Next Article in Journal
Genome-Wide DNA Methylation in Early-Onset-Dementia Patients Brain Tissue and Lymphoblastoid Cell Lines
Next Article in Special Issue
Comparison of the Effects of Essential Oils from Cannabis sativa and Cannabis indica on Selected Bacteria, Rumen Fermentation, and Methane Production—In Vitro Study
Previous Article in Journal
Molecular Mechanisms of Bacterial Communication and Their Biocontrol
Previous Article in Special Issue
Harnessing Nature’s Defence: The Antimicrobial Efficacy of Pasteurised Cattle Milk-Derived Extracellular Vesicles on Staphylococcus aureus ATCC 25923
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
IJMS
Volume 25
Issue 10
10.3390/ijms25105444
ijms-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Natural Sunlight-Mediated Emodin Photoinactivation of Aeromonas hydrophila

by
Gelana Urgesa
1,2,†,
Liushen Lu
2,*,†,
Jinwei Gao
1,2,
Lichun Guo
3,
Ting Qin
2,
Bo Liu
2,
Jun Xie
2 and
Bingwen Xi
1,2,*
1
Wuxi Fisheries College, Nanjing Agricultural University, Wuxi 214081, China
2
Freshwater Fisheries Research Center, Chinese Academy of Fishery Sciences, Wuxi 214081, China
3
State Key Laboratory of Food Science and Technology, School of Food Science and Technology, Jiangnan University, Wuxi 214122, China
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
†
These authors contributed equally to this work.
Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2024, 25(10), 5444; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms25105444
Submission received: 7 April 2024 / Revised: 14 May 2024 / Accepted: 14 May 2024 / Published: 16 May 2024
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Antimicrobial Agents: Natural Products or Synthetic Compounds)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Aeromonas hydrophila can be a substantial concern, as it causes various diseases in aquaculture. An effective and green method for inhibiting A. hydrophila is urgently required. Emodin, a naturally occurring anthraquinone compound, was exploited as a photo-antimicrobial agent against A. hydrophila. At the minimum inhibitory concentration of emodin (256 mg/L) to inactivate A. hydrophilia in 30 min, an 11.32% survival rate was observed under 45 W white compact fluorescent light irradiation. In addition, the antibacterial activity under natural sunlight (0.78%) indicated its potential for practical application. Morphological observations demonstrated that the cell walls and membranes of A. hydrophila were susceptible to damage by emodin when exposed to light irradiation. More importantly, the photoinactivation of A. hydrophila was predominantly attributed to the hydroxyl radicals and superoxide radicals produced by emodin, according to the trapping experiment and electron spin resonance spectroscopy. Finally, a light-dependent reactive oxygen species punching mechanism of emodin to photoinactivate A. hydrophila was proposed. This study highlights the potential use of emodin in sunlight-mediated applications for bacterial control, thereby providing new possibilities for the use of Chinese herbal medicine in aquatic diseases prevention.

1. Introduction

Aeromonas hydrophila is an important bacterial pathogen that is associated with several diseases in aquatic animals, including hemorrhagic septicemia, fin and tail rot, epizootic ulcerative syndrome, and necrotizing skin and soft tissue infections, especially in immunocompromised individuals [1,2]. A. hydrophila can utilize virulence factors (including exotoxins, extracellular proteases, adhesins, etc.) to infect aquatic animals such as fish, shrimp, and crabs, leading to explosive epidemic diseases [3]. A. hydrophila exhibits broad pathogenicity, with a mortality rate of over 95% [4]. Moreover, it can cause a range of infections in humans, including skin and soft tissue infections, gastroenteritis, and sepsis [5]. Thus, inhibiting the growth of A. hydrophila facilitates the alleviation of various diseases caused by this bacterium. These A. hydrophila-induced diseases are usually treated with antibiotics. However, A. hydrophila is generally resistant to common pharmaceuticals and antibiotics such as penicillin, ampicillin, and colistin, which renders A. hydrophila inactivation difficult [6]. Moreover, abuse of antibiotics may pollute the environment and increase the risk of resistance in aquatic microorganisms [7]. Therefore, it is urgent and important to develop a novel, low-cost, environmentally friendly, and efficient method for inhibiting the growth of A. hydrophila.
Prominent among novel non-antibiotic approaches is likely to be the group of light-based technologies, including ultraviolet C irradiation therapy, photo-dynamic therapy, blue light therapy, and other light-based therapies [8,9,10,11]. In fact, photocatalysis is a promising approach to control microbial pathogen-induced infections owing to its green, efficient, and visible light utilization properties [12]. Logically, it is feasible to use photocatalysis to inactivate the aquatic pathogen A. hydrophila. The photoinactivation of pathogens using photosensitization can be explored as a potential technique for food safety [13]. The mechanism of this inactivation involves physical damage to the cell wall and potential cell lysis, which ultimately leads to microorganism death [14]. The compelling benefits of photoinactivation stem from its capacity to render microbes inactive, irrespective of antibiotic resistance [15]. Additionally, the possibility of microbes developing resistance to light-based inactivation is fundamentally low, as the targets involved are nonspecific [16].
The naturally occurring anthraquinone emodin can be easily acquired from many medicinal plants such as Polygonum cuspidatum, Rheum offcinale, and Cassia obtusifolia. It has been used as a traditional Chinese herb because of its antibacterial, antifungal, antiviral, and anti-inflammatory properties for more than 2000 years [17]. In addition, emodin exhibits an excellent photocatalytic activity for pollutant degradation and pathogen inhibition, owing to its large π-conjugation structure [18]. For example, emodin can damage the genomic DNA and membrane integrity of multidrug-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii under light irradiation [19]. Emodin has also been demonstrated to photoinactivate Staphylococcus aureus and Escherichia coli through the photogeneration of reactive oxygen species (ROS) [20]. It seems that photoinactivation may be an effective and alternative therapeutic option against the investigated bacteria [21]. However, the specific photoactivation of emodin’s bactericidal activity against A. hydrophila has not been directly studied. Therefore, we envisaged using the ability of emodin to photo-induce ROS to augment its antibacterial activity.
Herein, emodin as a photocatalyst can effectively photoinactivate the aquatic pathogen A. hydrophila within 30 min, upon 32 W white compact fluorescent light (CFL) irradiation. More importantly, A. hydrophila can be almost completely eradicated within 30 min under natural sunlight. Thus, this study dexterously combines the active ingredient in Chinese herbs to the inactivation of important pathogens in aquaculture and provides a new sight and possibility for achieving a practical application of Chinese herbal medicine in aquaculture.

2. Results

2.1. Visible Light Enhanced the Bactericidal Activity of Emodin

In this study, we examined the minimal inhibitory concentration (MIC) using the microbroth dilution method in a sterile U-bottom 96-well microplate. As expected, the negative control (DMSO) demonstrated no bacterial inhibition. The concentration of emodin ranged exponentially from 1 to 2048 mg/L, indicating the requirement of varying concentrations of emodin to effectively curb bacterial growth, as depicted in Figure 1. We found that the MIC of emodin against A. hydrophila NJ-35 was 256 mg/L. The results suggested that emodin inhibited bacterial growth in a concentration-dependent manner. Emodin concentrations below 256 mg/L allowed A. hydrophila growth, whereas those concentrations equal to or greater than 256 mg/L inhibited bacterial growth.
In order to determine whether light can enhance the inhibitory ability of emodin against A. hydrophila, the inhibitory effects of emodin against A. hydrophila under dark and light conditions were compared, as shown in Figure 2. Obviously, A. hydrophila can grow well in the presence or absence of emodin under the dark condition, as shown in Figure 2a,b, indicating that the effect of 256 mg/L emodin on A. hydrophila was almost negligible under dark conditions. However, a remarkable impact of emodin was observed under 32 W CFL irradiation, as shown in Figure 2c,d. The survival rates of A. hydrophila were rapidly decreased after irradiation for 15 min (from 97.89% to 67.89%), 30 min (from 92.44% to 13.76%), and 60 min (from 86.39% to 10.38%) compared to the dark condition, respectively. These results provided evidence for our hypothesis and demonstrated that light irradiation can increase the ability of emodin to inactivate A. hydrophila.

2.2. Photocatalytic Activity of Emodin for A. hydrophila Inactivation

Because the survival rates of A. hydrophila at 30 min and 60 min were similar, 30 min was selected as the light exposure time for further study (Figure 2d). In addition, the concentration of emodin and the light source are important factors during photocatalytic processes. Therefore, the effects of emodin concentration and light source for photoinactivation of A. hydrophila were analyzed, as shown in Figure 3. At an emodin concentration below the MIC, the survival rate of A. hydrophila decreased as the concentration of emodin increased (Figure 3a). In addition, the survival rate of A. hydrophila was closely related to the MIC (13.76%) and 1/2 MIC (16.72%). Thus, the optimum concentration of emodin was 128 mg/L (1/2 MIC). Moreover, the bactericidal activity of emodin against A. hydrophila was enhanced when the CFL lamp power increased (Figure 3b). This result also proves that light can elevate the antibacterial activity of emodin.

2.3. Practical Application under Sunlight

To evaluate the practical feasibility of the photoinactivation of A. hydrophila using emodin, the natural sunlight was used as the light source against A. hydrophila. A suspension of A. hydrophila (50 mL) with 32, 64, 128, or 256 mg/L emodin was exposed to sunlight (Figure 4a,b). A. hydrophila grow well under sunlight without the presence of emodin. However, A. hydrophila can be inactivated effectively using emodin at a concentration of both 128 mg/L and 256 mg/L under sunlight irradiation (the average solar irradiance was 109.32 mW/cm2, which was detected using an FZ-A irradiator from Beijing Normal University photoelectric instrument factory), and the survival rate of A. hydrophila using emodin at a concentration of 32 mg/L and 64 mg/L under sunlight was 4.81% and 1.57%, respectively. Moreover, a large-scale reaction was performed, as shown in Figure 4c,d. Considering the concentration of emodin and the efficiency of photoinactivation, 64 mg/L emodin was added to the 200 mL A. hydrophila suspension system under the sunlight. Encouragingly, the survival rate of A. hydrophila was 4.33%, closely related to the survival rate in the 50 mL system (1.57%), which revealed a predictable potential of emodin to induce microbial photoinactivation, as well as revealing its practical application. These results increase our comprehension of the possibility of using emodin in real-world situations, thereby emphasizing its suitability for continued investigation and advancement in practical applications.

2.4. Effects of Emodin on the Structure of A. hydrophila under Light Irradiation

To study the mechanism underlying the emodin-mediated photoinactivation of A. hydrophila, we observed the morphology of A. hydrophila after emodin treatment, under light irradiation. Surprisingly, emodin can result in morphological alterations after light irradiation, as shown in Figure 5. Scanning electron microscopy (SEM) images showed that A. hydrophila without treatment cells exhibited an intact cell structure with a well-stacked and smooth cell wall (Figure 5a,e). In addition, the morphology of A. hydrophila cells exposed to emodin under the dark conditions exhibited slight changes (Figure 5b). However, upon exposure to emodin in the presence of light, the cell morphology gradually transformed and the cell surface becomes rough and fuzzy (Figure 5f), demonstrating that the cell walls and membranes may be destroyed by emodin under light irradiation. On the other hand, A. hydrophila became shriveled after exposure to emodin in the dark condition, according to transmission electron microscopy (TEM) images (Figure 5d). Furthermore, a higher degree of leakage of cellular content was observed (Figure 5h), which resulted in irreversible damage to the cells. The death of cells was consequently induced during the photoinactivation process.

2.5. Reactive Species in Photoinactivation of A. hydrophila

To determine the mechanism of photoinactivation, the reactive species were detected using trapping experiment. Thus, isopropyl alcohol (IPA) and p-benzoquinone (PBQ) were used to scavenge hydroxyl radicals (·OH) and superoxide radicals (·O2−), respectively, during the photocatalysis process. As shown in Figure 6a, the addition of IPA lead to an increase in the survival rate of A. hydrophila, which indicates that ·OH plays an important role in the photoinactivation of A. hydrophila. However, the addition of PBQ resulted in A. hydrophila having difficulty surviving under dark conditions, possibly because of its cytotoxicity towards this bacterium. Consequently, the role of ·O2− in photocatalysis remains uncertain. To further determine the active species in the photocatalytic process, we conducted electron spin resonance (ESR) spectroscopy to capture the signal of ·OH and·O2− using 5,5-dimethyl-1-pyrroline-N-oxide (DMPO). As depicted in Figure 6b, no signal was observed under the dark condition, while the signal of DMPO–·OH with four typical characteristic peaks (red line) with a ratio of 1:2:2:1 was observed. This demonstrated that hydroxyl radicals play an important role in the photoinactivation of A. hydrophila, which is consistent with the results of the trapping experiment. In addition, the signal of DMPO–·O2− with six typical characteristic peaks (blue line) was detected under the light condition, indicating the presence of superoxide radicals during the photocatalytic process. These results revealed that both ·O2− and ·OH play a key role during the photocatalytic process.

3. Discussion

Many traditional Chinese herbs have been developed for inhibiting A. hydrophila, because they are widely available and environmentally friendly. For example, resveratrol [22,23], thymol [24], fraxetin [25], oridonin [26], magnolol [27], baicalin [28], and emodin [29] from traditional Chinese herbs display an inhibitory activity against A. hydrophila. In addition, extracts from Ficus leaves [30], Moringa oleifera leaves [31], the Araucaria angustifolia [32] seed coat, and Hesperozygis ringens [33] also have the ability to inhibit the growth of A. hydrophila. Furthermore, extracts such as essential oils (e.g., clove [34], rosemary [35], and cinnamon [36]) exhibit the activity of inhibiting A. hydrophila. However, the slow efficacy, difficulty in controlling the dosage, and lack of understanding of the action mechanisms of these traditional herbal medicines have limited their application in aquaculture. Nevertheless, photocatalysis is an alternative method to overcome these limitations due to its efficient, green, and visible light availability.
Although it has been proven that photocatalytic technology has tremendous potential to induce the inactivation of pathogens [37], there are only a few studies investigating the photoinactivation of aquatic pathogens, especially A. hydrophila [38]. In this study, we utilized the photosensitivity of emodin obtained from a traditional Chinese herb and applied it to the photoinactivation of A. hydrophila. Compared with other studies reported previously for A. hydrophila photoinactivation, as summarized in Table 1, the emodin used in this study exhibited an excellent photoinactivation efficiency with a lower power visible light source in a larger system. More importantly, A. hydrophila can be inactivated effectively under natural sunlight in a 200 mL system using emodin. This great efficiency may be attributed to the remarkable photoelectrochemical properties of emodin [29,39], which allows emodin to produce ROS rapidly under light irradiation.
The ROS generation mechanism using emodin depends on the light source and can be directly detected through trapping experiments and ESR spectroscopy analysis. The significant inhibitory effects of IPA under visible light indicated that ·OH radicals play a crucial role in driving the photobactericidal activity, because IPA is a scavenger of ·OH. In contrast, the inhibitory results of IPA under dark conditions were ineffective because of the presence of a light-dependent mechanism that generates ROS (Figure 6a). In addition, the ESR spectroscopy results further proved that ·OH is an important reactive species, along with ·O2− (Figure 6b). Moreover, the morphology of A. hydrophila cells were observed in the presence and absence of visible light and the damage of the cell wall and membrane structure demonstrate that light-dependent ROS are crucial during the process of photoinactivation.
Based on the above results, the light-dependent ROS punching mechanism of emodin for the photoinactivation of A. hydrophila was proposed (Figure 7). Under the visible light condition, emodin absorbs an appropriate wavelength of light and reaches the first singlet excited state, 1Em*. And then 1Em* can react with H2O to produce ·OH and the reduced form of emodin (Em•−), in which Em•− can react with O2 to yield ·O2− [45]. These generated ROS are subsequently attached to the surface of A. hydrophila, causing damage to their cell walls and membranes. Furthermore, emodin can enter the cell interior through breaking down cell walls and membranes using ROS and continue producing ROS to destroy DNA and proteins to promote the photoinactivation of A. hydrophila [46].

4. Materials and Methods

4.1. Chemicals and Reagents

Emodin with a purity of 98% was purchased from the Solarbio Chemical Reagent Company (Beijing, China). Luria bertani (LB) and phosphate-buffered saline (PBS) buffer were also purchased from Solarbio life science (Beijing, China). NB medium was purchased from Qingdao Hope Biotechnology Co., Ltd (Qingdao, China). Agar was purchased from Biofroxx Company (Einhausen, Germany). Dimethyl sulfoxide (DMSO) was purchased from Shanghai Aladdin Biochemical Technology Co., Ltd (Shanghai, China). A. hydrophila NJ-35 was obtained from Prof. Yong-Jie Liu (College of Veterinary Medicine, Nanjing Agricultural University, Nanjing, China). Sodium chloride (NaCl), glutaraldehyde, IPA, and PBQ were purchased from Energy Chemical (Shanghai, China). DMPO was obtained from Shanghai Yuanye bio-technology Co., Ltd (Shanghai, China). A compact fluorescent lamp (CFL) was used as the light source for the experiments.

4.2. MIC of Emodin against A. hydrophila

The minimal inhibitory concentration (MIC) is an essential parameter that determines the lowest concentration of an antimicrobial agent that can prevent the visible growth of microorganisms after overnight incubation. The MIC analysis was conducted in a 96-well microtiter plate with LB medium, using the broth micro-dilution techniques and guideline procedures for aerobic testing [47]. A. hydrophila strains were first sub-cultured on nutrient agar and incubated at 28 °C for 24 h. After incubation on agar, single colonies from the plate were introduced into individual flasks containing sterile LB medium (50 mL) and were incubated in a shaking incubator at 28 °C for 24 h, to ensure that the bacterial concentration was approximately at 106 colony-forming units/milliliter (CFU/mL). Then, 90 μL of the cell suspension were taken to the 96-well microtiter plate. The following step involved adding 10 μL of different concentrations of emodin. The final concentrations of emodin were 0, 1, 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64, 128, 256, 512, 1024, and 2048 mg/L. The plate was then incubated at 28 °C for 24 h. Negative and positive controls consisted of wells containing only DMSO and wells containing LB including bacteria, respectively. The growth of A. hydrophila was monitored by measuring the absorbance at 600 nm using an MK3 microcoder (Thermo Scientific, Waltham, MA, USA). The antibacterial activity test was performed in triplicate.

4.3. Photoinactivation of A. hydrophila Using Emodin

Overnight cultured A. hydrophila was inoculated in fresh NB medium and grown until the cell density reached 107 CFU/mL and was used for the photoinactivation test. Following this, 50 mL of the as-obtained A. hydrophila suspension was added to a 250 mL flask, and the flasks were placed about 5 cm around the lamp, as shown in Figure 8. In addition, controls without light irradiation were also performed. These flasks were incubated at 28 °C for 30 min, then 100 µL of the solution was diluted 105 times using 0.9% NaCl and was spread on NB plates. These plates were then incubated at 28 °C for 24 h. Following incubation, colony counts were conducted and the survival rates were calculated as follows: survival rate (%) = number of colonies in the experimental group/number of colonies in control group × 100%.
Photoinactivation experiments were carried out using different light sources (5 W, 15 W, 23 W, 32 W, and 45 W) as well as in darkness, with exposure times of 15, 30, and 60 min. Various concentrations of emodin, including 0, 1/16, 1/8, 1/4, 1/2, and 1 MIC, were tested against A. hydrophila. The antibacterial effects of emodin photoinactivation were evaluated based on the survival rate of A. hydrophila.
To explore the practical applications of emodin in aquaculture, we investigated the effectiveness of sunlight-mediated (East 120°15′48″, North 31°30′41″; temperatures on October 24, 26, and 30 and January 10, 11, and 15 were 27 °C, 28 °C, and 27 °C and 8 °C, 10 °C, and 12 °C at about 1 pm, respectively) photoinactivation of A. hydrophila. The experiment involved two distinct groups, of which one was subjected to natural sunlight with varying emodin concentrations (32, 64, 128, and 256 mg/L) for a duration of 30 min in a 50 mL system, and the other was the control group maintained under dark conditions. In addition, a 200 mL A. hydrophila suspension scaled-up system was investigated in a 500 mL flask.

4.4. Morphology Analysis

To analyze the structural changes in bacterial cells, SEM and TEM were observed using Hitachi SU8010 and Hitachi H-7650 (Hitachi, Tokyo, Japan), respectively [48,49]. Briefly, A. hydrophila cells were exposed to CFL light for 30 min in the presence of emodin and the untreated cells were chosen for the morphological assessment. The cells were collected using centrifugation at 12,000 rpm for 2 min, then washed using PBS buffer (0.1 M, pH 7.4). The collected cells were fixed in 2.5% glutaraldehyde and analyzed using SEM and TEM.

4.5. Study on Reactive Species of Photoinactivation

To confirm the effect of ROS on the photoinactivation of A. hydrophila, trapping experiments were performed using 128 mg of IPA and PBQ (reactive species scavengers), which were used to capture ·OH and·O2−, respectively [50]. The experiments were performed in an open flask at 28 °C with a 32 W CFL light source in the center. In the presence and absence of light, 128 mg IPA and PBQ were added to the flasks containing the bacterial strain and 256 mg/L emodin. The flask was then incubated in a shaker at 180 rpm for 30 min. At specified time intervals, 10 μL of the suspension was collected and diluted 105 times using 0.9% NaCl. Subsequently, 100 μL of the diluted solution was transferred to NB plates, spread evenly, and incubated overnight. Following incubation, the colonies were counted and the survival rate was calculated.
The reactive species were further confirmed using an EMXplus 10/12 ESR instrument (Bruker, Karlsruhe, Germany). For this measurement, DMPO was used as the scavenging reagent. In the presence and absence of light, 128 mg DMPO was added to a flask containing the bacterial strain [51]. After the solution was subjected to irradiation with a 32 W CFL for 30 min, a 1 mL suspension was collected and used for ESR detection.

4.6. Statistical Analysis

All the obtained data were replicated independently three times and are expressed as mean ± standard error.

5. Conclusions

In conclusion, this study utilized the photosensitivity of the active ingredient emodin in traditional Chinese herbal medicines, which can efficiently achieve the photoinactivation of A. hydrophila (survival rate 13.76%) under 32 W CFL irradiation using 256 mg/L emodin. In addition, a lower concentration of emodin (64 mg/L) can inactivate A. hydrophila effectively (survival rate 4.33%) under natural sunlight, which indicated the great potential for practical application. Furthermore, photogenerated ROS, including ·OH and ·O2−, can damage the cell walls and membranes of A. hydrophila. Finally, the light-dependent ROS punching process was the photoinactivation mechanism of emodin to A. hydrophila. Photoinactivation of A. hydrophila using emodin is a promising method, which can provide a new direction for the application of traditional Chinese herbs in the inactivation of aquatic pathogens.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, L.L., J.X. and B.X.; Investigation, T.Q., B.L. and J.X.; Methodology, G.U. and J.G.; Resources, L.G. and B.L.; Validation, L.G. and B.L.; Writing—original draft, G.U. and L.L.; Writing—review and editing, L.L., L.G. and B.X. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by the Central Public-interest Scientific Institution Basal Research Fund, Freshwater Fisheries Research Center, CAFS (NO. 2023JBFR03) and the APC was funded by Liushen Lu. This work was also supported by the Postdoctoral Fellowship Program of CPSF (GZC20230984) and the APC was funded by Lichun Guo.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Data is contained within the article and the corresponding author can make any materials available on request.

Acknowledgments

The authors thank participants for their cooperation. The authors are grateful to the Freshwater Fisheries Research Center, Wuxi Fisheries College and Jiangnan University, for supporting this research work.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

References

  1. Stratev, D.; Odeyemi, O.A. Antimicrobial resistance of Aeromonas hydrophila isolated from different food sources: A mini-review. J. Infect. Public Health 2016, 9, 535–544. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Ugarte-Torres, A.; Perry, S.; Franko, A.; Church, D.L. Multidrug-resistant Aeromonas hydrophila causing fatal bilateral necrotizing fasciitis in an immunocompromised patient: A case report. J. Med. Case Rep. 2018, 12, 1–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Rasmussen-Ivey, C.; Figueras, M.; McGarey, D.; Liles, M. Virulence factors of Aeromonas hydrophila: In the wake of reclassification. Front. Microbiol. 2016, 7, 217548. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Mzula, A.; Wambura, P.; Mdegela, R.; Shirima, G. Current state of modern biotechnological-based Aeromonas hydrophila vaccines for aquaculture: A systematic review. BioMed Res. Int. 2019, 2019, 3768948. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Yazdanpanah-Goharrizi, L.; Rokhbakhsh-Zamin, F.; Zorriehzahra, M.J.; Kazemipour, N.; Kheirkhah, B. Isolation, biochemical and molecular detection of Aeromonas hydrophila from cultured Oncorhynchus mykiss. Iran. J. Fish. Sci. 2020, 19, 2422–2436. [Google Scholar]
  6. Kaskhedikar, M.; Chhabra, D. Multiple drug resistance in Aeromonas hydrophila isolates of fish. Vet. World 2010, 3, 76–77. [Google Scholar]
  7. Lu, L.; Zhang, Y.; Yuan, Z.; Xu, J.; Li, M.; Wu, Y.; Wang, L.; Huang, S.; Rao, Y. Easily fabricated HARCP/HAp photocatalyst for efficient and fast removal of tetracycline under natural sunlight. Chem. Eng. J. 2021, 412, 128620. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Yin, L.; Chen, J.; Wang, K.; Geng, Y.; Ouyang, P. Study the antibacterial mechanism of cinnamaldehyde against drug-resistant Aeromonas hydrophila in vitro. Microb. Pathog. 2020, 145, 104208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Motelica, L.; Vasile, B.-S.; Ficai, A.; Surdu, A.-V.; Ficai, D.; Oprea, O.-C.; Andronescu, E.; Jinga, D.C.; Holban, A.M. Influence of the alcohols on the ZnO synthesis and its properties: The photocatalytic and antimicrobial activities. Pharmaceutics 2022, 14, 2842. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  10. Nowak-Perlak, M.; Bromke, M.A.; Ziółkowski, P.; Wo´zniak, M. The comparison of the efficiency of emodin and aloe-emodin in photodynamic therapy. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2022, 23, 6276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  11. Motelica, L.; Vasile, B.S.; Ficai, A.; Surdu, A.V.; Ficai, D.; Oprea, O.C.; Andronescu, E.; Mustățea, G.; Ungureanu, E.L.; Dobre, A.A. Antibacterial activity of zinc oxide nanoparticles loaded with essential oils. Pharmaceutics 2023, 15, 2470. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. You, J.; Guo, Y.; Guo, R.; Liu, X. A review of visible light-active photocatalysts for water disinfection: Features and prospects. Chem. Eng. J. 2019, 373, 624–641. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Bhavya, M.L.; Hebbar, H.U. Efficacy of blue LED in microbial inactivation: Effect of photosensitization and process parameters. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2019, 290, 296–304. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Rodríguez-González, V.; Obregón, S.; Patrón-Soberano, O.A.; Terashima, C.; Fujishima, A. An approach to the photocatalytic mechanism in the TiO2-nanomaterials microorganism interface for the control of infectious processes. Appl. Catal. B Environ. 2020, 270, 118853. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Gonzales, J.; Brancini, G.; Rodrigues, G.; Silva-Junior, G.; Bachmann, L.; Wainwright, M.; Braga, G. Photodynamic inactivation of conidia of the fungus Colletotrichum abscissum on Citrus sinensis plants with methylene blue under solar radiation. J. Photochem. Photobiol. B 2017, 176, 54–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Rai, P.; Mallidi, S.; Zheng, X.; Rahmanzadeh, R.; Mir, Y.; Khurshid, A.; Hasan, T. Development and applications of photo-triggered theranostic agents. Adv. Drug Delivery Rev. 2010, 62, 1094–1124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Dong, X.; Fu, J.; Yin, X.; Cao, S.; Li, X. Emodin: A review of its pharmacology, toxicity and pharmacokinetics. Phyther. Res. 2016, 30, 1207–1218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Zhang, Y.; Wang, L.; Lu, L.; Liu, M.; Yuan, Z.; Yang, L.; Liu, C.; Huang, S.; Rao, Y. Highly efficient decontamination of tetracycline and pathogen by a natural product-derived Emodin/HAp photocatalyst. Chemosphere 2022, 305, 135401. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. Li, J.; Qin, M.; Liu, C.; Ma, W.; Zeng, X.; Ji, Y. Antimicrobial photodynamic therapy against multidrug-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii clinical isolates mediated by aloe-emodin: An in vitro study. Photodiagnosis Photodyn. Ther. 2020, 29, 101632. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  20. Peiyuan, L.W.S.; Wen, F.; Yan, H.; Xu, Q. Antimicrobial activity of emodin in combination with visible light against Escherichia coli and Staphylococcus aureus: Applications for food safety technology. Lwt Food Sci. Technol. 2023, 181, 114750. [Google Scholar]
  21. Grinholc, M.; Szramka, B.; Kurlenda, J.; Graczyk, A.; Bielawski, K.P. Bactericidal effect of photodynamic inactivation against methicillin-resistant and methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus is strain-dependent. J. Photochem. Photobiol. B Biol. 2008, 90, 57–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Fu, Y.; Zhang, L.; Lin, Y.; Zhao, X.; Chen, H.; Zhong, Y.; Jiang, W.; Wu, X.; Lin, X. Unveiling the antibacterial mechanism of resveratrol against Aeromonas hydrophila through proteomics analysis. Front. Cell. Infect. Microbiol. 2024, 14, 1378094. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Tabolacci, C.; De Vita, D.; Facchiano, A.; Bozzuto, G.; Beninati, S.; Failla, C.M.; Di Martile, M.; Lintas, C.; Mischiati, C.; Stringaro, A.; et al. Phytochemicals as immunomodulatory agents in melanoma. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2023, 24, 2657. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Morsell, M.B.; Baldissera, M.D.; Souza, C.F.; Reis, J.H.; Silva, A.S.D. Effects of thymol supplementation on performance, mortality and branchial energetic metabolism in grass carp experimentally infected by Aeromonas hydrophila. Microb. Pathog. 2019, 139, 103915. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Zhu, L.; Chen, K.; Xi, B.; Xie, J. In vitro antibacterial effect of fraxetin on pathogenic Aeromonas hydrophila. J. Fish. Sci. China 2019, 26, 984–992. [Google Scholar]
  26. Chen, G.H.; Xu, L.M.; Zhao, J.Z.; Ren, G.M.; Shao, Y.Z.; Lu, T.Y. Preparation and immune protective efficacy analysis of an inactivated vaccine against infectious hematopoietic necrosis (IHN). J. Fish. China 2021, 45, 1909–1920. [Google Scholar]
  27. Zhang, Z.; Li, J.; Wang, G.X.; Ling, F. The oral protective efficacy of magnolol against Aeromonas hydrophila and A. veronii infection via enhancing anti-inflammatory ability in goldfish (Carassius auratus). J. Fish. Dis. 2023, 46, 1413–1423. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  28. Chang, R.Q.; Jiang, J.; Guan, C.; Hu, X.; Yao, L.; Kan, Y. Bacteriostatic and antibiofilm effects of baicalin on Aeromonas hydrophila: In vitro and in vivo evaluation. Acta Microbiol. Sin. 2021, 61, 2112–2120. [Google Scholar]
  29. Zhang, Y.; Lou, J.; Li, M.; Yuan, Z.; Rao, Y. Emodin as a novel organic photocatalyst for selective oxidation of sulfides under mild conditions. RSC Adv. 2020, 10, 19747–19750. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  30. Pekala-Safinska, A.; Tkachenko, H.; Kurhaluk, N.; Buyun, L.; Osadowski, Z.; Honcharenko, V. Studies on the inhibitory properties of leaf ethanolic extracts obtained from Ficus (Moraceae) species against Aeromonas spp. strains. J. Vet. Res. 2021, 65, 59–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  31. Korni, F.M.M.; Abo El-Ela, F.I.; Moawad, U.K. Role of moringa oleifera leaves and aqueous extract in prevention of motile Aeromonas septicemia in common carp, Cyprinus carpio fingerlings with a reference to histopathological alterations. Aquac. Int. 2020, 28, 153–168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Trojaike, G.H.; Biondo, E.; Padilha, R.L.; Brandelli, A.; Sant, A.V. Antimicrobial activity of araucaria angustifolia seed (Pinhão) coat extract and its synergism with thermal treatment to inactivate listeria monocytogenes. Food Bioprocess. Technol. 2019, 12, 193–197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Rosa, I.A.; Rodrigues, P.; Bianchini, A.E.; Silveira, B.P.; Ferrari, F.T.; Bandeira Junior, G.; Vargas, A.P.; Baldisserotto, B.; Heinzmann, B.M. Extracts of Hesperozygis ringens (Benth.) Epling: In vitro and in vivo antibacterial activity against fish pathogenic bacteria. J. Appl. Microbiol. 2019, 126, 1353–1361. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Baba, E. Antibacterial effects of seven essential plant oils on fish pathogens. Bol. Inst. Pesca 2020, 46, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Al Laham, S.A.; Al Fadel, F.M. Antibacterial activity of various plants extracts against antibiotic-resistant Aeromonas hydrophila. Jundishapur J. Microbiol. 2014, 7, e11370. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Yin, R.; Dai, T.; Avci, P.; Jorge, A.E.S.; Hamblin, M.R. Light based anti-infectives: Ultraviolet C irradiation, photodynamic therapy, blue light, and beyond. Curr. Opin. Pharmacol. 2013, 13, 731–762. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Anjos, C.; Sabino, C.P.; Sellera, F.P.; Esposito, F.; Pogliani, F.C.; Lincopan, N. Hypervirulent and hypermucoviscous strains of Klebsiella pneumoniae challenged by antimicrobial strategies using visible light. Int. J. Antimicrob. Agents 2020, 56, 106025. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  38. Kaur, J.; Karthikeyan, R.; Pillai, S.D. Effectiveness of ultrasound, UV-C, and photocatalysis on inactivation kinetics of Aeromonas hydrophila. J. Environ. Sci. Health Part A 2015, 50, 1223–1229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  39. Wang, L.; Zhang, Z.; Ye, B. Study on the electrochemical behaviour of the anticancer herbal drug emodin. Electrochim. Acta 2006, 51, 5961–5965. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Khan, S.; Reed, R.; Rasul, M. Thin-film fixed-bed reactor (TFFBR) for solar photocatalytic inactivation of aquaculture pathogen Aeromonas hydrophila. BMC Microbiol. 2012, 12, 5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  41. Yassunaka, N.N.; de Freitas, C.F.; Rabello, B.R.; Santos, P.R.; Caetano, W.; Hioka, N.; Nakamura, T.U.; de Abreu Filho, B.A.; Mikcha, J.M. Photodynamic inactivation mediated by erythrosine and its derivatives on foodborne pathogens and spoilage bacteria. Curr. Microbiol. 2015, 71, 243–251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  42. Penha, C.B.; Bonin, E.; Silva, A.F.D.; Hioka, N.; Erica, B.Z.; Nakamura, T.U.; Filho, B.A.D.A.; Campanerut-Sa, P.A.Z.; Mikcha, J.M.G. Photodynamic inactivation of foodborne and food spoilage bacteria by curcumin. LWT Food Sci. Technol. 2017, 76, 198–202. [Google Scholar]
  43. Rafeeq, S.; Shiroodi, S.; Schwarz, M.H.; Nitin, N.; Ovissipour, R. Inactivation of Aeromonas hydrophila and Vibrio parahaemolyticus by curcumin-mediated photosensitization and nanobubble-ultrasonication approaches. Foods 2020, 9, 1306. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Mantareva, V.N.; Kussovski, V.; Orozova, P.; Dimitrova, L.; Kulu, I.; Angelov, I.; Durmus, M.; Najdenski, H. Photodynamic inactivation of antibiotic-resistant and sensitive Aeromonas hydrophila with peripheral Pd(II)- vs. Zn(II)-phthalocyanines. Biomedicines 2022, 10, 384. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Braga, G.; Silva-Junior, G.; Brancini, G.; Hallsworth, J.; Wainwright, M. Photoantimicrobials in agriculture. J. Photochem. Photobiol. B 2022, 235, 112548. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. Marin, M.L.; Santos-Juanes, L.; Arques, A.; Amat, A.M.; Miranda, M.A. Organic photocatalysts for the oxidation of pollutants and model compounds. Chem. Rev. 2012, 112, 1710–1750. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  47. Lu, L.; Wang, J.; Qin, T.; Chen, K.; Xie, J.; Xi, B. Carvacrol inhibits quorum sensing in opportunistic bacterium Aeromonas hydrophila. Microorganisms 2023, 11, 2027. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  48. Phalanisong, P.; Vichitphan, K.; Han, J.; Vichitphan, S. High antioxidant and phenolic contents related to antibacterial activity against gastrointestinal pathogenic bacteria of some Thai medicinal plants. Pharmacogn. J. 2018, 10, 341–348. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Wang, B.L.; Lu, C.; Hong, X.; Lv, W.; Xu, P.; Zhu, J.; Xie, J.; Lou, Z. Antibacterial properties of anthraquinones extracted from rhubarb against Aeromonas hydrophila. Aquaculture 2011, 77, 375–384. [Google Scholar]
  50. Wu, Y.; Lu, L.; Zhang, Y.; Yuan, Z.; Yang, L.; Wang, L.; Rao, Y. A bioinspired cercosporin/polymethylmethacrylate photocatalyst with high efficiency for decontamination of pharmaceuticals and pathogens. J. Hazard. Mater. 2021, 419, 126555. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  51. Xu, T.; Zou, R.; Lei, X.; Qi, X.; Wu, Q.; Yao, W.; Xu, Q. New and stable g-C3N4/HAp composites as highly efficient photocatalysts for tetracycline fast degradation. Appl. Catal. B 2019, 245, 662–671. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Ijms 25 05444 g001
Figure 1. Minimal inhibitory concentration of emodin on the survival and growth curve of A. hydrophila.
Figure 1. Minimal inhibitory concentration of emodin on the survival and growth curve of A. hydrophila.
Ijms 25 05444 g001
Ijms 25 05444 g002
Figure 2. The activity of emodin under dark and light conditions. (a) The colony numbers of A. hydrophila on nutrient broth (NB) plates in the dark by 256 mg/L emodin. (b) The survival rate of A. hydrophila in the dark. (c) The colony numbers of A. hydrophila on NB plates upon 32 W CFL irradiation by 256 mg/L emodin. (d) The survival rate of A. hydrophila upon 32 W CFL irradiation.
Figure 2. The activity of emodin under dark and light conditions. (a) The colony numbers of A. hydrophila on nutrient broth (NB) plates in the dark by 256 mg/L emodin. (b) The survival rate of A. hydrophila in the dark. (c) The colony numbers of A. hydrophila on NB plates upon 32 W CFL irradiation by 256 mg/L emodin. (d) The survival rate of A. hydrophila upon 32 W CFL irradiation.
Ijms 25 05444 g002
Ijms 25 05444 g003
Figure 3. Effect of emodin concentration (a) and light source (b) for photoinactivation of A. hydrophila.
Figure 3. Effect of emodin concentration (a) and light source (b) for photoinactivation of A. hydrophila.
Ijms 25 05444 g003
Ijms 25 05444 g004
Figure 4. Photoinactivation of A. hydrophila under sunlight. (a) The colony numbers of A. hydrophila on NB plates under sunlight in a 50 mL system. (b) The survival rate of A. hydrophila under sunlight in a 50 mL system. (c) The colony numbers of A. hydrophila on NB plates under sunlight in a 200 mL system with 64 mg/L emodin. (d) The survival rate of A. hydrophila under sunlight in a 200 mL system with 64 mg/L emodin.
Figure 4. Photoinactivation of A. hydrophila under sunlight. (a) The colony numbers of A. hydrophila on NB plates under sunlight in a 50 mL system. (b) The survival rate of A. hydrophila under sunlight in a 50 mL system. (c) The colony numbers of A. hydrophila on NB plates under sunlight in a 200 mL system with 64 mg/L emodin. (d) The survival rate of A. hydrophila under sunlight in a 200 mL system with 64 mg/L emodin.
Ijms 25 05444 g004
Ijms 25 05444 g005
Figure 5. Effect of emodin on the structure of A. hydrophila. SEM images of A. hydrophila under dark conditions with 256 mg/L emodin treatment for 0 min (a) and 30 min (b). SEM images of A. hydrophila upon 32W CFL irradiation with 256 mg/L emodin treatment for 0 min (e) and 30 min (f). TEM images of A. hydrophila under dark conditions with 256 mg/L emodin treatment for 0 min (c) and 30 min (d). TEM images of A. hydrophila upon 32W CFL irradiation with 256 mg/L emodin treatment for 0 min (g) and 30 min (h).
Figure 5. Effect of emodin on the structure of A. hydrophila. SEM images of A. hydrophila under dark conditions with 256 mg/L emodin treatment for 0 min (a) and 30 min (b). SEM images of A. hydrophila upon 32W CFL irradiation with 256 mg/L emodin treatment for 0 min (e) and 30 min (f). TEM images of A. hydrophila under dark conditions with 256 mg/L emodin treatment for 0 min (c) and 30 min (d). TEM images of A. hydrophila upon 32W CFL irradiation with 256 mg/L emodin treatment for 0 min (g) and 30 min (h).
Ijms 25 05444 g005
Ijms 25 05444 g006
Figure 6. Trapping experiment of emodin for A. hydrophila photoinactivation in the presence of different scavengers (a) and ESR signal of DMPO–·O2− and DMPO–·OH (b).
Figure 6. Trapping experiment of emodin for A. hydrophila photoinactivation in the presence of different scavengers (a) and ESR signal of DMPO–·O2− and DMPO–·OH (b).
Ijms 25 05444 g006
Ijms 25 05444 g007
Figure 7. Proposed mechanism of sunlight-mediated bactericidal activity of emodin against A. hydrophila.
Figure 7. Proposed mechanism of sunlight-mediated bactericidal activity of emodin against A. hydrophila.
Ijms 25 05444 g007
Ijms 25 05444 g008
Figure 8. Schematic diagram of the antibacterial activity of emodin against A. hydrophila.
Figure 8. Schematic diagram of the antibacterial activity of emodin against A. hydrophila.
Ijms 25 05444 g008
Table 1. Comparison of A. hydrophila photoinactivation based on different photocatalysts.
Table 1. Comparison of A. hydrophila photoinactivation based on different photocatalysts.
PhotosensitizerConcentrationLight SourceSystemIrradiation TimeEfficiency DescriptionReference
TiO220.5 g/m2sunlight (980–1100 W/m2)200 mL2.5 min1–1.4-fold decrease[40]
erythrosine0.01 mmol/Lgreen LED (130 mW/cm2)500 μL20 mincompletely eradicated[41]
erythrosine methyl ester0.01 mmol/Lgreen LED (47 mW/cm2)500 μL30 minsurvival rate about 24%
erythrosine butyl ester0.01 mmol/Lgreen LED (36 mW/cm2)500 μL30 minsurvival rate about 7.7%
curcumin75 mmol/Lblue LED (232 mW/cm2)500 μL20 mincompletely eradicated[42]
curcumin10 mg/L18 W UV-A5 mL15 minsurvival rate about 20%[43]
pPdPc8 μmol/LLED (100 mW/cm2)200 μL15 mincompletely eradicated[44]
ZnPcMe5 μmol/LLED (100 mW/cm2)200 μL15 mincompletely eradicated
emodin256 mg/L32 W CFL (15.32 mW/cm2)50 mL30 minsurvival rate 13.76%this study
64 mg/Lsunlight50 mL30 minsurvival rate 1.57%this study
64 mg/Lsunlight200 mL30 minsurvival rate 4.33%this study
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Urgesa, G.; Lu, L.; Gao, J.; Guo, L.; Qin, T.; Liu, B.; Xie, J.; Xi, B. Natural Sunlight-Mediated Emodin Photoinactivation of Aeromonas hydrophila. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2024, 25, 5444. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms25105444

AMA Style

Urgesa G, Lu L, Gao J, Guo L, Qin T, Liu B, Xie J, Xi B. Natural Sunlight-Mediated Emodin Photoinactivation of Aeromonas hydrophila. International Journal of Molecular Sciences. 2024; 25(10):5444. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms25105444

Chicago/Turabian Style

Urgesa, Gelana, Liushen Lu, Jinwei Gao, Lichun Guo, Ting Qin, Bo Liu, Jun Xie, and Bingwen Xi. 2024. "Natural Sunlight-Mediated Emodin Photoinactivation of Aeromonas hydrophila" International Journal of Molecular Sciences 25, no. 10: 5444. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms25105444

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop