Uncovers antibacterial and α-amylase inhibitory effects of Opuntia ficus-indica extract, indicating its nutraceutical potential.
This study evaluated the bioactive potential of the aqueous extract of Opuntia ficus-indica (L.) Mill. aerial parts using combined phytochemical, biological, and computational approaches. The extraction yield was 10.82 ± 0.31%, with high total phenolic (94.36 ± 0.58 μg GAE/mg extract) and flavonoid contents (38.12 ± 0.47 μg QE/mg extract). LC–ESI–MS/MS analysis identified seventeen phenolic compounds, mainly phenolic acids and flavonoids, including ferulic acid, salicylic acid, quercetin, and catechin. The extract showed moderate antibacterial activity, with greater efficacy against Gram-positive bacteria. The lowest minimum inhibitory concentration was recorded for Staphylococcus aureus (MIC = 6.25 mg/mL). In addition, the extract exhibited dose-dependent inhibition of pancreatic α-amylase, with an IC₅₀ of 261.47 ± 1.18 μg/mL. Molecular docking revealed favourable binding affinities of major flavonoids toward antibacterial enzymes and human pancreatic α-amylase, with binding energies reaching −7.4 kcal·mol −1 . Molecular dynamics simulations over 300 ns confirmed the stability of selected protein–ligand complexes. Overall, the results indicate that O. ficus-indica aqueous extract is a phenolic-rich matrix with biologically relevant antibacterial and α-amylase inhibitory properties, supporting its potential use in nutraceutical and complementary applications. • LC–ESI–MS/MS analysis established phenolic acids and flavonoids as the core chemical drivers of the extract. • The aqueous extract demonstrated biologically relevant antioxidant and anti-inflammatory potential through complementary in vitro models. • Phenolic acids and flavonoids acted as the main contributors to protein stabilization and redox modulation. • Molecular docking linked the major phenolics to functionally relevant antioxidant and inflammatory targets. • Molecular dynamics simulations confirmed the persistence and stability of key protein–ligand interactions.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Zaater et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: