Skip to main content
PMC home page
Saudi Pharmaceutical Journal : SPJ logoLink to Saudi Pharmaceutical Journal : SPJ
. 2017 Nov 13;26(1):25–32. doi: 10.1016/j.jsps.2017.11.003

Biological activities of the red algae Galaxaura rugosa and Liagora hawaiiana butters

Nouf M Al-Enazi a, Amani S Awaad b,⁎, Saleh I Alqasoumi c, Metab F Alwethairi d
PMCID: PMC5783822  PMID: 29379330

Abstract

The biological activities; antimicrobial, antioxidant and anticancer, of the red algae Galaxaura rugosa and Liagora hawaiiana were determined. The total ethanol, lipoidal matters, chloroform, n-butanol, aqueous extracts and powder of both algae showed and bacterial and antifungal activities. However, the chloroform extract of Galaxaura rugosa showed antibacterial activity against Klebsiella pneumoniae (24 mm, 0.15 mg/ml) higher than gentamycin (23 mm, 0.49 mg/ml). Moreover, the total ethanol, lipoidal matter and chloroform extracts showed antifungal activity (21, 22 and 25 mm, 1.25, 0.312 and 0.156 mg/ml) similar to the antibiotic Ketoconazole activity (23, 24 and 27 mm, 1.25, 0.312 and 0.156 mg/ml) against Aspergillus fumigatus, A. niger and Candida trobicalis, respectively. A good antioxidant activity (80.96%, IC50 = 27.8 µg/ml) was provided by Galaxaura rugosa. The anticancer activity results revealed that the lipoidal matters of Galaxaura rugosa and Liagora hawaiiana possessed antitumor activity (IC50 = 15 ± 1.7 and 21.2 ± 1.6, respectively) against lung carcinoma (A-549) better than vinblastine sulfate (IC50 = 24.6 ± 0.7). Although, the lipoidal matters of Galaxaura rugosa and Liagora hawaiiana antitumor activity against cervical carcinoma (HeLa) and intestinal carcinoma (CACO-2) (IC50 = 10.2 ± 0.6 and 12.2 ± 0.6, respectively) preferable than vinblastine sulfate (IC50 = 59.7 ± 2.1 and 30.3 ± 1.4, respectively).

Keywords: Phytochemical screening, Antitumor, Antioxidant, Antimicrobial, Extraction

1. Introduction

The interest in ancient herbal remedies has been significantly increased in the last few decades. In the worldwide, all the natural resources including medicinal plants, fungi and algae are screened for their biological activities (Awaad et al., 2013, Zain et al., 2012, Amornlerdpison et al., 2007). Accordingly, the therapeutic values and pharmaceutical usage of numerous herbal medicines have already been validated. The herbal medicines which obtained from natural sources are considered as safe for human beings. However, they would have some antagonistic effects due to presence of other active ingredients (Izzo and Ernst, 2009).

Algae are found everywhere: in the sea, rivers, lakes, soil, walls, and as symbiont in animal and plants. Algae include four main divisions; namely, Red algae (Rhodophya), Brown Algae (Phycophyta), Green Algae (Chlorophyta) and Diatoms. Although, Seaweeds which are macroscopic, multicellular, and marine algae, are divided into three categories; red, green and brown organisms comprises about 30000 species. In most of Asian countries, seaweeds are traditionally traded as food items including sushi wrappings, seasonings, condiments, and vegetables (El El Gamal, 2010, Mark et al., 2016).

Antioxidants have attracted the most interest among the many biologically-active compounds found in algae. Antioxidants are important compounds in the treatment and recovery from various diseases including cancer, chronic inflammation, atherosclerosis, cardiovascular disorders, and aging process (Kohen and Nyska, 2002). Although, the search for anticancer drugs has similar attention as marine compounds revealed promising results at different stages of cancer progress (Mayer and Gustafson, 2006). On the other hand, in developed and developing countries, the most people died following infectious bacterial and/or fungal diseases. The bacterial Gram-positive and Gram-negative organisms including different species of Bacillus, Proteus, Klebsiella, Staphylococcus, Salmonella and Pseudomonas are the main source of severe infections in animals including humans (Nathan, 2004).

Among seaweeds, numerous macroalgae have potent cytotoxic activities (Mayer and Gustafson, 2006, Smit, 2004) and algal consumption has been suggested as a chemo-preventive agent against several cancers (Yuan and Walsh, 2006). Recently, due to their exceptional richness in bioactive compounds (e.g., antimicrobial, anti-inflammatory, and antitumoral activities), the seaweeds has significantly expanded into the pharmaceutical and para-pharmaceutical industry (Kornprobst, 2005, Smit, 2004). The current study aimed to assess the biological activity including antioxidant, antimicrobial, and anticancer of different extracts of the red algae Galaxaura rugosa and Liagora hawaiiana.

2. Material and methods

2.1. Algal samples collection, extraction and screening

2.1.1. Algal species collections

The algal species used in this study; namely, Galaxaura rugose and Liagora hawaiiana Butters were collected from Alharra, Umluj, Red Seashore, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Algal species were identified according to Aleem, 1993, Coppejans et al., 2009. Samples collected were air-dried in shade, reduced to fine powder, packed in tightly closed containers and stored for phytochemical and biological studies.

2.1.2. Algal extraction

Dry powder (830 and 795 g) of Galaxaura rugose and Liagora hawaiiana; respectively, were extracted by percolation in 95% ethanol (Awaad et al., 2017a) at room temperature for two days. The total ethanol extract was filtered and the residue was re-percolated by the same manor for five times. The ethanol extract was then concentrated, under reduced pressure at low temperature, and a yield of 81 and 77 g was obtained from Galaxaura rugose and Liagora hawaiiana, respectively.

The obtained extracts of each algae was separately suspended in water (300 ml) and filtered over a piece of cotton. The lipoidal matter, collected on top of the cotton piece (25 and 28 g. for Galaxaura rugose and Liagora hawaiiana, respectively) were obtained. The aqueous layer, which filtered off, was successively fractionated using chloroform and n-butanol. Each extract was dried over anhydrous sodium sulfate, concentrated and yielded 11 & 30 g and 14 and 26 g for chloroform and n-butanol of Galaxaura rugos and Liagora hawaiiana, respectively. However, after extraction with n-butanol some powder was precipitated from each algae and the filtration was carried out to separate it and. The leftover aqueous extract of each alga was dried using lyophilization (Awaad et al., 2017b) and kept for further investigation.

2.1.3. Phytochemical screening

Powdered sample of each investigated alga (Galaxaura rugose and Liagora hawaiiana) was subjected to phytochemical screening as published by Khan et al. (2011) to investigate their phytochemical constituents.

2.2. Antimicrobial activity

2.2.1. Test organisms

Different clinically isolated bacterial and fungal strains; namely, Aspergillus fumigatus (RCMB 02568), Aspergillus niger (RCMB 02724), Bacillus substilis (RCMB 010015), Candida albicans (RCMB 05003), Candida. tropicalis (RCMB 05004), Cryptococcus neoformans (RCMB 05642), Escherichia coli (RCMB 010052), Geotricum candidum (RCMB 05097), Klebsiella pneumonia (RCMB 0010093), Microsporum canis (RCMB 0834), Penicillium expansum (RCMB 01924), Pseudomonas aeruginosa (RCMB 0100243-5), Proteous vlgaris (RCMB 01004) Staphylococcus aureus (RCMB 010010), Staphylococcus epidermidis (RCMB 010009), Streptococcus byogenes (RCMB 0100174-2), Stroptococcus mutans (RCMB 0100017) Salmonella typhimurium, RCMB (RCMB 14028), Syncephalastrum racemosum (RCMB 05922) and Trichophyton mentagrophytes (RCMB 0925) were obtained from the Microbiology Laboratory, Regional Center for Mycology and Biotechnology, Al-Azhar University, Cairo, Egypt and used as test organisms.

2.2.2. Antimicrobial assay

The antibacterial and antifungal activities of total ethanol, lipoidal matters, chloroform n-butanol, aqueous extracts and powder of Galaxaura rugosa and Liagora hawaiiana were determined using the well-diffusion method (Almalki, 2017). Petri plates containing 20 ml of, nutrient (for bacteria) or malt extract (for fungi), agar medium were seeded with 1–3 day cultures of microbial inoculums. Wells (6 mm in diameter) were cut off from agar and 50 µl of algal extracts were tested in a concentration of 100 mg/ml and incubated at 37 °C for 24–48 h (bacterial strains) and for 3–5 days (fungal strains). The antibacterial and antifungal activities were determined by measurement of the diameter of the inhibition zone around the well.

2.2.3. Determination of minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC)

The minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) of algal extract was determined by micro-dilution method using serially diluted (2 folds) algal extracts (Zain et al., 2012). The MIC of total ethanol, lipoidal matter, chloroform, n-butanol, aqueous extracts and powder of Galaxaura rugosa and Liagora hawaiiana were determined by dilution of concentrations from 0.0 to 100 mg/ml. Equal volumes of each extract and nutrient broth were mixed in a test tube. Specifically 0.1 ml of standardized inoculum (1–2 × 107 cfu/ml) was added in each tube. The tubes were incubated at 37 °C for 24–48 h and/or 3–5 days. Two control tubes, containing the growth medium, saline and the inoculum were maintained for each test batch. The lowest concentration (highest dilution) of the algal extract that produced no visible microbial growth (no turbidity) when compared with the control tubes were regarded as MIC.

2.3. Antioxidant assay

The antioxidant activity of Galaxaura rugosa and Liagora hawaiiana different extracts were determined using DPPH free radical scavenging assay as describe by Aksoy et al. (2013) in triplicate and average values were considered. The tested extracts were also compared using the IC50 value; i.e., the concentration leading to 50% inhibition which was estimated from graphical plots of DPPH Radical Scavenging% Vs concentrations.

2.4. Antitumor activity

The antitumor activity of total ethanol, lipoidal matters, chloroform, n-butanol, aqueous extracts and powder of Galaxaura rugosa and Liagora hawaiiana were determined using A-549 (Lung carcinoma), CACO (colorectal carcinoma), HCT-116 (Colon carcinoma), Hela (Cervical carcinoma), HEp-2 (Larynx carcinoma), HepG-2 (Hepatocellular carcinoma), and MCF-7 (Breast carcinoma) cell lines as described by Kameyama et al. (2005).

2.5. Statistical analysis

All values were expressed as mean ± S.D. Comparisons between means were carried out using a one-way ANOVA test followed by the Tukey HSD test using SPSS, version 14 (SPSS, Chicago, IL). Differences at p50.05 were considered statistically significant.

3. Results and discussion

3.1. Preliminary phytochemical screening

The preliminary phytochemical analyses of Galaxaura rugosa and Liagora hawaiiana revealed the presence of different primary and secondary metabolites, they contains unsaturated sterols and/or triterpenoids, flavonoids, carbohydrates or glycosides, proteins and/or amino acids, tannins and coumarin, no saponins or alkaloids were detected. This variety of active metabolites give these algae high potentials to be used as source of medication specially the presence of flavonoids (Kosanić et al., 2015).

3.2. Antimicrobial activity

The antimicrobial activity of total ethanol, lipoidal matters, chloroform, n-butanol, aqueous extracts, and powder of Galaxaura rugosa and Liagora hawaiiana were determined against Gram-negative, Gram-positive bacteria and fungi (Table 1, Table 2). The results revealed that all the extracts of Galaxaura rugosa showed antibacterial and antifungal activities. On the other hand, only lipoidal matters, chloroform, n-butanol and aqueous extracts of Liagora hawaiiana showed antibacterial and antifungal activity, in addition to the powder which has only antifungal activity (Table 1, Table 2).

Table 1.

Antimicrobial activity of different extracts of Galaxaura rugosa.

Extract
Test organism		 Mean diameter of inhibition zone (mm)
Total (Ethanol) Lipoidal matter Chloroform n-Butanol Aqueous Powder Standard antibiotic
Bacteria
Gram-negative 		Gentamycin
Escherichia coli 15 18 22 16 22 15 36
Klebsiella pneumoniae 14 19 24 15 16 14 23
Proteous vulgaris 18 22 20 19 15 16 31
Pseudomonas aeruginosa 00 00 15 00 00 00 25
Salmonella typhimrium 00 14 21 15 15 00 27



Gram-positive
Bacillus substilis 14 18 17 16 16 15 32
Staphylococcus aureus 19 14 22 21 18 20 30
Staphylococcus epidermidis 20 00 19 21 17 14 34
Streptococcus mutans 00 00 14 15 20 00 26
Streptococcus pyogenes 00 00 00 14 18 00 28



Fungi Ketocona-zole
Aspergillus fumigatus 21 16 00 00 00 00 23
Aspergillus niger 15 22 00 00 00 00 24
Candida albicans 18 16 20 18 15 18 26
Candida trobicalis 17 19 25 19 16 23 27
Cryptococcus neoformans 20 15 27 22 18 15 31
Geotricum candidum 15 17 22 20 15 22 30
Penicillium expansum 14 23 00 00 00 00 28
Syncephalastrum racemosum 14 14 00 00 00 00 24



Dermatophytes Amphotericin B
Microsporum canis 00 00 00 00 00 00 30
Trichophyton mentagrophytes 00 00 00 00 00 00 29
Open in a new tab

Values are expressed as mean ± SEM of 3 determinants.

Table 2.

Antimicrobial activity of different extracts of Liagora hawaiiana.

Extract
Test organism		 Mean diameter of inhibition zone (mm)
Total(Ethanol) Lipoidal matter Chloroform n-Butanol Aqueous Powder Standard Antibiotic
Bacteria
Gram-negative 		Gentamycin
Escherichia coli 00 21 21 15 23 00 36
Klebsiella pneumoniae 00 22 20 16 16 00 23
Proteous vulgaris 00 15 18 21 15 00 31
Pseudomonas aeruginosa 00 14 15 00 00 00 25
Salmonella typhimrium 00 19 16 14 00 00 27
Gram-positive
Bacillus substilis 00 15 17 00 00 00 32
Staphylococcus aureus 00 17 18 00 00 00 30
Staphylococcus epidermidis 00 14 14 00 00 00 34
Streptococcus mutans 00 20 24 00 00 00 26
Streptococcus pyogenes 00 19 19 00 00 00 28



Fungi Ketocona-zole
Aspergillus fumigatus 00 00 16 00 00 00 23
Aspergillus niger 00 00 16 00 00 00 24
Candida albicans 00 21 22 14 16 14 26
Candida trobicalis 00 22 27 15 18 15 27
Cryptococcus neoformans 00 24 25 19 21 17 31
Geotricum candidum 00 21 21 14 15 14 30
Penicillium expansum 00 00 20 00 00 00 28
Syncephalastrum racemosum 00 00 15 00 00 00 24



Dermatophytes Amphotericin B
Microsporum canis 00 00 00 00 00 00 30
Trichophyton mentagrophytes 00 00 00 00 00 00 29
Open in a new tab

Values are expressed as mean ± SEM of 3 determinants

Among the extracts of Galaxaura rugosa, chloroform, n-butanol, and aqueous extracts inhibited the growth of nine, out of ten, bacterial test organism. While total ethanol extract and lipoidal matters showed antifungal activity against 8, out of ten, fungal test strains. Interestingly, the chloroform extract of Galaxaura rugosa exhibited antibacterial activity against Klebsiella pneumoniae (24 mm, 0.15 mg/ml) higher than the standard antibiotic Gentamycin (23 mm, 0.49 mg/ml). Moreover, the total ethanol, lipoidal matter and chloroform extracts showed antifungal activity (21, 22 and 25 mm, 1.25, 0.312 and 0.156 mg/ml) similar to the antibiotic Ketoconazole activity (23, 24 and 27 mm, 1.25, 0.312 and 0.156 mg/ml) against Aspergillus fumigatus, A. niger and Candida trobicalis, respectively (Table 1, Table 3). The chloroform extract of Liagora hawaiiana showed the best antibacterial and antifungal activities. With the exception of Microcanis canis and Trichophyton mentagrophytes, it inhibited the growth of all tested fungal strains in addition to all the bacterial strains. Furthermore, the potency of chloroform extract against Candida tropicalis (27 mm, 0.078 mg/ml) was similar to that of the standard antibiotic, Ketoconazole (27 mm, 0.98 mg/ml) (Table 2, Table 4).

Table 3.

The minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) of different extracts of Galaxaura rugosa.

Extract
Test organism		 Minimum Inhibitory Concentration (mg/ml)
Total (Ethanol) Lipoidal matter Chloroform n-Butanol Aqueous Powder Standard Antibiotic
Bacteria
Gram-negative 		Gentamycin
Escherichia coli 5.000 2.500 0.312 5.000 0.625 5.000 03.90
Klebsiella pneumoniae 10.00 2.500 0.156 5.000 5.000 10.00 00.49
Proteous vulgaris 2.500 0.625 1.250 2.500 5.000 5.000 01.95
Pseudomonas aeruginosa ND ND 5.000 ND ND ND 01.95
Salmonella typhimrium ND 10.00 0.625 5.000 5.000 ND 01.95



Gram-positive
Bacillus substilis 10.00 1.250 2.500 5.000 5.000 5.000 01.95
Staphylococcus aureus ND 10.00 0.625 0.625 2.500 1.250 01.95
Staphylococcus epidermidis ND ND 1.250 0.625 2.500 10.000 00.98
Streptococcus mutans ND ND 10.00 5.000 1.250 ND 01.95
Streptococcus pyogenes ND ND ND 10.00 2.500 ND 00.98



Fungi Ketocona-zole
Aspergillus fumigatus 1.250 5.000 ND ND ND ND 00.49
Aspergillus niger 5.000 0.312 ND ND ND ND 03.90
Candida albicans 2.500 5.000 1.250 1.250 5.000 1.250 01.95
Candida trobicalis 2.500 1.250 0.156 2.500 5.000 0.312 00.98
Cryptococcus neoformans 1.250 5.000 0.078 0.625 2.500 5.000 01.95
Geotricum candidum 5.000 2.500 0.312 1.250 5.000 0.625 03.90
Penicillium expansum 10.00 0.312 ND ND ND ND 01.95
Syncephalastrum racemosum 10.00 10.00 ND ND ND ND 00.98
Open in a new tab

ND, not determined. Values are expressed as mean ± SEM of 3 determinants.

Table 4.

The minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) of different extracts of Liagora hawaiiana.

Extract Testorganism Minimum Inhibitory Concentration (mg/ml)
Total (Ethanol) Lipoidal matter Chloroform n-Butanol Aqueous Powder Standard antibiotic
Bacteria
Gram-negative 		Gentamycin
Escherichia coli ND 0.625 0.625 5.000 0.625 ND 03.90
Klebsiella pneumoniae ND 0.312 1.250 5.000 5.000 ND 00.49
Proteous vulgaris ND 10.00 2.500 0.625 10.00 ND 01.95
Pseudomonas aeruginosa ND 10.00 5.000 ND ND ND 01.95
Salmonella typhimrium ND 1.250 5.000 10.00 ND ND 01.95
Gram-positive
Bacillus substilis ND 5.000 2.500 ND ND ND 01.95
Staphylococcus aureus ND 2.500 1.250 ND ND ND 01.95
Staphylococcus epidermidis ND 10.00 10.00 ND ND ND 00.98
Streptococcus mutans ND 1.250 0.312 ND ND ND 01.95
Streptococcus pyogenes ND 2.500 1.250 ND ND ND 00.98



Fungi Ketocona-zole
Aspergillus fumigatus ND ND 5.000 ND ND ND 00.49
Aspergillus niger ND ND 10.00 ND ND ND 03.90
Candida albicans ND 0.625 0.625 10.00 5.000 10.00 01.95
Candida trobicalis ND 0.312 0.078 5.000 2.500 5.000 00.98
Cryptococcus neoformans ND 0.156 0.312 1.250 0.625 5.000 01.95
Geotricum candidum ND 0.625 0.625 10.00 5.000 10.00 03.90
Penicillium expansum ND ND 1.250 ND ND ND 01.95
Syncephalastrum racemosum ND ND 5.000 ND ND ND 00.98
Open in a new tab

ND, not determined. Values are expressed as mean ± SEM of 3 determinants.

From the previous studied it was concluded that researchers have isolated different compounds from algae including terpenoids, phlorotannins, polyphenols, phenolic acids, anthocyanins, hydroxycinnamic acid derivatives, and flavonoids (Bhat and Madyastha, 2000, Bhat and Madyastha, 2001, Benedetti et al., 2004). Nevertheless, the antibacterial, antifungal and antiviral activities of algal extracts are extensively published (El-Fatemy and Said, 2011, Manilal et al., 2009, Rajasulochana et al., 2009, Ely et al., 2004). Although, the obtained results of the current study revealed the antimicrobial activity of extracts of Galaxaura rugosa and Liagora hawaiiana using different solvents which indicates the multiplicity and diversity of the compounds present in algae

3.3. Antioxidant activity

The antioxidant activity of Galaxaura rugosa, and Liagora hawaiiana were screened using DPPH assay. It is the most commonly used assay because it can run many samples in short time and detect the active components at low concentration (Piao et al., 2004). The current results exhibited that the total ethanol extract of Galaxaura rugosa, and Liagora hawaiiana have DPPH radical scavenging activity in a concentration–dependent manner (Table 5). The maximum scavenging activity (80.96%, IC50 = 27.8 µg/ml) was provided by Galaxaura rugosa. However, the scavenging activity of Liagora hawaiiana was 66.87% (IC50 = 57.2 µg/ml) (Table 5).

Table 5.

The scavenging activity of DPPH radicals of Galaxaura rugosa and Liagora hawaiiana.

Concentration (µg/ml) DPPH scavenging (%)
Galaxaura rugosa Liagora hawaiiana Ascorbic acid
000 00.00 00.00 00.00
001 10.87 ± 1.50 4.96 ± 1.32 12.98 ± 1.41
002 12.35 ± 1.11 9.83 ± 1.21 16.38 ± 1.44
004 21.39 ± 1.71 16.61 ± 1.54 62.98 ± 1.62
008 28.09 ± 1.32 22.35 ± 1.33 76.81 ± 1.57
016 34.35 ± 1.91 27.91 ± 1.38 78.72 ± 1.75
032 55.48 ± 1.22 35.65 ± 1.30 78.94 ± 1.51
064 66.00 ± 1.58 53.83 ± 1.27 80.21 ± 1.14
128 80.96 ± 1.30 66.87 ± 1.12 86.36 ± 1.09
IC50 27.8 ± 1.22 57.2 ± 1.35 11.2 ± 1.55
Open in a new tab

Values are expressed as mean ± SEM of 3 replicates.

The free radicals are involved in several diseases including cancer, AIDS and neurodegenerative diseases. The scavenging activity of antioxidants is very useful for the control of those diseases (Suresh et al., 2008, Kohen and Nyska, 2002). Interestingly, the antioxidant activity of Galaxaura rugosa was very good (27.8 ± 1.22) and almost similar to the antioxidant activity of ascorbic acid (86.36%, IC50 = 11.2 µg/ml) (Table 5), this can be due to the presence of flavonoids in both algae (Farasat et al., 2014, Yen and Duh, 1994).

3.4. Antitumor activity

The cancer, cells growing out of control, causes are diverse, complex and not fully understood. The cancer diseases are classified according to the type of cell that the tumor cells resemble and are presumed to be the origin of the tumor. Herbal medicines are used worldwide for cancer prevention and treatment. The effect of natural products as anti-cancer was widely studied because their nature, low toxicity and side effects (Manglani et al., 2014, Mulla and Swamy, 2012, Jain and Jain, 2011).

In the present study, the in vitro antitumor activity of Galaxaura rugosa and Liagora hawaiiana extracts was determined against different cell lines including A-549 (Lung carcinoma), CACO (Intestinal carcinoma), HCT-116 (Colon carcinoma), Hela (Cervical carcinoma), HEp-2 (Larynx carcinoma), HepG-2 (Hepatocellular carcinoma), and MCF-7 (Breast carcinoma). Because it is reliable to assess the in vitro cytotoxicity of the anticancer compounds, MTT assay method (Allely et al., 1998) was used.

The obtained results revealed that the extracts of Galaxaura rugosa and Liagora hawaiiana have a remarkable antitumor activity against different types of tumor cells (Table 6, Table 7). Interestingly, the lipoidal matters of Galaxaura rugosa and Liagora hawaiiana possessed antitumor activity (IC50 = 15±1.7 and 21.2 ± 1.6, respectively) against lung carcinoma (A-549) better than vinblastine sulfate (IC50 = 24.6 ± 0.7). Although, the lipoidal matters of Galaxaura rugosa and Liagora hawaiiana antitumor activity against cervical carcinoma (HeLa) and intestinal carcinoma (CACO-2) (IC50 = 10.2 ± 0.6 and 12.2 ± 0.6, respectively) preferable than vinblastine sulfate (IC50 = 59.7 ± 2.1 and 30.3 ± 1.4, respectively) (Table 6, Table 7). These results give new promising resource of anticancer drug discovery from marine this was clear from the variation of the anticancer effect of the algae extracts which due to their huge biodiversity and safety, as they have long been used in traditional Asian foods and folk medicine (Namvar et al., 2014)

Table 6.

The antitumor activity of extracts of Galaxaura rugosa against different cell lines.

Cell line Concentration (µg/ml) Cell viability (%)
Total (Ethanol) Lipoidal matters Chloro-form n-butanol Aqueous Powder Vinblastine sulfate
A-549
Lung carcinoma 		000.00 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
001.00 100 98.1 100 100 100 100 98.2
002.00 98.1 92.3 100 100 100 100 94.7
003.90 94.0 84.9 98.6 100 100 98.4 81.4
007.80 87.3 67.2 93.7 100 98.1 91.7 73.8
015.60 76.9 48.6 85.1 99.2 92.8 85.0 62.5
031.25 63.1 40.9 70.4 95.0 84.0 72.3 40.7
062.50 41.9 32.8 54.8 89.4 69.5 59.1 32.9
125.00 30.6 21.9 38.7 68.1 42.7 38.6 25.2
250.00 22.8 12.8 23.8 40.7 29.4 23.1 15.3
500.00 10.7 06.3 12.9 27.8 14.5 10.9 06.8



CACO-2
Intestinal carcinoma 		IC50 (µg/ml) 50.7 ± 3.5 15 ± 1.7 81.4 ± 4.5 208 ± 17.2 108 ± 9.2 90.4 ± 7.8 24.6 ± 0.7
000.00 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
001.00 100 100 100 100 100 100 99.2
002.00 100 98.7 100 100 100 100 93.8
003.90 100 95.4 100 100 97.8 100 86.2
007.80 99.4 89.2 99.4 97.4 92.4 99.4 79.4
015.60 96.1 72.3 95.2 90.6 85.2 96.2 67.5
031.25 89.2 49.2 84.1 81.4 78.1 89.7 48.9
062.50 72.5 38.4 70.6 68.0 65.7 70.8 31.4
125.00 43.8 27.1 53.4 47.1 42.9 42.9 20.3
250.00 31.7 14.2 34.9 36.2 28.7 28.8 08.9
500.00 16.4 06.4 23.6 21.4 12.5 15.2 04.0
IC50 (µg/ml) 112 ± 10.4 30.7 ± 4.1 149 ± 12.2 117 ± 9.1 106 ± 8.4 109 ± 11.4 30.3 ± 1.4



HCT-116
Colon carcinoma 		000.00 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
001.00 100 79.4 100 100 100 100 66.4
002.00 100 72.9 100 100 100 100 58.1
003.90 98.7 60.7 100 100 100 98.7 47.3
007.80 93.2 45.9 99.1 98.1 100 95.1 39.8
015.60 86.9 38.2 93.7 91.8 99.7 89.5 28.7
031.25 69.1 30.6 86.0 85.2 92.4 73.1 18.9
062.50 43.5 22.8 68.1 68.0 69.5 49.5 15.5
125.00 30.7 16.4 45.2 49.8 42.8 36.9 12.1
250.00 18.6 08.7 31.7 35.4 24.9 23.8 06.7
500.00 06. 03.9 18.6 23.8 08.7 09.2 04.0
IC50 (µg/ml) 54.7 ± 1.2 6.7 ± 0.2 112 ± 7.2 125 ± 5.3 108 ± 3.9 61.9 ± 3.1 3.5 ± 0.2



HeLa
Cervical carcinoma 		000.00 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
001.00 100 92.5 100 100 100 100 100
002.00 99.5 81.4 100 100 100 100 98.1
003.90 94.6 69.0 99.4 100 100 98.4 95.4
007.80 89.7 52.7 96.0 100 97.8 92.3 90.6
015.60 80.9 43.9 88.9 100 91.3 81.4 82.7
031.25 65.2 35.1 80.7 100 80.6 69.8 71.9
062.50 48.1 26.7 68.9 100 62.9 45.1 47.8
125.00 31.4 18.4 47.5 100 43.0 30.6 34.5
250.00 14.7 09.6 31.7 97.1 29.4 21.8 22.8
500.00 08.9 05.7 17.2 89.2 15.8 09.2 09.1
IC50 (µg/ml) 59.1 ± 3.2 10.2 ± 0.6 118 ± 5.1 > 500 103 ± 4.8 56.3 ± 3.4 59.7 ± 2.1



HepG-2
Hepatocellular carcinoma 		000.00 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
001.00 100 90.6 100 100 100 100 60.9
002.00 98.2 83.1 100 100 100 98.7 54.2
003.90 91.7 70.4 99.3 100 98.6 94.0 45.0
007.80 80.1 49.2 94.1 100 91.7 88.7 34.1
015.60 69.4 37.0 86.2 100 82.0 72.1 26.8
031.25 48.1 28.5 72.6 100 67.4 48.5 19.2
062.50 34.5 20.6 51.3 100 53.9 36.4 14.3
125.00 23.7 11.3 34.9 99.0 37.1 24.9 10.9
250.00 11.9 06.9 26.4 93.7 21.3 15.3 05.8
500.00 05.6 03.5 13.8 81.4 09.4 06.1 03.2



MCF-7
Breast carcinoma 		IC50 (µg/ml) 29.9 ± 2.3 7.6 ± 0.5 67.6 ± 4.2 > 500 77.2 ± 5.9 30.3 ± 2.6 2.9 ± 0.3
000.00 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
001.00 100 94.1 100 100 100 100 67.1
002.00 100 89.2 100 100 100 100 58.7
003.90 99.4 78.3 100 100 100 99.4 52.9
007.80 96.2 63.1 100 100 100 96.2 47.2
015.60 89.4 42.5 98.1 100 98.7 89.5 40.5
031.25 72.3 31.7 89.7 100 92.4 70.8 31.9
062.50 40.9 23.8 74.0 100 78.1 41.7 23.8
125.00 26.4 14.7 48.7 98.7 45.2 28.5 15.1
250.00 13.8 07.5 32.8 91.4 30.9 18.7 07.8
500.00 06.7 03.8 19.4 76.8 13.7 08.9 05.4
IC50 (µg/ml) 53.5 ± 2.3 12.8 ± 1.4 122 ± 9.3 >500 116 ± 8.2 53.6 ± 4.6 5.9 ± 0.4



PC-3
Prostate carcinoma 		000.00 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
001.00 100 100 100 100 100 100 93.0
002.00 100 100 100 100 100 100 88.2
003.90 98.0 100 100 100 100 100 74.8
007.80 91.7 97.8 100 100 98.7 100 68.9
015.60 86.9 90.6 100 100 93.8 100 56.7
031.25 71.4 79.5 97.6 100 84.1 100 37.8
062.50 43.5 64.0 93.8 99.5 67.2 99.4 24.9
125.00 29.4 38.1 85.1 92.4 43.9 96.2 13.7
250.00 17.2 27.8 69.4 83.9 28.6 88.4 09.5
500.00 08.2 15.8 46.2 70.2 15.8 74.5 05.3
IC50 (µg/ml) 55.3 ± 5.4 96.4 ± 8.3 459 ± 24.8 > 500 109 ± 7.8 > 500 21.2 ± 0.9
Open in a new tab

Values are expressed as mean ± SEM of 3 determinants.

Table 7.

The antitumor activity of extracts of Liagora hawaiiana against different cell lines.

Cell line Concentration (µg/ml) Cell viability (%)
Total (Ethanol) Lipoidal matters Chloro-form n-butanol Aqueous Powder Vinblastine sulfate
A-549
Lung carcinoma 		000.00 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
001.00 100 99.6 98.7 100 100 100 98.2
002.00 99.8 94.8 95.2 100 100 100 94.7
003.90 96.7 89.5 86.7 100 100 100 81.4
007.80 90.3 70.4 79.5 100 98.1 100 73.8
015.60 80.6 56.2 63.8 98.0 91.4 98.7 62.5
031.25 68.5 38.7 40.8 86.9 79.5 94.3 40.7
062.50 53.2 28.1 31.9 72.1 63.8 87.1 32.9
125.00 34.9 22.4 23.5 50.6 45.9 69.2 25.2
250.00 21.8 14.0 14.8 39.8 37.6 51.8 15.3
500.00 09.79 06.1 06.9 26.5 24.9 32.7 06.8



CACO-2
Intestinal carcinoma 		IC50 (µg/ml) 73.6 ± 5.8 21.2 ± 1.6 25 ± 3.1 132 ± 11.4 111 ± 8.9 274 ± 26.2 24.6 ± 0.7
000.00 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
001.00 100 93.7 100 100 100 100 99.2
002.00 100 89.4 99.4 98.1 100 100 93.8
003.90 100 78.1 96.3 91.7 99.7 100 86.2
007.80 98.0 65.3 87.2 86.4 93.8 100 79.4
015.60 90.6 38.4 70.9 75.3 85.2 98.3 67.5
031.25 78.1 28.9 37.4 60.8 69.1 92.5 48.9
062.50 65.9 20.4 28.6 45.1 48.7 81.4 31.4
125.00 47.8 13.2 19.4 36.2 39.4 65.1 20.3
250.00 31.7 06.7 10.5 23.6 27.8 41.8 08.9
500.00 18.6 03.2 05.9 11.7 15.9 30.6 04.0
IC50 (µg/ml) 118 ± 10.5 12.2 ± 0.6 25.4 ± 1.2 52.9 ± 3.3 60.5 ± 4.7 206 ± 16.2 30.3 ± 1.4



HCT-116
Colon carcinoma 		000.00 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
001.00 100 96.7 91.4 100 100 100 66.4
002.00 98.1 90.6 86.2 100 100 100 58.1
003.90 94.2 83.9 78.1 100 99.4 100 47.3
007.80 86.1 70.8 63.9 98.2 95.2 100 39.8
015.60 71.8 52.3 50.6 92.4 88.7 99.4 28.7
031.25 59.4 42.9 41.0 86.9 79.4 95.2 18.9
062.50 36.7 33.9 31.7 72.8 65.9 86.1 15.5
125.00 21.8 20.6 22.4 45.1 41.8 70.9 12.1
250.00 12.9 13.2 12.9 36.2 28.7 42.1 06.7
500.00 05.6 06.3 05.2 20.4 16.2 28.6 04.0
IC50 (µg/ml) 44.2 ± 0.9 195 ± 0.7 16.6 ± 0.8 114 ± 9.2 104 ± 8.7 216 ± 12.3 3.5 ± 0.2



HeLa
Cervical carcinoma 		000.00 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
001.00 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
002.00 100 99.7 98.6 100 100 100 98.1
003.90 97.8 96.4 93.2 100 100 100 95.4
007.80 90.3 90.6 85.4 100 100 100 90.6
015.60 78.4 81.7 76.4 98.6 97.9 100 82.7
031.25 63.1 69.4 62.1 91.7 90.6 100 71.9
062.50 48.2 51.8 42.5 83.1 78.2 100 47.8
125.00 31.5 36.7 30.4 70.8 65.1 99.7 34.5
250.00 19.7 23.9 19.5 56.4 47.2 92.3 22.8
500.00 08.3 14.5 08.7 38.6 31.5 81.6 09.1
IC50 (µg/ml) 58.8 ± 1.4 70.2 ± 3.5 50.7 ± 2.9 340 ± 16.7 231 ± 20.1 > 500 59.7 ± 2.1



HepG-2
Hepatocellular carcinoma 		000.00 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
001.00 100 100 99.8 100 100 100 60.9
002.00 100 99.2 93.1 100 100 100 54.2
003.90 98.5 93.1 84.0 100 98.7 100 45.0
007.80 90.1 85.7 69.5 100 93.1 100 34.1
015.60 78.0 76.9 46.2 99.2 86.2 100 26.8
031.25 65.4 60.8 32.8 94.0 75.3 100 19.2
062.50 40.6 43.1 25.6 88.6 61.4 98.1 14.3
125.00 28.3 30.4 14.3 73.1 43.0 91.8 10.9
250.00 14.6 18.7 06.9 46.2 31.7 80.7 05.8
500.00 06.8 10.2 03.4 28.9 19.4 68.9 03.2



MCF-7
Breast carcinoma 		IC50 (µg/ml) 50.8 ± 5.1 50.4 ± 4.3 14.4 ± 0.8 233 ± 19.6 101 ± 7.8 > 500 2.9 ± 0.3
000.00 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
001.00 100 100 97.2 100 100 100 67.1
002.00 100 100 91.7 100 100 100 58.7
003.90 100 100 85.0 100 100 100 52.9
007.80 99.5 97.0 76.9 100 99.3 100 47.2
015.60 91.4 89.5 60.8 100 95.1 100 40.5
031.25 79.8 71.3 39.6 99.4 89.5 100 31.9
062.50 45.1 49.8 28.1 96.5 70.8 98.2 23.8
125.00 32.7 36.2 19.4 81.4 47.2 94.5 15.1
250.00 19.4 21.4 08.7 63.1 35.9 83.1 07.8
500.00 10.2 13.8 04.2 37.8 26.5 71.5 05.4
IC50 (µg/ml) 58.1 ± 3.7 62.2 ± 6.1 23.6 ± 3.4 380 ± 17.9 118 ± 82.3 > 500 5.9 ± 0.4



PC-3
Prostate carcinoma 		000.00 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
001.00 100 100 100 100 100 100 93.0
002.00 100 98.6 98.0 100 100 100 88.2
003.90 100 91.7 91.7 100 100 100 74.8
007.80 100 84.3 84.1 100 98.7 100 68.9
015.60 98.0 68.1 70.8 100 90.6 100 56.7
031.25 90.6 47.2 41.5 99.5 82.1 98.4 37.8
062.50 72.8 35.0 23.7 93.1 67.4 91.3 24.9
125.00 47.8 23.6 19.5 86.4 46.2 80.1 13.7
250.00 31.7 14.9 10.2 71.6 35.9 65.3 09.5
500.00 18.9 06.3 06.3 46.8 21.3 41.9 05.3
IC50 (µg/ml) 120 ± 9.3 29.2 ± 1.3 26.7 ± 1.4 469 ± 38.6 114 ± 10.5 414 ± 43.1 21.2 ± 0.9
Open in a new tab

Values are expressed as mean ± SEM of 3 determinants.

Footnotes

Peer review under responsibility of King Saud University.

References

  1. Aksoy L., Erdi K., YasinA ZeynebA, Mustafa K. Free radical scavenging activity, total phenolic content, total antioxidant status, and total oxidant status of endemic Thermopsis turcica. Saudi J. Biol. Sci. 2013;20(3):235–239. doi: 10.1016/j.sjbs.2013.02.003. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Aleem, A.A., 1993. The marine Algae of Alexandria, Egypt. Aleem (Ed.), Faculty of science, University of Alexandria, Egypt, Alexandria press, Alexandria, Cairo, 39pp.
  3. Allely M.C., Seudero D.A., Monks A. Feasibility of drug screening with panels of human tumor cell lines using micro culture tetrazolium assay. Cancer Res. 1998;58:589–601. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Almalki M. Medicinal plants, antimicrobial activities, antifungal activities, mechanism of antimicrobial action, antioxidant properties. Pharm. Pharm. 2017;8(5):27–32. [Google Scholar]
  5. Amornlerdpison D., Peerapornpisal Y., Rujjanawate C., Taesotikul T., Nualchareon M., Kanjanapothi D. Antioxidant activity of Padina minor Yamada, KMITL. Sci. Tech. J. 2007;7(s1):1–7. [Google Scholar]
  6. Awaad S.A., Hind A.AL-Mudhayyif, Monerah R.Al-Othman, Mohamed E.Zain, Reham M.El-Meligy. Amhezole, a novel fungal secondary metabolite from Aspergillus terreus for treatment of microbial mouth infection. Phytother. Res. 2017;31(3):395–402. doi: 10.1002/ptr.5760. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Awaad S.A., Alothman Monerah R., Zain Yara M., Zain Gh.ada.M., Alqasoumi Saleh I., Hassan Dena A. Comparative nutritional value and antimicrobial activities between three Euphorbia species growing in Saudi Arabia. Saudi Pharmaceut. J. 2017;25(8):1226–1230. doi: 10.1016/j.jsps.2017.09.007. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Awaad S.A., Al-Zaylaee Haifa M., Alqasoumi Saleh I., Zain Mohamed E., Aloyan Ebtesam M., Alafeefy Ahmed M., Awad Elham S.H., El-Meligy Reham M. Anti-leishmanial activities of extracts and isolated compounds from Drechslera rostrata and Eurotium tonpholium. Phytother. Res. 2013;28(5):774–780. doi: 10.1002/ptr.5096. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Benedetti S., Benvenuti F., Pagliarani S., Francogli S., Scoglio S., Canestrari F. Antioxidant properties of a novel phycocyanin extract from the blue-green alga Aphanizomenon flosaquae. J. Life Sci. 2004;75:2353–2362. doi: 10.1016/j.lfs.2004.06.004. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Bhat V.B., Madyastha K.M. Scavenging of peroxynitrite by phycocyanin and phycocyanobilin from Spirulina platensis: protection against oxidative damage to DNA. Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun. 2001;285:262–266. doi: 10.1006/bbrc.2001.5195. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Bhat V.B., Madyastha K.M. C-phycocyanin: apotent peroxyl radical scavenger in vivo and in vitro. Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun. 2000;275:20–25. doi: 10.1006/bbrc.2000.3270. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Coppejans, E., Leliaert, F., Dargent, O., Gunasekara, R., Clerck, O., 2009. University of Ruhuna, Dept. of Botany; Matora, Srilanka. Srilanka Seaweeds. Methodologies and Field Guide to the Dominant Species. pp. 1–265.
  13. El-Fatemy, A.S., Said, A.A., 2011. Antifungal Activity of Methanolic Extract of Caulerpa prolifera of Ghemenis Coast, Libya. In: The 7th Annual International Conference of the Egyptian Society of Experimental Biology, Cairo University (2-6 April 2011).
  14. El Gamal, A., 2010. Biological importance of marine algae. Saudi Pharm J. 18(1), 1–25. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  15. Ely R., Supriya T., Naik C.G. Antimicrobial activity of marine organisms collected off the coast of south East India. J. Exp. Biol. and Ecol. 2004;309:121–127. [Google Scholar]
  16. Farasat Massoumeh, Khavari-Nejad Ramazan-Ali, Nabavi Seyed Mohammad Bagher, Namjooyan Foroogh. Antioxidant activity, total phenolics and flavonoid contents of some Edible Green Seaweeds from Northern Coasts of the Persian Gulf. Iran J. Pharm. Res. 2014;13(1):163–170. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Izzo A.A., Ernst E. Interaction between herbal medicines and prescribed drugs. Drugs. 2009;69:1777–1798. doi: 10.2165/11317010-000000000-00000. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Jain R., Jain S.K. Screening of in vitro cytotoxic activity of some medicinal plants used traditionally to treat cancer in Chhattisgarh states, India. Asian Pacific J. Trop. Biomed. 2011;1:147–150. [Google Scholar]
  19. Kameyama Y., Yamashita K., Kobayashi K., Hosokawa M., Chiba K. Functional characterization of SLCO1B1 (OATP-C) variants, SLCO1B1*5, SLCO1B1*15 and SLCO1B1*15+ C1007G, by using transient expression systems of HeLa and HEK293 cells. Pharmacogenet. Genom. 2005;15:513–522. doi: 10.1097/01.fpc.0000170913.73780.5f. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Khan F.A., Hussain I., Farooq S., Ahmad M., Arif M., Rehman U. Phytochemical screening of some Pakistanian Medicinal plants. Middle – EastJ. Scient. Res. 2011;8(3):575–578. [Google Scholar]
  21. Kohen R., Nyska A. Oxidation of biological systems: oxidative stress phenomena, antioxidants, redox reactions, and method for their quantification. Toxicol. Pathol. 2002;30:620–650. doi: 10.1080/01926230290166724. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Kosanić M., Ranković B., Stanojković T. Biological activities of two macroalgae from Adriatic coast of Montenegro. Saudi J. Biolog. Sci. 2015;22(4):390–397. doi: 10.1016/j.sjbs.2014.11.004. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Kornprobst J. Tec & Doc, Lavoisier; Paris: 2005. Substances naturelles d’origine marine: chimiodiversite, pharmacodiversite, biotechnologies; p. 599. [Google Scholar]
  24. Manglani M., Vaishnava S., Damodaran P., Sawarkar H. In Vitro and In Vivo anticancer activity of leaf extract of Barleria grandiflora. Int J Pharm Pharm Res. 2014;6(3):7072. [Google Scholar]
  25. Manilal A., Sujith S., Selvin J., Kiran G.S., Shakir C., Gandhimathi R., Panikkar M.V.N. Biopotentials of seaweeds collected from southwest coast of India. J. Mar. Sci. Technol. 2009;17:67–73. [Google Scholar]
  26. Mark L., Philippe P., James S., John A., Sabeeha S., Katherine E., Alison G., Mary E., Susan H. Algae as nutritional and functional food sources: revisiting our understanding. J Appl Phycol. 2016 doi: 10.1007/s10811-016-0974-5. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. Mayer A., Gustafson K.R. Marine pharmacology in 2003–2004: anti-tumour and cytotoxic compounds. Eur. J. Cancer. 2006;42:2241–2270. doi: 10.1016/j.ejca.2006.05.019. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Mulla S.K., Swamy P. Anticancer activity of ethanol and polyphenol extracts of Portulasa quadrifida Linn on human colon cancer cell lines. Intl Journal of Pharma and Bio Sci. 2012;3(3):488–498. [Google Scholar]
  29. Namvar F., Baharara J., Mahdi A. Antioxidant and anticancer activities of selected persian gulf algae. Ind. J. Clin. Biochem. 2014;29(1):13–20. doi: 10.1007/s12291-013-0313-4. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Nathan C. Antibiotics at the crossroads. Nature. 2004;431:899–902. doi: 10.1038/431899a. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. Piao X.L., Park I.H., Baek S.H., Kim H.Y., Park M.K., Park J.H. Antioxidative activity of furanocoumarins isolated from Angelicae dahuricae. J. Ethnopharmacol. 2004;93:243–246. doi: 10.1016/j.jep.2004.03.054. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. Rajasulochana R., Dhamotharan P., Krishnamoorthy S., Murugesan Antibacterial activity of the extracts of marine red and brown algae. J. Am. Sci. 2009;5(3):20–25. [Google Scholar]
  33. Smit A.J. Medicinal and pharmaceutical uses of seaweed natural products: a review. J. Appl. Phycol. 2004;16:245–262. [Google Scholar]
  34. Suresh P.K., Sucheta S., Sudarshana V.D., Selvamani P., Latha S. Antioxidant activity in some selected Indian medicinal plants. Afr. J. Biotechnol. 2008;7:1826–1828. [Google Scholar]
  35. Yen G.C., Duh P.D. Scavenging effect of methanolic extracts of peanut hulls on free radical and active oxygen species. J. Agric. Food Chem. 1994;42:629–632. [Google Scholar]
  36. Yuan Y.V., Walsh N.A. Antioxidant and antiproliferative activities of extracts from a variety of edible seaweeds. Food Chem. Toxicol. 2006;44:1144–1150. doi: 10.1016/j.fct.2006.02.002. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  37. Zain M.E., Awaad A.S., Al-Outhman M.R., El-Meligy R.M. Antimicrobial activities of Saudi Arabian desert plants. Phytopharmacology. 2012;2(1):106–113. [Google Scholar]

Articles from Saudi Pharmaceutical Journal : SPJ are provided here courtesy of Elsevier

RESOURCES