| Literature DB >> 35956890 |
Chunyang Shi1,2, Yangmin Ma3, Lei Tian4, Jingyi Li1, Guaiping Qiao1, Chang Liu5, Wenqiang Cao5, Chengyuan Liang1.
Abstract
Inappropriate and disproportionate antibiotic use contributes immensely to the development of antibiotic resistance in bacterial species associated with food contamination. Therefore, alternative strategies to treat multidrug-resistant (MDR) bacterial infections are urgently needed. In this study, verbascoside was shown to exhibit excellent antibacterial activity and synergistic effects in combination with cell wall synthesis-inhibiting antibiotics, indicating that it can be used as an adjuvant to restore or increase the activity of antibiotics against resistant pathogens. In a mechanistic study, higher concentrations of verbascoside resulted in a longer lag phase and a lower specific exponential-phase growth rate of bacteria. Furthermore, verbascoside exerted its antimicrobial activity through multiple mechanisms, including cell membrane dysfunction, biofilm eradication and changes in cell morphology. The promising antibacterial activity and in vitro safety assessment results suggested that verbascoside can be used as a food additive for fresh meat preservation. Treatment with medium and high doses of verbascoside caused significant bacterial death in meat samples, slowed the spoilage rate, and extended the shelf life. Collectively, verbascoside is expected to be useful as an antibiotic adjuvant to prevent or treat resistant bacteria-related infections and an alternative novel antimicrobial additive in the food industry.Entities:
Keywords: adjuvant; antibiotics; fresh meat; multidrug-resistant bacteria; multiple antibacterial mechanisms; safety evaluation; shelf life
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35956890 PMCID: PMC9370273 DOI: 10.3390/molecules27154943
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Molecules ISSN: 1420-3049 Impact factor: 4.927
Figure 1Chemical structure and natural sources of verbascoside.
Antimicrobial activity expressed as the minimal inhibitory concentration.
| Bacterial Strain | MIC (µg/mL) | MIC (µg/mL) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Verbascoside | Moxifloxacin | Levofloxacin | Ceftazidime | ||
|
| ATCC 25923 | 2500 | 32 | 256 | >512 |
| MDR | SA-575 | 2500 | 32 | 32 | >512 |
| SA-596 | 625 | 32 | 256 | >512 | |
|
| ATCC 15442 | 1250 | 32 | 256 | >512 |
| MDR | PA-69 | 625 | 32 | 256 | >512 |
| PA-261 | 2500 | 32 | 128 | >512 | |
MIC: minimal inhibitory concentration; MDR: multidrug-resistant; S. aureus: Staphylococcus aureus; P. aeruginosa: Pseudomonas aeruginosa.
Results of the application of verbascoside combined with antibiotics against Staphylococcus aureus and Pseudomonas aeruginosa.
| Bacterial Strain | Agent | MIC (µg/mL) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Alone | In Combination | FICI | Outcome | |||
|
| ATCC 25923 | Verbascoside | 2500 | 625 | 0.375 | Synergistic |
| Vancomycin | 1024 | 128 | ||||
| MDR | SA-575 | Verbascoside | 2500 | 2500 | 2.000 | Neutral |
| Vancomycin | 512 | 512 | ||||
| SA-596 | Verbascoside | 625 | 20 | 0.095 | Synergistic | |
| Vancomycin | 1024 | 64 | ||||
|
| ATCC 15442 | Verbascoside | 1250 | 20 | 0.516 | Partially synergistic |
| Ceftazidime | 1024 | 512 | ||||
| MDR | PA-69 | Verbascoside | 625 | 156 | 0.281 | Synergistic |
| Ceftazidime | 1024 | 32 | ||||
| PA-261 | Verbascoside | 2500 | 2500 | 1.125 | Neutral | |
| Ceftazidime | 1024 | 128 | ||||
MIC: minimal inhibitory concentration; MDR: multidrug-resistant; S. aureus: Staphylococcus aureus; P. aeruginosa: Pseudomonas aeruginosa.
Figure 2(A) MDR Staphylococcus aureus SA-596. (B) MDR Pseudomonas aeruginosa PA-69. The values are expressed as the mean ± standard deviation (n = 3).
Figure 3Effects of various concentrations of verbascoside on membrane permeability. (A) Intracellular ATP. (B) Intracellular pH. (C) Membrane potential. (D) Electrical conductivity. (1) MDR Staphylococcus aureus SA-596; (2) MDR Pseudomonas aeruginosa PA-69. The values are expressed as the mean ± standard deviation (n = 3). a–c Values with different lowercase letters are significantly different at p < 0.05.
Figure 4Effects of verbascoside on bacterial strains. (A) and (B) Cell membrane integrity of MDR S. aureus SA-596 and MDR P. aeruginosa PA-69. (C) and (D) Cell morphology of MDR S. aureus SA-596 and MDR P. aeruginosa PA-69. (1) Untreated bacterial strains. (2) Bacterial strains treated with verbascoside at the MIC. (3) Bacterial strains treated with verbascoside at 2 × MIC.
Figure 5Effects of various concentrations of verbascoside on bacterial biofilms. (A) MDR Staphylococcus aureus SA-596. (B) MDR Pseudomonas aeruginosa PA-69. The values are expressed as the mean ± standard deviation (n = 3). a–c Values with different lowercase letters are significantly different at p < 0.05.
Figure 6In vitro cytotoxicity of verbascoside. (A) Inverted microscopy images of various cells incubated with verbascoside at different concentrations; (B) cell viability of various cells treated with verbascoside.
Figure 7Changes in the number of colony-forming units in different meat samples during refrigeration with verbascoside treatment at various concentrations. (A) Chicken. (B) Beef. (C) Tuna. (D) Pork.