# Comparative Study of _Plantago media_ Extracts in the Treatment of _Acanthamoeba_ sp. Trophozoites
## 3 Results
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l l l l l l} \hline
**Compounds** & _P. media_ & _P. media_ & _P. media_ & _P. media_ & _P. media_ & _P. lanccolata_ \\  & In Vitro Shoots & In Vitro Roots & Inflorescences & Leaves & Leaves \\ \hline \multicolumn{5}{l}{**Phenolic acids**} \\ \hline Gallic acid & 22.91 \(\pm\) 0.08 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 17.14 \(\pm\) 0.09 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 10.97 \(\pm\) 0.12 \({}^{\text{d}}\) & 11.40 \(\pm\) 0.13 \({}^{\text{c}}\) & - \\ Protocatechuic acid & 12.24 \(\pm\) 0.13 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 1.08 \(\pm\) 0.01 \({}^{\text{d}}\) & 7.72 \(\pm\) 0.15 \({}^{\text{c}}\) & 24.76 \(\pm\) 0.08 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 8.99 \(\pm\) 1.26 \({}^{\text{c}}\) \\ Vanillic acid & 15.86 \(\pm\) 0.98 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 5.26 \(\pm\) 0.21 \({}^{\text{c}}\) & 4.53 \(\pm\) 0.67 \({}^{\text{d}}\) & 8.00 \(\pm\) 0.50 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & - \\ Caffeic acid & 5.96 \(\pm\) 1.41 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 3.51 \(\pm\) 0.98 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 1.28 \(\pm\) 0.04 \({}^{\text{d}}\) & 2.49 \(\pm\) 0.68 \({}^{\text{c}}\) & - \\ Syringic acid & 7.94 \(\pm\) 1.55 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 6.87 \(\pm\) 0.99 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 2.12 \(\pm\) 0.09 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 6.77 \(\pm\) 0.34 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & - \\ Ferulic acid & - & - & - & - & 7.28 \(\pm\) 1.34 \\ Isofervilic acid & - & - & - & - & 34.86 \(\pm\) 2.13 \\ Sum & 64.91 & 33.86 & 26.62 & 53.42 & 51.13 \\ \hline \multicolumn{5}{l}{**Phenylethanolnoids**} \\ \hline Acteoside & 3034.11 \(\pm\) 15.54 \({}^{\text{c}}\) & 1039.31 \(\pm\) 9.18 \({}^{\text{d}}\) & 655.13 \(\pm\) 5.16 \({}^{\text{e}}\) & 6641.70 \(\pm\) 12.06 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 4015.60 \(\pm\) 40.2 \({}^{\text{b}}\) \\ Isoacteoside & 358.15 \(\pm\) 7.03 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 161.93 \(\pm\) 6.42 \({}^{\text{d}}\) & 67.68 \(\pm\) 2.50 \({}^{\text{e}}\) & 278.55 \(\pm\) 4.64 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 185.06 \(\pm\) 8.08 \({}^{\text{c}}\) \\ Sum & 3392.26 & 1201.24 & 722.81 & 6920.25 & 4200.66 \\ \hline \multicolumn{5}{l}{**Flavonoids**} \\ \hline Quercetin & - & - & 2.00 \(\pm\) 0.12 & 11.95 \(\pm\) 0.58 & 2.24 \(\pm\) 0.68 \\ Isorhamenti & - & - & 15.02 \(\pm\) 0.65 & 82.33 \(\pm\) 4.82 & - \\ Apigenin & - & - & 4.66 \(\pm\) 0.29 & 10.57 \(\pm\) 0.43 & 11.18 \(\pm\) 0.39 \\ Luteolin & - & - & - & - & 1.23 \(\pm\) 0.61 \\ Rutoside & - & - & - & - & 23.48 \(\pm\) 0.61 \\ Sum & 0 & 0 & 21.68 & 104.85 & 38.16 \\ \hline \multicolumn{5}{l}{**Sum of all compounds**} \\ \hline \multicolumn{5}{l}{Mean values within a row with the same letter are not significantly different at \(p<0.05\) using [PERSON]’s multiple range test—the first letter of the alphabet for the highest values, the next for statistically significant decreasing values.} \\ \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 2: The content of phenolic compounds [mg/100 g DW \(\pm\) SD] in extracts of biomass from in vitro cultures (shoots and roots) and organs of plants from the field cultivation. _Acanthamoeba_ sp. trophozoites to varying degrees. The dependence of the effect on the extract concentration and treatment time was noted (Tables 3 and 4) (Figures 2-4). The extract of leaves from shoot cultures was ineffective on _Acanthamoeba_ trophozoites at the lowest concentration (1 mg/mL) because no statistical differences were observed compared to the control, regardless of the duration of treatment. Higher concentrations (5 mg/mL and 10 mg/mL) of the extract lowered the average number of trophozoites and, for them, on the fourth day of treatment, the growth inhibition was 63.89% and 81.44%, respectively (Table 3). For the in vitro root extract, there is a clear tendency for the activity to be dependent on the time of exposure. On the second day, only the extract at the highest concentration worked; on the third day, extracts at the lowest and medium concentrations; and on the fourth day, extracts in all three concentrations were effective. However, the highest trophozoites growth inhibition was around 50-60%.