Aim
The plant species reported here are traditionally used in Northern Peru to treat bacterial infections, often addressed by the local healers as “inflammation”. The aim of this study was to evaluate the Minimum Inhibitory Concentration (MIC) of their antibacterial properties against Gram-positive and Gram-negative bacteria.
Materials and methods
The antimicrobial activity of ethanolic and water extracts of 141 plant species was determined using a deep-well broth microdilution method on commercially available bacterial strains.
Results
The ethanolic extracts of 51 species inhibited Escherichia coli, and 114 ethanolic extracts inhibited Staphylococcus aureus. In contrast, only 30 aqueous extracts showed activity against E. coli and 38 extracts against S. aureus. The MIC concentrations were mostly very high and ranged from 0.008 to 256mg/ml, with only 36 species showing inhibitory concentrations of <4mg/ml. The ethanolic extracts exhibited stronger activity and a much broader spectrum of action than the aqueous extracts. Hypericum laricifolium, Hura crepitans, Caesalpinia paipai, Cassia fistula, Hyptis sidifolia, Salvia sp., Banisteriopsis caapi, Miconia salicifolia and Polygonum hydropiperoides showed the lowest MIC values and would be interesting candidates for future research.
Conclusions
The presence of antibacterial activity could be confirmed in most species used in traditional medicine in Peru which were assayed in this study. However, the MIC for the species employed showed a very large range, and were mostly very high. Nevertheless, traditional knowledge might provide some leads to elucidate potential candidates for future development of new antibiotic agents.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.