Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

A comparative study of antimicrobial, anti-quorum sensing, anti-biofilm, anti-swarming, and antioxidant activities in flower extracts of pecan (Carya illinoinensis) and chestnut (Castanea sativa)

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Archives of Microbiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Antibiotic resistance, which has increased rapidly in recent years because of uncontrolled and unconscious antibiotic consumption, poses a major threat to public health. The inadequacy of existing antibiotics has increased the need for new, effective, and less toxic antibiotic raw materials or antibiotic derivatives. Pecan (Carya illinoinensis) and Chestnut (Castanea sativa) flowers possess abundant pollen contents and exhibit similar morphological features. The purpose of this study was to compare these two flower extracts in terms of their antimicrobial and antioxidant activities. Total phenolic content, total flavonoid contents, and phenolic components were also analyzed in aquatic and ethanolic extracts. Antioxidant activities were measured using ferric reducing/antioxidant capacity (FRAP) and 2,2-diphenyl-1-picrylhydrazyl (DPPH) methods. Antimicrobial and antifungal activities were compared by means of agar diffusion tests against bacteria including Staphylococcus aureus, Bacillus cereus, Mycobacterium smegmatis, Acinetobacter haemolyticus, and Chromobacterium violaceum, and the yeasts Candida albicans and Candida parapsilosis. Anti-quorum sensing (anti-QS), anti-biofilm, and anti-swarming (SW) activities were also studied against Chromobacterium violaceum ATCC 31532, Chromobacterium violaceum ATCC 12472, and Pseudomonas aeruginosa PA01, respectively. Both extracts were rich in ellagic acid and gallic acid and exhibited similar antioxidant properties. Both flower extracts exhibited high antimicrobial and antifungal activities as well as anti-biofilm, anti-QS, and anti-SW activities.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

The datasets generated during and/or analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

References

Download references

Funding

The authors declare that no funds, grants, or other support were received during the preparation of this manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

All authors contributed to the study’s conception and design. Material preparation, data collection and analysis were performed by UZES, YK, ASK and SK. The first draft of the manuscript was written by UZES and SK and all authors commented on previous versions of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sevgi Kolayli.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author states that there is no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Communicated by Erko Stackebrandt.

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Üreyen Esertaş, Ü.Z., Kara, Y., Kiliç, A.O. et al. A comparative study of antimicrobial, anti-quorum sensing, anti-biofilm, anti-swarming, and antioxidant activities in flower extracts of pecan (Carya illinoinensis) and chestnut (Castanea sativa). Arch Microbiol 204, 589 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00203-022-03172-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00203-022-03172-6

Keywords

Navigation