Next Article in Journal
Viral Diseases that Affect Donkeys and Mules
Next Article in Special Issue
Biofilm-Formation Ability and the Presence of Adhesion Genes in Coagulase-Negative Staphylococci Isolates from Chicken Broilers
Previous Article in Journal
Comparison of the Surface Thermal Patterns of Horses and Donkeys in Infrared Thermography Images
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Animals
Volume 10
Issue 12
10.3390/ani10122202
animals-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

In Vitro Antibacterial Activity of Manuka (Leptospermum scoparium J.R. et G. Forst) and winter Savory (Satureja montana L.) Essential Oils and Their Blends against Pathogenic E. coli Isolates from Pigs

by
Filippo Fratini
1,*,
Mario Forzan
1,
Barbara Turchi
1,
Simone Mancini
1,
Giuseppe Alcamo
1,
Francesca Pedonese
1,
Luisa Pistelli
2,
Basma Najar
2 and
Maurizio Mazzei
1
1
Department of Veterinary Sciences, University of Pisa, Viale delle Piagge 2, 56124 Pisa, Italy
2
Department of Pharmacy, University of Pisa, Via Bonanno 6, 56126 Pisa, Italy
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Animals 2020, 10(12), 2202; https://doi.org/10.3390/ani10122202
Submission received: 29 October 2020 / Revised: 16 November 2020 / Accepted: 19 November 2020 / Published: 24 November 2020
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Alternative Methods for Control of Pathogens in Livestock)
Versions Notes

Abstract

:

Simple Summary

Neonatal diarrhoea (ND), post-weaning diarrhoea (PWD) and oedema disease (OD) are particularly important in terms of economic losses in pig farming worldwide. Aetiological agents of these diseases belong to Escherichia coli, in particular to a few serogroups of enterotoxigenic Escherichia coli (ETEC) and enteropathogenic Escherichia coli (EPEC). The necessity for a reduction in antibiotic use, related to the growing antibiotic resistance phenomenon, encourages research in the study of alternative antibacterial substances as antibacterial tools. Essential oils could represent a valid solution.

Abstract

Neonatal diarrhoea (ND), post-weaning diarrhoea (PWD) and oedema disease (OD) are among the most important diseases affecting pig farming due to economic losses. Among the main aetiological agents, strains of Escherichia coli are identified as the major responsible pathogens involved. Several strategies have been put in place to prevent these infections and, today, research is increasingly studying alternative methods to antibiotics to reduce the antibiotic resistance phenomenon. Essential oils (EOs) are among the alternative tools that are being investigated. In this study, the in vitro effectiveness of winter savory and manuka essential oils and their mixtures in different proportions against strains of E. coli isolated from episodes of disease in pigs was evaluated. The EOs alone demonstrated slight antibacterial effectiveness, whereas the blends, by virtue of their synergistic action, showed remarkable activity, especially the 70%–30% winter savory–manuka blend, showing itself as a potential tool for prevention and therapy.

1. Introduction

The presence of different Escherichia coli strains in the swine intestinal tract must be considered a normal condition; in fact, many of these strains live in a symbiotic way with the rest of the faecal flora and represent a substantial part of the swine intestinal microbiota [1]. Nevertheless, if they acquire genes responsible for virulence, they may become causative agents of various forms of illness [1]. In light of the above, several E. coli strains have been recognized as important aetiological agents of several diseases in pigs worldwide, i.e., neonatal septicaemia, neonatal diarrhoea (ND), post-weaning diarrhoea (PWD), oedema disease (OD), cystitis, septicaemia, polyserositis, coliform mastitis and urinary tract infections. Moreover, these strains are able to colonise existing lesions elsewhere in other organs [2]. Among the most important illnesses for the economic consequences occurring in pig farms are undoubtedly ND, PWD and OD [3]. ND is a worldwide spreading disease in pigs and responsible for economic losses due to the significant increase in both morbidity and mortality of piglets [3]. In the same way, PWD, also known as post-weaning enteric colibacillosis, is widespread globally and furthermore represents an important cause of death in weaned pigs. However, enteric infection may also occur only with diarrhoea, affecting piglets during the first week after weaning and resulting in a reduction in weight gain [4]. PWD is mainly caused by enteropathogenic E. coli (EPEC) strains, although enterotoxigenic E. coli (ETEC) strains are very often involved [5,6]. Porcine pathogenic E. coli involved in PWD typically belong to serogroups O:8, O:138, O:139, O:141, O:147, O:157 and O:149, the latter being the predominant serogroup in most countries. However, O serogroup and virulence gene patterns vary considerably from region to region and over time [7]. OD represents an important cause of mortality in pig farming in Europe. Among the ETEC strains, the serotypes involved in the aetiology of this pathology appear to be O:138, O:139 and O:141, responsible for the production of toxins that reach the bloodstream, damaging the blood vessel walls in different tissues and organs [8]. The main clinical signs of the disease are abundant oedema of the stomach and mesocolon, often caused by strains able to produce a massive amount of adhesion factors and, after colonising the intestines, different toxins [9]. The high incidence of these diseases combined with the need for a reduction in antibiotic use, in the light of the growing antibiotic resistance phenomenon, stimulated researchers to study alternative molecules to be used in illness prevention and in therapy [10]. During the last few years, essential oils (EOs) have been widely investigated overall for their activity as growth promoter due to their antioxidative properties [11]. Unfortunately, so far, only few data are available in the literature about their antibacterial activity against causative agents of swine diseases [12]. Lately, the interest of the scientific world in EOs has increased due to their potential employment as an effective alternative treatment to several animal diseases, although most research has been carried out by in vitro assays [13,14].
Among the EOs tested for their effectiveness against many microorganisms responsible for pathologies in humans and animals, the most effective were those obtained from plants belonging to the Lamiaceae family due to their abundance of bioactive monoterpenes [11,15,16]. Although several studies have focused on the activity of aromatic plants belonging to this family and the antibacterial properties of their EOs, such as oregano, marjoram, sage, rosemary and other EOs, few data are available about winter savory (Satureja montana L.) and its derived EO [17]. Winter savory is a multiannual semi-shrubbery plant that grows in several Mediterranean regions, able to develop a great number of morphological and physiological adaptations [18]. The essential oil obtained from various species of Satureja have highlighted different antibacterial biological properties [13,19,20]. The main compounds in winter savory EOs are carvacrol, gamma-terpinene and p-cymene, responsible for antibacterial activity [19]. In addition, manuka (Leptospermum scoparium J.R. et G. Forst) is a small tree or more often a shrub belonging to the Myrtaceae family, widespread in Australia and New Zealand [21]. Although little is known about the therapeutical use of the plant, its essential oil is effective against a wide range of microorganisms, mostly Gram-positive bacteria, including antibiotic-resistant strains [22]. The most important manuka EO compounds are leptospermone, iso-leptospermone and flavesone, the main triketone constituents [21,22,23].
In order to obtain a potential natural antimicrobial alternative product which could be used against pathogenic bacteria in pig farming, this investigation aimed to determine the in vitro antibacterial activity of manuka and winter savory EOs both singularly and in combination against three bacterial strains isolated from episodes of ND, PWD and OD.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Bacterial Strains

Three E. coli wild strains, belonging to the strain collection of the Department of Veterinary Sciences of University of Pisa (Pisa, Italy) and stored at −80 °C in a glycerol suspension, were employed in this research. The three bacterial strains were isolated from episodes of ND, PWD and OD, previously identified and serotyped as O:8, O:149 and O:139 [24]. Strains were also previously screened and resulted positive for the presence of genes codifying for some of the main virulence factors such as stable toxin a (STa) and labile toxin (LT I) [25]. Moreover, the antibiotic resistance profile of the isolates, obtained using the disc-diffusion method according to the Kirby–Bauer test and interpreted according to European Committee on Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing (EUCAST) [26], is reported in Table 1.

2.2. Essential Oils and Blends Employed in the Trials

Essential oils (EOs) of Satureja montana L. (Sm) and Leptospermum scoparium J.R. et G. Forst (Ls) were purchased from FLORA® s.r.l. (Lorenzana, Pisa, Italy; lot numbers 142012 and 151939, respectively). According to the certificates provided by the company, Sm and Ls originated from France and New Zealand, respectively, and both EOs were extracted by steam distillation from the entire flowering plant for Sm EO and from the leaves for Ls EO. In order to evaluate a potential combined action of the EOs, three mixtures were prepared as follows: 50% Sm + 50% Ls; 30% Sm + 70% Ls; 70% Sm + 30% Ls. EOs were stored at 4 ± 2 °C in the dark and were subjected to microbiological analysis for quality control before their employment in the tests.

2.3. Gas Chromatography–Electron Impact Mass Spectrometry

The gas chromatography–electron impact mass spectrometry (GC–EIMS) analysis was carried out according to the instructions reported by Pistelli et al. [27] in the laboratory of the Department of Pharmacy (University of Pisa).

2.4. Determination of Minimum Inhibitory Concentration (MIC) and Minimum Bactericidal Concentration (MBC) of EOs Alone and in Blends

The Eos’ MIC values for each strain were determined using the twofold serial microdilution method according to the Wiegand et al. [28] protocol with some modifications previously reported in Fratini et al. [23]. Both MIC and MBC results were expressed as v/v. The same procedure for the determination of MIC and MBC values for individual EOs was also applied to the blends.

3. Results and Discussion

The composition of single EOs and blends is reported in Table 2. The main compounds in Sm were carvacrol (45.4%), p-cymene (10.3%) and thymol (7.0%), and the most representative in Ls were cis-calamenene (21.4%), leptospermone (18.3%) and flavesone (6.9%). As regards the compounds’ concentration in the Sm and Ls Eos, it is interesting to note that Ls and Sm compositions were slightly different from what was reported previously [29]. These little differences may be due to the degradation of components during the refrigerated storage. Concerning the EO blends, the main compounds were affected, as expected, by the chemical composition of the single EOs. In detail, for the 70%–30% Sm/Ls blend, the three main components were carvacrol (29.0%), leptospermone (7.0%) and p-cymene (6.6%); for the 50%–50% Sm/Ls blend, carvacrol was present at a percentage of 22.1%, followed by leptospermone at 10.5% and cis-calamenene at 6.5%; finally, the 30%–70% Sm/Ls blend showed to be mainly constituted by carvacrol (13.6%), leptospermone (12.9%) and cis-calamenene (8.9%).
All the data obtained in triplicate are reported in Table 3. The MIC and MBC values obtained for each strain with both the single EOs showed a weak antibacterial activity. Sm EO showed mode MIC values of 1:64 against each of the E. coli strains, whereas Ls EO showed low values of MIC equal to 1:32. The strong action of Ls EO was attributed to its high amount of leptospermone (18.3%), a β-triketone known, like its derivatives, for its great antimicrobial power [30,31].
The best values of inhibition were obtained with the blends of the two oils; in particular, the most encouraging MIC values were obtained with the 70%–30% Sm/Ls blend for all the tested strains, as reported in Table 3. In detail, with the 70%–30% Sm/Ls blend, the MIC mode value for the strain O:149 is 1:512, and for the strains O:139 and O:8 this value is 1:256; with the 50–50% Sm/Ls blend, the MIC mode value is 1:256 for the strain O:149, while this value is 1:128 for the other two strains. An MIC mode value equal to 1:128 was also obtained with the 30–70% Sm/Ls blend for all the bacterial strains. Although the 70%–30% Sm/Ls blend is the most active, it seems evident that the mixtures have a higher inhibitory activity than the oils used individually, confirming the greater effectiveness of synergistic action. These mixtures were characterised by the presence of two compounds known by their antibacterial activity, namely carvacrol and leptospermone. The 70%–30% Sm/Ls mixture was the most effective, probably due to the presence of these two compounds at amounts of 29.0% and 7.0%, respectively. The presence of other compounds such as p-cymene and thymol can enhance this efficacy since these two constituents are also well documented for their antibacterial activity [32,33]. All these hypotheses can be considered valid, taking also into consideration the potential synergism between these constituents [34,35]. Concerning the MBC values, it is interesting to observe how, in the case of Sm EO, these are superimposable to the MIC values in the three replicates for all three bacterial strains, demonstrating an inhibitory and bactericidal effect at the same concentrations. However, in the case of Ls EO, the MBC values are often offset by one step, between 1:16 and 1:32. Regarding MBC mode values for the blends, the following results were obtained: concerning the 50%–50% Sm/Ls blend for the strain O:149, we observe a mode MBC value of 1:256 equal to the mode MIC value for the same strain; for the strains O:139 and O:8, we note MBC mode values of 1:64; with respect to the 30%–70% Sm/Ls blend, we observe a mode MBC value of 1:128 for the strains O:149 and O:8, and one of 1:64 for the strain O:139; finally, with respect to the 70%–30% Sm/Ls blend, the MBC mode value for the strains O:149 and O:8 is 1:256, while for the strain O:139 it is 1:128.
Analysing the obtained results, the synergistic action highlighted in vitro by the mixtures of essential oils compared to the oils used individually against all three bacterial strains is noticeable. The greater effectiveness of essential oil combinations with respect to single oils against E. coli strains is however supported by several works in the literature [13,36,37,38]. Indeed, Fu et al. [36] reported a synergistic effect of clove and rosemary essential oil blends, as also reported by de Medeiro Barbosa et al. [38] for mixtures of rosemary and oregano oils tested via the fractional inhibitory concentration (FIC). The powerful synergistic effect found in blends compared to the oils tested alone could be attributed to some individual and less abundant compounds with a remarkable antibacterial activity, such as p-cymene [13], γ-terpinene [39], isothymol methyl ether [40] and β-caryophyllene [41] mainly represented in Sm EO, and other molecules such as α-cubebene, α-copaene, α-selinene, β-selinene [42] and flavesone [43] mainly represented in Ls EO.
Despite the results obtained in this investigation, the main problem in the use of each plant extract remains the instability of its composition, influenced by numerous factors such as climate, season, harvesting methods, etc. To overcome these drawbacks, it might seem useful to select the extracts, standardise them and verify their synergistic action, but in doing so the actions of the minority components present in the phytocomplex would be lost. However, due to the promising results obtained in in vitro tests, it would be desirable to set up experiments to evaluate the effect of these blends on porcine intestinal epithelial cells and then move on to a subsequent step where the same mixtures in episodes of ND, PWD and OD are tested. Finally, recent acquisitions of micro-encapsulation and the development of nanotechnologies could certainly represent the tools for the EOs and their blends to reach the pig intestinal sites in order to express their effectiveness against many pathologies in pig farming.

4. Conclusions

Essential oils (EOs) are one of the most promising alternative tools to control livestock diseases. In vitro effectiveness of winter savory and manuka essential oils was enhanced by their blends against E. coli isolated from pigs’ diseases, such as neonatal diarrhoea, post-weaning diarrhoea and oedema disease. These essential oil blends could be taken into account as potential antibacterial treatments for prevention and therapy, also in the light of increasing antibiotic resistance concern.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, F.F., M.M. and M.F.; methodology, F.F. and L.P.; investigation, F.F., G.A., L.P., B.N. and B.T.; data curation, F.F., S.M. and F.P.; writing—original draft preparation, F.F. and S.M.; writing—review and editing, F.F., S.M., M.M. and M.F.; supervision, F.F., S.M. and B.T.; funding acquisition, F.F., M.M. and M.F. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by Fondi di Ateneo of University of Pisa (Pisa, Italy).

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Taylor, D.J. (Ed.) Pig Diseases, 9th ed.; North Birbiston Road: Lennoxtown, UK, 2013; ISBN 9780950693286. [Google Scholar]
  2. Abubakar, R.H.; Madoroba, E.; Adenubi, O.; Morar-Leather, D.; Fasina, F.O. Bacterial pathogens of pigs with particular reference to Escherichia coli: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J. Vet. Med. Anim. Health 2017, 9, 159–185. [Google Scholar]
  3. Fairbrother, J.M.; Gyles, C.L. Colibacillosis. In Diseases of Swine; Zimmerman, J.J., Karriker, L.A., Ramirez, A., Schwartz, K.J., Stevenson, G.R., Eds.; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2012; pp. 723–747. ISBN 081381703X. [Google Scholar]
  4. Fairbrother, J.M.; Nadeau, É.; Gyles, C.L. Escherichia coli in postweaning diarrhea in pigs: An update on bacterial types, pathogenesis, and prevention strategies. Anim. Health Res. Rev. 2005, 6, 17–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  5. Chen, X.; Gao, S.; Jiao, X.; Liu, X.F. Prevalence of serogroups and virulence factors of Escherichia coli strains isolated from pigs with postweaning diarrhoea in eastern China. Vet. Microbiol. 2004, 103, 13–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Zhu, W.; Lomsadze, A.; Borodovsky, M. Ab initio gene identification in metagenomic sequences. Nucleic Acids Res. 2010, 38, 132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  7. Sun, Y.; Kim, S.W. Intestinal challenge with enterotoxigenic Escherichia coli in pigs, and nutritional intervention to prevent postweaning diarrhea. Anim. Nutr. 2017, 3, 322–330. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Gyles, C.L.; Fairbrother, J.M. Escherichia coli. In Pathogenesis of Bacterial Infections in Animals; Wiley-Blackwell: Oxford, UK, 2010; pp. 267–308. [Google Scholar]
  9. Cocchi, M.; Di Giusto, T.; Toson, M.; Deotto, S.; Ustulin, M.; Conedera, G.; Vio, D. Biofilm formation, production of cellulose and curli fimbriae in Escherichia coli strains isolated during edema disease of swine. Large Anim. Rev. 2017, 23, 55–58. [Google Scholar]
  10. Unterweger, C.; Kahler, A.; Gerlach, G.F.; Viehmann, M.; Von Altrock, A.; Hennig-Pauka, I. Administration of non-pathogenic isolates of Escherichia coli and Clostridium perfringens type A to piglets in a herd affected with a high incidence of neonatal diarrhoea. Animal 2017, 11, 670–676. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  11. Thormar, H. (Ed.) Lipids and Essential Oils as Antimicrobial Agents; John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2010; ISBN 9780470976623. [Google Scholar]
  12. Thacker, P.A. Alternatives to antibiotics as growth promoters for use in swine production: A review. J. Anim. Sci. Biotechnol. 2013, 4, 35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  13. Fratini, F.; Casella, S.; Leonardi, M.; Pisseri, F.; Ebani, V.V.; Pistelli, L.; Pistelli, L. Antibacterial activity of essential oils, their blends and mixtures of their main constituents against some strains supporting livestock mastitis. Fitoterapia 2014, 96, 1–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Khosravi, A.R.; Shokri, H.; Fahimirad, S. Efficacy of medicinal essential oils against pathogenic Malassezia sp. isolates. J. Mycol. Med. 2016, 26, 28–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Nazzaro, F.; Fratianni, F.; De Martino, L.; Coppola, R.; De Feo, V. Effect of essential oils on pathogenic bacteria. Pharmaceuticals 2013, 6, 1451–1474. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Raut, J.S.; Karuppayil, S.M. A status review on the medicinal properties of essential oils. Ind. Crop. Prod. 2014, 62, 250–264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Turchi, B.; Mancini, S.; Pistelli, L.; Najar, B.; Cerri, D.; Fratini, F. Sub-inhibitory stress with essential oil affects enterotoxins production and essential oil susceptibility in Staphylococcus aureus. Nat. Prod. Res. 2018, 32, 682–688. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Skočibušić, M.; Bezić, N. Chemical composition and antidiarrhoeal activities of winter savory (Satureja montana L.) essential oil. Pharm. Biol. 2003, 41, 622–626. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Panizzi, L.; Flamini, G.; Cioni, P.L.; Morelli, I. Composition and antimicrobial properties of essential oils of four Mediterranean Lamiaceae. J. Ethnopharmacol. 1993, 39, 167–170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Bezić, N.; Skočibušić, M.; Dunkić, V. Antimicrobial effect of Satureja cuneifolia Ten. essential oil. Acta Botanica Croatica 1999, 58, 99–104. [Google Scholar]
  21. Porter, N.G.; Wilkins, A.L. Chemical, physical and antimicrobial properties of essential oils of Leptospermum scoparium and Kunzea ericoides. Phytochemistry 1999, 50, 407–415. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Douglas, M.H.; Van Klink, J.W.; Smallfield, B.M.; Perry, N.B.; Anderson, R.E.; Johnstone, P.; Weavers, R.T. Essential oils from New Zealand manuka: Triketone and other chemotypes of Leptospermum scoparium. Phytochemistry 2004, 65, 1255–1264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Fratini, F.; Mancini, S.; Turchi, B.; Friscia, E.; Pistelli, L.; Giusti, G.; Cerri, D. A novel interpretation of the Fractional Inhibitory Concentration Index: The case Origanum vulgare L. and Leptospermum scoparium J. R. et G. Forst essential oils against Staphylococcus aureus strains. Microbiol. Res. 2017, 195, 11–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Ørskov, F.; Ørskov, I. 2 Serotyping of Escherichia coli. In Methods in Microbiology; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 1984; pp. 43–112. [Google Scholar]
  25. Blanco, M.; Blanco, J.E.; Gonzalez, E.A.; Mora, A.; Jansen, W.; Gomes, T.A.T.; Zerbini, L.F.; Yano, T.; De Castro, A.F.; Blanco, J.; et al. Genes coding for enterotoxins and verotoxins in porcine Escherichia coli strains belonging to different O:K:H serotypes: Relationship with toxic phenotypes. J. Clin. Microbiol. 1997, 35, 2958–2963. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  26. The European Committee on Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing. Breakpoint Tables for Interpretation of MICs and Zone Diameters. v7.1; European Committee on Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing: Växjö, Sweden, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  27. Pistelli, L.; Najar, B.; Giovanelli, S.; Lorenzini, L.; Tavarini, S.; Angelini, L.G. Agronomic and phytochemical evaluation of lavandin and lavender cultivars cultivated in the Tyrrhenian area of Tuscany (Italy). Ind. Crop. Prod. 2017, 109, 37–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Wiegand, I.; Hilpert, K.; Hancock, R.E.W. Agar and broth dilution methods to determine the minimal inhibitory concentration (MIC) of antimicrobial substances. Nat. Protoc. 2008, 3, 163–175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  29. Fratini, F.; Mancini, S.; Turchi, B.; Sparagni, D.; Al-Gwad, A.A.; Najar, B.; Pistelli, L.; Cerri, D.; Pedonese, F. Antimicrobial activity of three essential oils (cinnamon, manuka, and winter savory), and their synergic interaction, against Listeria monocytogenes. Flavour Fragr. J. 2019, 34, 339–348. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Jeong, E.Y.; Lee, M.J.; Lee, H.S. Antimicrobial activities of leptospermone isolated from Leptospermum scoparium seeds and structure–activity relationships of its derivatives against foodborne bacteria. Food Sci. Biotechnol. 2018, 27, 1541–1547. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Weston, R. Identification and quantitative levels of antibacterial components of some New Zealand honeys. Food Chem. 2000, 70, 427–435. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Marchese, A.; Arciola, C.; Barbieri, R.; Silva, A.; Nabavi, S.; Tsetegho Sokeng, A.; Izadi, M.; Jafari, N.; Suntar, I.; Daglia, M.; et al. Update on monoterpenes as antimicrobial agents: A particular focus on p-cymene. Materials 2017, 10, 947. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Marchese, A.; Orhan, I.E.; Daglia, M.; Barbieri, R.; Di Lorenzo, A.; Nabavi, S.F.; Gortzi, O.; Izadi, M.; Nabavi, S.M. Antibacterial and antifungal activities of thymol: A brief review of the literature. Food Chem. 2016, 210, 402–414. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Requena, R.; Vargas, M.; Chiralt, A. Study of the potential synergistic antibacterial activity of essential oil components using the thiazolyl blue tetrazolium bromide (MTT) assay. LWT 2019, 101, 183–190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Miladi, H.; Zmantar, T.; Kouidhi, B.; Al Qurashi, Y.M.A.; Bakhrouf, A.; Chaabouni, Y.; Mahdouani, K.; Chaieb, K. Synergistic effect of eugenol, carvacrol, thymol, p-cymene and γ-terpinene on inhibition of drug resistance and biofilm formation of oral bacteria. Microb. Pathog. 2017, 112, 156–163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Fu, Y.; Zu, Y.; Chen, L.; Shi, X.; Wang, Z.; Sun, S.; Efferth, T. Antimicrobial activity of clove and rosemary essential oils alone and in combination. Phyther. Res. 2007, 21, 989–994. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Delaquis, P.J.; Stanich, K.; Girard, B.; Mazza, G. Antimicrobial activity of individual and mixed fractions of dill, cilantro, coriander and eucalyptus essential oils. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2002, 74, 101–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. De Medeiros Barbosa, I.; Da Costa Medeiros, J.A.; De Oliveira, K.Á.R.; Gomes-Neto, N.J.; Tavares, J.F.; Magnani, M.; De Souza, E.L. Efficacy of the combined application of oregano and rosemary essential oils for the control of Escherichia coli, Listeria monocytogenes and Salmonella Enteritidis in leafy vegetables. Food Control 2016, 59, 468–477. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  39. Baydar, H.; Sağdiç, O.; Özkan, G.; Karadoğan, T. Antibacterial activity and composition of essential oils from Origanum, Thymbra and Satureja species with commercial importance in Turkey. Food Control 2004, 15, 169–172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Dorman, H.J.D.; Deans, S.G. Antimicrobial agents from plants: Antibacterial activity of plant volatile oils. J. Appl. Microbiol. 2000, 88, 308–316. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  41. Longaray Delamare, A.P.; Moschen-Pistorello, I.T.; Artico, L.; Atti-Serafini, L.; Echeverrigaray, S. Antibacterial activity of the essential oils of Salvia officinalis L. and Salvia triloba L. cultivated in South Brazil. Food Chem. 2007, 100, 603–608. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Joseph, B.; Priya, M. Review on nutritional, medicinal and pharmacological properties of Guava (Psidium guajava Linn.). Int. J. Pharma Bio Sci. 2011, 2, 53–69. [Google Scholar]
  43. Demuner, A.J.; Almeida Barbosa, L.C.; Gonçalves Magalhaes, C.; Da Silva, C.J.; Alvares Maltha, C.R.; Lelis Pinheiro, A. Seasonal variation in the chemical composition and antimicrobial activity of volatile oils of three species of leptospermum (Myrtaceae) Grown in Brazil. Molecules 2011, 16, 1181–1191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Table
Table 1. Phenotypic antibiotic resistance profile of the three isolates according to EUCAST [26].
Table 1. Phenotypic antibiotic resistance profile of the three isolates according to EUCAST [26].
Antibiotic 1E. coli O:149E. coli O:139E. coli O:8
AMCSSS
AMPSSS
ATMSSR
CSSS
CTXSSR
ENRSSS
FOXSSR
GENSSS
IPMSSS
KFRRR
STRRRR
SXTSSS
TETSRS
1 Antibiotic abbreviations: amoxicillin–clavulanic acid (AMC), ampicillin (AMP), aztreonam (ATM), chloramphenicol (C), cefotaxime (CTX), enrofloxacin (ENR), cefoxitin (FOX), gentamicin (GEN), imipenem (IPM), cephalothin (KF), streptomycin (STR), trimethoprim–sulfamethoxazole (SXT), tetracycline (TET).
Table
Table 2. Essential oil (EO) composition of winter savory (Sm), manuka (Ls) and the three Sm–Ls blends (70% Sm + 30% Ls; 50% Sm + 50% Ls; 30% Sm + 70% Ls).
Table 2. Essential oil (EO) composition of winter savory (Sm), manuka (Ls) and the three Sm–Ls blends (70% Sm + 30% Ls; 50% Sm + 50% Ls; 30% Sm + 70% Ls).
CompoundsClassLRI 1SmLsSm–Ls70:30Sm–Ls50:50Sm–Ls30:70
α-pinenemh9400.90.90.90.80.9
camphenemh9540.5-0.30.20.2
sabinenemh9750.5-0.30.20.2
1-octen-3-olnt9790.6-0.40.30.2
myrcenemh9911.30.30.90.70.6
α-terpinenemh10171.3-0.90.50.4
p-cymenemh102510.30.36.64.53.1
limonenemh10293.0-2.01.40.5
1,8-cineolom1031-0.3--0.6
γ-terpinenemh10606.2-4.33.22.1
linaloolom10971.5-1.00.60.4
borenolom11693.0-1.91.20.8
4-terpineolom11771.6-1.00.60.4
α-terpineolom11891.4-0.90.50.2
isothymol methyl etherom12445.2-3.32.31.6
thymolom12907.0-4.43.12.1
carvacrolom129945.4-29.022.113.6
α-cubebenesh1351-3.01.61.62.1
α-copaenesh13770.34.61.92.53.2
β-elemenesh1391-0.60.20.30.4
α-gurjunenesh14100.11.20.40.50.8
β-caryophyllenesh14193.52.22.82.62.4
α-guaienesh14400.32.00.81.11.5
cis-muurola-3.5-dienesh1450-1.40.81.21.7
allo-aromadendrenesh1460-0.80.30.40.6
trans-cadina-1(6),4-dienesh1477-2.21.11.42.2
γ-muurolenesh14800.21.40.60.80.9
β-selinenesh14900.24.81.92.73.4
cis-β-guaienesh1493-0.50.3-0.5
α-selinenesh1498-4.82.02.93.5
α-muurolenesh1499-0.9---
trans-β-guaienesh1503--0.40.50.6
(E,E)-α-farnesenesh1506-0.5--0.7
β-bisabolenesh15090.8-0.70.7-
trans-γ-cadinenesh15140.21.10.50.70.8
δ-cadinenesh15230.6-3.34.14.5
trans-cadina-1(2),4-dienesh1535-3.01.52.22.6
cis-calamenenesh1540-21.43.36.58.9
flavesonent1547-6.92.53.94.7
spathuneolos1578-0.80.30.40.6
caryophyllene oxideos15830.80.81.11.21.3
globulolos1585-0.7-0.1-
viridiflorolos1593-0.50.20.20.4
iso-leptospermoneos1621-6.52.03.34.4
leptospermoneos1629-18.37.010.512.9
T-cadinolos1642-1.70.91.21.0
selin-11-en-4-α-olos1660-0.90.20.30.6
occidentalol acetateos1682-0.5-0.30.4
Class of Compounds SmLsSm–Ls70:30Sm–Ls50:50Sm–Ls30:70
Monoterpene hydrocarbon (mh)24.01.516.211.58.0
Oxygenated monoterpenes (om)65.10.341.530.419.7
Sesquiterpene hydrocarbon (sh)6.256.424.432.741.3
Oxygenated sesquiterpenes (os)0.830.711.717.521.6
Non-terpenes (nt)0.66.92.94.24.9
Total identified96.795.896.796.795.5
1 LRI: linear retention indices on DB-5 column. Compound concentrations expressed as percentage of total identified amount.
Table
Table 3. Mode of minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) and minimum bactericidal concentration (MBC) values of winter savory (Sm) and manuka (Ls) essential oils (EOs) against Escherichia coli wild strains O:149, O:139 and O:8.
Table 3. Mode of minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) and minimum bactericidal concentration (MBC) values of winter savory (Sm) and manuka (Ls) essential oils (EOs) against Escherichia coli wild strains O:149, O:139 and O:8.
MIC
StrainsSmLsSm–Ls70:30Sm–Ls50:50Sm–Ls30:70
E. coli O:1491:641:321:5121:2561:128
E. coli O:1391:641:321:2561:1281:128
E. coli O:81:641:321:2561:1281:128
MBC
StrainsSmLsSm–Ls70:30Sm–Ls50:50Sm–Ls30:70
E. coli O:1491:641:161:2561:2561:128
E. coli O:1391:641:161:1281:641:64
E. coli O:81:641:321:2561:641:128
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Fratini, F.; Forzan, M.; Turchi, B.; Mancini, S.; Alcamo, G.; Pedonese, F.; Pistelli, L.; Najar, B.; Mazzei, M. In Vitro Antibacterial Activity of Manuka (Leptospermum scoparium J.R. et G. Forst) and winter Savory (Satureja montana L.) Essential Oils and Their Blends against Pathogenic E. coli Isolates from Pigs. Animals 2020, 10, 2202. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani10122202

AMA Style

Fratini F, Forzan M, Turchi B, Mancini S, Alcamo G, Pedonese F, Pistelli L, Najar B, Mazzei M. In Vitro Antibacterial Activity of Manuka (Leptospermum scoparium J.R. et G. Forst) and winter Savory (Satureja montana L.) Essential Oils and Their Blends against Pathogenic E. coli Isolates from Pigs. Animals. 2020; 10(12):2202. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani10122202

Chicago/Turabian Style

Fratini, Filippo, Mario Forzan, Barbara Turchi, Simone Mancini, Giuseppe Alcamo, Francesca Pedonese, Luisa Pistelli, Basma Najar, and Maurizio Mazzei. 2020. "In Vitro Antibacterial Activity of Manuka (Leptospermum scoparium J.R. et G. Forst) and winter Savory (Satureja montana L.) Essential Oils and Their Blends against Pathogenic E. coli Isolates from Pigs" Animals 10, no. 12: 2202. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani10122202

APA Style

Fratini, F., Forzan, M., Turchi, B., Mancini, S., Alcamo, G., Pedonese, F., Pistelli, L., Najar, B., & Mazzei, M. (2020). In Vitro Antibacterial Activity of Manuka (Leptospermum scoparium J.R. et G. Forst) and winter Savory (Satureja montana L.) Essential Oils and Their Blends against Pathogenic E. coli Isolates from Pigs. Animals, 10(12), 2202. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani10122202

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop