4.6 Article

UPLC-MS-ESI-QTOF Analysis and Antifungal Activity of Aqueous Extracts of Spondias tuberosa

期刊

MOLECULES
卷 28, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/molecules28010305

关键词

popular medicine; umbu; flavonoids; fluconazole

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The chemical composition of Spondias tuberosa aqueous leaf and root extracts (EALST and EARST) was identified using UPLC-MS-ESI-QTOF analysis. The extracts showed the presence of phenolic and flavonoid compounds. The combination of the extracts with fluconazole resulted in a reduction in the Minimum Fungicidal Concentration (MFC) against certain strains of Candida albicans.
This study aimed to identify the chemical composition of the Spondias tuberosa aqueous leaf and root extracts (EALST and EARST) and to evaluate their effect, comparatively, against opportunistic pathogenic fungi. Ultra-Performance Liquid Chromatography Coupled to a Quadrupole/Time of Flight System (UPLC-MS-ESI-QTOF) was employed for chemical analysis. Candida albicans and C. tropicalis standard strains and clinical isolates were used (CA INCQS 40006, CT INCQS 40042, CA URM 5974, and CT URM 4262). The 50% Inhibitory Concentration for the fungal population (IC50) was determined for both the intrinsic action of the extracts and the extract/fluconazole (FCZ) associations. The determination of the Minimum Fungicidal Concentration (MFC) and the verification of effects over fungal morphological transitions were performed by subculture in Petri dishes and humid chambers, respectively, both based on micro-dilution. UPLC-MS-ESI-QTOF analysis revealed the presence of phenolic and flavonoid compounds. The association of the extracts with fluconazole, resulted in IC50 values from 2.62 mu g/mL to 308.96 mu g/mL. The MFC of the extracts was >= 16,384 mu g/mL for all tested strains, while fluconazole obtained an MFC of 8192 mu g/mL against C. albicans strains. A reduction in MFC against CA URM 5974 (EALST: 2048 mu g/mL and EARST: 1024 mu g/mL) occurred in the extract/fluconazole association.

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

4.6
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