Next Article in Journal
Cytotoxic, Antimicrobial, Antioxidant Properties and Effects on Cell Migration of Phenolic Compounds of Selected Transylvanian Medicinal Plants
Next Article in Special Issue
Assessment of Antioxidants in Selected Plant Rootstocks
Previous Article in Journal
Digestive Stability and Bioaccessibility of Antioxidants in Prickly Pear Fruits from the Canary Islands: Healthy Foods and Ingredients
Previous Article in Special Issue
Extraction Optimization and Evaluation of the Antioxidant and α-Glucosidase Inhibitory Activity of Polysaccharides from Chrysanthemum morifolium cv. Hangju
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Plant Phenolics and Phenolic-Enriched Extracts as Antimicrobial Agents against Food-Contaminating Microorganisms

1
Department of Microbiology, Faculty of Science and Informatics, University of Szeged, Közép fasor 52, H-6726 Szeged, Hungary
2
MTA-SZTE “Lendület” Fungal Pathogenicity Mechanisms Research Group, University of Szeged, Közép fasor 52, H-6726 Szeged, Hungary
3
Institute of Food Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, University of Szeged, Mars tér 7, H-6724 Szeged, Hungary
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Antioxidants 2020, 9(2), 165; https://doi.org/10.3390/antiox9020165
Submission received: 28 January 2020 / Revised: 12 February 2020 / Accepted: 16 February 2020 / Published: 18 February 2020
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Natural and Synthetic Antioxidants as Food Additives)

Abstract

:
Phenolic compounds and extracts with bioactive properties can be obtained from many kinds of plant materials. These natural substances have gained attention in the food research as possible growth inhibitors of foodborne pathogenic and spoilage bacteria. Many phenolic-enriched plant extracts and individual phenolics have promising anti-quorum sensing potential as well and can suppress the biofilm formation and toxin production of food-related pathogens. Various studies have shown that plant phenolics can substitute or support the activity of synthetic food preservatives and disinfectants, which, by the way, can provoke serious concerns in consumers. In this review, we will provide a brief insight into the bioactive properties, i.e., the antimicrobial, anti-quorum sensing, anti-biofilm and anti-enterotoxin activities, of plant phenolic extracts and compounds, with special attention to pathogen microorganisms that have food relation. Carbohydrase aided applications to improve the antimicrobial properties of phenolic extracts are also discussed.

1. Introduction

Phenolic compounds are secondary metabolites in plants and are considered as important natural molecules due to their bioactive properties. Phenolics are eliminators of free radicals and metal chelators. They can inhibit the lipid peroxidation and exhibit various physiological activities as antioxidants. In plants, these substances contribute to the defense mechanisms, and adaptation and pigmentation processes. Concerning human health, they have potential in the prevention and treatment of certain chronic diseases such as cardiovascular disease, diabetes and cancer [1]. In addition, plant phenolics and extracts rich in such substances can be excellent inhibitors of many foodborne pathogenic and spoilage bacteria [2,3]. Various food-related bacteria have biofilm-forming ability and can cause serious contaminations in the food industry. Quorum sensing, as a mechanism of bacterial cell-to-cell chemical communication, plays an important role in biofilm formation, antibiotic resistance, survival, proliferation and toxin production of the pathogens. Inhibition of this signaling process can contribute to the biological control of pathogenic organisms and bacterial toxins causing food deterioration and/or poisoning [4].
Byproducts of antioxidative plants generated through agro- and food industrial processes are excellent sources of bioactive phenolic materials with antimicrobial effects [5]. Physical and chemical extractions are common methods to obtain these active compounds from plants, but solid-state fermentation and enzyme assisted extraction procedures using carbohydrase active microorganisms or enzymes, can also be useful approaches [6,7,8].
Due to the growing knowledge on their bioactive values, use of plant phenolics as natural additives has recently gained interest in the food industry. Several studies demonstrated the potential of these antioxidant and antimicrobial compounds as food preservatives as well as functional food ingredients [9,10,11]. In this respect, phenolic acids, flavonoids and tannins have gained special attention over the last decades [2,12].
This review emphasizes the importance of using plant phenolics as natural alternatives of synthetic compounds to eliminate pathogens and spoilage bacteria from food environments. Also, this review deals on the inhibitory potential of phenolic antioxidants against the quorum sensing system, biofilm formation and enterotoxin production of food-related microorganisms. Some studies to improve the phenolic-related antimicrobial activity of plant extracts by using carbohydrases are also highlighted.

2. Foodborne Pathogens and Food Spoilage Organisms

Foodborne diseases constitute a global health problem. During the infection, pathogenic bacteria and/or microbial toxins produced enter to the human body through the contaminated food or water. Pathogenesis varies according to the host’s health conditions, the type of microorganisms and the amount of the agent to which the host is initially exposed. Common examples of food and waterborne outbreaks are the Staphylococcus aureus food poisoning and the Salmonella Typhimurium infection, which cause toxic symptoms and gastrointestinal infection. Table 1 presents some common foodborne pathogenic bacteria, their sources and produced toxins as well as the diseases caused.
Certain food pathogens can survive under adverse environmental factors such as cold, heat, acidic and high salt conditions and have the capacity to form biofilms on biotic or abiotic surfaces. These properties can facilitate their growth and spread on food contact surfaces as well.
On the other hand, the consumption of raw products, such as fruits and vegetables, packaged salads and ready-to-eat products has increased. This can cause diseases by exposing consumers to a greater variety of products potentially contaminated with food pathogens [17]. Moreover, the misuse and overuse of anti-infective drugs against pathogenic microorganisms has generated greater resistance to clinical antibiotic therapy, acquiring the ability to survive at high drug concentration that cause serious diseases and/or chronic infections [18,19].
Microbiological deterioration of foods adversely affects their physico-chemical properties and thereby the sensory characteristics. Texture softening, slime production, off-odors, off-flavors and colorization are the main signs of food spoilage. The main spoiling microbes in animal-derived products (e.g., milk, dairy, meat and poultry) are Enterobacteriaceae, lactobacilli, Pseudomonas, Proteus and Brochotrix species [20]. Yeasts and molds, i.e., Saccharomyces, Candida, Pichia, Aspergillus, Penicillium, Botrytis and Fusarium species, and bacteria such as pseudomonads, clostridia, bacilli and Erwinia are common spoilers in plant-derived products [20,21,22].
Prevention and control of foodborne pathogens and spoilers require their detection in the food. Conventional methods rely on culturing of microorganisms on special media allowing their identification and enumeration. These methods are precise but time- and labor-consuming. Some rapid detection method based on nucleic acids sequencing, metabolomics and proteomics have been developed in the recent decades [23,24]. Matrix-assisted laser desorption/ionization time-of-flight mass spectrometry (MALDI-TOF MS) can be used for the identification of pathogens through analysis of the whole cell proteome. Metabolites produced by pathogens or spoilers are detected by means of gas chromatography-mass spectrometry (GC-MS) or electronic nose [25]. Immunological methods, such as the enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA), are also used for rapid detection of certain pathogens (e.g., Salmonella) [23]. For prevention and control of foodborne microorganisms, physical and chemical methods, like sterilization, pasteurization, irradiation, high hydrostatic pressure or preservatives can be used.
Some of these foodborne pathogenic and spoilage microorganisms became tolerant against the conventional food preservation and conservation methods [2]. There is a significant industrial demand for novel preservation techniques because of the common food losses due to microbial deterioration. Moreover, the consumers’ concern against the chemical preservatives in foods is growing, which also encourages the researchers to find natural alternatives with high antimicrobial potential. These substances then can be used as preservative agents to improve the shelf life of food products. Plant phenolic substances can be promising candidates for these studies.

3. Antimicrobial Activity of Plant Phenolics

Plant-derived phenolics, such as phenolic acids, flavonoids, stilbenes and tannins, can inhibit the growth and activity of many microorganisms, including food-related pathogens as well as clinically important bacteria, fungi and protozoa [26,27,28]. Since the different molecules vary in their structure and chemical composition (Figure 1), they can display various antimicrobial effects, such as permeabilization and destabilization of the plasma membrane or inhibition of extracellular enzymes [29]. Moreover, these mechanisms of action differ from those of the traditional antibiotics, which could make plant phenolics effective against drug-resistant pathogens [29].
Extracts of grape pomace, grape seed, apple, and various exotic fruit and medicinal plant samples are frequently examined for their potential antimicrobial activity. In a pilot research, for instance, the influence of grape pomace extract on the growth of 14 pathogenic and spoilage bacteria was investigated [30]. In agar well diffusion tests, the order of the effective extract concentrations were found to be 20 > 10 > 5 > 2.5 > 1% (w/v), while in serial dilution assays, the sample at 0.5% (w/v) concentration had a bacteriostatic activity against Escherichia coli O157:H7 and S. aureus. In another study, red grape pomace possessed a strong bactericidal effect against E. coli and S. aureus at 12 mg/mL concentration [31]. The growth inhibitory effect, tested at concentrations from 0.5 to 2 mg/mL, varied in a dose dependent manner, and the S. aureus was more susceptible to the grape pomace extract than the E. coli strain tested. Grape seed extracts were also proved to be effective growth suppressors of other food-related bacteria such as S. Typhimurium, Listeria monocytogenes, Bacillus spp., Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Campylobacter spp. [32,33,34]. Among exotic fruits, extracts and betacyanin fractions of red pitahaya exhibited a good antimicrobial spectrum against Gram-positive and Gram-negative bacteria, yeasts and molds at concentrations from 7.8 µg/mL to 50 mg/mL [35,36]. Table 2 summarizes some additional examples about the antimicrobial activity of plant phenolic extracts, indicating the type of extraction and major antimicrobial activity indices.
Studies were also done using plant phenolic extracts as natural preservatives in food systems. The work of Sagdic et al. [58], for instance, was oriented towards in situ studies where they tested the antimicrobial activity of grape pomace extracts in beef patties. Samples from five grape varieties were incorporated to beef patties and the growth of Enterobacteriaceae, coliforms, Salmonella, S. aureus, total aerobic mesophilic count, yeast and molds, lactobacilli and micrococci pathogens was studied in different storage periods. Each pomace extract inhibited the microorganisms in a concertation dependent manner. Pathogenic bacteria, yeasts and molds were completely inhibited by 5 and 10% of the extracts. In another experiment performed in vegetable soup environment, the grape pomace extract showed antibacterial activity in a dose dependent manner against S. aureus and E. coli, due to its high proanthocyanidin content [59]. In meat paté, experiments of Hayrapetyan et al. [60] showed that a flavonoid-rich pomegranate (Punica granatum) peel extract could inhibit the growth of L. monocytogenes by 4.1 log at 4 °C during 46 days, but the inhibitory effect was less effective at higher temperatures (i.e., at 7 and 12 °C), demonstrating the influence of temperature on the inhibitory effect. Ahn et al. [61] added grape seed and pine bark extracts and oleoresin rosemary to ground beef and, after cooking, samples were inoculated with strains of foodborne pathogens (E. coli O157:H7, L. monocytogenes, S. Typhimurium and Aeromonas hydrophila). Pine bark extract at 1% concentration was the most effective against the growth of pathogens after 9 days of storage. Apart from the above studies, there were several experiments on the application of plant phenolic extracts as antimicrobials in various foods (these studies have recently been summarized by Bouarab Chibane et al. [62]).
Individual phenolic compounds of plant extracts have been shown to affect the growth of food-related microorganisms. In the study of García-Ruiz et al. [63], the antimicrobial activity of 18 phenolic compounds, i.e., hydroxycinnamic and hydroxybenzoic acids, stilbenes, flavan-3-ols, flavonols and phenolic alcohols, was evaluated against lactic acid bacteria wine isolates of Oenococcus oeni, Lactobacillus hilgardii and Pediococcus pentosaceus. Among the tested phenolics, the flavonols and stilbenes exhibited the strongest inhibitory effect on bacterial growth. In another experiment, Pastorkova et al. [64] investigated the antimicrobial potential of 15 phenolic compounds (i.e., phenolic acids, stilbenes and flavonoids) naturally occurring in grapes against wine spoilage yeasts and acetic acid bacteria. Pterostilbene, resveratrol and luteolin presented the major inhibitory effects on all tested microorganisms. Phenolic acids, i.e., myricetin, p-coumaric and ferulic acids, showed selective antimicrobial activity depending on the yeast and bacteria species tested. Activity of lignans and flavonoids were tested against E. coli, L. monocytogenes, P. aeruginosa, Klebsiella pneumoniae, Enterobacter cloacae, S. aureus and Enterococcus faecalis in the study of Favela-Hernández et al. [65]. Dihydroguaiaretic acid, 4-epi-larreatricin, 3′-Demethoxy-6-O-demethylisoguaiacin and 5,4′-dihydroxy-7-methoxyflavone compounds showed high growth inhibitory potential towards some of the tested strains, with a MIC range from 12.5 to 50 µg/mL. MIC values of 500–1000 μg/mL were reported for the 7-hydroxycoumarin (umbelliferone) against S. aureus, methicillin-resistant S. aureus (MRSA), E. coli and P. aeruginosa [66]. Table 3 shows other experiments from the last decade testing antimicrobial activity of individual phenolic compounds.
The phenolic compounds can express their microbicide effect through different mode of action. These molecules can suppress several microbial virulence factors (e.g., by inhibition of biofilm formation, reduction of host ligand adhesion and neutralization of bacterial toxins), reduce the fluidity of membrane, inhibit the synthesis of nucleic acids and the cell wall or energy metabolism [29,71]. In addition, many phenolics could show synergy with antibiotics enhancing their effectiveness and reducing the dose of use [72,73,74]. The presence and number of hydroxyl groups in phenolic compounds is responsible for their antioxidant properties. In addition, changes in the position of the hydroxyl group could play an important role in the antimicrobial activity [75] and the interactions with cell membrane structures [76]. In case of carvacrol, for instance, presence of the hydroxyl group and the delocalized electron system are thought to be responsible for the cytoplasmic membrane destabilization and the collapse of the proton motive force that finally led to death of Bacillus cereus cells [77]. Phenolic hydroxyl groups can form hydrogen bonds with active site of enzymes inhibiting their catalytic activity [78].
Antimicrobial action of phenolics may vary from molecule to molecule. In the study of Engels et al. [79], gallotannins isolated from mango kernel inhibited the growth of Bacillus subtilis and other foodborne pathogens such as S. aureus and E. coli. The inhibitory effects of gallotannins may be attributed to their iron-complexing properties and ability to interact with proteins and inhibit enzyme activities [79]. At the same time, flavonoids have a series of antibacterial actions with different mechanisms of action, such as inhibition of nucleic acid synthesis [80], induction of cytoplasmic membrane damage [81,82] and inhibition of energy metabolism [83], biofilm formation [3] and bacterial toxin production [84]. The flavonoid catechin can penetrate the lipid bilayers of the membrane resulting in leakage of intramembranous materials and liposome aggregation [85,86]. Moreover, in synergy tests, the catechin-rich fraction of green tea (Camellia sinensis) extracts could reverse the resistance to methicillin in MRSA [87].
On the other hand, it is possible to increase the antimicrobial activity of plant extracts by certain processes. An ecofriendly way is the treatment with carbohydrase enzymes that can hydrolyze the phenolic glycosides improving the antimicrobial potential of the samples. For instance, Pectinase 62L (10 U polygalacturonase equivalent activity) treatment for two hours at pH 5.0 and 37 °C caused a decrease in the minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) values of bergamot peel extracts against Salmonella enterica, Pseudomonas putida, E. coli and B. subtilis, compared to the enzyme-free control [88]. The antimicrobial effect against different types of bacteria may depend on the enzyme cocktail(s) used for the treatment as well. In the study of Puupponen-Pimiä et al. [89], different pectinase treatments affected differently the inhibition potential of bilberry extracts against Salmonella and Staphylococcus bacteria. Pectinex Smash, Pectinex BE 3-L and Biopectinase CCM treated samples exhibited the highest antimicrobial activity against the Staphylococcus strains, while Pectinex Ultra SP-L, Pectinex 3 XL and Pectinex BE XXL treatments were superior in case of the Salmonella isolates. For pumpkin and flaxseed extracts, treatment using a mixed cocktail of immobilized Aspergillus oryzae α-amylase, and Aspergillus niger β-glucosidase and β-glucanase enzymes (in a ratio of 1:1:1) resulted in elevated antimicrobial activity against pathogenic bacteria compared to the enzyme-free sample [90]. Red grape pomace subjected to cellulase-assisted extraction efficiently inhibited the growth of E. coli and S. aureus pathogens in the study of Kabir et al. [31].

4. Quorum Sensing Systems and Biofilm Formation in Food Related Bacteria

The quorum sensing system is responsible for the formation of many food deterioration phenotypes [91]. The mechanism regulates important cellular functions such as biofilm formation, sporulation, expression of virulence genes, conjugation, competition, bioluminescence and the production of toxins and pigments. Since the quorum sensing is a density dependent communication mechanism, appearance of the controlled pathological events is related to the density of bacterial cells. The bacterial cells produce and secrete signal molecules, known as autoinducers that accumulate until reaching a sufficient local concentration of bacteria (a quorum) and start a series of population responses, including biofilm formation [92]. The autoinducers secreted by the Gram-negative bacteria are mainly N-acylhomoserine lactone (AHL) molecules (autoinducer-1). The autoinducers in Gram-positive bacteria are peptide compounds (i.e., autoinducer peptides, AIP). Furthermore, both Gram-negative and Gram-positive bacteria could secrete autoinducer 2 (AI-2), which are furanosyl borate diester and similar molecules. Other signaling factors, such as p-coumaroyl-homoserine lactone [93], unsaturated fatty acids [94] and alkylquinolones are also known [95]. Effective quorum sensing inhibition approaches could be the blocking of the synthesis and the secretion of the autoinducers, the enzymatic degradation of the signal molecules, and the receptor antagonism, in which the antagonist prevents the binding of the signal molecules to response regulator proteins (e.g., to LuxR). However, according to recent investigations, resistance could be developed against certain anti-quorum sensing treatments [96]. Furanones are well-known natural antimicrobials that show destructive activity against the quorum sensing system of both Gram-negative and Gram-positive bacteria [97,98].
Biofilms are microbial communities attached to biotic and abiotic surfaces and embedded in a matrix of extracellular polysaccharides, lipids, proteins and nucleic acids, the so called extracellular polymeric substances (EPS) that are produced by the microbial community itself. Inside the biofilm, the cells display different metabolic activity and physiological, gene expression and morphological patterns compared to the planktonic cells. They become more resistant to environmental adverse factors, such as the lack of nutrients and oxygen and changes in the pH condition. Biofilm bacteria are less sensitive to the action of antimicrobial agents causing a potential risk in food industry environments [99]. In addition, the antimicrobial substances at subinhibitory concentration can act as environmental signals activating the formation of biofilms [100], thereby, leading to the failure of the drug treatment [101]. However, an effective quorum sensing inhibitor could inhibit the biofilm formation of foodborne pathogenic and spoilage bacteria as well [102,103,104]. Therefore, in agreement with today’s consumer demands, there are food preservative developments focusing on the screen and extensive analysis of natural inhibitory systems.

5. Anti-Quorum Sensing and Antibiofilm Effects of Plant Phenolics

Certain plant phenolic substances, including phenol-rich crude extracts, could exhibit anti-biofilm and/or anti-quorum sensing activities [105,106,107]. The phenolic compounds suppress the bacterial biofilm formation by the inhibition of different regulatory mechanisms without affecting growth: they can block the quorum sensing as mentioned above, reduce the bacterial motility altering their performance [108], decrease the superficial adhesion [109] and inhibit the expression of virulence factors associated with pathogenic behaviors [110,111].
In the study of Vattem et al. [112], the anti-quorum sensing effect of aqueous phenolic extracts from common dietary fruits, herbs and spices was investigated, using the purple pigment violacein producer Chromobacterium violaceum CVO26/CV 31532 bioassay system. The violacein synthesis is under quorum sensing regulation, mediated by AHL autoinducers. Among the fruit extracts tested, raspberry, blueberry and grape samples inhibited the AHL activity, and blueberry had the highest effect on the AHL synthesis. Moreover, blueberry extract was outstanding in the inhibition of quorum sensing related swarming motility in P. aeruginosa and E. coli O157:H7 pathogens. Berry phenolic extracts, namely those from raspberry and cloudberry, were the most effective C. violaceum AHL signaling inhibitors in the study of Priha et al. [113]. In addition, the cloudberry extract reduced the biofilm formation of the common brewery contaminant bacterium, Obesumbacterium proteus at the concentrations of 25 and 50 mg/L. A bioactive phenol-rich extract from apple peel was also tested for its anti-quorum sensing effect in the C. violaceum agar-diffusion test system by Fratianni et al. [38]. The whole extract exhibited quorum sensing inhibiting activity, which, however, was not detected for the single phenolic compounds of the apple peel. Here, the authors pointed out on possible synergistic or combinatory effects between the molecules in the extract, resulting in anti-quorum sensing activity for the crude sample. In a C. violaceum based liquid test, significant inhibition of violacein production was recorded for syringic acid, vanillic acid, (+)-catechin and resveratrol compounds (10 µg/mL), that can be found at different concentrations in black grape, apple and pitahaya extracts [3]. The yield of some of these phenolics, obtained via carbohydrase-assisted extraction, showed positive association with the anti-quorum sensing activity of the crude extracts tested. In the same research, all single phenolic compounds tested, i.e., 4-hydroxybenzoic, syringic, gallic, vanillic, cinnamic and p-coumaric acids, (+)-catechin, (−)-epicatechin, quercetin, polydatin and resveratrol, inhibited the biofilm formation of L. monocytogenes, S. aureus, MRSA, E. coli, S. enterica, P. putida and P. aeruginosa pathogens in vitro, at 100 µg/mL concentration [3].
In addition, many other studies have addressed the ability of phenolic compounds and different plant extracts to modulate the quorum sensing system and the biofilm formation in foodborne pathogenic and spoilage bacteria. For instance, catechin [114], naringenin [115] and quercetin [116] depicted strong anti-quorum sensing property against P. aeruginosa. Additionally, flavonoid fraction of guava (Psidium guajava L.) leaves extract inhibited the quorum sensing system of C. violaceum, and the biofilm formation, pyocyanin production, proteolytic and elastolytic activities and swarming motility in P. aeruginosa PAO1 [117]. It was shown that the quercetin and quercetin-3-O-arabinoside components of the flavonoid extract were responsible for the anti-quorum sensing activity.
There were several investigations concerning the inhibition of pathogenic E. coli biofilms by phenolics. In the study of Lee et al. [118], the flavonoid phloretin, a major compound in apple and strawberry extracts, has inhibited the formation of E. coli O157:H7 biofilms without affecting the growth of planktonic cells. Two furocoumarins isolated from grapefruit juice, bergamottin and dihydroxybergamottin, suppressed the biofilm formation of E. coli O157:H7 in a range of 71.9 and 58.3%, respectively [119]. Furthermore, naringenin, quercetin, sinensetin and apigenin were effective quorum sensing antagonists and biofilm suppressors in E. coli O157:H7 strain [120]. For non-O157 Shiga toxin producing E. coli strains, Sheng et al. [121] found that the grape seed extract inhibited well the quorum sensing system.
Many phenolic acids proved to be effective against S. aureus biofilms as well. With this context, the gallic [122], ginkgolic [123], ellagic [124] and rosmarinic acids [125] have been found to be promising inhibitors in the research of the past decade. The phenolic glycoside compound, 1,2,3,4,6-penta-O-galloyl-β-D-glucopyranose, purified from Eustigma oblongifolium extract, inhibited the formation of S. aureus biofilms by blocking the synthesis of cell-to-cell adhesion compounds, thereby, preventing the primary attachment to solid surfaces [126]. It was also shown that methanol extract from pomegranate, rich in ellagic acid, inhibited the biofilm formation of S. aureus, MRSA, E. coli and C. albicans [124]. Red wines, extensively recognized for their high flavonoid (e.g., quercetin, kaempferol, apigenin, chrysin, fisetin and luteolin) and stilbenoid (e.g., trans-resveratrol) content have proven to be potent inhibitor of S. aureus biofilms [127]. Among the compounds tested, the quercetin exhibited the highest biofilm inhibitory potential. In addition, phenolic extracts from muscadine grape were also able to inhibit and eradicate the S. aureus biofilm in the study of Xu et al. [128]. A summary of some recently published researches about antibiofilm activity of plant extracts against food-related microorganisms is presented in Table 4.

6. Anti-Enterotoxin Effect of Plant Phenolics

Many phenolic compounds and extracts even at concentrations below the MIC can inhibit the production and/or the activity of bacterial enterotoxins [139]. These anti-enterotoxin properties are being intensively tested for foodborne pathogens, especially in case of S. aureus. The staphylococcal enterotoxins and enterotoxin-like molecules are low-molecular weight proteins with a globular structure. They have superantigenic activity and are varied in their emetic potential [140]. Among them, the enterotoxin A is responsible for most staphylococcal food poisoning outbreaks [141]. Phenolic compounds can affect the enterotoxin production through several mode of action, including translation and/or transcription inhibition, disruption of secretory mechanisms, inhibition of quorum sensing regulatory systems, and toxin inactivation [142,143]. Various plant derived phenolic substances have been described as effective inhibitors of the staphylococcal enterotoxin production and activity (Table 5).
Activity of phenolics on AB-type protein toxins, e.g., cholera toxin, Shiga toxins, E. coli heat-labile toxin, P. aeruginosa exotoxin A, has also been extensively studied. These toxins consist of an A catalytic subunit and a B cell-binding subunit. Grape extracts inhibited the cholera intoxication in cultured cells and intestinal loops through various actions, including the elimination of the pre-bound toxin from the cell surfaces, and disruption of the unfolding, transport and catalytic activities of the dissociated A subunit [152]. In a later study, the function of 20 individual phenolic constituents of grape extracts in cholera toxin inhibition was assessed [153]. Among others, inhibitory functions affecting the toxin binding and the enzyme activity have been associated with the mode of action of individual phenolic compounds. For instance, resveratrol disrupted the toxin internalization and activity, epigallocatechin gallate and procyanidin blocked the toxin binding and occupied the binding sites, and kaempferol and quercitrin could directly inhibit the activity of the catalytic subunit. Grape seed and grape pomace extracts effectively disrupted the action of the Shiga toxin 1 and 2, and the heat-labile toxin as well [152,154].

7. Conclusions

Many phenolic compounds and phenol-rich plant extracts have promising activity to inhibit the growth of both the planktonic form and the biofilms of food related pathogens. Investigation of this property is particularly important as bacterial biofilm layers are commonly formed on foods and/or food contact surfaces, resulting in a microbial community more resistant to the traditional disinfectant agents. Moreover, their inhibitory properties against the production and activity of bacterial enterotoxins can make many plant phenolics effective in preventing food poisoning symptoms. Plant phenolics could have anti-quorum sensing activity as well. The quorum sensing mechanism regulates the biofilm formation and toxin production of pathogenic bacteria; therefore, discovery and analysis of substances suppressing this system has also occupied a prominent field in the current researches. In conclusion, the summarized studies emphasize not only the importance of plant phenolic extracts as sources of natural preservatives but provide alternatives for ecofriendly utilization of some agro- and food industrial byproducts and enzyme aided extraction processes as well.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, M.T., J.K. and C.V.; writing—original draft preparation, M.T., E.B.K., C.Z. and A.K.; writing—review and editing, M.T., T.P., J.K. and C.V. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This work was supported by the Hungarian Government and the European Union within the frames of the Széchenyi 2020 Programme through grant EFOP-3.6.1-16-2016-00008. M.T. was supported by the grants János Bolyai Research Scholarship of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences and the UNKP-19-4 New National Excellence Program of the Ministry for Innovation and Technology. T.P. is supported by the grants LP2016-8/2016 and by the FIKP program (TUDFO/4738-1/2019 ITM) of the Ministry of Human Capacities.

Acknowledgments

The authors thank Mónika Varga for her editing work on the chemical structure of phenolics.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Del Rio, D.; Rodriguez-Mateos, A.; Spencer, J.P.E.; Tognolini, M.; Borges, G.; Crozier, A. Dietary (poly) phenolics in human health: Structures, bioavailability, and evidence of protective effects against chronic diseases. Antioxid. Redox Signal. 2013, 18, 1818–1892. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  2. Gyawali, R.; Ibrahim, S.A. Natural products as antimicrobial agents. Food Control 2014, 46, 412–429. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Zambrano, C.; Kerekes, E.B.; Kotogán, A.; Papp, T.; Vágvölgyi, C.; Krisch, J.; Takó, M. Antimicrobial activity of grape, apple and pitahaya residue extracts after carbohydrase treatment against food-related bacteria. LWT Food Sci. Technol. 2019, 100, 416–425. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Nazzaro, F.; Fratianni, F.; Coppola, R. Quorum sensing and phytochemicals. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2013, 14, 12607–12619. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  5. Kowalska, H.; Czajkowska, K.; Cichowska, J.; Lenart, A. What’s new in biopotential of fruit and vegetable by-products applied in the food processing industry. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2017, 67, 150–159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Aires, A. Phenolics in foods: Extraction, analysis and measurements. In Phenolic Compounds—Natural Sources, Importance and Applications; Soto-Hernandez, M., Palma-Tenango, M., Del Rosario Garcia-Mateos, M., Eds.; IntechOpen: London, UK, 2017; pp. 61–88. [Google Scholar]
  7. Xu, D.-P.; Li, Y.; Meng, X.; Zhou, T.; Zhou, Y.; Zheng, J.; Zhang, J.-J.; Li, H.-B. Natural antioxidants in foods and medicinal plants: Extraction, assessment and resources. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2017, 18, 96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  8. Zambrano, C.; Kotogán, A.; Bencsik, O.; Papp, T.; Vágvölgyi, C.; Mondal, K.C.; Krisch, J.; Takó, M. Mobilization of phenolic antioxidants from grape, apple and pitahaya residues via solid state fungal fermentation and carbohydrase treatment. LWT Food Sci. Technol. 2018, 89, 457–465. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  9. Ngwoke, K.G.; Odimegwu, D.C.; Esimone, C.O. Antimicrobial natural products. In Science Against Microbial Pathogens: Communicating Current Research and Technology Advances; Méndez-Vilas, A., Ed.; FORMATEX: Badajoz, Spain, 2011; pp. 1011–1026. [Google Scholar]
  10. Stojković, D.; Petrović, J.; Soković, M.; Glamočlija, J.; Kukić-Marković, J.; Petrović, S. In situ antioxidant and antimicrobial activities of naturally occurring caffeic acid, p-coumaric acid and rutin, using food systems. J. Sci. Food Agric. 2013, 93, 3205–3208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Papuc, C.; Goran, G.V.; Predescu, C.N.; Nicorescu, V.; Stefan, G. Plant polyphenols as antioxidant and antibacterial agents for shelf-life extension of meat and meat products: Classification, structures, sources, and action mechanisms. Compr. Rev. Food Sci. Food Saf. 2017, 16, 1243–1268. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  12. Shahidi, F.; Ambigaipalan, P. Phenolics and polyphenolics in foods, beverages and spices: Antioxidant activity and health effects—A review. J. Funct. Foods 2015, 18, 820–897. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Bintsis, T. Foodborne pathogens. AIMS Microbiol. 2017, 3, 529–563. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Lai, C.-K.; Chen, Y.-A.; Lin, C.-J.; Lin, H.-J.; Kao, M.-C.; Huang, M.-Z.; Lin, Y.-H.; Chiang-Ni, C.; Chen, C.-J.; Lo, U.-G.; et al. Molecular mechanisms and potential clinical applications of Campylobacter jejuni cytolethal distending toxin. Front. Cell. Infect. Microbiol. 2016, 6, 9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  15. Heredia, N.; García, S. Animals as sources of food-borne pathogens: A review. Anim. Nutr. 2018, 4, 250–255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Hamon, M.A.; Ribet, D.; Stavru, F.; Cossart, P. Listeriolysin O: The Swiss army knife of Listeria. Trends Microbiol. 2012, 20, 360–368. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. King, J.C.; Black, R.E.; Doyle, M.P.; Fritsche, K.L.; Halbrook, B.H.; Levander, O.A.; Meydani, S.N.; Walker, W.A.; Woteki, C.E. Foodborne illnesses and nutritional status: A statement from an American Society for Nutritional Sciences Working Group. J. Nutr. 2000, 130, 2613–2617. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  18. Shallcross, L.J.; Davies, D.S.C. Antibiotic overuse: A key driver of antimicrobial resistance. Br. J. Gen. Pract. 2014, 64, 604–605. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  19. Hashempour-Baltork, F.; Hosseini, H.; Shojaee-Aliabadi, S.; Torbati, M.; Alizadeh, A.M.; Alizadeh, M. Drug resistance and the prevention strategies in food borne bacteria: An update review. Adv. Pharm. Bull. 2019, 9, 335–347. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  20. Rawat, S. Food spoilage: Microorganisms and their prevention. Asian J. Plant Sci. Res. 2015, 5, 47–56. [Google Scholar]
  21. Sperber, W.H. Introduction to the microbiological spoilage of foods and beverages. In Compendium of the Microbiological Spoilage of Foods and Beverages; Sperber, W.H., Doyle, M.P., Eds.; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2009; pp. 1–40. [Google Scholar]
  22. Garnier, L.; Valence, F.; Mounier, J. Diversity and control of spoilage fungi in dairy products: An update. Microorganisms 2017, 5, 42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  23. Mandal, P.K.; Biswas, A.K.; Choi, K.; Pal, U.K. Methods for rapid detection of foodborne pathogens: An overview. Am. J. Food Technol. 2011, 6, 87–102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  24. Jadhav, S.R.; Shah, R.M.; Karpe, A.V.; Morrison, P.D.; Kouremenos, K.; Beale, D.J.; Palombo, E.A. Detection of foodborne pathogens using proteomics and metabolomics-based approaches. Front. Microbiol. 2018, 9, 3132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Fletcher, B.; Mullane, K.; Platts, P.; Todd, E.; Power, A.; Roberts, J.; Chapman, J.; Cozzolino, D.; Chandra, S. Advances in meat spoilage detection: A short focus on rapid methods and technologies. CYTA J. Food 2018, 16, 1037–1044. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  26. Daglia, M. Polyphenols as antimicrobial agents. Curr. Opin. Biotechnol. 2012, 23, 174–181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Schmidt, T.J.; Khalid, S.A.; Romanha, A.J.; Alves, T.M.A.; Biavatti, M.W.; Brun, R.; Da Costa, F.B.; De Castro, S.L.; Ferreira, V.F.; De Lacerda, M.V.G.; et al. The potential of secondary metabolites from plants as drugs or leads against protozoan neglected diseases-part II. Curr. Med. Chem. 2012, 19, 2176–2228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Li, A.-N.; Li, S.; Zhang, Y.-J.; Xu, X.-R.; Chen, Y.-M.; Li, H.-B. Resources and biological activities of natural polyphenols. Nutrients 2014, 6, 6020–6047. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Górniak, I.; Bartoszewski, R.; Króliczewski, J. Comprehensive review of antimicrobial activities of plant flavonoids. Phytochem. Rev. 2019, 18, 241–272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  30. Özkan, G.; Sagdiç, O.; Göktürk Baydar, N.; Kurumahmutoglu, Z. Antibacterial activities and total phenolic contents of grape pomace extracts. J. Sci. Food Agric. 2004, 84, 1807–1811. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Kabir, F.; Sultana, M.S.; Kurnianta, H. Antimicrobial activities of grape (Vitis vinifera L.) pomace polyphenols as a source of naturally occurring bioactive components. Afr. J. Biotechnol. 2015, 14, 2157–2161. [Google Scholar]
  32. Jayaprakasha, G.K.; Selvi, T.; Sakariah, K.K. Antibacterial and antioxidant activities of grape (Vitis vinifera) seed extracts. Food Res. Int. 2003, 36, 117–122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Silván, J.M.; Mingo, E.; Hidalgo, M.; De Pascual-Teresa, S.; Carrascosa, A.V.; Martinez-Rodriguez, A.J. Antibacterial activity of a grape seed extract and its fractions against Campylobacter spp. Food Control 2013, 29, 25–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Levy, J.; Boyer, R.R.; Neilson, A.P.; O’Keefe, S.F.; Chu, H.S.S.; Williams, R.C.; Dorenkott, M.R.; Goodrich, K.M. Evaluation of peanut skin and grape seed extracts to inhibit growth of foodborne pathogens. Food Sci. Nutr. 2017, 5, 1130–1138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Tenore, G.C.; Novellino, E.; Basile, A. Nutraceutical potential and antioxidant benefits of red pitaya (Hylocereus polyrhizus) extracts. J. Funct. Foods 2012, 4, 129–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Yong, Y.Y.; Dykes, G.; Lee, S.M.; Choo, W.S. Comparative study of betacyanin profile and antimicrobial activity of red pitahaya (Hylocereus polyrhizus) and red spinach (Amaranthus dubius). Plant Food. Hum. Nutr. 2017, 72, 41–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Tseng, A.; Zhao, Y. Effect of different drying methods and storage time on the retention of bioactive compounds and antibacterial activity of wine grape pomace (Pinot Noir and Merlot). J. Food Sci. 2012, 77, H192–H201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Fratianni, F.; Coppola, R.; Nazzaro, F. Phenolic composition and antimicrobial and antiquorum sensing activity of an ethanolic extract of peels from the apple cultivar annurca. J. Med. Food 2011, 14, 957–963. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Xu, Y.; Burton, S.; Kim, C.; Sismour, E. Phenolic compounds, antioxidant, and antibacterial properties of pomace extracts from four Virginia-grown grape varieties. Food Sci. Nutr. 2016, 4, 125–133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Usha, M.; Ragini, S.; Naqvi, S.M.A. Antibacterial activity of acetone and ethanol extracts of cinnamon (Cinnamomum zeylanicum) and Ajowan (Trachyspermum ammi) on four food spoilage bacteria. Int. Res. J. Biol. Sci. 2012, 1, 7–11. [Google Scholar]
  41. Salaheen, S.; Nguyen, C.; Hewes, D.; Biswas, D. Cheap extraction of antibacterial compounds of berry pomace and their mode of action against the pathogen Campylobacter jejuni. Food Control 2014, 46, 174–181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Shen, X.; Sun, X.; Xie, Q.; Liu, H.; Zhao, Y.; Pan, Y.; Hwang, C.-A.; Wu, V.C.H. Antimicrobial effect of blueberry (Vaccinium corymbosum L.) extracts against the growth of Listeria monocytogenes and Salmonella Enteritidis. Food Control 2014, 35, 159–165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Zhang, T.; Wei, X.; Miao, Z.; Hassan, H.; Song, Y.; Fan, M. Screening for antioxidant and antibacterial activities of phenolics from Golden Delicious apple pomace. Chem. Cent. J. 2016, 10, 47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  44. Ju, J.; Xie, Y.; Guo, Y.; Cheng, Y.; Qian, H.; Yao, W. Antibacterial activities of bayberry extract on foodborne pathogens and identification of its active components. Food Agric. Immunol. 2019, 30, 385–397. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  45. Luchian, C.E.; Cotea, V.V.; Vlase, L.; Toiu, A.M.; Colibaba, L.C.; Răschip, I.E.; Nadăş, G.; Gheldiu, A.M.; Tuchiluş, C.; Rotaru, L. Antioxidant and antimicrobial effects of grape pomace extracts. BIO Web Conf. 2019, 15, 04006. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Radovanović, V.N.; Andjelković, M.; Arsić, B.; Radovanović, A.; Gojković-Bukarica, L. Cost-effective ultrasonic extraction of bioactive polyphenols from vine and wine waste in Serbia. S. Afr. J. Enol. Vitic. 2019, 40, 172–180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Olejar, K.J.; Ricci, A.; Swift, S.; Zujovic, Z.; Gordon, K.C.; Fedrizzi, B.; Versari, A.; Kilmartin, P.A. Characterization of an antioxidant and antimicrobial extract from cool climate, white grape marc. Antioxidants 2019, 8, 232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  48. Raphaelli, C.O.; Dannenberg, G.; Dalmazo, G.O.; Pereira, E.S.; Radünz, M.; Vizzotto, M.; Fiorentini, A.M.; Gandra, E.A.; Nora, L. Antibacterial and antioxidant properties of phenolic-rich extracts from apple (Malus domestica cv. Gala). Int. Food Res. J. 2019, 26, 1133–1142. [Google Scholar]
  49. Mahboubi, A.; Asgarpanah, J.; Sadaghiyani, P.N.; Faizi, M. Total phenolic and flavonoid content and antibacterial activity of Punica granatum L. var. pleniflora flowers (Golnar) against bacterial strains causing foodborne diseases. BMC Complement. Altern. Med. 2015, 15, 366. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  50. Al-Manhel, A.J.; Niamah, A.K. Effect of aqueous and alcoholic plant extracts on inhibition of some types of microbes and causing spoilage of food. J. Nutr. Food. Sci. 2015, S5, 104–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  51. Arokiyaraj, S.; Bharanidharan, R.; Agastian, P.; Shin, H. Chemical composition, antioxidant activity and antibacterial mechanism of action from Marsilea minuta leaf hexane: Methanol extract. Chem. Cent. J. 2018, 12, 105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Gonelimali, F.D.; Lin, J.; Miao, W.; Xuan, J.; Charles, F.; Chen, M.; Hatab, S.R. Antimicrobial properties and mechanism of action of some plant extracts against food pathogens and spoilage microorganisms. Front. Microbiol. 2018, 9, 1639. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Ibrahim, M.M.; El Ghani, S.A.; El-Moez, S.I.A. Phytochemical analysis and antimicrobial activities of different callus extracts of Pelargonium sidoides DC. against food borne pathogenic bacteria. J. Appl. Pharm. Sci. 2018, 8, 109–118. [Google Scholar]
  54. Generalić Mekinić, I.; Skroza, D.; Ljubenkov, I.; Katalinić, V.; Šimat, V. Antioxidant and antimicrobial potential of phenolic metabolites from traditionally used Mediterranean herbs and spices. Foods 2019, 8, 579. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  55. Nas, F.S.; Ali, M.; Ahmad, A.M. In vitro antibacterial activity of different extracts of Zingiber officinale against bacterial isolates responsible for food spoilage. SOA Arch. Pharm. Pharmacol. 2018, 1, 001. [Google Scholar]
  56. Ouerghemmi, I.; Rebey, I.B.; Rahali, F.Z.; Bourgou, S.; Pistelli, L.; Ksouri, R.; Marzouk, B.; Tounsi, M.S. Antioxidant and antimicrobial phenolic compounds from extracts of cultivated and wild-grown Tunisian Ruta chalepensis. J. Food Drug Anal. 2017, 25, 350–359. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  57. Ramli, S.; Radu, S.; Shaari, K.; Rukayadi, Y. Antibacterial activity of ethanolic extract of Syzygium polyanthum L. (Salam) leaves against foodborne pathogens and application as food sanitizer. BioMed Res. Int. 2017, 2017, 9024246. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  58. Sagdic, O.; Ozturk, I.; Yilmaz, M.T.; Yetim, H. Effect of grape pomace extracts obtained from different grape varieties on microbial quality of beef patty. J. Food Sci. 2011, 76, M515–M521. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Sagdic, O.; Ozturk, I.; Kisi, O. Modeling antimicrobial effect of different grape pomace and extracts on S. aureus and E. coli in vegetable soup using artificial neural network and fuzzy logic system. Expert Syst. Appl. 2012, 39, 6792–6798. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Hayrapetyan, H.; Hazeleger, W.C.; Beumer, R.R. Inhibition of Listeria monocytogenes by pomegranate (Punica granatum) peel extract in meat paté at different temperatures. Food Control 2012, 23, 66–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Ahn, J.; Grün, I.U.; Mustapha, A. Effects of plant extracts on microbial growth, color change, and lipid oxidation in cooked beef. Food Microbiol. 2007, 24, 7–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Bouarab Chibane, L.; Degraeve, P.; Ferhout, H.; Bouajila, J.; Oulahal, N. Plant antimicrobial polyphenols as potential natural food preservatives. J. Sci. Food Agric. 2019, 99, 1457–1474. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  63. García-Ruiz, A.; Moreno-Arribas, M.V.; Martín-Álvarez, P.J.; Bartolomé, B. Comparative study of the inhibitory effects of wine polyphenols on the growth of enological lactic acid bacteria. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2011, 145, 426–431. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Pastorkova, E.; Zakova, T.; Landa, P.; Novakova, J.; Vadlejch, J.; Kokoska, L. Growth inhibitory effect of grape phenolics against wine spoilage yeasts and acetic acid bacteria. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2013, 161, 209–213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  65. Favela-Hernández, J.M.J.; García, A.; Garza-González, E.; Rivas-Galindo, V.M.; Camacho-Corona, M.R. Antibacterial and antimycobacterial lignans and flavonoids from Larrea tridentata. Phytother. Res. 2012, 26, 1957–1960. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  66. Rehman, S.-U.; Khan, R.; Bhat, K.A.; Raja, A.F.; Shawl, A.S.; Alam, M.S. Isolation, characterisation and antibacterial activity studies of coumarins from Rhododendron lepidotum Wall. ex G. Don, Ericaceae. Rev. Bras. Farmacogn. 2010, 20, 886–890. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  67. Nitiema, L.W.; Savadogo, A.; Simpore, J.; Dianou, D.; Traore, A.S. In vitro antimicrobial activity of some phenolic compounds (coumarin and quercetin) against gastroenteritis bacterial strains. Int. J. Microbiol. Res. 2012, 3, 183–187. [Google Scholar]
  68. Díaz-Gómez, R.; Toledo-Araya, H.; López-Solís, R.; Obreque-Slier, E. Combined effect of gallic acid and catechin against Escherichia coli. LWT Food Sci. Technol. 2014, 59, 896–900. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Kerekes, E.B.; Vidács, A.; Jenei Török, J.; Gömöri, C.; Petkovits, T.; Chandrasekaran, M.; Kadaikunnan, S.; Alharbi, N.S.; Vágvölgyi, C.; Krisch, J. Anti-listerial effect of selected essential oils and thymol. Acta Biol. Hung. 2016, 67, 333–343. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  70. Rúa, J.; Fernandez-Alvarez, L.; Gutierrez-Larrainzar, M.; Del Valle, P.; De Arriaga, D.; García-Armesto, M.R. Screening of phenolic antioxidants for their inhibitory activity against foodborne Staphylococcus aureus strains. Foodborne Pathog. Dis. 2010, 7, 695–705. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Quideau, S.; Deffieux, D.; Douat-Casassus, C.; Pouységu, L. Plant polyphenols: Chemical properties, biological activities, and synthesis. Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. Engl. 2011, 50, 586–621. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Sanhueza, L.; Melo, R.; Montero, R.; Maisey, K.; Mendoza, L.; Wilkens, M. Synergistic interactions between phenolic compounds identified in grape pomace extract with antibiotics of different classes against Staphylococcus aureus and Escherichia coli. PLoS ONE 2017, 12, e0172273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Stefanović, O.D. Synergistic activity of antibiotics and bioactive plant extracts: A study against Gram-positive and Gram-negative bacteria. In Bacterial Pathogenesis and Antibacterial Control; Kırmusaoğlu, S., Ed.; IntechOpen: London, UK, 2018; pp. 23–48. [Google Scholar]
  74. Miklasińska-Majdanik, M.; Kępa, M.; Wojtyczka, R.D.; Idzik, D.; Wąsik, T.J. Phenolic compounds diminish antibiotic resistance of Staphylococcus aureus clinical strains. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2018, 15, 2321. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  75. Figueiredo, A.R.; Campos, F.; De Freitas, V.; Hogg, T.; Couto, J.A. Effect of phenolic aldehydes and flavonoids on growth and inactivation of Oenococcus oeni and Lactobacillus hilgardii. Food Microbiol. 2008, 25, 105–112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Oteiza, P.I.; Erlejman, A.G.; Verstraeten, S.V.; Keen, C.L.; Fraga, C.G. Flavonoid-membrane interactions: A protective role of flavonoids at the membrane surface? Clin. Dev. Immunol. 2005, 12, 19–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  77. Ultee, A.; Bennik, M.H.J.; Moezelaar, R. The phenolic hydroxyl group of carvacrol is essential for action against the food-borne pathogen Bacillus cereus. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2002, 68, 1561–1568. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  78. Jeong, K.-W.; Lee, J.-Y.; Kang, D.-I.; Lee, J.-U.; Shin, S.Y.; Kim, Y. Screening of flavonoids as candidate antibiotics against Enterococcus faecalis. J. Nat. Prod. 2009, 72, 719–724. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Engels, C.; Knödler, M.; Zhao, Y.-Y.; Carle, R.; Gänzle, M.G.; Schieber, A. Antimicrobial activity of gallotannins isolated from mango (Mangifera indica L.) kernels. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2009, 57, 7712–7718. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Wu, T.; Zang, X.; He, M.; Pan, S.; Xu, X. Structure–activity relationship of flavonoids on their anti-Escherichia coli activity and inhibition of DNA gyrase. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2013, 61, 8185–8190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Tsuchiya, H. Membrane interactions of phytochemicals as their molecular mechanism applicable to the discovery of drug leads from plants. Molecules 2015, 20, 18923–18966. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Sanver, D.; Murray, B.S.; Sadeghpour, A.; Rappolt, M.; Nelson, A.L. Experimental modeling of flavonoid–biomembrane interactions. Langmuir 2016, 32, 13234–13243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Eumkeb, G.; Chukrathok, S. Synergistic activity and mechanism of action of ceftazidime and apigenin combination against ceftazidime-resistant Enterobacter cloacae. Phytomedicine 2013, 20, 262–269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Soromou, L.W.; Zhang, Y.; Cui, Y.; Wei, M.; Chen, N.; Yang, X.; Huo, M.; Baldé, A.; Guan, S.; Deng, X.; et al. Subinhibitory concentrations of pinocembrin exert anti-Staphylococcus aureus activity by reducing α-toxin expression. J. Appl. Microbiol. 2013, 115, 41–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  85. Ikigai, H.; Nakae, T.; Hara, Y.; Shimamura, T. Bactericidal catechins damage the lipid bilayer. BBA Biomembr. 1993, 1147, 132–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Taylor, P.W.; Hamilton-Miller, J.M.; Stapleton, P.D. Antimicrobial properties of green tea catechins. Food Sci. Technol. Bull. 2005, 2, 71–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  87. Yam, T.S.; Hamilton-Miller, J.M.; Shah, S. The effect of a component of tea (Camellia sinensis) on methicillin resistance, PBP2′synthesis, and beta-lactamase production in Staphylococcus aureus. J. Antimicrob. Chemother. 1998, 42, 211–216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  88. Mandalari, G.; Bennett, R.N.; Bisignano, G.; Trombetta, D.; Saija, A.; Faulds, C.B.; Gasson, M.J.; Narbad, A. Antimicrobial activity of flavonoids extracted from bergamot (Citrus bergamia Risso) peel, a byproduct of the essential oil industry. J. Appl. Microbiol. 2007, 103, 2056–2064. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Puupponen-Pimiä, R.; Nohynek, L.; Ammann, S.; Oksman-Caldentey, K.-M.; Buchert, J. Enzyme-assisted processing increases antimicrobial and antioxidant activity of bilberry. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2008, 56, 681–688. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Ratz-Łyko, A.; Arct, J. Evaluation of antioxidant and antimicrobial properties of enzymatically hydrolysed Cucurbita pepo and Linum usitatissimum seedcakes. Food Sci. Biotechnol. 2015, 24, 1789–1796. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Skandamis, P.N.; Nychas, G.-J.E. Quorum sensing in the context of food microbiology. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2012, 78, 5473–5482. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  92. Li, Y.-H.; Tian, X. Quorum sensing and bacterial social interactions in biofilms. Sensors 2012, 12, 2519–2538. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Schaefer, A.L.; Greenberg, E.P.; Oliver, C.M.; Oda, Y.; Huang, J.J.; Bittan-Banin, G.; Peres, C.M.; Schmidt, S.; Juhaszova, K.; Sufrin, J.R.; et al. A new class of homoserine lactone quorum-sensing signals. Nature 2008, 454, 595–599. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Ryan, R.P.; McCarthy, Y.; Watt, S.A.; Niehaus, K.; Dow, J.M. Intraspecies signaling involving the diffusible signal factor BDSF (cis-2-dodecenoic acid) influences virulence in Burkholderia cenocepacia. J. Bacteriol. 2009, 191, 5013–5019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  95. Liu, Y.-C.; Hussain, F.; Negm, O.; Paiva, A.C.; Halliday, N.; Dubern, J.-F.; Singh, S.; Muntaka, S.; Wheldon, L.; Luckett, J.; et al. Contribution of the alkylquinolone quorum-sensing system to the interaction of Pseudomonas aeruginosa with bronchial epithelial cells. Front. Microbiol. 2018, 9, 3018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  96. Krzyżek, P. Challenges and limitations of anti-quorum sensing therapies. Front. Microbiol. 2019, 10, 2473. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  97. Lönn-Stensrud, J.; Landin, M.A.; Benneche, T.; Petersen, F.C.; Scheie, A.A. Furanones, potential agents for preventing Staphylococcus epidermidis biofilm infections? J. Antimicrob. Chemother. 2009, 63, 309–316. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  98. Husain, A.; Khan, S.A.; Iram, F.; Iqbal, M.A.; Asif, M. Insights into the chemistry and therapeutic potential of furanones: A versatile pharmacophore. Eur. J. Med. Chem. 2019, 171, 66–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Galiè, S.; García-Gutiérrez, C.; Miguélez, E.M.; Villar, C.J.; Lombó, F. Biofilms in the food industry: Health aspects and control methods. Front. Microbiol. 2018, 9, 898. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Hoffman, L.R.; D’Argenio, D.A.; MacCoss, M.J.; Zhang, Z.; Jones, R.A.; Miller, S.I. Aminoglycoside antibiotics induce bacterial biofilm formation. Nature 2005, 436, 1171–1175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Miquel, S.; Lagrafeuille, R.; Souweine, B.; Forestier, C. Anti-biofilm activity as a health issue. Front. Microbiol. 2016, 7, 592. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Brackman, G.; Coenye, T. Quorum sensing inhibitors as anti-biofilm agents. Curr. Pharm. Des. 2015, 21, 5–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Jiang, Q.; Chen, J.; Yang, C.; Yin, Y.; Yao, K. Quorum sensing: A prospective therapeutic target for bacterial diseases. BioMed Res. Int. 2019, 2019, 2015978. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  104. Machado, I.; Silva, L.R.; Giaouris, E.D.; Melo, L.F.; Simões, M. Quorum sensing in food spoilage and natural-based strategies for its inhibition. Food Res. Int. 2020, 127, 108754. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Silva, L.N.; Zimmer, K.R.; Macedo, A.J.; Trentin, D.S. Plant natural products targeting bacterial virulence factors. Chem. Rev. 2016, 116, 9162–9236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  106. Slobodníková, L.; Fialová, S.; Rendeková, K.; Kováč, J.; Mučaji, P. Antibiofilm activity of plant polyphenols. Molecules 2016, 21, 1717. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  107. Asfour, H.Z. Anti-quorum sensing natural compounds. J. Microsc. Ultrastruct. 2018, 6, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  108. Borges, A.; Saavedra, M.J.; Simões, M. The activity of ferulic and gallic acids in biofilm prevention and control of pathogenic bacteria. Biofouling 2012, 28, 755–767. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  109. Eydelnant, I.A.; Tufenkji, N. Cranberry derived proanthocyanidins reduce bacterial adhesion to selected biomaterials. Langmuir 2008, 24, 10273–10281. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  110. Xu, X.; Zhou, X.D.; Wu, C.D. The tea catechin epigallocatechin gallate suppresses cariogenic virulence factors of Streptococcus mutans. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 2011, 55, 1229–1236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  111. Khokhani, D.; Zhang, C.; Li, Y.; Wang, Q.; Zeng, Q.; Yamazaki, A.; Hutchins, W.; Zhou, S.-S.; Chen, X.; Yang, C.-H. Discovery of plant phenolic compounds that act as type III secretion system inhibitors or inducers of the fire blight pathogen, Erwinia amylovora. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2013, 79, 5424–5436. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  112. Vattem, D.A.; Mihalik, K.; Crixell, S.H.; McLean, R.J.C. Dietary phytochemicals as quorum sensing inhibitors. Fitoterapia 2007, 78, 302–310. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  113. Priha, O.; Virkajärvi, V.; Juvonen, R.; Puupponen-Pimiä, R.; Nohynek, L.; Alakurtti, S.; Pirttimaa, M.; Storgårds, E. Quorum sensing signalling and biofilm formation of brewery-derived bacteria, and inhibition of signalling by natural compounds. Curr. Microbiol. 2014, 69, 617–627. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  114. Vandeputte, O.M.; Kiendrebeogo, M.; Rajaonson, S.; Diallo, B.; Mol, A.; El Jaziri, M.; Baucher, M. Identification of catechin as one of the flavonoids from Combretum albiflorum bark extract that reduces the production of quorum-sensing-controlled virulence factors in Pseudomonas aeruginosa PAO1. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2010, 76, 243–253. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  115. Vandeputte, O.M.; Kiendrebeogo, M.; Rasamiravaka, T.; Stévigny, C.; Duez, P.; Rajaonson, S.; Diallo, B.; Mol, A.; Baucher, M.; El Jaziri, M. The flavanone naringenin reduces the production of quorum sensing-controlled virulence factors in Pseudomonas aeruginosa PAO1. Microbiology 2011, 157, 2120–2132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  116. Ouyang, J.; Sun, F.; Feng, W.; Sun, Y.; Qiu, X.; Xiong, L.; Liu, Y.; Chen, Y. Quercetin is an effective inhibitor of quorum sensing, biofilm formation and virulence factors in Pseudomonas aeruginosa. J. Appl. Microbiol. 2016, 120, 966–974. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  117. Vasavi, H.S.; Arun, A.B.; Rekha, P.-D. Anti-quorum sensing activity of Psidium guajava L. flavonoids against Chromobacterium violaceum and Pseudomonas aeruginosa PAO1. Microbiol. Immunol. 2014, 58, 286–293. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  118. Lee, J.-H.; Regmi, S.C.; Kim, J.-A.; Cho, M.H.; Yun, H.; Lee, C.-S.; Lee, J. Apple flavonoid phloretin inhibits Escherichia coli O157: H7 biofilm formation and ameliorates colon inflammation in rats. Infect. Immun. 2011, 79, 4819–4827. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  119. Girennavar, B.; Cepeda, M.L.; Soni, K.A.; Vikram, A.; Jesudhasan, P.; Jayaprakasha, G.K.; Pillai, S.D.; Patil, B.S. Grapefruit juice and its furocoumarins inhibits autoinducer signaling and biofilm formation in bacteria. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2008, 125, 204–208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  120. Vikram, A.; Jayaprakasha, G.K.; Jesudhasan, P.R.; Pillai, S.D.; Patil, B.S. Suppression of bacterial cell-cell signalling, biofilm formation and type III secretion system by citrus flavonoids. J. Appl. Microbiol. 2010, 109, 515–527. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  121. Sheng, L.; Olsen, S.A.; Hu, J.; Yue, W.; Means, W.J.; Zhu, M.J. Inhibitory effects of grape seed extract on growth, quorum sensing, and virulence factors of CDC “top-six” non-O157 Shiga toxin producing E. coli. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2016, 229, 24–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  122. Luís, Â.; Silva, F.; Sousa, S.; Duarte, A.P.; Domingues, F. Antistaphylococcal and biofilm inhibitory activities of gallic, caffeic, and chlorogenic acids. Biofouling 2014, 30, 69–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  123. Lee, J.-H.; Kim, Y.-G.; Ryu, S.Y.; Cho, M.H.; Lee, J. Ginkgolic acids and Ginkgo biloba extract inhibit Escherichia coli O157: H7 and Staphylococcus aureus biofilm formation. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2014, 174, 47–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  124. Bakkiyaraj, D.; Nandhini, J.R.; Malathy, B.; Pandian, S.K. The anti-biofilm potential of pomegranate (Punica granatum L.) extract against human bacterial and fungal pathogens. Biofouling 2013, 29, 929–937. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  125. Slobodníková, L.; Fialová, S.; Hupková, H.; Grančai, D. Rosmarinic acid interaction with planktonic and biofilm Staphylococcus aureus. Nat. Prod. Commun. 2013, 8, 1747–1750. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  126. Lin, M.-H.; Chang, F.-R.; Hua, M.-Y.; Wu, Y.-C.; Liu, S.-T. Inhibitory effects of 1,2,3,4,6-penta-O-galloyl-β-D-glucopyranose on biofilm formation by Staphylococcus aureus. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 2011, 55, 1021–1027. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  127. Cho, H.S.; Lee, J.-H.; Cho, M.H.; Lee, J. Red wines and flavonoids diminish Staphylococcus aureus virulence with anti-biofilm and anti-hemolytic activities. Biofouling 2015, 31, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  128. Xu, C.; Yagiz, Y.; Hsu, W.-Y.; Simonne, A.; Lu, J.; Marshall, M.R. Antioxidant, antibacterial, and antibiofilm properties of polyphenols from muscadine grape (Vitis rotundifolia Michx.) pomace against selected foodborne pathogens. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2014, 62, 6640–6649. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  129. Rahman, M.R.T.; Lou, Z.; Yu, F.; Wang, P.; Wang, H. Anti-quorum sensing and anti-biofilm activity of Amomum tsaoko (Amommum tsao-ko Crevost et Lemarie) on foodborne pathogens. Saudi J. Biol. Sci. 2017, 24, 324–330. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  130. De Marco, S.; Piccioni, M.; Pagiotti, R.; Pietrella, D. Antibiofilm and antioxidant activity of propolis and bud poplar resins versus Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Evid. Based Complement. Altern. Med. 2017, 2017, 5163575. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  131. Maia, D.S.V.; Haubert, L.; Kroning, I.S.; Dos Santos Soares, K.; Oliveira, T.L.; Da Silva, W.P. Biofilm formation by Staphylococcus aureus isolated from food poisoning outbreaks and effect of Butia odorata Barb. Rodr. extract on planktonic and biofilm cells. LWT Food Sci. Technol. 2020, 117, 108685. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  132. Sharma, K.; Mahato, N.; Lee, Y.R. Systematic study on active compounds as antibacterial and antibiofilm agent in aging onions. J. Food Drug Anal. 2018, 26, 518–528. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  133. Edziri, H.; Jaziri, R.; Chehab, H.; Verschaeve, L.; Flamini, G.; Boujnah, D.; Hammami, M.; Aouni, M.; Mastouri, M. A comparative study on chemical composition, antibiofilm and biological activities of leaves extracts of four Tunisian olive cultivars. Heliyon 2019, 5, e01604. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  134. Nassima, B.; Nassima, B.; Riadh, K. Antimicrobial and antibiofilm activities of phenolic compounds extracted from Populus nigra and Populus alba buds (Algeria). Braz. J. Pharm. Sci. 2019, 55, e18114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  135. Blando, F.; Russo, R.; Negro, C.; De Bellis, L.; Frassinetti, S. Antimicrobial and antibiofilm activity against Staphylococcus aureus of Opuntia ficus-indica (L.) Mill. cladode polyphenolic extracts. Antioxidants 2019, 8, 117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  136. Famuyide, I.M.; Aro, A.O.; Fasina, F.O.; Eloff, J.N.; McGaw, L.J. Antibacterial and antibiofilm activity of acetone leaf extracts of nine under-investigated south African Eugenia and Syzygium (Myrtaceae) species and their selectivity indices. BMC Complement. Altern. Med. 2019, 19, 141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  137. Radojević, I.D.; Branković, S.R.; Vasić, S.M.; Ćirić, A.R.; Topuzović, M.D.; Čomić, L.R. Phytochemical profiles, antioxidant and antimicrobial with antibiofilm activities of wild growing Potentilla visianii extracts. Nat. Prod. Commun. 2018, 13, 851–854. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  138. Stefanović, O.; Ličina, B.; Vasić, S.; Radojević, I.; Čomić, L. Bioactive extracts of Gentiana asclepiadea: Antioxidant, antimicrobial, and antibiofilm activity. Bot. Serbica 2018, 42, 223–229. [Google Scholar]
  139. Muñoz-Cazares, N.; García-Contreras, R.; Pérez-López, M.; Castillo-Juárez, I. Phenolic compounds with anti-virulence properties. In Phenolic Compounds-Biological Activity; Marcos Soto-Hernandez, M., Palma-Tenango, M., Del Rosario Garcia-Mateos, M., Eds.; IntechOpen: London, UK, 2017; pp. 139–167. [Google Scholar]
  140. Fisher, E.L.; Otto, M.; Cheung, G.Y. Basis of virulence in enterotoxin-mediated staphylococcal food poisoning. Front. Microbiol. 2018, 9, 436. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  141. Argudín, M.Á.; Mendoza, M.C.; Rodicio, M.R. Food poisoning and Staphylococcus aureus enterotoxins. Toxins 2010, 2, 1751–1773. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  142. Albano, M.; Alves, F.C.B.; Andrade, B.F.M.T.; Barbosa, L.N.; Pereira, A.F.M.; Da Cunha, M.; Rall, V.L.M.; Júnior, A.F. Antibacterial and anti-staphylococcal enterotoxin activities of phenolic compounds. Innov. Food Sci. Emerg. Technol. 2016, 38, 83–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  143. Rasooly, R.; Molnar, A.; Choi, H.-Y.; Do, P.; Racicot, K.; Apostolidis, E. In-vitro inhibition of staphylococcal pathogenesis by witch-hazel and green tea extracts. Antibiotics 2019, 8, 244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  144. Qiu, J.; Feng, H.; Xiang, H.; Wang, D.; Xia, L.; Jiang, Y.; Song, K.; Lu, J.; Yu, L.; Deng, X. Influence of subinhibitory concentrations of licochalcone A on the secretion of enterotoxins A and B by Staphylococcus aureus. FEMS Microbiol. Lett. 2010, 307, 135–141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  145. Souza, E.L.; Oliveira, C.E.V.; Stamford, T.L.M.; Conceição, M.L.; Gomes Neto, N.J. Influence of carvacrol and thymol on the physiological attributes, enterotoxin production and surface characteristics of Staphylococcus aureus strains isolated from foods. Braz. J. Microbiol. 2013, 44, 29–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  146. Shimamura, Y.; Aoki, N.; Sugiyama, Y.; Tanaka, T.; Murata, M.; Masuda, S. Plant-derived polyphenols interact with staphylococcal enterotoxin A and inhibit toxin activity. PLoS ONE 2016, 11, e0157082. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  147. Shimamura, Y.; Hirai, C.; Sugiyama, Y.; Shibata, M.; Ozaki, J.; Murata, M.; Ohashi, N.; Masuda, S. Inhibitory effects of food additives derived from polyphenols on staphylococcal enterotoxin A production and biofilm formation by Staphylococcus aureus. Biosci. Biotechnol. Biochem. 2017, 81, 2346–2352. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  148. Zhao, Y.; Zhu, A.; Tang, J.; Tang, C.; Chen, J. Comparative effects of food preservatives on the production of staphylococcal enterotoxin I from Staphylococcus aureus isolate. J. Food Qual. 2017, 2017, 9495314. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  149. Rasooly, R.; Do, P.M.; Friedman, M. Inhibition of biological activity of staphylococcal enterotoxin A (SEA) by apple juice and apple polyphenols. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2010, 58, 5421–5426. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  150. Braga, L.C.; Shupp, J.W.; Cummings, C.; Jett, M.; Takahashi, J.A.; Carmo, L.S.; Chartone-Souza, E.; Nascimento, A.M.A. Pomegranate extract inhibits Staphylococcus aureus growth and subsequent enterotoxin production. J. Ethnopharmacol. 2005, 96, 335–339. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  151. Tranter, H.S.; Tassou, S.C.; Nychas, G.J. The effect of the olive phenolic compound, oleuropein, on growth and enterotoxin B production by Staphylococcus aureus. J. Appl. Bacteriol. 1993, 74, 253–259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  152. Reddy, S.; Taylor, M.; Zhao, M.; Cherubin, P.; Geden, S.; Ray, S.; Francis, D.; Teter, K. Grape extracts inhibit multiple events in the cell biology of cholera intoxication. PLoS ONE 2013, 8, e73390. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  153. Cherubin, P.; Garcia, M.C.; Curtis, D.; Britt, C.B.; Craft, J.W., Jr.; Burress, H.; Berndt, C.; Reddy, S.; Guyette, J.; Zheng, T.; et al. Inhibition of cholera toxin and other AB toxins by polyphenolic compounds. PLoS ONE 2016, 11, e0166477. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  154. Quiñones, B.; Massey, S.; Friedman, M.; Swimley, M.S.; Teter, K. Novel cell-based method to detect Shiga toxin 2 from Escherichia coli O157: H7 and inhibitors of toxin activity. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2009, 75, 1410–1416. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
Figure 1. Groups of plant-derived phenolics, and some representative antimicrobial compounds with their chemical structure.
Figure 1. Groups of plant-derived phenolics, and some representative antimicrobial compounds with their chemical structure.
Antioxidants 09 00165 g001
Table 1. Most common foodborne pathogenic bacteria, their produced toxins and diseases caused.
Table 1. Most common foodborne pathogenic bacteria, their produced toxins and diseases caused.
Foodborne Pathogen BacteriaToxin ProductionType of DiseaseMain Food Sources of InfectionReference
Bacillus cereusEmetic toxin, diarrheal toxinEmetic syndrome, diarrheaRice, pasta, noodles, pastry[13]
Campylobacter coli, Campylobacter jejuniCytolethal distending toxinCampylobacteriosisPoultry products, unpasteurized milk[14,15]
Clostridium botulinumBotulinum toxinBotulismImproperly processed canned foods[13]
Escherichia coli O157:H7Shiga-toxinHemorrhagic colitisGround meats, raw or under-pasteurized milk, sprouts[13,15]
Listeria monocytogenesListeriolysin OListeriosisSoft cheeses from unpasteurized milk, ready-to-eat products[15,16]
Salmonella Typhi, Salmonella Typhimurium, Salmonella EnteritidisEnterotoxinTyphoid fever, salmonellosis (gastroenteritis)Any type of food: meat, poultry, fish, milk, eggs, vegetables, water[13,15]
Staphylococcus aureusHeat stable enterotoxinsGastrointestinal symptomsMeat, dairy products, salads[13]
Vibrio cholerae, Vibrio parahaemolyticus, Vibrio vulnificusCholera toxinCholera, gastroenteritisRaw/undercooked shellfish, meat, contaminated water[13]
Table 2. Antimicrobial activity of plant phenolic extracts, some examples.
Table 2. Antimicrobial activity of plant phenolic extracts, some examples.
Plant MaterialsType of ExtractionTarget OrganismAntimicrobial ActivityReference
Fruit samples
Red wine grape pomace70% acetone/0.1% HCl/29.9% water (v/v/v)Escherichia coli, Listeria innocuaPinot Noir-pomace and skin MIC 1: E. coli, 3% and 6%; L. innocua, 2% and 7%[37]
Merlot-pomace and skin MIC: E. coli, 9%; L. innocua, 8%
Apple peelEthanolLactobacillus acidophilus, Lactobacillus bulgaricus, Lactobacillus plantarum, Lactobacillus rhamnosus, E. coli, Bacillus cereus, Staphylococcus aureusExtract concentration: 2-20 µg/disk[38]
B. cereus and E. coli: inhibition haloes of 6 to 14 mm
Probiotic lactobacilli: no inhibition
S. aureus: no inhibition
Red and white grape pomacesAcetoneListeria monocytogenes, S. aureus, E. coli O157:H7, Salmonella TyphimuriumMIC (mg/mL): L. monocytogenes, 4.69–18.8; S. aureus, 40.6–250[39]
MBC 2 (mg/mL): L. monocytogenes, 9.38–37.5; S. aureus, > 250
E. coli: no inhibition
S. Typhimurium: no inhibition
Cinnamon bark and Ajowan fruitAcetone, ethanolPseudomonas sp., Bacillus subtilis, E. coli, S. aureusMIC values (μg/mL):[40]
ethanol extract of cinnamon, 32–64; ethanol extract of Ajowan, 32–64; acetone extracts of cinnamon, 16–64; Acetone extract of Ajowan, 64–128
Blackberry and blueberry pomaces10% methanol, 10% ethanolCampylobacter jejuniMIC (mg/mL GAE): blackberry, 0.6; blueberry, 0.4[41]
MBC (mg/mL GAE): blackberry, 0.8; blueberry, 0.5
Blueberry puree75% ethanolL. monocytogenes, Salmonella EnteritidisMIC (mg/mL): L. monocytogenes, 300–750; S. Enteritidis, 400–1200[42]
Apple pomaceEthyl acetateS. aureus, E. coliMIC (mg/mL): S. aureus, 1.25; E. coli, 2.50[43]
Black grape pomace, apple and pitahaya residues10% ethanol after enzyme-aided extractionB. subtilis, B. cereus, L. monocytogenes, S. aureus, methicillin-resistant S. aureus, E. coli, S. Typhimurium, Pseudomonas putida, P. aeruginosaMICs: from 12.5 to ≥ 100 mg/mL[3]
BayberryEthanolS. aureus, L. innocua, β-hemolytic Streptococcus, S. Enteritidis, Salmonella typhi, Shigella dysenteriaeDiameter of inhibition (mm):[44]
S. aureus, 22.9; L. innocua, 21.5; β-hemolytic Streptococcus, 22.7; S. Enteritidis, 20.1; S. typhi, 13.3; S. dysenteriae, 19.3
Grape pomace50% methanol, 50% ethanolS. aureus, E. coli, P. aeruginosa, Candida albicansExtract concentration: 1 mg/disk[45]
Diameter of inhibition (mm):
C. albicans, 12–13
S. aureus, E. coli, P. aeruginosa: no inhibition
Grape residuesUltrasound-assisted extraction, methanol:acetone: water:acetic acid (30:42:27.5:0.5)Clostridium perfringens, B. cereus, L. monocytogenes, S. aureus, Sarcina lutea, Micrococcus flavus, E. coli, P. aeruginosa, S. Enteritidis, Shigella sonnei, Klebsiella pneumoniae, C. albicansExtract concentration: 30 µg/disk[46]
Diameter of inhibition (mm):
C. perfringens, 15.9–17.7; B. cereus, 15.2–17.1; L. monocytogenes, 16.4–18.5; S. aureus,16.5–18.5; S. lutea, 17.3–19.7; M. flavus, 14.8-16.9; E. coli, 12.1–15.7; P. aeruginosa, 13.5–15.9; S. Enteritidis, 13–15.4; S. sonnei, 15.6–17.7; K. pneumoniae, 15–16.6; C. albicans, 13.1–15.5
Grape marc wasteAqueous extraction and Amberlite FPX-66 purificationE. coli, S. aureus, C. albicansMBC (%, w/v): E. coli, 2; S. aureus, 0.125; C. albicans, no effect[47]
Apple phenolic fractionsAcetone:ethanol (1:3), solid phase extractionL. monocytogenes, S. aureus, E. coli, S. TyphimuriumExtract concentration: 10–5000 µg/disk[48]
Diameter of inhibition (mm):
L. monocytogenes, 3.7–14.6; S. aureus, 10.9–17.6; E. coli, 7.5; S. Typhimurium, 4.5–7
Medicinal plants and herbs
Punica granatum L. var. pleniflora flowersEthanolS. aureus, B. cereus, L. monocytogenes, E. coli, S. dysenteriae, S. typhiExtract concentration: 50 mg/well[49]
Diameter of inhibition (mm):
S. aureus, 32; B. cereus, 28; L. monocytogenes, 32; E. coli, 22; S. dysenteriae, 30; S. typhi, 27
Ziziphus and eucalyptus leavesAqueous and ethanolB. subtilis, E. coli, S. aureus, P. aeruginosa, Streptococcus sp.Extract concentration: 50–100 mg/mL[50]
Diameter of inhibition (mm):
B. subtilis, 11–19; E. coli, 10–16; S. aureus, 8–17; P. aeruginosa, 9–16; Streptococcus sp., 11–18
Marsilea minuta leafMethanol, hexane: methanolB. subtilis, Enterococcus faecalis, K. pneumoniae, P. aeruginosaMICs: from 125 to 250 µg/mL[51]
Roselle, rosemary, clove and thymeAqueous and ethanolB. cereus, S. aureus, E. coli, S. Enteritidis, Vibrio parahaemolyticus, P. aeruginosa, Candida albicansMICs: from 0.313 to 20% (w/v)[52]
Pelargonium sidoides DC. Methanol (85%), acetone (80%)C. perfringens, S. aureus, Shigella flexneri, E. coli O157, S. Typhimurium, C. albicansDiameter of inhibition (mm):[53]
C. perfringens, 8–35; S. aureus, 13–29.7; S. flexneri, 13-35.3; E. coli, 16–36; S. Typhimurium, 11.3–30; C. albicans, 12–30
15 Mediterranean medicinal plantsEthanol:water (80:20)Camplyobacter coli, E. coli, Salmonella Infantis, B. cereus, L. monocytogenes, S. aureusLowest MIC values (mg/mL):[54]
C. coli, 0.83 (e.g., bearberry); E. coli, 1.67 (bearberry); S. Infantis, 1.67 (bearberry); B. cereus, 1.67 (e.g., bearberry); L. monocytogenes, 1.67 (e.g., bearberry); S. aureus, 0.35 (bearberry)
Ginger rhizomesAqueous, ethanol, n-hexaneK. pneumoniae, S. typhi, Shigella spp., P. aeruginosa, E. coli, S. aureusExtract concentration: 10 µg/mL[55]
Diameter of inhibition (mm):
K. pneumoniae, 0.8–15.4; S. typhi, 13.2–16.2; Shigella spp., 12.3–17.7; P. aeruginosa, 12.6–16; E. coli, 14.7–17.2; S. aureus, 13.3–18.3
Ruta chalepensisMethanolS. aureus, E. coli, P. aeruginosaExtract concentration: 10 mg/disk[56]
Diameter of inhibition (mm):
S. aureus, 12.3–16.3; E. coli, 13–17.3; P. aeruginosa, 7.7–17.7
Syzygium polyanthum L. leavesEthanolE. coli O157:H7, K. pneumoniae, L. monocytogenes, Proteus mirabilis, P. aeruginosa, S. Typhimurium, S. aureus, Vibrio cholerae, V. parahaemolyticusExtract concentration: 100 µg/disk[57]
Diameter of inhibition (mm):
E. coli, 7; K. pneumoniae, 9.3; L. monocytogenes, 9.6; P. mirabilis, 6.6; P. aeruginosa, 7; S. Typhimurium, 6.6; S. aureus, 9.3; V. cholerae, 8.3; V. parahaemolyticus, 6.6;
MICs: from 0.63 to 1.25 mg/mL
MBCs: from 0.63 to 2.5 mg/mL
1 MIC, minimum inhibitory concentration. 2 MBC, minimum bactericidal concentration.
Table 3. Antimicrobial activity of individual phenolic compounds, some examples.
Table 3. Antimicrobial activity of individual phenolic compounds, some examples.
CompoundsType of SolventTarget OrganismAntimicrobial ActivityReference
Coumarin, quercetinDissolved in dimethyl sulfoxide (DMSO)Escherichia coli, Enterobacter aerogenes, Salmonella infantis, Salmonella TyphimuriumCoumarin: MIC 1, 0.625–5 mg/mL; MBC 2, ≥ 5 mg/mL[67]
Quercetin: no effect
Gallic acid, catechinDissolved in DMSOE. coliInhibition haloes of 12 and 14 mm in the presence of 2.5 and 15 mg/well gallic acid and catechin, respectively.[68]
Ellagic acid, quercetin-3-galactoside, chlorogenic acid, quercetinTryptic soy brothListeria monocytogenes, Salmonella EnteritidisEffective concentrations: chlorogenic acid, 500 µg/mL; quercetin and quercetin-3-galactoside, 200 µg/mL; ellagic acid, 44 µg/mL[42]
Phloridzin, phloretinEthanolStaphylococcus aureus, E. coliMIC: S. aureus 0.50 and 0.10 mg/mL, E. coli 1.50 and 0.75 mg/ml[43]
ThymolDissolved in ethanolL. monocytogenesMIC: 2 mg/mL[69]
11 phenolic compoundsDissolved in 10% ethanolBacillus subtilis, Bacillus cereus, L. monocytogenes, S. aureus, methicillin-resistant S. aureus, E. coli, S. Typhimurium, Pseudomonas putida, Pseudomonas aeruginosaMICs: from 125 to ≥ 500 µg/mL[3]
Cinnamic acid and resveratrol, 125 µg/mL; p-coumaric acid, 250 µg/mL; quercetin, 500 µg/mL against B. subtilis, B. cereus, respectively. Resveratrol, 250 and 500 µg/mL against P. aeruginosa and P. putida, respectively.
17 phenolic compoundsDissolved in absolute ethanol19 S. aureus strains, including enterotoxin producersCompound concentration: 200 µg/disk[70]
Hydroquinone, thymol, carvacrol, butylated hydroxyanisole, octyl gallate, and tannic acid inhibited the growth of all strains tested.
1 MIC, minimum inhibitory concentration; 2 MBC, minimum bactericidal concentration.
Table 4. Antibiofilm activity of plant extracts against food pathogen microorganisms, examples from recent studies.
Table 4. Antibiofilm activity of plant extracts against food pathogen microorganisms, examples from recent studies.
Source/ResidueSolvent of ExtractionTarget BiofilmPercent Biofilm InhibitionReference
Black Cardamom (Amomum tsao-ko) extract80% ethanolStaphylococcus aureus, Salmonella Typhimurium, Pseudomonas aeruginosa45.2–51.9% (4 mg/mL cc.)[129]
Propolis and bud poplar resins85% ethanolP. aeruginosa50–60% (100 µg/mL cc.)[130]
Butia odorata extractacetoneS. aureus99.9% (11.4–22.8 mg/mL cc.)[131]
Onion extractsmethanolP. aeruginosa, S. aureus27.3–61.5% (50 µg/mL cc.)[132]
Olive leavesmethanolP. aeruginosa, methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), S. aureus, Bacillus subtilis, Escherichia coli, Enterococcus faecalis, Candida albicans29.3–98% (32-512 µg/mL cc.)[133]
Populus nigra and Populus alba bud extractsmethanolMRSA, S. aureus>70% for P. nigra, >50% for P. alba[134]
Opuntia ficus-indica cladodes80% methanolS. aureus71–85% (1–1.5 mg/mL cc.)[135]
Eugenia and Syzygium leaf extractsacetoneP. aeruginosa, S. Typhimurium, S. aureus, E. faecalis, E. coli, Bacillus cereus>50% for several samples (1 mg/mL cc.)[136]
Potentilla visianii extractsmethanol, ethyl acetateSalmonella enterica, E. coli, S. aureus, B. subtilis>50% (1.1–10 mg/mL cc.)[137]
Gentiana asclepiadea extractswater, ethanol, acetoneS. aureus, P. aeruginosa, Proteus mirabilis>50% (2.1–37 mg/mL cc.)[138]
Table 5. Anti-staphylococcal enterotoxin effect of plant phenolic extracts and compounds.
Table 5. Anti-staphylococcal enterotoxin effect of plant phenolic extracts and compounds.
Phenolic Extract/CompoundTarget Staphylococcal EnterotoxinAnti-Enterotoxin ActivityReference
Licochalcone AEnterotoxins A (SEA) and B (SEB)Effective concentration: 0.25 mg/mL[144]
Secretion inhibition; Inhibition of regulatory gene (agrA) transcription
Carvacrol and thymolNot specifiedTotal inhibition of secretion at 0.3 and 0.15 µL/mL concentrations[145]
Cinnamaldehyde, citronellol, eugenol, geraniol and terpineolSEA, SEB, Enterotoxins C (SEC) and D (SED)Concentrations: 120–1300 µg/mL[142]
SEA: eugenol, citronellol and geraniol reduced the production; SEB: terpineol and eugenol inhibited the production; SEC: most sensitive to the phenolics; SED: no inhibition
16 phenolic compoundsSEAInhibition of SEA protein level (penta-galloyl-glucose, corilagin, punicalagin, castalagin and procyanidin B2 at 0.25 mg/mL) and activity (penta-galloyl-glucose, tannic acid, persimmon tannin, corilagin, punicalagin, eugeniin, sanguiin H-6, geraniin, pedunculagin and castalagin, 3–25 μg/mL), interaction with SEA (eugeniin, castalagin, punicalagin, pedunculagin, corilagin, geraniin, penta-galloyl-glucose and sanguiin H-6 at 0.25 mg/mL)[146]
14 phenolic food additivesSEASEA production decrease: Tannic acid AL, Purephenon 50 W and Polyphenon 70A at 0.25 mg/mL; Gravinol®-N, Blackcurrant polyphenol AC10 and Resveratrol-P5 at 1.0 mg/mL[147]
Inhibition of sea gene expression (mg/mL): Tannic acid, 0.3; Gravinol®-N, 1; Blackcurrant polyphenol AC10, 1; Resveratrol-P5, 2
Tea catechinEnterotoxin I (SEI)Inhibition of sei gene expression at 0.4 g/L concentration[148]
Apple juice and apple polyphenolsSEAActivity inhibition:[149]
Red Delicious at 0.025%
Apple Poly phenol-rich extract at 0.06–0.3%
Witch-hazel and green tea extractsSEAWitch-hazel: inhibition of SEA production at 0.015 mg/mL GAE concentration[143]
Green tea: no effect
Pomegranate extractSEAInhibition of SEA production at 0.05% (v/v) concentration[150]
OleuropeinSEBInhibition of SEB production at > 0.2% (w/v) concentrations[151]

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Takó, M.; Kerekes, E.B.; Zambrano, C.; Kotogán, A.; Papp, T.; Krisch, J.; Vágvölgyi, C. Plant Phenolics and Phenolic-Enriched Extracts as Antimicrobial Agents against Food-Contaminating Microorganisms. Antioxidants 2020, 9, 165. https://doi.org/10.3390/antiox9020165

AMA Style

Takó M, Kerekes EB, Zambrano C, Kotogán A, Papp T, Krisch J, Vágvölgyi C. Plant Phenolics and Phenolic-Enriched Extracts as Antimicrobial Agents against Food-Contaminating Microorganisms. Antioxidants. 2020; 9(2):165. https://doi.org/10.3390/antiox9020165

Chicago/Turabian Style

Takó, Miklós, Erika Beáta Kerekes, Carolina Zambrano, Alexandra Kotogán, Tamás Papp, Judit Krisch, and Csaba Vágvölgyi. 2020. "Plant Phenolics and Phenolic-Enriched Extracts as Antimicrobial Agents against Food-Contaminating Microorganisms" Antioxidants 9, no. 2: 165. https://doi.org/10.3390/antiox9020165

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