| Literature DB >> 30678248 |
Xiaopu Ren1,2, Yingjie Bao3, Yuxia Zhu4, Shixin Liu5, Zengqi Peng6, Yawei Zhang7, Guanghong Zhou8.
Abstract
As a natural potential resource, Tamarix ramosissima has been widely used as barbecue skewers for a good taste and unique flavor. The polyphenolics in the branch bark play a key role in the quality improvement. The purposes of the present work were to explore the polyphenolic composition of T. ramosissima bark extract and assess their potential antioxidant and antimicrobial activities. Hispidulin and cirsimaritin from T. ramosissima bark extract were first identified in the Tamarix genus reported with UPLC-MS analysis. Isorhamnetin (36.91 μg/mg extract), hispidulin (28.79 μg/mg extract) and cirsimaritin (13.35 μg/mg extract) are rich in the bark extract. The extract exhibited promising antioxidant activity with IC50 values of 117.05 μg/mL for 1,1-diphenyl-2-picrylhydrazyl (DPPH) and 151.57 μg/mL for hydroxyl radical scavenging activities, as well as excellent reducing power with an EC50 of 93.77 μg/mL. The bark extract showed appreciable antibacterial properties against foodborne pathogens. Listeria monocytogenes was the most sensitive microorganism with the lowest minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) value of 5 mg/mL and minimum bactericidal concentration (MBC) value of 10 mg/mL followed by S. castellani and S. aureus among the tested bacteria. The T. ramosissima bark extract showed significantly stronger inhibitory activity against Gram-positive than Gram-negative bacteria. Nevertheless, this extract failed to show any activity against tested fungi. Overall, these results suggested that T. ramosissima shows potential in improving food quality due to its highly efficacious antioxidant and antibacterial properties.Entities:
Keywords: Tamarix ramosissima; antimicrobial activity; antioxidant activity; cirsimaritin; hispidulin; isorhamnetin; polyphenolics
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2019 PMID: 30678248 PMCID: PMC6384871 DOI: 10.3390/molecules24030390
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Molecules ISSN: 1420-3049 Impact factor: 4.411
Comparison of TPC and TFC with published data of Tamarix family.
| Tested Part | Location | TPC (mg GAE/g) | TFC (mg QE/g) | Reference | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| barks | South Xinjiang, China | 323.45 ± 21.41 | 87.32 ± 1.65 | This work |
|
| leaves | South Tunis | 34.44 ± 3.40 | 3.91 ± 0.45 | Ksouri et al. [ |
|
| flowers | South Tunis | 135.35 ± 7.70 | 12.33 ± 2.10 | Ksouri et al. [ |
|
| leaves | South Algeria | 199.54 ± 1.60 | ND | Mohammedi [ |
Note: The TPC and TFC were presented as mean ± SD. ND means not detected.
Peak identification of T. ramosissima bark extract using UPLC-MS.
| Peak No. | Polyphenolic Compounds | Retention Time (min) | Empirical Formula | Calcd | Obsd | Obsd |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Quercetin 3-O-glucuronide | 4.63 | C21H18O13 | 478.0747 | 479.0820 | 477.0676 |
| 2 | Kaempferol 3-O-glucuronide | 5.19 | C21H18O12 | 462.0798 | 463.0882 | 461.0802 |
| 3 | Eriodictyol | 6.63 | C15H12O6 | 288.0634 | 289.0703 | 287.0581 |
| 4 | Quercetin | 6.77 | C15H10O7 | 302.0427 | 303.0498 | 301.0404 |
| 5 | Naringenin | 7.65 | C15H12O5 | 272.0685 | 273.0753 | 271.0583 |
| 6 | Tangeretin | 7.72 | C20H20O7 | 372.1209 | 373.1274 | 371.1253 |
| 7 | Kaempferol | 7.85 | C15H10O6 | 286.0477 | 287.0547 | 285.0405 |
| 8 | Hesperetin | 8.07 | C16H14O6 | 302.0790 | 303.0856 | 301.0718 |
| 9 | Isorhamnetin | 9.25 | C16H12O7 | 316.0583 | 317.0653 | 315.0510 |
| 10 | Hispidulin | 10.41 | C16H12O6 | 300.0634 | 301.0705 | 299.0562 |
| 11 | Apigenin | 10.42 | C15H10O5 | 270.0528 | 271.0597 | 269.0427 |
| 12 | Glycitein | 11.90 | C16H12O5 | 284.0685 | 285.0754 | 283.0664 |
| 13 | Cirsimaritin | 11.91 | C17H14O6 | 314.0790 | 315.0863 | 313.0717 |
Figure 1UPLC-MS chromatogram of polyphenolics in T. ramosissima crude extract infusion: quercetin 3-O-glucuronide (1), kaempferol 3-O-glucuronide (2), eriodictyol (3), quercetin (4), naringenin (5), tangeretin (6), kaempferol (7), hesperetin (8), isorhamnetin (9), hispidulin (10), apigenin (11), glycitein (12), cirsimaritin (13).
Concentrations of four representative polyphenolic standards.
| Compounds | Concentration (μg/mg) |
|---|---|
| Isorhamnetin | 36.9055 |
| Hispidulin | 28.7915 |
| Cirsimaritin | 13.3513 |
| Quercetin | 4.2065 |
Figure 2Scavenging activities on 1,1-diphenyl-2-picrylhydrazyl (DPPH) (A), 2,2′-Azinobis-(3-ethylbenzthiazoline-6-sulphonate) (ABTS) (B), superoxide radicals (C), hydroxyl radicals (D), reducing power (E) and ferric reducing antioxidant power (FRAP) (F) of the bark extract of T. ramosissima and ascorbic acid. Data are presented as means ± SD of triplicates.
Antibacterial activity of T. ramosissima bark extracts at different concentrations. Minimum bactericidal concentration (MBC), minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC).
| Bacterial Strains | The Extract Concentrations (mg/mL) | Diameter of Inhibition Zones | MIC (mg/mL) | MBC (mg/mL) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bark Extract | Gentamycin (10 UI) | |||||
| Gram- positive strains |
| 1 | 10.60 ± 0.54 A | 20.90 ± 0.14 | 5 | 15 |
| 5 | 11.08 ± 0.71 A | |||||
| 10 | 11.16 ± 0.91 B | |||||
|
| 1 | 10.14 ± 0.48 cAB | 20.30 ± 0.42 | 5 | 10 | |
| 5 | 11.18 ± 0.21 bA | |||||
| 10 | 12.26 ± 0.61 aA | |||||
|
| 1 | 9.53 ± 0.62 bBC | 18.00 ± 0.00 | 5 | 20 | |
| 5 | 9.72 ± 0.16 bB | |||||
| 10 | 10.88 ± 0.30 aB | |||||
| Gram- negative strains |
| 1 | 9.26 ± 0.65 bC | 17.80 ± 0.28 | 10 | 25 |
| 5 | 9.58 ± 0.34 bB | |||||
| 10 | 10.68 ± 0.81 aB | |||||
|
| 1 | 8.20 ± 0.51 bD | 17.10 ± 0.14 | >10 | NA | |
| 5 | 8.85 ± 0.70 abC | |||||
| 10 | 9.38 ± 0.28 aC | |||||
|
| 1 | 8.00 ± 0.24 bD | 21.75 ± 0.35 | >10 | NA | |
| 5 | 8.34 ± 0.66 bC | |||||
| 10 | 9.48 ± 0.52 aC | |||||
|
| 1 | 10.65 ± 0.45 A | 20.90 ± 0.14 | 5 | 15 | |
| 5 | 10.74 ± 0.50 A | |||||
| 10 | 11.16 ± 0.69 B | |||||
Note: Inhibition zone calculated in diameter around the disc (mean ± SD). Different lowercase letters (a~c) within the same bacteria mean significant differences between different concentrations (p < 0.05); Different capital letters (A–D) within the same concentration mean significant differences between different bacteria (p < 0.05) and no letters indicates no significant difference (p > 0.05). NA represented not active. The diameter of disc was 6 mm. Each experiment was done in triplicate.