| Literature DB >> 24071982 |
Biljana Božin1, Nebojša Kladar, Nevena Grujić, Goran Anačkov, Isidora Samojlik, Neda Gavarić, Branislava Srđenović Conić.
Abstract
The study shows the influence of the origin of plant material and biological source on the in vitro antioxidant (neutralization of DPPH and OH radical, nitric oxide, and inhibition of lipid peroxidation) and anticholinesterase activity of chemically characterized and quantified ethanol extracts of ten St. John's wort samples. The investigated samples were: five Hypericum perforatum species representatives collected at different localities, one commercial sample of Hyperici herba purchased at a local market and four Hypericum species autochtonous to the Balkan Peninsula (H. maculatum subsp. immaculatum, H. olympicum, H. richeri subsp. grisebachii and H. barbatum). All the examined extracts exhibited notable antioxidant potential, but in most of the cases indigenous Hypericum species expressed stronger effects compared to the original source of the drug, H. perforatum. The changes in the content of phenolic compounds, especially flavonoids, hyperforin and hypericin, related to the source of the drug affected the investigated activities. Since all of the investigated species have shown prominent inhibition of acetylcholinesterase in vitro activity, they could be further investigated as potential substances in preventing of Alzheimer's disease.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2013 PMID: 24071982 PMCID: PMC6270400 DOI: 10.3390/molecules181011733
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Molecules ISSN: 1420-3049 Impact factor: 4.411
Content of dry extract (g/100g of crude drug), total phenolics (mg GAE/g de) and total flavonoids (mg QE/g de) in the extracts of investigated species of Hypericum.
| Source | Dry extract yeald | Total phenolics | Total flavonoids |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 ( | 16.91 ± 0.09 | 15.49 ± 0.25 | 1.90 ± 0.03 |
| 2 ( | 22.69 ± 0.32 | 14.65 ± 0.54 | 1.54 ± 0.05 |
| 3 ( | 25.96 ± 0.51 | 16.72 ± 0.70 | 2.48 ± 0.06 |
| 4 ( | 14.59 ± 0.27 | 15.33 ± 0.48 | 1.33 ± 0.04 |
| 5 ( | 21.04 ± 0.40 | 19.41 ± 0.32 | 2.85 ± 0.02 |
| 6 ( | 19.29 ± 0.60 | 14.35 ± 0.54 | 2.23 ± 0.05 |
| 7 ( | 16.79 ± 0.13 | 15.41 ± 0.19 | 5.51 ± 0.11 |
| 8 ( | 21.83 ± 0.32 | 13.66 ± 0.80 | 2.77 ± 0.04 |
| 9 ( | 21.96 ± 0.47 | 16.16 ± 0.25 | 6.74 ± 0.08 |
| 10 ( | 52.63 ± 0.12 | 30.36 ± 0.87 | 5.68 ± 0.07 |
Phenolic composition of investigated Hypericum species extracts (HPLC analysis).
| Percentage (%) of identified compounds (mg/100mg de) | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Source | Phenolic acids | Flavonoids | Phloroglucinols | Naphtodianthrones | ||
| Chlorogenic | Caffeic | Rutin | Quercitrin | Hyperforin | Hypericin | |
| 1 ( | 0.38 ± 0.02 | 0.06 ± 0.005 | 0.33 ± 0.05 | 0.09 ± 0.004 | 0.78 ± 0.11 | 0.72 ± 0.09 |
| 2 ( | 0.37 ± 0.04 | 0.07 ± 0.002 | 0.34 ± 0.02 | 0.11 ± 0.009 | 0.76 ± 0.07 | 0.56 ± 0.07 |
| 3 ( | 0.44 ± 0.01 | 0.07 ± 0.001 | 0.36 ± 0.04 | 0.12 ± 0.008 | 1.71 ± 0.09 | 0.98 ± 0.11 |
| 4 ( | 0.65 ± 0.03 | n.d. | 0.66 ± 0.07 | 0.19 ± 0.006 | 1.41 ± 0.12 | 1.11 ± 0.13 |
| 5 ( | 0.49 ± 0.05 | 0.08 ± 0.003 | 0.39 ± 0.03 | 0.15 ± 0.005 | 0.66 ± 0.08 | 0.59 ± 0.08 |
| 6 ( | 0.38 ± 0.02 | 0.06 ± 0.002 | 0.34 ± 0.05 | 0.09 ± 0.003 | 0.91 ± 0.07 | 0.67 ± 0.05 |
| 7 ( | 1.00 ± 0.04 | 0.17 ± 0.006 | 0.90 ± 0.09 | 0.25 ± 0.011 | n.d. | n.d. |
| 8 ( | 1.30 ± 0.06 | 0.07 ± 0.003 | 0.34 ± 0.02 | 0.09 ± 0.004 | 0.71 ± 0.09 | n.d. |
| 9 ( | 0.38 ± 0.01 | 0.06 ± 0.001 | 0.32 ± 0.04 | 0.10 ± 0.002 | 1.82 ± 0.11 | 0.41 0.09 |
| 10 ( | 0.49 ± 0.05 | 0.10 ± 0.004 | 0.39 ± 0.06 | 0.23 ± 0.009 | 2.97 ± 0.15 | 0.91 ± 0.11 |
| Retention Times | 1.39 | 1.55 | 1.67 | 1.80 | 6.83 | 7.91 |
| Trendline equation | y = 6595.3x + 56.447 | y = 11261x − 50.639 | y= 453.2x − 105.2 | y = 18924x − 55.18 | y = 5473.7x − 14.86 | y = 5572x − 3.0979 |
| R-Squared value | R2 = 0.9985 | R2 = 0.9975 | R2 = 0.9974 | R2 = 0.9991 | R2 = 0.9989 | R2 = 0.9973 |
n.d.—not detectable.
Figure 1Sample chromatograms for Hypericum perforatum (sample 4) and Hypericum barbatum, with detection at 270 (a) and 590 nm (b) (1-chlorogenic acid, 2-caffeic acid, 3-rutin, 4-quercitrin, 5-hyperforin, 6-hypericin).
Figure 2PCA based on compounds of investigated Hypericum species detected by HPLC analysis.
Antioxidant potential of examined H. perforatum and Hyperici herba extracts.
| Source | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 ( | 2 ( | 3 ( | 4 ( | 5 ( | 6 ( | |
| Free radical scavenging capacity (IC50 values presented in μg/mL) | ||||||
| DPPH (IC50 values) | 3.48 ± 0.08 | 3.82 ± 0.11 | 3.61 ± 0.07 | 4.26 ± 0.12 | 1.36 ± 0.05 | 5.68 ± 0.14 |
| Trendline equation | y = 13.87x + 1.656 | y = 12.98x + 0.402 | y = 12.34x + 5.429 | y = 11.50x + 1.032 | y = 22.27ln(x) + 43.19 | y = 7.948x + 4.820 |
| R-Squared value | R2 = 0.993 | R2 = 0.995 | R2 = 0.990 | R2 = 0.988 | R2 = 0.989 | R2 = 0.983 |
| OH (IC50 values) | 43.07 ± 0.16 | 59.40 ± 0.09 | 66.95 ± 0.13 | >70.00 | 54.57 ± 0.10 | 53.04 ± 0.08 |
| Trendline equation | y = 14.032ln(x) − 2.8004 | y = 12.561ln(x) − 1.3034 | y = 11.657ln(x) + 0.9948 | y = 13.879ln(x) − 10.677 | y = 0.4812x + 23.742 | y=10.256ln(x) + 9.272 |
| Squared value (R2) | R2 = 0.9968 | R2 = 0.9244 | R2 = 0.9859 | R2 = 0.9938 | R2 = 0.9696 | R2 = 0.9616 |
| NO (IC50 values) | 92.82 ± 0.21 | 127.03 ± 0.19 | 143.31 ± 0.25 | >170.00 | 112.32 ± 0.16 | 96.76 ± 0.17 |
| Trendline equation | y=16.486ln(x) − 24.693 | y=23.363ln(x) − 63.18 | y=22.607ln(x) − 62.244 | y=20.475ln(x) − 57.144 | y= 25.057ln(x) − 68.302 | y=26.585ln(x) − 71.552 |
| Squared value (R2) | R2 = 0.9905 | R2 = 0.9698 | R2 = 0.9545 | R2 = 0.9601 | R2 = 0.9519 | R2 = 0.9458 |
| Inhibition of LP (IC50 values presented in μg/mL) | ||||||
| LP(IC50 values) | 29.48 ± 0.07 | 74.06 ± 0.22 | 14.81 ± 0.12 | 36.77 ± 0.17 | 50.84 ± 0.11 | 45.64 ± 0.19 |
| Trendline equation | y = 19.50ln(x) − 15.99 | y= 23.80ln(x) − 52.48 | y =23.07ln(x) − 12.18 | y = 19.13ln(x) − 18.97 | y = 13.42ln(x) − 2.726 | y = 1.051x + 1.991 |
| Squared value (R2) | R2 = 0.955 | R2 = 0.977 | R2 = 0.995 | R2 = 0.939 | R2 = 0.973 | R2 = 0.990 |
Antioxidant potential of H. maculatum, H. richeri, H. olympicum and H. barbatum extracts.
|
| ||||
| 7 ( | 8 ( | 9 ( | 10 ( | |
|
| ||||
|
| ||||
|
| y = 10.59x + 6.542 | y = 10.39x − 2.037 | y = 11.74x + 5.341 | y = 17.34x − 0.519 |
|
| R2 = 0.982 | R2 = 0.977 | R2 = 0.994 | R2 = 0.993 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| y = 11.881ln(x) − 0.4923 | y = 14.056ln(x) − 2.8353 | y = 12.77ln(x) − 2.2295 | y = 11.616ln(x) + 1.9937 |
|
| R2 = 0.9642 | R2 = 0.961 | R2 = 0.9501 | R2 = 0.9871 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| y = 25.647ln(x) − 71.067 | y = 23.101ln(x) − 66.617 | y = 0.2719x − 4.6752 | y = 16.855ln(x) − 23.779 |
|
| R2 = 0.951 | R2 = 0.9508 | R2 = 0.9592 | R2 = 0.9595 |
|
| ||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| y = 29.84ln(x) − 51.40 | y = 26.24ln(x) − 40.80 | y = 19.66ln(x) − 22.27 | y = 19.04ln(x) − 1.023 |
|
| R2 = 0.995 | R2 = 0.977 | R2 = 0.977 | R2 = 0.969 |
Data relevant to examined Hypericum species collected during July 2012.
| Sample | Section | Plant species | Locality | Voucher number |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Nidže, Mt., Skočivir-Mala reka | 2-1746 | ||
| 2 | Mariovo; Moravik | 2-1745 | ||
| F.Y.R. Macedonia | ||||
| 3 | Bistra Mt., Medenica; | 2-1744 | ||
| F.Y.R. Macedonia | ||||
| 4 | Cer Mt. | 2-1743 | ||
| NorthWest Serbia | ||||
| 5 | Stara planina Mt. | 2-1742 | ||
| 6 | Padej, Vojvodina | 2-1741 | ||
| North Serbia | ||||
| 7 | Korab Mt., Kobilino pole, | 2-1739 | ||
| 8 | Mariovo; Rasim Beg bridge | 2-1740 | ||
| 9 | Korab Mt., Kobilino pole, | 21737 | ||
| 10 | Bistra Mt., Medenica | 1-1738 |
Mt.-mountin.
Figure 3Inhibition of acetylcholinesterase by investigated H. perforatum extracts and by that obtained from Hyperici herba.
Figure 4Inhibition of acetylcholinesterase by investigated H. maculatum subsp. immaculatum, H. olympicum, H. richeri subsp. grisebachii and H. barbatum extracts.