| Literature DB >> 34885744 |
Beenish Khanzada1,2, Nosheen Akhtar3, Mohammad K Okla4, Saud A Alamri4, Abdulrahman Al-Hashimi4, Muhammad Waleed Baig5, Samina Rubnawaz2, Hamada AbdElgawad6, Abdurahman H Hirad4, Ihsan-Ul Haq5, Bushra Mirza2.
Abstract
A worldwide increase in the incidence of fungal infections, emergence of new fungal strains, and antifungal resistance to commercially available antibiotics indicate the need to investigate new treatment options for fungal diseases. Therefore, the interest in exploring the antifungal activity of medicinal plants has now been increased to discover phyto-therapeutics in replacement to conventional antifungal drugs. The study was conducted to explore and identify the mechanism of action of antifungal agents of edible plants, including Cinnamomum zeylanicum, Cinnamomum tamala, Amomum subulatum, Trigonella foenumgraecum, Mentha piperita, Coriandrum sativum, Lactuca sativa, and Brassica oleraceae var. italica. The antifungal potential was assessed via the disc diffusion method and, subsequently, the extracts were assessed for phytochemicals and total antioxidant activity. Potent polyphenols were detected using high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) and antifungal mechanism of action was evaluated in silico. Cinnamomum zeylanicum exhibited antifungal activity against all the tested strains while all plant extracts showed antifungal activity against Fusarium solani. Rutin, kaempferol, and quercetin were identified as common polyphenols. In silico studies showed that rutin displayed the greatest affinity with binding pocket of fungal 14-alpha demethylase and nucleoside diphosphokinase with the binding affinity (Kd, -9.4 and -8.9, respectively), as compared to terbinafine. Results indicated that Cinnamomum zeylanicum and Cinnamomum tamala exert their antifungal effect possibly due to kaempferol and rutin, respectively, or possibly by inhibition of nucleoside diphosphokinase (NDK) and 14-alpha demethylase (CYP51), while Amomum subulatum and Trigonella foenum graecum might exhibit antifungal potential due to quercetin. Overall, the study demonstrates that plant-derived products have a high potential to control fungal infections.Entities:
Keywords: antifungal; antioxidant activities; edible plants; molecular docking; polyphenols
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34885744 PMCID: PMC8659076 DOI: 10.3390/molecules26237164
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Molecules ISSN: 1420-3049 Impact factor: 4.411
Percent extract recovery of plants using methanol for extraction. Extraction was executed in triplicate and the data are presented as mean ± standard deviation (SD).
| Plant Name | Percent Yield (%) |
|---|---|
|
| 26.51 ± 2.22 |
|
| 18.79 ± 1.22 |
|
| 9.45 ± 1.11 |
|
| 5.075 ± 0.52 |
|
| 10.275 ± 1.11 |
|
| 5.995 ± 0.91 |
|
| 6.37 ± 0.81 |
|
| 7.025 ± 1.02 |
Antifungal activity against tested strains at 100 µg/disc concentration. Experiments were executed in triplicate and the data are presented as mean ± standard deviation (SD).
| - | Zone of Inhibition (mm) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| - |
|
|
| |
|
| 13.0 ± 0.5 | 10.0 ± 0.1 | 8.1 ± 0.1 | 10.0 ± 0.1 |
|
| 11.3 ± 1.0 | - | - | 7.1 ± 0.1 |
|
| 13.6 ± 0.1 | 7.1 ± 0.1 | 5.0 ± 0.0 | - |
|
| 9.3 ± 0.0 | 7.1 ± 0.2 | - | - |
|
| 10.0 ± 0.1 | 6.0 ± 0.1 | - | - |
|
| 7.6 ± 0.3 | - | - | - |
|
| 9.3 ± 0.4 | - | - | - |
|
| 8.3 ± 0.5 | - | - | 9.2 ± 0.0 |
| Terbinafine | 20 ± 0.9 | 22 ± 1.03 | 23 ± 1.0 | 22 ± 1.0 |
Cinnamomum zeylanicum (C. zeylanicum), Cinnamomum tamala (C. zamala), Amomum subulatum (A. subulatum), Trigonella foenum graecum (T. foenumgraecum), Mentha piperita (M. piperita), Coriandrum sativum (C.sativum), and Brasicca oleraceae var. italica (B. oleraceae).
Antioxidant potential and total phenolic and flavonoid content of ethanol extracts of selected plants. Experiments were executed in triplicate and the data are presented as mean ± standard deviation (SD).
| S.No | Plant Name | Total Reducing Power | Total Antioxidant Capacity | DPPH Free Radical Scavanging (%) | Total Phenolic Content | Total Flavonoid Content | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| - | - | - | - | % Scavanging at 1000 ppm (%) | IC50 (mg/mL) | - | - |
| 1 |
| 63.08 ± 0.22 | 36.75 ± 0.63 | 78.82 ± 2.52 | 25.4 | 82.42 ± 5.62 | 23.66 ± 0.13 |
| 2 |
| 57.72 ± 0.41 | 48.47 ± 0.91 | 82.93 ± 2.11 | 8.681 | 176.51 ± 1.52 | 13.69 ± 0.32 |
| 3 |
| 8.48 ± 2.42 | 29.97 ± 0.71 | 84.73 ± 3.51 | 283.4 | 24.42 ± 0.07 | 2.45 ± 0.42 |
| 4 |
| 9.28 ± 2.31 | 21.20 ± 0.82 | 75 ± 3.32 | 485.9 | 25.51 ± 0.34 | 28.79 ± 0.38 |
| 5 |
| 65.04 ± 1.11 | 32.73 ± 0.82 | 83.42 ± 3.52 | 124.9 | 136.22 ± 6.41 | 26.78 ± 1.11 |
| 6 |
| 15.72 ± 0.82 | 5.58 ± 2.12 | 83.52 ± 4.52 | 250.9 | 25.17 ± 0.82 | 11.56 ± 0.57 |
| 7 |
| 23.22 ± 0.21 | 14.56 ± 1.06 | 80.77 ± 5.52 | 221.6 | 28.63 ± 3.22 | 15.28 ± 1.29 |
| 8 |
| 8.72 ± 2.85 | 21.89 ± 1.11 | 60.99 ± 2.53 | 759.4 | 17.17 ± 3.22 | 2.47 ± 1.11 |
Identification and quantification of polyphenols (µg/mg Extract) in ethanol extracts of selected plants by HPLC. Experiments were executed in triplicate and the data are presented as mean ± standard deviation (SD).
| S.N | Plant | Rutin (R) | Vanillic Acid (VA) | Quercetin (Q) | Ferulic Acid (FA) | Syringic Acid (SA) | Kaempferol | Plumbagin (PL) | Apigenin | Catechin | Luteolin | Emodin (E) | Caffeic Acid (CF) | Coumaric Acid | Gentisic Acid (GS) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 |
| - | 0.21 ± 0.02 | - | - | - | 0.63 ± 0.02 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| 2 |
| 8.34 ± 0.26 | 2.35 ± 0.04 | - | - | - | - | 0.11 ± 0.04 | - | - | - | 0.54 ± 0.03 | - | - | - |
| 3 |
| - | 0.21 ± 0.01 | 0.85 ± 0.03 | - | 0.2 ± 0.04 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| 4 |
| 6.32 ± 0.03 | - | 1.35 ± 0.04 | - | 0.24 ± 0.06 | - | - | 0.53 ± 0.03 | - | - | 0.05 ± 0.002 | - | -- | - |
| 5 |
| 4.3 ± 0.05 | - | - | 3.01 ± 0.26 | 0.22 ± 0.07 | - | - | - | - | - | - | 0.43 ± 0.04 | - | - |
| 6 |
| 3.44 ± 0.06 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | 0.27 ± 0.02 | - | 1.01 ± 0.22 |
| 7 |
| 3.07 ± 0.11 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | 0.55 ± 0.03 | - | - | 0.37 ± 0.04 | - | - |
| 8 |
| 0.84 ± 0.03 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
Figure 1HPLC profile of (A) Ethanolic Extract of C.tamala; (B) Ethanolic extract of C.zeylanicum; (C) Ethanolic extract of A.subulatum;. (D) Ethanolic Extract of M.piperita; (E) Standard polyphenols; and (F) Blank. R; Rutin, VA; Vanillic acid, Q; Quercetin, FA; Ferulic acid, SA; Syringic acid, K; Kaempferol, PL; Plumbagion, C; Catechin, L; Luteolin, E; Emodin, CF; Caffeic acid, CA; Coumaric acid, and GS; Gentisic acid.
Binding affinities of polyphenols interaction with fungal proteins in terms of Kd values using molecular docking analysis.
| Polyphenol | 14-alphaDemethylase (CYP51) | Nucleoside Diphosphokinase (NDK) |
|---|---|---|
| Rutin | −9.4 | −8.9 |
| Quercetin | −8 | −7.8 |
| Kaempferol | −7.9 | −8.2 |
| Vanillic acid | −5.7 | −5.6 |
| Ferulic acid | −6.1 | −5.9 |
| Catechin | −8.1 | −7.7 |
Figure 2Graphical representation of polyphenols binding modes in fungal proteins. (A) Rutin with 14 alpha demethylase (CYP51). (B) Quercetin with CYP51. (C) Terbinafine with CYP51. (D) Rutin with nucleoside diphospho kinase (NDK). (E) Kaempferol with NDK. (F) Terbinafine with NDK.