| Literature DB >> 29280942 |
Andreas Douros1, Dimitra Hadjipavlou-Litina2, Konstantinos Nikolaou3, Helen Skaltsa4.
Abstract
The phytochemical analysis of the polar extracts of Cedrus brevifolia needles yielded 20 compounds, namely from the methanol extract we isolated three flavonoids (1-3), one hydrolysable tannin (4), eleven phenolic derivatives (5-15) and one apocarotenoid (16), while from the methanol: water (5:1) extract we isolated four flavonoids (17-20). Chemical structures of all isolated compounds were determined by 1D, 2D-NMR (1 Dimension, 2 Dimensions Nuclear Magnetic Resonance) and UV-Vis (Ultraviolet-Visible) spectroscopy. Furthermore, the antioxidant potentials and the anti-inflammatory activities of both crude extracts and isolates were evaluated through DPPH radical scavenging capability, linoleic acid lipid peroxidation inhibition, and soybean LOX inhibition assays. This is the first report on the chemical profile of C. brevifolia needles. Catechin was the main compound derived from the methanol extract. According to our results, 4-O-β-d-glucopyranyl trans-p-coumaric acid and taxifolin were the most active ingredients.Entities:
Keywords: C. brevifolia; apocarotenoids; bioactivity, antioxidant; catechin; flavonoids; reactive oxygen species; reducing power; simple phenols; total antioxidant capacity
Year: 2017 PMID: 29280942 PMCID: PMC5874590 DOI: 10.3390/plants7010001
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Plants (Basel) ISSN: 2223-7747
Figure 1Structures of isolated compounds from C. brevifolia needles.
Figure 2Reducing ability (RA %) at 0.1 mM. Interaction with DPPH.
Figure 3% Inhibition of soybean lipoxygenase (LOX) at 0.1 mM.
Figure 4Percent inhibition of lipid peroxidation induced by AAPH at 0.1 mM.
In vitro reducing ability (RA %) in DPPH assay, soybean lipoxygenase inhibition (% LOX inhbt) and anti-lipid peroxidation activity (A-LP %).
| Compound | RA # % ± SD, DPPH, (20 min) | RA # % ± SD, DPPH, (60 min) | % LOX ± SD Inhbt @ (0.1 mM) | A-LP % ± SD @ (0.1 mM) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 84 ± 1.8 * | 100 ± 2.1 ** | no | 61 ± 0.6 ** | |
| 86 ± 2.2 ** | 100 ± 3.1 ** | no | 13 ± 0.3 * | |
| 5 ± 0.1 * | no | 29 ± 1.1 ** | 9 ± 0.1 * | |
| 8 ± 0.3 ** | no | no | 9 ± 0.1 * | |
| 2 ± 0.0 * | no | no | no | |
| 9.8 ± 0.4 * | no | no | 7 ± 0.1 * | |
| 41 ± 1.0 ** | 42 ± 1.3 ** | no | 31 ± 0.7 * | |
| 24 ± 0.8 ** | no | 8.5 ± 0.1 ** | 18 ± 0.6 ** | |
| no | no | no | 6 ± 0.1 * | |
| no | no | no | 16 ± 0.1 * | |
| 76 ± 1.1 ** | 87 ± 1.9 ** | 18 ± 0.6 ** | 53 ± 1.2 ** | |
| 95 ± 3.2 ** | 100 ± 2.1 ** | 100 ± 2.5 ** | 100 ± 1.4 ** | |
| no | no | no | 25 ± 1.0 * | |
| 7 ± 0.1 * | 6 ± 0.0 * | 25±1.2 ** | 45 ± 0.9 ** | |
| nt # | nt # | 46 ± 1.0 ** | nt # | |
| nt # | nt # | no | no | |
| no | no | 8 ± 0.3 * | no | |
| 2 ± 0.0 * | 2 ± 0.0 * | no | no | |
| 94 ± 1.9 ** | 100 ± 2.5 ** | 43 ± 0.4 * | 57 ± 1.0 ** | |
| 87 ± 2.1 ** | 8 ± 1.8 ** | 52 ± 0.7 ** | no | |
| 87 ± 1.1** | 93 ± 1.8 ** | 91 ± 2.3 ** | ||
| 88 ± 0.9 ** |
# Final concentration 0.1mM; no: no activity under the experimental conditions; * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01; nt #: not tested (The amount of the compounds was very small for the experiments to be performed. Thus, we decided for these compounds to test only their enzyme inhibitory activity for the sake of comparison); significant differences are relative to the solvent control.