Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Molecules logoLink to Molecules
. 2016 Mar 14;21(3):293. doi: 10.3390/molecules21030293

Large Scale Screening of Ethnomedicinal Plants for Identification of Potential Antibacterial Compounds

Sujogya Kumar Panda 1, Yugal Kishore Mohanta 2, Laxmipriya Padhi 1, Young-Hwan Park 3, Tapan Kumar Mohanta 4,*, Hanhong Bae 3,*
Editors: Peter J Rutledge, Derek J McPhee, Jean-Marc Sabatier
PMCID: PMC6274442  PMID: 26985889

Abstract

The global burden of bacterial infections is very high and has been exacerbated by increasing resistance to multiple antibiotics. Antibiotic resistance leads to failed treatment of infections, which can ultimately lead to death. To overcome antibiotic resistance, it is necessary to identify new antibacterial agents. In this study, a total of 662 plant extracts (diverse parts) from 222 plant species (82 families, 177 genera) were screened for antibacterial activity using the agar cup plate method. The aqueous and methanolic extracts were prepared from diverse plant parts and screened against eight bacterial (two Gram-positive and six Gram-negative) species, most of which are involved in common infections with multiple antibiotic resistance. The methanolic extracts of several plants were shown to have zones of inhibition ≥ 12 mm against both Gram-positive and Gram-negative bacteria. The minimum inhibitory concentration was calculated only with methanolic extracts of selected plants, those showed zone of inhibition ≥ 12 mm against both Gram-positive and Gram-negative bacteria. Several extracts had minimum inhibitory concentration ≤ 1 mg/mL. Specifically Adhatoda vasica, Ageratum conyzoides, Alangium salvifolium, Alpinia galanga, Andrographis paniculata, Anogeissus latifolia, Annona squamosa, A. reticulate, Azadirachta indica, Buchanania lanzan, Cassia fistula, Celastrus paniculatus, Centella asiatica, Clausena excavate, Cleome viscosa, Cleistanthus collinus, Clerodendrum indicum, Croton roxburghii, Diospyros melanoxylon, Eleutherine bulbosa, Erycibe paniculata, Eryngium foetidum, Garcinia cowa, Helicteres isora, Hemidesmus indicus, Holarrhena antidysenterica, Lannea coromandelica, Millettia extensa, Mimusops elengi, Nyctanthes arbor-tristis, Oroxylum indicum, Paederia foetida, Pterospermum acerifolium, Punica granatum, Semecarpus anacardium, Spondias pinnata, Terminalia alata and Vitex negundo were shown to have significant antimicrobial activity. The species listed here were shown to have anti-infective activity against both Gram-positive and Gram-negative bacteria. These results may serve as a guide for selecting plant species that could yield the highest probability of finding promising compounds responsible for the antibacterial activities against a broad spectrum of bacterial species. Further investigation of the phytochemicals from these plants will help to identify the lead compounds for drug discovery.

Keywords: multiple antibiotic resistances, human pathogens, antibacterial activity, medicinal plants

1. Introduction

Medicinal plants have long been used to treat diseases [1,2]. Plants are commonly used as sources of new pharmaceuticals due to the presence of promising therapeutic compounds. Infectious diseases play a significant role in the deaths of millions of people worldwide, in part due to the mutagenic nature of the bacterial genome. Moreover, the exchange and uptake of plasmids among bacteria results in the development of multiple antibiotic resistant strains. Antimicrobials from different plants have enormous therapeutic potential and lesser side effects than synthetic antibiotics [3,4]. Accordingly, it is desirable and essential to develop an effective, safe and natural product to control multiple drug resistance (MDR) pathogens. Medicinal plants contain active principles generated by various natural metabolic processes and each plant species has its own metabolome that governs the presence of chemical components or bioactive molecules [5].

India is one of the richest countries in the world with regards to the genetic resource of medicinal plants [6]. The country has a wide range of topography and climate, which influences its vegetation and floristic composition. Worldwide searches for antimicrobial agents continued to focus on lower plants, fungi and bacteria [7]. There are many approaches that can be used to select plants of potential therapeutic interest [8]. Compounds can be identified through random, ethno- (including ethnobotanical, ethnomedical and ethnopharmacological) and ecological searches [9]. The random collection of plant samples from certain habitats with high species diversity (for example tropical rain forests) can be very useful for identification of novel chemical entities. However, this method is time consuming and labor intensive [10]. This kind of sampling is most likely to be used in industry to evaluate the industrial approach and most likely to be used for evaluating plants for bioactive compounds [9].

Several studies have provided evidence that the antimicrobial compounds isolated from different solvent extracts never provided the expected final output based on the activity of crude extracts and fractions [11,12]. This is probably because different plant metabolites often work in combination with other compounds to regulate microbial infections and may therefore not be effective alone [13]. For these reasons, we investigated a large number of plant species that have not yet been examined for their antimicrobial activities. The solvent (extraction agent) used to prepare phytopharmaceuticals must be able to dissolve all key phytoconstituents, which should be nontoxic and easy to remove through excretion. Traditional healers typically use aqueous extracts. The activity of effective aqueous extracts used by traditional healers is based on indirect effects that work by stimulating the immune system of the host rather than killing the pathogens [12]. Therefore, in the present study, an aqueous extract was used in the preliminary screening (agar diffusion method). It is believed that methanol could efficiently penetrate the cell membranes, permitting the extraction of high amounts of endocellular components in contrast to low polarity solvents such as chloroform and petroleum ether which can only extract extracellular material. Methanol primarily dissolves polar constituents together with medium and low polarity compounds extracted by cosolubilization. Therefore, the present investigation was conducted to evaluate both the aqueous and methanolic (80%) extracts of different plants belonging to a wide range of families based on random sampling. The result presented herein will be useful to further search of novel plants with antibacterial properties.

2. Results and Discussion

A total of 222 plant species (177 genera) collected from Mayurbhanj, Odisha, India were screened using the agar cup plate method. Screened samples were selected based on random screening and ethno medicinal uses [14]. Eight species of bacteria (two Gram-positive and six Gram-negative), mostly involved in common infections such as gastroenteritis, diarrhea, dysentery, skin diseases, and food and water contamination, were used to screen for antimicrobial activity. Two different solvents: methanol (80%) and water were used to prepare the crude extracts of different species for screening (Table 1).

Table 1.

Summary of antibacterial activity among the test plants.

Scrutiny No. of Extracts Reported as Antibacterial (%)
Element Methanol Extract Aqueous Extract
Total number of plant species tested—22 Gram positive 146 (56.58%) 89 (34.49%)
Total number of Genus tested—177 Gram negative 137 (53.10%) 102 (39.53%)
Total number of family tested—83 B. cereus 108 (41.86%) 50 (19.37%)
Total number of parts tested = 258 S. aureus 124 (48.06%) 76 (29.45%)
Leaves-125; Bark-19; Whole part-08; Stem-04 E. coli 68 (26.35%) 45 (17.44%)
Root-04; Rhizome-03; Fruit-03 and Bulb-01 S. typhimurium 65 (25.19%) 41 (15.89%)
Total number of methanol extracts active—165 S. dysentriae 50 (19.37%) 22 (8.52%)
Total number of aqueous extracts active—127 S. flexneri 66 (25.58%) 28 (10.85%)
Number of species do not show activity—90 species S. sonnei 47 (18.21%) 24 (9.30%)
Number of extracts do not show activity V. cholerae 72 (27.90%) 38 (14.72%)
(93 methanol + 131 aqueous = 224) Zone ≥ 20 mm 10 (3.87%) 0
Total number of family show activity—68 Zone 15–20 mm 34 (13.17%) 9 (3.48%)
Total number of family do not show activity—15 Zone < 15 160 (62.01%) 121 (46.89%)
Open in a new tab

The zones of inhibition shown by each plant are listed in Table 2. In total, 258 parts belonging to 222 species, 177 genus and 83 families (258 methanol extracts + 258 aqueous extracts) were tested for antibacterial properties. Of them, 125 leaf extracts, 19 bark extracts, eight whole plant extracts, four stem extracts, four root extracts, three fruit extracts, three rhizome extracts and one bulb part showed anti-bacterial activity. A total of 165 methanol extracts were found to be active against the tested strains (at least one or more bacterial strain) while the results with aqueous extracts were comparatively fewer (127).

Table 2.

Results of screening of plants from Northern Odisha, India.

Plant Description Zone of Inhibition in mm
PU E Bc Sa Ec St Sd Sf Ss Vc
Acanthaceae
Andrographis paniculata (Burm. f.) Nees Lf A 14 12 11 10 12 - 14 -
M 12 12 14 13 - 12 16 -
St A 12 12 12 12 - - - -
M 12 14 16 - 10 14 15 10
Barleria cristata L. Lf A 12 12 - - - - - -
M 14 18 - - - - - -
Adhatoda vasica Nees Lf A 11 10 - 12 12 - 12 11
M 14 12 10 10 10 10 12 10
Acoraceae
Acorus calamus L. Rh A - - - - - - - 09
M 12 18 - - - 10 - 12
Alangiaceae
Alangium salvifolium (C.B.Clarke) W.W.Sm. & Cave Lf A 12 10 10 - - - - -
M 14 16 12 12 12 12 - -
Alpinia galangal (Linn.) Wild. Lf A - - - - - - - -
M 14 12 10 10 - 16 - 14
Amaranthaceae
Achyranthes aspera L. Wp A - - - 11 - - - 09
M 14 12 12 12 - - - 08
Achyranthes bidentata L. Blume Wp A - - - - - - - -
M 12 12 - - - - - -
Cyathula prostrata L. Blume Lf A - - - - - - - -
M - - - - - - - 10
Anacardiaceae
Buchanania lanzan Spreng Bk A 15 12 - - - - - -
M 16 14 - 13 - 12 14 10
Lannea coromandelica (Houtt.) Merr. Bk A 12 12 - 09 10 - - -
M - 12 - 14 10 10 - 10
Mangifera indica L. Lf A - - - - - - - -
M 10 14 - - - - - -
Semecarpus anacardium L.f. Fr A 11 14 - 12 - - - -
M 12 15 - 13 - 14 - 11
Spondias pinnata (L.f.) Kurz Lf A - - 10 - - - - -
M 10 14 11 12 - 14 - 13
Annonaceae
Annona reticulata L. Lf A - - - - - 12 - 12
M 12 12 - - 12 13 - 12
Annona squamosa L. Lf A - 12 - - - - 12 -
M 13 16 - - 12 - 14 12
Apiaceae
Centella asiatica (L.) Urb. Wp A 12 12 10 - - - - 10
M 13 14 10 - 12 - 12 14
Eryngium foetidum L. Lf A 09 12 12 - 13 - 11 -
M 10 14 13 - 13 - 12 -
St A 11 13 12 - - - 09 -
M 12 18 14 - 12 12 11 10
Apocyanaceae
Alstonia scholaris (L.) R.Br. Lf A - - - - - - - -
M 14 11 - - - 10 - 12
Alstonia venenata R.Br. Lf A - - - - - - - -
M 12 - - - - 14 - 10
Holarrhena antidysenterica Wall ex. A.DC. Lf A 18 12 12 14 - - 11 -
M 15 12 12 14 - 12 12 12
Ichnocarpus frutescens (L.) W.T.Aiton Lf A - - - - - - - -
M 12 11 - - - - 12 -
Rauvolfia serpentina (L.) Benth. ex Kurz Rt A - - - - - - - -
M - - 10 - - - 12 -
Araceae
Acorus calamus L. Rh A - - 09 - 12 - - 09
M - - 12 12 14 - - 12
Aristolochiaceae
Aristolochia indica L. Lf A - 12 - - - - - -
M 12 10 - - 10 10 - -
Asclepiadaceae
Calotropis procera (Aiton) Dryand. Lt A - 12 - - - - - 12
M - 14 - - - - - 12
Pergularia demia (Forssk.) Chiov. Lf A - - - - - - 12 -
M 11 12 - - - - 13 11
Hemidesmus indicus (L.) R. Br. ex Schult. Lf A - - - - - - - -
M 16 12 18 - - 14 13 13
St A - - - - - - 12 -
M 14 - - - - - 14 -
Asteraceae
Ageratum conyzoides (L.) L. Wp A - 11 12 12 11 - 12 -
M 10 16 10 12 - 13 12 10
Blumea lacera (Burm.f.) DC. Lf A - - - - - - - -
M - 12 - - - - - -
Chrysanthellum americanum (L.) Vatke Lf A 10 12 - - - - - -
M 11 13 - - - - - -
Elephantopus scaber L. Lf A 14 10 - - 11 - 08 -
M 12 12 - - 14 11 10 9
Tridax procumbens (L.) L. Lf A - - - - - - - 13
M 13 14 - - - 11 - 12
Vernonia aspera (Roxb.) Ham. Lf A 09 12 - - - - - -
M 11 14 - - - - - -
Vernonia squarrosa Dinter ex Merxm. Lf A - - - - 12 - - 10
M - - - - 11 - - 12
Baccharoides anthelmintica (L.) Moench Lf A - - 10 - - - - 10
M - - 14 - - - - 12
Bignoniaceae
Oroxylum indicum (L.) Kurz Bk A 12 10 - - - 12 12 -
M 14 12 - - 13 12 16 14
Caesalpiniaceae
Bauhinia variegata L. Lf A - - - - - - - -
M 11 10 - - - - - -
Cassia fistula L. Lf A 13 12 10 09 11 12 08 12
M 12 14 12 12 10 14 12 13
Cassia occidentalis L. Lf A - 12 10 11 - - - -
M - 11 12 - - - - -
Cassia tora L. Lf A - - - - - - - -
M - 12 12 - 12 - - -
Saraca asoca (Roxb.) Willd. Lf A - - - - - - - -
M - 10 - - - - - -
Tamarindus indica L. Lf A 10 11 - 10 - - - 12
M 12 10 08 12 - - - 14
Calophyllaceae
Mesua ferrea L. Lf A 12 10 10 12 12 - 12 -
M 12 10 10 10 12 - 12 -
Capparaceae
Capparis zeylanica L. Lf A - - - - - - - -
M - 10 - - - - - -
Cleome viscosa L. Lf A 10 11 - - 10 - - -
M 17 12 12 - 11 13 12 10
Celastraceae
Celastrus paniculatus Willd. Lf A - 12 - - - 13 - 15
M 12 16 10 10 - 15 - 18
Euonymus glaber Roxb. Lf A - 12 12 12 - - - 13
M 12 20 14 16 - 12 - 16
Clusiaceae
Garcinia cowa Roxb. ex Choisy Lf A 12 11 10 14 - 12 - -
M 12 13 10 12 10 10 12 10
Cochlospermaceae
Cochlospermum religiosum (L.) Alston Lf A - - - - - - -
M - 10 - - - - -
Combretaceae
Anogeissus latifolia (Roxb. ex DC.) Wall. Ex Guillem. & Perr. Lf A 12 11 10 12 12 - - -
M 14 08 11 12 12 10 - 11
Combretum roxburghii Spreng. Lf A - - - - - - - -
M - 22 - - 12 14 - 16
Terminalia alata Heyne ex Roth Bk A - - - - - 12 - 14
M 14 12 - - - 11 12 12
Terminalia arjuna (Roxb. ex DC.) Wight & Arn. Bk A - 12 - 12 14 11 11 12
M 11 12 10 12 15 12 14 14
Terminalia bellirica (Gaertn.) Roxb. Bk A 10 12 11 13 - - 10 -
M - 14 - 12 - - - -
Terminalia chebula Retz. Bk A - - - - - - - -
M 12 - - - - 12 10 -
Terminalia tomentosa Wight & Arn. Lf A - - - - - - - 10
M 13 10 12 14 - 12 - 12
Commelinaceae
Commelina paludosa Blume Lf A 14 - 12 - - - -
M 11 10 - 13 - - - -
Convolvulaceae
Erycibe paniculata Roxb. Lf A - 10 - - - - - 10
M 10 10 12 12 - - - 14
Crassulaceae
Kalanchoe pinnata (Lam.) Pers. Lf A - - - - - - - -
M 12 12 - - - - - -
Cucurbitaceae
Coccinia grandis (L.) Voigt Lf A - 12 - 11 - - - -
M 12 11 - 12 - 12 - -
Momordica charantia L. Lf A 10 - - - - - - -
M 10 - - - 12 12 - -
Cyperaceae
Cyperus rotundus L. Lf A 11 10 - 10 - - - -
M 13 12 - 12 10 - - -
Dilleniaceae
Dillenia pentogyna Roxb. Lf A 12 - - 12 - - - -
M 10 12 - 12 12 - 10 -
Dipterocarpaceae
Shorea robusta Gaertn. Lf A 10 - - - - 12 - 11
M 12 - - 12 - 12 - 13
Ebenaceae
Diospyros malabarica (Desr.) Kostel Lf A - - - - - - - -
M 11 - - 12 - - - -
Diospyros melanoxylon Roxb. Lf A - - 10 11 - - 12 -
M 10 15 18 12 - - 14 -
Bk A 14 10 10 12 - 12 13 11
M 15 11 22 16 - 10 16 10
Diospyros montana Roxb. Lf A - - - - - 10 - -
M 12 - - - - 10 - 10
Diospyros sylvatica Roxb. Lf A - 12 - - - - - -
M 14 14 10 20 - 14 - 18
Euphorbiaceae
Antidesma ghaesembilla Gaertn. Lf A - - - - - - - -
M 13 12 - - - - - -
Cleistanthus collinus (Roxb.) Benth ex Hook. f. Lf A 12 10 12 - - 12 - 12
M 10 12 14 14 - 12 10 12
Croton caudatus Geiseler Lf A - - - - - - - -
M 10 - - - - - - -
Croton roxburghii Wall. Lf A 10 16 10 - 12 12 - 13
M 12 14 17 15 15 13 12 10
Croton roxburghii Wall. Bk A - 12 15 14 - - 14 -
M 12 14 20 15 - - 17 -
Emblica officinalis Gaertn. Lf A - 12 10 10 - - - -
M 11 10 12 - 12 - - -
Euphorbia hirta L. Lf A - 10 12 - 10 12 - -
M 10 - 14 - 12 10 - -
Jatropha gossypiifolia L. Lf A - - - - - - - -
M - - 10 12 - - - -
Macaranga peltata (Roxb.) Mull. Arg. Lf A - - - - - - - -
M - - 10 - - - - -
Mallotus philippensis (Lam.) Mull. Arg. Lf A - - - - - - - -
M 12 14 - - - - - -
Phyllanthus fraternus G. L. Webster Wp A - - - - - - - 10
M - - - - - - - -
Ricinus communis L. Lf A 12 - - - - 10 10 -
M 10 14 - 12 10 12 12 10
Flacourtiaceae
Flacourtia jangomas (Lour.) Raeusch. Lf A - 12 10 - - 12 - 11
M - 12 12 - - - - -
Fabaceae
Butea monsperma (Lam.) Taub. Lf A - 10 - - - - - -
M 12 10 - - - - - -
Butea superba Roxb. Lf A - 10 10 10 - - - -
M 12 10 10 - - - - -
Clitoria ternatea L. Lf A - - - - - - - -
M - 10 - - - - - -
Dalbergia latifolia Roxb. Bk A - - - - - - - -
M - 12 12 - - - - -
Dalbergia volubilis Roxb. Bk A - - - - - - - -
M - 12 - - - - - -
Desmodium gangeticum (L.) DC. Lf A 12 - 08 - 10 - - -
M 10 12 10 10 12 - - -
Desmodium oojeinense (Roxb.) H. Ohashi Lf A - - - - - - - -
M - 10 - - - - - -
Desmodium pulchellum (L.) Benth. Lf A - - 10 - - - - -
M - 12 12 - - - - -
Flemingia nana Roxb. Rt A 15 11 - - - 12 - 10
M 14 12 10 10 - 12 - 12
Glycyrrhiza glabra (L.) Bk A - 11 - - - - - 10
M 12 10 - - - - - 18
Indigofera cassioides DC. Lf A - - - - - - - -
M 14 12 - 10 - - - 10
Indigofera glabra L. Lf A - 11 - 09 - - - -
M - - - - - - - -
Millettia extensa (Benth) Baker Lf A - 12 - - - - - -
M 11 14 20 - 10 11 - -
Pterocarpus marsupium Roxb. Bk A - 12 - 10 - 10 - -
M 12 - - 12 - 14 - -
Tephrosia purpurea (L.) Pers. Fr A - - - 12 - - - -
M - - - 10 - - - -
Gentianaceae
Canscora decurrens Daizell Wp A - - - - - - - -
M - 12 09 - - - - -
Iridaceae
Eleutherine bulbosa (Mill.) Urb. Bl A 18 16 10 17 - 12 - -
M 25 18 14 15 11 17 - -
Lamiaceae
Hyptis suaveolens (L.) Poit. Lf A 12 - - - - - - -
M 14 - - - - - - -
Ocimum americanum L. Lf A - 09 - - 10 - - -
M - 10 - - 12 - - 12
Ocimum sanctum L. Lf A - - - 10 10 - - -
M - 12 - 10 10 - 10 -
Lauraceae
Litsea glutinosa (Lour.) C.B. Rob. Lf A - - - - - - - -
M - - 10 11 - - - -
Leguminosae
Abrus precatorius L. Lf A - - - - - - - -
M - 12 - - - - - -
Fr A - - - - - - - -
M - - - - - - 12 -
Linaceae
Linum usitatissimum L. Lf A - - - - - - - -
M - 10 - - - - - -
Loranthaceae
Dendrophthoe falcata (L.f.) Ettingsh. Lf A - - - - - - - -
M - 10 - - - - - -
Lythraceae
Lagerstroemia speciosa (L.) Pers. Lf A - - 10 12 - - - -
M - 12 12 - - - - -
Malvaceae
Sida acuta Burm. f. Lf A - 10 - - - - - -
M - 14 14 - - - - -
Sida cordata (Burm.f.) Borss.Waalk. Wp A - - - - - - - -
M 12 10 - - - - - -
Marattiaceae
Angiopteris evecta (G. Forst.) Hoffm. Lf A - - - - - - - -
M - 12 - - - 14 - 13
Melastomataceae
Melastoma malabathricum L. Bk A - 10 - - - - - 10
M - 16 - - 16 - - 20
Meliaceae
Azadirachta indica A. Juss. Bk A 15 - 10 - - 10 - -
M 16 11 12 - 12 15 - 12
Menispermaceae
Cissampelos pareira L. Rt A - - - 12 - 10 - -
M 12 12 12 14 10 12 - 10
Mimosoideae
Acacia leucophloea (Roxb.) Willd. Lf A - - - 09 - - - -
M 14 - 10 14 12 - - 10
Moraceae
Ficus racemosa L. Bk A - - 12 - - - - -
M 16 - 14 12 - - 10 14
Moringaceae
Moringa oleafera Lam. Lf A - 19 18 - - 15 - 08
M 11 16 12 12 10 14 12 12
Myrsinaceae
Ardisia solanacea (Poir.) Roxb. Lf A - 10 10 - - - - -
M 10 12 12 10 - 14 - -
Myrtaceae
Eucalyptus citriodora Hook. Bk A - - - - - - - -
M - - - - 11 10 - -
Psidium guajava L. Lf A - 11 - 12 - - - -
M - 12 - 14 - - - -
Syzygium cumini (L.) Skeels Lf A - 10 - - 09 - - 10
M 14 11 - - 12 - - 11
Syzygium jambos (L.) Alston Lf A - 12 - - - - - 10
M - 10 - - - - 10 12
Oleaceae
Nyctanthes arbor-tristis L. Lf A - 14 10 12 - - 10 10
M 20 22 15 10 - - 18 13
Bk A 10 10 10 14 - - 10 10
M 22 14 22 11 - 15 18
Onagraceae
Ludwigia octovalvis (Jacq.) P.H. Raven Lf A - 09 - - - - - -
M - 12 - - - - - -
Papaveraceae
Argemone mexicana L. Lf A - - - - - - - -
M - - - - - - - 12
Peripiocaceae
Hemidesmus indicus (L.) R.Br. ex Schult. Lf A 11 - 12 - 10 - - -
M 12 10 13 - 10 - - -
Polypodiaceae
Drynaria quercifolia (L.) J. Sm. St A - - - - - - - -
M 12 15 - - - - - -
Punicaceae
Punica granatum L. Lf A 10 12 10 12 - 12 - 14
M 17 12 - 10 - 10 - 12
Rhamnaceae
Ziziphus mauritiana Lam. Lf A - 10 - - - - - -
M - 12 - - 10 - - -
Rubiaceae
Anthocephalus chinensis (Lam.) Hassk. Lf A - 10 12 - - - - -
M - 12 12 - 10 - - -
Canthium dicoccum (Gaertn.) Merr. Lf A 10 - - - - - - -
M 14 - - - - - - -
Ixora pavetta Andr. Lf A 10 - - - - - - -
M 10 10 - - - 10 - -
Mitragyna parvifolia (Roxb.) Korth. Lf A - - - - - - - 08
M 11 08 - - - 10 - 12
Paederia foetida L. Lf A - - - - - - - 08
M 12 12 - - - 12 - 12
Wendlandia tinctoria (Roxb.) DC Lf A 12 - - 10 - 10 - -
M - - - 10 10 12 - -
Rutaceae
Acronychia pedunculata (L.) Miq. Lf A - 10 - - - - - -
M - 12 - - 12 - - -
Aegle marmelos (L.) Correa Lf A - 10 - - - - - -
M - 12 - - - 12 - 10
Citrus aurantium L. Lf A - - - - - - - -
M 10 12 - - - - - -
Clausena excavate Burm. f. Lf A 11 09 - 14 - - - -
M 13 12 14 12 - - - 12
Murraya koenigii (L.) Spreng. Lf A 12 10 - - - 12 - -
M 12 - - - - 10 - -
Sapindaceae
Schleichera oleosa (Lour.) Merr. Lf A - 10 - - - 12 - -
M - - - - - 10 - -
Sapotaceae
Madhuca longifolia (J.Koenig ex L.) J.F.Macbr. Lf A 12 10 - - - 12 - -
M - - - - - 10 - -
Mimusops elengi L. Lf A - 10 - - - 12 - -
M 11 - - - - 10 - -
Scrophulariaceae
Scoparia dulcis L. Lf A 12 10 - - 09 - - -
M 14 12 - 10 11 - - -
Solanaceae
Datura metel L. Lf A - - - - - - - -
M - - - 12 10 - - -
Solanum virginianum L. Lf A - - - 10 - - - -
M - 10 - 11 - - - -
Sterculiaceae
Helicteres isora L. Lf A - - - 12 - - - -
M 11 10 - 10 - - - -
Rt A - - - 10 - - - -
M 12 11 12 12 - - 12 13
Pterospermum acerifolium (L.) Willd. Lf A - - - 12 - - 12 -
M 15 11 10 15 - 14 10 -
Pterospermum xylocarpum (Gaertn.) Sant. & Wagh Lf A - - - - - - - -
M - 12 - - - - - -
Tilliaceae
Grewia elastica Royle Lf A - - - - - - - -
M - - - - 13 - 10 -
Ulmaceae
Trema orientalis (L.) Blume Lf A - 10 - - - - - -
M 15 12 - - - - - -
Verbenaceae
Clerodendrum indicum (L.) Kuntze Lf A - 10 10 - 14 - 10 -
M 12 14 12 - 12 11 10 09
Clerodendrum viscosum Vent. Lf A 14 - - - - - - -
M 13 - - - - - 10 -
Lantana camara L. Lf A - - 12 - - - - -
M - - - - - - 10 -
Vitex negundo L. Lf A 10 12 10 - - - - -
M 18 16 12 10 - - 18 14
Bk A 12 12 10 12 - - 10 10
M 14 13 18 17 - - 12 16
Vitaceae
Leea indica (Burm. f.) Merr. Lf A - - - - - - - -
M - - 12 - - 10 - -
Cissus quadrangularis L. Wp A - - - - - - - -
M - - 10 - - - - 10
Zingiberaceae
Curcuma anguistifolia Roxb. Lf A - - - - - 10 - -
M - - - 10 - 08 - 08
Curcuma aromatic Salisb. Rh A - - - - - - - -
M 11 - - - - - - 12
Kaempferia rotunda L. Lf A - - - - - - - -
M 13 - - - - - 11 -
Antibiotic-Ciprofloxacin 22 16 16 24 20 26 23 R
Antibiotic-Gentamicin 27 24 26 18 22 24 21 20
Open in a new tab

PU. Parts used; E. Extract; A. Aqueous; M. Methanol; Fl. flower; Fr. fruit; Lf. leaf; Bk. bark; Rt. root; Rh. rhizome; St. stem; Sd. seeds; Wp. whole plant; Bacterial species: Bc. B. cereus; Sa. S. aureus; Ec. E. coli; St. S. typhimurium; Sd. S. dysentriae; Sf. S. flexneri; Ss. S. sonnei; Vc. V. cholera.

About 146 methanol extracts showed antibacterial activity against Gram-positive (56.58%) bacteria, while 137 extracts were active against Gram-negative bacteria (53.10%) (Table 3). Similarly 89 aqueous extracts showed antibacterial activity against Gram-positive (34.49%) species followed by 102 extracts against Gram-negative bacteria (39.53%). Among them, 10 methanol extract samples were strongly inhibitory of the tested bacteria (zones of inhibition ≥ 20 mm). A total of 34 methanol extracts were moderately inhibitory to the test bacteria (zones of inhibition in between 15–20 mm) and 160 methanol extracts were weakly inhibitory (zone of inhibition < 15 mm) in comparison to the standard antibiotics gentamycin and ciprofloxacin (Table 3).

Table 3.

Summary of antibacterial activity among the test plants.

Scrutiny No. of Extracts Reported as Antibacterial (%)
Organism Methanol Extract Aqueous Extract
Total number of plant species tested—222 Gram positive 146 (56.58%) 89 (34.49%)
Total number of Genus tested—177 Gram negative 137 (53.10%) 102 (39.53%)
Total number of family tested—83 B. cereus 108 (41.86%) 50 (19.37%)
Total number of parts tested = 258 S. aureus 124 (48.06%) 76 (29.45%)
Leaves-125; Bark-19; Whole part-08; Stem-04 E. coli 68 (26.35%) 45 (17.44%)
Root-04; Rhizome-03; Fruit-03 and Bulb-01 S. typhimurium 65 (25.19%) 41 (15.89%)
Total number of methanol extracts active—165 S. dysentriae 50 (19.37%) 22 (8.52%)
Total number of aqueous extracts active—127 S. flexneri 66 (25.58%) 28 (10.85%)
Number of species do not show activity-90 species S. sonnei 47 (18.21%) 24 (9.30%)
Number of extracts do not show activity V. cholerae 72 (27.90%) 38 (14.72%)
(93 methanol + 131 aqueous = 224) Zone ≥ 20 mm 10 (3.87%) 0
Total number of family show activity—68 Zone (15–20) mm 34 (13.17%) 9 (3.48%)
Total number of family do not show activity—15 Zone < 15 160 (62.01%) 121 (46.89%)
Open in a new tab

Aqueous extracts have commonly been used to test for antibiotic activity, especially in preliminary studies [15]. It is believed however that alcoholic solvents can efficiently penetrate cell membranes, permitting extraction of higher levels of endo-cellular components than solvents with lower polarity such as chloroform and petroleum ether [16]. In this way, alcohol dissolves primarily polar constituents together with medium and low polar compounds extracted by cosolubilization [17]. The antibacterial activities of methanolic extracts were found to be more potent than those of aqueous extracts. Gram-positive bacteria are already known to be more susceptible to plant extracts than Gram-negative bacteria [18,19]. These differences may be attributed to the fact that the cell wall in Gram-positive bacteria is single layered, whereas that of Gram-negative cells is multilayered [18,19]. Alternatively, the passage of the active compound through the Gram-negative cell wall may be inhibited due to rupture of ion channels. However, numerous plant extracts showed inhibition against Gram-negative bacteria. This is also in agreement with the results of Nikaido [20], who reported that Gram-negative bacteria have a hydrophilic membrane because of the presence of lipopolysaccharides. Thus, a small hydrophilic molecule can pass through the outer membrane. Conversely, this outer membrane also allows passage of lipophilic compounds and macromolecules. Understanding the permeation properties of the outer membrane of the microorganisms is prerequisite to know about the antibacterial activity of a solute. Thus, since the methanol extracts used in this study are partially soluble in water, they penetrate the outer membrane of Gram-negative bacteria and disturb the inside of the cell hampering cellular function and metabolism causing loss of cellular constituents, and eventually leading to cell death. Similar results have been reported in other studies as well [21,22].

Some of the important plant families that exhibited antimicrobial activities were Acanthaceae (four), Anacardiaceae (five), Apocyanaceae (four), Asteraceae (six), Ceasalpiniaceae (four), Combretaceae (seven), Ebenaceae (four), Euphorbiaceae (six), Fabaceae (eight), Myrataceae (four), Rubiaceae (four), Rutaceae (four), and Verbenaceae (four).

In total, 90 plants species (82 genera from 39 families) were unable to inhibit the tested pathogens. However, among these 25 families representing other species were active against the test pathogens, so in total plants from 15 families did not show antibacterial activity, namely Barleria strigosa Willd., Hygrophila auriculata (K. Schum.) Heine, (Lf, Acantahceae); Agave sisalana Perr. ex Engl. (Lf, Agavaceae), Amaranthus spinosus L. (Lf, Amaranthaceae), Thevetia peruviana (Pers.) K. Schum. (Lf, Apocynaceae); Rauvolfia tetraphyla (L.) Benth. (Lf, Sd, Apocynaceae); Adenostemma lavenia (L.) Kuntze, Eclipta prostrata (L.), Sphaeranthus indicus L., Stereospermum chelonoides (L.f.) DC. (Lf, Asteraceae); Bixa orellana L. (Lf, Bixaceae); Bauhinia malabarica Roxb., B. purpurea L., B. roxhurghiana Voigt, Caesalpinia pulcherrima (L.) Sw., Saraca asoca (Roxb.) de Wilde (Lf, Caesalpiniaceae); Chenopodium album L. (Wp, Chenopodiaceae); Commelina suffruticosa Blume, Cyanotis tuberosa (Roxb.) Schult & Schult.f., Floscopa scandens Lour. (Lf, Commelinaceae); Argyreia nervosa (Burm. f.) Boj., A. speciosa (Burm. f.) Boj., Merrimia umbellate (L.) Hall. f., Operculina turpethum (L.) Silvo-Mano (Lf, Convolvulaceae), Ipomoea nil (L.) Roth. (Rt, Convolvulaceae); Cucumis sativus L., Cucurbita maxima Duch. ex Lam., Lagenaria siceraria (Molina) Standley, Luffa acutangula (L.) Roxb., Momordica dioica Roxb. ex Willd., Solena heterophylla Lour. (Lf, Cucurbitaceae); Dioscorea pentaphylla L. (Rh, Dioscoreaceae); Drosera burmannii Vahl., Drosera indica L. (Lf, Droseraceae), Euphorbia nivulia Buch.-Ham., Sebastiania chamaelea (L.) Muell. Arg., Trewia nudiflora L. (Lf, Euphorbiaceae); Flacourtia ramontchi L. Herit. (Lf, Flacourtiaceae), Atylosia scarabaeoides (L.) Benth., Butea monosperma (Lam.) Taub., Crotalaria albida Heyne ex Roth., Crotalaria prostrata Rottl. ex Willd., Dalbergia lanceolaria L.f., Dalbergia pinnata (Lour.) Prain, Flemingia chappar Buch.-Ham.ex Benth., Indigofera prostrate Willd., Lablab purpureus (L.) Sweet, Mucuna pruriens (L.) DC., Pueraria tuberose (Roxb. ex Willd.) DC., Sesbania bispinosa (Jacq.) W.F. Wight, Teramnus labialis (L.f.) Spreng., Uraria rufescens (DC.) Schindl. (Lf, Fabaceae); Derris indica (Lam.) Bennet (Sd, Fabaceae), Flemingia strobilifera (L.) R.Br. (Rt, Fabaceae); Exacum bicolor Roxb. (Lf, Gentianaceae); Vallisneria natans (Lour.) Hara (Hydrocharitaceae); Hypericum japonicum Thunb. Ex. Murray (Lf, Hypericaceae), Curculigo orchioides Gaertn. (Rt, Hypoxidaceae); Litsea monopetala Roxb. (Bk, Lauraceae); Utricularia bifida L. (Lf, Lentibulariaceae); Asparagus racemosus Willd., Iphigenia indica (L.) A Gray ex Kunth (Rt, Liliaceae); Ammannia baccifera L., Lawsonia inermis L. (Lf, Lythraceae); Hibiscus furcatus Willd., (Lf, Malvaceae); Mimosa pudica L., Xylia xylocarpa (Roxb.) Taub. (Lf, Mimosaceae); Artocarpus heterophyllus Lam., Ficus benghalensis L., F. religiosa L. (Lf, Moraceae), Musa paradisiaca L. (St, Musaceae); Embelia tsjeriam-cottam A. DC. (Lf, Myrsinaceae); Boerhavia diffusa L. (Lf, Nyctaginaceae); Jasminum arborescens Roxb., (Lf, Olacaceae); Oxalis corniculata L. (Wp, Oxalidaceae); Cymbopogon flexuosus (Nees ex Steud.) Wats., Cynodon dactylon (L.) Pers., (Wp, Poaceae); Ziziphus rugosa Lam. (Lf, Rhamnaceae); Gardenia gummifera Lf, Haldinia cordifolia (Roxb.) Rids, Rubia cordifolia L. (Lf, Rubiaceae); Litchi chinensis Sonner (Lf, Sapotaceae), Solanum nigrun L., S. erianthum D. Don (Lf, Solanaceae); Symplocos racemosa Roxb. (Lf, Symplocaceae); Trapa natens L. (Lf, Trapaceae); Callicarpa macrophylla Vahl, Tectona grandis Lf (Lf, Verbenaceae), Costus speciosus (Koenig) Sm. and Curcuma amada Roxb.(Lf, Zingiberaceae). The methanol extracts from the diverse parts of selected plants that showed zones of inhibition greater than 12 mm against both Gram-positive and Gram-negative bacteria were further tested to determine the corresponding MIC values.

The broth dilution technique determines the antimicrobial activities measured as MICs (Figure 1). Four different bacteria viz. S. aureus, B. cereus, S. flexneri and V. cholerae were tested for this and results are reported in Table 4 (Figure 1). The calculated MIC of the majority of the strains was between 62–4000 µg/mL. In total, 65 extracts were tested with four bacteria (65 × 4 = 260), of which 79 hits exhibited MIC ≤ 500 µg/mL. The results in Table 4 indicate that most of the test strains show inhibition zones at a concentration ≤ 2000 µg/mL, while half of the extracts were active with a MIC ≤ 1000 µg/mL (Figure 1). MIC values lower than 250 µg/mL were also obtained for quite a few extracts. The lowest MIC value for B. lanzan (bark), C. fistula (leaf), N. arbortristis (bark), E. bulbosa (bulb) was obtained against S. aureus (MIC < 200 µg/mL). However, E. bulbosa (bulb) demonstrated the lowest MIC among all four test bacteria (22–125 µg/mL).

Figure 1.

Figure 1

Open in a new tab

Screening of plant extracts; (A) Plant extracts (methanol) against E. coli; (B) Plant extracts (water) against E. coli; (C) Plant extracts (methanol) against S. aureus; (D) Plant extracts (water) against S. aureus; (E) Plant extracts (methanol) against S. typhimurium; (F) Plant extracts (methanol) against V. cholera.

Table 4.

Minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) results of selected plants from SBR.

Plant Species Plant Part Test Bacteria
Sa Bc Sf Vc
Achyranthes aspera Rt >4000 >4000 >4000 2000
Acorus calamus Rh >5000 >5000 >5000 >5000
Adhatoda vasica Lf 500 500 1000 2000
Aegle marmelos Lf >4000 >4000 4000 >4000
Ageratum conyzoides Wp 500 >4000 500 4000
Alangium salvifolium Lf >5000 >5000 >5000 >5000
Alpinia galanga Lf 1000 1000 2000 500
Alstonia scholaris Lf >2000 >2000 1000 500
Andrographis paniculata Lf 1000 1000 2000 500
A. paniculata St 500 1000 2000 1000
Angiopteris evecta Lf >4000 >4000 2000 >5000
Anogeissus latifolia Lf 1000 4000 1000 1000
Annona squamosa Lf 1000 2000 1000 1000
Annona reticulata Lf 1000 2000 1000 1000
Ardisia solanacea Lf 1000 2000 1000 4000
Azadirachta indica Lf 250 250 250 250
Buchanania lanzan Bk 187 312 625 625
Cassia fistula Lf 94 312 625 625
Celastrus paniculatus Lf 1000 500 1000 500
Centella asiatica Wp 1000 1000 1000 2000
Cissampelos pareira Lf >4000 500 500 1000
Clausena excavata Lf 1250 625 1250 1250
Cleome viscosa Lf 1000 500 500 1000
Cleistanthus collinus Lf 1250 1250 1250 2500
Clerodendrum indicum Lf 250 2000 250 500
Combretum roxburghii Bk 1250 1250 2500 2500
Croton roxburghii Lf 625 625 625 156
C. roxburghii Bk 312 312 >5000 5000
Diospyros melanoxylon Lf >5000 >5000 >5000 2500
D. melanoxylon Bk 1000 250 500 250
Diospyros sylvatica Bk 1250 625 625 1250
Elephantopus scaber Lf 2000 250 2000 250
Eleutherine bulbosa Bl 62 22 125 125
Erycibe paniculata Lf 500 500 1250 1250
Eryngium foetidum Lf 2500 2500 2500 2500
E. foetidum St 1250 1250 5000 1250
Euonymus glaber Lf 250 500 1000 2000
Flemingia nana Rt 4000 1000 >4000 4000
Garcinia cowa Lf 625 1250 1250 1250
Helicteres isora Rt 1250 1250 1250 1250
Hemidesmus indicus Lf 4000 1000 4000 4000
Holarrhena antidysenterica Lf 1250 312 625 2500
Lannea coromandelica Lf 625 312 2500 2500
Millettia extensa Lf 2500 >5000 >5000 >5000
Mimusops elengi Lf 5000 >5000 2500 >5000
Momordica dioica Lf >5000 >5000 >5000 >5000
Mimusops elengi Lf 1000 4000 2000 4000
Moringa oleafera Lf 625 312 2500 2500
Nyctanthes arbor-tristis Lf 312 312 1250 312
N. arbor-tristis Bk 156 156 156 625
Oroxylum indicum Bk 250 250 500 125
Paederia foetida Lf 1000 1000 2000 1000
Pterospermum acerifolium Bk 312 312 1250 >5000
Punica granatum Lf 625 1250 2500 2500
Ricinus communis Lf 1000 1000 >5000 1000
Semecarpus anacardium Fr 500 2000 500 2000
Shorea robusta Lf 4000 2000 >4000 >4000
Spondias pinnata Lf 500 500 500 500
Tamarindus indica Lf 2000 2000 >4000 >4000
Terminalia alata Bk 625 312 2500 2500
Terminalia arjuna Bk 1000 2000 >4000 4000
Terminalia tomentosa Bk 2500 2500 2500 2500
Tridax procumbens Lf 3000 >6000 >6000 >6000
Vitex negundo Lf >5000 2500 1250 5000
V. negundo Bk >5000 >5000 >5000 >5000
Open in a new tab

A. aqueous; M. methanol; Fl. flower; Fr. fruit; Lf. leaf; Bk. bark; Rt. root; Rh. rhizome; Bl. bulb; St. stem; Sd. seeds; Wp. whole plant; Sa. S. aureus; Bs. B. cereus; Sf. S. flexneri; and Vc. V. cholerae. MIC values are expressed in µg/mL. The stock extracts concentrations were 20 mg/mL; 25 mg/mL and 30 mg/mL.

Unlike the agar cup method, the broth dilution results also shown that Gram-negative bacteria (S. flexneri and V. cholerae) are more resistant than Gram-positive (B. cereus and S. aureus) ones to the majority of extracts. Furthermore, it was observed that a few of the extracts are insensitive in the broth dilution method with MIC ≥ 5000 µg/mL, although they displayed inhibition zones in the agar cup method.

Ahmad et al. [23] and Valasraj et al. [24] tested 82 and 78 Indian medicinal plants, respectively, against several pathogenic and opportunistic microorganisms. Perumalsamy and Ignacimuthu [25] screened a series of 30 Indian medicinal plants using the disc diffusion method against both Gram-positive and Gram-negative bacteria. Srinivasan et al. [26] tested 50 medicinal plants belonging to 26 families for antimicrobial activity. Ahmad and Beg [27] also examined 45 Indian medicinal plants against different drug resistant bacteria and yeast. Ram et al. [28] screened the antimicrobial properties of 23 medicinal plants from Eastern Ghats, India against three bacterial species and one fungal species.

Kumar et al. [29] investigated a series of Indian medicinal plants against several bacteria and fungi. Parekh and Chanda [30] screened the antibacterial activity of aqueous and alcoholic extracts of 34 medicinal plants, belonging to 28 families against six bacteria from Enterobacteriaceae by agar well diffusion method. In all of these studies the ethanol and methanol extracts were more active than aqueous extracts for all tested plants. Antibacterial activity of alcoholic extracts of 15 Indian medicinal plants, against ESβL-producing multidrug resistant bacteria was studied by Ahmad and Aqil [31]. All these finding are in accordance with the results obtained in our experiments.

This study led to identification of plants from northern Odisha with antimicrobial activities against common pathogens. Some of the active species have already been shown to have similar activity. Additionally, the effects of some of these plants viz. Justicia adhatoda, Alangium salvifolium, Achyranthes aspera, Andrographis paniculata, Aristolochia indica, Azadirachta indica, Calotropis procera, Cassia fistula, Cassia occidentalis, Cassia tora, Carica papaya, Cleistanthus collinus, Croton roxburghii, Cleome viscosa, Hemidesmus indicus, Holarrhena antidysenterica, Leea indica, Pergularia demia, Moringa oleafera, Punica granatum, Sida acuta, Semecarpus anacardium, Spondias pinnata, Tamarindus indica, and Vitex negundo, were previously described by our group and other researchers [14,15,17,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,31]. Plants for which antibacterial activity is reported here for the first time include: Alpinia galanga, Vernonia squarrosa, Euonymus glaber, Garcinia cowa, Commelina paludosa, Erycibe paniculata, Indigofera cassoides, Millettia extensa, Pterocarpus marsupium, Tephrosia purpurea, Desmodium gangeticum, Acacia leucophloea, Ardisia solanacea, Eucalyptus citriodora, Ixora pavetta, Mitragyna parvifolia, Wendlandia tinctoria, Acronychia pedunculata, Scoparia dulcis, Solanum virginianum, Grewia elastica, Dalbergia volubilis, Litsea glutinosa, Antidesma ghaesembilla, Opuntia vulgaris and Biophytum reinwardti.

In the present study, high degrees of differences in susceptibility among dissimilar bacteria were observed. Typically each plant is different due to its unique phytoconstituents. While some are safe and effective for specific uses, others may not be. It is commonly believed that medicinal plants/drugs are safe and free from the side effects, however, this is not true for every case. Several medicinal plants can produce undesirable side effects and can even be very toxic [32]. A specific plant part may have various constituents and other parts may be toxic. To verify the biological activity and toxicity of medicinal plants, a basic screening step is very necessary for preliminary safety evaluation of plant extracts/compounds prior to further development and commercialization. Ideally, a cell line cytotoxicity study can rule out false positive bioactivity ensuing from a general toxic effect of the plant extract(s). As in the present study, we screened a large numbers of plants with different bacteria, we lack this toxicity study. On the other hand, many of our tested plants are used as ethnomedicine and their safety and efficacy are already reported. Nevertheless, more of the compounds should be subjected to animal and human studies to determine their effectiveness in whole organism systems, including in particular toxicity studies as well as an examination of their effects on beneficial microbiota [33].

3. Experimental Section

3.1. Study Area

The northern part of Orissa offers unique opportunities to study plants used by indigenous populations. About 62 ethnic tribal communities have been reported in the study area most of which inhabit the forest. These communities meet all of their needs including food and primary healthcare, from forest resources. Of 62 tribal communities, 30 (48%) and several aboriginals are found in the district of Mayurbhanj (the largest district of Odisha; area, 10,418 sq km; forest cover, 4392 sq. km; population, 2,513,895 based on a 2011 census) and Keonjhar (area, 8240 sq km; forest cover, 2525 sq. km; population, 18,017,733/2011 census). The Similipal Biosphere Reserve (SBR, 5569 sq. km) is located in the heart of the Mayurbhanj district, adjoining the Keonjhar district, and its rich biodiversity is known internationally (Figure 2). Both districts offer unique opportunities to study indigenous medicinal plants used by populations. The major local tribes live in this region includes Santal, Kolha, Bathudi, Bhumij, Munda and Gond are the major tribes whereas the Mankidia, Lodha, Kisan and Baiga are the minor tribal groups that inhabit the area. The Santal constitutes the largest tribal race and are scattered throughout the regions. The social, cultural and religious life of aboriginal people is influenced by the nature and natural resources available in and around their habitat which provide the food, medicine, shelter, and various other materials and cultural needs. Both districts are largely covered with forest containing different climatic zones and a wide range of vegetation. It is estimated that more than 2000 plant species are available from both districts; however it is not practical to screen all of them. To reduce the large species range, the study was focused only on medicinal herbs. We sampled mostly leaf materials (unless ethnomedicinal information was available regarding other parts), because leaves are a renewable resource and it is also easier to recollect leaves from the same plant for follow-up work. The identification and voucher specimen deposition of these medicinal plants was conducted at the Post Graduate Department of Botany, North Orissa University (Baripada, Odisha, India).

Figure 2.

Figure 2

Open in a new tab

Forest areas of the state of Odisha showing sampling sites and biodiversity spots.

3.2. Processing

The bark, flowers, fruits, leaves, roots, seeds, aerial shoots and stems of plants were collected separately during field trips to different places in the Similipal Biosphere Reserve. The roots were dug out from the soil and the adhering soils were removed by shaking and washing. Healthy leaves were plucked from large plants and washed with sterile distilled water. Following collection, the healthy leaves were dried at low temperature without allowing the growth of any type of fungi, or bacteria. The dried leaves, roots and stems were powdered separately using a mortar and pestle then passed through a 40–60 mm mesh size sieve to obtain uniform powdered samples.

Preparation of Plant Extracts

A total of 100 g of each powdered sample was dissolved in 200 mL of sterile distilled water and 80% methanol separately in wide mouth bottles. The aqueous samples were then steamed with distilled water for 30 minutes, after which they were stored overnight. Next, the suspensions were filtered separately (Whatman No. 40 paper) and used to investigate the antimicrobial properties. The methanol extracts were dried in a rotary evaporator at 50 °C and stored in a refrigerator until further analysis.

3.3. Antibacterial Activity

3.3.1. Test Bacterial Strains

The antibacterial activity was tested against the strains Bacillus cereus (medical isolate), Staphylococcus aureus MTCC 1144, Escherichia coli MTCC 1098, Salmonella typhimurium MTCC 3216, Shigella sonnei, Shigella dysentriae, Shigella flexneri (medical isolates) and Vibrio cholerae MTCC 3904.

3.3.2. Maintenance of Bacteria

Bacterial cultures were maintained on nutrient agar (NA) slants at 4 °C. Bacterial species were activated by streaking culture from the slants onto Muller Hinton Agar (MHA) plates and then incubating overnight at 37 °C. Individual colonies were selected from each plate and transferred to nutrient broth, after which they were incubated for 1 day at 37 °C prior to the tests.

3.4. Antibiotics

Different antibiotics (Hi Media Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai, India) at the given concentrations were used to determine the antibiotic sensitivity profile of the reference bacteria including Amikacin (Ak) 30 μg; Amoxicillin, (Aug) 10 μg; Ampicillin (A) 10 μg; Cefoxitin (Ctn) 10 μg; Ceftriaxone (Cez) 10 μg; Cephotaxime (Ce) 30 μg; Chloroamphinecol (Ch) 10 μg; Ciprofloxacin (C) 10 μg; Erythromycin (E) 15 μg; Gatifloxacin (Gf) 30 μg; Gentamicin (G) 10 μg; Levofloxacin (Lvx) 5 μg; Naladixic acid (Nal) 30 μg; Ofloxacin (Ofl) 5 μg; Polymyxin-B (Pb) 300 unit; Streptomycin (St) 10 μg; Tetracycline (Te) 10 μg and Vancomycin (Vn) 30 μg.

3.5. Sensitivity Tests

An antibiogram with commonly used antibiotics was conducted by the disc diffusion method [34,35]. The antibiotic sensitivity was tested in MHA plates (Himedia Laboratories, Mumbai, India). The test microbes were removed from the slants aseptically with inoculating loops and transferred to separate test tubes containing 5.0 ml of sterile distilled water. The inocula were added until the turbidity was 0.5 McFarland (108 CFU°). For each bacterial species, 1 mL of the test tube suspension was added to 15–20 mL of nutrient agar and transferred to an agar plate (90 mm diameter). After cooling the inoculated agar at room temperature for 25 min, the antibiotic sensitivity test discs were placed on the surface of the solid agar. The plates were incubated at 37 °C and then examined for zones of inhibition. The results are summarized in Table 5 below.

Table 5.

Antibiogram among the test bacterial strains.

Antibiotic(s) Bacterial Strains (Zone of Inhibition in mm)
Bs Sa Ec St Sd Sf Ss Vc
Amikacin R R R R R R R R
Ampicillin R 18 R R 12 14 R R
Ciprofloxacin 22 16 16 24 20 26 23 R
Erythromycin 20 23 R R R R 16 18
Gatifloxacin 22 22 18 19 14 18 R R
Gentamicin 27 24 26 18 22 24 21 20
Vancomycin 20 16 19 15 14 17 23 14
Streptomycin 18 26 22 14 18 14 25 R
Tetracycline 22 14 23 18 14 13 17 16
Amoxicillin 14 R R R R 12 14 R
Cefoxitin R R R R R 15 26 21
Cephotaxime R R 14 R 26 22 20 17
Ceftriaxone 14 17 16 18 22 28 32 18
Ofloxacin 23 21 18 19 14 23 24 15
Levofloxacin 19 22 2R 18 18 2R 18 16
Chloramphencol 17 19 29 23 R 14 12 R
Nalidaxic acid R R R R 25 28 R R
Polymyxin B 14 R 12 R 14 12 R R
Open in a new tab

R—Resistant; Bc. B. cereus; Sa. S. aureus; Ec. E. coli; St. S. typhimurium; Sd. S. dysentriae; Sf. S. flexneri; Ss. S. sonnei; Vc. V. cholerae.

3.6. Agar Cup Method

The agar cup method was used to investigate the antibacterial activity of the extracts [14]. Overnight Muller Hinton Broth cultures of the test organisms were seeded onto MHA plates after which wells approximately 6 mm in diameter and 2.5 mm deep were made on the surface of the solid medium using a sterile borer. The plates were then turned upside down and the wells were labeled with a marker. Each well was subsequently filled with 50 µL of test sample. Sterile 80% methanol was used as negative control, while gentamicin and ciprofloxacin were used as positive controls. The plates were incubated at 37 °C for 24 h after which the plates were removed and zones of inhibition were measured using the Hi Media antibiotic scale and the results were tabulated. Extracts with zones of inhibition greater than or equal to 8 mm diameter were considered as positive.

3.7. Minimum Inhibitory Concentration (MIC)

To determine the MIC, a microdilution technique was adopted using 96-well microtiter plates and tetrazolium salt, 2,3,5-triphenyltetrazolium chloride (TTC) as per the previous report [14]. The microplates were sealed and incubated at 37 °C at 130 rpm and observed for growth of the microorganisms.

4. Conclusions

The present study provides informative data regarding plants which have never been studied previously for the presence of antimicrobial activity against pathogenic bacteria. Further study is required to identify the active compounds, synergetic effects, toxicity, and safety of these plants and eventually clinical evaluations.

Acknowledgments

This work was carried out with the support of the Next-Generation Biogreen 21 Program (PJ011113), Rural Development Administration, Korea. Authors are like to thank the authorities of North Orissa University for providing facilities to conduct this work. We wish to express our profound gratitude to Anil Kumar Biswal and Akshaya Kumar Bastia (Dept. of Botany, North Orissa University, India) for identification of the plant samples. We are thankful to Santanu Kumar Jena, Bikash Chandra Behera, Kishore Mondal and Niranjan Patra for collection of plant specimens. SKP express appreciation to his M.Sc. students for their excellent technical assistance during the course of their PG studies.

Abbreviations

The following abbreviations are used in this manuscript:

CFU

Colony forming unit

MDR

Multiple drug resistance

MHA

Muller-Hinton agar

MTCC

Microbial type culture collection

NA

Nutrient agar

Author Contributions

Sujogya Kumar Panda, Yugal Kishore Mohanta, Laxmipriya Padhi: Conception and designing of the research, acquisition of data, drafting the manuscript; Young-Hwan Park, Tapan Kumar Mohanta and Hanhong Bae: Revised the manuscript.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Footnotes

Sample Availability: Samples of the plant extracts are available from the authors.

References

  • 1.Mohanta T.K., Occhipinti A., Atsbaha Zebelo S., Foti M., Fliegmann J., Bossi S., Maffei M.E., Bertea C.M. Ginkgo biloba responds to herbivory by activating early signaling and direct defenses. PLoS ONE. 2012;7:e32822. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0032822. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Mohanta T.K., Tamboli Y., Zubaidha P.K. Phytochemical and medicinal importance of Ginkgo biloba L. Nat. Prod. Res. 2014;28:746–752. doi: 10.1080/14786419.2013.879303. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Verma S., Singh S.P. Current and future status of herbal medicines. Vet. World. 2008;1:347–350. doi: 10.5455/vetworld.2008.347-350. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Dubey N.K., Kumar R., Tripathi P. Global promotion of herbal medicine: India’s opportunity. Curr. Sci. 2004;86:37–41. [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Cown M.M. Plant products as antimicrobial agents. Clin. Microbiol. Rev. 1999;12:564–582. doi: 10.1128/cmr.12.4.564. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Parekh J., Chanda S.V. In vitro antimicrobial activity and phytochemical analysis of some Indian medicinal plants. Turk. J. Biotechnol. 2008;31:53–58. [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Fabry W., Okemo P.O., Ansorg R. Antibacterial activity of East African medicinal plants. J. Ethnopharmacol. 1998;60:79–84. doi: 10.1016/S0378-8741(97)00128-1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Vlietinck A.J., Vanden Berghe D.A. Can ethnopharmacology contribute to the development of antiviral drugs? J. Ethnopharmacol. 1991;32:141–153. doi: 10.1016/0378-8741(91)90112-Q. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Fabricant D.S., Farnsworth N.R. The Value of Plants Used in Traditional Medicine for Drug Discovery. Environ. Heal. 2001;109:69–75. doi: 10.1289/ehp.01109s169. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Vuorela P., Leinonen M., Saikku P., Tammela P., Rauha P., Wennberg T., Vuorela H. Natural Products in the Process of Finding New Drug Candidates. Curr. Med. Chem. 2004;11:1375–1389. doi: 10.2174/0929867043365116. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Eloff J.N., Katerere D.R., McGaw L.J. The biological activity and chemistry of the southern African Combretaceae. J. Ethnopharmacol. 2008;119:686–699. doi: 10.1016/j.jep.2008.07.051. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Pauw E., Eloff J. Which tree orders in southern Africa have the highest antimicrobial activity and selectivity against bacterial and fungal pathogens of animals? BMC Complement. Altern. Med. 2014;14 doi: 10.1186/1472-6882-14-317. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Lewis K., Ausubel F.M. Prospects for plant-derived antibacterials. Nat. Biotech. 2006;24:1504–1507. doi: 10.1038/nbt1206-1504. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Panda S.K. Ethno-medicinal uses and screening of plants for antibacterial activity from Similipal Biosphere Reserve, Odisha, India. J. Ethnopharmacol. 2014;151:158–175. doi: 10.1016/j.jep.2013.10.004. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Padhi L., Panda S. Antibacterial activity of Eleutherine bulbosa (Miller) Urban (Iridaceae) against multidrug resistant bacteria. J. Acute Med. 2015;5:53–61. doi: 10.1016/j.jacme.2015.05.004. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Silva G., Lee I., Kinghor A. Special problems with the extraction of plants. In: Cannel R., editor. Methods in Biotechnology. Humana Press Inc; Totowa, NJ, USA: 1998. pp. 343–363. [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Panda S.K., Niranjan P., Gunanidhi S., Bastia A.K., Dutta S.K. Anti-diarrheal activities of medicinal plants of Similipal Biosphere Reserve, Odisha, India. Int. J. Med. Aromat. Plants. 2012;2:123–134. [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Lin J., Opoku A.R., Geheeb-Keller M., Hutchings A.D., Terblanche S.E., Jäger A.K., Van Staden J. Preliminary screening of some traditional zulu medicinal plants for anti-inflammatory and anti-microbial activities. J. Ethnopharmacol. 1999;68:267–274. doi: 10.1016/S0378-8741(99)00130-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Romero C.D., Chopin S.F., Buck G., Martinez E., Garcia M., Bixby L. Antibacterial properties of common herbal remedies of the southwest. J. Ethnopharmacol. 2005;99:253–257. doi: 10.1016/j.jep.2005.02.028. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Nikaido H. Outer membrane In Escherichia coli and Salmonella. In: Neidhardt F.C., editor. Cellular and Molecular Biology. ASM Press; Washington, DC, USA: 1996. pp. 29–47. [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Yerra R., Gupta M., Mazumder U. In Vitro Lipid Peroxidation and Antimicrobial Activity of Mucuna pruriens Seeds. Iran. J. Pharmacol. Ther. 2005;4:32–35. [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Kuete V., Nguemeving J.R., Beng V.P., Azebaze A.G.B., Etoa F.-X., Meyer M., Bodo B., Nkengfack A.E. Antimicrobial activity of the methanolic extracts and compounds from Vismia laurentii De Wild (Guttiferae) J. Ethnopharmacol. 2007;109:372–379. doi: 10.1016/j.jep.2006.07.044. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Ahmad I., Mehmood Z., Mohammad F. Screening of some Indian medicinal plants for their antimicrobial properties. J. Ethnopharmacol. 1998;62:183–193. doi: 10.1016/S0378-8741(98)00055-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Valsaraj R., Pushpangadan P., Smitt U.W., Adsersen A., Nyman U. Antimicrobial screening of selected medicinal plants from India. J. Ethnopharmacol. 1997;58:75–83. doi: 10.1016/S0378-8741(97)00085-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Samy R.P., Ignacimuthu S. Antibacterial activity of some folklore medicinal plants used by tribals in Western Ghats of India. J. Ethnopharmacol. 2000;69:63–71. doi: 10.1016/S0378-8741(98)00156-1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Srinivasan D., Nathan S., Suresh T., Lakshmana Perumalsamy P. Antimicrobial activity of certain Indian medicinal plants used in folkloric medicine. J. Ethnopharmacol. 2001;74:217–220. doi: 10.1016/S0378-8741(00)00345-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Ahmad I., Beg A.Z. Antimicrobial and phytochemical studies on 45 Indian medicinal plants against multi-drug resistant human pathogens. J. Ethnopharmacol. 2001;74:113–123. doi: 10.1016/S0378-8741(00)00335-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Jeevan Ram A., Bhakshu L.M., Venkata Raju R.R. In vitro antimicrobial activity of certain medicinal plants from Eastern Ghats, India, used for skin diseases. J. Ethnopharmacol. 2004;90:353–357. doi: 10.1016/j.jep.2003.10.013. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Kumar V.P., Chauhan N.S., Padh H., Rajani M. Search for antibacterial and antifungal agents from selected Indian medicinal plants. J. Ethnopharmacol. 2006;107:182–188. doi: 10.1016/j.jep.2006.03.013. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Parekh J., Chanda S.V. Antibacterial activity of aqueous and alcoholic extracts of 34 Indian medicinal plants against some Staphylococcus species. Turk. J. Biol. 2008;32:63–71. [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Ahmad I., Aqil F. In vitro efficacy of bioactive extracts of 15 medicinal plants against ESβL-producing multidrug-resistant enteric bacteria. Microbiol. Res. 2007;162:264–275. doi: 10.1016/j.micres.2006.06.010. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Posadzki P., Watson L.K., Ernst E. Adverse effects of herbal medicines: An overview of systematic reviews. Clin. Med. J. R. Coll. Phys. Lond. 2013;13:7–12. doi: 10.7861/clinmedicine.13-1-7. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Panda S., editor. Advances in Natural Products. Studium Press LLC; Houston, TX, USA: 2015. Methods to study antimicrobial and antioxidant properties of medicinal plants; pp. 179–230. [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Mohanta T., Patra J., Rath S. Evaluation of antimicrobial activity and phytochemical screening of oils and nuts of Semicarpus anacardium. Sci. Res. Essay. 2007;2:486–490. [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Bauer A.W., Kirby W.M., Sherris J.C., Turck M. Antibiotic susceptibility testing by a standardized single disk method. Am. J. Clin. Pathol. 1966;45:493–496. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Molecules are provided here courtesy of Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute (MDPI)

RESOURCES