Introduction
Infectious diseases are one of the leading causes of illness and death among individuals worldwide [1]. A wide variety of infections can be caused by either primary or opportunistic pathogens [2] which can acquire and transfer resistance genetically by either mutation or gene transfer thus, microbes control became a challenge [3]. The World Health Organization (WHO) has considered the emergence of antibiotic-resistant bacterial strains as one of the three most critical public health threats of the 21st century [4]. The incessant development of new antibiotics with a novel mode of action must be intensified to combat drug-resistant infections.
Most clinically relevant antibiotics are derived from natural products (actinomycetes or fungi), their semisynthetic isolates or synthetic [5]. The mining of these antibiotics commonly resulted in the discovery of similar compounds, suggesting an urgent need for a shift in attention to utilize previously uncharacterized microbes as a source of novel antibiotics. A relevant number of plant-beneficial bacteria are effective biocontrol agents against plant pathogenic microorganisms and are referred to as ‘green’ biopesticides [6]. These microorganisms played an important role in increasing crop production by protecting plants from infectious pathogens, hence lowering the use of carcinogenic pesticides in agriculture [6, 7]. Within the soil microbiome, the Lysobacter genus acquired high attention due to its role in controlling pathogen-induced plant diseases [8]. For example, Lysobacter enzymogenes (L. enzymogenes) C3 and OH11, were reported to be effective in controlling Bipolaris leaf-spot on tall fescue and anthracnose on pear fruit, caused by Bipolaris sorokiniana and Colletotrichum fructicola fungal pathogens, respectively [9, 10]. Thus, Lysobacter species have been designated as facultative predators able to lyse several microorganisms including nematodes, bacteria and fungi [11, 12] through epibiotic predation and cell-cell contact. Worth mentioning that the molecular mechanism involved in Lysobacter genus killing behavior, is still not fully explored. However, Xi Shen research group revealed that L. enzymogenes OH11 uses Type IV Secretion System (T4SS) as the main contact-dependent weapon against other soil-borne bacteria [13, 14]. Other studies indicated that L. enzymogenes bacteriolytic activity is attributed to its extracellular alpha (a serine protease) and beta (metalloprotease) lytic enzymes [15]. These proteases together with other enzymes such as chitinases, glucanases, lipases and phospholipases can degrade the cell wall of some plant pathogens including Gram-positive and Gram-negative bacteria [15–17]. Thereafter, Lysobacter has emerged as a new source of bioactive natural products [18, 19] and attention has been pointed to their ability to lyse both prokaryotic and eukaryotic microbes with the production of peptides that damage microorganisms’ cell walls or membranes at a very low concentration [20].
While the use of bioactive natural products alone or in combination to combat antibacterial resistance is increasingly applied [21–25], several antimicrobial combinations have been studied for synergy in vitro and in vivo against Gram-positive and Gram-negative pathogens [19, 25–40]. However, limited research has been carried out to evaluate the effect of combining antibiotics with L. enzymogenes bioactive metabolites, as a virulence-attenuating combination therapy against resistant strains.
This study aims to investigate the potential implications of L. enzymogenes cell-free supernatant (CFS) bioactive products alone and in combination with cefixime, levofloxacin and gentamicin antibiotics against clinically important pathogens including staphylococcus aureus (S. aureus), one of the most notorious species causing mild and serious infections such as necrotizing pneumonia, septicemia and bone infections [41], Escherichia coli (E. coli) O157:H7, a well-described food-borne pathogen which produces virulence factors [42] and is responsible for bloody diarrhea and hemolytic-uremic syndrome (HUS) [43].
Materials and methods
Bacterial strains and bacterial broth culture preparation
Microorganisms used in this study included L. enzymogenes ATCC 29487, methicillin-sensitive S. aureus (MSSA) (ATCC 25923), methicillin-resistance S. aureus (MRSA) (ATCC 33591) and E. coli O157:H7. Culture media used included brain heart infusion (BHI) agar and broth obtained from Sigma- Aldrich (India) and nutrient agar (NA) obtained from Scharlau (European Union). Sterile syringe filters (0.22 μm) were purchased from Millipore (Amman, Jordan). Antibiotics (cefixime, gentamicin and levofloxacin) were kindly donated by JOSWE® Medical and Dar Al Dawa® pharmaceutical company, Amman-Jordan.
L. enzymogenes bacterial pellets were rehydrated aseptically using 5 mL of 10% strength tryptone soy broth (TSB), incubated at 28°C and shaken at 200 rpm for 3 days in a shaker incubator (MS, Taiwan) [44]. Then, L. enzymogenes culture (200 μL) was seeded over 10% strength of tryptone soy agar (TSA) plate and incubated at 28°C for 3 days. L. enzymogenes pure broth culture (PBC) was prepared by transferring a full loop from the stock plate to a 50 mL sterile falcon containing 10% TSB, followed by incubation at 28°C for 3 days. E. coli O157:H7 was cultured in nutrient broth (NB) (Biolab); MSSA and MRSA in brain heart infusion (BHI) broth (Biolab).
Sigma’s non-specific protease activity assay
Casein from bovine milk, Folin & Ciocalteu’s phenol reagent, trichloroacetic acid, potassium phosphate buffer (pH 7.5), and anhydrous sodium acetate were purchased from Sigma-Aldrich (USA). Anhydrous sodium carbonate (Na2CO3) was purchased from SDFCL (India). L-tyrosine was purchased from Hopkin and Williams Ltd. (England).
Preparation of L. enzymogenes cell-free supernatant (CFS) bioactive products and proteolytic activity assessment
Two different pools of L. enzymogenes PBC (107 CFU/mL) were prepared and were assigned as pool A (PA, 4% (v/v)) and pool B (PB, 8% (v/v)). PA was prepared by mixing 0.5 mL of the PBC in a 15 mL falcon tube containing 12 mL 10% TSB and incubating the mixtures at 28°C for different time intervals (1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 10, 11, 14 and 18 days) with continuous shaking at 200 rpm. PB was prepared using 1 mL of the PBC following the steps used for PA (S1 Fig). The plate count method was applied to enumerate the incubated PA and PB culture series viable cells. Later, L. enzymogenes cells of PA and PB cultures series were collected by centrifugation (15000 rpm at 4°C for 15 min), filtration using a sterile syringe filter (0.22 μm) to obtain the cell-free supernatant (CFS) and stored at -20°C in small aliquots for later use. The proteolytic activity of the obtained CFS series (Fig 1) was measured using Sigma’s non-specific protease activity assay [45]. In this assay, L. enzymogenes proteases digest casein substrate to liberate free tyrosine which reacts with Folin’s reagent (Folin and Ciocalteu’s) to generate a blue color solution. The absorbance of this solution was measured at 660 nm using a microtiter plate reader (Epoch-Biotec, California, USA) and compared with the absorbance of different standard tyrosine concentrations (S2 Fig). All experiments were performed in triplicate.
[Figure omitted. See PDF.]
A; Effect of culture density (PA, 4% (v/v) and PB, 8% (v/v)) B; Effect of incubation time (days).
L. enzymogenes CFS proteolytic activity was correlated with L. enzymogenes viable cell count and determined in terms of units/mL, which is corresponding to the micromoles (μmol) of tyrosine released from casein per minute, by applying the following equation [45].* = L. enzymogenes CFS (1mL) + Casein solution (5mL) + Trichloroacetic acid (5mL).
Screening of L. enzymogenes CFS antibacterial activity
Growth inhibitory activity of L. enzymogenes CFS against MSSA, MRSA and E. coli O157:H7 PBCs (108 CFU/mL) grown on agar plates was investigated by spreading two different volumes (100 μL and 200 μL) of L. enzymogenes CFS (prepared from a 14-day PBC) over the plates (Fig 2).
[Figure omitted. See PDF.]
Determination of antibiotics’ minimum inhibitory concentrations (MIC)
The susceptibility of MSSA, MRSA and E. coli O157:H7 to the three antibiotics; cefixime, levofloxacin and gentamicin was performed using National Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards (NCCLS) broth microdilution method [46]. Minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) was determined using 96 flat-bottom microtiter plates (TPP, Switzerland). Each test well was filled with 90 μL BHI for S. aureus and NB for E. coli O157:H7. An aliquot (100 μL) of the antibiotic stock solution was added to the test well and mixed. A series of twelve 2-fold serial dilutions of the antibiotics were examined. The concentration ranges used to determine MICs were: cefixime 256–0.125 μg/mL, levofloxacin 64–0.031μg/mL, gentamicin 128–0.062 μg/mL against S. aureus and cefixime 32–0.0156 μg/mL, levofloxacin 32–0.0156 μg/mL, gentamicin 64–0.031 μg/mL against E. coli O157:H7. All dilutions of the tested antibiotics were inoculated with 10 μL of 106 CFU/mL of the specified bacterial strain and then, incubated at 37 °C for 24 h. Positive control (broth and bacterial suspension) and negative control (broth only) wells were included in every experiment to prove adequate microbial growth and media sterility during the incubation period.
In the test wells, microbial growth was assessed visually from culture turbidity and compared to the negative and positive controls. MICs were determined as the lowest concentration of the antibiotic that inhibits the growth of the microorganism. The test was carried out in triplicate (in the same 96-well plate) and repeated twice for each bacterium.
Growth inhibition activity of L. enzymogenes CFS, antibiotics and their combination
A microplate growth inhibition assay [47] was applied to measure the growth inhibitory effect of L. enzymogenes CFS, antibiotics (cefixime, levofloxacin and gentamicin) and their combination against MSSA, MRSA and E. coli O157:H7. This assay allows the observation of discernible inhibition during growth using turbidity parameter which is measured through the detection of light scatter in absorbance at 600 nm using a microplate reader.
L. enzymogenes CFS growth inhibitory activity evaluation was performed by adding 10 μL aliquots of 106 CFU/mL bacterial suspension (MSSA, MRSA and E. coli O157:H7) to sterile microtiter plate wells containing 10 μL L. enzymogenes CFS (proteolytic activity 0.145 unit/mL) and 180 μL broth.
For the evaluation of antibiotics’ antibacterial activity, the MIC, 0.5 MIC, 0.25 MIC and 0.125 MIC concentrations for each antibiotic (cefixime, levofloxacin and gentamicin) were prepared. The test was carried out by placing 180 μL BHI for S. aureus and NB for E. coli O157:H7 and 10 μL of the prepared antibiotic dilution in each well, then 10 μL aliquot of the pathogen (106 CFU/ml) was added.
For the combination study, 10 μL of the bacterial suspension (106 CFU/ml) was added to wells containing 170 μL broth, 10 μL of L. enzymogenes CFS and 10 μL of each prepared antibiotic concentration (MIC, 0.5 MIC, 0.25 MIC and 0.125 MIC).
As a full growth control run, a 10 μL aliquot of the pathogenic cell suspension was inoculated at 106 CFU/mL into 190 μL of the corresponding sterile broth. Also, a test blank was run with each experiment where the 10 μL of the pathogen was replaced by the proper sterile broth.
In the above-mentioned experiments, the microtiter plate was incubated at 37°C for 24 h and the optical density (OD) was measured at 600 nm using a microplate reader (Epoch-Biotec, California, USA). Results were calculated as the average mean of three readings.
In this study, antibacterial activity was expressed as percentage inhibition of bacterial growth following 24 h incubation at 37 °C and calculated using the following equation:Where:
* ODT is the average optical density of three replicates at 600 nm for the tested target (L. enzymogenes CFS, antibiotics or the combination)
* ODTB is the average optical density of three replicates at 600 nm for the tested target blank (10 μL of the pathogen is replaced by equivolume of the appropriate sterile broth)
* ODFG is the average optical density of three replicates at 600 nm for the study pathogen full growth.
* ODFGB is the average optical density of three replicates at 600 nm for the study pathogen blank (No pathogen, only 10 μL of broth was used).
Cytotoxic activity
MTT assay was applied to evaluate L. enzymogenes CFS cytotoxicity. The cell line used in this assay was human normal skin fibroblast (CCD-1064SK) purchased from the American Type Culture Collection (ATCC, Manassas, VA, USA). This colorimetric assay measures the cellular metabolic activity based on the ability of nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide phosphate (NADPH)-dependent cellular oxidoreductase enzymes to reduce the yellow 3-(4,5-dimethylthiazol-2yl)-2,5-diphenyltetrazolium bromide dye (MTT) to form the insoluble formazan purple crystals [48–50]. Cells were seeded in a 96-well culture plates in a final volume of 100 μL media per well, then plates were incubated in a humidified atmosphere (37°C, 5% CO2) for 24 h to allow cells to adhere. When cells reached confluency, they were treated with the L. enzymogenes CFS to obtain final concentrations of 1.25, 2.5, 5, 10, 20, 25, 40, and 50% (v/v). Cells were incubated in the humidified atmosphere (37°C, 5% CO2) for 72 h before performing the MTT assay to determine the cells’ viability. The assay was conducted in triplicate, and the control cells were treated only with 10% TSB. The optical density for the treated and control wells was measured at 570 nm using a microtiter plate reader (BioTek, Winooski, VT, USA). Percentage viability was calculated using the formula below
Statistical analysis
Data were expressed as a mean ± standard deviation (SD). The statistical significance between different test conditions was determined using the independent sample t-test. The difference among groups was significant when p < 0.05.
Results
L. enzymogenes cell-free supernatant (CFS) proteolytic activity assessment
L. enzymogenes CFS proteolytic activity was measured using Sigma’s universal protease activity assay. L. enzymogenes CFS proteolytic activity was evaluated under two variables; bacterial density (PA, 4% (v/v) and PB, 8% (v/v)) and incubation period (1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 10, 11, 14 and18 days) as presented in Fig 1. Irrespective of the bacterial density (PA and PB), comparable proteolytic activity was observed during the first ten days of incubation (Fig 1A). However, on day eleven, a change in proteolytic activity was detected. The maximal proteolytic activity for the PA and PB stocks were 0.129 unit/mL and 0.093 unit/mL (Fig 1A), respectively. Accordingly, higher inoculum size did not yield higher proteases production.
To gain insight into the characters of bioactive products secreted by L. enzymogenes, viable cell count of PA 4% (v/v) and PB 8% (v/v) stocks at different incubation periods was evaluated (Fig 1B). Results revealed that L. enzymogenes multiplication process was active during the first two incubation days, thereafter the growth rate decelerates due to depletion of the essential nutrients. Following incubation for eleven days, bacterial death for PA and PB cultures was dominant (Fig 1B) and so it may be proposed that L. enzymogenes intracellular proteases were released signifying the maximum proteolytic activity observed (Fig 1A).
Bacterial inhibition capacity of L. enzymogenes CFS against MSSA and MRSA
L. enzymogenes CFS growth inhibitory effect was first screened against S. aureus. A reduction in MSSA and MRSA colonies density and size was visually noticed when L. enzymogenes CFS (100 and 200 μL) was flooded over a plate cultured with 108 CFU/mL of S. aureus as shown in Fig 2A and 2B.
Growth inhibition activity of L. enzymogenes CFS, antibiotics and their combination
The growth inhibitory strength of L. enzymogenes CFS against different pathogens (MSSA, MRSA and E. coli O157:H7) at different concentrations (102,103, 104, 105 and 106 CFU/mL) is illustrated in Fig 3. L. enzymogenes CFS displayed higher growth inhibitory activity against MSSA and MRSA (16% and 10%, respectively) compared to E. coli O157:H7 (5%).
[Figure omitted. See PDF.]
The MICs of the standard antibiotics (cefixime, levofloxacin and gentamicin) on the selected pathogens are summarized in Table 1.
[Figure omitted. See PDF.]
The antibacterial activity of the standard antibiotics (cefixime, gentamicin and levofloxacin) at 0.5 MIC (Fig 4A), 0.25 MIC (Fig 4B) and 0.125 MIC (Fig 4C) alone and in combination with L. enzymogenes CFS against MSSA, MRSA and E coli O157:H7 are presented in Fig 4. The combination of L. enzymogenes CFS with cefixime, gentamicin, levofloxacin at sub-MICs showed an additive effect against MSSA and MRSA (Fig 4). L. enzymogenes CFS-antibiotics 0.5 MICs mixtures presented fifty percent or higher growth inhibition activity against MSSA. Apparently, L. enzymogenes CFS triggered cefixime’s antibacterial activity against MSSA when tested at its 0.5 MIC (p = 0.001, Fig 4A), 0.25 MIC (p = 0.004, Fig 4B) and 0.125 MIC (p = 0.045, Fig 4C). Yet, no significant additive effect for L. enzymogenes CFS when combined with cefixime against the Gram-negative E. coli O157:H7 at the sub-MIC values. On the contrary, gentamicin and levofloxacin combination at sub-MIC strength with L. enzymogenes CFS increased their antibacterial activity against all tested pathogens (Fig 5).
[Figure omitted. See PDF.]
* Statistical significance p < 0.005.
[Figure omitted. See PDF.]
Cytotoxicity assay
MTT assay results shown in Fig 5 indicated high cell viability values of 92–145% when exposed to different L. enzymogenes CFS concentrations (1.25, 2.5, 5, 10, 20, 25, 40, and 50% (v/v)).
Discussion
Interest in antibiotic adjuvants therapy has increasingly attracted attention within contemporary studies due to the emergence of multidrug-resistant organisms [51–53]. Perhaps one of the leading causes of this resistance is the low microbial cell membrane permeability to antibiotics. Hence, microbial proteases able to perturb other pathogens membrane structure arises as an efficient tool to increase antibiotic bioavailability. Indeed, recent studies reported the combination of outer-membrane acting peptides (natural or synthetic) with antibiotics inhibiting cell-wall synthesis as a new pathway for finding effective therapy [54, 55].
L. enzymogenes, an environment-friendly soil-borne pathogen produces several proteolytic enzymes. Some are secreted into the culture medium while others are localized in the cell-envelope [15, 18]. In the current study, maximum proteolytic activity for L. enzymogenes was obtained following PBC incubation for 11 days, during which the intracellular peptidases were released into the media following cell destruction (Fig 1). L. enzymogenes PBC PA (4% (v/v) superior proteolytic activity (1.3 folds) compared to PB (8% (v/v), could be attributed to the higher bacterial surface area to volume ratio, hence improving dissolved oxygen and nutrients’ consumption (Fig 1A).
L. enzymogenes CFS growth inhibitory potential was influenced by the strain and the concentration of the pathogen under investigation (Fig 3). L. enzymogenes CFS displayed higher inhibitory activity against S. aureus (MSSA and MRSA) compared to E. coli O157:H7 at the infectious tested bacterial concentration (Fig 3). This might be attributed to the core difference between Gram-positive and Gram-negative bacteria cell wall structure and composition [56]; S. aureus lack the outer lipopolysaccharide membrane enabling L. enzymogenes proteinases to perturb the multilayered peptidoglycan membrane, whilst in E. coli, L. enzymogenes proteinases have to cross the lipopolysaccharide layer in order to invade the monolayer peptidoglycan. As reported, L. enzymogenes α- Lytic protease specifically cleaves peptide bonds near small and hydrophilic amino acids as alanine, serine, threonine and valine, while β-lytic proteases specifically targets glycine, and also, the D-Ala-X bonds in bacterial cell wall peptidoglycan moieties [57]. Consequently, the higher bacteriolytic activity of L. enzymogenes CFS observed (Fig 3) toward S. aureus compared to E. coli O157:H7 could be attributed to its lower extent to disrupt the peptide-bridge cross-linking in E. coli O157:H7 peptidoglycan layer.
The decline in L. enzymogenes CFS antibacterial activity against higher bacterial concentration (Fig 3) could be related to the reduction in proteinases’ concentration in the culture supernatant due to the binding of these proteinases with viable, lysed bacterial structures and chemical components. Thus, L. enzymogenes CFS percentage growth inhibitory activity is proportional to the amount of culture supernatant proteases available to each bacterium at the time of exposure.
Antimicrobials with different bacterial targets including cefixime (cell wall synthesis inhibitor) [58], levofloxacin (DNA gyrase blocker) [59] and gentamicin (protein synthesis inhibitor) [60] at sub-MIC levels in combination with L. enzymogenes CFS, is promising (Fig 5). Gentamicin and levofloxacin antibacterial activity at half, quarter and one eighth the MIC against the tested pathogens has been potentiated when combined with L. enzymogenes CFS (Fig 5). This cooperative effect might be related to the CFS proteolytic activity toward peptidoglycan moieties, hence facilitating the accessibility of gentamicin and levofloxacin to their intracellular targets.
The reported resistance of MRSA to cefixime [61] was interestingly overcome when combined with L. enzymogenes CFS. Herein, cefixime-L. enzymogenes CFS combination may be recommended as a new strategy to combat infectious diseases caused by β- Lactam resistant MRSA.
Microbial proteases, though essentially indispensable to the maintenance and survival of their host, can be potentially damaging when present in other hosts. Antimicrobial peptides are often limited by their cytotoxicity [62]. The in vitro cytotoxicity is quantitatively evaluated by MTT assay. This bioassay is based on the intracellular reduction of methyltetrazolium salt by the viable cells [63, 64]. According to the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) 10993–5 [65], tested materials that reveal a reduction in cell viability by more than 30% are regarded as cytotoxic. The present research indicated high cell viability above 90% for all L. enzymogenes CFS tested concentrations. This finding supports the use of L. enzymogenes CFS with antibiotics as an adjuvant to treat bacterial infections. This combination presents a great potential for becoming a future strategy to achieve therapeutic goals. Yet, further research is required to move this therapy forward.
Conclusion
In summary, L. enzymogenes CFS and antibiotics combinations showed positive antibacterial activity against the Gram-positive S. aureus (MRSA and MSSA) and the Gram-negative pathogen E. coli O157:H7 as a new trend to combat bacterial resistance. L. enzymogenes CFS is a good potentiator for gentamicin and levofloxacin antibacterial activity, thus lowering the doses administered and hence reducing their side effects. In addition, cefixime’s antibacterial spectrum against MRSA was recovered when combined with L. enzymogenes CFS. MTT assay revealed that L. enzymogenes CFS exhibited no significant reduction in cell viability against human normal skin fibroblast (CCD-1064SK). Given the promising results obtained so far, the appeal of using combinatory therapy will have great potential. It could represent the beginning of a modern and efficient era in the battle against multidrug resistant pathogens.
Supporting information
S1 Fig. Different pools of L. enzymogenes PBC incubated at different time intervals (Days). I: Pool A (PA, 4% (v/v)); II pool B (PB, 8% (v/v)).
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0282705.s001
(DOCX)
S2 Fig. Sigma’s non-specific protease activity assay. I: L-tyrosine standard curve; II: L-tyrosine standard stock solutions.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0282705.s002
(DOCX)
Acknowledgments
We would like to thank participants who offered their time to participate in the survey.
Citation: Suaifan GARY, Abdel Rahman DMA, Abu-Odeh AM, Abu Jbara F, Shehadeh MB, Darwish RM (2023) Antibiotic—Lysobacter enzymogenes proteases combination as a novel virulence attenuating therapy. PLoS ONE 18(3): e0282705. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0282705
About the Authors:
Ghadeer A. R. Y. Suaifan
Contributed equally to this work with: Ghadeer A. R. Y. Suaifan, Diana M. A. Abdel Rahman, Mayadah B. Shehadeh, Rula M. Darwish
Roles: Conceptualization, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Supervision
E-mail: [email protected], [email protected]
Affiliation: Department of Pharmaceutical Sciences, School of Pharmacy, The University of Jordan, Amman, Jordan
ORICD: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5554-0926
Diana M. A. Abdel Rahman
Contributed equally to this work with: Ghadeer A. R. Y. Suaifan, Diana M. A. Abdel Rahman, Mayadah B. Shehadeh, Rula M. Darwish
Roles: Data curation, Methodology, Writing – original draft
Affiliation: Department of Pharmaceutical Sciences, School of Pharmacy, The University of Jordan, Amman, Jordan
Ala’ M. Abu-Odeh
Roles: Formal analysis
¶‡ AMAO and FAJ also contributed equally to this work.
Affiliation: Department of Pharmaceutical Chemistry and Pharmacognosy, School of Pharmacy, Applied Science Private University, Jordan, Amman
Fahid Abu Jbara
Roles: Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing
¶‡ AMAO and FAJ also contributed equally to this work.
Affiliation: School of Medicine, The University of Jordan, Amman, Jordan
Mayadah B. Shehadeh
Contributed equally to this work with: Ghadeer A. R. Y. Suaifan, Diana M. A. Abdel Rahman, Mayadah B. Shehadeh, Rula M. Darwish
Roles: Conceptualization, Data curation, Investigation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing
Affiliation: Department of Pharmaceutical Sciences, School of Pharmacy, The University of Jordan, Amman, Jordan
ORICD: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4859-0500
Rula M. Darwish
Contributed equally to this work with: Ghadeer A. R. Y. Suaifan, Diana M. A. Abdel Rahman, Mayadah B. Shehadeh, Rula M. Darwish
Roles: Investigation, Writing – original draft
Affiliation: Department of Pharmaceutics and Pharmaceutical Biotechnology, School of Pharmacy, The University of Jordan, Amman, Jordan
ORICD: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2359-676X
1. Akinyele TA, Igbinosa EO, Akinpelu DA, Okoh AI. In vitro assessment of the synergism between extracts of Cocos nucifera husk and some standard antibiotics. Asian Pacific Journal of Tropical Biomedicine. 2017;7(4):306–13.
2. Peterson JW. Bacterial pathogenesis. Medical Microbiology 4th edition. 1996.
3. Munita JM, Arias CA. Mechanisms of antibiotic resistance. Microbiology spectrum. 2016;4(2): 1–24. pmid:27227291
4. (https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/antimicrobial-resistance 2021).
5. Berdy J. Bioactive microbial metabolites. The Journal of antibiotics. 2005;58(1):1–26. pmid:15813176
6. Hayat R, Ali S, Amara U, Khalid R, Ahmed I. Soil beneficial bacteria and their role in plant growth promotion: a review. Annals of microbiology. 2010;60(4):579–98.
7. Xu S, Zhang Z, Xie X, Shi Y, Chai A, Fan T, et al. Comparative genomics provides insights into the potential biocontrol mechanism of two Lysobacter enzymogenes strains with distinct antagonistic activities. Front Microbiol. 2022;13:966986. pmid:36033849
8. Puopolo G, Giovannini O, Pertot I. Lysobacter capsici AZ78 can be combined with copper to effectively control Plasmopara viticola on grapevine. Microbiological Research. 2014;169(7–8):633–42. pmid:24140153
9. Kilic-Ekici O, Yuen GY. Induced resistance as a mechanism of biological control by Lysobacter enzymogenes strain C3. Phytopathology. 2003;93(9):1103–10. pmid:18944093
10. Zhao Y, Jiang T, Xu H, Xu G, Qian G, Liu F. Characterization of Lysobacter spp. strains and their potential use as biocontrol agents against pear anthracnose. Microbiological Research. 2021;242:126624. pmid:33189074
11. Yin H. Detection methods for the genus Lysobacter and the species Lysobacter enzymogenes. 2010. (I can’t find the article free).
12. Ahmed K, Chohnan S, Ohashi H, Hirata T, Masaki T, Sakiyama F. Purification, bacteriolytic activity, and specificity of β-lytic protease fromLysobacter sp. IB-9374. Journal of bioscience and bioengineering. 2003;95(1):27–34.
13. Hungate BA, Marks JC, Power ME, Schwartz E, van Groenigen KJ, Blazewicz SJ, et al. The functional significance of bacterial predators. Mbio. 2021;12(2):e00466–21. pmid:33906922
14. Shen X, Wang B, Yang N, Zhang L, Shen D, Wu H, et al. Lysobacter enzymogenes antagonizes soilborne bacteria using the type IV secretion system. Environmental Microbiology. 2021;23(8):4673–88. pmid:34227200
15. Ensign J, Wolfe R. Lysis of bacterial cell walls by an enzyme isolated from a myxobacter. Journal of bacteriology. 1965;90(2):395–402. pmid:14330733
16. Ensign J, Wolfe R. Characterization of a small proteolytic enzyme which lyses bacterial cell walls. Journal of Bacteriology. 1966;91(2):524–534. pmid:5935339
17. Walker J, Specht C, Bekker J. Nematocidal activity to Pratylenchus penetrans by culture fluids from actinomycetes and bacteria. Canadian Journal of Microbiology. 1966;12(2):347–351. pmid:5951708
18. Xie Y, Wright S, Shen Y, Du L. Bioactive natural products from Lysobacter. Natural product reports. 2012;29(11):1277–1287. pmid:22898908
19. Pankey G, Ashcraft D, Patel N. In vitro synergy of daptomycin plus rifampin against Enterococcus faecium resistant to both linezolid and vancomycin. Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy. 2005;49(12):5166–5168. pmid:16304195
20. Panthee S, Hamamoto H, Paudel A, Sekimizu K. Lysobacter species: a potential source of novel antibiotics. Archives of microbiology. 2016;198(9):839–845. pmid:27541998
21. Bollenbach T. Antimicrobial interactions: mechanisms and implications for drug discovery and resistance evolution. Current opinion in microbiology. 2015;27:1–9. pmid:26042389
22. Mohammed AAM, Suaifan GARY, Shehadeh MB, Okechukwu PN. Design, synthesis and antimicrobial evaluation of novel glycosylated-fluoroquinolones derivatives. European Journal of Medicinal Chemistry. 2020;202:112513. pmid:32623216
23. Suaifan GA, Mohammed AA. Fluoroquinolones structural and medicinal developments (2013–2018): Where are we now? Bioorganic & medicinal chemistry. 2019;27(14):3005–3060.
24. Kourkoutas Y, Karatzas KAG, Valdramidis VP, Chorianopoulos N. Bioactive Natural Products: Facts, Applications, and Challenges. BioMed Research International. 2015;2015:684109. pmid:25961033
25. de Araújo ACJ., Freitas PR., Rodrigues dos Santos Barbosa C, Muniz DF, Esmeraldo Rocha J, Neto JBdA, et al. Essential oil of Croton ceanothifolius Baill. potentiates the effect of antibiotics against multiresistant bacteria. Antibiotics. 2020;9(1):27. pmid:31947644
26. Eliopoulos GM, Moellering RC Jr. Antibiotic synergism and antimicrobial combinations in clinical infections george. Reviews of infectious diseases. 1982;4(2):282–93.
27. Rossiter SE, Fletcher MH, Wuest WM. Natural products as platforms to overcome antibiotic resistance. Chemical reviews. 2017;117(19):12415–74. pmid:28953368
28. Kothari V, Patel P, Joshi C. Bioactive natural products: an overview, with particular emphasis on those possessing potential to inhibit microbial quorum sensing. Microbial Applications. 2017;2:185–202.
29. Kali A. Antibiotics and bioactive natural products in treatment of methicillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus: A brief review. Pharmacognosy Reviews. 2015;9:29–34. pmid:26009690
30. Bush K. Synergistic antibiotic combinations. Antibacterials. 2017:69–88.
31. Dundar D, Otkun M. In-vitro efficacy of synergistic antibiotic combinations in multidrug resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa strains. Yonsei medical journal. 2010;51(1):111–116. pmid:20046523
32. Wu C-L, Peng K-L, Yip B-S, Chih Y-H, Cheng J-W. Boosting synergistic effects of short antimicrobial peptides with conventional antibiotics against resistant bacteria. Frontiers in Microbiology. 2021;12:747760. pmid:34733262
33. Nwabor OF, Terbtothakun P, Voravuthikunchai SP, Chusri S. Evaluation of the synergistic antibacterial effects of fosfomycin in combination with selected antibiotics against carbapenem–resistant Acinetobacter baumannii. Pharmaceuticals. 2021;14(3):185. pmid:33668905
34. Suaifan GARY, Alhogail S, Zourob M. Paper-based magnetic nanoparticle-peptide probe for rapid and quantitative colorimetric detection of Escherichia coli O157:H7. Biosensors and Bioelectronics. 2017;92:702–8. pmid:27839734
35. Suaifan GA, Alhogail S, Zourob M. Rapid and low-cost biosensor for the detection of Staphylococcus aureus. Biosensors and Bioelectronics. 2017;90:230–7. pmid:27914366
36. Suaifan GA, Al Nobani SW, Shehadeh MB, Darwish RM. Engineered colorimetric detection of Staphylococcus aureus extracellular proteases. Talanta. 2019;198:30–38. pmid:30876564
37. Alhogail S, Suaifan GA, Zourob M. Rapid colorimetric sensing platform for the detection of Listeria monocytogenes foodborne pathogen. Biosensors and Bioelectronics. 2016;86:1061–1066. pmid:27543841
38. Alhogail S, Suaifan GA, Bikker FJ, Kaman WE, Weber K, Cialla-May D, et al. Rapid colorimetric detection of Pseudomonas aeruginosa in clinical isolates using a magnetic nanoparticle biosensor. ACS omega. 2019;4(26):21684–21688. pmid:31891046
39. Raji MA, Suaifan G, Shibl A, Weber K, Cialla-May D, Popp J, et al. Aptasensor for the detection of Methicillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus on contaminated surfaces. Biosensors and Bioelectronics. 2021;176:112910. pmid:33395571
40. Suaifan GA, Esseghaier C, Ng A, Zourob M. Wash-less and highly sensitive assay for prostate specific antigen detection. Analyst. 2012;137(23):5614–9. pmid:23086008
41. Tokajian S. New epidemiology of Staphylococcus aureus infections in the Middle East. Clinical Microbiology and Infection. 2014;20(7):624–628. pmid:24861893
42. Hunt JM. Shiga toxin–producing Escherichia coli (STEC). Clinics in laboratory medicine. 2010;30(1):21–45. pmid:20513540
43. Rangel JM, Sparling PH, Crowe C, Griffin PM, Swerdlow DL. Epidemiology of Escherichia coli O157: H7 outbreaks, united states, 1982–2002. Emerging infectious diseases. 2005;11(4):603. pmid:15829201
44. Gómez Expósito R, Postma J, Raaijmakers JM, De Bruijn I. Diversity and activity of Lysobacter species from disease suppressive soils. Frontiers in microbiology. 2015;6:1243. pmid:26635735
45. Cupp-Enyard C. Sigma’s non-specific protease activity assay-casein as a substrate. Journal of visualized experiments: JoVE. 2008;(19). (This is not an article in a journal) pmid:19066538
46. Wikler MA. Methods for dilution antimicrobial susceptibility tests for bacteria that grow aerobically: approved standard. CLSI (NCCLS). 2006;26:M7-A.
47. Vijayakumar PP, Muriana PM. A microplate growth inhibition assay for screening bacteriocins against Listeria monocytogenes to differentiate their mode-of-action. Biomolecules. 2015;5(2):1178–94. pmid:26111195
48. Kumar P, Nagarajan A, Uchil PD. Analysis of cell viability by the alamarblue assay. Cold Spring Harbor Protocols. 2018;2018(6):pdb.prot095489. (I can’t find the article for the pages) pmid:29858336
49. Sriwiriyajan S, Ninpesh T, Sukpondma Y, Nasomyon T, Graidist P. Cytotoxicity screening of plants of genus Piper in breast cancer cell lines. Tropical Journal of Pharmaceutical Research. 2014;13(6):921–928.
50. Lü L, Zhang L, Wai MSM, Yew DTW, Xu J. Exocytosis of MTT formazan could exacerbate cell injury. Toxicology in vitro. 2012;26(4):636–644. pmid:22401948
51. González-Bello C. Antibiotic adjuvants—A strategy to unlock bacterial resistance to antibiotics. Bioorganic & Medicinal Chemistry Letters. 2017;27(18):4221–8.
52. Prateeksha P, Bajpai R, Rao CV, Upreti DK, Barik SK, Singh BN. Chrysophanol-Functionalized Silver Nanoparticles for Anti-Adhesive and Anti-Biofouling Coatings to Prevent Urinary Catheter-Associated Infections. ACS Applied Nano Materials. 2021;4(2):1512–28.
53. Abd El-Aleam RH, George RF, Georgey HH, Abdel-Rahman HM. Bacterial virulence factors: a target for heterocyclic compounds to combat bacterial resistance. RSC Adv. 2021;11(58):36459–82. pmid:35494393
54. Oliva A, Garzoli S, De Angelis M, Marzuillo C, Vullo V, Mastroianni CM, et al. In-vitro evaluation of different antimicrobial combinations with and without colistin against carbapenem-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii. Molecules. 2019;24(5):886–898. pmid:30832412
55. Li Q, Cebrián R, Montalbán-López M, Ren H, Wu W, Kuipers OP. Outer-membrane-acting peptides and lipid II-targeting antibiotics cooperatively kill Gram-negative pathogens. Communications biology. 2021;4(1):1–11.
56. Karki G. Difference between Gram positive and Gram negative bacteria. Online biology notes Accessed March. 2018;29:2019.
57. Kim SJ, Chang J, Singh M. Peptidoglycan architecture of Gram-positive bacteria by solid-state NMR. Biochimica et Biophysica Acta (BBA)-Biomembranes. 2015;1848(1):350–362. pmid:24915020
58. SHIGI Y, MATSUMOTO Y, KAIZU M, FUJISHITA Y, KOJO H. Mechanism of action of the new orally active cephalosporin FK027. The Journal of antibiotics. 1984;37(7):790–796. pmid:6381449
59. Davis R, Bryson HM. Levofloxacin. Drugs. 1994;47(4):677–700.
60. Jao RL, Jackson GG. Gentamicin sulfate, new antibiotic against Gram-negative bacilli: Laboratory, pharmacological, and clinical evaluation. Jama. 1964;189(11):817–822.
61. Taj Y, Abdullah FE, Kazmi SU. Current pattern of antibiotic resistance in Staphylococcus aureus clinical isolates and the emergence of vancomycin resistance. J Coll Physicians Surg Pak. 2010;20(11):728–732. pmid:21078245
62. Shao C, Zhu Y, Lai Z, Tan P, Shan A. Antimicrobial peptides with protease stability: progress and perspective. Future Medicinal Chemistry. 2019;11(16):2047–2050. pmid:31538527
63. Niu Q-x, Zhao C-y, Jing Z-a. An evaluation of the colorimetric assays based on enzymatic reactions used in the measurement of human natural cytotoxicity. Journal of immunological methods. 2001;251(1–2):9–11. pmid:11292477
64. Bean TA, Zhuang WC, Tong PY, Eick JD, Chappelow CC, Yourtee DM. Comparison of tetrazolium colorimetric and 51Cr release assays for cytotoxicity determination of dental biomaterials. Dental Materials. 1995;11(5–6):327–331. pmid:8595830
65. 10993–5 I. Biological evaluation of medical devices, Part 5, Tests for Cytotoxicity: In Vitro Methods. International Organization for Standardization Geneva, Switzerland; 2009.
You have requested "on-the-fly" machine translation of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace human translation. Show full disclaimer
Neither ProQuest nor its licensors make any representations or warranties with respect to the translations. The translations are automatically generated "AS IS" and "AS AVAILABLE" and are not retained in our systems. PROQUEST AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Your use of the translations is subject to all use restrictions contained in your Electronic Products License Agreement and by using the translation functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against ProQuest or its licensors for your use of the translation functionality and any output derived there from. Hide full disclaimer
© 2023 Suaifan et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (the “License”), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.
Abstract
Minimizing antibiotic resistance is a key motivation strategy in designing and developing new and combination therapy. In this study, a combination of the antibiotics (cefixime, levofloxacin and gentamicin) with Lysobacter enzymogenes (L. enzymogenes) bioactive proteases present in the cell- free supernatant (CFS) have been investigated against the Gram-positive methicillin-sensitive Staphylococcus aureus (MSSA), methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) and the Gram-negative Escherichia coli (E. coli O157:H7). Results indicated that L. enzymogenes CFS had maximum proteolytic activity after 11 days of incubation and higher growth inhibitory properties against MSSA and MRSA compared to E. coli (O157:H7). The combination of L. enzymogenes CFS with cefixime, gentamicin and levofloxacin at sub-MIC levels, has potentiated their bacterial inhibition capacity. Interestingly, combining cefixime with L. enzymogenes CFS restored its antibacterial activity against MRSA. The MTT assay revealed that L. enzymogenes CFS has no significant reduction in human normal skin fibroblast (CCD-1064SK) cell viability. In conclusion, L. enzymogenes bioactive proteases are natural potentiators for antimicrobials with different bacterial targets including cefixime, gentamicin and levofloxacin representing the beginning of a modern and efficient era in the battle against multidrug-resistant pathogens.
You have requested "on-the-fly" machine translation of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace human translation. Show full disclaimer
Neither ProQuest nor its licensors make any representations or warranties with respect to the translations. The translations are automatically generated "AS IS" and "AS AVAILABLE" and are not retained in our systems. PROQUEST AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Your use of the translations is subject to all use restrictions contained in your Electronic Products License Agreement and by using the translation functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against ProQuest or its licensors for your use of the translation functionality and any output derived there from. Hide full disclaimer
Details
; Diana M. A. Abdel Rahman; Ala’ M. Abu-Odeh Fahid Abu Jbara Mayadah B. Shehadeh
; Darwish, Rula M