Home A new phenanthrene derivative from Entada abyssinica with antimicrobial and antioxidant properties
Article Publicly Available

A new phenanthrene derivative from Entada abyssinica with antimicrobial and antioxidant properties

  • Larissa M. Magnibou EMAIL logo , Peron B. Leutcha , Billy T. Tchegnitegni , Steven C. N. Wouamba , Cyrille Y. F. F. Magne , Abel J. G. Yaya , Theodora Kopa , Maurice F. Tagatsing , Nantenaina Tombozara , Alain L. Meli , Celine Henoumont , Sophie Laurent and Emmanuel Talla
Published/Copyright: October 11, 2021
Become an author with De Gruyter Brill

Abstract

Entada abyssinica Steud. Ex A. Rich (Leguminosae) is a medicinal plant used traditionally for the treatment of infections. A phytochemical investigation of the methanol extract of E. abyssinica root bark led to the isolation of a new phenanthrene derivative named phenentada (1), together with seven known compounds (8 S, 13 E)-kolavic acid 15-methyl ester (2) and 8 S-kolavic acid 15-methyl ester (3) obtained as mixture, 8 S-kolavic acid 15-methyl ester (3), 8 S-kolavic acid 18-methyl ester (4), 13,14,15,16-tetranorclerod-3-ene-12,18-dioic acid (5), 1′,26′-bis-[(S)-2,3-dihydroxypropyl] hexacosanedioate (6), campesterol (7) and 3-O-β -d-glucopyranosylstigmasterol (8). Their structures were determined by NMR spectroscopy (1D and 2D), mass spectrometry (HRESIMS) and by comparison with previously reported data. The crude extract and some isolated compounds were evaluated for their in vitro antimicrobial activities by the microdilution method while, the antioxidant activity was evaluated by the DPPH methods. Regarding the antimicrobial activity, the crude extract showed significant inhibitory activities against bacteria strains (MIC 7.81–31.3 μg mL−1) and yeasts (MIC 15.6–31.3 μg mL−1) whereas all compounds tested exhibited significant activity against Staphylococcus epidermidis. Moreover, compounds 4, 5 and 6 and the mixture 2/3 showed significant antimicrobial activity on Candida parapsilosis strain (MIC = 3.12 μg mL−1), as well as selected antifungal property against candida pathogenic fungi strains. On the other hand, compounds (1) demonstrated the best bioactivities against Candida albicans and Salmonella enterica with MIC = 3.12 μg mL−1 while the mixture 2/3 appeared to have the highest inhibition on gram (+) bacteria strain S. epidermidis with MIC of 0.78 μg mL−1 and compound 5 (MIC = 1.56 μg mL−1) against the gram (−) bacteria strain. Furthermore, the SC50 values measured by the antioxidant test for all samples varied between 47.21 and 52.44 μg mL−1 for DPPH. These results support the traditional uses of E. abyssinica in the management of several diseases including the claim in the skin disease treatment. Additionally, here is reported the first time isolation of a phenanthrene derivative in the Fabaceae family to the best of our knowledge.

1 Introduction

Infectious diseases are disorders caused by micro-organisms such as bacteria, viruses, fungi or parasites. Skin infections are very common throughout the world and vary from one region to another. Some skin infections can be attributed to poor hygienic conditions, which may be more prevalent in developing countries. It has been reported to make up to 42–65% of the total skin morbidity of children [1]. Health care systems around the world are faced with the challenge that bacteria are developing resistance to existing antimicrobial agents resulting in an increase in health care costs, morbidity and also mortality [2]. In addition, the oxygen radicals are key molecules in the pathogenesis of various infectious diseases [3]. Thus, it became urgent to search for new therapeutic agents with novel modes of action. In recent years, the uses of medicinal plants for the treatment of various diseases, including infectious diseases have really increased [4]. Our search for new as well as known secondary metabolites with antibacterial activities from natural sources led us to the phytochemical study of Entada abyssinica.

E. abyssinica Steud. Ex A. Rich is a small tree from the Fabaceae family which is widely spread in tropical Africa. Our attention was drawn to the fact that E. abyssinica is commonly used in Central Africa (Cameroon) for the traditional treatment of ailments such as coughs, rheumatism, skin infection, diarrhoea and fever [5, 6]. Consequently, this plants may contain various active antimicrobial compounds acting together synergistically in a multi-target fashion. Up to date previous chemical investigations of E. abyssinica reported the presence of secondary metabolites such as flavonoids, diterpenoids, triterpenoids, steroids, steroidal saponins, and fatty acids [7, 8]. In addition, some pharmacological properties of E. abyssinica, including anti-inflammatory, antimicrobial, antioxidant activities have already been reported as well as the antifungal activity of its methanol extract of root barks [7, 9, 10]. The focus of this study was consequently to isolate compounds possibly contributing to the antimicrobial activity, and which may therefore be promising precursors to be used for the development of novel antimicrobial drugs.

To neutralize free radicals and protect the body against oxidative damage, different antioxidants which are present in normal physiological conditions are able to counteract the production of reactive oxygen species. Free radicals are known to be the main cause of various diseases such as cancer and bacterial diseases. We describe herein the isolation, the structure elucidation, of one new phenanthrene derivative named: phenentada (1), together with seven known compounds (2–8) isolated from the methanol extract of root bark of E. abyssinica, as well as their in vitro antimicrobial and antioxidant activities.

2 Results and discussion

2.1 Phytochemical analysis

The methanol crude extract of E. abyssinica root bark were subjected repeatedly to column chromatography over silica gel to afford eight compounds (18, Figure 1). The known compounds (28) were identified by comparison of their spectroscopic data with those reported in literature. However, the structure elucidation of the new compound (1) is reported below.

Figure 1: 
Structures of compounds 1–8 isolated from E. abyssinica.
Figure 1:

Structures of compounds 18 isolated from E. abyssinica.

Compound (1) was obtained as a white amorphous powder and was positive to the ferric chloride test indicating its phenolic nature. Its molecular formula C17H16O5 was determined through the use of HR-ESI-MS which showed the protonated molecular ion pic at m/z = 301.1047 ([M+H]+, C17H17O5 +, calcd. m/z = 301.1076) and elementary analysis indicate 10° of unsaturation. The IR spectrum of (1) showed strong absorption bands associated with a hydroxyl (3382 cm−1), together with the one of C–O (1023 cm−1), while its UV spectrum showed maxima absorption bands at λ max 224 and 280 nm characteristic of phenanthrene derivative [11].

Moreover, the 1H NMR spectrum (Table 1) of (1) exhibited the signals of six aromatic protons among which the signal of one pair of ortho-coupled aromatic protons δ H = 8.91 ppm (1H, d, J = 9.1 Hz, H-9) and δ H = 8.30 ppm (1H, d, J = 9.1 Hz, H-10) [12] and four singlets at δ H = 8.32 ppm (1H, s, H-4), 7.89 ppm (1H, s, H-5), 8.38 ppm (1H, s, H-8) and 7.76 ppm (1H, s, H-1) characteristics of a phenanthrene monosubstituted skeleton [13, 14]. It also showed a singlet of two protons at δ H = 6.36 ppm (2H, s) suggesting a methylenedioxy moiety [15] and two singlets of three protons at δ H = 4.05 ppm (3H, s, 6-OMe) and 4.24 ppm (3H, s, 7-OMe) indicating the presence of two methoxy groups. The decoupled 13C NMR spectrum of (1) exhibited 17 carbon signals (Table 1) including those of two methoxy groups at δ C = 56.8 ppm (6-OMe) and 57.8 ppm (7-OMe), one of a methylenedioxy unit at δ C = 103.2 ppm (2-O-CH2-O) [15, 16] and of 14 tertiary and quaternary aromatic carbons signals at δ C = 148.9 ppm (C-2), 149.4 ppm (C-3), 105.1 ppm (C-4), 132.6 ppm (C4a), 132.9 ppm (C-4b), 109.2 ppm (C-5), 152.0 ppm (C-6), 158.7 ppm (C-7), 103.8 ppm (C-8), 124.6 ppm (C-8a), 119.8 ppm (C-9), 130.5 ppm (C-10), 120.4 ppm (C-10a) and 106.2 ppm (C-1) confirming the phenanthrene skeleton [13]. Moreover, extensive analysis of 1H–1H COSY, HSQC and HMBC spectra (Figure 2) led to the assignment of 1H and 13C resonances. The location of the methylenedioxy group was confirmed by the HMBC correlations observed between its protons at δ H = 6.36 ppm and the O-bearing aromatic carbon at C-2 (δ C = 148.9 ppm), this carbon is also having correlations with protons at δ H = 7.79 ppm (H-1) and 8.32 ppm (H-4). The cross peak correlation observed between the methoxy protons at δ H = 4.05 ppm (6-OMe) and 4.24 ppm (7-OMe) with carbons at δ C = 152.0 ppm (C-6) and 158.7 ppm (C-7) respectively show that they are linked at C-6 and C-7. Consequently, the structure of (1) was elucidated as a new phenanthrene derivative named 2-(hydroxymethoxy)-6,7-dimethoxyphenanthren-3-ol to which we gave the trivial name phenentada.

Table 1:

1H (600 MHz) and 13C (150 MHz) NMR-spectroscopic data of compound 1 in DMSO-d 6

Position δ H (ppm) δ C (ppm) HMQC HMBC
1 7.76; s 106.2 CH C-10, C-2, C-10a
2 149.4
3 148.9
4 8.32; s 105.1 CH C-3, C-4b
4a 132.6
4b 132.9
5 7.89; s 109.2 CH C-4a, C-7, C-6
6 152.0
7 158.7
8 8.38; s 103.8 CH C-8a, C-7, C-6
8a 124.6
9 8.91; d; J = 9.1 Hz 119.8 CH C-4b, C-8a
10 8.30; d; J = 9.1 Hz 130.5 CH C-8a, C-10a, C-1
10a 120.4
2-O-CH2-O 6.36; s 103.2 CH2 C-2
6-OMe 4.05; s 56.8 CH3 C-6
7-OMe 4.24; s 57.8 CH3 C-7
Figure 2: 

1H-1H COSY and HMBC correlations observed in compound 1.
Figure 2:

1H-1H COSY and HMBC correlations observed in compound 1.

The structures of known compounds were identified by comparison of their spectroscopic data with those reported in the literature as (8 S, 13E)-kolavic acid 15-methyl ester (2) and 8 S-kolavic acid 15-methyl ester (3) [6]; 8 S-kolavic acid 15-methyl ester (3) [7]; 8 S-kolavic acid 18-methyl ester (4) [6, 7]; 13,14,15,16-tetranorclerod-3-ene-12,18-dioic acid (5) [10]; 1′,26′-bis-[(S)-2,3-dihydroxypropyl] hexacosanedioate (6) [7]; campesterol (7) [17] and 3-O-β -d-glucopyranosylstigmasterol (8) [18] (Figure 1). Kolavic acid and derivates exhibit anti-inflammatory properties through various mechanisms contributing the anti-inflammatory properties of E. abyssinica [9, 19] and also inhibit Trypanosoma brucei [5], howewer, campesterol and derivates possess various pharmacological properties including cholesterol lowering effects, anti-inflammatory, antibacterial and antifungal activities and also have chemopreventive effects against cancer [18]. The identification of these compounds contributes to the verification of some therapeutic virtues of this species.

2.2 Antimicrobial activity

E. abyssinica is traditionally used in Cameroon to treat coughs, rheumatism, skin infection, diarrhoea and fever [56]. The results of in vitro antimicrobial activities of the MeOH extract of root bark as well as compounds 1, 36 and the mixture of 2/3 against pathogenic bacteria and yeast are presented in Table 2. This table present the inhibition parameters (MIC, MBC and MBC/MIC ratio) of the crude extract and tested compounds from E. abyssinica. The crude extract and isolates showed varying levels of antimicrobial properties against yeast and bacteria strains tested. Indeed, the antimicrobial activity of plant extracts can be classified as significant (MIC < 100 μg mL−1), moderate (100 < MIC ≤ 625 μg mL−1) and weak (MIC > 625 μg mL−1) [20]. According to this classification, the inhibition potential of the methanol crude extract of E. abyssinica could be considered as significant against yeasts (MIC ranging from 15.6–31.3 μg mL−1) and bacteria (MIC ranging from 7.81–31.3 μg mL−1) except on Salmonella enterica strain. Furthermore, the gram (+) S. epidermis was the most sensitive with a MIC value of 7.81 μg mL−1 followed by Candida albicans (MIC = 15.6 μg mL−1) and the Candida parapsilosis (MIC = 32.3 μg mL−1). Additionally, the results obtained from the crude extract in this study were in line with those obtained by others authors in the literature. In fact, Harun et al. [21] demonstrated that the methanol extract of Eleocharis spiralis stem bark exhibited promising antifungal activity against three dermatophytes strains. While, Baidoo et al. and Dzoyem et al. [22, 23] showed antibacterial potential of methanol extract of Epimyrma africana root bark and E. abyssinica leaves respectively. According to the criteria used by Gatsing and Adoga [24], the antibacterial substance is considered as bactericidal, when the ratio MBC/MIC ≤ 4 and bacteriostatic when MBC/MIC > 4 [24]. Base on those criteria, the crude extract acted as good bactericide and fungicide against these pathogens suggesting that they could be potent candidates for the treatment of skin and other infectious diseases. Regarding pure compounds, antimicrobial cut-off points have been defined in the literature to enable the understanding of their effectiveness as follows: highly active (MIC < 1 μg mL−1), significantly active (1 = MIC ≤ 10 μg mL−1), moderately active (10 < MIC ≤ 100 mL−1) and weakly active (100 < MIC ≤ 1000 μg mL−1) [25]. Based on this cut-off, compounds 1, 4 and the mixture of 2/3 showed significant activity against C. albicans with MIC ranging from 3.12–6.25 μg mL−1 while, compounds 4, 5, 6 and the mixture of 2/3 inhibited significantly Candida parasilosis with MIC values of 3.12 μg mL−1 each. The values of MIC of all the tested compounds in comparison to those of the crude extract against yeasts could justify his significant activity and suggesting that many of them should proceed by synergism to enable the higher activity of the crude extract. Regarding the antibacterial test, all the screened compounds showed high to significant activity (MIC values between 0.78 and 1.56 μg mL−1) against the gram (+) bacteria S. epidermis with the best activity observed to the mixture 2/3 (MIC = 0.78 μg mL−1) compare to ciprofloxacin used as reference drug. Furthermore, compound 5 showed the best activity against the gram (−) bacteria Escherichia coli with MIC = 1.56 μg mL−1 while compound 1 showed a significant activity against all the selected gram (−) bacteria with MIC values ranging from 3.12–6.25 μg mL−1 and then confirm the antimicrobial potential of phenanthrene derivatives against a wide range of human pathogens [13]. All these compounds acted as bactericidal (MBC/MIC ≤ 4). Moreover, these results are in accordance with those obtained by Tchinda et al. [6] and Dzoyem et al. [6, 23] which have evaluated the antimicrobial activities of compounds 2, 3 and 4, and which also assumed that the presence and position of ester and carboxylic groups in isolated diterpenoids played an important role in their antimicrobial activity.

Table 2:

MIC and MBC of extracts, isolated compounds and reference drugs from E. abyssinica.

Pathogen Yeast Gram (+) Gram (−)
Sample Strains C. albicans C. parasilosis S. épidermidis Pseudomonas aeruginosa E. coli S. typhi S. enterica
MeOH extract MIC 15.6 31.3 7.81 15.6 15.6 31.3 ND
MBC 31.25 62.5 15.6 ND ND ND ND
Ratio 2 2 2
1 MIC 3.12 12.5 1.56 3.12 3.12 6.25 3.12
MBC 6.25 25 3.12 6.25 6.25 12.5 6.25
Ratio 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
2/3 MIC 6.25 3.12 0.78 6.25 12.5 12.5 12.5
MBC 12.5 6.25 1.56 12.5 25 25 ND
Ratio 2 2 2 2 2 2
3 MIC / / 1.56 / / / /
MBC / / 6.25 / / / /
Ratio 4
4 MIC 6.25 3.12 1.56 3.12 12.5 6.25 6.25
MBC 12.5 12.5 6.25 6.25 ND 12.5 12.5
Ratio 2 4 4 2 2 2
5 MIC 12.5 3.12 1.56 12.5 1.56 6.25 12.5
MBC 25 6.25 3.25 25 6.25 12.5 ND
Ratio 2 2 2 2 4 2
6 MIC 12.5 3.12 1.56 6.25 12.5 12.5 3.12
MBC 25 6.25 6.25 12.5 25 25 12.5
Ratio 2 2 4 2 2 2 4
Ciprofloxacin MIC 1.56 1.56 1.56 1.56 1.56
MBC 1.56 1.56 1.56 1.56 1.56
Ratio 1 1 1 1 1
Fluconazole MIC 0.78 0.78
MBC 0.78 1.56
Ratio 1 2
  1. ND, Not determined; /, MIC or MBC > 125; —, μg mL−1 not tested.

2.3 Antioxidant activity

The in vitro antioxidant properties of crude extract and some of the isolated compounds along with standard drug (Gallic acid), using DPPH assays were reported in Table 3. Crude extract as well as compounds 1, 36 and the mixture of 2/3 exerted good scavenging capacities toward DPPH radical but not really significant with comparison to gallic acid. The scavenging capacity of each compound was similar except those of the compound 1 which had a SC50 of 4.72 ± 0.28 μg mL−1 which is similar to the gallic acid with a SC50 value of 2.86 ± 0.53 μg mL−1. This compound belongs to the phenolic group which is well known for their antioxidant capacities due to the formation of stable radical when they give hydrogen to the radical DPPH [21, 26]. The scavenging capacity of the other compounds may be attributed to the presence of carboxyl group that classifies them as organic acids which can share their hydrogen with the radical DPPH. Relation between phenolic and organic acids with antioxidant capacities has been reported earlier [13, 21, 22, 27].

Table 3:

Antioxidant activities of the MeOH extract some isolates and reference compound.

Samples SC50 (µg mL−1) Samples SC50 (µg mL−1)
MeOH extract 47.8 ± 4.13 4 50.44 ± 2.05
1 4.72 ± 0.28 5 49.44 ± 9.76
2/3 48.05 ± 5.24 6 52.44 ± 3.32
3 52.21 ± 3.23 Gallic acid 2.86 ± 0.53

In conclusion, the phytochemical investigation of the MeOH extract from the root bark of E. abyssinica led to the isolation and characterization of eight compounds including one new phenanthrene derivative trivially name phenentada. It appears that the methanol extract, phenentada (1) and the mixture of 2/3 possess the most antifungal and antibacterial properties. Regarding the antioxidant activity, compound 1 exhibited an activity similar to that of gallic acid. In order to verify the synergetic and/or antagonism effect of different constituents in the mixture 2/3 which were more active than ciprofloxacin used as reference drug, we will focused our future investigation on isolation of compound 2 followed by evaluation of the antibacterial activity on the same strain. Additionally, these results highlight the traditional use of E. abyssinica in the treatment of infectious diseases, especially those caused by the tested microorganisms. Therefore, further studies should be conducted such as the evaluation of the toxicity of the extracts and the isolated compounds with the elucidation of their mechanism of action in order to propose a plant-based preparation for phytomedicine.

3 Experimental section

3.1 General experimental procedures

Gravitational column chromatography (CC) was performed using silica gel (Macherey-Nagel) (Si gel) 60 (70–230 mesh), 60 (240–400 mesh) while precoated Si gel 60 F254 (Merck) aluminum plates were used for thin layer chromatography (TLC). Si gel CC was eluted with n-hexane, to which EtOAc and MeOH were gradually added to increase the polarity while TLC plate was eluted with mixtures of solvents such as. TLC plates were sprayed with 50% diluted sulfuric acid and heated at about 96 °C or visualized under UV lamp at 254 and 365 nm. All the reagents were of analytical grade. The HR-ESI-MS spectra were performed with a spectrometer (QTOF Bruker, Germany) equipped with a HR-ESI source. The spectrometer operates in positive ion mode (mass range: 100–1500, with a scan rate of 1.00) with automatic gain control to provide high-accuracy mass measurements within 0.40 ppm deviation using Na formate as calibrant. The following parameters were used for experiments: spray voltage of 4.5 kV, capillary temperature of 200 °C. Nitrogen was used as sheath gas (10 L/min). The spectrometer was attached to an Ultimate 3000 (Thermo Fisher, Germany) UHPLC system consisting of LC pump, Diode Array Detector (DAD) (λ = 190–600 nm), auto-sampler (injection volume 10 μL) and column oven (40 °C). The separations were performed using a Synergi MAX-RP 100 A (50 × 2 mm, 2.5 μm particle size) with a H2O (+0.1% HCOOH) (A)/acetonitrile (+0.1% HCOOH) (B) gradient (flow rate 500 μL/min, injection volume 5 μL). Samples were analyzed using a gradient program as follows: 95% A isocratic for 1.5 min, linear gradient to 100% B over 6 min, after 100% B isocratic for 2 min, the system returned to its initial condition (90% A) within 1 min and was equilibrated for 1 min. Infra-Red (IR) spectroscopy was performed on an Alpha spectrometer (Bruker, MA, USA). The spectra were recorded from 4000 to 600 cm−1 in attenuated total reflectance (ATR) mode on a diamond crystal. The NMR experiments were performed on Bruker Avance 600 and Bruker Avance 500 spectrometers (Bruker, Belguim) in CD3OD and in CDCl3, DMSO-d 6, and Pyridine-d 5 respectively containing tetramethylsilane (TMS) as the internal standard. The resulting solution will be filtered and then concentrated by the rotary evaporator (Rotavapor (BUCHI) R II) to give the crude extract.

3.2 Collection and identification

The roots bark of E. abyssinica Steud. ex A. Rich were collected separately in October 2019 from Babadjou (Mbouda), in the Western Region of Cameroon. Identification was made by Mr. Victor Nana, a botanist from the National Herbarium of Cameroon in Yaoundé by comparison to the existing voucher specimen HNC 10672/SFR/CAM.

3.3 Extraction and isolation

The roots bark of E. abyssinica was chopped, air-dried and ground. The resulting powder (2 kg) was extracted by maceration using MeOH (100%) for 72 h and then filtered. The filtrate

The 40 g of the crude extract was assessed on silica gel column chromatography method (70–230 μm (Merck)) eluted with a gradient mixture of n-hexane-EtOAc (from 100/0 v/v to 0/100 v/v) followed by a gradient mixture of EtOAc/MeOH (from 100/0 v/v to 0/100 v/v). Collected fractions were pooled out according to their TLC profiles: F1 (14.7 g), F2 (2.4 g), F3 (10.6 g) and F4 (5.3 g). Fraction F1 (14.7 g) was subjected to column chromatography and eluted with hexane/EtOAc (9/1–7/3, v/v) to yield three subfractions (F1A – F1C). F1A was assessed on silica gel column chromatography eluted with hexane/EtOAc (7/3, v/v) to afford compound 1 (15 mg) and compound 2/3 (10 mg). From sub-fractions F1B and F1C, compound 3 (20 mg) precipitated as white powder and purified. Based on their TLC profiles, fractions F2 and F3 were combined and subjected to silica gel CC using a gradient elution of hexane/EtOAc (100:0–90:10, v/v) to afford four subfractions (F2,3A–F2,3D). Compound 4 (8 mg) was isolated from subfraction F2,3D after repeated silica gel and Sephadex column chromatography and compounds 5 (18 mg), 6 (12 mg), 7 (10 mg) and 8 (5 mg) were isolated from subfraction F2,3A. The chemical structure was elucidated by spectrometric method with comparison with literature data.

3.3.1 2-(Hydroxymethoxy)-6,7-dimethoxyphenanthren-3-ol (phenendata) (1)

White powder. –UV (DMSO): 224 and 280 nm. –IR (DMSO): ν = 3382 (OH) and 1023 (C–O), 2920 cm−1. –1H NMR (600 MHz, DMSO-d 6): δ H = 8.91 (d, J = 9.1 Hz, 1H, H-9), 8.30 (d, J = 9.1 Hz, 1H, H-10), 8.32 (s, 1H, H-4), 7.89 (s, 1H, H-5), 8.38 (s, 1H, H-8), 7.76 (s, 1H, H-1), 6.36 (s, 2H, 2-O-CH2-O), 4.05 (s, 3H, 6-OMe), 4.24 (s, 3H, 7-OMe). –13C NMR (150 MHz, DMSO-d 6): 56.8 (6-OMe), 57.8 (7-OMe), 103.2 (2-O-CH2-O), 148.9 (C-2), 149.4 (C-3), 105.1 (C-4), 132.6 (C4a), 132.9 (C-4b), 109.2 (C-5), 152.0 (C-6), 158.7 (C-7), 103.8 (C-8), 124.6 (C-8a), 119.8 (C-9), 130.5 (C-10), 120.4 (C-10a) and 106.2 (C-1). –HRMS ((+)-ESI): m/z = 301.1047 (calcd. 301.1076 for C17H17O5, [M+H]+).

3.4 Antimicrobial activities assessment

3.4.1 Microorganisms

Crude extract and isolated compounds were tested for their antimicrobial activity against bacteria and yeast strains. The reference strains of microorganisms used in this study were obtained from BEI Resources and clinical isolates obtained from ‘Centre Pasteur’ of Cameroon. These microorganisms included two yeast viz C. parapsilosis, C. albicans and five bacterial species viz Staphylococcus epidermidis (Cocci Gram+), Pseudomonas aeruginosa (ATCC 27853), E. coli (ATCC 25922), S. typhi (ATCC 19430) and S. enterica (NR4294) (Bacille Gram (−)) as previously reported.

3.4.1.1 Preparation of stock solutions of fungal extracts and reference drugs

The stock solutions were prepared by dissolving 2 mg of sample in 2 mL of 10% dimethylsulfoxide (DMSO) in water and 1 mg of the standard drug in 10 mL of 10% (DMSO). Fluconazol and ciproflaxacin obtained from Sigma Aldrich were used as positive control respectively for antifungal and antibacterial assays.

3.4.2 Antimicrobial assay

The estimation of the antimicrobial activities of the extracts and the isolated compounds were done using the broth microdilution method and the Minimum Inhibitory Concentration (MIC) of each sample was determined following the Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI) guidelines M27-A3 for yeast (CLSI, 2008) and M7-A10 for bacteria reported by Wouamba et al. [28]. Each sample was first tested in triplicate at a concentration of 500 μg/mL, and then samples showing inhibition were subsequently assessed for a cumulative concentration in order to determine their MIC. Briefly, 50 µL of Sabouraud Dextrose Broth (SDB) or Mueller Hinton Broth (MHB) were introduced in a 96-well microplate respectively for yeasts and bacteria. 50 µL of extract/compound concentrated at 1000 μg mL−1 were added to wells of the first line. A serial two-fold dilution was made by transferring 50 µL of the mixture of the first wells to the next one up to the last, final concentrations varying from 500 to 1.56 μg mL−1. Then, 50 mL of an inoculum of 105 cells/mL for yeast and 106 cells/mL for bacteria were introduced in all the wells except those of the sterility control. Fluconazole and ciprofloxacin were used as positive control respectively for fungal and bacteria with a concentration varying from 100–0.78 μg mL−1. The mixtures were incubated for 24 and 48 h for bacterial and fungal respectively. The lowest concentration of extract/compound that inhibited the visible growth of a microorganism was defined as minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC). The classification of criteria of the antibacterial activity of extract, fraction and compounds were based on the MIC threshold reported by Kuete [20]. The ratio MBC/MIC was calculated in order to determine the sample action method (bactericidal for a ratio ≤4) or (bacteriostatic for a ratio >4).

3.4.3 Antioxidant assays

3.4.3.1 DPPH free radical scavenging assay

Antiradical protocol is based on the decrease of the absorbance of the 2,2′-diphenyl-1-picrylhy-drazyl (DPPH) radical in the presence of anti-radical compounds measured at the wavelength of 517 nm. This was done according the method described by Brand-William and co-workers with slight modification in 1995 [29]. Samples (extracts and isolated compounds) and gallic acid, dissolved in methanol, were tested at the range of concentration between 100 and 1.56 μg mL−1 and 20–0.78 μg mL−1 respectively in triplicate. A volume of 100 µL of the tested sample or standard was added in 900 µL of DPPH solution (50 mM). Methanol was used as blank. The scavenging capacity (SC) of the tested sample was calculated using the following formula: SC (%) = 100 × (A0 – A1)/A0, where A0 and A1 are the absorbance values for negative control (DPPH solution) and sample at 517 nm. The SC50 (scavenging capacity at 50%) values of sample and gallic acid were calculated by linear regression.

4 Supporting information

UV, IR, NMR and HR-ESI-MS spectra are given as supplementary material available online (https://doi.org/10.1515/znb-2021-0076).


Corresponding author: Larissa M. Magnibou, Department of Chemistry, Faculty of Science, University of Ngaoundéré, P. O. Box 454, Ngaoundéré, Cameroon, E-mail:

Acknowledgements

The University of Ngaoundéré for providing some consumables; YaBiNaPA project (Yaounde-Bielefeld Graduate School of Natural Products with Antiparasite and Antibacterial activities) for some MS analysis and the databases made available; Dr. Tchinda Alembert and the University of Yaoundé I for the antimicrobial and antioxidant tests.

  1. Author contributions: All the authors have accepted responsibility for the entire content of this submitted manuscript and approved submission.

  2. Research funding: None declared.

  3. Conflict of interest statement: No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

References

1. Mohammed, R. S. A. Ph.D. Thesis, Erasmus University at Rotterdam, Rotterdam, 2007.Search in Google Scholar

2. Souza, M. V. N. Fitoterapia 2009, 80, 453–460; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fitote.2009.07.010.Search in Google Scholar

3. Pohanka, M. Folia Microbiol. 2013, 58, 503–513; https://doi.org/10.1007/s12223-013-0239-5.Search in Google Scholar

4. Leutcha, B. P., Sema, D. K., Dzoyem, J. P., Ayimele, G. A., Nyongbela, K. D., Delie, F., Alléman, E., Sewald, N., Lannang, A. M. Nat. Prod. Res. 2020, 1–6; https://doi.org/10.1080/14786419.2020.1723085.Search in Google Scholar

5. Nyasse, B., Ngantchou, I., Tchana, E. M., Sonké, B., Denier, C., Fontaine, C. Pharmazie 2004, 59, 873–875.Search in Google Scholar

6. Tchinda, A. T., Fuendjiep, V., Mekonnen, Y., Ngo, B. B., Dagne, E. Nat. Prod. Commun. 2007, 2, 9–12; https://doi.org/10.1177/1934578x0700200103.Search in Google Scholar

7. Melong, R., Kapche, D. G. F. W., Feussi, M. T., Laatsch, H. Nat. Prod. Commun. 2014, 9, 1499–1502; https://doi.org/10.1177/1934578x1400901024.Search in Google Scholar

8. Fodouop, S. P. C., Simo, R. T., Amvene, J. M., Talla, E., Etet, P. F. S., Takam, P., Kamdje, A. H. N., Muller, J. M. J. Dis. Med. Plants 2015, 1, 8–18.Search in Google Scholar

9. Olajide, O. A., Alada, A. R. Fitoterapia 2001, 72, 492–496; https://doi.org/10.1016/s0367-326x(01)00273-8.Search in Google Scholar

10. Teke, G. N., Lunga, P. K., Wabo, H. K., Kuiate, J-. R., Vilarem, G., Giacinti, G., Kikuchi, H., Oshima, Y. BMC Compl. Alternative Med. 2011, 11, 57–64; https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6882-11-57.Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

11. Chanakul, W., Tuchinda, P., Anantachoke, N., Pohmakotr, M., Piyachaturawat, P., Jariyawat, S., Suksen, K., Jaipetch, T., Nuntasaen, N., Reutrakul, V. Fitoterapia 2011, 82, 964–968; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fitote.2011.05.012.Search in Google Scholar PubMed

12. Xue, Z., Li, S., Wang, S., Wang, Y., Yang, Y., Shi, J., He, L. J. Nat. Prod. 2006, 69, 907–913; https://doi.org/10.1021/np060087n.Search in Google Scholar PubMed

13. Kovács, A., Vasas, A., Hohmann, J. Phytochemistry 2008, 69, 1084–1110; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.phytochem.2007.12.005.Search in Google Scholar PubMed

14. Lv, S.-S., Chen, Fu. Y. J., Jiao, Y., Chen, S-. Q. Nat. Prod. Res. 2020, 1–12; https://doi.org/10.1080/14786419.2020.1862836.Search in Google Scholar PubMed

15. Tchegnitegni, B. T., Teponno, R. B., Tanaka, C., GabrielTapondjou, A. F. L. A., Miyamoto, T. Phytochem. Lett. 2015, 12, 262–266; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.phytol.2015.04.017.Search in Google Scholar

16. Tchegnitegni, B. T., Teponno, R. B., Jenett-Siems, K., Melzig, M. F., Miyamoto, T., Tapondjou, L. A. Z. Naturforscher 2017, 72c, 477–482; https://doi.org/10.1515/znc-2017-0027.Search in Google Scholar PubMed

17. Chaturvedula, V. S. P., Prakash, I. Int. Curr. Pharmaceut. J. 2012, 1, 239–242; https://doi.org/10.3329/icpj.v1i9.11613.Search in Google Scholar

18. Choi, J. M., Lee, E. O., Lee, H. J., Kim, K. H., Ahn, K. S., Shim, B. S., Kim, N. I., Song, M. C., Baek, N. I., Kim, S. H. Phytother Res. 2007, 21, 954–959; https://doi.org/10.1002/ptr.2189.Search in Google Scholar PubMed

19. Tran, Q. T. N., Wong, W. S. F., Chai, C. L. L. Pharmacol. Res. 2017, 124, 43–63; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.phrs.2017.07.019.Search in Google Scholar PubMed

20. Kuete, V. Planta Med 2010, 76, 1479–1491; https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0030-1250027.Search in Google Scholar PubMed

21. Harun, A., Mat So’ad, S. Z., Hassan, N. M. Malaysian J. Anal. Sci. 2015, 19, 752–759.Search in Google Scholar

22. Baidoo, M. F., Mensaha, A. Y., Ossei, P. P. S., Asante-Kwatia, E., Amponsah, I. K. S. Afr. J. Bot. 2021, 137, 52–59; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sajb.2020.09.037.Search in Google Scholar

23. Dzoyem, J. P., Melong, R., Tsamo, A. T., Tchinda, A. T., Kapche, D. G. W. F., Ngadjui, B. T., McGaw, L. J., Elof, J. N. BMC Res. Notes 2017, 10, 1–6; https://doi.org/10.1186/s13104-017-2441-z.Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

24. Gatsing, D., Adoga, G. I. Res. J. Microbiol. 2007, 2, 876–880.Search in Google Scholar

25. Tamokou, J. D., Mbaveng, T. A., Kuete, V. Elsevier 2017, 8, 207–237; https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-12-809286-6.00008-x.Search in Google Scholar

26. Tombozara, N., Donno, D., Razafindrakoto, Z. R., Randriamampionona, D., Ramanitrahasimbola, D., Andrianjara, C., Ramilison-Razafimahefa, R. D., Rakotondramanana, D. A., Beccaro, G. L. S. Afr. J. Bot. 2020, 130, 422–429; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sajb.2020.01.035.Search in Google Scholar

27. Donno, D., Cerutti, A. K., Mellano, M. G., Prgomet, Z., Beccaro, G. L. J. Funct. Foods 2016, 26, 157–166; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jff.2016.07.014.Search in Google Scholar

28. Wouamba, S. C. N., Happi, G. M., Pouofo, M. N., Tchamgoue, J., Jouda, J.-B., Longo, F., Lenta, B. N., Sewald, N., Kouam, S. F. Chem. Biodivers. 2020, 17, e2000296.Search in Google Scholar

29. Brand-Williams, W., Cuvelier, M. E., Berset, C. Food Sci. Technol. 1995, 28, 25–33; https://doi.org/10.1016/s0023-6438(95)80008-5.Search in Google Scholar


Supplementary Material

The online version of this article offers supplementary material (https://doi.org/10.1515/znb-2021-0076).


Received: 2021-05-25
Accepted: 2021-08-31
Published Online: 2021-10-11
Published in Print: 2022-01-27

© 2021 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston

Downloaded on 28.9.2025 from https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1515/znb-2021-0076/html
Scroll to top button