| Literature DB >> 27951745 |
Rayn Clarenc Aarland1, Angel Ernesto Bañuelos-Hernández2, Mabel Fragoso-Serrano3, Edgar Del Carmen Sierra-Palacios4, Fernando Díaz de León-Sánchez2, Laura Josefina Pérez-Flores2, Fernando Rivera-Cabrera2, José Alberto Mendoza-Espinoza4.
Abstract
CONTEXT: Echinacea (Asteraceae) is used because of its pharmacological properties. However, there are few studies that integrate phytochemical analyses with pharmacological effects.Entities:
Keywords: Herbal; fingerprints; standardization
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2017 PMID: 27951745 PMCID: PMC6130640 DOI: 10.1080/13880209.2016.1265989
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Pharm Biol ISSN: 1388-0209 Impact factor: 3.503
Study design.
| 1 Physical | |
| a) Dry matter | |
| b) Density | |
| 2 Chemical | |
| a) Qualitative analyses | |
| b) Quantitative analyses | |
| 3 Biological | |
| a) | |
| b) Cytotoxicity | |
| c) | |
| d) |
Evaluation of physical and chemical parameters and biological activity of Echinacea extracts.
| Biological material | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| A | B | C | |
| Physical | |||
| Dry matter (g/mL) | 0.024 | 0.027 | 0.239 |
| Density (g/mL) | 0.933 | 0.930 | 0.978 |
| Ethyl alcoholb | 40% | 40% | 30% |
| Chemical | |||
| Qualitative | |||
| | + | ++ | + |
| | + | – | + |
| | – | + | + |
| | + | – | + |
| Quantitative | |||
| | 23.3 ± 0.1 | 17.7 ± 0.1 | 137.5 ± 2.3 |
| | 0.16 ± 0.01 | 0.16 ± 0.003 | 0.62 ± 0.02 |
| | – | – | – |
| | – | <1.0 | <1.0 |
| | 11 | 11 | 14 |
| | |||
| Sucrose | 267 | 77.95 | 68061.22 |
| Glucose | 1660 | 2475.07 | 2521.65 |
| Fructose | 6788.36 | 3554.74 | 29938.56 |
| Biological | |||
| Antioxidant capacityh | |||
| DPPH | 0.24 ± 0.01 | 0.45 ± 0.02 | 4.8 ± 0.4 |
| ABTS+ | 1.66 ± 0.06 | 1.26 ± 0.04 | 10.5 ± 0.2 |
| Cytotoxicityi | |||
| HeLa | >30,000 | >30,000 | 270.8 |
| MCF-7 | >30,000 | >30,000 | 8,171 |
| HCT-15 | >30,000 | >30,000 | 9,338 |
aExtract produced in a certified ranch using: A, roots of Echinacea purpurea; B, roots, leaves, flowers and seeds of Echinacea purpurea; C, aerial part and roots of Echinacea purpurea and roots of Echinacea angustifolia. bThe alcohol type was determined by 1H-RMN and the percentage was determined by HPLC. cQualitative analysis: +++ very abundant; ++ abundant; + scarce; - not oserved. Quantitative analysis: dmEAG/mL, equivalent mg of gallic acid per milliliter of extract. emEQ/mL, equivalent mg of quercetin per milliliter of extract. fPPM determined by HPLC as indicated in the experimental section. gNumber of alkylamides found by GC-MS. hTrolox Equivalent Antioxidant Capacity, equivalent millimolar per milliliter of extract. iHalf inhibitory concentration (IC50) in μg/mL.
Figure 1.Total ion chromatogram (TIC) of the non-polar fractions of the analyzed hydroethanolic extracts: roots of E. purpurea (A), roots and aerial parts of E. purpurea (B) and roots, aerial parts of E. purpurea and roots of E. angustifolia (C). The identity of the detected peaks is shown in Table 3.
Identity, retention times and presence of alkylamides on the non-polar fractions of three Echinacea extracts analyzed GC-MS.
| Peak | Rt (min) | Compound | A | B | C |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 13.69 | undeca-2 | X | X | X |
| 2 | 14.12 | undeca-2 | X | X | X |
| 3 | 16.25 | dodeca-2 | X | X | X |
| 4 | 16.87 | undeca-2Z-ene-8,10-diynoic acid | X | ||
| 5 | 18.09 | undeca-2E,4Z-diene-8,10-diynoic | X | X | X |
| 6 | 18.89 | dodeca-2 | X | ||
| 7 | 19.46 | dodeca-2 | X | X | X |
| 8 | 20.65 | dodeca-2 | X | X | X |
| 9 | 21.25 | dodeca-2 | X | ||
| 10 | 21.60 | dodeca-2 | X | X | X |
| 11 | 24.66 | undeca-2 | X | X | X |
| 12 | 25.46 | dodeca-2 | X | X | X |
| 13 | 27.467 | dodeca-2 | X | X | X |
| 14 | 34.44 | dodeca-2 | X | X | X |
The identity of this compounds cannot be determined with a good grade of accuracy, there is a fair probability these compounds are isomers of other compounds of the same molecular weight and similar fragmentation pattern.
Hypoglycaemic effect of the three extracts evaluated.
| Measurement day | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| 2 | 6 | 12 | |
| A | 116.5 ± 6.9a,b | 124.8 ± 9.5a,b | 133.25 ± 10.04a,b |
| B | 112.8 ± 19.3a,b | 295.0 ± 43.2 | 317.5 ± 21.5 |
| C | 125.0 ± 54.4a,b | 232.5 ± 131.6a,b | 232 ± 135.4a,b |
| Control | 412.3 ± 11.1 | 387.0 ± 72.4 | 436.25 ± 58.78 |
| Glibenclamide | 140.0 ± 34. 6a | 104.0 ± 15.2a | 147.75 ± 31. 91a |
Glycaemia average (mg/dL) ± SD, ANOVA, Tukey as post hoc test, n = 8, aSignificant difference compared to control (=0.005, p = 1.000, see Supporting information); bNo difference compared to glibenclamide (=0.05, p = 1.000).
Figure 2.Anti-inflammatory effect of Echinacea extracts (A–C) in the paw oedema model. *indicates significant differences at α = 0.05, n = 8.