AccScience Publishing / IMO / Online First / DOI: 10.36922/IMO026160018
Submit to IMO
Cite this article
1
Download
31
Views
Related Info Links
Google Scholar
More by Authors Links
Ian Edwin Cock
Journal Browser
Volume | Year
Issue
Search
Forthcoming Issue
Current Issue
View All
News and Announcements
View All
ORIGINAL RESEARCH ARTICLE

Epicatechin gallate disrupts methicillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus cell envelope integrity and enhances antibiotic activity

Sze-Tieng Ang1 ,  Matthew James Cheesman2 ,  Tak Kim1 ,  Ian Edwin Cock1*
Show Less
1 School of Environmental and Science, Griffith University, Nathan Campus, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia
2 School of Pharmacy and Medical Sciences, Griffith University, Gold Coast Campus, Southport, Queensland, Australia
IMO, 026160018 https://doi.org/10.36922/IMO026160018
Received: 16 April 2026 | Revised: 8 June 2026 | Accepted: 9 June 2026 | Published online: 23 June 2026
© 2026 by the Author(s). This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution -Noncommercial 4.0 International License (CC-by the license) ( https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ )
Download PDF
XML
Cite
Abstract

The increasing prevalence of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) highlights the need for alternative therapeutic strategies. Natural product-derived resistance-modifying compounds are gaining attention as antibiotic adjuvants to restore drug activity. Epicatechin gallate (EPCG) has antibacterial and anti-virulence properties. This study investigates the antibacterial activity of EPCG and its potential to enhance the efficacy of selected antibiotics against S. aureus and MRSA. Standard broth microdilution assays were used to determine the minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) of EPCG against S. aureus and MRSA. Synergistic interactions with selected antibiotics were evaluated using checkerboard and isobologram assays. Furthermore, cytotoxicity was evaluated using Artemia franciscana nauplii (brine shrimp) lethality and human dermal fibroblast (HDF) assays. The impact of EPCG, cefotaxime, and their combinations on cells and biofilms was visualised through confocal and cryo-electron microscopy. EPCG demonstrated strong antibacterial activity (MIC = 208 μg/mL against S. aureus and 188 μg/mL against MRSA). Isobologram assays also revealed strong synergy for the EPCG–cefotaxime combination (Σ fractional inhibitory concentration = 0.15 for MRSA; 0.25 for S. aureus). EPCG exhibited moderate toxicity toward HDF cells (LC50 = 100 μg/mL), whereas the optimised cefotaxime: EPCG (90:10 [v/v]) combination was non-toxic across all assays. Additionally, confocal microscopy revealed reduced bacterial aggregation and diminished biofilm-associated fluorescence following EPCG treatment. Cryo-electron microscopy revealed pronounced ultrastructural disruptions in MRSA cells treated with the combination. In conclusion, EPCG enhances the antibacterial activity of antibiotics such as cefotaxime against S. aureus and MRSA. Its synergistic action, lower cytotoxicity at optimal ratios, and confirmed damage to bacterial cells highlight EPCG’s potential as a natural antibiotic adjuvant.

Keywords
Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus
Epicatechin gallate
Minimum inhibitory concentration
Synergy
Confocal microscopy
Cryo-electron microscopy
Funding
None.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare they have no competing interests.
References
  1. World Health Organization. Antimicrobial Resistance. World Health Organization; 2024. Accessed April 9, 2026. https://www.who.int/europe/news-room/fact-sheets/item/ antimicrobial-resistance
  2. World Health Organization. WHO Bacterial Priority Pathogens List, 2024: Bacterial Pathogens of Public Health Importance to Guide Research, Development and Strategies to Prevent and Control Antimicrobial Resistance. World Health Organization; 2024. Accessed April 9, 2026. https://www. who.int/publications/i/item/9789240093461
  3. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Methicillin- Resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) Basics. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; 2025. Accessed April 9, 2026. https://www.cdc.gov/mrsa/about/index.html
  4. Ventola CL. The antibiotic resistance crisis, part 1: Causes and threats. Pharm. Ther. 2015;40(4):277-283.
  5. Uddin TM, Chakraborty AJ, Khusro A, et al. Antibiotic resistance in microbes: History, mechanisms, therapeutic strategies and future prospects. J Infect Public Health. 2021;14(12):1750-1766. doi: 10.1016/j.jiph.2021.10.020
  6. Shlaes DM, Bradford PA. Antibiotics-From there to where?: How the antibiotic miracle is threatened by resistance and a broken market and what we can do about it. Pathog Immun. 2018;3(1):19-43. doi: 10.20411/pai.v3i1.231
  7. Hutchings MI, Truman AW, Wilkinson B. Antibiotics: Past, present and future. Curr Opin Microbiol. 2019;51:72-80. doi: 10.1016/j.mib.2019.10.008
  8. McCarthy H, Rudkin JK, Black NS, et al. Methicillin resistance and the biofilm phenotype in Staphylococcus aureus. Front Cell Infect Microbiol. 2015;5:1. doi: 10.3389/fcimb.2015.00001
  9. Dilworth TJ, Ibrahim O, Hall P, et al. β-Lactams enhance vancomycin activity against methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia compared to vancomycin alone. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2014;58(1):102-109. doi: 10.1128/AAC.01204-13
  10. Worthington RJ, Melander C. Combination approaches to combat multidrug-resistant bacteria. Trends Biotechnol. 2013;31(3):177-184. doi: 10.1016/j.tibtech.2012.12.006
  11. Davis JS, Sud A, O’Sullivan MVN, et al. Combination of vancomycin and β-lactam therapy for methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia: A pilot multicenter randomized controlled trial. Clin Infect Dis. 2016;62(2):173- 180. doi: 10.1093/cid/civ808
  12. Basavegowda N, Baek KH. Combination strategies of different antimicrobials: An efficient and alternative tool for pathogen inactivation. Biomedicines. 2022;10(9):2219. doi: 10.3390/biomedicines10092219
  13. Tong SYC, Lye DC, Yahav D, et al. Effect of vancomycin or daptomycin with vs without an antistaphylococcal β-lactam on mortality, bacteremia, relapse, or treatment failure in patients with MRSA bacteremia: A randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2020;323(6):527-537. doi: 10.1001/jama.2020.0103
  14. Stapleton PD, Shah S, Ehlert K, et al. The β-lactam-resistance modifier (-)-epicatechin gallate alters the architecture of the cell wall of Staphylococcus aureus. Microbiology. 2007;153(7):2093-2103. doi: 10.1099/mic.0.2007/007807-0
  15. Bernal P, Lemaire S, Pinho MG, et al. Insertion of epicatechin gallate into the cytoplasmic membrane of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus disrupts penicillin-binding protein (PBP) 2a-mediated β-lactam resistance by delocalizing PBP2. J Biol Chem. 2010;285(31):24055-24065. doi: 10.1074/jbc.M110.114793
  16. Zhao Y, Qu Y, Tang J, et al. Tea catechin inhibits biofilm formation of methicillin-resistant S. aureus. J Food Qual. 2021;2021:1-7. doi: 10.1155/2021/8873091
  17. Teng F, Wang L, Wen J, et al. Epicatechin gallate and its analogues interact with sortase A and β-lactamase to suppress Staphylococcus aureus virulence. Front Cell Infect Microbiol. 2025;15:1537564. doi: 10.3389/fcimb.2025.1537564
  18. Carmine AA, Brogden RN, Heel RC, et al. Cefotaxime: A review of its antibacterial activity, pharmacological properties and therapeutic use. Drugs. 1983;25(3):223-289. doi: 10.2165/00003495-198325030-00001
  19. Hübsch Z, Van Zyl RL, Cock IE, et al. Interactive antimicrobial and toxicity profiles of conventional antimicrobials with Southern African medicinal plants. South African Journal of Botany. 2014;93:185-197. doi: 10.1016/j.sajb.2014.04.005
  20. Eloff JN. A sensitive and quick microplate method to determine the minimal inhibitory concentration of plant extracts for bacteria. Planta Medica. 1998;64(8):711-713. doi: 10.1055/s-2006-957563
  21. Ang ST, Kim TH, Cheesman MJ, et al. Antibacterial and synergistic effects of Terminalia citrina leaf extracts against gastrointestinal pathogens: Insights from metabolomic analysis. Antibiotics. 2025;14(6). doi: 10.3390/antibiotics14060593
  22. Mastronarde DN. SerialEM: a program for automated tilt series acquisition on Tecnai microscopes using prediction of specimen position. Microsc Microanal. 2003;9(Suppl 2):1182-1183. doi: 10.1017/S1431927603445911
  23. Mastronarde DN. Automated electron microscope tomography using robust prediction of specimen movements. J Struct Biol. 2005;152(1):36-51. doi: 10.1016/j.jsb.2005.07.007
  24. Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute. Performance Standards for Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing. CLSI supplement M100. 30th ed. Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute; 2020. Accessed June 30, 2025. https:// www.nih.org.pk/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/CLSI-2020. pdf
  25. Bucevičius J, Lukinavičius G, Gerasimaitė R. The use of Hoechst dyes for DNA staining and beyond. Chemosensors. 2018;6(2). doi: 10.3390/chemosensors6020018
  26. Hermanson GT. Fluorescent Probes. In: Bioconjugate Techniques. Elsevier; 2013:395-463. doi: 10.1016/b978-0-12-382239-0.00010-8
  27. Lichtman JW, Conchello J-A. Fluorescence microscopy. Nat Methods. 2005;2(12):910-919. doi: 10.1038/nmeth817
  28. Shaner NC, Steinbach PA, Tsien RY. A guide to choosing fluorescent proteins. Nat Methods. 2005;2(12):905-909. doi: 10.1038/nmeth819
  29. Gao T, Wang Y, Zhu J, et al. Antibacterial activity of a plant natural polyphenol against zoonotic Streptococcus suis. Microb Pathog. 2025;205:107655. doi: 10.1016/j.micpath.2025.107655
  30. Dhanda G, Acharya Y, Haldar J. Antibiotic adjuvants: A versatile approach to combat antibiotic resistance. ACS Omega. 2023;8(12):10757-10783. doi: 10.1021/acsomega.3c00312
  31. Caturla N, Vera-Samper E, Villalain J, et al. The relationship between the antioxidant and the antibacterial properties of galloylated catechins and the structure of phospholipid model membranes. Free Radic Biol Med. 2003;34(6):648- 662. doi: 10.1016/s0891-5849(02)01366-7
  32. Yoda Y, Hu ZQ, Zhao WH, et al. Different susceptibilities of Staphylococcus and Gram-negative rods to epigallocatechin gallate. J Infect Chemother. 2004;10(1):55-58. doi: 10.1007/s10156-003-0284-0
  33. Kitichalermkiat A, Katsuki M, Sato J, et al. Effect of epigallocatechin gallate on gene expression of Staphylococcus aureus. J Glob Antimicrob Resist. 2020;22:854-859. doi: 10.1016/j.jgar.2020.06.006
  34. Zhao WH, Hu ZQ, Okubo S, et al. Mechanism of synergy between epigallocatechin gallate and β-lactams against methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2001;45(6):1737-1742. doi: 10.1128/AAC.45.6.1737-1742.2001
  35. Shah S, Stapleton P, Taylor PW. The polyphenol (−)‐ epicatechin gallate disrupts the secretion of virulence‐related proteins by Staphylococcus aureus. Lett Appl Microbiol. 2008;46(2):181-185. doi: 10.1111/j.1472-765X.2007.02296.x
  36. Friedman M, Henika PR, Levin CE, et al. Antimicrobial activities of tea catechins and theaflavins and tea extracts against Bacillus cereus. J Food Prot. 2006;69(2):354-361. doi: 10.4315/0362-028x-69.2.354
  37. Cui Y, Oh YJ, Lim J, et al. AFM study of the differential inhibitory effects of the green tea polyphenol (-)-epigallocatechin-3-gallate (EGCG) against Gram-positive and Gram-negative bacteria. Food Microbiol. 2012;29(1):80-87. doi: 10.1016/j.fm.2011.08.019
  38. Stapleton PD, Taylor PW. Methicillin resistance in Staphylococcus aureus: mechanisms and modulation. Sci Prog. 2002;85(1):57-72. doi: 10.3184/003685002783238870
  39. Dmitriev BA, Toukach FV, Holst O, et al. Tertiary structure of Staphylococcus aureus cell wall murein. J Bacteriol. 2004;186(21):7141-7148. doi: 10.1128/JB.186.21.7141-7148.2004
  40. Rodriguez-Lazaro D, Alonso-Calleja C, Oniciuc EA, et al. Characterization of biofilms formed by foodborne methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. Front Microbiol. 2018;9:3004. doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2018.03004
  41. Romaniuk JA, Cegelski L. Bacterial cell wall composition and the influence of antibiotics by cell-wall and whole-cell NMR. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2015;370(1679):20150024. doi: 10.1098/rstb.2015.0024
  42. Brand C, Newton-Foot M, Grobbelaar M, et al. Antibiotic-induced stress responses in Gram-negative bacteria and their role in antibiotic resistance. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2025;80(5):1165-1184. doi: 10.1093/jac/dkaf068
  43. Sethuvel DPM, Bakthavatchalam YD, Karthik M, et al. β-Lactam resistance in ESKAPE pathogens mediated through modifications in penicillin-binding proteins: an overview. Infect Dis Ther. 2023;12(3):829-841. doi: 10.1007/s40121-023-00771-8

 

Share
Back to top
Innovative Medicines & Omics, Electronic ISSN: 3060-8740 Print ISSN: 3060-8910, Published by AccScience Publishing
We use cookies on our website to ensure you get the best experience.
Read more about our cookies here
Accept