4.7 Article

In vitro pharmacological evaluation of three Barleria species

Journal

JOURNAL OF ETHNOPHARMACOLOGY
Volume 121, Issue 2, Pages 74-77

Publisher

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jep.2008.10.035

Keywords

Antibacterial; Anti-inflammatory; Barleria species; COX-1; COX-2

Funding

  1. National Research Foundation
  2. University of KwaZulu-Natal

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Ethnopharmacological relevance: Various parts of Barleria prionitis L (Acanthaceae) are used in traditional medicine to treat infection-related ailments. A comparison of their activities and knowledge of their mechanisms of action are important for drug development and conservation. Aims of the study: This study investigated the antibacterial effects and underlying mechanisms of action of the anti-inflammatory activities of different parts of three Barleria species of South African origin. Materials and methods: Crude extracts of different parts of three Barleria species were investigated in vitro for their biological activity. Antibacterial activity was evaluated using the micro-dilution assay against two Gram-positive and two Gram-negative bacteria. Anti-inflammatory activity was evaluated using the cyclooxygenase COX-1 and COX-2 assays. Results: All the extracts showed broad-spectrum antibacterial activity with minimum inhibitory concentrations ranging from 0.059 to 6.25 mg/ml. Twelve out of 21 crude extracts evaluated showed good activity (>70%) in the COX-1 assay while 10 extracts showed good activity in the COX-2 assay. All the petroleum ether extracts (except B. prionitis stem) exhibited good inhibition of prostaglandin synthesis in COX-1. Conclusion: The results demonstrated the therapeutic potential of these plants as antibacterial and anti-inflammatory agents. Their anti-inflammatory properties are mediated by the inhibition of the cyclooxygenase enzymes. (C) 2008 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available