| Literature DB >> 35807566 |
Mohammed Bouslamti1, Azeddine El Barnossi2, Mohammed Kara3, Badriyah S Alotaibi4, Omkulthom Al Kamaly4, Amine Assouguem5, Badiaa Lyoussi1, Ahmed Samir Benjelloun1.
Abstract
Solanum elaeagnifolium is among the invasive plants of Morocco; studies on its chemical composition and biological activities are few in number in Morocco. S. elaeagnifolium has shown molluscicidal and nematicidal and cancer-inhibitory effects, anti-inflammatory, analgesic activity, and antibacterial activity. The objective of this research is to improve this plant and assess its antibacterial and antioxidant properties as well as its total polyphenolic content (TPC) and total flavonoid content (TFC). The Folin-Ciocalteu method and the aluminium-trichloride method were used to determine TPC and TFC in hydro-ethanolic (HEE) and hydro-acetonic (HAE) leaf extract. Three assays were performed to determine the antioxidant activity: the DPPH test (radical 2,2'-diphenyl-1-picrylhydrazyl), the FRAP test (Ferric Reducing Antioxidant Power), and the TAC test. Disk diffusion and microdilution were used to test antibacterial activity against four pathogenic bacteria and Candida albicans. The hydro-ethanolic extract 2.54 ± 0.4 mg EAG/g has a greater polyphenol concentration than the hydro-acetonic extract 1.58 ± 0.03 mg EAG/g. Although the flavonoid content of the hydro-acetonic extract (0.067 ± 0.001 mg EQ/g) is larger than that of the hydro-ethanolic extract (0.012 ± 0.001 mg EQ/g), the flavonoid content of the hydro-ethanolic extract (0.012 ± 0.001 mg EQ/g). The DPPH values were IC-50 = 0.081 ± 0.004 mg/mL for hydro-ethanoic extract and 0.198 ± 0.019 mg/mL for hydro-acetonic extract, both extracts superior to BHT (0.122 ± 0.021 g/mL). While the FRAP assay showed a low iron-reducing power values for both extracts compared to BHT), the overall antioxidant activity of the two extracts was found to be considerable. The overall antioxidant activity of the hydro-ethanolic extract was 8.95 ± 0.42 mg EAA/g, whereas the total antioxidant activity of the hydro-acetonic extract was 6.44 ± 0.61 mg EAA/g. In comparison with the antibiotic Erythromycin, HAE and HEE from S. elaeagnifolium leaves demonstrated significant antibacterial action. HAE had the best inhibitory efficacy against Bacillus subtilis DSM 6333, with an inhibition diameter of 10.5 ± 0.50 mm and a MIC of 7.5 ± 0.00 mg/mL, as well as against Proteus mirabilis ATCC 29906, with an inhibitory diameter of 8.25 ± 0.75 mm and a MIC of 15 ± 0.00 mg/mL.Entities:
Keywords: Solanum elaeagnifolium; antimicrobial activity; antioxidant activity; flavonoids; polyphenols
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35807566 PMCID: PMC9268098 DOI: 10.3390/molecules27134322
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Molecules ISSN: 1420-3049 Impact factor: 4.927
Figure 1Plant of S. elaeagnifolium—(a); powder of S. elaeagnifolium—(b).
Secondary metabolites presented in the studied extract.
| Tests | Solvent Extracts | |
|---|---|---|
| Hydro-Ethanolic Extract (HEE) | Hydro-Acetonic Extract (HAE) | |
| Tannins | + | + |
| Flavonoids | + | + |
| Alkaloids | + | + |
| Polyphenols | + | + |
| Saponins | + | − |
| Steroids | + | + |
+: Presence; −: Absent.
Measurement of phytochemical compound concentration.
| Extract | Polyphenols (mg EAG/g | Flavonoids (mg EQ/g |
|---|---|---|
| Hydro-ethanolic | 2.54 ± 0.4 a | 0.012 ± 0.001 a |
| Hydro-acetonic | 1.58 ± 0.03 b | 0.067 ± 0.001 b |
Values in each column that have a distinct letter are statistically different (p < 0.05).
DPPH-IC50 and FRAP-EC50 of hydro-ethanolic and hydro-acetonic extracts of S. elaeagnifolium compared with BHT.
| Hydro-Ethanolic | Hydro-Acetonic | BHT | |
|---|---|---|---|
| DPPH-IC50 | 0.0807 ± 0.0039 mg/mL b | 0.198 ± 0.0196 mg/mL c | 0.122 ± 0.0210 μg/mL a |
| FRAP-EC50 | 0.0825 ± 0.0051 mg/mL b | 0.1157 ± 0.0400 mg/mL c | 0.362 ± 0.0100 µg/mL a |
There are significant differences between the mean values (SD, n = 3) that are followed by various letters in the same row (one-way ANOVA; Tukey’s test, p < 0.05).
Figure 2DPPH scavenging activity of extracts.
Figure 3DPPH scavenging activity of BHT.
Figure 4Antioxidant capacity overall of extracts. Means with distinct letters differ from one another significantly (p < 0.05).
Figure 5Antimicrobial activity of S. elaeagnifolium HEE and HAE in comparison with the antibiotic Erythromycin. Means (± SD, n = 3) denoted by the same letter indicate no significant difference according to Tukey’s multiple range tests at p < 0.05. The signs * and *** mean that there is a significant difference between the different samples and controls.
Figure 6Photographs showing the effects of extracts on some of the bacteria tested.
MIC of antimicrobial activity of S. elaeagnifolium HEE and HAE.
| S. aureus ATCC 6633 | E. coli K12 | B. subtilis DSM 6333 | P. mirabilis ATCC 29906 | C. albicans ATCC 10231 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 7.5 ± 0.00 a | 7.5 ± 0.00 a | 15 ± 0.00 b | 15 ± 0.00 b | - | |
| 3.75 ± 0.00 a | 3.75 ± 0.00 a | 7.5 ± 0.00 b | 7.5 ± 0.00 b | - |
Mean values (± SD, n = 3) followed by different letters in same row are significantly different (One-way ANOVA; Tukey’s test, p < 0.05).
Correlation between studied parameters of S. elaeagnifolium.
| Polyphenols | Flavonoids | DPPH | FRAP | TAC | DIZ (S.a) | DIZ (E. coli) | DIZ (B.s) | DIZ (P.m) | CMI (S.a) | CMI (E. coli) | CMI (B.s) | CMI (P.m) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Polyphenols | 1.000 | ||||||||||||
| Flavonoids | −0.999 | 1.000 | |||||||||||
| DPPH | −0.995 | 0.994 | 1.000 | ||||||||||
| FRAP | 0.992 | −0.997 | −0.991 | 1.000 | |||||||||
| TAC | 0.943 | −0.946 | −0.924 | 0.932 | 1.000 | ||||||||
| DIZ (S.a) | −0.646 | 0.646 | 0.613 | −0.645 | −0.513 | 1.000 | |||||||
| DIZ (E. coli) | 0.673 | −0.650 | −0.652 | 0.600 | 0.759 | −0.429 | 1.000 | ||||||
| DIZ (B.s) | 0.960 | −0.968 | −0.966 | 0.977 | 0.906 | −0.491 | 0.491 | 1.000 | |||||
| DIZ (P.m) | 0.526 | −0.551 | −0.554 | 0.597 | 0.429 | −0.071 | −0.213 | 0.733 | 1.000 | ||||
| MIC (S.a) | 0.998 | −0.999 | −0.993 | 0.997 | 0.947 | −0.655 | 0.655 | 0.965 | 0.542 | 1.000 | |||
| MIC (E. coli) | 0.998 | −0.999 | −0.993 | 0.997 | 0.947 | −0.655 | 0.655 | 0.965 | 0.542 | 1.000 | 1.000 | ||
| MIC (B.s) | 0.998 | −0.999 | −0.993 | 0.997 | 0.947 | −0.655 | 0.655 | 0.965 | 0.542 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | |
| MIC (P.m) | 0.998 | −0.999 | −0.993 | 0.997 | 0.947 | −0.655 | 0.655 | 0.965 | 0.542 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 |
Figure 7Factor analysis (PCA) of the examined extracts using the evaluated parameters.