ArticleBMC biotechnology2025
Antibacterial and antibiofilm activity of platelet-rich plasma under different activation conditions against multidrug-resistant MRSA isolated from human skin abscesses.
Article in BMC biotechnology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis study evaluated the antibacterial efficacy of platelet-rich plasma (PRP), platelet-poor plasma (PPP), and three activated PRP fractions (APRP, PRP-T, and APRP-T) against multidrug-resistant (MDR) bacteria isolated from human cutaneous abscesses. The rise of multidrug-resistant microorganisms has created a need for the development of new infection treatment strategies. PRP was obtained from peripheral blood samples of healthy donors using an automated blood collection device known as platelet apheresis union. A total of 107 bacterial isolates were obtained from 102 pus samples collected from Egypt’s Qena General Hospital. The isolated bacteria were characterized using biochemical and serological studies, antibiotic susceptibility testing, and PCR detection of antibiotic resistance genes and virulence factors. The study aimed to evaluate the antibacterial, antibiofilm, and time-killing curve effects of PPP, PRP, APRP, PRP-T, and APRP-T against the MDR isolates.
resultsThe most prevalent strain was Staphylococcus aureus (79.35%), including methicillin-resistant (MRSA, 35.87%). Multidrug-resistance (MDR ≥ 3) was observed in various bacterial isolates, particularly against β-lactam antibiotics. Among the MRSA isolates, 100% tested positive for the virulence genes icaD, LukED, and clfA, as well as the antibiotic-resistant gene mecA. S. aureus strains, 31.51% were found to produce enterotoxins (ACD). Furthermore, 79.35% of Staphylococcal isolates had the ability to form biofilms. The active PRP fractions (APRP and APRP-T) exhibited antibacterial activities against MRSA strains, in both solid and liquid media as clear zone range (11.0–18.0 mm) and complete inhibition by (2730 ± 70 and 2180 ± 30 × 109 cells/L). Significant antibiofilm activity was observed in the PPP, PRP, and PRP active fractions (APRP PRP-T, and APRP-T), resulting in a sharp decrease in MRSA biofilm optical density (OD) after treatment compared to control. The killing dynamics of APRP and APRP-T showed a steady decline in bacterial CFU after 4 h of treatment, followed by a dramatic decline after 24 h.
conclusionsThe research suggests that PRP active fractions, specifically APRP and APRP-T, are effective in reducing complications caused by bacterial skin infections, particularly abscesses. These fractions exhibit simultaneous antibacterial, antibiofilm, and regenerative activities. Activated PRP fractions, particularly APRP-T, could serve as promising adjunct therapies against MDR MRSA infections.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.