4.1. Antimicrobial ActivityCompounds 1, 2, 23, and 24 were evaluated for their antifungal activity by 14 using a paper-disc assay method against C. musae and F. oxysporum. Compounds 1 and 2 give the same percentage for inhibiting the growth of C. musae and F. oxysporum, namely 66% and 72%, respectively. The MIC values of 1 and 2 for inhibition of C. musae were 120 and 150 µg/mL, respectively. Meanwhile, 23 and 24 showed weak inhibition, i.e., 32% and 35% for 23 and 26% and 30% for 24 [18]. Ten years later, El-Gendy & El-Bondkly [49] conducted the antimycotic activity of compound 1 against several dermatophytes and other pathogenic fungi, namely T. rubrum, T. mentagrophytes, M. gypseum, E. floccosum, A. niger, A. fumigatus, F. oxysporum, C. albicans, and C. humicolus. The results give the MIC values of 7.5, 90, 100, 50, 20, 10, 22, 15, and 10 µg/mL, respectively and give the MFC values of 100, 90, 150, 66, 50, 35, 49, 20, and 32 µg/mL, respectively [49].Compound 4 was evaluated for its antibacterial effectiveness against S. aureus, E. coli, and P. aeruginosea, and antifungal activity against C. albicans with the observation by measuring the inhibited zones (IZ) in mm with DMF as a control. The results showed the IZ values of 4 are 14, 20, 14, and 20 mm, respectively, compared with the IZ values of DMF being 14, 18, 12, and 17, respectively. However, the MIC and MBC values of 4 against S. aureus and E. coli showed an inactive result; meanwhile, the activity of 4 against P. aeroginosea gives the same MIC and MBC values of 62.5 µg/mL, respectively. In addition, the antifungal activity of 4 against C. albicans gives a MIC value of 62.5 µg/mL, but a weak MBC value of >500 µg/mL [50]. In 2008, Taechowisan et al. [20] evaluated the antibacterial and antifungal activities of compounds 3, 4, 5, and 6 against S. aureus, E. coli, P. aeruginosa, B. subtilis, C. albicans, and C. musae. The MIC values lower or equal to 128 µg/mL were obtained with compounds 3, 5, and 6 on all tested microbial species; meanwhile, with compound 4, they were only obtained on S. aureus. The lowest MIC value of 16 µg/mL was obtained by compound 5 against S. aureus and C. albicans, and also on compound 6 against C. albicans. The MMC determinations of compounds 3, 5, and 6 against the tester microorganisms were 40%, 100%, and 80%, respectively, within the tested interval (0.50–256 µg/mL) [20]. On the previous research, compound 18 was also tested for its antifungal activity against C. albicans and C. musae, with MIC values of 20 and 10 mg/mL, respectively [19].The antibacterial activity of 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12 were evaluated against S. aureus ATCC25932, B. cereus ATCC7064, B. subtilis ATCC6633, E. coli ATCC10536, and P. aeruginosa ATCC27853. Compound 8 demonstrated strong activity with MIC values of 32 µg/mL against S. aureus, B. cereus, and B. subtilis. Compounds 7 and 9 gave MIC values of 32, 64, and 64 µg/mL against S. aureus, B. cereus, and B. subtilis, respectively. However, compounds 7 and 8 had weak activity against E. coli, with MIC values of 128 µg/mL. MIC values of 64 µg/mL were also obtained with compound 10 against S. aureus and compound 11 against S. aureus, B. cereus, and B. subtilis. MIC values of 128 µg/mL were obtained with compound 10 against B. cereus & B. subtilis and compound 12 against S. aureus, B. cereus, and B. subtilis. Compounds 9, 10, and 11 had weak activity against E. coli, with MIC values of 256 µg/mL. Meanwhile, 12 had the weakest activity against E. coli, with MIC values of 512 µg/mL. All of the tested compounds showed weak activity against P. aureginosa, with MIC values of 256–512 µg/mL [28].The in vitro antibacterial activity of 19 and 20 were evaluated by Alshaibani [25] against MRSA with MIC and MBC calculation. Compound 19 gives MIC and MBC values of 16 µg/mL and 32 µg/mL; meanwhile, compound 20 gives MIC and MBC values of 8 and 64 µg/mL (21). Compound 22 was evaluated for its antifungal activity against the pathogenic fungus U. maydis with MIC values of 1 mg/mL (2 mM). In addition, 22 displayed antibacterial activity against the human pathogenic bacterium M. tuberculosis with MIC values of 25 µg/mL (50 µM) [26].Compounds 26 and 27 were evaluated for their antibacterial activity against S. aureus ATCC25932, B. cereus ATCC7064, B. subtilis ATCC6633, E. coli ATCC10536, Salmonella typhi ATCC19430, P. aeruginosa ATCC27853, and Serratia marcescens ATCC8100 compared with ampicillin and chloramphenicol as a positive control. Based on the IZ calculation, compounds 26 and 27 showed the highest activity against S. aureus, B. cereus, and B. subtilis (35.0 mm, 34.0 mm & 35.5 mm, and 33.0 mm, 32.5 mm & 33.5 mm, respectively). These results showed more potent activity than the positive control. However, compounds 26 and 27 showed moderate activity against E. coli, S. typhi, and S. marcescens (14.8 mm, 17.5 mm & 15.5 ± 1.65 mm, and 13.0 mm, 15.5 mm & 14.5 mm, respectively) and had weak activity against P. aeruginosa (12.0 mm and 10.0 mm, respectively). These results were also confirmed with the calculation of high MIC values of 26 and 27 against E. coli, S. typhi, S. marcescens, and P. aeruginosa (256 to 512 µg/mL), indicating 26 and 27 as moderate inhibitors against Gram-negative bacteria and the MBC values >512 µg/mL indicating no bactericidal activity against Gram-negative bacteria. On the other hand, MIC values of 0.5 µg/mL were obtained from both 26 and 27 against S. aureus, B. cereus, and B. subtilis. In addition, compound 26 showed the lowest MBC values of 2 µg/mL against Gram-positive bacteria, whereas compound 27 showed greater MBC varies in 4–16 µg/mL [21].In 2012, Taechowisan et al. [29] also evaluated the antifungal activity of 28 and 29 against nine phytopathogenic fungi, namely A. porri, C. gloeosporioides, C. musae, Curvularia sp., Drechsler sp., Exserohilum sp., F. oxysporum, Verticillium sp., and S. rolfsii using the paper disk method. Based on the percentage of growth inhibition calculation, compound 28 showed growth inhibition of all tested fungi in 20.5%, 16.4%, 35.6%, 28.9%, 27.2%, 22.9%, 40.0%, 30.6%, and 28.6%, respectively; meanwhile, compound 29 showed the growth inhibition of all tested fungi in 24.1%, 20.2%, 33.8%, 31.2%, 36.1%, 34.3%, 36.2%, 29.4%, and 26.7%, respectively. Furthermore, the MIC values of 60 µg/mL were obtained from both 28 and 29 against A. porri, Curvularia sp., Drechsler sp., and Verticilllium sp., and from 29 against C. gloeosporioides and S. rolfsii. Meanwhile, MIC values of 120 µg/mL were obtained from both 28 and 29 against C. musae & Exserohilum sp. and from 28 against S. rolfsii. The weak MIC values of 240 were obtained from both 28 and 29 against F. oxysporum. However, compound 28 displayed the strongest activity against C. gloeosporioides with MIC values of 30 µg/mL [29].Hu et al. [51] evaluated the antibacterial activity of 40 and 45. Compound 40 showed potent activity against the aquatic pathogens P. aeruginosa, V. parahaemolyticus, and V. alginolyticus, with MIC values of 1.0, 2.0, and 1,0 µg/mL, respectively, compared with the positive control chloromycetin (0.5 µg/mL on the tested microbial). In addition, compounds 40 and 45 displayed activity against the human pathogen E. coli, with MIC values of 4.0 and 0.5 µg/mL, respectively, compared with the positive control chloromycetin, with MIC values of 1.0 µg/mL. The result show that compound 45 has more potent activity than the positive control against E. coli [51]. 4.2. Anticancer ActivityCompounds 31, 32, 33, 36, 37, 40, 41, 44, and 52 were evaluated for their cytotoxic activity toward the murine L5178Y cell lines with the IC50 values of 3.6, 5.3, 5.3, 8.1, 7.6, 18.3, 12.9, 6.2, and 10.9 µM, respectively. Compound 31 exhibited more potent activity than the positive control kahalalide F (IC50 4.3 µM) [23]. In addition, compounds 31, 32, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 43, 45, 49, 51, and 52 were evaluated for their cytotoxic activity against the A2780 human ovarian cancer cell line with the IC50 values of 9.7, 12.2, 12.2, 32.2, 7.8, 11.9, 19.4, 51.5, 8.2, 17.1, 5.3, 19.8, 28.5, and 12.8 µM, respectively [23]. The results indicated strong potential activity from 31, 36, 40, and 45. Compounds 31, 32, 34, 35, 36, 37, and 38 were also evaluated for their cytotoxicity against human urothelial bladder cancer cell line J82. The compounds active in bladder cancer cell lines are of high scientific interest regarding the rapid chemoresistance development of the cell. The tested compounds gave IC50 values of 40.6, 42.1, 55.3, 96.7, 31.7, 29.4, and 73.0 µM, respectively. These results indicate a lower potency than their activity against L5178Y and/or A2780 cell lines [23]. Furthermore, compounds 31, 32, 33, 36, 37, 40, 44, and 45 were tested toward the human embryonic kidney cell line HEK-293 with the IC50 values of 28.5, 21.7, 27.9, 37.4, 28.3, 44.6, 39.8, and 43.0 µM, respectively [23]. In addition, compound 44 gave inhibitory activity against protein tyrosine phosphatases with IC50 values of 13 and 17 µg/mL against PTP1B and TCPTP, respectively [52].The cytotoxic and anticancer activities of 26 and 27 were evaluated against the three tumor cell lines: HepG2, HeLa, and Huh7, and one murine fibroblast cell line, L929, using the MTT assay. The results show that compounds 26 and 27 exhibited significant anticancer activity against HeLa cells with IC50 values of 3.04 and 3.96 µg/mL, respectively. The anticancer activity of 26 and 27 against HepG2 and Huh7 cells also showed high potential, with IC50 values of 15.42 & 17.52 µg/mL and 18.73 & 20.30 µg/mL, respectively. However, these compounds showed the weakest cytotoxic activity toward the L929 cell line, with IC50 values of 182.28 and 216.33 µg/mL, respectively [21].