4.1 Article

Antimicrobial potential of actinobacteria isolated from the rhizosphere of the Caatinga biome plant Caesalpinia pyramidalis Tul.

期刊

GENETICS AND MOLECULAR RESEARCH
卷 15, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

FUNPEC-EDITORA
DOI: 10.4238/gmr.15017488

关键词

Streptomyces; Bioactive compounds; Antimicrobial activity

资金

  1. Foundation for Science and Technology of the State of Pernambuco [IBPG-0872-2.12/10]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Actinobacteria are known to produce various secondary metabolites having antibiotic effects. This study assessed the antimicrobial potential of actinobacteria isolated from the rhizosphere of Caesalpinia pyramidalis Tul. from the Caatinga biome. Sixty-eight actinobacteria isolates were evaluated for antimicrobial activity against different microorganisms by disk diffusion and submerged fermentation, using different culture media, followed by determination of minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) and chemical prospecting of the crude extract. Of the isolates studied, 52.9% of those isolated at 37 degrees C and 47.05% of those isolated at 45 degrees C had activity against Bacillus subtilis, Staphylococcus aureus, methicillin-resistant S. aureus (MRSA), Fusarium moniliforme, and Candida albicans. When compared with others actinobacteria, the isolate C1.129 stood out with better activity and was identified by 16S rDNA gene analysis as Streptomyces parvulus. The crude ethanol extract showed an MIC of 0.97 mu g/mL for MRSA and B. subtilis, while the ethyl acetate extract showed MIC of 3.9 mu g/mL for S. aureus and MRSA, showing the greatest potential among the metabolites produced. Chemical prospecting revealed the presence of mono/sesquiterpenes, proanthocyanidin, triterpenes, and steroids in both crude extracts. This study evaluates S. parvulus activity against multi-resistant microorganisms such as MRSA. Thus, it proves that low-fertility soil, as is found in the Caatinga, may contain important microorganisms for the development of new antimicrobial drugs.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.1
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据