不同提取方法对无刺蜂胶抑菌活性的体外比较

Ohh Al-Masoodi, HB Said Gulam Khan, IH Baharuddin, IH Ismail
{"title":"不同提取方法对无刺蜂胶抑菌活性的体外比较","authors":"Ohh Al-Masoodi, HB Said Gulam Khan, IH Baharuddin, IH Ismail","doi":"10.24191/cos.v9i2.19230","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This study aimed to compare the different selected extraction methods of propolis extracts against Enterococcus faecalis (E. faecalis). Extraction of Malaysian Propolis (MP) from Heterotrigona itama, was carried out using 70% ethanol. For the selected extraction processes, such as, centrifugation-assisted extraction (CAE), vacuum-assisted extraction (VAE), and shaking-assisted extraction (SAE) methods were used. Antimicrobial activity against E. faecalis was assessed using the antibacterial susceptibility test (AST). The results showed that SAE, followed by CAE, had better antimicrobial properties as compared to those obtained by VAE. The inhibition zones for SAE, CAE, and VAE were 5.3mm, 4.67mm, and 4.16mm, respectively. The minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) and minimum bactericidal concentration (MBC) for extracted MP by SAE were 12.5 and 25 mg/mL, respectively. Furthermore, non-setting calcium hydroxide’s [Ca(OH)2] MIC and MBC were determined to be 50 and 100 mg/mL, respectively. As a result, we believe that extraction of raw MP from Heterotrigona itama using the SAE method was more effective than Ca(OH)2 against E. faecalis.","PeriodicalId":10525,"journal":{"name":"Compendium of Oral Science","volume":"41 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"In-vitro Comparison of Antibacterial Activities on Stingless Bee Propolis using Selected Extraction Methods\",\"authors\":\"Ohh Al-Masoodi, HB Said Gulam Khan, IH Baharuddin, IH Ismail\",\"doi\":\"10.24191/cos.v9i2.19230\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This study aimed to compare the different selected extraction methods of propolis extracts against Enterococcus faecalis (E. faecalis). Extraction of Malaysian Propolis (MP) from Heterotrigona itama, was carried out using 70% ethanol. For the selected extraction processes, such as, centrifugation-assisted extraction (CAE), vacuum-assisted extraction (VAE), and shaking-assisted extraction (SAE) methods were used. Antimicrobial activity against E. faecalis was assessed using the antibacterial susceptibility test (AST). The results showed that SAE, followed by CAE, had better antimicrobial properties as compared to those obtained by VAE. The inhibition zones for SAE, CAE, and VAE were 5.3mm, 4.67mm, and 4.16mm, respectively. The minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) and minimum bactericidal concentration (MBC) for extracted MP by SAE were 12.5 and 25 mg/mL, respectively. Furthermore, non-setting calcium hydroxide’s [Ca(OH)2] MIC and MBC were determined to be 50 and 100 mg/mL, respectively. As a result, we believe that extraction of raw MP from Heterotrigona itama using the SAE method was more effective than Ca(OH)2 against E. faecalis.\",\"PeriodicalId\":10525,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Compendium of Oral Science\",\"volume\":\"41 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Compendium of Oral Science\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.24191/cos.v9i2.19230\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Compendium of Oral Science","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.24191/cos.v9i2.19230","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

本研究旨在比较蜂胶提取物对粪肠球菌(E. faecalis)的不同提取方法。以70%乙醇为萃取剂,对马来蜂胶进行了提取。选取了离心辅助提取(CAE)、真空辅助提取(VAE)和摇振辅助提取(SAE)等提取工艺。采用抗菌药敏试验(AST)评价其对粪肠杆菌的抑菌活性。结果表明,与VAE相比,SAE的抗菌性能更好,其次是CAE。SAE、CAE和VAE的抑制区分别为5.3mm、4.67mm和4.16mm。SAE提取的MP最低抑菌浓度(MIC)为12.5 mg/mL,最低杀菌浓度(MBC)为25 mg/mL。测定了不凝固氢氧化钙[Ca(OH)2] MIC和MBC分别为50和100 mg/mL。因此,我们认为用SAE法提取粗MP比Ca(OH)2对粪肠杆菌更有效。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
In-vitro Comparison of Antibacterial Activities on Stingless Bee Propolis using Selected Extraction Methods
This study aimed to compare the different selected extraction methods of propolis extracts against Enterococcus faecalis (E. faecalis). Extraction of Malaysian Propolis (MP) from Heterotrigona itama, was carried out using 70% ethanol. For the selected extraction processes, such as, centrifugation-assisted extraction (CAE), vacuum-assisted extraction (VAE), and shaking-assisted extraction (SAE) methods were used. Antimicrobial activity against E. faecalis was assessed using the antibacterial susceptibility test (AST). The results showed that SAE, followed by CAE, had better antimicrobial properties as compared to those obtained by VAE. The inhibition zones for SAE, CAE, and VAE were 5.3mm, 4.67mm, and 4.16mm, respectively. The minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) and minimum bactericidal concentration (MBC) for extracted MP by SAE were 12.5 and 25 mg/mL, respectively. Furthermore, non-setting calcium hydroxide’s [Ca(OH)2] MIC and MBC were determined to be 50 and 100 mg/mL, respectively. As a result, we believe that extraction of raw MP from Heterotrigona itama using the SAE method was more effective than Ca(OH)2 against E. faecalis.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信