Next Article in Journal
Efficiency of Lactiplantibacillus plantarum JT-PN39 and Paenibacillus motobuensis JT-A29 for Fermented Coffee Applications and Fermented Coffee Characteristics
Previous Article in Journal
Synergistic Fermentation with Functional Microorganisms Improves Safety and Quality of Traditional Chinese Fermented Foods
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Foods
Volume 12
Issue 15
10.3390/foods12152893
foods-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
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Chemical Composition, Antibacterial and Antibiofilm Actions of Oregano (Origanum vulgare subsp. hirtum) Essential Oil against Salmonella Typhimurium and Listeria monocytogenes

by
Sonia Kolypetri
1,
Dimitra Kostoglou
1,
Anastasios Nikolaou
2,
Yiannis Kourkoutas
2 and
Efstathios Giaouris
1,*
1
Laboratory of Food Microbiology and Hygiene, Department of Food Science and Nutrition, School of the Environment, University of the Aegean, 81400 Myrina, Lemnos, Greece
2
Laboratory of Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology, Department of Molecular Biology and Genetics, School of Health Sciences, Democritus University of Thrace, 68100 Alexandroupolis, Greece
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Foods 2023, 12(15), 2893; https://doi.org/10.3390/foods12152893
Submission received: 8 June 2023 / Revised: 29 June 2023 / Accepted: 28 July 2023 / Published: 29 July 2023
(This article belongs to the Section Food Microbiology)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Essential oils (EOs) are plant mixtures that are known to present strong bioactivities, including a wide antimicrobial action. Biofilms are microbial sessile structures that represent the default mode of growth of microorganisms in most environments. This study focused on the antimicrobial action of the EO extracted from one of the most representative oregano species, that is, Origanum vulgare (subsp. hirtum), against two important foodborne pathogens, Salmonella enterica (serovar Typhimurium) and Listeria monocytogenes. For this, the minimum inhibitory concentrations of the EO against the planktonic and biofilm growth of each bacterium were determined (MICs, MBICs), together with the minimum bactericidal and biofilm eradication concentrations (MBCs, MBECs). The EO was also analyzed for its chemical composition by gas chromatography—mass spectrometry analysis (GC-MS). The influence of EO exposure on the expression of some important virulence genes (hly, inlA, inlB and prfA) was also studied in L. monocytogenes. Results revealed a strong antibacterial and antibiofilm action with MICs and MBICs ranging from 0.03% to 0.06% (v/v) and from 0.06% to 0.13% (v/v), respectively. The application of the EO at 6.25% (v/v) for 15 min resulted in the total eradication of the biofilm cells of both pathogens. The EO was mainly composed of thymol, p-cymene, γ-terpinene and carvacrol. The 3 h exposure of L. monocytogenes planktonic cells to the EO at its MBIC (0.06% v/v) resulted in the significant downregulation of all the studied genes (p < 0.05). To sum, the results obtained advocate for the further exploitation of the antimicrobial action of oregano EO in food and health applications.

Graphical Abstract

1. Introduction

The genus Origanum L. comprises several species which differ in morphology and chemical characteristics, with most of them being originated in the Mediterranean region [1]. One of the most notable species is Origanum vulgare subsp. hirtum, which is a widely used aromatic plant in foods, feeds, cosmetics, and daily care products, especially due to its content in essential oil (EO), mainly rich in carvacrol and thymol [2]. An increasing number of studies have examined various bioactivities of O. vulgare EO, including strong antimicrobial action against various bacteria and fungi [3]. Such bioactivities may, however, differ between the EO of the same species due to differences in chemical composition which in turn are due to parameters such as the soil and climate conditions of plant growth, cultivation method, harvesting period, anatomical part of the plant used for extraction and method used to extract the oil [4].
Biofilms are microbial sessile (surface-attached) structures that represent the dominant mode of growth of almost all microorganisms in most environments, both natural and man-made [5]. Biofilm formation by bacterial pathogens is a worrying ability due to the increased tolerance and resistance of the enclosed cells to antimicrobials and other physicochemical stresses [6]. Such recalcitrance of biofilm cells is the result of many factors that act in concert and are related to biofilm growth, such as the limited penetration and/or the inactivation of some antimicrobials through the extracellular biofilm matrix, the reduced growth rate, the altered gene expression and physiology of biofilm cells, together with the increased presence of dormant and super-durable cells called persisters [7]. Alarmingly, biofilm formation is considered a key virulence factor for a wide range of microorganisms that cause human infections [8].
Salmonella enterica and Listeria monocytogenes are two well-known pathogenic bacteria that are responsible for foodborne infections [9]. Based on the latest epidemiological data for Europe, in 2021, salmonellosis remained the second most common foodborne zoonosis in humans after campylobacteriosis. That year, Salmonella provoked 773 foodborne outbreaks (FBOs), which is the largest number of FBOs recorded for 2021 [10]. As in previous years, the three most commonly reported Salmonella serovars were S. Enteritidis (54.6%), S. Typhimurium (11.4%) and monophasic S. Typhimurium (1,4,(5),12:i:-) (8.8%), representing 74.8% of the 50,817 confirmed human cases. On the other hand, listeriosis concerned 2183 confirmed human cases, provoked 196 deaths, and resulted in a case fatality ratio of 13.7% which is the highest compared to all the other zoonoses monitored. Both S. enterica and L. monocytogenes can form robust biofilms on various surfaces encountered within the food production chain and in this way persist and contaminate foods [11,12]. Thus, the ability of these bacteria to form biofilms and/or be included in those formed by other species (e.g., those of spoilage microflora) is considered a strong contributing factor to their prevalence in foods and their virulence potential [13,14,15].
The increased tolerance and resistance of several pathogenic bacteria to antibiotics and/or disinfectants has led to the continuous search for novel antimicrobial agents [16,17,18]. Plants may be a promising source for such compounds mainly due to their great biological diversity, abundance, and safe and ecofriendly nature [19,20]. In the past few years, there have been numerous studies published on the antimicrobial and antibiofilm actions of various EOs including those of oregano species [21,22,23,24]. Given that the EOs have multiple targets against microbial cells (e.g., rupture of the cell membrane, coagulation of the cytoplasm, interference with DNA transcription, protein synthesis and enzymatic activity, disturbance of the proton motive force etc.), it is believed that this lowers the possibility for microorganisms to develop resistance [1]. In this study, we evaluated the antimicrobial action of the EO extracted from plants of O. vulgare subsp. hirtum, organically cultured on Lemnos Island (north-eastern Greece), against both planktonic and biofilm cells of S. Typhimurium and L. monocytogenes. The EO was also analyzed for its chemical composition by gas chromatography—mass spectrometry analysis (GC-MS). The influence of EO sublethal exposure on the expression of some important virulence genes (hly, inlA, inlB, and prfA) was also studied in planktonic L. monocytogenes cells through reverse transcription quantitative polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR).

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Bacterial Strains and Preparation of Their Working Cultures

The bacterial strains that were used in this study were S. enterica str. FMCC_B137, which was kindly provided by Prof. George-John Nychas (Agricultural University of Athens, Athens, Greece), and L. monocytogenes str. AAL 20107, which was kindly supplied by Dr. Nikolaos Andritsos (Athens Analysis Laboratories S.A., Microbiology Laboratory, Metamorfosi, Greece). The strain of S. enterica belongs to serovar Typhimurium; it is an epidemic strain of phage type DT193 and was originally isolated from a human salmonellosis outbreak [25]. The strain of L. monocytogenes belongs to serovar 1/2b and was originally isolated from a mixed green salad [26]. Before use, both strains were maintained frozen at −80 °C in BHI broth (Lab M, Heywood, Lancashire, UK) containing 15% v/v glycerol. When needed, each strain was streaked on Tryptone Soya Agar (TSA; Oxoid, Thermo Fisher Specialty Diagnostics Ltd., Hampshire, UK) and incubated at 37 °C for 24 h (preculture). Working cultures were prepared by inoculating a single colony from each preculture into 10 mL of fresh TSB (Condalab, Torrejón de Ardoz, Madrid, Spain) and then incubating at 37 °C for 18 h. The final concentration of each working culture was ca. 109 CFU/mL and its purity was always confirmed by streaking on TSA and incubating it at 37 °C for 24 h.

2.2. O. vulgare EO

The EO that was used in this work was extracted from dried plant material by hydro-distillation procedure as previously described [27] and was kindly donated by Dr. Nikolaos Paterakis, owner of the essential oil production and trading company Aegean Organics (Agios Dimitrios, Lemnos, Greece). The year of harvest was 2022. Besides oregano, this company produces EOs and decoctions of various other aromatic plants that are all grown under a certified organic culture. Upon receipt, the EO was kept in a dark glass vial in the refrigerator (4 °C).

2.3. Determination of Minimum Inhibitory and Bactericidal Concentrations of EO against Planktonic Bacteria (MICs, MBCs)

The MIC of the EO against the planktonic growth of each bacterial strain was determined following the broth microdilution method as previously described [27]. In brief, ten different concentrations were tested for the EO which were prepared by successive two-fold dilutions in TSB and ranged from 0.5 to 0.001% v/v (a stock solution of the EO at 1% v/v was initially prepared in TSB also containing 9% v/v ethanol). Then, 360 μL of each of those dilutions were placed in duplicate in the wells of a sterile 100-well Bioscreen honeycomb plate (Oy Growth Curves Ab Ltd., Turku, Finland), and inoculated with the tested bacteria so as to have an initial concentration of ca. 104−5 CFU/mL. The plate was incubated at 37 °C for 24 h in the Bioscreen Co Pro instrument, which was adjusted to record the absorbance of the contents of each well every 30 min at 600 nm (A600nm). Pure sterile growth medium (TSB) was used as a negative control (NC). For each bacterial strain, the MIC of the EO was calculated as its lowest concentration, resulting in no increase in absorbance with respect to the NC. To determine the MBC, 10 μL of broth cultures were aspirated from all the non-growth wells of the MIC assay and spotted (in duplicate) on TSA plates, which were then incubated at 37 °C for 24 h. For each bacterial strain, the MBC of the EO was determined as its lowest concentration that reduced the initial inoculum by more than 99.9% (no appearance of colonies). Each experiment was repeated three times starting from independent bacterial cultures.

2.4. Determination of Minimum Biofilm Inhibitory Concentrations (MBICs)

The MBIC of the EO against the biofilm growth of each bacterial strain was determined following the crystal violet (CV) staining method as previously described [27]. In brief, eight different concentrations were tested for the EO which were prepared by successive two-fold dilutions and ranged from 0.25 to 0.002% v/v. These dilutions were done in the respective growth medium for each strain (see below). Each bacterium was left to form biofilm on 96-well polystyrene (PS) microtiter plates (transparent, flat, Cat. No. 30096, SPL Life Sciences, Gyeonggi-do, Korea) for 96 h in the presence of each EO concentration. For that assay, biofilm formation took place under the optimum (biofilm-maximizing) conditions for each strain (with respect to medium, time and incubation temperature), as these had been previously determined [27]. Thus, S. Typhimurium was grown in 1/10 diluted TSB (dTSB) at 20 °C, whereas L. monocytogenes was grown in BHI broth at 37 °C. For both bacteria, the growth medium was renewed at 48 h of incubation. At the end of incubation, the accumulated biomasses were quantified through their staining with CV (0.1% w/v) and subsequently measuring absorbance at 590 nm (A590nm). For each bacterial strain, the MBIC of the EO was determined as its lowest concentration that completely inhibited biofilm formation (biomass accumulated did not significantly differ from the negative control). Each experiment was repeated three times starting from independent bacterial cultures.

2.5. Determination of Minimum Biofilm Eradication Concentrations (MBECs)

The MBEC of the EO against the already 96 h preformed biofilms of each bacterial strain was determined as previously described [27]. In brief, five different concentrations were tested for the EO which were all prepared in sterile distilled water (dH2O) by successive two-fold dilutions and ranged from 6.25 to 0.39% v/v. Each EO disinfection solution was left to act against the biofilm cells for 15 min at room temperature. For each disinfection treatment, the survivors were enumerated by plate counting on TSA following their removal from surfaces through scratching (with a plastic pipette tip). For each bacterial strain, the MBEC of the EO was determined as its lowest concentration leading to at least six log reductions of the biofilm population compared to that of the negative control (dH2O also containing 10% v/v ethanol). Each experiment was repeated three times starting from independent bacterial cultures.

2.6. Chemical Analysis of EO (GC-MS)

Oregano EO was diluted in pure hexane (1:9) and the mixture was then chemically characterized by GC-MS analysis on a 6890N system (Agilent Technologies, Santa Clara, CA, USA) equipped with an HP-5MS column (30 m, 0.25 mm inner diameter, 0.25 μm film thickness) (Agilent Technologies) and coupled with a 5973Network mass detector (Agilent Technologies), as previously described [27].

2.7. Sublethal Exposure of Planktonic L. monocytogenes Cells to EO and RNA Extraction

L. monocytogenes bacteria from the final 18 h working culture were used to inoculate 10 mL of sterile BHI broth at 1:100 dilution (so as to have an initial concentration of ca. 107 CFU/mL). The new culture was incubated at 37 °C for 6 h and its cells were then collected by centrifugation (5000× g for 10 min at 4 °C) and the obtained pellet was subsequently suspended in 4 mL of quarter-strength Ringer’s solution (Lab M). That freshly saline cellular suspension was aliquoted in two Eppendorf® tubes (2 mL in each one) and centrifuged (5000× g for 10 min at 4 °C). One of the two bacterial pellets was then suspended in 1 mL of the EO solution (0.063% v/v; equal to the MBIC), while the second pellet was suspended in 1 mL of dH2O to be used as the untreated control sample. The dH2O of the control sample also contained absolute ethanol at 0.56% v/v. This latter was the concentration that existed in the EO solution (and was used to disolve the oil). Both samples were incubated in a heating dry block for 3 h at 37 °C (sublethal EO exposure) and were then immediately centrifuged (5000× g for 10 min at 4 °C). Supernatants were discarded and each pellet was washed with dH2O through an additional centrifugation step (5000× g for 10 min at 4 °C) to remove any EO residues. Washed pellets were then suspended in 1 mL of RNAlater™ Stabilization Solution (AM7021, Invitrogen™, Thermo Fisher Scientific, Carlsbad, CA, USA) and incubated overnight at 4 °C. Next day, RNAlater™ Solution was removed by centrifugation (5000× g for 10 min at 4 °C) and each bacterial pellet was then resuspended in 100 μL of TE buffer (10 mM Tris-HCl, 1 mM EDTA; pH 8) also containing 2.5 mg/mL lysozyme (native, chicken egg white, 4403, Calbiochem®, Merck KGaA) and incubated at 37 °C for 10 min. Following this enzymatic digest of the bacterial cell walls, the resulting homogenates were directly used for RNA extraction using the NucleoSpin® RNA Mini Kit (740955, MACHEREY-NAGEL GmbH & Co., KG, Düren, Germany).

2.8. cDNA Synthesis and qPCR

The cDNA synthesis was executed starting from 500 ng of each RNA sample (i.e., exposed and not exposed to the EO) using PrimeScript™ RT reagent Kit (RR037A, Takara Bio Inc., Shiga, Japan), according to the manufacturer’s instructions. Each cDNA template was then used as substrate in qPCR prepared using the FastGene® IC Green 2 × qPCR Universal Mix (LS4005, NIPPON Genetics EUROPE GmbH). Four virulence genes of L. monocytogenes were selected (hly, inlA, inlB and prfA) for this analysis, which was done as previously described [28]. Two reference (internal control) genes (tuf, gap) were included in each assay for the normalization of the qPCR data. Each experiment was repeated three times starting from independent bacterial cultures and each reaction was performed in triplicate.

2.9. Statistics

Biofilm plate counts (CFU/cm2) were transformed to logarithms before means and standard deviations were computed. The derived data on biofilm biomasses (A590nm), planktonic absorbances (A600nm), and biofilm populations (log10 CFU/cm2) were all submitted to analyses of variance (ANOVA), followed by Tukey’s multiple range post hoc honestly significant difference (HSD) tests for mean comparison, using the statistical software STATISTICA® (StatSoft Inc., Tulsa, OK, USA). In ANOVA, the dependent variables were the biofilm biomasses (A590nm), planktonic absorbances (A600nm) and biofilm populations (log10 CFU/cm2), while the categorical factor was always the treatment (EO concentration). Regarding gene expression, the data derived from a total of 108 reactions were analyzed. These were the result of six different cDNA samples (i.e., one bacterial strain × two treatments (exposed and not exposed to the EO) × three biological repetitions) × six genes (four targets plus two references)/sample × three technical replicates/gene. For each bacterial strain and target gene, unpaired two-tailed Student’s t-tests were applied to check for any significant difference in gene expression (expressed as log2(fold difference)) between the two treatments. These tests were performed using the relevant function of Excel® module of the Microsoft® Office 365 suite (Redmond, WA, USA). For all statistical analyses, significant differences were reported at a p level of <0.05.

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Antimicrobial Actions of O. vulgare EO against Planktonic and Biofilm Cells

The minimum inhibitory and minimum bactericidal concentrations (MICs, MBCs) of O. vulgare EO against the planktonic cells of S. Typhimurium and L. monocytogenes were initially determined. The MICs were found equal to 0.06 and 0.03% v/v against S. Typhimurium and L. monocytogenes, respectively (Table 1; equal to 0.55 and 0.27 mg/mL, respectively). No differences between the MICs and MBCs were observed, indicating the strong bactericidal action of the EO.
Oregano EO, such as many other EOs, may present multiple modes of action against microbial cells. The reader is referred to specialized reviews on the mode of actions of EOs for more info [1,2]. Many other studies have in the past analyzed the antimicrobial action of O. vulgare EOs against planktonic bacteria. For instance, Mazzarrino et al. (2015) determined the MICs of Italian O. vulgare EO against Salmonella spp. and L. monocytogenes and found values ranging from 0.6 to 1.2 μL/mL [29]. Assiri et al. (2016) determined the minimal lethal concentration (MLC) of O. vulgare EO from Saudi Arabia against S. Enteritidis and L. monocytogenes and found values equal to 0.16 and 0.32 mg/mL [30]. Elansary et al. (2108) found MIC and MBC of Egyptian O. vulgare EO against L. monocytogenes equal to 0.40 and 0.83 mg/mL, respectively [31]. Barbosa et al. (2020) found maximum sublethal concentration (MSC) of Brazilian O. vulgare EO against S. Enteritidis equal to 0.13 mg/mL [32]. Torabian Kakhki et al. (2020) found MIC and MBC of Iranian O. vulgare EO against L. monocytogenes equal to 1.28 and 2.56 mg/mL, respectively [33]. Solarte et al. (2020) determined the MIC of Spanish O. vulgare EO against one reference S. Typhimurium strain and two porcine isolates equal to 0.31 mg/mL [34]. It is clear that the EO from the Greek organically cultured oregano plants tested in the current study presents strong antimicrobial action that is similar or even superior to that previously described for O. vulgare EOs from some other countries.
Following the calculation of the MICs and MBCs of the O. vulgare EO against the planktonic S. Typhimurium and L. monocytogenes bacteria, we determined its minimum biofilm inhibitory concentrations (MBICs) against the biofilm growth of those bacteria. This is because both pathogens are known to form robust biofilms on various surfaces (both food-contact and non-food-contact ones) that display increased tolerance to antimicrobial agents and other stresses [35,36]. The protocol we followed to form biofilms had been previously optimized to maximize the sessile growth by each of these two bacterial strains [27]. However, and despite that optimization, the determined MBICs were still quite small and equal to 0.13 and 0.06% v/v against S. Typhimurium and L. monocytogenes, respectively (Table 1). This indicates the ability of the O. vulgare EO to efficiently inhibit biofilm formation by the tested pathogens at very low concentrations and thus its high antibiofilm potential. Figure 1 presents the biofilm biomasses (A590nm) accumulated on the PS surface for each one of the eight tested EO concentrations (0.25–0.002% v/v). The densities of the surrounding planktonic suspensions (A600nm) found in the same wells at the time of sampling (96 h) are also shown for each treatment (as dotted curved lines). It is worth noting that in the case of L. monocytogenes, the application of the EO at its MBIC (0.06% v/v) resulted in the total inhibition of biofilm formation, whereas the surrounding planktonic cells were still able to multiply, although to a lesser extent compared to the positive control (Figure 1B). This is quite interesting since it probably indicates that the observed inhibition of biofilm formation should not be a sole result of the reduced growth rate of the bacteria (before and after their attachment to the surfaces), but it could also be associated with the inhibition of some other biofilm-specific mechanisms, such as intercellular interactions and aggregation, motility, production of extracellular polymeric substances (EPS), altered gene expression etc. It is indeed known that various phytochemicals and plant extracts may display antivirulence abilities and anti-quorum sensing behavior upon their application at sub-MICs [37,38]. Such targeted antibiofilm action at sub-MICs is believed to limit the possibilities of the bacteria to develop resistance [39].
Besides the determination of the MBICs, we also determined the Minimum Biofilm Eradication Concentrations (MBECs) of O. vulgare EO against the 96 h preformed biofilms of each target pathogen. Results revealed that the oil needed to be applied at 6.25% v/v to destroy the biofilm communities of both pathogens (Figure 2). Undoubtedly, this is a quite high concentration that clearly denotes the great recalcitrance of biofilm cells. This is however not surprising since it is well known that the inclusion of bacteria in biofilm structures can greatly increase their tolerance and resistance to biocides, including known antibiotics [40,41]. Thus, in the current experimental setup, O. vulgare EO needed to be applied more than one hundred times more than its MBC to kill S. Typhimurium biofilm cells, while in the case of L. monocytogenes biofilm cells, the required increase in concentration was even more spectacular (more than two hundred times more than its MBC) (Table 1). Another probably interesting observation is that a dose-response behavior does not seem to exist in the case of the killing of biofilm cells (Figure 2). This is more evident in the case of L. monocytogenes where the application of O. vulgare EO at 0.39% v/v provoked a ca. five-log reduction in the number of biofilm cells, whereas the further ten-fold increase of the EO concentration to 3.13% v/v did not further improve its killing action. The reasons lying behind this last observation are not known but we speculate that these may be somehow related to the presence of EPS and/or the complex biofilm tertiary structure [42,43]. A similar behavior has been previously observed in another similar older study of our group where an increase in the concentrations of sage and spearmint EOs from 5% to 15% v/v did not improve their efficiency against Staphylococcus aureus biofilm bacteria [44].
A few other studies have been published in the previous years testing the antibiofilm efficiency of O. vulgare EO against biofilm formation and/or preformed biofilms of Salmonella spp. or L. monocytogenes. In such a study, Čabarkapa et al. (2019) tested the effectiveness of O. vulgare EO against planktonic and biofilm cells of two strains of S. Enteritidis [21]. In that study, O. vulgare EO demonstrated (as expected) a significant antimicrobial action against the planktonic cells (MIC/MBC = 0.16/0.31 μL/mL). Supplementation of EO at concentration 0.25xMIC caused 50% inhibition of biofilm formation for both the tested strains, while its supplementation at 2xMIC resulted in 90% inhibition of their biofilm formation. Contrary to our results, the study on the effectiveness of EO on eradication of preformed 48 h-old biofilms indicated that biofilm reduction occurred in a dose-dependent manner over time (the time of exposure ranged from 15 to 60 min). In another study, Di Vito et al. (2020) compared the in vitro antibiofilm effectiveness of Italian O. vulgare EO against 29 strains of Salmonella spp. isolated from poultry and pig farms belonging to two serotypes (S. Typhimurium and S. Infantis) [45]. O. vulgare EO was active on the disaggregation of mature biofilms of both serotypes, but no inhibiting activity was exerted on biofilm formation. Soni et al. (2013) evaluated EOs of thyme and oregano and their antimicrobial phenolic constituent carvacrol for their ability to inhibit biofilm formation and inactivate preformed Salmonella biofilms [46]. The presence of nonbiocidal concentrations of thyme oil, oregano oil and phenolic carvacrol at 0.006 to 0.012% v/v suppressed Salmonella spp. biofilm formation two- to four-fold, but could not completely eliminate biofilm formation. Treatment of 1-day-old biofilms with thyme oil, oregano oil or carvacrol at 0.05 or 0.1% v/v significantly reduced the amount of preformed biofilms. In a recent study, Vidaković Knežević et al. (2023) determined the antibiofilm activity of O. vulgare EO from Serbia against five L. monocytogenes strains [47]. The MIC values of oregano EO ranged from 0.09 to 0.72 μL/mL. The exposure of 48 h-old L. monocytogenes biofilms on PS to the oregano EO at its MBC (2xMIC) for 48 h reduced L. monocytogenes biofilm biomasses in the range of 42.9% to 78.6%. Desai et al. (2012) tested oregano EO for its ability to eliminate L. monocytogenes biofilms on PS and stainless steel (SS) surfaces [48]. For 1-day old biofilms of mixed L. monocytogenes strains produced at 22 °C on PS microtiter plates, only 0.1% v/v of EO was needed to eliminate 7 log CFU per well. On the SS coupons, 0.5% v/v was adequate to completely eliminate 4-day-old biofilms at 7 log CFU per coupon. However, in that older study, the EO was left to act for 24 h against the preformed biofilms, something that probably explains its high efficiency. In our study, we chose a short exposure time (15 min) to try to imitate a short disinfection/biocidal protocol that could be applied in the food industry and/or clinical settings.

3.2. Chemical Composition of O. vulgare EO

The GC–MS analysis of the O. vulgare EO revealed the presence of 28 compounds representing 98.1% of the total oil (Table 2). The EO was mainly composed of the monoterpenes thymol (31.5%), p-cymene (23.7%), γ-terpinene (13.9%), and carvacrol (8%). All these compounds are commonly found as main constituents of O. vulgare EOs and contribute to their bioactivities [2,3,49]. However, in most other studies, the EOs are mainly composed of carvacrol, whereas the EO analyzed in the current study was mainly composed of thymol. This is not strange since some other studies have also described O. vulgare EOs of thymol chemotypes [50,51,52,53,54].

3.3. Effect of O. vulgare EO on Virulence Gene Expression of Planktonic L. monocytogenes Cells

The expression of the four target genes (hly, inlA, inlB, and prfA) by the planktonic L. monocytogenes bacteria following their sub-lethal exposure to the O. vulgare EO is shown in Figure 3. All the studied genes were significantly downregulated following the exposure of the cells to the EO at its MBIC (0.06% v/v). This is an intriguing result and seems to agree with and is probably related to the inhibition of biofilm formation that was noticed for that EO concentration (Figure 1B). Interestingly, in a previous study of our group, all these four genes were found to be significantly overexpressed when the same L. monocytogenes strain (AAL 20107) was left to form biofilm on a PS surface [28]. The hly gene encodes in L. monocytogenes the hemolysin Listeriolysin O (LLO) which is crucial in the manifestation of listeriosis by boosting the cell-to-cell spread and thus successful dissemination of the pathogen during infection [55]. Both inlA and inlB genes encode in L. monocytogenes for important surface proteins that are known to interact with distinct host receptors to cause infection of human cells and crossing of the intestinal, blood–brain or placental barriers [56]. PrfA encodes in L. monocytogenes for the master regulator of virulence that controls the expression of multiple virulence factors that altogether facilitate the transition from extra- to intracellular environments [57]. Rather in agreement with our results, some other previous studies have shown the involvement of all these four genes in attachment, sessile growth, and biofilm formation by L. monocytogenes [58,59,60,61]. In addition, the reduced expression of hly and prfA genes in L. monocytogenes following exposure to some other EOs has been shown in some other previous studies as well [62,63,64].

4. Conclusions

Origanum vulgare subsp. hirtum EO, extracted from organically cultivated plants on the Greek island of Lemnos was found to present strong antimicrobial and antibiofilm actions against two important foodborne pathogenic bacteria (S. Typhimurium and L. monocytogenes). Its application at 0.13% v/v and 0.06% v/v was sufficient to inhibit biofilm formation by S. Typhimurium and L. monocytogenes, respectively, whereas this needed to be applied at 6.25% v/v (for 15 min) to eradicate the preformed biofilms of the same species. The EO was mainly composed of thymol, p-cymene, γ-terpinene and carvacrol. The sub-lethal exposure of L. monocytogenes planktonic cells to the EO at its MBIC (0.06% v/v) resulted in the significant downregulation of four important virulence genes (hly, inlA, inlB, and prfA). To sum, the results obtained advocate for the further exploitation of the antimicrobial action of oregano EO in food and health applications. Future studies could be conducted on some such applications. In addition, the specific mode of action of this EO against microbial cells could be tested by applying either the crude extract or some of its individual components.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, E.G.; methodology, D.K., A.N. and E.G.; validation, S.K., D.K. and A.N.; formal analysis, S.K, D.K., A.N. and E.G.; investigation, S.K. and A.N.; resources, Y.K. and E.G.; data curation, D.K., A.N. and E.G.; writing—original draft preparation, E.G.; writing—review and editing, A.N., Y.K. and E.G.; visualization, D.K. and E.G.; supervision, D.K. and E.G.; project administration, E.G.; funding acquisition, Y.K. and E.G. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available upon reasonable request form the corresponding author.

Acknowledgments

We thank George-John Nychas (Agricultural University of Athens, Greece) for providing us with S. enterica str. FMCC_B137, and Nikolaos Andritsos (Athens Analysis Laboratories S.A., Microbiology Laboratory, Metamorfosi, Greece) for providing us with L. monocytogenes str. AAL 20107. We also thank Nikolaos Paterakis from Aegean Organics for providing us the oregano essential oil.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Sakkas, H.; Papadopoulou, C. Antimicrobial activity of basil, oregano, and thyme essential oils. J. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2017, 27, 429–438. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Lombrea, A.; Antal, D.; Ardelean, F.; Avram, S.; Pavel, I.Z.; Vlaia, L.; Mut, A.M.; Diaconeasa, Z.; Dehelean, C.A.; Soica, C.; et al. A recent insight regarding the phytochemistry and bioactivity of Origanum vulgare L. essential oil. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2020, 21, 9653. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Rodriguez-Garcia, I.; Silva-Espinoza, B.A.; Ortega-Ramirez, L.A.; Leyva, J.M.; Siddiqui, M.W.; Cruz-Valenzuela, M.R.; Gonzalez-Aguilar, G.A.; Ayala-Zavala, J.F. Oregano essential oil as an antimicrobial and antioxidant additive in food products. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 2016, 56, 1717–1727. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Soltani, S.; Shakeri, A.; Iranshahi, M.; Boozari, M. A review of the phytochemistry and antimicrobial properties of Origanum vulgare L. and subspecies. Iran. J. Pharm. Res. 2021, 20, 268–285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Tolker-Nielsen, T. Biofilm development. Microbiol. Spectr. 2015, 3, MB-0001-2014. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Hall, C.W.; Mah, T.F. Molecular mechanisms of biofilm-based antibiotic resistance and tolerance in pathogenic bacteria. FEMS Microbiol. Rev. 2017, 41, 276–301. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Bridier, A.; Sanchez-Vizuete, P.; Guilbaud, M.; Piard, J.C.; Naïtali, M.; Briandet, R. Biofilm-associated persistence of food-borne pathogens. Food Microbiol. 2015, 45 Pt B, 167–178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Koo, H.; Allan, R.N.; Howlin, R.P.; Stoodley, P.; Hall-Stoodley, L. Targeting microbial biofilms: Current and prospective therapeutic strategies. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 2017, 15, 740–755. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Chlebicz, A.; Śliżewska, K. Campylobacteriosis, salmonellosis, yersiniosis, and listeriosis as zoonotic foodborne diseases: A review. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2018, 15, 863. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. EFSA (European Food Safety Authority); ECDC (European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control). The European Union One Health 2021 Zoonoses Report. EFSA J. 2022, 20, e07666. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Bai, X.; Nakatsu, C.H.; Bhunia, A.K. Bacterial biofilms and their implications in pathogenesis and food safety. Foods 2021, 10, 2117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Giaouris, E.; Heir, E.; Desvaux, M.; Hébraud, M.; Møretrø, T.; Langsrud, S.; Doulgeraki, A.; Nychas, G.J.; Kačániová, M.; Czaczyk, K.; et al. Intra- and inter-species interactions within biofilms of important foodborne bacterial pathogens. Front. Microbiol. 2015, 6, 841. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Fàbrega, A.; Vila, J. Salmonella enterica serovar Typhimurium skills to succeed in the host: Virulence and regulation. Clin. Microbiol. Rev. 2013, 26, 308–341. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Galié, S.; García-Gutiérrez, C.; Miguélez, E.M.; Villar, C.J.; Lombó, F. Biofilms in the food industry: Health aspects and control methods. Front. Microbiol. 2018, 9, 898. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Matereke, L.T.; Okoh, A.I. Listeria monocytogenes virulence, antimicrobial resistance and environmental persistence: A review. Pathogens 2020, 9, 528. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Chang, R.Y.K.; Nang, S.C.; Chan, H.K.; Li, J. Novel antimicrobial agents for combating antibiotic-resistant bacteria. Adv. Drug. Deliv. Rev. 2022, 187, 114378. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. McEwen, S.A.; Collignon, P.J. Antimicrobial resistance: A one health perspective. Microbiol. Spectr. 2018, 6, 521–547. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Rozman, U.; Pušnik, M.; Kmetec, S.; Duh, D.; Šostar Turk, S. Reduced susceptibility and increased resistance of bacteria against disinfectants: A systematic review. Microorganisms 2021, 9, 2550. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Abass, S.; Parveen, R.; Irfan, M.; Jan, B.; Husain, S.A.; Ahmad, S. Synergy based extracts of medicinal plants: Future antimicrobials to combat multidrug resistance. Curr. Pharm. Biotechnol. 2022, 23, 1527–1540. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Sakarikou, C.; Kostoglou, D.; Simões, M.; Giaouris, E. Exploitation of plant extracts and phytochemicals against resistant Salmonella spp. in biofilms. Food Res. Int. 2020, 128, 108806. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Čabarkapa, I.; Čolović, R.; Đuragić, O.; Popović, S.; Kokić, B.; Milanov, D.; Pezo, L. Anti-biofilm activities of essential oils rich in carvacrol and thymol against Salmonella Enteritidis. Biofouling 2019, 35, 361–375. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Kerekes, E.B.; Vidács, A.; Takó, M.; Petkovits, T.; Vágvölgyi, C.; Horváth, G.; Balázs, V.L.; Krisch, J. Anti-biofilm effect of selected essential oils and main components on mono- and polymicrobic bacterial cultures. Microorganisms 2019, 7, 345. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Lira, M.C.; Rodrigues, J.B.; Almeida, E.T.C.; Ritter, A.C.; Tondo, E.; Torres, S.M.; Schaffner, D.; de Souza, E.L.; Magnani, M. Efficacy of oregano and rosemary essential oils to affect morphology and membrane functions of noncultivable sessile cells of Salmonella Enteritidis 86 in biofilms formed on stainless steel. J. Appl. Microbiol. 2020, 128, 376–386. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Rossi, C.; Maggio, F.; Chaves-López, C.; Valbonetti, L.; Berrettoni, M.; Paparella, A.; Serio, A. Effectiveness of selected essential oils and one hydrolate to prevent and remove Listeria monocytogenes biofilms on polystyrene and stainless steel food-contact surfaces. J. Appl. Microbiol. 2022, 132, 1866–1876. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Kostaki, M.; Chorianopoulos, N.; Braxou, E.; Nychas, G.J.; Giaouris, E. Differential biofilm formation and chemical disinfection resistance of sessile cells of Listeria monocytogenes strains under monospecies and dual-species (with Salmonella enterica) conditions. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2012, 78, 2586–2595. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Kostoglou, D.; Tsaklidou, P.; Iliadis, I.; Garoufallidou, N.; Skarmoutsou, G.; Koulouris, I.; Giaouris, E. Advanced killing potential of thymol against a time and temperature optimized attached Listeria monocytogenes population in lettuce broth. Biomolecules 2021, 11, 397. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Maniki, E.; Kostoglou, D.; Paterakis, N.; Nikolaou, A.; Kourkoutas, Y.; Papachristoforou, A.; Giaouris, E. Chemical composition, antioxidant, and antibiofilm properties of essential oil from Thymus capitatus plants organically cultured on the Greek Island of Lemnos. Molecules 2023, 28, 1154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Toliopoulos, C.; Giaouris, E. Marked inter-strain heterogeneity in the differential expression of some key stress response and virulence-related genes between planktonic and biofilm cells in Listeria monocytogenes. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2023, 390, 110136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Mazzarrino, G.; Paparella, A.; Chaves-López, C.; Faberi, A.; Sergi, M.; Sigismondi, C.; Compagnone, D.; Serio, A. Salmonella enterica and Listeria monocytogenes inactivation dynamics after treatment with selected essential oils. Food Control 2015, 50, 794–803. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Assiri, A.M.A.; Elbanna, K.; Al-Thubiani, A.; Ramadan, M.F. Cold-pressed oregano (Origanum vulgare) oil: A rich source of bioactive lipids with novel antioxidant and antimicrobial properties. Eur. Food Res. Technol. 2016, 242, 1013–1023. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Elansary, H.O.; Abdelgaleil, S.A.M.; Mahmoud, E.A.; Yessoufou, K.; Elhindi, K.; El-Hendawy, S. Effective antioxidant, antimicrobial and anticancer activities of essential oils of horticultural aromatic crops in northern Egypt. BMC Complement. Altern. Med. 2018, 18, 214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Barbosa, L.N.; Alves, F.C.B.; Andrade, B.F.M.T.; Albano, M.; Rall, V.L.M.; Fernandes, A.A.H.; Buzalaf, M.A.R.; Leite, A.L.; de Pontes, L.G.; Dos Santos, L.D.; et al. Proteomic analysis and antibacterial resistance mechanisms of Salmonella Enteritidis submitted to the inhibitory effect of Origanum vulgare essential oil, thymol and carvacrol. J. Proteomics 2020, 214, 103625. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Torabian Kakhki, M.; Sedaghat, N.; Mohsenzadeh, M. Chemical composition, antioxidative, antibacterial, and time-kill activities of some selected plant essential oils against foodborne pathogenic and spoilage organisms. Vet. Res. Forum 2020, 11, 339–346. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Solarte, A.L.; Astorga, R.J.; de Aguiar, F.C.; Tarradas, C.; Luque, I.; Gómez-Gascón, L.; Huerta, B. Reduced susceptibility of Salmonella Typhimurium strains to oregano essential oil and enrofloxacin: An in vitro assay. Foodborne Pathog. Dis. 2020, 17, 29–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Colagiorgi, A.; Bruini, I.; Di Ciccio, P.A.; Zanardi, E.; Ghidini, S.; Ianieri, A. Listeria monocytogenes biofilms in the wonderland of food industry. Pathogens 2017, 6, 41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Merino, L.; Procura, F.; Trejo, F.M.; Bueno, D.J.; Golowczyc, M.A. Biofilm formation by Salmonella sp. in the poultry industry: Detection, control and eradication strategies. Food Res. Int. 2019, 119, 530–540. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Bhattacharya, S.P.; Karmakar, S.; Acharya, K.; Bhattacharya, A. Quorum sensing inhibition and antibiofilm action of triterpenoids: An updated insight. Fitoterapia 2023, 167, 105508. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Gonçalves, A.S.C.; Leitão, M.M.; Simões, M.; Borges, A. The action of phytochemicals in biofilm control. Nat. Prod. Rep. 2023, 40, 595–627. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Das, R.; Mehta, D.K. Microbial biofilm and quorum sensing inhibition: Endowment of medicinal plants to combat multidrug-resistant bacteria. Curr. Drug Targets 2018, 19, 1916–1932. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Rather, M.A.; Gupta, K.; Mandal, M. Microbial biofilm: Formation, architecture, antibiotic resistance, and control strategies. Braz. J. Microbiol. 2021, 52, 1701–1718. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Yan, J.; Bassler, B.L. Surviving as a community: Antibiotic tolerance and persistence in bacterial biofilms. Cell Host Microbe 2019, 26, 15–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  42. Bridier, A.; Piard, J.C.; Pandin, C.; Labarthe, S.; Dubois-Brissonnet, F.; Briandet, R. Spatial organization plasticity as an adaptive driver of surface Microbial Communities. Front. Microbiol. 2017, 8, 1364. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Okshevsky, M.; Meyer, R.L. The role of extracellular DNA in the establishment, maintenance and perpetuation of bacterial biofilms. Crit. Rev. Microbiol. 2015, 41, 341–352. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Vetas, D.; Dimitropoulou, E.; Mitropoulou, G.; Kourkoutas, Y.; Giaouris, E. Disinfection efficiencies of sage and spearmint essential oils against planktonic and biofilm Staphylococcus aureus cells in comparison with sodium hypochlorite. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2017, 257, 19–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Di Vito, M.; Cacaci, M.; Barbanti, L.; Martini, C.; Sanguinetti, M.; Benvenuti, S.; Tosi, G.; Fiorentini, L.; Scozzoli, M.; Bugli, F.; et al. Origanum vulgare essential oil vs. a commercial mixture of essential oils: In vitro effectiveness on Salmonella spp. from poultry and swine intensive livestock. Antibiotics 2020, 9, 763. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. Soni, K.A.; Oladunjoye, A.; Nannapaneni, R.; Schilling, M.W.; Silva, J.L.; Mikel, B.; Bailey, R.H. Inhibition and inactivation of Salmonella Typhimurium biofilms from polystyrene and stainless steel surfaces by essential oils and phenolic constituent carvacrol. J. Food Prot. 2013, 76, 205–212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Vidaković Knežević, S.; Knežević, S.; Vranešević, J.; Kravić, S.Ž.; Lakićević, B.; Kocić-Tanackov, S.; Karabasil, N. Effects of selected essential oils on Listeria monocytogenes in biofilms and in a model food system. Foods 2023, 12, 1930. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Desai, M.A.; Soni, K.A.; Nannapaneni, R.; Schilling, M.W.; Silva, J.L. Reduction of Listeria monocytogenes biofilms on stainless steel and polystyrene surfaces by essential oils. J. Food Prot. 2012, 75, 1332–1337. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Leyva-López, N.; Gutiérrez-Grijalva, E.P.; Vazquez-Olivo, G.; Heredia, J.B. Essential oils of oregano: Biological activity beyond their antimicrobial properties. Molecules 2017, 22, 989. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Betancourt, L.; Phandanauvong, V.; Patiño, R.; Ariza-Nieto, C.; Afanador-Téllez, G. Composition and bactericidal activity against beneficial and pathogenic bacteria of oregano essential oils from four chemotypes of Origanum and Lippia genus. Rev. Med. Vet. Zootec. 2012, 59, 21–31. [Google Scholar]
  51. Bonfanti, C.; Iannì, R.; Mazzaglia, A.; Lanza, C.M.; Napoli, E.M.; Ruberto, G. Emerging cultivation of oregano in Sicily: Sensory evaluation of plants and chemical composition of essential oils. Ind. Crops Prod. 2012, 35, 160–165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Gong, H.Y.; Liu, W.H.; Lv, G.Y.; Zhou, X. Analysis of essential oils of Origanum vulgare from six production areas of China and Pakistan. Rev. Bras. Farmacogn. 2014, 24, 25–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Mechergui, K.; Coelho, J.A.; Serra, M.C.; Lamine, S.B.; Boukhchina, S.; Khouja, M.L. Essential oils of Origanum vulgare L. subsp. glandulosum (Desf.) Ietswaart from Tunisia: Chemical composition and antioxidant activity. J. Sci. Food Agric. 2010, 90, 1745–1749. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  54. Spagnoletti, A.; Guerrinia, A.; Tacchini, M.; Vinciguerra, V.; Leone, C.; Maresca, I.; Simonetti, G.; Sacchetti, G.; Angiolella, L. Chemical composition and bio-efficacy of essential oils from Italian aromatic plants: Mentha suaveolens, Coridothymus capitatus, Origanum hirtum and Rosmarinus officinalis. Nat. Prod. Commun. 2016, 11, 1517–1520. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  55. Osborne, S.E.; Brumell, J.H. Listeriolysin O: From bazooka to Swiss army knife. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 2017, 372, 20160222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Ireton, K.; Mortuza, R.; Gyanwali, G.C.; Gianfelice, A.; Hussain, M. Role of internalin proteins in the pathogenesis of Listeria monocytogenes. Mol. Microbiol. 2021, 116, 1407–1419. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Gaballa, A.; Guariglia-Oropeza, V.; Wiedmann, M.; Boor, K.J. Cross talk between SigB and PrfA in Listeria monocytogenes facilitates transitions between extra- and intracellular Environments. Microbiol. Mol. Biol. Rev. 2019, 83, e00034-19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Chen, B.Y.; Kim, T.J.; Silva, J.L.; Jung, Y.S. Positive correlation between the expression of inlA and inlB genes of Listeria monocytogenes and its attachment strength on glass surface. Food Biophys. 2009, 4, 304–311. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. de Grandi, A.Z.; Pinto, U.M.; Destro, M.T. Dual-species biofilm of Listeria monocytogenes and Escherichia coli on stainless steel surface. World J. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2018, 34, 61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Luo, Q.; Shang, J.; Feng, X.; Guo, X.; Zhang, L.; Zhou, Q. PrfA led to reduced biofilm formation and contributed to altered gene expression patterns in biofilm-forming Listeria monocytogenes. Curr. Microbiol. 2013, 67, 372–378. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Price, R.; Jayeola, V.; Niedermeyer, J.; Parsons, C.; Kathariou, S. The Listeria monocytogenes key virulence determinants hly and prfA are involved in biofilm formation and aggregation but not colonization of fresh produce. Pathogens 2018, 7, 18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Huang, Y.; Xue, C.; He, W.; Zhao, X. Inhibition effect of Zedoary turmeric oil on Listeria monocytogenes and Staphylococcus aureus growth and exotoxin proteins production. J. Med. Microbiol. 2019, 68, 657–666. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  63. Liu, Z.; Meng, R.; Zhao, X.; Shi, C.; Zhang, X.; Zhang, Y.; Guo, N. Inhibition effect of tea tree oil on Listeria monocytogenes growth and exotoxin proteins listeriolysin O and p60 secretion. Lett. Appl. Microbiol. 2016, 63, 450–457. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  64. Marini, E.; Magi, G.; Ferretti, G.; Bacchetti, T.; Giuliani, A.; Pugnaloni, A.; Rippo, M.R.; Facinelli, B. Attenuation of Listeria monocytogenes virulence by Cannabis sativa L. essential oil. Front. Cell. Infect. Microbiol. 2018, 8, 293. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Foods 12 02893 g001 550
Figure 1. Biofilm formation (A590nm) by S. Typhimurium (A) and L. monocytogenes (B) strains on the PS surface of the 96-well microtiter plates, in the presence of eight different O. vulgare EO concentrations (two-fold dilutions ranging from 0.25 to 0.002% v/v). The bars represent the mean values ± standard deviations. The accumulated biofilm biomasses of the positive (PC) and negative control (NC) are also shown. For each bacterial strain, the MBIC of the EO (resulting in the total inhibition of biofilm formation) is indicated by the vertical arrow. The absorbances of planktonic suspensions (A600nm) found in the same wells at the time of sampling (96 h) are also shown for each treatment (dotted curved lines). The bars of standard deviations of the planktonic means were omitted for clarity. In each graph (bacterial strain), mean biofilm values followed by different superscript letters (abc) differ significantly (p < 0.05).
Figure 1. Biofilm formation (A590nm) by S. Typhimurium (A) and L. monocytogenes (B) strains on the PS surface of the 96-well microtiter plates, in the presence of eight different O. vulgare EO concentrations (two-fold dilutions ranging from 0.25 to 0.002% v/v). The bars represent the mean values ± standard deviations. The accumulated biofilm biomasses of the positive (PC) and negative control (NC) are also shown. For each bacterial strain, the MBIC of the EO (resulting in the total inhibition of biofilm formation) is indicated by the vertical arrow. The absorbances of planktonic suspensions (A600nm) found in the same wells at the time of sampling (96 h) are also shown for each treatment (dotted curved lines). The bars of standard deviations of the planktonic means were omitted for clarity. In each graph (bacterial strain), mean biofilm values followed by different superscript letters (abc) differ significantly (p < 0.05).
Foods 12 02893 g001
Foods 12 02893 g002 550
Figure 2. Biofilm populations (log10 CFU/cm2) found in the wells of the 96-well microtiter plates for the two bacterial strains (S. Typhimurium and L. monocytogenes) before and after disinfection with the O. vulgare EO. For each bacterial strain, the EO was tested in five different concentrations, two-fold dilutions ranging from 0.39 to 6.25% v/v. The biofilm population of the negative disinfection control (NC; sterile distilled water also containing 10% v/v ethanol) is also shown. The bars represent the mean values ± standard deviations. For each bacterial strain separately, mean values followed by different superscript letters differ significantly (p < 0.05). For each bacterial strain, the MBEC of the EO (resulting in more than six log reductions of its biofilm population with respect to that of the NC) is indicated with the vertical arrow. The detection limit of the plate counting method (0.21 log10CFU/cm2) is indicated with the horizontal dashed line.
Figure 2. Biofilm populations (log10 CFU/cm2) found in the wells of the 96-well microtiter plates for the two bacterial strains (S. Typhimurium and L. monocytogenes) before and after disinfection with the O. vulgare EO. For each bacterial strain, the EO was tested in five different concentrations, two-fold dilutions ranging from 0.39 to 6.25% v/v. The biofilm population of the negative disinfection control (NC; sterile distilled water also containing 10% v/v ethanol) is also shown. The bars represent the mean values ± standard deviations. For each bacterial strain separately, mean values followed by different superscript letters differ significantly (p < 0.05). For each bacterial strain, the MBEC of the EO (resulting in more than six log reductions of its biofilm population with respect to that of the NC) is indicated with the vertical arrow. The detection limit of the plate counting method (0.21 log10CFU/cm2) is indicated with the horizontal dashed line.
Foods 12 02893 g002
Foods 12 02893 g003 550
Figure 3. Relative quantification (log2(fold differences)) of the expressions of the four target genes (hly, inlA, inlB, and prfA) by the planktonic L. monocytogenes bacteria following their sub-lethal exposure to the O. vulgare EO at its MBIC (0.06% v/v). Each bar represents the mean ± standard errors (n = 9). The statistically significant differences in genes’ expressions between the two treatments (exposed and not exposed to the EO) are indicated with asterisks (*) (p < 0.05).
Figure 3. Relative quantification (log2(fold differences)) of the expressions of the four target genes (hly, inlA, inlB, and prfA) by the planktonic L. monocytogenes bacteria following their sub-lethal exposure to the O. vulgare EO at its MBIC (0.06% v/v). Each bar represents the mean ± standard errors (n = 9). The statistically significant differences in genes’ expressions between the two treatments (exposed and not exposed to the EO) are indicated with asterisks (*) (p < 0.05).
Foods 12 02893 g003
Table
Table 1. Antibacterial (MIC and MBC values) and antibiofilm (MBIC and MBEC values) actions of O. vulgare EO against S. Typhimurium and L. monocytogenes strains expressed as either EO percentages by volume (% v/v) or μL/mL.
Table 1. Antibacterial (MIC and MBC values) and antibiofilm (MBIC and MBEC values) actions of O. vulgare EO against S. Typhimurium and L. monocytogenes strains expressed as either EO percentages by volume (% v/v) or μL/mL.
Bacterial Species Antibacterial ActionAntibiofilm Action
MIC 1MBC 2MBIC 3MBEC 4
% (v/v)μL/mL% (v/v)μL/mL% (v/v)μL/mL% (v/v)μL/mL
S. Typhimurium0.060.60.060.60.13 1.36.25 (=104.2 × MΒC)62.5
L. monocytogenes0.030.30.030.30.06 0.66.25 (=208.4 × MΒC)62.5
1 Minimum Inhibitory Concentration; 2 Minimum Bactericidal Concentration; 3 Minimum Biofilm Inhibitory Concentration; 4 Minimum Biofilm Eradication Concentration.
Table
Table 2. Chemical composition of O. vulgare EO, as characterized by GC-MS analysis.
Table 2. Chemical composition of O. vulgare EO, as characterized by GC-MS analysis.
Compounds DetectedLRΙ% Area
Methyl-cyclopentane<7000.8
Methyl α-methylbutanoate7810.1
α-Thujene9302.6
α-Pinene9362.3
Camphene9490.6
β-Pinene9770.4
1-Octen-3-ol9970.2
β-Myrcene9993.4
α-Phellandrene10080.7
3-Carene10120.2
α-Terpinene
(1-methyl-4-(1-methylethyl)-1,3-cyclohexadiene)		10204.4
p-Cymene
(1-methyl-4-(1-methylethyl)-benzene)		103423.7
Sylvestrene
((R)-1-methyl-5-(1-methylethenyl)-cyclohexene)		10352.4
p-Cymenene
(1-methyl-4-(1-methylethenyl)-benzene)		10440.1
β-cis-Ocimene10620.1
γ-Terpinene
(1-methyl-4-(1-methylethyl)-1,4-cyclohexadiene)		107013.9
α-Terpinolene
(1-methyl-4-(1-methylethylidene)-cyclohexene)		10950.3
Linalool
(3,7-dimethyl-1,6-octadien-3-ol)		11230.1
Borneol11830.4
Terpinen-4-ol
(4-methyl-1-(1-methylethyl)-3-cyclohexen-1-ol)		11910.7
α-Terpineol
(α,α-4-trimethyl-3-cyclohexene-1-methanol)		12090.1
1-methoxy-4-methyl-2-(1-methylethyl)-benzene12620.8
Thymol134131.5
Carvacrol
(2-methyl-5-(1-methylethyl)-phenol)		13468.0
Caryophyllene14390.8
α-Caryophyllene14750.1
β-Bisabolene
((S)-1-methyl-4-(5-methyl-1-methylene-4-hexenyl)-cyclohexene)		15320.1
Caryophyllene oxide16100.1
Total 98.1
LRI: Linear retention index.
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

Kolypetri, S.; Kostoglou, D.; Nikolaou, A.; Kourkoutas, Y.; Giaouris, E. Chemical Composition, Antibacterial and Antibiofilm Actions of Oregano (Origanum vulgare subsp. hirtum) Essential Oil against Salmonella Typhimurium and Listeria monocytogenes. Foods 2023, 12, 2893. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods12152893

AMA Style

Kolypetri S, Kostoglou D, Nikolaou A, Kourkoutas Y, Giaouris E. Chemical Composition, Antibacterial and Antibiofilm Actions of Oregano (Origanum vulgare subsp. hirtum) Essential Oil against Salmonella Typhimurium and Listeria monocytogenes. Foods. 2023; 12(15):2893. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods12152893

Chicago/Turabian Style

Kolypetri, Sonia, Dimitra Kostoglou, Anastasios Nikolaou, Yiannis Kourkoutas, and Efstathios Giaouris. 2023. "Chemical Composition, Antibacterial and Antibiofilm Actions of Oregano (Origanum vulgare subsp. hirtum) Essential Oil against Salmonella Typhimurium and Listeria monocytogenes" Foods 12, no. 15: 2893. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods12152893

APA Style

Kolypetri, S., Kostoglou, D., Nikolaou, A., Kourkoutas, Y., & Giaouris, E. (2023). Chemical Composition, Antibacterial and Antibiofilm Actions of Oregano (Origanum vulgare subsp. hirtum) Essential Oil against Salmonella Typhimurium and Listeria monocytogenes. Foods, 12(15), 2893. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods12152893

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