The effects of the natural enzyme, Pectinex Ultra SP-L, on human cell cultures and bacterial biofilms in vitro

BMC Microbiology

Vanessa Steenkamp¹  Gisela Jooné¹  Oppel B W Greeff¹  Ian P Olwoch¹ 

[1] Department of Pharmacology, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Pretoria, Private Bag X323, Arcadia, Pretoria, 0007, South Africa

关键词: Staphylococcus aureus;    Pseudomonas aeruginosa;    Pectinex;    Neutrophil;    Lymphocyte;    HeLa cell;    Enzyme;    Cytotoxicity;    Biofilm;    Antibiotic;   

Others  :  1170521
DOI  :  10.1186/s12866-014-0251-1

 received in 2014-05-19, accepted in 2014-09-23,  发布年份 2014

【 摘 要 】

Background

Pectinex Ultra SP-L (Pectinex) is a microbial-derived enzyme that is used in the food industry and that has been shown to inhibit bacterial biofilms. It has been suggested that Pectinex may be useful in the management of biofilm-related bacterial infections and therefore warrants further investigation in this regard. The aim of this study was to investigate the cytotoxicity of Pectinex on cervical adenocarcinoma cells (HeLa), lymphocytes and neutrophils. Cell viability and morphology were assessed using an in vitro spectrophotometric MTT (3-(4, 5-dimethylthiazol-2-yl)-2, 5-diphenyl tetrazolium bromide) assay and polarization-optical transmitted light differential interference contrast microscopy. This study also investigated the antibacterial and antibiofilm actions of Pectinex, alone and in combination with antibiotics, on standard and clinical cultures of Staphylococcus aureus and Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Minimum inhibitory (MIC) and bactericidal (MBC) concentrations were determined using p-iodo-nitrotetrazolium violet staining of bacterial cultures and regrowth of subcultures. Biofilm biomass and cell viability were quantified spectrophotometrically after staining with crystal violet and MTT.

Results

The IC₅₀ (±SEM) of Pectinex was 193.9 (±22.2) PGU/ml for HeLa cells, 383.4 (±81.5) and 629.6 (±62.8) PGU/ml for fMLP-stimulated and non-stimulated lymphocytes respectively, and 245.9 (±9.4) and 529.7 (±40.7) PGU/ml for fMLP-stimulated and non-stimulated neutrophils, respectively. Induced morphological features characteristic of apoptosis and necrosis included cell membrane blebs and vacuolization in HeLa cells, clumping in lymphocytes, as well as shrunken rounded cells, apoptotic bodies and debris in all cultures. Pectinex (7.42 ¿ 950 PGU/ml^?1) was not bactericidal. In clinical cultures of Staphylococcus aureus, co-administration of Pectinex was associated with a 28.0% increase in both the MIC and MBC of amoxicillin-clavulanate. In clinical cultures of P. aeruginosa, there was an 89.0% and 92.8% increase in the MIC and MBC of ciprofloxacin, respectively. Pectinex???118.75 PGU/ml^?1 and incubation periods???6 h were associated with increased biomass and cell viability in S. aureus or P. aeruginosa biofilms.

Conclusions

Pectinex appeared to antagonize the antibacterial effects of amoxicillin-clavulanate and ciprofloxacin and furthermore demonstrated significant cytotoxicity. It was therefore deemed unsuitable for the management of either planktonic or biofilm phenotypes of S. aureus or P. aeruginosa.

【 授权许可】

   
2014 Olwoch et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

Figure 3.

Figure 4.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Zucca M, Savoia D: The post-antibiotic era: promising developments in the therapy of infectious diseases. Int J Biomed Sci 2010, 6(2):77-86.
• [2]Arias CA, Murray BE: Antibiotic-resistant bugs in the 21st century - a clinical super-challenge. N Engl J Med 2009, 360(5):439-443.
• [3]Public Policy IDSA: The 10 x ¿20 Initiative: Pursuing a global commitment to develop 10 new antibacterial drugs by 2020. Clin Infect Dis 2010, 50(8):1081-1083.
• [4]Kaplan JB: Biofilm dispersal: mechanisms, clinical implications, and potential therapeutic uses. J Dent Res 2010, 89(3):205-219.
• [5]Fux CA, Wilson S, Stoodley P: Detachment characteristics and oxacillin resistance of Staphyloccocus aureus biofilm emboli in an in vitro catheter infection model. J Bacteriol 2004, 186(14):4486-4491.
• [6]Davies DG: Understanding biofilm resistance to antibacterial agents. Nat Rev Drug Discov 2003, 114(2):114-122.
• [7]Nickel JC, Ruseska I, Wright JB, Costerton JW: Tobramycin resistance of Pseudomonas aeruginosa cells growing as a biofilm on urinary catheter material. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1985, 27(4):619-624.
• [8]Xavier JB, Picioreanu C, Rani SA, Van Loosdrecht MCM, Stewart PS: Biofilm-control strategies based on enzymic disruption of the extracellular polymeric substance matrix ¿ a modelling study. Microbiology 2005, 151(12):3817-3832.
• [9]Van Beilen JB, Li Z: Enzyme technology: an overview. Curr Opin Biotechnol 2002, 13(4):338-344.
• [10]Ward OP, Qin WM, Dhanjoon J, Ye J, Singh A: Physiology and biotechnology of Aspergillus. Adv Appl Microbiol 2006, 58:1-75.
• [11]Johansen C, Falholt P, Gram L: Enzymatic removal and disinfection of bacterial biofilms. Appl Env Microbiol 1997, 63(9):3724-3728.
• [12]Chaignon P, Sadovskaya I, Ragunath C, Ramasubbu N, Kaplan JB, Jabbouri S: Susceptibility of staphylococcal biofilms to enzymatic treatments depends on their chemical composition. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 2007, 75(1):125-132.
• [13]Donelli G, Francolini I, Romoli D, Guaglianone E, Piozzi A, Ragunath C, Kaplan JB: Synergistic activity of dispersin B and cefamandole nafate in inhibition of staphylococcal biofilm growth on polyurethanes. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2007, 51(8):2733-2740.
• [14]Basketter D, Berg N, Broekhuizen C, Fieldsend M, Kirkwood S, Kluin C, Mathieu S, Rodriguez C: Enzymes in cleaning products: an overview of toxicological properties and risk assessment/management. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 2012, 64(1):117-123.
• [15]Spök A: Safety regulations of food enzymes. Food Technol Biotechnol 2006, 44(2):197-209.
• [16]Pariza MW, Johnson EA: Evaluating the safety of microbial enzyme preparations used in food processing: update for a new century. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 2001, 33(2):173-186.
• [17]Ventola CL: Off-label drug information: regulation, distribution, evaluation, and related controversies. Pharm Ther 2009, 34(8):428-440.
• [18]Schrek R: A method for counting the viable cells in normal and in malignant cell suspensions. Am J Cancer 1936, 28(2):389-392.
• [19]Pretlow TG, Luberoff DE: A new method for separating lymphocytes and granulocytes from human peripheral blood using programmed gradient sedimentation in an isokinetic gradient. Immunology 1973, 24(1):85-92.
• [20]Grare M, Fontanay S, Cornil C, Finance C, Duval RE: Tetrazolium salts for MIC determination in microplates: Why? Which salt to select? How? J Microbiol Methods 2008, 75(1):156-159.
• [21]Eloff JN: A sensitive and quick microplate method to determine the minimal inhibitory concentration of plant extracts for bacteria. Planta Med 1998, 64(8):711-713.
• [22]Pitts B, Hamilton MA, Zelver N, Stewart PS: A microtiter-plate screening method for biofilm disinfection and removal. J Microbiol Methods 2003, 54(2):269-276.
• [23]Kim JE, Choi NH, Kang SC: Anti-listerial properties of garlic shoot juice at growth and morphology of Listeria monocytogenes. Food Control 2007, 18:1198-1203.
• [24]Smith K, Perez A, Ramage G, Lappin D, Gemmell CG, Lang S: Biofilm formation by Scottish clinical isolates of Staphylococcus aureus. J Med Microbiol 2008, 57(8):1018-1023.
• [25]Green BJ, Beezhold DH: Industrial fungal enzymes: an occupational allergen perspective. J Allergy 2011, 2011:11 pages.
• [26]Orie NN, Zidek W, Tepel M: Chemoattractant- and mitomycin-induced generation of reactive oxygen species in human lymphocytes: The role of calcium. Exp Physiol 1999, 84(3):515-520.
• [27]Elmore S: Apoptosis: a review of programmed cell death. Toxicol Pathol 2007, 35(4):495-516.
• [28]Cho SW, Lee S, Shin W: The x-ray structure of Aspergillus aculeatus polygalacturonase and a modeled structure of the polygalacturonase-octagalacturonate complex. J Mol Biol 2001, 314(4):863-878.
• [29]Aslan Y, Tanr?seven A: Immobilization of Pectinex Ultra SP-L to produce galactooligosaccharides. J Mol Catal B: Enzym 2007, 45:73-77.
• [30]Montilla A, Corzo N, Olani A, Jimeno ML: Identification of oligosaccharides formed during stachyose hydrolysis by Pectinex Ultra SP-L. J Agric Food Chem 2009, 57(11):5007-5013.
• [31]Singer SJ, Nicolson GL: The structure and chemistry of mammalian cell membranes. Am J Pathol 1971, 65(2):427-437.
• [32]Aritajat S, Saenphet K, Srikalayanukul C: The toxicity of a crude enzyme extract from Gliomastix murorum in Swiss Albino mice. Southeast Asian J Trop Med Public Heal 2005, 36(Suppl 4):242-245.
• [33]Varki A: Biological roles of oligosaccharides: all of the theories are correct. Glycobiology 1993, 3(2):97-130.
• [34]Fux CA, Stoodley P, Hall-Stoodley L, Costerton JW: Bacterial biofilms: a diagnostic and therapeutic challenge. Expert Rev Anti Infect Ther 2003, 1(4):667-683.
• [35]Costerton JW, Stewart PS, Greenberg EP: Bacterial biofilms: A common cause of persistent infections. Science 1999, 284(5418):1318-1322.
• [36]Hoogkamp-Korstanje JAA: In-vitro activities of ciprofloxacin, levofloxacin, lomefloxacin, ofloxacin, pefloxacin, sparfloxacin and trovafloxacin against gram-positive and gram-negative pathogens from respiratory tract infections. J Antimicrob Chemother 1997, 40(3):427-431.
• [37]Prieto J, Aguilar L, Giménez MJ, Toro D, Gómez-Lus ML, Dal-Ré R, Balcabao IP: In vitro activities of co-amoxiclav at concentrations achieved in human serum against the resistant subpopulation of heteroresistant Staphylococcus aureus: a controlled study with vancomycin. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1998, 42(7):1574-1577.
• [38]Mecikoglu M, Saygi B, Yildirim Y, Karadag-Saygi E, Ramadan SS, Esemenli T: The effect of proteolytic enzyme serratiopeptidase in the treatment of experimental implant-related infection. J Bone Jt Surg Am 2006, 88(6):1208-1214.
• [39]Nemoto K, Hirota K, Ono T, Murakami K, Murakami K, Nagao D, Miyake Y: Effect of Varidase (Streptokinase) on biofilm formed by Staphylococcus aureus. Chemotherapy 2000, 46(2):111-115.
• [40]Alkawash MA, Soothill JS, Schiller NL: Alginate lyase enhances antibiotic killing of mucoid Pseudomonas aeruginosa in biofilms. APMIS 2006, 114(2):131-138.
• [41]Diaz E, Haaf H, Lai A, Yadana J: Role of alginate in gentamicin antibiotic susceptibility during the early stages of Pseudomonas aeruginosa PAO1 biofilm establishment. JEMI 2011, 15(4):71-78.
• [42]Singh R, Ray P, Das A, Sharma M: Role of persisters and small-colony variants in antibiotic resistance of planktonic and biofilm-associated Staphylococcus aureus: an in vitro study. J Med Microbiol 2009, 58(8):1067-1073.
• [43]Leroy C, Delbarre C, Ghillebaert F, Compere C, Combes D: Effects of commercial enzymes on the adhesion of a marine biofilm-forming bacterium. Biofouling 2008, 24(1):11-22.
• [44]Campos-Montiel RG, Viniegra-Gonzales G: Microbial bioassay of fungal compounds that stimulate the growth of a consortium of anaerobic cellulolytic bacteria. Biotechnol Tech 1995, 9(1):65-68.
• [45]Nazir R, Warmink JA, Boersma H, van Elsas JD: Mechanisms that promote bacterial fitness in fungal-affected soil microhabitats. FEMS Microbiol Ecol 2010, 71(2):169-185.
• [46]Augustin M, Ali-Vehmas T, Atroshi F: Assessment of enzymatic cleaning agents and disinfectants against bacterial biofilms. J Pharm Pharm Sci 2004, 7(1):55-64.
• [47]Sauer K, Cullen MC, Rickard AH, Zeef LAH, Davies DG, Gilbert P: Characterization of nutrient-induced dispersion in Pseudomonas aeruginosa PAO1 biofilm. J Bacteriol 2004, 186(21):7312-7326.