| Literature DB >> 23878595 |
Ana Carolina Oliveira Silva1, Elidiane Fonseca Santana, Antonio Marcos Saraiva, Felipe Neves Coutinho, Ricardo Henrique Acre Castro, Maria Nelly Caetano Pisciottano, Elba Lúcia Cavalcanti Amorim, Ulysses Paulino Albuquerque.
Abstract
The development of the present study was based on selections using random, direct ethnopharmacological, and indirect ethnopharmacological approaches, aiming to evaluate which method is the best for bioprospecting new antimicrobial plant drugs. A crude extract of 53 species of herbaceous plants collected in the semiarid region of Northeast Brazil was tested against 11 microorganisms. Well-agar diffusion and minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) techniques were used. Ten extracts from direct, six from random, and three from indirect ethnopharmacological selections exhibited activities that ranged from weak to very active against the organisms tested. The strain most susceptible to the evaluated extracts was Staphylococcus aureus. The MIC analysis revealed the best result for the direct ethnopharmacological approach, considering that some species yielded extracts classified as active or moderately active (MICs between 250 and 1000 µg/mL). Furthermore, one species from this approach inhibited the growth of the three Candida strains. Thus, it was concluded that the direct ethnopharmacological approach is the most effective when selecting species for bioprospecting new plant drugs with antimicrobial activities.Entities:
Year: 2013 PMID: 23878595 PMCID: PMC3710641 DOI: 10.1155/2013/308980
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Evid Based Complement Alternat Med ISSN: 1741-427X Impact factor: 2.629
Antimicrobial activity of herbaceous plants from the semiarid region, Northeast of Brazil, based on random, direct, and indirect ethnopharmacological approaches. (Inhibition halum in mm).
| Species |
| Sa | Se | Ss | Bs | Ef | Ec | Kp | Pa | Ca | Ck | Ct |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Random approach | ||||||||||||
|
| 100 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
|
| 100 | 23 | 20 | 20 | 22 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
|
| 100 | 30 | 20 | 22 | 21 | 22 | — | — | — | — | — | — |
|
| 100 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
|
| 100 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
|
| 100 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
|
| 100 | 7 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
|
| 100 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
|
| 100 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
|
| 100 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
|
| 100 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
|
| 100 | 9 | 10 | 7 | 9 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
|
| 100 | 10 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
|
| 100 | — | — | — | 8 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
|
| 100 | 20 | 20 | 18 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
|
| 100 | 10 | 8 | 10 | — | 6 | — | — | — | — | — | — |
|
| 100 | 8 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
|
| 100 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| Species 1 (Malvaceae) | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 30 | 30 | 30 | |
| Indirect ethnopharmacological approach | ||||||||||||
|
| 100 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
|
| 100 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
|
| 100 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
|
| 100 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
|
| 100 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
|
| 100 | 14 | — | 12 | 11 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
|
| 100 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
|
| 100 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
|
| 100 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
|
| 100 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
|
| 100 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
|
| 100 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
|
| 100 | 17 | 18 | 18 | 13 | 15 | — | — | — | — | — | — |
|
| 100 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| Direct ethnopharmacological approach | ||||||||||||
|
| 100 | 12 | 10 | 10 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
|
| 100 | 22 | 19 | 19 | 17 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
|
| 100 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
|
| 100 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
|
| 100 | 8 | 7 | 7 | — | — | — | — | — | — | 15 | — |
|
| 100 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
|
| 100 | 20 | 16 | 18 | 19 | 6 | — | — | — | — | — | — |
|
| 100 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
|
| 100 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
|
| 100 | 18 | 15 | 18 | 15 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
|
| 100 | 30 | 22 | 22 | — | 30 | — | — | — | — | — | — |
|
| 100 | 14 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
|
| 100 | 13 | 13 | — | — | — | — | — | — | 15 | 13 | 13 |
|
| 100 | 10 | 14 | 8 | 8 | 11 | — | — | — | — | — | — |
|
| 100 | 20 | 15 | 15 | 18 | 18 | — | — | — | — | — | — |
|
| 100 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
|
| 100 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
|
| 100 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
|
| 100 | 12 | — | — | 12 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
|
| 100 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
C: concentration; Sa: Staphylococcus aureus; Se: S. epidermidis; Ss: S. saprophyticus; Bs: Bacillus subtilis; Ef: Enterococcus faecalis; Ec: Escherichia coli; Pa: Pseudomonas aeruginosa; Kp: Klebsiella pneumonia; Ca: Candida albicans; Ck: C. krusei e; Ct: C. tropicalis; —: no inhibition.
Minimal inhibitory concentration (μg/mL) of herbaceous species from the semiarid region, Northeast of Brazil, based on random, direct, and indirect ethnopharmacological approaches.
| Species | Sa | Se | Ss | Bs | Ef | Ca | Ck | Ct |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Random approach | ||||||||
|
| >1000 | >1000 | >1000 | >1000 | NT | NT | NT | NT |
|
| >1000 | >1000 | >1000 | >1000 | >1000 | NT | NT | NT |
|
| 500 | 1000 | 1000 | NT | NT | NT | NT | NT |
| Species 1 (Malvaceae) | NT | NT | NT | NT | NT | 31.25 | 62.5 | 62.5 |
|
| ||||||||
| Indirect ethnopharmacological approach | ||||||||
|
| >1000 | >1000 | >1000 | >1000 | >1000 | NT | NT | NT |
|
| >1000 | NT | NT | NT | NT | NT | NT | NT |
|
| ||||||||
| Direct ethnopharmacological approach | ||||||||
|
| 1000 | >1000 | >1000 | >1000 | NT | NT | NT | NT |
|
| NT | NT | NT | NT | NT | NT | >1000 | NT |
|
| 1000 | >1000 | >1000 | 1000 | NT | NT | NT | NT |
|
| >1000 | >1000 | >1000 | NT | NT | NT | NT | NT |
|
| 500 | >1000 | >1000 | 1000 | >1000 | NT | NT | NT |
|
| >1000 | NT | NT | NT | NT | NT | NT | NT |
|
| 250 | 500 | NT | NT | NT | 125 | 1000 | 1000 |
|
| >1000 | >1000 | NT | >1000 | NT | NT | NT | NT |
|
| 1000 | >1000 | >1000 | 1000 | >1000 | NT | NT | NT |
Sa: Staphylococcus aureus; Se: S. epidermidis; Ss: S. saprophyticus; Bs: Bacillus subtilis; Ef: Enterococcus faecalis; Ca: Candida albicans; Ck: C. krusei e; Ct: C. tropicalis; NT: extract not tested for the strain.