Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T01:56:43.537Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

An assessment of the antibacterial activity in larval excretion/secretion of four species of insects recorded in association with corpses, using Lucilia sericata Meigen as the marker species

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 March 2010

K.M. Barnes ,
D.E. Gennard  and
R.A. Dixon
K.M. Barnes*
Affiliation:
Department of Forensic and Biomedical Sciences, University of Lincoln, Brayford Pool, Lincoln, LN6 7TS, UK
D.E. Gennard
Affiliation:
Department of Forensic and Biomedical Sciences, University of Lincoln, Brayford Pool, Lincoln, LN6 7TS, UK
R.A. Dixon
Affiliation:
Department of Forensic and Biomedical Sciences, University of Lincoln, Brayford Pool, Lincoln, LN6 7TS, UK
*
*Author for correspondence Fax: +44 (0) 114 2254449 E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The relative antibacterial activities of excretion/secretion (ES) from two carrion-feeding insects, Calliphora vicina Robineau-Desvoidy and Dermestes maculatus DeGeer, and a detritivore, Tenebrio molitor Linnaeus, were compared to that of Lucilia sericata Meigen, a species with ES of known antibacterial capacity, in order to explore the antimicrobial potential of other carrion and detritivore species. Viable counts were used to assess time-kill of ES against five bacterial species, Staphylococcus aureus, Escherichia coli, Bacillus cereus, Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Proteus mirabilis. Antibacterial activity was recorded in all four insect species although T. molitor and D. maculatus were the most effective in controlling growth of P. mirabilis. The blowflies were more effective in controlling a wider range of both Gram-positive and Gram-negative bacteria. The larval ES from all species was shown to reduce bacterial growth rate although differences in antibacterial spectrum were noted and the degree of potency varied between the four species. These differences may be explained ecologically by the different colonisation times of each insect species on the corpse. Overall, this study demonstrates that research into other carrion-feeding insect species has potential to provide an increased source of antimicrobial chemicals to broaden the range of bacterial species beyond that currently controlled using L. sericata.

Keywords

Lucilia sericataCalliphora vicinaTenebrio molitorDermestes maculatusantibacterialsecretions
Type
Research Paper
Information
Bulletin of Entomological Research , Volume 100 , Issue 6 , December 2010 , pp. 635 - 640
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Arnaldos, M.I., Garcia, M.D., Romera, E., Presa, J.J. & Luna, A. (2005) Estimation of post-mortem interval in real cases based on experimentally obtained entomological evidence. Forensic Science International 149, 57–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bexfield, A., Nigam, Y., Thomas, S. & Ratcliffe, N.A. (2004) Detection and partial characterisation of two antibacterial factors from the excretions/secretions of the medicinal maggot Lucilia sericata and their activity against methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA). Microbes and Infection 6(14), 1297–1304.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bexfield, A., Bond, A.E., Roberts, E.C., Dudley, E., Nigam, Y., Thomas, S., Newton, R.P. & Ratcliffe, N.A. (2008) The antibacterial activity against MRSA strains and other bacteria of a <500 Da fraction from maggot excretions/secretions of Lucilia sericata (Diptera: Calliphoridae). Microbes and Infection 10, 325–333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Daeschlein, G., Mumcuoglu, K.Y., Assadian, O., Hoffmeister, B. & Kramer, A. (2007) In Vitro Antibacteral Activity of Lucilia sericata Maggot Secretions. Skin Pharmacology and Physiology 20, 112–115.Google Scholar
Gennard, D.E. (2007) Forensic Entomology: An Introduction. Chichester, UK, John Wiley and Sons Ltd.Google Scholar
Grassberger, M. & Frank, C. (2004) Initial study of arthropod succession on pig carrion in a central European urban habitat. Journal of Medical Entomology 41(3), 511–523.Google Scholar
Gwatkin, R. & Fallis, A.M. (1938) Bactericidal and antigenic qualities of the washings of blowfly maggots. Canadian Journal of Research 16(12), 343–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoback, W.W., Bishop, A.A., Kroemer, J., Scalzitti, J. & Shaffer, J.J. (2004) Differences among antimicrobial properties of carrion beetle secretions reflect phylogeny and ecology. Journal of Chemical Ecology 30(4), 719–729.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Huberman, L., Gollop, N., Mumcuoglu, K.Y., Block, C. & Galun, R. (2007a) Antibacterial properties of whole body extracts and haemoloymph of Lucilia sericata maggots. Journal of Wound Care 16(3), 123–127.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Huberman, L., Gollop, N., Mumcuoglu, K.Y., Breuer, E., Bhusare, S.R., Shai, Y. & Galun, R. (2007b) Antibacterial substances of low molecular weight isolated from the blowfly, Lucilia sericata. Medical and Veterinary Entomology 21(2), 127–131.Google Scholar
Jaklic, D., Lapanje, A., Zupancic, K., Smrke, D. & Gunde-Cimerman, N. (2008) Selective antimicrobial activity of maggots against pathogenic bacteria. Journal of Medical Microbiology 57, 617–625.Google Scholar
Kerridge, A., Lappin-Scott, H. & Stevens, J.R. (2005) Antibacterial properties of larval secretions of the blowfly, Lucilia sericata. Medical and Veterinary Entomology 19, 333–337.Google Scholar
Kulshrestha, P. & Satpathy, D.K. (2001) Use of beetles in forensic entomology. Forensic Science International 120, 15–17.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lerch, K., Linde, H.-J., Lehn, N. & Grifka., J. (2003) Bacteria ingestion by blowfly larvae: an in vitro study. Dermatology 207, 306–366.Google Scholar
Mégnin, P. (1894) La Faune des Cadavres: Application de l'Entomologie a la Médicine Légale. Paris, France, G. Masson.Google Scholar
Mumcuoglu, K.Y., Miller, J., Mumcuoglu, M., Friger, M. & Tarshis, M. (2001) Destruction of bacteria in the digestive tract of the maggot Lucilia sericata (Diptera: Calliphoridae). Journal of Medical Entomology 38(2), 161–166.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Oliva, A. (2001) Insects of forensic significance in Argentina. Forensic Science International 120, 145–154.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pavillard, E.R. & Wright, E.A. (1957) An antibiotic from maggots. Nature 180, 916–917.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Reinecke, M., Mayer, G. & Heisig, P. (2005) Lucilia sericata: latest results of antibacterial activity (Abstract). 15th European Congress of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases. 2–5 April 2005, Copenhagen, Denmark.Google Scholar
Sadd, B.M. & Siva-Jothy, M.T. (2006) Self-harm caused by an insect's innate immunity. Proceedings of the Royal Society: Part B, Biological Sciences 273(1600), 2571–2574.Google ScholarPubMed
Simmons, S.W. (1935) The bactericidal properties of excretions of the maggot Lucilia sericata. Bulletin of Entomological Research 26, 559–563.Google Scholar
Thomas, S., Andrews, A.M., Hay, N.P. & Bourgoise, S. (1999) The anti-microbial activity of maggot secretions: results of a preliminary study. Journal of Tissue Viability 9(4), 127–132.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
van der Plas, M.J.A., Jukema, G.N., Wai, S-W., Dogterom-Ballering, H.C.M., Lagendijk, E.L., van Gulpen, C., van Dissel, J.T., Bloemberg, G.V. & Nibbering, P.H. (2008) Maggot excretions/secretions are differentially effective against biofilms of Staphylococcus aureus and Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy 61, 117–122.Google Scholar