Antimikrobiální účinek nové hydrogelové matrice na bázi přírodního polysacharidu Sterculia urens

English version

Autoři: B. Lipový ^1,2; J. Holoubek ^1,2; L. Vacek ^1,3; F. Růžička ^1,3; E. Nedomová ⁴; H. Poštulková ⁴; L. Vojtová ⁴
Působiště autorů: Faculty of Medicine, Masaryk University, Brno, Czech Republic ¹; Department of Burns and Plastic Surgery, University Hospital Brno, Czech Republic ²; Department of Microbiology, St. Anna University Hospital, Brno, Czech Republic ³; CEITEC – Central European Institute of Technology, Brno University of Technology, Czech Republic ⁴
Vyšlo v časopise: Epidemiol. Mikrobiol. Imunol. 67, 2018, č. 4, s. 166-174
Kategorie: Původní práce

Souhrn

Introduction:

Materials for modern wound-management are a very broad and heterogeneous group. One of the most important representatives is natural materials, or more precisely polysaccharides isolated from various plants and animals. With the increasing resistance of pathogens to established antimicrobial agents, there is also an attempt to discover new mechanisms of the effects of these materials. Gum karaya (GK) is a very promising representative of the natural polysaccharides group and, since it is obtained from Sterculia urens as resin, it is also possible to assume its certain antimicrobial activity.

Material and methodology:

The antimicrobial potential of GK and chitosan (Ch) has been tested on several preselected strains to match the real epidemiological situation of the agents of infectious complications in the field of burned wounds. Tested strains included representatives of gram-positive and gram-negative bacteria as well as selected yeasts. Methicillin susceptible Staphylococcus aureus CCM 4223 (ATCC 29213), methicillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus CCM 4750 (ATCC 43300), Klebsiella pneumoniae CCM 4985 (ATCC 700603), Candida albicans CCM 8261 (ATCC 90028), Pseudomonas aeruginosa CCM 3955 (ATCC 27853) were obtained from the Czech Collection of Microorganisms. Pseudomonas aeruginosa FF 1, Pseudomonas aeruginosa FF 2 and Pseudomonas aeruginosa FF 3 (all multi-resistant clinical strains), Staphylococcus epidermidis A 013, Staphylococcus epidermidis A 117, and Candida parapsilosis BC 11 were obtained from the Collection of Microorganisms at the St. Anne’s University Hospital, Brno. Antimicrobial tests were performed using the disk diffusion test methodology.

Another set of antimicrobial tests was obtained by measuring the growth curves.

Results:

Bacteriostatic activity testing showed 1% GK concentration and both 1% and 0.5% chitosan concentration effective against all pathogens tested. The combination of GK₅₀/Ch₅₀ in concentrations of 1% and 0.5% had similar or better effect. Lower concentrations of the combined material are poorly effective against tested strains. Bactericidal activity testing has not produced positive results, except for Candida spp., where only a partial effect of GK₅₀/Ch₅₀ was observed at 1% concentration.

In the growth curve test, the efficiency of both GK alone and chitosan was found to be significantly higher in gram-positive bacteria compared to gram-negative ones. In the case of this experiment, only a one-tenth concentration was used compared to the disk diffusion test concentration. This results correspond with the data from the bacteriostatic activity testing.

Conclusion:

This is the first publication that attempts to comprehensively define the potential for GK antimicrobial activity and also the possible potentiation of this activity with the use of chitosan. Further experiments are needed to extend the antimicrobial efficiency to gram-negative bacteria.

Keywords:

Gum Karaya – hydrogel – antimicrobial activity – wound healing – burn wound

Zdroje

1. Wasiak J, Cleland H, Campbell F, et al. Dressings for superficial and partial thickness burns. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013 Mar 28;(3):CD002106. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD002106.

2. Singh B, Pal L. Sterculia crosslinked PVA and PVA-poly(AAm) hydrogel wound dressings for slow drug delivery: mechanical, mucoadhesive, biocompatible and permeability properties. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater, 2012 May;9:9–21. doi: 10.1016/j.jmbbm.2012.01.021.

3. Suleyman G, Alangaden GJ. Nosocomial Fungal Infections: Epidemiology, Infection Control, and Prevention. Infect Dis Clin North Am, 2016 Dec;30(4):1023–1052. doi: 10.1016/j.idc.2016.07.008.

4. Singh B, Pal L. Development of sterculia gum based wound dressings for use in drug delivery. European Polymer Journal, 2008;44(10):3222–3230. Dostupné na www: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eurpolymj.2008.07.013.

5. Mostafa K, Morsy M. Modification of carbohydrate polymers via grafting of methacrylonitrile onto pregelled starch using potassium monopersulfate/Fe2+ redox pair. Polymer International, 2004; 53(7):885–889. doi:10.1002/pi.1449.

6. Costa-Júnior ES, Barbosa-Stancioli EF, Mansur AAP, et al. Preparation and characterization of Chitosan/poly(vinyl alcohol) chemically crosslinked blends for biomedical application. Carbohydrate Polymers, 2009; 76(3):472–481. Dostupné na www: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.carbpol.2008.11.015.

7. Postulkova H, Chamradova I, Pavlinak D, et al. Study of effects and conditions on the solubility of natural polysaccharide gum karaya. Food Hydrocolloids, 2017;67:148–156. Dostupné na www: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodhyd.2017.01.011.

8. Singh B, Vashishtha M. Development of novel hydrogels by modification of sterculia gum through radiation cross-linking polymerization for use in drug delivery. Nuclear Inst. and Methods in Physics Research, B [online], 2008; 266(9):2009–2020. doi:10.1016/j.nimb.2008.03.086.

9. Elliot JE, MacDonald M, Nie J, et al. Structure and swelling of poly(acrylic acid) hydrogels: Effect of pH, ionic strength, and dilution on the crosslinked polymer structure. Polymer, 2004; 45(5):1503–1510. doi:10.1016/j.polymer.2003.12.040.

10. Kim SJ, Lee KJ, Kim SI. Electrostimulus responsive behavior of poly(acrylic acid)/polyacrylonitrile semi-interpenetrating polymer network hydrogels. Journal of Applied Polymer Science, 2004; 92(3):1473–1477. doi:10.1002/app.13718.

11. Jayakumar R, Prabaharan M, Reis RL, et al. Graft copolymerized Chitosan – present status and applications. Carbohydrate Polymers, 2005;62(2):142–158.

12. Boateng JS, Matthews KH, Stevens HN, et al. Wound healing dressings and drug delivery systems: a review. J Pharm Sci, 2008 Aug;97(8):2892–2923.

13. Lipový B, Brychta P, Řihová H, et al. Prevalence of infectious complications in burn patients requiring intensive care: data from a pan-European study. Epidemiol Mikrobiol Imunol, 2016 Mar;65(1):25–32.

14. Azzopardi EA, Azzopardi E, Camilleri L, et al. Gram negative wound infection in hospitalised adult burn patients-systematic review and metanalysis. PLoS One, 2014 Apr 21;9(4):e95042. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0095042.

15. Church D, Elsayed S, Reid O, et al. Burn wound infections. Clin Microbiol Rev, 2006 Apr;19(2):403–434.

16. Coetzee E, Rode H, Kahn D. Pseudomonas aeruginosa burn wound infection in a dedicated paediatric burns unit. S Afr J Surg, 2013 May 3;51(2):50–53. doi: 10.7196/sajs.1134.

17. Posluszny JA Jr, Conrad P, Halerz M, et al. Surgical burn wound infections and their clinical implications. J Burn Care Res, 2011;32(2):324–333. doi:10.1097/BCR.0b013e31820aaffe.

18. Koller J, Boca R, Langsádl L. Changing pattern of infection in the Bratislava Burn Center. Acta Chir Plast, 1999;41(4):112–116.

19. Keen EF 3rd, Robinson BJ, Hospenthal DR, et al. Prevalence of multidrug-resistant organisms recovered at a military burn center. Burns, 2010 Sep;36(6):819–825. doi:10.1016/j.burns.2009.10.013.

20. Nímia HH, Carvalho VF, Isaac C, et al. Comparative study of Silver Sulfadiazine with other materials for healing and infection preven-tion in burns: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Burns, 2018 Jun 11. pii: S0305-4179(18)30399-1. doi: 10.1016/j.burns.2018.05.014.

21. Stewart JA, McGrane OL, Wedmore IS. Wound care in the wilderness: is there evidence for honey? Wilderness Environ Med, 2014 Mar;25(1):103–110. doi: 10.1016/j.wem.2013.08.006.

22. Kramer A, Dissemond J, Kim S, et al. Consensus on Wound Antisepsis: Update 2018. Skin Pharmacol Physiol, 2018;31(1):28–58. doi: 10.1159/000481545.

23. Gharib A, Faezizadeh Z, Godarzee M. Therapeutic efficacy of epigallocatechin gallate-loaded nanoliposomes against burn wound infection by methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. Skin Pharmacol Physiol, 2013;26(2):68–75. doi: 10.1159/000345761.

24. Yoda Y, Hu ZQ, Zhao WH, et al. Different susceptibilities of Staphylococcus and Gram-negative rods to epigallocatechin gallate. J Infect Chemother, 2004 Feb;10(1):55–58.

25. Friedman M, Henika PR, Levin CE, et al. Antimicrobial activities of tea catechins and theaflavins and tea extracts against Bacillus ce-reus. J Food Prot, 2006 Feb;69(2):354–361.

26. Kanagaratnam R, Sheikh R, Alharbi F, et al. An efflux pump (MexAB-OprM) of Pseudomonas aeruginosa is associated with antibacterial activity of Epigallocatechin-3-gallate (EGCG). Phytomedicine, 2017 Dec 1;36:194–200. doi: 10.1016/j.phymed.2017.10.010.

27. Gyawali R, Ibrahim SA. Natural products as antimicrobial agents. Food control, 2014; 46:412–429. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodcont.2014.05.047.

28. Pisoschi AM, Pop A, Georgescu C, et al. An overview of natural antimicrobials role in food. Eur J Med Chem, 2018 Jan 1;143:922–935. doi: 10.1016/j.ejmech.2017.11.095.

29. Pisoschi AM, Pop A, Cimpeanu C, et al. Antioxidant Capacity Determination in Plants and Plant-Derived Products: A Review. Oxid Med Cell Longev, 2016;2016:9130976. doi: 10.1155/2016/9130976.

30. Torquato DS, Ferreira ML, Sá GC, et al. Evaluation of antimicrobial activity of cashew tree gum. World Journal of Microbiology and Biotechnology, 2004;20(5):505–507.

31. Anderson DMW, Bell PC, Millar RA. Composition of gum exudates from Anacardium occidentale. Phytochemistry, 1974;13:2189–2193.

32. Intini M. Phytopathological aspects of cashew (Anacardium occidentale L.) in Tanzania. International Journal of Tropical Plant Disease, 1987;5:115–119.

33. Marques MR, Albuquerque LMB, Xavier-Filho J. Antimicrobial and insecticidal activities of cashew tree gum exudate. Annals of Applied Biology, 1992;121:371–377.

34. Thombare N, Jha U, Mishra S, Siddiqui MZ. Guar gum as a promising starting material for diverse applications: A review. Int J Biol Macromol, 2016 Jul;88:361–372. doi: 10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2016.04.001.

35. Yoon SJ, Chu DC, Raj Juneja L. Chemical and physical properties, safety and application of partially hydrolized guar gum as dietary fiber. J Clin Biochem Nutr, 2008 Jan;42:1–7. doi: 10.3164/jcbn.2008001.

36. Tauseef S, Kumar SS. Pharmaceutical and pharmacological profile of guar gum an overview. Int J Pharm Pharm Sci, 2011;3(Suppl 5):38–40.

37. Hassan SM, Byrd JA, Cartwright AL, et al. Hemolytic and antimicrobial activities differ among saponin-rich extracts from guar, quillaja, yucca, and soybean. Appl Biochem Biotechnol, 2010 Oct;162(4):1008–1017. doi: 10.1007/s12010-009-8838-y.

38. Al Alawi SM, Hossain MA, Abusham AA. Antimicrobial and cytotoxic comparative study of different extracts of Omani and Sudanese Gum acacia. Beni-Suef Univ. J. Basic Appl. Sci, 2018;7(1):22–26. Dostupné na www: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bjbas.2017.10.007.

39. No HK, Park NY, Lee SH, et al. Antibacterial activity of Chitosans and Chitosan oligomers with different molecular weights. Int J Food Microbiol, 2002, 25;74(1-2):65–72.

40. Dragostin OM, Samal SK, Dash M, et al. New antimicrobial Chitosan derivatives for wound dressing applications. Carbohydr Polym, 2016 May 5;141:28–40. doi: 10.1016/j.carbpol.2015.12.078.

41. Younes I, Rinaudo M. Chitin and Chitosan preparation from marine sources. Structure, properties and applications. Mar Drugs, 2015 Mar 2;13(3):1133–1174. doi: 10.3390/md13031133.

42. Kean T, Thanou M. Biodegradation, biodistribution and toxicity of Chitosan. Adv Drug Deliv Rev, 2010 Jan 31;62(1):3–11. doi: 10.1016/j.addr.2009.09.004.

43. Kendra DF, Hadwiger LA. Characterization of the smallest Chitosan oligomer that is maximally antifungal to Fusarium solani and elicits pisatin formation in Pisum sativum. Exp. Mycol, 1984;8:276–281.

44. Sudarshan NR, Hoover DG, Knorr D. Antibacterial action of Chitosan. Food Biotechnol, 1992;6:257–272.

45. Jeon YJ, Park PJ, Kim SK. Antimicrobial effect of chitooligosaccharides produced by bioreactor. Carbohydr. Polym, 2001;44:71–76.

46. No HK, Meyers SP. Crawfish Chitosan as a coagulant in recovery of organic compounds from seafood processing streams. J. Agric. Food Chem, 1989;37:580–583.

47. Rao MS, Kanatt SR, Chawla SP, et al. Chitosan and guar gum composite films: Preparation, physical, mechanical and antimicrobial properties. Carbohydr Polym, 2010;82(4):1243–1247. doi:10.1016/j.carbpol.2010.06.058.

48. Dea ICM, Morrison A. Chemistry and interactions of seed galactomannans. Adv Carbohyd Chem Bi, 1975;31:241–312