| Literature DB >> 26784661 |
Márcia O Souza1, Cátia S Branco2, Juliane Sene3, Rafaela DallAgnol4, Fabiana Agostini5, Sidnei Moura6, Mirian Salvador7.
Abstract
Polyphenols are natural products with recognized potential in drug discovery and development. We aimed to evaluate the polyphenolic profile of Araucaria angustifolia bracts, and their ability to scavenge reactive species. The antioxidant and antigenotoxic effects of A. angustifolia polyphenols in MRC5 human lung fibroblast cells were also explored. The total polyphenol extract of A. angustifolia was determined by the Folin-Ciocalteu reagent and the chemical composition was confirmed by HPLC. Reactive oxygen species' scavenging ability was investigated by the 2,2-diphenyl-1-picrylhydrazyl (DPPH) method and superoxide dismutase- and catalase-like activities. The protective effect of the extract in MRC5 cells was carried out by the 3-(4,5-dimethylthiazol-2-yl)-2,5-diphenyltetrazolium bromide method and the determination of oxidative lipids, protein, and DNA (alkaline and enzymatic comet assay) damage. Total phenolic content of the A. angustifolia extract was 1586 ± 14.53 mg gallic acid equivalents/100 g of bracts. Catechin, epicatechin, quercetin, and apigenin were the major polyphenols. The extract was able to scavenge DPPH radicals and exhibited potent superoxide dismutase and catalase-like activities. Moreover, A. angustifolia extract significantly protected MRC5 cells against H₂O₂-induced mortality and oxidative damage to lipids, proteins, and DNA. Therefore, A. angustifolia has potential as a source of bioactive chemical compounds.Entities:
Keywords: Araucaria angustifolia; MRC5; antigenotoxicity; antioxidant; polyphenols
Year: 2014 PMID: 26784661 PMCID: PMC4665447 DOI: 10.3390/antiox3010024
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Antioxidants (Basel) ISSN: 2076-3921
Figure 1Chromatograms (HPLC) for flavonoids (A) at 350 nm and tannins (B) at 280 nm of A. angustifolia aqueous extract.
In vitro antioxidant activity of the Araucaria angustifolia extract (AAE).
| Samples | DPPH | SOD- | CAT- |
|---|---|---|---|
| AAE | 0.146 ± 0.14 a,* | 5.73 ± 1.40 a | 225.00 ± 43.30 a |
| Catechin | 0.104 ± 0.01 b | 13.53 ± 0.037 b | 7.50 ± 0.02 b |
♯ IC50 (concentration of AAE (mg/mL) needed to scavenge 50% of DPPH, i.e., 125 µM); § IC50 (µL of AAE needed to reduce 50% of the adrenochrome formation). Data are mean ± SD values. * Different letters indicate a significant difference according to analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Tukey’s post-hoc test (p ≤ 0.05) for each evaluated parameter.
Figure 2Cell viability of human lung fibroblast cells (MRC5). MRC5 cells were treated for 1 h with Araucaria angustifolia extract (AAE) in FBS-free medium and subsequently administered H2O2 (900 µM) for 1 h. Data are mean ± SD values. * Different letters indicate significant difference according to analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Tukey’s post-hoc test (p ≤ 0.05).
Determination of the thiobarbituric acid reactive substances (TBARS), carbonyl protein, superoxide dismutase (SOD), and catalase (CAT) activities in the MRC5 cells pretreated with the extract of bracts of A. angustifolia and H2O2.
| Treatments | TBARS | Carbonyl protein | SOD | CAT (mmol H2O2/min/mg of protein) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cell Control | 0.57 ± 0.08 a | 1.85 ± 0.08 a | 19.40 ± 0.49 b | 15.19 ± 0.56 a |
| H2O2 900 µM | 2.21 ± 0.06 c | 4.51 ± 0.15 c | 9.32 ± 0.13 d | 9.75 ± 0.08 c |
| AAE 25 µg/mL | 0.54 ± 0.01 a | 1.94 ± 0.10 a | 19.00 ± 0.34 b | 14.25 ± 0.65 a |
| AAE 50 µg/mL | 0.51 ± 0.15 a | 1.88 ± 0.06 a | 23.81 ± 0.01 a | 14.63 ± 0.06 a |
| AAE 25 µg/mL + H2O2 | 0.86 ± 0.03 b | 3.09 ± 0.51 b | 13.46 ± 0.02 c | 12.38 ± 0.01 b |
| AAE 50 µg/mL + H2O2 | 0.52 ± 0.16 a | 2.24 ± 0.16 a | 19.51 ± 0.22 b | 14.07 ± 0.05 a |
Data are mean ± SD values. Different letters indicate significant differences according to analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Tukey’s post-hoc test (p ≤ 0.05) in each assay.
Figure 3(A) DNA damage index by the alkaline Comet assay in MRC5 cells after treatment with AAE and exposure to H2O2. * Different letters indicate significant differences by analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Tukey’s post-hoc test (p ≤ 0.05). (B) Frequency (%) of different classes of DNA damage in control and AAE-treated groups. The cells were assessed visually and received scores from 0 (no injury) to 4 (maximally damaged), according to the size and shape of the tail. Data are mean ± SD values.
Figure 4(A) Content of DNA damage oxidative by the Comet assay modified. * Different letters indicate significant differences by analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Tukey’s post-hoc test (p ≤ 0.05). (B) Frequency (%) of different classes of DNA damage (Comet assay). Cells were evaluated visually and were given scores of 0 (no injury) to 4 (maximally damaged) according to the size and shape of the tail. Data are mean ± SD values.
Pearson correlations between cellular antioxidant enzymes activities, lipid and protein oxidative damage, DNA damage index, and cell viability assays.
| Assays | SOD | CAT | TBARS | Carbonyl protein | DNA damage |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| TBARS | −0.866 * | −0.945 ** | - | 0.959 ** | 0.816 * |
| Carbonyl protein | −0.933 ** | −0.992 ** | 0.959 ** | - | 0.940 ** |
| DNA damage | −0.892 * | −0.933 ** | 0.816 * | 0.940 ** | - |
| Cell viability | 0.943 ** | 0.977 ** | −0.923 ** | −0.985 ** | −0.927 ** |
Statistically significant * for p≤0.05 and ** for p ≤ 0.01.