The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Bactericidal Action of Daptomycin against Stationary-Phase and Nondividing Staphylococcus aureus Cells
Open accessAbstract
Most antibiotics with bactericidal activity require that the bacteria be actively dividing to produce rapid killing. However, in many infections, such as endocarditis, prosthetic joint infections, and infected embedded catheters, the bacteria divide slowly or not at all. Daptomycin is a lipopeptide antibiotic with a distinct mechanism of action that targets the cytoplasmic membrane of gram-positive organisms, including Staphylococcus aureus . Daptomycin is rapidly bactericidal against exponentially growing bacteria (a 3-log reduction in 60 min). The objectives of this study were to determine if daptomycin is bactericidal against nondividing S. aureus and to quantify the extent of the bactericidal activity. In high-inoculum methicillin-sensitive S. aureus cultures in stationary phase (10 10 CFU/ml), daptomycin displayed concentration-dependent bactericidal activity, requiring 32 μg/ml to achieve a 3-log reduction. In a study comparing several antibiotics at 100 μg/ml, daptomycin demonstrated faster bactericidal activity than nafcillin, ciprofloxacin, gentamicin, and vancomycin. In experiments where bacterial cell growth was halted by the metabolic inhibitor carbonyl cyanide m -chlorophenylhydrazone or erythromycin, daptomycin (10 μg/ml) achieved the bactericidal end point (a 3-log reduction) within 2 h. In contrast, ciprofloxacin (10 μg/ml) did not produce bactericidal activity. Daptomycin (2 μg/ml) remained bactericidal against cold-arrested S. aureus , which was protected from the actions of ciprofloxacin and nafcillin. The data presented here suggest that, in contrast to that of other classes of antibiotics, the bactericidal activity of daptomycin does not require cell division or active metabolism, most likely as a consequence of its direct action on the bacterial membrane.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Biofilms: Survival Mechanisms of Clinically Relevant Microorganisms
Donlan, R. M., & Costerton, J. W. (2002) · Clinical Microbiology Reviews · doi:10.1128/cmr.15.2.167-193.2002 · Cited by 6,644
Somerville, G. A., Chaussee, M. S., Morgan, C. I., Fitzgerald, J. R., Dorward, D. W., Reitzer, L. J., & Musser, J. M. (2002) · Infection and Immunity · doi:10.1128/iai.70.11.6373-6382.2002 · Cited by 196
Cited by
Distinguishing between resistance, tolerance and persistence to antibiotic treatment
Brauner, A., Fridman, O., Gefen, O., & Balaban, N. Q. (2016) · Nature Reviews Microbiology · doi:10.1038/nrmicro.2016.34 · Cited by 1,612
Hurdle, J. G., O'Neill, A. J., Chopra, I., & Lee, R. E. (2011) · Nature Reviews Microbiology · doi:10.1038/nrmicro2474 · Cited by 871
Antibiotic Resistance and the MRSA Problem
Vestergaard, M., Frees, D., & Ingmer, H. (2019) · Microbiology Spectrum · doi:10.1128/microbiolspec.gpp3-0057-2018 · Cited by 490
Pogliano, J., Pogliano, N., & Silverman, J. A. (2012) · Journal of Bacteriology · doi:10.1128/jb.00011-12 · Cited by 319
Self-citationBayer, A. S., Schneider, T., & Sahl, H. (2013) · Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1111/j.1749-6632.2012.06819.x · Cited by 311
Metadata
- Authors
- Mascio, C. T. M., Alder, J. D., & Silverman, J. A.
- Venue
- Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy
- Publisher
- American Society for Microbiology
- Published
- 2007-12
- Volume
- 51
- Issue
- 12
- Pages
- 4255-4260
- ISSN
- 0066-4804 (ISSN-L)
- 1098-6596
- OpenAlex
- W2157265409
- Cited by
- 276
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 7.25
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Bactericidal Action of Daptomycin against Stationary-Phase and Nondividing Staphylococcus aureus Cells. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1128/aac.00824-07
- The paper
- Mascio, C. T. M., Alder, J. D., & Silverman, J. A. (2007). Bactericidal Action of Daptomycin against Stationary-Phase and Nondividing Staphylococcus aureus Cells. Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy. https://doi.org/10.1128/aac.00824-07
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.