| Literature DB >> 31861717 |
Alessandro Maccelli1, Luca Vitanza2, Anna Imbriano1, Caterina Fraschetti1, Antonello Filippi1, Paola Goldoni2, Linda Maurizi2, Maria Grazia Ammendolia3, Maria Elisa Crestoni1, Simonetta Fornarini1, Luigi Menghini4, Maria Carafa1, Carlotta Marianecci1, Catia Longhi2, Federica Rinaldi1,5.
Abstract
Chemical fingerprints of four different Satureja montana L. essential oils (SEOs) were assayed by an untargeted metabolomics approach based on Fourier-transform ion cyclotron resonance (FT-ICR) mass spectrometry (MS) coupled with either electrospray ionization or atmospheric pressure chemical ionization ion sources. Analysis and relative quantification of the non-polar volatile fraction were conducted by gas chromatography (GC) coupled to MS. FT-ICR MS confirmed significant differences in the polar metabolite composition, while GC-MS analyses confirmed slight fluctuations in the relative amount of major terpenes and terpenoids, known to play a key role in antimicrobial mechanisms. Oil in eater (O/W) nanoemulsions (NEs) composed by SEOs and Tween 20 or Tween 80 were prepared and analyzed in terms of hydrodynamic diameter, ζ-potential and polydispersity index. The results confirm the formation of stable NEs homogeneous in size. Minimum inhibitory and minimum bactericidal concentrations of SEOs were determined towards Gram-positive (Listeria monocytogenes, Staphylococcus aureus, Staphylococcus haemolyticus) and Gram-negative clinical isolates (Escherichia coli, Klebsiella pneumoniae, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, and Serratia marcescens). Commercial SEO showed strongest antibacterial activity, while SEO 3 was found to be the most active among the lab made extractions. MIC and MBC values ranged from 0.39 to 6.25 mg·mL-1. Furthermore, a SEO structured in NEs formulation was able to preserve and improve antimicrobial activity.Entities:
Keywords: FT-ICR mass spectrometry; Satureja montana L.; antibacterial activity; essential oils; nanoemulsions; nanoformulation
Year: 2019 PMID: 31861717 PMCID: PMC7022231 DOI: 10.3390/pharmaceutics12010007
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Pharmaceutics ISSN: 1999-4923 Impact factor: 6.321
Figure 1Most represented terpenes and terpenoids found in Satureja montana L. essential oil (SEO): Terpenes (γ-terpinene and p-cymene), oxygenated monoterpenes (thymol and carvacrol), bicyclic terpenoids (eucalyptol and borneol), and cyclic monoterpenes (limonene and limonene oxide).
Figure 2Tween 20 and Tween 80 surfactants employed to stabilize nanoemulsions (NEs).
NEs compositions.
| Samples | SEO3 [a] | Tw20 [a] | Tw80 [a] |
|---|---|---|---|
| A1 | 50 | 50 | |
| A2 | 33.3 | 66.6 | |
| B1 | 50 | 50 | |
| B2 | 33.3 | 66.6 |
[a] % w/w.
Figure 3High resolution ESI(+) Fourier-transform ion cyclotron resonance (FT-ICR) mass spectra of the SEOs samples (red spectrum, SEO1; blue spectrum, SEO2; purple spectrum, SEO3; green spectrum, SEOT) are shown in the enlarged range of m/z 90–450.
Figure 4Van Krevelen diagrams of SEO1–3 and SEOT. The major metabolite classes involved in significant changes are lipids, terpenoids, and polyphenols. Terpenes (not highlighted in the legend) lie on the y axis.
Figure 5Elemental composition of the annotated metabolites in the SEOs samples.
Percentage of volatile components of SEO 1-3 and SEOT.
| Class | Compound | SEO1 | SEO2 | SEO3 | SEOT (a) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Monoterpene | α-thujene | - | - | - | 0.1 |
| α-pinene | 0.4 | 0.4 | 0.4 | 1.3 | |
| camphene | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.2 | 0.4 | |
| β-pinene | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | - | |
| β-myrcene | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.5 | 0.6 | |
| 3-carene | - | - | - | 0.2 | |
| α-terpinene | - | - | - | 0.8 | |
| 10.3 | 9.4 | 12.3 | 15.3 | ||
| limonene | 1.3 | 1.3 | 1.8 | 0.9 | |
| Terpenoid | eucalyptol | 6.2 | 6.3 | 6.8 | - |
| Monoterpene | ocimene | - | - | 0.2 | - |
| γ-terpinene | 12.3 | 14.7 | 15.0 | 4.5 | |
| Terpenoid | linaloxide (cis) | 0.4 | 0.2 | 0.2 | - |
| Monoterpene | terpinolene | - | - | - | 0.1 |
| Terpenoid | linaloxide (trans) | 0.3 | 0.2 | 0.1 | - |
| linalool | 16.1 | 16.0 | 16.4 | - | |
| camphor | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.3 | 0.1 | |
| borneol | - | - | 0.5 | 3.1 | |
| terpinen-4-ol | - | - | - | 1.2 | |
| γ-terpineol | - | - | 0.2 | - | |
| α-terpineol | 1.5 | 1.5 | 1.6 | - | |
| thymolmethylether | - | - | - | 4.3 | |
| D-carvone | 1.6 | 1.5 | 1.6 | - | |
| thymol | 16.5 | 16.1 | 14.5 | 7.6 | |
| carvacrol | 29.0 | 28.7 | 23.9 | 43.9 | |
| eugenol | 1.0 | 0.8 | 0.4 | - | |
| Sesquiterpene | β-caryophyllene | 0.1 | 0.2 | 0.4 | 3.4 |
| α-humulene | - | - | 0.1 | - | |
| caryophylleneoxie | 0.4 | 0.2 | - | - | |
| unidentified | 2.0 | 1.9 | 2.4 | 12.2 | |
| Monoterpene | 24.7 | 26.2 | 30.6 | 24.2 | |
| Terpenoid | 72.8 | 71.5 | 66.5 | 60.2 | |
| Sesquiterpene | 0.5 | 0.4 | 0.5 | 3.4 |
(a) See ref [23].
Quantitative analysis of thymol and carvacrol in SEO3.
| Compound | Mass Percentage |
|---|---|
| carvacrol | 29.9 |
| thymol | 16.0 |
Hydrodynamic diameter (HD), ζ-potential and polydispersity index (PDI) values of NEs.
| Samples | HD (nm) ± SD | ζ-Pot (mV) ± SD | PDI ± SD |
|---|---|---|---|
| A1 | 118.40 ± 0.61 | −19.00 ± 0.21 | 0.26 ± 0.01 |
| A2 | 55.86 ± 0.93 | −16.61 ± 1.06 | 0.18 ± 0.03 |
| B1 | 95.05 ± 1.55 | −13.02 ± 0.36 | 0.23 ± 0.01 |
| B2 | 56.08 ± 1.17 | −14.14 ± 0.25 | 0.17 ± 0.01 |
NE oil phase characterization.
| Sample | IE/I3 (Microviscosity) ± SD | I1/I3 (Polarity) ± SD |
|---|---|---|
| A1 | 4.49 ± 0.07 | 1.62 ± 0.13 |
| A2 | 4.04 ± 0.16 | 1.47 ± 0.23 |
| B1 | 4.69 ± 0.11 | 1.44 ± 0.07 |
| B2 | 3.79 ± 0.21 | 1.50 ± 0.06 |
Figure 6NEs DLS measurements.
Figure 7Transmission electron microscopy of SEO NEs. Panel (A) was representative of A1 and B1 nanoemulsions whereas panel (B) was representative of A2 and B2 NEs.
Figure 8Stability studies of A1–B1 NEs at 25 and 4 °C.
Figure 9Stability studies of A2–B2 NEs at 25 and 4 °C.
Figure 10Nile red release profile by NEs.
Antibiotic resistance profile.
| Bacterial Strain | Antibiotic Resistance Profile |
|---|---|
|
| Oxacillin, Levofloxacin, Daptomycin |
| Erythromycin, Fosfomycin, Gentamicin, Levofloxacin, Oxacillin, Rifampicin, Tetracycline, Sulfamethoxazole/Trimethoprim | |
| Benzylpenicillin, Clindamycin, Erythromycin, Levofloxacin, Oxacillin | |
|
| Clindamycin, Erythromycin, Fosfomycin, Gentamicin, Levofloxacin, Oxacillin, Sulfamethoxazole/Trimethoprim |
|
| Full sensitive |
|
| Amoxicillin/Clavulanate, Cefepime, Cefotaxime, Ceftazidime, Ciprofloxacin, Fosfomycin, Gentamicin, Sulfamethoxazole/Trimethoprim |
|
| Amoxicillin/Clavulanate, Cefotaxime, Ertapenem, Fosfomycin, Tigecycline, Sulfamethoxazole/Trimethoprim |
|
| Amoxicillin/Clavulanate, Colistin |
Minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) and the minimum bactericidal concentration (MBC) of different SEOs.
| SEO1 | SEO2 | SEO3 | SEOT | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| MIC | MBC | MIC | MBC | MIC | MBC | MIC | MBC |
|
| 1.56 | 3.12 | 1.56 | 3.12 | 0.78 | 1.56 | 0.78 | 0.78 |
| 3.12 | 3.12 | 1.56 | 3.12 | 1.56 | 1.56 | 0.78 | 0.78 | |
| 3.12 | 3.12 | 1.56 | 1.56 | 1.56 | 1.56 | 0.78 | 0.78 | |
|
| 3.12 | 3.12 | 1.56 | 1.56 | 1.56 | 1.56 | 0.78 | 0.78 |
|
| 3.12 | 6.25 | 1.56 | 3.12 | 3.12 | 3.12 | 1.56 | 1.56 |
|
| 1.56 | 3.12 | 1.56 | 3.12 | 0.78 | 0.78 | 0.39 | 0.39 |
|
| 3.12 | 3.12 | 3.12 | 3.12 | 3.12 | 3.12 | 1.56 | 1.56 |
|
| 3.12 | 3.12 | 1.56 | 1.56 | 0.78 | 0.78 | 0.39 | 0.39 |
Antimicrobial activity of NEs against Gram-positive and Gram-negative bacterial strains.
|
| NE-A1 | NE-A2 | NE-B1 | NE-B2 | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MIC | MBC | MIC | MBC | MIC | MBC | MIC | MBC | |
|
| 0.78 | 1.56 | 1.56 | 1.56 | 1.56 | 1.56 | 1.56 | 1.56 |
| 0.78 | 1.56 | 0.78 | 1.56 | 0.78 | 1.56 | 1.56 | 1.56 | |
| 0.78 | 1.56 | 0.78 | 1.56 | 0.78 | 1.56 | 1.56 | 1.56 | |
|
| 1.56 | 2.3 | 9.2 | 9.2 | 2.3 | 4.6 | 9.2 | 9.2 |
|
| 0.39 | 0.78 | 1.56 | 1.56 | 0.39 | 1.56 | 1.56 | 1.56 |
|
| 0.78 | 0.78 | 1.56 | 1.56 | 0.78 | 0.78 | 1.56 | 1.56 |
|
| 4.6 | 4.6 | 9.2 | 9.2 | 9.2 | 9.2 | 9.2 | 9.2 |
|
| 0.78 | 0.78 | 0.78 | 1.56 | 0.39 | 0.78 | 1.56 | 1.56 |
MIC and MBC for NEs (A1, A2, B1, B2) containing SEO3. Results are expressed in mg·mL−1.