| Literature DB >> 23173949 |
Xican Li1, Jing Lin, Yaoxiang Gao, Weijuan Han, Dongfeng Chen.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: As a typical Chinese herbal medicine, rhizoma Cimicifugae (RC, in Chinese) possesses various pharmacological effects involved in antioxidant activity. However, its antioxidant activity has not been reported so far. The aim of the present study was to systematically evaluate the antioxidant ability of RC in vitro, then discuss the mechanism.Entities:
Year: 2012 PMID: 23173949 PMCID: PMC3557226 DOI: 10.1186/1752-153X-6-140
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Chem Cent J ISSN: 1752-153X Impact factor: 4.215
The ICvalues of five RC extracts and the positive controls (μg/mL)
| Anti-lipid peroxidation | 13.99 ± 2.11e | 4.55 ± 0.44 b | 14.92 ± 4.31 d | 10.62 ± 0.97 c | 19.18 ± 2.04 f | 0.028 ± 0.00 a * |
| DNA protective effect | - | 1905.51 ± 177.54 c | 14397.18 ± 1075.01 d | 1090.11 ± 21.25 b | - | 114.42 ± 2.66 a ** |
| ·OH | 561.19 ± 21.16 f | 111.55 ± 1.32 c | 132.32 ± 0.15 d | 84.30 ± 1.02 b | 233.45 ± 15.70 e | 37.67 ± 0.67 a ** |
| ·O2- | 322.81 ± 14.90 b | 306.68 ± 0.87 b | 284.36 ± 11.43 b | 301.08 ± 8.34 b | 650.65 ± 59.55 c | 81.65 ± 5.21 a |
| Chelating | 191.86 ± 1.84 b | 319.20 ± 6.36 c | 872.71 ± 30.63 e | 553.34 ± 12.59 d | 2289.11 ± 100.00 f | 107.86 ± 0.31 a *** |
| DPPH· | 813.00 ± 225.17 d | 227.09 ± 10.14 b | 260.34 ± 11.37 c | 254.73 ± 4.33 c | 229.17 ± 5.81 b | 5.13 ± 1.19 a ** |
| ABTS·+ | 395.65 ± 77.34 e | 72.10 ± 1.32 b | 96.39 ± 1.12 d | 94.38 ± 2.45 d | 83.58 ± 0.81 c | 4.76 ± 0.28 a |
| Fe3+ reducing | 533.12 ± 54.25 e | 159.35 ± 1.37 b | 317.06 ± 3.47 c | 156.19 ± 2.12 b | 488.75 ± 18.6 0 d | 51.89 ± 1.29 a |
IC50 value is defined as the concentration of 50% effect percentage and calculated by linear regression analysis and expressed as mean ± SD (n = 3). The linear regression was analyzed by Origin 6.0 professional software. Means values with different superscripts in the same row are significantly different (p < 0.05), while with same superscripts are not significantly different (p < 0.05). *The positive control was BHA, instead of GSH. ** The positive control was Trolox, instead of GSH. *** The positive control was Sodium citrate. Results were analyzed by independent samples. PERC, petroleum ether extract of rhizoma Cimicifugae; EARC, ethyl acetate extract of rhizoma Cimicifugae; AERC, absolute ethanol extract of rhizoma Cimicifugae; 95ERC, 95% ethanol extract of rhizoma Cimicifugae; WRC, water extract of rhizoma Cimicifugae. --: Cannot be detected.
Scheme 1The reaction of MDA (malondialdehyde) and 2-thiobarbituric acid (TBA).
Scheme 2The proposal reaction of phenolic acids binding Fe2+.
Scheme 3The proposal reaction of caffeic acid to scavenge DPPH· (step 1).
Scheme 4The proposal reaction of caffeic acid to scavenge DPPH· (step 2).
Scheme 5The proposal reaction of caffeic acid and ABTS ·+.
Chemical contents of five RC extracts
| Total phenolics (mg Pyr./g) | 13.17 ± 0.43a | 65.01 ± 0.34 d | 15.73 ± 0.34 b | 31.10 ± 1.30 c | 12.46 ± 1.00 a |
| Total sugars (mg Glucose/g) | 237.16 ± 38.67 a | 175.46 ± 21.50 a | 624.75 ± 17.62 b | 603.48 ± 18.74 b | 804.54 ± 50.53 c |
| Total saponins (mg Ole./g) | 917.52 ± 87.83 c | 379.46 ± 15.46 b | 185.16 ± 4.10 a | 180.44 ± 1.95 a | 198.34 ± 12.30 a |
| Caffeic acid (peak area) | 2.96 ± 0.85 a | 125.22 ± 8.84 c | 6.45 ± 2.93 b | 14.19 ± 10.14 b | 2.79 ± 1.23 a |
| Ferulic acid (peak area) | 0.89 ± 0.44 c | 79.31 ± 3.22 d | 0.39 ± 0.37 b | 0.68 ± 1.18 c | 0.0040 ± 0.0010 a |
| Isoferulic acid (peak area) | 4.92 ± 1.68 a | 33.24 ± 0.44 d | 12.77 ± 2.56 c | 8.68 ± 0.28 b | -- |
Each value is expressed as mean ± SD (n = 3). Means values with different superscripts in the same row are significantly different (p < 0.05), while with same superscripts are not signifiacntly different (p > 0.05).PERC, petroleum ether extract of rhizoma Cimicifugae; EARC, ethyl acetate extract of rhizoma Cimicifugae; AERC, absolute ethanol extract of rhizoma Cimicifugae; 95ERC, 95% ethanol extract of rhizoma Cimicifugae; WRC, water extract of rhizoma Cimicifugae. --: Below the detection limit. Pyr., pyrogallo; Ole., Oleanic acid.
The R values between chemical contents and 1/IC
| Anti-LPO | 0.99 | 0.98 | 0.96 | 0.95 | −0.69 | −0.001 |
| DNA | 0.61 | 0.38 | 0.37 | 0.40 | −0.11 | −0.35 |
| ·OH | 0.57 | 0.37 | 0.34 | 0.47 | 0.11 | −0.68 |
| ·O2- | 0.36 | 0.38 | 0.33 | 0.53 | −0.53 | 0.14 |
| Chelating | 0.17 | 0.31 | 0.31 | 0.21 | −0.88 | 0.94 |
| DPPH· | 0.43 | 0.39 | 0.35 | 0.35 | 0.46 | −0.92 |
| ABTS·+ | 0.57 | 0.54 | 0.61 | 0.49 | 0.30 | −0.84 |
| Reducing | 0.82 | 0.65 | 0.68 | 0.68 | −0.26 | −0.39 |
R, correlation coefficient; 1/IC50: the unit is mL/μg, all 1/IC50 values are listed in Additional file 2. LPO, lipid peroxidation.
Figure 1A typical HPLC profile of EARC (ethyl acetate extract of rhizoma ). Syltech P510 HPLC system (Los Angeles, California, USA), Dikma Diamonsil C18 (250 mm × 4.6 mm, 5 μm size) (Beijing, China), acetonitrile-0.5% acetic acid in water (17:83, v: v), 1.0 mL/min flow rate, 30 μL injection, 316 nm wavelength.
Figure 2Preparation of five extracts of rhizoma .