Pharmaceutical Chemistry Journal

, Volume 48, Issue 9, pp 598–602 | Cite as

Cytotoxic and Antimicrobial Compounds from Cinnamomum cebuense Kosterm. (Lauraceae)

  • Dinah L. Espineli
  • Esperanza Maribel G. Agoo
  • Ramon S. del Fierro
  • Chien-Chang Shen
  • Consolacion Y. RagasaEmail author

The dichloromethane extract of Cinnamomum cebuense afforded α-terpineol (1), 4-allyl-2-methoxyphenol or eugenol (2), humulene (3), 4-hydroxy-3-methoxycinnamaldehyde (4) and a monoterpene (5) which were evaluated for cytotoxicity against colon carcinoma (HCT 116). Compound 4 showed moderate cytotoxicity against this cell line with an IC50 value of 18.8004 μg/mL, while 3 and 5 exhibited slight cytotoxicity. Compounds 35 were further tested for cytotoxicity against non-small cell lung adenocarcinoma (A549) and non-cancer Chinese hamster ovary cells (AA8). Sesquiterpene 3 exhibited moderate cytotoxicity against A549 with an IC50 value of 23.1964 μg/mL, 4 indicated slight cytotoxicity, while 5 was non-toxic against this cell line. Compound 4 showed moderate cytotoxicity against AA8 with an IC50 value of 20.4837 μg/mL, while 3 and 5 exhibited slight cytotoxicity. Compounds 1, 2 and 3 were active against bacteria Escherichia coli, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Staphylococcus aureus and Bacillus subtilis and fungi Candida albicans and Trichophyton mentagrophytes, but were found inactive against Aspergillus niger. Sesquiterpene 3 was the most active against E. coli, P. aeruginosa, S. aureus, C. albicans and T. mentagrophytes, while 1 exhibited the highest activity against B. subtilis, even surpassing the activity of the standard antibiotic chloramphenicol.


Cinnamomum cebuense Lauraceae cytotoxicity antimicrobial activity 



The antimicrobial tests were conducted at the University of the Philippines – Natural Sciences Research Institute. The MTT assay was conducted at the Institute of Biology, University of the Philippines, Diliman, Quezon City. A research grant from the Accelerated Science and Technology Human Resource Development Program of the Department of Science and Technology of the Philippines is gratefully acknowledged. The authors are also grateful to the Philippine Department of Environment and Natural Resources Region VII Office for the permit (Wildlife Gratuitous Permit No. 2011 – 01) granted to collect the sample.


  1. 1.
    PBSP Reforests Tabunan, Preserves Cebu’s Environmental Heritage. Retrieved January 24, 2011 from the World Wide Web:
  2. 2.
    G. O. Cadiz and I. E. Buot, Jr., An Enumeration of the Woody Plants of Cantimpla Forest Fragments, Cebu Island, Philippines (2009).Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    A. Newton, Towards a Global Tree Conservation atlas: Mapping the Status and Distribution of the World’s Threatened Tree Species, UNEP-WCMC/FFI (2003).Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    A. J. G. H. Kostermans, Cinnamomum (Lauraceae), Part 1, Ginkgoana, 6 , 30 – 38 (1986).Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    O. Orlanes, L. M. Panguntalan, and P. G. Jakosalem, International Congress for Conservation Biology, Convention Center, Chattanooga, TN (1998).Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR), DAO 2007 – 01: Establishing the National List of Threatened Philippine Plants and their Categories, and the List of Other Wildlife Species, DENR, Q.C. (2007).Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    C. Y. Ragasa, D. L. Espineli, E. M. G. Agoo, et al., Chin. J. Nat. Med., 11 , 264 – 268 (2013).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    R. S. del Fierro, Q. M. A. Maquilanga, R. A. S. Sanjorjo, et al., J. Med. Plants Res., 6, 2146 – 2148 (2012).Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    U. Krings, B. Hardebusch, D. Albert, et al., J. Agric. Food Chem., 54, 9079 – 9084 (2006).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Y.-L. Lin, J.-Y. Cheng, and Y.-H. Chu, Tetrahedron, 63, 10949 – 10957 (2007).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    T. Hu and E. J. Corey, Organic Lett., 4, 2441 – 2443 (2002).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    H. M. T. B. Herath, R. S. Dassanayake, A. M. A. Priyadarshani, et al., Phytochem., 47 (1), 117 – 119 (1998).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    A. J. Hayes, D. N. Leach, J. L. Markham, et al., J. Essential Oil Res., 49 , 15 – 16 (1997).Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    S. B. Hassan, H. Gali-Muhtasib, H. Goransson, et al., Anticancer Res., 30, 1911 – 1919 (2010).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    O. Hirata, A. Hirata, Y. Murakami, et al., Anticancer Res., 25, 3263 – 3269 (2005).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Y.-C. Ho, F.-M. Huang, and Y.-C. Chang, Int. Endodontic J., 39, 389 – 393 (2006).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    G. Suresh, P. Prabhakar Reddy, K. Suresh Babu, et al., Bioorg. Med. Chem., 20, 7544 – 7548 (2010).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    A. el Hadri, M. A. Gomez del Rio, J. Sanz, et al., An. R. Acad. Nac. Farm, 76, 343 – 356 (2010).Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    I. Freshney, Culture of Animal Cells, 3rd ed., Wiley-Liss, Inc. New York, (1994).Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    S. D. Jacinto, E. A. C. Chun, A. S. Montuno, et al., Natur. Prod. Commun., 6 , 803 – 806 (2011).Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    B. Q. Guevara and B. V. Recio, Phytochemical, Microbiological and Pharmacological Screening of Medicinal Plants, Acta Manilana Supplements, UST Research Center, Manila (1985).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Dinah L. Espineli
    • 1
  • Esperanza Maribel G. Agoo
    • 2
  • Ramon S. del Fierro
    • 3
  • Chien-Chang Shen
    • 4
  • Consolacion Y. Ragasa
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Chemistry Department and Center for Natural Sciences and Ecological ResearchDe La Salle UniversityManilaPhilippines
  2. 2.Biology Department and Center for Natural Sciences and Ecological ResearchDe La Salle University-ManilaManilaPhilippines
  3. 3.Chemistry DepartmentUniversity of San Carlos - Talamban CampusCebu CityPhilippines
  4. 4.National Research Institute of Chinese MedicineTaipeiTaiwan

Personalised recommendations