| Literature DB >> 29104213 |
Phuc Nguyen Thien Le1, Andrew P Desbois2.
Abstract
Polyunsaturated fatty acids, such as eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA; C20:5n-3), are attracting interest as possible new topical antibacterial agents, particularly due to their potency and perceived safety. However, relatively little is known of the underlying mechanism of antibacterial action of EPA or whether bacteria can develop resistance quickly against this or similar compounds. Therefore, the aim of this present study was to determine the mechanism of antibacterial action of EPA and investigate whether bacteria could develop reduced susceptibility to this fatty acid upon repeated exposure. Against two common Gram-positive human pathogens, Bacillus cereus and Staphylococcus aureus, EPA inhibited bacterial growth with a minimum inhibitory concentration of 64 mg/L, while minimum bactericidal concentrations were 64 mg/L and 128 mg/L for B. cereus and S. aureus, respectively. Both species were killed completely in EPA at 128 mg/L within 15 min at 37 °C, while reduced bacterial viability was associated with increased release of 260-nm-absorbing material from the bacterial cells. Taken together, these observations suggest that EPA likely kills B. cereus and S. aureus by disrupting the cell membrane, ultimately leading to cell lysis. Serial passage of the strains in the presence of sub-inhibitory concentrations of EPA did not lead to the emergence or selection of strains with reduced susceptibility to EPA during 13 passages. This present study provides data that may support the development of EPA and other fatty acids as antibacterial agents for cosmetic and pharmaceutical applications.Entities:
Keywords: antibiotic resistance; antimicrobial; fish oil; free fatty acid; omega-3; wound infections
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2017 PMID: 29104213 PMCID: PMC5706024 DOI: 10.3390/md15110334
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Mar Drugs ISSN: 1660-3397 Impact factor: 5.118
Figure 1Enumeration of colonies from cell suspensions of (a) Bacillus cereus NCIMB 9373 and (b) Staphylococcus aureus Newman in MH broth (■) or PBS (●) exposed to eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) at 128 mg/L compared to cells suspended in MH broth (□) or PBS (○) lacking EPA during 4 h at 37 °C, showing that no viable bacterial cells were detected in suspensions exposed to EPA within 15 min. The detection limit was 2 log10 CFU/mL (dashed line). Data are geometric mean ± standard error (not all error bars are visible); n = 4.
Figure 2Minimum inhibitory (solid lines) and bactericidal concentration (dashed lines) values of the parent (a) Bacillus cereus NCIMB 9373 and (b) Staphylococcus aureus Newman isolates and isolates collected from each of 13 serial passages in sub-inhibitory concentrations of eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA), showing that susceptibility of the bacteria to EPA did not reduce during serial passage.
Figure 3Enumeration of colonies from cell suspensions of (a) Bacillus cereus NCIMB 9373 and (b) Staphylococcus aureus Newman in PBS (□) and detection of 260-nm (A260)-absorbing material in cell-free filtrates (●) after exposure to increasing concentrations of eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) during 30 min at 37 °C, showing that the number of viable cells in suspension reduced concomitant to the amount of A260-absorbing material in cell-free filtrates, indicating likely cell membrane perturbation and cell lysis. The bacterial inoculums at the start of incubation were 1.51 × 109 ± 0.41 × 109 CFU/mL (mean ± standard error) and 1.57 × 109 ± 0.15 × 109 CFU/mL for B. cereus and S. aureus, respectively. The carrier solvent (ethanol) had little effect on bacterial viability and at the greatest concentration of ethanol (2.56%, v/v) the bacteria recovered at 30 min was 1.31 × 109 ± 0.10 × 109 CFU/mL and 2.79 × 109 ± 0.05 × 109 for B. cereus and S. aureus, respectively (data not shown). Meanwhile, control incubations in the presence of carrier solvent (ethanol) showed that negligible quantities of A260-absorbing material were detected in cell-free filtrates (data not shown). Data are mean (geometric mean for CFU values) ± standard error (not all error bars are visible); n = 3 for A260 values, n = 2 for CFU/mL determinations (detection limit was 2 log10 CFU/mL); note that the secondary y-axis (A260) scales differ for (a,b).