| Literature DB >> 33728273 |
Liliana Fernandes1, Henrique Ribeiro1, Ana Oliveira1, Ana Sanches Silva2,3, Andreia Freitas2,4, Mariana Henriques1, Maria Elisa Rodrigues1.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIM: Honey has been recognized worldwide for its antioxidant, anti-tumor, anti-inflammatory and antimicrobial properties. Among them, the antifungal properties associated to honey make it an attractive alternative treatment for Candida-associated infections, particularly for topical application to the mucous membranes and skin. In this sense, the main purpose of this work was to evaluate physicochemical properties of five Portuguese honeys and Manuka honey (an Australian honey with well recognized medical proprieties, used as control) and to evaluate the antifungal activity in Candida species planktonic and biofilm assays. EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURE: Pollen analysis, pH determination, color, concentration of protein and methylglyoxal, conductivity, total phenolics and flavonoids, hydrogen peroxide concentration, and characterization by differential scanning calorimetry in honey samples were determined. Additionally, the effect of honeys on planktonic growth of Candida was initially evaluated by determination of the minimum inhibitory concentrations. Then, the same effect of those honeys was evaluated in biofilms, by Colony Forming Units enumeration. RESULTS ANDEntities:
Keywords: Candida biofilm; Candida species; Honey characterization; Honey therapy; Natural antimicrobial approach
Year: 2020 PMID: 33728273 PMCID: PMC7936102 DOI: 10.1016/j.jtcme.2020.02.007
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Tradit Complement Med ISSN: 2225-4110
Elution gradient of the UHPLC-ToF-MS methods used to determine MGO in honey samples.
| Time (min) | Mobile phase A (%) | Mobile phase B (%) |
|---|---|---|
| 97 | 3 | |
| 97 | 3 | |
| 0 | 100 | |
| 97 | 3 | |
| 97 | 3 |
Pollen and physical-chemical characterization of the different honeys.
| Honey | Pollen Analysis | Color | pH | [Protein] | MGO | Conductivity | Total phenolic | Total flavonoid | H2O2 (μM) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 50% (W/W) of honey | 75% (W/W) of honey | |||||||||
| Chestnut | 50 | Light Amber | 4.53 | 89.2 ± 2.9 | 13.9 ± 1.2 | 983 | 103.9 ± 2 | 34.4 ± 2 | 35.7 ± 0.5 | 40.0 ± 1.4 |
| Eucalyptus | 61 | Light amber | 3.82 | 78.2 ± 10.6 | 8.7 ± 0.1 | 378 | 111.6 ± 2 | 49.9 ± 3 | 20.7 ± 1.2 | 26.7 ± 0.5 |
| Orange blossom | 8 | White | 3.62 | 27.5 ± 3.2 | 6.4 ± 0.5 | 186 | 34.8 ± 1 | 12.3 ± 1 | 7.1 ± 0.5 | 13.9 ± 1.7 |
| Rosemary | 63 | Clear Amber | 3.50 | 60.2 ± 11.3 | 6.1 ± 0.4 | 152 | 55.4 ± 0.3 | 25.2 ± 4 | 15.4 ± 0.6 | 23.7 ± 0.3 |
| Heather | 30 | Dark Amber | 4.32 | 374.8 ± 5.1 | 11.4 ± 1.4 | 622 | 179.6 ± 14 | 61.5 ± 1 | 22.5 ± 0.4 | 30.6 ± 0.8 |
| Manuka | >70 | Clear Amber | 3.50 | 234.6 ± 21.7 | 962.8 ± 14.5 | 580 | 163.1 ± 4 | 65.4 ± 0.2 | 27.0 ± 0.5 | 40.6 ± 1.4 |
Characteristics evaluated at 100% of honey concentration.
Fig. 1Differential Scanning Calorimetry (DSC) analysis of the different Portuguese and Manuka honeys.
The minimum inhibitory concentrations (MICs) and minimum fungicidal/bactericidal concentrations (MFC/MBC) of different Portuguese honeys and manuka honey against Candida species (% w/v).
| Chestnut | Eucalyptus | Orange flower | Rosemary | Heather | Manuka | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fungal species | MIC | MFC | MIC | MFC | MIC | MFC | MIC | MFC | MIC | MFC | MIC | MFC | ||
| SC 5314 | 50 | >50 | 50 | >50 | 50 | >50 | 50 | >50 | 50 | >50 | 50 | 50 | ||
| 201 | 50 | >50 | 50 | >50 | 50 | >50 | 50 | >50 | 50 | >50 | 50 | 50 | ||
| 575,541 | 50 | >50 | 50 | >50 | 50 | >50 | >50 | 50 | >50 | >50 | >50 | |||
| 945,541 | 50 | >50 | 50 | >50 | 50 | >50 | >50 | >50 | >50 | 50 | >50 | |||
| ATCC 750 | 50 | >50 | >50 | >50 | 50 | 50 | ||||||||
| 571,475 | >50 | 50 | >50 | 50 | 50 | 50 | 50 | |||||||
| 579,025 | 50 | 50 | 50 | 50 | 50 | 50 | 50 | 50 | ||||||
| ATCC 750 | 50 | >50 | >50 | >50 | 50 | >50 | 50 | |||||||
| ATCC 2001 | 50 | >50 | >50 | >50 | >50 | >50 | 50 | >50 | 50 | >50 | 50 | >50 | ||
| 354,784 | 50 | >50 | >50 | >50 | 50 | >50 | 50 | >50 | >50 | >50 | >50 | >50 | ||
| 513,100 | 50 | >50 | >50 | >50 | 50 | >50 | 50 | >50 | 50 | >50 | 50 | >50 | ||
| 553,877 | 50 | >50 | 50 | >50 | 50 | >50 | 50 | >50 | >50 | >50 | >50 | >50 | ||
| ATCC 20019 | >50 | >50 | 50 | >50 | 50 | >50 | 50 | >50 | >50 | >50 | 50 | 50 | ||
| 491,861 | >50 | >50 | >50 | >50 | 50 | >50 | >50 | >50 | 50 | >50 | ||||
| 555,343 | >50 | >50 | >50 | >50 | 50 | >50 | >50 | >50 | >50 | >50 | 50 | >50 | ||
| 592,401 | >50 | >50 | >50 | >50 | 50 | >50 | >50 | >50 | 50 | >50 | ||||
| ATCC25923 | >50 | |||||||||||||
| DSM 22644 | ||||||||||||||
MIC and MFC/MBC values below 50% w/v are highlighted in bold.
Fig. 2Biofilms of 24 h and 48 h of (A) C. albicans, (B) C. tropicalis, (C) C. glabrata and (D) C. parapsilosis treated with 50% (w/v) and 75% (w/v) of manuka and heather honeys. ∗p < 0.1, ∗∗p < 0.01, ∗∗∗p < 0.001, ∗∗∗∗p < 0.0001 indicates a statistically different reduction in comparison with the respective control.