| Literature DB >> 24348709 |
Amin Abedini1, Vincent Roumy1, Séverine Mahieux2, Murielle Biabiany3, Annie Standaert-Vitse4, Céline Rivière1, Sevser Sahpaz1, François Bailleul1, Christel Neut2, Thierry Hennebelle1.
Abstract
Primary biological examination of four extracts of the leaves and stems of Hyptis atrorubens Poit. (Lamiaceae), a plant species used as an antimicrobial agent in Guadeloupe, allowed us to select the hydromethanolic extract of the stems for further studies. It was tested against 46 microorganisms in vitro. It was active against 29 microorganisms. The best antibacterial activity was found against bacteria, mostly Gram-positive ones. Bioautography enabled the isolation and identification of four antibacterial compounds from this plant: rosmarinic acid, methyl rosmarinate, isoquercetin, and hyperoside. The MIC and MBC values of these compounds and their combinations were determined against eight pathogenic bacteria. The best inhibitory and bactericidal activity was found for methyl rosmarinate (0.3 mg/mL). Nevertheless, the bactericidal power of rosmarinic acid was much faster in the time kill study. Synergistic effects were found when combining the active compounds. Finally, the inhibitory effects of the compounds were evaluated on the bacterial growth phases at two different temperatures. Our study demonstrated for the first time antimicrobial activity of Hyptis atrorubens with identification of the active compounds. It supports its traditional use in French West Indies. Although its active compounds need to be further evaluated in vivo, this work emphasizes plants as potent sources of new antimicrobial agents when resistance to antibiotics increases dramatically.Entities:
Year: 2013 PMID: 24348709 PMCID: PMC3855952 DOI: 10.1155/2013/604536
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Evid Based Complement Alternat Med ISSN: 1741-427X Impact factor: 2.629
Antimicrobial activity of Hyptis atrorubens hydromethanolic extracts (stems and leaves) against 29 microorganisms (*no growth).
| Strains | Stem extract (mg/mL) | Antibiotics | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 10 | 5 | 2.5 | 1.2 | 0.6 | 0.3 | G | V | A | ||
| Gram-negative bacteria |
| ∗ | ∗ | S | R | R | ||||
|
| ∗ | ∗ | ∗ | R | R | R | ||||
|
| ∗ | ∗ | ∗ | S | R | R | ||||
|
| ∗ | ∗ | S | R | R | |||||
|
| ∗ | S | R | S | ||||||
|
| ∗ | ∗ | ∗ | ∗ | ∗ | ∗ | S | R | R | |
|
| ∗ | ∗ | ∗ | S | R | R | ||||
|
| ∗ | ∗ | ∗ | ∗ | R | R | R | |||
|
| ||||||||||
| Gram-positive bacteria |
| ∗ | ∗ | ∗ | ∗ | ∗ | S | S | S | |
|
| ∗ | ∗ | ∗ | ∗ | S | S | S | |||
|
| ∗ | ∗ | ∗ | ∗ | S | S | S | |||
|
| ∗ | ∗ | ∗ | ∗ | ∗ | ∗ | S | S | S | |
|
| ∗ | ∗ | ∗ | ∗ | ∗ | ∗ | S | S | S | |
|
| ∗ | ∗ | ∗ | ∗ | ∗ | S | S | S | ||
|
| ∗ | ∗ | ∗ | ∗ | I | S | S | |||
|
| ∗ | ∗ | ∗ | ∗ | R | S | S | |||
|
| ∗ | ∗ | ∗ | ∗ | ∗ | ∗ | R | R | R | |
|
| ∗ | ∗ | ∗ | ∗ | ∗ | S | S | S | ||
|
| ∗ | ∗ | ∗ | ∗ | ∗ | S | R | S | ||
|
| ||||||||||
| Yeast |
| ∗ | ∗ | ∗ | ∗ | ∗ | — | — | — | |
|
| ∗ | — | — | — | ||||||
|
| ∗ | ∗ | — | — | — | |||||
|
| ∗ | — | — | — | ||||||
|
| ∗ | ∗ | ∗ | — | — | — | ||||
|
| ||||||||||
| Dermatophyte |
| ∗ | ∗ | ∗ | ∗ | — | — | — | ||
|
| ∗ | ∗ | ∗ | ∗ | ∗ | — | — | — | ||
|
| ∗ | ∗ | ∗ | ∗ | ∗ | — | — | — | ||
|
| ∗ | ∗ | ∗ | — | — | — | ||||
|
| ∗ | ∗ | ∗ | ∗ | ∗ | — | — | — | ||
Microorganisms that were resistant to all extracts are not shown. Positive controls: MIC (μg/mL) gentamicin (G) S: ≤4, R: >8; vancomycin (V) S: ≤4, R: >16; amoxicillin (A) S: ≤4, R: >16.
Figure 1Comparison between the positive control and the hydromethanolic extract of stems at 1.2 mg/mL and 36 bacteria after 24 hours of incubation.
Results of bioautography test of fractions “A” to “I”.
| Fractions |
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| A | ++ | + | + | ++ |
| B | +++ | +++ | ++ | +++ |
| C | +++ | +++ | ++ | +++ |
| D | − | − | − | − |
| E | + | + | + | − |
| F | + | + | ++ | + |
| G | + | + | + | − |
| H | + | ++ | + | − |
| I | + | ++ | + | ++ |
(−): no effect, (+): significant effect, rated from + (1 cm inhibition zone) to +++ (>3 cm inhibition zone).
Figure 2Chemical structure of four active compounds: rosmarinic acid (RA), methyl rosmarinate (MR), isoquercetin (IQ), and hyperoside (HS).
Results of quantitative analysis of the four compounds by HPLC and linearity of calibration.
| Compounds | Retention time | Linear range |
| Correlation coefficient | Percent in total extract |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RA | 20.67 ± 0.45 | 0.125–1.000 | 5898776 = (2 × 10−7) | 0.9996 | 5.60 |
| MR | 38.77 ± 0.52 | 0.030–1.000 | 705509 = (2 × 10−7) | 0.9995 | 0.03 |
| IQ | 15.38 ± 0.96 | 0.006–0.500 | 103118 = (2 × 10−7) | 0.9999 | 0.08 |
| HS | 17.88 ± 0.85 | 0.006–0.500 | 218757 = (2 × 10−7) | 0.9995 | 0.06 |
y: peak area of compound in total extract, x: concentration of compound in total extract.
MIC and MBC values in the microdilution assay for the active compounds expressed in mg/mL.
| Bacteria | RA | MR | IQ | HS | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MIC | MBC | MIC | MBC | MIC | MBC | MIC | MBC | |
|
| 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.6 | 1.2 | 1.2 | 2.5 | >2.5 |
|
| 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.6 | 1.2 | 2.5 | 1.2 | 1.2 |
|
| 0.3 | 0.6 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 1.2 | 2.5 | 2.5 | >2.5 |
|
| 0.6 | 1.2 | 0.6 | 0.6 | 2.5 | 2.5 | 2.5 | >2.5 |
|
| 2.5 | >2.5 | 1.2 | 2.5 | 1.2 | >2.5 | 2.5 | >2.5 |
|
| 2.5 | >2.5 | 1.2 | 1.2 | 1.2 | >2.5 | 2.5 | >2.5 |
|
| 1.2 | 2.5 | 0.6 | 0.6 | 2.5 | >2.5 | 2.5 | >2.5 |
|
| 1.2 | 2.5 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 1.2 | >2.5 | 2.5 | >2.5 |
Antibacterial activities, indicated by Fractional Inhibitory Concentrations of combined compounds against selected microorganisms.
| Bacteria | MIC (mg/mL)-FIC | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RA + MR | RA + IQ | RA + HS | MR + IQ | MR + HS | IQ + HS | RA + MR + IQ + HS | |
|
| 0.3-(I) | 1.2-(AN) | 0.3-(I) | 0.3-(I) | 0.3-(I) | 2.50-(I) | 0.15-(I) |
|
| 0.3-(I) | 0.6-(I) | 0.6-(I) | 0.3-(I) | 0.6-(I) | 2.50-(A) | 0.15-(I) |
|
| 0.15-(A) | 0.6-(I) | 0.3-(I) | 0.15-(A) | 0.3-(I) | 1.25-(I) | 0.07-(S) |
|
| 0.6-(I) | 0.3-(A) | 0.6-(I) | 0.15-(S) | 0.6-(I) | 2.50-(I) | 0.3-(I) |
|
| 1.2-(I) | 1.2-(I) | 1.2-(A) | 1.2-(I) | 1.2-(I) | 2.50-(I) | 0.6-(I) |
|
| 0.3-(S) | 0.6-(A) | 0.6-(A) | 0.15-(S) | 0.6-(A) | 1.25-(I) | 0.3-(A) |
|
| 0.3-(A) | 0.6-(A) | 0.3-(S) | 0.3-(A) | 0.3-(A) | 2.50-(I) | 0.3-(A) |
|
| 0.15-(A) | 0.6-(A) | 0.3-(S) | 0.3-(I) | 0.3-(I) | 2.50-(I) | 0.3-(I) |
Synergy (S, FIC ≤ 0.5), addition (A, 0.5 < FIC < 1), indifference (I, 1 < FIC < 4), and antagonism (AN, FIC ≥ 4) (ratio 1 : 1).
Figure 3Killing curve of Staphylococcus epidermidis 5001 for RA (a) and MR (b).
Figure 4Killing curve of Stenotrophomonas maltophilia for RA (a) and MR (b).
Figure 5Growth curve of Staphylococcus epidermidis 5001 for RA (a) and MR (b) at 37°C.
Figure 6Growth curve of Staphylococcus epidermidis 5001 for RA (a) and MR (b) at 4°C.