570 likes | 1.38k Views
Antimicrobial activity of honey. Honey has been well studied for its antimicrobial and wound healing propertiesLow water activity~80% sugarsLow pHGluconic acidpH 3.2 ? 4.5Hydrogen peroxideGlucose oxidase. Antimicrobial activity of honey. Leptospermum honey. Leptospermum honey catalase. Brush box honey.
E N D
1. Survey of the antimicrobial activity of Australian honey Julie Irish
Dee Carter
Shona Blair
School of Molecular and Microbial Biosciences University of Sydney
2. Antimicrobial activity of honey Honey has been well studied for its antimicrobial and wound healing properties
Low water activity
~80% sugars
Low pH
Gluconic acid
pH 3.2 – 4.5
Hydrogen peroxide
Glucose oxidase
4. Non-peroxide activity is caused by methylglyoxal (MGO) High concentrations of MGO in manuka honey that correlate strongly with non-peroxide activity
MGO is naturally produced in all cells as a by-product of metabolism
Highly toxic
Modifies DNA, RNA, and proteins
Targets them for degradation by the cell’s own machinery
Some bacteria and fungi have well-defined detoxification systems
5. How does this fit with the current theory about medicinal honey?
MGO produced by stressed plants
May explain why some organisms are more sensitive to honey than others
Combination of MGO and honey makes it non-toxic to human cells?
Need further studies on source, mode of action, standardisation in medicinal honeys Non-peroxide activity is caused by methylglyoxal (MGO)
6. Survey of Australian honeys for antibacterial activity Important to find the most highly active honeys for therapeutic use
345 New Zealand honeys tested (Allen et al. (1991))
No published data for Australian honey
Overview of activity of Australian honey
7. Testing the antibacterial activity of honey Compares the antibacterial activity of a given honey to that of phenol
Staphylococcus aureus is mixed into agar plate
Holes cut into agar
Various solutions added to wells
25% honey in water
(tests total activity)
OR
25% honey in catalase solution
(tests non-peroxide activity)
OR
Solutions of 2 to 7% phenol
(standard curve)
8. Solutions diffuse out of the wells during incubation
If they prevent the growth of S. aureus
zones of inhibition
Zones are measured,
mean diameter squared
Standard curve generated
from phenol solutions Testing the antibacterial activity of honey
9. Testing the antibacterial activity of honey
10. Testing the antibacterial activity of honey
11. Results 503 honey samples tested
477 Apis mellifera
26 Trigona spp.
Activity (phenol equivalent) varies greatly
<5 Insignificant therapeutic value
5-10 Low activity
>10 Therapeutically beneficial
>20 Highly active
12. Total activity
13. Total activity
14. Total activity
15. Total activity
16. Total activity
17. Total activity
18. Total activity
19. Total activity
20. Total activity
21. Total activity
22. Total activity
23. Total activity
24. Distribution of total activity
25. Non-peroxide activity
26. Non-peroxide activity
27. Non-peroxide activity
28. Non-peroxide activity
29. Non-peroxide activity
30. Non-peroxide activity
31. Non-peroxide activity
32. Non-peroxide activity
33. Non-peroxide activity
34. Non-peroxide activity
35. Distribution of non-peroxide activity
36. Non-peroxide activity Of the 80 honeys with non-peroxide activity,
62 (77.5%) were from Leptospermum, or contained Leptospermum
Mean non-peroxide activity 17.2 ? 4.1 (9.8 – 25.9)
Some species/areas more reliable than others
L. polygalifolium (Jelly bush): 29 samples, 28 had non-peroxide activity
L. scoparium (Manuka): 11 samples, none had non-peroxide activity, some inactive
Most active Leptospermum honeys from NSW-QLD border
37. Non-peroxide activity 18 non-Leptospermum samples had
non-peroxide activity
Mean non-peroxide activity 10.1 ? 1.7 (8.1 – 15.9)
Spotted gum (3/6 samples)
South west Tasmanian wildflowers (3/5 samples)
Stonefruit orchard (1/2 samples)
Clover (1/5 samples)
Melaleuca (2/28 samples)
Moort (1/1 samples)
Forest red gum (1/2 samples)
Messmate (1/6 samples)
Unspecified mixed flora (5/64 samples)
38. Floral sources 477 honey samples from 142 different floral sources, including mixed flora
78% of honeys were from native
Australian flora, another 17%
were likely to contain natives
38% of honeys contained
eucalypts
24% of honeys contained
Leptospermum
(likely to be biased)
39. Eastern Australia
40. Eastern Australia Highest total activity: 34.3 (Apple box/Red stringybark)
Highest non-peroxide activity: 25.9 (Jelly bush)
High non-peroxide activity (>20% phenol equivalent) in Leptospermum samples from QLD and northern NSW
12 non-Leptospermum honeys
had non-peroxide activity
41. Western Australia
42. Western Australia Highest total activity: 31.9 (Stonefruit)
Highest non-peroxide activity: 9.7 (Melaleuca)
31 honeys with total activity >20
(many from flora endemic to WA)
Jarrah: 19 samples
Activity range 17.7 to 31.4
1 sample was inactive
Karri: 3 samples
Activity range 18.5 to 29.6
Marri: 9 samples
Activity range 18 to 29.7
1 sample was inactive
43. Important message It is impossible to predict the activity of a given honey, must test every batch
32 samples, same beekeeper, same floral source, same time, different hives
31 samples had total activity between 11 and 19
1 sample was inactive
30% of Leptospermum honeys were inactive,
15% had hydrogen peroxide activity only
Activity relates to floral source to an extent, but there are clearly many other factors involved
Environmental conditions, soil type, soil and plant microbiology, bee health…
44. Stingless bee honey 26 samples of Trigona spp. honey from QLD
Mixed flora, various times of year
23 samples had total activity >20 (12.4 – 32.1)
24 samples had non-peroxide activity >10 (11.5 – 23.7)
45. Conclusions Australian honeys show a wide range of antibacterial activities
Many have potential for therapeutic use
Non-peroxide activity exists in honeys from various floral sources
Leptospermum spp. remain the most
reliable source of high non-peroxide activity
Statistical analysis is ongoing
Identified areas to focus on in
future studies
Role of MGO?
46. Acknowledgments The 124 beekeepers who supplied honey samples for the survey
Rob Manning, Dept of Agriculture, WA
Tim Heard, CSIRO Entomology, QLD
Comvita, New Zealand
RIRDC