Next Article in Journal
Joint Computation Offloading and Data Caching Based on Cooperation of Mobile-Edge-Computing-Enabled Base Stations
Next Article in Special Issue
Screening of Some Romanian Raw Honeys and Their Probiotic Potential Evaluation
Previous Article in Journal
An Ensemble of Convolutional Neural Networks for Audio Classification
Previous Article in Special Issue
The Rediscovery of Honey for Skin Repair: Recent Advances in Mechanisms for Honey-Mediated Wound Healing and Scaffolded Application Techniques
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Applied Sciences
Volume 11
Issue 13
10.3390/app11135801
applsci-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

Antibacterial Activity and Characterization of Bacteria Isolated from Diverse Types of Greek Honey against Nosocomial and Foodborne Pathogens

by
Christina Tsadila
1,
Marios Nikolaidis
2,
Tilemachos G. Dimitriou
1,
Ioannis Kafantaris
1,
Grigoris D. Amoutzias
2,
Spyros Pournaras
3 and
Dimitris Mossialos
1,*
1
Microbial Biotechnology-Molecular Bacteriology-Virology Laboratory, Department of Biochemistry & Biotechnology, University of Thessaly, 41500 Larissa, Greece
2
Bioinformatics Laboratory, Department of Biochemistry & Biotechnology, University of Thessaly, 41500 Larissa, Greece
3
Clinical Microbiology Laboratory, Medical School, “Attikon” University General Hospital, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, 12462 Athens, Greece
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Appl. Sci. 2021, 11(13), 5801; https://doi.org/10.3390/app11135801
Submission received: 19 May 2021 / Revised: 15 June 2021 / Accepted: 19 June 2021 / Published: 22 June 2021
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Chemical Composition, Properties and Applications of Honey)
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
It has been suggested that microorganisms present in honey are a potential source of antimicrobial compounds. This study aimed to isolate and characterize bacteria from 46 Greek honey samples of diverse botanical and geographical origin and to determine whether these bacteria demonstrate antibacterial activity against five important nosocomial and foodborne pathogens. In total, 2014 bacterial isolates were obtained and screened for antibacterial activity. Overall, 16% of the isolates inhibited the growth of Staphylococcus aureus, 11.2% inhibited the growth of Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Acinetobacter baumannii, 10.2% inhibited the growth of Salmonella Typhimurium and 12.4% of the isolates affected the growth of Citrobacter freundii. In total, 316 isolates that inhibited the growth of more than two of the tested pathogens were grouped by restriction fragment length polymorphisms (RFLP) analysis of the 16S rRNA gene amplicon. Fifty of them were identified by 16S rRNA gene sequencing. The majority, 62% of the isolates, belonged to the genus Bacillus. Only 10% of the isolates were identified as Gram-negative bacteria. Furthermore, in several bacterial isolates, genes encoding polyketide synthases and nonribosomal peptide synthetases that catalyze the biosynthesis of secondary metabolites which might contribute to the exerted antimicrobial activity, were detected. This study demonstrates that honey microbiota exerts antimicrobial activity and is a putative source of secondary metabolites against important nosocomial and food pathogens that warrants further investigation.

1. Introduction

Honey is a natural substance produced by honeybees (Apis mellifera L.). Honeybees collect nectar (floral honey) or secretions of living parts of plants (honeydew honey) [1,2,3] and transform them by adding secretions from their own salivary glands [4]. It is a complex aqueous mixture, consisting of more than 200 compounds, mainly carbohydrates. Moreover, it contains small amounts of proteins, aminoacids, phytochemicals, and plant- and bee-derived enzymes such as glucose oxidase and catalase [5,6]. It is characterized by low water activity (aw = 0.50–0.60), low humidity (<18%), and high acidity (pH 3.4–6.1) [7,8]. The physicochemical and biological properties of honey depend on its botanical and geographical origin [9,10,11].
For centuries honey has been utilized not only as a food, but also as a medicine and food preservative [12,13]. Recent studies confirmed its beneficial bioactivity on human health [11,14,15]. Antibacterial activity is the most investigated biological property of honey [16,17] and it is attributed to different factors [2]. Honey is a hostile environment for the survival and growth of different microorganisms, due to its physicochemical properties [8,12,18]. Hydrogen peroxide (H2O2) is one of the major antimicrobial factors in honey. It is generated by the bee-derived enzyme glucose oxidase (GOX) or via an alternative non-enzymatic pathway comprising polyphenolic compounds [6,17,19]. The presence of various phytochemical compounds is also important for the direct antimicrobial potential of honey [20]. Other components responsible for the antibacterial activity exerted by honey are the peptide bee defensin-1 [11,16], methylglyoxal (MGO), which is the main antimicrobial substance of manuka honey [14,21], and other unknown components [22].
Despite the various antibacterial factors [17], several studies have reported the isolation of microorganisms from honeys produced in diverse geographical locations [4,7,12,18]. Microorganisms in honey might be derived from primary and secondary sources. Primary sources include pollen, flowers, nectar, honeydew secretions [5,22,23], the environment (dust, air, soil) [7], as well as the honeybees (gut microbiota) or other insects [24,25,26]. Furthermore, microorganisms can be inoculated to honey during its extraction and post-harvest processing [7,23]. They are often related to hygiene and storage conditions [3,27]. Usually, they are yeasts, molds, and bacterial species (especially spore-forming) [18,24,28].
Honey microbiome has been suggested as a potential source of antimicrobial compounds [19,28]. Honey bacterial isolates produce antimicrobial compounds in vitro, but there is no direct evidence of such compounds present in honey [29]. Many secondary metabolites of high pharmaceutical and biotechnological interest are synthesized by nonribosomal peptide synthetases (NRPSs) and polyketide synthases (PKSs) [30,31]. These enzymes are large multifunctional complexes organized as modules and are implicated in the biosynthesis of nonribosomal peptides (NRPs) and polyketides (PKs) respectively. These two large classes of natural products exert various biological properties, such as antimicrobial, anticancer, and immunosuppressive activity [32,33].
The aim of this study was to isolate and characterize bacteria from honeys of diverse botanical origin and locations across Greece, exhibiting antibacterial activity against five important nosocomial and foodborne pathogens. Furthermore, the presence of genes encoding PKSs and NRPSs, that might be implicated in the synthesis of antimicrobial compounds, has been investigated.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Honey Samples

A total of forty-six Greek honey samples from various geographical and botanical origins were provided by individual beekeepers and beekeeping associations. Εach sample was assigned to a unique reference number. Details regarding botanical source, geographical location, and harvest date were recorded (Table S1). The identification of the botanical source of honeys was based on the flora availability during the harvest season, the location of the apiary and, in several cases, palynological analysis. Honey samples were stored at room temperature in dark conditions.

2.2. Bacterial Isolation

Each honey sample (500 μL) was diluted into 1.5 mL sterile Mueller Hinton (MH) Broth (25%, v/v) (NEOGEN, Heywood, UK) and mixed well.
Aerobic mesophilic bacteria: 100 μL of each suspension were plated in triplicate onto standard plate count agar (PCA) (Condalab, Madrid, Spain) [7,8] or Luria Bertani (LB) agar (Lab M, Heywood, UK) [12] and then incubated aerobically at 30 °C for 5 days. After incubation, in order to obtain pure bacterial cultures, single colonies were transferred onto new PCA Petri dishes using the successive subculturing method. Pure cultures were stored as glycerol stocks (MH broth +20% glycerol) in 96-well plates at −80 °C, until further analysis.
Aerobic spore-forming bacteria: each diluted sample was subjected to heat activation at 80 °C for 10 min and cooled at room temperature for another 15 min [8,18]. Then, 100 μL of each sample were spread in triplicate onto the selective Bacillus cereus medium (BCM) (Lab M, Heywood, UK) and incubated under aerobic conditions at 30 °C for 48 h. Pure cultures, obtained as described above, were stored as glycerol stocks (MH broth +20% glycerol) in 96-well plates at −80 °C, until further analysis.
Lactic acid bacteria (LAB): A 100 μL aliquot of each diluted sample was spread in triplicate onto the selected media, Man Rogosa and Sharpe (MRS) agar (NEOGEN, Heywood, UK) and incubated anaerobically in an AnaeroJar AG25 with the AnaeroGen Atmosphere Generation system (Oxoid, Basingstoke, UK) at 30 °C for approximately 4 days. Resazurin sodium salt (Alfa Aesar, Thermo FisherGmbH, Kandel, Germany) (30 mg/lt) was used as an indicator for anaerobic conditions (turns from blue to pink). Each colony was subcultured anaerobically onto MRS agar supplemented with 1% calcium carbonate (CaCO3) (Scharlau, Barcelona, Spain) [32]. A clear zone around a colony indicates hydrolysis of CaCO3 due to organic acid production [34]. Colonies that exhibited a clear zone were picked, cultured onto eppendorfs filled to the top with Thioglycolate Broth (Scharlau, Barcelona, Spain) +20% glycerol and stored at −80 °C, until further analysis.

2.3. Pathogenic Bacterial Strains

The antimicrobial activity of the bacterial isolates from different honeys was tested against methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (S. aureus) strain 1552, carbapenem-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa (P. aeruginosa) strain 1773, Acinetobacter baumannii (A. baumannii), Citrobacter freundii (C. freundii), and Salmonella Typhimurium (S. Typhimurium) strains. All strains were isolated from clinical samples, identified, and characterized by standard laboratory methods at Attikon University General Hospital [13,35]. All bacteria were routinely grown in MH Broth (NEOGEN, Heywood, UK) or MH agar (NEOGEN, Heywood, UK) at 37 °C.

2.4. Dual Culture Overlay Assay

The antibacterial activity was tested by dual culture overlay assay as previously described [28,36] with few modifications. A replicate of each 96-well plate was transferred onto PCA square Petri dishes (120 × 120 mm, Aptaca Spa, Canelli, Italy) by using a microplate replicator (Boekel Scientific, Pennsylvania, PA, USA) and incubated at 30 °C for 24 h. Then, each pathogen (approximately 9 × 104 cfu/mL) was mixed into soft Nutrient Agar (Biolab, Budapest, Hungary) containing 0.75% (w/v) agar, keeping it liquid at 42 °C. The mixture of soft agar and bacterial cells was poured as a thin overlayer on top of the plates with the overnight-cultivated replica of the bacterial isolates. The plates were incubated at 37 °C for 24 h and inhibition zones were observed. Each bacterial isolate that exhibited a clear inhibition zone was tested again, in triplicate, in order to confirm the antibacterial activity.

2.5. Grouping and Identification of Bacteria Exerting Antibacterial Activity

From the glycerol stock each isolate was plated on PCA agar and incubated aerobically at 30 °C for 24 h. A single colony was obtained and cultured in MH broth aerobically at 30 °C, overnight. Pure broth cultures were used for genomic DNA extraction with the ExtractMe Genomic DNA Kit (Blirt, Gdańsk, Poland). Universal primers 27F (5′-AGAGTTTGATCMTGGCTCAG-3′) [37] and 1492R (5′-GGTTACCTTGTTACGACTT-3′) [38] (Eurofins Genomics, Germany) were used to amplify the 16S rRNA gene by PCR. The reaction mixture contained: 1 U FastGene Taq DNA Polymerase (NIPPON Genetics, Tokyo, Japan), 1× PCR buffer A, 25 pmol of each primer, 1 mM dNTPs, 3 μL DNA template, and deionized sterile water to a final volume of 50 μL. The thermal cycler Primus 25 (PEQLAB Biotechnologie, Erlangen, Germany) was used in the following PCR conditions: initialization at 95 °C for 3 min, followed by 35 cycles of denaturation at 95 °C for 30 s, annealing at 50 °C for 30 s, and elongation at 72 °C for 2 min. A final elongation step at 72 °C for 2 min was added.
Restriction fragment length polymorphisms analysis (RFLP) of 16S rRNA amplicons was conducted as a simple prescreening for dereplication and grouping of the bacterial isolates. Two μL of each PCR product (approximately 1400 bp), were incubated at 37 °C for 1 h, with 10 U of RsaI and HinfI endonucleases and 10 × buffer K (Bioron, Römerberg, Germany) [5,18,25]. The analysis was performed by electrophoresis in a 3% agarose gel (Invitrogen, Paisley, UK) by standard electrophoresis. Following RFLP analysis, bacterial isolates from each group were phenotypically characterized by Gram staining [39].
Amplicons of representative isolates of each group demonstrating antibacterial activity were purified using the NucleoSpin Gel and PCR clean-up kit (Macherey-Nagel, Düren, Germany) and then directly sequenced via Sanger dideoxy termination method by Macrogen Europe (Amsterdam, The Netherlands). Chromas version 2.6.6 software (Technelysium Pty Ltd., South Brisbane, Australia, www.technelysium.com.au) (accessed on 21 June 2021) was used to check the quality of the obtained sequencing results. Sequences were assembled into a single sequence via MEGA X version 10.1.6 software [40] and Gene Runner version 6.5 software (www.generunner.net accessed on 21 June 2021) and subjected to a BlastN (Megablast) (https://blast.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/Blast.cgi accessed on 21 June 2021, BLAST, NIH) search in the 16S rRNA Database-GENEBANK to identify sequences with the highest similarity [3,5,18]. Obtained sequences were deposited to GenBank under the following accession numbers: MW700012–MW700061.

2.6. NRPS and PKS Gene Screening

Identified bacterial isolates were further screened for the presence of biosynthetic gene clusters of nonribosomal peptide synthetases (NRPS) and type-I polyketide synthases (PKS-I). The oligonucleotide primer set NRPS-1F (5′-GCSTACSYSATSTACACSTCSGG-3′) and NRPS-1R (5′-SASGTCVCCSGTSCGGTAS-3′) (Eurofins Genomics, Ebersberg, Germany) was used to amplify partially the adenylation (A) domain (approximately 750–800 bp) and the primer set PKS-IF (5′-GTGCCGGTNCCRTGNGYYTC-3′) and PKS-IR (5′-CGATGGAYCCNCARCARYG-3′) (Eurofins Genomics, Ebersberg, Germany) for the amplification of partially KS domain (approximately 600–750 bp) [32]. PCR reactions were carried out in 50 μL final volume, using Primus 25 thermal cycler (PEQLAB Biotechnologie, Erlangen, Germany). The reaction mixture for NRPS A domain contained 1.5 U FastGene Taq DNA Polymerase (NIPPON Genetics, Tokyo, Japan), 1× PCR buffer B, 25 pmol of each primer, 1 mM dNTPs and 5 μL DNA template. The amplification conditions were the following: initialization at 95 °C for 3 min, followed by 35 cycles of denaturation at 95 °C for 30 s, annealing at 59 °C for 2 min and elongation at 72 °C for 4 min with a final elongation step at 72 °C for 1 min. For the KS domain the reaction mixture contained 1 U Taq DNA Polymerase (Invitrogene, UK), 1× PCR buffer, 25 pmol of each primer, 1 mM dNTPs, 1.5 mM MgCl2, and 5 μL DNA template. The initialization at 94 °C for 3 min was followed by 40 cycles of denaturation at 94 °C for 30 s, annealing at 60 °C for 1 min and elongation at 72 °C for 30 s. The final elongation step was performed at 72 °C for 5 min. Sequencing was performed via Sanger dideoxy termination method by CeMIA SA (Larissa, Greece). Sequencing data were subjected to a BLASTN (https://blast.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/Blast.cgi, BLAST, NIH) (accessed on 21 June 2021) search and to BLASTX (E value: 1 × 10−5) in order to identify the closest known homologues and determine the level of homology of the amino acid sequence.

3. Results

3.1. Isolation of Bacteria from Honey

In total, 2014 bacterial isolates were obtained from 46 Greek honey samples of various geographical and botanical origin, utilizing four different culture media (PCA, LB agar, BCM and MRS agar) (Table S1). Overall, 695 bacterial isolates were obtained on PCA, 851 on LB agar, 370 on BCM, and finally 98 isolates were obtained by using MRS agar. Bacterial isolates were obtained from all honey samples no matter the botanical source, geographical origin, and the date of harvest. The only exception was honey sample 42, which was tested only for aerobic spore-forming bacteria on BCM.

3.2. Antimicrobial Activity of Bacterial Isolates

All bacterial isolates (2014 in total) were screened by dual overlay assay, in order to determine whether they inhibited the growth of five important human and foodborne pathogens: S. aureus, P. aeruginosa, S. Typhimurium, A. baumannii, and C. freundii (Table 1). A clear inhibition zone (>5 mm) against a given tested pathogen was considered as positive antibacterial activity. Overall, 323 (16%) isolates were found to inhibit the growth of S. aureus, 225 (11.2%) isolates inhibited the growth of P. aeruginosa, 206 (10.2%) isolates inhibited the growth of S. Typhimurium, while 225 (11.2%) isolates and 249 (12.4%) isolates affected the growth of A. baumannii, and C. freundii, respectively. Collectively, 296 (14.7%) isolates inhibited the growth of at least one of the tested pathogens, 167 (8.3%) isolates inhibited the growth of at least two of the five tested pathogens and 111 (5.5%) honey bacterial isolates affected the growth of at least three of the five tested pathogens. Forty (1.99%) isolates exerted antibacterial activity against at least four out of five tested pathogens, whereas 21 isolates (1.04%) inhibited the growth of all five pathogens. These results demonstrated that 31.5% (635/2014) of the obtained bacterial isolates exerted antibacterial activity against at least one pathogen.

3.3. Grouping and Identification of Bacterial Isolates Exerting Antibacterial Activity

The bacterial isolates (316) that exerted antibacterial activity against at least two of the tested pathogens were selected for further analysis. The 16S rRNA gene of all these isolates was amplified by PCR and the amplicons were subjected to RFLP analysis. Overall, the 316 bacterial isolates were distributed in 19 groups (Table S2). Representative isolates from each group were further subjected to Gram staining. In total, 50 bacterial isolates were identified by 16S rRNA gene sequencing.
Sequencing of the 16S rRNA gene revealed that 90% of the 50 bacterial isolates were classified as Gram-positive bacteria whereas only 10% as Gram-negative. Thirty-one out of 50 strains (62%) belonging to the genus Bacillus were classified into eight species (Table 2). B. safensis was the most frequently identified species (7 out of 31 isolates, 22.6%) followed by B. pumilus (5/31, 16.1%), B. subtilis (4/31, 12.9%), and B. cereus (2/31, 6.5%). Four isolates were identified as B. licheniformis, Priestia megaterium (former B. megaterium), B. paramycoides, and B. vallismortis respectively. Classification at species level within the Bacillus group was not possible for 9 isolates due to the high similarity of 16S rRNA gene sequence to more than one species. Other isolates were identified as Lysinibacillus fusiformis, Microbacterium imperiale, Micrococcus yunnanensis, Paenibacillus sp., Paenibacillus profundus, Terribacillus saccharophilus, and Terribacillus sp. (2% for each phylotype). Seven isolates were identified as Staphylococcus spp. (14%). Specifically, five isolates were identified as S. arlettae, S. epidermidis, S. hominis, S. pasteuri, and S. warneri respectively, and two isolates were identified as S. cohnii. Regarding the Gram-negative isolates, four (8%) were identified as Pseudomonas sp., P. coleopterorum, P. fulva, and P. stutzeri and one as Acinetobacter lwoffii (Table 2).
Furthermore, all 50 isolates were screened for the presence of NRPS and PKS-I biosynthetic gene clusters. In fourteen isolates, NRPS genes were detected; six isolates were tested positive for PKS gene clusters whereas in 13 isolates both NRPS and PKS gene clusters were detected. Twenty-six out of 31 (83.9%) bacterial isolates identified as Bacillus spp. tested positive for NRPS or PKS or both. Specifically, 11 out of the 31 (35.5%) bacterial isolates identified as Bacillus spp. tested positive only for NRPS genes (78.6% of the isolates positive for NRPS, 11/14), 5 were positive only for PKS genes (83.3% of the isolates positive for PKS, 5/6) and 10 isolates were detected positive for both NRPS/PKS gene clusters (76.9% of all isolates positive for both NRPS and PKS, 10/13). Moreover, only NRPS genes were detected in 4 out of 5 identified B. pumilus strains (CTA1, CTA2, CTA15, CTB21), in 2 out of 9 Bacillus sp. (CTA31, CTA14), and in 2 out of 7 B. safensis strains (CTB16, CTB120). B. licheniformis (CTA163), P. megaterium (CTA7), and B. paramycoides (CTA28) were also positive just for NRPS genes. Two B. safensis (CTA146, CTB7) and 3 Bacillus sp. (CTA109, CTB11, CTA125) strains were positive just for PKS gene clusters. Both NRPS and PKS genes were detected in B. vallismortis (CTA16), in 4 B. subtilis strains (CTA5, CTA9, CTA10, CTA20), 3 B. safensis (CTA57, CTB43, CTB89), and 2 Bacillus spp. (CTB31, CTA46) strains.
Two out of 4 (50%) bacterial isolates identified as Pseudomonas spp. tested positive for NRPS (P. fulva CTA23) or both NRPS/PKS (Pseudomonas sp. CTA90) gene clusters. In addition, 2 out of 7 isolates identified as Staphylococcus spp. tested positive for NRPS (S. arlettae CT6C) and PKS (S. cohnii CTB46) gene clusters. The strain M. imperiale (CTA95) was positive for NRPS encoding genes, while in P. profundus (CTA169) and Paenibacillus sp. (CTB69) both NPRS and PKS gene clusters were detected.
Twelve NRPS amplicons and 11 PKS amplicons were sequenced, in order to validate the PCR result (Table 3 and Table 4). Ten out of 12 amplicons were indeed identified as NRPS gene clusters. The identification of the other two amplicons was not possible due to low quality of sequencing data. In most cases there was an agreement regarding the genus classification and sequencing results, except for amplicons A1 and A7 that were amplified from bacterial isolates belonging to Bacillus spp., whereas the NPRS amplicons shared homology with NRPSs of P. moteilii. Amplicons A10, A20, and A46 from the strains B. safensis (CTA10), B. safensis (CTA20), and Bacillus sp. (CTA46) were identified as NRPSs that were implicated in surfactin biosynthesis, while B69 from the strain Paenibacillus sp. shared homology with the subunit B of gramicidin synthase.
Furthermore, the sequencing data verified the PCR results for the 11 tested PKS amplicons. Six amplicons exhibited homology with ketosynthases, (A5, A9, A10, A20, A125, B11), 3 were identified as PKSs (A109, B31, B69), while amplicon A16 was identified as amino acid adenylation domain-containing protein. In all cases there was an agreement regarding the classification at genus level and the sequencing results. Interestingly, sequencing data regarding A9 amplicon of B. subtilis CTA9 strain suggest that bacillaene is biosynthesized by this strain.

4. Discussion

The antimicrobial activity exerted by honey is one of its most well-established bioactivities described in many studies [11]. Honey affects the growth and survival of microorganisms via multiple mechanisms [14,41]. Low pH, high sugar concentration, high osmolarity and the presence of antibacterial substances such as hydrogen peroxide and phytochemicals in honey provide a hostile environment for bacteria [42]. Consequently, honey is expected to contain a limited number and diversity of microorganisms [14]. Nevertheless, honey is not sterile since it is a natural product that is not processed [3,5,12,28]. Several studies have reported isolated microorganisms from honey samples produced in various geographical locations [4,7,12,18,43]. Interestingly, the number of microorganisms in honey ranged widely, from 0 to several thousand colony forming units (CFUs) per gram, depending on the sample and its freshness [8,9,18]. Sinacori et al. [18] reported low bacterial load in 33 out of 38 honey samples harvested in southern Italy. Similar results were reported by other researchers in Argentina [8], Morocco [15], Poland [12], Saudi Arabia [44], and Mexico [7]. Fernández et al. [27] studied the microbiological quality of honey from Argentina and their results were comparable to those reported in previous studies conducted in Argentina as well as other parts of the world [8,12,18,28,45]. Bacteria have also been isolated from stingless bee honey [4,23,42]. Moreover, there are few studies that have described the microbial communities of honey using culture-independent methods like next generation sequencing (NGS) [17,46,47,48].
Honey bacteria exerting antibacterial activity have been successfully isolated by several research groups [6,12,42,49,50,51,52]. There are also reports on the antibacterial activity exerted by various bacterial isolates from stingless bee (Heterotrigona itama) honey [34,42]. Lee et al. [28] screened more than two thousand bacterial strains isolated from six US domestic honeys and two manuka honeys against seven bacteria and one mold but identification of bacterial isolates was not conducted. Recently, Pajor et al. [12] investigated the antimicrobial potential of 163 bacteria isolated from honey samples produced in Poland.
A number of studies have demonstrated high antibacterial activity of Greek honeys against major nosocomial and foodborne pathogens [1,13,35,53]. However, this is the first study aiming to isolate and characterize bacteria from diverse types of Greek honeys exhibiting antibacterial potential. In total, 2014 bacterial isolates were screened against five important human and foodborne pathogens (S. aureus, P. aeruginosa, S. Typhimurium, A. baumannii, and C. freundii). Three of them belong to the “ESKAPE” pathogens group (E. faecium, S. aureus, K. pneumoniae, A. baumannii, P. aeruginosa, and Enterobacter spp.). The World Health Organization (WHO) included ESKAPE in a list of pathogens for which new antimicrobial compounds are urgently needed. A. baumannii and P. aeruginosa are listed in the critical priority list of pathogens, whereas S. aureus (MRSA) is in the high priority group [54,55,56]. Furthermore, multidrug-resistant C. freundii is of major concern, often implicated in nosocomial infections [57,58]. This is the first study regarding the antibacterial activity of honey bacterial isolates against C. freundii and A. baumanii.
Moreover, in this study a higher number of bacterial isolates (2014) was screened against five pathogens, compared to relevant studies [4,42,51,52]. The most susceptible pathogen was S. aureus, followed by C. freundii, P. aeruginosa, and A. baumannii. In contrast, S. Typhimurium was the least affected tested pathogen. A possible explanation might be that Gram-negative bacteria possess an outer membrane which often contributes to resistance to a wide range of antibacterial factors (for instance, loss of porins located in outer membrane). In agreement with our study, Pajor et al. [12] reported that 20.3% of the honey isolated strains inhibited the growth of S. aureus ATCC 25923, while activity against P. aeruginosa ATCC 27857 was rarely observed.
In previous studies, aerobic spore-forming bacteria belonging to Bacillus spp. and related genera (Brevibacillus, Lysinibacillus, Paenibacillus) have been identified as the most common bacteria present in honey [5,59]. Furthermore, bacteria belonging to Bacillus genus have been often isolated from the honeybee gut [60,61,62]. Similarly, in this study, 62% of the identified isolates belonged to the genus Bacillus. Malika et al. [15] detected Bacillus spores in most of the honey samples from Morocco, while Pomastowski et al. [3] reported that regardless of the geographical and botanical origin, the main bacteria in honeys were spore-forming Bacillus spp., which is in agreement with our data.
Bacteria belonging to B. subtilis or B. cereus groups are the most frequently detected in honey [3,25]. Indeed, B. safensis was the most frequently identified species in our study followed by B. pumilus, B. subtilis, and B. cereus. The species B. cereus, B. licheniformis, B. megaterium, B. pumilus, B. safensis, B. subtilis, and B. vallismortis have been detected in honey samples from diverse geographical locations [3,4,9,22,25,42,44,60,63].
Nevertheless, to the best of our knowledge, this is the first time that B. paramycoides, L. fusiformis, M. imperiale, M. yunnanensis, P. profundus, and T. saccharophilus were isolated from honey. Paenibacillus strains isolated from various ecological niches synthesize a wide range of antibiotics (polymyxins, polypeptins, gavaserin) [51,64]. P. profundus strain Sl 79, a deep sediment bacterium, exerted a remarkable inhibitory activity against both Gram-positive and Gram-negative bacteria. It is known to produce isocoumarin and a new linear glyceryl acid-derived heptapeptide that exhibited antibacterial activity against S. aureus, S. epidermidis, B. subtilis, and E. faecium [64,65]. On the other hand, M. yunnanensis was previously detected in bee gut [61,66] but not in honey. Micrococcin was the first thiazolyl peptide isolated from a Micrococcus strain [67]. Sponge-derived M. yunnanensis F-256,44 was reported to produce kocurin, an antibiotic of the thiazolyl peptide family [67,68]. Moreover, Ravi Ranjan et al. [69] isolated M. yunnanensis strain rsk5, which produced a novel antibacterial compound. This compound exerted activity against antibiotic-resistant S. aureus and differs from other characterized secondary metabolites. T. saccharophilus, as its name suggests, is a sugar-loving bacterium [70]. A study reported that a T. saccharophillus strain isolated from the gut of an edible Indian freshwater fish could be applied as a probiotic in fish feed formulations [71]. Another study reported the production of copious amounts of exopolysaccharides by T. saccharophilus strain PS-47. Exopolysaccharides are secondary metabolites, used in the pharmaceutical and food industries [72]. Microbacterium spp. were previously isolated from the gastrointestinal tract of adult worker honeybees [62]. A study reported that M. imperiale (MAIIF2a) reduced fungal symptoms by Fusarium solani in cassava roots, indicating its antimicrobial potential [73].
The antibacterial activity of B. paramycoides and L. fusiformis against important human and food pathogens has been described for the first time in this study. However, these bacterial species are known for their bioremediation potential [74,75,76]. Moreover, B. paramycoides was reported as a plant growth-promoting rhizobacterium [77], while L. fusiformis strain C250R produced a novel extracellular thermostable protease designated as SAPLF, which could be applied in pharmaceuticals, food, and biotechnology industries [78].
In this study, 14% of the characterized bacterial isolates were identified as Staphylococcus spp. Previous studies have reported the presence of S. epidermidis, S. pasteuri, and S. hominis in honey [3,22,79]. Moreover, all Staphylococcus spp. identified in this study, except S. arlettae, have been described as part of the honeybee gastrointestinal microbiome [3,61,62,66,80,81]. S. arlettae is commonly found in the skin and nares of poultry and goats [82].
Surprisingly, none of the bacterial isolates grown on MRS agar that exerted antimicrobial acitivity in this study was identified as lactic acid bacteria. However, all four isolates were identified as Staphylococcus spp., one of them (S. hominis) previously isolated using MRS agar [83].
Only 10% of the characterized bacterial isolates were identified as Gram-negative bacteria, namely Pseudomonas sp., P. coleopterorum, P. fulva, P. stutzeri, and A. lwoffii. Pseudomonas spp. and Actinetobacter spp. are often present in soil [7]. However, Veress et al. [84] isolated for the first time the bacterium A. lwoffii from a Transylvanian honey sample, suggesting that it was derived from the honeybee microbiota. Pseudomonas spp. have been identified both in honey and the digestive tract of honeybees [9,10,17,22,62]. The Pseudomonas genus is very diverse and comprises 272 species, organized in several major taxonomic groups that are widely distributed in diverse niches [85]. Some of these strains exert biotechnologically interesting metabolic potential (denitrification, degradation of aromatic compounds, nitrogen fixation) [86,87,88,89]. P. fulva is a widespread environmental species exhibiting high biodegrading potential. It is reported to degrade neonicotinoid insecticides that contribute to honeybee colony collapse disorder [86], as well as a pyrethroid insecticide, reported to be accumulated in honeybee wax samples [87]. On the other hand, P. coleopterorum was detected in the gut microbiota of some plant-related insects [90].
Bee products have been suggested as a rich source of beneficial bacteria that might be potential biocontrol agents against bee pathogens [4,28,42]. Several Bacillus strains produce compounds against pathogenic and food-spoilage bacteria [2,51]. Moreover, B. subtilis, B. amyloliquefaciens, B. pumilus, and B. licheniformis are considered as probiotics and antibiotic producers. Indeed, B. subtilis has already been used as a probiotic supplement for human and animal diets [23,42].
LABs commonly isolated from honey produce secondary metabolites, like bacteriocins and lipopeptides [6,42,91,92]. However, we did not identify any LABs exhibiting antibacterial activity in the present study, presumably due to the relatively small number of isolates grown on MRS agar.
Nonribosomal peptide synthetases (NRPSs) and polyketide synthases (PKSs) are often implicated in the biosynthesis of medically useful secondary metabolites, such as antibiotics, antitumor agents, immunosuppressants, siderophores, and toxins [30,31,33]. In this study we report the detection of genes encoding NRPSs and PKSs in 14 and 6 out of 50 identified isolates, respectively. NRPS genes were detected more often in Bacillus spp. It is known that Bacillus and Paenibacillus genera produce non-ribosomally synthesized lipopetides with significant antimicrobial activity, such as iturin, fengycin, surfactin, and bacillomycin. These compounds are abundantly synthesized, particularly by B. amyloliquefaciens, B. subtilis, B. licheniformis, and B. pumilus [92,93]. Furthermore, NRPs have been identified in Pseudomonas spp. by several studies [94,95,96,97]. Analysis of P. fluorescens In5 revealed the presence of two antifungal NRPs, nunamycin and nunapeptin [94]. Another study showed that a monomodular NRPS from Pseudomonas fluorescens HKI0770 is implicated in biosynthesis of the antimicrobial pyreudiones [96].
Magdalena et al. [51] have targeted seven antibacterial peptide biosynthetic genes present in two B. velezensis honey isolates using specific primers. However, in our study the universal primer set NRPS-1F—NRPS-1R for the amplification of adenylation (A) domain was used, thus targeting a much broader range of NRPS biosynthetic clusters.
PKS gene clusters were detected in B. safensis, Bacillus sp., and S. cohnii strains. Type I PKSs are large multifunctional enzymes, implicated in pharmacologically important metabolites, most often detected within prokaryotes [93,98]. PKs were detected in B. subtilis, B. amyloliquefaciens, B. methylotrophicus, B. atrophaeus, B. laterosporus, and Paenibacillus sp. [93]. Within the B. subtilis group, three types of antimicrobial PKs are produced, including bacillaene, difficidin, and macrolactin [98]. Moreover, Zhang et al. [99], reported the partial isolation of a gene cluster from Staphylococcus lentus encoding a PK exerting broad-spectrum activity against fungi and bacteria. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first time that PKS encoding genes have been detected in bacteria isolated from honey exerting antimicrobial potential.
Interestingly, 13 isolates in this study contained both NRPS and PKS gene clusters. Often NRPSs and PKSs are synthesized as hybrid products by NRPS and PKS gene clusters [31,33,100], such as bacillaene, compactin, fusarin C, or salinosporamide [98].
Twelve NRPS amplicons and 11 PKS amplicons were sequenced, in order to validate our detection approach. Three out of the 12 NRPS amplicons were implicated in the synthesis of surfactin. Surfactin is a cyclic lipoheptapeptide produced by various strains of Bacillus subtilis, which alters membrane integrity and permeability acting against several microorganisms [51,92,101].
Furthermore, it has been reported that Paenibacillus strains, isolated from various environments, produce a wide range of antibiotics [64,92]. Three Paenibacillus species were detected in honey, P. alvei, P. polymyxa, and P. larvae [3,28,92,102]. Polymyxins produced by P. polymyxa have been used as a last-resort treatment of multidrug-resistant Gram-negative bacteria infections. They also exhibit strong antifungal activity [93].
Finally, our sequencing results regarding the PKS amplicon from Bacillus subtilis CTA9 strain suggest the presence of a PKS implicated in bacillaene biosynthesis. Bacillaene was firstly isolated from B. subtilis strains, but since then has been reported to be produced by several other Bacillus spp. It is a hybrid PK synthesized by a PKS-I and NRPS operon and it has demonstrated a strong activity against various bacteria and fungi [92,93,98]. Taking together all these data, it is evident that most of the bacterial isolates in this study could be potent producers of secondary metabolites including antibiotics, bacteriocins, and enzymes that might lead to future biotechnological applications.

5. Conclusions

In the present study, 2014 bacterial isolates were obtained from 46 Greek honey samples of diverse botanical and geographical origin. All bacterial isolates were tested against five important nosocomial and foodborne pathogens. Overall, 31.5% of the isolates exerted antibacterial activity against at least one pathogen. Gram-positive S. aureus was the most susceptible of the five tested pathogens, followed by C. freundii, P. aeruginosa, and A. baumanii. S. Typhimurium was found to be the least susceptible pathogenic bacterium. Fifty isolates that inhibited the growth of at least two tested pathogens were further characterized. Most of them (62%) were identified as Bacillus spp. Nevertheless, six identified species were isolated from honey samples for the very first time. Moreover, the detection of NRPS and PKS (PKS-I) biosynthetic gene clusters in several isolates is reported, underlining the high biosynthetic potential of honey bacteria. Collectively, the results presented in this study demonstrate that the honey microbiome is an untapped source of antimicrobial metabolites against multidrug-resistant nosocomial and food pathogens that warrants further investigation and bioprospecting.

Supplementary Materials

The following are available online at https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/app11135801/s1, Table S1: Honey samples of diverse botanical, geographical origin, and harvest date. Number of bacterial isolates per honey sample and per culture medium, Table S2: Grouping of bacterial isolates by RFLP assay and Gram staining.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, D.M.; methodology, C.T., D.M.; investigation, C.T., I.K., T.G.D.; resources, S.P., D.M.; data curation, M.N., G.D.A.; formal analysis, M.N. writing—original draft preparation, C.T., D.M.; writing—review and editing, D.M., T.G.D., S.P., G.D.A.; supervision, D.M.; funding acquisition, D.M. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This work was supported by the General Secretariat for Research and Innovation (G.S.R.I) under the emblematic action “Honeybee Road”.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Acknowledgments

The research work was supported by the Hellenic Foundation for Research and Innovation (HFRI) under the HFRI Ph.D. Fellowship grant (Fellowship Number: 545) for C.T. I.K. is recipient of a Postdoctoral Fellowship under the emblematic action “Honeybee Road”.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Stagos, D.; Soulitsiotis, N.; Tsadila, C.; Papaeconomou, S.; Arvanitis, C.; Ntontos, A.; Karkanta, F.; Adamou-Androulaki, S.; Petrotos, K.; Spandidos, D.; et al. Antibacterial and antioxidant activity of different types of honey derived from Mount Olympus in Greece. Int. J. Mol. Med. 2018, 42, 726–734. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  2. Ng, W.-J.; Sit, N.-W.; Ooi, P.A.-C.; Ee, K.-Y.; Lim, T.-M. The Antibacterial Potential of Honeydew Honey Produced by Stingless Bee (Heterotrigona itama) against Antibiotic Resistant Bacteria. Antibiotics 2020, 9, 871. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Pomastowski, P.; Złoch, M.; Rodzik, A.; Ligor, M.; Kostrzewa, M.; Buszewski, B. Analysis of bacteria associated with honeys of different geographical and botanical origin using two different identification approaches: MALDI-TOF MS and 16S rDNA PCR technique. PLoS ONE 2019, 14, e0217078. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  4. Ngalimat, M.S.; Raja, A.; Rahman, R.N.Z.; Yusof, M.T.; Syahir, A.; Sabri, S. Characterisation of bacteria isolated from the stingless bee, Heterotrigona itama, honey, bee bread and propolis. PeerJ 2019, 7, e7478. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  5. López, A.C.; Alippi, A.M. Feasibility of using RFLP of PCR-amplified 16S rRNA gene(s) for rapid differentiation of isolates of aerobic spore-forming bacteria from honey. J. Microbiol. Methods 2019, 165, 105690. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Aween, M.M.; Hassan, Z.; Muhialdin, B.J.; Eljamel, Y.A.; Al-Mabrok, A.S.W.; Lani, M.N. Antibacterial Activity of Lactobacillus acidophilus Strains Isolated from Honey Marketed in Malaysia against Selected Multiple Antibiotic Resistant (MAR) Gram-Positive Bacteria. J. Food Sci. 2012, 77, M364–M371. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Vázquez-Quiñones, C.R.; Moreno-Terrazas, R.; Natividad-Bonifacio, I.; Quiñones-Ramírez, E.I.; Vázquez-Salinas, C. Microbiological assessment of honey in México. Rev. Argent. Microbiol. 2018, 50, 75–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Iurlina, M.O.; Fritz, R. Characterization of microorganisms in Argentinean honeys from different sources. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2005, 105, 297–304. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Adadi, P.; Obeng, A.K. Assessment of bacterial quality of honey produced in Tamale metropolis (Ghana). J. Food Drug Anal. 2017, 25, 369–373. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Kafantaris, I.; Amoutzias, G.D.; Mossialos, D. Foodomics in bee product research: A systematic literature review. Eur. Food Res. Technol. 2021, 247, 309–331. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Albaridi, N.A. Antibacterial Potency of Honey. Int. J. Microbiol. 2019, 2019, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Pajor, M.; Worobo, R.; Milewski, S.; Szweda, P. The Antimicrobial Potential of Bacteria Isolated from Honey Samples Produced in the Apiaries Located in Pomeranian Voivodeship in Northern Poland. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2018, 15, 2002. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  13. Tsavea, E.; Mossialos, D. Antibacterial activity of honeys produced in Mount Olympus area against nosocomial and foodborne pathogens is mainly attributed to hydrogen peroxide and proteinaceous compounds. J. Apic. Res. 2019, 58, 756–763. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Bucekova, M.; Bugarova, V.; Godocikova, J.; Majtan, J. Demanding New Honey Qualitative Standard Based on Antibacterial Activity. Foods 2020, 9, 1263. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Malika, N.; And, M.; Adlouni, E.L.; Mohamed, F.; Chakib, E. Microbiological and Physico-chemical properties of Moroccan honey. Int. J. Agric. Biol. 2005, 50, 773–776. [Google Scholar]
  16. Bucekova, M.; Jardekova, L.; Juricova, V.; Bugarova, V.; Di Marco, G.; Gismondi, A.; Leonardi, D.; Farkasovska, J.; Godocikova, J.; Laho, M.; et al. Antibacterial Activity of Different Blossom Honeys: New Findings. Molecules 2019, 24, 1573. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  17. Wen, Y.; Wang, L.; Jin, Y.; Zhang, J.; Su, L.; Zhang, X.; Zhou, J.; Li, Y. The Microbial Community Dynamics during the Vitex Honey Ripening Process in the Honeycomb. Front. Microbiol. 2017, 8, 1649. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Sinacori, M.; Francesca, N.; Alfonzo, A.; Cruciata, M.; Sannino, C.; Settanni, L.; Moschetti, G. Cultivable microorganisms associated with honeys of different geographical and botanical origin. Food Microbiol. 2014, 38, 284–294. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  19. Grecka, K.; Kuś, P.; Worobo, R.; Szweda, P. Study of the Anti-Staphylococcal Potential of Honeys Produced in Northern Poland. Molecules 2018, 23, 260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  20. Estevinho, L.; Pereira, A.P.; Moreira, L.; Dias, L.G.; Pereira, E. Antioxidant and antimicrobial effects of phenolic compounds extracts of Northeast Portugal honey. Food Chem. Toxicol. 2008, 46, 3774–3779. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Lu, J.; Cokcetin, N.N.; Burke, C.M.; Turnbull, L.; Liu, M.; Carter, D.A.; Whitchurch, C.B.; Harry, E.J. Honey can inhibit and eliminate biofilms produced by Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Sci. Rep. 2019, 9, 18160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  22. Grabowski, N.T.; Klein, G. Microbiology and Food-borne Pathogens in Honey. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 2015, 57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Rosli, F.N.; Hazemi, M.H.F.; Akbar, M.A.; Basir, S.; Kassim, H.; Bunawan, H. Stingless Bee Honey: Evaluating Its Antibacterial Activity and Bacterial Diversity. Insects 2020, 11, 500. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Wirta, H.; Abrego, N.; Miller, K.; Roslin, T.; Vesterinen, E. DNA traces the origin of honey by identifying plants, bacteria and fungi. Sci. Rep. 2021, 11, 4798. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. López, A.C.; Alippi, A.M. Phenotypic and genotypic diversity of Bacillus cereus isolates recovered from honey. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2007, 117, 175–184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. McFrederick, Q.S.; Thomas, J.M.; Neff, J.L.; Vuong, H.Q.; Russell, K.A.; Hale, A.R.; Mueller, U.G. Flowers and Wild Megachilid Bees Share Microbes. Microb. Ecol. 2017, 73, 188–200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Fernández, L.A.; Ghilardi, C.; Hoffmann, B.; Busso, C.; Gallez, L.M. Microbiological quality of honey from the Pampas Region (Argentina) throughout the extraction process. Rev. Argent. Microbiol. 2017, 49, 55–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Lee, H.; Churey, J.J.; Worobo, R.W. Antimicrobial activity of bacterial isolates from different floral sources of honey. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2008, 126, 240–244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Kwakman, P.H.S.; Zaat, S.A.J. Antibacterial components of honey. IUBMB Life 2012, 64, 48–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Santos-Gandelman, J.; Giambiagi-deMarval, M.; Oelemann, W.; Laport, M. Biotechnological Potential of Sponge-Associated Bacteria. Curr. Pharm. Biotechnol. 2014, 15, 143–155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Amoutzias, G.; Chaliotis, A.; Mossialos, D. Discovery Strategies of Bioactive Compounds Synthesized by Nonribosomal Peptide Synthetases and Type-I Polyketide Synthases Derived from Marine Microbiomes. Mar. Drugs 2016, 14, 80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  32. Chen, Y.-S.; Yanagida, F.; Hsu, J.-S. Isolation and characterization of lactic acid bacteria from dochi (fermented black beans), a traditional fermented food in Taiwan. Lett. Appl. Microbiol. 2006, 43, 229–235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Nikolouli, K.; Mossialos, D. Bioactive compounds synthesized by non-ribosomal peptide synthetases and type-I polyketide synthases discovered through genome-mining and metagenomics. Biotechnol. Lett. 2012, 34, 1393–1403. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Syed Yaacob, S.N.; Huyop, F.; Kamarulzaman Raja Ibrahim, R.; Wahab, R.A. Identification of Lactobacillus spp. and Fructobacillus spp. isolated from fresh Heterotrigona itama honey and their antagonistic activities against clinical pathogenic bacteria. J. Apic. Res. 2018, 57, 395–405. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Anthimidou, E.; Mossialos, D. Antibacterial Activity of Greek and Cypriot Honeys Against Staphylococcus aureus and Pseudomonas aeruginosa in Comparison to Manuka Honey. J. Med. Food 2013, 16, 42–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Olofsson, T.C.; Butler, È.; Markowicz, P.; Lindholm, C.; Larsson, L.; Vásquez, A. Lactic acid bacterial symbionts in honeybees—An unknown key to honey’s antimicrobial and therapeutic activities. Int. Wound J. 2016, 13, 668–679. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Lane, D. 16S/23S rRNA sequencing. In Nucleic Acid Techniques in Bacterial Systematics; Stackebrandt, E., Goodfellow, M., Eds.; John Wiley and Sons: New York, NY, USA, 1991; pp. 115–175. [Google Scholar]
  38. Turner, S.; Pryer, K.M.; Miao, V.P.W.; Palmer, J.D. Investigating deep phylogenetic relationships among cyanobacteria and plastids by small subunit rRNA sequence analysis. J. Eukaryot. Microbiol. 1999, 46, 327–338. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Tripathi, N.; Sapra, A. Gram Staining; StatPearls Publishing: Treasure Island, FL, USA, 2021. [Google Scholar]
  40. Kumar, S.; Stecher, G.; Li, M.; Knyaz, C.; Tamura, K. MEGA X: Molecular Evolutionary Genetics Analysis across Computing Platforms. Mol. Biol. Evol. 2018, 35, 1547–1549. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Gobin, I.; Crnković, G.; Magdalenić, M.; Begić, G.; Babić, A.; Lušić, D.; Vučković, D. Antibacterial potential of Croatian honey against antibiotic resistant pathogenic bacteria. Med. Glas. 2018, 15, 139–144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Zulkhairi Amin, F.A.; Sabri, S.; Ismail, M.; Chan, K.W.; Ismail, N.; Mohd Esa, N.; Mohd Lila, M.A.; Zawawi, N. Probiotic Properties of Bacillus Strains Isolated from Stingless Bee (Heterotrigona itama) Honey Collected across Malaysia. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 17, 278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  43. Saha, S. Isolation, Detection and Characterization of Aerobic Bacteria from Honey Samples of Bangladesh. bioRxiv 2018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Sadik, M.W.; Al-Samie, M.A.; Ali, M.; Sadik, M.W.; Ali, M.A.M. Survey and identification of microorganisms in Bee Honey samples collected from different plant sources and regions in Saudi Arabia. Glob. Adv. Res. J. Microbiol. 2012, 1, 126–135. [Google Scholar]
  45. Finola, M.S.; Lasagno, M.C.; Marioli, J.M. Microbiological and chemical characterization of honeys from central Argentina. Food Chem. 2007, 100, 1649–1653. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Bovo, S.; Utzeri, V.J.; Ribani, A.; Cabbri, R.; Fontanesi, L. Shotgun sequencing of honey DNA can describe honey bee derived environmental signatures and the honey bee hologenome complexity. Sci. Rep. 2020, 10, 9279. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Bovo, S.; Ribani, A.; Utzeri, V.J.; Schiavo, G.; Bertolini, F.; Fontanesi, L. Shotgun metagenomics of honey DNA: Evaluation of a methodological approach to describe a multi-kingdom honey bee derived environmental DNA signature. PLoS ONE 2018, 13, e0205575. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  48. Kňazovická, V.; Gábor, M.; Miluchová, M.; Bobko, M.; Medo, J. Diversity of bacteria in Slovak and foreign honey, with assessment of its physico-chemical quality and counts of cultivable microorganisms. J. Microbiol. Biotechnol. Food Sci. 2019, 9, 414–421. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Lee, S.K.; Lee, H. Antimicrobial activity of solvent fractions and bacterial isolates of Korean domestic honey from different floral sources. Food Sci. Biotechnol. 2016, 25, 1507–1512. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Abdel Wahab, W.A.; Saleh, S.A.A.; Karam, E.A.; Mansour, N.M.; Esawy, M.A. Possible correlation among osmophilic bacteria, levan yield, and the probiotic activity of three bacterial honey isolates. Biocatal. Agric. Biotechnol. 2018, 14, 386–394. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Magdalena, S. Characterization of antibacterial activity produced by Bacillus spp. isolated from honey and bee-associated products against foodborne pathogens. Asian J. Trop. Biotechnol. 2020, 17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Lashani, E.; Davoodabadi, A.; Dallal, M.M.S. Some probiotic properties of lactobacillus species isolated from honey and their antimicrobial activity against foodborne pathogens. Vet. Res. Forum 2020, 11, 121–126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  53. Voidarou, C.; Alexopoulos, A.; Plessas, S.; Karapanou, A.; Mantzourani, I.; Stavropoulou, E.; Fotou, K.; Tzora, A.; Skoufos, I.; Bezirtzoglou, E. Antibacterial activity of different honeys against pathogenic bacteria. Anaerobe 2011, 17, 375–379. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  54. De Oliveira, D.M.P.; Forde, B.M.; Kidd, T.J.; Harris, P.N.A.; Schembri, M.A.; Beatson, S.A.; Paterson, D.L.; Walker, M.J. Antimicrobial Resistance in ESKAPE Pathogens. Clin. Microbiol. Rev. 2020, 33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  55. Mulani, M.S.; Kamble, E.E.; Kumkar, S.N.; Tawre, M.S.; Pardesi, K.R. Emerging Strategies to Combat ESKAPE Pathogens in the Era of Antimicrobial Resistance: A Review. Front. Microbiol. 2019, 10, 539. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Tacconelli, E.; Magrini, N. Global Priority List of Antibiotic-Resistant Bacteria to Guide Research, Discovery, and Development of New Antibiotics. Available online: http://www.who.int/medicines/publications/global-priority-list-antibiotic-resistant-bacteria/en/ (accessed on 13 May 2021).
  57. Yang, L.; Li, P.; Liang, B.; Hu, X.; Li, J.; Xie, J.; Yang, C.; Hao, R.; Wang, L.; Jia, L.; et al. Multidrug-resistant Citrobacter freundii ST139 co-producing NDM-1 and CMY-152 from China. Sci. Rep. 2018, 8, 10653. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Ranjan, K.P.; Ranjan, N. Citrobacter: An emerging health care associated urinary pathogen. Urol. Ann. 2013, 5, 313–314. [Google Scholar]
  59. Alippi, A.M.; Abrahamovich, E. HiCrome Bacillus agar for presumptive identification of Bacillus and related species isolated from honey samples. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2019, 305, 108245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  60. Gilliam, M.; Morton, H.L. Bacteria belonging to the genus Bacillus isolated from honey bees, Apis Mellifera, fed 2,4-D and antibiotics. Apidologie 1978, 9, 213–222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  61. Gasper, J.; Terentjeva, M.; Kántor, A.; Ivanišová, E.; Kluz, M.; Kačániová, M. Identification of Apis mellifera Gut Microbiota with MALDI-TOF MS Biotyper. Anim. Sci. Biotech. 2017, 50, 2344–4576. [Google Scholar]
  62. Kačániová, M.; Terentjeva, M.; Žiarovská, J.; Kowalczewski, P.Ł. In vitro antagonistic effect of gut bacteriota isolated from indigenous honey bees and essential oils against paenibacillus larvae. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2020, 21, 6736. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Alippi, A.M. Data associated with the characterization and presumptive identification of Bacillus and related species isolated from honey samples by using HiCrome Bacillus agar. Data Br. 2019, 25, 104206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Romanenko, L.A.; Tanaka, N.; Svetashev, V.I.; Kalinovskaya, N.I. Paenibacillus profundus sp. nov., a deep sediment bacterium that produces isocoumarin and peptide antibiotics. Arch. Microbiol. 2013, 195, 247–254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Kalinovskaya, N.I.; Romanenko, L.A.; Kalinovsky, A.I.; Dmitrenok, P.S.; Dyshlovoy, S.A. A New Antimicrobial and Anticancer Peptide Producing by the Marine Deep Sediment Strain “Paenibacillus profundus” sp. nov. Sl 79. Nat. Prod. Commun. 2013, 8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  66. Aizenberg-Gershtein, Y.; Izhaki, I.; Halpern, M. Do Honeybees Shape the Bacterial Community Composition in Floral Nectar? PLoS ONE 2013, 8, e67556. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  67. Palomo, S.; González, I.; de la Cruz, M.; Martín, J.; Tormo, J.; Anderson, M.; Hill, R.; Vicente, F.; Reyes, F.; Genilloud, O. Sponge-Derived Kocuria and Micrococcus spp. as Sources of the New Thiazolyl Peptide Antibiotic Kocurin. Mar. Drugs 2013, 11, 1071–1086. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  68. Pham, T.M.; Wiese, J.; Wenzel-Storjohann, A.; Imhoff, J.F. Diversity and antimicrobial potential of bacterial isolates associated with the soft coral Alcyonium digitatum from the Baltic Sea. Antonie Van Leeuwenhoek 2016, 109, 105–119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  69. Ranjan, R.; Jadeja, V. Isolation, characterization and chromatography based purification of antibacterial compound isolated from rare endophytic actinomycetes Micrococcus yunnanensis. J. Pharm. Anal. 2017, 7, 343–347. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  70. An, S.-Y.; Asahara, M.; Goto, K.; Kasai, H.; Yokota, A. Terribacillus saccharophilus gen. nov., sp. nov. and Terribacillus halophilus sp. nov., spore-forming bacteria isolated from field soil in Japan. Int. J. Syst. Evol. Microbiol. 2007, 57, 51–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  71. Kalarani, V.; Sumathi, V. Effect of Dietary Supplementation of Bacillus subtilis and Terribacillus saccharophillus on Innate Immune Responses of a Tropical Freshwater Fish, Labeo rohita. J. Clin. Cell. Immunol. 2016, 7, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  72. Shukla, P.J.; Dave, B.P. Screening and molecular identification of potential exopolysaccharides (EPSs) producing marine bacteria from the Bhavnagar coast, Gujarat. Int. J. Pharm. Sci. Res. 2018, 9, 2973–2981. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Freitas, M.A.; Medeiros, F.H.V.; Melo, I.S.; Pereira, P.F.; Peñaflor, M.F.G.V.; Bento, J.M.S.; Paré, P.W. Stem inoculation with bacterial strains Bacillus amyloliquefaciens (GB03) and Microbacterium imperiale (MAIIF2a) mitigates Fusarium root rot in cassava. Phytoparasitica 2019, 47, 135–142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Rashid, A.; Mirza, S.A.; Keating, C.; Ali, S.; Campos, L.C. Indigenous Bacillus paramycoides spp. and Alcaligenes faecalis: Sustainable solution for bioremediation of hospital wastewater. Environ. Technol. 2020, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. He, M.; Li, X.; Liu, H.; Miller, S.J.; Wang, G.; Rensing, C. Characterization and genomic analysis of a highly chromate resistant and reducing bacterial strain Lysinibacillus fusiformis ZC1. J. Hazard. Mater. 2011, 185, 682–688. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  76. Ren, J.; Wang, C.; Huhetaoli, L.C.; Fan, B.; Niu, D. Biodegradation of acephate by Bacillus paramycoides NDZ and its degradation pathway. World J. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2020, 36, 155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Noha, I.O.; Shixue, Y. Isolation and characterization of pea plant (Pisum sativum L.) growth-promoting Rhizobacteria. African J. Microbiol. Res. 2018, 12, 820–828. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Mechri, S.; Kriaa, M.; Ben Elhoul Berrouina, M.; Omrane Benmrad, M.; Zaraî Jaouadi, N.; Rekik, H.; Bouacem, K.; Bouanane-Darenfed, A.; Chebbi, A.; Sayadi, S.; et al. Optimized production and characterization of a detergent-stable protease from Lysinibacillus fusiformis C250R. Int. J. Biol. Macromol. 2017, 101, 383–397. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  79. Guran, H.S.; Durukan, G.; Mann, D. Assessment of the Microbiological Profile, Species Diversity and Antimicrobial Susceptibility of Recovered Bacteria from Retail Honeys in Turkey. J. Hell. Vet. Med. Soc. 2021, 72, 2765–2772. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Anjum, S.I.; Shah, A.H.; Aurongzeb, M.; Kori, J.; Azim, M.K.; Ansari, M.J.; Bin, L. Characterization of gut bacterial flora of Apis mellifera from north-west Pakistan. Saudi J. Biol. Sci. 2018, 25, 388–392. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  81. Andere, C.I.; Monteavaro, C.; Palacio, M.A.; Catena, M.; Rodríguez, E.M.; Collins, A.M. Apis mellifera semen: Bacterial contamination and susceptibility to antibiotics. Apidologie 2011, 42, 551–559. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Lavecchia, A.; Chiara, M.; De Virgilio, C.; Manzari, C.; Monno, R.; De Carlo, A.; Pazzani, C.; Horner, D.; Pesole, G.; Placido, A. Staphylococcus arlettae Genomics: Novel Insights on Candidate Antibiotic Resistance and Virulence Genes in an Emerging Opportunistic Pathogen. Microorganisms 2019, 7, 580. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  83. Sung, C.; Kim, B.-G.; Kim, S.; Joo, H.-S.; Kim, P.I. Probiotic potential of Staphylococcus hominis MBBL 2-9 as anti- Staphylococcus aureus agent isolated from the vaginal microbiota of a healthy woman. J. Appl. Microbiol. 2010, 108, 908–916. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Veress, A.; Nagy, T.; Wilk, T.; Kömüves, J.; Olasz, F.; Kiss, J. Abundance of mobile genetic elements in an Acinetobacter lwoffii strain isolated from Transylvanian honey sample. Sci. Rep. 2020, 10, 2969. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  85. Nikolaidis, M.; Mossialos, D.; Oliver, S.G.; Amoutzias, G.D. Comparative Analysis of the Core Proteomes among the Pseudomonas Major Evolutionary Groups Reveals Species-Specific Adaptations for Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Pseudomonas chlororaphis. Diversity 2020, 12, 289. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Zamule, S.M.; Dupre, C.E.; Mendola, M.L.; Widmer, J.; Shebert, J.A.; Roote, C.E.; Das, P. Bioremediation potential of select bacterial species for the neonicotinoid insecticides, thiamethoxam and imidacloprid. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 2021, 209, 111814. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  87. Yang, J.; Feng, Y.; Zhan, H.; Liu, J.; Yang, F.; Zhang, K.; Zhang, L.; Chen, S. Characterization of a Pyrethroid-Degrading Pseudomonas fulva Strain P31 and Biochemical Degradation Pathway of D-Phenothrin. Front. Microbiol. 2018, 9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  88. Adeniji, A.A.; Aremu, O.S.; Loots, D.T.; Babalola, O.O. Pseudomonas fulva HARBPS9.1: Candidate anti-Fusarium agent in South Africa. Eur. J. Plant Pathol. 2020, 157, 767–781. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Lalucat, J.; Bennasar, A.; Bosch, R.; García-Valdés, E.; Palleroni, N.J. Biology of Pseudomonas stutzeri. Microbiol. Mol. Biol. Rev. 2006, 70, 510–547. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  90. Menéndez, E.; Ramírez-Bahena, M.H.; Fabryová, A.; Igual, J.M.; Benada, O.; Mateos, P.F.; Peix, A.; Kolařík, M.; García-Fraile, P. Pseudomonas coleopterorum sp. nov., a cellulase-producing bacterium isolated from the bark beetle Hylesinus fraxini. Int. J. Syst. Evol. Microbiol. 2015, 65, 2852–2858. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Bulgasem, B.Y.; Lani, M.N.; Hassan, Z.; Yusoff, W.M.W.; Fnaish, S.G. Antifungal Activity of Lactic Acid Bacteria Strains Isolated from Natural Honey against Pathogenic Candida Species. Mycobiology 2016, 44, 302–309. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  92. Brudzynski, K. Honey as an Ecological Reservoir of Antibacterial Compounds Produced by Antagonistic Microbial Interactions in Plant Nectars, Honey and Honey Bee. Antibiotics 2021, 10, 551. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Zhao, X.; Kuipers, O.P. Identification and classification of known and putative antimicrobial compounds produced by a wide variety of Bacillales species. BMC Genomics 2016, 17, 882. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  94. Michelsen, C.F.; Watrous, J.; Glaring, M.A.; Kersten, R.; Koyama, N.; Dorrestein, P.C.; Stougaard, P. Nonribosomal Peptides, Key Biocontrol Components for Pseudomonas fluorescens In5, Isolated from a Greenlandic Suppressive Soil. MBio 2015, 6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  95. Pauwelyn, E.; Huang, C.-J.; Ongena, M.; Leclère, V.; Jacques, P.; Bleyaert, P.; Budzikiewicz, H.; Schäfer, M.; Höfte, M. New Linear Lipopeptides Produced by Pseudomonas cichorii SF1-54 Are Involved in Virulence, Swarming Motility, and Biofilm Formation. Mol. Plant Microbe Interact. 2013, 26, 585–598. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  96. Klapper, M.; Braga, D.; Lackner, G.; Herbst, R.; Stallforth, P. Bacterial Alkaloid Biosynthesis: Structural Diversity via a Minimalistic Nonribosomal Peptide Synthetase. Cell Chem. Biol. 2018, 25, 659–665.e9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  97. Li, W.; Rokni-Zadeh, H.; De Vleeschouwer, M.; Ghequire, M.G.K.; Sinnaeve, D.; Xie, G.-L.; Rozenski, J.; Madder, A.; Martins, J.C.; De Mot, R. The Antimicrobial Compound Xantholysin Defines a New Group of Pseudomonas Cyclic Lipopeptides. PLoS ONE 2013, 8, e62946. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  98. Caulier, S.; Nannan, C.; Gillis, A.; Licciardi, F.; Bragard, C.; Mahillon, J. Overview of the Antimicrobial Compounds Produced by Members of the Bacillus subtilis Group. Front. Microbiol. 2019, 10, 302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  99. Zhang, W.; Zhang, F.; Li, Z.; Miao, X.; Meng, Q.; Zhang, X. Investigation of bacteria with polyketide synthase genes and antimicrobial activity isolated from South China Sea sponges. J. Appl. Microbiol. 2009, 107, 567–575. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Barrios-Llerena, M.E.; Burja, A.M.; Wright, P.C. Genetic analysis of polyketide synthase and peptide synthetase genes in cyanobacteria as a mining tool for secondary metabolites. J. Ind. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2007, 34, 443–456. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Carrillo, C.; Teruel, J.A.; Aranda, F.J.; Ortiz, A. Molecular mechanism of membrane permeabilization by the peptide antibiotic surfactin. Biochim. Biophys. Acta Biomembr. 2003, 1611, 91–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  102. Pajor, M.; Xiong, Z.R.; Worobo, R.W.; Szweda, P. Paenibacillus alvei MP1 as a Producer of the Proteinaceous Compound with Activity against Important Human Pathogens, Including Staphylococcus aureus and Listeria monocytogenes. Pathogens 2020, 9, 319. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Table
Table 1. Growth inhibition of selected human and foodborne pathogens exerted by bacterial isolates from various honeys.
Table 1. Growth inhibition of selected human and foodborne pathogens exerted by bacterial isolates from various honeys.
Sample
No		S. aureus1P. aeruginosa1S. Typhimurium 1A. baumannii1C. freundii11/5 22/5 23/5 24/5 25/5 2Total%
12523266252317123-55/12743.3
2875781164--21/7727.3
317971012191041-34/11828.8
433191123222614143-57/11250.9
51889912151041131/9034.4
61783451283--23/7032.9
7151581118241251-42/11735.9
8557877911-18/6229.0
983144124---16/8119.8
1013611551762-126/8331.3
118541069611118/5632.1
12744366222-12/4129.3
131879111422561135/11231.3
143515192527512262-81/19042.6
1543554--2-35/1926.3
1632322-21-14/3013.3
171112--11--2/277.4
18677863122311/3828.9
1911-1---1--1/714.3
2023231--12-3/2015.0
2137894-651-12/3831.6
2222221-111-3/2412.5
2333324114--6/966.7
24333134111-7/3619.4
25----------0/220,0
26115-22941--14/4035.0
27221125-1--6/4314.0
28-1---1----1/283.6
2917171522132477525/5743.9
3052112231--6/4214.3
31---11-1---1/293.4
32123532-1115/3414.7
3324153223--7/3718.9
3411111----11/1100
353543441-218/1080.0
36243231-31-5/1729.4
37--1-1-1---1/1100
381111----1-1/250.0
39-1---1----1/425.0
401----1----1/250.0
4110108691553115/1788.2
42----------0/0-
431--2-3----3/2711.1
44----------0/10.0
45114929-262111/1478.6
46----------0/20.0
Total3232252062252492961671114021635/2014
Total %14.78.35.51.991.04 31.5
1 Columns demonstrate the number of bacterial isolates per honey sample that exerted activity against the corresponding pathogens. 2 Total number of bacterial isolates that inhibited the growth of 1–5 pathogens.
Table
Table 2. Molecular identification of bacterial isolates and molecular screening for the presence of nonribosomal peptide synthetase (NRPS) and polyketide synthase (PKS) genes.
Table 2. Molecular identification of bacterial isolates and molecular screening for the presence of nonribosomal peptide synthetase (NRPS) and polyketide synthase (PKS) genes.
GroupStrainbp% IdentityAntibacterial
Activity 1		BacteriaAccession
Number		NRPSPKS
ACTA113811001,2,3,4,5B. pumilusMW700012+ *-
CTA213951001,2,3,4,5B.pumilusMW700013+-
CTA1513761002,3,5B.pumilusMW700019+-
CTA16138999.62,3,5B.vallismortisMW700020++ *
CTA3113471001,2,5Bacillus sp.
(B. aerius/B. altitudinis/
B. aerophilus/B. stratosphericus)		MW700025+-
CTA5713851002,3,4B.safensisMW700028++
CTA14614191004,5B.safensisMW700038-+
CTA163131199.93,5B.licheniformisMW700039+ *-
CTB714001001,2,3,4,5B.safensisMW700041-+
CTB1614031001,2,3,4,5B.safensisMW700043+-
CTB2113001001,2,3,4B.pumilusMW700044+-
CTB26134099.91,2,4,5B.pumilusMW700045--
CTB31109499.91,3,4,5Bacillus sp.
(B. amyloliquefaciens/B. velezensis)		MW700046++ *
CTB4314031002,3,4B.safensisMW700049++
CTB8911321001,5B.safensisMW700053++
CTB12013691003,4B.safensisMW700057+-
BCTA5139699.91,2,3,5B.subtilisMW700014++ *
CTA913841002,3,4,5B.subtilisMW700016++ *
CTA1013731002,3,4,5B.subtilisMW700017+ *+ *
CTA1468199.62,3,5Bacillus sp.
(B. haynesii/B. piscis/
B. paralicheniformis/B. licheniformis)		MW700018+ *-
CTA2014101001,3,5B. subtilisMW700021+ *+ *
CTA109141499.92,5Bacillus sp.
(B. halotolerans/B. mojavensis)		MW700035-+ *
CTB11128199.61,2,3,4,5Bacillus sp.
(B. subtilis subsp. Inaquosorum/
B. nakamurai/B. mojavensis/
B. halotolerans)		MW700042-+ *
CCTA7140199.91,3,4,5P. megaterium
(B. megaterium)		MW700015+ *-
CTA2814011001,2,4B.paramycoidesMW700024+-
CTA46141399.93,4,5Bacillus sp.
(B. proteolyticus/B. wiedmannii)		MW700027+ *+
CTB34141499.91,2,3,5B.cereusMW700048--
CTB11614051002,5B.cereusMW700056--
FCTA39134999.93,4,5S. pasteuriMW700026--
CTA79137099.91,5S.cohniiMW700029--
CTB46141199.91,2,4S.cohniiMW700050-+
GCTA1078971002,5P. stutzeriMW700034--
CT11013221002,4A. lwoffiiMW700055--
HCTA23137599.82,4,5P. fulvaMW700022+ *-
CTA9070899.91,3Pseudomonas sp.
(P. putida/P.fulva/P.parafulva/
P. guariconensis/P. plecoglossicida/
P. cremoricolorata/P. taiwanensis/
P. donghuensis/P.wadenswilerensis/
P. alkylphenolica)		MW700031+ *+
ICTA125143698.91,2Bacillus sp.MW700036-+ *
JCTA25137199.92,4,5Terribacillus sp.
(T. goriensis/T. saccharophylus)		MW700023--
KCTA84127899.82,3P.coleopterorumMW700030--
LCTA95133399.91,3M. imperialeMW700032+ *-
MCTA9913491001,3Bacillus sp.
(B. proteolyticus/B. wiedmannii)		MW700033--
OCTA138140599.92,4Bacillus sp.
(B. proteolyticus/B. wiedmannii)		MW700037--
CTB60140499.93,4,5L. fusiformisMW700051--
SCTA16949699.83,5P. profundusMW700040+ *+ *
TCTB32138299.91,2,3,5M. yunnanensisMW700047--
WCTB93137999.81,2T. saccharophilusMW700054--
YCTB69141699.62,4,5Paenibacillus sp.
(P. cucumis/P. polysaccharolyticus)		MW700052+ *+ *
LAB1CT2H44099.81,2,3,4S. epidermidisMW700058--
CT7C5801003,4,5S. warneriMW700060--
LAB2CT6C56399.61,2,3,4,5S.arlettaeMW700059+-
LAB3CT12B43299.81,2,5S.hominisMW700061--
* Amplicons were sequenced. 1 (1) S. aureus, (2) P. aeruginosa, (3) S. Typhimurium, (4) A. baumani, (5) C. freundii.
Table
Table 3. Sequencing results for the NRPS amplicons.
Table 3. Sequencing results for the NRPS amplicons.
SampleSpeciesBLASTN% IdentityBLASTX% Identity
A1B. pumilusP. monteilii (AMA45849.1
hypothetical protein)		84.4amino acid adenylation domain-containing
protein (P. monteilii)		78.7
A7P. megateriumP. monteilii (Gene APT63_12835, AMA46431.1 hypothetical protein)67.2NRPS (P. monteilii)41.7
A10B. subtilisB. subtilis strain JCL16
chromosome (Gene srfAA), QKJ76470.1 surfactin NRPS SrfAA		84.2Surfactin NRPS SrfAA (B. subtilis)72.7
A14Bacillus sp.B. licheniformis strain P8_B2
chromosome, QGI45530.1
D-alanine--poly(phosphoribitol) ligase subunit DltA		95.9D-alanine--poly(phosphoribitol) ligase subunit DltA (B. licheniformis)91.1
A20B. subtilisB. subtilis subsp. subtilis str. 168 chromosome (QJR44804.1
surfactin NRPS SrfAA		98.1surfactin NRPS SrfAA (B. subtilis)98.6
A23P. fulvaP. monteilii strain USDA-ARS-USMARC-56711
(Gene APT63_09540, AMA45849.1, hypothetical protein		96.5amino acid adenylation domain-containing
protein (P. monteilii)		98.4
A46Bacillus sp.B. safensis strain PgKB20
chromosome Surfactin synthase subunit 2 (gene srfAB_2)		96.5NRPS (B. safensis)99.49
A90.2Pseudomonas sp.P. monteilii strain USDA-ARS-USMARC-56711, gene APT63_09540, hypothetical protein91.8amino acid adenylation domain-containing
protein (P. monteilii)		87.7
A95M. imperialeM. oleivorans strain I46 chromosome DNA gyrase subunit A68.1nono
A163B. licheniformisB. haynesii strain P19 chromosome73.2nono
A169P. profundusP. thiaminolyticus strain
NRRL B-4156 amino acid
adenylation domain-containing protein FLT43_25335		71.8NRPS/PKS (P. apiarius)56.5
B69Paenibacillus sp.P. polymyxa E681 isolate type B chromosome Linear gramicidin synthase subunit B, lgrB_283.5AMP-binding protein
(P. amylolyticus)		96.6
Table
Table 4. Sequencing results for the PKS amplicons.
Table 4. Sequencing results for the PKS amplicons.
SampleSpeciesBLASTN% IdentityBLASTX% Identity
A5B. subtilisB. subtilis subsp. subtilis str. 168 chromosome amino acid
adenylation domain-containing protein, HIR77_09320		81.8ketosynthase, partial (Bacillus sp.)82.7
A9B. subtilisB. subtilis subsp. subtilis strain UCMB5021 Malonyl CoA-acyl
carrier protein PksN transacylase involved in nonribosomal
synthesis of bacillaene, gene pksN		77.1ketosynthase, partial (Bacillus sp.)76.1
A10B. subtilisB. subtilis strain JCL16
chromosome, amino acid
adenylation domain-containing protein, gene HR084_09185		78.9ketosynthase, partial (Bacillus sp.)78.2
A16B. vallismortisB. amyloliquefaciens strain R8-25 chromosome (or valezensis) amino acid adenylation domain-containing protein, gene HT132_1194076.4amino acid adenylation domain-containing protein (B. amyloliquefaciens)93.2
A20B. subtilisB. subtilis subsp. subtilis str. 168 chromosome, amino acid
adenylation domain-containing protein, gene HIR77_09320		85.7ketosynthase, partial (Bacillus sp.)87.86
A109Bacillus sp.P. thiaminolyticus strain NRRL B-4156 chromosome acyltransferase domain-containing protein, gene FLT43_0673081.2acyltransferase domain-containing protein
(P. apiaries) 		100
A125Bacillus sp.B. subtilis strain JCL16
chromosome amino acid
adenylation domain-containing protein, gene HR084_09185		79.2ketosynthase, partial (Bacillus sp.)77.7
A169P. profundusP. thiaminolyticus strain NRRL B-4156 chromosome acyltransferase domain-containing protein, gene FLT43_0673081.1acyltransferase domain-containing protein
(P. apiarius)		100
B11Bacillus sp.B. halotolerans strain KKD1
chromosome NRPS, gene HT135_09465		99type I ketosynthase
(Bacillus sp. LX-99)		97.4
B31Bacillus sp.Bacillus sp. AM1(2019)
chromosome zinc-binding dehydrogenase, gene GNE05_12430		72.9PKS (B. velezensis)60
B69Paenibacillus sp.Paenibacillus sp. B37 PKS gene, PKS94.2PKS
(Paenibacillus sp. B15)		98.5
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Tsadila, C.; Nikolaidis, M.; Dimitriou, T.G.; Kafantaris, I.; Amoutzias, G.D.; Pournaras, S.; Mossialos, D. Antibacterial Activity and Characterization of Bacteria Isolated from Diverse Types of Greek Honey against Nosocomial and Foodborne Pathogens. Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 5801. https://doi.org/10.3390/app11135801

AMA Style

Tsadila C, Nikolaidis M, Dimitriou TG, Kafantaris I, Amoutzias GD, Pournaras S, Mossialos D. Antibacterial Activity and Characterization of Bacteria Isolated from Diverse Types of Greek Honey against Nosocomial and Foodborne Pathogens. Applied Sciences. 2021; 11(13):5801. https://doi.org/10.3390/app11135801

Chicago/Turabian Style

Tsadila, Christina, Marios Nikolaidis, Tilemachos G. Dimitriou, Ioannis Kafantaris, Grigoris D. Amoutzias, Spyros Pournaras, and Dimitris Mossialos. 2021. "Antibacterial Activity and Characterization of Bacteria Isolated from Diverse Types of Greek Honey against Nosocomial and Foodborne Pathogens" Applied Sciences 11, no. 13: 5801. https://doi.org/10.3390/app11135801

APA Style

Tsadila, C., Nikolaidis, M., Dimitriou, T. G., Kafantaris, I., Amoutzias, G. D., Pournaras, S., & Mossialos, D. (2021). Antibacterial Activity and Characterization of Bacteria Isolated from Diverse Types of Greek Honey against Nosocomial and Foodborne Pathogens. Applied Sciences, 11(13), 5801. https://doi.org/10.3390/app11135801

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