none 10.31254/phyto.2025.14506 BioMed Research Publishers BioMed Research Publishers 16195 187186657 316921 20251216133144430 10.31254 2025-12-16T13:31:49Z 2025-12-16T13:31:46Z 0 The Journal of Phytopharmacology J Phytopharmacol 2320480X 10.31254/phyto https://www.phytopharmajournal.com/ 11 30 2025 14 5 Mamadou Doumbia Ouattara Abou Kamagaté Tidiane Kone Monon Background: Urinary tract infections remain a major public health concern worldwide, primarily caused by Escherichia coli and Klebsiella spp. The growing emergence of multidrug-resistant bacterial strains has further complicated their treatment, making the search for new bioactive substances from medicinal plants an important alternative approach. Objective: This study aimed to evaluate the phytochemical composition and antibacterial activities of hydro-ethanolic extracts from the stem bark of Vitellaria paradoxa and the root bark of Acacia nilotica against Escherichia coli and Klebsiella spp., two bacterial strains frequently implicated in Urinary tract infections. Materials and Methods: Plant materials were collected and authenticated (UCJ 16611 for V. paradoxa and UCJ 11483 for A. nilotica). The dried and powdered plant organs were macerated in 70% hydro-ethanol to obtain crude extracts. Phytochemical screening was carried out using precipitation and staining tests to detect the major classes of secondary metabolites. The antibacterial activities of the extracts were evaluated using the agar well diffusion method, and the minimum inhibitory concentrations (MICs) and minimum bactericidal concentrations (MBCs) were determined by the broth microdilution method. Results: Phytochemical screening revealed the presence of several bioactive compounds, including tannins, flavonoids, saponins, alkaloids, and terpenoids, in both extracts. The hydro-ethanolic extract of Vitellaria paradoxa showed inhibition zones ranging from 14.00 ± 1.00 mm to 20.67 ± 0.58 mm, while that of Acacia nilotica ranged from 9.67 ± 0.58 mm to 13.67 ± 0.58 mm. MICs of V. paradoxa extract varied between 6.25 and 12.5 mg/mL, and MBCs between 12.5 and 50 mg/mL. The MBC/MIC ratio ≤ 4 indicated a bactericidal effect for V. paradoxa, whereas A. nilotica exhibited a bacteriostatic effect (MBC/MIC > 4). Conclusion: The study demonstrates that the stem bark extract of Vitellaria paradoxa exhibits stronger antibacterial activity than the root bark extract of Acacia nilotica against E. coli and Klebsiella spp. These findings support the potential use of V. paradoxa as a promising natural source for developing new therapeutic agents against urinary tract infections. 11 30 2025 341 345 1 10.31254/biomed-crossmark-policy www.biomedresearch.org false 10.31254/phyto.2025.14506 https://phytopharmajournal.com/articles/abstracts/848/year=2025&vol=14&issue=5