| Literature DB >> 29932435 |
Andrea F Afonso1,2,3, Olívia R Pereira4,5, Mónica Válega6, Artur M S Silva7, Susana M Cardoso8.
Abstract
Thymus plants are marketed for diverse usages because of their pleasant odor, as well as high nutritional value and wealth of health-promoting phytochemicals. In this study, Thymuszygis, Thymuspulegioides, and Thymusfragrantissimus grown under organic cultivation regime were characterized regarding nutrients and phenolic compounds. In addition, the antioxidant and antibacterial properties of these species were screened. The plants were particularly notable for their high K/Na ratio, polyunsaturated fatty acids content and low omega-6/omega-3 fatty acids ratios, which are valuable features of a healthy diet. Caffeic acid and/or its derivatives, mainly rosmarinic acid and caffeoyl rosmarinic acid, represented the majority of the phenolic constituents of these plants, although they were less representative in T. pulegioides, which in turn was the richest in flavones. The latter species also exhibited the highest antioxidant capacity (DPPH● EC50 of 9.50 ± 1.98 μg/mL and reducing power EC50 of 30.73 ± 1.48 μg/mL), while T. zygis was the most active towards Gram-positive and Gram-negative bacteria. Overall, the results suggest that the three thyme plants grown in organic farming are endowed with valuable metabolites that give them high commercial value for applications in different industries.Entities:
Keywords: Thymus; antibacterial activity; antioxidant; nutrients; phenolic compounds; thyme
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2018 PMID: 29932435 PMCID: PMC6099726 DOI: 10.3390/molecules23071514
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Molecules ISSN: 1420-3049 Impact factor: 4.411
Nutritional value of the three Thymus plant species.
| Total Content | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Total Carbohydrates (g/100 g dw) | 86.88 ± 0.51 | 81.22 ± 0.90 | 77.56 ± 0.16 |
| Protein (g/100 g dw) | 3.59 ± 0.13 | 8.28 ± 0.81 | 10.49 ± 0.13 |
| Ash (g/100 g dw) | 5.02 ± 0.25 | 8.24 ± 0.06 | 7.66 ± 0.22 |
| Minerals (mg/100 g dw) * | |||
| Na | 7.6 | 7.4 | 9.0 |
| K | 1229.3 | 2185.6 | 1719.5 |
| Ca | 566.0 | 1039.4 | 865.6 |
| Mg | 119.8 | 148.3 | 241.8 |
| Fe | 4.4 | 1.9 | 7.8 |
| Mn | 9.8 | 15.7 | 6.9 |
| Cu | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.3 |
| Zn | 2.1 | 1.7 | 2.7 |
| Fat (g/100 g dw) | 4.52 ± 0.12 | 2.27 ± 0.03 | 4.30 ±0.19 |
| Fatty acids (relative %) * | |||
| C12: 0 | 0.48 | 0.5 | 0.7 |
| C14: 0 | 1.2 | 1.1 | 1.4 |
| C16: 0 | 18.8 | 23.6 | 23.3 |
| C18: 0 | 3.2 | 3.3 | 2.8 |
| C18: 1n9 | 16.9 | 19.0 | 8.6 |
| C18: 2n6c | 32.6 | 20.4 | 19.3 |
| C18: 3n3 | 15.6 | 27.6 | 36.2 |
| C20: 0 | 2.8 | 1.8 | 2.6 |
| C22: 1n9 | 8.3 | 2.7 | 5.0 |
| SFA | 26.5 | 30.2 | 30.9 |
| MUFA | 25.3 | 20.9 | 13.8 |
| PUFA | 48.3 | 48.9 | 55.3 |
| PUFA/SFA | 1.8 | 1.6 | 1.8 |
| 2.1 | 0.8 | 0.5 | |
| Caloric content (kcal/100 g dw) | 402.50 ± 0.42 | 378.39 ± 0.08 | 390.86 ± 1.83 |
Lauric acid (C12: 0); Myristic acid (C14: 0); Palmitic acid (C16: 0); Stearic acid (C18: 0); Oleic acid (C18: 1n9c + t); Linoleic acid (C18: 2n6c); α-Linolenic acid (C18: 3n3); Arachidic acid (C20: 0); Erucic acid (C22: 1n9); * S.E.M. < 10%.
Figure 1Chemical structures of fatty acids and phenolic compounds identified in Thymus zygis, Thymus pulegioides, and Thymus fragrantissimus. Numbers in the figure correspond to the UHPLC-DAD-ESI-MSn peaks of Figure 2.
Yield and total phenolic compounds of aqueous extracts of T. zygis, T. pulegioides and T. fragrantissimus.
| Yield of Extraction (%) | 12.39 ± 0.60 a | 24.86 ± 1.71 b | 15.67 ± 4.56 a |
| Total phenolic compounds | 287.86 ± 18.50 a | 390.94 ± 2.48 b | 287.08 ± 3.76 a |
Mean values ± S.D.; Statistical analysis was performed by one-way ANOVA, followed by Tukey’s test. In each line different letters (a,b) mean significant differences (p < 0.05).
Figure 2Chromatographic representation of T. zygis (a), T. pulegioides (b), and T. fragrantissimus (c) aqueous extracts at 280 nm. Numbers in the figure correspond to the UHPLC-DAD-ESI-MSn peaks described in Table 3.
Identification and quantification of the compounds in the aqueous extracts of T. zygis, T. pulegioides and T. fragrantissimus by UHPLC-DAD-ESI-MSn.
| NP | RT (min) | λmax | Compound | [M − H]− | MS2 Main Fragments ESI-MSn ( | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 1.3 | 298 | Quinic Ac | 191 | 111, 173, 93, 85 | D | D | D |
| 2 | 1.6 | 277 | Syringic Ac hex | 359 | 197, 179, 135 | D | D | D |
| 3 | 1.8 | 281 | Danshensu | 197 | 179, 73 | D | D | D |
| 4 | 1.9 | 283 | Eriod di- | 611 | 449, 287 | - | D | - |
| 5 | 2.4 | 271, 326 | Api di- | 593 | 473, 503, 575, 353 | 1.60 ± 0.32 a | - | 2.69 ± 0.50 a |
| 6 | 3.3 | 283 | Eriod- | 449 | 287 | - | 9.43 ± 0.21 | - |
| 7 | 289, 321 | CaffAc | 179 | 135 | 8.46 ± 0.02 a | 2.54 ± 0.14 b | ||
| 8 | 3.4 | 285 | SA F der | 375 | 313, 179 | D | - | D |
| 9 | 3.7 | 283 | Eriod- | 449 | 287 | 6.02 ± 0.94 a | 9.90 ± 0.19 b | 2.71 ± 0.03 c |
| 10 | 4.1 | 281, 342 | Querc glcA | 477 | 301 | - | 3.28 ± 0.03 a | 1.13 ± 0.25 b |
| 11 | 4.2 | 282, 342 | Querc- | 463 | 301 | 2.97 ± 0.90 a | - | 1.48 ± 0.02 b |
| 12 | 4.6 | 341 | Lut- | 447 | 357, 285, 327 | 4.86 ± 0.03 a | 8.27 ± 0.13 b | 2.00 ± 0.02 c |
| 13 | 5.6 | 281, 342 | SA I/H | 537 | 339, 493 | - | D | - |
| 14 | 6.2 | 258, 268, 342 | Lut- | 593 | 285, 447 | 1.19 ± 0.01 a | - | 0.36 ± 0.02 b |
| 15 | 6.2 | 283 | Nar- | 433 | 271, 313 | - | 1.90 ± 0.97 | - |
| 16 | 6.8 | 282, 333 | Scut- | 461 | 285, 175, 284, 257 | D | D | - |
| 17 | 7.0 | 254, 265, 345 | Lut- | 461 | 285 | 7.57 ± 0.05 a | 26.14 ± 0.78 b | 16.86 ± 0.21 c |
| 18 | 7.1 | 283 | Eriod- | 463 | 287, 175, 151 | - | D | D |
| 19 | 7.3 | 282, 336 | Querc- | 433 | 301 | D | - | - |
| 20 | 7.6 | 288, 321 | RA hex | 521 | 359 | D | - | D |
| 21 | 254, 267, 344 | Lut- | 461 | 285 | - | D | - | |
| 22 | 8.5 | 240, 339 | Chrys- | 461 | 299, 285 | 0.78 ± 0.01 a | 12.00 ± 0.15 b | |
| 23 | 281 | CaffAc der | 553 | 465, 311, 535, 357 | - | - | D | |
| 24 | 8.7 | 283 | Sagerinic Ac | 719 | 359, 539, 521, 341 | D | D | D |
| 25 | 9.3 | 267, 334 | Api- | 445 | 269, 175 | D | 9.20 ± 0.21 a | 1.76 ± 0.10 b |
| 26 | 9.6 | 290, 328 | RA | 359 | 223, 197, 179 | 62.36 ± 2.72 a | 81.65 ± 7.02 b | 81.04 ± 7.93 b |
| 27 | 9.8 | 287, 311 | CaffRA (isom1) | 537 | 493, 515, 357, 335, 519, 153 | 2.79 ± 0.24 a | 5.25 ± 0.19 b | - |
| 28 | 10.1 | 287, 328 | SA B | 717 | 519, 357, 555, 359 | 1.89 ± 0.20 | - | - |
| 29 | 10.7 | 290, 323 | CaffRA (isom2) | 537 | 493, 359, 519, 179 | 19.40 ± 0.76 a | 57.73 ± 1.95 b | 16.21 ± 0.54 c |
| 30 | 12.1 | 288, 322 | CaffRA (isom3) | 537 | 375, 493, 357, 359 | D | D | D |
| 31 | 12.5 | 287, 328 | CaffRA (isom4) | 537 | 439, 519, 357, 197, 493, 323, 331, 313 | - | D | - |
| 32 | 12.8 | 288, 323 | CaffRA (isom5) | 537 | 519, 359, 357, 339, 235, 493, 279, 207 | - | D | - |
| Total | 119.90 ± 3.31 a | 225.79 ± 15.08 b | 126.65 ± 9.73 a | |||||
| Caffeic acid and derivatives | 94.89 ± 1.84 a | 144.63 ± 8.79 b | 101.12 ± 6.75 a | |||||
| Flavones | 16.01 ± 0.27 a | 55.62 ± 1.05 b | 21.67 ± 0.59 c | |||||
| Flavonols | 2.97 ± 0.90 a | 3.28 ± 0.03 a | 2.62 ± 0.25 a | |||||
| Flavanones | 6.02 ± 0.94 a | 19.93 ± 0.46 b | 2.71 ± 0.03 c |
NF-Number of peak represented in Figure 2; D-Detected; T. zig-T. zygis; T. pul-T. pulegioides; T. fragr-T. fragrantissimus; Ac-acid; Api-Apigenin; CaffAc-Caffeic acid; Caff-Caffeoyl; Chrys-Chrysoeriol; Der-Derivative; Eriod-Eriodictyol; Glc-Glucoside; GlcA-Glucuronide; Hex-Hexoside; Lut-Luteolin; Nar-Naringenin; Pent-Pentoside; Querc-Quercetin; RA-Rosmarinic acid; SA-Salvianolic acid; Scut-Scutellarein; Values are expressed as µg/mg extract; In each line different letters (a,b,c) mean significant differences (p < 0.05).
Antioxidant and antibacterial properties of aqueous extracts from T. zygis, T. pulegioides and T. fragrantissimus.
| Standard | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| DPPH● (1) (μg/mL) | 12.65 ± 2.30 a,b | 9.50 ± 1.98 a,b | 12.87 ± 3.79 a | 6.90 ± 0.5 b |
| Reducing Power (2) (μg/mL) | 33.66 ± 1.93 a | 30.73 ± 1.48 a | 32.44 ± 4.27 a | 16.30 ± 1.5 b |
| 1.13/1.13 | 5.75/5.75 | 3.75/3.75 | 0.25/0.25 | |
| 4.50/4.50 | 5.75/11.50 | 7.50/>7.50 | <0.06/<0.06 | |
| 4.50/4.50 | 5.75/11.50 | 7.50/7.50 | 0.50/0.50 | |
| >4.5/>4.5 | >11.50/>11.50 | 7.50/>7.50 | 0.50/0.50 | |
| 4.5/>4.5 | 5.75/11.50 | 7.50/>7.50 | 0.50/1.0 | |
(1) Amount of extract required to reduce 50% of the 60 μM radical 2,2-diphenyl-1-picrylhydrazyl (DPPH●); Ascorbic acid was used as reference compound; (2) Amount of extract able to provide 0.5 of absorbance by reducing 3.5 μM Fe3+ to Fe2+; 2,6-Di-tert-butyl-4-methylphenol was used as reference compound; Mean values ± S.D.; Statistical analysis was performed by one-way ANOVA, followed by Tukey’s test. In each line different letters (a,b) mean significant differences (p < 0.05); (3) Nisin was used as reference compound. Mean values; MIC: minimum inhibitory concentration; MBC: minimum bactericidal concentration.