Journal of Veterinary Clinics (한국임상수의학회지)

The Korean Society of Veterinary Clinics (한국임상수의학회)
권호 표지

Antifungal Effect of Chitosan against Malassezia pachydermatis Isolated from the Dog with Otitis Externa

개 외이도에서 분리된 Malassezia pachydermatis에 대한 키토산의 항진균 효과

  • Oh, Hyun-Ho (Department of Clinical Science, College of Veterinary Medicine, Kyungpook National University) ;
  • Kim, Young-In (Department of Clinical Science, College of Veterinary Medicine, Kyungpook National University) ;
  • Seo, Jeong-A (Department of Clinical Science, College of Veterinary Medicine, Kyungpook National University) ;
  • Choe, Seong-Won (Department of Clinical Science, College of Veterinary Medicine, Kyungpook National University) ;
  • Bae, Seul-Gi (Department of Clinical Science, College of Veterinary Medicine, Kyungpook National University) ;
  • Oh, Tae-Ho (Department of Clinical Science, College of Veterinary Medicine, Kyungpook National University)
  • 오현호 (경북대학교 수의과대학) ;
  • 김영인 (경북대학교 수의과대학) ;
  • 서정아 (경북대학교 수의과대학) ;
  • 최성원 (경북대학교 수의과대학) ;
  • 배슬기 (경북대학교 수의과대학) ;
  • 오태호 (경북대학교 수의과대학)
  • Accepted : 2012.08.20
  • Published : 2012.08.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

The effect of pH of chitosan solution (w/v) on antifungal activity against Malassezia pachydermatis isolated from a dog with otitis externa was evaluated. This study was investigated to find out the optimal pH of chitosan solution that could be able to eliminate yeast cells. For comparison of antifungal activity of chitosan solution 2% chlorhexidine that have been already proved the antifungal effect against M. pachydermatis was used as positive control. The chitosan solution at different pH (2.5, 3.0, 3.5, 4.0, 4.5, 5.0) were involved this experiment. The chitosan solutions at each pH could eliminate a number of yeast cells when they were compared to other antifungal agents. In chitosan solution's antifungal effect of varying degrees according to the pH M. pachydermatis was inhibited at pH of < 5.0. Especially it has been proved an effective antifungal effect at pH 3.5. Therefore, the pH of chitosan solution had a effect on antifungal activity and the optimal pH was 3.5 in vitro. The possibility of topical therapy with acidific solution of chitosan has a potential in skin infection against M. pachydermatis.

Keywords

References

  1. Amber EI, Wsain SF. An update on common wound antiseptics. Aust Vet Pract 1984; 14: 29-33.
  2. Chang DS, Cho HR, Goo HY, et al. A development of food preservation with the waste of crab processing. Bull Korean Fish Soc 1989; 22: 70-78.
  3. Chikakane K, Takahashi H. Measurement of skin pH and its significance in cutaneous diseases. Clin Dermatol 1995; 13: 299-306. https://doi.org/10.1016/0738-081X(95)00076-R
  4. Cook AH. The Chemistry and Biology of Yeasts. New York: Academic Press Inc., 1958: 251-321.
  5. Fang SW, Li CF, Shin DYC. Antifungal activity of chitosan and its preservative effect on low sugar candied kumquat. J Food Prot 1994; 56: 136-140.
  6. George TW, Richard GH. Funfalskin disease. In: Small Animal Dermatology. A guide to diagnosis, 2nd ed. Barcelona: Mosby-Wolfe. 1994: 123-124.
  7. Gotthelf LN, Young SE. New treatment of Malssezia otitis externa in dogs. Vet Forum 1997; 8: 46-53.
  8. Hong KN, Na YP, Shin HL, Samuel PM. Antibacterial activity of chitosans and chitosan oligomers with different molecular weights. Int J Food Microbiol 2002; 74: 65-72. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0168-1605(01)00717-6
  9. Jennifer LM, Karen LC, Ibulaimu K, David JS. The Effect of Four Acidifying Sprays, Vinegar, and Water on Canine Cutaneous pH Levels. JAAHA 2003; 39: 29-33.
  10. Jennifer LM, Karen LC, Ibulaimu K, Philip FS, David JS. Evaulation of the effect of pH on in vitro growth of Malasseziapachydermatis. Can J Vet Res 2003; 67: 56-59.
  11. Kendra DF, Hadwiger LA. Characterization of the smallest chitosan olighmer that is maximally antifungal to Fusariumsolani and elicits piastin formation in Pisumsativum. Exp Mycol 1984; 8: 276-281. https://doi.org/10.1016/0147-5975(84)90013-6
  12. Kral F, Schwartzman RM. Veterinary and Comparative Dermatology. Philadelphia: J.B. Lippincott. 1964: 1-14.
  13. Kurita K. Chemistry and application of chitin and chitosan. Poly Degrad Stab 1998; 59: 117-120. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0141-3910(97)00160-2
  14. Kwochika KW, Kowalski JJ. Prophylactic efficacy of four antibacterial shampoos against Staphylococcus intermedius in dogs. Am J Vet Res 1991; 52: 115-118.
  15. Lloyd DH, Bond R, Lamport I. Antimicrobial activity in vitro and in vivo of a canine ear cleanser. Vet Rec 1998; 143: 111-112. https://doi.org/10.1136/vr.143.4.111
  16. Lozier SM. Topical wound therapy, In Hariari J. ed: Surgical complication and wound healing in the small animal practice. Philadelphia: WB Saunders. 1993: 63-88.
  17. Mason IS, Mason KV, Lloyd DH. A review of the biology of canine skin with respect to the commensals Staphylococcus intermedius Demodex canis and Malassezia pachydermatis. Vet Dermatol 1996; 7: 119-132. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-3164.1996.tb00237.x
  18. Mason KV, Evans AG. Dermatitis associated with Malasseziapachydermatis in 11 dogs. JAAHA 1991; 27: 14-20.
  19. Meyer W, Neurand K. Comparison of skin pH in domesticated and laboratory mammals. Arch Dermatol Res 1991; 283: 16-18. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01207245
  20. Osuna DJ, DeYoung DJ, Walker RL. Comparison of three skin preparation techniques in the dog. Vet Surg 1990; 19: 14-19. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-950X.1990.tb01136.x
  21. PlantJD, Rosenkrantz WS, Griffin CE. Factors associated with and prevalence of high Malasseziapachydermatisnumbers on dog skin. J Am Vet Med Assoc 1992; 201: 879-882.
  22. Roller S, Covill N. The antifungal properties of chitosan in laboratory media and apple juice. Int J Food Microbial 1999; 47: 67-77. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0168-1605(99)00006-9
  23. Sanford PA, Hutchings GP. Industrial polysaccharides: Genetic engineering, structure/property relations and application. Amsterdam: Elsevier. 1987: 363-375.
  24. Schmid MH, Korting HC. The concept of the acid mantle of the skin: its relevance for the choice of skin cleansers. Dermatology 1995; 191: 276-280. https://doi.org/10.1159/000246568
  25. Sebben JE, Surgical antiseptics. J Am Acad Dermatol 1983; 9: 759-765. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0190-9622(83)70192-1
  26. Sekiguchi S, Miura Y, Kaneko H, Nishimura SI, Nishi N, Iwase M, Tokura S. Molecular weight dependency of antimicrobial activity by chitosan oligomers. In: Nishinari K., Doi E. (Eds.), Food Hydrocolloids: Structures, Properties, and Functions. Plenum, New York. 1994: 71-76.
  27. Sharma VD. Characterization of Pityrosporum pachydermatis PhD dissertation. Champaign, Illinois: University of Illinois, 1974.
  28. Simpson BK, Gagne N, Ashie INA, Noroozi E. Utilization of chitosan for preservation of raw shrimp. Food Biotechnol 1997; 11: 25-44. https://doi.org/10.1080/08905439709549920
  29. Skjak-Braek G, Anthonsen T, Sandford P. Chitin and chitosan. Elsevier Applied Science. London. 1989: 560.
  30. Sudarshan NR, Hoover DG, Knorr D. Antibacterial action of chitosan. Food Biotechnol 1992; 6: 257-272. https://doi.org/10.1080/08905439209549838
  31. Swaim SF, Lee AH. Topical wound medications. JAVMA 1987; 190: 1588-1593.
  32. Tsai GJ, Wu ZY, Su WH. Antibacterial activity of a chitooligosaccharide mixture prepared by cellulose digestion of shrimp chitosan and its application to milk preservation. J Food Prot 2000; 63: 747-752.
  33. Yalpani M, Johnson F, Robinson LE. Antimicrobal activity of some chitosan derivatives, In Brine CJ, Sandford PA and Zikakis JP ed: Advances in chitin and chitosan. Elsevier Applied Science, London. 1992: 543-555.