| Literature DB >> 36009942 |
Andrea Bonetti1, Benedetta Tugnoli2, Andrea Piva1,2, Ester Grilli1,3.
Abstract
The continuous spread of antimicrobial resistance is endangering the efficient control of enterotoxigenic Escherichia coli (ETEC), which is mainly responsible for post-weaning diarrhea onset in piglets. Thymol, the key constituent of thyme essential oil, is already used in animal nutrition for its antimicrobial action. The aim of this study was to investigate the potential adjuvant effect of thymol to re-establish antibiotic efficacy against highly resistant ETEC field strains. Secondly, we evaluated the modulation of virulence and antibiotic resistance genes. Thymol showed the capacity to control ETEC growth and, when combined with ineffective antibiotics, it increased their antimicrobial power. In particular, it showed significant effects when blended with colistin and tetracycline, suggesting that the adjuvant effects rely on the presence of complementary mechanisms of action between molecules, or the absence of resistance mechanisms that inactivate antibiotics and target sites. Furthermore, our findings demonstrate that, when added to antibiotics, thymol can help to further downregulate several virulence and antibiotic resistance genes, offering new insights on the potential mechanisms of action. Therefore, in a one-health approach, our study supports the beneficial effects of combining thymol with antibiotics to restore their efficacy, together with the possibility of targeting gene expression as a pioneering approach to manage ETEC pathogenicity.Entities:
Keywords: antibiotic resistance; antibiotic resistance genes; enterotoxigenic Escherichia coli; piglets; post-weaning diarrhea; thymol; virulence genes
Year: 2022 PMID: 36009942 PMCID: PMC9404878 DOI: 10.3390/antibiotics11081073
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Antibiotics (Basel) ISSN: 2079-6382
Frequency of MIC values of 12 antibiotics (or combinations of antibiotics) against six field strains of ETEC. Vertical bars indicate MIC breakpoints as reported by EUCAST and CLSI [25,26,27]; values indicate the number of strains which reported a precise MIC value.
| Enterotoxigenic | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Antibiotics | MIC (mg/L) | ||||||||
| >64 | 64 | 32 | 16 | 8 | 4 | 2 | 1 | 0.5 | |
| Amoxicillin | 5 | 1 | |||||||
| Ceftiofur | 1 | 4 | 1 | ||||||
| Colistin | 2 | 2 | 2 | ||||||
| Nalidixic acid | 3 | 3 | |||||||
| Enrofloxacin | 3 | 3 | |||||||
| Florfenicol | 1 | 3 | 1 | 1 | |||||
| Neomycin | 3 | 1 | 2 | ||||||
| Trimethoprim | 2 | 2 | 2 | ||||||
| Tetracycline | 4 | 2 | |||||||
| >608 | 608 | 304 | 152 | 76 | 38 | 19 | 9.5 | 4.75 | |
| Sulfamethoxazole | 4 | 1 | 1 | ||||||
| >64/32 | 64/32 | 32/16 | 16/8 | 8/4 | 4/2 | 2/1 | 1/0.5 | 0.5/0.25 | |
| Amox./Clav. (2:1) 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 1 | |||||
| >32/608 | 32/608 | 16/304 | 8/152 | 4/76 | 2/38 | 1/19 | 0.5/9.5 | 0.25/4.75 | |
| Trim./Sulf. (1:19) 2 | 4 | 2 | |||||||
1 The combination of amoxicillin (Amox.) with clavulanic acid (Clav.) was tested at a 2:1 ratio as suggested by the CLSI guidelines. 2 The combination of trimethoprim (Trim.) with sulfamethoxazole (Sulf.) was tested at a 1:19 ratio as suggested by the CLSI guidelines.
Figure 1Growth of the six studied ETEC strains after 24 h of incubation with thymol. Growth is expressed as a percentage relative to the control (strain only); values are presented as means ± SEM of the mean growth of each strain for each concentration of thymol. Data were analyzed by one-way ANOVA with Tukey’s multiple comparison test; superscript letters (a, b, c) indicate significant differences among different doses (p < 0.05).
Percentage inhibition of the two ETEC strains resistant to colistin in the presence of combinations of colistin (COL, mg/L) and thymol (THY, mM).
| Inhibition | COL 16 | COL 8 | COL 4 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| % | 35 | 10 | 7 | |
| THY 0.94 | 15 | 100 *§ | 54 *§ | 35 |
| THY 0.47 | 8 | 100 *§ | 47 *§ | 38 |
* Significant difference between the combination and thymol alone. § Significant difference between the combination and colistin alone.
Percentage inhibition of the four ETEC strains resistant to tetracycline in the presence of combinations of tetracycline (TET, mg/L) and thymol (THY, mM).
| Inhibition | TET 64 | TET 32 | TET 16 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| % | 53 | 35 | 28 | |
| THY 0.94 | 47 | 95 *§ | 77 *§ | 61 * |
| THY 0.47 | 32 | 61 | 47 | 39 |
* Significant difference between the combination and thymol alone. § Significant difference between the combination and tetracycline alone.
Percentage inhibition of the five ETEC strains resistant to trimethoprim + sulfamethoxazole in the presence of combinations of the two antibiotics (T + S, mg/L) and thymol (THY, mM).
| Inhibition | T + S 32/608 | T + S 16/304 | T + S 8/152 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| % | 39 | 25 | 19 | |
| THY 0.94 | 25 | 45 § | 34 | 30 |
| THY 0.47 | 22 | 41 § | 30 | 25 |
§ Significant difference between the combination and trimethoprim + sulfamethoxazole alone.
Percentage inhibition of the three ETEC strains resistant to enrofloxacin in the presence of combinations of enrofloxacin (ENR, mg/L) and thymol (THY, mM).
| Inhibition | ENR 1 | ENR 0.5 | ENR 0.25 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| % | 53 | 24 | 17 | |
| THY 0.94 | 38 | 79 § | 46 | 38 |
| THY 0.47 | 25 | 48 § | 30 | 25 |
§ Significant difference between the combination and enrofloxacin alone.
Percentage inhibition of the five ETEC strains resistant to amoxicillin in the presence of combinations of amoxicillin (AMO, mg/L) and thymol (THY, mM).
| Inhibition | AMO 64 | AMO 32 | AMO 16 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| % | 9 | 14 | 16 | |
| THY 0.94 | 25 | 15 | 26 | 27 |
| THY 0.47 | 21 | 15 | 24 | 25 |
Percentage inhibition of the three ETEC strains resistant to neomycin in the presence of combinations of neomycin (NEO, mg/L) and thymol (THY, mM).
| Inhibition | NEO 64 | NEO 32 | NEO 16 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| % | 6 | 8 | 8 | |
| THY 0.94 | 16 | 11 | 10 | 10 |
| THY 0.47 | 10 | 9 | 13 | 12 |
Characteristics of ETEC 95 and ETEC 97 strains selected for WGS and gene expression analysis.
| Strain | ETEC 95 | ETEC 97 | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Serotype | O131:H4 | O138:H14 | |
| Adhesin | F18 | F18 | |
| Toxins | STa, STb, LT | STa, STb, LT | |
| Other virulence genes | |||
| Plasmids | IncFII(29), IncHI2, IncHI2A, IncQ1, IncX1 | IncFIB, IncFII, IncI1-I, IncX1, IncX4 | |
| Resistance genes | Aminoglycosides | ||
| Polymyxins | |||
| Folate pathway | |||
| Tetracyclines | |||
| Quinolones | |||
| Amphenicols | |||
| Beta-lactams |
|
| |
| Observed antimicrobial | AMO (>64), AMO + CLA (16/8), COL (32), TRI (>64), SUL (>608), TRI + SUL (>32/608), NAL (>64), ENR (2), FLO (16), NEO (>64), TET (>64) | AMO (>64), AMO + CLA (32/16), COL (32), TRI (>64), SUL (>608), TRI + SUL (>32/608), NAL (>64), ENR (2), FLO (>64), NEO (>64), TET (>64) | |
1 AMO, amoxicillin; AMO + CLA, amoxicillin with clavulanic acid (2:1); COL, colistin; TRI, trimethoprim; SUL, sulfamethoxazole; TRI + SUL, trimethoprim with sulfamethoxazole (1:19); NAL, nalidixic acid; ENR, enrofloxacin; FLO, florfenicol; NEO, neomycin; TET, tetracycline.
Figure 2Effects of colistin (MIC/4, 8 mg/L, COL) or a combination of colistin and thymol (MIC/4, 0.47 mM, COL + THY) on ETEC 95′s and ETEC 97′s expression of virulence genes related to adhesion (fedA), heat-stable toxin expression (estA and estB), heat-labile toxin expression (eltA and eltB), and quorum sensing (luxS). Data are expressed as the means of the three technical replicates of the two studied strains, with the SEM reported as vertical bars. For each gene, the data were analyzed by one-way ANOVA with Tukey’s multiple comparison test; superscript letters (a, b, c) indicate significant differences among the groups (p < 0.05).
Figure 3Effects of tetracycline (64 mg/L, TET) or a combination of tetracycline and thymol (MIC/4, 0.47 mM, TET + THY) on ETEC 95′s and ETEC 97′s expression of virulence genes related to adhesion (fedA), heat-stable toxin expression (estA and estB), heat-labile toxin expression (eltA and eltB), and quorum sensing (luxS). Data are expressed as the means of the three technical replicates of the two studied strains, with the SEM reported as vertical bars. For each gene, data were analyzed by one-way ANOVA with Tukey’s multiple comparison test; superscript letters (a, b, c) indicate significant differences among the groups (p < 0.05).
Figure 4Effects of colistin (MIC/4, 8 mg/L, COL) or a combination of colistin and thymol (MIC/4, 0.47 mM, COL + THY) on ETEC 95′s and ETEC 97′s expression of antibiotic resistance genes related to enzymes that have a direct role in LPS modification (MCR-1, pmrC, and pmrE), and regulator proteins that belong to two-component systems (phoP and pmrB). Data are expressed as the means of the three technical replicates of the two studied strains, with the SEM reported as vertical bars. For each gene, the data were analyzed by one-way ANOVA with Tukey’s multiple comparison test; superscript letters (a, b) indicate significant differences between groups (p < 0.05).
Figure 5Effects of tetracycline (64 mg/L, TET) or a combination of tetracycline and thymol (MIC/4, 0.47 mM, TET + THY) on ETEC 95′s and ETEC 97′s expression of antibiotic resistance genes related to the production of tripartite efflux pumps (emrK, emrY, and tolC) and the specific tetracycline efflux pump (tetA). Data are expressed as the means of the three technical replicates of the two studied strains, with the SEM reported as vertical bars. For each gene, data were analyzed by one-way ANOVA with Tukey’s multiple comparison test; superscript letters (a, b) indicate significant differences between groups (p < 0.05).
Pattern of adhesins and toxins expressed by the six ETEC strains used in this study.
| ETEC Strain | Adhesin | Toxins |
|---|---|---|
| ETEC 95 | F18+ | STa+; STb+; LT+ |
| ETEC 97 | F18+ | STa+; STb+; LT+ |
| ETEC 99 | F4+ | STa+; STb+; LT+ |
| ETEC 104 | F18+ | STa+; STb+ |
| ETEC 105 | F4+ | STa+; STb+ |
| ETEC 106 | F18+ | STa+; STb+ |
Range of tested concentrations for all the compounds analyzed in the MIC tests.
| Molecule | Range of Tested Concentrations |
|---|---|
| Single antibiotics | 0.5–64 mg/L |
| Amoxicillin/clavulanic acid (2:1) 1 | 0.5/0.25–64/32 mg/L |
| Trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole (1:19) 1 | 0.25/4.75–32/608 mg/L |
| Sulfamethoxazole | 608–4.75 mg/L |
| Thymol | 0.12–7.5 mM |
1 Ratios between the antibiotics were chosen according to the CLSI guidelines.
Range of AB sub-MIC concentrations when analyzed in MIC tests in combination.
| Antibiotic | Sub-MIC Tested Concentrations |
|---|---|
| Amoxicillin, neomycin, tetracycline | 64–32–16 mg/L |
| Enrofloxacin | 1–0.5–0.25 mg/L |
| Trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole (1:19) 1 | 32/608–16/304–8/152 mg/L |
| Colistin | 16–8–4 mg/L |
1 Ratios between the antibiotics were chosen according to the CLSI guidelines.
Primers used in this study for qPCR analysis.
| Functions | Gene | Sequences (5′→3′) | Product Length (bp) | Ref 1 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Adhesion to cells |
| F: GCTAATCAAGGGGGAGTGGC | 110 | This study |
| LT toxin production |
| F: TTGGTGATCCGGTGGGAAAC | 185 | [ |
|
| F: CACGGAGCTCCCCAGACTAT | 105 | ||
| STa toxin production |
| F: CAACTGAATCACTTGACTCTT | 158 | |
| STb toxin production |
| F: TGCCTATGCATCTACACAA | 113 | |
| Quorum sensing |
| F: CAGTGCCAGTTCTTCGTTGC | 116 | |
| Resistance to colistin |
| F: GGGCCTGCGTATTTTAAGCG | 184 | This study |
|
| F: CTGGTATTAACCGCCCGTGA | 160 | ||
|
| F: ATCTGGAACTGCTGGCGAAA | 121 | ||
|
| F: GTACCGTGCATGTTCTCGGA | 127 | ||
|
| F: TCATCATCGCCACTCCAACC | 145 | ||
| Resistance to tetracyclines |
| F: GCTGTTTCCTTTTGCCGGAG | 132 | This study |
|
| F: ACGAAGTGACCGCACGTAAT | 169 | ||
|
| F: GCACAAAATGCGACAGGGAA | 172 | ||
|
| F: TGGGAGTCGACCTCAGAGAA | 154 |
1 Ref = reference.