Outbreak of wound botulism in people who inject drugs, Norway, October to November 2013.

In October and November 2013, four cases of wound botulism were confirmed in people who inject drugs (PWID) in Norway. Two additional cases are suspected. Because of the international distribution pathways for heroin ­ the likely source of the outbreak ­ healthcare workers and public health authorities in other countries should remain vigilant for wound botulism in PWID. This outbreak serves as a reminder that countries should ensure access to botulinum antitoxin in case of outbreak situations.

Antibacterial activity of chemically defined chitosans: influence of molecular weight, degree of acetylation and test organism.

Chitosans, polysaccharides obtained from the exoskeleton of crustaceans, have been shown to exert antibacterial activity in vitro and their use as a food preservative is of growing interest. However, beyond a consensus that chitosan appears to disrupt the bacterial cell membrane, published data are inconsistent on the chemical characteristics that confer the antibacterial activity of chitosan. While most authors agree that the net charge density of the polymer (reflected in the fraction of positively charged amino groups at the C-2 position of the glucosamine unit) is an important factor in antibacterial activity, conflicting data have been reported on the effect of molecular weight and on the susceptibility among different bacterial species to chitosan. Therefore, we prepared batches of water-soluble hydrochloride salts of chitosans with weight average molecular weights (M(w)) of 2-224kDa and degree of acetylation of 0.16 and 0.48. Their antibacterial activity was evaluated using tube inhibition assays and membrane integrity assays (N-Phenyl-1-naphthylamine fluorescence and potassium release) against Bacillus cereus, Escherichia coli, Salmonella Typhimurium and three lipopolysaccharide mutants of E. coli and S. Typhimurium. Chitosans with lower degree of acetylation (F(A)=0.16) were more active than the more acetylated chitosans (F(A)=0.48). No trends in antibacterial action related to increasing or decreasing M(w) were observed although one of the chitosans (M(w) 28.4kDa, F(A)=0.16) was more active than the other chitosans, inhibiting growth and permeabilizing the membrane of all the test strains included. The test strains varied in their susceptibility to the different chitosans with wild type S. Typhimurium more resistant than the wild type E. coli. Salmonellae lipopolysaccharide mutants were more susceptible than the matched wild type strain. Our results show that the chitosan preparation details are critically important in identifying the antibacterial features that target different test organisms.

Antibacterial activity of sphagnum acid and other phenolic compounds found in Sphagnum papillosum against food-borne bacteria.

AIMS: To identify the phenolic compounds in the leaves of Sphagnum papillosum and examine their antibacterial activity at pH appropriate for the undissociated forms. METHODS AND RESULTS: Bacterial counts of overnight cultures showed that whilst growth of Staphylococcus aureus 50084 was impaired in the presence of milled leaves, the phenol-free fraction of holocellulose of S. papillosum had no bacteriostatic effect. Liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry analysis of an acetone-methanol extract of the leaves detected eight phenolic compounds. Antibacterial activity of the four dominating phenols specific to Sphagnum leaves, when assessed in vitro as minimal inhibitory concentrations (MICs), were generally >2.5 mg ml(-1). MIC values of the Sphagnum-specific compound 'sphagnum acid' [p-hydroxy-beta-(carboxymethyl)-cinnamic acid] were >5 mg ml(-1). No synergistic or antagonistic effects of the four dominating phenols were detected in plate assays. CONCLUSIONS: Sphagnum-derived phenolics exhibit antibacterial activity in vitro only at concentrations far in excess of those found in the leaves. SIGNIFICANCE AND IMPACT OF THE STUDY: We have both identified the phenolic compounds in S. papillosum and assessed their antibacterial activity. Our data indicate that phenolic compounds in isolation are not potent antibacterial agents and we question their potency against food-borne pathogens.