The evaluation of topography Borrelia burgdorferi by atomic force microscope (AFM)

• Autorzy: Tokarska-Rodak M. , Koziol-Montewka M.
• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

The aim of the present work was to evaluate the topography of spirochetes’ cells Borrelia burgdorferi s.s. B31 in atomic force microscope (AFM). Results: The length of spirochetes B. burgdorferi has ranged between 15.38-22.68μm. The cells of spirochetes do not constitute structures of a fixed diameter and height. Thus, in order to identify real parameters of cells, the horizontal distance and vertical distance have been used in the measurements. The average value of a spirochetes’ diameter has been estimated by taking series of measures and it is 0.40 μm. The average value of a spirochetes’ height has been estimated by taking series of measures and it is 70.14 nm. The analysis of a relation between measured parameters of spirochetes: diameter and height revealed that along with the growth of diameter of a bacteria cell, its height also grows. The average value of a fibers’ diameter has been estimated by taking series of measurements and it is 0.09 μm and the average height of fibers was 7.91 nm. Conclusions: The atomic force microscope (AFM) is a modern tool with a broad spectrum of observatory and measure abilities and is a technique which has been used in biology and microbiology to investigate the topography of surface and in the evaluation properties of cells.

Słowa kluczowe

EN

topography; Borrelia burgdorferi; atomic force microscopy; spirochaete; cell

• Wydawca: -
• Czasopismo: Health Problems of Civilization
• Rocznik: 2015
• Tom: 09
• Numer: 3
• Opis fizyczny: p.12-15,fig.,ref.

Twórcy

autor

Tokarska-Rodak M.

• Department of Health, Pope John Paul II State School of Higher Education in Biala Podlaska, Sidorska 102, 21-500 Biala Podlaska, Poland

autor

Koziol-Montewka M.

• Department of Medical Microbiology, Medical University in Lublin, Lublin, Poland

Bibliografia

• 1. Ambrosova T., Kovalyova O., Ashcheulova T. (2010), The therapeutic potential of angiotensin II receptor antagonists in hypertensive patients with metabolic disorders: effect on carbohydrate and lipid profiles, Ukrainian Journal of Therapeutics. 4, 76-81.
• 2. Azilsartan medoxomil (Edarbi) the eighth ARB (2011), Med. Lett. Drugs Ther. 53 (1364), 39-40.
• 3. Baker W., White W. (2011), Azilsartan medoxomil: a new angiotensin II receptor antagonist for treatment of hypertension. The Annals of Pharmacotherapy, 45, 1506-1515.
• 4. Bakris G., Sica D., Weber M., White W.B., Roberts A., Perez A., Cao C., Kupfer S. (2011), The comparative effects of azilsartan medoxomil and olmesartan on ambulatory and clinic blood pressure. J. Clin. Hypertens., 13 (2), 81-88.
• 5. Chazova I., Martynyuk T., Ratova L. (2011), The focus of attention - angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors: ramipril in hypertension. Systemic Hypertensions, 8 (3), 5-10.
• 6. Dyadyk A., Bahriy A., Chomenko M. et al. (2014), Hypertension in 2014: classification, diagnosis, treatment. News of Medicine and Pharmacy, 482, 53-69.
• 7. Kajiya T., Ho C., Wang J., Vilardi R., Kurtz T.W. (2011), Molecular and cellular effects of azilsartan: a new generation angiotensin II receptor blocker. J. Hypertens, 29 (12), 2476-2483.
• 8. Kirichenko A. (2012), Indications for use of AT1-receptor blockers in patients with hypertension. Handbook of Outpatient Physician, 10, 6-8.
• 9. Korost Y., Bula L., Suprunyuk V. (2014), The application features angiotensin II receptor blockers in the treatment of cardiovascular diseas. Medicines of Ukraine, 1 (177), 19-23.
• 10. Mancia G., Fagard R., Narkiewicz K. et al. (2013), 2013 ESH/ESC Guidelines for the management of arterial hypertension. European Heart Journal, 34, 2159–2219.
• 11. New therapeutic possibilities of control of hypertension: a modern angiotensin receptor antagonist ‑ Edarbi (azilsartan medoxomil) (2014), Consilium Medicum, 10, 30-31.
• 12. Ostroumova O., Smolyarchuk E., Khvorostyanaya I. (2010), New approaches to the treatment of hypertension: the choice of the optimal drug to the choice of the optimal combination. Rational Pharmacotherapy in Cardiology, 6 (5), 709-716.
• 13. Rakugi H., Enya K., Sugiura K., Ikeda Y. (2012), Comparison of the efficacy and safety of azilsartan with that of candesartan cilexetil in Japanese patients with grade I–II essential hypertension: a randomized, double-blind clinical study. Hypertens. Res., 35, 552–558.
• 14. Savustyanenko A. (2014), New perspectives in achieving blood pressure control: focus on new sartan - azilsartan medoxomil. Hypertension, 4 (36), 23-27.
• 15. Shilov A. (2014), Sartans in the practice of primary health care in the treatment of hypertension. Farmateka, 9 (282), 39-44.
• 16. Sica D., White W., Weber M., Bakris G.L., Perez A., Cao C., Handley A., Kupfer S. (2011), Comparison of the novel angiotensin II receptor blocker azilsartan medoxomil vs valsartan by ambulatory blood pressure monitoring. J. Clin. Hypertens, 13(7), 467-472.
• 17. Sirenko Y. (2012), Angiotensin II receptor blockers in the treatment of hypertension: myths and reality. Hypertension, 4 (24), http://www.mif-ua.com/archive/article/33325 (accessed: 2013.03.05).
• 18. Svischenko E., Bezrodna L. (2012), Angiotensin II receptor blockers in the treatment of hypertension, Publisher O. Zaslavsky.
• 19. Tseluyko V., Ocheretyana N. (2014), The new representative of the sartans group azilsartan medoxomil (Edarbi): equal among equals or special? Health of Ukraine. Cardiology. Rheumatology. Heart Surgery, 4, 18-19.
• 20. White W., Weber M., Sica D., Bakris G.L., Perez A., Cao C., Kupfer S. (2011), Effects of the angiotensin receptor blocker azilsartan medoxomil versus olmesartan and valsartan on ambulatory and clinic blood pressure in patients with stages 1 and 2 hypertension. Hypertension, 57, 413-420.
• 21. Zaharova N., Kuz’mina-Krutetskaya S. (2011), Clinical pharmacology of sartans: class-effect and pharmacodynamic characteristics of drugs. Systemic Hypertensions, 8 (3), 10-16.