Skip to main content

Phytochemical analysis of medicinal plants of Nepal and their antibacterial and antibiofilm activities against uropathogenic Escherichia coli

Abstract

Background

A biofilm is an extracellular polymeric substance (EPS) composed of polysaccharides, proteins, nucleic acids, and lipids that impede antibiotics and immune cells, thus providing a shielded environment for bacterial growth. Due to biofilm formation, some microbes can show up to 1000 fold increased resistance towards the antibiotics than the normal planktonic forms. The study was conducted to screen the crude extracts of medicinal plants used in Nepal for their in vitro antibiofilm activities.

Methods

Total phenolic and total flavonoid contents were determined by using a Folin-Ciocalteau reagent and aluminium trichloride method, respectively. Resazurin assay was used to determine the minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) and minimum bactericidal concentration (MBC). The initial antibiofilm activities and their inhibitory concentration (IC50) values were determined by the microtiter based modified crystal violet staining method.

Results

Out of 25 different plant extracts were used for the study, methanolic extracts of 20 plants showed a biofilm inhibition activity against five different strong biofilm producing Escherichia coli strains. Calotropis gigantea exhibited inhibition against all five different E. coli strains with IC50 values ranging from 299.7 ± 20.5 to 427.4 ± 2.7 μg/mL. Apart from that, Eclipta prostrata also showed biofilm formation inhibition, followed by Eupatorium adenophorum, Moringa oleifera, Ocimum tenuifolium, Oxalis lantifolia, Prunus persica, and Urtica parviflora. The extracts of C. gigantea, E. prostrata, Mangifera indica, O. tenuifolium, P. persica, and U. parviflora exhibited a moderate to poor MIC value ranging from 625 to 2500 μg/mL. The highest amount of phenolic content (TPC) was found in Acacia catechu followed by Morus alba, which was 38.9 and 25.1 mg gallic acid equivalents, respectively. The highest amount of flavonoid content was found in A. catechu followed by M. indica, which was 27.1 and 20.8 mg quercetin equivalents, respectively.

Conclusion

Extracts of C. gigantea, E. prostrata, P. persica, U. parviflora, and O. tenuifolium showed antibacterial as well as antibiofilm activity against pathogenic and strong biofilm producing E. coli. Thus, extracts or the pure compound from these medicinal plants could be used as antibiotics in the future.

Peer Review reports

Background

Antibiotics are compounds that either stop bacteria from multiplying (bacteriostatic agents) or kill them entirely (bactericidal agents). These compounds effectively reduce or eliminate bacterial populations by blocking critical bacterial cellular processes [1]. However, the antimicrobials in today’s world hit a critical level and are a global concern due to the resistance mechanism exhibited by microorganisms [2].

Bacteria that show resistance to different types of antibiotics are now a severe problem with medical interventions resulting in prolonged hospitalization and recurrent infections [3]. Similarly, biofilm formation is one of the mechanisms by which bacteria possess tolerance towards drugs [4]. The biofilm in bacteria smartly creates both physical and chemical barriers so that these antimicrobials unable to penetrate the bacterial cell. For example, ciprofloxacin binds to specific components of biofilm of P. aeruginosa and cannot enter the cell. Thus, the biofilm acts as a barrier to the ciprofloxacin; an antibacterial agent [5]. Bacteria gain the ability to resist antibiotics, chlorine bleach, glutaraldehyde, and other chemical disinfectants due to biofilms [6]. Furthermore, biofilm help to resist various factors like pH, nutrients scarcity, osmolarity, mechanical, and shear forces [7,8,9]. It also restricts antibiotics and frustrates the host’s immune cells [10, 11]. Therefore, biofilm provides higher resistance as compared to only antibiotic resistance [12]. Biofilm may make a favorable environment for horizontal gene transfer with high cell density, accumulation of genetic elements, increased genetic competence, and uptake of resistance genes [8, 13]. Due to these various reasons, there is a positive correlation between biofilm production and extended-spectrum beta-lactamase (ESBL) production that confers resistance to antibiotics [14].

Nosocomial and healthcare-associated infections are one of the leading causes of death in the USA [15]. Biofilm production by bacteria is related to about 65% of nosocomial infections and 80% of other infectious diseases [15, 16]. The manifestation of biofilm-associated infection progress from an acute to chronic illness, and may persist for an extended period [17]. Biofilm formation and antibiotic resistance by microorganisms have prompted researchers to search for new drug candidates [18].. There is less effective or no ideal biofilm inhibitor available, and the search for new ones is on demand. Several bioactive compounds and herbal medicines are derived from plant sources. Therefore, the discovery of ideal biofilm disruptors can be based on plant origin [19,20,21,22,23,24]. This study aimed to investigate the antibacterial as well as antibiofilm activity along with phytochemical screening from methanolic extracts of different selected medicinal plants from Nepal using in vitro assays.

Methods

Chemicals and materials

Dimethyl sulfoxide (DMSO) and methanol were purchased from Fisher Scientific. Gallic acid, quercetin, ciprofloxacin, and resazurin were purchased from Sigma-Aldrich. Muller Hinton Broth (MHB), Muller Hinton Agar (MHA), Tryptone Soy Broth (TSB), and crystal violet (CV) were purchased from Hi-media.

Bacterial strains

Five different uropathogenic clinical E. coli strains (EC1-EC5) were used, which were found to be strong biofilm producers. Their biofilm-forming capabilities, antibacterial susceptibility testing pattern and molecular identification were confirmed in our previous study [14].

Collection of plant materials and storage

All plants were collected based on the traditional medicinal uses and ethnomedicinal knowledge of ethnic people from different parts of Nepal. All plant materials were identified by professional taxonomists at National Herbarium and Plant Laboratories, Godawari, Lalitpur, Nepal. The voucher specimens were deposited in the Department of Botany, National College, Khusibu, Kathmandu, and mentioned in Table 1. The collected plant materials were shade dried at room temperature before pulverization.

Table 1 Plants used for the study along with their site of collection and voucher code, plant parts used for the study, and percentage yield (%)

Extraction

For the extraction, the plant materials were firstly ground into a fine powder using a grinding machine (Model 404, Wayal Industries, India). The extraction was done by the cold percolation method [25]. The powder of different plants was soaked in methanol for 24 h at room temperature for three successive days. Each day, the dissolved extracts were filtered through Whatman filter paper (No. 1), collected, and then evaporated at reduced pressure below 50 °C using a rotary evaporator (Biobase Re-2010, China). The working solution was prepared in 50% DMSO. The plant extracts stock solutions were maintained at 4 °C in the refrigerator until use [26]. The percentage of yield was calculated by the following formula:

$$ \mathrm{Percentage}\ \mathrm{of}\ \mathrm{yield}\ \left(\%\right)=\left(\frac{\ \mathrm{Dry}\ \mathrm{weight}\ \mathrm{of}\ \mathrm{extract}}{\ \mathrm{Dry}\ \mathrm{weight}\ \mathrm{of}\ \mathrm{a}\ \mathrm{plant}}\right)\times 100 $$

Qualitative phytochemical screening

All the plant extracts were diluted into 10 mg/mL from the stock solution in 50% DMSO using clean test tubes [27]. Screening of steroids, alkaloids, glycosides, tannins, flavonoids, terpenoids, and phenols was done as described in previous protocols [28,29,30,31].

Determination of total phenolic content (TPC)

The total phenolic content of the extracts was determined using the Folin-Ciocalteu reagent, as previously described with slight modification [32, 33]. In brief, 20 μL of different concentration of the standard (10–80 μg/mL, gallic acid) and 20 μL of plant extract (500 μg/mL) was added separately with 100 μL of Folin-Ciocalteu (1:10 v/v diluted with distilled water) followed by 80 μL Na2CO3 (1 M) in each well. Then, the plate was left in the dark for 30 min, and absorbance was measured at 765 nm with a spectrophotometer (Epoch2, BioTek, Instruments, Inc., USA). Gallic acid (10–80 μg/mL) was used for constructing the standard curve.

Determination of total flavonoid content (TFC)

The total flavonoid content (TFC) of plant extracts was determined by the colorimetric method with certain modifications [34]. Shortly, 130 μL of different concentrations of the standard (10–80 μg/mL quercetin) and 20 μL of plant extracts (500 μg/mL) with 110 μL of distilled water was added separately with 60 μL ethanol, 5 μL aluminum trichloride (AlCl3, 10%) and 5 μL potassium acetate (1 M) in each well. It was then left in the dark for 30 min, and absorbance was recorded at 415 nm with a UV-visible spectrophotometer (Epoch2, BioTek, Instruments, Inc., USA). Quercetin (10–80 μg/mL) was used for constructing the standard curve.

Determination of minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) and minimum bactericidal concentrations (MBC)

The MIC was determined by adapting a previously described protocol [35,36,37] with some modifications. Firstly, 100 μL of MHB was added to each well of a sterile microtiter plate. In column 1, 100 μL plant extracts were added, and serially diluted down the column by two-fold till row H and finally, 100 μL from the last well was removed to maintain the final volume of each well to 100 μL. Then, 100 μL of ciprofloxacin (0.4 mg/mL) was added, and then serially diluted up to 0.0031 mg/mL by two-fold in another column as a positive control. The bacterial culture media only were added as the control. The bacterial suspension culture was maintained at a final concentration of 106 CFU/mL by diluting 1:100 the 0.5 McFarland turbidity culture in MHB. Finally, 2 μL of bacteria was added to each well except in the negative control well.

Then, the plates were incubated for 24 h at 37 °C and 30 μL resazurin (0.002%) was added to each well and further incubated for 4 h, and the plates were examined for color change. Those wells having a purple color indicated dead cells or no viable bacteria, while the pink color indicated the viable cells and MIC value noted. The MBC was determined by streaking the content of wells onto MHA plates with incubation of over 18 h at 37 °C.

Biofilm formation inhibition assay and the determination of inhibitory concentration (IC50) value

The biofilm formation inhibition capabilities were evaluated according to the previously described protocol [27, 38, 39] with slight modifications. Escherichia coli was cultured on TSB and incubated at 37 °C till the culture turbidity matched (0.5 McFarland), and diluted on fresh and sterile TSB as 1:100 dilutions. Then, 100 μL of bacterial culture was added to each well of a 96-well microtiter plate and incubated for 4 h at 37 °C to allow cell attachment. Following incubation, 100 μL of each plant extracts at a final concentration of 500 μg/mL was added to each well. An equal volume of ciprofloxacin with a final concentration of 1.25 μg/mL was added as a positive control and MHB as negative control instead of plant extracts. In blank wells, 200 μL of MHB was used without a bacteria culture to ensure the sterility of the experiment. The plates were covered with a lid and incubated at 37 °C for 48 h. The concentration of plant extracts and ciprofloxacin was maintained below their MIC value.

After incubation, the cultures were decanted on a paper towel, rinsed two times with 200 μL sterile phosphate buffer saline (PBS) of pH 7.2. Then, the plates were heat-fixed by incubating at 60 °C for 1 h. Then, the plates were stained with 0.1% crystal violet (CV) solution for 20 min at room temperature. After CV staining, plates were washed three times with PBS of pH 7.2 to free the stain from the microtiter plates. Then, the plates were air-dried and de-stained with 200 μL of 95% ethanol (v/v) for about 30 min. Finally, the absorbance was taken at 590 nm.

The percentage of inhibition of biofilm formation was calculated by using the following formula.

$$ \mathrm{Percentage}\ \mathrm{of}\ \mathrm{inhibition}\ \left(\%\right)=\left(\frac{\mathrm{OD}\ \left(\mathrm{Negative}\ \mathrm{Control}\right)-\mathrm{OD}\left(\mathrm{Experimental}\right)}{\mathrm{OD}\kern0.5em \left(\mathrm{Negative}\ \mathrm{Control}\right)}\right)\times 100 $$

Finally, IC50 was calculated based on percentage inhibition with the different concentrations of plant extract (500–100 μg/mL) [20, 40, 41]. Each inhibition assay was performed in triplicate and done twice to check the reproducibility of the result.

Statistical analysis

All the experiments were done in triplicate. The results are presented as mean ± standard by Microsoft Excel. The IC50 value was calculated using the EZ-Fit program (Perellela Scientific, Inc., Amherst, Mars, USA). One way ANOVA test was done to compare MIC/MBC and IC50 values of crude extract and the positive control (ciprofloxacin) using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) version 19.0 software (IBM), and P values < 0.05 were considered significant.

Results

Plants extract yield

The yield percentage of plant extracts varies from the highest of S. robusta (24%) followed by A. catechu (23%) and H. uralum (22.8%). While A. marmelos (5.5%) extract exhibited the lowest percentage yield. All the data on the percentage of yield and parts used for the study are mentioned in Table 1.

Phytochemical screening

Phytochemical screening revealed the presence of different phytochemical components such as steroids, terpenoids, flavonoids, tannins, phenols, glycosides, and alkaloids. The glycosides, flavonoids, phenols, and steroids were found to be present in all of the plants screened for the test (Table 2).

Table 2 Qualitative phytochemical screening of medicinal plants used for the study

Total phenolic content (TPC) and total flavonoid content (TFC)

Methanolic extract of A. catechu showed the highest TPC value of 38.9 ± 0.09 mg GAE/gm and extract of M. oleifera showed the lowest TPC value of 0.4 ± 0.01 mg GAE/gm. The extract of A. catechu showed the highest TFC value of 27.1 ± 0.12 mg QE/gm and the extract of C. camphora showed the lowest TFC value of 1.1 ± 0.04 mg QE/gm (Table 3).

Table 3 The semi-quantitative detection of TPC and TFC of medicinal plants used for the study

Antibacterial activity (MIC and MBC)

The extracts of C. gigantea, E. prostrata, M. indica, O. tenuifolium, P. persica, and U. parviflora exhibited a moderate to poor MIC value ranging from 0.625 mg/mL to 2.5 mg/mL and presented in Table 4.

Table 4 Minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) and Minimum bactericidal concentration (MBC) of plant extract against E. coli test strains

Biofilm formation inhibition

The extracts of C. gigantea, E. prostrata, and M. oleifera have shown more than 60% of biofilm inhibition in most of the E. coli strains as presented in Table 5. Eclipta prostata showed 72.4% inhibition against EC1, which was the highest among methanolic extract of all plants. Meanwhile, S. robusta showed the lowest (25.9%) biofilm inhibition.

Table 5 Effect of methanol crude extracts of selected plants against biofilm formation by uropathogenic E. coli

The 8 among 25 plant extracts were selected to calculate their inhibitory concentration (IC50) values against respective bacterial strains based on the preliminary result of biofilm inhibition. Nyctanthes arbortristis (IC50 = 246.2 ± 22.9 μg/mL) followed by E. prostrata (289.5 ± 12.3 μg/mL) and C. gigantean (299.7 ± 20.5 μg/mL) showed a moderate biofilm inhibition against EC4 as compared to ciprofloxacin (1.9 ± 0.1 μg/mL). Similarly, E. prostrata (IC50 = 303.1 ± 16.7 μg/mL) followed by C. gigantea (389.8 ± 7.5 μg/mL) and P. persica with (445.4 ± 8.1 μg/mL) showed a moderate biofilm inhibition against EC1 as compared to ciprofloxacin (1.8 ± 0.2 μg/mL) (Table 6).

Table 6 Biofilm formation inhibition (IC50) of methanolic extracts against E. coli test strains

Discussion

Plants are the foundation for many pharmaceuticals however only a small fraction of plant species have been investigated for the presence of antimicrobial compounds [42]. Methanol is the choice of solvent because polar and moderately polar compounds like terpenoids, tannins, flavones, and polyphenols can be extracted by methanol [43, 44]. The bioactivity of plant extracts varies based on the geographical source, harvest time, storage conditions, soil conditions, drying method, etc. [45, 46]. The phytoconstituents of the plant are responsible for the inhibition of biofilm, such as glycoside acts by breaking the larger polysaccharides present in EPS into smaller monomeric subunits. Alkaloids and their derivatives disrupt fimbriae and other adhesions used for cell adhesion and biofilm formation, while tannic acid inhibits quorum-sensing (QS) systems in various Gram-negative bacteria [11, 20, 40]. The capacity of antibacterial components to inhibit the initial biofilm formation holds an assurance for minimizing the surface colonization by microbes [47].

A low concentration of the extracts may be enough to prevent the biofilm attachment process, while a higher concentration may be required to disrupt preformed biofilm [48]. Calotropis gigantea indicated the presence of alkaloids, flavonoids, glycosides, saponins, tannins, steroids, triterpenoids, and phenols (Table 2 and Table 3). The synergistic effect of these phytoconstituents might be responsible for antibacterial as well as biofilm formation inhibition [49].

The study conducted by Suga and Smith, in 2003 found that the extracts of E. prostrata contain several phytochemicals like tannic acid, alkaloids, caffeic acid, which act as effective quorum sensing inhibitors [50]. Quorum-sensing, in particular, autoinducer-2 mediated cell-cell signaling, was proposed as a significant regulatory factor for biofilm production in E. coli [51]. Ellagitannin, a natural product from various medicinal plants, has also shown anti-quorum sensing activity against various Gram-negative bacteria, including P. aeruginosa [52]. Besides the effect on the QS process, many compounds isolated from plant extracts such as proanthocyanidins, licochalcone A, 1-deoxynojirimycin (DNJ), hydroxychavicol, macelignan, panduratin, 3,12-oleandione had shown biofilm inhibition [53,54,55,56,57]. Also, different phenolic compounds isolated from plants like gallic acid, chlorogenic acid, and quercetin inhibit quorum sensing activity, which is a major step for biofilm formation in both Gram-positive and Gram-negative microorganisms [58].

Ursolic acid, a constituent of O. tenuifolium, has been found to modulate the genes, cheA, tap, tar, motAB, hslSTV, and mopAB, which are responsible for chemotaxis, mobility, and heat shock response, and ultimately affects biofilm formation [59]. The motility genes, and AI-2 quorum sensing genes in Enterohemorrhagic Escherichia coli O157: H7 (EHEC) has been found to be affected by plant extracts [60, 61]. Therefore, the biofilm formation inhibition mechanism may be through the modulation of genes as well.

Molecules with a lower MIC value for antimicrobial, and lower IC50 value for antibiofilm activities could be potent antibiotic. The lowest IC50 value was exhibited by N. arbortristis among all the tested plant extracts (Table 6), and it also showed a lower MIC value against the EC4 strain (Table 4). A similar pattern was seen in C. gigantea. It seems there is a positive correlation between MIC and IC50 values, however, these data are not sufficient to conclude.

Although A. catechu was found to be rich in phenols, flavonoids (Table 2) and contained all the tested phytochemicals (Table 3), it was not giving the best result as an antimicrobial and biofilm inhibitor. The extract of C. gigantea exhibited the best result during our study and antiarol, blumenol A, mudarine, calotropin, uscharin, and calotoxin are the reported fully characterized molecules isolated from C. gigantea [62]. Furthermore, the major constituents of E. prostrata are phytosterol, beta-amyrin, polyacetylene, caffeic acid, stigmasterol, and daucosterol [63]. Similarly, the major constituents of P. persica are vesveratrol, silymarin, quercetin, curcumin, β-sitosterol, and prunasin [64]. The IC50 and the MIC/MBC values of extracts were weaker than the positive control (ciprofloxacin), and significantly different (P < 0.05). Crude extracts usually exhibit weaker activity than pure compounds. This may be due to the active ingredient or the molecule might have diluted with other molecules, or maybe due to the antagonistic effect of other molecules present in the extracts. Although the result of ANOVA was significant, the post hoc test was not reported because the result of crude extract was weaker than the standard pure compound in this study.

The antimicrobial and antibiofilm formation inhibition testing with those above-mentioned molecules may lead to the discovery of new antibiotics. However, further investigation for the full characterization of the molecules from these plants is suggested.

Conclusion

The study concluded that the plant extracts exhibiting antibacterial property coupled with antibiofilm activity. Therefore, these extracts might serve as potential candidates for developing biofilm inhibitors and may act as potent drugs against antibiotic-resistance biofilm-producing bacteria.

Availability of data and materials

Herbaria of plant specimens and the identification information sheets are stored in the Department of Botany, National College, Khusibu, Nayabazar, Kathmandu, Nepal and can be retrieved when necessary. Data supporting this manuscript are protected in laboratory information systems at the Department of Biotechnology, National College, Khusibu, Nayabazar, Kathmandu, Nepal and are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Abbreviations

CV:

Crystal Violet

DMSO:

Dimethyl Sulfoxide

E. coli, EC:

Escherichia coli

MBC :

Minimum Bactericidal Concentrations

MIC:

Minimum Inhibitory Concentration

MHA:

Muller Hinton Agar

MHB:

Muller Hinton Broth

TSB:

Tryptone Soy Broth

QS:

Quorum Sensing

TFC:

Total Flavonoid Content

TPC:

Total Phenolic Content

References

  1. 1.

    Sommer MOA, Dantas G. Antibiotics, and the resistant microbiome. Curr Opin Microbiol. 2011;14(5):556–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mib.2011.07.005.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Harbottle H, Thakur S, Zhao S, White DG. Genetics of antimicrobial resistance. Anim Biotechnol. 2006;17(2):111–24. https://doi.org/10.1080/10495390600957092.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Bhatt P, Tandel K, Shete V, Rathi KR. Burden of extensively drug-resistant and pandrug-resistant gram-negative bacteria at a tertiary-care Centre. New Microbes New Infect. 2015;8:166–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nmni.2015.01.003.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Bjarnsholt T. The role of bacterial biofilms in chronic infections. APMIS Suppl. 2013;136:1–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Gupta P, Chhibber S, Harjai K. Subinhibitory concentration of ciprofloxacin targets quorum sensing system of Pseudomonas aeruginosa causing inhibition of biofilm formation & reduction of virulence. Indian J Med Res. 2016;143(5):643–51. https://doi.org/10.4103/0971-5916.187114.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Lewis K. Riddle of biofilm resistance. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2001;45(4):999–1007. https://doi.org/10.1128/AAC.45.4.999-1007.2001.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Costerton JW, Lewandowski Z, Caldwell DE, Korber DR, Lappin-Scott HM. Microbial biofilms. Annu Rev Microbiol. 1995;49(1):711–45. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.mi.49.100195.003431.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Fux CA, Costerton JW, Stewart PS, Stoodley P. Survival strategies of infectious biofilms. Trends Microbiol. 2005;13(1):34–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tim.2004.11.010.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    McCarty SM, Cochrane CA, Clegg PD, Percival SL. The role of endogenous and exogenous enzymes in chronic wounds: a focus on the implications of aberrant levels of both host and bacterial proteases in wound healing. Wound Repair Regen. 2012;20(2):125–36. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1524-475X.2012.00763.x.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Stewart PS, Costerton JW. Antibiotic resistance of bacteria in biofilms. Lancet. 2001;358(9276):135–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(01)05321-1.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Costerton JW, Stewart PS, Greenberg EP. Bacterial biofilms: a common cause of persistent infections. Science. 1999;284(5418):1318–22. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.284.5418.1318.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Hoyle BD, Costerton JW. Bacterial resistance to antibiotics: the role of biofilms. Prog Drug Res Fortschritte Arzneimittelforschung Progres Rech Pharm. 1991;37:91–105.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Mah T-F. Biofilm-specific antibiotic resistance. Future Microbiol. 2012;7(9):1061–72. https://doi.org/10.2217/fmb.12.76.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Shrestha R, Khanal S, Poudel P, Khadayat K, Ghaju S, Bhandari A, et al. Extended spectrum β-lactamase producing uropathogenic Escherichia coli and the correlation of biofilm with antibiotics resistance in Nepal. Ann Clin Microbiol Antimicrob. 2019;18:1–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Wenzel RP. Health care–associated infections: major issues in the early years of the 21st century. Clin Infect Dis. 2007;45:85–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Römling U, Balsalobre C. Biofilm infections, their resilience to therapy and innovative treatment strategies. J Intern Med. 2012;272(6):541–61. https://doi.org/10.1111/joim.12004.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Alagesan K, Raghupathi PK, Sankarnarayanan S. Amylase inhibitors: potential source of anti-diabetic drug discovery from medicinal plants. Int J Pharm Life Sci. 2012;3:1407–12.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Teanpaisan R, Kawsud P, Pahumunto N, Puripattanavong J. Screening for antibacterial and antibiofilm activity in Thai medicinal plant extracts against oral microorganisms. J Tradit Complement Med. 2017;7(2):172–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtcme.2016.06.007.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Slobodníková L, Fialová S, Rendeková K, Kováč J, Mučaji P. Antibiofilm activity of plant polyphenols. Molecules. 2016;21:1–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Niu C, Gilbert ES. Colorimetric method for identifying plant essential oil components that affect biofilm formation and structure. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2004;70(12):6951–6. https://doi.org/10.1128/AEM.70.12.6951-6956.2004.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Tiwari BK, Valdramidis VP, O’Donnell CP, Muthukumarappan K, Bourke P, Cullen PJ. Application of natural antimicrobials for food preservation. J Agric Food Chem. 2009;57(14):5987–6000. https://doi.org/10.1021/jf900668n.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Rounds L, Havens CM, Feinstein Y, Friedman M, Ravishankar S. Plant extracts, spices, and essential oils inactivate Escherichia coli O157:H7 and reduce formation of potentially carcinogenic heterocyclic amines in cooked beef patties. J Agric Food Chem. 2012;60(14):3792–9. https://doi.org/10.1021/jf204062p.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Górniak I, Bartoszewski R, Króliczewski J. Comprehensive review of antimicrobial activities of plant flavonoids. Phytochem Rev. 2019;18(1):241–72. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11101-018-9591-z.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Lu L, Hu W, Tian Z, Yuan D, Yi G, Zhou Y, et al. Developing natural products as potential antibiofilm agents. Chin Med. 2019;14(1):11. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13020-019-0232-2.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Azwanida N. A review on the extraction methods use in medicinal plants, principle, strength and limitation. Med Aromat Plants. 2015;4:196.

    Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    Farias DF, Souza TM, Viana MP, Soares BM, Cunha AP, Vasconcelos IM, et al. Antibacterial, antioxidant, and anticholinesterase activities of plant seed extracts from Brazilian semiarid region. Biomed Res Int. 2013;2013:1–9. https://doi.org/10.1155/2013/510736.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    Sánchez E, Rivas Morales C, Castillo S, Leos-Rivas C, García-Becerra L, Ortiz Martínez DM. Antibacterial and antibiofilm activity of methanolic plant extracts against nosocomial microorganisms. Evid Based Complement Alternat Med. 2016;2016:1–8. https://doi.org/10.1155/2016/1572697.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    Gul R, Jan SU, Faridullah S, Sherani S, Jahan N. Preliminary phytochemical screening, quantitative analysis of alkaloids, and antioxidant activity of crude plant extracts from ephedra intermedia indigenous to Balochistan. Sci World J. 2017;2017:e5873648.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. 29.

    Kumar GS, Jayaveera KN, Kumar CK, Sanjay UP, Swamy BM, Kumar DV. Antimicrobial effects of Indian medicinal plants against acne-inducing bacteria. Trop J Pharm Res. 2007;6:717–23.

    Google Scholar 

  30. 30.

    Edeoga HO, Okwu DE, Mbaebie BO. Phytochemical constituents of some Nigerian medicinal plants. Afr J Biotechnol. 2005;4(7):685–8. https://doi.org/10.5897/AJB2005.000-3127.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  31. 31.

    Tamilselvi N, Krishnamoorthy P, Dhamotharan R, Arumugam P, Sagadevan E. Analysis of total phenols, total tannins and screening of phytocomponents in Indigofera aspalathoides (Shivanar Vembu) Vahl EX DC. J Chem Pharm Res. 2012;4:3259–62.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. 32.

    Ainsworth EA, Gillespie KM. Estimation of total phenolic content and other oxidation substrates in plant tissues using Folin-Ciocalteu reagent. Nat Protoc. 2007;2(4):875–7. https://doi.org/10.1038/nprot.2007.102.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. 33.

    Lu X, Wang J, Al-Qadiri HM, Ross CF, Powers JR, Tang J, et al. Determination of total phenolic content and antioxidant capacity of onion (Allium cepa) and shallot (Allium oschaninii) using infrared spectroscopy. Food Chem. 2011;129(2):637–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2011.04.105.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. 34.

    Do QD, Angkawijaya AE, Tran-Nguyen PL, Huynh LH, Soetaredjo FE, Ismadji S, et al. Effect of extraction solvent on total phenol content, total flavonoid content, and antioxidant activity of Limnophila aromatica. J Food Drug Anal. 2014;22(3):296–302. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfda.2013.11.001.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  35. 35.

    Elshikh M, Ahmed S, Funston S, Dunlop P, McGaw M, Marchant R, et al. Resazurin-based 96-well plate microdilution method for the determination of minimum inhibitory concentration of biosurfactants. Biotechnol Lett. 2016;38(6):1015–9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10529-016-2079-2.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  36. 36.

    Mazzola PG, Jozala AF, Novaes LCDL, Moriel P, Penna TCV. Minimal inhibitory concentration (MIC) determination of disinfectant and/or sterilizing agents. Braz J Pharm Sci. 2009;45(2):241–8. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1984-82502009000200008.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  37. 37.

    Sarker SD, Nahar L, Kumarasamy Y. Microtitre plate-based antibacterial assay incorporating resazurin as an indicator of cell growth, and its application in the in vitro antibacterial screening of phytochemicals. Methods. 2007;42(4):321–4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ymeth.2007.01.006.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  38. 38.

    Bazargani MM, Rohloff J. Antibiofilm activity of essential oils and plant extracts against Staphylococcus aureus and Escherichia coli biofilms. Food Control. 2016;61:156–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodcont.2015.09.036.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  39. 39.

    Sandasi M, Leonard CM, Viljoen AM. The in vitro antibiofilm activity of selected culinary herbs and medicinal plants against Listeria monocytogenes. Lett Appl Microbiol. 2010;50(1):30–5. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1472-765X.2009.02747.x.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. 40.

    Antunes ALS, Trentin DS, Bonfanti JW, Pinto CCF, Perez LRR, Macedo AJ, et al. Application of a feasible method for determination of biofilm antimicrobial susceptibility in staphylococci. Apmis. 2010;118(11):873–7. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0463.2010.02681.x.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. 41.

    Pratiwi SUT, Lagendijk EL, Hertiani T, Sd W, Van Den Honde CA. Antimicrobial effects of indonesian medicinal plants extracts on planktonic and biofilm growth of Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Staphylococcus aureus. J Hortic. 2015;7:183–91.

    Google Scholar 

  42. 42.

    Osman K, Evangelopoulos D, Basavannacharya C, Gupta A, McHugh TD, Bhakta S, et al. An antibacterial from Hypericum acmosepalum inhibits ATP-dependent MurE ligase from Mycobacterium tuberculosis. Int J Antimicrob Agents. 2012;39(2):124–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijantimicag.2011.09.018.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  43. 43.

    Cowan MM. Plant products as antimicrobial agents. Clin Microbiol Rev. 1999;12(4):564–82. https://doi.org/10.1128/CMR.12.4.564.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  44. 44.

    Begashaw B, Mishra B, Tsegaw A, Shewamene Z. Methanol leaves extract Hibiscus micranthus Linn exhibited antibacterial and wound healing activities. BMC Complement Altern Med. 2017;17(1):337–47. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12906-017-1841-x.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  45. 45.

    Bernard D, Kwabena A, Osei O, Daniel G, Elom S, Sandra A. The effect of different drying methods on the phytochemicals and radical scavenging activity of Ceylon cinnamon (Cinnamomum zeylanicum) plant parts. Eur J Med Plants. 2014;4(11):1324–35. https://doi.org/10.9734/EJMP/2014/11990.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. 46.

    Adnan M, Bibi R, Mussarat S, Tariq A, Shinwari ZK. Ethnomedicinal and phytochemical review of Pakistani medicinal plants used as antibacterial agents against Escherichia coli. Ann Clin Microbiol Antimicrob. 2014;13:1–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. 47.

    Famuyide IM, Aro AO, Fasina FO, Eloff JN, McGaw LJ. Antibacterial and antibiofilm activity of acetone leaf extracts of nine under-investigated south African Eugenia and Syzygium (Myrtaceae) species and their selectivity indices. BMC Complement Altern Med. 2019;19:1–13.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  48. 48.

    Stewart PS. Mechanisms of antibiotic resistance in bacterial biofilms. Int J Med Microbiol. 2002;292(2):107–13. https://doi.org/10.1078/1438-4221-00196.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. 49.

    Sharma M, Tandon S, Aggarwal V, Bhat KG, Kappadi D, Chandrashekhar P, et al. Evaluation of antibacterial activity of Calotropis gigentica against Streptococcus mutans and Lactobacillus acidophilus: an in vitro comparative study. J Conserv Dent. 2015;18(6):457–60. https://doi.org/10.4103/0972-0707.168809.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  50. 50.

    Suga H, Smith KM. Molecular mechanisms of bacterial quorum sensing as a new drug target. Curr Opin Chem Biol. 2003;7(5):586–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cbpa.2003.08.001.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. 51.

    Vikram A, Jayaprakasha GK, Jesudhasan PR, Pillai SD, Patil BS. Suppression of bacterial cell–cell signalling, biofilm formation and type III secretion system by citrus flavonoids. J Appl Microbiol. 2010;109(2):515–27. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2672.2010.04677.x.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. 52.

    Galloway WR, Hodgkinson JT, Bowden SD, Welch M, Spring DR. Quorum sensing in gram-negative bacteria: small-molecule modulation of AHL and AI-2 quorum sensing pathways. Chem Rev. 2011;111(1):28–67. https://doi.org/10.1021/cr100109t.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. 53.

    Sharma S, Khan IA, Ali I, Ali F, Kumar M, Kumar A, et al. Evaluation of the antimicrobial, antioxidant, and anti-inflammatory activities of hydroxychavicol for its potential use as an oral care agent. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2009;53(1):216–22. https://doi.org/10.1128/AAC.00045-08.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. 54.

    Feldman M, Grenier D. Cranberry proanthocyanidins act in synergy with licochalcone a to reduce Porphyromonas gingivalis growth and virulence properties, and to suppress cytokine secretion by macrophages. J Appl Microbiol. 2012;113(2):438–47. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2672.2012.05329.x.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. 55.

    Murugan K, Sekar K, Sangeetha S, Ranjitha S, Sohaibani SA. Antibiofilm and quorum sensing inhibitory activity of Achyranthes aspera on cariogenic Streptococcus mutans: an in vitro and in silico study. Pharm Biol. 2013;51(6):728–36. https://doi.org/10.3109/13880209.2013.764330.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. 56.

    Chung JY, Choo JH, Lee MH, Hwang JK. Anticariogenic activity of macelignan isolated from Myristica fragrans (nutmeg) against Streptococcus mutans. Phytomedicine. 2006;13(4):261–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.phymed.2004.04.007.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. 57.

    Islam B, Khan SN, Haque I, Alam M, Mushfiq M, Khan AU. Novel anti-adherence activity of mulberry leaves: inhibition of Streptococcus mutans biofilm by 1-deoxynojirimycin isolated from Morus alba. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2008;62(4):751–7. https://doi.org/10.1093/jac/dkn253.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. 58.

    Yang L, Rybtke MT, Jakobsen TH, Hentzer M, Bjarnsholt T, Givskov M, et al. Computer-aided identification of recognized drugs as pseudomonas aeruginosa quorum-sensing inhibitors. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2009;53(6):2432–43. https://doi.org/10.1128/AAC.01283-08.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  59. 59.

    Ren D, Zuo R, Barrios AF, Bedzyk LA, Eldridge GR, Pasmore ME, et al. Differential gene expression for investigation of Escherichia coli biofilm inhibition by plant extract ursolic acid. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2005;71(7):4022–34. https://doi.org/10.1128/AEM.71.7.4022-4034.2005.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  60. 60.

    Lee JH, Cho HS, Joo SW, Chandra Regmi S, Kim JA, Ryu CM, et al. Diverse plant extracts and trans-resveratrol inhibit biofilm formation and swarming of Escherichia coli O157: H7. Biofouling. 2013;29(10):1189–203. https://doi.org/10.1080/08927014.2013.832223.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. 61.

    Lee JH, Kim YG, Ryu SY, Cho MH, Lee J. Ginkgolic acids and Ginkgo biloba extract inhibit Escherichia coli O157: H7 and Staphylococcus aureus biofilm formation. Int J Food Microbiol. 2014;174:47–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2013.12.030.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. 62.

    Wang M, Yang Q, Yan X-X, Wang Q-L, Wang J-R, Wang Z. Chemical constituents of Calotropis gigantea. Chem Nat Compd. 2017;53(5):963–5. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10600-017-2170-5.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  63. 63.

    Priya K, John P, Usha PTA, Kariyil BJ, Uma R, Hogale MS. Phytochemical analysis of Eclipta prostrata L. (L.) leaves. Int J Curr Microbiol App Sci. 2018;7(08):1069–75. https://doi.org/10.20546/ijcmas.2018.708.121.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  64. 64.

    Kant R. A review on peach (Prunus persica): an asset of medicinal phytochemicals. Int J Res Appl Sci Eng Technol. 2018;6(1):2186–200. https://doi.org/10.22214/ijraset.2018.1342.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The author gratefully acknowledges Hem Raj Poudel, Tritha Raj Pandey, Rita Chhetri, National Herbarium and Plant Laboratories, Godawari, Lalitpur who helped to identify the plants. Also, we are very much thankful to Bhagwati Gaire, Pratima Gautam, Mili Thapa, Department of Biotechnology, National College, Khusibu, Nayabazar, Kathmandu, who helped to collect the plants.

Funding

No funding was provided for this work.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

BPM, SB designed research; SB, SP, RS, PD, SK, and KK performed experiments; SB, SS, and BPM analyzed data. SB, KK, and BPM wrote the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Bishnu P. Marasini.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Bhandari, S., Khadayat, K., Poudel, S. et al. Phytochemical analysis of medicinal plants of Nepal and their antibacterial and antibiofilm activities against uropathogenic Escherichia coli. BMC Complement Med Ther 21, 116 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12906-021-03293-3

Download citation

Keywords

  • Medicinal plants
  • Biofilm
  • Antibacterial activity
  • Antibiofilm activity