Skip to content
BY 4.0 license Open Access Published by De Gruyter Open Access February 28, 2023

Evaluation of antibiofilm and cytotoxicity effect of Rumex vesicarius methanol extract

  • Marwa Fady EMAIL logo , Humaira Rizwana , Khaloud Mohammed Alarjani , Mai Ahmed Alghamdi , Shebl Salah Ibrahim , Jessica Geyer and Ahmad Abbas
From the journal Open Chemistry

Abstract

Background

Bacterial resistant to antibiotics represents an obstacle in medication management in hospitals. Biofilm can be easily formed by bacteria in indwelling medical devices. By increasing numbers of patients using indwelling medical devices, we have to find an effective antibiofilm for the eradication of biofilm-associated infections.

Methods

The present study was designed to evaluate the antibiofilm and cytotoxicity effect of methanol extract of Rumex vesicarius L. leaves (Polygonaceae). Antibacterial and antibiofilm assays were investigated in this study against different standard and pathogenic bacteria isolates from endotracheal tubes in intensive care units (Staphylococcus aureus, Staphylococcus epidermidis, Proteus vulgaris, Klebsiella pneumoniae, and Pseudomonas aeruginosa). Scanning electron microscopy was used to demonstrate the reduction of biofilm formation using methanol extract of R. vesicarius. Also, cytotoxicity of R. vesicarius L. was evaluated by using the lactate dehydrogenase assay.

Results

R. vesicarius displayed a broad spectrum and antibacterial activity against the tested organisms. The minimal inhibitory concentration of the methanol extract was 62.5–125 mg/mL for gram positive while in case of gram negative, it was 125–250 mg/mL. While the result in case of minimal bactericidal concentration was 250–500 mg/mL in case of gram positive and was 500–1,000 mg/mL in case of gram negative.

Conclusion

Our results recommend usage of R. vesicarius as a promising antibiofilm to combat infection in indwelling medical devices.

1 Introduction

Biofilm exhibits a high affinity to attach to living tissues and indwelling medical devices. Biofilm-associated cells represent a major problem in antibiotics resistance as bacteria inside exopolysaccharides matrix of biofilm are shielded from both antibiotics and host immune system [1]. Most bacteria are able to grow as planktonic and biofilm forms. Simply biofilm is a single or multiple species that are embedded in self-produced extracellular polymeric substances. Basically, bacterial infections are frequently associated with biofilm [2].

Indwelling medical devices in the intensive care units cause high risk of infections and represent ideal surfaces for a biofilm attachment. Ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) and catheter-associated urinary tract infections are from the most important causes of nosocomial infections. Also, the use of different kinds of catheters, endotracheal tubes (ETT), and indwelling devices represent the main causes for the transmission of nosocomial infections [3]. Bacterial biofilm is one of the main causes of respiratory infections in most cases with ETT. Recently, the connection between VAP and biofilm has been well known, as pneumonia is related to the existence of biofilm rather than period of intubation [4,5].

Biofilms established on living and nonliving surfaces are not easily eradicated, basically because sessile cells that grown from biofilm are more resistance to antimicrobial agents or biocides by 10–1,000 fold [6,7].

Biofilms adversely affect a lot of human activities, so many trials have been done to prevent and eradicate biofilm. These trials can be succeeded by realizing the mechanism of biofilm consistency and assisting the critical contributions of biofilm [8,9]. As stated by NIH and CDC, more than 60% of hospital acquired infections are associated with biofilm formation [10].

As the role of biofilms in pathogenesis and drug resistance has been investigated, various strategies have been developed to eradicate and disrupt biofilm [11]. Antibiofilm agents with broad-spectrum action and safety effect could be a perfect target for drug development to eradicate infection caused by majority of biofilm-forming microbes.

Extractions from plants have been investigated for possible applications as antibiotic or antibiofilm.

Even though a lot of researches on plants and their active constituents are being under investigation, the focus is mainly on their antimicrobial properties against bacteria not biofilms, so more investigations are needed concerning about eradication of resistant biofilm [12].

In Saudi Arabia and most Arabic countries, Rumex vesicarius, named hummayed or Hammad, is a terrestrial foliate plant corresponding to the family of Polygonaceae containing about 150 species found all over the world. The main chemical constituents of Rumex are anthraquinones and flavonoids [13]. R. vesicarius L. is used as a sorrel and collected in spring time and eaten fresh or cooked. The plant has been used for the treatment of some type’s tumors, hepatic diseases, bad digestion [14].

Previous studies revealed that genus Rumex exhibited antibacterial, bacteriostatic, and antiviral activities [15].

The effect of plants is due to bioactive constituents they had. It is always thought that medicinal plants have less side effect than chemotherapeutic drugs [16]. Therefore, natural plants are a promising novel antibacterial and antibiofilm. However, many reviews showed that many extracts of plants produce adverse effects [17], even some showed toxic effects [18]. So, we need to evaluate the toxic effect of medicinal plants before we use them as antibacterial or antibiofilm.

The gas chromatography–mass spectrometry (GC–MS) analysis of the R. vesicarius L. extracts revealed that active ingredients of plant consists of phytocomponents; totally, 211 constituents were detected by analysis extracts of the plant with different solvents. Hexane extract showed the highest number of 61 phytoconstituents, while in ethanol extract, the lower number of 45 phytoconstituents was detected which including both major and minor constituents [19].

Also, HPLC of a study detected the presence of p-coumaric acid, ferulic acid, chromone, catechin, and emodin [20].

The present work was aimed to screen the antibiofilm effect of methanolic extract of leaves from R. vesicarius extract against biofilm formed by different types of bacteria isolated from ETTs and, also, assess the cytotoxic effect of R. vesicarius extract. To our knowledge, the antibiofilm effect of R. vesicarius remains uninvestigated. Thus, the present study is the first to evaluate the antibiofilm effect of R. vesicarius extract against some gram-positive and gram-negative isolates.

2 Methods

2.1 Isolation of pathogens

Specimens were collected from endotracheal aspirates of mechanically ventilated patients in respiratory intensive care unit, Zagazig University hospitals, Egypt, from July 2017 till September 2017. Samples were inserted in a sterile tube and transferred to the laboratory where incubated for 24 h in 37°C. The broth was first checked for the presence of bacteria growth by a direct Gram stain smear. Subculture was made for positive samples on chocolate, MacConkey agar, and blood agar and incubated in 37°C for 24–48 h, then, the macroscopic and microscopic examination was determined, and based on their morphology, standard identification biochemical tests for gram negative and gram positive were performed.

2.2 Antimicrobial susceptibility

Antimicrobial susceptibility testing was performed to isolate resistant bacteria by disk diffusion method as per Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute.

2.3 Plant material

Plants of R. vesicarius L. were collected freshly from Al-Qassim region, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia during 2017 at the flowering stage. The collected plants were carefully examined and identified by Dr. Rizwana Humaria King Saud University, Department of Botany and Microbiology, College of science, by the aid of regional floras [21,22]. The leaves were air dried, powdered, and then stored in an air tight container for further analysis.

2.4 Extraction

Twenty grams of dry leaves of R. vesicarius was grinded into fine powder, then extracted by decoction by boiling with methanol for 5 min, followed by filtration and concentration of the filtrate, and evaporated till dryness on water bath to afford one gram extract. For further use, the extract was stored in an airtight container at 4°C in the refrigerator.

2.5 Detection of unsaturated fatty acids – Bayer’s test

Potassium permanganate 1% is used for the qualitative detection of unsaturated fatty acids [23].

2.6 Determination of total phenolic content

The total phenolic contents of R. vesicarius leaves were estimated according to ref. [24]. The data were detected in milligrams of Gallic acid per gram of dry weight of plant extract (mg GAE/g DW). The data were triple checked and were represented as mean ± standard deviation (SD).

2.7 Detection of the presence of steroids and terpenoids

0.5 mL of anhydrous acetic acid was added with 2 drops of conc. H2SO4 to 1 mL of R. vesicarius [25].

2.8 Determination of flavonoids

The colorimetric method assay was used to quantify the flavonoids content of extract according to [26]. The data were detected as mg catechin equivalents per gram of dry weight (mg CE/g DW).

2.9 Antibacterial activity

2.9.1 Agar well diffusion

The antibacterial effect of leaves extract was evaluated against Staphylococcus aureus (ATCC: 25923), Staphylococcus epidermidis (ATCC 12228), Pseudomonas aeruginosa (ATCC: 9027), Proteus vulgaris (ATCC 6380), Klebsiella pneumoniae (ATCC700603), and pathogenic isolates. The well diffusion method was used to determine the antibacterial activity of extracts of R. vesicarius. Different concentrations of extract from 500 to 31.25 mg/mL were adjusted by dissolving in dimethyl sulfoxide (DMSO). Muller Hinton agar was plated with bacterial isolates, and then, 100 μL of different concentration of extracts was poured in well. 5% DMSO was used as negative control while the positive control was Ciprofloxacin solution 10 µL/mL. All plates were incubated at 37°C for 24 h, and then, the plates were detected for the zone of inhibition around the wells.

2.9.2 Determination of minimal inhibitory concentration (MIC) and minimal bactericidal concentration (MBC)

To determine MIC and MBC, the broth micro-dilution method was used with different concentrations of R. vesicarius L. extract. The 96-well microtiter plates were filled with 100 μL of bacteria about 108 CFU/mL and then 100 μL of different concentrations of leaves extract (500, 250, 125, 62.5, 31.25 mg/mL) was added in separate well. First, the absorbance of each well was detected by an automatic enzyme linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) tray reader at 630 nm. Then, after 24 h incubation with agitation at 37°C, the absorbance was detected by ELISA at 630 nm. These absorbance values were subtracted from the results before incubation [27,28].

2.10 Biofilm inhibition assay quantitative and qualitative

96 well flat-bottom polystyrene plates were incubated with bacteria for 24 h and diluted 1:100 into 200 μL of trypticase soy broth and serial dilution of (3,000 mg) methanol extract of R. vesicarius L. at 37°C for 24 h was performed without agitation. In column 11, the negative control was done by adding 200 µL of sterile trypticase soy with 5% DMSO broth, and in column 12, positive control was done by adding 200 µL of bacteria suspension. After a further 24 h incubation, wells were washed triple with distilled water to remove planktonic bacteria then, biofilms were detected by staining with 0.05% crystal violet for 15 min before reading absorbance excess crystal violet was removed by washing with distilled water and crystal violet attached was solubilized in 200 μL of 95% methanol. Biofilms were quantified by reading the microplates at 570 nm (Biotek Elx800, USA) [29].

To qualitatively assay of biofilm inhibition, scanning electron microscopy (SEM) was detected by establishing biofilm of St. epidermidis in 96-well, treated with DMSO and extract of R. vesicarius (2,000 mg). Biofilms on the wells were washed with PBS and dried at 60°C. For SEM, biofilms were fixed with 2.5% glutaraldehyde and dehydrated with graded ethanol. Biofilms were freeze-dried, gold-coated, and subjected to SEM.

2.11 Cytotoxicity effect

To know the cytotoxicity effect of R. vesicarius extract in vivo, Madin Darby canine kidney (MDCK) tissue cells were used as a model for mammalian epithelial and the method was carried out as following:

  1. MDCK tissue cells were grown to ∼90% confluency in a 24-well sterile Corning plate.

  2. Then, we added 100 µL of R. vesicarius extract, 100 µL of DMSO, and 100 µL of bacteria St. aureus as positive control.

  3. The cells were observed under a microscope to determine when epithelium has 75% confluence and tight junctions between cells are broken down at 8, 16, and 24 h.

  4. We used lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) assay which is used to test tissue cell toxicity. Briefly, it is a test for cell death by assessing the plasma membrane damage. If the cell is damaged, it releases a product LDH, which can be measured using a colorimetric assay with a plate reader.

3 Results

3.1 Isolation of pathogens

The study was carried out on 75 patients on ventilator. Out of 75 specimens, 60 specimens were found to be positive in cultures with 86 isolates. According to microbiological results, Ps. aeruginosa was the prevailing bacteria with 30.23%, St. aureus (26.74%), K. pneumoniae (17.44%), St. epidermidis (18.6%), and P. vulgaris (6.9%); these results are represented in Figure 1.

Figure 1 
                  Percentage of isolated microorganisms from ventilation tubes.
Figure 1

Percentage of isolated microorganisms from ventilation tubes.

3.2 Antimicrobial susceptibility

The results revealed that Ps. aeruginosa was highly resistant to cefixime by (74–82%).While, susceptibility of gram positive was highly resistance to oxacillin (72.1–74.3%), cefatholin (65.3–66.7%), and ciprofloxacillin (44.5–46.6%).

3.3 Detection of unsaturated fatty acids – Bayer’s test

The disappearance of the characteristic purple colour of KMnO4 and formation of brown Precipitate are a confirmatory test of presence of unsaturated fatty acids.

3.4 Detection of the presence of steroids and terpenoids

Qualitative determination has been done by adding acetic anhydride and conc. H2SO4 to 1 mL of R. vesicarius extract appearing of blue color detect steroids while presence of ring with blue green color detect trepenoids.

3.5 Determination of total phenolic content and flavonoids

The total phenolic content of R. vesicarius leaves extract was 58.55 ± 0.02 mg GE/g DW. The quantification of total flavonoids was 37.87 ± 0.02 mg CE/g DW.

3.6 Antibacterial activity of R. vesicarius

Antibacterial activity of R. vesicarius was evaluated against a set of standard strains and clinically significant strains isolated from intensive care units (ICU) and potency were assessed by measuring the inhibition zones.

The antibacterial activity of R. vesicarius leaves extract is presented in Table 1. Antibacterial effect was directly proportional with an increase in concentration as methanol extract of R. vesicarius at 250 mg/mL had inhibition zone 17.60 ± 0.80 to 18.84 ± 1.11 and 15.90 ± 1.21 to 16.40 ± 1.11 for standard and pathogenic gram-positive isolates, respectively, while in case of gram negative, 17.50 ± 1.31 to 18.62 ± 1.21 and 15.90 ± 1.12 to 16.90 ± 0.91 for standard and pathogenic, respectively.

Table 1

Antibacterial activity of R. vesicarius leaves extract against pathogenic and standard bacteria

Bacteria Extracts’ concentration (mg/mL) (inhibition zone ± SD in mm) 5% DMSO Ciprofloxacin (10 μL/mL) MIC (mg/mL) MBC (mg/mL)
31.25 62.5 125 250
St. aureus (ATCC: 25923) 11.50 ± 0.50 13.70 ± 0.45 14.40 ± 0.44 17.60 ± 0.80 20.10 ± 1.21 125 250
St. epidermidis (ATCC 12228) 10.40 ± 1.20 12.90 ± 0.32 15.90 ± 0.61 18.84 ± 1.11 22.40 ± 0.94 62.5 250
K. pneumoniae (ATCC700603) 11.90 ± 1.10 14.10 ± 0.75 16.60 ± 1.13 18.62 ± 1.21 19.41 ± 0.84 250 500
Ps. aeruginosa (ATCC:9027) 10.71 ± 0.41 12.80 ± 0.21 14.40 ± 0.93 17.50 ± 1.31 18.45 ± 0.74 250 500
P. vulgaris (ATCC 6380) 10.31 ± 0.63 13.82 ± 1.10 14.7 ± 0.41 17.78 ± 1.12 20.12 ± 0.45 125 500
St. aureus 8.21 ± 0.41 10.42 ± 0.70 13.21 ± 0.15 15.90 ± 1.21 18.75 ± 1.21 125 500
St. epidermidis 9.11 ± 1.23 11.30 ± 1.11 13.94 ± 0.91 16.40 ± 1.11 19.12 ± 1.11 62.5 500
K. pneumoniae 9.64 ± 0.81 13.20 ± 0.62 14.80 ± 1.21 16.90 ± 0.91 21.11 ± 0.81 250 500
Ps. aeruginosa 7.75 ± 0.71 9.30 ± 0.64 13.45 ± 1.50 15.90 ± 1.12 18.50 ± 0.75 250 1,000
P. vulgaris 9.41 ± 1.12 11.10 ± 0.78 13.75 ± 0.74 16.21 ± 0.81 22.12 ± 0.41 250 500

Also, the results revealed that extract of leaves of R. vesicarius displayed a broad spectrum and antibacterial activity against the tested organisms. The MIC of the methanol extract was 62.5–125 mg/mL for gram positive while in case of gram negative, it was 125–250 mg/mL. The result in case of MBC was 250–500 mg/mL in case of gram positive and was 500–1,000 mg/mL in case of gram negative.

3.7 Biofilm inhibition assay quantitative and qualitative

Quantitative assay of biofilm inhibition revealed that the percentage of reduction of biofilm formation treated with extract at concentrations 1,000 and 2,000 mg significantly reduced the biofilm of St. aureus by 57 and 66%, respectively, while in case of St. epidermidis, the percentage of reduction was 62–71%, respectively. In case of gram negative, the concentration used was 2,000 and 3,000 mg and the percentage of reduction in case of Ps. aeruginosa was 45 and 52%, respectively, while the percentage was 53.5 and 60% in case of P. vulgaris. The percentage with K. pneumoniae was 55.6 and 61%, respectively. The results are shown in Figure 2. A confirmatory result was also obtained with the SEM images as it showed disruption in the biofilms’ integrity and cells were scattered in the presence of extract of R. vesicarius L. as revealed in Figure 3.

Figure 2 
                  Effect of different concentrations of methanol extract of R. vesicarius L. on biofilm formation of different isolates.
Figure 2

Effect of different concentrations of methanol extract of R. vesicarius L. on biofilm formation of different isolates.

Figure 3 
                  Effect of methanol extract of R. vesicarius L. on biofilm formation. (a) SEM image of St. epidermidis biofilms treated with DMSO and (b) treated with R. vesicarius 2,000 mg.
Figure 3

Effect of methanol extract of R. vesicarius L. on biofilm formation. (a) SEM image of St. epidermidis biofilms treated with DMSO and (b) treated with R. vesicarius 2,000 mg.

3.8 Cytotoxicity of extract

From measuring of LHD assay in Figures 46, the results showed that the plant extract has a low cytoxicity effect to epithelial cells of MDCK even after exposure to 24 h. Also, Figure 7(a)–(d) reveals that epithelial cells still alive under microscope even after incubation with R. vesicarius extract for 24 h.

Figure 4 
                  The percentage of LDH release with plant extract, control, DMSO, and positive control after 8 h incubation with MDCK cells.
Figure 4

The percentage of LDH release with plant extract, control, DMSO, and positive control after 8 h incubation with MDCK cells.

Figure 5 
                  The percentage of LDH release with plant extract, control, DMSO, and positive control after 16 h incubation with MDCK cells.
Figure 5

The percentage of LDH release with plant extract, control, DMSO, and positive control after 16 h incubation with MDCK cells.

Figure 6 
                  The percentage of LDH release with plant extract, control, DMSO, and positive control after 24 h incubation with MDCK cells.
Figure 6

The percentage of LDH release with plant extract, control, DMSO, and positive control after 24 h incubation with MDCK cells.

Figure 7 
                  (a) MDCK under microscope at 0 time control condition. (b and c) MDCK under microscope after the addition of plant extract 16 and 24 h, respectively. (d) MDCK under microscope after addition with DMSO for 8 h.
Figure 7

(a) MDCK under microscope at 0 time control condition. (b and c) MDCK under microscope after the addition of plant extract 16 and 24 h, respectively. (d) MDCK under microscope after addition with DMSO for 8 h.

4 Discussion

Indwelling medical devices including endotracheal intubation and mechanical ventilation are intensively used in sepsis, acute respiratory disorders, and neurological dysfunctions. Ventilators are widely used to prevent deaths in patients with respiratory failure however. They represent good environments for biofilm formation, which represents a threat on life in immune-compromised patients. Actually, bacteria growing in biofilm showed high resistance to antimicrobial agents; consequently, infection will be intractable to cure.

According to the diagnosis of patients in the ICU, staying a long period in the hospital, and policies of antimicrobial agents, different organisms are isolated [30]. The ETTs change host defenses and obstacle mechanical clearance. Moreover, the patients in the respiratory intensive care unit are extremely sick and more vulnerable to acquire nosocomial infections [31]. ETTs deteriorate mucociliary function and expedite accumulation of bronchial secretions. Also, ETTs damage the mucosa and facilitate the way for biofilm formation and consequently contribute to multidrug resistance. Out of 75 samples submitted for microbial culture, 60 (80%) were found positive for microbial growth. This result was also reported by other studies [32,33,34]. In the present study, the most frequent isolates were Ps. aerguinosa 30.23%, St. aureus 26.74%, St. epidermidis 18.63%, K. pneumoniae 17.44%, and P. vulgaris 6.9%. Based on these results, Ps. aerguinosa was the widespread bacteria; this is in agreement with other studies [33,35].

Ps. aeruginosa is one of the most opportunistic bacteria and has a high incidence of nosocomial infections in ICU. The importance of Ps. aerguinosa is that it is naturally resistance to a wide range of antibiotics; consequently, it has the ability to infect critically ill patients associated with the high rate of morbidities and mortality [36,37]. Subsequently, in the present study, Ps. aeruginosa isolates were highly antibiotic resistant and, apart from other antibiotics, showed 75.2, 70.5, 67.8, and 62.1% resistance to Cefixime, Ceftriaxon, Pipracillin, and Impipenem antibiotics respectively. This was higher than the rate reported by ref. [34]. On the other hand, P. vulgaris showed high resistance to ceftriaxone and piperacillin by 68.6 and 65.3%, respectively; these results were in agreement with other study [38]. The resistance pattern of gram positive ranged from 65.3 to 66.7% to cefatholin, 72.1 to 74.3% to oxacillin, and 44.5 to 46.6% to ciprofloxacillin.

Biologically active constituents like phenolics and flavonoids are used as anticancer, antioxidant, and antimicrobial agents. The presence of phenolics and flavonoids in plants interferes with some essential biological pathway in microbial agents [39]. In this study, we extracted the active constituents from leaves using methanol as it gives more yield; this is in agreement with another study [40,41]. The R. vesicarius leaves were used as aerial parts of this plant displayed concentrated yields from all active constituents than root parts [42].

The total phenolic content of leaves of R. vesicarius was 58.55 ± 0.02 mg GE/g DW. The amount of phenolics per each extract concentration was expressed as gallic acid equivalent; this is in agreement with other study [43].

The quantification of total flavonoids was 37.87 ± 0.02 mg CE/g DW. A similar result was observed in the quantification of total flavonoids [44]. Also, a study of chemical constituents of R. vesicarius detected the presence of polyphenols, flavonoids, carotenoids, tocopherols, and ascorbic acid in different parts of R. vesicarius [45,46]. These results revealed that there is a relationship between polyphenolics and antimicrobial effect of plant, as it was reported that phenolic compounds, tannins, anthocyanin, and flavonoids have different mechanisms in free radical scavenging inhibition [46,47].

Recently, a study detected the chemical constituents of R. vesicarius; the main groups were fatty acids and their derivatives, oxygenated hydrocarbons, and high oleic acid were detected by 70–80% [46,48].

The results of the antibacterial effect of methanolic extracts of R. vesicarius L. in terms of zone of inhibition showed a moderate antibacterial activity against all five bacterial strains. Previous studies obtained similar results for the antibacterial activity of R. vesicarius L. extract and showed that R. vesicarius exhibits high antimicrobial activity against several bacteria [49,50,51]. Antibacterial potency has been attributed to terpenes, oxygenated hydrocarbons, and carbohydrate, which are chemical components of R. vesicarius [47,49,50].

Polyphenols contain a wide variety of polyphenol molecules structure, basically useful structures for the innovation of new antimicrobial agents [52]. Destabilization of lipopolysaccharide membrane by phenolic compounds reported in a study that may be attribute to antimicrobial action of R. vesicarius against gram-negative bacteria [53]. Also, a study revealed that the GC–MS analysis of methanol extract of the plant has essential phytoconstituents such as 2-propyltetrahydro-2H-pyran-3-ol, ethyl 2-hydroxycyclohexane-1-carboxylate, 1,3-dihydroxypropan-2-yl oleate, N2,N4-diisopropyl-6-(methylsulfonyl)-1,3,5-triazine-2,4-diamine, (E)-octadec-13-enoic acid, 2-hydroxypropane-1,3-diyl dipalmitate, high oleic safflower oil, 2,3-dihydroxypropyl palmitate, methyl octadeca-8,11-diynoate, (E)-(2-(chloroimino)-3-methylbutanoyl)-l-valine, methyl 5-((1R,2R)-2-undecylcyclopropyl)-pentanoate, and (2-phenyl-1,3-dioxolan-4-yl)methyl oleate [47]. Palmitic acid had effectively killed gram-negative bacteria as reported in a study [54]. A complete profile of bioactive compounds of R. vesicarius L. was previously investigated in a study which revealed that leaves of R. vesicarius were rich in vitamins especially vitamin C (1,330 mg/100 g), vitamin E (2371.7 mg/100 g dry wt), and β-carotene (252.7 μg/100 g dry wt) [45].

A recent study confirmed that R. vesicarius has flavonoids and phenolics compounds that exhibited antimicrobial activity against many resistance bacteria including gram-positive and -negative bacteria [48].

A study of the MIC of the plant extracts on the tested organisms has revealed that the extracts possess antimicrobial activity at various concentrations but highest at 250 mg/mL. The antibacterial effects of extracts on the tested organisms increase by increasing the concentrations. Similar result was also reported in a study [55]. Several previous experiments on different plant parts of different species of Rumex confirmed potent antibacterial activity against both gram‐positive and gram‐negative bacteria [56]. Also, a study to determine MIC of palmitic acid on some gram positive and gram negative revealed that more than 256 μg/mL was the MIC for both gram-negative and -positive bacteria [57].

Bacteria in sessile form showed highly persistence and resistance to antimicrobial agents, unlike those planktonic form. This may be attributed to bacteria in biofilm that are embedded in extra polysaccharide matrix representing a barrier that hinders diffusion of antimicrobial agents to colony [58].

Needing to develop new drugs opens the way to extract biologically active compounds from natural products. In this study, anti-biofilm effects of R. vesicarius L. had been significant. The results of this study showed that the methanol extract of R. vesicarius L. has antibiofilm activity on gram-positive and -negative isolates. The results showed that the methanol extract administrated significantly reduced the biofilm biomass and the increase in the methanol extract concentration decreased the biofilm formation. It could be possible that the anti-biofilm activity could be due to interfering with the extracellular polymeric production of cells [57,59]. Also, the antibiofilm effect could be due to the presence of flavonoids, anthraquinones, carotenoids, and organic acids [49]. Also, a recent study confirmed the presence of β-sitosterol [43] and this compound reduced quorum sensing in Ps. aeruginosa [60].

Emodin, a constituent of R. vesicarius extract, reduced the biofilm formation of St. aureus [61] and Ps. Aeruginosa [62].

A study reported that unsaturated fatty acids at sub-MIC inhibited the biofilm formation of St. aureus [63].

To estimate the cytotoxicity of R. vesicarius L. extract to epithelia cells, we used LDH assay. The basis of this assay depends on the spontaneous release of LDH, upon disruption of the cell membrane. The results obtained indicate very low toxicity to R. vesicarius L. extract and these results were supported by seeing MDCK cells under microscope and showing viability of epithelial cells after 24 h treating with plant extract. Even the low cytotoxicity may be attributed to DMSO used for dissolving extract so we can further try another substance with no toxicity on cells to dissolve extract. These results in agreement with El-Hawary who reported that R. vesicarius has antioxidant, protective effect on liver when used for the intoxication of CCl4 in rats [45]. A recent study revealed that R. vesicarius extract was unharmed at 6,000 mg/kg [21]

Our results suggested that the extract has a beneficial effect on biofilm formation reduction. Similar results were found with methanol extract Rumex dentatus against biofilm formation of Ps. aeruginosa [63].

To our knowledge, this is the first study on the antibiofilm effect of R. vesicarius till now, and from the cytotoxicity results, we can recommend R. vesicarius L. as a promising antibiofilm treatment for patients in intensive care units and using indwelling medical devices, which support the growth of bacterial biofilm upon long-term usage.

5 Conclusions

There is an urgent need to study antibiofilm effect rather than antimicrobial effect, due to the serious problems that the biofilms have caused in hospitals and environmental and industrial contexts. The plant extract of R. vesicarius evaluated in the present research had potential antimicrobial and antibiofilm activities against gram-negative and -positive bacteria, which can be an alternative to control biofilms’ formation or can be used as model to the search for new drugs.

Acknowledgments

The authors extend their appreciation to the Researchers supporting project number (RSP2023R185), King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.

  1. Funding information: This research received no external funding.

  2. Author contributions: M.F. – wrote the initial manuscript draft, methodology, and investigation; H.R., K.M.A and M.A.A. – isolated and extracted plant and visualization; A.A. – methodology, supervision, and doing FOB to collect specimens; J.G. and S.S. – were responsible for cytotoxicity experiment. All authors have reviewed and accepted the published version of the article.

  3. Conflict of interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

  4. Informed consent: Informed consent has been obtained from all individuals included in this study.

  5. Ethical approval: The research related to human use has been complied with all the relevant national regulations, institutional policies and in accordance the tenets of the Helsinki Declaration, and has been approved by the authors’ institutional review board or equivalent committee.

  6. Data availability statement: Data sharing is not applicable to this article as no datasets were generated or analyzed during the current study.

References

[1] Grant SS, Hung DT. Persistent bacterial infections, antibiotic tolerance, and the oxidative stress response. Virulence. 2013;4(4):273–83. 10.4161/viru.23987.Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

[2] Bjarnsholt T. The role of bacterial biofilms in chronic infections. APMIS. 2013;121:1–58. 10.1111/apm.12099.Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[3] Rosenthal VD, Maki DG, Rodrigues C, Alvarez-Moreno C, Leblebicioglu H, Sobreyra-Oropeza M, et al. Impact of International Nosocomial Infection Control Consortium (INICC) strategy on central line-associated bloodstream infection rates in the intensive care units of 15 developing countries. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2010;31(12):1264–72. 10.1086/657140.Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[4] Danin PE, Girou E, Legrand P, Louis B, Fodil R, Christov C, et al. Description and microbiology of endotracheal tube biofilm in mechanically ventilated subjects. Respir Care. 2015;60(1):21–9. 10.4187/respcare.02722.Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[5] Vandecandelaere I, Coenye T. Microbial composition and antibiotic resistance of biofilms recovered from endotracheal tubes of mechanically ventilated patients. Adv Exp Med Biol. 2015;830:137–55. 10.1007/978-3-319-11038-7_9.Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[6] Davies D. Understanding biofilm resistance to antibacterial agents. Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2003;2:114–22. 10.1038/nrd1008.Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[7] Lewis K. Riddle of biofilm resistance. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2001;45:999–1007. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC90417.10.1128/AAC.45.4.999-1007.2001Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

[8] Manning SC. Basics of biofilm in clinical otolaryngology. Ear Nose Throat J. 2003;82:18–20[Google Scholar] [CrossRef].10.1177/014556130308208s07Search in Google Scholar

[9] Rumbaugh KP, Sauer K. Biofilm dispersion. Nat Rev Microbiol. 2020;18:571–86. 10.1038/s41579-020-0385-0.Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

[10] Amankwah S, Abdella K, Kassa T. Bacterial biofilm destruction: a focused review on the recent use of phage-based strategies with other antibiofilm agents. Nanotechnol Sci Appl. 2021;14:161–77. 10.2147/NSA.S325594.Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

[11] Ahmad I, Zahin M, Aqil F, Khan MSA, Ahmad S. Novel approaches to combating drug resistant bacteria. In: Ahmad I, Aqil F, editors. New strategies combating bacterial infections. Germany: Wiley-Blackwell; 2009. p. 47–70. 10.1002/9783527622931.ch2.Search in Google Scholar

[12] Caraher E, Reynolds G, Murphy P, McClean S, Callaghan M. Comparison of antibiotic susceptibility of Burkholderia cepacia complex organisms when grown planktonically or as biofilm in vitro. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis. 2007;26:213–21. 10.1007/s10096-007-0256-x.Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[13] Bineshian F, Bakhshandeh N, Freidounian M, Nazari H. Anti-Candida and antioxidant activities of hydroalcohlic extract of Rumex obtusifolius leaves. Pak J Pharm Sci. 2019;32:919–26.Search in Google Scholar

[14] Zhang H, Guo Z, Wu N, Xu W, Han L, Li N, et al. Two novel naphthalene glucosides and an anthraquinone isolated from Rumex dentatus and their antiproliferation activities in four cell lines. Molecules. 2012;17:843–50. 10.3390/molecules17010843.Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

[15] Mostafa HA, Elbakry AA, Eman AA. Evaluation of antibacterial and antioxidant activieties of different plant parts of Rumex vesicarius L. (Polygonace-ae). Int J Pharm Pharm Sci. 2011;3(2):109–18.Search in Google Scholar

[16] Karimi A, Majlesi M, Rafieian-Kopaei M. Herbal versus synthetic drugs; beliefs and facts. J Nephropharmacology. 2015;4(1):27–30. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28197471.Search in Google Scholar

[17] Koduru S, Grierson DS, Afolayan AJ. Antimicrobial activity of Solanum aculeastrum. Pharm Biol. 2006;44(4):283–6. 10.1080/13880200600714145.Search in Google Scholar

[18] Khan IA, Hussain M, Hussain N, Alqahtani AM, Alqahtani T. Cardioprotective Effect of Rumex vesicarius Linn. Leaf Extract against Catecholamine-Induced Cardiotoxicity. Molecules. 2022;27(11):3383. 10.3390/molecules27113383.Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

[19] Sirikantaramas S, Yamazaki M, Saito K. Mechanisms of resistance to self-produced toxic secondary metabolites in plants. Phytochem Rev. 2008;7(3):467–77. 10.1007/s11101-007-9080-2.Search in Google Scholar

[20] Hariprasad PS, Ramakrishnan N. GC-MS Analysis OF Rumex vesicarius L. Int J Drug Dev Res. April-June 2011;3(2):272–9.Search in Google Scholar

[21] Chaudhary SA. Flora of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Riyadh, KSA: Ministry of Agriculture and Water; 2001.Search in Google Scholar

[22] Mossa JS, Al-Yahya MA, Al- Meshal IA. Medicinal plants of Saudi Arabia. Riyadh, KSA: King Saud University Press; 2000.Search in Google Scholar

[23] Sanchez E, Morales CR, Castillo S, Leos-Rivas C, Garcia-Becerra L, Martinez DMO. Antibacterial and antibiofilm activity of methanolic plant extracts against nosocomial microorganisms. Evid Based Complement Alternat Med. 2016;2016:1572697. 10.1155/2016/1572697.Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

[24] Fawehinmi AB, Lawal H, Etatuvie SO, Oyedeji FO. Preliminary phytochemical screening and antimicrobial evaluation of four medicinal plants traditionally used in Nigeria for skin infection. Afr J Pure Appl Chem. February 2013;7(2):44–9. 10.5897/AJPAC12.015.Search in Google Scholar

[25] Wen XB, Miao F, Zhou L, Zhang M, He QL. In vitro antioxidant activity of Parnassia wightiana W. extracts. Chin J Nat Med. 2012;10(3):190–5. 10.3724/SP.J.1009.2012.00190.Search in Google Scholar

[26] Omoruyi BE, Bradley G, Afolayan AJ. Antioxidant and phytochemical properties of Carpobrotus edulis (L.) bolus leaf used for the management of common infections in HIV/AIDS patients in Eastern Cape Province. BMC Complementary Altern Med. 2012;12:215. 10.1186%2F1472-6882-12-215.Search in Google Scholar

[27] Devienne KF, Raddi MSG. Screening for antimicrobial activity of natural products using a microplate photometer. Braz J Microbiol. 2002;33:166–8. 10.1590/S1517-83822002000200014.Search in Google Scholar

[28] Wiegand I, Hilpert K, Hancock REW. Agar and broth dilution methods to determine the minimal inhibitory concentration (MIC) of antimicrobial substances. Nat Protoc. 2008;3(2):163–75. 10.1038/nprot.2007.521.Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[29] Damiano S, Forino M, De A, Vitali LA, Lupidi G, Taglialatela-Scafati O. Antioxidant and antibiofilm activities of secondary metabolites from Ziziphus jujuba leaves used for infusion preparation. Food Chem. 2017;230:24–9. 10.1016/j.foodchem.2017.02.141.Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[30] Alp E, Voss A. Ventilator associated pneumonia and infection control. Ann Clin Microbiology Antimicrobials. 2006;5:article 7. 10.1186%2F1476-0711-5-7.Search in Google Scholar

[31] Koenig SM, Truwit JD. Ventilator-associated pneumonia: diagnosis, treatment, and prevention. Clinical Microbiol Rev. 2006;19(4):637–57. 10.1128%2FCMR.00051-05.Search in Google Scholar

[32] Ferreira TO, Koto RY, Leite GF, Klautau GB, Nigro S, Silva CB, et al. Microbial investigation of biofilms recovered from endotracheal tubes using sonication in intensive care unit pediatric patients. braz J Infect Dis. 2016;20:468–75. 10.1016/j.bjid.2016.07.003.Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

[33] Juayang AC, Maestral DG, de Los Reyes GB, Acosido MAD, Gallega CT. Review on the antimicrobial resistance of pathogens from tracheal and endotracheal aspirates of patients with clinical manifestations of pneumonia in bacolod City in 2013. Int J Bacteriol. 2015;2015:942509. 10.1155/2015/942509.Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

[34] Khosravi AD, Parhizgari N, Montazeri EA, Mozaffari A, Abbasi F. The prevalence of bacteria isolated from endotracheal tubes of patients in golestan hospital, Ahvaz, Iran, and determination of their antibiotic susceptibility patterns. Jundishapur J of Microbiol. 2013;6(1):67–71. https://sites.kowsarpub.com/jjm/articles/74438.html.10.5812/jjm.4583Search in Google Scholar

[35] Li Y-C, Lin H-L, Liao F-C, Wang S-S, Chang H-C, Hsu H-F, et al. Potential risk for bacterial contamination in conventional reused ventilator systems and disposable closed ventilator-suction systems. PLoS One. 2018;13(3):e0194246. 10.1371/journal.pone.0194246.Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

[36] Slama KB, Jouini A, Maarouf M, Fendri C, Boudabous A, Gtari M. Epidemiology of Pseudomonas aeruginosa in Intensive Care Unit and Otolaryngology Department of a Tunisian hospital. Afr J Microbiol Res. 2011;5(19):3005–11. 10.5897/AJMR10.415.Search in Google Scholar

[37] Vincent JL. Nosocomial infections in adult intensive-care units. Lancet. 2003;361(9374):2068–77. 10.1016/S0140-6736(03)13644-6.Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[38] Gajdács M, Urbán E. Comparative epidemiology and resistance trends of Proteae in Urinary tract infections of inpatients and outpatients: A 10-Year retrospective study. Antibiotics. 2019;8:91. 10.3390/antibiotics8030091. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31373311.Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

[39] Kumar S, Mishra A, Pandey AK. Antioxidant mediated protective effect of Parthenium hysterophorus against oxidative damage using in vitro models. BMC Complementary Altern Med. 2013;13:article 120. 10.1186%2F1472-6882-13-120.Search in Google Scholar

[40] Hafaz MF, Soliman HM, Abbas MA, Gebreil AS, El-Amier YA. Potential assessment of Rumex spp. as a source of bioactive compounds and biological activity. Biointerface Res Appl Chem. 2022;12(2):1824–34.Search in Google Scholar

[41] Younes KM, Romeilah RM, El-Beltagi HS, El-Moll H, Rajendrasozhan S, Shemy HA, et al. In-vitro evaluation of antioxidant and antiradical potential of successive extracts, semi-purified fractions and biosynthesized silver nanoparticles of Rumex vesicarius. Not Botanicae Horti Agrobotanici Cluj-Napoca. 2021;49(1):12293. 10.15835/nbha49112293.Search in Google Scholar

[42] Beddou F, Bekhechi C, Ksouri R, Sari DC, Bekkara FA. Potential assessment of Rumex vesicarius L. as a source of natural antioxidants and bioactive compounds. J Food Sci Technol. June 2015;52(6):3549–60. 10.1007/s13197-014-1420-9.Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

[43] Elbermawi A, Darwish MS, El-Awady AA, Zaki AA, Qiu L, Samra RM. Isolation and biological activities of compounds from Rumex vesicarius L. and their use as a component of a synbiotic preparation. Food Chem X. 2022;14:100306. 10.1016/j.fochx.2022.100306.Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

[44] Laouini SE, Ouahrani MR. Phytochemical screening, in vitro antioxidant and antibacterial activity of Rumex vesicaruis L.extract. Sci Study Res Chem Chem Eng Biotechnol Food Ind. 2017;18(4):367–76.Search in Google Scholar

[45] El-Hawary SA, Sokkar NM, Ali ZY, Yehia MM. A profile of bioactive compounds of Rumex vesicarius L. J Food Sci. 2011;76(8):1195–202. 10.1111/j.1750-3841.2011.02370.x.Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[46] Salama SA, Al-Faifi ZE, Masood MF, El-Amier YA. Investigation and biological assessment of Rumex vesicarius L. extract: Characterization of the chemical components and antioxidant, antimicrobial, cytotoxic, and anti-dengue vector activity. Molecules. 2022;27:3177. 10.3390/molecules27103177.Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

[47] Maccelli A, Vitanza L, Imbriano A, Fraschetti C, Filippi A, Goldoni P, et al. Essential oils: Chemical profiles/phytochemical screening, antimicrobial activity and o/w nanoemulsion formulations. Pharmaceutics. 2019;12:7.10.3390/pharmaceutics12010007Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

[48] Salehi B, Krochmal-Marczak B, Skiba D, Patra JK, Das SK, Das G, et al. Convolvulus plant-A comprehensive review from phytochemical composition to pharmacy. Phytother Res. 2020;34:315–28.10.1002/ptr.6540Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[49] Tukappa A, Londonkar RL. Evaluation of antibacterial and antioxidant activities of different methanol extract of Rumex vesicarius L. Am J Drug Discov Dev. 2013;3:72–83. 10.3923/ajdd.2013.72.83.Search in Google Scholar

[50] Ron M. ROS Are Good. Trends Plant Sci. 2017;22(1):11–9. 10.1016/j.tplants.2016.08.002.Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[51] AL-Ghanayem AA, Al Sobeai S, Alhussaini MS, Saadabi AM. Antibacterial activity of certain Saudi Arabian medicinal plants used in folk medicine against different groups of bacteria. Nusant Biosci. 2017;9(4):392–5. 10.13057/nusbiosci/n090409.Search in Google Scholar

[52] Marino A, Zengin G, Nostro A, Ginestra G, Dugo P, Cacciola F, et al. Antimicrobial activities, toxicity and phenolic composition of Asphodeline anatolica E. Tuzlaci leaf extracts from Turkey. Natural Product Res. 2016;30(22):2620–3. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26727992.10.1080/14786419.2015.1129330Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[53] El-Bakry AA, Mostafa HAM, Alam EA. Antibacterial and antioxidant activities of seedlings of Rumex vesicarius L. (Polygonaceae). J Med Plan Res. 2013;7(24):1754–60. 10.5897/JMPR2013.4444.Search in Google Scholar

[54] Huang CB, Alimova Y, Myers TM, Ebersole JL. Short-and medium-chain fatty acids exhibit antimicrobial activity for oral microorganisms. Arch Oral Biol. 2011;56(7):650–4. 10.1016/j.archoralbio.2011.01.011.Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

[55] Chaity AS, Islam MA, Nasrin T, Sarker SR, Dutta AK, Sikdar B, et al. Screening of in vitro antibacterial activity of Rumex vesicarius (L.) leaves extract against twelve pathogenic bacterial. J Adv Microbiol. 2020;19(4):1–6. 10.9734/jamb/2019/v19i430199.Search in Google Scholar

[56] Al‐zoreky NS, Nakahara K. Antibacterial activity of extracts from some edible plants commonly consumed in Asia. Int J Food Microbiol. 2003;80:223–30. 10.1016/s0168-1605(02)00169-1.Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[57] Yuyama KT, Rhode M, Molinari G, Stadler M, Abraham W. Unsaturated fatty acids control biofilm formation of Staphylococcus aureus and other gram-positive bacteria. Antibiotics. 2020;9:788. 10.3390/antibiotics9110788.Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

[58] Trentin DS, Gorziza DF, Abraham WR, Antunes ALS, Lerner C, Mothes B, et al. Antibiofilm activity of Cobetia marina filtrate upon Staphylococcus epidermidis catheter-related isolates. Braz J Microbiol. 2011;42(4):1329–33. 10.1590%2FS1517-838220110004000013.Search in Google Scholar

[59] Mohanty S, Mishra S, Jena P, Jacob B, Sarkar B, Sonawane A. An investigation on the antibacterial, cytotoxic, and antibiofilm efficacy of starch-stabilized silver nanoparticles. Nanomed Nanotechnol Biol Med. 2011;8:916–24. 10.1016/j.nano.2011.11.007.Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[60] Al-Yousef HM, Sheikh IA. β-Sitosterol derived compound from onion husks non-polar fraction reduces quorum sensing controlled virulence and biofilm production. Saudi Pharm J. 2019;27:664–72. 10.1016/j.jsps.2019.04.001.Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

[61] Yan X, Gu S, Shi Y, Cui X, Wen S, Ge J. The effect of emodin on Staphylococcus aureus strains in planktonic form and biofilm formation in vitro. Arch Microbiol. 2017;199:1267–75. 10.1007/s00203-017-1396-8.Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[62] Ding X, Yin B, Qian L, Zeng ZR, Yang Z, Li H, et al. Screening for novel quorum-sensing inhibitors to interfere with the formation of Pseudomonas aeruginosa biofilm. J Med Microbiol. 2011;60:1827–34. 10.1099/jmm.0.024166-0.Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[63] Najafabadi MP, Mohammadi-Sichani M, Kazemi MJ, Shirsalimian MS, Tavakoli M. Antibiofilm activity of methanol extract of Rumex dentatus against Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Biosis Biol Syst. 2020;1(1):25–32. 10.37819/biosis.001.01.004.Search in Google Scholar

Received: 2022-10-27
Revised: 2023-01-28
Accepted: 2023-01-31
Published Online: 2023-02-28

© 2023 the author(s), published by De Gruyter

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Downloaded on 24.2.2024 from https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/chem-2022-0286/html
Scroll to top button