| Literature DB >> 29361962 |
Iram Fatima1, Sobia Kanwal2, Tariq Mahmood3.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Oxidative stress as well as bacterial and fungal infections are common source of diseases while plants are source of medication for curative or protective purposes. Hence, aim of study was to compare the pharmacological potential of seven grass species in two different solvents i.e. ethanol and acetone.Entities:
Keywords: Antibacterial activity; Antifungal activity; Antioxidant activity; Brine shrimps’ Cytotoxicity; Fodder grasses; Phytochemical analysis; p1391Z plasmid DNA
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2018 PMID: 29361962 PMCID: PMC5781344 DOI: 10.1186/s12906-018-2092-1
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Complement Altern Med ISSN: 1472-6882 Impact factor: 3.659
Qualitative analysis of phytochemicals of selected plants
| Phytochemi-cals | DiAEE | DiAAE | ElIEE | ElIAE | PoAEE | PoAAE | DaAEE | DaAAE | SaSEE | SaSAE | VeZEE | VeZAE | ImCEE | ImCAE |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Alkaloids | ++ | + | +++ | ++ | + | – | +++ | +++ | – | – | +++ | + | +++ | + |
| Flavonoids | +++ | ++ | +++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | +++ | +++ | +++ | +++ | +++ | +++ | +++ | ++ |
| Glycosides | +++ | – | +++ | – | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | +++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ |
| Phenols | ++ | + | +++ | ++ | ++ | + | +++ | +++ | +++ | +++ | +++ | ++ | +++ | + |
| Steroids | ++ | – | + | – | ++ | + | + | ++ | +++ | ++ | +++ | ++ | ++ | ++ |
| Terpenoids | + | + | + | + | + | + | ++ | + | ++ | + | ++ | + | ++ | + |
| Saponins | +++ | – | +++ | – | +++ | – | +++ | + | ++ | + | +++ | ++ | +++ | + |
| Tannins | + | + | + | ++ | – | – | +++ | +++ | ++ | + | + | + | +++ | ++ |
| Anthocyanin | +++ | +++ | +++ | +++ | +++ | + | +++ | +++ | + | – | ++ | + | ++ | + |
| Coumarin | ++ | + | +++ | ++ | +++ | + | +++ | + | +++ | – | +++ | ++ | +++ | ++ |
+++ Strongly present; ++Moderately present; + Weakly present; − Absent
Fig. 1TPC and TFC in selected plant extracts. Data represents the mean of three replicates and each letter (a-c) indicates significance at P < 0.05
Evaluation of IC50 values of free radical scavenging activities
| Plant material | DPPH radical scavenging activity | ABTS radical scavenging activity | SOR scavenging activity | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ethanol | Acetone | Ethanol | Acetone | Ethanol | Acetone | |
|
| 32.803 ± 9.66D | 390.4 ± 5.40B | 3.897 ± 1.21D | 31.26 ± 8.73B | 64.526 ± 9.41B | 70.403 ± 3.98D |
|
| 92.626 ± 8.13B | 294.766 ± 2.70C | 11.365 ± 3.70B | 26.82 ± 5.58BCD | 70.606 ± 9.28B | 44.013 ± 5.45F |
|
| 107.506 ± 9.60A | 102.016 ± 8.77E | 8.334 ± 0.03BC | 50.793 ± 9.74A | 68.41 ± 8.97B | 237.8 ± 8.88A |
|
| 85.466 ± 5.97B | 227.133 ± 4.79D | 22.716 ± 3.14A | 17.093 ± 2.43D | 70.296 ± 9.43B | 49.27 ± 5.60EF |
|
| 53.21 ± 5.22C | 384.2 ± 9.65B | 3.696 ± 3.30D | 19.963 ± 4.13CD | 71.57 ± 8.86B | 58.063 ± 6.90E |
|
| 45.53 ± 7.75CD | 78.48 ± 7.79F | 10.988 ± 2.62B | 34.206 ± 7.44B | 105.833 ± 5.15A | 98.706 ± 8.87B |
|
| 35.686 ± 7.26D | 408.9 ± 8.16A | 4.267 ± 2.45CD | 28.31 ± 6.85BC | 70.96 ± 8.04B | 86.606 ± 7.96C |
| Ascorbic acid | 16.913 ± 2.57E | 16.913 ± 2.57G | 2.804 ± 0.29D | 2.804 ± 0.29E | 32.25 ± 4.67C | 32.25 ± 4.67G |
Each value in the table is represented as mean ± SD (n = 3). Values in the same column followed by a different letter (a-g) are significantly different (p < 0.05). (DPPH = 2,2-diphenyl-1picrylhydrazyl; ABTS = 2, 2′-azino-bis (3- ethylbenzthiazoline-6-sulphonic acid); SOR Superoxide radical)
Fig. 2TRP, CUPRAC and TAC of the selected plant extracts. Data represents the mean of three replicates and each letter (a-f) indicates significance at P < 0.05 (Total reducing power and total antioxidant capacity expressed as ascorbic acid equivalent (mg AE/g extract); Cupric ions reducing assay expressed as gallic acid equivalent (mg GA/g extract))
Fig. 3Antioxidant activity index (AAI) of ethanol and acetone extracts of selected plant species
Fig. 4Effects of the different ethanol plant extracts against oxidative damage to DNA (p1391Z). (Lane 1: Control genomic DNA; Lane 2: Fenton’s reagent + DNA; Lane 3: Fenton’s reagent + DNA + Quercetin; Lane 4: Fenton’s reagent + DNA + 2 μl plant extract; Lane 5: Fenton’s reagent + DNA + 4 μl plant extract; Lane 6: Fenton’s reagent + DNA + 6 μl plant extract)
Fig. 5Band intensity graph of DNA protecting activity. (Lane 1: Control genomic DNA; Lane 2: Fenton’s reagent + DNA; Lane 3: Fenton’s reagent + DNA + Quercetin; Lane 4: Fenton’s reagent + DNA + 2 μl plant extract; Lane 5: Fenton’s reagent + DNA + 4 μl plant extract; Lane 6: Fenton’s reagent + DNA + 6 μl plant extract)
Antimicrobial activity determined as zone of inhibition (mm ± SD) and minimum inhibitory concentration (μg/ml) of selected plant extracts against selected microbial strains
| Plant extracts | DiAEE | DiAAE | ElIEE | ElIAE | PoAEE | PoAAE | DaAEE | DaAAE | SaSEE | SaSAE | VeZEE | VeZAE | ImCEE | ImCAE | Control | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| ZOI | NI | NI | 7 ± 0.5 | NI | NI | NI | 7 ± 0.5 | 5 ± 4.1 | NI | 4 ± 3.4 | 4 ± 3.4 | NI | 7 ± 0.5 | 5 ± 4.1 | 28 ± 2.0 |
| MIC | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | |
|
| ZOI | 8 ± 0.5 | NI | 8 ± 0.5 | NI | NI | 8 ± 0.5 | 8 ± 1.1 | NI | NI | NI | NI | NI | NI | NI | 33 ± 1.1 |
| MIC | 75 | – | 75 | – | – | 75 | 75 | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | |
|
| ZOI | 7 ± 0.5 | 8 ± 1.0 | 8 ± 1.1 | 8 ± 0.5 | NI | NI | 7 ± 1.1 | 8 ± 1.0 | NI | 5 ± 4.0 | 8 ± 1.5 | 5 ± 4.3 | 8 ± 2.3 | 8 ± 0.5 | 31 ± 1.5 |
| MIC | – | 75 | 75 | 75 | – | – | – | 75 | – | – | 75 | – | 75 | 75 | – | |
|
| ZOI | 8 ± 0.5 | NI | 9 ± 2.8 | 4 ± 3.4 | 8 ± 0.5 | 8 ± 2.6 | 8 ± 1.5 | 8 ± 1.1 | 6 ± 0.5 | 5 ± 5.0 | 8 ± 2.3 | 8 ± 0.5 | 8 ± 1.1 | 7 ± 1.1 | 28 ± 4.0 |
| MIC | 75 | – | 50 | – | 75 | 75 | 75 | 75 | – | – | 75 | 75 | 75 | – | – | |
|
| ZOI | 4 ± 3.7 | 5 ± 4.0 | 7 ± 1.1 | 4 ± 3.7 | NI | NI | 4 ± 3.78 | 7 ± 1.0 | NI | NI | NI | NI | NI | 6 ± 0.5 | 27 ± 2.3 |
| MIC | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | |
|
| ZOI | 7 ± 0.5 | 7 ± 1.0 | 7 ± 1.0 | 8 ± 2.0 | NI | 7 ± 1.0 | 7 ± 1.5 | 7 ± 1.0 | 7 ± 1.0 | 7 ± 1.5 | 7 ± 1.5 | 7 ± 1.0 | 7 ± 1.0 | 7 ± 1.0 | 30 ± 2.6 |
| MIC | – | – | – | 75 | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | |
|
| ZOI | NI | NI | NI | NI | NI | NI | NI | NI | NI | NI | NI | NI | NI | NI | 32 ± 1.8 |
| MIC | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | |
|
| ZOI | 8 ± 1.1 | 4 ± 3.7 | 8 ± 1.0 | 7 ± 1.1 | 8 ± 1.5 | NI | 10 ± 2.0 | 7 ± 1.0 | 9 ± 2.5 | 5 ± 4.1 | 4 ± 3.7 | 7 ± 1.5 | 9 ± 3.0 | 9 ± 1.5 | 31 ± 1.0 |
| MIC | 75 | – | – | – | – | – | 50 | – | 75 | – | – | – | 75 | 75 | – | |
|
| ZOI | 8 ± 1.1 | 7 ± 1.1 | 7 ± 0.5 | 4 ± 3.4 | 4 ± 3.4 | 7 ± 1.1 | 8 ± 1.52 | 8 ± 2.0 | 9 ± 2.5 | 5 ± 4.1 | 8 ± 1.5 | 7 ± 1.5 | 10 ± 1.7 | 5 ± 4.0 | 28 ± 2.0 |
| MIC | 75 | – | – | – | – | – | 75 | 75 | 75 | – | 75 | – | 50 | – | – | |
|
| ZOI | NI | NI | NI | NI | NI | NI | NI | NI | NI | NI | NI | NI | NI | NI | 33 ± 1.8 |
| MIC | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | |
|
| ZOI | 11 ± 3.0 | 7 ± 1.0 | NI | NI | NI | NI | 12 ± 5.1 | 11 ± 3.7 | 9 ± 1.7 | 9 ± 1.5 | 11 ± 3.5 | 11 ± 4.9 | 12 ± 4.0 | 11 ± 4.9 | 30 ± 2.0 |
| MIC | – | – | – | – | – | – | 50 | 50 | 75 | 75 | 50 | 50 | 50 | 50 | – |
ZOI Zone of inhibition (mm ± SD), MIC Minimum inhibitory concentration (μg/ml), NI No inhibition; Positive control: Oxytetracycline (Bacterial strains) and Chloramphenicol (Fungal strains)
Fig. 6Activity Index of antibacterial activity of selected ethanol and acetone plant extracts
Fig. 7Activity Index of antifungal activity of selected ethanol and acetone plant extracts
Percentage mortality of brine shrimps in probits at five different concentrations and respective LC50 values
| Plant extracts | Mortality (%) in Probits at different doses | Slope | Intercept | R square | LC50 | 95% CI | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 6 | 12 | 25 | 50 | 100 | ||||||
| DiAEE | 4.75 | 5.00 | 5.41 | 5.52 | 5.95 | 0.958 | 3.994 | 0.943 | 11.223 | 4.905–25.680 |
| DiAAE | 4.75 | 4.82 | 5.25 | 5.33 | 6.28 | 1.128 | 3.707 | 0.905 | 14.027 | 7.013–28.058 |
| ElIEE | 4.48 | 4.75 | 5.08 | 5.52 | 6.48 | 1.518 | 3.137 | 0.951 | 16.857 | 9.783–29.043 |
| ElIAE | 4.90 | 5.15 | 5.25 | 5.71 | 6.75 | 1.319 | 3.691 | 0.910 | 9.828 | 5.256–18.378 |
| PoAEE | 4.48 | 4.56 | 5.08 | 5.25 | 6.28 | 1.358 | 3.231 | 0.925 | 20.083 | 11.206–35.992 |
| PoAAE | 4.48 | 4.75 | 5.25 | 5.33 | 6.28 | 1.341 | 3.343 | 0.940 | 17.220 | 9.444–31.398 |
| DaAEE | 4.26 | 4.90 | 5.08 | 5.25 | 6.28 | 1.398 | 3.197 | 0.931 | 19.455 | 10.940–34.597 |
| DaAAE | 4.64 | 4.90 | 5.25 | 5.41 | 6.75 | 1.439 | 3.354 | 0.900 | 13.936 | 7.977–24.346 |
| SaSEE | 4.75 | 5.15 | 5.25 | 5.33 | 6.28 | 1.020 | 3.918 | 0.886 | 11.488 | 5.361–24.618 |
| SaSAE | 3.87 | 4.75 | 5.00 | 5.52 | – | 1.673 | 2.719 | 0.969 | 23.090 | 13.974–38.155 |
| VeZEE | 4.64 | 4.90 | 5.15 | 5.61 | 6.75 | 1.532 | 3.256 | 0.929 | 13.749 | 8.002–23.624 |
| VeZAE | 4.90 | 5.00 | 5.52 | 5.84 | – | 1.089 | 3.967 | 0.956 | 8.877 | 4.153–18.972 |
| ImCEE | 4.75 | 5.15 | 5.25 | 5.61 | 6.48 | 1.245 | 3.704 | 0.933 | 11.004 | 5.698–21.251 |
| ImCAE | 5.00 | 5.25 | 5.41 | 5.84 | 6.75 | 1.286 | 3.844 | 0.929 | 7.932 | 4.095–15.366 |
LC50 Lethal concentration fifty, CI Confidence interval