| Literature DB >> 35684239 |
Mahesh Tiran Gunasena1,2, Amara Rafi1, Syazwan Afif Mohd Zobir1, Mohd Zobir Hussein3, Asgar Ali4, Abdulaziz Bashir Kutawa1,5, Mohd Aswad Abdul Wahab1, Mohd Roslan Sulaiman6, Fariz Adzmi7, Khairulmazmi Ahmad1,8.
Abstract
Essential oils protect plants, and due to their natural origin, there is much interest in using them as antimicrobial agents. The purpose of this study was to determine the phytochemical constituents of ginger essential oil (GEO), antimicrobial activity, and mode of action against Burkholderia glumae (Bg). In addition, the volatile active compounds (AIs) were studied using GC-MS, FTIR, and Raman spectroscopy. A total of 45 phytochemical components were detected and the most prevalent bioactive compounds were Geranial, 1,8-Cineole, Neral, Camphene, α-Zingiberene, and α-Farnesene. Furthermore, it was found that the most dominant terpenes in GEO were monoterpenes. The diameter zone of inhibition values varied from 7.1 to 15 mm depending on the concentration tested. In addition, the MIC and MBC values were 112.5 µL/mL. Faster killing time and lower membrane potential were observed in 1xMIC treatment compared to 0.5xMIC treatment, whereas the control had the maximum values. From observations of various images, it was concluded that the mode of action of GEO affected the cytoplasmic membrane, causing it to lose its integrity and increase its permeability. Therefore, the antibacterial study and mechanism of action revealed that GEO is very effective in suppressing the growth of B. glumae.Entities:
Keywords: Burkholderia glumae; antimicrobial activity; bioactive compounds; gas chromatography; ginger essential oil
Year: 2022 PMID: 35684239 PMCID: PMC9182640 DOI: 10.3390/plants11111466
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Plants (Basel) ISSN: 2223-7747
Chemical compounds in GEO using GC–MS by matching their retention time (Rt), retention index (RI), molecular formula, and mass spectral (MS). Data from the mass spectral databases FFNSC1.3.lib, NIST11.lib, and WILEY229. Lib.
| Chemical | Rt | RI | RI | RI | Area | Molecular Formula | MS | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Heptan-2-ol | 8.074 | 900 | - | - | 1.23 | C7H16O | 331 |
| 2 | α-Pinene | 9.386 | 933 | 937 | 922–955 | 2.76 | C10H16 | 412 |
| 3 | Camphene | 10.087 | 951 | 943 | 933–962 | 7.53 | C10H16 | 451 |
| 4 | β-Pinene | 11.173 | 978 | - | 959–986 | 0.52 | C10H16 | 349 |
| 5 | 6-Methyl-5-hepten-2-one | 11.344 | 983 | - | - | 0.95 | C8 H14 O | 347 |
| 6 | Myrcene | 11.588 | 989 | 975 | 973–993 | 2.31 | C10H16 | 359 |
| 7 | Sulcatol | 11.706 | 992 | - | - | 0.25 | C8H16O | 332 |
| 8 | α- Phellandrene | 12.370 | 1007 | 987 | 989–1013 | 0.30 | C10 H16 | 322 |
| 9 | 1,8-Cineole | 13.646 | 1034 | - | 1005–1039 | 14.96 | C10H18O | 363 |
| 10 | Terpinolene | 16.074 | 1086 | - | - | 0.47 | C10H16 | 408 |
| 11 | Methyl lavender ketone | 16.220 | 1089 | - | - | 0.44 | C10H20O2 | 290 |
| 12 | β-Linalool | 16.705 | 1100 | - | - | 2.19 | C10H18O | 396 |
| 13 | Camphor | 19.081 | 1149 | - | 1045 | 0.26 | C10 H16 O | 299 |
| 14 | Citronellal | 19.224 | 1152 | - | - | 0.95 | C10H18O | 290 |
| 15 | Isoneral | 19.667 | 1161 | - | - | 0.22 | C10H16O | 407 |
| 16 | Endo-Borneol | 20.349 | 1175 | - | - | 1.70 | C10H18O | 355 |
| 17 | Isogeranial | 20.581 | 1179 | - | - | 0.34 | C10H18O | 404 |
| 18 | 4-Terpineol | 20.719 | 1182 | - | - | 0.39 | C10H18O | 361 |
| 19 | Cryptone | 21.021 | 1188 | - | - | 0.19 | C9H14O | 361 |
| 20 | α -Terpineol | 21.442 | 1197 | - | 1159–1193 | 1.77 | C10H18O | 404 |
| 21 | Citronellol | 23.055 | 1231 | - | 1203–1229 | 3.27 | C10H20O | 358 |
| 22 | Neral | 23.666 | 1244 | - | - | 13.99 | C10H16O | 364 |
| 23 | Geraniol | 24.170 | 1254 | - | 1228–1258 | 2.35 | C10H18O | 364 |
| 24 | Geranial | 25.146 | 1274 | - | 1232–1267 | 17.88 | C10H16O | 342 |
| 25 | 2-Undecanone | 26.014 | 1293 | - | - | 0.90 | C11H22O | 369 |
| 26 | Methyl nonyl carbinol | 26.466 | 1302 | - | - | 0.20 | C11H24O | 334 |
| 27 | Citronellyl acetate | 28.595 | 1348 | - | - | 0.31 | C12H22O2 | 339 |
| 28 | Geranyl acetate | 29.911 | 1377 | 1383 | 1344–1385 | 0.63 | C12H20O2 | 357 |
| 29 | β-Elemene | 30.585 | 1392 | - | 1370–1404 | 0.51 | C15H24 | 385 |
| 30 | Caryophyllene | 32.007 | 1424 | - | - | 0.37 | C15H24 | 353 |
| 31 | Curcumene | 34.588 | 1483 | - | - | 1.58 | C15H22 | 423 |
| 32 | Germacrene | 34.698 | 1485 | - | - | 0.67 | C15 H24 | 371 |
| 33 | α-Zingiberene | 35.247 | 1498 | - | - | 5.19 | C15H24 | 312 |
| 34 | α-Farnesene | 35.551 | 1505 | 1433 | 1479–1518 | 3.51 | C15H24 | 429 |
| 35 | β-Bisabolene | 35.766 | 1510 | - | 1485–1513 | 1.16 | C15H24 | 396 |
| 36 | β-Sesquiphellandrene | 36.460 | 1527 | 1525 | - | 2.40 | C15H24 | 418 |
| 37 | Muurola-4,10(14)-dien-1.beta.-ol | 37.348 | 1548 | - | - | 0.23 | C15H24O | 386 |
| 38 | α-Elemol | 37.494 | 1552 | - | - | 0.89 | C15H26O | 401 |
| 39 | Nerolidiol | 37.882 | 1561 | 1558 | 1535–1565 | 0.65 | C15H26O | 309 |
| 40 | Sesquisabinene hydrate | 39.174 | 1592 | - | - | 0.34 | C15H26O | 315 |
| 41 | Zingiberenol | 40.152 | 1617 | 1601 | - | 0.68 | C15H26O | 370 |
| 42 | trans-Sesquisabinene hydrate | 40.830 | 1634 | - | - | 0.49 | C15H26O | 394 |
| 43 | Globulol | 40.956 | 1637 | - | - | 0.51 | C15H26O | 402 |
| 44 | Rosifoliol | 41.911 | 1661 | - | - | 0.89 | C15H26O | 372 |
| 45 | Shyobunol | 43.007 | 1689 | - | - | 0.66 | C15H26O | 358 |
Figure 1GC–MS chromatogram phytochemical analysis of ginger essential oil.
Figure 2(a) The Raman spectrum (b) FTIR spectrum of ginger essential oil.
The detailed information on the peaks, wavelength, bonds, and functional groups for the FTIR spectrum of GEO.
| Peaks Number | Wavelength cm−1 | Chemical Bonds | Functional Compounds |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 3271 | OH stretch;H-bonded | Carboxylic acid |
| 2 | 2920 | OH stretch;H-bonded | Carboxylic acid |
| 3 | 2871 | OH stretch;H-bonded | Carboxylic acid |
| 4 | 1739 | C=O stretch | Esters RCOOR |
| 5 | 1678 | C=O stretch | Carbonyl Compound |
| 6 | 1640 | C=O stretch | Carbonyl Compound |
| 7 | 1590 | C-C stretch | Aromatic stretch ring |
| 8 | 1260 | C-O-C | (R-O-R) Ether |
| 9 | 870 | OH bond | Phenol |
Antibacterial activity of GEO at different concentrations and streptomycin against B. glumae using disc diffusion method.
| GEO Concentration (µL/mL) | DMSO | Antibiotic | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 100 | 200 | 300 | 400 | 500 | |||
| Dimeter of zone of inhibition (mm) | 7.1 ± 0.16 f | 8.0 ± 0.28 e | 10.6 ± 0.44 d | 14.3 ± 0.16 c | 15.1 ± 0.16 b | 0.0 ± 0 g | 24.1 ± 0.44 a |
| Inhibition (%) | 29.46% | 33.19% | 43.98% | 59.33% | 62.65% | 0.0% | |
| Efficacy * | Not sensitive | Moderate sensitive | Moderate sensitive | Moderate Sensitive | Sensitive | Not sensitive | Extremely sensitive |
a–g Means with different letters differed significantly (p < 0.05). Values are mean ± standard deviation (n = 3). * Efficacy grouping = Not sensitive (total zone diameters of ≤8.0 mm), moderately sensitive (diameters between 8 and 14.0 mm), sensitive (zone diameters between 15 and 19 mm;), and extremely sensitive (zone diameters of ≥20 mm).
Figure 3Kinetics of action of the GEO against B. glumae. The growth was recorded by quantifying the absorbance (O.D) at 600 nm hourly for 24 h. The error bars represent the standard deviations of three measurements.
Figure 4Scanning electron microscope images for the mechanism of action of GEO against Bg. (a) Regular rod shape for the DMSO-treated negative control of Bg culture after 24 h of incubation, Arrows show the smooth and regular cell shape (b) Irregular shape of Bg cells treated with GEO at MIC concentration, Arrows show the shriveled appearance the cell surface (c) Irregular growth of Bg cells treated with streptomycin (positive control) (10,000×).
Figure 5The mechanism of action of GEO against Bg was observed using a transmission electron microscope after being treated for 24 h. (a) Bg cells were treated with DMSO in normal rod shape (b) Bg cells were treated with GEO (MIC), causing the membrane cell to rupture.
Figure 6Confocal laser scanning microscope analyses were performed after 24 h treatment period. (a1) The green color of untreated Bg cells indicated that the cells were alive and undamaged. (b1) The image displays orthogonal 3D biofilm untreated Bg cells. (a2,a3) GEO treatment of Bg cells MIC resulted in red-stained cells, indicating that more dead cells occurred. (b2,b3) The image displays orthogonal 3D biofilm GEO treatment of Bg cells.