Skip to content

Advertisement

You're viewing the new version of our site. Please leave us feedback.

Learn more

BMC Complementary and Alternative Medicine

Open Access
Open Peer Review

This article has Open Peer Review reports available.

How does Open Peer Review work?

In vitro synergism of magnolol and honokiol in combination with antibacterial agents against clinical isolates of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA)

BMC Complementary and Alternative MedicineThe official journal of the International Society for Complementary Medicine Research (ISCMR)201515:425

https://doi.org/10.1186/s12906-015-0938-3

Received: 3 June 2015

Accepted: 17 November 2015

Published: 1 December 2015

Abstract

Background

Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) is a problematic pathogen posing a serious therapeutic challenge in the clinic. It is often multidrug-resistant (MDR) to conventional classes of antibacterial agents and there is an urgent need to develop new agents or strategies for treatment. Magnolol (ML) and honokiol (HL) are two naturally occurring diallylbiphenols which have been reported to show inhibition of MRSA. In this study their synergistic effects with antibacterial agents were further evaluated via checkerboard and time-kill assays.

Methods

The susceptibility spectrum of clinical MRSA strains was tested by the disk diffusion method. The minimal inhibitory concentrations (MICs) and minimal bactericidal concentrations (MBCs) of ML and HL were assayed by broth microdilution. The synergy was evaluated through checkerboard microdilution and time-killing experiments.

Results

ML and HL showed similar activity against both MSSA and MRSA with MIC/MBC at 16 ~ 64 mg/L, with potency similar to amikacin (AMK) and gentamicin (GEN). When they were used in combination with conventional antibacterial agents, they showed bacteriostatic synergy with FICIs between 0.25 ~ 0.5, leading to the combined MICs decreasing to as low as 1 ~ 2 and 1 ~ 16 mg/L for ML (HL) and the agents, respectively. MIC50 of the combinations decreased from 16 mg/L to 1 ~ 4 mg/L for ML (HL) and 8 ~ 128 mg/L to 2 ~ 64 mg/L for the antibacterial agents, which exhibited a broad spectrum of synergistic action with aminoglycosides (AMK, etilmicin (ETM) and GEN), floroquinolones (levofloxacin (LEV), ciprofloxacin and norfloxacin), fosfomycin (FOS) and piperacillin. The times of dilution (TOD, the extent of decreasing in MIC value) were determined up to 16 for the combined MIC. A more significant synergy after combining was determined as ML (HL) with AMK, ETM, GEN and FOS. ML (HL) combined with antibacterial agents did not show antagonistic effects on any of the ten MRSA strains. Reversal effects of MRSA resistance to AMK and GEN by ML and HL were also observed, respectively. All the combinations also showed better dynamic bactericidal activity against MRSA than any of single ML (HL) or the agents at 24 h incubation. The more significant synergy of combinations were determined as HL (ML) + ETM, HL + LEV and HL + AMK (GEN or FOS), with LC24 of 2.02 ~ 2.25.

Conclusion

ML and HL showed synergistic potentiation of antibacterial agents against clinical isolates of MRSA and warrant further pharmacological investigation.

Keywords

MagnololHonokiolMRSASynergyAntibacterial agent

Background

The opportunistic pathogen Staphylococcus aureus (SA) is a leading cause of bacterial infections of people, causing a broad spectrum of pathology ranging from common skin infections to deep-seated fatal disease [1]. Antibiotic treatment of SA has once contributed greatly to human health for decades. However, due to long, wide and irrational applications of antibacterial agents in treatments in various fields other than in the clinic, methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) has evolved as a problematic pathogen and has posed a serious therapeutic challenge in clinic [1, 2]. Nowadays, MRSA infections can be monitored both in hospitals [healthcare-acquired /associated (HA) MRSA] and community [community-acquired/associated (CA) MRSA]. The livestock-associated MRSA [(LA) MRSA] has also occurred [3]. MRSA is able to produce resistance to nearly all common classes of antibiotics including β-lactams, aminoglycosides, macrolides, tetracyclines and quinolones, and even the vancomycin-resistant S. aureus (VRSA) has also been reported [4]. The decreasing effectiveness of conventional drugs is continuously haunting both clinicians and drug researchers, and the critical shortage of new antibiotics in development against MRSA and other multidrug-resistant bacteria is of great concern worldwide. New targets with novel strategy of therapy and mechanism of action for development of antibacterial agents against MRSA are urgently needed [5].

Plant natural resources have been demonstrated to possess great chemical and biological diversities and promising findings of antibacterial phytochemicals which showed not only anti-MRSA activity alone, but also synergistic potentials when they were used in combination with conventional antibacterial agents against MRSA [610]. In recent years, we are devoting efforts to search for novel phytochemicals that showed synergy with conventional antibacterial agents against MRSA from medicinal plant sources, especially from the traditional Chinese medicines (TCM) [1113]. We found two diallylbiphenols, i.e. magnolol (ML) and honokiol (HL) are such phytochemicals contained in the Chinese crude drug Hou-po, the stem or root bark of Magnolia officinalis Rehd. et Wils. (Magnoliaceae) [14].

Hou-po is an important species in TCM [14]. It has been traditionally used for respiration, digestion and infection related ailments like cough, diarrhea, and allergic rhinitis [14]. Modern pharmacological reports also demonstrated its antimicrobial, anti-inflammatory and analgesic, antianxiety and antidepressant, antitumor and anticoagulant effects as well as myocardial/cerebral ischemia protections [15]. ML and HL are two main phenolic constituents primarily isolated from Hou-po and also found in other Magnolia sp., together with other non-phenolic constituents such as alkaloids and essential oils [1618]. The antimicrobial effects of Hou-po extracts on Bacillus anthracis, S. aureus and other pathogens were found as early as six decades ago [1921]. Previous reports on antimicrobial activities of ML and HL and their synthetic derivatives include antibacterial [2231], antifungal [3234], antiviral [35] and nemicidal [36] activities. Although their antibacterial activities against MRSA and vancomycin-resistant enterococci (VRE) have been reported [37, 38], their potential for combined action on conventional antibacterial agents against MRSA has not been studied. Only the synergy of honokiol with fluconazole against clinical isolates of azole-resistant Candida albicans [39], and synergistic effect of lysozyme on bactericidal activity of magnolol and honokiol against a cariogenic bacterium of Streptococcus mutans OMZ 176 [40] including their potentiation of the antitumor agents [4146] were reported. In this paper, we will show the potential synergistic effects of ML and HL in combination with conventional antibacterial agents against clinical MRSA strains through the checkerboard and time-kill curve methods.

Methods

Antimicrobial agents and disks

The eight antibacterial agents, i.e. amikacin (AMK) (Jiangsu Wuzhong Pharmaceutical Group Co., Ltd., Suzhou, China); Etilmicin (ETM) (Wuxi Jimin kexin Shanhe Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd.); gentamicin (GEN) (Guangzhou Baiyunshan Tianxin Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., Guangzhou, China); Piperacillin (PIP) (Harbin Pharmaceutical Group Co., Ltd., Harbin, China); Norfloxacin (NOR) and Ciprofloxacin (CIP) (Sichuan Kelun Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., Chengdu, China); Levofloxacin (LEV) (Yangzhijiang pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., Taizhou, China); Fosfomycin (FOS) (Northeast Pharmaceutical Group Co., Ltd., Shenyang, China). magnolol (ML) and honokiol (HL) (HPLC>98 %; Xian Xiaocao Science and Technology Co., Ltd., Xian, China) (Fig. 1). Vancomycin (VAN) (Eli Lilly Japan K. K., Seishin Laboratories) was used as the positive control agent. Cefoxitin (cfx, 0.03 mg) and other antibiotic impregnated disks were purchased from Beijing Tiantan biological products Co., Ltd., China.
Fig. 1

The structures of magnolol (ML) and honokiol (HL)

Bacterial strains and media

Ten MRSA strains (MRSA 01–10) were isolated and characterized from the infectious sputum sample of critically ill patients in KGH as previously reported [1113]. The strains were determined with zone diameter (ZD) ≤ 21 mm against cefoxitin disk and the properties of susceptible (S), intermediate (I) and resistant (R) to antibacterial agents were determined according to the ZD Interpretive Criteria of Table 2C in 2012 CLSI by comparison with the ZD of corresponding antibacterial agents (Table 1) [47]. The presence of mecA gene and SCCmec genotypes were determined by multiplex PCR methods in Kunming Institute of Virology, PLA, China, as previously reported [48]. The control strain for MRSA was S. aureus (ATCC 25923; methicillin-susceptible S. aureus (MSSA)) which was purchased from the Beijing Tiantan Pharmaceutical and Biological Technology Co., Ltd., China. Standard Mueller-Hinton agar and broth (MHA and MHB, Tianhe Microbial Agents Co., Hangzhou, China) were used as bacterial culture media. Colony counts were determined using MHA plates. MHB was used for quantitative susceptibility testing and dynamic time–kill experiments.
Table 1

Resistance spectrum of the ten clinical isolates of MRSA strains

Strain

Resistant

Intermediate

Susceptible

MRSA 008

PEN, AMP, OXA, CFZ, Cfx, P/T, ERY, AZM, CIP, LEV, NOR, CLI

 

VAN, LZD, TEI

MRSA 082

PEN, AMP, OXA, CFZ, Cfx, FUR, CPZ/S, P/T, ERY, AZM, ClA, CIP, LEV, NOR, CLI, RIF

FOS

VAN, LZD, TEI

MRSA 098

PEN, AMP, OXA, CFZ, Cfx, FUR, CPZ/S, P/T, ERY, AZM, CIP, LEV, NOR, CLI, RIF

 

VAN, LZD, TEI

MRSA 111

PEN, AMP, OXA, CFZ, Cfx, FUR, CPZ/S, P/T, ERY, AZM, CIP, LEV, NOR, CLI, RIF

 

VAN, LZD, TEI

MRSA 135

PEN, AMP, OXA, CFZ, Cfx, FUR, CPZ/S, P/T, ERY, AZM, CIP, LEV, NOR, CLI, RIF

 

VAN, LZD, TEI, FOS

MRSA 144

PEN, AMP, OXA, CFZ, Cfx, FUR, CPZ/S, P/T, ERY, AZM, CIP, LEV, NOR, CLI, RIF

 

VAN, LZD, TEI

MRSA 166

PEN, AMP, OXA, CFZ, Cfx, FUR, CPZ/S, P/T, ERY, AZM, CIP, LEV, NOR, CLI, RIF, P/T

 

VAN, LZD, TEI, FOS

MRSA 187

PEN, AMP, OXA, CFZ, Cfx, FUR, CPZ/S, P/T, ERY, AZM, CIP, LEV, NOR, CLI, RIF

 

VAN, LZD, TEI, FOS

MRSA 189

PEN, AMP, OXA, CFZ, Cfx, FUR, CPZ/S, P/T, ERY, AZM, CIP, LEV, NOR, CLI, RIF

 

VAN, LZD, TEI, FOS

MRSA 321

PEN, AMP, OXA, CFZ, Cfx, FUR, P/T, ERY, AZM, CIP, LEV, NOR, CLI, CPZ/S, RIF

GAT, CTH, FOS

VAN

PEN Penicillin, AMP Ampicillin, OXA Oxacillin, CFZ Cefazolin, Cfx Cefoxitin, FUR Cefuroxime, CTH Cefathiamidine, CPZ/S Cefoperazone/sulbactam, P/T Piperacillin/tazobactam, ERY Erythromycin, AZM Azithromycin, CIP Ciprofloxacin, GAT Gatifloxacin, LEV Levofloxacin, CLI clindamycin, RIF Rifampicin, CLA Clarithromycin, FOS Fosfomycin, LZD Linezolid, TEI Teicoplanin, VAN Vancomycin

Susceptibility testing

The test of susceptibility spectrum of the ten clinical MRSA strains to conventional antibacterial agents was performed by disk diffusion test following the CLSI guideline [47, 49, 50]. MICs/MBCs of ML and HL were determined by standardized broth microdilution techniques with inoculums of 5 × 105 CFU/mL according to CLSI guidelines and incubated at 35 °C for 24 h [5153]. The solvent used for dissolving the compounds and the antibiotics was MHB (or containing the final concentration of less than 5 % of dimethyl sulphoxide).

Synergy testing

Potential interactions of ML and HL in combination with various antibiotics against MRSA were evaluated by determination of fractional inhibitory concentration indices (FICIs) and time-kill curves through using the checkerboard and dynamic time-kill methods as described previously [12, 13]. The bacteriostatic interaction mode was judged by FICIs as follows: FICI ≤ 0.5, synergy; 0.5 < FICI ≤ 1, additive; and 1 < FICI < 2, indifferent (or no effect) and FICI ≥ 2, antagonism [54, 55]. The bactericidal interaction mode was judged by the increased killing colony counts in log10 CFU/mL at 24 h incubation (LC24) as follows: LC24 ≥ 2 log10 CFU/mL, synergy; LC24 = 1–2 log10 CFU/mL, additive; LC24 = ±1 log10 CFU/mL, indifferent; LC24 > −1 log10 CFU/mL, antagonism; where the LC24 was calculated through the killing by a combination (LC24(co.)) deducting that by the most active single drug (LC24(si.)) in the combination, i.e. LC24 = LC24(co.) - LC24(si.) [56].

Statistical analysis

All the experiments were performed in triplicate. Data are expressed as the mean ± standard error. Statistical analyses were performed using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS 20.0) software (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA). Data were analysed by Kruskal–Wallis test and the significant differences between groups were analysed by Dunnett’s test. Statistical significance was accepted at a level of p < 0.01.

Results

Antimicrobial effects of ML and HL

The MICs/MBCs of ML, HL and eight conventional antibacterial agents alone against MSSA and MRSA are shown in Table 2. As a whole, ML and HL appeared as two moderate bactericidal agents against both MSSA and MRSA. The two compounds showed varied MIC/MBC of 16 ~ 64 mg/L against MSSA as most of the tested antibacterial agents, but they showed more potent activity than these agents against MRSA, with MIC90/MBC90 of 64/64 and 32/64 mg/L, respectively. HL showed the same activity as AMK, GEN and LEV with MIC/MBC of 16/32 mg/L against MSSA. The anti-MRSA potency of ML, HL and the eight agents followed the order of VAN > ETM > HL > ML > GEN > AMK > LEV (PIP, FOS) > CIP (NOR) judged by the values of MIC90/MBC90. Therefore, the antibacterial activity of the two compounds all showed more potent against MRSA than most of the conventional antibacterial agents with the exception of ETM and VAN (Table 2).
Table 2

MICs/MBCs (mg/L) of magnolol (ML), honokiol (HL) and conventional antibacterial agents against MSSA and the ten MRSA strainsa

Agentb

MSSA

MRSA (n = 10)

Range

50%c

90%d

ML*

32/32

8 ~ 64*/16 ~ 128

16/16

64/64

HL*

16/32

16 ~ 32*/16 ~ 64

16/64

32/64

ETM

8/8

4 ~ 16/8 ~ 32

8/8

16/16

AMK

16/32

32 ~ 128*/64 ~ 256

64/128

64/256

GEN

16/32

16 ~ 128*/64 ~ 256

64/128

64/128

LEV

16/32

128 ~ 256/256 ~ 512

128/512

256/512

CIP

32/64

256 ~ 512/256 ~ 1024

256/512

512/1024

NOR

32/64

256 ~ 512/256 ~ 1024

256/512

512/1024

PIP

64/64

128 ~ 256/256 ~ 512

128/256

256/512

FOS

64/128

128 ~ 256/256 ~ 512

128/512

256/512

VAN

1/1

2/2

2/2

2/2

aMSSA Methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus (ATCC25923), MRSA Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus

bML Magnolol, HL Honokiol, AMK Amikacin, ETM Etilmicin, GEN Gentamicin, PIP Piperacillin, CIP Ciprofloxacin, LEV Levofloxacin, FOS Fosfomycin, NOR Norfloxacin, VAN Vancomycin

c50 % = MIC50/MBC50, i.e. the minimal inhibitory and bactericidal concentrations required to inhibit and kill 50 % of the strains, respectively

b90 % = MIC90/MBC90, i.e. the minimal inhibitory and bactericidal concentrations required to inhibit and kill 90 % of the strains, respectively

*p > 0.01

Synergy of ML and HL in combination with antibacterial agents against MRSA

Table 3 shows the different degree of synergistic interactions of ML and HL in combination with the eight antibacterial agents against the ten clinical MRSA isolates. There are three to ten MRSA strains that showed synergy with FICIs between 0.25 ~ 0.5, leading to the combined MICs decreasing to as low as 1 ~ 2 and 1 ~ 16 mg/L for ML (HL) and the agents, respectively. MIC50 of the combinations decreased from 16 mg/L to 1 ~ 4 mg/L for ML (HL) and 8 ~ 128 mg/L to 2 ~ 64 mg/L for the antibacterial agents, which exhibited a broad spectrum of synergistic action with aminoglycosides (amikacin, etilmicin and gentamicin), floroquinolones (levofloxacin, ciprofloxacin and norfloxacin), fosfomycin and piperacillin. The times of dilution (TOD, the extent of decreasing in MIC value) were determined up to 16 for the combined MIC. The more significant synergy after combining was determined as ML (HL) with AMK, ETM, GEN and FOS. Therefore, ML and HL showed generally the same synergistic bacteriostatic effects on the tested antibacterial agents. Moreover, ML (HL) combined with antibacterial agents did not show antagonistic effects on any of the ten MRSA strains. There were only 1 ~ 2 strains that showed indifference.
Table 3

MICs (mg/L) of magnolol (ML) and honokiol (HL) used alone and in combination with antibacterial agents against the ten MRSA strains

Combinationa

Effect

MIC (mg/L)

FICIc

Interaction (n)d

Alone

Combined

TODb

Syn

Add

Ind

ML + AMK*

Range

8 + 32 ~ 32 + 128

2 + 4 ~ 8 + 32

8 + 16 ~ 2 + 2

0.375 ~ 0.75

8

2

0

 

50 %

16 + 64

2 + 8

4 + 4

0.5

   
 

90 %

16 + 64

4 + 32

4 + 4

0.625

   

ML + ETM

Range

8 + 4 ~ 32 + 16

1 + 1 ~ 8 + 4

16 + 8 ~ 2 + 4

0.313 ~ 0.75

8

2

0

 

50 %

16 + 8

2 + 2

4 + 4

0.375

   
 

90 %

16 + 16

4 + 2

2 + 4

0.75

   

ML + GEN*

Range

8 + 16 ~ 32 + 128

1 + 4 ~ 16 + 32

16 + 8 ~ 1 + 2

0.25 ~ 1.25

7

2

1

 

50 %

16 + 64

2 + 8

8 + 4

0.5

   
 

90 %

16 + 64

4 + 32

2 + 2

1

   

ML + FOS

Range

8 + 128 ~ 32 + 256

2 + 16 ~ 16 + 128

8 + 8 ~ 2 + 1

0.25 ~ 1.5

7

2

1

 

50 %

16 + 128

4 + 32

4 + 8

0.375

   
 

90 %

16 + 256

8 + 64

2 + 4

0.75

   

ML + CIP

Range

8 + 256 ~ 32 + 512

1 + 32 ~ 16 + 512

16 + 8 ~ 2 + 1

0.25 ~ 1.5

5

4

1

 

50 %

16 + 256

4 + 64

4 + 8

0.5

   
 

90 %

16 + 512

8 + 256

2 + 2

0.75

   

ML + LEV

Range

8 + 128 ~ 32 + 256

2 + 16 ~ 16 + 128

8 + 8 ~ 1 + 1

0.25 ~ 1.5

4

4

2

 

50 %

16 + 128

4 + 32

4 + 8

0.625

   
 

90 %

16 + 256

8 + 128

2 + 2

1.25

   

ML + NOR

Range

8 + 128 ~ 32 + 256

2 + 16 ~ 16 + 128

8 + 8 ~ 1 + 1

0.375 ~ 1.5

4

4

2

 

50 %

16 + 128

4 + 64

4 + 4

0.625

   
 

90 %

16 + 256

8 + 128

2 + 2

1.25

   

ML + PIP

Range

8 + 128 ~ 32 + 256

2 + 32 ~ 8 + 128

4 + 8 ~ 2 + 1

0.375 ~ 1.5

4

4

2

 

50 %

16 + 128

4 + 32

4 + 4

0.75

   
 

90 %

16 + 256

8 + 128

2 + 1

1.25

   

HL + ETM

Range

8 + 4 ~ 16 + 16

1 + 1 ~ 4 + 2

8 + 8 ~ 4 + 4

0.25 ~ 0.5

10

0

0

 

50 %

16 + 8

2 + 2

8 + 4

0.375

   
 

90 %

16 + 16

4 + 2

4 + 4

0.5

   

HL + AMK*

Range

8 + 32 ~ 16 + 128

1 + 4 ~ 4 + 32

8 + 8 ~ 4 + 2

0.25 ~ 0.75

9

1

0

 

50 %

16 + 64

2 + 8

8 + 4

0.375

   
 

90 %

16 + 64

4 + 32

4 + 4

0.5

   

HL + GEN*

Range

8 + 16 ~ 16 + 128

1 + 2 ~ 4 + 32

8 + 8 ~ 4 + 2

0.25 ~ 0.75

8

2

0

 

50 %

16 + 64

2 + 16

8 + 4

0.375

   
 

90 %

16 + 64

4 + 32

4 + 2

0.625

   

HL + FOS

Range

8 + 128 ~ 16 + 256

2 + 8 ~ 8 + 128

8 + 3 ~ 21 + 2

0.25 ~ 1.25

7

2

1

 

50 %

16 + 128

4 + 32

4 + 4

0.5

   
 

90 %

16 + 256

8 + 64

2 + 2

1

   

HL + CIP

Range

8 + 256 ~ 16 + 512

2 + 16 ~ 8 + 512

8 + 16 ~ 2 + 1

0.25 ~ 1.5

6

3

1

 

50 %

16 + 256

2 + 64

4 + 4

0.5

   
 

90 %

16 + 512

8 + 256

2 + 2

0.75

   

HL + LEV

Range

8 + 128 ~ 16 + 256

2 + 16 ~ 16 + 64

8 + 8 ~ 1 + 4

0.25 ~ 1.25

5

4

1

 

50 %

16 + 128

4 + 32

4 + 8

0.5

   
 

90 %

16 + 256

8 + 32

2 + 4

1.125

   

HL + PIP

Range

8 + 128 ~ 16 + 256

1 + 16 ~ 16 + 128

8 + 8 ~ 1 + 1

0.25 ~ 1.5

5

3

2

 

50 %

16 + 128

2 + 32

8 + 4

0.5

   
 

90 %

16 + 256

8 + 128

2 + 2

1.25

   

HL + NOR

Range

8 + 128 ~ 16 + 256

1 + 16 ~ 8 + 256

8 + 8 ~ 1 + 1

0.25 ~ 1.5

3

5

2

 

50 %

16 + 128

4 + 64

4 + 4

0.75

   
 

90 %

16 + 256

8 + 128

2 + 2

1.25

   

aML Magnolol, HL Honokiol, AMK Amikacin, FOS Fosfomycin, LEV Levofloxacin, ETM Etilmicin, PIP Piperacillin, CIP Ciprofloxacin, NOR Norfloxacin, All data on the left side of “+” belong to ML or HL, and the data on the right side of “+” belong to the conventional antibacterial agents, for example, “ML + AMK” means ML combined with AMK. bTOD Times of dilution = MICAlone /MICCombined, ranged from the maximum to the minimum. cFICI Fractional inhibitory concentration index, dAdd Additivity (0.5 < FICI ≤ 1), Ind Indifference (1 < FICI ≤ 2), Syn Synergy (FICI ≤ 0.5). n’ Number of MRSA strains which showed the interactions. The total number is n = 10, e.g. n = n’(s) + n’(a) = 8 + 2 for ML + AMK combination in the first line in the table. *No statistically significant differences among the combinations of ML + AMK, ML + GEN, HL + AMK and HL + GEN (p >0.01)

To further evaluate the dynamic bactericidal effects of ML (HL) in combination with the antibacterial agents, the time-kill curve experiments were performed and the results are shown in Table 4 and Figs. 2 and 3. Eight of the combinations showed synergy in dynamic kill effects, with the order of potency as HL + ETM > HL + LEV >ML + ETM > HL + AMK > HL + FOS > HL + GEN > ML + AMK > ML + FOS. The rest of the four combinations ML + LEV, ML + CIP, ML + GEN and HL + CIP showed additive effects (Table 4). All the combinations showed better bactericidal activity against MRSA than any of single ML (HL) or the agents at 24 h incubation. The bactericidal efficiency of the combinations generally lasted longer than that of the single agents (Figs. 2 and 3). The more significant combinations were determined as HL + ETM, HL + LEV and ML + ETM, with LC24 of 2.08 ~ 2.25 (Table 4). The combinations of antibacterial agents with HL showed more significant killing effects than those with ML for a same antibacterial agent. For example, the combination of HL + LEV showed synergy but the combination of ML + LEV showed only additively. Therefore, HL is a more optimistic agent for bactericidal potentiation of the effect of conventional antibacterial agents (Table 4).
Table 4

Collected time-killing assay results of various combinations of ML and HL with antibacterial agents at 24 h incubation against a clinical MRSA144 strain

Combinationa

Mascb

LC24(Int)c

HL + ETM

ETM

2.25 ± 0.12(Syn)*

HL + LEV

HL

2.09 ± 0.09(Syn)*

ML + ETM

ETM

2.08 ± 0.1(Syn)*

HL + AMK

AMK(~ML)

2.05 ± 0.07(Syn)*

HL + FOS

FOS

2.04 ± 0.03(Syn)

HL + GEN

HL

2.02 ± 0.01(Syn)

ML + AMK

AMK(~ML)

2.02 ± 0.02(Syn)

ML + FOS

FOS(~ML)

2.00 ± 0.01(Add)

ML + LEV

LEV(=ML)

1.64 ± 0.04(Add)

ML + CIP

CIP

1.24 ± 0.05(Add)

ML + GEN

GEN

1.24 ± 0.03(Add)

HL + CIP

HL

1.06 ± 0.04(Add)

aSAL Salvianolate, AMP Ampicillin, CAZ Ceftazidime, CFZ Cefazolin, CPS Cefoperazone-sulbactam, PTZ Piperacillin-tazobactam, AMK Amikacin, CLI Clindamycin, ERY Erythromycin, FOS Fosfomycin, LEV Levofloxacin

bMasc Most active single drug

cLC 24 Log10CFU/mL at 24 h, Int Interaction, Syn Synergy (LC24 ≥ 2), Add Additivity (1 < LC24 < 2), Ind Indifference (LC24 = ±1). Data are expressed as the mean ± standard error. *p <0.05

Fig. 2

Time-killing curves of six combinations of ML with AMK (a), GEN (b), ETM (c), CIP (d), LEV (e) and FOS (f) at 1 × MIC and 24 h incubation against a representative clinical MRSA144 strain. Data are expressed as the mean ± standard error

Fig. 3

Time-killing curves of six combinations of HL with AMK (a), GEN (b), ETM (c), CIP (d), LEV (e) and FOS (f) at 1 × MIC and 24 h incubation against a representative clinical MRSA144 strain. Data are expressed as the mean ± standard error

Reversal of MRSA resistance to amikacin and gentamicin by ML and HL

Besides the synergy effectiveness, the combination of ML (HL) with amikacin (AMK) led MICs (mg/L) of AMK to decrease markedly even to reverse the MRSA resistance to AMK by the MIC Interpretive Criteria of CLSI Performance Standards, i.e. MIC ≤16 mg/L (susceptible), MIC =32 mg/L (intermediate), MIC ≥64 mg/L (resistant) [47]. There is an equivalent eight strains of MRSA (n = 10) that showed MICs ≤16 mg/L against AMK when it was used in combination with ML and HL, respectively (p <0.01) (Table 3 and Fig. 4). Similarly, three strains of MRSA against GEN (MIC ≤4 mg/L (susceptible), MIC =8 mg/L (intermediate), MIC ≥16 mg/L (resistant)) also showed reversal interaction in combination with ML (HL) (Table 3) [47].
Fig. 4

Reversal of MRSA resistance to AMK when it was used with combination with ML* and HL*, respectively (*p >0.01; a: alone; c: combined)

Discussion

In the present report, we performed the antibacterial evaluations of ML and HL against MRSA both used alone and in combination with clinical conventional antibacterial agents of broad classes. The synergism of ML and HL on MRSA is found for the first time so far to the best of our knowledge [37, 39]. We determined the antibacterial activity of ML and HL against MRSA alone with MIC50/MBC50 (n = 10) of 16 ~ 64 mg/L which are similar to the results of the previous report which showed MIC/MBC of 12.5/25 mg/L [37]. The difference is reasonable for the varied MRSA strains used. From the results of combinatory effect on MRSA and the reported antifungal synergism [39], the two compounds are demonstrated to possess a wide spectrum of antimicrobial potentiation of conventional chemotherapy. It would be beneficial for the treatment of mixed infections and even the co-infection of tumor diseases, considering ML (HL) also potentiating antitumor agents [4146].

It is important and valuable of ML and HL that potentiate the antimicrobial activity of aminoglycosides and other antibacterial drugs against MRSA, which could prevent the drugs from development of MDR to the troublesome germ. As aminoglycosides are one class of the important antimicrobials for the treatment of infectious diseases, the MRSA resistance reversal effects of ML and HL to the aminoglycosides agents (AMK, ETM and GEN) are especially significant for their application with largely reducing toxic reactions of the hosts’ liver, kidney and neural system by a substantially lowered dosage. Hence, greater sample scales are needed in order to draw a more reliable significance of the effectiveness on MRSA from clinical specimens and antibiotics.

The mechanism of the action of ML and HL against MRSA together with their synergism with antibacterial agents is still an unmet question. Two previous reviews summarized four main resistance mechanisms from bacteria: (i) receptor or active site modification, (ii) enzymatic degradation or modification of antibiotic, (iii) decreased penetration, or (iv) increased efflux [9, 10]. It was reported that the antimicrobial mechanisms of Magnolia officinalis extract resulted mainly in cell membrane and wall damage, causing increased permeability of cell membranes or lysis of cell walls and loss of cellular constituents, impairment of structural components and changes in bacterial cell morphology [21], which could ascribed to ML and HL, the two main constituents of the plant. Some studies also have demonstrated that increased permeability of the bacterial plasma membrane plays an important role in modulating resistance to aminoglycoside [57, 58]. Another study showed a phenolic diterpene totarol inhibits multidrug efflux pump activity in Staphylococcus aureus [59]. Therefore, the agents in the present report which shows the resistance reversal effects on the aminoglycosides (AMK and GEN) or synergistic potentiation of other conventional drugs could be through these mechanisms to a certain degree, though the real mechanism is remained to be clarified.

There are additional evidences revealing ML and HL as the modulators of the microbial membrane permeability. The two compounds showed active to extremely broad pathogenic microbial species. Apart from MSSA and MRSA, they showed as well antimicrobial activities against many other bacteria [1931] and fungi [3234] species and even exhibited antiviral [35] and nemicidal [36] activities. This antimicrobial mode is suggested like the antibacterial compounds of surface-active types which share the characters of usually nonselective to bacteria and very close MIC/MBC concentrations [30]. Therefore, ML and HL very likely target the extra cytoplasmic region as a nonionic surfactant and thus does not need to enter the cell, thereby avoiding most cellular pump-based resistance mechanisms as previously proposed [30]. The effects of ML (HL) on MRSA present here will expand the knowledge of their antimicrobial action and the future direction of anti-MDR investigations for drug development.

Conclusions

ML and HL showed a broad spectrum of synergistic potentiation of conventional antibacterial agents, especially the resistance reversal of AMK and GEN against clinical MRSA isolates. These in vitro activities of ML and HL might partly ascribe to modulate the bacterial cell membrane penetration and warrant further pharmacological investigation.

Ethics statement

The study was conducted in compliance with the ethics principles of the Declaration of Helsinki and Good Clinical Practice and China regulatory requirements. The study protocol (RCNM0116) was approved 10 June 2011 by the Ethics Committee and health authorities of Kunming General Hospital (KGH). Written informed consent was obtained from all subjects prior to sample commencement.

Declarations

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC 81173504) and the supporting fund of Yunnan Province of China (2008PY001).

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Research Center for Natural Medicines, Kunming General Hospital of Chengdu Military Command
(2)
School of Pharmacy, Kunming Medical University
(3)
School of Basic Medical Sciences, Yunnan Traditional Chinese Medical College

References

  1. Pantosti A, Venditti M. What is MRSA? Eur Respir J. 2009;34:1190–6.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Jevons MP. “Celbenin”-resistant staphylococci. Br Med J. 1961;124:124–5.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  3. Stefani S, Chung DR, Lindsay JA, Friedrich AW, Kearns AM, Westh H, et al. Meticillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA): global epidemiology and harmonisation of typing methods. Int J Antimicrob Agents. 2012;39:273–82.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Chang S, Sievert DM, Hageman JC, Boulton ML, Tenover FC, Downes FP, et al. Infection with vancomycin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus containing the vanA resistance gene. N Engl J Med. 2003;348:1342–7.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Freire-Moran L, Aronsson B, Manz C, Inge C, Gyssens IC, So AD, et al. Critical shortage of new antibiotics in development against multidrug-resistant bacteria—Time to react is now. Drug Resist Update. 2011;14:118–24.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  6. Gibbons S. Anti-staphylococcal plant natural products. Nat Prod Rep. 2004;21:263–72.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Gibbons S. Phytochemicals for bacterial resistance – strengths, weaknesses and opportunities. Planta Med. 2008;74:594–602.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Saleem M, Nazir M, Ali MS, Hussain H, Lee YS, Riaz N, et al. Antimicrobial natural products: an update on future antibiotic drug candidates. Nat Prod Rep. 2010;27:238–54.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Hemaiswarya S, Kruthiventi AK, Doble M. Synergism between natural products and antibiotics against infectious diseases. Phytomedicine. 2008;15:639–52.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Wagner H, Ulrich-Merzenich G. Synergy research: Approaching a new generation of phytopharmaceuticals. Phytomedicine. 2009;16:97–110.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Zuo GY, Zhang XJ, Yang CX, Han J, Wang GC, Bian ZQ. Evaluation of traditional Chinese medicinal plants for anti-MRSA activity with reference to the treatment record of infectious diseases. Molecules. 2012;17:2955–67.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Zuo GY, Han ZQ, Hao XY, Han J, Li ZS, Wang GC. Synergy of aminoglycoside antibiotics by 3-Benzylchroman derivatives from the Chinese drug Caesalpinia sappan against clinical methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA). Phytomedicine. 2014;21:936–41.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Zuo GY, An J, Han J, Zhang YL, Wang GC, Hao XY, et al. Isojacareubin from the Chinese herb Hypericum japonicum with antibacterial and antibiotic synergy effects on clinical methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA). Int J Mol Sci. 2012;13:8210–8.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  14. Nanjing University of Traditional Chinese Medicine (NUTCM). Dictionary of Chinese crude drugs. 2nd ed. Shanghai, China: Shanghai Scientific Technologic Publisher; 2005. p. 2282–6.Google Scholar
  15. Zhang SJ, Zhong LY. Advances in the chemical composition and modern pharmacological research of Magnolia officinalis. J Chin Med Materia. 2013;36:838–43.Google Scholar
  16. Chinese Pharmacopoeia Commission. Chinese pharmacopoeia (I). Beijing, China: Chemical Industry Press; 2010. p. 235.Google Scholar
  17. Yu SX, Yan RY, Liang RX, Wang W, Yang B. Bioactive polar compounds from stem bark of Magnolia officinalis. Fitoterapia. 2012;83:356–61.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Shen J, Man K, Huang P, Chen W, Chen D, Cheng Y, et al. Honokiol and magnolol as multifunctional antioxidative molecules for dermatologic disorders. Molecules. 2010;15:6452–65.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Liao YS. Studies on the antibacterial actions of Huang-lien and Hou-p’o. Part I. The antibacterial actions of Huang-lien and Hou-p’o in vitro. Acta Phamaceutica Sinica. 1954;2:5–10.Google Scholar
  20. Liao YS. Studies on the antibacterial actions of Huang-lien and Hou-p’o. Part II. The anti-Bacillus anthracis action of Huang-lien and Hou-p’o in Guinea pig. Acta Phamaceutica Sinica. 1954;2:11–6.Google Scholar
  21. Hu YJ, Qiao JL, Zhang X, Ge CR. Antimicrobial effect of Magnolia officinalis extract against Staphylococcus aureus. J Sci Food Agric. 2011;91:1050–6.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Namba T, Tsunezuka M, Hattori M. Dental caries prevention by traditional Chinese medicines. Part II. Potent antibacterial action of Magnoliae cortex extracts against Streptococcus mutans. Planta Med. 1982;44:100–6.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Bae K, Yoo B, Lee M, Seo W. Antimicrobial activities of hydroxybiphenyl derivatives (I). Arch Pharm Res. 1985;8:85–9.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  24. Seo W, Koo S, Bae K. Antimicrobial activities of hydroxybiphenyl derivatives (II). Arch Pharm Res. 1986;9:127–30.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  25. Nitao JK, Nair MG, Thorogoo DL, Johnson KSJ, Scriber M. Bioactive neolignans from the leaves of Magnolia virginiana. Phytochemistry. 1991;30:2193–5.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  26. Chang BS, Lee YM, Ku Y, Bae KH, Chung CP. Antimicrobial activity of magnolol and honokiol against periodontopathic microorganisms. Planta Med. 1998;64:367–9.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Ho K, Tsai C, Chen C, Huang J, Lin C. Antimicrobial activity of honokiol and magnolol isolated from Magnolia officinalis. Phytother Res. 2001;15:139–41.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Park J, Lee J, Jung E, Park Y, Kim K, Park B, et al. In vitro antibacterial and anti-inflammatory effects of honokiol and magnolol against Propionibacterium sp. Europ J Pharm. 2004;496:189–95.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  29. Greenberg M, Urnezis P, Tian MM. Compressed mints and chewing gum containing Magnolia bark extract are effective against bacteria responsible for oral malodor. J Agric Food Chem. 2007;55:9465–9.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Greenberg M, Dodds M, Minmin Tian MM. Naturally occurring phenolic antibacterial compounds show effectiveness against oral bacteria by a quantitative structure-activity relationship study. J Agric Food Chem. 2008;56:11151–6.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Kim YS, Lee JY, Park J, Hwang W, Lee J, Park D. Synthesis and microbiological evaluation of honokiol derivatives as new antimicrobial agents. Arch Pharm Res. 2010;33:61–5.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Mori M, Aoyama M, SDoi S. Antifungal constituents in the bark of Magnolia obovata Thunb. Holz als Roh-und Werkstoff. 1997;55:275–8.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  33. Bang KH, Kim YK, Min BS, Na MK, Rhee YH, Lee JP, et al. Antifungal activity of magnolol and honokiol. Arch Pharm Res. 2000;23:46–9.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Choi NH, Choi GJ, Min BS, Jang KS, Choi YH, Kang MS, et al. Effects of neolignans from the stem bark of Magnolia obovata on plant pathogenic fungi. J Appl Microb. 2009;106:2057–63.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  35. Amblard F, Govindarajan B, Lefkove B, Rapp KL, Detorio M, Arbiser JL, et al. Synthesis, cytotoxicity, and antiviral activities of new neolignans related to honokiol and magnolol. Bioorg Med Chem Lett. 2007;17:4428–31.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  36. Li GH, Dang LI, Hong LJ, Zheng LJ, Liu FF, Li L, et al. Nematicidal activity of honokiol and magnolol isolated from Magnolia tripetala. J Phytopath. 2009;157:390–2.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  37. Syu WJ, Shen CC, Lu JJ, Lee GH, Sun CM. Antimicrobial and cytotoxic activities of neolignans from Magnolia officinalis. Chem Biodiversity. 2004;1:530–7.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  38. Jada S, Reddy Doma M, Singh PP, Kumar S, Malik F, Sharma A, et al. Design and synthesis of novel magnolol derivatives as potential antimicrobial and antiproliferative compounds. Europ J Med Chem. 2012;51:35–41.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  39. Jin J, Guo N, Zhang J, Ding Y, Tang X, Liang J, et al. The synergy of honokiol and fluconazole against clinical isolates of azole-resistant Candida albicans. Lett Appl Microbiol. 2010;51:351–7.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Bae K, Oh H. Synergistic effect of lysozyme on bactericidal activity of magnolol and honokiol against a cariogenic bacterium, Streptococcus mutans OMZ 176. Arch Pharm Res. 1990;13:117–9.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  41. Liu Y, Chen L, He X, Fan L, Yang G, Chen X, et al. Enhancement of therapeutic effectiveness bycombining liposomal honokiol with cisplatin in ovarian carcinoma. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2008;18:652–9.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. Liu H, Zang C, Emde A, Planas-Silva MD, Rosche M, Kühnl A, et al. Anti-tumor effect of honokiol alone and in combination with other anti-cancer agents in breast cancer. Europ J Pharmacol. 2008;591:43–51.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  43. Hou W, Chen L, Yang G, Zhou H, Jiang Q, Zhong Z, et al. Synergistic antitumor effects of liposomal honokiol combined with adriamycin in breast cancer models. Phytother Res. 2008;22:1125–32.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. Arora S, Bhardwaj A, Srivastava SK, Singh S, McClellan S, Wang B, et al. Honokiol arrests cell cycle, induces apoptosis, and potentiates the cytotoxic effect of gemcitabine in human pancreatic cancer cells. PLoS ONE. 2011;6:e21573. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0021573.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  45. Wang X, Beitler JJ, Wang H, Lee MJ, Huang W, Koenig L, et al. Honokiol enhances paclitaxel efficacy in multi-drug resistant human cancer model through the induction of apoptosis. PLoS ONE. 2014;9:e86369. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0086369.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  46. Arora S, Singh S, Piazza GA, Contreras CM, Panyam J, Singh AP. Honokiol: a novel natural agent for cancer prevention and therapy. Curr Mol Med. 2012;12:1244–52.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  47. Clinical Laboratory Standards Institute. Table 2C. Zone diameter and MIC interpretive standards for staphylococcus spp. In: Performance standards for antimicrobial susceptibility testing; twenty-second informational supplement. Approved standard. Wayne, PA, USA: CLSI; 2012. p. M100–S22.Google Scholar
  48. Zhang K, McClure JA, Elsayed S, Louie T, Conly JM. Novel multiplex PCR assay for characterization and concomitant subtyping of staphylococcal cassette chromosome mec types I toV in methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. J Clin Microbiol. 2005;43:5026–33.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  49. Clinical Laboratory Standards Institute. Performance standards for antimicrobial disk susceptibility tests. Approved standard, 9th ed. Document M2-A9. Wayne, PA, USA: CLSI; 2006.Google Scholar
  50. Akcam FZ, Tinaz GB, Kaya O, Tigli A, Ture E, Hosoglu S. Evaluation of methicillin resistance by cefoxitin disk diffusion and PBP2a latex agglutination test in mecA-positive Staphylococcus aureus, and comparison of mecA with femA, femB, femX positivities. Microbiol Res. 2009;164:400–3.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. Clinical Laboratory Standards Institute. Approved standard M100-S17. PA, USA.: CLSI, Wayne; 2007. Performance Standards for Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing-17th Informational Supplement.Google Scholar
  52. Clinical Laboratory Standards Institute. Approved standard M7-A7. PA, USA.: CLSI, Wayne; 2006. Methods for Dilution Antimicrobial Susceptibility Tests for Bacteria that Grow Aerobically, 7th ed.Google Scholar
  53. Clinical Laboratory Standards Institute. Methods for determining bactericidal activity antimicrobial agents. Wayne, PA, USA: Approved Guidelines. Document M26-A. CLSI (formerly NCCLS); 1999.Google Scholar
  54. Hu ZQ, Zhao WH, Asano N, Yoda Y, Hara Y. Epigallocatechin gallate synergistically enhances the activity of carbapenems against methicillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2002;46:558–60.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  55. Orhan G, Bayram A, Zer Y, Balci I. Synergy tests by E test and checkerboard methods of antimicrobial combinations against Brucella melitensis. J Clin Microbiol. 2005;43:140–3.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  56. Chin JN, Jones RN, Sader HS, Savage PB, Rybak MJ. Potential synergy activity of the novel ceragenin, CAS-13, against clinical isolates of Pseudomonas aeruginosa, including multidrug-resistant P. aeruginosa. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2008;61:365–70.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. Kim ES, Jeong SI, Kim JH, Park C, Kim SM, Kim JK, et al. Synergistic effects of the combination of 20-hydroxyecdysone with ampicillin and gentamicin against methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. J Microbiol Biotechnol. 2009;19:1576–81.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  58. Mates SM, Eisenberg ES, Mandel LJ, Patel L, Kaback HR, Miller MH. Membrane potential and gentamicin uptake in Staphylococcus aureus. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1982;79:6693–7.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  59. Smith ECJ, Kaatz GW, Seo SM, Wareham N, Williamson EM, Gibbons S. The phenolic diterpene totarol inhibits multidrug efflux pump activity in Staphylococcus aureus. Antimicro Agents Chemother. 2007;51:4480–3.View ArticleGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© Zuo et al. 2015

Advertisement