| Literature DB >> 29379373 |
Rahila Amber1, Muhammad Adnan2, Akash Tariq2, Shahid Niaz Khan1, Sakina Mussarat2, Abeer Hashem3,4, Asma A Al-Huqail3, Al-Bandari Fahad Al-Arjani3, Elsayed Fathi Abd Allah5.
Abstract
The present study aimed to investigate the efficacy of traditionally used anti-mastitis plants (Allium sativum, Bunium persicum, Oryza sativa and Triticum aestivum) in northwest Pakistan against bacterial pathogens. Selected plants were phytochemically screened for Alkaloids, Flavonoids, and Saponins and checked for in vitro antibacterial activity at concentration of 50 mg/ml against S. aureus, E. coli and K. pneumoniae by agar well diffusion method. Minimum inhibitory concentration and minimum bactericidal concentration was determined against multidrug resistant bacteria using tube dilution method. All extracts were found to significantly inhibit (p < 0.01, p < 0.05) the activity against bacterial strains examined. Among phytochemicals, alkaloids of all tested antimastitis plants produced significantly higher inhibition zones against bacteria. The minimum inhibitory concentration and minimum bactericidal concentration of phytochemicals and crude methanolic extracts against tested bacterial strains ranged between 12.5-50 mg/ml and 25-50 mg/ml, respectively. Medicinal plants traditionally used against mastitis are therapeutically active against bacterial pathogens. A. sativum and B. persicum were found to be potential candidate species for the development of novel veterinary drugs with low cost and fewer side effects.Entities:
Keywords: ATCC, American Type Culture Collection; Dairy animals; Ethnomedicines; In vitro activities; Infectious disease; MBC, Minimum Bactericidal Concentration; MDR, Multidrug resistant; MIC, Minimum Inhibitory Concentration; Phytochemicals
Year: 2017 PMID: 29379373 PMCID: PMC5775084 DOI: 10.1016/j.sjbs.2017.02.008
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Saudi J Biol Sci ISSN: 2213-7106 Impact factor: 4.219
Medicinal plants used to treat Mastitis in D.I. Khan.
| Plant/Family/Local name/Voucher No | Habit | Life form | Part used | Type of animal treated | Recipe | Dosage (g) | Mode of administration | Recovery days |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Herb | Annual | Bulb | Cows, buffaloes, sheep, goats | Plant parts are grinded and mixed with butter | 100 | Oral | 7 | |
| Herb | Annual | Seeds | Cows, buffaloes | Seeds are grinded in powder form and mixed with wheat flour | 80 | Oral | 7 | |
| Herb | Annual | Seeds | Cows, buffaloes | Decoction of seeds is given | 1–2 glass | Oral | 9 | |
| Herb | Annual | Seeds/Fruit | Cows, buffaloes | Seeds/Fruits are grinded to powder form and mix with fodder | 500 g | Oral | 8 |
Fig. 1Quantitative phytochemical evaluation of tested anti-mastitis plants. Concentration (%) represents the total amount of alkaloids, flavonoids and saponin in selected anti-mastitis plants.
Bacterial zone of inhibition (mm) by phytochemicals of selected anti-mastitis plants at 50 mg/ml.
| Plant name | Phytoconstituents | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Alkaloids | 21 ± 1 | 18 ± 1 | 22 ± 2 | 19 ± 2 | 18.3 ± 1.5 | 17.7 ± 1.5 | |
| Flavonoids | 16 ± 2.6 | 13 ± 1 | 13 ± 1 | 14 ± 1 | 11.7 ± 1.5 | 10.7 ± 2.1 | |
| Saponin | 14.3 ± 1.5 | 13.3 ± 2.3 | 14 ± 1 | 13.3 ± 2.1 | 11.7 ± 0.6 | 12 ± 1 | |
| Crude | 21.3 ± 1.5 | 19 ± 1 | 16.3 ± 1.5 | 16.3 ± 0.6 | 16.3 ± 1.5 | 17 ± 2 | |
| P value | P < 0.01 | P < 0.01 | P < 0.01 | P < 0.05 | P < 0.01 | P < 0.01 | |
| Alkaloids | 19 ± 1 | 17 ± 1 | 21.3 ± 1.5 | 18.3 ± 2.5 | 18 ± 2 | 17.3 ± 1.5 | |
| Flavonoids | 15.7 ± 2.1 | 16.7 ± 1.2 | 14.3 ± 1.5 | 12.3 ± 1.5 | 15 ± 1 | 10.3 ± 1.5 | |
| Saponin | 15.3 ± 0.6 | 19 ± 1 | 13.7 ± 1.5 | 13.7 ± 0.6 | 16.3 ± 1.5 | 12 ± 1 | |
| Crude | 20 ± 2 | 20.3 ± 2.1 | 18.7 ± 1.5 | 19.3 ± 1.5 | 19.3 ± 1.2 | 17 ± 1 | |
| P value | P < 0.05 | P < 0.05 | P < 0.01 | P < 0.01 | P < 0.05 | P < 0.01 | |
| Alkaloids | 14.3 ± 1.5 | 9.3 ± 0.6 | 12.3 ± 1.5 | 10 ± 1 | 11.7 ± 1.5 | 10.3 ± 1.5 | |
| Flavonoids | 12.3 ± 1.5 | 8.7 ± 2.1 | 11.3 ± 1.5 | 6.8 ± 0.8 | 10 ± 1 | 8.7 ± 0.6 | |
| Saponin | 11 ± 1 | 12 ± 1 | 10 ± 1 | 7.8 ± 1.3 | 10 ± 2 | 9.7 ± 1.2 | |
| Crude | 12.3 ± 1.5 | 13 ± 1 | 11 ± 1 | 10.3 ± 1 | 13 ± 2 | 13 ± 1 | |
| P value | Ns | P < 0.01 | Ns | P < 0.05 | Ns | P < 0.01 | |
| Alkaloids | 13.3 ± 1.5 | 12 ± 1 | 14 ± 2 | 11.7 ± 1.2 | 12.3 ± 2.1 | 9.3 ± 1.5 | |
| Flavonoids | 11 ± 1 | 11.3 ± 1.5 | 11.3 ± 1.5 | 13 ± 1 | 11 ± 1 | 6.8 ± 0.8 | |
| Saponin | 12 ± 1 | 14.7 ± 0.6 | 10.3 ± 1.5 | 14 ± 2 | 12 ± 2 | 7.8 ± 1.3 | |
| Crude | 12.3 ± 1.5 | 9.7 ± 2.1 | 11.3 ± 1.5 | 13.7 ± 2.1 | 10.7 ± 1.5 | 10.3 ± 1.5 | |
| P value | Ns | P < 0.05 | Ns | Ns | Ns | P < 0.05 | |
| Antibiotic | 25 | 21 | 23 | 20 | 20 | 18 | |
| DMSO | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
P value corresponds to ANOVA.
Fig. 3A–C. Antimicrobial activities of selected medicinal plants.
Minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) and minimum bactericidal concentration (MBC) of plant’s extracts against MDR isolates
| Plant name | Bacteria | Plant extracts | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Alkaloids (mg/ml) | Flavonoids (mg/ml) | Saponin (mg/ml) | Crude (mg/ml) | ||||||
| MIC | MBC | MIC | MBC | MIC | MBC | MIC | MBC | ||
| 25 | 50 | 50 | >50 | 50 | >50 | 12.5–25 | ≤50 | ||
| 25 | 50 | 25 | 50 | 50 | >50 | 25 | 50 | ||
| <25 | >50 | 50 | >50 | 50 | >50 | 25 | 50 | ||
| 25 | 50 | 50 | >50 | 50 | >50 | 12.5–25 | ≤50 | ||
| 25 | 50 | 25 | 50 | 50 | >50 | 12.5–25 | ≤50 | ||
| 50 | >50 | 50 | >50 | 50 | >50 | 25 | 50 | ||
| 50 | >50 | 50 | >50 | 25 | 50 | 25 | 50 | ||
| 25 | 50 | 50 | >50 | 50 | >50 | 50 | >50 | ||
| 50 | >50 | 50 | >50 | 50 | >50 | 25 | 50 | ||
| 50 | >50 | 50 | >50 | 25 | 50 | 50 | >50 | ||
| 50 | >50 | 25 | 50 | 25 | 50 | 25 | 50 | ||
| 50 | >50 | 50 | >50 | 50 | >50 | 50 | >50 | ||
Fig. 2Comparative analysis of ATCC and MDR strains in response to phytochemicals of anti-mastitis plants. Inhibition zones of extract at 50 mg/ml concentration. Each bar represents mean value of three independent replicates and the error bars shows standard error. * Represents significant difference at p < 0.05 (t-test).