| Literature DB >> 34572710 |
Muhammad Ishaque1, Yamin Bibi1, Samha Al Ayoubi2, Saadia Masood3, Sobia Nisa4, Abdul Qayyum5.
Abstract
Ethnopharmacological approaches provide clues for the search of bioactive compounds. Dryopteris ramosa (Hope) C. Chr. (plant family: Dryopteridaceae) is an ethnomedicinal plant of the Galliyat region of Pakistan. The aqueous fraction (AqF) of D. ramosa is being used by inhabitants of the Galliyat region of Pakistan to treat their gastrointestinal tract ailments, especially those caused by bacteria. The aims of the present study were as follows: (i) to justify the ethnomedicinal uses of the AqF of D. ramosa; (ii) to isolate a bioactive compound from the AqF of D. ramosa; and (iii) to evaluate the antibacterial and cytotoxic potential of the isolated compound. Column chromatography (CC) techniques were used for the isolation studies. Spectroscopic techniques (UV-Vis, MS, 1&2D NMR) were used for structural elucidation. The agar-well diffusion method was used to evaluate the antibacterial potential of "i3CβDGP" against five bacterial strains, and compare it with the known antibiotic "Cefixime". The brine shrimp lethality test (BSLT) was used for cytotoxic studies. The AqF of D. ramosa afforded "iriflophenone-3-C-β-D glucopyranoside (i3CβDGP)" when subjected to LH20 Sephadex, followed by MPLC silica gel60, and purified by preparative TLC. The "i3CβDGP" showed a strong potential (MIC = 31.1 ± 7.2, 62.5 ± 7.2, and 62.5 ± 7.2 µg/mL) against Klebsiella pneumoniae, Staphylococcus aureus, and Escherichia coli, respectively. On the other hand, the least antibacterial potential was shown by "i3CβDGP" (MIC = 125 ± 7.2 µg/mL), against Bacillus subtilis, in comparison to Cefixime (MIC = 62.5 ± 7.2 µg/mL). The cytotoxicity of "i3CβDGP" was significantly low (LD50 = 10.037 ± 2.8 µg/mL) against Artemia salina nauplii. This study not only justified the ethnomedicinal use of D. ramosa, but also highlighted the importance of ethnomedicinal knowledge. Further studies on AqF and other fractions of D. ramosa are in progress.Entities:
Keywords: Dryopteris ramosa; GIT infection; antibacterial; cytotoxic potential; ethnomedicinal uses; iriflophenone-3-C-β-D glucopyranoside
Year: 2021 PMID: 34572710 PMCID: PMC8466121 DOI: 10.3390/antibiotics10091128
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Antibiotics (Basel) ISSN: 2079-6382
Figure 1Dryopteris ramosa (Hope) C. Chr., growing at latitude 33°52′41.58″ N and longitude 73°7′8.47″ E (longitude and latitude were determined by using Google Earth pro 2002 free software). The photograph was taken by Muhammad Ishaque.
Role of bacteria in GIT disorders in human.
| Microorganism | Importance in GIT (Human) |
|---|---|
|
| Useful bacteria, in many animal species, feed supplementation with |
|
| Produce staphylococcal enterotoxins (SEs), the causative agents of staphylococcal food poisoning [ |
|
| In Asia, it is the leading cause of pyogenic liver abscess (PLA) [ |
|
| Gastroenteritis (diarrhea, abdominal cramps and fever) |
|
| Among the |
Figure 2Fractionation scheme: a flow diagram representing the polarity-based solvent–solvent fractionation of crude methanolic extract (CME) of Dryopteris ramosa.
Figure 3The percentage yield of various fractions obtained from 450 g dry weight of Dryopteris ramosa.
Comparing the antibacterial potential of crude methanolic extract of Dryopteris ramosa, iriflophenone-3-C-β-D glucopyranoside and well-known antibiotic (Cefixime) against five bacterial strains.
| Conc. (µg/mL) | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Inhibition zone (in millimeters) | ||||||
|
| 10 | 11 ± 0.7 | 12 ± 0.7 | 12 ± 0.3 | 11 ± 0.7 | 10 ± 0.7 |
| 100 | 19 ± 0.3 | 24 ± 0.3 | 31 ± 0.3 | 22 ± 0.7 | 24 ± 0.7 | |
| 500 | 31 ± 0.7 | 38 ± 0.3 | 45 ± 0.7 | 43 ± 0.7 | 38 ± 0.7 | |
| 1000 | 43 ± 0.3 | 66 ± 0.7 | 65 ± 0.3 | 61 ± 0.3 | 54 ± 0.3 | |
|
|
|
|
|
| ||
|
| 10 | 18 ± 0.3 | 23 ± 0.3 | 24 ± 0.7 | 19 ± 0.7 | 19 ± 0.7 |
| 100 | 26 ± 0.7 | 32 ± 0.3 | 49 ± 0.3 | 32 ± 0.7 | 29 ± 0.7 | |
| 500 | 35 ± 0.3 | 45 ± 0.3 | 68 ± 0.3 | 55 ± 0.3 | 42 ± 0.7 | |
| 1000 | 48 ± 0.7 | 71 ± 0.7 | 85 ± 0.3 | 76 ± 0.7 | 55 ± 0.3 | |
|
|
|
|
|
| ||
|
| 10 | 19 ± 0.3 | 23 ± 0.3 | 25 ± 0.7 | 26 ± 0.3 | 21 ± 0.3 |
| 100 | 27 ± 0.7 | 31 ± 0.3 | 49 ± 0.3 | 36 ± 0.3 | 32 ± 0.3 | |
| 500 | 39 ± 0.7 | 44 ± 0.7 | 70 ± 0.3 | 59 ± 0.3 | 43 ± 0.7 | |
| 1000 | 51 ± 0.7 | 67 ± 0.3 | 94 ± 0.3 | 78 ± 0.3 | 56 ± 0.3 | |
|
|
|
|
|
| ||
n = 3, CME = crude methanolic extract of Dryopteris ramosa, i3CβDG = iriflophenone-3-C-β-D glucopyranoside, * control/standard, well-known antibiotic.
Figure 4Comparison between MIC values (µg/mL) of iriflophenone-3-C-β-D-glucopyranoside (i3CβDGP) and Cefixime (well-known antibiotic) against various bacterial pathogens of human GIT.
Figure 5The cytotoxicity determination of iriflophenone-3-C-β D glucopyranoside (i3cβDGP) and its comparison with antibiotic (Cefixime) and control (K2Cr2O7). Data on top right corner show the LD50.
Figure 6(a) Structural formula of “iriflophenone-3-C-β-D glucopyranoside” isolated from AqF of D. ramosa and (b) Proposed fragmentation scheme of iriflophenone-3-C-β-D glucopyranoside. Molecular ion is (M + H) 409 m/z. This scheme is based on fragments peaks observed for iriflophenone-3-C-β-D glucopyranoside during ESI-TOF/MS (positive ion mode).
Figure 7(a) gs-COSY spectra of “iriflophenone-3-C-β-D glucopyranoside” isolated from AqF of D. ramosa and (b) gs-HMBC spectra of “iriflophenone-3-C-β-D glucopyranoside” isolated from AqF of D. ramosa.