In vitro antibiofilm activity of resveratrol against avian pathogenic Escherichia coli

Abstract

Background Avian pathogenic Escherichia coli (APEC) strains cause infectious diseases in poultry. Resveratrol is extracted from Polygonum cuspidatum, Cassia tora Linn and Vitis vinifera, and displays good antimicrobial activity. The present study aimed to investigate the antibiofilm effect of resveratrol on APEC in vitro. The minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) of resveratrol and the antibiotic florfenicol toward APEC were detected using the broth microdilution method. Then, the effect of resveratrol on swimming and swarming motility was investigated using a semisolid medium culture method. Subsequently, the minimum biofilm inhibitory concentration (MBIC) and the biofilm eradication rate were evaluated using crystal violet staining. Finally, the antibiofilm activity of resveratrol was observed using scanning electron microscopy (SEM). Meanwhile, the effects of florfenicol combined with resveratrol against biofilm formation by APEC were evaluated using optical microscopy (OM) and a confocal laser scanning microscopy (CLSM). Results The MICs of resveratrol and florfenicol toward APEC were 128 μg/mL and 64 μg/mL, respectively. The swimming and swarming motility abilities of APEC were inhibited in a resveratrol dose-dependent manner. Furthermore, resveratrol showed a significant inhibitory activity against APEC biofilm formation at concentrations above 1 μg/mL (p < 0.01). Meanwhile, the inhibitory effect of resveratrol at 32 μg/mL on biofilm formation was observed using SEM. The APEC biofilm was eradicated at 32 μg/mL of resveratrol combined with 64 μg/mL of florfenicol, which was observed using CLSM and OM. Florfenicol had a slight eradication effect of biofilm formation, whereas resveratrol had a strong biofilm eradication effect toward APEC. Conclusion Resveratrol displayed good antibiofilm activity against APEC in vitro, including inhibition of swimming and swarming motility, biofilm formation, and could eradicate the biofilm.

Resveratrol Induces Autophagy and Apoptosis in Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer Cells by Activating the NGFR-AMPK-mTOR Pathway

“…Resveratrol (3,5,4 -trihydroxystilbene, RSV), a natural non-flavone polyphenol compound, is a stilbene derived from Polygonum cuspidatum, Cassia tora Linn, and Vitis vinifera [3,4]. RSV attracts researchers' attention due to its anticancer potential.…”

Unraveling the Antimicrobial Effectiveness of Coridothymus capitatus Hydrolate against Listeria monocytogenes in Environmental Conditions Encountered in Foods: An In Vitro Study

“…Above this concentration, damaged cells exceeded the alive ones, and at the highest concentration, 500 µL mL −1 , almost no more viable cells were observed. The increase in red cells is probably related to the high quantity of carvacrol in CHY that penetrates the cell membranes, thereby causing their damage and progressive disruption [ 14 ]. An interesting aspect revealed by CLSM was the formation of aggregates: the reason behind the formation of these structures (the so-called ‘auto-aggregates’) can be identified in the intrinsic HY properties: in fact, despite being mostly composed of water, they still contain essential oil components that can exert a hydrophobic action, hence favoring cell adhesion and aggregation [ 5 ].…”

“…Ten microliters of the bacterial suspension were placed on glass chambers (Nunc; Thermo Fisher Scientific, Waltham, MA, USA). The cFDA was observed in FITC Channel with λ exc = 485 nm and λ em = 520 nm [ 14 ], and PI in TRITC Channel with λ exc = 561.5 nm and λ em = 595/50 nm [ 2 ].…”

The Two Weapons against Bacterial Biofilms: Detection and Treatment

“…SEM, a technique with high resolution that is based on surface scattering and absorption of electrons, has been used in different studies to visualize biofilms ( Figure 1 ) since it is able to detect key structural components such as the presence of biofilm matrix [ 29 , 30 ]. Moreover, researchers have been using SEM to evaluate the efficacy of anti-biofilm compounds [ 31 , 32 , 33 ]. However, SEM is a very expensive technique, and quantitation of the biofilm is rather difficult, including the fact that researchers cannot work with live samples.…”