THE EFFECT OF ANTIOXIDANTS AND PH ON PHOTOOXIDATIVE STRESS WITH METHYLENE BLUE OF E. COLI, S. AUREUS AND C. ALBICANS

Year 2021, , 69 - 78, 25.01.2021

Önder İdil , Cihan Darcan

https://doi.org/10.18036/estubtdc.632471

Abstract

In this study, the effects of photooxidative stress on
different microorganism groups (gram positive, gram negative and eukaryote) and
the role of pH and antioxidants on this effect were investigated. The study was
performed under 3 day light fluorescent lamps (total 4950 lux) in phosphate
buffer (5.0, 6.0, 7.0, and 8.0) at different pH values. As a result, the colony counts of Escherichia coli, Sthapylococcus aureus
and Candida albicans were not
decreased under photooxidative stress according to the starting number at pH
5.0 and 6.0. while E. coli and S. aureus
at pH 8.0 were decreased 3 log and 3.38 log, 
it were decreased 1.27 and 1.56 log at pH 7.0. Similarly, C.
albicans decreased 0,35 log at pH 7.0 and 0.75 log at pH 8.0. T₉₉
value at pH 8.0 was determined as 4.0 hours for E. coli, 3.5 hours for S.
aureus, and 15.7 hours for C.
albicans (p < 0.05). When the effects of NaCl, Mannitol and ascorbic
acid on photooxidative stressed microorganisms were examined, it was determined
that NaCl protected microorganisms against photooxidative stress, and ascorbic
acid and mannitol changed their effect according to microorganism. In
conclusion, photooxidative stress were found to be more effective to Gram
positive than gram negative bacteria, more effective to bacteria than
eukaryotes. The effectiveness of photooxidative stress has been determined to be quite
high at alkaline pH. It was also determined that there is a direct relationship
between the effect of photooxidative stress and pH and osmolarity. It has been found that
Ascorbic acid and Mannitol are not protective against photooxidative stress in
Gram-positive and eukaryotic cell. Yet the cause of this condition is unknown.

Keywords

Photooxidative stres, E. coli, Mannitol, Ascorbic acid, S. aureus, C. albicans

THE EFFECT OF ANTIOXIDANTS AND PH ON PHOTOOXIDATIVE STRESS WITH METHYLENE BLUE OF E. COLI, S. AUREUS AND C. ALBICANS

Abstract

In this study, the effect of photooxidative stress on different microorganism groups (Gram positive, Gram negative and Eukaryote) and the role of pH and antioxidants on this effect were investigated. The study was performed under 3 day light fluorescent lamps (total 4950 lux) in phosphate buffer (5.0, 6.0, 7.0, and 8.0) at different pH values. As a result, the colony counts of Escherichia coli, Sthapylococcus aureus and Candida albicans were not decreased under photooxidative stress according to the starting number at pH 5.0 and 6.0. While E. coli and S. aureus at pH 8.0 were decreased 3 log and 3.38 log, it were decreased 1.27 and 1.56 log at pH 7.0. Similarly, C. albicans decreased 0.35 log at pH 7.0 and 0.75 log at pH 8.0. T99 value at pH 8.0 was determined as 4.0 hours for E. coli, 3.5 hours for S. aureus, and 15.7 hours for C. albicans (p < 0.05). When the effects of NaCl, Mannitol and ascorbic acid on photooxidative stressed microorganisms were examined, it was determined that NaCl protected microorganisms against photooxidative stress, and ascorbic acid and mannitol changed their effect according to microorganism. In conclusion, photooxidative stress were found to be more effective to Gram positive than Gram negative bacteria, more effective to bacteria than eukaryotes. The effectiveness of photooxidative stress has been determined to be quite high at alkaline pH. It was also determined that there is a direct relationship between the effect of photooxidative stress and pH and osmolarity. It has been found that Ascorbic acid and Mannitol are not protective against photooxidative stress in Gram-positive and eukaryotic cell. Yet the cause of this condition is unknown.

Keywords

Photooxidative stres,, E. coli,, S. aureus,

References

• [1] McClary JS, Sassoubre LM, Boehm AB. Staphylococcus aureus strain Newman photoinactivation and cellular response to sunlight exposure. Appl Environ Microbiol, 2017; 83, 17: e01052-17.
• [2] Onduka T, Ojima D, Ito K, Mochida K, Ito M, Koyama J, Fujii K. Photo-induced toxicity and oxidative stress responses in Tigriopus japonicus exposed to nitro-polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and artificial light. Chemosphere, 2017; 169: 596-603.
• [3] Yang B, Chen Y, Shi J. Reactive oxygen species (ROS)-based nanomedicine. Chem. Rev. 2019; 119, 8: 4881-4985.
• [4] Ezraty B, Gennaris A, Barras F, Collet JF. Oxidative stress, protein damage and repair in bacteria. Nat Rev Microbiol, 2017; 15: 385–396.
• [5] Berra CM, Oliveira CS, Garcia CCM, Rocha CRR, Lerner LK, Andrade LCL, Baptista MS, Menck CFM. Nucleotide excision repair activity on DNA damage induced by photoactivated methylene blue. Free Radic Biol Med, 2013; 61C: 343-356.
• [6] Lemire J, Alhasawi A, Appanna VP, Tharmalingam S, Appanna VD. Metabolic defence against oxidative stress: the road less travelled so far. J App Microbiol, 2017; 123: 798-809.
• [7] Cornelis P, Wei Q, Andrews SC, Vinckx T. Iron homeostasis and management of oxidative stress response in bacteria, Metallomics, 2011; 3: 540-549.
• [8] Imlay JA. Pathways of oxidative damage. Annu Rev Microbiol. 2003; 57: 395–418.
• [9] Wink DA, Hines HB, Cheng RY, Switzer CH, Flores-Santana W, Vitek MP, Ridnour LA, Colton CA. Nitric oxide and redox mechanisms in the immune response. J Leukoc Biol. 2011; 89, 6: 873-891.
• [10] Robertson CA, Evans DH, Abrahamse H. Photodynamic therapy (PDT): A short review on cellular mechanisms and cancer research applications for PDT. J Photochem Photobiol B, 2009; 96, 1: 1-8.
• [11] İdil Ö, Macit İ, Kaygusuz Ö, Darcan C. The role of oxidative stress genes and effect of pH on methylene blue sensitized photooxidation of Escherichia coli. Acta Biol Hung, 2016; 67 (1): 85-98.
• [12] İdil Ö, Özkanca R, Darcan C, Flint KP. Escherichia coli: Dominance of red light over other visible light sources in establishing viable but nonculturable state. Photochem Photobiol, 2010; 86 (1): 104-109.
• [13] Eisenberg TN, Middlebrooks EJ, Adams VD. Sensitized photooxidation for wastewater disinfection and detoxification. Water Science and Technology, 1987; 19, 7: 1255-1258.
• [14] Adrienne T. Cooper, D. Yogi Goswami (2002) Evaluation of methylene blue and rose bengal for dye sensitized solar water treatment. J Sol Energy Eng, 124(3): 305-310.
• [15] Acher AJ, Fischer E, Zellingher R, Manor Y. Photochemical disinfection of effluents—pilot plant studies. Water Research, 1990; 24, 7: 837-843.
• [16] Acher AJ, Fischer E, Manor Y. Sunlight disinfection of domestic effluents for agricultural use Water Research, 1994; 28, 5: 1153-1160.
• [17] Brovko LY, Meyer A, Tiwana AS, Chen W, Liu H, Filipe CD, Griffiths MW. Photodynamic treatment: A novel method for sanitation of food handling and food processing surfaces. J Food Prot, 2009; 72, 5: 1020-1024.
• [18] Souza RC, Junqueira JC, Rossoni RD, Pereira CA, Munin E, Jorge AOC. Comparison of the photodynamic fungicidal efficacy of methylene blue, toluidine blue, malachite green and low-power laser irradiation alone against Candida albicans. Lasers Med Sci, 2010; 25, 3: 385–389.
• [19] Vilela SFG, Junqueira JC, Barbosa JO, Majewski M, Munin E, Jorge AOC. Photodynamic inactivation of Staphylococcus aureus and Escherichia coli biofilms by malachite green and phenothiazine dyes: An in vitro study. Arch Oral Biol, 2012; 57, 6: 704-710.
• [20] Rolim JP, de-Melo MA, Guedes SF, Albuquerque-Filho FB, de Souza JR, Nogueira NA, Zanin IC, Rodrigues LK. The antimicrobial activity of photodynamic therapy against Streptococcus mutans using different photosensitizers. J Photochem Photobiol B, 2012; 106: 40-46.
• [21] Prates RA, Yamada AM Jr, Suzuki LC, Eiko Hashimoto MC, Cai S, Gouw-Soares S, Gomes L, Ribeiro MS. Bactericidal effect of malachite green and red laser on Actinobacillus actinomycetemcomitans. J Photochem Photobiol B, 2007; 86, 1: 70-76.
• [22] Junqueira JC, Ribeiro MA, Rossoni RD, Barbosa JO, Querido SMR, Jorge AOC. Antimicrobial photodynamic therapy: Photodynamic antimicrobial effects of malachite on Staphylococcus, Enterobacteriaceae and Candida. Photomed Laser Surg, 2010; 28, S1 : S67-72.
• [23] Souza SC, Junqueira JC, Balducci I, Ito CYK, Munin E, Jorge AOC. Photosensitization of different Candida species by low power laser light. J Photochem Photobiol B, 2006; 83, 1: 34-38.
• [24] Cristobal-Paz MP, Royo D, Rezusta A, Ciriano-Andrés E, Alejandre MC, Meis JF, Revillo MJ, Aspiroz C, Nonell S, Gilaberte Y. Photodynamic fungicidal efficacy of hypericin and dimethyl methylene blue against azole resistant Candida albicans strains. Mycoses, 2014; 57: 35-42.
• [25] Alkaim AF, Aljeboree AM, Alrazaq NA, Baqır SJ, Hussein FH, Lilo AJ. Effect of pH on adsorption and photocatalytic degradation efficiency of different catalysts on removal of methylene blue. Asian Journal of Chemistry, 2014; 26, 24: 8445-8448.
• [26] Clements MO, Foster SJ. Stress resistance in Staphylococcus aureus. Trends Microbiol. 1999; 7, 11: 458-462.
• [27] Arrigoni O, De Tullio MC. Ascorbic acid: much more than just an antioxidant. Biochimica et Biophysica Acta (BBA) 2002; 1569 1–3: 1-9.
• [28] Buettner GR, Doherty TP, Bannister TD. Hydrogen peroxide and hydroxyl radical formation by methylene blue in the presence of ascorbic acid. Radiat Environ Biophys, 1984; 23: 235-243.
• [29] Yang MJ, Hung YA, Wong TW, Lee NY, Yuann JMP, Huang ST, Wu CY, Chen IZ, Liang JY. Effects of blue-light-induced free radical formation from catechin hydrate on the inactivation of Acinetobacter baumannii, including a Carbapenem-resistant strain. Molecules, 2018, 23, 1631.
• [30] Niimi M, Tokunaga M, Nakayama H. Regulation of mannitol catabolism in Candida albicans: evidence for cyclic AMP-independent glucose effect. J Med Vet Mycol. 1986; 24 (3): 211-217.
• [31] Brancini GTP, Rodrigues GB, Rambaldi MSL, Izumi C, Yatsuda AP, Wainwright M, Rosa JC, Braga GÚL. The effects of photodynamic treatment with new methylene blue N on the Candida albicans proteome. Photochem. Photobiol. Sci. 2016; 15: 1503-1513.
• [32] Shen B, Jensen RG, Bohnert HJ. Mannitol protects against oxidation by hydroxyl radicals. Plant Physiol. 1997; 11 (5): 527-532.