| Literature DB >> 34517859 |
Christina C Tam1, Kevin Nguyen2, Daniel Nguyen2, Sabrina Hamada2, Okhun Kwon2, Irene Kuang2, Steven Gong2, Sydney Escobar2, Max Liu2, Jihwan Kim2, Tiffany Hou2, Justin Tam2, Luisa W Cheng1, Jong H Kim1, Kirkwood M Land2, Mendel Friedman3.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: We previously reported that the tomato glycoalkaloid tomatine inhibited the growth of Trichomonas vaginalis strain G3, Tritrichomonas foetus strain D1, and Tritrichomonas foetus-like strain C1 that cause disease in humans and farm and domesticated animals. The increasing prevalence of antibiotic resistance requires development of new tools to enhance or replace medicinal antibiotics.Entities:
Keywords: Flavonoid; Infection; Inhibition; Lactobacilli; Leaves; Phenolic; Stems; Tomatine; Tomato; Trichomonas vaginalis; Trichomoniasis; Tritrichomonas foetus; bacteria; fungi
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34517859 PMCID: PMC8436577 DOI: 10.1186/s12906-021-03391-2
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Complement Med Ther ISSN: 2662-7671
Inhibition of parasite growth by tomato plant-derived powders
| Powders | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Tomato leaves | 70 ± 11 | 97.8 ± 2.6* | 99.5 ± 2.4* |
| Tomato stems | 38 ± 20 | 26.4 ± 8.6 | 44 ± 15 |
| Green tomato peel | 18 ± 1 1 | 20.1 ± 6.1b | 89 ± 13* |
| Yellow tomato peel | 43.3 ± 3.7 | 44.6 ± 4.5b | 6.1 ± 1.9* |
| Red tomato peel | 44.6 ± 7.5 | 19.3 ± 2.7* | 19.4 ± 2.9* |
| Green tomato fruit | 45.7 ± 9.6 | 36 ± 13 | 24.4 ± 3.3* |
The data represents the average % growth inhibition with standard deviations (SD) for each strain from three independent assays using the test powders at 0.02% w/v. Student’s t-test were performed for each powder to determine the statistical significance of the percent growth inhibition values for each of the three trichomonad strains to each other. p < 0.05 were considered statistically significant.* p < 0.05 for T. foetus C1 (feline) and T. foetus D1 (bovine) compared against T. vaginalis G3 (human); b p < 0.05 comparison between T. foetus D1 (bovine) and T. foetus C1 (feline)
Fig. 1The α-tomatine and dehydrotomatine content and sums and ratios of both in five test powders with standard deviations. Adapted from Friedman, et al. [13]
Fig. 2Phenolics measured in tomato powders in μmole/g dry weight. Adapted from Friedman, et al. [13]
Inhibition of bacteria by powders derived from a wild, drought-resistant tomato plant
| Zones of inhibition (mm) | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| DMSO:water vehicle | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Levofloxacin 5 μg | 30 | 30 | 17 | 36 | 26 | 0 | 15 | 5 |
| Gentamicin 10 μg | 18 | 16 | 22 | 25 | 15 | 8 | 8 | 11 |
| Gentamicin 120 μg | 20 | 22 | 30 | 30 | 20 | 15 | 15 | 20 |
| Tomato leaves | 0 | 8* | 0 | 0 | 13* | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Tomato stem | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Green tomato peel | 8* | 7* | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Red tomato peel | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Yellow tomato peel | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Green tomato fruit | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
A disc diffusion assay was performed with either vehicle, antibiotic controls, or tomato powders at 10% (w/v). * indicates sensitivity to the tomato powders
Fungal pathogen growth sensitivity to tomato powders
| Zones of inhibition (mm) | ||
|---|---|---|
| Controls and test powders | ||
| DMSO:water (vehicle) | 0 | 0 |
| Octyl gallate (control) 0.117% w/v | 10.5 | 17.8 |
| Tomato leaves | 0 | 13* |
| Tomato stem | 0 | 13* |
| Green tomato peel | 0 | 0 |
| Red tomato peel | 0 | 0 |
| Yellow tomato peel | 0 | 0 |
| Green tomato fruit | 0 | 11.5* |
aThe antifungal activity of tomato powders (10% w/v) was tested on Aspergillus fumigatus AF293 and C. albicans ATCC 10231. Zones of inhibition in mm were measured from the negative control vehicle (DMSO:water); positive control (0.117% w/v octyl gallate); and tomato powders. * indicates sensitivity to powders