| Literature DB >> 28595608 |
Rabia Naz1, Hafsa Ayub2, Sajid Nawaz3, Zia Ul Islam4, Tayyaba Yasmin2, Asghari Bano4, Abdul Wakeel5, Saqib Zia5, Thomas H Roberts6.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The plant species Aristolochia indica (AI), Melilotus indicus (MI), Tribulus terrestris (TT) and Cuscuta pedicellata (CP) are widely used in folk medicine in the villages around Chowk Azam, South Punjab, Pakistan. The aim of this study was to evaluate the antioxidant activity, phytochemical composition, and the antibacterial, antifungal, cytotoxic and anti-inflammatory potential of the four medicinal plants listed above. For CP stem, this study represents (to the best of our knowledge) the first time phytochemicals have been identified and the antioxidant and anti-inflammatory potential determined.Entities:
Keywords: Anti-inflammatory; Anti-proteinase; Antimicrobials; Antioxidants; Chowk Azam; Cytotoxicity; Phytochemicals; Plant extracts; TLC
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28595608 PMCID: PMC5465528 DOI: 10.1186/s12906-017-1815-z
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Complement Altern Med ISSN: 1472-6882 Impact factor: 3.659
Profile of ethnomedicinal use of selected medicinal plants, botanical/English/local name used, route of administration and plant extract yield obtained in the present study
| Sample no. | Botanical name, family | English name/Local name | Parts used | Ethnomedicinal use | Route of administration | Yield (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 |
| Birthwort,wort killer/ Hukka-bel | Leaves | To cure poisonous bite, inflammations, reduce itching, leprocy, gastric stimulant, diarrhoea, intermittent fever, cough | Topical, Oral | 31 |
| 2 |
| Clover dodder/ Loot booti (Saraiki) | Stem | stomachache, to cure wounds, cuts, used as purgative, anti-inflammatory and to treat high blood pressure | Oral, Topical | 17 |
| 3 |
| Yellow melilot (English) Sweet clover/ Sinjee | Leaves | To cure inflammations and skin irritation, astringent, anticoagulant, laxative | Oral, Topical | 29 |
| 4 |
| Puncture clover/ Bhakra, Gokhru | Leaves | anti-inflammatory, lithotriptic, diuretic, general tonic | 37 | |
| 5 |
| Fruit | anti-inflammatory, effective in most of Gynecological and genitourinary disorders, Gonorrhoea and to treat abdominal distension | Topical, Oral | 33 |
Qualitative analyses of phytochemicals of selected plants
| Phytochemicals |
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tannins | + | + | + | − | − |
| Flavonoids | +++ | +++ | +++ | ++ | + |
| Terpenoids | + | + | + | + | + |
| Phlobatannins | − | − | + | + | − |
| Anthraquinone | + | ++ | + | + | +++ |
| Phenolics | ++ | + | +++ | + | + |
+++ Strongly positive
++ Moderately positive
+ Weakly positive
- Negative
Thin layer chromatography (TLC) of different parts of methanolic extracts of selected plants
| Standards | R |
| Caffeic acid | 0.85 |
| Quercitin | 0.38 |
| Rutin | 0.97 |
|
| 0.74 |
| Salicylic acid | 0.6 |
| Plant extracts | R |
|
| 0.23, 0.26, 0.31, 0.45, 0.56, 0.83 |
|
| 0.16, 0.2, 0.25, 0.35, 0.45, 0.61, |
| 0.75, 0.83, 0.85 | |
|
| 0.20, 0.25, 0.34, 0.37, 0.56, 0.83 |
|
| 0.16, 0.25, 0.30, 0.45, 0.75, 0.83 |
|
| 0.16, 0.20, 0.27, 0.35, 0.48, 0.56, |
| 0.75, 0.83, 0.85 |
Total phenolics, flavonoid and flavonol content in the dried plant extracts
| Plant material | Total phenolic content (mg GAE/g) | Total flavonoid content (mg QE/g) | Total flavonol content (mg QE/g) |
|---|---|---|---|
|
| 335d ± 5 | 80d ± 2 | 72c ± 3 |
|
| 497a ± 4 | 385a ± 8 | 139a ± 4 |
|
| 224e ± 4 | 116c ± 5 | 109b ± 4 |
|
| 389c ± 4 | 370b ± 6 | 55d ± 5 |
|
| 426b ± 5 | 371b ± 8 | 138a ± 6 |
Values are means ± SD (n = 3). Values in the same column followed by a different letter (a-d) are significantly different (P < 0.05)
Fig. 1DPPH and H2O2 scavenging activities of selected plant extracts. Data represent the mean of three replicates
Fig. 2Linear correlation between total phenolic content and IC50 values for DPPH and hydrogen peroxide scavenging activities of selected plant extracts, using regression model in R software (3.2.2)
Antibacterial activity determined as zone of inhibition (mm), minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) and minimum bactericidal concentration (MBC) of selected plant extracts against selected bacterial strains
| Zone of inhibition (mm) | ||||||||
| Plant extracts |
|
|
|
| ||||
|
| 14 ± 1 | 13 ± 1.4 | 16 ± 1.2 | 15 ± 1.3 | ||||
|
| 18 ± 2 | 20 ± 1.5 | 23 ± 0.96 | 22 ± 1.2 | ||||
|
| 14 ± 0.9 | 13 ± 1.7 | 12 ± 1.1 | 18 ± 1.3 | ||||
|
| 15 ± 1.2 | 16 ± 1.2 | 19 ± 1.3 | 17 ± 1.1 | ||||
|
| 17 ± 0.9 | 18 ± 0.85 | 22 ± 1.1 | 18 ± 0.86 | ||||
| Streptomycin | 27 ± 1.3 | 27 ± 0.98 | 25 ± 1.2 | 29 ± 1.01 | ||||
|
|
|
|
| |||||
| MIC (μg/mL) | MBC (μg/mL) | MIC (μg/mL) | MBC (μg/mL) | MIC (μg/mL) | MBC (μg/mL) | MIC (μg/mL) | MBC (μg/mL) | |
|
| 150 ± 4.5 | 640 ± 10 | 90 ± 1.5 | 355 ± 2.2 | 55 ± 1.21 | 220 ± 3.5 | 200 ± 4.3 | 750 ± 10 |
|
| 35 ± 1.9 | 150 ± 6.3 | 15 ± 1.1 | 85 ± 1.1 | 5 ± 0.23 | 40 ± 1.2 | 10 ± 1 | 55 ± 1 |
|
| 210 ± 7.6 | 820 ± 11 | 95 ± 8.5 | 390 ± 2.3 | 60 ± 0.9 | 200 ± 3 | 70 ± 1.4 | 250 ± 2.1 |
|
| 50 ± 2.1 | 250 ± 7.8 | 30 ± 1.1 | 125 ± 1.4 | 10 ± 0.57 | 60 ± 3.5 | 15 ± 1 | 80 ± 1.2 |
|
| 45 ± 1.9 | 200 ± 6.5 | 25 ± 1 | 100 ± 1.1 | 8 ± 0.42 | 50 ± 2.9 | 12 ± 1 | 70 ± 1.1 |
| Streptomycin | 20 ± 1.2 | 90 ± 1.8 | 3 ± 0.4 | 10 ± 0.5 | 1 ± 0.11 | 3 ± 0.3 | 5 ± 0.9 | 15 ± 1.4 |
Fig. 3Antifungal potential of methanolic extracts against A: Aspergillus flavus, B: Aspergillus fumigatus, C: Rhizopus oryzae, observed after 7 d of incubation. Data represent the mean of three replicates
Fig. 4Linear correlation between total phenolic content and (a): antibacterial activity and (b): antifungal activity of selected plant extracts
Percentage mortality of brine shrimps at three different concentrations of plant extracts and respective LD50 values
| Plant extracts | 10 mg/L | 100 mg/L | 1000 mg/L | LD50 mg/L |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| 1.39 | 2.48 | 2.89 | 66 |
|
| 1.23 | 1.55 | 2.13 | 109 |
|
| 1.09 | 1.37 | 2.09 | 98 |
|
| 1.55 | 2.53 | 3.56 | 49 |
|
| 2.65 | 3.12 | 5.20 | 38 |
Albumin denaturation, membrane protection/stabilization and proteinase inhibition potential of methanol extract of the selected plant species
| Test sample | Percent inhibition | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Conc. (μg/mL) | Albumin denaturation | Membrane protection | Proteinase inhibition | |
| 25 | 29.7 ± 1.4 | 26.1 ± 0.9 | 26 ± 0.8 | |
|
| 50 | 37.1 ± 1.5 | 29.4 ± 1.1 | 28.8 ± 1.1 |
| 100 | 46.8 ± 1.2 | 35.7 ± 1.0 | 35.1 ± 1.1 | |
| 200 | 61.4 ± 1.0 | 44.6 ± 1.2 | 43.9 ± 1.5 | |
| IC50 | 129 ± 4.6 | 247 ± 5.4 | 256 ± 5.4 | |
| Aspirin | 84.5 ± 1.1 | 93.7 ± 1.0 | 97.1 ± 1.1 | |
| 25 | 43.1 ± 0.8 | 31.9 ± 0.9 | 30 ± 1.0 | |
|
| 50 | 59.5 ± 0.9 | 37 ± 1.2 | 34.8 ± 1.3 |
| 100 | 65.6 ± 1.1 | 47.6 ± 1.3 | 42.9 ± 1.3 | |
| 200 | 73.3 ± 1.3 | 54.5 ± 1.3 | 52.1 ± 1.5 | |
| IC50 | 28 ± 1.1 | 151 ± 5.0 | 175 ± 5.2 | |
| Aspirin | 91.8 ± 1.1 | 110.9 ± 1.3 | 117.1 ± 1.3 | |
| 25 | 17.7 ± 1.5 | 16.7 ± 1.0 | 16 ± 1.1 | |
|
| 50 | 25.3 ± 1 | 23.8 ± 1.2 | 21.9 ± 1.2 |
| 100 | 33.6 ± 1.5 | 24.9 ± 1.4 | 23.9 ± 1.5 | |
| 200 | 48.7 ± 1.5 | 29.8 ± 1.4 | 27.6 ± 1.5 | |
| IC50 | 203 ± 5.6 | 510 ± 6.6 | 577 ± 7.2 | |
| Aspirin | 86.2 ± 0.9 | 95 ± 1.2 | 105.2 ± 1.3 | |
| 25 | 39.1 ± 1 | 30.1 ± 1.0 | 28.5 ± 1.1 | |
|
| 50 | 57.6 ± 1.1 | 45 ± 1.1 | 43.6 ± 1.2 |
| 100 | 63.4 ± 1.3 | 59.7 ± 1.3 | 59 ± 1.3 | |
| 200 | 71.8 ± 1.5 | 68.8 ± 1.5 | 67.9 ± 1.5 | |
| IC50 | 43 ± 1.3 | 89 ± 2.4 | 95 ± 2.7 | |
| Aspirin | 89.2 ± 1.1 | 95.4 ± 1.2 | 99.9 ± 1.3 | |
| 25 | 30.7 ± 1.0 | 28.3 ± 0. 8 | 27.8 ± 0.9 | |
|
| 50 | 38.3 ± 1.1 | 30.1 ± 1.0 | 29.4 ± 1.0 |
| 100 | 48.3 ± 1.1 | 37.3 ± 1.3 | 36.4 ± 1.3 | |
| 200 | 63.6 ± 1.3 | 51.1 ± 1.5 | 49 ± 1.6 | |
| IC50 | 120 ± 3.9 | 193 ± 4.8 | 209 ± 5.6 | |
| Aspirin | 84.2 ± 1.2 | 96.8 ± 1.3 | 99.7 ± 1.4 |
Values are means ± SD (n = 3)
Fig. 5Linear correlation of the total phenolic content versus the anti-inflammatory and anti-proteinase activity of selected plant extracts