| Literature DB >> 28231186 |
Paola Del Serrone1, Chiara Toniolo2, Marcello Nicoletti3.
Abstract
Plant-derived extracts (PDEs) are a source of biologically-active substances having antimicrobial properties. The aim of this study was to evaluate the potential of neem oil (NO) as a preservative of fresh retail meat. The antibacterial activity of NO against Carnobacterium maltaromaticum, Brochothrix thermosphacta, Escherichia coli, Pseudomonas fluorescens, Lactobacillus curvatus and L. sakei was assessed in a broth model system. The bacterial growth inhibition zone (mm) ranged from 18.83 ± 1.18 to 30.00 ± 1.00, as was found by a disc diffusion test with 100 µL NO. The bacterial percent growth reduction ranged from 30.81 ± 2.08 to 99.70 ± 1.53 in the broth microdilution method at different NO concentrations (1:10 to 1:100,000). Viable bacterial cells were detected in experimentally-contaminated meat up to the second day after NO treatment (100 µL NO per 10 g meat), except for C. maltaromaticum, which was detected up to the sixth day by PCR and nested PCR with propidium monoazide (PMA™) dye. In comparison to the previously published results, C. maltaromaticum, E. coli, L. curvatus and L. sakei appeared more susceptible to NO compared to neem cake extract (NCE) by using a broth model system.Entities:
Keywords: Azadirachta indica; HPTLC; antibacterial activity; meat spoilage control; neem oil
Year: 2015 PMID: 28231186 PMCID: PMC5302226 DOI: 10.3390/foods4010003
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Foods ISSN: 2304-8158
Antibacterial activity of NO against spoilage bacteria detected by the disc diffusion method as the inhibition zone of growth (mm).
| Bacteria | Growth Inhibition Zone (mm) * | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Treatment | ||||
| NO (100 µL) | TWN (100 µL) | CFX (100 µL) | WTR (100 µL) | |
| 24.33 ± 0.58 b | - | 29.00 ± 1.00 a | - | |
| 26.53 ± 1.15 b | - | 29.27 ± 1.00 a | - | |
| 18.83 ± 1.18 b | - | 27.71 ± 1.00 a | - | |
| 30.00 ± 1.00 a | - | 30.33 ± 1.73 a | - | |
| 26.33 ± 0.58 b | - | 28.41 ± 1.00 a | - | |
| 27.50 ± 0.50 b | - | 29.33 ± 2.08 a | - | |
* Diameter of inhibition zones, including the diameter of the disc (6 mm). NO, neem oil; TWN, Tween® 80; CFX, ciprofloxacin (1 mg/mL); WTR, sterile distilled water. Three disks papers per plate and three plates for each bacterium were considered. The experiment was repeated twice. -, absence of inhibition zone. Values expressed are as the mean ± standard deviation of two experiments. Mean values with a different letter in the row are significantly different (p ≤ 0.05).
Bacterial growth reduction (GR%) at 24 h in liquid medium with differences in the percentage of bacterial growth reduction at different concentrations of NO using the control treatment as reference (without NO).
| Bacteria | Growth reduction (GR%) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Treatment | ||||
| NSO (100 µL) | NSO (10 µL) | NSO (1 µL) | NSO (0.1 µL) | |
| 89.65± 1.53 c | 88.61 ± 1.00 c | 67.67± 1.33 b | 30.81± 2.08 a | |
| 84.51 ± 1.15 c | 89.70± 1.00 bc | 67.58± 1.33 ab | 34.86± 1.00 a | |
| 91.51 ± 1.15 c | 89.70± 1.00 bc | 67.58± 1.33 ab | 64.86± 1.00 a | |
| 88.90± 1.00 c | 88.79± 1.00 abc | 69.60± 0.00 ab | 66.68± 1.20 a | |
| 99.70 ± 1.53 c | 91.73 ± 2.08 bc | 68.69 ± 2.00 b | 62.83 ± 1.73 a | |
| 89.71 ± 1.00 c | 89.61± 0.58 abc | 69.57 ± 0.00 ab | 67.58 ± 0.89 a | |
NO, neem oil. Values expressed as the mean ± standard deviation of two experiments (three repetitions for each experiment). Mean values with different letters in the column are significantly different (p ≤ 0.05).
Detection and identification by PCR and nested PCR of the tested bacterial strain viable cells in vacuum-packed minced beef meat stored at 10 °C at 2, 4, 6, 8, 10 and 12 days after treatment with and without ciprofloxacin.
| Bacteria | Detection of viable cells after treatments | |||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2 days | 4 days | 6 days | 8 days | 10 days | 12 days | |||||||||||||
| NO | W | CFX | NO | W | CFX | NO | W | CFX | NO | W | CFX | NO | W | CFX | NO | W | CFX | |
| + | + | − | + | + | − | + | + | − | − | + | − | − | + | − | − | + | − | |
| + | + | − | − | + | − | − | + | − | − | + | − | − | + | − | − | + | − | |
| + | + | − | − | + | − | − | + | − | − | + | − | − | + | − | − | + | − | |
| + | + | − | − | + | − | − | + | − | − | + | − | − | + | − | − | + | − | |
| + | + | − | − | + | − | − | + | − | − | + | − | − | + | − | − | + | − | |
| + | + | − | − | + | − | − | + | − | − | + | − | − | + | − | − | + | − | |
NO, neem oil; W, sterile distilled Water; CFX, ciprofloxacin. +, detected; −, not detected.
Figure 1HPTLC analysis of neem oil EtOAc extract. Mobile phase: toluene: AcOEt 7:3 (v/v). Visualization: plate a (left): white light upper and lower; plate b (right): UV lamp at 366 nm. Derivatization: anhysaldehyde. Track 1, neem oil; Track 2, salannin.