| Literature DB >> 31142304 |
Raimundas Lelešius1,2, Agneta Karpovaitė3, Rūta Mickienė4, Tomas Drevinskas4, Nicola Tiso4, Ona Ragažinskienė5, Loreta Kubilienė6, Audrius Maruška4, Algirdas Šalomskas3.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Avian infectious bronchitis (IB) is a disease that can result in huge economic losses in the poultry industry. The high level of mutations of the IB virus (IBV) leads to the emergence of new serotypes and genotypes, and limits the efficacy of routine prevention. Medicinal plants, or substances derived from them, are being tested as options in the prevention of infectious diseases such as IB in many countries. The objective of this study was to investigate extracts of 15 selected medicinal plants for anti-IBV activity.Entities:
Keywords: Antiviral activity; Avian infectious bronchitis; Plant extracts
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31142304 PMCID: PMC6540435 DOI: 10.1186/s12917-019-1925-6
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Vet Res ISSN: 1746-6148 Impact factor: 2.741
Antiviral effect of plant extracts
| No. | Latin name (family) | Part | Antiviral effect | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Virus pre-treatment with extract | Cell pre-treatment prior to infection | |||||
| prior to infection | during infection | after infection | ||||
| 1. |
| herb | + | – | + | – |
| 2. |
| herb | + | – | – | – |
| 3. |
| herb | + | – | – | – |
| 4. |
| herb | + | – | – | – |
| 5. |
| herb | + | + | – | – |
| 6. |
| herb | + | + | – | – |
| 7. |
| herb | – | – | – | – |
| 8. |
| herb | + | + | – | – |
| 9. |
| leaves | – | – | – | – |
| 10. | roots | – | – | – | – | |
| 11. |
| herb | + | + | – | – |
| 12. |
| herb | + | + | – | – |
| 13. |
| herb | + | – | – | – |
| 14. |
| herb | + | – | – | – |
| 15. |
| herb | + | + | – | – |
| 16. |
| herb | + | + | – | – |
Anti-IBV activity of some plant extracts in Vero cell cultures
| No. | Plant extract | CC50 (μg)a |
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. |
| 0.75 | 0.044 | 17.0 |
| 5. |
| 0.52 | 0.008 | 65.0 |
| 6. |
| 0.27 | 0.004 | 67.5 |
| 8. |
| 0.59 | 0.015 | 39.3 |
| 11. |
| 0.63 | 0.010 | 63.1 |
| 12. |
| 0.64 | 0.076 | 8.4 |
| 15. |
| 0.11 | 0.003 | 36.7 |
| 16. |
| 0.29 | 0.017 | 17.1 |
aThe assay for determination of CC50 was performed in octuplicate for each extract
bThe experiments for determination of EC50 were repeated independently twice, and a mean is presented
Virucidal effect and virus yield reduction
| No. | Plant extract | Concentrations of plant extracts equivalent to CC50 | PFU number (mean ± SD), log10 | PFU reduction rate, % | TCID50 (mean ± SD), log10 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. |
| 1 | 0 | 100 | 0 |
| 0.5 | 0 | 100 | 0 | ||
| 0.25 | 0.97 ± 0.19 | 78.0 | 0.75 ± 0.64 a | ||
| 0.125 | 1.03 ± 0.11 | 76.6 | 1.83 ± 0.31 c x | ||
| 5. |
| 1 | 0 | 100 | 0 |
| 0.5 | 0 | 100 | 0 | ||
| 0.25 | 1.08 ± 0.00 | 75.4 | 1.00 ± 0.94 a | ||
| 0.125 | 1.40 ± 0.32 | 68.2 | 2.48 ± 0.23 d x | ||
| 6. |
| 1 | 0 | 100 | 0 |
| 0.5 | 0 | 100 | 0 | ||
| 0.25 | 0 | 100 | 0a | ||
| 0.125 | 1.48 ± 0.05 x | 66.4 | 2.63 ± 0.13 d x | ||
| 8. |
| 1 | 0 | 100 | 0 |
| 0.5 | 0 | 100 | 0 | ||
| 0.25 | 0.15 ± 0.21 | 96.6 | 0.56 ± 0.44 a | ||
| 0.125 | 1.72 ± 0.01 x | 60.9 | 3.38 ± 0.21 e x | ||
| 11. |
| 1 | 0 | 100 | 0 |
| 0.5 | 0 | 100 | 0 | ||
| 0.25 | 0 | 100 | 0 | ||
| 0.125 | 1.70 ± 0.01 x | 61.3 | 3.25 ± 0.22 ex | ||
| 12. |
| 1 | 0 | 100 | 0 |
| 0.5 | 0 | 100 | 0 | ||
| 0.25 | 1.33 ± 0.01 | 69.8 | 3.00 ± 0.29 b | ||
| 0.125 | 2.00 ± 0.03 x | 54.5 | 3.35 ± 0.29 e | ||
| 15. |
| 1 | 0 | 100 | 0 |
| 0.5 | 0 | 100 | 0 | ||
| 0.25 | 2.00 ± 0.00 | 54.5 | 3.25 ± 0.25 b | ||
| 0.125 | 2.19 ± 0.03 x | 50.2 | 3.45 ± 0.21 e | ||
| 16. |
| 1 | 0 | 100 | 0 |
| 0.5 | 0 | 100 | 0 | ||
| 0.25 | 0 | 100 | 0a | ||
| 0.125 | 1.70 ± 0.01 x | 61.3 | 2.75 ± 0.16 d | ||
|
| – | 4.40 ± 0.09 | – | 5.00 ± 0.19 |
xmeans that the PHU number and TCID50 difference within the group (plant extract concentrations 0.25 and 0.125 CC50) was statistically significant (P < 0.05); if groups do not share a common letter a and b it means that the TCID50 (plant extract concentration 0.25 CC50) difference between the groups was statistically significant (P < 0.05); if groups do not share a common letter c, d and e it means that the TCID50 (plant extract concentration 0.125 CC50) difference between the groups was statistically significant (P < 0.05)
Delta Ct values - comparison with the virus control by real-time RT-PCR assay
| No. | Plant extract | Delta Ct values x | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1:2 CC50 | 1:4 CC50 | 1:8 CC50 | ||
| 1. |
| 14.06 ± 2.501 | 3.82 ± 0.952 | 3.32 ± 0.652 |
| 5. |
| 13.28 ± 2.731 | 7.40 ± 1.012 | 6.36 ± 1.012 |
| 6. |
| 18.32 ± 2.771 | 8.24 ± 1.062 | 7.70 ± 1.822 |
| 8. |
| 12.49 ± 2.331 | 8.41 ± 2.222 | 2.71 ± 0.943 |
| 11. |
| 12.65 ± 1.001 | 11.70 ± 1.171 | 2.66 ± 0.772 |
| 12. |
| 10.02 ± 2.501 | 5.33 ± 2.102 | 2.03 ± 1.103 |
| 15. |
| 8.25 ± 1.861 | 6.65 ± 1.191 | 1.95 ± 1.192 |
| 16. |
| 16.41 ± 2.441 | 10.58 ± 2.822 | 6.21 ± 0.642 |
xCt of IBV was 18.50 ± 1.66; 1, 2 and 3 means that the difference within the group was statistically significant (P < 0.05)
Fig. 1Visual representation of the experimental data. a Cluster dendrogram of all plant extracts. b Multidimensional Scaling plot of anti-IBV active plant extracts. Plant extracts: 1 – D. canadense, 2 – M. piperita, 3 – T. vulgaris, 4 – M. officinalis, 5 – O. vulgare, 6 – S. officinalis, 7 – H. officinalis, 8 – S. montana