| Literature DB >> 25699022 |
Ana Thereza Bezerra Dos Santos1, Tiago Ferreira da Silva Araújo1, Luis Cláudio Nascimento da Silva2, Cleideana Bezerra da Silva1, Antonio Fernando Morais de Oliveira3, Janete Magali Araújo4, Maria Tereza Dos Santos Correia2, Vera Lúcia de Menezes Lima1.
Abstract
A characteristic feature of Staphylococcus aureus is its ability to acquire resistance to antimicrobial agents. There is a need, therefore, for new approaches to combat this pathogen; for example, employing a combination of plant-derived products and antibiotics to overcome bacterial resistance. Indigofera suffruticosa is a plant popularly used to treat infections and has verified antimicrobial action. Here, we investigate the antimicrobial activity of different extracts from I. suffruticosa against S. aureus and their synergistic effects with erythromycin. Leaves of I. suffruticosa were extracted sequentially using diethyl ether, chloroform and acetone and the antimicrobial activity of each extract then tested against nine clinical isolates of S. aureus. Minimal inhibitory concentration (MIC) and minimal bactericidal concentration (MBC) were determined by microdilution tests, while the fractional inhibitory concentration (FIC) was assessed by checkerboard assay. All organic solvent extracts showed antimicrobial activity against S. aureus strains. The acetone extract was the most potent inhibitor of S. aureus (MIC and MBC of 0.78 and 3.12 mg/mL), followed by the chloroform extract (MIC and MBC of 3.12 and 6.25 mg/mL). Furthermore, acetone or chloroform extracts of I. suffruticosa enhanced the activity of erythromycin against S. aureus (FIC ≤ 0.5). We conclude that organic extracts from leaves of I. suffruticosa, alone or combined with erythromycin, are promising natural products for the development of new anti-S. aureus formulations.Entities:
Keywords: S. aureus; antibacterial agents; macrolide antibiotic; plant extracts
Year: 2015 PMID: 25699022 PMCID: PMC4313721 DOI: 10.3389/fmicb.2015.00013
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Microbiol ISSN: 1664-302X Impact factor: 5.640
Pharmacological potential of .
| Gastroprotective agent acute ulcer stimulating prostaglandin, mucus and HSP70. (Luiz-Ferreira et al., | Ethyl acetate fraction from methanolic extract showed the best action and the authors highlighted the role of role of flavonoids and alkaloids presents in AcF as active compounds |
| An effective treatment using 5% | |
| Immunostimulatory and antitumoral actvities | This study evaluated the action of both alkaloid fraction and pure indigo. Indigo showed high activity which suggest that it is the major active principle in |
| Antimycobacterial (Carli et al., | These authors did not isolate or detected any compounds. The methanolic extract showed better activity than dichloromethane |
| Anticonvulsant effect (Almeida et al., | Alkaloids, flavonoids, steroids, proteins, carbohydrates, indigo carmine and essential oils (Linalool and Pinene) were detected in the methanolic extract |
| Anti-inflammatory property | Eight phenolic compounds were quantified: salicylic acid, syringic acid (major compounds) ρ-coumaric acid, vanillin, syringaldehyde, quercetin, isoliquiritigenin, formononetin. Salicylic acid was found in the plasma of mice fed with |
| The authors reported the same compounds quantified by Chen et al. ( |
Susceptibility to antibiotics of .
| 02 | ATCC 6538 | S | S | S | S |
| 660 | Vaginal secretion | S | S | S | S |
| 663 | Catheter tip | S | S | S | S |
| 670 | Urine sample | R | R | R | R |
| 672 | Blood sample | R | R | R | R |
| 676 | Prostate secretion | S | S | S | S |
| 677 | Wound secretion | S | R | R | S |
| 679 | Wound secretion | S | S | R | S |
| 687 | Ocular secretion | S | S | S | S |
R, resistant; S, sensitive.
Data provided by UFPEDA Collection.
MRSA.
Phytochemical analysis of organic extract from leaves of .
| Alkaloids | - | + | - |
| Flavonoids | + | + | ++ |
| Phenylpropanoids | ++ | + | + |
| Triterpenoids | + | + | + |
| Volatile oils | + | ++ | + |
(-) absent, (+) weak, (++) strong.
Antimicrobial activity of organic extracts from leaves of .
| 02 | 34.7 ± 0.6a,1 | 36.0 ± 0.0a,1 | 35.7 ± 1.1a,1 |
| 660 | 29.0 ± 1.7b,1 | 28.0 ± 2.0b,1 | 28.0 ± 2.0b,1 |
| 663 | 28.7 ± 0.6b,1 | 27.7 ± 0.6b,1 | 26.7 ± 0.6b,1 |
| 670 | 32.7 ± 1.1a,1 | 27.7 ± 2.5b,2 | 30.7 ± 0.6b,2 |
| 672 | 32.6 ± 1.1a,1 | 32.3 ± 0.6c,1 | 31.0 ± 3.0b,1 |
| 676 | 27.3 ± 0.6b,1 | 25.3 ± 0.6b,1 | 26.3 ± 0.6b,1 |
| 677 | 30.0 ± 1.0b,1 | 29.0 ± 1.7b,1 | 29.7 ± 0.6b,1 |
| 679 | 29.0 ± 1.0b,1 | 26.3 ± 2.3b,1 | 25.7 ± 2.1b,1 |
| 687 | 26.7 ± 2.3b,1 | 26.0 ± 2.6b,1 | 25.3 ± 2.1b,1 |
| Average DIZ | 30.08 ± 2.7 | 28.7 ± 3.4 | 28.78 ± 3.4 |
DIZ values are expressed in mm.
*Same superscript letter (a,b,c) indicates no significant difference (p > 0.05) between DIZ values from different strains for each solvent (same column).
**Same superscript number () indicates no significant difference (p > 0.05) between DIZ values from different solvents against each strain (same row).
Figure 1Stability of organic extracts of leaves of Effect of temperature on the stability of organic extracts of I. suffruticosa. (B) Effect of pH on the stability of organic extracts of I. suffruticosa. DIZ—inhibition zone diameter. *Significant differences in relation to control.
Minimum inhibitory concentration and minimum bactericidal concentration of organic extracts from leaves of .
| 02 | 3.12 | 12.5 | 4 | 3.12 | 12.5 | 4 | 1.56 | 3.12 | 2 |
| 660 | 6.25 | 12.5 | 2 | 6.25 | 25.0 | 4 | 1.56 | 6.25 | 4 |
| 663 | 6.25 | 25.0 | 4 | 6.25 | 25.0 | 4 | 3.12 | 12.5 | 4 |
| 670 | 6.25 | 25.0 | 4 | 6.25 | 25.0 | 4 | 1.56 | 12.5 | 8 |
| 672 | 6.25 | 12.5 | 2 | 6.25 | 12.5 | 2 | 3.12 | 6.25 | 2 |
| 676 | 6.25 | 12.5 | 2 | 3.12 | 12.5 | 4 | 3.12 | 3.12 | 1 |
| 677 | 6.25 | 25.0 | 4 | 3.12 | 6.25 | 2 | 3.12 | 6.25 | 2 |
| 679 | 6.25 | 12.5 | 2 | 3.12 | 6.25 | 2 | 1.56 | 6.25 | 4 |
| 687 | 6.25 | 12.5 | 2 | 6.25 | 12.5 | 2 | 0.78 | 12.5 | 16 |
| MIC50 | 6.25 | 6.25 | 1.56 | ||||||
| MBC50 | 12.5 | 12.5 | 6.25 | ||||||
| Average MIC | 5.9 ± 1.0 | 4.85 ± 1.6 | 2.16 ± 0.9 | ||||||
| Average MBC | 16.67 ± 6.2 | 15.27 ± 7.7 | 7.63 ± 3.8 | ||||||
MIC, minimal inhibitory concentration; MBC, minimal bactericidal concentration.
MIC50, concentration able to inhibit 50% of strains; MBC50, concentration able to kill 50% of strains.
MIC, MIC50, MBC and MBC50 are expressed in mg/mL.
Combinatory effects of organic extracts from leaves of .
| 9:1 | 0.9 | 0.9 | 0.4 |
| 8:2 | 0.9 | 0.4 | 0.4 |
| 7:3 | 0.7 | 0.7 | 0.3 |
| 6:4 | 0.6 | 0.3 | 0.6 |
| 5:5 | 0.6 | 0.2 | 0.5 |
| 4:6 | 0.8 | 0.8 | 0.8 |
| 3:7 | 1.2 | 0.3 | 0.3 |
| 2:8 | 0.8 | 0.8 | 0.8 |
| 1:9 | 0.8 | 1.7 | 1.7 |
| Average Σ FIC | 0.81 ± 0.18 | 0.68 ± 0.46 | 0.644 ± 0.44 |