Next Article in Journal
Prevalence, Antibiotic-Resistance, and Replicon-Typing of Salmonella Strains among Serovars Mainly Isolated from Food Chain in Marche Region, Italy
Next Article in Special Issue
Assessment of the Antioxidant and Antimicrobial Potential of Ptychotis verticillata Duby Essential Oil from Eastern Morocco: An In Vitro and In Silico Analysis
Previous Article in Journal
Cefiderocol: Systematic Review of Mechanisms of Resistance, Heteroresistance and In Vivo Emergence of Resistance
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Antibiotics
Volume 11
Issue 6
10.3390/antibiotics11060724
antibiotics-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

Chemical Composition of Essential Oils of Bulbs and Aerial Parts of Two Cultivars of Allium sativum and Their Antibiofilm Activity against Food and Nosocomial Pathogens

by
Filomena Nazzaro
1,*,
Flavio Polito
2,
Giuseppe Amato
1,
Lucia Caputo
2,
Rosaria Francolino
2,
Antonio D’Acierno
1,
Florinda Fratianni
1,
Vincenzo Candido
3,
Raffaele Coppola
1,4 and
Vincenzo De Feo
1,2
1
Institute of Food Sciences, CNR-ISA, Via Roma, 64, 83100 Avellino, Italy
2
Department of Pharmacy, University of Salerno, Via Giovanni Paolo II, 132, 84084 Fisciano, Italy
3
Department of European and Mediterranean Culture, University of Basilicata, Via Lanera, 20, 75100 Matera, Italy
4
Department of Agricultural, Environmental and Food Sciences, University of Molise, 86100 Campobasso, Italy
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Antibiotics 2022, 11(6), 724; https://doi.org/10.3390/antibiotics11060724
Submission received: 3 May 2022 / Revised: 24 May 2022 / Accepted: 25 May 2022 / Published: 27 May 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Antimicrobial Activity of Essential Oils, 2nd Volume)
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
This work aimed to evaluate the chemical composition of the essential oils (EOs) of two cultivars of Allium sativum and their antibiofilm activity against the food pathogens Acinetobacter baumannii, Escherichia coli, Listeria monocytogenes, and Staphylococcus aureus. The crystal violet assay ascertained the susceptibility of the bacterial biofilms, while the MTT assay let to evaluations of the metabolic changes occurring in the bacterial cells within biofilms. Their chemical composition indicated some sulfuric compounds (i.e., allicin, diallyl disulfide, and allyl propyl disulfide), and decene as some of the main components of the EOs. The aerial parts and bulbs’ EOs from the two cultivars showed chemical differences, which seemed to affect the antibiofilm activity. The EOs from aerial parts of ‘Bianco del Veneto’ inhibited the biofilm formation of L. monocytogenes and E. coli (60.55% and 40.33%, respectively). In comparison, the ‘Staravec’ EO inhibited the cellular metabolism of E. coli (62.44%) and S. aureus (51.52%) sessile cells. These results indicate their possible use as preserving agents in the food industry and suggest their potential exploitation in the development of new formulations to avoid or limit nosocomial infections.

1. Introduction

Garlic (Allium sativum L.) is one of the most important species used since ancient times as a traditional medicine. Garlic is an annual herbaceous aromatic spice, a member of the Amaryllidaceae family, native to the countries of Central Asia; it was probably one of the first plants to be cultivated and used as food [1,2]. The binomial Allium sativum is a name with both Celtic and Latin origins. From the Celtic side, the term ‘allium’ means burning or pungent, while the word ‘sativum’ comes from the Latin side, which means planted or cultivated. On the other hand, the term garlic has Anglo-Saxon origins, with ‘gar-leac’ indicating its flowering stem [3]. There are numerous varieties of garlic, also classified according to the bulb’s color and characterized by different compositions and biological activities [4,5]. Garlic is widely used as a flavoring agent. It possesses various therapeutic properties, and is used in the treatment of earache, whooping cough, colds, and stomach disorders, and in the prevention of cardiovascular diseases [6]. These activities have been confirmed by several clinical and epidemiological trials [7]. Garlic properties derive mainly from organosulfides (allicin, diallyl disulfide, and diallyl trisulfide) and flavonoids (especially quercetin). Several studies have shown that these compounds are responsible for antioxidant and antibacterial activities [8]. Recent in silico studies suggested that Allium sativum could act also against SARS-CoV2 infection, although this is not supported by in vivo studies [9,10].
For a long time, Allium EOs have been recognized as possessing good antibacterial activity against Gram-positive and Gram-negative strains, particularly E. coli [11], Salmonella, Pseudomonas, and S. aureus [12]. Many countries, particularly India, use the garlic EO to treat infectious diseases and prevent food spoilage [13]. Furthermore, hydro-alcoholic extracts of bulbs of A. sativum showed antifungal activity, for instance, against clinical isolates of C. albicans [14].
In recent years, the expansion of some diseases was correlated to a broadening of the presence, in different environments (for instance, foods, hospitals, and workplaces), of some pathogenic bacteria, such as Listeria monocytogenes, Escherichia coli, Staphylococcus aureus, and Acinobacter baumannii. A. baumannii exhibited a pattern of multidrug resistance in antibiotic susceptibility tests, and now it is considered as one of the most important Gram-negative pathogenic bacteria just after P. aeruginosa [15,16]. S. aureus, in particular its methicillin-resistant strains, can cause several nosocomial and community infections. [17]. The entero-hemorrhagic E. coli O157:H7 is a worldwide foodborne pathogen causing severe diseases in humans [18]. L. monocytogenes is a widespread opportunistic pathogen responsible for the listeriosis foodborne disease. It is a highly occurring pathogen in several western and industrialized countries [19]. These bacteria developed, over the years, stronger evolutionary drug resistance due to their careless use, often in situations where their application was to be considered useless and inappropriate [20]. The higher bacterial resistance to the conventional drugs allowed them to more easily form biofilms, causing a severe problem for food and health [21]. Around 80% of human chronic infections are due to bacterial biofilm formation [22]. Biofilm is the leading source of failure for medical implants, which, infected by bacteria capable of attaching themselves to their surfaces through biofilms, gives rise to higher mortality. Biofilms are also known to cause serious problems in the food industry. In fact, many biofilm-producing bacteria are becoming resistant to the sanitizers used to prevent biofilm formation on foods and food-contact surfaces [23]. The biofilm capacity of bacteria determines their enhanced antibiotic resistance, so that they become refractory to the host’s immune responses, which leads to persistent and recurrent infections. Thus, the interest in natural alternatives to prevent biofilm formation increased the search for natural agents as alternatives to conventional sanitizers, to control the biofilm’s development.
Different papers reported the antibiofilm activity of fresh extracts of A. sativum against Shiga-toxi-producing Escherichia coli (STEC) [24] and the inhibitory biofilm activity exhibited by aqueous and hydroalcoholic extracts of A. sativum against S. aureus, B. cereus, S. pneumoniae, P. aeruginosa, E. coli and Klebsiella pneumoniae [25]. Recently, the solvent extract of the A. sativum bulb acted against the biofilms produced by some bacteria (Lactobacillus acidophilus, Streptococcus. salivarius, S. mutans, and S. aureus) isolated from patients affected by periodontal and dental caries [26], or against Streptococcus sanguinis, involved in the endocarditis [27]. These researches also confirmed how using Allium species could be of particular importance given their versatility, acting both in the food sector (as a preserving agent) and for human health (potentially avoiding, for example, the onset of nosocomial infections).
A. sativum EO contains several classes of compounds, mainly sulfur compounds, such as allicin, diallyl sulfide, and propyl allyl disulfide, which concur to its biological properties, including the fight against pathogens [28]. Allicin [29], diallyl disulfide [30], and propyl allyl disulfide [8] have antibacterial activities. Among the other non-sulfuric compounds, decene, often detected in Allium EO, is known for its inhibitory activity against Streptococcus mutans [31]. The chemical composition of a plant depends on many factors, such as the production area, genetic factors, climatic conditions, ripening conditions, and the part of the plant considered. Within a given genus, the chemical composition depends on the species, and within the species, on the cultivar. It, in turn, also contributes to influencing the biological properties, such as the antibacterial and anti-biofilm properties, that a specific plant and its derivatives (extracts, EOs) can then exert. For these reasons, we studied the chemical of the EOs of aerial parts and bulbs of two cultivars of A. sativum, the Italian ‘Bianco del Veneto’, and the Albanian ‘Staravec’, which have never been studied before, and their biofilm inhibitory capacity against A. baumannii, E. coli, L. monocytogenes, and S. aureus. In addition, we analyzed their effect on the bacterial cell metabolism within biofilm, which concurs to increase their virulence.

2. Results and Discussion

2.1. Chemical Composition

The EO yield of the two cultivars was greater from the aerial parts than from the bulbs. In fact, the ‘Bianco del Veneto’ aerial parts furnished 0.16% (w/w) EO, while the bulb furnished 0.08% (w/w); in ‘Staravec’, the yields were 0.25% and 0.03%, respectively, for the aerial parts and bulbs. As reported in Table 1, the composition of the EOs between the two cultivars, ‘Bianco del Veneto’ and ‘Staravec’, is quite different. Specifically, in the aerial parts of ‘Bianco del Veneto’, 16 compounds were identified; the major component was allicin (17.5%), followed by decene (17.0%) and allyl propyl disulfide (16.1%). On the other hand, the bulbs have a richer chemical composition, with 59 identified components. Moreover, in this case, the main component was allicin (50.9%), followed by other sulfur compounds such as diallyl disulfide (27.9%), ethyl diallyl trisulfide (3.1%), 2,2-bis(ethylthio)-propane (2.0%), (Z)-allyl propyl sulfide (1.4%), and methyl allicin (1.3%).
The chemical composition of the ‘Staravec’ appeared to be more homogeneous between the aerial parts and the bulbs, with 43 and 39 components identified, respectively. In the EO of the aerial parts, the main components were diallyl tetrasulfide (11.4%), allyl propyl disulfide (10.1%), and 12-methyl tridecanoate (8.7%). Allicin accounted only for 0.8%. A different situation was found in the EO from the bulbs, where allicin was the main component, representing 62.2% of the sample. In this EO, other sulfur compounds are present: diallyl disulfide (16.6%) and 2,4-bis(1,1-dimethylphenol) (2,6%).
The presence of numerous sulfur compounds agrees with the available literature [32,33,34,35,36,37]. The amounts of allicin appeared very variable between the samples; in fact, it is present in minimal quantities in the aerial parts of the ‘Staravec’. The other samples represent the main component, with percentages ranging between 17.5% and 62.2%. The presence of sulfur compounds related to diallylsulfide, the main constituents in the EO of the aerial parts of ‘Staravec’, agrees with the available literature. The garlic EO studied by Casella and coworkers [8] is poor in allicin but rich in diallyl disulfide, diallyl trisulfide, and diallyl tetrasulfide. Furthermore, these sulfur compounds influence the biological properties of the samples, including their antibacterial activity, as reported by Shang and coworkers [38].

2.2. Antibiofilm Activity

Biofilm Inhibitory Capability of the EOs

The capacity of the EOs to inhibit bacterial biofilm formation and the metabolism of the bacterial cells within the biofilm was assessed through crystal violet and MTT tests, respectively. The tests were performed utilizing 10 µL/mL and 20 µL/mL of EOs, two concentrations abundantly lower than the minimal inhibitory concentration, calculated through the resazurin test (Table 2). The data indicated that the bulbs of ‘Bianco del Veneto’ exhibited inhibitory activity on biofilm formation (Table 3), with inhibition percentages ranging from 18.59% (10 µL/mL vs. A. baumannii) up to 63% (64.29% with 20 µL/mL vs. L. monocytogenes and 63.18% vs. S. aureus). The ‘Bianco del Veneto’ EO aerial parts were effective against all four strains, mainly when used at 20 µL/mL, showing an efficacy, especially against E. coli and L. monocytogenes, against which its inhibitory action reached percentages of 60.55% and 50.52%, respectively. Concurrently, the ‘Bianco del Veneto’ bulbs’ EO was always active, with an inhibitory action ranging between 48.90% (against E.coli) up to 64.29% (against L. monocytogenes), when used at 20 μL/mL. The EOs from the aerial parts of ‘Staravec’ showed less inhibitory activity, resulting in effectiveness against A. baumannii (45.61% inhibition), E. coli (27.56% inhibition), and S. aureus (26.31% inhibition), but it was utterly ineffective vs. L. monocytogenes. The EOs of the bulbs, on the other hand, proved to be extremely ineffective in inhibiting the formation of biofilm by all four microbial strains.
The correlation analysis, considering the chemical composition of the EOs and their inhibitory behavior exhibited against the bacterial biofilm formation, highlighted a different influence of some among the more abundant compounds. Thus, only diallyl sulfide, present in the EO of the aerial parts of the ‘Bianco del Veneto’, seemed to have some inhibitory activity vs. A. baumannii (Corr-Coeff = 0.142). Considering the ‘Bianco del Veneto’ bulbs’ EO, where the resulting concentration of diallyl sulfide was equal to 27.9%, such actions arrived up to a concentration of 57.34% using 20 μL/mL of the same oil. The diallyl sulfide, therefore, seemed to counteract the negative effect on the inhibitory biofilm activity exhibited by the decene (Corr-Coeff = −0.19), allyl propyl disulfide (Corr- Coeff = −0.01), and allicin (Corr-Coeff = −0.377). As evidence of the negative effect exerted by allicin, we could highlight how the EO obtained from the ‘Staravec’ bulb’s EO—containing 62.2% of allicin—was unable to exert any inhibitory biofilm effect on all four bacteria used in the tests. The inhibitory biofilm action exerted by the ‘Bianco del Veneto’aerial parts’ EOs against E. coli seemed to depend on the decene (Corr-Coeff = 0.488) and allyl propyl disulfide (Corr-Coeff = 0.42). In the case of the ‘Bianco del Veneto’ bulbs’ EO, the good inhibitory biofilm action against E.coli seemed to be influenced not so much by the decene (absent in this EO) but rather by the diallyl sulfide. As we have seen previously, the EOs obtained from the ‘Staravec’ cultivar were much less effective in exhibiting inhibitory biofilm action. The correlation analysis indicated that allyl propyl disulfide affected the inhibitory biofilm formation shown by the aerial parts’ EO (whose activity did not go beyond 27.56% with 20 μL/mL). Moreover, as we previously indicated, the EO of the ‘Staravec’ bulb, where allicin (Corr-Coeff = −0.383) is present at 62.2%, was practically ineffective vs. E. coli. The correlation coefficients were all positive in the case of L. monocytogenes. However, as shown in Table 3, the EOs extracted from the ‘Staravec’ proved utterly ineffective. Diallyl sulfide (Corr-Coeff = 0.493) was present at a negligible percentage (0.5%); the ineffectiveness of the inhibitory biofilm action exhibited by the ‘Staravec’ bulbs’ EO seemed, in this case, to be influenced by the extremely high percentage of allicin (Corr-Coeff = 0.075).
From the analysis of the correlation, the inhibitory biofilm action (up to 63.18%, see Table 3) exhibited by the EO of the bulb of ‘Bianco del Veneto’ against S.aureus, seemed to be influenced not so much by allicin, although it was abundant (Corr-Coeff = 0.018), but from the diallyl sulfide (Corr-Coeff = 0.532). Conversely, the positive influence of diallyl sulfide present in the aerial parts’ EO of such a cultivar seemed to be somewhat overwhelmed by the presence of allicin, but above all by the presence of allyl propyl disulfide (Corr-Coeff = −0.305), which appeared to weakly inhibit the S. aureus’s biofilm formation.
The available literature demonstrated that diallyl sulfides exhibited promising antimicrobial activity [37,39,40,41,42]. Our results confirmed that, although allicin contributes to the antibacterial properties of hydroalcoholic extracts of garlic [43,44], it could exhibit a breaking effect on the biofilm inhibitory action of the A. sativum EOs.
Through the test with MTT, we observed that the action of EOs on the formation of bacterial biofilms did not always coincide with a similar effect on the metabolism of bacterial cells (Table 4).
The action of the EOs on the metabolism of L. monocytogenes appeared opposite to what we saw in the test with crystal violet: in fact, the ‘Bianco del Veneto’ EOs, very effective in limiting the adhesion process of the biofilm by this bacterium, were utterly ineffective in affecting its metabolism. On the other hand, the ‘Staravec’ EOs confirmed their almost entirely ineffectiveness (apart from a 10.38% metabolic inhibition in the presence of 20 µL/mL of the EO obtained from the aerial parts). In this case, the correlation analysis highlighted a robust negative effect linked to the presence of allicin (Corr-Coeff = −0.748) and diallyl sulfide (Corr-Coeff = −0.724). The weak albeit inhibitory activity (10.38%) observed in the presence of 20 µL/ mL of the EO obtained from the aerial parts of ‘Staravec’ could be due to the presence of allyl propyl disulfide (Corr-Coeff = 0.284). The EOs’ components might be able to act against its biofilm formation not so much by working on L. monocytogenes metabolism but with other mechanisms, as has been reported [45].
Against E. coli, an inhibitory effect on biofilm formation (50.52% with the EOs from the aerial parts of ‘Bianco del Veneto’) did not correspond to an identical inhibitory force on the metabolism of these bacterial cells, which was utterly absent. On the contrary, ‘Starevec’ EOs proved to be very efficient at affecting its metabolism, so much so that we observed percentages of metabolic inhibition never lower than 62.64% and 65.71% with 20 µL/mL of the bulb and aerial parts EOs, respectively.
The EOs, when used at the highest concentration, always exerted an inhibitory force on the bacterial metabolism of A. baumannii, being that the ‘Staravec’ EOs are more effective than the ‘Bianco del Veneto’ ones, especially in regards to the EO recovered from the bulbs (59.79% and 24.10%, respectively, when we tested 20 µL/mL). Correlation analysis allowed us to observe that allyl propyl disulfide (Corr-Coeff = 0.244) and allyl propyl disulfide (Corr-Coeff = 0.16) seemed to mitigate, in a certain sense, the negative effect of allicin (Corr-Coeff = −0.178) on the inhibitory metabolic capacity exerted by the ‘Bianco del Veneto’ aerial parts’ EOs vs. A. baumannii. The lack of decene (Corr- Coeff = 0.553) in the EO of the ‘Bianco del Veneto’ bulb made it relatively weak in inhibiting the A.baumanni metabolism. Therefore, we could hypothesize that the greater inhibitory metabolic capacity exerted by the EO of the aerial parts of ‘Staravec’ vs. A. baumannii could be due to the almost total absence of allicin. On the other hand, the bulb EO of ‘Staravec’ showed a greater propensity to inhibit the metabolism of A. baumannii, probably due to allyl propyl disulfide and decene, expressing a positive correlation coefficient, although both are present at low concentrations.
The bacterial metabolism of S. aureus was, in turn, the most sensitive to the action of all the EOs tested. 20 µL/mL of the ‘Bianco del Veneto’ bulbs’ EOs inhibited the adhesion process and bacterial biofilm formation (63.18% inhibition, Table 3). In addition, it exerted a potent inhibitory force on its cellular metabolism (61.44% inhibition).
Correlation analysis evidenced a strong influence exhibited by allicin (Corr-coeff = 0.449), which, on the other hand, was also the most abundant compound of these two EOs. The inhibitory effect of allicin on the S. aureus metabolism was weakened by the presence of allyl propyl disulfide (Corr-coeff = −0875) and decene (Corr-Coeff = −0.928). The different behavior exhibited by the EOs on the biofilm adhesion process and the metabolism of bacterial cells confirms previous studies on other Allium species and cultivars [28,46]. Casella and coworkers [8] demonstrated that the antibacterial activity of the EOs from different Allium species’ fresh bulbs was mainly due to diallyl sulfides. This was partially ascertained by Polito et al. [28]. Taking into account the results of their work and calculating the correlation coefficients, we could hypothesize an antagonistic activity of allicin on the capacity of the ‘Rosso di Sulmona’ and ‘Rosso di Spagna’ EOs to inhibit biofilm formation (Corr-Coeff for A.baumannii = −0.095 Corr-Coeff for E.coli: −0.644; Corr-Coeff for L. monocytogenes = −0.013; Corr-Coeff for S.aureus =-0.314). Concurrently, diallyl disulfide positively influenced the inhibitory biofilm capacity of those EOs against E,coli (Corr-coeff = 0.810), while propyl allyl disulfide influenced the inhibitory ability of those EOs against S.aureus (Corr-Coeff = 0.767) and L. monocytogenes (Corr-Coeff = 0.474).
On the other hand, allicin positively influenced the capacity exhibited by those EOs to inhibit the metabolism of A. baumannii within the biofilm (Corr-coeff = 0.850). Thus, performing the correlation analysis based on the data reported in the work of Polito et al. [28], we might propose an almost generally negative influence of allicin and a positive effect exhibited generally by other sulfide compounds, such as diallyl sulfides and allyl propyl sulfides. In addition, other compounds, such as decene, are similar in their capacity to inhibit the formation of biofilms or the cell metabolism within the biofilm.
Yin and Cheng [39] reported some properties of diallyl sulfides, demonstrating their capacity to offer antioxidant and antimicrobial protection against pathogens, including E. coli, L. monocytogenes, and S. aureus. These compounds also acted on some bacterial enzymes involved in bacterial metabolism [47]. The EOs obtained from the two cultivars ‘Bianco del Veneto’ and ‘Staravec’, could inhibit biofilm formation and, in some cases, such as against E. coli and L. monocytogenes, were capable of affecting their metabolism. However, Fratianni et al. [48], analyzing the action of different types of honey on some pathogenic bacteria, observed that the inhibitory effect on biofilm formation is not always correlated with an analog effect on the bacterial metabolism within the biofilm. Similarly, the action of different seed oils against A. baumannii, E. coli, L. monocytogenes, P. aeruginosa, and S. aureus was sometimes different, depending on the microorganism [49].

3. Materials and Methods

3.1. Plant Material

Plants of the two cultivars of A. sativum, ‘Bianco del Veneto’ and ‘Staravec’, were collected in May–June 2020. The cultivars were grown in an experimental field at Pontecagnano (Salerno province, Southern Italy) on a fine-textured soil previously ploughed and fertilized. Cloves of both cultivars were planted on 15 November 2019, spaced 10 cm apart from each other and 10 cm deep in the soil, in rows spaced 50 cm apart, to obtain a density of 20 plants per square meter. According to a randomized block design with 3 reps, the 2 cultivars were arranged in 5 m2 plots (2.0 m × 2.5 m). Furthermore, the standard agronomic practices of local garlic growers were followed. At harvest time, samples of 10 plants, randomly taken from each plot, were analyzed for morphological traits: the skin color of the bulbs and cloves, bulbs’ mean weight, equatorial bulb diameter, number of cloves per bulb, cloves’ mean weight. As shown in Table 5, the bulb and clove traits of garlic were significantly different between the cultivars. In particular, the mean weight and equatorial diameter of the ‘Bianco del Veneto’ bulbs were significantly higher than the ‘Staravec’ ones. In addition, the mean clove weight of ‘Bianco del Veneto’ was higher, whilst the number of cloves per bulb was significantly similar between the tested garlic cultivars.

3.2. Extraction of the EOs

Plant samples were cleaned from soil and other material residues and dried for about one week at room temperature. The plant material was divided into aerial parts and bulbs, separated and classified, and extracted with methanol at room temperature. This extraction was repeated three times, renewing the solvent. The extracts were then filtered using a paper filter and freed of excess methanol (Rotavapor R-100, BUCHI Italia s.r.l, 20007 Cornaredo, Italy). Subsequently, with the minimum amount of methanol, samples were placed in a flask half-filled with water and subjected to steam distillation, as reported in the European Pharmacopoeia [50]. The EOs obtained were solubilized in n-hexane, dried in a nitrogen atmosphere, and stored in amber vials in the refrigerator at 4 °C.

3.3. Composition of the EOs

The composition of the EOs was achieved by GC and GC-MS. GC analysis was performed using a Sigma 115 gas chromatograph (Perkin-Elmer Italia, Milano, Italy) equipped with a flame ionization detector (FID) and a non-polar HP-5 MS fused silica capillary column (30 m × 0.25 mm; 0.25 μm film thickness). Injector and detector temperatures were 250 °C and 290 °C, respectively. The analysis was carried out as follows: 5 min isothermally at 40 °C; the temperature was subsequently increased by 2 °C/min until 270 °C; and finally, the sample was kept in isotherm for 20 min. The analysis was also performed on an HP Innowax column (50 m × 0.20 nm; 0.25 μm film thickness). In both cases, He was used the carrier gas at a flow of 1.0 mL/min. GC-MS analysis was performed using a 6850 Ser II Apparatus (Agilent, Cernusco sul Naviglio, Italy) equipped with a DB-5 fused silica capillary column (30 m × 0.25 mm; 0.25 μm film thickness) and linked to an Agilent Mass Selective Detector (MSD 5973). Ionization voltage 70 V; ion multiplier energy 2000 V. The mass spectra were scanned in the range of 40–500 amu, with 5 scans per second. The chromatographic conditions were as above; the transfer line temperature was 295 °C. Most of the components were identified by comparison of their Kovats indices (Ki) with those of the literature [51,52,53] and by comparison of the mass spectra to those of pure compounds available in our laboratory or to those present in the NIST 02 and Wiley 257 mass libraries. The Kovats indices were determined in relation to a homologous series of n-alkanes (C10–C35), under the same operating conditions. For some compounds, the identification was confirmed by co-injection with standard compounds.

3.4. Antibacterial Activity

Microorganisms and Culture Conditions

The Gram-positive, Staphylococcus aureus subsp. aureus (ATCC 25923) and Listeria monocytogenes (ATCC 7644), and the Gram-negative, Escherichia coli (DSM 8579) and Acinetobacter baumannii (ATCC 19606), were cultured in Luria–Bertani broth at 37 °C and 80 rpm (Corning LSE, Pisa, Italy) for 18 h (A. baumannii was cultured at 35 °C).

3.5. Minimal Inhibitory Concentration (MIC)

The resazurin microtiter plate assay was used to determine the lowest concentration of the EOs capable of preventing visible growth of the microorganisms [54]. Multiwell plates were organized in triplicate; then, they were incubated at 37 °C and 35 °C, depending on the strain, for 24 h. The smallest concentration at which a colour change happened (from dark purple to colourless) fixed the MIC value.

3.6. Biofilm Inhibitory Action of the EOs

The EOs’ capability to inhibit bacterial biofilm formation was assessed in flat-bottomed 96-well microtiter plates [46], using two concentration of EOs lower than those detected through MIC, which is applied generally to identify the concentration of a substance/molecule capable of inhibiting the growth of the planktonic cells. A total of 10 µL of the overnight bacterial cultures, standardized to 0.5 McFarland (1.5 × 107 cells/mL) with fresh culture broth, were put in each well. Then, 10 and 20 µL/mL of each EO and Luria–Bertani broth were added, to reach a final volume of 250 µL/well. Microplates were closed with parafilm, to prevent evaporation; they were incubated for 48 h at 37 °C (except for A. baumannii, incubated at 35 °C). Once removed the planktonic cells, wells were washed with sterile PBS, and we added 200 µL of methanol to fix the adhered cells. After 15 min, the methanol was removed, and the microplates were left to dry. The staining of the adhered cells was obtained by adding 200 µL of 2% w/v crystal violet solution, which was removed after 20 min. The wells were gently washed with sterile PBS and left to dry under the flow laminar cap. The addition of 200 µL of glacial acetic acid 20% w/v allowed for the release of the bound dye. The absorbance was measured at λ = 540 nm (Cary, Varian, Milano, Italy). The percent of adhesion was calculated with respect to the control; an inhibition of 0% was considered for cells without treatment. The tests were carried out in triplicate, and the average results were taken for reproducibility.

3.7. Inhibition of Cells’ Metabolic Activity within the Biofilm

The EOs capacity to inhibit the metabolic activity of the bacterial cells was assessed through the 3-(4,5-dimethylthiazol-2-yl)-2,5-diphenyltetrazolium bromide (MTT) method [55]. The method is different from MIC, as it is applied to the cells within the biofilm after the discarding of the non-adhered cells; furthermore, it was used considering concentrations of the EOs lower than those identified by MIC. Ten µL of the overnight bacterial cultures, standardized to 0.5 McFarland (1.5 × 107 cells/mL) with fresh culture broth, were put in each well. Then, 10 and 20 µL/mL of each EO and Luria–Bertani broth were added to reach a final volume of 250 µL/well. After 48 h of incubation, planktonic cells were removed, and 150 µL of PBS and 30 µL of 0.3% of MTT (Sigma, Milano, Italy) were added. Depending on the strain, microplates were kept at 37 °C and 35 °C. After 2 h, we removed the MTT solution, and two washing steps were performed with 200 µL of sterile physiological solution. Then, 200 µL of dimethyl sulfoxide (Sigma, Milano, Italy) was added to allow for the dissolution of the formazan crystals by the adhered cells, which was measured after 2 h, at λ = 570 nm (Cary, Varian, Milano, Italy).

3.8. Statistical Analysis

All assays were carried out in triplicate. Data from each experiment were expressed as the mean ± SD, and statistically analyzed by two-way ANOVA followed by Dunnet’s multiple comparisons test, at the significance level of p < 0.05, using GraphPad Prism 6.0. The analysis also correlated the values of the antibiofilm activity of the EOs with their composition, using the free software environment for statistical computing and graphics, R (https://www.r-project.org/ last accessed on 18 May 2022).

4. Conclusions

This research demonstrated a chemical difference between the EOs of two cultivars of A. sativum. The chemical compositions confirmed the presence of sulfur compounds, particularly allicin, as reported in the literature. However, the percent amounts of allicin were variable between the two cultivars and between the aerial parts and bulbs of the same cultivar; indeed, allicin, rarely affected the inhibitory biofilm capabilities exhibited by EOs. Both the EOs from the aerial parts and the bulbs of the cv. ‘Bianco del Veneto’, unlike the cv. ‘Staravec’, were able to inhibit the biofilm formation of L. monocytogenes. On the other hand, the EOs from aerial parts bulbs of ‘Staravec’ acted against the cellular metabolism of E. coli.
Identifying substances with a broad spectrum of antibacterial activity against Gram-positive and Gram-negative bacteria, and their virulence, is always helpful from an application point of view, both for food safety and for different areas such as hospitals.
The inhibitory action exhibited not only by the bulbs but also by the aerial parts of the two cultivars of A. sativum represents an aspect of particular interest. These results could allow for the more rational use and exploitation of all the A. sativum plants. Most people continue to harvest bulbs exclusively and produce a large amount of Allium plant waste, which could have important biological properties. This might give several advantages to the food industry, as the extracts/EOs of the aerial parts could be helpful in the formulation of natural preserving agents to prolong the shelf life of perishable products. Furthermore, other studies on these substances could give the industry new weapons to fight pathogenic bacteria that are becoming more easily resistant to conventional antibiotic therapies. Finally, as we have tried to highlight, the results show once again that the biological properties of a plant are the result of the synergistic or antagonistic actions of the singular substances that compose it. Biodiversity is also like this, which could provide a full advantage to the circular economy, which today represents the most crucial pillar from an environmental, economic, and social point of view.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, V.D.F., F.N., R.C. and V.C.; methodology, F.N., F.P., L.C., R.F., G.A., A.D. and F.F.; investigation, F.N., F.P., L.C., R.F., G.A. and F.F.; writing—original draft preparation, V.D.F., F.N. and V.C.; writing—review and editing, V.D.F., F.N. and V.C.; supervision, V.D.F. and F.N. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was partially supported by the projects : (1) ‘Sviluppo di alimenti funzionali per l’innovazione dei prodotti alimentari di tradizione italiana’ (‘Development of functional foods for the innovation of traditional Italian food products, ALIFUN’), financed by the Italian Ministry of University and Research (n◦A4 ARS01_00783) “; (2) “AgroBiodiversità Campana: moltiplicazione, conservazione e caratterizzazione di risorse genetiche vegetali erbacee autoctone”, project: P.S.R. 2014–2020, action 10.2.1 of the Campania Region, Italy (D.I.C.A. contract Regione Campania n° 2019.0582718).

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article. Further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Badal, D.S.; Dwivedi, A.K.; Kumar, V.; Singh, S.; Prakash, A.; Verma, S.; Kumar, J. Effect of organic manures and inorganic fertilizers on growth, yield and its attributing traits in garlic (Allium sativum L.). J. Pharmacogn. Phytochem. 2019, 8, 587–590. [Google Scholar]
  2. Londhe, V.P.; Gavasane, A.T.; Nipate, S.S.; Bandawane, D.D.; Chaudhari, P.D. Role of garlic (Allium sativum) in various diseases: An overview. J. Pharm. Res. Opin. 2011, 1, 129–134. [Google Scholar]
  3. Bhandari, P.R. Garlic (Allium sativum L.): A review of potential therapeutic applications. Int. J. Green Pharm. 2012, 6, 118–129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Molina-Calle, M.; Priego-Capote, F.; de Castro, M.D.L. HS-GC/MS volatile profile of different varieties of garlic and their behavior under heating. Anal. Bioanal. Chem. 2016, 408, 3843–3852. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Fratianni, F.; Riccardi, R.; Spigno, P.; Ombra, M.N.; Cozzolino, A.; Tremonte, P.; Coppola, R.; Nazzaro, F. Biochemical Characterization and Antimicrobial and Antifungal Activity of two Endemic Varieties of Garlic (Allium sativum) of the Campania Region, Southern Italy. J. Med. Food 2016, 19, 686–691. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. El-Saber Batiha, G.; Beshbishy, A.M.; Wasef, L.G.; Elewa, Y.H.A.; Al-Sagan, A.A.; Abd El-Hack, M.; Taha, A.E.; Abd Elhakim, Y.M.; Prasad Devkota, H. Chemical constituents and pharmacological activities of garlic (Allium sativum L.): A review. Nutrients 2020, 12, 872. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  7. Rahman, K. Historical perspective on garlic and cardiovascular disease. J. Nutr. 2001, 131, 977S–979S. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  8. Casella, S.; Leonardi, M.; Melai, B.; Fratini, F.; Pistelli, L. The role of diallyl sulfides and dipropyl sulfides in the in vitro antimicrobial activity of the essential oil of garlic, Allium sativum L., and leek, Allium porrum L. Phytother. Res. 2013, 27, 380–383. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Silva, J.; Figueiredo, P.; Byler, K.G.; Setzer, W.N. Essential oils as Antiviral Agents. Potential of Essential oils to Treat SARS-CoV-2 Infection: An In-Silico Investigation. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2020, 21, 3426. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Pandey, P.; Khan, F.; Kumar, A.; Srivastava, A.; Iha, N.K. Screening of Potent Inhibitors Against 2019 Novel Coronavirus (COVID-19) from Allium sativum and Allium cepa: An In Silico Approach. Biointerface Res. Appl. Chem. 2021, 11, 7981–7993. [Google Scholar]
  11. Johnson, M.G.; Vaoughn, R.H. Death of Salmonella typhimurium and Escherichia coli in the presence of freshly reconstituted dehydrate garlic and onion. Appl. Microbiol. 1960, 17, 903–905. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Cavallito, C.J.; Bailey, J.H. Allicin, the antibacterial principle of Allium sativum. Isolation, physical proprieties and antibacterial action. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1944, 66, 1950–1951. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Arora, S.D.; Kaur, J. Antimicrobical activity of spices. J. Antimicrob. Agents. 1999, 12, 257–262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Almabrook, H.; Masih, H. Antifungal activityof Allium sativum L. and Mentha piperita L. against C. albicans from clinical samples. Ann. Rom. Soc. Cell Biol. 2021, 25, 5591–5607. [Google Scholar]
  15. Fanaei, V.; Validi, M.; Zamanzad, B.; Karimi, A. Isolation and identification of specific bacteriophages against methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, extended-spectrum beta-lactamases-producing Escherichia coli, extended-spectrum beta-lactamases-producing Klebsiella pneumoniae, and multidrug-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii in vitro. FEMS Microbiol. Lett. 2021, 368, fnab139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Yang, H.; Liang, L.; Lin, S.; Jia, S. Isolation and characterization of a virulent bacteriophage AB1 of Acinetobacter baumannii. BMC Microbiol. 2010, 10, 131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  17. Bien, J.; Sokolova, O.; Bozko, P. Characterization of virulence factors of Staphylococcus aureus: Novel function of known virulence factors that are implicated in activation of airway epithelial proinflammatory response. J. Pathog. 2011, 2011, 601905. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  18. Lim, J.Y.; Yoon, J.; Hovde, C.J. A brief overview of Escherichia coli O157:H7 and its plasmid O157. J. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2010, 20, 5–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  19. Yang, K.; Wang, A.; Fu, M.; Wang, A.; Chen, K.; Jia, Q.; Huang, Z. Investigation of incidents and trends of antimicrobial resistance in foodborne pathogens in eight countries from historical sample data. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 472. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  20. Bottery, M.J.; Pitchford, J.W.; Friman, W.P. Ecology and evolution of antimicrobial resistance in bacterial communities. ISME J. 2021, 15, 939–948. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Simoes, M.; Bennett, R.; Rosa, E.A.S. Understanding antimicrobial activities of phytochemicals against multidrug resistant bacteria and biofilms. Nat. Prod. Rep. 2009, 26, 746–757. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Singh, A.; Amod, A.; Pandey, P.; Bose, P.; Pingali, M.S.; Shivalkar, S.; Varadwaj, P.K.; Sahoo, A.K.; Samanta, S.K. Bacterial biofilm infections, their resistance to antibiotics therapy and current treatment strategies. Biomed. Mater. 2022, 17, 22003. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Rossi, C.; Chaves-López, C.; Serio, A.; Casaccia, M.; Maggio, F.; Paparella, A. Effectiveness and mechanisms of essential oils for biofilm control on food-contact surfaces: An updated review. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 2020, 62, 2172–2191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Bhatwalkar, S.B.; Singh Gound, S.; Mondal, R.; Srivastava, R.K.; Anupam, R. Anti-biofilm and antibacterial activity of Allium sativum agaist drug resistant Shiga-Toxin producing Escherichia coli (STEC) isolates from petient samples and food sources. Indian J. Microbiol. 2019, 59, 171–179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Mohsenipour, Z.; Hassanshahian, M. The Effects of Allium sativum Extracts on Biofilm Formation and Activities of Six Pathogenic Bacteria. Jundishapur J. Microbiol. 2015, 8, e18971. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  26. Bin, C.; Naif-Dhabi, A.; Esmail, G.A.; Arokiyaraj, S.; Arasu, M.V. Potential effect of Allium sativum bulb for the treatment of biofilm forming clinical pathogens recovered from periodontal and dental caries. Saudi J. Biol. Sci. 2020, 27, 1428–1434. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Hutomo, S.; Utami Putri, D.; Welviyanda, B.C.; Susilowati, H. Inhibition Effect of garlic (Allium sativum) extract on Streptococcus sanguinis biofilm formation involving bacterial motility mechanism. Mal. J. Med. Health Sci. 2021, 17, 169–174. [Google Scholar]
  28. Polito, F.; Amato, G.; Caputo, L.; De Feo, V.; Fratianni, F.; Candido, V.; Nazzaro, F. Chemical Composition and Agronomic Traits of Allium sativum and Allium ampeloprasum Leaves and Bulbs and Their Action against Listeria monocytogenes and Other Food Pathogens. Foods 2022, 11, 995. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Marchese, A.; Barbieri, R.; Sanches-Silva, A.; Daglia, M.; Nabavi, S.F.; Jafari, N.J.; Izadi, M.; Ajami, M.; Nabavi, S.M. Antifungal and antibacterial activities of allicin: A review. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2016, 52, 49–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Jin, Z.; Li, L.; Zheng, Y.; An, P. Diallyl disulfide, the antibacterial component of garlic essential oil, inhibits the toxicity of Bacillus cereus ATCC 14579 at sub-inhibitory concentrations. Food Control 2021, 126, 108090. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Hab, R.M.; Nazlina, I.; Yaacob, W.A. Anti-biofilm and anti-adherence activities of sub fraction 18 of Melastoma malabathricum towards Streptococcus mutans. AIP Conf. Proc. 2014, 1614, 557–561. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Romeilah, R.M.; Fayed, S.A.; Mahmoud, G.I. Chemical compositions, antiviral and antioxidant activities of seven Essential oils. J. Appl. Sci. Res. 2010, 6, 50–62. [Google Scholar]
  33. Jirovetz, L.; Jäger, W.; Koch, H.P.; Remberg, G. Investigations of volatile constituents of the EO of Egyptian garlic (Allium sativum L.) by means of GC-MS and GC-FTIR. Z. Lebensm. Unters. Forsch. 1992, 194, 363–365. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Satyal, P.; Craft, J.D.; Dosoky, N.S.; Setzer, W.N. The chemical compositions of the volatile oils of garlic (Allium sativum) and wild garlic (Allium vineale). Foods 2017, 6, 63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  35. Mnayer, D.; Fabiano-Tixier, A.S.; Petitcolas, E.; Hamieh, T.; Nehme, N.; Ferrant, C.; Fernandez, X.; Chemat, F. Chemical composition, antibacterial and antioxidant activities of six essentials oils from the Alliaceae family. Molecules 2014, 19, 20034–20053. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  36. Ascrizzi, R.; Flamini, G. Leek or garlic? A chemical evaluation of elephant garlic volatiles. Molecules 2020, 25, 2082. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Corzo-Martinez, M.; Corzo, N.; Villamiel, M. Biological properties of onions and garlic. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2007, 18, 609–625. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Shang, A.; Cao, S.Y.; Xu, X.Y.; Gan, R.Y.; Tang, G.Y.; Corke, H.; Mavuwengwana, V.; Li, H.B. Bioactive compounds and biological functions of garlic (Allium sativum L.). Foods 2019, 8, 246. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  39. Yin, M.; Cheng, W. Antioxidant and antimicrobial effects of four garlic-derived organosulfur compounds in ground beef. Meat Sci. 2003, 63, 23–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Kim, J.W.; Huh, J.E.; Kyung, S.H.; Kyung, K.H. Antimicrobial activity of alk(en)yl sulfides found in Essential oils of garlic and onion. Food Sci. Biothechnol. 2004, 13, 235–239. [Google Scholar]
  41. Tsao, S.; Yin, M. In vitro activity of four diallyl sulfides occurring naturally in garlic and Chinese leek oils. J. Med. Microbiol. 2001, 50, 646–649. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  42. Bastaki, S.M.A.; Ojha, S.; Kalasz, H.; Adeghate, E. Chemical constituents and medicinal properties of Allium species. Mol. Cell. Biochem. 2021, 476, 4301–4321. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Shahid, M.; Naureen, I.; Riaz, M.; Anjum, F.; Fatima, H.; Asif Rafiq, M. Biofilm Inhibition and Antibacterial Potential of Different Varieties of Garlic (Allium sativum) Against Sinusitis Isolates. Dose-Response 2021, 19, 15593258211050491. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Snoussi, M.; Noumi, E.; Hajlaoui, H.; Bouslama, L.; Hamdi, A.; Saeed, M.; Alreshidi, M.; Adnan, M.; Al-Rashidi, A.; Aouadi, K.; et al. Phytochemical Profiling of Allium subhirsutum L. Aqueous Extract with Antioxidant, Antimicrobial, Antibiofilm, and Anti-Quorum Sensing Properties: In Vitro and In Silico Studies. Plants 2022, 11, 495. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Nazzaro, F.; Fratianni, F.; De Martino, L.; Coppola, R.; De Feo, V. Effect of Essential oils on pathogenic bacteria. Pharmaceuticals 2013, 6, 1451–1474. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Caputo, L.; Amato, G.; Fratianni, F.; Coppola, R.; Candido, V.; De Feo, V.; Nazzaro, F. Chemical characterization and antibiofilm activities of bulbs and leaves of two aglione (Allium ampeloprasum var. holmense Asch. et Graebn.) landraces grown in Southern Italy. Molecules 2020, 25, 5486. [Google Scholar]
  47. Hatwalkar, S.B.; Mondal, R.; Krishna, S.B.N.; Adam, J.K.; Govender, P.; Anupam, R. Antibacterial Properties of Organosulfur Compounds of Garlic (Allium sativum). Front. Microbiol. 2021, 12, 613077. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Fratianni, F.; Ombra, M.N.; d’Acierno, A.; Caputo, L.; Amato, G.; De Feo, V.; Coppola, R.; Nazzaro, F. Polyphenols content and in vitro α-glycosidase activity of different italian monofloral honeys, and their effect on selected pathogenic and probiotic bacteria. Microorganisms 2021, 9, 1694. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Fratianni, F.; d’Acierno, A.; Ombra, M.N.; Amato, G.; De Feo, V.; Ayala-Zavala, J.F.; Coppola, R.; Nazzaro, F. Fatty acid composition, antioxidant, and in vitro anti-inflammatory activity of five cold-pressed Prunus seed oils of Prunus, and their anti-biofilm effect against pathogenic bacteria. Front Nutr. 2021, 8, 775751. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Council of Europe. European Pharmacopeia, 5th ed.; Council of Europe: Strasbourg, France, 2004. [Google Scholar]
  51. Jennings, W.; Shibamoto, T. Qualitative Analysis of Flavour and Fragrance Volatiles by Glass Capillary Gas Chromatography; Academic Press: New York, NY, USA, 1980. [Google Scholar]
  52. Davies, N.W. Gas chromatographic retention indices of monoterpenes and sesquiterpenes on methyl silicon and Carbowax 20M phases. J. Chromatogr. A 1990, 503, 1–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Adams, R.P. Identification of Essential Oils Components by Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry; Allured Publishing Co.: Carol Stream, IL, USA, 2007. [Google Scholar]
  54. Sarker, S.D.; Nahar, L.; Kumarasamy, Y. Microtitre plate-based antibacterial assay incorporating resazurin as an indicator of cell growth, and its application in the in vitro antibacterial screening of phytochemicals. Methods 2007, 42, 321–324. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  55. Kairo, S.K.; Bedwell, J.; Tyler, P.C.; Carter, A.; Corbel, M.J. Development of a tetrazolium salt assay for rapid determination of viability of BCG vaccines. Vaccine 1999, 17, 2423–2428. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Table
Table 1. Chemical composition the EOs from the A. sativum cultivars ‘Bianco del Veneto’ and ‘Staravec’.
Table 1. Chemical composition the EOs from the A. sativum cultivars ‘Bianco del Veneto’ and ‘Staravec’.
N.Compound%RTKI
‘Bianco del Veneto’‘Staravec’
Aerial PartBulbsAerial PartBulbs
12,4-Dimethylhexane-0.11.40.25.1758
2Methyl-2-propenyl disulfide-T--8.0797
32,2-Bis(ethylthio)-propane-2.0-0.49.2812
4α-Pinene--0.2-9.8819
52,2-Dimethylhexyl propanoate-T--9.8819
62,2-Dimethylbutyl propanoate-T--10.2824
72,4-Dimethyldecane-T0.5T10.9834
82,2,3,4-Tetramethylpentane-T--11.1836
92,6-Dimethylnonane-T-T11.2837
101,8-Cineole-T0.1T11.4841
112,3,5,8-Tetramethyldecane-0.11.50.212.2851
124-Methyl-1-undecene-T0.61.812.4853
132-Hydroxyethyl disulfide0.90.1-0.215.2889
143,4-Dimethyl thiophene--0.2T15.3891
15Bis (1,1-dimethylpropyl) disulfide--0.7-16.4896
16Tridecane-0.1-0.116.6907
171,11-Thio-bis-butine--1.0-16.7909
18Dimethyl sulfide-0.80.90.717.7921
19(Z)-Methyl propenyl disulfide--0.8-18.0925
202,6,10-Trimethyldodecane--1.40.218.2928
21Dodecylsulfide--0.2T18.5932
22Dodecyl-7-en disulfide--3,00.818.6934
23Dodecyl-8-en disulfide--2.1-18.9937
242-Methoxy-4-vinylphenol11.1-2.4-19.9951
25Hexanal--0.6-20.1953
26(E)-Allyl propyl sulfide-0.30.40.421.1965
27(Z)-Allyl propyl sulfide-1.41.4-21.6972
28Hexanol--0.8-22.2979
29Octane--1.81.722.4982
30Decane disulfide--1.5-23.1992
31Geranyl isovalerate--0.5-23.3994
32Nonanal--3.9-23.4995
33Nonene--4.0-24.11000
34Decene17.0-8.20.224.31003
352,4-Bis (1,1-dimethylphenol)0.80.91.32.624.71009
362-Butyloctanol-0.93.60.825.11014
373,7,12-Trimethyldodecan-1-ol0.6---25.31017
38(E)-9-Octadecene-0.10.20.126.51033
394-Methylundecene0.80.1--26.61035
40n-Nonane--1.5-26.81038
41Propyl trisulfide-0.31.6-27.41046
421,3,5-Tritiane9.40.93.0-28.31057
43Undecane--1.1-28.41057
44Undecene--1.2-28.61061
45Methyl 2-propenyl trisulfide1.9---28.91065
4612-Methyl tridecanoate-0.38.7-29.51073
47Methyl triacontanoate-0.10.80.229.61075
48Ethyl 2-oxo-tetradecanoate-0.10.90.230.01080
49Propenyl trisulfure-0.24.70.730.01081
502-Butyl-2-ethylpropanediol-0.1--30.51086
51Methyl pentadecanoate7.00.7-0.630.81091
5212-Methyl tetradecanoate-0.3-0.431.01093
532-Hexyloctanol-0.3--31.11095
54Vinyl trisulfide---0.431.91099
552-Butyloctanol0.7---32.01101
5614-Methyl pentadecanoate-0.4-0.432.81113
579-Methyl esadecanoate0.61,0-0.233.11116
58Diallyl disulfide8.127.90.516.633.81126
59Allyl propyl disulfide16.10.110.11.134.11131
6014-Methyl esadecanoate0.30.4--35.01143
61Methyl heptanoate-0.50.20.435.51151
629- Methyl octadecenoate-T--36.21160
63Allicin17.550.90.862.236.91171
64Methyl allicin5.31.3-0.737.31177
65(Z)-Hexadecenal-0.1-0.137.51179
66Methyl octadeca-8,11-dienoate-1.3-1.237.71182
67Methyl-10-oxo-octadecanoate-0.2-0.138.01187
68Diallyl trisulfide-0.3-0.338.21189
69Methyl diallyl trisulfide-1.1-0.938.41192
70Ethyl diallyl trisulfide-3.1-0.639.61203
71Vinyl diallyl trisulfide-0.1--40.81221
72(Z)-7-Hexadecenal-0.1--41.81238
73Di-tert-dodecyl disulfide-T--42.11242
745,9,13-Trimethyl tetradecanoate-0.1--42.41246
75Methyl esacosanoate-T--43.91270
76Diallyl tetrasulfide--11.4-48.41338
Total98.199.192.897.7
RT = retention time; KI = Kovats index on an HP5 MS capillary column; T = traces, less than 0.05%; - = absent.
Table
Table 2. Minimal inhibitory concentration (µL/mL) of the EOs from the A. sativum cultivars necessary to inhibit the growth of the pathogenic bacterial strains Listeria monocytogenes, Escherichia coli, Acinetobacter baumannii, Staphylococcus aureus.
Table 2. Minimal inhibitory concentration (µL/mL) of the EOs from the A. sativum cultivars necessary to inhibit the growth of the pathogenic bacterial strains Listeria monocytogenes, Escherichia coli, Acinetobacter baumannii, Staphylococcus aureus.
A. baumanniiE. coliL. monocytogenesS. aureus
‘Bianco del Veneto’Aerial Parts40 ± 230 ± 330 b ± 340 ± 2
Bulbs30 ± 230 ± 330 b ± 330 b ± 2
‘Staravec’Aerial Parts30 ± 235 ± 340 ± 235 ± 3
Bulbs40 ± 240 ± 440 ± 240 ± 3
Tetracycline 31 ± 124 ± 339 ± 238 ± 2
The experiments were performed in triplicate and reported as the mean (±SD). b: p < 0.01; compared with the tetracycline used as the control (ANOVA followed by Dunnett’s multiple comparison test).
Table
Table 3. Inhibitory activity of the EOs from the A. sativum cultivars on the biofilm formation capacity by the pathogenic bacterial strains Acinetobacter baumannii, Escherichia coli, Listeria monocytogenes, Staphylococcus aureus.
Table 3. Inhibitory activity of the EOs from the A. sativum cultivars on the biofilm formation capacity by the pathogenic bacterial strains Acinetobacter baumannii, Escherichia coli, Listeria monocytogenes, Staphylococcus aureus.
A. baumanniiE. coliL. monocytogenesS. aureus
‘Bianco del Veneto’Aerial parts 10 µL/mL017.63 a ± 1.7747.23 a ± 0.840
Aerial parts 20 µL/mL25.18 a ± 3.7950.52 a ± 1.6160.55 a ± 1.3016.70 a ± 1.14
Bulbs 10 µL/mL18.59 a ± 2.540.31 a ± 1.4659.18 a ± 0.5449.69 a ± 1.19
Bulbs 20 µL/mL57.34 a ± 1.3448.90 a ± 1.9764.29 a ± 1.7763.18 a ± 1.15
‘Staravec’Aerial parts 10 µL/mL18.09 a ± 0.345.06 a ± 0.16011.25 a ± 1.4
Aerial parts 20 µL/mL45.61 a ± 0.1627.56 a ± 0.12026.31 a ± 0.9
Bulbs 10 µL/mL0000
Bulbs 20 µL/mL0000
The tests were performed using 10 µL/mL and 20 µL/mL. All tests were performed in triplicate. Results are expressed as percentages (mean ± SD) and calculated assuming the control (untreated bacteria, for which we assumed an inhibitory value = zero). a: p < 0.1; compared with the control (ANOVA followed by Dunnett’s multiple comparison test).
Table
Table 4. Inhibitory activity of the Eos from the A. sativum cultivars on the cell metabolism of the Acinetobacter baumannii, Escherichia coli, Listeria monocytogenes, Staphylococcus aureus within the biofilm.
Table 4. Inhibitory activity of the Eos from the A. sativum cultivars on the cell metabolism of the Acinetobacter baumannii, Escherichia coli, Listeria monocytogenes, Staphylococcus aureus within the biofilm.
A. baumanniiE. coliL. monocytogenesS. aureus
‘Bianco del Veneto’Aerial parts 10 µL/mL19.73 a ± 0.17000
Aerial parts 20 µL/mL45.19 a ± 0.840012.77 a ± 1.14
Bulbs 10 µL/mL00047.32 a ± 1.19
Bulbs 20 µL/mL24.10 a ± 1.660061.44 a ± 1.15
‘Staravec’Aerial parts 10 µL/mL46.86 a ± 1.4662.44 a ± 1.3403.91 a ± 0.13
Aerial parts 20 µL/mL54.13 a ± 2.9665.71 a ± 1.7010.38 a ± 0.9552.71 a ± 1.17
Bulbs 10 µL/mL045.74 a ± 1.81051.52 a ± 1.73
Bulbs 20 µL/mL59.79 a ± 1.1262.64 a ± 0.83055.55 a ± 1.27
The tests were performed using 10 µL/mL and 20 µL/mL. All tests were performed in triplicate. Results are expressed as percentages (mean ± SD) and calculated assuming the control (untreated bacteria, for which we assumed an inhibitory value = zero). a: p < 0.1; compared with the control (ANOVA followed by Dunnett’s multiple comparison test).
Table
Table 5. Morphological traits of bulbs and cloves of A. sativum cultivars.
Table 5. Morphological traits of bulbs and cloves of A. sativum cultivars.
Cultivars 1Bulb
Skin
Color		Clove
Skin
Color		Bulb
Mean
Weight		Bulb
Equatorial
Diameter		Cloves
Per
Bulb		Clove
Mean
Weight
(g)(mm)(n.)(g)
‘Bianco del Veneto’whitewhite47.2 ± 1.16 a53.1 ± 0.74 a13.2 ± 0.75 a3.0 ± 0.10 a
‘Staravec’whitewhite40.0 ± 0.96 b47.8 ± 1.16 b12.9 ± 0.60 a2.6 ± 0.06 b
1 Means followed by the same letters in the same column are not significantly (p ≤ 0.05) different.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Nazzaro, F.; Polito, F.; Amato, G.; Caputo, L.; Francolino, R.; D’Acierno, A.; Fratianni, F.; Candido, V.; Coppola, R.; De Feo, V. Chemical Composition of Essential Oils of Bulbs and Aerial Parts of Two Cultivars of Allium sativum and Their Antibiofilm Activity against Food and Nosocomial Pathogens. Antibiotics 2022, 11, 724. https://doi.org/10.3390/antibiotics11060724

AMA Style

Nazzaro F, Polito F, Amato G, Caputo L, Francolino R, D’Acierno A, Fratianni F, Candido V, Coppola R, De Feo V. Chemical Composition of Essential Oils of Bulbs and Aerial Parts of Two Cultivars of Allium sativum and Their Antibiofilm Activity against Food and Nosocomial Pathogens. Antibiotics. 2022; 11(6):724. https://doi.org/10.3390/antibiotics11060724

Chicago/Turabian Style

Nazzaro, Filomena, Flavio Polito, Giuseppe Amato, Lucia Caputo, Rosaria Francolino, Antonio D’Acierno, Florinda Fratianni, Vincenzo Candido, Raffaele Coppola, and Vincenzo De Feo. 2022. "Chemical Composition of Essential Oils of Bulbs and Aerial Parts of Two Cultivars of Allium sativum and Their Antibiofilm Activity against Food and Nosocomial Pathogens" Antibiotics 11, no. 6: 724. https://doi.org/10.3390/antibiotics11060724

APA Style

Nazzaro, F., Polito, F., Amato, G., Caputo, L., Francolino, R., D’Acierno, A., Fratianni, F., Candido, V., Coppola, R., & De Feo, V. (2022). Chemical Composition of Essential Oils of Bulbs and Aerial Parts of Two Cultivars of Allium sativum and Their Antibiofilm Activity against Food and Nosocomial Pathogens. Antibiotics, 11(6), 724. https://doi.org/10.3390/antibiotics11060724

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