| Literature DB >> 30458808 |
Guixing Ren1,2, Peng Xue3,4, Xiaoyan Sun4, Gang Zhao5.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The phytochemical constituents and biological activities of Rosa rugosa Thunb. var. plena Regal flower cell sap (RFCS) were investigated.Entities:
Keywords: Antimicrobial; Antioxidant; Phytochemical constituents; RFCS; Tyrosinase inhibitory activities
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2018 PMID: 30458808 PMCID: PMC6247689 DOI: 10.1186/s12906-018-2374-7
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Complement Altern Med ISSN: 1472-6882 Impact factor: 3.659
Fig. 1a Total ion chromatogram of volatile compounds in ethyl acetate from standard substance (a), and rose flowers cell sap (b). RFCS: rose flower cell sap. Identification of peaks. 1, linalool; 2, phenylethyl alcohol; 3, citronellol; 4, ester phenylethyl acetate; 5, citronellol acetate; 6, α-bisabolol
Analytical characteristics of volatile substances in rose waste. (ng/mL)
| Compound | RT | Formula structure | Weight | RFCS |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Linalool | 12.163 | C10H18O | 154.25 | n.d |
| Phenylethyl alcohol | 12.921 | C8H10O | 122.16 | 40.48 ± 2.24 |
| Citronellol | 20.393 | C10H20O | 156.27 | 7.83 ± 0.77 |
| Phenylethyl acetate | 21.923 | C10H12O2 | 164.2 | 11.20 ± 0.89 |
| Citronellol acetate | 29.029 | C12H22O2 | 198.3 | n.d |
| α-bisabolol | 49.909 | C15H26O | 222.36 | 0.08 ± 0.01 |
| Total content | 48.21 ± 2.76 |
nd not detected; Data are expressed as mean ± standard deviation of triplicate samples; RFCS rose flower cell sap
Fig. 2HPLC chromatogram of standard substanceb (a), and rose flower cell sap (b). RFCS: rose flowers cell sap. Identification of peaks: 1, hyperoside; 2, kaempferol-3-O-rutinoside; 3, rutin; 4, luteolin
Analytical characteristics of compounds in rose waste. (mg/mL)
| Peak | Ginsenoside | Retention time | Calibration curve | R2 | RFCS |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | hyperoside | 16.981 | y = 14,955x-5214 | 0.9989 | 0.18 ± 0.01 |
| 2 | kaempferol-3-O-rutinoside | 17.737 | y = 7102x + 3256 | 0.9984 | 0.12 ± 0.01 |
| 3 | rutin | 19.01 | y = 41,285x-43,792 | 0.9979 | 0.23 ± 0.01 |
| 4 | luteolin | 22.01 | y = 31,527x-5241 | 0.9991 | n.d |
| total phenolic content | 0.31 ± 0.01 | ||||
| total flavonoid content | 0.43 ± 0.01 | ||||
| total solid content | 1.45 ± 0.04 |
nd not detected; Data are expressed as mean ± standard deviation of triplicate samples; RFCS rose flower cell sap
Total solid content and IC50 values of single compounds in rose products. (μg/mL)
| DPPH radicalscavenging activity | Tyrosinase inhibition | ABTS radicalscavenging activity | |
|---|---|---|---|
| RFCS | 1120 ± 42 b | 570 ± 21 ab | 1430 ± 49 b |
| Linalool | > 10,000 a | 730 ± 44 a | > 10,000 a |
| Phenylethyl alcohol | > 10,000 a | 315 ± 13 b | > 10,000 a |
| Citronellol | > 10000a | 825 ± 31 a | > 10,000 a |
| α-bisabolol | > 10,000 a | 635 ± 22 a | > 10,000 a |
| Hyperoside | 0.695 ± 0.021 c | 0.762 ± 0.018 d | 0.526 ± 0.014 c |
| Kaempferol-3-O-Rutinoside | 0.808 ± 0.024 c | 0.908 ± 0.021 d | 0.719 ± 0.016 c |
| Rutin | 0.715 ± 0.017 c | 0.856 ± 0.014 d | 0.621 ± 0.024 c |
| Luteolin | 0.507 ± 0.015 c | 0.613 ± 0.016 d | 0.436 ± 0.026 c |
| Positive control | 0.449 ± 0.013 c | 80 ± 17 c | 0.324 ± 0.019 c |
Data are expressed as mean ± standard deviation of triplicate samples; RFCS rose flower cell sap
Values in each column followed by different letters are significantly different (P < 0.01)
MIC and MBC or MFC of RFCS and different monomers against pathogenic bacteria (μg/mL)
| Compound |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MIC | MBC | MIC | MBC | MIC | MBC | MIC | MBC | MIC | MFC | MIC | MBC | MIC | MBC | |
| RFCS | 500 | > 1000 | 500 | > 1000 | 125 | 1000 | 500 | 1000 | 1000 | > 1000 | 125 | 500 | 64 | 250 |
| Linalool | 500 | > 1000 | 500 | > 1000 | 250 | 1000 | 250 | 1000 | 250 | 1000 | 250 | 1000 | 250 | 1000 |
| Phenylethyl alcohol | 250 | 500 | 125 | 500 | 125 | 250 | 250 | 1000 | 250 | 500 | 125 | 500 | 8 | 32 |
| Citronellol | 250 | 500 | 250 | 1000 | 125 | 500 | 250 | 500 | 250 | 500 | 125 | 500 | 250 | 1000 |
| α-bisabolol | 8 | 32 | 500 | > 1000 | 250 | 1000 | 500 | 1000 | 1000 | > 1000 | 125 | 500 | 8 | 32 |
| Hyperoside | 250 | 500 | 250 | 500 | 250 | 1000 | 250 | 1000 | 250 | 1000 | 250 | 1000 | 250 | 500 |
| Kaempferol-3-O-rutinosid | 500 | 1000 | 500 | > 1000 | 250 | 1000 | 500 | > 1000 | 250 | 1000 | 500 | 1000 | 500 | > 1000 |
| Rutin | 500 | 1000 | 125 | 500 | 250 | 500 | 250 | 1000 | 500 | 1000 | 125 | 250 | 62 | 500 |
| Luteolin | 500 | 1000 | 250 | 1000 | 500 | > 1000 | 250 | 1000 | 250 | 500 | 250 | 500 | 125 | 500 |
| Miconazole Nitrate | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | 16 | 8 | – | – | – | – | – |
| Hydrochloride tetracycline | < 0.1 | < 0.1 | 8 | 16 | 16 | 16 | 16 | – | – | 16 | 8 | 16 | 2 | 2 |
Data are expressed as mean ± standard deviation of triplicate samples
MIC minimum inhibitory concentration, MBC minimum bactericidal concentration, MFC minimum Fungicidal concentration, RFCS rose flower cell sap, L. ivanovii Listeria ivanovii, S. enteritidis subspecies enteritidis: Salmonella enteritidis enteritidis, S. aureus Staphylococcus aureus, E. coli Escherichia coli, C. albicans Candida albicans, P. acnes Propionibacterium acnes, F. nucleatum Fusobacterium nucleatum