| Literature DB >> 28095717 |
Andrei Mocan1,2, Gökhan Zengin3, Mario Simirgiotis4, Michaela Schafberg1, Adriano Mollica5, Dan C Vodnar6, Gianina Crişan2, Sascha Rohn1.
Abstract
Goji (Lycium barbarum L.) leaves are emphasized as a functional tea or as dietary supplements. The phenolic compound profile, antioxidant, enzyme inhibitory, antimicrobial, and antimutagenic activities of leaf extracts from two selected cultivars in comparison with wild-growing plants have been evaluated. HPLC-DAD/ESI-ToF-MS analysis revealed the presence of phenolic acids and flavonoids with chlorogenic acid and rutin being the dominant compounds in the cultivated plants, whereas rutin and kaempeferol-3-O-rutinoside for wild growing ones. In particular, cv. Erma contained the highest amount of chlorogenic acid and showed a strong tyrosinase-inhibitory effect. Staphylococcus aureus, Listeria monocytogenes, and Penicillium funiculosum were the most sensitive strains when exposed to extracts from cultivated plants. Antimutagenic activity was evaluated by Ames' test. The tested extracts provided high protection against mutagenicity induced by 2-anthramine (2-AA) to Salmonella typhimurium strains TA 98 and TA 100 (max. inhibition (%) 88% and 74.2%, respectively). Overall, Goji leaves are a rich source of bioactive compounds with functional properties that need further risk/benefit evaluation when used in foods or health-promoting formulations.Entities:
Keywords: Antibacterial activity; Goji leaves; antimutagenicity; enzyme inhibition; phenolic compounds
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28095717 PMCID: PMC6009880 DOI: 10.1080/14756366.2016.1243535
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Enzyme Inhib Med Chem ISSN: 1475-6366 Impact factor: 5.051
Figure 1.Best docking pose found between chlorogenic acid and tyrosinase (A), α-glucosidase (B), butyrylcholinesterase (C) and a-amylase (D).
Figure 2.Total phenolic and flavonoid contents of the three extracts from Lycium barbarum leaves (mean ± SD).
Phenolic compounds in Lycium barbarum leaves, retention times (R t), wavelengths of maximum absorption (λ max), mass spectral data and identification.
| No. | Phenolic compound | [M–H]− | [M + H]+ | MS fragments (m/z) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Quercetin-3- | 4.27 | Coeluting with 1 | 1112 | 1111 | 1113 | 789 (100) [M7-324]+; 627 (14.16) [M7-324; M3-162]+; 465 (67.93) [M7-324; M3-324]+; 303 (21.21) [M7-324; M3-486]+ | |
| Quercetin-3- | 4.27 | 256; 266sh; 352 | 788 | 787 | 789 | 627 (14.16) [M3-162]+; 465 (67.93) [M7-324]+; 303 (21.21) [M7-324; M3-162]+; 1577 (2.60) [2M + H]+ | |
| Kaempferol-3- | 5.21 | 267; 286sh; 341 | 772 | 771 | 773 | 611 (21.79) [M3-162]+; 449 (93.21) [M7-324]+; 287 (40.79) [M7-324; M3-162]+; 1567 (1.24) [2M + Na]+ | |
| 3- | 6.26 | 296sh; 324 | 354 | 353 | 377 [M + Na]+ | 191 (45.59) [M-H-caffeoyl]-; 179 (23.39) [M-H-quinic]-; 173 (3.64); 161 (2.94); 135 (15.70); 707 (16.37) [2M-H]- | |
| Unknown compound | 6.86 | 256; 287; 315sh; 340 | 324 | 323 | 347 [M + Na]+ | – | |
| Quercetin-3- | 7.1 | 255; 266sh; 354 | 772 | 771 | 773 | 611 (4.54) [M7-162]+; 465 (6.63) [M3-308]+; 303 (3.30) [M7-162; M3-308] + 1567 (1.25) [2M + Na]+ | |
| Quercetin-3- | 7.45 | 255; 266sh; 354 | 772 | 771 | 773 | 627 (4.53) [M7-146]+; 465 (4.29) [M7-146; M3-162]+; 303 (2.10) [M7-146; M3-324]+ 1567 (1.03) [2M + Na]+ | |
| Kaempferol-3- | 8.13 | 265; 340 | 756 | 755 | 757 | 611 (10.14) [M7-162]+; 449 (8.16%) [M3-308]+; 287 (5.39) [M7-162; M3-308]+ | |
| 5- | 8.46 | 244; 296sh; 320 | 354 | 353 | 355 | 191 (100) [M-H-caffeoyl]-; 161 (1.04); 707 (95.59) [2M-H]- | |
| 3- | 8.96 | 265; 296sh; 326 | 500 | 499 | 353 (100) [caffeoylquinic acid-H]-; 191 (41.67); 179 (15.19); 173 (15.96) | ||
| 4- | 9.26 | 244; 296sh; 326 | 354 | 353 | 377 [M + Na]+ | 191 (11.58) [M-H-caffeoyl]-; 179 (13.67) [M-H-quinic]-; 173 (15.75) 161 (1.00); 707 (13.90) [2M-H]- | |
| 5- | 10.38 | 296sh; 318 | 354 | 353 | 191 (100) [M-H-caffeoyl]-; 179 (0.91) [M-H-quinic]-; 161 (2.98); 707 (3.90) [2M-H]- | ||
| Quercetin-3,7- | 11.88 | 256; 266sh; 352 | 626 | 625 | 627 | 465 (17.90) [M7-162]-; 303 (100) [M7-162; M3-162]-; 1275 (1.96) [2M + Na]+ | |
| 5- | 12.48 | 296sh; 325 | 368 | 367 | 369 | 191 (34.06) [M-H-ferruloyl]-; 173 (3.34); 735 (3.79) [2M-H]- | |
| Quercetin-3- | 14.24 | 256; 266sh; 354 | 610 | 609 | 611 | 303 (37.34) [M3-308]+; 1243 (2.80) [2M + Na]+ | |
| Quercetin-3- | 14.65 | 255; 296; 341 | 610 | 609 | 611 | 465 (14.21) [M7-146]+; 303 (44.25) [M7-146; M3-162]+ | |
| Kaempferol-3- | 15.5 | 265; 296sh; 344 | 594 | 593 | 595 | 287 (70.66) [M3-308]+ | |
| Kaempferol-3- | 16.2 | 265; 296sh; 344 | 594 | 593 | 595 | 449 (19.58) [M7-146]+; 287 [M7-146; M3-162]+ |
Compounds with * were identified with references accurately, and the others were tentatively assigned based on literature data. Compounds were organized in order of their retention times (R t). Numbers for some of the compounds also refer to chromatogram from Figure 3. M7 indicates a sugar loss from 7-O position; M3 indicates a sugar loss from 3-O position.
Phenolic compounds (μg/g dw) and their distribution in Lycium barbarum leaves (mean ± SD).
| No. | Phenolic compound | Lbb | Lbe | Lbn |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Quercetin-3- | 2406.38 ± 65 | nd | 222.58 ± 24 | |
| Kaempferol-3- | 186.46 ± 12 | nd | 146.5 ± 31 | |
| 3- | 804.4 ± 22 | 346.52 ± 41 | nd | |
| Unknown compound | nd | nd | nd | |
| Quercetin-3- | nd | nd | 757.54 ± 45 | |
| Quercetin-3- | 5216.34 ± 98 | nd | 908.8 ± 84 | |
| Kaempferol-3- | tr | nd | 478.53 ± 35 | |
| 5- | 17811.31 ± 102 | 24887.11 ± 205 | 510.68 ± 54 | |
| 3- | 248.1 ± 12 | tr | nd | |
| 4- | 1565.15 ± 32 | 1145.21 ± 120 | nd | |
| 5- | 343.19 ± 14 | 262.56 ± 51 | nd | |
| Quercetin-3,7- | 810.82 ± 23 | nd | 171.75 ± 25 | |
| 5- | 857.77 ± 32 | 917.22 ± 16 | 242.33 ± 12 | |
| Quercetin-3- | 1430.60 ± 41 | 9339.17 ± 112 | 1847.79 ± 101 | |
| Quercetin-3- | nd | nd | 867.16 ± 54 | |
| Kaempferol-3- | nd | nd | 1063.34 ± 87 | |
| Kaempferol-3- | nd | 307.77 ± 31 | 447.98 ± 12 |
nd: not determined; tr: traces.
Figure 3.LC-DAD chromatogram (at 325 nm) of the phenolic compounds from L. barbarum leaves (cultivar Lbb- "Bigligeberry"). For compounds numbers refer to Table 1.
Figure 4.Total antioxidant capacity of Lycium barbarum leaves measured with TEAC and EPR spectroscopy. Results were expressed as mg TE/g dw, and as mg FSE/g dw. The error bars are the result of a triple determination.
Figure 5.Degradation kinetics of the free radical Fremy’s salt by Lycium leaves.
The enzyme inhibitory effects of Lycium leaves.
| Samples | AChE (mg GALAE/g extract) | BChE (mg GALAE/g extract) | Amylase (mmol ACAE/g extract) | Glucosidase (mmol ACAE/g extract) | Tyrosinase (mg KAE/g extract) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lbb | na | 0.39 ± 0.1 | 0.26 ± 0.01 | 5.38 ± 0.09 | 12.84 ± 0.66 |
| Lbe | na | 0.66 ± 0.08 | 0.26 ± 0.01 | 4.92 ± 0.05 | 16.81 ± 0.58 |
| Lbn | na | 1.02 ± 0.17 | 0.24 ± 0.01 | 2.25 ± 0.07 | 0.72 ± 0.01 |
Three parallel experiments ± SD. GALAE: galanthamine equivalents; ACAE: acarbose equivalents; KAE: kojic acid equivalents; na: not active.
Figure 6.Binding interactions of the best pose of chlorogenic acid in complex with: α-glucosidase (A), butyrylcholinesterase (B), and α-amylase (C) (cut-off 4 Å).
Figure 7.RMSD (in Angstrom) time-dependent plot of chlorogenic acid fluctuation docked to tyrosinase (A); close-up of the complex chlorogenic acid-tyrosinase (hydrogen bonds are reported as green lines) (B); details of the interactions formed by chlorogenic acid with the residues present in the binding pocket (cut-off = 4 Å from the ligand) (C).
Antimicrobial activity of the three Lycium leaves extracts.
| Lbn | Lbe | Lbb | Streptomycin/Fluconazole (μg/mL) | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Microorganism | MIC | MBC/MFC | MIC | MBC/MFC | MIC | MBC/MFC | MIC | MBC/MFC |
| 0.0039 | 0.0078 | 0.0019 | 0.0038 | 0.0039 | 0.0078 | 0.015 | 0.03 | |
| 0.062 | 0.124 | 0.031 | 0.062 | 0.0039 | 0.0078 | 0.12 | 0.24 | |
| 0.031 | 0.062 | 0.062 | 0.124 | 0.062 | 0.124 | 0.06 | 0.12 | |
| 0.031 | 0.062 | 0.031 | 0.062 | 0.015 | 0.031 | 0.06 | 0.12 | |
| 0.031 | 0.062 | 0.0039 | 0.0078 | 0.0019 | 0.0038 | 0.03 | 0.06 | |
| 0.062 | 0.124 | 0.031 | 0.062 | 0.0078 | 0.0156 | 0.015 | 0.03 | |
| 0.124 | 0.248 | 0.062 | 0.124 | 0.062 | 0.124 | 0.012 | 0.024 | |
| 0.124 | 0.248 | 0.124 | 0.248 | 0.062 | 0.124 | 0.12 | 0.24 | |
| 0.124 | 0.248 | 0.062 | 0.124 | 0.062 | 0.124 | 0.12 | 0.24 | |
| 0.062 | 0.124 | 0.062 | 0.124 | 0.124 | 0.248 | 0.15 | 0.3 | |
| 0.062 | 0.124 | 0.062 | 0.124 | 0.124 | 0.248 | 0.15 | 0.3 | |
| 0.031 | 0.062 | 0.062 | 0.124 | 0.124 | 0.248 | 0.10 | 0.2 | |
| 0.015 | 0.031 | 0.062 | 0.124 | 0.124 | 0.248 | 0.10 | 0.2 | |
| 0.031 | 0.062 | 0.031 | 0.062 | 0.124 | 0.248 | 0.15 | 0.3 | |
MIC, minimal inhibitory concentration; MBC/MFC, minimal bactericidal/fungicidal concentration (mg/mL).
Antimutagenic properties of Lycium leaves extracts on Salmonella typhimurium TA 98 and TA 100.
| Number of colonies (CFU/plate) | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| TA 98 | TA100 | Inhibition (%) | |||||
| Sample | S9− | S9+ | S9− | S9+ | Treatment group (mg/plate) | TA 98 | TA100 |
| Control | 49 ± 2‡ | 32 ± 1‡ | 110 ± 4‡ | 124 ± 4‡ | Control | 0 | 0 |
| Lbn | 46 ± 3‡ | 34 ± 1‡ | 109 ± 2‡ | 132 ± 2‡ | Mutagen + Lbn | 88 ± 3‡ | 73 ± 0‡ |
| Lbe | 44 ± 1‡ | 32 ± 2‡ | 110 ± 1‡ | 120 ± 1‡ | Mutagen + Lbe | 83.2 ± 2‡ | 72 ± 1‡ |
| Lbb | 50 ± 3‡ | 36 ± 1‡ | 113 ± 1‡ | 135 ± 3‡ | Mutagen + Lbb | 87 ± 1‡ | 74.2 ± 2‡ |
| 2-AA (0.005)† | – | 763 ± 23 | – | – | |||
| 2-AA (0.002)† | – | – | – | 885 ± 19 | |||
Negative control: without extract; treated with DMSO; spontaneous revertants/plate.
Positive control: 2-anthramine (2-AA).
Significantly different from the control (negative) group at p < 0.001.
Inhibition (%) = [1 − (His + revertants in sample of test − number of His revertant colonies/His + revertants in control of test − number of His revertant colonies)].