| Literature DB >> 31412630 |
Patricia Combarros-Fuertes1, Leticia M Estevinho2, Rita Teixeira-Santos3, Acácio G Rodrigues3,4,5, Cidália Pina-Vaz3,4, Jose M Fresno6, M Eugenia Tornadijo6.
Abstract
Several studies have explored the antimicrobial properties of manuka honey (MkH). However, the data available regarding antibacterial action mechanisms are scarcer. The aim of this study was to scrutinize and characterize primary effects of manuka honey (MkH) upon the physiological status of Staphylococcus aureus and Escherichia coli (as Gram-positive and Gram-negative bacteria models, respectively), using flow cytometry (FC) to reveal its antibacterial action mechanisms. Effects of MkH on membrane potential, membrane integrity and metabolic activity were assessed using different fluorochromes in a 180 min time course assay. Time-kill experiments were carried out under the same conditions. Additionally, MkH effect on efflux pumps was also studied in an E. coli strain with an over-expression of several efflux pumps. Exposure of bacteria to MkH resulted in physiological changes related to membrane potential and membrane integrity; these effects displayed slight differences among bacteria. MkH induced a remarkable metabolic disruption as primary physiological effect upon S. aureus and was able to block efflux pump activity in a dose-dependent fashion in the E. coli strain.Entities:
Keywords: antibacterial effects; bacteria models; efflux pump; flow cytometry; manuka honey; metabolic activity
Year: 2019 PMID: 31412630 PMCID: PMC6722746 DOI: 10.3390/microorganisms7080258
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Microorganisms ISSN: 2076-2607
Figure 1Effect of MkH on S. aureus CECT 86 (a) and E. coli CECT 515 (b) cell viability assessed by colony forming units (CFU) counting (expressed in Log10 units) by plating on Mueller–Hinton Agar. Data at each time point corresponds to mean ± standard deviation. NS indicate no significant differences and asterisks indicate significant differences (*: p < 0.05; **: p < 0.01; ***: p < 0.001) between treated cells vs. the control (non-treated cells). p-values, indicate significant differences (p < 0.05) between the two honey concentrations tested.
Figure 2Effect of MkH over membrane potential of S. aureus CECT 86 (a) and E. coli CECT 515 (b), evaluated using DiBAC4 (3) staining. Data at each time point corresponds to mean ± standard deviation. NS indicate no significant differences and asterisks indicate significant differences (*: p < 0.05; **: p < 0.01; ***: p < 0.001) between treated cells vs. the control (non-treated cells). p-values, indicate significant differences (p < 0.05) between the two honey concentrations tested.
Figure 3Effect of MkH over membrane integrity of S. aureus CECT 86 (a) and E. coli CECT 515 (b), evaluated using propidium iodide staining. Data at each time point corresponds to mean ± standard deviation. NS indicate no significant differences and asterisks indicate significant differences (*: p < 0.05; **: p < 0.01; ***: p < 0.001) between treated cells vs. the control (non-treated cells). p-values, indicate significant differences (p < 0.05) between the two honey concentrations tested.
Figure 4Effect of MkH on S. aureus CECT 86 metabolic activity, evaluated using calcein-AM staining. Data at each time point corresponds to mean ± standard deviation. NS indicate no significant differences and asterisks indicate significant differences (*: p < 0.05; **: p < 0.01; ***: p < 0.001) between treated cells vs. the control (non-treated cells). p-values, indicate significant differences (p < 0.05) between the two honey concentrations tested.
Figure 5Effect of MkH on E. coli AG100TET efflux pump activity evaluated using ethidium bromide staining. Chlorpromazine (CPZ) was used as efflux pump inhibitor.
Figure 6Flow cytometry protocol to evaluate the antibacterial mechanisms of manuka honey.