Antioxidant, antibacterial, and antibiofilm properties of polyphenols from muscadine grape (Vitis rotundifolia Michx.) pomace against selected foodborne pathogens.

Subscriber access provided by UNIV WAIKATO

Article

Antioxidant, Antibacterial and Antibiofilm Properties of Polyphenols from Muscadine Grape (Vitis rotundifolia Michx.) Pomace Against Selected Foodborne Pathogens Changmou Xu, Yavuz Yagiz, Wei-Yea Hsu, Amarat Simonne, Jiang Lu, and Maurice R. Marshall J. Agric. Food Chem., Just Accepted Manuscript • DOI: 10.1021/jf501073q • Publication Date (Web): 27 May 2014 Downloaded from http://pubs.acs.org on June 16, 2014

Just Accepted “Just Accepted” manuscripts have been peer-reviewed and accepted for publication. They are posted online prior to technical editing, formatting for publication and author proofing. The American Chemical Society provides “Just Accepted” as a free service to the research community to expedite the dissemination of scientific material as soon as possible after acceptance. “Just Accepted” manuscripts appear in full in PDF format accompanied by an HTML abstract. “Just Accepted” manuscripts have been fully peer reviewed, but should not be considered the official version of record. They are accessible to all readers and citable by the Digital Object Identifier (DOI®). “Just Accepted” is an optional service offered to authors. Therefore, the “Just Accepted” Web site may not include all articles that will be published in the journal. After a manuscript is technically edited and formatted, it will be removed from the “Just Accepted” Web site and published as an ASAP article. Note that technical editing may introduce minor changes to the manuscript text and/or graphics which could affect content, and all legal disclaimers and ethical guidelines that apply to the journal pertain. ACS cannot be held responsible for errors or consequences arising from the use of information contained in these “Just Accepted” manuscripts.

Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry is published by the American Chemical Society. 1155 Sixteenth Street N.W., Washington, DC 20036 Published by American Chemical Society. Copyright © American Chemical Society. However, no copyright claim is made to original U.S. Government works, or works produced by employees of any Commonwealth realm Crown government in the course of their duties.

Page 1 of 38

Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry

1

Antioxidant, Antibacterial and Antibiofilm Properties of Polyphenols from

2

Muscadine Grape (Vitis rotundifolia Michx.) Pomace Against

3

Selected Foodborne Pathogens

4 5

Changmou Xu†, Yavuz Yagiz†, Wei-Yea Hsu‡, Amarat Simonne‡, Jiang Lu§∥, Maurice R. Marshall†*

6 7

†Department

of Food Science and Human Nutrition, University of Florida, Gainesville 32611, USA

8

‡Department

of Family, Youth and Community Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville 32611, USA

9

§College

of Food Science and Nutritional Engineering, China Agricultural University, Beijing 100083,

10

People's Republic of China

11

∥Center

12

Tallahassee 32317, USA

for Viticulture and Small Fruit Research, Florida Agricultural & Mechanical University,

13 14

*Corresponding

15

Maurice R. Marshall – University of Florida, Food & Environmental Toxicology Lab, 1642 SW

16

23rd Dr., Bldg. 685, PO Box 110720, Gainesville, FL 32611-0720, USA

17

Tel.: +1-352-392-1978 Ext. 405; Fax: +1-352-392-1988; E-mail: [email protected]

author:

18 19 20 21 22 23 24

ACS Paragon Plus Environment


25

Abstract: Polyphenols are predominantly secondary metabolites in muscadine grapes

26

playing an important role in the species’ strong resistance to pests and diseases. This

27

study examined the above property by evaluating the antioxidant, antibacterial and

28

antibiofilm activities of muscadine polyphenols against selected foodborne pathogens.

29

Results showed that antioxidant activity for different polyphenols varied greatly ranging

30

from 5 – 11.1 mmol Trolox/g. Antioxidant and antibacterial activity for polyphenols

31

showed a positive correlation. Muscadine polyphenols exhibited a broad spectrum of

32

antibacterial activity against tested foodborne pathogens, especially Staphylococcus

33

aureus (MIC 67 – 152 mg/L). Muscadine polyphenols at 4 × MIC caused nearly a 5 log10

34

CFU/mL drop in cell viability for S. aureus in 6 h with lysis, while at 0.5 x MIC, they

35

inhibited its biofilm formation, and at 16 × MIC, they eradicated biofilms. Muscadine

36

polyphenols showed synergy with antibiotics and maximally caused a 6.2 log10 CFU/mL

37

drop in cell viability at sub-inhibitory concentration.

38 39

Keywords: Polyphenols, Staphylococcus aureus, MIC, biofilm

40 41

INTRODUCTION

42 43

Foodborne disease is a common, costly—yet preventable—public health problem.

44

The United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) estimates that one

45

in six Americans (or 48 million people) get sick, 128,000 are hospitalized, and 3,000 die

46

from foodborne diseases each year.1 The most commonly identified foodborne pathogens

47

include Staphylococcus aureus, Salmonella typhimurium, Shigella sonnei, and


Page 2 of 38

Page 3 of 38


48

Escherichia coli O157: H7.1 The increasing incidence of methicillin-resistant

49

Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA),2 multiantibiotic-resistant Salmonella typhimurium,3

50

multidrug-resistant Shigella sonnei4 and Escherichia coli5 are worldwide problems in

51

both food, and clinical or medical settings. For example, although Staphylococcus aureus

52

is not always pathogenic, it is a common cause of food poisoning, skin infections (e.g.

53

boils), and respiratory disease (e.g. sinusitis).6 Furthermore, the National Institutes of

54

Health estimates that 80% of all bacterial infections occurred when bacteria are at the

55

biofilm mode of growth.7 Treatment of these infections is complicated by intrinsic

56

resistance to conventional antibiotics. Therefore there is an urgent need for new

57

compounds or innovative treatment strategies.

58

Muscadine grape (Vitis rotundifolia Michx.) is indigenous to the southeastern

59

United States and contains a large variety of antioxidant phenolic compounds. Muscadine

60

phenolic compounds are well known for their nutraceutical benefit, such as anticancer

61

activities8, 9 and improving cardiovascular health.10 Recent studies also confirmed that

62

muscadine grape polyphenols and wine have antibacterial activity against foodborne

63

pathogenic bacteria E. coli O157:H7,11,

64

monocytogenes14, and Streptococcus15. However, few studies have been published about

65

the antibacterial activity of specific muscadine polyphenols against these bacteria, the

66

correlation between antioxidant and antibacterial activity of polyphenols, the treatment

67

use of muscadine polyphenols with/without antibiotics, and their inhibition to biofilm

68

formation and eradicating biofilm capability.

12

Salmonella typhimurium,13 Listeria

69

With increasing demands or requirements for natural food preservatives and

70

antibiotics, this work was a comprehensive study to examine the antioxidant, antibacterial



71

and antibiofilm activities of muscadine grape pomace polyphenols against foodborne

72

pathogens. Polyphenols time–kill curves and synergism with antibiotics also were

73

investigated. Ultimately, it was hoped that muscadine polyphenols might have potential

74

as antimicrobial and/or antibiofilm agents for use in the food and healthcare industries.

75 76

MATERIALS AND METHODS

77 78

Bacterial Strains. Three Staphylococcus aureus strains (ATCC 35548, ATCC

79

12600-U, and ATCC 29247), one Salmonella strain (S. typhimurium), one Shigella strain

80

(S. sonnei ATCC 25931), and one Escherichia coli O157:H7 strain (204P) were used for

81

the antimicrobial activity study. All the ATCC bacterial strains tested were purchased

82

from American Type Culture Collection (ATCC, Manassas, VA, USA). S. typhimurium

83

and E. coli O157:H7 (204P) strains were obtained from Dr. Tung-shi Huang’s laboratory

84

at Auburn University, Auburn, AL, USA.

85

Antibiotics and Chemicals. Ampicillin and streptomycin were purchased from

86

Fisher Scientific (Fair Lawn, NJ, USA). Nalidixic acid was purchased from Sigma–

87

Aldrich (St Louis, MO, USA). Plant-derived phenolic standards, including gallic acid,

88

caffeic acid, catechin, ellagic acid, and quercetin were purchased from Sigma–Aldrich (St

89

Louis, MO, USA). All the above commercially purchased chemicals were dissolved in

90

sterile distilled water to a concentration of 5000 mg/L. Folin & Ciocalteu’s phenol

91

reagent (2N), 2,2-diphenyl-1-picrylhydrazyl (DPPH), and 6-hydroxy-2, 5, 7, 8-

92

tetramethylchroman-2-carboxylic acid (Trolox) were purchased from Sigma–Aldrich (St.


Page 4 of 38

Page 5 of 38


93

Louis, MO, USA). Sodium carbonate and HPLC grade organic solvents were purchased

94

from Fisher Scientific Co. (Pittsburgh, PA, USA).

95

Grape Materials, and Extraction, Separation, and Identification of Grape

96

Phenolic Compounds. Fully ripened Muscadine grape (Vitis rotundifolia Michx.) cv.

97

Noble (red) and cv. Carlos (bronze) were harvested from the Center for Viticulture and

98

Small Fruit Research (latitude 30.65 N, longitude 84.60 W) at Florida A&M University

99

on August 24, 2012. Harvested samples were shipped to the University of Florida on the

100

same day and stored at refrigeration (4 °C). Grape skin and seeds were separated

101

manually from berries and freeze-dried in a freeze drier (Advantage, The Virtis

102

Company, NY, USA) within the following three days. The freeze-dried samples were

103

stored in vacuum-packaged polyethylene pouches at -20 °C until analyzed.

104

Plant-extracted phenolic compounds (Figure 1) were prepared in-house at the

105

Food and Environmental Toxicology Laboratory from Muscadine grape skin and seeds.

106

Phenolic compounds from grape were extracted and isolated by a method adapted from

107

previous study16. Freeze-dried grape skin and seeds (defatted) were ground sufficiently

108

with a stainless-steel grinder (Omni-Mixer 17105, OCI Instruments, CT, USA) to a fine

109

powder (≤ 0.25 mm). Powder (5 g) from each sample was extracted with 30 mL of 70%

110

methanol. The extraction flasks were vortexed for 30 s, sonicated for 10 min, kept at

111

room temperature (22 °C) for 60 min, and sonicated for an additional 5 min. The extracts

112

were transferred to tubes and centrifuged at 2820 x g, 0 °C for 10 min (J-LITE®JLA-

113

16.250, Beckman Coulter Inc., CA, USA), and the supernatant was collected in separate

114

glass tubes. Residue was re-extracted with the same procedure. The collected supernatant

115

(60 mL) was evaporated in a rotary evaporator (Büchi, Labortechnik AG, Flawil,



116

Switzerland) under reduced pressure at 40 °C to remove solvent. The concentrates

117

obtained after evaporation were re-dissolved in 5 mL of distilled water and sonicated for

118

5 min.

119

Solid-phase extraction technique adapted from previous study17 was used to

120

separate fractions of phenolic compounds. Briefly, two C18 Sep-Pak cartridges

121

(Whatman® Chromatography, ODS-5) were connected and preconditioned by

122

sequentially passing 12 mL ethyl acetate, 12 mL absolute methanol, and 12 mL of 0.01 N

123

aqueous hydrogen chloride (HCl) through the cartridges. The prepared re-dissolved

124

extract (0.5 mL) was loaded onto cartridges. Each cartridge was rinsed separately with 12

125

mL of 0.01N aqueous HCl (Fraction 1, F1), 12 mL of 10% methanol (F2), and 12 mL of

126

30% methanol (F3) for Carlos skin extract; for Noble skin extract, the cartridges were

127

rinsed with 4 mL of 0.01N aqueous HCl (F1), 15 mL of 10% methanol (with 0.1% HCl)

128

(F2), and 12 mL of methanol (with 0.1% HCl) (F3); and finally for Carlos and Noble

129

seed extracts, the cartridges were rinsed with 12 mL of 0.01N aqueous HCl (F1), 12 mL

130

of 30% methanol (F2), and 12 mL of 50% methanol (F3). To obtain a sufficient volume

131

for subsequent study, four individual separations of each extract was performed and then

132

combined. The collected fractions were evaporated in a rotary evaporator under reduced

133

pressure at 40 °C to remove the solvent. The concentrates obtained after evaporation were

134

dissolved in distilled water and stored at 4 °C until analyzed.

135

The above described extracts and their fractions were subjected to

136

chromatographic analyses by HPLC (Hitachi, L-7000 series, Japan) with an analytical

137

SB-C18 column (Zorbax Stablebond, 4.6 mm x 250 mm, 5 µm, Agilent Technologies).

138

Mobile phase was 0.5% formic acid in water (solvent A) and 0.5% formic acid in 60%


Page 6 of 38

Page 7 of 38


139

methanol (solvent B) under the following gradient: 0–3 min: 5% B, 3–8 min: 30% B, 8–

140

25 min: 50% B, 25–30 min: 70% B, 30–35 min: 80% B, 35–47 min: 100% B, 47-51min:

141

5% B. The flow rate was 0.9 mL/min. Injection volume was 20 µl. Detection was

142

accomplished with a UV detector (Hitachi, L-7400, Japan) set at an absorbance

143

wavelength of 280 nm. The retention times for each eluted components in the analyzed

144

samples were compared to those of the following standards: gallic acid, caffeic acid,

145

catechin, epicatechin, epicatechin gallate, trans-resveratrol, ellagic acid, quercetin, and

146

cyanidin-3,5-diglucoside.

147

Standards for caffeic acid hexoside, mono- and digalloyl glucose, pentagalloyl

148

glucose, ellagic acid hexoside, xyloside and rhamnoside, delphinidin-3,5-diglucoside, and

149

peonidin-3,5-diglucoside were not available. Thus, a second HPLC system was employed

150

to confirm the identification of these by ESI–MS detection in the Selective reaction

151

monitoring (SRM) mode. The LC–MS analyses were performed on a Thermo-Finnigan

152

Surveyor HPLC system (Thermo-Finnigan, St. Jose, CA, USA) equipped with a

153

TSQuantum controlled by XCalibur data analysis software (version 1.3, Thermo-

154

Finnigan). The column and mobile phase used were the same as described above in

155

HPLC analysis. The MS acquisition was with ESI interface in negative ionization mode

156

at the following conditions: Sheath gas (N2) pressure, 42 arb; auxiliary gas (N2) pressure,

157

20 arb; spray voltage 3.96 kV; capillary temperature, 414 °C; collision gas pressure, 1.5

158

mTorr; collision energy, 22 V. These compounds were identified on the basis of their

159

mass fragmentation data compared with and identical to those reported by the literature18.

160



161

Phenolic Content and Antioxidant Activity Assay. Total phenolic content of

162

each extract or fraction was determined by the Folin-Ciocalteu colorimetric method19

163

with an ultraviolet–visible Beckman Coulter DU-640 spectrophotometer (Beckman

164

Instruments, Fullerton, CA, USA) and expressed as mg gallic acid equivalents per gram

165

dry matter. The unitary antioxidant activity of each extract or fraction was evaluated

166

using the DPPH radical scavenging capacity assay20 and expressed as mol Trolox

167

equivalents per gram polyphenols.

168

Antibacterial Activity Assay. Antibacterial activities of the phenolics

169

(experimental compounds) were determined by agar disc diffusion method21, and

170

pathogenic bacteria for the test were listed above. Isolated colonies of test bacterial

171

strains grown overnight on tryptic soy agar plates (TSA; Difco, Becton Dickson, Sparks,

172

MD, USA) were cultured in Mueller-Hinton broth (MHB; Difco, Becton Dickinson) at 37

173

°C for 18 h. The turbidity of bacterial suspensions was adjusted to approximately 2.0 ×

174

108 CFU/mL (Optical Density at 600 nm = 0.2). Bacterial suspensions were evenly swab-

175

inoculated on surfaces of Mueller-Hinton agar (MHA; Difco, Becton Dickinson). Then

176

each sterile blank disc (6-mm in diameter, Difco, Becton Dickinson) was placed on the

177

surface of the test MHA plates, impregnated with 20 µL of experimental compounds

178

(Table 2, in triplicate per compound), and incubated at 37 °C for 24 h. Commercial

179

antibiotics (ampicillin, nalidixic acid, and streptomycin at 10 µg/disc) and distilled water

180

prepared in the same manner as the experimental compounds were used as positive and

181

negative controls, respectively. The size of the zones of inhibition was measured and the

182

antibacterial activity was expressed in terms of the average diameter of the zone of


Page 8 of 38

Page 9 of 38


183

inhibition in millimeters. The absence of a zone of inhibition (≤6 mm) was interpreted as

184

the absence of antibacterial activity.

185

The MIC was determined using an Alamar blue assay adapted from previous

186

study21. Briefly, serial dilution of experimental compounds in MHB (100 µL) with test

187

bacteria at a density of 5 x 106 CFU/mL were incubated in flat-bottom, polystyrene, non-

188

tissue-culture-treated 96-well microtiter plates at 37 °C without shaking for 20 h. After

189

20 h, 10 µL Alamar blue (AB; Invitrogen, Life Technologies, Carlsbad, CA, USA) was

190

added to the wells and the plates were shaken gently and incubated for 1 h at 37 °C.

191

Plates were gently shaken again, and absorbance at 570 nm and 600 nm were obtained in

192

a Microplate Reader (ELX808 Universal, Bio-Tek Instruments, USA). Controls included

193

media alone (blank), diluted media plus experimental compounds plus AB (negative),

194

and media plus cells plus AB (positive). Percent reduction of AB was calculated using

195

the manufacturer’s formula (absorbance difference between 570 nm and 600 nm for each

196

experimental well divided by the difference in positive control). Assays were performed

197

in triplicate, and the average % reduction was used to determine MIC. The AB MIC was

198

defined as the lowest concentration of the experimental compound resulting in ≤50%

199

reduction of AB and a purplish well 60 min after the addition of AB22.

200

To investigate the correlation of Alamar blue reduction to CFU/mL, CFU/mL was

201

obtained from the same wells used to obtain AB absorbances. Before adding AB to all

202

treated wells, 10 µl of the well culture was removed and serially diluted (10-fold) in 0.1%

203

peptone water followed by plating (20 µl of the dilution) on TSA. Colonies were counted

204

after incubation at 37 °C for 24 h and recorded as CFU/mL. Pearson’s two tailed

205

correlations were calculated between Alamar blue reduction and CFU/mL.



206

Time–kill and Synergy Assay. Time–kill assays were performed using a method

207

adapted from previous study23. Briefly, bacteria were cultured to exponential phase (1.0 ×

208

108 CFU/mL, OD600 = 0.15) in MHB and challenged with antibiotics or experimental

209

compounds at 4 × MIC or 500 mg/L. Synergy between antibiotics and phenolic

210

compounds was tested at 0.9 x MIC. Bacterial viability was monitored every hour (0 – 6

211

h) by plating cultures onto TSA, and counting colonies after incubation at 37 °C for 24 h

212

as described previously. To detect bacterial lysis following the challenge with

213

antibacterial agents, the culture turbidity of early exponential phase cultures was

214

monitored every hour (0 – 6 h) and finally 24 h by absorbance measurements at 600 nm

215

at 37 °C. Synergy between antibiotics and phenolic compounds was defined as follows,

216

using log10 CFU/mL at 24 h: synergy was >2-log10 kill, additivity was >1- to 2-log10 kill,

217

indifference was 1-log10 kill to 2-log10 growth, and antagonism was >2-log10 growth

218

compared to the most active drug alone. Bactericidal activity was defined as a ≥3-log10

219

CFU/mL kill at 24 h from baseline24.

220

Antibiofilm Activity Assay. The planktonic cell susceptibility to polyphenols and

221

polyphenols inhibiting biofilm formation were determined using the Alamar blue assay

222

adapted from previous study21. Briefly, serial dilution of experimental compounds in

223

MHB (100 µL, with diluted 2,500 to 5 mg/L) with bacteria at a density of 5 x 106

224

CFU/mL were incubated in round-bottom, polystyrene, non-tissue-culture-treated 96-well

225

microtiter plates at 37 °C without shaking for 20 h. After 20 h, visual MICs were

226

identified by the dot at the bottom of the well (the well before dots appear is defined as

227

MIC point); then, the content of each well was aspirated and transferred to new flat-

228

bottom plates; 10 µL Alamar blue was subsequently added to the new plate wells and


Page 10 of 38

Page 11 of 38


229

analyzed as the previous procedure to determine the MICs of planktonic cells. After this,

230

the original round-bottom plate wells (after transferring) were gently washed twice with

231

250 µL sterile physiological saline to remove non-adherent bacteria; 100 µL sterile

232

distilled water was added to these wells followed by 10 µL Alamar blue, and analyzed as

233

the previous procedure to determine the Minimum Biofilm Inhibitory Concentration

234

(MBIC).

235

To determine the reduction capability of polyphenols on preformed biofilm,

236

assays were performed in flat-bottom plates with bacteria incubated at a density of 5 x

237

106 CFU/mL in 100 µL MHB. First, plates were incubated at 37°C without shaking for

238

24 h to allow biofilm formation. Then, two-fold dilutions (diluted 2,500 to 5 mg/L) of

239

experimental compounds in MHB were prepared external to the plates. After 24 h

240

incubation, well contents were aspirated from all experimental and control wells; and

241

wells were gently washed twice with 250 µL sterile physiological saline and 100 µL of

242

the appropriate diluted compounds was added. Preformed biofilms were exposed to

243

compounds for 20 h at 37 °C without shaking. After 20 h, 10 µL Alamar blue was added

244

to the wells and analyzed previously.

245

Statistical Analysis. Experimental results were expressed as means ± standard

246

error (SE) of three independent replicates. Data were subjected to ANOVA and

247

significant differences were tested by post hoc comparison test (Student Newman Keuls)

248

at P < 0.05. Microsoft Excel 2008 and SPSS 20.0 for Windows were used for this

249

analysis and for calculating Pearson’s correlation coefficients.

250 251

RESULTS



252 253

Muscadine Grape Phenolic Compounds and Antioxidant Activity. Phenolic

254

compounds from Muscadine grape (Noble and Carlos) skin and seeds were separated into

255

three fractions, respectively, and chromatograms of identified phenolics from Noble skin

256

and seed fractions were presented in Figure 1. Caffeic acid hexoside, hydrolyzable

257

tannins, and gallic acid were the major phenolics in fraction 1 of Noble skin polyphenols

258

(Figure 1a). Anthocyanins were the major phenolics in the corresponding fraction 2

259

(Figure 1b), and ellagic acid and its conjugates were in fraction 3 (Figure 1c). Polyphenol

260

fractions from Carlos skin were different from Noble skin, with richer ellagic acid and

261

conjugates in fraction 3, but almost no anthocyanins in fraction 2 (data not shown).

262

However, polyphenol fractions from Noble and Carlos seed showed similar profiles, with

263

hydroxybenzoic acid, hydrolyzable tannins, and little flavan-3-ols distributed in fraction 1

264

(Figure 1d), major flavan-3-ols and condensed tannins distributed in fraction 2 (Figure

265

1e), and ellagic acid and its conjugates distributed in fraction 3 (Figure 1f). Overall,

266

anthocyanins (fraction 2, 22.6 mg/g) were the major phenolics for Noble skin, while it

267

was ellagic acid and its conjugates (fraction 3, 20.5 mg/g) for Carlos skin; flavan-3-ols

268

and condensed tannins (fraction 2, 38.8 and 40.8 mg/g, respectively) were the major

269

phenolics for Noble and Carlos seeds (Table 1).

270

Antioxidant activity of phenolic compounds varied greatly among tested samples

271

(Table 1). For the polyphenol standards, gallic acid showed the strongest antioxidant

272

activity per unit, and ranked in order as: Gallic acid > Ellagic acid > Quercetin >

273

Catechin > Caffeic acid. For the polyphenol extracts, fraction 3 showed the strongest

274

antioxidant activity per unit, and ranked in order as: fraction 3 (ellagic acid and


Page 12 of 38

Page 13 of 38


275

conjugates) > fraction 1 (hydroxybenzoic acid and hydrolyzable tannins) > fraction 2

276

(anthocyanins or flavan-3-ols and condensed tannins). As expected, antioxidant activity

277

for the non-separated grape skin or seed extracts varied among their corresponding

278

activities of the fractions.

279

Antibacterial Activity of Phenolic Compounds. Antibacterial activity of

280

phenolic compounds was initially screened by the standard agar disc diffusion method,

281

and then subjected to the MIC test. Table 2 showed that the inhibition of bacterial growth

282

was quite drug and species dependent. Muscadine grape skin and seed polyphenol

283

extracts exhibited a broad spectrum of antibacterial activity against Gram-positive

284

bacteria (S. aureus), but exhibited little to no antibacterial efficacy against Gram-negative

285

bacteria (Salmonella typhimurium, S. sonnei ATCC 25931, E. coli O157:H7 204P).

286

Inhibition by seed polyphenols (Carlos Seed vs. Noble Seed) against S. aureus was

287

positively dependent on concentration while skin polyphenols (Carlos Skin vs. Noble

288

Skin) was negatively dependent. Although Carlos Skin was used at higher polyphenol

289

concentration than Carlos Seed, its inhibition was significantly weaker than the later.

290

These indicated that the antibacterial activity of muscadine grape phenolic compounds

291

were not only concentration dependent, but also phenolic specific dependent. Gallic acid

292

exhibited good antibacterial activity on tested S. aureus strains while ellagic acid showed

293

slightly less inhibition at 100 µg/disc. Caffeic acid, catechin, and quercetin exhibited little

294

to no antibacterial efficacy against S. aureus at this concentration. None of these

295

polyphenol standards was found to show inhibition on Gram-negative bacteria in this

296

study. The susceptibility of all tested bacteria to the three antibiotics (positive control, 10

297

µg/disc) varied significantly with zones of inhibition ranging from 0 to 43.8 mm. In



298

general, ampicillin and streptomycin showed strongest inhibition than nalidixic acid in

299

this study.

300

Muscadine grape polyphenols were further demonstrated to have good

301

antibacterial activity against Gram-positive bacteria (S. aureus) as shown by an MIC of

302

74 – 367 mg/L for skin polyphenols and 67 – 173 mg/L for seed polyphenols (Table 3).

303

Inhibition for different phenolic fractions was significantly different. In general, the non-

304

separated skin and seed polyphenols exhibited comparable or even better inhibition than

305

some of their corresponding fractions. This indicated there might be a synergistic effect

306

between different phenolics in inhibiting bacteria growth. Muscadine grape polyphenols

307

also showed good antibacterial activity against Gram-negative bacteria (S. sonnei ATCC

308

25931) with an MIC of 112 – 735 mg/L, while exhibiting fair antibacterial efficacy

309

against S. typhimurium and E. coli O157:H7 204P with an MIC of 224 – 1,976 mg/L and

310

304 – 1,540 mg/L, respectively. The phenolic concentration required to inhibit Gram-

311

negative bacteria ranged from 1 to 16 times higher than that required for Gram-positive

312

bacteria. Unexpectedly, almost no inhibition (≥2,500 mg/L) was found for the

313

commercial polyphenol standards on all tested bacterial strains. The inhibition of

314

antibiotic controls on all study strains, even though within the same species, varied

315

greatly and were either very strong (≤20 mg/L) or almost none (≥1,250 mg/L). By

316

contrast, muscadine grape polyphenols displayed consistent antibacterial activity within

317

one species, such as S. aureus (Table 3) and Salmonella typhimurium (data not

318

completely shown). This indicated that muscadine grape polyphenols had a broad

319

spectrum of antibacterial activity and possibly could be used to treat these antibiotic-

320

resistant strains.


Page 14 of 38

Page 15 of 38


321

Evaluation of Bacterial Killing and Synergistic Effect by Phenolic

322

Compounds. In order to further evaluate the bactericidal activity of phenolic compounds,

323

the killing kinetics of these compounds were assessed against S. aureus ATCC 35548

324

alongside established antibiotics. At 4 x MIC, Noble skin and seed polyphenols caused a

325

reduction in cell viability of 4.7 and 4.9 Log10 CFU/mL after 6 h in MHB, respectively,

326

while Streptomycin caused a reduction of 6.1 Log10 CFU/mL (Figure 2a). Gallic acid and

327

Ellagic acid caused only a slight bacteriostatic effect at 500 mg/L. Significant synergism

328

between antibiotics and polyphenols at sub-MIC were observed. Ampicillin (150 mg/L),

329

with a high MIC of 2,500 mg/L, when added with Gallic acid (500 mg/L), Ellagic acid

330

(500 mg/L), Noble skin (0.9 x MIC), and Noble seed (0.9 x MIC) caused a reduction in

331

cell viability of 0.5, 3.9, 5.1 and 4.8 Log10 CFU/mL, respectively (Figure 2b). While

332

Streptomycin added with Gallic acid, Ellagic acid, Noble skin, and Noble seed caused a

333

reduction in cell viability of 1.6, 4.0, 5.0 and 6.2 Log10 CFU/mL, respectively (Figure

334

2c). Although both Gallic acid and Ellagic acid had little effect on bacterial viability

335

individually, when combined with antibiotics, Ellagic acid showed considerably stronger

336

bactericidal activity than Gallic acid, especially after 2 h. Synergy of Streptomycin and

337

Noble Seed (at 0.9 x MIC) was better than Streptomycin or Noble seed (at 4 x MIC)

338

alone, and was the strongest bactericidal activity among all the treatments. These

339

indicated that combining grape polyphenols with antibiotics could maximize the

340

bactericidal activity while reducing the usage of antibiotics.

341

Bacterial lysis showed that, at 4 x MIC, Noble skin and seed polyphenols caused a

342

reduction in culture turbidity over a 6 h period while Streptomycin exhibited an increase

343

(Figure 2d). This indicated Noble skin and seed polyphenols were bactericidal and killed



344

bacterial with concomitant cell lysis while Streptomycin was nonlysis but bactericidal.

345

Antibiotics combined with Noble seed polyphenols exhibited stronger bacterial lysis

346

ability than skin polyphenols (Figure 2e, 2f). Overall, there was a positive correlation (r =

347

0.84) between bacterial number (Log10 CFU/mL) and culture turbidity (OD600) at 6 h.

348

After 24 h, as the turbidity of the control continued to increase, all treatments except

349

Gallic acid caused a reduction in culture turbidity. This suggests that with plenty of time,

350

phenolic compounds promoted a loss of culture turbidity as well as a loss of bacterial

351

viability.

352

Antibiofilm Activity of Phenolic Compounds. To investigate the resistance of

353

biofilm versus planktonic-grown strains, Alamar blue MICs of Nalidixic acid against a

354

variety of pathogenic bacteria and MBICs against their preformed biofilm were studied

355

(Table 4). Alamar blue MBICs increased at least four-fold relative to planktonic MICs.

356

These data are consistent with previous reports of many-fold increases in drug resistance

357

of biofilm versus planktonic-grown strains22, 25.

358

A variety of antibiotics and phenolic compounds with different mechanisms were

359

further studied on planktonically grown S. aureus susceptibility, inhibition of biofilm

360

formation and resistance of preformed biofilm (Table 5). Visual and Alamar blue MICs

361

for planktonically grown strains were identical with Ellagic acid as an exception. Thus,

362

MICs can be generally determined visually or spectrophotometrically. MBICs for

363

inhibiting biofilm formation were within two 2-fold dilutions lower than MICs, while

364

MBICs of preformed biofilm were at least 16-fold higher than MICs. For example, the

365

MIC of Carlos seed polyphenols against planktonic-grown S. aureus ATCC 35548 was

366

40 mg/L, against biofilm formation was 20 mg/L, and against preformed biofilm was as


Page 16 of 38

Page 17 of 38


367

high as 641 mg/L. These findings indicated that grape polyphenols were able to inhibit

368

bacteria biofilm formation at a sub-MIC concentration without killing the bacteria;

369

however, to eradicate the preformed biofilm a high concentration of phenolic compounds

370

is needed.

371 372

DISCUSSION

373 374

This study demonstrated that muscadine grape skin and seed polyphenols had

375

potent bactericidal activity against planktonic cells and biofilm formation of Gram-

376

positive bacteria, S. aureus. The fact that polyphenols acted to cause cell lysis and

377

therefore compromise the integrity of the bacterial membrane may explain why these

378

compounds have the ability to eradicate S. aureus biofilms; potent antibiofilm activity is

379

a property that is often associated with membrane-perturbing agents26. The limited

380

activity of grape polyphenols against Gram-negative bacteria was probably because of

381

the limited ingress across the outer membrane27. However, another intrinsic mechanism

382

that has been insufficiently studied is efflux, and multidrug efflux pumps have been

383

shown to be associated with the insusceptibility of E. coli to various biocidal agents28.

384

A positive correlation (r = 0.72) between antioxidant (Table 1) and antibacterial

385

(Table 2) activities of polyphenol standards against S. aureus on agar medium was found.

386

Also a weak positive correlation (r = 0.53) between antioxidant (Table 1) and

387

antibacterial (Table 3) activities of muscadine polyphenols against S. aureus was

388

observed. These findings suggested that the stronger the antioxidant activity per unit

389

polyphenols, the better the antibacterial activity against S. aureus. However, strong



390

antibacterial activity against S. aureus doesn’t necessarily mean strong antioxidant

391

activity since no antioxidant activity was demonstrated for antibiotics (ampicillin, nalidix

392

acid, and streptomycin) (data not shown). Similar to a previous finding29, there was a

393

positive correlation (r = 0.77) between total polyphenol content and total antioxidant

394

activity for these grape extracts and fractions. Nonetheless, higher phenolic levels do not

395

necessarily correlate with increased inhibition against S. aureus but rather the type and

396

concentration of compounds present in these extracts.

397

Interestingly, compared to grape phenolic extracts, commercial phenolic standards

398

Gallic acid and Ellagic acid exhibited stronger antioxidant activity per unit, 11.1 and 9.8

399

mmol/g, respectively (Table 1); and also showed good antibacterial activity on tested S.

400

aureus strains using the disc diffusion method (Table 2). However, further Alamar blue

401

MIC test (Table 3) and time-killing study (Figure 2) suggested that Gallic acid and

402

Ellagic acid possess negligible antibacterial efficacy against S. aureus. This contradictory

403

finding indicated the very different antibacterial mechanism of Gallic acid and Ellagic

404

acid on a solid surface versus in a liquid. Other phenolic standards Caffeic acid, Catechin,

405

and Quercetin exhibited little to no inhibition on the tested strains in all assays.

406

Therefore, it seems that antibacterial activities of commercial phenolic standards were

407

weaker compared to the muscadine grape phenolic extracts. One possible reason was that

408

the antibacterial activities of these phenolics were lost during their processing or these

409

phenolics existed as ineffective isomer forms. Another possible reason was the synergism

410

between multiple phenolics increased their antibacterial activities. These findings can be

411

further supported by other authors’ reports that pure catechin and epicatechin possess

412

negligible antibacterial activity against Gram-positive and Gram-negative bacteria30;


Page 18 of 38

Page 19 of 38


413

while plant extracted whole polyphenols exhibited good antibacterial activity against

414

several food-borne pathogenic bacteria31, for instance, the mean MICs against S. aureus

415

ranged from 98 to 389 mg/L and against E. coli ranged from 450 to 1519 mg/L. Also, in

416

this study, whole extracted skin and seed polyphenols exhibited comparable or even

417

better inhibition than their corresponding fractions. Therefore, whole extracted

418

polyphenols were used in the following studies.

419

This study also investigated the correlation between Alamar blue (AB) percent

420

reduction by bacteria metabolic activity22, and the existing bacteria number per well on

421

Carlos seed polyphenols and Ellagic acid at various concentrations. Results showed that

422

percent reduction of AB had a significant correlation (r = 0.94 and 0.92, respectively)

423

with existing bacteria number (Figure 3). Carlos seed polyphenols at 40 mg/L inhibited

424

the bacteria number at initial level (6 Log10 CFU/mL) with a 24.9% reduction of AB after

425

20h incubation, while at 160 mg/L (4 x MIC) killed the bacteria with no reduction of AB.

426

Ellagic acid at 2,500 mg/L reduced bacteria number by 1.4 Log10 CFU/mL with a 39.2%

427

reduction of AB after 20h incubation. These confirmed that the colorimetric AB assay is

428

a reliable, reproducible means of determining bacteria antibiotic susceptibility. A

429

previous study also showed that the AB assay was a good means of determining biofilm

430

antibiotic susceptibility and had good to excellent correlation with two other biofilm

431

susceptibility methods, XTT reduction and viable counts22.

432

The antibacterial mechanisms of phenolics are attracting more and more research

433

in recent years. The membrane-interaction of phenolics is a prevailing theory30. Phenolics

434

are partially hydrophobic; this character may allow them to interact with the lipid bilayer

435

of bacterial cytoplasmic membrane and lipopolysaccharide interfaces more effectively by



436

decreasing membrane stability32. For example, Epicatechin gallate could rapidly enter the

437

cytoplasmic membrane, causing an immediate reduction in bilayer fluidity33. The

438

cytoplasmic membrane constitutes the selective barrier controlling cellular ingress and

439

egress of materials and houses many of the enzymes involved in bioenergetic functions,

440

cell wall synthesis and macromolecule secretion. Penetration of phenolics into this

441

phospholipid bilayer will have a profound outcome on a wide range of essential cell

442

functions. Since intercalation of these chemical structures could induce membrane

443

disruption that permits solute equilibration across the bilayer, resulting in cell death, but

444

more subtle interactions at sub-inhibitory concentrations induce re-organization of

445

membrane architecture with implications for the capacity of the target bacteria to cause

446

disease in the susceptible host32. Phenolics also were found to prevent the formation of

447

biofilms in this study (Table 5) as well as others’ report34, 35. This may further support the

448

membrane-interactive mechanism since potent antibiofilm activity is a property that is

449

often associated with membrane-perturbing agents26. Thus, phenolics exhibit at least two

450

biological activities: inhibition of bacterial growth at high concentrations and/or induce

451

bacteria membrane disruption and prevention of biofilm formation at lower

452

concentrations. In view of these activities, phenolics may be useful in a synergistic

453

approach with conventional antibiotics against antibiotic-resistant forms of pathogens

454

(e.g. multidrug-resistant clinical isolates MRSA) in clinical medicine. Our time-killing

455

study (Figure 2) indicated that muscadine Noble seed phenolics combined with

456

Ampicillin or Streptomycin at subinhibitory concentrations greatly reduced S. aureus

457

ATCC 35548 (MRSA) cell viability by 4.8 or 6.2 Log10 CFU/mL, respectively.


Page 20 of 38

Page 21 of 38


458

Naturally occurring molecules, predominantly secondary metabolites, are the

459

source of the majority of drugs in clinical use today and they continue to be an important

460

basis of new therapeutics for bacterial infectious diseases36. Phenolics are secondary

461

metabolites in muscadine grapes and play important roles in the strong resistant character

462

of this species to pests and diseases, including Pierce’s disease37. Evidence is emerging

463

that phenolics may be useful in the control of common oral infections, such as dental

464

caries and periodontal disease38, 39. In this case, phenolics can be incorporated into rinse

465

and toothpaste formulations. Muscadine phenolics also have been proven to possess

466

strong anticancer activities, such as inhibiting proliferation of colon8 and prostate9 cancer

467

cells by inducing apoptosis. Importantly, phenolics are widely distributed in edible

468

grapes40; they have minimal toxicity41. Therefore, even though outstanding bactericidal

469

properties cannot be achieved because of a relatively high concentration required in this

470

study and the partial metabolism of these by intestinal bacteria42, phenolic agents still

471

have promise as supplements for nutraceutical value and conventional antibacterial

472

chemotherapies by inhibiting the growth of foodborne pathogens in the body. The broad

473

ability of muscadine phenolics to have strong antibacterial activity, to inhibit biofilm

474

formation, and to synergistically work with antibiotics may stimulate a muscadine by-

475

product market as natural food preservatives, potential antibiotic replacements and/or as

476

natural sanitizers for processing equipment where foodborne pathogens reside.

477 478 479 480



481

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

482 483

The authors are grateful to the Center for Viticulture and Small Fruit Research at Florida

484

A&M University for providing muscadine grape materials and to USDA/IR4 Lab at

485

University of Florida for assisting in HPLC-MS/MS analysis.

486 487

REFERENCE

488 489

(1)

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). CDC Data & Statistics.

490

2011. http://www.cdc.gov/foodborneburden/PDFs/FACTSHEET_A_ FINDINGS

491

_updated4-13.pdf.

492

(2)

Jones, T. F.; Kellum, M. E.; Porter, S. S.; Bell, M.; Schaffner, W. An

493

outbreak of community-acquired foodborne illness caused by methicillin-resistant

494

Staphylococcus aureus. Emerg. Infect. Dis. 2002, 8, 82–84.

495

(3)

Ethelberg, S.; Sorensen, G.; Kristensen, B.; Christensen, K.; Krusell, L.;

496

Hempel-Jorgensen, A.; Perge, A.; Nielsen, E. M. Outbreak with multi-resistant

497

Salmonella typhimurium DT104 linked to carpaccio, Denmark. Epidemiol. Infect.

498

2005, 135, 900–907.

499

(4)

Stafford, R.; Kirk, M.; Selvey, C.; Staines, D.; Smith, H.; Towner, C.;

500

Salter, M. An outbreak of multi-resistant Shigella sonnei in Australia: possible

501

link to the outbreak of shigellosis in Denmark associated with imported baby corn

502

from Thailand. Euro. Surveillance 2007, 12, 272–272.


Page 22 of 38

Page 23 of 38

503


(5)

Manges, A. R.; Johnson, J. R.; Foxman, B.; O'Bryan, T. T.; Fullerton, K. E.;

504

Riley, L. W. Widespread distribution of urinary tract infections caused by a

505

multidrug-resistant Escherichia coli clonal group. N. Engl. J. Med. 2001, 345,

506

1007–1013.

507

(6)

Todd, J. K. Staphylococcal infections. Pediatr. Rev. 2005, 26, 444–450.

508

(7)

Harro, J. M.; Peters, B. M.; O’May, G. A.; Archer, N.; Kerns, P.;

509

Prabhakara, R.; Shirtliff, M. E. Vaccine development in Staphylococcus aureus:

510

taking the biofilm phenotype into consideration. FEMS Immunol. Med. Microbiol.

511

2010, 59, 306–323.

512

(8)

Mertens-Talcott, S. U.; Lee, J. H.; Percival, S. S.; Talcott, S. T. Induction of

513

cell death in Caco-2 human colon carcinoma cells by ellagic acid rich fractions

514

from muscadine grapes (Vitis rotundifolia). J. Agric. Food Chem. 2006, 54, 5336–

515

5343.

516

(9)

Hudson, T. S.; Hartle, D. K.; Hursting, S. D.; Nunez, N. P.; Wang, T. T.;

517

Young, H. A.; Arany, P.; Green, J. E. Inhibition of prostate cancer growth by

518

muscadine grape skin extract and resveratrol through distinct mechanisms.

519

Cancer. Res. 2007, 67, 8396–8405.

520

(10)

Mellen, P. B.; Daniel, K. R.; Brosnihan, K. B.; Hansen, K. J.; Herrington,

521

D. M. Effect of muscadine grape seed supplementation on vascular function in

522

subjects with or at risk for cardiovascular disease: a randomized crossover trial. J.

523

Am. Coll. Nutr. 2010, 29, 469–75.



524

(11)

Kim, T. J.; Weng, W. L.; Stojanovic, J.; Lu, Y.; Jung, Y. S.; Silva, J. L.

525

Antimicrobial effect of muscadine seed extracts on E. coli O157: H7. J. Food

526

Protect. 2008, 71, 1465–1468.

527

(12)

Kim, T. J.; Silva, J. L.; Jung, Y. S. Antibacterial activity of fresh and

528

processed red muscadine juice and the role of their polar compounds on

529

Escherichia coli O157: H7. J. Appl. Microbiol. 2009, 107, 533–539.

530

(13)

Just, J. R.; Daeschel, M. A. Antimicrobial effects of wine on Escherichia

531

coli O157:H7 and Salmonella Typhimurium in a model stomach system. J. Food

532

Sci. 2003, 68, 285–290.

533

(14)

Fernandes, J.; Comes, F.; Couto, J. A.; Hogg, T. The antimicrobial effect of

534

wine on Listeria innocua in a model stomach system. Food Cont. 2007, 18, 1477–

535

1483.

536

(15)

Daglia, M.; Papetti, A.; Grisoli, P.; Aceti, C.; Dacarro, C.; Gazzani, G.

537

Antibacterial activity of red and white wine against oral streptococci. J. Agric.

538

Food Chem. 2007, 55, 5038–5042.

539

(16)

Xu, C.; Zhang, Y.; Wang, J.; Lu, J. Extraction, distribution and

540

characterisation of phenolic compounds and oil in grape seeds. Food Chem. 2010,

541

122, 688–694.

542 543 544 545

(17)

Dae-Ok Kim, D.; Lee, C. Y. Current Protocols in Food Analytical

Chemistry. 2002, I1.2.1–I1.2.12. (18)

Sandhu, A. K.; Gu, L. Antioxidant Capacity, Phenolic Content, and

Profiling of Phenolic Compounds in the Seeds, Skin, and Pulp of Vitis


Page 24 of 38

Page 25 of 38


546

rotundifolia (Muscadine Grapes) As Determined by HPLC-DAD-ESI-MSn. J.

547

Agric. Food Chem. 2010, 58, 4681–4692.

548

(19)

Singleton, V. L.; Rossi, J. A. Colorimetry of total phenolics with

549

phosphomolybdic-phosphotungstic acid reagents. Am. J. Enol. Vitic. 1965, 16,

550

144–158.

551 552 553

(20)

Brandwilliams, W.; Cuvelier, M. E.; Berset, C. Use of a free-radical method

to evaluate antioxidant activity. LWT-Food Sci. Technol. 1995, 28, 25–30. (21)

Bauer, A. W.; Kirby, W. M.; Sherris, J. C.; Turck, M. Antibiotic

554

susceptibility testing by standardized single disc method. Am. J. Clin. Pathol.

555

1966, 45, 493–496.

556

(22)

Pettit, R. K.; Christine, A. W.; Melissa, J. K.; Hoffmann, H.; Pettit, G. R.;

557

Tan, R.; Franks, K. S.; Horton, M. L. Microplate Alamar blue assay for

558

Staphylococcus epidermidis biofilm susceptibility testing. Antimicrob. Agents

559

Chemother. 2005, 7, 2612–2617.

560

(23)

Oliva, B.; Miller, K.; Caggiano, N.; O'Neill, A. J.; Cuny, G. D.; Hoemann,

561

M. Z.; Hauske, J. R.; Chopra, I. Biological properties of novel antistaphylococcal

562

quinoline-indole agents. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 2003, 47, 458–66.

563

(24)

Pillai, S. K.; Moellering, R. C.; Eliopolous, G. M. Antimicrobial

564

combinations, In Lorian, V., Eds.; Antibiotics in laboratory medicine, 5th ed.

565

Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Philadelphia, PA. 2005, p 365– 438.

566 567

(25)

Donlan, R. M.; Costerton, J. W. Biofilms: survival mechanisms of clinically

relevant microorganisms. Clin. Microbiol. Rev. 2002, 15, 167–193.



568

(26)

Hurdle, J. G.; O’Neill, A. J.; Chopra, I.; Lee, R. E. Targeting bacterial

569

membrane function: an underexploited mechanism for treating persistent

570

infections. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 2011, 9, 62–75.

571

(27)

Ooi, N.; Chopra, I.; Eady, A.; Cove, J.; Bojar, R.; O'Neill, A. J.

572

Antibacterial activity and mode of action of tert-butylhydroquinone (TBHQ) and

573

its oxidation product, tert-butylbenzoquinone (TBBQ). J. Antimicrob. Chemother.

574

2013, 68, 1297–1304.

575 576 577

(28)

Tenover, F. C. Mechanisms of antimicrobial resistance in bacteria. Am. J.

Med. 2006, 119, 3–10. (29)

Xu, C.; Zhang, Y.; Cao, L.; Lu, J. Phenolic compounds and antioxidant

578

properties of different grape cultivars grown in China. Food Chem. 2010, 119,

579

1557–1565.

580 581 582

(30)

Taylor, P. W.; Hamilton-Miller, J. M. T.; Stapleton, P. D. Antimicrobial

properties of green tea catechins. Food Sci. Technol. Bull. 2005, 2, 71–81. (31)

Taguri, T.; Tanaka, T.; Kouno, I. Antimicrobial activity of 10 different plant

583

polyphenols against bacteria causing food-borne disease. Biol. Pharm. Bull. 2004,

584

27, 1965–1969.

585 586 587

(32)

Taylor, P. W. Alternative natural sources for a new generation of

antibacterial agents. Int. J. Antimicrob. Agents. 2013, 42, 195–201. (33)

Anderson, J. C.; McCarthy, R. A.; Paulin, S.; Taylor, P. W. Anti-

588

staphylococcal activity and antibiotic resistance attenuating capacity of structural

589

analogues of (−)-epicatechin gallate. Bioorg. Med. Chem. Lett. 2011, 21, 6996–

590

7000.


Page 26 of 38

Page 27 of 38

591


(34)

Blanco, A, R.; Sudano-Roccaro, A.; Spoto, G. C.; Nostro, A.; Rusciano, D.

592

Epigallocatechin gallate inhibits biofilm formation by ocular staphylococcal

593

isolates. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 2005, 49, 4339–4343.

594

(35)

Stapleton, P. D.; Shah, S.; Ehlert, K.; Hara, Y.; Taylor, P. W. The lactam-

595

resistance modifier (−)-epicatechin gallate alters the architecture of the cell wall

596

of Staphylococcus aureus. Microbiology. 2007, 153, 2093–2103.

597 598

(36)

Newman, D. J.; Cragg, G. M. Natural products as sources of new drugs over

the last 25 years. J. Nat. Prod. 2007, 70, 461–477.

599

(37)

Clayton, C. N. NC Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin. 1995, 451, 37.

600

(38)

Hirasawa, M.; Takada, K.; Makimura, M.; Otake, S. Improvement of

601

periodontal status by green tea catechins using a local delivery system: a clinical

602

pilot study. J. Period. Res. 2002, 37, 433–438.

603

(39)

Sakanaka, S.; Okada, Y. Inhibitory effects of green tea polyphenols on the

604

production of a virulence factor of the periodontal-disease-causing anaerobic

605

bacterium Porphyromonas gingivalis. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2004, 52, 1688–1692.

606

(40)

Xu, C.; Zhang, Y.; Zhu, L.; Huang, Y.; Lu, J. Influence of growing season

607

on phenolic compounds and antioxidant properties of grape berries from vines

608

grown in subtropical climate. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2011, 59, 1078–1086.

609

(41)

da Silva, C. R.; de Andrade Neto, J. B.; de Sousa Campos, R.; Figueiredo,

610

N. S.; Sampaio, L. S.; Magalhães, H. I. F.; Cavalcanti, B. C.; Gaspar, D. M.; de

611

Andrade, G. M.; Lima, I. S. P.; de Barros Viana, G. S.; de Moraes, M. O.; Lobo,

612

M. D. P.; Grangeiro, T. B.; Júnior, H. V. N. Synergistic effect of the flavonoids

613

catechin, quercetin and epigallocatechin gallate with fluconazole induce apoptosis



614

in Candida tropicalis resistant to fluconazole. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother.

615

2013, AAC-00651.

616

(42)

Kohri, T.; Matsumoto, N.; Yamakawa, M.; Suzuki, M.; Nanjo, F.; Hara, Y.;

617

Oku, N. Metabolic fate of (−)-epigallocatechin gallate in rats after oral

618

administration. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2001, 49, 4102–4112.

619 620 621 622 623 624 625 626 627 628 629 630 631 632 633 634 635 636


Page 28 of 38

Page 29 of 38

637


Figure captions

638 639

Figure 1. Phenolic compounds and their structures found in muscadine grape skin and

640

seeds.

641

(a), (b), and (c) are Noble skin fractions 1, 2, and 3 respectively; (d), (e), and (f) are

642

Noble seed fractions 1, 2, and 3 respectively.

643 644

Figure 2. Evaluation of killing (a, b, c) and lytic (d, e, f) action of experimental

645

compounds and their synergism with antibiotics against S. aureus ATCC 35548 in MHB.

646

(Means of three independent replicates; MICs of Noble Skin, Noble Seeds, and

647

Streptomycin were 113, 88, and 20 mg/L, respectively).

648 649

Figure 3. Percent reduction of Alamar blue (bars) and Log10 CFU/mL () for

650

phenolic compounds on S. aureus ATCC 35548.

651

(Means of three independent replicates; Test strains were inoculated at 5 x 106 CFU/mL

652

in each well).

653

* Values differ significantly (P < 0.05) from values without phenolic compounds

654



Page 30 of 38

Table 1. Phenolic content and antioxidant activity of experimental compounds Experimental compounds Phenolic content1 Antioxidant activity per unit2 (mg/g) (mmol/g) Polyphenol Standards Gallic Acid 11.1 ± 0.2a Caffeic Acid 5.1 ± 0.2e Catechin 5.3 ± 0.3e Ellagic Acid 9.8 ± 0.6ab Quercetin 9.4 ± 0.4b 3 Polyphenol Extracts Carlos Skin (CK) Polyphenols 39.0 ± 2.1c 6.3 ± 0.5d f CK-F1 9.1 ± 0.8 7.4 ± 0.3cd f CK-F2 8.7 ± 0.7 5.9 ± 0.2de e CK-F3 20.5 ± 1.4 8.7 ± 0.6bc d Noble Skin (NK) Polyphenols 35.9 ± 2.5 5.3 ± 0.3e h NK-F1 5.5 ± 0.3 7.9 ± 0.5c e NK-F2 22.6 ± 1.8 5.0 ± 0.4e g NK-F3 7.5 ± 0.3 8.9 ± 0.8bc b Carlos Seed (CS) Polyphenols 50.8 ± 3.4 10.1 ± 0.4ab h CS-F1 5.1 ± 0.2 8.4 ± 0.2bc c CS-F2 38.8 ± 1.2 7.4 ± 0.3cd g CS-F3 7.1 ± 0.4 10.8 ± 0.5a a Noble Seed (NS) Polyphenols 58.2 ± 3.5 9.2 ± 0.3b g NS-F1 7.6 ± 0.6 8.6 ± 0.2bc c NS-F2 40.8 ± 3.1 6.9 ± 0.1d f NS-F3 8.9 ± 0.6 11.1 ± 0.5a 1 2 3

Phenolic content of extracts was expressed as mg gallic acid equivalents per gram dry matter. Antioxidant activity was determined by DPPH assay and expressed as mmol Trolox equivalents per gram polyphenols. Fractions 1-3 for Carlos and Nobel skins and seeds were eluted from tandem C18 Sep-Pak cartridges with different solvents: Skins, F10.01 N HCl; F2-10% MeOH; F3-30% MeOH and Seeds, F1-0.01 N HCl; F2-30% MeOH; F3-50% MeOH. Results were expressed as means of triplicate determinations ± SE; different superscript letters within columns were significantly different (P < 0.05).


Page 31 of 38


Table 2. Antibacterial activity of experimental compounds against selected foodborne pathogens using the disc diffusion method Zone of inhibition (mm) on MHA Experimental compounds Gram-positive bacteria Gram-negative bacteria S. aureus S. aureus S. aureus S. typhimurium S. sonnei E. coli Antibiotic Controls Ampicillin (10 µg/disc) Nalidixic Acid (10 µg/disc) Streptomycin (10 µg/disc) Polyphenol Standards Gallic Acid (100 µg/disc) Caffeic Acid (100 µg/disc) Catechin (100 µg/disc) Ellagic Acid (100 µg/disc) Quercetin (100 µg/disc) Polyphenol Extracts Carlos Skin (390 µg/disc) Noble Skin (290 µg/disc) Carlos Seed (340 µg/disc) Noble Seed (450 µg/disc)

ATCC 35548

ATCC 12600-U

ATCC 29247

ATCC 25931

O157:H7 204P

0 0 15.2 ± 0.3a,C

43.8 ± 1.2a,A 0 14.0 ± 0.2b,D

13.5 ± 0.5b,D 0 0

24.2 ± 0.8a,B 0 19.8 ± 0.6b,A

19.0 ± 0.5a,C 19.7 ± 0.3a 14.0 ± 0.2b,D

9.2 ± 0.1b,E 0 17.6 ± 0.4a,B

14.7 ± 0.5a,B 0 0 12.7 ± 0.3* 0

11.3 ± 0.3c,C 0 0 12.3 ± 0.5* 0

17.7 ± 0.6a,A 8.2 ± 0.3ef 0 14.0 ± 0.2* 8.8 ± 0.2e

0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0

9.0 ± 0.3e,A 10.6 ± 0.2d,A 12.4 ± 0.2c,A 14.1 ± 0.1b,A

8.2 ± 0.1e,B 10.1 ± 0.2d,A 11.4 ± 0.3c,AB 13.5 ± 0.2b,AB

7.8 ± 0.3f,B 10.7 ± 0.2d,A 12.0 ± 0.1c,A 14.0 ± 0.5b,A

0 0 0 0

0 0 7.2 ± 0.3c,C 7.7 ± 0.2c,C

0 0 0 0

Results were expressed as means of triplicate determinations ± SE; Results with different superscript lowercase letters in columns and different superscript uppercase letters in rows were significantly different (P < 0.05); Results > 6 mm were considered effective against bacteria, ≤ 6 mm were considered non-effective and recorded as 0. * Partial inhibition within a zone and not included in the statistical analysis.



Page 32 of 38

Table 3. Minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) of experimental compounds against human pathogenic bacteria Mean MIC (mg/L) value1 Experimental compounds Gram-positive bacteria Gram-negative bacteria S. aureus S. aureus S. aureus S. typhimurium S. sonnei E. coli Antibiotic Controls Ampicillin Nalidixic Acid Streptomycin Polyphenol Standards Gallic Acid Caffeic Acid Catechin Ellagic Acid Quercetin Polyphenol Extracts2 Carlos Skin (CK) Polyphenols CK-F1 CK-F2 CK-F3 Noble Skin (NK) Polyphenols NK-F1 NK-F2 NK-F3 Carlos Seed (CS) Polyphenols CS-F1 CS-F2 CS-F3 Noble Seed (NS) Polyphenols NS-F1 NS-F2 NS-F3

ATCC 35548

ATCC 12600-U

ATCC 29247

ATCC 25931

O157:H7 204P

2,500a,A 20g,C 20g,B

2,500A

2,500

2,500a 2,500a 2,500a >2,500 >2,500

>2,500 2,500a >2,500 >2,500 >2,500

2,500a >2,500 >2,500 >2,500 >2,500

2,500a >2,500 >2,500 >2,500 >2,500

>2,500 2,500a >2,500 >2,500 >2,500

152c,C 119d,C 183b,D 149c,D 113d,C 112d,C 145c,C 74f,D 67f,C 87ef,C 148c,B 78e,C 88ef,C 123d,D 69f,D 97e,C

304c,B 238d,B 367b,C 149e,D 226d,B 112ef,C 290c,C 148e,C 67g,C 173e,C 74g,C 156e,B 88fg,C 123ef,D 138e,C 97f,C

152e,C 119f,C 367c,C 298d,C 113f,C 112f,C 145e,C 74gh,D 67h,C 173e,C 74gh,C 78gh,C 88g,C 123f,D 69h,D 97g,C

608c,A 476d,A 1,470b,A 1,191b,A 903c,A 224e,B 1,159b,A 297e,B 1,069b,A 1,386b,A 1,181b,A 624c,A 1,403b,A 1,976a,A 1,107b,A 1,540b,A

304d,B 119f,B 735b,B 595b,B 226e,B 112f,C 579b,B 148f,C 268e,B 348d,B 148f,B 156f,B 352d,B 492c,C 276e,B 193ef,B

304d,B 476c,A 1,470b,A 1,191b,A 903bc,A 448c,A 1.159b,A 593c,A 1,069b,A 1,386b,A 1,181b,A 624c,A 1,403b,A 988bc,B 1,107b,A 1,540b,A

1

MICs were determined by the Alamar blue assay. MIC defined as the lowest experimental compound concentration resulting in ≤ 50% reduction of AB (average of three experiments) and a purplish well 60 min after addition of AB. Results with different superscript lowercase letters in columns and different superscript uppercase letters in rows were significantly different (P < 0.05). MIC values > 2,500 mg/L were not included in the statistical analysis. Test strains were inoculated at 5 x 106 CFU/mL in each well. 2 Fractions 1-3 for Carlos and Nobel skins and seeds were eluted from tandem C18 Sep-Pak cartridges with different solvents: Skins, F1-0.01 N HCl; F2-10% MeOH; F3-30% MeOH and Seeds, F1-0.01 N HCl; F2-30% MeOH; F3-50% MeOH.


Page 33 of 38


Table 4. Minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) of Nalidixic acid against pathogenic bacteria and Minimum Biofilm Inhibitory Concentration (MBIC) against their preformed biofilm reduction Pathogenic bacteria MIC1 MBIC2 (mg/L) (mg/L) Gram-positive bacteria S. aureus ATCC 35548 20 1,250* S. aureus ATCC 12600-U 156 625*,# S. aureus ATCC 29247 20 1,250* Gram-negative bacteria Salmonella typhimurium 2,500 >2,500 Shigella sonnei ATCC 25931 2,500* 1, 2

MIC or MBIC defined as the lowest nalidixic acid concentration resulting in ≤50% reduction of AB (average of three experiments) and a purplish well 60 min after addition of AB. * Significant differences between MICs of nalidixic acid versus MBICs (P < 0.05). # Significant differences between MBICs of nalidixic acid against biofilms within the same S. aureus species (P < 0.05).



Page 34 of 38

Table 5. Minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) of experimental compounds against S. aureus ATCC 35548, and Minimum Biofilm Inhibitory Concentration (MBIC) against its biofilm formation and preformed biofilm reduction Experimental MIC1 (mg/L) MIC2 (mg/L) MBIC3 (mg/L) MBIC4 (mg/L) compounds (visual) (planktonic cell) (biofilm formation) (biofilm reduction) * Ampicillin 2,500 2,500 1,250 >2,500# * Nalidixic Acid 20 20 5 1,250*,# * Streptomycin 20 20 5 625*,# Gallic Acid >2,500 >2,500 >2,500 >2,500 Ellagic Acid 312 >2,500 2,500 >2,500 Carlos Skin Phenolics 122 122 61* 1,950*,# * Noble Skin Phenolics 113 113 57 1,808*,# * Carlos Seed Phenolics 40 40 20 641*,# * Noble Seed Phenolics 51 51 25 801*,# 1

Visual MIC was identified by the dot at the bottom of the well. The well before dots appear defined as MIC point. Planktonic cell MIC or MBIC defined as the lowest experimental compound concentration resulting in ≤50% reduction of AB (average of three experiments) and a purplish well 60 min after addition of AB. * Significant differences between MICs (visual and planktonic cell) of experimental compounds versus MBICs (biofilm formation and reduction) (P < 0.05). # Significant differences between MBICs of experimental compounds against biofilm formation versus preformed biofilm reduction (P < 0.05). 2, 3, 4


Page 35 of 38


Figure 1. Phenolic compounds and their structures found in muscadine grape skin and seed. ACS Environment (a), (b), and (c) are Noble skin fractions 1, 2, and 3 respectively; (d), (e), and (f)Paragon are Noble Plus seed fractions 1, 2, and 3 respectively.

Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry 10

0.5

Log10 CFU/mL

Control 8

Gallic Acid (500 mg/L) Ellagic Acid (500 mg/L)

6

Noble Skin (4 x MIC) Noble Seed (4 x MIC) Streptomycin (4 x MIC)

4

Absorbance OD600

(a)

Page 36 of 38

(d)

0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0

2 0

1

2

3

4

5

0

6

1

2

3

Ampicillin (150 mg/L)

Log10 CFU/mL

0.5

Control

(b)

8 Ampicillin (150 mg/L) + Gallic Acid (500 mg/L) Ampicillin (150 mg/L) + Ellagic Acid (500 mg/L) Ampicillin (150 mg/mL) + Noble Skin (0.9 x MIC) Ampicillin (150 mg/L) + Noble Seed (0.9 x MIC)

6

4

2

Absorbance OD600

10

5

6

24

5

6

24

5

6

24

(e)

0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

0

1

2

3

Time (h) 10

0.5

8

Streptomycin (0.9 x MIC) Streptomycin (0.9 x MIC) + Gallic Acid (500 mg/L) Streptomycin (0.9 x MIC) + Ellagic Acid (500 mg/L) Streptomycin (0.9 x MIC) + Noble Skin (0.9 x MIC) Streptomycin (0.9 x MIC) + Noble Seed (0.9 x MIC)

6

4

2 1

2

3

4

5

6

Absorbance OD600

(c)

0

4

Time (h)

Control

Log10 CFU/mL

4

Time (h)

Time (h)

(f)

0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 0

Time (h)

1

2

3

4

Time (h) Figure 2. Evaluation of killing (a, b, c) and lytic (d, e, f) action of experimental compounds and their synergism with antibiotics against S. aureus ATCC 35548 in MHB. (Means of three independent replicates; MICs of Noble Skin, Noble Seed, and Streptomycin were 113, 88, and 20 mg/L, respectively.


Page 37 of 38


100

(a) r = 0.94

% Reduction AB

10

CFU/mL

* 8

* 60

6

40

4

Log10 CFU/mL

% Reduction of Alamar blue

80

* 2

20

* * 0

0 160

80

40

20

10

5

0

Phenolic Compound Concentration (Carlos Seeds, mg/L) % Reduction AB

CFU/mL 10

(b) r = 0.92

80

9

*

60

40

8

*

Log10 CFU/mL

% Reduction Alamar blue

100

7

6

20 2500

1250

625

312.5

156.2

78.1

0

Phenolic Compound Concentration (Ellagic Acid, mg/L) Figure 3. Percent reduction of Alamar blue (bars) and Log10 CFU/mL () for phenolic compounds on S. aureus ATCC 35548. (Means of three independent replicates; Test strains were inoculated at 5 x 106 CFU/mL in each well). * Values differ significantly (P < 0.05) from values without phenolic compounds.



Table of Content Graphic


Page 38 of 38

Phenolic compounds, antioxidant, and antibacterial properties of pomace extracts from four Virginia-grown grape varieties.

Antibacterial Action of Jineol Isolated from Scolopendra subspinipes mutilans against Selected Foodborne Pathogens.

Polyphenolic Contents and Antioxidant Activities of Underutilized Grape (Vitis vinifera L.) Pomace Extracts.

Characterization of polyphenols and evaluation of antioxidant capacity in grape pomace of the cv. Malbec.

Antibacterial effect of silver nanoparticles against four foodborne pathogens.

Comparison study on antioxidant, DNA damage protective and antibacterial activities of eugenol and isoeugenol against several foodborne pathogens.

Inhibitory effects of polyphenols from grape pomace extract on collagenase and elastase activity.

Assessment of oligogalacturonide from citrus pectin as a potential antibacterial agent against foodborne pathogens.

Optimization of supercritical fluid consecutive extractions of fatty acids and polyphenols from Vitis vinifera grape wastes.

In Vitro Antibacterial Activity and Mechanism of Silver Nanoparticles against Foodborne Pathogens.

Surface adhesins and exopolymers of selected foodborne pathogens.

Study on the mechanism of antibacterial action of magnesium oxide nanoparticles against foodborne pathogens.

Essential oils from herbs against foodborne pathogens in chicken sausage.

In vitro and in vivo evaluation of the antioxidant and prooxidant activity of phenolic compounds obtained from grape (Vitis vinifera) pomace.

Effect of power ultrasound application on aqueous extraction of phenolic compounds and antioxidant capacity from grape pomace (Vitis vinifera L.): experimental kinetics and modeling.

Screening for antioxidant and antibacterial activities of phenolics from Golden Delicious apple pomace.

Characterization of pressurized hot water extracts of grape pomace: chemical and biological antioxidant activity.

Antimicrobial and antibiofilm potential of biosurfactants isolated from lactobacilli against multi-drug-resistant pathogens.

Obtaining from grape pomace an enzymatic extract with anti-inflammatory properties.

Antioxidant and hepatoprotective effect of polyphenols from apple pomace extract via apoptosis inhibition and Nrf2 activation in mice.

Antimicrobial and antibiofilm effects of selected food preservatives against Salmonella spp. isolated from chicken samples.

Grape pomace and grape pomace extract improve insulin signaling in high-fat-fructose fed rat-induced metabolic syndrome.

Gallic acid conjugated with gold nanoparticles: antibacterial activity and mechanism of action on foodborne pathogens.

Fatty acid composition, oxidative stability, antioxidant and antiproliferative properties of selected cold-pressed grape seed oils and flours.