Skip Navigation

This Article
Right arrow Full Text Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (6)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Disclaimer
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Gradelski, E.
Right arrow Articles by Fung-Tomc, J.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Gradelski, E.
Right arrow Articles by Fung-Tomc, J.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy (2002) 49, 185-188
© 2002 The British Society for Antimicrobial Chemotherapy

Brief report

Bactericidal mechanism of gatifloxacin compared with other quinolones

Elizabeth Gradelski, Benjamin Kolek, Daniel Bonner and Joan Fung-Tomc,*

Department of Microbiology, Bristol-Myers Squibb Company, Wallingford, CT 06492, USA

The quinolones differ in their mechanisms of bacterial killing. The rate of bacterial killing by quinolones can be influenced by the addition of bacterial protein or RNA synthesis inhibitors, and the growth phase of the bacterium. In this study, we compared the killing activities of gatifloxacin, trovafloxacin, ciprofloxacin and norfloxacin against staphylococci, pneumococci and Escherichia coli. Gatifloxacin killing of these organisms occurred regardless of the metabolic state of the microbes. Unlike the comparator quinolones, gatifloxacin killing was not influenced by the addition of bacterial protein or RNA synthesis inhibitors. Gatifloxacin was able to kill non-dividing staphylococcal and E. coli cells.

* Corresponding author. Tel: +1-203-677-6370; Fax: +1-203-677-6771; E-mail: fungtomj{at}bms.com


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Antimicrob. Agents Chemother.Home page
I. M. Gut, A. M. Prouty, J. D. Ballard, W. A. van der Donk, and S. R. Blanke
Inhibition of Bacillus anthracis Spore Outgrowth by Nisin
Antimicrob. Agents Chemother., December 1, 2008; 52(12): 4281 - 4288.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Antimicrob. Agents Chemother.Home page
C. T. M. Mascio, J. D. Alder, and J. A. Silverman
Bactericidal Action of Daptomycin against Stationary-Phase and Nondividing Staphylococcus aureus Cells
Antimicrob. Agents Chemother., December 1, 2007; 51(12): 4255 - 4260.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Antimicrob. Agents Chemother.Home page
P. Chung, P. J. McNamara, J. J. Campion, and M. E. Evans
Mechanism-Based Pharmacodynamic Models of Fluoroquinolone Resistance in Staphylococcus aureus.
Antimicrob. Agents Chemother., September 1, 2006; 50(9): 2957 - 2965.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 J Antimicrob ChemotherHome page
S. Eick, A. Schmitt, S. Sachse, K.-H. Schmidt, and W. Pfister
In vitro antibacterial activity of fluoroquinolones against Porphyromonas gingivalis strains
J. Antimicrob. Chemother., August 1, 2004; 54(2): 553 - 556.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.