| Literature DB >> 30875865 |
Michał Miłek1, Dana Marcinčáková2, Jaroslav Legáth3,4.
Abstract
This experiment was conducted with extracts prepared from dandelion (Taraxacum officinale F. H. Wigg) leaves and flowers, using the micelle-mediated extraction method, with the surface active compound Triton X-100 and water⁻acetone as the extraction solvents. Extracts were, first, examined for the content of total phenols and the antioxidant capacity. All extracts showed good anti-radical properties, especially for leaves, in comparison to the flower samples. Flavonoids (mainly luteolin derivatives) and phenolic acids, predominated among the determined polyphenols. Quantitative analyses indicated acetone extract to be the richest in phenols (up to 0.535 mg/mL), in the case of dandelion leaves, and Triton X-100 extract in the case of flowers (0.385 mg/mL). Extracts were also evaluated for cytotoxicity to the model cell line (epithelial rabbit kidney cells RK13), using the colorimetric 3-[4,5-dimethylthiazole-2-yl]-2,5-diphenyltetrazolium bromide (MTT) test and the real-time cell analysis method ((RTCA); xCELLigence system). The obtained results indicated that surfactants, especially non-ionic ones, can be effectively used as modifiers in the aqueous extraction of phenolic compounds from plant materials. An advantage over the traditional organic solvents is their non-flammability. Furthermore, surfactants might also be used at low concentrations. Studies on cell lines, however, indicated the cytotoxic effect of this type of compound, even in the trace amounts present in the extracts.Entities:
Keywords: UHPLC-MS/MS; antioxidants; cytotoxicity; micelle-mediated extraction; xCELLigence system
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2019 PMID: 30875865 PMCID: PMC6471326 DOI: 10.3390/molecules24061025
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Molecules ISSN: 1420-3049 Impact factor: 4.411
Total phenolic content and antioxidant capacity of Taraxacum officinale extracts.
| Extract (Solvent) | TPC (mg CE/g DW) | Antioxidant Capacity | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| DPPH Reduction (mg TE/g DW) | Reducing Power (mg AAE/g DW) | CUPRAC (mg TE/g DW) | ||
| Leaves (Triton X-100) | 0.410 ± 0.009 b | 0.962 ± 0.004 b | 1.167 ± 0.078 a | 1.165 ± 0.237 b |
| Leaves (Acetone) | 0.535 ± 0.033 c | 0.950 ± 0.002 b | 1.132 ± 0.012 a | 1.908 ± 0.049 c |
| Flowers (Triton X-100) | 0.229 ± 0.010 a | 0.294 ± 0.012 c | 0.871 ± 0.015 b | 0.459 ± 0.069 a |
| Flowers (Acetone) | 0.385 ± 0.008 ab | 0.892 ± 0.005 a | 0.997 ± 0.016 b | 1.041 ± 0.046 b |
TPC—total phenolic content; CE—catechin equivalents; DPPH—2,2-diphenyl-1-picrylhydrazyl; AAE–ascorbic acid equivalents; TE—trolox equivalents, DW—dry weight. Data as mean value ± standard deviation (SD; n = 3). Means sharing the same superscript letter (in a column) are not significantly different (Tukey’s honest significant difference test, p < 0.05).
Correlation matrix for total phenols and antioxidant capacity assays.
| TPC | DPPH | Reducing Power | CUPRAC | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| TPC | 1.000 | |||
| DPPH | 0.873 | 1.000 | ||
| Reducing power | 0.848 | 0.888 | 1.000 | |
| CUPRAC | 0.988 | 0.791 | 0.798 | 1.000 |
TPC—Total Phenolic Content; DPPH—2,2-diphenyl-1-picrylhydrazyl; CUPRAC—Cupric Reducing Antioxidant Capacity.
UHPLC-MS identification of main polyphenol compounds in Taraxacum officinale leaves extracts.
| Compound | Retention Time Range (min) | Mw (g/mol) | [M − H]−
| MS2 Fragment Ions | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Caffeoyl diglucoside | 1.30 | 504.441 | 503 | 341; 311; 179 | Only acetone extract |
| 1- | 1.81–1.84 | 354.311 | 353 | 191; 179 | - |
| 3- | 2.07–2.10 | 354.311 | 353 | 191; 179 | - |
| Caffeoyl glucoside | 2.16 | 342.300 | 341 | 311; 191; 179 | - |
| Caffeoylmalic acid | 3.07–3.11 | 296.231 | 295 | 179; 133 | - |
| Luteolin diglycoside | 3.77 | 610.521 | 609 | 447; 285; 175 | Only acetone extract |
| Chicoric acid | 4.21–4.24 | 474.380 | 473 | 311; 293; 179; 135 | - |
| Luteolin-7-glycoside | 4.40–4.47 | 448.380 | 447 | 285; 175; 133 | - |
| Unknown | 4.88–4.91 | - | 469 | 261; 217; 175; 113 | - |
| Dicaffeoylquinic acid | 4.99–5.02 | 516.455 | 515 | 353; 191; 179 | Probably 1,5-di- |
| Luteolin glycoside II | 5.15–5.28 | 448.380 | 447 | 285 | - |
| Luteolin | 5.99–6.02 | 286.239 | 285 | 217; 175; 151; 133 | - |
UHPLC-MS identification of main polyphenol compounds in Taraxacum officinale flowers extracts.
| Compound | Retention Time Range (min) | Mw (g/mol) | [M − H]−
| MS2 Fragment Ions | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Caffeoyl diglucoside | 1.32 | 504.441 | 503 | 341; 311; 179 | Only acetone extract |
| 1- | 1.78–1.82 | 354.311 | 353 | 190; 179 | - |
| 3- | 2.32–2.35 | 354.311 | 353 | 190; 179 | - |
| Luteolin glycoside I | 3.52 | 448.380 | 447 | 327; 285; 175 | Only acetone extract |
| Luteolin diglycoside | 3.81 | 610.521 | 609 | 447; 285; 175 | Only acetone extract |
| Chicoric acid | 4.21–4.26 | 474.380 | 473 | 311; 293; 179; 135 | - |
| Luteolin-7-glycoside | 4.40–4.47 | 448.380 | 447 | 285; 175; 133 | - |
| Unknown | 4.88–4.91 | - | 469 | 261; 217; 175; 113 | - |
| Dicaffeoylquinic acid | 4.99–5.02 | 516.455 | 515 | 353; 191; 179 | Probably 1,5-di- |
| Luteolin glycoside III | 5.15–5.28 | 448.380 | 447 | 285 | - |
| Luteolin | 5.99–6.02 | 286.239 | 285 | 217; 175; 151; 133 | - |
| Chrysoeriol | 6.90–7.00 | 300.266 | 299 | 284; 256 | - |
Quantitative methods data.
| Analyte | MRM Pair (Quantifier Ion, | Collision Energy (eV) | Standard Curve Equation | Linearity (R2) | LOD (ng/mL) | LOQ (ng/mL) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Luteolin | 285 → 133 | −40 | y = 427x − 731 | 0.9996 | 3 | 8 |
| Luteolin-7-glycoside | 447 → 285 | −34 | y = 301x + 1.45 × 103 | 0.9998 | 1 | 2 |
| Chrysoeriol | 299 → 284 | −28 | y = 568x + 3.23 × 104 | 0.9999 | 2.5 | 5 |
| Chicoric acid | 473 → 311 | −16 | y = 12.1x + 4.24 × 103 | 0.9996 | 10 | 100 |
MRM–multiple reaction monitoring; LOD–limit of detection; LOQ–limit of quantitation.
Results of the phenols quantification in the Taraxacum officinale extracts.
| Extract (Solvent) | Luteolin (mg/g DW) | Cynaroside (mg/g DW) | Chrysoeriol (mg/g DW) | Chicoric Acid (mg/g DW) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Leaves (Triton X-100) | 1.357 ± 0.136 a | 0.007 ± 0.002 a | Not detected | <LOQ |
| Leaves (Acetone) | 5.057 ± 0.490 b | 4.787 ± 0.343 b | Not detected | 67.867 ± 17.826 a |
| Flowers (Triton X-100) | 22.466 ± 2.854 c | 0.446 ± 0.148 c | 2.660 ± 0.367 a | <LOQ |
| Flowers (Acetone) | 11.867 ± 1.185 d | 0.474 ± 0.056 c | 11.756 ± 1.520 b | 20.433 ± 1.904 b |
Data as mean value ± standard deviation (SD; n = 3). DW—dry weight. Means sharing the same superscript letter (in a column) were not significantly different (Tukey’s honest significant difference test, p < 0.05).
Figure 1Real-time monitoring of dynamic cell changes, after 48 expositions to flowers and leaves extracts, prepared with the Triton X-100 and acetone.
The effect of the extracts on the adherence and metabolic activity of the RK13 cells after 48 h exposure. Results are expressed as mean ± SD (n = 3).
| Concentration of Extracts (µg/mL) | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 125 µg/mL | 250 µg/mL | 500 µg/mL | 1000 µg/mL | Control | ||
|
| ||||||
| RTCA | CI | 0.24 ± 0.02 *** | 0.01 ± 0.01 *** | 0.01 ± 0 *** | 0.01 ± 0 *** | 0.99 ± 0.05 |
| A (%) | 24.41 ± 1.86 | 0.61 ± 0.2 | 1.01 ± 0 | 1.01 ± 0 | 100 ± 4.73 | |
| MTT | OD (nm) | 0.05 ± 0.02 *** | 0 *** | 0 *** | 0 *** | 0.5 ± 0.06 |
| MA (%) | 1.91 ± 0.06 | 0.25 ± 0.02 | 0.56 ± 0.01 | 0.5 ± 0.04 | 100 | |
|
| ||||||
| RTCA | CI | 0.99 ± 0.05 | 0.95 ± 0.01 | 0.96 ± 0.05 | 0.99 ± 0.02 | 0.99 ± 0.05 |
| A (%) | 100.99 ± 4.76 | 96.55 ± 1.0 | 99.37 ± 2.52 | 100.13 ± 2.02 | 100 ± 4.73 | |
| MTT | OD (nm) | 0.71 ± 0.01 *** | 0.64 ± 0.04 *** | 0.59 ± 0.04 ** | 0.41 ± 0.02 *** | 0.5 ± 0.06 |
| MA (%) | 141.11 ± 3.28 | 128.12 ± 7.31 | 117.22 ± 8.64 | 81.4 ± 4.96 | 100 | |
|
| ||||||
| RTCA | CI | 0.46 ± 0.11 *** | 0.0 ± 0.1 *** | 0.0 ± 0.0 *** | 0.0 ± 0.0 *** | 1.22 ± 0.06 |
| A (%) | 37.43 ± 9.4 | 0.19 ± 0.39 | 0.0 ± 0.5 | 0.17 ± 0.41 | 100 ± 4.53 | |
| MTT | OD (nm) | 0.13 ± 0.01 *** | 0.01 ± 0.01 *** | 0.01 ± 0 *** | 0.01 ± 0.01 *** | 0.78 ± 0.13 |
| MA (%) | 13.3 ± 1.71 | 1.08 ± 0.08 | 1.12 ± 0.06 | 1.04 ± 0.58 | 100 | |
|
| ||||||
| RTCA | CI | 1.18 ± 0.19 | 1.17 ± 0.22 | 1.37 ± 0.28 *** | 1.78 ± 0.42 *** | 1.22 ± 0.06 |
| A (%) | 96.94 ± 15.78 | 96.11 ± 18.05 | 111.95 ± 23.02 | 146.08 ± 34.02 | 100 ± 4.53 | |
| MTT | OD (nm) | 0.63 ± 0.05 *** | 0.66 ± 0.01 *** | 0.63 ± 0.02 *** | 0.62 ± 0.03 *** | 0.78 ± 0.13 |
| MA (%) | 80.72 ± 6.54 | 83.99 ± 1.62 | 80.97 ± 3.31 | 79.15 ± 3.29 | 100 | |
RTCA—real time cell analyzer (xCELLigence system); MTT—3-[4,5-dimethylthiazole-2-yl]-2,5-diphenyltetrazolium bromide test; CI—cell index; A—adherence; OD—optical density; MA—metabolic activity. Significantly different compared to the control ** p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001.