4.2 Article

Screening of Herbal-Based Bioactive Extract Against Carbapenem-Resistant Strain of Acinetobacter baumannii

期刊

MICROBIAL DRUG RESISTANCE
卷 22, 期 5, 页码 364-371

出版社

MARY ANN LIEBERT, INC
DOI: 10.1089/mdr.2015.0270

关键词

-

资金

  1. SERB, DST, India [SB/YS/LS-07/2014]
  2. Central University of Rajasthan

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Acinetobacter baumannii is grouped in the ESKAPE pathogens by Infectious Disease Society of America, which is linked to high degree of morbidity, mortality, and increased costs. The high level of acquired and intrinsic resistance mechanisms of these bacteria makes it an urgent requirement to find a suitable alternative to carbapenem, a commonly prescribed drug for Acinetobacter infection. In this study, methanolic extracts of six medicinal plants were subjected to phytochemical screening and their antimicrobial activity was tested against two strains of A. baumannii (ATCC 19606, carbapenem-sensitive strain, and RS 307, carbapenem-resistant strain). Synergistic effect of the plant extracts and antibiotics was also tested. Bael or Aegle marmelos contains tannin, phenol, terpenoids, glycoside, alkaloids, coumarine, steroid, and quinones. Flowers of madar or Calotropis procera possess tannin, phenol, terpenoids, glycoside, quinone, anthraquinone, anthocyanin, coumarin, and steroid. An inhibitory growth curve was seen for both the bacterial strains when treated with A. marmelos, Curcuma longa, and leaves and flowers of C. procera. Antibiotics alone showed a small zone of inhibition, but when used with herbal extracts they exhibited larger zone of inhibition. Synergistic effect of A. marmelos and imipenem was the best against both the strains of A. baumannii. From this study, it can be concluded that extracts from A. marmelos and leaves and flowers of C. procera exhibited the most effective antibacterial activity. These herbal extracts may be used to screen the bioactive compound against the carbapenem-resistant strain of A. baumannii.

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

4.2
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