| Literature DB >> 34199656 |
Héloïse Côté1,2, André Pichette1,2, Alexis St-Gelais3, Jean Legault1,2.
Abstract
The use of growth-promoting antibiotics in livestock faces increasing scrutiny and opposition due to concerns about the increased occurrence of antibiotic-resistant bacteria. Alternative solutions are being sought, and plants of Lamiaceae may provide an alternative to synthetic antibiotics in animal nutrition. In this study, we extracted essential oil from Monarda didyma, a member of the Lamiaceae family. We examined the chemical composition of the essential oil and then evaluated the antibacterial, antioxidant, and anti-inflammatory activities of M. didyma essential oil and its main compounds in vitro. We then evaluated the effectiveness of M. didyma essential oil in regard to growth performance, feed efficiency, and mortality in both mice and broilers. Carvacrol (49.03%) was the dominant compound in the essential oil extracts. M. didyma essential oil demonstrated antibacterial properties against Escherichia coli (MIC = 87 µg·mL-1), Staphylococcus aureus (MIC = 47 µg·mL-1), and Clostridium perfringens (MIC = 35 µg·mL-1). Supplementing the diet of mice with essential oil at a concentration of 0.1% significantly increased body weight (+5.4%) and feed efficiency (+18.85%). In broilers, M. didyma essential oil significantly improved body weight gain (2.64%). Our results suggest that adding M. didyma essential oil to the diet of broilers offers a potential substitute for antibiotic growth promoters.Entities:
Keywords: Monarda didyma; antibacterial activity; broiler; essential oil; mouse
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34199656 PMCID: PMC8199733 DOI: 10.3390/molecules26113368
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Molecules ISSN: 1420-3049 Impact factor: 4.411
Composition of M. didyma L. essential oil.
| Identified Compounds | Relative Concentration (%) | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| RI | Name | Identification 1 | |
| 930 | α-thujene | MS, RI | 1.39 |
| 938 | α-pinene | MS, RI | 0.43 |
| 976 | 1-octen-3-ol | MS, RI | 3.07 |
| 992 | myrcene | MS, RI | 2.33 |
| 1010 | α-phellandrene | MS, RI | 0.36 |
| 1016 | δ-3-carene | MS, RI | 0.16 |
| 1022 | α-terpinene | MS, RI | 2.79 |
| 1030 | MS, RI | 7.60 | |
| 1034 | limonene | MS, RI | 1.03 |
| 1064 | γ-terpinene | MS, RI | 16.90 |
| 1072 | cis-sabinene-hydrate | MS, RI | 0.25 |
| 1094 | linalool | MS, RI | 0.15 |
| 1174 | terpinen-4-ol | MS, RI | 0.11 |
| 1185 | α-terpineol | MS, RI | 0.79 |
| 1232 | thymol methyl ether | MS, RI | 0.86 |
| 1248 | carvacrol methyl ether | MS, RI | 4.18 |
| 1294 | thymol | MS, RI | 6.17 |
| 1306 | carvacrol | MS, RI | 49.03 |
| 1435 | β-caryophyllene | MS, RI | 0.89 |
| 1488 | germacrene D | MS, RI | 0.12 |
| 1511 | γ-cadinene | MS, RI | 0.23 |
| Total | 98.84 | ||
1 MS: Identification by GC-MS; RI: Compounds were identified by comparison of GC retention indices relative to retention times of a series of n-alkanes (C7–C36) and compared with literature data. Compounds ≤ 0.1% are not reported.
Antibacterial activity of M. didyma and T. vulgaris (as positive control) essential oils and the main compounds against selected bacterial strains.
| Compounds | Antibacterial Activity MIC (µg·mL−1) | ||
|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
| |
| 109 ± 10 | 111 ± 7 | ND | |
| 87 ± 8 | 47 ± 8 | 35 ± 4 | |
| Thymol | 110 ± 7 | 130 ± 10 | 55 ± 3 |
| Carvacrol | 65 ± 5 | 36 ± 1 | 18 ± 1 |
| α-terpinene | ˃200 | ˃200 | ND |
| γ-terpinene | ˃200 | ˃200 | ND |
| ˃200 | ˃200 | ND | |
| Limonene | ˃200 | ˃200 | 29 ± 1 |
| Myrcene | ˃200 | ˃200 | ND |
ND: Not determined; data are representative of three different experiments; mean ± standard deviation, n = 3; MIC is defined as the lowest concentration inhibiting 95% of bacterial growth.
Antioxidant and anti-inflammatory activity of M. didyma and T. vulgaris (as positive control) essential oils and the main compounds.
| Compounds | Antioxidant | Anti-Inflammatory | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Cell-Based Assay | ORAC | IC50 (µg·mL−1) | |
| IC50 (µg·mL−1) | µmol Trolox·mg−1 | ||
| 11 ± 9 | 0.4 ± 0.2 | 64 ± 6 | |
| 4.6 ± 0.3 | 0.52 ± 0.01 | 35 ± 4 | |
| Thymol | ˃200 | 1.34 ± 0.03 | ˃200 |
| Carvacrol | 54 ± 9 | 2.3 ± 0.3 | 22.6 ± 0.2 |
| α-terpinene | 3.4 ± 0.2 | 0.17 ± 0.05 | ˃200 |
| γ-terpinene | ND | ND | ˃200 |
| ˃200 | 0.02 ± 0.01 | 25.5 ± 0.9 | |
| Limonene | 6.2 ± 0.5 | 0.08 ± 0.02 | 22 ± 7 |
| Myrcene | 92 ± 4 | 0.04 ± 0.01 | ˃200 |
| Trolox | ND | 9 ± 1 | ND |
ND: Not determined; data are representative of three different experiments; mean ± standard deviation, n = 3.
Comparison of mean body weight gain (g), feed intake (g), and feed efficiency of the mouse treatments.
| Treatments | Body Weight Gain (g) (BW) | Feed Intake (g) (FI) | Feed Efficiency (FI/BW) |
|---|---|---|---|
| 0–80 Days | 0–80 Days | 0–80 Days | |
| Control | 5.58 ± 1.01 a | 164.83 ± 1.55 a | 29.55 a |
| 5.56 ± 1.41 b | 154.96 ± 0.87 b | 27.87 b | |
| 6.16 ± 1.44 b | 163.39 ± 14.21 c | 26.54 c | |
| 5.78 ± 1.40 c | 145.24 ± 7.81 c | 25.13 c | |
| 5.90 ± 1.17 c | 141.58 ± 2.78 c | 23.98 c |
Values with different letters in the same column (a–c) differ significantly (two-way analysis of variance, p < 0.05).
Comparison of mean body weight gain (g), feed intake (g), and feed efficiency of the broiler treatments.
| Treatments | Body Weight Gain (g) (BW) | Feed Intake (g) (FI) | Feed Efficiency (FI/BW) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0–10 Days | 0–36 Days | 0–10 Days | 0–36 Days | 0–10 Days | 0–36 Days | |
| Antibiotics suppl. | 269 ± 7 a | 2578 ± 117 a | 384.71 ¥ | 4514.25 ¥ | 1.43 ¥ | 1.75 ¥ |
| 279 ± 8 b | 2652 ± 121 b | 360.36 ¥ | 4455.81 ¥ | 1.29 ¥ | 1.68 ¥ | |
¥ Values are available only at the end of the experiment; values in the same column with different letters (a–b) differ significantly (two-way analysis of variance, p < 0.05).