4.1 Article

In vitro SCREENING ANTIBACTERIAL ACTIVITY OF Bidens pilosa LINNE AND Annona crassiflora MART. AGAINST OXACILLIN RESISTANT Staphylococcus aureus (ORSA) FROM THE AERIAL ENVIRONMENT AT THE DENTAL CLINIC

出版社

INST MEDICINA TROPICAL SAO PAULO
DOI: 10.1590/S0036-46652014000400011

关键词

Plant extracts; Products with antimicrobial action; Staphylococcus aureus; ORSA; Toxicity tests; Microbial sensitivity tests

资金

  1. FAPEMIG (Fundacao de Amparo a Pesquisa do Estado de Minas Gerais) [APQ-3897-4.03/07]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Currently multiresistant Staphylococcus aureus is one common cause of infections with high rates of morbidity and mortality worldwide, which directs scientific endeavors in search for novel antimicrobials. In this study, nine extracts from Bidens pilosa (root, stem, flower and leaves) and Annona crassiflora (rind fruit, stem, leaves, seed and pulp) were obtained with ethanol: water (7: 3, v/v) and their in vitro antibacterial activity evaluated through both the agar diffusion and broth microdilution methods against 60 Oxacillin Resistant S. aureus (ORSA) strains and against S. aureus ATCC 6538. The extracts from B. pilosa and A. crassiflora inhibited the growth of the ORSA isolates in both methods. Leaves of B. pilosa presented mean of the inhibition zone diameters significantly higher than chlorexidine 0.12% against ORSA, and the extracts were more active against S. aureus ATCC (p < 0.05). Parallel, toxicity testing by using MTT method and phytochemical screening were assessed, and three extracts (B. pilosa, root and leaf, and A. crassiflora, seed) did not evidence toxicity. On the other hand, the cytotoxic concentrations (CC50 and CC90) for other extracts ranged from 2.06 to 10.77 mg/mL. The presence of variable alkaloids, flavonoids, tannins and saponins was observed, even though there was a total absence of anthraquinones. Thus, the extracts from the leaves of B. pilosa revealed good anti-ORSA activity and did not exhibit toxicity.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.1
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据