↓ Skip to main content

Cysteamine (Lynovex®), a novel mucoactive antimicrobial

Overview of attention for article published in Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases, November 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (93rd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (94th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
12 X users
patent
9 patents
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
56 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
95 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Cysteamine (Lynovex®), a novel mucoactive antimicrobial & antibiofilm agent for the treatment of cystic fibrosis
Published in
Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases, November 2014
DOI 10.1186/s13023-014-0189-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Cedric Charrier, Catherine Rodger, Jennifer Robertson, Aleksandra Kowalczuk, Nicola Shand, Douglas Fraser-Pitt, Derry Mercer, Deborah O’Neil

Abstract

BackgroundThere remains a critical need for more effective, safe, long-term treatments for cystic fibrosis (CF). Any successful therapeutic strategy designed to combat the respiratory pathology of this condition must address the altered lung physiology and recurrent, complex, polymicrobial infections and biofilms that affect the CF pulmonary tract. Cysteamine is a potential solution to these unmet medical needs and is described here for the first time as (Lynovex®) a single therapy with the potential to deliver mucoactive, antibiofilm and antibacterial properties; both in oral and inhaled delivery modes. Cysteamine is already established in clinical practice for an unrelated orphan condition, cystinosis, and is therefore being repurposed (in oral form) for cystic fibrosis from a platform of over twenty years of safety data and clinical experience.MethodsThe antibacterial and antibiofilm attributes of cysteamine were determined against type strain and clinical isolates of CF relevant pathogens using CLSI standard and adapted microbiological methods and a BioFlux microfluidic system. Assays were performed in standard nutrient media conditions, minimal media, to mimic the low metabolic activity of microbes/persister cells in the CF respiratory tract and in artificial sputum medium. In vivo antibacterial activity was determined in acute murine lung infection/cysteamine nebulisation models. The mucolytic potential of cysteamine was assessed against DNA and mucin in vitro by semi-quantitative macro-rheology. In all cases, the `gold standard¿ therapeutic agents were employed as control/comparator compounds against which the efficacy of cysteamine was compared.ResultsCysteamine demonstrated at least comparable mucolytic activity to currently available mucoactive agents. Cysteamine was rapidly bactericidal against both metabolically active and persister cells of Pseudomonas aeruginosa and also emerging CF pathogens; its activity was not sensitive to high ionic concentrations characteristic of the CF lung. Cysteamine prevented the formation of, and disrupted established P. aeruginosa biofilms. Cysteamine was synergistic with conventional CF antibiotics; reversing antibiotic resistance/insensitivity in CF bacterial pathogens. ConclusionsThe novel mucolytic-antimicrobial activity of cysteamine (Lynovex®) provides potential for a much needed new therapeutic strategy in cystic fibrosis. The data we present here provides a platform for cysteamine¿s continued investigation as a novel treatment for this poorly served orphan disease.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 12 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 95 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 1%
Algeria 1 1%
Unknown 93 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 22 23%
Student > Master 14 15%
Researcher 13 14%
Student > Bachelor 11 12%
Other 5 5%
Other 12 13%
Unknown 18 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 18 19%
Medicine and Dentistry 16 17%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 11 12%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 10 11%
Immunology and Microbiology 7 7%
Other 10 11%
Unknown 23 24%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 19. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 30 November 2023.
All research outputs
#1,889,810
of 25,116,143 outputs
Outputs from Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases
#205
of 3,023 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#25,634
of 374,086 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases
#6
of 98 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,116,143 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,023 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.3. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 374,086 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 98 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.