Skip to main content
PLOS ONE logoLink to PLOS ONE
. 2023 Oct 31;18(10):e0293730. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0293730

Characterisation of physicochemical parameters and antibacterial properties of New Caledonian honeys

Marcela Bucekova 1, Jana Godocikova 1, Romain Gueyte 2, Céline Chambrey 2, Juraj Majtan 1,3,*
Editor: Filippo Giarratana4
PMCID: PMC10617706  PMID: 37906561

Abstract

Honey is an attractive natural product with various health benefits. A few honey-based commercial products have successfully been adopted in clinics to improve wound healing. However, screening of other potential sources of medical-grade honey, in particular, honeys from territories with high floral species diversity and high endemicity, is highly needed. The goal of this study was to characterise the physicochemical and antibacterial properties of New Caledonian honey samples (n = 33) and to elucidate the major mechanism of their antibacterial action. Inhibitory antibacterial activity of honeys against Staphylococcus aureus and Pseudomonas aeruginosa was determined with a minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) assay. Enzymatic activity of glucose oxidase and the content of hydrogen peroxide (H2O2) in honey samples were analysed. Furthermore, total protein content of honeys together with their electrophoretic protein profiles were also determined in the study. The antibacterial efficacy of 24% of the tested honey samples was slightly superior to that of manuka honey with unique manuka factor 15+. The antibacterial activity of catalase-treated honey sample solutions was significantly reduced, suggesting that H2O2 is a key antibacterial compound of diluted honeys. However, the kinetic profiles of H2O2 production in most potent honeys at a MIC value of 6% was not uniform. Under the experimental conditions, we found that a H2O2 concentration of 150 μM in diluted honeys is a critical concentration for inhibiting the growth of S. aureus. In contrast, 150 μM H2O2 in artificial honey solution was not able to inhibit bacterial growth, suggesting a role of phytochemicals in the antibacterial activity of natural honey. In addition, the continuous generation of H2O2 in diluted honey demonstrated an ability to counteract additional bacteria in re-inoculation experiments. In conclusion, the tested New Caledonian honey samples showed strong antibacterial activity, primarily based on H2O2 action, and therefore represent a suitable source for medical-grade honey.

Introduction

Antimicrobial drug resistance represents a major burden on global health and jeopardises the effectiveness of currently used antimicrobials. It is therefore crucial to reduce and optimise the use of antibiotics and introduce antimicrobial stewardship programmes to tackle drug-resistant infections globally [1]. Although a recent systematic review and meta-analysis showed promising results achieved with such programmes [1], it seems that the problem of antimicrobial drug resistance is more complex and linked to climate change (e.g., higher concentrations of contaminants in the environment) [2]. In addition, the use of topical antibiotics is still subject of debate because of their overall efficiency and the development of bacterial resistance [3]. In the last decade, natural products have become attractive platform for developing new antimicrobials which might help to tackle the problem of bacterial resistance [4]. Indeed, natural products are diverse and rich sources of antimicrobial compounds. Marine [5], insect [6] and plant [7] products are widely studied for their multi-factorial antimicrobial activities and perspectives to identify novel antimicrobial drugs which are effective against multi drug-resistant microorganisms. However, most of these natural products and their isolated antimicrobial compounds are mainly implicated for topical therapy because their minimal inhibitory concentrations (MICs) are substantially higher than the possible systemic concentrations achieved in oral therapies [8]. Topical antimicrobials are often used for the elimination of wound infections, which are considered major factors responsible for the delay in wound healing.

Nowadays, natural products such as honey and essential oils are attractive antibacterial agents in the management of infected acute and chronic wounds [9, 10]. Honey has been used in clinical practice for decades and currently, several medical-grade honey-based products are available as medical devices worldwide [11]. Interestingly, honey can effectively be used together with other topically applied antiseptics (e.g., benzalkonium bromide, silver (I) nitrate or tea tree oil) for treating superficial bacterial infections [12, 13].

Manuka monofloral honey, made from the nectar of the manuka bush (Leptospermum scoparium), which is native to New Zealand and Australia, is unique among other honeys due to its higher content of methylglyoxal (MGO). This compound is the key component responsible for the non-peroxide antibacterial activity exerted by manuka honey [14]. High amounts of MGO are present in manuka honey, even more than 1,000 mg/kg, up to 100-fold higher compared to those found in most other honeys [15, 16]. Globally, manuka honey is the most frequently used honey in wound care.

Over the past decade, intense screenings of other honey types have been performed to identify new sources of medical-grade honey that would be attractive for the pharmaceutical industry [11]. In many cases, the antibacterial activity of newly described honey types is often compared to that of manuka honey, with different levels of MGO or different unique manuka factor (UMF) [1725]. However, the mechanism of antibacterial action in all analysed non-manuka honeys is based on the action of hydrogen peroxide (H2O2). The generation of H2O2 in diluted honey is mainly mediated through the action of bee-derived enzyme glucose oxidase (GOX) [26]. However, the level of accumulated H2O2 may be significantly diverse among honeys, depending on several factors [27]. Interestingly, honeydew honeys contain significantly higher amounts of generated H2O2 compared to blossom honeys, probably due to the considerable presence of polyphenolic compounds [20, 25]. As stated above, H2O2 is produced mainly enzymatically and its amount produced in honey significantly correlates with honey minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) [27]. On the other hand, some studies have reported a lack of correlation between the H2O2 level and overall antibacterial activity [25, 28]. Therefore, it is required to elucidate observed discrepancies by determining the critical concentration of accumulated H2O2 and identifying phytochemicals which can enhance honey antibacterial effect.

Additional screening the antibacterial potential of traditional botanical honey types such as acacia, linden, buckwheat, clover, sunflower and other honeys, despite their different geographical origins, did not very likely identify different mechanisms of antibacterial action. Therefore, it is important to focus on territories with high floral species diversity and high endemicity to identify honey samples with high antibacterial efficacy and possible with different mechanisms of antibacterial action. One of such territories is New Caledonia, which is characterised by a remarkably high species diversity as well as due to their high endemicity and an unusual abundance of archaic plant taxa [29]. New Caledonia is remarkable for its high rate of endemism; 75% (around 2500 species) of the vascular plant species are found nowhere else in the world [30, 31]. The flora of New Caledonia has links with Australia, New Guinea and New Zealand [30].

In this study, we characterised a representative collection of New Caledonian honey samples (n = 33) in terms of physicochemical and antibacterial properties. Furthermore, we analysed the protein content and enzymatic activity of GOX in honey samples. We also described the mechanism of the antibacterial action of the tested honeys at their MICs and elucidated the role of accumulated H2O2 in inhibiting the growth of Staphylococcus aureus (S. aureus).

Materials and methods

Honey samples

A total of 33 honey samples from local beekeepers from all regions of New Caledonia were evaluated. The samples were harvested in 2021 and identification of the floral source of each honey sample using mellisopalynological analysis according to Erdtman [32] was performed by CARI asbl, Louvain-La-Neuve, Belgium. Two different commercial manuka honeys, Comvita UMF15+ (Comvita NZ, Ltd., New Zealand) and Manuka Honey MGO 550+ (Manuka Health New Zealand, Ltd., New Zealand) were also evaluated. All collected samples were kept at 4°C in the dark.

As a negative control artificial honey (AH) was prepared by dissolving 39 g d-fructose, 31 g d-glucose, 8 g maltose, 3 g sucrose and 19 g distilled water, as described elsewhere [33].

Bacteria

The tested bacterial isolates Staphylococcus aureus CCM4223 (Czech Collection of Microorganisms, Brno, Czech Republic) and Pseudomonas aeruginosa CCM1960 (Czech Collection of Microorganisms, Brno, Czech Republic) were acquired from the Department of Medical Microbiology at the Slovak Medical University in Bratislava, Slovakia. Both bacteria were stored at -80°C in Muller-Hinton broth (MHB) /glycerol stocks. Bacterial working cultures were cultured on MHB agar then stored at 4°C and were refreshed from frozen stocks every two weeks.

Physicochemical and organoleptic characteristics of honey

All physicochemical analyses were performed at CARI asbl, Louvain-La-Neuve, Belgium. Analytical methods measuring pH, electric conductivity, hydroxymethylfurfural (HMF) and the fructose/glucose (F/G) ratio were performed according to "Harmonized Methods of the International Honey Commission" (2009) and the European Directive 2001/110/EC and humidity according to APAQ-W and German guidelines for honey (Leitsätze) [34, 35].

Aliquots of honey samples were heated to 50°C to dissolve sugar crystals, and the colour was determined by the spectrophotometric (Genesys 10 UV, Thermo Scientific, UK) measurement of the absorbance of a 50% honey solution (w/v) at 635 nm. The honeys were classified according to the Pfund scale after conversion of the absorbance values: mm Pfund  =  − 38.70 + 371.39 × Abs [36].

Determining the protein profile of honey samples and total protein content

For protein determination, 15 μL aliquots of diluted honey samples (50% w/w in distilled water) were loaded on 12% SDS-PAGE electrophoresis gels and separated using a Mini-Protean II electrophoresis cell (Bio-Rad, Hercules, CA, USA).

The total protein content (TPC) was measured using the Quick StartTM Bradford reagent (Bio-Rad, Hercules, CA, USA), according to the manufacturer’s instructions.

Determination of GOX enzymatic activity

The bee-derived GOX activity was determined with a Megazyme GOX assay kit (Megazyme International Ireland Ltd, Bray, Ireland), which is based on the oxidative catalysis of β-D-glucose to D-glucono-δ-lactone, with the concurrent release of H2O2. The resultant H2O2 reacts with p-hydroxybenzoic acid and 4-aminoantipyrine in the presence of peroxidase to form a quinoneimine dye complex, which has a strong absorbance at 510 nm. The enzyme activity was determined in freshly prepared and centrifuged (10,000 g, 5 min) 20% (w/v) honey solutions in a 96-well microplate, according to the manufacturer’s instructions.

Determination of the H2O2 concentration after 24h and H2O2 kinetics

The H2O2 content in the honey samples was determined using a Megazyme GOX assay kit (Megazyme International Ireland Ltd); based on the release of H2O2. As a standard, 9.8–312.5 μM diluted H2O2 was used. 40% (w/w) of the honey solutions in 0.1 M potassium phosphate buffer (pH 7.0) were prepared. After 24 h of incubation at 37°C, each honey sample and H2O2 standard were tested in duplicate in a 96-well microplate. Absorbance was measured at 510 nm using a Synergy HT microplate reader (BioTek Instruments, VT, USA).

In order to mimic the experimental conditions during determination of antibacterial activity of honey samples, H2O2 production was also measured in selected honey solutions which were diluted with MHB instead of phosphate buffer (as stated above) to a final honey concentration corresponded to their MIC values. The level of H2O2 was determined in honey solutions after incubation at 37°C at 0, 1, 2, 4, 6, 8 and 24 h using a Megazyme GOX assay kit.

Determining the antibacterial activity of honey

The honey samples were subjected to an antibacterial MIC assay to determine their antibacterial activity against S. aureus, following the modified method of Bucekova et al. [26] based on broth microdilution method described by the Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute [37]. Bacteria were cultured in MHB at 37°C overnight. Bacterial cultures were suspended in phosphate-buffered saline (PBS), with a pH of 7.2, and the turbidity of the suspension was adjusted to 108 colony-forming units (CFU)/mL and diluted with MHB medium (pH 7.3 ± 0.1) to a final concentration of 106 CFU/mL. The final volume in each well of sterile 96-well polystyrene U-shaped plates (Sarstedt, Germany) was 100 μL, consisting of 90 μL of sterile MHB medium (as a positive control) or diluted honey sample and 10 μL of bacterial suspension. Each honey sample dilution was prepared from a 50% honey solution (w/w in MHB medium) by further dilution with the MHB medium, resulting in final concentrations of 40%, 35%, 30%, 25%, 20%, 18%, 16%, 14%, 12%, 10%, 8%, 6% and 4%. Wells containing 100 μL of sterile MHB medium was considered as a negative control. After 18 h of incubation at 37°C and 1,250 rpm, the inhibition of bacterial growth was determined visually as the lowest concentration of honey completely inhibiting bacterial growth, resulting in an optically clear well (lack of visual turbidity) and expressed as a MIC value. All tests were performed in triplicate and repeated three times.

Bactericidal activity, expressed as minimal bactericidal concentration (MBC) of honey solution, was evaluated in selected honey samples No. 1, 3, 6, 7, 8, 11, 15 and 27, according to Bucekova et al (2019) [26] with some modifications Briefly, the viability of bacteria in wells with no visible bacterial growth (wells around MIC) was determined by spotted aliquots (10 μL) from each well onto MHB agar plates and incubated overnight at 37°C. The highest honey dilution at which all bacterial cells were killed was recorded as the MBC.

In addition, the viability of bacteria in honey solutions at different MBCs was determined in first 3 hours after bacterial inoculation. Aliquots (10 μL) from each timepoints (0, 1, 2 and 3 h) were subsequently spotted on MHB agar and incubated overnight at 37°C. Colony-forming units were counted and expressed as CFU/μL. As control AH, AH with 300 μM H2O2 and MHB alone were used.

Enzymatic treatment of honey samples with catalase

The selected honey samples No. 1, 3, 6, 7, 8, 11 and 15, at a concentration of 50% (w/w), were treated with catalase (2,000–5,000 U/mg protein; Sigma-Aldrich, UK) at a final concentration ranging from 1,000–2,500 U/ml at ambient temperature for 2 h. Catalase-treated honey samples were then used in the antibacterial assay to determine the MIC values against S. aureus.

Statistical analysis

The physicochemical parameters of the honey samples were expressed as mean with standard uncertainty (k  =  2). The Shapiro-Wilk test of normality was used to determine the data distribution. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) with Tukey’s multiple comparison test was used to determine differences among bactericidal activities. Values with P below 0.05 were considered statistically significant. A principal components analysis (PCA) was conducted to examine the relationship among selected honey physicochemical parameters, botanical origin, activity of GOX and antibacterial activity. All statistical analyses were performed using GraphPad Prism version 9.2.0 (GraphPad Software Inc., La Jolla, CA, USA).

Results

Melissopalynological analysis

Overall, 17 botanical families were identified in honey samples; 21.2% of the samples contained pollen from one botanical family, 33.3% contained pollen from two families, and 45.5% of the samples contained mixed pollen from more than three families (Table 1 and S1 Table). The most dominant family was Anacardiaceae, present in 51.5% of the samples, followed by Myrtaceae together with Cunoniacea, found in 48.5% and 45.5% of the samples, respectively. Qualitative pollen analysis highlighted seven samples (No. 1, 3, 29, 27, 20, 10 and 18) containing only one type of pollen, with the following frequencies: Myrtaceae 89% and 72%, Cunoniacea 80%, 70%, 59%, Fagaceae 81% and Mimosaceae 85%, respectively. Moreover, Myrtaceae pollen was predominant also in samples No. 6, 8 and 32. The family Anacardiaceae was predominant in samples No. 25, 26, 12 and 4 with 70%, 61%, 46% and 45%, respectively. Cunoniacea was present in samples No. 29, 27, 20 and 13, with a pollen coverage of 80%, 70%, 59% and 58%, respectively. The lowest amount of detected pollen was observed for Zygophyllaceae, which was found in two samples (No. 31 and 32), accounting for 11% and 12%, and for Rosaceae, which was only found in one sample (No. 30), with a pollen coverage of 14%.

Table 1. Melissopalynological analysis of collected New Caledonian honey samples (n = 33).

Family Max. (%) ≥46% 45–16% 15–4% Present
Anacardiaceae 70 3 10 4 17
Apiaceae 35 - 3 - 3
Apocynaceae 46 1 2 - 3
Brassicaceae 16 - 1 - 1
Casuarinaceae 30 - 1 - 1
Cunoniaceae 80 4 8 3 15
Euphorbiaceae 31 - 2 - 2
Fagaceae 81 1 1 - 2
Mimosaceae 85 3 5 2 10
Myrtaceae 89 5 9 2 16
Poaceae 22 - 1 - 1
Rhizophoraceae 40 - 1 - 1
Rosaceae 14 - - 1 1
Salicaceae 28 - 1 - 1
Zygophyllaceae 12 - - 1 1

Max.: maximum value reached by the pollen type in samples, present: number of samples where the pollen type was identified. t.: pollen type common for different plant genera.

Physicochemical parameters of honey samples

The basic physicochemical parameters of New Caledonian honey samples are listed in Table 2. Two samples, No. 18 and 30, did not meet the Codex standard criterium for the HMF level (< 80 mg/100 g for tropical honeys) and moisture (< 20%), respectively.

Table 2. Physicochemical and organoleptic characteristics of New Caledonian honey samples (n = 33).

Sample No. Humidity (%) pH EC (mS/cm) HMF (mg/100 g) ± SD F/G Pfund
1 16.44 4.7 1.267 6.3±2.4 1.39 5.50
2 18.32 4.2 1.235 30.1±5.1 1.42 72.72
3 16.55 4.3 1.306 12.4±2.4 1.30 11.44
4 16.39 4.5 0.643 26.7±4.5 1.73 98.71
5 17.23 4.5 0.604 20.9±3.6 1.42 76.06
6 16.13 4.8 1.464 1.5±2.4 1.44 -3.05
7 17.33 4.3 0.796 11.2±2.4 1.16 119.14
8 16.73 4.5 1.234 16.5±2.8 1.40 10.69
9 18.6 4.2 0.970 32.1±5.5 1.34 70.86
10 19.26 4.4 0.611 14.8±2.5 1.63 66.03
11 18.43 3.9 0.558 19.0±3.2 1.13 28.89
12 14.81 5.0 0.772 3.6±2.4 1.80 64.92
13 15.61 4.9 0.810 5.0±2.4 1.67 54.15
14 16.24 4.8 0.912 5.8±2.4 1.79 56.00
15 17.14 4.3 0.752 1.8±2.4 1.24 21.84
16 16.46 4.2 0.686 7.8±2.4 1.23 79.03
17 18.24 4.0 0.578 52.7±9.0 1.31 94.63
18 17.34 3.9 0.745 86.9±14.8 1.31 87.20
19 18.74 4.1 0.794 17.2±2.9 1.28 44.86
20 17.22 4.1 0.546 7.8±2.4 1.38 10.69
21 16.16 4.8 0.713 6.2±2.4 1.61 63.80
22 17.48 4.4 0.653 34.4±5.8 1.47 84.23
23 18.28 4.2 0.570 7.0±2.4 1.23 79.77
24 18.39 4.1 0.636 13.2±2.4 1.18 70.49
25 16.06 4.9 0.784 2.4±2.4 1.45 79.77
26 15.13 4.8 0.720 8.9±2.4 1.56 79.77
27 15.43 5.1 0.918 3.4±2.4 1.83 43.01
28 15.91 4.5 0.726 21.1±3.6 1.57 109.86
29 16.44 4.4 0.628 43.5±7.4 1.59 91.29
30 20.91 4.1 0.815 5.1±2.4 1.32 125.08
31 17.79 4.1 0.660 21.5±3.6 1.23 89.06
32 17.79 4.1 0.660 21.5±3.6 1.23 57.49
33 18.16 4.1 0.404 8.3±2.4 1.25 95.74

In total, 8 out of 33 honey samples had an electric conductivity value above 0.8 mS/cm. In the collected honey samples, the pH values ranged from 3.9 to 5.1.

Protein content, GOX enzymatic activity and H2O2 accumulation in diluted honey samples

The TPC and an SDS-PAGE profile of each New Caledonian honey sample were determined (Table 3 and S1 Fig). As shown in Table 3, the mean TPC values substantially varied among samples and ranged from 448 to 1,282 μg/g of honey. The SDS-PAGE profiles of honey sample solutions were comparable with that of major royal jelly protein 1 (MRJP1) as a dominant honey protein. There was only a slight shift of MRJP1 protein in samples No. 4, 5 and 10 (S1 Fig).

Table 3. Selected biochemical characteristics of New Caledonian honey samples (n = 33).

Sample No. TPC (μg/g honey) ± SD GOX (mU/mL) ± SD H2O2 (μM) ± SD
1 572.08±30.18 5.70±1.35 285.14±30.43
2 720.00±59.16 1.90±0.66 911.50±84.88
3 510.28±70.29 7.21±0.85 315.43±30.42
4 676.56±63.01 0.34±0.27 332.57±49.97
5 941.49±76.25 0.69±0.35 1252.00±28.05
6 785.79±133.73 11.67±2.42 306.29±32.72
7 1122.61±53.82 9.20±0.82 2607.43±41.11
8 839.01±49.73 6.11±0.27 366.29±60.80
9 804.64±31.34 5.42±0.59 1178.00±85.83
10 955.87±74.48 0.19±0.15 2059.00±108.71
11 887.13±43.05 8.08±1.48 2052.00±66.63
12 926.70±53.81 2.76±0.96 1136.50±34.46
13 933.58±75.85 2.05±0.29 1877.00±60.85
14 955.02±70.28 3.78±1.28 1060.50±70.40
15 1282.43±78.84 13.34±2.80 4056.73±452.45
16 723.92±48.80 9.71±1.48 3394.67±80.24
17 682.81±56.53 4.95±0.52 256.00±25.66
18 616.62±48.55 4.22±0.72 761.07±108.26
19 643.12±18.54 2.60±0.85 352.67±58.60
20 448.62±51.25 7.19±1.03 174.40±18.96
21 722.46±49.61 0.10±0.18 1256.00±28.80
22 1018.25±46.10 0.90±0.65 1767.00±67.30
23 647.47±51.42 6.39±0.94 2782.67±106.63
24 665.86±14.94 5.50±1.03 1184.57±130.13
25 607.80±18.64 2.26±0.24 1816.53±52.73
26 876.28±22.61 0.77±0.27 1422.29±46.80
27 670.03±65.17 3.72±1.36 1978.67±67.50
28 1227.25±41.63 2.78±1.02 710.50±45.32
29 1012.05±42.96 2.24±0.86 754.00±46.83
30 681.23±60.84 7.12±0.40 434.86±31.16
31 632.74±36.65 2.72±1.11 2284.00±86.73
32 556.26±89.86 1.95±1.05 1944.00±80.91
33 662.01±20.98 1.64±0.59 1553.00±76.50

TPC, total protein content; GOX, glucose oxidase

The enzymatic activity of GOX was evaluated in all honey samples (Table 3), resulting in great differences in enzymatic activity among the tested samples. The lowest enzymatic activity was determined in sample No. 21 (calciferous forest), with a value of 0.10 ± 0.18 mU/mL, and the highest activity was documented in sample No. 15 (anthropized environment), with value of 13.34 ± 2.80 mU/mL. Statistical analysis showed no correlation (rs = -0.072, P = 0.689) between the enzymatic activity of GOX and TPC in the analysed samples.

Similar to the enzymatic activity of GOX, there was a great variance in the concentration of H2O2, determined in 40% honey solutions after incubation for 24 h, in the analysed honey samples (Table 3), ranging from 285 to 4,057 μM. Due to large variations within the measured parameters, statistical analysis did not reveal any correlation (rs = -0.048, P = 0.790) between the level of H2O2 and the enzymatic activity of GOX in the analysed samples.

Antibacterial effects of honey samples against S. aureus and P. aeruginosa

The mean MIC values of the tested honeys are shown in Fig 1 and ranged from 5.1% to 25% and from 6% to 18% for S. aureus and P. aeruginosa, respectively. Among the tested honeys, samples No. 4, 17 and 20 showed the lowest antibacterial efficacy against both bacterial species. However, none of the honey samples exhibited an antibacterial activity identical with that of artificial honey. Both manuka honey samples exhibited an equal antibacterial activity, with MIC values of 6%and 12% against S. aureus and P. aeruginosa, respectively. The antibacterial effects of eight (24% of honey samples) out of 33 New Caledonian honey samples were slightly superior to those of both manuka honeys. The most potent sample out of all tested honey samples was sample No. 15, with MIC values of 5.1% and 6.0% against S. aureus and P. aeruginosa, respectively.

Fig 1. Antibacterial activity of New Caledonian (n = 33) and manuka (UMF 15+ and MGO 550+) honey samples.

Fig 1

The antibacterial activity against Staphylococcus aureus and Pseudomonas aeruginosa was determined by a minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) assay. The data are expressed as mean MIC values. MH, manuka honey; AH, artificial honey (sugars only).

Multifactorial analysis of selected physicochemical parameters, enzymatic activity of GOX, botanical origin and antibacterial activity of honey

According to PCA, the first two components (PC1 and PC2) explained 66.9% of the total variation in the selected physicochemical parameters (moisture, pH, HMF and electric conductivity), the enzymatic activity of GOX, the honey botanical origin and the antibacterial activity of honey against S. aureus and P. aeruginosa (Fig 2). A strong negative correlation was found between the enzymatic activity of GOX and the antibacterial activity of honey samples, expressed as MIC value, against S. aureus (rs = -0.572, P < 0.001) and P. aeruginosa (rs = -0.653, P <0.001).

Fig 2. Bioplot of the principal components analysis of honey from different botanical origins.

Fig 2

Ana, Anacardiaceae; Cun, Cunoniacea; Myr, Myrtacaea; Apo, Apocynaceae; Fag, Fagaceae, Sal, Salicaceae, Mim, Mimosaceae; X, multifloral honey type with no dominant pollen type. The green ellipse represents the area of the most honey samples belonging to the Myrtaceae family. Blue vectors represent the following variables: EC, electric conductivity; pH; Moisture; HMF, hydroxymethylfurfural; GOX, enzymatic activity of GOX; MIC SA, antibacterial activity against Staphylococcus aureus; MIC PA, antibacterial activity against Pseudomonas aeruginosa.

Role of H2O2 in the bactericidal effect of honey samples

Based on the ability of honey samples to generate H2O2 in 40% honey solution after 24 h of incubation, eight, the most antibacterially active, honey samples with a low (samples No. 1, 3, 6 and 8) and high capacity (7, 11, 15 and 27) to produce H2O2 were selected for further detailed analysis.

The bactericidal effects of eight honey samples were determined at their MIC value of 6% against S. aureus by counting the CFUs at different time points (Fig 3). As a control, H2O2 in 6% artificial honey solution was used at an MIC of 300 μM. The statistically significant reduction in CFU counts after 1 h of incubation was observed for six out of eight honey samples and the control sample containing H2O2. A significant decrease in CFU counts was found in all honey samples after 2 h of incubation compared to the positive control (6% artificial honey in cultivation media). In addition, the complete eradication of S. aureus was observed in samples No. 6 and 15 after 2 h of incubation and in all samples after 3 h of incubation. A similar significant bactericidal effect was also documented in the control experiment with a single dose of H2O2, with the complete eradication of S. aureus after 3 h of incubation.

Fig 3. Bactericidal effects of selected New Caledonian honey samples (n = 8) at their minimal inhibitory concentrations (MICs) at different time points against Staphylococcus aureus.

Fig 3

Bactericidal activity was determined by counting of colony-forming units (CFUs) and expressed as number of CFU/μL. PC, positive control (culture medium only); AH, artificial honey (sugars only). * P < 0.05, ** P < 0.01, ***P < 0.001.

To elucidate the role of H2O2 in inhibiting bacterial growth, 50% solutions of selected honey samples were treated with catalase for 2 h (Fig 4). The removal of H2O2 in catalase-treated samples resulted in a significant increase in MIC values, which ranged from 25% to 35% in all honey samples. However, the overall antibacterial effect after catalase treatment did not reduce to the level of artificial honey, with a mean MIC value of 42.5%.

Fig 4. Antibacterial activity of selected New Caledonian honey samples (n = 8) following catalase treatment against Staphylococcus aureus.

Fig 4

The antibacterial activity was determined with a minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) assay. The data are expressed as mean MIC values.

Subsequently, we analysed the kinetics of H2O2 accumulation in eight honey samples at their MIC value of 6% (Fig 5). The maximum production of H2O2 in honey samples with a low capacity to produce H2O2 after 24 h was reached after 4 h of incubation at 37°C (Fig 5A). The maximum levels of H2O2 were in a range of 244 to 344 μM. In contrast honey samples with a high capacity to produce H2O2 in 40% solution after 24 h accumulated the maximum level of H2O2 after 8 h of incubation or thereafter (Fig 5B). Although all eight honey solutions had the same concentration (6%), an obvious shift in the enzymatic kinetic profile of H2O2 production among the samples was observed.

Fig 5. Twenty-four-hour pattern of the generation of hydrogen peroxide (H2O2) in diluted honey samples.

Fig 5

The concentration of H2O2 was determined in selected honey samples at their MIC value of 6%. A. Honey samples No. 1, 3, 6 and 8, characterised by a low production of H2O2 at 40% dilution after 24 h. B. Honey samples No. 7, 11, 15 and 27, characterised by a high production of H2O2 at 40% dilution after 24 h. The data are expressed as mean concentration of H2O2.

The initial concentration of H2O2 in selected eight honey solutions at an MIC of 6% was below 100 μM (Fig 5), significantly lower than the used concentration of artificial added H2O2 (300 μM). We further determined the concentration of H2O2 in eight honey samples at their MICs (6%) and sub-MICs (3%) after 1, 2 and 3 h of incubation at 37°C (Fig 6). A marked increase in H2O2 production (above 150 μM) was observed in all honey samples at MIC after 1 h of incubation compared to samples at their sub-MIC values. Furthermore, none of the samples at sub-MIC was able to generate H2O2 at concentrations above 150 μM over the entire incubation period. Honey samples at MIC were able to significantly inhibit bacterial growth after 1 h of incubation (Fig 3), and a H2O2 concentration of 150 μM is the critical concentration for inhibiting the growth of S. aureus under study conditions.

Fig 6. Generation of hydrogen peroxide (H2O2) in diluted honey samples during 3 hours of incubation.

Fig 6

The concentration of H2O2 was determined in honey samples No. 1, 3, 6, 7, 8, 11, 15 and 27 at their MIC and sub-MIC values of 6% and 3%, respectively. The data are expressed as mean concentration of H2O2.

Effect of bacterial re-inoculation on honey antibacterial activity in an experimental setting

The subsequent experiments aimed to determine the antibacterial activity of selected honey samples and H2O2 after additional inoculation of S. aureus. After 4 h of incubation, each well containing either honey solution or H2O2 as antibacterial agent was re-inoculated with 10 μL of bacterial suspension at a concentration of 106 CFU/mL. At these conditions, the MIC value of H2O2 was increased from 300 to 600 μM, and additional bacterial inoculum caused an increase in the MIC values of two honey samples, No. 1 and 3, by 25% and 40%, respectively (Fig 7). However, the MIC values of six out of eight honey samples remained unchanged.

Fig 7. Antibacterial activity of selected New Caledonian honey samples (n = 8) against Staphylococcus aureus after bacterial re-inoculation at 4 h.

Fig 7

The antibacterial activity was determined with a minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) assay. The data are expressed as mean MIC values.

Discussion

The characterisation of the physicochemical and biological properties of honey samples from areas with a high floral diversity and endemicity is highly attractive for beekeepers, consumers as well as the pharmaceutical industry. Honey consumer behaviour, partially due to the Covid-19 pandemic, is increasingly associated with honey health benefits and the presence of organoleptic compounds [38]. The most common biological properties that consumers are aware of in honey are its natural antibacterial properties. It is widely accepted that manuka honey possesses therapeutic advantages over other types of honey because of its high antibacterial activity. However, we showed here and elsewhere [25] that certain types of honey, including honeydew honey, had similar or even superior antibacterial activity compared to manuka honey with a high content of MGO. Although the mechanism of action of all non-manuka honey types is H2O2-dependent, the honey polyphenol content may significantly contribute to honey antibacterial activity and is a key factor responsible for the augmented antibacterial effects of certain types of honey. The levels of H2O2 in honey samples rich in polyphenols is substantially higher compared to that of monofloral honey types [25, 39]. Yet, the exact mode of polyphenol action and their effect on honey antibacterial activity has not been described in detail.

In this study, we clearly show that H2O2 is a key antibacterial compound in diluted New Caledonian honey samples. According to the PCA results, most of the honey samples containing pollen of the Myrtaceae family as the dominant pollen type were the most potent honey samples inhibiting bacterial growth. This honey type also had a high electrical conductivity Furthermore, these honey samples were also characterised by the highest values of GOX enzymatic activity when compared to the other honey botanical types. The level of accumulated H2O2 in 40% honey solutions after 24 h did not correlate with the enzymatic activity of GOX and the antibacterial activity of honey samples. In a previous study, the maximum accumulation of H2O2 occurred at 30%–50% honey dilution [40]. However, numerous studies characterising the production of H2O2 used honey diluted to 20%–30% strength [23, 28, 4144]. Based on the results of this and of previous studies, the kinetic profile of H2O2 generation is not uniform in honey samples, and the maximum point of H2O2 production depends on the honey dilution rate and on various factors such as the concentrations of GOX enzyme, pollen-derived catalase and specific phytochemicals which enhance the enzymatic reaction [27]. The final concentrations of H2O2 can therefore vary in different honeys based on floral sources.

As mentioned above, the most potent honey samples inhibiting bacterial growth mostly contained pollen from the family Myrtaceae, which contains at least 133 genera and more than 3,800 species [45]. The family Myrtaceae is divided into two subfamilies, the capsular Leptospermoideae and the fleshy-fruited Myrtoideae. One of the most pronounced species of this family is Leptospermum scoparium, which is the botanical source of the well-known manuka honey, with different mechanisms of antibacterial action depending on the MGO level [46, 47]. Based on the enzymatic activity of GOX and the production of H2O2, supported by the results of the catalase honey treatment, we can conclude that the antibacterial effect of none of the analysed honey samples was mediated through the action of MGO.

Antibacterial effect of honey can also be attributed to action of other parameters such as bee-derived defensin-1 [48, 49], MRJP1 [50] and gluconic acid [51]. Defensin-1, an antibacterial peptide and MRJP1, the most abundant protein in honey, are expressed in hypopharyngeal bee glands and secreted during the processing of nectar into honey. A very recent proteomic study showed no difference in the amount of MRJP1 between blossom and honeydew honeys [52]. Furthermore, honeys of different botanical and geographical origin might contain the comparable amounts of MRJP1 as well as other bee-secreted proteins/peptides and therefore differences in antibacterial efficacy of various honey samples are attributed to other antibacterial parameter(s) such as H2O2 [52]. Despite of the great difference in TPC values among New Caledonian honey samples, the SDS-PAGE electrophoretic profile of honey samples was comparable, indicating MRJP1 as a dominant protein.

To the best of our knowledge, no study has, so far, determined the critical concentration limit of H2O2 in honey solutions that is required for a sufficient inhibitory activity. Under laboratory conditions, most of the selected honey samples at MICs were able to reduce CFU counts after 1 h of incubation. The critical concentration of H2O2 in honey solutions after 1 h of incubation was above 150 μM, significantly inhibiting bacterial growth. However, a single dose of H2O2 in artificial honey at a concentration of 150 μM did not inhibit the growth of S. aureus, suggesting that phytochemicals play an important role in generating more toxic reactive oxidative species (ROS). The co-occurrence of H2O2 and phytochemicals found in honey stimulate the generation of long-lived and more toxic ROS compared to H2O2 alone [53]. Similarly, Masoura et al. (2020) suggested that the H2O2 antibacterial activity of natural honeys is a determinant of the ROS-inducing effect [51]. The authors speculated that darker honeys stimulate higher ROS generation compared to light ones due to the abundance of polyphenols in dark honeys [51].

From a clinical point of view, honey is most often used undiluted in wound care, and its further dilution with wound exudates depends on the wound type and the exudate level. Moderately and heavily exudating wounds can produce up to 5 mL of exudate per 10 cm2 per 24 h [54], and it is important to avoid honey dilution to a concentration below that which gives the maximal rate of H2O2 production. Under in vitro conditions, the antibacterial efficacy of honey is determined by a standard procedure with a starting inoculum, which obviously does not correspond with wound conditions, where multiple bacterial species at different loads can be found. In this study, we investigated the capability of honey solutions at MIC values to counteract additional bacterial loads (extra inoculum) added after 4 h of incubation. The accumulated H2O2 in most of the honey solutions at their MIC values could inhibit the growth of additionally inoculated S. aureus, and the MIC values of the honey solutions remained unchanged. In contrast, the MIC value of H2O2 was doubled, from 300 to 600 μM, after the inoculation of additional bacteria, suggesting the importance of the continual slow release of H2O2 in diluted honey. A slow release of H2O2, at low concentrations, may prevent bacterial infections in wounds, and H2O2 at low concentrations is more stable. In another study, a continuous and slow release of H2O2 in diluted honey allowed the development of a hydrogel to achieve a continuous, controlled release of H2O2 for up to 72 h [55]. Also, H2O2 micro-encapsulated hydrogels demonstrated broad-spectrum antimicrobial activity with as little as 10 min of contact time [55].

According to a previous study, H2O2, at micromolar concentrations, exhibited wound healing properties by inducing vascular endothelial growth factor expression in human keratinocytes [56] and facilitating wound angiogenesis [57]. Low levels of H2O2 facilitated the regulation of wound inflammation [58]. Thus, H2O2, at low concentrations, acts as an antibacterial agent with wound healing properties, supporting the use of honey throughout the entire wound healing process.

Conclusions

Analysis of New Caledonian honey samples revealed their strong antibacterial properties, primarily based on the inhibitory action of the generated H2O2. The ability of H2O2 production in diluted honeys was not uniform among the samples. The critical concentration of H2O2 in diluted honeys responsible for inhibiting the growth of S. aureus was 150 μM. On the other hand, H2O2 itself at a concentration of 150 μM in artificial honey solution did not show any inhibitory activity, implying the important role of honey phytochemicals in the antibacterial effect of natural honey. Further research is needed to identify the honey phytochemicals which participate in strong antibacterial effects of New Caledonian honeys. Based on our findings, New Caledonian honeys represents a suitable source for medical-grade honey.

Supporting information

S1 Fig. Detailed representative analysis of SDS-PAGE protein profiles of collected New Caledonian honey samples (n = 33).

(TIF)

S1 Table. Qualitative pollen analysis of collected New Caledonian honey samples (n = 33).

(PDF)

S1 Raw images. Raw SDS-PAGE gels.

(PDF)

Acknowledgments

We thank New Caledonian beekeepers for providing honey samples.

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the paper.

Funding Statement

This work was supported by the Scientific Grant Agency of the Ministry of Education of the Slovak Republic and the Slovak Academy of Sciences VEGA 2/0022/22 and the Slovak Research and Development Agency under Contract No. APVV-21-0262. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

  • 1.Zay Ya K, Win PTN, Bielicki J, Lambiris M, Fink G. Association between antimicrobial stewardship programs and antibiotic use globally: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA Netw Open. 2023;6: e2253806. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.53806 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Magnano San Lio R, Favara G, Maugeri A, Barchitta M, Agodi A. How antimicrobial resistance is linked to climate change: an overview of two intertwined global challenges. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2023;20: 1681. doi: 10.3390/ijerph20031681 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Heal CF, Banks JL, Lepper PD, Kontopantelis E, van Driel ML. Topical antibiotics for preventing surgical site infection in wounds healing by primary intention. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016;11: CD011426. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD011426.pub2 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Schneider YK. Bacterial natural product drug discovery for new antibiotics: strategies for tackling the problem of antibiotic resistance by efficient bioprospecting. Antibiotics. 2021;10: 842. doi: 10.3390/antibiotics10070842 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Abdelmohsen UR, Balasubramanian S, Oelschlaeger TA, Grkovic T, Pham NB, Quinn RJ, et al. Potential of marine natural products against drug-resistant fungal, viral, and parasitic infections. Lancet Infect Dis. 2017;17: e30–e41. doi: 10.1016/S1473-3099(16)30323-1 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Saadoun JH, Sogari G, Bernini V, Camorali C, Rossi F, Neviani E, et al. A critical review of intrinsic and extrinsic antimicrobial properties of insects. Trends Food Sci Technol. 2022;122: 40–48. [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Abreu AC, McBain AJ, Simoes M. Plants as sources of new antimicrobials and resistance-modifying agents. Nat Prod Rep. 2012;29: 1007–1021. doi: 10.1039/c2np20035j [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Sadgrove NJ, Jones GL. From Petri dish to patient: bioavailability estimation and mechanism of action for antimicrobial and immunomodulatory natural products. Front Microbiol. 2019;10: 2470. doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2019.02470 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Wang JC, Fort CL, Matl CM, Harvey BD, Demke JC, Thomas JR, et al. Effects of essential oils on scars and wound healing: a systematic review. Facial Plast Surg. 2023;39: 173–179. doi: 10.1055/a-1938-0343 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Zhang F, Chen Z, Su F, Zhang T. Comparison of topical honey and povidone iodine-based dressings for wound healing: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Wound Care. 2021;30: S28–S36. doi: 10.12968/jowc.2021.30.Sup4.S28 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Hossain ML, Lim LY, Hammer K, Hettiarachchi D, Locher C. Honey-based medicinal formulations: a critical review. Appl Sci. 2021;11: 5159. [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Low WL, Kenward K, Britland ST, Amin MC, C M. Essential oils and metal ions as alternative antimicrobial agents: a focus on tea tree oil and silver. Int Wound J. 2017;14: 369–384. doi: 10.1111/iwj.12611 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Zhang J, Yan Y, Li Y, Shen C, Zhang Y. Topical effect of benzalkonium bromide on wound healing and potential cellular and molecular mechanisms. Int Wound J. 2021;18: 566–576. doi: 10.1111/iwj.13555 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Johnston M, McBride M, Dahiya D, Owusu-Apenten R, Nigam PS. Antibacterial activity of Manuka honey and its components: an overview. AIMS Microbiol. 2018;4: 655–664. doi: 10.3934/microbiol.2018.4.655 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Albaridi N. Antibacterial potency of honey. Int J Microbiol. 2019;2019: 2464507. doi: 10.1155/2019/2464507 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Combarros-Fuertes P, Fresno J, Estevinho M, Sousa-Pimenta M, Tornadijo ME, Estevinho LM. Honey: another alternative in the fight against antibiotic-resistant bacteria? Antibiotics. 2020;9: 774. doi: 10.3390/antibiotics9110774 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Hulea A, Obiștioiu D, Cocan I, Alexa E, Negrea M, Neacșu AG, et al. Diversity of monofloral honey based on the antimicrobial and antioxidant potential. Antibiotics. 2022;11: 595. doi: 10.3390/antibiotics11050595 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Mokaya HO, Bargul JL, Irungu JW, Lattorff HMG. Bioactive constituents, in vitro radical scavenging and antibacterial activities of selected Apis mellifera honey from Kenya. Int J Food Sci Technol. 2020;55: 1246–1254. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Lin T, Huang L, Cheng N, Wang Y, Ning Z, Huang S, et al. The in vitro and in vivo antibacterial activities of uniflorous honey from a medicinal plant, Scrophularia ningpoensis Hemsl., and characterization of its chemical profile with UPLC-MS/MS. J Ethnopharmacol. 2022;296: 115499. doi: 10.1016/j.jep.2022.115499 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Tsavea E, Vardaka FP, Savvidaki E, Kellil A, Kanelis D, Bucekova M, et al. Physicochemical characterization and biological properties of pine honey produced across Greece. Foods. 2022;11: 943. doi: 10.3390/foods11070943 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Gkoutzouvelidou M, Panos G, Xanthou MN, Papachristoforou A, Giaouris E. Comparing the antimicrobial actions of Greek honeys from the island of Lemnos and manuka honey from New Zealand against clinically important bacteria. Foods. 2021;10: 1402. doi: 10.3390/foods10061402 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Zhang YZ, Si JJ, Li SS, Zhang GZ, Wang S, Zheng HQ, et al. Chemical analyses and antimicrobial activity of nine kinds of unifloral Chinese honeys compared to manuka honey (12+ and 20+) Molecules. 2021;26: 2778. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Sindi A, Chawn M, Hernandez M, Green K, Islam M, Locher C, et al. Anti-biofilm effects and characterisation of the hydrogen peroxide activity of a range of Western Australian honeys compared to manuka and multifloral honeys. Sci Rep. 2019;9: 17666. doi: 10.1038/s41598-019-54217-8 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Matzen RD, Zinck Leth-Espensen J, Jansson T, Nielsen DS, Lund MN, Matzen S. The antibacterial effect In vitro of honey derived from various Danish flora. Dermatol Res Pract. 2018;2018: 7021713. doi: 10.1155/2018/7021713 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Bucekova M, Buriova M, Pekarik L, Majtan V, Majtan J. Phytochemicals-mediated production of hydrogen peroxide is crucial for high antibacterial activity of honeydew honey. Sci Rep. 2018;8: 9061. doi: 10.1038/s41598-018-27449-3 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Bucekova M, Jardekova L, Juricova V, Bugarova V, Di Marco G, Gismondi A, et al. Antibacterial activity of different blossom honeys: new findings. Molecules. 2019;24: E1573. doi: 10.3390/molecules24081573 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Brudzynski K. A current perspective on hydrogen peroxide production in honey. A review. Food Chem. 2020;332: 127229. doi: 10.1016/j.foodchem.2020.127229 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Roshan N, Rippers T, Locher C, Hammer KA. Antibacterial activity and chemical characteristics of several Western Australian honeys compared to manuka honey and pasture honey. Arch Microbiol. 2017;199: 347–355. doi: 10.1007/s00203-016-1308-3 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Kato M, Kawakita A. Plant-pollinator interactions in New Caledonia influenced by introduced honey bees. Am J Bot. 2004;91: 1814–1827. doi: 10.3732/ajb.91.11.1814 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Morat P, Jaffre T, Tronchet F, Munzinger J, Pillon Y, Veillon JM, et al. The taxonomic reference base Florical and characteristics of the native vascular flora of New Caledonia. Adansonia. 2012;34: 179–221. [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Munzinger J, Morat P, Jaffré T, Gâteblé G, Pillon Y, Rouhan G, et al. FLORICAL: Checklist of the vascular indigenous flora of New Caledonia 2023. [cited 2023]. Available from: http://publish.plantnet-project.org/project/florical. [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Erdtman G. Handbook of palynology: morphology-taxonomy-ecology: an introduction to the study of pollen grains and spores. New York: Hafner; 1969. 486 p. [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Majtan J, Majtan V. Is manuka honey the best type of honey for wound care? J Hosp Infect. 2010;73: 305–306. doi: 10.1016/j.jhin.2009.08.010 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.EU Directive. European Commission Council Directive 2001/110/EC of 20 December 2001 relating to honey. 2002: 10–47. [Google Scholar]
  • 35.>Codex Alimentarius. Codex standards for honey. Codex Stan 12–1981. 2001; Rev. 1 (1987), Rev. 2 (2001).
  • 36.Ferreira ICFR, Aires E, Barreira JCM, Estevinho LM. Antioxidant activity of Portuguese honey samples: Different contributions of the entire honey and phenolic extract. Food Chem. 2009;114: 1438–1443. [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute. Methods for dilution of antimicrobial susceptibility tests for bacteria that growth aerobically, 11th edn. CLSI document M07-A11. CLSI/NCCLS M7-A11 Wayne (PA): The Institute. 2018. [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Sparacino A, Merlino VM, Blanc S, Borra D, Massaglia S. A choice experiment model for honey attributes: Italian consumer preferences and socio-demographic profiles. Nutrients. 2022;14: 4797. doi: 10.3390/nu14224797 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Farkasovska J, Bugarova V, Godocikova J, Majtan V, Majtan J. The role of hydrogen peroxide in the antibacterial activity of different floral honeys. Eur Food Res Technol. 2019;245: 2739–2744. [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Bang LM, Bantting C, Molan PC. The effects of dilution rate on hydrogen peroxide production in honey and its implications for wound healing. J Altern Complement Med. 2003;9: 267–273. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Pasias IN, Kiriakou IK, Kaitatzis A, Koutelidakis AE, Proestos C. Effect of late harvest and floral origin on honey antibacterial properties and quality parameters. Food Chem. 2018;242: 513–518. doi: 10.1016/j.foodchem.2017.09.083 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Lehmann DM, Krishnakumar K, Batres MA, Hakola-Parry A, Cokcetin N, Harry E, et al. A cost-effective colourimetric assay for quantifying hydrogen peroxide in honey. Access Microbiol. 2019;1: e000065. doi: 10.1099/acmi.0.000065 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Sowa P, Grabek-Lejko D, Wesołowska M, Swacha S, Dżugan M. Hydrogen peroxide-dependent antibacterial action of Melilotus albus honey. Lett Appl Microbiol. 2017;65: 82–89. doi: 10.1111/lam.12749 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Alygizou A, Grigorakis S, Gotsiou P, Loupassaki S, Calokerinos AC. Quantification of hydrogen peroxide in Cretan honey and correlation with physicochemical parameters. J Anal Methods Chem. 2021;2021: 5554305. doi: 10.1155/2021/5554305 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Wilson PG, O’Brien MM, Gadek PA, Quinn CJ. Myrtaceae revisited: a reassessment of infrafamilial groups. Am J Bot. 2001;88: 2013–2025. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Mavric E, Wittmann S, Barth G, Henle T. Identification and quantification of methylglyoxal as the dominant antibacterial constituent of Manuka (Leptospermum scoparium) honeys from New Zealand. Mol Nutr Food Res. 2008;52: 483–489. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Adams CJ, Manley-Harris M, Molan PC. The origin of methylglyoxal in New Zealand manuka (Leptospermum scoparium) honey. Carbohydr Res. 2009;344: 1050–1053. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Kwakman PH, te Velde AA, De Boer L, Speijer D, Vandenbroucke-Grauls CM, Zaat SA. How honey kills bacteria. FASEB J. 2010;24: 2576–2582. doi: 10.1096/fj.09-150789 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Valachova I, Bucekova M, Majtan J. Quantification of bee-derived defensin-1 in honey by competitive enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay, a new approach in honey quality control. Czech J Food Sci. 2016;34: 233–243. [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Brudzynski K, Sjaarda C, Lannigan R. MRJP1-containing glycoproteins isolated from honey, a novel antibacterial drug candidate with broad spectrum activity against multi-drug resistant clinical isolates. Front Microbiol. 2015;16: 711. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Masoura M, Passaretti P, Overton TW, Lund PA, Gkatzionis K. Use of a model to understand the synergies underlying the antibacterial mechanism of H2O2-producing honeys. Sci Rep. 2020;10: 17692. doi: 10.1038/s41598-020-74937-6 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Bucekova M, Godocikova J, Kohutova L, Danchenko M, Barath P, Majtan J. Antibacterial activity and bee-derived protein content of honey as important and suitable complementary tools for the assessment of honey quality. J Food Compost Anal. 2023;123: 105610. [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Brudzynski K, Abubaker K, Wang T. Powerful bacterial killing by buckwheat honeys is concentration-dependent, involves complete DNA degradation and requires hydrogen peroxide. Front Microbiol. 2012;3: 242. doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2012.00242 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Stephen-Haynes J. Considering the best ways to manage wound exudate. Nursing and Residential Care. 2015;17: 668–671. [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Dogan‐Guner EM, Mohamed H, Orbey N, Goodyear N. Stabilization and controlled release of micro‐encapsulated hydrogen peroxide for wound treatment applications. J Appl Microbiol. 2019;126: 965–972. doi: 10.1111/jam.14177 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Sen CK, Khanna S, Babior BM, Hunt TK, Ellison EC, Roy S. Oxidant-induced vascular endothelial growth factor expression in human keratinocytes and cutaneous wound healing. J Biol Chem. 2002;277: 33284–33290. doi: 10.1074/jbc.M203391200 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Roy S, Khanna S, Nallu K, Hunt TK, Sen CK. Dermal wound healing is subject to redox control. Mol Ther. 2006;13: 211–220. doi: 10.1016/j.ymthe.2005.07.684 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Zhu G, Wang Q, Lu S, Niu Y. Hydrogen peroxide: a potential wound therapeutic target. Med Princ Pract. 2017;26: 301–308. doi: 10.1159/000475501 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Filippo Giarratana

12 Sep 2023

PONE-D-23-23826Characterisation of physicochemical parameters and antibacterial properties of New Caledonian honeysPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Majtan,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Oct 27 2023 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Filippo Giarratana

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript:

“We thank New Caledonian beekeepers for providing honey samples. This work was supported by the Scientific Grant Agency of the Ministry of Education of the Slovak Republic and the Slovak Academy of Sciences VEGA 2/0022/22 and the Slovak Research and Development Agency under Contract No. APVV-21-0262.”

We note that you have provided funding information that is currently declared in your Funding Statement. However, funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form.

Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows:

“This work was supported by the Scientific Grant Agency of the Ministry of Education of the Slovak Republic and the Slovak Academy of Sciences VEGA 2/0022/22 and the Slovak Research and Development Agency under Contract No. APVV-21-0262.

The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.”

Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

3. Please amend either the abstract on the online submission form (via Edit Submission) or the abstract in the manuscript so that they are identical.

4. We note that Figure 1 in your submission contain map image which may be copyrighted. All PLOS content is published under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which means that the manuscript, images, and Supporting Information files will be freely available online, and any third party is permitted to access, download, copy, distribute, and use these materials in any way, even commercially, with proper attribution. For these reasons, we cannot publish previously copyrighted maps or satellite images created using proprietary data, such as Google software (Google Maps, Street View, and Earth). For more information, see our copyright guidelines: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/licenses-and-copyright.

We require you to either (1) present written permission from the copyright holder to publish these figures specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license, or (2) remove the figures from your submission:

1. You may seek permission from the original copyright holder of Figure 1 to publish the content specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license. 

We recommend that you contact the original copyright holder with the Content Permission Form (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=7c09/content-permission-form.pdf) and the following text:

“I request permission for the open-access journal PLOS ONE to publish XXX under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CCAL) CC BY 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Please be aware that this license allows unrestricted use and distribution, even commercially, by third parties. Please reply and provide explicit written permission to publish XXX under a CC BY license and complete the attached form.”

Please upload the completed Content Permission Form or other proof of granted permissions as an "Other" file with your submission.

In the figure caption of the copyrighted figure, please include the following text: “Reprinted from [ref] under a CC BY license, with permission from [name of publisher], original copyright [original copyright year].”

2. If you are unable to obtain permission from the original copyright holder to publish these figures under the CC BY 4.0 license or if the copyright holder’s requirements are incompatible with the CC BY 4.0 license, please either i) remove the figure or ii) supply a replacement figure that complies with the CC BY 4.0 license. Please check copyright information on all replacement figures and update the figure caption with source information. If applicable, please specify in the figure caption text when a figure is similar but not identical to the original image and is therefore for illustrative purposes only.

The following resources for replacing copyrighted map figures may be helpful:

USGS National Map Viewer (public domain): http://viewer.nationalmap.gov/viewer/

The Gateway to Astronaut Photography of Earth (public domain): http://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/sseop/clickmap/

Maps at the CIA (public domain): https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/index.html and https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/cia-maps-publications/index.html

NASA Earth Observatory (public domain): http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/

Landsat: http://landsat.visibleearth.nasa.gov/

USGS EROS (Earth Resources Observatory and Science (EROS) Center) (public domain): http://eros.usgs.gov/#

Natural Earth (public domain): http://www.naturalearthdata.com/

5. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information.

6. PLOS ONE now requires that authors provide the original uncropped and unadjusted images underlying all blot or gel results reported in a submission’s figures or Supporting Information files. This policy and the journal’s other requirements for blot/gel reporting and figure preparation are described in detail at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-blot-and-gel-reporting-requirements and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-preparing-figures-from-image-files. When you submit your revised manuscript, please ensure that your figures adhere fully to these guidelines and provide the original underlying images for all blot or gel data reported in your submission. See the following link for instructions on providing the original image data: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-original-images-for-blots-and-gels.

In your cover letter, please note whether your blot/gel image data are in Supporting Information or posted at a public data repository, provide the repository URL if relevant, and provide specific details as to which raw blot/gel images, if any, are not available. Email us at plosone@plos.org if you have any questions.

Additional Editor Comments:

Dear Author,

please improve the paper with all the Reviewer's suggestions/requirements.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Partly

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: I Don't Know

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The manuscript entitled “Characterisation of physicochemical parameters and antibacterial properties of New Caledonian honeys” investigates the antibacterial activity of different honey samples in light of the specific hydrogen peroxide content. The manuscript seems well written, with the English requiring only minor adjustments (considering my knowledge). The topic is interesting and worthy of attention but as it stands the article has some shortcomings that do not allow it to be published.

In detail:

1. There is not a clear link between the introduction and the goals of the study.

2. The MMs are not clear on several points and need to be improved especially as regards the antimicrobial evaluations.

3. The results section shows data for which the methods of analysis have not been described (see subsection 3.1.).

4. The Results section reports information that looks more like discussion than results. This last is repeated several times so I would suggest a massive editing of the article to remove discussions from the result section.

Therefore, I suggest either rejecting the article or major revisions.

Abstract

In my opinion, the abstract does not elucidate well what the authors did during the study. The materials and methods section is not fully explanatory. The authors used abbreviations that may not be understood by a non-addicted reader. I suggest editing the abstract summarizing better all the sections of the study.

Introduction

The introduction is not badly written, but the authors should be focused better the aims of the study which are several and, in my opinion, are not well linked with the information reported in the introduction. I would suggest critically reviewing the introduction.

Line 51: Use another word instead of “consumption”.

Line 57: Improve the connection between this sentence and the periods before and after.

Lines 63-64: I would suggest moving this sentence before the previous period.

Line 70 and 72: Add references.

Line 82: add a reference.

Line 90: it is not clear what the authors mean by “uncover”. Please, improve.

Lines 90-91: It is not clear the connection between this sentence and the previous sentence. Could the author explain better, please?

Line 93: What do the authors mean by “high endemicity”? Please, improve and explain better.

Line 99: Why did the authors investigate the activity of glucose oxidase but they never discuss it in the introduction?

Line 101: What do the authors mean by "honey diluted? Please, improve.

Materials and methods

Lines 107-108: improved this sentence, it seems that the period is missing a final part.

Line 110: please, somewhere describe what UMF means.

Line 112: immediately before or after what?

Line 119: in my opinion, this paragraph does not make sense reported in this way. Improve scribing also how the samples were stored and prepared for the antibacterial activity. Furthermore, report the manufacturers where the bacteria were acquired.

Lines 120: isolates instead of isolate.

Line 125: what does “by laboratories” mean? Improve

Line 124: please, improve this paragraph by reporting at least a brief description of the methods used (“Harmonized methods of the internationals honey commission”) and the manufacturers of the instruments used for the different parameters’ determination.

Lines 159-161: it is unclear what and how was determined. The mic of what versus whom? diluted in broth how? Why? In what quantity? Improve.

Line 170: it is difficult for the reader to follow the article. The method is not well described. Why MHB “or” “diluted honey”? It seems that a part of the method is missing. Improve.

Line 172: visually in which way? Turbidity? Improve.

Lines 178-181: This section should be moved above before or inserted together with the description of the method adopted. It is not clear the difference between MIC and MBC.

Line 184: what do the authors mean by spotted?

Results

Line 206: This analysis was not defined in the MM. Add the methods used in the MM. Improve.

Line 225 legislative criterium of New Caledonia? Or another country/continent?

Lines 227-288: this looks more like discussions than results.

Lines 234-235: this looks more like discussions than results.

Please, rewrite the article so that only results and not discussions are reported in the results section. A it is, it is difficult to follow the results obtained by the analyses.

Discussion

The discussions seem well written and discretely discuss the results obtained. However, considering the need for major improvements in the results and the materials and methods sections, the discussions deserve further revision in the light of future updates by the authors.

Figure and tables

The captions of both figures and tables are fully explanatory and they are both well presented.

Reviewer #2: The work completed on the topic of Characterisation of physicochemical parameters and antibacterial properties of New Caledonian honeys is very applied and conducted in details.

The results and their critical discussions are stronger point for this research article.

Manuscript would be very interesting, if it had some pictures of New Caledonian Honeys samples used in experiments, but that is not necessary

I suggest to use selected type of Caledonian honeys, which are rich in Bioactivities for innovative health care products.

Manuka Honey is sold very expensive in Health shops, because there is no competition with other health grade honeys in the market,

I hope Caledonian honeys would be available in market at a cheaper cost for people to afford the cost, please explore such possibility.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Reviosion 1.pdf

PLoS One. 2023 Oct 31;18(10):e0293730. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0293730.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


18 Sep 2023

Response to reviewers’ comments and suggestions

Reviewer #1

The manuscript entitled “Characterisation of physicochemical parameters and antibacterial properties of New Caledonian honeys” investigates the antibacterial activity of different honey samples in light of the specific hydrogen peroxide content. The manuscript seems well written, with the English requiring only minor adjustments (considering my knowledge). The topic is interesting and worthy of attention but as it stands the article has some shortcomings that do not allow it to be published.

In detail:

1. There is not a clear link between the introduction and the goals of the study.

Thank you for comment. We rewrote the introduction and added more background information which are in direct connection with the aims of our study. Please see our revised ms and answers for your raised issues below.

2. The MMs are not clear on several points and need to be improved especially as regards the antimicrobial evaluations.

Thank you for your valuable comments and suggestions. We agree that some details were missing and also some statement could be confusing. Therefore, we improved the description of methods, especially the determination of antibacterial activity of honey. Please see bellow responses for your comments/suggestions. Please see also our revised ms.

3. The results section shows data for which the methods of analysis have not been described (see subsection 3.1.).

The pollen analysis was used for determining of floral origin of honey. It was mentioned in the first paragraph in MM (paragraph “Honey samples“): „The samples were harvested in 2021 and identification of the floral source of each honey sample using mellisopalynological analysis according to Erdtman [32] was performed by CARI asbl, Louvain-La-Neuve, Belgium” However, we added the reference supporting this analysis. Please see our revised ms.

Pollen analysis of honey or mellisopalynoligcal analysis is a gold standard determining honey botanical type. This analysis very much depends on broad experience and only a few commercial laboratories are able to do it. Therefore, pollen analysis in our case was provided as a commercial service.

4. The Results section reports information that looks more like discussion than results. This last is repeated several times so I would suggest a massive editing of the article to remove discussions from the result section.

Thank you for your suggestion. We removed all sentences/paragraphs which were related with discussion. On the other hand, we described obtained results in detail what is very important for researchers/readers who are not familiar with microbiological techniques and honey research. In addition, all references were removed from results section. We believe that the results section is improved but keeps enough information for readers. Please see our revised ms.

In addition, according to PLos One guidelines, figure legends should be placed in manuscript where the particular Figure is mentioned. Therefore, it looks a bit messy and too wordy.

Abstract

In my opinion, the abstract does not elucidate well what the authors did during the study. The materials and methods section is not fully explanatory. The authors used abbreviations that may not be understood by a non-addicted reader. I suggest editing the abstract summarizing better all the sections of the study.

Thank you for your comment and suggestion. We agree that section MM was omitted in abstract. Therefore, we revised and rewrote the abstract taking into account the final word limit for abstract (300 words). All abbreviations were shown in full in abstract and some of them were removed.

Introduction

The introduction is not badly written, but the authors should be focused better the aims of the study which are several and, in my opinion, are not well linked with the information reported in the introduction. I would suggest critically reviewing the introduction.

Thank you for your valuable comment and suggestion. We rewrote some parts of introduction (also including your suggestions bellow) and we added more information about hydrogen peroxide, its production and the role in antibacterial activity of honey. We believe that revised introduction linked with the goals of the study.

Line 51: Use another word instead of “consumption”.

Thank you. It was reworded. Please see revised ms.

Line 57: Improve the connection between this sentence and the periods before and after.

Thank you for suggestion. We added the sentence to improve connection between two paragraphs.

Lines 63-64: I would suggest moving this sentence before the previous period.

Thank you for suggestion. We moved the sentence at the of previous paragraph.

Line 70 and 72: Add references.

Selected and most appropriate references were added.

Line 82: add a reference.

Reference was added.

Line 90: it is not clear what the authors mean by “uncover”. Please, improve.

Thank you. It was reworded. Please see revised ms.

Lines 90-91: It is not clear the connection between this sentence and the previous sentence. Could the author explain better, please?

Thank you for comment. We improved the clarity and connection between the sentences. Please see revised ms.

Line 93: What do the authors mean by “high endemicity”? Please, improve and explain better.

Thank you for your comment. Term “high endemicity” was used for plants in New Caledonia. We modified the sentence to improve the clarity. Please see our revised ms.

Line 99: Why did the authors investigate the activity of glucose oxidase but they never discuss it in the introduction?

Thank you for your comment. We added this information in introduction and highlighted the role of glucose oxidase in honey antibacterial activity through the production of hydrogen peroxide. Please, see our revised ms.

Line 101: What do the authors mean by "honey diluted? Please, improve.

Thank you for your comment. We aimed to investigate antibacterial effect of honey against S. aureus at condition in which honey was diluted to its minimal inhibitory concentration against S. aureus. We improved the clarity of the sentence. Please see our revised ms.

Materials and methods

Lines 107-108: improved this sentence, it seems that the period is missing a final part.

The sentence was improved. Please see our revised ms.

Line 110: please, somewhere describe what UMF means.

A shortcut “UMF” has been shown in full meaning in the introduction as appeared for the first time in manuscript.

Line 112: immediately before or after what?

The sentence clarity was improved. See our revised ms.

Line 119: in my opinion, this paragraph does not make sense reported in this way. Improve scribing also how the samples were stored and prepared for the antibacterial activity. Furthermore, report the manufacturers where the bacteria were acquired.

Thank you for suggestion. We added more information about the bacterial cultures, their origin, storing and working conditions. Please see our revised ms.

Lines 120: isolates instead of isolate.

It was corrected.

Line 125: what does “by laboratories” mean? Improve

Thank you for your comment. We corrected it.

Line 124: please, improve this paragraph by reporting at least a brief description of the methods used (“Harmonized methods of the internationals honey commission”) and the manufacturers of the instruments used for the different parameters’ determination.

As it was mentioned in manuscript, physicochemical analyses were carried out at Cari asbl (Belgium). The methods used for these analyses were accredited methods; however, we do not have information about the manufacturers of used laboratory machines/devices. This was done as a commercial service. We believe that description of the standard methods for basic physicochemical parameters of honey is not necessary since they are widely used in Europe.

Lines 159-161: it is unclear what and how was determined. The mic of what versus whom? diluted in broth how? Why? In what quantity? Improve.

Thank you for comment. We improved the clarity of the paragraph to be clearer for readers. Please see our revised ms.

Line 170: it is difficult for the reader to follow the article. The method is not well described. Why MHB “or” “diluted honey”? It seems that a part of the method is missing. Improve.

Thank you for your comment. We improved the clarify and description of the method. We added information about positive and negative control. Description about dilution of honey samples was shown at the bottom of the same paragraph. This method has been widely published and also used numbers of honey researchers. It is a standard method but accommodated to honey.

Line 172: visually in which way? Turbidity? Improve.

Thank you for your comment. Yes, the lack of visual turbidity was used to determine the minimal inhibitory concentration of honey samples. We improved the description of this method. In addition, based on Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI) guidelines, visual inspection of bacterial growth is a standard approach.

Lines 178-181: This section should be moved above before or inserted together with the description of the method adopted. It is not clear the difference between MIC and MBC.

Thank you for your comment. We defined what MBC means and corrected the sentences and also used proper reference. MIC and MBC of honey represent common parameters characterizing the antibacterial activity of honey. MIC expresses inhibitory activity and MBC expresses bactericidal activity of particular honey samples. Please see our revised ms.

Line 184: what do the authors mean by spotted?

Thank you for your comment. Spotting means that the aliquots in a final volume of 10 ul were dropped on the agar plate. The drops let soak into agar media and plate was incubated overnight. It is common procedure in microbiology. There are hundreds of papers where same technique and its description was used.

Results

Line 206: This analysis was not defined in the MM. Add the methods used in the MM. Improve.

The pollen analysis – determining of floral origin of honey – was mentioned in the first paragraph in MM (paragraph “Honey samples“): „The samples were harvested in 2021 and identification of the floral source of each honey sample was performed by laboratories at CARI asbl, Louvain-La-Neuve, Belgium.” However, we added the reference supporting this analysis. It was provided as a commercial service. Please see our revised ms.

Line 225 legislative criterium of New Caledonia? Or another country/continent?

Thank you for comment. The legislative criteria according to Codex standards for honey. Thus, it is international criterium. We added this information into result section (without references that should not be used in Results section)

Lines 227-288: this looks more like discussions than results.

Thank you for comment. We removed the sentence from results section.

Lines 234-235: this looks more like discussions than results.

Thank you for comment. We removed the sentence from results section.

Please, rewrite the article so that only results and not discussions are reported in the results section. A it is, it is difficult to follow the results obtained by the analyses.

Thank you for your suggestion. We removed all sentences/paragaraphs which were related with discussion. On the other hand, we described obtained results in detail what is very important for researchers who are not familiar with microbiological techniques and honey research. In addition, all references were removed from results section. We believe that the results section is improved but keeps enough information for readers. Please see our revised ms.

Discussion

The discussions seem well written and discretely discuss the results obtained. However, considering the need for major improvements in the results and the materials and methods sections, the discussions deserve further revision in the light of future updates by the authors.

Thank you for your comment. As you indicated, discussion is well written. Therefore, we made some changes and add some more information to discussion section. However, no changes in data or in graphs were made. Therefore, we believe that discussion is robust, actual and taking into account all important results of our present study. Please see our revised ms.

Reviewer #2

The results and their critical discussions are stronger point for this research article. Manuscript would be very interesting, if it had some pictures of New Caledonian Honeys samples used in experiments, but that is not necessary.

Thank you for your suggestion. Unfortunately, pictures of New Caledonian honey samples would not be very attractive. All samples are in the same plastic containers and color of the honey samples are not very much diverse. In addition, we keep the samples at 4°C (in order to stabilise the biological properties) and most of the samples are in solid state.

Manuka Honey is sold very expensive in Health shops, because there is no competition with other health grade honeys in the market. I hope Caledonian honeys would be available in market at a cheaper cost for people to afford the cost, please explore such possibility.

Thank you for your suggestion. Actually, overall antibacterial activity is comparable with manuka honey and in conclusion section as well as in abstract we advocate New Caledonian honey samples as a potential source for medical-grade honey or honey-based wound care products.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to reviewers.docx

Decision Letter 1

Filippo Giarratana

18 Oct 2023

Characterisation of physicochemical parameters and antibacterial properties of New Caledonian honeys

PONE-D-23-23826R1

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Filippo Giarratana

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Acceptance letter

Filippo Giarratana

23 Oct 2023

PONE-D-23-23826R1

Characterisation of physicochemical parameters and antibacterial properties of New Caledonian honeys

Dear Dr. Majtan:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Filippo Giarratana

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Fig. Detailed representative analysis of SDS-PAGE protein profiles of collected New Caledonian honey samples (n = 33).

    (TIF)

    S1 Table. Qualitative pollen analysis of collected New Caledonian honey samples (n = 33).

    (PDF)

    S1 Raw images. Raw SDS-PAGE gels.

    (PDF)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Reviosion 1.pdf

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to reviewers.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    All relevant data are within the paper.


    Articles from PLOS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES