| Literature DB >> 28491113 |
Telmo N Santos1, Gustavo Costa1,2, J Pinto Ferreira1,2, Joana Liberal1,3, Vera Francisco1,2, António Paranhos1, Maria T Cruz1,2, M Castelo-Branco1,4, I Vitória Figueiredo1,4, M Teresa Batista1,2.
Abstract
Agrimony (Agrimonia eupatoria L.) (Ae) is used in traditional medicine to treat inflammatory and oxidative related diseases. Therefore, this study focuses on the anti-inflammatory and analgesic potential of Ae infusion (AeI). Phenolic compounds characterization was achieved by HPLC-PDA-ESI/MS n . To evaluate antioxidant potential, 2,2-diphenyl-1-picrylhydrazyl (DPPH), superoxide anion, hydroxyl radical, and SNAP assays were used. In vitro anti-inflammatory activity of AeI was investigated in LPS-stimulated macrophages by measuring the NO production. In vivo anti-inflammatory activity was validated using the mouse carrageenan-induced paw edema model. Peripheral and central analgesic potential was evaluated using the acetic acid-induced writhing and hot-plate tests, respectively, as well as the formalin assay to assess both activities. The safety profile was disclosed in vitro and in vivo, using MTT and hematoxylin assays, respectively. Vitexin, quercetin O-galloyl-hexoside, and kaempferol O-acetyl-hexosyl-rhamnoside were referred to in this species for the first time. AeI and mainly AePF (Ae polyphenolic fraction) showed a significant antiradical activity against all tested radicals. Both AeI and AePF decreased NO levels in vitro, AePF being more active than AeI. In vivo anti-inflammatory and analgesic activities were verified for both samples at concentrations devoid of toxicity. Agrimony infusion and, mainly, AePF are potential sources of antiradical and anti-inflammatory polyphenols.Entities:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28491113 PMCID: PMC5405390 DOI: 10.1155/2017/8309894
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Evid Based Complement Alternat Med ISSN: 1741-427X Impact factor: 2.629
Figure 1HPLC profile of Agrimonia eupatoria polyphenol-enriched ethyl acetate fraction (AePF). The chromatographic profile was registered at 280 nm. For experimental conditions, see Materials and Methods.
Phenolic characterization of AePF from Agrimonia eupatoria, by HPLC-PDA-ESI/MS.
| Peak | Rt (min) | Tentative identification |
| |M − H|− ( | MS2 | MS3 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| [ | ||||||
|
| 14.94 | Procyanidin dimer | 279 | 577 | 451 (18), |
|
|
| 16.48 | Procyanidin trimer | 278 | 865 | 739 (36), 713 (34), | 677 (39), 543 (69), |
|
| 17.48 | Catechin | 279 | 289 |
| 227 (34), 213 (11), |
|
| 18.07 | Procyanidin dimer | 279 | 577 | 451 (22), |
|
|
| 18.25 | Procyanidin trimer | 279 | 865 | 739 (20), |
|
|
| 18.94 | Procyanidin tetramer | 279 | 1153 | 1057 (51), 983 (51), 965 (68), 863 (39), 813 (84), 713 (41), | — |
|
| 19.78 | Procyanidin tetramer | 279 | 1153 | 917 (99), 863 (88), 813 (86), | — |
|
| 20.01 | Procyanidin trimer | 280 | 865 | 739 (13), 738 (14), | 677 (30), 585 (50), 525 (88), |
|
| 21.10 | Procyanidin dimer | 279 | 577 | 451 (12), | — |
|
| 21.65 | Procyanidin trimer | 280 | 865 | 739 (34), 738 (11), | 525 (83), |
|
| 23.01 | Agrimoniin | 258sh, 282 | 935§ | 899 (3), |
|
|
| 25.47 |
| 298sh, 310 | — | — | — |
|
| 31.01 | Apigenin 8-C-glucoside (vitexin) | 270, 331 | 431 | 341 (3), | 293 (3), |
|
| 34.07 | Quercetin | 259sh, 265, 342 | 615 |
|
|
|
| 34.85 | Apigenin 6-C-glucoside (isovitexin) | 270, 333 | 431 | 413 (17), 395 (1), 383 (2), 355 (1), 341 (54), |
|
|
| 35.50 | Luteolin 7- | 268, 295sh, 348 | 447 | 327 (6), |
|
|
| 36.19 | Quercetin 3-O-glucoside (isoquercetin) | 256, 266sh, 355 | 463 |
| 273 (12), |
|
| 37.35 | Quercetin | 259, 267sh, 348 | 549 |
| 463 (27), 342 (10), |
|
| 38.27 | Apigenin 7-O-glucoside (apigetrin) | 258sh, 265, 331 | 431 | 311 (11), |
|
|
| 38.77 | Ellagic acid | 257, 351 | 301 |
|
|
|
| 39.42 | Kaempferol 3-O-glucoside (astragalin) | 265, 346 | 447 | 327 (12), | 257 (16), 256 (21), |
|
| 40.86 | Apigenin | 258sh, 264, 331 | 445 | 307 (10), | 225 (40), 185 (63) |
|
| 41.53 | Kaempferol | 257sh, 264, 340 | 533 |
|
|
|
| 42.31 | Kaempferide | 265, 311, 348 | 445 |
|
|
|
| 42.92 | Kaempferol O- | 267, 290sh, 315, 349 | 593 | 447 (15), 429 (2), 323 (1), | 267 (32), 257 (82), |
|
| 43.56 | Kaempferol | 267, 294sh, 315, 348 | 635 | 575 (21), 489 (20), 431 (11), 349 (5), |
|
sh: shoulder; §|M − 2H|2−; confirmed by commercial reference compounds.
Free radical scavenging effect of AeI and AePF from Agrimonia eupatoria.
| Sample | EC50a | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| DPPH radical | Superoxide anion | Hydroxyl radical | |
| AeI | 12.80 ± 0.05 | 13.59 ± 1.03 | 126.99 ± 11.97 |
| AePF | 4.60 ± 0.05 | 3.34 ± 0.20 | 90.97 ± 8.29 |
| BHT | 4.67 ± 0.05 | — | — |
| Quercetin | — | 5.34 ± 0.43 | 15.74 ± 1.31 |
aAmount of the samples (µg/mL of reaction mixture) that decreased 50% of the absorbance values as compared to the negative control. Each value is the mean ± SD of the three replicates.
Figure 2(a) Cell viability (% of LPS) of Raw 264.7 cells incubated with AeI (193, 382 and 770 μg/mL) or AePF (69, 138 and 276 μg/mL) for 1 h, followed by incubation with LPS for 24 h. Data represent mean ± SEM of 3 independent assays. P < 0.001, compared to control with LPS. (b) Nitrite production (% of LPS) of Raw 264.7 cells after incubation with AeI (193, 382, and 770 μg/mL) or AePF (69, 138, and 276 μg/mL) for 1 h, followed by incubation with LPS for 24 h. Data represent mean ± SEM of 3 independent assays. P < 0.001 and P < 0.05, compared to control with LPS. (c) Nitrite production (% of SNAP) after incubation of SNAP with AeI (193 and 382 μg/mL) or AePF (69 and 138 μg/mL) for 3 h. Data represent mean ± SEM of 3 independent assays. P < 0.05, compared to control with SNAP.
Figure 3Carrageenan-induced rat paw edema test. Results were obtained by oral administration of an aqueous extract at doses 99.59 mg/kg b.w (AeID1) and 199.18 mg/kg b.w. (AeID2) and ethyl acetate fraction of the aqueous extract at doses 18.12 mg/kg b.w. (AePFD1) and 36.24 mg/kg b.w. (AePFD2) and 10 mg/kg (i.p.) of diclofenac sodium. Each value is mean ± SEM. of 6–8 rats. Statistical differences between the treated and the control groups were determined by ANOVA followed by Tukey's test. P < 0.05 compared with control.
Figure 4Hot-plate test. Results were obtained by oral administration of aqueous extract at doses 199.18 mg/Kg b.w (AeID2) and 398.26 mg/Kg b.w. (AeID3) and ethyl acetate fraction of the aqueous extract at doses 36.24 mg/Kg b.w. (AePFD2) and 72.48 mg/Kg b.w. (AePFD3) and 10 mg/Kg (i.p.) of morphine hydrochloride. Each value is the mean ± SEM of 6–8 rats. Statistical differences between the treated and the control groups were determined by ANOVA followed by Tukey's test. P < 0.05 compared with control.
Figure 5Acetic acid-induced writhing test. Results were obtained by oral administration of aqueous extract at doses 199.18 mg/Kg b.w (AeID2) and 398.26 mg/Kg b.w. (AeID3) and ethyl acetate fraction of the aqueous extract at doses 36.24 mg/Kg b.w. (AePFD2) and 72.48 mg/Kg b.w. (AePFD3) and 10 mg/Kg (i.p.) of diclofenac sodium. Each value is the mean ± SEM of 6–8 rats. Statistical differences between the treated and the control groups were determined by ANOVA followed by Tukey's test. P < 0.05 compared with control.
Effect of AePFD3 on the time that mice spent licking their hind paw during early and late phase of formalin test.
| Group | Dose | Time spent licking (0–5 min) | Time spent licking (20–40 min) | Pain reduction (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Control | — | 56.00 ± 4.05 | 183.80 ± 16.07 | — |
| Reference | 10 | 3.67 ± 0.76 | 30.40 ± 5.77 | 98.4 |
| AePFD3 | 72.48 | 48.17 ± 3.19 | 124.00 ± 6.35 | 32.5 |
Reference: morphine hydrochloride (10 mg/kg b.w.) for early phase or diclofenac sodium (10 mg/kg b.w.) for late phase; AePFD3: ethyl acetate fraction of the aqueous extract at dose 72.48 mg/kg b.w. Each value is the mean ± SEM of 6–8 rats. Statistical differences between the treated and the control groups were determined by ANOVA followed by Tukey's test. P < 0.05 compared with control.
Figure 6Histological analysis of liver and kidney. Staining with hematoxylin; 20x magnification in the original. (a–c) Liver tissues obtained from control animal (a); animal treated with reference drug (b); animal treated with AePF (c). (d–f) Renal tissues obtained from control animal (d); animal treated with reference drug (e); animal treated with AePF (f).