<xhtml:span xmlns:xhtml="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" xml:lang="en">Antibacterial activity of Cinnamomum verum and Thymus vulgaris essential oils on multidrug-resistant zoonotic bacteria isolated from dogs in southern Benin </xhtml:span>
This article has been Reviewed by the following groups
Listed in
This article is not in any list yet, why not save it to one of your lists.Abstract
Objective Antibiotic resistance is a major public health problem. The search for new therapeutic alternatives is becoming urgent. Essential oils are a promising alternative. This study aimed to evaluate the antibacterial activities of essential oils from selected plants on multidrug-resistant zoonotic strains isolated from dogs. Methods Essential oils from dried Thymus vulgaris leaves, Cinnamomum verum bark, and Cuminum cyminum seeds were extracted and tested on five multidrug-resistant Escherichia coli and four S. aureus isolated from dogs in southern Benin. Results The study showed that Thymus vulgaris essential oil was bacteriostatic, with a Minimum Inhibitory Concentration (MIC) equal to 2.5 μl/ml and a Minimum Bactericidal Concentration (MBC) of 17 μl/ml for E. coli strains and 11.25 μl/ml for S. aureus strains. Regarding Cinnamomum verum essential oil, its bacteriostatic power was characterized by an MIC of 1.25 μl/ml for the isolates tested and an average MBC of 11.50 μl/ml for E. coli and 12.19 μl/ml for S. aureus. On the other hand, Cuminum cyminum essential oil was ineffective on the strains investigated. Additionally, T. vulgaris essential oil contained predominantly thymol (36.57%), p-cymene (30.51%), and carvacrol (7.62%), while C. verum essential oil contained cinnamaldehyde (88.76%). Conclusion This study reveals the antibacterial activity of T. vulgaris dry leaf and C. verum bark essential oils on multi-resistant E. coli and S. aureus isolated from dogs. These two essential oils may be alternative candidates for combating antibiotic-resistant E. coli and S. aureus infections.
Article activity feed
-
I am pleased to tell you that your article has now been accepted for publication in Access Microbiology. This study will be a valuable contribution to the existing literature and community. You have satisfactorily addressed the concerns of the reviewers. This study would be a valuable contribution to the existing literature. This is a study that would be of interest to the field and community.
-
-
The reviewers have highlighted major concerns with the work presented. Please ensure that you address their comments. Please include more rigour criteria and resources in your methods section, as highlighted by the SciScore reports. Including RRIDs and negative statements to explain why things were not performed should increase the rigour and reproducibility of your work. You can find tips on how to improve your article here: https://sciscore.com/reports/Core-Report.php
-
Comments to Author
* The methodology was concise and coherent * Introduction related to incidence and increase of zoonotic infections and its role as a vehicle for generation of resistant strains was missing. (Introduction) * The introduction is short. A storyline highlighting the problem was missing. (Introduction) * Resistance development of strains against which classes were missing. (Introduction) * The reason for use of 10*8 CFU/ml for antibiotic sensitivity (essential oil) was missing. (Materials and Methods) * Measurement of zone of inhibition (comparison with 14 mm,reason was absent) Was any standard used apart from reference? (Materials and Methods) * Cytotoxicity test could be added or otherwise previous literature should have been mentioned in the discussion section. (Discussion)
Please rate the …
Comments to Author
* The methodology was concise and coherent * Introduction related to incidence and increase of zoonotic infections and its role as a vehicle for generation of resistant strains was missing. (Introduction) * The introduction is short. A storyline highlighting the problem was missing. (Introduction) * Resistance development of strains against which classes were missing. (Introduction) * The reason for use of 10*8 CFU/ml for antibiotic sensitivity (essential oil) was missing. (Materials and Methods) * Measurement of zone of inhibition (comparison with 14 mm,reason was absent) Was any standard used apart from reference? (Materials and Methods) * Cytotoxicity test could be added or otherwise previous literature should have been mentioned in the discussion section. (Discussion)
Please rate the manuscript for methodological rigour
Very good
Please rate the quality of the presentation and structure of the manuscript
Good
To what extent are the conclusions supported by the data?
Strongly support
Do you have any concerns of possible image manipulation, plagiarism or any other unethical practices?
No
Is there a potential financial or other conflict of interest between yourself and the author(s)?
No
If this manuscript involves human and/or animal work, have the subjects been treated in an ethical manner and the authors complied with the appropriate guidelines?
Yes
-
Comments to Author
Dear Authors I am sorry to have to reject your study for publication but it does not meet criteria for publication. I would recommend to correct at least the following : To begin with, the number of tested isolates is not sufficient to draw conclusions on your tests. The tested isolates also do not fit the definition of multi drug resistant strains. You did not provide methods parameters of the tested isolates : where they were isolated from, when and how was the antibiogram performed and on what basis did you interpret the resistance Also we do not know the kind of infection that you intend to treat nor how (topical probably ?) with kind regards
Please rate the manuscript for methodological rigour
Very poor
Please rate the quality of the presentation and structure …
Comments to Author
Dear Authors I am sorry to have to reject your study for publication but it does not meet criteria for publication. I would recommend to correct at least the following : To begin with, the number of tested isolates is not sufficient to draw conclusions on your tests. The tested isolates also do not fit the definition of multi drug resistant strains. You did not provide methods parameters of the tested isolates : where they were isolated from, when and how was the antibiogram performed and on what basis did you interpret the resistance Also we do not know the kind of infection that you intend to treat nor how (topical probably ?) with kind regards
Please rate the manuscript for methodological rigour
Very poor
Please rate the quality of the presentation and structure of the manuscript
Satisfactory
To what extent are the conclusions supported by the data?
Not at all
Do you have any concerns of possible image manipulation, plagiarism or any other unethical practices?
No
Is there a potential financial or other conflict of interest between yourself and the author(s)?
No
If this manuscript involves human and/or animal work, have the subjects been treated in an ethical manner and the authors complied with the appropriate guidelines?
Yes
-