Abstract
Antimicrobials are widely applied in aquaculture for treatment of infectious diseases in fish. The increased antimicrobial resistance of fish pathogens to conventional antimicrobial treatment highlights the need for research on the antibacterial properties of natural products—in this case, essential oils (EOs). The aim of the present study was to detect the antimicrobial activity of the essential oils on pathogenic microorganisms found in freshwater fish. Freshwater fish isolates of Aerococcus spp., Aeromonas spp., Enterococcus spp., Escherichia spp., Pseudomonas spp., Shewanella spp., Yersinia spp., and Vagococcus spp. were tested for antimicrobial resistance and antimicrobial activity against 14 commercially available essential oils. Antimicrobial resistance was identified in Pseudomonas spp. isolates against cefepime and ciprofloxacin; while all Aeromonas, Enterococcus, and Yersinia isolates were fully susceptible. All tested EOs revealed antimicrobial activity against the tested freshwater fish isolates at different extents. Cinnamomum camphora exhibited strong antimicrobial activity against Aeromonas spp. (3.12 μL/mL), Enterococcus spp. (0.78–1.56 μL/mL), and Pseudomonas spp. with the MIC method. EOs of Gaultheria procumbens and Litsea cubeba showed strong antibacterial activity against Yersinia spp. and Vacococcus spp. (6.25 μL/mL). The study shows the antimicrobial activity of EOs against the most relevant freshwater fish pathogens and indicates the application opportunities in aquaculture.
Keywords: antimicrobial resistance, Pseudomonas spp., Aeromonas spp., Yersinia spp., disc diffusion method, Minimum Inhibitory Concentration (MIC)
1. Introduction
Essential oils are present in different parts of plants and consist of aromatic and volatile compounds. The primary role of EOs is the protection of plants against pathogens, which is attributed to the antimicrobial activity that EOs have shown [1]. The effects of EOs are created by their chemical composition, and an amount of a single compound from different plants, sharing different chemotypes affects the chemical composition of EOs [2]. Application of EOs may lead to alterations in the cell structure, e.g., the degradation of the cytoplasmic membranes and cell wall, and the synthesis of membrane lipids. EOs have been described as regulating the quorum sensing systems by the formation of biofilms and expression of virulence factors [3].
EOs are widely applied in cosmetics, perfumes, and food production because of their strong smells and flavors, and microbial growth inhibiting properties [4]. Different features of EOs have been revealed to have antimicrobial properties, which have been intensively investigated to find out their possible applications for replacements of existing antimicrobial treatments. The antibacterial, antiviral, antifungal, and insecticidal properties of EOs have been demonstrated, which allow us to consider EOs as an alternative of the current antimicrobials used for humans and animals [5,6,7].
Antimicrobial resistance is a global threat to animal and public health that affects the availability of antimicrobials for treatment of bacterial infections in animal and humans [8]. Fish pathogens may cause outbreaks with high mortality, leading to significant economic damage [9]. In aquaculture, the elevated stress, increased fish density, and deteriorated animal welfare may facilitate the rapid spread of fish diseases. Treatment with antimicrobials is needed to address this condition with application of antimicrobials to water and feed, which may result in ineffective therapeutic concentration and treatment of uninfected fish, which in turn may increase antimicrobial resistance [5,10].
Reduction in consumption of antimicrobials in human and veterinary medicine may minimize the problems related to the spread of antimicrobial resistance. Previous reports showed the antimicrobial activity of EOs against different microorganisms, including human and animal pathogens, from the perspective of applications in aquaculture [6,7,11,12]. EOs could be a promising agent in fish health, since their antimicrobial and immunomodulating properties have been described. Antimicrobial effects against such different fish pathogens and contaminants as Aeromonas spp., Enterobacter spp., Pseudomonas pp., Vibrio spp., etc. have been recorded with therapeutic application of EOs as recommended previously [11,12,13,14]. However, the diversity of fish microbiota and chemical composition of Eos, as well as the different antimicrobial effects of the EOs tested indicates the need for further research into these antimicrobial activities. Therefore, the aim of the present study was to investigate the antimicrobial activities of 14 commercially available EOs on the pathogens of freshwater fish.
2. Results
2.1. Chemical Composition of EOs
The chemical compositions of the tested essential oils are shown in Table 1. Elemol was one of the dominant compounds in EO of Amyris balsamifera L. and Canarium luzonicum Miq.(H) with 11.55% and 20.8% correspondingly. Additionally, τ-cadinol (33.4%) and 11-en-4-α-ol (11.3%) were found as main components in EO of Amyris balsamifera L. One of the major compounds in EOs of Boswellia carterii L. and Cinnamomum camphora Nees & Eberm was α-pinene—with levels of 37.0% and 12.2% respectively. The compound p-cimene (6.3%) was one of the major components found in EO of Boswellia carterii L. We found α-limonene to be the dominant constituent in EOs of Boswellia carterii L., Canarium luzonicum Miq.(H), Cinnamomum camphora Nees & Eberm, Litsea cubeba Pers., Melaleuca leucadendron L., and Citrus limon (L.) with 19.8%, 39.7%, 25.1%, 14.3%, 6.9%, and 58.9% respectively. In EO of Canarium luzonicum Miq.(H), α-phellandrene (12.6%) was one of the main compounds. The compound 1,8-cineole was detected as one of the dominant components in EOs of Cinnamomum camphora Nees & Eberm, Melaleuca leucadendron L., and Melaleuca ericifolia Smith, with 35.2%, 49.0%, and 16.9% correspondingly. Linalool (98.1%) was the main compound in EO of Cinnamomum camphora var. linaloolifera, with no other components present at a level of more than 1%. Linalool acetate (48.5%), linalool (22.8%), and α-terpineol (6.6%) were the main compounds in EO of Citrus aurantium L. Methyl salicylate was the main compound in EO of Gaultheria procumbens L. with 97.6%. Neral (22.8%) and geranial (22.8%) were found as the main components in EO of Litsea cubeba Pers. Aromadendrene (5.3%) was found as one of the major compounds in EO of Melaleuca ericifolia Smith. Patchouli alcohol (31.0%), α-bulnesene (21.3%), and α-guaiene (14.3%) were the main components in EO of Pogostemon cabli L. The compounds β-pinene (13.3%) and γ-terpinene (11.2%) were found in EO of Citrus limon (L.). We found that α-santalol (59.0%), α-bergamotene (9.68%), and β-santalol (9.02%) were the major compounds in EO of Santalum album L. Finally, β-vetivenene (7.42%), khusenol (5.24%) and β-guaiene (4.43%) were the main components in EO of Vetiveria zizanoides (L.) Roberty.
Table 1.
Chemical composition of essential oils (%) *.
| Essential Oil | Components a | Percentage of Components b |
| Amyris balsamifera L. | elemol | 11.5 |
| τ-cadinol | 33.4 | |
| selin-11-en-4-α-ol | 11.3 | |
| Boswellia carterii L. | α-pinene | 37.0 |
| p-cimene | 6.3 | |
| α-limonene | 19.8 | |
| Canarium luzonicum Miq.(H) | α-phellandrene | 12.6 |
| α-limonene | 39.7 | |
| elemol | 20.8 | |
| Cinnamomum camphora Nees & Eberm | α-pinene | 12.2 |
| α-limonene | 25.1 | |
| 1,8-cineole | 35.2 | |
| Cinnamomum camphora var. linalolifera | linalool | 98.1 |
| Citrus aurantium L. | linalool | 22.8 |
| α-terpineol | 6.6 | |
| linalool acetate | 48.5 | |
| Gaultheria procumbens L. | methyl salicylate | 97.6 |
| Litsea cubeba Pers. | α-limonene | 14.3 |
| neral | 29.5 | |
| geranial | 39.4 | |
| Melaleuca leucadendron L. | α-limonene | 6.9 |
| 1,8-cineole | 49.0 | |
| α-terpineol | 7.8 | |
| Melaleuca ericifolia Smith. | 1,8-cineole | 16.9 |
| linalool | 47.5 | |
| aromadendrene | 5.3 | |
| Pogostemon cabli L. | α-guaiene | 14.3 |
| α-bulnesene | 21.3 | |
| patchouli alcohol | 31.0 | |
| Citrus limon (L.) | β-pinene | 13.3 |
| α-limonene | 58.9 | |
| γ-terpinene | 11.2 | |
| Santalum album L. | α-bergamotene | 9.68 |
| α-santalol | 59.0 | |
| β-santalol | 9.02 | |
| Vetiveria zizanoides (L.) | β-vetivenene | 7.42 |
| β-guaiene | 4.43 | |
| khusenol | 5.24 |
Note: * listed are the main components, a Identified compounds, b compounds identified in amounts. Full composition of chemical compounds is shown in Supplementary Material Table S1.
2.2. Antimicrobial Resistance in Fish Isolates
Antimicrobial resistance in P. fluorescens, P. frederiksbergensis, and P. gessardii against cefepime and ciprofloxacine was found, while P. lundensis showed antimicrobial resistance only against cefepime and P. proteolitica only against ciprofloxacin. Antimicrobial resistance in Aeromonas spp., Enterococcus spp., and Yersinia spp. was not identified (Table 2).
Table 2.
Antimicrobial resistance of fish isolates.
| Pathogen | Antimicrobial, Inhibition Zone (in mm) | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| FEP | CIP | LEV | C | IMP | TEI | TGC | LZD | TOB | |
| Aerococcus spp. | ND (25) | ND (31) | ND (25) | ND (24) | NT | NT | NT | NT | NT |
| Aerococcus viridans | ND (26) | ND (28) | ND (25) | ND (30) | NT | NT | NT | NT | NT |
| Aeromonas spp. | S (30) | S (30) | S (30) | NR (29) | NT | NT | NT | NT | NT |
| Aeromonas bestiarum | S (29) | S (28) | S (31) | ND (32) | NT | NT | NT | NT | NT |
| Aeromonas salmonicida | S (28) | S (30) | S (35) | ND (30) | NT | NT | NT | NT | NT |
| Escherichia vulgaris | S (30) | S (27) | S (25) | S (28) | NT | NT | NT | NT | NT |
| Enterococcus faecium | NT | NT | NT | NT | S (25) | S (24) | S (25) | S (30) | NT |
| Emterococcus moravensis | NT | NT | NT | NT | S (26) | S (23) | S (28) | S (25) | NT |
| Enterococcus faecium | NT | NT | NT | NT | S (21) | S (20) | S (25) | S (22) | NT |
| Enterococcus aquimarinus | NT | NT | NT | NT | S (22) | S (25) | S (27) | S (22) | NT |
| Pseudomonas fluorescens | R (48) | R (45) | S (60) | NT | NT | NT | NT | NT | S (25) |
| Pseudomonas frederiksbergensis | R (52) | R (51) | S (51) | NT | NT | NT | NT | NT | S (20) |
| Pseudomonas gessardii | R (47) | R (51) | S (56) | NT | NT | NT | NT | NT | S (20) |
| Pseudomonas lundensis | R (45) | S (53) | S (45) | NT | NT | NT | NT | NT | S (23) |
| Pseudomonas proteolitica | S (53) | R (25) | S (55) | NT | NT | NT | NT | NT | S (28) |
| Shewanella baltica | ND (30) | ND (27) | ND (25) | ND (30) | NT | NT | NT | NT | NT |
| Yersinia enterocolitica | S (28) | S (30) | S (28) | S (29) | NT | NT | NT | NT | NT |
| Yersinia ruckeri | S (30) | S (30) | S (28) | S (31) | NT | NT | NT | NT | NT |
| Yersinia spp. | S (28) | S (27) | S (28) | S (32) | NT | NT | NT | NT | NT |
| Vagococcus spp. | ND (30) | ND (25) | ND (28) | ND (30) | NT | NT | NT | NT | NT |
Abbreviations: FEP–cefepime, CIP–ciprofloxacin, LEV–levofloxacin (LEV), C–chloramphenicol, IMP–imipenem, TEI–teicoplanin, TGC-tigecycline, LZD–linezolid, TOB–tobramycin, ND–not determined, NT–not tested, S–sensitive, R-resistant.
2.3. Antimicrobial Activity of Fish Isolates
All tested EO exhibited antimicrobial activity against microbial isolates (Table 3). Cinnamomum camphora var. linalolifera showed the strongest antimicrobial activity against Aerococcus spp. (20.33 ± 0.58 mm), A. viridans (19.67 ± 1.53 mm), Aeromonas spp. (15.33 ± 0.58 mm), A. bestiarum (16.67 ± 0.58 mm), Enterococcus moravensis (20.33 ± 1.53 mm), and E. faecium (17.67 ± 0.58 mm).
Table 3.
Antimicrobial activity of essential oils with the disc diffusion method.
| Pathogen | Essential Oil, Zone of Inhibition in mm ± SD | |||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | |
| Aerococcus spp. | 13.67 ± 0.58 | 14.33 ± 0.58 c | 14.66 ± 0.58 a,d | 16.00 ± 1.00 | 20.33 ± 0.58 a,f | 9.00 ± 1.00 | 9.67 ± 1.15 | 13.00 ± 1.00 | 15.33 ± 0.58 j | 13.67 ± 0.58 | 12.67 ± 0.58 | 10.67 ± 0.58 | 11.33 ± 0.58 | 12.33 ± 0.58 |
| Aerococcus viridans | 14.67 ± 0.58 | 12.67 ± 1.15 | 10.67 ± 1.15 a | 15.67 ± 0.58 | 19.67 ± 1.53 a,f | 10.67 ± 0.58 | 11.33 ± 1.15 | 11.33 ± 0.58 | 12.67 ± 1.15 | 11.0 ± 1.0 | 8.33 ± 0.58 | 8.33 ± 0.58 | 8.33 ± 0.58 | 12.33 ± 0.58 |
| Aeromonas spp. | 11.67 ± 0.58 | 13 ± 1.73 | 11.67 ± 0.58 | 18 ± 1.0 e | 15.33 ± 0.58 | 12.67 ± 1.15 g | 17.67 ± 0.58 h | 12.67 ± 1.15 | 10.33 ± 0.58 | 12.67 ± 0.58 | 15.00 ± 1.00 | 11.33 ± 0.58 | 14.33 ± 1.09 | 12.00 ± 1.00 |
| Aeromonas bestiarum | 15.33 ± 0.58 b | 13.00 ± 1.00 | 8.67 ± 1.15 a | 15.33 ± 0.58 | 16.67 ± 0.58 a | 11.33 ± 0.58 | 15.00 ± 0.00 h | 13.00 ± 1.73 | 12.33 ± 0.58 | 11.33 ± 1.15 | 10.00 ± 1.00 | 11.33 ± 1.15 | 11.33 ± 0.58 | 10.33 ± 1.53 |
| Aeromonas salmonicida | 11.67 ± 0.58 | 12.33 ± 0.58 | 11.67 ± 0.58 | 17.33 ± 2.08 e | 15.00 ± 0.00 | 12.00 ± 1.00 | 17.33 ± 1.15 h | 12.00 ± 2.00 | 11.00 ± 0.00 | 12.33 ± 0.58 | 14.33 ± 0.58 | 12.33 ± 0.58 | 13.67 ± 2.3 | 12.00 ± 0.00 |
| Escherichia vulgaris | 9.33 ± 0.58 b,k | 7.00 ± 1.00 c,k | 7.00 ± 1.73 d,k | 7.67 ± 0.58 e,k | 7.00 ± 1.73 f,k | 7.33 ± 1.15 k | 7.67 ± 0.58 h,k | 8.33 ± 0.58 k | 10.00 ± 1.00 | 9.67 ± 0.58 | 10.33 ± 0.58 | 8.67 ± 1.15 | 10.33 ± 0.58 | 10.67 ± 0.58 |
| Enterococcus faecium | 14.67 ± 0.58 | 13.67 ± 0.58 c | 12.33 ± 0.58 a | 19.33 ± 1.15 e | 18.67 ± 1.15 a | 12.00 ± 0.00 | 13.67 ± 1.15 | 14.33 ± 0.58 i | 11.67 ± 0.58 | 11.67 ± 0.58 | 12.33 ± 0.00 | 12.00 ± 0.00 | 10.33 ± 1.53 | 9.67 ± 0.58 |
| Enterococcus moravensis | 15.00 ± 1.00 b | 13.33 ± 0.58 c | 11.00 ± 1.00 a | 16.00 ± 1.00 | 20.33 ± 1.53 a,f | 12.00 ± 1.00 | 14.67 ± 0.58 | 13.67 ± 1.53 | 12.67 ± 0.58 | 12.00 ± 2.00 | 11.00 ± 1.00 | 11.67 ± 0.58 | 11.67 ± 0.58 | 11.00 ± 1.00 |
| Enterococcus faecium | 15.33 ± 0.58 b | 14.67 ± 0.58 c | 12.33 ± 0.58 a | 15.33 ± 0.58 | 17.67 ± 0.58 a | 12.00 ± 0.00 | 13.67 ± 1.15 | 14.33 ± 0.58 i | 11.67 ± 0.58 | 11.67 ± 0.58 | 12.33 ± 0.58 | 12.00 ± 0.00 | 10.33 ± 1.53 | 9.67 ± 0.58 |
| Enterococcus aquimarinus | 15.00 ± 1.00 b | 13.33 ± 0.58 c | 11.00 ± 1.00 a | 19.00 ± 1.00 e | 21.00 ± 1.00 a,f | 12.00 ± 1.00 | 14.67 ± 0.58 | 13.67 ± 1.53 | 12.67 ± 0.58 | 12.00 ± 2.00 | 11.00 ± 1.00 | 11.67 ± 0.58 | 11.67 ± 0.58 | 11.00 ± 1.00 |
| Pseudomonas fluorescens | 10.00 ± 1.00 k | 7.33 ± 1.53 k | 7.00 ± 1.73 d,k | 7.67 ± 1.15 e,k | 6.00 ± 1.00 f,k | 8.00 ± 1.00 k | 8.00 ± 1.00 k | 8.33 ± 1.53 k | 9.33 ± 1.15 j | 10.00 ± 1.00 | 9.33 ± 0.58 | 9.67 ± 1.53 | 10.67 ± 1.15 | 10.67 ± 0.58 |
| Pseudomonas frederiksbergensis | 9.67 ± 0.58 b,k | 7.00 ± 1.00 c,k | 6.67 ± 1.53 d,k | 8.00 ± 1.73 k | 6.00 ± 1.00 f,k | 7.33 ± 1.15 k | 7.67 ± 0.58 h,k | 8.33 ± 0.58 k | 9.67 ± 0.58 | 10.00 ± 1.00 | 10.00 ± 0.00 | 8.67 ± 0.58 | 10.33 ± 0.58 | 10.67 ± 1.15 |
| Pseudomonas gessardii | 9.33 ± 0.58 b,k | 7.00 ± 1.00 c,k | 6.33 ± 1.53 d,k | 7.67 ± 1.15 e,k | 6.00 ± 1.00 f,k | 8.00 ± 1.00 k | 8.00 ± 1.00 k | 8.33 ± 0.58 k | 9.33 ± 0.58 j | 9.67 ± 0.58 | 10.00 ± 1.00 | 9.00 ± 1.00 | 9.33 ± 0.58 | 10.33 ± 0.58 |
| Pseudomonas ludensis | 9.33 ± 1.15 b,k | 6.67 ± 0.58 c,k | 6.67 ± 1.53 d,k | 7.67 ± 1.15 e,k | 6.00 ± 1.00 f,k | 7.00 ± 1.00 g,k | 7.67 ± 1.15 h,k | 7.33 ± 1.15 i,k | 9.00 ± 1.00 j | 9.00 ± 1.00 | 10.00 ± 1.00 | 8.67 ± 1.15 | 10.33 ± 1.53 | 11.00 ± 1.00 |
| Pseudomonas proteolitica | 15.33 ± 0.58 b | 13.00 ± 1.00 | 8.67 ± 1.15 | 9.00 ± 1.00 | 11.00 ± 1.00 | 11.33 ± 0.58 | 15.00 ± 0.00 h | 13.00 ± 1.73 | 12.33 ± 0.58 | 11.33 ± 1.15 | 10.00 ± 1.00 | 11.33 ± 0.58 | 11.33 ± 0.58 | 10.33 ± 1.53 |
| Shewanella baltica | 11.00 ± 1.00 | 13.00 ± 1.00 | 11.33 ± 1.15 | 10.67 ± 1.15 | 11.67 ± 0.58 | 12.00 ± 0.00 | 13.67 ± 1.15 | 14.33 ± 0.58 i | 11.67 ± 0.58 | 11.67 ± 0.58 | 12.33 ± 0.58 | 12.00 ± 0.00 | 10.33 ± 1.53 | 9.67 ± 0.58 |
| Yersinia enterocolitica | 15.00 ± 1.00 b | 13.33 ± 0.58 c | 11.00 ± 1.00 | 10.33 ± 0.58 | 11.33 ± 1.15 | 12.00 ± 1.00 | 14.67 ± 0.58 | 13.67 ± 1.53 | 12.67 ± 0.58 | 12.00 ± 2.00 | 11.00 ± 1.00 | 11.67 ± 0.58 | 11.67 ± 0.58 | 11.00 ± 1.00 |
| Yersinia ruckeri | 11.00 ± 1.00 | 13.00 ± 1.00 | 11.33 ± 1.15 | 10.67 ± 1.15 | 11.67 ± 0.58 | 12.00 ± 0.00 | 13.67 ± 1.15 | 14.33 ± 0.58 i | 11.67 ± 0.58 | 11.67 ± 0.58 | 12.33 ± 0.58 | 12.00 ± 0.00 | 10.33 ± 1.53 | 9.67 ± 0.58 |
| Yersinia spp. | 15.00 ± 1.00 b | 13.33 ± 0.58 c | 11.00 ± 1.00 | 10.33 ± 0.58 | 11.33 ± 1.15 | 12.00 ± 1.00 | 14.67 ± 0.58 | 13.67 ± 1.53 | 12.67 ± 0.58 | 12.00 ± 2.00 | 11.00 ± 1.00 | 11.67 ± 0.58 | 11.67 ± 0.58 | 11.00 ± 1.00 |
| Vagococcus spp. | 11.00 ± 1.00 | 13.00 ± 1.00 | 11.33 ± 1.15 | 10.67 ± 1.15 | 11.67 ± 0.58 | 12.00 ± 0.00 | 13.67 ± 1.15 | 14.33 ± 0.58 i | 11.67 ± 0.58 | 11.67 ± 0.58 | 12.33 ± 0.58 | 12.00 ± 0.00 | 10.33 ± 1.53 | 9.67 ± 0.58 |
Essential oils–1. A. balsamifera, 2. B. carterii, 3. Canarium luzonicum Miq.(H), 4. Cinnamomum camphora Nees & Eberm, 5. Cinnamomum camphora var. linalolifera, 6. Citrus auarantium, 7. Gaultheria procumbens, 8. Litsea cubeba Pers., 9. Melaleuca leucadendron, 10. Malaleuca ericifolia Smith., 11. Pogostemon cabli, 12. Citrus limon, 13. Santalum album, 14. Vetiveria zizanoides. a There were significant differences between the antimicrobial activity of Cinnamomum camphora var. Linalolifera and Canarium luzonicum on Aerococcus spp., A. viridans, A. bestiarum, E. moravensis, E. faecium, E. faecium, and E. aquimarinus. Canarium luzonicum shows significantly stronger antibacterial effects (p < 0.05). b A. balsamifera’s antibacterial effect on A. bestiarum, E. moravensis, E. faecium, E. faecium and E. aquimarinus, P. proteolitica, Y. enterocolitica, and Yersinia spp. was significantly higher than on E. vulgaris, P. frederiksbergensis, P. gessardii, and P. ludensis (p < 0.05). c B. carterii shows a significantly higher antibacterial effect on Aerococcus spp., Enterococcus moravensis, Enterococcus faecium, Enterococcus aquimarinus, Yersinia enterocolitica, and Yersinia spp. than on Escherichia vulgaris, Pseudomonas frederiksbergensis, Pseudomonas gessardii, and Pseudomonas ludensis (p < 0.05). d Canarium luzonicum shows a significantly stronger antibacterial effect on Aerococcus spp. than on E. vulgaris, P. fluorescens, P. frederiksbergensis, P. gessardii and P. ludensis (p < 0.05). e Cinnamomum camphora shows a significantly higher antibacterial effect on Aeromonas spp., Aeromonas salmonicida, E. faecium and E. aquimarinus than on E. vulgaris, P. fluorescens, P. gessardii and P. ludensis (p < 0.05). f Cinnamomum caphora var. Linalolifera shows a significantly stronger antibacterial effect on Aerococcus spp., A. viridans, E. moravensis and E. aquimarinus than on E. vulgaris, P. fluorescens, P. frederiksbergensis, P. gessardii and P. ludensis (p < 0.05). g There is a significant difference between the antimicrobial activity of Citrus auarantium on Aeromonas spp. and P. ludensis (p < 0.05). h Gaultheria procumbens shows a significantly higher antibacterial effect on Aeromonas spp., A. bestarium, A. salmonicidum and P. proteolitica than on E. vulgaris, P. frederiksbergensis and P. ludensis (p < 0.05). i Litsea cubeba Pers. shows a significantly lower antibacterial effect on P. ludensis than on E. faecium, Shewanella baltica, Yersinia ruckeri and Vagococcus spp. (p < 0.05). j Melaleuca leucadendron shows a significantly higher antibacterial effect on Aerococcus spp. and Vagococcus spp. than on P. fluorescens, P. gessardii and P. ludensis (p < 0.05). k There is no significant difference between the antimicrobial activity of EOs on E. vulgaris, P. fluorescens, P. frederiksbergensis, P. gessardii and P. ludensis (p > 0.05).
Cinnamomum camphora Nees & Eberm expressed the strongest activity against A. salmonicida (17.33 ± 2.08 mm), E. faecium (19.33 ± 1.15 mm) and E. aquimarinus (19.00 ± 1.00 mm).
Amyris balsamifera exhibited the strongest antimicrobial activity against Pseudomonas proteolitica (15.33 ± 0.58 mm), Yersinia enterocolitica (15.00 ± 1.00 mm) and Yersinia spp. (15.00 ± 1.00 mm). Litsea cubeba revealed the strongest activity against Shewanella baltica (14.33 ± 0.58 mm), Y. ruckeri (14.33 ± 0.58 mm), and Vagococcus spp. (14.33 ± 0.58 mm). Santalum album demonstrated the strongest antimicrobial activity against P. flourescens (10.67 ± 1.15 mm); but Vitiveria zizanoides against Eschericia vulgaris (10.67 ± 0.58 mm), Pseudomonas fluorescens (10.67 ± 1.15 mm), P. frederiksbergensis (10.67 ± 1.15 mm), P. gessardii (10.33 ± 0.58 mm), and P. lundensis (11.00 ± 1.00 mm).
Cinnamomum camphora exhibited the strongest antimicrobial activity against Aerococcus spp., A. viridance (0.156 µL/mL), E. moravensis, E. faecium (0.78 µL/mL), A. bestiarum, A. salmonicida (3.12 µL/mL), E. faecium (1.56 µL/mL), and E. aquimarinus (0.78 µL/mL), alongside Cinnamomum camphora Nees & Eberm. Cinnamomum camphora Nees & Eberm and Amyris balsamifera were the most active against P. frederiksbergenis (12.5 µL/mL). Vetiveria zizanoides showed antimicrobial activity against P. gessardii (12.5 µL/mL) and P. lundensis (6.25 µL/mL). Gaultheria procumbens and Litsea cubeba Pers. expressed the strongest antimicrobial activity against Shewanella baltica, Y. ruckeri, Vagococcus spp., and Yersinia spp.; they were also strongest alongside Amyris balsamifera, Boswelia carterii, Malaleuca ericifolia, Citrus auarantum, and Malaleuca leucadendron for Y. enterocolitica (6.25 µL/mL) (Table 4).
Table 4.
Antimicrobial activity of essential oils tested with the Minimum Inhibitory Concentration (MIC) method.
| Pathogen | Essential Oil, MIC μL/mL | |||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| A. balsamifera | B. carterii | C. luzonicum Miq.(H) | Cinnamomum camphora Nees & Eberm | Cinnamomum camphora var. Linalolifera | Citrus auarantium | Gaultheria procumbens | Litsea cubeba pers. | Melaleuca leucadendron | Malaleuca ericifolia smith | Pogostemon cabli | Citrus limon | Santalum album | Vetiveria zizanoides | |
| Aerococcus spp. | 12.5 | 6.25 | 3.12 | 3.12 | 1.56 | 25.0 | 12.5 | 12.5 | 6.25 | 6.25 | 12,5 | 12.5 | 12.5 | 6.25 |
| Aerococcus viridans | 3.12 | 6.25 | 12.5 | 1.56 | 1.56 | 12.5 | 6.25 | 12.5 | 12.5 | 25.0 | 50.0 | 50.0 | 50.0 | 25.0 |
| Aeromonas spp. | 12.5 | 12.5 | 12.5 | 3.12 | 3.12 | 25.0 | 3.12 | 12.5 | 12.5 | 6.25 | 3.12 | 6.25 | 1.56 | 12.5 |
| Aeromonas bestiarum | 3.12 | 6.25 | 50.0 | 3.12 | 3.12 | 12.5 | 6.25 | 6.25 | 6.25 | 6.25 | 12.5 | 6.25 | 12.5 | 25.0 |
| Aeromonas salmonicida | 12.5 | 12.5 | 12.5 | 3.12 | 3.12 | 12.5 | 3.12 | 12.5 | 12.5 | 12.5 | 6.25 | 12.5 | 3.12 | 12.5 |
| Escherichia vulgaris | 25.0 | 25.0 | 25.0 | 25.0 | 50.0 | 50.0 | 25.0 | 25.0 | 12.5 | 12.5 | 12.5 | 25.0 | 12.5 | 12.5 |
| Enterococcus faecium | 3.12 | 3.12 | 6.25 | 1.56 | 1.56 | 6.25 | 3.12 | 3.12 | 6.25 | 6.25 | 6.25 | 6.25 | 6.25 | 6.25 |
| Enterococcus moravensis | 3.12 | 3.12 | 6.25 | 1.56 | 0.78 | 6.25 | 3.12 | 3.12 | 6.25 | 6.25 | 12.5 | 6.25 | 6.25 | 12.5 |
| Enterococcus faecium | 3.12 | 3.12 | 6.25 | 1.56 | 0.78 | 6.25 | 3.12 | 3.12 | 6.25 | 6.25 | 6.25 | 6.25 | 6.25 | 12.5 |
| Enterococcus aquimarinus | 3.12 | 3.12 | 6.25 | 0.78 | 0.78 | 3.12 | 3.12 | 3.12 | 3.12 | 1.56 | 6.25 | 6.25 | 6.25 | 6.25 |
| Pseudomonas fluorescens | 12.5 | 25.0 | 25.0 | 25.0 | 25.0 | 25.0 | 25.0 | 25.0 | 12.5 | 12.5 | 12.5 | 25.0 | 25.0 | 25.0 |
| Pseudomonas frederiksbergensis | 12.5 | 25.0 | 25.0 | 12.5 | 25.0 | 25.0 | 25.0 | 25.0 | 50.0 | 50.0 | 50.0 | 25.0 | 25.0 | 25.0 |
| Pseudomonas gessardii | 25.0 | 25.0 | 50.0 | 25.0 | 50.0 | 25.0 | 25.0 | 25.0 | 12.5 | 12.5 | 12.5 | 25.0 | 12.5 | 12.5 |
| Pseudomonas ludensis | 25.0 | 25.0 | 50.0 | 25.0 | 25.0 | 50.0 | 25.0 | 12.5 | 12.5 | 12.5 | 12.5 | 25.0 | 12.5 | 6.25 |
| Pseudomonas proteolitica | 6.25 | 12.5 | 25.0 | 25.0 | 25.0 | 25.0 | 6.25 | 12.5 | 12.5 | 12.5 | 25.0 | 12.5 | 25.0 | 25.0 |
| Shewanella baltica | 12.5 | 12.5 | 12.5 | 25.0 | 12.5 | 12.5 | 6.25 | 6.25 | 12.5 | 12.5 | 12.5 | 12.5 | 125 | 25.0 |
| Yersinia enterocolitica | 6.25 | 6.25 | 12.5 | 12.5 | 12.5 | 6.25 | 6.25 | 6.25 | 6.25 | 6.25 | 25.0 | 12.5 | 25.0 | 25.0 |
| Yersinia ruckeri | 12.5 | 12.5 | 12.5 | 25.0 | 12.5 | 12.5 | 6.25 | 6.25 | 12.5 | 12.5 | 12.5 | 12.5 | 12.5 | 25.0 |
| Yersinia spp. | 6.25 | 6.25 | 25.0 | 25.0 | 25.0 | 12.5 | 6.25 | 6.25 | 12.5 | 6.25 | 12.5 | 12.5 | 25.0 | 25.0 |
| Vagococcus spp. | 12.5 | 12.5 | 12.5 | 25.0 | 12.5 | 12.5 | 6.25 | 6.25 | 12.5 | 12.5 | 12.5 | 12.5 | 12.5 | 25.0 |
3. Discussion
Among the chemical compositions of the EOs in the present study, several compounds, including α-pinene, β-pinene, α-limonene, α-terpineol, and 1,8-cineole have been reported previously. Studies on the antimicrobial activities of the isomers and enantiomers of pinene showed that α-pinene and β-pinene had antibacterial activity against Cryptococcus neoformans, Candida albicans, Rhizopus oryzae, and MRSA [15]. Limonene was found to have high antibacterial activity against Gram-positive and Gram-negative foodborne pathogens—E. coli, S. enterica, and S. aureus [16]. One of the major compounds in the leaf essential oils, α-terpineol, possessed the strongest antibacterial activities compared with the other components [17].
The antimicrobial effect of the EO of Cinnamomum spp. is attributed to the chemical composition of the plant. In the present study, 1,8-cineole and a-terpineol were found to be the main constituents of the EO, in agreement with Bottoni et al. [18]. Excellent antibacterial activities of 1,8-cineole was reposted in S. aureus and E. coli, associated with damage with cell compounds confirmed with electron microscopy [17].
In the present study, Aeromonas spp. was susceptible to all antimicrobials, while Pseudomonas spp. exhibited resistance to cefepime and ciprofloxacin. High rates of antimicrobial resistance in Pseudomonas spp. and low in Aeromonas spp. were in agreement with previous studies [19,20]. Susceptibility of Enterococcus spp. to antimicrobials was in line with Ellis–Iversen et al. [21], who found that the majority of E. faecalis and E. faecium were fully susceptible against antibiotics, while multiresistant Enterococcus was isolated from the Mediterranean aquaculture site and the fish-rearing ponds in Bangladesh without history of enterococcal infection [22,23]. Yersinia spp. found in pigs exhibited resistance to chloramphenicol, ciprofloxacin, and cephalosporins, and the ability of Y. ruckeri to develop antimicrobial resistance to quinolones was identified [24,25]. In general, the rates of antimicrobial resistance were low in the present study and may be attributed to low consumption of antimicrobials in aquaculture.
All tested EOs exhibited antimicrobial activity against tested fish pathogens, with Cinnamommum camphora the most active against the majority of isolates. The strong antimicrobial activity of Cinnamomum capphora was identified previously for both Gram-positive and Gram-negative bacteria, with the MIC for E. faecalis being 1.6 mg/mL [26]. Cinnamomum zeylanicum was the most potent against Pseudomonas spp., both with the disc diffusion and MIC methods in fish isolates from Latvia [19]. The low activity of C. camphora against A. salmonicida subsp. salmonicida strains with MIC above 3200 μg/mL found in the study Hayaygheib et al. [27], was in contrast with our results. In our view, differences in the antimicrobial activity of EOs are attributed to the chemical compositions of EOs, with Cinammomum capmhora var. linaloolifera proving the most active against Aeromonas spp. and Entecococcus in the present study.
Malaleuca alternifolia expressed high activity against A. hydrophila and could be a natural alternative for prevention and control of the pathogen [13]. M. alternifolia exhibited antimicrobial activity against A. hydrophila isolates with the MIC method [28]. The EO of M. alternifolia is a well-known agent for local application, with antibacterial properties shown clinically [29]. The antimicrobial activity against A. salmonicida subsp. salmonicida was low in the Hayaybheib et al. study [27], which concluded that limonene and linalool showed a weak antimicrobial activity.
EO of Vetiveria zizanioides mostly expressed a weak antimicrobial activity. Orchard et al. [30], found that the EO of Vetiveria zizanioides was highly effective against P. aeruginosa. However, EOs from the roots of V. zizanioides and V. nigritana showed a low activity against Gram-negative bacilli but strong against Gram-positive cocci, in agreement with our results [31].
Amyris balsamifera showed antimicrobial activity against Gram-negative Aeromonas spp. and Yersinia spp. Antimicrobial activity of sandalwoods was reported previously, with high activity against Klebsiella pneumonia identified in the study of Jirovetz et al. [32]. High antimicrobial activity of sandalwood oil against Gram-positive S. aureus was observed, while different results were observed against E. coli and Ps. aeruginosa [32].
Gaultheria procumbens and Litsea cubeba showed antimicrobial activity against Yersinia enterocolitica. G. procumbens EO was more effective against Gram-negative bacteria than against Gram-positive bacteria; while high antimicrobial activity of L. cubeba against Y. enterocolitica was reported by Ebani et al. [33]—(15.7 ± 0.6 mm) in poultry isolates [34]. Tripolum pannonicum and Origanum vulgare exhibited antimicrobial activity against Y. ruckeri [35]. EO of G. procumbens and L. cubeba were active against Sh. baltica, which is recognized as an H2S producer in ice-stored fish from the Danish Baltic sea [36]. Shewanella may serve as an opportunistic pathogen of human and aquatic animals [37].
Despite the weak antimicrobial activity of Citrus aurata identified in the present study, the EOs of citrus were active against human and fish pathogenic strains, able to develop antibiofilm properties previously [38,39]. However, resistance or weak inhibition against Escherichia spp. and Klebsiella spp. of citrus EO in the studies of Moreira et al. [40] and Mancuso et al. [38] were in line with our results.
4. Materials and Methods
4.1. Essential Oils
Altogether 14 essential oils (Hanus a.s., Nitra, Slovakia) were used in the present study: Amyris Balsamifera L., Boswellia carterii Birdw., Canarium luzonicum (Blume) A. Gray, Cinnamomum camphora (L.) J. Presl., Cinnamomum camphora var. linaloolifera Y. Fuita, Citrus x aurantium L., Gaultheria procumbens L., Litsea cubeba (Lour.) Pers., Melaleuca eicifolia Smith., Melaleuca leucadendra L., Pogostemom cablin (Blanco) Benth., Citrus limon (L.) Osbeck, Santalum album L., and Vitiveria zizanoides (L.) Roberty.
4.2. Chemical Characterization of Essential Oil Samples by Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry (GC/MS) and Gas Chromatography (GC-FID)
GC/MS analyses of selected essential oil samples were performed using an Agilent 6890N gas chromatograph (Agilent Technologies, Santa Clara, CA, USA) coupled to quadrupole mass spectrometer 5975B (Agilent Technologies, Santa Clara, CA, USA). A HP-5MS capillary column (30 m × 0.25 mm × 0.25 μm) was used. The temperature program was: 60 °C to 150 °C (increasing rate 3 °C/min) and 150 °C to 280 °C (increasing rate 5 °C/min). The total run time was 60 min. Helium 5.0 was used as the carrier gas with a flow rate of 1 mL/min. The injection volume was 1 μL (essential oil samples were diluted in pentane), while the split/splitless injector temperature was set at 280 °C. With a split ratio at 40.8:1, investigated samples were injected in the split mode. Electron-impact mass spectrometric data (EI-MS; 70 eV) were acquired in scan mode over the m/z range 35–550. MS ion source and MS quadrupole temperatures were 230 °C and 150 °C, respectively. Acquisition of data started after a solvent delay time of 3 min. GC-FID analyses were performed on Agilent 6890N gas chromatograph coupled to FID detector. Column (HP-5MS) and chromatographic conditions were same as for GC-MS. FID detector temperature was set at 300 °C. The individual volatile constituents of injected essential oil samples were identified based of their retention indices [41] and comparison with reference spectra (Wiley and NIST databases). The retention indices were experimentally determined using the standard method [42], which included retention times of n-alkanes (C6-C34), injected under the same chromatographic conditions. The percentages of the identified compounds (amounts higher than 0.1%) were derived from their GC peak areas.
4.3. Microbial Isolates
Fish isolates were originated from wild and aquacultured roach (Rutilus rutilus) and bream (Abramis brama) from skin, gills, and gut samples. Wild fish were caught in freshwaters (lake and river) in Latvia, while aquacultured fish were bought from producers after their placement on the market. Microbial isolates were confirmed with Maldi-TOF MS Biotyper (Bruker Daltonics, Bremen, Germany). Isolates of fish health and public health significance were selected for the present study with the following genera were represented: Aerococcus spp., Aeromonas spp., Escherichia spp., Enterococcus spp., Pseudomonas spp., Shewanella spp., Yersinia spp., Vagococcus spp.
4.4. Detection of Antimicrobial Resistance
Antimicrobial resistance was tested with the disc diffusion method with the following antimicrobials selected: cefepime (FEP, 30 µg), ciprofloxacin (CIP, 5 µg), levofloxacin (LEV, 5 µg), chloramphenicol (C, 30 µg), imipenem (IMP, 10 µg), teicoplanin (TEI, 30 µg), tigecycline (TGC, 15 µg), linezolid (LZD, 10 µg), tobramycin (TOB, 10 µg) (Oxoid, Basingstone, UK). Interpretation of results was done according to EUCAST [43].
4.5. Detection of Antimicrobial Activity with Disc Diffusion Method
A 0.1 mL of suspension of tested culture (105 cfu/mL) was used for inoculation of Mueller Hinton Agar (MHA, Oxoid, Basingstoke, UK). Blank discs were impregnated with 15 µL of EO and placed onto inoculated agar. The agars were incubated at 4 °C for 2 h then at 30 °C and 37 °C for 24 h. The zone of inhibition was measured and the zone < 10 mm was accepted as not inhibitory. All analyses were done in triplicate.
4.6. Detection of Minimum Inhibitory Concentration
Tests were performed according to the Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI) in Mueller Hinton Broth (MHB, Oxoid, Basingstoke, UK). After overnight incubation at 30 °C and 37 °C, a bacterial suspension of 106 cfu/mL was used for inoculation. A 96-well micro-titer plate was used with 50 μL added to each well, excluding the 10th well where 100 μL was added for sterility control. The EO solution in dimethyl sulphoxide (DMSO, Penta, Prague, Czech Republic) was used for inoculation, with 5% of DMSO added to the 10th well. Suspensions were done by transferring of 50 μL to each next well. MIC values were determined by measuring of turbidity. The MIC values was expected to be the lowest concentration of the EO inhibiting bacterial growth. The test was performed in triplicate, and cefoxitin (30 μL) was used as positive control.
4.7. Data Analysis
Mean, standard deviations for the antimicrobial activities of EOs were calculated. One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was applied to detect differences for antimicrobial effects of different EOs on microorganisms.
5. Conclusions
Identified antimicrobial resistance in Pseudomonas spp. isolates shows the emergence of the spread of antimicrobial resistance in aquaculture. Despite the antimicrobial resistance in Aeromonas isolates being lower than reported previously, there is evidence of the presence of resistant isolates in wild isolates of freshwater fish. All EOs tested in the present study exhibited antimicrobial activity against wild isolates of freshwater fish, with EO of Cinnamomum camphora Nees & Eberm, and Cinnamomum caphora var. Linalolifera proving the most active against Aerococcus spp., Aeromonas spp., and Enterococcus spp. EOs of Gaultheria procumbens and Litsea cubeba Pers. exhibited the strongest antimicrobial activity against Shewanella spp., Yersinia spp., and Vagococcus spp. Efficiency of EO against foodborne pathogens may be a promising strategy to prevent and/or treat infectious diseases in fish in a sustainable way by reducing the consumption of antimicrobials in aquaculture. Potential applications of EOs and antimicrobial activity of specific compounds in EOs against fish pathogens need to be further studied.
Acknowledgments
This work has been supported by the grants of the VEGA no. 1/0180/20.
Supplementary Materials
The following are available online at https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/plants10071265/s1, Table S1: Chemical composition of essential oils (%).
Author Contributions
Conceptualization, A.K., M.T., N.L.V. and M.K.; Data curation, M.K., N.L.V. and M.T.; Methodology, A.K., M.T., N.L.V. and M.K.; Supervision, M.K.; Writing—original draft, A.K., M.T., N.L.V. and M.K. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding
This work was supported by the grant APVV SK-BY-RD-19-0014 “The formulation of novel compositions and properties study of the polysaccharides-based edible films and coatings with antimicrobial and antioxidant plant additives.”
Institutional Review Board Statement
Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement
Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement
Data is contained within the article.
Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Footnotes
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
References
- 1.Tajkarimi M.M., Ibrahim S.A., Cliver D.O. Antimicrobial herb and spice compounds in food. Food Control. 2010;21:1199–1218. doi: 10.1016/j.foodcont.2010.02.003. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Deering K., Nethery W., Averill C., Esposito E. Effects of Thyme essential oil chemotypes on breast and cervical cancer cell lineages. Ann. Pharmacol. Pharmacother. 2017;2:1–3. [Google Scholar]
- 3.Nazzaro F., Fratianni F., De Martino L., Coppola R., De Feo V. Effect of essential oils on pathogenic bacteria. Pharmaceuticals. 2013;6:1451–1474. doi: 10.3390/ph6121451. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Burt S. Essential oils: Their antibacterial properties and potential applications in foods-a review. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2004;94:223–253. doi: 10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2004.03.022. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Acar U., Kesbic O.S., Yilmaz S., Gultepe N., Turker A. Evaluation of the effects of essential oil extracted from sweet orange pel (Citrus sinensis) on growth rate of tilapia (Oreochromis mossambicus) and possible disease against Streptococcus iniae. Aquaculture. 2015;437:282–286. doi: 10.1016/j.aquaculture.2014.12.015. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Franz C., Baser K.H.C., Windisch M. Essential oils and aromatic plants in animal feeding—A European perspective. A review. Flavour Fragr. J. 2010;25:327–340. doi: 10.1002/ffj.1967. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Schnitzler P., Koch C., Reinchling J. Susceptibility of drug-resistant clinical herpes simplex virus type 1 strain to essential os of ginger, thyme, hyssop, and sandalwood. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 2011;51:1859–1862. doi: 10.1128/AAC.00426-06. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.WHO World Helath Organization. WHO Guidelines on Use of Medically Important Antimicrobials in Food-Producing Animals. [(accessed on 2 January 2021)]; Available online: https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/258970/9789241550130-eng.pdf?sequence=1.
- 9.Sánchez-Muros M.J., Sánchez B., Barroso F.G., Toniolo M., Trenzado C.E., Rus A.S. Effects of rearing conditions on behavioural responses, social kinetics and physiological parameters in gilthead sea bream Sparus aurata. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2017;197:120–128. doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2017.08.004. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Cabello F.C. Heavy use of prophylactic antibiotics in aquaculture; a growing problem for human and animal health and for the environment. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2006;8:1137–1144. doi: 10.1111/j.1462-2920.2006.01054.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Da Cunha J.A., Heinzmann B.M., Baldisserotto B. The effects of essential oils and their major compounds on fish pathogens—A review. J. Appl. Microbiol. 2018;125:328–344. doi: 10.1111/jam.13911. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Kačániová M., Terentjeva M., Štefániková J., Žiarovská J., Savitskaya T., Grinshpan D., Kowalczewski P.L., Vukovic N., Tvrdá E. Chemical composition and antimicrobial activity of selected essential oils against Staphylococcus spp. isolated from human semen. Antibiotics. 2020;9:765. doi: 10.3390/antibiotics9110765. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Souza C.F., Baldissera M.D., Vaucher R.A., Lopes L.Q.S., Vizzotto B.S., Raffin R.P., Santos R.C.V., da Veiga M.L., da Rocha M.I.U.M., Stefani L.M., et al. In vivo bactericidal effect of Melaleuca alternifolia essential oil against Aeromonas hydrophila: Silver catfish (Rhamdia queken) as an experimental model. Microb. Pathog. 2018;8:82–87. doi: 10.1016/j.micpath.2018.08.041. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Sutili F.J., de Lima Silva L., Gressler L.T., Gressler L.T., Battisti E.K., Heinzmann B.M., de Vargas A.C., Baldisserotto B.J. Plant essential oils against Aeromonas hydrophila: In vitro activity and their use in experimentally infected fish. J. Appl. Microbiol. 2015;119:47–54. doi: 10.1111/jam.12812. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.Rivas Da Silva A.C., Lopes P.M., Barros de Azevedo M.M., Costa D.C., Alviano C.S., Alviano D.S. Biological activities of α-pinene and β-pinene enantiomers. Molecules. 2012;17:6305–6316. doi: 10.3390/molecules17066305. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16.Chung Y.W., Yu W.C., Chih Y.H. Antioxidant and antibacterial activity of seven predominant terpenoids. Int. Food Prop. 2019;22:230–238. [Google Scholar]
- 17.Li L., Li Z.W., Yin Z.Q., Wei Q., Jia R.Y., Zhou L.J., Xu J., Song X., Zhou Y., Du Y.H. Antibacterial activity of leaf essential oil and its constituents from Cinnamomum longepaniculatum. Int. J. Clin. Exp. Med. 2014;7:1721–1727. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18.Bottoni M., Milani F., Mozzo M., Kolloffel D.A.R., Papini A., Frantini F., Maggi F., Santagostini L. Sub-tissue localization of phytochemicals in Cinnamomum camphora (L.) J.Presl. growing in Northern Italy. Plants. 2021;10:1008. doi: 10.3390/plants10051008. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19.Kačániová M., Terentjeva M., Vukovic N., Puchalski C., Roychoudhury S., Kunová S., Klūga A., Tokár M., Ivanišová E. The antioxidant and antimicrobial activity of essential oils against Pseudomonas spp. isolated from fish. Saudi Pharm. J. 2017;25:1108–1116. doi: 10.1016/j.jsps.2017.07.005. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20.Ruzauskas M., Klimiene I., Armalyte J., Bartkiene E., Siugzdiniene R., Skerniskyte J., Krasauskas R., Suziedeliene E. Composition and antimicrobial resistance profile of Gram-negative microbiota prevalent in aquacultured fish. J. Food Saf. 2018;38:e12447. doi: 10.1111/jfs.12447. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 21.Ellis-Iversen J., Seyfarth A.M., Korsgaard H., Bortolaia V., Munck N., Dalsgaard A. Antimicrobial resistant E. coli and enterococci in pangasius fillets and prawns in Danish retail imported from Asia. Food Control. 2020;114:106958. doi: 10.1016/j.foodcont.2019.106958. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 22.Di Cesare A., Vignaroli C., Luna G.M., Pasquaroli S., Biavasco F. Antibiotic-resistant enterococci in seawater and sediments froma coastal fish farm. Microb. Drug Resist. 2012;18:502–509. doi: 10.1089/mdr.2011.0204. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23.Rahman M., Rahman M.M., Deb S.C., Alam M.S., Alam M.J., Islam M.T. Molecular identification of multiple antibiotic resistant fish pathogenic Enterococcus faecalis and their control my medicinal herbs. Sci. Rep. 2017;7:3747. doi: 10.1038/s41598-017-03673-1. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24.Huang Y., Brenner Michael G., Becker R., Kaspar H., Mankertz J., Schwarz S., Runge M., Steinhagen D. Pheno- and genotypic analysis of antimicrobial resistance properties of Yersinia ruckeri from fish. Vet. Microbiol. 2014;171:406–412. doi: 10.1016/j.vetmic.2013.10.026. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25.Bonardi S., Bruini I., D’Incau M., Van Damme I., Carniel E., Brémont S., Cavallini P., Tagliabue S., Brindani F. Detection, seroprevalence and antimicrobial resistance of Yersinia enterocolitica and Yersinia pseudotuberculosis in pig tonsils in Northern Italy. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2016;235:125–132. doi: 10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2016.07.033. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26.Chen J., Tang C., Zhang R., Ye S., Zhao Z., Huang Y., Xu X., Lan W., Yang D. Metabolomics analysis to evaluate the antibacterial activity of the essential oil from the leaves of Cinnamomum camphora (Linn.) Presl. J. Ethnopharmacol. 2020;253:112652. doi: 10.1016/j.jep.2020.112652. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27.Hayatgheib N., Fournel C., Calvez S., Pouliquen H., Moreau E. In vitro antimicrobial effect of various commercial essential oils and their chemical constituents on Aeromonas salmonicida subsp. salmonicida. J. Appl. Microbiol. 2020;129:137–145. doi: 10.1111/jam.14622. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 28.Gholipourkanani H., Buller N., Lymbery A. In vitro antibacterial activity of four nano-encapsulated herbal essential oils against three bacterial fish pathogens. Aquac. Res. 2019;50:871–875. doi: 10.1111/are.13959. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 29.Papadopoulos C.J., Carson C.F., Hammer K.A., Riley T.V. Susceptibility of pseudomonads to Melaleuca alternifolia (tea tree) oil and components. J. Antimicrob. Chemother. 2006;58:449–451. doi: 10.1093/jac/dkl200. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 30.Orchard A., Sandasi M., Kamatou G., Viljoen A., van Vuuren S. The in vitro antimicrobial activity and chemometric modelling of 59 commercial essential oils against pathogens of dermatological relevance. Chem. Biodivers. 2017;14:e1600218. doi: 10.1002/cbdv.201600218. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 31.Champagnat P., Sidibé L., Forestier C., Carnat A., Chalchat J.C., Lamaison J.L. Antimicrobial activity of essential oils from Vetivaria nigritana and Vetivaria zizanoioides roots. J. Essent Oil Bear Plants. 2007;6:519–524. doi: 10.1080/0972060X.2007.10643589. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 32.Jirovetz L., Buchbauer G., Denkova Z., Stoyanova A., Murgov I., Gearon V., Birkbeck S., Schmidt E., Geissler M. Comparative study on the microbial activities of different sandalwood essential oils of various origin. Flavour Fragr. J. 2006;21:465–468. doi: 10.1002/ffj.1625. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 33.Ebani V.V., Nardoni S., Bertelloni F., Giovanelli S., Rocchigiani G., Pistelli L., Mancianti F. Antibacterial and antifungal activity of essential oils against some pathogenic bacteria and yeasts shed from poultry. Flavour Frag. J. 2016;31:302–309. doi: 10.1002/ffj.3318. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 34.Nikolić M., Marković T., Mojović M., Pejin B., Savić A., Perić T., Marković D., Stević T., Soković M. Chemical composition and biological activity of Gaultheria procumbens L. essential oil. Ind. Crop. Prod. 2014;49:561–567. doi: 10.1016/j.indcrop.2013.06.002. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 35.Tüker H., Yildirim A.B., Karakas F.P., Köylüoğlu H. Antibacterial activities of extracts from some Turkish endemic plants on common fish pathogen. Turk. J. Biol. 2009;33:73–78. [Google Scholar]
- 36.Beaz-Hidalgo R., Agüeria D., Latif-Eugenín F., Yeannes M.I., Figueras M.J. Molecular characterization of Shewanella and Aeromonas isolates associated with spoilage of Common carp (Cyprinus carpio) FEMS Microbiol. Lett. 2015;362:1–8. doi: 10.1093/femsle/fnu029. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 37.Janda J.M., Abbott S.L. The genus Shewanella: From the briny depths below to human pathogen. Clin. Microbiol. Rev. 2014;40:293–312. doi: 10.3109/1040841X.2012.726209. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 38.Mancuso M., Catalfamo M., Laganá P., Ciro Rapazzo A., Raymo V., Zampino D., Zaccone R. Screening of antimicrobial activity of citrus essential oils against pathohenic bacteria and Candida strains. Flavour Fragr. J. 2019;34:187–200. doi: 10.1002/ffj.3491. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 39.Kačániová M., Terentjeva M., Galovičová L., Ivanišová E., Štefánikováa J., Valková V., Borotová P., Kowalczewski P.L., Kunová S., Felšöciová S., et al. Biological activity and antibiofilm molecular profile of Citrus aurantium essential oil and its application in a food model. Molecules. 2020;25:3956. doi: 10.3390/molecules25173956. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 40.Moreira M.R., Ponge A.G., Del Valle C.E., Roura S.I. Inhibitory parameters of essential oils to reduce a foodborne pathogen. Lebenson. Wiss. Technol. 2005;38:565–570. doi: 10.1016/j.lwt.2004.07.012. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 41.Adams R.P. Identification of Essential Oil Components by Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry. Allured Publishing Corporation; Carol Stream, IL, USA: 2007. [Google Scholar]
- 42.Van Den Dool H., Kratz P.D. A Generalization of the Retention Index System Including Linear Temperature Programmed Gas-Liquid Partition Chromatography. J. Chromatogr. A. 1963;11:463–471. doi: 10.1016/S0021-9673(01)80947-X. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 43.EUCAST The European Committee on Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing. [(accessed on 21 November 2020)]; Available online: https://eucast.org/fileadmin/src/media/PDFs/EUCAST_files/Breakpoint_tables/v_9.0_Breakpoint_Tables.pdf.
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.
Supplementary Materials
Data Availability Statement
Data is contained within the article.