| Literature DB >> 33273951 |
Tamirat Bekele Beressa1,2,3, Serawit Deyno1,2,4, Paul E Alele1.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Echinops kebericho is an endemic medicinal plant in Ethiopia widely used in the treatment of infectious and noninfectious diseases. Essential oils are known for their antibacterial, antifungal, antiviral, insecticidal, and antioxidant properties. This study evaluated the antifungal activity of essential oil from E. kebericho against four common pathogenic fungi and two standard strains.Entities:
Year: 2020 PMID: 33273951 PMCID: PMC7676924 DOI: 10.1155/2020/3101324
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Evid Based Complement Alternat Med ISSN: 1741-427X Impact factor: 2.629
Antifungal activity of Echinops kebericho EO against pathogenic fungi using the agar well diffusion method. ND, Not determined; —, No zone of inhibition observed. , p < 0.001 compared with C. krusei; , p < 0.01 compared with C. krusei; , p < 0.05 compared with C. krusei; ###, p < 0.001 compared with C. krusei; ##, p < 0.01 compared with C. krusei; #, p < 0.05 compared with C. krusei. Values are the means of the zone of inhibition ± SD of three replicates (N = 3 replications).
| Concentration (mg/ml) | Zones of inhibition (mm) (mean ± SD) | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| 10 | — | 10 ± 2 | 13 ± 1 | 15 ± 4 | 17 ± 2 | 14 ± 3 |
| 5 | — | 9 ± 1 | 12 ± 1 | 13 ± 5 | 17 ± 2 | 14 ± 3 |
| 2.5 | — | 8 ± 1 | 11 ± 2 | 12 ± 3 | 15 ± 2 | 14 ± 3# |
| 1.25 | — | 8 ± 1 | 10 ± 2 | 12 ± 5 | 13 ± 2 | 12 ± 2 |
| 0.625 | — | 6 ± 1 | 11 ± 3 | 10 ± 4 | 9 ± 2 | 12 ± 3# |
| 0.313 | — | 5 ± 1 | 10 ± 2 | 8 ± 4 | 11 ± 1 | 13 ± 3### |
| 0.156 | — | 3 ± 1 | 8 ± 1 | 8 ± 4 | 7 ± 4 | 12 ± 4### |
| 0.078 | — | 3 ± 1 | 7 ± 1 | 6 ± 3 | 6 ± 2 | 10 ± 1## |
| 0.039 | — | 3 ± 1 | 6 ± 0 | 5 ± 2 | 5 ± 2 | 9 ± 2# |
| Fluconazole | ND | 12 ± 3 | 17 ± 3 | 22 ± 2 | 19 ± 3 | 22 ± 1### |
| Amphotericin B | 15 ± 1 | ND | ND | ND | ND | ND |
| DMSO | — | — | — | — | — | — |
Figure 1Comparison of the minimum inhibitory concentration of essential oil and fluconazole against fungal strains. Values are the means of the minimum inhibitory concentrations ± SD of three replicates (N = 3 replications).
Figure 2Linear regression showing the relationship between concentration and the zone of inhibition of essential oil for each strain. The straight line shows the line of best fit. The slope was significantly nonzero for all the strains, except C. albicans (p = 0.0091 for C. krusei; p = 0.0193 for C. glabrata; p = 0.0075 for C. parapsilosis; p = 0.0117 for C. neoformans; and p = 0.0626 for C. albicans). The R2 for C. krusei was 0.6452, for C. glabrata was 0.5660, for C. parapsilosis was 0.6633, for C. neoformans was 0.6210, and for C. albicans was 0.4115. Values shown are means ± SD; n = 3 replicates.
Figure 3Minimum fungicidal concentrations of essential oil from E. kebericho against tested fungal strains. Values are the means of the minimum fungicidal concentrations ± SD of three replicates (N = 3 replications). The SD for C. glabrata was zero.