| Literature DB >> 29143793 |
Bédis Amri1, Emanuela Martino2,3, Francesca Vitulo4, Federica Corana5, Leila Bettaieb-Ben Kaâb6, Marta Rui7, Daniela Rossi8, Michela Mori9, Silvia Rossi10,11, Simona Collina12,13.
Abstract
Several factors contribute in wound generation, e.g., accidental traumas or surgery, and in certain cases, this dermal injury may have a devastating outcome. When skin damage occurs, the human body puts in place a sophisticated choreography, which involves numerous repairing processes to restore physiological conditions. Nevertheless, natural healing mechanisms are ineffective towards chronic or non-healing wounds and thus, therapeutic strategies may represent the only beneficial alternative to counteract these tissue insults. Over the years, numerous studies showed the great potential of plants in promoting wound healing, by virtue of their high contents in antioxidant species. These compounds trigger a molecular cascade that collimate into the promotion of reparative processes. In this article, we report on the potential effect on wound healing of Marrubium vulgare L., a medicinal plant well known for several pharmaceutical activities. To this aim, the methanolic extract was prepared and subjected to a phytochemical investigation, quantifying the amount of marrubiin via NMR and drawing the phytochemical fingerprint via high performance liquid chromatography-ultra violet/photodiode-array detection-electrospray/mass (HPLC-UV/PAD-ESI/MS) analysis. Lastly, the antioxidant properties and wound healing potential have been evaluated.Entities:
Keywords: HPLC-UV/PAD MS analysis; Marrubium vulgare L. leave extract; Wound healing; antioxidant properties; q-NMR
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2017 PMID: 29143793 PMCID: PMC6150401 DOI: 10.3390/molecules22111851
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Molecules ISSN: 1420-3049 Impact factor: 4.411
Figure 1Marrubiin structure.
1H and 13C assignment of marrubiin.
| 1H | δ (ppm) | 13C | δ (ppm) |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1.82 | 28.32 | ||
| 1.31 | 17.78 | ||
| 1.72 | 28.09 | ||
| 1.55 | 44.02 | ||
| 1.44 | 44.79 | ||
| 2.05 | 77.53 | ||
| 2.31 | 31.03 | ||
| 4.84 ddd | 31.72 | ||
| 1.77 | 75.52 | ||
| 2.13 | 39.63 | ||
| 2.13 | 35.50 | ||
| 1.77 | 20.65 | ||
| 1.83 | 125.56 | ||
| 2.52 | 110.42 | ||
| 2.52 | 142.69 | ||
| 6.31 dd | 138.29 | ||
| 7.38 t | 15.58 | ||
| 7.27 ddt | 21.93 | ||
| 0.97 s | 185.98 | ||
| 1.29 s | 21.93 | ||
| 1.03 s |
Figure 2Superimposition between (1) Ethyl-4(dimethylamino) benzoate and (2) Marrubium vulgare hydroalcoholic leave extract (HA-LE).
Figure 31H spectrum superimposition of (1) Marrubium vulgare HA-LE and (2) marrubiin reference standard.
Figure 4HPLC-UV chromatograms of Marrubium vulgare HA-LE. Detection UV at 220 nm (A), 254 nm (B) and 280 nm (C).
Figure 5HPLC-UV chromatograms of Marrubium vulgare HA-LE. Detection UV at 254 nm (A); reconstructed ion chromatograms (RIC) positive ions (B); RIC negative ions (C).
Results obtained from ESI/MS/MS experiments.
| Retention Time (min) | Negative Ions | Fragment Ions | Positive Ions | MW | Fragment Ions | Structure | Compound Name |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 5.58 | 887.27 [M − H]− | 725.16 [M − H-162]− | 906.02 [M + NH4]+ | 888 | 889.12 [M + NH4-NH3]+ | Marruboside | |
| 5.79 | 755 [M − H]− | 593.18 [M − H-162]− | 773 [M + NH4]+ | 756 | 756.50 [M + NH4-NH3]+ | Forsythoside B | |
| 6.17 | 755 [M − H]− | 593.18 [M − H-162]− | 773 [M + NH4]+ | 756 | 756.50 [M + NH4-NH3]+ | Samioside | |
| 6.36 | 623.18 [M − H]− | 461.16 [M − H-162-132]− | 641.89 [M + NH4]+ | 624 | 624.71 [M + NH4-NH3]+ | Verbascoside | |
| 13.07 | ND | ND | 336.66 [M + H]+ | 336 | 319.14 [M + H-H2O]+ | Deacetylvitexilactone | |
| 14.49 | ND | ND | 665.24 [2M + H]+ 1016.8 [6M + H + K]+ | 332 | ND | Marrubiin |
Figure 6From top to bottom RIC of Marrubium vulgare HA-LE, RIC of marrubiin standard solution, ESI-MS spectrum of peak at tR 14.49 in Marrubium vulgare HA-LE, ESI-MS spectrum of marrubiin standard.
Figure 7Cells viability percentage (%) of different dilutions of Marrubium vulgare HA-LE (means ± s.d.; n = 8); Anova one way (p < 0.5): a vs. b/e/g; b vs. c/d/f/e/g; c vs. g; d vs. g; e vs. f/g; f vs. g. Dilution: 1 500 µg/mL; 2 250 µg/mL; 3 125 µg/mL; 4 50 µg/mL; 5 5 µg/mL.
Figure 8Photographs of fibroblasts grown in the gap after contact for different times with: (a) reference medium; (b) Marrubium vulgare HA-LE (5 µg/mL); (c) marrubiin (5 µg/mL); (d) Marrubium vulgare HA-LE (5 µg/mL) enriched with marubbin (5 µg/mL).