Research article

Repurposing of paroxetine and fluoxetine for their antibacterial effects against clinical Pseudomonas aeruginosa isolates in Egypt

  • Received: 02 October 2024 Revised: 06 January 2025 Accepted: 22 January 2025 Published: 05 February 2025
  • Background 

    Drug repositioning has emerged as a promising strategy for assessing its antimicrobial efficacy in treating infectious diseases.

    Methods 

    Seventy-five samples were collected and investigated for the presence of Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Antibiotic resistance, hemolytic activity, twitching motility, and biofilm formation were assessed. lasI and lasR genes were detected using conventional PCR. Minimum inhibitory concentrations of paroxetine, fluoxetine, and levofloxacin were determined by broth micro-dilution. The fractional inhibitory concentration index was calculated to assess the interaction between fluoxetine/levofloxacin and paroxetine/levofloxacin combinations. Half the MIC values of the drugs were selected for inhibitory effect assessment for virulence factors. Antibacterial and healing effects of fluoxetine were investigated on 30 male albino rats using a digital camera, bacterial count, and histological examination.

    Results 

    Our 25 P. aeruginosa isolates were highly drug-resistant. 80%, 92%, and 80% of isolates were positive for twitching motility, hemolysis, and biofilm formation, respectively. 92% of isolates were positive for lasI gene and 96% for lasR gene. MICs of fluoxetine and paroxetine ranged from 32 to 512 µg/mL and MICs of levofloxacin ranged from 1 to 256 µg/mL. A synergistic outcome was observed in both combinations. Biofilm formation, twitching motility, and hemolysis were inhibited by paroxetine and fluoxetine in the majority of isolates. Fluoxetine/levofloxacin and paroxetine/levofloxacin combinations inhibited twitching motility, hemolysis, and biofilm formation in all isolates. Enhanced wound healing was observed in rats treated with fluoxetine and levofloxacin, with the fluoxetine/levofloxacin combination group demonstrating the most significant wound-healing effect. Bacterial count decreased in rats treated with levofloxacin, fluoxetine, and the levofloxacin/fluoxetine combination. Histological examination revealed higher wound healing in the levofloxacin-treated group than the fluoxetine group, and the combination treatment group displayed the fastest rate of wound healing.

    Conclusions 

    Paroxetine and fluoxetine showed considerable antibacterial inhibitory effects against multi-drug resistant P. aeruginosa isolates. Fluoxetine showed significant improvement in anti-inflammatory effects and wound healing. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first Egyptian study to investigate the repurposing of paroxetine and fluoxetine as antibacterial agents. Further studies are needed to investigate their applicability as antibacterial agents as single agents or in combination with other antibiotics.

    Citation: Kholoud Baraka, Rania Abozahra, Eman Khalaf, Mahmoud Elsayed Bennaya, Sarah M. Abdelhamid. Repurposing of paroxetine and fluoxetine for their antibacterial effects against clinical Pseudomonas aeruginosa isolates in Egypt[J]. AIMS Microbiology, 2025, 11(1): 126-149. doi: 10.3934/microbiol.2025007

    Related Papers:

    [1] Darrell O. Ricke . Rare dizziness, syncope, loss of consciousness, seizure, and risk of falling after vaccination. AIMS Allergy and Immunology, 2023, 7(2): 164-175. doi: 10.3934/Allergy.2023011
    [2] Richard A. Maiella, Kelly M. Staples, Ashokvardhan Veldanda . Migratory dermatographic urticaria following COVID-19 vaccine booster in young adult male. AIMS Allergy and Immunology, 2022, 6(1): 14-18. doi: 10.3934/Allergy.2022003
    [3] Yu. A. Desheva, A. S. Mamontov, P. G. Nazarov . Contribution of antibody-dependent enhancement to the pathogenesis of coronavirus infections. AIMS Allergy and Immunology, 2020, 4(3): 50-59. doi: 10.3934/Allergy.2020005
    [4] Laiba Noor, Syeda Momna Ishtiaq, Farhat Batool, Muhammad Imran Arshad . Age-dependent trends in adverse reactions of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines: A narrative review. AIMS Allergy and Immunology, 2024, 8(3): 146-166. doi: 10.3934/Allergy.2024008
    [5] Daniel Danladi Gaiya, Jonathan Danladi Gaiya, Richard Auta, Aliyu Muhammad, Bege Jonathan, Stella Kuyet Udu, Ekpa Emmanuel, Amina Shehu Bature . The journey so far with SARS-CoV-2 variants: Pathogenesis, immunity and treatments. AIMS Allergy and Immunology, 2023, 7(4): 222-250. doi: 10.3934/Allergy.2023016
    [6] Darrell O. Ricke . Antibodies and infected monocytes and macrophages in COVID-19 patients. AIMS Allergy and Immunology, 2022, 6(2): 64-70. doi: 10.3934/Allergy.2022007
    [7] Y. Desheva, T. Shvedova, A. Lerner, P. Kudar, O. Kopteva, D. Petrachkova, I. Koroleva, G. Leontieva, S. Ponkratov, A. Suvorov . Exploring immune response and lab markers across COVID-19 severity levels. AIMS Allergy and Immunology, 2024, 8(4): 216-231. doi: 10.3934/Allergy.2024013
    [8] Raghda S. El Mashaari, Ameera S. Al Ali, Zaidoon M. Abdel Hadi, Mahmoud Talaat Sabri, Ahmed Nageeb Mahmoud . COVID-19 vaccine-induced new-onset pustular psoriasis mimicking skin infection of the hand and foot: A report of two cases. AIMS Allergy and Immunology, 2025, 9(2): 136-143. doi: 10.3934/Allergy.2025010
    [9] Kamyar Nasiri, Zohreh Mortezania, Sanaz Oftadehbalani, Mohammad Khosousi Sani, Amin Daemi, Seyyedeh Touran Hosseini, Yusuf Döğüş, Zafer Yönden . Parasitology and Covid-19: epidemiological, immunological, pathological, and therapeutic aspects. AIMS Allergy and Immunology, 2023, 7(1): 92-103. doi: 10.3934/Allergy.2023007
    [10] DharmaSaranya Gurusamy, Vasuki Selvamurugesan, Swaminathan Kalyanasundaram, Shantaraman Kalyanaraman . Is COVID 19, a beginning of new entity called chronic viral systemic inflammatory syndrome?. AIMS Allergy and Immunology, 2021, 5(2): 127-134. doi: 10.3934/Allergy.2021010
  • Background 

    Drug repositioning has emerged as a promising strategy for assessing its antimicrobial efficacy in treating infectious diseases.

    Methods 

    Seventy-five samples were collected and investigated for the presence of Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Antibiotic resistance, hemolytic activity, twitching motility, and biofilm formation were assessed. lasI and lasR genes were detected using conventional PCR. Minimum inhibitory concentrations of paroxetine, fluoxetine, and levofloxacin were determined by broth micro-dilution. The fractional inhibitory concentration index was calculated to assess the interaction between fluoxetine/levofloxacin and paroxetine/levofloxacin combinations. Half the MIC values of the drugs were selected for inhibitory effect assessment for virulence factors. Antibacterial and healing effects of fluoxetine were investigated on 30 male albino rats using a digital camera, bacterial count, and histological examination.

    Results 

    Our 25 P. aeruginosa isolates were highly drug-resistant. 80%, 92%, and 80% of isolates were positive for twitching motility, hemolysis, and biofilm formation, respectively. 92% of isolates were positive for lasI gene and 96% for lasR gene. MICs of fluoxetine and paroxetine ranged from 32 to 512 µg/mL and MICs of levofloxacin ranged from 1 to 256 µg/mL. A synergistic outcome was observed in both combinations. Biofilm formation, twitching motility, and hemolysis were inhibited by paroxetine and fluoxetine in the majority of isolates. Fluoxetine/levofloxacin and paroxetine/levofloxacin combinations inhibited twitching motility, hemolysis, and biofilm formation in all isolates. Enhanced wound healing was observed in rats treated with fluoxetine and levofloxacin, with the fluoxetine/levofloxacin combination group demonstrating the most significant wound-healing effect. Bacterial count decreased in rats treated with levofloxacin, fluoxetine, and the levofloxacin/fluoxetine combination. Histological examination revealed higher wound healing in the levofloxacin-treated group than the fluoxetine group, and the combination treatment group displayed the fastest rate of wound healing.

    Conclusions 

    Paroxetine and fluoxetine showed considerable antibacterial inhibitory effects against multi-drug resistant P. aeruginosa isolates. Fluoxetine showed significant improvement in anti-inflammatory effects and wound healing. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first Egyptian study to investigate the repurposing of paroxetine and fluoxetine as antibacterial agents. Further studies are needed to investigate their applicability as antibacterial agents as single agents or in combination with other antibiotics.



    Vaccinations protect vaccinees against multiple viral and bacterial infectious diseases. Post-vaccination, vaccinees experience no, mild adverse events, multiple adverse events, or serious adverse events. Adverse events associated with vaccinations are typically rare [1]. Some of these adverse events have been associated with allergic reactions to vaccine excipients including adjuvants [2] (e.g., polyethylene glycol [3]), or manufacturing contaminants (e.g., egg proteins [4]). Adverse events can occur immediately (e.g., anaphylaxis) or within hours or days post vaccination. Vaccine reactogenicity refers to the subset of adverse events that occur soon after vaccination and are physical manifestations of the inflammatory response to vaccination [1]. The intensity of these adverse event symptoms ranges from mild to severe. Many of these vaccinees are negatively impacted by these adverse event symptoms until they resolve. Adverse events temporally associated with vaccines are generally associated with immune responses, including humoral antibody responses, to one or more of the vaccine components.

    To protect against SARS-CoV-2, multiple vaccines have been developed. These vaccines include traditional inactivated virus vaccines (CoronaVac, BBIBP-CorV, Covaxin), protein subunit vaccine (Novavax, ZF2001), replication-defective viral vector vaccines (AD5-nCoV, AZD1222, Sputnik V, Ad26.Cov2.S), and mRNA vaccines (mRNA-1273 and BNT162b2/Comirnaty) [5]. The SARS-CoV-2 spike vaccines (mRNA-1273, BNT162b2/Comirnaty, and Ad26.Cov2.S) are distributed in the United States. With broad distribution of these vaccines within the United States, associated adverse events are reported to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) database [6]. The number of vaccine adverse reactions is higher for these SARS-CoV-2 spike vaccines than all other vaccines. Can data analysis of the VAERS vaccine adverse reactions responses provide etiology insights for these SARS-CoV-2 spike vaccines and other high reactogenicity vaccines?

    Herein, the VAERS databases is examined for the most frequent adverse events across all vaccines. Overlaps were observed for the most frequently reported adverse events with symptoms associated with histamine intolerance. Herein, the hypothesis is advanced that the majority of vaccination reactogenicity adverse events are caused by elevated histamine levels from innate immune responses to vaccination temporarily exceeding the vaccinee's tolerance level; this includes the majority of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) spike vaccine associated reactogenicity adverse events.

    The VAERS database [6] was data mined for vaccine adverse events data by vaccine type and onset post vaccination. The downloaded data includes all VAERS reports from 1990 until May 13, 2022. A Ruby program named vaers_tally.rb was developed to tally reported vaccine adverse events by vaccine [7]. The output from vaers_tally.rb consists of summaries by vaccine by dose, adverse event, and onset. A Ruby program named vaers_slice.rb was developed to tally selected reported vaccine adverse events by vaccine [7]. The vaers_slice.rb program takes as input a list of one or more symptoms to summarize and the yearly VAERS Symptoms, Vax, and Data files from 1990 to 2022. The output from vaers_slice.rb consists of five reports: summaries by vaccine, summaries by age of onset of symptoms, summaries by day of onset of symptoms, and two summaries of additional symptoms reported (selected symptoms and all other symptoms). The adverse events pyrexia (fever), headache, fatigue, chills, nausea, dizziness, pain, and pain in extremity were extracted. Microsoft Excel was used to create figures and to rank order vaccine symptoms for vaccines with the most reported adverse events.

    The overlap between symptoms associated with histamine intolerance, anaphylaxis, and adverse events reported in VAERS are correlated in Table 1. The top 75 most commonly reported vaccine reactogenicity adverse events are shown for the seven highest reactogenicity vaccines in Tables 2 and 3. Figure 1 illustrates the day of onset for the most frequently reported adverse events for these seven vaccines. Extended reports by day of onset are illustrated for the pyrexia adverse event for these seven vaccines (Figure 2). Adverse events temporally associated with COVID-19 spike vaccines have more reports than adverse events associated with non-COVID-19 vaccines (Table 2).

    Table 1.  Symptoms overlaps between histamine intolerance, anaphylaxis, and vaccine adverse events.
    Organ system Symptoms Associated with histamine intolerance [8],[9] Associated with anaphylaxis [10] Found in vaccine adverse events (VAERS)
    Respiratory Rhinorrhea (clear nasal discharge) Yes Yes Yes
    Rhinitis (swelling of the mucous membrane of the nose) Yes No Yes
    Nasal congestion Yes Yes Yes
    Sneezing Yes Yes Yes
    Dyspnea (labored breathing), respiratory distress, asthmatic symptoms Yes Yes Yes
    Swelling of lips, tongue, eustachian tube, glottis, watery discharge, swelling of the lining of the nose, phlegm Yes Yes Yes
    Cough Yes Yes Yes
    Gastrointestional Bloating Yes Yes No
    Flatulence Yes Yes Yes
    Postprandial fullness Yes Yes No
    Diarrhoea Yes Yes Yes
    Abdominal pain Yes Yes Yes
    Constipation Yes Yes Yes
    Nausea Yes Yes Yes
    Emesis/vomiting Yes Yes Yes
    Neurological Headache/migraine Yes Yes [11] Yes
    Faintness, light-headed, vertigo Yes Yes Yes
    Malaise, feeling abnormal, anxiety and a feeling of impending doom Yes Yes Yes
    Dizziness Yes Yes Yes
    Syncope, Loss of consciousness Yes Yes Yes
    Blurred vision No Yes Yes
    Itchy, red, watery eyes, eye pruritus Yes Yes Yes
    Restlessness Yes Yes Yes
    Seizure No Yes (seldom) Yes
    Nervousness Yes No Yes
    Sleep disturbances (insomnia) Yes No Yes
    Anxiety Yes Yes Yes
    Panic disorder Yes Yes Yes
    Depression Yes No Yes
    Circulatory/cardiovascular Tachycardia Yes Yes Yes
    Hypotonia (decreased muscle tone) Yes Yes Yes
    Chronic inappropriate fatigue Yes No Yes
    Collapse (weakness due to decreased circulation), changes in blood pressure, palpitations, heart rhythm disorders Yes [9] Yes Yes
    Chest pain Yes Yes Yes
    Integumentary (skin) Pruritus (itchy skin) Yes [12] Yes Yes
    Flushing/redness/erythema Yes Yes Yes
    Urticaria/hives Yes Yes Yes
    Dermatitis Yes Yes Yes
    Swelling Yes Yes Yes
    Feeling hot, body temperature increased Yes Yes Yes [13]
    Reproductive Dysmenorrhoea (painful menstruation) Yes Yes Yes
    Menstrual disorder, menstruation irregular, menstruation delayed, heavy menstrual bleeding, intermenstrual bleeding No No Yes

     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV
    Table 2.  Tallies of adverse events temporally associated with vaccination reported from 1990 until May 13, 2022. Adverse events are sorted by ascending rank mean for the top seven vaccines with the highest number of reported adverse events—COVID-19, influenza (FLU3), shingles-attenuated live varicella-zoster virus (VARZOS), measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR), pneumococcal polysaccharide (PPV), hepatitis (HEP), and chickenpox varicella (VARCEL).
    Symptom Histamine intolerance COVID-19 VARZOS FLU3 MMR VARCEL HEP PPV
    Headache Yes 182521 12418 7118 2336 1562 4351 3543
    Fatigue Yes 154437 9752 3576 1185 779 1805 2215
    Pyrexia Yes 153429 14461 12757 21749 11961 11117 14372
    Chills Yes 117962 11811 6223 846 375 1460 4885
    Pain 117160 15708 11349 3276 1856 3964 9409
    Nausea Yes 102858 6603 5642 1478 1007 4096 3304
    Dizziness Yes 99763 3563 5631 1341 1106 3592 1934
    Pain in extremity 96033 10210 8157 753 816 907 8319
    Myalgia 69043 6524 4591 1145 354 3365 2956
    Dyspnoea Yes 69019 1152 4562 1542 788 2152 1778
    Arthralgia 65501 3959 2710 1928 370 3070 1779
    Rash Yes 49046 9219 5335 11958 8709 5428 2999
    Asthenia 47509 3148 4044 1221 581 3478 1721
    Pruritus Yes 45153 5753 6296 4364 4289 3906 2425
    Injection site pain 44498 12795 11051 3974 3536 3353 13188
    Vomiting Yes 42942 1765 4183 3927 2048 4226 2206
    Malaise Yes 42303 3700 3209 1491 740 2157 2388
    Chest pain Yes 37375 569 1431 312 183 861 614
    Diarrhoea Yes 36144 1779 2273 2010 897 2410 1011
    Cough Yes 35952 651 4148 1993 1181 993 1087
    Paraesthesia 35763 1793 3357 649 277 2367 770
    Lymphadenopathy 33156 682 1012 1993 479 876 672
    Hypoaesthesia 32585 1174 2752 320 228 969 679
    Feeling abnormal Yes 31485 1929 1003 228 151 245 553
    Erythema Yes 30154 7827 8131 6063 5955 1707 11633
    Urticaria Yes 29776 2490 5302 4826 3289 4001 1871
    Hyperhidrosis 29631 1377 2074 715 361 1342 981
    Injection site erythema 29576 14578 11384 10993 10723 2432 14793
    Vaccination site pain 28312 276 223 60 62 41 347
    Syncope Yes 26054 523 1409 1403 945 1406 484
    Injection site swelling Yes 24667 9704 7781 5868 6780 1494 11723
    Peripheral swelling Yes 24487 2718 1428 266 260 204 4347
    Palpitations Yes 24101 368 619 89 54 308 179
    Chest discomfort Yes 22339 353 1324 128 105 248 337
    Condition aggravated 21010 1575 946 540 284 971 599
    Back pain 20440 1466 1401 289 154 850 743
    Injection site pruritus 20090 4113 1909 783 1685 306 1058
    Tinnitus 19982 447 327 94 39 218 95
    Tremor 19157 1340 2027 1071 508 1176 735
    Heart rate increased Yes 18882 617 954 215 148 273 313
    Oropharyngeal pain 18345 508 1314 321 183 193 257
    Decreased appetite 17559 1132 645 1095 564 488 676
    Loss of consciousness Yes 17087 544 962 656 557 664 334
    Influenza like illness 16291 4156 1244 196 109 417 883
    Swelling Yes 16149 2907 2768 2091 1684 557 4093
    Feeling hot Yes 16033 1023 1812 2215 686 646 1602
    Heart rate Yes 15899 5 13 10 20 19 10
    Neck pain 15615 1247 1589 422 167 797 787
    Death 15168 277 406 196 95 472 356
    Injection site warmth 15028 5527 5002 4197 4164 888 5953
    Migraine Yes 14246 354 268 98 54 282 83
    Insomnia Yes 13395 1389 953 583 247 719 769
    Hypertension Yes 12896 182 536 165 49 505 217
    Abdominal pain Yes 12806 430 600 637 296 1471 319
    Vertigo Yes 12732 422 460 80 43 406 95
    Tachycardia Yes 12659 126 532 337 100 536 255
    Muscle spasms 12406 536 671 186 81 393 300
    Mobility decreased 12304 1472 1561 138 61 171 1835
    Rash erythematous Yes 12186 2485 1405 1986 1854 562 816
    Abdominal pain upper Yes 12141 1013 453 286 233 339 167
    Muscular weakness Yes 11975 841 1657 195 150 520 582
    Gait disturbance 11672 629 892 829 389 608 317
    Blood pressure increased Yes 11523 328 506 62 25 132 203
    Fall 11503 414 646 384 395 287 191
    Injection site rash 11370 3074 1458 1073 1440 313 1220
    Herpes zoster 11273 18449 466 555 2097 211 153
    Anxiety Yes 11251 218 403 231 97 490 133
    Rash pruritic Yes 10940 1798 768 649 832 275 179
    Heavy menstrual bleeding Yes 10694 2
    Vision blurred Yes 10532 374 579 118 74 284 105
    Flushing Yes 10393 308 920 291 185 316 341
    Sleep disorder Yes 10345 543 429 368 112 270 351
    Somnolence Yes 10245 595 592 1389 438 1492 381
    Lethargy Yes 10238 921 616 928 562 540 484
    Rhinorrhoea Yes 10053 225 827 765 567 264 217

     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV
    Table 3.  Rank ordered adverse events temporally associated with vaccination for adverse events from 1990 until May 13, 2022. Adverse events are sorted by ascending rank mean for the top seven vaccines with the highest number of reported adverse events—COVID-19, influenza (FLU3), shingles-attenuated live varicella-zoster virus (VARZOS), measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR), pneumococcal polysaccharide (PPV), hepatitis (HEP), and chickenpox varicella (VARCEL).
    Symptom COVID-19 VARZOS FLU3 MMR VARCEL HEP PPV
    Headache 1 6 8 18 28 3 16
    Fatigue 2 9 21 47 56 27 24
    Pyrexia 3 4 1 1 1 1 2
    Chills 4 7 10 71 87 33 9
    Pain 5 2 3 12 20 7 6
    Nausea 6 13 11 41 42 5 17
    Dizziness 7 22 12 44 40 9 27
    Pain in extremity 8 8 5 76 50 50 7
    Myalgia 9 14 16 49 90 11 19
    Dyspnoea 10 50 17 38 55 21 33
    Arthralgia 11 20 28 27 88 13 32
    Rash 12 11 13 2 3 2 18
    Asthenia 13 24 20 46 63 10 34
    Pruritus 14 15 9 7 8 8 20
    Injection site pain 15 5 4 10 10 12 3
    Vomiting 16 37 18 11 16 4 25
    Malaise 17 21 23 40 57 20 21
    Chest pain 18 87 47 143 141 55 68
    Diarrhoea 19 36 31 21 47 16 46
    Cough 20 77 19 22 35 43 42
    Paraesthesia 21 35 22 84 104 18 58
    Lymphadenopathy 22 73 66 23 73 54 67
    Hypoaesthesia 23 49 27 140 122 47 65
    Feeling abnormal 24 33 67 174 158 177 73
    Erythema 25 12 6 4 6 28 5
    Urticaria 26 29 14 6 11 6 29
    Hyperhidrosis 27 44 32 81 89 36 47
    Injection site erythema 28 3 2 3 2 15 1
    Vaccination site pain 29 139 203 411 273 555 93
    Syncope 30 95 49 42 44 34 76
    Injection site swelling 31 10 7 5 5 30 4
    Peripheral swelling 32 28 48 158 108 210 10
    Palpitations 33 117 102 323 305 138 138
    Chest discomfort 34 123 55 263 197 175 96
    Condition aggravated 35 39 76 97 103 46 69
    Back pain 36 41 51 146 155 56 61
    Injection site pruritus 37 18 36 73 26 139 45
    Tinnitus 38 103 168 311 384 195 230
    Tremor 39 45 33 55 71 39 63
    Heart rate increased 40 82 72 182 162 156 100
    Oropharyngeal pain 41 99 56 139 140 217 116
    Decreased appetite 42 52 99 52 66 92 66
    Loss of consciousness 43 91 69 83 68 69 97
    Influenza like illness 44 17 58 194 193 98 51
    Swelling 45 26 26 20 27 80 12
    Feeling hot 46 54 37 19 60 70 35
    Heart rate 47 928 871 811 534 739 822
    Neck pain 48 47 42 111 147 59 55
    Death 49 138 141 195 207 93 91
    Injection site warmth 50 16 15 9 9 53 8
    Migraine 51 122 183 303 303 152 263
    Insomnia 52 43 73 90 114 63 59
    Hypertension 53 176 116 217 331 89 124
    Abdominal pain 54 105 105 86 99 32 98
    Vertigo 55 106 133 348 368 104 229
    Tachycardia 56 229 118 130 201 84 117
    Muscle spasms 57 93 96 200 227 109 103
    Mobility decreased 58 40 43 253 275 247 31
    Rash erythematous 59 30 50 24 22 79 54
    Abdominal pain upper 60 55 134 147 120 126 144
    Muscular weakness 61 63 41 197 159 87 71
    Gait disturbance 62 80 78 72 85 71 99
    Blood pressure increased 63 131 119 405 468 303 130
    Fall 64 107 98 121 84 147 137
    Injection site rash 65 25 46 53 29 135 41
    Herpes zoster 66 1 129 93 15 197 158
    Anxiety 67 162 142 169 206 91 180
    Rash pruritic 68 34 85 85 49 154 139
    Heavy menstrual bleeding 69 1020 1111 1119 1119 1122 1125
    Vision blurred 70 116 109 273 239 151 213
    Flushing 71 135 77 145 138 134 95
    Sleep disorder 72 92 136 123 187 158 92
    Somnolence 73 84 106 43 75 31 88
    Lethargy 74 59 103 63 67 82 77
    Rhinorrhoea 75 159 81 74 65 164 125

     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV
    Figure 1.  Most frequent vaccine adverse events (headache, fatigue, pyrexia, chills, pain, nausea, dizziness, and pain in extremities (pain in ext)) days to onset (days 0, 1, 2, 3, & 4 plotted with X-axis legends for days 0, 2, & 4) reported in VAERS from 1990 until May 13, 2022 for vaccines with most reported adverse events—COVID-19, influenza (FLU3), shingles-attenuated live varicella-zoster virus (VARZOS), measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR), pneumococcal polysaccharide (PPV), hepatitis (HEP), and chickenpox varicella (VARCEL).
    Figure 2.  Pyrexia adverse events by days to onset reported in VAERS from 1990 until May 13, 2022 for vaccines with most reported adverse events—COVID-19, influenza (FLU3), shingles-attenuated live varicella-zoster virus (VARZOS), measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR), pneumococcal polysaccharide (PPV), hepatitis (HEP), and chickenpox varicella (VARCEL).

    A variety of adverse events are commonly associated with vaccination adverse events. Examples of common COVID-19 spike vaccine temporally associated adverse events include flushing or erythema (28%), dizziness or lightheadedness (26%), tingling (24%), throat tightness (22%), hives (21%), and wheezing or shortness of breath (21%) [14]; they note that 32 (20%) reported immediate and potentially allergic symptoms that were associated with the second COVID-19 vaccine dose were self-limited, mild, and/or resolved with antihistamines alone [14]. Many of the most commonly reported vaccine reactogenicity adverse events overlap with those of histamine intolerance syndrome (HIT) and anaphylaxis, see Table 1.

    The top ranked ordered adverse events temporally associated with vaccinations are illustrated in Tables 2 and 3. Some adverse events are anticipated to be specific to injection sites without overlaps with oral vaccines. Two dominant patterns emerge in Figures 1 and 2 with respect to onset of adverse events in vaccinees. The first pattern is characterized by the highest frequency of reported adverse events post vaccinations having the highest numbers of reports immediately following vaccinations with rapid declines for subsequent days. Reporting bias likely contributes to lower frequencies of reports as the number of days post vaccination increases. For some vaccinees, a second pattern is noted for some symptoms consistent with the timing of humoral response to the vaccination days 7 to 10 days post vaccination, see Figure 2. The majority of reported vaccination associated adverse events are associated with immediate onsets for the first several days; this is illustrated for pyrexia with an average of 72% for days 0 & 1 and 84% for days 0 to 5 (Figure 2). For COVID-19 spike vaccines, 85% of the pyrexia adverse events are reported for days 0 & 1 and 94% for days 0 to 5 (Figure 2).

    Herein, the observed overlap of vaccine associated adverse events across different vaccines suggests sharing of common cellular responses to vaccines; this enables exclusion of specific vaccine components as candidate causative entities. For initial vaccine exposures, the onset timing for the majority of the reported adverse events is insufficient for engagement of humoral immune responses. This immediate onset of symptoms is consistent with innate immune system response to vaccination. Granulocytes including mast cells are predicted to release inflammatory molecules, including histamine, as part of innate immune responses to vaccination. The majority of the top 75 ordered most frequently reported adverse events (Table 2) have significant overlaps with symptoms associated with histamine intolerance syndrome and anaphylaxis (64% for the top 25, 54% for the top 50, and 61% for the top 75 adverse events—Tables 1 and 2). Note that excluding adverse events associated with injection will increase these observed percentages. Histamine intolerance, also referred to as enteral histaminosis or sensitivity to dietary histamine, results from a disequilibrium of accumulated histamine and the capacity for histamine degradation [8],[15],[16].

    Innate immune responses to vaccines include activation of mast cells to release histamine [17],[18]. Based on symptoms associated with elevated histamine levels, see Table 2, this article proposes the hypothesis that innate immune response to vaccination release histamine to elevated levels that are causative for the majority of vaccine reactogenicity adverse events. Multiple vaccine reactogenicity adverse events parallel those of histamine intolerance syndrome, see Table 1. A rapid increase in histamine from innate immune responses to vaccination may exceed the histamine tolerance level for many vaccinees with low to normal histamine tolerance. The number of vaccinees with adverse reactions is proposed to increase corresponding to the reactogenicity level of the vaccine. Coadministration of two or more vaccines may increase the likelihood of exceeding the vaccinees' normal histamine tolerance level. When the normal histamine tolerance level is not exceeded for some vaccinees, no adverse events are expected. Resolution of adverse event symptoms is predicted as histamine levels fall below the tolerance level. For most vaccinees, their vaccine adverse events resolve within a few days post vaccination. Elevated histamine levels are consistent with many of the adverse events temporally associated with vaccinations (Table 2). Histamine is involved in the contraction of smooth muscles, secretion of gastric acid in the stomach, vasodilation, modulation of heart rate and contractility [19], and body temperature [13]. Histamine can also sensitize nociceptive nerves associated with pain sensation [20]. Many histamine intolerance symptoms occur in combinations [11]. Some conditions can predispose individuals to vaccine associated adverse events. Histamine is metabolized by the diamine oxidase (DAO) enzyme. Genetic variants and medications can affect the histamine tolerance threshold for vaccinees. Patients with migraines have been identified with low serum DAO activity levels [21]; perhaps exhibiting histamine intolerance. Patients with allergies have higher frequencies of vaccine adverse events [22]. Other patients have experienced increased histamine sensitivity post vaccination [23].

    The model predicts elevated histamine levels peaking immediately prior to onset of vaccine adverse events; for most vaccinees, the start of symptoms onset is within one to two days following vaccination. This model can be evaluated by correlating histamine levels with onset and resolution of adverse event symptoms. It may be possible to confirm elevated histamine by elevated levels in urine or blood with the standard histamine laboratory test, its metabolite methylimidazole acetic acid in urine, plasma histamine, or serum tryptase (acute serum tryptase measurements >20 ng/mL) [24] in vaccinees with adverse response symptoms. An institutional review board (IRB) approved study could evaluate and compare histamine levels in volunteers (unvaccinated controls, vaccinees who experience no adverse reactions, and vaccinees with adverse reactions). Histamine baseline levels for volunteers could be measured prior to vaccination. Including the standard laboratory serum DAO test may provide additional supportive evidence.

    Histamine levels are predicted by the model to peak prior to the onset of symptoms. Histamine levels are predicted to be returning towards baseline levels consistent with resolution of symptoms. One approach to evaluating this model would be to sample histamine levels prior to vaccination, at onset of symptoms, and at the resolution of symptoms. The model predicts that the histamine levels should be observed to be highest at the onset of symptoms; if observed, this would establish correlation. An alternative sampling approach collect samples at prior to vaccination and at defined time intervals (e.g., every 12 or 24 hours) for several days post vaccination. This second sampling strategy would include data from unvaccinated control volunteers and also vaccinated volunteers who develop no adverse event symptoms. The model predicts that histamine levels will be observed to increase in all vaccinees (with and without adverse event symptoms) but not in unvaccinated controls. Either of these sampling approaches should be able to establish or reject correlation of increased histamine levels corresponding with vaccine adverse event symptoms.

    The model predicts that increased histamine levels is causative for the majority of vaccine reactogenicity adverse events. Hence, combination of prophylactic and therapeutic treatments may enable reductions in incidence rates and symptoms duration for some vaccinees. Treatments targeting granulocytes/mast cells, antihistamines, and supplemental DAO enzyme for histamine metabolism may provide some efficacy to vaccinees. IRB approved case-control studies could compare incidence rates, severity, and duration lengths of symptoms between control volunteers and volunteers treated prophylactically and therapeutically with these candidate treatments (overviewed in the next section). Positive efficacy results from these studies would further support the proposed model.

    Treatments for reactogenicity adverse events include pain mitigation, antipyretics (prevent or reduce fever), etc. include local application of ice, paracetamol (acetaminophen), aspirin, or anti-inflammatories (e.g., ibuprofen) [1]. The model that most reactogenicity adverse events represent histamine intolerance symptoms suggests possible prophylactic and/or therapeutic treatments for evaluation in vaccinees. Antihistamine treatments exhibiting efficacy in treating COVID-19 patients are predicted to also target granulocytes and mast cells associated with vaccine responses. These candidate treatments for further evaluation include high dose famotidine [25][28], cetirizine [29],[30], and dexchlorpheniramine [29]. Oral treatment with diamine oxidase may also minimize, reduce severity, or eliminate vaccine reactogenicity adverse event symptoms in some vaccinees. Evaluation of these treatments and treatment combinations on vaccinees in case reports, case series, etc. can inform subsequent randomized controlled clinical trials for reducing vaccine reactogenicity adverse events. This model and candidate treatments should be applicable to all vaccines.

    The hypothesis that most vaccine reactogenicity adverse events are caused by temporal excess of histamine level is presented. The pattern of reactogenicity adverse events share overlaps between most or all vaccines including reports for COVID-19 spike vaccines. Evaluating histamine, histamine metabolite, and DAO serum levels in affected vaccinees can support or refute this model. The proposed etiology suggests possible prophylactic and therapeutic treatments for reducing vaccine reactogenicity symptoms, including antihistamines, mast cell stabilizers, and DAO enzyme supplements. Antihistamines are already occasionally used as therapeutic treatments for selected vaccine reactogenicity symptoms like rashes.



    Ethics approval and consent to participate



    This study adhered to the principles outlined in the Declaration of Helsinki and to the accepted principles of ethical conduct according to the approval reference number (521PM21) given by the Research Ethics Committee of the Faculty of Pharmacy, Damanhour University. Before testing and molecular analysis of their materials, all available samples, patient data, and informed consent were gathered from patients enrolled in this study.

    Consent for publication



    The results/data/figures in this manuscript have not been published elsewhere, nor are they under consideration (from you or one of your Contributing Authors) by another publisher.

    Availability of data and materials



    This manuscript does not report data generation or analysis.

    Competing interests



    I declare that the authors have no competing interests as defined by BMC, or other interests that might be perceived to influence the results and/or discussion reported in this paper.

    Funding



    No funding is available for all authors.

    Authors' contributions



    Kholoud and Mahmoud wrote the main manuscript text and Rania and Sarah prepared figures. All authors reviewed the manuscript.

    [1] Roca I, Akova M, Baquero F, et al. (2015) The global threat of antimicrobial resistance: science for intervention. New Microbes New Infect 6: 22-29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nmni.2015.02.007
    [2] Spellberg B, Srinivasan A, Chambers HF (2016) New societal approaches to empowering antibiotic stewardship. JAMA 315: 1229-1230. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2016.1346
    [3] (2015) World Health OrganizationGlobal action plan on antimicrobial resistance. Geneva: World Health Organization. https://www.who.int/antimicrobial-resistance/global-action-plan/en/
    [4] Centers for Disease Control and PreventionAntibiotic use in the United States: progress and opportunities, Atlanta (2017). https://www.cdc.gov/antibiotic-use/stewardship-report/pdf/stewardship-report.pdf
    [5] Wellington EMH, Boxall ABA, Cross P (2013) The role of the natural environment in the emergence of antibiotic resistance in Gram-negative bacteria. Lancet Infect Dis 13: 155-165. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1473-3099(12)70317-1
    [6] Morehead MS, Scarbrough C (2018) Emergence of global antibiotic resistance. Prim Care 45: 467-484. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pop.2018.05.006
    [7] Brown D (2015) Antibiotic resistance breakers: can repurposed drugs fill the antibiotic discovery void?. Nat Rev Drug Discov 14: 821-832. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrd4675
    [8] Yang Y, Zhang Z, Li S, et al. (2014) Synergy effects of herb extracts: pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamic basis. Fitoterapia 92: 133-147. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fitote.2013.10.010
    [9] Kaur I (2016) Novel strategies to combat antimicrobial resistance. J Infect Dis Ther 4: 4. https://doi.org/10.4172/2332-0877.1000292
    [10] Serafin MB, Hörner R (2018) Drug repositioning, a new alternative in infectious diseases. Braz J Infect Dis 22: 252-256. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bjid.2018.05.007
    [11] Ashburn TT, Thor KB (2004) Drug repositioning: identifying and developing new uses for existing drugs. Nat Rev Drug Discov 3: 673-683. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrd1468
    [12] Pushpakom S, Iorio F, Eyers PA, et al. (2018) Drug repurposing: progress, challenges and recommendations. Nat Rev Drug Discov 18: 41-58. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrd.2018.168
    [13] Xue H, Li J, Xie H, et al. (2018) Review of drug repositioning approaches and resources. Int J Biol Sci 14: 1232-1244. https://doi.org/10.7150/ijbs.24612
    [14] Gelosa P, Castiglioni L, Camera M, et al. (2020) Drug repurposing in cardiovascular diseases: opportunity or hopeless dream?. Biochem Pharmacol 177: 113894. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bcp.2020.113894
    [15] Rastelli G, Pellati F, Pinzi L, et al. (2020) Repositioning natural products in drug discovery. Molecules 25: 1154. https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules25051154
    [16] Vogt I, Mestres J (2010) Drug-Target Networks. Mol Inform 29: 10-14. https://doi.org/10.1002/minf.200900069
    [17] De Sousa AK, Rocha JE, de Souza TG, et al. (2018) New roles of fluoxetine in pharmacology: Antibacterial effect and modulation of antibiotic activity. Microb Pathog 123: 368-371. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.micpath.2018.07.040
    [18] Munoz-Bellido JL, Munoz-Criado S, Garca-Rodrguez J (2000) Antimicrobial activity of psychotropic drugs selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors. Int J Antimicrob Agents 14: 177-180. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0924-8579(99)00154-5
    [19] Foletto VS, Serafin MB, da Rosa TF, et al. (2019) Fluoxetine and paroxetine: repositioning as a therapeutic alternative in the treatment of various diseases. Am J Ther 27: 547-551. https://doi.org/10.1097/MJT.0000000000001011
    [20] Gosain A, DiPietro L (2004) Aging and wound healing. World J Surg 28: 321-326. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00268-003-7397-6
    [21] Mathieu D, Linke J, Wattel F (2006) Non-healing wounds. Handbook on hyperbaric medicine . New York: Springer 401-27. https://doi.org/10.1007/1-4020-4448-8_20
    [22] Menke N, Ward K, Witten T, et al. (2007) Impaired wound healing. Clin Dermatol 25: 19-25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clindermatol.2006.12.005
    [23] Malinin A, Oshrine B, Serebruany V (2004) Treatment with selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors for enhancing wound healing. Med Hypothese 63: 103-109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mehy.2003.10.021
    [24] Bailey WR, Scott EG (1986) Bailey and Scott's Diagnostic Microbiology. Mosby. Chapter 7
    [25] Bauer AW, Kirby WM, Sherris JC (1966) Antibiotic susceptibility testing by a standardized single disk method. Am J Clin Pathol 45: 493-496. https://doi.org/10.1093/ajcp/45.4_ts.493
    [26] Clinical and Laboratory Performance Standards For Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing - 30th Edition, 2020. https://webstore.ansi.org/standards/clsi/clsim100ed30
    [27] Castro-Escarpulli G, Figueras MJ, Aguilera-Arreola G, et al. (2003) Characterisation of Aeromonas spp. isolated from frozen fish intended for human consumption in Mexico. Int J Food Microbiol 84: 41-49. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0168-1605(02)00393-8
    [28] Kus JV, Tullis E, Cvitkovitch DG, et al. (2004) Significant differences in type IV pilin allele distribution among Pseudomonas aeruginosa isolates from cystic fibrosis (CF) versus non-CF patients. Microbiology 150: 1315-1326. https://doi.org/10.1099/mic.0.26822-0
    [29] Freeman J, Falkiner FR, Keane CT (1989) New method for detecting slime production by coagulase negative staphylococci. J Clin Pathol 42: 872-874. https://doi.org/10.1136/jcp.42.8.872
    [30] O'Toole GAJJ (2011) Microtiter dish biofilm formation assay. J Vis Exp 47: e2437. https://doi.org/10.3791/2437
    [31] Queipo-Ortun MI, Colmenero JDD, Macias M, et al. (2008) Preparation of bacterial DNA template by boiling and effect of immunoglobulin G as an inhibitor in real-time PCR for serum samples from patients with brucellosis. Clin Vaccine Immunol 15: 293-296. https://doi.org/10.1128/CVI.00270-07
    [32] Karatuna O, Yagci A (2010) Analysis of quorum sensing-dependent virulence factor production and its relationship with antimicrobial susceptibility in Pseudomonas aeruginosa respiratory isolates. Clin Microbiol Infect 16: 1770-1775. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-0691.2010.03177.x
    [33] Wiegand I, Hilpert K, Hancock WER (2008) Agar and broth dilution methods to determine the minimal inhibitory concentration (MIC) of antimicrobial substances. Nat Protoc 3: 163-175. https://doi.org/10.1038/nprot.2007.521
    [34] Konaté K, Movoungou JF, Lepengué AN, et al. (2012) Antibacterial activity against β-lactamase producing Methicillin and Ampicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus: fractional Inhibitory Concentration Index (FICI) determination. Ann Clin Microbiol Antimicrob 11: 18. https://doi.org/10.1186/1476-0711-11-18
    [35] Odds FC (2003) Synergy, antagonism, and what the chequerboard puts between them. J Antimicrob Chemother 52: 1. https://doi.org/10.1093/jac/dkg301
    [36] Fassel TA, Edmiston CE (2000) Evaluating adherent bacteria and biofilm using electron microscopy. Handbook of Bacterial Adhesion: Principles, Methods, and Applications . New Jersey: Humana Press Inc 235-248. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-59259-224-1_14
    [37] Yu N, Wang X, Qiu L, et al. (2020) Bacteria-triggered hyaluronan/AgNPs/gentamicin nanocarrier for synergistic bacteria disinfection and wound healing application. Chem Eng J 380: 122582. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2019.122582
    [38] Shu G, Xu D, Zhang W, et al. (2022) Preparation of shikonin liposome and evaluation of its in-vitro antibacterial and in-vivo infected wound healing activity. Phytomedicine 99: 154035. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.phymed.2022.154035
    [39] Magiorakos AP, Srinivasan A, Carey RB, et al. (2012) Multidrug-resistant, extensively drug-resistant and pandrug-resistant bacteria: an international expert proposal for interim standard definitions for acquired resistance. Clin Microbiol Infect 18: 268-281. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-0691.2011.03570.x
    [40] Gaynes R, Edwards JR (2005) Overview of nosocomial infections caused by gram-negative bacilli. Clin Infect Dis 41: 848-54. https://doi.org/10.1086/432803
    [41] Diab M, Fam N, El-Said M, et al. (2013) Occurrence of VIM-2 metallo-β-lactamases in imipenem resistant and susceptible Pseudomonas aeruginosa clinical isolates from Egypt. Afr J Microbiol Res 7: 4465-4472. https://doi.org/10.5897/AJMR2013.6181
    [42] Abbas HA, El-Ganiny AM, Kamel HA (2018) Phenotypic and genotypic detection of antibiotic resistance of Pseudomonas aeruginosa isolated from urinary tract infections. Afr Health Sci 18: 11-21. https://doi.org/10.4314/ahs.v18i1.3
    [43] Rodulfo H, Arcia A, Hernandez A, et al. (2019) Virulence factors and integrons are associated with MDR and XDR phenotypes in nosocomial strains of Pseudomonas aeruginosa in a Venezuelan university hospital. Rev Inst Med Trop Sao Paulo 61: e20. https://doi.org/10.1590/s1678-9946201961020
    [44] Rossi Goncalves I, Dantas RCC, Ferreira ML, et al. (2017) Carbapenem-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa: association with virulence genes and biofilm formation. Braz J Microbiol 48: 211-217. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bjm.2016.11.004
    [45] Hashem H, Hanora A, Abdalla S, et al. (2017) Dissemination of metallo-beta-lactamase in Pseudomonas aeruginosa isolates in Egypt: mutation in blaVIM-4. APMIS 125: 0499-0505. https://doi.org/10.1111/apm.12669
    [46] Sonbol FI, Khalil MAEF, Mohamed AB, et al. (2015) Correlation between antibiotic resistance and virulence of Pseudomonas aeruginosa clinical isolates. Turk J Med Sci 45: 568-577. https://doi.org/10.3906/sag-1406-58
    [47] Zhu H, Bandara R, Conibear TC, et al. (2004) Pseudomonas aeruginosa with lasI quorum-sensing deficiency during corneal infection. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 45: 1897-1903. https://doi.org/10.1167/iovs.03-0980
    [48] Dogonchi AA, Ghaemi EA, Ardebili A, et al. (2018) Metallo-beta-lactamase-mediated resistance among clinical carbapenem-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa isolates in northern Iran: a potential threat to clinical therapeutics. Tzu Chi Med J 30: 90-96. https://doi.org/10.4103/tcmj.tcmj_101_17
    [49] Al Dawodeyah HY, Obeidat N, Abu-Qatouseh LF, et al. (2018) Antimicrobial resistance and putative virulence genes of Pseudomonas aeruginosa isolates from patients with respiratory tract infection. Germs 8: 31-40. https://doi.org/10.18683/germs.2018.1130
    [50] Baniya B, Pant ND, Neupane S, et al. (2017) Biofilm and metallo betalactamase production among the strains of Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Acinetobacter spp. at a Tertiary Care Hospital in Kathmandu, Nepal. Ann Clin Microbiol Antimicrob 16: 70. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12941-017-0245-6
    [51] Bogiel T, Deptuła A, Kwiecińska-piróg J, et al. (2017) The prevalence of exoenzyme S gene in multidrug-sensitive and multidrug-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa clinical strains. Pol J Microbiol 66: 427-431. https://doi.org/10.5604/01.3001.0010.6500
    [52] Ellappan K, Belgode Narasimha H, et al. (2018) Coexistence of multidrug resistance mechanisms and virulence genes in carbapenem-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa strains from a tertiary care hospital in South India. J Glob Antimicrob Resist 12: 37-43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jgar.2017.08.018
    [53] Ghanbarzadeh Corehtash Z, Khorshidi A, Firoozeh F, et al. (2015) Biofilm formation and virulence factors among Pseudomonas aeruginosa isolated from burn patients. Jundishapur J Microbiol 8: e22345. https://doi.org/10.5812/jjm
    [54] Wang H, Tu F, Gui Z, et al. (2013) Antibiotic Resistance Profiles and Quorum Sensing-Dependent Virulence Factors in Clinical Isolates of Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Indian J Microbiol 53: 163-167. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12088-013-0370-7
    [55] Deligianni E, Pattison S, Berrar D, et al. (2010) Pseudomonas aeruginosa cystic fibrosis isolates of similar RAPD genotype exhibit diversity in biofilm forming ability in vitro. BMC Microbiol 10: 38. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2180-10-38
    [56] Ochoa S, López-Montiel F, Escalona G, et al. (2013) Pathogenic characteristics of Pseudomonas aeruginosa strains resistant to carbapenems associated with biofilm formation. Bol Med Hosp Infant Mex 70: 133-144.
    [57] Aqel H, Sannan N, Foudah R, et al. (2023) Enzyme production and inhibitory potential of Pseudomonas aeruginosa: contrasting clinical and environmental isolates. Antibiotics (Basel) 12: 1354. https://doi.org/10.3390/antibiotics12091354
    [58] Senturk S, Ulusoy S, Bosgelmez-Tinaz G, et al. (2012) Quorum sensing and virulence of Pseudomonas aeruginosa during urinary tract infections. J Infect Dev Ctries 6: 501-507. https://doi.org/10.3855/jidc.2543
    [59] Edward EA, El Shehawy MR, Abouelfetouh A, et al. (2023) Prevalence of different virulence factors and their association with antimicrobial resistance among Pseudomonas aeruginosa clinical isolates from Egypt. BMC Microbiol 23: 161. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12866-023-02897-8
    [60] Abd El Galil K, AbdelGhani S, Sebak M, et al. (2013) Detection of biofilm genes among clinical isolates of Pseudomonas aeruginosa recovered from some Egyptian hospitals. Egypt J Microbiol 36.
    [61] El-Mahdy R, El-Kannishy G (2019) Virulence factors of Carbapenem-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa in hospital-acquired infections in Mansoura, Egypt. Infect Drug Resist 12: 3455-3461. https://doi.org/10.2147/IDR.S222329
    [62] Deptula A, Gospodarek E (2010) Reduced expression of virulence factors in multidrug-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa strains. Arch Microbiol 192: 79-84. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00203-009-0528-1
    [63] Ghanem SM, Abd El-Baky RM, Abourehab MAS, et al. (2023) Prevalence of quorum sensing and virulence factor genes among Pseudomonas aeruginosa isolated from patients suffering from different infections and their association with antimicrobial resistance. Infect Drug Resist 16: 2371-2385. https://doi.org/10.2147/IDR.S403441
    [64] Sabharwal N, Dhall S, Chhibber S, et al. (2014) Molecular detection of virulence genes as markers in Pseudomonas aeruginosa isolated from urinary tract infections. Int J Mol Epidemiol Genet 5: 125-134.
    [65] Kadhim D, Ali Mi R (2014) Prevalence study of quorum sensing groups among clinical isolates of Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Int J Curr Microbiol App Sci 3: 204-215. https://doi.org/10.2147/IDR.S403441
    [66] Aghamollaei H, Azizi BK, Moosazadeh MM (2014) Rapid detection of Pseudomonas aeruginosa by PCR method using specific primers of quorum sensing LasI gene. Armaghane Danesh 18: 723-735. http://armaghanj.yums.ac.ir/article-1-480-en.html
    [67] Sousa DKA, Rocha EJ, Souza DGT, et al. (2018) New roles of fluoxetine in pharmacology: Antibacterial effect and modulation of antibiotic activity. Microbial Pathogenesis 123: 368-371. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.micpath.2018.07.040
    [68] Foletto SV, da Rosa FT, Serafin BM, et al. (2021) Repositioning of antidepressant drugs and synergistic effect with ciprofloxacin against multidrug-resistant bacteria. World J Microbiol Biotechnol 37. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11274-021-03016-3
    [69] Guedes GM, Araújo ES, Ribeiro KV, et al. (2023) Effect of fluoxetine on planktonic and biofilm growth and the antimicrobial susceptibility of Burkholderia pseudomallei. Future Microbiol 18: 785-794. https://doi.org/10.2217/fmb-2022-0272
    [70] Pereira TC, de Menezes RT, de Oliveira HC, et al. (2021) In vitro synergistic effects of fluoxetine and paroxetine in combination with amphotericin B against Cryptococcus neoformans. Pathog Dis 79: ftab001. https://doi.org/10.1093/femspd/ftab001
    [71] Kiecka A, Szczepanik M (2022) The potential action of SSRIs in the treatment of skin diseases including atopic dermatitis and slow-healing wounds. Pharmacol Rep 74: 947-955. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43440-022-00423-7
    [72] Patel DK, Ganguly K, Hexiu J, et al. (2022) Functionalized chitosan/spherical nanocellulose-based hydrogel with superior antibacterial efficiency for wound healing. Carbohydr Polym 284: 119202. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.carbpol.2022.119202
    [73] Farahani RM, Sadr K, Rad JS, et al. (2007) Fluoxetine enhances cutaneous wound healing in chronically stressed Wistar rats. Adv Skin Wound Care 20: 157-165. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.ASW.0000262710.59293.6b
    [74] Yuksel EP, Ilkaya F, Yildiz L, et al. (2014) Effects of paroxetine on cutaneous wound healing in healthy and diabetic rats. Adv Skin Wound Care 27: 216-221. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.ASW.0000445920.14039.64
    [75] Dwajani S, Gurumurthy R (2013) Wound healing property of paroxetine in immunosuppressed albino rats. IJBCP 2: 772. https://doi.org/10.5455/2319-2003.ijbcp20131219
    [76] Fazzino F, Montes C, Urbina M, et al. (2008) Serotonin transporter is differentially localized in subpopulations of lymphocytes of major depression patients. Effect of fluoxetine on proliferation. J Neuroimmunol 196: 173. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jneuroim.2008.03.012
    [77] Hou R, Ye G, Liu Y, et al. (2019) Effects of SSRIs on peripheral inflammatory cytokines in patients with generalized anxiety disorder. Brain Behave Immun 81: 105-110. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbi.2019.06.001
  • Reader Comments
  • © 2025 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(715) PDF downloads(73) Cited by(0)

Figures and Tables

Figures(3)  /  Tables(6)

/

DownLoad:  Full-Size Img  PowerPoint
Return
Return

Catalog