| Literature DB >> 30526562 |
M Priyanga Jayamal Dharmaratne1, Amirthasingam Manoraj2, Vasanthi Thevanesam2, Asela Ekanayake2, Nimal Savitri Kumar3, Veranja Liyanapathirana2, Eranga Abeyratne4, B M Ratnayake Bandara5.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Identification of novel sources for developing new antibiotics is imperative with the emergence of antibiotic resistant bacteria. The fruits of Terminalia bellirica (Gaertn) Roxb., widely used in traditional medicine, were evaluated for antibacterial activity against multidrug-resistant (MDR) bacteria, antioxidant activity and cytotoxicity.Entities:
Keywords: Antibacterial; Antioxidant; BHK-21 cells; Multidrug-resistant bacteria; Terminalia bellirica; Total phenolic content
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2018 PMID: 30526562 PMCID: PMC6286530 DOI: 10.1186/s12906-018-2382-7
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Complement Altern Med ISSN: 1472-6882 Impact factor: 3.659
Fig. 1An overview of different methods used for extracting dried pericarp of Terminalia bellirica fruit
Fig. 2Mean diameter of zones of inhibition (ZOI) for direct aqueous extracts (10 mg/mL) of Terminalia bellirica prepared from reflux method, bottle-shaker method and ultrasound sonication method
Fig. 3Mean diameter of zones of inhibition (ZOI) for sequential methanol extracts (10 mg/mL) of Terminalia bellirica prepared from Soxhlet method, bottle-shaker method and ultrasound sonication method
Fig. 4Mean diameter of zones of inhibition (ZOI) for sequential aqueous extracts (10 mg/mL) of Terminalia bellirica prepared from reflux method, bottle-shaker method and ultrasound sonication method
Minimum inhibitory concentration values (MIC) of Terminalia bellirica fruit extracts obtained by different extraction methods, against 16 MDR strains (from clinical isolates), 1 ATCC MDR strain and 3 ATCC susceptible strains
| Microorganisma | Minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) in mg/mL | |||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Direct aqueous extracts | Sequential extracts | |||||||||||
| Reflux method | Bottle- shaker method | Sonication method | Soxhlet method | Bottle-shaker method | Sonication method | |||||||
| DCMb | Methanol | Aqueous | DCM | Methanol | Aqueous | DCM | Methanol | Aqueous | ||||
| 1 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.5 | NAc | 0.25 | 0.5 | NA | 0.5 | 0.5 | NA | 0.5 | 0.5 |
| 2 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.5 | NA | 0.25 | 0.5 | NA | 0.5 | 0.5 | NA | 0.5 | 0.5 |
| 3 | 0.25 | 0.5 | 0.25 | NA | 0.25 | 0.5 | NA | 0.5 | 0.5 | NA | 0.5 | 0.5 |
| 4 | 0.25 | 0.5 | 0.25 | NA | 0.25 | 0.5 | NA | 0.5 | 0.5 | NA | 0.5 | 0.5 |
| 5 | 0.25 | 0.5 | 0.25 | NA | 0.25 | 0.5 | NA | 0.5 | 0.5 | NA | 0.5 | 0.5 |
| 6 | 0.25 | 0.5 | 0.25 | NA | 0.25 | 0.5 | NA | 0.5 | 0.5 | NA | 0.5 | 0.5 |
| 7 | 0.25 | 0.5 | 0.25 | NA | 0.25 | 0.5 | NA | 0.5 | 0.5 | NA | 0.5 | 0.5 |
| 8 | 0.25 | 0.5 | 0.5 | NA | 0.25 | 0.5 | NA | 0.5 | 0.5 | NA | 0.5 | 0.5 |
| 9 | > 5 | > 5 | > 5 | NA | > 5 | 4 | NA | > 5 | 4 | NA | > 5 | 4 |
| 10 | > 5 | > 5 | > 5 | NA | > 5 | 4 | NA | > 5 | 4 | NA | > 5 | 4 |
| 11 | 0.5 | 1 | 1 | NA | 0.5 | 1 | NA | 1 | 1 | NA | 1 | 1 |
| 12 | 0.5 | 1 | 0.5 | NA | 0.5 | 1 | NA | 1 | 1 | NA | 1 | 1 |
| 13 | > 5 | > 5 | > 5 | NA | > 5 | > 5 | NA | > 5 | > 5 | NA | > 5 | > 5 |
| 14 | > 5 | > 5 | > 5 | NA | > 5 | > 5 | NA | > 5 | > 5 | NA | > 5 | > 5 |
| 15 | 0.5 | 4 | 1 | NA | 1 | 2 | NA | 4 | 2 | NA | 4 | 2 |
| 16 | 0.5 | 4 | 1 | NA | 0.5 | 1 | NA | 1 | 1 | NA | 1 | 1 |
| 17 | 0.25 | 0.25 | 0.5 | NA | 0.5 | 1 | NA | 1 | 1 | NA | 1 | 1 |
| 18 | 0.25 | 0.25 | 0.25 | NA | 0.5 | 1 | NA | 1 | 1 | NA | 1 | 1 |
| 19 | > 5 | > 5 | > 5 | NA | > 5 | > 5 | NA | > 5 | > 5 | NA | > 5 | > 5 |
| 20 | > 5 | > 5 | > 5 | NA | > 5 | > 5 | NA | > 5 | > 5 | NA | > 5 | > 5 |
aMicroorganisms: 1–8 – MRSA; 9,10 - ESBL producing E. coli; 11,12 - MDR Acinetobacter spp.; 13,14 - MDR K. pneumoniae; 15,16 - MDR P. aeruginosa;17,18 - S. aureus ATCC 25923 and NCTC 6571; 19 - E. coli ATCC 25922; 20 - ESBL producing K. pneumoniae ATCC 700603
bDCM dichloromethane
cNA Not applicable
Fig. 5DPPH radical scavenging activity (EC50 value) of ascorbic acid and Terminalia bellirica extracts (Sample: Asc, Ascorbic acid; DaqR, direct aqueous extract from reflux method; DaqB, direct aqueous extract from bottle-shaker method; DaqU, direct aqueous extract from ultrasound sonication method; SmeS, sequential methanol extract from Soxhlet method; SmeB, sequential methanol extract from bottle-shaker method; SmeU, sequential methanol extract from ultrasound sonication method)
Total phenolic content (TPC) of direct aqueous and sequential methanol extracts
| Type of extract (Extraction method) | Extraction conditions | TPC (mg GAE/g)a |
|---|---|---|
| Direct aqueous (Reflux) | Hot, 6 h | 135.52 ± 2.62b |
| Direct aqueous (Bottle) | Ambient, 24 h | 118.80 ± 8.01b |
| Direct aqueous (Sonicator) | Ambient, 3 h | 83.06 ± 4.56d |
| Sequential methanol (Soxhlet) | Hot, 6 h | 188.71 ± 2.12f |
| Sequential methanol (Bottle) | Ambient, 24 h | 95.26 ± 2.94c |
| Sequential methanol (Sonicator) | Ambient, 3 h | 63.36 ± 1.93e |
aValues are mean ± SD for three replicates; TPC is expressed as mg gallic acid equivalents per gram of dried extract
Mean values without letters (a, b, c, d and e) in common differ significantly (p < 0.05)
Cell viability of BHK-21 cells treated with direct aqueous extract (reflux) of Terminalia bellirica fruit
| Concentration of extract (mg/mL) | % Cell viabilitya | |
|---|---|---|
| After 24 h | After 48 h | |
| 4 | 0 | 0 |
| 2 | 71.20 ± 0.75 | 38.00 ± 0.20 |
| 1 | 85.30 ± 0.81 | 62.00 ± 0.87 |
| 0.5 | 93.20 ± 0.71 | 82.00 ± 1.21 |
| 0.25 | 100 | 87.50 ± 0.62 |
| 0.125 | 100 | 90.00 ± 1.77 |
aValues are mean ± SD for three replicates
Fig. 6Relationship between total phenolic content (TPC in gallic acid equivalents, GAE) and EC50 values of DPPH scavenging activity