In Vitro Bioactivity of Leaf Extract Fractions and Quercetin-3-O-Rhamnoside from Combretum elaeagnoides Against Staphylococcus Species Implicated in Causing Bovine Mastitis
Abstract
1. Introduction
2. Results and Discussion
2.1. Minimum Inhibitory Concentration (MIC)
2.2. Anti-Biofilm Activity
2.2.1. Inhibition of Cell Attachment and Biofilm Biomass Formation
2.2.2. Evaluation of the Biofilm Metabolic Activity of the Different Fractions and Extracts of C. elaeagnoides
2.3. Anti-Quorum-Sensing (QS) Activity of Combretum elaeagnoides Against Chromobacterium violaceum (% Inhibition in mg/mL)
2.4. Anti-Inflammatory Activity of the Methanol Extract and Fractions of Combretum elaeagnoides Against 15-Lipoxygenase, and Nitric Oxide Inhibition
2.5. Cytotoxicity of the Methanol Extract and Fractions of Combretum elaeagnoides
3. Materials and Methods
3.1. Plant Material
3.2. Preparation of Bacterial Culture
3.3. Bioassay for Antibacterial Activity
3.3.1. Susceptibility Testing (Minimum Inhibitory Concentration)
3.3.2. Anti-Biofilm Screening
Inhibition of Bacterial Cell Attachment and the Formation of Biofilm via the Crystal Violet Assay
Assessment of Biofilm Metabolic Activity/Viability of Biofilm Cells via INT Reduction Assay
3.4. Anti-Quorum-Sensing Assay
3.4.1. Inhibition of Violacein Production
3.4.2. Quantification of Violacein
3.5. Anti-Inflammatory Activities 0
15-Lipoxygenase Inhibitory Assay
3.6. Inhibition of Nitric Oxide (NO) Production in LPS-Induced RAW 264.7 Macrophages
Assessment of Cell Viability
3.7. Cytotoxicity
3.8. Statistical Analysis
4. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Karzis, J.; Petzer, I.-M.; Naidoo, V.; Donkin, E.F. The spread and antimicrobial resistance of Staphylococcus aureus in South African dairy herds—A review. Onderstepoort J. Vet. Res. 2021, 88, a1937. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gomes, F.; Henriques, M. Control of bovine mastitis: Old and recent therapeutic approaches. Curr. Microbiol. 2016, 72, 377–382. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Balemi, A.; Gumi, B.; Amenu, K.; Girma, S.; Gebru, M.; Tekle, M.; Ríus, A.A.; D’Souza, D.H.; Agga, G.E.; Kerro Dego, O. Prevalence of mastitis and antibiotic resistance of bacterial isolates from cmt positive milk samples obtained from dairy cows, camels, and goats in two pastoral districts in southern Ethiopia. Animals 2021, 11, 1530. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cheng, W.N.; Han, S.G. Bovine mastitis: Risk factors, therapeutic strategies, and alternative treatments—A review. Asian-Australas. J. Anim. Sci. 2020, 33, 1699–1713. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Macías Alonso, M.; López Salazar, J.C.; Osegueda Robles, S.; Córdova Guerrero, I.; Ledezma García, F.; Marrero, J.G. In vitro antimicrobial activity of Mexican plants on bovine mastitis bacteria: Preliminary studies. Biosci. J. 2020, 36, 183–190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Harvard Health. Understanding Acute and Chronic Inflammation; Harvard Health Publishing (Harvard Medical School): Boston, MA, USA, 2020; Available online: https://www.health.harvard.edu/staying-healthy/understanding-acute-and-chronic-inflammation (accessed on 13 April 2023).
- Hansen, P.J.; Soto, P.; Natzke, R.P. Mastitis and fertility in cattle—Possible involvement of inflammation or immune activation in embryonic mortality. Am. J. Reprod. Immunol. 2004, 51, 294–301. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cobirka, M.; Tancin, V.; Slama, P. Epidemiology and Classification of Mastitis. Animals 2020, 10, 2212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pascu, C.; Herman, V.; Iancu, I.; Costinar, L. Etiology of mastitis and antimicrobial resistance in dairy cattle farms in the western part of Romania. Antibiotics 2022, 11, 57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dadgostar, P. Antimicrobial resistance: Implications and costs. Infect Drug Res. 2019, 12, 3903–3910. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Erhabor, R.C.; Erhabor, J.O.; Nkadimeng, S.M.; McGaw, L.J. In vitro antimicrobial, antibiofilm and antioxidant activities of six South African plants with efficacy against selected foodborne pathogens. S. Afr. J. Bot. 2022, 146, 643–652. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Abebe, G.M. The role of bacterial biofilm in antibiotic resistance and food contamination. Int. J. Microbiol. 2020, 2020, 1705814. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Foster, T.J. Antibiotic resistance in Staphylococcus aureus. Curr. Opin. Microbiol. 2017, 45, 16–22. [Google Scholar]
- Chambers, H.F.; DeLeo, F.R. Waves of resistance in Staphylococcus aureus. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 2009, 7, 629–641. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Davies, J.; Davies, D. Origins and evolution of antibiotic resistance. Microbiol. Mol. Biol. Rev. 2010, 74, 417–433. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Costa, S.S.; Viveiros, M.; Amaral, L.; Couto, I. Multidrug efflux pumps in Staphylococcus aureus: An update. Open Microbiol. J. 2013, 7, 59–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Munita, J.M.; Arias, C.A. Mechanisms of antibiotic resistance. Microbiol. Spectr. 2016, 4, 10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Reygaert, W.C. An overview of the antimicrobial resistance mechanisms of bacteria. AIMS Microbiol. 2018, 4, 482–501. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Martini, N.D.; Eloff, J.N. The preliminary isolation and of several antibacterial compounds from Combretum erythrophyllum (Combretaceae). J. Ethnopharmacol. 1998, 62, 255–263. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Aderogba, M.A.; Kgatle, D.T.; McGaw, L.J.; Eloff, J.N. Isolation of antioxidant constituents from Combretum apiculatum subsp. apiculatum. S. Afr. J. Bot. 2012, 79, 125–131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Erhabor, R.C.; Erhabor, J.O.; McGaw, L.J. The potential of South African medicinal plants against microbial biofilm and quorum sensing of foodborne pathogens: A review. S. Afr. J. Bot. 2019, 126, 214–231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Erhabor, R.C.; Aderogba, M.A.; Erhabor, J.O.; Nkadimeng, S.M.; McGaw, L.J. In vitro bioactivity of the fractions and isolated compound from Combretum elaeagnoides leaf extract against selected foodborne pathogens. J. Ethnopharmacol. 2021, 273, 113981. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Khunoana, E.T.; Eloff, J.N.; Ramadwa, T.E.; Nkadimeng, S.M.; Selepe, M.A.; McGaw, L.J. In vitro antiproliferative activity of Ptaeroxylon obliquum leaf extracts, fractions and isolated compounds on several cancer cell lines. Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 11004. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Akinboye, A.O.; Famuyide, I.M.; Petzer, I.-M.; McGaw, L.J. In vitro antibacterial activity of selected South African plants against drug-resistant staphylococci isolated from clinical cases of bovine mastitis. Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 5560. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jambwa, P.; Makhubu, F.N.; Matope, G.; Fouche, G.; McGaw, L.J. Bioassay guided fractionation of Senna singueana and its potential for development of poultry phytogenic feed additives. Front. Vet. Sci. 2022, 8, 800272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- McGaw, L.J.; Rabe, T.; Sparg, S.G.; Jager, A.K.; Eloff, J.N.; van Staden, J. An investigation on the biological activity of Combretum species. J. Ethnopharmacol. 2001, 75, 45–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Eloff, J.N.; Katerere, D.R.; McGaw, L.J. The biological activity and chemistry of the southern African Combretaceae. J. Ethnopharmacol. 2008, 119, 686–699. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jordaan, M.; Van Wyk, A.-E.; Maurin, O. A conspectus of Combretum (Combretaceae) in southern Africa, with taxonomic and nomenclatural notes on species and sections. Bothalia 2011, 41, 135–160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Masoko, P.; Picard, J.; Eloff, J.N. The antifungal activity of twenty-four southern African Combretum species (Combretaceae). S. Afr. J. Bot. 2007, 73, 173–183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Erhabor, R.C.; Erhabor, J.O.; Nkadimeng, S.M.; Petzer, I.-M.; Dzoyem, J.-P.; McGaw, L.J. In vitro biological activities of Combretum molle R.Br.ex G.Don (Combretaceae) against mastitis-causing organisms. S. Afr. J. Bot. 2024, 165, 228–236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hyde, M.A.; Wursten, B.T.; Ballings, P.; Coates Palgrave, M. Flora of Zimbabwe: Information About the Species Data Pages. 2021. Available online: https://www.zimbabweflora.co.zw/speciesdata/about.php (accessed on 5 January 2021).
- Chinsembu, K.C. Ethnobotanical study of plants used in the management of HIV/AIDS-related diseases in Livingstone, Southern Province, Zambia. Evid. Based Complement. Altern. Med. 2016, 2016, 4238625. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Chinsembu, K.C.; Syakalima, M.; Semenya, S.S. Ethnomedicinal plants used by traditional healers in the management of HIV/AIDS opportunistic diseases in Lusaka, Zambia. S. Afr. J. Bot. 2019, 122, 369–384. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tolosa, T.; Wagaye, H.; Regassa, F. A Study on in vitro antimicrobial effects of some selected plants on Staphylococcus aureus isolated from bovine clinical mastitis. Internet J. Vet. Med. 2009, 8, 1–7. [Google Scholar]
- Regassa, F.; Araya, M. In vitro antimicrobial activity of Combretum molle (Combretaceae) against Staphylococcus aureus and Streptococcus agalactiae isolated from crossbred dairy cows with clinical mastitis. Trop. Anim. Health Prod. 2012, 44, 1169–1173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- ATCC 29213. Available online: https://www.atcc.org/products/29213 (accessed on 1 February 2026).
- ATCC 35984. Available online: https://www.atcc.org/products/35984 (accessed on 1 February 2026).
- ATCC 39183. Available online: https://www.atcc.org/products/39183 (accessed on 1 February 2026).
- ATCC 13076. Available online: https://www.atcc.org/products/13076 (accessed on 1 February 2026).
- ATCC 25922. Available online: https://www.atcc.org/products/25922 (accessed on 1 February 2026).
- ATCC 33560. Available online: https://www.atcc.org/products/33560 (accessed on 1 February 2026).
- Orlandi, V.T.; Bolognese, F.; Chiodaroli, L.; Armenia, I.; Caruso, E.; Malacarne, M.C. Antibiofilm activity of Combretum micranthum G. Don Catechin-Sugar Phytocomplex on Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Molecules 2024, 29, 2091. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Relucenti, M.; Familiari, G.; Donfrancesco, O.; Taurino, M.; Li, X.; Chen, R.; Artini, M.; Papa, R.; Selan, L. Microscopy methods for biofilm imaging: Focus on SEM and VP-SEM Pros and Cons. Biology 2021, 10, 51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Adeyemo, R.O.; Famuyide, I.M.; Dzoyem, J.-P.; McGaw, L.J. Anti-biofilm, antibac-terial, and anti-quorum sensing activities of selected South African plants traditionally used to treat diarrhoea. Evid. Based Complement. Altern. Med. 2022, 2022, 1307801. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bowden, G.H.; Li, Y.H. Nutritional influences on biofilm development. Adv. Dent. Res. 1997, 11, 81–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Salgar-Chaparro, S.J.; Lepkova, K.; Pojtanabuntoeng, T.; Darwin, A.; Machuca, L.L. Nutrient level determines biofilm characteristics and the subsequent impact on microbial corrosion and biocide effectiveness. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2020, 86, e02885-19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rutherford, S.T.; Bassler, B.L. Bacterial quorum sensing: Its role in virulence and possibilities for its control. Cold Spring Harb. Perspect. Med. 2012, 2, a012427. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vattem, D.A.; Mihalik, K.; Crixell, S.H.; McLean, R.J. Dietary phytochemicals as quorum sensing inhibitors. Fitoterapia 2007, 78, 302–310. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ogbuadike, E.C.; Nkadimeng, S.M.; Igwe, C.C.; Dzoyem, J.-P.; Qekwana, D.N.; Petzer, I.-M.; McGaw, L.J. An invitro study on the potential of selected South African plant extracts to prevent and treat bovine mastitis. S. Afr. J. Bot. 2023, 154, 98–107, Correction in S. Afr. J. Bot. 2023, 159, 700. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Singh, N.K.; Rao, G.N. Emerging role of 12/15-Lipoxygenase (ALOX15) in human pathologies. Prog. Lipid Res. 2019, 73, 28–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mohamed, R.; Sullivan, J.C. Sustained activation of 12/15 lipoxygenase (12/15 LOX) contributes to impaired renal recovery post ischemic injury in male SHR compared to females. Mol. Med. 2023, 29, 163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Adebayo, S.A.; Ondua, M.; Shai, L.J.; Lebelo, S.L. Inhibition of nitric oxide production and free radical scavenging activities of four South African medicinal plants. J. Inflamm. Res. 2019, 12, 195–203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Angeh, J.E.; Huang, X.; Sattler, I.; Swan, G.E.; Dahse, H.; Härt, A.; Eloff, J.N. Antimicrobial and anti-inflammatory activity of four known and one new triterpenoid from Combretum imberbe (Combretaceae). J. Ethnopharmacol. 2007, 110, 56–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mbiantcha, M.; Almas, J.; Dawe, A.; Faheem, A.; Sidra, Z. Analgesic, anti-inflammatory and anticancer activities of Combretin A and Combretin B isolated from Combretum fragrans F. HOFFM (Combretaceae) leaves. Inflammopharmacology 2018, 26, 1429–1440. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Selogatwe, K.M.; Asong, J.A.; Struwig, M.; Ndou, R.V.; Aremu, A.O. A review of ethnoveterinary knowledge, biological activities and secondary metabolites of medicinal woody plants used for managing animal health in South Africa. Vet. Sci. 2021, 8, 228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Masuku, N.P.; Erhabor, R.C.; Mokoka, T.A.; Ramagoma, R.B.; Maqolo, K.; McGaw, L.J. South African medicinal plants as natural defences against bovine mastitis: A review. S. Afr. J. Bot. 2025, 184, 1234–1253. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zirihi, G.N.; Mambu, L.; Guede-Guina, F.; Bodo, B.; Grellier, P. In vitro antiplasmodial activity and cytotoxicity of 33 West African plants used for treatment of malaria. J. Ethnopharmacol. 2005, 98, 281–285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shai, L.; McGaw, L.J.; Masoko, S.; Eloff, J.N. Antifungal and antibacterial activity of seven traditionally used South African plant species active against Candida albicans. S. Afr. J. Bot. 2008, 74, 677–684. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Makhafola, T.J.; Eloff, J.N. Five Ochna species have high antibacterial activity and more than 10 antibacterial compounds. S. Afr. J. Sci. 2012, 108, 689. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mphahlele, M.P.; Oguttu, J.W.; Petzer, I.-M.; Qekwana, D.N. Prevalence and antimicrobial drug resistance of Staphylococcus aureus isolated from cow milk samples. Vet. World 2020, 13, 2736–2742. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Eloff, J.N. A sensitive and quick method to determine the minimum inhibitory concentration of plant extracts for bacteria. Planta Medica 1998, 64, 711–713. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sandasi, M.; Leonard, C.M.; Viljoen, A.M. The in vitro anti-biofilm activity of selected culinary herbs and medicinal plants against Listeria monocytogenes. Lett. Appl. Microbiol. 2010, 50, 30–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Klančnik, A.; Podobnik, P.; Možina, S.S.; Raspor, P.; Bohinc, K.; Jeršek, B. Determination of viable biofilm cells in microtiter plates. In Proceedings of the II International Congress, Food Technology, Quality and Safety, Novi Sad, Serbia, 28–30 October 2014; pp. 252–257. [Google Scholar]
- Adebayo, S.A.; Dzoyem, J.P.; Shai, L.J.; Eloff, J.N. The anti-inflammatory and antioxidant activity of 25 plant species used traditionally to treat pain in southern Africa. BMC Complement. Altern. Med. 2015, 15, 159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Yoon, W.-J.; Kim, S.-S.; OH, T.-H.; Lee, N.H. Cryptomeria japonica essential oil inhibits the growth of drug-resistant skin pathogens and LPS-Induced nitric oxide and Pro-Inflammatory cytokine production. Pol. J. Microbiol. 2009, 58, 61–68. [Google Scholar]
- Lawal, F.; Bapela, M.J.; Adebayo, S.A.; Nkadimeng, S.M.; Yusuf, A.A.; Malterud, K.E.; McGaw, L.J.; Tshikalange, T.E. Anti-inflammatory potential of South African medicinal plants used for the treatment of sexually transmitted infections. S. Afr. J. Bot. 2019, 125, 62–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- McGaw, L.J.; Steenkamp, V.; Eloff, J.N. Evaluation of Athrixia bush tea for cytotoxicity, antioxidant activity, caffeine content and presence of pyrrolizidine alkaloids. J. Ethnopharmacol. 2007, 110, 16–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]


| Organisms | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SA1 | SA2 | SA3 | SA4 | SA5 | SA6 | SAA | SEA | |
| MeOH | 0.63 ± 0.00 | 0.52 ± 0.18 | 1.04 ± 0.36 | 0.62 ± 0.54 | 0.63 ± 0.00 | 0.63 ± 0.00 | 0.21 ± 0.09 | 0.83 ± 0.36 |
| CeBuOH | 0.42 ± 0.18 | 0.26 ± 0.09 | 0.34 ± 0.28 | 0.63 ± 0.00 | 0.26 ± 0.09 | 0.26 ± 0.09 | 0.23 ± 0.13 | 0.42 ± 0.18 |
| CeDCM | 0.11 ± 0.04 | 0.23 ± 0.13 | 0.42 ± 0.18 | 0.26 ± 0.09 | 0.26 ± 0.09 | 0.31 ± 0.00 | 0.11 ± 0.08 | 0.52 ± 0.18 |
| CeH | 0.21 ± 0.09 | 0.33 ± 0.30 | 0.52 ± 0.18 | 0.26 ± 0.09 | 0.31 ± 0.00 | 0.31 ± 0.00 | 0.16 ± 0.00 | 0.63 ± 0.00 |
| CeAq | 0.63 ± 0.00 | 0.62 ± 0.54 | 0.63 ± 0.00 | 0.63 ± 0.00 | 0.42 ± 0.18 | 0.94 ± 0.54 | 0.63 ± 0.00 | 0.73 ± 0.48 |
| CeEtOAc | 0.16 ± 0.13 | 0.16 ± 0.13 | 0.21 ± 0.09 | 0.16 ± 0.00 | 0.12 ± 0.06 | 0.11 ± 0.05 | 0.07 ± 0.02 | 0.23 ± 0.13 |
| Q-3-O-rhamnoside | 0.31 ± 0.00 | 0.31 ± 0.00 | 0.63 ± 0.00 | 1.25 ± 0.00 | 0.63 ± 0.00 | 0.63 ± 0.00 | 0.31 ± 0.00 | 0.63 ± 0.00 |
| GENT | 0.008 | 0.002 | 0.008 | 0.002 | 0.03 | 0.004 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Samples | Pathogens with Inhibition | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SA1 | SA2 | SA3 | SA4 | SA5 | SA6 | SEA | SAA | |
| MeOH | 51.41 ± 0.11 | 29.66 ± 0.05 | 76.05 ± 0.02 | 38.19 ± 0.05 | 0.00 | 13.79 ± 0.02 | 100.00 | 62.71 ± 0.06 |
| CeDCM | 91.26 ± 0.03 | 61.06 ± 0.02 | 100.00 | 69.29 ± 0.02 | 42.86 ± 0.01 | 92.09 ± 0.02 | 100.00 | 92.32 ± 0.02 |
| CeEtOAc | 74.58 ± 0.14 | 78.20 ± 0.01 | 34.97 ± 0.01 | 76.59 ± 0.01 | 89.52 ± 0.01 | 73.84 ± 0.01 | 100.00 | 100.00 |
| CeBuOH | 72.38 ± 0.01 | 20.91 ± 0.08 | 0.00 | 3.64 ± 0.03 | 0.00 | 75.57 ± 0.01 | 100.00 | 79.56 ± 0.02 |
| CeHx | 87.78 ± 0.05 | 71.38 ± 0.04 | 87.63 ± 0.01 | 100.00 | 52.67 ± 0.03 | 87.74 ± 0.04 | 86.37 ± 0.04 | 100.00 |
| CeAq | 81.51 ± 0.01 | 46.96 ± 0.06 | 100.00 | 52.76 ± 0.05 | 0.00 | 80.98 ± 0.03 | 95.89 ± 0.01 | 98.16 ± 0.03 |
| Ciprofloxacin | 100.00 | 100.00 | 100.00 | 80.25 ± 0.01 | 91.68 ± 0.00 | 91.16 ± 0.00 | 95.27 ± 0.00 | 75.16 ± 0.01 |
| Gentamicin | 95.70 ± 0.00 | 82.79 ± 0.00 | 93.97 ± 0.01 | 76.40 ± 0.00 | 100.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 100.00 |
| Samples | Hour | % Inhibition | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SA1 | SA2 | SA3 | SA4 | SA5 | SA6 | SEA | SAA | ||
| MeOH | T24 | 81.33 ± 0.14 | 35.09 ± 0.05 | 0.00 | 46.70 ± 0.15 | 7.28 ± 0.04 | 33.94 ± 0.50 | 46.76 ± 0.26 | 100.00 |
| T48 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | |
| CeDCM | T24 | 91.07 ± 0.01 | 0.00 | 40.93 ± 0.01 | 64.67 ± 0.03 | 34.59 ± 0.06 | 68.81 ± 0.06 | 74.31 ± 0.17 | 38.78 ± 0.06 |
| T48 | 0.00 | 25.39 ± 0.08 | 36.71 ± 0.06 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | |
| CeEtOAc | T24 | 82.69 ± 0.07 | 24.54 ± 0.02 | 0.00 | 81.45 ± 0.01 | 53.26 ± 0.06 | 43.56 ± 0.38 | 71.54 ± 0.23 | 56.84 ± 0.05 |
| T48 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 62.32 ± 0.14 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | |
| CeBuOH | T24 | 67.84 ± 0.02 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 57.95 ± 0.03 | 0.00 | 75.64 ± 0.24 | 58.12 ± 0.12 | 13.11 ± 0.09 |
| T48 | 0.00 | 37.80 ± 0.20 | 42.64 ± 0.17 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | |
| CeHx | T24 | 93.58 ± 0.02 | 1.53 ± 0.08 | 0.00 | 100.00 | 24.68 ± 0.02 | 44.07 ± 0.15 | 69.96 ± 0.45 | 36.92 ± 0.12 |
| T48 | 0.00 | 57.61 ± 0.16 | 68.78 ± 0.13 | 100.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 21.81 ± 0.03 | |
| CeAq | T24 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 75.88 ± 0.04 | 33.21 ± 0.07 |
| T48 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | |
| Q-3-O-rhamnoside | T48 | 71.82 ± 0.13 | 0.00 | 75.97 ± 0.12 | 75.46 ± 0.08 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 100.00 | 76.24 ± 0.07 |
| Ciprofloxacin | T24 | 97.35 ± 0.03 | 42.38 ± 0.02 | 95.92 ± 0.01 | 97.12 ± 0.01 | 41.55 ± 0.03 | 99.64 ± 0.01 | 0.00 | 88.73 ± 0.05 |
| T48 | 81.13 ± 0.31 | 8.52 ± 0.09 | 97.58 ± 0.01 | 0.00 | 100.00 | 76.83 ± 0.47 | 0.00 | 0.00 | |
| Gentamicin | T24 | 73.65 ± 0.01 | 36.03 ± 0.09 | 16.22 ± 0.11 | 74.10 ± 0.06 | 80.54 ± 0.05 | 96.68 ± 0.05 | 64.53 ± 0.10 | 86.50 ± 0.03 |
| T48 | 56.92 ± 0.49 | 54.03 ± 0.35 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 1.59 ± 0.38 | 55.70 ± 0.18 | 8.99 ± 0.16 | 44.93 ± 0.18 | |
| Samples | Hour | % Inhibition | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SA1 | SA2 | SA3 | SA4 | SA5 | SA6 | SAA | SEA | ||
| MeOH | T0 | 82.79 ± 0.05 | 100.00 | 99.80 ± 0.01 | 100.00 | 100.00 | 93.26 ± 0.01 | 100.00 | 34.95 ± 0.01 |
| T24 | 89.10 ± 0.00 | 76.69 ± 0.01 | 67.72 ± 0.19 | 100.00 | 85.07 ± 0.02 | 73.15 ± 0.03 | 72.81 ± 0.03 | 100.00 | |
| T48 | - | 74.80 ± 0.01 | 38.63 ± 0.04 | 97.76 ± 0.08 | 90.55 ± 0.00 | 80.40 ± 0.22 | 100.00 | 100.00 | |
| CeDCM | T0 | 91.07 ± 0.01 | 100.00 | 68.43 ± 0.02 | 100.00 | 77.86 ± 0.00 | 90.40 ± 0.01 | 37.48 ± 0.03 | 100.00 |
| T24 | 50.00 ± 0.00 | 83.86 ± 0.03 | 77.82 ± 0.04 | 100.00 | 86.95 ± 0.00 | 60.47 ± 0.01 | 77.06 ± 0.00 | 51.25 ± 0.01 | |
| T48 | - | 69.73 ± 0.01 | 76.04 ± 0.01 | 30.04 ± 0.02 | 82.62 ± 0.01 | 93.41 ± 0.03 | 86.34 ± 0.03 | 87.86 ± 0.03 | |
| CeEtOAc | T0 | 89.88 ± 0.02 | 100.00 | 100.00 | 100.00 | 78.64 ± 0.00 | 94.55 ± 0.00 | 100.00 | 100.00 |
| T24 | 60.53 ± 0.00 | 81.83 ± 0.01 | 78.84 ± 0.06 | 93.60 ± 0.00 | 100.00 | 68.29 ± 0.02 | 77.06 ± 0.01 | 90.66 ± 0.01 | |
| T48 | - | 73.44 ± 0.00 | 72.90 ± 0.01 | 50.78 ± 0.01 | 69.18 ± 0.01 | 96.13 ± 0.01 | 86.34 ± 0.04 | 89.16 ± 0.01 | |
| CeBuOH | T0 | 88.48 ± 0.06 | 100.00 | 95.82 ± 0.03 | 100.00 | 99.03 ± 0.03 | 100.00 | 59.80 ± 0.06 | 31.32 ± 0.03 |
| T24 | 29.57 ± 0.00 | 73.03 ± 0.05 | 74.94 ± 0.05 | 81.63 ± 0.01 | 94.67 ± 0.01 | 73.15 ± 0.00 | 68.83 ± 0.02 | 86.99 ± 0.01 | |
| T48 | - | 38.48 ± 0.00 | 60.71 ± 0.01 | 59.7 ± 0.04 | 61.93 ± 0.00 | 98.61 ± 0.01 | 47.17 ± 0.04 | 66.85 ± 0.01 | |
| CeHx | T0 | 60.27 ± 0.03 | 100.00 | 78.62 ± 0.02 | 57.5 ± 0.00 | 97.28 ± 0.00 | 96.56 ± 0.01 | 100.00 | 84.89 ± 0.00 |
| T24 | 60.53 ± 0.01 | 69.58 ± 0.06 | 58.68 ± 0.13 | 73.85 ± 0.01 | 69.85 ± 0.03 | 56.66 ± 0.02 | 89.72 ± 0.03 | 60.37 ± 0.01 | |
| T48 | - | 3.78 ± 0.03 | - | 64.94 ± 0.03 | 40.52 ± 0.09 | 95.69 ± 0.01 | - | 61.53 ± 0.01 | |
| CeAq | T0 | 73.43 ± 0.02 | 100.00 | 89.71 ± 0.02 | 100.00 | 60.58 ± 0.01 | 96.27 ± 0.00 | 100.00 | 93.56 ± 0.00 |
| T24 | 29.70 ± 0.00 | 79.10 ± 0.01 | 74.20 ± 0.05 | 86.06 ± 0.00 | 81.97 ± 0.01 | 66.43 ± 0.01 | 65.14 ± 0.04 | 44.34 ± 0.01 | |
| T48 | 100.00 | 32.42 ± 0.00 | 39.29 ± 0.02 | 84.01 ± 0.03 | 61.49 ± 0.01 | 96.85 ± 0.00 | - | 61.70 ± 0.01 | |
| Q-3-O-rhamnoside | T48 | 82.67 ± 0.00 | 74.08 ± 0.08 | 63.05 ± 0.08 | 98.56 ± 0.00 | 90.14 ± 0.00 | 81.69 ± 0.03 | 95.70 ± 0.03 | 86.81 ± 0.04 |
| Gentamicin | T0 | 67.81 ± 0.00 | 61.02 ± 0.01 | 26.25 ± 0.10 | 100 | 38.99 ± 0.02 | 67.50 ± 0.08 | 81.77 ± 0.01 | - |
| T24 | 100.00 | 81.82 ± 0.00 | 47.94 ± 0.09 | 96.28 ± 0.01 | 100.00 | 100.00 | 3.66 ± 0.02 | 76.75 ± 0.03 | |
| T48 | 85.77 ± 0.00 | - | 15.70 ± 0.10 | 80.83 ± 0.01 | 100.00 | - | 2.96 ± 0.04 | 11.55 ± 0.00 | |
| Ciprofloxacin | T0 | 100.00 | - | 15.70 ± 0.10 | 99.35 ± 0.05 | 98.48 ± 0.01 | 89.29 ± 0.02 | 13.86 ± 0.05 | - |
| T24 | 91.83 ± 0.00 | 87.56 ± 0.00 | 100.00 | 97.68 ± 0.00 | 71.62 ± 0.00 | 63.56 ± 0.01 | 66.57 ± 0.02 | 86.98 ± 0.03 | |
| T48 | - | 32.61 ± 0.00 | 75.83 ± 0.01 | 52.79 ± 0.01 | 73.40 ± 0.01 | 68.41 ± 0.00 | 21.10 ± 0.01 | - | |
| % Inhibition | MIC (mg/mL) | MQSIC (mg/mL) | MQSIC (Ic50 in mg/mL) | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Conc. (mg/mL) | 0.08 | 0.16 | 0.31 | 0.63 | 1.25 | 2.5 | |||
| MeOH | 28.60 | 45.02 | 63.62 | 89.86 | 95.93 | 96.08 | 0.63 | 0.16 | 0.31 |
| CeEtOAc | 50.83 | 59.18 | 73.55 | 88.17 | 96.16 | 96.21 | 0.63 | 0.08 | <0.08 |
| CeBuOH | 49.53 | 66.49 | 66.49 | 76.92 | 96.14 | 96.21 | 0.63 | 0.16 | 0.24 |
| CeHx | 40.72 | 40.72 | 53.11 | 77.57 | 87.27 | 96.08 | - | 0.31 | 0.31 |
| CeAq | 35.53 | 35.48 | 55.29 | 55.19 | 95.49 | 95.64 | 0.63 | 0.16 | 0.31 |
| CeDCM | 39.03 | 50.29 | 58.09 | 59.49 | 78.94 | 95.98 | - | 0.31 | 0.16 |
| Ciprofloxacin | 95.31 | 96.08 | 96.16 | 96.24 | 96.24 | 96.32 | 0.03 | 0.03 | <0.03 |
| Amphotericin B | 94.99 | 96.06 | 96.16 | 96.24 | 96.29 | 96.29 | 0.03 | 0.03 | <0.03 |
| Gentamicin | 75.03 | 90.82 | 94.27 | 95.18 | 96.29 | 96.27 | 0.25 | 0.03 | <0.25 |
| Extracts | Nitric Oxide Inhibition (% NO inhibition) and % Viability of Macrophages (MTT Assay) | NO (IC50 µg/mL) | LOX (IC50 µg/mL) | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 100 µg/mL | 50 µg/mL | 12.5 µg/mL | 1.6 µg/mL | |||||||
| NO | MTT | NO | MTT | NO | MTT | NO | MTT | |||
| MeOH | 91.64 ± 5.17 | 100.80 ± 3.12 | 81.26 ± 18.33 | 97.41 ± 8.68 | 60.74 ± 46.32 | 96.30 ± 11.68 | 11.33 ± 19.67 | 95.00 ± 1.67 | 26.51 | 47.75 |
| CeEtOAc | 100.45 ± 6.48 | 100.40 ± 1.18 | 91.49 ± 11.31 | 100.91 ± 10.98 | 52.37 ± 16.89 | 100.56 ± 5.50 | 0.00 | 100.27 ± 3.58 | 8.19 | 17.57 |
| CeBuOH | 94.94 ± 11.74 | 98.02 ± 26.31 | 78.68 ± 32.45 | 92.44 ± 20.99 | 52.40 ± 58.16 | 97.89 ± 11.12 | 0.00 | 90.07 ± 20.90 | 7.57 | 22.04 |
| CeHx | 100.08 ± 3.61 | 94.09 ± 33.05 | 100.79 ± 2.95 | 98.43 ± 14.69 | 85.94 ± 3.95 | 98.65 ± 4.16 | 31.65 ± 5.41 | 93.05 ± 5.21 | 12.40 | 3.40 |
| CeAq | 99.69 ± 1.56 | 83.40 ± 5.69 | 92.36 ± 9.46 | 82.12 ± 8.32 | 77.32 ± 24.45 | 97.12 ± 0.55 | 27.40 ± 19.44 | 95.32 ± 5.15 | 23.59 | 4.94 |
| CeDCM | 100.80 ± 4.05 | 75.74 ± 19.16 | 91.66 ± 11.39 | 92.16 ± 8.84 | 62.36 ± 27.74 | 100.35 ± 0.43 | 0.00 | 100.44 ± 2.28 | 22.52 | 3.59 |
| Quercetin | 96.15 ± 0.8 | 31.52 ± 3.3 | 94.53 ± 4.9 | 54.99 ± 4.6 | 64.66 ± 5.6 | 81.1 ± 4.4 | 43.91 ± 3.5 | 99.00 ± 9.3 | 2.85 | 9.70 |
| Doxo | - | 31.52 ± 3.3 | - | 16.19 ± 7.1 | - | 63.52 ± 4.4 | - | 86.13 ± 5.6 | ||
| Extracts | LC50 (mg/mL) | Selectivity Index | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SA1 | SA2 | SA3 | SA4 | SA5 | SA6 | SAA | SEA | ||
| MeOH | 1 | 1.59 | 1.92 | 0.96 | 1.61 | 1.59 | 1.59 | 4.76 | 1.20 |
| CeEtOAc | 0.88 | 5.5 | 5.5 | 3.83 | 3.83 | 3.83 | 3.83 | 3.83 | 3.83 |
| CeBuOH | 1 | 2.38 | 3.85 | 2.94 | 1.59 | 3.85 | 3.85 | 4.35 | 2.38 |
| CeHx | 1 | 4.76 | 3.03 | 1.92 | 3.85 | 3.23 | 3.23 | 6.25 | 1.59 |
| CeAq | 1 | 1.59 | 1.61 | 1.59 | 1.59 | 2.38 | 1.06 | 1.59 | 1.37 |
| CeDCM | 1 | 9.09 | 4.35 | 2.38 | 3.85 | 3.85 | 3.23 | 9.09 | 1.92 |
| Doxorubicin | 0.008 ± 0.00 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2026 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license.
Share and Cite
Erhabor, R.C.; Dzoyem, J.P.; Petzer, I.-M.; Abdalla, M.A.; McGaw, L.J. In Vitro Bioactivity of Leaf Extract Fractions and Quercetin-3-O-Rhamnoside from Combretum elaeagnoides Against Staphylococcus Species Implicated in Causing Bovine Mastitis. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2026, 27, 1579. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms27031579
Erhabor RC, Dzoyem JP, Petzer I-M, Abdalla MA, McGaw LJ. In Vitro Bioactivity of Leaf Extract Fractions and Quercetin-3-O-Rhamnoside from Combretum elaeagnoides Against Staphylococcus Species Implicated in Causing Bovine Mastitis. International Journal of Molecular Sciences. 2026; 27(3):1579. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms27031579
Chicago/Turabian StyleErhabor, Rosemary Chinelo, Jean Paul Dzoyem, Inge-Marie Petzer, Muna A. Abdalla, and Lyndy Joy McGaw. 2026. "In Vitro Bioactivity of Leaf Extract Fractions and Quercetin-3-O-Rhamnoside from Combretum elaeagnoides Against Staphylococcus Species Implicated in Causing Bovine Mastitis" International Journal of Molecular Sciences 27, no. 3: 1579. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms27031579
APA StyleErhabor, R. C., Dzoyem, J. P., Petzer, I.-M., Abdalla, M. A., & McGaw, L. J. (2026). In Vitro Bioactivity of Leaf Extract Fractions and Quercetin-3-O-Rhamnoside from Combretum elaeagnoides Against Staphylococcus Species Implicated in Causing Bovine Mastitis. International Journal of Molecular Sciences, 27(3), 1579. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms27031579

