| Literature DB >> 27355943 |
Louis-Jérôme Leba1, Christel Brunschwig2, Mona Saout3, Karine Martial4, Didier Bereau5, Jean-Charles Robinson6.
Abstract
Native palm trees fruit from the Amazonian rainforest, Oenocarpus bacaba and Oenocarpus bataua, are very often used in the diet of local communities, but the biological activities of their roots and leaflets remain poorly known. Total phenolic content (TPC) and antioxidant activity of root and leaflet extracts from Oenocarpus bacaba and Oenocarpus bataua were assessed by using different chemical assays, the oxygèn radical absorbance capacity (ORAC), the 2,2-diphenyl-l-picrylhydrazyl (DPPH) free radical-scavenging capacity and the ferric-reducing ability of plasma (FRAP). Cellular antioxidant activity and cytotoxicity were also measured in Normal Human Dermal Fibroblasts. The polyphenolic composition of Oenocarpus extracts was investigated by LC-MS(n). Oenocarpus leaflet extracts were more antioxidant than root extracts, being at least as potent as Euterpe oleracea berries known as superfruit. Oenocarpus root extracts were characterized by hydroxycinnamic acids (caffeoylquinic and caffeoylshikimic acids), while leaflet extracts contained mainly caffeoylquinic acids and C-glycosyl flavones. These results suggest that leaflets of both Oenocarpus species could be valorized as a new non-cytotoxic source of antioxidants from Amazonia, containing hydroxycinnamic acids and flavonoids, in the pharmaceutical, cosmetic or agri-food industry.Entities:
Keywords: C-glycosyl flavones; LC-MS/MS; Oenocarpus bacaba; Oenocarpus bataua; antioxidant activity; cellular assay; hydroxycinnamic acids; leaf; roots
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27355943 PMCID: PMC4964390 DOI: 10.3390/ijms17071014
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Mol Sci ISSN: 1422-0067 Impact factor: 5.923
Figure 1Organs collected from Oenocarpus bataua and Oenocarpus bacaba in French Guiana. Upper panel show the leaves selected for leaflets collection (white arrow); Lower panel show roots selected for collection.
Total Phenolic Content (TPC) of O. bataua and O. bacaba leaflet and root extracts shows total phenolic content (TPC) of Oenocarpus extracts according to extraction solvents and organs. Water extracts fromroots and leaflets had low TPC, ranging from 10 to 32 µg GAEq /mg DM (Table 1).
| Extract | Organ | Palm | TPC (µg GAEq a /mg DM b) | Statistical Significance c ( |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Leaflet | Obt d | 10.1 ± 0.8 | E | |
| Obc e | 31.8 ± 5.4 | C | ||
| Root | Obt d | 9.6 ± 0.4 | DE | |
| Obc e | 10.1 ± 0.8 | E | ||
| Leaflet | Obt d | 51.1 ± 1.7 | AB | |
| Obc e | 63 ± 5.9 | A | ||
| Root | Obt d | 33.2 ± 2.4 | BC | |
| Obc e | 28.4 ± 2.1 | CD | ||
| Leaflet | Obt d | 24.9 ± 1.6 | CDE | |
| Obc e | 52 ± 6.5 | AB | ||
| Root | Obt d | 29.2 ± 2.1 | C | |
| Obc e | 27.5 ± 1.2 | CD |
a GAEq: Gallic acid equivalent; b DM: Dry Matter; c Extracts which share common letters are statistically identical using Fisher’s least significant difference test (p < 0.05); d Obt: Oenocarpus bataua; e Obc: Oenocarpus bacaba; n = 3 biological repetitions and error represent Standard Error of the Mean (SEM).
Antioxidant activity of Oenocarpus bataua and Oenocarpus bacaba leaflet and root extracts.
| Extract | Organ | Palm | DPPH a | FRAP b | ORACFL c | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| (µmol TEq d/g DM e) | Statistical Significance f ( | (µmol Fe(II)Eq g/g DM e) | Statistical Significance f ( | (µmol TEq d/g DM e) | Statistical significance f ( | |||
| Leaflet | Obt h | 68.9 ± 10.9 | E | 138 ± 28 | F | 229 ± 42 | DE | |
| Obc i | 468.9 ± 218.5 | ABC | 480 ± 178 | CDEF | 610 ± 247 | BCE | ||
| Root | Obt h | 60.9 ± 18.7 | E | 128 ± 20 | F | 218 ± 28 | E | |
| Obc i | 83.3 ± 10.8 | DE | 196 ± 8 | EF | 248 ± 17 | CDE | ||
| Leaflet | Obt h | 461 ± 35.8 | AB | 729 ± 23 | ABC | 1203 ± 168 | A | |
| Obc i | 544.9 ± 106 | A | 1026 ± 218 | A | 1565 ± 183 | A | ||
| Root | Obt h | 288.7 ± 12.7 | BCD | 559 ± 44 | BCD | 720 ± 76 | B | |
| Obc i | 252.3 ± 11.3 | BCDE | 512 ± 26 | CDE | 656 ± 66 | B | ||
| Leaflet | Obt h | 197.4 ± 39 | CDE | 327 ± 54 | DEF | 569 ± 38 | BCDE | |
| Obc i | 389.7 ± 116.1 | ABC | 917 ± 231 | AB | 1268 ± 199 | A | ||
| Root | Obt h | 227.7 ± 33.9 | CDE | 418 ± 52 | CDEF | 627 ± 68 | BC | |
| Obc i | 215.9 ± 12 | CDE | 441 ± 34 | CDEF | 579 ± 67 | BCDE | ||
a DPPH: 2,2-diphenyl-1-picrylhydrazyl; b FRAP: ferric-reducing ability of plasma); c ORACFL: oxygen radical absorbance capacity; d TEq: Trolox equivalent; e DM: Dry Matter; f Extracts which share common letters are statistically identical using Fisher’s least significant difference test (p < 0.05); g Eq: equivalent; h Obt: Oenocarpus bataua; i Obc: Oenocarpus bacaba. n = 3 biological repetitions and error represent Standard Error of the Mean (SEM).
Cytotoxicity and cellular antioxidant activity of O. bataua and O. bacaba extracts in NHDF cells.
| Extract | Organ | Palm | CAA Assay (Cellular Antioxidant Activity) | Cytotoxicity (MTT Assay) (µg/mL) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| EC50 (µg/mL) | µmoles Quercetin Eq a/g DM b | µmoles Quercetin Eq a/100 g FW c | ||||
| Leaflet | Obt d | 65.7 ± 19.8 | 7.3 ± 2.2 | 365 ± 110 | >400 | |
| Obc e | 73.8 ± 11.3 | 6.5 ± 1.1 | 286 ± 47 | Not toxic | ||
| Root | Obt d | 71.9 ± 5.7 | 11.9 ± 1 | 252 ± 21 | >400 | |
| Obc e | 15.5 ± 1.3 | 15.5 ± 1.2 | 887 ± 69 | Not toxic | ||
| Leaflet | Obt d | 13.8 ± 2.3 | 100.9 ± 17 | 5028 ± 847 | Not toxic | |
| Obc e | 24.1 ± 4.9 | 49.7 ± 11.5 | 2172 ± 502 | >200 | ||
| Root | Obt d | 21.7 ± 3.2 | 34.7 ± 4.8 | 734 ± 101 | >100 | |
| Obc e | 10.4 ± 0.6 | 29.3 ± 1.9 | 1670 ± 106 | Not toxic | ||
| Leaflet | Obt d | 44.8 ± 0.3 | 19.7 ± 0.2 | 984 ± 7 | Not toxic | |
| Obc e | 30 ± 3 | 24.2 ± 2.4 | 1057 ± 104 | Not toxic | ||
| Root | Obt d | 29.3 ± 2.9 | 35.3 ± 3.8 | 751 ± 80 | Not toxic | |
| Obc e | 12.9 ± 1 | 31.5 ± 2.5 | 1799 ± 145 | Not toxic | ||
a Eq: equivalent; b DM: Dry Matter; c FW: fresh weight; d Obt: Oenocarpus bataua; e Obc: Oenocarpus bacaba. n = 3 repetitions and error represent Standard Deviation (SD).
Figure 2Representative chromatograms of (a) leaflet extracts of Oenocarpus bataua; (b) leaflet extracts of Oenocarpus bacaba; (c) root extracts of Oenocarpus bataua; (d) root extracts of Oenocarpus bacaba at λ = 320 nm; Kinetex PFP column, (100 × 4.6) mm, 2.6 µm. (1) 3-CQA, (2) 4-CQA, (3) 5 CQA, (4) 4-CSA, (5) 5-CSA, (6) CSA, (7) 6,8-di-C-hexosyl apigenin, (8,9) 6,8-di-C-hexosyl apigenin sulfate, (10,14,15), 6-C-hexosyl-8-C-pentosyl apigenin isomers, (12,16) 6-C-pentosyl-8-C-hexosyl apigenin isomer, (11) 8-C-glucosyl luteolin, (13) 6-C-glucosyl luteolin, (17) 6-C-glucosyl apigenin.
Identification of main components of root and leaflet extracts of Oenocarpus bacaba and Oenocarpus bataua.
| No. | UV λmax (nm) | Negative Mode MS | Negative Mode MS2 | Positive Mode MS | Positive Mode MS2 | Tentative Identity | Abbreviation | Extracts | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 4.2 | 238, 295sh, 321 | 353 [M − H]− | 191, 179 | 377 [M + Na]+ | 377, 353, 163, 145 | 3-Caffeoylquinic acid | 3-CQA | Roots, leaflets |
| 2 | 7.9 | 237, 286sh, 322 | 353 [M − H] − | 173 | 377 [M + Na]+ | 377, 353, 163, 145 | 4-Caffeoylquinic acid | 4-CQA | Roots, leaflets |
| 3 | 9.1 | 239, 295sh, 323 | 353 [M − H] − | 191 | 377 [M + Na]+ | 377, 353, 163, 145 | 5-Caffeoylquinic acid | 5-CQA | Roots, leaflets |
| 4 | 12.2 | 239, 295sh, 325 | 335 [M − H] − | 291, 179, 161, 135 | 359 [M + Na]+ | 359, 163, 145 | 4-Caffeoylshikimic acid | 4-CSA | Roots |
| 5 | 14.2 | 239, 295sh, 325 | 335 [M − H] − | 317, 291, 179 | 359 [M + Na]+ | 359, 163, 145 | 5-Caffeoylshikimic acid | 5-CSA | Roots |
| 6 | 16.2 | 239, 295sh, 325 | 335 [M − H] − | 317, 291, 179, 161, 135 | 359 [M + Na]+ | 359, 163, 145 | Caffeoylshikimic acid | CSA | Roots |
| 7 | 16.1 | 239, 270, 335 | 593 [M − H] − | 503, 473, 383, 353 | 595 [M + H]+ | 595, 577, 457, 427, 317 | 6,8-di-C-hexosyl apigenin | Di-Glc-Api | Leaflets |
| 8 | 16.8 | 239, 270, 335 | 673 [M − H] − | 593, 575, 503, 473, 413, 383, 353 | 713 [M + K]+ | 633, 593, 543, 513, 423, 393, 351 | 6,8-di-C-hexosyl apigenin sulfate | Di-Glc-Api-Sulf | Leaflets |
| 9 | 17.8 | 239, 270, 335 | 673 [M − H] − | 593, 503, 473, 383, 353 | 713 [M + K]+ | 633, 593, 543, 513, 483, 423, 393, 363, 351 | 6,8-di-C-hexosyl apigenin sulfate | Di-Glc-Api-Sulf | Leaflets |
| 10 | 21.2 | 238, 272, 339 | 563 [M − H] − | 473, 443, 383, 353 | – | – | 6-C-hexosyl-8-C-pentosyl apigenin isomer | Leaflets | |
| 11 | 22.1 | 240, 270, 342 | 447 [M − H] − | 447, 429, 411, 357, 327, 299 | 449 [M + H]+ | 449, 413, 383 | 8-C-glucosyl luteolin (orientin) * | Leaflets | |
| 12 | 22.3 | 238, 272, 339 | 563 [M − H] − | 503, 473, 443, 413, 383, 353 | – | – | 6-C-pentosyl-8-C-hexosyl apigenin isomer | Leaflets | |
| 13 | 22.9 | 241, 270, 346 | 447 [M − H] − | 447, 429, 411, 357, 327, 299 | 449 [M + H]+ | 431, 413, 395, 383, 353, 329, 299 | 6-C-glucosyl luteolin (isoorientin) * | Leaflets | |
| 14 | 23.2 | 238, 272, 340 | 563 [M − H] − | 473, 443, 383, 353 | – | – | 6-C-hexosyl-8-C-pentosyl apigenin isomer | Leaflets | |
| 15 | 24.9 | 241, 271, 336 | 563 [M − H] − | 443, 383, 353, 323 | – | – | 6-C-hexosyl-8-C-pentosyl apigenin isomer | Leaflets | |
| 16 | 25.6 | 238, 277, 335 | 563 [M − H] − | 503, 473, 383, 353 | – | – | 6-C-pentosyl-8-C-hexosyl apigenin isomer | Leaflets | |
| 17 | 26.4 | 241, 270, 337 | 431[M − H] − | 431, 413, 395, 341, 311, 283 | 433 [M + H]+ | 397, 379, 367, 337, 313, 295, 283 | 6-C-glucosyl apigenin (isovitexin) * | Leaflets |
* Structure confirmed using synthetic compounds.
Figure 3Chemical composition of (a) leaflet extracts and (b) root extracts of Oenocarpus bataua and Oenocarpus bataua. Obt: Oenocarpus bataua; Obc: Oenocarpus bacaba; W: water; A: acetone/water: 70/30; M: methanol/water: 70/30; CQA: caffeoylquinic acid; CSA: caffeoylshikimic acid (for identification of the compounds 7 to 17, see Table 4); n = 3 biological replicates.
Figure 4Principal component analysis plots for antioxidant activity and chemical composition of (a,b) root extracts and (c,d) leaflet extracts of Oenocarpus bacaba and Oenocarpus bataua. C: Comou (Oenocarpus bacaba), P: patawa (Oenocarpus bataua); R: roots; L: leaflets; W: water; A: acetone/water: 70/30; M: methanol/water: 70/30.