| Literature DB >> 28123448 |
Ali Ghasemzadeh1, Hawa Z E Jaafar1, Asmah Rahmat2, Mallappa Kumara Swamy1.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The extraction of bioactive compounds from herbal materials requires optimization in order to recover the highest active dose. Response surface methodology was used to optimize variables affecting the microwave extraction of zerumbone from Zingiber zerumbet using the Box-Behnken design. The influence of variables, such as ethanol concentration (X1), microwave power (X2), irradiation time (X3), and liquid-to-solid ratio (X4), on the extraction of zerumbone was modeled using a second-order regression equation. The antiproliferative activity of optimized and non-optimized extracts was evaluated against the HeLa cancer cell line using the MTT (3-(4,5-dimethylthiazol-2-yl)-2,5-diphenyltetrazolium bromide) assay.Entities:
Keywords: Antiproliferative activity; HeLa cancer; Microwave extraction; Response surface methodology; Zerumbone
Year: 2017 PMID: 28123448 PMCID: PMC5216017 DOI: 10.1186/s13065-016-0235-3
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Chem Cent J ISSN: 1752-153X Impact factor: 4.215
Effect of different extraction solvents and methods on zerumbone content of Z. zerumbet
| Extraction methods | Ethanol | Methanol |
| Chloroform |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Reflux | 3.76 ± 0.03c | 3.24 ± 0.08f | 3.26 ± 0.07f | 2.81 ± 0.01i |
| Microwave | 4.82 ± 0.07a | 4.06 ± 0.05b | 4.07 ± 0.05b | 3.36 ± 0.02e |
| Soxhlet | 3.70 ± 0.06c | 3.12 ± 0.02h | 3.18 ± 0.04g | 2.66 ± 0.01j |
| Sonication | 4.11 ± 0.10b | 3.55 ± 0.04d | 3.25 ± 0.06f | 3.1 ± 0.03h |
All analyses are the mean of triplicate measurements ± standard deviation. Means not sharing a common letter were significantly different at P < 0.05. Unit is: mg/g DM
Effect of single-factors on extraction of zerumbone from Z. zerumbet rhizome using microwave extraction method
| Single-factor experiments | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ethanol/water (% v/v) | Irradiation time (s) | MW Power (W) | Liquid-to-solid ratio (mL/g) | ||||
| (% v/v) | Zerumbone (mg/g DM) | (s) | Zerumbone (mg/g DM) | (W) | Zerumbone (mg/g DM) | Ratio (mL/g) | Zerumbone (mg/g DM) |
| 20 | 4.11 ± 0.17b | 30 | 4.15 ± 0.10d | 300 | 3.78 ± 0.09c | 10 | 3.26 ± 0.08e |
| 40 | 4.87 ± 0.13a | 60 | 5.1 ± 0.18a | 400 | 4.32 ± 0.12b | 20 | 3.88 ± 0.09d |
| 60 | 3.66 ± 0.08c | 90 | 4.86 ± 0.15b | 500 | 4.65 ± 0.10a | 25 | 4.21 ± 0.16c |
| 80 | 3.43 ± 0.14d | 120 | 4.45 ± 0.16c | 600 | 3.55 ± 0.08d | 30 | 5.08 ± 0.18a |
| 100 | 3.25 ± 0.09e | 180 | 4.30 ± 0.17c | 700 | 3.21 ± 0.08e | 40 | 4.76 ± 0.15b |
| 210 | 3.52 ± 0.11e | 800 | 2.91 ± 0.06f | ||||
All analyses are the mean of triplicate measurements ± standard deviation. Means not sharing a common letter in each column were significantly different at P < 0.05
Analysis of variance for the experimental results of zerumbone content from Z. zerumbet rhizomes
| Parameter | Estimated coefficient | Standard error | Degree of freedom | Sum of squares | F value | Prob > F |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Model intercept B0 | 5.51 | 0.084 | 14 | 3.95 | 13.38 | 0.0001 |
| Linear | ||||||
| X1 | 0.14 | 0.042 | 1 | 0.25 | 11.74 | 0.005 |
| X2 | 0.017 | 0.042 | 1 | 0.00343 | 0.16 | 0.693 |
| X3 | −0.055 | 0.042 | 1 | 0.037 | 1.77 | 0.211 |
| X4 | 0.27 | 0.042 | 1 | 0.085 | 40.46 | 0.0001 |
| Quadratic | ||||||
| | −0.41 | 0.063 | 1 | 0.89 | 42.02 | 0.0001 |
| | −0.096 | 0.063 | 1 | 0.05 | 2.35 | 0.1513 |
| | −0.085 | 0.063 | 1 | 0.039 | 1.84 | 0.2001 |
| | −0.39 | 0.063 | 1 | 0.081 | 38.52 | 0.0001 |
| Interaction | ||||||
| X1X2 | 0.12 | 0.073 | 1 | 0.057 | 2.71 | 0.1259 |
| X1X3 | 0.14 | 0.073 | 1 | 0.079 | 3.74 | 0.077 |
| X1X4 | −0.31 | 0.073 | 1 | 0.039 | 18.45 | 0.001 |
| X2X3 | 0.45 | 0.073 | 1 | 0.08 | 37.78 | 0.0001 |
| X2X4 | −0.13 | 0.073 | 1 | 0.072 | 3.42 | 0.0894 |
| X3X4 | −0.061 | 0.073 | 1 | 0.015 | 0.69 | 0.4212 |
| Lack of fit | 10 | 0.23 | 2.15 | 0.3596 | ||
| Pure error | 2 | 0.022 | ||||
| Residual | 12 | 0.025 | ||||
| R2 adjusted | 0.875 | |||||
| R2 | 0.939 | |||||
| C.V.% | 2.86 | |||||
| Corr. total | 26 | 4.21 | ||||
X1, ethanol concentration; X2, microwave power; X3, irradiation time; X4, liquid-to-solid ratio
Fig. 1Response surface analysis for the zerumbone content from Z. zerumbet rhizome with microwave extraction with respect to ethanol concentration and microwave power (a); ethanol concentration and extraction/irradiation time (b); ethanol concentration and solvent-to-solid ratio (c); extraction/irradiation time and microwave power (d); microwave power and solvent-to-solid ratio (e); extraction/irradiation time and solvent-to-solid ratio (f)
Fig. 2Antiproliferative activity of optimized and non-optimized extract of Z. zerumbet rhizome against HeLa cancer cell line. Bars represent standard errors of the means
Fig. 3Cytotoxicity effect of optimized extract of Z. zerumbet rhizome against normal cell line. Bars represent standard errors of the means