| Literature DB >> 28106736 |
Crina Saviuc1,2, Bianca Ciubucă3,4, Gabriela Dincă5, Coralia Bleotu6,7, Veronica Drumea8, Mariana-Carmen Chifiriuc9, Marcela Popa10, Gratiela Gradisteanu Pircalabioru11, Luminita Marutescu12, Veronica Lazăr13.
Abstract
The antibacterial and anti-inflammatory potential of natural, plant-derived compounds has been reported in many studies. Emerging evidence indicates that plant-derived essential oils and/or their major compounds may represent a plausible alternative treatment for acne, a prevalent skin disorder in both adolescent and adult populations. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to develop and subsequently analyze the antimicrobial activity of a new multi-agent, synergic formulation based on plant-derived antimicrobial compounds (i.e., eugenol, β-pinene, eucalyptol, and limonene) and anti-inflammatory agents for potential use in the topical treatment of acne and other skin infections. The optimal antimicrobial combinations selected in this study were eugenol/β-pinene/salicylic acid and eugenol/β-pinene/2-phenoxyethanol/potassium sorbate. The possible mechanisms of action revealed by flow cytometry were cellular permeabilization and inhibition of efflux pumps activity induced by concentrations corresponding to sub-minimal inhibitory (sub-MIC) values. The most active antimicrobial combination represented by salycilic acid/eugenol/β-pinene/2-phenoxyethanol/potassium sorbate was included in a cream base, which demonstrated thermodynamic stability and optimum microbiological characteristics.Entities:
Keywords: acne; antimicrobial; eucalyptol; eugenol; limonene; plant-derived compounds; β-pinene
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28106736 PMCID: PMC5297807 DOI: 10.3390/ijms18010175
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Mol Sci ISSN: 1422-0067 Impact factor: 5.923
Qualitative screening of the antimicrobial activity results; EA—Extremely active substances (>20 mm growth inhibition zone), A—active substances (15–18 mm), M—Moderate antimicrobial activity (9–14 mm), I—no antimicrobial activity (<8 mm).
| Strain Analytical Standard | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| eugenol | EA | M | EA |
| β-pinene | A | M | EA |
| eucalyptol | M | M | EA |
| salicylic acid | EA | A | EA |
| 2-phenoxietanol | A | EA | EA |
| potassium-sorbate | M | I | I |
Figure 1Minimal inhibitory concentration (MIC) values for the tested compounds (mg/mL).
Fractional inhibitory concentration index (FICI) values calculated for the tested strains/mixture.
| Microbial Strains | FICI Mixture 1 | FICI Mixture 2 |
|---|---|---|
| 0.572330839 | 0.520134776 | |
| 0.626 | 1.23 | |
| 0.653571678 | 0.730516725 |
Figure 2Median of fluorescence intensity (MFI) for the analytical variants tested on S. aureus strainATCC 6538. (A) MFI for S. aureus propidium iodide (PI)-labeled cells; (B) MFI for S. aureus ethidium bromide (EB)-labeled cells.
Figure 3MFI for the analytical variants tested on P. aeruginosa strain ATCC 27853. (A) MFI for P.aeruginosa PI-labeled cells; (B) MFI for P.aeruginosa EB-labeled cells.
Figure 4MFI for the analytical variants tested on C. albicans strain ATCC 10231. (A) MFI for C. albicans PI-labeled cells; (B) MFI for C. albicans EB-labeled cells.
Figure 5MFI for the analytical variants tested on the specified strains. (A) PI labeles cells; (B) EB labeled cells.
Challenge test results.
| Microbial strains | Inoculum Concentration | Logarithmic Reduction of Microbial Growth in the Obtained Formulation | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| T0 | 2 Days | 7 Days | 14 Days | 28 Days | ||
| 8.15 | 5.69 | 5.69 | ga | nt | ga | |
| 8.23 | 5.38 | 5.38 | ga | nt | ga | |
| 8.04 | 4.39 | nt | nt | 4.39 | ga | |
| 7.78 | 5.3 | nt | nt | 5.3 | ga | |
ga—growth absence; nt—not tested.
The range of binary serial dilutions.
| Binary Serial Dilutions | EO Fraction as Analytical Standard (µL/ mL) | Potassium Sorbate (mg/mL) | 2-Phenoxyethanol (mg/mL) |
|---|---|---|---|
| C1 | 45.000 | 6.000 | 2.130 |
| C2 | 22.500 | 3.000 | 1.065 |
| C3 | 11.250 | 1.500 | 0.533 |
| C4 | 5.625 | 0.750 | 0.266 |
| C5 | 2.813 | 0.375 | 0.133 |
| C6 | 1.406 | 0.188 | 0.067 |
| C7 | 0.703 | 0.094 | 0.033 |
| C8 | 0.352 | 0.047 | 0.017 |
| C9 | 0.176 | 0.023 | 0.008 |
| C10 | 0.088 | 0.012 | 0.004 |
| C11 | 0.044 | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| C12 | 0.022 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| C13 | 0.011 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| C14 | 0.005 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
Receipt of tested formulations for the calculation of FIC/FICI.
| Tested Mixtures | Percentage Concentration for the Components (%) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Eugenol | β-Pinene | Salicylic Acid | 2-Phenoxyethanol | Potassium Sorbate | |
| Mixture 1 | 0.7 | 3.17 | 0.17 | - | - |
| Mixture 2 | 0.7 | 3.17 | - | 0.37 | 0.094 |
Formulation composition.
| No. | Formulation Composition | % |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Water | ad. 100 |
| 2 | Polyglyceryl-3-methylglucose distearate | 3.20 |
| 3 | 3.00 | |
| 4 | 3.00 | |
| 5 | Isopropyl palmitate | 3.00 |
| 6 | Squalane | 3.00 |
| 7 | Glycerin | 3.00 |
| 8 | Isononyl isononanoate | 3.00 |
| 9 | Meadowfoam estolide | 3.00 |
| 10 | Caprylic/capric triglyceride | 2.00 |
| 11 | Glyceryl stearate | 2.00 |
| 12 | Stearyl alcohol | 1.00 |
| 13 | Water and potassium sorbate and phenoxyethanol | 0.50 |
| 14 | Eugenol/β-pinene | 1 |
| 15 | Xanthan gum | 0.50 |
| 16 | Bisabolol | 0.10 |
| 17 | EDTA | 0.05 |