Antimicrobial activity of edaphic microorganisms against clinically relevant bacteria
Autores/as
- Wendy García Universidad de Investigación de Tecnología Experimental Yachay, Urcuquí, Ecuador
-
Mariela Pérez-Cárdena
Universidad de Investigación de Tecnología Experimental Yachay, Urcuquí, Ecuador
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0593-9896
-
Katherine Trivino-Cepeda
Universidad de Investigación de Tecnología Experimental Yachay, Urcuquí, Ecuador
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5830-351X
-
Andrea C. Zurita-Leal
Universidad de Investigación de Tecnología Experimental Yachay, Urcuquí, Ecuador
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7819-9513
-
Marco Esteban Gudiño Gomezjurado
Universidad de Investigación de Tecnología Experimental Yachay, Urcuquí, Ecuador; Universidad Internacional de Valencia, Valencia, España
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8609-0806
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.70099/BJ/2024.01.03.5Palabras clave:
Antimicrobial metabolites, antimicrobial resistance, soil microorganismsResumen
In recent decades, the emergence of bacterial resistance to antimicrobial agents has raised a significant challenge in the medical field. The search for new therapeutic alternatives has become a challenging task. With an estimated diversity ranging from 100 million to 1 billion different bacterial types with unique functions and roles, it is critical to find antimicrobial solutions Recent studies have focused on bacterial species in soil as a source of antimicrobial compounds that can be used as potential therapeutics for the treatment of infectious diseases. This study focused on isolating, culturing, and characterizing the bacteria present in the soil of the Universidad de Investigación de Tecnología Experimental Yachay campus. To assess their potential therapeutic impact, antagonistic tests were carried out between the bacterial isolates and three strains of the most prevalent pathogens: Escherichia coli, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, and Staphylococcus aureus. The results showed that according to antimicrobial activity evaluations, the metabolites produced by two soil strains, UITEY-030 and UITEY-055, exhibited partially inhibitory effects on the growth of S. aureus and E. coli. These results highlight the capability of soil-derived compounds as candidates for the development of novel antimicrobials.
Citas
1. Uddin TM, Chakraborty AJ, Khusro A, et al. Antibiotic resistance in microbes: History, mechanisms, therapeutic strategies and future prospects. J Infect Public Health. 2021;14(12):1750–1766. doi:10.1016/J.JIPH.2021.10.020
2. Danquah CA, Minkah PAB, Junior IOD, Amankwah KB, Somuah SO. Antimicrobial Compounds from Microorganisms. Antibiotics. 2022;11(3). doi:10.3390/ANTIBIOTICS11030285
3. Skarzynska M, Leekitcharoenphon P, Hendriksen RS, Aarestrup FM, Wasyl D. A metagenomic glimpse into the gut of wild and domestic animals: Quantification of antimicrobial resistance and more. PLoS One. 2020;15(12). doi:10.1371/JOURNAL.PONE.0242987
4. Indraningrat AAG, Smidt H, Sipkema D. Bioprospecting Sponge-Associated Microbes for Antimicrobial Compounds. Mar Drugs. 2016;14(5). doi:10.3390/MD14050087
5. Aminov RI. A brief history of the antibiotic era: Lessons learned and challenges for the future. Front Microbiol. 2010;1:134. doi:10.3389/FMICB.2010.00134/BIBTEX
6. Moellering RC. Discovering new antimicrobial agents. Int J Antimicrob Agents. 2011;37(1):2–9. doi:10.1016/J.IJANTIMICAG.2010.08.018
7. Atanasov AG, Zotchev SB, Dirsch VM, et al. Natural products in drug discovery: advances and opportunities. Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2021;20(3):200–216. doi:10.1038/s41573-020-00114-z
8. Bach EM, Williams RJ, Hargreaves SK, Yang F, Hofmockel KS. Greatest soil microbial diversity found in micro-habitats. Soil Biol Biochem. 2018;118:217–226. doi:10.1016/J.SOILBIO.2017.12.018
9. Bibi F, Faheem M, Azhar E, et al. Bacteria From Marine Sponges: A Source of New Drugs. Curr Drug Metab. 2016;18(1):11–15. doi:10.2174/1389200217666161013090610
10. Almajano MP, Carbó R, Delgado ME, Gordon MH. Effect of pH on the Antimicrobial Activity and Oxidative Stability of Oil-in-Water Emulsions Containing Caffeic Acid. J Food Sci. 2007;72(5):258–263. doi:10.1111/J.1750-3841.2007.00387.X
11. Waller DG, Sampson AP. Chemotherapy of infections. Med Pharmacol Ther. Published online 2018 m.:581–629. doi:10.1016/B978-0-7020-7167-6.00051-8
12. Rungelrath V, Deleo FR. Staphylococcus aureus, Antibiotic Resistance, and the Interaction with Human Neutrophils. Antioxid Redox Signal. 2021;34(6):452–470. doi:10.1089/ARS.2020.8127
13. Ahmad-Mansour N, Loubet P, Pouget C, et al. Staphylococcus aureus Toxins: An Update on Their Pathogenic Properties and Potential Treatments. Toxins (Basel). 2021;13(10). doi:10.3390/TOXINS13100677
14. He H, Wunderink RG. Staphylococcus aureus Pneumonia in the Community. Semin Respir Crit Care Med. 2020;41(4):470–479. doi:10.1055/S-0040-1709992
15. Kwiecinski JM, Horswill AR. Staphylococcus aureus bloodstream infections: pathogenesis and regulatory mechanisms. Curr Opin Microbiol. 2020;53:51–60. doi:10.1016/J.MIB.2020.02.005
16. Larsen J, Raisen CL, Ba X, et al. Emergence of methicillin resistance predates the clinical use of antibiotics. Nature. 2022;602(7895):135–141. doi:10.1038/s41586-021-04265-w
17. Botelho J, Grosso F, Peixe L. Antibiotic resistance in Pseudomonas aeruginosa - Mechanisms, epidemiology and evolution. Drug Resist Updat. 2019;44. doi:10.1016/J.DRUP.2019.07.002
18. Nielsen KL, Stegger M, Kiil K, et al. Escherichia coli Causing Recurrent Urinary Tract Infections: Comparison to Non-Recurrent Isolates and Genomic Adaptation in Recurrent Infections. Microorganisms. 2021;9(7). doi:10.3390/MICROORGANISMS9071416
19. Poirel L, Madec JY, Lupo A, et al. Antimicrobial Resistance in Escherichia coli. Microbiol Spectr. 2018;6(4). doi:10.1128/MICROBIOLSPEC.ARBA-0026-2017
20. Sitotaw B, Ayalew F, Girma A, et al. Isolation and identification of promising antibiotic-producing bacteria. Open Chem. 2022;20(1):1283–1291. doi:10.1515/CHEM-2022-0233/MACHINEREADABLECITATION/RIS
21. Terreni M, Taccani M, Pregnolato M. New Antibiotics for Multidrug-Resistant Bacterial Strains: Latest Research Developments and Future Perspectives. Molecules. 2021;26(9). doi:10.3390/MOLECULES26092671
22. Tyc O, van den Berg M, Gerards S, et al. Impact of interspecific interactions on antimicrobial activity among soil bacteria. Front Microbiol. 2014;5(OCT). doi:10.3389/FMICB.2014.00567/ABSTRACT
23. Sansinenea E, Ortiz A. Secondary metabolites of soil Bacillus spp. Biotechnol Lett. 2011;33(8):1523–1538. doi:10.1007/S10529-011-0617-5/METRICS
24. Velusamy P, Gnanamanickam SS. The Effect of Bacterial Secondary Metabolites on Bacterial and Fungal Pathogens of Rice. Secondary Metabolites in Soil Ecology. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg; 2008:93–106. doi:10.1007/978-3-540-74543-3_5
25. MS S, Ramyakrishna E, Divya P, Kumar P. Isolation of antibiotic producing bacteria from soil. Int J Appl Biollogy Pharm Technol. 2014;6:1.
Descargas
Publicado
Cómo citar
Número
Sección
Categorías
Licencia
Esta obra está bajo una licencia internacional Creative Commons Atribución 4.0.
Authors who publish with BioNatura Journal agree to the following terms: Authors retain copyright and grant the BioNatura Institutional Publishing Consortium (BIPC) right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0). This allows others to share the work with an acknowledgment of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
