In vitro antimicrobial activity of total extracts of the leaves of Petiveria alliacea L. (Anamu)

Abstract

The antimicrobial activity of 13 total extracts was evaluated, 10 soft extracts (B) and 3 blended extracts (E) prepared from dry and fresh leaves of Petiveria alliacea L. Various solvents were used for their preparation: hydroalcoholic solution at 30%, 80% and isopropyl alcohol. The antimicrobial effect of the extracts was tested by means of the method of Kirby-Bauer, using four bacterial strains from the ATCC collection (Escherichia coli, Staphylococcus aureus, Enterococcus faecalis and Pseudomonas aeruginosa) and a leveduriform fungus (Candida albicans). The following quality control parameters were determined for most active extracts: physical, physical-chemical and chemical parameters. The results were: nine extracts showed antibacterial activity, being the most concentrated (B8 and E3), the ones with the highest activity in the presence of the bacteria tested; the effect of blended extracts (E1, E2 and E3) was greater in the presence of P. aeruginosa. Blended extracts are considered more potent and active than soft extracts. No antifungal activity was obtained for both types of extracts. The Minimum Inhibitory Concentration (MIC) and Minimum Bactericidal Concentration (MBC) were determined for both extracts, with the following results: MIC-soft extracts (>100 mg/mL), blended extracts (>50 mg/ mL); MBC-soft extracts (≥400 mg/mL), blended extracts (≥200 mg/mL) based on fresh leaves.Key words: Antimicrobial activity. Anamu. Soft extracts. Blended extracts. Minimum Inhibitory Concentration.Avaliou-se a atividade antimicrobiana de 13 extratos totais, 10 brandos (B) e 3 batidos (E) elaborados a partir da folha seca e fresca da Petiveria alliacea L. Para sua preparação se empregaram vários solventes: solução hidroalcoólica 30%, 80% e álcool isopropílico. O efeito antimicrobiano dos extratos foi comprovado pelo método do Kirby-Bauer, usando para isso quatro cepas bacterianas da coleção ATCC (Escherichia coli, Staphylococcus aureus, Enterococcus faecalis e Pseudomonas aeruginosa) e um fungo leveduriforme (Candida albicans). Determinaram-se parâmetros de controle da qualidade físicos, físico-químicos e químicos dos extratos mais ativos. Obtiveram-se como resultados: que 9 extratos mostraram atividade antibacteriana, sendo os mais concentrados (B8 e E3) os de maior espectro de ação frente às bactérias provadas; o efeito dos extratos batidos (E1, E2 e E3) foi maior frente a P. aeruginosa; os extratos batidos se consideram mais ativos que os brandos e não se obteve atividade antifúngica caso algum. Determinou-se a Concentração Mínima Inhibitoria e Bactericida para ambos os extratos, resultando a primeira para os extratos brandos maior a 100 mg/mL e para as batidos maior a 50 mg/mL; a segunda para os extratos brandos maior ou igual a 400 mg/mL e para as batidos maior ou igual a 200 mg/mL, em relação à droga fresca.Unitermos: Atividade antimicrobiana. Anamú. Extratos brandos. Extratos batidos. Concentração mínima inibitória.

Antimicrobial and Cytotoxic Properties of Extracts from Plants Traditionally Used in North-East Brazil

“…Previous studies evaluating its antimicrobial potential identified several antifungal and antibacterial labile organosulfur compounds from roots [16], such as thiosulfinates and sulfines with minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) ranging between 16-128 μg/ml. The authors found these hydrophobic molecules are present in minor concentrations in this species, which may explain the relatively lower antimicrobial activity of P. alliacea in our work and also explain why some previous literature reports required higher extract concentrations to obtain relevant results [22].…”

“…This has contributed to the natural selection of a large variety of plants capable of surviving under high-stress conditions, thanks to their International Journal of Pharmacology, Phytochemistry and Ethnomedicine Submitted: 2020-03-10 ISSN: 2297-6922, Vol. 16, pp [21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32] Accepted: 2020-09-11 doi:10.18052/www.scipress.com/IJPPE. 16.21 Online: 2021-02-04 CC BY 4.0.…”