Determining efficient extraction procedure of phytochemicals from the fruit paste of Ziziphus abyssinica and Tamarindus indica.

Objective: To determine the most effective method of extracting metabolites from the two herbs Ziziphus abyssinica and Tamaridus. Indicus.Methodology and results: The methods used included cold and soxhlet extraction using methanol as the solvent and hot extraction using distilled water. To determine the efficiency in which compounds are extracted TLC was performed on silica gel aluminium plates using ethyl acetate: formic acid: glacial acetic acid: water (100:11:11:27). To determine the quantity of phenolic compounds in the extract, the Folin and Ciocalteau’s method (1927) was used, using Gallic acid in various concentrations. For the total quantity of flavonoid compounds, the method of Miliauskas et al. (2004) was used. To determine the Proanthocyanidin content in the extract a method previously reported by Ayoola et al, 2006 was used. To measure the antioxidant capacity of the extracts the hydrogen donating or free radical scavenging activity, was measured using the stable radical DPPH. The compounds extracted by all the methods were about seven but the difference was noted when the individual compounds were analysed. The cold extraction on the herb extract of Z. abyssinica had significantly high amount of total phenols 1.99g/100g of sample than both soxhlet and water extraction with 1.51g and 0.61g/100g of sample respectively. The results of T. indicus indicate that the extracts from the soxhlet and cold extraction methods contained a significantly low amount of all the three compounds compared to the water extractsConclusion and application of results: The method best suited for obtaining extracts from the two herbs T. indicus and Z. abyssinica is, cold method of extraction with methanol as the solvent for Z. abyssinica and hot extraction using distilled water for T. indicus. The results obtained give guidance to the fact that using both herbs would result in a better preservative than using one herb since the identified compounds would complement each other.Key words: Antimicrobial, antioxidant, phytochemicals and Radical scavenging activity

Evaluation of phytochemical, antioxidant and antibacterial activity of edible fruit extracts of Ziziphus abyssinica A. Rich

SUMMARY The conventional chemicals used in preservation of meat are perceived as harmful by health conscious consumers due to their potential toxicity. This has resulted in a general shift of preference to the use of traditional herbal remedies that are proven not to have any known negative effects. The pastoralists from West Pokot district use the fruit paste of Ziziphus abyssinica A. Rich for meat processing and preservation. However, the preservative mechanism of Z. abyssinica remains unknown. In the present study the aqueous and methanol extracts of the fruit paste of this herb, that is traditionally used by the Kenyan pastoralists of West Pokot for meat preservation, were subjected to qualitative phytochemical analysis using the Trease and Evans (1989) methods; antibacterial properties using agar-diffusion method with the test microorganisms Staphylococcus aureus, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Escherichia coli and Candida albicans; antioxidant activity using stable radical 2, 2 diphenylpicrylhydrazyl (DPPH), and toxicity using brine shrimps lethality test. From each of the extracts, fractions containing 100 and 200mg/ml were used in all tests. Alkaloids, saponins, flavonoids and polyphenolics, condensed tannins, reducing compounds, sterols and steroids were detected. The diameter of bacterial colony growth inhibition at an extract concentration of between 100 and 200mg/ml ranged between 9 to 15mm. The minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) of the aqueous extract ranged between 3.13 and 50mg/ml, while the LC 50 was 270µg/ml. The reducing activity presented as a percentage ranged between 90 -96%. The fruit extracts of Z. abyssinica were found to have highly potent antioxidant activity compared to the control sodium metabisulphite and the results lend scientific credence to justify the use of this plant in the preservation of meat

Safety and immunogenicity of the two-dose heterologous Ad26.ZEBOV and MVA-BN-Filo Ebola vaccine regimen in children in Sierra Leone: a randomised, double-blind, controlled trial

Background—Children account for a substantial proportion of cases and deaths from Ebola virus disease. We aimed to assess the safety and immunogenicity of a two-dose heterologous vaccine regimen, comprising the adenovirus type 26 vector-based vaccine encoding the Ebola virus glycoprotein (Ad26.ZEBOV) and the modified vaccinia Ankara vectorbased vaccine, encoding glycoproteins from the Ebola virus, Sudan virus, and Marburg virus, and the nucleoprotein from the Tai Forest virus (MVA-BN-Filo), in a paediatric population in Sierra Leone. Methods—This randomised, double-blind, controlled trial was done at three clinics in Kambia district, Sierra Leone. Healthy children and adolescents aged 1–17 years were enrolled in three age cohorts (12–17 years, 4–11 years, and 1–3 years) and randomly assigned (3:1), via computer-generated block randomisation (block size of eight), to receive an intramuscular injection of either Ad26.ZEBOV (5 × 1010 viral particles; first dose) followed by MVA-BN-Filo (1 × 108 infectious units; second dose) on day 57 (Ebola vaccine group), or a single dose of meningococcal quadrivalent (serogroups A, C, W135, and Y) conjugate vaccine (MenACWY; first dose) followed by placebo (second dose) on day 57 (control group). Study team personnel (except for those with primary responsibility for study vaccine preparation), participants, and their parents or guardians were masked to study vaccine allocation. The primary outcome was safety, measured as the occurrence of solicited local and systemic adverse symptoms during 7 days after each vaccination, unsolicited systemic adverse events during 28 days after each vaccination, abnormal laboratory results during the study period, and serious adverse events or immediate reportable events throughout the study period. The secondary outcome was immunogenicity (humoral immune response), measured as the concentration of Ebola virus glycoprotein-specific binding antibodies at 21 days after the second dose. The primary outcome was assessed in all participants who had received at least one dose of study vaccine and had available reactogenicity data, and immunogenicity was assessed in all participants who had received both vaccinations within the protocol-defined time window, had at least one evaluable post-vaccination sample, and had no major protocol deviations that could have influenced the immune response. This study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02509494. Findings—From April 4, 2017, to July 5, 2018, 576 eligible children or adolescents (192 in each of the three age cohorts) were enrolled and randomly assigned. The most common solicited local adverse event during the 7 days after the first and second dose was injection-site pain in all age groups, with frequencies ranging from 0% (none of 48) of children aged 1–3 years after placebo injection to 21% (30 of 144) of children aged 4–11 years after Ad26.ZEBOV vaccination. The most frequently observed solicited systemic adverse event during the 7 days was headache in the 12–17 years and 4–11 years age cohorts after the first and second dose, and pyrexia in the 1–3 years age cohort after the first and second dose. The most frequent unsolicited adverse event after the first and second dose vaccinations was malaria in all age cohorts, irrespective of the vaccine types. Following vaccination with MenACWY, severe thrombocytopaenia was observed in one participant aged 3 years. No other clinically significant laboratory abnormalities were observed in other study participants, and no serious adverse events related to the Ebola vaccine regimen were reported. There were no treatment-related deaths. Ebola virus glycoprotein-specific binding antibody responses at 21 days after the second dose of the Ebola virus vaccine regimen were observed in 131 (98%) of 134 children aged 12–17 years (9929 ELISA units [EU]/mL [95% CI 8172–12 064]), in 119 (99%) of 120 aged 4–11 years (10 212 EU/mL [8419–12 388]), and in 118 (98%) of 121 aged 1–3 years (22 568 EU/mL [18 426–27 642]). Interpretation—The Ad26.ZEBOV and MVA-BN-Filo Ebola vaccine regimen was well tolerated with no safety concerns in children aged 1–17 years, and induced robust humoral immune responses, suggesting suitability of this regimen for Ebola virus disease prophylaxis in children

Safety and long-term immunogenicity of the two-dose heterologous Ad26.ZEBOV and MVA-BN-Filo Ebola vaccine regimen in adults in Sierra Leone: a combined open-label, non-randomised stage 1, and a randomised, double-blind, controlled stage 2 trial

Background The Ebola epidemics in west Africa and the Democratic Republic of the Congo highlight an urgent need for safe and effective vaccines to prevent Ebola virus disease. We aimed to assess the safety and long-term immunogenicity of a two-dose heterologous vaccine regimen, comprising the adenovirus type 26 vector-based vaccine encoding the Ebola virus glycoprotein (Ad26.ZEBOV) and the modified vaccinia Ankara vector-based vaccine, encoding glycoproteins from Ebola virus, Sudan virus, and Marburg virus, and the nucleoprotein from the Tai Forest virus (MVA-BN-Filo), in Sierra Leone, a country previously affected by Ebola. Methods The trial comprised two stages: an open-label, non-randomised stage 1, and a randomised, double-blind, controlled stage 2. The study was done at three clinics in Kambia district, Sierra Leone. In stage 1, healthy adults (aged ≥18 years) residing in or near Kambia district, received an intramuscular injection of Ad26.ZEBOV (5×1010 viral particles) on day 1 (first dose) followed by an intramuscular injection of MVA-BN-Filo (1×108 infectious units) on day 57 (second dose). An Ad26.ZEBOV booster vaccination was offered at 2 years after the first dose to stage 1 participants. The eligibility criteria for adult participants in stage 2 were consistent with stage 1 eligibility criteria. Stage 2 participants were randomly assigned (3:1), by computer-generated block randomisation (block size of eight) via an interactive web-response system, to receive either the Ebola vaccine regimen (Ad26.ZEBOV followed by MVA-BN-Filo) or an intramuscular injection of a single dose of meningococcal quadrivalent (serogroups A, C, W135, and Y) conjugate vaccine (MenACWY; first dose) followed by placebo on day 57 (second dose; control group). Study team personnel, except those with primary responsibility for study vaccine preparation, and participants were masked to study vaccine allocation. The primary outcome was the safety of the Ad26.ZEBOV and MVA-BN-Filo vaccine regimen, which was assessed in all participants who had received at least one dose of study vaccine. Safety was assessed as solicited local and systemic adverse events occurring in the first 7 days after each vaccination, unsolicited adverse events occurring in the first 28 days after each vaccination, and serious adverse events or immediate reportable events occurring up to each participant’s last study visit. Secondary outcomes were to assess Ebola virus glycoprotein-specific binding antibody responses at 21 days after the second vaccine in a per-protocol set of participants (ie, those who had received both vaccinations within the protocol-defined time window, had at least one evaluable post-vaccination sample, and had no major protocol deviations that could have influenced the immune response) and to assess the safety and tolerability of the Ad26.ZEBOV booster vaccination in stage 1 participants who had received the booster dose. This study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02509494. Findings Between Sept 30, 2015, and Oct 19, 2016, 443 participants (43 in stage 1 and 400 in stage 2) were enrolled; 341 participants assigned to receive the Ad26.ZEBOV and MVA-BN-Filo regimen and 102 participants assigned to receive the MenACWY and placebo regimen received at least one dose of study vaccine. Both regimens were well tolerated with no safety concerns. In stage 1, solicited local adverse events (mostly mild or moderate injection-site pain) were reported in 12 (28%) of 43 participants after Ad26.ZEBOV vaccination and in six (14%) participants after MVA-BN-Filo vaccination. In stage 2, solicited local adverse events were reported in 51 (17%) of 298 participants after Ad26.ZEBOV vaccination, in 58 (24%) of 246 after MVA-BN-Filo vaccination, in 17 (17%) of 102 after MenACWY vaccination, and in eight (9%) of 86 after placebo injection. In stage 1, solicited systemic adverse events were reported in 18 (42%) of 43 participants after Ad26.ZEBOV vaccination and in 17 (40%) after MVA-BN-Filo vaccination. In stage 2, solicited systemic adverse events were reported in 161 (54%) of 298 participants after Ad26.ZEBOV vaccination, in 107 (43%) of 246 after MVA-BN-Filo vaccination, in 51 (50%) of 102 after MenACWY vaccination, and in 39 (45%) of 86 after placebo injection. Solicited systemic adverse events in both stage 1 and 2 participants included mostly mild or moderate headache, myalgia, fatigue, and arthralgia. The most frequent unsolicited adverse event after the first dose was headache in stage 1 and malaria in stage 2. Malaria was the most frequent unsolicited adverse event after the second dose in both stage 1 and 2. No serious adverse event was considered related to the study vaccine, and no immediate reportable events were observed. In stage 1, the safety profile after the booster vaccination was not notably different to that observed after the first dose. Vaccine-induced humoral immune responses were observed in 41 (98%) of 42 stage 1 participants (geometric mean binding antibody concentration 4784 ELISA units [EU]/mL [95% CI 3736–6125]) and in 176 (98%) of 179 stage 2 participants (3810 EU/mL [3312–4383]) at 21 days after the second vaccination. Interpretation The Ad26.ZEBOV and MVA-BN-Filo vaccine regimen was well tolerated and immunogenic, with persistent humoral immune responses. These data support the use of this vaccine regimen for Ebola virus disease prophylaxis in adults