Chemical composition and antimicrobial activity of leaf and bark essential oils of Apodocephala pauciflora Baker (Asteraceae)

Noelinirina Raharisoa, Mihajasoa Stella Razanatseheno, Rahanira Ralambondrahety, Zara Nomentsoa Razafiarimanga, Lovarintsoa Judicael Randriamampianina, Hanitra Ranjana Randrianarivo, Danielle Aurore Doll Rakoto, Victor Louis Jeannoda
{"title":"Chemical composition and antimicrobial activity of leaf and bark essential oils of Apodocephala pauciflora Baker (Asteraceae)","authors":"Noelinirina Raharisoa, Mihajasoa Stella Razanatseheno, Rahanira Ralambondrahety, Zara Nomentsoa Razafiarimanga, Lovarintsoa Judicael Randriamampianina, Hanitra Ranjana Randrianarivo, Danielle Aurore Doll Rakoto, Victor Louis Jeannoda","doi":"10.53346/wjbpr.2022.2.2.0036","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The present work aims to study the chemical composition and the antimicrobial and toxicological properties of the essential oils (EOs) of Apodocephala pauciflora leaves (LEO) and stem bark (BEO). LEO and BEO were extracted from fresh material by hydrodistillation with a yield of 0.1%. They are light, light yellow, strong smelling and dextrorotatory. Gas chromatography/mass spectrometry (GC/MS) analysis identified 42 components in LEO and 38 in BEO representing 97.54% and 99.44% of the overall composition respectively. In LEO, the major components were α-pinene (27.5%), sabinene (13.62%) and β-pinene (12.0%) and in BEO, α-pinene (34.32%), myrcene (15.1%), sabinene (14.53%). Main components such β-pinene, phellandrene and limonene were common to LEO and BEO but at different rates. However, some components were not common to both EOs: for example, cubenol (5.07%) in LEO was absent in BEO and vice versa humulene (3.91%) in BEO was absent in LEO. Both EOs were effective against all microorganisms tested, including Gram (+) and Gram (-) bacteria and a fungus, with a strain-dependent intensity. BEO was more efficient than LEO. Streptococcus pneumoniae, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Vibrio fischeri and Candida albicans were the most susceptible. LEO was bacteriostatic against Clostridium perfringens and Candida albicans but bactericidal against the other germs tested, whereas BEO was bactericidal against all germs. With LD50 of 2.48 and 2.34 g/kg body weight, LEO and BEO were slightly toxic to mice by oral route. LEO and BEO could be used as alternatives to synthetic antibiotics against several pathogenic microorganisms.","PeriodicalId":267430,"journal":{"name":"World Journal of Biological and Pharmaceutical Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-06-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"World Journal of Biological and Pharmaceutical Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.53346/wjbpr.2022.2.2.0036","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The present work aims to study the chemical composition and the antimicrobial and toxicological properties of the essential oils (EOs) of Apodocephala pauciflora leaves (LEO) and stem bark (BEO). LEO and BEO were extracted from fresh material by hydrodistillation with a yield of 0.1%. They are light, light yellow, strong smelling and dextrorotatory. Gas chromatography/mass spectrometry (GC/MS) analysis identified 42 components in LEO and 38 in BEO representing 97.54% and 99.44% of the overall composition respectively. In LEO, the major components were α-pinene (27.5%), sabinene (13.62%) and β-pinene (12.0%) and in BEO, α-pinene (34.32%), myrcene (15.1%), sabinene (14.53%). Main components such β-pinene, phellandrene and limonene were common to LEO and BEO but at different rates. However, some components were not common to both EOs: for example, cubenol (5.07%) in LEO was absent in BEO and vice versa humulene (3.91%) in BEO was absent in LEO. Both EOs were effective against all microorganisms tested, including Gram (+) and Gram (-) bacteria and a fungus, with a strain-dependent intensity. BEO was more efficient than LEO. Streptococcus pneumoniae, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Vibrio fischeri and Candida albicans were the most susceptible. LEO was bacteriostatic against Clostridium perfringens and Candida albicans but bactericidal against the other germs tested, whereas BEO was bactericidal against all germs. With LD50 of 2.48 and 2.34 g/kg body weight, LEO and BEO were slightly toxic to mice by oral route. LEO and BEO could be used as alternatives to synthetic antibiotics against several pathogenic microorganisms.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
茯苓叶、皮精油的化学成分及抑菌活性研究
本研究旨在研究茯苓叶(LEO)和茎皮(BEO)精油的化学成分及其抑菌和毒理学特性。用加氢蒸馏法从新鲜原料中提取LEO和BEO,收率为0.1%。它们是浅色的,淡黄色的,有强烈的气味和右旋。气相色谱/质谱(GC/MS)分析鉴定出LEO中有42种成分,BEO中有38种成分,分别占总成分的97.54%和99.44%。LEO中主要成分为α-蒎烯(27.5%)、杉木烯(13.62%)和β-蒎烯(12.0%),BEO中主要成分为α-蒎烯(34.32%)、月桂烯(15.1%)、杉木烯(14.53%)。LEO和BEO的主要成分β-蒎烯、香菜烯和柠檬烯含量相同,但含量不同。然而,有些成分在两种EOs中并不相同,例如LEO中不存在cubenol(5.07%),反之亦然,LEO中不存在BEO中的humulene(3.91%)。这两种EOs对所有测试的微生物都有效,包括革兰氏(+)和革兰氏(-)细菌和真菌,具有菌株依赖的强度。BEO比LEO更有效率。肺炎链球菌、铜绿假单胞菌、费氏弧菌和白色念珠菌最易感染。LEO对产气荚膜梭菌和白色念珠菌有抑菌作用,对其他细菌有抑菌作用,而BEO对所有细菌均有抑菌作用。LEO和BEO的LD50分别为2.48和2.34 g/kg体重,经口服对小鼠有轻微毒性。LEO和BEO可作为几种病原微生物合成抗生素的替代品。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Effects of D-allulose on di (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate (DEHP) and di-n-butyl phthalate (DBP)-induced toxicity in rats Antiulcer activity of the stem bark aqueous extract of Croton oligandrum (Euphorbiaceae) against Ethanol/HCl-induced gastric mucosal injury in rats Phosphatidylethanol (PEth) in practice: A specific and proportional marker of alcohol consumption Effect of chemical thinning on the fruit parameters of ‘Majhoul’ date palm during fruit development MDCT appearances of pancreatic insulinoma as well as the other well differentiated endocrine tumors
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1