| Literature DB >> 32410630 |
Md Akil Hossain1, Hae-Chul Park1, Kwang-Jick Lee1, Sung-Won Park1, Seung-Chun Park2, JeongWoo Kang3.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The antibiotics generally used in farm animals are rapidly losing their effectiveness all over the world as bacteria develop antibiotic resistance. Like some other pathogenic bacteria multidrug-resistant strains of Salmonella enterica serovar Typhimurium (S. Typhimurium) are also frequently found in animals and humans which poses a major public health concern. New strategies are needed to block the development of resistance and to prolong the life of traditional antibiotics. Thus, this study aimed to increase the efficacy of existing antibiotics against S. Typhimurium by combining them with opportunistic phenolic compounds gallic acid (GA), epicatechin, epicatechin gallate, epigallocatechin and hamamelitannin. Fractional inhibitory concentration indexes (FICI) of phenolic compound-antibiotic combinations against S. Typhimurium were determined. Based on the FICI and clinical importance, 1 combination (GA and ceftiofur) was selected for evaluating its effects on the virulence factors of this bacterium. Viability of Rattus norvegicus (IEC-6) cell in presence of this antibacterial combination was evaluated.Entities:
Keywords: Biofilm; Combination therapy; Critically important antibiotics; Gallic acid; Hamamelitannin; Phenolic compounds
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32410630 PMCID: PMC7227263 DOI: 10.1186/s12866-020-01810-x
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Microbiol ISSN: 1471-2180 Impact factor: 3.605
Minimum inhibition concentration (MIC) of commercial antibiotics and phenolic compounds against different strains of Salmonella enterica serovar Typhimurium; and antibacterial sensitivity profiles of those strains against some selected commercially available antibiotics
| Antimicrobials | Strain ID | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ATCC 14028 | V08-S-HA-06-(170) | V15-S-HA-02-(210) | SAL 109 | SAL 202 | SAL 224 | |
| Amoxicillin (μg/mL) | < 0.5 (S) | 256 (R) | 1 (S) | 256 (R) | 256 (R) | 256 (R) |
| Ampicillin (μg/mL) | 1 (S) | 512 (R) | 512 (R) | 512 (R) | 512 (R) | 512 (R) |
| Cefotaxime (μg/mL) | ≤ 2 (S) | ≤ 2 (S) | ≤ 2 (S) | 512 (R) | 128 (R) | 128 (R) |
| Ceftiofur (μg/mL) | < 1 (S) | < 1 (S) | 1 (S) | 128 (R) | 64 (R) | 64 (R) |
| Erythromycin (μg/mL) | 128 (R) | 32 (R) | 16 (R) | 512 (R) | 1024 (R) | 512 (R) |
| Florfenicol (μg/mL) | 8 (S) | 8 (S) | 4 (S) | 64 (R) | 32 (R) | 64 (R) |
| Marbofloxacin (μg/mL) | 0.062 (S) | 0.25 (S) | 0.25 (S) | 2 (I) | 2 (I) | 4 (I) |
| Norfloxacin (μg/mL) | 0.25 (S) | 4 (R) | 0.5 (S) | 4 (R) | 16 (R) | 8 (R) |
| Penicillin G (μg/mL) | 8 (S) | 1024 (R) | 32 (R) | > 1024 (R) | > 1024 (R) | > 1024 (R) |
| Thiamphenicol (μg/mL) | 128 (R) | 64 (R) | 128 (R) | 256 (R) | 512 (R) | 512 (R) |
| Epicatechin (μg/mL) | > 1024 | > 1024 | > 1024 | > 1024 | > 1024 | > 1024 |
| Epicatechin gallate (μg/mL) | > 512 | 512 | > 512 | > 512 | > 512 | > 512 |
| Epigallocatechin (μg/mL) | 1024 | 512 | 512 | 512 | 512 | 512 |
| Gallic acid (μg/mL) | 256 | 256 | 256 | 256 | 256 | 256 |
| Hamamelitannin (μg/mL) | 512 | 512 | 1024 | 1024 | 1024 | 1024 |
S, susceptible; I, intermediate resistance; R, resistant. Sensitivity statuses of these strains are interpreted based on the MIC values of these tested antibiotics and their break-point MIC values mentioned in different guidelines [20–24]
Combination interaction of phenolic compounds with commercial antibiotics against Salmonella enterica serovar Typhimurium (ATCC14028)
| Drug Combinations | FIC Index (X) |
|---|---|
| Galic acid + Ampicillin | 0.625 (A) |
| Galic acid + Amoxicillin | 1.004 (I) |
| Galic acid + Ceftiofur | 0.563 (A) |
| Galic acid + Penicillin G | 1.016 (I) |
| Galic acid + Cefotaxime | 1.004 (I) |
| Galic acid + Erythromycin | 1.001 (I) |
| Galic acid + Thiamphenicol | 0.625 (A) |
| Galic acid + Marbofloxacin | 1.002 (I) |
| Hamamelitannin + Ampicillin | 1.002 (I) |
| Hamamelitannin + Amoxicillin | 1.001 (I) |
| Hamamelitannin + Ceftiofur | 0.625 (A) |
| Hamamelitannin + Penicillin G | 1.004 (I) |
| Hamamelitannin + Cefotaxime | 0.563 (A) |
| Hamamelitannin + Erythromycin | 1.001 (I) |
| Hamamelitannin + Thiamphenicol | 1.002 (I) |
| Hamamelitannin + Marbofloxacin | 0.563 (A) |
| Epicatechin + Ampicillin | 0.750 (A) |
| Epicatechin + Amoxicillin | 1.001 (I) |
| Epicatechin + Ceftiofur | 0.625 (A) |
| Epicatechin + Penicillin G | 1.004 (I) |
| Epicatechin + Cefotaxime | 0.750 (A) |
| Epicatechin + Erythromycin | 1.016 (I) |
| Epicatechin + Thiamphenicol | 1.016 (I) |
| Epicatechin + Marbofloxacin | 1.004 (I) |
| Epicatechin gallate + Ampicillin | 0.563 (A) |
| Epicatechin gallate + Amoxicillin | 1.002 (I) |
| Epicatechin gallate + Ceftiofur | 1.001 (I) |
| Epicatechin gallate + Penicillin G | 0.502 (A) |
| Epicatechin gallate + Cefotaxime | 1.004 (I) |
| Epicatechin gallate + Erythromycin | 0.500 (S) |
| Epicatechin gallate + Thiamphenicol | 0.504 (A) |
| Epicatechin gallate + Marbofloxacin | 1.008 (I) |
| Epigallocatechin + Ampicillin | 1.001 (I) |
| Epigallocatechin + Amoxicillin | 1.004 (I) |
| Epigallocatechin + Ceftiofur | 0.625 (A) |
| Epigallocatechin + Penicillin G | 1.008 (I) |
| Epigallocatechin + Cefotaxime | 0.502 (A) |
| Epigallocatechin + Erythromycin | 0.516 (A) |
| Epigallocatechin + Thiamphenicol | 1.004 (I) |
| Epigallocatechin + Marbofloxacin | 0.502 (A) |
FIC, fractional inhibitory concentration; Synergy, X ≤ 0.5; Additive, 0.5 < X ≤ 1; Indifferent, 1 < X ≤ 2; Antagonist, X > 2; (A), (I) and (S) stand for Additive, Indifferent and Synergy, respectively
Fig. 1Time-kill curves of Salmonella enterica serovar Typhimurium (ATCC14028) in presence of gallic acid-ceftiofur combination. MIC, minimum inhibitory concentration. Different superscript letters (a, b, c, and d) indicate statistical significance (p < 0.05) among different sample groups. Results are interpreted from 3 independent experiments
Fig. 2Effect of gallic acid-ceftiofur combination on the ultrastructure morphology of Salmonella enterica serovar Typhimurium (ATCC14028) cells. Representative images of bacterial cells captured by scanning electron microscope after treated with antibacterial combination. Salmonella enterica serovar Typhimurium cells treated with (A) no drug, (B) ceftiofur (1 × MIC), (C) gallic acid (1 × MIC), (D) ceftiofur (1 × MIC) + gallic acid (1 × MIC), (E) ceftiofur (½ × MIC) + gallic acid (½ × MIC), and (F) ceftiofur (¼ × MIC) + gallic acid (¼ × MIC). MIC, minimum inhibitory concentration. Arrows indicate binary fission
Fig. 3Effect of gallic acid-ceftiofur combination on (A) planktonic and (B) biofilm cells of Salmonella enterica serovar Typhimurium (ATCC14028). MIC: minimum inhibitory concentration. Different superscript letters indicate statistical significance (p < 0.05). Results are interpreted from 3 independent experiments
Fig. 4Effect of gallic acid-ceftiofur combination on the viability of cultured biofilm. The confocal laser scanning microscope images of BacLight LIVE/DEAD stained biofilms of Salmonella enterica serovar Typhimurium (ATCC14028) treated with (A) no drug, (B) gallic acid (½ × MIC), (C) ceftiofur (½ × MIC), and (D) gallic acid (½ × MIC) + ceftiofur (½ × MIC). The viability of the biofilm cells was assessed using BacLight LIVE/DEAD stain (green: live cells, red: dead cells). Four different segments are present in each of the images (A, B, C and D) where, the top left segment shows only SYTO9-stained cells, the top right segment displays only propidium iodide-stained cells, and below left and below right segments show merged images of both SYTO9-stained cells and propidium iodide-stained cells from an individual sample. In each image, the segment at below right side shows three dimensional and other three segments show two dimensional images
Fig. 5Percentage of biofilm biomass of Salmonella enterica serovar Typhimurium (ATCC14028) in presence of gallic acid-ceftiofur combination. Biomasses of total biofilm in each test group were considered 100%, and calculated the biomass percentages of dead biofilm (propidium iodide-stained) and live biofilm (SYTO9-stained). Results are interpreted from 3 independent experiments and shown as (mean ± SD). Different superscript letters indicate significant differences (p < 0.05) among test groups within individual type of biofilm biomass. MIC, minimum inhibitory concentration
Fig. 6Representative images of swarm (panel A) and swim (panel B) zones of Salmonella enterica serovar Typhimurium (ATCC14028) treated with ceftiofur and gallic acid, and ceftiofur-gallic acid combination. CEF, ceftiofur; GA, gallic acid; MIC, minimum inhibitory concentration
Effect of ceftiofur-gallic acid combination on the swimming and swarming motilities of Salmonella enterica serovar Typhimurium (ATCC14028)
| Treatment Groups | Swarming (mm) (mean ± SD) | Swimming (mm) (mean ± SD) |
|---|---|---|
| Control | 9.67 ± 2.08a | 26.67 ± 2.52a |
| Ceftiofur (1 × MIC) | 2.00 ± 1.00d | 5.33 ± 2.31c |
| Gallic acid (1 × MIC) | 6.33 ± 1.15b | 7.00 ± 1.00b |
| Ceftiofur (1 × MIC) + Gallic acid (1 × MIC) | 1.33 ± 0.58e | 0.00 ± 0.00 |
| Ceftiofur (½ × MIC) + Gallic acid (½ × MIC) | 3.33 ± 1.15c | 2.33 ± 1.53d |
MIC: minimum inhibitory concentration. Different superscript letters (a, b, c, d and e) indicate statistical significance (p < 0.05) among different sample groups. Results are interpreted from 3 independent experiments
Fig. 7Individual and collective effects of gallic acid and ceftiofur on the viability of Rattus norvegicus small intestine (IEC-6) cells. Data represent the mean ± SD of triple assays. Different letters on bars indicate significant differences (p < 0.05) compared to drug-free control. Different symbols inside bars indicate significant differences (p < 0.05) within same concentration groups