Antimicrobial potentials of medicinal plant’s extract and their derived silver nanoparticles: A focus on honey bee pathogen

Abstract

Infectious (or Communicable) diseases are not only the past but also the present problem in developing as well as developed countries. It is caused by various pathogenic microbes like fungi, bacteria, parasites and virus etc. The medicinal plants and nano-silver have been used against the pathogenic microbes. Herbal medicines are generally used for healthcare because they have low price and wealthy source of antimicrobial properties. Like medicinal plants, silver nanoparticles also have emergent applications in biomedical fields due to their immanent therapeutic performance. Here, we also explore the various plant parts such as bark, stem, leaf, fruit and seed against Gram negative and Gram-positive bacteria, using different solvents for extraction i.e. methanol, ethyl acetate, chloroform, acetone, n. hexane, butanol, petroleum ether and benzene. Since ancient to date most of the countries have been used herbal medicines, but in Asia, some medicinal plants are commonly used in rural and backward areas as a treatment for infectious diseases. In this review, we provide simple information about medicinal plants and Silver nanoparticles with their potentialities such as antiviral, bactericidal and fungicidal. Additionally, the present review to highlights the versatile applications of medicinal plants against honey bee pathogen such as fungi (Ascosphaera apis), mites (Varroa spp. and Tropilaelaps sp.), bacteria (Melissococcus plutonius Paenibacillus larvae), and microsporidia (Nosema apis and Nosema ceranae). In conclusion, promising nonchemical (plant extracts) are innocuous to adult bees. So, we strongly believed that this effort was made to evaluate the status of medicinal plants researches globally.

1. Introduction

Today infectious (or Communicable) diseases are the most important global problem (Nair et al., 2017), and it has the prime source of the death (Vu et al., 2015), and almost 50,000 people’s deaths per day (Namita and Mukesh, 2012). Infectious diseases due to various pathogenic bacterial strains namely, Staphylococcus aureus (Nathwani et al., 2016), E. coli (Wang et al., 2016) Klebsiella pneumonia (Sidjabat et al., 2011), bloodstream associated Staphylococcus epidermidis (Hijazi et al., 2016) Salmonella spp, Shigella spp, Vibrio cholera are the most common pathogenic bacteria (Namita and Mukesh, 2012).

According to World health organization (WHO), more than 80% of the humanity inhabitants depend on heritage medicine for their most important health care needs (Nair and Chanda, 2005). The total reported plants species in the world is about 258,650. Among these, more than 10% are used for therapeutic purposes. North-West of Pakistan is granted with a variety of therapeutic plants assets because of diverse geographical and habitat conditions. The medicinal utilization of plants for healing a variety of remedies is a vital part of the region’s cultural heritage (Shinwari, 2010).

The area of Pakistan has 80,943 km², lies between 60° 55′ to 75° 30′ E longitude and 23° 45′ to 36° 50′ N latitude. Pakistan has a rich flora, about 6000 species of higher plants. It has been reported that 600 to 700 species having good potential for therapeutic uses.

More recently it was reported that plant metabolites are an excellent source to control and reduce microbes (Samoilova et al., 2014, Ribeiro et al., 2018). Medicinal plants have good potential against microorganism, which can be used as an alternate source of antibiotics (Ameya et al., 2017, Girish and Satish, 2008, Shinwari, 2010, Malik et al., 2011, Walter et al., 2011, Rahimet al., 2015).

The medicinal plants are used in India, China and the north east as a source of relief from sickness. The Compound of natural as well as an artificial source has been the base of numerous therapeutic agents (Mahesh and Satish, 2008). India has wealthy tradition background on plant-based drugs both for use in precautionary and medicinal medication. India has rich flora for the improvement of drugs from a medicinal plant. Because of the potential of the Medicinal plants to cure various diseases now the plants are used as novel antimicrobial substances. Considering the vast potentiality of the plant as sources for antimicrobial drugs the present study is based on the review of such plants (Saranraj and Sivasakthi, 2014).

Moreover, the present review to highlights the versatile applications of medicinal plants, as the whole plant, selected parts, or in extract form, such as antiviral, antibacterial, fungicidal, antiparasitic and miticides against bee mites (Varroa destructor). Hence, the advancement of unconventional control approaches is likely and needs to be considered. Besides, that a novel approach to plants extracts application is to mitigate the honey bee pathogen like Bacteria (Paenibacillus larva), Mite (Varroa destructor), Fungi (Ascosphaera apis) had also been reported.

The most important field to generate the nanomaterials for biomedical purposes and other fields (agriculture, electronic, food and power etc) is termed as Nanotechnology (Ahluwalia et al., 2018, Gurunathan et al., 2014). Outbreak of the various infectious diseases, the researchers and pharmaceuticals companies are searching for the developed new type of antibiotic against these pathogens. The present period, nanoparticles have emerged due to unique physical and chemical properties, high surface to volume ratio as novel antimicrobial agents (Rai and Ingle, 2012, Duran and Marcato, 2013, Butler et al., 2015). Among the different type of nanoparticles, particularly, the silver nanoparticles has observed for its biomedical applications in the treatment of bactericidal (Tanvir et al., 2017, Manikandanet al., 2015), fungicidal (Sre et al., 2015) antiviral (Villeret et al., 2018, Malachováet al., 2011) and anti-protozoals (Fayaz et al., 2012).

Silver nanoparticles have been renowned practical applications against antibacterial properties. Furthermore, in recent years the Nanosilver potentialities have been evaluated against the different pathogens such as arthropods vectors infections, various types of cancer cells, but still, now there are many questions which are not yet solved, but in future, the scientists have been attention to solve in further research. Importantly, silver nanoparticles being measured for use as an alternative control in bee hives requires significant inhibitory activity against the bee disease without nontoxic effect on adult honeybees.

2. Antibacterial potential of medicinal plants

In this portion, we present medicinal plants and their different fractions, different parts (various methods and different micro-organisms) (Table 1, Table 2) and both Gram-negative and positive strains of bacteria (Table 1) and their percentage use is shown in (Fig. 1, Fig. 2) respectively. Furthermore, this review demonstrates the silver nanoparticles potentialities against microbes and parasites which are listed in Table 3.

Table 1.

Microorganism, methods and solvents described in the text.

Gram positive Bacteria	Bacillus cereus, Bacillus pumilus, Bacillus subtilis, Staphylococcus, Micrococcus, Listeria, Streptococcus, Cocci, Lactobacillus and Enterococcus fecalis)
Gram negative Bacteria	Enterobacter, Escherichia coli, Pantoeaagglomerans Proteus, Shigella, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Serratia, Vibrio, Klebsiella, Salmonella, Yersinia and Citrobacte.
Fungal species	Trichophytonmentagrophytes, Candidakrusei, Candida albicans, Candida glabrata, Candidakrusei, Aspergillus, A. flavus, A. niger, Curvularia sp., Fusarium sp., Rhizopussp and Candidaparapsilosis
Viruses	Monkeypoxvirus, respiratorysyncytial virus, HIV-1, hepatitis B virus, and herpes simplex virus type 1, Vaccinia virus, human parainfluenza virus type 3 (HPIV-3), Herpes simplex virus type 1 and type 2 (HSV-1 and HSV-2), tacaribe virus (TCRV), hepatitis B virus (HBV), Coxsackie virus B3 and influenza virus
Method Used	Agar well diffusion, Agar disk diffusion, Agar ditch diffusion, Tube diffusion, Bauer disc diffusion, Broth dilution, Micro dilution, Liquid dilution and Serial dilution
Solvent Used	Methanol, n-Hexane, Aqueous, Chloroform, Ethyl Acetate, Benzene, Petroleum Ether, Acetone, Ethanolic, Dichloromethane, Dimethyl Sulphoxide and Diethyl Ether

Table 2.

Various medicinal plants and their important parts used in the text against as antimicrobial properties.

Sr. no.	Plant Name	Part Used	Essential oil	Whole plant	Stem	Root/Rhizome	Seed	Flower	Fruit	Bark	References
		Leaves
1	Ajugabracteosa	Leaves	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	Girish and Satish (2008)
2	Calotropisprocera	Leaves	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	Girish and Satish (2008)
3	Zizyphus sativa	Leaves	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	Girish and Satish (2008)
4	Sapindusemarginatus	Leaves	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	Nair et al. (2005)
5	Hibiscus rosasinensis	Leaves	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	Nair et al. (2005)
6	Mirabilis jalapa		–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	Nair et al. (2005)
7	Rhoeo discolor	Leaves	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	Nair et al. (2005)
8	Nyctanthes arbor-tristis	Leaves	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	Nair et al. (2005)
9	Colocasiaesculenta		–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	Nair et al. (2005)
10	Gracilariacorticata	Leaves	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	Nair et al. (2005)
11	Dictyotasp	Leaves	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	Nair et al. (2005)
12	Pulicariawightiana	Leaves	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	Nair et al. (2005)
13	Anisomelesindica	Leaves	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	Ramasamy and Manoharan (2004)
14	Blumealacera	Leaves	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	Ramasamy and Manoharan (2004)
15	Meliaazadirachta	Leaves	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	Ramasamy and Manoharan (2004)
16	Phyllanthusamarus	Leaves	–	–	–	Root	–	–	–	–	Aliero and Afolayan (2006)
17	Galinsoga ciliate	Leaves	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	Poonkothai et al. (2005)
18	Hippophaerhamnoides	–	–	–	–	–	Seeds	–	–	–	Mohammad et al. (2007)
19	Parkiajavanica	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	Bark	Saha et al. (2007)
20	Hemidesmusindicus (L.)	–	–	–	–	Root	–	–	–	–	Kumar et al. (2007)
21	Eclipta alba	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	Fruit	–	Kumar et al. (2007)
22	Cosciniumfenestratum	–	–	–	Stems	–	–	–	–	–	Kumar et al. (2007)
23	Cucurbitapepo L	–	–	–	–	–	Seeds	–	–	–	Kumar et al. (2007)
24	Tephrosiapurpurea	–	–	–	–	Roots	–	–	–	–	Kumar et al. (2007)
25	Menthapiperita	Leaves	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	Kumar et al. (2007)
26	Pongamiapinnata	–	–	–	–	–	Seeds	–	–	–	Kumar et al. (2007)
27	Symplocosracemosa	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	Bark	Kumar et al. (2007)
28	Euphorbia hirta	–	–	–	–	Roots	–	–	–	–	Kumar et al. (2007)
29	Tinosporacordyfolia	–	–	–	–	Roots	–	–	–	–	Kumar et al. (2007)
30	Thespesiapopulnea	–	–	–	–	Roots	–	–	–	–	Kumar et al. (2007)
31	Jasminumofficinale	–	–	–	–	–	–	Flower	–	–	Kumar et al. (2007)
32	Marrubiumvulgare	Leaves	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	Warda et al. (2009)
33	Thymus pallidus	–	Essential oil	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	Warda et al. (2009)
34	Eryngiumilicifolium	–	–	Whole plant	–	–	–	–	–	–	Warda et al. (2009)
35	Lavandulastoechas.	–	Essential oil	–	–	–	–	Flower	–	–	Warda et al. (2009)
36	Mimosa pudica,	Leaves	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	Balakrishnan et al. (2006)
37	Angle marmelos	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	Fruits	–	Balakrishnan et al. (2006)
38	Sidacordifolia	Leaves	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	Balakrishnan et al. (2006)
39	Acalyphaindica	–	–	–	–	–	–	Flowers	–	–	Ushimaru et al. (2007)
40	Mollugolatoides	–	–	Whole plant	–	–	–	–	–	–	Ushimaru et al. (2007)
41	Nelumbonucifera	Leaves	–	–	–	–	–	Flowers	–	–	Ushimaru et al. (2007)
42	Garciniamangostana	Leaves	–	–	–	–	–	–	Fruits	–	Saranraj, 2011a, Saranraj, 2011b)
43	Puciniagranatum	Leaves	–	–	–	–	–	Flowers	–	–	Saranraj, 2011a, Saranraj, 2011b)
44	Quercusinfectoria	–	Essential oil	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	Saranraj, 2011a, Saranraj, 2011b)
45	Daturametel	Leaves	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	Saranraj, 2011a, Saranraj, 2011b)
46	Phyla nodiflora	–	–	Whole plant	–	–	–	–	–	–	Ullah et al. (2013)
47	Zingiberofficinale	–	Essential oil	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	Norajit et al. (2007)
48	Alpiniagalanga	–	Essential oil	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	Norajit et al. (2007)
49	Curcuma longa	–	Essential oil	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	Norajit et al. (2007)
50	Boesenbergiapandurata	–	Essential oil	–	–	-	-	-	-	-	Norajit et al. (2007)
51	Amomumxanthioides	–	Essential oil	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	Norajit et al. (2007)
52	Pterocarpusangolensis	–	–	–	Stem	–	–	–	–	–	Samie et al. (2009)
53	Lippiajavanica	–	Essential Oil	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	Samie et al. (2009)
54	Zingiberofficinale	–	–	Whole plants	–	–	–	–	–	–	Al-Daihan et al. (2013)
55	Curcuma longa,	–	–	Whole plants	–	–	–	–	–	–	Al-Daihan et al. (2013)
56	Commiphoramolmol	–	–	Whole plants	–	–	–	–	–	–	Al-Daihan et al. (2013)
57	Pimpinellaanisum	–	–	Whole plants	–	–	–	–	–	–	Al-Daihan et al. (2013)
58	Elaeagnusangustifolia	Leaves	–	–	Stem	Root	–	–	–	–	Khan et al. (2013)
59	Elaeagnusangustifolia	Leaves	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	Okmen et al. (2013)
60	Elaeagnusangustifolia	Leaves	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	Farzaei et al. (2015)
61	Stephaniaglabra	–	–	–	–	Root	–	–	–	–	Semwal et al. (2009)
62	Woodfordiafruticosa	–	–	–	Stem	–	–	Flowers	–	–	Chougale et al. (2009)
63	Betulautilis	–	–	Whole plant	–	–	–	–	–	Bark	Kumaraswamy et al. (2008)
64	Bidenspilosa	–	–	Whole plant	–	–	–	–	–	–	Patel et al. (2007)
65	Bixaorellana	–	–	Whole plant	–	–	–	–	–	–	Patel et al. (2007)
66	Cecropiapeltata	–	–	Whole plant	–	–	–	–	–	–	Patel et al. (2007)
67	Cinchona officinalis	–	–	Whole plant	–	–	–	–	–	–	Patel et al. (2007)
68	Gliricidiasepium	–	–	Whole plant	–	–	–	–	–	–	Patel et al. (2007)
69	Jacarandamimosifolia	–	–	Whole plant	–	–	–	–	–	–	Patel et al. (2007)
70	Justiciasecunda	–	–	Whole plant	–	–	–	–	–	–	Patel et al. (2007)
71	Piper pulchrum	–	–	Whole plant	–	–	–	–	–	–	Patel et al. (2007)
72	P. paniculata	–	–	Whole plant	–	–	–	–	–	–	Patel et al. (2007)
73	Spilanthes Americana	–	–	Whole plant	–	–	–	–	–	–	Patel et al. (2007)
74	Azadirachtaindica	–	–	–	–	–	Seeds	–	–	–	El-Mahmood et al. (2010)
75	Albizialebbeck (L.)	Leaves	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	Maity et al. (2010)
76	Cleistanthuscollinus (Roxb.)	Leaves	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	Maity et al. (2010)
77	Emblicaofficinalis	Leaves	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	Maity et al. (2010)
78	(Phyllanthusemblica L.)	Leaves	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	Maity et al. (2010)
79	Eucalyptus deglupta	Leaves	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	Maity et al. (2010)
80	(Eucalyptus tereticornis)	Leaves	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	Maity et al. (2010)
81	Eupatorium odoratum	Leaves	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	Maity et al. (2010)
82	Oxalis corniculata L.	Leaves	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	Maity et al. (2010)
83	Heveabrasiliensis	Leaves	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	Maity et al. (2010)
84	Lantana camara	Leaves	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	Maity et al. (2010)
85	Acacia nilotica	Leaves	–	–	–	Root	–	–	–	Bark	Mahesh and Satish (2008)
86	Sidacordifolia	Leaves	–	–	–	Root	–	–	–	Bark	Mahesh and Satish (2008)
87	Tinosporacordifolia	Leaves	–	–	–	Root	–	–	–	Bark	Mahesh and Satish (2008)
88	Withaniasomnifer	Leaves	–	–	–	Root	–	–	–	Bark	Mahesh and Satish (2008)
89	Ziziphusmauritiana	Leaves	–	–	–	Root	–	–	–	Bark	Mahesh and Satish (2008)
90	Lantana indica	Leaves	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	Venkataswamy et al. (2010)
91	Arnebianobilis	–	–	–	–	Root	–	–	–	–	Menghani et al. (2011)
92	Garciniaindica	Leaves	–	–	–	–	–	–	Fruit	–	Menghani et al. (2011)
93	Boerhaviadiffusa	Leaves	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	Menghani et al. (2011)
94	Solanumalbicaule	Leaves	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	Menghani et al. (2011)
95	Vitexnegundu	Leaves	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	Menghani et al. (2011)
96	Buniumpersicum	–	–	–	–	–	Seeds	–	–	–	Menghani et al. (2011)
97	Acacia concinna	Leaves	–	–	–	–	–	–	Fruit	–	Menghani et al. (2011)
98	Albizialebbeck	Leaves	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	Menghani et al. (2011)
99	Syzygiumaromaticum Linn.	–	–	–	Stem,	–	–	–	–	–	Phattayakorn and Wanchaitanawong (2009)
100	Piper betle Linn.	Leaves	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	Phattayakorn and Wanchaitanawong (2009)
101	Curcuma longa Linn.	–	–	–	–	Rhizhome	–	–	–	–	Phattayakorn and Wanchaitanawong (2009)
102	Punicagranatum Linn.	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	Fruit	–	Phattayakorn and Wanchaitanawong (2009)
103	Garciniamangostana Linn.	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	Fruit Peel	–	Phattayakorn and Wanchaitanawong (2009)
104	Andrographispaniculata	Leaves	–	–	Stem	–	–	Flower		–	Phattayakorn and Wanchaitanawong (2009)
105	Sennaalata (Linn.)	–	–	–	–	–	Seed	–	–	–	Phattayakorn and Wanchaitanawong (2009)
106	Boesenbergiapandurata	–	–	–	–	Rhizome		–	–	–	Phattayakorn and Wanchaitanawong (2009)
107	Cassia angustifolia	Leaves	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	Phattayakorn and Wanchaitanawong (2009)
108	Cinnamomumzeylanicum	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	Bark	Phattayakorn and Wanchaitanawong (2009)
109	Caesalpiniasappan Linn.	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	Bark	Phattayakorn and Wanchaitanawong (2009)
110	Curcuma xanthorrhiza	–	–	–	–	Rhizome	–	–	–	–	Phattayakorn and Wanchaitanawong (2009)
111	Syzygiumaromaticum Linn.	–	–	–	Stem	–	–	–	–	–	Phattayakorn and Wanchaitanawong (2009)
112	Piper betle Linn.	Leaves	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	Phattayakorn and Wanchaitanawong (2009)
113	Curcuma longa Linn.	–	–	–	–	Rhizome	–	–	–	–	Phattayakorn and Wanchaitanawong (2009)
114	Punicagranatum Linn.	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	Fruit Peel,	–	Phattayakorn and Wanchaitanawong (2009)
115	Garciniamangostana Linn.	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	Fruit Peel	–	Phattayakorn and Wanchaitanawong (2009)
116	Andrographispaniculata	Leaves	–	–	Stem,	–	–	Flower		–	Phattayakorn and Wanchaitanawong (2009)
117	Sennaalata (Linn.)	–	–	–	–	–	Seed	–	–	–	Phattayakorn and Wanchaitanawong (2009)
118	Boesenbergiapandurata	–	–	–	–	Rhizome	–	–	–	–	Phattayakorn and Wanchaitanawong (2009)
119	Cassia angustifolia	Leaves	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	Phattayakorn and Wanchaitanawong (2009)
120	Cinnamomumzeylanicum	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	Bark	Phattayakorn and Wanchaitanawong (2009)
121	Caesalpiniasappan Linn.	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	Bark	Phattayakorn and Wanchaitanawong (2009)
122	Curcuma xanthorrhiza	–	–	–	–	Rhizome	–	–	–	–	Phattayakorn and Wanchaitanawong (2009)
123	Carthamustinctorius Linn.	–	–	–	–	–	–	Flower	–	–	Phattayakorn and Wanchaitanawong (2009)
124	Derris scandens	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	Fruit	–	Phattayakorn and Wanchaitanawong (2009)
125	Cyperusrotundus Linn.	–	–	–	–	Rhizome	–	–	–	–	Phattayakorn and Wanchaitanawong (2009)
126	Acanthus ebracteatus	Leaves	–	–	Stem,	–	–	–	–	–	Phattayakorn and Wanchaitanawong (2009)
127	Tinosporacrispa(L.)	–	–	–	Stem	–	–	–	–	–	Phattayakorn and Wanchaitanawong (2009)
128	Eclipta prostate	Leaves	–	–	Stem,	–	–	Flower	–	–	Phattayakorn and Wanchaitanawong (2009)
129	Phyllanthusemblica Linn.	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	Fruit	–	Phattayakorn and Wanchaitanawong (2009)
130	AzadirachtaindicaA.	Leaves	–	–	–	–	–	–	Fruit	–	Phattayakorn and Wanchaitanawong (2009)
131	Morindacitrifolia,	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	Phattayakorn and Wanchaitanawong (2009)
132	Sennasiamea	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	Phattayakorn and Wanchaitanawong (2009)
133	Morus alba Linn.	Leaves	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	Phattayakorn and Wanchaitanawong (2009)
134	Citrus aurantifolia	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	Fruit	–	Phattayakorn and Wanchaitanawong (2009)
135	Piper retrofractum	–	–	–	–	–	–	Flower	–	–	Phattayakorn and Wanchaitanawong (2009)
136	Aloe Vera	–	–	–	Stem	–	–	–	–	–	Yasmeen et al. (2012)
137	Azadirachtaindica	Leaves	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	Yasmeen et al. (2012)
138	Allium sativum	–	–	–	–	Rhizome	–	–	–	–	Yasmeen et al. (2012)
139	Calotropisprocera	Leaves	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	Yasmeen et al. (2012)
140	Cannabis sativa	Leaves	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	Yasmeen et al. (2012)
141	Carumcapticum		–	–	–	–	–	–	Fruit	–	Yasmeen et al. (2012)
142	Eucalyptus camaldulensi	Leaves	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	Yasmeen et al. (2012)
143	Lantana camara,	–	–	–	–	–	–	Flower	–	–	Yasmeen et al. (2012)
144	Mangiferaindica,	Leaves	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	Bark	Yasmeen et al. (2012)
145	Menthapiperita,	Leaves	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	Yasmeen et al. (2012)
146	Nigella sativa,	–	–	–	–	–	Seed	Flower	–	–	Yasmeen et al. (2012)
147	Opuntia	–	–	Whole plant	–	–	–	–	–	–	Yasmeen et al. (2012)
148	Ficusindica,	–	–	Whole plant	–	–	–	–	–	–	Yasmeen et al. (2012)
149	Piper nigrum.	Leaves	–	–	–	–	–	–	Fruit		Yasmeen et al. (2012)
150	Zingiberofficinalis	–	–	–	–	Rhizhome	–	–	–	–	Yasmeen et al. (2012)
151	Achyranthesbidentata	Leaves	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	Janovska et al. (2003)
152	Belamcandachinensis	Leaves	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	Janovska et al. (2003)
153	Chelidoniummajus	Leaves	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	Janovska et al. (2003)
154	Houttuyniacordata.	Leaves	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	Janovska et al. (2003)
155	Platycodongrandiflorum	–	–	–	–	Roots	–	–	–	–	Janovska et al. (2003)
156	Rehmaniaglutinosa	–	–	–	–	Roots	–	–	–	–	Janovska et al. (2003)
157	Sanguisorbaofficinalis	Leaves	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	Janovska et al. (2003)
158	Schizandrachinensis	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	Fruit	–	Janovska et al. (2003)
159	Tribulusterrestris	Leaves	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	Janovska et al. (2003)
160	Tussilagofarfara	–	–	Whole plant	–	–	–	–	–	–	Janovska et al. (2003)
161	Achilleamillifolium,	Leaves	–	–	–	–	–	Flowers	–	–	Nascimento et al. (2000)
162	Caryophyllusaromaticus,	Leaves	–	–	–	–	–	Flowers	–	–	Nascimento et al. (2000)
163	Melissa offficinalis,	Leaves	–	–	–	–	–	Flowers	–	–	Nascimento et al. (2000)
164	Ocimunbasilucum	Leaves	–	–	–	–	–	Flowers	–	–	Nascimento et al. (2000)
165	Psidiumguajava	Leaves	–	–	–	–	–	Flowers	–	–	Nascimento et al. (2000)
166	Punicagranatum	Leaves	–	–	–	–	–	Flowers	–	–	Nascimento et al. (2000)
167	Rosmarinusofficinalis,	Leaves	–	–	–	–	–	Flowers	–	–	Nascimento et al. (2000)
168	Salviofficinalis,	Leaves	–	–	–	–	–	Flowers	–	–	Nascimento et al. (2000)
169	Syzygyumjoabolanum	Leaves	–	–	–	–	–	Flowers	–	–	Nascimento et al. (2000)
170	Thymus vulgaris	Leaves	–	–	–	–	–	Flowers	–	–	Nascimento et al. (2000)
171	Albizialebbeck	Leaves	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	Acharyya et al. (2009)
172	Terminaliachebula	Leaves	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	Acharyya et al. (2009)
173	Syzygiumcumini	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	Fruit	–	Acharyya et al. (2009)
174	Solanumnigrum	Leaves	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	Acharyya et al. (2009)
175	Picrorhizakurrooa	–	–	Whole plant	–	–	–	–	–	–	Acharyya et al. (2009)
176	Buteamonosperma	–	–	–	–	–	–	Flower	–	–	Acharyya et al. (2009)
177	Saracaindica	Leaves	–	–	–	–	–	Flowers	–	–	Acharyya et al. (2009)
178	Aeglemarmelos	–	–	–	–	–	–		Fruit		Acharyya et al. (2009)
179	Withaniasomnifera	Leaves	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	Acharyya et al. (2009)
180	TamarixGallica,	–	–	Whole plant	–	–	–	–	–	–	Zaouia et al. (2010)
181	MuscariComosun,	–	–	Whole plant	–	–	–	–	–	–	Zaouia et al. (2010)
182	Rhetinolepissp,	–	–	Whole plant	–	–	–	–	–	–	Zaouia et al. (2010)
183	Taraxacumofficinnale,	–	–	Whole plant	–	–	–	–	–	–	Zaouia et al. (2010)
184	Zygohyllum album,	–	–	Whole plant	–	–	–	–	–	–	Zaouia et al. (2010)
185	Uricadioica	–	–	Whole plant	–	–	–	–	–	–	Zaouia et al. (2010)
186	Silybummarianum,	–	–	Whole plant	–	–	–	–	–	–	Zaouia et al. (2010)
187	Traganumnudatun,	–	–	Whole plant	–	–	–	–	–	–	Zaouia et al. (2010)
188	Rhamnussp	–	–	Whole plant	–	–	–	–	–	–	Zaouia et al. (2010)
189	Sedum kamtschaticum	Leaves	–	–	–	Root	–	–	–	–	Kang et al. (2011)
190	Geumjaponicum,	Leaves	–	–	–		–	–	–	–	Kang et al. (2011)
191	Geranium sibiricum,		–	–	–	Root	–	–	–	–	Kang et al. (2011)
192	Saururuschinensis,	Leaves	–	–	–	Root	–	–	–	–	Kang et al. (2011)
193	Agrimoniapilosa,	Leaves	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	Kang et al. (2011)
194	Houttuyniacordata,	Leaves	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	Kang et al. (2011)
195	Perillafrutescens	–	–	–	–	Root	–	–	–	–	Kang et al. (2011)
196	Agastacherugosa	Leaves	–	–	–	Root	–	–	–	–	Kang et al. (2011)
197	Pereskiableo,	Leaves	–	–	–		–	–	–	–	Philip et al. (2009)
198	Pereskiagrandifolia,	Leaves	–	–	–		–	–	–	–	Philip et al. (2009)
200	Curcuma zedoria,	–	–	–	–	Rhizhome	–	–	–	–	Philip et al. (2009)
201	Curcuma mangga,	–	–	–	–	Rhizome	–	–	–	–	Philip et al. (2009)
202	Curcuma inodora	–	–	–	–	Rhizome	–	–	–	–	Philip et al. (2009)
203	Zingiberofficinale var. officinale	–	–	–	–	Rhizome	–	–	–	–	Philip et al. (2009)
204	Zingiberofficinale var. rubrum	–	–	–	–	Rhizome	–	–	–	–	Philip et al. (2009)
205	Curcuma aeruginosa	–	–	–	–	Rhizome	–	–	–	–	Philip et al. (2009)
206	Hypericumscabrum,	–	–	–	–	–	–	Flower	–	–	Ghasemi et al. (2010)
207	Myrtuscommunis,	–	–	Whole plant	–	–	–	–	–	–	Ghasemi et al. (2010)
208	Pistachiaatlantica,	–	–	Whole plant	–	–	–	–	–	–	Ghasemi et al. (2010)
209	Arnebiaeuchroma,	–	–	Whole plant	–	–	–	–	–	–	Ghasemi et al. (2010)
210	Salvia hydrangea,	–	–	–	–	Roots	–	–	–	–	Ghasemi et al. (2010)
211	Saturejabachtiarica,	–	–	–	–	Roots	–	–	–	–	Ghasemi et al. (2010)
212	Thymus daenensis	–	Essential oils	–	–		–	–	–	–	Ghasemi et al. (2010)
213	Kelussiaodoratissima	–	Essential oils	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	Ghasemi et al. (2010)
214	Aloe vera,	–	–	Whole plant	–	–	–	–	–	–	Selvamohan et al. (2012)
215	Phyllanthusemblica,	–	–	Whole plant	–	–	–	–	–	–	Selvamohan et al. (2012)
216	Phyllanthusniruri,	–	–	Whole plant	–	–	–	–	–	–	Selvamohan et al. (2012)
217	Cynodondactylon,	–	–	Whole plant	–	–	–	–	–	–	Selvamohan et al. (2012)
218	Murryakoenigii,	–	–	Whole plant	–	–	–	–	–	–	Selvamohan et al. (2012)
219	Lawsoniainermis,	–	–	Whole plant	–	–	–	–	–	–	Selvamohan et al. (2012)
220	Adhathodavasica	–	–	Whole plant	–	–	–	–	–	–	Selvamohan et al. (2012)
221	Terminaliachebula,	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	Fruit	–	Prabhat and Navneet (2010)
222	Mimusopselengi,	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	Bark	Prabhat and Navneet (2010)
223	Achyranthesaspera,	–	–	Whole plant	–	–	–	–	–	–	Prabhat and Navneet (2010)
224	Acacia catechu,	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	Bark	Prabhat and Navneet (2010)
225	A. arabica	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	Bark	Prabhat and Navneet (2010)
226	Glycyrrhizaglabra extracts	–	–	–	–	Root	–	–	–	–	Prabhat and Navneet (2010)
227	Acacia Arabica,	Leaves					–	–	–	–	Hassan et al. (2009)
228	Nymphaea lotus,	–	–	–	–	–	–	Flower	–	–	Hassan et al. (2009)
229	Sphaeranthshirtus,	–	–	–	–	–	Seeds		–	–	Hassan et al. (2009)
230	Emblicaofficinalis,	–	–	–	–	–	–		Fruit	–	Hassan et al. (2009)
231	Cinchoriumintybus	–	–	–	–	–	–	Flower	–	–	Hassan et al. (2009)
232	Silybummarianum	–	–	–	–	–	Seeds	–	–	–	Hassan et al. (2009)
233	Ocimum sanctum	Leaves	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	Zwetlana et al. (2014)
234	Citrus limon	Leaves	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	Zwetlana et al. (2014)
235	Nerium oleander	Leaves	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	Zwetlana et al. (2014)
236	Azadirachtaindica	Leaves	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	Zwetlana et al. (2014)
237	Hibiscus rosasinensis	Leaves	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	Zwetlana et al. (2014)
238	Eucalyptus globules	Leaves	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	Zwetlana et al. (2014)
239	Aloe vera,	Leaves	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	Johnson et al. (2011)
240	Daturastromonium,	Leaves	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	Johnson et al. (2011)
241	Pongamiapinnata	Leaves	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	Johnson et al. (2011)
242	Lantonacamara.	Leaves	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	Johnson et al. (2011)
243	Calotropisprocera	Leaves	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	Johnson et al. (2011)

Fig. 1.

Schematic representation of various medicinal plants, their different parts used for Antimicrobial activities along with biogenic silver synthesis and its biological potential.

Fig. 2.

(a) Number of various plant parts used in the review, showing antibacterial potential. (b) Percentage use of Gram-positive Bacteria. (c) Percentage use of Gram-negative Bacteria. (d) The Gram positive VS Gram negative% use in the text.

Table 3.

Plants synthesized nano-silver and their biological properties.

Plant name	Plant portion used	Size of silver nano particles	Reported properties	References
Acacia leucophloea	Bark	17–29 nm	Bactericidal	Murugan et al. (2014)
Aeglemarmelos	Fruit	34.7 nm	Bactericiadal & Antibiofilm	Nithya Deva Krupa and Raghavan (2014)
Alpiniagalanga	Rhizome	20.82 nm	Antifungal and Antibacterial	Joseph and Mathew (2014)
Artemisia princeps	Leaf	10–40 nm	Antibacterial and anticancer	Gurunathan et al. (2015)
Psidiumguajava	Leaves and fruits	26 and 60 nm	Antibacterial and antifungal	Raghunandan et al. (2011), Gupta et al. (2014)
Nyctanthesarbortristis	Flowers	5–20 nm	Antibacterial and cytotoxicity	Gogoi et al. (2015)
Myristicafragrans	Essential oils	12–26 nm	Bactericidal	Vilas et al. (2014)
Moringaoleifera	Seed and leaf	100 nm	Larvicidal and antibacterial	Mubayi et al. (2012), Sujitha et al. (2015)
Lantana camara	Leaf	11–24 nm	Antibacterial	Ajitha et al. (2015)
Ficusmicrocarpa	Leaf	ND	Antibacterial	Praba et al. (2015)
Euphorbia hirta	Latex and leaf	30–60 and 263.11 nm	Antibacterial, larvicidal and pupicidal	Patil et al. (2012), Priyadarshini et al. (2012)
Dalbergiaspinose	Leaves	18 nm	Bactericidal, antioxidant and anti–inflammatory	Muniyappan and Nagarajan (2014)
Citrus limon		>100 nm	Antifungal	Vankar and Shukla (2012)
Chenopodiummurale	Leaf	30–50	Antibacterial	Abdel-Aziz et al. (2014)
Caesalpiniacoriaria	Leaf	40–98 nm	Antibacterial	Jeeva et al. (2014)
Andrographispaniculata	Leaves	55 nm	Antiprotozoal	Panneerselvam et al. (2011)
Catharanthusroseus	Leaves	35–55	Anitprotozoal	Ponarulselvam et al. (2012)

Note: ND; Not detected.

Girish and Satish (2008), studied three plants mainly the leaves portion had been utilized as shown in Table 2. Two Gram-positive (Bacillus cereus, Bacillus subtilis) and three Gram-negative (Escherichia coli, Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Salmonella typhi) bacterial strains, by using agar well diffusion method. The result indicated that methanol fraction shows a potent result against the entire tested organisms, apart from Zizyphus sativa plant inactive against Salmonella typhi and Pseudomonas aeruginosa. The n-Hexane extracts showed the promising action against both strains, while the Zizyphus sativa fraction of n-Hexane also has no performance against Bacillus cereus and Salmonella typhi (Girish and Satish, 2008).

Nair and his company (2005) evaluated nine plants. Antibacterial activity was tested against 6 bacterial strains, Pseudomonas testosteroni, Staphylococcus epidermidis, Klebsiella pneumoniae, Bacillus subtilis, Proteus morganii and Micrococcus flavususing Agar disk and agar ditch diffusion method. The result showed that Pseudomonas testosterone and Klebsiella pneumonia were the great resistant strains, while the Sapindusem arginatus has greater bactericidal potential against all the tested strains (Nair et al., 2005).

In another study, three plants were used. The result indicated that acetone and methanol fractions of all the tested plants display stout antibacterial effect, while the petroleum ether and aqueous did not show any result. Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Serratia marcesenes were comparatively more sensitive (Ramasamy and Manoharan, 2004). Aliero and Afolayan (2006) screened a single plant using Bauer disc diffusion method. The results showed that, strains isolated from both HIV sero-positive patients were susceptible to different concentrations of the fraction (5 mg/mL, 10 mg/mL, 20 mg mL⁻¹, 40 mg/mL and 80 mg/mL) (Aliero and Afolayan, 2006).

Poonkothai and his colleagues demonstrated leaves of a single plant against both strains of bacteria using Agar well diffusion method. The results showed instead of Escherichia coli and Pseudomonas aeruginosa, all the fractions i.e. acetone, petroleum ether and benzyl ethyl acetate of the leaves of Galinisoga ciliate have strong property against Bacillus subtilis (Poonkothai et al., 2005). The bactericidal potential of Parrotia persican leaves was tested against Yersinia enterocolitica and Yersinia enterocolitica, the MIC values were found to be 750 ppm and 1000 pmm respectively (Mohammad et al., 2007). Furthermore, the author and his friends tested the parkiajavanica medicinal plant bark against three different bacterial strains. The result demonstrated that excluding Escherichia coli all the tested bacteria showed the strong result (Saha et al., 2007).

Recently, Kumar et al. examined 12 medicinal plants. The disc diffusion method result showed that among the 12 plants the 07 medicinal plants could forbid the growth of Propioni bacterium acnes. Amid that Hemidesmus indicus, Coscinium fenestratum, Tephrosia purpurea, Euphorbia hirta, Symplocosracemosa, Curcubito pepo and Eclipta albahad strong inhibitory effects. Based on a broth dilution method, the Coscinium fenestratum extract had the supreme antibacterial effect. The same MIC values i.e. (0.049 mg/ml) for both bacterial species and the MBC values were 0.049 and 0.165 mg/ml against Propioni bacterium acnes and Staphylococcus epidermidis (Kumar et al., 2007).

In recent study four (04) medicinal plants were used, the result was to be found that, the methanol extract of Marrubium vulgare, Thymus pallidus and Lavandula stoechas shows significant result against bacterial strains (Warda et al., 2009). Sidacoxdifolia Minosapudica and Aegle marmelos medicinal plants were used against bacterial strains. The result indicated that highest zone of inhibition Sida coxdifolia against Bacillus subtilis (35 mm) and Salmonella typhi (26 mm), while the rest plants also show activity against tested organisms (Balakrishnan et al., 2006).

Ushimaru and his company (2009) tested three (03) plants against bacterial strains. The results demonstrated that the aqueous fraction of Mollungo latoides and Acalypha indica were displayed potent activity against Escherichia coli at various concentrations, Nelumbo nucifera alcoholic extract was to be found 0.390 mg/mL against Klebsiella pneumonia (Ushimaru et al., 2007).

Moreover, three plants and their various parts were used; all the plants displayed the great potential against the tested bacteria. The MICs and MBCs were to be observed for Staphylococcus aureus of 0.1, 0.2 and 0.1 mg/mL, 0.4–1.6 mg/mL and 0.4, 3.2 and 1.6 mg/mL respectively (Saranraj, 2011a, Saranraj, 2011b). The author examined the phytochemicals and bacterial activity of Datura metel leaf, using Ager well diffusion method. The author reported that ethanol fraction of the plant had the highest zone of inhibition (26 mm) against Bacillus subtilis, and Escherichia coli, while the Staphylococcus aureus has the lowest zone of inhibition (8 mm). The ethyl acetate fraction display strong zone of inhibition against E. coli, but no effect against Pseudomonas aeruginosa (Saranraj, 2011a, Saranraj, 2011b).

The author and his co-authors used phyla nodiflora plant against bacteria. The author and his coworker concluded that n-hexane and n-butanol fractions were observed to be positive against E. coli and P. Aeruginosa, while the chloroform, n-butanol, ethyl acetate and n-hexane fractions show potential action against Salmonella and MRSA except for the crude fraction (Ullah et al., 2013).

Norajit and his coworkers screened the essential oil of five plants used by disc diffusion method. The outcomes of the essential oils obtained from Boesenbergia pandurata and Amomum xanthioides stop the growth of all tested bacteria, while the essential oil of Zingiber officinale had the highest potential against three positive strains of bacteria (S. aureus, B. cereus and L. monocytogenes). It was to be found that the minimum concentration of inhibition to be 6.25 mg/ml against B. cereus and L. monocytogenes (Norajit et al., 2007).

In another study, two plants were used. The results indicated that the acetone extract had displayed significant property against all strains. 0.0156 mg/mL against Staphylococcus aureus, while 2 mg/mL against Enterobacter cloacae. The essential oil obtained from Lippia javanica was also found to be reasonable result against Entamoeba histolytica. The inhibitory concentrations (IC50) of 25 and 100 mg/mL, respectively (Samie et al., 2009).

Al-Daihan et al. phytochemically screened four different medicinal plants used against different bacterial strains. The result shows that methanol extract of C. molmol and C. longa against S. pyogenes and S. aureus displayed maximum activity (19 mm), while the minimum activity of aqueous fraction against P. anisum against E. coli and P. aeruginosa (7 mm) (Al-Daihan et al., 2013). Khan and his company examined Elaeagnus angustifolia plant against different bacteria. The various parts of the plant were used i.e. leaves, branches, stem bark, root and root bark. The author reported that methanolic crude extract, n-hexane, and ethyl acetate showed bactericidal activity against Escherichia coli, Staphylococcus aureus, while n-hexane and ethyl acetate also showed an antibacterial effect against Pseudomonasa eruginosa (Khan et al., 2013).

The Elaeagnus angustifolia leaves were also used for bactericidal and antioxidant potential. The result was to be found that, methanolic fraction inhibit the growth of Yersinia enterocolitica, while the MIC range against clinical strain coagulate negative Staphylococci was to be 3250–6500 μg/mL (Okmen and Turkcan, 2013b, Okmen and Turkcan, 2013a). Furthermore, the soft extract of the Elaeagnus angustifolia was used. The author summarized that all samples showed the potent activity against the bacteria (Farzaei et al., 2015). Semwal and his coworkers (2009) demonstrated the rhizome of the plant species against antimicrobial property. Three extracts were used, the result summarized that among this only ethanolic fraction had strong activity against the tested microorganisms. Using novobiocin (15 μg/mL) as standard to check the zone of inhibition, the minimum inhibition concentration was to be found 50 μg/mL against S. mutants and S. epidermidis (Semwal et al., 2009).

Woodfordia fruticosekurz medicinal plant was used to check the antibacterial potential. The results summarized that the various amount of acetone (80 μg and 120 μg) were shows promising activity against all the tested bacteria. It was further tested against standard antibiotic erythromycin) (Chougale et al., 2009). In another study, Betulautilis was used for antibacterial and phytochemical analysis using Agar well diffusion method. And they used 15 microorganisms namely, Escherichia coli, Klebsiella pneumonia, Proteus mirabilis, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Salmonella paratyphi, Salmonella typhi, Salmonella typhimurium, Shigellaflexneri, Shigellasonnei, Staphylococcus aureus, Streptococcus faecalis, Shigella boydii, Citrobacter spp., Salmonella paratyphi B and Shigella boydii. The result indicated that methanol, ethanol and aqueous extracts were to be found significant activity against all the tested bacteria, while petroleum and chloroform extract inactive (Kumaraswamy et al., 2008).

Patel and his company screened (2007) medicinal plants against antimicrobial potential. The result demonstrated that aqueous fractions of Bidenspilosa, Jacaranda mimosifolia, and Piper pulchrum shows significant action against Bacillus cereus and Escherichia coli thanantibioticgentamycin sulfate. While the ethanol fractionof all samples was active against Staphylococcus aureus except for Justicia secunda. Furthermore, Bixa orellana, Justicia secunda and Piper pulchrum showed minimum MICs against Escherichia coli (0.8, 0.6 and 0.6 μg/mL, respectively) compared to gentamycin sulfate (0.98 g/mL). Bixa orellana was found to be strong MIC against Bacillus cereus (0.2 μg/mL) than gentamycin sulfate (0.5 μg/mL) (Patel et al., 2007).

Seeds of the Azadarichta indica were used against pathogenic bacteria. The results showed that both strains growth were inhibited, it is also found that gram positive more susceptible as compared to gram negative bacteria. The control laboratory strains were reported as more sensitive to the toxic effects of the crude extracts than the corresponding test bacteria. Hexane extracts were reported as more effective, producing larger zones of growth inhibition sizes and smaller MIC and MBC values, than the aqueous extracts. The MIC values ranged from 1.59 to 25 mg/mL while the MBC values ranged from 3.17 to 50 mg/mL (El-Mahmood et al., 2010).

Recently, Maity et al. (2010) evaluated the antimicrobial activity of the leaves of eight plants species. The various fractions of Albizia lebbeck, Cleistanthus collinus, Emblica officinalis, Eucalyptus deglupta, Eupatorium odoratum, Oxaliscorniculata and Hevea brasiliensis were showed the healthier zone of inhibition (>11 mm) against Escherichia coli, Klebsiella pneumoniae, Staphylococcus aureus, Bacillus cereus, Vibriocholerae and Candida albicans. The zone of inhibition of 11–13 mm was reported by Lantanacamara against Klebsiella pneumoniae, Staphylococcus aureus, Bacillus cereus, Vibrio choleraeand Candida albicans. The extract of Butea frondosais, Melastoma malabathricum, Terminalia Arjuna, and Lycopodium japonicum were reported to show reasonable activity (8–11 mm) against all the tested bacteria. The plants like Adina cordifolia, Asparagus racemosus, Aegle marmelos, Cassia tora, Dillenia pentagyna, Valeriana wallichii were found to be a poor activity (5–8 mm) against all the tested bacteria. Ocimum basilicum were found to reasonable activity (05–08 mm). The MIC values of plant extracts were found to exhibit significant at 0.35–0.80 mg/mL. Among the tested plants, Albizia lebbeck, Cleistanthus collinus, Emblica officinalis, Eucalyptus deglupta, Eupatorium odoratum, Oxalis corniculata and Hevea brasiliensis were reported to show the minimum MIC values of 0.35–0.60 mg/mL. For the acetonic fraction of Emblica officinalis, Eucalyptus deglupta, Oxalis corniculata and Hevea brasiliensis greatest activity were reported (Maity et al., 2010).

Mahesh and Satish (2008) tested the biological property of five plants. The results showed that, the methanolic leaf extract of Acacia nilotica, Sida cordifolia, Tinospora cordifolia, Withania somnifer and Ziziphus mauritiana strong action against Bacillus subtilis, Escherichia coli, Pseudomonas fluorescens, Staphylococcus aureus and Xanthomonas axonopodis. Malvacearum. While the maximum antibacterial activity was found for A. nilotica and S. cordifolia leaf extract against B. subtilis. And Z. mauritiana leaf extract against Xanthomonas axonopodis, Malvacearum. For root and leaf extract of S. cordifoliasignificant activity was recorded against all the test bacteria (Mahesh and Satish, 2008).

Venkataswamy et al. (2010) screened the leaves of the single plant. The results were found that the aqueous and methanol fraction of the leaf shows maximum inhibition against E. coli, Proteus vulgaris, Staphylococcus aureus, Streptococcus pyrogens, Klebsiella pneumonia, while moderate inhibitory action against Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Salmonella typhi (Venkataswamy et al., 2010). Recently, eight Indian medicinal plants were screened for antimicrobial potential. The results were to be found that, the bactericidal potential of thecrude extracts of selected plants i.e. B. persicum, A. concinna, A. lebbeck A. nobilils, G. indica, S. albicaule, V. nigundu, and B. diffusa, and was shown significant performance against all tested bacteria (Menghani et al., 2011).

Phattayakorn and friend (2009) screened antimicrobial potential of various medicinal plants. The results were exposed that; Piper betle could inhibit all strains of bacteria. Furthermore, Phyllanthusemblica (Malacca tree), Senna siamea (cassod tree) and Punica granatum (pomegranate) show greater significant (P ≤ 0.05) antimicrobial activity when compared with other herb extracts, with the zone of inhibition ranging from 12.330.58 to 25.001.73 mm. The ethanol extracts of the three herbs (Malacca tree, cassod tree, and pomegranate) were the most efficient antimicrobial compounds. The values of minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC), minimum bactericidal concentration (MBC of the herb extracts were 0.3–2.4, >3 and 1.2–2.4% (w/v), respectively (Phattayakorn and Wanchaitanawong, 2009).

Yasmeen et al. (2012) evaluated fourteen plants species. Serial dilution method for antibacterial activity, while Nessler reagents and Colorimetric method were used for estimation of Ammonia and urease activity. The results indicated that, the Allium satvium alcoholic and aqueous fractions had shown (pH: 8.5560, 8.8480, Ammonia: 4.42, 3.52 μg/mL, Urease: 0.009, 0.007 IU/mL respectively) as compared to control positive (pH: 9.03, Ammonia: 6.7 μg/mL, Urease: 0.013 IU/mL). However, alcoholic extracts of Mangifera indica (8.8820, 5.42 μg/mL, 0.010 IU/mL), Mentha piperita (8.8880, 4 μg/mL, 0.008 IU/mL) Carum capticum (8.9540, 4.84 μg/mL, 0.009 IU/mL) and aqueous extract of Opuntia ficusindica (8.8100, 5.22 μg/mL, 0.010 IU/mL) were to be found moderate activity against P. mirabilis. Furthermore, alcoholic and aqueous fractions of Euclyptus camalduensis (pH: 8.91, 8.96, Ammonia: 5.16, 5.06 μg/mL, Urease: 0.01, 0.01 IU/mL) had poor inhibitory effect. They also reported that all the commercial products were to be found the excellent antibacterial property (pH: 4.8–6.8, Ammonia: 0 μg/mL, Urease: 0 IU/mL). The rest of the herbal extracts were not significantly different (p < 0.05) from positive control. It was concluded that all products had strong antibacterial activity against P. mirabilis (Yasmeen et al., 2012).

Janovska and his coworkers tested ten different plants species. These plants were used against four species of microorganisms: Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Escherichia coli, Bacillus cereus and Staphylococcus aureus. Out of ten medicinal plants, five plants showed antimicrobial potentials, while the Tussilago farfara, Chelidonium majus and Sanguisorba officinalis were most active medicinal plant against antimicrobes (Janovska et al., 2003).

In another study, different plants species were screened for phytochemicals and biological activities. The result exposed that, great potential against antimicrobes were found for the extracts of Syzygyum joabolanum and Caryophyllus aromaticus, which inhibited 57.1% 64.2 and64.2% of the tested bacterial strains, respectively, while strong activity against antibiotic-resistant bacteria (83.3%). Some plant extracts were inactive, while in case of association of plant extracts and antibiotic to be found active against antibiotic resistant bacteria. The extracts clove, jambolan, pomegranate and thyme inhibited the growth of Pseudomonas aeruginosa (Nascimento et al., 2000).

Acharyya et al. (2009) evaluated the antimicrobial activity total nine plants. All of these plants had a bacterial effect. Furthermore, Syzygium cumini, Skeels (Myrtaceae) and Terminalia chebula Retz (Combretaceae) was observed the most promising bactericidal action, inhibiting the growth of all tested organism, especially Bacillus subtilis, Aeromonas hydrophila and Vibrio cholera. The MBC was found to be in the range of 0.25–4 mg/mL (Acharyya et al., 2009).

Recently, the antimicrobial activities of total nine plants were evaluated. The author reported that among nine plants the most active plants were Muscari Comosun, Rhetinolepi ssp and Tamarix gallica. Among the all tested extracts, the methanolic fraction of Rhetinolepi ssp and aqueous extract of Tamarix gallica were to be found most active, and their diameter was in the range of 15 mm, 22 mm and 10 mm, 17 mm respectively (Zaouia et al., 2010).

In another study, eight plants were reported against Gram-negative and Gram-positive bacteria strains. The microorganisms were obtained from American Type Culture Collection (ATCC) and Proteus mirabilis (CDC S 17), Proteus vulgaris (CDC 527C), and Listeria monocytogenes. Namely, Staphylococcus aureus (ATCC 29213), Staphylococcus epidermidis (ATCC 1228), Bacillus subtillis (ATCC 31091), Bacillus cereus (ATCC 11778), Salmonella typhimurium (ATCC14028), Psedudomonas aeruginoas (ATCC 9027), E. coli (ATCC 31165), Salmonella enteritidis (ATCC 4931), Klebsiella pneumonae (ATCC 13883), E. coli O157:H7 (ATCC 43894), Enterobacte aerogenes (ATCC 29010), Shigella dysenteriae (ATCC 29026). The result showed that all plants extracts were active against both tested strains. Furthermore, Gram-negative was found strong potential than Gram positive bacteria (Kang et al., 2011).

Philip et al. (2009) were studied eight plants. The aqueous fraction had no inhibition, while all the tested plants were to be found inactive in Escherichia coli. However, Curcuma manga displayed action against the tested bacterial strain (Philip et al., 2009). In another study the author reported 8 medicinal plants and their various parts; the results showed that the essential oils of T. daenensis and M. communis were most active against antimicrobes. The MIC values were to be found for essential oils and active extract 0.039 and 10 mg/ml. Furthermore, some plants extracts and their oils also used as food preservation (Ghasemi et al., 2010).

Recently, seven medicinal plants were examined for antibacterial potential, the result indicated that the methnolic extract of Phyllanthus niruri (stone breaker) was to be found strong action against Staphylococcus sp, while the aqueous and methanolic fraction had minimum activity as compared to methanolic (Selvamohan et al., 2012). The author used total six plants, against dental pathogens. All the plants were active against all the tested pathogens. The methanolic extract of T. chebula was to be observed highest zone of inhibition against S. aureus 27 mm, while the lowest value for petroleum ether extract of A. aspera and M. elengi against S. aureusand S. mutans (9 mm). It was concluded that high contents of phytochemicals in these plants might have exerted synergistic antimicrobial effect (Prabhat and Navneet, 2010).

Hassan and his company screened various medicinal plants. The result indicated that Escherichia coli, Salmonella typhi, Pseudomonas aeruginosa were the most inhibited microorganisms. The extract of Sphareranthu hirtus was the most active against multi-drug resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa and enterohemorrhagic E. coli. The ethanolic extract of S. hirtus exhibited a higher effect than the hot water extract (Hassan et al., 2009). The author investigated six plants leaves against Klebsiella, Pseudomonas and E. coli. The result was to be found that, the aqueous lemon leaf fraction against E. coli, while Eucalyptus leaf ethanol extract against Klebsiella shows potent activity. Furthermore, except Tulsi plant, Pseudomonas showed resistant to all tested fractions (Zwetlana et al., 2014).

Johnson and his colleagues (2011) screened five important medicinal plants, and the results observed that the maximum of Aloevera plant was to be exposed against S. aureusand E. coli, while Lanatacamara inactive against bacterial strains. However, the aqueous fraction of the Pongamia pinnata had more active as compared to alcoholic extract against E. coli. Calotropis procera medicinal plant showed antibacterial potential against E. coli and Staphyloccus aureus, while Datura stramonium only active against Staphyloccus aureu (Johnson et al., 2011).

3. A novel application of plant extracts against honey bee pathogens

Honeybees would seem particularly vulnerable to pests and pathogens as each colony is a dense group of individuals. Although honeybees possess many types of defenses against diseases, such as hygienic behavior or the production of anti-microbial substances, colonies still suffer from a number of diseases and pests (Martin, 2001, Simone-Finstrom et al., 2017). But they are threatened by various pathogens like Gut microflora and parasitic mites globally and this may lead to serious consequences (Ansari et al., 2017). Some of the important pathogens of Honey bees are Paenibacillus larva (Bacteria), Varroa destructor (mite) and Ascosphaera apis (Fungi).

Recently, it was demonstrated that, in Europe and the US, prominent losses of honeybee colonies are associated with the mite Varroa destructor (Ryabov et al., 2017, Oddie et al., 2017). The spore-forming bacterium Paenibacillus larvae (Genersch, 2010) are the agent causing American foulbrood (AFB) (Alvarado et al., 2017). It is a widespread larval pathogen of the honey bee, infecting young larvae through ingestion of contaminated food. The bacterial spores germinate and proliferate in the midgut lumen after which they start to breach the epithelium and invade the haemocoel. Young larvae (from the first and second instars) are highly susceptible to this disease and can become infected by as few as 10 spores. However, the dosage-mortality relationship is greatly affected by larval age, genetic makeup and bacterial strain. This disease can be mitigated both through hygienic behavior by adult workers and through larval resistance traits (Qin et al., 2006).

Besides that, essential oils are being used to control these microbial strains. Such strategy allows an alternative way for the control of this serious disease affecting honey and its by-products (wax, pollen and propolis). Also, it can meet consumer demand for a diminution or absence of other antimicrobial chemical substances, which can be substituted by the addition of natural substances.

More, recently in vitro studies have revealed that propolis, and specific compounds within propolis, prevent the development of two infectious pathogens of honey bees, Paenibacillus larvae and Ascosphaera apis (Wilson et al., 2017, Borba and Spivak, 2017).

The essential oils proved to be highly effective against Paenbacillus larvae are Jamaica pepper oil (Pimenta dioica), mountain pepper oil (Litsea cubeba), ajwain oil (Trachyspermum ammi), corn mint oil, spearmint oil (Mentha spicata), star anise oil (Illicium verum), nutmeg oil (Myristica fragrans), camphor oil (Cinnamomum camphora) (Ansari et al., 2016), Barbaka (Vitex trifolia) and neem extracts (Azadirachta indica) (Anjum et al., 2015), nettle (Urtica dioica), Basil (Ocimum basilicum) (Mărghitaş et al., 2011), Argyle apple (Eucalyptus cinerea), Peperina (Minthostachys verticillata) (Gonzalez and Marioli, 2010), Nepeta clarkei water extracts against honey bee pathogen Paenibacillus larvae (Anjum et al., 2017) laurel (Laurus nobilis) (Damiani et al., 2014), Coronilha (Scutia buxifolia) (Boligon et al., 2013), grapefruit (Citrus paradisi) (Fuselli et al., 2008a, Fuselli et al., 2008b), wormwood (Artemisia absinthium),sweet wormwood (Artemisia annua), Lepechinia floribunda (pitchersages) (Fuselli et al., 2008a, Fuselli et al., 2008b), Achyrocline satureioides (Macela) (Sabaté et al., 2012), (Flourensia riparia),(Flourensia fiebrigii) (Reyes et al., 2013), Hypericum perforatum (Hernández-López et al., 2014) (as mentioned in Table 4).

Table 4.

Botanical compounds for the control of the honeybee pathogen.

S. no	Plant	Common name	Mites	Bacteria	Fungus	Part used	References
1.	Trachyspermumammi	Ajwain		P. larvae		Whole plant	Ansari et al. (2016)
2.	Prunusglandulosa	Almond		P. larvae		Whole plant	Ansari et al. (2016)
3.	Ocimumtenuiflorum	Tulsi		P. larvae		Whole plant	Ansari et al. (2016)
4.	Citrus bergamia	Bergamot		P. larvae		Whole plant	Ansari et al. (2016)
5.	Juniperusvirginia	Cedar wood		P. larvae		Wood	Ansari et al. (2016)
6.	Azadirachtaindica	Neem		P. larvae		Seed	Ansari et al. (2016)
7.	Elettariacardamomum	Cardamom		P. larvae		Whole plant	Ansari et al. (2016)
8.	Murrayakoenigii	Curry		P. larvae		Leaves	Ansari et al. (2016)
9.	Zingiberofficinale	Ginger		P. larvae		Whole plant	Ansari et al. (2016)
10.	Vetiveriazizanoides	Khus		P. larvae		Whole plant	Ansari et al. (2016)
11.	Daucuscarota	Carrot		P. larvae		Seed	Ansari et al. (2016)
12.	Laurusnobilis	Bay		P. larvae		Leaves	Ansari et al. (2016)
13.	Citrus bergamia	Bergamot		P. larvae		Whole plant	Ansari et al. (2016)
14.	Melaleucaleucadendron	Cajuput		P. larvae		Whole plant	Ansari et al. (2016)
15.	Cinnamomumcamphora	Camphor		P. larvae		Whole plant	Ansari et al. (2016)
16.	Pimentadioica	Jamaica pepper		P. larvae		Whole plant	Ansari et al. (2016)
17.	Litseacubeba	Mountain pepper		P. larvae		Whole plant	Ansari et al. (2016)
18.	Myristicafragrans	Nutmeg		P. larvae		Whole plant	Ansari et al. (2016)
19.	Anibarosaeodora	Rosewood		P. larvae		Whole plant	Ansari et al. (2016)
20.	Menthaspicata	Spearmint		P. larvae		Whole plant	Ansari et al. (2016)
21.	Illiciumverum	Star anise		P. larvae		Whole plant	Ansari et al. (2016)
22.	Linumusitatissimum	Linseed		P. larvae		Whole plant	Ansari et al. (2016)
23.	Matricariachamomilla	Babuna		P. larvae		Whole plant	Ansari et al. (2016)
24.	Menthaarvensis	Corn mint		P. larvae		Whole plant	Ansari et al. (2016)
25.	Anethumgraveolens	Dill		P. larvae		Whole plant	Ansari et al. (2016)
26.	Pelargonium graveolens	Geranium rose		P. larvae		Whole plant	Ansari et al. (2016)
27.	Simmondsiachinensis	Jojoba		P. larvae		Whole plant	Ansari et al. (2016)
28.	Sesamumindicum	Sesame		P. larvae		Whole plant	Ansari et al. (2016)
29.	Triticumvulgare	Wheat germ		P. larvae		Whole plant	Ansari et al. (2016)
30.	Baccharis flabellate	Groundsel bush	V. destructor			Whole plant	Damiani et al. (2011)
31.	Minthostachysverticillata	Peperina	V. destructor			Whole plant	Damiani et al. (2011)
32.	Lavandula x intermedia	Lavandin			Ascosphaeraapis	Whole plant	Larrán et al. (2001)
33.	Coriandrumsativum	Coriander			Ascosphaeraapis	Whole plant	Larrán et al. (2001)
34.	Laurusnobilis	Laurel			Ascosphaeraapis	Leaves	Larrán et al. (2001)
35.	Cinnamomumglandulifera	False camphor			Ascosphaeraapis	Whole plant	Larrán et al. (2001)
36.	Ocimumbasilicum	Basil			Ascosphaeraapis	Whole plant	Larrán et al. (2001)
37.	Tagetesminuta	Tagetes			Ascosphaeraapis	Whole plant	Larrán et al. (2001)
38.	Rosmarinusofficinalis	Rosemary			Ascosphaeraapis	Whole plant	Larrán et al. (2001)
39.	Eucalyptus globulus	Eucalyptus			Ascosphaeraapis	Whole plant	Larrán et al. (2001)
40.	Polygonumbistorta	Bistort or snakeroot		Paenibacillus larvae		Leaves, stem, flower, fruit	Cecotti et al. (2012)
41.	Polygonumbistorta	Bistort or snakeroot		Melissococcusplutonius		Leaves, stem, flower, fruit	Cecotti et al. (2012)
42.	Tasmannialanceolata	Mountain pepper			Ascosphaeraapis	Whole plant	Ansari et al. (2017)
43.	Syzygiumaromaticum	Clove			Ascosphaeraapis	Bud	Ansari et al. (2017)
44.	Piper betle	Betel			Ascosphaeraapis	Leaves	Ansari et al. (2017)
45.	Anisomelesindica	Kala Bhangra			Ascosphaeraapis	Whole plant	Ansari et al. (2017)
46.	Minthaspicata	Spearmint			Ascosphaeraapis	Whole plant	Ansari et al. (2017)
47.	Matricariachamomila	Babuna or chamomile			Ascosphaeraapis	Whole plant	Ansari et al. (2017)
48.	Daucuscarota	Carrot			Ascosphaeraapis	Seed	Ansari et al. (2017)
49.	Cuminumcyminum	Cumin			Ascosphaeraapis	Seed	Ansari et al. (2017)
50.	Ocimumgratissimum	Clove basil				Whole plant	Ansari et al. (2017)
51.	Allium sativum	Garlic				Whole plant	Ansari et al. (2017)
52.	Aeglemarmelos	Stone apple				Whole plant	Ansari et al. (2017)
53.	Pelargonium graveolens	Geranium rose oil				Whole plant	Ansari et al. (2017)
54.	Callistemon citrinus	Bottle brush oil				Whole plant	Ansari et al. (2017)
55.	Myristicafragrans	Nutmeg oil				Whole plant	Ansari et al. (2017)
56.	Cymbopogon martini	Palmrosa oil				Whole plant	Ansari et al. (2017)
57.	Elettariacardamomum	Cardamom oil				Whole plant	Ansari et al. (2017)
58.	Foeniculumvulgare	Fennel seed oil				Whole plant	Ansari et al. (2017)
59.	Trachyspermumammi	Ajwain oil				Whole plant	Ansari et al. (2017)
60.	Anethumgraveolens	Dill oil				Whole plant	Ansari et al. (2017)
61.	Cannabis sativa	Hempseed oil				Whole plant	Ansari et al. (2017)
62.	Glebioniscoronaria	Garland Daisy oil				Whole plant	Ansari et al. (2017)
63.	Azadirachtaindica	Neem	Varroajacobsoni			Whole plant	Melathopoulos et al. (2000)
64.	Brassica napus	Canola oil	Varroajacobsoni			Whole plant	Melathopoulos et al. (2000)
65.	Azadirachtaindica	Neem	Acarapiswoodi			Whole plant	Melathopoulos et al. (2000)
66.	Brassica napus	Canola oil	Acarapiswoodi			Whole plant	Melathopoulos et al. (2000)
67.	Lavandulaangustifolia	English lavender			Ascosphaeraapis	Whole plant	Boudegga et al. (2010)
68.	Rosmarinusofficinalis	Rosemary			Ascosphaeraapis	Whole plant	Boudegga et al. (2010)
69.	Salvia officinalis	Sage			Ascosphaeraapis	Whole plant	Boudegga et al. (2010)
70.	Thymus vulgaris	Thyme			Ascosphaeraapis	Whole plant	Boudegga et al. (2010)
71.	Menthapiperita	Peppermint			Ascosphaeraapis	Whole plant	Boudegga et al. (2010)
72.	Pelargonium graveolens	Rose geranium			Ascosphaeraapis	Whole plant	Boudegga et al. (2010)
73.	Prunusdulcis	Almond			Ascosphaeraapis	Whole plant	Boudegga et al. (2010)
74.	Citrus aurantium	Key lime			Ascosphaeraapis	Whole plant	Boudegga et al. (2010)
75.	Oleaeuropaea	Olive			Ascosphaeraapis	Whole plant	Boudegga et al. (2010)
76.	Laurusnobilis	Bay laurel			Nosemaceranae	Whole plant	Porrini et al. (2011)
77.	Rosmarinusofficinalis	Rosemary	V. destructor	P. larvae		Whole plant	Maggi et al. (2011)
78.	Azadirachtaindica	Neem	V. destructor	Paenibacillus larvae		Whole plant	Anjum et al. (2015)
79.	Vitextrifolia	Barbaka	V. destructor	Paenibacillus larvae		Whole plant	Anjum et al. (2015)
80.	Azadirachtaindica	Neem		Bacillus subtilis		Whole plant	Anjum et al. (2015)
81.	Azadirachtaindica	Neem		Staphylococcus hominis		Whole plant	Anjum et al. (2015)
82.	Vitextrifolia	Barbaka		Bacillus subtilis		Whole plant	Anjum et al. (2015)
83.	Vitextrifolia	Barbaka		Staphylococcus hominis		Whole plant	Anjum et al. (2015)
84.	Carapaguianensis	Andiroba oil		P. larvae		Whole plant	Santos et al. (2012)
85.	Copaiferalangsdorffii	Copaíba oils		P. larvae		Whole plant	Santos et al. (2012)
86.	Lepidiumlatifolium	Pepperwort	V. destructor			Whole plant	Razavi et al. (2015)
87.	Zatariamultiflora	Satar	V. destructor			Whole plant	Razavi et al. (2015)
88.	Populusfremontii	Fremonts cottonwood		P. larvae	Ascosphaeraapis	Leaves	Wilson et al. (2017)
89.	Oleaeuropea	Olive		P. larvae		Leaves	ARENAS (2015)
90.	Oleaeuropea	Olive			Nosema species	Leaves	ARENAS (2015)
91.	Oleaeuropea	Olive		Melissococcusplutomius		Leaves	ARENAS (2015)
92.	Thymus satureioides	Thyme	V. destructor			Whole plant	Ramzi et al. (2017)
93.	Origanumelongatum	Majorana	V. destructor			Whole plant	Ramzi et al. (2017)
94.	Lippiaberlandieri	Oregano			Beauveriabassiana	Whole plant	Ramzi et al. (2017)
95.	Lippiaberlandieri	Oregano			Metarhiziumanisopliae	Whole plant	Ramzi et al. (2017)
96.	Thymus kotschyanus	Thymol	V. destructor			Whole plant	Ghasemi et al. (2011)
97.	Ferula assa–foetida	Devils dung	V. destructor			Whole plant	Ghasemi et al. (2011)
98.	Eucalyptus camaldulensis	River red gum	V. destructor			Whole plant	Ghasemi et al. (2011)
99.	Ocimumbasilicum	Basil		P. larvae		Whole plant	Mărghitaş et al. (2011)
100.	Thymus vulgaris	Thyme		P. larvae		Whole plant	Mărghitaş et al. (2011)
101.	Urticadioica	Nettle		P. larvae		Whole plant	Mărghitaş et al. (2011)
102.	Humuluslupulus	Common hop		P. larvae		Whole plant	Flesar et al. (2010)
103.	Myrtuscommunis	Myrtle		P. larvae		Whole plant	Flesar et al. (2010)
104.	Achyroclinesatureioides	Macela		P. larvae		Whole plant	Gonzalez and Marioli (2010)
105.	Chenopodiumambrosioide	Wormseed		P. larvae		Whole plant	Gonzalez and Marioli (2010)
106.	Eucalyptus cinerea	Argyle apple		P. larvae		Whole plant	Gonzalez and Marioli (2010)
107.	Gnaphaliumgaudichaudianum			P. larvae		Whole plant	Gonzalez and Marioli (2010)
108.	Lippiaturbinata,			P. larvae		Whole plant	Gonzalez and Marioli (2010)
109.	Marrubiumvulgare	Common horehound		P. larvae		Whole plant	Gonzalez and Marioli (2010)
110.	Minthostachysverticillata	Peperina		P. larvae		Whole plant	Gonzalez and Marioli (2010)
111.	Origanumvulgare	Common origanum		P. larvae		Whole plant	Gonzalez and Marioli (2010)
112.	Tagetesminuta	Black mint		P. larvae		Whole plant	Gonzalez and Marioli (2010)
113.	Thymus vulgaris	Thyme		P. larvae		Whole plant	Gonzalez and Marioli (2010)
114.	Laurusnobilis	Bay laurel		P. larvae		Whole plant	Damiani et al. (2014)
115.	Piper betle	Betel			A. apis	Whole plant	Chantawannakul et al. (2005)
116.	Cinnamomum cassia	Cassia			A. apis	Whole plant	Chantawannakul et al. (2005)
117.	Lavendulaangustifolia	Lavenda	V. destructor			Whole plant	Damiani et al. (2009)
118.	Laurusnobilis	Laurel	V. destructor			Leaves	Damiani et al. (2009)
119.	Thymus vulgaris	Thyme	V. destructor			Whole plant	Damiani et al. (2009)
120.	Scutiabuxifolia	Coronilha		Paenibacillus species		Whole plant	Boligon et al. (2013)
121.	Acantholippiaseriphioides	Andean thyme		P. larvae		Whole plant	Fuselli et al. (2007)
122.	Citrus paradise	Grape fruit		P. larvae		Fruit	Fuselli et al., 2008a, Fuselli et al., 2008b)
123.	‘Citrus sinensis	Sweet orange				Fruit	Fuselli et al., 2008a, Fuselli et al., 2008b)
124.	Citrus limon	Lemon				Fruit	Fuselli et al., 2008a, Fuselli et al., 2008b)
125.	Citrus nobilis	Mandarin				Fruit	Fuselli et al., 2008a, Fuselli et al., 2008b)
126.	Artemisia absinthium	Wormwood		P. larvae		Whole plant	Fuselli et al., 2008a, Fuselli et al., 2008b)
127.	Artemisia annua	Sweet wormwood		P. larvae		Whole plant	Fuselli et al., 2008a, Fuselli et al., 2008b)
128.	Lepechinia floribunda	Pitchersages		P. larvae		Whole plant	Fuselli et al., 2008a, Fuselli et al., 2008b)
129.	Tagetesminuta	Black mint	V. destructor	P. larvae	A. apis	Whole plant	Eguaras et al. (2005)
130.	Tessoriaabsinthium				A. apis	Whole plant	Dellacasa et al. (2003)
131.	Aloysiagratissima	Whitebrush			A. apis	Whole plant	Dellacasa et al. (2003)
132.	Heterothecalatifolia	Camphorweed			A. apis	Whole plant	Dellacasa et al. (2003)
133.	Lippiajuneliana				A. apis	Whole plant	Dellacasa et al. (2003)
134.	Lippiaintegrifolia				A. apis	Whole plant	Dellacasa et al. (2003)
135.	Lippia turbinate				A. apis	Whole plant	Dellacasa et al. (2003)
136.	Achyroclinesatureioides	Macela		P. larvae		Whole plant	Sabaté et al. (2012)
137.		Thyme	Varroa mites			Whole plant	Ariana et al. (2002)
138.	0	Savory	Varroa mites			Whole plant	Ariana et al. (2002)
139.	Menthaspicata	Spearmint	Varroa mites			Whole plant	Ariana et al. (2002)
140.	Flourensiariparia			P. larvae		Whole plant	Reyes et al. (2013)
141.	Flourensiatortuosa			P. larvae		Whole plant	Reyes et al. (2013)
142.	Flourensiafiebrigii			P. larvae		Whole plant	Reyes et al. (2013)
143.	Hypericum species			P. larvae		Whole plant	Hernández-López et al. (2014)
144.	Pimpinellaanisum	Green anise		P. larvae		Whole plant	Gende et al. (2009)
145.	Foeniculumvulgare	Fennel		P. larvae		Whole plant	Gende et al. (2009)
146.	Melaleucaviridiflora	Niaouli		P. larvae		Whole plant	Fuselli et al. (2010)
147.	Melaleucaalternifolia	Tea tree		P. larvae		Whole plant	Fuselli et al. (2010)
148.	Cymbopogonnardus	Citronella grass		P. larvae		Whole plant	Fuselli et al. (2010)
149.	Cymbopogonmartinii	Palmarosa		P. larvae		Whole plant	Fuselli et al. (2010)
150.	Cinnamomumverum	Cinnamon		Bacillus larva	A. apis	Whole plant	Calderone et al. (1994)
151.	Laurusnobilis	Bay leaf		Bacillus larva	A. apis	Whole plant	Calderone et al. (1994)
152.	Cinnamomumcamphora	Camphor		Bacillus larva	A. apis	Whole plant	Calderone et al. (1994)
153.	Syzyygiumaromaticum	Clove		Bacillus larva	A. apis	Whole plant	Calderone et al. (1994)
154.	Cymbopogonwinterianus	Citronellal		Bacillus larva	A. apis	Leaves and stem	Calderone et al. (1994)
155.	Origanumvulgare	Origanum		Bacillus larva	A. apis	Whole plant	Calderone et al. (1994)
156.	Thymus vulgarus	Thyme		Bacillus larva	A. apis	Whole plant	Calderone et al. (1994)

It is an ecto-parasitic mesostigmata mite. Varroa causes many physical and physiological detrimental effects at the individual bee and colony levels. Repeated Varroa feeding on adult bee and brood hemolymph injures the bees physically, leads to a reduction in their protein content and wet and dry body weights, and interferes with organ development. In addition, the parasitic mite and the viruses they vector contribute to morphological deformities like small body size, shortened abdomen, deformed wings. These morphological deformities reduce vigor and longevity. They also affect flight duration and the homing ability of foragers (Conte et al., 2010).

The Varroa mite is responsible for the horizontal and vertical transmission of many viruses like DWV, SBV, APV, IAPV and KBV. The horizontal transmission of viruses from nurse bees to larvae occurs through larval food and via brood to adults (Conte et al., 2010). Usually, untreated Varroa-infested colonies usually die within six months to two years of mite infestation at the colony level (Conte et al., 2010). V. destructor is supposed to be a very serious threat to the honey bees. Varroa parasitism plays in the recent honey bee losses worldwide (Conte et al., 2010). To lower the hazardous effects caused by V. destructor, several plant extracts have been found to be extremely effective. These are Groundsel bush (Baccharis flabellate), Peperina (Minthostachys verticillata) (Damiani et al., 2011), Pepperwort (Lepidium latifolium) (Razavi et al., 2015), Thymol (Thymus kotschyanus) (Ghasemi et al., 2011), Laurel (Laurus nobilis), thyme (Damiani et al., 2009), savory, spearmint (Ariana et al., 2002).

Ascosphaera apis is the fungus causing the Chalkbrood disease in honey bee larvae. It only produces sexual spores. Since it is heterothallic, so spores are only produced when mycelia of the two opposite mating types come together and fruiting bodies are formed. Ingestion of sexual spores of A. apis with food causes infection in Honeybee larvae. Spores germinate in the lumen of the gut and require very specific conditions. As a consequence, infected larvae rapidly reduce food consumption, and then stop eating altogether. Spores provide a continual source of infection since they are present on all surfaces within the beehive, and remain viable for many years. The incidence and severity of the disease may be affected not only by environmental conditions but also by the interaction between biotic factors such as differences in fungal strains and the genetic background of the bees (Ansari et al., 2017).

Spores of this fungus germinate within the digestive tract of bees. After which they begin fungal filamentous (mycelial) growth especially during the last instar of larval development. Adult bees frequently identify and remove diseased individuals, thereby reducing the effects of this fungus on the colony. The disease is linked to high brood density (productivity) and cooler outside temperatures (Qin et al., 2006). Certain essential oils are known for their antibacterial and antifungal properties; coriander (Coriandrum satvium) (Larrán et al., 2001), betel leaf oil, Mountain pepper oil, Kala Bhangra oil, spearmint oil, babuna oil, carrot seed oil, cumin seed oil and clove bud oil (Ansari et al., 2017), Pelargonium oil (Pelargonium graveolens), Thyme oil (Thymus vulgaris) (Boudegga et al., 2010), Cinnamomum cassia and Piper betel (Chantawannakul et al., 2005), Tessaria absinthioides, Aloysia gratissima, Heterotheca latifolia, Lippia juneliana, L. integrifolia and L. turbinate (Dellacasa et al., 2003).

Two microsporidia species have been shown to infect Apis mellifera, Nosema apis and Nosema ceranae. The honey bee immune response is significantly suppressed by N. ceranae infection, although this effect was not observed following infection with N. apis. Immune suppression would also increase susceptibility to other bee pathogens and senescence.

Despite the importance of both Nosema species in honey bee health, there is no information about their effect on the bees' immune system (Antúnez et al., 2009). One plant extract was found to be highly effective against this pathogen i-e Laurus nobilis (Porrini et al., 2011).

4. Emerging and remarkable applications of silver nanoparticles exploiting as anti-agent

Silver is one of the most important metals which are used in various fields, in magnetic, optics, electronics (Emam and Ahmed, 2016), besides these it has also used as anticancer, bactericidal, fungicidal, antiviral and anti-protoozoal agent (Lansdown, 2006). As antimicrobes potentials, silver is one of the most important metals and generally examined against with antimicrobial properties (Lansdown, 2006). It has been reported that, at low amount silver has great potential against microorganisms, while the silver nanoparticles at high concentration (>10 μM), toxic against mammals as well as host organisms (Conrad et al., 1999). In one other report, Lansdown demonstrated that nanosilver is pharmaceutical recommended as well as nontoxic to human beings (Lansdown, 2006).

4.1. Bactericidal potential of silver nanoparticles

Nano-Silver has great potential against both strains i.e. Gram-positive and Gram-negative bacteria and also against the antibiotic resistant bacteria (Kim et al., 2007). The bactericidal action of NSPs depends on concentration and size of NSPs. Generally, small particles sizes at low concentration can kill bacteria while high concentration has also effective against ant microbes. The shape of NSPs has also a great influence on antimicrobial function. Sadeghi and his coworkers examined three different shapes of nanosilver namely silver nanoplates, siver nanorods and silver nanoparticles against Staphylococcus aureus and E. coli. Among these, the nanoplates had the excellent antimicrobial activity (Sadeghi et al., 2012).

From the research survey, it has been also proved that combined form of different antibiotic and nanosilver have a potent role as compared to their alone usage. In a recent study, it is reported that the combining effect of amoxicillin and naosilver against E. coli found greater than they have used alone (Li et al., 2005). NSPs are important to test against antimicrobes. Some studies have been reported against this type of pathogen by Kumar et al., 2014, Velmuruganet al., 2013. The exact mechanism of Ag nanoparticles is not completely clear. It is reported that DNA damage, cell membrane damage, mitochondrial damage and oxidative stress are involved (Velmurugan et al., 2013). Silver nanoparticles when to react with a thiol group, the resultant product reactive oxygen species (ROS) are formed. As a result, it inhibits the respiratory enzyme and thus leads to cell death (Krishnaraj et al., 2010).

Recent literature showed that the biocidal effect of maltose reduced silver nanoparticles (AgNPs) is effective against honey bee bacterial diseases (American foulbrood and European foulbrood pathogens) (Culha et al., 2017). Similarly, tea tree oil (TTO) nanoparticles were found efficacious against P. larvae and Melissococcus plutonius (Christ Vianna Santos et al., 2014) These bacterial bee pathogens have been gaining a reputation as there are few satisfying control options beyond citing the problem of resistance to medicine/antibiotics using conventionally. Additionally, Glycerol Nano capsules were able to destroy spores of Paenibacillus larvae without causing harm to bees (Lopes et al., 2016). Therefore, researches with nanotechnology characterize, possibly, a viable control option for infectious diseases in honey bees.

4.2. Fungicidal potential of nano silver

One of the other important infectious diseases which cause a significant burden on healthcare is fungus (Brown et al., 2012, Brown et al., 2012b). To control this infection in human beings, researchers’ required a new type of antifungal agents (Brown et al., 2012, Brown et al., 2012b, Zuo et al., 2016). Like bacteria, NSPs has also fungicidal action against broad spectrum fungi. In one study Kim and his company reported antifungal performance of 44 strains of six fungal species. Among these Trichophyton mentagrophytes, Candida krusei, Candida albicans, Candida glabrata, Candida krusei and Candida parapsilosis growth stop applying NSPs (Kim et al., 2008). The silver and chitosan nanoparticles were tested against Rhizoctoniasolani, Alternaria alternata and A. flavusfrom chickpea seeds and they showed potent fungicidal properties (Kaur et al., 2012).

Savithramma and his colleagues’ demonstrated antifungal activity against A. flavus, A. niger, Curvularia spp., Fusarium spp. and Rhizopus spp, using silver nanoparticles synthesized from medicinal plants namely, Svensonia hyderobadensis, Boswellia ovalifoliolata and Shorea tumbuggaia. All the tested NSPs showed significant properties against the entire tested microorganism, while among these, nanosilver obtained from Svensonia hyderobadensis had excellent activity as compared to other plants (Savithramma et al., 2011).

In a recent study, silver nanoparticles and natamycine were tested against 216 strains of fungi from patients suffering from severe keratitis. Among these, 112 isolates of Fusarium, 82 isolates of Aspergillus and 10 Alternaria isolates. The result showed that silver nanoparticles had great potential than natamycin (Xu et al., 2013). The exact mechanism of NSPs against fungi is not yet clear, but it was observed that nanosilver can damage the cellular membrane and inhibit the normal budding process (Kim et al., 2009, Nasrollahiet al., 2011).

In addition, new natural biocides like biopolymer chitosan and three monoterpenes i.e. camphor, menthol and thymol were found useful against Honey bee pathogenic fungi and bacteria (Rabea and Badawy, 2014). Similarly, a compound juglone (walnut green husk extracts) also showed antifungal against different pathogenic fungi including A. Apis (Wianowska et al., 2016).

4.3. Virucidal potential of nano silver

It was also reported that small size SNPs like 25 cm or less nanosilver are more effective against viral inhibition (Speshock et al., 2010). Lara and his colleagues reported that nanosilver inhibits the initial stages of HIV-1cycle. The mechanism of binding of NSPs attachment with glycoprotein 120, also inhibits cluster of differentiation 4-dependent binding, fusion and infectivity. Thus they perform an antiviral action to block HIV-1 cell free and cell associated infection (Lara et al., 2010). Different studies have proven the behavior of SNPs without a capping agent means naked nanosilver antiviral properties of various viruses, namely Vaccinia virus (Trefry and Wooley, 2013), human parainfluenza virus type 3, Herpes simplex virus type 1 and type 2 (Gaikwad et al., 2013), tacaribe virus (Speshock et al., 2010), hepatitis B virus (Lu et al., 2008), Coxsackie virus B3 (Ben Salem et al., 2012), influenza virus (Xiang et al., 2011) and monkey pox virus (Rogers et al., 2008).

Several studies also explain the behavior of coated SNPs as an antiviral agent namely, respiratory syncytial virus (Sun et al., 2008), human immunodeficiency virus type-1 (Lara et al., 2011) and HSV (Baram-Pinto et al., 2009). It was observed that nano silver coated with poly (N-vinyl-2-pyrrolidone) having size about 1–10 nm were most effective to inhibit replication of HIV (Elechiguerra et al., 2005).

Although, very little information regarding the silver nanoparticles against honey bee viruses has been yet investigated. Sacbrood virus (SBV) a single-stranded RNA virus severely infectious in honey bee colonies all over Asia. Hence, silver ions were found effective against natural KSBV (Korean sac brood virus) infection in A. cerana. colonies. In this research, bioaccumulation in bees and recommended concentrations of silver residue in honey or other hive products were not considered (Ahn et al., 2015).

5. Conclusion

The antibacterial activities of medicinal plants are mostly carried out in Pakistan and India for ethno-pharmacological information, while critically to evaluate the relationship between the antimicrobial potential, phyto-chemical isolation and traditional medicine uses. Medicinal plants and Silver Nanoparticles studies are very important for various types of biological activities and there different therapeutic applications. Plant based silver nanoparticles have open applications in various fields such as optical, electronics and various biological properties. Due to these emergent potentials of Silver Nanoparticles, it is also used as therapeutic platforms in biomedical agriculture/apiculture. Furthermore, before their wide use in medical fields and apiculture, it is very important to know their impact on human health adult bees and hive products as well. This review indicates general information about the different medicinal plants having bactericidal, miticidal, virucidal etc potentials which have been used globally. We expect that this review will be helpful for future studies because these medicinal plants have various important phytochemicals which are an easy tool for scientific studies to choose the valuable plants and their potential for bactericidal activities.