| Literature DB >> 28598407 |
Yu-Jie Liu1, Xue-Lin Mo2, Xiao-Zhang Tang3, Jiang-Hua Li4, Mei-Bian Hu5, Dan Yan6, Wei Peng7, Chun-Jie Wu8,9.
Abstract
In this study, the ultrasound-assisted extraction of polysaccharides (PSA) from Pinelliae Rhizoma Praeparatum Cum Alumine (PRPCA) was optimized by response surface methodology (RSM). The structural characteristics of PSA were analyzed by UV-vis spectroscopy, infrared spectroscopy, scanning electron microscopy, high performance gel permeation chromatography and high performance liquid chromatography, respectively. In addition, antioxidant and antimicrobial activities of PSA were studied by different in vitro assays. Results indicated that the optimal extraction conditions were as follows: the ratio of water to raw of 30 mL/g, extraction time of 46.50 min, ultrasonic temperature of 72.00 °C, and ultrasonic power of 230 W. Under these conditions, the obtained PSA yield (13.21 ± 0.37%) was closely agreed with the predicted yield by the model. The average molecular weights of the PSA were estimated to be 5.34 × 10³ and 6.27 × 10⁵ Da. Monosaccharide composition analysis indicated that PSA consisted of mannose, galactose uronic acid, glucose, galactose, arabinose with a molar ratio of 1.83:0.55:75.75:1.94:0.45. Furthermore, PSA exhibited moderate antioxidant and antibacterial activities in vitro. Collectively, this study provides a promising strategy to obtain bioactive polysaccharides from processed products of herbal medicines.Entities:
Keywords: Pinelliae Rhizoma Praeparatum Cum Alumine; bioactivities; polysaccharides; response surface methodology; ultrasound-assisted extraction
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28598407 PMCID: PMC6152705 DOI: 10.3390/molecules22060965
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Molecules ISSN: 1420-3049 Impact factor: 4.411
Figure 1Effects of different extraction parameters (A: ultrasonic power; B: extraction time; C: ultrasonic temperature; D: ratio of water to raw material) on the yield of PSA.
Box–Behnken experimental design and results for extraction yields.
| Run | Extraction Time ( | Ultrasonic Temperature ( | Ultrasonic Power ( | Extraction Yield (%) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Actual Value | Predicted Value | ||||
| 1 | 50.00 | 80.00 | 220.00 | 11.93 | 11.80 |
| 2 | 50.00 | 70.00 | 180.00 | 11.26 | 11.48 |
| 3 | 40.00 | 70.00 | 220.00 | 12.77 | 12.61 |
| 4 | 40.00 | 80.00 | 180.00 | 9.44 | 9.34 |
| 5 | 40.00 | 60.00 | 260.00 | 9.03 | 9.13 |
| 6 | 40.00 | 70.00 | 220.00 | 12.59 | 12.61 |
| 7 | 40.00 | 70.00 | 220.00 | 12.88 | 12.61 |
| 8 | 40.00 | 80.00 | 260.00 | 11.82 | 11.81 |
| 9 | 30.00 | 70.00 | 260.00 | 10.91 | 10.69 |
| 10 | 50.00 | 70.00 | 260.00 | 11.96 | 12.09 |
| 11 | 50.00 | 60.00 | 220.00 | 11.14 | 10.91 |
| 12 | 30.00 | 60.00 | 220.00 | 6.13 | 6.25 |
| 13 | 30.00 | 80.00 | 220.00 | 10.09 | 10.32 |
| 14 | 30.00 | 70.00 | 180.00 | 6.89 | 6.76 |
| 15 | 40.00 | 70.00 | 220.00 | 12.36 | 12.61 |
| 16 | 40.00 | 70.00 | 220.00 | 12.43 | 12.61 |
| 17 | 40.00 | 60.00 | 180.00 | 7.05 | 7.06 |
ANOVA for the response surface quadratic model.
| Source | Sum of Squares | df | Mean Square | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Model | 76.16 | 9 | 8.46 | 121.22 | <0.0001 |
| 18.82 | 1 | 18.82 | 269.59 | <0.0001 | |
| 12.33 | 1 | 12.33 | 176.57 | <0.0001 | |
| 10.31 | 1 | 10.31 | 147.63 | <0.0001 | |
| 2.51 | 1 | 2.51 | 35.99 | 0.0005 | |
| 2.76 | 1 | 2.76 | 39.47 | 0.0004 | |
| 0.040 | 1 | 0.040 | 0.57 | 0.4738 | |
| 3.66 | 1 | 3.66 | 52.36 | 0.0002 | |
| 14.44 | 1 | 14.44 | 206.83 | <0.0001 | |
| 8.48 | 1 | 8.48 | 121.50 | <0.0001 | |
| Residual | 0.49 | 7 | 0.070 | ||
| Lack of Fit | 0.29 | 3 | 0.098 | 2.03 | 0.2523 |
| Pure Error | 0.19 | 4 | 0.048 | ||
| Cor Total | 76.65 | 16 | |||
| Standard deviation | 0.26 | 0.9936 | |||
| C.V.% | 2.09 | Adj | 0.9854 | ||
| Adeq Precision | 31.341 | Pred | 0.9345 |
Figure 2Model adequacy plots.
Figure 3The 3D response surface and 2D contour plots showing the effects of extraction factors on the yield of PSA. (A,B) were 3D response surface and 2D contour plots showing the effects of extraction time and ultrasonic temperature on the yield of PSA; (C,D) were 3D response surface and 2D contour plots showing the effects of extraction time and ultrasonic power on the yield of PSA; (E,F) were 3D response surface and 2D contour plots showing the effects of ultrasonic temperature and ultrasonic power on the yield of PSA.
Figure 4UV-vis spectra (A) and FT-IR spectra (B) of PSA.
Figure 5SEM images of PSA. (A) Morphology at 1000× (scalebar is 10 μm); (B) Morphology at 2000× (scalebar is 10 μm); (C) Morphology at 5000× (scalebar is 1 μm); (D) Morphology at 10,000× (scalebar is 1 μm).
Figure 6The HPGPC spectrum of PSA.
Figure 7HPLC chromatograms of hydrolyzed polysaccharide derivatives. (A) HPLC chromatogram of monosaccharide standards; (B) HPLC chromatogram of PSA. (1) mannose, (2) galactose uronic acid, (3) glucose, (4) galactose, (5) arabinose.
Figure 8Antioxidant activities of PSA. (A) DPPH radical scavenging assay; (B) superoxide anion radical scavenging assay; (C) Fe2+ chelating assay; (D) ABTS+ radical scavenging assay.
Antibacterial and antifungal activities of PSA.
| Microorganism | PSA (mg/mL) | |
|---|---|---|
| MIC | MBC | |
| 8 | >32 | |
| 16 | >32 | |
| >32 | >32 | |
Independent variables and their levels used for Box-Behnken design (BBD).
| Independent Variables | Coded Levels of Variables | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| −1 | 0 | 1 | |
| Extraction time ( | 30 | 40 | 50 |
| Ultrasonic temperature ( | 60 | 70 | 80 |
| Ultrasonic power ( | 180 | 220 | 260 |