Abstract:

Objective To compare three methods (cold-soak method, ultrasonic wave method and hot reflux method) of extracting antifungal constituents from Rubus chingii Hu fruits and preliminary screen active part of the extracts.Methods The three extractive methods were evaluated through antifungal activity in vitro of extracts from Rubus chingii Hu fruits combining with fluconazole against durg-resistant Candida albicans and extraction rate. The compositions of these extracts were separated with petroleum ether, chloroform, ethyl acetate, n-butyl alcohol and water. Screening out the active part were performed through evaluating antifungal activity in vitro of parts from the extracts of Rubus chingii Hu fruits combining with fluconazole against durg-resistant Candida albicans.Results The extraction rate of the Cold-soak method, ultrasonic wave method and hot reflux method was 21.0%, 16.8% and 12.8%. The FICIs of the extracts using three methods combining with fluconazole against Candida albicans 100 were 0.035 2, 0.032 2 and 0.046 9, and 0.033 2, 0.031 7 and 0.039 1 against Candida albicans 103. The FICIs of petroleum ether, chloroform, ethyl acetate, n-butyl alcohol and water part combining with fluconazole against Candida albicans 100 were ＞1, 0.502 0, 0.507 8, 0.033 2 and ＞1, and ＞1, 0.531 3, 0.507 8, 0.033 2 and ＞1 against Candida albicans 103.Conclusions Ultrasonic wave method is simple, reliable and efficient. Compared with the other methods, it is the best method of extracting antifungal constituents from Rubus chingii Hu fruits. The active part of the extracts from Rubus chingii Hu fruits is the n-butyl alcohol part.

Key words: Rubus chingii Hu fruits, antifungal constituents, extraction methods, activity part