| Literature DB >> 26740784 |
Doaa A Ghareeb1, Amani M D ElAhwany2, Sherif M El-Mallawany3, Ashraf A Saif4.
Abstract
In this study we investigated the phytoconstituents Calluna vulgaris, Ferula hermonis and Tribulus terrestris, and then assessed their possible biological activities by using standard methods. A preliminary phytochemical investigation of the three extracts revealed the presence of alkaloids, flavonoids, proteins, lipids, phenolic compounds, saponins, sterols and amino acids. Three extracts showed anti-oxidant effect as they inhibited the 1,1-diphenyl-2-picryl hydrazyl (DPPH) oxidation and production of thiobarbituric acid reactive substances (TBARS). Moreover, three extracts showed anti-acetylcholiesterase (AChE) and this effect was concentration dependent. C. vulgaris was the most potent inhibitor of AChE. Furthermore, the three plant extracts had an inhibitory effect toward α-glucosidase. The inhibitory effect was concentration dependent and the most potent inhibitor for α-glucosidase was the extract from T. terrestris. Calluna vulgaris showed anti-inflammatory effect at tested concentrations while the other two extracts exhibited this effect only at concentration of 25 μg/mL. Finally, C. vulgaris had a significant effect against pathogenic bacteria (Agrobacterium tumefaciens, Erwinia sp., Klebsiella pneumonia and Pseudomonas aeruginosa) in comparison to other extracts from Ferula sp., or Tribulus sp. In conclusion, all tested extracts could be promising sources for the treatment of diabetes, Alzheimer's disease, infectious diseases and oxidative stress related disorders because they are rich in phenols and flavonoids that give anti-oxidant molecules and produce an inhibitory effect against the tested enzymes.Entities:
Keywords: Alzheimer treatment; Calluna vulgaris; Ferula hermonis; Tribulus terrestris; anti-diabetic
Year: 2014 PMID: 26740784 PMCID: PMC4684064 DOI: 10.1080/13102818.2014.969877
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Biotechnol Biotechnol Equip ISSN: 1310-2818 Impact factor: 1.632
Quantitative phytochemical screening of the plants.
| Components | Plant | % concentration ± SD |
|---|---|---|
| Alkaloid | 0.0131 ± 0.0024 | |
| 0.0176 ± 0.0056 | ||
| 0.0483 ± 0.0040 | ||
| Total phenol | 83.229 ± 6.855 | |
| 30.104 ± 1.573 | ||
| 26.563 ± 2.742 | ||
| Flavonoid | 44.849 ± 5.915 | |
| 45.152 ± 6.701 | ||
| 8.485 ± 2.922 | ||
| Total protein | 447.88 ± 355.38 | |
| 362.88 ± 446.63 | ||
| 104.13 ± 196.63 | ||
| Total lipid | 1.043 ± 0.109 | |
| 0.996 ± 0.091 | ||
| 1.063 ± 0.070 | ||
| Saponin | 2542.86 ± 363.66 | |
| 9171.43 ± 525.28 | ||
| 3242.86 ± 60.61 | ||
| Amino acid | 279 ± 65.997 | |
| 962.33 ± 447.83 | ||
| 329 ± 18.856 | ||
| Total carbohydrate | ND | |
| ND | ||
| ND |
Note: ND: not detected.
Anti-oxidant effect of the tested extracts.
| Concentration | TBARS inhibition (%) | DPPH scavenging (%) | TBARS inhibition (%) | DPPH scavenging (%) | TBARS inhibition (%) | DPPH scavenging (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 25 ug/mL | 20 ± 2.1a | 30 ± 1.1a | 11 ± 0.9a | 21 ± 4.3a | 18 ± 1.4a | 23 ± 5.1a |
| 50 ug/mL | 30 ± 1.9b | 45 ± 3.1b | 29 ± 2.1b | 32 ± 1.7b | 29 ± 3.2b | 41 ± 3.9b |
| 70 ug/mL | 51 ± 3.5c | 60 ± 5.1c | 41 ± 5.6c | 45 ± 2.9c | 33 ± 2.6b | 51 ± 3.2c |
| 100 ug/mL | 64.2 ± 4.2d | 80 ± 3.5d | 57.8 ± 3.4d | 69 ± 5.3d | 43 ± 2.8c | 54 ± 1.2c |
Within the column, means with different letters (a, b, c, or d ) were significantly different at p < 0.05. Mean with letter (a) was significantly the lowest value while mean with the letter (d) was significantly the highest value. If two or three groups have the same letters that means there is no significant difference detected at p < 0.05.
Figure 1. The percentage of inhibition in acetylcholine esterase activity in the presence of the tested plant extracts.
IC50 of the tested extracts toward AChE and glucosidase.
| IC50 (ug/mL) | ||
|---|---|---|
| Plant extracts | AChE | α-glucosidase |
| 40.8 ± 2.3a | 14 ± 1.7b | |
| 90.9 ± 5.9b | 13 ± 1.4b | |
| 492.3 ± 12.7c | 10.5 ± 0.9a | |
Within the column, means with different letters (a, b, c, or d ) were significantly different at p < 0.05. Mean with letter (a) was significantly the lowest value while mean with the letter (d) was significantly the highest value. If two or three groups have the same letters that means there is no significant difference detected at p < 0.05.
Figure 2. The percentage of inhibition in α-glucosidase activity in the presence of the tested plant extracts.
Figure 3. Anti-inflammatory effect of the tested extracts.
Antimicrobial activity of the three plant extracts on selected pathogenic bacteria.
| Size of inhibition zone (cm) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| | Different concentrations of | |||
| Bacterial pathogens | 0.23 g/mL | 0.15 g/mL | 0.08 g/mL | 0.04 g/mL |
| 4 | 3.5 | 3 | – | |
| 2.5 | 2.5 | 2.3 | 1.8 | |
| 3 | 3 | 1.3 | 1.1 | |
| – | – | – | – | |
| – | – | – | ||
| 2.8 | 3 | 2.5 | 1.2 | |
| Different concentrations of | ||||
| | 0.34 g/mL | 0.23 g/mL | 0.14 g/mL | 0.06 g/mL |
| 1.3 | 1 | – | – | |
| – | – | – | – | |
| 1.9 | 1.8 | 1.7 | 1.2 | |
| – | – | – | – | |
| – | – | – | – | |
| – | – | – | – | |
| Different concentrations of | ||||
| | 0.23g/mL | 0.15 g/mL | 0.08 g/mL | 0.04 g/mL |
| 3.5 | 3.5 | – | – | |
| – | – | – | – | |
| – | – | – | – | |
| – | – | – | – | |
| – | – | – | – | |
| – | – | – | – | |