BioMed Research International

BioMed Research International / 2015 / Article
Special Issue

Antibiotic Resistance of Bacteria

View this Special Issue

Research Article | Open Access

Volume 2015 |Article ID 343610 | https://doi.org/10.1155/2015/343610

Paola Del Serrone, Chiara Toniolo, Marcello Nicoletti, "Neem (Azadirachta indica A. Juss) Oil to Tackle Enteropathogenic Escherichia coli", BioMed Research International, vol. 2015, Article ID 343610, 10 pages, 2015. https://doi.org/10.1155/2015/343610

Neem (Azadirachta indica A. Juss) Oil to Tackle Enteropathogenic Escherichia coli

Academic Editor: Madhab K. Chattopadhyay
Received12 Jul 2014
Revised22 Sep 2014
Accepted07 Oct 2014
Published03 May 2015

Abstract

Neem (Azadirachta indica A. Juss) oil (NO) was assayed against forty-eight isolates of Escherichia coli by standardised disc diffusion test and microdilution test. By molecular biology characterization, fourteen isolates resulted in diarrheagenic E. coli with sixteen primer pairs that specifically amplify unique sequences of virulence genes and of 16S rRNA. The NO showed biological activity against all isolates. The bacterial growth inhibition zone by disc diffusion method (100 µL NO) ranged between 9.50 ± 0.70 and 30.00 ± 1.00 mm. The antibacterial activity was furthermore determined at lower NO concentrations (1 : 10–1 : 10,000). The percent of growth reduction ranged between 23.71 ± 1.00 and 99.70 ± 1.53. The highest bacterial growth reduction was 1 : 10 NO concentration with 50 µL of bacterial suspension (ca. 1 × 106 CFU/mL). There is significant difference between the antibacterial activities against pathogenic and nonpathogenic E. coli, as well as NO and ciprofloxacin activities. Viable cells after the different NO concentration treatments were checked by molecular biology assay using PMA dye. On the basis of the obtained results, NO counteracts E. coli and also influences the virulence of E. coli viable cells after NO treatment. The NO metabolomic composition was obtained using fingerprint HPTLC.

1. Introduction

Zoonotic food- and waterborne pathogens began resistant to antibiotics. It is now evident that antimicrobial resistance is an environmental problem. Detectable antibiotic residues are present in waste water from water treatment plants [1], and antibiotic-resistant bacteria can be isolated from ground water and soil [2, 3]. The cause of contamination may be inter alia the consequence of farming practices. Use of antibiotics, as growth promoters or for prophylaxis in farm animals, selects resistant strains of enterobacteria in gastrointestinal tract. These resistant strains have been also isolated from food and consequently this represents the main way to spread in the human gastrointestinal tract [4, 5]. The increasing incidence of foodborne diseases, coupled with the resultant social and economic implications, causes a constant striving to produce safer feed and food, as to develop new natural antimicrobial agents [68].

Meat contamination by pathogen bacteria may have great health consequence and high impact on consumers. The most known cases are related to HUS, hemolytic uremic syndrome, that was first recognized in 1982 in USA and Canada, with outbreaks associated with fast food restaurants. People experienced gastroenteritis with bloody diarrhoea, caused by the lining of their microbiota. In 1993, a multistate outbreak generated international interest in this disease, popularized by the name “hamburger disease.” Hamburger disease is based on association with the consumption of ground beef patties containing a pathogen Escherichia coli. This should not be confused with the related benign E. coli that is in the gut of every mammal. Many strains of E. coli are part of the nonpathogenic facultative flora of intestinal tract of humans and other mammals. However, some of them induce diseases of the gastrointestinal and urinary tracts or may affect the central nervous system [9].

On the basis of their pathogenetic mechanism, diarrheagenic E. coli strains include ETEC (enterotoxigenic E. coli), EIEC (enteroinvasive E. coli), EHEC (enterohemorrhagic E. coli), EPEC (enteropathogenic E. coli), EAEC (enteroaggregative E. coli), and DAEC (diffusely adherent E. coli). All of them cause serious economic losses in farm animal herds and are widespread in newborns [10] in developed and developing countries. There is a wide range of transmission possibilities of these pathogens, including direct contact, food, drinks, environment, and others [11]. Epidemiology and clinical symptoms of the disease are similar in various animal species but the majority of strains are species-specific. They differ particularly in the type of the expressed surface “adherence” antigen (adhesin or pilus). These microorganisms produce two main types of virulence factors, that is, adhesins and enterotoxins.

In this work, a collection of E. coli isolates was considered. They were different in geographical origin and source of isolation and showed different pathogenetic characteristics.

Consumers look for meat products of upgraded sensory quality and increased functional and nutritional properties, as well as guaranteed safety but yet less processing, and fewer additives or “technological” interventions. Plant derived extracts, or phytocomplex, as effective antimicrobial agents, offer an alternative to synthetic food additives.

Neem (Azadirachta indica A. Juss) is considered one of the most promising trees of the 21st century, for its great potential in pest management, environment protection, and medicine [12]. Neem oil (NO) is the most important derived product with a great market worldwide. It contains about one hundred biologically active compounds. The most famous constituents are several nortriterpenes, named limonoids, that is, azadirachtin, nimbin, nimbidin, and nimbolide, besides the predominant oily constituents. NO is the most commercially relevant product obtained from the seeds. The neem cake is remaining after the extraction process.

In our previous studies, the antibacterial activity of NO against E. coli was investigated [13, 14]. The antibacterial activity resulted highest in comparison to the neem cake extract against meat spoilage microorganisms. The aim of the present work was to evaluate NO capability to cope with plastic genome of E. coli.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Bacterial Strains and Growth Conditions

Forty-eight strains of E. coli were considered. Among them, seventeen (FLC isolates) were from microorganism’s collection of the Fodder and Dairy Productions Research Centre of Lodi (CRA FLC) of CRA. They were isolated from milk and cheese. All strains were typed both phenotypically and genotypically. Phenotyping was made by the PhenePlate system for E. coli (PhP-EC, PhPPlate Microplate Techniques AB, Stockholm, Sweden) and genetic characterization by RAPD PCR technique [15].

Seventeen CVVI isolates were from microorganism’s collection of the Institute of Veterinary Research and Development of Central Vietnam, Vietnam. These microorganisms were isolated from faeces of calves affected by diarrhoea.

Ten NL isolates were from microorganism’s collection of the Department of Bacteriology of Wageningen UR Livestock Research, Wageningen University & Research Centre, Netherlands. They were isolated from faeces of piglets and calves. They are antigenically different and detectable using specific monoclonal antibodies towards different fimbria antigens by in vitro agglutination test [16]. Four reference strains were also considered (DSMZ and ATCC isolates). They were from international culture collections.

The cultivation/assay medium for E. coli was Minca + 1% Iso Vitalex Agar/Broth (Sifin, Berlin, Germany). Bacterial cultures for antibacterial testing were prepared by picking colony from 24-hour-old plates and suspending them in the broth medium (5 mL). Cultures were grown aerobically for 18 h at 37°C and 100 rpm. For antibacterial activity assay, 1 mL of each culture was diluted to 105–106 CFU/mL. The reference strains were grown on media and at the growth conditions as reported on products sheets.

2.2. Plant Extract

A commercial neem oil produced by Neem Italia (Manerba (BS), Italy) was used as test starting material (0.35% azadirachtin A). Total composition of the neem oil was checked by high performance thin layer chromatography [17].

Neem oil was diluted in Tween 80 (1 : 1 V/V; VWR, PBI International, MI, Italy) under agitation and sterilised by filtration through a 0.22 μm Millipore express filter (Millex-GP, Bedford, OH, USA) before use in the experiment.

2.3. HPTLC Assay
2.3.1. HPTLC System and Materials

The HPTLC system (CAMAG, Muttenz, Switzerland) consisted of (i) Linomat 5 sample applicator using 100 μL syringes, connected to a nitrogen tank; (ii) ADC 2 chamber containing twin trough chamber 20 × 10 cm; (iii) immersion device III; (iv) TLC Plate Heater III; (v) TLC visualizer; (vi) TLC scanner 3 linked to winCATS software.

Solvents for extraction and HPLC grade solvents were purchased from Sigma-Aldrich and Carlo Erba (Milan, Italy). Glass plates 20 cm × 10 cm with glass-backed layers silica gel 60 (2 μm thickness) were from Merck (Darmstadt, Germany). Before use, plates were prewashed with methanol and dried for 3 min at 100°C. Standards used in the HPTLC analysis were isolated from neem cake (i.e., salannin, azadirachtin A, and unsaturated and saturated lipids) in previous research [18] and data concerning isolation and identification are not reported, but they are available per request. Limonoids standards concentration was 2 mM.

2.4. Sample Application

Filtered solutions were applied with nitrogen flow. Operating conditions were syringe delivery speed, 10 s μL−1 (100 nL s−1); injection volume, 2 μL; band width, 6 mm; distance from bottom, 15 mm.

2.5. Development

The HPTLC plates were developed in toluene : AcOEt 7 : 3 (v/v) as mobile phase (Figure 1), in the automatic and reproducibly developing chamber ADC 2, saturated with the same mobile phase for 20 min at room temperature. The developing solvents (i.e., type of solvents and ratios) were carefully optimized before the analyses. The length of the chromatogram run was 80 mm from the point of application. The developed layers were allowed to dry in air for 5 min, derivatized with a selected solution, including -anisaldheyde (1.5 mL -anisaldheyde, 2.5 mL H2SO4, and 1 mL AcOH in 37 mL EtOH), dried in the open air, and then dipped into Macrogol reagent (1 g polyethylene glycol 400 in 20 mL of dichloromethane). Finally, the plates were warmed for 5 min at 120°C before inspection. All treated plates were inspected by a CAMAG TLC visualizer under a UV light at 254 or 366 nm or under reflectance and transmission white light (WRT), respectively, before and after derivatization.

2.6. Molecular Biology Characterization of the E. coli Isolates

Two primer pairs that amplify specific E. coli 16S rRNA sequences and fourteen primer pairs that specifically amplify target gene coding for virulence factors (adhesins and toxins) were employed to characterize the E. coli isolates considered in this study (Table 1). The PCR reaction mixtures and conditions are those as reported in the literature (Table 1).


Target gene coding for virulence factors Oligonucleotide sequences of primersReference

(1) LT F 5′-ATT TAC GGC GTT ACT ATC CTC-3′ 
R 5′-TTT TGG TCT CGG TCA GAT ATG-3′
[25]

(2) StaF 5′-TCC GTG AAA CAA CAT GAC GG-3′ 
R 5′-ATA ACA TCC AGC ACA GGC AG-3′
[26]

(3) STbF 5′-GCC TAT GCA TCT ACA CAA TC-3′ 
R 5′-TGA GAA ATG GAC AAT GTC CG-3′
[26]

(4) Stx1allF 5′-CGC TGA ATG TCA TTC GCT CTG C-3′ 
R 5′-CGT GGT ATA GCT ACT GTC ACC-3′
[27]

(5) Stx2allF 5′-CTT CGG TAT CCT ATT CCC GG-3′ 
R 5′-CTG CTG TGA CAG TGA CAA AAC GC-3′
[27]

(6) Stx2e F 5-ATG AAG AAG ATG TTT ATA GCG-3′ 
R 5′-TCA GTT AAA CTT CAC CTG GGC-3′
[25]

(7) EAST1 F 5′-CCA TCA ACA CAG TAT ATC CGA-3′ 
R 5′-GGT CGC GAG TGA CGG CTT TGT-3′
[28]

(8) eaeF 5′-GGA ACG GCA GAG GTT AAT CTGCAG-3′ 
R 5′-GGC GCT CAT CAT AGT CTTTC-3′
[27]

(9) hlyAF 5′-AGCTGCAAGTGCGGGTCTG-3′ 
R 5′-TACGGGTTATGCCTGCAAGTTCAC-3′
[29]

(10) F4 (K88)F 5′-GCT GCA TCT GCT GCA TCT GGTATG G-3′ 
R 5′-CCA CTG AGT GCT GGTAGT TAC AGC C-3′
[30]

(11) F5 (K99) F 5′-TGC GAC TAC CAA TGC TTC TG-3′ 
R 5′-TAT CCA CCA TTA GAC GGA GC-3′
[26]

(12) F6 (P987) F 5′-TCT GCT CTT AAA GCT ACT GG-3′ 
R 5′-AAC TCC ACC GTT TGT ATC AG-3′
[25]

(13) F17F 5′-GGG CTG ACA GAG GAG GTG GGGC-3′ 
R 5′-CCC GGC GAC AAC TTC ATCACC GG-3′
[30]

(14) F18F 5′-GTG AAA AGA CTA GTG TTT ATT TC-3′ 
R 5′-CTT GTA AGT AAC CGC GTA AGC-3′
[31]

(15) F41 F 5′-GAG GGA CTT TCA TCT TTT AG-3′ 
R 5′-AGT CCA TTC CAT TTA TAG GC-3′
[26]

(16) E16SIF 5′-CCCCCTGGACGAAGACTCAC-3′ 
R 5′-ACCGCTGGCAACAAAGGATA -3′
[29]

(17) E16SIIF 5′-AGAGTTTGATGGCTCAG-3′ 
R 5′-GGACTACCAGGGTATCTAAT-3′
[31]

The amplification products’ sizes, coordinates, and accession numbers of each primer pair are shown in Table 2. Amplified products (7 μL) were analyzed by electrophoresis in 2% or 3% agarose gels buffered in 0.5x TBE (TBE buffer: 90 mM tris(hydroxymethyl)aminomethane, 90 mM boric acid, and 3 mM ethylenediaminetetraacetate Na salt, pH 8.3, Sigma-Aldrich, Milano, Italy) against a 50 bp, 100 bp, and 1 Kb ladder used as size marker (Invitrogen, Milano, Italia) and visualized by UV light at 260 nm (Fotodine 3-3102 Celbio, Milano, Italy) after staining with ethidium bromide (3,8-diamino-5-ethyl-6-phenylphenanthridinium bromide, EtBr, Sigma-Aldrich, Milano, Italy).


Target gene coding for virulence factorsAmplicon (bp)Primer coordinatesAccession number

(1) LT 28127–47, 287–307S60731
(2) STa244267–286, 492–510M58746
(3) STb279515–534, 773–793AY028790
(4) Stx1all302113–134, 394–414M17358
(5) Stx2all51650–69, 543–565M59432
(6) Stx2e 2641176–1196, 1419–1439M36727
(7) EAST1 1112–24, 94–114S81691
(8) eae7751441–1460, 2193–2215AF022236
(9) hylA569867-885, 1435–1412X79839
(10) F4 (K88)79231–54, 798–822M29374
(11) F5 (K99) 45045–64, 475–494M35282
(12) F6 (P987) 333193–212, 506–525M35257
(13) F17411289–310, 677–699AF055313
(14) F185101–23, 490–510M61713
(15) F41 431154–173, 565–584X14354
(16) E16SI4011628-170, 2063–2082AB035924
(17) E16SII7988-27, 798–805J01859

2.7. Assessment of Antibacterial Activity

The antibacterial activity of the NO was assayed using standardized disc diffusion agar and microdilution methods. Disc diffusion method was carried out according to the standard method by Bauer et al. [19]. Bacteria cultures adjusted to 0.5 McFarland standard were used to lawn Muller Hinton agar plates evenly using a sterile swab. The agar plates were dried for 15 minutes. The discs impregnated with NO (100 μL) were placed on the agar surface. Each test plate comprises three discs. The discs were placed equidistant to each other. Muller Hinton agar plates were set also up with positive control, which is the antibiotic ciprofloxacin (CFX) (100 μL wt/v) (hydrochloride monohydrate 1 mg/mL, Bayer, Milano, Italy) and Tween 80 (TWN) (VWR International PBI Srl, Milano, Italy, 1 mg/mL) as negative control. The plates were then incubated at 37°C for 18 h. After the incubation, the plates and those considered as controls were examined for inhibition zone. The inhibition zones were then measured using calipers and were recorded. The plates were done in triplicate for each bacterial isolate and the experiment was performed twice. The results were recorded as mean ± S.D. of the duplicate experiment. Differences between means of data were compared by LSD calculated using the SAS.

The antibacterial activity of NO was also evaluated using microdilution method in conventional sterile polystyrene microplates (Corning, Euroclone SpA, Milan, Italy). Each well of the microplate was filled with 100 μL of sterile suitable liquid media for each bacterial isolate considered, 50 μL of inoculums and amounts of extract at lower concentrations (1 : 10–1 : 10,000) were added. Control treatment without NO was used in the experiment. The microplates were incubated at 37°C for 24 h. Bacterial growth was determined by OD reading at 630 nm/10 mm pathlength with an ELISA microplate reader (Dynatech ML-3000, Pina de Ebro, Spain). Bacterial cell concentration was transformed to cells/mL using the reference curve equation.

The reference curve was constructed by diluting at 1 : 100 each bacterial isolate. Counting the number of bacterial cells of an aliquot of this dilution was done using a Neubauer chamber (Celeromics, Vedano al Lambro, MI, Italy). Finally, cell concentrations were transformed to a percentage of bacterial inhibition. The percentage of bacterial growth reduction (GR%) was estimated using as reference the control treatment ( = without extract) as

Three replicates were considered. The results were recorded as mean ± S.D. of the duplicate experiment. Differences between means of data were compared by least significant difference (LSD) calculated using the SAS.

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Molecular Biology Characterization of the E. coli Isolates

The molecular biology characterization of the forty-eight E. coli isolates showed that fourteen isolates were diarrheagenic E. coli. They were ten E. coli isolated from feces of calves and piglets and four from calves collected, respectively, in Netherlands and Central Vietnam. Their virulence characteristics are reported in Table 3.


E. coli isolate collection’s designationSurface antigenToxinsFimbriae

(1) CVVI K10BndSTb, LT, EAST1F4
(2) CVVI KH10ndSTa, STbF18
(3) NLK99O8K85K99nr1F5
(4) NLP987O64 : K; 9877STa+F6
(5) CVVI E12bndSTaF5, F41
(6) CVVI E10ndSTaF5, F41
(7) NLK99-1O8 : K25 : K99nrF5
(8) NLK99-3O101 : K28 : K99nrF5
(9) NLK99-5O9 : K30 : K99nrF5
(10) NLK99-7O101 : K32 : K99nrF5
(11) NLK99-9O9 : K35 : K99nrF5
(12) NLK99-11O9 : K37 : K99nrF5
(13) NLK99-15O20 : K? : K99nrF5
(14) NLK99-19O101 : K? : K99nrF5
(15) DSMZ8696O55 : H6nrNr
(16) DSMZ9025
(17) DSMZ10973O6nrnr
(18) ATCC33559

CVVI: Central Vietnam Veterinary Institute; NL: Department of Bacteriology and Animal Science, University of Wageningen, Netherlands; DSMZ: Leibniz-Institut DSMZ—Deutsche Sammlung von Mikroorganismen und Zellkulturen GmbH; ATCC: American Type Culture Collection.
3.2. HPTLC Assay

The NO metabolomic fingerprint shows characteristic sequence of metabolites according to the polarity of constituents. The identification of the raw material was assured by the presence of salannin (Rf = 0.42), which is a typical maker of neem. In comparison with the spot of azadirachtin (Rf = 0.23), salannin appears as the main limonoid spot. Spots concerning lipids are present at Rf values at ca. 0.80, due to unsaturated fatty acids and fatty alcohols, and at Rf ca. 0.50, due to saturated and unsaturated triglycerides. The most interesting feature of the plate concerns the presence of compounds with high fluorescent reaction at between Rf 0.55 and 0.66, which are perfectly visible at 366 nm after derivatization with -anisaldheyde. These spots can be attributed to compounds with high conjugated unsaturation in polycyclic aromatic structures, very different from those of the nortriterpenes limonoids, so far considered responsible for the activity. Therefore, more studies are necessary to decide about the importance of antibacterial activity of these substances in the phytocomplex.

3.3. NO Antibacterial Activity

The results obtained show that NO has a broad spectrum of antibacterial activities against the tested E. coli isolates. As shown in Table 4, the antibacterial activity was evaluated based on the diameters of clear inhibition zone surrounding the paper discs soaked with 100 μL of neem oil. The NO average GIZ mm range from 9.50 ± 0.70 to 30.00 ± 1.00. The NO GIZ varies between enteropathogenic and nonenteropathogenic E. coli being, respectively, 24.33 ± 0.58–30.00 ± 1.00 and 9.50 ± 0.70–21.53 ± 1.53. It is significantly () different with respect to the antibiotic activity. However, the E. coli isolate FLC1167 (from milk) resulted to be less susceptible and the E. coli isolate NLP097/F5 (from piglet feces) the most susceptible to NO treatment (100 μL) among all tested bacteria using the disc diffusion method.


E. coli isolatesGrowth inhibition zone (mm)*
NSO (100 µL )TWN (100 µL)WTR (100 µL)CFX (100 µL)

(1) FLC 105611.33 ± 0.58 b 30.41 ± 0.20 a
(2) FLC 124716.13 ± 1.15 b 30.52 ± 1.07 a
(3) FLC 105915.83 ± 1.13 b 29.62 ± 1.00 a
(4) FLC 124319.00 ± 1.00 b31.53 ± 0.67 a
(5) FLC 104812.33 ± 0.58 b29.42 ± 0.58 a
(6) FLC 1167 9.50 ± 0.70 b30.61 ± 1.21 a
(7) FLC 124913.33 ± 0.58 b 29.61 ± 1.11 a
(8) FLC 105514.53 ± 1.25 b 31.75 ± 0.82 a
(9) FLC 105416.23 ± 1.18 b 31.41 ± 0.76 a
(10) FLC 108518.00 ± 1.00 b30.53 ± 1.17 a
(11) FLC 124415.33 ± 0.48 b28.86 ± 1.00 a
(12) FLC 116519.50 ± 0.70 b31.33 ± 0.67 a
(13) FLC 108611.33 ± 0.58 b 29.82 ± 0.48 a
(14) FLC 105314.53 ± 1.15 b 32.65 ± 1.39 a
(15) FLC 109516.83 ± 1.18 b 29.05 ± 1.22 a
(16) FLC 121910.70 ± 1.00 b32.75 ± 0.55 a
(17) FLC 123513.23 ± 0.88 b30.15 ± 0.55 a
(18) DSM869613.50 ± 0.50 b26.21 ± 1.00 a
(19) DSM902513.33 ± 0.58 b 21.64 ± 0.94 a
(20) DSM1097313.53 ± 1.25 b 29.14 ± 1.75 a
(21) ATCC3355913.83 ± 1.18 b 32.12 ± 1.09 a
(22) CVVI E21013.00 ± 1.00 a25.83 ± 1.65 a
(23) CVVI E17312.23 ± 0.58 b32.35 ± 1.49 a
(24) CVVI E12b27.50 ± 0.50 b11.25 ± 0.68 a
(25) CVVI E1614.33 ± 0.88 b 27.54 ± 1.45 a
(26) CVVI E32021.53 ± 1.35 b 28.75 ± 1.86 a
(27) CVVI E13011.83 ± 1.78 b 29.64 ± 0.87 a
(28) CVVI E4810.00 ± 1.40 a29.31 ± 0.27 a
(29) CVVI KH1026.33 ± 0.53 b15.34 ± 0.66 a
(30) CVVI K10B27.50 ± 0.56 b0
(31) CVVI E29811.33 ± 0.48 b 23.90 ± 1.69 a
(32) CVVI E27313.53 ± 1.75 b 29.59 ± 1.77 b
(33) CVVI K43613.14 ± 1.68 b 30.21 ± 1.38 a
(34) CVVI E9811.00 ± 1.00 a26.91 ± 1.56 a
(35) CVVI E7714.33 ± 0.58 b23.93 ± 0.59 a
(36) CVVI E14813.50 ± 0.50 b28.71 ± 0.87 a
(37) CVVI E1024.33 ± 0.58 b 10.35 ± 1.11 a
(38) CVVI E21516.53 ± 1.15 b 26.41 ± 1.40 a
(39) NLK99/F529.83 ± 1.18 b 16, 21 ± 0.89 a
(40) NLP987/F530.00 ± 1.00 a13.21 ± 1.15 a
(41) NLK99-1*21.73 ± 1.35 b 15.34 ± 1.37 a
(42) NLK99-3*28.33 ± 1.50 b 0
(43) NLK99-5*25.00 ± 1.10 a 9.54 ± 1.11 a
(44) NLK99-7*26.33 ± 0.58 b14,25 ± 1.11 a
(45) NLK99-9*27.50 ± 0.50 b11.26 ± 1.78 a
(46) NLK99-11*29.53 ± 1.25 b 16.24 ± 1.68 a
(47) NLK99-15*28.83 ± 1.38 b 16.35 ± 1.11 a
(48) NLK99-19*25.00 ± 1.70 a15.53 ± 0.84 a

Three paper discs per plate and three plates for each bacterium were considered. The experiment was repeated twice. Values are given as mean ± S.D. Values in a row followed by different lowercased letters are significantly different at .

The CFX GIZ range is 0.00 ± 0.00–32.65 ± 75. The enteropathogenic E. coli resulted to be resistant or less susceptible to CFX than the nonenteropathogenic E. coli, showing a GIZ range of, respectively, 0.00 ± 0.00–18.24 ± 1.68 mm and 21.64 ± 0.94–32.65 ± 75 mm. The isolates CVVIK10B (from calve feces) and NLK99-3* (from calve feces) both revealed resistance to CFX. No GIZ was detected in plates treated with negative controls (TWN and WTR).

As shown in Table 5, the percent bacterial GR revealed at 100 μL, 10 μL, 1 μL, and 0.1 μL NO concentrations was in the range 23.71 ± 1.00–99.70 ± 1.53; 21.61 ± 0.56–91.63 ± 0.08; 17.58 ± 1.33–69.57 ± 0.00; and 11.18 ± 0.89–67.58 ± 0.89.


E. coli isolatesPercent growth reduction zone (%)
NSO (100 µL)NSO (10 µL)NSO (1 µL)NSO (0.1 µL)

(1) FLC 105639.25 ± 1.43 c35.61 ± 1.00 b 21.67 ± 1.33 a 11.31 ± 2.08 a
(2) FLC 124725.51 ± 1.15 c 24.70 ± 1.00 b 21.88 ± 1.33 a 11.86 ± 1.00 a
(3) FLC 105931.51 ± 1.15 c 25.70 ± 1.00 b 24.58 ± 1.33 a14.86 ± 1.00 a
(4) FLC 124338.90 ± 1.00 d28.79 ± 1.00 c29.40 ± 0.00 b16.68 ± 1.20 a
(5) FLC 104825.60 ± 1.53 d23.73 ± 2.08 b23.69 ± 2.00 b12.83 ± 1.73 a
(6) FLC 116723.71 ± 1.00 b21.61 ± 0.58 a21.27 ± 0.00 a11.18 ± 0.89 a
(7) FLC 124929.65 ± 1.53 b28.61 ± 1.00 a28.77 ± 1.33 a 18.51 ± 2.08 a
(8) FLC 105534.51 ± 1.15 c 29.70 ± 1.00 c 24.38 ± 1.33 a 14.86 ± 1.00 a
(9) FLC 105431.51 ± 1.15 d 29.70 ± 1.00 c 25. 78 ± 1.33 a 14.86 ± 1.00 a
(10) FLC 108539.90 ± 1.00 c28.79 ± 1.00 b28.10 ± 0.00 b15.58 ± 1.20 a
(11) FLC 124435.70 ± 1.53 d28.73 ± 2.08 b28.59 ± 2.00 b12.63 ± 1.73 a
(12) FLC 116539.71 ± 1.00 c29.61 ± 0.58 c29.17 ± 0.00 b16.48 ± 0.89 a
(13) FLC 108639.55 ± 1.53 c28.61 ± 1.00 c 27.87 ± 1.33 b 12.21 ± 2.08 a
(14) FLC 105334.51 ± 1.15 c 89.70 ± 1.00 c 27.58 ± 1.33 b 14.86 ± 1.00 a
(15) FLC 109531.51 ± 1.15 c 29.70 ± 1.00 b 25.18 ± 1.33 a 14.86 ± 1.00 a
(16) FLC 121938.95 ± 1.00 b28.79 ± 1.00 b28.10 ± 0.00 b16.68 ± 1.20 a
(17) FLC 123536.70 ± 1.53 d27.73 ± 2.08 c27.79 ± 2.00 b12.83 ± 1.73 a
(18) DSM869639.71 ± 1.00 c29.61 ± 0.58 c29.67 ± 0.00 b17.58 ± 0.89 a
(19) DSM902539.65 ± 1.53 c28.61 ± 1.00 c 26.17 ± 1.33 b 18.10 ± 2.08 a
(20) DSM1097334.51 ± 1.15 c 29.70 ± 1.00 c 23.28 ± 1.33 b 14.86 ± 1.00 a
(21) ATCC3355931.51 ± 1.15 d 29.70 ± 1.00 c 21.58 ± 1.33 b 14.86 ± 1.00 a
(22) CVVI E21088.90 ± 1.00 c88.79 ± 1.00 c69.20 ± 0.00 b14.78 ± 1.20 a
(23) CVVI E17336.50 ± 1.53 d27.73 ± 2.08 c27.99 ± 2.00 b22.83 ± 1.73 a
(24) CVVI E12689.81 ± 1.00 c89.61 ± 0.58 c69.37 ± 0.00 b44.58 ± 0.89 a
(25) CVVI E1638.55 ± 1.53 c28.61 ± 1.00 c 27.57 ± 1.33 b 11.51 ± 2.08 a
(26) CVVI E32038.51 ± 1.15 c 29.70 ± 1.00 c 27.18 ± 1.33 b 14.86 ± 1.00 a
(27) CVVI E13030.71 ± 1.15 c 29.70 ± 1.00 c 27.68 ± 1.33 a 14.46 ± 1.00 a
(28) CVVI E4838.60 ± 1.00 c28.79 ± 1.00 c29.20 ± 0.00 a16.68 ± 1.20 a
(29) CVVI KH1099.60 ± 1.53 d81.73 ± 2.08 c68.39 ± 2.00 b62.33 ± 1.73 a
(30) CVVI K10B89.81 ± 1.00 c89.61 ± 0.58 c69.37 ± 0.00 b60.58 ± 0.89 a
(31) CVVI E29839.75 ± 1.53 c28.61 ± 1.00 c 27.57 ± 1.33 b 20.11 ± 2.08 a
(32) CVVI E27334.51 ± 1.15 c 29.70 ± 1.00 c 26.58 ± 1.33 b 22.86 ± 1.00 a
(33) CVVI K43631.85 ± 1.15 d 29.70 ± 1.00 c 27.18 ± 1.33 b 15.86 ± 1.00 a
(34) CVVI E9837.93 ± 1.00 c28.79 ± 1.00 c29.50 ± 0.00 b16.68 ± 1.20 a
(35) CVVI E7733.69 ± 1.53 d21.73 ± 2.08 c27.29 ± 2.00 b19.83 ± 1.73 a
(36) CVVI E14839.71 ± 1.00 c29.61 ± 0.58 c29.57 ± 0.00 b22.58 ± 0.89 a
(37) CVVI E1089.65 ± 1.53 c88.61 ± 1.00 c 61.67 ± 1.33 b 50.79 ± 2.08 a
(38) CVVI E21534.51 ± 1.15 c 29.70 ± 1.00 c 17.58 ± 1.33 b 21.86 ± 1.00 a
(39) NLK99/F591.51 ± 1.15 d 89.70 ± 1.00 c 67.68 ± 1.33 b 61.86 ± 1.00 a
(40) NL12B/F588.90 ± 1.00 c88.79 ± 1.00 c69.60 ± 0.00 b63.68 ± 1.20 a
(41) NLK99-1*97.70 ± 1.53 d81.73 ± 2.08 c68.69 ± 2.00 b62.83 ± 1.73 a
(42) NLK99-3*89.71 ± 1.00 c79.61 ± 0.58 c69.57 ± 0.00 b67.58 ± 0.89 a
(43) NLK99-5*89.65 ± 1.53 c78.61 ± 1.00 c 67.67 ± 1.33 b 50.81 ± 2.08 a
(44) NLK99-7*84.51 ± 1.15 c 79.70 ± 1.00 c 67.58 ± 1.33 b 44.86 ± 1.00 a
(45) NLK99-9*91.51 ± 1.15 c 79.70 ± 1.00 c 67.28 ± 1.13 b 64.86 ± 1.00 a
(46) NLK99-11*88.90 ± 1.00 c78.79 ± 1.00 c69.60 ± 0.00 b66.68 ± 1.20 a
(47) NLK99-15*99.70 ± 1.53 d91.63 ± 0.28 c68.69 ± 2.00 b62.83 ± 1.73 a
(48) NLK99-19*89.71 ± 1.00 c79.61 ± 0.58 c69.57 ± 0.00 b67.58 ± 0.89 a

Three plates for each bacterium were considered. The experiment was repeated twice. Values are given as mean ± S.D. Values in a row followed by different lowercased letters are significantly different at .

There is a significant difference of antibacterial activity among the isolates and the NO concentrations tested (Table 5). The highest percent bacterial GRs were detected at 100 μL NO and they concerned mainly enteropathogenic E. coli isolates. Amplicons of the expected sizes from virulence genes of enteropathogenic E. coli isolates were not detected when bacterial viable cells were checked in samples treated with 100 μL and 10 μL NO concentrations. On the contrary, amplicons of the expected size were revealed in the same samples using primer pair numbers 16 and 17, as reported in Table 1, that specifically amplify unique sequences of E. coli 16S rRNA.

The antibiotic activity of ciprofloxacin is to bind and inhibit bacterial topoisomerase types II and IV, thus being able to interfere with the bacterial processes of replication, transcription, and DNA repair.

An increasing ciprofloxacin resistance of E. coli isolates was reported [20] according several epidemiological studies. E. coli, the most commonly isolated bacterium in clinical samples from patients affected by different severity of diarrheal symptoms, shows high antibiotic resistance [21, 22]. Diarrheagenic E. coli, considered in the experiment, showed a resistance or less susceptibility to ciprofloxacin, in comparison with the other nonenteropathogenic isolates tested.

The viable cells of the fourteen diarrheagenic E. coli were checked after NO treatment with primer pairs listed in Table 1 and PMA dye. The dye propidium monoazide (PMA Biotium Inc., Hayward, CA, USA) is a photoreactive dye with high affinity for DNA. The dye intercalates into DNA and forms a covalent linkage upon exposure to intense visible light. It is cell membrane impermeable. When a sample comprising both live and dead bacteria is treated with PMA, only dead cells are susceptible to DNA modification due to their compromised cell membranes [23, 24]. Therefore, selective detection of the sole live cells is achieved.

The fourteen ciprofloxacin resistant/less susceptible diarrheagenic E. coli seem to lose their virulence after NO treatment, because amplicons were obtained only with the primer pairs numbers 16 and 17 (Table 1). This let us suppose that antibacterial activity acts on adhesion factor and membrane and its permeability with possible loss of extrachromosomal DNA.

4. Conclusions and Future Implications

Studies of new antimicrobials from plant derived extracts and agroindustrial byproducts as antimicrobials and preservatives are important issues in applied microbiology and biotechnology, for both implementing and improving effective alternative technologies to tackle antimicrobial resistance. The potential use of plant natural antimicrobials would require amendments of several different legal texts involving areas such as food additives, food packaging, and hygiene. Anyway, the applications could concern either the natural preservation in the food industries or an accessible and safe alternative to synthetic antimicrobial drugs.

Abbreviations

ATCC:American Type Culture Collection
CFX:Antibiotic: hydrochloride monohydrate
CRA:Agricultural Research Council, Italy
CVVI:Central Vietnam Veterinary Institute
DAEC:Diffusely adherent E. coli
DSMZ:Leibniz-Institut DSMZ—Deutsche Sammlung von Mikroorganismen und Zellkulturen GmbH
EAEC:Enteroaggregative E. coli
EHEC:Enterohemorrhagic E. coli
EIEC:Enteroinvasive E. coli
ELISA:Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay
EPEC:Enteropathogenic E. coli
ETEC:Enterotoxigenic E. coli
GIZ:Growth inhibition zone
HPTLC:High performance thin layer chromatography
HUS:Hemolytic uremic syndrome
LSD:Least significant difference
NCE:Neem cake extract
NL:Department of Bacteriology and Animal Science, University of Wageningen, Netherlands
NO:Neem oil
OD:Optical density
PMA:Propidium monoazide
RAPD PCR:Random amplified polymorphic DNA polymerase chain reaction
Rf:Ratio between the migration distance of substance and the migration distance of solvent front
SAS:Statistical Analysis System (SAS Institute, Inc., Cary, NC, USA)
SD:Standard deviation
TWN:Tween 80
WTR:Sterile distilled water.

Conflict of Interests

The authors declare that there is no conflict of interests regarding the publication of this paper.

Authors’ Contribution

Paola Del Serrone carried out research concept and design, collection and/or assembly of biological assay data, collection and/or assembly of molecular biology assay data, data analysis and interpretation, statistical analysis, writing the paper, critical revision of the paper, and the final approval of the paper. Chiara Toniolo was responsible for collection and/or assembly of chemical data, data analysis and interpretation, critical revision of the paper, and final approval of the paper. Marcello Nicoletti carried out collection and/or assembly of chemical data, data analysis and interpretation, writing the paper, critical revision of the paper, and final approval of the paper.

Acknowledgments

The authors thank Dr. D. Carminati of the Fodder and Dairy Productions Research Centre (CRA FLC) of Lodi, Agricultural Research Council (CRA), Italy, Dr. vu Kack of Central Vietnam Veterinary Institute, and Dr. F. G. Van Zijderveld of the University of Wageningen, The Netherland, for kindly providing the E. coli isolates.

References

  1. J. Raloff, “Drugged waters,” Science News, vol. 153, pp. 187–189, 1998. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  2. D. M. McKeon, J. P. Calabrese, and G. K. Bissonnette, “Antibiotic resistant gram-negative bacteria in rural groundwater supplies,” Water Research, vol. 29, no. 8, pp. 1902–1908, 1995. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  3. M. Dröge, A. Pühler, and W. Selbitschka, “Phenotypic and molecular characterization of conjugative antibiotic resistance plasmids isolated from bacterial communities of activated sludge,” Molecular and General Genetics, vol. 263, no. 3, pp. 471–482, 2000. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  4. A. R. Manges, S. P. Smith, B. J. Lau et al., “Retail meat consumption and the acquisition of antimicrobial resistant Escherichia coli causing urinary tract infections: a case-control study,” Foodborne Pathogens and Disease, vol. 4, no. 4, pp. 419–431, 2007. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  5. P. Del Serrone, R. Contillo, S. Failla et al., “Assessment of the microbiological quality of retail fresh pork meat in central Italy,” Italian Journal of Food Science, vol. 18, no. 4, pp. 397–408, 2006. View at: Google Scholar
  6. K. Palaniappan and R. A. Holley, “Use of natural antimicrobials to increase antibiotic susceptibility of drug resistant bacteria,” International Journal of Food Microbiology, vol. 140, no. 2-3, pp. 164–168, 2010. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  7. A. Rawani, S. Pal, and G. Chandra, “Evaluation of antimicrobial properties of four plant extracts against human pathogens,” Asian Pacific Journal of Tropical Biomedicine, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. S71–S75, 2011. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  8. P. Del Serrone and M. Nicoletti, “Antimicrobial activity of a neem cake extract in a broth model meat system,” International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, vol. 10, no. 8, pp. 3282–3295, 2013. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  9. EFSA, “The Community summary report on trends and sources of zoonoses, zoonotic agents and foodborne outbreaks in European Union in 2008,” The EFSA Journal, vol. 8, no. 1, 2010. View at: Google Scholar
  10. Comunicazione della Commissione al Parlamento Europeo e al Consiglio, “Piano d’azione di lotta ai crescenti rischi di resistenza antimicrobica (AMR),” Tech. Rep. COM 2011-748, 2011. View at: Google Scholar
  11. “Conclusioni del Consiglio, del 22 giugno 2012, sull’impatto della resistenza antimicrobica nel settore della salute umana e nel settore veterinario—una prospettiva di tipo ‘One Health’,” Gazzetta Ufficiale 2012/C 211/02, 2012. View at: Google Scholar
  12. National Research Council, “Neem: a tree for solving global problems,” Report of an Ad Hoc Panel of the Board on Science and Technology for International Development, National Academy Press, Washington, DC, USA, 1992. View at: Google Scholar
  13. M. Baswa, C. C. Rath, S. K. Dash, and R. K. Mishra, “Antibacterial activity of Karanj (Pongamia pinnata) and Neem (Azadirachta indica) seed oil: a preliminary report,” Microbios, vol. 105, no. 412, pp. 183–189, 2001. View at: Google Scholar
  14. M. SaiRam, G. Ilavazhagan, S. K. Sharma et al., “Anti-microbial activity of a new vaginal contraceptive NIM-76 from neem oil (Azadirachta indica),” Journal of Ethnopharmacology, vol. 71, no. 3, pp. 377–382, 2000. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  15. M. Zago, B. Bonvini, A. M. M. Platero, G. Mucchetti, D. Carminati, and G. Giraffa, “Characterisation of Escherichia coli isolated from raw milk cheeses,” Annals of Microbiology, vol. 57, no. 1, pp. 49–54, 2007. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  16. F. G. van Zijderveld and E. Overdijk, “Experiences with the ELISA for detection of the E. coli K99 antigen in calf faeces,” Annales de Recherches Veterinaires, vol. 14, no. 4, pp. 395–399, 1983. View at: Google Scholar
  17. M. Nicoletti, S. Mariani, O. MacCioni, T. Coccioletti, and K. Murugan, “Neem cake: chemical composition and larvicidal activity on Asian tiger mosquito,” Parasitology Research, vol. 111, no. 1, pp. 205–213, 2012. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  18. M. Nicoletti, “HPTLC fingerprint: a modern approach for the analytical determination of botanicals,” Brazilian Journal of Pharmacognosy, vol. 21, no. 5, pp. 818–823, 2011. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  19. A. W. Bauer, W. M. Kirby, J. C. Sherris, and M. Turck, “Antibiotic susceptibility testing by a standardized single disk method,” American Journal of Clinical Pathology, vol. 36, pp. 493–496, 1966. View at: Google Scholar
  20. F. E. Abdullah, A. A. Memon, M. Y. Bandukda, and M. Jamil, “Increasing ciprofloxacin resistance of isolates from infected urines of a cross-section of patients in Karachi,” BMC Research Notes, vol. 5, article 696, 2012. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  21. H. Momtaz, F. S. Dehkordi, M. J. Hosseini, M. Sarshar, and M. Heidari, “Serogroups, virulence genes and antibiotic resistance in Shiga toxin-producing Escherichia coliisolated from diarrheic and non-diarrheic pediatric patients in Iran,” Gut Pathogens, vol. 5, no. 1, article 39, 2013. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  22. V. N. Trung, V. L. Phung, H. L. Chinh, and A. Weintraub, “Antibiotic resistance in diarrheagenic Escherichia coli and Shigella strains isolated from children in Hanoi, Vietnam,” Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy, vol. 49, no. 2, pp. 816–819, 2005. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  23. A. Nocker, C.-Y. Cheung, and A. K. Camper, “Comparison of propidium monoazide with ethidium monoazide for differentiation of live vs. dead bacteria by selective removal of DNA from dead cells,” Journal of Microbiological Methods, vol. 67, no. 2, pp. 310–320, 2006. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  24. S. Chen, F. Wang, J. C. Beaulieu, R. E. Stein, and B. Ge, “Rapid detection of viable Salmonellae in produce by coupling propidium monoazide with loop-mediated isothermal amplification,” Applied and Environmental Microbiology, vol. 77, no. 12, pp. 4008–4016, 2011. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  25. J. Osek, “Multiplex polymerase chain reaction assay for identification of enterotoxigenic Escherichia coli strains,” Journal of Veterinary Diagnostic Investigation, vol. 13, no. 4, pp. 308–311, 2001. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  26. B. Ojeniyi, P. Ahrens, and A. Meyling, “Detection of fimbrial and toxin genes in Escherichia coli and their prevalence in piglets with diarrhea. The application of colony hybridization assay, polymerase chain reaction and phenotypic assays,” Journal of Veterinary Medicine, vol. 41, no. 1, pp. 49–59, 1994. View at: Google Scholar
  27. M. Blanco, N. L. Padola, A. Krüger et al., “Virulence genes and intimin types of Shiga-toxin-producing Escherichia coli isolated from cattle and beef products in Argentina,” International Microbiology, vol. 7, no. 4, pp. 269–276, 2004. View at: Google Scholar
  28. T. Yamamoto and M. Nakazawa, “Detection and sequences of the enteroaggregative Escherichia coli heat- stable enterotoxin 1 gene in enterotoxigenic E. coli strains isolated from piglets and calves with diarrhea,” Journal of Clinical Microbiology, vol. 35, no. 1, pp. 223–227, 1997. View at: Google Scholar
  29. G. Wang, C. G. Clark, and F. G. Rodgerst, “Detection in Escherichia coli of the genes encoding the major virulence factors, the genes defining the O157:H7 serotype, and components of the type 2 Shiga toxin family by multiplex PCR,” Journal of Clinical Microbiology, vol. 40, no. 10, pp. 3613–3619, 2002. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  30. H. V. Vu Khac, E. Holoda, E. Pilipcinec et al., “Serotypes, virulence genes, and PFGE profiles of Escherichia coli isolated from pigs with postweaning diarrhoea in Slovakia,” BMC Veterinary Research, vol. 2, article 10, 2006. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  31. H. Imberechts, N. van Pelt, H. de Greve, and P. Lintermans, “Sequences related to the major subunit gene fedA of F107 fimbriae in porcine Escherichia coli strains that express adhesive fimbriae,” FEMS Microbiology Letters, vol. 119, no. 3, pp. 309–314, 1994. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar

Copyright © 2015 Paola Del Serrone et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.


More related articles

2764 Views | 1213 Downloads | 6 Citations
 PDF Download Citation Citation
 Download other formatsMore
 Order printed copiesOrder

Related articles

We are committed to sharing findings related to COVID-19 as quickly as possible. We will be providing unlimited waivers of publication charges for accepted research articles as well as case reports and case series related to COVID-19. Review articles are excluded from this waiver policy. Sign up here as a reviewer to help fast-track new submissions.