4.6 Article

High Potency of Melaleuca alternifolia Essential Oil against Multi-Drug Resistant Gram-Negative Bacteria and Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus

期刊

MOLECULES
卷 23, 期 10, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/molecules23102584

关键词

multi-drug resistant bacteria; essential oils; Melaleuca alternifolia; methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus; carbapenem-resistant microorganisms

资金

  1. Sapienza University of Rome [C26N14S7RB]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: Herein, an extended investigation of Tea tree oil (TTO) against a number of multi-drug resistant (MDR) microorganisms in liquid and vapor phases is reported. Methods: The activity of TTO was tested against methicillin-sensitive Staphylococcus aureus (MSSA), Escherichia coli, and clinical strains of methicillin-resistant S. aureus (MRSA), extended-spectrum beta lactamases producer carbapenem-sensitive Klebsiella pneumoniae (ESBL-CS-Kp), carbapenem-resistant K. pneumoniae (CR-Kp), Acinetobacter baumannii (CR-Ab), and Pseudomonas aeruginosa (CR-Pa). Minimal inhibitory/bactericidal concentrations (MIC/MBCs) and synergistic activity between TTO and different antimicrobials were determined. In the vapor assay (VP), TTO-impregnated discs were placed on the lid of a petri dish and incubated for 24 h at 37 degrees C. Results: TTO showed a potent bactericidal activity against all the tested microorganisms. TTO in combination with each reference antimicrobial showed a high level of synergism at sub-inhibitory concentrations, particularly with oxacillin (OXA) against MRSA. The VP assay showed high activity of TTO against CR-Ab. Conclusion: Evaluation of in-vitro activity clearly indicated TTO as a potential effective antimicrobial treatment either alone or in association with known drugs against MDR. Therefore, TTO could represent the basis for a possible role in non-conventional regimens against S. aureus and Gram-negative MDR. TTO in VP might represent a promising option for local therapy of pneumonia caused by CR-Ab.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据