| Literature DB >> 32850505 |
Sahana Vasudevan1, Gopalakrishnan Thamil Selvan1, Sunil Bhaskaran2, Natarajan Hari3, Adline Princy Solomon1.
Abstract
Uropathogenic Escherichia coli (UPEC) accounts for the majority of complicated and uncomplicated urinary tract infections. The use of phytomolecules in the treatment of UTI is fast gaining attention. The current report identifies a multidrug-resistant strain (QSLUPEC7), which is a strong biofilm producer, among the considered clinical isolates. The antimicrobial and antibiofilm activity was evaluated for the phytomolecule, Type A procyanidin (TAP) from Cinnamomum zeylanicum against QSLUPEC7. TAP treatment did not affect the growth of the MDR strain but affected the biofilm formation (~70% inhibition). The confocal microscopic examination reveals the biofilm inhibition and the live cells in the biofilm corroborates the antimicrobial results. Further, the synergy studies of TAP and nitrofurantoin (NIT) were carried out at different pH. TAP acts synergistically with nitrofurantoin at different pH considered. A closer look in the results reveals that at pH 5.8, maximum growth inhibition is recorded. The gene expression analysis shows that TAP alone and in combination with NIT downregulates the major fimbriae adhesins of UPEC. The results conclude that the TAP has an antibiofilm activity against the multidrug-resistant strain of UPEC, without affecting the growth. Also, TAP reciprocally cooperates with nitrofurantoin at different pH by downregulating the adhesins of UPEC.Entities:
Keywords: UPEC; adhesins; anti-biofilm; nitrofurantoin; type A procyanidin
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32850505 PMCID: PMC7431559 DOI: 10.3389/fcimb.2020.00421
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Cell Infect Microbiol ISSN: 2235-2988 Impact factor: 5.293
Figure 1Biofilm Inhibition of TAP. (A) The monotonic dose-response curve of biofilm inhibitory action of TAP. The maximum biofilm inhibition was observed at 128 μg/mL. (B) The confocal micrographs of the biofilm inhibition at 128 μg/mL. Z-axis length is 10 μm.
Figure 2pH and time-dependent synergy activity of TAP and NIT. (A–E) shows the individual and synergy antibacterial action at the recorded concentrations of synergy activity. (A,B) the concentrations of TAP and NIT are 32 and 8 μg/mL, respectively. (C–E) the concentrations of TAP and NIT are 64 and 16 μg/mL, respectively. Student unpaired t-test was used for the significance analysis. p < 0.05 was considered significant. ***p = 0.002 and ****p ≤ 0.0001. (F) Shows the violin plot to depict the distribution of the synergy activity at different time points. At pH 5.8, the activity is maintained across all time points.
BLISS and FIC calculations at different pH.
| 1 | 5.2 | 8 | 32 | 8 | 62.7 | Weak synergy | 0.03125 | Synergy |
| 24 | 41.25 | Weak synergy | ||||||
| 2 | 5.8 | 8 | 32 | 8 | 377.4 | Strong synergy | 0.03125 | Synergy |
| 24 | 418.1 | Strong synergy | ||||||
| 3 | 6.4 | 32 | 64 | 8 | 120.5 | Moderate synergy | 0.25 | Synergy |
| 24 | 154 | Moderate synergy | ||||||
| 4 | 7.0 | 16 | 64 | 8 | 245 | Strong synergy | 0.125 | Synergy |
| 24 | 186.6 | Moderate synergy | ||||||
| 5 | 7.6 | 16 | 64 | 8 | 153 | Moderate synergy | 0.125 | Synergy |
| 24 | 208 | Strong synergy |
Figure 3Gene expression Studies. (A) Heatmap of the adhesion genes downregulated by the combination. (B) Tableau Graph that represents the fimbriae systems considered. The graph shows that the synergy treatment significantly downregulated the adhesin genes as compared to the NIT treatment. The log10fold difference of the different genes upon different treatments is depicted. All the assays were done in triplicates on different occasions. The combination treatment and TAP downregulated adhesins considered. Student unpaired t-test was used for the significance analysis. p < 0.05 was considered significant. **p ≤ 0.001 and ***p ≤ 0.0001.