4.4 Article

In vivo antimalarial activity of the endophytic actinobacteria, Streptomyces SUK 10

期刊

JOURNAL OF MICROBIOLOGY
卷 53, 期 12, 页码 847-855

出版社

MICROBIOLOGICAL SOCIETY KOREA
DOI: 10.1007/s12275-015-5076-6

关键词

antimalaria; endophytic; Streptomyces SUK10

资金

  1. Ministry of Higher Education Malaysia [FRGS/1/2011/ST/UKM/02/1]
  2. Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia [UKM-GUP-TKP-08-22-074]
  3. International Islamic University Malaysia
  4. Tunku Naquiyuddin Foundation of Malaysia

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Endophytic bacteria, such as Streptomyces, have the potential to act as a source for novel bioactive molecules with medicinal properties. The present study was aimed at assessing the antimalarial activity of crude extract isolated from various strains of actinobacteria living endophytically in some Malaysian medicinal plants. Using the four day suppression test method on male ICR strain mice, compounds produced from three strains of Streptomyces (SUK8, SUK10, and SUK27) were tested in vivo against Plasmodium berghei PZZ1/100 in an antimalarial screen using crude extracts at four different concentrations. One of these extracts, isolated from Streptomyces SUK10 obtained from the bark of Shorea ovalis tree, showed inhibition of the test organism and was further tested against P. berghei-infected mice for antimalarial activity at different concentrations. There was a positive relationship between the survival of the infected mouse group treated with 50 mu g/kg body weight (bw) of ethyl acetate-SUK10 crude extract and the ability to inhibit the parasites growth. The parasite inhibition percentage for this group showed that 50% of the mice survived for more than 90 days after infection with the parasite. The nucleotide sequence and phylogenetic tree suggested that Streptomyces SUK10 may constitute a new species within the Streptomyces genus. As part of the drug discovery process, these promising finding may contribute to the medicinal and pharmaceutical field for malarial treatment.

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

4.4
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