| Literature DB >> 28729835 |
Karishma Chester1, Sarvesh Paliwal1, Washim Khan2, Sayeed Ahmad2.
Abstract
Solanum nigrum L., is traditionally used for the management of the various liver disorders. Investigating the effect of polarity based fractionation of S. nigrum for its hepatoprotective effect on Hep G2 cells in vitro to provide base of its activity by quantifying in steroidal glycosides responsible for hepatoprotective potential. A new UPLC-ESI-MS/MS method following a high performance thin layer chromatography (HPTLC) has been developed and validated for quantification of steroidal glycosides and aglycone (solasonine, solamargine, and solasodine, respectively). The in vitro antioxidant potential, total phenolics, and flavonoid content were also determined in different fractions. The newly developed UPLC-ESI-MS/MS and HPTLC methods were linear (r2 ≥ 0.99), precise, accurate, and showing recovery more than 97%. The n-butanol enriched fraction of S. nigrum berries was found to be the most potent hepatoprotective fraction against all other fractions as it showed significantly (p < 0.01) better in vitro anti-oxidant potential than other fractions. Quantification by both methods revealed that, content of steroidal glycosides and aglycones are more than 20% in n-butanol fraction as compared to other fractions. The screened steroidal glycoside n-butanol enriched fraction underwent bioefficacy studies against D-galactosamine and H2O2 induced toxicity in HepG2 cell line showing significant (p < 0.05) liver protection. However, developed method can be used for the quality control analysis with respect to targeted metabolites and it can be explored for the pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic analysis in future.Entities:
Keywords: Solanum; enriched fraction; hepatoprotection; quantification; steroidal glycosides
Year: 2017 PMID: 28729835 PMCID: PMC5498608 DOI: 10.3389/fphar.2017.00434
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Pharmacol ISSN: 1663-9812 Impact factor: 5.810
Tabular representation of extractive value of mother extract and its fractions of S. nigrum (leaves and berries).
| 1 | Hexane fraction | 12 | 8.7 |
| 2 | DCM fraction | 17.7 | 14.1 |
| 3 | n-butanol fraction | 32 | 35 |
| 4 | Remaining fraction | 11.4 | 9.8 |
Figure 1(A) Developed HPTLC plate visualized at normal light after derivatisation. (B) HPTLC chromatogram of standards solasonine (R 0.11 ± 0.02), solamargine (R 0.22 ± 0.02) and solasodine (R 0.63 ± 0.02) scanned at 530 nm.
Figure 2Developed TLC plates and HPTLC chromatograms of different fractions showing peaks of separated markers. Track correspond to Ai: Hexane fraction (leaves), Aii: Hexane fraction (berries), Bi: DCM fraction (leaves), Bii: DCM fraction (berries), Ci: n-butanol fraction (leaves), Cii: n-butanol fraction (berries), Di: Final extract (leaves), Dii: Final extract (berries).
HPTLC fingerprint data of mother extract and different fractionation of S. nigrum (leaves and berries).
| Hydroalcoholic extract of | n-butanol: ethyl acetate: acetic acid 10%, (5:3.5:1.5, v/v/v) | Anisaldehyde sulphuric acid at 530 nm | (7): solasonine, 0.17, solamargine, 0.32, 0.40, 0.46, solasodine | (8): solasonine, 0.17, solamargine, 0.23, 0.32, 0.41,0.41, solasodine |
| Hexane fraction | (3): 0.33, 0.46, 0.50 | (4): 0.12, 0.17, 0.32, 0.40 | ||
| DCM fraction | (7): solamargine, solasonine, 0.36, 0.43, 0.51, 0.55, 0.70 | (7): solasonine, solamargine, 0.34, 0.37, 0.44, 0.51, 0.78 | ||
| n-butanol fraction | (6): solasonine, 0.15, solamargine„ 0.52, solasodine, 0.75 | (5): solasonine, 0.15, solamargine„ 0.52, solasodine, | ||
| Remaining fraction | (7): 0.16, 0.24, 0.60, 0.64, 0.67, 0.70, 0.75 | (5): 0.17, 0.25, 0.33, 0.40, 0.46 | ||
Figure 3(A) Representative chromatogram showing steroidal glycoside and its aglycone namely solasonine, solamargine, and solasodine. (B) Extracted ion chromatograms of steroidal glycosides namely solasonine, solamargine, and its aglycone solasodine quantified in plant fraction.
Linearity data of chromatographic UPLC-ESI-MS/MS and HPTLC Method for mixed standards (n = 3).
| Linearity | 5–100 | 16.6–1,328 | 5–100 | 16.6–1,328 | 5–100 | 16.6–1,328 |
| Equation | Y = 142.53x + 751.37 | Y = 179.400 + 1.955x | Y = 348.83x + 4,834.9 | Y = 263.823 + 2.080x | Y = 3,477.8x + 32,841 | Y = 547.683 + 4.225x |
| Regression ± | 0.990 ± 0.001 | 0.997 ± 0.001 | 0.992 ± 0.0005 | 0.997 ± 0.0005 | 0.994 ± 0.0001 | 0.993 ± 0.0001 |
| Slope ± | 142.53 ± 0.002 | 179.400 ± 0.002 | 348.83 ± 0.003 | 263.823 ± 0.003 | 3,477.8 ± 0.001 | 547.683 ± 0.001 |
| Intercept ± | 751.37 ± 0.002 | 1.955 ± 0.002 | 4,834.9 ± 0.005 | 2.080 ± 0.005 | 32,841 ± 0.001 | 4.225 ± 0.001 |
| LOD | 0.37 | 2.48 | 0.33 | 3.33 | 0.02 | 3.89 |
| LOQ | 1.15 | 7.52 | 1.01 | 10.09 | 0.06 | 11.18 |
LOD, limit of detection; LOQ, Limit of quantification; SD, standard deviation; RSD, Relative.
Precision of UPLC-ESI-MS/MS and HPTLC method for estimation of mixed standards (n = 3).
| 20 | 0.46 | 1.14 | 0.70 | 166 | 1.7 | 0.79 | 0.44 |
| 40 | 0.25 | 7.38 | 3.53 | 332 | 0.11 | 0.23 | 0.20 |
| 80 | 0.34 | 1.7 | 0.87 | 664 | 0.21 | 0.50 | 0.52 |
| 20 | 0.12 | 3.6 | 0.37 | 166 | 0.16 | 0.21 | 0.16 |
| 40 | 0.34 | 0.07 | 0.15 | 332 | 0.18 | 0.19 | 0.10 |
| 80 | 0.45 | 0.05 | 0.67 | 664 | 0.13 | 0.17 | 0.09 |
| 20 | 0.02 | 0.02 | 0.01 | 166 | 0.16 | 0.14 | 0.15 |
| 40 | 0.06 | 0.09 | 0.04 | 332 | 0.10 | 0.18 | 0.09 |
| 80 | 0.10 | 0.07 | 0.10 | 664 | 0.10 | 0.25 | 0.08 |
Conc. Concentration; RSD, Relative standard deviation.
Accuracy of UPLC-ESI-MS/MS and HPTLC methods for the estimation of mixed Standards (n = 3).
| 0 | 97.48 ± 0.01 | 0.03 | 98.93 | 0.56 |
| 50 | 100.09 ± 0.04 | 0.03 | 98.27 | 0.16 |
| 100 | 100.16 ± 0.03 | 0.06 | 101.61 | 0.02 |
| 150 | 100.05 ± 0.6 | 0.02 | 98.95 | 0.26 |
| 0 | 101.11 ± 0.7 | 0.02 | 100.13 | 0.02 |
| 50 | 100.66 ± 0.5 | 0.1 | 100.26 | 0.05 |
| 100 | 100.16 ± 0.4 | 0.03 | 100.09 | 0.02 |
| 150 | 100.15 ± 0.1 | 0.03 | 99.92 | 0.01 |
| 0 | 101.76 ± 2.1 | 0.08 | 100.39 | 0.15 |
| 50 | 101.96 ± 1.2 | 0.04 | 100.65 | 0.03 |
| 100 | 101.76 ± 0.7 | 0.03 | 100.19 | 0.02 |
| 150 | 100.84 ± 1.7 | 0.01 | 100.24 | 0.03 |
Robustness of the UPLC-ESI-MS/MS and HPTLC method for estimation of mixed standards by changing: Buffer % change (n = 3), Flow rate (n = 3), detection wavelength (n = 3), and mobile phase ratio (n = 3).
| 20 | 0.01 | 0.23 | A:B (5:3.5:1.9) | 0.11 | 166 | 510 | 0.31 | (5:3.5:1) | 0.28 |
| 0.05 | 0.40 | A:B (90:0, v/v) | 0.16 | 540 | 0.35 | (5:3.5:1.9) | 0.38 | ||
| 40 | 0.01 | 0.08 | A:B (5:3.5:1.9) | 0.14 | 332 | 510 | 0.30 | (5:3.5:1) | 0.14 |
| 0.05 | 0.12 | A:B (90:0, v/v) | 0.07 | 540 | 0.23 | (5:3.5:1.9) | 0.13 | ||
| 80 | 0.01 | 0.06 | A:B (5:3.5:1.9) | 0.03 | 664 | 510 | 0.18 | (5:3.5:1) | 0.15 |
| 0.05 | 0.09 | A:B (90:0, v/v) | 0.08 | 540 | 0.08 | (5:3.5:1.9) | 0.07 | ||
| 20 | 0.01 | 0.09 | A:B (5:3.5:1.9) | 0.06 | 166 | 510 | 1.50 | (5:3.5:1) | 0.82 |
| 0.05 | 0.06 | A:B (90:0, v/v) | 1.0 | 540 | 0.19 | (5:3.5:1.9) | 0.08 | ||
| 40 | 0.01 | 0.02 | A:B (5:3.5:1.9) | 0.02 | 332 | 510 | 0.13 | (5:3.5:1) | 0.21 |
| 0.05 | 0.04 | A:B (90:0, v/v) | 1.8 | 540 | 0.75 | (5:3.5:1.9) | 0.15 | ||
| 80 | 0.01 | 0.02 | A:B (5:3.5:1.9) | 0.02 | 664 | 510 | 0.10 | (5:3.5:1) | 0.09 |
| 0.05 | 0.02 | A:B (90:0, v/v) | 0.04 | 540 | 0.07 | (5:3.5:1.9) | 0.06 | ||
| 20 | 0.01 | 0.02 | A:B (5:3.5:1.9) | 0.02 | 166 | 510 | 0.09 | (5:3.5:1) | 0.13 |
| 0.05 | 0.05 | A:B (90:0, v/v) | 0.02 | 540 | 0.3 | (5:3.5:1.9) | 0.08 | ||
| 40 | 0.01 | 0.04 | A:B (5:3.5:1.9) | 0.02 | 332 | 510 | 0.13 | (5:3.5:1) | 0.10 |
| 0.05 | 0.08 | A:B (90:0, v/v) | 0.03 | 540 | 0.13 | (5:3.5:1.9) | 0.04 | ||
| 80 | 0.01 | 0.09 | A:B (5:3.5:1.9) | 0.04 | 664 | 510 | 0.07 | (5:3.5:1) | 0.02 |
| 0.05 | 0.02 | A:B (90:0, v/v) | 0.06 | 540 | 0.14 | (5:3.5:1.9) | 0.02 | ||
Figure 4Graphical designing to show the content of (A) Solasonine, (B) Solamargine, and (C) Solasodine present in S. nigrum (areil part) mother extract and its fractions by UPLC-ESI-MS/MS and HPTLC analysis.
Figure 5(A) Total phenolic content, (B) Total flavonoidal contents, and (C) Total antioxidant activity of S. nigrum (leaves and berries) mother extracts and its fraction.
Figure 6Effect of SGAs enriched fraction on hepatic marker enzyme by (A), MTT and (B), ROS. Each value is represented as mean ±SEM, n = 6, Ψ P < 0.01 when toxic control compare with control, ns, Non significance. *P > 0.05, **P < 0.01, ***P < 0.001 vs. toxic control, One way ANOVA followed by Dunet's test.