| Literature DB >> 23138151 |
Akira Ohno1, Shinichiro Kataoka, Yoshikazu Ishii, Toshiaki Terasaki, Masaaki Kiso, Mitsuyuki Okubo, Keizo Yamaguchi, Kazuhiro Tateda.
Abstract
Antimicrobial growth promoters (AGPs) have been banned and phased out because their use has been linked to the emergence and spread of antibiotic-resistant pathogens; however, the ban has had a marked impact on livestock production, and feed additive alternatives to AGPs are required. We focused on green tea leaves as potential alternatives to AGPs because they contain significant amounts of polyphenol catechins, which have antivirus and antimicrobial effects. We examined cross-resistance between epigallocatechin gallate (EGCG), which is the most abundant catechin of green tea leaves, and commercially available antimicrobials in clinically problematic antimicrobial-resistant bacteria, and whether bacteria have the ability to acquire resistance by consecutive passage in sub-inhibitory concentrations of EGCG. EGCG did not display any cross-resistance with reference antimicrobials and the bacteria did not acquire EGCG resistance. Further, we examined the growth-promoting effects of dried green tea leaves on the breeding of a new Japanese breed, Tokyo-X pigs. While the mortality rates of the green tea leaf (GTL) and AGP groups were both 11.1% (one in nine piglets), the mortality rate was 50% for the control group with an additive-free diet (four in eight piglets). The rate of body weight increase in both the GTL and AGP groups was approximately the same. The growth-promoting effects of green tea leaves and AGPs were similar, and there was no possibility that the antimicrobial properties of catechins caused the same problem as AGPs. Thus, it can be concluded that green tea leaves are a safe feed additive alternative to AGPs.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2012 PMID: 23138151 PMCID: PMC4070694 DOI: 10.1264/jsme2.me12137
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Microbes Environ ISSN: 1342-6311 Impact factor: 2.912
Comparison of geometric mean MIC value and the R/S ratio of epigallocatechin gallate and a well-known antimicrobial against problematic antimicrobial-resistant clinical isolates and their susceptible counterparts
| Organism | Geometric Mean MIC (μg mL −1) | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
| ||||||||
| Species | Resistant type | EGCG | AMP | CTX | ERY | GEM | MIN | LVX | VAN |
| MSSP ( | >1024 | 2.00 | ≤0.06 | ≤0.06 | NT | 0.29 | 0.84 | NT | |
| MRSP ( | >1024 | 2.50 | 0.10 | 17.4 | NT | 0.24 | 0.61 | NT | |
| R/S ratio | 1.00 | 1.25 | 1.62 | 290 | — | 0.81 | 0.73 | — | |
|
| |||||||||
| PSSP ( | 699 | 1.07 | 0.19 | 8.00 | NT | 2.55 | 0.45 | NT | |
| PRSP ( | 837 | 17.4 | 1.12 | 4.36 | NT | 4.36 | 0.41 | NT | |
| R/S ratio | 1.20 | 16.3 | 5.94 | 0.55 | — | 1.71 | 0.90 | — | |
|
| |||||||||
| MSSA ( | 24.4 | 1.47 | NT | 3.70 | 7.13 | 0.08 | 0.25 | NT | |
| MRSA ( | 16.0 | 14.8 | NT | >128 | 8.31 | 2.70 | 22.6 | NT | |
| R/S ratio | 0.66 | 10.1 | — | 69.2 | 1.17 | 34.4 | 90.4 | — | |
|
| |||||||||
| GSE ( | 362 | NT | NT | NT | 2.83 | 1.00 | NT | 0.62 | |
| GRE ( | 237 | NT | NT | NT | 50.8 | 12.3 | NT | 203 | |
| R/S ratio | 0.66 | — | — | — | 18.0 | 12.3 | — | 326 | |
|
| |||||||||
| NESBL ( | 2048 | 7.41 | 0.07 | NT | 0.58 | 0.96 | 0.09 | NT | |
| ESBL ( | 1340 | 256 | 94.0 | NT | 20.1 | 8.00 | 21.8 | NT | |
| R/S ratio | 0.65 | 34.5 | 1343 | — | 34.7 | 8.30 | 256 | — | |
|
| |||||||||
| FQSPA ( | 304 | NT | NT | NT | 1.35 | 22.6 | 0.39 | NT | |
| FQRPA ( | 565 | NT | NT | NT | 2.10 | 45.3 | 15.2 | NT | |
| R/S ratio | 1.86 | — | — | — | 1.56 | 2.00 | 39.0 | — | |
MSSP, macrolide-susceptible S. pyogenes; MRSP, macrolide-resistant S. pyogenes; PSSP, penicillin-susceptible S. pneumoniae; PRSP, penicillin-resistant S. pneumoniae; MSSA, methicillin-susceptible S. aureus; MRSA, methicillin-resistant S. aureus; GSE, glycopeptide-susceptible E. faecium; NESBL, non-extended-spectrum beta-lactamase; ESBL, extended-spectrum beta-lactamase; FQSPA, fluoroquinolone-susceptible P. aeruginosa; FQRPA, fluoroquinolone-resistant P. aeruginosa. R/S denotes the ratio of geometric mean MIC value of resistant to susceptible isolates.
EGCG, epigallocatechin gallate; AMP, ampicillin; CTX, cefotaxime; ERY, erythromycin; GEN, gentamicin; MIN, minocycline; LVX, levofloxacin; VAN, vancomycin.
Fig. 1Increased MICs of epigallocatechin gallate and various antimicrobials against P. aeruginosa ATCC27853 and S. aureus FDA 209P by 20 consecutive broth microdilution tests. EGCG, epigallocatechin gallate; LVX, levofloxacin; GEM, gentamicin; MIN, minocycline; ERY, erythromycin.
Fig. 2Mortality according to the feeding protocol. Pigs (n=8) fed normal feed free of food additives were the control group. GTL group was pigs (n=9) fed normal feed containing shredded dried green tea leaves at a final concentration of 1%. AGP group was pigs (n=9) fed normal feed containing avilamycin (a mixture of oligosaccharides of the orthosomycin group and colistin) at a concentration of 100 mg g−1.
Serial changes in swine body weight
| Group | at birth | 1 week | 2 week | 3 week | 4 week | 5 week | 6 week | 7 week | 8 week | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| G (GTL group; n=9) | 1.24±0.32 | 2.17±0.46 | 3.26±0.73 | 4.34±0.96 | 5.54±1.29 | 5.98±1.36 | 6.73±1.67 | 8.69±2.31 | 11.63±3.35 | |
| A (AGP group; n=9) | 1.32±0.15 | 2.08±0.27 | 3.37±0.39 | 4.10±0.59 | 5.06±0.95 | 5.45±0.58 | 6.80±0.93 | 9.23±0.81 | 11.68±1.35 | |
| C (Control group; n=8) | 1.40±0.21 | 2.60±0.28 | 3.71±0.48 | 4.85±0.71 | 6.30±1.20 | 6.86±1.04 | 8.40±0.49 | 10.80±0.84 | 14.18±1.38 | |
| Mann-Whitney | G | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| G | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | ||
| A | — | — |
Statistical significance examined by the non-parametric Mann-Whitney test is shown:
, P<0.05;
, P<0.01;
—, not significant.