Research article

The combined antimicrobial activity of citrus honey and fosfomycin on multidrug resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa isolates

  • Received: 02 May 2020 Accepted: 05 June 2020 Published: 19 June 2020
  • Infections with Pseudomonas aeruginosa (P. aeruginosa) have become a real fear in hospital-acquired infections, especially in critically ill and immunocompromised patients. Thus, advance of novel anti-infectives is currently pursued. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the antibacterial effect of each of citrus honey and fosfomycin in comparison to the combined effect of both of them on multidrug resistant (MDR) P. aeruginosa. 50 MDR P. aeruginosa isolates were tested for the antibacterial effect of citrus honey. Screening for potential synergistic activity of fosfomycin and honey combinations by E test. Molecular detection of the virulent exoenzyme U (exoU) genotype by conventional PCR was done. The present study found that 50 % (v/v) concentration of citrus honey was sufficient to inhibit the growth of most isolates (33/50, 66%). Minimal inhibitory concentration (MIC) for fosfomycin tested by E test was found to be >128 µg/mL in 50(100%) of MDR P. aeruginosa isolates but after repeating E test with Mueller-Hinton agar (MHA) containing sublethal concentration of citrus honey (29/50,58%) isolates were sensitive. Also, there was a significant correlation between the presence of exoU gene and positive synergy of citrus honey-fosfomycin combination. This study showed that citrus honey has antibacterial effect and synergy with fosfomycin antibiotic against MDR P. aeruginosa isolates. Also, exoU positive genotype is associated with MDR phenotype. In conclusion, our results revealed that the citrus honey-fosfomycin combination showed highly statistically significant effect on MDR P. aeruginosa fosfomycin susceptibility pattern. exoU positive P. aeruginosa isolates were detected mostly in burn unit and ICUs. Also, there was a statistically significant correlation between the presence of exoU gene and positive result of honey-fosfomycin combination E test.

    Citation: Amira Saied M Abdelhady, Nebal Medhat Darwish, Safaa M. Abdel-Rahman, Nagwa M Abo El Magd. The combined antimicrobial activity of citrus honey and fosfomycin on multidrug resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa isolates[J]. AIMS Microbiology, 2020, 6(2): 162-175. doi: 10.3934/microbiol.2020011

    Related Papers:

    [1] Kholoud Baraka, Rania Abozahra, Eman Khalaf, Mahmoud Elsayed Bennaya, Sarah M. Abdelhamid . Repurposing of paroxetine and fluoxetine for their antibacterial effects against clinical Pseudomonas aeruginosa isolates in Egypt. AIMS Microbiology, 2025, 11(1): 126-149. doi: 10.3934/microbiol.2025007
    [2] Rana Abdel Fattah Abdel Fattah, Fatma El zaharaa Youssef Fathy, Tahany Abdel Hamed Mohamed, Marwa Shabban Elsayed . Effect of chitosan nanoparticles on quorum sensing-controlled virulence factors and expression of LasI and RhlI genes among Pseudomonas aeruginosa clinical isolates. AIMS Microbiology, 2021, 7(4): 415-430. doi: 10.3934/microbiol.2021025
    [3] Saboura Haghighi, Hamid Reza Goli . High prevalence of blaVEB, blaGES and blaPER genes in beta-lactam resistant clinical isolates of Pseudomonas aeruginosa. AIMS Microbiology, 2022, 8(2): 153-166. doi: 10.3934/microbiol.2022013
    [4] Alaa Fathalla, Amal Abd el-mageed . Salt tolerance enhancement Of wheat (Triticum Asativium L) genotypes by selected plant growth promoting bacteria. AIMS Microbiology, 2020, 6(3): 250-271. doi: 10.3934/microbiol.2020016
    [5] Mohammad Abu-Sini, Mohammad A. Al-Kafaween, Rania M. Al-Groom, Abu Bakar Mohd Hilmi . Comparative in vitro activity of various antibiotic against planktonic and biofilm and the gene expression profile in Pseudomonas aeruginosa. AIMS Microbiology, 2023, 9(2): 313-331. doi: 10.3934/microbiol.2023017
    [6] Rania Abozahra, Amal Gaballah, Sarah M. Abdelhamid . Prevalence of the colistin resistance gene MCR-1 in colistin-resistant Klebsiella pneumoniae in Egypt. AIMS Microbiology, 2023, 9(2): 177-194. doi: 10.3934/microbiol.2023011
    [7] Manuela Oliveira, Eva Cunha, Luís Tavares, Isa Serrano . P. aeruginosa interactions with other microbes in biofilms during co-infection. AIMS Microbiology, 2023, 9(4): 612-646. doi: 10.3934/microbiol.2023032
    [8] Kholoud Baraka, Rania Abozahra, Marwa Mohammed Haggag, Sarah M Abdelhamid . Genotyping and molecular investigation of plasmid-mediated carbapenem resistant clinical Klebsiella pneumoniae isolates in Egypt. AIMS Microbiology, 2023, 9(2): 228-244. doi: 10.3934/microbiol.2023014
    [9] Ana M. Castañeda-Meléndrez, José A. Magaña-Lizárraga, Marcela Martínez-Valenzuela, Aldo F. Clemente-Soto, Patricia C. García-Cervantes, Francisco Delgado-Vargas, Rodolfo Bernal-Reynaga . Genomic characterization of a multidrug-resistant uropathogenic Escherichia coli and evaluation of Echeveria plant extracts as antibacterials. AIMS Microbiology, 2024, 10(1): 41-61. doi: 10.3934/microbiol.2024003
    [10] Arsenio M. Fialho, Nuno Bernardes, Ananda M Chakrabarty . Exploring the anticancer potential of the bacterial protein azurin. AIMS Microbiology, 2016, 2(3): 292-303. doi: 10.3934/microbiol.2016.3.292
  • Infections with Pseudomonas aeruginosa (P. aeruginosa) have become a real fear in hospital-acquired infections, especially in critically ill and immunocompromised patients. Thus, advance of novel anti-infectives is currently pursued. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the antibacterial effect of each of citrus honey and fosfomycin in comparison to the combined effect of both of them on multidrug resistant (MDR) P. aeruginosa. 50 MDR P. aeruginosa isolates were tested for the antibacterial effect of citrus honey. Screening for potential synergistic activity of fosfomycin and honey combinations by E test. Molecular detection of the virulent exoenzyme U (exoU) genotype by conventional PCR was done. The present study found that 50 % (v/v) concentration of citrus honey was sufficient to inhibit the growth of most isolates (33/50, 66%). Minimal inhibitory concentration (MIC) for fosfomycin tested by E test was found to be >128 µg/mL in 50(100%) of MDR P. aeruginosa isolates but after repeating E test with Mueller-Hinton agar (MHA) containing sublethal concentration of citrus honey (29/50,58%) isolates were sensitive. Also, there was a significant correlation between the presence of exoU gene and positive synergy of citrus honey-fosfomycin combination. This study showed that citrus honey has antibacterial effect and synergy with fosfomycin antibiotic against MDR P. aeruginosa isolates. Also, exoU positive genotype is associated with MDR phenotype. In conclusion, our results revealed that the citrus honey-fosfomycin combination showed highly statistically significant effect on MDR P. aeruginosa fosfomycin susceptibility pattern. exoU positive P. aeruginosa isolates were detected mostly in burn unit and ICUs. Also, there was a statistically significant correlation between the presence of exoU gene and positive result of honey-fosfomycin combination E test.



    MDR P. aeruginosa is recognized by the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) as one of the top six pathogens threatening healthcare systems and as the identified causative agent of a broad range of hospital and community-acquired infections [1]. As P. aeruginosa causes extremely severe infections in immunocompromised patients and patients with compromised anatomical natural barriers as burns and cystic fibrosis, treatment of such infections can be challenging especially with the inherited antibiotic resistance among such organism [2].

    Type III secretion is one of the most significant virulence factors of P. aeruginosa as it allows the delivery of various exotoxins as exoenzyme S, exoenzyme U (ExoU), exoenzyme Y, and exoenzyme T into host cells, which can facilitate the pathogen cellular invasion. Numerous studies suggest that ExoU-producing strains are associated with poor outcomes, resistance to many antibiotics and high mortality rates [3],[4].

    For several decades, natural antimicrobial agents have been investigated to substitute current pharmaceutical antibiotics to overcome the increasing problem of multidrug resistance among bacteria [5].

    The antibacterial properties of honey are due to the high osmotic nature, the naturally low pH (3.2–4.5) and the ability to produce hydrogen peroxide. The characteristic phytochemical substances in the honey as tetracycline derivatives, peroxide, fatty acids, amylase, phenols, ascorbic acid, and benzoic acid attribute to the potent bactericidal and bacteriostatic activity of honey against pathogenic bacteria [6].

    As the expanding antibacterial resistance restrains the use of novel antimicrobials agents, re-introduction of older antibiotic agents as alternative option increases. Fosfomycin is an old previous and rather decommissioned antibiotic that was formerly used orally for treatment of uncomplicated urinary tract infections (UTIs) but recently it is re-introduced as potent antimicrobial against highly resistant pathogens causing difficult-to-treat-infections [7].

    The persistence of antibiotics' misuse introduces a powerful selection power in the favor of emerging antibiotic resistant mutants, experiments on honey antibacterial effect indicated that most bacterial pathogens still showing high percentage of sensitivity to honey and postulated that combinations of antibiotic and honey would delay the emergence of MDR bacteria than antibiotics alone[8].

    The aim of the present study was to evaluate the synergistic antibacterial effect of citrus honey and fosfomycin on MDR P. aeruginosa.

    The present study was conducted during the period from March 2018 till March 2019 on P. aeruginosa isolates obtained from laboratories of Ain Shams University hospitals. The study was approved by the Research Ethics Committee of Faculty of Medicine Ain Shams University (No. FMASU M D 41/2018).

    Antibiotic susceptibility testing was done for 83 P. aeruginosa isolates by disk diffusion method to identify the 50 MDR P. aeruginosa enrolled in this study. The used antibiotics disks were piperacillin-tazobactam (100 µg), ceftazidime (30 µg), cefepime (30 µg), aztreonam (30 µg), imipenem (10 µg), meropenem (10 µg), gentamicin (10 µg), tobramycin (10 µg), amikacin (30 µg), ciprofloxacin (5µg) and levofloxacin (5µg) (Oxoid, UK). Interpretation of results was done according to CLSI (2018) [9]. P. aeruginosa ATCC (27853) was used as a control strain and each isolate was considered MDR if it was not susceptible to at least one agent in at least three antibiotic classes [10].

    Conventional polymerase chain reaction (PCR) was done to detect the frequency of MDR P. aeruginosa carrying virulant exoU gene among the tested isolates. DNA extraction was done using Qiagen DNeasy (Qiagen, USA) according to manufacturer's instructions, amplification of exoU gene was carried out using the Forward primer: GATTCCATCACAGGCTCG and the Reverse primer: CTAGCAATGGCACTAATCG (Invitrogen, USA). The process and size of the amplicons were confirmed by electrophoresis on 1% agarose gel at 3,308 bp [11],[12].

    Citrus honey was obtained from the apiary of the experimental station of the Faculty of Agriculture, Cairo University and kept in cool (2–8 °C) and dry place in the laboratory for processing. The inhibitory effect of honey on bacterial isolates was detected by the MIC test by broth tube dilution method according to Kacaniova et al. [13]; Overnight cultures of each bacterial isolate in nutrient broth were tested in the presence of different concentrations of honey, after consecutive serial dilutions each isolate was incubated with 100%, 50%, 25%, 12.5%, 6.25%, 3.12%, 1.56%, and 0.78% concentrations of citrus honey and test results were detected by observation of turbidity (bacterial growth). For each isolate, the MIC of honey was last tube showing clearance and the sub-lethal concentration was the first tube showing turbidity [8].

    Fosfomycin E test (Himedia laboratories, India) was performed to detect the effect of fosfomycin on tested MDR P. aeruginosa isolates (the MIC of fosfomycin alone regarding each bacterial isolate). The bacterial suspension of each isolate was calibrated to 0.5 McFarland opacity and inoculated on MHA (Oxoid, UK), in accordance with the manufacturer's recommendations the E-test fosfomycin strip (concentration range of 0.064–1024 µg/mL) was positioned. MIC values were determined after overnight incubation at 37 °C. Taking the breakpoints of the European committee on antimicrobial susceptibility testing [14] as reference, P. aeruginosa isolates with fosfomycin MIC ≤ 128 µg/mL were categorized as susceptible to fosfomycin; those with MICs > 128 µg/mL were categorized as resistant.

    To detect the combined effect of citrus honey with fosfomycin, fosfomycin E test was repeated after incorporation of the sub-lethal concentrations of citrus honey of each bacterial isolate in the MHA plate before application of fosfomycin strip, and the reading of the E test results (MIC determination) was repeated for each isolate.

    The collected data was revised, coded, tabulated and introduced to a personal computer (PC) using statistical package for social science (SPSS 20). Data was presented and suitable analysis was done according to the type of data obtained for each parameter. Descriptive data was expressed as mean, standard deviation (±SD) and range for numerical data and as frequency and percentage of non-numerical data. Analytical statistics was done by Fisher's exact test for the relationship between tested qualitative variables and McNemar test for the statistical significance of the difference between tested qualitative variables measured for the same study group.

    Over 12 months, 50 MDR P. aeruginosa isolates were detected from 83 P. aeruginosa isolated from different clinical samples. Most of isolates were from pus samples (wound infection) (29/83, 35%) followed by sputum and Endotracheal Tube aspirate (16/83, 19%) each. Most of MDR P. aeruginosa isolates were from pus samples (wound infection) (20/50, 40%) (Table 1).

    On testing for antimicrobial susceptibility, P. aeruginosa isolates had marked resistance to gentamicin (79%), tobramycin (78%) and fourth generation cephalosporine-cefepime (71%) (Table 2), the identified 50 MDR isolates represented 60% of the total 83 tested P. aeruginosa isolates. Most of MDR P. aeruginosa isolates were resistant to 6 classes of antibiotics (27/50, 54%), 14 MDR isolates (28%) were resistant to 5 classes of antibiotics, 6 (12%) were resistant to 3 classes of antibiotics and 3 (6%) were resistant to 4 classes of antibiotics.

    The antibacterial effect (MIC) of citrus honey against MDR P. aeruginosa isolates revealed that 50 % (v/v) concentration of citrus honey was sufficient to inhibit the growth of most isolates (33/50, 66%) (Table 3).

    Table 1.  Distribution of P. aeruginosa among clinical samples.
    Sample Frequency of isolated P. aeruginosa Frequency of isolated P. aeruginosa in health care settings Frequency of MDR P. aeruginosa Frequency of MDR P. aeruginosa in health care settings
    Pus (wound) 29 (35%) ICUs 2(2.4%) 20(40%) ICUs 1(2%)
    Burn 18(21.7%) Burn 6(12%)
    Other departments* 9(10.9%) Other departments* 13(26%)
    Endotracheal Tube (ETT) 16 (19.3%) ICUs 16(19.3%) 9(18%) ICUs 9(18%)
    Sputum 16 (19.3%) Outpatient departments 8 (9.6%) 10(20%) Outpatient departments 10(20%)
    Other departments* 8 (9.6%)
    Bronchoalveolar lavage 8 (9.6%) ICUs 8 (9.6%) 7(14%) ICUs 7(14%)
    Ear discharge 5 (6%) Outpatient departments 5 (6 %) 0(0%) 0(0%)
    Pus (joint) 4 (4.8%) Other departments* 4 (4.8%) 3(6%) Other departments* 3(6%)
    Blood 3 (3.6%) Other departments* 3 (3.6%) 1(2%) Other departments* 1(2%)
    Gastric biopsy 2 (2.4%) Other departments* 2 (2.4%) 0(0%) 0(0%)
    Total 83(100%) 83(100%) 50(100%) 50(100%)

    *Other departments: Departments of Internal Medicine and surgery.

     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV
    Table 2.  Antibiotic susceptibility pattern of P. aeruginosa isolates.
    Antibiotic S I R
    N (%) N (%) N (%)
    Piperacillin–tazobactam 36 (43%) 4 (5%) 43(52%)
    Cefepime 23 (28%) 1 (1%) 59 (71%)
    Ceftazidime 29 (35%) 2 (2%) 52 (63%)
    Aztreonam 46 (55%) 9 (11%) 28 (34%)
    Imipenem 44 (53%) 7 (8%) 32 (39%)
    Meropenem 38 (46%) 2 (2%) 43 (52%)
    Gentamicin 14 (17%) 3 (4%) 66 (79%)
    Tobramycin 13 (16%) 5 (6%) 65 (78%)
    Amikacin 14 (17%) 13 (16%) 56 (67%)
    Ciprofloxacin 25 (30%) 5 (6%) 53 (64%)
    Levofloxacin 25 (30%) 3 (4%) 55 (66%)

     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV
    Table 3.  MIC test results of citrus honey against MDR P. aeruginosa isolates.
    Honey dilutions 1 ½ 1/4 1/8 1/16 1/32 1/64 1/128
    MIC% (v/v) 100% 50% 25% 12.5% 6.25% 3.12% 1.56% 0.78%
    No and % of P. aeruginosa isolates (Total = 50 (100%) 0 (0%) 33 (66%) 5 (10%) 9 (18%) 0(0%) 0(0%) 3 (6%) 0(0%)

     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV

    All tested MDR P. aeruginosa isolates were resistant to fosfomycin (50/50,100%) giving MIC > 128 µg/mL by E test. On repeating fosfomycin E test with sub-inhibitory honey concentrations for each isolate incorporated in MHA (combined honey-fosfomycin effect testing), 29/50 tested isolates (58%) turned sensitive (MIC ≤ 128 µg/mL) and (21/50, 42%) only were resistant to the citrus honey-fosfomycin combination with highly statistically significant difference between E test results of fosfomycin only and combined honey-fosfomycin E test (P value < 0.001) (Table 4, Figure 1).

    Table 4.  Comparison between E test results of fosfomycin only and of combined honey-fosfomycin on MDR P. aeruginosa isolates.
    No.of isolates E Test fosfomycin
    Combined honey-fosfomycin E test
    McNemar's test
    N 50 (100%) N 50 (100%) p value sig.
    Sensitive 0 (0%) 29 (58%) (Positive result) <0.001 Highly Significant
    Resistant 50 (100%) 21 (42%) (Negative result)

     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV
    Figure 1.  E test results of fosfomycin on honey against MDR P. aeruginosa isolates. A: MDR tested P. aeruginosa isolate to fosfomycin only on MHA (resistant to fosfomycin, MIC = 192 µg/mL). B: E test results of the same isolate on 25% honey incorporated MHA medium (sensitive to fosfomycin, MIC = 1.5 µg/mL).

    As regards detection of the virulent exoU gene among MDR P. aeruginosa isolates, among the tested 50 isolates, only 5 isolates were positive for exoU gene by PCR (10%). MDR P. aeruginosa isolates were mostly isolated from patients admitted to intensive care units (ICUs) (17/50, 34%), and the exoU gene was more frequently detected among MDR P. aeruginosa isolated from those patients (4/5, 80%) and also from patients admitted to the burn unit (1/5, 20%). There was a statistically significant correlation between the presence of exoU gene and positive result of honey-fosfomycin combination E test. All exoU gene positive isolates (5/5 100%) were resistant to 6 classes of the tested antibiotics but the correlation was nonsignificant (Tables 5, 6, 7, Figure 2).

    Table 5.  Distribution of exoU gene + ve P. aeruginosa isolates among health care settings.
    Health care settings ExoU gene – ve 45(100%) ExoU gene + ve 5(100%)
    Intensive care units (ICUs) 13(28.9%) 4(80%)
    Burn 5(11.1%) 1(20%)
    Outpatient departments 10(22.2%) 0(0%)
    Other departments* 17(37.8%) 0(0%)

    *Other departments: Departments of Internal Medicine and surgery.

     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV
    Table 6.  The correlation between detection of exoU gene and combined honey-fosfomycin E test.
    PCR for exoU gene Fisher exact test
    Negative Positive
    No 45(100%) No 5(100%) p value sig.
    Combined honey-Fosfomycin Positive result 24 (53.3%) 5 (100%) 0.01 Significant
    E test Negative result 21 (46.7%) 0 (0%)

     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV
    Table 7.  The correlation between detection of exoU gene and number of resistant classes of tested antibiotics.
    PCR for exoU gene Fisher exact test
    Negative Positive
    N 45(100%) N 5(100%) p value sig.
    No. of Resistant classes of antibiotics 3 6(13.3%) 0 (0%) 0.297 Nonsignificant
    4 3(6.7) 0 (0%)
    5 14(31.1%) 0 (0%)
    6 22(48.9%) 5 (100%)

     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV
    Figure 2.  Detection of exoU gene by conventional PCR among MDR P. aeruginosa..

    P. aeruginosa is an opportunistic pathogen that can cause outbreaks of hospital-acquired and life-threatening infections, especially among immunocompromised and critically ill patients [15].

    The present study was conducted on 83 isolates of P. aeruginosa. Most isolates were from pus samples of wound infections (29/83, 35%) followed by sputum (16/83.19%) and the least was from blood (3/83, 3.6%) and gastric biopsy (2/83, 2.4%). These results agree with Hashem et al. [16] as they stated that most of isolated P. aeruginosa isolates were from wound specimens (63/147 isolates, 43%) and sputum 23% (34/147 isolates), Al-Haik et al. [17] also found in his study that the highest isolation rate was (60%) from wounds and burns patients followed by sputum (26.7%), and the lowest rate from blood(16.6%), the highest incidence of P. aeruginosa (47.5%) was stated in ICU in agree with our results as 26 of the isolated 83 P. aeruginosa (31.3%) were from patients admitted to the ICU. Bashir et al. [18] also found that the highest incidence of P. aeruginosa (47.5%) was found in ICU, which was followed by endoscopy unit and female surgical wards (40%). Intensive care patients are more susceptible to infection because of the debilitating effect of a prolonged hospitalization and instrumentation [17].

    Increasing rates of MDR P. aeruginosa in healthcare associated infections (HAIs) and among hospitalized patients is a chief public health problem [19]. Resistance of P. aeruginosa is usually accompanied by the production of biofilms, active expulsion of antibiotics by efflux pump, and alteration of outer membrane protein expression [20].

    The present study demonstrated that P. aeruginosa isolates had marked resistance to gentamicin (79%), tobramycin (78%) and fourth generation cephalosporine, cefepime (71%). Less resistance was noticed for aztreonam (55 %) and carbapenem antibiotics imipenem and meropenem were 53% and 46% respectively. Similar results were reported by Kamel et al. [21] as isolates were totally resistant to tobramycin and gentamicin and were sensitive to amikacin (68%), imipenem and meropenem(52%) and ciprofloxacin (36%), and by Mansour et al. [22] who found that resistance to aztreonam was the highest (96.6%), followed by cefepime (76.3%) and tobramycin (67.8%). Ayatollahi et al. [23] study in Iran found that P. aeruginosa isolates were most sensitive to imipenem (55%) and then to amikacin (45%). Moreover, the highest resistance was to ceftriaxone (100%). An Indian study by Dash et al. [24] showed that the majority of P. aeruginosa isolates were resistant to ceftazidime 70%, followed by cefepime 64.8%, piperacillin 45%, ciprofloxacin 38.9%, levofloxacin 36.1%, gentamicin 37.3% and amikacin 30%. The differences in antibiotic susceptibility pattern in different regions could be attributed to the differences in the study population, the duration of hospitalization, cross-infection, the dose and types of antibiotics commonly used, in addition to the difference in adherence level to antimicrobial policies controlling the spread of MDR organisms [17].

    The present study also found that (50/83, 60%) of the tested P. aeruginosa isolates were MDR, this agrees with many studies performed in Egypt by Farhan et al. [25]; Hashem et al. [16] and Raouf et al. [26] who found MDR strains in 66.6%, 64% and 97% of the P. aeruginosa isolates respectively. But our results disagree with those of Sader et al. [27] and Samad et al. [28] in United States of America (USA) and Pakistan who reported that MDR strains were 15.4% and 39.44% among P. aeruginosa isolates, respectively. The increasing level of resistance in MDR P. aeruginosa is often attributed to patient-to-patient transmission of resistant strains as well as newly acquired resistance owing to previous antibiotic exposure [19].

    The quantity and presence of established antimicrobial factors in honey varies widely, which may influence overall effectiveness. Diverse Studies have found that honeys from specific floral sources present stronger antibacterial activity than other types of honey [29],[30].

    According to Hegazi [31] and Roby et al. [32], the citrus honey has strong antibacterial action compared to different types of tested honey. The present study showed that 50 % (v/v) concentration of citrus honey was sufficient to inhibit the growth of most isolates (33/50, 66%) that is similar to studies done by Wasihun and Kasa [6], Jantakee and Tragoolpua [33] who reported that the percentage by volume of honeys to prevent growth of P. aeruginosa ranged from 12.5% to 50% v/v for most tested bacterial isolates. In contrast, Ahmed et al. [34] found that honey from Gondar Zuria district in Ethiopia showed bacteriostatic effect against P. aeruginosa at 6.25% v/v. Another study by Mandal and Mandal [35] found that The MICs of different honeys against clinical and environmental isolates of P. aeruginosa was recorded as 12.5% v/v. This variability in results could be clarified by the fact that different honeys vary in their antibacterial potency, which may be owing to variations in plant source or the geographical distribution. Most of literatures that discussed the use of honey in treating microbial infection did not explain enough the type of honey used. Other factors that may affect honey activity are seasonal changes, harvesting, processing, and storage conditions of the tested honeys. Consequently, honeys are not equal in their antimicrobial effectiveness [36],[37].

    This difference in the antibacterial activity of honeys over place may also be because of the difference in the species of bees and the differences in the test methods used and test organisms, where in our study we used MDR bacteria [6].

    In latest decades there has been a remarkable increase in resistance to currently available antibiotics and a marked decline in discovery and development of novel antibiotics, clinicians have been forced to reconsider the therapeutic potential of older, underutilized antibiotics such as fosfomycin for the treatment of infections caused by MDR Gram-negative organisms especially as part of combination therapy [1]. The present study discovered that MIC for fosfomycin tested by E test was found to be >128 µg/mL in all tested MDR P. aeruginosa isolates (50/50, 100%). These results agree with the Egyptian study done by Behera et al. [38] on non-urinary MDR isolates of P. aeruginosa who reported non susceptibility of (17/25, 68%) to fosfomycin and also with Perdigão-Neto et al. [39] in Brazil who reported that 14 of 15 (93%) MDR isolates was fosfomycin non susceptible, whereas a study by Walsh et al. [1] in United Kingdom reported that fosfomycin susceptibility was 21 of 37 (57%) MDR P. aeruginosa isolates and also Maraki et al. [40] in Greece reported 8 of 9 (89%) MDR strains were susceptible which is much higher susceptibility percent than our study. Variable results clearly highlight the need for more uniformity of testing methods (disc diffusion, agar dilution, broth microdilution and E test) as well as information on the pharmacodynamics of fosfomycin for P. aeruginosa so that organizations such as EUCAST will be able to create effective breakpoint criteria. They also reinforce the need to determine local susceptibility patterns [1].

    It has been revealed that combinations of antibiotics with non-antibiotic substances can improve the efficacy of a number of currently used antibiotics by forming synergetic combinations [41],[42]. Synergistic combinations exhibit a decrease in the MIC value of the antibiotic when combined with honey. This would allow for dose reduction of the antibiotic thereby minimising possible side effects, reducing treatment costs and providing a therapeutic option with greater antimicrobial potential. Furthermore, the potential risk of antimicrobial resistance is thought to be minimised with the utilisation of combination therapy [43].

    Fosfomycin was initially isolated from cultures of Streptomyces species in 1969. Its reported mechanism of action is to disrupt the formation of the peptidoglycan precursor uridine diphosphate N-acetylmuramic acid, the first cytoplasmic step in the biosynthesis of the bacterial cell wall [1]. This single mechanism of action denotes that cross-resistance with other classes of antibiotics is less likely and allows fosfomycin to retain significant in vitro activity against numerous Gram-positive and Gram-negative bacteria, including MDR strains. Based on this action, interest in fosfomycin has increased among clinicians and microbiologists worldwide for all potential facets of use [44].

    Fosfomycin activity against nonfermenting Gram-negative bacteria such as P. aeruginosa and Acinetobacter baumannii in conditions of multidrug resistance is less predictable and differs widely depending on the phenotypes present in the various epidemiological environments [45],[46].This antibiotic's specific mechanism of action makes it a highly attractive option for use in combination with other agents based on the synergy or addition observed in in vitro studies [44].

    According to the present study 50(100%) MDR P. aeruginosa isolates were resistant to fosfomycin when tested by E test alone but after repeating E test with MHA containing sublethal concentration of citrus honey, (29/50,58%) isolates were sensitive and (21/50, 42%) only were resistant to the citrus honey-fosfomycin combination with highly statistically significant difference (P value ≤ 0.05), Khan et al. [43] showed in their study that synergism between South African honeys and the broad-spectrum antibiotic ciprofloxacin against P. aeruginosa was statistically highly significant, another study by Jenkins and Cooper [8] showed that tetracycline and colistin showed improved activity in the presence of honey against P. aeruginosa.

    The exoU gene is responsible for a highly cytotoxic phenotype which leads to host cell death and is considered to be a significant factor implicated in the severity of infections caused by P. aeruginosa and as an independent factor of early mortality during blood infections [47].

    The present study found that only 5/50 (10%) of the MDR P. aeruginosa isolates harbored the exoU gene.

    This result is in agreement with Bradbury et al. [48] and Hassuna [3] who found that the frequency of the exoU gene was (18%), however, it was relatively lower than that reported by Horna et al. [4] and Mitov et al. [49] with a frequency of 22.7% and 30% respectively.

    The present study revealed that the exoU gene was more frequently detected among MDR P. aeruginosa isolated from patients attended ICUs (4/5, 80%) and the burn ward (1/5, 20%).These results in conformity with Horna et al. [4] who found that exoU gene was more frequent among P. aeruginosa from patients attending ICUs (9/18, 50.0%) and the burn ward (6/8, 75.0%). These data suggest that exoU positive genotype might be genetically favored in environments with high antibiotic pressure, such as ICUs so the exoU positive isolates were more prone to be associated with ICU and burn wards, and subsequently with the most fragile patients of hospital environment [48].

    In the present study, a significant correlation have been found between the presence of exoU gene and positive citrus honey-fosfomycin combination test results, such findings encourage the therapeutic usage of citrus honey-fosfomycin combination in critical cases in ICUs and burn units where higher percent of exoU gene positive isolates exist as more positive results will be attained in favor of patients' improved morbidities and in decreasing rates of MDR P. aeruginosa strains.

    All exoU gene positive isolates were resistant to more than 3 classes of the tested antibiotics but the correlation was nonsignificant. This result in agreement with Horna et al. [4] who found that Overall, 33 out of 43 exoU positive isolates were classified as MDR so the presence of exoU was significantly associated with MDR (20.9%). Also, our results agree to Mitov et al. [49] who found that the frequency of the exoU gene were significantly higher in MDR strains than those in non-MDR P. aeruginosa strains.

    This association between the exoU genotype and the MDR phenotypes could be because of the presence of transferable antibiotic-resistant determinants such as integrons carrying mobile gene cassettes within the accessory genome of exoU positive P. aeruginosa [50].

    The citrus honey-fosfomycin combination showed highly statistically significant effect on MDR P. aeruginosa fosfomycin susceptibility pattern. exoU positive P. aeruginosa isolates were detected mostly in burn unit and ICUs. Also, there was a statistically significant correlation between the presence of exoU gene and positive result of honey-fosfomycin combination E test. Larger scale studies are recommended to explain the exact concentration citrus honey-fosfomycin combination that provide the desired therapeutic effects on different infections caused by MDR P. aeruginosa.



    Conflict of interest



    The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest.

    [1] Walsh CC, McIntosh MP, Peleg AY, et al. (2015) In vitro pharmacodynamics of fosfomycin against clinical isolates of Pseudomonas aeruginosaJ Antimicrob Chemother 70: 3042-3050. doi: 10.1093/jac/dkv221
    [2] Subedi D, Vijay A K, Kohli G S, et al. (2018) Association between possession of exoU and antibiotic resistance in Pseudomonas aeruginosaPLoS One 13: e0204936. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0204936
    [3] Hassuna NA (2016) Molecular Detection of the virulent exoU genotype of Pseudomonas aeruginosa isolated from infected surgical incisions. Surg Infect 17: 610-614. doi: 10.1089/sur.2016.065
    [4] Horna G, Amaro C, Palacios A, et al. (2019) High frequency of the exoU+/exoS+ genotype associated with multidrug-resistant ‘high-risk clones’ of Pseudomonas aeruginosa clinical isolates from Peruvian hospitals. Sci Rep 9: 10874. doi: 10.1038/s41598-019-47303-4
    [5] Cheesman MJ, Ilanko A, Blonk B, et al. (2017) Developing new antimicrobial therapies: Are synergistic combinations of plant extracts/compounds with conventional antibiotics the solution? Pharmacogn Rev 11: 57-72. doi: 10.4103/phrev.phrev_21_17
    [6] Wasihun AG, Kasa BG (2016) Evaluation of antibacterial activity of honey against multidrug resistant bacteria in Ayder referral and teaching hospital, Northern Ethiopia. Springerplus 5: 842. doi: 10.1186/s40064-016-2493-x
    [7] Matthew EF, Evridiki KV, George S, et al. (2016) Fosfomycin. Clin Microbiol Rev 29: 321-347. doi: 10.1128/CMR.00068-15
    [8] Jenkins R, Cooper R (2012) Improving antibiotic activity against wound pathogens with manuka honey in vitro. PLoS One 7: e45600. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0045600
    [9] (2018) Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI)Performance Standards for Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing. CLSI supplement M100. Wayne, PA: . Available from: http://file.qums.ac.ir/repository/mmrc/CLSI-2018-M100-S28.pdf
    [10] Sweeney MT, Lubbers BV, Schwarz S, et al. (2018) Applying definitions for multidrug resistance, extensive drug resistance and pandrug resistance to clinically significant livestock and companion animal bacterial pathogens. J Antimicrob Chemother 73: 1460-1463. doi: 10.1093/jac/dky043
    [11] Zhu H, Bandara R, Conibear TC, et al. (2004) Pseudomonas aeruginosa with lasI quorum-sensing deficiency during corneal infection. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 45: 1897-1903. doi: 10.1167/iovs.03-0980
    [12] Finnan S, Morrissey JP, O'Gara F, et al. (2004) Genome diversity of Pseudomonas aeruginosa isolates from cystic fibrosis patients and the hospital environment. J Clin Microbiol 42: 5783-5792. doi: 10.1128/JCM.42.12.5783-5792.2004
    [13] Kacaniova M, Vukovic N, Bobkova A, et al. (2011) Antimicrobial and antiradical activity of Slovakian honeydew honey samples. J Microbiol Biotech Food Sci 1: 354-360.
    [14] The European Committee on Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing (EUCAST) (2018) Breakpoint tables for interpretation of MICs and zone diameters. Version 8.0.Available from: http://www.eucast.org/fileadmin/src/media/PDFs/EUCAST_files/Breakpoint_tables/v_8.0_Breakpoint_Tables.pdf.
    [15] Santajit S, Indrawattana N (2016) Mechanisms of antimicrobial resistance in ESKAPE pathogens. Biomed Res Int 2016: 2475067. doi: 10.1155/2016/2475067
    [16] Hashem H, Hanora A, Abdalla S, et al. (2016) Carbapenem susceptibility and multidrug resistance in Pseudomonas aeruginosa isolates in Egypt. Jundishapur J Microbiol 9: e30257. doi: 10.5812/jjm.30257
    [17] Al-Haik WM, Al-Mahbash AA, Al-Mahdi AY, et al. (2016) Genotypic characteristics of clinical and non-clinical isolates of Pseudomonas aeruginosa: distribution of different antibiogram profiles and molecular typing. Jordan J Biol Sci 9: 185-194.
    [18] Bashir D, Thokar M A, Fomda B A, et al. (2011) Detection of metallo-beta-lactamase (MBL) producing Pseudomonas aeruginosa at a tertiary care hospital in Kashmir. Afr J Microbiol Res 5: 164-172.
    [19] Raman G, Avendano EE, Chan J, et al. (2018) Risk factors for hospitalized patients with resistant or multidrug-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa infections: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Antimicrob Resist Infect Control 7: 79. doi: 10.1186/s13756-018-0370-9
    [20] Polotto M, Casella T, de Lucca Oliveira M G, et al. (2012) Detection of P. aeruginosa harboring bla CTX-M-2, bla GES-1 and bla GES-5, bla IMP-1 and bla SPM-1 causing infections in Brazilian tertiary-care hospital. BMC Infect Dis 12: 176. doi: 10.1186/1471-2334-12-176
    [21] Kamel GM, Ezzeldeen NA, El-Mishad M Y, et al. (2011) Susceptibility pattern of Pseudomonas aeruginosa against antimicrobial agents and some plant extracts with focus on its prevalence in different sources. Global Vet 6: 61-72.
    [22] Mansour S, Eldaly O, Jiman-Fatani A, et al. (2013) Epidemiological characterization of P. aeruginosa isolates of intensive care units in Egypt and Saudi Arabia. East Mediter Health J 19: 71-80. doi: 10.26719/2013.19.1.71
    [23] Ayatollahi J, YazdiYousefi Y, Shahcheraghi SH (2018) Study of Drug Resistance of Pseudomonas aeruginosa in Yazd, Iran, During 2015–2016. Int J Infect 5: e68749. doi: 10.5812/iji.68749
    [24] Dash M, Padhi S, Narasimham MV, et al. (2014) Antimicrobial resistance pattern of Pseudomonas aeruginosa isolated from various clinical samples in a tertiary care hospital, South Odisha, India. Saudi J Health Sci 3: 15-19. doi: 10.4103/2278-0521.130200
    [25] Farhan S, Ibrahim R, Mahran KM, et al. (2019) Antimicrobial resistance pattern and molecular genetic distribution of metallo-β-lactamases producing Pseudomonas aeruginosa isolated from hospitals in Minia, Egypt. Infect Drug Resist 12: 2125-2133. doi: 10.2147/IDR.S198373
    [26] Raouf MR, Sayed M, Rizk HA, et al. (2018) High incidence of MBL-mediated imipenem resistance among Pseudomonas aeruginosa from surgical site infections in Egypt. J Infect Dev Ctries 12: 520-525. doi: 10.3855/jidc.9936
    [27] Sader HS, Castanheira M, Shortridge D, et al. (2017) Antimicrobial activity of ceftazidime-avibactam tested against multidrug-resistant Enterobacteriaceae and Pseudomonas aeruginosa isolates from U.S. Medical centers, 2013 to 2016. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 61: e01045-17.
    [28] Samad A, Ahmed T, Rahim A, et al. (2017) Antimicrobial susceptibility patterns of clinical isolates of Pseudomonas aeruginosa isolated from patients of respiratory tract infections in a Tertiary Care Hospital, Peshawar. Pak J Med Sci 33: 670-674. doi: 10.12669/pjms.333.12416
    [29] Kwakman PH, Velde AA, de Boer L, et al. (2011) Two major medical honeys have different mechanisms of bactericidal activity. Plos One 6: e17709. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0017709
    [30] Hussain M B, Hannan A, Akhtar N, et al. (2015) Evaluation of the antibacterial activity of selected Pakistani honeys against multi-drug resistant Salmonella typhiBMC Complement Altern Med 15: 32. doi: 10.1186/s12906-015-0549-z
    [31] Hegazi AG (2011) Antimicrobial activity of different Egyptian honeys as comparison of Saudi Arabia honey. Res J Microbiol 6: 488-495. doi: 10.3923/jm.2011.488.495
    [32] Roby MHH, Abdelaliem YF, Esmail AM, et al. (2020) Evaluation of Egyptian honeys and their floral origins: phenolic compounds, antioxidant activities, and antimicrobial characteristics. Environ Sci Pollut Res Int 27: 20748-20756. doi: 10.1007/s11356-020-08586-7
    [33] Jantakee K, Tragoolpua Y (2015) Activities of different types of Thai honey on pathogenic bacteria causing skin diseases, tyrosinase enzyme and generating free radicals. Biol Res 48: 4. doi: 10.1186/0717-6287-48-4
    [34] Ahmed M, Sahile S, Subramanian C (2014) Evaluation of antibacterial potential of honey against some common human pathogens in north gondar zone of Ethiopia. Int J Pure Appl Zool 2: 286-295.
    [35] Mandal MD, Mandal S (2011) Honey: its medicinal property and antibacterial activity. Asian Pac J Trop Biomed 1: 154-160. doi: 10.1016/S2221-1691(11)60016-6
    [36] Wasfi R, Elkhatib WF, Khairalla AS (2016) Effects of selected Egyptian honeys on the cellular ultrastructure and the gene expression profile of Escherichia coliPloS One 11: e0150984. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0150984
    [37] AL-Waili N, Al Ghamdi A, Ansari MJ, et al. (2013) Differences in composition of honey samples and their impact on the antimicrobial activities against drug multiresistant bacteria and pathogenic fungi. Arch Med Res 44: 307-316. doi: 10.1016/j.arcmed.2013.04.009
    [38] Behera B, Mohanty S, Sahu S, et al. (2018) In vitro Activity of fosfomycin against Multidrug-resistant urinary and nonurinary Gram-negative isolates. Indian J Crit Care Med 22: 533-536. doi: 10.4103/ijccm.IJCCM_225_18
    [39] Perdigão-Neto LV, Oliveira MS, Rizek CF, et al. (2014) Susceptibility of multiresistant Gram-negative bacteria to fosfomycin and performance of different susceptibility testing methods. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 58: 1763-1767. doi: 10.1128/AAC.02048-13
    [40] Maraki S, Samonis G, Rafailidis PI, et al. (2009) Susceptibility of urinary tract bacteria to fosfomycin. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 53: 4508-4510. doi: 10.1128/AAC.00721-09
    [41] Jayaraman P, Sakharkar MK, Lim CS, et al. (2010) Activity and interactions of antibiotic and phytochemical combinations against Pseudomonas aeruginosa in vitro. Int J BiolSci 6: 556-568. doi: 10.7150/ijbs.6.556
    [42] Ejim L, Farha MA, Falconer SB, et al. (2011) Combinations of antibiotics and nonantibiotic drugs enhance antimicrobial efficacy. Nat Chem Biol 7: 348-350. doi: 10.1038/nchembio.559
    [43] Khan F, Hill J, Kaehler S, et al. (2014) Antimicrobial properties and isotope investigations of South African honey. J Appl Microbiol 117: 366-379. doi: 10.1111/jam.12533
    [44] Ruiz Ramos J, Salavert Lletí M (2019) fosfomycin in infections caused by multidrug-resistant Gram-negative pathogens. Rev Esp Quimioter 32: 45-54.
    [45] Vardakas KZ, Legakis NJ, Triarides N, et al. (2016) Susceptibility of contemporary isolates to fosfomycin: a systematic review of the literature. Int J Antimicrob Agents 47: 269-285. doi: 10.1016/j.ijantimicag.2016.02.001
    [46] Sastry S, Clarke LG, Alrowais H, et al. (2015) Clinical Appraisal of fosfomycin in the era of antimicrobial resistance. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 59: 7355-7361. doi: 10.1128/AAC.01071-15
    [47] Peña C, Cabot G, Gómez-Zorrilla S, et al. (2015) Influence of virulence genotype and resistance profile in the mortality of Pseudomonas aeruginosa bloodstream infections. Clin Infect Dis 60: 539-548. doi: 10.1093/cid/ciu866
    [48] Bradbury RS, Roddam LF, Merritt A, et al. (2010) Virulence gene distribution in clinical, nosocomial and environmental isolates of Pseudomonas aeruginosaJ Med Microbiol 59: 881-890. doi: 10.1099/jmm.0.018283-0
    [49] Mitov I, Strateva T, Markova B (2010) Prevalence of virulence genes among Bulgarian nosocomial and cystic fibrosis isolates of Pseudomonas aeruginosaBraz J Microbiol 41: 588-595. doi: 10.1590/S1517-83822010000300008
    [50] Kainuma A, Momiyama K, Kimura T, et al. (2018) An outbreak of fluoroquinolone-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa ST357 harboring the exoU gene. J Infect Chemother 24: 615-622. doi: 10.1016/j.jiac.2018.03.008
  • This article has been cited by:

    1. Ling Xin, Zetao Hu, Renru Han, Xiaogang Xu, Chuning Wang, Dan Li, Yan Guo, Fupin Hu, Asp50Glu mutation in MurA results in fosfomycin resistance in Enterococcus faecium, 2022, 30, 22137165, 50, 10.1016/j.jgar.2022.05.026
    2. Maya Jodidio, Robert A. Schwartz, Honey therapies for dermatological disorders: more than just a sweet elixir, 2024, 63, 0011-9059, 422, 10.1111/ijd.16925
    3. Giuseppe Pipitone, Stefano Di Bella, Alberto Enrico Maraolo, Guido Granata, Milo Gatti, Luigi Principe, Alessandro Russo, Andrea Gizzi, Rita Pallone, Antonio Cascio, Chiara Iaria, Intravenous Fosfomycin for Systemic Multidrug-Resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa Infections, 2023, 12, 2079-6382, 1653, 10.3390/antibiotics12121653
    4. Mustafa Riyadh Alshaybawee, Shahrzad Asgari, Paria Ghadersoltani, Ahmadreza Mehrabian, Parastoo Saniee, Exploring the antibacterial and anti-biofilm activity of two Iranian medical-grade kinds of honey on multidrug-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa, 2025, 25, 2662-7671, 10.1186/s12906-025-04778-1
  • Reader Comments
  • © 2020 the Author(s), licensee AIMS Press. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0)
通讯作者: 陈斌, bchen63@163.com
  • 1. 

    沈阳化工大学材料科学与工程学院 沈阳 110142

  1. 本站搜索
  2. 百度学术搜索
  3. 万方数据库搜索
  4. CNKI搜索

Metrics

Article views(4029) PDF downloads(301) Cited by(4)

Figures and Tables

Figures(2)  /  Tables(7)

/

DownLoad:  Full-Size Img  PowerPoint
Return
Return

Catalog