Commenced in January 2007
Frequency: Monthly
Edition: International
Paper Count: 30761
Antimicrobial, Antioxidant and Cytotoxic Activities of Cleoma viscosa Linn. Crude Extracts

Authors: Suttijit Sriwatcharakul


The bioactivity studies from the weed ethanolic crude extracts from leaf, stem, pod and root of wild spider flower; Cleoma viscosa Linn. were analyzed for the growth inhibition of 6 bacterial species; Salmonella typhimurium TISTR 5562, Pseudomonas aeruginosa ATCC 27853, Staphylococcus aureus TISTR 1466, Streptococcus epidermidis ATCC 1228, Escherichia coli DMST 4212 and Bacillus subtilis ATCC 6633 with initial concentration crude extract of 50 mg/ml. The agar well diffusion results found that the extracts inhibit only gram positive bacteria species; S. aureus, S. epidermidis and B. subtilis. The minimum inhibition concentration study with gram positive strains revealed that leaf crude extract give the best result of the lowest concentration compared with other plant parts to inhibit the growth of S. aureus, S. epidermidis and B. subtilis at 0.78, 0.39 and lower than 0.39 mg/ml, respectively. The determination of total phenolic compounds in the crude extracts exhibited the highest phenolic content was 10.41 mg GAE/g dry weight in leaf crude extract. Analyzed the efficacy of free radical scavenging by using DPPH radical scavenging assay with all crude extracts showed value of IC50 of leaf, stem, pod and root crude extracts were 8.32, 12.26, 21.62 and 35.99 mg/ml, respectively. Studied cytotoxicity of crude extracts on human breast adenocarcinoma cell line by MTT assay found that pod extract had the most cytotoxicity CC50 value, 32.41 µg/ml. Antioxidant activity and cytotoxicity of crude extracts exhibited that the more increase of extract concentration, the more activities indicated. According to the bioactivities results, the leaf crude extract of Cleoma viscosa Linn. is the most interesting plant part for further work to search the beneficial of this weed.

Keywords: Antimicrobial, antioxidant activity, Cleoma viscosa Linn, cytotoxicity test, total phenolic compound

Digital Object Identifier (DOI):

Procedia APA BibTeX Chicago EndNote Harvard JSON MLA RIS XML ISO 690 PDF Downloads 1288


[1] Smitinand, T, “Thai plant names”, The forest herbarium, Royal forest Department, Bangkok, 2014.
[2] Smitinand, T, “Thai plant names: botanical names - vernacular names”, The forest herbarium, Royal forest Department, Bangkok, 1980.
[3] Clementine LB.D, Malick NB, Antoine S, “Effects of crushed fresh Cleome viscosa L. (Capparaceae) plants on the cowpea storage pest, Callosobruchus maculatus Fab (Coleoptera: Bruchidae)”, Int J Pest Manage, vol. 54, no. 4, pp 319-326, 2008.
[4] PTT Public Company Limited, “HRH Princess Maha Chakri Sirindhorn Herb Garden Company”, Graphic international, Bangkok, 1988.
[5] Singleton, V.L, Ingleton, V.L, Orthofer, R, Lamuela-Raventos, R.M, “Analysis of total phenols and other oxidation substrates and antioxidants by means of Folin-Ciocalteu reagent”, Method Enzymol, vol. 3, pp. 152-178, 1999.
[6] Tortora, Gerard J, “Microbiology: an introduction”, Benjamin/ Cummings, 2001.
[7] Schlegel, HG, “General Microbiology”, Cambridge University Press, 1993.
[8] Saradha J. and Subba R, “In vitro antimicrobial activity of Cleome viscosa Linn”, Pharm. Sci. Morn., vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 89-95, 2010.
[9] Uptal B, Vaskor B, Tarak N, Karhikeyan G, Ahmed A R, “Antinociceptive, cytotoxic and antibacterial activities of Cleome viscose leaves”, Rev. bras. Farmacogn., vol.21, no.1,Jan./Feb., 2011.
[10] Pitchaon M, Suttajit M, Pongswatmani R, “ Assessment of phenolic content and free radical scavenging capacity of some thai indigenous plants”, Food Chem., vol.100, no.4, pp.1409- 1418, 2007.
[11] Prakash C. G, Nisha S, Ch. V. R, “Comparison of the antioxidant activity and total phenolic, flavonoid content of aerial part of Cleome viscose L.” Int. J. Phytomed.,vol. 3, pp. 386-391, 2011.
[12] Bajpai, M., Pande, A., Tewari, S.K., Prakash, D., “Phenolic contents and antioxidant activity of some food and medicinal plants”, Int. J. Food Sci. Nutr., vol. 56, pp.287-291, 2005.