Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
Summary, 35S 2. Introduction, 35S 3. The structure of the Gram‐negative bacterial cell envelope, 36S 3.1. Structural organization and composition of the outer membrane, 36S 3.1.1. Lipopolysaccharides (LPS), 36S 3.1.2. Porins, 37S 3.1.3. Periplasmic space, 37S 3.1.4. Peptidoglycan, 37S 3.2. Environmental influences (plasticity), 38S 3.3. Barrier function rather than target site, 38S 4. Biocide interactions, 38S 5. Molecular characteristics required for the penetration of biocides, 39S 6. Strategies adopted by Gram‐negative bacteria to reduce penetration, 39S 6.1. Outer membrane changes, 40S 6.2. Loss of porin proteins, 40S 6.3. Other mechanisms, 41S 7. Strategies to overcome penetration constraints, 41S 7.1. Compromising the permeability barrier, 41S 7.2. Intracellular delivery of biocides, 41S 7.3. Ultrasonic enhancement of action, 42S 7.4. Self‐promoted uptake for cationic antimicrobial peptides, 42S 7.5. Other strategies, 42S 8. Conclusion, 42S 9. References, 43S The principal targets for antibacterial agents reside at the cytoplasm and cytoplasmic membrane, damage to other structures often arising from initial events at these loci. The Gram‐negative bacteria offer a complex barrier system to biocides and antibiotics, regulating, and sometimes preventing, their passage to target regions. Routes of entry differ between hydrophobic and hydrophilic agents, often with a structure dependency; specialized uptake mechanisms are exploited and portage transport can occur for pro‐drug antibacterials. Uptake isotherms offer insight into the sorption process and can sometimes shed light on biocide mechanisms of action. The multi‐component barrier system of Gram‐negative bacteria offers opportunities for phenotypic resistance development where partitioning or exclusion minimizes the delivery of an antibacterial agent to the target site. Active efflux processes are recognized as increasingly relevant mechanisms for resistance, potentially offering routes to biocide:antibiotic cross‐resistance. These mechanisms may be targeted directly in an attempt to compromise their role in microbial survival.
Denyer et al. (Wed,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: