In vitro antibacterial, antioxidant, in silico molecular docking and ADEMT analysis of chemical constituents from the roots of Acokanthera schimperi and Rhus glutinosa

Abstract Acokanthera schimperi is a medicinal plant traditionally used for the treatment of wounds, scabies, and malaria. Rhus glutinosa has been also utilized for the management of ectoparasites and hemorrhoids. Silica gel column chromatography separation of CH 2 Cl 2 /MeOH (1:1) extract root of A. schimperi afforded oleic acid ( 1 ), lupeol ( 2 ), dihydroferulic acid ( 3 ), acovenosigenin A- 3-O-α-L-rhamnopyranoside ( 4 ) and sucrose ( 5 ) whereas CH 2 Cl 2 / MeOH (1:1) and MeOH roots extracts of R. glutinosa afforded β-sitosterol ( 6 ), (E)-5-(heptadec-14-en-1-yl)-4,5-dihydroxycyclohex-2-enone ( 7 ), methyl gallate ( 8 ), and gallic acid ( 9 ). The structures of the compounds were established using spectroscopic (1D and 2D NMR) and FT-IR techniques. Disc diffusin and DPPH assay were used, respectively, to evaluate the antibacterial and antioxidant potential of the extracts and isolated compounds. MeOH extract root of A. schimperi showed a modest antibacterial effect against E.coli with an inhibition zone (ZI) of 16 ± 0.0 mm compared to ciprofloxacin (ZI of 27.0 ± 0.0 mm). CH 2 Cl 2 /MeOH (1:1) and MeOH root extracts of R. glutinosa showed maximum activity against S. aureus with ZI of 17.3 ± 0.04 and 18.0 ± 0.0 mm, respectively. At 5 mg/mL, the highest activity was noted against S. aureus by 8 with ZI of 18.6 ± 0.08 mm. Dihydroferulic acid ( 3 ), methyl gallate ( 8 ), and gallic acid ( 9 ) displayed potent scavenging of DPPH radical with respective IC 50 of 10.66, 7.48, and 6.08 µg/mL, compared with ascorbic acid (IC 50 of 5.83 µg/mL). Molecular docking results showed that lupeol ( 2 ) exhibited strong binding energy of -7.7 and − 10 kcal/mol towards PDB ID: 4F86 and PDB ID: 3T07, respectively, compared to ciprofloxacin (-6.5 and − 7.2 kcal/mole). Towards PDB ID: 1DNU receptor, compounds 3 , 8 , and 9 showed minimum binding energy of -5.1, -4.8, and − 4.9 kcal/mol, respectively, compared to ascorbic acid (-5.7 kcal/mol). The Swiss ADME prediction results indicated that compounds 2 , 3 , 8 , and 9 obeyed the Lipinksi rule of five and Veber rule with 0 violations. The in vitro antibacterial and antioxidant results supported by in silico analysis indicated that compounds 2 , 3 , 8 , and 9 can potentially be lead candidates for the treatment of pathogenic and free radical-induced disorders.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Applied Biological Chemistry
Published
2024-09-02
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s13765-024-00930-6
Citations
6
Primary Topic
Medicinal Plant Research
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
3.60

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

In vitro antibacterial, antioxidant, in silico molecular docking and ADEMT analysis of chemical constituents from the roots of Acokanthera schimperi and Rhus glutinosa

Bihon Abera, Yadessa Melaku, Mo Hunsen, Negera Abdissa et al.
6 citations
Applied Biological Chemistry
Medicinal Plant Research
3.60
article

In vitro antibacterial, antioxidant, in silico molecular docking and ADEMT analysis of chemical constituents from the roots of Acokanthera schimperi and Rhus glutinosa

Bihon Abera, Yadessa Melaku, Mo Hunsen, Negera Abdissa, Aman Dekebo, Milkyas Endale, Messay Wolde‐Mariam, Kebede Shenkute, Temesgen Negassa
article en
6 citations

Abstract

Abstract Acokanthera schimperi is a medicinal plant traditionally used for the treatment of wounds, scabies, and malaria. Rhus glutinosa has been also utilized for the management of ectoparasites and hemorrhoids. Silica gel column chromatography separation of CH 2 Cl 2 /MeOH (1:1) extract root of A. schimperi afforded oleic acid ( 1 ), lupeol ( 2 ), dihydroferulic acid ( 3 ), acovenosigenin A- 3-O-α-L-rhamnopyranoside ( 4 ) and sucrose ( 5 ) whereas CH 2 Cl 2 / MeOH (1:1) and MeOH roots extracts of R. glutinosa afforded β-sitosterol ( 6 ), (E)-5-(heptadec-14-en-1-yl)-4,5-dihydroxycyclohex-2-enone ( 7 ), methyl gallate ( 8 ), and gallic acid ( 9 ). The structures of the compounds were established using spectroscopic (1D and 2D NMR) and FT-IR techniques. Disc diffusin and DPPH assay were used, respectively, to evaluate the antibacterial and antioxidant potential of the extracts and isolated compounds. MeOH extract root of A. schimperi showed a modest antibacterial effect against E.coli with an inhibition zone (ZI) of 16 ± 0.0 mm compared to ciprofloxacin (ZI of 27.0 ± 0.0 mm). CH 2 Cl 2 /MeOH (1:1) and MeOH root extracts of R. glutinosa showed maximum activity against S. aureus with ZI of 17.3 ± 0.04 and 18.0 ± 0.0 mm, respectively. At 5 mg/mL, the highest activity was noted against S. aureus by 8 with ZI of 18.6 ± 0.08 mm. Dihydroferulic acid ( 3 ), methyl gallate ( 8 ), and gallic acid ( 9 ) displayed potent scavenging of DPPH radical with respective IC 50 of 10.66, 7.48, and 6.08 µg/mL, compared with ascorbic acid (IC 50 of 5.83 µg/mL). Molecular docking results showed that lupeol ( 2 ) exhibited strong binding energy of -7.7 and − 10 kcal/mol towards PDB ID: 4F86 and PDB ID: 3T07, respectively, compared to ciprofloxacin (-6.5 and − 7.2 kcal/mole). Towards PDB ID: 1DNU receptor, compounds 3 , 8 , and 9 showed minimum binding energy of -5.1, -4.8, and − 4.9 kcal/mol, respectively, compared to ascorbic acid (-5.7 kcal/mol). The Swiss ADME prediction results indicated that compounds 2 , 3 , 8 , and 9 obeyed the Lipinksi rule of five and Veber rule with 0 violations. The in vitro antibacterial and antioxidant results supported by in silico analysis indicated that compounds 2 , 3 , 8 , and 9 can potentially be lead candidates for the treatment of pathogenic and free radical-induced disorders.

Applied Biological ChemistryVol. 67(1)
Kenyon College (US), Armauer Hansen Research Institute (ET), Adama Science and Technology University (ET)
Adama Science and Technology University
Good health and well-being
Openalex Percentile: Top 8%
Medicinal Plant Research
3.60
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.