| Literature DB >> 30116190 |
Muhammad Faraz Khan1,2,3, Huaqiao Tang2, James T Lyles2, Rozenn Pineau2, Zia-Ur-Rahman Mashwani1, Cassandra L Quave2,4,5.
Abstract
Local people in the Sudhnoti district of Pakistan share a rich practice of traditional medicine for the treatment of a variety of ailments. We selected nine plants from the Sudhnoti ethnopharmacological tradition used for the treatment of infectious and inflammatory disease. Our aim was to evaluate the in vitro anti-infective potential of extracts from these species against multidrug-resistant (MDR) ESKAPE (Enterococcus faecium, Staphylococcus aureus, Klebsiella pneumoniae, Acinetobacter baumanii, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, and Enterobacter species) pathogens. Plant specimens were collected in the Sudhnoti district of Pakistan and vouchers deposited in Pakistan and the USA. Dried bulk specimens were ground into a fine powder and extracted by aqueous decoction and maceration in ethanol. Extracts were assessed for growth inhibitory activity against ESKAPE pathogens and biofilm and quorum sensing activity was assessed in Staphylococcus aureus. Cytotoxicity to human cells was assessed via a lactate dehydrogenase assay of treated human keratinocytes (HaCaTs). Four ethanolic extracts (Zanthoxylum armatum, Adiantum capillus-venaris, Artemisia absinthium, and Martynia annua) inhibited the growth of MDR strains of ESKAPE pathogens (IC50: 256 μg mL-1). All extracts, with the exception of Pyrus pashia and M. annua, exhibited significant quorum quenching in a reporter strain for S. aureus agr I. The ethanolic extract of Z. armatum fruits (Extract 1290) inhibited quorum sensing (IC50 32-256 μg mL-1) in S. aureus reporter strains for agr I-III. The quorum quenching activity of extract 1290 was validated by detection of δ-toxin in the bacterial supernatant, with concentrations of 64-256 μg mL-1 sufficient to yield a significant drop in δ-toxin production. None of the extracts inhibited S. aureus biofilm formation at sub-inhibitory concentrations for growth. All extracts were well tolerated by human keratinocytes (LD50 ≥ 256 μg mL-1). Chemical analysis of extract 1290 by liquid chromatography-Fourier transform mass spectrometry (LC-FTMS) revealed the presence of 29 compounds, including eight with putative structural matches. In conclusion, five out of the nine selected anti-infective medicinal plants exhibited growth inhibitory activity against at least one MDR ESKAPE pathogen at concentrations not harmful to human keratinocytes. Furthermore, Z. armatum was identified as a source of quorum quenching natural products and further bioassay-guided fractionation of this species is merited.Entities:
Keywords: Zanthoxylum armatum; biofilm; delta-toxin; medicinal plants; quorum sensing
Year: 2018 PMID: 30116190 PMCID: PMC6082950 DOI: 10.3389/fphar.2018.00815
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Pharmacol ISSN: 1663-9812 Impact factor: 5.810
Figure 1Map of the study region: Sudhnoti district in Northern Pakistan.
Plant species tested with a description of parts used, extraction solvent, and percent yield obtained for each extract.
| Apocynaceae | FK-102 | 22,199 | Leaves | 1292 | EtOH | 14.72 | |
| Asteraceae | FK-106 | 22,195 | Aerial parts | 1308 | EtOH | 17.68 | |
| Berberidaceae | FK-105 | 22,196 | Root | 1289 | EtOH | 13.94 | |
| Gentianaceae | FK-104 | 22,197 | Aerial parts | 1293 | EtOH | 9.68 | |
| FK-103 | 22,198 | Whole plant | 1291 | EtOH | 6.67 | ||
| Martyniaceae | FK-735 | – | Fruit | 1310 | EtOH | 7.92 | |
| Pteridaceae | FK-108 | 22,194 | Whole plant | 1294 | EtOH | 3.19 | |
| Rosaceae | FK-101 | 22,200 | Fruit | 1309 | dH2O | 18.44 | |
| Rutaceae | FK-73 | 22,201 | Fruit | 1290 | EtOH | 7.50 |
GEO: Emory University Herbarium.
ESKAPE pathogens tested and their corresponding antibiotic resistance profiles as reported by the source provider (BEI Resources or CDC AR Bank) or as determined by antibiotic disc diffusion test (for AMC, IPM, PIP, RA, SXT, and TET) following CLSI breakpoints.
| CDC-33 | AR-BANK #0033 | CAZ, CIP, CRO, CTX, DOR, FEP, GEN, IPM, LVX, MEM, SAM, SXT, TOB, TZP | reduced susceptibility, elevated carbapenem MICs | |
| EU-24 | Naval-81; NR-17786 | PIP, SXT, TET, TZP | ||
| CDC-7 | AR-BANK #0007 | AMC, AMP, ATM, CAZ, CFZ, CIP, CRO, CTX, ETP, FEP, FOX, LVX, SAM, TET | reduced susceptibility, elevated carbapenem MICs | |
| CDC-32 | AR-BANK #0032 | AMC, AMP, ATM, CAZ, CFZ, CRO, CTX, ETP, FEP, FOX, IPM, MEM, SAM, SXT, TZP | reduced susceptibility, elevated carbapenem MICs | |
| EU-44 | HM-959; Strain 513 | AMC, RA, SXT, TET, TZP | ||
| EU-49 | NR-31915; Strain E0164 | AMC, GEN, TET, SXT, TZP, VAN | ||
| EU-32 | NR-15410 | AMC, PIP, SXT, TZP | Contains β-lactamase | |
| CDC-76 | AR-BANK #0076 | AMC, AMP, CAZ, CFZ, CTX, DOR, FEP, FOX, GEN, IPM, MEM, SAM, SXT, TOB, TZP | reduced susceptibility, elevated carbapenem MICs | |
| CDC-54 | AR-BANK #0054 | CAZ, FEP, GEN, IPM, LVX, MEM, TOB, TZP | ||
| PAO1 | AH-0071 | |||
| LAC | AH0845 | OXA, PIP | PFGE: USA300; CA-MRSA | |
| UAMS-1 | Osteomyelitis clinical isolate; prototype biofilm isolate | |||
| UAMS-929 | Isogenic Δ | |||
| AH1677 | ||||
| AH430 | ||||
| AH1747 | ||||
| AH1872 | ||||
| NRS232 | HT20020065 | ERYI, GEN, PEN | ||
| NRS242 | HT20020238 | ERYI, PEN | ||
| NRS245 | HT20020320; NR-46038 | CIP, OXA, PEN | ||
| NRS249 | HT20020341; NR-46042 | CIP, CLI, ERY, GEN, OXA, PEN | ||
| NRS385 | 95938; NR-46071 | CIP, CLI, ERY, GEN, LVX, SXT, TET |
Resistance: AMC, amoxicillin-clavulanic acid; AMP, ampicillin; ATM, aztreonam, CAZ, ceftazidime; CFZ, cefazolin; CIP, ciprofloxacin; CLI, clindamycin; CRO, ceftriaxone; CTX, cefotaxime; DOR, doripenem; ETP, ertapenem; FEP, cefepime; FOX, cefoxitin; GEN, gentamicin; IPM, imipenem; LVX, levofloxacin; MEM, meropenem; OXA, oxacillin, PEN, penicillin; PIP, piperacillin; RA, rifampicin; SAM, ampicillin-sulbactam; SXT, trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole; TET, tetracycline; TOB, tobramycin; TZP, piperacillin-tazobactam; VAN, vancomycin. Any antibiotics denoted with an .
Summary of organic (EtOH) and aqueous extracts exhibiting growth inhibition ≥50% (IC50) against ESKAPE pathogens when screened at 256 μg mL−1.
| 1292 | |||||||||||||
| 1298 | |||||||||||||
| 1308 | + | + | + | ||||||||||
| 1311 | |||||||||||||
| 1289 | |||||||||||||
| 1295 | |||||||||||||
| 1293 | |||||||||||||
| 1299 | |||||||||||||
| 1291 | + | ||||||||||||
| 1297 | |||||||||||||
| 1310 | + | + | + | + | + | ||||||||
| 1312 | |||||||||||||
| 1294 | + | + | + | + | |||||||||
| 1309 | |||||||||||||
| 1322 | |||||||||||||
| 1290 | + | + | + | + | |||||||||
| 1296 | |||||||||||||
“+”: growth inhibition ≥50% in comparison to vehicle control; “−“: <50% growth inhibition in comparison to vehicle control.
Dose-response curves for active extracts are reported in Figure .
Figure 2Growth inhibitory activity of ethanolic extracts that reached an IC50 against (A) Staphylococcus aureus; (B) Enterococcus faecium; (C) Acinetobacter baumannii; and (D) Klebsiella pneumoniae, reported as percent of the vehicle-treated control (DMSO).
Figure 3Impact of extracts on biofilm formation in S. aureus (UAMS-1). (A) Biofilm inhibition of extracts at 256 μg mL−1. (B) Biofilm dose-response study with extract 1290, Z. armatum fruit ethanolic extract. (C) Growth dose response study with extract 1290, Z. armatum fruit ethanolic extract. Positive controls included the biofilm deficient isogenic sarA mutant of UAMS-1 (UAMS-929) and a previously documented biofilm inhibiting extract, 220D-F2 (Quave et al., 2012). Significance was determined in comparison to the vehicle control, with *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, and ***p < 0.001.
Figure 4Quorum quenching activity of extracts on S. aureus agr reporter strains. Extracts were screened against an agr I reporter strain of S. aureus (AH1677) at a concentration of 256 μg mL−1. Growth was measured by OD, and quorum sensing activity by FLD. Vehicle (water and DMSO) and positive extract (224C-F2) were included: (A) ethanolic extracts (B) aqueous extracts. Significance was determined in comparison to the vehicle control, with *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, and ***p < 0.001. (C) The active extract 1290 (Z. armatum EtOH fruit extract) was examined in dose response assays against agr I-IV reporters in comparison to the positive control (224C-F2), reported as %FLD of vehicle control for solid lines and %OD for growth in dashed lines.
Figure 5Impact of the ethanolic extract of Zanthoxylum armatum fruits on δ-toxin production (measured by HPLC) in six strains of hypervirulent Staphylococcus aureus (Table 2). Significance was determined in comparison to the vehicle control (DMSO), with *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, and ***p < 0.001. 224C-F2, a bioactive fraction of Castanea sativa leaf extract (Quave et al., 2015), was used as a positive control (tested at 64 μg mL−1).
Figure 6Cytotoxicity of extracts in a human keratinocyte (HaCaT) cell line by LDH assay for cell viability. (A) Organic and aqueous extracts were screened at 100 μg mL−1. Significance was determined in comparison to the vehicle control (DMSO), with *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, and ***p < 0.001. (B) Extract 1290 was examined by dose response study from 8 to 1,024 μg mL−1.
Figure 7HPLC chromatograms at 254 nm of ethanolic extracts of (A) Zanthoxylum armatum fruits (1290); (B) Adiantum capillus-veneris whole plant (1,294); and (C) Artemisia absinthium aerial parts (1,308).
Figure 8Chemical characterization of extract 1290. (A) LC-FTMS ESI negative and positive base peak chromatograms for 430D-F5. All peaks correspond to data presented in Table 4. (B) Putative structural matches are listed by peak number. Peak 1 was determined to be C16H24O10 and the putative structural match is threo-3-methoxy-5-hydroxy-phenylpropanetriol-8-O-β-D-glucopyranoside. Peak 4 was determined to be C27H30O16 and the putative structural match is 3-[[6-O-(6-deoxy-α-L-mannopyranosyl)-β-D-glucopyranosyl]oxy]-2-(3,4-dihydroxyphenyl)-5,7-dihydroxy-4H-1-benzopyran-4-one. Peak 9 was determined to be C20H24N2O2 and the putative structural match is 6'-methoxy-(8α,9R)-cinchonan-9-ol. Peak 15 was determined to be C16H25N O3 and the putative structural match is N-(2,3-dihydroxy-2-methylpropyl)-2,6,8,10-dodecatetraenamide. Peak 21 was determined to be C17H14O7 and the putative structural match is 3,5,7-trihydroxy-8-methoxy-2-(4-methoxyphenyl)-4H-1-benzopyran-4-one. Peak 24 was determined to be C16H25NO and putative structural match is N-(2-methylpropyl)-2,6,8,10-dodecatetraenamide. Peak 26 was determined to be C18H27NO and the putative structural match is N-(2-methylpropyl)-2,4,8,10,12-tetradecapentaenamide. Peak 27 was determined to be C18H30O2 and the putative structural match is 9,12,15-Octadecatrienoic acid.
Negative and positive ESI Mass spectrometry (m/z) analysis of extract 1290; peaks with >1% relative abundance are listed.
| 1 | 25.45 | – | 3.19 | C16H24O10 (0.3) | threo-3-methoxy-5-hydroxy-phenylpropanetriol-8-O-β-D-glucopyranoside | + | 194.87242, | |
| 2 | 42.14 | 2.48 | 0.49 | C14H28O9 (2.9) | no matches | – | 294.03311, | |
| 3 | 60.84 | 1.4 | 0.46 | C21H19O10 (0.3) | no matches | – | 431.09892, | 310.97984, |
| 4 | 61.75 | 5.79 | 1.59 | C27H30O16 (1.4) | 3-[[6-O-(6-deoxy-α-L-mannopyranosyl)-β-D-glucopyranosyl]oxy]-2-(3,4-dihydroxyphenyl)-5,7-dihydroxy-4H-1-benzopyran-4-one | – | 300.91790, | |
| 5 | 63.07 | 7.54 | 1.46 | C31H31O20 (0.9) | no matches | – | 300.91790, | |
| 6 | 64.55 | 3.7 | 0.99 | C21H19 O12 (1.0) | no matches | – | 463.03392, | |
| 7 | 66.39 | 3.29 | 1.34 | C21H19O11 (0.8) | no matches | – | 283.92544, | |
| 8 | 68.05 | 1.17 | 0.29 | C24H21O14 (1.0) | no matches | – | 489.04098 | |
| 9 | 68.49 | 2.26 | 0.47 | C20H24N2O2 (−2.0) | 6′-methoxy-(8α,9R)-cinchonan-9-ol | – | 280.04288, | |
| 10 | 69.07 | 2.12 | – | C38H55O6 (-1.9) | no matches | – | 298.97899, | |
| 11 | 69.79 | 3.75 | 1.84 | C20H24N2O2 (-1.9) | no matches | – | 278.00556, | |
| 12 | 70.53 | 3.03 | 1.48 | C17H28O10 (4.0) | no matches | – | 278.00556, | |
| 13 | 71.46 | 1.64 | 0.49 | C17H30O10 (1.4) | no matches | – | 376.00632, | |
| 14 | 72.18 | 0.92 | 0.23 | C31H37O11 (1.1) | no matches | – | 539.16004 | |
| 15 | 72.83 | – | 1.87 | C16H25NO3 (−0.5) | N-(2,3-dihydroxy-2-methylpropyl)-2,6,8,10-dodecatetraenamide | + | 204.89416, | |
| 16 | 73.35 | 0.67 | – | C31H37O11 (1.1) | no matches | – | 539.22769, | |
| 17 | 74.67 | 0.91 | 0.29 | C18H33O5 (0.3) | no matches | – | 229.0025, | |
| 18 | 75.44 | 2.26 | – | C38H53O7 (-2.7) | no matches | – | 575.01788, | |
| 19 | 76.39 | 1.9 | 1.25 | C38H53O7 (-2.9) | no matches | – | 621.37677, | 575.01788, |
| 20 | 79.46 | 9.96 | 14.01 | C14H28O7 (3.2) | no matches | – | 262.06560, | |
| 21 | 81.05 | – | 4.65 | C17H14O7 (-0.7) | 3,5,7-trihydroxy-8-methoxy-2-(4-methoxyphenyl)-4H-1-benzopyran-4-one | + | 316.04065 | |
| 22 | 82.21 | 1.18 | – | C25H29O8 (0.6) | no matches | – | 411.05709, | |
| 23 | 83.23 | – | 0.91 | C21H21O5 (-0.1) | no matches | + | 322.00452, | |
| 24 | 86.53 | – | 41.32 | C16H25NO (-0.1) | N-(2-methylpropyl)-2,6,8,10-dodecatetraenamide | + | 495.39285, | 149.09491, |
| 25 | 88.74 | – | 1.12 | C30H57O8 (2.7) | no matches | + | 527.25299, | |
| 26 | 89.7 | – | 2.23 | C18H27NO (0.05) | N-(2-methylpropyl)-2,4,8,10,12-tetradecapentaenamide | + | 174.98173, | |
| 27 | 97.29 | 0.7 | – | C18H30O2 (0.2) | 9,12,15-Octadecatrienoic acid | – | 555.44309, | 233.1687, |
| 28 | 99.23 | 1.79 | 0.29 | C17H31O4 (0.5) | no matches | – | 445.27496, | |
| 29 | 100.2 | 0.52 | 0.28 | C36H63O4 (1.2) | no matches | – | 321.05199, | |
The corresponding chromatograms for negative and positive ESI are reported in Figure 8A, with putative structural matches reported in Figure 8B.
The empirical formula corresponds to the [M+H].
The reported ions correspond to the [M+H].