4.6 Article

Grape Seed Extract for Control of Human Enteric Viruses

期刊

APPLIED AND ENVIRONMENTAL MICROBIOLOGY
卷 77, 期 12, 页码 3982-3987

出版社

AMER SOC MICROBIOLOGY
DOI: 10.1128/AEM.00193-11

关键词

-

资金

  1. TN Agricultural Experiment Station (UT-TEN-HATCH) [00391]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Grape seed extract (GSE) is reported to have many pharmacological benefits, including antioxidant, anti-inflammatory, anticarcinogenic, and antimicrobial properties. However, the effect of this inexpensive rich source of natural phenolic compounds on human enteric viruses has not been well documented. In the present study, the effect of commercial GSE, Gravinol-S, on the infectivity of human enteric virus surrogates (feline calicivirus, FCV-F9; murine norovirus, MNV-1; and bacteriophage MS2) and hepatitis A virus (HAV; strain HM175) was evaluated. GSE at concentrations of 0.5, 1, and 2 mg/ml was individually mixed with equal volumes of each virus at titers of similar to 7 log(10) PFU/ml or similar to 5 log(10) PFU/ml and incubated for 2 h at room temperature or 37 C. The infectivity of the recovered viruses after triplicate treatments was evaluated by standardized plaque assays. At high titers (similar to 7 log(10) PFU/ml), FCV-F9 was significantly reduced by 3.64, 4.10, and 4.61 log(10) PFU/ml; MNV-1 by 0.82, 1.35, and 1.73 log(10) PFU/ml; MS2 by 1.13, 1.43, and 1.60 log(10) PFU/ml; and HAV by 1.81, 2.66, and 3.20 log(10) PFU/ml after treatment at 37 degrees C with 0.25, 0.50, and 1 mg/ml GSE, respectively (P < 0.05) in a dose-dependent manner. GSE treatment of low titers (similar to 5 log(10) PFU/ml) at 37 degrees C also showed viral reductions. Room-temperature treatments with GSE caused significant reduction of the four viruses, with higher reduction for low-titer FCV-F9, MNV-1, and HAV compared to high titers. Our results indicate that GSE shows promise for application in the food industry as an inexpensive novel natural alternative to reduce viral contamination and enhance food safety.

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