Back to all available

Antifungal, amoebicidal, and cytotoxic activities of Cleistanthus bracteosus Jabl (Phyllanthaceae) bark extracts in vitro

biochemistry
microbiology
infectious-diseases
womens-health

Abstract

Endemic plants in the primary rainforests of Malaysia may serve as sources of natural products with the potential to be developed into lead therapeutic compounds. One such plant is Cleistanthus bracteosus Jabl. Hexane, ethyl acetate, and methanol extracts of the bark of C. bracteosus were examined for antifungal and anti-acanthamoeba activities using microbroth dilution techniques, while cytotoxic activities were assessed using the sulforhodamine B colorimetric assay. Phytochemical screening and analyses, including GC-MS, ¹H-NMR, LC-MS, and FT-IR, were conducted to provide insights into the chemical composition of the extracts. The methanol extract of bark inhibited the growth of Candida auris and Candida albicans (MIC: 10 mg/mL) as well as the survival of the cysts and trophozoites of four strains of Acanthamoeba. It also demonstrated selective cytotoxic activity against ovarian cancer cells (IC₅₀: 46 µg/mL). Phytochemical screening and spectroscopic analyses indicated the presence of lignans, flavonoids, and tannins. C. bracteosus produces natural products, including lignans, flavonoids, and tannins, which may hold potential for the development of agents to combat C. auris infections and ovarian cancer. Further phytochemical studies are warranted.
Ask to review this manuscript

Notes for potential reviewers

  • Volunteering is not a guarantee that you will be asked to review. There are many reasons: reviewers must be qualified, there should be no conflicts of interest, a minimum of two reviewers have already accepted an invitation, etc.
  • This is NOT OPEN peer review. The review is single-blind, and all recommendations are sent privately to the Academic Editor handling the manuscript. All reviews are published and reviewers can choose to sign their reviews.
  • What happens after volunteering? It may be a few days before you receive an invitation to review with further instructions. You will need to accept the invitation to then become an official referee for the manuscript. If you do not receive an invitation it is for one of many possible reasons as noted above.
  • PeerJ does not judge submissions based on subjective measures such as novelty, impact or degree of advance. Effectively, reviewers are asked to comment on whether or not the submission is scientifically and technically sound and therefore deserves to join the scientific literature. Our Peer Review criteria can be found on the "Editorial Criteria" page - reviewers are specifically asked to comment on 3 broad areas: "Basic Reporting", "Experimental Design" and "Validity of the Findings".
  • Reviewers are expected to comment in a timely, professional, and constructive manner.
  • Until the article is published, reviewers must regard all information relating to the submission as strictly confidential.
  • When submitting a review, reviewers are given the option to "sign" their review (i.e. to associate their name with their comments). Otherwise, all review comments remain anonymous.
  • All reviews of published articles are published. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials.
  • Each time a decision is made by the Academic Editor, each reviewer will receive a copy of the Decision Letter (which will include the comments of all reviewers).

If you have any questions about submitting your review, please email us at [email protected].