+1 Recommend
0 collections
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Chemical Composition and Antimicrobial Activity of Selected Essential Oils against Staphylococcus spp. Isolated from Human Semen

      Read this article at

          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.


          Staphylococcus spp. is not only a commensal bacteria but also a major human pathogen that causes a wide range of clinical infections. Recent evidence suggests that Staphylococcus has the ability to colonize the reproductive system and to affect its structure and functions. The objective of this study was to determine the chemical properties and antibacterial effects of select essential oils (EOs): Amyris balsamifera L., Boswellia carterii Birdw., Canarium luzonicum (Blume) A. Gray, Cinnamomum camphora (L.) J. Presl., Cinnamomum camphora var. linaloolifera Y. Fuita, Citrus x aurantium L., Gaultheria procumbens L., Litsea cubeba (Lour.) Pers., Melaleuca ericifolia Smith., Melaleuca leucadendra L., Pogostemon cablin (Blanco) Benth., Citrus limon (L.) Osbeck, Santalum album L., and Vetiveria zizanoides (L.) Roberty against 50 Staphylococcus spp. cultures isolated from human semen, specifically Staphylococcus aureus, S. capiti, S. epidermidis, S. haemoliticus, and S. hominis. The disc diffusion and broth microdilution methods were used to assess the antimicrobial potential and to determine the minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) of the selected EOs. The best anti- Staphylococcus activities were found with both methods for the essential oils of C. luzonicum (Blume) A. Gray, A. balsamifera, C. camphora, and P. cabli.

          Related collections

          Most cited references 83

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Molecular basis of bacterial resistance to chloramphenicol and florfenicol.

          Chloramphenicol (Cm) and its fluorinated derivative florfenicol (Ff) represent highly potent inhibitors of bacterial protein biosynthesis. As a consequence of the use of Cm in human and veterinary medicine, bacterial pathogens of various species and genera have developed and/or acquired Cm resistance. Ff is solely used in veterinary medicine and has been introduced into clinical use in the mid-1990s. Of the Cm resistance genes known to date, only a small number also mediates resistance to Ff. In this review, we present an overview of the different mechanisms responsible for resistance to Cm and Ff with particular focus on the two different types of chloramphenicol acetyltransferases (CATs), specific exporters and multidrug transporters. Phylogenetic trees of the different CAT proteins and exporter proteins were constructed on the basis of a multisequence alignment. Moreover, information is provided on the mobile genetic elements carrying Cm or Cm/Ff resistance genes to provide a basis for the understanding of the distribution and the spread of Cm resistance--even in the absence of a selective pressure imposed by the use of Cm or Ff.
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            Antimicrobial activity and chemical composition of Thymus vulgaris, Thymus zygis and Thymus hyemalis essential oils

              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Tetracycline resistance determinants: mechanisms of action, regulation of expression, genetic mobility, and distribution.

               J. Roberts (1996)
              Tetracycline-resistant bacteria were first isolated in 1953 from Shigella dysenteriae, a bacterium which causes bacterial dysentery. Since then tetracycline-resistant bacterial have been found in increasing numbers of species and genera. This has resulted in reduced effectiveness of tetracycline therapy over time. Tetracycline resistance is normally due to the acquisition of new genes often associated with either a mobile plasmid or a transposon. These tetracycline resistance determinants are distinguishable both genetically and biochemically. Resistance is primarily due to either energy-dependent efflux of tetracycline or protection of the ribosomes from the action of tetracycline. Gram-negative tetracycline efflux proteins are linked to repressor proteins which in the absence of tetracycline block transcription of the repressor and structural efflux genes. In contrast, expression of the Gram-positive tetracycline efflux genes and some of the ribosomal protection genes appears to be regulated by attenuation of mRNA transcription. Specific tetracycline resistance genes have been identified in 32 Gram-negative and 22 Gram-positive genera. Tetracycline-resistant bacteria are found in pathogens, opportunistic and normal flora species. Tetracycline-resistant bacteria can be isolated from man, animals, food, and the environment. The nonpathogens in each of these ecosystems may play an important role as reservoirs for the antibiotic resistance genes. It is clear that if we are to reverse the trend toward increasingly antibiotic-resistant pathogenic bacteria we will need to change how antibiotics are used in both human and animal health and food production.

                Author and article information

                Antibiotics (Basel)
                Antibiotics (Basel)
                31 October 2020
                November 2020
                : 9
                : 11
                [1 ]Department of Fruit Science, Viticulture and Enology, Faculty of Horticulture and Landscape Engineering, Slovak University of Agriculture, Tr. A. Hlinku 2, 94976 Nitra, Slovakia
                [2 ]Department of Bioenergetics, Food Analysis and Microbiology, Institute of Food Technology and Nutrition, University of Rzeszow, Cwiklinskiej 1, 35-601 Rzeszow, Poland
                [3 ]Institute of Food and Environmental Hygiene, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Latvia University of Life Sciences and Technologies, K. Helmaņa iela 8, LV-3004 Jelgava, Latvia; margarita.terentjeva@ 123456llu.lv
                [4 ]AgroBioTech Research Centre, Slovak University of Agriculture, Tr. A. Hlinku 2, 94976 Nitra, Slovakia; jana.stefanikova@ 123456uniag.sk
                [5 ]Department of Plant Genetics and Breeding, Faculty of Agrobiology and Food Resources, Slovak University of Agriculture, Tr. A. Hlinku 2, 949 76 Nitra, Slovakia; jana.ziarovska@ 123456uniag.sk
                [6 ]Research Institute for Physical Chemical Problems, Belarusian State University, Leningradskaya str. 14, 220030 Minsk, Belarus; savitskayaTA@ 123456bsu.by (T.S.); Grinshpan@ 123456bsu.by (D.G.)
                [7 ]Department of Food Technology of Plant Origin, Poznań University of Life Sciences, 31 Wojska Polskiego St., 60-624 Poznań, Poland; przemyslaw.kowalczewski@ 123456up.poznan.pl
                [8 ]Department of Chemistry, Faculty of Science, University of Kragujevac, P.O. Box 12, 34000 Kragujevac, Serbia; nvchem@ 123456yahoo.com
                [9 ]Department of Animal Physiology, Faculty of Biotechnology and Food Sciences, Slovak University of Agriculture, Tr. A. Hlinku 2, 949 76 Nitra, Slovakia; eva.tvrda@ 123456uniag.sk
                Author notes
                © 2020 by the authors.

                Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).



                Comment on this article