| Literature DB >> 31096694 |
Yusuf Andriana1,2, Tran Dang Xuan3, Tran Ngoc Quy4, Hoang-Dung Tran5, Quang-Tri Le6.
Abstract
In this study, we evaluated antioxidant, antihyperuricemic, and herbicidal activities of essential oils (EOs) from Piper cubeba Bojer and Piper nigrum L.; two pepper species widely distributed in tropics, and examined their chemical compositions. Dried berries of P. cubeba and P. nigrum were hydro-distilled to yield essential oil (EO) of 1.23 and 1.11% dry weight, respectively. In the antioxidant assay, the radical scavenging capacities of P. cubeba EO against DPPH and ABTS free radicals were 28.69 and 24.13% greater than P. nigrum, respectively. In the antihyperuricemic activity, P. cubeba EO also exhibited stronger inhibitory effects on xanthine oxidase (IC50 = 54.87 µg/mL) than P. nigrum EO (IC50 = 77.11 µg/mL). In the herbicidal activity, P. cubeba EO showed greater inhibition on germination and growth of Bidens pilosa and Echinochloa crus-galli than P. nigrum EO. Besides, P. cubeba EO decreased 15.98-73.00% of photosynthesis pigments of B. pilosa and E. crus-galli, while electrolyte leakages, lipid peroxidations, prolines, phenolics, and flavonoids contents were increased 10.82-80.82% at 1.93 mg/mL dose. Gas chromatography-mass spectrometry (GC-MS) and liquid chromatography-electrospray ionization-mass spectrometry (LC-ESI-MS) analyses revealed that P. nigrum and P. cubeba EOs principally possessed complex mixtures of monoterpenes and sesquiterpenes. Terpinen-4-ol (42.41%), α-copaene (20.04%), and γ-elemene (17.68%) were the major components of P. cubeba EO, whereas β-caryophyllene (51.12%) and β-thujene (20.58%) were the dominant components of P. nigrum EO. Findings of this study suggest both P. cubeba and P. nigrum EOs were potential to treat antioxidative stress and antihyperuricemic related diseases. In addition, the EOs of the two plants may be useful to control B. pilosa and E. crus-galli, the two invasive and problematic weeds in agriculture practice.Entities:
Keywords: Bidens pilosa; Echinochloa crus-galli; Piper cubeba; Piper nigrum; antihyperuricemia; antioxidant; essential oil
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31096694 PMCID: PMC6571889 DOI: 10.3390/molecules24101876
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Molecules ISSN: 1420-3049 Impact factor: 4.411
Antioxidant and xanthine oxidase inhibitory activities of EOs from P. cubeba and P. nigrum.
| Samples | Antioxidant Activity (IC50 (mg/mL)) | XOI Activity (IC50 (µg/mL)) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| DPPH | ABTS | ||
| 0.82 ± 0.06 | 1.32 ± 0.04 | 54.87 ± 1.69 | |
| 1.15 ± 0.08 | 1.74 ± 0.03 | 77.11 ± 2.11 | |
| BHT * | 0.009 ± 0.02 | 0.071 ± 0.001 | - |
| Allopurinol ** | - | - | 20.45 ± 0.3 |
Data presented means ± standard deviations (SD). Values in the same column followed by similar letters are not significantly different by Fisher’ (p < 0.05). * = positive control for antioxidant assay. ** = positive control for xanthine oxidase inhibitory assay. - = not determined.
Inhibition (IC50) values of P. cubeba and P. nigrum EOs on some indicator plants.
| Treatments | Indicator Plants | IC50 (mg/mL) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Germination | Roots | Shoots | ||
|
| 5.19 ± 0.22 | 2.63 ± 0.58 | 1.93 ± 0.68 | |
|
| 5.26 ± 0.34 | 3.30 ± 0.97 | 5.86 ± 0.94 | |
|
| 5.44 ± 0.00 | 2.67 ± 0.64 | 3.1 ± 0.56 | |
|
| > 8.00 | 2.71 ± 0.11 | 7.21 ± 2.02 | |
Data were presented in means ± standard deviations (SD). Different letter in a column indicated significantly different by Fisher’s test (p < 0.05).
Figure 1The changes of pigment contents of B. pilosa and E. crus-galli between control and treatments. Data were presented in means ± standard deviations (SD). Means with different small letter in the same pigment indicted significantly different by Fisher’s test (p < 0.05).
Figure 2The changes of electrolyte leakage (%) of B. pilosa and E. crus-galli between control and treatments after 24 h (a) and 48 h (b). Data were presented in means ± standard deviations (SD). Means with different small letter indicted significantly different by Fisher’s test (p < 0.05).
Figure 3The changes of MDA content between treated and untreated of B. pilosa and E. crus-galli by EOs. Data were presented in means ± standard deviations (SD). Means with different small letter indicted significantly different by Fisher’s test (p < 0.05).
Figure 4The changes of TPC in the roots and aerial parts of between treated and untreated of B. pilosa and E. crus-galli by P. cubeba and P. nigrum EOs. Data were presented in means ± standard deviations (SD). Means with different small letter indicted significantly different by Fisher’s test (p < 0.05).
Figure 5The changes of TFC in the roots and aerial parts of between treated and untreated of B. pilosa and E. crus-galli by P. cubeba and P. nigrum EOs. Data were presented in means ± standard deviations (SD). Means with different small letter indicted significantly different by Fisher’s test (p < 0.05).
Figure 6The changes of proline in the roots and aerial parts of between treated and untreated B. pilosa and E. crus-galli by P. cubeba and P. nigrum EOs. Data were presented in means ± standard deviations (SD). Means with different small letter indicted significantly different by Fisher’s test (p < 0.05).
Yields of essential oils extracted from P. cubeba and P. nigrum.
| Samples | Dry Weight (g) | EOs (g) | Yields (% |
|---|---|---|---|
|
| 300.00 | 3.69 ± 0.05 | 1.23 ± 0.01 |
|
| 300.00 | 3.35 ± 0.01 | 1.11 ± 0.01 |
Data were presented in means ± standard deviations (SD). Different letter in a column indicted significantly different by Fisher’s test (p < 0.05).
Identification of chemical components of P. cubeba and P. nigrum EOs by GC-MS.
| No. | Compounds | Rt | Chemical | MW (g/mol) | Chemical Class | Area (%) | RI * | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
| |||||||
| 1 | β-Thujene | 5.32 | C10H16 | 136.238 | Monoterpenes | - | 20.58 | 929 |
| 2 | Terpinen-4-ol | 7.81 | C10H18O | 154.253 | Monoterpenes | 42.41 | 1.85 | 1179 |
| 3 | 8.38 | C12H18O2 | 194.274 | Monoterpenes | 0.1 | - | 1228 | |
| 4 | δ-EIemene | 9.96 | C15H24 | 204.357 | Monoterpenes | 0.58 | 5.03 | 1338 |
| 5 | α-Cubebene | 10.13 | C15H24 | 204.357 | Sesquiterpenes | 6.54 | - | 1349 |
| 6 | α-Copaene | 10.55 | C15H24 | 204.357 | Sesquiterpenes | 20.04 | 4.79 | 1377 |
| 7 | D-Germacrene | 10.69 | C15H24 | 204.357 | Sesquiterpenes | 2.50 | - | 1451 |
| 8 | γ-Elemene | 11.21 | C15H24 | 204.357 | Sesquiterpenes | 17.68 | - | 1455 |
| 9 | β-Caryophyllene | 11.23 | C15H24 | 204.357 | Sesquiterpenes | - | 51.12 | 1467 |
| 10 | Humulene | 11.60 | C15H24 | 204.357 | Sesquiterpenes | - | 3.81 | 1474 |
| 11 | β-Selinene | 12.03 | C15H24 | 204.357 | Sesquiterpenes | - | 5.59 | 1490 |
| 12 | δ-Cadinene | 12.33 | C15H24 | 204.357 | Sesquiterpenes | 2.7 | 2.04 | 1525 |
| 13 | α-Elemol | 12.68 | C15H26O | 222.372 | Sesquiterpenes | 1.78 | - | 1551 |
| 14 | Spathulenol | 13.07 | C15H24O | 220.356 | Sesquiterpenes | 0.18 | - | 1581 |
| 15 | Caryophyllene oxide | 13.16 | C15H24O | 220.356 | Sesquiterpenes | - | 1.51 | 1595 |
| 16 | Cubenol | 13.65 | C15H26O | 222.372 | Sesquiterpenes | 0.44 | 0.97 | 1642 |
| 17 | β-Eudesmol | 14.00 | C15H26O | 222.372 | Sesquiterpenes | 0.64 | - | 1655 |
Rt = retention time of GC-MS. MW= molecular weight. - = not detected. RI = retention index, * calculated according to Kovat’s index based on NIST Mass Spectral Library [26].