Synthesis and evaluation of saccharide-based aliphatic and aromatic esters as antimicrobial and antibiofilm agents

Article abstract of DOI:10.3390/ph12040186

A small library of sugar-based (i.e., glucose, mannose and lactose) monoesters containing hydrophobic aliphatic or aromatic tails were synthesized and tested. The antimicrobial activity of the compounds against a target panel of Gram-positive, Gram-negative and fungi was assessed. Based on this preliminary screening, the antibiofilm activity of the most promising molecules was evaluated at different development times of selected food-borne pathogens (E. coli, L. monocytogenes, S. aureus, S. enteritidis). The antibiofilm activity during biofilm formation resulted in the following: mannose C10 > lactose biphenylacetate > glucose C10 > lactose C10. Among them, mannose C10 and lactose biphenylacetate showed an inhibition for E. coli 97% and 92%, respectively. At MICs values, no toxicity was observed on Caco-2 cell line for all the examined compounds. Overall, based on these results, all the sugar-based monoesters showed an interesting profile as safe antimicrobial agents. In particular, mannose C10 and lactose biphenylacetate are the most promising as possible biocompatible and safe preservatives for pharmaceutical and food applications.

Full text of DOI:10.3390/ph12040186

pharmaceuticals
Article
Synthesis and Evaluation of Saccharide-Based
Aliphatic and Aromatic Esters as Antimicrobial
and Antibiofilm Agents †
Raffaella Campana , Alessio Merli, Michele Verboni, Francesca Biondo, Gianfranco Favi
Andrea Duranti * and Simone Lucarini *
,
Department of Biomolecular Sciences, University of Urbino Carlo Bo, 61029 Urbino (PU), Italy;
raffaella.campana@uniurb.it (R.C.); a.merli2@campus.uniurb.it (A.M.); m.verboni@campus.uniurb.it (M.V.);
f.biondo1@campus.uniurb.it (F.B.); gianfranco.favi@uniurb.it (G.F.)
* Correspondence: andrea.duranti@uniurb.it (A.D.); simone.lucarini@uniurb.it (S.L.);
Tel.: +39-0722-303501 (A.D.); +39-0722-303333 (S.L.)
† This Paper is Dedicated to Prof. Giorgio Tarzia on his 80th Birthday.
ꢀꢁꢂꢀꢃꢄꢅꢆꢇ
ꢀꢁꢂꢃꢄꢅꢆ
Received: 3 December 2019; Accepted: 14 December 2019; Published: 17 December 2019
Abstract: A small library of sugar-based (i.e., glucose, mannose and lactose) monoesters containing
hydrophobic aliphatic or aromatic tails were synthesized and tested. The antimicrobial activity of
the compounds against a target panel of Gram-positive, Gram-negative and fungi was assessed.
Based on this preliminary screening, the antibiofilm activity of the most promising molecules was
evaluated at different development times of selected food-borne pathogens (E. coli, L. monocytogenes,
S. aureus, S. enteritidis). The antibiofilm activity during biofilm formation resulted in the following:
mannose C10 > lactose biphenylacetate > glucose C10 > lactose C10. Among them, mannose C10
and lactose biphenylacetate showed an inhibition for E. coli 97% and 92%, respectively. At MICs
values, no toxicity was observed on Caco-2 cell line for all the examined compounds. Overall, based
on these results, all the sugar-based monoesters showed an interesting profile as safe antimicrobial
agents. In particular, mannose C10 and lactose biphenylacetate are the most promising as possible
biocompatible and safe preservatives for pharmaceutical and food applications.
Keywords: sugar monoesters; biosurfactants; enzymatic synthesis; biocompatibility; antimicrobial agents;
Minimum Inhibitory Concentration (MIC); antibiofilm agents; antifungal agents
1. Introduction
Food pathogens are responsible for significant economic losses in the food industry and cause
different human diseases [1]. In fact, bacteria and fungi can be toxic for humans, mainly due to the
production of poisonous substances such as enterotoxins and mycotoxins, which can be found in
contaminated food. Since some microorganisms and their toxins are thermostable, they cannot be
destroyed by typical food conservation and preparation methods (cooling, freezing, cooking, frying,
etc.) [2,3]. Indeed, recent studies by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimated new
cases of food-related illness in the United States at around 50 million, resulting in approximately
3000 deaths and 130,000 hospitalizations every year [4,5].
One of the bacterial growth modes is the development of the biofilm, which can be considered
as a basic survival strategy in a wide range of environmental, industrial and clinical settings [6].
Biofilms are sessile communities of bacterial cells attached to each other and/or to surfaces or interfaces,
which are embedded in a self-produced matrix of extracellular polymeric substances (EPS) that play
an important role in protecting microorganisms against adverse environmental conditions, including
the action of most antimicrobial agents [7].
Pharmaceuticals 2019, 12, 186; doi:10.3390/ph12040186
www.mdpi.com/journal/pharmaceuticals

Pharmaceuticals 2019, 12, 186
2 of 19
Some of the common disinfection practices in the food industry, such as chemical-based [
8] and
irradiation [9], are very effective. However, they are frequently expensive, dangerous and risky for
human health and the environment [10]. Moreover, some of these practices can remove biofilms but
do not kill cells embedded into the deeper layer of biofilms, allowing them to later reattach to other
surfaces and create a new biofilm [11]. Other practices, such as the use of common food preservatives
(e.g., maleic acid or potassium sorbate), are now proving to be unsafe and toxic [12,13].
Many studies have evaluated the efficacy of natural compounds, extracted from bacterial cultures,
or aromatic plants against food pathogens, as well as their potential to eradicate biofilms [14].
These compounds may exert a high level of lethal activity against pathogens, are efficient in penetrating
the structure of the biofilm, and can be easily degraded in the environment [15]. In our opinion, there is
still plenty of room for research into new natural or synthetic antimicrobial food additives with a safe
toxicological profile.
In this context, sugar-based esters, a class of compounds constituted of a sugar moiety linked via
an ester bond to aliphatic fatty acid chains, are amphiphilic, biodegradable, non-toxic, non-irritant, tasteless,
odorless molecules, and are becoming widely used in food, pharmaceutical, and cosmetic industries [16–18].
Sugar-based ester surfactants have also the advantage of being synthesizable from sustainable
and renewable resources (e.g., fatty acids and carbohydrates) by simple chemical esterification, and can
be also produced by green methods, via enzymatic reactions or microbial fermentations. In the
enzyme-catalyzed syntheses, the most utilized inductors are lipases, proteinases and glucosidases [19].
Lipase-catalyzed reactions are certainly the most studied, in order to determine the best solvent/solvent
mixture, substrates ratio, temperatures, reaction times, type and concentration of the enzyme [20].
However, lipases are very selective, even in term of substrates. In fact, some lipophilic reactants,
such as aromatic or polyunsaturated fatty acids, could not undergo the esterification process catalyzed
by these enzymes. In these few cases, chemical esterification could be the main road to explore.
Among all sugar-based surfactants, sucrose and glucose esters are the most studied and applied
derivatives [21–24], while other derivatives, such as lactose esters, which can be easily obtained from
waste whey, and mannose esters, have received less attention.
In this work, we report enzymatic and chemical synthetic procedures applied to obtain sugar-fatty
acids esters, based on an esterification reaction between monosaccharide (glucose or mannose),
or disaccharide (lactose) sugars and aliphatic (C8, C10, C12, C14 and C16 saturated fatty acids) or
aromatic (phenylacetic, biphenylacetic, triphenylacetic and p-phenylbenzoic) acids. These compounds
were tested in order to determine their minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) values against different
Gram-positive and Gram-negative bacteria, and fungi. Secondarily, the most promising compounds
were also evaluated concerning their antibiofilm activity and biocompatibility profile. Notably,
an extensive comparison of a large number of aliphatic and aromatic biocompatible sugar-based
surfactants as antimicrobial and, mostly, as antibiofilm agents, is still lacking in the literature.
2. Results and Discussion
2.1. Chemistry
A small library of sugar-based amphiphilic esters from natural monosaccharides (
α-d-mannose,
α
-d-glucose) or disaccharide ( -d-lactose) and saturated fatty acids [caprylic (C8), capric (C10),
α
lauric (C12), myristic (C14), palmitic (C16)] or various aromatic acids (phenylacetic, p-phenylbenzoic,
biphenylacetic, triphenylacetic) was designed and synthesized.
For all sugar-based surfactants, some physico-chemical properties, such as hydrophilic–lipophilic
balance (HLB), octanol–water portion coefficient (logP) and topological polar surface area, (TPSA)
were calculated (Table 1). In this context, the monosaccharide esters (entry 1–10) could be classified as
lipophilic surfactants (HLB < 9) and have the potential to act as water-in-oil emulsifiers (5 < HLB < 8).
Moreover, they have a TPSA lower than 140 Å2 (116.5), resulting in their being good at permeating
peripheral cell membranes. On the other hand, lactose esters (entry 11–19) could be classified as

Pharmaceuticals 2019, 12, 186
3 of 19
hydrophilic surfactants (HLB > 10) and act as oil-in-water emulsifiers. The aromatic lactose esters
(entry 16–19) generally show a lower logP than aliphatic ones (entry 11–15) with similar HLB, possibly
having higher solubility in water. The aromatic lactose esters could be also very interesting because of
their peculiar properties, possibly due to their different conformations in solution in comparison to
aliphatic analogues.
Table 1. Calculated physico-chemical properties of the sugar-based ester surfactants.
cLogP b
Entry
Sugar Ester
MW
cHLB a
cTPSA c
1
2
3
4
5
Glucose C8
Glucose C10
Glucose C12
Glucose C14
Glucose C16
306.4
334.4
362.5
390.5
418.6
8.9
8.1
7.5
7.0
6.5
0.59
1.43
2.26
3.20
3.93
116.5
116.5
116.5
116.5
116.5
6
7
8
9
10
Mannose C8
Mannose C10
Mannose C12
Mannose C14
Mannose C16
306.4
334.4
362.5
390.5
418.6
8.9
8.1
7.5
7.0
6.5
0.59
1.43
2.26
3.20
3.93
116.5
116.5
116.5
116.5
116.5
11
12
13
14
15
Lactose C8
Lactose C10
Lactose C12
Lactose C14
Lactose C16
468.5
496.6
524.6
552.7
580.1
12.7
12.0
11.4
10.8
10.3
−1.15
−0.31
0.52
1.36
2.19
195.6
195.6
195.6
195.6
195.6
16
17
18
19
Lactose phenylacetate
Lactose p-phenylbenzoate
Lactose biphenylacetate
Lactose triphenylacetate
460.4
522.5
536.5
612.6
12.9
11.4
11.1
9.7
−2.05
−0.32
−0.37
1.30
195.6
195.6
195.6
195.6
a Calculated HLB (cHLB) by Griffin’s method for non-ionic surfactants [25] [cHLB = 20
×
(MW hydrophilic portion/MW)].
cHLB values for glucose esters (entry 1–5) perfectly matched with the measured values [22]. b Calculated LogP (cLogP)
(by OSIRIS Property Explorer) [26]. c Calculated TPSA (cTPSA) (by OSIRIS Property Explorer) [26].
The 6’-O-acyllactose aliphatic esters were synthesized by a two steps procedure (Scheme 1).
Scheme 1. Reagents and conditions: (i
) Lipozyme®, toluene, 75 ◦C, 12 h; (ii) HBF4/Et2O, CH3CN,
30 ◦C, 3 h.
Firstly, the appropriate fatty acid (1a–e) was coupled with lactose tetra acetal (LTA) (2) using the
catalyzing lipase Lipozyme® in dry toluene furnished LTA esters 3a–e. Subsequent deprotection of the
latter by HBF4 led to a precipitate, which was filtered and recrystallized to obtain 4a–e. Importantly,

Pharmaceuticals 2019, 12, 186
4 of 19
Lipozyme® could be recovered and reused at least three times with no significant loss of activity,
thereby reducing processing costs.
Instead, enzymatic syntheses of 6-O-acylmannose and 6-O-acylglucose esters were conducted
using a previously reported method [27] (Scheme 2).
Scheme 2. Reagents and conditions: (i) Novozyme, MS 4 Å, dry acetone, 96 h, rt.
In detail, the opportune aliphatic acid (1a–e) was coupled with
α-D-mannose (5) or α-D-glucose
(6) catalyzed by lipase Novozyme in dry acetone and molecular sieves to obtain the corresponding
6-O-acylmonosaccharide esters (7a–e, 8a–e).
On the other hand, 6’-O-acyllactose aromatic esters (4f–i) were synthesized exploiting a conventional
esterification method, since the Lipozyme® (and other lipases) do not tolerate aromatic acid substrates (data
not shown) (Scheme 3).
Scheme 3. Reagents and conditions: (
then rt, 16 h; (iii) HBF4/Et2O, dry CH3CN, 30 ◦C, 3 h.
i) (COCl)2, dry DMF, rt, 2 h; (ii) 2
, DIPEA, dry CH2Cl2, 0 ◦C, 1 h
Regarding the starting materials (1f–i), three aromatic acids are commercially available (1f–h),
while the triphenylacetic acid (1i) was synthesized following a reported protocol (see Supplementary
Materials) [28]. With regards to acyl chloride activation, firstly the opportune aromatic acid (1f–i) was
transformed into the corresponding acyl chloride by treatment with oxalyl chloride [(COCl)2] in the
presence of a catalytic amount of dimethylformamide (DMF), and then it was coupled with LTA (2) in
a 1:1 ratio and N,N-diisopropylethylamine (DIPEA) in dichlorometane (CH2Cl2) as a solvent to give
the corresponding LTA monoesters (3f–i). Notably, neither 2’-O-acyllactose aromatic esters nor diester
derivatives were detected from the crude mixture. The target esters (4f–i) were obtained as pure white
solids by filtration, trituration and liofilization after precipitation under acidic deprotection conditions.

Pharmaceuticals 2019, 12, 186
5 of 19
Finally, although some of the sugar-based esters here presented have already been published
for other applications and also as possible antibacterial agents [22 24 29 33], a detailed comparative
–
, –
study concerning the properties of a relative large number of both aliphatic and aromatic amphiphilic
carbohydrate esters as antimicrobial (Gram-positive, Gram-negative, and fungi) and mostly antibiofilm
agents is still lacking.
2.2. Antimicrobial Activity
The antibacterial activity of sugar-based esters has evidenced variable results on different
bacterial species. Indeed, in some studies the inhibition of Gram-negative bacteria was reported [34
,35],
while, in others, a better antimicrobial activity was shown on Gram-positive [36 37]. In the present work,
,
sugar-based esters with different hydrophobic chains and polar heads displayed similar antibacterial
activity against different tested strains, with no difference between Gram-positive and Gram-negative
bacteria. In detail, MICs values of 256 µg/mL were determined for glucose C10 against Gram-positive
(E. faecalis ATCC 29212, L. monocytogenes ATCC 7644, S. aureus ATCC 43387) and Gram-negative
(E. coli O157:H7 ATCC 35150, K. pneumoniae ATCC 13833, P. aeruginosa ATCC 9027, S. enteritidis ATCC
13076) bacteria, as well as for C. albicans ATCC 10231. On the contrary, MICs were not determined
(>256 µg/mL) for glucoses C12, C14 and C16, and, in some cases, for glucose C8 (S. aureus ATCC 43387,
K. pneumoniae ATCC 13833 and P. aeruginosa ATCC 9027). Regarding the mannose series, the greatest
antimicrobial activity (256
while in the case of mannoses C8, C14 and C16, MICs resulted in >256
shown for the lactose series that, in most cases, did not inhibit microbial growth at MICs lower than
256 g/mL. Also, in this case, lactose C10 was the most active sugar-based aliphatic fatty acid ester,
with a MIC of 128 g/mL against E. faecalis ATCC 29212 and C. albicans ATCC 10231, and 256 g/mL
for all the other microorganisms. The last series, including lactose aromatic esters, showed MICs of
256 g/mL for all the tested microorganisms and only in two cases the MICs were not determined
(>256 g/mL for S. aureus ATCC 43387 and P. aeruginosa ATCC 9027). It can be noted that, in most cases,
µg/mL) was observed for mannose C10 and C12 against all the pathogens,
µg/mL. A similar trend was
µ
µ
µ
µ
µ
the antibacterial activity of the examined sugar-based esters decreased rapidly with the increasing
length of the fatty acid chain, as reported in the literature [38]. With regard to the internal control,
gentamicin inhibited the growth of S. enteritidis ATCC 13076 with the lowest MIC value of 4
while the highest MIC (64 g/mL) was observed for E. faecalis ATCC 29212 (Table 2). As a comparison,
C. albicans ATCC 10231 was sensitive to fluconazole at MIC of 1 g/mL, while the parabens mixture
µg/mL,
µ
µ
showed MIC values > 1024 µg/mL for all the examined microrganisms.
2.3. Inhibition of the Biofilm Formation at Different Times of Development
As known, microbial cells organized in biofilms are more resistant to antibiotics and some physical
treatments [39–41]. For this reason, they represent a serious problem for infectious disease outbreaks.
The process of biofilm formation is dynamic and involves at least four stages: planktonic, reversible
and irreversible attachment, maturation, and dispersion [42]. In addition, in each stage the formation
of various phenotypes is regulated by a different gene expression. One of the possible approaches to
controlling the biofilm is to limit or inhibit its formation stage by searching for molecules endowed
with antibiofilm activity, such as the sugar-based esters herein studied. However, it is reasonable that
biofilms in different stages may have a different susceptibility to these molecules.
On the basis of their assessed antimicrobial activity, four sugar-based esters were selected, three of
which belong to the aliphatic series [i.e., Glucose C10 (Glu C10), Mannose C10 (Man C10), Lactose C10
(Lac C10)] and one to the aromatic series [i.e., lactose biphenylacetate (Lac biph)]. During the first 24 h
of biofilm formation glucose C10, mannose C10, lactose C10 and lactose biphenylacetate at their MIC
and 2
way (Figure 1).
×
MIC values were able to differently reduce biofilm formation, generally in a dose-dependent

Pharmaceuticals 2019, 12, 186
6 of 19
a
Table 2. MIC values (µg/mL) of the tested sugar fatty acids against selected microorganisms. Fluconazole was used as control for C. albicans ATCC 10231.
E. coli O157:H7
ATCC 35150
E. faecalis
ATCC 29212
L. monocytogenes
K. pneumoniae
ATCC 13883
P. aeruginosa
ATCC 9027
S. aureus
ATCC 43387
S. enteritidis
ATCC 13076
C. albicans
ATCC 10231
ATCC 7644
Glucose C8
Glucose C10
256
256
256
256
256
256
>256
256
>256
256
>256
256
256
256
256
256
Glucose C12
Glucose C14
Glucose C16
Mannose C8
Mannose C10
Mannose C12
Mannose C14
Mannose C16
Lactose C8
>256
>256
>256
>256
256
>256
>256
>256
>256
256
256
256
256
256
>256
>256
>256
>256
256
>256
>256
>256
>256
256
256
256
256
256
>256
>256
>256
>256
256
256
256
>256
>256
256
>256
>256
>256
>256
256
>256
>256
>256
>256
256
>256
>256
>256
>256
256
256
256
>256
256
128
256
256
256
256
>256
>256
256
>256
>256
256
>256
>256
256
>256
>256
256
Lactose C10
256
128
256
256
256
256
Lactose C12
Lactose C14
Lactose C16
>256
>256
>256
256
256
256
>256
256
>256
256
256
256
>256
>256
>256
256
256
256
>256
>256
>256
256
256
256
>256
>256
>256
>256
256
256
256
16
>256
>256
>256
>256
256
256
256
16
>256
>256
>256
256
256
256
256
256
256
256
256
256
Lactose phenylacetate
Lactose biphenylacetate
Lactose p-phenylbenzoate
Lactose triphenylacetate
Gentamicin
256
16
256
64
256
8
256
8
256
4
256
1 a
Parabens
>1024
>1024
>1024
>1024
>1024
>1024
>1024
>1024

Pharmaceuticals 2019, 12, 186
7 of 19
24 h
3
2
1
S. enteritidis
S. aureus
0
L. monocytogenes
E. coli
48 h
3
2
1
S. enteritidis
S. aureus
0
L. monocytogenes
E. coli
96 h
4
3
2
1
S. enteritidis
S. aureus
0
L. monocytogenes
E. coli
Figure 1. Effect of sugar-based esters at their MIC and 2 MIC values on the biofilm formation of
×
different food-borne pathogens after 24 h, 48 h and 96 h of incubation.
Mannose C10 was the most active in reducing the biofilm formation of all the examined
microorganisms, with OD570 values lower than the corresponding untreated controls; in the case
of E. coli O157:H7 ATCC 35150, OD values of 0.8789 and 0.4783 were registered in the presence of
mannose at its MIC and 2 MIC values, respectively, compared to 1.424 of the control (p < 0.01);
×

Pharmaceuticals 2019, 12, 186
8 of 19
similarly, L. monocytogenes ATCC 7644 presented OD values of 0.6182 and 0.4328, with mannose at
MIC and 2 MIC, respectively, in comparison to 1.149 of the control biofilm (p < 0.01). S. aureus ATCC
43387 and S. enteritidis ATCC 13076 biofilm formation was strongly inhibited, having the lowest OD
values of 0.009 and 0.0225 observed for mannose at 2 MIC, compared to OD values of 2.138 and
1.699 of the control biofilms (p < 0.001). Regarding the other sugar fatty acids, a relevant biofilm
reduction was observed with glucose C10 at 2 MIC values, particularly against L. monocytogenes
×
×
×
ATCC 7644, compared to the control (OD 0.986 vs. 1.149) (p < 0.01), S. aureus ATCC 43387 (OD 1.775 vs
2.138) (p < 0.05), or to the untreated biofilm S. enteritidis ATCC 13076 (OD 0.998 vs. 1.699) (p < 0.01),
while a moderate inhibition was observed in the case of E. coli O157:H7 ATCC 35150 compared to
the related control (OD 1.158 vs. 1.424) (p < 0.05). A similar trend was observed with lactose C10,
which was more active at a 2 MIC concentration, even with a similar OD value in comparison to that
×
related to the untreated controls (p < 0.05). Interestingly, lactose biphenylacetate was able to reduce the
biofilm formation of all the examined bacteria, with the lowest OD values of 0.856 and 0.755 at MIC
and 2
O157:H7 ATCC 35150 (p < 0.05). The OD values that resulted were also always lower than those of the
corresponding controls in the case of L. monocytogenes ATCC 7644 (OD 0.925 and 0.837 at MIC and 2
MIC, respectively), S. aureus ATCC 43387 (OD 1.801 and 1.304 at MIC and 2 MIC, respectively) and
×
MIC, respectively, compared to the OD value of 1.424 of the related control, in the case of E. coli
×
×
S. enteritidis ATCC 13076 (OD 1.349 and 1.047 at MIC and 2× MIC, respectively) (p < 0.05).
With a prolonged biofilm formation time of 48 h, the produced biomass increased for all the examined
control biofilms, while the presence of sugar fatty acids, in most cases, affected the biomass production,
thus indicating that these molecules still inhibit biofilm formation (Figure 1). As shown, this trend was
particularly evident for mannose C10 and lactose biphenylacetate, while, in the case of glucose C10 and
lactose C10, the effect was less remarkable, even if biomass production was lower than that of the related
controls. Specifically, in the case of S. aureus ATCC 43387, a strong inhibition of biofilm formation was
observed in the presence of mannose at 2
of E. coli O157:H7 ATCC 35150, biomass production reached OD values of 0.714 (p < 0.05) and 0.267
(p < 0.01) with mannose C10 at MIC and 2 MIC, respectively, while an OD of 1.708 was obtained in
the related control biofilm. Analogously, biomass production in L. monocytogenes ATCC 7644 biofilms
developed in the presence of the same compound reached OD values of 0.820 and 0.536 (MIC and 2 MIC)
compared to that of 1.552 of the untreated control (p < 0.05); also, the biofilm formation of S. enteritidis
ATCC 13076 was affected by mannose C10 (MIC: 1.397, 2 MIC: 1.179) (p < 0.05; p < 0.01) in comparison
to the control biofilm (OD 2.059). A good antibiofilm activity was still evident in the presence of lactose
biphenylacetate at 2 MIC, that was able to significantly reduce the biomass production of E. coli O157:H7
×
MIC concentration, with no detectable OD. In the 48 h biofilms
×
×
×
×
ATCC 35150 and L. monocytogenes ATCC 7644, with OD values of 0.587 and 1.014, respectively (p < 0.05),
compared to the higher biomass produced by the corresponding control samples (OD 1.708 and 1.552,
respectively). A lesser antibiofilm activity was observed during biofilm formation with glucose C10 and
lactose C10. Indeed, for all the examined microorganisms, the production of biomass in the presence of
the sugar esters examined was slightly lower than that of the related controls, the lowest OD values being
obtained with glucose C10 and lactose C10 at 2 MIC in the case of L. monocytogenes ATCC 7644 biofilms
×
(OD 1.211 and 1.121, respectively, vs. control OD 1.552).
The prolonged time of biofilm formation, with up to 96 h of incubation, resulted in a great increase in
biomass production by each tested microorganism in the control samples (Figure 1). The presence of sugar
esters in the culture medium continued to affect the biofilms formation, as evidenced by the reduction in
the biomass produced by microorganisms under the growth conditions. In detail, the most remarkable
effect on biofilm formation was induced by mannose C10 at 2 MIC concentration against E. coli O157:H7
×
ATCC 35150 and L. monocytogenes ATCC 7644, with OD values of 0.073 and 0.265, respectively, compared
to the related control biofilms (OD 2.663 and 3.240, respectively) (p < 0.01). However, S. aureus ATCC
43387 and S. enteritidis ATCC 13076 biofilms also showed a reduced biomass after 96 h of incubation
with 2
×
MIC mannose C10, with OD values of 1.475 and 1.450, respectively, in comparison to OD values
of 3.251 and 2.362 for the control ones (p < 0.01). Lactose biphenylacetate also resulted in a prolonged

Pharmaceuticals 2019, 12, 186
9 of 19
time of biofilm formation, and was able to reduce the biomass production of E. coli O157:H7 ATCC
35150 and L. monocytogenes ATCC 7644 at 2 MIC (OD 0.214 and 0.689, respectively) (p < 0.01; p < 0.05),
×
in comparison to the control biofilms (OD 2.663 and 3.240, respectively). As observed for mannose C10,
the induced biomass reduction in S. aureus ATCC 43387 and S. enteritidis ATCC 13076 biofilms was lower
than observed for E. coli O157:H7 ATCC 35150 and L. monocytogenes ATCC 7644 (p < 0.05). A negligible
effect was evidenced for glucose C10 and lactose C10 against the tested food-borne pathogens, with OD
values quite similar to those of the control biofilms. Several factors may explain the observed increased
resistance of mature biofilms to the tested molecules, such as those of 48 h and 96 h. Firstly, bacterial
cells in mature biofilms are likely to be in the stationary growth phase and, therefore, less susceptible
to antimicrobials. In addition, the dead cells in the outer layers of mature biofilms could be nutrients
enhancing the growth of microbial cells in deeper layers [43]. Also, it could be considered that the high
thickness or high amount of EPS that characterizes mature biofilms may limit the transport and diffusion
of sugar fatty acids through biofilms.
2.4. Inhibition of the Biofilm Formation Induced by Each Examined Sugar-Based Ester
In Table 3, the percentage values of inhibition of the biofilm formation induced by each compound
against the tested microorganisms are summarized, and a reduction between 30% and 50% was
arbitrarily considered as an index of antibiofilm activity. The antibiofilm activity during biofilm
formation was as follows: mannose C10 > lactose biphenylacetate > glucose C10 > lactose C10.
The most active sugar fatty acid was mannose C10, with percentages of biofilm formation inhibition
greater than 30% at MIC concentrations and 90% at 2 MIC. The antibiofilm effect resulted in increased
×
percentages from 24 h up to 96 h, as observed for E. coli O157:H7 ATCC 35150 (66.7% and 97.2%,
respectively) and L. monocytogenes ATCC 7644 (62.3 and 91.8%), while, in the case of S. enteritidis
ATCC 13076, the highest percentages of biofilm reduction were observed after different incubation
hours in the shorter formation time (98.5%, 24 h) and, for S. aureus ATCC 43387, in the intermediate
one (99.9%, 48 h). Similarly, the effect of lactose biphenylacetate was evident over time (up to 96 h),
with percentages of biofilm formation inhibition ranging from 53.3% to 92.0% (S. enteritidis ATCC 13076
and E. coli O157:H7 ATCC 35150, respectively). On the contrary, glucose C10 and lactose C10 were
unable to limit biofilm formation after 24 h and 48 h (with the only exception being S. enteritidis ATCC
13076 by glucose C10 at 2 MIC) reaching percentages >30% (from 34.6% to 55.3%) in the long period
×
of biofilm development. Interestingly, mannose C10 and lactose biphenylacetate proved to be the most
active compounds (already at their MIC values) against biofilms at the different times of formation
(up to 5 days). Based on analysis of the obtained results, it is possible to assert that biphenyl portion
could be considered as bioisosteric in comparison to linear aliphatic chain ones. The obtained data
hypothesize that the presence of the tested molecules in the culture medium limit the initial biofilm
formation and continue to interfere with the following stages of biofilm maturation.
2.5. MTT Toxicity Assay
The cytotoxicity of the selected sugar fatty acids (glucose C10, mannose C10, lactose C10 and lactose
biphenylacetate) was evaluated by 3-(4,5-dimethylthiazol-2-yl)-2,5-diphenyltetrazolium bromide (MTT)
assay on Caco-2 cells (Figure 2). As known, the cytotoxic effect results from the interplay of different
factors such as the ability of the hydrocarbon chain to insert into the lipid bilayer [44].
After 24 h exposition, all the compounds did not display toxicity to Caco-2 cells (cell viability ranging
from 93.1 to 100%) at the low tested concentrations (0.01–0.1 mM), while a slight reduction in cell viability was
observed in the case of lactose C10 0.5 mM (248
(1 and 2 mM) were associated with a decrease in cell viability for all sugar fatty acids, with the lowest cell
viability observed in the case of mannose C10 2 mM (669 g/mL, 45.1%). Overall, it can be noted that,
µg/mL, 73.0%). On the contrary, the highest concentrations
µ
at MICs values, no considerable toxicity was observed for the selected sugar-based surfactants on the used
cell line. This exploration can be considered a preliminary investigation on the toxicological profile of the
examined surfactants, which should be confirmed by further studies.

Pharmaceuticals 2019, 12, 186
10 of 19
Table 3. Percentage values of biofilm formation inhibition after 24 h, 48 h and 96 h of incubation with selected sugar fatty acids at their relative MIC and 2
values. In grey are indicated the percentage values > 30%, herein considered as an index of antibiofilm activity.
×
MIC
24 h
48 h
5 Days
2× MIC
Glucose C10
MIC
2× MIC
MIC
2× MIC
MIC
Glucose C10
Glucose C10
E. coli O157:H7 ATCC 35150
L. monocytogenes ATCC 7644
S. aureus ATCC 43387
10.77%
18.71%
14.17%
16.98%
41.27%
18.27%
25.94%
21.95%
23.05%
20.66%
35.46%
37.90%
34.58%
23.57%
46.28%
9.61%
8.42%
14.05%
12.69%
13.18%
9.97%
18.04%
18.01%
36.94%
S. enteritidis ATCC 13076
Mannose C10
Mannose C10
Mannose C10
E. coli O157:H7 ATCC 35150
L. monocytogenes ATCC 7644
S. aureus ATCC 43387
38.30%
46.19%
41.49%
23.78%
66.74%
62.32%
99.58%
98.54%
58.19%
47.15%
48.72%
32.16%
84.38%
65.45%
99.88%
42.71%
81.13%
49.05%
42.16%
37.04%
97.24%
91.80%
54.61%
38.61%
S. enteritidis ATCC 13076
Lactose C10
Lactose C10
Lactose C10
E. coli O157:H7 ATCC 35150
L. monocytogenes ATCC 7644
S. aureus ATCC 43387
7.54%
9.61%
6.72%
3.55%
11.69%
16.64%
18.13%
12.79%
9.66%
13.53%
21.13%
3.61%
26.75%
27.76%
24.66%
14.81%
35.46%
15.38%
41.40%
11.00%
43.60%
48.86%
55.26%
21.48%
S. enteritidis ATCC 13076
Lactose biphenylacetate
Lactose biphenylacetate
Lactose biphenylacetate
E. coli O157:H7 ATCC 35150
L. monocytogenes ATCC 7644
S. aureus ATCC 43387
40.10%
19.42%
15.35%
20.58%
46.99%
27.12%
39.00%
38.35%
61.31%
26.98%
22.46%
45.41%
65.65%
34.66%
40.27%
52.22%
85.21%
76.14%
33.03%
48.12%
91.97%
78.77%
53.91%
53.27%
S. enteritidis ATCC 13076

Pharmaceuticals 2019, 12, 186
11 of 19
Figure 2. MTT assay of sugar-based surfactants on Caco-2 cell lines. The graph plots cell viability (%)
as a function of different sugar fatty acids concentrations.
3. Materials and Methods
3.1. Chemicals, Materials and Methods
Caprylic, capric, lauric, myristic and palmitic acids were purchased from TCI (Zwijndrecht,
Belgium). Lactose monohydrate, α-d-glucose and α-D-mannose were purchased from Carlo Erba (Milan,
Italy). Lipozyme® (immobilized from Mucor miehei), Novozyme (lipase acrylic resin from Candida
antarctica), p-toluenesulfonic acid, 2,2-dimethoxypropane, tetrafluoroboric acid diethyl ether complex
[HBF4 Et2O], phenylacetic acid, biphenylacetic acid, p-phenylbenzoic acid, p-bromophenylbenzene,
4,4,4’,4’,5,5,5’,5’-octamethyl-2,2’-bis-1,3,2-dioxaborolane. [bis(pinacolato)diboron (B2pin2), [1,1’-bis
(diphenylphosphino)ferrocene]dichloropalladium(II) [Pd(dppf)Cl2], 1,1’-bis(diphenylphosphino) ferrocene
(dppf), tris(dibenzylideneacetone)dipalladium(0) [Pd2(dba)3], tricyclohexylphosphine [P(Cy)3], all organic
solvents, gentamycin, fluconazole, penicillin, streptomycin, Dulbecco’s Modified Eagle Medium (DMEM),
Fetal Calf Serum (FCS), non-essential amino acids and trypsin were purchased from Sigma-Aldrich
(Milan, Italy). Prior to use, acetonitrile and acetone were dried with molecular sieves with an effective pore
diameter of 4 Å and toluene was saturated with water. The structures of compounds were unambiguously
assessed by MS, 1H NMR, 13C NMR, and IR. ESI-MS spectra were recorded with a Waters Micromass ZQ
spectrometer in a negative or positive mode using a nebulizing nitrogen gas at 400 L/min and a temperature
of 250 ◦C, cone flow 40 mL/min, capillary 3.5 kV and cone voltage 60 V; only molecular ions [M-H]− or [M +
1
NH4]+ or [M + Na]+ are given. H NMR and 13C NMR spectra were recorded on a Bruker AC 400 or
101, respectively, spectrometer and analyzed using the TopSpin software package. Chemical shifts were
measured by using the central peak of the solvent. Column chromatography purifications were performed
under “flash” conditions using Merck 230–400 mesh silica gel. TLC was carried out on Merck silica gel 60
F254 plates, which were visualized by exposure to ultraviolet light and by exposure to an aqueous solution
of ceric ammonium molybdate.
3.2. General Procedure for the Synthesis of Lactose Fatty Acid Ester Derivatives (3a–e)
Lipozyme® (0.078 g) was added to a solution of the opportune fatty acid (1a–e) (0.79 mmol) and
4-O-(3’,4’-O-isopropylidene-
glucopyranose (lactose tetra acetal, LTA) [45] (
30 ◦C [46 47]. The mixture was stirred at 75 ◦C for 12 h, cooled and diluted with acetone, then the
α
-d-galactopyranosyl)-2,3:5,6-di-O-isopropylidene-1,1-di-O-methyl-D-
2) (0.402 g, 0.79 mmol) in dry toluene (0.5 mL) at
,

Pharmaceuticals 2019, 12, 186
12 of 19
enzyme was filtered and the filtrate was concentrated. Purification of the residue by column
chromatography (cyclohexane/EtOAc 8:2) gave 3a–e as pale yellow oils. (Scheme 1)
6’-O-Octanoyl-4-O-(3’,4’-O-isopropylidene-β-d-galactopyranosyl)-2,3:5,6-di-O-isopropylidene-1,1-
di-O-methyl-d-glucopyranose (3a) [47]
1
Yield = 55%. H NMR (400 MHz, CDCl3):
δ = 0.92 (t, 3H, J = 6.7 Hz, CH3), 1.31 (s, 6H, 2 CH3),
1.33–1.37 (m, 18H), 1.39 (s, 3H, CH3), 1.41 (s, 3H, CH3), 1.44 (s, 3H, CH3), 1.49 (s, 3H, CH3), 1.61–1.67
(m, 2H, CH2CH2CO), 2.40 (t, 2H, J = 7.0 Hz, CH2CO), 3.45–3.47 (m, 6H, OCH3), 3.47 (dd, 1H, JH2’-H3’
=
7.1 Hz, JH2’-H1’ = 8.0 Hz, H2’), 3.91 (dd, 1H, JH4-H3 = 1.0 Hz, JH4-H5 = 5.0 Hz, H4), 4.04 (ddd, 1H, JH5’-H6a’
= 1.0 Hz, JH5’-H4’ = 2.0 Hz, JH5’-H6b’ = 7.0 Hz, H5’), 4.05 (dd, 1H, JH6b-H5 = 6.0 Hz, JH6b-H6a = 8.5 Hz,
H6b),4.08 (dd, 1H, JH3’-H4’ = 5.5 Hz, JH3’-H2’ = 7.0 Hz, H3’), 4.15 (dd, 1H, JH3-H4 = 1.0 Hz, JH3-H2 = 7.5
Hz, H3), 4.17 (dd, 1H, JH6a-H5 = 6.0 Hz, JH6a-H6b = 8.5 Hz, H6a), 4.22 (dd, 1H, JH4’-H5’ = 2.0 Hz, JH4’-H3’
= 5.5 Hz, H4’), 4.27 (dd, 1H, JH6b’-H5’ = 7.0 Hz, JH6b’-H6a’ = 11.5 Hz, H6b’), 4.30 (dd, 1H, JH6a’-H5’ = 1.0
Hz, JH6a’-H6b’ = 11.5 Hz, H6a’), 4.30 (ddd, JH5-H4 = 5.0 Hz, JH5-H6a ꢀ H5-H6b = 6.0 Hz, H5), 4.41 (d, 1H,
J
J
H1-H2 = 6.0 Hz, H1), 4.51 (d, 1H, JH1’-H2’ = 8.0 Hz, H1’), 4.51 (dd, 1H, JH2-H1 = 6.0 Hz, JH2-H3 = 7.5 Hz,
H2) ppm. 13C NMR (100 MHz, CDCl3):
δ = 13.0, 22.3, 24.2, 24.6, 25.1, 25.5, 25.6, 26.2, 27.0, 28.8, 29.0,
29.1, 29.2, 29.3, 29.3, 29.4, 31.7, 33.5, 53.0, 55.1, 63.1, 65.5, 70.8, 73.3, 73.6, 75.4, 76.4, 76.8, 77.6, 79.4, 103.1,
105.7, 108.5, 109.7, 109.9, 173.8 ppm.
Compounds 3b–e were previously characterized [48].
Compounds 3a–e (0.25 mmol) were dissolved in [HBF4.(Et)2O]/H2O/dry CH3CN (2.1 mL, 1:5:500)
and the mixture was stirred at 30 ◦C for 3 h [36
,37]. The white solids precipitated were then filtered,
washed with CH3CN, and dried (Na2SO4). Purification by recrystallization from methanol gave 4a–e
as white solids.
6’-O-Octanoyl-4-O-(
β
-d-galactopyranosyl)-d-glucopyranose (lactose caprylate, URB1415) (4a) [47
]
Yield = 46%. MS (ESI): 467 [M–H]−, 486 [M + NH4]+, 491 [M + Na]+. H NMR (400 MHz, DMSO):
1
δ
= 0.87 (t, 3H, J = 6.5 Hz, CH3), 1.20–1.34 [m, 8H, (–CH2–)n], 1.52–1.55 (m, 2H, CH2CH2COOR), 2.31
(t, 2H, J = 7.5 Hz, CH2COOR), 3.17 (ddd, 1H, JH2-H1 = 4.0 Hz, JH2-OH2 = 7.0 Hz, JH2-H3 = 9.5 Hz, H2),
3.28 (dd, 1H, JH4-H3 ꢀ JH4-H5 = 9.0 Hz, H4), 3.32–3.38 (m, 2H, H2’, H3’), 3.57 (dd, 1H, JH3-H2 ꢀ JH3-H4
=
9.0 Hz, H3), 3.63–3.65 (m, 3H, H6a, H6b, H4’), 3.69–3.75 (m, 2H, H5, H5’), 4.09 (dd, 1H, JH6a’-H5’ = 4.0
Hz, JH6a’-H6b’ = 11.5 Hz, H6a’), 4.17 (dd, 1H, JH6b’-H5’ = 8.5 Hz, JH6b’-H6a’ = 11.5 Hz, H6b’), 4.20–4.24 (m,
2H, H1’, OH3), 4.43 (dd, 1H, JOH6-H6a
ꢀ J
OH6-H6b = 6.0 Hz, OH6), 4.56 (d, 1H, JOH2-H2 = 7.0 Hz, OH2),
4.79 (d, 1H, JOH4’-H4’ = 5.0 Hz, OH4’), 4.86 (brs, 1H, OH), 4.90 (dd, 1H, JH1-OH1 = 4.5 Hz, JH1-H2 = 4.0
Hz, H1), 5.15 (brs, 1H, OH), 6.34 (d, 1H, JOH1-H1 = 4.5 Hz, OH1) ppm. 13C NMR (100 MHz, DMSO):
δ
= 14.4, 22.5, 24.8, 28.8, 28.9, 31.6, 33.8, 60.9, 63.8, 68.7, 70.2, 70.8, 71.7, 72.7, 72.9, 73.3, 81.5, 92.5, 104.0,
173.4 ppm.
Compounds 4b
, 4c, 4d and 4e (URB1379, URB1380, URB1381 and URB1382, respectively) were
previously described [48].
3.3. General Procedure for the Synthesis of Glucose and Mannose Fatty Acid Ester Derivatives (7a–e, 8a–e)
Novozyme 435 (Novozyme) (0.200 g) and molecular sieves 4 Å (0.400 g) were added to a solution
of the opportune fatty acid (1a–e) (2.1 mmol) and α-d-mannose (5) or α-d-glucose (6) (0.126 g, 0.7 mmol)
in dry acetone (4.2 mL) at room temperature [27]. The mixture was stirred at room temperature for
96 h, filtered, and the filtrate was concentrated. Purification of the residue by flash chromatography
(EtOAc/cyclohexane 8:2) gave 7a–e as white spongy solids and 8a–e as white crystal solids. (Scheme 2).
6-O-Octanoyl-d-mannopyranose (mannose caprylate, URB1389) (7a) [29]
Yield = 57%,
α/β δ = 0.86 (t, 3H+1.5H, J = 6.5 Hz,
= 1:0.5. 1H NMR (400 MHz, DMSO):
CH3), 1.24–1.26 (m, 8H+4H), 1.50–1.53 (m, 2H+1H, OCCH2CH2), 2.26–2.31 (m, 2H+1H, OCCH2CH2),
3.21–3.33 (m, 1.5H, H3β, H4β, H5β), 3.35–3.41 (m, 1H, H4α), 3.49–3.55 (m, 2H+0.5H, H2α, H3α, H2β),
3.70 (ddd, 1H, JH5α-H6bα = 1.5 Hz, JH5α-H6aα = 7.0 Hz, JH5α-H4α = 9.0 Hz, H5α), 3.94–4.02 (m, 1H+0.5H,
H6aα, H6aβ), 4.27–4.32 (m, 1H+0.5H, H6bα, H6bβ), 4.53–4.59 (m, 1H+1H, OH2α, H1β, OH2β), 4.63 (d,
1H, JOH3α-H3α = 4.0 Hz, OH3α), 4.66 (d, 0.5H, JOH3β-H3β = 5.5 Hz, OH3β), 4.86 (dd, 1H, JH1α-H2α ꢀ

Pharmaceuticals 2019, 12, 186
13 of 19
JH1α-OH1 = 4.5 Hz, H1α), 4.89 (d, 1H, JOH4α-H4 = 5.5 Hz, OH4α), 4.94 (d, 0.5H, JOH4β-H4β = 5.0 Hz,
α
α
OH4β), 6.26 (d, 0.5H, JOH1β-H1β = 8.5 Hz, OH1β), 6.38 (d, 1H, JOH1α-H1α = 4.5 Hz, OH1α) ppm. 13C
NMR (100 MHz, DMSO): = 14.4 (1.5C), 22.5 (1.5C), 24.9 (1.5C), 28.8 (1.5C), 28.9 (1.5C), 31.6 (1.5C),
δ
33.87 (0.5C), 33.93 (1C), 64.3 (C6, 0.5C), 64.7 (C6, 1C), 67.2 (C5, 0.5C), 67.6 (C5, 1C), 70.8 (C4, 1C), 70.9
(C3, 1C), 71.8 (C2, 1C), 72.0 (C2, 0.5C), 73.9 (C4, 0.5), 74.5 (C3, 0.5C), 94.5 (C1, C), 94.6 (C1, 0.5C), 173.4
(CO, 1.5C) ppm.
Compounds 7b–e are described in the Supplementary Materials.
6-O-Octanoyl-d-glucopyranose (glucose caprylate, URB1388) (8a) [49]
1
Yield = 71%. H NMR (400 MHz, DMSO):
δ = 0.86 (t, 3H, J = 7.0 Hz, CH3), 1.24–1.26 (m, 8H),
1.49–1.53 (m, 2H, OCCH2CH2), 2.28 (t, 2H, J = 7.5 Hz, OCCH2CH2), 3.04 (ddd, 1H, JH4-OH4 = 6.0 Hz,
JH4-H3 = 9.0 Hz, JH4-H5 = 9.5 Hz, H4), 3.12 (ddd, 1H, JH2-H1 = 3.5 Hz, JH2-OH2 = 6.5 Hz, JH2-H3 = 9.0 Hz,
H2), 3.43 (ddd, 1H, JH3-OH3 = 5.0 Hz, JH3-H2
ꢀ
JH3-H4 = 9.0 Hz, H3), 3.77 (ddd, 1H, JH5-H6b = 2.0 Hz,
JH5-H6a = 6.0 Hz, JH5-H4 = 9.5 Hz, H5), 3.99 (dd, 1H, JH6a-H5 = 6.0 Hz, JH6a-H6b = 12.0 Hz, H6a), 4.27 (dd,
1H, JH6b-H5 = 2.0 Hz, JH6b-H6a = 12.0 Hz, H6b), 4.55 (d, 1H, JOH2-H2 = 6.5 Hz, OH2), 4.77 (d, H, JOH3-H3
5.0 Hz, OH3), 4.90 (dd, 1H, JH1-H2 = 3.5 Hz, JH1-OH1 = 4.5 Hz, H1), 5.05 (d, 1H, JOH4-H4 = 6.0 Hz, OH4),
6.35 (d, 1H, JOH1-H1 = 4.5 Hz, OH1) ppm. 13C NMR (100 MHz, DMSO):
= 14.4, 22.5, 24.9, 28.8, 28.9,
=
δ
31.6, 33.9, 64.3 (C6), 69.6 (C5), 71.0 (C4), 72.7 (C2), 73.3 (C3), 92.8 (C1), 173.4 (CO) ppm.
Compounds 8b–e are described in the Supplementary Materials.
3.4. General Procedure for the Synthesis of Lactose Aromatic Fatty Acid Ester Derivatives (4f–i)
Oxalyl chloride (1.630 g, 1.08 mL, 12.80 mmol) and catalytic dry DMF (two drops) were added to
the opportune acid (1f–i) (0.8 mmol). The mixture was stirred at room temperature for 2 h, diluted with
CH2Cl2, and concentrated to give the desired acid chloride (9f–i) as pale yellow oils. The opportune
9f–i in dry CH2Cl2 (2.4 mL) was then added dropwise at 0 ◦C to a solution of DIPEA (0.382 g, 0.51 mL,
2.96 mmol) and LTA (2
) (0.300 g, 0.59 mmol) in dry CH2Cl2 (2.4 mL). The mixture was stirred at 0 ◦C for
1 h and at room temperature for 16 h, then extracted with CH2Cl2. The combined organic layers were
washed with NaHCO3 saturated solution, dried (Na2SO4), filtered, and concentrated. Purification of
the residue by column chromatography (cyclohexane/ethyl acetate 8:2) gave 3f–i as pale yellow oils
(Scheme 3).
6’-O-(2-Phenylethanoyl)-4-O-(3’,4’-O-isopropylidene-β-d-galactopyranosyl)-2,3:5,6-di-O-isopropylidene-
1,1-di-O-methyl-d-glucopyranose (3f)
1
Yield = 83%. H NMR (400 MHz, CDCl3):
δ = 1.22 (s, 3H, CH3), 1.27 (s, 3H, CH3), 1.32 (s, 3H,
CH3), 1.33 (s, 3H, CH3), 1.43 (s, 6H, 2CH3), 3.360 (s, 3H, OCH3), 3.364 (s, 3H, OCH3), 3.48 (dd, 1H, J2’-3’
= 7.0 Hz, J2’-1’ = 8.0 Hz, H2’), 3.59 (s, 2H, CH2), 3.84 (dd, 1H, J3-4 = 2.0 Hz, J3-2 = 7.6 Hz, H3), 3.86 (ddd,
1H, J5-6a = 2.0 Hz, J5-6b
ꢀ J
5-4 = 6.0 Hz, H5), 3.92–3.95 (m, 2H), 3.97 (dd, 1H, J3’-4’ = 5.6 Hz, J2’-3’ = 7.0
Hz, H3’), 4.00 (dd, 1H, J1
ꢀ
J2 = 1.5 Hz), 4.09 (dd, 1H, J1 = 6.4 Hz, J2 = 8.8 Hz), 4.22 (ddd, 1H, J5’-6’a =
2.4 Hz, J5’-4’ ꢀ J5’-6’b = 6.5 Hz, H5’), 4.23–4.26 (m, 1H), 4.27 (dd, 1H, J4-3 = 2.0 Hz, J4-5 = 6.0 Hz, H4), 4.30
(d, 1H, J1-2 = 6.0 Hz, H1), 4.34 (d, 1H, J1’-2’ = 8.0 Hz, H1’), 4.39 (dd, 1H, J2-1 = 6.0 Hz, J2-3 = 7.6 Hz, H2),
7.19–7.26 (m, 5H, ArH) ppm. 13C NMR (100 MHz, CDCl3):
δ = 24.4, 25.7, 26.2, 26.4, 27.3, 28.1, 41.1,
53.5, 56.2, 63.4, 64.6, 71.2, 73.1, 74.1, 75.2, 76.4, 77.8, 78.0, 78.9, 103.7, 105.3, 108.3, 110.26, 110.30, 127.2,
128.6, 129.2, 133.8, 171.3 ppm.
6’-O-[2-(4-Phenyl)phenylethanoyl]-4-O-(3’,4’-O-isopropylidene-β-d-galactopyranosyl)-2,3:5,6-di-
O-isopropylidene-1,1-di-O-methyl-d-glucopyranose (3g)
1
Yield = 44%. MS (ESI): 720 [M + NH4]+, 725 [M + Na]+, 701 [M–H]−. H NMR (400 MHz, CDCl3):
δ
= 1.16 (s, 3H, CH3), 1.26 (s, 3H, CH3), 1.29 (s, 3H, CH3), 1.31 (s, 3H, CH3), 1.42 (s, 6H, 2 CH3), 3.30
(s, 3H, OCH3), 3.33 (s, 3H, OCH3), 3.46 (dd, 1H, J2’-3’ = 7.0 Hz, J2’-1’ = 8.0 Hz, H2’), 3.82–3.87 (m, 3H),
3.91–3.95 (m, 2H), 3.97 (dd, 1H, J1
5’-6’a = 2.4 Hz, J5’-4’
5’-6’b = 6.8 Hz, H5’), 4.23–4.26 (m, 1H), 4.27 (dd, 1H, J4-3 = 2.0 Hz, J4-5 = 6.0 Hz,
H4), 4.30 (d, 1H, J1-2 = 6.0 Hz, H1), 4.34 (d, 1H, J1’-2’ = 8.0 Hz, H1’), 4.38 (dd, 1H, J2-1 = 6.0 Hz, J2-3 = 7.6
Hz, H2), 4.99 (s, 2H, CH2), 7.15–7.27 (m, 9H, ArH) ppm. 13C NMR (100 MHz, DMSO):
= 26.0, 26.5,
ꢀ J2 = 1.5 Hz), 4.09 (dd, 1H, J1 = 6.4 Hz, J2 = 8.8 Hz), 4.22 (ddd, 1H,
J
ꢀ J
δ

Pharmaceuticals 2019, 12, 186
14 of 19
27.0, 27.1, 27.8, 28.4, 53.9, 55.7, 56.1, 63.8, 66.1, 69.9, 72.7, 73.2, 75.3, 76.3, 77.4, 77.5, 79.5, 103.7, 105.5,
108.5, 109.2, 109.6, 127.6, 128.7, 128.9, 129.0, 139.2, 139.4, 172.2 ppm.
6’-O-[2-(4-Phenyl)benzoyl]-4-O-(3’,4’-O-isopropylidene-β-d-galactopyranosyl)-2,3:5,6-di-O-isopropylidene-
1,1-di-O-methyl-d-glucopyranose (3h)
1
Yield = 8%. MS (ESI): 706 [M + NH4]+, 711 [M + Na]+. H NMR (400 MHz, CDCl3):
δ = 1.26 (s,
3H, CH3), 1.28 (s, 3H, CH3), 1.30 (s, 3H, CH3), 1.32 (s, 3H, CH3), 1.43 (s, 3H, CH3), 1.46 (s, 3H, CH3),
3.27 (s, 3H, OCH3), 3.28 (s, 3H, OCH3), 3.54 (dd, 1H, J2’-3’ = 7.0 Hz, J2’-1’ = 8.0 Hz, H2’), 3.84 (dd, 1H,
J
3-4 = 2.0 Hz, J3-2 = 7.6 Hz, H3), 3.94 (dd, 1H, J1 = 6.8 Hz, J2 = 8.8 Hz), 4.02–4.08 (m, 3H), 4.10 (dd, 1H, J1
= 6.8 Hz, J2 = 8.8 Hz), 4.15 (dd, 1H, J4-3 = 2.0 Hz, J4-5 = 6.0 Hz, H4), 4.19–4.23 (m, 1H), 4.22 (d, 1H, J1-2
5.6 Hz, H1), 4.41 (d, 1H, J1’-2’ = 8.0 Hz, H1’), 4.41 (dd, 1H, J2-1 = 5.6 Hz, J2-3 = 7.6 Hz, H2), 4.49 (dd, 1H,
6b’-5’ = 7.2 Hz, J6b’-6a’ = 11.6 Hz, H6b’), 4.56 (dd, 1H, J6a’-5’ = 4.8 Hz, J6a’-6b’ = 11.6 Hz, H6a’), 7.30–7.33
=
J
(m, 1H, ArH), 7.37–7.41 (m, 2H, ArH), 7.53–7.55 (m, 2H, ArH), 7.59 (d, 2H, J = 8.5 Hz, ArH), 8.05 (d, 2H,
J = 8.5 Hz, ArH) ppm.
6’-O-[2-(4,4’-Biphenyl)phenylethanoyl]-4-O-(3’,4’-O-isopropylidene-β-d-galactopyranosyl)-2,3:5,6-
di-O-isopropylidene-1,1-di-O-methyl-d-glucopyranose (3i)
1
Yield = 17%. MS (ESI): 796 [M + NH4]+, 801 [M + Na]+, 777 [M–H]−. H NMR (400 MHz, CDCl3):
δ
= 1.22 (s, 3H, CH3), 1.26 (s, 3H, CH3), 1.32 (s, 3H, CH3), 1.34 (s, 3H, CH3), 1.42 (s, 3H, CH3), 1.43 (s,
3H, CH3), 3.37 (s, 3H, OCH3), 3.38 (s, 3H, OCH3), 3.47–3.51 (m, 1H, H2’), 3.65 (s, 2H, CH2), 3.84 (dd,
1H, J3-4 = 2.0 Hz, J3-2 = 7.6 Hz, H3), 3.89 (ddd, 1H, J5-6a = 2.0 Hz, J5-6b ꢀ J5-4 = 6.0 Hz, H5), 3.94 (dd, 1H,
J
4’-5’ = 6.8 Hz, J3’-4’ = 8.5 Hz, H4’), 3.96–3.99 (m, 3H), 4.10 (dd, 1H, J3’-2’ = 6.4 Hz, J3’-4’ = 8.5 Hz, H3’),
4.22 (ddd, 1H, J5’-6’a = 2.0 Hz, J5’-4’
ꢀ J
5’-6’b = 6.5 Hz, H5’), 4.25–4.33 (m, 2H), 4.31 (d, 1H, J1-2 = 6.4 Hz,
H1), 4.36 (d, 1H, J1’-2’ = 8.0 Hz, H1’), 4.41 (dd, 1H, J2-1 = 6.4 Hz, J2-3 = 7.6 Hz, H2), 7.27–7.32 (m, 3H,
ArH), 7.36–7.41 (m, 2H, ArH), 7.54 (d, 2H, J = 8.5 Hz, ArH), 7.57 (d, 2H, J = 8.5 Hz, ArH), 7.57–7.59
(m, 4H, ArH) ppm. 13C NMR (100 MHz, CDCl3):
δ = 24.4, 25.7, 26.3, 26.4, 27.3, 28.1, 40.7, 53.5, 56.3,
63.6, 64.6, 71.2, 73.1, 74.2, 75.3, 76.5, 77.9, 78.0, 79.0, 103.7, 105.4, 108.3, 110.31, 110.34, 127.0, 127.3, 127.4,
127.5, 128.8, 129.7, 132.9, 139.6, 139.7, 140.2, 140.6, 171.3 ppm.
Compounds 3f–i (0.25 mmol) were dissolved in [HBF4.(Et)2O]/H2O/dry CH3CN (2.1 mL, 1:5:500)
and the mixture was stirred at 30 ◦C (0 ◦C in the case of 3g) for 3 h, and filtered. Purification of the
solids by trituration (petroleum ether) and lyophilisation gave 4f–i as white solids.
6’-O-(2-Phenylethanoyl)-4-O-(
URB1419) (4f)
β
-d-galactopyranosyl)-d-glucopyranose (lactose phenyl acetate,
Yield = 66%. MS (ESI): 478 [M + NH4]+, 483 [M + Na]+, 459 [M–H]−. H NMR (400 MHz, DMSO):
1
δ
= 3.21–3.24 (m, 1H, H2), 3.30–3.41 (m, 3H, H4, H2’, H3’), 3.59–3.68 (m, 4H, H3, H6a, H6b, H4’), 3.70 (s,
2H, CH2), 3.72–3.77 (m, 2H, H5, H5’), 4.11 (dd, 1H, JH6’b-H5’ = 4.0 Hz, JH6’b-H6’a = 11.2 Hz, H6’b), 4.24
(dd, 1H, JH6’a-H5’ = 2.0 Hz, JH6’a-H6’b = 11.2 Hz, H6’a), 4.25–4.27 (m, 1H, H1’), 4.34 (brs, 1H, OH), 4.47
(dd, 1H, JOH6-H6a
4.92 (dd, 1H, J1-OH1
7.25–7.33 (m, 5H, ArH) ppm. 13C NMR (100 MHz, DMSO)
72.8, 73.3, 81.7, 92.5, 104.1, 127.2, 128.8, 130.0, 134.7, 171.7 ppm.
ꢀ
JOH6-H6b = 6.0 Hz, OH6), 4.64 (brs, 1H, OH), 4.80 (brs, 1H, OH), 4.86 (brs, 1H, OH),
ꢀ
JH1-H2 = 4.0 Hz, H1), 5.16 (brs, 1H, OH), 6.36 (d, 1H, JOH1-H1 = 4.0 Hz, OH1),
= 31.2, 60.9, 64.3, 68.7, 70.2, 70.8, 71.7, 72.7,
δ
6’-O-[2-(4-Phenyl)phenylethanoyl]-4-O-(β-d-galactopyranosyl)-d-glucopyranose (lactose biphenyl
acetate, URB1420) (4g)
1
Yield = 72%. MS (ESI): 554 [M + NH4]+, 559 [M + Na]+, 535 [M–H]−. H NMR (400 MHz, DMSO):
δ
= 3.04 (dd, 1H, J1
(m, 4H), 3.70–3.76 (m, 3H), 4.17–4.28 (m, 4H), 4.37 (d, 1H, J = 8.0 Hz), 4.94 (d, 1H, J = 3.6 Hz), 5.23 (s,
2H, CH2), 7.25–7.38 (m, 9H, ArH) ppm. 13C NMR (100 MHz, DMSO)
= 56.2, 60.9, 64.7, 68.7, 70.2, 70.3,
70.7, 71.7, 72.7, 73.2, 75.2, 81.8, 92.6, 103.9, 127.47, 127.53, 128.9, 129.0, 129.1, 139.3, 139.4, 172.4 ppm.
ꢀ J2 = 8.0 Hz), 3.23 (dd, 1H, J1 = 3.6 Hz, J2 = 9.6 Hz), 3.28–3.38 (m, 6H), 3.58–3.66
δ
6’-O-[2-(4-Phenyl)benzoyl]-4-O-(β-d-galactopyranosyl)-d-glucopyranose (lactose p-phenyl benzoate,
URB1421) (4h)
1
Yield = 52%. MS (ESI): 540 [M + NH4]+, 545 [M + Na]+, 521 [M–H]−. H NMR (400 MHz, DMSO):
δ
= 3.22 (dd, 1H, J1 = 3.6 Hz, J2 = 9.6 Hz), 3.33–3.38 (m, 2H), 3.38–3.41 (m, 2H), 3.60–3.70 (m, 3H),

Pharmaceuticals 2019, 12, 186
15 of 19
3.70–3.76 (m, 2H), 3.92 (dd, 1H, J1 = 4.0 Hz, J2 = 8.5 Hz), 4.26–4.36 (m, 3H), 4.48–4.56 (m, 2H), 4.91 (d,
1H, J = 4.0 Hz), 7.42–7.46 (m, 1H, ArH), 7.50–7.54 (m, 2H, ArH), 7.74–7.77 (m, 2H, ArH), 7.82–7.85 (m,
2H, ArH), 8.14–8.18 (m, 2H, ArH) ppm. 13C NMR (100 MHz, DMSO)
δ
= 60.8, 64.8, 68.9, 70.2, 70.8,
71.7, 72.8, 73.1, 73.3, 81.3, 92.6, 104.0, 127.3, 127.5, 128.8, 128.9, 129.6, 130.7, 139.4, 145.2 166.1 ppm.
6’-O-[2-(4,4’-Biphenyl)phenylethanoyl]-4-O-(
triphenyl acetate, URB1422) (4i)
β
-d-galactopyranosyl)-d-glucopyranose (lactose
Yield = 58%. MS (ESI): 478 [M + NH4]+, 483 [M + Na]+, 459 [M–H]−. H NMR (400 MHz, DMSO):
1
δ
= 3.25 (dd, 1H, J1 = 3.2 Hz, J2 = 9.6 Hz), 3.30–3.42 (m, 4H), 3.51 (brs, 1H), 3.61–3.68 (m, 4H), 3.72–3.80
(m, 4H), 4.13 (dd, 1H, J1 = 3.2 Hz, J2 = 11.6 Hz), 4.27–4.39 (m, 4H), 4.93 (d, 1H, J = 3.2 Hz), 7.39–7.51 (m,
5H, ArH), 7.68–7.72 (m, 8H, ArH) ppm. 13C NMR (100 MHz, DMSO)
= 60.9, 64.4, 68.7, 70.2, 70.8,
δ
71.8, 72.7, 72.9, 73.3, 81.8, 92.6, 104.2, 126.96, 127.02, 127.6, 127.7, 128.0, 129.5, 130.7, 134.1, 138.5, 139.3,
139.5, 140.1, 171.6 ppm.
3.5. Synthesis of Triphenylacetic Acid (1i)
The synthetic procedure to obtain 1i and all the intermediates is described in the Supplementary
Materials (Scheme S1).
3.6. Bacterial Strains and Culture Conditions
Escherichia coli O157:H7 ATCC 35150, Enterococcus faecalis ATCC 29212, Listeria monocytogenes
ATCC 7644, Klebsiella pneumoniae ATCC 13833, Pseudomonas aeruginosa ATCC 9027, Staphylococcus
aureus ATCC 43387, Salmonella enteritidis ATCC 13076 and Candida albicans ATCC 14053 were the
reference human pathogens used in this study (American Type Culture Collection, USA). All strains
were maintained in Tryptic Soy Agar (TSA, Oxoid, Milan, Italy) at 37 ◦C, while C. albicans ATCC 14053
◦
was grown in Sabouraud Dextrose Agar (SDA, Oxoid). All stock cultures were kept at
nutrient broth with glycerol 15%.
−
80 C in
3.7. Determination of MIC
The MICs of the tested compounds were determined by standard microdilution method according
to the National Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards (NCCLS), document M100-S12 method.
First, each compound (5 mg) was dissolved in DMSO of biological grade (stock solutions) (1 mL).
Several colonies of each bacterial strain were inoculated in sterile Mueller Hinton Broth (MHB, Oxoid)
(10 mL) and incubated at 37 ◦C for 18–24 h. At the end, each bacterial suspension was adjusted to
about 106 cfu/mL at nanomolar concentration (OD610 0.13–0.15) and 100
wells of the 96-well plate, together with the appropriate volumes of the test solutions (1–256
Two rows were used for positive (bacteria alone) and negative controls (MHB alone), respectively.
Gentamicin (0.125–128 g/mL), fluconazole (0.125–128 g/mL) (Sigma) and standard preservative
mixture (methylparaben and propylparaben, ratio 9:1) (ACEF, Piacenza, Italy) (0.5–1024 g/mL) were
µL of that was added in
µg/mL).
µ
µ
µ
added as internal controls. Preliminary assays with DMSO were carried out to exclude its possible
bacteriostatic and/or bactericidal activity; in any case, the volume of DMSO added in each well never
exceeded 5% (v/v) of the final total volume. The experiments were performed in duplicate.
3.8. Formation of the Biofilm on 24-Well Polystyrene Plates
Selected food-borne pathogens, such as E. coli O157:H7 ATCC 35150, L. monocytogenes ATCC 7644,
S. aureus ATCC 43387 and S. enteritidis ATCC 13076 were used. Each microorganism was inoculated in
TSB (20 mL) and incubated overnight at 37 ◦C. After incubation, the optical density of each bacterial
suspension was adjusted to about 106 cfu/mL (OD 610); then, 200
µL of each suspension were inoculated
in 24-well polystyrene plates with the corresponding amount of each selected compound at relative
MIC and 2 MIC values (final volume 1 mL/well). Two wells for each pathogen were inoculated with
×
bacteria in TSB as controls. The plates were then incubated for 24 h, 48 h and 5 days at 37 ◦C to allow
for biofilms development.

Pharmaceuticals 2019, 12, 186
16 of 19
3.9. Evaluation of the Antibiofilm Activity of Sugar-Based Esters at Different Stage of Biofilm Formation
The antibiofilm activity of the selected compounds (glucose C10, mannose C10, lactose C10 and
lactose biphenylacetate) was assessed at different times of development (24 h, 48 h and 96 h) of E. coli
O157:H7 ATCC 35150, L. monocytogenes ATCC 7644, S. aureus ATCC 43387 and S. enteritidis ATCC 13076.
At each time point, the inhibition of the biofilm formation was assessed by modified Crystal Violet
(CV) staining [50]. As first, the planktonic cells were gently aspired, and then the formed biofilms were
fixed with 99% methanol. Plates were washed twice with phosphate buffer saline (PBS) and air-dried,
and then the biofilms were covered with CV 0.1% (v/v) for 15 min. The samples were washed again
with PBS and air-dried. The remaining CV was dissolved in 85% ethanol (15 min at room temperature)
and, finally, 200 µL of substance was transferred from each dish to a 96-well plate for the Multiscan
Ex Microplate Reader (Thermo Scientific, Waltham, MA, USA) spectrophotometry at 570 nm. Each
datapoint was averaged from at least eight replicate wells. The experiments were performed two times
using independent cultures.
3.10. Caco-2 Cell Culture
Caco-2 cell line (i.e., human colon carcinoma) was obtained from the American Type Culture
Collection (ATCC, Rockville, MD, USA). Caco-2 cells were grown routinely in 25 cm2 flasks containing
DMEM (6 mL) supplemented with 10% FCS, 1% of non-essential amino acids and 1% of antibiotics
(penicillin and streptomycin) at 37 ◦C with 5% CO2. At confluence, Caco-2 cells were treated with
trypsin and seeded at a ratio of 2
in 5% CO2 for five days to allow cell differentiation.
×
104 cells/mL in new flasks. The plates were then incubated at 37 ◦C
3.11. MTT Cell Proliferation Colorimetric Assay
The effect of the tested compounds on cell viability was measured using the MTT colorimetric
assay (Millipore Corp., Burlington, MA, USA). Caco-2 cells were cultured on 96-well plates in DMEM
for 48 h. Afterwards, the culture medium was replaced with DMEM containing glucose C10, mannose
C10, lactose C10 and lactose biphenylacetate at different concentrations (0.01, 0.05, 0.1, 0.5, 1 and
2 mM). DMSO and PBS were used as a positive and negative control, assuming 100% and 0% cell
death, respectively. Cells were incubated in 5% CO2 incubator at 37 ◦C for 24 h. Thereafter, the assay
was performed according to the manufacturer’s instructions, with four replies for each sample.
Percentage of viable cells was calculated using untreated cells as a control, with 100% cell viability.
The percentage of viable cells was plotted against the concentrations of each tested compound in
a dose–response model.
3.12. Statistical Analysis
Statistical analysis was performed using Prism version 5.0 (GraphPad Inc., San Diego, CA, USA).
The assumptions for parametric test were cheeked prior to carry out the statistical analysis. p values < 0.05
were considered to be statistically significant.
4. Conclusions
Sugar-based monoesters made from glucose, mannose or lactose, and hydrophobic linear or
aromatic acids were designed, synthesized, and evaluated as antimicrobial and antibiofilm agents.
Specifically, glucose, mannose and lactose were coupled with saturated fatty acid chains C8, C10, C12,
C14 and C16, while lactose was also esterified with aromatics tails.
The ability of these compounds to interact with a set of different microorganisms was assessed,
obtaining MICs values ranging from 128 to >256 µg/mL. Successively, the antibiofilm activity of
most relevant compounds (glucose C10, mannose C10, lactose C10 and lactose biphenylacetate) was
evaluated at different times of development (24 h, 48 h and 5 days) of representative food-borne
pathogens, such as E. coli O157:H7 ATCC 35150, L. monocytogenes ATCC 7644, S. aureus ATCC 43387 and

Pharmaceuticals 2019, 12, 186
17 of 19
S. enteritidis ATCC 13076. The antibiofilm activity trend was: Mannose C10 > lactose biphenylacetate >
glucose C10 > lactose C10. In particular, mannose C10 and lactose biphenylacetate showed increased
percentages of biofilm formation inhibition up to 96 h (97.2% and 92.0%, respectively, in the case of
E. coli O157:H7 ATCC 35150). Interestingly, at MICs values, no toxicity for the selected surfactants
was observed on the human colorectal cell line using the MTT assay. For all the obtained results,
the sugar-based monoesters here presented, in particular mannose C10 and lactose biphenylacetate,
could be proposed as possible biocompatible and safe preservatives for pharmaceutical, food and other
industrial applications.
Supplementary Materials: The following are available online at http://www.mdpi.com/1424-8247/12/4/186/s1,
Supplementary material: 1. Characterization of glucose and mannose fatty acid ester derivatives 7b–e and 8b–e
;
2. Scheme S1: Synthesis of triphenylacetic acid (1i).
Author Contributions: Conceptualization, R.C., A.D. and S.L.; methodology, R.C. and S.L.; validation, R.C. and
S.L.; formal analysis, R.C. and S.L.; investigation, R.C., A.M., M.V. and F.B.; resources, R.C. and S.L.; data curation,
R.C. and S.L.; writing—original draft preparation, R.C., A.D. and S.L.; writing—review and editing, A.M., M.V.,
F.B. and G.F.; visualization, R.C. and A.D.; supervision, R.C., A.D. and S.L.; project administration, R.C., A.D. and
S.L.; funding acquisition, A.D.
Funding: This research was funded by University of Urbino Carlo Bo.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
References
1.
2.
3.
4.
Scharff, R.L. Economic burden from health losses due to foodborne illness in the United States. J. Food Protec.
2012, 75, 123–131. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Martinovic´, T.; Andjelkovic´, U.; Gajdošik, M.Š.; Rešetar, D.; Josic´, D. Foodborne pathogens and their toxins.
J. Proteom. 2016, 147, 226–235. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Ismaiel, A.A.; Papenbrock, J. Mycotoxins: Producing fungi and mechanisms of phytotoxicity. Agriculture
2015, 5, 492–537. [CrossRef]
Scallan, E.; Hoekstra, R.M.; Angulo, F.J.; Tauxe, R.V.; Widdowson, M.A.; Roy, S.L.; Jones, J.L.; Griffin, P.M.
Foodborne illness acquired in the United States-major pathogens. Emerg. Infect. Dis. 2011, 17, 7–15.
[CrossRef]
5.
6.
Scallan, E.; Griffin, P.M.; Angulo, F.J.; Tauxe, R.V.; Hoekstra, R.M. Foodborne illness acquired in the United
States-unspecified agents. Emerg. Infect. Dis. 2011, 17, 16–22. [CrossRef]
Stoodley, P.; Sauer, K.; Davies, D.G.; Costerton, J.W. Biofilms as complex differentiated communities.
Ann. Rev. Microbiol. 2002, 56, 187–209. [CrossRef]
7.
8.
Flemming, H.C.; Wingender, J. The biofilm matrix. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 2010, 8, 623–632. [CrossRef]
Pfuntner, A. Sanitizers and Disinfectants: The Chemicals of Prevention. Food Saf. Mag. 2011. Available
online: https://www.foodsafetymagazine.com/magazine-archive1/augustseptember-2011/sanitizers-and-
disinfectants-the-chemicals-of-prevention/ (accessed on 14 December 2019).
Diehl, J.F. Food irradiation-past, present and future. Radiat. Phys. Chem. 2002, 63, 211–215. [CrossRef]
9.
10. Holah, J.T. Special needs for disinfectants in food-handling establishments. Rev. Sci. Tech. 1995, 14, 95–104.
[CrossRef]
11. Simoes, M.; Pereira, M.O.; Vieira, M.J. Effect of mechanical stress on biofilms challenged by different chemicals.
Water Res. 2005, 39, 5142–5152. [CrossRef]
12. Tuncel, A.T.; Ruppert, T.; Wang, B.T.; Okun, J.G.; Kölker, S.; Morath, M.A.; Sauer, S.W. Maleic acid–but not
structurally related methylmalonic acid–interrupts energy metabolism by impaired calcium homeostasis.
PLoS ONE 2015, 10, e0128770. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
13. Mamur, S.; Yüzbasioglu, D.; Ünal, F.; Yılmaz, S. Does potassium sorbate induce genotoxic or mutagenic
effects in lymphocytes? Toxicol. Vitr. 2010, 24, 790–794. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
14. Campana, R.; Casettari, L.; Fagioli, L.; Cespi, M.; Bonacucina, G.; Baffone, W. Activity of essential oil-based
microemulsions against Staphylococcus aureus biofilms developed on stainless steel surface in different culture
media and growth conditions. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2017, 241, 132–140. [CrossRef]
15. Bridier, A.; Sanchez-Vizuete, P.; Guilbaud, M.; Piard, J.C.; Naïtali, M.; Briandet, R. Biofilm-associated
persistence of food-borne pathogens. Food Microbiol. 2015, 45, 167–178. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

Pharmaceuticals 2019, 12, 186
18 of 19
16. Ferrer, M.; Cruces, M.A.; Bernabe, M.; Ballesteros, A.; Plou, F.J. Lipase catalyzed regioselective acylation of
sucrose in two-solvent mixtures. Biotechnol. Bioeng. 1999, 65, 10–16. [CrossRef]
17. Plat, T.; Linhardt, R.J. Syntheses and applications of sucrose-based esters. J. Surfactants Deterg. 2001, 4,
415–421. [CrossRef]
18. Perinelli, D.R.; Lucarini, S.; Fagioli, L.; Campana, R.; Vllasaliu, D.; Duranti, A.; Casettari, L. Lactose oleate as
new biocompatible surfactant for pharmaceutical applications. Eur. J. Pharm. Biopharm. 2018, 124, 55–62.
[CrossRef]
19. Hayes, D.G. Bioprocessing methods to prepare biobased surfactants for pharmaceutical products. Am. Pharm. Rev.
2011, 14, 8–16.
20. Gumel, A.M.; Annuar, M.S.M.; Heidelberg, T.; Chisti, Y. Lipase mediated synthesis of sugar fatty acid esters.
Process Biochem. 2011, 46, 2079–2090. [CrossRef]
21. Alama, T.; Katayama, T.; Hirai, S.; Ono, S.; Kajiyama, A.; Kusamori, K.; Katsumi, H.; Sakane, T.; Yamamoto, A.
Enhanced oral delivery of alendronate by sucrose fatty acids esters in rats and their absorption-enhancing
mechanisms. Int. J. Pharm. 2016, 515, 476–489. [CrossRef]
22. Liang, M.Y.; Chen, Y.; Banwell, M.G.; Wang, Y.; Lan, P. Enzymatic preparation of a homologous series of
long-chain 6-O-acylglucose esters and their evaluation as emulsifiers. J. Agr. Food Chem. 2018, 66, 3949–3956.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
23. Liang, M.Y.; Banwell, M.G.; Wang, Y.; Lan, P. Effect of Variations in the Fatty Acid Residue of Lactose
Monoesters on Their Emulsifying Properties and Biological Activities. J. Agr. Food Chem. 2018, 66,
12594–12603. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
24. Ren, K.; Lamsal, B.P. Synthesis of some glucose-fatty acid esters by lipase from Candida Antarctica and their
emulsion functions. Food Chem. 2017, 214, 556–563. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
25. Griffin, W.C. Calculation of HLB values of non-ionic surfactants. J. Soc. Cosmet. Chem. 1954, 5, 249–256.
26. Organic Chemistry Portal. Available online: https://www.organic-chemistry.org/prog/ (accessed on 22 November 2019).
27. Arcos, J.A.; Bernabé, M.; Otero, C. Quantitative enzymatic production of 6-O-acylglucose esters.
Biotechnol. Bioeng. 1998, 57, 505–509. [CrossRef]
28. Bartolucci, S.; Bartoccini, F.; Righi, M.; Piersanti, G. Direct, regioselective, and chemoselective preparation of
novel boronated tryptophans by Friedel-Crafts alkylation. Org. Lett. 2012, 14, 600–603. [CrossRef]
29. AlFindee, M.N.; Zhang, Q.; Subedi, Y.P.; Shrestha, J.P.; Kawasaki, Y.; Grilley, M.; Takemoto, J.Y.; Chang, C.W.T.
One-step synthesis of carbohydrate esters as antibacterial and antifungal agents. Bioorg. Med. Chem. 2018
26, 765–774. [CrossRef]
,
30. Jumina, J.; Mutmainah, M.; Purwono, B.; Kurniawan, Y.; Syah, Y.M. Antibacterial and antifungal activity of
three monosaccharide monomyristate derivatives. Molecules 2019, 24, 3692. [CrossRef]
31. Zhao, L.; Zhang, H.; Hao, T.; Li, S. In vitro antibacterial activities and mechanism of sugar fatty acid esters
against five food-related bacteria. Food Chem. 2015, 187, 370–377. [CrossRef]
32. Enayati, M.; Gong, Y.; Goddard, J.M.; Abbaspourrad, A. Synthesis and characterization of lactose fatty acid
ester biosurfactants usingfree and immobilized lipases in organic solvents. Food Chem. 2018, 266, 508–513.
[CrossRef]
33. Enayati, M.; Gong, Y.; Abbaspourrad, A. Synthesis of lactose lauryl ester in organic solvents using
aluminosilicate zeolite as a catalyst. Food Chem. 2019, 279, 401–407. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
34. Ferrer, M.; Soliveri, J.; Plou, F.J.; López-Cortés, N.; Reyes-Duarte, D.; Christensen, M.; Copa-Patiño, J.L.;
Ballesteros, A. Synthesis of sugar esters in solvent mixtures by lipases from Thermomyces lanuginosus and
Candida antarctica B, and their antimicrobial properties. Enzym. Microb. Technol. 2005, 36, 391–398. [CrossRef]
35. Xiao, D.; Ye, R.; Davidson, P.M.; Hayes, D.G.; Golden, D.A.; Zhong, Q. Sucrose monolaurate improves the
efficacy of sodium hypochlorite against Escherichia coli O157:H7 on spinach. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2011, 145,
64–68. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
36. Watanabe, T.; Katayama, S.; Matsubara, M.; Honda, Y.; Kuwahara, M. Antibacterial carbohydrate monoesters
suppressing cell growth of Streptococcus mutans in the presence of sucrose. Curr. Microbiol. 2000, 41, 210–213.
[CrossRef]
37. Devulapalle, K.S.; Gómez de Segura, A.; Ferrer, M.; Alcalde, M.; Mooser, G.; Plou, F.J. Effect of carbohydrate
fatty acid esters on Streptococcus sobrinus and glucosyltransferase activity. Carbohydr. Res. 2004, 339, 1029–1034.
[CrossRef]

Pharmaceuticals 2019, 12, 186
19 of 19
38. Karlová, T.; Polakova, L.; Šmidrkal, J.; Filip, V. Antimicrobial effects of fatty acid fructose esters. Czech J. Food Sci.
2010, 28, 146–149. [CrossRef]
39. Costerton, J.W.; Stewart, P.S.; Greenberg, E.P. Bacterial biofilms: A common cause of persistent infections.
Science 1999, 284, 1318–1322. [CrossRef]
40. Mah, T.F.; Pitts, B.; Pellock, B.; Walker, G.C.; Stewart, P.S.; O’Toole, G.A. A genetic basis for Pseudomonas aeruginosa
biofilm antibiotic resistance. Nature 2003, 426, 306–310. [CrossRef]
41. O’Toole, G.A.; Stewart, P.S. Biofilms strike back. Nat. Biotechnol. 2005, 23, 1378–1379. [CrossRef]
42. Monds, R.D.; O’Toole, G.A. The developmental model of microbial biofilms: Ten years of a paradigm up for
review. Trends Microbiol. 2009, 17, 73–87. [CrossRef]
43. Ito, A.; Taniuchi, A.; May, T.; Kawata, K.; Okabe, S. Increased antibiotic resistance of Escherichia coli in
mature biofilms. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2009, 75, 4093–4100. [CrossRef]
44. Lu, B.; Vayssade, M.; Miao, Y.; Chagnault, V.; Grand, E.; Wadouachi, A.; Postel, D.; Drelich, A.; Egles, C.;
Pezron, I. Physico-chemical properties and cytotoxic effects of sugar-based surfactants: Impact of structural
variations. Colloids Surf. B Biointerfaces 2016, 145, 79–86. [CrossRef]
45. Hough, L.; Richardson, A.C.; Thelwall, L.A.W. Reaction of lactose with 2,2-dimethoxypropane: A tetraacetal
of novel structure. Carbohydr. Res. 1979, 75, C11–C12. [CrossRef]
46. Lucarini, S.; Fagioli, L.; Campana, R.; Cole, H.; Duranti, A.; Baffone, W.; Vllasaliu, D.; Casettari, L. Unsaturated fatty
acids lactose esters: Cytotoxicity, permeability enhancement and antimicrobial activity. Eur. J. Pharm. Biopharm.
2016, 107, 88–96. [CrossRef]
47. Sarney, D.B.; Kapeller, H.; Fregapane, G.; Vulfson, E.N. Chemo-enzymatic synthesis of disaccharide fatty
acid esters. J. Am. Oil Chem. Soc. 1994, 71, 711–714. [CrossRef]
48. Lucarini, S.; Fagioli, L.; Cavanagh, R.; Liang, W.; Perinelli, D.; Campana, M.; Stolnik, S.; Lam, J.; Casettari, L.;
Duranti, A. Synthesis, structure–activity relationships and in vitro toxicity profile of lactose-based fatty acid
monoesters as possible drug permeability enhancers. Pharmaceutics 2018, 10, 81. [CrossRef]
49. Yosimoto, K.; Tahara, K.; Suzuki, S.; Sasaki, K.; Nishikawa, Y.; Tsuda, Y. Regioselective syntheses of
mono-O-acylglucoses. Chem. Pharm. Bull. 1979, 27, 2661–2674. [CrossRef]
50. Shukla, S.K.; Rao, T.S. An improved crystal violet assay for biofilm quantification in 96-well microtitre plate.
BioRxiv 2017. [CrossRef]
©
2019 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).