Efecto antibacteriano in vitro del vaccinium corymbosum L. sobre escherichia coli uropatógena

Evaluar el efecto antibacteriano in vitro del extracto etanólico de Vaccinium corymbosum L. sobre Escherichia coli uropatógena. MATERIAL Y MÉTODOS: Estudio experimental y transversal del efecto antibacteriano in vitro de Vaccinium corymbosum L. en las concentraciones 25%, 50%, 75% y 100%, y ciprofloxacino como control positivo y suero fisiológico como control negativo sobre Escherichia coli uropatógena. Determinándose mediante el método de Kirby Bauer la susceptibilidad al extracto etanólico, por macro dilución en caldo y posterior conteo de unidades formadoras de colonias (UFC) la concentración bactericida mínima (CBM). Haciendo uso de la desviación estándar, análisis de varianza y la prueba de Duncan, con una significancia del 5%. RESULTADOS: La susceptibilidad de Escherichia coli uropatógena frente al extracto etanólico de Vaccinium corymbosum L. al 25%, 50%, 75% y 100%, ciprofloxacino y suero fisiológico fueron 8,60 ± 0,97 mm; 9,60 ± 0,70 mm; 14,00 ± 2,21 mm; 16,10 ± 0,99 mm; 33,70 ± 2,06 mm; 6,00 ± 0,00 mm, respectivamente. La CBM fue la concentración al 75% al hallarse 0 UFC. CONCLUSIONES: La susceptibilidad del extracto etanólico de Vaccinium corymbosum L. resultó a la concentraciones de 50% y 75% “sensibilidad límite” mientras que a la concentración al 100% fue “sensibilidad media”,y para ciprofloxacino fue “sensible”. La CBM del extracto etanólico de Vaccinium corymbosum L. sobre Escherichia coli uropatógena fue a la concentración de 75%.To evaluate the in vitro antibacterial effect of the ethanol extract of Vaccinium Corymbosum L. on uropathogenic Escherichia coli. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Experimental and cross-sectional study of the in vitro antibacterial effect of Vaccinium corymbosum L. in concentrations 25%, 50%, 75% and 100%, and ciprofloxacin as a positive control and physiological serum as a negative control over uropathogenic Escherichia coli. The susceptibility to ethanolic extract was determined by Kirby Bauer's method, by macro dilution in broth and subsequent colony forming unit count (CFU) the minimum bactericidal concentration (MBC). Using the standard deviation, analysis of variance and the Duncan test, with a significance of 5%. RESULTS: The sensitivity of uropathogenic Escherichia coli against the 25%, 50%, 75% and 100% ethanol extract of Vaccinium corymbosum L., ciprofloxacin and physiological serum were 8.60 ± 0.97 mm; 9.60 ± 0.70 mm; 14.00 ± 2.21 mm; 16.10 ± 0.99 mm; 33.70 ± 2.06 mm; 6.00 ± 0.00 mm, respectively. The MBC was the 75% concentration when 0 CFU were found. CONCLUSIONS: The susceptibility of the ethanol extract of Vaccinium corymbosum L. resulted in concentrations of 50% and 75% ""limit sensitivity"" while at 100% concentration it was "" medium sensitivity"", and for ciprofloxacin it was ""sensitive"". The CBM of the ethanol extract of Vaccinium corymbosum L. on uropathogenic Escherichia coli was at a concentration of 75% as with ciprofloxacin, as evidenced by 0 CFU.Tesi

Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy (4th edition)1.

In 2008, we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, this topic has received increasing attention, and many scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Thus, it is important to formulate on a regular basis updated guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Despite numerous reviews, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to evaluate autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. Here, we present a set of guidelines for investigators to select and interpret methods to examine autophagy and related processes, and for reviewers to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of reports that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are not meant to be a dogmatic set of rules, because the appropriateness of any assay largely depends on the question being asked and the system being used. Moreover, no individual assay is perfect for every situation, calling for the use of multiple techniques to properly monitor autophagy in each experimental setting. Finally, several core components of the autophagy machinery have been implicated in distinct autophagic processes (canonical and noncanonical autophagy), implying that genetic approaches to block autophagy should rely on targeting two or more autophagy-related genes that ideally participate in distinct steps of the pathway. Along similar lines, because multiple proteins involved in autophagy also regulate other cellular pathways including apoptosis, not all of them can be used as a specific marker for bona fide autophagic responses. Here, we critically discuss current methods of assessing autophagy and the information they can, or cannot, provide. Our ultimate goal is to encourage intellectual and technical innovation in the field

Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy (4th edition)

In 2008, we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, this topic has received increasing attention, and many scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Thus, it is important to formulate on a regular basis updated guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Despite numerous reviews, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to evaluate autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. Here, we present a set of guidelines for investigators to select and interpret methods to examine autophagy and related processes, and for reviewers to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of reports that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are not meant to be a dogmatic set of rules, because the appropriateness of any assay largely depends on the question being asked and the system being used. Moreover, no individual assay is perfect for every situation, calling for the use of multiple techniques to properly monitor autophagy in each experimental setting. Finally, several core components of the autophagy machinery have been implicated in distinct autophagic processes (canonical and noncanonical autophagy), implying that genetic approaches to block autophagy should rely on targeting two or more autophagy-related genes that ideally participate in distinct steps of the pathway. Along similar lines, because multiple proteins involved in autophagy also regulate other cellular pathways including apoptosis, not all of them can be used as a specific marker for bona fide autophagic responses. Here, we critically discuss current methods of assessing autophagy and the information they can, or cannot, provide. Our ultimate goal is to encourage intellectual and technical innovation in the field

Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy (4th edition)

International audienceIn 2008, we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, this topic has received increasing attention, and many scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Thus, it is important to formulate on a regular basis updated guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Despite numerous reviews, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to evaluate autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. Here, we present a set of guidelines for investigators to select and interpret methods to examine autophagy and related processes, and for reviewers to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of reports that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are not meant to be a dogmatic set of rules, because the appropriateness of any assay largely depends on the question being asked and the system being used. Moreover, no individual assay is perfect for every situation, calling for the use of multiple techniques to properly monitor autophagy in each experimental setting. Finally, several core components of the autophagy machinery have been implicated in distinct autophagic processes (canonical and noncanonical autophagy), implying that genetic approaches to block autophagy should rely on targeting two or more autophagy-related genes that ideally participate in distinct steps of the pathway. Along similar lines, because multiple proteins involved in autophagy also regulate other cellular pathways including apoptosis, not all of them can be used as a specific marker for bona fide autophagic responses. Here, we critically discuss current methods of assessing autophagy and the information they can, or cannot, provide. Our ultimate goal is to encourage intellectual and technical innovation in the field