| Literature DB >> 28651570 |
Berhan Begashaw1, Bharat Mishra2, Asegedech Tsegaw2, Zewdneh Shewamene2.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Infectious diseases are the most common causes of morbidity and mortality in developing countries. Wound and wound infections are also major health problem. Nowadays, medicinal plants play a major role in treatment of infectious diseases and wound healing and they are easily available and more affordable as compared to synthetic compounds. The aim of this study is therefore, to investigate the antibacterial and wound healing activities of 80% methanol extract of Hibiscus micranthus leaves using disc diffusion methods and rat excision model respectively.Entities:
Keywords: Antibacterial activity; Hibiscus micranthus Linn.; Wound healing activity
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28651570 PMCID: PMC5485746 DOI: 10.1186/s12906-017-1841-x
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Complement Altern Med ISSN: 1472-6882 Impact factor: 3.659
Fig. 1Images of Hibiscus micranthus Linn. (a) Plant (b) Coarse dried powder
Phytochemical profile of methanol extract of Hibiscus micranthus leaves
| Chemical constituents | Inference |
|---|---|
| Alkaloids | + |
| Flavonoids | + |
| Saponins | + |
| Tannins | + |
| Steroids | + |
| Phenols | + |
| Diterpines | + |
| Anthraquinones | + |
| Terpenoids | - |
| Glycosides | - |
| Triterpines | - |
+ = present, − = absent
Diameter of zone of inhibition (mm) against bacteria by H.micranthus leaves extract
| Bacterial strain | Conc.μg/ml |
| Between | Mean zone of inhibition(mm) ± SEM | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Extract | Cipr 5 μg | Ampi 10 μg | DMSO100μl | ||||
|
| 200 | 0.021 | Extract-amp | 18.33 ± 1.667 | 21.67 ± 1.202 | 25.33 ± 1.667 | .00 ± .000 |
| 400 | - | - | 20.00 ± 1.555 | ||||
| 800 | - | - | 22.67 ± 1.202 | ||||
|
| 200 | - | - | 20.67 ± 1.764 | 19.33 ± .333 | 21.00 ± .577 | .00 ± .000 |
| 400 | - | - | 22.67 ± 1.202 | ||||
| 800 | 0.016 0.03 | Extract-cipr | 13.00 ± 1.528 | ||||
|
| 200 | - | - | .00 ± .000 | 23.33 ± .667 | 27.00 ± .577 | .00 ± .000 |
| 400 | - | - | 14 ± .000 | ||||
| 800 | - | - | .00 ± .000 | ||||
|
| 200 | <0.001 | Extract-cipr | .00 ± .000 | 27.00 ± .577 | 6.00 ± 6.00 | .00 ± .000 |
| 400 | 0.037 | Extract-amp | 18.33 ± .333 | ||||
| 800 | <0.001 | Extract-cipr | .00 ± .000 | ||||
|
| 200 | 0.013 | Extract-amp | 13.67 ± 1.856 | 18.00 ± 1.453 | 20.00 ± .577 | .00 ± .000 |
| 400 | 0.040 | Extract-amp | 14.67 ± .667 | ||||
| 800 | - | - | 16.33 ± 1.202 | ||||
|
| 200 | - | - | .00 ± .000 | 23.67 ± 1.453 | 19.33 ± .333 | .00 ± .000 |
| 400 | - | - | .00 ± .000 | ||||
| 800 | - | - | .00 ± .000 | ||||
|
| 200 | - | - | .00 ± .000 | 30.00 ± .000 | 26.33 ± .333 | .00 ± .000 |
| 400 | - | - | .00 ± .000 | ||||
| 800 | - | - | .00 ± .000 | ||||
Conc- concentration of the extract; Cipr-ciprofloxacin; Amp -ampicillin; DMSO–Dimethyl sulphoxide, mm-millimeter, μg-microgram, μl-microlitre; ml-mililitre; SEM-standard error of the mean; ‘0’ - no zone of inhibition;(−) - no significant difference between extract and standard drugs. P-values <0.05 indicates significant difference between the extract and the standard drugs or positive controls. Values greater than 6 mm diameter of the well indicate some activity
Effect of the methanol extract of H.micranthus leaves on excision wound model (n = 6)
| Post wounding days | Wound surface area (mean ± SEM) in mm2 and percentage of wound contraction | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ointment base | Nitrofurazone ointment (0.2% | Extract ointment (5% | Extract ointment (10% | |
| 0 | 220.60 ± 2.713 (0.0) | 213.80 ± 7.971 (0.0) | 227.80 ± 5.643 (0.0) | 230.80 ± 2.871 (0.0) |
| 2 | 180.80 ± 4.769 (18.04) | 161.20 ± 7.010 (24.60) | 166.00 ± 9.508 (27.13) | 167.80 ± 12.395 (27.30) |
| 4 | 145.40 ± 7.096 (34.09) | 136.00 ± 6.782 (36.39) | 119.20 ± 10.851 (47.67) | 117.40 ± 9.765 (49.13) |
| 6 | 113.80 ± 5.643 (48.41) | 80.00 ± 8.390 (62.58) | 76.20 ± 8.777* (66.55) | 83.40 ± 10.028 (63.86) |
| 8 | 70.80 ± 11.128 (67.91) | 44.40 ± 4.261 (79.23) | 36.60 ± 5.600* (83.93) | 53.60 ± 7.467 (76.78) |
| 10 | 34.60 ± 4.707 (84.32) | 20.60 ± 2.088 (90.36) | 16.80 ± 1.497* (92.63) | 29.40 ± 5.400 (87.26) |
| 12 | 19.80 ± 1.428 (91.02) | 14.40 ± 2.400 (93.26) | 10.80 ± 1.200* (95.26) | 11.60 ± 2.400* (94.97) |
| 14 | 9.40 ± 1.166 (95.74) | 7.20 ± 3.200 (96.63) | 2.40 ± 0.400 (98.95) | 5.20 ± 1.068 (97.75) |
| 16 | 6.60 ± 0.872 (97.00) | 3.80 ± 2.835 (98.22) | 1.60 ± 1.666 (99.30) | 2.00 ± 1.095 (99.13) |
Values in parenthesis indicate percentage of wound contraction.* significant differences at p < 0.05 (statistical analysis was done by one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) followed by Tukey’s test for multiple comparisons)
MIC and MBC of H.micranthus leaves extract against test organisms
| Bacterial strain | MIC (mg/ml) | MBC (mg/ml) |
|---|---|---|
|
| 2.5 | 5 |
|
| 0.625 | 1.25 |
|
| ND | ND |
|
| 1.25 | 5 |
|
| 5 | 5 |
|
| ND | ND |
|
| ND | ND |
ND Not Determined, MIC Minimum Inhibitory Concentration, MBC Minimum Bactericidal Concentration, mg/ml milligram per milliliter