| Literature DB >> 30544601 |
Gioele Capillo1, Serena Savoca2, Rosaria Costa3, Marilena Sanfilippo4, Carmen Rizzo5, Angelina Lo Giudice6,7, Ambrogina Albergamo8,9, Rossana Rando10, Giovanni Bartolomeo11,12, Nunziacarla Spanò13, Caterina Faggio14.
Abstract
Enormous marine biodiversity offers an endless reservoir of chemicals for many applications. In this scenario, the extraction of seaweeds represents an interesting source of compounds displaying antimicrobial activity. In particular, among the different red algae, Gracilaria gracilis plays an important role due to the presence of important bioactives in its composition. In spite of these features, an efficient culture system is still absent. In the present study, a novel algal culture method was developed and compared to another more common cultural practice, widely reported in literature. A higher efficiency of the new method, both for daily growth rate and biomass, was assessed. Furthermore, the growth inhibitory activity of five extracts, obtained using ethanol, methanol, acetone, chloroform or diethyl ether as a solvent, from the cultured G. gracilis was tested against Gram-positive and Gram-negative pathogens. Algal extracts exhibited a considerable inhibitory activity against B. subtilis strains, while a slight inhibition was observed against V. fischeri. The different extracts showed significant differences in bacterial growth inhibition, with the highest activity that was recorded for the ethanol extract, followed by that of methanol. Based on the chemical characterization, these findings could be related to the antimicrobial activity played by the combination of total carbohydrates and polyphenols, which were determined at high levels in ethanol and methanol extracts, as well as by the highest number and levels of single polyphenols. Conversely, the lower growth inhibitory activities found in chloroform and diethyl ether extracts could be related to the isolation of minor lipid classes (e.g., neutral and medium polar lipids) composed by fatty acids, such as stearic, oleic and arachidonic acids, typically characterized by antimicrobial activity. In consideration of the results obtained, the present study has a double implication, involving both the field of cultural practices and the exploitation of natural sources for the isolation of antimicrobial agents useful both in pharmaceutical and food applications.Entities:
Keywords: Gracilaria gracilis; algal extracts; antibacterial activity; aquaculture; fatty acid composition; single polyphenols; total phenolic content; total soluble carbohydrate content
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2018 PMID: 30544601 PMCID: PMC6315995 DOI: 10.3390/md16120492
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Mar Drugs ISSN: 1660-3397 Impact factor: 5.118
Figure 1Comparison between square raft and reste culture method (a) Y: biomass yield (kg/m2); (b) DGR: daily growth rate (%). Culture periods: I, 15 January–15 April; II, 15 May–15 August; 15 September–15 December.
Figure 2Growth of G. gracilis in its natural environment using square raft culture method (a) Y: biomass yield (kg/m2); (b) DGR: daily growth rate (%).
Figure 3Growth of G. gracilis in natural environment using ‘reste’ culture method (a) Y: biomass yield (kg/m2); (b) DGR: daily growth rate (%).
Water parameters in the three periods at ST1. The results are shown as means ± standard deviation of three replicates. T (°C), Sal (‰), O2 (sat%), N-NH4, N-NO2, N-NO3, P-PO4 (μM/L).
| ST1 | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| I | II | III | ||||
| Parameter | Mean ± SD | Range | Mean ± SD | Range | Mean ± SD | Range |
| T | 16.15 ± 3.13 | 13.27 ÷ 20.53 | 26.07 ± 3.52 | 21.23 ÷ 29.58 | 20.29 ± 3.86 | 15.63 ÷ 24.85 |
| SAL | 31.62 ± 0.46 | 31.2 ÷ 32.2 | 31.5 ± 0.94 | 30.9 ÷ 32.9 | 31.15 ± 1.09 | 29.9 ÷ 32.3 |
| pH | 8.66 ± 0.13 | 8.51 ÷ 8.84 | 8.49 ± 0.11 | 8.38 ÷ 8.63 | 8.39 ± 0.16 | 8.21 ÷ 8.59 |
| O2 | 104.25 ± 1.03 | 102.8 ÷ 105.2 | 118.5 ± 15.94 | 98.1 ÷ 136.9 | 113.3 ± 32.16 | 74.8 ÷ 152.1 |
| N-NH4 | 1.52 ± 0.31 | 1.12 ÷ 1.88 | 1.75 ± 1.16 | 0.66 ÷ 3.07 | 3.12 ± 0.92 | 2.04 ÷ 4.3 |
| N-NO2 | 0.34 ± 0.22 | 0.14 ÷ 0.66 | 0.17 ± 0.12 | 0.04 ÷ 0.31 | 0.7 ± 0.72 | 0.2 ÷ 1.76 |
| N-NO3 | 8.94 ± 5.69 | 2.79 ÷ 16.57 | 1.10 ± 0.75 | 0.15 ÷ 1.99 | 5.02 ± 4.29 | 0.79 ÷ 10.43 |
| P-PO4 | 0.16 ± 0.11 | 0.06 ÷ 0.3 | 0.09 ± 0.02 | 0.07 ÷ 0.12 | 0.14 ± 0.13 | 0.06 ÷ 0.34 |
Periods: I, 15 January–15 April; II, 15 May–15 August; 15 September–15 December.
Water parameters in the three periods at ST2. The results are shown as means ± standard deviation of three replicates. T (°C), Sal (‰), O2 (sat%), N-NH4, N-NO2, N-NO3, P-PO4 (μM/L).
| ST2 | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| I | II | III | ||||
| Parameter | Mean ± SD | Range | Mean ± SD | Range | Mean ± SD | Range |
| T | 16.39 ± 2.19 | 13.69 ÷ 19.07 | 23.38 ± 2.64 | 19.54 ÷ 25.23 | 19.45 ± 2.94 | 15.61 ÷ 22.47 |
| SAL | 31.62 ± 0.46 | 31.2 ÷ 32.2 | 31.3 ± 0.33 | 30.9 ÷ 31.7 | 31.02 ± 1.01 | 29.7 ÷ 32 |
| pH | 8.66 ± 0.13 | 8.51 ÷ 8.84 | 8.59 ± 0.12 | 8.42 ÷ 8.71 | 8.39 ± 0.16 | 8.2 ÷ 8.59 |
| O2 | 106.6 ± 7.44 | 99.8 ÷ 114.8 | 82.02 ± 13.43 | 68.9 ÷ 94.1 | 92.62 ± 23.42 | 66.3 ÷ 120.3 |
| N-NH4 | 2.33 ± 0.40 | 1.95 ÷ 2.73 | 1.64 ± 0.78 | 0.83 ÷ 2.64 | 2.91 ± 1.08 | 1.66 ÷ 4.05 |
| N-NO2 | 0.36 ± 0.26 | 0.18 ÷ 0.76 | 0.32 ± 0.20 | 0.08 ÷ 0.52 | 0.71 ± 0.58 | 0.3 ÷ 1.56 |
| N-NO3 | 7.55 ± 4.10 | 2.83 ÷ 11.22 | 1.73 ± 1.17 | 0.89 ÷ 3.4 | 3.33 ± 2.58 | 1.81 ÷ 7.2 |
| P-PO4 | 0.17 ± 0.08 | 0.11 ÷ 0.3 | 0.20 ± 0.13 | 0.09 ÷ 0.41 | 0.39 ± 0.43 | 0.09 ÷ 1.03 |
Periods: I, 15 January–15 April; II, 15 May–15 August; 15 September–15 December.
Water parameters in the three periods in ST3. The results are shown as means ± standard deviation of three replicates. T (°C), Sal (‰), O2 (sat%), N-NH4, N-NO2, N-NO3, P-PO4 (μM/L).
| ST3 | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| I | II | III | ||||
| Parameter | Mean ± SD | Range | Mean ± SD | Range | Mean ± SD | Range |
| T | 15.8 ± 2.55 | 13.24 ÷ 19.25 | 24.55 ± 3.13 | 20.23 ÷ 26.95 | 20.36 ± 3.54 | 16.16 ÷ 24.32 |
| SAL | 31.62 ± 0.46 | 31.2 ÷ 32.2 | 30.24 ± 1.08 | 28.68 ÷ 31.1 | 27.38 ± 2.07 | 24.73 ÷ 29.3 |
| pH | 8.66 ± 0.13 | 8.51 ÷ 8.84 | 8.43 ± 0.09 | 8.32 ÷ 8.55 | 8.47 ± 0.19 | 8.28 ÷ 8.71 |
| O2 | 103.9 ± 2.11 | 101.5 ÷ 106.4 | 109.5 ± 25.57 | 78.2 ÷ 134.9 | 111.9 ± 26.30 | 75.5 ÷ 134.8 |
| N-NH4 | 1.66 ± 0.41 | 1.11 ÷ 2.06 | 1.92 ± 0.55 | 1.33 ÷ 2.61 | 2.44 ± 1.03 | 1.55 ÷ 3.92 |
| N-NO2 | 0.28 ± 0.15 | 0.12 ÷ 0.48 | 0.22 ± 0.10 | 0.1 ÷ 0.35 | 1.20 ± 1.14 | 0.19 ÷ 2.81 |
| N-NO3 | 6.43 ± 4.00 | 1.64 ÷ 11.38 | 1.32 ± 0.32 | 0.88 ÷ 1.63 | 5.71 ± 4.91 | 0.99 ÷ 11.07 |
| P-PO4 | 0.14 ± 0.02 | 0.11 ÷ 0.17 | 0.09 ± 0.04 | 0.05 ÷ 0.15 | 0.33 ± 0.56 | 0.02 ÷ 1.19 |
Periods: I, 15 January–15 April; II, 15 May–15 August; 15 September–15 December.
Antibacterial activity of G. gracilis extracts against B. subtilis in agar disc diffusion assay. Inhibition halo is expressed in mm. The results are shown as means ± standard deviation of three replicates.
| Organic Solvent | Amount of Extract (µg) | Chloramphenicol (30 µg) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ethanol | 50 | 10 ± 0.00 | 13.56 ± 4.8 |
| 100 | 14.6 ± 0.5 | ||
| 200 | 19 ± 1 | ||
| Methanol | 50 | 7.6 ± 2 | |
| 100 | 9.6 ± 0.5 | ||
| 200 | 12.6 ± 1.1 | ||
| Acetone | 50 | 10 ± 0.00 | |
| 100 | 11.6 ± 2.8 | ||
| 200 | 13.6 ± 3.5 | ||
| Chloroform | 50 | 10.3 ± 0.5 | |
| 100 | 15.6 ± 3 | ||
| 200 | 17.6 ± 2 | ||
| Diethyl ether | 50 | 10 ± 1 | |
| 100 | 10.6 ± 2 | ||
| 200 | 15.6 ± 3 |
Comparison among the extraction yield, total soluble carbohydrate (TSCC) and total phenolic content (TPC) revealed in different extracts of G. gracilis obtained by different organic solvents. TSCC and TPC measurements are reported as mean ± standard deviation (n = 3), on a dw basis.
| Solvent | Extraction Yield * | TSCC ** | TPC *** |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ethanol | 9.80 | 553.24 ± 45.02 a | 2059.79 ± 94.41 a |
| Methanol | 1.37 | 159.14 ± 32.37 b | 2741.93 ± 219.52 b |
| Acetone | 0.51 | 42.83 ± 3.43 c | 810.32 ± 75.67 c |
| Chloroform | 0.61 | 0.35 ± 0.24 d | 35.90 ± 6.32 d |
| Diethyl ether | 0.39 | 0.36 ± 0.17 d | 28.83 ± 14.53 d |
* values of extraction yield are expressed as % of dry algal material; ** TSCC values are expressed as g GE/Kg of dry algal material; *** TPC values are expressed as mg GAE/100 g of dry algal material. a–d Different superscript letters in the same column indicate significantly different values (p < 0.05 by post hoc Tukey’s honestly significant difference (HSD) test); Same superscript letters in the same column indicate not significantly different values (p > 0.05 by post hoc Tukey’s HSD test).
Levels (mg/100 g) of single polyphenols detected in ethanol, methanol and acetone extracts of G. gracilis. Data are reported as mean ± standard deviation (n = 3), on a dw basis.
| Polyphenol | Ethanol Extract | Methanol Extract | Acetone Extract |
|---|---|---|---|
| Gallic acid | 74.36 ± 4.14 a | 61.83 ± 4.08 b | 11.80 ± 1.75 c |
| Protocatechuic acid | 428.45 ± 26.60 a | 561.00 ± 33.76 b | 103.76 ± 10.55 c |
| 4-Hydroxybenzoic acid | 124.93 ± 7.99 a | 167.00 ± 8.25 b | 59.36 ± 17.33 c |
| Chlorogenic acid | 35.60 ± 8.41 a | 69.56 ± 5.32 b | 46.49 ± 4.89 a |
| Syringic acid | 12.23 ± 2.61 a | 7.06 ± 1.27 b | - |
| Caffeic acid | 30.66 ± 2.30 a | 60.90 ± 7.00 b | - |
| Coumaric acid | 7.40 ± 0.87 | - | - |
| Ferulic acid | 5.60 ± 1.90 a | 12.80 ± 3.53 b | - |
| Rutin | 259.73 ± 13.45 a | 334.23 ± 25.66 b | 140.70 ± 19.08 c |
| Hesperidin | 539.33 ± 34.16 a | 741.30 ± 90.33 b | 203.43 ± 10.05 c |
| Myricetin | 174.23 ± 19.00 a | 285.96 ± 34.95 b | 81.60 ± 7.70 c |
| Quercetin | 157.43 ± 14.98 a | 206.63 ± 16.89 b | 73.60 ± 14.99 c |
| Epicatechin | 8.83 ± 1.90 a | 10.30 ± 1.15 a | 23.13 ± 1.58 b |
| Epicatechingallate | 13.13 ± 3.09 a | 10.83 ± 2.76 a | 35.16 ± 3.30 b |
a–c: Different superscript letters in the same column indicate significantly different values (p < 0.05 by post hoc Tukey’s HSD test); same superscript letters in the same column indicate not significantly different values (p > 0.05 by post hoc Tukey’s HSD test).
Fatty acids (FA) composition determined in chloroform and diethyl ether extracts from G. gracilis. Data are reported on a dw basis, as mean gas chromatography–flame ionisation detection (GC-FID) peak area percent ± standard deviation of 3 replicate measurements.
| FAME | Chloroform Extract | Diethyl Ether Extract |
|---|---|---|
| C12:0 | 0.81 ± 0.15 | 0.91 ± 0.32 |
| C13:0 | 0.15 ± 0.05 | 0.09 ± 0.02 |
| C14:0 | 4.76 ± 0.32 | 5.96 ± 1.25 |
| C16:0 | 31.62 ± 1.44 * | 41.71 ± 0.90 * |
| C18:0 | 3.92 ± 0.95 | 3.70 ± 0.39 |
| C20:0 | 0.69 ± 0.04 * | 0.43 ± 0.03 * |
| C22:0 | 0.40 ± 0.02 | - |
| C24:0 | 0.12 ± 0.03 * | 0.25 ± 0.03 * |
|
| 42.36 | 52.81 |
| C14:1n-9 | 0.15 ± 0.05 | 0.10 ± 0.02 |
| C16:1n-7 | 2.18 ± 0.32 | 1.44 ± 0.33 |
| C18:1n-9 | 10.33 ± 0.22 * | 9.21 ± 0.38 * |
|
| 12.66 | 10.75 |
| C18:2n-6 | 3.09 ± 0.21 | 2.05 ± 0.06 |
| C18:3n-3 | 1.79 ± 0.20 | 0.70 ± 0.15 |
| C20:2n-6 | 0.36 ± 0.16 | - |
| C20:3n-6 | 1.34 ± 0.10 | 0.70 ± 0.07 |
| C20:4n-6 | 38.33 ± 1.85 * | 29.40 ± 1.35 * |
| C20:5n-3 | 1.62 ± 0.32 | 2.18 ± 0.12 |
| C22:6n-3 | - | 0.80 ± 0.04 |
|
| 46.55 | 35.85 |
* values in the same row marked by the asterisk are significantly different (p < 0.05) by the Student’s two-tailed t-test.