| Literature DB >> 29940844 |
Muhammad Zahoor1, Sadaf Shafiq2, Habib Ullah2, Abdul Sadiq2, Farhat Ullah2.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In this study Aesculus indica fruit was subjected to isolation of phytochemicals. Two antioxidants quercetin and Mandelic acid were isolated in pure state. The free radical scavenging and acetyl choline esterase inhibitory potential of the crude extract and sub fractions were also determined.Entities:
Keywords: Aesculus indica; HPLC; Mandelic acid; Quercetin
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2018 PMID: 29940844 PMCID: PMC6019818 DOI: 10.1186/s12858-018-0095-7
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Biochem ISSN: 1471-2091 Impact factor: 4.059
Percent DPPH and ABTS radical scavenging potential of crude extract and their sub fractions of Aesculus indica fruit using ascorbic acid as standard
| Samples | Concentrations (μg/mL) | ABTS percent inhibition (mean ± S.E.M) | ABTS IC50 (μg/mL) | DPPH percent inhibition (mean ± S.E.M) | DPPH IC50 (μg/mL) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Crude | 1000 | 85.58 ± 1.31 ns | 90.28 ± 0.50 ns | ||
| 500 | 72.26 ± 1.18*** | 79.21 ± 0.48*** | |||
| 250 | 68.59 ± 1.00*** | 105 | 70.01 ± 0.80*** | 60 | |
| 125 | 54.93 ± 1.49*** | 58.23 ± 1.13*** | |||
| 62.5 | 42.66 ± 2.25*** | 50.45 ± 0.52*** | |||
| Chloroform | 1000 | 83.39 ± 0.46* | 84.27 ± 0.54*** | ||
| 500 | 72.58 ± 0.54*** | 73.66 ± 1.79*** | |||
| 250 | 63.30 ± 0.67*** | 65 | 64.56 ± 2.23*** | 50 | |
| 125 | 56.25. ± 2.14*** | 59.24 ± 0.69*** | |||
| 62.5 | 51.83 ± 0.84*** | 47.36 ± 0.76*** | |||
| Ethyl acetate | 1000 | 78.31 ± 0.53*** | 79.04 ± 0.72*** | ||
| 500 | 66.99 ± 0.79*** | 183 | 68.77 ± 1.61*** | ||
| 250 | 56.29 ± 0.75*** | 57.33 ± 0.91*** | 155 | ||
| 125 | 44.93 ± 0.88*** | 46.70 ± 1.22*** | |||
| 62.5 | 39.49 ± 0.63*** | 40.73 ± 0.37*** | |||
| Aqueous | 1000 | 70.50 ± 0.74*** | 73.82 ± 1.20*** | ||
| 500 | 60.10 ± 2.29*** | 325 | 62.62 ± 1.16*** | ||
| 250 | 44.84 ± 2.67*** | 49.47. ± 0.58*** | 250 | ||
| 125 | 35.76 ± 0.52*** | 36.56 ± 1.25*** | |||
| 62.5 | 20.66 ± 3.08*** | 26.16 ± 2.36*** | |||
| n-hexane | 1000 | 58.13 ± 0.49*** | 57.03 ± 2.00*** | ||
| 500 | 43.17 ± 0.66*** | 44.44 ± 2.00*** | |||
| 250 | 31.01 ± 2.34*** | 760 | 35.22 ± 1.06*** | 725 | |
| 125 | 22.02 ± 1.11*** | 24.29 ± 0.54*** | |||
| 62.5 | 14.19 ± 0.55*** | 15.19 ± 0.50*** | |||
| Ascorbic acid | 1000 | 89.94 ± 0.86 | 94.35 ± 0.7 | ||
| 500 | 86.29 ± 0.79 | 87.90 ± 0.96 | |||
| 250 | 77.32 ± 2.23 | 23 | 81.78 ± 2.16 | 15 | |
| 125 | 69.97 ± 3.26 | 73.61 ± 0.85 | |||
| 62.5 | 61.28 ± 1.31 | 63.31 ± 0.76 |
Ascorbic acid was used as a positive control. Data is represented as mean ± S.E.M; (n = 3). Values significantly different as compared to positive control,* P < 0.05; *** P < 0.001, ns: P > 0.05
Percent AChE and BChE inhibition potentials of Aesculus indica fruit Crude extract and their sub fractions
| Sample | Concentration (μg/ml) | Percent AChE (mean ± SEM) | AChE IC50 (μg/ml) | Percent BChE (mean ± SEM) | BChE IC50 (μg/ml) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Crude | 1000 | 84.32 ± 1.22*** | 80.42 ± 0.62*** | ||
| 500 | 71.23 ± 1.40*** | 145 | 68.48 ± 3.13*** | 200 | |
| 250 | 58.07 ± 1.20*** | 52.54 ± 1.26*** | |||
| 125 | 49.37 ± 0.02*** | 45.70 ± 0.52*** | |||
| Chloroform | 1000 | 86.21 ± 0.49*** | 82.56 ± 0.70*** | ||
| 500 | 74.24 ± 0.81*** | 85 | 70.62 ± 0.80*** | 160 | |
| 250 | 64.22 ± 0.67*** | 58.011 ± 2.68*** | |||
| 125 | 53.82 ± 0.41*** | 48.05 ± 0.99*** | |||
| Ethyl acetate | 1000 | 75.23 ± 0.55*** | 190 | 69.12 ± 2.60*** | 210 |
| 500 | 63.91 ± 0.84*** | 60.63 ± 1.77*** | |||
| 250 | 54.53 ± 0.81*** | 51.06 ± 0.37** | |||
| 125 | 40.61 ± 2.30*** | 37.80 ± 0.60*** | |||
| Aqueous | 1000 | 71.46 ± 0.71*** | 68.87 ± 1.90*** | ||
| 500 | 58.10 ± 1.36*** | 350 | 54.18 ± 2.80*** | 400 | |
| 250 | 45.14 ± 0.67*** | 38.60 ± 3.46*** | |||
| 125 | 32.71 ± 0.76*** | 26.11 ± 0.42*** | |||
| n-Hexane | 1000 | 54.15 ± 0.52*** | 52.76 ± 1.64*** | ||
| 500 | 44.28 ± 2.21*** | 760 | 40.56 ± 0.88*** | 870 | |
| 250 | 34.04 ± 0.91*** | 28.49 ± 2.24*** | |||
| 125 | 25.23 ± 0.88*** | 21.39 ± 0.69*** | |||
| Galanthamine | 1000 | 95.32 ± 0.88 | 92.50 ± 0.71 | ||
| 500 | 84.31 ± 0.55 | 48 | 80.66 ± 1.20 | 66 | |
| 250 | 72.31 ± 0.60 | 72.72 ± 0.72 | |||
| 125 | 64.38 ± 0.54 | 60.83 ± 0.69 |
Galanthamine was used as a positive control. Data is represented as (mean ± S.E.M) n = 3. Values significantly different as compared to positive control, ** P < 0.01; *** P < 0.001
Total phenolic and total flavonoid contents in Aesculus indica fruit’s crude extract and Their sub fractions
| Samples | Total phenolic (mg GAE/g) of dry sample) | Total Flavonoid (mg QE/g of dry sample) |
|---|---|---|
| Crude | 78.34 ± 0.96 | 85.30 ± 1.20 |
| Chloroform | 65.45 ± 1.29 | 77.50 ± 1.12 |
| Ethyl acetate | 44.16 ± 1.05 | 53.80 ± 1.07 |
| n-hexane | 37.85 ± 1.44 | 26.30 ± 1.35 |
| aqueous | 50.23 ± 2.431 | 37.78 ± 1.25 |
Fig. 1Linear correlations for total Phenolics Vs AChE (c), BChE (d), DPPH (a), and ABTS (b) and for total Flavonoid content Vs AChE (g), BChE (h), DPPH (e), and ABTS (f) activities
Fig. 2HPLC chromatogram of standards
Fig. 3HPLC Chromatogram of crude extract
Concentration of antioxidants in crude extract
| S. No | Peak | Retention time (min) | Possible identity | Quantity (mg/100 g) | Identification Reference |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 10.062 | Quercetin | 1.22 | Standard |
| 2 | 6 | 30.597 | Mandelic acid | 4.52 | Standard |
| 3 | 7 | 35.490 | Phloroglucinol | 1.53 | Standard |
| 4 | 8 | 36.211 | Hydroxy benzoic acid | 0.24 | Standard |
Fig. 4HPLC Chromatogram of Ethyl Acetate Fraction
Concentration of antioxidants in ethyl acetate fraction
| S. No | Peak | Retention time (min) | Possible identity | Quantity (mg/100 g) | Identification reference |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 10.062 | Quercetin | 6.74 | Standard |
| 2 | 6 | 30.597 | Mandelic acid | 5.42 | Standard |
| 3 | 8 | 35.490 | Hydroxy benzoic acid | 0.965 | Standard |
Fig. 5HPLC Chromatogram of Chloroform Fraction
Concentration of antioxidants in chloroform fraction
| S. No | Peak | Retention time (min) | Possible identity | Quantity (mg/100 g) | Identification reference |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 1 | 6.005 | Chlorogenic acid | 1.520 | Standard |
| 2 | 4 | 22.623 | Rutin | 3.67 | Standard |
Fig. 6HPLC Chromatogram of n-hexane Fraction
Concentration of antioxidants in n-hexane fraction
| S. No | Peak | Retention time (min) | Possible identity | Quantity (mg/100 g) | Identification reference |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 10.062 | Quercetin | 0.0406 | Standard |
Fig. 7HPLC Chromatogram of Aqueous Fraction
Concentration of antioxidants in aqueous fraction
| S. No | Peak | Retention time (min) | Possible identity | Quantity (mg/100 g) | Identification reference |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 1 | 6.005 | Chlorogenic acid | 1.617 | Standard |
| 2 | 2 | 10.062 | Quercetin | 3.92 | Standard |
| 3 | 4 | 22.623 | Rutin | 0.014 | Standard |
| 4 | 6 | 30.597 | Mandelic acid | 2.68 | Standard |
| 5 | 8 | 36.211 | Hydroxy benzoic acid | 3.19 | Standard |
Fig. 8Structural formulae and HPLC chromatograms of isolated compounds (a = quercetin, b = HPLC chromatogram of quercetin, c = structure of mandelic acid d = HPLC chromatogram of mandelic acid)
Percent ABTS and DPPH Radical Scavenging Potential of quercetin and Mandelic acidisolated from Aesculus Indica Fruit
| Samples | Concentrations (μg/mL) | DPPHpercent inhibition (mean ± S.E.M) | DPPHIC50 (μg/mL) | ABTS percent inhibition (mean ± S.E.M) | ABTSIC50 (μg/mL) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Quercetin | 1000 | 81.91 ± 0.70*** | 79.80 ± 2.51** | ||
| 500 | 70.75 ± 1.72*** | 66.08 ± 0.40*** | |||
| 250 | 58.25 ± 1.30*** | 78 | 55.01 ± 1.60*** | 180 | |
| 125 | 48.44 ± 0.62*** | 43.30 ± 3.13*** | |||
| 62.5 | 35.67 ± 0.59*** | 32.46 ± 0.50*** | |||
| Mandelic acid | 1000 | 78.54 ± 2.00*** | 72.70 ± 1.54*** | ||
| 500 | 67.16 ± 0.56*** | 62.60 ± 1.72*** | |||
| 250 | 57.71 ± 0.52*** | 120 | 50.66 ± 2.20*** | 240 | |
| 125 | 45.50 ± 2.56*** | 39.84 ± 0.99*** | |||
| 62.5 | 30.57 ± 1.23*** | 27.15 ± 0.76*** | |||
| Ascorbic acid | 1000 | 94.35 ± 0.73 | 89.94 ± 0.86 | ||
| 500 | 85.92 ± 0.96 | 80.29 ± 0.79 | |||
| 250 | 80.74 ± 1.19 | 38 | 70.22 ± 2.23 | 58 | |
| 125 | 67.61 ± 0.80 | 62.97 ± 2.26 | |||
| 62.5 | 56.31 ± 0.76 | 50.88 ± 0.30 |
Ascorbic acid was used as a positive control. Data is represented as mean ± S.E.M; (n = 3). Values significantly different as compared to positive control, ** P < 0.01; *** P < 0.001