| Literature DB >> 30057644 |
Mohamed Fahad Alajmi1, Perwez Alam1, Md Tabish Rehman1, Fohad Mabood Husain2, Azmat Ali Khan3, Nasir Ali Siddiqui1, Afzal Hussain1, Mohd Abul Kalam4, Mohammad Khalid Parvez1.
Abstract
Solanaceae is one of the highly diverse plant families of which Solanum is the largest genera (1700 species) containing several pharmacological properties like anticancer and antimicrobial. This motivated us to explore the anticancer (against HepG2, HEK-293, and MCF-7 cells) and antimicrobial (against S. aureus, E. coli, P. aeruginosa, and C. albicans) properties of S. schimperianum, S. villosum, S. coagulans, S. glabratum, S. incanum, and S. nigrum along with rutin estimation by UPLC-PDA method. Of the studied Solanum extracts, S. nigrum exhibited significant cytotoxic property against HepG2 (IC50: 20.4 μg/mL) and MCF-7 (IC50: 30.1 μg/mL); S. coagulans showed toxicity against HepG2 (IC50: 28.4 μg/mL) and HEK-293 cells (IC50: 25.7 μg/mL) compared to 5-Fluorouracil (standard). Compared to these, extracts of S. coagulans and S. glabratum exhibited relatively high antimicrobial potency (MIC: 0.4-1.6 mg/mL). Nonetheless, all Solanum extracts significantly reduced the biofilm against PAO1-strain. Rutin was detected in all extracts with the highest content (53.79 μg/mg) in S. coagulans that supported its strong antimicrobial and anticancer properties. Molecular docking analysis showing strong binding of rutin with human DNA and proteins (DNA Topoisomerase IIα and E. coli DNA gyrase B) supported the anticancer and antimicrobial activities of Solanum species.Entities:
Year: 2018 PMID: 30057644 PMCID: PMC6051100 DOI: 10.1155/2018/6040815
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Evid Based Complement Alternat Med ISSN: 1741-427X Impact factor: 2.629
Figure 1Chemical structure of rutin.
The estimated IC50 (μg/mL) values of ethanolic extracts of different species of genus Solanum.
| Sample code | HepG2 | HEK-293 | MCF-7 |
|---|---|---|---|
| SSEE | 58.3 ± 4.69 | 50.1 ± 4.18 | 42.1± 3.74 |
| SVEE | 69.4 ± 5.87 | 96.3 ± 6.98 | 71.1 ± 5.97 |
| SCEE | 25.7 ± 1.39 | 28.4 ± 1.41 | 45.2 ± 1.95 |
| SGEE | 58.2 ± 3.61 | 67.2 ± 3.79 | 49.3 ± 2.27 |
| SIEE | 43.7 ± 2.06 | 48.4 ± 2.11 | 65.3 ± 4.68 |
| SNEE | 20.4 ± 1.19 | 103 ± 7.98 | 30.1 ± 1.29 |
| 5-Fluorouracil | 3.1 ± 0.09 | 2.5 ± 0.07 | 3.7 ± 0.10 |
S. schimperianum (SSEE), S. villosum (SVEE), S. coagulans (SCEE), S. glabratum (SGEE), S. incanum (SIEE), and S. nigrum (SNEE).
Antimicrobial activities of ethanol extracts of different species of genus Solanum.
| S. No. | Plant extracts | Zone of inhibition (mm) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
| ||
| 1. | SSEE | 19 ± 2.2 | 13 ± 0.9 | 16 ± 0.9 | 21 ± 1.4 |
| 2. | SVEE | 22 ± 0.5 | 15 ± 2.5 | 21 ± 1.1 | 15 ± 1.2 |
| 3. | SCEE | 20 ± 1.7 | 21 ± 0.8 | 17 ± 1.6 | 22 ± 0.9 |
| 4. | SGEE | 14 ± 0.4 | 11 ± 0.3 | 15 ± 1 | 15 ± 0.6 |
| 5. | SIEE | 18 ± 2.5 | 18 ± 1.6 | 12 ± 0.5 | 15 ± 0.8 |
| 6. | SNEE | 11 ± 0.6 | 15 ± 0.2 | 16 ± 0.9 | 13 ± 0.4 |
| 7. | Ampicillin | 21 ± 1.3 | - | - | - |
| 8. | Doxycycline | - | 25 ± 1.6 | 24 ± 1.9 | - |
| 9. | Nystatin | - | - | - | 23 ± 1.4 |
S. schimperianum (SSEE), S. villosum (SVEE), S. coagulans (SCEE), S.glabratum (SGEE), S. incanum (SIEE), and S. nigrum (SNEE).
Minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) of ethanol extracts of different species of genus Solanum against bacterial and fungal strains.
| S. No. | Plant extracts | Minimum inhibitory concentration (mg/mL) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
| ||
| 1. | SSEE | > 3.2 | > 3.2 | > 3.2 | > 3.2 |
| 2. | SVEE | 3.2 | > 3.2 | 3.2 | > 3.2 |
| 3. | SCEE | 0.4 | 1.6 | 3.2 | 0.4 |
| 4. | SGEE | 0.4 | 0.4 | 0.8 | 0.8 |
| 5. | SIEE | 1.6 | > 3.2 | 1.6 | 0.8 |
| 6. | SNEE | 1.6 | 0.8 | 0.8 | 0.8 |
S. schimperianum (SSEE), S. villosum (SVEE), S. coagulans (SCEE), S. glabratum (SGEE), S. incanum (SIEE), and S. nigrum (SNEE).
Figure 2Effect of plant extracts on biofilm formation in pathogenic bacteria at subinhibitory concentrations. ∗p ≤ 0.05; ∗∗ p ≤ 0.005; ∗∗∗ p ≤ 0.001.
Figure 3Interaction of DNA with rutin and 5-Fluorouracil (5-FU). Binding of rutin at major groove of DNA molecule ((a) and (b)) and binding of 5-FU at the minor groove of DNA ((c) and (d)).
Molecular interactions between rutin and DNA.
| Ligand atoms | DNA atom | Type of interactions | Bond distance (Å) | Docking Score |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Rutin | ||||
|
| ||||
| H12 | B:DA17:OP2 | Hydrogen Bond | 2.30 | -233.85 |
| H19 | A:DT7:O4 | Carbon Hydrogen Bond | 2.36 | |
| H20 | A:DT7:O4 | Carbon Hydrogen Bond | 2.35 | |
| UNK1 | B:DG16:OP1 | Electrostatic ( | 2.66 | |
| UNK1 | B:DG16:OP2 |
| 2.85 | |
| C42 | A:DA5 | Hydrophobic ( | 3.68 | |
| C42 | A:DA5 | Hydrophobic ( | 5.31 | |
| C42 | A:DA6 | Hydrophobic ( | 4.15 | |
|
| ||||
|
| ||||
|
| ||||
| F1 | A:DA5:H2 | Carbon Hydrogen Bond | 2.33 | -144.63 |
| O2 | A:DA5:H2 | Carbon Hydrogen Bond | 2.49 | |
| F1 | A:DA5:N3 | Halogen bond | 3.42 | |
| F1 | A:DA6:N9 | Halogen bond | 3.40 | |
| F1 | A:DA6:N3 | Halogen bond | 2.19 | |
| F1 | B:DT20:O2 | Halogen bond | 2.80 | |
Figure 4Molecular docking of rutin with human DNA Topoisomerase IIα. (A) Binding of rutin at the ATP-binding site of Topoisomerase IIα. (B) Molecular interaction of rutin with the residues of Topoisomerase IIα. (C) Ribbon representation of the binding between rutin and Topoisomerase IIα.
Interaction of rutin with Topoisomerase IIα.
| Hydrogen bonds | Hydrophobic interactions | Other residues | Binding energy (kcal/mol)# | Binding affinity (M−1) | MM-GBSA (kcal/mol) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Topoisomerase II | Ser148, Lys157 | Ile125, Pro126, Val137, Leu140, Ile141, Ala167 | Mg, Asn91, Asp94, Arg98, Lys123, Hie130, Thr147, Ser148, Ser149, Asn150, Gly161, Gly164, Gly166, Lys168, | -10.532 | 5.03 × 107 | -96.481 |
#binding energy in extra precision (XP) mode.
Interaction of rutin with DNA gyrase B.
| Hydrogen bonds | Hydrophobic interactions | Other residues | Binding energy (kcal/mol)# | Binding affinity (M−1) | MM-GBSA (kcal/mol) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| DNA gyrase B | Asn46 | Ala47, Ala53, Ile78, Pro79, Ile90, Val118, Val120 | Gly75, Gly77, Lys110, Gly119, Arg136, Thr165 | -9.191 | 5.51 × 106 | -88.521 |
∗These residues form two hydrogen bonds; #binding energy in extra precision (XP) mode.
Figure 5Molecular docking of rutin with bacterial DNA gyrase B. (A) Binding of rutin at the ATP-binding site of DNA gyrase B. (B) Molecular interaction of rutin with the residues of DNA gyrase B. (C) Ribbon representation of the binding between rutin and DNA gyrase B.
Figure 6Representative chromatogram of rutin showing retention time at 4.172 min [Conditions: Eclipse XDB 80Å C18 column (4.6 × 100 mm, 3.5 μm); mobile phase, acetonitrile: water (gradient system); flow rate, 0.18 mL/min; λmax = 332 nm at temperature (25 ± 1°C)].
Retention time and linear regression data for the calibration curve and sensitivity parameters for rutin.
| Parameters | For Rutin |
|---|---|
| Linearity range ( | 1-80 |
| Regression equation |
|
| Correlation coefficient ( | 0.9964 ± 0.0004 |
| Retention time ( | 4.172 min |
| Slope ± SD | 2.2716 ± 0.011 |
| Intercept ± SD | 2.3916 ± 0.046 |
| LOD ( | 0.015 |
| LOQ ( | 0.047 |
Intra- and interday precision of the developed UPLC method for the analysis of rutin (mean ± SD, n =3).
| Analyte | Nominal concentration ( | Intraday precision | Interday precision | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Concentration detected ( |
| Concentration detected ( |
| ||
| Rutin | 10.00 | 9.930 ± 0.061 | 0.620 | 9.798 ± 0.057 | 0.586 |
| 20.00 | 20.029 ± 0.136 | 0.681 | 19.897 ±0.127 | 0.639 | |
| 40.00 | 39.446 ± 0.405 | 1.027 | 39.270 ± 0.398 | 1.014 | |
∗RSD: relative standard deviation.
Recovery of rutin for the accuracy of the developed method (mean ± SD, n = 3).
| Percentage of rutin added (%) | Theoretical concentrations of rutin ( | Concentrations of rutin found ( | % RSD | % Recovery |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0.0 | 20.0 | 19.841 ± 0.22 | 1.118 | 99.20 |
| 50.0 | 30.0 | 29.601 ± 0.35 | 1.188 | 98.67 |
| 100.0 | 40.0 | 39.446 ± 0.81 | 2.055 | 98.61 |
| 150.0 | 50.0 | 49.568 ± 1.10 | 2.235 | 99.13 |
Robustness of the developed UPLC method (20 μg/mL, of rutin, mean ± SD, n = 3).
| Optimization conditions | Peak area for 20 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Mean ± SD | % RSD | Rt | |
| Wavelength ( | |||
|
| |||
| (330 nm) | 50.253 ± 2.250 | 4.477 | 4.185 |
| (332 nm) | 49.972 ± 2.477 | 4.956 | 4.165 |
| (334 nm) | 49.649 ± 2.397 | 4.827 | 4.176 |
|
| |||
| Mobile phase flow rate (0.18 ± 0.1 mL/min) | |||
|
| |||
| (0.17 mL/min) | 54.356 ± 2.528 | 4.650 | 4.181 |
| (0.18 mL/min) | 50.440 ± 2.366 | 4.690 | 4.172 |
| (0.19 mL/min) | 46.187 ± 2.269 | 4.912 | 4.167 |
Detailed analysis report of rutin in the ethanol extract of different Solanum species.
| Extract | Theoretical concentration of extracts ( | Concentration of rutin found in extract ( | % RSD | Rutin content (%) | Retention time (Rt) (min) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SSEE | 1000.0 | 4.995 ± 2.123 | 5.398 | 0.409 | 4.147 |
| SVEE | 1000.0 | 0.433 ± 0.005 | 1.154 | 0.043 | 4.112 |
| SCEE | 1000.0 | 53.797 ± 2.449 | 4.552 | 5.379 | 4.189 |
| SGEE | 1000.0 | 21.991 ± 0.833 | 3.787 | 2.199 | 4.111 |
| SIEE | 1000.0 | 19.501 ± 0.691 | 3.543 | 1.950 | 4.194 |
| SNEE | 1000.0 | 1.676 ± 0.017 | 1.014 | 0.167 | 4.112 |
S. schimperianum (SSEE), S. villosum (SVEE), S. coagulans (SCEE), S. glabratum (SGEE), S. incanum (SIEE), and S. nigrum (SNEE).
Figure 7Representative chromatogram of rutin estimation in the ethanol extracts of Solanum species [Conditions: Eclipse XDB 80Å C18 column (4.6 × 100 mm, 3.5 μm); mobile phase, acetonitrile: water (gradient system); flow rate, 0.18 mL/min; λmax = 332 nm at temperature (25 ± 1°C)]. (a) Representative chromatogram of SCEE showing rutin at Rt = 4.189 min. (b) Representative chromatogram SGEE showing rutin at Rt = 4.111 min. (c) Representative chromatogram of SIEE showing rutin at Rt = 4.147 min. (d) Representative chromatogram of SSEE showing rutin at Rt = 4.194 min. (e) Representative chromatogram of SNEE showing rutin at Rt = 4.112 min. (f) Representative chromatogram of SVEE showing rutin at Rt = 4.165 min.