Francis J Osonga1, Ali Akgul2, Roland M Miller1, Gaddi B Eshun1, Idris Yazgan1, Ayfer Akgul2, Omowunmi A Sadik1. 1. Department of Chemistry, Center for Research in Advanced Sensing Technologies & Environmental Sustainability (CREATES), State University of New York at Binghamton, PO Box 6000, Binghamton, New York 13902, United States. 2. Department of Basic Sciences, College of Veterinary Medicine and Department of Sustainable Bioproducts, College of Forest Resources, Mississippi State University, Starkville, Mississippi 39762, United States.
Abstract
The surge of resistant food pathogens is a major threat worldwide. Previous research conducted on phytochemicals has shown their antibacterial activity against pathogenic bacteria. The design of antimicrobial agents to curb pathogenic disease remains a challenge demanding critical attention. Flavonoids such as apigenin and quercetin were evaluated against Gram-positive and Gram-negative bacteria. The results indicated that the antibacterial activity of each flavonoid occurred at a different minimum inhibitory concentration. However, the antimicrobial activity results of the modified flavonoids were also reported, and it was observed that the Gram-positive bacteria were more susceptible in comparison to the Gram-negative bacteria. The cell wall structure of the Gram-positive and Gram-negative bacteria could be the main reason for the bacteria susceptibility. Modified flavonoids could be used as a suitable alternative antimicrobial agent for the treatment of infectious diseases. Our results indicated 100% inhibition of Listeria monocytogenes, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, and Aeromonas hydrophila with modified flavonoids.
The surge of resistant food pathogens is a major threat worldwide. Previous research conducted on phytochemicals has shown their antibacterial activity against pathogenic bacteria. The design of antimicrobial agents to curb pathogenic disease remains a challenge demanding critical attention. Flavonoids such as apigenin and quercetin were evaluated against Gram-positive and Gram-negative bacteria. The results indicated that the antibacterial activity of each flavonoid occurred at a different minimum inhibitory concentration. However, the antimicrobial activity results of the modified flavonoids were also reported, and it was observed that the Gram-positive bacteria were more susceptible in comparison to the Gram-negative bacteria. The cell wall structure of the Gram-positive and Gram-negative bacteria could be the main reason for the bacteria susceptibility. Modified flavonoids could be used as a suitable alternative antimicrobial agent for the treatment of infectious diseases. Our results indicated 100% inhibition of Listeria monocytogenes, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, and Aeromonas hydrophila with modified flavonoids.
The prevalence of pathogenic
microorganisms in human diets is linked
to many food-borne diseases. The therapeutic interventions necessary
to curb pathogenic strains among food sources have been reported in
the literature.[1] Phytochemicals serve as
significant antimicrobial agents that can target pathogens interfering
with many physiological processes. Furthermore, phytochemicals are
capable of inhibiting and eliminating microorganisms both in vitro
and in vivo.[1] Phytochemicals such as quercetin
(QCR) and apigenin (APGN) have been studied extensively and isolated
as antimicrobial agents against many Gram-positive and Gram-negative
bacteria.[2] Quercetin’s antimicrobial
activity has been shown as a potential therapy to combat resistant
pathogens when used with rifampicin.[3] The
pharmaceutical properties of quercetin and apigenin serve as a platform
to formulate a new functional class of plant-based antimicrobial agents
that can target pathogenic microorganisms.The parent structures
of the modified flavonoids, which are quercetin
and apigenin (Figure S1), are made of polyphenols
which belong to the flavonoid group. Quercetin and apigenin possess
many biological properties such as antioxidant, neuroprotection, antiviral,
anticancer, cardiovascular, antimicrobial, anti-inflammatory, and
anti-obesity.[3−7] These phytochemicals are a natural source for treating infectious
diseases.[7,8] For instance, kaempferol, quercetin, and
apigenin have been widely used in herbal medicine for traditional
remedies for hundreds of years.[1,3,9] Shu et al. have reported the antibacterial activity of quercetin
on the oral pathogens in which it showed their bactericidal activity
against caries-related bacteria.[7] Quercetin
and apigenin are sparingly soluble in water due to their hydrophobic
structure. Scholtz et al. have demonstrated the attachment of different
sugar moieties to quercetin to form a conjugation that improves their
solubility in biological systems.[10] Osonga
et al. have also demonstrated the solubility of quercetin via sequential
phosphorylation.[11]In the field of
nanotechnology, both quercetin and apigenin have
the potential to chelate with many transition metal ions to form complexes
with newly effective and enhanced biological properties.[12] Quercetin and apigenin are used as a reducing
agent in the chemical reduction technique during the synthesis of
nanoparticles. The potential of quercetin to form a complex with metal
ions such as Ag, Au, and Fe has been reported in many studies.[12−16] The three ring structures A, B, C have functional groups for metal
chelation.[13] It is reported that the hydroxyl
groups and the keto groups form the metal complexes.[12,13,15] This knowledge has been utilized
to improve the antimicrobial activity of quercetin.[12,16] Nabavi et al. reported that the catechol moiety of the B ring and
the OH groups present in quercetin are responsible for the antioxidant
activity both in vivo and in vitro.[17] Some
applications of apigenin include the remediation of various cancer
cell lines.[18] Apigenin also mediates antitumor
effects via modulating cell proliferation and/or apoptosis.[18] The proposed antibacterial activities of quercetin
and apigenin are via three mechanisms. The cytoplasmic membrane of
the bacteria is damaged through the perforation action of the flavonoid.
The inhibition of both energy metabolism and the synthesis of nucleic
acids is another mechanism.[1] Furthermore,
Plaper et al. have demonstrated the mechanism of action of quercetin
by targeting gyrase and reported the antibacterial activity from their
results.[19]This present study was
conducted to investigate the effect of both
modified quercetin and apigenin compounds as a potential antimicrobial
agent against Gram-negative Pseudomonas aeruginosaATCC 10145 and Aeromonas hydrophila ATCC 35654, also Gram-positive Listeria monocytogenes ATCC 19115. All of the bacteria that were studied are pathogenic
strains. The presence of a thick peptidoglycan layer forms part of
the cell wall of the Gram-positive bacteria, whereas structures such
as lipopolysaccharide, phospholipids, and a thin layer of peptidoglycan
constitute the outer membrane of the Gram-negative bacteria.[2,20] The difference in the cell membrane plays a unique role in the bacteria
susceptibility to the treatment of naturally synthesized antibacterial
drugs.[2]L. monocytogenes is a Gram-positive,
facultative pathogen characterized by meningitis and gastroenteritis
by inducing into cells that are nonphagocytic and spread via an actin-based
motility process.[21,22] Gram-negative bacteria such as P. aeruginosa and A. hydrophila have been epidemiologically linked to human illness. P. aeruginosa cause diseases that affect many organs
by disrupting the normal physiological function of the body. P. aeruginosa infection cases can be associated with
immunosuppressed patients undergoing chemotherapy treatment.[23]A. hydrophila is a facultative anaerobe that thrives in atmospheres containing
low concentrations of oxygen and temperature (4 °C).[24] Gracey et al. isolated A. hydrophila from the feces of gastroenteritispatients as evidence to the widespread
of the disease.[25] The widespread of the
selected bacteria has led to concerns about multidrug-resistant strains.
Hsueh et al. reported the spread of a single multidrug-resistant strain
of P. aeruginosa and revealed that
antibiotics treatment has not been effective due to the resistive
nature of the bacteria.[26] The modification
of phytochemicals such as quercetin and apigenin is an essential study
to design an antibacterial drug capable of eliminating resistant pathogenic
bacteria completely.The modified compounds synthesized include
quercetin 4′,5-diphosphate
(QDP), quercetin 3′,4′,3,5,7-pentaphosphate (QPP), quercetin
5′-sulfonic acid (QSA), apigenin 4′,5,7-triphosphate
(ATRP), and apigenin 4′,5,7-trihexanoyl (ATHEX) (Figures and S1). The phosphorylation of polyphenols such as quercetin and apigenin
has been investigated and reported.[11] Quercetinphosphate derivatives play a vital role in sustaining many physiological
processes. Wei et al. showed that the phosphorylation of the OH groups
leads to an increased solubility of quercetin.[27] The phosphorylation method utilizes benzyl phosphites and
pyridine-N-oxide catalyst as the active reagents
for sequential phosphorylation. However, they result in a low yield.[11] In this study, both quercetin and apigenin were
modified with benzyl phosphite following the procedure by Osonga et
al.[11] The synthesis of QSA was followed
by using the previously reported literature.[28] The addition of the sulfonate group helps to increase the solubility
as well as increasing the acidity of the compound.[28] The synthesis of ATHEX will be reported elsewhere. The
antibacterial activities of the modified quercetin and apigenin molecules
were investigated against the three selected microorganisms. Our results
depicted a promising antibacterial activity of the modified quercetin
and apigenin. The modified quercetin and apigenin are highly soluble,
biocompatible, and possess a tremendous antibacterial activity.
Figure 1
General structure
of flavonoids showing the locations and identities
of the various derivatives in the parent compounds.
General structure
of flavonoids showing the locations and identities
of the various derivatives in the parent compounds.
Results
The antimicrobial activities
of QCR against L. monocytogenes, A. hydrophila, P.
aeruginosa were determined by OD measurements, and
the viable counting. L. monocytogenes showed no inhibition with the addition of QCR (Figure ). Once the viability was decreased
(Figures and 4), the bacterial culture was diluted 5 times, and
100 μL of 10–5 cultures was spread on LB plates.
The growths of L. monocytogenes, A. hydrophila, and P. aeruginosa are presented in (Figures , 6, and 7),
and the adverse effect of QCR on the growth of the three bacteria
on the agar plate is clearly shown. QCR is bacteriostatic since there
is no decrease in the OD. It thus inhibits the growth of the bacteria
on the agar plates of L. monocytogenes. In comparison, results showed that QCR is bactericidal to the other
two bacteria, namely, A. hydrophila and P. aeruginosa based on the decrease
in OD. It is worth stating that depending on the type of bacteria
involved, QCR could act in one of two different ways.
Figure 2
Relative viability of L. monocytogenes after 16 h growth with test compounds.
The error bars show +1 standard
deviation for each measurement with three replicates. *p < 0.05. One-way ANOVA followed by Dunnett’s multiple comparisons
test was performed using the GraphPad Prism 8.0, GraphPad Software.
Figure 3
Relative viability of A. hydrophila after 16 h growth with test compounds. The error bars showed +1
standard deviation for each measurement with three replicates. *p < 0.0001. One-way ANOVA followed by Dunnett’s
multiple comparisons test was performed using the GraphPad Prism,
8.0 GraphPad Software.
Figure 4
Relative viability of P. aeruginosa after 16 h growth with test compounds. The error bars showed +1
standard deviation for each measurement with three replicates. *p < 0.0001. One-way ANOVA followed by Dunnett’s
multiple comparisons test was performed using the GraphPad Prism,
8.0 GraphPad Software.
Figure 5
Viable counting for A. hydrophila on
a non-molecule-treated plate with the 10–5 dilution
of control and 0.35 mg/mL of QCR-treated LB broth. Each plate is a
different replicate.
Figure 6
Viable counting for P. aeruginosa on
a non-molecule-treated plate with the 10–5 dilution
of control and 0.35 mg/mL of QCR-treated LB-broth. Each plate is a
different replicate.
Figure 7
Viable counting for L. monocytogenes on a non-molecule-treated plate with the 10–5 dilution
of control and 0.35 mg/mL of QCR-treated LB-broth. Total covered area
by L. monocytogenes was decreased over
95%. Each plate is a different replicate.
Relative viability of L. monocytogenes after 16 h growth with test compounds.
The error bars show +1 standard
deviation for each measurement with three replicates. *p < 0.05. One-way ANOVA followed by Dunnett’s multiple comparisons
test was performed using the GraphPad Prism 8.0, GraphPad Software.Relative viability of A. hydrophila after 16 h growth with test compounds. The error bars showed +1
standard deviation for each measurement with three replicates. *p < 0.0001. One-way ANOVA followed by Dunnett’s
multiple comparisons test was performed using the GraphPad Prism,
8.0 GraphPad Software.Relative viability of P. aeruginosa after 16 h growth with test compounds. The error bars showed +1
standard deviation for each measurement with three replicates. *p < 0.0001. One-way ANOVA followed by Dunnett’s
multiple comparisons test was performed using the GraphPad Prism,
8.0 GraphPad Software.Viable counting for A. hydrophila on
a non-molecule-treated plate with the 10–5 dilution
of control and 0.35 mg/mL of QCR-treated LB broth. Each plate is a
different replicate.Viable counting for P. aeruginosa on
a non-molecule-treated plate with the 10–5 dilution
of control and 0.35 mg/mL of QCR-treated LB-broth. Each plate is a
different replicate.Viable counting for L. monocytogenes on a non-molecule-treated plate with the 10–5 dilution
of control and 0.35 mg/mL of QCR-treated LB-broth. Total covered area
by L. monocytogenes was decreased over
95%. Each plate is a different replicate.QSA at 0.25 mg/mL did not affect the growth of A.
hydrophila and P. aeruginosa, but it negatively affected the growth of L. monocytogenes (Figure S2). OD of A.
hydrophila and P. aeruginosa and L. monocytogenes are shown in Figures –4. QSA seems to show bactericidal properties
to L. monocytogenes and bacteriostatic
to A. hydrophila and P. aeruginosa.QPP at the minimum inhibitory
concentration (MIC) of 0.43 mg/mL
negatively affects the growth of L. monocytogenes, but it did not affect the growth of A. hydrophila and P. aeruginosa. The OD of A. hydrophila, P. aeruginosa, and L. monocytogenes are shown in Figures –4. As seen in Figure S3, over 99.9% of L. monocytogenes was
killed. It is interesting that QCR and QPP had similar effects on
the bacterium tested.
Discussion
The biological properties
of naturally occurring flavonoids have
been explored in many studies. Flavonoid such as quercetin and apigenin
significantly exhibit antioxidant, antibacterial and antifungal activities.[3−5] Mandalari et al., Daglia, and Wu et al. have demonstrated the antibacterial
activity of flavonoid based on structural functionalities.[3−5,29] The hydroxyl groups attached
to flavonoid play a role in the antibacterial activity.[29,30] For instance, Osawa et al. displayed that 5-hydroxyflavanones with
one, two or three additional hydroxyl groups at the 7, 2′ and
4′ positions inhibited the growth of Streptococcus
mutans and Streptococcus sobrinus.[31]In this study, quercetin and
apigenin were modified with bioactive
molecules such as phosphate and sulfonic acid in an attempt to evaluate
their comparative antibacterial potential against various pathogenic
microorganisms. The pathogens of interest include Gram-positive L. monocytogenes, and Gram-negative A. hydrophila and P. aeruginosa. Two methods were utilized to determine the antibacterial activity
of the modified quercetin and apigenin. In the first method (Figures –4), the data were analyzed by ANOVA with a
pos-hoc test (Dunnett’s multiple comparisons test) to determine
whether the viabilities were significant or not. In Figure , three of the viabilities
were marked significant: QCR, QDP, and APGN with p values of 0.0274, 0.0130, and 0.0237, respectively. In Figures and 4, only one of the viabilities was marked as significant: QCR
with p values of <0.0001. In the second method,
the agar plates treated with quercetin showed 100% inhibition of all
three pathogens at a MIC of 0.35 mg/mL (Table , Figures –7). Vázquez-Armenta
et al. have utilized a phenolic extract to inhibit the growth of the L. monocytogenes. In their investigation, the phenolic
extract, which contained Rutin (quercetin-3-O-rutinoside),
reduced the surface energy and adhesion of L. monocytogenes thereby inhibiting the bacterial motility.[32] Rutin is a natural, modified quercetin compound containing a sugar
moiety. Their results correlate to our findings that modified quercetin
molecules are capable of inhibiting L. monocytogenes.
Table 1
Concentrations of MICs for the Flavonoids
Used in the Study
flavonoid
concentration (mg/mL)
QCR
0.35
QDP
0.20
QPP
0.43
QSA
0.25
APGN
0.35
ATRP
0.34
ATHEX
0.30
However, both QSA and QPP molecules
were found to inhibit Gram-positive L. monocytogenes at MIC of 0.25 and 0.43 mg/mL, respectively
(Table ). There was
no inhibitory effect, in the case of Gram-negative bacteria P. aeruginosa and A. hydrophila. Furthermore, it has been reported that flavonoid with MICs against
the pathogenic microorganisms is highly susceptible to Gram-positive
bacteria than that of Gram-negative bacteria.[33] The first method of the antibacterial test was conducted in a lysogeny
broth media at different MIC’s. L. monocytogenes was inhibited in lysogeny broth containing QSA, QDP, and QPP. This
observation could be attributed to the adverse environment for L. monocytogenes to grow in the media. P. aeruginosa and A. hydrophila did not show any bactericidal activity to the modified compounds.Although Bahrin et al. reported that sulfur-containing derivatives
of flavonoid possess higher bacteriostatic activities against Gram-positive
than Gram-negative bacteria,[6] but in our
case, a similar pattern was not recognized. This could be due to the
fact that QSA contains a sulfonic acid group rather than just a sulfur
atom in its structure like Bahrin et al. reported.[6] For instance, QCR and QSA showed minimal activity on Gram-positive
bacteria, QCR and QSA showed strong bacteriostatic activity on Gram-negative
bacteria. Orhan et al. observed strong antibacterial activity against
Gram-negative bacteria using flavonoids as well.[34]The modified flavonoids showed different antibacterial
activities
against the tested bacteria, which were in log-phase. The turbidity
results revealed QCR, QSA, QPP, and QDP showed selective bacteriostatic
activity. While QDP and QPP showed their bacteriostatic activities
towards Gram-positive bacteria, L. monocytogenes. QSA and QCR showed bacteriostatic activities against the Gram-negative
bacteria, A. hydrophilia, and P. aeruginosa. The bacterial cultures treated with
QCR, QSA, and QPP were then diluted for viable counting. While the
bactericidal activity of QCR was evaluated on the three bacteria,
the bactericidal activities of QSA and QPP were tested on L. monocytogenes. While QCR and QSA showed the negligible
bacteriostatic effect on L. monocytogenes, they showed strong bactericidal activities. This might be related
to the fact that at 16 h incubation, the bacteria exist in the stationary
phase and thus can show different characteristics towards antibacterial
molecules.[35]The results imply that
the suppression of bacterial pathogens by
quercetin can be attributed to the presence of the peptidoglycan structures
exposed in the Gram-positive and the peptidoglycan enclosed in an
outer membrane in the Gram-negative bacteria. Our observation agrees
with the investigation by Goyal et al. stating that the antibacterial
activity of flavonoids is susceptible to Gram-positive in comparison
to Gram-negative.[33]The possible
reasons behind the antibacterial character of these
compounds could be attributed to flavonoid-mediated perforation, disruption
of membrane integrity, interference in specific metabolic pathways
including energy metabolism, nucleic acid synthesis, and co-enzyme
metabolism.[1,36] The pre-oxidant properties of
flavonoid have been suspected as a strong player for their antibacterial
roles, too.[36] The position of the hydroxyl
groups on flavonoids also contribute to this effect. According to
Wu et al., the hydroxyl group at Carbon-3 in the C ring is important
for decreasing membrane fluidity.[30] In
another study, the hydroxyl group at C-3 is the primary determinant
for significant membrane interaction.[37] The cell membrane is a direct target for antibacterial action of
flavonoids, suggesting that membrane interaction could be an important
mechanism of the antibacterial activities of flavonoids.[38]The need to investigate and identify modified
flavonoids that kill
bacteria entirely rather than inhibiting their growth due to immunocompromised
patients is vital, especially in neutropenic immunodepressedpatients.
These patients are neutropenic meaning that there is an abnormally
low concentration of neutrophils in their blood. Neutrophils are a
type of white blood cells that serve as the primary defense against
infections. This type of immunodepression is caused by Gram-positive,
and Gram-negative bacteria such as Staphylococcus aureus and P. aeruginosa.[39] Bactericidal activity completely reduces the number of
bacteria, and it is determined by the minimum bactericidal concentration
assay. This method was used to test flavonoids and bactericidal activity.
Furthermore, some investigations have been conducted to determine
whether flavonoid antibacterial activity is bacteriostatic by conducting
time-kill studies. Studies have reported that 3-O-octanoyl-(+)-catechin were depicted to significantly reduce the
viable counts of S. aureus NCTC 6571
and EMRSA-16, respectively.[38] Hence it
was concluded that flavonoids are capable of rate-dependent bactericidal
activity.[38]Mori et al. reported
and suggested that the hydrogen bonding or
intercalation of the B ring of the flavonoid may play a role with
the stacking of nucleic acid bases which may explain the inhibitory
action on DNA and RNA synthesis.[40] According
to Ohemeng et al., DNA gyrase of E. coli and S. aureus were inhibited by different
structural flavonoids revealing their antibacterial via this mechanism.
The flavonoids used in this experiment include quercetin, apigenin
and 3,6,7,3′,4′-pentahydroxyflavone and the antibacterial
activity of the tested flavonoid was due to the inhibition of DNA
gyrase.[41]The size and functional
groups that were attached to the test compounds
seem to play a role in the antimicrobial testing. Two of the modified
quercetin compounds had the lowest MIC being 0.20 mg/mL (QDP) and
0.25 mg/mL (QSA). The most probable reason for these compounds working
better than APGN or QCR is due to the addition of the phosphate groups
and the sulfonic acid group. The most abundant compound that was used
in this test was QPP. Interestingly enough, QPP had the highest MIC
of all the compounds (Table ). The rich literature detailing the mechanism of action by
modified flavonoid against Gram-positive pathogens supports our results
that quercetin and apigenin are more effective against Gram-positive
while the Gram-negative bacteria is less susceptible and this difference
in bacteria susceptibility is majorly attributed to the bacterial
cell membrane.
Conclusions
Quercetin and apigenin
derivatives showed strong antibacterial
properties against Gram-negative and lesser to Gram-positive bacteria.
Our goal was to develop and understand the antibacterial effects of
flavonoid derivatives as a platform for formulating effective plant-based
drugs that target commonly known pathogens associated with food. The
antimicrobial mechanism of bioactive flavonoids takes place in the
hydrophilic region of phospholipids on the cell membrane where the
membrane integrity is disrupted. It can be concluded from our results
that flavonoids are susceptible to Gram-positive bacteria in comparison
to Gram-negative. The MICs for the microorganisms were within the
range of 0.025–0.43 mg/mL (Table ). This knowledge could be utilized to design
antimicrobial drugs that are specific for both Gram-positive and Gram-negative
bacteria. However, in-depth biochemical research is required to investigate
the mechanism of flavonoid selectivity on both Gram-negative and Gram-positive
bacteria in order to thoroughly conclude whether the selectivity occurs
during bacteriostatic in the log-phase while non-selective bactericidal
agents target bacteria during the stationary phase.
Experimental
Section
Materials
High Purity flavonoids, quercetin and apigenin
(Indofine Chemical Company, Hillsborough, NJ), sulfonic acid, dibenzyl
phosphite, agar plates, Corning centrifuge tubes, lysogeny broth,
and brain heart infusion agar were purchased from Sigma-Aldrich (St.
Louis, MO). The following microorganisms; Pseudomonas
aeruginosa ATCC 10145, Aeromonas hydrophila ATCC 35654, Listeria monocytogenes ATCC 19115 were purchased from American Type Culture Collection
(ATCC) (Manassas, VA).
Methods
The flavonoid derivatives
ATRP, QPP, and QDP
were synthesized and as reported in our work.[11] QSA was synthesized as reported[42,43] while ATHEX
was synthesized with modification as reported.[44]The selected microorganisms were Gram-negative as Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Aeromonas
hydrophila, and Gram-positive Listeria
monocytogenes microorganism. L. monocytogenes was grown in a rich medium, brain heart infusion (BHI). Lysogeny
broth (LB), a nutritionally rich medium agar, was used for the maintenance
of the tested P. aeruginosa and A. hydrophila. The microorganisms were taken from
the culture collection unit −80 °C refrigerator at the
Department of Basic Science, College of Veterinary Medicine, Mississippi
State University, Mississippi. All microorganisms were propagated
overnight, and at the log-phase stage, the microorganisms were harvested
to determine the potential antibacterial activities of the test compounds.
Broth and Agar-based tests were conducted in order to investigate
the difference associated with the antibacterial properties of the
derived flavonoids.
Antibacterial Assessment of Flavonoid Derivatives
The
antibacterial activities of the modified flavonoid were tested using
a two-step approach which includes (I) incubating bacteria in flavonoid-contained
broth and then (II) counting the survived bacteria on agar. For the
initial procedure, the optical density (OD) of 3-replicates of 16
h incubated bacterial cultures were measured with a spectrophotometer.
The change in turbidity as a result of flavonoid inhibition was used
to analyze the bacteriostatic activity of the microorganism. The second
approach utilized the following day was serially diluting the bacterial
cultures in broth media for plate counting. In this step, the agar
was solely used without adding any of the modified flavonoids. The
selected bacteria in this study were grown overnight at 37 °C
incubator. With regards to the second sequential step, the remaining
live bacteria were counted via the hanging-drop colony forming unit
method on the plates. All tests were repeated 2 times by 3 replicates
of plates. This step was performed in order to determine the bactericidal
activity of the flavonoid within a specific time duration.
Determination
of the Minimum Inhibitory Concentrations (MICs)
The MIC is the lowest concentration of flavonoid
that inhibited the visible growth of a microorganism after 24 h incubation.
The minimum inhibitory concentrations (MICs) of each flavonoid were
measured using the modified version of micro broth dilution method.[4] The capability of different flavonoid derivatives
to inhibit and eliminate bacterial growth was tested via two sequential
steps stated above. All tests were repeated 2 times by 3 replicates
of plates.
Statistics
The relative viabilities
from the first
method were analyzed by ANOVA with a post-hoc test. One-way ANOVA
followed by Dunnett’s multiple comparisons test was performed
using GraphPad Prism version 8.0.0, GraphPad Software, San Diego,
California.This was performed for each of the compounds for
all three bacteria to determine if the results were considered significant
or not. Data were considered statistically significant if the p-value was <0.05.
Authors: Shimaa M A Sayed; Saleh Alseekh; Karsten Siems; Alisdair R Fernie; Walter Luyten; Christian Schmitz-Linneweber; Nadine Saul Journal: Nutrients Date: 2022-10-09 Impact factor: 6.706
Authors: Gaber El-Saber Batiha; Amany Magdy Beshbishy; Muhammad Ikram; Zohair S Mulla; Mohamed E Abd El-Hack; Ayman E Taha; Abdelazeem M Algammal; Yaser Hosny Ali Elewa Journal: Foods Date: 2020-03-23
Authors: Md Ajijur Rahman; Frank Kaiser; Shirin Jamshidi; Marta Freitas Monteiro; Khondaker Miraz Rahman; Peter Mullany; Adam P Roberts Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2020-11-26 Impact factor: 4.379