| Literature DB >> 27446507 |
Joanna J Sajkowska-Kozielewicz1, Paweł Kozielewicz2, Nicholas M Barnes2, Iwona Wawer1, Katarzyna Paradowska1.
Abstract
Geissospermum species are medically important plants due to their health-promoting effects. The objective of this study was to determine the antioxidant ability and antiproliferative and cytotoxic effects of infusions, tinctures, and ethanolic extracts of Geissospermum reticulatum barks in relation to the contents of total phenolics and flavonoids. Seven samples of barks were collected in various regions of Peruvian Amazonia. We found that the amount of total phenolics in the studied products varied from 212.40 ± 0.69 to 1253.92 ± 11.20 mg GAE/kg. In our study there is a correlation (R2 = 0.7947) between the results of antioxidants assays: FRAP and ORAC for tinctures, infusions, and ethanolic extracts of G. reticulatum barks. We have also observed antiproliferative activities of the ethanolic extracts on normal T-cells. These extracts have caused death on malignant cell lines (THP-1 and HL-60) and this data correlates well with their antioxidant capacity measured by ORAC method. Interestingly, the highest concentration of the ethanolic extract was not toxic in the zebrafish embryo developmental assay. Our results indicate that G. reticulatum is rich in antioxidants and have cytotoxic and antiproliferative properties. The data suggests potential immunosuppressive role of the extracts. This is the first study presenting the results of chemical and biological analysis of multiple preparations from G. reticulatum.Entities:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27446507 PMCID: PMC4942660 DOI: 10.1155/2016/2573580
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Oxid Med Cell Longev ISSN: 1942-0994 Impact factor: 6.543
Total phenolic and total flavonoid content.
| Sample | Infusions | Tinctures | Extracts |
|---|---|---|---|
| Polyphenol content (mg GAE/kg) | |||
| 1 | 212.40 ± 0.69 | 553.64 ± 0.54 | 936.50 ± 8.93 |
| 2 | 559.70 ± 0.87 | 754.36 ± 0.75 | 1191.00 ± 4.54 |
| 3 | 353.40 ± 1.37 | 448.09 ± 1.02 | 1142.75 ± 9.61 |
| 4 | 416.20 ± 0.98 | 493.78 ± 1.47 | 894.00 ± 7.67 |
| 5 | 314.90 ± 0.53 | 601.64 ± 1.35 | 788.50 ± 2.11 |
| 6 | 266.70 ± 1.10 | 443.18 ± 1.57 | 550.25 ± 1.62 |
| 7 | 545.90 ± 1.14 | 599.09 ± 1.71 | 1254.00 ± 11.20 |
|
| |||
| Flavonoid content (mg CAE/kg) | |||
| 1 | 17.16 ± 0.24 | 471.25 ± 1.46 | 542.21 ± 0.34 |
| 2 | 84.50 ± 0.50 | 572.68 ± 1.27 | 591.64 ± 1.03 |
| 3 | 38.90 ± 0.57 | 386.02 ± 1.54 | 419.69 ± 6.24 |
| 4 | 62.83 ± 0.38 | 410.53 ± 1.19 | 445.68 ± 6.15 |
| 5 | 52.39 ± 0.36 | 504.49 ± 1.09 | 538.58 ± 1.18 |
| 6 | 56.44 ± 0.25 | 252.42 ± 0.62 | 274.80 ± 1.55 |
| 7 | 94.44 ± 0.35 | 434.60 ± 0.66 | 457.40 ± 2.66 |
Antioxidant properties of multiple preparations from G. reticulatum.
| Sample | Infusions | Tinctures | Extracts |
|---|---|---|---|
| DPPH radical scavenging activity (mg DPPH/L) | |||
| 1 | 0.91 ± 0.02 | 1.48 ± 0.01 | 4.36 ± 0.03 |
| 2 | 1.68 ± 0.00 | 0.90 ± 0.03 | 5.31 ± 0.04 |
| 3 | 1.36 ± 0.00 | 0.45 ± 0.01 | 5.03 ± 0.03 |
| 4 | 1.52 ± 0.01 | 0.28 ± 0.01 | 6.79 ± 0.06 |
| 5 | 1.49 ± 0.00 | 1.63 ± 0.01 | 4.87 ± 0.11 |
| 6 | 1.12 ± 0.00 | 0.61 ± 0.01 | 3.11 ± 0.01 |
| 7 | 1.83 ± 0.00 | 1.55 ± 0.01 | 4.64 ± 0.04 |
|
| |||
| FRAP (mmol/L) | |||
| 1 | 1.01 ± 0.01 | 3.75 ± 0.03 | 6.28 ± 0.03 |
| 2 | 3.49 ± 0.01 | 5.27 ± 0.02 | 6.57 ± 0.05 |
| 3 | 1.74 ± 0.02 | 2.59 ± 0.01 | 7.13 ± 0.02 |
| 4 | 2.20 ± 0.02 | 2.57 ± 0.00 | 5.16 ± 0.07 |
| 5 | 2.13 ± 0.03 | 3.82 ± 0.01 | 4.27 ± 0.06 |
| 6 | 0.82 ± 0.01 | 2.30 ± 0.01 | 3.86 ± 0.03 |
| 7 | 3.45 ± 0.01 | 3.36 ± 0.02 | 7.28 ± 0.01 |
|
| |||
| ORAC (mmol TE/L) | |||
| 1 | 11.08 ± 0.22 | 22.75 ± 0.50 | 78.30 ± 0.65 |
| 2 | 20.34 ± 0.18 | 36.53 ± 0.22 | 80.57 ± 1.03 |
| 3 | 11.05 ± 0.13 | 20.91 ± 0.57 | 83.47 ± 0.48 |
| 4 | 11.29 ± 0.26 | 24.34 ± 0.37 | 64.37 ± 0.23 |
| 5 | 9.98 ± 0.14 | 25.03 ± 0.09 | 67.54 ± 0.48 |
| 6 | 7.76 ± 0.10 | 17.16 ± 0.58 | 26.30 ± 0.49 |
| 7 | 22.40 ± 0.77 | 29.67 ± 3.13 | 86.95 ± 0.58 |
Figure 1The correlation plot between result of antioxidant assays: ORAC and FRAP.
Figure 2The representative concentration-response plot in (a): HL-60 and (b): THP-1 treated with ethanolic extracts from G. reticulatum for 24 hours. (a) Figures show the representative concentration-response plots. The experiments were repeated three times. The data were analysed by iterative curve fitting using a logistic equation and IC50 presented as mean. (b) Figures show the representative concentration-response plots. The experiments were repeated twice. The data were analysed by iterative curve fitting using a logistic equation and IC50 presented as mean.
Figure 3Correlation plots between results of cytotoxicity and antioxidant assays: (a) HL-60 versus ORAC; (b) THP-1 versus ORAC.
Figure 4Representative flow cytometry plots: (a) resting; (b) PHA-L; (c) bark 7 [0.1 μg/mL]; (d) bark 7 [0.03 μg/mL].
Figure 5Ethanolic extracts express antiproliferative effect on PHA-L stimulated CD3+ cells (72 hours). Data represented as mean ± SD from 2 independent experiments.
Figure 6Representative pictures of embryonic development: after 24 hours (a) in REKO, (b) extract 2 [0.1 μg/mL], and (c) 4-isopropylphenol and 48 hours (d) in REKO and (e) extract 2 [0.1 μg/mL].