| Literature DB >> 29130449 |
Hsiao-Ling Chen1, Xiang-Zhen Lan2, Yan-Yi Wu1, Yu-Wen Ou1, Tsung Chi Chen1, Wen-Tzu Wu1.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Most reports have indicated the antioxidant capacity of quinoa seeds. However, the leaves of Quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa Willd.) are usually worthless and little known about their biological activities. In this study, the antioxidant and immunomodulatory potential of the quinoa leaf extracts were explored.Entities:
Year: 2017 PMID: 29130449 PMCID: PMC5682983 DOI: 10.1051/bmdcn/2017070424
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Biomedicine (Taipei) ISSN: 2211-8020
Total phenolic content of crude extracts of the quinoa leaves.
| Sample | Total phenolic content (mg GAE/g extract) |
| WQL | 340.4 ± 26.6a |
| 50% EQL | 413.6 ± 72.6ab |
| 95% EQL | 569.5 ± 69.5b |
WQL = water extract of quinoa leaves; 50% EQL = 50% ethanolic extract of quinoa leaves; 95% EQL = 95% ethanolic extract of quinoa leaves;
GAE = gallic acid equivalent. Mean values followed by different superscripts are significantly different (p < 0.05).
Fig. 1- The DPPH scavenging activity of the crude extracts from quinoa leaves. The data were mean ± SEM from three independent experiments. Different letters showed statistically significant differences (p < 0.05) among three extracts (lower case letters) and among three concentrations (capital letters) as analyzed by one-way ANOVA followed by Duncan’s test. WQL = water extract of quinoa leaves; 50% EQL = 50% ethanolic extract of quinoa leaves; 95% EQL = 95% ethanolic extract of quinoa leaves.
Fig. 2- The iron chelating activity of the crude extracts from quinoa leaves. The data were mean ± SEM from three independent experiments. Different letters showed statistically significant differences (p < 0.05) among three extracts (lower case letters) and among three concentrations (capital letters) as analyzed by one-way ANOVA followed by Duncan’s test. WQL = water extract of quinoa leaves; 50% EQL = 50% ethanolic extract of quinoa leaves; 95% EQL = 95% ethanolic extract of quinoa leaves.
Fig. 3- The cell viability of the crude extracts in the RAW 264.7 cells. The RAW 264.7 cells were cultured in the presence of WQL, 50% EQL, and 95% EQL at indicated concentrations (1, 10 and 100 yuglmt) for 1-h, and then 1 pglml LPS for 24-h. The cell viability was measured via MTT assay. Values are means ± SEM (n = 3). WQL = water extract of quinoa leaves; 50% EQL = 50% ethanolic extract of quinoa leaves; 95% EQL = 95% ethanolic extract of quinoa leaves.
Fig. 4- The effect of the crude extracts on the NO production of the RAW 264.7 cells. After pre-treatment of the cells with different concentrations of the crude extracts (1,10 and 100 pglml) for 1-h, then the 1 pglml LPS was added to the cells for 24-h. Values are means ± SEM (n = 3). Different letters showed statistically significant differences (p < 0.05) among three extracts (lower case letters) and among three concentrations (capital letters) as analyzed by one-way ANOVA followed by Duncan’s test. WQL = water extract of quinoa leaves; 50% EQL = 50% ethanolic extract of quinoa leaves; 95% EQL = 95% ethanolic extract of quinoa leaves.