| Literature DB >> 20652052 |
Amir Modarresi Chahardehi1, Darah Ibrahim, Shaida Fariza Sulaiman.
Abstract
A total of 9 plant extracts were tested, using two different kinds of extracting methods to evaluate the antioxidant and antimicrobial activities from Pilea microphylla (Urticaceae family) and including toxicity test. Antioxidant activity were tested by using DPPH free radical scavenging, also total phenolic contents and total flavonoid contents were determined. Toxicity assay carried out by using brine shrimps. Methanol extract of method I (ME I) showed the highest antioxidant activity at 69.51 +/- 1.03. Chloroform extract of method I (CE I) showed the highest total phenolic contents at 72.10 +/- 0.71 and chloroform extract of method II (CE II) showed the highest total flavonoid contents at 60.14 +/- 0.33. The antimicrobial activity of Pilea microphylla extract was tested in vitro by using disc diffusion method and minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC). The Pilea microphylla extract showed antibacterial activity against some Gram negative and positive bacteria. The extracts did not exhibit antifungal and antiyeast activity. The hexane extract of method I (HE I) was not toxic against brine shrimp (LC50 value was 3880 mug/ml). Therefore, the extracts could be suitable as antimicrobial and antioxidative agents in food industry.Entities:
Year: 2010 PMID: 20652052 PMCID: PMC2905935 DOI: 10.1155/2010/826830
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Microbiol
List of different crude extract, depicting variable total phenolic content, total flavonoid content, antioxidant activity*, and EC50 values.
| Name of crude extract | Antioxidant activity (%) | EC50 values ( | Total phenolic (mg GAE/g dw) | Total flavonoid (mg QE/g) | Total phenolic/Total flavonoid |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| HE I | 28.16 ± 4.76c | ND | 11.35 ± 0.26ab | 0.45 ± 0.49a | 25.22 |
| CE I | 0.46 ± 0.98a | ND | 72.10 ± 0.71g | 53.44 ± 0.94e | 1.35 |
| EAE I | 4.10 ± 0.14a | ND | 41.82 ± 1.34e | 11.57 ± 1.07c | 3.61 |
| ME I | 69.51 ± 1.03f | 81.32 | 9.91 ± 0.33a | ND | ND |
| ME II | 46.99 ± 4.69d | 121.90 | 13.76 ± 1.52b | ND | ND |
| CE II | 47.16 ± 4.98d | 215.30 | 35.02 ± 0.11d | 60.14 ± 0.33f | 0.58 |
| DE II | 60.69 ± 2.46e | 373.50 | 54.48 ± 1.65f | 21.84 ± 1.65d | 2.49 |
| EAE II | 8.62 ± 0.95a | ND | 40.76 ± 2.22e | 7.58 ± 0.23b | 5.38 |
| BE II | 18.34 ± 2.34b | ND | 22.47 ± 2.03c | ND | ND |
Each value represented the mean ± SD of three replicates (n = 3). Values with different letters are significantly different(P < 05.)based on One Way and Tukey HSD test.
Data of total phenolic contents are expressed as milligrams of gallic acid (GAE) equivalents per microgram dry weight.
Quercetin and BHT were used as a positive control, EC50= 4.95 μg/mL and 50.31 μg/mL and the final concentration were 125 μg/mL.
ND = Not determined
*Modarresi Chahardehi et al. [9]
Antimicrobial activity of Pilea microphylla.
| Pathogenic microorganism | HE I | CE I | EAE I | ME I | ME II | CE II | DEE II | EAE II | BE II |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bacteria | |||||||||
|
| − | − | − | − | − | − | − | − | − |
|
| + | + | + | + | − | − | − | − | + |
|
| + | − | − | − | − | + | − | − | + |
|
| − | − | − | − | − | + | − | + | + |
|
| − | − | − | − | − | − | − | − | − |
|
| + | ++ | − | + | − | − | − | − | − |
|
| + | − | + | − | − | + | − | − | + |
|
| − | − | − | − | − | + | − | − | − |
|
| − | − | − | − | − | + | − | − | − |
|
| + | + | − | ++ | − | + | − | − | + |
|
| − | − | − | − | − | − | − | − | − |
|
| − | − | − | − | − | − | − | − | − |
|
| − | − | + | − | − | ++ | − | − | − |
|
| − | − | − | − | + | − | − | − | − |
|
| − | − | − | − | − | + | − | − | − |
|
| − | − | − | − | − | − | − | − | − |
|
| − | − | − | − | − | − | − | − | − |
|
| − | − | − | − | − | + | − | − | + |
|
| − | − | − | − | + | + | − | − | − |
|
| − | − | − | − | − | − | − | − | − |
|
| − | − | − | − | − | − | − | − | − |
|
| − | − | − | − | − | − | − | − | − |
|
| − | − | − | − | − | − | − | − | − |
|
| − | + | − | + | − | − | − | − | − |
|
| − | + | − | − | − | − | + | − | − |
|
| − | − | − | − | − | + | − | − | + |
|
| |||||||||
| Yeast | |||||||||
|
| − | − | − | − | − | − | − | − | − |
|
| − | − | − | − | − | − | − | − | − |
|
| − | − | − | − | − | − | − | − | − |
|
| |||||||||
| Fungi | |||||||||
|
| − | − | − | − | − | − | − | − | − |
|
| −* | − | − | − | − | − | − | − | − |
|
| − | − | − | − | − | − | − | − | − |
|
| − | − | − | − | − | − | − | − | − |
Antimicrobial activity based on the diameter of inhibiotion zone (mm) follow this skim: ++10–14 mm, + ≤ 9 mm.
*Hexane extract showed reduced of inoculum but not hypha.
In vitro activity of pathogenic bacteria for MIC and MBC values (mg/mL).
| Bacteria | Crude plant extract | MIC value (mg/mL) | MBC value (mg/mL) |
|---|---|---|---|
|
| BE II | 33.33 | 33.33 |
|
| EAE I | 8.33 | 8.33 |
The LC50 values of Percentage lethality of Artemia salina (μg/mL).
| Crude plant extracts | LC50 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 6 hrs | 12 hrs | 24 hrs | |
| HE I | — | 3943 | 3880 |
| CE I | 2836 | 183 | 2 |
| ME I | 2840 | 183 | 16 |
| CE II | 2836 | 542 | 79 |
| BE II | 2840 | 545 | 194 |
— = Not converge.
Figure 1Toxic effects of the P. microphylla hexane extract of method I after 24 hours using brine shrimp lethality assay.