| Literature DB >> 29587734 |
Parvaneh Mehrbod1,2, Muna A Abdalla3, Emmanuel M Njoya3, Aroke S Ahmed3,4, Fatemeh Fotouhi2, Behrokh Farahmand2, Dorcas A Gado3, Mansoureh Tabatabaian2, Olubunmi G Fasanmi5,6, Jacobus N Eloff3, Lyndy J McGaw3, Folorunso O Fasina7,8.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Influenza infection remains a major health threat for animals and humans which crucially requires effective antiviral remedies. The usage of herbal medications as readily available alternatives for their compatibility with the body and fewer side effects compared to synthetic chemical treatments has become popular globally. The aim of this study was to investigate and screen in vitro anti-influenza activity of extracts of five South African medicinal plants, namely Tabernaemontana ventricosa, Cussonia spicata, Rapanea melanophloeos, Pittosporum viridiflorum and Clerodendrum glabrum, species which are used traditionally for the treatment of several diseases such as inflammatory and respiratory diseases.Entities:
Keywords: Antiviral activity; Influenza A virus; Pittosporum viridiflorum; Potential medicinal plants; Rapanea melanophloeos; South Africa
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2018 PMID: 29587734 PMCID: PMC5872571 DOI: 10.1186/s12906-018-2184-y
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Complement Altern Med ISSN: 1472-6882 Impact factor: 3.659
Profile of the five medicinal plants used in this study
| Botanical name | Family | Local Name | Plant part used | Voucher number |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| Apocynaceae | Bospaddaboom | leaf | PRU 120680 |
|
| Araliaceae | Kiepersol | leaf | PRU 115683 |
|
| Myrsinaceae | Kaapseboekenhout, boekenhout | leaf | PRU 120670 |
|
| Pittosporaceae | Kasuur | leaf | PRU 120025 |
|
| Verbenaceae | Tontelhout | leaf | PRU 114809 |
CC50, EC50 and SI of the extracts
| Plant name and numbera | Extract type | CC50 (μg/ml) | EC50 (μg/ml) | SI |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| Cold water | 129 ± 12.6 | 32.2 | 4 |
|
| Acetone | 165 ± 25.2 | 82.3 | 2 |
|
| 30% ethanol | 77 ± 24.8 | 19.2 | 4 |
|
| 100% ethanol | 7 ± 5.8 | 3.4 | 2 |
|
| Methanol | 15 ± 9.3 | 3.6 | 4 |
|
| Acetone | 108 ± 2.4 | 13.5 | 8 |
|
| 100% ethanol | 39 ± 12.6 | 4.8 | 8 |
|
| Methanol | 117 ± 11.5 | 14.6 | 8 |
|
| Methanol | 227 ± 13.6 | 113.3 | 2 |
|
| Methanol | 0.1 ± 0.07 | 0.05 | 2 |
|
| Methanol | 221 ± 34.9 | 110.4 | 2 |
CC 50% cytotoxic concentration, EC 50% effective concentration, SI Selectivity Index
aNumber refers to the plants numbering throughout the manuscript
2: Cold water extract of Pittosporum viridiflorum; 3: Acetone extracts of Pittosporum viridiflorum; 4: 30% ethanolic extract of Pittosporum viridiflorum;; 5: 100% ethanolic extract of Pittosporum viridiflorum; 6: Methanolic extract of Pittosporum viridiflorum; 9: Acetone extract of Cussonia spicata; 11: 100% ethanolic extract of Cussonia spicata; 12: Methanolic extract of Cussonia spicata; 13: Methanolic extract of Rapanea melanophloeos; 14: Methanolic extract of Tabernaemontana ventricosa; 15: Methanolic extract of Clerodendrum glabrum.
Log10 HA titer from HA assay in combined treatments with virus compared to virus control group
| Treatment | Extract type | Log HA (mean ± SD) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Co-pen | Pre-pen | Post-pen | |||
| Combined treatments |
| Cold water | 1.51 ± 1.17 | 1.20 ± 0.93** | 1.30 ± 1.02* |
|
| Acetone | 0.90 ± 0.97** | 1.00 ± 1.12** | 1.00 ± 0.82** | |
|
| 30% ethanol | 1.61 ± 1.24 | 0.60 ± 0.93** | 0.60 ± 0.93** | |
|
| 100% ethanol | 0.90 ± 1.17** | 1.00 ± 1.12** | 1.00 ± 1.12** | |
|
| Methanol | 1.51 ± 1.17 | 1.30 ± 1.02* | 1.00 ± 0.78** | |
|
| Acetone | 1.40 ± 1.09 | 1.30 ± 1.02* | 1.51 ± 1.17 | |
|
| 100% ethanol | 1.61 ± 1.24 | 1.81 ± 0.47 | 1.61 ± 1.24 | |
|
| Methanol | 1.61 ± 1.24 | 2.01 ± 0.41 | 1.61 ± 1.02 | |
|
| Methanol | 0.00 ± 0.00** | 0.60 ± 0.93** | 0.30 ± 0.00** | |
|
| Methanol | 2.31 ± 0.16 | 2.21 ± 0.16 | 2.31 ± 0.16 | |
|
| Methanol | 1.40 ± 0.78 | 1.91 ± 0.56 | 1.51 ± 1.17 | |
| Amantadine hydrochloride | – | 0.60 ± 0.93** | 0.80 ± 0.82** | 0.90 ± 0.97** | |
| Oseltamivir carboxylate | – | 0.60 ± 0.93** | 0.60 ± 0.93** | 0.70 ± 1.09** | |
| No extract treatment | Influenza virus | – | 2.51 ± 0.31 | 2.51 ± 0.31 | 2.51 ± 0.31 |
Data presented as mean ± SD are averages of 3 independent HA titration. *, **: Significantly and highly significantly different from values obtained for extract-treated samples compared to virus inoculated untreated sample (P ≤ 0.05 & P ≤ 0.01) analyzed by SPSS, LSD post-hoc test
Fig. 1Log10 HA decrement obtained from HA assay. Data presented as mean ± SD are averages of 3 independent HA titrations. Ama: Amantadine and Ose: Oseltamivir. The negative controls have no virus added and remained at zero value through-out the study
Cell viabilities from MTT assay in combined treatments with virus compared to virus control group
| Treatment | Extract type | Cell viability | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Co-pen | Pre-pen | Post-pen | ||
|
| Cold water | 0.59 ± 0.11** | 0.70 ± 0.18** | 0.65 ± 0.15** |
|
| Acetone | 0.85 ± 0.17** | 0.85 ± 0.23** | 0.84 ± 0.18** |
|
| 30% ethanol | 0.57 ± 0.06** | 0.79 ± 0.11** | 0.70 ± 0.16** |
|
| 100% ethanol | 0.54 ± 0.07** | 0.56 ± 0.10** | 0.48 ± 0.07** |
|
| Methanol | 0.49 ± 0.07** | 0.76 ± 0.10** | 0.74 ± 0.16** |
|
| Acetone | 0.79 ± 0.11** | 0.90 ± 0.09** | 0.76 ± 0.10** |
|
| 100% ethanol | 0.59 ± 0.05** | 0.81 ± 0.16** | 0.57 ± 0.10** |
|
| Methanol | 0.53 ± 0.04** | 0.55 ± 0.21** | 0.56 ± 0.14** |
|
| Methanol | 0.75 ± 0.23** | 0.83 ± 0.16** | 0.80 ± 0.23** |
|
| Methanol | 0.60 ± 0.12** | 0.63 ± 0.21** | 0.67 ± 0.17** |
|
| Methanol | 0.71 ± 0.25** | 0.80 ± 0.20** | 0.78 ± 0.25** |
| Amantadine hydrochloride | – | 0.79 ± 0.13** | 0.75 ± 0.09** | 0.71 ± 0.14** |
| Oseltamivir carboxylate | – | 0.83 ± 0.16** | 0.83 ± 0.18** | 0.69 ± 0.14** |
| Influenza virus | – | 0.20 ± 0.05 | 0.20 ± 0.05 | 0.20 ± 0.05 |
Data presented as mean ± SD are averages of 4 independent MTT assays. **: highly significantly different from values obtained for drugs-treated samples compared to untreated sample (P ≤ 0.01) analyzed by SPSS, LSD post-hoc test
Cellular percentage of protection in combined treatments with virus compared to control groups
| Treatment | Extract type | Percentage of protection | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Co-pen | Pre-pen | Post-pen | ||
|
| Cold water | 49.26 ± 10.78ab | 64.19 ± 28.68bcd | 56.61 ± 20.33bc |
|
| Acetone | 81.71 ± 14.37e | 81.69 ± 23.00de | 79.67 ± 13.33d |
|
| 30% ethanol | 47.29 ± 9.44ab | 75.09 ± 17.48cde | 63.84 ± 25.29bcd |
|
| 100% ethanol | 43.97 ± 18.11a | 46.29 ± 12.70ab | 35.60 ± 14.63a |
|
| Methanol | 38.27 ± 18.56a | 71.45 ± 18.57cde | 68.54 ± 22.62cd |
|
| Acetone | 74.87 ± 13.14de | 88.45 ± 17.11e | 70.34 ± 6.59cd |
|
| 100% ethanol | 50.50 ± 18.12ab | 76.68 ± 12.20de | 47.22 ± 6.28ab |
|
| Methanol | 41.94 ± 10.49a | 42.54 ± 17.52a | 45.69 ± 12.00ab |
|
| Methanol | 68.75 ± 18.78cde | 78.75 ± 9.03de | 74.39 ± 19.81cd |
|
| Methanol | 53.13 ± 26.48abc | 55.90 ± 30.94abc | 59.65 ± 22.68bcd |
|
| Methanol | 63.63 ± 19.51bcd | 74.22 ± 15.10cde | 71.87 ± 22.00cd |
| Amantadine hydrochloride | – | 73.94 ± 9.94de | 69.88 ± 10.02cde | 64.50 ± 10.29bcd |
| Oseltamivir carboxylate | – | 79.44 ± 9.89de | 79.26 ± 12.85de | 61.37 ± 11.71bcd |
Data presented as mean ± SD are averages of 4 independent tests. Different letters show significant differences in each column (Duncan Grouping)