| Literature DB >> 27056828 |
Florentine Marie-Chantal Ndoye Foe1, Tatiana Flore Kemegni Tchinang2,3,4, Ascencion Maximilienne Nyegue3,5, Jean-Pierre Abdou4,6, Abel Joel Gbaweng Yaya4,6, Alembert Tiabou Tchinda4, Jean-Louis Oyono Essame4, François-Xavier Etoa3.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In the Cameroonian traditional medicine, plants of the Capparidaceae, Euphorbiaceae and Liliaceae families are used to treat several metabolic diseases. These plants are rich in various compounds belonging to the glucosinolates and thiosulfinates family. Till date, very little studies have been done aiming at assessing the antioxidant and inflammatory properties of the essential oils (EOs) of these plants. Essential oils are volatile extracts produced by secondary metabolism. They are usually constituted of terpens and may also contain specific non terpenic components such as glucosinolates and thiosulfinates for the species that are being considered in the present study. This study highlights and compares the chemical composition, antioxidant and anti-inflammatory properties of the essential oils of the stem barks of Drypetes gossweileri (Euphorbiaceae), roots of Pentadiplandra brazzeana (Capparidaceae), red bulbs of Allium cepa and Alium sativum (Liliaceae) collected in Cameroon (Central Africa).Entities:
Keywords: Anti-inflammatory activity; Chemical composition; Essential oils; In vitro antioxidant; Sulphur-containing plants
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27056828 PMCID: PMC4823886 DOI: 10.1186/s12906-016-1096-y
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Complement Altern Med ISSN: 1472-6882 Impact factor: 3.659
Relative percentages of constituents and extraction yields of EOs from A. sativum, A. cepa bulbs, D. gossweileri stem barks and P. brazzeana roots
| Components | RI | Relative percentage (%) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
| ||
| 2,4-dimethylthiophene | 884 | - | 0.63 | 0.03 | - |
| Diallyl sulfide | 888 | 1.38 | 7.10 | 0.11 | - |
| 2,5-dimethyl thiophene | 908 | 0.82 | - | - | |
| Allyl methyl disulfide | 918 | - | - | 0.01 | - |
| Methyl propyl disulfide | 922 | - | 1.19 | - | - |
| N,N’-Dimethyl thiourea | 951 | - | - | 0.01 | - |
| Benzaldehyde | 962 | - | - | 0.28 | - |
| dimethyl trisulfide | 964 | - | 0.58 | - | - |
| 2-Phenyl furan | 978 | - | 0.48 | - | - |
| Octyl aldehyde | 990 | 2.26 | - | - | - |
| phenylacetaldehyde | 1026 | 2.69 | - | 0.06 | - |
| Limonene | 1029 | - | 0.62 | - | - |
| 2-propenyl propyl disulfide | 1032 | 5.15 | 0.20 | 0.02 | - |
| 2,5-dimethyl-1,3,4-thiadiazole | 1037 | - | 0.74 | - | - |
| Terpinolene | 1059 | - | - | 0.02 | - |
| Phenylmethanol | 1081 | - | - | 0.01 | - |
| Diallyl disulfide | 1088 | - | 19.74 | - | |
| Trans-propenyl propyl disulfide | 1091 | 2.86 | - | - | - |
| Linalool | 1101 | - | 0.88 | - | - |
| Dipropyl disulfide | 1109 | 2.71 | 0.62 | - | - |
| 1-propenyl propyl disulfide | 1114 | 3.77 | - | - | - |
| 3,5-dimethyl-1,2,4-trithiolane | 1118 | 1.81 | - | - | - |
| Campholenol | 1124 | - | - | 0.03 | 0.31 |
| Allyl methyl trisulfide | 1149 | - | 12.95 | - | - |
| Methyl propyl trisulfide | 1153 | 8.14 | - | - | - |
| Benzylcyanide | 1157 | 2.52 | - | 35.72 | 0.86 |
| 3,4-Dihydro-3-vinyl-1,2-dithiin | 1165 | - | 1.37 | - | - |
| Dimethyl tetrasulfide | 1224 | 1.32 | 1.59 | 0.02 | - |
| 2,5-Dimethylthiazole | 1265 | 4.62 | - | - | - |
| Diallyl trisulfide | 1319 | 22.17 | 41.62 | - | - |
| 3-Methoxyoctane | 1327 | - | 0.62 | - | - |
| Dipropyl trisulfide | 1334 | 11.11 | - | - | - |
| 1-propenyl propyl sulfide | 1345 | 1.26 | - | - | - |
| Allyl propyl sulfide | 1377 | - | 1.30 | - | - |
| Di-1-propenyl sulfide | 1382 | 1.71 | 2.08 | - | - |
| Benzylisothiocyanate | 1393 | - | - | 63,19 | 97.63 |
| p-methoxybenzylcyanide | 1395 | - | 0.85 | - | 1,2 |
| Β-caryophyllene | 1398 | - | 0.23 | - | - |
| 2-methyl-3-isothiozolone | 1435 | 2.23 | - | -- | - |
| Germacrene D | 1484 | - | - | 0.02 | - |
| γ-cadinene | 1506 | - | 0.39 | - | - |
| 2-methyl-3,4-dithiaheptane | 1527 | 9.88 | - | - | |
| Β-sesquiphellandrene | 1550 | - | - | 0.05 | - |
| Diallyl tetrasulfide | 1558 | - | 4.22 | - | - |
| p-methoxybenzylisothiocyanate | 1575 | 3.55 | - | - | - |
| Dipropyl tetrasulfide | 1649 | 8.07 | - | - | - |
| Benzyl sulfide | 1856 | - | - | 0.06 | - |
| Methyl linolenate | 2013 | - | - | 0.06 | - |
| Total identified (%) | 98.77 | 100 | 99.70 | 100 | |
| EOs extraction yields (%) | 0.007 | 0.2 | 0.04 | 0.02 | |
RI linear retention indices on a HP5 column; − not found; EO essential oils
Total phenolic, and ferric reducing power contents of essential oils of A. cepa, A. sativum, D. gossweileiri, P. brazzeana
| TPC (μg AAE/mg) | FRAP (μg AAE/mg) | |
|---|---|---|
| Essential oil | Essential oil | |
|
| 429.33 ± 1.31 b | 2.75 ± 0.02 b |
|
| 463.38 ± 1.24 a | 5.33 ± 0.01 a |
|
| 365.38 ± 0.66 c | 0.76 ± 0.03 c |
|
| 342.20 ± 0.99 d | 0.08 ± 0.03d |
Values followed by the different superscript letter (a, b, c or d) within the same column are significantly different (p < 0.05) according to Tukey’s HSD test. AAE ascorbic acid equivalent
DPPH radical scavenging activity and AAI of A. cepa, A. sativum, D. gossweileri, P. brazzeana essential oils and ascorbic acid
| Regression curve’s equations | Coefficient of determination : R2 | SC50(μg/ml) | AAI | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| y = 192.3 × + 11.96 | 0.927 | 0.20 | 12.626 |
|
| y = 191.6 × + 12.73 | 0.919 | 0.19 | 12.886 |
|
| y = 194.0 × + 11.10 | 0.931 | 0.20 | 12.821 |
|
| y = 190.2 × + 14.15 | 0.904 | 0.19 | 13.298 |
| Ascorbic acid | y = 19.12 × + 12.19 | 0.934 | 1.98 | 1.262 |
Linear regression analysis was used to calculate SC50 value
SC Scavenging concentration (μg/mL) at 50 %, AAI antioxidant activity index
Relationship between TPC and FRAP, TPC and RSA
| Relationship between TPC and FRAP, FRAP = f (TPC) | Relationship between TPC and RSA, SC50 = f (1/TPC) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Regression curve Equation | Coefficient of determination : R2 | Regression curve equation | Coefficient of determination : R2 | |
| Essential oil | y = 0.016× - 0.434 | 0.22 | y = 0.782 × + 0.189 | 0.21 |
Effect of essential oil on BSA denaturation inhibitory activity, percentage inhibition compared to sodium diclofenac
|
|
|
|
| Diclofenac sodium | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Concentration (μg/ml) | Inhibition percentage (%) | ||||
| 3.125 | 7.33 ± 1.15b | 4.00 ± 0.00a | 4.00 ± 0.00a | 7.56 ± 2.00b | 7.33 ± 0.00b |
| 6.25 | 9.33 ± 1.15a | 6.00 ± 2.00a | 8.67 ± 2.31a | 16.477 ± 1.15b | 9.33 ± 1.15a |
| 12.5 | 14.00 ± 2.00a | 14.00 ± 2.00a | 13.33 ± 3.05a | 26.94 ± 2.00b | 14.00 ± 0.00a |
| 25 | 33.33 ± 1.15c | 22.66 ± 2.30b | 19.33 ± 1.15a | 38.95 ± 1.15d | 18.00 ± 0.00b |
| 50 | 54.67 ± 3.05c | 38.00 ± 2.00b | 28.00 ± 2.00a | 52.52 ± 1.15c | 24.00 ± 0.00a |
| 75 | 82 ± 1.04e | 57 ± 1.08c | 42 ± 0.11b | 72.87 ± 0.98d | 36 ± 2.00a |
| 100 | - | 76 ± 0.91c | 56 ± 0.76b | - | 48 ± 1.00a |
| 125 | - | 95 ± 1.02c | 70 ± 2.14b | - | 60 ± 1.73a |
| Regression curve equations | y = 1.070x + 2.579 | y = 0.753x – 3.637 | y = 0.525x + 3.642 | y = 0.907x + 8.587 | y = 0.430x + 5.090 |
| R2 = 0.991 | R2 = 0.976 | R2 = 0.991 | R2 = 0.973 | R2 = 0.982 | |
| IC50 value (μg/mL) | 44.31 | 61.577 | 88.30 | 45.66 | 104.44 |
Linear regression analysis was used to calculate IC50 value
Values followed by the same superscript letter (a, b, c, d or e) within the same line are not significantly different (p > 0.05) according to Tukey’s HSD test