4.7 Article

Inhibition of membrane bound ATPases of Escherichia coli and Listeria monocytogenes by plant oil aromatics

Journal

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF FOOD MICROBIOLOGY
Volume 111, Issue 2, Pages 170-174

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2006.04.046

Keywords

eugenol; carvacrol; cinnamaldehyde; ATPase; hydrophobicity

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Previous studies have reported that the mechanism of bactericidal action of the plant oil aromatics, eugenol, carvacrol and cinnamaldehyde involves inhibition of adenosine triphosphate generation and membrane disruption. In this study the capacity of the aromatics to inhibit the membrane bound ATPase activity of Escherichia coli and Listeria monocytogenes was investigated by experiments on isolated membranes. Inhibition of the ATPase activity of E. coli membranes was observed with 5 mM or 10 mM eugenol or carvacrol. Progressively greater inhibition by cinnamaldehyde was observed as concentration increased from 0.1 to 10 mM. L. monocytogenes ATPase activity was significantly inhibited by eugenol (5 or 10 mM), carvacrol (10 mM) and cinnamaldehyde (10 mM). Lactobacillus sakei is highly resistant to cinnamaidehyde compared to E coli and L. monocytogenes. To determine whether this resistance was related to the relative hydrophobicity of the cell surface and hence the ability of the cell to take up the aromatics, the percentage of the three organisms partitioning in dodecane was compared. No significant difference was found between the partitioning percentage of L. monocytogenes (17.2%) and L. sakei (13.8%), indicating that surface hydrophobicity does not explain the differing sensitivity to cinnamaldehyde of these two organism. The percent partitioning of E. coli was significantly greater than both other organisms (23.3%) and may explain the greater sensitivity of E. coli to all three aromatics. (c) 2006 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available