| Literature DB >> 29783623 |
Libo Wang1, Long Cheng2, Fangcheng Liu3, Tengfei Li4, Zeyuan Yu5, Yaqin Xu6, Yu Yang7.
Abstract
In the present study, ultrasound-assisted extraction (UAE) of crude polysaccharides (PSP) from pumpkin seeds was optimized by response surface method (RSM). The polysaccharide yield (2.29 ± 0.14%), which agreed closely with the theoretical predicted value 2.40%, was obtained under the optimal extraction conditions: extraction time 24 min, extraction temperature 50 °C, ultrasonic power 347 W, and liquid to solid ratio 23 mL/g. After further purification by two-step column chromatography, a novel polysaccharide (PSP-1) was isolated from pumpkin seeds. PSP-1 was composed of mannose, glucose, and galactose in a molar ratio of 1.00:4.26:5.78 with molecular weight of 3728 g/mol. 1D and 2D NMR spectroscopy analysis revealed that the backbone of PSP-1 was mainly formed by β→6)-β-d-Galp-(1→, →6)-α-d-Glcp-(1→, and →3,6)-β-d-Manp-(1→ with branching at O-3 and O-6 of →3,6)-β-d-Manp-(1→. Branch linkages were composed of α-d-Glcp-(1→ and →4)-α-d-Galp-(1→.Entities:
Keywords: polysaccharides; pumpkin seeds; response surface method; structural characterization; ultrasound-assisted extraction
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2018 PMID: 29783623 PMCID: PMC6099798 DOI: 10.3390/molecules23051207
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Molecules ISSN: 1420-3049 Impact factor: 4.411
Figure 1Effects of different time (A); temperature (B); power (C); and liquid to solid ratios (D) on the yield of polysaccharides (PSP).
BBD and the results (means of triplicate tests) for the yield of PSP.
| Number | Yield of PSP (%) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | −1 | 2.13 |
| 2 | 1 | 0 | 0 | −1 | 2.14 |
| 3 | 0 | 0 | −1 | 1 | 2.01 |
| 4 | 1 | −1 | 0 | 0 | 2.04 |
| 5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2.34 |
| 6 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2.35 |
| 7 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1.86 |
| 8 | 0 | −1 | 0 | −1 | 2.28 |
| 9 | −1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 2.14 |
| 10 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2.41 |
| 11 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1.98 |
| 12 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1.88 |
| 13 | 0 | 0 | −1 | −1 | 2.06 |
| 14 | 1 | 0 | −1 | 0 | 1.95 |
| 15 | 0 | −1 | −1 | 0 | 1.94 |
| 16 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1.78 |
| 17 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 2.07 |
| 18 | 0 | −1 | 0 | 1 | 2.10 |
| 19 | −1 | 0 | −1 | 0 | 2.11 |
| 20 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2.37 |
| 21 | −1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 2.08 |
| 22 | 0 | 1 | −1 | 0 | 2.12 |
| 23 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2.42 |
| 24 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1.91 |
| 25 | 0 | 0 | 1 | −1 | 1.99 |
| 26 | −1 | −1 | 0 | 0 | 2.07 |
| 27 | 0 | −1 | 1 | 0 | 2.06 |
| 28 | −1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 2.16 |
| 29 | −1 | 0 | 0 | −1 | 2.31 |
ANOVA for the regression model.
| Source | Sum of Squares | DF | Mean Square | Significant | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Model | 0.76 | 14 | 0.054 | 14.24 | <0.0001 | ** |
|
| 0.065 | 1 | 0.065 | 16.96 | 0.0010 | ** |
|
| 0.028 | 1 | 0.028 | 7.37 | 0.0168 | * |
|
| 0.013 | 1 | 0.013 | 3.33 | 0.0893 | |
|
| 0.044 | 1 | 0.044 | 11.67 | 0.0042 | ** |
|
| 0.013 | 1 | 0.013 | 3.48 | 0.0833 | |
|
| 2.500 × 10−5 | 1 | 2.500 × 10−5 | 6.57 × 10−3 | 0.9365 | |
|
| 1.600 × 10−3 | 1 | 0.0016 | 0.42 | 0.5271 | |
|
| 0.053 | 1 | 0.053 | 13.91 | 0.0022 | ** |
|
| 2.025 × 10−3 | 1 | 2.025 × 10−3 | 0.53 | 0.4777 | |
|
| 4.000 × 10−4 | 1 | 4.000 × 10−3 | 0.11 | 0.7505 | |
|
| 0.11 | 1 | 0.11 | 28.93 | <0.0001 | ** |
|
| 0.23 | 1 | 0.23 | 60.11 | <0.0001 | ** |
|
| 0.37 | 1 | 0.37 | 97.40 | <0.0001 | ** |
|
| 0.067 | 1 | 0.067 | 17.57 | 0.0009 | ** |
| Residual | 0.053 | 14 | 3.804 × 10−3 | |||
| Lack of fit | 0.048 | 10 | 4.818 × 10−3 | 3.79 | 0.1053 | |
| Pure error | 5.080 × 10−3 | 4 | 1.270 × 10−3 | |||
| Cor total | 0.81 | 28 | ||||
| CV% | 2.93% | |||||
|
| 0.9344 | |||||
| adj- | 0.8688 |
Notes: ** p < 0.01 extremely significant; * p < 0.05 significant.
Figure 2Diagnostic plots for the adequacy of proposed model. ((A) Plot of predicted and actual values; (B) the normal % probability plot; (C) plot of internally studentized residuals versus actual runs).
Figure 3Tri-dimensional response surface plots showing the interactions between variables on PSP extraction. ((A) Extraction temperature and extraction time; (B) ultrasonic power and extraction time; (C) liquid to solid ratio and extraction time; (D) ultrasonic power and extraction temperature).
1H and 13C NMR chemical shifts of the main residues from PSP-1 in D2O.
| Sugar Residues | Chemical Shifts, δ 1H/13C (ppm) | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | |
| A →4)-α- | 5.35 | 3.65 | 3.36 | 3.84 | 3.41 | 3.61 |
| 92.17 | 75.13 | 69.65 | 81.31 | 68.02 | 62.63 | |
| B →6)-α- | 5.16 | 3.99 | 3.90 | 3.52 | 4.06 | 3.62 |
| 101.50 | 72.79 | 76.51 | 71.38 | 76.35 | 65.94 | |
| C α- | 4.93 | 3.99 | 3.90 | 3.95 | 3.82 | 3.61 |
| 98.08 | 72.99 | 76.51 | 69.26 | 72.96 | 62.63 | |
| D →3,6)-β- | 4.59 | 3.81 | 3.50 | 3.54 | 3.60 | 3.43 |
| 95.87 | 66.29 | 72.70 | 72.20 | 71.66 | 75.82 | |
| E →6)-β- | 4.57 | 3.44 | 3.83 | 4.02 | 3.96 | 3.73 |
| 103.64 | 68.02 | 73.23 | 70.72 | 74.22 | 69.66 | |
Figure 4Elution profiles and characterization of polysaccharides. ((A) PSP on DEAE cellulose DE-23 column; (B) Further elution of PSP on Sephadex G-25; (C) HPLC elution curve of PSP-1; (D) GC profile of PSP-1 with acid hydrolysis and acetylation; (E) FT-IR spectrum of PSP-1).
Figure 5NMR spectra of PSP-1. (A) 1H NMR; (B) 13C NMR; (C) 1H–1H COSY; (D) 1H–13C HSQC; and (E) 1H–13C HMBC.
Figure 6The backbone of PSP-1.
Figure 7SEM images.
Variable levels used in RSM.
| Variables | Coded Variable Levels | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| −1 | 0 | +1 | |
| 20 | 25 | 30 | |
| 40 | 50 | 60 | |
| 300 | 350 | 400 | |
| 20:1 | 25:1 | 30:1 | |