1887

Journal of Medical Microbiology logo

Volume 69, Issue 5

Hydroxyethoxy phenyl butanone, a new cosmetic preservative, does not cause bacterial cross-resistance to antimicrobials Open Access

Abstract

Biocide-induced cross-resistance to antimicrobials in bacteria has been described and is a concern for regulators. We have recently reported on a new protocol to predict the propensity of biocide to induce phenotypic resistance in bacteria.

To measure bacterial propensity to develop antimicrobial resistance following exposure to a new cosmetic preservative developed by L’Oréal R and I.

Well-established antimicrobials including triclosan (TRI) and benzalkonium chloride (BZC) and a new molecule hydroxyethoxy phenyl butanone (HEPB) were investigated for their antimicrobial efficacy, effect on bacterial growth, and their potential to induce resistance to chemotherapeutic antibiotics using a new predictive protocol.

The use of this predictive protocol with , and showed that TRI and BZC significantly affected bacterial growth, MICs and minimum bactericidal concentrations (MBCs). There was no change in antibiotic susceptibility profile following exposure to BZC, but became intermediate resistant to tobramycin following treatment with TRI (0.00002 % w/v). HEPB did not change the antimicrobial susceptibility profile in and but became susceptible to gentamicin. TRI exposure resulted in bacterial susceptibility profile alteration consistent with the literature and confirmed the use of TRI as a positive control in such a test.

Data produced on the propensity of a molecule to induce bacterial resistance is useful and appropriate when launching a new preservative.

  • Received:
  • Accepted:
  • Published Online:
Keyword(s): antibiotics , biocides , predictive protocol and resistance
Funding
This study was supported by the:
  • Fondation L’Oréal (Award -)
    • Principle Award Recipient: Rebecca Wesgate
© 2020 The Authors
  • This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License. This article was made open access via a Publish and Read agreement between the Microbiology Society and the corresponding author’s institution.
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journal/jmm/10.1099/jmm.0.001147
2020-03-18
2024-04-25
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/jmm/69/5/670.html?itemId=/content/journal/jmm/10.1099/jmm.0.001147&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

References

  1. Siani H, Maillard J-Y. Best practice in healthcare environment decontamination. Eur J Infect Control Infect Dis 2015; 34:1–11
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Maillard J-Y, Bloomfield S, Coelho JR, Collier P, Cookson B et al. Does microbicide use in consumer products promote antimicrobial resistance? A critical review and recommendations for a cohesive approach to risk assessment. Microb Drug Res 2013; 19:344–354
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks (SCENIHR) Assessment of the antibiotic resistance effects of biocides; 2009
  4. Fernández-Fuentes MAF, Morente EO, Abriouel H, Pulido RP, Gálvez A. Antimicrobial resistance determinants in antibiotic and biocide resistant gram-negative bacteria from organic foods. Food Control 2014; 37:9–14
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Gao P, He S, Huang SL, Li KZ, Liu ZH et al. Impacts of coexisting antibiotics, antibacterial residues, and heavy metals on the occurrence of erythromycin resistance genes in urban wastewater. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 2015; 99:3971–3980
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Maillard J-Y, Denyer SP. Emerging bacterial resistance following biocide exposure: should we be concerned?. Chem Oggi 2009; 27:26–28
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Maillard J-Y. Resistance of bacteria to biocides. Microbiol Spectrum 2018; 6:ARBA-0006-2017
     [Google Scholar]
  8. Webber MA, Whitehead RN, Mount M, Loman NJ, Pallen MJ et al. Parallel evolutionary pathways to antibiotic resistance selected by biocide exposure. J Antimicrob Chemother 2015; 70:2241–2248
     [Google Scholar]
  9. Wesgate R, Grascha P, Maillard J-Y. The use of a predictive protocol to measure the antimicrobial resistance risks associated with biocidal product usage. Amer J Infect Control 2016; 44:458–464
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Knapp L, Amézquita A, McClure P, Stewart S, Maillard J-Y. Development of a protocol for predicting bacterial resistance to microbicides. Appl Environ Microbiol 2015; 81:2652–2659
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Rowe RC, Sheskey PJ, Quinn ME. Handbook of Pharmaceutical Excipients, 6th edn. London: Pharmaceutical Press; 2009
     [Google Scholar]
  12. Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety (SCCS) Opinion on triclosan antimicrobial resistance; 2010
  13. Lee JD, Lee JY, Kwack SJ, Shin CY, Jang H-J et al. Risk assessment of triclosan, a cosmetic preservative. Toxicol Res 2019; 35:137–154
     [Google Scholar]
  14. McMurry LM, Oethinger M, Levy SB. Overexpression of marA, soxS, or acrAB produces resistance to triclosan in laboratory and clinical strains of Escherichia coli . FEMS Microbiol Lett 1998; 166:305–309
     [Google Scholar]
  15. Knapp L, Rushton L, Stapleton H, Sass A, Stewart S et al. The effect of cationic microbicide exposure against Burkholderia cepacia complex (Bcc); the use of Burkholderia lata strain 383 as a model bacterium. J Appl Microbiol 2013; 115:1117–1126
     [Google Scholar]
  16. Miles AA, Misra SS. The estimation of the bactericidal power of the blood. J Hyg 1938; 38:732–749
     [Google Scholar]
  17. Gomez Escalada M, Russell AD, Maillard J-Y, Ochs D. Triclosan-bacteria interactions: single or multiple target sites?. Lett Appl Microbiol 2005; 41:476–481
     [Google Scholar]
  18. British Standards Institute. BS EN ISO: 20776-1 International Organisation for Standardisation. Clinical laboratory testing and in vitro diagnostic test systems - Susceptibility testing of infectious agents and evaluation of performance of antimicrobial susceptibility test devices - Part 1: Reference method for testing the in vitro London: British Standard Institute; 2006
     [Google Scholar]
  19. Andrews JM. BSAC standardized disc susceptibility testing method (version 8). J Antimicrob Chemother 2009; 6:454–489
     [Google Scholar]
  20. British Standards Institute. BS EN 1276 Chemical disinfectants and antiseptics: 449 Quantitative suspension test for the evaluation of bactericidal activity of chemical 450 disinfectants and antiseptics used in food, industrial, domestic and institutional 451 areas. Test method and requirements (phase 2, step 1) London: British Standard Institute; 2009
     [Google Scholar]
  21. Sandegren L. Selection of antibiotic resistance at a very low antibiotic concentrations. Upsala J Med Sci 2014; 119:103–107
     [Google Scholar]
  22. Karatzas KA, Webber MA, Jorgensen F, Woodward MJ, Piddock LJ et al. Prolonged treatment of Salmonella enterica serovar Typhimurium with commercial disinfectants selects for multiple antibiotic resistance, increased efflux and reduced invasiveness. J Antimicrob Chemother 2007; 60:947–955
     [Google Scholar]
  23. Muller JF, Ghosh S, Ikuma K, Stevens AM, Love NG. Chlorinated phenol-induced physiological antibiotic resistance in Pseudomonas aeruginosa . FEMS Microbiol Lett 2015; 362:
     [Google Scholar]
  24. Buffet-Bataillon S, Tattevin P, Maillard J-Y, Bonnaure-Mallet M, Jolivet-Gougeon A. Efflux pump induction by quaternary ammonium compounds and fluoroquinolone resistance in bacteria. Future Microbiol 2016; 11:81–92
     [Google Scholar]
  25. Condell O, Power PA, Händler K, Finn S, Sheridan A et al. Comparative analysis of Salmonella susceptibility and tolerance to the biocide chlorhexidine identifies a complex cellular defense network. Front Microbiol 2014; 5:1–26
     [Google Scholar]
  26. Curiao T, Marchi E, Viti C, Oggioni R, Baquero F et al. Polymorphic variation in susceptibility and metabolism of triclosan resistant mutants of Escherichia coli and Klebsiella pneumoniae clinical strains obtained after exposure to biocides and antibiotics. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2015; 59:34113–3423
     [Google Scholar]
  27. Hernández A, Ruiz FM, Romero A, Martínez JL. The binding of triclosan to SmeT, the repressor of the multidrug efflux pump SmeDEF, induces antibiotic resistance in Stenotrophomonas maltophilia . PLoSPathog 2011; 7:e1002103
     [Google Scholar]
  28. Lenahan M, Sheridan A, Morris D, Duffy G, Fanning S et al. Transcriptomic analysis of triclosan-susceptible and -tolerant Escherichia coli O157:H19 in response to triclosan exposure. Microb Drug Res 2014; 20:91–103
     [Google Scholar]
  29. Cowley NL, Forbes S, Amezquita A, McClure P, Humphreys GJ et al. Effects of formulation on microbicide potency and mitigation of the development of bacterial insusceptibility. Appl Environ Microbiol 2015; 81:7330–7338
     [Google Scholar]
  30. Giuliano CA, Rybak MJ. Efficacy of triclosan as an antimicrobial hand soap and its potential impact on antimicrobial resistance: a focused review. Pharmacotherapy 2015; 35:328–336
     [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journal/jmm/10.1099/jmm.0.001147
Loading
Hydroxyethoxy phenyl butanone, a new cosmetic preservative, does not cause bacterial cross-resistance to antimicrobials
J. Med. Microbiol. 69, 670 (2020); https://doi.org/10.1099/jmm.0.001147
/content/journal/jmm/10.1099/jmm.0.001147
/content/journal/jmm/10.1099/jmm.0.001147
Loading

Data & Media loading...

Supplements

Supplementary material 1

PDF

Most cited Most Cited RSS feed

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error