| Literature DB >> 36009946 |
Dragana Tomanić1, Biljana Božin2, Nebojša Kladar2, Jovan Stanojević1, Ivana Čabarkapa3, Nebojša Stilinović4, Jelena Apić5, Dragana D Božić6, Zorana Kovačević1.
Abstract
Mastitis is considered to be one of the most important diseases of dairy cows in terms of health, production, and economy. Being the most common cause of antibiotic consumption in dairy cows, treatment of this disease is one of the biggest challenges in the veterinary profession as an increasing number of pathogens develop resistance to antibiotics used in the treatment. Therefore, new alternative approaches for limiting the use of antibiotics in livestock are required. For this reason, our study aimed to investigate prevalence of environmental mastitis associated bacterial strains, as well as the sensitivity of isolated strains to different antibiotics. Additionally, the therapeutic potential of three essential oils (EOs) was tested against bovine Serratia spp. and Proteus spp. mastitis pathogens, based on their chemical composition, as well as antibacterial potential. The study was carried out on 81 milk samples collected from dairy cows with mastitis. In order to determine prevalence of S. marcescens and P. mirabilis, microbiological isolation and identification were performed. Antimicrobial susceptibility testing was performed by disk diffusion method and the microdilution method was used to determine the antibacterial activity of selected EOs. In the oregano EO, a total of 23 compounds were detected, with carvacrol as a dominant component (78.94%). A total of 26 components were present in the EO of common thyme, where thymol was the most abundant compound (46.37%). Thymol also dominated (55.11%) the wild thyme EO. All tested EOs displayed antibacterial activity against all strains to different extents, while wild and common thyme EOs were the most effective. It could be concluded that the tested EOs represent promising therapeutic candidates for effective non-antibiotic treatment of mastitis.Entities:
Keywords: Proteus mirabilis; Serratia marcescens; antimicrobial resistance; cows; essential oils; mastitis
Year: 2022 PMID: 36009946 PMCID: PMC9405213 DOI: 10.3390/antibiotics11081077
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Antibiotics (Basel) ISSN: 2079-6382
Figure 1Prevalence of mastitis-causing pathogens in the collected milk samples.
Chemical composition of evaluated EOs.
| Peack No. | Compound | RI * |
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
| ||
| 1 | α-Pinene | 937 | 0.18 | 0.19 | 1.47 |
| 2 | Camphene | 952 | 0.14 | 0.16 | 1.83 |
| 3 | β-Pinene | 978 | 0.67 | 2.37 | 0.17 |
| 4 | β-Myrcene | 991 | 0.24 | 0.32 | 1.73 |
| 6 | α-Phellandrene | 1005 | 0.08 | 0.11 | 0.15 |
| 7 | α-Terpinene | 1017 | 0.45 | 0.15 | 0.63 |
| 9 | Limonene | 1030 | 0.79 | 0.17 | 1.82 |
| 11 | 1060 | 1.49 | 22.31 | 3.46 | |
|
|
|
|
| ||
| 8 | 1025 | 4.52 | 16.66 | 23.83 | |
|
|
|
|
| ||
| 10 | 1,8-Cineole | 1032 | 0.37 | 0.17 | 0.84 |
| 12 | Linalool | 1099 | 1.08 | - | 2.14 |
| 13 | Camphor | 1145 | 0.07 | 0.57 | 0.27 |
| 14 | endo-Borneol | 1167 | 0.39 | - | 1.73 |
| 15 | Terpinen-4-ol | 1177 | 0.47 | 0.11 | 1.28 |
| 16 | Isomenthol | 1183 | - | 0.63 | - |
| 14 | α-Terpineol | 1189 | 0.11 | 0.01 | 0.19 |
| 20 | Carvone | 1242 | - | - | - |
| 23 | Geranyl acetate | 1382 | - | - | - |
| 24 | Bornyl acetate | 1285 | - | 0.08 | 0.04 |
|
|
|
|
| ||
| 18 | Isothymol methyl ether | 1230 | - | - | 0.83 |
| 19 | Methyl thymol ether | 1235 | - | - | 1.25 |
| 21 | Thymol | 1291 | 4.87 | 55.11 | 46.37 |
| 22 | Carvacrol | 1299 | 78.94 | 0.67 | 3.25 |
|
|
|
|
| ||
| 25 | α-Cubebene | 1351 | 0.01 | - | 0.09 |
| 26 | β-Cubenene | 1388 | - | - | 0.01 |
| 27 | 1419 | 2.49 | 0.09 | 3.86 | |
| 28 | Aromandendrene | 1440 | - | - | - |
| 29 | cis-β-Famesene | 1443 | - | - | - |
| 30 | Humulene | 1454 | 0.11 | 0.05 | 0.57 |
| 31 | allo-Aromandendrene | 1461 | - | - | - |
| 32 | 1477 | - | - | - | |
| 33 | β-Selinene | 1486 | - | - | - |
| 34 | β-Bisabolene | 1509 | - | - | - |
| 35 | 1513 | - | - | - | |
| 36 | δ-Cadinene | 1524 | 0.27 | - | 0.41 |
|
|
|
|
| ||
| 37 | Caryophyllene oxide | 1581 | 1.37 | - | 1.05 |
|
|
|
|
| ||
| 5 | 3-Octanol | 994 | 0.02 | - | - |
|
|
|
|
| ||
* Retention indices relative to C9-C24 n-alkanes on the HP 5MS column.
Antimicrobial sensitivity pattern of S. marcescens and P. mirabilis strains isolated from cows with mastitis (S—sensitive, I—intermediate, R—resistant). AMX, amoxycillin; AMP, ampicillin; CRO, ceftriaxone; ENR, enrofloxacin; ERY, erythromycin; GEN, gentamicin; LIN, lincomycin; NEO, neomycin; PEN, penicillin; STR, streptomycin; TET, tetracycline; AMC, amoxicillin/clavulanic acid; NB, novobiocin; SXT, trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole; CLO, cloxacillin.
| Bacterial Strain | AMX | AMP | CRO | ENR | ERY | GEN | LIN | NEO | PEN | STR | TET | AMC | NB | SXT | CLO |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| R | R | S | S | S | S | S | S | R | S | R | S | R | S | R | |
| R | R | S | S | R | S | R | S | R | S | R | S | R | I | R | |
| R | R | S | S | R | S | R | S | R | R | S | R | R | S | R | |
| S | R | S | S | S | S | R | S | R | S | I | S | R | S | R | |
| R | R | S | S | R | S | R | S | R | R | R | R | R | S | R | |
| R | R | S | S | R | S | R | S | R | S | R | R | R | S | R | |
| R | R | S | S | R | S | R | S | R | S | R | R | R | S | R | |
| R | R | S | S | R | S | R | S | R | R | R | R | R | S | R | |
| R | R | S | S | R | S | R | S | R | S | R | R | R | S | R |
Figure 2The position of the evaluated variables in the space defined by the first two correspondent axes.
Minimum inhibitory concentrations (MICs) and minimal bactericidal concentrations (MBCs) of selected EOs against P. mirabilis and S. marcescens.
| Sample(mg/mL) | TS **Average ± SD | TV ***Average ± SD | OV ****Average ± SD | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MIC | MBC | MIC | MBC | MIC | MBC | |
|
| 3.125 ± 1.35 | 6.25 ± 2.7 | 3.125 ± 0.00 | 6.25 ± 2.7 | 3.125 ± 1.35 | 3.125 ± 1.35 |
|
| 1.56 ± 0.96 * | 3.125 ± 1.91 * | 1.56 ± 0.96 * | 3.125 ± 1.91 * | 3.125 ± 1.91 | 6.25 ± 3.83 |
* Statistical significance of EOs’ antimicrobial effect between P. mirabilis and S. marcescens (p ≤ 0.05). ** TS—T. serpyllum EO; *** TV—T. vulgaris EO; **** OV—O. vulgare EO.
Figure 3Antimicrobial potential and chemical profiles of the essential oils—compounds. PCA loadings (a) and positions of the evaluated samples in the space defined by the first two principal components’ axes (b).
Figure 4Antimicrobial potential and chemical profiles of the essential oils—classes of compounds. PCA loadings (a) and positions of the evaluated samples in the space defined by the first two principal components’ axes (b).