| Literature DB >> 29379355 |
Afaf Ahmed Elbendary1, Ashgan Mohamed Hessain2, Mahmoud Darderi El-Hariri1, Ahmed Adel Seida1, Ihab Mohamed Moussa3, Ayman Salem Mubarak3, Saleh A Kabli4, Hassan A Hemeg5, Jakeen Kamal El Jakee1.
Abstract
Emergence of multidrug resistant bacteria has made the search for novel bioactive compounds from natural and unexplored habitats a necessity. Actinobacteria have important bioactive substances. The present study investigated antimicrobial activity of Actinobacteria isolated from soil samples of Egypt. One hundred samples were collected from agricultural farming soil of different governorates. Twelve isolates have produced activity against the tested microorganisms (S. aureus, Bacillus cereus, E. coli, K. pneumoniae, P. aeruginosa, S. Typhi, C. albicans, A. niger and A. flavus). By VITEK 2 system version: 07.01 the 12 isolates were identified as Kocuria kristinae, Kocuria rosea, Streptomyces griseus, Streptomyces flaveolus and Actinobacteria. Using ethyl acetate extraction method the isolates culture's supernatants were tested by diffusion method against indicator microorganisms. These results indicate that Actinobacteria isolated from Egypt farms could be sources of antimicrobial bioactive substances.Entities:
Keywords: Actinobacteria; Antibacteria; Antifungal; Kocuria; Soil; Streptomyces
Year: 2017 PMID: 29379355 PMCID: PMC5775104 DOI: 10.1016/j.sjbs.2017.05.003
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Saudi J Biol Sci ISSN: 2213-7106 Impact factor: 4.219
Positive number of Actinobacteria among the examined soil samples.
| Governorates | No. of samples | No. of positive samples | |
|---|---|---|---|
| No. | % | ||
| Alexandria | 3 | – | – |
| El Gharbia | 15 | 2 | 13.3 |
| El Monofia | 55 | 8 | 14.5 |
| El Sharkia | 5 | – | – |
| El Menia | 2 | – | – |
| El Behira | 5 | – | – |
| El Dakahlia | 4 | – | – |
| Kafr El shak | 5 | 2 | 40 |
| Matrouh | 6 | – | – |
| Total | 100 | 12 | 12 |
Fig. 1Streak-plating technique to determine the antibacterial activity among the isolates. Inhibitory action of Actinobacteria isolated from soil samples against the indicator bacteria.
Fig. 2The inhibition zone of the Actinobacteria isolated from soil samples against the indicator bacteria for both Gram positive and negative.
Average inhibition zone of the Actinobacteria isolated from soil samples against the indicator bacteria.
| No | Spp. | Zone of inhibition (in mm) | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gram positive bacteria | Gram negative bacteria | ||||||
| 1 | – | 10.2 | – | 6 | – | 8 | |
| 2 | 5.4 | 8 | – | 8 | – | – | |
| 3 | – | – | – | – | – | 6.7 | |
| 4 | – | 8.2 | – | – | – | 3.5 | |
| 5 | 7.4 | 3.8 | – | – | – | 6 | |
| 6 | – | 9.2 | – | – | – | – | |
| 7 | – | 5.6 | – | – | – | – | |
| 8 | – | 6.3 | – | – | – | – | |
| 9 | – | 7.8 | – | – | – | – | |
| 10 | – | 4.2 | – | – | – | – | |
| 11 | 6.8 | 7.1 | – | – | 2.5 | – | |
| 12 | 9.1 | 8 | – | – | – | – | |
Average inhibition zone of the isolates against the indicator fungi.
| No | Spp. | Zone of inhibition (in mm) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | – | 3.7 | – | |
| 2 | 5.4 | – | – | |
| 3 | – | – | 3.5 | |
| 6 | 5 | 2.9 | – | |
| 8 | 4.2 | – | – | |
| 9 | – | – | 2 | |
| 12 | 3 | – | – | |