Translate this page into:
Antibacterial potentials of extracts from Gryllotalpa gryllotalpa, Pentodon algerinum grubs, and Gypsonoma euphraticana larva frass
-
Received: ,
Accepted: ,
How to cite this article: Bader MF, Mekhlif AF. Antibacterial potentials of extracts from Gryllotalpa gryllotalpa, Pentodon algerinum grubs, and Gypsonoma euphraticana larva frass. Am J Pharmacother Pharm Sci 2024:5.
Abstract
Objectives:
The overuse and abuse of antibiotics have accelerated antibiotic resistance, and to solve this problem, it has been found that many insect species have potential antimicrobial properties against a wide range of resistant pathogens. Our study tests the antibacterial activity of microbial defensive compounds included in body extract of insects inhabiting contaminated environments and frass of phytophagous insects.
Materials and Methods:
Through sequential extraction method by acidic methanol, chloroform, and hexane solvents, insect body extract of Gryllotalpa gryllotalpa, grubs of Pentodon algerinum besides feces of Gypsonoma euphraticana larvae were tested against Gram-positives Bacillus cereus, Bacillus coagulans, Staphylococcus aureus, and Salmonella typhi, Escherichia coli, and Klebsiella pneumoniae. The antibiotics ceftriaxone (CRO) and ampicillin (AM) were used as standard drugs. The antibacterial growth inhibition was estimated by well diffusion methods.
Results:
High significant antibacterial activity against the tested bacteria by acidic methanol then chloroform extracts, while hexane extract of all the three insect species only produced significant growth inhibition of S. aureus. In addition, growth inhibition 20.0 mm or more was induced by: MeOH extracts of G. gryllotalpa and P. algerinum for S. typhi and E. coli, besides chloroform G. gryllotalpa extract for S. typhi. The tested bacteria S. aureus, S. typhi, and K. pneumoniae were AM-resistant, while E. coli was both AM and CRO-resistant.
Conclusion:
Acidic meOH and chloroform body extract of G. gryllotalpa and P. algerinum and larvae G. euphraticana feces extract possess bioactive compounds with promising antibacterial properties, for overcoming antibiotic resistance.
Keywords
Insect extracts
antibacterial
antibiotic resistance
Gryllotalpa gryllotalpa
Gypsonoma euphraticana
Pentodon algerinum
INTRODUCTION
The beneficial uses of most insects relate to honey and edible insects as food, silk for clothing, pollinator insects for plant pollination, and few traditional medicinal applications, but little is known about developing potential drugs from insect bodies depending on their innate immunity properties as reservoirs of antimicrobial agents. The overuse of antibiotics since the last decade of the 20th century has led to the emergence of antibiotic resistance.[1] Moreover, many pathogenic bacteria acquire resistance to more than one antibiotic, which so referred to as multidrug resistance, some of them are even resistant to any known antibiotics and so named pan-drug resistance.[2,3] Now, drug resistance is one of the 10 problems that threaten the world,[4,5] with annual proportional increasing resistance of the fatal pathogenic species to present antibiotics.[6] Today, drug resistance encourages searching for new alternative resources. One of these resources deals with the insect world, which aims to separate active antibacterial ingredients as templates for a new generation of the drug industry. Most studies in this field were first emphasized as survey study on the insect body extracts,[7-9] or bacterial inhibition by parts of the insect.[10-13] In more advanced studies, peptides with low molecular weights had been identified, and their growth inhibition activity was tested against a wide spectrum of Gram-negative and Gram-positive pathogenic bacteria. Therefore, many active metabolic compounds were separated and identified, with promising bacteria growth inhibition.[14,15] Moreover, many of the present drug-resistant bacteria are sensitive to insect antimicrobial peptides,[16-19] or epicuticular content lipids of the exoskeleton,[20-22] with promising results. Despite the huge diversity of the insect taxa, there has been slow progress in insect therapeutics, for instance, melittin from bees and alloferon from blow flies.[23,24]
In the light of the adaptation hypothesis, insects in polluted habitats have evolved high antimicrobial defense mechanisms. On this scope, the insect body extracts of the imago mole cricket, Gryllotalpa gryllotalpa, scarab beetle Pentodon algerinum grubs, and feces the leaf silk-webbing Gypsonoma euphraticana inhabited the host plant Populus euphratica were tested on the growth inhibition in vitro the pathogenic bacteria; Bacillus cereus, Bacillus coagulans, Staphylococcus aureus, Salmonella typhi, Escherichia coli, and Klebsiella pneumoniae.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Insects
The tested insects were reared from their native environment in Mosul province/Iraq (36° 22'35 43° 08'32" E). Mole cricket G. gryllotalpa was collected manually from the house garden infested with the pest around a light source in the rainy season. Specimens of the scarab grubs, P. algerinum (about 30 mm long) were picked up from the earthen cells in a depth of about 30 centimeters the last spring. Feces were removed from the Populus Euphratica leaves housing the G. euphraticana.
Bacteria isolates
The human pathogenic bacteria had been used as references for evaluating in vitro antibacterial activity of the insect extracts. The Gram-positives are B. cereus, B. coagulans, and S. aureus, while S. typhi, E. coli, and Klebsiella pneumoniae are Gram-negatives. Bacteria isolates were identified and brought from the Microbiology laboratory/Department of Biology/College of Education for Pure Sciences/Mosul University/Iraq.
Culture media
The culture growth media, Muller–Hinton agar from NEOGEN Culture Media (foodstafety.neogen.com) had been purchased.
Extraction solvents
The insect body extracts were prepared using the following polar solvents with descending polarity indices values; water (10.2), dimethyl sulfoxide DMSO (7.2), acetic acid (6.0), methanol (5.1), chloroform (4.1), and hexane (0.1).
Bacteria isolation
Each of the bacteria species was inoculated on a new nutrient agar plate by loop full bacteria and then incubated for 24 h. at 37°C to obtain an active cultivar. The prepared plates were used either for experimental testing or kept at 4°C as stock inoculums for subsequent experiments.
Insect crude extracts
The mole crickets and scarab grubs were killed by lowering their temperatures in the refrigerator, then in the oven dried at 35°C. 100 g of dried insects and 25 g of larval feces were grounded by an electric mill, sequential separation of active constituents through a 3-stage solvent elution method which modified after.[7,25] The first step includes extraction by acidic methanol (90% meOH + 9% H2O + 1% CH3COOH) solvent, then the filtrate dried, and the precipitate secondly eluted by chloroform, and within the last (third) stage of the elution by hexane solvent. The three obtained dried extracts for each insect material were preserved at 4°C. For experimentation, the dried extract dissolved in DMSO, and the applied concentration for all the experimental treatments was 250 mg/mL.
Antibacterial susceptibility assay
Antibacterial activity was evaluated by the well diffusion method. The inhibition zones were recorded in millimeters (mm) using a ruler. Briefly, Muller–Hinton agar (MHA) plates were inoculated with the activated model bacteria isolates under aseptic conditions, and the wells (diameter = 8 mm) were filled by the test samples and incubated at 37 ºC for 24 h. Together, discs of standard drugs Ceftriaxone (CRO) and Ampicillin (AM) were fixed in MHA plates. The diameter of the clear growth to inhibition zones was measured. Inhibition rank was categorized according to Mohtar et al.[26] as follows: ≥8 mm (good), 6–7 mm (moderate), 4–5 mm (weak), and 2–3 mm (very weak).
Data analysis
All treatments were repeated in three replicates. The data was tabulated as means ± standard deviation. Mean differentiations at P ≤ 0.5 were conducted; using a one-way Analysis of Variance Duncan’s multiple range test.[27]
RESULTS
Antibacterial effect of the insect extracts
The present study deals with the antibacterial ability of the dry body ingredients of insects inhabiting polluted environments by means of growth inhibition zones of pathogenic bacteria. The antibacterial activity of body extracts of G. gryllotalpa, grubs of P. algerinum, and grounded feces of the leaves webbing moth, G. euphraticana, is shown in Tables 1-3. These extracts were prepared by sequential elution by gradual polarity indices of the applied solvents. The determined growth inhibition zone depended on the source of the extract and bacterium species.
| Bacteria species | Sequential solvents used in extraction |
||
|---|---|---|---|
| Acidic meOH | Chloroform | Hexane | |
| Bacillus cereus | 19.0±0.0b | 21.5±0.5a | 16.0±0.0c |
| Bacillus coagulans | 13.5±0.5a | 12.0±1.0b | 11.5±0.5b |
| Staphylococcus aureus | 15.5±0.5b | 16.8±0.8ab | 18.0±1.0a |
| Salmonellatyphi | 18.0±1.0b | 21.7±0.8a | 0.0±0.0c |
| Escherichia coli | 20.5±0.5a | 18.0±1.0c | 0.0±0.0c |
| Klebsiella pneumoniae | 19.0±1.0b | 25.3±1.0a | 0.0±0.0c |
Horizontal means±standard deviations with different letters are significantly different at P≤0.05 (Duncan’s test)
| Bacteria species | Sequential solvents used in extraction | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Acidic meOH | Chloroform | Hexane | |
| Bacillus cereus | 16.2±0.3a | 13.7±0.3b | 10.7±0.6c |
| Bacillus coagulans | 10.0±0.0b | 12.2±2.5a | 0.0±0.0c |
| Staphylococcus aureus | 15.7±0.6b | 15.20.3c | 17.0±0.0a |
| Salmonella typhi | 14.5±0.5a | 10.5±0.5b | 0.0±0.0c |
| Escherichia coli | 11.7±0.6a | 10.2±0.3b | 0.0±0.0c |
| Klebsiella pneumoniae | 15.5±0.5a | 10.8±0.3b | 9.8±0.3c |
Horizontal means±standard deviations with different letters are significantly different at P≤0.05 (Duncan’s test)
| Bacteria species | Sequential solvents used in extraction | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Acidic meOH | Chloroform | Hexane | |
| Bacillus cereus | 15.2±0.8a | 10.8±0.3b | 14.3±0.9a |
| Bacillus coagulans | 13.7±0.6a | 10.2±0.3b | 10.8±0.3b |
| Staphylococcus aureus | 11.7±0.6c | 14.0±1.0b | 17.7±0.6a |
| Salmonella typhi | 21.8±0.8a | 10.0±1.0c | 13.7±0.6b |
| Escherichia coli | 20.0±0.0a | 7.0±0.0b | 0.0±0.0c |
Horizontal means±standard deviations with different letters are significantly different at P≤0.05 (Duncan’s test)
For G. gryllotalpa extract, Table 1 exhibits growth inhibition of all the testing Gram-positive bacteria (B. cereus, B. coagulans, and S. aureus) by the three applied polar solvents ranging from 21.5 mm (for B. cereus) to 12.0 mm (for chloroform extract). While, only acidic methanol and chloroform inhibited the growth of the treated Gram-negative bacteria; S. typhi, E. coli, and K. pneumoniae, with higher clear zones of 25.3 mm for K. pneumoniae at chloroform extract and lower growth inhibition zone 18.0 mm for S. typhi and E. coli at acidic methanol and chloroform extracts, respectively.
The fecal extract of moth larvae, G. euphraticana inhibiting all Gram-positive bacteria except hexane extract for B. coagulans, is evoked in Table 2. On the other hand, only K. pneumoniae from Gram-positive bacteria were inhibited by hexane extract with 9.8 mm.
The grub beetle, P. algerinum extract with all three polar solvents, inhibited growth of the Gram-positives which ranged between 17.7 mm for S. aureus by hexane and 10.2 mm for B. coagulans with chloroform extract [Table 3].
Growth inhibit ability at each solvent extract bacteria
Each of the Tables 1-3 revealed how long the growth inhibition zones obtained by the extracts of G. gryllotalpa, G. euphraticana, larva feces and grubs P. algerinum, which were separately prepared by the following solvents; acidic methanol (mixed solvents), chloroform, and hexane.
For acidic methanol extract: The clear zones between 18.0 and 20.5 mm are shown in Table 4 demonstrated by the action of G. gryllotalpa against S. aureus, B. cereus, K. pneumoniae, and E. coli. Besides, feces extract gave a diameter clear zone ranging from 14.5 to 16.2 mm for the bacteria S. typhi, S. aureus, K. pneumoniae, and B. cereus, respectively. The extract of the grub beetle P. algerinum inhibited the growth of S. aureus, K. pneumoniae, B. coagulans, and B. cereus, while 20.0 and 21.8 mm for E. coli and S. typhi, respectively.
| Insect extract | The growth inhibition zone (mm) of the bacteria | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| B. cereus | B. coagulans | S. aureus | S. typhi | E. coli | K. pneumoniae | |
| G.gryllotalpa | 19.0±0.0bA | 13.5±0.5dC | 15.5±0.5cB | 18.0±1.0bC | 20.5±0.5aA | 19.0±1.0bB |
| G.euphraticana | 16.2±0.3aB | 10.0±0.0dD | 15.7±0.6aB | 14.5±0.5bD | 11.7±0.6cB | 15.5±0.5aC |
| P.algerinum | 14.7±1.5cB | 13.7±0.6cdC | 11.7±0.6eC | 21.8±0.8aB | 20.0±0.0bA | 12.7±0.6deD |
| CRO (ve+) | 110.0±0.5cC | 15.3±1.5bB | 17.2±0.8bA | 24.3±1.2aA | 0.0±0.0dC | 26.0±0.0aA |
| AM (ve+) | 14.7±0.6bB | 22.3±0.6aA | 0.0±0.0cD | 0.0±0.0cE | 0.0±0.0cC | 0.0±0.0cE |
Horizontal means±standard deviations with different (small) letters are significantly different at P≤0.05 (Duncan’s test). Means that vertical different (capital) letters are significantly different at P≤0.05 (Duncan’s test). G. gryllotalpa: Gryllotalpa gryllotalpa, P. algerinum: Pentodon algerinum, G. euphraticana: Gypsonoma euphraticana, B. cereus: Bacillus cereus, B. coagulans: Bacillus coagulans, S. aureus: Staphylococcus aureus, S. typhi: Salmonella typhi, E. coli: Escherichia coli, K. pneumonia: Klebsiella pneumoniae. CRO: Ceftriaxone, AM: Ampicillin
The diameters of growth inhibition zones of the cultured plates treated with extracts of the second phase chloroform are shown in Table 5. For mole G. gryllotalpa extract, the growth inhibition zone is mostly between 12.0 and 18.0 mm, except for B. cereus and K. pneumoniae 21.5 and 25.3 mm, respectively. However, P. algerinum grub extract was less effective with a range of 7.0–14 mm for all the experimental bacteria.
| Insect extract | Growth inhibition zone (mm) of the bacteria | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| B. cereus | B. coagulase | S. aureus | S. typhi | E. coli | K. pneumoniae | |
| G.gryllotalpa | 21.5±0.5bA | 12.0±0.0dC | 16.8±0.8cA | 21.7±0.6bD | 18.0±1.0cA | 25.3±1.0aB |
| G.euphraticana | 13.7±0.5bC | 12.2±2.5ccD | 15.2±0.3aB | 10.5±0.5cdC | 10.2±0.3dB | 10.8±0.3cdB |
| P.algerinum | 10.8±0.3cD | 10.2±0.3cdD | 14.0±0.0aC | 10.0±1.0dC | 7.0±0.0eC | 12.0±0.0bB |
| CRO (ve+) | 11.0±0.5cD | 15.3±1.5bB | 17.2±0.8bA | 24.3±1.2aA | 0.0±0.0dD | 260±2.0aA |
| AM (ve+) | 14.7±0.6bB | 22.3±0.6aA | 0.0±0.0cD | 0.0±0.0cB | 0.0±0.0cD | 0.0±0.0cC |
Horizontal means±standard deviations with different (small) letters are significantly different at P≤0.05 (Duncan’s test). Means with vertical different (capital) letters are significantly different at P≤0.05 (Duncan’s test). G. gryllotalpa: Gryllotalpa gryllotalpa, P. algerinum: Pentodon algerinum, G. euphraticana: Gypsonoma euphraticana, B. cereus: Bacillus cereus, B. coagulans: Bacillus coagulans, S. aureus: Staphylococcus aureus, S. typhi: Salmonella typhi, E. coli: Escherichia coli, K. pneumonia: Klebsiella pneumoniae. CRO: Ceftriaxone, AM: Ampicillin
The antibacterial sensitivity variation between the marker bacteria treatment with the third (last) elution phase by hexane is illustrated in Table 6. Except for the bacteria, B. cereus, B. coagulans, and S. aureus were inhibited by extract G. gryllotalpa 16.0, 15.0, and 18.0 mm, respectively. Only, the bacteria B. cereus and S. aureus were affected by moth G. euphraticana larval frass with zones of inhibition 10.7 and 17.0 mm. It was found that E. coli resistant to grub P. algerinum hexane extract, and growth inhibition zones were determined (8.7, 13.8) for Gram-negative K. pneumoniae, and S. typhi, and 10.8, 14.3, and 17.7 mm for B. coagulans, B. cereus, and S. aureus, respectively.
| Insect extract | Growth inhibition zone (mm) of the bacteria | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| B. cereus | B. coagulans | S. aureus | S.typhi | E. coli | K. pneumoniae | |
| G. gryllotalpa | 16.0±0.0bA | 11.5±0.5C | 18.0±1.0aA | 0.0±0.0cC | 0.0±0.0dA | 0.0±0.0dC |
| G. euphraticana | 10.7±0.6bC | 0.0±0.0cD | 17.0±0.0aA | 0.0±0.0cC | 0.0±0.0cA | 0.0±0.0cC |
| P. algerinum | 14.3±1.0bB | 10.8±0.3cC | 17.7±0.6aA | 13.8±0.6bB | 0.0±0.0eA | 8.7±0.6dB |
| CRO (ve+) | 11.0±0.5cC | 15.7±0.8bB | 17.2±0.8bA | 24.3±1.2aA | 0.0±0.0dA | 26.0±2.0aA |
| AM (ve+) | 14.7±0.6bB | 22.3±0.6aA | 0.0±0.0cB | 0.0±0.0cC | 0.0±0.0cA | 0.0±0.0cC |
Horizontal means±standard deviation with different (small) letters is significantly different at P≤0.05 (Duncan’s test). Means with vertical different (capital) letters are significantly different at P≤0.05 (Duncan’s test). G. gryllotalpa: Gryllotalpa gryllotalpa, P. algerinum: Pentodon algerinum, G. euphraticana: Gypsonoma euphraticana, B. cereus: Bacillus cereus, B. coagulans: Bacillus coagulans, S. aureus: Staphylococcus aureus, S. typhi: Salmonella typhi, E. coli: Escherichia coli, K. pneumonia: Klebsiella pneumoniae. CRO: Ceftriaxone, AM: Ampicillin
Inhibition comparison between standard drugs and insect extracts
CRO caused antibacterial action (24.3, 26.0 mm) at treatment of the bacteria S. typhi and K. pneumoniae, and 11.0, 15.3, and 17.2 mm for B. cereus, B. coagulans, and S. aureus, respectively, but E. coli was not affected. The zones of inhibition by amoxicillin were restricted (14.7, 22.3 mm) with only B. cereus and B. coagulans, whereas the latters (S. aureus, S. typhi, and K. pneumoniae) were completely not responsive to the applied standard drugs [Table 4].
After testing with acidic meOH [Table 4] (with perpendicular columns); B. cereus was more inhibited (19.0, 16 2, and 15.0 mm) at G. gryllotalpa, G. euphraticana, and P. algerinum and then amoxicillin standard drugs (11.0 and 14.6 mm), respectively. The tested standard drugs were more effective than all the tested extracts. For S. aureus, their growth was inhibited with 17.2 mm by CRO (standard drug), whereas for G. gryllotalpa, G. euphraticana, and P. algerinum ranged between 16.5 and 11.6 mm, respectively. S. typhi was inhibited by CRO (24.3 mm) and the extracts were between 21.8 and 14.5 mm. Sensitivity of E. coli to the extracts was about 20.0 mm for G. gryllotalpa and P. algerinum and resistant to the standard drugs. K. pneumoniae was only inhibited by CRO (26.0 mm) and less with a range of 19.0–12.6 mm for the applied extracts.
Growth inhibition by chloroform extracts; zone diameters of B. ceseus with G. gryllotalpa and G. euphraticana extracts 21.5 and 13.7 mm, and less than (11.0, 14.7) for CRO and AM (+ve). In the case of B. coaculans, growth inhibition was 22.3 and 15.3 mm for the antibiotics(+ve) AM and CRO, and between 10.2 and 11.0 mm for the tested extracts. It was found only CRO inhibits the growth of S. aureus with near results for G. gryllotalpa and G. euphraticana extracts. The S. typhi is resistant to AM but sensitive (24.3 mm) to CRO 21.3 for G. gryllotalpa and 10.5 mm for both G. euphraticana, and P. algerinum extracts. E. coli and K. pneumoniae were resistant to the tested standard drugs except the second ones 26.0 mm with CRO, whereas growth inhibition by G. gryllotalpa, G. euphraticana, and P. algerinum (18.0, 10.0, and 7.0 mm) and (25.3, 10.8, and 12.0 mm) for E. coli and K. pneumoniae, respectively.
In comparison antibacterial treatment with hexane insect extracts with (standard drugs) CRO and AX: B. cereus inhibition (16.0 mm) with G. gryllotalpa more than that of the other two extracts, besides the antibiotics (11.0, 14.7 mm) CRO and AM. But (+ve) CRO and AM were more effective than tested insect extracts for B. coaculans. CRO had nearly the same antibacterial activity (17.2) with the applied G. gryllotalpa, G. euphraticana, and P. algerinum extracts against S. aureus. Only CRO had growth inhibition (24.3, 26.0 mm) to S. typhi and K. pneumoniae. However, E. coli is resistant to all antibiotics and insect extracts [Table 6].
DISCUSSION
Insects like other invertebrates have only innate immune system, therefore, have highly developed immune systems. Theoretically, because of their feeding habit and habitat like some other studied insects.[7,14,28,29] subterranean insects such as G. gryllotalpa, P. algerinum larvae, and webbing G. euphraticana larvae are in direct exposure to the pathogenic microbial agents. According to this hypothesis, our study gives promising results of potentially significant antibacterial properties. Due to overuse and abuse present antibiotics were led to overcoming annual antibiotic resistance to pathogenic and opportunistic bacteria. Insect body extracts and purified constituents from insect body parts were proven as one of the future antibiotics, and they took continuous interest by many alternative natural product researchers.[17,30,31] In the present study, the measured growth inhibition zone of any tested marked bacteria was related to the tested bacterium, source of the insect body extract, and polarity of the solvent used in extraction. Therefore, according to Mohtar et al.[26] susceptibility rank of the antibacterial agents, acidic meOH G. gryllotalpa extract had more significant activity (19.0 mm) for both B. coagulans and K. pneumoniae and 20.5 mm for E. coli [Table 1], while 5 of the 6 marked bacteria treated by G. euphraticana and P. algerinum were more significantly caused growth inhibition in relation to chloroform and hexane extracts, which ranged between good to moderate inhibition [Tables 1-3]. It was found qualitative and quantitative inhibition by chloroform after acidic methanol extracts through the sequential method so that only G. gryllotalpa extract caused growth inhibition between 21.5 and 25.3 mm for B. cereus, S. typhi and K. pneumoniae, and G. euphraticana and P. algerinum extracts were less than 15.2 mm for all the tested bacteria. On the other hand, the largest growth inhibition by hexane extract was 18.0 mm at S. aureus by G. gryllotalpa extract.
It is illustrated in Tables 1-3 that G. gryllotalpa extracted by all the three sequential polar solvents had more significant growth inhibition B. cereus than the standard drugs. It was found nearly the same effect of G. gryllotalpa extracted by all the solvents and CRO on S. aureus which is completely resistant to AM. Besides, equal moderate effect of all the applied extracts with hexane and CRO, and complete resistance to AM. S. typhi was inhibited by all the extracts, but less significant than CRO and resistant (0.0 mm) to AM. All the extracts had growth inhibition to E. coli, while at the same time had not responded to CRO and AM. K. pneumoniae was resistant to AM but sensitive (26.0 mm) to CRO which was better than the extracts, so all the extracts had significant inhibition in relation to AM.
CONCLUSION
In the present study, the good antibacterial activity of whole body extract of the insects that inhabiting polluted niches with pathogenic bacteria and other microbes, so the insect body reflex was represented by the production of antibiotic constituents. Therefore, a wide spectrum of Gram-positive and Gram-negative bacteria exhibited good sensitivity to body extract from subterranean G. gryllotalpa and grubs of P. algerinum and frass pellets of the confined living G. euphraticana larvae. Most of the extracts, especially acidic methanol have better activity than the (CRO and AM antibiotics) standard drugs.
Acknowledgment
Our gratitude goes to Mosul University authorities, the President of the university Prof. Dr. Kossay Alahmady for his scientific support, and the Head of the Biology Department; Prof. Dr. Mohmaad S. Faisal, for continued support.
Ethical approval
Institutional Review Board approval is not required.
Declaration of patient consent
Patient’s consent is not required as there are no patients in this study.
Conflicts of interest
There are no conflicts of interest.
Use of artificial intelligence (AI)-assisted technology for manuscript preparation
The authors confirm that there was no use of artificial intelligence (AI)-assisted technology for assisting in the writing or editing of the manuscript and no images were manipulated using AI.
Financial support and sponsorship
None.
References
- Evolution and emergence of antibiotic resistance in given ecosystems: Possible strategies for addressing the challenge of antibiotic resistance. Antibiotics. 2023;12:28. doi: 10.3390/antibiotics12010028
- [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Multidrug-resistant, extensively drug-resistant and pan drug-resistant bacteria: An international expert proposal for interim standard definitions for acquired resistance. Clin Microbiol Infect. 2012;18:268-281. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-0691.2011.03570.x
- [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Introduction: Antibiotic resistance. Chem Rev. 2005;105:391-394. doi: 10.1021/cr030100y
- [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Factsheet: Antimicrobial resistance. 2021. Geneva: WHO; Available from: https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/antimicrobial-resistance [Last accessed on 2023 Aug 03]
- [Google Scholar]
- Global action plan on antimicrobial resistance. 2015. Geneva: World Health Organization; Available from: http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/193736/1/9789241509763_eng.pdf?ua=1 [Last accessed on 2023 Aug 03]
- [Google Scholar]
- Global priority list of antibiotic-resistant bacteria, to guide research, discovery, and development of new antibiotics. 2017. Geneva: WHO; Available from: https://remed.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/3 [Last accessed on 2023 Aug 03]
- [Google Scholar]
- Antimicrobial activity of 11 insects extracts against multi drug resistant (MDR) strains of bacteria and fungus. IOP Conf Ser Earth Environ Sci. 2019;252:022132. doi: 10.1088/1755-1315/252/2/022132
- [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
- Crude extract of maggots: Antibacterial effects against Escherichia coli, underlying mechanisms, separation and purification. World J Gastroenterol. 2012;21:1510-1517. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v21.i5.1510
- [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Cockroaches, locusts, and envenoming arthropods: a promising source of antimicrobials. Iran J Basic Med Sci. 2018;21:873-877. doi: 10.22038/IJBMS.2018.30442.7339
- [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
- Partial purification and characterization of antimicrobial peptide from the hemolymph of cockroach Periplaneta americana. J Appl Biol Biotechnol. 2020;8:6-11. doi: 10.7324/JABB.2020.80202
- [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
- Evaluation of the antimicrobial activity of purified Spodoptera littoralis hemolymph against some pathogenic bacteria. Afr J Biol Sci. 2021;17:221-231. doi: 10.21608/AJBS.2021.195329
- [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
- Yellow wasp Polistes flavus venom protein, its purification, solubilization and antimicrobial activity. Biomed J Sci Tech Res. 2017;1:154-158. doi: 10.26717/BJSTR.2017.01.000141
- [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
- The antibacterial effect of American cockroach hemolymph on the nosocomial pathogenic bacteria. Avicenna J Clin Microb Infect. 2015;2:e23017. doi: 10.17795/ajcmi-23017
- [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
- Separation of bioactive compounds from Haemolymph of scarab beetle Scarabaeus sacer (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae) by GC-MS and determination of its antimicrobial activity. Int J Appl Biol. 2021;5:98-116. doi: 10.20956/ijab.v5i2.18539
- [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
- Insect derived Laurica acid a promising alternative strategy to antibiotics in the antimicrobial resistance scenario. Front Microbiol. 2021;12:620798. doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2021.620798
- [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- New insect host defense peptides (HDP) from dung beetle (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae) transcriptomes. J Insect Sci. 2021;21:12. doi: 10.1093/jisesa/ieab054
- [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Antimicrobial peptides (AMPs): A promising class of antimicrobial compounds. J Appl Microbiol. 2022;132:1573-1596. doi: 10.1111/jam.15314
- [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Insect antimicrobial peptides, a mini review. Toxins. 2018;10:461. doi: 10.3390/toxins10110461
- [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Insect antimicrobial peptides show potentiating functional interactions against Gram-negative bacteria. Proc Biol Sci. 2015;282:20150293. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2015.0293
- [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Characterization of antimicrobial peptides from local forest dwelling ants: In-vitro screening for antimicrobial activity. Eur J Biol Biotechnol. 2021;2:20-25. doi: 10.24018/ejbio.2021.2.1.138
- [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
- Free fatty acids in the cuticular and internal lipids of Calliphora vomitoria and their atimicrobial activity. J Insect Physiol. 2013;59:416-429. doi: 10.1016/j.jinsphys.2013.02.001
- [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Antimicrobial activity of untypical lipid compounds in the cuticular and internal lipids of four fly species. J Appl Microbiol. 2013;116:269-287. doi: 10.1111/jam.12370
- [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- New alloferon analogues: Synthesis and antiviral properties. Chem Biol Drug Des. 2013;18:302-309. doi: 10.1111/cbdd.12020
- [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Enhanced binding to and killing of hepatocellular carcinoma cells in vitro by melittin when linked with an oval targeting peptide screened from phage display. J Pept Sci. 2013;9:639-650. doi: 10.1002/psc.2542
- [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Assessment an antibacterial activity of crud bodies, Ailolopus thaiossinus (Orthoptera) and Polistes watti larvae (Hymenoptera) by extracted cold and boiled solvents. J Entomol Zool Stud. 2022;10:62-67. doi: 10.22271/j.ento.2022.v10.i3a.9012
- [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
- Screening of novel acidified solvents for maximal antimicrobial peptide extraction from Zophobas morio Fabricius. Adv Environ Biol. 2014;8:803-809.
- [Google Scholar]
- Multiple range and multiple F test. Biometric. 1955;11:1-42. doi: 10.2307/3001478
- [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
- In vitro screening the antibacterial activity of four whole body eusocial insects extracted by polar solvents. Intl J Mol Biol Biochem. 2021;3:19-24. doi: 10.33545/26646501.2021.v3.i1a.21
- [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
- Antibacterial activity of secretion/excretion blow fly, Calliphora vomitoria (Diptera: Calliphoridae) third instar larvae in vitro. J Entomol Zool Stud. 2021;9:14-19.
- [Google Scholar]
- Insect antimicrobial peptides: Advancements, enhancements and new challenges. Antibiotics. 2023;12:952. doi: 10.3390/antibiotics12060952
- [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Antimicrobial peptides derived from insects offer a novel therapeutic option to combat biofilm: A review. Front Microbiol. 2021;12:661195. doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2021.661195
- [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
