Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Scientific Reports logoLink to Scientific Reports
. 2025 Jul 2;15:23180. doi: 10.1038/s41598-025-05667-w

Monolaurin inhibits antibiotic-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in patients with atopic dermatitis

Matchima Laowansiri 1,2,#, Supaporn Suwanchote 1,2,#, Dhammika Leshan Wannigama 3,4,5,15,16, Vishnu Nayak Badavath 6, Parichart Hongsing 5, Steven W Edwards 7, Narissara Suratannon 8, Pantipa Chatchatee 8,14, Pattamon Lertpichitkul 9, Pawinee Rerknimitr 9, Karaked Chantawarangul 10, Susheera Chatproedprai 10, Siriwan Wananukul 10, Arsa Thammahong 1,2, Rongpong Plongla 11, Pattrarat Chanachaithong 12, Warinthorn Chavasiri 13, Tanittha Chatsuwan 1,2, Direkrit Chiewchengchol 1,2,17,✉
PMCID: PMC12222975  PMID: 40604030

Abstract

Frequent use of antibiotics increases the incidence of antimicrobial-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in atopic dermatitis (AD), which prompts the search for new treatments. Monolaurin is a chemical byproduct found in coconut oil and has anti-bacterial properties. This study aimed to investigate the inhibitory effect of monolaurin on antimicrobial-resistant S. aureus. Thirty children and thirty adults diagnosed with AD were recruited and swabbed at three different sites: lesion, non-lesion, and nasal mucosa. Methicillin resistance and high-level mupirocin resistance in S. aureus were identified using mecA and mupA PCR, respectively, whilst fusidic acid resistance were detected by fusA gene sequencing. The broth microdilution method and tetrazolium bromide assays were used for monolaurin susceptibility and cellular cytotoxicity, respectively. We show that S. aureus was frequently isolated from lesions of both children and adults with AD. One isolate of methicillin-resistant S. aureus (MRSA) harboring mecA, one isolate of mupirocin-resistant S. aureus harboring mupA, and four isolates of fusidic acid-resistant S. aureus with novel point mutations of fusA were found in the children group. In silico molecular docking showed that these mutants interacted weakly with fusidic acid, explaining the mechanism of drug resistance. Monolaurin inhibited these antimicrobial-resistant S. aureus isolates with a minimal inhibitory concentration of 2 µg/mL without cytotoxicity to cultured epidermal and dermal cells. These data show that monolaurin could potentially be used to inhibit antimicrobial-resistant S. aureus in AD patients.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1038/s41598-025-05667-w.

Subject terms: Clinical microbiology, Skin diseases, Bacterial infection

Introduction

Atopic dermatitis (AD) is a chronic and recurrent eczematous skin disease commonly found in children with typical morphology and age-specific patterns1. There are several factors involved in the pathogenesis of AD, such as genetic predispositions, immunological disturbance, and certain environmental exposures such as irritants, allergens and pathogens2.

Staphylococcus aureus is a major pathogen associated with disease flare and severity of AD3. It has been reported that S. aureus is found in up to 90% of AD patients, especially in children with worsened symptoms4. The difference between S. aureus colonization and infection in AD is that colonization means the bacteria is found on the skin (such as anterior nares) without any symptoms of skin infection5. Therefore, antibiotics are not commonly administered for colonization purposes. However, the colonization is a known risk factor of skin infection in AD and colonized individuals can transmit the bacteria to others6. In clinical practice, topical and systemic antibiotics are administered to eliminate S. aureus infection in patients with AD. Although frequently-used topical antibiotics (e.g., mupirocin and fusidic acid) and/or systemic antibiotics (e.g., cloxacillin and cephalexin) usually effectively eliminate this pathogen, the incidence of antimicrobial-resistant S. aureus has been rising and this has now become a challenging problem in AD treatment7,8.

A common antimicrobial-resistant S. aureus in patients with AD is methicillin-resistant S. aureus (MRSA). The main resistance mechanism of MRSA is production of penicillin-binding protein 2a (PBP2a, encoded by the mecA gene) that has low affinity to β-lactams9. In addition, emerging evidence shows that mupirocin- and fusidic acid-resistant S. aureus are increasing in AD patients10–12. Mupirocin inactivates a bacterial enzyme, isoleucyl-t-RNA synthetase, which is essential for protein synthesis of S. aureus. However, high-level mupirocin-resistant S. aureus commonly carry a mupA gene encoding an alternative isoleucyl-t-RNA synthetase, which is not inhibited by mupirocin. In contrast, fusidic acid inhibits protein synthesis of S. aureus by binding with elongation factor G (EF-G, encoded by the fusA gene). Mutations of fusA gene are common in S. aureus during the development of fusidic acid resistance10–12.

Monolaurin or glycerol monolaurate is a monoglyceride found in coconut oil that is an ingredient in some natural skincare products13. Monolaurin inhibits the growth of fungi, viruses and bacteria14 and interferes with cell wall synthesis of Gram-positive bacteria15. The effects of monolaurin have been investigated in S. aureus in patients with wound infections, in particular the strains of this pathogen that have developed antimicrobial resistance16. Moreover, there are no reports that demonstrate monolaurin to be sensitizing in chronic skin such as AD. In this study, we identified antimicrobial-resistant S. aureus isolated from AD patients and detected resistance genes of mecA, mupA, and de novo gene mutations in fusA, that were characterised by in silico molecular docking. Monolaurin was synthesized and purified in our laboratory (Fig. 1), and we showed that it could inhibit these antimicrobial-resistant S. aureus.

Fig. 1.

Fig. 1

Open in a new tab

The chemical structure and purity of monolaurin. The spectral signals of monolaurin demonstrated by (a) proton (1H NMR) and (b) carbon (13C-NMR) Nuclear Magnetic Resonance (NMR).

Results

Demographic data

The demographic characteristics of thirty children and thirty adults diagnosed with AD are shown in Table 1. The disease severity using EASI and SCORAD showed that children with AD had greater clinical severity than adults (p < 0.001) (Supplementary Table S3-5 online). The correlation between the severity scores and a presence of S. aureus on the lesions is shown in Table 2. The result demonstrated that both severity scores were significantly correlated with the presence of S. aureus (p < 0.001), particularly in patients with moderate to severe AD (EASI > 7 or SCORAD > 20) who showed higher incidences of S. aureus isolated from the lesion when compared to patients with mild symptoms.

Table 1.

Demographic characteristics of AD patients.

Demographic characteristics Children (n = 30) Adults (n = 30)
Number Percent Number Percent
Sex
Male 17 56.6 9 30
Female 13 43.3 21 70
BMI (Mean ± SD) 18.39 ± 4.41 23.57 ± 3.82
Allergic rhinitis/conjunctivitis 17 56.6 25 83.3
Allergic asthma 3 10 3 10
Drug/food allergy 10 33.3 8 26.7
Family history of allergic diseases
Allergic rhinitis/conjunctivitis 20 66.6 12 41.4
Allergic asthma 7 24.1 5 17.2
Atopic dermatitis 12 41.4 5 17.2
Smoking history/FH of smoking 4 13.3 12 40
Open in a new tab

Table 2.

Disease severity with a presence of S. aureus isolated from the lesions in a combination of children (n = 16) and adults (n = 8) with AD.

Score S. aureus p-value
N (%)
EASI 0.001*
Mild (1–7) 5(20)
Moderate (7–20) 11(45.8)
Severe (> 20) 8(33.3)
SCORAD 0.002*
Mild  (1–20) 0(0.0)
Moderate (20–40) 8(33.3)
Severe (> 40) 16(66.7)
Open in a new tab

* p < 0.05.

Treatments in patients with AD are shown in Supplementary Table S6 online and it was found that 90% of both groups were treated with topical corticosteroids, while 53.3% of children with AD received topical antibiotics whilst only 33.3% of adult patients used these medications. Systemic antibiotics were significantly used in 36.7% of children with AD (p < 0.05) whereas only 13.3% of adult patients were treated with systemic agents.

Bacterial identification in patients with AD

Clinical samples were swabbed from lesions (eczematous lesions or affected areas), non-lesions (no skin lesions or unaffected areas) and nasal mucosa of children (n = 30) and adults (n = 30) with AD. Figure 2 shows that S. aureus was found in 16 (53%) and 8 (27%) clinical isolates from lesions of children and adults with AD, respectively. Only 5 children (16%) and 2 adults (7%) with AD were colonized with S. aureus on non-lesions. In addition, coagulase-negative staphylococci (CoNS) were found on all sites, particularly in nasal cavities of adult patients, as shown in Fig. 2 and Supplementary Fig.S1 online.

Fig. 2.

Fig. 2

Open in a new tab

S. aureus and coagulase-negative Staphylococci (CoNS) clinical isolates found in a) children (n=30) and b) adults (n=30) with AD.

Antibiotic susceptibility testing of S. aureus clinical isolates

The susceptibility of S. aureus isolated from lesions of children (n = 16) and adults (n = 8) with AD for different antibiotics was tested using the disk diffusion method. The MIC results of cefoxitin, mupirocin, and fusidic acid (Table 3), identified one MRSA isolate with a value of 8 µg/mL in the children group. One isolate of mupirocin-resistant S. aureus had a MIC of ≥ 256 µg/mL, while four isolates of fusidic acid-resistant S. aureus had MIC’s of 2, 2, 2, and 4 µg/mL, respectively (Table 3).

Table 3.

MICs and MBCs of antibiotics and monolaurin against antimicrobial-resistant S. aureus isolated from children with AD and a standard strain (ATCC 29213).

S. aureus isolates MICa (µg/mL) MBC (µg/mL)
Antibiotics Monolaurin Monolaurin
S. aureus ATCC 29213b 1–4 1 1
Cefoxitin
Mupirocin 0.06–0.5 1 1
Fusidic acid 0.06–0.25 1 1
S. aureus MRSAc 8 (R) 2 2
S. aureus MupRSAd ≥ 256 (R) 2 2
S. aureus FusA_1e 2 (R) 2 2
S. aureus FusA_2e 2 (R) 2 2
S. aureus FusA_3e 2 (R) 2 2
S. aureus FusA_4e 4 (R) 2 2
Open in a new tab

a MIC: lowest concentration at which drug can inhibit microorganism. Concentration for monolaurin is µg/ml.

b S. aureus ATCC 29213: Control for broth microdilution method.

c MRSA: Methicillin-resistant S. aureus clinical isolate.

d MupRSA: Mupirocin-resistant S. aureus clinical isolate.

e FusA: Fusidic acid-resistant S. aureus 4 clinical isolates (FusA_1–4).

R: resistant.

All S. aureus isolated from lesions of adult patients (n = 8) were susceptible to cefoxitin, mupirocin, and fusidic acid (Table 4). Furthermore, S. aureus found in lesions of children with AD were resistant to tetracycline (n = 4, 25%), ciprofloxacin (n = 1, 6%), clindamycin (n = 2, 13%), and erythromycin (n = 3, 19%) whilst there were only 2 clinical isolates (25%) from adult patients were resistant to tetracycline.

Table 4.

Antibiotic susceptibilities of S. aureus isolated from lesions of children and adults with AD (S = sensitive, R = resistant).

Antibiotic susceptibility testing of S. aureus Children (n = 16) Adults (n = 8) P-value
Number Percent Number Percent
Cefoxitin
S 15 93.75 8 100 0.497
R 1 6.25 0 0
Sulfamethoxazole/trimethoprim
S 16 100 8 100 -
R 0 0 0 0
Fusidic acid
S 12 75 8 100 0.037*
R 4 25 0 0
Mupirocin
S 15 93.75 8 100 0.126
R 1 6.25 0 0
Tetracycline
S 11 68.75 6 75 0.883
R 5 31.25 2 25
Ciprofloxacin
S 15 93.75 8 100 0.497
R 1 6.25 0 0
Clindamycin
S 14 87.5 8 100 0.326
R 2 12.5 0 0
Erythromycin
S 13 81.25 8 100 0.22
R 3 18.75 0 0
Open in a new tab

* p < 0.05.

The resistance mechanism of antimicrobial-resistant S. aureus

The clinical isolate of MRSA contained the mecA gene, while the mupirocin-resistant S. aureus clinical isolate contained the mupA gene (ileS2) as detected by PCR (Supplementary Fig.S2 online). As fusidic acid-resistant S. aureus mostly result from mutations of the fusA gene encoding EF-G, the mutations of the four fusidic acid-resistant S. aureus clinical isolates were identified by nucleotide sequencing and compared with wild-type S. aureus using the MultAlin program. The results showed that the predicted amino acid sequences of EF-G from fusidic acid-resistant S. aureus differed from the wild-type sequence. Moreover, novel EF-G mutations were observed in this study in which two isolates possessed P404Q (404 proline/glutamine) and Q505H (505 glutamine/histidine) substitutions, one isolate possessed S238A (238 serine/alanine) and C258W (258 cysteine/tryptophan) substitutions, and one isolate possessed a H457Y (457 histidine/tyrosine) substitution (Supplementary Table S7 online).

To understand and compare the binding properties of fusidic acid with wild-type and mutant EF-G molecules (P404Q, Q505H, S238A, C258W and H457Y) of S. aureus (EF-G vs. mEF-G), post-docking analysis was performed using AutoDock v4.2. The results showed that fusidic acid (binding energy: −6.84 kcl/mol, Ki: 9.64 µM) formed two hydrogen bonds with two different amino acids in wild-type EF-G (Fig. 3b). The OH group of the 2-hydroxy toluene ring formed a hydrogen bond with OH of Thr24 present in the H5 Helices17 with a distance of 2.029 Å. The OH of Thr68 formed a hydrogen bond with OH of the pentenoic acid moiety in the fusidic acid at a distance of 1.973 Å, presented the interfaces of domains I, II, and III in the C-terminal18 and completely occupied the Hydrophobic pocket in wild-type EF-G (Fig. 3c). In the case of mEF-G (P404Q, Q505H, S238A, C258W and H457Y), the binding energy of fusidic acid was found to be −5.79 kcl/mol with a Ki value of 56.75 µM, which was much lower than the wild type EF-G. Fusidic acid formed only one hydrogen bond with the mutant protein (Fig. 3c). The NH group of Lys23 formed a hydrogen bond with the carboxylic acid group of fusidic acid (NH - - -OH) at a distance of 2.053 Å (Fig. 3c). Due to the mutations of residues 404 and 457, the ligand was unable to form any interaction in the hydrophobic pocket.

Fig. 3.

Fig. 3

Open in a new tab

All known fusidic acid-resistance mutation sites in Supplementary Table S6 online were mapped onto S. aureus EF-G structure which was visualized and modeled by PyMOL [DeLano, 2002] (PyMOL Molecular Graphics System, Version 1.2r3pre, Schrödinger, LLC.). (a) The mutation sites are shown as H457Y (Domain III), P404Q (Domain III), Q505H (Domain IV), S238A (Domain I), and C258W (Domain I). Molecular docking of fusidic acid (orange, red and white) in the active site of (b) wild type EF-G and (c) mutant EF-G of S. aureus (mEF-G). Hydrogen bonds are represented as green dotted lines and numbers represent the bond distance. The wild type EF-G structure was extracted from rcsb.org/ (PDB: 2XEX) and the mutant form was modeled by PyMOL [DeLano, 2002] (The PyMOL Molecular Graphics System, Version 1.2r3pre, Schrödinger, LLC.).

The inhibitory effect of monolaurin on antimicrobial-resistant S. aureus

Monolaurin inhibited S. aureus ATCC 29213 strain, MRSA, mupirocin-resistant S. aureus, and fusidic acid-resistant S. aureus at MICs of 1, 2, 2 and 2 µg/mL, respectively (Table 3 and Supplementary Fig.S3 online). Moreover, MBCs was determined by subculturing each isolate of antimicrobial-resistant S. aureus at the same concentrations determined in the MIC, and the results showed that the MBCs were 2 µg/mL for MRSA, mupirocin-resistant S. aureus, and fusidic acid-resistant S. aureus, as there was no growth detected of each isolate (Table 3).

The cytotoxicity of monolaurin on human keratinocytes and dermal fibroblasts

The potential cytotoxicity of monolaurin on HEKn and dermal fibroblasts was determined by MTT assay and it was found that monolaurin at concentrations of 2–4 µg/mL was not toxic to HEKn (Fig. 4). Similarly, monolaurin at concentrations of 2–8 µg/mL was not toxic to dermal fibroblasts. However, higher concentrations of monolaurin (16–32 µg/mL) showed significant decreases in cell viability of both HEKn and dermal fibroblast cells (p < 0.05).

Fig. 4.

Fig. 4

Open in a new tab

Cytotoxicity assay of cells treated with different concentrations of monolaurin (2-32 µg/ml). The percentage of cell viability of a) HEKn (primary epidermal keratinocytes) (n=3). b) dermal fibroblasts (n=3).***p-value = 0.0005, ****p<0.0001.

Discussion

S. aureus is a major aggravating factor of AD. This pathogen not only drives pathogenesis of the disease but also triggers disease recurrence and flare19. In previous studies, it was demonstrated that S. aureus was found in up to 90% of the lesions20and their toxins can induce acute exacerbation of AD patients21,22. In this study, we first identified S. aureus in swabs from the lesions of AD patients using conventional methods (e.g., coagulase test, catalase, and biochemical tests) and rapid test (APISTAPH kit) and then confirmed identity by PCR (nuc gene expression)23. The results showed that S. aureus was more commonly found on lesions, particularly in children with AD, than other species of Staphylococcus (Fig. 2). Moreover, the lesions had more colonization by S. aureus in half of these children (53%) when compared with non-lesions and the nasal mucosa. Interestingly, patients with moderate to severe AD (EASI > 7 or SCORAD > 20) had a higher incidence of S. aureus isolated from the lesions (Table 2). These findings are consistent with previous studies and support a strong association between S. aureus colonization and disease severity of AD20–22,24,25. Notably, S. aureus was less-commonly isolated from adult patients than children (Fig. 2), and this is probably because adults had milder symptoms than children (Supplementary Table S3 online), again highlighting the link between colonization by this pathogen and disease severity. As the sex ratio differed between the children and adult groups, which could introduce bias in SCORAD and EASI scores, we re-analyzed the data in Table 2, segregated by sex. The Supplement Table S4 online showed that the incidences of S. aureus were significantly different in female children and female adults using SCORAD.

In clinical practice, topical (e.g., mupirocin and fusidic acid) and systemic antibiotics (e.g., cloxacillin, first-generation cephalosporin: cephalexin) are usually prescribed in AD patients with severe symptoms and/or clinical signs of S. aureus infection. However, the prevalence of antimicrobial-resistant S. aureus is increasing, particularly MRSA, leading to decreased clinical responses to the treatment of AD26,27. Although mupirocin and fusidic acid are usually effective antibiotics against S. aureus, including MRSA, the prevalence of mupirocin and fusidic acid-resistant S. aureus has also been reported in AD patients27. In this study, antimicrobial-resistant S. aureus on the lesions of AD patients was found only in children with AD (n = 1 MRSA; n = 1 mupirocin-resistant S. aureus: n = 4 fusidic acid-resistant S. aureus). Unexpectedly, no antimicrobial-resistant S. aureus were isolated from adult patients (Table 4), and this is probably due to lower disease severity and infrequent/unnecessary use of topical antibiotics in adult patients (Supplementary Table S5 online). Nevertheless, the incidence of antimicrobial-resistant S. aureus in children with AD was lower than the incidence in previous studies28 probably because we recruited a limited number of patients (n = 30) in both groups, and sampling took place during the COVID-19 pandemic, when hand hygiene procedures were more commonplace.

The mechanisms responsible for antibiotic resistance were investigated in the S. aureus isolates from AD patients. We found that mecA and mupA genes were expressed in one MRSA and one mupirocin-resistant S. aureus clinical isolate, respectively. In contrast, four fusidic acid-resistant S. aureus with newly-identified fusA gene mutations were isolated (Supplementary Table S6 online). The results showed alleles encoding EF-G acquisition with the amino acid substitutions of P404Q (404 proline/glutamine), Q505H (505 glutamine/histidine), S238A (238 serine/alanine), C258W (258 cysteine/tryptophan) and H457Y (457 histidine/tyrosine) arising from point mutations in these clinical isolates: these mutations, except H45712,29,30, have never been reported previously. Moreover, molecular docking studies further suggested that these de novo mutations resulted in weak binding of fusidic acid to the active site of the mutated EF-G (Fig. 3), which could explain fusidic acid resistance. Notably, the incidence of fusidic acid-resistant S. aureus was higher than other antimicrobial-resistant S. aureus. This finding may be because fusidic acid is more commonly prescribed in our patient population, particularly children with AD (Supplementary Table S6 online) and frequent use of this agent drives fusidic acid resistance of S. aureus. In addition, the higher incidence of fusidic acid–resistant S. aureus may be related to the methods used and breakpoint values applied for detection of fusidic acid resistance (MIC > 1 µg/mL)31,32. Fortunately, we did not find S. aureus clinical isolates with multidrug resistance (cefoxitin, mupirocin and fusidic acid) in our population.

Although the incidence of antimicrobial-resistant S. aureus is low in this study (Table 4), the incidence across the world has been increasing. We therefore evaluated a chemical product for its potential to address this challenging problem. Recently, monolaurin extracted from natural products (i.e. coconut oil) has shown antimicrobial activity against different organisms such as bacteria including S. aureus33,34. It has been found that monolaurin inhibits the synthesis of staphylococcal toxins and other exoproteins, and expression of virulence factors such as protein A and toxic shock syndrome toxin-1 (TSST-1). Moreover, it interferes with the regulation of bacterial signaling pathways that are critical for survival of gram-positive bacteria35and signal transduction in the synthesis of -lactamase36,37.

In this study, monolaurin was synthesized in our laboratory and the chemical properties and purity of monolaurin were demonstrated using the Nuclear Magnetic Resonance (NMR) spectra of proton and carbon (Fig. 1), and the results were consistent to previous studies38–40. The inhibitory effect of monolaurin against S. aureus including antimicrobial-resistant S. aureus was investigated. We showed that monolaurin significantly inhibited MRSA, mupirocin- and fusidic acid-resistant S. aureus at the MIC and MBC of 2 µg/mL (Table 3). However, this concentration was considerably lower than values reported in previous studies (250–2000 µg/ml)15,16,which is probably because we used different source of monolaurin (in-house) that we synthesized, purified and tested the chemical properties in our laboratory. Moreover, differences in bacterial strain susceptibility, genetic variations, testing conditions, and methodological differences in antimicrobial susceptibility testing could be the potential reasons of these differences. Additionally, the inhibitory effect of monolaurin against other antimicrobial-resistant S. aureus was demonstrated in the Supplementary Table S7 online.

As a previous study reported that monolaurin (25 or 50 µM; 6.8–13.72 µg/mL) was toxic to keratinocytes (OBA-9 cells) and fibroblasts (HGF-1 cells)41we therefore further investigated the cytotoxic effect of monolaurin on primary human keratinocytes and dermal fibroblasts. We showed that there was no direct toxicity to these skin cell types at concentrations that completely inhibited S. aureus. (Fig. 4). Moreover, we measured the levels of inflammatory cytokines (IL-6, IL-8 and TNF-) and there was no induction of inflammatory cytokines released by primary human keratinocytes and dermal fibroblasts after monolaurin treatment (Supplementary Fig S4. Online). Our preliminary findings suggest that monolaurin could potentially be used as an alternative topical treatment for antimicrobial-resistant S. aureus on skin lesions of AD patients. Although monolaurin shows promising antibacterial activity, its modest selectivity index (SI = 4) indicates the need for further chemical optimization42. Future work will focus on designing monolaurin analogues and formulations with improved cytotoxicity profiles and selectivity. This would require clinical trials of these agents to test whether our synthesized monolaurin/analogues in different formulations show the same inhibitory effect once it is applied and absorbed into the skin lesions of AD patients.

In conclusion, this study demonstrated that S. aureus was frequently found on the lesions of children with AD, and it was associated with disease severity. Both topical and systemic antibiotics are usually prescribed in children with AD which probably resulted in higher incidences of antimicrobial-resistant S. aureus, particularly fusidic acid-resistant S. aureus. We have characterised novel fusidic acid mutants and propose that monolaurin, a new chemical extract is a safe inhibitor of S. aureus, including antimicrobial-resistant strains without cytotoxicity and inflammation to skin cells. Our preliminary data suggests that monolaurin could potentially be used as an alternative treatment for AD patients with antimicrobial-resistant S. aureus infections.

Materials and methods

Data and biological sample collection

Children (3 months – 16 years old) and adults diagnosed with AD using Hannifin and Rajka clinical criteria43 who attended dermatology, pediatric dermatology, and pediatric allergy clinics at the King Chulalongkorn Memorial Hospital were recruited in this study during the COVID-19 pandemic. The demographic data, including clinical presentation, treatments, and severity scores using EASI and SCORAD44,45 were recorded. The exclusion criteria were patients with current bacterial skin infection, systemic infection, contact dermatitis, and recent (within the past 4 weeks) use of topical or systemic antibiotics, or systemic corticosteroids, or recent hospital admission. This study was approved by the Institutional Review Board (IRB No. 640/60), Faculty of Medicine, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Thailand. Written informed consent and/or assent forms were obtained from all participants. For human participants that are minors, the informed consent and/or assent forms were obtained from parents and/or legal guardians for both study participation and publication of identifying information in an online open-access publication. We confirm that all methods and experiments were performed in accordance with relevant guidelines and regulations. Biological samples from 3 different sites of the skin (lesion, non-lesion, and nasal mucosa) were swabbed using separate sterile cotton sticks, and samples were inoculated onto 5% sheep blood agar and mannitol salt agar (MSA; a selective media for S. aureus).

Bacterial identification and antibiotic susceptibility testing

The inoculated plates were incubated at 35 °C for 18–24 h in ambient air. The bacterial colonies from MSA and 5% sheep blood agar plates were identified by Gram-staining, catalase, coagulase, biochemical tests, API Staph kit (bioMérieux, France), and confirmed by polymerase chain reaction (PCR) using a specific gene (nuc) as shown in Supplementary Table S1-S2 online.

Antimicrobial resistance in S. aureus isolated was initially detected using the disk diffusion method (CLSI). Briefly, pure colonies of isolated S. aureus were suspended in normal saline solution and adjusted to be equivalent to 0.5 McFarland standard before spreading onto Muller-Hinton agar (BBL, USA). Disks of cefoxitin (30 µg), clindamycin (2 µg), erythromycin (15 µg), trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole (5 µg), ciprofloxacin (5 µg), tetracycline (30 µg), fusidic acid (10 µg), and mupirocin (200 µg) were mounted on the agar surface and incubated at 35 °C for 18–24 h. The result (susceptible; S, intermediate; I, and resistant; R) was interpreted using the Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI)46 and European Committee on Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing (EUCAST) criteria31. S. aureus ATCC 25923 was used as a control strain (zone diameter ≥ 22 mm). Minimum inhibitory concentrations (MICs) of cefoxitin (0.03 to 32 µg/mL), mupirocin (> 256 µg/mL), and fusidic acid (0.03 to 32 µg/mL) were determined by broth microdilution assay for phenotypic detection of methicillin, mupirocin, and fusidic acid resistances.

Detection of antimicrobial resistance genes by PCR

Genomic DNA of the S. aureus was extracted as a template of PCR. mecA, mupA, fusA genes were amplified by PCR using specific primers (Supplementary Fig.S2 online)9–11,47. The PCR conditions were 30 cycles of 94 °C (mecA) or 95 °C (mupA and fusA) for 30 s; 55 °C (mecA) or 57 °C (mupA and fusA) for 30 s and 72 °C for 4 min. Genotypes of methicillin resistance and mupirocin resistance were detected by the presence of mecA and mupA amplicons using agarose gel electrophoresis. The PCR product of the fusA gene was purified using the QIAquick PCR purification kit for nucleotide sequencing at the 1 st BASE Inc, Malaysia.

Analysis of nucleotide sequences

Nucleotide sequences and deduced amino acid sequences were analyzed using Online Software available at the National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI). (https://blast.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov), SnapGene (version 5.0.7) and ExPASy (www.expasy.org). Multiple sequence alignment was performed using Multilin (http://multalin.toulouse.inra.fr/multalin). The fusA sequences of fusidic acid-resistant S. aureus isolates were compared with the fusA sequence from S. aureus NCTC 8325 (GenBank accession no. NC_007795), using Mega 4 software (Biodesign Institute, Tempe, AZ, USA).

Molecular docking

The AutoDock v4.2 tool was used to perform a molecular docking simulation of fusidic acid with both wild-type EF-G and compared with mutated EF-G (mEF-G). The structure of wild type EF-G obtained from rcsb.org/(PDB: 2XEX), and mutations were modeled by PyMOL [DeLano, 2002] (The PyMOL Molecular Graphics System, Version 1.2r3pre, Schrödinger, LLC. https://www.pymol.org). Both molecules were analysed in the same manner by deleting the co-crystalized waters, adding polar hydrogen, and computing gasteiger charge. The ligand was modified in silico by adding polar hydrogen and computing gasteiger charge, before initiating the docking process. The grid file was generated with 60 × 60 × 60 as the number of points in x, y, and z directions, and the center spacing was 0.375Å. A docking output file was prepared with Lamarckian Genetic Algorithm using default settings. Finally, both grid and docking output files were performed using a script of autogrid4 and autodock4 (The Scripps Research Institute, https://www.scripps.edu). The interactions were analyzed using MGL tools.

Synthesis of monolaurin

Figure 1 shows the chemical structure of monolaurin. 0.3 g (2.27 mmol) of 1,2-isopropylideneglycerol in 10 mL of CH2Cl2 under N2 gas conditions was mixed with lauroyl chloride (2.25 mmol) and triethylamine (3.4 mmol)48. The reaction mixture was stirred for 30 min at room temperature and washed with water before evaporation using a rotatory evaporator49. The concentrated compound (0.5 mmol) was dissolved in 50 mL of acetone, then mixed with 10 mL of aqueous 3 N HCl and stirred for 1.5 h at room temperature. The solution was re-evaporated, neutralized with NaHCO3 and extracted with CH2Cl2. The residue was purified by silica gel column chromatography and the final product (monolaurin) was collected as a powder. The spectral signals of monolaurin as determined by Nuclear Magnetic Resonance (NMR) (MestReNova, Version 15.1.0) of proton1H NMR) were1:H-NMR (500 MHz, CDCl3): δ 4.16 (dd, J = 13.6, 5.3 Hz, 2 H), 3.91 (s, 1 H), 3.67 (d, J = 4.0 Hz, 1 H), 3.59 (d, J = 5.8 Hz, 1 H), 2.42 (s, 2 H), 2.33 (s, 2 H), 1.61 (s, 2 H), 1.24 (s, 16 H), 0.86 (s, 3 H); and carbon13C-NMR)13:C-NMR (126 MHz, CDCl3): δ 174.51, 70.35, 65.23, 63.43, 34.25, 31.99, 29.69, 29.54, 29.42, 29.34, 29.21, 24.99, 22.77, 14.21 (as shown in Fig. 1).

Monolaurin susceptibility testing

The MIC and minimum bactericidal concentration (MBC) of monolaurin were determined using the broth microdilution method. Monolaurin powder was dissolved in 30% ethanol (w/v), and concentrations of 0.0625 to 32 µg/mL were adjusted using two-fold dilution with Muller Hinton II broth (cation-adjusted) (BBL, USA). Antimicrobial-resistant S. aureus (1.5 × 108 CFU/mL) clinical isolates were incubated with different concentrations of monolaurin at 35 °C for 24 h. The MIC was determined at the lowest concentration of monolaurin that resulted in no visible growth of isolates. To determine the MBC, each isolate (0.01 mL of bacterial suspension) of antimicrobial-resistant S. aureus at the same concentrations determined in the MIC was subcultured and inoculated onto blood agar and further incubated at 35 °C for 24 h. The concentration of monolaurin with no growth of isolates was identified.

Cytotoxicity assay

Primary epidermal keratinocytes (HEKn) and dermal fibroblasts were seeded (1 × 105 cells/mL) into 96-well plates and incubated with Dermal Cell Basal Medium and Dulbecco’s Modified Eagle Medium (DMEM), respectively (Cytiva, USA) at 37 °C in 5% CO2 for 24 h. Different concentrations of monolaurin (0.0625–32 µg/mL) were added into each well and the cells were incubated at 37 °C in 5% CO2 for 24 h. The cell culture media was removed, and fresh medium with 10 µL of thiazolyl blue tetrazolium bromide method (MTT) (Sigma, USA) was added into each well, followed by incubation at 37 °C in 5% CO2 for 4 h. The solution was discarded and DMSO was added to dissolve the formazan crystals. The optical density (OD) was measured at 570 nm using a microplate reader.

Measurement of inflammatory cytokines

HEKn and dermal fibroblasts (N = 3) were seeded (1 × 105 cells/mL) into 96-well plates and treated with and without peptidoglycan (5 µg/mL, induction of inflammatory cytokine production), or monolaurin (2 µg/mL) for 24 h. The supernatants were collected to measure inflammatory cytokine production using ELISA kits (Thermo, USA); interleukin-6 (IL-6), interleukin-8 (IL-8), and tumor necrosis factor-alpha (TNF-α). The optical density (OD) was measured at 450 and 570 nm by a microplate reader.

Statistical analyses

The statistical analyses were performed using GraphPad Prism version 9.2.0 (GraphPad Software, USA) (https://www.graphpad.com), Pearson’s chi-squared test and Fisher exact test (for categorical data) and Paired t-test (for continuous data). The results are presented as the mean ± standard deviation (SD) and differences with a p-value < 0.05 were considered statistically-significant.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary Material 1 (1.1MB, docx)

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank the Division of Dermatology, Skin, and Allergy Research Unit, Department of Medicine and Division of Dermatology, Department of Pediatrics, Faculty of Medicine, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Thailand for helping with the biospecimen collection.

Author contributions

M.L, S.S; performed the experiments, D.L.W, V.N.B, and P.H; molecular docking analysis and co-wrote the manuscript, S.W.E, N.S, Pan.C, P.L, P.R, K.C, S.C, S.W, A.T, R.P and Pat.C; co-investigation and co-wrote the manuscript, M.L, S.S, A.T, and D.C; data curation and co-wrote the manuscript, Pat.C, W.C, T.C, and D.C; resources and validation; S.S, M.L, T.C, and D.C writing-review and editing; M.L and S.S visualization; T.C and D.C project administration.

Funding 

Ratchadapiseksompotch Fund, Faculty of Medicine, Chulalongkorn University, grant number RA66/005.

Data availability

The authors confirm that the data supporting the findings of this study are available within the article [and/or] its supplementary materials.

Declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Statement of ethics

This study was approved by the Institutional Review Board (IRB No. 640/60), Faculty of Medicine, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Thailand. Written informed consent and/or assent forms were obtained from all participants.

Footnotes

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Matchima Laowansiri and Supaporn Suwanchote contributed equally.

References

  • 1.Jinnestal, C. L., Belfrage, E., Back, O., Schmidtchen, A. & Sonesson, A. Skin barrier impairment correlates with cutaneous Staphylococcus aureus colonization and sensitization to skin-associated microbial antigens in adult patients with atopic dermatitis. Int. J. Dermatol.53, 27–33. 10.1111/ijd.12198 (2014). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Boguniewicz, M. & Leung, D. Y. Atopic dermatitis: a disease of altered skin barrier and immune dysregulation. Immunol. Rev.242, 233–246. 10.1111/j.1600-065X.2011.01027.x (2011). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Breuer, K., Kapp, S. H. A., Werfel, T. & A. & Staphylococcus aureus: colonizing features and influence of an antibacterial treatment in adults with atopic dermatitis. Br. J. Dermatol.147, 55–61 (2002). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Neuber, K., Konig, W. & Ring, J. [Staphylococcus aureus and atopic eczema]. Hautarzt44, 135–142 (1993). [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Ogonowska, P., Gilaberte, Y., Baranska-Rybak, W. & Nakonieczna, J. Colonization with Staphylococcus aureus in atopic dermatitis patients: attempts to reveal the unknown. Front. Microbiol.11, 567090. 10.3389/fmicb.2020.567090 (2020). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Alexander, H. et al. The role of bacterial skin infections in atopic dermatitis: expert statement and review from the international eczema Council skin infection group. Br. J. Dermatol.182, 1331–1342. 10.1111/bjd.18643 (2020). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Vandenesch, F. et al. Community-acquired methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus carrying Panton-Valentine leukocidin genes: worldwide emergence. Emerg. Infect. Dis.9, 978–984. 10.3201/eid0908.030089 (2003). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Waitayangkoon, P. et al. Hospital epidemiology and antimicrobial susceptibility of isolated methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus: a one-year retrospective study at a tertiary care center in Thailand. Pathog Glob Health. 114, 212–217. 10.1080/20477724.2020.1755550 (2020). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Monecke, S. et al. Dissemination of high-level mupirocin-resistant CC22-MRSA-IV in Saxony. GMS Hyg. Infect. Control. 12, Doc19. 10.3205/dgkh000304 (2017). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Simor, A. E. et al. Mupirocin-resistant, methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus strains in Canadian hospitals. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother.51, 3880–3886. 10.1128/AAC.00846-07 (2007). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Dobie, D. & Gray, J. Fusidic acid resistance in Staphylococcus aureus. Arch. Dis. Child.89, 74–77 (2004). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Castanheira, M., Watters, A. A., Bell, J. M., Turnidge, J. D. & Jones, R. N. Fusidic acid resistance rates and prevalence of resistance mechanisms among Staphylococcus spp. Isolated in North America and australia, 2007–2008. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother.54, 3614–3617. 10.1128/AAC.01390-09 (2010). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Kabara, J. J., Swieczkowski, D. M., Conley, A. J. & Truant, J. P. Fatty acids and derivatives as antimicrobial agents. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother.2, 23–28. 10.1128/AAC.2.1.23 (1972). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Manohar, V. et al. In vitro and in vivo effects of two coconut oils in comparison to monolaurin on Staphylococcus aureus: rodent studies. J. Med. Food. 16, 499–503. 10.1089/jmf.2012.0066 (2013). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Tangwatcharin, P. & Khopaibool, P. Activity of Virgin coconut oil, lauric acid or monolaurin in combination with lactic acid against Staphylococcus aureus. Southeast. Asian J. Trop. Med. Public. Health. 43, 969–985 (2012). [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.El-Ghany, H. A. et al. S. S. Antimicrobial and Antibiofilm Activity of Monolaurin against Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus Isolated from Wound Infections. Int J Microbiol 7518368 (2024). (2024). 10.1155/2024/7518368 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • 17.Cox, G. et al. Ribosome clearance by FusB-type proteins mediates resistance to the antibiotic fusidic acid. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U S A. 109, 2102–2107. 10.1073/pnas.1117275109 (2012). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Tomlinson, J. H., Thompson, G. S., Kalverda, A. P. & Zhuravleva, A. O’Neill, A. J. A target-protection mechanism of antibiotic resistance at atomic resolution: insights into FusB-type fusidic acid resistance. Sci. Rep.6, 19524. 10.1038/srep19524 (2016). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Clausen, M. L. et al. Staphylococcus aureus colonization in atopic eczema and its association with Filaggrin gene mutations. Br. J. Dermatol.177, 1394–1400. 10.1111/bjd.15470 (2017). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Goh, C. L., Wong, J. S. & Giam, Y. C. Skin colonization of Staphylococcus aureus in atopic dermatitis patients seen at the National skin centre, Singapore. Int. J. Dermatol.36, 653–657. 10.1046/j.1365-4362.1997.00290.x (1997). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Totte, J. E. et al. Prevalence and odds of Staphylococcus aureus carriage in atopic dermatitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Br. J. Dermatol.175, 687–695. 10.1111/bjd.14566 (2016). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Edslev, S. M. et al. Staphylococcal communities on skin are associated with atopic dermatitis and disease severity. Microorganisms910.3390/microorganisms9020432 (2021). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • 23.Sasaki, T. et al. Multiplex-PCR method for species identification of coagulase-positive Staphylococci. J. Clin. Microbiol.48, 765–769. 10.1128/JCM.01232-09 (2010). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Higaki, S., Morohashi, M., Yamagishi, T. & Hasegawa, Y. Comparative study of Staphylococci from the skin of atopic dermatitis patients and from healthy subjects. Int. J. Dermatol.38, 265–269. 10.1046/j.1365-4362.1999.00686.x (1999). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Son, J. H., Chung, B. Y., Kim, H. O. & Park, C. W. Clinical features of atopic dermatitis in adults are different according to onset. J. Korean Med. Sci.32, 1360–1366. 10.3346/jkms.2017.32.8.1360 (2017). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Barrett, F. F., McGehee, R. F., Finland, M. & Jr. & Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus at Boston City hospital. Bacteriologic and epidemiologic observations. N Engl. J. Med.279, 441–448. 10.1056/NEJM196808292790901 (1968). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Jung, M. Y. et al. Antibiotic susceptibility of Staphylococcus aureus in atopic dermatitis: current prevalence of Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus in Korea and treatment strategies. Ann. Dermatol.27, 398–403. 10.5021/ad.2015.27.4.398 (2015). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Briscoe, C. C., Reich, P., Fritz, S. & Coughlin, C. C. Staphylococcus aureus antibiotic susceptibility patterns in pediatric atopic dermatitis. Pediatr. Dermatol.36, 482–485. 10.1111/pde.13867 (2019). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Besier, S., Ludwig, A., Brade, V. & Wichelhaus, T. A. Molecular analysis of fusidic acid resistance in Staphylococcus aureus. Mol. Microbiol.47, 463–469. 10.1046/j.1365-2958.2003.03307.x (2003). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Castanheira, M., Watters, A. A., Mendes, R. E., Farrell, D. J. & Jones, R. N. Occurrence and molecular characterization of fusidic acid resistance mechanisms among Staphylococcus spp. From European countries (2008). J. Antimicrob. Chemother.65, 1353–1358. 10.1093/jac/dkq094 (2010). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.The European Committee on Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing. Breakpoint Tables Interpretation MICs Zone Diameters Version13.0, 34 (2023).
  • 32.Hajikhani, B. et al. The global prevalence of fusidic acid resistance in clinical isolates of Staphylococcus aureus: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Antimicrob. Resist. Infect. Control. 10, 75. 10.1186/s13756-021-00943-6 (2021). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Barker, L. A., Bakkum, B. W. & Chapman, C. The clinical use of monolaurin as a dietary supplement: A review of the literature. J. Chiropr. Med.18, 305–310. 10.1016/j.jcm.2019.02.004 (2019). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Verallo-Rowell, V. M., Dillague, K. M. & Syah-Tjundawan, B. S. Novel antibacterial and emollient effects of coconut and Virgin Olive oils in adult atopic dermatitis. Dermatitis19, 308–315 (2008). [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Kovanda, L. et al. In vitro antimicrobial activities of organic acids and their derivatives on several species of Gram-Negative and Gram-Positive Bacteria. Molecules2410.3390/molecules24203770 (2019). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • 36.Zhang, M. S., Sandouk, A. & Houtman, J. C. Glycerol monolaurate (GML) inhibits human T cell signaling and function by disrupting lipid dynamics. Sci. Rep.6, 30225. 10.1038/srep30225 (2016). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Ruzin, A. & Novick, R. P. Equivalence of lauric acid and glycerol monolaurate as inhibitors of signal transduction in Staphylococcus aureus. J. Bacteriol.182, 2668–2671. 10.1128/JB.182.9.2668-2671.2000 (2000). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Ngatirah, N., Hidayat, C., Rahayu, E. S. & Utami, T. Enzymatic Glycerolysis of Palm Kernel Olein-Stearin Blend for Monolaurin Synthesis as an Emulsifier and Antibacterial. Foods 11 (2022). 10.3390/foods11162412 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • 39.Mallory Tough, A. M. Photostability of Nifedipine in monolaurin solid matrix and micellar solution. J App Pharm. Sci5, 066–073 (2015).
  • 40.Nitbani, F., O, J. J., Siswanta, D., Sholikhah, E. & N, Fitriastuti, D. Synthesis and antibacterial activity 1-Monolaurin. Orient J. Chem34(2), 863–867. http://www.orientjchem.org/?p=44710 (2018).
  • 41.Silva, V. O. et al. Effects of monolaurin on oral Microbe-Host transcriptome and metabolome. Front. Microbiol.9, 2638. 10.3389/fmicb.2018.02638 (2018). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Coelho, R. A. et al. A screening of the MMV pathogen Box(R) reveals new potential antifungal drugs against the etiologic agents of chromoblastomycosis. PLoS One. 15, e0229630. 10.1371/journal.pone.0229630 (2020). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Hanifin, J. M. Diagnostic criteria for atopic dermatitis: consider the context. Arch. Dermatol.135, 1551 (1999). [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Hanifin, J. M. et al. The eczema area and severity index (EASI): assessment of reliability in atopic dermatitis. EASI evaluator group. Exp. Dermatol.10, 11–18. 10.1034/j.1600-0625.2001.100102.x (2001). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Severity scoring of atopic dermatitis. : the SCORAD index. Consensus report of the European task force on atopic dermatitis. Dermatology186, 23–31. 10.1159/000247298 (1993). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.(CLSI). C. A. L. S. I. Performance Standards for Antimicrobial Susceptibility TestingCLSI (Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute, 2023).
  • 47.Park, S. Y., Kim, S. M. & Park, S. D. The prevalence, genotype and antimicrobial susceptibility of High- and Low-Level mupirocin resistant Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus. Ann. Dermatol.24, 32–38. 10.5021/ad.2012.24.1.32 (2012). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Jumina et al. Monomyristin and monopalmitin derivatives: synthesis and evaluation as potential antibacterial and antifungal agents. Molecules2310.3390/molecules23123141 (2018). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • 49.Nitbani, F. O. et al. Improved synthesis of alpha-Glycerol monolaurate using lipozyme TL IM. J. Oleo Sci.71, 1013–1020. 10.5650/jos.ess21312 (2022). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

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

Supplementary Materials

Supplementary Material 1 (1.1MB, docx)

Data Availability Statement

The authors confirm that the data supporting the findings of this study are available within the article [and/or] its supplementary materials.

Articles from Scientific Reports are provided here courtesy of Nature Publishing Group

RESOURCES