Caffeic acid esters are effective bactericidal compounds against paenibacillus larvae by altering intracellular oxidant and antioxidant levels

Article abstract of DOI:10.3390/biom9080312

American Foulbrood (AFB) is a deadly bacterial disease affecting pupal and larval honey bees. AFB is caused by the endospore-forming bacterium Paenibacillus larvae (PL). Propolis, which contains a variety of organic compounds, is a product of bee foraging and is a resinous substance derived from botanical substances found primarily in trees. Several compounds from the class of caffeic acid esters, which are commonly found in propolis, have been shown to have antibacterial activity against PL. In this study, six different caffeic acid esters were synthesized, purified, spectroscopically analyzed, and tested for their activity against PL to determine the minimum inhibitory concentrations (MICs) and minimum bactericidal concentrations (MBCs). Caffeic acid isopropenyl ester (CAIE), caffeic acid benzyl ester (CABE), and caffeic acid phenethyl ester (CAPE) were the most effective in inhibiting PL growth and killing PL cell with MICs and MBCs of 125 μg/mL when used individually, and a MIC and MBC of 31.25 μg/mL for each compound alone when CAIE, CABE, and CAPE are used in combination against PL. These compounds inhibited bacterial growth through a bactericidal effect, which revealed cell killing but no lysis of PL cells after 18 h. Incubation with CAIE, CABE, and CAPE at their MICs significantly increased reactive oxygen species levels and significantly changed glutathione levels within PL cells. Caffeic acid esters are potent bactericidal compounds against PL and eliminate bacterial growth through an oxidative stress mechanism.

Full text of DOI:10.3390/biom9080312

biomolecules
Article
Caffeic Acid Esters Are Effective Bactericidal
Compounds Against Paenibacillus larvae by Altering
Intracellular Oxidant and Antioxidant Levels
William Collins 1,*, Noah Lowen 2 and David J. Blake 2
1
Department of Biochemistry and Chemistry, Fort Lewis College, 1000 Rim Dr., Durango, CO 81301, USA
Department of Biology, Fort Lewis College, 1000 Rim Dr., Durango, CO 81301, USA
2
*
Correspondence: Collins_w@fortlewis.edu; Tel.: +01-970-247-7133
ꢀꢁꢂꢀꢃꢄꢅꢆꢇ
ꢀꢁꢂꢃꢄꢅꢆ
Received: 3 June 2019; Accepted: 25 July 2019; Published: 27 July 2019
Abstract: American Foulbrood (AFB) is a deadly bacterial disease affecting pupal and larval honey
bees. AFB is caused by the endospore-forming bacterium Paenibacillus larvae (PL). Propolis, which
contains a variety of organic compounds, is a product of bee foraging and is a resinous substance
derived from botanical substances found primarily in trees. Several compounds from the class of caffeic
acid esters, which are commonly found in propolis, have been shown to have antibacterial activity
against PL. In this study, six different caffeic acid esters were synthesized, purified, spectroscopically
analyzed, and tested for their activity against PL to determine the minimum inhibitory concentrations
(MICs) and minimum bactericidal concentrations (MBCs). Caffeic acid isopropenyl ester (CAIE),
caffeic acid benzyl ester (CABE), and caffeic acid phenethyl ester (CAPE) were the most effective in
inhibiting PL growth and killing PL cell with MICs and MBCs of 125
µg/mL when used individually,
and a MIC and MBC of 31.25 g/mL for each compound alone when CAIE, CABE, and CAPE are
µ
used in combination against PL. These compounds inhibited bacterial growth through a bactericidal
effect, which revealed cell killing but no lysis of PL cells after 18 h. Incubation with CAIE, CABE, and
CAPE at their MICs significantly increased reactive oxygen species levels and significantly changed
glutathione levels within PL cells. Caffeic acid esters are potent bactericidal compounds against PL
and eliminate bacterial growth through an oxidative stress mechanism.
Keywords: Apis millifera; Paenibacillus larvae; propolis; caffeic acid esters; minimum inhibitory
concentration (MIC)
1. Introduction
USA and European beekeepers face high honey bee (Apis millifera) colony losses each year. Indeed,
the BeeInformed Partnership Survey, a national epidemiological analysis of honey bee health, indicated
that 40.1% of all USA colonies were lost in 2018 [
and it is now generally accepted that no single issue is completely responsible for the colony mortality
increases observed over the last 10 years [ ]. However, viruses, bacteria, fungi, and parasites that
commonly harm honey bees combined with the chemical inputs routinely utilized to ameliorate these
afflictions are now understood to be a major cause of the decline of honey bee health worldwide [ ].
One of the most dangerous pathogens that can infect honey bee colonies is the endospore-forming
bacterium Paenibacillus larvae (PL) [ ]. This extremely contagious bacterium, known commonly in the
beekeeping community as American foulbrood (AFB), adversely affects honey bees during the larval or
pupal stages [ ]. The endospore, once inside a colony, is typically distributed to larvae during routine
feeding by nurse bees, and after ingestion of the spores ultimately results in septicemia of the larvae [ ].
The ensuing corpses then release PL spores, which are concomitantly dispersed throughout the brood
1]. There are many factors involved in these losses
2
3,4
5
5,6
7
Biomolecules 2019, 9, 312; doi:10.3390/biom9080312
www.mdpi.com/journal/biomolecules

Biomolecules 2019, 9, 312
2 of 13
nest [6,8,9]. Colony mortality is commonly observed within one season after infection, and infected
colonies can then horizontally transmit PL spores to other colonies [10].
While a colony suffering from AFB can be identified by conspicuous symptoms such as irregular
brood cappings, dark and punctured caps emitting foul odors, and brown residues of dead larvae [11],
few treatment options exist to effectively fight the infection. Currently, broad spectrum antibiotics such
as sulfathiazole, tylosin tartrate/Tylan, and oxytetracycline hydrochloride (OTC) are used to inhibit the
growth of PL. However, the extreme dependence on these therapies and their subsequent overuses
has led to the appearance of resistant strains [12]. As a result, the use of antibiotics to treat AFB in
many countries (including all of the EU members) is now illegal, and as a direct consequence, colonies
infected with PL in these countries must be destroyed through burning to prevent further spread of
the disease [13]. Compounding this issue, as of 2017, the Food and Drug Administration now requires
beekeepers within the USA to get a prescription from a veterinarian each time they use antibiotics
within a honey bee colony to combat AFB [14].
Understandably, honey bees already possess a variety of social immune responses that attempt to
mitigate colony-level infections such as AFB [15–17]. The hot, humid, and densely packed interior
of a bee colony is an ideal environment for the propagation of many pathogens [18]. Therefore,
to prevent unwanted pathogenic growth inside colonies, bees actively gather phytochemical-rich plant
resins (termed propolis when mixed with wax) and deposit them throughout the structure of the
colony [19
active terpenes, terpenoids, and phenols, with as many as 300 different molecules found within each
resin sample [22 24]. Importantly, recent research has shown some propolis extracts to have biological
–21]. The phytochemical composition of these resins is a complex mixture of biologically
–
activity against PL [25].
Unfortunately, because the chemical composition of propolis varies by location, season, and
botanical availability it is difficult to standardize the antimicrobial efficacy of propolis extracts across
multiple studies [26
–
28]. Additionally, the chemical variability of propolis (and thus efficacy) also
30]. To directly
creates considerable challenges in the development of quality-controlled therapies [29
,
address this issue, our laboratories have begun a program in the systematic synthesis and testing of
individual natural product components of propolis against PL. We have begun our investigations with
the caffeic ester family of molecules. Members of this class of molecules have already been shown
to have considerable biological activity against many different Gram-positive bacteria and are also
commonly identified in North American and European propolis samples found near poplar resin
sources [22,31,32]. Moreover, extracts of mixtures of caffeic esters have been shown to inhibit PL
growth [33]. The aim of this work is to show that, using compounds inexpensively prepared in a
laboratory on a gram scale, we are able to not only determine potential highly effective compounds
for critically needed AFB therapies, but also a putative mechanism of antibiotic action for this class
of molecules.
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. General Materials for Synthetic Procedures
Reagents and solvents were purchased from commercial sources and used without further
purification unless otherwise specified. Reaction solvents, and solvents for liquid phase extraction
were: ethyl acetate (Fisher Scientific, Suwanee, GA, USA, ACS grade,), hexanes (Acros, Trenton, NJ,
USA, ACS grade), dichloromethane (Fisher Scientific, ACS grade), methanol (Acros, ACS grade),
ethanol (Acros, ACS grade), dimethylformamide (Aldrich, Raleigh, NC, USA, ACS grade), and
toluene (Acros, ACS grade). Reagents used were: oxalyl chloride (CAS: 79-37-8, Sigma, Allentown,
PA, USA, ACS grade), pyridine (CAS: 110-86-1, Aldrich, ACS grade), benzylalcohol (CAS: 100-51-6,
Aldrich, reagent plus grade), cinnamyl alcohol (CAS: 104-54-1, Aldrich), phenethylalcohol (CAS:
60-12-8, Aldrich), 3-methyl-2-butenyl alcohol (CAS: 556-82-1, Aldrich), magnesium sulfate (CAS:
7487-88-9, Aldrich), potassium carbonate (CAS: 584-08-7, Aldrich), caffeic acid (CAS: 331-39-5, Aldrich),

Biomolecules 2019, 9, 312
3 of 13
and ferulic acid (CAS: 1135-24-6, Aldrich). TLC/chromatography solvents used were: hexanes (CAS:
110-54-3, Fisher Scientific, ACS grade), and ethyl acetate (CAS: 141-78-6, Fisher Scientific, ACS grade).
Diacetylcaffeic acid was prepared from caffeine acid in near quantitative yield (98%) and on a gram
1
scale by following a known protocol (LeBlanc et al. 2012). H and 13C NMR was recorded on JEOL
1
(400 MHz H spectrometer and 125 MHz 13C spectrometer) in deuterochloroform (CAS: 865-49-6,
Aldrich, ACS grade) or DMSO-d6 (CAS: 2206-27-1, Aldrich, ACS grade). Spectra were referenced to
residual chloroform (7.26 ppm, 1H). Chemical shifts are reported in ppm, multiplicities are indicated
by s (singlet), d (doublet), t (triplet), q (quartet), p (pentet), h (hextet), m (multiplet), and br (broad).
Coupling constants, J, are reported in Hertz. Infrared spectra (IR) were recorded on a Thermo Fisher
Scientific Nicolet iS10 spectrophotometer. Peaks are recorded in cm−1 with indicated relative intensities:
s (strong, 67–100%); m (medium, 34–66%); and w (weak, 0–33%). Analytical thin-layer chromatography
was performed on Merck (Kenilworth, NJ, USA) silica gel 60 plates with F-254 indicator. Visualization
was accomplished by ultraviolet (UV) light. Silica gel used for column chromatography was obtained
from SiliCycle. All yields refer to spectroscopically (1H-NMR) homogeneous material.
2.2. Preparation of Caffeic Ester Derivatives
General procedure for esterification: Diacetylcaffeic acid (580 mg, 2.195 mmol, 1 eq.) was dissolved
in CH2Cl2 (12 mL, 188 mmol) and placed under a nitrogen atmosphere. Oxalyl chloride (0.38 mL,
4.39 mmol, 2 eq.) was added dropwise to this solution before adding DMF (5 drops). The reaction
mixture was stirred for 16 h at room temperature. Excess oxalyl chloride was removed under reduced
pressure via rotovap, and the resulting oil was dissolved in toluene (25 mL). Pyridine (2 mL) was added
dropwise to this solution before adding the alcohol undergoing the esterification reaction (4.4 mmol,
2 eq.). This solution was stirred at room temperature for 3 h. The solvent was then removed via
rotovap, and the resulting oil was dissolved in EtOAc (50 mL) before being transferred to a separatory
funnel. The aqueous layer was removed, and the organic layer was washed with deionized water
(2
×
50 mL) followed by brine (2
×
50 mL). The organic layer was dried over MgSO4, filtered, and
concentrated on a rotovap. The crude residue was purified by column chromatography (silica gel,
EtOAc/hexanes gradient: 20/80 to 80/20).
2.2.1. Caffeic Acid Cinnamyl Ester Diacetate
White solid (73%). IR (ATR) cm−1: 1762 (s), 1704 (s), 1635 (w), 1506 (w), 1369 (w), 1317 (w), 1256
1
(m); H NMR (CDCl3) 7.19–7.43 (m, 5H), 7.65 (d, J = 16.5 Hz, 1H), 7.40 (d, J = 7.3 Hz, 1H), 7.35 (d,
J = 1.4 Hz, 1H), 7.32 (d, J = 7.3 Hz, 1H), 6.68 (d, J = 16.0 Hz, 1H), 6.41 (d, J = 16.0 Hz, 1H), 6.32 (dt,
J = 16.0, 6.9 Hz, 1H), 4.85 (t, J = 6.9 Hz, 1H), 2.3 (apd, 6H); 13C NMR (CDCl3) 168.3, 168.1, 165.6, 143.9,
143.5, 142.9, 136.2, 135.4, 133.3, 128.9, 128.5, 126.9, 126.7, 124.1, 123.1, 122.9, 65.2, 20.5, 20.5.
2.2.2. Caffeic Acid Benzyl Ester Diacetate
White solid (75%). IR (ATR) cm−1: 3347 (w), 3308 (w), 1687 (m), 1598 (m), 1535 (w), 1444 (w), 1364
(w), 1278 (m), 1172 (m); 1H NMR (CDCl3) 7.67–7.63 (d, J = 16.0 Hz, 1H), 7.39 (s, 1H), 7.38 (d, J = 11.9 Hz,
1H), 7.22–7.19 (d, J = 8.2 Hz, 1H), 6.44 (d, J = 16.0 Hz, 1H), 5.23 (s, 1H), 2.29–2.28 (apd, 6H); 13C NMR
(CDCl3) 168.1, 168.0, 166.4, 143.6, 143.3, 142.5, 135.9, 133.3, 128.7, 128.3, 126.4, 124.0, 122.8, 119.1, 66,
20.7, 20.0.
2.2.3. Caffeic Acid Phenethyl Ester Diacetate
White solid (89%). IR (ATR) cm−1: 3381 (w), 3329 (w), 3066 (w), 3030 (w), 2942 (w), 2895 (w), 2870
(w), 1766 (s), 1697 (s), 1636 (s), 1584 (w), 1507 (s), 1455 (w), 1420 (s), 1369 (s), 1321 (s), 1276 (s), 897 (s);
1H NMR (CDCl3) 7.6 (d, J = 16.0, 1H), 7.4 (d, J = 1.8, 1H), 6.4 (d, J = 16.0, 1H), 4.4 (t, J = 2.1, 2H), 3.0 (t,
J = 2.1, 2H), 2.3 (d, J = 3.7, 6H); 13C NMR (CDCl3) 168.2, 168.1, 166.6, 143.6, 143.0, 142.5, 137.9, 133.4,
129.0, 128.6, 126.7, 126.5, 124.0, 122.8, 119.3, 65.3, 35.3, 20.8.

Biomolecules 2019, 9, 312
4 of 13
2.2.4. Caffeic Acid Isopropenyl Ester Diacetate
White solid (41%). IR (ATR) cm−1: 3380 (w), 3331 (w), 2940 (w), 2895 (w), 1760 (w), 1699 (s), 1507
(s), 1450 (w), 1420 (s), 1276 (s); 1H NMR (CDCl3) 7.62-7.58 (d, J = 16.0 Hz, 1 H), 7.39-7.37 (m, J = 8.2,
2.3 Hz, 1H), 7.33–7.33 (d, J = 2.3 Hz, 1 H), 7.21–7.19 (d, J = 8.2 Hz, 1H), 6.39-6.35 (d, J = 16.0 Hz, 1 H),
5.42–5.38 (t, J = 8.7, 7.3 Hz, 1 H), 4.70–4.68 (d, J = 7.3, 2 H), 2.29-2.29 (d, J = 2.6 Hz, 6H) 1.77–1.74 (d,
J = 15.1, 6 H) 13C NMR (CDCl3) 171.0, 168.0, 166.0, 166.2, 143.7, 142.5, 139.2, 133.1, 126.3, 124.3, 122.8,
119.4, 118.7, 61.5, 60.3, 26.1, 20.5, 17.8, 14.2
General procedure for deprotection: To a round bottom flask was added the purified acetylated
ester (3.24 mmol) and MeOH:CH2Cl2 (12 mL, 1:1). To this solution was added K2CO3 (330 mg,
3.53 mmol) and the reaction was stirred at room temperature. The reaction was monitored for
completion via TLC (1:1 EtOAc: hexanes) and, once complete, the solvent was removed under reduced
pressure in a rotovap. The resulting residue was dissolved in EtOAc (50 mL), and the aqueous layer
was removed. The organic layer was washed with water (30 mL) and brine (30 mL) before being dried
over MgSO4, filtered, and concentrated via rotovap.
2.2.5. Caffeic Acid Cinnamyl Ester (CACE)
Brown solid (68%). IR (ATR) cm−1: 3347 (w), 3308 (w), 1687 (m), 1598 (m); 1H NMR (DMSO) 7.57
(d, J = 16.5 Hz, 1H), 7.38 (d, J = 7.3 Hz, 2H), 7.32–7.18 (m, 3H), 7.06 (d, J = 0.9 Hz, 1H), 6.91 (d, J = 8.2
Hz, 1H), 6.86 (d, J = 15.6 Hz, 1H), 6.65 (d, J = 0.9 Hz, 1H), 6.32 (dt, J = 15.7, 6.9 Hz, 1H), 6.26 (d, J = 16.0
Hz, 1H), 4.81 (t, J = 6.9 Hz, 1H); 13C NMR (DMSO) 167.2, 147.3, 145.5, 144.8, 136.5, 134.1, 128.9, 128.2,
126.9, 123.8, 122.1, 115.6, 114.9, 114.3, 65.1
2.2.6. Caffeic Acid Benzyl Ester
Tan solid (33%). IR (ATR) cm−1: 3459 (m), 3319 (m); 1690 (m), 1602 (m); 1H NMR (DMSO) 7.25–7.21
(d, J = 15.6 Hz, 1H), 7.2 (s, 1H), 7.01 (s, 1H), 6.68 (s, 1H), 6.54–6.44 (m, 2H), 5.89-5.85 (d, J = 16.0 Hz, 1H),
4.85 (s, 1H), 3.72–3.71 (d, J = 6.9 Hz, 1 H), 1.65 (s, —OH), 0.89 (s, —OH); 13C NMR (DMSO) 167.0, 148.1,
145.5, 145.3, 136.2, 128.4, 127.9, 126.0, 121.5, 115.6, 114.4, 113.9, 65.7
2.2.7. Caffeic Acid Phenethyl Ester
Light brown solid (79%). IR (ATR) cm−1: 3065 (w), 3031 (w), 2966 (w), 2894 (w), 2871 (w), 1767 (s),
1697 (s), 1602 (w), 1582 (w), 1507 (s), 1454 (w), 1422 (m), 1369 (s), 1321 (m), 1276 (m), 1256 (s), 1107 (s),
989 (s), 874 (s), 701 (s); 1H NMR (DMSO) 7.5 (d, J = 16.0, 1H), 7.0 (s, 1H), 6.9 (d, J = 10.8, 1H), 6.8 (d,
J = 7.8, 1H), 6.2 (d, J = 15.6, 1H), 4.4 (t, J = 6.9, 2H), 3.0 (t, J = 6.9, 2H); 13C NMR (DMSO) 167.3, 147.5,
145.3, 145.0, 138.0, 128.9, 128.4, 126.7, 126.5, 121.8, 115.5, 114.6, 114.3, 64.7, 35.2
2.2.8. Caffeic Acid Isopropenyl Ester
Light brown solid (61%). IR (ATR) cm−1: 3060 (w), 2961 (w), 2871 (w), 1767 (s), 1697 (s), 1605 (w),
1579 (w), 1510 (s), 1454 (w), 1422 (m), 1275 (m), 872 (s); 1H NMR (DMSO) 7.56(d, J = 16.0 Hz, 1H), 7.09
(s, 1H), 6.99 (d, J = 8.7 Hz, 1H), 6.85 (d, J = 8.2 Hz, 1H), 6.25 (d, J = 16.0, 1H), 5.4 (t, J = 6.5 Hz, 1H), 4.67
(d, J = 7.3 Hz, 2H), 1.75 (apd, J = 14.7, 6H); 13C NMR (DMSO) 168.5, 146.7, 145.6, 144.0, 139.7, 127.3,
122.4, 118.4, 115.6, 115.2, 114.5, 61.8, 25.9, 18.0
2.3. Bacterial Strains and Growth Conditions
Paenibacillus larvae (PL) was obtained from ATCC #9545 (Manassas, VA, USA) and cultured in
either brain-heart infusion medium supplemented with 1 mg/L thiamine (BHIT) or Mueller-Hinton
broth, yeast extract, potassium phosphate, glucose, and pyruvate (MYPGP) supplemented with 1 mg/L
thiamine at 37 ◦C as previously described [34]. The strain was maintained in BHIT and new cultures
were inoculated every 24–48 h. The day before each assay described below, an overnight agitated
culture was prepared in BHIT or MYPGP liquid broth and set in a 37 ◦C incubator for an overnight

Biomolecules 2019, 9, 312
5 of 13
incubation. BHIT was used to culture P. larvae as suggested by the manufacture (ATCC), and MYPGP
was used because is routinely used to cultivate P. larvae for AFB diagnosis and yields the highest
percentage of spore recovery [34].
2.4. Determination of Minimal Inhibitory Concentration and Minimal Bactericidal Concentration
Stock concentrations of each compound were freshly prepared as 10.5 mg/mL solutions in dimethyl
sulfoxide (DMSO). Each stock solution was used for serial dilutions in a 96-well microplate from
0 to 500
concentrations as previously described [33]. Briefly, 10
added to each well containing 180 L of either BHIT or MYPGP. Bacterial growth in either BHIT or
MYPGP did not affect the minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC). 10 L of the serially diluted
µg/mL (final concentration) including 250, 125, 62.5, 31.25, 15.63, 7.81, and 3.90
µg/mL
µL of an overnight bacterial suspension was
µ
µ
compounds was added to each well. The microplate was incubated for 18 h at 37 ◦C. Absorbance was
acquired at 600 nm using the Infinite M200 Microplate reader (Tecan, San Jose, CA, USA). For the
negative control, P. larvae cells were prepared with culture media, bacteria, and the corresponding
amount of DMSO only. For the positive control, 10
µL of tetracycline hydrochloride (Fisher Scientific,
Suwanee, GA) was added to each well at a final concentration of 20
µg/mL. Four independent biological
replicates were performed to establish the MIC using two to six technical replicates for each experiment
(n = 2–6). For the minimum bactericidal concentrations (MBC) assay, serially diluted bacterial samples
from the 18 h MIC experiments were plated on BHIT agar plates and incubated for an additional 18
h overnight at 37 ◦C. Colonies were enumerated and the lowest compound concentration required
to achieve bactericidal killing, which was defined as a 99.9% reduction in the initial inoculum, was
identified as the MBC.
2.5. Flow Cytometry Analysis
To determine whether the inhibitory caffeic acid derivatives were bacteriostatic or bacteriolyticat
their MICs, flow cytometry was used as previously described [35]. Briefly, P. larvae were incubated
overnight in BHIT with either caffeic acid isopropenyl ester (CAIE), caffeic acid benzyl ester (CABE),
or caffeic acid phenethyl ester (CAPE) at 125
bacterial sample was diluted in 425 L cold, filter sterilized PBS, and kept on ice. Propidium iodide
(PI) (Invitrogen, Carlsbad, CA, USA) (1 mg/mL solution) was added for 20 min at a final concentration
of 30 ng/mL (44.8 M). Fluorescence was quantified through a BD Accuri C6 Flow cytometer (BD,
µ µL of each
g/mL for 18 h at 37 ◦C. After incubation, 50
µ
µ
Franklin Lakes, NJ, USA) and the percent of cells that were PI positive were quantified from a sample
of 10,000 events. For the negative control, P. larvae cells were prepared in BHIT media and bacteria
only. For the positive control, Triton-X100 (0.001% final concentration) was added to culture media and
bacteria for 3 h to induce lysis. Four independent biological replicates were performed using three
technical replicates for each experiment (n = 3).
2.6. Quantification of Intracellular Reactive Oxygen Species and Glutathione Levels
To determine if either CAIE, CABE, or CAPE would generate intracellular reactive oxygen species
(ROS) in P. larvae, cell-permeant 20,70-dichlorodihydrofluorescein diacetate (H2DCFDA) was used as
previously described [36]. Briefly, stock concentrations of each compound (CAIE, CABE, or CAPE)
were freshly prepared as 10.5 mg/mL solution in 50% ethanol. P. larvae were incubated with 10
H2DCFDA for 45 min in the dark, washed with PBS, added to the microplate, and treated with either
CAIE, CABE, or CAPE at 125
g/mL or 3% H2O2 for 18 h at 37 ◦C. Fluorescence (excitation = 485 nm,
µM
µ
emission = 535 nm) was acquired using the Infinite M200 Microplate reader. H2O2 was added to
the cells at a final concentration of 3% and used as a positive control. Three independent biological
replicates were performed using two to six technical replicates for each experiment (n = 2–6). To quantify
intracellular glutathione (GSH) levels, cells were exposed to either CAIE, CABE, or CAPE at their
MIC for either 1.5, 3 or 6 h. GSH levels were quantified through the GSH-Glo Glutathione assay
as recommended by the manufacturer for cells grown in suspension (Promega, Madison, WI, USA).

Biomolecules 2019, 9, 312
6 of 13
The number of PL cells were enumerated prior to GSH quantification and 1000 cells were used for
each sample. Luminescence was acquired using the Infinite M200 Microplate reader. Luminescence
values for all samples were within the GSH standard curve. One independent biological replicate was
performed using three technical replicates for each experimental group (n = 3).
2.7. Statistical Analysis
Data are presented as mean
±
standard deviation (SD). Analyses were done using GraphPad
Prism 6.0 (San Diego, CA). A two-way Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to compare among
more than two experimental groups with two independent variables. A one-way ANOVA was used to
compare among more than two experimental groups with one independent variable. A t-test was used
to compare two groups with one independent variable. Significance was noted at p < 0.05.
3. Results
The synthesis of the library of caffeic acid esters (Scheme 1) began with an esterification of the
synthetically derived caffeic acid diacetate [37]. This was accomplished through the in-situ formation
of an acyl chloride with subsequent displacement by an alcohol. The resultant protected esters could
be isolated, after column chromatography, in moderate to good yields (41–89%). Deprotection using
basic methanol then afforded the pure desired products in moderate yield (33–79%) without the need
for further chromatographic purification as observed previously [38]. This simple three-step protocol,
originating from commercially available material, allowed for the generation of products on a gram
scale in moderate to good (29–68%) overall yield for testing. In all cases, yields were determined
by spectroscopically (1H-, 13C-NMR, FTIR) homogenous material that matched previously reported
structural data for these compounds [39].
Scheme 1. Synthetic route to caffeic acid ester compound library. CAPE = caffeic acid phenethyl ester,
CACE = caffeic acid cinnamyl ester, CABE = caffeic acid benzyl ester, CAIE = caffeic acid isopropenyl
ester, DMF = dimethyl formamide.
To determine the MICs of the six caffeic/ferulic acid derivatives, all stock concentrations were
solubilized in DMSO and then diluted in BHIT or MYPGP. The MICs obtained were determined after
18 h. The compounds with the lowest MICs were CAIE, CABE, or CAPE, which were 125
µg/mL
(Table 1). Three compounds CA, FA, and CACE had MICs greater than 500 g/mL, which was the
µ
highest concentration used in the assay. Since CAIE, CABE, or CAPE were all inhibitory against
P. larvae, we tested whether a lower MIC could be acquired using the three compounds in a mixture.
The three compounds individually had lower MIC’s of 31.25 µg/mL when incubated together with
P. larvae (Table 1). MBCs were also determined for each effective compound and caffeic acid mixture.
The MBCs were equivalent to the MICs (Table 1).

Biomolecules 2019, 9, 312
7 of 13
Table 1. Minimum Inhibitory Concentration (MIC) and Minimum Bactericidal Concentration (MBC)
for individual caffeic acid esters or for a combination treatment against P. larvae.
Compound
Abbreviation
Molecular
Weight
MBC
(µg/mL)
Compound Name
MIC (µg/mL)
Caffeic Acid
CA
FA
180.16
194.19
296.32
248.28
284.31
270.28
>500
>500
>500
125
ND
ND
ND
125
Ferulic Acid
Caffeic acid cinnamyl ester
Caffeic acid isopropenyl ester
Caffeic acid phenethyl ester
Caffeic acid benzyl ester
Combination of 3 compounds
CACE
CAIE
CAPE
125
125
CABE
125
125
CAIE, CAPE, CABE
31.25
31.25
The mechanism of action of these caffeic acid derivatives are currently unknown. To identify
whether these compounds acted as bacteriolytic or bacteriostatic compounds, CAIE, CABE, or CAPE
were incubated with P. larvae at their MICs individually for 18 h. Lysed cells, indicative of a bacteriolytic
mechanism, were quantified through flow cytometry and identified as PI positive cells. In the negative
control, approximately 7% of cells were PI positive after 18 h, indicating the culture had reached
stationary phase (Figure 1). Incubating P. larvae in TX-100 for three hours significantly increased the
percent PI positive cells to 23% of the total cells enumerated. Incubation with either CAIE, CABE,
or CAPE led to a significant reduction in the percent of PI positive cells to less than one percent in all
cultures tested, indicating these compounds inhibited bacterial growth without leading to cell lysis.
Figure 1. Bacteriostatic effect of the novel inhibitory compounds on Paenibacillus larvae. Cells were
incubated in brain-heart infusion medium supplemented with 1 mg/L thiamine (BHIT) at 37 ◦C for
18 h with 125
Fluorescence was quantified through flow cytometry. Data presented are mean percent PI positive cells
standard deviation (SD) (n = 3). Asterisks represent a significant difference between control cells and
µg/mL of CAIE, CABE, CAPE, or TX-100 before staining with propidium iodide (PI).
±
cells exposed to TX-100 (positive control (p < 0.05).
We hypothesized that the caffeic acid derivatives lead to increased oxidation within the cell.
The catechol functional group found in this class of molecules can rapidly undergo a variety of
redox processes to form semiquinone radicals and ortho-benzoquinones, both of which can undergo
subsequent oxidative processes that can damage and/or destroy DNA and protein structures [40].
In many cases, catechols damage biomolecules through the generation of reactive oxygen species
(ROS) such as superoxide (O2−), hydrogen peroxide (H2O2), and hydroxyl radicals (OH) [41]. To test
this hypothesis, P. larvae cells were incubated in H2DCFDA, which is a general oxidative stress
indicator that is non-fluorescent within cells (H2DCFDA) and becomes a highly fluorescent molecule
(20,70-dichlorofluorescein (DCF)) upon cleavage of the acetate groups by intracellular esterases and
oxidation. Incubation of P. larvae with CAIE, CABE, or CAPE above or at the MIC (500, 250,
and 125 µg/mL) produced a significant increase in fluorescence in a dose response manner, indicating

Biomolecules 2019, 9, 312
8 of 13
an increase in oxidative stress within cells at all concentrations used (Figure 2). Interestingly, the highest
concentrations of CAIE, CABE, or CAPE at 500 g/mL increased the intracellular fluorescence to a
µ
similar degree as 3% H2O2, which is a well-known oxidant and the positive control.
To identify whether increased ROS production resulted in a significant change in antioxidant
levels, intracellular glutathione (GSH) levels were quantified in P. larvae cells during three acute time
points (1.5, 3 and 6 h) (Figure 3). GSH levels remained consistent in vehicle treated control cells at all
time points indicating the addition of the vehicle (DMSO) had no effect on intercellular GSH levels.
However, brief exposure of CAPE and CAIE significantly increased GSH levels in cells by more than
2-fold (0.25
when exposed to CAPE over the 6-h period. After 1.5 h, CAPE generated the highest intracellular
GSH levels (0.93 M), however, after 6 h CAPE decreased GSH levels to the lowest concentration
quantified (0.18 M), indicating that the overproduction of ROS may lead to a subsequent decrease in
µM to > 0.69 µM) in less than 2 h. GSH levels in PL cells changed most significantly
µ
µ
antioxidant levels. Together these data support the hypothesis that caffeic acid derivatives significantly
alter antioxidants levels early during exposure, and act as oxidants within cells at later time points to
inhibit binary fission.
Figure 2. Quantification of intracellular reactive oxygen species in the presence of three inhibitory
compounds. Paenibacillus larvae were stained with 10 µ
M 20,70-dichlorodihydrofluorescein diacetate
(H2DCFDA) before incubating the cells in the presence of minimum inhibitory concentrations of CAIE,
CAPE, CABE and 3% H2O2 (positive control) for 18 h incubation at 37 ◦C. Fluorescence was quantified
using a microplate reader at 495 nm/527 nm (Ex/Em). Data presented are mean RFU
Asterisks represent a significant difference between control cells and cells exposed to either CAIE,
CAPE, CABE and 3% H2O2 (p < 0.05).
±
SD (n = 2–6).
Figure 3. Quantification of intracellular glutathione (GSH) levels in the presence of three inhibitory
compounds. Paenibacillus larvae were incubated in the presence of minimum inhibitory concentrations
◦
of CAIE, CAPE, CABE for up to 6 h at 37 C. GSH levels was quantified by luminescence using a
standard curve. Data presented are mean GSH ( M) SD (n = 3). Asterisks represent a significant
µ
±
difference between control cells and cells exposed to either CAIE or CAPE (p < 0.05). A dagger
represents a significant difference over time in Paenibacillus larvae cells exposed to CAPE.

Biomolecules 2019, 9, 312
9 of 13
4. Discussion
As a substance, propolis represents a vast wealth of botanically derived, biologically active,
natural products [22]. Despite this, isolating and testing significant quantities of any one component
from a propolis matrix is problematic, as purification procedures are complex, and molecules are often
found in very low concentrations [29]. Therefore, synthetically generating these natural products
on a large-scale is a viable alternative for the testing and development of propolis-based therapies.
To this end, we developed a rapid, three-step protocol to prepare the caffeic esters of interest. While
methods for a one-step, direct esterification of the caffeic acid parent molecule exist [42], we found
that our target molecules were obtained in unsatisfactory yields due to the formation of side products.
To prevent these cross-esterification byproducts, we first protected the catechol alcohol functional
groups [37]. After esterification of the free acid and subsequent purification, we could deprotect the
catechol moiety in good yields over three steps. Conceivably, this procedure could be applied to a
wide variety of structurally diverse caffeic acid esters.
Numerous studies have identified the efficacy and quantified the MICs of different naturally and
synthetically derived propolis compounds against Gram-positive, Gram negative bacteria, as well as
P. larvae [32,43–46]. Cinnamic acids, such as caffeic acid and ferulic acid, have been studied for their
antimicrobial activities and typically show weak growth inhibition against Gram-negative bacteria
compared to Gram-positive bacteria [31]. Some phenolic butyl and methyl esters have limited efficacy
and inhibit bacterial growth at significantly higher concentrations (1 mg/mL) than the MICs reported
in this study [43]. The inhibitory effects of these esters are improved by increasing the length of the
alkyl chain to make them structurally similar to the most effective compounds identified in this study
(CAPE, CAIE, and CABE). Other studies have identified the increased effectiveness of caffeic acid esters
(MIC < 1.25 mM) against bacterial growth compared to simple phenolic esters (MIC > 5–10 mM) [46].
CAPE, derived from propolis from Mexico, was previously shown to be effective against Gram-positive
bacteria, specifically S. aureus, at concentrations between 100 and 400
µM, which correlates well to
the MIC of CAPE against P. larvae reported here (440 M). Interestingly, the combination of CAPE,
µ
CAIE, and CABE was a more potent inhibitor of bacterial growth (MIC = ~90 µM) than individual
compounds alone indicating an additive interaction of these compounds [32].
Recently, studies looking to identify bioactive constituents of propolis samples from Bulgaria
have also identified the caffeic and ferulic ester family of molecules to be candidate therapies against
P. larvae [33]. Through a series of chemical isolations and subsequent bioassays the researchers identified
an inseparable mixture of caffeate esters that were particularly efficacious against the pathogen (lowest
MIC reported for caffeate mixture by Bilikova et al. was 31.25 µM after 12 h only). The mixture was
tentatively identified as CAPE, CAIE, CABE, and isopentyl caffeic ester. Although in this study the
precise concentrations of each component within the mixture was not reported, nor were individual
components isolated/tested, this MIC value correlates extremely well with the value determined from
the mixture of CAPE, CAIE, and CABE reported here (MIC = 31.25 µM).
Interestingly, in our study, CACE, while structurally similar to CAPE, CAIE, and CABE, proved
to be considerably less effective (MIC > 500 µM). Correspondingly, CACE was not identified as an
active component in the abovementioned fractionated bioassay study [33]. This indicates that subtle
structural differences may play a significant role in the activity of this family of compounds against
P. larvae.
Although many studies have identified the inhibitory effects of phenolic esters and acids, few
studies have been successful at identifying a potential mechanism of action for these antimicrobials [31].
Two main mechanisms of action have been characterized for caffeic acid esters including disruption
of membrane permeability and alteration of redox potentials in cells. For example, a previous study
showed that 4-hydroxycinnamic acid, a cinnamic acid derivative, disrupted the outer membrane of the
Gram-negative bacteria increasing the permeabilization causing cytoplasmic leakage [31]. CAPE was
also shown to inhibit the growth of Gram-positive bacteria, such as Bacillus, by disrupting membrane
permeability through both a bacteriostatic and bacteriocidic effect depending on the duration of

Biomolecules 2019, 9, 312
10 of 13
treatment [32]. However, certain caffeic alkyl esters induce a different mechanism of action through
altering the oxidant/antioxidant balance within cells leading to cell death and decreased viability [46].
Specifically, CAPE has been shown to alter oxidative processes and induce apoptosis in human cells.
CAPE therefore may act through a redox mechanism as a pro-oxidant since apoptosis induced by
CAPE was significantly reduced with N-acetyl-l-cysteine in human cells [47].
Our data support the hypothesis that CAPE, CABE, and CAIE all inhibit PL growth and kill PL
cells without leading to cell lysis when used at their MIC for 18 h (Table 1 and Figure 1). The untreated
PL cells reached stationary phase after 18 h of growth, as indicated by less than 10% of cells, which
were PI positive. In contrast, in the presence of a low concentration of detergent (TX-100 at 0.001%)
PL cells had a small but significant increase in the number of permeabilized (or lysed) cells, which
could be accurately quantified. We hypothesize the low number of permeabilized PL cells observed
incubated with CAPE, CABE and CAIE is due to an inhibition and killing of PL cells that resulted in
fewer total cells in culture and even fewer cells that have disrupted cell walls. Interestingly, a previous
study suggested that CAPE leads to bacterial cell lysis or a bacteriocidic effect, after incubation times of
greater than 6 h, and these effects are not the same during acute incubation times where a bacteriostatic
mechanism occurs. This inconsistency may be due to the different concentrations and bacteria used
between studies [32]. However, CAPE can have differential effects within cells that may influence
the cellular phenotypes observed. For example, CAPE can act as an antioxidant in cells, but also
possesses oxidant activity [31]. Our data support this dichotomous hypothesis because the most
effective caffeic acid esters induced changes in oxidant levels in bacterial cells as determined by the
significant formation of ROS after 18 h, and significant changes in antioxidant intracellular GSH
levels during acute (<6 h) time periods which was unexpected. Increased ROS production can lead
to oxidative DNA damage most likely due to the production of free radicals, such as superoxide or
the hydroxyl radical, which can directly oxidize DNA into lesions like 8-hydroxy-20-deoxyguanosine
(8-oxo-2dG) [48] interfering with DNA replication, which more likely leads to a bacteriostatic effect
than a bacteriocidic effect [49]. Alternatively, Gram-positive bacteria, such as B. subtilis, can alter
expression levels of glutathione associated genes in response to oxidative stress [50] or induce the
expression of regulons such as OxyR and SoxRS [51].
5. Conclusions
In conclusion, we have been able to synthetically prepare and test a series of caffeic/ferulic acids
and esters against PL. We have shown that a subset of our compound library, CAPE, CAIE, and CABE
inhibit the growth of PL and act as bactericidal compounds. Further experimentation indicates that
these compounds alter the oxidant and antioxidant balance in cells through ROS generation and acute
GSH fluctuations. We were also able to show that small structural changes within the compound
library can have large effects on MIC. These results are significant because CAPE, CAIE, and CABE
represent a small group of naturally occurring compounds that could be used in the future to treat
antibiotic resistant PL strains. Ultimately, further screening of this family of molecules may lead to
significant improvements in antimicrobial efficacy and the potential for the development of novel
therapies for the prevention of AFB.
Author Contributions: Conceptualization, W.C. and D.J.B.; methodology, W.C. and D.J.B.; validation, W.C. and
D.J.B.; formal analysis, W.C., N.L. and D.J.B.; investigation, W.C., N.L. and D.J.B.; data curation, W.C., N.L. and
D.J.B.; writing W.C. and D.J.B.; funding acquisition, W.C., N.L. and D.J.B.
Funding: This research was funded by the Faculty Development Grant for Traditional Scholarship and Research
(TS/R) at Fort Lewis College (W.C.), and from the Society of Toxicology (SOT) for undergraduate research (N.L.
and D.J.B.) is gratefully acknowledged.
Acknowledgments: We also acknowledge the contribution of Peyton Valko and Jamie Curtis in generating data
using purified propolis samples against P. larvae.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Biomolecules 2019, 9, 312
11 of 13
References
1.
Bruckner, S.; Steinhauer, N.; Rennich, K.; Aurell, D.; Caron, D.; Ellis, J.; Marie Fauvel, A.; Kulhanek, K.;
Nelson, K.; Rangel, J.; et al. Honey Bee Colony Losses 2017–2018: Preliminary Results. Available online:
https://beeinformed.org/results/honey-bee-colony-losses-2017--2018-preliminary-results/ (accessed on 15
February 2019).
2.
3.
4.
Goulson, D.; Nicholls, E.; Botias, C.; Ratheray, E.L. Bee declines driven by combined stress from parasites,
pesticides, and lack of flowers. Science 2015, 347, 1255957. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Steinhauer, N.; Kulhanek, K.; Antunez, K.; Human, H.; Chantawannakul, P.; Chauzat, M.; van Engelsdorp, D.
Drivers of colony losses. Curr. Opin. Insect Sci. 2018, 26, 142–148. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Nazzi, F.; Brown, S.; Annoscia, D.; Del Piccolo, F.; Varricchio, P. Synergistic parasite-pathogen interactions
mediated by host immunity can drive the collapse of honeybee colonies. PLoS Pathogen. 2012, 8, e1002735.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
5.
6.
Genersch, E. American foulbrood in honeybees and its caustitive agent, Paenibacillus larvae. J. Invert. Pathol.
2010, 103, 10–19. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Djukic, M.; Brzuszkiewicz, E.; Funfhaus, A.; Voss, J.; Gollnow, K.; Poppinga, L.; Liesegang, H.;
Garcia-Gonzales, E.; Genersch, E.; Daniel, R. How to kill the honey bee larva: Genomic potential and
virulence mechanisms of Paenibacillus larvae. PLoS ONE 2014, 3, e90914. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Hansen, H.; Brodsgaard, C. American foulbrood: A review of its biology, diagnosis and control. Bee World
1999, 80, 5–23. [CrossRef]
Ansari, M.; Al-Ghamdi, A.; Nuru, A.; Ahmed, A.; Ayaad, T.; Khan, K.; Al-Waili, N. Diagnosis and molecular
detection of Paenibacilus larvae, the causative agent of American foulbrood in honeybees in Saudi Arabia.
Int. J. Trop. Insect Sci. 2017, 37, 137–148. [CrossRef]
7.
8.
9.
Cornman, R.; Lopez, D.; Evans, J. Transcriptional response of honey bee larvae infected with the bacterial
pathogen Paenibacillus larvae. PLoS ONE 2013, 8, e65424. [CrossRef]
10. Powell, J.; Martinson, V.; Urban-Mead, K.; Moran, N. Routes of acquisition of the gut microbiota of the honey
bee Apis melifera. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2014, 80, 7378–7387. [CrossRef]
11. De Graaf, D.; Alippa, A.; Brown, M.; Evans, J.; Feldlaufer, M. Diagnosis of American foulbrood in honey
bees: A synthesis and proposed analytical protocols. Lett. Appl. Microbiol. 2006, 43, 583–590. [CrossRef]
12. Kochansky, J.; Knox, D.; Feldlaufer, M.; Pettis, J. Screening alternative antibiotics against oxytetracycline
susceptible and resistant Paenibacillus larvae. Apidologie 2001, 32, 215–222. [CrossRef]
13. Mutinelli, F. European legislation governing the authorization of veterinary medicinal products with
particular reference to the use of drugs for the control of honey bee diseases. Apiacta 2003, 38, 156–168.
[CrossRef]
14. Sanford, M. Antibiotics and the Beekeeper–The FDA’s Veterinarian Feed Directive (VFD). American Bee
Journal. Available online: https://americanbeejournal.com/antibiotics-and-the-beekeeper, (accessed on 15
February 2019).
15. Simone-Finstrom, M.; Spivak, M. Increased resin collection after parasite challenge: A case of self-medication
in honey bees? PLoS ONE 2012, 7, e34061. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
16. Simone-Finstrom, M. Social immunity and the superorganism: Behavioral defenses protecting honey bee
colonies from pathogens and parasites. Bee World 2017, 94, 21–29. [CrossRef]
17. Evans, J.; Spivak, M. Socialized medicine: Individual and communal disease barriers in honey bees.
J. Invert. Path. 2010, 103, S62–S72. [CrossRef]
18. Schmid-Hempel, P. Parasites in Social Insects; Princeton University Press: Princeton, NJ, USA, 1998.
19. Simone, M.; Evans, J.; Spivak, M. Resin collection and social immunity in honey bees. Evolution 2009, 63,
2016–3022. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
20. Simone-Finstrom, M.; Spivak, M. Propolis and bee health: The natural history and significance of resin use
by honey bees. Apidologie 2010, 41, 295–311. [CrossRef]
21. Visscher, P. Adaptations of honey bees (Apis millifera) to problems of nest hygiene. Sociobiology 1980, 5,
249–260.
22. Lagenheim, J. Plant. Resins: Chemistry, Evolution, Ecology, and Ethanobotany; Timber Press: Portland, OR,
USA, 2003.

Biomolecules 2019, 9, 312
12 of 13
23. Burdock, G. Review of the biological properties and toxicity of bee propolis (propolis). Food Chem. Toxicol.
1998, 36, 347–363. [CrossRef]
24. Macucci, M. Propolis: Chemical composition, biological properties and therapeutic activity. Apidologie 1995
26, 83–99. [CrossRef]
,
25. Alonso-Salces, R.; Cugnata, N.; Guaspari, E.; Pellegrini, M.; Aubone, I.; Antunez, K.; Fuselli, S. Natural
strategies for the control of Paenibacillus larvae, the causative agent of American foulbrood in honey bees:
A review. Apidologie 2017, 48, 387–400. [CrossRef]
26. Wilson, M.; Brinkman, D.; Spivak, M.; Gardner, G.; Cohen, J. Regional variation in composition and
antimicrobial activity of US propolis against Paenibacillus larvae and Ascophaera apis. J. Invert. Path. 2015, 124,
44–50. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
27. Bastos, E.; Simone, M.; Macedo Jorge, D.; Egea Soares, A.; Spivak, M. In vitro study of the antimicrobial
activity of Brazilian propolis against Paenibacillus larvae. J. Invert. Path. 2008, 97, 273–281. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
28. Siedel, V.; Peyfoon, E.; Watson, D.; Fernley, J. Comparative study of the antibacterial activity of propolis from
different geographical and climatic zones. Phytotherapy Res. 2008, 22, 1256–1263. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
29. Sforcin, J.; Bankova, V. Propolis: Is there a potential for the development of new drugs? J. Ethanopharm. 2011
,
133, 253–260. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
30. Woisky, R.; Salatino, A. Analysis of propolis: Some parameters and procedures for chemical quality control.
J. Apic. Res. 1998, 37, 99–105. [CrossRef]
31. Guzman, J. Natural cinnamic acids, synthetic derivatives and hybrids with antimicrobial activity. Molecules
2014, 19, 19292–19349. [CrossRef]
32. Meyuhas, S.; Assali, M.; Huleihil, M. Antimicrobial activities of caffeic acid phenethyl ester. J. Molec. Biochem.
2015, 4, 21–31.
33. Bilikova, K.; Papova, M.; Trusheva, B.; Bankova, V. New anti-Paenibacillus larvae substances purified from
propolis. Apidologie 2013, 44, 278–285. [CrossRef]
34. Alippi, A. American Foulbrood of Honey Bees (Infection of Honey Bees with Paenibacillus larvae). Manual of
Diagnostic Tests and Vaccines for Terrestrial Animals; World Organisation for Animal Health: Paris, France,
2016; pp. 1–17.
35. Malmberg, C. Evaluation of flow Cytometry as Replacement for Plating in in vitro Measurements of Competitive
Growth under Antibiotic Stress; Department of Infectious Diseases. Uppsala University: Uppsala, Sweden, 2010.
36. Van Acker, H.; Gielis, M.; Acke, F.; Cools, P.; Cos, T. The role of reactive oxygen species in antibioitic-induced
cell death in Burkholderia cepacia complex bacteria. PLoS ONE 2016, 11, e0159837. [CrossRef]
37. LeBlanc, L.; Pare, A.; Jean-Francois, J.; Hebert, M.; Surette, M.; Touaibia, M. Synthesis and
antiradical/antioxidant activities of caffeic acid phenethyl ester and its related propionic, acetic and benzoic
acid analogues. Molecules 2012, 17, 14637–14650. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
38. Bankova, V.; Trusheva, B.; Popova, M. Caffeic Acid Phenethyl Ester (CAPE)–NATURAL Sources, Analytical
Procedures and Synthetic Approaches; Comptes rendus de l’Académie bulgare des sciences; Sciences
mathématiques et naturelles: Sofia, Bulgaria, 2018; Volume 71, pp. 1157–1169.
39. Jayaprakasam, B.; Vanisree, M.; Zhang, Y.; Dewitt, D.; Nair, M. Impact of alkyl esters of caffeic and ferulic
acids on tumor cell proliferation, cyclooxygenase enzyme, and lipid peroxidation. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2006
54, 5375–5381. [CrossRef]
,
40. Schweigert, N.; Zehnder, A.; Eggen, R. Chemical properties of catechols and their molecular modes of toxic
action in cells, from microorganisms to mammals. Environ Microbiol. 2001, 3, 81–91. [CrossRef]
41. Schweigert, N.; Acero, J.; von Gunten, U.; Canonica, S.; Zehnder, A.; Eggen, R. DNA degradation by the
mixture of copper and catechol is caused by DNA-copper oxo complexes, probably DNA-Cu (I) OOH.
Environ. Mol. Mutagen. 2000, 36, 5–12. [CrossRef]
42. Zhang, P.; Tang, Y.; Li, N.; Zhu, Y.; Duan, J. Bioactivity and chemical synthesis of caffeic acid phenethyl ester
and its derivatives. Molecules 2014, 19, 16458–16476. [CrossRef]
43. Banskota, A.; Tezuka, Y.; Kadota, S. Recent progress in pharmacological research of propolis. Phytother. Res.
2001, 15, 561–571. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
44. Cueva, C.; Moreno-Arribas, M.; Martin-Alvarez, P.; Bills, G.; Vicente, M.; Basilio, A.; Rivas, C.; Requena, T.;
Rodriguez, J.; Bartolome, B. Antimicrobial activity of phenolic acids against commensal, probiotic and
pathogenic bacteria. Res. Microbiol. 2010, 161, 372–382. [CrossRef]

Biomolecules 2019, 9, 312
13 of 13
45. Flesar, J.; Havlik, J.; Kloucek, P.; Rada, V.; Titera, D.; Bednarm, M.; Stropnicky Mand Kokoska, L. In vitro
growth-inhibitory effect of plant-derived extracts and compounds against Paenibacillus larvae and their acute
oral toxicity to adult honey bees. Vet. Microbiol. 2010, 145, 129–133. [CrossRef]
46. Merkl, R.; Hradkova, L.; Filip, V.; Smidrkal, J. Antimicrobial and antioxidant properties of phenolic acids
alkyl esters. Czech J. Food Sci. 2010, 28, 275–279. [CrossRef]
47. Chiao, C.; Carothers, A.; Grunberger, D.; Solomon, G.; Preston, G.; Barrett, J. Apoptosis and altered redox
state induced by caffeic acid phenethyl ester (CAPE) in transformed rat fibroblast cells. Cancer Res. 1995, 55,
3576–3583.
48. Blake, D.J.; Bolin, C.M.; Cox, D.P.; Cardozo-Palaez, F.; Pfau, J.C. Internalization of Libby amphibole asbestos
and induction of oxidative stress in murine macrophages. Toxicol. Sci. 2007, 99, 277–288. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
49. Imlay, J. Diagnosing oxidative stress in bacteria: Not as easy as you might think. Curr. Opin. Microbiol. 2015
,
24, 124–131. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
50. Zhang, Y.; Meng, D.; Wang, Z.; Guo, H.; Wang, Y. Oxidative stress response in two representative bacteria
exposed to atrazine. FEMS Microbiol. Lett. 2012, 334, 95–101. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
51. Cabiscol, E.; Tamarit, J.; Ros, J. Oxidative stress in bacteria and protein damage by reactive oxygen species.
Int. Microbiol. 2000, 3, 3–8. [PubMed]
©
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/).