| Literature DB >> 24727393 |
Maria João Rodrigues1, Katkam N Gangadhar2, Catarina Vizetto-Duarte3, Sileshi G Wubshet4, Nils T Nyberg5, Luísa Barreira6, João Varela7, Luísa Custódio8.
Abstract
Extracts of five halophytes from southern Portugal (Arthrocnemum macrostachyum, Mesembryanthemum edule, Juncus acutus, Plantago coronopus and Halimione portulacoides), were studied for antioxidant, anti-inflammatory and in vitro antitumor properties. The most active extracts towards the 1,1-diphenyl-2-picrylhydrazyl (DPPH) radical were the methanol extracts of M. edule (IC₅₀ = 0.1 mg/mL) and J. acutus (IC₅₀ = 0.4 mg/mL), and the ether extracts of J. acutus (IC₅₀ = 0.2 mg/mL) and A. macrostachyum (IC₅₀ = 0.3 mg/mL). The highest radical scavenging activity (RSA) against the 2,2'-azino-bis (3-ethylbenzothiazoline-6-sulphonic acid) (ABTS) radical was obtained in the ether extract of J. acutus (IC₅₀ = 0.4 mg/mL) and H. portulacoides (IC₅₀ = 0.9 mg/mL). The maximum total phenolic content (TPC) was found in the methanol extract of M. edule (147 mg gallic acid equivalents (GAE)/g) and in the ether extract of J. acutus (94 mg GAE/g). Significant decreases in nitric oxide (NO) production were observed after incubation of macrophages with lipopolysaccharide (LPS) and the chloroform extract of H. portulacoides (IC₅₀ = 109 µg/mL) and the hexane extract of P. coronopus (IC₅₀ = 98.0 µg/mL). High in vitro cytotoxic activity and selectivity was obtained with the ether extract of J. acutus. Juncunol was identified as the active compound and for the first time was shown to display selective in vitro cytotoxicity towards various human cancer cells.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2014 PMID: 24727393 PMCID: PMC4012463 DOI: 10.3390/md12042228
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Mar Drugs ISSN: 1660-3397 Impact factor: 5.118
Radical scavenging activity (RSA) on 1,1-diphenyl-2-picrylhydrazyl (DPPH) and 2,2′-azino-bis(3-ethylbenzothiazoline-6-sulphonic acid) (ABTS) radicals (IC50, mg/mL) and total phenolic content (TPC) (mg gallic acid equivalents (GAE)/g DW) of extracts of A. macrostachyum, P. coronopus, M. edule, J. acutus and H. portulacoides.
| Species/Compound | Extract | DPPH | ABTS | TPC |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| Hexane | 5.0 ± 0.1 c | 9.6 ± 0.5 h | 39 ± 0.8 h |
| Diethyl ether | 2.7 ± 0.1 d,e | 33 ± 1.6 g | ||
| Chloroform | 0.6 ± 0.1 a | 2.0 ± 0.0 c,d,e | 33 ± 0.4 g | |
| Methanol | 3.4 ± 0.1 b,c | 5.2 ± 0.2 g | 72 ± 0.5 k | |
| Water | >10 | >10 | 6.6 ± 0.2 a | |
|
| Hexane | >10 | >10 | 5.8 ± 0.2 a |
| Diethyl ether | 8.9 ± 0.5 d | >10 | 16 ± 0.5 b,c | |
| Chloroform | >10 | >10 | 13 ± 0.2 b | |
| Methanol | 0.9 ± 0.1 a | 1.1 ± 0.1 a,b | 103 ± 1.8 m | |
| Water | 4.0 ± 1.1 c | 2.1 ± 0.0 d,e | 28 ± 0.2 f | |
|
| Hexane | 5.3 ± 0.6 c | >10 | 4.5 ± 0.3 a |
| Diethyl ether | 1.8 ± 0.1 a,b | 2.9 ± 0.1 e | 22 ± 0.8 e | |
| Chloroform | >10 | 5.3 ± 0.0 f | 56 ± 0.7 j | |
| Methanol | 2.0 ± 0.0 c,d,e | |||
| Water | 1.1 ± 0.3 a | 7.9 ± 0.2 g | 52 ± 1.5 j | |
|
| Hexane | 4.3 ± 0.3 c | 8.6 ± 0.3 g,h | 17 ± 0.3 c,d |
| Diethyl Ether | ||||
| Chloroform | >10 | 1.8 ± 0.3 b,c,d | 20 ± 0.3 g,h | |
| Methanol | 0.4 ± 0.0 a | 1.8 ± 0.1 b,c,d | 35 ± 0.2 i | |
| Water | >10 | 2.6 ± 0.1 d,e | 35 ± 1.0 g | |
|
| Hexane | >10 | >10 | 5.5 ± 0.1 a |
| Diethyl ether | >10 | 55 ± 0.7 j | ||
| Chloroform | >10 | 4.0 ± 0.1 f | 13 ± 0.3 b | |
| Methanol | >10 | >10 | 15 ± 0.1 b,c | |
| Water | >10 | >10 | 21 ± 0.5 d,e | |
| BHT * | - | 0.1 ± 0.0 | 0.1 ± 0.0 | - |
Values represent the mean ± standard error of mean (SEM) of at least three experiments performed in triplicate (n = 9), * Butylated hydroxytoluene (BHT, E320): positive control. For the same column, different letters in the same column are significantly different (Tukey HSD test, p < 0.05). Values in bold indicate high activity.
Nitric oxide (NO) production (% and IC50 values, µg/mL) relative to lipopolysaccharide (LPS)-stimulated RAW264.7 macrophages incubated with non-toxic concentrations of extracts of A. macrostachyum, P. coronopus, H. portulacoides, J. acutus and M. edule.
| Species/Compound | Extract | 3.9 µg/mL | 7.8 µg/mL | 15.6 µg/mL | 31.2 µg/mL | 62.5 µg/mL | 125 µg/mL | IC50 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| Water | 118 ± 3 *** | 117 ± 6 | 99 ± 4 | 103 ± 3 | 87 ± 4 | 77 ± 3 ** | n.d. |
|
| Hexane | - | - | - | - | 56 ± 6 *** | 47 ± 3 *** | 98 ± 4.0 |
| Chloroform | 102 ± 5 | 97 ± 7 | 93 ± 8 | 90 ± 11 | - | - | n.d | |
| Methanol | - | - | - | 96 ± 3 | 97 ± 2 | 79 ± 3 *** | n.d | |
| Water | 112 ± 1 | 111 ± 2 | 110 ± 1 | 111 ± 2 | 103 ± 3 | 98 ± 3 | n.d | |
|
| Chloroform | - | - | - | 83 ± 3 | 73 ± 3 ** | 43 ± 1 *** | 109 ± 2.5 |
|
| Hexane | 102 ± 3 | - | - | - | - | - | n.d |
| Chloroform | 103 ± 7 | - | - | - | - | - | n.d | |
|
| Methanol | 112 ± 4 | 114 ± 5 | 103 ± 3 | 115 ± 6 | 89 ± 5 | 111 ± 3 | n.d |
| Ether | 106 ± 3 | 104 ± 2 | 96 ± 2 | - | - | - | n.d | |
| Chloroform | 103 ± 2 | 89 ± 4 | 83 ± 6.6 | - | - | - | n.d | |
| Water | 144 ± 2 *** | 128 ± 6 ** | 169 ± 6 *** | 137 ± 7 *** | 137 ± 6 *** | 98 ± 6 | n.d | |
| L-NAME * | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | 29 ± 2.1 |
Values represent the mean ± SEM of at least three experiments performed in triplicate (n = 9). Statistical significance in NO production between cells containing DMSO (0.5%, v/v) diluted in culture medium and those treated with halophyte extracts are indicated as follows: * p < 0.01, ** p < 0.001; *** p < 0.0001; -, not tested; n.d, not determined; l-NAME: NG-nitro-l-arginine methyl ester: positive control. The IC50 values were calculated as described on the materials and methods section, from a minimum of five concentrations.
Figure 1Effect of the application of different extracts of halophytes and etoposide on HepG2 cellular viability. Results are expressed as % of viability relative to a control containing dimethyl sulfoxide (DMSO) (0.5%, v/v). Solid and errors bars represent the average and SEM, respectively (n = 12). Significant differences between control and treated cells are indicated as follows: * p < 0.01, ** p < 0.001.
IC50 values (µg/mL) and selectivity index (SI) of the diethyl ether extract of J. acutus and of etoposide, on a human tumoral cell line (HepG2) and on murine non-tumoral cells (S17).
| Treatment | IC50 values | SI | |
|---|---|---|---|
| HepG2 | S17 | HepG2 | |
| Extract | 6.2 ± 0.3 * | 34 ± 2.2 | 5.5 |
| Etoposide | 1.9 ± 0.1 | 10 ± 0.01 | 5.4 |
Values represent the mean ± SEM of at least three experiments performed in triplicate (n = 9); * Indicates significant differences (p < 0.01) as compared with S17 cells.
Figure 2Effect of the application of the fractions obtained from J. acutus, at a concentration of 15 µg/mL on HepG2 and S17 cell lines, expressed as cell viability (bar chart) and selectivity (scatter line). Results are expressed as mean ± SEM of at least three experiments performed in triplicate (n = 9). Significant differences in viability between control and treated cells are indicated as follows: * p < 0.01, ** p < 0.001.
Figure 3FTIR spectra of the pure isolated compound.
Figure 4Chemical structure of juncunol (1,7-dimethyl-5-vinyl-9,10-dihydrophenanthren-2-ol).
Effect of the application of juncunol and etoposide on the viability of tumoral (HepG2) and non-tumoral cell lines (S17 and mTEC), expressed as IC50 values (µM/mL), and selectivity index (SI).
| Cell lines | Etoposide | Juncunol | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| IC50 | SI: S17 | SI: mTEC | IC50 | SI: S17 | SI: mTEC | |
|
| ||||||
| HepG2 | 2.4 ± 0.2 a | 7.5 ± 0.4 B | 33 ± 2.3 G | 18 ± 1.2 b,c | 20 ± 1.4 F | 18 ± 1.2 E,F |
| MDA-MB-468 | 11 ± 0.7 c | 1.6 ± 0.1 A | 6.1 ± 0.7 B | 22 ± 2.0 b,c | 17 ± 1.7 E,F | 15 ± 1.6 D,E |
| HeLa | 7.1 ± 0.2 b | 2.5 ± 0.1 A | 10 ± 0.8 C | 27 ± 2.8 c | 13 ± 1.2 C,D | 12 ± 1.3 C,D |
|
| ||||||
| S17 | 17 ± 0.2 d | - | - | 367 ± 3.2 g | - | - |
| mTEC | 75 ± 3.7 e | - | - | 344 ± 6.0 f | - | - |
Values represent the mean ± SEM of at least three experiments performed in triplicate (n = 9). In the same column, values followed by different letters (a–g for IC50 values and A–G for SI) are significantly different (Tukey HSD test, p < 0.05). HepG2: human hepatocarcinoma; MDA-MB-468: human breast carcinoma; HeLa: human cervical carcinoma; S17: murine stromal; mTEC: mouse thymic epithelial.