:
: ) / (
DOI: 10.4197 / Sci. 23-1.16
٢٥١
Staphylococcus aureus
:
)
!
˚ "#$ % &
'
˚ () *
Staphylococcus
aureus
)) + , MRSA
+ *
))
& () -
S.aureus Rm.1, S. aureus mecA
Rm.5, S.aureus Rm.24, S. aureus Rm.3
+
& () - * )) mecA
S. aureus R.23
S.
aureus R.30
. * ' + ./ 0& $
1 2 *') ! 2 3
˚ 4 ,)5 $ . *'
! 6 2
˚ $ $ %
4 $6 78 ' 0& +' 3
+ $
)) )/ / 75 92
. *' :' ;' %
$ , $
E. coli
<= 7
٢٥٢
& () - MRSA
mecA
4 ,
7 *
$ * 0& 7 "$= : $ 2 .MRSA
MRSA
!
].
" #$ %& ! '[
( ) * +, - ' .
Hospital infections
/$
, . 01 2 3
$1 . 4.
.
5 6 #7 8 1 "
9 $ :
54 $
]
([
;<
Hospital infections
- ' = 8 :$ %! + = 3 $ - 5 6 (
-: +,
8 . $ +,. >
58 5,$
. ?1 2 !
+ - @ (
% #$ A
+8 1 @& 2 $ .
A % B
C (
-$ % ' 3<
. D78
$ : +1 E8 ! 2 8 1 =&
E# @ (
: A +8. 81
Erythromycin,
Clindamycin, Chloramphenicol Cephalosporine, Aminoglycoside,
Tetracycline and Quinolone
]
.[
1
S.aureus
5
(<
, +
]MRSA
.[
1 A
-8 %< ! 41' $ (
$ ;< <
) 2+ * 1 )
: +1
! "#
"
٢٥٣ ...
]$
([
E6 -8 @+
>
%:
antistaphylococcal
F! (%& !
"
2+
5 9 # E, !
. 8 /$ 3<
1
%:
( * G. 17 < A
: D7 ! :
(S. aureus)
] !
.[
! >
H %1 1'
+8 4: !
58 5 1
%< 1 I (
< &
E + & . ! > &
$ . . 4 .
. $
"
/$& ! + <
(
. $:.
I J$ : K "
" -8 1 (
$ : ! 1 (
>
. . (+ %8 1 =8. + +, ! "
K ' -$ J E K8 L - K1 " >
- K$ ;
]
([
" . : ! 3 >
01 D78 ! (
( L F E+:. ! 4& =.
]
. [
1 A . - ' !:"
" $ > ! 2 M /$. 41
=& = -8 (
:
<
(
! (
6 !
+<
" & . = > > @ M
< =& -8 ! (
% (
] :
.[
+ N " . . $:.
-8 : M
1 3 -
9 K 8 -$ @
"
]
([
. - ' 178 % K
( E
$ : (
٢٥٤
: ! +,
$ : :
%
2 ! .
2 )+
" . M ! /$
-8
# . J$ MRSA
-8 J$
1 .mecA
– I
: #7 2 !
Staphylococcus aureus
-8 J$# . J$ MRSA
1
< 8 98 > mecA
( -8 4 . ! + E
! ;<
]
.[
– II
: 8 1
"
-8 ' /'
$ -8 C $ ;< ! (
!
"
J 3 -8 .
. ' . 8 %8 5$
) 6
9 ( ( %$ 1 8 % 9 . ,$ ' .
#
˚ 8 E
˚
$ .
! "# $% &' MRSA
" ( ()
]
.[
8 - ' " . 8 E E
% E
K E 491 )
9"
( E J ?
GEMA MEDICAL
, S.L.
(
E8 491 5
5
% & ' )7 8
""
˚
$ .
$
@
]
.[
Muller Hinton
( % #9
! "#
"
٢٥٥ ...
;<. ! %$ -8 J
O:
<>. 3 !
E ,
" . .
$" 8 % 17 ! ;<& ,$
@ ! % # E
1 8 ;<& :$
%$
± º
$
% 8 .
) (
*+
, $%
$ - .+/
.
" +8 C @ * 8 E (
!
1 )
"
( ( O: A & 8 + . < !
"
E1
! $< 1
"
E < 4
+
%
? 8 (*
K J ? E
,
(GEMA MEDICAL S.L)
<
]3 #
[
# #98 <
.
0 1 ,
2 $% 3
:
D ) <
9
%1 & '
.
"
JC 1& @ -8
@
(MRS)
]
. [
2 0 :
E 1 $ #9 -8 ) @: +1 <
+C E1 C
. ; @ -8
(MRS)
]
.[
D'
]9 . [
. 9
(DNase agar)
]
D' ([
9 1.
]
([ ]
([
] $
E ([
#98 9 ( <
E.coli
@ -8
) Mac Conkey
(agar
]
.[
٢٥٦
) (.
!"
#$ %
.
& '(
$ '(
!$
5>
Aerva javanica Amaranthaceae
Citrullus colocynthis Cucurbitaceae
+)'
!9
Dipterygium glaucum Capparidaceae
)&
)+
Portulaca oleraceae Portulacaceae
)&
Portulaca quadrifidia Portulacaceae
?@'
Rhyncosia spp.
Leguminosae
+9 –
!
Tephrosia apollinea Leguminosae
+
Zygophyllum simplex Zygophyllaceae
$
Heliotropium longiflorum Boraginaceae
'
Striga hermonthica Scrophulariaceae
%
Panicum turgidum Gramineae
Echinochloa colonum Gramineae
))&
&
Chloris spp.
Gramineae
& A
Digera nwricata Amaranthaceae
B)
Acacia raddiana Leguminosae
%) )
7' (
Acacia Arabia Leguminosae
7C
Aristida plumose Gramineae
4 (
2
4
(
*+
" ( ()
#9 < D' -8 %> #98 E %
< D -8 +> E
S. aureus
@ @ ! % (
3 < E A
]
! [
! "#
"
٢٥٧ ...
O: 3 ,
7 #98 ?
(Cell-free Filtrate)
<> 3 ! E
@ ! E
% #9 $ .
$!
8
:$
8 %$ 1
±
˚
$ .
! B@ ?:
1
* E " . 8
<
S.
aureus
1 -8 J$
+- / mecA S. aureus
Rm1, S. aureus Rm5, S. aureus Rm24, S. aureus Rm37
< E ! (
-/
S. aureus Rm1
6 K#$ O1 & E 8
5 E 5 E (J ? E 5
5 E
8 ,$ " . . ,$7 ()& 9+1
5< . E˚
E 6 (E 4 9 2 )
E>
"
( < E (
-/
S. aureus Rm5
,$ 19< &
8 %$ 1 8
5 5
9 . ()& 9+1 E
S. aureus
E K % ,$ & E 8 < E! Rm37
( P
< J<>
",
"
9 < E -8 E
S. aureus
& 8 JM Rm24
. #98 . ,$7
1 -8 J$#
S. aureus R23
S. aureus R30
JM < E (
<: " . 8 .
٢٥٨
)) ) (.
)) )) ))* )) (+)) )) )) )),-&
))#$ ))%
. ! / 0( # 12 .
˚
) (
!
!
!
S. aureus
S.
aureus Rm1
±
,
**
, ±
,
**
,
± ,
**
,
± ,
**
, ±
,
**
,
± ,
**
± ,
**
±
,
**
, ±
,
**
S.
aureus Rm5 ,
± ,
**
±
, **
±
,
**
,
± ,
**
±
,
**
±
,
**
±
, **
S.
aureus Rm24
S.
aureus Rm37
,
± , **
±
, **
S.
aureus R23
S.
aureus R30
:Rm
mecA
:R
mecA
! ± "#
**
$ % : ,
<
.P
! "#
"
٢٥٩ ...
) ( .
S. aureus Rm1
˚
! "
.
) .(
# S. aureus Rm1
$ %&
! "
) (
! '(
) .(
أ
) .(
S. aureus Rm1
! " #" ) )
( '(
! ) ( ! )
(
! )
.(
٢٦٠
1 ! B@
* 9 :
. "
0 M
<
J$
J$# .
1 -8 !:' 8 8 3 < E mecA
" . Q
!:' 8 #7 < 3 9 (@ <. - '
Q
.
@ <. - ' "
( 9 < -8.
˚ 8 E
!:' C 19< & Q 1",2
( < -8. A
7
S. aureus Rm1
C 1, !:' 8 Q
" . Q
,$
) 9 (
8
˚ B@ 1 (<: A E
> @$"
.
)) ) (.
))! ))/ )) )) 1))2 ))#$ ))% (+)) )) )) ))
! .
% 3 *%
* ,-&
˚ / ,-&
$ 1&
S. aureus
, Rm1
, , , , ,
S. aureus
, Rm5
, , , , ,
S. aureus
, Rm24
, , , , ,
S. aureus
, Rm37
, , , , ,
S. aureus
R23
, , , , , ,
S. aureus
R30
, , , , , ,
:Rm
mecA
:R
mecA
!
± "#
**
$ % : ,
<
P
! "#
"
٢٦١ ...
<! : 8 . " . -8 = ! >
-8 4$ - ' O1 > " &
+ '
" +8 C
]
([
. ,$7 E! 2 ! .
8 C @ < M J. " +
.
(" & O1 >
" . ! $ (
%8 07.
( 9
1 ! ! + 07& ( G. -8 % 8 =&
( 4 DF 07& A E /$
5 7 $ (+9 - ' JR 7
(
<! $ 9 -8 " . . ?:. /$
Aspergillus niger
%
Candida albicans
]
%1 > A ([
. !
5 3 "
): & = 1! (1 =& D78 !
$ : -8 8 + - ' (
M 3 1
! E < -8 !
]34/
.[
!
5 < . O>
. ) ! (H
" . -8 J$
9 (% #9 <
E
= < " . 98
]$
([
+. 1 >
%> A
< -8
A. niger Fusarium oxysporum,
%
C. albicans
(S. aureus and E. coli)
$ : DF A
]
. [
) 98 E >
" . ! %1 G& = (
& 5
Staphylococcus aureus,
Escherichia coli
]
.[
٢٦٢
#98 -8 $ E 2 ! (
;< 8 +
+ (1 #98 +. B@ @
E.coli
(
Staphylococcus sp.
(E1 C 1
@ 6 (
9 # ($
# (9C 1 6 91 (
@ -8 8 97
(MacConkey agar)
) E (
@ -8 8 5 A7 =$ + #9 (MRS
@ E 8 91 -8 +> A
MRS fermentation
1 A7 =$
) .(
) (.
!% )2 %
4 *$ % 5$
3 .
! "*
! "
+ ,
$ -!.
#!!+
"
+
! "
/0 + '(
/
MacConke y agar
E.coli
&
+
+ +
+ +
S.aureus
+ + +
+ '(
Lactic Acid Bacteria
+ +
+ '(
+ )
1 ! B@ ?:
6
E.coli
< -8 " . 9
1 -8 J$ % #98
mecA S. aureus, S. aureus Rm5, Rm1 S. aureus Rm24
< E <!
-/
S. aureus Rm37
#9 > A (
+ < < <>
",2
",
", ( -8
S. aureus
9
% #9 J& < < + E "
.
! "#
"
٢٦٣ ...
" . ! S - ' >
( = .
;< 8 T : > @ -8 4: 8 %> A +.
$ $!
(
& ! $ : 9 > +. - ' !:"
]
. [
1 ,$7 )
( -8 < M + A7 =$ .
#98 O1 $
( # . J$
1 -8 J$
(mecA
9 < -8 %> . #9
S. aureus
(Rm1
< < <> P /$
2, > @$" B@ 1 (E
-8 " . ! %1 M #9
<: (+ M .
M >
A7 =$
Lactobacillus acidophilus, Lactobacillus casei
% + B
7 -8 4: . < -8
]RSA
.[
. )
B A7 =$
7 G. <
( 2
8 %8 %:
1+ . ;! +: B A
< %8 BU C @91 9 8 %8 ( : 9 ! ! (A7 =$
]
.[
31
A7 =$
+ %& ! E# 2# LAB
% D' -8
]
.[
1 ) <
E1 < 1 %: 8 E1 1 (
+
colicins
81 - ' > (E
]
([
G. = B
Colicin
Escherichia coli
(
colicinV
A7 =$ G. K1 >
([35]
E1 #9 . 2 ! 1V #98 /7 <
8 %8 < B #9 2 > %
٢٦٤
.
J ;! A . 1 8 P
"
$ E Q
@$"
T-test
#9 O1 .
)) ) (.
)) )) ))3 4)) ))*$ ))%
)) )) ))#$ ))%
12 .
!+
E. coli
S. aureus LAB
(! !+ 1
S. aureus Rm1
,
± ,
**
,
± ,
**
S. aureus Rm5
,
± ,
**
,
± ,
**
S. aureus Rm24
,
± ,
**
,
± ,
**
S. aureus Rm37
,
± ,
**
S. aureus R23
,
± ,
**
S. aureus R30
,
± ,
**
:Rm
! mecA
:R
! mecA
"! #$ %
±
&!'
**
( )# : ,
<
.P
1).
) .(
)*$ ) )
S. aureus Rm5
')" 4*)$ ) 6)0 ) )
(
) ( 3 4 *$
.
! "#
"
٢٦٥ ...
$ 7
] [ 0 8 5) ')9 .
.
: : !"#
$#%
) .(
] [ :))) 8
;))) <)))0 .
&# " !' !( $) *
".
:
: +
,#
" ,##
) .(
] [ 8
)&
" .
!'
".
:
,##
"
) .(
] [ ))=$
8 ))% '+))&3 8
)) . $#
%' ! ) * - . #
!' +## /0 12 # # .
#, ! #3# 4
# # #,
! #
$ : ) .(
] [ )))*
8 ))) 4)))& &))).
. 5 !( ) "
) 6 , (
%&
7"(
Aspergillus niger
. # 4 8 #
) .(
$ ) .(
] [ ))$
8 )) ))&
. 9% !:;
%' - . #
!' !( ) *
$:0 , " -, 9% <(
. #
$ '*
! #
11(A)
$ %
)+
(
$ : ) .(
] [ ))-2 8 ))&3 )) .
9% !:;
%' - . #
!' !( ) *
<(
$:0 , " -, 9%
. #
$ '*
! #
11(A)
$ %
$ : ) (.
] [ &
8 )3 . , = . , : 5 "
-
>?
-
##
- $ # . $"#
/"# @ !' !( )
<%
.
&, "
/ , –
& % A# # /
,##
"
) .(
] [ )) 8
>)) 4))/ ;)) .
!(
.
# : B. %
A# ## -> %
## * ##
. C#% /:, .
: :
#
! #
# # <
) .(
] [
<)) ))3 8
))$ ))% -)).
8 ))# )) ))&
" . ## $# ,
""
".
:
& /%#
# # <#
) .(
٢٦٦
] [ ))=$
8 &)) '+))&3 8
4))# ;))=
8 )) . !) DE "( -:%
!' . : .
#
&#
" ,##
) (.
] [ =$
8 ) '+)&3 8
. ) @ # 9% !; ! *. +
0 +
Aspergillus niger
. 8 #
# 4
##
$
$ : ) (.
] [
?&
8 )& ) 0!
. +## , @ 9% !' ! +# )
$"F .
"# "
" A# #
@ )
! .(
@ 7
[1] Unal, S.; Werner, K.; Girolami, P. D.; Barsanti, F. and Eliopoulos, G., Comparison of tests for detection of methicillin – resistant S. aureus in clinical microbiology laboratory.
Antimicrob. Agents and Chemother. 38: 345-347 (1994).
[3] Chambers, H. F., Methicillin resistance in Staphylococcus: Molecular and biochemical basis and clinical implication. Clin. Microbiol. Rev., 10(4): 781-791 (1997).
[4] Valle, C.; Pascz, M.; Vitis, D.; Marzani, F.C.; Emmi, V. and Marone, P., Control of MRSA infection and colonization in an intensive care unit by GeneOhm MRSA assay and culture methods. Bio. Med. Central. Ltd. 9: 137-147 (2009).
[5] Cotter, L.; Lynch, M.; Cryan, B.; Greer, P. and Fanning, S., Investigation of methicillin- resistant S. aureus outbreak in an Irish hospital: Triplex PCR and DNA amplification fingerprinting. J. Hospital Infect. 36(1): 37-47 (1997).
[6] Knut, O., Novel antibiotics for the treatment of Staphylococcus aureus. Clin. Pharmacol.
2(6): 661-672 (2009). wwwMedscape.com
[10] Al-Awadi, A. and Al-Judaibi, A., Effect of camel's urine inhibiting growth of some pathogenic fungi and yeast. J. Union Arab Biol., Cairo, 8(B) Microbiol. and Viruses. 335- 363 (1999).
[11] Al-Awadi, A. and Al-Jedabi A., Antimicrobial agents in camel's urine. J. Union Arab Biol., Cairo, 9 (B) Microbiol. and viruses. 265-281(2000).
[16] National Committee for Clinical Laboratory (NCCLS), Performance standards for antimicrobial disc suspectibility tests. Approved standard NCCLS publication, Villanova, PA, USA, M2-A5, (1993).
[17] Atlas, R.M., Handbook of Microbiological Media. London: CRC Press. p: 1226 (2004).
[18] de Man, J.C.; Rogosa, M. and Sharpe, M.E., A medium for the cultivation of Lactobacilli.
Applied Bacteriology 23: 130-155 (1960).
[19] Abdulkarim, M.I.; Mel, M.; Jamal, P.; Mohamed Salleh, M.R. and Alamin, N., Media screening of lactic acid fermentation using Lactobacillus rhamnosus. J. Agri. Technol. 2(2):
203-210 (2006).
[20] Macfaddin, J.F., Individual Biochemical Tests for Identification of S.aureus. In:
MacFaddin, J. F. (ed.), Biochemical Tests for Identification of Medical Bacteria, section I, p:
29, 41, 214. Williams and Wilkins Co., Baltimore, USA (1976).
[21] Cheesbrough, M., Medical Laboratory Manual for Tropical Countries Volume II: Microbiology. Printed in Great Britain, University Press, Cambridge (1984).
[22] Baird-Parker, A., The Classification and Identification of Staphylococci and their Resistant to Physical Agents. In: The Staphylococci, Jay O. Cohen (ed.): 1-28: John Wiley and Son Press, New York, London, Sydney, Toronto (1972).
! "#
"
٢٦٧ ...
[28] Karska-Wysocki, B.; Bazo, M. and Smoragiewicza, W., Antibacterial activity of Lactobacillus acidophilus and Lactobacillus casei against methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA). J. Micres. 11: 008 (2009). Microbiol. Res.
www.ScienceDirect.com.
[29] Rodgers, S.; Kailasapathy, K.; Cox, J. and Peiris, P., Bacteriocin production by protective cultures. Food Service Technol., 2: 59-69 (2002).
[30] Jack, R.W.; Tagg, B. and Ray, B., Bacteriocins of Gram-positive bacteria. Microbiol., Rev.
59: 171-200 (1995).
[31] Nes, I.F.; Diep, D.B.; Halvarstein, L.S.; Brurberg, M.B.; Eijsink, V. and Holo H., Biosynthesis of bacteriocin in lactic acid bacteria. Antonie van Leeuwenhoek. Int J. Gen.
Mol. Microbiol., 70: 113-128 (1996).
[32] Eijsink, V.G.H.; Skeie, M.; Middelhoven, P.H.; Brurberg, M.B. and Nes, I.F., Comparative studies of class lla bacteriocin of lactic acid bacteria. Appl. and Environ.
Microbiol., 64: 3275-3281(1998).
[33] Montville, T.J. and Chen, Y., Mechanistic action of pediocin and nisin: Recent progress and unresolved questions. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol., 50: 511-519 (1998).
[34] Konings, W.N.; Kok, J.; Kuipers, O.P. and Poolman, B., Lactic acid bacteria: The bugs of the new millennium. Curr. Opin. Microbiol., 3: 276-282 (2000).
[35] MacCormick, J.K.; Klaenhammer, T.R. and Stiles, M.E., Colicin V can be produced by lactic acid bacteria. Letters in Appl. Microbiol. 29: 37-41 (1999).
٢٦٨
Antimicrobial Activity of Camel’s Urine
on Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus Isolated from Clinical Specimens
S. H. Al-Zahrani, and A. A. Al-Harbi
Faulty of Salience for Girls- King Adulaziz University- Jeddah [email protected]
Abstract: The camel's urine samples, fresh or preserved for one year at 5˚C and 25-33˚C, have an antimicrobial activity against six isolates of Staphylococcus aureus MRSA, four isolates have mecA gene, S.aureus Rm1, S.aureusRm5, S.aureus Rm24, S.aureus Rm37, and two isolates MRSA don’t have mecA gene S. aureus 23 and S. aureus 30. Results confirmed the high inhibition capacity of both fresh and preserved urine against MRSA. Untreated urine samples (unsterile) were the most effective regarding inhibiting bacterial growth. The camel's urine samples stored at 5˚C for one year were more inhibitory to MRSA especially in liquid media. Some bacteria have been isolated from camel urine including E. coli, which inhibited three of MRSA have mecA, and lactic acid bacteria (LAB) that inhibited the growth of MRSA isolates.
Keywords: camel, urine, isolates, inhibition, batknia