4.5 Article

In vitro pharmacological investigation of extracts from some trees used in Sudanese traditional medicine

Journal

SOUTH AFRICAN JOURNAL OF BOTANY
Volume 73, Issue 3, Pages 435-440

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.sajb.2007.03.009

Keywords

acetylcholinesterase inhibitory activity; antibacterial activity; genotoxicity

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Extracts obtained from seven tree species used in Sudanese traditional medicine were screened for antibacterial, anti-cholinesterase activities and investigated for potential mutagenic effects using the Ames test. Antibacterial activity was detected using the micro-dilution assay. The extracts were tested against Gram-positive: Bacillus subtilis and Staphylococcus aureus and Gram-negative: Escherichia coli and Klebsiella pneumoniae. Of the plant extracts investigated, 75% showed minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) values less than/or around 1.5 mg/ml. Extracts obtained from Acacia seyal (ethanolic leaf extract) and Combretum hartmannianum (ethanolic leaf and root extracts), inhibited bacterial growth of both Grampositive and Gram-negative bacteria at a concentration less than/or around 0.3 9 mg/ml. The lowest MIC value (less than/or around 0.1 mg/ml) was observed with the ethanolic (leaf, bark and root) and dichloromethane (bark) extracts of A. seyal, dichloromethane root extract of Capparis decidua, ethyl acetate (bark and root) and ethanolic (root) extracts of Erythrina latissima against Gram-negative bacteria Klebsiella pneumoniae. In the acetylcholinesterase inhibitory test, 58% of the plant extracts were active at a concentration of/or below 1 mg/ml using the micro-dilution assay. The lowest IC50 value was 0.09 mg/ml observed with the ethanolic bark and root extracts of E. latissima and Kigelia africana. No potential mutagenic effects was shown by the investigated plant extracts in the Ames assay. (c) 2007 SAAB. Published by Elsevier B.V. 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

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available