Prerpints.org logo
Preprint
Article

Binary Combinations of Essential Oils: Antibacterial Activity Against Staphylococcus aureus, and Antioxidant and Anti-Inflammatory Properties

Altmetrics

Downloads

46

Views

26

Comments

0

Submitted:

28 November 2024

Posted:

29 November 2024

You are already at the latest version

Alerts
Abstract
Background: The lack of new antimicrobial drugs and the increased antimicrobial resistance has focused the attention on the employment of essential oils (EOs), particularly in veterinary medi-cine. Methods: EOs from Origanum vulgare L., Juniperus communis L., Cistus ladaniferus L., Citrus au-rantium L. var. amara were tested individually and as binary combinations to study: the in vitro antibacterial activity against Staphylococcus aureus, including methicillin-resistant S. aureus (MRSA), and Escherichia coli; the antioxidant capacity by redox-based assays (DPPH, ABTS and FRAP) and the in vitro anti-inflammatory activity by bovine serum albumin (BSA) denatura-tion inhibition assay. Results: A good antibacterial activity was observed for O. vulgare L. against all strains (MIC = 0.0312%–0.125%, v/v), followed by C. ladaniferus L. O. vulgare L. also provided the best results in terms of antioxidant and anti-inflammatory activity. Synergistic and additive effects were observed for the EO combinations, O. vulgare L./C. ladaniferus L. and O. vulgare L./J. communis L. against S. aureus and MRSA, respectively, confirmed also by the reduction of bacterial biofilm, and by antioxidant and anti-inflammatory activities. Conclusions: The results suggest that EO combinations may a be promising strategy in veterinary settings for the treatment of infectious diseases caused by S. aureus, including drug-resistant and biofilm-forming strains accompanied by oxidative stress and inflammation.
Keywords: 
Subject: Biology and Life Sciences  -   Life Sciences

1. Introduction

The current lack of new antibacterial drugs, coupled with the continued rise in antimicrobial resistance (AMR), poses a critical problem for global health. To effectively address this challenge requires a One Health approach, an integrated strategy that recognizes the connection of human, animal, and environmental health [1,2,3].
Combating AMR is critical for several reasons: to safeguard human health, to prevent the emergence and spread of antibiotic-resistant bacteria, to preserve the effectiveness of antimicrobials used in human and veterinary medicine, and to minimize the presence of antibiotic residues in animal-derived food products.
Given the increasing emergence of drug-resistant bacteria responsible for infections in animal farms, such as mastitis, mammary pustular dermatitis and skin infections, there is an urgent need to explore natural and alternative therapeutic approaches.
In recent years, the attention of many researchers has focused on the study of natural products as a support to the conventional antibiotic therapy. Among various plant-derived secondary metabolites, essential oils (EOs) are widely used in food, cosmetic and pharmaceutical industries (as flavourings, perfumes and fragrances) [4], as well as in the aromatherapy [5].
EOs are complex mixtures of volatile compounds, primarily terpenes, along with aldehydes, alcohols, and esters [6]. These bioactive compounds play a crucial role in plant defense because of their antimicrobial properties but also offer significant therapeutic potential for human and animal health. They have been used in folk medicine for their beneficial properties in treating dermatological disorders, infections, inflammation and pain [7,8]. Numerous studies have documented the antimicrobial, antifungal, antioxidant, and anti-inflammatory properties of various EOs, with particular emphasis on species originating from the Mediterranean region [9]. Among these, EOs from Cistus ladaniferus L., Citrus aurantium L. var. amara, Juniperus communis L., Origanum vulgare L., are of traditional and new interest due their known and well-documented biological properties such as antibacterial, antioxidant, anti-inflammatory, analgesic, antispasmodic, angiogenic, antiplatelet, antimutagenic and antigenotoxic [10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17].
In more detail, Cistus ladaniferus L. (Cistaceae family) shows potential hypoglycemic, hypolipidemic, antihypertensive activities [18,19,20]. Citrus aurantium L. var. amara (Rutaceae family), a major crop in Mediterranean regions, is employed also as a sedative, due to its soothing and calming effects [21], and as a natural antiseizure and anticonvulsant agent [22]. Juniperus communis L. (Cupressaceae family), widely distributed across Europe, Asia, and North America, is used as a diuretic, and for digestive disorders [23], and exhibits also hypoglycemic, hypolipidemic, and hepatoprotective properties [24]. Origanum vulgare L. (Lamiaceae family), one of the most used medicinal plant in infection of the respiratory tract, is also a valid antiparasitic, digestive and antispasmodic agent; in addition, it shows hypoglycemic effects [25].
The study of the pharmacological activities of EOs is of growing interest also in veterinary medicine. In literature there are various in vitro studies on the efficacy of EOs against common bacteria, such as Escherichia coli and Staphylococcus aureus, which are often responsible for mastitis in bovine [26] and sheep [27], mammary pustular dermatitis in ovine [28], exudative epidermitis in pigs [29], bovine respiratory disease [30], cattle endometritis [31]. EOs have shown efficacy also against bacteria isolated from milk samples of mastitic sheep [32] and pathogens isolated from animal-derived products [33]. These data provide a valuable incentive for in vivo studies, which are currently too scarce, for potential applications in veterinary medicine [34].
Although the potential therapeutic properties of EOs are well known, recently the attention has been focused on the use of their combinations, in order to enhance their efficacy, reduce the minimum active dose and moderate the possible adverse side effects [35]. The association between EOs can be a valid natural strategy against pathogens responsible of infectious diseases in humans and animals [36] and also against foodborne pathogens [37].
The aim of this study was to evaluate the in vitro antibacterial, antioxidant and anti-inflammatory properties of the EOs of Cistus ladaniferus L. (Cistus), Citrus aurantium L. var. amara (Bitter orange), Juniperus communis L. (Juniper) and Origanum vulgare L. (Oregano), in binary combinations, exploring their potential synergistic or additive effect for possible use against S. aureus, a clinically significant Gram-positive pathogen, responsible for common animal infections.

2. Results

2.1. GC-MS Chromatographic Analysis

The detailed composition of Citrus aurantium L. var. amara L., Cistus ladaniferus L., Juniperus communis L. and Origanum vulgare L. EOs obtained through GC-MS are reported in Figure 1 and Table 1.
As it’s possible to observe, the main components for Citrus aurantium L. var. amara are limonene (87.87%), followed by myrcene (3.45%) , linalyl acetayte (1,84%) and β-pinene (1.12%); for Cistus ladaniferus L. camphene (37.04%), bornyl acetate (21.93%), α-pinene (13.68%), followed by tricyclene (5.08%), 2,2,6-trimethylcyclohexanone (3.95%), borneol (1.65%) and viridiflorol (1.03); for Juniperus communis L. α-pinene (42.01%), followed by sabinene (11.66%), myrcene (10.72%), limonene (6.36%), terpinen-4-ol (2.97%) , Germanen D (2.04%), (E)-caryophyllene (1.89%), α -humulene (1.79%), γ –terpinene (1.65%), α –thujene (1.35%), α -cadinene (1.20), terpinolene (1.16%) and p-cymene (1.04); for Origanum vulgare L. carvacrol (56.43%), γ-terpinene (13.71%), p-cymene (11.06%), myrcene (1.97%), α-thujene (1.81%) , (E)-caryophyllene (1.65%), sabinene (1.43%), α terpinene (1.23%) and thymol (1.13%).

2.2. Antibacterial Activity

MIC and MBC values of the EOs tested in our study are reported in Table 2. Among the EOs, O. vulgare L. revealed the best inhibitory activity against S. aureus and E. coli, with MIC values of 0.0312% - 0.125% v/v and MBC values of 0.0625% - 0.25% v/v, respectively, followed by C. ladaniferus L. which exhibited a moderate antibacterial activity with MIC values between 0.25% and 0.5% v/v.

2.2.1. Checkerboard Assay

To study whether O. vulgare L. in combination with the other EOs produce a higher bacterial inhibition, a checkerboard assay was performed. The results of the antibacterial activity of EO combinations are given in Table 3.
The three tested combinations (O. vulgare L./C. ladaniferus L., O. vulgare L./C. aurantium L. var. amara and O. vulgare L./J. communis L.) gave synergistic or additive effects (FICI: 0.312–1) against all tested bacterial strains except E. coli, for which they showed indifference (FICI: 1.25–1.5). Specifically, a synergy (FICI from 0.312 to 0.50) with a 4- to 16-fold reduction in the MIC values was recorded for S. aureus ATCC 6538 and an additive effect (FICI from 0.625 to 1) against the MRSA strain. No antagonistic effect was observed.
In terms of concentrations, the combinations that displayed synergistic effect against S. aureus ATCC 6538 were: O. vulgare L./C. ladaniferus L. 1/4+1/4 of sub-MICs corresponding to 0.0078/0.0625% v/v; O. vulgare L./C. aurantium L. var. amara 1/4+1/8 of sub-MICs corresponding to 0.0078/0.125% v/v; and O. vulgare L./J. communis L. 1/4+1/16 of sub-MICs corresponding to 0.0078/0.0625% v/v. The combinations with additive effects against the MRSA strain were: O. vulgare L./C. ladaniferus L. 1/2+1/8 of sub-MICs corresponding to 0.0625/0.0625% v/v; O. vulgare L./C. aurantium L. var. amara 1/4+1/2 of sub-MICs corresponding to 0.0312/0.5% v/v; and O. vulgare L./J. communis L. 1/2+1/2 of sub-MICs corresponding to 0.0625/0.5% v/v of J. communis L.
Figure 2 shows representative images of the isobolograms of O. vulgare L. in combination with the other EOs against S. aureus ATCC 6538 and MRSA ATCC 43300.

2.2.2. Effect on Biofilm Formation

Regarding the anti-biofilm effect, the sub-synergistic concentrations of 1/4 + 1/4 EO combinations resulted in a good reduction of S. aureus ATCC 6538 biofilm compared with the control (Figure 3).
A good inhibition of biofilm formation with 1/2 synergistic concentration was observed for all combinations. In particular, biofilm reductions of 80% for O. vulgare L./C. ladaniferus L. (corresponding to 0.0039/0.0312% v/v), 75% for O. vulgare L./C. aurantium L. var. amara (corresponding to 0.0039/0.125% v/v) and 68% for O. vulgare L./J. communis L. (corresponding to 0.0039/0.125% v/v) were detected. Interestingly, a good inhibitory effect (75% reduction in biofilm formation) was maintained in the presence of the 1/4 synergistic combination of O. vulgare L./C. ladaniferus L. (corresponding to 0.0019/0.0156%, v/v).

2.3. Antioxidant Activity

In order to characterize the antioxidant properties of the EOs studied, DPPH, ABTS and FRAP test were chosen among the different validated benchmark methods. These redox-based assays measure the reducing capacity of the tested samples under specific conditions. The results of the antioxidant activity of the individual EOs are summarized in Table 4.
All EOs showed a medium antioxidant/free radical scavenger activity. The potency order in all assays was higher for O. vulgare L., followed by J. communis L., C. ladaniferus L., and C. aurantium L. var. amara. For all the assays, the antioxidant activity of the EOs was compared to that of the positive control, Trolox for DPPH and ABTS assay and Fe2SO4 for FRAP.

2.4. Anti-Inflammatory Activity

The ability to inhibit the denaturation of bovine serum albumin (BSA) was calculated because the proteic denaturation is recognized as a source of inflammation and the inhibition a key indicator of anti-inflammatory potential [38,39].
Significantly higher activity was also observed in the BSA assay from EO of O. vulgare L. compared with the other EOs studied. Results were expressed as IC50 and resumed in Figure 4.

2.5. Antioxidant and Anti-Inflammatory Activities of EO Combinations

The EO combinations (O. vulgare L./C. ladaniferus L., O. vulgare L./C. aurantium var. amara L. and O. vulgare L./J. communis L. (1:1 v/v) were evaluated for their antioxidant activity by DPPH, ABTS, and FRAP assays and for anti-inflammatory activity by BSA denaturation assay. The results are presented in Table 5 and Figure 4, respectively.
The combinations analyzed showed for the antioxidant activity (Table 6) an additive effect in the ABTS and FRAP assays with O. vulgare L./J. communis L., and in DPPH and FRAP assays with O. vulgare L./C. ladaniferus L.. The other combinations were indifferent. None of the combinations displayed antagonistic effects. This clearly demonstrates that variability exists between the studied methods, and that the employment of different assays, as in this study, provides a better overall assessment of the efficacy.
Similar kind of interactions have been showed in the BSA assay for the anti-inflammatory activity (Table 7), in fact also in this case the combination of O. vulgare L./J. communis L. and O. vulgare L./C. ladaniferus L. showed an additive effect.

3. Discussion

The EOs from C. ladaniferus L., C. aurantium L. var. amara, J. communis L. and O. vulgare L., alone and in binary combinations, have shown antibacterial, antioxidant and anti-inflammatory properties, suggesting that they are natural agents for a potential therapeutic use in the treatment of animal infectious diseases, including those caused by drug-resistant and biofilm-forming bacteria. Furthermore, they may attenuate the oxidative stress and inflammation, that often accompany such infections.
The biological activities of these EOs are related to their chemical composition [40] and, in particular, to major components such as carvacrol for O. vulgare L., α-pinene for J. communis L., camphene and α-pinene for C. ladaniferus L., limonene for C. aurantium L. var. amara [41,42,43].
Regarding antibacterial properties of individual EOs, O. vulgare L. showed a good inhibitory activity against S. aureus and E. coli, similar to that demonstrated by C. ladaniferus. In contrast, J. communis L. and C. aurantium L. var. amara exhibited lower efficacy against these bacterial strains. The results obtained on O. vulgare L. are in line with those of other authors, who highlighted the antibacterial activity of EO against both Gram-positive and Gram-negative strains [13,44]. The antimicrobial activity has also been reported for C. ladaniferus and J. communis L. EOs [20,45]. About C. aurantium L.var. amara, the antimicrobial potential and the impact of season’s variation on chemical composition and biological activities of its EO have been exhaustively described [46,47].
The results obtained from the DPPH, ABTS and FRAP tests showed good antioxidant/free radical scavenging capacity for all EOs examined individually. The antioxidant effects of EOs derive from their ability to neutralize free radicals by donating hydrogen atoms or electrons, thus protecting biological molecules from oxidative damage. Although the (poly)phenolic constituents are mainly responsible of these properties, other compounds such as cyclic monoterpenes and various functional groups also make an important contribution. Therefore, the combined presence of these diverse components (as in this case; see hereinafter) improves the overall antioxidant activity of EOs [40,48].
About anti-inflammatory activity, the BSA denaturation assay used revealed favorable responses from the tested EOs, with the highest efficacy of O. vulgare L. among all samples. This assay is based on the principle that the denaturation, of proteins leads to the loss of their structural integrity and function, resulting in the potential production of auto-antigens. Bioactive compounds present in EOs may protect against this process by preserving the various bonds involved in maintaining protein structure. This protective effect is the basis of the observed anti-inflammatory activity of the EOs studied [38]. The superior biological activities detected in the EO of O. vulgare L. are generally attributable to its major component, i.e., carvacrol [49,50,51]. However, the effectiveness of O. vulgare L. can be influenced by its other minor components, such as p-cymene, γ-terpinene, thymol and (E)-caryophyllene [9].
Considering the best response of O. vulgare L. in the assays carried out, it was chosen as main EO for the study of binary combinations. Overall, our investigations on the antibacterial, antioxidant, and anti-inflammatory properties of binary combinations (O. vulgare L./J. communis L., O. vulgare L./C. ladaniferus L. and O.vulgare L./C. aurantium L. var. amara) revealed noteworthy interactions, quantified using FIC values.
The effects of all tested combinations were synergistic against S. aureus, additive against MRSA, while indifferent against E. coli. In terms of concentrations, the optimal combination was found to be O. vulgare L./C. ladaniferus L. against S. aureus ATCC 6538 (0.0078% v/v of O. vulgare L. and 0 .0625% v/v of C. ladanifer L.) and MRSA (0.0625% v/v of O. vulgare L. and 0.0625% v/v of C. ladaniferus L.). Interestingly, the EO combinations did not reduce the effectiveness of single EOs, as no antagonistic effect was observed. S. aureus is a Gram-positive bacterium that can cause a wide range of infections, from minor skin conditions to severe systemic diseases. Its resistance to multiple antibiotics, has led to the emergence of MRSA, a major public health concern. Additionally, S. aureus is known for its ability to form biofilms, which enhances its persistence and resistance to treatments. Consequently, addressing S. aureus infections, especially those caused by drug-resistant strains, remains a critical area of research. To this regards, some authors have documented the susceptibility of MRSA to tea tree oil [52], others evaluated a potential use of geranium and lavender oils [53].Our data contribute valuable insights into the effectiveness of the EOs analyzed, providing further information on their potential application in combating MRSA.
The subsequent study conducted on S. aureus biofilm also evidenced the best inhibitory effect (80% reduction of biofilm formation) by the synergistic association of O. vulgare L./C. ladaniferus L.. These results highlight the potential of combining EOs against bacterial biofilms which are notoriously difficult to treat. Biofilms are complex communities of microorganisms that adhere to surfaces and are embedded in a self-produced extracellular matrix. They are very difficult to eradicate for their poor susceptibility to conventional antimicrobial agents and host immune defense [54].Therefore, the development of new strategies able to inhibit S. aureus biofilm formation is of great interest, considering the ability of this bacterium to cause several diseases.
About antioxidant activity, an additive effect was observed for all binary combinations of EOs under evaluation, whereas in the BSA denaturation assay an additive effect in the anti-inflammatory response was evident only for the combinations O. vulgare L./J. communis L. and O. vulgare L./C. Ladaniferus L. Our findings pertaining the antioxidant activity are in line with those of other researchers conducted on different combinations of EOs [55,56]. For example, some authors observed synergistic effects of combinations of EOs, from Laminaceae family, except O. vulgare L., such as Apium graveolens L., Thymus vulgaris L. and Coriandrum sativum L. [57], Thymus fontanesii Boiss. & Reut., Artemisia herba-alba Asso and Rosmarinus officinalis L. [58], Callistemon lanceolatus Sweet, Ocimum gratissimum L., Cymbopogon winterianus Jowitt ex Bor., Cymbopogon flexuosus (Nees ex Steud.) Stapf, Mentha longifolia (L.) L. and Vitex negundo L. [59].
Regarding the anti-inflammatory properties of EO combinations, there are few data in the literature [60]. Instead, some researchers have reported the effect of associations between EOs and common anti-inflammatory drugs [61,62]. However, the study of synergistic anti-inflammatory effects of combined phytochemicals are of growing interest [63].
To give an understanding to the results of the interactions among the binary associations of the EOs in all the assays performed (antibacterial, antioxidant and anti-inflammatory), the observed synergistic effect, defined as the combined effect of the tested compounds greater than the sum of the individual effects [64], could be mainly due to the composition of the EOs, which can affect multiple biochemical processes, enhance the bioavailability of the components, and/or neutralize the adverse effects [59]. On the other hand, an additive effect is considered as the resulting effect of two EOs equal to the sum of the individual effects. For example, some authors have observed for the EO of O. vulgaris a synergistic effect in association with EO of Rosmarinus officinalis L. and additive effects in association with EOs of Thymus vulgaris L., Ocimum basilicum L. and Origanum majorana L. [65,66,67].
In general, the synergistic and additive antibacterial effects of the binary associations could be attributed to the main component of O. vulgare L. EO, namely carvacrol, and its remarkable effects on the structural and functional properties of the cytoplasmatic membrane [66,68]. However, α-pinene can contribute to the structural damage of cell membrane [69] as well as limonene can alter the cytoplasmic membrane permeability [70]. As for camphene, several studies have documented the antibacterial activity of this terpene and its derivatives [71], particularly as a potential inhibitory agent against S. aureus [72,73]. Similarly, for the antioxidant activity, carvacrol can contribute to the resulting additive effect of the binary combinations of EOs assessed in different essays.
Also for the anti-inflammatory activity, the additive effects observed for O. vulgare L./J. communis L. and O. vulgare L./C. ladaniferus L. combinations could be due to the main component of O. vulgare L. EO [41,74]. In fact, carvacrol is able to reduce the production of inflammatory mediators (IL-1β, IL-4, IL-8 and malondialdehyde and prostanoids) [41] and the induction of IL-10 release [75]; α-pinene reduces the production of inflammatory cytokines (IL-1β, NF-κB, and LTB4) [76,77] and limonene, instead, demonstrated to increase IL-10 levels and reduce TNF-α levels [78,79]. In relation to camphene, it is possible hypothesize its contribution in lipoxygenase inhibition, as documented by other authors for the EO of Cistus albidus [80].
The results of this study suggest that the combinations of EOs rich in bioactive components may enhance their overall pharmacological effect, particularly in terms of antibacterial, antioxidant, and anti-inflammatory properties, allowing a reduction in the dose required for activity and the risk of potential side effects. In the specific case, this approach could offer a promising strategy to improve the management of animal infectious diseases, caused by S. aureus, including drug-resistant and biofilm-forming strains, whose infections are often accompanied by oxidative stress and inflammation.

4. Materials and Methods

4.1. Essential Oils Sampling

Four commercially available EOs were purchased from two different Italian companies, that provided the following chemical composition: C. ladaniferus L. (Cistus) from Laborbio - Collegno (Torino-Italy), C. auratium L. var. amara (Bitter orange), J. communis L. (Juniper) and O. vulgare L. (Oregano), from FLORA srl - Lorenzana (Pisa-Italy). The main compounds present in these EOs were: camphene (34%), α -pinene (14%) in Cistus; limonene (85–98%), myrcene (0.8–3%), α-terpineol (0.3–0.9%), α-pinene (0.2–0.9%), linalool (0.2–0.9%) in C. auratium L. var. amara; α-pinene (40–60%), myrcene (8–18%), sabinene (4–11%), limonene (2–8%), β-pinene (2–6%) in J. communis L. and carvacrol (60–80%), p-cymene (4–10%), γ-terpinene (3–9%), thymol (0.5–5%), β-caryophyllene (0.5–4%) in O. vulgare L. The molecular structure of the main compounds is reported in Figure 3.
Preprints 141184 g005
Figure 3. Main compounds present in the studied essential oil samples.
Figure 3. Main compounds present in the studied essential oil samples.
Preprints 141184 g005

4.2. GC-MS Chromatoghrphic Analysis

The GC-MS analyses were carried out on a GCMS-TQ8030 system (Shimadzu, Milan, Italy) equipped with an AOC-20i auto-sampler. Samples of Citrus aurantium L. var. amara EO was injected neat and the injection volume was 0.4μL with a split ratio 1:50at 250°C., instead Cistus ladaniferus L., Juniperus communis L. and Origanum vulgare L. EOs were preliminarily diluted 1:5 v/v in chloroform and the injection volume was 1.0 μL with a split ratio 1:50 at 250°C. The capillary column was anSLB-5ms (Supelco), 30 m × 0.25 mm ID × 0.25 μm film thickness, operated at the following oven program: 50°C (2 min) up to250°C (held 10 min) @4°C/min.The mass spectrometric source (EI) was set at 200°C, 0.95 kV; interface: 250°C; acquisition mode was in full scan, range: 40-350 m/z and a scan speed of 1666 amu/sec. Data handling was performed by means of GCMS solution software (Shimadzu). For peak assignment, the following mass spectral libraries were used: FFNSC 2, Adams 4th edition, Wiley 9, NIST11, NIST webbook. n-Paraffins (C7-C40, custom made mixture) were injected apart from real samples in order to measure the Retention Indices. Peak identification was based on library matching of unknowns (similarity index ≥90) and retention index matching of experimental vs. published values (RI filter±10 units) [81]

4.3. Antibacterial Activity

4.3.1. Bacterial Strains and Culture Conditions

The following strains were used: Staphylococcus aureus ATCC 6538, methicillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) ATCC 43300 and Escherichia coli ATCC 10536. Cultures for antimicrobial tests were grown at 37°C in Mueller-Hinton Broth (MHB, Oxoid, Basingstoke, United Kingdom) for 24 h.

4.3.2. MIC and MBC Determination

The minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) and the minimum bactericidal concentration (MBC) of EOs were determined using a broth dilution micro-method in 96-well round-bottomed polystyrene microtiter plates according to the guidelines of the Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute [82], with some modifications for EOs. Briefly, C. ladaniferus L., C. aurantium L. var. amara, J. communis L. and O. vulgare L. EOs were dissolved to 50% using dimethylsulfoxide (DMSO) and then serial twofold dilutions were made in MHB at concentrations ranging from 1% to 0.0039% v/v. DMSO maximum concentration was 0.5% (v/v). Bacterial cultures were inoculated to yield a final concentration of 5 × 105 CFU/mL. Growth control (medium with DMSO and without EO) was included. Plates were incubated at 37 °C for 24 h. The MIC was considered as the lowest concentration of the EO giving the inhibition of visible bacterial growth after incubation for 24 h. To evaluate the inhibition of metabolic bacterial activity, 20 μL of 2,3,5-triphenyl tetrazolium chloride (TTC) 0.125% (w/v) was added in all the wells, followed by 1 hour of incubation. The tetrazolium salt is frequently employed in MIC determinations, when dissolved in water is colorless, but turns red when metabolically active bacteria are present. This red color is directly correlated with the number of living cells. The MBC was determined by seeding 20 μl from all clear MIC wells onto Mueller-Hinton Agar (MHA, Oxoid) plates and was defined as the lowest concentration of EOs that killed 99.9% of the inoculum. The data from at least three replicates were evaluated and modal results were calculated.

4.3.3. Checkerboard Assay

The checkerboard assay was used to determine potential synergistic, additive or even antagonistic effects of combinations of EOs (O. vulgare L./C. ladaniferus L., O. vulgare L./C. auratium L. var. amara and O. vulgare L./J. communis L.). Dilutions of two EOs in combinations, from 2 x MIC to serial dilution below, were inoculated in microtiter plates and incubated as described above [83]. The checkerboard test was used to calculate the Fractional Inhibitory Concentration (FIC), according to the formulas: FICA = MICA + B/MICA, FICB = MICB + A/MICB, and FIC Index = FICA + FICB, where MICA + B is the MIC of compound A in presence of compound B, and MICB + A is the opposite.
FIC Index (FICI) values were interpreted as follows: synergistic effect FICI ≤ 0.5; additive effect FICI >0.5 - ≤ 1; indifference FICI >1 - < 2; antagonism FICI ≥ 2 [84]. All experiments were performed in triplicate. The results were also reported as isobolograms, constructed by plotting synergistic concentrations [85].

4.3.4. Effect on Biofilm Formation

The effect of EO combinations on biofilm-forming ability of S. aureus ATCC 6538 was tested on polystyrene flat-bottomed microtitre plates as previously described [86]. Overnight culture in TSB + 1% glucose (TSBG) of S. aureus was adjusted in TSBG to 1 × 106 CFU/mL and was dispensed into each well of 96-well polystyrene flat-bottomed microtitre plates containing twofold dilutions of the EO combinations from the 1/4/ + 1/4 combination. After incubation at 37 °C for 24 h, the planktonic phase was removed and each well was washed twice with sterile PBS (pH 7.4), dried, stained for 1 min with 0.1 % safranin and washed with water. The stained biofilms biomass was re-suspended in 30% (v/v) acetic acid and OD492 was measured using a spectrophotometer EIA reader. A biofilm control consisting of TSBG medium was included. The reduction percentage of biofilm was calculated using the following equation:
100– (mean OD492 of EO association/mean OD492 of control well) × 100

4.4. Antioxidant Activity

The individual EOs were screened for the antioxidant activity of the tested EOs using the 2,2-diphenyl-1-picrylhydrazyl radical (DPPH), stable 2,2′-azino-bis(3-ethylbenzthiazoline-6-sulfonic acid (ABTS) and Ferric Reducing/Antioxidant Power (FRAP) assays. Measurements were obtained in triplicate for each sample in each assay. The EC50 values were calculated for the control and samples, representing the antioxidant capacity in the sample necessary for 50% of the maximal antioxidant effect.

4.4.1. 2,2-. diphenyl-1-picrylhydrazyl (DPPH) Test

The free radical-scavenging capacity of EOs was determined by the 2,2-diphenyl-1-picrylhydrazyl (DPPH) assay [87], a method based on the reduction of the stable radical DPPH. The reagent mixture consisted of 1.5 ml of 100 mM DPPH in methanol, to which 37.5 µl of solutions containing various concentrations (100–1000 mg/ml) of the EOs to be tested, or of the vehicle alone (DMSO), were added; an equal volume of the solvent employed to dissolve the extracts was added to control tubes. After 20 min of incubation at room temperature, the absorbance was recorded at 517 nm in a UV-Vis spectrophotometer. Trolox reagent was used as blank. Each determination was carried out in triplicate.

4.4.2. 2,2’-. azinobis-(3-ethyl-benzothiazolin-6-sulfonic acid (ABTS) Assay

This method determines the capacity of the EOs to quench the stable 2,2’-azino-bis(3-ethylbenzthiazoline-6-sulfonic acid) radical (ABTS ·+ ). In our experiments, according with Chelly et al. [88], the ABTS ·+ radical cation was produced by the oxidation of 1.7 mM ABTS with potassium persulfate (4.3 mM final concentration) in water. The mixture was allowed to stand in the dark at room temperature for 12–16 h before use, and then the ABTS ·+ solution was diluted with phosphate buffered saline (PBS) at pH 7.4 to give an absorbance of 0.7 ± 0.02 at 734 nm. One hundred microliters of a solution containing different concentrations (1000-100 mg/ml) EO samples to be tested or of the vehicle alone (DMSO) was added to 2 ml of the ABTS ·+ solution, and the absorbance was recorded at 734 nm in a UV-Vis spectrophotometer after allowing the reaction to stand for 6 min in the dark at room temperature. Trolox reagent was used as blank. Each determination was carried out in triplicate.

4.4.3. Ferric Reducing/Antioxidant Power (FRAP) Assay

The ferric reducing ability of the EOs under study was evaluated according to the method described by Chelly et al. [89] with minor modifications. The FRAP reagent contained 10 mM of TPTZ solution in 40 mM HCl, 20 mM FeCl3·6H2O, and acetate buffer (300 mM, pH 3.6) (1:1:10, v/v/v). 50 μL of a methanolic solution containing different concentrations (100–1000 mg/ml) of the samples tested or of the vehicle (methanol) alone were added to 3 mL of the FRAP reagent, and the absorbance was measured at 593 nm after incubation at 20 °C for 4 min, using the FRAP reagent as a blank.

4.5. Anti-Inflammatory Activity

The in vitro anti-inflammatory activity of the EOs was carried out according to the method of Belkhodja et al. [90] by monitoring the inhibition of protein denaturation. The method consisted of preparing 0.5 mL of reaction mixture consisting of 0.45 mL BSA (5% aqueous solution) and 0.05 mL of EOs (250 μg/ml). The standard mixture of Diclofenac (0.5 ml) was prepared in the same condition (0.45 mL BSA 5% and 0.05 ml of the standard solution of diclofenac with a concentration of (10-100 μg/ml). pH was calibrated at 6.3 using 1N HCl. After preparation mixtures were incubated at 37 °C for 20 min subsequently heating at 57 °C for 30 min. After cooling the samples, 2.5 mL phosphate buffered saline (pH 6.3) was added to each test tube. Moreover, 0.05 mL distilled water was used in place of essential oil in control test tube whilst product control did not contain bovine serum albumin. The absorbance was measured by the UV-Visible spectrophotometer (Shimadzu UV-1280) at 416 nm and the inhibition percentage of protein denaturation was calculated.

4.6. Antioxidant and Anti-Inflammatory Activities of EOs Combinations

The antioxidant and anti-inflammatory activities were evaluated also on EO binary combinations (O. vulgare L./C. ladaniferus L., O. vulgare L./J. communis L. and O. vulgare L./C.auratium L. var. amara). For determining the type of interaction within EOs, different doses of EOs were combined (1:1). Evaluation of different types of interactions (synergism, antagonism or additive effect) between the EOs in binary combinations was carried out by transforming the experimental data studies to fractional inhibitory concentration (FIC) values. The fractional inhibitory concentration fifty percent indexes (FIC50I) were determined for each EOS combination according to Sharma et al. [59].
Fractional Inhibitory Concentration (FIC)
The sum of the fractional inhibitory concentration index (ΣFIC) was used to measure interactions from different EOs combinations (1:1) when tested using the DPPH, FRAP, ABTS. The same calculation was used for value the anti-inflammatory capacity of EOs in combination through inhibition of albumin denaturation.
The ΣFICs for each of the combinations were calculated using the following Equation:
FIC(I)=EC50 (a) in combination with (b)/EC50 (a) independently
FIC(II)=EC50 (b) in combination with (a)/EC50 (b) independently
where (a) is the EC50 of one EO in the combination and (b) is the EC50 of the other EO.
The ∑FICs for each combination were interpreted as synergy where the ∑FICs were less than or equal to 0.5, as additive effects when the ∑FICs were greater than 0.5 but less than or equal to1.0, for indifference, the ∑FICs were greater than 1.0 but less than or equal to 4.0, and for antagonism the ∑FICs were greater than 4.0.

4.7. Statistical Analysis

Results are statistically analyzed by a one-way or a two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) test, followed by Tukey’s honest significant difference, using the statistical software ezANOVA.

5. Conclusions

This study highlighted the antibacterial, antioxidant and anti-inflammatory activities of the EOs of C. ladaniferus L., C. aurantium L. var. amara, J. communis L. and O. vulgare L., alone and in binary combinations, suggesting their possible use in the treatment of animal infectious diseases caused by S. aureus, including drug-resistant and biofilm-forming strains. Among all EOs, O. vulgare L. has been shown to be the most effective in enhancing the antibacterial, anti-biofilm, antioxidant and anti-inflammatory activities of the other EOs when used in combination. Specifically, synergistic and additive effects were observed for O. vulgare L./C. ladaniferus L. and O. vulgare L./J. communis L. against S. aureus and MRSA, respectively. The additive effects observed for antioxidant and anti-inflammatory activities are also very important in mitigating infectious diseases associated with oxidative stress and inflammation, as mastitis, and mammary pustular dermatitis compromise animal health and production. In addition, the synergistic effects of these EO combinations could be an important tool in the food industry for the safety and preservation of food of animal origin.

Author Contributions

“Conceptualization, C.N., A.N. and M.C.; validation, C.N., G.G., A.N. and M.C.; formal analysis, C.N., A.N. and M.C.; investigation, G.G., B.G., R.C., R.V., M.C.; data curation, C.N., G.G., B.G., A.N. and M.C.; writing—original draft preparation, C.N., A.N., N.M. and M.C.; writing—review and editing, C.N., G.G., N.M., E.P., B.G., R.C., R.V., A.N., M.C.; supervision, C.N., A.N. and M.C. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable because the studies not involve humans or animals.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable because the studies not involve humans or animals.

Data Availability Statement

All data and results related to this study are included in the article.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Velazquez-Meza, M.E.; Galarde-López, M.; Carrillo-Quiróz, B.; Alpuche-Aranda, C.M. Antimicrobial Resistance: One Health Approach. Vet. World 2022, 743–749. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Jin, M.; Osman, M.; Green, B.A.; Yang, Y.; Ahuja, A.; Lu, Z.; Cazer, C.L. Evidence for the Transmission of Antimicrobial Resistant Bacteria between Humans and Companion Animals: A Scoping Review. One Health 2023, 17, 100593. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Palma, E.; Tilocca, B.; Roncada, P. Antimicrobial Resistance in Veterinary Medicine: An Overview. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2020, 21, 1914. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Jugreet, B.S.; Suroowan, S.; Rengasamy, R.R.K.; Mahomoodally, M.F. Chemistry, Bioactivities, Mode of Action and Industrial Applications of Essential Oils. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2020, 101, 89–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Liang, J.; Zhang, Y.; Chi, P.; Liu, H.; Jing, Z.; Cao, H.; Du, Y.; Zhao, Y.; Qin, X.; Zhang, W.; et al. Essential Oils: Chemical Constituents, Potential Neuropharmacological Effects and Aromatherapy - A Review. Pharmacol. Res. - Mod. Chin. Med. 2023, 6, 100210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Zuzarte, M.; Salgueiro, L. Essential Oils Chemistry. In Bioactive Essential Oils and Cancer; De Sousa, D.P., Ed.; Springer International Publishing: Cham, 2015; pp. 19–61. ISBN 978-3-319-19143-0. [Google Scholar]
  7. Mandal, U.; Panda, M.; Mahalik, G. Traditional Uses of Essential Oils in Aromatherapy; 2021; ISBN 978-81-940943-7-1.
  8. Manniche, L. Sacred Luxuries: Fragrance, Aromatherapy and Cosmetics in Ancient Egypt; Opus: London, 1999; ISBN 978-0-9535546-0-7. [Google Scholar]
  9. De Sousa, D.P.; Damasceno, R.O.S.; Amorati, R.; Elshabrawy, H.A.; De Castro, R.D.; Bezerra, D.P.; Nunes, V.R.V.; Gomes, R.C.; Lima, T.C. Essential Oils: Chemistry and Pharmacological Activities. Biomolecules 2023, 13, 1144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  10. Raina, R.; Verma, P.K.; Peshin, R.; Kour, H. Potential of Juniperus Communis L as a Nutraceutical in Human and Veterinary Medicine. Heliyon 2019, 5, e02376. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  11. Benali, T.; Bouyahya, A.; Habbadi, K.; Zengin, G.; Khabbach, A.; Achbani, E.H.; Hammani, K. Chemical Composition and Antibacterial Activity of the Essential Oil and Extracts of Cistus Ladaniferus Subsp. Ladanifer and Mentha Suaveolens against Phytopathogenic Bacteria and Their Ecofriendly Management of Phytopathogenic Bacteria. Biocatal. Agric. Biotechnol. 2020, 28, 101696. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Dosoky, N.S.; Setzer, W.N. Biological Activities and Safety of Citrus Spp. Essential Oils. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2018, 19, 1966. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Leyva-López, N.; Gutiérrez-Grijalva, E.; Vazquez-Olivo, G.; Heredia, J. Essential Oils of Oregano: Biological Activity beyond Their Antimicrobial Properties. Molecules 2017, 22, 989. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Shen, C.-Y.; Jiang, J.-G.; Zhu, W.; Ou-Yang, Q. Anti-Inflammatory Effect of Essential Oil from Citrus Aurantium L. Var. Amara Engl. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2017, 65, 8586–8594. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Rivera, D.; Verde, A.; Fajardo, J.; Obón, C.; Consuegra, V.; García-Botía, J.; Ríos, S.; Alcaraz, F.; Valdés, A.; Moral, A.D.; et al. Ethnopharmacology in the Upper Guadiana River Area (Castile-La Mancha, Spain). J. Ethnopharmacol. 2019, 241, 111968. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Bouabidi, M.; Salamone, F.L.; Gadhi, C.; Bouamama, H.; Speciale, A.; Ginestra, G.; Pulvirenti, L.; Siracusa, L.; Nostro, A.; Cristani, M. Efficacy of Two Moroccan Cistus Species Extracts against Acne Vulgaris: Phytochemical Profile, Antioxidant, Anti-Inflammatory and Antimicrobial Activities. Molecules 2023, 28, 2797. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Zalegh, I.; Akssira, M.; Bourhia, M.; Mellouki, F.; Rhallabi, N.; Salamatullah, A.M.; Alkaltham, M.S.; Khalil Alyahya, H.; Mhand, R.A. A Review on Cistus Sp.: Phytochemical and Antimicrobial Activities. Plants 2021, 10, 1214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Aziz, M.; Tab, N.; Karim, A.; Mekhfi, H.; Bnouham, M.; Ziyyat, A.; Melhaoui, A.; Legssyer, A. Relaxant Effect of Aqueous Extract of Cistus Ladaniferus on Rodent Intestinal Contractions. Fitoterapia 2006, 77, 425–428. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. Belmokhtar, M.; Bouanani, N.E.; Ziyyat, A.; Mekhfi, H.; Bnouham, M.; Aziz, M.; Matéo, P.; Fischmeister, R.; Legssyer, A. Antihypertensive and Endothelium-Dependent Vasodilator Effects of Aqueous Extract of Cistus Ladaniferus. Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun. 2009, 389, 145–149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  20. Guinoiseau, E.; Luciani, A.; Serra, D.D.R.; Quilichini, Y.; Berti, L.; Lorenzi, V. Primary Mode of Action of &lt;I&gt;Cistus Ladaniferus&lt;/I&gt; L. Essential Oil Active Fractions on &lt;I&gt;Staphylococcus Aureus&lt;/I&gt; Strain. Adv. Microbiol. 2015, 05, 881–890. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. De Moraes Pultrini, A.; Almeida Galindo, L.; Costa, M. Effects of the Essential Oil from Citrus Aurantium L. in Experimental Anxiety Models in Mice. Life Sci. 2006, 78, 1720–1725. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Azanchi, T.; Shafaroodi, H.; Asgarpanah, J. Anticonvulsant Activity of Citrus Aurantium Blossom Essential Oil (Neroli): Involvment of the GABAergic System. Nat. Prod. Commun. 2014, 9, 1615–1618. [Google Scholar]
  23. Gumral, N.; Kumbul, D.D.; Aylak, F.; Saygin, M.; Savik, E. Juniperus Communis Linn Oil Decreases Oxidative Stress and Increases Antioxidant Enzymes in the Heart of Rats Administered a Diet Rich in Cholesterol. Toxicol. Ind. Health 2015, 31, 85–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Akdogan, M.; Koyu, A.; Çiriş, M.; Yildiz, K. Anti-Hypercholesterolemic Activity of Juniperus Communis Lynn Oil in Rats: A Biochemical and Histopathological Investigation. 2012, 23, 321–328.
  25. Lombrea, A.; Antal, D.; Ardelean, F.; Avram, S.; Pavel, I.Z.; Vlaia, L.; Mut, A.-M.; Diaconeasa, Z.; Dehelean, C.A.; Soica, C.; et al. A Recent Insight Regarding the Phytochemistry and Bioactivity of Origanum Vulgare L. Essential Oil. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2020, 21, 9653. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Kovačević, Z.; Kladar, N.; Čabarkapa, I.; Radinović, M.; Maletić, M.; Erdeljan, M.; Božin, B. New Perspective of Origanum Vulgare L. and Satureja Montana L. Essential Oils as Bovine Mastitis Treatment Alternatives. Antibiotics 2021, 10, 1460. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Fratini, F.; Giusti, M.; Mancini, S.; Pisseri, F.; Najar, B.; Pistelli, L. Evaluation of the in Vitro Antibacterial Activity of Some Essential Oils and Their Blends against Staphylococcus Spp. Isolated from Episodes of Sheep Mastitis. Rendiconti Lincei Sci. Fis. E Nat. 2021, 32, 407–416. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Naccari, V.; Orlandella, B.M.; Naccari, C. Effectiveness of Thymus Vulgaris Essential Oil on Ovine Mammary Pustular Dermatitis. Atti Della Accad. Peloritana Dei Pericolanti - Cl. Sci. Medico-Biol. 2019, 107, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Vaillancourt, K.; LeBel, G.; Yi, L.; Grenier, D. In Vitro Antibacterial Activity of Plant Essential Oils against Staphylococcus Hyicus and Staphylococcus Aureus, the Causative Agents of Exudative Epidermitis in Pigs. Arch. Microbiol. 2018, 200, 1001–1007. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Amat, S.; Magossi, G.; Rakibuzzaman, A.; Holman, D.B.; Schmidt, K.N.; Kosel, L.; Ramamoorthy, S. Screening and Selection of Essential Oils for an Intranasal Spray against Bovine Respiratory Pathogens Based on Antimicrobial, Antiviral, Immunomodulatory, and Antibiofilm Activities. Front. Vet. Sci. 2024, 11, 1360398. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  31. Braga Paiano, R.; Bonilla, J.; Moro De Sousa, R.L.; Micke Moreno, A.; Sampaio Baruselli, P. Chemical Composition and Antibacterial Activity of Essential Oils against Pathogens Often Related to Cattle Endometritis. J. Infect. Dev. Ctries. 2020, 14, 177–183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Naccari, C.; Cicero, N.; Orlandella, B.M.; Naccari, V.; Palma, E. Antimicrobial Activity of Essential Oils ( Citrus Bergamia Risso & Poiteau, Melaleuca Alternifolia and Chenopodium Botrys) on Pathogen Strains Isolated in Milk Samples from Mastitic Sheep. Nat. Prod. Res. 2024, 1–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Diniz, A.F.; Santos, B.; Nóbrega, L.M.M.O.; Santos, V.R.L.; Mariz, W.S.; Cruz, P.S.C.; Nóbrega, R.O.; Silva, R.L.; Paula, A.F.R.; Santos, J.R.D.A.; et al. Antibacterial Activity of Thymus Vulgaris (Thyme) Essential Oil against Strains of Pseudomonas Aeruginosa, Klebsiella Pneumoniae and Staphylococcus Saprophyticus Isolated from Meat Product. Braz. J. Biol. 2023, 83, e275306. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Ebani, V.V.; Mancianti, F. Use of Essential Oils in Veterinary Medicine to Combat Bacterial and Fungal Infections. Vet. Sci. 2020, 7, 193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Vavala, E.; Passariello, C.; Pepi, F.; Colone, M.; Garzoli, S.; Ragno, R.; Pirolli, A.; Stringaro, A.; Angiolella, L. Antibacterial Activity of Essential Oils Mixture against PSA. Nat. Prod. Res. 2016, 30, 412–418. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Iseppi, R.; Condò, C.; Messi, P. Synergistic Inhibition of Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus Aureus (MRSA) by Melaleuca Alternifolia Chell (Tea Tree) and Eucalyptus Globulus Labill. Essential Oils in Association with Oxacillin. Antibiotics 2023, 12, 846. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Sateriale, D.; Forgione, G.; De Cristofaro, G.A.; Facchiano, S.; Boscaino, F.; Pagliuca, C.; Colicchio, R.; Salvatore, P.; Paolucci, M.; Pagliarulo, C. Towards Green Strategies of Food Security: Antibacterial Synergy of Essential Oils from Thymus Vulgaris and Syzygium Aromaticum to Inhibit Escherichia Coli and Staphylococcus Aureus Pathogenic Food Isolates. Microorganisms 2022, 10, 2446. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  38. Acharya, V.V.; Chaudhuri, P. Modalities of Protein Denaturation and Nature of Denaturants. Int. J. Pharm. Sci. Rev. Res. 2021, 69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Silvestrini, B.; Silvestrini, M. Medical Implications of the Relationships among Protein Denaturation, Necrosis and Inflammation: An Intriguing Story. In Tendons - Trauma, Inflammation, Degeneration, and Treatment; Rosenberg, N., Ed.; IntechOpen, 2023 ISBN 978-1-83768-185-3.
  40. Agarwal, P.; Sebghatollahi, Z.; Kamal, M.; Dhyani, A.; Shrivastava, A.; Singh, K.K.; Sinha, M.; Mahato, N.; Mishra, A.K.; Baek, K.-H. Citrus Essential Oils in Aromatherapy: Therapeutic Effects and Mechanisms. Antioxidants 2022, 11, 2374. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. De Carvalho, F.O.; Silva, É.R.; Gomes, I.A.; Santana, H.S.R.; Do Nascimento Santos, D.; De Oliveira Souza, G.P.; De Jesus Silva, D.; Monteiro, J.C.M.; De Albuquerque Júnior, R.L.C.; De Souza Araújo, A.A.; et al. Anti-inflammatory and Antioxidant Activity of Carvacrol in the Respiratory System: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Phytother. Res. 2020, 34, 2214–2229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Salehi, B.; Upadhyay, S.; Erdogan Orhan, I.; Kumar Jugran, A.; L.D. Jayaweera, S.; A. Dias, D.; Sharopov, F.; Taheri, Y.; Martins, N.; Baghalpour, N.; et al. Therapeutic Potential of α- and β-Pinene: A Miracle Gift of Nature. Biomolecules 2019, 9, 738. [CrossRef]
  43. Chen, X.; Ding, Y.; Guan, H.; Zhou, C.; He, X.; Shao, Y.; Wang, Y.; Wang, N.; Lv, G.; Chen, S.-H. The Pharmacological Effects and Potential Applications of Limonene From Citrus Plants: A Review. Nat. Prod. Commun. 2024, 19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Nostro, A.; Blanco, A.R.; Cannatelli, M.A.; Enea, V.; Flamini, G.; Morelli, I.; Sudano Roccaro, A.; Alonzo, V. Susceptibility of Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococci to Oregano Essential Oil, Carvacrol and Thymol. FEMS Microbiol. Lett. 2004, 230, 191–195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Sela, F.; Karapandzova, M.; Stefkov, G.; Cvetkovikj, I.; Trajkovska-Dokik, E.; Kaftandzieva, A.; Kulevanova, S. Chemical Composition and Antimicrobial Activity of Leaves Essential Oil of Juniperus Communis (Cupressaceae) Grown in Republic of Macedonia. Maced. Pharm. Bull. 2013, 59, 23–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Ellouze, I.; Abderrabba, M.; Sabaou, N.; Mathieu, F.; Lebrihi, A.; Bouajila, J. Season’s Variation Impact on Citrus Aurantium Leaves Essential Oil: Chemical Composition and Biological Activities. J. Food Sci. 2012, 77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  47. Suntar, I.; Khan, H.; Patel, S.; Celano, R.; Rastrelli, L. An Overview on Citrus Aurantium L.: Its Functions as Food Ingredient and Therapeutic Agent. Oxid. Med. Cell. Longev. 2018, 2018, 7864269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  48. Munteanu, I.G.; Apetrei, C. Analytical Methods Used in Determining Antioxidant Activity: A Review. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2021, 22, 3380. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  49. Rúa, J.; Del Valle, P.; De Arriaga, D.; Fernández-Álvarez, L.; García-Armesto, M.R. Combination of Carvacrol and Thymol: Antimicrobial Activity Against Staphylococcus Aureus and Antioxidant Activity. Foodborne Pathog. Dis. 2019, 16, 622–629. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Silva, F.V.; Guimarães, A.G.; Silva, E.R.S.; Sousa-Neto, B.P.; Machado, F.D.F.; Quintans-Júnior, L.J.; Arcanjo, D.D.R.; Oliveira, F.A.; Oliveira, R.C.M. Anti-Inflammatory and Anti-Ulcer Activities of Carvacrol, a Monoterpene Present in the Essential Oil of Oregano. J. Med. Food 2012, 15, 984–991. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Landa, P.; Kokoska, L.; Pribylova, M.; Vanek, T.; Marsik, P. In Vitro Anti-Inflammatory Activity of Carvacrol: Inhibitory Effect on COX-2 Catalyzed Prostaglandin E2 Biosynthesisb. Arch. Pharm. Res. 2009, 32, 75–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Caelli, M.; Porteous, J.; Carson, C.F.; Heller, R.; Riley, T.V. Tea Tree Oil as an Alternative Topical Decolonization Agent for Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus Aureus. J. Hosp. Infect. 2000, 46, 236–237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  53. Edwards-Jones, V.; Buck, R.; Shawcross, S.G.; Dawson, M.M.; Dunn, K. The Effect of Essential Oils on Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus Aureus Using a Dressing Model. Burns 2004, 30, 772–777. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  54. Peng, Q.; Tang, X.; Dong, W.; Sun, N.; Yuan, W. A Review of Biofilm Formation of Staphylococcus Aureus and Its Regulation Mechanism. Antibiotics 2022, 12, 12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  55. Baj, T.; Kowalska, G.; Kowalski, R.; Szymańska, J.; Kai, G.; Coutinho, H.D.M.; Sieniawska, E. Synergistic Antioxidant Activity of Four—Component Mixture of Essential Oils: Basil, Cedarwood, Citronella and Thyme for the Use as Medicinal and Food Ingredient. Antioxidants 2023, 12, 577. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Mapeka, T.M.; Sandasi, M.; Viljoen, A.M.; Van Vuuren, S.F. Optimization of Antioxidant Synergy in a Polyherbal Combination by Experimental Design. Molecules 2022, 27, 4196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  57. Crespo, Y.A.; Bravo Sánchez, L.R.; Quintana, Y.G.; Cabrera, A.S.T.; Bermúdez Del Sol, A.; Mayancha, D.M.G. Evaluation of the Synergistic Effects of Antioxidant Activity on Mixtures of the Essential Oil from Apium Graveolens L., Thymus Vulgaris L. and Coriandrum Sativum L. Using Simplex-Lattice Design. Heliyon 2019, 5, e01942. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  58. Benyoucef, F.; Dib, M.E.A.; Arrar, Z.; Costa, J.; Muselli, A. Synergistic Antioxidant Activity and Chemical Composition of Essential Oils From Thymus Fontanesii, Artemisia Herba-Alba and Rosmarinus Officinalis. J. Appl. Biotechnol. Rep. 2018, 5, 151–156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Sharma, K.; Guleria, S.; Razdan, V.K.; Babu, V. Synergistic Antioxidant and Antimicrobial Activities of Essential Oils of Some Selected Medicinal Plants in Combination and with Synthetic Compounds. Ind. Crops Prod. 2020, 154, 112569. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Padilla-Camberos, E.; Sanchez-Hernandez, I.M.; Torres-Gonzalez, O.R.; Gallegos-Ortiz, M.D.R.; Méndez-Mona, A.L.; Baez-Moratilla, P.; Flores-Fernandez, J.M. Natural Essential Oil Mix of Sweet Orange Peel, Cumin, and Allspice Elicits Anti-Inflammatory Activity and Pharmacological Safety Similar to Non-Steroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drugs. Saudi J. Biol. Sci. 2022, 29, 3830–3837. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Djouahri, A.; Saka, B.; Boudarene, L.; Benseradj, F.; Aberrane, S.; Aitmoussa, S.; Chelghoum, C.; Lamari, L.; Sabaou, N.; Baaliouamer, A. In Vitro Synergistic/Antagonistic Antibacterial and Anti-Inflammatory Effect of Various Extracts/Essential Oil from Cones of Tetraclinis Articulata (Vahl) Masters with Antibiotic and Anti-Inflammatory Agents. Ind. Crops Prod. 2014, 56, 60–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Arooj, B.; Asghar, S.; Saleem, M.; Khalid, S.H.; Asif, M.; Chohan, T.; Khan, I.U.; Zubair, H.M.; Yaseen, H.S. Anti-Inflammatory Mechanisms of Eucalyptol Rich Eucalyptus Globulus Essential Oil Alone and in Combination with Flurbiprofen. Inflammopharmacology 2023, 31, 1849–1862. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  63. Zhang, L.; Virgous, C.; Si, H. Synergistic Anti-Inflammatory Effects and Mechanisms of Combined Phytochemicals. J. Nutr. Biochem. 2019, 69, 19–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Basavegowda, N.; Baek, K.-H. Synergistic Antioxidant and Antibacterial Advantages of Essential Oils for Food Packaging Applications. Biomolecules 2021, 11, 1267. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  65. Bassolé, I.H.N.; Juliani, H.R. Essential Oils in Combination and Their Antimicrobial Properties. Molecules 2012, 17, 3989–4006. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  66. Lambert, R.J.W.; Skandamis, P.N.; Coote, P.J.; Nychas, G.-J.E. A Study of the Minimum Inhibitory Concentration and Mode of Action of Oregano Essential Oil, Thymol and Carvacrol. J. Appl. Microbiol. 2001, 91, 453–462. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. De Azeredo, G.A.; Stamford, T.L.M.; Nunes, P.C.; Gomes Neto, N.J.; De Oliveira, M.E.G.; De Souza, E.L. Combined Application of Essential Oils from Origanum Vulgare L. and Rosmarinus Officinalis L. to Inhibit Bacteria and Autochthonous Microflora Associated with Minimally Processed Vegetables. Food Res. Int. 2011, 44, 1541–1548. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Nostro, A.; Papalia, T. Antimicrobial Activity of Carvacrol: Current Progress and Future Prospectives. Recent Patents Anti-Infect. Drug Disc. 2012, 7, 28–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Leite-Sampaio, N.F.; Gondim, C.N.F.L.; Martins, R.A.A.; Siyadatpanah, A.; Norouzi, R.; Kim, B.; Sobral-Souza, C.E.; Gondim, G.E.C.; Ribeiro-Filho, J.; Coutinho, H.D.M. Potentiation of the Activity of Antibiotics against ATCC and MDR Bacterial Strains with (+)-α-Pinene and (-)-Borneol. BioMed Res. Int. 2022, 2022, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  70. Gupta, A.; Jeyakumar, E.; Lawrence, R. Journey of Limonene as an Antimicrobial Agent. J. Pure Appl. Microbiol. 2021, 15, 1094–1110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Hachlafi, N.E.; Aanniz, T.; Menyiy, N.E.; Baaboua, A.E.; Omari, N.E.; Balahbib, A.; Shariati, M.A.; Zengin, G.; Fikri-Benbrahim, K.; Bouyahya, A. In Vitro and in Vivo Biological Investigations of Camphene and Its Mechanism Insights: A Review. Food Rev. Int. 2023, 39, 1799–1826. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. De Freitas, B.C.; Queiroz, P.A.; Baldin, V.P.; Do Amaral, P.H.; Rodrigues, L.L.; Vandresen, F.; R Caleffi-Ferracioli, K.; De L Scodro, R.B.; Cardoso, R.F.; Siqueira, V.L. (-)-Camphene-Based Derivatives as Potential Antibacterial Agents against Staphylococcus Aureus and Enterococcus Spp. Future Microbiol. 2020, 15, 1527–1534. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  73. Ameryckx, A.; Thabault, L.; Pochet, L.; Leimanis, S.; Poupaert, J.H.; Wouters, J.; Joris, B.; Van Bambeke, F.; Frédérick, R. 1-(2-Hydroxybenzoyl)-Thiosemicarbazides Are Promising Antimicrobial Agents Targeting d-Alanine-d-Alanine Ligase in Bacterio. Eur. J. Med. Chem. 2018, 159, 324–338. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  74. Yan, C.; Kuang, W.; Jin, L.; Wang, R.; Niu, L.; Xie, C.; Ding, J.; Liao, Y.; Wang, L.; Wan, H.; et al. Carvacrol Protects Mice against LPS-Induced Sepsis and Attenuates Inflammatory Response in Macrophages by Modulating the ERK1/2 Pathway. Sci. Rep. 2023, 13, 12809. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  75. Lima, M.D.S.; Quintans-Júnior, L.J.; De Santana, W.A.; Martins Kaneto, C.; Pereira Soares, M.B.; Villarreal, C.F. Anti-Inflammatory Effects of Carvacrol: Evidence for a Key Role of Interleukin-10. Eur. J. Pharmacol. 2013, 699, 112–117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Bakhtazad, S.; Ghotbeddin, Z.; Tabandeh, M.R.; Rahimi, K. Alpha-Pinene Ameliorate Behavioral Deficit Induced by Early Postnatal Hypoxia in the Rat: Study the Inflammatory Mechanism. Sci. Rep. 2024, 14, 6416. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  77. Kim, D.-S.; Lee, H.-J.; Jeon, Y.-D.; Han, Y.-H.; Kee, J.-Y.; Kim, H.-J.; Shin, H.-J.; Kang, J.; Lee, B.S.; Kim, S.-H.; et al. Alpha-Pinene Exhibits Anti-Inflammatory Activity Through the Suppression of MAPKs and the NF-κB Pathway in Mouse Peritoneal Macrophages. Am. J. Chin. Med. 2015, 43, 731–742. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Bach, H.; Bach, H. Antimicrobial and Anti-Inflammatory Activities of Commercial Aromatizing Fragrances. Future Sci. OA 2021, 7, FSO704. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Kummer, R.; Fachini-Queiroz, F.C.; Estevão-Silva, C.F.; Grespan, R.; Silva, E.L.; Bersani-Amado, C.A.; Cuman, R.K.N. Evaluation of Anti-Inflammatory Activity of Citrus Latifolia Tanaka Essential Oil and Limonene in Experimental Mouse Models. Evid. Based Complement. Alternat. Med. 2013, 2013, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  80. Elbouzidi, A.; Taibi, M.; Laaraj, S.; Loukili, E.H.; Haddou, M.; El Hachlafi, N.; Naceiri Mrabti, H.; Baraich, A.; Bellaouchi, R.; Asehraou, A.; et al. Chemical Profiling of Volatile Compounds of the Essential Oil of Grey-Leaved Rockrose (Cistus Albidus L.) and Its Antioxidant, Anti-Inflammatory, Antibacterial, Antifungal, and Anticancer Activity in Vitro and in Silico. Front. Chem. 2024, 12, 1334028. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  81. Costa, R.; De Fina, M.R.; Valentino, M.R.; Crupi, M.L.; Mondello, L. APPLICATION OF A NEW GC-MS LIBRARY, DESIGNED WITH A RETENTION INDEX FILTER TOOL, TO THE ANALYSIS OF THE ESSENTIAL OIL OF CISTUS LADANIFER. Acta Hortic. 2009, 271–276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Weinstein, M.P.; Patel, J.B. Methods for Dilution Antimicrobial Susceptibility Tests for Bacteria That Grow Aerobically: M07-A11; Documents / Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute; 11. edition.; Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards: Wayne, PA, 2018; ISBN 978-1-56238-836-2. [Google Scholar]
  83. Marini, E.; Di Giulio, M.; Magi, G.; Di Lodovico, S.; Cimarelli, M.E.; Brenciani, A.; Nostro, A.; Cellini, L.; Facinelli, B. Curcumin, an Antibiotic Resistance Breaker against a Multiresistant Clinical Isolate of Mycobacterium Abscessus. Phytother. Res. 2018, 32, 488–495. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  84. EUCAST Terminology Relating to Methods for the Determination of Susceptibility of Bacteria to Antimicrobial Agents. Clin. Microbiol. Infect. 2000, 6, 503–508. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  85. Mulyaningsih, S.; Sporer, F.; Zimmermann, S.; Reichling, J.; Wink, M. Synergistic Properties of the Terpenoids Aromadendrene and 1,8-Cineole from the Essential Oil of Eucalyptus Globulus against Antibiotic-Susceptible and Antibiotic-Resistant Pathogens. Phytomedicine 2010, 17, 1061–1066. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Nostro, A.; Roccaro, A.S.; Bisignano, G.; Marino, A.; Cannatelli, M.A.; Pizzimenti, F.C.; Cioni, P.L.; Procopio, F.; Blanco, A.R. Effects of Oregano, Carvacrol and Thymol on Staphylococcus Aureus and Staphylococcus Epidermidis Biofilms. J. Med. Microbiol. 2007, 56, 519–523. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Dehimi, K.; Speciale, A.; Saija, A.; Dahamna, S.; Raciti, R.; Cimino, F.; Cristani, M. Antioxidant and Anti-Inflammatory Properties of Algerian Thymelaea Microphylla Coss. and Dur. Extracts. Pharmacogn. Mag. 2016, 12, 203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  88. Chelly, S.; Chelly, M.; Occhiuto, C.; Cimino, F.; Cristani, M.; Saija, A.; Molonia, M.S.; Ruberto, G.; D’Angelo, V.; Germanò, M.P.; et al. Evaluation of Antioxidant, Anti-Inflammatory and Antityrosinase Potential of Extracts from Different Aerial Parts of Rhanterium Suaveolens from Tunisia. Chem. Biodivers. 2021, 18, e2100316. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  89. Chelly, M.; Chelly, S.; Occhiuto, C.; Cimino, F.; Cristani, M.; Saija, A.; Muscarà, C.; Ruberto, G.; Speciale, A.; Bouaziz-Ketata, H.; et al. Comparison of Phytochemical Profile and Bioproperties of Methanolic Extracts from Different Parts of Tunisian Rumex Roseus. Chem. Biodivers. 2021, 18, e2100185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  90. Belkhodja; Meddah; Sidelarbi; Bouhadi; Medjadel; Brakna IN VITRO AND IN VIVO ANTI-INFLAMMATORY POTENTIAL OF EUCALYPTUS GLOBULUS ESSENTIAL OIL. 2022. [CrossRef]
Preprints 141184 g001aPreprints 141184 g001b
Figure 1. Chemical composition of (a) Citrus aurantium L. var. amara L., (b) Cistus ladaniferus L., (c) Juniperus communis L. and (d) Origanum vulgare L. EOs.
Figure 1. Chemical composition of (a) Citrus aurantium L. var. amara L., (b) Cistus ladaniferus L., (c) Juniperus communis L. and (d) Origanum vulgare L. EOs.
Preprints 141184 g001aPreprints 141184 g001b
Preprints 141184 g002aPreprints 141184 g002b
Figure 2. Isobolograms depicting the effect of O. vulgare L. in combination with C. Ladaniferus L., C. aurantium var. amara L. and J. communis L. against S. aureus ATCC 6538 and MRSA ATCC 43300, determined by the checkerboard test and calculation of the fractional inhibitory concentration (FIC).
Figure 2. Isobolograms depicting the effect of O. vulgare L. in combination with C. Ladaniferus L., C. aurantium var. amara L. and J. communis L. against S. aureus ATCC 6538 and MRSA ATCC 43300, determined by the checkerboard test and calculation of the fractional inhibitory concentration (FIC).
Preprints 141184 g002aPreprints 141184 g002b
Preprints 141184 g003
Figure 3. Reduction of biofilm of S. aureus ATCC 6538 in the presence of sub-synergistic concentrations of 1/4 + 1/4 EOs combination.
Figure 3. Reduction of biofilm of S. aureus ATCC 6538 in the presence of sub-synergistic concentrations of 1/4 + 1/4 EOs combination.
Preprints 141184 g003
Preprints 141184 g004
Figure 4. Effect on heat-induced protein denaturation of EOs alone and in combination (1:1), expressed as IC50 (inhibitory concentration 50%). Standard anti-inflammatory drug: Diclofenac (sodium salt). Results are expressed as means ± SD of three different experiments. Means with the same letter are not significantly different for each other (p>0.05).
Figure 4. Effect on heat-induced protein denaturation of EOs alone and in combination (1:1), expressed as IC50 (inhibitory concentration 50%). Standard anti-inflammatory drug: Diclofenac (sodium salt). Results are expressed as means ± SD of three different experiments. Means with the same letter are not significantly different for each other (p>0.05).
Preprints 141184 g004
Table 1. Main components of Citrus aurantium L. var. amara (a), Cistus ladaniferus L. (b), Juniperus communis L.(c) and Origanum vulgare L. (d) EOs identification by GC-MS analysis. (RI exp: Lineare Ritention Index calculated RI pub: Lineare Ritention Indices based on library NIST 11webbook).
Table 1. Main components of Citrus aurantium L. var. amara (a), Cistus ladaniferus L. (b), Juniperus communis L.(c) and Origanum vulgare L. (d) EOs identification by GC-MS analysis. (RI exp: Lineare Ritention Index calculated RI pub: Lineare Ritention Indices based on library NIST 11webbook).
(a) Citrus aurantium L. var. amara.
Peak Compound RI exp RI pub Area (%)Mean (n = 3) std.dev
1 a-pinene 930 932 0.88 0.03
2 sabinene 971 972 0.26 0.02
3 b-pinene 973 974 1.12 0.13
4 myrcene 990 991 3.45 0.11
5 octanal 995 998 0.02 0.01
6 p-mentha-1(7),8-diene 1001 1003 0.10 0.02
7 limonene 1027 1030 87.87 0.55
8 (E)-b-ocimene 1042 1044 0.03 0.01
9 octanol 1060 1063 0.06 0.01
10 terpinolene 1084 1086 0.03 0.01
11 linalool 1095 1095 0.30 0.03
12 nonanal 1098 1100 0.03 0.01
13 trans-p-2,8-menthadien-1-ol 1120 1122 0.14 0.02
14 cis-limonene oxide 1149 1152 0.45 0.02
15 trans-limonene oxide 1158 1160 0.34 0.03
16 trans-isocarveol 1187 1189 0.04 0.01
17 α-terpineol 1192 1195 0.59 0.03
18 decanal 1198 1201 0.12 0.02
19 octyl acetate 1207 1211 0.06 0.01
20 trans-carveol 1213 1215 0.20 0.03
21 cis-carveol 1224 1226 0.16 0.01
22 neral 1233 1235 0.11 0.01
23 linalyl acetate 1250 1254 1.84 0.11
24 geranial 1261 1264 0.18 0.02
25 perillaldehyde 1275 1278 0.02 0.00
26 perilla alcohol 1295 1299 0.03 0.00
27 neryl acetate 1356 1359 0.06 0.01
28 geranyl acetate 1378 1379 0.27 0.03
29 (E)-caryophyllene 1416 1417 0.06 0.01
30 (E)-nerolidol 1561 1561 0.02 0.00
31 caryophyllene oxide 1580 1582 0.02 0.01
98.84 0.58
(b) Cistus ladaniferus L.
Peak Compound RI exp RI pub Area (%)Mean (n = 3) std.dev
1 1,2,3-trimethylcyclopentene 828 822 0.05 0.00
2 1,2,4,4-tetramethylcyclopentene 882 895 0.32 0.02
3 2-methyl-1-propenylcyclopentane 905 915 0.13 0.01
4 tricyclene 920 921 5.08 0.13
5 1,3-dimethylcyclohexanol 926 934 0.17 0.00
6 α-pinene 932 932 13.68 0.31
7 camphene 947 946 37.04 0.15
8 2-methyl-1-hepten-6-one 947 958 0.05 0.01
9 sabinene 970 972 0.08 0.01
10 β-pinene 975 974 0.52 0.03
11 6-methyl-5-hepten-2-one 989 986 0.05 0.01
12 trans-dehydroxylinalool oxide 992 991 0.12 0.02
13 cis-dehydroxylinalool oxide 1008 1006 0.06 0.00
14 p-cymene 1023 1025 0.72 0.05
15 limonene 1029 1030 0.30 0.02
16 1,8-cineole 1031 1031 0.04 0.00
17 2,2,6-trimethylcyclohexanone 1036 1035 3.95 0.10
18 seudenone 1057 1055 0.18 0.04
19 cis-linalool oxide 1072 1069 0.08 0.01
20 2-methylcyclopentanone 1078 1075 0.12 0.01
21 camphenilone 1082 1078 0.29 0.03
22 linalool 1098 1095 0.31 0.05
23 3,4-dimethylcyclohexanol 1108 1105 0.51 0.03
24 exo-fenchol 1121 1118 0.05 0.00
25 α-campholenal 1129 1126 0.23 0.02
26 3-nonen-2-one 1142 1137 0.15 0.01
27 nopinone 1145 1139 0.04 0.01
28 trans-pinocarveol 1147 1141 0.77 0.08
29 camphor 1149 1141 0.73 0.03
30 camphene hydrate 1155 1156 0.31 0.04
31 trans-pinocamphone 1158 1158 0.05 0.00
32 isoborneol 1166 1165 0.08 0.01
33 borneol 1170 1173 1.65 0.16
34 cis-pinocamphone 1178 1176 0.04 0.01
35 terpinen-4-ol 1182 1180 0.60 0.08
36 p-cymen-8-ol 1193 1189 0.18 0.03
37 α-terpineol + myrtenal 1197 1195 0.58 0.09
38 verbenone 1213 1208 0.15 0.01
39 trans-carveol 1228 1223 0.09 0.01
40 isobornyl formate 1235 1235 0.30 0.03
41 linalyl acetate 1256 1254 0.25 0.03
42 bornyl acetate 1290 1287 21.93 0.15
43 isobornyl acetate 1293 1287 0.09 0.01
44 trans-pinocarvyl acetate 1299 1296 0.28 0.02
45 cis-pinocarvyl acetate 1308 1311 0.06 0.01
46 α-cubebene 1345 1349 0.19 0.05
47 cyclosativene 1365 1367 0.57 0.04
48 α-copaene 1374 1374 0.17 0.03
49 sativene 1386 1390 0.14 0.01
50 (E)-caryophyllene 1415 1417 0.03 0.00
51 alloaromadendrene 1462 1458 0.27 0.05
52 γ-muurolene 1477 1478 0.08 0.01
53 viridiflorene 1493 1496 0.22 0.01
54 α-muurolene 1502 1500 0.14 0.02
55 δ-cadinene 1516 1518 0.25 0.02
56 trans-calamenene 1522 1521 0.35 0.03
57 α-calacorene 1542 1544 0.06 0.01
58 palustrol 1569 1567 0.14 0.02
59 spathulenol 1572 1577 0.05 0.02
60 caryophyllene oxide 1581 1582 0.20 0.02
61 viridiflorol 1589 1592 1.03 0.06
62 ledol 1596 1602 0.26 0.03
63 copaborneol 1615 1613 0.27 0.04
64 1-epicubenol 1625 1627 0.06 0.00
65 α-cadinol 1638 1641 0.05 0.01
66 cadalene 1672 1675 0.05 0.01
67 10-nor-Calamenen-10-one 1699 1702 0.03 0.01
TOTAL 97.08 0.48
(c) Juniperus communis L.
Peak Compound RI exp RI pub Area (%)Mean (n = 3) std.dev
1 tricyclene 920 921 0.07 0.01
2 α-thujene 923 924 1.35 0.08
3 α-pinene 932 932 42.01 0.12
4 α-fenchene 945 948 0.02 0.00
5 camphene 947 946 0.26 0.03
6 thuja-2,4(10)-diene 955 953 0.04 0.01
7 verbenene 960 961 0.02 0.01
8 sabinene 970 972 11.66 0.12
9 β-pinene 973 974 2.38 0.27
10 myrcene 990 991 10.72 0.23
11 δ–2-carene 998 1000 0.05 0.01
12 α–phellandrene 1001 1002 0.26 0.02
13 δ–3-carene 1005 1008 0.17 0.02
14 α–terpinene 1015 1018 0.89 0.08
15 p-cymene 1023 1025 1.04 0.11
16 limonene 1029 1030 6.36 0.17
17 (E)-β-ocimene 1043 1044 0.10 0.02
18 pentyl isobutyrate 1048 1049 0.02 0.01
19 γ-terpinene 1054 1054 1.65 0.12
20 cis-sabinene hydrate 1065 1069 0.04 0.01
21 terpinolene 1083 1086 1.16 0.08
22 p-cymenene 1087 1089 0.09 0.01
23 linalool 1090 1095 0.17 0.01
24 isopentyl isovalerate 1101 1102 0.09 0.01
25 β-thujone 1117 1118 0.02 0.00
26 cis-p-menth-2-en-1-ol 1120 1124 0.07 0.01
27 trans-pinocarveol 1139 1141 0.16 0.02
28 trans-verbenol 1144 1145 0.06 0.01
29 isoborneol 1163 1165 0.08 0.01
30 terpinen-4-ol 1171 1174 2.97 0.14
31 p-cymen-8-ol 1178 1179 0.11 0.01
32 α-terpineol 1183 1186 0.37 0.03
33 verbenone 1201 1204 0.07 0.01
34 trans-carveol 1214 1215 0.03 0.01
35 citronellol 1220 1223 0.02 0.01
36 methyl citronellate 1255 1257 0.07 0.01
37 isobornyl acetate 1279 1283 0.33 0.02
38 2-undecanone 1291 1293 0.05 0.01
39 α-terpinyl acetate 1344 1346 0.05 0.01
40 α-cubebene 1342 1345 0.47 0.04
41 α-copaene 1372 1374 0.38 0.02
42 β-elemene 1388 1389 0.78 0.05
43 sibirene 1398 1400 0.24 0.01
44 longifolene 1406 1407 0.04 0.01
45 (E)-caryophyllene 1415 1417 1.89 0.13
46 γ-elemene 1430 1432 0.14 0.01
47 β-copaene 1428 1430 0.08 0.01
48 cis-thujopsene 1432 1433 0.08 0.01
49 (E)-β-farnesene 1452 1452 0.38 0.03
50 γ-humulene 1454 1454 1.79 0.09
51 trans-cadina-1(6),4-diene 1472 1475 0.10 0.02
52 γ-muurolene 1478 1478 0.44 0.04
53 germacrene D 1481 1480 2.04 0.10
54 valencene 1493 1492 0.23 0.03
55 bicyclogermacrene 1501 1500 0.64 0.06
56 β-bisabolene 1507 1505 0.09 0.01
57 γ-cadinene 1515 1512 0.34 0.02
58 δ-cadinene 1520 1518 1.20 0.12
59 selina-4(15),7(11)-diene 1542 1540 0.11 0.02
60 selina-3,7(11)-diene 1546 1545 0.10 0.01
61 (E)-nerolidol 1563 1561 0.09 0.01
62 germacrene B 1565 1559 0.79 0.06
63 spathulenol 1580 1577 0.09 0.01
64 caryophyllene oxide 1583 1582 0.20 0.03
65 humulene epoxide II 1610 1608 0.10 0.01
66 1-epicubenol 1627 1627 0.04 0.01
67 τ-muurolol 1641 1640 0.11 0.02
68 α-cadinol 1652 1652 0.12 0.03
TOTAL 98.22 1.80
(d) Origanum vulgare L.
Peak Compound RI exp RI pub Area (%)Mean (n = 3) std.dev
1 methyl 2-methylbutyrate 768 769 0.10 0.02
2 (3Z)-hexenol 850 853 0.01 0.01
3 3-heptanone 886 885 0.01 0.01
4 tricyclene 920 921 0.01 0.01
5 α-thujene 923 924 1.81 0.02
6 α-pinene 932 932 0.74 0.07
7 camphene 947 946 0.18 0.01
8 sabinene 970 972 1.43 0.12
9 1-octen-3-ol 980 978 0.59 0.03
10 3-octanone 986 986 0.11 0.02
11 myrcene 990 991 1.97 0.08
12 3-octanol 997 999 0.02 0.01
13 α–phellandrene 1001 1002 0.16 0.02
14 δ–3-carene 1005 1008 0.05 0.00
15 α–terpinene 1015 1018 1.23 0.12
16 p-cymene 1023 1025 11.06 0.34
17 limonene 1029 1030 0.21 0.04
18 β-phellandrene 1031 1031 0.16 0.03
19 (Z)-β-ocimene 1033 1032 0.87 0.11
20 (E)-β-ocimene 1043 1044 0.68 0.04
21 γ-terpinene 1054 1054 13.71 0.24
22 cis-sabinene hydrate 1065 1069 0.46 0.05
23 terpinolene 1083 1086 0.08 0.01
24 p-cymenene 1087 1089 0.02 0.00
25 linalool 1090 1095 0.26 0.03
26 trans-sabinene hydrate 1097 1098 0.18 0.02
27 cis-p-menth-2-en-1-ol 1115 1118 0.02 0.00
28 borneol 1170 1173 0.28 0.01
29 terpinen-4-ol 1171 1174 0.57 0.07
30 p-cymen-8-ol 1178 1179 0.01 0.00
31 α-terpineol 1183 1186 0.18 0.01
32 (Z)-dihydrocarvone 1210 1207 0.03 0.01
33 (E)-dihydrocarvone 1217 1215 0.02 0.00
34 carvacryl methyl ether 1243 1239 0.52 0.07
35 pulegone 1245 1241 0.02 0.01
36 carvone 1250 1246 0.03 0.01
37 thymol 1290 1289 1.13 0.14
38 carvacrol 1315 1317 56.43 0.57
39 α-cubebene 1342 1345 0.02 0.01
40 carvacrol acetate 1369 1370 0.03 0.01
41 α-copaene 1372 1374 0.03 0.01
42 β-bourbonene 1384 1382 0.08 0.01
43 β-elemene 1388 1389 0.03 0.01
44 (E)-caryophyllene 1415 1417 1.65 0.29
45 β-copaene 1428 1430 0.05 0.01
46 α-humulene 1454 1454 0.17 0.02
47 ε-muurolene 1455 1453 0.05 0.01
48 γ-muurolene 1481 1478 0.05 0.01
49 germacrene D 1481 1480 0.28 0.04
50 γ-amorphene 1496 1495 0.04 0.01
51 (E,E)-α-farnesene 1505 1505 0.39 0.04
52 β-bisabolene 1507 1505 0.60 0.04
53 γ-cadinene 1515 1512 0.07 0.01
54 δ-cadinene 1520 1518 0.17 0.03
55 (E)-α-bisabolene 1542 1540 0.04 0.01
56 spathulenol 1580 1577 0.12 0.04
57 caryophyllene oxide 1583 1582 0.20 0.03
58 humulene epoxide II 1610 1608 0.01 0.01
59 τ-muurolol 1641 1640 0.02 0.01
60 α-cadinol 1652 1652 0.03 0.01
TOTAL 99.34 0.30
Table 2. Antibacterial activity of the EOs tested.
Table 2. Antibacterial activity of the EOs tested.
Strains Cistus
Ladaniferus L.		 Citrus auratium L.
var. amara 		Juniperus communis L. Origanum
vulgare L.
MIC MBC MIC MBC MIC MBC MIC MBC
(%, v/v)
S. aureus ATCC 6538 0.25 0.5 1 >1 1 >1 0.0312 0.0625
S. aureus (MRSA) ATCC 43300 0.5 1 1 >1 1 >1 0.125 0.25
E. coli ATCC 10536 0.5 1 1 >1 1 >1 0.0625 0.125
Table 3. Antibacterial activities of O. vulgare L. in combination with the other EOs, determined by the checkerboard test and calculation of the fractional inhibitory concentration (FIC) and fractional inhibitory concentration index (FICI).
Table 3. Antibacterial activities of O. vulgare L. in combination with the other EOs, determined by the checkerboard test and calculation of the fractional inhibitory concentration (FIC) and fractional inhibitory concentration index (FICI).
Strains Checkerboard Best combinationa
FIC FICI Effect
S. aureus
ATCC 6538		 O. vulgare L./C. ladaniferus L. 0.250/0.250 0.5 Synergy
O. vulgare L./C. aurantium L.var. amara 0.250/0.125 0.375 Synergy
O. vulgare L./J. Communis L. 0.250/0.062 0.312 Synergy
S. aureus (MRSA)
ATCC 43300		 O. vulgare L./C. ladaniferus L. 0.5/0.125 0.625 Additive
O. vulgare L./C. aurantium L. var. amara 0.250/0.5 0.75 Additive
O. vulgare L./J. Communis L. 0.5/0.5 1 Additive
E. coli
ATCC 10536		 O. vulgare L./C. ladaniferus L. 1/0.5 1.5 Indifference
O. vulgare L./C. aurantium L.var. amara 1/0.5 1.5 Indifference
O. vulgare L./J. Communis L. 1/0.25 1.25 Indifference
aBest combination of sub-MICs of EOs yielding the lowest FICI.
Table 4. Antioxidant activity of the tested EOs in three different in vitro redox-based assays.
Table 4. Antioxidant activity of the tested EOs in three different in vitro redox-based assays.
Species EC50 (mg/ml)
DPPH ABTS FRAP
C. ladaniferus L. a 804.4 ± 49.4 a 647.1 ± 85.7 a 954.1 ± 50.9
C. aurantiumL. var. amara b 924.2 ± 25.6 b 1077.3 ± 65.3 b 1062.0 ± 53.9
J. communis L. c 720.5 ± 89.7 c 786.1 ± 18.7 c728.8 ± 50.9
O. vulgare L. d188.5 ± 37.8 d407.0 ± 72.4 d556.1 ± 63.6
Trolox 149.6 ± 35.7 61.3 ± 8.5
FeSO4 66.73 ± 9.9
For each assay, means with the same letter are not significantly different for each other (p>0.05 ).
Table 5. Antioxidant activities of the combinations (1:1 v/v) of EOs in the DPPH, ABTS, and FRAP assays.
Table 5. Antioxidant activities of the combinations (1:1 v/v) of EOs in the DPPH, ABTS, and FRAP assays.
Combinations EC50 (μg/ml)
DPPH ABTS FRAP
O. vulgareL./C. ladaniferusL. a 144.3 ± 33.2 a b 291.0 ± 68.6 a 338.8 ± 27.4
O. vulgareL./C. aurantium L. var. amara b 275.3 ± 24.9 b366.2 ± 50.5 b 421.1 ± 31.3
O. vulgareL./J. communis L. c 207.7 ± 21.6 a 265.3 ± 30.8 a 298.6 ± 21.7
For each assay, means with the same letter are not significantly different for each other (p>0.05).
Table 6. Effect of EOs in combination in DPPH, ABTS, FRAP assay, expressed as sum of fractional inhibitory concentration index (ΣFIC).
Table 6. Effect of EOs in combination in DPPH, ABTS, FRAP assay, expressed as sum of fractional inhibitory concentration index (ΣFIC).
Combination DPPH ABTS FRAP
ΣFIC Effect ΣFIC Effect ΣFIC Effect
O. vulgareL./C. ladaniferusL. 0.945 Additive 1.165 Indifference 0.964 Additive
O. vulgareL./C. aurantium L. var. amara 1.758 Indifference 1.240 Indifference 1.154 Indifference
O. vulgareL./J. communis L. 1.390 Indifference 0.989 Additive 0.947 Additive
Table 7. Effect of EOs assoxiations in BSA denaturation assay, expressed as sum of fractional inhibitory concentration index (ΣFIC).
Table 7. Effect of EOs assoxiations in BSA denaturation assay, expressed as sum of fractional inhibitory concentration index (ΣFIC).
Combination BSA
ΣFIC Interaction
O. vulgare L./C. ladaniferusL. 0.964 Additive
O. vulgare L./C. aurantium L. var. amara 1.774 Indifference
O. vulgare L./J. communis L. 0.862 Additive
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.
Copyright: This open access article is published under a Creative Commons CC BY 4.0 license, which permit the free download, distribution, and reuse, provided that the author and preprint are cited in any reuse.
Prerpints.org logo

Preprints.org is a free preprint server supported by MDPI in Basel, Switzerland.

facebook logotwitter logolinkedin logo
MDPI Initiatives
Important Links
Subscribe

Disclaimer

Terms of Use

Privacy Policy

© 2024 MDPI (Basel, Switzerland) unless otherwise stated