| Literature DB >> 24036515 |
Madeline J Simpson1, Daisy Hjelmqvist, Camilo López-Alarcón, Nadja Karamehmedovic, Thomas G Minehan, Akop Yepremyan, Baback Salehani, Eduardo Lissi, Elizabeth Joubert, Klas I Udekwu, Emilio I Alarcon.
Abstract
The anti-peroxyl radical quality of two aqueous rooibos infusions and solutions of their most abundant glycosylated polyphenols was evaluated using pyrogallol red and fluorescein-based oxygen radical absorbance ratios. It was observed that the artificial infusions, prepared using only the most abundant polyphenols present in rooibos and at concentrations similar to those found in the natural infusions, showed greater antioxidant quality than the latter infusions, reaching values close to those reported for tea infusions. Additionally, the antimicrobial activity of the natural and artificial infusions was assessed against three species of bacteria: Gram (+) Staphylococus epidermidis and Staphylococcus aureus and Gram (-) Escherichia coli. When compared to the natural infusions the artificial beverages did not demonstrate any bacterostatic/cidal activity, suggesting that the antibacterial activity of rooibos is related to compounds other than the glycosylated polyphenols employed in our study.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2013 PMID: 24036515 PMCID: PMC4067240 DOI: 10.3390/molecules180911264
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Molecules ISSN: 1420-3049 Impact factor: 4.411
Scheme 1Chemical structures and atom labeling for the polyphenols of rooibos employed in this study classified according their chemical structures. Note that only aspalathin is uniquely found in rooibos.
Figure 1Effect of Asp on fluorescein (70 nM) decay (A) or pyrogallol red (18 µM) bleaching (B) promoted by 10 mM AAPH at 37 °C. Concentration of Asp, A: (●) control, (△) 0.1 µM; (▽) 0.5 µM; (◆) 1.0 µM and 1.5 µM (○) and B: (●) control, (◆) 2.5 µM; (△) 5.0 µM; (▽) 10 µM and 15 µM (○). Insets: Change in the area under the curve (AUC) at increasing concentrations, in µM, of selected pure polyphenols (A and B). All measurements were carried out in 75 mM phosphate buffer pH 7.4 at 37 ± 0.5 °C. ORAC indices listed in Table 1 were calculated from the linear fit of the AUC vs. concentration curve as shown in the insets.
ORAC indices for pure glycosylated polyphenols and quercetin expressed in gallic acid equivalents (GAE)/L.
| Compound | Classification | ORAC-FL | ORAC-PGR | ORAC-PGR/ORAC-FL |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aspalathin | Dihydrochalcone | 2.65 ± 0.13 | 0.18 ± 0.015 | 0.068 |
| Nothofagin | 0.47 ± 0.040 | 0.020 ± 0.002 | 0.042 | |
| Orientin | Flavone | 0.86 ± 0.070 | 0.0038 ± 0.0003 | 0.0044 |
| Vitexin | 4.57 ± 0.065 | 0.0078 ± 0.001 | 0.0017 | |
| Iso-orientin | 4.83 ± 0.30 | 0.0077 ± 0.001 | 0.0015 | |
| Isoquercitrin | Flavonol | 8.22 ± 0.10 | 0.0074 ± 0.0005 | 0.0010 |
| Rutin | 6.01 ± 0.25 * | 0.009 | 0.0015 | |
| Hyperoside | 5.50 ± 0.4 | <0.0015 | 0.0003 | |
| Quercetin | 8.90 † | 1.0 † | 0.11 |
† Average value taken from [10,15] in GAE/L. α Minimum compound concentration in µM needed to obtain induction time in fluorescein consumption. β Minimum compound concentration in µM where competition with pyrogallol red is observed. * Value taken from [16].
Polyphenolic composition of green and fermented rooibos infusions. Content is expressed in g/100 g of dried infusion or as mg/mL infusion of each compound.
| Compound | Green Rooibos | Fermented Rooibos | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| g/100 g dried extract | mg/mL * | g/100 g dried extract | mg/mL * | |
| Aspalathin | 10.019 | 0.1067 | 0.383 | 0.0031 |
| Nothofagin | 1.731 | 0.0184 | 0.151 | 0.0012 |
| Orientin | 0.86 | 0.0092 | 1.206 | 0.0097 |
| Vitexin | 0.173 | 0.0018 | 0.217 | 0.0017 |
| Iso-orientin | 1.068 | 0.0114 | 1.205 | 0.0097 |
| Rutin | 0.404 | 0.0043 | 0.064 | 0.0005 |
| Hyperoside | 0.217 | 0.0023 | 0.13 | 0.0010 |
* mg/mL content was calculated from the soluble solids [33], see Experimental, soluble solid values determined for green and fermented rooibos infusions were 1.0 and 0.8 mg/mL, respectively.
Total phenol content and ORAC indices of natural and artificial rooibos.
| Infusions | Phenolic content † | ORAC-FL †† | ORAC-PGR †† | ORAC-PGR/ORAC-FL |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Green rooibos | 280 ± 20 | 1840 ± 168 | 176 ± 4.0 | 0.096 |
| Fermented rooibos | 249 ± 15 | 1520 ± 60 | 68 ± 5.0 | 0.044 |
| Artificial green rooibos | 156.9 * | 600 ± 100 | 88 ± 12 | 0.14 |
| Artificial fermented rooibos | 27.3 * | 160 ± 36 | 52 ± 4.0 | 0.33 |
† Expressed as GAE (mg gallic acid equivalents/L). †† Expressed as µmol GAE/L. * Artificial infusions prepared according the composition reported in Table 1. α Minimum mixture concentration [Asp+Not] (µM) needed to obtain induction time in fluorescein decay. ß Minimum mixture concentration [Asp+Not] (µM) where competition with pyrogallol red is observed.
Figure 2Effect of green rooibos infusion on fluorescein decay (A) or pyrogallol red bleaching (B) promoted by 10 mM AAPH thermal decomposition. Symbols correspond to artificial rooibos infusions (volume) as A: (●) control, (△) 1.0 µL/mL; (▽) 2.0 µL/mL; (◆) 3.0 µL/mL, and 4.0 µL/mL (○); B: (●) control, (△) 5.0 µL/mL; (◆) 15 µL/mL, and (▽) 30 µL/mL. Insets: Area under the curve dependence for natural or artificial (see experimental for details) rooibos infusions. All measurements were carried out in 75 mM phosphate buffer pH 7.4 at 37 °C. ORAC indices listed in Table 3 were calculated from the slope of AUC vs. infusion volume plots using the best linear fit.
Figure 3Antimicrobial efficacy of natural and artificial green and fermented infusions. Changes in optical density (OD600) of exposed E. coli, incubated at 37 °C in the presence of different dilutions (indicated as µg GAE) of natural green rooibos infusion (A). Variations in the ODmax measured at 600 nm after 13 h (expressed as OD/OD0), measured for E. coli (B and E), S. aureus (C and F) and S. epidermidis (D and G) at variable infusion concentrations of natural (B, C and D) or artificial (E, F and G) rooibos infusions. Polyphenol concentrations (for natural infusions) were estimated from the Folin-Ciocalteu polyphenol content reported in Table 3. The standard error in all cases was lower than 10% and 10% error bars have been included to facilitate data comparison.