Issue

Vol. 32 No. 8 (2020): Vol 32 Issue 8, 2020

Creative Commons License

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

in vitro Antioxidant Activity, Total Phenolic Content and Antimicrobial Activity of Coleus forskohlii Grown in Al-Baha, Saudi Arabia

https://doi.org/10.14233/ajchem.2020.22716
Abdelfatah A. Fadlelmula
Department of Chemistry, Faculty of Science and Arts, Al-Baha University, Al-Makhwah 65931, Saudi Arabia
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1248-7931
Abdulaziz Y. Al-Ghamdi
Department of Biology, Faculty of Science, Al-Baha University, Al-Baha 61008, Saudi Arabia
Mohamed O.M. Abdalla
Department of Biology, Faculty of Science and Arts, Al-Baha University, Al-Makhwah 65931, Saudi Arabia

Corresponding Author(s) : Abdelfatah A. Fadlelmula

abdalfatah55@yahoo.com

Asian Journal of Chemistry, Vol. 32 No. 8 (2020): Vol 32 Issue 8, 2020

Abstract

In this study, the active ingredients from Coleus forskohlii were detected and evaluated their antioxidant and antimicrobial activities. Coleus forskohlii leaves were collected, air dried, powdered and extracted first with aqueous ethanol and secondly with petroleum ether, chloroform, ethyl acetate and n-butanol successively. The chemical analysis of the extracts showed  the existence of (flavonoids, alkaloids, tannins, terpenoids, steroids, saponins and sugars). Furthermore, the extracts were subjected to analysis of total phenolic contents. Where the n- butanol exhibited highest TPC value (384.23±15.86 mg GAE/g), followed by ethyl acetate (199.73±29.35 mg GAE/g) then petroleum ether (96.97±61.29 mg GAE/g), ethanol (90.80±17.51 mg  GAE/g), and eventually chloroform extract exhibited the lowest (TPC) value. In addition to that the antioxidant status of the different extracts of Coleus forskohlii was detected. Butanolic  extract showed the highest radical scavenging (96.33±1.53 %, lowest IC50 value 0.03) followed by ethyl acetate extract (46.67±3.50 %, IC50 value 0.07). Eventually the antimicrobial activity  tests were carried out for all the plant extracts. Where n-butanol showed the maximum inhibition (14±0.70 mm). All the pathogens except C. albicans exhibited moderate response towards  petroleum ether extract. C. albicans was sensitive towards ethanol extract only (14.00±1.41), whereas the other Gram-positive and Gram-negative bacteria exhibited high impedance to the  ethanol, chloroform, and ethyl acetate extracts. This study scientifically props the usage of whole plant as a medicine for several surface bacterial and fungal strike in folk medicine, in  addition to this the plant may serve as a exporter for additional development of indigenous antioxidant and antitumor agents. 

Keywords

Coleus forskohlii Antioxidant activity Total phenolic content Antimicrobial activity
Fadlelmula, A. A. ., Al-Ghamdi, A. Y. ., & Abdalla, M. O. . (2020). in vitro Antioxidant Activity, Total Phenolic Content and Antimicrobial Activity of Coleus forskohlii Grown in Al-Baha, Saudi Arabia. Asian Journal of Chemistry, 32(8), 2033–2037. https://doi.org/10.14233/ajchem.2020.22716
Download Citation
Endnote/Zotero/Mendeley (RIS)
BibTeX
References
  1. S. Khatun, N.C. Chatterjee and U. Cakilcioglu, Afr. J. Biotechnol., 10, 2530 (2011).
  2. S. Shanmugam, V. Usha Rani and B.V. Pradeep, Asian J. Pharm. Clin. Res., 11, 275 (2018).
  3. S. Shanmugam and B.V. Pradeep, J. Pure Appl. Microbiol., 13, 1703 (2019);https://doi.org/10.22207/JPAM.13.3.45
  4. V.K. Bajpai, Y.-H. Park and P. Agrawal, Front. Life Sci., 8, 139 (2015); https://doi.org/10.1080/21553769.2014.998777
  5. K.K. Singh, S.K. Pelvi and H. Singh, Bull. Medico-fthano Botan. Res., 1, 4 (1980).
  6. J.B. Harborne, Chapman & Hall Ltd.: London, edn 3, pp. 49-188 (1973).
  7. S.F. Zohra, B. Meriem, S. Samira and M.S.A. Muneer, J. Nat. Prod. Plant Resour., 2, 512 (2012).
  8. V.L. Singleton, R. Orthofer and R.M. Lamuela-Raventós, Methods Enzymol., 299, 152 (1999); https://doi.org/10.1016/S0076-6879(99)99017-1
  9. L.F. Shyur, J.H. Tsung, J.H. Chen, C.Y. Chiu and C.P. Lo, Int. J. Appl. Sci. Eng., 3, 195 (2005).
  10. A.A. Miles, S.S. Misra and J.O. Irwin, J. Hyg. (Lond.), 38, 732 (1938);https://doi.org/10.1017/s002217240001158x
  11. K. Boudjema, A. Mouhouche, A. Guerdouba and L. Hali, J. Chem. Soc. Pak., 40, 1054 (2018).
  12. K. Rajkumar and R. Malathi, Bangladesh J. Pharmacol., 10, 924 (2015); https://doi.org/10.3329/bjp.v10i4.24406
  13. S. Singh and N. Singh, Int. J. Res. Appl. Sci. Eng. Technol., 4, 150 (2016).
  14. M.M. Cowan, Clin. Microbiol. Rev., 12, 564 (1999); https://doi.org/10.1128/CMR.12.4.564
  15. M. Alothman, R. Bhat and A.A. Karim, Trends Food Sci. Technol., 20, 201 (2009); https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tifs.2009.02.003
  16. R. Bhat, S.B. Ameran, H.C. Voon, A.A. Karim and L.M. Tze, Food Chem., 127, 641 (2011); https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2011.01.042
  17. A.B. Aliyu, A.M. Musa, M.S. Sallau and A.O. Oyewale, Trends Appl. Sci. Res., 4, 68 (2009); https://doi.org/10.3923/tasr.2009.68.72
  18. D.E. Okwu and M.E. Okwu, J. Sustain. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ., 6, 140 (2004).
  19. G.K. Rasineni, D. Siddavattam and R.R. Attipalli, J. Med. Plants Res., 2, 285 (2008).
  20. M. Nugraheni, U. Santoso and W. Windarwati, Food Res., 2, 460 (2018); https://doi.org/10.26656/fr.2017.2(5).098
  21. P. Soni and S.H. Bodakhe, Bull. Environ. Pharmacol. Life Sci., 7, 63 (2018).
  22. M. Adam, G.O.M. Elhassan, S. Yagi, F.S. Senol, I.E. Orhan, A.A. Ahmed and T. Efferth, Nat. Prod. Bioprospect., 8, 97 (2018); https://doi.org/10.1007/s13659-018-0155-0
  23. V.K. Bajpai, Y.-H. Park and P. Agrawal, Front. Life Sci., 8, 139 (2015); https://doi.org/10.1080/21553769.2014.998777
Read More
Author biographies is not available.
Statistic
Read Counter : 2 Download : 4