| Literature DB >> 30609686 |
Kody Kleinrichert1, Bindhu Alappat2.
Abstract
Though the pathogenesis of Alzheimer's Disease (AD) is not completely elucidated, it is generally accepted that the aggregation of toxic amyloid-β (Aβ) protein fibrils plays a major role in the disease's onset and progression. Various phytoceutical compounds have been shown to attenuate Aβ toxicity and disrupt its aggregation, including various types of polyphenolic compounds. These polyphenolic compounds have also been found to demonstrate potent antioxidant activity, which may contribute to their anti-amyloidogenic properties. This study compares three plants, traditionally used for numerous medicinal purposes in Asian countries, including: Curcuma longa (Turmeric), Camellia sinensis (Green Tea), and Scoparia dulcis (Sweet Broomweed). Antioxidant effects of the crude, polyphenol rich phytoceutical extracts from these plants were analyzed using a 2,2-diphenyl-1-picrylhydrazyl (DPPH) assay. The ability of these extracts to prevent Aβ fibril formation was then carried out in order to establish a relationship between antioxidant activity and Aβ aggregation. A positive correlation between antioxidant efficacy and prevention of Aβ aggregation was demonstrated, indicating that antioxidant activity may play some role in preventing Aβ aggregation.Entities:
Keywords: Alzheimer’s Disease; Camellia sinensis; Curcuma longa; DPPH; Scoparia dulcis; amyloid protein; antioxidant; catechins; curcuminoids; scoparic acid
Year: 2019 PMID: 30609686 PMCID: PMC6356243 DOI: 10.3390/antiox8010013
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Antioxidants (Basel) ISSN: 2076-3921
Figure 1Chemical structures of various catechins found in green tea.
Figure 2Chemical structure of polyphenols derived from Curcuma longa.
Figure 3Polyphenols found in Scoparia dulcis.
Figure 4DPPH absorption spectra.
DPPH assay raw absorbance data and calculated values for C. sinensis.
| Concentration | 0 μg/mL | 100 μg/mL | 200 μg/mL | 300 μg/mL | 400 μg/mL | 500 μg/mL | 600 μg/mL | 800 μg/mL | 1000 μg/mL |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Preliminary Mean | 0.379 | 0.299 | 0.212 | 0.181 | 0.139 | 0.106 | 0.046 | 0.022 | 0.015 |
| SD | 0.0050 | 0.0070 | 0.0367 | 0.0479 | 0.0161 | 0.0369 | 0.0038 | 0.0030 | 0.0010 |
| Grubbs Value | 1.40 | 1.29 | 1.36 | 1.46 | 1.24 | 1.19 | 1.32 | 1.33 | 1.00 |
| Corrected Mean | 0.379 | 0.299 | 0.212 | 0.204 | 0.139 | 0.106 | 0.046 | 0.022 | 0.015 |
| Corrected SD | 0.0050 | 0.0070 | 0.0367 | 0.0132 | 0.0161 | 0.0369 | 0.0038 | 0.0030 | 0.0010 |
| Percent Inhibition | 0.00 | 21.17 | 44.20 | 46.09 | 63.26 | 72.16 | 87.80 | 94.33 | 96.11 |
Figure 5DPPH assay results and radical scavenging effects of C. sinensis.
DPPH assay raw absorbance data and calculated values for C. longa.
| Concentration | 0 μg/mL | 100 μg/mL | 200 μg/mL | 300 μg/mL | 400 μg/mL | 500 μg/mL | 600 μg/mL | 800 μg/mL | 1000 μg/mL |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Preliminary Mean | 0.409 | 0.375 | 0.343 | 0.316 | 0.288 | 0.248 | 0.243 | 0.196 | 0.159 |
| SD | 0.0037 | 0.0043 | 0.0089 | 0.0039 | 0.0061 | 0.0156 | 0.0262 | 0.0152 | 0.0105 |
| Grubbs Value | 1.35 | 1.40 | 1.24 | 1.53 | 0.98 | 1.22 | 1.18 | 1.45 | 1.52 |
| Corrected Mean | 0.409 | 0.375 | 0.343 | 0.317 | 0.288 | 0.248 | 0.243 | 0.196 | 0.164 |
| Corrected SD | 0.0037 | 0.0043 | 0.0089 | 0.0015 | 0.0061 | 0.0156 | 0.0262 | 0.0152 | 0.0010 |
| Percent Inhibition | 0.00 | 8.37 | 16.26 | 22.41 | 29.52 | 39.49 | 40.53 | 52.02 | 59.90 |
Figure 6DPPH analysis and radical scavenging ability of C. longa.
DPPH assay raw absorbance data and calculated values for S. dulcis.
| Concentration | 0 μg/mL | 100 μg/mL | 200 μg/mL | 300 μg/mL | 400 μg/mL | 500 μg/mL | 600 μg/mL | 800 μg/mL | 1000 μg/mL |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Preliminary Mean | 0.386 | 0.376 | 0.368 | 0.359 | 0.352 | 0.347 | 0.340 | 0.325 | 0.310 |
| SD | 0.0022 | 0.0027 | 0.0006 | 0.0050 | 0.0050 | 0.0026 | 0.0090 | 0.0044 | 0.0049 |
| Grubbs Value | 1.36 | 1.48 | 0.83 | 1.40 | 1.00 | 1.34 | 1.11 | 1.36 | 1.22 |
| Corrected Mean | 0.386 | 0.375 | 0.368 | 0.359 | 0.352 | 0.347 | 0.340 | 0.325 | 0.310 |
| Corrected SD | 0.0022 | 0.0006 | 0.0006 | 0.0050 | 0.0050 | 0.0026 | 0.0090 | 0.0044 | 0.0049 |
| Percent Inhibition | 0.00 | 2.94 | 4.79 | 7.06 | 8.87 | 10.23 | 11.92 | 15.93 | 19.62 |
Figure 7DPPH assay results and radical scavenging effects of S. dulcis.
Amyloid aggregation assay raw fluorescence data and calculated values.
| Sample | MeOH |
|
|
| Morin |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Trial 1 | 29531 | 30691 | 28, 682 | 24,267 | 22,805 |
| Trial 2 | 30,037 | 31,488 | 30,818 | 27, 628 | 27,869 |
| Trial 3 (Replicate 1) | 33,404 | 30,233 | 28,066 | 28, 297 | 23,777 |
| Trial 3 (Replicate 2) | 28,313 | 27,252 | 25,096 | ||
| Mean | 30,990 | 30,181 | 28,705 | 26,322 | 24,817 |
| Standard Deviation | 2105 | 1349 | 1526 | 1944 | 2687 |
Figure 8Amyloid aggregation assay results.