↓ Skip to main content

The antibacterial activity of extracts of nine plant species with good activity against Escherichia coli against five other bacteria and cytotoxicity of extracts

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Complementary Medicine and Therapies, February 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
195 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
545 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
The antibacterial activity of extracts of nine plant species with good activity against Escherichia coli against five other bacteria and cytotoxicity of extracts
Published in
BMC Complementary Medicine and Therapies, February 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12906-017-1645-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ishaku Leo Elisha, Francien S. Botha, Lyndy Joy McGaw, Jacobus Nicolaas Eloff

Abstract

The development of antibiotic resistant bacteria stems from a number of factors, including inappropriate use of antibiotics in human and animal health and their prolonged use as growth promoters at sub-clinical doses in poultry and livestock production. We were interested in investigating plants that could be useful in protecting humans or animals against diarrhoea. We decided to work on extracts of nine plant species with good activity against Escherichia coli based on earlier work in the Phytomedicine Programme. Leaves of nine medicinal plant species with high antibacterial activity against Escherichia coli were extracted with acetone and their minimal inhibitory concentration (MIC) values determined using a microplate serial dilution technique against Gram-positive (Staphylococcus aureus, Enterococcus faecalis and Bacillus cereus) and Gram-negative (Escherichia coli, Salmonella Typhimurium and Pseudomonas aeruginosa) bacteria. Bioautography was used to determine the number of bioactive compounds in each extract. In vitro safety of the extracts was determined using the 3-(4,5-dimethylthiazolyl-2)-2,5-diphenyltetrazolium bromide reduction assay on Vero cells. The extracts were active against all the pathogens with average MICs ranging from 0.02 to 0.52 mg/ml. As expected E. coli was relatively sensitive, while E. faecalis and S. Typhimurium were more resistant to the extracts (average MICs of 0.28 mg/ml and 0.22 mg/ml respectively). Cremaspora triflora and Maesa lanceolata leaf extracts had higher activity than the other extracts against Gram-positive and Gram-negative pathogens with mean MICs of 0.07 mg/ml and 0.09 mg/ml respectively. Extracts of Maesa lanceolata and Hypericum roeperianum had the highest total antibacterial activity (TAA) at 1417 and 963 ml/g respectively. All extracts with the exception of that of Maesa lanceolata, Elaeodendron croceum and Calpurnia aurea had relatively low cytotoxicity with LC50 > 20 μg/ml. Cremaspora triflora had the best selectivity index (SI) against S. aureus and E. coli of 2.87 and 1.15 respectively. Hypericum roeperianum had a SI of 1.10 against B. cereus. Bioautography revealed 1-6 visible antimicrobial compounds that were generally non-polar. There was a weak positive, but statistically non-significant correlation between the potency of the extracts and their cytotoxicity (R = 0.45, ρ > 0.05). The activity of the extracts on the test bacteria was in some cases not correlated with cytotoxicity, as shown by selectivity indices >1. This means that cellular toxicity was probably not due to compounds with antibacterial activity. Some of the extracts had a good potential for therapeutic use against the bacterial pathogens or for application in treating diarhoea. It does not appear that activity against E. coli is a good predictor of activity against Gram-negative rather than Gram-positive bacteria. Further investigation is in progress on C. triflora and H. roeperianum, both of which had promising activities and potential safety based on cytotoxicity.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 545 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 545 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 90 17%
Student > Master 69 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 49 9%
Researcher 42 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 27 5%
Other 62 11%
Unknown 206 38%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 77 14%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 74 14%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 39 7%
Immunology and Microbiology 38 7%
Chemistry 28 5%
Other 73 13%
Unknown 216 40%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 05 April 2017.
All research outputs
#20,412,387
of 22,962,258 outputs
Outputs from BMC Complementary Medicine and Therapies
#2,985
of 3,639 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#270,749
of 310,847 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Complementary Medicine and Therapies
#84
of 102 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,962,258 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,639 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.6. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 310,847 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 102 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.