| Literature DB >> 34945555 |
Alaa Eldin M A Morshdy1, Mohammed S Al-Mogbel2, Mohamed E M Mohamed3, Mohamed Tharwat Elabbasy1,4, Azza K Elshafee1, Mohamed A Hussein1.
Abstract
Listeria monocytogenes is one of the most severe foodborne pathogens found in several habitats. Therefore, this study aims to investigate the antilisterial activity of different essential oils (EOs) against multidrug-resistant (MDR) L. monocytogenes strains isolated from fresh chicken meat. Our results showed that the prevalence of L. monocytogenes in the examined samples was 48%. Seventy-eight isolates were identified as L. monocytogenes. Out of these, 64.1% were categorized as MDR and were categorized in 18 patterns with 50 MDR isolates. One isolate was selected randomly from each pattern to investigate their biofilm-forming ability, resistance, and virulence genes incidence. Out of 18 MDR isolates, 88.9% showed biofilm-forming ability. Moreover, the most prevalent resistance genes were ermB (72%), aadA (67%), penA (61%), and floR genes (61%). However, the most prevalent virulence genes were inlA (94.4%), prfA (88.9%), plcB (83.3%), and actaA (83.3%). The antilisterial activity of EOs showed that cinnamon bark oil (CBO) was the most effective antilisterial agent. CBO activity could be attributed to the bioactivity of cinnamaldehyde which effects cell viability by increasing the bacterial cell electrical conductivity, ion leakage, and salt tolerance capacity loss. Therefore, CBO could be an effective alternative natural agent for food safety applications.Entities:
Keywords: Listeria monocytogenes; antimicrobial agents; essential oils; foodborne disease; multidrug-resistance
Year: 2021 PMID: 34945555 PMCID: PMC8701900 DOI: 10.3390/foods10123006
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Foods ISSN: 2304-8158
Figure 1Schematic diagram of the experimental setup design for screening and characterizing L. monocytogenes isolated from fresh retail chicken meat samples.
The resistance of L. monocytogenes strains against different antimicrobial agents (n = 78).
| Antibiotics | Concentration (μg/Disc) | Resistant | Intermediate | Susceptible | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| No. | (%) | No. | (%) | No. | (%) | ||
| Ampicillin (AMP) | 10 | 22 | 28.2 | 4 | 5.13 | 52 | 66.67 |
| Chloramphenicol (CHL) | 30 | 29 | 37.2 | 2 | 2.56 | 47 | 60.26 |
| Ciprofloxacin (CIP) | 5 | 29 | 37.2 | 5 | 6.41 | 44 | 56.41 |
| Clindamycin (CLI) | 2 | 36 | 46.2 | 1 | 1.28 | 41 | 52.56 |
| Erythromycin (ERY) | 15 | 48 | 61.5 | 5 | 6.41 | 25 | 32.05 |
| Gentamicin (GEN) | 120 | 57 | 73.1 | 7 | 8.97 | 14 | 17.95 |
| Imipenem (IPM) | 10 | 29 | 37.2 | 2 | 2.56 | 47 | 60.26 |
| Linezolid (LNZ) | 30 | 29 | 37.2 | 5 | 6.41 | 44 | 56.41 |
| Nalidixic acid (NAL) | 30 | 29 | 37.2 | 5 | 6.41 | 44 | 56.41 |
| Oxacillin (OXA) | 1 | 29 | 37.2 | 4 | 5.13 | 45 | 57.69 |
| Rifampicin (RIF) | 5 | 22 | 28.2 | 6 | 7.69 | 50 | 64.10 |
| Tetracycline (TET) | 30 | 48 | 61.5 | 6 | 7.69 | 24 | 30.77 |
| Trimethoprim (TMP) | 5 | 36 | 46.2 | 5 | 6.41 | 37 | 47.44 |
| Vancomycin (VAN) | 30 | 22 | 28.2 | 4 | 5.13 | 52 | 66.67 |
The antimicrobial resistance patterns of MDR L. monocytogens strains (n = 50).
| Pattern Code. | Antimicrobial Resistance Pattern | MAR Index | Strains No. |
|---|---|---|---|
| P1 | W, X, Y, AMP, OXA, TET, TMP | 0.93 | 5 |
| P1a | X, Y, Z, AMP, LNZ, NAL, OXA | 0.93 | 3 |
| P1b | W, X, Y, Z, AMP | 0.93 | 3 |
| P1c | W, X, Y, Z, OXA | 0.93 | 3 |
| P2 | X, Y, LNZ, NAL, TET | 0.64 | 2 |
| P3 | AMP, CHL, CLI, IPM, NAL, RIF, TET, VAN | 0.57 | 2 |
| P3a | Y, Z, AMP, CLI | 0.57 | 1 |
| P3b | X, GEN, OXA, RIF, TET, TMP | 0.57 | 2 |
| P3c | W, Y, CHL, CIP | 0.57 | 3 |
| P4 | AMP, CIP, IPM, OXA, RIF, TMP, VAN | 0.50 | 2 |
| P4a | Z, AMP, CLI, Y, NAL | 0.50 | 2 |
| P4b | AMP, CLI, IPM, NAL, RIF, TET, VAN | 0.50 | 2 |
| P4c | CIP, CLI, ERY, GEN, LNZ, TET, VAN | 0.50 | 2 |
| P5 | CHL, ERY, GEN, NAL, OXA, TET | 0.43 | 4 |
| P5a | ERY, GEN, LNZ, OXA, TET, TMP | 0.43 | 4 |
| P6 | ERY, GEN, LNZ, TET, TMP | 0.36 | 3 |
| P7 | GEN, OXA, TET, TMP | 0.29 | 5 |
| P8 | CHL, ERY, GEN | 0.2 | 2 |
W: NAL, LNZ, RIF; X: CHL, CIP, CLI; Y: ERY, GEN, IPM; Z: TET, TMP, VAN.
Figure 2Clustering analysis of resistance and virulence genes-producing MDR L. monocytogenes strains: plcA, plcB, prfA, and actA, LIPI-1 pathogenicity island; inlA, inlB, inlC, and inlJ, internalin proteins; lap, adhesion protein; hlyA, listeriolysin O gene, flaA, flagellin protein; aadA, aminoglycoside adenyltransferase; ampC, β-lactamase–ampicillin resistance gene; ereA, ereB, and ermB, erythromycin resistance genes; penA, penicillin-binding protein gene; floR, florfenicol export protein; cmlA, chloramphenicol transporter nonenzymatic chloramphenicol-resistance protein; tetA and tetB, tetracycline resistance genes; vanA and vanB, vanillate o-demethylase oxygenase subunit; BFA, biofilm-forming ability.
Figure 3Neighbor-joining tree based on 16S rRNA gene sequences showing the placement of the phylogenetic position of the selected L. monocytogenes strains within closely related taxa. Bootstrap value (≥50%) derived from 1000 replicates.
Essential oils used and their major constituents.
| No. | Essential Oil | Code | Main Constituent * | RT | Content (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Cinnamon bark oil | CBO | Cinnamaldehyde | 29.79 | 63.4 |
| Cinnamyl acetate | 21.73 | 15.2 | |||
| 2 | Thyme (wild) oil | TWO | Carvacrol | 18.09 | 67.2 |
| 3 | Thyme (red) oil | TRO | Thymol | 21.02 | 17.4 |
| γ-terpinene | 10.11 | 22.8 | |||
| 4 | Thyme (geraniol) oil | TGO | Geraniol | 12.45 | 28.6 |
| Geranyl acetate | 16.33 | 51.7 | |||
| 5 | Coriander oil | CRO | Linalool | 25.25 | 62.2 |
| 6 | Lavender (true) oil | LTO | Linalool | 14.24 | 31.4 |
| Linalyl acetate | 17.41 | 35.2 | |||
| 7 | Rosemary oil | RO | 1,8-cineole | 12.43 | 28.5 |
| α-pinene | 7.07 | 19.3 | |||
| Camphor | 18.01 | 16.2 |
* The main constituent content was detected from a peak area relative to the total peak area in GC–MS analysis. The main constituents content higher than 15% are listed.
Figure 4Antilisterial efficiency of different concentrations of essential oils against the selected L. monocytogenes strains: inhibitory effect at 0.5% (v/v) (A), 0.25% (v/v) (B), 0.15% (v/v) (C), and 0.1% (v/v) (D).
Figure 5The antilisterial mechanism assays of cinnamon essential oil: (A) time–kill assay, (B) permeability of cell membrane, (C) leakage of potassium ions, (D) cell membrane integrity, and (E) loss of salt tolerance capacity.
Figure 6Proposed antibacterial mechanism of cinnamon essential oil against L. monocytogenes.