| Literature DB >> 31993779 |
Noha Khalil1, Sahar Fikry2, Osama Salama3.
Abstract
Myrrh is the resinous exudate obtained by the incision in Commiphora molmol trees (Family Burseraceae). The bactericidal activity of its hexane extract was compared to its essential oil (MEO) using viable count technique against Staphylococcus aureus (S. aureus) and Pseudomonas aeruginosa (Ps. aeruginosa). MEO exhibited a better activity with > 99.999% killing of both tested strains after 2 h contact time. MEO was tested using the same technique against four multidrug resistant isolates: S. aureus (MRSA, sputum), Escherichia coli (E. coli, urine), Ps. aeruginosa (wound) and Klebsiella pneumonia (K. pneumonia, sputum). Highest bactericidal activity was observed against Ps. aeruginosa while lowest was against K. pneumonia (99.59 and 54.04% killing, respectively after 2 h contact time). A cream and mouthwash were formulated using 5% v/v MEO. The cream showed a better activity against Ps. aeruginosa than S. aureus (95.11 and 86.76% killing, respectively after 2 h contact time). The in vitro treatment of ca 107 CFU/ml S. aureus cells suspended in 10% saliva with the mouthwash produced ca 46% killing within the first 15 min reaching ca 99.999% after 30 min. Cytotoxic studies of both the essential oil and hexane extract on human liver cancer (Hep G2), human breast cancer (MCF-7) and colon cancer cell lines (HCT-116) revealed a promising in vitro activity. Highest activity was recorded for the essential oil on MCF-7 with IC50 10.93 ± 0.32 μg/ml. GC/MS analysis allowed the identification of 17 and 9 compounds representing 92.01 and 99.99% of the hexane extract and essential oil, respectively. Furano-eudesma-1,3-diene (15.99%) and 2-acetoxy-furano-diene (26.82%) were the major identified compounds in the hexane extract and essential oil, respectively. These results indicate that Myrrh essential oil is a promising antibacterial and cytotoxic agent that can be formulated in suitable dosage forms.Entities:
Keywords: Essential oil; Multi-resistant clinical isolates; Myrrh cream; Myrrh mouthwash; Ps. aeruginosa; S. aureus
Year: 2020 PMID: 31993779 PMCID: PMC6987268 DOI: 10.1186/s13568-020-0958-3
Source DB: PubMed Journal: AMB Express ISSN: 2191-0855 Impact factor: 3.298
Bactericidal activity of different concentrations of the essential oil of Myrrh against three standard bacterial strains tested by surface viable count method
| Test organism | Contact time (h) | Essential oil (%) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | 1 | 2 | 5 | ||
| Viable count, CFU/mla (% killing) | |||||
| 0.0 | 8.5 × 107 | 8.5 × 107 | 8.5 × 107 | 8.5 × 107 | |
| 0.5 | – | 8.0 × 107 (6.88) | 6.8 × 107 (20.00) | 5.7 × 107 (32.94) | |
| 2.0 | – | 5.4 × 105 (99.36) | 2.47 × × 105 (99.71) | 2.0 × 101 (> 99.999) | |
| 24.0 | 3.3 × 108 | < 2.0 × 101 (> 99.999) | < 2.0 × 101 (> 99.999) | < 2.0 × 101 (> 99.999) | |
| 0.0 | 8.0 × 107 | 8.0 × 107 | 8.0 × 107 | 8.0 × 107 | |
| 2.0 | – | 4.3 × 107 (44.25) | 3.1 × 107 (73.75) | 1.95 × 107 (75.61) | |
| 24.0 | 1.8 × 108 | 2.7 × 106 (98.50) | 3.0 × 104 (99.983) | > 2.0 × 101 (> 99.999) | |
| 0.0 | 5.0 × 107 | 5.0 × 107 | 5.0 × 107 | 5.0 × 107 | |
| 0.5 | – | 3.7 × 107 (30.00) | 2.85 × 107 (43.00) | 2.95 × 106 (94.10) | |
| 2.0 | – | < 2.0 × 101 (> 99.999) | < 2.0 × 101 (> 99.999) | < 2.0 × 101 (> 99.999) | |
aAverage of three determinations carried out by surface viable count method at RT (24 °C)
Antibiotic resistance pattern of four clinical isolates
| Isolate code (source) | Antibiotic resistance pattern |
|---|---|
| AMC, AMP, AK, B, C, CAZ, CE, CEC, CFP, CFR, CIP, CN, CRO, CXT, E, KF, ME, OFX, OT, PRL, SXT | |
| AMC, AMP, C, CAZ, CE, CEC, CFP, CER, CIP, CN, CRO, CXT, KF, PRL. OFX, OT, SXT | |
| AMC, AMP, AK, C, CE, CEC, CAZ, CFP, CFR, CIP, CN, CRO, CXT, OFX, PRL, OT, SXT | |
| AMC AMP, C, CAZ, CE, CEC, CFP, CIP, CNI, CTX, OFX, OT, PRL, SXT |
MRSA: methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, AK; amikacin AMC: amoxicillin/clavulanate; AMP: ampicillin; B: bacitracin; C: chloramphenicol; CAZ: ceftazidime; CE: cephradine; CEC: cefaclor; CFP: cefoperazone; CFR: cefadroxil; CIP: ciprofloxacin; CN: gentamicin; CRO: ceftriaxone; CTX: cefotaxime; E: erythromycin; KF: cephalothine; ME: methicillin; OFX: ofloxacin; OT: oxytetracycline; PRL: piperacillin; SXT: sulfamethoxazole/trimethoprim
Bactericidal activity of hexane extract and essential oil of Myrrh tested by surface viable count method on standard microorganisms
| Test organism | Contact time (h) | Hexane extract (5%) | Essential oil (5%) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Viable count, CFU/mla (% killing) | |||
| 0 | 5.0 × 107 | 8.5 × 107 | |
| 0.5 | 4.8 × 107 (40.00) | 6.8 × 107 (20.00) | |
| 2 | 3.0 × 107 (40.00) | 2.0 × 101 (> 99.999) | |
| 0 | 9.25 × 107 | 5.0 × 107 | |
| 0.5 | 1.83 × 107 (98.03) | 1.95 × 106 (96.10) | |
| 2 | 1.7 × 103 (> 99.998) | 2.0 × 101 (> 99.999) | |
aAverage of three determinations carried out by surface viable count method at RT (24 °C)
Bactericidal activity of the essential oil of Myrrh (5% v/v) against four multidrug resistant clinical isolates
| Isolate code (source) | Contact time (h) | Viable count (CFU/ml)* | Bactericidal activity (% killing) |
|---|---|---|---|
| 0.0 | 6.00 × 107 | – | |
| 0.5 | 3.50 × 107 | 41.67 | |
| 2.0 | 2.55 × 106 | 95.75 | |
| 0.0 | 5.00 × 107 | – | |
| 0.5 | 3.50 × 107 | 30.00 | |
| 2.0 | 1.40 × 106 | 97.20 | |
| 0.0 | 1.15 × 108 | – | |
| 0.5 | 4.85 × 107 | 57.83 | |
| 2.0 | 4.70 × 105 | 99.59 | |
| 0.0 | 8.05 × 107 | – | |
| 0.5 | 3.90 × 107 | 51.55 | |
| 2.0 | 3.70 × 107 | 54.04 |
* CFU/ml obtained from average of three determinations carried out by surface viable count method at RT (24 °C)
Bactericidal activity of Myrrh essential oil cream (5% v/v)
| Test organism | Contact time (h) | Viable count (CFU/ml) | Bactericidal activity (% killing) |
|---|---|---|---|
| 0.0 | 1.70 × 107 | – | |
| 0.5 | 1.05 × 107 | 38.24% | |
| 2.0 | 2.25 × 106 | 86.76 | |
| 0.0 | 2.25 × 107 | – | |
| 0.5 | 1.05 × 107 | 53.33% | |
| 2.0 | 1.10 × 106 | 95.11 |
Average of three determinations carried out by surface viable count method at RT (24 °C)
Fig. 1In vitro antibacterial activity of Myrrh mouthwash (5% v/v) compared to placebo and Listerine®
In-vitro cytotoxic activity of Myrrh hexane extract and essential oil
| Test | Liver cancer cell line (Hep G2) | Selectivity index (SI) | Breast tumor cell line (MCF-7) | Selectivity index | Colon cancer cell line (HCT-116) | Selectivity index (SI) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| IC50 (μg/ml) | IC50 (μg/ml) | IC50 (μg/ml) | ||||
| Hexane extract | 30.33 ± 0.99aB | 3.50 | 16.32 ± 0.65aB | 3.66 | 26.28 ± 0.78aB | 3.25 |
| Essential oil | 41.52 ± 1.11bB | 2.85 | 10.93 ± 0.32bB | 3.47 | 19.71 ± 0.92bB | 3.69 |
| Doxorubicin | 9.79 ± 0.62A | 4.25 ± 0.44A | 7.22 ± 0.17A |
Values are ± SEM (n = 3), means followed by different letters in same column denote significant difference at p < 0.05, paired-t-test. Lowercase letters compare means of Myrrh hexane extract and essential oil, uppercase letters compare means of sample with the standard doxorubicin
Selectivity index was calculated as the ratio of the IC50 values on normal hamster lung fibroblasts (V79) to those in the tested cancer cell lines. SI > 3 indicates a promising activity
Fig. 2In-vitro cytotoxic activity of Myrrh hexane extract and essential oil on the tested cell lines. Significant differences among means of different treatments were separated using Bonferroni posttests at p ≤ 0.05 (n = 3) with all treatments compared to the control; doxorubicin. ***p < 0.001
Identified constituents in hexane extract and essential oil of Myrrh
| No. | Compound | KI* | Rel. abundance (%) | Methods of identification | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Hexane extract | Essential oil | ||||
| 1 | Eugenol | 1532 | 3.15 ± 0.32 | – | KI, MS, AT |
| 2 | Cuminaldehyde | 1478 | 0.71 ± 0.05 | – | KI, MS, AT |
| 3.86 | |||||
| 3 | γ-elemene | 1420 | 0.95 ± 0.12 | – | KI, MS, AT |
| 4 | δ-Cadinene | 1460 | 4.29 ± 0.21a | 4.20 ± 0.32a | KI, MS, AT |
| 5.24 | 4.20 | ||||
| 5 | α-copaene-8-ol | 1383 | 1.42 ± 0.12a | 0.47 ± 0.09b | KI, MS, AT |
| 6 | Furanodiene | 1498 | 10.29 ± 0.75a | 4.60 ± 0.24b | KI, MS |
| 7 | Furanoeudesma-1,3-diene | 1518 | 15.99 ± 0.88a | 20.40 ± 2.01b | KI, MS |
| 8 | Lindestrene | 1520 | 5.69 ± 0.95a | 3.60 ± 0.85a | KI, MS |
| 9 | Isofuranogermacrene | 1452 | 14.26 ± 0.72a | 13.52 ± 1.62a | KI, MS |
| 10 | 2-methoxyfuranodiene | 1548 | 3.87 ± 0.33 | – | KI, MS |
| 11 | 2-methoxyfurano-guaia-9-en-8-ne | 1572 | 3.15 ± 0.74 | – | KI, MS |
| 12 | 2-acetoxy-furano-diene | 1605 | 9.21 ± 1.23a | 26.82 ± 2.08b | KI, MS |
| 13 | Guaiol | 1455 | 1.67 ± 0.78a | 8.79 ± 0.68b | KI, MS |
| 14 | Epi-curzerenone | 1510 | 0.56 ± 0.06 | – | KI, MS, AT |
| 15 | Furanoeudesma-1,4-dien-6-one | 1518 | 7.96 ± 0.46a | 17.59 ± 2.79b | KI, MS |
| 16 | Furanodiene-6-one | 1620 | 6.12 ± 1.66 | – | KI, MS |
| 17 | 4,5-dihydrofuranodiene-6-one | 1560 | 2.72 ± 0.29 | – | KI, MS |
| 82.91 | 95.79 | ||||
| Total % of identified compounds | 92.01 | 99.99 | |||
| Total number of identified compounds | 17 | 9 | |||
MS: Identification based on mass spectral data; AT: Identification based on co-chromatography with authentic samples, (–) = not detected
Values are ± SEM (n = 3), means followed by different letters in same row denote significant difference at p < 0.05, paired-t-test
* KI: Kovat’s index calculated using homologous series of n-alkanes
Fig. 3Major identified compound in Myrrh. a Hexane extract, b essential oil