| Literature DB >> 25164197 |
Elisabeth Pauw, Jacobus Nicolaas Eloff1.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The study randomly screened leaf extracts of several hundred southern African tree species against important microbial pathogens to determine which taxa have the highest activity and may yield useful products to treat infections in the animal health market.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2014 PMID: 25164197 PMCID: PMC4158104 DOI: 10.1186/1472-6882-14-317
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Complement Altern Med ISSN: 1472-6882 Impact factor: 3.659
Summary of the orders encompassing the southern African tree species analysed for the Phytomedicine tree database (PMDB)
| Number of tree species analysed per order | Number of orders | Orders |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | 11 | Aquifoliales, Bruniales, Canellales, Caryophyllales, Cornales, Crossomotales, Cyatheales, Fagales, Oxalidales, Pandanales, Zygophyllales |
| 2 to 8 | 13 | Arecales, Asparagales, Brassicales, Buxales, Coniferales, Cycadales, Geraniales, Laurales, Pinales, Santalales, Saxifragales, Vitales, Zingiberales |
| ≥ 9 | 14 | Apiales, Asterales, Celastrales, Ericales, Fabales, Gentianales, Lamiales, Magnoliales, Malpighiales, Malvales, Myrtales, Proteales, Rosales, Sapindales |
Mean minimum inhibitory concentrations (MIC) ± standard deviation (SD) of species present in the different orders against the Gram-positive bacteria
| Order | n (≥9) | MIC (mg/ml) (±SD) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
| Mean of Gram-positive bacteria | ||
| Celastrales | 19 | 0.23 ± 0.41 | 0.37 ± 0.69 | 0.30 ± 0.47a |
| Rosales | 28 | 0.21 ± 0.35 | 0.41 ± 1.04 | 0.30 ± 0.66a |
| Myrtales | 25 | 0.28 ± 0.74 | 0.31 ± 0.52 | 0.30 ± 0.53a |
| Fabales | 57 | 0.38 ± 0.79 | 0.41 ± 0.92 | 0.40 ± 0.81ab |
| Ericales | 30 | 0.28 ± 0.47 | 0.56 ± 1.10 | 0.40 ± 0.72ab |
| Sapindales | 64 | 0.34 ± 0.88 | 0.52 ± 1.04 | 0.42 ± 0.92ab |
| Malpighiales | 71 | 0.38 ± 0.84 | 0.53 ± 1.03 | 0.45 ± 0.86ab |
| Malvales | 26 | 0.34 ± 0.57 | 0.65 ± 0.93 | 0.47 ± 0.67abc |
| Apiales | 9 | 0.44 ± 0.71 | 0.59 ± 1.04 | 0.51 ± 0.75abc |
| Proteales | 28 | 0.38 ± 0.49 | 0.71 ± 1.05 | 0.52 ± 0.73bc |
| Lamiales | 35 | 0.44 ± 0.62 | 0.63 ± 1.00 | 0.53 ± 0.72bc |
| Gentianales | 64 | 0.41 ± 0.67 | 0.69 ± 1.03 | 0.53 ± 0.80bc |
| Magnoliales | 9 | 0.64 ± 1.40 | 0.63 ± 1.22 | 0.63 ± 1.26bc |
| Asterales | 11 | 0.58 ± 0.42 | 1.11 ± 0.78 | 0.80 ± 0.60c |
| Degrees of freedom (DF) | 13 | |||
| F value | 2.14 | |||
| Pr > F | 0.0114 | |||
The orders are arranged from highest to lowest activity (n = the number of tree species analysed in each order; mean MIC values followed by the same superscript letter do not differ significantly at the 5% confidence level).
Mean minimum inhibitory concentrations (MIC) ± standard deviation (SD) of the species present in the different orders against the Gram-negative bacteria
| Order | n (≥9) | Mean MIC (mg/ml) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
| Mean (Gram-negative bacteria) | ||
| Myrtales | 25 | 0.28 ± 0.56 | 0.30 ± 0.59 | 0.29 ± 0.56a |
| Fabales | 57 | 0.26 ± 0.55 | 0.34 ± 0.60 | 0.30 ± 0.51ab |
| Malvales | 26 | 0.38 ± 0.73 | 0.31 ± 0.59 | 0.34 ± 0.64abc |
| Ericales | 30 | 0.33 ± 0.77 | 0.36 ± 0.79 | 0.34 ± 0.75abc |
| Apiales | 9 | 0.49 ± 0.66 | 0.26 ± 0.59 | 0.36 ± 0.53abcd |
| Rosales | 28 | 0.37 ± 0.58 | 0.39 ± 0.58 | 0.38 ± 0.51abcd |
| Malpighiales | 71 | 0.43 ± 0.66 | 0.37 ± 0.71 | 0.40 ± 0.62acd |
| Celastrales | 19 | 0.39 ± 0.96 | 0.44 ± 0.48 | 0.41 ± 0.68abcd |
| Sapindales | 64 | 0.45 ± 0.82 | 0.41 ± 0.84 | 0.43 ± 0.78cd |
| Gentianales | 64 | 0.46 ± 0.75 | 0.43 ± 0.68 | 0.45 ± 0.67cd |
| Lamiales | 35 | 0.52 ± 0.88 | 0.40 ± 0.36 | 0.46 ± 0.58cd |
| Magnoliales | 9 | 0.58 ± 0.80 | 0.42 ± 0.43 | 0.49 ± 0.59cd |
| Asterales | 11 | 0.44 ± 0.43 | 0.57 ± 0.82 | 0.50 ± 0.52cd |
| Proteales | 28 | 0.46 ± 0.78 | 0.78 ± 0.67 | 0.60 ± 0.70d |
| Degrees of freedom (DF) | 13 | |||
| F value | 2.27 | |||
| PR > F | 0.0065 | |||
The orders are arranged from highest to lowest activity (n = the number of tree species analysed in each order; mean MIC values followed by the same superscript letter do not differ significantly at the 5% confidence level).
Mean minimum inhibitory concentrations (MIC) ± standard deviation (SD) of the species present in the different orders against the fungal organisms
| Orders | n (≥9) | Mean MIC (mg/ml) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
| Mean (Fungi) | ||
| Malvales | 26 | 0.31 ± 0.76 | 0.25 ± 0.74 | 0.28 ± 0.68a |
| Proteales | 27 | 0.38 ± 0.44 | 0.29 ± 0.75 | 0.33 ± 0.54ab |
| Fabales | 56 | 0.37 ± 0.82 | 0.34 ± 0.90 | 0.35 ± 0.79ab |
| Apiales | 9 | 0.41 ± 1.06 | 0.37 ± 0.94 | 0.35 ± 0.92abc |
| Magnoliales | 9 | 0.36 ± 0.99 | 0.35 ± 1.09 | 0.36 ± 0.92abc |
| Malpighiales | 71 | 0.36 ± 0.91 | 0.36 ± 0.86 | 0.36 ± 0.79abc |
| Myrtales | 25 | 0.38 ± 1.06 | 0.41 ± 0.98 | 0.40 ± 0.97abc |
| Lamiales | 35 | 0.42 ± 0.91 | 0.41 ± 1.01 | 0.42 ± 0.90abc |
| Gentianales | 64 | 0.47 ± 1.02 | 0.38 ± 0.93 | 0.42 ± 0.90bc |
| Sapindales | 63 | 0.44 ± 1.04 | 0.44 ± 0.97 | 0.44 ± 0.91bc |
| Ericales | 30 | 0.55 ± 1.11 | 0.42 ± 0.77 | 0.48 ± 0.89bc |
| Asterales | 11 | 0.48 ± 0.64 | 0.50 ± 0.94 | 0.49 ± 0.69bc |
| Rosales | 28 | 0.57 ± 1.07 | 0.46 ± 0.94 | 0.51 ± 0.94bc |
| Celastrales | 19 | 0.66 ± 0.71 | 0.53 ± 0.71 | 0.59 ± 0.59c |
| Degrees of freedom (DF) | 13 | |||
| F value | 1.29 | |||
| Pr > F | 0.2149 | |||
The orders are arranged from highest to lowest activity (n = the number of tree species analysed in each order; mean MIC values followed by the same superscript letter do not differ significantly at the 5% confidence level).
Comparison of the ranking of activities (high activity = low MIC and low number) against each of the pathogen classes of species in the different orders
| Order | n (≥9) | Rank of activity | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gram-positive bacteria | Gram-negative bacteria | Fungi | ||
| Apiales | 9 | 9 | 5 |
|
| Asterales | 11 |
|
|
|
| Celastrales | 19 |
| 8 |
|
| Ericalis | 30 |
|
|
|
| Fabales | 55 |
|
|
|
| Gentianales | 64 |
|
| 8b |
| Lamiales | 35 |
|
| 8a |
| Magnoliales | 9 |
|
| 5a |
| Malpighiales | 71 | 7 | 7 | 5b |
| Malvales | 26 | 8 |
|
|
| Myrtales | 25 |
|
| 7 |
| Proteales | 28 |
|
|
|
| Rosales | 28 |
| 6 |
|
| Sapindales | 64 | 6 | 9 | 10 |
Orders with the highest and lowest activities in each class are identified (n = the number of tree species analysed in each order; four to five highest rankings are printed in bold; four to five lowest rankings are printed in italics; observations with equal MIC values were ranked with similar numbers but separated by ‘a’, ‘b’ and ‘c’).
Figure 1The percentage of species inhibiting each of the pathogen classes across a range of MIC categories between orders with the four highest and four lowest mean activities indicating the distribution of activities.