Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2025 Jan 7;20(1):e0313508. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0313508

N-Acetyl cysteine exhibits antimicrobial and anti-virulence activity against Salmonella enterica

Selwan Hamed 1,*, Mohamed Emara 1, Payman Tohidifar 2, Christopher V Rao 2
Editor: Anujith Kumar3
PMCID: PMC11706409  PMID: 39775338

Abstract

Salmonella enterica is a common foodborne pathogen that causes intestinal illness varying from mild gastroenteritis to life-threatening systemic infections. The frequency of outbreaks due to multidrug-resistant Salmonella has been increased in the past few years with increasing numbers of annual deaths. Therefore, new strategies to control the spread of antimicrobial resistance are required. In this work, we found that N-acetyl cysteine (NAC) inhibits S. enterica at MIC of 3 mg ml-1 and synergistically activates the bactericidal activities of common antibiotics from three-fold for ampicillin and apramycin up to1000-fold for gentamycin. In addition, NAC inhibits the expression of virulence genes at sub-inhibitory concentrations in a dose-dependent manner. The whole-genome sequencing revealed that continuous exposure of S. enterica to NAC leads to the development of resistance; these resistant strains are attenuated for virulence. These results suggest that NAC may be a promising adjuvant to antibiotics for treating S. enterica in combination with other antibiotics.

Introduction

Salmonella enterica (S. enterica) is a bacterial pathogen that is capable of infecting a wide range of hosts [1]. While infections could easily be treated with antibiotics in the past, S. enterica is rapidly developing resistance to many antibiotics [2]. Ideally, these antibiotics-resistant infections could be treated with new antibiotics. However, developing new antibiotics is a challenging task, taking years of research and millions of dollars to develop [3]. In the meantime, these antibiotic-resistant bacteria continue to develop more resistance, leading to more death due to systemic infections [4].

Rather than trying to develop entirely new antibiotics, an alternate strategy is to repurpose existing drugs to treat bacterial infections [5]. In this work, we explored N-acetyl cysteine (NAC) as a potential antimicrobial agent against S. enterica. NAC is derived from the amino acid L-cysteine and is widely available as an over-the-counter medication [6, 7]. Medical use of NAC began in the 1960s as an antidote for acetaminophen poisoning [8]. Since then, its clinical and medical applications have expanded as an antioxidant for the treatment of diabetes, neurological conditions, and liver diseases [9]. In addition, NAC is used as a mucolytic agent and adjuvant to antibiotics therapy in the treatment of upper respiratory tract infections [10] by reducing the viscosity of tracheobronchial mucous owing to its ability to break disulfide linkages of the mucin [11].

Some have suggested that NAC may be an effective antibiotic for treating bacterial infections [12, 13]. Because of its high safety and wide therapeutic index, it can be safely tolerated at doses of 500–1200 mg/day, and 4000 mg/day when treating some neurological disorders [14]. In this work, we tested the effectiveness of NAC as an antibiotic for S. enterica, alone, and in combination with other antibiotics. In addition, we tested whether S. enterica is capable of evolving resistance against NAC. While evolved strains (ES) did exhibit increased resistance to NAC, we observed that the ES also exhibited reduced expression of their virulence genes. These results suggest that NAC may be a promising adjuvant for treating antibiotic-resistant Salmonella infections.

Results

NAC synergistically activates the antimicrobial effect of antibiotics

N-acetyl cysteine (NAC) is a synthetic precursor for glutathione that is used as an antioxidant and adjuvant to antibiotics for treating upper respiratory tract infections [10]. Recent studies have demonstrated the antimicrobial activity of NAC against bacteria such as Escherichia coli and Pseudomonas aeruginosa [15]. In this work, we investigated NAC’s antimicrobial activity against S. enterica.

We first used the broth microdilution method to ascertain that the minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) of NAC is 3 mg ml-1. Next, we explored whether NAC could enhance the activity of other common antibiotics: ampicillin, apramycin, chloramphenicol, gentamycin, kanamycin, and streptomycin. This was determined by estimating the fractional inhibitory concentration (FIC) using the checkerboard technique [15, 16]. When the FIC index is less than 0.5, then the two drugs have a synergistic effect [17]. All NAC and antibiotics combinations showed FIC values less than 0.5, which indicates that NAC has a synergistic effect when combined with other common antibiotics (Table 1).

Table 1. Minimum inhibitor concentrations (MICs) for each tested compound alone and fractional inhibitor concentrations (FICs) when tested with N-acetyl cysteine.

NAC CM Gen Amp Strep KM Apr
MIC (μg/ml) 3000* 3 * 0.6 * 25** 10* 5 ** 25**
Concentration in the Mix (mg/ml) AB 0.085** 0.000681* 7** 0.285* 0.127* 7**
NAC 1* 1** 0.5* 1.5* 1* 0.5**
ΣFIC 0.361** 0.334* 0.42* 0.358* 0.358* 0.42**

NAC: N-acetyl cysteine, MIC: Minimum inhibitory concentration, CM: Chloramphenicol, Gen: Gentamycin, Amp: Ampicillin, Strep: Streptomycin, KM: Kanamycin, Apr: Apramycin, ΣFIC: fractional inhibitor concentrations. The presented data represents mean of three replicates.

* Means p-value ≤ 0.05,

** means p-value ≤ 0.001.

In particular, the addition of NAC reduced the MIC for these common antibiotics. The degree varied depending on the antibiotic: from three and a half folds for ampicillin and apramycin and up to a thousand-fold for gentamycin. Collectively, these results suggest that NAC can be used to increase to effectiveness of some antibiotics against S. enterica infections.

NAC represses virulence genes expression

We next investigated the ability of NAC to suppress virulence in S. enterica. NAC can treat otitis media, a biofilm-forming infection caused by Streptococcus pneumoniae and Haemophilus influenza [1820]. In addition, NAC significantly improves the healing of Pseudomonas aeruginosa contaminated wounds by inhibiting biofilm development [21]. Since NAC can inhibit bacterial virulence, we investigated whether NAC, at subinhibitory concentrations, can downregulate the expression of virulence genes in S. enterica. We focused on the expression of HilA, which is the master regulator of invasion genes expression encoded within Salmonella pathogenicity island 1 [22]; these genes are required for the invasion of intestinal epithelial cells. To measure the expression of HilA, we fused the green fluorescent protein (GFP) to the hilA promoter and then measured fluorescence using flow cytometry. In addition, we also tested whether NAC could inhibit motility gene expression in S. enterica. Motility is also a virulence factor in S. enteric [2326]. Here, we focused on measuring the expression of the flagellin (FliC) again using flow cytometry by fusion of the fluorescent protein Venus to the fliC promoter [2628].

We found that NAC, at a subinhibitory concentration of 2.5 mg ml-1, reduced the expression from both the hilA and fliC promoters (Fig 1 and S1 Fig). The degree of repression was dose-dependent: as the concentration increased, promoter activity decreased. The mechanism is unknown. Nevertheless, these data demonstrate that NAC not only kills S. enterica but also potentially reduces its virulence.

Fig 1. NAC suppresses the expression of Salmonella virulence gene.

Fig 1

hilA and fliC promoters’ activities were determined at varying concentrations of NAC using single-copy transcriptional fusions to the fluorescent proteins GFP and Venus, respectively. Mean total expression of promoters were significantly inhibited at high concentrations of NAC in a dose-dependent manner [NS: not significant, * p-value < 0.05, and ** p-value< 0.001].

Evolution of resistance against NAC

Bacteria are capable of developing resistance to most antibiotics. Therefore, we tested whether S. enterica could develop resistance to NAC during prolonged exposure to sub-inhibitory concentrations of 1.5 mg ml-1. In these experiments, we grew S. enterica for 30 days in either Luria-Bertani broth or M9 minimal medium containing glucose and were sub-cultured daily into fresh medium. As shown in Fig 2, S. enterica was able to tolerate the presence of NAC following prolonged exposure. In particular, growth was less inhibited in the ES than in the wild-type control. Surprisingly, the ES showed lower MIC of 2–2.2 mg ml -1 for NAC compared to the wild type (Table 2).

Fig 2. Salmonella develops resistance to NAC.

Fig 2

Both NAC evolved strains and wild type control were grown in either (a) LB medium or (b) M9 medium supplemented with (1.5 mg ml -1). The wild type of control showed inhibited growth as compared to the evolved strains (ES1-3) that tolerate the presence of NAC.

Table 2. Minimum inhibitor concentrations (MICs) for NAC for wild type versus evolved strains.

MIC results decrease when wild type S. enterica exposed to subinhibitory concentrations of NAC for 30 growth cycles.

WT ES_LB ES_M9
MIC for NAC (mg/ml) 3* 2* 2.2*

NAC: N-acetyl cysteine, MIC: Minimum inhibitory concentration, ES_LB: evolved strains grown in LB medium, ES_M9: Evolved strains grown in M9 medium. The presented data represents mean of three replicates.

* Means p-value ≤ 0.05

NAC-resistant strains are attenuated

We found that NAC inhibits the expression of the virulence and motility genes in S. enterica at a sub-inhibitory concentration (Fig 1). An open question was whether the NAC-resistant strain also exhibited reduced expression of the virulence genes. To answer this question, we measured the expression of hilA and fliC promoters in the NAC-resistant strains using flow cytometry. We found that the expression of hilA and fliC was significantly (p< 0.05) reduced 4 and 6-fold, respectively, in the NAC-resistant strain as compared to wild-type (unevolved) S. enterica (Fig 3 and S2 Fig), that’s also confirmed by motility plate assay shown in (Fig 4).

Fig 3. NAC-resistant strains are attenuated.

Fig 3

hilA and fliC promotor activities were measured for the wild type (WT) and NAC evolved strains (ES) growing in LB medium using single-copy transcriptional fusions to GFP and Venus, respectively. The mean total expression of promoter activities in NAC-resistant strains was significantly inhibited (p-value < 0.05) as compared to wild-type control.

Fig 4. Motility plate assay for NAC-resistant strains versus wild type.

Fig 4

Motility of control strain A: wild type (WT) showed a normal motility zone while NAC evolved strains (ES) B: growing in LB medium or C: M9 medium showed reduced motility.

We used whole genome sequencing (WGS) technique to get insight and understand the underlying mechanism for virulence attenuation in ES. In this experiment, the whole DNA was extracted from wild type S. enterica, three biological replicates evolved in LB medium, and another three colonies evolved in M9 medium. The ES showed common modifying single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) mostly in Salmonella NinG encoded on Lambda phage, Gifsy 2 prophage and its encoded genes as illustrated in (S1 Table) while some ES showed individual mutations in invasion genes SseI (SPI-2 type III secretion system effector) and tail fiber assembly protein.

Discussion

S. enterica infections are common and vary from gastroenteritis to a more serious systemic infection. Most people get infected with S. enterica by eating contaminated meat, poultry, eggs, fruits, and vegetables [29, 30]. Since 2000, several outbreaks of multidrug-resistant Salmonella infections have been reported in both the United States and Europe [3133]. Thus, there is an urgent need to combat bacterial resistance by employing alternatives to conventional antibiotics. Repurposing existing drugs is promising money and time-saving approach [5].

NAC is conventionally used as an antioxidant to replenish glutathione pools, which in turn scavenges free radicals and reactive oxygen species [34, 35]; thus, NAC not only detoxifies the body but also strengthens the immune system [9, 10]. In addition, it can also be used as an antibiotic. Indeed, growing experimental evidence has demonstrated the potential of using NAC as a safe antimicrobial agent, either as a monotherapy or combined with antibiotics [3638].

These results motivated us to test the antimicrobial activity of NAC against S. enterica. We found that NAC not only inhibited the growth of S. enterica but also enhanced the activity of many common antibiotics. Our results are in line with previously published work that suggested using NAC at concentrations ranging from 10–20 mM (1.6–3.2 mg ml-1) can treat simple infections [39]. Of note, higher concentrations of NAC are required, approximately 50 mM (16 mg ml-1), for treatment of mixed infections due to the inherent antibiotic resistance of the causative strains and the development of biofilm [40]. At daily doses of 1200–1800 mg/day, NAC was able to suppress Pseudomonas aeruginosa in cystic fibrosis patients by inhibiting quorum sensing, development of biofilm, and initiation of extracellular polysaccharides and bacterial matrix production [39, 41]. Likewise, the invasion and motility genes of S. enterica were inhibited at subinhibitory concentrations of NAC in a dose-dependent manner, while the continuous exposure to lower concentrations of NAC during bacterial growth leads to the attenuation of these virulence determinants in Salmonella.

The exact mechanism of NAC’s antimicrobial activity is not known. It was previously believed that the thiol group interacts with bacterial disulfide bonds; however, recent studies proved that the substitution of the thiol group is not altering NAC effectiveness [21]. Meanwhile, both the acetyl and carboxyl groups are essential for the antimicrobial effect of NAC, where they affect protein folding and flagellar assembly [42]. NAC is a multi-targeting agent that can penetrate the bacteria, competitively inhibits cysteine utilization, potentially protect against oxidative stress, and suppresses protein synthesis [43].

The whole genome sequencing for ES compared to wild type S. enterica revealed common mutations in DUF proteins that were previously reported to inhibit the ability of S. enterica to induce systemic infection [44, 45]. Several studies revealed that prophage Gifsy 1 and 2 have a critical role in pathogenesis of S. enterica [46]; cured bacteria are not able to induce infection in mice [44]. That’s aligned with our results as NAC evolved strains showed reduced expression of virulence genes related to motility and invasion, a possible mechanism that NAC interact at some level with bacteriophage.

Taken together, NAC is a promising candidate to combat antimicrobial resistance with a high safety profile. It also attenuates virulence in S. enterica. Further investigations are required to understand the potential NAC’s mechanism of action in S. enterica.

Materials and methods

Bacterial strains, and general growth conditions

In all experiments, we used Salmonella enterica serovar Typhimurium ATCC 14028 (American Type Culture Collection) (S. enterica). Growth experiments were performed using either Luria-Bertani (LB) medium or M9 minimal medium (supplemented with 0.2% glucose) at 37 °C, unless noted otherwise. To measure the expression of the invasion and motility gene, strains expressing either the hilA or fliC promoters respectively, were used as previously described [26, 28, 47]. All experiments were conducted in triplicate.

Adaptive evolution

A single colony of wild-type S. enterica was streaked on the surface of an LB plate, then six colonies were picked, divided into two groups, and grown under shaking (200 rpm) in either LB or M9 media supplemented with 1.5 mg ml-1 of NAC. Batch cultures were manually transferred to fresh media containing 1.5 mg ml-1 of NAC each day. The process was repeated for 30 days.

Assessment of antibacterial activity of N-acetyl cysteine (NAC) against S. enterica

The antimicrobial activity of NAC was determined using the broth microdilution technique [48, 49]. Briefly, we used starting concentrations of 50 mg ml−1 for NAC that was then diluted in a double fold manner across a 96-well plate. 1x105 CFU ml-1 of S. enterica was added, cultures were then incubated under shaking (250 rpm) for 12–18 hours. The minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) of NAC was determined by measuring the growth inhibition at an optical density (OD) of 600 nm.

Synergy evaluation

We used the checkerboard dilution procedures to investigate the effect of NAC and tested antibiotics when present in combination [16, 17]. Briefly, in a 96- well plate, both NAC and the antibiotics were diluted along the x and y-axis. The combined effect and the fractional inhibitory concentration (FIC) index were obtained by measuring optical density at 600 nm using a Tecan microplate reader.

Gene expression assay

Expression from the hilA and fliC promoters were measured as described previously using a BD Biosciences LSR II flow cytometer [26, 47]. Briefly, cells were grown in LB statically when measuring expression from the hilA promoter and under vigorous shaking (250 rpm) when measuring expression from the fliC promoter. The mean fluorescent intensities were obtained from 50,000–100,000 cells.

DNA sequencing

A total of seven DNA samples were extracted from wild type and six colonies representing biological replicates evolved in either LB or M9 media. DNeasy blood and tissue kit (Qiagen-USA) was used to extract DNA as per manufacturer’s instruction. DNA samples were sequenced at the Roy J. Carver Biotechnology Center, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Briefly, the shotgun genomic libraries were prepared with the Hyper Library construction kit from Kapa Biosystems (Roche). The libraries were pooled; quantitated by qPCR and sequenced on one SP lane for 101 cycles from one end of the fragments on a NovaSeq 6000. Fastq files were generated and demultiplexed with the bcl2fastq v2.20 Conversion Software (Illumina). Adaptors have been trimmed from the 3’-end of the reads. Sequence of adaptors used to make the libraries. The quality-scores line in fastq files use an ASCII offset of 33 known as Sanger scores.

FASTA files for the raw reads were submitted to NCBI under the following accession number PRJNA878837 SAMN30758791-97(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sra/PRJNA878837).

Whole genome sequencing analysis

Salmonella enterica subsp. enterica serovar Typhimurium (ASM386401v1) was used as the reference genome. BWA/0.7.17-IGB-gcc-4.9.4 was used to align the data [50]. BCF tools/1.9-IGB-gcc-4.9.4 was used to call the variant and detect the single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) [51]. SnpEff was installed and used to determine the effect of the SNPs [52].

Statistical analysis

Statistical analyses were performed by using Origin pro 2019 (Origin Lab, Northampton, Massachusetts, USA). Student’s t-tests were used for pairwise comparisons analysis. Significance was accepted when p values were less than 0.05 (p < 0.05). Data from three biological replicates are presented as means with standard deviations.

Supporting information

S1 Table. Results of Whole genomic DNA Sequencing.

All the modifying single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) between wild type and evolved strains are listed with their potential effect on bacterial virulence.

(XLSX)

pone.0313508.s001.xlsx (19.8KB, xlsx)
S1 Fig. Expression of fluorescent protein in wild type S. enterica treated with different concentrations of NAC.

A: control, B: expression at 1.25 mg ml-1 NAC, C: expression at 2.5 mg ml-1NAC and D: expression at 5 mg ml-1NAC.

(TIF)

pone.0313508.s002.tif (273.4KB, tif)
S2 Fig. Expression of fluorescent protein in wild type versus evolved strains S. enterica treated with Subinhibitory concentration of NAC.

A: Wild type, B: evolved strains.

(TIF)

pone.0313508.s003.tif (175.7KB, tif)

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting information files. DNA sequencing are available under the following link https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sra/PRJNA878837.

Funding Statement

The author(s) received no specific funding for this work.

References

  • 1.Kudirkiene E, Sorensen G, Torpdahl M, de Knegt LV, Nielsen LR, Rattenborg E, et al. Epidemiology of Salmonella enterica Serovar Dublin in Cattle and Humans in Denmark, 1996 to 2016: a Retrospective Whole-Genome-Based Study. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2020;86(3). doi: 10.1128/AEM.01894-19 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Florez-Cuadrado D, Moreno MA, Ugarte-Ruiz M, Dominguez L. Antimicrobial Resistance in the Food Chain in the European Union. Adv Food Nutr Res. 2018;86:115–36. doi: 10.1016/bs.afnr.2018.04.004 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Tacconelli E, Carrara E, Savoldi A, Harbarth S, Mendelson M, Monnet DL, et al. Discovery, research, and development of new antibiotics: the WHO priority list of antibiotic-resistant bacteria and tuberculosis. Lancet Infect Dis. 2018;18(3):318–27. doi: 10.1016/S1473-3099(17)30753-3 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Crump JA, Kretsinger K, Gay K, Hoekstra RM, Vugia DJ, Hurd S, et al. Clinical response and outcome of infection with Salmonella enterica serotype Typhi with decreased susceptibility to fluoroquinolones: a United States foodnet multicenter retrospective cohort study. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2008;52(4):1278–84. doi: 10.1128/AAC.01509-07 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.D’Angelo F, Baldelli V, Halliday N, Pantalone P, Polticelli F, Fiscarelli E, et al. Identification of FDA-Approved Drugs as Antivirulence Agents Targeting the pqs Quorum-Sensing System of Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2018;62(11). doi: 10.1128/AAC.01296-18 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Monti DA, Zabrecky G, Kremens D, Liang TW, Wintering NA, Bazzan AJ, et al. N-Acetyl Cysteine Is Associated With Dopaminergic Improvement in Parkinson’s Disease. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2019;106(4):884–90. doi: 10.1002/cpt.1548 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Kelly GS. Clinical applications of N-acetylcysteine. Alternative medicine review: a journal of clinical therapeutic. 1998;3(2):114–27. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9577247/. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Cotgreave IA. N-acetylcysteine: pharmacological considerations and experimental and clinical applications. Adv Pharmacol. 1997;38:205–27. . [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Salamon S, Kramar B, Marolt TP, Poljsak B, Milisav I. Medical and Dietary Uses of N-Acetylcysteine. Antioxidants (Basel). 2019;8(5). doi: 10.3390/antiox8050111 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Cao R, Teskey G, Islamoglu H, Abrahem R, Munjal S, Gyurjian K, et al. Characterizing the Effects of Glutathione as an Immunoadjuvant in the Treatment of Tuberculosis. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2018;62(11). doi: 10.1128/AAC.01132-18 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Blasi F, Page C, Rossolini GM, Pallecchi L, Matera MG, Rogliani P, et al. The effect of N-acetylcysteine on biofilms: Implications for the treatment of respiratory tract infections. Respir Med. 2016;117:190–7. doi: 10.1016/j.rmed.2016.06.015 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Kokai D, Mosolygo T, Virok DP, Endresz V, Burian K. N-acetyl-cysteine increases the replication of Chlamydia pneumoniae and prolongs the clearance of the pathogen from mice. J Med Microbiol. 2018;67(5):702–8. doi: 10.1099/jmm.0.000716 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Goswami M, Jawali N. N-acetylcysteine-mediated modulation of bacterial antibiotic susceptibility. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2010;54(8):3529–30. doi: 10.1128/AAC.00710-10 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Sansone RA, Sansone LA. Getting a knack for NAC: N-acetyl-cysteine. Innovations in clinical neuroscience. 2011;8(1):10. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21311702/. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Hamed S, Emara M, Shawky RM, El-Domany RA, Youssef T. Silver nanoparticles: Antimicrobial activity, cytotoxicity, and synergism with N-acetyl cysteine. J Basic Microbiol. 2017;57(8):659–68. doi: 10.1002/jobm.201700087 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Garcia L. Synergism Testing: Broth Microdilution Checkerboard and Broth Macrodilution Methods. Clinical Microbiology Procedures Handbook. Washington, DC: American Society of Microbiology Press; 2010. p. 140–62. [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Odds FC. Synergy, antagonism, and what the chequerboard puts between them. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2003;52(1):1. doi: 10.1093/jac/dkg301 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Pollini S, Boncompagni S, Di Maggio T, Di Pilato V, Spanu T, Fiori B, et al. In vitro synergism of colistin in combination with N-acetylcysteine against Acinetobacter baumannii grown in planktonic phase and in biofilms. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2018;73(9):2388–95. doi: 10.1093/jac/dky185 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.García MDaE. N-Acetyl-l-Cysteine and Cysteamine as New Strategies against Mixed Biofilms of Nonencapsulated Streptococcus pneumoniae and Nontypeable Haemophilus influenzae. Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy. 2017;61(2):e1992–16. doi: 10.1128/AAC.01992-16 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Riise GC, Qvarfordt I, Larsson S, Eliasson V, Andersson BA. Inhibitory effect of N-acetylcysteine on adherence of Streptococcus pneumoniae and Haemophilus influenzae to human oropharyngeal epithelial cells in vitro. Respiration. 2000;67(5):552–8. doi: 10.1159/000067473 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Li X, Kim J, Wu J, Ahamed AI, Wang Y, Martins-Green M. N-Acetyl-cysteine and Mechanisms Involved in Resolution of Chronic Wound Biofilm. J Diabetes Res. 2020;2020:9589507. doi: 10.1155/2020/9589507 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Bajaj V, Hwang C, Lee CA. hilA is a novel ompR/toxR family member that activates the expression of Salmonella typhimurium invasion genes. Mol Microbiol. 1995;18(4):715–27. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2958.1995.mmi_18040715.x . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Kage H, Takaya A, Ohya M, Yamamoto T. Coordinated regulation of expression of Salmonella pathogenicity island 1 and flagellar type III secretion systems by ATP-dependent ClpXP protease. J Bacteriol. 2008;190(7):2470–8. doi: 10.1128/JB.01385-07 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Wang X, Koirala S, Aldridge PD, Rao CV. Two tandem mechanisms control bimodal expression of the flagellar genes in Salmonella enterica. J Bacteriol. 2020. doi: 10.1128/JB.00787-19 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Saini S, Ellermeier JR, Slauch JM, Rao CV. The role of coupled positive feedback in the expression of the SPI1 type three secretion system in Salmonella. PLoS Pathog. 2010;6(7):e1001025. doi: 10.1371/journal.ppat.1001025 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Koirala S, Rao CV. Dynamic Measures of Flagellar Gene Expression. Methods Mol Biol. 2017;1593:73–83. doi: 10.1007/978-1-4939-6927-2_5 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Koirala S, Mears P, Sim M, Golding I, Chemla YR, Aldridge PD, et al. A nutrient-tunable bistable switch controls motility in Salmonella enterica serovar Typhimurium. mBio. 2014;5(5):e01611–14. doi: 10.1128/mBio.01611-14 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Saini S, Slauch JM, Aldridge PD, Rao CV. Role of cross talk in regulating the dynamic expression of the flagellar Salmonella pathogenicity island 1 and type 1 fimbrial genes. J Bacteriol. 2010;192(21):5767–77. doi: 10.1128/JB.00624-10 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Wain J, Hendriksen RS, Mikoleit ML, Keddy KH, Ochiai RL. Typhoid fever. Lancet. 2015;385(9973):1136–45. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(13)62708-7 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Yombi JC, Martins L, Vandercam B, Rodriguez-Villalobos H, Robert A. Clinical features and outcome of typhoid fever and invasive non-typhoidal salmonellosis in a tertiary hospital in Belgium: analysis and review of the literature. Acta Clin Belg. 2015;70(4):265–71. doi: 10.1179/2295333715Y.0000000016 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Aypak A, Celik AK, Aypak C, Cikman O. Multidrug resistant typhoid fever outbreak in Ercek Village-Van, Eastern Anatolia, Turkey: clinical profile, sensitivity patterns and response to antimicrobials. Trop Doct. 2010;40(3):160–2. doi: 10.1258/td.2010.090438 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Aljoudi AS, Al-Mazam A, Choudhry AJ. Outbreak of food borne Salmonella among guests of a wedding ceremony: The role of cultural factors. J Family Community Med. 2010;17(1):29–34. doi: 10.4103/1319-1683.68786 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Centers for Disease CP. Multistate outbreak of human Salmonella infections caused by contaminated dry dog food—United States, 2006–2007. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2008;57(19):521–4. . [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Su X, Guo S, Huang X, Wang X, Qi D, Yang C. Control of oxidative reactions of hemoglobin in the design of blood substitutes: role of the Vc, NAC, TEMPO and their reductant system. Artif Cells Nanomed Biotechnol. 2014;42(4):222–8. doi: 10.3109/21691401.2013.834907 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Chen F, Zhou YJ. Hepatic effect of NAC on sevear acute pancteatise of rats. Asian Pac J Trop Med. 2014;7(2):141–3. doi: 10.1016/S1995-7645(14)60010-9 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Selwan Hamed ME, Shawky Riham M, El-domany Ramadan A and Youssef Tareq. N-acetyl cysteine substantially enhances the antimicrobial activity of zinc oxide nanoparticles against multidrug resistant pathogens. International Journal of Advanced Research in Biological Sciences. 2015;2(12):15. [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Young M, Ozcan A, Lee B, Maxwell T, Andl T, Rajasekaran P, et al. N-acetyl Cysteine Coated Gallium Particles Demonstrate High Potency against Pseudomonas aeruginosa PAO1. Pathogens. 2019;8(3). doi: 10.3390/pathogens8030120 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Manniello MD, Del Gaudio P, Aquino RP, Russo P. Clarithromycin and N-acetylcysteine co-spray-dried powders for pulmonary drug delivery: A focus on drug solubility. Int J Pharm. 2017;533(2):463–9. doi: 10.1016/j.ijpharm.2017.03.079 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Feng J, Liu B, Xu J, Wang Q, Huang L, Ou W, et al. In vitro effects of N-acetylcysteine alone and combined with tigecycline on planktonic cells and biofilms of Acinetobacter baumannii. J Thorac Dis. 2018;10(1):212–8. doi: 10.21037/jtd.2017.11.130 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Pollini S, Di Pilato V, Landini G, Di Maggio T, Cannatelli A, Sottotetti S, et al. In vitro activity of N-acetylcysteine against Stenotrophomonas maltophilia and Burkholderia cepacia complex grown in planktonic phase and biofilm. PLoS One. 2018;13(10):e0203941. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0203941 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Raghu G, Noth I, Martinez F. N-acetylcysteine for idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis: the door is still open. Lancet Respir Med. 2017;5(1):e1–e2. doi: 10.1016/S2213-2600(16)30327-7 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Braga PC, Zuccotti T, Dal Sasso M. Bacterial adhesiveness: effects of the SH metabolite of erdosteine (mucoactive drug) plus clarithromycin versus clarithromycin alone. Chemotherapy. 2001;47(3):208–14. doi: 10.1159/000063223 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Garcia-Alcantara F, Murillo-Cuesta S, Pulido S, Bermudez-Munoz JM, Martinez-Vega R, Milo M, et al. The expression of oxidative stress response genes is modulated by a combination of resveratrol and N-acetylcysteine to ameliorate ototoxicity in the rat cochlea. Hear Res. 2018;358:10–21. doi: 10.1016/j.heares.2017.12.004 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Figueroa-Bossi N, Bossi L. Inducible prophages contribute to Salmonella virulence in mice. Mol Microbiol. 1999;33(1):167–76. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2958.1999.01461.x . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Ehrbar K, Hardt WD. Bacteriophage-encoded type III effectors in Salmonella enterica subspecies 1 serovar Typhimurium. Infect Genet Evol. 2005;5(1):1–9. doi: 10.1016/j.meegid.2004.07.004 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Andrews K, Landeryou T, Sicheritz-Pontén T, Nale JY. Diverse prophage elements of Salmonella enterica serovars show potential roles in bacterial pathogenicity. Cells. 2024;13(6):514. doi: 10.3390/cells13060514 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Hamed S, Wang X, Shawky RM, Emara M, Aldridge PD, Rao CV. Synergistic action of SPI-1 gene expression in Salmonella enterica serovar typhimurium through transcriptional crosstalk with the flagellar system. BMC Microbiol. 2019;19(1):211. doi: 10.1186/s12866-019-1583-7 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.CLSI. Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute. Methods for dilution antimicrobial susceptibility test for bacteria that grow aerobically. Wayne, Pennsylvania, USA: CLSI; 2015.
  • 49.Eliopoulos GM, and Mollering R. C. Jr. Antibiotics in laboratory medicine. 4th edition ed. Lorain IV, editor. Baltimore, MD: Williams & Wilkins; 1996. 330–96 p. [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Li H, Durbin R. Fast and accurate long-read alignment with Burrows-Wheeler transform. Bioinform. 2010;26(5):589–95. doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btp698 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Li H. A statistical framework for SNP calling, mutation discovery, association mapping and population genetical parameter estimation from sequencing data. Bioinform. 2011;27(21):2987–93. doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btr509 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Cingolani P, Platts A, Wang le L, Coon M, Nguyen T, Wang L, et al. A program for annotating and predicting the effects of single nucleotide polymorphisms, SnpEff: SNPs in the genome of Drosophila melanogaster strain w1118; iso-2; iso-3. Fly (Austin). 2012;6(2):80–92. doi: 10.4161/fly.19695 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Anujith Kumar

14 Oct 2024

PONE-D-24-31564N-acetyl cysteine exhibits antimicrobial and anti-virulence activity against Salmonella entericaPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Aboelnaga,

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 Nov 28 2024 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,

Anujith Kumar

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. We suggest you thoroughly copyedit your manuscript for language usage, spelling, and grammar. If you do not know anyone who can help you do this, you may wish to consider employing a professional scientific editing service.  The American Journal Experts (AJE) (https://www.aje.com/) is one such service that has extensive experience helping authors meet PLOS guidelines and can provide language editing, translation, manuscript formatting, and figure formatting to ensure your manuscript meets our submission guidelines. Please note that having the manuscript copyedited by AJE or any other editing services does not guarantee selection for peer review or acceptance for publication.  Upon resubmission, please provide the following: The name of the colleague or the details of the professional service that edited your manuscript A copy of your manuscript showing your changes by either highlighting them or using track changes (uploaded as a *supporting information* file) A clean copy of the edited manuscript (uploaded as the new *manuscript* file)” 3. We note that the grant information you provided in the ‘Funding Information’ and ‘Financial Disclosure’ sections do not match.  When you resubmit, please ensure that you provide the correct grant numbers for the awards you received for your study in the ‘Funding Information’ section. 4. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure: "This work was partially supported by a visiting fellowship from the Egyptian cultural and educational bureau – Washington, DC." Please state what role the funders took in the study.  If the funders had no role, please state: ""The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript."" If this statement is not correct you must amend it as needed. Please include this amended Role of Funder statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf. 5. Please ensure that you refer to Figure 4 in your text as, if accepted, production will need this reference to link the reader to the figure. 6. Please include a copy of Table 2 which you refer to in your text on page 5. 7. 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. 8. Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

Additional Editor Comments:

Dear Dr. Selwan,

Your manuscript has been evaluated by the Editors and qualified reviewer(s) and we are pleased to report that this work has been judged to be potentially suitable for publication in Plos One.

We request that you revise your manuscript in accordance with the comments below. Please note that the revised manuscript will require an additional evaluation by the Editors and that this request for revision is not a guarantee of final acceptance

[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: Yes

Reviewer #2: Partly

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

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: Yes

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: This study was designed to investigate the antimicrobial activity of NAC against S. enterica and to verify the potential of NAC as a promising antibiotic for treating S. enterica in combination with other antibiotics. The overall design of the paper is simple and reasonable. Comments: (1) The basis for selecting Salmonella ATCC 14028 needs to be supplemented. (2) The method for determining MIC needs to be supplemented, and the reason for not considering MBC as an indicator should be explained. (3) Figure 2 can be further optimized for display, such as using solid or hollow symbols, solid or dashed lines, etc. Is there no color version of Figure 4?

Reviewer #2: The present study tries to establish NAC as an adjuvant which can enhance the effect of antibiotics in treatment of Salmonella Enterica infection. The authors derive the minimal inhibitory concentration of various antibiotics in presence and absence of NAC and show that it can be a beneficial addition to the antibiotic pool. They also show that NAC treatment leads to reduced virulence of S. enterica. Though the study demonstrates the positive role of NAC in combatting S. enterica infection, there are major limitations in the study that need to be addressed.

Major queries:

1) The concentration of NAC used in the study is strikingly different from what is reported in one of the previous studies. Ondrej Chlumsky et.al., 2021 (Evaluation of the Antimicrobial Efficacy of N-Acetyl-l-Cysteine, Rhamnolipids, and Usnic Acid—Novel Approaches to Fight Food-Borne Pathogens) showed MIC of NAC to be 12500 μg/mL which is strikingly different from 3 mg/mL used in the present study. Could the authors justify the effect seen with a lower concentration of NAC?

2) The authors show that administration of NAC leads to decreased expression of virulence genes: hilA and fliC. It is important to understand what this would mean physiologically. Does the reduced virulence lead to less severe symptoms of S. enterica infection? Also, it is recommended that the authors show the expression of other important virulence genes such as invA (assists in the host invasion) and iroB (involved in the formation and transfer of enterobactin)

3) The results show that the enhanced strains show a lowered MIC for NAC. How would the authors explain this? And why do the virulence genes in NAC resistant strains respond to NAC treatment?

4) Changes in the WGS profile with NAC treatment would not give a substantial explanation to the changes in virulence. An explanation about the probable mechanism of NAC mediated effects on S. enterica need to be provided in the discussion section. Also, WGS data need to be validated.

Minor queries:

1) The authors use hilA and fliC promoters driven GFP expression as a readout of virulence. However, GFP expression is not shown in the manuscript. In addition, flow cytometry plots must be shown in the figure along with the quantification graph.

2) In the abstract, NAC is referred to as an antibiotic and as an adjuvant in another section. It would be better to maintain a uniform terminology. Also, referring to an antioxidant as an antibiotic might need to be reconsidered.

3) In the discussion section, line 148, it is stated that NAC increases oxidative stress. This misleading statement needs to be corrected.

**********

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: Yes: Qingli Dong

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.

PLoS One. 2025 Jan 7;20(1):e0313508. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0313508.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


21 Oct 2024

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)

Response to reviewers’ comments

Reviewer #1: This study was designed to investigate the antimicrobial activity of NAC against S. enterica and to verify the potential of NAC as a promising antibiotic for treating S. enterica in combination with other antibiotics. The overall design of the paper is simple and reasonable. Comments:

(1) The basis for selecting Salmonella ATCC 14028 needs to be supplemented.

Response: In line 159-163, the discussion section, we explained that we are interested in studying S. enterica due to the multiple outbreaks and food posisoning associated with Salmonella along with the rapid rate of developing antibiotic resistance . We conducted similar research on different Gram negative standard stains (E.coli, Pseudomonas, Shigella) and clinical isolates but it’s still not published.

(2) The method for determining MIC needs to be supplemented, and the reason for not considering MBC as an indicator should be explained.

Response: Two folds microdilution technique was used as described in line 210-215.

Actually, the concentration mentioned in the manuscript is the MBC as we noticed inhibition of the growth in the well containing (3.125 mg ml-1 of NAC) and a visible growth was shown in the well containing (1.56 mg ml-1 of NAC). Then we tested concentration between the two values mentioned above (3.1, 3, 2.8. 2.5, 2.3 to 1.5)

We found that at concentration of 3 mg ml-1of NAC showed a full inhibition of S. enterica growth

(3) Figure 2 can be further optimized for display, such as using solid or hollow symbols, solid or dashed lines, etc

Response: Figure 2 is edited.

(4) Is there no color version of Figure 4?

Response: unfortunately, no. Plates and media are transparent; bacteria give a white motility zone, that’s why pictures were captured on a dark background for a better contrast to illustrate the motility zone.

Reviewer #2: The present study tries to establish NAC as an adjuvant which can enhance the effect of antibiotics in treatment of Salmonella Enterica infection. The authors derive the minimal inhibitory concentration of various antibiotics in presence and absence of NAC and show that it can be a beneficial addition to the antibiotic pool. They also show that NAC treatment leads to reduced virulence of S. enterica. Though the study demonstrates the positive role of NAC in combatting S. enterica infection, there are major limitations in the study that need to be addressed.

Major queries:

1) The concentration of NAC used in the study is strikingly different from what is reported in one of the previous studies. Ondrej Chlumsky et.al., 2021 (Evaluation of the Antimicrobial Efficacy of N-Acetyl-l-Cysteine, Rhamnolipids, and Usnic Acid—Novel Approaches to Fight Food-Borne Pathogens) showed MIC of NAC to be 12500 μg/mL which is strikingly different from 3 mg/mL used in the present study. Could the authors justify the effect seen with a lower concentration of NAC?

Response:

1) We think the difference between our MIC values could be due to the starting bacterial load, in our paper NAC was challenged against bacterial concentration of 1x105 CFU ml-1 While Chlumsky et.al., 2021 used bacterial concentration of ( OD =)0.08-0.1 that’s approximately 1x107 CFU ml-1

2) Different strains give different MIC values; we can list multiple papers using NAC against different Gram-negative bacteria. In the above-mentioned paper for Ondrej Chlumsky et.al., 2021 in the second paragraph in the discussion part they said:

The efficacy of NAC has been earlier mentioned for the inhibition of biofilm formation, disruption of preformed biofilms (both initial and mature), and reduction in bacterial viability in biofilms of clinical pathogens, such as Haemophilus influenza, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, and Streptococcus pneumoniae [15,16,19]. Interestingly, these studies demonstrated lower MIC effectiveness against bacterial growth (500–2500 µg/mL) and needed for biofilm reduction (2500–10,000 µg/mL) than MIC evaluated in our study (3130–12,500 µg/mL for bacterial growth and 12,500–100,000 µg/mL for biofilm reduction).

Moreover we can mention multiple other studies that give vary range of MIC for NAC For Example:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10376233/

MIC for NAC is 4000 μg/mL

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3251652/

MIC for NAC is 8 mg/ml.

2) The authors show that administration of NAC leads to decreased expression of virulence genes: hilA and fliC. It is important to understand what this would mean physiologically. Does the reduced virulence lead to less severe symptoms of S. enterica infection? Also, it is recommended that the authors show the expression of other important virulence genes such as invA (assists in the host invasion) and iroB (involved in the formation and transfer of enterobactin).

Response:

In our previous work we studied the coordinated regulation of virulence in S. enterica, motility and invasion are tightly coupled. fliC is required for the efficient expression and assembly of FliC into the growing flagellar structure. Noninvasive Salmonella are not pathogenic, invasion is part of the pathogenesis. The hilA gene encodes an OmpR/ToxR family transcriptional regulator that activates the expression of invasion genes, expression of hilA activates the expression of T3-SSS genes including invA. If FliC or HilA expression is affected/ reduced it means the entire infection is aborted.

3) The results show that the enhanced strains show a lowered MIC for NAC. How would the authors explain this? And why do the virulence genes in NAC resistant strains respond to NAC treatment?

Response:

In Figure 2, the evolved strains could tolerate a sub-MIC concentration of NAC, grow to a higher OD compare to the wild type but we were curious to determine what is the change in MIC value for the evolved strains, we found that the MIC values are lower than the wild type may be multiple systems are affected and this needs further investigations like RNA sequencing to check exactly what are the genes involved.

May be NAC and other FDA approve substances behave differently than conventional antibiotic, and exposure to sub-MIC is a better option to weaken the pathogen and its virulence factors.

Recent papers (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8721600/) reported similar findings with treating Pseudomonas with sub MIC concentrations of different antibiotics, MIC post exposure for 10 cycles either remain constsnt, decreased or increases.

4) Changes in the WGS profile with NAC treatment would not give a substantial explanation to the changes in virulence. An explanation about the probable mechanism of NAC mediated effects on S. enterica needs to be provided in the discussion section. Also, WGS data need to be validated.

Response:

WGS showed SNPS in multiple genes some of them are constant in all evolved strains and others are unique per strain. We agree that WGS didn’t give a full explanation but at least gave a picture for the possible genes involved in the interacting pathway of NAC and Salmonella.

An extra paragraph is added to the discussion part (line 197 -201)

Minor queries:

1) The authors use hilA and fliC promoters driven GFP expression as a readout of virulence. However, GFP expressions are not shown in the manuscript. In addition, flow cytometry plots must be shown in the figure along with the quantification graph.

Response: Flow cytometry fplots are added as supplementary documents (S1 Fig, S2 Fig)

2) In the abstract, NAC is referred to as an antibiotic and as an adjuvant in another section. It would be better to maintain a uniform terminology. Also, referring to an antioxidant as an antibiotic might need to be reconsidered.

Response: edited

3) In the discussion section, line 148, it is stated that NAC increases oxidative stress. This misleading statement needs to be corrected.

Response: edited

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers .docx

pone.0313508.s004.docx (27.8KB, docx)

Decision Letter 1

Anujith Kumar

25 Oct 2024

N-acetyl cysteine exhibits antimicrobial and anti-virulence activity against Salmonella enterica

PONE-D-24-31564R1

Dear Dr. Aboelnaga,

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 will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager® and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. If you have any questions relating to publication charges, 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,

Anujith Kumar

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. 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: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. 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: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. 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

**********

6. 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 author has made corresponding revisions, and the suggestions mentioned have been incorporated into the revised manuscript. There are no further comments, and I recommend its acceptance for publication.

Reviewer #2: The authors have provided a satisfactory rebuttal to the concerns raised. The manuscript has been edited wherever necessary. The manuscript can now be accepted for publication in Plos one.

**********

7. 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: Yes: Qingli Dong

Reviewer #2: No

**********

Acceptance letter

Anujith Kumar

6 Nov 2024

PONE-D-24-31564R1

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Hamed,

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

At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following:

* All references, tables, and figures are properly cited

* All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission,

* There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset

If revisions are needed, the production department will contact you directly to resolve them. If no revisions are needed, you will receive an email when the publication date has been set. At this time, we do not offer pre-publication proofs to authors during production of the accepted work. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few weeks to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps.

Lastly, 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 customercare@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. Anujith Kumar

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 Table. Results of Whole genomic DNA Sequencing.

    All the modifying single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) between wild type and evolved strains are listed with their potential effect on bacterial virulence.

    (XLSX)

    pone.0313508.s001.xlsx (19.8KB, xlsx)
    S1 Fig. Expression of fluorescent protein in wild type S. enterica treated with different concentrations of NAC.

    A: control, B: expression at 1.25 mg ml-1 NAC, C: expression at 2.5 mg ml-1NAC and D: expression at 5 mg ml-1NAC.

    (TIF)

    pone.0313508.s002.tif (273.4KB, tif)
    S2 Fig. Expression of fluorescent protein in wild type versus evolved strains S. enterica treated with Subinhibitory concentration of NAC.

    A: Wild type, B: evolved strains.

    (TIF)

    pone.0313508.s003.tif (175.7KB, tif)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers .docx

    pone.0313508.s004.docx (27.8KB, docx)

    Data Availability Statement

    All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting information files. DNA sequencing are available under the following link https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sra/PRJNA878837.


    Articles from PLOS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES