Qualitative phytochemical screening
Phytochemical screening is used to evaluate the constituents of plant extracts, and their predomination. This preliminary step for the search for bioactive constituents is very helpful in the production of therapeutic drugs29. In this study, qualitative phytochemical analysis of methanolic extracts of Ocimum gratissimum, Tetradenia riparia and Dysphania ambrosioides was carried out as shown in Table 2. Alkaloids, saponins, flavonoids, iridoids and anthraquinones were detected in all the three plant extracts. Coumarins were only present in O. gratissimum while terpenes were present both in O. gratissimum and in T. riparia. Our results corroborate those of Ahmed et al. (2019) and Olamilosoye et al. (2018)30,31. The therapeutic potential of these three plants is probably due to the presence of these phytochemicals. Flavonoids are known to have antioxidant activities, inhibiting the initiation, promotion and progression of tumors32. Alkaloids obtained from beta-carboline group are known to exhibit strong antimicrobial, anti-HIV and antiparasitic activities33. Terpenoids show multiple pharmacological activities such as anti-inflammatory, anticancer, antioxidant and antibacterial activities 32,34,35.
Table 2
Phytochemical screening of methanolic extracts of Ocimum gratissimum, Tetradenia riparia, and Dysphania ambrosioides [+ indicates presence, − indicates absence].
Phytochemical compounds | O. gratissimum | T. riparia | D. ambrosioides |
Alkaloids | + | + | + |
Saponins | + | + | + |
Flavonoids | + | + | + |
Iridoids | + | + | + |
Anthraquinones | + | + | + |
Coumarins | + | - | - |
Terpenes | + | + | - |
Total phenolic and flavonoid content
Phenolic and flavonoid contents are very important criteria for evaluating the plant extracts quantitatively and their biological strength because they play a crucial role in different physiological processes32,33. The total phenolic and flavonoid contents of Dysphania ambrosioides, Ocimum gratissimum, and Tetradenia riparia methanol extracts are shown in Table 3. The result showed that T. riparia had significantly the highest total phenolic content (299.146 ± 0.143 mg GAE/g extract) followed by D. ambrosioides (155.602 ± 1.712 mg GAE/g extract) and O. gratissimum (153.597 ± 5.277 mg GAE/g extract). On the other hand, O. gratissimum had the highest flavonoids content (138.256 ± 0.277 mg QE/g extract) followed by T. riparia (112.843 ± 0.255 mg QE/ g extract) and D. ambrosioides (63.925 ± 0.494 mg QE/ g extract).
Our results are a bit higher than those found by Panda et al. (2022) and Olamilosoye et al. (2018)10,31. The discrepancy can be due to several factors such as the harvesting season of the plants, the pH of the soil, the choice and stage of drying conditions, the geographical location, the chemotype or subspecies and the choice of plant part or genotype or extraction method. Phenolics are known to possess antioxidant antimutagenic, and anti-carcinogenic activities as well as the ability to modify gene expression. Flavonoids are active constituents performing various biological activities such as resisting microbial, ulcer, arthritis, angiogenic, and cancerous diseases along with inhibiting the formation of mitochondrial adhesion30.
Table 3
Total phenolics and flavonoid content of the methanolic extracts of Ocimum gratissimum, Tetradenia riparia, and Dysphania ambrosioides
Extracts | Phenol content (mg GAE/g extract) | Flavonoid content (mg quercitin/g extract) |
T. riparia | 299.146 ± 0.143 | 112.843 ± 0.255 |
O. gratissimum | 153.597 ± 5.277 | 138.256 ± 0.277 |
D. ambrosioides | 155.602 ± 1.712 | 63.925 ± 0.494 |
UPLC analysis
Ultra-performance liquid chromatography-quadrupole time of flight-mass spectrometry (UPLC-QTOF-MS) analysis is one of the most frequently applied techniques to detect different metabolites present in plants. This technique was used to tentatively identify the metabolites present in the decocted and percolated extracts of O. gratissimum, T. riparia, D. ambrosioides and those of their combinations including O. gratissimum + T. riparia (OT), O. gratissimum + D. ambrosioides (OD), T. riparia + D. ambrosioides (TD) as well as O. gratissimum + T. riparia + D. ambrosioides (OTD). The chromatograms of the percolated extracts are shown in Fig. 1 while those of the tested decocted extracts are in supplementary data file (Figure S1). The tentatively identified compounds in the percolated extracts are depicted in Table 4 while those of the decocted extracts are shown in Table S1.
The major compounds identified in the percolated extract from O. gratissimum were rosmarinic acid, cirsimaritin and xanthomicrol (Figures S2, S3). Rosmarinic acid was also identified in the percolated extract from T. riparia (Figure S2) while several flavonoids such as apigenin 7-glycosides, kaempferitrin (a 3,7-dirhamnoside of kaempferol) and kaempferol 3,7-diglycosides were identified in D. ambrosioides (Figures S4, S7). Furthermore, rosmaniric acid and xanthomicrol were detected in the extract combination of O. gratissimum + T. riparia (Figures S2 and S3). Rosmarinic acid, kaempferitrin, vitexin and xanthomicrol were identified in the percolated extract combination containing O. gratissimum and D. ambrosioides (Figures S2, S3, S4 and S5). For the percolated extract combination including T. riparia and D. ambrosioides, luteolin 7-O-glucoside, rosmarinic acid, apigenin 7-glycosides and kaempferitin were putatively identified (Figures S2, S4, S7 and S8). Finally, in the percolated extract combination containing all three plants, epigallocatechin 3-gallate, 3-galloylcatechin epicatechin 5-gallate, rosmarinic acid, xanthomicrol and apigenin 7-glycosides were identified (Figures S2, S3, S7, S9 and S10). Rosmarinic acid had previously been identified as one of major compounds in O. gratissimum methanolic, hydromethanolic and ethanolic extracts36. Likewise, cirsimaritin and xanthomicrol had previously been detected in O. gratissimum37. Further, several quercetins and kaempferol derivatives had been identified in D. ambrosioides38.
Table 4
Tentative identification of the major compounds in the percolated plant extracts.
Medicinal plants | RT min | Acquired [M-H]− m/z | Theoretical [M-H]− m/z | Molecular Formula | Tentative Identification |
O. gratissimum | 10.06 | 359.0836 | 359.0767 | C18H16O8 | Rosmarinic acid |
13.27 | 313.0800 | 313.0712 | C17H14O6 | Cirsimaritin |
13.68 | 343.0911 | 343.0818 | C18H16O7 | Xanthomicrol |
T. riparia | 10.05 | 359.0836 | 359.0767 | C18H16O8 | Rosmarinic acid |
D. ambrosioides | 10.77 | 563.1530 | 563.1401 | C26H28O14 | Apigenin 7-glycosides |
10.86 | 577.1682 | 577.1557 | C27H30O14 | Kaempferitrin |
11.67 | 605.1561 | 605.1506 | C28H30O15 | Kaempferol 3,7-diglycosides |
O. gratissimum + T. riparia | 10.10 | 359.0836 | 359.0767 | C18H16O8 | Rosmarinic acid |
13.71 | 343.0911 | 343.0818 | C18H16O7 | Xanthomicrol |
O. gratissimum + D. ambrosioides | 9.97 | 359.0836 | 359.0767 | C18H16O8 | Rosmarinic acid |
10.76 | 577.1578 | 577.1557 | C27H30O14 | Kaempferitrin |
12.25 | 431.1033 | 431.0978 | C21H20O10 | Vitexin |
13.61 | 343.0880 | 343.0818 | C18H16O7 | Xanthomicrol |
T. riparia + D. ambrosioides | 9.94 | 447.0977 | 447.0927 | C21H20O11 | Luteolin 7-O-glucoside |
10.07 | 359.0836 | 359.0767 | C18H16O8 | Rosmarinic acid |
10.78 | 563.1015 | 563.1401 | C26H28O14 | Apigenin 7-glycosides |
10.86 | 577.1578 | 577.1557 | C27H30O14 | Kaempferitrin |
15.26 | 661.4565 | 661.4468 | C42H6206 | Ziziphorin B |
T. riparia + D. ambrosioides + O. gratissimum | 7.07 | 457.0755 | 457.0771 | C22H18O11 | Epigallocatechin 3-gallate |
8.17 | 441.0869 | 441.0880 | C22H18O10 | 3-Galloylcatechin Epicatechin 5-gallate |
9.86 | 359.0823 | 359.0767 | C18H16O8 | Rosmarinic acid |
10.57 | 563.1446 | 563.1401 | C26H28O14 | Apigenin 7-glycosides |
13.46 | 343.0870 | 343.0818 | C18H16O7 | Xanthomicrol |
Antioxidant activity
The scavenging of free radicals through the DPPH is an approved technique commonly used to determine the antioxidant activity of extracts taken from plants. The method requires less time for analysis and therefore, is used widely for measuring the antioxidant activity of plant extracts. Due to their high hydrogen-donating ability, DPPH is considered as an efficient antioxidant. Removal of free radicals is vital to inhibit their toxic roles in various diseases, including cancer and bacterial diseases 29,39,40,41.
The results of the antioxidant activities of the percolated and decocted extracts of D. ambrosioides, O. gratissimum and T. riparia as well as of their combinations using the DPPH method are shown in Tables 5 and 6, respectively. The extracts obtained through decoction demonstrated higher antioxidant activity than the extracts obtained through percolation. When considering the extracts obtained through decoction, the extract from O. gratissimum exhibited the highest antioxidant activity (11,744 ± 0,584 µg/mL) followed by that from T. riparia (12,916 ± 0,972 µg/mL). The extract from D. ambrosioides displayed the lowest antioxidant activity (203,492 ± 9,285 µg/mL). However, when looking at the extracts obtained through percolation, the extract from T. riparia exhibited the highest antioxidant activity (20,157 ± 3,125 µg/mL) followed by that from O. gratissimum (22,747 ± 1,139 µg/mL). Again, the extract from D. ambrosioides displayed the lowest antioxidant activity (275,053 ± 13,20 µg/mL). The differentiating factor might be the absence of terpenes. The terpenes had been found in T. riparia and O. gratissimum (Table 1) and they have been reported to have efficient antioxidant activity 34,35.
Table 5
Antioxidant combination effects of decocted extracts of O. gratissimum, T. riparia and D. ambrosioides using the DPPH method.
Decocted extracts | IC50 (µg/mL) | CI1 | CI2 | CI3 | CI | Interpretation |
O. gratissimum | 11,744 ± 0,584 | - | - | - | - | - |
D. ambrosioides | 203,492 ± 9,285 | - | - | - | - | - |
T. riparia | 12,916 ± 0,972 | - | - | - | - | - |
O. gratissimum + D. ambrosioides | 13,050 ± 0,239 | 1,11 | 0,06 | - | 1,17 | Additive |
O. gratissimum + T. riparia | 3,529 ± 0,362 | 0,30 | - | 0,27 | 0,57 | Synergistic |
D. ambrosioides + T. riparia | 45,450 ± 3,013 | - | 0,22 | 3,51 | 3,73 | Antagonistic |
O. gratissimum + T. riparia + D. ambrosioides | 11,953 ± 0,183 | 1,02 | 0,92 | 0,06 | 1,99 | Antagonistic |
Quercetin | 3,21 ± 1,0 |
On the basis of antioxidant combination index (CI), the decocted extract from the combination of O. gratissimum + T. riparia showed synergy (CI = 0.57) and depicted the highest antioxidant among all combinations whereas that of O. gratissimum + D. ambrosioides showed additive effects (CI = 1.17). All other combinations showed antagonistic effects (Tables 5 and 6). This indicates that the proton donating ability of the decocted extract from the combination of O. gratissimum + T. riparia was higher than that of the extracts taken individually. This synergism can be explained by several mechanisms such as the formation of stable intermolecular complexes between the antioxidants which then exhibits higher antioxidant activity than that of the parent compounds. Unpredictable interactions between the examined compounds could also explain the synergism effect42. The additive effect produced from the decocted extract of O. gratissimum + D. ambrosioides combination might indicate the absence of interactions between the antioxidants during the oxidation. This effect occurs when single antioxidant acts independently of each other, one antioxidant does not disturb the action of another antioxidant occurring in the complex mixture43. Several mechanisms can explain the antagonism observed with all the other combinations. It might be that antioxidants polymerization, formation of complex and adduct between antioxidants are causing the decrease in the overall antioxidant properties42. Several investigations need to be undertaken in order to understand the exact mechanism of action of the synergism, additive and antagonistic effects revealed in this study.
Table 6
Antioxidant combination effects of percolated extracts of O. gratissimum, T. riparia and D. ambrosioides using the DPPH method.
Percolated extracts | IC50 (µg/mL) | CI1 | CI2 | CI3 | CI | Interpretation |
O. gratissimum | 22,747 ± 1,139 | - | - | - | - | - |
D. ambrosioides | 275,053 ± 13,20 | - | - | - | - | - |
T. riparia | 20,157 ± 3,125 | - | - | - | - | - |
O. gratissimum + D. ambrosioides | 48,134 ± 0,858 | 2,12 | 0,17 | - | 2,29 | Antagonistic |
O. gratissimum + T. riparia | 49,068 ± 31,011 | 2,16 | - | 2,43 | 4,59 | Antagonistic |
D. ambrosioides + T. riparia | 197,560 ± 2,079 | - | 9,80 | 0,72 | 10,52 | Antagonistic |
O. gratissimum + T. riparia + D. ambrosioides | 43,287 ± 0,316 | 1,90 | 2,15 | 0,16 | 4,21 | Antagonistic |
Quercétine | 3,21 ± 1,0 |
The CI index (CI) = CI1 + CI2, or (CI2 + CI3) or (CI1 + CI3) or (CI1 + CI2 + CI3) where CI1 = (D)1/ (DX)1 and CI2 = (D)2/ (DX)2, CI3= (D)3/ (DX)3 ; (D)1, (D)2 and (D)3 are the doses (IC50 values) of the plant extracts in commination; (DX)1, (DX)2 and (DX)3 are the doses (IC50 values) of the plant extracts taken individually. Results were interpreted as synergistic interaction (CI < 1), additive interaction (CI = 1), or antagonistic interaction (CI > 1).
Antibacterial activity
Due to the emergence of multi-drug resistant microorganisms worldwide, researchers are currently looking for new constituents from natural resources to combat microbial diseases44. The plants are, without any doubt, a valuable resource of bioactive compounds of important medicinal value39,40. In this study, the antimicrobial potential of percolated and decocted extracts from O. gratissimum, T. riparia and D. ambrosioides was analyzed against gram-positive bacteria (S. aureus) and gram-negative bacteria (E. coli and P. aeruginosa). The minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) is defined as the least concentration of an antimicrobial agent that can stop the visible increase in the microorganisms’ growth after an overnight incubation. The MIC is usually used to evaluate the antimicrobial activity of new compounds or extracts by measuring the effect of decreasing antimicrobial concentration. Compounds with lower MIC values are more effective and vice-versa33,40.
According to our findings, the percolated extracts showed significant inhibitory effects (Table 7) as opposed to the decocted extracts (Table S2). The decocted extracts were less potent against all tested microorganisms although several potential flavonoids and polyphenols were tentatively identified through UPLC (Table S1). The percolated extracts of T. riparia and O. gratissimum had the lowest MIC (500 µg/mL) followed by those of D. ambrosioides (1000 µg/mL) against Staphylococcus aureus. However, these extracts were less potent (2000 µg/mL) against gram-negative bacteria (E. coli and P. aerogenes). Cells of Gram-negative bacteria possess an extra outer membrane, which provides them with a hydrophilic surface that performs as a permeability barrier for several substances including biological compounds45. This might explain the lower potency of our extracts against the gram-negative bacteria. The antibacterial activity of our plant extracts might be due to the presence of high content phenols and flavonoids identified. Phenols such as the identified rosmarinic acid are known to disturb the function of cytoplasmic membrane and metabolism of energy, thus affecting the synthesis of nucleic acids.
They have anticancer, antidiabetic, antiaging, antidepressant and antimicrobial activities41,42. Flavonoids such as cirsimaritin, xanthomicrol, kaemferitin, kaempferol 3,7-diglycosides, etc. have shown inhibitory activity against the bacterial DNA polymerase, RNA polymerase, reverse transcriptase, telomerase as well as antitumoral activities43,44,46.
Table 7
Minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) values of selected medicinal plants and control antibiotic against test bacterial strains.
Percolated extracts | MIC (µg/mL) |
Bacterial strains |
Staphylococcus aureus | Escherichia coli | Pseudomonas aerogenes |
T. riparia | 500 | 2000 | 2000 |
O. gratissimum | 500 | 2000 | 2000 |
D. ambrosioides | 1000 | 2000 | 2000 |
Ciproflaxine | 0.125 | 0.03 | 0.25 |
The combined use of plant extracts can usually cause different interactions. This is because each extract possesses several types of compounds. The enhanced antibacterial activity of plant extract combinations had been reported previously47,48,49. Some interactions are also known to decrease the efficacy of plant extract combination either by neutralizing each other, forming inactive complexes or by acting competitively for the same molecular target50,51,52. It is always necessary to confirm the influence of the combination of plant extracts as reported by local communities.
In our study, checkboard synergy assays was performed to evaluate the synergistic effects of our three selected medicinal plants commonly used in combinations in the capital city of the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Fractional inhibitory concentrations (FICs) and their interpretations are presented in Table 8. There was no best synergistic interactions. However, percolated extracts from O. gratissimum (OG) and T. riparia (TR) showed additive effects (FICI = 1) against S. aureus; their MIC decreased by 2-fold respectively. This might be due to the flavonoids such as xanthomicrol and rosmaniric acid, identified in the UPLC chromatogram of the plant extract combination (O. gratissimum + T. riparia) (Fig. 1, S2 and S3). All others combinations showed indifferent effects (1.0 < FICI ≤ 4.0), suggesting that the combined effect is equal to the effects of the most active extract. No antagonism effect was found in any of the plant extract combinations. Our results clearly show that the potent activity of one extract might not necessarily lead to a high synergy with another extract but can potentially improve the overall antibacterial activity. Most of the time, antibacterial mechanisms of plant extract combinations are not fully understood. The inhibitory antibacterial effect of the OG + TR combination need to be further investigated in order to elucidate the mode of action and the pathways involved.
Table 8
Fractional inhibitory concentration (FIC) values of percolated extracts from selected medicinal plants in combination against test bacterial strains.
Bacterial strains | Medicinal plants | FIC values | FIC index | Interpretation |
A | B | C | FICA | FICB | FICC |
Staphylococcus aureus | OG | TR | | 0.5 | 0.5 | | 1 | Additive |
OG | | DA | 2 | | 1 | 3 | Indifferent |
| TR | DA | | 2 | 1 | 3 | Indifferent |
OG | TR | DA | 1 | 1 | 0.5 | 2.5 | Indifferent |
Escherichia coli | OG | TR | | 1 | 1 | | 2 | Indifferent |
OG | | DA | 1 | | 1 | 2 | Indifferent |
| TR | DA | | 1 | 1 | 2 | Indifferent |
OG | TR | DA | 1 | 1 | 1 | 3 | Indifferent |
Pseudomonas aeruginosa | OG | TR | | 1 | 1 | | 2 | Indifferent |
OG | | DA | 1 | | 1 | 2 | Indifferent |
| TR | DA | | 1 | 1 | 2 | Indifferent |
OG | TR | DA | 1 | 1 | 1 | 3 | Indifferent |
OG: Ocimum gratissimum, TR: Tetradenia riparia, DA: Dysphania ambrosioides. The FIC index (FICI) = FICA + FICB, or (FICB + FICC) or (FICA + FICC) or (FICA+FICB+FICC) where FICA was MIC of extract A in combination/MIC of extract A alone, FICB was MIC of extract B in combination/MIC of extract B alone and FICC was MIC of extract C in combination/MIC of extract C alone. FICI are interpreted as synergistic (FICI ≤ 0.5), partial synergy (0.5 < FICI ≤ 0.75), additive (0.75 < FICI ≤ 1.0), indifferent (1.0 < FICI ≤ 4.0), or antagonistic (FICI > 4.0).