| Literature DB >> 28911494 |
Cheng-Yuan Wang1, Tien-Chou Wu1, Shu-Ling Hsieh2, Yung-Hsiang Tsai2, Chia-Wen Yeh2, Chun-Yung Huang2.
Abstract
Fucose-containing sulfated polysaccharides, also termed "fucoidans", which are known to possess antioxidant, anticoagulant, anticancer, antiviral, and immunomodulating properties, are normally isolated from brown algae via various extraction techniques. In the present study, two methods (SC1 and SC2) for isolation of fucoidan from Sargassum cristaefolium were compared, with regard to the extraction yields, antioxidant activity, and inhibition of growth of human colon cancer cells exhibited by the respective extracts. SC1 and SC2 differ in the number of extraction steps and concentration of ethanol used, as well as the obtained sulfated polysaccharide extracts, namely, crude fucoidan preparation (CFP) and purified fucoidan preparation (PFP), respectively. Thin layer chromatography, Fourier transform infrared analysis, and measurements of fucose and sulfate contents revealed that the extracts were fucoidan. There was a higher extraction yield for CFP, which contained less fucose and sulfate but more uronic acid, and had weaker antioxidant activity and inhibition of growth in human colon cancer cells. In contrast, there was a lower extraction yield for PFP, which contained more fucose and sulfate but less uronic acid, and had stronger antioxidant activity and inhibition of growth in human colon cancer cells. Thus, since the difference in bioactive activities between CFP and PFP was not remarkable, the high extraction yield of SC1 might be favored as a method in industrial usage for extracting fucoidan.Entities:
Keywords: Sargassum cristaefolium; antioxidant; colon cancer cells; extraction; fucoidan
Year: 2015 PMID: 28911494 PMCID: PMC9345455 DOI: 10.1016/j.jfda.2015.07.002
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Food Drug Anal Impact factor: 6.157
Fig. 1Flowchart of the two methods (SC1 and SC2) for extraction of fucoidan from Sargassum cristaefolium.
Comparison of chemical compositions of Sargassum cristaefolium, S. horneri, and S. naozhouense.
| Brown algae | g/100 g (dry weight) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| ||||
| Protein | Lipid | Ash | Total carbohydrate | |
| 3.83 ± 0.81 | 1.51 ± 0.14 | 24.80 ± 0.08 | 69.87 ± 0.83 | |
|
| 10.58 | 0.99 | 26.69 | 61.82 |
|
| 11.20 | 1.06 | 35.18 | 47.73 |
Sample of S. cristaefolium was collected from Penghu County, Taiwan.
The values are quoted from Murakami et al [29].
The values (average of four analyses) are quoted from Peng et al [30]. The values were calculated by weight of chemical composition (g)/dry weight of sample (100 g). Total carbohydrate was calculated as weight differences between the total weight and the sum of the amounts of moisture, protein, lipid, and ash.
Values are mean ± SD (n = 3).
Comparison of extraction parameters, extraction yield, fucose, sulfate, and uronic acids of fucoidans in SC1 and SC2.
| Extraction methods | |||
|---|---|---|---|
|
| |||
| SC1 | SC2 |
| |
| Number of water extraction steps | 1 | 1 | |
| Number of ethanol extraction steps | 1 | 3 | |
| Concentration of ethanol used (%) | 71.25 | 95, 20, 50 | |
| Extraction yield (%) | 3.75 ± 0.44 | 0.73 ± 0.02 | 0.0003 |
| Fucose (%) | 21.41 ± 0.60 | 27.38 ± 1.45 | 0.0001 |
| Sulfate (%) | 11.58 ± 0.59 | 13.58 ± 0.62 | 0.029 |
| Uronic acids (%) | 52.10 ± 2.92 | 33.90 ± 1.00 | < 0.001 |
The conditions for SC1 and SC2 are illustrated in Fig. 1.
Extraction yield (%) = (gsolid extract/gsample,dry basis) × 100
Fucose (%), sulfate (%), and uronic acid (%) = (g/gextracted poly-saccharide,dry basis) × 100
Values are mean ± SD (n = 3). A p value < 0.05 was considered significant.
Fig. 2Thin layer chromatography (TLC) and Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy (FTIR) spectra of crude fucoidan preparation (CFP) and purified fucoidan preparation (PFP). (A) TLC spectrum for CFP and PFP. Fucose and glucose were used as the reference standards. Position of standards are indicated. (B) FTIR spectra for CFP and PFP. Absorption bands for SO and C-S-O are indicated. CFP = crude fucoidan preparation; fuc = fucose; glu = glucose; PFP = purified fucoidan preparation.
Fig. 3Antioxidant activities of crude fucoidan preparation (CFP) and purified fucoidan preparation (PFP). (A) DPPH scavenging activity for CFP and PFP. (B) ABTS radical scavenging activity for CFP and PFP. (C) Ferrous ion-chelating activity for CFP and PFP. (D) Reducing power for CFP and PFP. Each value represents the mean ± standard deviation of three determinations. ABTS = 2,2′-azino-bis(3-ethylbenzothiazoline-6-sulfonic acid) diammonium salt; CFP = crude fucoidan preparation; DPPH = 2, 2-diphenyl-1-picrylhydrazyl; PFP = purified fucoidan preparation; TEAC = Trolox equivalent antioxidant capacity.
Fig. 4Inhibition of growth in human colon cancer cell line HT-29 by crude fucoidan preparation (CFP) and purified fucoidan preparation (PFP). (A) Cytotoxic effects of CFP and PFP on HT-29 cancer cells. The cell number (% of control) was determined by MTT assay. Each value represents the mean ± standard deviation of three determinations. *Significantly different from control, p < 0.001. (B) Morphological assessments of CFP and PFP treated HT-29 cells for 48 hours. Nuclei were stained with DAPI and observed under a fluorescence microscope (scale bar, 50 μm). (C) The cell cycle pattern of HT-29 cells after treatment of CFP and PFP at 500 μg/ml for 48 hours. Percentages of cells in the sub-G1, G0/G1, S, and G2/M phases were determined using established Multicycle software. Means at a group without a common letter differ, p < 0.05. CFP = crude fucoidan preparation; DAPI = 4′,6-diamidino-2-phenylindole; MTT = 3-(4,5-dimethylthiazol-2-yl)-2,5-diphenyltetrazolium bromide; PFP = purified fucoidan preparation.