| Literature DB >> 28858228 |
Andrea F Afonso1,2, Olívia R Pereira3, Rodrigo T Neto4, Artur M S Silva5, Susana M Cardoso6.
Abstract
Thymus herba-barona, Thymus pseudolanuginosus, and Thymus caespititius decoctions were screened for their phenolic constituents, along with their potential antioxidant, anti-inflammatory, and antibacterial activities. The total phenolic compounds in the extracts of the three plants ranged from 236.0 ± 26.6 mgGAE/g (T. caespititus) to 293.0 ± 30.5 mgGAE/g of extract (T. pseudolanuginosus), being particularly rich in caffeic acid derivatives, namely rosmarinic acid and its structural isomers, as well as flavones, such as luteolin-O-glucuronide. The T. pseudolanuginosus extract presented the best DPPH radical scavenging ability (EC50 = 10.9 ± 0.7 µg/mL), a high reducing power (EC50 = 32.2 ± 8.2 µg/mL), and effectively inhibited the oxidation of β-carotene (EC50 = 2.4 ± 0.2 µg/mL). The extracts also showed NO● scavenging activity close to that of ascorbic acid, and thus might be useful as anti-inflammatory agents. In addition, they exhibited antibacterial activity against gram-negative and gram-positive bacteria. Staphylococcus aureus strains were the most sensitive bacteria to thyme extracts, with minimum inhibitory concentration and minimum bactericidal concentration values in the range of 0.6-3.5 mg/mL. Overall, this work is an important contribution for the phytochemical characterization and the potential antioxidant, anti-inflammatory, and antimicrobial activities of these three Thymus species, which have been poorly explored.Entities:
Keywords: LC-MS; anti-inflammatory; antimicrobial activity; antioxidant; antiradicalar; mass spectrometry; phenolic; thyme; thymus
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28858228 PMCID: PMC5618528 DOI: 10.3390/ijms18091879
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Mol Sci ISSN: 1422-0067 Impact factor: 5.923
Yield of extraction (%), total phenolic content (mg GAE/g of extract), and antioxidant and anti-inflammatory activities (EC50, µg/mL) of T. herba-barona, T. pseudolanuginosus, and T. caespititius aqueous extracts.
| Plant Extract | Yield (%) | TPC | DPPH● | RP | β-Carotene | NO● | 5-LOX |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 15.3 ± 1.80 a | 273 ± 16.6 a,c | 11.6 ± 0.90 a | 35.1± 4.50 a | >26.70 a | 286 ± 32.6 a | 841 ± 138 a | |
| 16.8 ± 0.90 a | 293 ± 30.5 a | 10.9 ± 0.70 a | 32.2± 8.20 a | 2.40 ± 0.20 b | 299 ± 23.4 a | 814 ± 87.2 a | |
| 19.9 ± 2.40 a | 236 ± 26.6 b,c | 13.8 ± 0.60 a | 39.3 ± 2.70 a | 6.10 ± 0.20 c | 230 ± 21.5 b | 591 ± 166 a | |
| AA | 6.70 ± 0.70 b | − | 228 ± 20.7 b | 7.80 ± 1.00 b | |||
| BHA | − | 16.0 ± 2.00 b | 0.40 ± 0.02 d |
Mean values ± standard deviations. Statistical analysis was performed by one-way ANOVA, followed by a Tukey test. In each column, different letters (a–d) stand for significant statistical different data (p < 0.05). TPC: Total Phenolic Compounds; RP: Reducing Power; AA: Ascorbic acid; BHA: Butylated hydroxyanisole; LOX: lipoxygenase.
Figure 1Chromatographic profiles at 280 nm of T. herba-barona, T. pseudolanuginosus, and T. caespititius aqueous extracts (The numbers in the figure correspond to the LC-MSn fractions indicated in Table 2).
Identification and quantification of UHPLC (ultra high performance chromatography) eluting fractions by UHPLC-DAD-MSn of T. herba-barona, T. pseudolanuginosus, and T. caespititius aqueous extracts.
| Fraction | RT (min) | λmax (nm) | Compound | [M-H]− | Main Fragments ESI-MSn | (mg/g Extract) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 1.3 | 270 | Quinic acid A | 191 | MS2 [191]: 111, 173 | D | D | D |
| 2 | 1.6 | 278 | Syringic acid- | 359 | MS2 [359]: 197, 179, 161, 153, 135 | D | D | D |
| 3 | 1.8 | 281 | Danshensu B | 197 | MS2 [197]: 179 | D | D | D |
| 292, 323 | 4- | 353 | MS2 [353]: 173, 179, 191 | − | D | D | ||
| 4 | 2.2 | 286, 322 | 353 | MS2 [353]: 191 , 179, 161, 135, 119 | D | 6.4 ± 0.4 | D | |
| 5 | 2.4 | 271, 333 | Apigenin di- | 593 | MS2 [539]: 473, 353, 383, 503, 575, 297 | D | D | 4.0 ± 0.2 |
| 6 | 3.3 | 289, 321 | Caffeic acid A | 179 | MS2 [179]: 135, 151, 161, 107, 97 | 4.3 ± 0.1 | D | D |
| 7 | 3.4 | 287, 318 | SA F der B | 375 | MS2 [375]: 313, 269, 179, 135, MS3 [313]: 269, 161 | D | D | D |
| 277 | RA der B | 377 | MS2 [377]: 359; MS3 [359]: 161, 179, 197, 223, 133 | − | − | D | ||
| 8 | 3.7 | 283 | Eriodictyol- | 449 | MS2 [449]: 287, 269, 259, 267 | 1.9 ± 0.01 | − | − |
| 9 | 4.1 | 281, 342 | Quercetin | 477 | MS2 [477]: 301, 343, 397 | 2.3 ± 0.1 | 3.4 ± 0.04 | 1.1 ± 0.08 |
| 10 | 4.6 | 341 | Luteolin- | 447 | MS2 [447]: 357, 285, 327 | 5.1 ± 0.1 | 2.9 ± 0.02 | − |
| 11 | 5.1 | 282 | RA sulfate B | 439 | MS2 [439]: 259, 421, 225, 371, 359, 197; MS3 [259]: 161 | − | − | D |
| 12 | 5.6 | 253, 287, 312 | SA I B | 537 | MS2 [537]: 339, 493; MS3 [339]: 295, 229, 293 | − | D | D |
| 13 | 5.7 | 289, 318 | SA F der B | 519 | MS2 [519]: 475, 313; MS3 [475]: 313, 269, 179, 431 | D | − | − |
| 14 | 6.2 | 254, 266, 345 | Luteolin- | 593 | MS2 [593]: 285 | − | − | 2.2 ± 0.1 |
| 15 | 6.8 | 281, 331 | Luteolin- | 461 | MS2 [461]: 285, 175; MS3 [285]: 267, 239, 241, 213, 185 | 4.4 ± 0.02 | 54.1 ± 0.6 | 17.3 ± 1.1 |
| 16 | 7.0 | 255, 265, 345 | Luteolin- | 461 | MS2 [461]: 285; MS3 [285]: 241, 199, 175, 151, 267 | 10.5 ± 0.2 | 7.1 ± 0.2 | 6.8 ± 0.4 |
| 17 | 7.3 | 261, 331 | Apigenin- | 431 | MS2 [431]: 269 | − | 0.9 ± 0.15 | − |
| 18 | 8.0 | 285, 333 | SA C der B | 553 | MS2 [553]: 491, 399, 179, 429, 473; MS3 [491]: 473 | − | D | − |
| 19 | 8.3 | 254, 283, 344 | SA B (isom1) B | 717 | MS2 [717]: 519, 475, 339; MS3 [519]: 475, 339 | − | − | 6.9 ± 0.5 |
| 289, 318 | Dedihydro-SA B (isom 1) B | 715 | MS2 [715]: 313, 627, 671, 269; MS2 [313]: 179, 135 | 10.8 ± 0.1 | − | − | ||
| 20 | 8.5 | 289, 337 | Chrysoeriol- | 461 | MS2 [461]: 299, 284; MS3 [299]: 284 | D | D | − |
| 21 | 9.0 | 228, 282, 331 | Apigenin- | 431 | MS2 [431]: 269; MS3 [269]: 225, 149, 117, 183, 167, 199 | D | − | − |
| 22 | 9.0 | 252, 267, 342 | Chrysoeriol- | 607 | MS2 [607]: 299, 284 ; MS3 [299]: 284 | − | − | D |
| 23 | 9.1 | 267, 333 | Apigenin- | 445 | MS2 [445]: 269, 175 | 2.1 ± 0.03 | 8.3 ± 0.05 | 1.97 ± 0.1 |
| 24 | 9.6 | 287, 325 | RA A | 359 | MS2 [359]: 161, 179, 197, 223 | 55.8 ± 2.8 | 40.2 ± 0.9 | 43.2 ± 3.2 |
| 25 | 9.8 | 287, 311 | 3′- | 537 | MS2 [537]: 493, 515, 375, 357, 339, 313, 197 | D | D | D |
| 26 | 9.0 | 289, 319 | Dedihydro- SA B (isom 2) B | 715 | MS2 [715]: 313, 671, 627, 269 | D | − | − |
| 27 | 10.1 | 288, 326 | SA B (isom 2) B | 717 | MS2 [717]: 519, 357, 555 MS3 [519]: 357, 475, 295 | D | D | D |
| 287, 324 | SA K B | 555 | MS2 [555]: 493, 357, 393, 313; MS3 [493]: 359, 313, 161 | D | 10.5 ± 0.1 | − | ||
| 28 | 10.7 | 290, 323 | 3′- | 537 | MS2 [537]: 493, 359; MS3 [493]: 359, 313, 295, 161 | 12.0 ± 0.2 | D | D |
| 29 | 12.2 | 288, 322 | Caffeoyl RA (isom 1) B | 537 | MS2 [537]: 375, 493, 359, 519 | 10.5 ± 0.06 | D | D |
| 30 | 12.5 | 287, 328 | Caffeoyl RA (isom 2) B | 537 | MS2 [537]: 439, 519, 357, 493, 323, 197 | 4.2 ± 0.1 | − | − |
| 31 | 12.8 | 288, 323 | Caffeoyl RA (isom 3) B | 537 | MS2 [537]: 519, 359, 357, 339, 235, 493; MS3 [519]: 357 | − | D | − |
| 32 | 13.3 | 287, 323 | 3′- | 537 | MS2 [537]: 493, 375, 359; MS3 [493]: 359, 197 | D | D | D |
| Phenolic compounds groups | 97.6 ± 2.6 a | 57.1 ± 1.3 b | 50.0 ± 3.8 c | |||||
| 22.0 ± 0.3 a | 73.3 ± 1.0 b | 32.2 ± 2.0 c | ||||||
| 2.3 ± 0.1 a | 3.6 ± 0.04 b | 1.1 ± 0.1 c | ||||||
| 1.9 ± 0.01 | − | − | ||||||
| Total | 123.9 ± 2.8 a | 134.0 ± 2.4 b | 83.4 ± 5.8 c | |||||
T. h-b: Thymus herba-barona; T. pseud: Thymus pseudolanuginosus; T. caes: Thymus caespititius; D: detected; RT: retention time; CQA: caffeoylquinic acid; Der: derivative; Glc: glucoside; GlucA: glucuronide; Hex: hexoside; isom: isomer; RA: rosmarinic acid; Rut: rutinoside; SA: salvianolic acid; A compound identification was based on comparison to standard; B compound identification was based on interpretation of UV spectral and MS data, plus comparison to literature; Mean values ± standard deviations of three independent assays; Statistical analysis was performed by one-way ANOVA (Tukey’s test). In each row, different letters (a–c) stand for significant statistical different data (p < 0.05).
MIC (mg/mL) and MBC (mg/mL) of plant extracts and nisin (mg/mL) against selected test pathogens.
| Bacteria | Nisin | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MBC | MIC | MBC | MIC | MBC | MIC | MBC | MIC | |
| 5.0 | 5.0 | >6.5 | 6.5 | >7.0 | 7.0 | 0.5 | 0.5 | |
| 5.0 | 5.0 | 6.5 | 6.5 | 7.0 | 3.5 | <0.03 | <0.03 | |
| 0.6 | 0.6 | 1.6 | 1.6 | 3.5 | 3.5 | 0.25 | 0.25 | |
| >5.0 | 5.0 | >6.5 | 6.5 | 7.0 | 7.0 | 0.5 | 0.5 | |
| >5.0 | 5.0 | >6.5 | 6.5 | >7.0 | 7.0 | 1.0 | 0.5 | |
Mean values; MIC: minimum inhibitory concentration; MBC: minimum bactericidal concentration.