Article Sidebar
Article Details
Issue
Section
Articles
A. AFRICAN HEALTH SCIENCES OPEN ACCESS POLICY
While African Health Sciences has been freely accessible online there have been questions on whether it is Open Access or not. We wish to clearly state that indeed African Health Sciences is Open Access. There are key issues regarding Open Access needing clarification for avoidance of doubt:
- 1. Henceforth, papers in African Health Sciences will be published under the CC BY (Creative Commons Attribution License) 4.0 International. See details on https://creativecomons.org/)
- 2. The copyright owners or the authors grant the 3rd party (perpetually and in advance) the right to disseminate, reproduce, or use the research papers in part or in full, format/medium as long as:
- No substantive errors are introduced in the process
- Attribution of authorship and correct citation details are given
- The referencing details are not changed.
Should the papers be reproduced in part, this must be clearly stated.
- 3. The papers will be freely and universally accessible online in an easily readable format such as XML in at least one widely recognized open access repository such as PUBMED CENTRAL.
B. ABRIDGED LICENCE AGREEMENT BETWEEN AUTHORS AND African Health Sciences
I submitted my manuscript to African Health Sciences and would like to affirm that:
1.0 I am authorized by my co-authors to enter into these arrangements.
2.0 I guarantee, on behalf of self and co-authors:
- That the paper is original, and has not been published in any other peer-reviewed journal; nor is it under consideration by other journal (s). It does not infringe existing copyright or any other person’s rights
- That we are/I am the sole author(s) of the paper and with authority to enter into this agreement. My granting rights to African Health Sciences is not in breach of any other obligation
- That the paper contains nothing unlawful, or libelous. Nor anything that would constitute a breach of contract, confidence or commitment given to secrecy, if published
- That I/we have taken care to ensure the integrity of the article.
3.0 I and all co-authors, agree that the paper, if accepted for publication, shall be licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution License 4.0. (see https://creativecommons.org/)
Main Article Content
The <i>in-vitro</i> antibacterial activity of <i>Annona senegalensis , Securidacca longipendiculata</i> and <i>Steganotaenia araliacea</i> - Ugandan medicinal plants
Abstract
Background: Nearly all cultures from ancient times to the present day have used plants as a source of medicines. As a result, different remedies tended to develop in different parts of the world. Current strategies to overcome the global problem of antimicrobial resistance include research in finding new and innovative antimicrobials from plants.
Objectives: To determine the antibacterial activity of extracts of Annona senegalensis, Securidacca longipendiculata and Steganotaenia araliacea, plants which are used in Eastern Uganda for the treatment of diarrhea and wound infections.
Methods: The root barks of these plants were collected, sun-dried, pounded using pestles and wooden mortars. Water and methanol extracts were derived and screened. Standard cultures of E. coli ATCC 25922, Pseudomonas aeruginosa ATCC 27853, and Staphylococcus aureus ATCC 25923 were used in the study. The antibacterial tests used were the agar well diffusion assays. The minimum inhibitory concentrations (MIC) were determined by cylinder plate technique.
Results: Extracts of Annona senegalensis, Steganotaenia araliacea and Securidaca longipendiculata showed activity against Staphylococcus aureus. The methanol extract of Securidaca longipediculata was not inhibitory to S.aureus. Steganotaenia araliacea and Securidaca longipediculata (water) extracts were active against all the bacteria tested. The water and methanol extracts of Annona senegalensis did not show inhibitory activity against E. coli. Of the three bacteria studied, Staphylococcus aureus was the most susceptible to the extracts followed by P. aeruginosa. E. coli was least sensitive to the plant extracts. Annona senegalensis had the lowest MIC against Staphylococcus aureus (62.5mg/ml); while Steganotaenia araliacea had the highest MIC (250mg/ml) signifying lower activity.
Conclusions: The root bark extracts of the three plants showed antibacterial activity, justifying their continued use in treatment of bacterial infections.
Recommendations: Further studies are required to isolate and characterise the active phytochemical constituents in the plants. Toxicity studies should be done to determine their safety.
African Health Sciences Vol. 6(1) 2006: 31-35
Objectives: To determine the antibacterial activity of extracts of Annona senegalensis, Securidacca longipendiculata and Steganotaenia araliacea, plants which are used in Eastern Uganda for the treatment of diarrhea and wound infections.
Methods: The root barks of these plants were collected, sun-dried, pounded using pestles and wooden mortars. Water and methanol extracts were derived and screened. Standard cultures of E. coli ATCC 25922, Pseudomonas aeruginosa ATCC 27853, and Staphylococcus aureus ATCC 25923 were used in the study. The antibacterial tests used were the agar well diffusion assays. The minimum inhibitory concentrations (MIC) were determined by cylinder plate technique.
Results: Extracts of Annona senegalensis, Steganotaenia araliacea and Securidaca longipendiculata showed activity against Staphylococcus aureus. The methanol extract of Securidaca longipediculata was not inhibitory to S.aureus. Steganotaenia araliacea and Securidaca longipediculata (water) extracts were active against all the bacteria tested. The water and methanol extracts of Annona senegalensis did not show inhibitory activity against E. coli. Of the three bacteria studied, Staphylococcus aureus was the most susceptible to the extracts followed by P. aeruginosa. E. coli was least sensitive to the plant extracts. Annona senegalensis had the lowest MIC against Staphylococcus aureus (62.5mg/ml); while Steganotaenia araliacea had the highest MIC (250mg/ml) signifying lower activity.
Conclusions: The root bark extracts of the three plants showed antibacterial activity, justifying their continued use in treatment of bacterial infections.
Recommendations: Further studies are required to isolate and characterise the active phytochemical constituents in the plants. Toxicity studies should be done to determine their safety.
African Health Sciences Vol. 6(1) 2006: 31-35
