Activities of Ten Essential Oils towards Propionibacterium acnes and PC-3, A-549 and MCF-7 Cancer Cells

Key Laboratory of Forest Plant Ecology, Ministry of Education, Northeast Forestry University, Harbin 150040, China.
Molecules (Impact Factor: 2.42). 05/2010; 15(5):3200-10. DOI: 10.3390/molecules15053200
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Ten essential oils, namely, mint (Mentha spicata L., Lamiaceae), ginger (Zingiber officinale Rosc., Zingiberaceae), lemon (Citrus limon Burm.f., Rutaceae), grapefruit (Citrus paradisi Macf., Rutaceae), jasmine (Jasminum grandiflora L., Oleaceae), lavender (Mill., Lamiaceae), chamomile (Matricaria chamomilla L., Compositae), thyme (Thymus vulgaris L., Lamiaceae), rose (Rosa damascena Mill., Rosaceae) and cinnamon (Cinnamomum zeylanicum N. Lauraceae) were tested for their antibacterial activities towards Propionibacterium acnes and in vitro toxicology against three human cancer cell lines. Thyme, cinnamon and rose essential oils exhibited the best antibacterial activities towards P. acnes, with inhibition diameters of 40 +/- 1.2 mm, 33.5 +/- 1.5 mm and 16.5 +/- 0.7 mm, and minimal inhibitory concentrations of 0.016% (v/v), 0.016% (v/v) and 0.031% (v/v), respectively. Time-kill dynamic procedures showed that thyme, cinnamon, rose, and lavender essential oils exhibited the strongest bactericidal activities at a concentration of 0.25% (v/v), and P. acnes was completely killed after 5 min. The thyme essential oil exhibited the strongest cytotoxicity towards three human cancer cells. Its inhibition concentration 50% (IC(50)) values on PC-3, A549 and MCF-7 tumor cell lines were 0.010% (v/v), 0.011% (v/v) and 0.030% (v/v), respectively. The cytotoxicity of 10 essential oils on human prostate carcinoma cell (PC-3) was significantly stronger than on human lung carcinoma (A549) and human breast cancer (MCF-7) cell lines.

1 Follower
  • Source
    • "and attracted much attention as complementary and alternative therapy (Zu et al., 2010). Additionally, they offer potential novel template molecules and mixtures of bioactive compounds that can be exploited industrially as bio-products for both the wellness , pharmaceutical and food industry. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The aim of this study was to evaluate the antimicrobial properties of essential oils (EOs) isolated from 7 exotic and 2 endemic medicinal plants of Mauritius. Eighteen microorganisms (bacterial and fungal isolates) have been used to evaluate the antimicrobial potential of the EOs as well as their ability to potentiate conventional antibiotics. Significant antibacterial activities were recorded with low minimal inhibitory concentration for 8 of the EOs using the microbroth dilution assay except for Salvia officinalis, where the activity recorded was comparable to that of the antibiotics. The synergistic effect of the EOs of Pimenta dioica, Psiadia arguta and Piper betle were observed against Escherichia coli and Staphylococcus epidermidis when combined with gentamicin. The fungicidal and fungistatic effect of the EOs were observed among all the fungi irrespective of the family except for Trichophyton mentagrophytes. Forty three major compounds were identified using the gas chromatography–mass spectrometry method and predominantly composed of oxygenated monoterpenes at a dose ranging from 0.45% to 69.76%, while, in the case of P. dioica, the EO was predominantly composed of aromatic compounds at a dose of 89.22%. This study has provided key information on the antimicrobial property and phytochemical composition of some tropical medicinal plants from Mauritius.
    Industrial Crops and Products 09/2015; 71. DOI:10.1016/j.indcrop.2015.03.058 · 2.84 Impact Factor
  • Source
    • "Its half inhibitory concentration (IC 50 ) value on PC-3 tumor cell line was 0.010% (v/v) [32]. EO of Mentha arvensis showed cytotoxic activity on LNCaP cells [33]. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Essential oils are widely used in pharmaceutical, sanitary, cosmetic, agriculture and food industries for their bactericidal, virucidal, fungicidal, antiparasitical and insecticidal properties. Their anticancer activity is well documented. Over a hundred essential oils from more than twenty plant families have been tested on more than twenty types of cancers in last past ten years. This review is focused on the activity of essential oils and their com-ponents on various types of cancers. For some of them the mechanisms involved in their anticancer activities have been carried out. Introduction Recognized since ancient times for their medic-inal value, but often considered as a relic of medieval medical practice by representatives of modern medicine, essential oils (EOs) are currently receiving therapeutic interest fully renewed. Thus, during recent years, plant EOs have come more into the focus of phytomedi-cine [1, 2]. Their widespread use has raised the interest of scientists in basic research of EOs. Especially, anti-microbial and anti-oxidant activities as well as potential anti-cancer activ-ity have been investigated in recent years [3, 4]. Cancer is the second largest single cause of death claiming over six million lives every year worldwide [5]. There has been a recent upsurge in the use of natural products to supersede cur-rent treatment in patients that develop multi-drug resistance. Scientific studies of plants used in various types of ethnic medicine has led to the discovery of many valuable drugs, including taxol, camptothecin, vincristine and vinblastine [6, 7]. Many studies pointed out anticancer properties of other plants [8-11]. Over five hundred papers have been published on anticancer activity of EOs. The first publica-tions on the anticancer activity of essential oils dated to 1960s. So far, the effects of EOs have been investigated on glioblastoma, melanoma, leukemia and oral cancers, as well as on bone, breast, cervix, colon, kidney, liver, lung, ovary, pancreas, prostate, and uterus cancers. The aim of this review is to state the work car-ried out on the anticancer properties of EOs, their mode of action and the types of cancers targeted.
  • Source
    • "Two thyme extracts, ExTs and ExTv, exhibited a comparable effect on MCF-7/Adr cells reaching EC 50 values around 400 mg/l, which was in-between the results obtained for ExMp (with nearly 2-fold lower toxicity) and ExMh (showing nearly 2-fold higher toxicity ) (Table 1a). The only fraction of the herb, investigated on this cell line, have been essential oils, which turned out to exhibit the highest level of toxicity in comparison with the essential oils derived from other species (cinnamon, rose, and lavender) as observed by Fu et al. (2010). When the impact of the studied herb extracts and their phytochemical constituents on the wild-type and resistant MCF-7 cell lines was compared, the reversed pattern was obtained in the case of aqueous extracts and purified phenolics. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The aim of this study was to evaluate the cytotoxicity of dried aqueous extracts from Thymus serpyllum (ExTs), Thymus vulgaris (ExTv), Majorana hortensis (ExMh), and Mentha piperita (ExMp), and the phenolic compounds caffeic acid (CA), rosmarinic acid (RA), lithospermic acid (LA), luteolin-7-O-glucuronide (Lgr), luteolin-7-O-rutinoside (Lr), eriodictiol-7-O-rutinoside (Er), and arbutin (Ab), on two human breast cancer cell lines: Adriamycin-resistant MCF-7/Adr and wild-type MCF-7/wt. In the MTT assay, ExMh showed the highest cytotoxicity, especially against MCF-7/Adr, whereas ExMp was the least toxic; particularly against MCF-7/wt cells. RA and LA exhibited the strongest cytotoxicity against both MCF-7 cell lines, over 2-fold greater than CA and Lgr, around 3-fold greater than Er, and around 4- to 7-fold in comparison with Lr and Ab. Except for Lr and Ab, all other phytochemicals were more toxic against MCF-7/wt, and all extracts exhibited higher toxicity against MCF-7/Adr. It might be concluded that the tested phenolics exhibited more beneficial properties when they were applied in the form of extracts comprising their mixtures.
    Food Chemistry 11/2013; 141(2):1313-21. DOI:10.1016/j.foodchem.2013.03.090 · 3.26 Impact Factor
Show more


Available from