Search results

Filters

  • Journals
  • Authors
  • Keywords
  • Date
  • Type

Search results

Number of results: 3
items per page: 25 50 75
Sort by:
Download PDF Download RIS Download Bibtex

Abstract

Nontuberculous mycobacteria (NTM) have recently emerged as important bacterial pathogens of animals and humans. Of particular concern is the high level of antimicrobial resistance displayed by these organisms, which complicates treatment and potential successful outcomes. Here, we evaluated the potential of Carlina acaulis L. as a source of novel anti-mycobacterial agents. Our goal was to measure the activity of aqueous, ethanol, and chloroform C. acaulis root extracts against 99 NTM strains. GC-MS spectroscopy analyses were performed to deliver qualitative and quantitative data on the composition of C. acaulis extract. In our study, we have shown for the first time the activity of C. acaulis extracts against NTM. The highest activity was exhibited by the chloroform extract, which inhibited the growth of more than 90% of the strains at the dose of 100 μg/mL (MIC90 = 100 μg/mL). The results of the GC-MS analysis of the C. acaulis chloroform extract contributed to the identification of 37 compounds, with carlina oxide as the most representative compound (69.52%) followed by 3,4-dihydro-2H-phenanthren- -1-one (6.54%) and stigmast-5-en-3-ol (4.14%). Our results indicate that C. acaulis chloroform and ethanol extracts have potential for treatment of NTM infections and that this plant contains anti-mycobacterial compounds.
Go to article

Authors and Affiliations

K. Puk
1
J. Wawrzykowski
2
L. Guz
1

  1. Department of Biology and Fish Diseases, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University of Life Sciences, Akademicka 12, 20-033 Lublin, Poland
  2. Department of Biochemistry, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University of Life Science in Lublin, Akademicka 12, 20-033 Lublin, Poland
Download PDF Download RIS Download Bibtex

Abstract

Nontuberculous mycobacteria (NTM) have recently emerged as important bacterial pathogens of both animals and humans. In this study, we aimed to evaluate the effect of a combination of ten antibiotics with an inhibitor of efflux pumps (EPI), i.e. berberine (BER), against 6 strains of NTM. Our results showed that the BER potentiated the anti-mycobacterial activities of the antibiotics. Overall, our findings show the importance of BER in increasing the efficacy of antibiotics in NTM.
Go to article

Bibliography


Gaba S, Saini A, Singh G, Monga V (2021) An insight into the medicinal attributes of berberine derivatives: a review. Bioorg Med Chem 38: 116143.
Gentry EJ, Jampani HB, Keshavarz-Shokri A, Morton MD, Velde DV, Telikepalli H, Mitscher LA, Shawar R, Humble D, Baker W (1998) Antitubercular natural products: berberine from the roots of commercial hydrastis canadensis powder. Isolation of inactive 8-oxotetrahydrothalifendine, canadine, beta-hydrastine, and two new quinic acid esters, hycandinic acid esters-1 and -2. J Nat Prod 61: 1187-1193.
Guz L, Puk K (2022) Antibiotic susceptibility of mycobacteria isolated from ornamental fish. J Vet Res 66: 69-76.
Menichini M, Lari N, Rindi L (2020) Effect of efflux pump inhibitors on the susceptibility of Mycobacterium avium complex to clarithromycin. J Antibiot 73: 128-132.
Puk K, Guz L (2020) Occurrence of Mycobacterium spp. in ornamental fish. Ann Agric Environ Med 27: 535-539.
Song L, Wu X (2016) Development of efflux pump inhibitors in antituberculosis therapy. Int J Antimicrob Agents 47: 421-429.
Van Ingen J, Boeree MJ, Van Soolingen D, Mouton JW (2012) Resistance mechanisms and drug susceptibility testing of nontuberculous mycobacteria. Drug Resist Updat 15: 149-161.
Wang Y, Fu H, Li Y, Jiang J, Song D (2012) Synthesis and biological evaluation of 8-substituted berberine derivatives as novel an-ti-mycobacterial agents. Acta Pharm Sin B 2: 581-587.
Zhou XY, Ye XG, He LT, Zhang SR, Wang RL, Zhou J, He ZS (2016) In vitro characterization and inhibition of the interaction between ciprofloxacin and berberine against multidrug-resistant Klebsiella pneumoniae. J Antibiot 69: 741-746.
Go to article

Authors and Affiliations

K. Puk
1
L. Guz
1

  1. Department of Biology and Fish Diseases, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University of Life Sciences, Akademicka 12, 20-033 Lublin, Poland
Download PDF Download RIS Download Bibtex

Abstract

The objective of the paper is to evaluate the implications of trade liberalization under the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) for the Polish economy. We analyze the level of tariffs and non-tariff protection in the US and in the EU and identify products particularly “sensitive” from the point of view of TTIP liberalization. With the help of a partial equilibrium model, we simulate the trade implications of the TTIP for Poland’s trade with the US at the detailed product level. We analyze trade creation and diversion effects of tariff elimination and partial removal of non-tariff barriers. We found that the TTIP can increase Poland’s trade with the US by around 45 percent with a limited impact on its trade with the European Union (EU) members. Subsequent general equilibrium simulations show that trade diversion effects of the TTIP are substantial, while the welfare benefits of the agreement are limited.
Go to article

Bibliography

[1] Altay S., (2018), Associating Turkey with the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership: A costly (re-) engagement?, The World Economy 41(1), 308–336.
[2] Arndt C., (1996), An Introduction to Systematic Sensitivity Analysis via Gaussian Quadrature, GTAP Technical Paper No 2, Center for Global Trade Analysis, Purdue University.
[3] Armington P., (1969), A Theory of Demand for Products Distinguished by Place of Production, Staff Papers – International Monetary Fund 16(1), 159–177.
[4] Bureau J-Ch., Disdier A-C., Emlinger Ch., Felbermayr G., Fontagné L., Fouré J., Jean S., (2014), Risks and opportunities for the EU agri-food sector in a possible EU-US trade agreement, CEPII Research Report No. 2014- 01, CEPII, Paris, available at: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/ etudes/STUD/2014/514007/AGRI_IPOL_STU(2014)514007_EN.pdf.
[5] Bureau J-Ch., Jean S., Matthews A., (2006), The consequences of agricultural trade liberalization for developing countries: distinguishing between genuine benefits and false hopes, World Trade Review 5(2), 225–249.
[6] Cingolani I., Piccardi C., Tajoli L., (2015), Discovering Preferential Patterns in Sectoral Trade Networks, PLoS ONE 10(10), e0140951.
[7] Corong E., Hertel T., McDougall R., Tsigas M., van der Mensbrugghe D., (2017), The Standard GTAP Model, version 7, Journal of Global Economic Analysis 2(1), 1–119.
[8] Eurostat, (2017), ComExt-Eurostat, Eurostat, Brussels, available at: http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/newxtweb.
[9] Fontagné L., Gourdon J., Jean S., (2013), Transatlantic Trade: Whither Partnership, Which Economic Consequences?, CEPII Policy Brief No. 1, CEPII, Paris, available at: http://www.cepii.fr/PDF_PUB/pb/2013/pb2013-01.pdf.
[10] Fontagné L., Guillin A., Mitaritonna C., (2011), Estimations of Tariff Equivalents for the Services Sectors, CEPII Working Papers No. 24, CEPII, Paris, available at: http://www.cepii.fr/pdf_pub/wp/2011/wp2011-24.pdf.
[11] Francois J., Hall K., (2009), Global Simulation Analysis of Industry-Level Trade Policy: The GSIM model, An Extended Global Simulation Model: Analysis of Tariffs & Anti-Dumping Policy Impacts on Prices, Output, Incomes, and Employment, IIDE Discussion Papers 20090803, Institute for International and Development Economics, Rotterdam, available at: http://www.i4ide.org/ content/wpaper/dp20090803.zip.
[12] Francois J., Manchin M., Norberg H., Pindyuk H., Tomberger P., (2013), Reducing Trans-Atlantic Barriers to Trade and Investment: An Economic Assessment, Final Project Report, March 2013, Centre for Economic Policy Research, London, available at: http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/ 2013/march/tradoc_150737.pdf.
[13] Frankel J. A., Romer D., (1999), Does trade cause growth?, American Economic Review 89(3), 379–399.
[14] Gil-Pareja S., Llorca-Vivero R., Martinez-Serrano J. A., (2019), Reciprocal vs nonreciprocal trade agreements: Which have been best to promote exports?, PLoS ONE 14(2), e0210446.
[15] Grant J. H., Lambert D. M., (2008), Do Regional Trade Agreements Increase Members’ Agricultural Trade?, American Journal of Agricultural Economics 90(3), 765–782.
[16] Hagemejer J., (2015), Liberalization of trade flows under TTIP from a small country perspective. The case of Poland, Working Papers 2015-17, Faculty of Economic Sciences, University of Warsaw, Warsaw, available at: http://www. wne.uw.edu.pl/index.php/download_file/1764/.
[17] Hagemejer J., Sledziewska K., (2015), Trade barriers in services and merchandise trade in the context of TTIP: Poland, EU and the United States, Mimeo, University of Warsaw, Warsaw, available at: http://coin.wne.uw.edu.pl/ jhagemejer/wp-content/uploads/Hagemejer_Sledziewska_TE2015.pdf.
[18] Hertel T. H., Hummels D., Ivanic M., Keeney R., (2004), How Confident Can We Be in CGE-based Assessments of Free Trade Agreements? GTAP Working Paper No. 26, Center for Global Trade Analysis, West Lafayette, Indiana.
[19] Hndi B. M., Maitah M., Mustofa J., (2016), Trade Impacts of Selected Free Trade Agreements on Agriculture: The Case of Selected North African Countries, Agris on-line Papers in Economics and Informatics 8(3), 39–50.
[20] Hummels D., (2007), Transportation costs and international trade in the second era of globalization, Journal of Economic Perspectives 21(3), 131–154.
[21] Ingco M., (1996), Tariffication in the Uruguay Round: How Much Liberalisation?, The World Economy 19(4), 425–446.
[22] Jammes O., Olarreaga M., (2005), Explaining SMART and GSIM, The World Bank, available at: http://wits.worldbank.org/witsweb/download/docs/ explaining_smart_and_gsim.pdf.
[23] Lambert D., McKoy S., (2009), Trade Creation and Diversion Effects of Preferential Trade Associations on Agricultural and Food Trade, Journal of Agricultural Economics 60(1), 17–39.
[24] Mayer T., Zignago S., (2011), Notes on CEPII’s distances measures: the GeoDist Database, CEPII Working Papers No. 25, CEPII, Paris, available at: http: //www.cepii.fr/PDF_PUB/wp/2011/wp2011-25.pdf.
[25] McDougal R., (2003), A New Regional Household Demand System for GTAP, GTAP Technical Paper 9-1-2003, Center for Global Trade Analysis, Purdue University.
[26] Ministry of Economy, (2015), Impact of the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) on the Polish economy – based on the CEPR report, Ministry of Economy, Warsaw, available at: http://www.mg.gov.pl/Wspolpraca+miedzynarodowa/Handel+zagraniczny/ TTIP/Stanowisko+Polski+w+glownych+obszarach+negocjacyjnych.Polish.
[27] Park S. C., (2002), Measuring Tariff Equivalents in Cross-Border Trade in Services, Working Paper 02-15, Korea Institute for International Economic Policy, Seoul.
[28] Pawlak K., (2016), Tariff barriers to the EU and the US agri-food trade in the view of the TTIP negotiation, [in:] Agrarian Perspectives XXV. Global and European Challenges for Food Production, Agribusiness and Rural Economy. Proceedings of the 25th International Scientific Conference, [ed.:] L. Smutka, Prague, 244-250, available at: https://ap.pef.czu.cz/en/ r-12193-conference-proceedings.
[29] Roberts D., (1999), Analyzing Technical Trade Barriers in Agricultural Markets: Challenges and Priorities, Agribusiness 15(3), 335–354.
[30] Sun L., Reed M. R., (2010), Impacts of free trade agreements on agricultural trade creation and trade diversion, American Journal of Agricultural Economics 92(5), 1351–1363.
[31] Svatoš M., Smutka L., (2009), Influence of the EU enlargement on the agrarian foreign trade development in member states, Agricultural Economics ( Zemedelská ekonomika) 55(5), 233–249.
[32] Swinbank A., (1999), The role of the WTO and the International Agencies in SPS Standard Setting, Agribusiness 15(3), 323–333.
[33] Tangermann S., (2001), Has the Uruguay Round Agreement on Agriculture WorkedWell?, Working Papers 14586, International Agricultural Trade Research Consortium.
[34] Weyerbrock S., Xia T., (2000), Technical Trade Barriers in US/Europe Agricultural Trade, Agribusiness 16(2), 235–251.
[35] WITS/TRAINS databases, (2015), World Bank, UNCTAD, UNSD, WTO, ITC, available at: https://wits.worldbank.org/.
[36] WTO, (2012), A Practical Guide to Trade Policy Analysis, United Nations and World Trade Organization, https://www.wto.org/english/res_ e/publications_e/wto_unctad12_e.pdf.
[37] WTO, (2017), WTO Tariff Download Facility, WTO, Geneva, available at: http://tariffdata.wto.org/ReportersAndProducts.aspx.
38] WTO, ITC, UNCTAD, (2015), World Tariff Profiles, WTO, ITC, UNCTAD, Geneva 2015, available at: https://www.wto.org/english/res_e/booksp_e/ tariff_profiles15_e.pdf.
[39] Xiong B., (2017), The impact of TPP and RCEP on tea exports from Vietnam: the case of tariff elimination and pesticide policy cooperation, Agricultural Economics 48(4), 413–424.
[40] Yi K. M., (2003), Can vertical specialization explain the growth of world trade?, Journal of Political Economy 111(1), 52–102.
Go to article

Authors and Affiliations

Jan Hagemejer
1 2
ORCID: ORCID
Jan Jakub Michałek
1
ORCID: ORCID
Karolina Pawlak
3
ORCID: ORCID

  1. University of Warsaw, Poland
  2. CASE Center for Economic and Social Research, Warsaw, Poland
  3. Poznan University of Life Sciences, Poland

This page uses 'cookies'. Learn more