Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2023 Mar 2;18(3):e0281889. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0281889

Antibacterial potential of Luidia clathrata (sea star) tissue extracts against selected pathogenic bacteria

Kusum Parajuli 1, Nahian Fahim 1, Sinthia Mumu 1, Rebecca Palu 1, Ahmed Mustafa 1,*
Editor: Estibaliz Sansinenea2
PMCID: PMC9980771  PMID: 36862671

Abstract

As resistance to traditional antibiotics has become a major issue, it is essential to explore natural sources for new antimicrobial agents. The marine environment offers a variety of natural bioactive compounds. In this study, we examined the antibacterial potential of Luidia clathrata, a tropical sea star species. The experiment was conducted against both gram-positive (Bacillus subtilis, Enterococcus faecalis, Staphylococcus aureus, Bacillus cereus and Mycobacterium smegmatis) and gram-negative (Proteus mirabilis, Salmonella typhimurium, Escherichia coli, Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Klebsiella pneumoniae) bacteria using disk diffusion method. Specifically, we extracted the body wall and gonad using methanol, ethyl acetate, and hexane. Our findings show that the body wall extract using ethyl acetate (1.78μg/ml) was particularly effective against all tested pathogens, while the gonad extract (0.107μg/ml) showed activity against six out of ten selected pathogens. This is a crucial and new discovery that suggests L. clathrata may be a useful source for discovering antibiotics and more research is required to pinpoint and comprehend the active ingredients.

1. Introduction

Multi-drug resistance (MDR) pathogens that have arisen over the past decade are a considerable threat to patients’ health [1,2]. These MDR microorganisms evolve through mutation and gene transfer in response to the prolonged use and misuse of certain drugs [13]. Numerous adverse side effects possessed by conventional antibiotics are another problem related to health [1,4,5]. It is crucial to develop a sustainable solution to mitigate the limitations of existing antibiotics. Exploration of nutraceuticals in natural sources could serve as an effective way to develop such a solution [3,68]. Marine environments are one potentially overlooked resource for nutraceuticals [9].

The oceans, which cover almost 70% of the earth’s surface, offer a myriad of organisms rich in secondary metabolites that can be exploited for pharmaceutical purposes [9,10]. Secondary metabolites are organic compounds produced by plants and animals which are not essential for their survival and growth but are utilized in defense responses [1113]. These compounds include but are not limited to echinochrome A, complement-like protein, antimicrobial peptides (AMP), steroidal glycosides, asterosaponin, and sulfated steroidal compounds [1419]. All have been previously isolated from the echinoderms and studied for their medicinal importance [1419]. The results from those studies imply that such compounds have diverse medicinal properties including anti-microbial, anti-inflammatory, antioxidant, and anticancer effects [1420].

The sea star is a keystone predator in marine ecosystems full of bioactivities and nutraceutical properties, but they have been poorly studied compared to other echinoderms such as sea cucumber, sea urchins, and brittle stars [21,22]. This benthic free-living creature is well documented for its distinctive defensive mechanism to mitigate the disadvantage and ecological cost associated with other commensal or parasitic surface associated organism. [17,23]. The surface microtopography of some tropical sea stars has demonstrated the presence of a unique cuticle overlying the epidermis. This cuticle is rich in highly extended glycocalyx and chondroitin sulfate proteoglycans, which are pericellular glycoproteins that cover the cell and act as a physical barrier [17]. These surface-associated bioactive compounds provide good protection from pathogens by modulating the adhesive properties of the surface [17,24]. Although existing research has well documented the bioactivity and pharmaceutical potential of various sea star species, Luidia clathrata, a tropical slender armed sea star, has been barely studied for its antibacterial potential.

In this experiment, we investigated the antimicrobial potential of L. clathrata. We analyzed the inhibitory properties of different body tissues (body wall and gonad) with respect to diverse pathogenic bacteria. We used three different solvents (methanol, ethyl acetate, and hexane) exhibiting different properties to extract different bioactive compounds from these tissues. We used the Kirby Bauer Disk Diffusion method to assess the inhibitory potential of extracted tissues [25]. The results showed that the body wall extracted with ethyl acetate possesses inhibitory properties across all tested pathogens, while gonad extract only inhibits the activity of a few pathogens. Methanol and hexane extracts did not produce any activity. Methanol extract of the body wall demonstrated hemolytic activity on red blood cells. This encouraging finding implies that the body wall and gonad of L. clathrata could serve as an important source of antibiotics for pathogenic bacteria.

2. Material and methods

2.1. Species acquisition and maintenance

24 Healthy sand sifting sea star adults (24.41±1.50gm) were procured from a certified animal vendor (Gulf Specimen Marine Lab, Panacea, Florida, USA). Upon arrival, the species were maintained in optimal water conditions (temperature: 68–70°F, salinity: 28±1ppt, ammonia: 0–0.25mg/L, pH:7.8–8.0) in the invertebrate lab. The specimens were thoroughly cleaned with de-ionized water to remove any adherent sediments and contaminants before dissection. 24 sea stars were dissected to collect the body wall, and gonad. The different components were then pooled separately. Due to their fragility, the gonads were homogenized using a tissue homogenizer, while the body wall tissues were finely ground using a coffee grinder (Hamilton Beach® Fresh Grind™).

2.2. Preparation of extract

The extraction procedure was carried out by following the methods described by Shuchizadeh et al. with some modifications [26]. The gonad (5gm), and body wall (84.3gm) were submerged in reagent grade (99%) methanol, hexane, and ethyl acetate (PRA grade, ≤ 99.5%, Sigma-Aldrich) in 1:3 (w/v) ratio and constantly agitated on orbit shaker (Lab-line Orbit Shaker, Model 3520) for 96 hours at room temperature. The flasks were covered with aluminium foil to avoid photolysis and thermal degradation of secondary metabolites prior to extraction. The extract was then decanted and filtered with Whatman® Grade 3 Filter Paper (diameter 12.5cm). The resulting filtrate was concentrated using a rotary evaporator (BU-R134 Rotary Vap System, Switzerland) at reduced pressure and temperature (40–45°C). The concentrated crude residues were stored at 4°C for the subsequent investigations.

2.3. Determination of crude extract concentration

The volume of concentrated crude extract was measured and transferred to the previously weighted empty dish. The total weight of the crude extract with the dish was taken. The concentration was calculated using the following formula [27]:

Concentration=(Weightextract+dishWemptydish)VolumeofCrudeextractinmlx1000mgg

2.4. Test microorganism and culture medium

Five gram-positive bacteria [Bacillus subtilisX, Enterococcus faecalis (ATCC 25922), Staphylococcus aureus (ATCC 27659), Bacillus cereusx and Mycobacterium smegmatisx) and five gram-negative [(Proteus mirabilisx, Salmonella typhimurium (ATCC 14028), Escherichia coli (ATCC 11229), Pseudomonas aeruginosa (ATCC 27853) and Klebsiella pneumoniae (ATCC 13883)] were examined in this experiment (x denotes that ATCC number is not available). All the bacteria, except E. faecalis were sub-cultured on Tryptic soy agar (TSA) media at 37°C for 24hours. E. faecalis was grown on 5% sheep blood agar media. These subcultures were kept at 4°C to guarantee bacterial viability and purity.

2.5. Antibacterial assay

Antibacterial activity was assessed by the disk diffusion method [25]. Petri plates (100mm and 150mm) were prepared by pouring 20ml and 60ml of Muller Hinton Agar (MHA) respectively. The plates were swabbed aseptically with fresh bacterial suspension prepared from the subculture maintained at 4°C and standardized with 0.5 McFarland standard. A sterile filter paper disk (6mm) was impregnated with the extracted samples and placed on the agar surface along with positive and negative controls at an appropriate distance and incubated for 24hours at 37°C. The extraction solvents were employed as negative controls, whereas antibiotics appropriate to the organism (gentamicin, vancomycin, penicillin, streptomycin, and SXT) were utilized as positive controls. The zone of inhibition was characterized by the formation of a clear zone around the disk. For the haemolytic activity, 5% sheep blood agar plate inoculated with E. faecalis was used. The zone of haemolysis was interpreted as a clear zone formed by destruction of red blood cells around the disk. The diameter of zone of inhibition and haemolysis were measured in millimetres.

2.6. Statistical analysis

The assays were maintained in triplicates and data obtained are presented as means± standard error of the mean (SEM). The assumption of normality was met. Comparison between negative control and sample extracted was performed by analysis of variance (ANOVA, p<0.05) followed by Bonferroni correction.

3. Results

3.1. Ethyl acetate extracts exhibit broad-spectrum antibacterial activity

The antimicrobial activity of ethyl acetate extract of L. clathrata body wall (1.78μg/ml) and gonad tissues (0.107μg/ml) is summarised in Table 1. Ethyl acetate extract of the body wall exhibited significant antibacterial activity against all tested pathogens. Gonad extracted with ethyl acetate exhibited inhibitory activity against six out of the ten selected pathogens. Activity was not observed for the gonad extract against Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Enterococcus faecalis, Bacillus cereus, and Mycobacterium smegmatis. Overall antibacterial activity was also lower than that observed in the body wall extract. We did not observe the zone of haemolysis for any of the tissues extracted with ethyl acetate Table 2.

Table 1. Antibacterial activity demonstrated by the ethyl acetate extracts of Luidia clathrata tissues (body wall and gonad) on selective pathogenic bacteria achieved by the disk diffusion method.

Pathogens Antibiotics
(μg)
Zone of Inhibition
(Diameter in mm)
Positive control (Antibiotics)
(Mean± SEM)
Negative Control
(Ethyl acetate)
(Mean± SEM)
Body wall
(Mean± SEM)
Gonad
(Mean± SEM)
Gram Negative
Proteus mirabilis x GM (10) 27.33±1.33 0 34.00±0.88 12.00±0.66
Salmonella typhimurium (ATCC 14028) SXT (10) 36.33±1.33 0 35.66±2.96 12.66±1.85
Escherichia coli (ATCC 11229) GM (10) 30.00±0.55 0 34.66±1.45 12.33±1.33
Pseudomonas aeruginosa (ATCC 27853) ST (10) 17.66±0.33 0 26.33±0.88 -
Klebsiella pneumoniae (ATCC 13883) GM (10) 25.00±1.00 0 29.66±0.33 9.00±1.00
Gram Positive
Bacillus subtilis x P (10) 33.66±2.18 0 32.33±1.20 12±1.52
Enterococcus faecalis (ATCC 25922) GM (10) 20.66±0.33 0 18.66±0.33 -
Staphylococcus aureus (ATCC 27659) P (10) 38.33±0.33 0 37.66±2.33 11.33±0.33
Bacillus cereus x VA (30) 19.00±0.00 0 20.66±0.33 -
Mycobacterium smegmatis x ST (10) 28.00±1.72 0 44.66±2.90 -

x denotes that ATCC number is not available.

Values are presented as the mean diameter of inhibition zones (mm) ± standard error of the means (n = 3). GM (Gentamicin), SXT (Sulfamethoxazole-Trimethoprim), P (Penicillin), ST (Streptomycin) & VA (Vancomycin). ‘-’ = no activity against the bacteria. All other interactions were significantly changed from the negative control (p<0.05).

Table 2. Haemolysis activity of L. clathrata extract of body wall (1.78μg/ml) and gonad tissues (0.107μg/ml) extracted with different solvent by disk diffusion method.

Solvent Used Zone of Haemolysis
(Diameter in mm)
Control
(solvents only)
(Mean± SEM)
Body wall
(Mean± SEM)
Gonad (Mean± SEM)
Methanol 0 14±1.00 -
Ethyl acetate 0 - -
Hexane 0 - -

Results are illustrated as the mean diameter of haemolysis zones (mm)±standard error of the means (n = 3). ‘-’ = no activity against the bacteria. All other interactions were significantly changed from the negative control (p<0.05).

3.2. Methanol and hexane extracts do not exhibit antibacterial activity

Methanol extract (1.78μg/ml) of any of the tissues exhibited no inhibitory activity against the selected pathogens. We did observe significant (p<0.05) beta-haemolysis, a complete destruction of red blood cells by the methanol extract of body wall Table 2. Because beta haemolysis was not observed in ethyl acetate extract, the responsible compound must be specifically soluble in methanol. Hexane extract of any of the tissues exhibited no inhibition against the selected pathogens. Because of the nonpolar nature of the hexane, any polar bioactive compounds would not be extracted [28]. Haemolytic activity was also not observed with the tissues extracted with hexane.

4. Discussion

The emergence of antibiotic resistant organisms has made treating the diseases they cause difficult [1]. Discovery of new therapeutic agents from natural sources could provide a potential solution. In this experiment, we aimed to determine the antibacterial activity of L. clathrata against selected pathogenic bacteria [2,3].

Existing literature has shown the wide range of bioactivity from a variety of marine invertebrates, but little information is available about the sea star antibacterial activity [11,14,23]. In our study, ethyl acetate extract of body wall showed a significant (p<0.05) zone of inhibition in all tested pathogens compared to the negative control. The zone of inhibition was highest against M. smegmatis (44.66±2.90mm) and smallest against E. faecalis (18.66±0.33mm). Our finding is supported by Bryan et al. [29]. They discovered body wall extract of L. clathrata that potentially inhibited the attachment of a marine bacteria Luteo violaceato from the wells of microtiter plates, indicating the defence mechanism of the body wall which could potentially be antibacterial in nature. However, they did not explain in detail the antimicrobial potential of the body wall [29]. Similarly, ethanolic extract of whole-body tissue from L. maculatata partially purified using liquid partition and column chromatography exhibited antimicrobial activity against five bacterial and five fungal pathogens [30]. Kanagaraj et al. studied the antibacterial activity of Astropecten indicus and found that crude methanol and ethyl acetate tissue extract exhibited high inhibitory activity against the tested pathogens including P. aeruginosa, K. pneumoniae and moderate activity against species like Streptococcus and E. coli [31]. In our case high activity was observed on all the tested pathogens. Previous research primarily focused on whole body tissues and the body wall [29,30]. In the present study, we have explored the antibacterial potential of the gonad as well for the first time along with the body wall. Gonad extracted in ethyl acetate was able to inhibit some of the tested pathogens. It is likely that the ethyl acetate extract of body wall was more effective than the gonad extract because of discrepancies in concentration. The concentration of body wall extract is about 16X higher than gonad extract. Another possibility could be due to the difference in the chemical nature of compounds present in two tissue type. This also explains the fact that gonad is likely more effective against the gram-negative pathogens compared to the gram-positive ones. Out of six pathogens being inhibited by gonad extract, four of them are gram-negative and two are gram-positive. The greater inhibitory activity against gram-negative pathogens could be because they have an extra lipopolysaccharides layer. Fatty compounds from gonads may dissolve the lipopolysaccharides and thus likely destroy gram-negative pathogens more readily than gram-positive [32].

The methanol extract of none of the tissues showed activity against tested pathogen. This is interesting because methanol is a widely used polar solvent due to its ability to extract a diverse range of compounds and proven to have good extraction yield [33,34]. However, we noticed beta-haemolytic activity of body wall extracted with methanol on 5% sheep blood agar. The haemolytic activity by methanolic extract of body wall observed in the present experiment could be due to the presence of saponin in body wall [35,36].

Saponin, a polar secondary metabolite mostly found in plants and lower invertebrates is well characterized by its ability to breakdown red blood cells. This property is used as a screening test to determine whether saponin is present in natural substances [35,36].

In this experiment, the complete destruction of erythrocytes by the methanol extract of body wall suggests that body wall of L. clathrata is rich in saponin. The hexane extracts did not show any positive activity because hexane, as a non-polar solvent, is not able to extract the polar compounds present in the sample [37]. Since the ethyl acetate extract produced the majority of the positive results in the present studies, we anticipate that ethyl acetate is the proper solvent to extract the bioactive compounds with antibacterial nature from L. clathrata. Our results are in line with Darya et al., who reported the ethyl acetate extract of different body parts of Holothuria leucospilota and had more antibacterial activity than n-hexane, and methanol extract [38]. The present result of our study suggests that the antimicrobial compound(s) found in the body wall and gonad of L. clathrata is likely polar or partially polar.

5. Conclusion

In this research, we analyzed the antibacterial potential of L. clathrata tissues using diverse types of extracts of different polarities on selected pathogens. We found that ethyl acetate extracts of body wall and gonad tissues exhibit significant inhibitory activity. This indicates the studied species, L. clathrata, could be an excellent source for discovering antibiotics to treat various types of diseases. This work can be expanded through the isolation, characterization and purification of the specific compounds responsible for the antibacterial potential.

Supporting information

S1 File

(XLSX)

Acknowledgments

We acknowledge the contribution of Arlis LaMaster, Laboratory Technician, Department of Biological Sciences, Purdue University Fort Wayne, Indiana, USA for her help during the experiment. Additionally, we appreciate Dr. Jaiyanth Daniel, Associate Professor, Department of Biological Sciences for his supervision during extraction.

Data Availability

All the data are available within the paper and the Supporting Information file.

Funding Statement

The author(s) received no specific funding for this work.

References

  • 1.Magiorakos AP, Srinivasan A, Carey RB, Carmeli Y, Falagas ME, Giske CG, et al. Multidrug-resistant, extensively drug-resistant and pandrug-resistant bacteria: an international expert proposal for interim standard definitions for acquired resistance. Clinical Microbiology and Infection. 2012;18(3):268–281. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-0691.2011.03570.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Tacconelli E, Carrara E, Savoldi A, Harbarth S, Mendelson M, Monnet DL, et al. Discovery, research, and development of new antibiotics: the WHO priority list of antibiotic-resistant bacteria and tuberculosis. The Lancet Infectious Diseases. 2018;18(3):318–327. doi: 10.1016/S1473-3099(17)30753-3 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Yoneyama H, Katsumata R. Antibiotic Resistance in Bacteria and Its Future for Novel Antibiotic Development. Bioscience, biotechnology, and biochemistry. 2006;70:1060–75. doi: 10.1271/bbb.70.1060 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Cunha BA. ANTIBIOTIC SIDE EFFECTS. Medical Clinics of North America. 2001;85(1):149–185. doi: 10.1016/s0025-7125(05)70309-6 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Iredell J, Brown J, Tagg K. Antibiotic resistance in Enterobacteriaceae: mechanisms and clinical implications. BMJ. 2016;352. doi: 10.1136/bmj.h6420 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Andersson DI. Persistence of antibiotic resistant bacteria. Current opinion in microbiology. 2003;6(5):452–456. doi: 10.1016/j.mib.2003.09.001 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Capita R, Alonso-Calleja C. Antibiotic-Resistant Bacteria: A Challenge for the Food Industry. Critical reviews in food science and nutrition. 2013;53:11–48. doi: 10.1080/10408398.2010.519837 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.World Health Organization. Antibiotic resistance: Multi-country public awareness survey.2015. https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/194460. [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Choudhary A, Naughton LM, Montánchez I, Dobson AD, Rai DK. Current status and future prospects of marine natural products (MNPs) as antimicrobials. Marine drugs. 2017;15(9):272. doi: 10.3390/md15090272 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Moloney MG. Natural products as a source for novel antibiotics. Trends in pharmacological sciences. 2016;37(8):689–701. doi: 10.1016/j.tips.2016.05.001 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Pereira R, Sudatti D, Moreira T, Renato C, Ventura R. Chemical defense in developmental stages and adult of the sea star Echinaster (Othilia) brasiliensis. PeerJ. 2021;9. doi: 10.7717/peerj.11503 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Pagare S, Bhatia M, Tripathi N, Pagare S, Bansal Y. Secondary metabolites of plants and their role: Overview. Current Trends in Biotechnology and Pharmacy. 2015;9(3):293–304. [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Manivasagan P, Venkatesan J, Sivakumar K, Kim SK. Pharmaceutically active secondary metabolites of marine actinobacteria. Microbiological research. 2014. Apr 1;169(4):262–78. doi: 10.1016/j.micres.2013.07.014 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Reinisch CL, Bang FB. Cell recognition: Reactions of the sea star (Asterias vulgaris) to the injection of amebocytes of sea urchin (Arbacia punctulata). Cellular Immunology. 1971;2(5):496–503. doi: 10.1016/0008-8749(71)90058-x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Leonard LA, Strandberg JD, Winkelstein JA. Complement-like activity in the sea star, Asterias forbesi. Developmental Comparative Immunology. 1990;14(1):19–30. doi: 10.1016/0145-305x(90)90004-x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Hennebert E, Leroy B, Wattiez R, Ladurner P. An integrated transcriptomic and proteomic analysis of sea star epidermal secretions identifies proteins involved in defense and adhesion. Journal of Proteomics. 2015;128:83–91. doi: 10.1016/j.jprot.2015.07.002 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Guenther J, Walker-Smith G, Warén A, Nys RD. Fouling-resistant surfaces of tropical sea stars. Biofouling. 2007;23(6):413–418. doi: 10.1080/08927010701570089 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Diehl WJ, Lawrence JM. The effect of salinity on coelomic fluid osmolyte concentration and intracellular water content in Luidia clathrata (Say)b(Echinodermata: Asteroidea). Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology Part A: Physiology. 1984;79(1):119–126. 10.1016/0300-9629(84)90718-7. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Kim CH, Go HJ, Oh HY, Park JB, Lee TK, Seo JK, et al. Identification of a novel antimicrobial peptide from the sea star Patiria pectinifera. Developmental Comparative Immunology. 2018;86:203–213. doi: 10.1016/j.dci.2018.05.002 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Venkatesan GK, Kuppusamy A, Devarajan S, Kumar A. Review on medicinal potential of alkaloids and saponins. Pharamacologyonline. 2019;1:1–20. [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Sumitha R, Banu N, Parvathi VD. Novel natural products from marine sea stars. Current Trends in Biomedical Engineering & Biosciences. 2017;2(4):59–63. [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Popov RS, Ivanchina NV, Dmitrenok PS. Application of MS-based metabolomics approaches in analysis of starfish and sea cucumber bioactive compounds. Marine Drugs. 2022;20(5):320. 10.3390/md20050320. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Li C, Blencke HM, Haug T, Stensvåg K. Antimicrobial peptides in echinoderm host defense. Developmental Comparative Immunology. 2015;49(1):190–197. doi: 10.1016/j.dci.2014.11.002 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Sumitha R, Dharshana M, Banu N, Vijayalakshmi S. In vitro Antimicrobial Evaluation of an Isolated Compound from Sea Star Stellaster equisteris. Biomedical and Pharmacology Journal. 2022;15(2). 10.1016/0022-0981(95)00124-7. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Jorgensen JH, Turnidge JD. Susceptibility test methods: dilution and disk diffusion methods. Manual of clinical microbiology. 2015. May 15:1253–73. 10.1128/9781555817381.ch71. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Shushizadeh MR, Beigi Nasiri M, Ameri A, Rajabzadeh Ghatrami E, Tavakoli S. Preparation of the Persian Gulf Echinometra mathaei Organic Extracts and Investigation of Their Antibacterial Activity. Jundishapur Journal of Natural Pharmaceutical Products. 2019;14(4):e57093. doi: 10.5812/jjnpp.57093 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Walag AM, Kharwar R. Assessment of Crude Extract Yield and In-vitro Antioxidant Activity of Sea Star from the Philippines. 2021;42(22):68–76. https://www.mbimph.com/index.php/UPJOZ/article/view/2567. [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Uli H, Noor A, Mandey FW, Sapar A. Isolation, Identification and Bioactivity Test of Non Polar Compounds on N-hexane Extract of Haliclona (Reniera) Fascigera From Samalona Island-spermonde Archipelago. Marina Chimica Acta. 2016;17(2). doi: 10.20956/mca.v17i2.1125 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Bryan PJ, Rittschof D, McClintock JB. Bioactivity of echinoderm ethanolic body-wall extracts: an assessment of marine bacterial attachment and macroinvertebrate larval settlement. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology. 1996;196(1):79–96. 10.1016/0022-0981(95)00124-7. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Suguna A, Bragadeeswaran S, Natarajan E, Mohanraj M. Studies on antioxidant properties of starfish Luidia maculata (Muller & Troschel, 1842) off Parangipettai, Southeast coast of India. Journal of Coastal Life Medicine. 2014;2(9):694–8. [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Chamundeeswari K, Saranya S, Rajagopal S. Exploration of potential antimicrobial activity of sea star astropecten indicus. Journal of Applied Pharmaceutical Science. 2012. Jul 30;2(7):125–8. doi: 10.7324/JAPS.2012.2716 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Costerton JW, Ingram JM, Cheng KJ. Structure and function of the cell envelope of gram-negative bacteria. Bacteriological reviews. 1974. Mar;38(1):87–110. doi: 10.1128/br.38.1.87-110.1974 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Dhawan D, Gupta J. Research article comparison of different solvents for phytochemical extraction potential from datura metel plant leaves. Int J Biol Chem. 2017;11(1):17–22. doi: 10.3923/ijbc.2017.17.22 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Bimakr M, Rahman RA, Taip FS, Ganjloo A, Salleh LM, Selamat J, et al. Comparison of different extraction methods for the extraction of major bioactive flavonoid compounds from spearmint (Mentha spicata L.) leaves. Food andbioproducts processing. 2011;89(1):67–72. 10.1016/j.fbp.2010.03.002. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Southeeswaran S, Kenchington W. Hemolysis test for saponins: A caution. Journal of Chemical Education. 1989;66(12):1058. 10.1021/ed066p1058. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Segaran A, Chua LS. Saponins Rich Fractions From Eurycoma longifolia Extract. In: Third International Conference on Separation Technology 2020 (ICoST 2020). Atlantis Press; 2020. p. 57–61. 10.2991/aer.k.201229.008. [DOI]
  • 37.Malekzadeh M, Najafabadi HA, Hakim M, Feilizadeh M, Vossoughi M, Rashtchian D. Experimental study and thermodynamic modeling for determining the effect of non-polar solvent (hexane)/polar solvent (methanol) ratio and moisture content on the lipid extraction efficiency from Chlorella vulgaris. Bioresource Technology. 2016;201:304–311. doi: 10.1016/j.biortech.2015.11.066 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Darya M, Sajjadi MM, Yousefzadi M, Sourinejad I, Zarei M. Antifouling and antibacterial activities of bioactive extracts from different organs of the sea cucumber Holothuria leucospilota. Helgoland Marine Research. 2020;74. November 3, 2022 9/9. doi: 10.1186/s10152-020-0536-8 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Estibaliz Sansinenea

22 Dec 2022

PONE-D-22-30432Antibacterial Potential of Luidia clathrate (Sea Star) Tissue Extracts Against Selected Pathogenic BacteriaPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Mustafa,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Feb 05 2023 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Estibaliz Sansinenea

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. In your Data Availability statement, you have not specified where the minimal data set underlying the results described in your manuscript can be found. PLOS defines a study's minimal data set as the underlying data used to reach the conclusions drawn in the manuscript and any additional data required to replicate the reported study findings in their entirety. All PLOS journals require that the minimal data set be made fully available. For more information about our data policy, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability.

Upon re-submitting your revised manuscript, please upload your study’s minimal underlying data set as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and include the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers within your revised cover letter. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories. Any potentially identifying patient information must be fully anonymized.

Important: If there are ethical or legal restrictions to sharing your data publicly, please explain these restrictions in detail. Please see our guidelines for more information on what we consider unacceptable restrictions to publicly sharing data: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. Note that it is not acceptable for the authors to be the sole named individuals responsible for ensuring data access.

We will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide in your cover letter.

Additional Editor Comments:

The reviewers have serious concerns about the novelry and property of this work. The Ms should be revised carefully following the reviewers comments.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Partly

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: * The manuscript is poorly written. It has plenty of grammatical errors as well as sentence-structure mistakes.

* The paper does not make a significant contribution to new knowledge in the discipline.

* The research idea lacks novelty.

Reviewer #2: Abstract: It is not clear which pathogens are tested in the abstract (line 35). It is worth mentioning the species names. In the methodological part of the abstract, the authors should specify which organs of sea star were used for the experiments. The abstract should clearly present the scope of the work and its effects.

Material and methods: How many organisms were purchased for research (line 99)? How long they were kept in the lab before the analysis (line 101-102)? Line 104-105: Which organs were taken for testing. It's not clear from these two lines: only body wall and gonad - or any other components too (gut)? It should be clear what type of materials were used for the investigation. Line 111: the purity and concentration of the extractants used and their manufacturer/supplier were not specified. Line 112: shaker – the mark and model should be added. Line 114: how long the decantation was carried out. Line 116: what was the pressure applied? Line 124-127: what was the origin of the bacteria used in the research, how they were propagated for the research? To determine the antibacterial activity of the extracts, the authors should perform chemical analyzes of these extracts. This data should be included in to research article. In the current state the results presented in the paper are too poor to be published.

Taking into account the above deficiencies in the description of the methodology, further review proceedings can be conducted after their completion.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2023 Mar 2;18(3):e0281889. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0281889.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


31 Jan 2023

PONE-D-22-30432

Antibacterial Potential of Luidia clathrata (Sea Star) Tissue Extracts Against Selected Pathogenic Bacteria

PLOS ONE

1. Response to Reviewer 1

We would like to thank the reviewer for the valuable comments/suggestions. We summarize our responses as follows.

Q1: Writing issues and grammatical errors.

Thank you for identifying these issues. We have fixed these issues (formatting, typos and grammatical errors) in the updated draft.

Q2: Clarification on novelty of the research

Thank you for your comment. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first scientific work explaining the antimicrobial potential of different body tissues of Luidia clathrata against ten different pathogenic bacteria. Specifically, our effort to explore the therapeutic potential of gonads from the L. clathrata is unique. By sharing our results with the scientific community, we will be contributing to the advancement of this field and helping to spur future research efforts aimed at identifying the active compounds responsible for the observed antibacterial activity. We believe, our research is novel.

2. Response to Reviewer 2

We would like to thank the reviewer for the valuable comments/suggestions. We summarize our responses as follows.

Q1: Abstract revision (Which pathogens were used in the experiment? Provide detailed names of the pathogens. Mention the tissues used in the experiment.)

We have done a major revision of the abstract in light of reviewer’s comments. Please refer to the highlighted lines throughout the abstract.

Regarding the bacterial names, we have mentioned the bacterial species and strain in detail in the methodology section. However, as the reviewer wanted us to add the names in the abstract, we have now incorporated them.

We also have specified tissues/organs used in the experiment- in the abstract now.

Q2: Clarification on Material and Methods

Thank you for your questions and pointing out deficiencies. We have incorporated all the issues, as suggested.

Briefly,

- We have added the sample size

- We have mentioned the acclimation period

- We have added the tissue/organs used in the experiment

- Regarding the purity and concentration of the extractants used, we have updated the information

- We have updated the detailed information about the instruments used.

In addition, we like to inform you that the decantation period was 5 minutes and the pressure for rotary evaporator was 713 mmHg at 40-45oC (Reference 1).

Q3: Clarification on the chemical analysis of the extracts used.

Thank you for your suggestion. This result is the first part of our experiment that we would like to share. We will follow up your suggestion on chemical analysis of the extracts used in our follow up research with standard methodology.

References:

1. Souza, C. R. F., Schiavetto, I. A., Thomazini, F. C., & Oliveira, W. P. D. (2008). Processing of Rosmarinus officinalis Linne extract on spray and spouted bed dryers. Brazilian Journal of Chemical Engineering, 25, 59-69. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0104-66322008000100008

Attachment

Submitted filename: Parajuli_PONE-D-22-30432R1_Response.docx

Decision Letter 1

Estibaliz Sansinenea

2 Feb 2023

Antibacterial Potential of Luidia clathrata (Sea Star) Tissue Extracts Against Selected Pathogenic Bacteria

PONE-D-22-30432R1

Dear Dr. Mustafa,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Estibaliz Sansinenea

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

The authors have followed all recommendations closely improving their MS, they have changed the abstract and made the pertinent clarifications, therefore the MS can be accepted in the current form.

Reviewers' comments:

Acceptance letter

Estibaliz Sansinenea

22 Feb 2023

PONE-D-22-30432R1

Antibacterial Potential of Luidia clathrata (Sea Star) Tissue Extracts Against Selected Pathogenic Bacteria

Dear Dr. Mustafa:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Estibaliz Sansinenea

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE


Articles from PLOS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

RESOURCES