<i>IN VITRO</i> ANTIBACTERIAL OF RESEARCH ETHANOL EXTRACT FROM LEAVES AND BARK OF <i>CEDRELA FISSILIS</i> VELL.
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.5902/2179460X13234Abstract
http://dx.doi.org/10.5902/2179460X13234
Brazil has great potential for obtaining new drugs of natural origin able to fight infections caused by resistant microorganisms to conventional antibiotics . This study aimed to perform a phytochemical analysis and to investigate the in vitro antibacterial activity of ethanol extracts of the bark and leaves of ,<i>Cedrela fissillis</i> . These were obtained by turboextração , concentrated and lyophilized . In phytochemical analysis of the extract of the bark against yourself, saponins , phenols , tannins and triterpenoids pirogálicos . In leaf extract detected the presence of catechin tannins . For determination of minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC ), the microplate dilution technique was used. After reading the MIC in wells where no bacterial growth was observed in minimal bactericidal concentration (MBC ) was determined . Extracts of the hulls indicated antibacterial activity against Escherichia coli (ATCC 8739) , Staphylococcus aureus ( ATCC 25923 ) , Bacillus cereus ( ATCC 11778 ) and Staphylococcus aureus hospital with CIM 125 μg.mL - 1 . By CBM found a significant bactericidal activity against the four bacterial species . The leaf extract showed no antibacterial activity against the tested strains . The study showed the existence of constituents with antimicrobial activity present in the ethanol extract of the bark of <i>Cedrela Cedrela</i> Vell . against these strains evaluated.
Downloads
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
To access the DECLARATION AND TRANSFER OF COPYRIGHT AUTHOR’S DECLARATION AND COPYRIGHT LICENSE click here.
Ethical Guidelines for Journal Publication
The Ciência e Natura journal is committed to ensuring ethics in publication and quality of articles.
Conformance to standards of ethical behavior is therefore expected of all parties involved: Authors, Editors, Reviewers, and the Publisher.
In particular,
Authors: Authors should present an objective discussion of the significance of research work as well as sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the experiments. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behavior and are unacceptable. Review Articles should also be objective, comprehensive, and accurate accounts of the state of the art. The Authors should ensure that their work is entirely original works, and if the work and/or words of others have been used, this has been appropriately acknowledged. Plagiarism in all its forms constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable. Authors should not submit articles describing essentially the same research to more than one journal. The corresponding Author should ensure that there is a full consensus of all Co-authors in approving the final version of the paper and its submission for publication.
Editors: Editors should evaluate manuscripts exclusively on the basis of their academic merit. An Editor must not use unpublished information in the editor's own research without the express written consent of the Author. Editors should take reasonable responsive measures when ethical complaints have been presented concerning a submitted manuscript or published paper.
Reviewers: Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Reviewers should be conducted objectively, and observations should be formulated clearly with supporting arguments, so that Authors can use them for improving the paper. Any selected Reviewer who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the Editor and excuse himself from the review process. Reviewers should not consider manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.
