Fig 1.
Collection of R. palmarum larvae.
(A) Palm trees felled; (B) palm branches being opened; (C) fibers where the larvae develop, and (D) collection of the larvae.
Fig 2.
Process of obtaining oil from R. palmarum larvae.
(A) Larvae of different sizes; (B) thawing of the larvae; (C) heating process, where it is possible to observe the release of oil next to the larvae integument and (D) oil collected at the end of the heating step.
Table 1.
Fatty acids identified in the RPLO.
Table 2.
Determination of the IC50 values for RPLO and Trolox, the reference antioxidant, in the direct DPPH radical scavenging assay.
Table 3.
Determination of the Minimum Inhibitory Concentration (MIC) and Minimum Bactericidal Concentration (MBC) of RPLO.
The antibiotic chloramphenicol was used as a positive control for the inhibition of bacterial growth.
Fig 3.
Viability of MRC-5 cells incubated with different concentrations of RPLO for 24 h.
The graph shows the means ± SEM of three independent experiments performed in triplicate (n = 9). The observed changes were not statistically significant (t-test).
Fig 4.
The effect of RPLO on the migration rate of MRC-5 cells.
(A) Representative image from assay. The wound areas were determined at 0 h and after 24 h of incubation. Control cells were incubated with culture media. Cells incubated with 0.5% of oil were named RPLO. Scale bar is 1 mm. (B) The graph shows the means ± SEM of three independent experiments performed in triplicate (n = 9). An asterisk (*) indicate statistically significant differences between mean values (one-way ANOVA, Dunnett’s post-test, p <0.05).
Fig 5.
Acute toxicity of RPLO in the C. elegans experimental model in vivo.
Viability was recorded at (A) 24 h and (B) 48 h of treatment. The graph shows the means ± SEM of three independent experiments performed in triplicate (n = 90). The observed changes were not statistically significant (t-test).