E. coli. In conclusion, the results demonstrate the potential to supplement clinically relevant antibiotics with carbon-based graphene, graphene oxide derivative or graphite for use as an additive supplement for novel systemic or topical treatment solutions against key priority pathogens.



    One of the most important components of Riemannian geometry is determining the bound of the eigenvalue for the Laplacian on a particular manifold. The eigenvalue that occurs as a solutions of the Dirichlet or Neumann boundary value problems for the curvature functions is one of the main goals. Because different boundary conditions exist on a manifold, one can adopt a theoretical perspective to the Dirichlet boundary condition, using the upper bound for the eigenvalue as a technique of analysis for the Laplacians on a given manifold by using appropriate bound. Estimating the eigenvalue for the Laplacian and α-Laplacian operators has been increasingly popular over the years [18,19,21,25,26,27,31]. The generalization of the usual Laplacian operator, which is anisotropic mean curvature, was studied in [15]. Let K denotes a complete non compact Riemannian manifold, and B denotes the compact domain within K. Let λ1(B)>0 be a first eigenvalue of the Dirichlet boundary value problem:

    Δα+λα=0,inBandαonB,

    where Δ represents the Laplacian operator on the Riemannian manifold Km. The Reilly formula is dedicated entirely with the fundamental geometry of a given manifold. This can be generally acknowledged with the following phrase.

    Let (Km,g) be a compact m-dimensional Riemannian manifold, and λ1 denotes the first nonzero eigenvalue of the Neumann problem:

    Δα+λα=0,onKmandαν=0onKm,

    where ν is the outward normal on Km.

    Reilly [25] established the following inequality for a manifold Km isometrically immersed in the Euclidean space Rk with Km=0:

    λ11Vol(Km)KmH2dV, (1.1)

    where H is the mean curvature vector of immersion Km into Rn, λ1 denotes the first non-zero eigenvalue of the Laplacian on Km and dV denotes the volume element of Km.

    The upper bounds for α-Laplace operator in the sense of first eigenvalue for Finsler submanifold in the setting of Minkowski space was computed by Zeng and He [32]. Seto and Wei [28] presented the first eigenvalue of the Laplace operator for a closed manifold. However, F. Du et al. [13] derived the generalized Reilly inequality (1.3) and the first nonzero eigenvalue of the α-Laplace operator. Having followed the very similar approach, Blacker and Seto [4] demonstrated a Lichnerowicz type lower limit for the first nonzero eigenvalue of the α-Laplacian for Neumann and Dirichlet boundary conditions. Further, Papageorgiou et al. [24] studied p-Laplacian for concave-convex problems. Recently, p(x)-Laplacian are studied in the papers [14,17].

    The first non-null eigenvalue of the Laplacian is demonstrated in [10,12], which is deemed a generalization of work of Reilly [29]. The results of the distinct classes of Riemannian submanifolds for diverse ambient spaces show that the results of both first nonzero eigenvalues portray similar inequality and have same upper bounds [9,10]. In the case of the ambient manifold, it is clear from the previous studies that Laplace operators on Riemannian manifolds played a significant role in achieving various advances in Riemannian geometry (see [3,6,8,11,15,22,23,29,32]).

    The α-Laplacian on a m-dimensional Riemannian manifold Km is defined as

    Δα=div(|h|α2h), (1.2)

    where α>1, if α=2, then the above formula becomes usual Laplacian operator.

    The eigenvalue of Δh, from the other hand is Laplacian like. If a function h0 meets the following equation with dirichlet boundary condition or Neumann boundary condition as discussed earlier:

    Δαh=λ|h|α2h,

    where λ is a real number called Dirichlet eigenvalue. In the same way, the previous requirements apply to the Neumann boundary condition.

    If we look at Riemannian manifold without boundary, the Reilly type inequality for first nonzero eigenvalue λ1,α for α-Laplacian was computed in [30]:

    λ1,α=inf{K|h|qK|h|q:hW1,α(K1){0},K|h|α2h=0}. (1.3)

    However, Chen [7] pioneered the geometry of slant immersions as a natural extension of both holomorphic and totally real immersions. Further, Lotta [20] introduced the notion of slant submanifolds in the frame of almost contact metric manifolds, these submanifolds further explored by Cabrerizo et al. [5]. More precisely, Cabririzo et al. explored slant submanifolds in the setting of Sasakian manifolds. Another generalization of slant and contact CR-submanifolds was given by V. A. Khan and M. A. Khan [16], basically they proposed the notion of pseudo-slant submanifolds in the almost contact metric manifolds and provide an example of these submanifolds.

    After reviewing the literature, a natural question emerges: Is it possible to obtain the Reilly type inequalities for submanifolds of spheres via almost contact metric manifolds, which were studied in [2,10,12]? To answer this question, we explore the Reilly type inequalities for pseudo-slant submanifolds isometrically immersed in a generalized Sasakian space form. To this end our aim is to compute the bound for first non zero eigenvalues via α-Laplacian. The present study is leaded by the application of Gauss equation and studies done in [9,10,13].

    A (2n+1)-dimensional C-manifold ˉK is said to have an almost contact structure, if on ˉK there exist a tensor field ϕ of type (1,1), a vector field ξ and a 1-form η satisfying the following properties:

    ϕ2=I+ηξ,ϕξ=0,ηϕ=0,η(ξ)=1. (2.1)

    The manifold ˉK with the structure (ϕ,ξ,η) is called almost contact metric manifold. There exists a Riemannian metric g on an almost contact metric manifold ˉK, satisfying the following:

    η(e1)=g(e1,ξ),g(ϕe1,ϕe2)=g(e1,e2)η(e1)η(e2), (2.2)

    for all e1,e2TˉK, where TˉK is the tangent bundle of ˉK.

    In [1], Alegre et al. introduced the notion of generalized Sasakian space form as that an almost contact metric manifold (ˉK,ϕ,ξ,η,g) whose curvature tensor ˉR satisfies

    ˉR(e1,e2)e3=f1{g(e2,e3)e1g(e1,e3)e2}+f2{g(e1,ϕe3)ϕe2g(e2,ϕe3)ϕe1+2g(e1,ϕe2)ϕe3}+f3{η(e1)η(e3)e2η(e2)η(e3)e1+g(e1,e3)η(e2)ξg(e2,e3)η(e1)ξ}, (2.3)

    for all vector fields e1e3 and certain differentiable functions f1f3 on ˉK.

    A generalized Sasakian space form with functions f1f3 is denoted by ˉK(f1,f2,f3). If f1=c+34, f2=f3=c14, then ˉM(f1,f2,f3) becomes a Sasakian space form ˉM(c) [1]. If f1=c34, f2=f3=c+14, then ˉM(f1,f2,f3) becomes a Kenmotsu space form ˉM(c) [1], and if f1=f2=f3=c4, then ˉK(f1,f2,f3) becomes a cosymplectic space form ˉK(c) [1].

    Let K be a submanifold of an almost contact metric manifold ˉK with induced metric g. The Riemannian connection ˉ of ˉK induces canonically the connections and on the tangent bundle TK and the normal bundle TK of K respectively, then the Gauss and Weingarten formulae are governed by

    ˉe1e2=e1e2+σ(e1,e2), (2.4)
    ˉe1v=Ave1+e1v, (2.5)

    for each e1,e2TK and vTK, where σ and Av are the second fundamental form and the shape operator respectively for the immersion of K into ˉK, they are related as

    g(σ(e1,e2),v)=g(Ave1,e2), (2.6)

    where g is the Riemannian metric on ˉK as well as the induced metric on K.

    If Te1 and Ne1 represent the tangential and normal part of ϕe1 respectively, for any e1TK, one can write

    ϕe1=Te1+Ne1. (2.7)

    Similarly, for any vTK, we write

    ϕv=tv+nv, (2.8)

    where tv and nv are the tangential and normal parts of ϕv, respectively. Thus, T (resp. n) is 1-1 tensor field on TK (resp. TK) and t (resp. n) is a tangential (resp. normal) valued 1-form on TK (resp. TK).

    The notion of slant submanifolds in contact geometry was first defined by Lotta [20]. Later, these submanifolds were studied by Cabrerizo et al. [5]. Now, we have following definition of slant submanifolds.

    Definition 2.1. A submanifold K of an almost contact metric manifold ˉK is said to be slant submanifold if for any xK and XTxKξ, the angle between X and ϕX is constant. The constant angle θ[0,π/2] is then called slant angle of K in ˉK. If θ=0, the submanifold is invariant submanifold, and if θ=π/2, then it is anti-invariant submanifold. If θ0,π/2, it is proper slant submanifold.

    Moreover, Cabrerizo et al. [5] proved the characterizing equation for slant submanifold. More precisely, they proved that a submanifold Nm is said to be a slant submanifold if and only if a constant τ[0,π/2] and a (1,1) tensor field T which satisfies the following relation:

    T2=τ(Iηξ), (2.9)

    where τ=cos2θ.

    From (2.9), it is easy to conclude the following:

    g(Te1,Te2)=cos2θ{g(e1,e2)η(e1)η(e2)}, (2.10)

    e1,e2K.

    Now, we define the pseudo-slant submanifold, which was introduced by V. A. Khan and M. A. Khan [16].

    A submanifold K of an almost contact metric manifold ˉK is said to be pseudo-slant submanifold if there exist two orthogonal complementary distributions Sθ and S such that

    (1) TK=SSθξ.

    (2) The distribution S is anti-invariant, i.e., ϕSTK.

    (3) The distribution Sθ is slant with slant angle θπ/2.

    If θ=0, then the pseudo-slant submanifold is a semi-invariant submanifold. Now, we have the following example of pseudo-slant submanifold.

    Example 2.1. [16] Consider the 5-dimensional submanifold R9 with usual Sasakian structure, such that

    x(u,v,w,s,t)=2(u,0,w,0,0,v,scosθ,ssinθ,t),

    for any θ(0,π/2). Then it is easy to see that this is an example of pseudo-slant submanifold. Moreover, it can be observed

    e1=2(x1+y1z),e2=2y2e3=2(x3+y3z),
    e4=2cosθy3+2sinθy4,e5=2z=ξ,

    form a local orthonormal frame of TM. In which S=e1,e2 and Sθ=e3,e4, where D is anti-invariant and Sθ is slant distribution with slant angle θ.

    Suppose Km=p+2q+1 be a pseudo-slant submanifold of dimension m, in which p and 2q are the dimensions of the anti-invariant and slant distributions respectively. Moreover, let {u1,u2,,up,up+1=v1,up+2=v2,,um1=v2q,um=v2q+1=ξ} is an orthonormal frame of vectors which form a basis for the submanifold Kp+2q+1, such that {u1,,up} is tangential to the distribution D and the set {v1,v2=secθTv1,v3,v4=secθTv3,v2q=secθTv2q1} is tangential to Dθ. By the Eq (2.3), the curvature tensor ˉR for pseudo-slant submanifold Np+2q+1 is given by

    ˉR(ui,uj,ui,uj)=f1(m2m)+f2(3mi,j=1g2(ϕui,uj)2(m1)). (2.11)

    The dimension of the pseudo-slant submanifold Km can be decomposed as m=p+2q+1, then using the formula (2.9) for slant and anti-invariant distributions, we have

    g2(ϕui,ui+1)=0,fori{1,,p1},

    and

    g2(ϕui,ui+1)=cos2θ,fori{p+1,,2q1}.

    Then

    mi,j=1g2(ϕui,uj)=2qcos2θ.

    The relation (2.11) implies that

    ˉR(ui,uj,ui,uj)=f1(m2m)+f2(6qcos2θ2(m1)). (2.12)

    From the relation (2.12) and Gauss equation, one has

    f1m(m1)+f2(6qcos2θ2(m1))=2τn2H2+σ2

    or

    2τ=n2H2σ2+f1m(m1)+f2(6qcos2θ2(m1)). (2.13)

    In the paper [2], one of the present author Ali H. Alkhaldi with others studied the effect of the conformal transformation on the curvature and second fundamental form. More precisely, assume that ˉK2n+1 consists a conformal metric g=e2ρˉg, where ρC(ˉK). Then ˉΓa=eρΓa stands for the dual coframe of (ˉK,ˉg), ˉea==eρea represents the orthogonal frame of (ˉK,ˉg). Moreover, we have

    ˉΓab=Γab+ρaΓbρbΓa, (2.14)

    where ρa is the covariant derivative of ρ along the vector ea, i.e., dρ=aρaea.

    e2ρˉRpqrs=Rpqrs(ρprδqs+ρqsδprρpsδqrρqrδps)+(ρpρrδqs+ρqρsδprρqρtδpsρpρsδqr)|α|2(δprδqsδilδqr). (2.15)

    Applying pullback property in (2.14) to Km via point x, we get

    ˉσαpq=eρ(σαpqραδqp), (2.16)
    ˉHα=eα(Hαρα). (2.17)

    The following significant relation was proved in [1]:

    e2ρ(ˉσ2mˉH2)+mH2=σ2. (2.18)

    Initially, some basic results and formulas will be discussed which are compatible with the papers [2,22]. Now, we have the following result.

    Lemma 3.1. [2] Let Km be a slant submanifold of a Sasakian space form ˉK2t+1(c) which is closed and oriented with dimension 2. If f:KmˉK2t+1(c) is embedding from Km to ˉK2t+1(c). Then there is a standard conformal map x:ˉK2t+1(c)S2t+1(1)R2t+2 such that the embedding Γ=xf=(Γ1,,Γ2t+2) satisfies that

    Km|Γa|α2ΓadVK=0,a=1,,2(t+1),

    for α>1.

    In the next result, we obtain a result which is analogous to Lemma 2.7 of [22]. Indeed, in Lemma 3.1, by the application of test function, we obtain the higher bound for λ1,α in terms of conformal function.

    Proposition 3.1. Let Km be a m-dimensional pseudo slant submanifold, which is closed orientable isometrically immersed in a generalized Sasakian space form ˉK2t+1(f1,f2,f3), then we have

    λ1,αVol(Km)2|1α2|(t+1)|1α2|mα2Km(e2ρ)α2dV, (3.1)

    where x is the conformal map used in Lemma 3.1, and α>1. The standard metric is identified by Lc and consider xL1=e2pLc.

    Proof. Consider Γa as a test function along with Lemma 3.1, we have

    λ1,αKm|Γa|α|Γa|αdV,1a2(t+1), (3.2)

    observing that 2t+2a=1|Γa|2=1, then |Γa|1, we get

    2t+2a=1|Γa|2=mi=1|eiΓ|2=me2ρ. (3.3)

    On using 1<α2, we conclude

    |Γa|2|Γa|α. (3.4)

    By the application of Hölder's inequality, together with (3.2)–(3.4), we get

    λ1,αVol(Km)=λ1,α2t+2a=1Km|Γa|2dVλ1,α2t+2a=1Km|Γa|αdVλ1,αKm2t+2a=1|Γa|αdV(2t+2)1α/2Km(2t+1a=1|Γa|2)α/2dV=21α2(t+1)1α2Km(me2ρ)α2dV, (3.5)

    which is (3.1). On the other hand, if we assume α2, then, by Hölder inequality,

    I=2t+2a=1|Γa|2(2t+2)12α(2t+2a=1|Γa|α)2α. (3.6)

    As a result, we get

    λ1,αVol(Nm)(2t+2)α21(2t+2a=1λ1,αNm|Γa|αdV). (3.7)

    The Minkowski inequality provides

    2t+2a=1|Γa|α(2t+2a=1|Γa|2)α2=(me2ρ)α2. (3.8)

    By the application of (3.2), (3.7) and (3.8), it is easy to get (3.1).

    In the next theorem, we are going to provide a sharp estimate for the first eigenvalue of the α-Laplace operator on the pseudo-slant submanifold of a generalized Sasakian space form ˉK2t+1(f1,f2,f3).

    Theorem 3.1. Let Km be a m-dimensional pseudo-slant submanifold of a generalized Sasakian space form ˉK2t+1(f1,f2,f3), then

    (1)The first non-null eigenvalue λ1,α of the α-Laplacian satisfies

    λ1,α2(1α2)(t+1)(1α2)mα2(Vol(K))α/2×{Km(f1+f2(6qcos2θm(m1)2m)+H2)dV}α/2 (3.9)

    for 1<α2, and

    λ1,α2(1α2)(t+1)(1α2)mα2(Vol(K))α/2×{Km(f1+f2(6qcos2θm(m1)2m)+H2)dV}α/2 (3.10)

    for 2<αm2+1, where p and 2q are the dimensions of the anti-invariant and slant distributions.

    (2) The equality satisfies in (3.9) and (3.10) if and only if α=2 and Km is minimally immersed in a geodesic sphere of radius rc of ˉK2t+1(f1,f2,f3) with the following relations:

    r0=(mλΔ1)1/2,r1=sin1r0,r1=sinh1r0.

    Proof. 1<α2 α21. Proposition 3.1 together with Hölder inequality provides

    λ1,αVol(Km)21α2(t+1)1α2mα2Km(e2ρ)α2dV21α2(t+1)|1α2|mα2(Vol(Km))1α2(Kme2ρdV)α2. (3.11)

    We can calculate e2ρ with the help of conformal relations and Gauss equation. Let ˉK2k+1=ˉK2k+1(f1,f2,f3), and ˉg=e2ρLc, ˉg=cL1. From (2.13), the Gauss equation for the embedding f and the pseudo slant embedding Γ=xf, we have

    R=(f1)m(m1)+(f2)(m1){6qcos2θ2(m1)}+m(m1)H2+mH2Sσ|2, (3.12)
    ˉRm(m1)=m(m1)ˉH2+(mˉH2ˉσ|2). (3.13)

    On tracing (2.15), we have

    e2ρˉR=R(m2)(m1)|ρ|22(m1)Δρ. (3.14)

    Using (3.12) and (3.13) in (3.14), we get

    e2ρ(m(m1)+m(m1)ˉH2+(mˉH2ˉσ|2))=(f1)m(m1)+(f2){6qcos2θ2(m1)}+m(m1)H2+(mH2σ|2)(m2)(m1)ρ22(m1)Δρ. (3.15)

    The above relation implies

    e2ρˉσ|2(m2)(m1)|ρ|22(m1)Δρ=m(m1)[{e2ρf1(f2)(6qcos2θm(m1)2m)}(e2ρˉH2H2)]+m(e2ρˉH2H2). (3.16)

    From (2.17) and (2.18), we derive

    m(m1){e2ρ(f1)(f2)(6qcos2θm(m1)2m)}+m(m1)α(Hαρα)2=m(m1)H2(m2)(m1)|ρ|22(m1)Δρ. (3.17)

    Further, on simplification we get

    e2ρ={(f1)+(f2)(6qcos2θm(m1)2m)+H2}2mΔρm2m|Δρ|2(ρ)H2. (3.18)

    On integrating along dV, it is easy to see that

    λ1,αVol(Km)2|1α2|(t+1)|1α2|mα2(Vol(Km))1α2(Kme2ρdV)α2.2|1α2|(t+1)|1α2|mα2(Vol(Km))α21{Km{f1+f2(6qcos2θm(m1)2m)+H2}dV}α/2, (3.19)

    which is equivalent to (3.9). If α>2, then it is not possible to apply Hölder inequality to govern Km(e2ρdV)α2 by using Km(e2ρ). Now, multiply both sides of (3.18) by e(α2)ρ and integrating on Km,

    KmeαρdVKm{f1+f2(6qcos2θm(m1)2m)+H2}e(α2)ρdV(m22α+4m)Kme(α2)|Δρ|2dVKm{f1+f2(6qcos2θm(m1)2m)+H2}e(α2)ρdV. (3.20)

    From the assumption, it is evident that m2α2. On applying Young's inequality, we arrive

    Km{f1+f2(6qcos2θm(m1)2m)+H2}e(α2)ρdV2αKm{|f1+f2(6qcos2θm(m1)2m)+H2|}α/2dV+α2αKmeαρdV. (3.21)

    From (3.20) and (3.21), we conclude the following:

    KmeαρdVKm{|f1+f2(6qcos2θm(m1)2m)+H2|}α/2dV. (3.22)

    Substituting (3.22) in (3.1), we obtain (3.10). For the pseudo slant submanifolds, the equality case holds in (3.9), the equality cases of (3.2) and (3.4) imply that

    |Γa|2=|Γa|α,ΔαΓa=λ1,α|Γa|α2Γa,

    for a=1,,2t+2. For 1<α<2, we have |Γa|=0 or 1. Therefore, there exists only one a for which |Γa|=1 and λi,α=0, and it can not be possible since eigenvalue λi,α0. This leads to use the value of α equal to 2, therefore, we can apply Theorem 1.5 of [15].

    For α>2, the equality in (3.10) still holds, this indicates that equalities in (3.7) and (3.8) satisfy, and this leads to

    |Γ1|α==|Γ2t+2|α,

    and there exists a such that |Γa|=0. It shows that Γa is a constant and λ1,α=0, this again contradicts with the fact that λ1,α0, this completes the proof.

    Note 3.1. If α=2, then the α-Laplacian operator becomes the Laplacian operator. Therefore, we have the following corollary.

    Corollary 3.1. Let Km be a m-dimensional pseudo-slant submanifold of a generalized Sasakian space form ˉK2t+1(f1,f2,f3), then the first non-null eigenvalue λΔ1 of the Laplacian satisfies

    λΔ1m(Vol(K))Km{f1+f2(6qcos2θ2m)+H2)}dV. (3.23)

    By the application of Theorem 3.1 for 1<α2, we have the following result.

    Theorem 3.2. Let Km be a m-dimensional pseudo-slant submanifold of a generalized Sasakian space form ˉK2t+1(f1,f2,f3), then the first non-null eigenvalue λ1,α of the α-Laplacian satisfies

    λ1,α2(1α2)(t+1)(1α2)mα2(Vol(K))α/2×[Km(f1+f2(6qcos2θ2m)+H2)α2(α1)]α1dV (3.24)

    for 1<α2, and

    λ1,α2(1α2)(t+1)(1α2)mα2(Vol(K))α/2×[Km(f1+f2(6qcos2θ2m)+H2)α2(α1)]α1dV (3.25)

    for 2<αm2+1.

    Proof. Suppose 1<α2, we have α2(α1)1, then the Hölder inequality provides

    Km{(f1)+(f2)(3cos2θ2m)+H2}dV((Vol(Km))12(α1)α)×[Km(f1+f2(6qcos2θm(m1)2m)+H2)α2(α1)]2(α1)α. (3.26)

    On combining (3.9) and (3.26), we get the required inequality, this completes the proof.

    Note 3.2. If θ=0, then the pseudo-slant submanifolds become the semi-invariant submanifolds.

    By the application of above findings, we can deduce the following results for semi-invariant submanifolds in the setting of Sasakian manifolds.

    Corollary 3.2. Let Km be a m-dimensional semi-invariant submanifold of a generalized Sasakian space form ˉK2t+1(f1,f2,f3), then

    (1) The first non-null eigenvalue λ1,α of the α-Laplacian satisfies

    λ1,α2(1α2)(t+1)(1α2)mα2(Vol(K))α/2×{Km(f1+f2(6q2)m+H2)}α/2dV (3.27)

    for 1<α2, and

    λ1,α2(1α2)(t+1)(1α2)mα2(Vol(K))α/2×{Km(f1+f2(6q2)m+H2)}α/2dV (3.28)

    for 2<αm2+1, where p and 2q are the dimensions of the anti-invariant and slant distributions.

    (2) The equality satisfies in (3.27) and (3.28) if and only if α=2, and Km is minimally immersed in a geodesic sphere of radius rc of ˉK2t+1(f1,f2,f3) with the following relations:

    r0=(mλΔ1)1/2,r1=sin1r0,r1=sinh1r0.

    Further, by Corollary 3.4 and Note 3.1, we deduce the following.

    Corollary 3.3. Let Km be a m-dimensional semi-invariant submanifold of a generalized Sasakian space form ˉK2t+1(f1,f2,f3), then the first non-null eigenvalue λΔ1 of the Laplacian satisfies

    λΔ1m(Vol(K))Km{f1+f2(6q2)m+H2)}dV. (3.29)

    In addition, we also have the following corollary, which can be derived by Theorem 3.2.

    Corollary 3.4. Let Km be a m-dimensional semi-invariant submanifold of a generalized Sasakian space form ˉK2t+1(f1,f2,f3), then the first non-null eigenvalue λ1,α of the α-Laplacian satisfies

    λ1,α2(1α2)(t+1)(1α2)mα2(Vol(K))α/2×[Km(f1+f2(6q2)4+H2)α2(α1)]α1dV (3.30)

    for 1<α2.

    In this paper, we established the upper bounds for the first eigenvalues of the α-Laplacian operator for the pseudo-slant submanifolds in the setting of generalized Sasakian space forms. The class of pseudo-slant submanifold includes the class of semi-invariant, invariant, anti-invariant, and slant submanifolds. Therefore, the results obtained in this paper generalize the results for the first eigenvalues for these particular submanifolds.

    The second author extends his appreciation to the Deanship of Scientific Research at King Khalid University for funding this work (No. R.G.P.2/199/43).

    The authors state that there is no conflict of interest.


    Acknowledgments



    This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

    Conflict of interest



    All authors declare no conflicts of interest in this paper.

    [1] Blair JMA, Webber MA, Baylay AJ, et al. (2015) Molecular mechanisms of antibiotic resistance. Nat Rev Microbiol 13: 42-51. doi: 10.1038/nrmicro3380
    [2] Perez KK, Olsen RJ, Musick WL, et al. (2014) Integrating rapid diagnostics and antimicrobial stewardship improves outcomes in patients with antibiotic-resistant Gram-negative bacteremia. J Infect 69: 216-225. doi: 10.1016/j.jinf.2014.05.005
    [3] Gao Y, Wu J, Ren X, et al. (2017) Impact of graphene oxide on the antibacterial activity of antibiotics against bacteria. Environ Sci Nano 4: 1016-1024. doi: 10.1039/C7EN00052A
    [4] Slate AJ, Karaky N, Whitehead KA (2018) Antimicrobial properties of modified graphene and other advanced 2D material coated surfaces. 2D Materials: Characterization, Production and Applications CRC Press, 86-104. doi: 10.1201/9781315152042-5
    [5] Raccichini R, Varzi A, Passerini S, et al. (2015) The role of graphene for electrochemical energy storage. Nat Mater 14: 271-279. doi: 10.1038/nmat4170
    [6] Mogharabi M, Abdollahi M, Faramarzi MA (2014) Safety concerns to application of graphene compounds in pharmacy and medicine. DARU J Pharm Sci 22: 23. doi: 10.1186/2008-2231-22-23
    [7] Ferrari AC (2007) Raman spectroscopy of graphene and graphite: disorder, electron–phonon coupling, doping and nonadiabatic effects. Solid State Commun 143: 47-57. doi: 10.1016/j.ssc.2007.03.052
    [8] Liu S, Zeng TH, Hofmann M, et al. (2011) Antibacterial activity of graphite, graphite oxide, graphene oxide, and reduced graphene oxide: membrane and oxidative stress. ACS Nano 5: 6971-6980. doi: 10.1021/nn202451x
    [9] Zou X, Zhang L, Wang Z, et al. (2016) Mechanisms of the antimicrobial activities of graphene materials. J Am Chem Soc 138: 2064-2077. doi: 10.1021/jacs.5b11411
    [10] Chen J, Wang X, Han H (2013) A new function of graphene oxide emerges: inactivating phytopathogenic bacterium Xanthomonas oryzae pv. Oryzae. J Nanopart Res 15: 1658. doi: 10.1007/s11051-013-1658-6
    [11] Kapoor G, Saigal S, Elongavan A (2017) Action and resistance mechanisms of antibiotics: a guide for clinicians. J Anaesthesiol Clin Pharmacol 33: 300-305. doi: 10.4103/joacp.JOACP_349_15
    [12] Karaky N, Kirby A, McBain AJ, et al. (2020) Metal ions and graphene-based compounds as alternative treatment options for burn wounds infected by antibiotic-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa.DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00203-019-01803-z.
    [13] Vi TTT, Kumar SR, Pang J-HS, et al. (2020) Synergistic antibacterial activity of silver-loaded graphene oxide towards Staphylococcus aureus and Escherichia coliNanomaterials 10: 366. doi: 10.3390/nano10020366
    [14] Bugli F, Cacaci M, Palmieri V, et al. (2018) Curcumin-loaded graphene oxide flakes as an effective antibacterial system against methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureusInterface focus 8: 20170059. doi: 10.1098/rsfs.2017.0059
    [15] Singh V, Kumar V, Kashyap S, et al. (2019) Graphene oxide synergistically enhances antibiotic efficacy in vancomycin-resistant Staphylococcus aureusACS Appl Bio Mater 2: 1148-1157. doi: 10.1021/acsabm.8b00757
    [16] Drlica K, Malik M, Kerns RJ, et al. (2008) Quinolone-mediated bacterial death. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 52: 385-392. doi: 10.1128/AAC.01617-06
    [17] Xaplanteri MA, Andreou A, Dinos GP, et al. (2003) Effect of polyamines on the inhibition of peptidyltransferase by antibiotics: revisiting the mechanism of chloramphenicol action. Nucleic Acids Res 31: 5074-5083. doi: 10.1093/nar/gkg686
    [18] Walsh C (2000) Molecular mechanisms that confer antibacterial drug resistance. Nature 406: 775-781. doi: 10.1038/35021219
    [19] Soares GMS, Figueiredo LC, Faveri M, et al. (2012) Mechanisms of action of systemic antibiotics used in periodontal treatment and mechanisms of bacterial resistance to these drugs. J Appl Oral Sci 20: 295-309. doi: 10.1590/S1678-77572012000300002
    [20] Boucher HW, Talbot GH, Benjamin DK, et al. (2013) 10×'20 progress—development of new drugs active against gram-negative bacilli: an update from the Infectious Diseases Society of America. Clin Infect Dis 56: 1685-1694. doi: 10.1093/cid/cit152
    [21] Sopirala MM, Mangino JE, Gebreyes WA, et al. (2010) Synergy testing by Etest, microdilution checkerboard, and time-kill methods for pan-drug-resistant Acinetobacter baumanniiAntimicrob Agents Chemother 54: 4678-4683. doi: 10.1128/AAC.00497-10
    [22] Melander RJ, Melander C (2017) The challenge of overcoming antibiotic resistance: an adjuvant approach? ACS Infect Dis 3: 559-563. doi: 10.1021/acsinfecdis.7b00071
    [23] Yang Y, Rasmussen BA, Shlaes DM (1999) Class A β-lactamases—enzyme-inhibitor interactions and resistance. Pharmacol Ther 83: 141-151. doi: 10.1016/S0163-7258(99)00027-3
    [24] Zhou A, Kang TM, Yuan J, et al. (2015) Synergistic interactions of vancomycin with different antibiotics against Escherichia coli: trimethoprim and nitrofurantoin display strong synergies with vancomycin against wild-type E. coliAntimicrob Agents Chemother 59: 276-281. doi: 10.1128/AAC.03502-14
  • This article has been cited by:

    1. Lamia Saeed Alqahtani, Akram Ali, The eigenvalues of β-Laplacian of slant submanifolds in complex space forms, 2024, 9, 2473-6988, 3426, 10.3934/math.2024168
    2. Yanlin Li, Fatemah Mofarreh, Abimbola Abolarinwa, Norah Alshehri, Akram Ali, Bounds for Eigenvalues of q-Laplacian on Contact Submanifolds of Sasakian Space Forms, 2023, 11, 2227-7390, 4717, 10.3390/math11234717
  • Reader Comments
  • © 2020 the Author(s), licensee AIMS Press. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0)
通讯作者: 陈斌, bchen63@163.com
  • 1. 

    沈阳化工大学材料科学与工程学院 沈阳 110142

  1. 本站搜索
  2. 百度学术搜索
  3. 万方数据库搜索
  4. CNKI搜索

Metrics

Article views(4432) PDF downloads(263) Cited by(1)

/

DownLoad:  Full-Size Img  PowerPoint
Return
Return

Catalog