Abstract
One of the most significant medical advancements of the 20th century was the discovery of antibiotics, which continue to play a vital tool in the treatment and prevention of diseases in humans and animals. However, the imprudent use of antibiotics in all fields of One-Health and concerns about antibiotic resistance among bacterial pathogens have raised interest in antibiotic use restrictions on a global scale. Despite the failure of conventional antimicrobial agents, only about 15 new antibiotics have been introduced clinically since year 2000 to date. Moreover, there has been reports of resistance to some of these new antibiotics. This has necessitated a need to search for alternative strategies to combat antimicrobial resistant pathogens. Thus, this review compiles and evaluates the approaches—natural compounds, phage treatment, and nanomaterials—that are being used and/or suggested as the potential substitutes for conventional antibiotics.
Keywords: Alternative therapy, Antimicrobial resistance, Natural product/compound, One-health, Secondary metabolite
Introduction
Antibiotics are used for a variety of reasons, including the ordinary support of human and animal health, the stimulation of growth in food-producing animals, which is not a therapeutic application—and the prevention of disease, which accounts for a large portion of antibiotic use in both humans and animals [1, 2]. Antibiotics have traditionally been regarded as the first line of defense in the treatment of bacterial diseases in animal husbandry. They have also prevented innumerable deaths and allowed for the advancement of modern medicine for many years [3]. However, their misuse and overuse have led to the development of antimicrobial resistance (AMR) in most of pathogenic bacteria. The development of antimicrobial resistance is a persistent phenomenon that frequently renders even last-resort antibiotics ineffective. The lack of progress in the development of new antibacterial medications and the evolution of antibiotic resistance to practically all currently available antibiotics are factors in the global health crisis [4]. The spread of genes that confer antibiotic resistance among bacteria is aggravating the problem of antibiotic resistance [5]. The acquisition of antibiotic resistance genes (ARGs) by the bacteria, may lead to treatment failure and morbidity and mortality rates in humans [6]. The dissemination of ARGs among pathogenic bacteria raises doubts regarding the efficacy of the existing antibiotic regimen [1]. In recent years, infectious diseases caused by bacteria have become serious and more prevalent in clinical settings, placing a serious economic burden and a threat to public health [7]. According to McLinden, Sargeant [8], bacterial infections are thought to be responsible for at least half of all the economic costs of all foodborne diseases in the United States, which range from $10 to 83 billion yearly. This report was corroborated by Hoffmann, Maculloch [9].
Antibiotic resistance is a worldwide problem that is causing increasing public health concerns, and it is now recognized as a crucial One Health issue [10]. When contemplating potential interventions to mitigate or preempt this problem, it is imperative to elucidate the intricate elements that have contributed to the development of bacterial antibiotic resistance. Over 80 years of antibiotic use have put pressure on bacteria to evolve specialized mobile ARGs, especially in pathogenic bacteria. These AMR organisms in environmental “hot spots” translocated the phenomena of resistance to related species [11, 12] (Fig. 1). Bacteria and their genetic material (DNA and/or plasmids) can be easily transmitted between humans, animals and/or environment (Fig. 1). As a result, AMR is dangerous and is characterized by intricate interactions between various microbial populations that affect human, animal, and environmental health [13, 14]. In light of this, measures made (or not done) to counteract AMR in one division may have an effect on other divisions.
Fig. 1.
Transmission routes of AMR bacteria between human, animal and the environment Adapted from: [10]
The primary impact of AMR is the large rise in the risk of disease transmission, life-threatening illness, and death as antimicrobials lose their effectiveness and make infections harder to cure. AMR is noteworthy since it appears in all different forms [15]. Notably, COVID-19 pandemic has accelerated the spread of multi-drug resistant (MDR) bacteria because of the overuse and abuse of currently available antibiotics as well as other antibiotic resistance-promoting factors [16, 17] (Fig. 2). The analysis of current AMR and the comparative range of linked bacteria remains unclear, even though an increasing number of studies show that AMR has been expanding following the antibiotic treatment for COVID-19 patients. MDR pathogens are becoming a major worldwide health problem because they have an impact on infection identification, treatment, and prevention. However, organisms that are extensively drug-resistant (XDR) and pan-drug resistant (PDR), which are practically intractable with conventional therapy, are of paramount concern [15]. Since even so-called “antibiotics of last resort” are becoming ineffective, new strategies are being applied to prevent and cure MDR, XDR, and PDR infections in light of the impact AMR bacteria have on the world’s health and the need for new antibiotics [18].
Fig. 2.
Variables that contribute to antibiotic resistance
Louis Pasteur made groundbreaking discoveries in the fields of immunology, vaccinology, and microbiology that changed clinical science and save millions of deaths. Due to recently developed tools and infection models, our capacity to study infectious disease has experienced significant modifications since the 19th century. We saw a tremendous desire to comprehend the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection and to develop potent disease-prevention vaccines during the COVID-19 pandemic. We need to work with the same urgency to discover new strategies to combat antibiotic-resistant bacterial strains that kill millions of people every year in the relatively underappreciated epidemic of antimicrobial resistance (AMR) [19]. Future advances in disease prevention or treatment will determine how successful humanity remains.
It might be prudent to think about the possibilities of non-traditional techniques given the emergence of antibiotic resistance and the difficulties in discovering and developing conventional antibiotics, which have resulted in a very short pipeline of new medicines. Utilizing antibiotic alternatives seeks to improve and promote health and reduce antibiotic overuse. Hence, reducing the selective pressure that leads to the establishment and spread of ARGs. Thus, various alternative strategies in the following categories will be fully highlighted in this review:
antimicrobial peptides (AMPs);
bacteriophages;
nanotechnology;
ethno-medicine; and
probiotics and prebiotics.
Mode of action of antibiotics and emergence of antibiotic resistance
Antibiotics are categorized into classes based on the class of molecules they include and their targets and principal modes of action (Table 1). Antimicrobial targets include cell membranes, cell walls, protein synthesis, DNA or RNA synthesis, and the creation of biological metabolic compounds.
Table 1.
Mode of action of antibiotics and mechanisms of bacterial antibiotic resistance
| Antibiotic family | Mode of action | Mechanism of resistance | Reference |
|---|---|---|---|
| β-lactams | Cell wall synthesis inhibitors. Binds trans peptidase also known as penicillin binding proteins (PBPs) that help form peptidoglycan |
Beta-lactamase production primarily - bla genes Expression of alternative PBPs |
[20–22] |
| β-lactamase inhibitors |
Inactivates the enzyme; beta-lactamase Hydrolysis of the beta-lactam ring |
Production of extended spectrum beta-lactamases (ESBLs) | |
| Fluoroquinolones | Binds DNA-gyrase or topoisomerase II and topoisomerase IV; enzymes needed for supercoiling, replication and separation of circular bacterial DNA. |
Target modification Decreased membrane permeability Efflux pumps |
[23] |
| Macrolides, Lincosamides and Streptogamin (MLS) | Binds the bacterial 50S ribosomal subunits; inhibit protein synthesis |
Target site modification Active drug efflux |
[24] |
| Aminoglycosides | Bind to the bacterial 30S ribosomal subunit thus inhibit bacterial protein synthesis |
Target site modification (via the action of 16S rRNA methyltransferases (RMTs)) Enzymatic Drug Modification (adenylation, acetylation and phosphorylation), Efflux systems |
[25] |
| Tetracycline | Bind reversibly to the 30S ribosomal subunit as such blocks the binding of the aminoacyl-tRNA to the acceptor site on the mRNA-ribosome complex | Efflux systems, Target modification, Inactivating enzymes, Ribosomal protection | [26, 27] |
| Sulfonamides (Folate pathway inhibitors) | Inhibit the bacterial enzyme dihydropteroate synthetase (DPS) in the folic acid pathway, thereby blocking bacterial nucleic acid synthesis |
Excessive bacterial production of dihydrofolate reductase (DHFR) Reduction in the ability of the drug to penetrate the bacterial cell wall Production of altered forms of the dihydropteroate synthetase (DPS) enzyme with a lower affinity for sulfonamides Hyperproduction of para-amino benzoic acid (PABA), which overcomes the competitive substitution of the sulfonamides |
[28, 29] |
Adapted from: [10]
The overuse and abuse of antibiotics in the human, veterinary, and agricultural sectors has put a lot of pressure on the selection process, leading to an emergence of antibiotic resistant bacteria over time [15] (Fig. 3). This pressure is exerted through a number of mechanisms (Table 1), some of which are either emerging or ancestrally intrinsic to the biology of a pathogen. Some of the mechanisms of bacterial AMR include the following: (1) Enzymatic degradation of antibiotics, such as the bacterial production of beta-lactamases that break down the beta-lactam class of antibiotics; (2) Modification of the antibiotic target, where the target is altered so that the antibiotic can no longer bind to its site of action; (3) Control of drug entry through mutations in bacterial cell wall porin molecules and membrane modifications; (4) The turning on of efflux pump systems, which are able to pump antibiotics outside of the cell before they interact with their targets (Fig. 4).
Fig. 3.
Timeline showing the discovery of antibiotics and the rise of antibiotic resistance over the course of eight decades. XDR – Extensive-drug resistant, PDR – Pan-drug resistant
Fig. 4.
Mechanisms of antimicrobial resistance in bacteria cells
Antimicrobial peptides
Antimicrobial peptides (AMPs) are a class of tiny molecular peptides that are integral to the innate immune response of the host organism [30]. They have a critical function in defending against a diverse array of pathogens, encompassing bacteria, fungi, parasites, and viruses [31–33]. The use of AMPs is one of the methods for developing new antibiotics [34, 35]. When compared to conventional antibiotics, AMPs found in nature have equivalent or even better antibacterial action [36]. They are amphipathic in nature, thus thought to make it easier for the negatively charged bacterial membranes to interact electrostatically, which would then disrupt the lipid bilayer structure [37]. Their size from 10 to 50 amino acids, and have an overall cationic charge [38]. AMPs are present everywhere to include mammals, amphibians, microorganisms and insects and in a variety of natural settings including the oceans [39]. Through the similar mechanisms of conventional antibiotics, AMPs can target both Gram-positive and Gram-negative bacteria [38, 40]. Once AMPs have penetrated the bacterial cell wall, they continue to act as an antibacterial agent by concentrating on protein biosynthesis, nucleic acids, and/or affecting membrane and cell wall formation [41–43].
Antimicrobial peptide mode of action
AMPs are receiving more attention, and new biophysical approaches are continually being developed, although the precise details of their molecular mechanism of action are still not fully understood. In bacteria with negatively charged surface layers made up of lipids like phosphatidylglycerol (PG), cardiolipin (CL), and lipopolysaccharides (LPS), or lipoteichoic acid (LTA) in positively charged surface bacteria, the combination of cationic and hydrophobic residues promotes a strong electrostatic interaction [44]. Additionally, folding of the AMPs caused by hydrophobic contact with bacterial envelopes is what gives these peptides their antibacterial effects. The significant quantity of neutral phosphatidylcholine / cholesterol / sphingomyelin lipids gives mammalian cell membranes a zwitterionic surface, which results in a reduced attraction between cationic peptides and host cells. This is the source of the cell selectivity seen for many AMPs. Since AMPs impair the integrity of bacterial membranes, causing leakage of cell content and subsequent cell death, it is believed that the bacterial membrane is the primary target for AMPs [45, 46]. Models of AMP disruption of bacterial membranes have been described [37], and they include the carpet model [47], aggregation [48], molecular electroporation [49], toroidal hole development [50], sinking raft [51], barrel-stave model [52], interfacial activity [53], and lipocentric pore formation [54]. Although the bacterial membrane is the primary target of AMP, intracellular targets including protein synthesis (indolicidin), nucleic acid synthesis (buforin II), RNA synthesis (Bac5 and Bac7), enzymatic activity (pyrrhocoricin), ATP efflux (histatins), or cell wall synthesis (nisin) have also been reported [41, 55] (Fig. 5).
Fig. 5.
Antimicrobial peptides mechanisms of action
Antimicrobial peptides as therapeutic agents
The attributes that make AMPs ideal therapeutic candidates include broad-spectrum antibacterial activity against MDR pathogens, quick onset of killing, and a relatively low chance of resistance development [38, 40, 46]. No linear peptides, but several natural AMPs have made it to the market. The peptide antibiotics bacitracin, polymyxin, gramicidin, and tyrothricin were among the first to be used in medicine [56]. Bacillus is an example of the bacteria that produce other peptide antibiotics. Tyothricin, the first AMP to be utilized in a clinical setting is composed of two major ingredients namely: tyrocidine and gramicidin. Because of its hemolytic effects, tyrocidine is a combination of cyclic decapeptides that is only used topically [57]. Also, due to their hemolytic adverse effects, the broad-spectrum cyclodecapeptides tyrocidine A and gramicidin S can only be applied topically [15, 58].
The cyclic lipopeptides polymyxin B and polymyxin E (also called colistin) have been used to treat Gram-negative infections, and they are presently the last-resort treatment for MDR Gram-negative infections [59]. Due to their nephro- and neurotoxicity, polymyxins have a limited application; however, by using a prodrug formulation, their acute toxicity is mitigated by the matching sulfomethylated molecule. Nisin, a different naturally occurring (34-residue) AMP derived from Lactococcus lactis, is efficient against Gram-positive bacteria, particularly the pathogens that cause mastitis. Owing to its low toxicity, some countries such as England, Ireland and Denmark have granted the use of nisin as preservative in food industry to prevent proliferation of foodborne pathogens [60]. The treatment of infections brought on by MDR Gram-positive organisms includes the use of daptomycin, another cyclic lipopeptide [61].
AMPs are highly effective against vegetative cells. For instance, the EmPis-1 L peptide effectively destroys the antibiotic-resistant VBNC state cells of foodborne pathogenic bacteria like Escherichia coli O157 and Vibrio parahaemolyticus OS4 [62]. Additionally, AMPs are capable of destroying bacterial biofilms structures [63]. AMPs LL-37 and α-defensin, salmine, lactoferrin, protamine, casecidin and isracidin, fibrinogen, pleurocidin, ll-AMP1 peptide, α-poly-l-lysine (poly-lys), α-poly-l-arginine (poly-arg) are notable examples of eukaryotic AMPs with therapeutic potential against foodborne pathogens [64–66].
In order to overcome the issue of toxicity in the use of AMPs in clinical practice (human and veterinary sectors), diverse forms of approaches to enhance AMP stability are being considered. These include synthesis of constrained, hybridized, mimetic, immobilized and conjugated AMPs [67, 68]. Among them, the conjugation of AMPs with conventional antibiotics is showing promise due to the possible synergistic interaction between the two drugs, which enables effective targeting and death of a number of pathogenic-resistant bacteria [69, 70]. For instance, when used to treat vancomycin-resistant Enterococci, AMP magainin and vancomycin exhibited very promising outcomes [71]. By combining the cationic AMP ubiquicidin with chloramphenicol via a glutaraldehyde linker, similar outcomes were obtained, demonstrating increased antibiotic activity against E. coli and Staphylococcus aureus and decreased toxicity against human cells [72]. It’s interesting to note that promising outcomes have also been obtained by combining AMPs with antibiotics in an effort to improve in situ drug delivery, increase medication selectivity, and decrease toxicity [73]. This depends on the fundamental mechanism of action of AMPs on the components of bacterial outer walls. Since they cannot enter the microbial cell when the antibiotic’s resistance mechanism involves membrane alteration, AMPs work better in synergy with antibiotics than when used alone. By being able to get beyond this obstacle, AMPs might be able to revive antibiotic activity that has been lost [74].
Recently developed nanocarriers—drug delivery systems based on nanotechnology—could develop into a potent tactic for the effective delivery of AMPs. By shielding peptides from extracellular breakdown by proteases and other peptide-hydrolyzing conditions, AMP administration via nanocarriers may be favorable. Targeted nanocarriers may also help with enhanced medication pharmacokinetic characteristics and target selectivity. Drug delivery mechanisms come in a variety of forms, including liposomes, micelles, polymeric nanoparticles, and dendrimers [75, 76].
Bacteriophages
Bacteriophages (phages) are perhaps among the oldest and most prevalent biological entities that can infect and replicate within bacteria. As a result, they are crucial to maintaining the balance of an environment where bacteria are present [77]. There is now curiosity in utilizing phage as a biocontrol weapon because of the numerous alluring properties these natural antibacterial agents possess [78]. These include, low toxicity to humans, selectivity by acting only on their host without harming the natural microflora, relatively easy to propagate, cost-effective and sustainable solution to the control of pathogens [79–81]. In addition to being absorbed, they have also been separated from various human body parts, demonstrating their close ties to humans [82, 83]. In the days before antibiotics, phages were utilized to combat infectious diseases agents soon after their discovery. However, their usage for therapeutic purposes was discontinued in the Western world after the development of antibiotics. The lack of additional therapeutic options and the ineffectiveness of traditional antibiotics in treating and managing harmful bacterial strains have recently accelerated the revival of phage therapy [77]. In previous study, Montso, Mnisi [84] demonstrated that lytic phages effectively reduced E. coli O177 cells under artificial rumen fermentation conditions, and could therefore be used as a biocontrol strategy in live cattle to reduce meat and milk contamination in slaughterhouses and milking parlors, respectively.
Mechanism of action of bacteriophages
Once they have injected their DNA, phages employ the machinery of the host to replicate and interpret the information needed to generate viral progeny (in the case of lytic phages) and enzymes like spannin, holin, and endolysin [85–87]. Caudoviricetes utilise holin-endolysin or pinholin single arrest release (SAR) mechanisms to break the peptidoglycan link of the cell wall in Gram-negative hosts. This causes host lysis and the release of viral offspring during the lytic cycle [88]. Conversely, in lysogenic or temperate phages, the viral genome fuses with the host genome to form a prophage and replicates alongside it over a long period of time [89, 90]. Prophage induction, or its excision from the genome, can happen in response to cellular internal or external stimuli such as antibiotics, heat, low nutrient condition and ultraviolet (UV) light [89]. As a result, vulnerable bacteria are lysed and offspring phages are released, which may then go on to lyse or lysogenize further susceptible bacteria.
Application of bacteriophages as bio-control agents
Phages have been adopted in a variety of sectors including medicine and agriculture. Phages have been employed to eliminate spoilage organisms in a variety of foods (Table 2) in both clinical and laboratory settings, reducing food loss and the costs that come with it. Bacteria can contaminate food ingredients before, during, or after manufacture. Any of these stages can be stopped or reduced by using certain phages. As a result, phages have lately proven to have a wide range of applications for improving safety in a number of food products (Table 2).
Table 2.
Bacteriophages as bio-control agents against food-borne (food products and food contact surface) pathogens
| Phages | Product tested | Methodology | Out-turn | Reference |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| BEC8 cocktail (38, 39, 41, CEV2, AR1, 42, ECA1, and ECB7). | Spinach leaves and romaine lettuce. | Following a one-hour drying period in a biosafety enclosure, the leaves were spot-inoculated with bacteria. On top of the previously inoculated leaf, BEC8, Trans-cinnamaldehyde, or TSB was administered. Without dehydrating the bacterial inoculum, positive controls were generated by combining it with BEC8 or TC | Cell counts were reduced by both BEC8 and Trans-cinnamaldehyde at the various MOIs and temperatures. The effect of the BEC8 cocktail on both liquid and desiccated cells was identical. An augmentation of the antimicrobial effect was observed upon the combination of both agents | [91] |
| A cocktail composed by the phages e11/2 and e4/1c | Cattle hide | The phage cocktail was introduced into the organism using a portable spray container. Negative control: An absence of wash treatment was observed | After one hour of application to the cattle hide, phage cocktail demonstrated enhanced efficacy. The degree of bacterial eradication was equivalent to that obtained by washing the sample with water alone, when the sampling was conducted immediately following phage application | [92] |
| BEC8 cocktail | Sterilized hard surfaces (stainless steel chips, ceramic tile chips, and high-density polyethylene chips - HDPEC). | The semiconductor was spot-treated with bacteria before being dried in a biosafety cabinet. Prior to inoculation, the chip surface was treated with BEC8 or TSB. MOIs of 1, 10, and 100 were utilised. To generate positive controls, the bacterial inoculum was combined with BEC8 or TC without the process of dehydrating | Phage cocktail exhibited superior performance rating in inactivating the bacterial mixture across a range of conditions, including low to high MOIs, low to high temperatures, and shorter to extended periods of exposure. Both under arid and liquid conditions, bacterial levels could be regulated by phages. Phage-insensitive variants were not identified | [93] |
| Cocktail compose by phages DT1 to DT6 | Milk and meat | Sterile, commercially available milk that had been reconstituted with CaCl2 was used to inoculate one bacterial strain per batch. One portion of each batch was subjected to a phage cocktail, while the other was set aside as a control. 0.4 cm thick, 1 cm2 portions of meat were spot-treated with bacterial strains and left to adhere for 10 minutes at room temperature. Following this, a phage cocktail was introduced into every meat piece. To establish controls, TMG buffer was added | Phage cocktail could detectably reduce the quantity of various E. coli isolates tested at 4 °C. A decrease in value was observed at higher temperatures (25 and 37 °C), but it persisted only during the initial hours of incubation. Phage cocktails induce greater E. coli reduction in meat at elevated temperatures | [94] |
| FAHEc1 | UHT milk; Ready-to-eat meat; Raw beef | Before being applied to food products, phage FAHEc1 was exposed to ultraviolet radiation; phages are capable of lysing bacterial cells, even if they lose viability. Phages and E. coli O157:H7 were utilised to inoculate UHT milk. Inoculating raw beef at 37 °C simulated phage application immediately prior to slathering in carcasses | A decline in cell count was observed exclusively with an increased phage concentration, encompassing both UV-treated and untreated phages. Untreated phages generally produce superior outcomes in milk. Consistency in observations was maintained for the control in RTE meat. The utilisation of UV-treated phages resulted in a more pronounced reduction of the host in uncooked beef | [95] |
| phiEco1, phiEco2, phiEco3, phiEco5, phiEco6 and phiS1 | Oyster | At 37 °C, bacteria that had been grown overnight were introduced to the oysters and allowed to adhere for one hour. After adding phage suspension, the oyster meat was incubated at 3 °C for two days, followed by two hours at 37 °C | Attenuating all bacterial genotypes is possible with a high concentration of phages. When bacteria are present singly or in combination, a reduction is observed | [96] |
| Phages phiJLA23, phiKP26, phiC119 and phiE142 | Tomatoes | A mixture of phages comprising 109 PFU/mL of each phage. In addition, microencapsulated phages were generated by combining a polymer mixture comprising 30% phage cocktail, 60% SM Buffer, and 10% solids (modified starch and maltodextrin). The tomato plants were categorised into three groups: the first group received E. coli O157:H7 inoculation, the second group received a microencapsulated cocktail phage inoculated with the bacterial host, and the third group served as a control without any inoculation | The concentrations of E. coli O157:H7 in tomatoes encapsulated with microencapsulated phages were substantially reduced after 24 hours at 4 °C, in comparison to the control group that did not receive the phage cocktail. The observed differences persisted for a duration of five days. Free phages are less stable in the presence of stress factors than microencapsulated phages | [97] |
| AKH-2 |
Misgurnus anguillicaudatus Apostichopus japonicas (Sea cucumber) Oreochromis niloticus (Nila tilapia) |
Loach immersed against Aeromonas hydrophilia | Phage-treated loach exhibited a higher survival rate | [98] |
| PVS-1, and PVS-2, PVS-3 | Individual phage or cocktail supplementation of the diet to combat Vibrio splendidus | In contrast to the single phage and control groups, the phage cocktail-treated group exhibited an 82% survival rate | [99] | |
| HN48 | Containment of Streptococcus agalactiae by means of phage preparation introduced to the tank | 60% greater survival rate than the control group | [100] |
Phage therapy has been successfully used in clinical settings to treat severe or persistent bacterial infections [101]. Phage therapy for the treatment of persistent infections has primarily been used in Georgia, Poland, and Russia [102, 103]. The type of infection, the type of phage or phage-based products, the dose of phage, and the method of delivery all affect how well the therapy works. It was reported that the Shanghai Institute of Phages in China administered clinical phage therapy to patients with MDR illnesses [104].
Application of bacteriophages as bio-sensor
Beyond the therapeutic application of phages, genetically engineered phages can be utilized to identify individual bacteria even in a combination of many different bacterial species; bio-sensors. Typically, sensors have two or more useful parts. The first step is some sort of target recognition aspect. Second, there must be some sort of reporting transducing mechanism for when the recognition element finds that target. Phages function something like sensors (or, more exactly, a biosensor). The target, a host bacterium, is located by the proteins that bind to receptors. The reporter is the phage’s genome, which produces other phages once it enters the target cell and may take the form of a plaque. Phages are extremely particular in identifying their target in this way, which can be a significant advantage in a biosensor [105]. Several methods use the typical phage recognition components to identify bacteria while modifying the reporter to increase the sensitivity or speed of the detection. Many detection methods merely depend on phage reproduction to signal the presence of the matching host cells [106, 107].
Regulations for the application of phage therapy
Phage therapy utilization in treatment regimens is not governed by any particular, global standards. Different standards for employing phage treatment in clinical cases have been developed by regulatory agencies around the world. Patients are treated in the United States under the FDA’s emergency investigational new drug (eIND) approval, whereas Australia has created a specific access program which permits patients to obtain medications not listed on the Australian Register of Therapeutic Goods, and Belgium is using a magistral phage method [108–111]. A magistral preparation is constituted in a pharmacy based on a medical prescription. It does not have to conform with the medicinal product Directive, but the active components (phages) must meet the production and quality control standards. The widespread use of phage therapy has been hampered by the inconsistent restrictions in different nations. However, the first phage therapy facility in the United States, UC San Diego Center for Innovative Phage Application and Therapeutics, has just been founded, and numerous patients have successfully undergone phage therapy with no negative effects reported [112].
A phage-based anti-E. coli O157:H7 product called EcoShield™ was developed for use in red meat (Retrieved from the Intralytix website at http://www.intralytix.com/index.php?page=prod&id=2., October 2022). A different product called “Secure Shield E1” from the German company FINK TEC GmbH is intended to be used on the surfaces of beef carcasses. Each product has received FDA approval. Recent approval for the use of phage mixtures from OmniLytics (Sandy, UT), Micreos’ PhageGuard E., and Intralytix’s EcoShield PX™ to prevent shiga toxin producing E. coli (STEC) infection on a variety of food products was granted (Retrieved from https://www.fda.gov/food/generally-recognized-safegras/gras-notice-inventory, October 2022). The FDA approved the aforementioned phage products as generally recognized as safe (GRAS) food additives.
Other countries have also approved the use of phage to guarantee food safety. The National Food Service of the Israeli Ministry of Health approved all phages that had already been approved by the FDA to be used for analogous purposes in 2014 under the regulations titled “Guidelines: use of bacteriophages (bacteria-killing viruses) in food [113].” In Canada, phage-based products such as PhageGuard L™ (formerly Listex™), ListShield™, SalmoFresh™, and EcoShield™ have been authorized as aids in food processing [113]. For some ready-to-eat (RTE) products, the Food Standards Australia New Zealand in Australia and New Zealand approved the use of phage-based treatments to control Salmonella and Listeria monocytogenes as processing aids. In Europe, the situation is somewhat different. Despite previous attempts to approve phage-based products, none of them have yet to display the “CE mark” (European conformity). Despite the regulatory barriers, Listex™ P100 has petitioned for clearance to be used as a decontamination agent to lower the level of L. monocytogenes in food, raw seafood [114], and RTE food items [115]. To stop Listeria from developing in many food products, several food companies are already employing this phage product. In the absence of a regulatory framework from the European Union (EU), the European Court of Justice announced a court order in October 2019 permitting food producers to continue using phages to prevent Listeria on all RTE meals. European, American, Japanese, and other regulatory organizations acquired unified standards for the development of pharmaceuticals through the International Conference on Harmonization (ICH) [77]. In addition, a detailed description of phage therapy in relation to food safety has been fully described in our previous study [116].
Nanotechnology
Nanotechnology-based methodologies are employed across a range of disciplines, including engineering, material sciences, biology, and medicine. Nanomaterials are often defined as substances having sizes between 1 and 100 nm. To help provide distinctive features for a wide range of functions, they come in a variety of forms and sizes. When restricted to a relatively small scale, the material’s characteristics experience considerable modifications. Nanomaterials are typically made of metals, metal oxides, or composites made of carbon and emulsions [117]. A paradigm change in antibacterial medicine has been brought about by the use of nanoscale materials as antibacterial agents. High surface area to volume ratio nanomaterials are being researched for the creation of potent bactericidal medications because they can enhance interactions with the target agents. They demonstrate efficacy against bacteria that have already developed resistance through the use of mechanisms that are fundamentally different from the modes of action of conventional antibiotics. They also target a number of biomolecules, posing a threat to the emergence of resistant strains [11].
Nanomaterials have been found to have increased membrane permeability, the capacity to function as efflux pump inhibitors, and the potential for a variety of antibacterial actions, making them less likely to produce bacterial resistance than conventional antibiotics [118, 119]. In addition to providing important pharmacological advantages such as improved drug solubility and half-life, extended and stimuli-responsive drug release, site-targeted administration, and combination treatment, nanoparticles (NPs) are valuable as antimicrobial vector [120, 121].
Classification of nanomaterials and their properties
Numerous nanostructures, including liposomes, NPs, and dendrimers, have demonstrated their capacity to increase the effectiveness of antibiotic treatments and fight infectious diseases [122, 123]. Nanomaterials have been investigated in vitro and in vivo to control and combat bacterial infection, including antibacterial polypeptides, noble metal NPs, nanocomposites, semiconductor NPs, polymeric nanostructures, and carbon-based nanomaterials (CNMs) [117, 124, 125]. We have also discussed extensively on the various forms of synthesis, characterization, probable mode of action, application and/or antibacterial activities and advantages of nanotechnology over antibiotics in our previous works [10, 126].
Since severe membrane damage would require extensive regeneration of membrane components, which would be physically taxing for target cells, membrane-acting NPs are anticipated to be highly alluring and detrimental to the establishment of resistance. Modern physicochemical polymeric NPs have been proven to be a breakthrough treatment for bacterial diseases in humans [121]. In comparison to currently available substances, this family of nanocarriers have a number of benefits including being proven to be safe, biodegradable, biocompatible, swiftly eliminated, and non-toxic to tissues and organs with superior pharmacokinetics properties. Additionally, this kind of therapy represents a breakthrough due to its ability to target a particular organ, reduce the adverse effects of numerous antibiotics, and gradually accumulate in the area that is diseased thus, more effective than conventional antibiotics for a longer period of time, which is crucial for a long-lasting, sustained therapeutic impact. The antibacterial potential of many inorganic (metal) NPs, including gold (Au), silver (Ag), and others, has been demonstrated [127, 128]. With good thermal stability, low toxicity, and antibacterial qualities, Ag is a noble metal. It has been shown that polyurethane and plastic catheters with AgNP surface functionalization are effective at preventing the growth of biofilms on a variety of harmful bacteria [129].
Due to their distinctive physicochemical characteristics, CNMs have garnered general acceptance in the scientific community, but their clinical efficacy has not yet been established. These materials’ insoluble nature, which makes it difficult for them to enter biological systems, is overcome by carbon nanostructures with programmable morphologies. Due to their capacity to eliminate harmful bacteria and stop their adhesion and biofilm formation, carbon NPs in general are promising antibacterial candidates with a range of biological applications [130, 131]. In bacteria, the adsorption of positive ions such as Ag+, Cu2+, and Zn2+ onto the bacterial cell membrane can lead to the breakdown of the cell wall and the creation of pits [132].
Applications of nanotechnology
Although NPs are among the most effective weapons against MDR bacteria, the pharmaceutical industry still faces challenges in translating NP-based therapies into everyday use because nanotechnology hasn’t yet permeated clinical practice. However, Martinez, Ibarra [133] demonstrated the capacity of photoactive metalated porphyrin-doped conjugated polymer NPs to eliminate pathogenic bacterial strains, such as antibiotic-resistant bacteria of the Enterococcus faecium, S. aureus, Klebsiella pneumoniae, Acinetobacter baumannii, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, and Enterobacter spp. (ESKAPE) pathogens group. Methicillin-resistant S. aureus (MRSA) can cause major infections with high morbidity and death in both the community and the hospital because it has evolved resistance to nearly all antibiotics. Functional nanomaterials and NPs can kill MRSA and be used in anti-MRSA therapy [134].
Some NPs are in clinical trials or have already received FDA approval for use in humans, and numerous proof-of-concept studies using nanomaterials in cell culture and small animal models are now underway [135, 136]. According to Gupta, Singh [137], the biofilms of S. aureus and P. aeruginosa isolated from food were found to be susceptible to a concentration of 62.5 mg/mL of AgNP, but doses of 125 and 250 mg/mL of the same NP inhibited biofilms by 85 and 90%, respectively. In another study, the minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) and minimum bactericidal concentration (MBC) of green synthesized AgNPs against MDR P. aeruginosa (MDR-PA) were reported as 3.88 ± 0.13 and 7.77 ± 0.25 g/mL and 7.77 ± 0.25 and 31.08 ± 1.01 g/mL against MRSA, respectively [138].
Ethno-medicine
The effect of antibiotic resistance on sustainable development goals
The best plan currently available for creating a better world for people and the planet by the year 2030 is the set of 17 United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (UN SDGs). The UN SDGs, which were adopted by all United Nations Member States in 2015, are a call to action for all nations; rich, middle-income, and poor, to advance prosperity while preserving the environment. The fight against AMR and the SDGs go hand in hand. AMR has an impact on achieving a number of the 17 SDGs, especially SDG 3: “Good health and well-being.”
AMR is now officially mentioned under SDG 3, and fulfilling many SDGs also depends on properly addressing AMR. First, with the use of efficient antibiotics, epidemics of infectious diseases including human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), gonorrhea, and tuberculosis can be controlled as well as maternal, neonatal, and pediatric fatalities can be avoided (SDG 3). Second, antibiotics are crucial for livelihoods, the production of food and animals as well as for human health (SDG 1, 2, 8). Third, improperly handled medical waste and wastewater can introduce antibiotic-resistant bacteria into soils, drinking water, and groundwater (SDG 6, 12). Finally, collaboration is necessary to combat AMR. The quadripartite, a group made up of the World Health Organization (WHO), the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations, and the World Organization for Animal Health (WOAH, formerly Office International des Epizooties (OIE)), has chosen to address AMR using the One Health strategy (SDG 17) [139, 140].
The recently introduced SDG indicator on AMR intends to lower the percentage of bloodstream infections brought on by E. coli and S. aureus that are resistant to 3rd-generation cephalosporin drugs and methicillin, respectively. The ability to treat infections with currently available antibiotic will ultimately be preserved by the effective management of these two categories of antibiotic resistant pathogens while new preventative and treatment approaches are developed [140].
Plants secondary metabolites: key drivers of pharmacological actions of medicinal plants
Natural and/or organic by-products continue to be crucial to the success of drug development. Therefore, biological variety provides a never-ending supply of novel chemical entities (NCEs) with the potential to be therapeutic leads. These NCEs are made from substances that plants produce to protect them from herbivores and diseases or to entice pollinators. Many chemical compounds that are produced by plants, known as secondary metabolites, are those that are indirectly linked with development and growth [141]. Indicators of the potency of natural items as modern medications include the effectiveness of secondary metabolites in plants [142]. The biological effects of secondary metabolites have been shown to vary, providing the scientific underpinning for the use of herbs in traditional medicine in many ancient communities. They are able to shield plants from pathogens because they are antibiotic, antifungal, and antiviral in nature. They also have antibiofilm or anti-quorum sensing function [11]. According to their chemical structures, plant secondary metabolites are divided into a variety of classes which include: phenolics (tannins, coumarins, flavonoids), alkaloids (ergots, imidazoles, pyridines, purines, quinolines), saponins (steroidal or triterpenoidal saponins), terpenes (mono-, sesqui-, sester-, hemi-, di-terpenes), lipids (fixed oil, waxes, essential oil) and carbohydrates (mono-,di-,oligo- and polysaccharides) [143].
Ethno-medicine as an alternative to antibiotic
Since the dawn of time, people have had close relationships with plants for use as food, fuel, medicine, and clothing. The use of medicinal plants is common in both industrialized and developing nations, and it has a long history even before antibiotics were produced [144, 145]. Currently, as a result of the development and the effects of resistance to antibiotics, millions of people in developing nations throughout the world use medicinal plants and other natural goods as a way to treat infectious diseases. The market for the use of natural products for therapeutic purposes is expanding at a rapid rate. Ethno-medicine is applied in various sectors of life including medicinal, pharmaceutical and agricultural. Plants are sleeping giants of the modern pharmaceuticals. Hence, they are being explored as alternative antimicrobials. Several researchers have reported the activities of medicinal plants in the various sectors [2, 146–148], usage and antimicrobial form of secondary metabolites (Table 3).
Table 3.
An overview of medicinal plants secondary metabolites
| Secondary metabolite (SM) | Characteristics | Sub-category of SM | Uses | References |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Phenols |
Probably constitute the largest group of plant SMs, They share the presence of one or more phenol groups as a common feature and range from simple structures with one aromatic ring to highly complex polymeric substances Widespread in plants and contribute significantly to the color, taste and flavor of many herbs, foods and drinks |
Quercetin | Anti-inflammatory | [149, 150] |
| Flavonoids | Antioxidant, anti-inflammatory and anti-allergic effects, anti-tumor | [151, 152] | ||
| Gallic acid, Phenol | Antibacterial, antiviral, antifungal, anti-inflammatory, antitumor, anti-anaphylactic, antiseptic, anti-mutagenic, choleretic and bronchodilatory actions | [153–155] | ||
| Tannin | Anti-diarrhea, antidote, antiseptic | [156] | ||
| Coumarin | Anti-inflammatory, anticoagulant, anticancer and anti-Alzheimer’s | [157] | ||
| Alkaloids |
Organic compounds with at least one nitrogen atom in a heterocyclic ring. Except for the fact that they are all nitrogen-containing compounds, no general definition fits all alkaloids. Many are toxic to animals to cause death if eaten |
Aromatics, Carbolines, Ergots, Imidazoles, Pyridines, Purines, Quinolines, Piperidines, etc. |
Analgesia, local anesthesia, cardiac stimulation, respiratory stimulation and relaxation, vasoconstriction muscle relaxation and toxicity, as well as antineoplastic, hypertensive and hypotensive properties. antibacterial, antifungal, antiviral |
[150, 158, 159] |
| Saponins |
This hydrophobic-hydrophilic asymmetry means that these compounds have the ability to lower surface tension and are soap-like. They form foam in aqueous solutions and cause hemolysis of blood erythrocytes in vitro. |
Pentoses, Hexoses, or Uronic acids |
Antitumor, piscicidal, molluscicidal, spermicidal, sedative, expectorant, anti-inflammatory and analgesic properties. | [150] |
| Terpenes |
Most diverse group of plant SMs All forms are derived chemically from 5-carbon isoprene units assembled in different ways Classified according to the number of isoprene units in the molecule |
Monoterpenes, Sesquiterpenes, Sesterterpenes, Hemiterpenes, Diterpenes Triterpenes |
Anti-hemorrhagic, analgesic, antibacterial, antifungal, anti-inflammatory, antineoplastic and antiprotozoal activities, anti-rheumatics |
[159, 160] |
| Lipids |
Major structural components of all biological membranes Source of energy reservoirs and fuel for cellular activities in addition to being vitamins and hormones Although lipids are primary metabolites, recent studies revealed pharmacological activities to members of this class of SMs |
Fixed oils, Waxes, Essential oils, Sterols, Fat-soluble vitamins (such as vitamins A, D, E and K), Phospholipids and others |
Anti-inflammatory, anti-aging, wound healing activities, antiseptic, antimicrobial, analgesic, sedative, spasmolytic and locally anesthetic remedies. They are also used as fragrances in embalmment, as sunscreens, moisturizer and in food preservation |
[161–163] |
| Carbohydrates |
Starter for all SMs and animal biochemical. Although carbohydrates are primary metabolites, they are incorporated in plenty of SMs through glycosidation linkages. Polymers of simple sugars and uronic acids produce mucilage and gums |
Monosaccharides, Disaccharides, Oligosaccharides and Polysaccharides | Demulcent, emollient | [164, 165] |
Globally, the plant kingdom offers a variety of species that are used as therapies for different illnesses [166]. According to World Health Organization (WHO) reports, a significant portion of the global population uses traditional medicines, including those that use plant decoctions or functional chemicals [167, 168]. The most crucial need for using an ethno-pharmacological approach is knowledge of the plant parts previously employed as remedies. The two most well-known traditional therapies for treating various illnesses are Chinese herbal medicine and Ayurveda, but in areas where there are no texts to consult, ethno-botanical surveys are the only method to learn about the traditional use of medicinal plants.
Probiotics and prebiotics
For today’s health-conscious population, food serves as more than just a source of energy; they also look for food components and nutrients that can improve health benefits or avoid chronic diseases [169]. The emphasis of nutritional biology is therefore on “functional foods,” which largely consist of probiotics, prebiotics, and synbiotics. Additionally, functional foods give the body the necessary amounts of lipids, proteins, carbohydrates, and vitamins [170]. Prebiotic and probiotic techniques involve the use of microbial food supplements that benefit the host by enhancing the balance of intestinal microbes. Prebiotics and probiotics are preferable to antibiotics for treatment since they are safe for long-term usage and do not induce allergies or negative effects [171].
Applications and mechanism of action of probiotics
Dietary fibers known as prebiotics are frequently combined with probiotics to increase their viability. The most common prebiotics include fructo- and galacto-oligosaccharides (FOS and GOS), xylo- and oligosaccharides (XOS), inulin, and fructans. Synbiotics is a common word for the combination. Therefore, synbiotics are a carefully chosen combination of probiotics and prebiotics that aid in the development of a balanced microbiota in the intestine of the host. It is crucial to reach agreement on the makeup and functions of probiotics, prebiotics, and synbiotics in promoting human health. Some of the probiotic drugs marketed worldwide include enteral capsules [172], acidolac [173], biogermin [174], entromax [175], bifilac GG [175], and gutpro [175]. Probiotics have been found to have other immunomodulatory activities that are advantageous in conditions like allergies, cancer, obesity and type 2 diabetes, aging, fatigue, autism, osteoporosis, and others, in addition to limiting the growth of drug-resistant bacteria [176].
Probiotic effects vary based on the strain combination employed [177]. According to recent studies, using probiotics can help prevent or treat yeast infections that develop as a result of antibiotic use, abnormalities of the lower intestine’s epithelium caused by Clostridium difficile, and antibiotic-associated diarrhea (AAD) in humans [11, 178], as antimicrobial agents against foodborne pathogens [179], reduction of cross-contamination and dissemination of infections [180], as feed additives in agricultural production [181–183], and combating biofilm formation of pathogenic E. coli [184]. de Melo Pereira, de Oliveira Coelho [185] and [186] reported that several probiotic bacteria are known to produce a variety of antimicrobial substances, organic acids, and bacteriocins that can prevent the growth of bacteria that are resistant to multiple drugs.
Forest ecosystem research revealed that fungal and bacterial communities can respond to environmental changes in accordance with their host trees [187]. Other research has shown that microbial and biochemical indicators of soil health can be used to evaluate the ecological risk of soil. These findings demonstrated that soil respiration can be utilized to estimate soil ecological conditions and microbial activity [188].
In environmental health, probiotics play an essential role as agents of remediation, in assisting the host to adapt to environmental changes. Certain genera also function as bioremediation or decomposition agents of hazardous substances [189], such as a bacterial consortium (Xanthomonadaceae, Brachybacterium sp., Bhargavaea sp., Gordonia sp., Thalassospira sp., Pseudomonas sp., Dietzia sp., Mesorhizobium sp., Cytophaga sp. Conventional remediation strategies for most types of environmental contamination are not only costly but also ineffective, particularly at low concentrations of contaminants [190]. Probiotics-assisted remediation has emerged as an inexpensive and straightforward alternative.
The theory behind the use of probiotics is that once the microbial flora in the gut has returned to equilibrium, the commensal bacteria can outgrow and actively exclude harmful strains. These commensal bacteria foster disease resistance either directly, through interactions with other bacteria, or indirectly, by triggering host immune systems [46, 191]. However, probiotics also carry the danger of introducing and/or transmitting AMR characteristics via a variety of routes and may also cause non-genetically determined resistance in the endogenous microflora (phenotypic susceptibility due to the probiotic strain) [192]. To establish uniform procedures for evaluating the safety of probiotics before approving their use in clinical practice, several research groups and regulatory organizations are concentrating on resolving the issue of resistance [193].
Established probiotics risk assessment protocol
Probiotics may be clinically effective, but it is still important to guarantee the safety of the involved microbe. It is preferable to talk about probiotic safety generally since it affects both people and farm animals. More significant than the source of the isolate are the specific properties of a probiotic. It is essential that a probiotic agent’s potential endures for a long time at the site of action [194]. This implies that enough consideration must be given to the examination of a particular strain’s risk factors. Due to their extensive history of usage as probiotics, most probiotic strains have earned the designation “Generally Recognized as Safe” (GRAS) [195]. However, not all innovative probiotics may be expected to have the same safety record as the traditional strains. The synthesis of toxic biochemical, virulence factors, transferrable ARGs, and hemolytic potential are only a few of the unfavorable traits that probiotics may have [196, 197]. For instance, it has been underlined that there may be a risk of horizontal antibiotic-resistant gene (ARG) transfer from one probiotic strain to other bacteria in the host’s gastrointestinal environment [195]. Along with this, there have also been a small number of reports of infectious disorders such endocarditis, bacteremia, pneumoniae, meningitis, and septic arthritis linked to specific Lactobacillus and Enterococcus strains, which have largely affected immunocompromised people [198].
Although it is a member of the lactic acid bacteria, Enterococcus was listed as one of the bacteria with a high potential for virulence features in a joint study of the Food and Agriculture Organization/World Health Organization (FAO/WHO) Expert Consultation in Rome [199]. Because the Enterococcus genus frequently exhibits a high number of vancomycin-resistant genes, its use as a probiotic has been discouraged.
Other potential risk factors that need to be highlighted include the potential to foster harmful metabolic effects, excessive immune stimulation, and toxigenicity of the strain, level of purity of the product, colonization and genetic stability of the strain over time [200]. Additionally, the FAO working group study [201] advises that prospective probiotic strains be examined for virulence in animal models with weakened immune systems and potential negative effects on end users. In addition, Kim, Ku [202] suggest the following guidelines for the safety assessment and regulation of probiotics, which have been approved by the European Union Scientific Committee on Animal Nutrition: taxonomical definition of the strains, collection of substantial information revealing data such as history of use, industrial applications, ecological niche, human intervention, exclusion of pathogenicity, and description of end users.
Conclusion and future perspective
Although the use of antibiotics in controlling bacterial infections is still necessary, it is critical to drastically reduce their use in all facets of One-Health by using alternate strategies to limit the spread of drug resistant pathogens. Since antibiotic resistance is mostly brought about by the abuse of antibiotics, antibiotic-free techniques are a viable new approach to deal with the current antibacterial dilemma. Hence, a range of approaches are required for both microbial illness prevention and treatment. The use of an effective combination of living and non-living structures from natural resources is one of the promising “one health” approaches for addressing the disruption of human, animal, plant, and environmental health.
Further insight into how the alternative measures function to fight antibiotic resistant pathogens will come from a complete comprehension of the equilibrium between the opposing mechanisms of action and resistance. These discoveries may offer fresh approaches or models from which new drugs can be created to cure or prevent illnesses, particularly those brought on by microorganisms resistant to common antibiotics. Pharmacologic substances can be used to minimise pathogen resistance, enhance the effectiveness of traditional antibiotics, and target specific microbial structures or functions. According to these perspectives, there may be many unknown or underestimated aspects of alternative treatments’ mechanisms of action and resistance.
Acknowledgements
The authors wish to appreciate the Department of Microbiology, School of Biological Sciences, North-West University, Mafikeng, South Africa.
Abbreviations
- AMR
Antimicrobial resistance
- ARGs
Antibiotic resistance genes
- MDR
Multidrug resistant
- XDR
Extensively drug-resistant
- PDR
Pan-resistant
- SARS-CoV-2
Acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2
- AMPs
Antimicrobial peptides
- ESBLs
Extended spectrum beta-lactamases
- PBPs
Penicillin binding proteins
- DHFR
Dihydrofolate reductase
- DPS
Dihydropteroate synthetase
- DPS
Dihydropteroate synthetase
- PABA
Para-amino benzoic acid
- LPS
Lipopolysaccharides
- LTA
Lipoteichoic acid
- PG
Phosphatidylglycerol
- UV
Ultraviolet
- NPs
Nanoparticles
- FDA
Food and drug administration
- CNMs
Carbon-based nanomaterials
- MIC
Minimum inhibitory concentration
- MBC
Minimum bactericidal concentration
- HIV
Human immunodeficiency virus
- WHO
World Health Organization
- FAO
Food and Agriculture Organization
- WOAH
World Organization for Animal Health
- NCEs
Novel chemical entities
Authors’ contributions
Conceptualization, D.J.A.; methodology, D.J.A., C.N.A.; validation, D.J.A.,, A.O.A., N.K., C.N.A., S.I.S.; investigation, D.J.A.; writing—original draft preparation, D.J.A.; writing—review and editing, D.J.A., A.O.A., N.K., S.I.S.; and C.N.A.; supervision, C.N.A.; All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding
This work was supported by the North-West University and the Department of Microbiology, School of Biological Sciences.
Availability of data and materials
Not applicable.
Declarations
Ethics approval and consent to participate
Not applicable.
Consent for publication
Not applicable.
Competing interests
The authors declare no conflict of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript, or in the decision to publish the results”.
Footnotes
Publisher’s note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Contributor Information
Daniel Jesuwenu Ajose, Email: ajosedj@yahoo.com.
Shamsaldeen Ibrahim Saeed, Email: shams88ns@gmail.com.
References
- 1.Allen HK, Trachsel J, Looft T, Casey TA. Finding alternatives to antibiotics. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2014;1323(1):91–100. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Ajose DJ, Oluwarinde BO, Abolarinwa TO, Montso PK, Fayemi OE, Aremu AO, et al. Combating Bovine Mastitis in the Dairy sector in an era of Antimicrobial Resistance: Ethnoveterinary medicinal option as a viable alternative approach. Front Vet Sci. 2022;9(2022):287. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
- 3.Czaplewski L, Bax R, Clokie M, Dawson M, Fairhead H, Fischetti VA, et al. Alternatives to antibiotics—a pipeline portfolio review. Lancet Infect Dis. 2016;16(2):239–51. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Solomon SL, Oliver KB. Antibiotic resistance threats in the United States: stepping back from the brink. Am Family Phys. 2014;89(12):938–41. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Peterson E, Kaur P. Antibiotic resistance mechanisms in bacteria: relationships between resistance determinants of antibiotic producers, environmental bacteria, and clinical pathogens. Front Microbiol. 2018;9:2928. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.San Millan A. Evolution of plasmid-mediated antibiotic resistance in the clinical context. Trends Microbiol. 2018;26(12):978–85. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.de Kraker ME, Stewardson AJ, Harbarth S. Will 10 million people die a year due to antimicrobial resistance by 2050? PLoS Med. 2016;13(11):e1002184. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.McLinden T, Sargeant JM, Thomas MK, Papadopoulos A, Fazil A. Component costs of foodborne illness: a scoping review. BMC Public Health. 2014;14(1):1–12. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Hoffmann SA, Maculloch B, Batz M. Economic burden of major foodborne illnesses acquired in the United States. United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service; 2015. [Google Scholar]
- 10.Ajose DJ, Abolarinwa TO, Oluwarinde BO, Montso PK, Fayemi OE, Aremu AO, et al. Application of plant-derived nanoparticles (PDNP) in food-producing animals as a Bio-control Agent against Antimicrobial-resistant pathogens. Biomedicines. 2022;10(10):2426. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Adhikari MD, Saha T, Tiwary BK. Quest for Alternatives to Antibiotics: An Urgent need of the twenty-First Century. Alternatives to Antibiotics: Springer; 2022. pp. 3–32. [Google Scholar]
- 12.Larsson D, Flach C-F. Antibiotic resistance in the environment. Nat Rev Microbiol. 2022;20(5):257–69. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.WHO. Global action plan on Antimicrobial Resistance. Geneva, Switzerland: WHO; 2015. [Google Scholar]
- 14.Robinson TP, Bu DP, Carrique-Mas J, Fèvre EM, Gilbert M, Grace D, Hay SI, Jiwakanon J, Kakkar M, Kariuki S, Laxminarayan R. Antibiotic resistance is the quintessential One Health issue. Trans R Soc Trop Med Hyg. 2016;110(7):377–80. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.Murugaiyan J, Kumar PA, Rao GS, Iskandar K, Hawser S, Hays JP, et al. Progress in alternative strategies to combat antimicrobial resistance: focus on antibiotics. Antibiotics. 2022;11(2):200. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16.Manohar P, Loh B, Leptihn S. Will the overuse of antibiotics during the Coronavirus pandemic accelerate antimicrobial resistance of bacteria? Infect Microbes Dis. 2020;2(3):87–8. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17.Pelfrene E, Botgros R, Cavaleri M. Antimicrobial multidrug resistance in the era of COVID-19: a forgotten plight? Antimicrob Resist Infect Control. 2021;10(1):1–6. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18.Mulani MS, Kamble EE, Kumkar SN, Tawre MS, Pardesi KR. Emerging strategies to combat ESKAPE pathogens in the era of antimicrobial resistance: a review. Front Microbiol. 2019;10:539. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19.Mostowy S. Louis Pasteur continues to shape the future of microbiology. Disease Models Mech. 2022;15(12):dmm050011. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20.Dowling A, O’Dwyer J, Adley C. Antibiotics: mode of action and mechanisms of resistance. Antimicrob Res: Novel Bioknowl Educ Progr. 2017;1:536–45. [Google Scholar]
- 21.Tooke CL, Hinchliffe P, Bragginton EC, Colenso CK, Hirvonen VH, Takebayashi Y, et al. β-Lactamases and β-Lactamase inhibitors in the 21st Century. J Mol Biol. 2019;431(18):3472–500. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22.Ibrahim RA, Cryer TL, Lafi SQ, Basha E-A, Good L, Tarazi YH. Identification of Escherichia coli from broiler chickens in Jordan, their antimicrobial resistance, gene characterization and the associated risk factors. BMC Vet Res. 2019;15(1):1–16. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23.Correia S, Poeta P, Hébraud M, Capelo JL, Igrejas G. Mechanisms of quinolone action and resistance: where do we stand? J Med Microbiol. 2017;66(5):551–9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24.Patel PH, Hashmi MF. Macrolides. Tampa, FL, USA: StatPearls StatPearls Publishing; 2021. [Google Scholar]
- 25.Wendlandt S, Feßler AT, Monecke S, Ehricht R, Schwarz S, Kadlec K. The diversity of antimicrobial resistance genes among staphylococci of animal origin. Int J Med Microbiol. 2013;303(6–7):338–49. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26.Nguyen F, Starosta AL, Arenz S, Sohmen D, Dönhöfer A, Wilson DN. Tetracycline antibiotics and resistance mechanisms. Biol Chem. 2014;395(5):559–75. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27.Shin SW, Shin MK, Jung M, Belaynehe KM, Yoo HS. Prevalence of antimicrobial resistance and transfer of tetracycline resistance genes in Escherichia coli isolates from beef cattle. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2015;81(16):5560–6. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 28.Davis JL. Pharmacologic principles. Equine Intern Med. 2018;4:79–137. [Google Scholar]
- 29.Jiang H, Cheng H, Liang Y, Yu S, Yu T, Fang J, et al. Diverse mobile genetic elements and conjugal transferability of sulfonamide resistance genes (sul1, sul2, and sul3) in Escherichia coli isolates from Penaeus vannamei and pork from large markets in Zhejiang, China. Front Microbiol. 2019;10:1787. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 30.Wang J, Dou X, Song J, Lyu Y, Zhu X, Xu L, et al. Antimicrobial peptides: promising alternatives in the post feeding antibiotic era. Med Res Rev. 2019;39(3):831–59. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 31.Mohammed I, Said DG, Dua HS. Human antimicrobial peptides in ocular surface defense. Prog Retin Eye Res. 2017;61:1–22. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 32.Kang H-K, Kim C, Seo CH, Park Y. The therapeutic applications of antimicrobial peptides (AMPs): a patent review. J Microbiol. 2017;55:1–12. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 33.Lei J, Sun L, Huang S, Zhu C, Li P, He J, et al. The antimicrobial peptides and their potential clinical applications. Am J Transl Res. 2019;11(7):3919. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 34.Zharkova MS, Orlov DS, Golubeva OY, Chakchir OB, Eliseev IE, Grinchuk TM, et al. Application of antimicrobial peptides of the innate immune system in combination with conventional antibiotics—a novel way to combat antibiotic resistance? Front Cell Infect Microbiol. 2019;9:128. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 35.Dijksteel GS, Ulrich MM, Middelkoop E, Boekema BK. Lessons learned from clinical trials using antimicrobial peptides (AMPs). Front Microbiol. 2021;12:616979. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 36.Tilocca B, Balmas V, Hassan ZU, Jaoua S, Migheli Q. A proteomic investigation of aspergillus carbonarius exposed to yeast volatilome or to its major component 2-phenylethanol reveals major shifts in fungal metabolism. Int J Food Microbiol. 2019;306:108265. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 37.Yeaman MR, Yount NY. Mechanisms of antimicrobial peptide action and resistance. Pharmacol Rev. 2003;55(1):27–55. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 38.Sheard DE, O’Brien-Simpson NM, Wade JD, Separovic F. Combating bacterial resistance by combination of antibiotics with antimicrobial peptides. Pure Appl Chem. 2019;91(2):199–209. [Google Scholar]
- 39.Huan Y, Kong Q, Mou H, Yi H. Antimicrobial peptides: classification, design, application and research progress in multiple fields. Front Microbiol. 2020;11(2022):2559. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
- 40.Rima M, Rima M, Fajloun Z, Sabatier J-M, Bechinger B, Naas T. Antimicrobial peptides: a potent alternative to antibiotics. Antibiotics. 2021;10(9):1095. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 41.Nguyen LT, Haney EF, Vogel HJ. The expanding scope of antimicrobial peptide structures and their modes of action. Trends Biotechnol. 2011;29(9):464–72. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 42.Le C-F, Fang C-M, Sekaran SD. Intracellular targeting mechanisms by antimicrobial peptides. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2017;61(4):e02340–16. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 43.Łoboda D, Kozłowski H, Rowińska-Żyrek M. Antimicrobial peptide–metal ion interactions–a potential way of activity enhancement. New J Chem. 2018;42(10):7560–8. [Google Scholar]
- 44.Molchanova N, Hansen PR, Franzyk H. Advances in development of antimicrobial peptidomimetics as potential drugs. Molecules. 2017;22(9):1430. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 45.Torcato IM, Huang Y-H, Franquelim HG, Gaspar D, Craik DJ, Castanho MA, et al. Design and characterization of novel antimicrobial peptides, R-BP100 and RW-BP100, with activity against Gram-negative and Gram-positive bacteria. Biochim et Biophys Acta (BBA)-Biomembranes. 2013;1828(3):944–55. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 46.Łojewska E, Sakowicz T. An alternative to antibiotics: selected methods to combat zoonotic foodborne bacterial infections. Curr Microbiol. 2021;78(12):4037–49. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 47.Shai Y, Oren Z. From carpet mechanism to de-novo designed diastereomeric cell-selective antimicrobial peptides. Peptides. 2001;22(10):1629–41. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 48.Wu M, Maier E, Benz R, Hancock RE. Mechanism of interaction of different classes of cationic antimicrobial peptides with planar bilayers and with the cytoplasmic membrane of Escherichia coli. Biochemistry. 1999;38(22):7235–42. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 49.Miteva M, Andersson M, Karshikoff A, Otting G. Molecular electroporation: a unifying concept for the description of membrane pore formation by antibacterial peptides, exemplified with NK-lysin. FEBS Lett. 1999;462(1–2):155–8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 50.Hof Wvt, Veerman EC, Helmerhorst EJ, Amerongen AVN. Antimicrobial peptides: properties and applicability. Biol Chem. 2001;382(4):597–619. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 51.Pokorny A, Birkbeck TH, Almeida PF. Mechanism and kinetics of δ-lysin interaction with phospholipid vesicles. Biochemistry. 2002;41(36):11044–56. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 52.Huang HW. Action of antimicrobial peptides: two-state model. Biochemistry. 2000;39(29):8347–52. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 53.Wimley WC. Describing the mechanism of antimicrobial peptide action with the interfacial activity model. ACS Chem Biol. 2010;5(10):905–17. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 54.Fuertes G, Giménez D, Esteban-Martín S, Sánchez-Munoz OL, Salgado J. A lipocentric view of peptide-induced pores. Eur Biophys J. 2011;40(4):399–415. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 55.Pasupuleti M, Schmidtchen A, Malmsten M. Antimicrobial peptides: key components of the innate immune system. Crit Rev Biotechnol. 2012;32(2):143–71. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 56.Sumi CD, Yang BW, Yeo I-C, Hahm YT. Antimicrobial peptides of the genus Bacillus: a new era for antibiotics. Can J Microbiol. 2015;61(2):93–103. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 57.Stevenson CL. Advances in peptide pharmaceuticals. Curr Pharm Biotechnol. 2009;10(1):122–37. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 58.Mösges R, Baues C, Schröder T, Sahin K. Acute bacterial otitis externa: efficacy and safety of topical treatment with an antibiotic ear drop formulation in comparison to glycerol treatment. Curr Med Res Opin. 2011;27(4):871–8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 59.Rabanal F, Cajal Y. Recent advances and perspectives in the design and development of polymyxins. Nat Prod Rep. 2017;34(7):886–908. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 60.Deegan LH, Cotter PD, Hill C, Ross P. Bacteriocins: biological tools for bio-preservation and shelf-life extension. Int Dairy J. 2006;16(9):1058–71. [Google Scholar]
- 61.Humphries RM, Pollett S, Sakoulas G. A current perspective on daptomycin for the clinical microbiologist. Clin Microbiol Rev. 2013;26(4):759–80. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 62.Hu B, Pan Y, Li Z, Yuan W, Deng L. EmPis-1L, an effective antimicrobial peptide against the antibiotic-resistant VBNC state cells of pathogenic bacteria. Probiotics Antimicrob Proteins. 2019;11(2):667–75. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 63.Yasir M, Willcox MDP, Dutta D. Action of antimicrobial peptides against bacterial biofilms. Materials. 2018;11(12):2468. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 64.Wu W-H, Di R, Matthews KR. Activity of the plant-derived peptide Ib-AMP1 and the control of enteric foodborne pathogens. Food Control. 2013;33(1):142–7. [Google Scholar]
- 65.Cheng C, Arritt F, Stevenson C. Controlling Listeria monocytogenes in cold smoked salmon with the antimicrobial peptide salmine. J Food Sci. 2015;80(6):M1314–8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 66.Wu J, Hu Y, Du C, Piao J, Yang L, Yang X. The effect of recombinant human lactoferrin from the milk of transgenic cows on Salmonella enterica serovar typhimurium infection in mice. Food Funct. 2016;7(1):308–14. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 67.Vallabani N, Singh S. Recent advances and future prospects of iron oxide nanoparticles in biomedicine and diagnostics. 3 Biotech. 2018;8(6):1–23. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 68.Mitra D, Kang E-T, Neoh KG. Polymer-based coatings with integrated antifouling and bactericidal properties for targeted biomedical applications. ACS Appl Polym Mater. 2021;3(5):2233–63. [Google Scholar]
- 69.Grassi L, Maisetta G, Esin S, Batoni G. Combination strategies to enhance the efficacy of antimicrobial peptides against bacterial biofilms. Front Microbiol. 2017;8:2409. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 70.Li W, O’Brien-Simpson NM, Holden JA, Otvos L, Reynolds EC, Separovic F, et al. Covalent conjugation of cationic antimicrobial peptides with a β‐lactam antibiotic core. Pept Sci. 2018;110(3):e24059. [Google Scholar]
- 71.Arnusch CJ, Pieters RJ, Breukink E. Enhanced membrane pore formation through high-affinity targeted antimicrobial peptides. PLoS One. 2012;7(6):e39768. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 72.Reinhardt A, Neundorf I. Design and application of antimicrobial peptide conjugates. Int J Mol Sci. 2016;17(5):701. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 73.Riber CF, Smith AA, Zelikin AN. Self-immolative linkers literally bridge disulfide chemistry and the realm of Thiol‐free drugs. Adv Healthc Mater. 2015;4(12):1887–90. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 74.Sierra JM, Fusté E, Rabanal F, Vinuesa T, Viñas M. An overview of antimicrobial peptides and the latest advances in their development. Expert Opin Biol Ther. 2017;17(6):663–76. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 75.Biswaro LS, da Costa Sousa MG, Rezende TM, Dias SC, Franco OL. Antimicrobial peptides and nanotechnology, recent advances and challenges. Front Microbiol. 2018;9:855. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 76.Ritsema JA, der Hv W, Welscher T, Goessens YM, Van Nostrum WH, Storm CF. Antibiotic-nanomedicines: facing the challenge of effective treatment of antibiotic-resistant respiratory tract infections. Future Microbiol. 2018;13(15):1683–92. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 77.Jaglan AB, Anand T, Verma R, Vashisth M, Virmani N, Bera BC, et al. Tracking the phage trends: a comprehensive review of applications in therapy and food production. Front Microbiol. 2022;13:993990. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
- 78.Sillankorva SM, Oliveira H, Azeredo J. Bacteriophages and their role in food safety. Int J Microbiol. 2012;2012:863945. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 79.Shousha A, Awaiwanont N, Sofka D, Smulders FJ, Paulsen P, Szostak MP, et al. Bacteriophages isolated from chicken meat and the horizontal transfer of antimicrobial resistance genes. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2015;81(14):4600–6. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 80.Korf IH, Meier-Kolthoff JP, Adriaenssens EM, Kropinski AM, Nimtz M, Rohde M, et al. Still something to discover: novel insights into Escherichia coli phage diversity and taxonomy. Viruses. 2019;11(5):454. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 81.Montso PK, Mlambo V, Ateba CN. Characterization of lytic bacteriophages infecting multidrug-resistant shiga toxigenic atypical Escherichia coli O177 strains isolated from cattle feces. Front Public Health. 2019;7:355. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 82.Petsong K, Benjakul S, Chaturongakul S, Switt AIM, Vongkamjan K. Lysis profiles of Salmonella phages on Salmonella isolates from various sources and efficiency of a phage cocktail against S. Enteritidis and S. typhimurium. Microorganisms. 2019;7(4):100. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 83.Fiscarelli EV, Rossitto M, Rosati P, Essa N, Crocetta V, Di Giulio A, et al. In vitro newly isolated environmental phage activity against biofilms preformed by Pseudomonas aeruginosa from patients with cystic fibrosis. Microorganisms. 2021;9(3):478. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 84.Montso PK, Mnisi CM, Ateba CN, Mlambo V. An assessment of the viability of lytic phages and their potency against multidrug resistant Escherichia coli O177 strains under simulated rumen fermentation conditions. Antibiotics. 2021;10(3):265. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 85.Briers Y. Phage lytic enzymes. Viruses. 2019;11(2):113. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 86.Gondil VS, Harjai K, Chhibber S. Endolysins as emerging alternative therapeutic agents to counter drug-resistant infections. Int J Antimicrob Agents. 2020;55(2):105844. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 87.Abeysekera GS, Love MJ, Manners SH, Billington C, Dobson RC. Bacteriophage-encoded lethal membrane disruptors: advances in understanding and potential applications. Front Microbiol. 2022;13:1044143. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 88.Abdelrahman F, Easwaran M, Daramola OI, Ragab S, Lynch S, Oduselu TJ, et al. Phage-encoded endolysins. Antibiotics. 2021;10(2):124. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 89.Nanda AM, Thormann K, Frunzke J. Impact of spontaneous prophage induction on the fitness of bacterial populations and host-microbe interactions. J Bacteriol. 2015;197(3):410–9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 90.Pinto G, Almeida C, Azeredo J. Bacteriophages to control Shiga toxin-producing E. coli–safety and regulatory challenges. Crit Rev Biotechnol. 2020;40(8):1081–97. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 91.Viazis S, Diez-Gonzalez F. Enterohemorrhagic Escherichia coli: the twentieth century’s emerging foodborne pathogen: a review. Adv Agron. 2011;111:1–50. [Google Scholar]
- 92.Coffey B, Rivas L, Duffy G, Coffey A, Ross RP, McAuliffe O. Assessment of Escherichia coli O157: H7-specific bacteriophages e11/2 and e4/1c in model broth and hide environments. Int J Food Microbiol. 2011;147(3):188–94. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 93.Viazis S, Akhtar M, Feirtag J, Diez-Gonzalez F. Reduction of Escherichia coli O157: H7 viability on hard surfaces by treatment with a bacteriophage mixture. Int J Food Microbiol. 2011;145(1):37–42. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 94.Tomat D, Casabonne C, Aquili V, Balagué C, Quiberoni A. Evaluation of a novel cocktail of six lytic bacteriophages against Shiga toxin-producing Escherichia coli in broth, milk and meat. Food Microbiol. 2018;76:434–42. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 95.Hudson J, Billington C, Premaratne A, On SL. Inactivation of Escherichia coli O157: H7 using ultraviolet light-treated bacteriophages. Food Sci Technol Int. 2016;22(1):3–9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 96.Le TS, Southgate PC, O’Connor W, Poole S, Kurtbӧke DI. Bacteriophages as biological control agents of enteric bacteria contaminating edible oysters. Curr Microbiol. 2018;75(5):611–9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 97.Ramirez K, Cazarez-Montoya C, Lopez-Moreno HS, Castro-del Campo N. Bacteriophage cocktail for biocontrol of Escherichia coli O157: H7: Stability and potential allergenicity study. PLoS One. 2018;13(5):e0195023. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 98.Akmal M, Rahimi-Midani A, Hafeez-ur-Rehman M, Hussain A, Choi T-J. Isolation, characterization, and application of a bacteriophage infecting the fish pathogen Aeromonas hydrophila. Pathogens. 2020;9(3):215. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 99.Li Z, Li X, Zhang J, Wang X, Wang L, Cao Z, et al. Use of phages to control Vibrio splendidus infection in the juvenile sea cucumber Apostichopus japonicus. Fish Shellfish Immunol. 2016;54:302–11. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 100.Luo X, Liao G, Liu C, Jiang X, Lin M, Zhao C, et al. Characterization of bacteriophage HN 48 and its protective effects in Nile tilapia Oreochromis Niloticus against Streptococcus agalactiae infections. J Fish Dis. 2018;41(10):1477–84. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 101.Abedon ST. Use of phage therapy to treat long-standing, persistent, or chronic bacterial infections. Adv Drug Deliv Rev. 2019;145:18–39. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 102.Nikolich MP, Filippov AA. Bacteriophage therapy: developments and directions. Antibiotics. 2020;9(3):135. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 103.Barron M. Phage therapy: past, Present and Future. Am Soc Microbiol. 2022;3:85. [Google Scholar]
- 104.Wu N, Dai J, Guo M, Li J, Zhou X, Li F, et al. Pre-optimized phage therapy on secondary Acinetobacter baumannii infection in four critical COVID-19 patients. Emerg Microbes Infections. 2021;10(1):612–8. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 105.Gibb B, Hyman P, Schneider CL. The many applications of engineered bacteriophages—An overview. Pharmaceuticals. 2021;14(7):634. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 106.Ahovan Z, Hashemi A, De Plano L, Gholipourmalekabadi M, Seifalian A. Bacteriophage based biosensors: trends, outcomes and challenges. Nanomaterials. 2020;10:501. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 107.Meile S, Kilcher S, Loessner MJ, Dunne M. Reporter phage-based detection of bacterial pathogens: design guidelines and recent developments. Viruses. 2020;12(9):944. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 108.Donovan P. Access to unregistered drugs in Australia. Australian Prescriber. 2017;40(5):194. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 109.Jarow JP, Lurie P, Ikenberry SC, Lemery S. Overview of FDA’s expanded access program for investigational drugs. Therapeutic Innov Regul Sci. 2017;51(2):177–9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 110.Pirnay J-P, Verbeken G, Ceyssens P-J, Huys I, De Vos D, Ameloot C, et al. The magistral phage. Viruses. 2018;10(2):64. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 111.Djebara S, Maussen C, De Vos D, Merabishvili M, Damanet B, Pang KW, et al. Processing phage therapy requests in a Brussels military hospital: lessons identified. Viruses. 2019;11(3):265. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 112.Aslam S, Lampley E, Wooten D, Karris M, Benson C, Strathdee S, et al. editors. Lessons learned from the first 10 consecutive cases of intravenous bacteriophage therapy to treat multidrug-resistant bacterial infections at a single center in the United States. Open forum infectious diseases;: Oxford University Press US; 2020. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 113.Brüssow H. Hurdles for phage therapy to become a reality—an editorial comment. MDPI; 2019. p. 557. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 114.EFSA EPoBH. Scientific opinion on the evaluation of the safety and efficacy of Listex™ P100 for the removal of Listeria monocytogenes surface contamination of raw fish. EFSA J. 2012;10(3):2615. [Google Scholar]
- 115.EFSA EPoBH. Evaluation of the safety and efficacy of Listex™ P100 for reduction of pathogens on different ready-to‐eat (RTE) food products. EFSA J. 2016;14(8):e04565. [Google Scholar]
- 116.Oluwarinde BO, Ajose DJ, Abolarinwa TO, Montso PK, Du Preez I, Njom HA, Ateba CN. Safety properties of Escherichia coli O157: H7 specific bacteriophages: recent advances for Food Safety. Foods. 2023;12(21):3989. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 117.Mubeen B, Ansar AN, Rasool R, Ullah I, Imam SS, Alshehri S, et al. Nanotechnology as a Novel Approach in combating microbes providing an alternative to antibiotics. Antibiotics. 2021;10(12):1473. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 118.Rudramurthy GR, Swamy MK, Sinniah UR, Ghasemzadeh A. Nanoparticles: alternatives against drug-resistant pathogenic microbes. Molecules. 2016;21(7):836. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 119.Slavin YN, Asnis J, Häfeli UO, Bach H. Metal nanoparticles: understanding the mechanisms behind antibacterial activity. J Nanobiotechnol. 2017;15(1):1–20. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 120.Colilla M, Vallet-Regí M. Targeted stimuli-responsive mesoporous silica nanoparticles for bacterial infection treatment. Int J Mol Sci. 2020;21(22):8605. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 121.Spirescu VA, Chircov C, Grumezescu AM, Andronescu E. Polymeric nanoparticles for antimicrobial therapies: an up-to-date overview. Polymers. 2021;13(5):724. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 122.Lee N-Y, Ko W-C, Hsueh P-R. Nanoparticles in the treatment of infections caused by multidrug-resistant organisms. Front Pharmacol. 2019;10:1153. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 123.Singh AP, Biswas A, Shukla A, Maiti P. Targeted therapy in chronic diseases using nanomaterial-based drug delivery vehicles. Signal Transduct Target Therapy. 2019;4(1):1–21. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 124.Yeon K-M, You J, Adhikari MD, Hong S-G, Lee I, Kim HS, et al. Enzyme-immobilized chitosan nanoparticles as environmentally friendly and highly effective antimicrobial agents. Biomacromolecules. 2019;20(7):2477–85. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 125.Mba IE, Nweze EI. Nanoparticles as therapeutic options for treating multidrug-resistant bacteria: Research progress, challenges, and prospects. World J Microbiol Biotechnol. 2021;37(6):1–30. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 126.Abolarinwa TO, Ajose DJ, Oluwarinde BO, Fri J, Montso KP, Fayemi OE, et al. Plant-derived nanoparticles as alternative therapy against Diarrhoeal pathogens in the era of Antimicrobial Resistance: a review. Front Microbiol. 2022;13:1007115. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
- 127.Gharpure S, Akash A, Ankamwar B. A review on antimicrobial properties of metal nanoparticles. J Nanosci Nanotechnol. 2020;20(6):3303–39. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 128.Sánchez-López E, Gomes D, Esteruelas G, Bonilla L, Lopez-Machado AL, Galindo R, et al. Metal-based nanoparticles as antimicrobial agents: an overview. Nanomaterials. 2020;10(2):292. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 129.Prasher P, Singh M, Mudila H. Silver nanoparticles as antimicrobial therapeutics: current perspectives and future challenges. Biotech. 2018;8(10):1–23. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 130.Xin Q, Shah H, Nawaz A, Xie W, Akram MZ, Batool A, et al. Antibacterial carbon-based nanomaterials. Adv Mater. 2019;31(45):1804838. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 131.Azizi-Lalabadi M, Hashemi H, Feng J, Jafari SM. Carbon nanomaterials against pathogens; the antimicrobial activity of carbon nanotubes, graphene/graphene oxide, fullerenes, and their nanocomposites. Adv Colloid Interface Sci. 2020;284:102250. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 132.Gupta A, Mumtaz S, Li C-H, Hussain I, Rotello VM. Combatting antibiotic-resistant bacteria using nanomaterials. Chem Soc Rev. 2019;48(2):415–27. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 133.Martinez SR, Ibarra LE, Ponzio RA, Forcone MV, Wendel AB, Chesta CA, et al. Photodynamic inactivation of ESKAPE group bacterial pathogens in planktonic and biofilm cultures using metallated porphyrin-doped conjugated polymer nanoparticles. ACS Infect Dis. 2020;6(8):2202–13. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 134.Gao Y, Chen Y, Cao Y, Mo A, Peng Q. Potentials of nanotechnology in treatment of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. Eur J Med Chem. 2021;213:113056. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 135.Anselmo AC, Mitragotri S. Nanoparticles in the clinic. Bioeng Translational Med. 2016;1(1):10–29. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 136.Ventola CL. Progress in nanomedicine: approved and investigational nanodrugs. Pharm Ther. 2017;42(12):742. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 137.Gupta K, Singh SP, Manhar AK, Saikia D, Namsa ND, Konwar BK, et al. Inhibition of Staphylococcus aureus and Pseudomonas aeruginosa biofilm and virulence by active fraction of Syzygium cumini (L.) Skeels leaf extract: in-vitro and in silico studies. Indian J Microbiol. 2019;59(1):13–21. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 138.Ansari MA, Kalam A, Al-Sehemi AG, Alomary MN, AlYahya S, Aziz MK, et al. Counteraction of biofilm formation and antimicrobial potential of Terminalia catappa functionalized silver nanoparticles against Candida albicans and multidrug-resistant Gram-negative and Gram-positive bacteria. Antibiotics. 2021;10(6):725. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 139.CDC, Antimicrobial-resistance threatens successful achievement of the sdg. Target 2022 [ https://www.cdc.gov/drugresistance/pdf/amr-sdg-pamphlet.pdf
- 140.WHO. The fight against Antimicrobial Resistance is closely linked to the Sustainable Development Goals. 2022 [WHO/EURO:2020-1634-41385-56394]. https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/337519/WHO-EURO-2020-1634-41385-56394-eng.pdf
- 141.Harborne JB. Classes and functions of secondary products from plants. Chemicals Plants. 1999;26:1–25. [Google Scholar]
- 142.Jahn S, Seiwert B, Kretzing S, Abraham G, Regenthal R, Karst U. Metabolic studies of the amaryllidaceous alkaloids galantamine and lycorine based on electrochemical simulation in addition to in vivo and in vitro models. Anal Chim Acta. 2012;756:60–72. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 143.Bennetts H, Underwood E, Shier FL. A specific breeding problem of sheep on subterranean clover pastures in Western Australia. Vet J. 1946;102:348–52. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 144.Alli K, Mangamoori LN. Phytochemical compound identification and evaluation of antimicrobial activity of Eugenia Bracteata Roxb. Int J Biotechnol Biochem. 2016;12(1):73–83. [Google Scholar]
- 145.Anju T, Rai NKS, Kumar A. Sauropus androgynus (L.) Merr.: a multipurpose plant with multiple uses in traditional ethnic culinary and ethnomedicinal preparations. J Ethnic Foods. 2022;9(1):1–29. [Google Scholar]
- 146.Ajose DJ, Okozi MO. Antibacterial activity of Ocimum gratissimum L. against some selected human bacterial pathogens. J Pharm Res Int. 2017;20(1):1–8. [Google Scholar]
- 147.McGaw LJ, Famuyide IM, Khunoana ET, Aremu AO. Ethnoveterinary botanical medicine in South Africa: a review of research from the last decade (2009 to 2019). J Ethnopharmacol. 2020;257:112864. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 148.Mwinga JL, Otang-Mbeng W, Kubheka BP, Aremu AO. Ethnobotanical survey of plants used by subsistence farmers in mitigating cabbage and spinach diseases in OR Tambo Municipality, South Africa. Plants. 2022;11(23):3215. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 149.Goławska S, Sprawka I, Łukasik I, Goławski A. Are naringenin and quercetin useful chemicals in pest-management strategies? J Pest Sci. 2014;87(1):173–80. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 150.Hussein RA, El-Anssary AA. Plants secondary metabolites: the key drivers of the pharmacological actions of medicinal plants. Herb Med. 2019;1(3):11. [Google Scholar]
- 151.Montanher AB, Zucolotto SM, Schenkel EP, Fröde TS. Evidence of anti-inflammatory effects of Passiflora edulis in an inflammation model. J Ethnopharmacol. 2007;109(2):281–8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 152.Serafin M, Peluso I, Raguzzini A. Antioxidants and the immune system. Flavonoids as Antiinflammatory Agents. 2009;69:273. [Google Scholar]
- 153.Pelczar M, Chan E, Krieg N. Control of microorganisms, the control of microorganisms by physical agents. Microbiology. 1988;469:509. [Google Scholar]
- 154.Yarnell E. Botanical medicines for the urinary tract. World J Urol. 2002;20(5):285–93. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 155.Spiller F, Alves MK, Vieira SM, Carvalho TA, Leite CE, Lunardelli A, et al. Anti-inflammatory effects of red pepper (Capsicum baccatum) on carrageenan‐and antigen‐induced inflammation. J Pharm Pharmacol. 2008;60(4):473–8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 156.Jepson RG, Williams G, Craig JC. Cranberries for preventing urinary tract infections. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012;(10). 10.1002/14651858.CD001321.pub5. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
- 157.Xu L, Zhao X-Y, Wu Y-L, Zhang W, editors. The study on biological and pharmacological activity of coumarins. 2015 Asia-Pacific Energy Equipment Engineering Research Conference. Atlantis Press; 2015. p. 135–8.
- 158.Seigler DS. Indole alkaloids. Plant Secondary Metabolism: Springer; 1998. pp. 628–54. [Google Scholar]
- 159.Hoffmann D. Medical herbalism: the science and practice of herbal medicine. New York: Simon & Schuster; 2003. p. 52. [Google Scholar]
- 160.Culioli G, Mathe C, Archier P, Vieillescazes C. A lupane triterpene from frankincense (Boswellia sp., Burseraceae). Phytochemistry. 2003;62(4):537–41. [DOI] [PubMed]
- 161.Masotti V, Juteau F, Bessière JM, Viano J. Seasonal and phenological variations of the essential oil from the narrow endemic species Artemisia molinieri and its biological activities. J Agric Food Chem. 2003;51(24):7115–21. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 162.Fahy E, Subramaniam S, Murphy RC, Nishijima M, Raetz CR, Shimizu T, et al. Update of the LIPID MAPS comprehensive classification system for lipids1. J Lipid Res. 2009;50:S9–14. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 163.Subramaniam S, Fahy E, Gupta S, Sud M, Byrnes RW, Cotter D, et al. Bioinformatics and systems biology of the lipidome. Chem Rev. 2011;111(10):6452–90. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 164.Asif H, Akram M, Saeed T, Khan M, Akhtar N, Rehman R, et al. Carbohydrates Intern Res J Biochem Bioinformat. 2011;1:1–5. [Google Scholar]
- 165.Anbalahan N. Pharmacological activity of mucilage isolated from medicinal plants. Int J Appl Pure Sci Agric. 2017;3(1):98–113. [Google Scholar]
- 166.Brusotti G, Cesari I, Dentamaro A, Caccialanza G, Massolini G. Isolation and characterization of bioactive compounds from plant resources: the role of analysis in the ethnopharmacological approach. J Pharm Biomed Anal. 2014;87:218–28. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 167.WHO. Programme on Traditional Medicine. Guidelines for the assessment of herbal medicines. World Health Organization. 1991 [ https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/58865
- 168.WHO. WHO traditional medicine strategy 2014–2023. Altern Integr Med: 1–78 2013 [ http://www.who.int/medicines/publications/traditional/trm_strategy14_23/en/
- 169.Webb GP. An Overview of Dietary Supplements and Functional Food. In: Dietary Supplements and Functional Foods. 1st ed. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing; 2011. p. 1–51.
- 170.Cencic A, Chingwaru W. The role of functional foods, nutraceuticals, and food supplements in intestinal health. Nutrients. 2010;2(6):611–25. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 171.Ghosh C, Sarkar P, Issa R, Haldar J. Alternatives to conventional antibiotics in the era of antimicrobial resistance. Trends Microbiol. 2019;27(4):323–38. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 172.Vanhee LM, Goemé F, Nelis HJ, Coenye T. Quality control of fifteen probiotic products containing Saccharomyces boulardii. J Appl Microbiol. 2010;109:1745–52. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 173.Zawistowska-Rojek A, Zareba T, Mrówka A, Tyski S. Assessment of the microbiological status of probiotic products. Pol J Microbiol. 2016;65:97–104. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 174.Celandroni F, Vecchione A, Cara A, Mazzantini D, Lupetti A, Ghelardi E. Identification of Bacillus species: implication on the quality of probiotic formulations. PLoS One. 2019;14(5):e0217021. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 175.Kesavelu D, Rohit A, Karunasagar I, Karunasagar I. Composition and laboratory correlation of commercial probiotics in India Cureus. 2020;12:e11334. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 176.Harish K, Varghese T. Probiotics in humans–evidence based review. Calicut Med J. 2006;4(4):e3. [Google Scholar]
- 177.Prado M, Blandón L, Vandenberghe L, Rodrigues C, Castro G, Thomaz-Soccol V, et al. Milk kefir: composition, microbial cultures, biological activities, and related products. Front Microbiol. 2015;30(6):1177. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 178.Ferreira A, Pereira-Manfro W, Rosa AP. Diarrheagenic Escherichia coli and probiotic activity against foodborne pathogens: a brief review. Gastroenterol Hepatol Open Access. 2017;7(5):00248. [Google Scholar]
- 179.Li W, Tailhades J, O’Brien-Simpson NM, Separovic F, Otvos L, Hossain MA, et al. Proline-rich antimicrobial peptides: potential therapeutics against antibiotic-resistant bacteria. Amino Acids. 2014;46(10):2287–94. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 180.Crouzet L, Rigottier-Gois L, Serror P. Potential use of probiotic and commensal bacteria as non-antibiotic strategies against Vancomycin-resistant Enterococci. FEMS Microbiol Lett. 2015;362(8):fnv012. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 181.Frizzo LS, Signorini ML, Rosmini MR. Probiotics and prebiotics for the health of cattle. Probiotics and prebiotics in animal health and food safety. Springer; 2018. pp. 155–74. [Google Scholar]
- 182.Mohamed FM, Thabet MH, Ali MF. The use of probiotics to enhance immunity of broiler chicken against some intestinal infection pathogens. SVU-International J Veterinary Sci. 2019;2(1):1–19. [Google Scholar]
- 183.Ringø E. Probiotics in shellfish aquaculture. Aquaculture Fisheries. 2020;5(1):1–27. [Google Scholar]
- 184.Fang K, Jin X, Hong SH. Probiotic Escherichia coli inhibits biofilm formation of pathogenic E. Coli via extracellular activity of DegP. Sci Rep. 2018;8(1):1–12. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 185.de Melo Pereira GV, de Oliveira Coelho B, Júnior AIM, Thomaz-Soccol V, Soccol CR. How to select a probiotic? A review and update of methods and criteria. Biotechnol Adv. 2018;36(8):2060–76. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 186.Tang R, Yu H, Qi M, Yuan X, Ruan Z, Hu C, et al. Biotransformation of citrus fruits phenolic profiles by mixed probiotics in vitro anaerobic fermentation. LWT. 2022;160:113087. [Google Scholar]
- 187.Park KH, Oh S-Y, Yoo S, Fong JJ, Kim CS, Jo JW, et al. Influence of season and soil properties on fungal communities of neighboring climax forests (Carpinus cordata and Fraxinus rhynchophylla). Front Microbiol. 2020;11:572706. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
- 188.Niemeyer JC, Lolata GB, de Carvalho GM, Da Silva EM, Sousa JP, Nogueira MA. Microbial indicators of soil health as tools for ecological risk assessment of a metal contaminated site in Brazil. Appl Soil Ecol. 2012;59:96–105. [Google Scholar]
- 189.Helmy Q, Kardena E, Gustiani S. Probiotics and bioremediation. Microorganisms: IntechOpen; 2019. [Google Scholar]
- 190.Goyal P, Belapurkar P, Kar A. A review on in vitro and in vivo bioremediation potential of environmental and probiotic species of Bacillus and other probiotic microorganisms for two heavy metals, cadmium and nickel. Biosci Biotechnol Res Asia. 2019;16(1):01–13. [Google Scholar]
- 191.Isolauri E, Kirjavainen P, Salminen S. Probiotics: a role in the treatment of intestinal infection and inflammation? Gut. 2002;50(suppl 3):iii54–9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 192.Palma E, Tilocca B, Roncada P. Antimicrobial resistance in veterinary medicine: an overview. Int J Mol Sci. 2020;21(6):1914. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 193.Ouwehand AC, Forssten S, Hibberd AA, Lyra A, Stahl B. Probiotic approach to prevent antibiotic resistance. Ann Med. 2016;48(4):246–55. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 194.Alayande KA, Aiyegoro OA, Ateba CN. Probiotics in animal husbandry: Applicability and associated risk factors. Sustainability. 2020;12(3):1087. [Google Scholar]
- 195.Plessas S, Nouska C, Karapetsas A, Kazakos S, Alexopoulos A, Mantzourani I, et al. Isolation, characterization and evaluation of the probiotic potential of a novel Lactobacillus strain isolated from feta-type cheese. Food Chem. 2017;226:102–8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 196.Lee S, Lee J, Jin Y-I, Jeong J-C, Chang YH, Lee Y, et al. Probiotic characteristics of Bacillus strains isolated from Korean traditional soy sauce. LWT - Food Sci Technol. 2017;79:518–24. [Google Scholar]
- 197.Ahmad R, Yu Y-H, Hsiao FS-H, Dybus A, Ali I, Hsu H-C, et al. Probiotics as a friendly antibiotic alternative: assessment of their effects on the health and productive performance of poultry. Fermentation. 2022;8(12):672. [Google Scholar]
- 198.Vankerckhoven V, Huys G, Vancanneyt M, Vael C, Klare I, Romond M-B, et al. Biosafety assessment of probiotics used for human consumption: recommendations from the EU-PROSAFE project. Trends Food Sci Technol. 2008;19(2):102–14. [Google Scholar]
- 199.FAO/WHO. Report of a Joint FAO/WHO Expert Consultation on Evaluation of Health and Nutritional Properties of Probiotics in Food including Powder Milk with Live. In Health and Nutrition Properties of Probiotics in Food including Powder Milk with Live Lactic Acid Bacteria; FAO Food and Nutrition Paper 85; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2006 2006 [ https://www.fao.org/3/a0512e/a0512e.pdf
- 200.Suresh K, Krishnappa S, Bhardwaj P. Safety concerns of probiotic use: a review. Safety. 2013;34:40. [Google Scholar]
- 201.Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, World Health Organization. Guidelines for evaluation of probiotics in food: report of a joint FAO/WHO working group on drafting guidelines for the evaluation of probiotics in food. London: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, World Health Organization; 2002.
- 202.Kim MJ, Ku S, Kim SY, Lee HH, Jin H, Kang S, et al. Safety evaluations of Bifidobacterium bifidum BGN4 and Bifidobacterium longum BORI. Int J Mol Sci. 2018;19(5):1422. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.
Data Availability Statement
Not applicable.





