| Literature DB >> 28969677 |
Marwa Jardak1, Jihene Elloumi-Mseddi1, Sami Aifa1, Sami Mnif2.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Rosmarinus officinalis L. from Tunisia, popularly known as rosemary, is of a considerable importance for its medicinal uses and aromatic value. The aim of this study was to examine the chemical composition of Rosmarinus officinalis essential oil (ROEO) and to evaluate its antibiofilm activity on biofilm-forming bacterium and its anticancer activity on cancer cell lines.Entities:
Keywords: Anti-biofilm; Anti-cancer; Chemical composition; Essential oil; Fluorescent microscopy; Staphylococcus
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28969677 PMCID: PMC5625792 DOI: 10.1186/s12944-017-0580-9
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Lipids Health Dis ISSN: 1476-511X Impact factor: 3.876
Chemical composition of ROEO
| Peak number | Compounda | RTb | RIc | Area percentage (%)* |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | γ-Terpinene | 6.74 | 1038 | 7.56 |
| 2 | α-Terpinolene | 7.07 | 1047 | 2.46 |
| 3 | Camphene | 7.28 | 1052 | 12.78 |
| 4 | β-pinene | 7.98 | 1070 | 12.30 |
| 5 | 1,8-cineole | 10.13 | 1134 | 23.56 |
| 6 | Sabinene | 10.68 | 1153 | 0.49 |
| 7 | Allyltoluene | 11.15 | 1170 | 0.30 |
| 8 | α-Pinene | 11.41 | 1179 | 1.20 |
| 9 | Linalool-L | 12.02 | 1201 | 3.21 |
| 10 | Camphor | 12.83 | 1240 | 12.55 |
| 11 | Pinocarvone | 13.38 | 1267 | 0.84 |
| 12 | Borneol | 13.55 | 1275 | 2.53 |
| 13 | Terpinene-4-ol | 13.86 | 1290 | 1.23 |
| 14 | Cryptone | 14.05 | 1299 | 0.30 |
| 15 | Myrtenol | 14.43 | 1310 | 1.14 |
| 16 | Verbenone | 14.70 | 1317 | 0.81 |
| 17 | Carveol | 14.89 | 1323 | 0.19 |
| 18 | Carvone | 15.47 | 1339 | 0.48 |
| 19 | Bornylacetate | 16.63 | 1371 | 3.28 |
| 20 | α-Cubebene | 18.13 | 1415 | 0.22 |
| 21 | α-Ylangene | 18.70 | 1434 | 0.27 |
| 22 | α-Copaene | 18.85 | 1439 | 0.87 |
| 23 | Sobrerol | 19.23 | 1452 | 0.27 |
| 24 | Eugenolmethylether | 19.61 | 1464 | 016 |
| 25 | Caryophyllene | 20.05 | 1479 | 2.80 |
| 26 | Germacrene-D | 20.18 | 1483 | 0.19 |
| 27 | Aromadendrene | 20.43 | 1492 | 0.27 |
| 28 | α-Caryophyllene | 20.80 | 1505 | 0.67 |
| 29 | α-Amorphene | 21.35 | 1525 | 0.74 |
| 30 | β-Selinene | 21.57 | 1534 | 0.08 |
| 31 | γ-Cadinene | 21.76 | 1541 | 0.15 |
| 32 | α-Muurolene | 21.89 | 1546 | 0.17 |
| 33 | β-Bisabolene | 22.09 | 1553 | 0.14 |
| 34 | γ-Cadinene | 22.25 | 1559 | 0.34 |
| 35 | Calamenene | 22.44 | 1566 | 0.17 |
| 36 | Caryophylleneoxide | 24.12 | 1630 | 5.02 |
| 99.9 |
aCompounds listed in order of their elution from a DB-5MS column
bRetention Time (minutes)
cRetention Index calculated against C8-C26 n-alkanes for DB-5MS column
*only the two first decimal places are presented
Compound groups of ROEO
| Compounds | % |
|---|---|
| Identified compounds | 99.9 |
| Monoterpene hydrocarbons | 62.28 |
| Oxygenated monoterpenes | 21.72 |
| Sesquiterpene hydrocarbons | 12.18 |
| Others | 3.72 |
Minimum Inhibitory Concentration (MIC) and Minimum Bactericidal Concentration (MBC) of ROEO against Staphylococcus strains
| Antimicrobial activity | ||
|---|---|---|
| Strains | MIC (μl ml−1) | MBC (μl ml−1) |
|
| [1.25–2.5] | 5 |
|
| [0.312–0.625] | 2.5 |
Fig. 1Effects of Rosemary essential oil on the inhibition of biofilm formation of Staphylococcus epidermidis (prevention) expressed as biofilm inhibition (%) (a) and on the reduction of established biofilm of Staphylococcus epidermidis expressed as biofilm eradication (%) (b). The results are presented as means ± SD of three independent experiments. .* p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01 or ***p < 0.001 versus control values
Fig. 2Fluorescence microscopy with biofilm coverslips. Biofilms were stained with acridine orange. Bar equals 20 μm a S61 biofilm, control coverslip; b S61 biofilm treated with 50 μl/ml of ROEO. c Viability assessment within Staphylococcus epidermidis biofilm challenged with various ROEO concentrations using resazurin assay. The results are presented as means ± SD of three independent experiments. ** p < 0.01 or ***p < 0.001 versus control values
Fig. 3Effects of Rosemary essential oil on cancer cell lines. a Hela cells proliferation. b MCF-7 cells proliferation. The results are presented as means ± SD of three independent experiments. .* p < 0.05 or ***p < 0.001 versus control values
Fig. 4Analysis of cell migration by inducing artificial wound in Hela cells. a, a’: pictures of the wound in untreated and treated cells respectively at the beginning of the experience; b, b′: pictures of the wound in untreated and treated cells respectively after 24 h of incubation, c, c′: pictures of the wound in untreated and treated cells respectively after 48 h of incubation