1. Introduction
Vibriosis is considered an important disease hampering the aquaculture sector, resulting in serious economic losses worldwide [1]. The Gram-negative marine bacteria, Vibrio spp. are important aquatic pathogens and capable of causing vibriosis and several other important diseases. Interestingly, this disease, vibriosis has been reported from 48 species of aquatic animals leading to significant high mortality [2]. Vibrio consists of Gram-negative straight or curved rods, motile by a single polar flagellum. Moreover, several Vibrio strains are either obligatory or opportunistic pathogens in the marine environment globally [3,4]. Shrimps are a major marine product, with high economic value, but their commercial production has been threatened by bacterial or viral infections, especially by Vibrio contamination [1]; for instance, V. parahaemolyticus MO904 is a high-level pathogen bacterium encoding VPAHPND toxins (PirAVp/PirBVp) causing acute hepatopancreatic necrosis disease (AHPND) in shrimp [5,6]. V. campbellii BB120 is the causative agent of luminescent vibriosis and reported to infect brine shrimp (Artemia franciscana) and giant river prawn (Macrobrachium rosenbergii), and its virulence is likely contributed by quorum sensing regulatory gene (luxR), transmembrane transcription regulator (toxRVh), metalloprotease (vhpA), chitinase (chiA), and hemolysin (vhh) [7,8]. V. parahaemolyticus LMG2850 is high-level pathogenic bacterium widely associated with foodborne infection and outbreaks linked to seafood, causing vomiting and diarrhea [9], encoding the thermostable direct hemolysin-related hemolysin (trh) gene.
It is now generally accepted that treating vibriosis or Vibrio contamination with antibiotics is unadvisable, as massive (mis)use of antibiotics in aquaculture lead to resistance buildup in Vibriosmaking them less effective in the long run. The excessive (mis)use of antibiotics in aquaculture also constitutes a direct threat to the environment, food safety, and even human health [10]. Therefore, alternatives to antibiotics are urgently needed. Depending on the application domain, probiotics, prebiotics, vaccines, bacteriophages, and bioactive compounds from plant extracts have been tested to control disease or avoid food contamination [11,12,13].
Essential oils (EOs) are mostly liquid, relatively volatile, and relatively hydrophobic mixtures of secondary plant metabolites; they are called EO compounds (EOCs) [14]. EOs (mixture) contain many EO components (EOCs, single compound). EOCs are bioactive molecules, mainly terpenoids and phenylpropanoids, mostly derived from intermediates of the mevalonate, methylerythritol phosphate, and shikimic acid metabolic pathways [15]. These bioactive molecules are widely used as chemical components in biology, medicine, and pharmaceutical sciences [16]. Several EOs and EOCs display a multitude of biological effects, such as bactericidal and fungicidal activity, which have been documented in in vitro studies [17,18]. Although these data are useful, the results are not directly comparable as methodologies are varying across publications.
Diffusion, dilution, and the bioautographic techniques have been used to evaluate the antimicrobial activity of EOs in vitro [19]. However, these methods cannot unveil the volatile property of the EOs and their components, which is why a vapor-phase-mediated susceptibility (VMS) assay is included in this study [15]. This VMS assay is semi-quantitative to study the volatile characteristics of the EO(C)s, based on the Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI) protocol for the broth microdilution assay [20].
In addition, EOs are claimed to be very effective quorum sensing (QS; cell-to-cell communication) inhibitors [21]. These claims are based on experiments with a single QS molecule reporter strain. However, the outcome of such type of assay might be biased, as EO(C)s might interfere with many other physiological functions resulting in bioluminescence reduction. A specific quorum sensing-disrupting activity (AQSI) is measured in this study to exclude false positives. AQSI is defined as the ratio between inhibition of quorum sensing-regulated luminescence in a reporter strain versus the inhibition of luminescence when the latter is independent of quorum sensing [22].
In a first step, based on bacterial growth assay (to check how EO(C)s affect the bacterial growth), vapor-phase-mediated susceptibility assay (to examine how EO(C)s act through the vapor) and specific quorum sensing-inhibitory assay (to determine how EO(C)s inhibit quorum sensing), the interference of 22 essential oils (EOs) and 12 essential oil components (EOCs) were verified against V. campbellii BB120. In a second step, the antimicrobial activities (bacterial growth inhibitory and vapor-phase-mediated susceptibility) of three selected EOs were examined against other members of the harveyi clade, namely V. parahaemolyticus CAIM170, V. campbellii BB120, V. parahaemolyticus LMG2850 and V. parahaemolyticus MO904. Here, for the first time, it is demonstrated that EOs of Melaleuca alternifolia, Litsea citrata, and Eucalyptus citriodora display antibacterial activity by inhibiting growth and quorum sensing activity of Vibrio strains. 2. Meterials and Methods 2.1. Essential Oils (EOs), Essential Oil Components (EOCs), and DMSO
All EOs (n = 22; Table S1) were purchased from Pranarôm International S.A. (Ghislenghien, Belgium) and all EOCs (n = 12; Table S2) from Sigma-Aldrich (Steinheim, Germany). The chemical composition of all EO(C)s were characterized previously [15]. All EO(C)s were kept in brown sterile glass vials, coded to blind the experiments, and stored at 4 °C. Dimethyl sulfoxide (DMSO) was purchased from VWR International (Leuven, Belgium).
2.2. Vibrio Strains and Growth Conditions
V. campbellii wild type strain ATCC BAA-1116 (BB120) and mutant strain JAF548 pAKlux1 [22], stored in 20% sterile glycerol at −80 °C, were used in this study. The mutant strain contains a point mutant in the luxO gene, rendering the LuxO protein incapable of phosphorelay, and hence the native bioluminescence operon is not activated. In this mutant strain, upon acquisition of the pAKlux1 plasmid, luminescence becomes quorum sensing independent and hence that can be used as a control to verify if inhibition of luminescence in V. campbellii is specifically caused by quorum sensing (QS) inhibition. Both strains were streaked from the stock onto Luria-Bertani agar plates (Carl Roth, Karlsruhe, Germany) containing 35 g/L of sodium chloride (LB35). Subsequently, a pure colony of each strain was transferred to and cultured overnight in LB35 broth (Carl Roth, Karlsruhe, Germany) by incubation at 28 °C with continuous shaking (120 rpm).
V. parahaemolyticus CAIM170, V. parahaemolyticus LMG2850, and V. parahaemolyticus MO904 were also reactivated on marine agar plates (Difco Laboratories, Detroilt, MI, USA) and cultured in marine broth (Difco Laboratories, Detroilt, MI, USA) at 28 °C with shaking at 120 rpm for overnight. All bacteria cell densities were measured by spectrophotometry at 600 nm. 2.3. Bacterial Growth Assay The overnight V. campbellii BB120 culture was re-inoculated at a dose of 102 cells/mL into fresh LB35 broth, supplemented with EO(C)s individually at two concentrations (0.0001% and 0.001%) with 1% of DMSO. The control group consisted of 1% of DMSO. Then, 200 µL of the culture were put to grow in a 96-well transparent plate with a flat bottom (VWR International, Leuven, Belgium). The plate was covered with a lid and sealed with parafilm to avoid the release of the volatile EO(C)s. Later on, the plate was incubated at 28 °C with shaking for 24 h, and the cell density was monitored at 600 nm. Each concentration of EO was verified with five replicates and was determined for three independent cultures. The density of V. campbellii BB120 in the control group was set at 1.0, and the OD of remaining groups were normalized accordingly. 2.4. Vapor-Phase-Mediated Susceptibility Assay (VMS Assay)
The VMS assay was conducted as described before [15] with some modification. Briefly, V. campbellii BB120 was cultured and diluted with LB35 to the density of 102 cells/mL. 200 µL of a 102 cells/mL BB120 was added to all wells of a 96-well transparent microtiter plate with flat bottom (VWR International, Leuven, Belgium), except for wells H1 and H12 which served as blanks containing 200 µL LB35 medium. Next, 20 µL of the EO(C), without any dilution, was added on the top of the bacterial suspension in wells D/E 6-7. For each run, one microtiter plate without EO(C)s was included as a control. The microtiter plates were covered with a lid and sealed with parafilm, and then statically incubated for 24 h at 28 °C with limited air circulation. The OD value was determined spectrophotometrically at 600 nm with a Tecan Infinite 200 microplate reader (Tecan, Mechelen, Belgium) after resuspending the cells. The inhibitory vapor-phase-mediated antimicrobial activity (iVMAA) is defined as the categorized cumulative number of wells, determined by visual assessment, and excluding the volatility-center, where growth is completely inhibited. The iVMAA90 is defined as the inhibitory VMAA resulting in a 90% reduction of growth, in comparison to the growth of the control, as determined spectrophotometric for iVMAA. Wells in which growth was visually absent (OD600 ≤ 0.07) or wells with OD600 < 10% of OD600 of the control plate after correcting for the blank were counted, excluding wells to which the EO(C) was added, to determine iVMAA and iVMAA90, respectively. A circle enclosing the four wells to which the EO(C)s was added, was designated as the volatility-center. Around this center, concentric circles can be brawn that touch the nearest equidistant wells, with each set of wells making up a new distance category. These categories were defined to correct for the different number of wells in different categories and were ranked ordinally, with category 1 located closest to the volatility-center [15]. The resulting cumulative number of wells was classified according to the categories defined in Figure 1A and the layout shown in Figure 1B.
2.5. Specific Quorum Sensing-Inhibitory Assay
The specific quorum sensing-inhibitory assay was done according to by Yang et al. [22] with some modifications. V. campbellii, BB120 and JAF548 pAKlux1 strain, were cultured overnight and diluted to an OD600 of 0.1, respectively. The EOs and EOCs were supplemented at two different concentrations (0.001% and 0.0001%), and 200 µL of each culture were further incubated in 96-well white microtiter plates with flat bottom (Tecan, Mechelen, Belgium) at 28 °C with shaking. Each concentration of each EO had three replicate wells and was determined for three independent cultures. Then bioluminescence was measured after 1, 2, 3, and 4 h with a Tecan Infinite 200 microplate reader. The specific quorum sensing-inhibitory activity of the EO(C)s at a given concentration was calculated as follows:
AQSI=% InhibitionQS-regulated% InhibitionQS-independent
with % InhibitionQS-regulated: percentage inhibition of QS-regulated bioluminescence in wild type V. campbellii BB120, % InhibitionQS-independent: percentage inhibition of QS-independent bioluminescence of V. campbellii JAF548 pAKlux1. The EO(C)s were considered as quorum sensing inhibitors if AQSI was higher than 2 at one of the concentrations tested.
2.6. Comparison of Bacterial Growth Inhibitory and Vapor-Phase-Mediated Susceptibility of Three Selected Essential Oils against V. campbellii (BB120) and Three V. parahaemolyticus Strains (CAIM170, LMG2850 and MO904) Three selected EOs (extracted from Melaleuca alternifolia, Litsea citrata, and Eucalyptus citriodora) and one inactive oil Apium graveolens (as a negative control), at three concentrations (0.001%, 0.01%, and 0.1%) with 1% of DMSO, were verified in four Vibrio strains (BB120, CAIM170, LMG2850 and MO904) following the procedure described in bacterial growth assay section with some modifications. For the vapor-phase-mediated susceptibility assay, three selected EOs were verified against four Vibrio strains (BB120, CAIM170, LMG2850, and MO904) following the procedure described in VMS assay section. 2.7. Statistical Analyses Statistical analyses were performed using one-way analysis of variances followed by a Tukey’s post hoc test using the IBM statistical software Statistical Package for the Social Sciences version 22.0 (New York, NY, USA). Data were expressed as mean ± standard error. The significance level was set at p < 0.05. 3. Results 3.1. Essential Oils and Their Components Inhibit the Growth of V. campbellii BB120
In the first experiment, the bacterial growth inhibitory activity of 22 EOs and 12 EOCs were determined against V. campbellii BB120. Three of the EOs (extracted from Cinnamomum cassia, M. alternifolia, and L. citrata) significantly inhibited the growth of V. campbellii BB120 at the two doses (0.0001% and 0.001%) (Figure 2). Three of the EOCs (R-(+)-limonene, S-(−)-limonene and cinnamaldehyde) showed significant inhibition of bacterial growth of V. campbellii BB120 at 0.001% (50% reduction as compared to the control group, Figure 3). None of the EOCs had a significant reduction on the growth of V. campbellii BB120 at the concentration of 0.0001%.
3.2. Essential Oils and Their Components Inhibit the Growth of V. campbellii BB120 via Their Vapor-Phase
Next, the iVMAA and iVMAA90 of EO(C)s against V. campbellii BB120 were determined to detect the vapor-phase-mediated growth inhibition of EO(C)s. The results showed that five of the EOs tested had both iVMAA and iVMAA90 larger than 3.0 (Table 1). They are Artemisia herba alba EO, with α-thujone/camphor and β-thujone, Cinnamomum camphora EO, rich in linalool, M. alternifolia, L. citrata, and E. citriodora EO. There were three of the EOCs had both iVMAA and iVMAA90 larger than 3.0 (Table 2). The largest inhibition activity was observed with EOC citronellal, followed by EOCs citral and α-pinene. It is worth noting that citronellal displayed a complete vapor-phase mediated antimicrobial activity (VMAA) inhibition of V. campbellii BB120, as growth in the whole plate was absent.
3.3. Essential Oils Modulate Quorum Sensing-Regulated Bioluminescence of V. campbellii BB120
Furthermore, EO(C)s were used to study the effect on quorum sensing-regulated bioluminescence of V. campbellii BB120. After mixing with V. campbellii BB120, EO of Mentha pulegium blocked the bacterial bioluminescence at 0.001% at 2, 3, and 4 h (Table 3). The EOs of Cuminum cyminum, E. citriodora, and Zingiber officinalis were observed to inhibit the bioluminescence of V. campbellii BB120 at 0.001% concentration for the first 2 h, afterwards, no inhibition was observed. None of the other tested EO(C)s were recorded to reduce the bioluminescence at a concentration of 0.0001% or higher concentration (Table 4). The result indicated that EO of C. cyminum (rich in cuminal/γ-terpinene, β-pinene and p-cymene), EO of E. citriodora (with citronellal), EO of Z. officinalis (containing α-zingiberene/β-sesquiphellandrene and camphene), and EO of M. pulegium (pulegone) had potential anti-QS activity on V. campbellii BB120.
3.4. Growth Inhibitory Activity of Candidate EOs against V. campbellii BB120
The candidate EO(C)s were selected based on the following criteria: (i) in the bacterial growth assay, if the BB120 growth of each EO(C)s group was reduced by 50% relative to the control group, then the EO(C) was selected. In this case, EO of C. cassia, M. alternifolia, and L. citrata were selected. (ii) in the VMS assay, if both of iVMAA and iVMAA90 were larger than 3.0, then EO of A. herba alba, C. camphora, E. citriodora, M. alternifolia, and L. citrata were screened out. (iii) in the specific quorum sensing-inhibitory assay, if the AQSI was higher than two, and then EO of C. cyminum, M. pulegium, Z. officinalis, and E. citriodora were the candidates. Overall, the screening results of 22 essential oils and 12 essential oil components indicated that EOs of M. alternifolia, L. citrata and E. citriodora were the three best candidates to inhibit the growth of V. campbellii BB120 in vitro (Table S3).
3.5. Effect of Three Selected Essential Oils against the harveyi clade Members
The screening results of 22 essential oils and 12 essential oil components indicated that essential oils M. alternifolia, L. citrata, and E. citriodora were the three best candidates to control V. campbellii BB120 (Table S3). Furthermore, the antimicrobial activity of the three selected EOs (extracted from M. alternifolia, L. citrata, and E. citriodora) was examined against four different Vibrio strains belonging to the harveyi clade (BB120, CAIM170, LMG2850, and MO904). EO of A. graveolens (inactive to V. campbellii BB120) was set as a negative control.
The results of bacterial growth inhibitory assay at three different concentrations (0.001%, 0.01% and 0.1%) are shown in Figure 4. EOs of M. alternifolia, L. citrata and E. citriodora showed significant inhibition of the growth of four bacterial strains (BB120, CAIM170, LMG2850 and MO904) at 0.1%, while no significant inhibition of three V. parahaemolyticus strains (CAIM170, LMG2850, and MO904) was observed at 0.001% and 0.01%. The results of the vapor-phase-mediated growth-inhibitory of EOs are shown in Table 5. Surprisingly, all the selected EOs did not inhibit the growth of the three V. parahaemolyticus strains (CAIM170, LMG2850, and MO904) in the VMS assay (the iVMAA and iVMAA90 are smaller than 3.0, Table 5).
4. Discussion The study describes that among 22 essential oils (EOs) and 12 essential oil components (EOCs), EOs of M. alternifolia, L. citrata, and E. citriodora are considered the three best candidates to control V. campbellii BB120 infection. Furthermore, the study also showed that EOs (extracted from C. cassia, M. alternifolia and L. citrata) and EOCs (R-(+)-limonene, S-(−)-limonene and cinnamaldehyde) significantly inhibited the growth of V. campbellii BB120.
The main components of C. cassia are cinnamaldehyde and trans-p-methoxycinnamaldehyde. Cinnamaldehyde, the predominant active compound in cinnamon oil, is a natural antioxidant [23]. Several studies have shown that cinnamaldehyde can inhibit the growth of various pathogens [24,25,26]. Cinnamaldehyde contains a six-carbon aromatic phenol group. Such phenols can pass through the phospholipid bilayer of the Gram-negative bacteria cell walls and bind to porin proteins (serving as transmembrane channels for small hydrophilic solutes) to prevent the bacteria from performing their normal functions [27]. Hence, the bacterial cell membrane is considered the first target of cinnamaldehyde, altering membrane permeability, leading to loss of functional proteins and resulting in death [28]. Moreover, the antimicrobial activity of cinnamaldehyde is also attributed to the rapid depletion of the bacterial cellular adenosine triphosphate (ATP) pool [29,30] and inhibition of cell division [31].
The main components of M. alternifolia are terpinen-4-ol and γ-terpinene. Terpinen-4-ol is the most prominent ingredient of tea tree oil active against human and plant pathogens [32,33,34]. The favorable hydrophobic/hydrophilic character of terpinen-4-ol is thought to be the basis for antimicrobial activity, in that it is in a spot between hydrophobic and hydrophilic, which can hydrophobic enough to enter and hydrophilic enough to leave again, through the bacterial cytoplasmic membrane [35]. Furthermore, γ-terpinene, a monoterpene hydrocarbon present in tea tree oil, has antioxidant property, and this may contribute to the bactericidal activity [36].
The main components of L. citrata are citral and limonene. Citral and limonene are the main flavor components of citrus oils [37]. Previous studies showed that citral and limonene had appreciable antimicrobial activity against Gram-positive and Gram-negative bacteria as well as fungi [37,38,39]. The lipophilicity of citral and limonene facilitates the penetration in the lipid layers of the bacterial cell membrane and mitochondria, causing loss of their structural organization and integrity [37,40,41].
In the present study, neither citral nor limonene exhibited a significant growth inhibition at 0.0001%, but EO of L. citrata does. These results indicate that there may be a synergistic or additive antibacterial effect in the combination of citral and limonene, or other EOCs present in the EO of L. citrata. Some studies also concluded that EOs had greater antibacterial activity than one of their major constituents separately [42,43], suggesting that the components at a smaller percentage are critical for the antimicrobial activity. Therefore, this potential synergistic effect between citral and limonene should be investigated in more detail in the future.
Although the broth dilution assay is regarded as a standard for detecting antimicrobial activity in a liquid medium, it fails to include the volatile characteristics of the EOs and their components. Therefore, we used the vapor-phase-mediated susceptibility (VMS) assay developed by Feyaerts et al. [15], which quantifies the antimicrobial activity of a volatile on Vibrio in liquid culture. The VMS assay belongs to a new class of broth microdilution-based assays, where a volatile is evaluated for its biological activity in liquid culture, following its initial volatilization and migration [15]. In the VMS assay, a volatile is placed at four central wells. From there, it can spread radially symmetrical across a 96-well plate and inhibit the growth of bacteria gradually away from the volatility-center.
It is a first study to investigate growth inhibition of EO(C)s against V. campbellii BB120 through their vapor-phase. Among all the EO(C)s tested, the EO of E. citriodora, rich in citronellal (80.02%) and pure citronellal displayed the strongest inhibition activity against V. campbellii BB120. The citronellal from E. citriodora can inhibit the growth of Candida species; however, EOC citronellal cannot, as reported in a previous study [15]. These can partially be explained by the different enantiomers of citronellal isolated either from EOs ((S)-(−)-citronellal) or synthetic citronellal ((R)-(+)-citronellal) [44].
Quorum sensing (QS) is a cell-to-cell communication in bacteria based on secretion and detection of external signal molecules [45]. QS is involved in virulence, biofilm formation, swimming motility and bioluminescence [46]. Quorum sensing-regulated phenotypes are co-dependent on other factors and depending on the metabolic activity of the cells, potentially leading to false-positive results [47]. To address this problem, we used the specific quorum sensing-inhibitory activity AQSI developed by Yang et al., as a new parameter to investigate if EO(C)s cause significant inhibition of quorum sensing-regulated bioluminescence [22].
V. campbellii BB120 contains a three-channel QS system, which is mediated by the three types of signal molecules including HAI-1, AI-2, and CAI-1 [48]. Therefore, if any reagent can prevent the accumulation of these three signal molecules or interfere with their receptors, they might block the bacterial QS-dependent virulence gene expression, making QS-disruption an interesting strategy to control bacterial disease [49]. The EOs of C. cyminum, E. citriodora, Z. officinalis, and M. pulegium, exhibited anti-QS property. The results indicated that quorum sensing might be affected by these EOs in V. campbellii BB120, being it in an unidentified way. EOs are mixtures, having one or a few major constituents and a variety of other minor compounds. Consequently, it is unclear which compound of the EOs is responsible at this moment.
There was no obvious anti-QS activity of cinnamaldehyde on V. campbellii BB120 in the present study. Our result is contradictory to the findings of Niu et al. [50], who reported that the exposure of V. harveyi BB886 to a concentration of 60 µM cinnamaldehyde resulted in a 55% reduction of microbial bioluminescence, and 60% of the bioluminescence of V. harveyi BB170 was reduced at 100 µM. This phenomenon may be explained by using a higher concentration of cinnamaldehyde to measure anti-QS activity. In our study, 0.0001% and 0.001% were used, which were equivalent to7.9 µM and 79 µM, respectively. However, these two concentrations are lower than the previously reported required concentrations (100 µM) to inhibit QS in V. campbellii BB120.
Based on the screening results, the antimicrobial activity of the three selected EOs (extracted from M. alternifolia, L. citrata, and E. citriodora) was examined against four different Vibrio strains belonging to the harveyi clade (BB120, CAIM170, LMG2850, and MO904), and EO of A. graveolens (inactive to V. campbellii BB120) was set as a negative control. The three selected EOs were efficient to inhibit growth against V. campbellii BB120 but interestingly failed against all tested V. parahaemolyticus strains (CAIM170, LMG2850 and MO904). Although V. campbellii BB120 and V. parahaemolyticus belong to the same clade, they have their specific characteristics. For instance, it has been demonstrated that the V. parahaemolyticus group displays extensive genetic divergence from the V. campbellii BB120 group, which might be the basis for a considerably higher growth rate of V. parahaemolyticus relative to V. campbellii BB120 [51,52]. This might be a reason for the absence of activity of the selected EOs on V. parahaemolyticus strains. However, this needs to be investigated in more detail in the future.
Among the tested bacteria, V. campbellii BB120 is the most sensitive microorganism at lower concentration (0.001%) of some tested EOs, while V. parahaemolyticus strains require higher oils concentration (0.1%). It is assumed that many opportunistic Vibrio species, such as those belonging to the harveyi clade share ecological niches. Hence, any attempt to inhibit V. campbellii BB120 with the described EOs at low concentration might be successful but might create growth opportunity for V. parahaemolyticus. Therefore, applying EO can inhibit some of the harveyi clade members, but also create a growth opportunity for other members, potentially shifting problems caused by one opportunistic pathogen to another. From an ecological perspective, the potential application of EOs in aquaculture at the growth-inhibition level should be considered with great care.
EOs are complex mixtures of a wide diversity of components [14]. Therefore, their antimicrobial activity is related to their composition, configuration, amount, and their possible interaction [53]. Three different effects can be highlighted here: additive, antagonist, and synergetic [54]. The combination of clove (Syzygium aromaticum) and rosemary (Rosmarinus officinalis) EOs displayed an additive effect against the Gram-positive (Staphylococcus epidermidis, S. aureus, and Bacillus subtilis) and Gram-negative bacteria (Escherichia coli, Proteus vulgaris, Pseudomonas aeruginosa) [55]. However, a synergetic effect of this combination was observed when the mixture was applied against the human fungal pathogen C. albicans [55]. In addition, when this mixture was applied against the fungus Aspergillus niger, an antagonistic effect was exhibited [55].
In the present study, three selected EOs (extracted from M. alternifolia, L. citrata, and E. citriodora) exhibited growth inhibition against V. campbellii BB120 vapor-phase-mediated. The EO of M. alternifolia or the EO of L. citrata inhibited the growth of V. campbellii BB120, yet the EO of E. citriodora did not. However, the EO of E. citriodora inhibited quorum sensing of V. campbellii BB120. Even though the major components (≥10%) of these three EOs are characterized, many minor components have not been explored yet. Some studies have concluded that minor components are critical to the antibacterial activity and may contribute synergistically [56].
In conclusion, the present work represents the first attempt to study the antimicrobial effects of EOs against Vibrio strains belonging to the harveyi clade. EOs (extracted from M. alternifolia, L. citrata, and E. citriodora) display an antibacterial activity towards V. campbellii BB120.
In the future, putative synergistic effects could be verified by checkerboard testing. The checkerboard testing allows determining the Fractional Inhibitory Concentration (FIC) index value. The FIC index value marks the combination of EOs that produces the largest change relative to the individual EOs minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) [57].
![View Image - Figure 1. The Vapor-Phase-Mediated Susceptibility Assay (VMS) of a volatile spreads symmetrically across a 96-well plate. (A) The number of equidistant wells and cumulative number of wells in successive categories with their distance to the volatility-center. (B) The layout of the spreading of a volatile in the VMS assay under ideal conditions: the number in the wells are correspondence with each category of A [15].](https://media.proquest.com/media/hms/THUM/2/pCeoH?_a=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&_s=ulGDLOGh9FUED45u9ESDaMvA0kc%3D "View Image - Figure 1. The Vapor-Phase-Mediated Susceptibility Assay (VMS) of a volatile spreads symmetrically across a 96-well plate. (A) The number of equidistant wells and cumulative number of wells in successive categories with their distance to the volatility-center. (B) The layout of the spreading of a volatile in the VMS assay under ideal conditions: the number in the wells are correspondence with each category of A [15].")
Enlarge this image.Figure 1. The Vapor-Phase-Mediated Susceptibility Assay (VMS) of a volatile spreads symmetrically across a 96-well plate. (A) The number of equidistant wells and cumulative number of wells in successive categories with their distance to the volatility-center. (B) The layout of the spreading of a volatile in the VMS assay under ideal conditions: the number in the wells are correspondence with each category of A [15].
Enlarge this image.Figure 2. Density of V. campbellii BB120 at 24 h containing essential oils added at (A): 0.0001%, (B): 0.001%. The density of V. campbellii strain BB120 in the control group was set at 1.0, and the OD of remaining groups were normalized accordingly. If density was less than 50%, the EO was considered to have an inhibitory effect. The error bars represented the standard error of five replicates. # = organic EO.
Enlarge this image.Figure 3. Density of V. campbellii BB120 at 24 h containing essential oils components added at (A): 0.0001%, (B): 0.001%. The density of V. campbellii strain BB120 in the control group was set at 1.0, and the OD of remaining groups were normalized accordingly. If density was less than 50%, the EOC was considered to have an inhibitory effect. The error bars represented the standard error of five replicates.
Enlarge this image.Figure 4. Density of four different Vibrio strains (BB120, CAIM170, LMG2850 and MO904) at 24 h containing essential oils added at different concentrations. (A): essential oil of Melaleuca alternifolia; (B): essential oil of Litsea citrata; (C): essential oil of Eucalyptus citriodora; (D): essential oil of Apium graveolens. The density of each control group was set at 1.0, and rest of the groups were normalized accordingly. The error bars represented the standard error of five replicates. Asterisks indicated a significant difference when compared to control (independent samples t-test; *: p < 0.05; **: p < 0.01, ***: p < 0.001).
| Essential Oil of Plant Species | Number of the Wells | Category | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| iVMAA | iVMAA90 | iVMAA | iVMAA90 | |
| Abies alba | 5 | 5 | 0.5 | 0.5 |
| Apium graveolens | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Artamisia dracunculus | 7 | 6 | 0.5 | 0.5 |
| Artemisia herba alba | 44 | 34 | 5.5 | 4.5 |
| Cinnamomum camphora | 31 | 26 | 4.5 | 3.5 |
| Cinnamomum cassia | 16 | 7 | 2.5 | 0.5 |
| Cinnamomum zeylanicum | 21 | 20 | 3.5 | 3 |
| Citrus sinensis | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Cuminum cyminum | 19 | 17 | 2.5 | 2.5 |
| Curcuma longa# | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Cymbopogon martini variety motia | 8 | 8 | 1 | 1 |
| Eucalyptus citriodora | 92 | 92 | 15 | 15 |
| Eucalyptus dives | 17 | 7 | 2.5 | 0.5 |
| Laurus nobilis | 31 | 14 | 4.5 | 2.5 |
| Litsea citrata | 25 | 24 | 3.5 | 3.5 |
| Melaleuca alternifolia | 28 | 28 | 4 | 4 |
| Mentha × piperita | 1 | 0 | 0.5 | 0 |
| Mentha pulegium | 16 | 16 | 2.5 | 2.5 |
| Petroselinum crispum | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Pogostemon cablin | 6 | 6 | 0.5 | 0.5 |
| Thymus zygis | 16 | 0 | 2.5 | 0 |
| Zingiber officinalis# | 4 | 3 | 0.5 | 0.5 |
iVMAA: inhibitory vapor-phase-mediated antimicrobial activity (visual assessment), iVMAA90: iVMAA resulting in 90% reduction of growth as compared to control growth (spectrophotometric assessment).
| Component | Number of the Wells | Category | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| iVMAA | iVMAA90 | iVMAA | iVMAA90 | |
| (−)-TERPINEN-4-OL | 16 | 16 | 2.5 | 2.5 |
| (−)-β-PINENE | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| (+)-CARVONE | 8 | 8 | 1 | 1 |
| (±)-CINTRONELLAL | 92 | 92 | 15 | 15 |
| 4-ALLYLANISOLE | 1 | 1 | 0.5 | 0.5 |
| CINNAMALDEHYDE | 12 | 12 | 2 | 2 |
| CITRAL | 44 | 42 | 5.5 | 5.5 |
| EUGENOL | 17 | 16 | 2.5 | 2.5 |
| GERANIOL | 8 | 8 | 1 | 1 |
| R-(+)-LIMONENE | 9 | 0 | 1.5 | 0 |
| S-(−)-LIMONENE | 12 | 5 | 2 | 0.5 |
| α-PINENE | 30 | 21 | 4.5 | 3.5 |
iVMAA: inhibitory vapor-phase-mediated antimicrobial activity (visual assessment), iVMAA90: iVMAA resulting in 90% reduction of growth as compared to control growth (spectrophotometric assessment).
| Essential Oil of Plant Species | Special Quorum Sensing Inhibitory Activity | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AQSI, 0.001% | AQSI, 0.0001% | |||||||
| 1 h | 2 h | 3 h | 4 h | 1 h | 2 h | 3 h | 4 h | |
| Abies alba | 0.75 ± 0.05 (−/−) | 1.52 ± 0.35 (−/−) | 0.91 ± 0.09 (−/−) | 0.41 ± 0.12 (−/−) | 3.93 ± 3.35 (+/+) | −1.84 ± 4.87 (−/+) | 0.38 ± 6.10 (−/+) | 1.66 ± 11.27 (−/+) |
| Apium graveolens | −0.41 ± 0.40 (+/−) | 2.26 ± 3.32 (−/−) | 0.63 ± 0.07 (−/−) | 0.05 ± 0.32 (−/−) | −33.36 ± 37.24 (+/−) | 1.71 ± 4.64 (+/+) | 8.96 ± 20.15 (+/+) | 0.98 ± 0.31 (+/+) |
| Artamisia dracunculus | 0.89 ± 0.11 (−/−) | 1.04 ± 0.51 (−/−) | 1.81 ± 0.95 (−/−) | 0.24 ± 1.78 (−/−) | −0.82 ± 9.91 (+/−) | 1.70 ± 1.07 (+/+) | 0.37 ± 0.12 (+/+) | 0.54 ± 0.07 (+/+) |
| Artemisia herba alba | −3.98 ± 8.37 (+/−) | −3.70 ± 11.33 (+/−) | −154.84 ± 384.55 (−/+) | 1.51 ± 3.69 (−/−) | 8.84 ± 5.92 (+/+) | 2.30 ± 9.39 (+/+) | −0.83 ± 1.52 (−/+) | −0.63 ± 2.43 (−/+) |
| Cinnamomum camphora | −0.98 ± 2.40 (+/−) | 1.09 ± 0.27 (−/−) | 1.13 ± 0.27 (−/−) | 1.01 ± 0.04 (−/−) | −15.61 ± 32.32 (+/−) | 0.05 ± 1.02 (−/−) | 1.32 ± 0.13 (−/−) | 1.15 ± 0.14 (−/−) |
| Cinnamomum cassia | −5.51 ± 6.86 (+/−) | 0.78 ± 0.23 (+/+) | −0.03 ± 0.07 (−/+) | 0.04 ± 0.05 (+/+) | 7.82 ± 8.97 (+/+) | 1.19 ± 0.20 (+/+) | −0.04 ± 0.14 (−/+) | 0.12 ± 0.12 (+/+) |
| Cinnamomum zeylanicum | 0.98 ± 0.18 (−/−) | 3.24 ± 3.06 (−/−) | 1.51 ± 2.45 (−/−) | 2.03 ± 1.90 (−/−) | 0.90 ± 4.79 (+/+) | −0.05 ± 0.66 (+/+) | −0.59 ± 0.81 (−/+) | −0.20 ± 0.50 (−/+) |
| Citrus sinensis | 0.76 ± 0.04 (−/−) | 1.79 ± 0.06 (−/−) | 1.18 ± 0.09 (−/−) | 0.07 ± 0.41 (−/−) | −10.58 ± 11.97 (+/−) | 0.65 ± 0.40 (+/+) | 0.29 ± 0.16 (+/+) | 0.51 ± 0.22 (+/+) |
| Cuminum cyminum | 0.71 ± 0.19 (−/−) | 3.25 ± 0.94 (−/−) | 1.51 ± 0.26 (−/−) | 0.92 ± 0.21 (−/−) | −8.83 ± 13.36 (+/−) | 0.43 ± 0.31 (+/+) | −0.47 ± 1.09 (−/+) | −0.11 ± 0.46 (−/+) |
| Curcuma longa# | 0.51 ± 0.15 (−/−) | −1.21 ± 1.34 (−/+) | −30.29 ± 74.95 (−/+) | −2.97 ± 7.80 (−/+) | −1.00 ± 1.12 (+/−) | 0.47 ± 0.14 (+/+) | 0.35 ± 0.09 (+/+) | 0.69 ± 0.33 (+/+) |
| Cymbopogon martini variety motia | 1.20 ± 0.04 (−/−) | 1.62 ± 0.03 (−/−) | 1.19 ± 0.15 (−/−) | 0.85 ± 0.10 (−/−) | 1.16 ± 0.36 (−/−) | 24.94 ± 49.51 (−/−) | 1.44 ± 2.87 (−/−) | 0.62 ± 2.25 (−/−) |
| Eucalyptus citriodora | 0.96 ± 0.07 (−/−) | 2.01 ± 0.62 (−/−) | 2.20 ± 3.69 (−/−) | −0.38 ± 1.71 (−/+) | −0.80 ± 1.86 (+/−) | 0.05 ± 1.65 (+/+) | 0.07 ± 0.72 (+/+) | 0.61 ± 0.41 (+/+) |
| Eucalyptus dives | −1.10 ± 1.66 (+/−) | 0.57 ± 0.69 (−/−) | 0.69 ± 20.23 (−/−) | 1.72 ± 4.50 (−/−) | 5.57 ± 9.87 (+/+) | 3.06 ± 4.13 (+/+) | −0.50 ± 0.27 (−/+) | −0.21 ± 0.21 (−/+) |
| Laurus nobilis | 1.64 ± 5.84 (+/+) | 6.44 ± 12.08 (−/−) | 1.07 ± 0.64 (−/−) | 0.57 ± 0.54 (−/−) | 0.95 ± 5.87 (+/+) | 0.91 ± 0.64 (+/+) | 1.24 ± 2.45 (−/−) | 1.29 ± 1.78 (−/−) |
| Litsea citrata | 0.37 ± 0.23 (−/−) | 1.97 ± 0.33 (−/−) | 2.34 ± 4.13 (−/−) | 0.53 ± 0.60 (+/+) | 3.36 ± 22.17 (+/+) | −0.46 ± 1.63 (−/+) | −0.10 ± 0.68 (−/+) | 0.49 ± 0.13 (+/+) |
| Melaleuca alternifolia | 226.00 ± 560.62 (+/+) | 11.03 ± 13.80 (−/−) | 13.15 ± 15.05 (−/−) | 2.23 ± 1.63 (−/−) | 0.45 ± 8.19 (+/+) | 1.31 ± 1.75 (−/−) | 0.79 ± 1.05 (−/−) | 0.20 ± 0.66 (−/−) |
| Mentha × piperita | 1.47 ± 0.77 (−/−) | 1.81 ± 0.22 (−/−) | −1.36 ± 10.91 (−/+) | 2.35 ± 2.75 (−/−) | −4.92 ± 8.55 (+/−) | 0.21 ± 0.76 (−/−) | −2.57 ± 4.89 (−/+) | −2.59 ± 6.39 (−/+) |
| Mentha pulegium | 0.97 ± 0.03 (−/−) | 2.00 ± 0.26 (−/−) | 2.71 ± 0.75 (−/−) | 2.77 ± 0.83 (−/−) | 0.49 ± 0.22 (−/−) | 0.89 ± 2.09 (−/−) | −1.91 ± 4.51 (−/+) | −0.95 ± 2.47 (−/+) |
| Petroselinum crispum | 0.16 ± 0.05 (−/−) | −4.60 ± 10.34 (+/−) | −0.01 ± 0.78 (−/+) | −0.62 ± 1.11 (+/−) | −0.82 ± 10.46 (+/−) | 0.10 ± 1.22 (+/+) | 0.21 ± 0.04 (+/+) | 0.41 ± 0.70 (+/+) |
| Pogostemon cablin | −0.53 ± 2.94 (+/−) | −10.86 ± 29.76 (−/+) | 0.70 ± 2.66 (−/−) | 0.98 ± 0.07 (−/−) | −0.57 ± 8.49 (+/−) | −0.84 ± 2.09 (−/+) | 0.25 ± 2.09 (−/+) | 1.98 ± 2.58 (−/−) |
| Thymus zygis | 0.33 ± 0.08 (−/−) | 5.43 ± 5.66 (−/−) | 0.92 ± 0.12 (−/−) | 0.73 ± 0.02 (−/−) | −1.26 ± 1.36 (+/−) | 1.09 ± 7.15 (−/−) | −1.29 ± 2.78 (−/+) | 0.62 ± 0.35 (−/−) |
| Zingiber officinalis# | 2.09 ± 0.48 (−/−) | −3.19 ± 1.84 (−/+) | 12.48 ± 29.27 (−/−) | 0.60 ± 5.00 (−/−) | 0.96 ± 1.18 (+/+) | −1.34 ± 1.49 (+/−) | −1.08 ± 0.93 (−/+) | −0.70 ± 0.63 (−/+) |
Data are mean ± standard deviation of three replicates, (+/+): Stimulation of the QS−regulated bioluminescence in V. campbellii BB120 and V. campbellii JAK548 pAKlux 1, (−/−): Inhibition of the QS−regulated bioluminescence in V. campbellii BB120 and V. campbellii JAK548 pAKlux 1, (+/−): Stimulation of the QS−regulated bioluminescence in V. campbellii BB120 and inhibition of the QS−regulated bioluminescence V. campbellii JAK548 pAKlux 1, (−/+): Inhibition of the QS−regulated bioluminescence in V. campbellii BB120 and stimulation of the QS−regulated bioluminescence V. campbellii JAK548 pAKlux 1.
| Component | Special Quorum Sensing Inhibitory Activity | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AQSI, 0.001% | AQSI, 0.0001% | |||||||
| 1 h | 2 h | 3 h | 4 h | 1 h | 2 h | 3 h | 4 h | |
| (−)-TERPINEN−4-OL | −0.37 ± 19.7 (+/−) | 0.04 ± 4.50 (+/+) | 1.17 ± 2.49 (−/−) | 4.65 ± 8.95 (−/−) | 1.81 ± 5.65 (+/+) | 0.35 ± 0.75 (+/+) | −0.30 ± 0.60 (−/+) | −0.55 ± 0.58 (−/+) |
| (−)-β-PINENE | 0.85 ± 0.09 (−/−) | 1.97 ± 0.58 (−/−) | 1.07 ± 0.19 (−/−) | 0.66 ± 0.17 (−/−) | −2.15 ± 13.02 (+/−) | 0.65 ± 0.70 (+/+) | −7.17 ± 15.86 (−/+) | −0.39 ± 0.55 (−/+) |
| (+)-CARVONE | 0.72 ± 0.06 (−/−) | 1.05 ± 0.15 (−/−) | 1.83 ± 1.10 (−/−) | −12.05 ± 37.14 (+/−) | −0.17 ± 0.30 (+/−) | 3.60 ± 4.09 (+/+) | −0.01 ± 1.10 (−/+) | 1.06 ± 0.17 (+/+) |
| (±)-CINTRONELLAL | 1.11 ± 0.03 (−/−) | −1.52 ± 6.91 (−/+) | −29.45 ± 66.80 (−/+) | 36.76 ± 59.34 (−/−) | −1.44 ± 1.26 (+/−) | 0.68 ± 0.20 (+/+) | 0.13 ± 0.26 (+/+) | 0.30 ± 0.13 (+/+) |
| 4-ALLYLANISOLE | 1.09 ± 0.16 (−/−) | −0.98 ± 1.08 (−/+) | −0.58 ± 2.21 (−/+) | 2.82 ± 7.45 (−/−) | 2.69 ± 0.43 (+/+) | 0.56 ± 0.47 (+/+) | −1.79 ± 6.14 (−/+) | 0.87 ± 2.49 (−/+) |
| CINNAMALDEHYDE | 0.74 ± 0.05 (−/−) | −5.09 ± 9.58 (−/+) | −2.05 ± 1.27 (−/+) | −0.71 ± 0.43 (−/+) | −1.42 ± 1.55 (+/−) | 1.20 ± 1.13 (−/−) | 1.92 ± 4.37 (−/−) | −0.21 ± 0.74 (−/+) |
| CITRAL | 1.05 ± 0.07 (−/−) | 1.69 ± 0.22 (−/−) | 1.33 ± 0.51 (−/−) | 0.95 ± 0.25 (−/−) | −16.14 ± 29.68 (+/−) | 0.67 ± 2.21 (−/−) | 1.63 ± 2.97 (−/−) | −0.80 ± 3.36 (−/+) |
| EUGENOL | 1.08 ± 0.22 (−/−) | 2.15 ± 1.17 (−/−) | 0.93 ± 0.62 (−/−) | 0.86 ± 0.12 (−/−) | 1.59 ± 2.63 (+/+) | 1.69 ± 2.99 (+/+) | 1.61 ± 3.48 (−/−) | −0.02 ± 1.46 (−/+) |
| GERANIOL | 1.31 ± 0.01 (−/−) | 1.60 ± 0.03 (−/−) | 1.06 ± 0.03 (−/−) | 0.83 ± 0.06 (−/−) | 1.65 ± 0.20 (−/−) | 1.77 ± 1.06 (−/−) | 0.83 ± 0.11 (−/−) | 0.68 ± 0.22 (−/−) |
| R-(+)-LIMONENE | 0.45 ± 0.07 (−/−) | 1.24 ± 0.21 (−/−) | 0.71 ± 0.07 (−/−) | 0.57 ± 0.08 (−/−) | −3.61 ± 7.60 (+/−) | −0.29 ± 2.56 (+/−) | 0.49 ± 1.16 (+/+) | −1.70 ± 4.96 (+/−) |
| S-(−)-LIMONENE | 0.45 ± 0.06 (−/−) | 1.19 ± 0.09 (−/−) | 0.61 ± 0.03 (−/−) | 0.50 ± 0.08 (−/−) | −2.62 ± 3.24 (+/−) | 0.40 ± 0.35 (+/+) | 0.16 ± 0.56 (−/−) | −0.04 ± 0.52 (−/+) |
| α-PINENE | 0.98 ± 0.01 (−/−) | 0.99 ± 0.01 (−/−) | 1.07 ± 0.14 (−/−) | 0.62 ± 2.49 (−/−) | −2.05 ± 1.70 (+/−) | 0.68 ± 0.48 (+/+) | 0.01 ± 0.97 (+/+) | 0.41 ± 0.17 (+/+) |
Data are mean ± standard deviation of three replicates, (+/+): Stimulation of the QS-regulated bioluminescence in V. campbellii BB120 and V. campbellii JAK548 pAKlux 1, (−/−): Inhibition of the QS-regulated bioluminescence in V. campbellii BB120 and V. campbellii JAK548 pAKlux 1, (+/−): Stimulation of the QS-regulated bioluminescence in V. campbellii BB120 and inhibition of the QS-regulated bioluminescence V. campbellii JAK548 pAKlux 1, (−/+): Inhibition of the QS-regulated bioluminescence in V. campbellii BB120 and stimulation of the QS-regulated bioluminescence V. campbellii JAK548 pAKlux 1.
| Bacteria and EO | Number of the Wells | Category | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| iVMAA | iVMAA90 | iVMAA | iVMAA90 | |
| BB120-Apium graveolens | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| BB120-Eucalyptus citriodora | 92 | 92 | 15 | 15 |
| BB120-Litsea citrata | 32 | 31 | 4.5 | 4.5 |
| BB120-Melaleuca alternifolia | 23 | 20 | 3.5 | 3 |
| CAIM170-Apium graveolens | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| CAIM170-Eucalyptus citriodora | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| CAIM170-Litsea citrata | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| CAIM170-Melaleuca alternifolia | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| LMG2850-Apium graveolens | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| LMG2850-Eucalyptus citriodora | 0 | 8 | 0 | 1 |
| LMG2850-Litsea citrata | 8 | 8 | 1 | 1 |
| LMG2850-Melaleuca alternifolia | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| MO904-Apium graveolens | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| MO904-Eucalyptus citriodora | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| MO904-Litsea citrata | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| MO904-Melaleuca alternifolia | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
iVMAA: inhibitory vapor-phase-mediated antimicrobial activity (visual assessment), iVMAA90: iVMAA resulting in 90% reduction of growth as compared to control growth (spectrophotometric assessment).
Supplementary Materials
The following are available online at https://www.mdpi.com/2076-2607/8/12/1946/s1, Table S1: Twenty-two EOs used in this study with their components (≥10%) and assigned chemical class of components. When no EOCs present at >10% (n = 2): only EOC at highest concentration is shown [15]. ct=chemotype; #=organic EO, Table S2: Highly enriched EOCs used in this study with their purity and assigned chemical class [15], Table S3: Summary of vapour-phase-mediated susceptibility assay (VMS assay), bacterial growth assay and specific quorum sensing-inhibitory assay of essential oils.
Author Contributions
X.Z.: Conceptualization, data curation, investigation, visualization, writing-original draft and writing-review and editing. A.F.F.: resources, methodology and writing-review and editing. P.V.D.: resources, supervision, and writing-review and editing. P.B.: conceptualization, supervision, funding acquisition and writing-review and editing. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding
This research was supported by the China Scholarship Council (CSC 201708440251) and the Special Research Fund of Ghent University (BOF-UGent 01SC7918).
Acknowledgments
We thank Bonnie Bassler for providing V. campbellii wild type and mutant type; Bruno Gomez-Gil for providing V. parahaemolyticus MO904 AHPND strain.
Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
1. Chatterjee, S.; Haldar, S. Vibrio Related Diseases in Aquaculture and Development of Rapid and Accurate Identification Methods. J. Mar. Sci. Res. Dev. 2012.
2. Actis, L.A.; Tolmasky, M.E.; Crosa, J.H. Vibriosis; CABI: Wallingford, UK, 2011; pp. 570-605.
3. Igbinosa, E.O.; Okoh, A.I. Emerging Vibrio species: An unending threat to public health in developing countries. Res. Microbiol. 2008, 159, 495-506.
4. Beaz-Hidalgo, R.; Balboa, S.; Romalde, J.L.; Figueras, M.J. Diversity and pathogenecity of Vibrio species in cultured bivalve molluscs. Environ. Microbiol. Rep. 2010, 2, 34-43.
5. Kumar, V.; Nguyen, D.V.; Baruah, K.; Bossier, P. Probing the mechanism of VPAHPND extracellular proteins toxicity purified from Vibrio parahaemolyticus AHPND strain in germ-free Artemia test system. Aquaculture 2019, 504, 414-419.
6. Santhakumari, S.; Nilofernisha, N.M.; Ponraj, J.G.; Pandian, S.K.; Ravi, A.V. In vitro and in vivo exploration of palmitic acid from Synechococcus elongatus as an antibiofilm agent on the survival of Artemia franciscana against virulent vibrios. J. Invertebr. Pathol. 2017, 150, 21-31.
7. Pande, G.S.; Natrah, F.M.; Flandez, A.V.; Kumar, U.; Niu, Y.; Bossier, P.; Defoirdt, T. Isolation of AHL-degrading bacteria from micro-algal cultures and their impact on algal growth and on virulence of Vibrio campbellii to prawn larvae. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2015, 99, 10805-10813.
8. Ruwandeepika, H.A.; Defoirdt, T.; Bhowmick, P.P.; Karunasagar, I.; Karunasagar, I.; Bossier, P. In vitro and in vivo expression of virulence genes in Vibrio isolates belonging to the Harveyi clade in relation to their virulence towards gnotobiotic brine shrimp (Artemia franciscana). Environ. Microbiol. 2010, 13, 506-517.
9. Gutierrez West, C.K.; Klein, S.L.; Lovell, C.R. High frequency of virulence factor genes tdh, trh, and tlh in Vibrio parahaemolyticus strains isolated from a pristine estuary. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2013, 79, 2247-2252.
10. Cabello, F.C. Heavy use of prophylactic antibiotics in aquaculture: A growing problem for human and animal health and for the environment. Environ. Microbiol. 2006, 8, 1137-1144.
11. Zheng, X.; Duan, Y.; Dong, H.; Zhang, J. Effects of dietary Lactobacillus plantarum in different treatments on growth performance and immune gene expression of white shrimp Litopenaeus vannamei under normal condition and stress of acute low salinity. Fish Shellfish. Immunol. 2017, 62, 195-201.
12. Souza, C.D.; Baldissera, M.D.; Baldisserotto, B.; Heinzmann, B.M.; Martos-Sitcha, J.A.; Mancera, J. Essential Oils as Stress-Reducing Agents for Fish Aquaculture: A Review. Front. Physiol. 2019, 10, 785.
13. Kutateladze, M.; Adamia, R. Bacteriophages as potential new therapeutics to replace or supplement antibiotics. Trends Biotechnol. 2010, 28, 591-595.
14. Nazzaro, F.; Fratianni, F.; De Martino, L.; D'Auria, S.; De Feo, V. Effect of Essential Oils on Pathogenic Bacteria. Pharmaceuticals 2013, 6, 1451-1474.
15. Feyaerts, A.F.; Mathé, L.; Luyten, W.; De Graeve, S.; Van Dyck, K.; Broekx, L.; Van Dijck, P. Essential oils and their components are a class of antifungals with potent vapour-phase-mediated anti-Candida activity. Sci. Rep. 2018, 8, 1-10.
16. Benelli, G. Research in mosquito control: Current challenges for a brighter future. Parasitol. Res. 2015, 114, 2801-2805.
17. Manju, S.; Malaikozhundan, B.; Withyachumnarnkul, B.; Vaseeharan, B. Essential oils of Nigella sativa protects Artemia from the pathogenic effect of Vibrio parahaemolyticus Dahv2. J. Invertebr. Pathol. 2016, 136, 43-49.
18. Randrianarivelo, R.; Sarter, S.; Odoux, E.; Brat, P.; Lebrun, M.; Romestand, B.; Menut, C.; Andrianoelisoa, H.; Raherimandimby, M.; Danthu, P. Composition and antimicrobial activity of essential oils of Cinnamosma fragrans. Food Chem. 2009, 114, 680-684.
19. Horváth, G.; Jámbor, N.; Végh, A.; Böszörményi, A.; Lemberkovics, E.; Héthelyi, É.; Kovacs, K.; Kocsis, B. Antimicrobial activity of essential oils: The possibilities of TLC-bioautography. Flavour Fragr. J. 2010, 25, 178-182.
20. Pfaller, M.A.; Diekema, D.J. Progress in Antifungal Susceptibility Testing of Candida spp. by Use of Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute Broth Microdilution Methods, 2010 to 2012. J. Clin. Microbiol. 2012, 50, 2846-2856.
21. Szabó, M.Á.; Varga, G.Z.; Hohmann, J.; Schelz, Z.; Szegedi, E.; Amaral, L.; Molnár, J. Inhibition of quorum-sensing signals by essential oils. Phytother. Res. 2009, 24, 782-786.
22. Yang, Q.; Scheie, A.A.; Benneche, T.; Defoirdt, T. Specific quorum sensing-disrupting activity (AQSI) of thiophenones and their therapeutic potential. Sci. Rep. 2015, 5, 18033.
23. Huang, F.; Kong, J.; Ju, J.; Zhang, Y.; Guo, Y.; Cheng, Y.; Qian, H.; Xie, Y.; Yao, W. Membrane damage mechanism contributes to inhibition of trans-cinnamaldehyde on Penicillium italicum using Surface-Enhanced Raman Spectroscopy (SERS). Sci. Rep. 2019, 9, 490.
24. Ali, S.M.; Khan, A.A.; Ahmed, I.; Musaddiq, M.; Ahmed, K.S.; Polasa, H.; Rao, L.V.; Habib, A.M.; Sechi, L.A.; Ahmed, N. Antimicrobial activities of Eugenol and Cinnamaldehyde against the human gastric pathogen Helicobacter pylori. Ann. Clin. Microbiol. Antimicrob. 2005, 4, 20.
25. Lee, H.-C.; Cheng, S.-S.; Chang, S.-T. Antifungal property of the essential oils and their constituents from Cinnamomum osmophloeum leaf against tree pathogenic fungi. J. Sci. Food Agric. 2005, 85, 2047-2053.
26. Siddiqua, S.; Anusha, B.A.; Ashwini, L.S.; Negi, P.S. Antibacterial activity of cinnamaldehyde and clove oil: Effect on selected foodborne pathogens in model food systems and watermelon juice. J. Food Sci. Technol. 2014, 52, 5834-5841.
27. Prabuseenivasan, S.; Jayakumar, M.; Ignacimuthu, S. In vitro antibacterial activity of some plant essential oils. BMC Complement. Altern. Med. 2006, 6, 39.
28. Burt, S.A.; Reinders, R.D. Antibacterial activity of selected plant essential oils against Escherichia coli O157:H7. Lett. Appl. Microbiol. 2003, 36, 162-167.
29. Gill, A.O.; Holley, R.A. Mechanisms of Bactericidal Action of Cinnamaldehyde against Listeria monocytogenes and of Eugenol against L. monocytogenes and Lactobacillus sakei. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2004, 70, 5750-5755.
30. Holley, R.A.; Patel, D. Improvement in shelf-life and safety of perishable foods by plant essential oils and smoke antimicrobials. Food Microbiol. 2005, 22, 273-292.
31. Kwon, J.A.; Yu, C.B.; Park, H.D. Bacteriocidal effects and inhibition of cell separation of cinnamic aldehyde on Bacillus cereus. Lett. Appl. Microbiol. 2003, 37, 61-65.
32. Morcia, C.; Malnati, M.; Terzi, V. In vitro antifungal activity of terpinen-4-ol, eugenol, carvone, 1,8-cineole (eucalyptol) and thymol against mycotoxigenic plant pathogens. Food Addit. Contam. Part A 2011, 29, 1-8.
33. Loughlin, R.; Gilmore, B.F.; McCarron, P.A.; Tunney, M.M. Comparison of the cidal activity of tea tree oil and terpinen-4-ol against clinical bacterial skin isolates and human fibroblast cells. Lett. Appl. Microbiol. 2008, 46, 428-433.
34. Mondello, F.; De Bernardis, F.; Girolamo, A.; Cassone, A.; Salvatore, G. In vivo activity of terpinen-4-ol, the main bioactive component of Melaleuca alternifolia Cheel (tea tree) oil against azole-susceptible and -resistant human pathogenic Candida species. BMC Infect. Dis. 2006, 6, 158.
35. Carson, C.F.; Mee, B.J.; Riley, T.V. Mechanism of Action of Melaleuca alternifolia (Tea Tree) Oil on Staphylococcus aureus Determined by Time-Kill, Lysis, Leakage, and Salt Tolerance Assays and Electron Microscopy. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 2002, 46, 1914-1920.
36. Sato, K.; Krist, S.; Buchbauer, G. Antimicrobial effect of vapours of geraniol, (R)-(-)-linalool, terpineol,γ-terpinene and 1,8-cineole on airborne microbes using an airwasher. Flavour Fragr. J. 2007, 22, 435-437.
37. Djordjevic, D.; Cercaci, L.; Alamed, J.; McClements, D.J.; Decker, E.A. Chemical and Physical Stability of Citral and Limonene in Sodium Dodecyl Sulfate-Chitosan and Gum Arabic-Stabilized Oil-in-Water Emulsions. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2007, 55, 3585-3591.
38. De Martino, L.; De Feo, V.; Fratianni, F.; Nazzaro, F. Chemistry, antioxidant, antibacterial and antifungal activities of volatile oils and their components. Nat. Prod. Commun. 2009, 4.
39. Onawunmi, G.O. Evaluation of the Antifungal Activity of Lemon Grass Oil. Int. J. Crude Drug Res. 1989, 27, 121-126.
40. Aggarwal, K.K.; Khanuja, S.P.S.; Ahmad, A.; Kumar, T.R.S.; Gupta, V.K.; Kumar, S. Antimicrobial activity profiles of the two enantiomers of limonene and carvone isolated from the oils of Mentha spicata and Anethum sowa. Flavour Fragr. J. 2002, 17, 59-63.
41. Aiemsaard, J.; Aiumlamai, S.; Aromdee, C.; Taweechaisupapong, S.; Khunkitti, W. The effect of lemongrass oil and its major components on clinical isolate mastitis pathogens and their mechanisms of action on Staphylococcus aureus DMST 4745. Res. Veter Sci. 2011, 91, e31-e37.
42. Chang, H.-T.; Cheng, Y.-H.; Wu, C.-L.; Chang, S.-T.; Chang, T.-T.; Su, Y.-C. Antifungal activity of essential oil and its constituents from Calocedrus macrolepis var. formosana Florin leaf against plant pathogenic fungi. Bioresour. Technol. 2008, 99, 6266-6270.
43. Ayala-Zavala, J.F.; González-Aguilar, G.A.; Del-Toro-Sánchez, L. Enhancing Safety and Aroma Appealing of Fresh-Cut Fruits and Vegetables Using the Antimicrobial and Aromatic Power of Essential Oils. J. Food Sci. 2009, 74, R84-R91.
44. Nhu-Trang, T.-T.; Casabianca, H.; Grenier-Loustalot, M.-F. Authenticity control of essential oils containing citronellal and citral by chiral and stable-isotope gas-chromatographic analysis. Anal. Bioanal. Chem. 2006, 386, 2141-2152.
45. Miller, M.B.; Bassler, B.L. Quorum sensing in bacteria. Annu. Rev. Microbiol. 2001, 55, 165-199.
46. Kjelleberg, S.; Molin, S. Is there a role for quorum sensing signals in bacterial biofilms? Curr. Opin. Microbiol. 2002, 5, 254-258.
47. Defoirdt, T.; Brackman, G.; Coenye, T. Quorum sensing inhibitors: How strong is the evidence? Trends Microbiol. 2013, 21, 619-624.
48. Ng, W.-L.; Bassler, B.L. Bacterial Quorum-Sensing Network Architectures. Annu. Rev. Genet. 2009, 43, 197-222.
49. Zhang, L.-H.; Dong, Y.-H. Quorum sensing and signal interference: Diverse implications. Mol. Microbiol. 2004, 53, 1563-1571.
50. Niu, C.; Afre, S.; Gilbert, E.S. Subinhibitory concentrations of cinnamaldehyde interfere with quorum sensing. Lett. Appl. Microbiol. 2006, 43, 489-494.
51. Defoirdt, T.; Crab, R.; Wood, T.K.; Sorgeloos, P.; Verstraete, W.; Bossier, P. Quorum Sensing-Disrupting Brominated Furanones Protect the Gnotobiotic Brine Shrimp Artemia franciscana from Pathogenic Vibrio harveyi, Vibrio campbellii, and Vibrio parahaemolyticus Isolates. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2006, 72, 6419-6423.
52. Hoffmann, M.; Monday, S.R.; Fischer, M.; Brown, E.W. Genetic and phylogenetic evidence for misidentification of Vibrio species within the Harveyi clade. Lett. Appl. Microbiol. 2011, 54, 160-165.
53. Lis-Balchin, M.; Deans, S.G.; Eaglesham, E. Relationship between bioactivity and chemical composition of commercial essential oils. Flavour Fragr. J. 1998, 13, 98-104.
54. Bassolé, I.H.; Juliani, H.R. Essential Oils in Combination and Their Antimicrobial Properties. Molecules 2012, 17, 3989-4006.
55. Fu, Y.; Zu, Y.; Chen, L.; Shi, X.; Wang, Z.; Sun, S.; Efferth, T. Antimicrobial activity of clove and rosemary essential oils alone and in combination. Phytother. Res. 2007, 21, 989-994.
56. Gill, A.O.; Delaquis, P.; Russo, P.; Holley, R.A. Evaluation of antilisterial action of cilantro oil on vacuum packed ham. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2002, 73, 83-92.
57. Duarte, A.; Ferreira, S.; Silva, F.; Domingues, F.C. Synergistic activity of coriander oil and conventional antibiotics against Acinetobacter baumannii. Phytomedicine 2012, 19, 236-238.
Xiaoting Zheng
1,2,
Adam F. Feyaerts
3,4,
Patrick Van Dijck
3,4 and
Peter Bossier
1,*
1Laboratory of Aquaculture & Artemia Reference Center, Department of Animal Production, Faculty of Bioscience Engineering, Ghent University, 9000 Ghent, Belgium
2Key Laboratory of South China Sea Fishery Resources Exploitation & Utilization, Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs, South China Sea Fisheries Research Institute, Chinese Academy of Fishery Sciences, Guangzhou 510300, China
3VIB-KU Leuven Center for Microbiology, 3001 Leuven, Belgium
4Laboratory of Molecular Cell Biology, KU Leuven, 3001 Leuven, Belgium
*Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
© 2020. This work is licensed under http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/ (the “License”). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.