| Literature DB >> 35628682 |
Walaa A Negm1, Mona El-Aasr1, Ghada Attia1, Moneerah J Alqahtani2,3, Rania Ibrahim Yassien4, Amal Abo Kamer5, Engy Elekhnawy5.
Abstract
Candida albicans can cause various infections, especially in immunocompromised patients. Its ability to develop resistance to the current antifungal drugs as well as its multiple virulence factors have rendered the problem even more complicated. Thus, in the present investigation, we elucidated an in vitro and in vivo antifungal activity of Encephalartos laurentianus methanol extract (ELME) against C. albicans clinical isolates for the first time. A phytochemical identification of 64 compounds was conducted in ELME using LC-MS/MS. Interestingly, ELME exhibited antifungal activity with MIC values that ranged from 32-256 µg/mL. Furthermore, we investigated the antibiofilm activity of ELME against the biofilms formed by C. albicans isolates. ELME displayed antibiofilm activity using a crystal violet assay as it decreased the percentages of cells, moderately and strongly forming biofilms from 62.5% to 25%. Moreover, the antibiofilm impact of ELME was elucidated using SEM and fluorescent microscope. A significant reduction in the biofilm formation by C. albicans isolates was observed. In addition, we observed that ELME resulted in the downregulation of the biofilm-related tested genes (ALS1, BCR1, PLB2, and SAP5) in 37.5% of the isolates using qRT-PCR. Besides, the in vivo antifungal activity of ELME on the kidney tissues of rats infected with C. albicans was investigated using histological and immunohistochemical studies. ELME was found to protect against C. albicans induced renal damage, decrease desmin and inducible nitric oxide synthase, increase alkaline phosphatase, and increase infected rats' survival rate. Additionally, the cytotoxicity of ELME was elucidated on Human Skin Fibroblast normal cells using MTT assay. ELME had an IC50 of 31.26 µg/mL. Thus, we can conclude that ELME might be a promising future source for antifungal compounds.Entities:
Keywords: LC-MS/MS; SEM; alkaline phosphatase; desmin; fluorescent microscope; iNOs; qRT-PCR
Year: 2022 PMID: 35628682 PMCID: PMC9144060 DOI: 10.3390/jof8050426
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Fungi (Basel) ISSN: 2309-608X
Phytochemical profiling of ELME by LC-MS/MS analysis (negative and positive mode E.S.I.).
| Peak NO | Identification | Error | R.T. (min.) | Adduct Ion | Formula | MS/MS | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | f.a Citraconic acid | −2.8 | 1.006 | 129.02 | [M − H]− | C5H6O4 | 84.99, 85.02, 129.01 |
| 2 | a Rosmarinic acid | 6.0 | 1.009 | 359.11 | [M − H]− | C18H16O8 | 181.04, 329.09, 359.07, 359.11 |
| 3 | a Malic acid | −4.7 | 1.331 | 133.10 | [M − H]− | C4H6O5 | 133.01 |
| 4 | t 3-Amino-1,2,4-triazole | −0.6 | 1.392 | 85.027 | [M + H]+ | C2H4N4 | 71.95, 85.02 |
| 5 | a 3-(4-hydroxyphenyl)prop-2-enoic acid | −0.5 | 1. 393 | 165.07 | [M + H]+ | C9H8O3 | 61.02, 85.02, 166.08 |
| 6 | s Resveratrol | 6.4 | 1.470 | 229.15 | [M + H]+ | C14H12O3 | 58.06, 60.08, 70.06, 229.15 |
| 7 | ak Harmaline | 0.6 | 1.561 | 215.05 | [M + H]+ | C13H14N2O | 72.08, 156.10, 169.13, 215.05 |
| 8 | ak Nicotinic acid | −0.9 | 1.693 | 124.03 | [M + H]+ | C6H5NO2 | 53.03, 78.03, 80.04, 124.03 |
| 9 | ak 5-Hydroxyindoleacetic acid | 0.8 | 1.3058 | 192.10 | [M + H]+ | C10H9NO3 | 148.07, 177.07, 192.10 |
| 10 | f.a Linoleic acid | 0.6 | 2.290 | 281.10 | [M + H]+ | C18H32O2 | 123.07, 151.04, 165.09, 281.05 |
| 11 | f.g Acacetin-7- | −8.1 | 4.305 | 593.28 | [M + H]+ | C28H32O14 | 593.25 |
| 12 | f.g Kaempferol-3-Glucuronide | 10.1 | 5.108 | 461.16 | [M − H]− | C21H18O12 | 188.93, 239.09, 256.92, 324.90, 392.89, 461.15 |
| 13 | b Procyanidin B1 | 1.5 | 5.115 | 579.14 | [M + H]+ | C30H26O12 | 123.04, 127.03, 135.04, 579.14 |
| 14 | a Chlorogenic acid | 1.3 | 5.534 | 355.07 | [M + H]+ | C16H18O9 | 135.04, 163.04, 355.07 |
| 15 | co 6,7-dihydroxycoumarin | −0.4 | 5.439 | 179.03 | [M + H]+ | C9H6O4 | 51.02, 77.03 179.03 |
| 16 | f.g Isorhamnetin-3- | −2.1 | 5.465 | 623.22 | [M − H]− | C28H32O16 | 315.03, 532.91, 579.15, 623.17 |
| 17 | c (+)-3 3′ 4′ 5 7-Pentahydroxyflavan | 3.6 | 5.574 | 291.08 | [M + H]+ | C15H14O6 | 111.04, 119.04, 123.04, 291.08 |
| 18 | f.g Baicalein-7- | 4.2 | 5.575 | 447.16 | [M + H]+ | C21H18O11 | 125.13, 129.07, 135.04, 269.06, 273.08, 447.13 |
| 19 | f.g Luteolin-8-C-glucoside | −12.6 | 5.656 | 449.14 | [M + H]+ | C21H20O11 | 139.07, 449.12 |
| 20 | f.g Syringetin-3- | −5.2 | 5.693 | 507.17 | [M − H2O − H]− | C23H24O13 | 112.98, 138.02, 163.06, 218.95, 286.93, 307.10, 354.92, 507.16 |
| 21 | f.g Phlorizin | 2.7 | 5.707 | 435.22 | [M − H]− | C21H24O10 | 389.21, 433.83, 435.20, 435.23 |
| 22 | ak Dihydrocapsaicin | 3.3 | 5.974 | 308.18 | [M + H]+ | C18H29NO3 | 123.04, 131.04, 137.05, 149.05 |
| 23 | b Procyanidin B2 | 0.6 | 6.161 | 579.18 | [M + H]+ | C30H26O12 | 112.02, 579.18 |
| 24 | f.g Quercetin-4′-glucoside | −1.3 | 7.061 | 465.10 | [M + H]+ | C21H20O12 | 69.03, 115.04, 289.04, 303.04, 465.09 |
| 25 | f Myricetin | −1.5 | 7.063 | 317.06 | [M − H]− | C21H24O10 | 112.98, 155.03, 165.98, 180.96, 194.99, 274.04, 287.08, 302.07 |
| 26 | an Cyanidin-3-glucoside | 1.0 | 7.109 | 449.10 | [M]+ | C21H21O11 | 85.01, 117.02, 147.02, 201.02, 287.05, 449.10 |
| 27 | f.g Luteolin-3′,7-di- | −0.4 | 7.227 | 611.15 | [M + H]+ | C27H30O16 | 135.04, 148.10, 271.06, 273.06, 611.15 |
| 28 | f.g Daidzein-8-C-glucoside | −0.5 | 7.279 | 417.13 | [M + H]+ | C21H20O9 | 180.06, 399.21, 417.13 |
| 29 | f.g Isoquercitrin | −2.1 | 7.283 | 463.11 | [M − H]− | C21H20O12 | 48.17, 462.90 |
| 30 | an Petunidin-3- | 0.9 | 7.567 | 479.11 | [M]+ | C22H23O12 | 165.09, 211.12, 285.08, 299.10, 302.04, 479.11 |
| 31 | b Procyanidin C1 | 0.9 | 7.772 | 865.21 | [M-H]- | C45H38O18 | 11.46, 865.20 |
| 32 | f.g apigenin-7- | 3.5 | 7.891 | 433.11 | [M + H]+ | C21H20O10 | 119.04, 141.07, 148.11, 135.02, 229.04, 270.22, 433.11 |
| 33 | f.g Acacetin-7- | 8.0 | 7.870 | 593.17 | [M + H]+ | C28H32O14 | 520.20, 575.32, 593.17 |
| 34 | tp Sabinene | 0.4 | 8.068 | 137.05 | [M + H]+ | C10H16 | 55.05, 66.04, 68.74, 79.05, 94.04, 137.05 |
| 35 | an Peonidine-3- | −6.1 | 8.101 | 463.12 | [M]+ | C22H23O11 | 73.05,167.99, 197.47, 234.10, 258.04, 281.08, 286.04, 301.06, 309.47, 342.01, 399.15, 463.12 |
| 36 | co Daphnetin | −0.8 | 8.202 | 179.03 | [M + H]+ | C9H6O4 | 77.03, 104.99, 123.00, 133.02, 135.04, 151.038 |
| 37 | f.g Diosmin | −0.8 | 8.762 | 609.17 | [M + H]+ | C28H32O15 | 265.11, 303.11, 609.16 |
| 38 | au Maritimetin-6- | 0.8 | 8.827 | 449.16 | [M + H]+ | C21H20O11 | 74.09, 133.02,135.04, 257.04, 285.03, 360.05, 375.07, 388.05, 403.07, 417.09, 434.09, 449.12 |
| 39 | f.g Rhoifolin | 0.7 | 8.974 | 577.26 | [M − H]− | C27H30O14 | 576.81, 532.90, 269.10 |
| 40 | f.g Apigenin-6-C-glucoside -7- | −2.0 | 9.027 | 595.37 | [M + H]+ | C21H20O12 | 165.02, 177.06, 285.09, 303.05 |
| 41 | f 3′ 4′ 5 7-tetrahydroxyflavanone | 0.0 | 9.760 | 289.07 | [M + H]+ | C15H12O6 | 117.03, 121.06, 135.04, 139.03, 145.02, 153.01, 163.03, 179.03, 181.06, 289.07 |
| 42 | f Luteolin | 8.1 | 10.002 | 287.04 | [M + H]+ | C15H10O6 | 67.01, 77.04, 287.04 |
| 43 | an Cyanidin-3, 5-di- | −1.2 | 10.357 | 611.22 | [M]+ | C27H31O16 | 215.06, 266.99, 309.06, 355.06, 449.13, 594.23, 611.22 |
| 44 | f.g Luteolin-4′- | −3.9 | 10.370 | 449.14 | [M + H]+ | C21H20O11 | 147.04, 153.06, 167.02, 287.05, 287.10, 449.14 |
| 45 | f.g Rutin | 1.7 | 10.842 | 609.15 | [M − H]− | C27H30O16 | 609.15 |
| 46 | f Naringenin | 0.9 | 11.086 | 273.07 | [M + H]+ | C15H12O5 | 67.04, 111.08, 119.03, 125.10, 129.07, 135.01. 273.07 |
| 47 | f 3 5 7-trihydroxy-4′-methoxyflavone | 0.7 | 11.278 | 301.10 | [M + H]+ | C16H12O6 | 181.06, 215.07, 223.07, 258.08, 273.11, 301.11 |
| 48 | f 3′-Methoxy-4′,5,7-trihydroxyflavonol | 0.4 | 11.329 | 317.06 | [M + H]+ | C16H12O7 | 129.97, 137.02, 168.00, 245.04, 263.21, 274.04, 287.09, 302.04, 317.06 |
| 49 | ak Caffeine | −1.9 | 11.857 | 195.13 | [M + H]+ | C8H10N4O2 | 195.13 |
| 50 | f Formononetin | 5.9 | 12.010 | 269.07 | [M + H]+ | C16H12O4 | 137.02, 225.06, 254.06, 269.07 |
| 51 | f 4′,5-dihydroxy-7-methoxyflavone | −2.6 | 12.613 | 287.09 | [M + H]+ | C16H14O5 | 137.02, 145.08, 167.03, 175.07, 287.09 |
| 52 | f Acacetin | 1.0 | 12.776 | 285.08 | [M + H]+ | C16H12O5 | 128.06, 207.06, 241.04, 242.05, 270.05, 285.07 |
| 53 | f Apigenin | 0.8 | 12.788 | 271.09 | [M + H]+ | C15H10O5 | 65.04, 67.01, 68.99, 89.03, 109.02, 115.05, 153.02, 163.04, 253.14, 271.09 |
| 54 | f 4′,5,7-Trihydroxyflavonol | 0.9 | 14.059 | 287.09 | [M + H]+ | C15H10O6 | 67.02, 91.05, 111.04, 119.04, 124.01, 147.04, 167.03, 287.09 |
| 55 | f (+-)-Taxifolin | −0.1 | 14.290 | 305.13 | [M + H]+ | C15H12O7 | 305.13 |
| 56 | a Methyl dihydrojasmonate | −9.7 | 14.433 | 227.16 | [M + H]+ | C13H22O3 | 79.05, 95.08, 167.14, 195.14, 227.14 |
| 57 | f 3′ 4′ 5 7-tetrahydroxyflavanone | −1.4 | 14.553 | 289.18 | [M + H]+ | C15H12O6 | 271.17, 289.18 |
| 58 | f.g Apigenin 8-C-glucoside | −6.3 | 14.961 | 433.12 | [M + H]+ | C21H20O10 | 135.03, 391.09, 433.13 |
| 59 | ak Capsaicin | 0 | 15.293 | 306.20 | [M + H]+ | C18H27NO3 | 108.04, 126.02, 137.06, 153.12, 306.20 |
| 60 | f.g Quercetin-3-Arabinoside | −6.8 | 15.368 | 435.14 | [M + H]+ | C20H18O11 | 135.04, 240.04, 271.06, 389.10, 435.14 |
| 61 | an Cyanidin-3- | 8.6 | 17.917 | 581.13 | [M]+ | C26H29O15 | 107.04, 133.06, 135.04, 153.01, 297.07, 581.14 |
| 62 | c (-)-Epicatechin | 2.5 | 18.280 | 291.07 | [M + H]+ | C15H14O6 | 81.07, 135.05, 275.05, 291.07 |
| 63 | co Esculin | −2.2 | 18.380 | 341.19 | [M + H]+ | C15H16O9 | 112.07, 121.14, 131.04, 139.08, 161.06, 165.08, 179.12, 180.13, 287.24, 341.19 |
| 64 | f 3 3′ 4′ 5-tetrahydroxy-7-methoxyflavone | −4.7 | 20.178 | 317.11 | [M + H]+ | C16H12O7 | 105.07, 129.07, 215.18, 267.20, 299.20, 317.11 |
a: carboxylic acid or phenolic acid derivative, f.a: fatty acids, ak: alkaloid and related metabolites, an: anthocyanidin glycosides, au: aurone derivative, c: catechins co: coumarins, f: flavonoid aglycone, f.g: flavonoid glycoside, b: biflavonoids, s: stilbenes, t: triazoles tp: terpenoids.
Effect of ELME on the biofilm-forming ability of C. albicans isolates.
| Biofilm Forming Ability | No. of Isolates before Treatment with ELME | No. of Isolates after Treatment with ELME |
|---|---|---|
| Non-biofilm forming | 4 | 6 |
| Weak biofilm-forming | 2 | 6 |
| Moderate biofilm-forming | 6 | 3 |
| Strong biofilm-forming | 4 | 1 |
Figure 1Bar chart revealing a significant reduction in the count of CFU/mL of the biofilm-forming C. albicans isolates after treatment with ELME.
Figure 2Scanning electron micrograph of the biofilm formed by a representative C. albicans isolate (C6) (A) before and (B) after treatment with ELME.
Figure 3Fluorescent microscope micrograph of the biofilm formed by a representative C. albicans isolate (C6) stained with Calcofluor White stain (A) before and (B) after treatment with ELME.
Figure 4Bar chart showing the significant reduction in the relative expression of the biofilm genes in 6 (37.5%) C. albicans isolates after treatment with ELME.
Figure 5Photomicrograph of H&E stain of the renal cortex showing: (A) the control group (group I) having a renal corpuscle with a glomerulus (G), surrounded with parietal and visceral layers of bowman’s capsule, they are separated by bowman’s space (*, proximal convoluted tubules (P) are lined with pyramidal cells which have brush border, deeply acidophilic cytoplasm, and vesicular nuclei. Distal convoluted tubules (D) have a wide lumen, and their lining cells have apical nuclei and less acidophilic cytoplasm. (B) C. albicans group (group II) having renal glomeruli (G) with narrow bowman’s space and intraglomerular hemorrhage (H1). Interstitial hemorrhage (H2), cellular infiltration (I), and congested blood vessels (C) are seen. Proximal convoluted tubules with an obliterated lumen (arrowhead) and disrupted distal convoluted tubules (D) are noticed. (C) fluconazole group (group III) having renal glomeruli with apparent dilated bowman’s space (*) and apparent partial improvement from the previous group. Intraglomerular hemorrhage (H1), interstitial hemorrhage (H2), cellular infiltration (I), and congested blood vessels (C) are still seen. Proximal convoluted tubules with the obliterated lumen (arrowhead) are still noticed. (D) ELME treated group, 50 mg/kg (group IV), having segmented renal glomeruli with apparently normal bowman’s space (*). Proximal (P) and distal (D) convoluted tubules are nearly similar to the control group, but some tubules are disrupted with vacuolated cytoplasm in the tubular cells (arrowhead). (E) ELME treated group, 100 mg/kg (group V) have renal glomerulus (G), bowman’s space (*), proximal convoluted tubules (P), distal convoluted tubules (D), more or less similar to the control group (×200).
Figure 6Photomicrograph of the renal cortex of Masson Trichrome stain showing: (A) group I have a minimal amount of collagen fibers in the renal interstitium and in between the glomerular capillaries (arrows). The basal lamina is positively stained. (B) group II has a massive increase in the collagen fibers in the interstitium and in between the glomerular capillaries (arrows). (C) group III has an intense increase in collagen fibers in the interstitium and between the glomerular capillaries (arrows). (D) group IV has a moderate increase in the collagen fibers in the interstitium and in between the glomerular capillaries (arrows). (E) group V has a mild increase in the collagen fibers in the interstitium and in between the glomerular capillaries (arrows) (×200).
Figure 7Photomicrograph of desmin immunostaining of the glomerular epithelial cells in the renal cortex showing: (A) group I have a faint positive cytoplasmic desmin immunostaining. (B) group II has a strong positive cytoplasmic desmin immunostaining. (C) group III has a moderately positive cytoplasmic desmin immunostaining. (D) group IV has a mild positive cytoplasmic desmin immunostaining. (E) group V has a weakly positive cytoplasmic desmin immunostaining (×400).
Figure 8Photomicrograph of the renal cortex of alkaline phosphatase immunostaining showing: (A) group I have a strong positive reaction at the apical surfaces (arrowhead) and basal parts of the proximal convoluted tubular cells (arrow). (B) group II has a weak reaction at the apical surfaces (arrowhead) and basal parts of the proximal convoluted tubular cells (arrow). (C) group III has a mild positive reaction at the apical surfaces (arrowhead) and basal parts of the proximal convoluted tubular cells (arrow). (D) group IV has a moderate positive reaction at the apical surfaces (arrowhead) and a mild reaction in the basal parts of the proximal convoluted tubular cells (arrow). (E) group V has a strong positive reaction at the apical surfaces (arrowhead) and basal parts of the proximal convoluted tubular cells (arrow) (×400).
Figure 9Photomicrograph of the renal cortex of iNOs immunostaining showing: (A) group I have a weakly positive reaction at the cytoplasm of glomeruli capillary endothelium cells and a faint positive reaction in the cytoplasm of the tubular cells. (B) group II has a strong positive reaction at the cytoplasm of glomeruli capillary cells and tubular cells. (C) group III has a moderately positive reaction at the cytoplasm of glomeruli capillary cells and tubular cells. (D) group IV has a mild positive reaction at the cytoplasm of glomeruli capillary cells and tubular cells. (E) group V has a faint positive reaction at the cytoplasm of glomeruli capillary cells and tubular cells (×400).
Figure 10Bar chart showing the thickness of the glomerular basement membrane ((left) axis) and the tubular injury score ((right) axis) among the experimental groups.
Figure 11Bar chart showing the percentages of collagen fiber, desmin, and iNOs among the different groups.
Figure 12Bar chart showing the number of CFU/g kidney of the rats of different experimental groups.
Figure 13Survival of rats with systemic candidiasis using Kaplan-Meier survival curve.