Antibacterial Activity of Honey against Methicillin-Resistant and Sensitive Staphylococcus Aureus Isolated from Patients with Diabetic Foot Ulcer

All published articles of this journal are available on ScienceDirect.

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Antibacterial Activity of Honey against Methicillin-Resistant and Sensitive Staphylococcus Aureus Isolated from Patients with Diabetic Foot Ulcer

Arezou Mirzaei1 Kolsoom Shirzadi Karamolah2 Mina Pourmbarak Mahnaie3 Fatemeh Mousavi2 Parisa Mehrabi Moghadam1 Hassan Mahmoudi4 , * Open Modal
Authors Info & Affiliations
The Open Microbiology Journal • 25 Nov 2020 • RESEARCH ARTICLE • DOI: 10.2174/1874434602014010260

Abstract

Introduction:

Staphylococcus aureus is the most important causative agent of wound infections, including diabetic foot ulcers. Honey is a very useful nutrient with antimicrobial properties and other biological properties such as antitumor, anti-inflammatory, antioxidant and antiviral properties. The aim was to examine the antibacterial activity of honey against methicillin-resistant and sensitive S. aureus (MRSA and MSSA) isolated from patients with diabetic foot ulcers.

Methods:

This cross-sectional study was performed from January 2019 to December 2019. Twenty S. aureus isolates were collected from patients with diabetic foot ulcers. Different concentrations (100%, 70%, 50%, 25% vol/vol) of honey were studied. Dilutions of honey solutions were examined to determine the minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) against S. aureus. MICs were determined by spectrophotometric assay at 620 nm.

Results:

All strains showed sensitivity to honey with MIC equal to 25% (vol/vol). The MIC (%) values of honey for all studied S. aureus (MRSA and MSSA) isolates ranged between 18-100% (v/v).

Conclusion:

Honey with confirmed, antibacterial activity has the potential to be an efficient treatment complementary for diabetic foot ulcers infected or at risk of infection with S. aureus.

Keyword: Staphylococcus aureus, Honey, Diabetic foot ulcers, Antibacterial activity, Antitumor, Anti-inflammatory, Antioxidant, Antiviral.

1. INTRODUCTION

Diabetic foot infection is a major problem in the care of diabetic patients that results in amputation due to severe infection or peripheral ischemia in the leg [1]. These non-healing wounds state a remarkable risk of sepsis and can result in invasive inflammatory diseases such as infective endocarditis, which is related to high mortality and morbidity [2]. For suitable treatment of diabetic foot ulcers, we first should comprehend the microbiology of this type of infection. Wound infection is usually caused by a number of bacteria, including aerobic, optional anaerobes and anaerobes [3]. Staphylococcus aureus is the most important causative agent of wound infections, including diabetic foot ulcers [4-6]. This bacterium is one of the most common causes of blood and skin infections, ulcers, osteomyelitis, endocarditis, pneumonia, surgical infections and hospital infections [7]. Honey is the natural sweet substance obtained from the secretions of the living parts or excretions of plants that the honey bees (Apis mellifera) collect and store [8]. It contains 15% to 20% water and 80% to 85% sugar [9]. Several properties of honey-like enzymes are responsible for its bactericidal effect and wound healing properties. Glucose oxidase, which changes glucose into gluconolactone and then into hydrogen peroxide, is one of the enzymes found in honey. The release of H2O2 is slow and continuous for a constant antibacterial effect, successfully eliminating microorganisms but dilute enough not to damage host tissue. Honey having acidic pH of 3.2–4.5 is used to inhibit many pathogenic organisms and increase the wound healing process through epithelization. Honey is also one of the supersaturated solutions that inhibit bacterial growth due to this high osmolarity [10-15]. Naturally-derived compounds like honey have gained popularity as a substitute to antimicrobial compounds [16, 17]. Honey is a very useful nutrient with antimicrobial properties and other biological properties such as antitumor, anti-inflammatory activity, antioxidant and antiviral activity [18]. Honey wound gels and dressings have been approved by health authorities and are accessible to health professionals in several countries. It is useful to the topical treatment of infected chronic wounds [19]. Various studies showed that honey has broad-spectrum antibacterial activity against a wide range of gram-positive and gram-negative bacteria. The antibacterial effect of honey can be due to the inhibitory properties of factors such as peroxidases, flavonoids, and phenolic acids. Also, honey has an osmotic effect that disrupts the growth of microorganisms [20, 21]. According to studies, several ingredients have been identified that contribute to its antimicrobial activity, comprising high sugar content, low pH, low water activity, and the formation of hydrogen peroxide [22, 23]. Due to the fact that diabetic foot ulcer is one of the health problems in diabetic patients and considering the antibiotic properties of honey, the aim of the study was to investigate the antibacterial activity of honey against S. aureus-resistant and sensitive (MRSA, MSSA) isolated from diabetic foot ulcers.

Fig. (1). Flowchart of the experimental steps.

2. MATERIALS AND METHODS

2.1. Bacterial Isolation and Identification

This cross-sectional study of wound swab versus tissue sampling in infected diabetic foot ulcers was performed from January 2019 to December 2019 (Fig. 1). This study was approved by the Ethical Committee (license number: 5572/9/35/17/p) of the Hamadan University of Medical Sciences. Twenty specimen from patients with diabetic foot ulcers were collected. S. aureus isolates were identified using the biochemical and polymerase chain reaction (PCR) tests [7].

2.2. Identification of Methicillin-Resistant S. aureus

All S. aureus isolates for which the MIC of cefoxitin was ≤8 μg/ml were classified as MRSA. Methicillin resistance was identified by the presence of the mec A gene by PCR, as explained previously [7]. S. aureus isolates were tested for the presence of the 310 base pair (bp) PCR product of mec A gene, using the following primers: forward (5′- GTAGAAATGACT GAACGTCCGATAA-3′) and reverse (5′- CCAATTC CACATTGTTTCGGTCTAA -3′). S. aureus ATCC 25923 was included as a positive control.

2.3. Preparation of Honey Solutions

Honey (100% purity) (Iran, Nahavand city), with yellowish-brown color, was used in the study. The honey solution was prepared immediately prior to testing by diluting honey to the required concentrations (25%, 50%, 75%, 100% vol/vol).

2.4. The Minimum Inhibitory Concentration (MIC) Determination

The minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) of honey was determined by agar dilution methods [16]. Honey was weighed and dissolved in sterile deionized water to prepare a stock solution of 25%, 50%, 75%, and 100% (vol/vol) honey immediately before use.

Up to 0.4 ml of the cell suspension was inoculated into 6 ml volume of honey concentration in a test tube while inoculation of 6 ml volume of nutrient broth with 0.4 ml of the cell suspension served as control. The optical density (OD) was determined in a spectrophotometer (UV/VIS, USA) at 620 nm prior to incubation (T0) and recorded after which the cultures were incubated for 24 hours in the dark at 37 ºC with constant shaking to prevent adherence and clumping. After 24 hours of incubation, the optical densities were again determined (T24) and recorded. The OD for each replicate at T0 was subtracted from the OD for each replicate using the formula:

Percentage inhibition= 1- (OD test/OD control) ×100

Where the resulting measurement recorded a negative inhibition value (growth promotion), this was reported as stimulation using the formula:

Percentage inhibition= (OD test/OD control) ×100

The minimum and maximum values were 0% and 100%, respectively [16].

2.5. Statistical Analysis

Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS 23.0 (SPSS, Chicago, IL, USA). To compare categorical variables, chi-square or Fisher's exact tests were performed. All of the analyses were performed with a confidence level of 95%. P values < 0.05 were considered statistically significant.

3. RESULTS

A total of six strains of S. aureus isolated from patients with diabetic foot ulcers were studied over a period of 3 months. Based on the result of polymerase chain reaction (PCR) and disc diffusion agar, three strains with resistance to cefoxitin and mec A+ and three strains sensitive to cefoxitin and mec A- were selected for further study (Fig. 2).

Fig. (2). Agarose gel electrophoresis of mec A and nuc genes in S. aureus isolates. Lane 1-3:mec A gene in clinical isolates of S. aureus;Lane 3-4:nuc gene in clinical isolates of S. aureus; Lane 6: Negative control; M: DNA marker (100 bp).
Table 1.
The time-kill assay for the antibacterial effect of 100% honey on S. aureus isolates.
Strains 4h
Log10 CFU/ml×105 		6h
Log10 CFU/ml×105 		12h
Log10 CFU/ml×105 		24h
Log10 CFU/ml×105
0 5 5 5 5
MRSA-S1 1.2 2.1 3.5 4.2
MRSA-S2 1 2.2 3.9 4
MRSA-S3 1.3 2.4 3.2 4.5
MSSA-S1 1.9 2.8 3.9 4.1
MSSA-S2 2 2.5 3.6 4.8
MSSA-S3 1.8 2.9 3.9 4.9
Strains 4h
Log10 CFU/ml×105 		6h
Log10 CFU/ml×105 		12h
Log10 CFU/ml×105 		24h
Log10 CFU/ml×105
0 5 5 5 5
MRSA-S1 1.2 2.1 3.5 4.2
MRSA-S2 1 2.2 3.9 4
MRSA-S3 1.3 2.4 3.2 4.5
MSSA-S1 1.9 2.8 3.9 4.1
MSSA-S2 2 2.5 3.6 4.8
MSSA-S3 1.8 2.9 3.9 4.9
Table 2.
Antibacterial effect of MIC% (vol/vol) of honey on S. aureus isolated from patients with diabetic foot ulcers.
Concentration of honey (vol/vol) Spectrophotometry MIC% (vol/vol)
MRSA-S1 MRSA-S2 MRSA-S3 MSSA-S1 MSSA-S2 MSSA-S3
25% 23 18 22 45 35 40
50% 30 28 34 55 50 52
70% 55 60 52 68 70 75
100% 85 78 75 95 100 100

The time-kill assay for the bactericidal effect was carried out on six isolates of S. aureus. The results showed that with increasing time, more bacteria were killed (Table 1).

The effects of honey on all the isolates of S. aureus isolated from patients with diabetic foot ulcers were studied by the determination of MIC, indicating the highest dilution of honey in the culture medium, which inhibited the growth of S. aureus isolates. Antibacterial activity of honey was observed in four concentrations i.e, 25% (vol/vol), 50% (vol/vol), 70% (vol/vol), and 100% (vol/vol); the properties are shown in Table 2. All the strains showed sensitivity to honey with MIC equal to 25% (vol/vol). The MIC (%) values of honey for all the studied S. aureus (MRSA and MSSA) isolates ranged between 18-100% (v/v). The results showed that with increasing the concentration of honey, the MIC (%) value increased (Table 2).

4. DISCUSSION

Due to the increase in antibiotic resistance and the decrease in the development of newer antimicrobial agents, the search for new antibiotics with a natural source can provide a new method for the treatment of drug-resistant infections. These natural antibiotics can be called plant compounds and natural ingredients such as honey [24]. In the antibacterial studies of honey, the lowest concentration of honey that inhibited the growth of bacteria was determined in the range of 20-90%. The antibacterial effect of honey has been found to be concentration-dependent and the bactericidal effect was observed at a concentration of 20% or more for S.aureus isolates tested. There are several laboratory studies that have shown the efficiency of medical use of honey on MRSA and P. aeruginosa [25, 26]. Shenoy et al., evaluated the antimicrobial activity of honey agent P. aeruginosa. Their results showed that all the isolates of P. aeruginosa tested were killed in 12-24 h [27]. In another study, Moussa et al., assessed the antimicrobial activity of honey against S. aureus. Their findings showed that the MIC (%) ranged from 12%-95% for S. aureus. The findings were similar to the current study [24]. Nzeako et al., and Iurlina et al., in their research works showed that honey can inhibit the growth of S. aureus [28, 29]. In addition, its antimicrobial properties have been approved in various studies. Honey can clear infections in a number of ways; in vivo, through anti-inflammatory activity, by promoting the immune system, through the osmotic effect and antioxidant activities as well as through the stimulation of cell growth, enhancing the rate of healing [30, 31]. Cooper et al., evaluated the antibacterial activity of honey against S. aureus. Their results showed the sensitivity of the isolates to honey: the MIC values observed were all between 2 and 3% for honey [32]. In the current study, the honey inhibited S. aureus completely at much greater dilution. This is due to the fact its mode of action is not exclusively based on its osmolality. Cooper et al., reported that the strains of P. aeruginosa were observed to be inhibited at a concentration of 4%–9% v/v (32). In the present study, S. aureus has been shown to be inhibited by relatively low concentrations of honey. Henriques et al., in a recent study showed that the growth of S. aureus species isolated from wounds was inhibited by honey [33]. In recent years, in vitro studies have been designed to investigate the mode of action of honey, and have confirmed that cell division in MSSA and MRSA is interrupted by exposure to honey [34, 35]. Cooper et al., evaluated the antibacterial activity of honey against Gram-positive cocci of clinically isolates of wounds. Their finding showed that for all of the strains tested, the MIC values against honey were below 10% (v/v), which confirmed the results of this current study [36]. The findings of this study show that honey is an effective wound antiseptic, with broad-spectrum antimicrobial activity. George et al., investigated antibacterial effects of honey against clinical isolates of MRSA; the mean MIC values of 4% v/v was obtained for S aureus ATCC 25923. All the test strains of MRSA were observed to be inhibited at a concentration of 4% v/v irrespective of antimicrobial phenotype [22]. Unlike the use of antibiotics in treating wounds, in vitro assessment of sensitivity to honey would not be required before the beginning of treatment. Furthermore, honey does not have an adverse affect on human tissues, unlike other topical antimicrobial agents. It not only has the potential to limit the growth of wound pathogens, but there is evidence that honey has the potential to promote healing. No other antimicrobial agent possesses these characteristics.

CONCLUSION

Honey with confirmed antibacterial activity has the potential to be an efficient treatment complementary for diabetic foot ulcers infected or at risk of infection with S. aureus.

ETHICS APPROVAL AND CONSENT TO PARTICIPATE

All procedures were approved by Ethical Committee (license number: 5572/9/35/17/p) of Hamadan University of Medical Sciences, Hamadan, Iran.

HUMAN AND ANIMAL RIGHTS

No animals were used in this research. All human research procedures were followed in accordance with the ethical standards of the committee responsible for human experimentation (institutional and national), and with the Helsinki Declaration of 1975, as revised in 2013.

CONSENT FOR PUBLICATION

Informed consent was received from all participants.

AVAILABILITY OF DATA AND MATERIALS

The authors confirm that the data supporting the findings of this research are available within the article.

FUNDING

None.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

The authors declare no conflict of interest, financial or otherwise.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Declared none.

REFERENCES

1
Jeffcoate WJ, Lipsky BA, Berendt AR, et al. Unresolved issues in the management of ulcers of the foot in diabetes. Diabet Med 2008; 25(12): 1380-9.
2
Orsi GB, Di Stefano L, Noah N. Hospital-acquired, laboratory-confirmed bloodstream infection: increased hospital stay and direct costs. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2002; 23(4): 190-7.
3
Joseph WS, Axler DA. Microbiology and antimicrobial therapy of diabetic foot infections. Clin Podiatr Med Surg 1990; 7(3): 467-81.
4
Liu M, Lu J, Müller P, et al. Antibiotic-specific differences in the response of Staphylococcus aureus to treatment with antimicrobials combined with manuka honey. Front Microbiol 2015; 5: 779.
5
Eady EA, Cove JH. Staphylococcal resistance revisited: Community-acquired methicillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus--an emerging problem for the management of skin and soft tissue infections. Curr Opin Infect Dis 2003; 16(2): 103-24.
6
DeLeo FR, Chambers HF. Reemergence of antibiotic-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in the genomics era. J Clin Invest 2009; 119(9): 2464-74.
7
Mahmoudi H, Pourhajibagher M, Chiniforush N, Soltanian AR, Alikhani MY, Bahador A. Biofilm formation and antibiotic resistance in meticillin-resistant and meticillin-sensitive Staphylococcus aureus isolated from burns. J Wound Care 2019; 28(2): 66-73.
8
Moore OA, Smith LA, Campbell F, Seers K, McQuay HJ, Moore RA. Systematic review of the use of honey as a wound dressing. BMC Complement Altern Med 2001; 1: 2-5.
9
Sharp A. Beneficial effects of honey dressings in wound management. Nurs Stand 2009; 24(7): 66-68, 70, 72 passim.
10
Olaitan PB, Adeleke OE, Ola IO. Honey: A reservoir for microorganisms and an inhibitory agent for microbes. Afr Health Sci 2007; 7(3): 159-65.
11
Lusby PE, Coombes A, Wilkinson JM. Honey: A potent agent for wound healing? J Wound Ostomy Continence Nurs 2002; 29(6): 295-300.
12
Molan P C. Bee World 1992; 73(1): 5-28.
13
Pieper B. Honey-based dressings and wound care: An option for care in the United States. J Wound Ostomy Continence Nurs 2009; 36(1): 60-6.
14
White R, Molan P. “A summary of published clinical research on honey in wound management,” in Honey: A Modern Wound Management Product 2005.
15
Molan PC. The role of honey in the management of wounds. J Wound Care 1999; 8(8): 415-8.
16
Allen KL, Molan PC, Reid GM. A survey of the antibacterial activity of some New Zealand honeys. J Pharm Pharmacol 1991; 43(12): 817-22.
17
Bogdanov S, Jurendic T, Sieber R, Gallmann P. Honey for nutrition and health: a review. J Am Coll Nutr 2008; 27(6): 677-89.
18
Scepankova H, Saraiva JA, Estevinho LM. Honey health benefits and uses in Medicine Bee Products-Chemical and Biological Properties 2017; 83-96.
19
Molan PC, Cooper RA. Honey and sugar as a dressing for wounds and ulcers. Trop Doct 2000; 30(4): 249-50.
20
Cianciosi D, Forbes-Hernández TY, Afrin S, et al. Phenolic compounds in honey and their associated health benefits: A review. Molecules 2018; 23(9): 2322.
21
Kwakman PH, Zaat SA. Antibacterial components of honey. IUBMB Life 2012; 64(1): 48-55.
22
Adams CJ, Boult CH, Deadman BJ, et al. Isolation by HPLC and characterisation of the bioactive fraction of New Zealand manuka (Leptospermum scoparium) honey. Carbohydr Res 2008; 343(4): 651-9.
23
Mavric E, Wittmann S, Barth G, Henle T. Identification and quantification of methylglyoxal as the dominant antibacterial constituent of Manuka (Leptospermum scoparium) honeys from New Zealand. Mol Nutr Food Res 2008; 52(4): 483-9.
24
Moussa A, Noureddine D, Mohamed HS, Abdelmelek M, Saad A. Antibacterial activity of various honey types of Algeria against Staphylococcus aureus and Streptococcus pyogenes. Asian Pac J Trop Med 2012; 5(10): 773-6.
25
Pasias IN, Kiriakou IK, Kaitatzis A, Koutelidakis AE, Proestos C. Effect of late harvest and floral origin on honey antibacterial properties and quality parameters. Food Chem 2018; 242: 513-8.
26
George NM, Cutting KF. Antibacterial honey (Medihoney™): In-vitro activity against clinical isolates of MRSA, VRE, and other multiresistant gram-negative organisms including Pseudomonas aeruginosa Wounds 2007; 19(9): 231-6.
27
Shenoy VP, Ballal M, Shivananda P, Bairy I. Honey as an antimicrobial agent against pseudomonas aeruginosa isolated from infected wounds. J Glob Infect Dis 2012; 4(2): 102-5.
28
Nzeako B, Hamdi J. Antimicrobial potential of honey on some microbial isolates. Sultan Qaboos Univ Med J 2000; 2(2): 75-9.
29
Iurlina MO, Fritz R. Characterization of microorganisms in Argentinean honeys from different sources. Int J Food Microbiol 2005; 105(3): 297-304.
30
Mandal MD, Mandal S. Honey: its medicinal property and antibacterial activity. Asian Pac J Trop Biomed 2011; 1(2): 154-60.
31
Cooper RA, Molan PC, Harding KG. Antibacterial activity of honey against strains of Staphylococcus aureus from infected wounds. J R Soc Med 1999; 92(6): 283-5.
32
Cooper RA, Halas E, Molan PC. The efficacy of honey in inhibiting strains of Pseudomonas aeruginosa from infected burns. J Burn Care Rehabil 2002; 23(6): 366-70.
33
Henriques AF, Jenkins RE, Burton NF, Cooper RA. The intracellular effects of manuka honey on Staphylococcus aureus. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis 2010; 29(1): 45-50.
34
Jenkins R, Burton N, Cooper R. Manuka honey inhibits cell division in methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. J Antimicrob Chemother 2011; 66(11): 2536-42.
35
Packer JM, Irish J, Herbert BR, et al. Specific non-peroxide antibacterial effect of manuka honey on the Staphylococcus aureus proteome. Int J Antimicrob Agents 2012; 40(1): 43-50.
36
Cooper RA, Molan PC, Harding KG. The sensitivity to honey of Gram-positive cocci of clinical significance isolated from wounds. J Appl Microbiol 2002; 93(5): 857-63.