| Literature DB >> 26593896 |
Anika Kuczmannová1, Peter Gál2,3,4,5, Lenka Varinská6,7, Jakub Treml8, Ivan Kováč9,10, Martin Novotný11,12, Tomáš Vasilenko13,14, Stefano Dall'Acqua15, Milan Nagy16, Pavel Mučaji17.
Abstract
Reactive oxygen species (ROS) are highly considered in the ethiopathogenesis of different pathological conditions because they may cause significant damage to cells and tissues. In this paper, we focused on potential antioxidant properties of two medical plants such as the Agrimonia eupatoria L. and Cynara cardunculus L. Both plants have previously been studied for their pharmacological activities, especially as hepatoprotective and hypoglycemic activities. It has been suggested, that their effects are related to the antioxidant properties of polyphenols, which are dominant compounds of the plants' extracts. In the present study HPLC-MS analysis of water infusion was performed allowing the identification of several phenolic constituents. Furthermore, antioxidant effects of the two extracts were compared showing higher effects for agrimony extract compared to artichoke. Thus, agrimony was selected for the in vivo study using the skin flap viability model. In conclusion, our results provide evidence that the A. eupatoria extract may be a valuable source of polyphenols to be studied for the future development of supplements useful in the prevention of diseases linked to oxidative stress.Entities:
Keywords: ROS; agrimony; antioxidants; artichoke; oxidative stress
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2015 PMID: 26593896 PMCID: PMC6332114 DOI: 10.3390/molecules201119715
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Molecules ISSN: 1420-3049 Impact factor: 4.411
Identification of constituents and quantification from Cynara cardunculus (a) and Agrimonia eupatoria (b).
| Identification | Retention Time (Rt) (min) | [M − H]− | Fragments | % |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Quinic acid * | 1.5 | 191 | 0.615 ± 0.01 | |
| 1-caffeoyl quinic acid | 3.15 | 353 | 191, 179, 85 | 0.137 ± 0.01 |
| 3-caffeoyl quinic acid * | 5.2 | 353 | 191, 179, 135, 85 | 0.133 ± 0.01 |
| 4-caffeoyl quinic acid | 5.7 | 353 | 191, 173, 135, 93 | 1.646 ± 0.04 |
| 5-caffeoyl quinic acid * | 7 | 353 | 191,179, 135 | 0.320 ± 0.02 |
| Luteolin-7- | 11 | 447 | 285, 267, 241, 217 | 1.603 ± 0.03 |
| Luteolin-7- | 11.6 | 461 | 285, 267, 241, 217 | 0.167 ± 0.02 |
| Luteolin-7- | 13.5 | 489 | 285, 267, 241, 217 | 0.594 ± 0.02 |
| Caffeoil-hexoside | 2.1 | 341 | 179 | 0.093 ± 0.01 |
| Luteolin-7- | 10.3 | 593 | 285, 267, 241, 217 | 0.086 ± 0.01 |
| Apigenin-7- | 13.1 | 431 | 269, 241, 225 | 0.131 ± 0.01 |
| Apigenin-7- | 12.2 | 577 | 269, 241, 225 | 0.017 ± 0.01 |
| 1,3-dicaffeoyl quinic acid * | 4.3 | 515 | 353, 191, 179 | 0.083 ± 0.01 |
| 1,4-dicaffeoyl quinic acid * | 7.9 | 515 | 353, 179, 173 | 0.042 ± 0.01 |
| 3,4-dicaffeoyl quinic acid | 12 | 515 | 353, 299, 203, 179 | 0.189 ± 0.01 |
| 3,5-dicaffeoyl quinic acid * | 12.5 | 515 | 353, 203, 191, 179 | 1.823 ± 0.01 |
| 4,5-dicaffeoyl quinic acid | 13.7 | 515 | 353 | 0.268 ± 0.03 |
| Quinic acid * | 1.5 | 191 | 111, 57 | 0.360 ± 0.01 |
| 4 | 163 | 1.330 ± 0.01 | ||
| Catechin * | 13 | 289 | 245, 205, 175 | 0.200 ± 0.01 |
| Quercitin-acetil-glucoside | 9 | 505 | 445, 301, 271, 255, 179, 151 | 0.670 ± 0.02 |
| Rutin * | 11.0 | 609 | 301, 271, 255, 179, 151 | 0.155 ± 0.01 |
| Apigenin derivative | 12.5 | 447 | 307, 269 | 0.200 ± 0.01 |
| 8 | 337 | 163, 191 | 0.260 ± 0.01 | |
| 5-caffeoyl quinic acid * | 7.1 | 353 | 191 | 0.510 ± 0.01 |
| Luteolin-7- | 12.5 | 461 | 285,257, 229 | 0.270 ± 0.01 |
| Caffeoil-hexoside | 2.1 | 341 | 179 | 0.100 ± 0.01 |
| Kaempferol- | 15.6 | 593 | 285 | 0.180 ± 0.01 |
| Quercetin-acetyl-hexoside | 6.7 | 505 | 301 | 0.730 ± 0.01 |
| Procyanidin B-1 * | 27.0 | 577 | 425, 407, 289 | 0.180 ± 0.01 |
| Procyanidin B-3 | 29 | 577 | 425, 407, 289 | 0.140 ± 0.01 |
| Procyanidin-trimer-B | 8 | 865 | 695, 577, 407 | 0.870 ± 0.01 |
| Procyanidin tetramer-B | 15 | 1153 | 695, 577, 407 | 0.300 ± 0.02 |
| Quercetin3- | 9.5 | 463 | 301, 271, 255, 179, 151 | 0.550 ±0.009 |
| Quercetin-3- | 10.1 | 447 | 301, 271, 255, 179, 151 | 0.301 ± 0.01 |
| Quercetin-7- | 11.2 | 447 | 301, 271, 255, 179, 151 | 0.260 ± 0.01 |
| Apigenin-7- | 11.8 | 445 | 269 | 0.190 ± 0.009 |
| luteolin-acetyl-hexoside | 10.5 | 489 | 447, 285 | 0.110 ± 0.009 |
Compounds with * were compared with standard.
Figure 1Effect of agrimony and artichoke (0.1 mg/mL and 0.05 mg/mL) on cell viability.
Figure 2(a) Scheme of plant’s effects on NO degradation by superoxide (0—no effect, ↑—increased activity/expression, ↓—decreased activity/expression; AE—green, CC—red); (b–e) effect of agrimony and artichoke on activity of CAT (b) and SOD (c) and expression of CAT (d) and SOD (e) (*** p < 0.001, ** p < 0.01, * p < 0.05).
Figure 3(a) Damage indexes of 0.1 mg/mL and 0.05 mg/mL agrimony and artichoke (*** p < 0.001, ** p < 0.01, * p < 0.05); (b) gel electrophoresis: agrimony (0.1 mg/mL and 0.05 mg/mL); and (c) gel electrophoresis: artichoke (0.1 mg/mL and 0.05 mg/mL).
Figure 4Skin flap in rats following Agrimonia eupatoria L. treatment; (a) dimensions of the skin flap located on the back of each rat s; (b) effect of A. eupatoria on skin flap viability expressed in percentages (* p < 0.05); and (c) photograph showing skin flaps of control and treated rats seven days after surgery (the dotted line labels vital part of the flap).