Accesso libero

Harnessing Monoterpenes and Monoterpenoids as Weapons against Antimicrobial Resistance

, , , ,  e   
07 mar 2025
INFORMAZIONI SU QUESTO ARTICOLO

Cita
Scarica la copertina

Introduction

Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) presents a critical challenge in global healthcare, with over two million cases and 23,000 deaths annually in the United States due to antibiotic-resistant infections (Prestinaci et al. 2015). Similarly, Europe reports around 400,000 infections and 25,000 deaths from multidrug-resistant (MDR) bacteria annually. The World Health Organization notes a concerning stagnation in developing new antimicrobials, with only 12 antibiotics approved since 2017, most of which are from existing classes with known resistance mechanisms. This has fueled the search for alternative therapies with broader-spectrum activity (Corona-Gómez et al. 2022).

Natural products offer a promising avenue for the discovery of novel antimicrobials, with plants providing a rich source of structurally diverse bioactive compounds. Essential oils (EOs) from medicinal plants are a promising source of novel antimicrobials (Khan et al. 2020). These oils have demonstrated effectiveness against a wide range of pathogens, including Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Pseudomonas putida, and Staphylococcus aureus; they have shown potential in eradicating biofilms, which are crucial for treating persistent infections (Kavanaugh and Ribbeck 2012; Aggarwal et al. 2000). EOs contain volatile compounds such as terpenes and terpenoids, identified as potent antimicrobial agents against bacteria, fungi, and viruses (Barbosa et al. 2020).

Monoterpenes and monoterpenoids, significant components of EOs, exhibit antimicrobial, anti-inflammatory, antioxidant, and anticancer properties (ZielińskaBłajet and Feder-Kubis 2020). Many studies have highlighted their potential in antimicrobial drug development, with results delving into the composition and effectiveness of EOs, revealing their potency against a spectrum of pathogens (Mahizan et al. 2019; Moo et al. 2020; 2021; Yang et al. 2021a; 2021b). For instance, the EO from Rosmarinus officinalis exhibited a rich composition, including α-pinene, camphene, β-pinene, myrcene, 1,8-cineole, camphor, β-trans-terpineol, myrtenol, and α-terpineol, showcasing robust antimicrobial activity against Gram-positive bacteria such as S. aureus, Micro-coccus luteus, and Bacillus cereus, along with effectiveness against Gram-negative bacteria and fungal strains (Chraibi et al. 2020). Similarly, Asteriscus graveolens EO, characterized by compounds such as α-thujone (17.92%), carvacrol (14.14%), p-cineole (13.83%), and camphor (12.71%), presents a rich monoterpene profile with significant antimicrobial potential (Aljeldah 2022).

Considering these significant findings, this review aims to synthesize recent literature on the effectiveness of monoterpenes in combating AMR and to explore their broad-spectrum activity and potential as alternative therapeutic agents against MDR pathogens.

Exploring the antimicrobial potential of monoterpenes

Exploring the antimicrobial potential of monoterpenes presents a promising avenue in combating microbial infections amidst the escalating threat of AMR. Fig. 1 illustrates the chemical structures of the monoterpenes discussed throughout this review. These structures were sourced from the PubChem database (https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov). These compounds demonstrate broad-spectrum antimicrobial activity against bacteria and fungi. Studies have highlighted their efficacy against both Gram-positive and Gram-negative bacteria, including drug-resistant strains like methicillin-resistant S. aureus (MRSA) and MDR Escherichia coli. Furthermore, monoterpenes exhibit significant antifungal activity against common pathogens such as Candida species. Table I depicts monoterpenes’ reported mechanism of action, while Fig. 2 visually represents these mechanisms targeting MDR bacteria.

Fig. 1.

Chemical structures of monoterpenes discussed in this review, sourced from the PubChem database.

Fig. 2.

A schematic representation of mechanisms of action of monoterpenes targeting MDR bacteria.

The diagram was created using Inkscape 1.3.2.

Mechanism of action of monoterpenes against tested pathogens.

Chemical compounds Tested pathogen Mechanisms of action References
Eugenol Staphylococcus aureus

Inhibition of efflux pump

Macêdo et al. 2022
Eugenol Staphylococcus aureus

Inhibition of norA efflux pump

Muniz et al. 2021
Eugenol α-Bromo-trans-cinnamaldehyde Staphylococcus aureus

Gene expression reduction linked to intracellular adhesion

Mastoor et al. 2022
Eugenol Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus

Downregulation of luxS gene

Inhibition of biofilm production

Enhancement of secondary metabolites

Upregulation of argC protein

Buru et al. 2022
Eugenol Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus

Downregulation of biofilm-related genes (sarA, icaA, icaD)

Reduction of polysaccharide accumulation and cell adhesion

El-Far et al. 2021
Carvacrol Staphylococcus aureus Pseudomonas fluorescens

Targeted extracellular polymeric substances

Disruption of biofilm structures

Wang et al. 2020b.
Eugenol Geraniol Acinetobacter baumannii

Reduction in exopolysaccharide production

Disruption and inhibition of biofilm

Downregulation of csuE gene

Choudhary et al. 2022
p-Cymene Campylobacter jejuni

Inhibition of efflux pump

Šimunović et al. 2020
Carvacrol Pseudomonas aeruginosa Enterococcus faecalis

Cell membrane destruction

Leakage of the intercellular pool

Anti-biofilm properties

Increased extracellular K+ ions concentrations

Mechmechani et al. 2022
Carvacrol Thymol Salmonella Thyphimurium

Anti-inflammatory effects

Anti-oxidant properties

Enhanced epithelial barrier integrity

Reduction of bacterial translocation

Improved transepithelial electrical resistance

Inhibited bacterial growth

Giovagnoni et al. 2020
Eugenol Extended-spectrum β-lactamases-quinoloneresistant strains of Klebsiella pneumoniae

Induced shrinkage of cell surfaces

Diminished cytoplasm

Triggered cellular stress and autolysis

Dhara and Tripathi 2020
Eugenol Carbapenem-resistant Klebsiella pneumoniae (CRKP)

Disruption of cell membrane

Reduction in intracellular pH and ATP levels

Cell membrane hyperpolarization

Downregulation of biofilm-related genes (pgaA, luxS, wbbM, wzm)

Upregulation of mrkA gene

Qian et al. 2020
Carvacrol Extended-spectrum beta-lactamases Escherichia coli

Disintegration of bacterial cell membranes

Elevation of reactive oxygen species levels

Protected macrophage cells from bacterial invasion

Increased the release of K+ ions, ATP, and cellular DNA

Anti-biofilm properties

Khan et al. 2020
Carvacrol Thymol Eugenol Methyl eugenol Candida albicans

Reduced proteinase production

Shaban et al. 2020
Carvacrol Thymol Eugenol Methyl eugenol Candida auris

Reduced proteinase production and host cell adherence

Shaban et al. 2020
Carvacrol Candida auris

Induced oxidative stress

Increased CAT, SOD and GPx enzyme activity

Decreased GR and GST enzyme activity

Caused membrane disintegration

Ismail et al. 2022
Antibacterial activity

Sim et al. (2019) reported the antimicrobial efficacy of oregano oil, carvacrol, thyme oil, and thymol against bacterial isolates from dogs with otitis externa, showing MIC90 values ranging from 200 to 2,292 μg/ml for various MDR strains, including methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus pseudintermedius and P. aeruginosa. Carvacrol was notably effective, with an MIC90 of 146 μg/ml against S. pseudintermedius. Similarly, Sharma et al. (2023) found that thymol and eugenol had MICs of 125–250 μg/ml and 500–1,000 μg/ml against S. aureus, respectively.

Muniz et al. (2021) highlighted the potential of synthetic and natural eugenol derivatives to inhibit the NorA efflux pump in S. aureus, with their studies suggesting mechanisms involving hydrogen bonds and hydrophobic interactions. The findings suggest that eugenol holds promise for development in antibacterial drug formulations; mainly targeting strains carrying the NorA efflux pump. Additionally, Buru et al. (2022) demonstrated that eugenol exposure leads to downregulated luxS expression in MRSA, potentially enhancing biofilm production and secondary metabolite biosynthesis through the upregulation of the argC gene, indicating potential targets for antibacterial development against drug-resistant strains.

Kwiatkowski et al. (2020) evaluated the antimicrobial efficacy of 1,8-cineole and linalyl acetate against S. aureus, with MIC values ranging from 28,800– 57,600 μg/ml and 28,200–112,600 μg/ml, respectively. Caballero Gómez et al. (2022) studied various compounds including cinnamaldehyde, thymol, carvacrol, limonene, and geraniol against Enterococcus, Pseudomonas, and Staphylococcus strains, finding cinnamaldehyde the most effective with MICs of 10 to 50 μg/ml. Carvacrol and thymol demonstrated increased MIC90 values of 292–400 μg/ml against β-hemolytic Streptococcus compared to staphylococcal isolates (146–200 μg/ml) (Sim et al. 2019). Thymol showed the highest MIC90 (800 μg/ml) against P. aeruginosa, and displayed comparable activity against Proteus mirabilis at MIC90 200–292 μg/ml. Additionally, de Souza et al. (2021) reported that carvacrol showed inhibitory effects against carbapenem and polymyxin-resistant Klebsiella pneumoniae, with MICs of 130–260 μg/ml. In murine models, carvacrol treatment significantly improved survival and reduced bacterial counts in infections, indicating its potential for modulating host immune responses and reducing infection severity compared to polymyxin B treatment.

Owen et al. (2019) highlighted carvacrol’s potent antimicrobial properties, exhibiting the lowest MICs (0.99–15.81 mM) across various microorganisms and bactericidal effects. Although ineffective against carbapenem-resistant E. coli and P. aeruginosa, carvacrol showed no significant cross-resistance with antibiotics, positioning it as a promising candidate against AMR. Linalool exhibited higher activity against antibioticsensitive P. aeruginosa (MIC 228.20 mM) than resistant strains (MIC 912.90 mM), while cuminaldehyde showed higher activity against antibiotic-sensitive E. coli (MIC 2.10 mM) compared to resistant strains (MIC 8.40 mM). Moreover, cuminaldehyde displayed better efficacy against vancomycin-susceptible enterococci (VSE) (MIC 134.41 mM) than resistant strains (MIC 537.65 mM).

Šimunović et al. (2020) further demonstrated that monoterpenes such as carvacrol, thymol, and thymoquinone possess significant antimicrobial activity, each with MICs of 31.25 μg/ml, while p-cymene and γ-terpinene showed reduced efficacy with MICs of 1,000 μg/ml. Notably, p-cymene also inhibited efflux pumps in C. jejuni while carvacrol displayed a weaker effect. Rossi et al. (2021) reported that thymol, carvacrol, eugenol, geraniol, and cinnamaldehyde effectively inhibited two Vibrio species, Vibrio anguillarum, and Vibrio harveyi, with MICs ranging from 0.94–7.5 mM, whereas eucalyptol, linalool, menthol, α-pinene, and limonene showed no activity at the tested concentrations.

Giovagnoni et al. (2020) investigated thymol and carvacrol’s protective effects against Salmonella Typhimurium, revealing a dual mechanism of action with MICs of 1.87 mM. These compounds enhanced epithelial barrier integrity while directly inhibiting Salmonella growth and modulating virulent genes. Noumi et al. (2023) explored limonene’s antimicrobial properties, demonstrating inhibition of bacterial growth and biofilm formation at a MIC of 48 μg/ml, surpassing the efficacy of the whole Anethum graveolens EO. Limonene also showed anti-adhesion activity and inhibited violacein production, highlighting its potential for targeted interventions.

Antifungal activity

Stringaro et al. (2022) explored the antimicrobial effects of Oregano vulgare EO (OVEO) against Candida species, finding variable sensitivity across strains, with C. albicans being less sensitive than Candida glabrata, Candida tropicalis, and Candida krusei. Carvacrol showed superior antimicrobial activity compared to OVEO and thymol, with MIC values of 97.5–195 μg/ml and 195–390 μg/ml for thymol, respectively. Larvae viability studies using Galleria mellonella revealed that OVEO slightly reduced survival rates by about 30% in C. albicans. Post-infection treatment with OVEO, carvacrol, or thymol generally improved survival, notably with carvacrol treatment increasing survival by 100% in C. albicans, while thymol and OVEO showed lesser improvement.

Sousa Silveira et al. (2020) demonstrated the antibacterial efficacy of thymol and carvacrol against S. aureus, with MIC values of 72 and 256 μg/ml, respectively. Shaban et al. (2020) reported that carvacrol was more effective against Candida auris than thymol, with MICs of 125 μg/ml and 312 μg/ml, respectively. The study also noted that carvacrol inhibited C. auris adherence to host cells and reduced proteinase production in C. auris and C. albicans, even at sub-inhibitory concentrations.

Touil et al. (2020) explored carvacrol and cuminaldehyde against amphotericin B-resistant C. albicans, individually and in combination, in single- or mixedinfections. They found variable inhibitory effects on C. albicans yeast formation compared to hyphae development, with carvacrol exhibiting MIC values ranging from 250–1,000 μg/ml and cuminaldehyde from 2000–4000 μg/ml), varying among Candida isolates. Carvacrol showed greater efficacy than cuminaldehyde, particularly against C. albicans isolates. Both compounds exhibited inhibitory effects against bacteria co-isolated with C. albicans, with MIC values of 1,000 μg/ml for carvacrol and 1,000–4,000 μg/ml for cuminaldehyde. These results highlight the potential of carvacrol and cuminaldehyde, alone or in combination, in combating AMR in C. albicans infections.

In assays against C. albicans, different cell forms, such as hyphal or yeast are influenced by environmental conditions such as pH, temperature, and nutrient availability. The studies reviewed here primarily focused on the hyphal form of C. albicans, which is the infectious form, with the exception of Sharifzadeh et al. (2019), Iraji et al. (2020), and Stringaro et al. (2022). Table II summarizes research on monoterpenes, detailing their minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) against Gram-positive, Gram-negative, and fungal pathogens.

Comprehensive summary of MIC values of monoterpenes against AMR pathogens, grouped as Gram-positive, Gram-negative, and fungal pathogens.

Tested pathogens Chemical compounds MIC/Sensitivity References
Gram-positive bacteria
Bacillus subtilis Limonene 0.048 μg/ml Noumi et al. 2023
Listeria monocytogenes Limonene 0.048 μg/ml Noumi et al. 2023
Enterococcus sp. ThymolCarvacrolGeraniolLimoneneEugenolCinnamaldehyde 200–450 μg/ml100–450 μg/ml100–350 μg/ml100–450 μg/ml200–450 μg/ml10–50 μg/ml Caballero Gómez et al. 2022
Vancomycin-sensitive Enterococcus (VSE) CarvacrolCuminaldehydeLinaloolp-Cymeneγ-Terpinene 593.37 μg/ml19919562 μg/ml35199850 μg/ml8599475.4 μg/ml17060082.9 μg/ml Owen et al. 2019
Vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus (VRE) CarvacrolCuminaldehydeLinaloolp-Cymeneγ-Terpinene 593369 μg/ml79679730 μg/ml8799962.5 μg/ml8599475.4 μg/ml17060082.9 μg/ml Owen et al. 2019
Staphylococcus sp. ThymolCarvacrolGeraniolLimoneneEugenolCinnamaldehyde 200–400 μg/ml200–400 μg/ml100–400 μg/ml100–400 μg/ml300–400 μg/ml10–50 μg/ml Caballero Gómez et al. 2022
Staphylococcus aureus ThymolCarvacrolLimoneneα-Pineneβ-Pinenep-Cymene1,8-CineoleLimoneneFenchoneLinaloolCamphorcis-VerbenolBorneolTerpinen-4-olVerbenoneCarvoneEugenolLinalyl acetatetrans-AnetholeMenthone 72–800 μg/ml256–3200 μg/ml0.048 μg/ml11.88 μg/ml10.13 μg/ml10.25 μg/ml5.63–115100 μg/ml2.63 μg/ml4.25 μg/ml2.88–6800 μg/ml7.63 μg/ml2.38 μg/ml3.75 μg/ml3.13 μg/ml5.88 μg/ml11.38 μg/ml24–11100 μg/ml46900 μg/ml494000 μg/ml27900 μg/ml Kwiatkowski et al. 2020;Sayout et al. 2020;Sousa Silveira et al. 2020;Macêdo et al. 2022;Noumi et al. 2023;Sharma et al. 2023
Methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus CarvacrolCuminaldehydeLinaloolp-Cymeneγ-Terpinene 297435.6 μg/ml4979520 μg/ml17599925 μg/ml1075102.2 μg/ml8529360.3 μg/ml Owen et al. 2019
Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus CarvacrolCuminaldehydeLinaloolp-Cymeneγ-Terpinene 148717.8 μg/ml9960522 μg/ml8799962.5 μg/ml2150204.4 μg/ml17060082.9 μg/ml Owen et al. 2019
Mupirocin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus 1,8-cineoleEugenolCarvacrolLinalool(–)-MenthoneLinalyl acetatetrans-Anethole 307000 μg/ml2080 μg/ml950 μg/ml6800 μg/ml27910 μg/ml450500 μg/ml494000 μg/ml Kwiatkowski et al. 2019
Mupirocin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus 1,8-cineoleEugenolCarvacrolLinalool(–)-MenthoneLinalyl acetatetrans-Anethole 57560 μg/ml8340 μg/ml480 μg/ml2830 μg/ml6980 μg/ml450500 μg/ml494000 μg/ml Kwiatkowski et al. 2019
Staphylococcus pseudintermedius ThymolCarvacrol 100–200 μg/ml146–292 μg/ml Sim et al. 2019
β-haemolytic Streptococcus spp. ThymolCarvacrol 200–400 μg/ml146–292 μg/ml Sim et al. 2019
Streptococcus suis CinnamaldehydeCarvacrolThymol 156.25–312.5 μg/ml156.25 μg/ml156.25 μg/ml de Aguiar et al. 2019
Gram-negative bacteria
Acinetobacter baumannii α-PineneCampheneβ-Pinened-3-Carenep-Cymene1,8-CineoleLimoneneγ-TerpineneFenchoneLinaloolCamphorcis-VerbenolBorneolTerpinen-4-olVerbenoneCarvone 11.88 μg/ml20.00 μg/ml13.50 μg/ml7.88 μg/ml5.13 μg/ml5.63 μg/ml5.25 μg/ml4.88 μg/ml1.06 μg/ml1.44 μg/ml10.17 μg/ml9.50 μg/ml0.94 μg/ml0.78 μg/ml4.70 μg/ml7.58 μg/ml Sayout et al. 2020
Campylobacter jejuni ThymolCarvacrolThymoquinonep-Cymeneγ-Terpinene 31.25 μg/ml31.25 μg/ml31.25 μg/ml1000 μg/ml1000 μg/ml Šimunović et al. 2020
Enterobacter aerogenes β-Pinene1,8-CineoleLimoneneγ–TerpineneFenchoneLinaloolCamphorcis-VerbenolBorneolVerbenoneCarvone 20.25 μg/ml2.81 μg/ml1.31 μg/ml4.88 μg/ml2.13 μg/ml1.44 μg/ml15.25 μg/ml2.38 μg/ml0.94 μg/ml2.94 μg/ml5.69 μg/ml Sayout et al. 2020
Enterobacter cloacae α-Pineneβ-PineneMyrcened-3-Carenep-Cymene1,8-CineoleLimoneneγ-TerpineneFenchoneLinaloolCamphorcis-VerbenolBorneolTerpinen-4-olVerbenoneCarvone 11.88 μg/ml5.06 μg/ml7.75 μg/ml7.88 μg/ml4.10 μg/ml5.63 μg/ml2.63 μg/ml6.50 μg/ml1.70 μg/ml1.92 μg/ml6.10 μg/ml3.17 μg/ml1.50 μg/ml3.13 μg/ml3.36 μg/ml9.10 μg/ml Sayout et al. 2020
Ciprofloxacin-resistant Escherichia coli CarvacrolCuminaldehydeLinaloolp-Cymeneγ-Terpinene 297435.6 μg/ml1244880 μg/ml8799962.5 μg/ml1075102.2 μg/ml34120165.8 μg/ml Owen et al. 2019
Escherichia coli CarvacrolCuminaldehydeLinaloolp-Cymeneγ-TerpineneLimoneneα-PineneCampheneβ-PineneMyrcened-3-Carenep-Cymene1,8-CineoleLimoneneγ-TerpineneFenchoneLinaloolCamphorcis-VerbenolBorneolTerpinen-4-olVerbenoneCarvone 297435.6 μg/ml311220 μg/ml8799962.5 μg/ml2150204.4 μg/ml34120165.8 μg/ml0.048 μg/ml11.88 μg/ml15.00 μg/ml5.06 μg/ml1.94 μg/ml7.88 μg/ml2.56 μg/ml2.81 μg/ml2.63 μg/ml4.88 μg/ml4.25 μg/ml2.88 μg/ml7.63 μg/ml4.75 μg/ml3.75 μg/ml3.13 μg/ml5.88 μg/ml11.38 μg/ml Owen et al. 2019; Sayout et al. 2020; Noumi et al. 2023
Klebsiella oxytoca β-Pinene1,8-CineoleLimoneneγ-TerpineneFenchoneLinaloolCamphorcis-VerbenolBorneolTerpinen-4-olVerbenoneCarvone 13.50 μg/ml5.63 μg/ml2.63 μg/ml4.88 μg/ml2.13 μg/ml1.44 μg/ml10.17 μg/ml3.17 μg/ml2.5 μg/ml6.25 μg/ml5.88 μg/ml11.38 μg/ml Sayout et al. 2020
Klebsiella pneumoniae ThymolCarvacrolGeraniolα-PineneCampheneβ-PineneMyrcened-3-Carenep-Cymene1,8-CineoleLimoneneγ-TerpineneFenchoneLinaloolCamphorcis-VerbenolBorneolTerpinen-4-olVerbenoneCarvone 780 μg/ml130–1910 μg/ml1740 μg/ml23.75 μg/ml30.00 μg/ml10.13 μg/ml15.50 μg/ml7.88 μg/ml10.25 μg/ml11.25 μg/ml2.63 μg/ml4.88 μg/ml2.13 μg/ml3.83 μg/ml5.08 μg/ml2.38 μg/ml0.47 μg/ml1.56 μg/ml3.36 μg/ml15.17 μg/ml Sayout et al. 2020;de Souza et al. 2021;Kwiatkowski et al. 2022
Malassezia pachydermatis ThymolCarvacrolCinnamaldehyde 10–800 μg/ml10–585 μg/ml2.5–640 μg/ml Schlemmer et al. 2019;Sim et al. 2019
Salmonella enterica Limonene 0.048 μg/ml Noumi et al. 2023
Salmonella spp. β-Pinene1,8-CineoleLimoneneγ-TerpineneFenchoneLinaloolCamphorcis-VerbenolTerpinen-4-olVerbenoneCarvone 8.10 μg/ml7.50 μg/ml2.63 μg/ml6.50 μg/ml1.70 μg/ml2.88 μg/ml6.10 μg/ml1.90 μg/ml3.13 μg/ml3.92 μg/ml22.75 μg/ml Sayout et al. 2020
Shigella flexeneri Limonene 0.048 μg/ml Noumi et al. 2023
Proteus mirabilis ThymolCarvacrol 200 μg/ml146–292 μg/ml Sim et al. 2019
Pseudomonas sp. ThymolCarvacrolGeraniolLimoneneEugenolCinnamaldehyde 100–300 μg/ml100–400 μg/ml100–400 μg/ml100–300 μg/ml300–400 μg/ml10–50 μg/ml Caballero Gómez et al. 2022
Ciprofloxacin-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa CarvacrolCuminaldehydeLinaloolp-Cymeneγ-Terpinene 4749956.4 μg/ml39840606 μg/ml140799400 μg/ml8599475.4 μg/ml34120165.8 μg/ml Owen et al. 2019
Pseudomonas aeruginosa ThymolCarvacrolCuminaldehydeLinaloolp-Cymeneγ-TerpineneLimoneneβ-Pinene 400–800 μg/ml585–1120 μg/ml39839124 μg/ml35199850 μg/ml8599475.4 μg/ml68240331.6 μg/ml0.048 μg/ml10.13 μg/ml Owen et al. 2019;Sim et al. 2019;Noumi et al. 2023
Pseudomonas aeruginosa LimoneneFenchoneLinaloolCamphorcis-VerbenolBorneolTerpinen-4-olVerbenoneCarvone 2.63 μg/ml1.70 μg/ml1.92 μg/ml6.10 μg/ml1.58 μg/ml1.88 μg/ml3.13 μg/ml4.70 μg/ml9.10 μg/ml Owen et al. 2019;Sim et al. 2019;Noumi et al. 2023
Vibrio vulnificus Limonene 0.048 μg/ml Noumi et al. 2023
Vibrio anguillarum ThymolCarvacrolEugenolGeraniolCinnamaldehyde 282413.6 μg/ml282413.6 μg/ml308696 μg/ml1156875 μg/ml555750 μg/ml Rossi et al. 2021
Vibrio harveyi ThymolCarvacrolEugenolGeraniolCinnamaldehyde 141206.8 μg/ml141206.8 μg/ml308696 μg/ml1156875 μg/ml278616 μg/ml Rossi et al. 2021
Fungal pathogens
Candida albicans ThymolCarvacrolEugenolMethyl eugenol(+)-α-Pinene(–)-α-Pineneβ-Pinene(+)-Limonene(–)-Limonene(+)-Menthone(–)-MenthoneThujonePiperitone(+)-Carvone(–)-CarvoneCamphor(+)-Citronellol(–)-Citronellol(+)-Menthol(–)-Menthol 195–625 μg/ml43.75–250 μg/ml500–2000 μg/ml1250 μg/ml51767.4–1716498 μg/ml858249–54927936 μg/ml213881.1–13731984 μg/ml8173.8–6865992 μg/ml8173.8–13731984 μg/ml3578600–6787000 μg/ml1789300–28628800 μg/ml459734.6–7355753.6 μg/ml239762.25–3732679.6 μg/ml473193–3785544 μg/ml473193–3785544 μg/ml494747.5–3957980 μg/ml49360–1665900 μg/ml49360–1665900 μg/ml221889.2–7125456 μg/ml221889.2–7125456 μg/ml Sharifzadeh et al. 2019;Iraji et al. 2020;Shaban et al. 2020;Stringaro et al. 2022;Biernasiuk et al. 2022
Candida auris CarvacrolThymolEugenolMethyl eugenol 125 μg/ml312 μg/ml625 μg/ml1250 μg/ml Shaban et al. 2020
Candida dubliniensis (+)-α-Pinene(–)-α-Pineneβ-Pinene(+)-Limonene(–)-Limonene(+)-Menthone(–)-MenthoneThujonePiperitone(+)-Carvone(–)-CarvoneCamphor(+)-Citronellol(–)-Citronellol(+)-Menthol(–)-Menthol 103534.8–1716498 μg/ml858249–27463968 μg/ml103534.8–6865992 μg/ml12260.7–3432996 μg/ml12260.7–1716498 μg/ml223662.5–6787000 μg/ml894650–14314400 μg/ml919469.2–7355753.6 μg/ml112650.2–3732679.6 μg/ml114167.2–1892772 μg/ml114167.2–1892772 μg/ml246612.6–1978990 μg/ml24680–208237.5 μg/ml24680–208237.5 μg/ml53128.4–3562728 μg/ml53128.4–3562728 μg/ml Iraji et al. 2020
Fungal pathogens
Candida glabrata ThymolCarvacrolEugenol(+)-α-Pinene(–)-α-Pineneβ-Pinene(+)-Limonene(–)-Limonene(+)-Menthone(–)-MenthoneThujonePiperitone(+)-Carvone(–)-CarvoneCamphor(+)-Citronellol(–)-Citronellol(+)-Menthol(–)-Menthol 390 μg/ml62.50–195 μg/ml1000–2000 μg/ml51767.4–1716498 μg/ml858249–54927936 μg/ml103534.8–1716498 μg/ml50405.1–3432996 μg/ml50405.1–3432996 μg/ml447325–7157200 μg/ml1789300–14314400 μg/ml1838938.4–14711507.2 μg/ml232911.9–3732679.6 μg/ml114167.2–3785544 μg/ml114167.2–3785544 μg/ml59369.7–989495 μg/ml49360–208237.5 μg/ml49360–208237.5 μg/ml26564.2–445341 μg/ml26564.2–445341 μg/ml Sharifzadeh et al. 2019;Iraji et al. 2020;Biernasiuk et al. 2022;Stringaro et al. 2022
Candida krusei ThymolCarvacrolEugenol(+)-α-Pinene(–)-α-Pineneβ-Pinene(+)-Limonene(–)-Limonene(+)-Menthone(–)-MenthoneThujonePiperitone(+)-Carvone(–)-CarvoneCamphor(+)-Citronellol(–)-Citronellol(+)-Menthol(–)-Menthol 390 μg/ml87.50–125 μg/ml250–1000 μg/ml51767.4–858249 μg/ml858249–1716498 μg/ml103534.8–429124.5 μg/ml8173.8–6865992 μg/ml8173.8–429124.5 μg/ml447325–3578600 μg/ml3578600–7157200 μg/ml919469.2–7355753.6 μg/ml112650.2–933169.9 μg/ml114167.2–1892772 μg/ml114167.2–1892772 μg/ml246612.6–3957980 μg/ml100262.5–832950 μg/ml100262.5–1665900 μg/ml100006.4–445341 μg/ml53128.4–445341 μg/ml Sharifzadeh et al. 2019;Iraji et al. 2020;Biernasiuk et al. 2022;Stringaro et al. 2022
Candida parapsilosis Eugenol(+)-α-Pinene(–)-α-Pineneβ-Pinene(+)-Limonene(–)-Limonene(+)-Menthone(–)-MenthoneThujonePiperitone(+)-Carvone(–)-CarvoneCamphor(+)-Citronellol(–)-Citronellol(+)-Menthol(–)-Menthol 500–100 μg/ml51767.4–429124.5 μg/ml429124.5–1716498 μg/ml213881.1–431849.1 μg/ml50405.1–429124.5 μg/ml50405.1–213881.1 μg/ml107975–1789300 μg/ml894650–14314400 μg/ml3677876.8–14711507.2 μg/ml479524.5–3732679.6 μg/ml473193–7571088 μg/ml473193–7571088 μg/ml59369.7–1978990 μg/ml49360–416475 μg/ml49360–416475 μg/ml53128.4–890682 μg/ml53128.4–445341 μg/ml Iraji et al. 2020;Biernasiuk et al. 2022
Fungal pathogens
Candida tropicalis ThymolCarvacrol(+)-α-Pinene(–)-α-Pineneβ-Pinene(+)-Limonene(–)-Limonene(+)-Menthone(–)-MenthoneThujonePiperitone(+)-Carvone(–)-CarvoneCamphor(+)-Citronellol(–)-Citronellol(+)-Menthol(–)-Menthol 390 μg/ml97.5 μg/ml429124.5–1716498 μg/ml6865992–27463968 μg/ml103534.8–3432996 μg/ml213881.1–3432996 μg/ml213881.1–1716498 μg/ml447325–1789300 μg/ml1789300–14314400 μg/ml919469.2–7355753.6 μg/ml112650.2–3732679.6 μg/ml114167.2–1892772 μg/ml114167.2–1892772 μg/ml246612.6–989495 μg/ml24680–100262.5 μg/ml24680–100262.5 μg/ml100006.4–445341 μg/ml100006.4–445341 μg/ml Iraji et al. 2020;Stringaro et al. 2022
Antiviral activity

Panagiotopoulos et al. (2021) found that p-cymene binds to the nuclear localization signal of SARS-CoV-2, impairing its nuclear translocation and viral replication, achieving up to 90% inhibition in Vero cells at non-toxic concentrations (0.0125 to 200 μg/ml). Similar effects were observed against influenza H1N1, where p-cymene at 20 μg/ml reduced virus protein expression and impaired nuclear translocation. These findings propose p-cymene as a potential antiviral agent, either as a standalone treatment or as an adjuvant in treating COVID-19 and other RNA virus infections.

Recently, Wang et al. (2024) identified 100 μM eugenol as optimal concentration for inhibiting Singapore grouper iridovirus (SGIV) infection by reducing mRNA expression and protein synthesis. Eugenol’s mechanism involves inhibiting the MAPK signaling pathway, reducing inflammatory factor expression (IL-1β, IL-6, TNF-α), and upregulating interferon-related genes while reducing oxidative stress by suppressing intracellular reactive oxygen species.

Wang et al. (2020a) demonstrated that HSV-2 infection reduced intracellular protein ubiquitination, a process reversed by carvacrol, suggesting its role in modulating the ubiquitin-proteasome system. Carvacrol inhibited HSV-2 replication, lowering virus titers, and reducing the virus release rate to 33.67% at 1 mmol/l. It downregulated the expression of key HSV-2 replication proteins (ICP4, ICP27, VP16, gB, UL30), and induced increase in TNF-α and reduced RIP3 and MLKL protein expressions via the RIP3-mediated necrosis pathway. These findings suggest that carvacrol exerts its antiviral activity by interfering with the replication process of HSV-2, making it a potential therapeutic agent against HSV-2 infections.

Similarly, Mediouni et al. (2020) found that carvacrol and thymol disrupted the cholesterol content of the viral envelope membrane, blocking HIV-1 entry into target cells without affecting other stages of the viral life cycle. Carvacrol exhibited significant antiviral potency with an IC50 of 16 μM, while thymol displayed a slightly higher IC50 of 25.2 μM. Pretreatment of HIV with carvacrol reduced viral infectivity by 60.6%, underscoring its effectiveness in altering viral particles. Testing against viruses using the CCR5 coreceptor further demonstrated that carvacrol and thymol inhibited HIV replication without affecting cell viability or receptor endocytosis.

Kumar et al. (2021) demonstrated that thymoquinone (TQ) inhibited Chikungunya virus (CHIKV) replication with an EC50 value of 4.478 μM. A plaque reduction assay revealed that TQ significantly reduced CHIKV titer in a dose-dependent manner, with over 90% reduction observed at 20 μM concentration. Additionally, immunofluorescence assays showed reduced expression of CHIKV glycoprotein in cells treated with 10 μM TQ, indicating lower viral load. Time-of-addition and time-of-elimination studies confirmed TQ’s inhibitory action in the late stages of the CHIKV life cycle (8–12 hours post-infection). These findings underscore TQ’s significant antiviral activity by disrupting CHIKV replication at both molecular and cellular levels.

Synergy effect of monoterpene against AMR

The synergistic potential of antibacterial agents can enhance effectiveness when combined, addressing AMR challenges by overcoming single-drug therapy limitations. Combining agents with varied mechanisms can target a broader range of pathogens and minimize resistance. Research into synergistic antibiotic combinations offers hope for more effective treatments against AMR (Al-Marzooq et al. 2022; 2023; Daoud et al. 2023).

Combining multiple monoterpenes to combat AMR

Šimunović et al. (2020) demonstrated promising synergistic effects in various monoterpenes such as carvacrol, thymol, and thymoquinone combinations. Combinations like carvacrol + thymoquinone (fractional inhibitory concentration indices (FICI) 0.5), carvacrol + thymol (FICI 0.2), and thymol + thymoquinone (FICI 0.3) showed robust synergistic activities. All other tested combinations exhibited additive effects without any antagonistic effects observed. Similarly, Touil et al. (2020) observed promising synergistic effects of carvacrol and cuminaldehyde against C. albicans and co-isolated bacteria. The combination significantly reduced MIC values to 60–250 μg/ml for carvacrol and 500–2,000 μg/ml for cuminaldehyde, showing synergistic interactions (FICI values ranged 0.36–0.5) for 12 strains of C. albicans and indifferent interactions (FICI values between 0.62–1.0) for four Candida strains.

Combining monoterpenes with conventional antibiotics/antifungals to combat AMR

Owen et al. (2020) investigated the synergy between vancomycin and monoterpenes, particularly carvacrol and cuminaldehyde, against VSE and VRE. Significant synergy was found in binary combinations of vancomycin with carvacrol or linalool against VSE, with a substantial four to eight-fold reduction in vancomycin’s MIC. The combination of carvacrol and cuminaldehyde with vancomycin showed bactericidal activity against VSE, resulting in a 5.87 log10 reduction, indicating strong synergy, while ternary combinations of two monoterpenes with vancomycin demonstrated significant reductions in MIC (1,024-fold) against VRE.

Kwiatkowski et al. (2019) identified carvacrol as highly potent against MRSA strains, with 1,8-cineole exhibiting synergy when combined with mupirocin against mupirocin-susceptible (FICI 0.44) and mupirocin low-level resistant strains (FICI 0.28), while (–)-menthone showing synergistic activity against mupirocin-susceptible MRSA strains (FICI 0.38). Additionally, Kwiatkowski et al. (2020) explored the synergistic potential of 1,8-cineole and linalyl acetate with conventional antibiotics against MRSA strains, revealing synergistic effects of 1,8-cineole with penicillin G (FICI 0.1) and additive activities of linalyl acetate in combination with methicillin and penicillin G at FICI 0.4 and FICI 0.6, respectively against all MRSA isolates, highlighting the versatility of these combinations.

AMR, especially carbapenem resistance in bacteria like K. pneumoniae, presents a formidable treatment challenge (Köse 2022). Köse (2022) investigated combining carvacrol with meropenem against carbapenem-resistant Klebsiella pneumoniae (CRKP) strains. Their findings revealed synergy between carvacrol and meropenem against 8 of 25 CRKP strains, confirmed by checkerboard assays (FICI = 0.5) and time-kill assays. This combination induced significant membrane damage to CRKP cells, as shown by live-dead tests and spectrophotometric measurements. Sousa Silveira et al. (2020) demonstrated a notable decrease in tetracycline MIC against S. aureus, from 114–101 μg/ml, when combined with thymol. Although thymol and carvacrol exhibited antibiotic activity, they did not act as efflux pump inhibitors (EPIs), suggesting alternative mechanisms for overcoming resistance apart from the TetK efflux pump.

Dhara and Tripathi (2020) investigated the effects of eugenol on extended-spectrum-β-lactamase producing quinolone resistant (ESBL-QR) strains of E. coli and K. pneumoniae, revealing distinct responses in cellular morphology. ESBL-QR K. pneumoniae exhibited cellular stress and autolysis upon eugenol treatment, accentuated when combined with cefotaxime/ciprofloxacin, indicating synergistic interactions. The combination therapy also suppressed the expression of the acrB and beta-lactamase genes (blaTEM and blaCTX-M) in K. pneumoniae, suggesting a multifaceted approach to combating AMR.

Aleksic Sabo et al. (2021) demonstrated the potent antimicrobial activity of carvacrol, thymol, and eugenol, against Acinetobacter baumannii, comparable to antibiotics, particularly when combined with ciprofloxacin (FICI range 0.25–0.32). Binary combinations of gentamicin with carvacrol or thymol showed additive effects, while combinations with ciprofloxacin displayed synergy against both reference and MDR strains.

The study by Shaban et al. (2020) underscores carvacrol’s potent antifungal properties with a median MIC of 125 μg/ml, revealing synergistic and additive effects when combined with established antifungal agents like fluconazole, amphotericin B, nystatin, and caspofungin. Notably, carvacrol not only reduced the MIC values of these drugs but also inhibited critical virulence factors of C. auris by reducing its adherence and proteinase production. Sharifzadeh et al. (2019) demonstrated synergistic potential between carvacrol and voriconazole against Candida species, minimizing the risk of side effects from high drug concentrations. The reported FICI values against all tested C. albicans isolates were at FICI 0.370–0.853 and C. glabrata at FICI 0.412–0.625. Sharifzadeh and Shokri (2021) further confirmed synergy between eugenol and voriconazole against C. tropicalis and C. krusei isolates at FICI 0.25–0.88 and 0.19–0.63, respectively. Schlemmer et al. (2019) explored synergistic interactions of monoterpenes with antifungal agents, revealing primary synergies in combinations like carvacrol + nystatin, thymol + nystatin, and carvacrol + miconazole at a rate of 80%. Some combinations showed indifference such as thymol + terbinafine and cinnamaldehyde + terbinafine, while antagonistic effects were observed in carvacrol + ketoconazole, thymol + ketoconazole, and cinnamaldehyde + ketoconazole, emphasizing the need for careful combination selection for effective antifungal strategies.

Biernasiuk et al. (2022) revealed significant synergistic effects when cinnamaldehyde and eugenol were combined with cetylpyridinium chloride against Candida spp. strains, resulting in a notable reduction in MICs by 4–8 fold and 2–4 fold, respectively, across various strains. Similar synergistic outcomes were observed with chlorhexidine at FICI 0.375–0.5 for all strains except Candida parapsilosis (addition at FICI 0.562). These compounds act by binding to ergosterol in the fungal membrane, increasing ion permeability and leading to cell death, offering potential for topical antifungal preparations.

Efficacy of monoterpenes against biofilm-associated infections

Recent studies revealed the potent efficacy of monoterpenes and monoterpenoids against biofilms, complex bacterial communities resistant to conventional antibiotics. El-Far et al. (2021) demonstrated that eugenol effectively eradicated established MRSA biofilms at MIC or 2 × MIC concentrations compared to controls. Post-treatment gene expression analysis showed significant downregulation of biofilm-related genes (sarA, icaA, icaD), leading to reduced polysaccharide accumulation and cell adhesion within the biofilms in vitro.

Mastoor et al. (2022) explored the molecular mechanisms of natural compounds like eugenol and α-bromotrans-cinnamaldehyde against S. aureus biofilms, noting significant reductions in gene expression related to intracellular adhesion, suggesting a strategy to disrupt biofilm formation early on. Swetha et al. (2020) demonstrated the synergistic antimicrobial interaction of carvacrol and thymol against biofilms of C. albicans and Staphylococcus epidermidis. This combination hindered biofilm formation and delayed growth upon short-term exposure, potentially reducing dosing frequency and resistance development. Carvacrol’s efficacy extends beyond single-species infections; Wang et al. (2020b) found it to exhibit stronger activity against S. aureus compared to Pseudomonas fluorescens, attributed to its reactivity with membrane proteins. Carvacrol targeted extracellular polymeric substances, disrupting biofilm structures in a concentration-dependent manner.

Qian et al. (2020) investigated eugenol’s mechanism against CRKP biofilms, revealing potent antimicrobial activity with MIC values of 200 μg/ml. They found that eugenol damages the CRKP cell membrane, leading to biofilm cell death. Insights into its mechanism include a reduction in intracellular pH, ATP levels, and cell membrane hyperpolarization, indicating intracellular component leakage and the organelle dysfunction. Additionally, eugenol downregulated biofilm-related genes (pgaA, luxS, wbbM, and wzm) while upregulating mrkA, hindered biofilm development.

Choudhary et al. (2022) demonstrated eugenol and geraniol’s efficacy against A. baumannii isolates. Timekill assays showed decreased growth at MIC levels, with reduced exopolysaccharide production indicating biofilm disruption. The binding of eugenol and geraniol to the adhesion tip of the csuE pilus suggested disruption of mature biofilms, confirmed by scanning electron microscopy images. They showed the penetration of the biofilm matrix and cell membrane dissolution, with downregulation of the csuE gene, further supporting inhibition of biofilm formation. These findings underscore the multifaceted approach of monoterpenes, particularly eugenol, in combatting AMR by disrupting biofilms.

In a study by Jafri et al. (2019), eugenol showed notable activity against C. albicans and Streptococcus mutans, with planktonic MICs of 200 μg/ml, demonstrating efficacy against both planktonic and sessile growth modes. This study highlighted eugenol’s advantage over antibiotics like fluconozole, azithromycin, and chlorhexidine digluconate, which exhibited increased resistance levels in the latter mode. Marini et al. (2019) investigated carvacrol’s efficacy against Mycobacterium biofilms, including Mycobacterium abscessus and Mycobacterium fortuitum, notorious for their antibiotic resistance. Carvacrol inhibited biofilm formation and disrupted pre-formed biofilms, even at sub-MIC concentrations, indicating its potential against established infections. These findings collectively emphasize the promising role of monoterpenes and monoterpenoids in combating biofilm-associated infections, suggesting new avenues for antimicrobial research and clinical applications.

Innovative approach of using monoterpenes and monoterpenoids

Recent studies utilizing monoterpenes and monoterpenoids have shown promise across various sectors, including food preservation, wound healing, and medical devices. In the food industry, Abdelhamid and Yousef (2021) demonstrated that incorporating carvacrol and thymol into food-grade milk powder reduced desiccation resistance in Salmonella enterica and increased lethality during milk dehydration, enhancing safety in low-water activity foods. Similarly, Flores et al. (2021) showed that carvacrol-enriched edible films improved mechanical and optical properties, enhancing water vapor barrier capability and potentially extending food shelf life.

In nanotherapeutics, Oz et al. (2021) developed carvacrol-loaded nanoemulsions for combating bacterial biofilms, noted for their stability and selective biofilm eradication with minimal impact on mammalian cells. This platform could deliver multiple EOs, increasing antimicrobial efficacy. Li et al. (2021) and Mir et al. (2019) further advanced nanoemulsion and nanoparticle delivery systems. Li et al. (2021) reported broad-spectrum antimicrobial activity with gelatin, riboflavin, and carvacrol against biofilms, contributing to wound infection management and accelerated closure in a murine model. Mir et al. (2019) enhanced skin retention of carvacrol using poly(ε-caprolactone), targeting skin infections and showing potential against MRSA. These innovations indicate significant strides in applying monoterpenes and monoterpenoids for clinical and commercial uses.

Eugenol has demonstrated promise in food packaging through a novel multilayer structure with electrospun eugenol on a biopolymer base, offering significant antibacterial activity against S. aureus and E. coli, and improved barrier properties against water and aroma vapors (Figueroa-Lopez et al. 2020). These structures could effectively reduce food-borne bacteria while preserving food’s organoleptic qualities. In veterinary medicine, geraniol offers a potential non-antibiotic treatment for bovine mastitis, showing equivalent therapeutic effects without impacting gut microbiota or leaving drug residues in milk, suggesting a sustainable approach to managing mastitis in dairy cattle (Guo et al. 2023).

Additionally, eugenol-coated silicone segments have shown effectiveness in reducing biofilm-associated bacterial counts and preventing bacterial adhesion in catheter-associated urinary tract infections (CAUTIs), presenting a novel anti-virulence strategy for longterm protection against P. aeruginosa-induced CAUTIs (Rathinam et al. 2021).

Challenges and future prospects

Monoterpenes and monoterpenoids, known for their antimicrobial efficacy, are confronting emerging resistance mechanisms. Pesingi et al. (2019) highlighted the MexAB-OprM efflux pump’s role in carvacrol resistance in P. aeruginosa, with the inactivation of the mexA gene substantially reducing carvacrol’s MIC value. The combination of carvacrol and efflux pump inhibitor exhibited synergistic effects, suggesting a potential avenue for combating resistance. Kwiatkowski et al. (2022) demonstrated carvacrol’s remarkable antibacterial potency against uropathogenic K. pneumoniae strains producing New Delhi metallo-β-lactamase-1 carbapenemase, particularly effective against biofilm formation, crucial in chronic infections. However, concerns about resistance development persist, as shown by Berdejo et al. (2020), indicating the adaptability of S. enterica subsp. enterica serovar Typhimurium LT2 to carvacrol through gradual MIC values increases.

Utilizing monoterpenes and monoterpenoids as antimicrobial agents presents challenges that require effective solutions. The challenges of resistance call for concerted effects to optimize the therapeutic potential of monoterpenes and monoterpenoids. Limited water solubility affects bioavailability, requiring formulation strategies or chemical modifications. Volatility and instability pose formulation and storage challenges, while potential toxicity demands careful consideration. Variability in antimicrobial activity and the risk of resistance highlights the need for mechanistic research. Interdisciplinary efforts in pharmacology, formulation science, and microbiology can lead to novel antimicrobial agents with improved efficacy, safety, and clinical utility, aiding in the fight against AMR.

Conclusion

In conclusion, this review highlights the substantial potential of monoterpenes and monoterpenoids as antimicrobial agents against MDR pathogens. They effectively combat biofilms, target virulence factors, and show synergy with conventional antibiotics. Challenges such as limited solubility, volatility, and toxicity need to be addressed through innovative formulations and interdisciplinary research. Despite these obstacles, these natural compounds offer promising avenues for developing effective treatments against AMR, emphasizing their importance in the fight against MDR bacterial infections.

Lingua:
Inglese
Frequenza di pubblicazione:
4 volte all'anno
Argomenti della rivista:
Scienze biologiche, Microbiologia e virologia