Table 2.
Main antimicrobial activity of cardoon leaves.
| Species/Variety | Presentation form and Extraction Procedure | Main Bioactive Compounds and Levels Found | Main Conclusion | Reference |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| C. cardunculus L. var. sylvestris | Hydroethanolic extract: 1 g of dried samples in 30 mL of solvent (ethanol:water, 80:20, v/v) for 1 h. Filtered and re-extracted in 30 mL of solvent for 1 h. The combined extracts were evaporated to dryness of the ethanol at 35 °C, and the aqueous phase was frozen and lyophilized. | Escherichia coli (MIC = 2.5 mg/mL) | Both extracts were demonstrated to have good antimicrobial activities, with low MIC values. The authors’ concluded that the ethanolic extract was more effective when compared with other results obtained in this study. | [59] |
| Escherichia coli ESBL (MIC = 10 mg/mL) | ||||
| Klebsiella pneumoniae (MIC = 20 mg/mL) | ||||
| Klebsiella pneumoniae ESBL (MIC = 20 mg/mL) | ||||
| Morganella morganii (MIC = 10 mg/mL) | ||||
| Pseudomonas aeruginosa (MIC = 10 mg/mL) | ||||
| Enterococcus faecalis (MIC = 5 mg/mL) | ||||
| Listeria monocytogenes (MIC = 10 mg/mL) | ||||
| MRSA (MIC = 5 mg/mL) | ||||
| MSSA (MIC = 5 mg/mL) | ||||
| Infusion preparation: 1 g of dried samples was added to 100 mL of boiling distilled water, left to stand for 5 min, filtered, and then frozen and lyophilized. | Escherichia coli (MIC = 2.5 mg/mL) | |||
| Escherichia coli ESBL (MIC = 5 mg/mL) | ||||
| Klebsiella pneumoniae (MIC = 20 mg/mL) | ||||
| Klebsiella pneumoniae ESBL (MIC = 20 mg/mL) | ||||
| Morganella morganii (MIC = 2.5 mg/mL) | ||||
| Pseudomonas aeruginosa (MIC = 20 mg/mL) | ||||
| Enterococcus faecalis (MIC = 10 mg/mL) | ||||
| Listeria monocytogenes (MIC = 10 mg/mL) | ||||
| MRSA (MIC = 5 mg/mL) | ||||
| MSSA (MIC = 5 mg/mL) | ||||
| C. cardunculus | Extract: Leaves were dried at room temperature for two weeks. The extract was made with 2.5 g of dry powder with 25 mL of solvent (methanol), under stirring for 30 min. Then the extract was filtered and evaporated to dryness under vacuum and stored at 4 °C until analysis. | Staphylococcus aureus ATCC25923 (DGI = 25.7 ± 0.6 mm) | The extract was effective against several human pathogenic bacteria but unfortunately had no activity against Salmonella typhimurium LT2. Antimicrobial activities could be related to the presence of phenolic compounds. | [8] |
| Staphylococcus epidermidis CIP106510 (DGI = 20.3 mm) | ||||
| Micrococcus luteus NCIMB 8166 (DGI = 21.7 ± 0.6 mm) | ||||
| Escherichia coli ATCC 35,218 (DGI = 22.3 mm) | ||||
| Enterococcus faecalis ATCC29212 (DGI = 16.3 ± 0.6 mm) | ||||
| Listeria monocytogenes ATCC19115 (DGI = 9.3 ± 0.6 mm) | ||||
| Pseudomonas aeruginosa ATCC 27,853 (DGI = 13.7 ± 0.6 mm) | ||||
| Salmonella typhimurium LT2 (DGI = 0 mm) | ||||
| C. cardunculus L. var. altilis | Bidistilled water extract: Dried leaves were soaked in bidistilled water in the ratio 1:10 w/v. Then, the mixture was kept under dark conditions for 72 h at room temperature (20 °C ± 1) and filtered to eliminate the solid fraction. | Bacillus cereus (DGI = 0.7 cm) | Water extract was effective against Gram-positive bacteria, although methanolic and ethanolic extracts controlled the growth more effectively. Regarding Gram-negative bacteria, the methanolic extract was not effective, and the ethanolic extract showed detectable antibacterial activity. Overall, the ethanolic extract was more efficient against the studied bacteria when compared to the other two extracts. | [63] |
| Bacillus megaterium (DGI = 0.8 ± 0.1 cm) | ||||
| Listeria innocua (DGI = 0.8 cm) | ||||
| Pseudomonas syringae pv. Tomato (DGI = 1.2 cm) | ||||
| Rhodococcus fascians (DGI = 0.6 cm) | ||||
| Staphylococcus aureus (DGI = 0.7 cm) | ||||
| Xanthomonas perforans (DGI = 1.5 ± 0.1 cm) | ||||
| Ethanolic extract: Dried leaves were soaked in ethanol 80% in the ratio 1:10 w/v. Then, the mixture was kept under dark conditions for 72 h at room temperature (20 °C ± 1) and filtered to eliminate the solid fraction. The ethanolic solution was evaporated at 35 °C with a rotary evaporator, and the residue was dissolved in bidistilled water to maintain the same ratio. | Bacillus cereus (DGI = 0.9 ± 0.1 cm) | |||
| Bacillus megaterium (DGI = 2.3 ± 0.1 cm) | ||||
| Bacillus subtilis (DGI = 0.8 cm) | ||||
| Listeria innocua (DGI = 0.8 ± 0.1 cm) | ||||
| Pseudomonas fluorescens (DGI = 0.7 ± 0.1 cm) | ||||
| Pseudomonas syringae pv. Tomato (DGI = 0.6 cm) | ||||
| Rhodococcus fascians (DGI = 1.2 ± 0.1 cm) | ||||
| Staphylococcus aureus (DGI = 1.1 ± 0.1 cm) | ||||
| Xanthomonas perforans (DGI = 0.4 cm) | ||||
| Methanolic extract: Dried leaves were soaked in methanol 70% in the ratio 1:10 w/v. Then, the mixture was kept under dark conditions for 72 h at room temperature (20 °C ± 1) and filtered to eliminate the solid fraction. The methanolic solution was evaporated at 35 °C with a rotary evaporator and the residue was dissolved in bidistilled water to maintain the same ratio. | Bacillus cereus (DGI = 1.3 ± 0.1 cm) | |||
| Bacillus megaterium (DGI = 1.3 ± 0.1 cm) | ||||
| Bacillus subtilis (DGI = 0.8 cm) | ||||
| Listeria innocua (DGI = 1.2 cm) | ||||
| Rhodococcus fascians (DGI = 1.2 cm) | ||||
| Staphylococcus aureus (DGI = 1 ± 0.1 cm) |
DGI—diameter of growth inhibition; ESBL—extended spectrum β-lactamases; MIC values correspond to the minimal extract concentration that inhibited the bacterial growth; MRSA—methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus; MSSA—methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus.