| Literature DB >> 26858534 |
Renata Nowak1, Katarzyna Szewczyk1, Urszula Gawlik-Dziki2, Jolanta Rzymowska3, Łukasz Komsta4.
Abstract
The cytotoxic and antioxidant properties of lipophilic compounds extracted from different parts of four Chenopodium L. (Chenopodium album, Chenopodium hybridum, Chenopodium rubrum and Chenopodium urbicum) species were evaluated. The highest phenolic content was found in herb and seeds of all examined plants. Large amounts of free polyphenols were observed in herb extracts of C. album (3.36 mg/g DW), seeds of C. urbicum (3.87 mg/g DW) and roots of C. urbicum (1.52 mg/g DW). The cytotoxic activities of the extracts were assessed against human lung carcinoma A-549 and ovarian carcinoma TOV-112D and normal human fibroblast cell lines. Our study demonstrated that the extracts from the herb of C. rubrum and C. urbicum had the best antioxidant effect of all the extracts analyzed. Most of the extracts tested exhibited low cytotoxicity. However, the extracts from herb and seeds of C. album and C. hybridum showed the significant antiproliferative effect on the TOV-112 cell line. It can be concluded that antioxidant activity and phenolic composition differ mainly between plant parts and are quite similar between the plants, when the same plant part is analyzed. Thus, the Chenopodium extracts could be used as a readily accessible source of natural antioxidants, and may be used in the pharmaceutical industry and for food supplements production.Entities:
Keywords: Antioxidant activity; Chenopodium; Cytotoxic activity; Polyphenols
Year: 2015 PMID: 26858534 PMCID: PMC4705297 DOI: 10.1016/j.sjbs.2015.01.017
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Saudi J Biol Sci ISSN: 1319-562X Impact factor: 4.219
Total phenolic (TPC), phenolic after acidic hydrolysis (TPCA) and flavonoid content (TF) in C. album, C. hybridum, C. rubrum and C. urbicum expressed as mg GAE or mg QE per 1 g of dry plant material, respectively.
| Sample | Total phenolic content [mg GAE/g DW] | Total phenolic content after acidic hydrolysis [mg GAE/g DW] | Total flavonoid content [mg QE/g DW] |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2.95 ± 0.25a | 7.26 ± 1.64a | 6.20 ± 0.28a | |
| 2.95 ± 0.58a | 7.41 ± 2.69a | 7.20 ± 0.65b | |
| 3.92 ± 0.38b | 9.91 ± 2.42b | 7.80 ± 0.43b | |
| 3.36 ± 1.43b | 8.87 ± 0.57b | 4.20 ± 1.62c | |
| 1.01 ± 0.43c | 5.68 ± 1.32c | 1.22 ± 0.19d | |
| 1.22 ± 0.14c | 6.62 ± 2.26d | 0.70 ± 0.58e | |
| 1.47 ± 0.58c | 6.24 ± 1.7d | 0.68 ± 0.14e | |
| 1.58 ± 1.14c | 9.73 ± 0.99e | 0.74 ± 0.23e | |
| 1.89 ± 0.65c | 8.09 ± 1.59b | 1.60 ± 0.96d | |
| 3.72 ± 0.16b | 10.56 ± 1.53b | 2.60 ± 0.2f | |
| 3.66 ± 1.63b | 8.22 ± 0.55e | 1.74 ± 1.09d | |
| 3.87 ± 0.43b | 12.39 ± 0.7e | 3.20 ± 0.46f |
Mean values followed by different superscripts (a–f) in a column are significantly different (P < 0.05).
The cytotoxic activity of different parts of C. album, C. hybridum, C. rubrum, C. urbicum.
| Sample | Concentration of dry material [mg/cm3] | Concentration of dry extract [mg/cm3] | Time of incubation [h] | Skin’s fibroblasts | A 549 GI GS (%) | TOV-112D GI GS (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Control (human skin fibroblasts) | 24 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||
| 48 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |||
| 72 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |||
| 1.12 | 0.2 | 24 | 0 | 15 | 50 | |
| 48 | 25C | 15 | 95C | |||
| 72 | 70C | 15 | 95 | |||
| 2.35 | 0.2 | 24 | 0 | 10 | 0 | |
| 48 | 0 | 50 | 5 | |||
| 72 | 0 | 50 | 5 | |||
| 2.00 | 0.1 | 24 | 5C | 5 | 25 | |
| 48 | 15C | 25 | 55 | |||
| 72 | 65C | 30 | 55 | |||
| 1.00 | 0.2 | 24 | 15 | 0 | 5 | |
| 48 | 80 | 0 | 95 | |||
| 72 | 90 | 0 | 95 | |||
| 1.54 | 0.1 | 24 | 0 | 0 | 5 | |
| 48 | 0 | 5 | 5 | |||
| 72 | 0 | 5 | 5 | |||
| 1.50 | 0.1 | 24 | 0 | 10C | 5 | |
| 48 | 0 | 10 | 55 | |||
| 72 | 15 | 20 | 50 | |||
| 0.82 | 0.2 | 24 | 90C | 0 | 0 | |
| 48 | 90 | 5 | 5 | |||
| 72 | 100 | 5 | 5C | |||
| 1.08 | 0.2 | 24 | 5 | 0 | 0 | |
| 48 | 40 | 5 | 0 | |||
| 72 | 50 | 5 | 0 | |||
| 1.00 | 0.1 | 24 | 90C | 5C | 10 | |
| 48 | 95 | 5 | 5 | |||
| 72 | 100 | 5 | 0 | |||
| 0.87 | 0.2 | 24 | 10 | 0 | 0 | |
| 48 | 25 | 0 | 5 | |||
| 72 | 60C | 0 | 5 | |||
| 0.91 | 0.1 | 24 | 0 | 5 | 0 | |
| 48 | 10 | 10 | 5 | |||
| 72 | 10 | 10 | 5 | |||
| 0.67 | 0.1 | 24 | 5 | 0 | 5 | |
| 48 | 5 | 5 | 5 | |||
| 72 | 5 | 5 | 10C | |||
Figure 1DPPH• radicals scavenging capacity of methanolic extracts from different parts of C. album, C.hybridum, C. rubrum and C. urbicum. CaR (C. album root); CrR (C. rubrum root); CaS (C. album seed); CaH (C. album herb); ChH (C. hybridum herb); CuH (C. urbicum herb); CrH (C. rubrum herb); CrS (C. rubrum seed); ChS (C. hybridum seed); CuS (C. urbicum seed); ChR (C. hybridum root); CuR (C. urbicum root). Bars having different letters are significantly different (p < 0.05).
Figure 2Metal chelating activity of methanolic extracts from different parts of C. album, C. hybridum, C. rubrum and C. urbicum. Explanatory notes as in Fig 1. Bars having different letters are significantly different (p < 0.05).
Figure 3Reducing power of methanolic extracts from different parts of C. album, C. hybridum, C. rubrum and C. urbicum. Explanatory notes as in Fig. 1. Bars having different letters are significantly different (p < 0.05).
Figure 4Ability of lipid peroxidation inhibition of methanolic extracts from different parts of C. album, C. hybridum, C. rubrum and C. urbicum. Explanatory notes as in Fig. 1. Bars having different letters are significantly different (p < 0.05).
Pearson’s correlation coefficients between the determined parameters in all study samples.
| Parameter | TPC | TPCA | TF | DPPH | CHEL | RED | LPO |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| TPC | X | 0.7 | 0.63 | 0.69 | 0.16 | 0.88 | 0.5 |
| TPCA | 0.7 | X | 0.21 | 0.51 | 0.39 | 0.62 | 0.49 |
| TF | 0.63 | 0.21 | X | 0.67 | 0.12 | 0.67 | 0.37 |
| DPPH | 0.69 | 0.51 | 0.67 | X | 0.11 | 0.55 | 0.31 |
| CHEL | 0.16 | 0.39 | 0.12 | 0.11 | X | 0.46 | 0.68 |
| RED | 0.88 | 0.62 | 0.67 | 0.55 | 0.46 | X | 0.79 |
| LPO | 0.5 | 0.49 | 0.37 | 0.31 | 0.68 | 0.79 | X |
TPC – total phenolic content, TPCA – total phenolic content after hydrolysis, TF – total flavonoid content, DPPH – ability to free radicals scavenging, CHEL – metal chelating activity, RED – reducing power, LPO – inhibition of linoleic acid peroxidation.
Figure 5The score plot of the first two principal components of scaled PCA with corresponding loading vectors.