| Literature DB >> 31266183 |
Ziaul Hasan Rana1, Mohammad Khairul Alam2, Mohammad Akhtaruzzaman2.
Abstract
Wild plants are considered the richest source of essential nutrients and other beneficial phytochemicals. Hence, the objective of this study was to evaluate the nutritional composition, antioxidant- and α-amylase inhibition activities of leaves and roots of selected Bangladeshi wild plants. These wild plants were found to have high fiber (13.78-22.26 g/100 g), protein (7.08-21.56 g/100 g) and ash (8.21-21.43 g/100 g) contents. The total phenolic and total flavonoid contents were significantly higher in the leaves than the roots. Additionally, antioxidant activity was evaluated using ferric-reducing antioxidant power, 2, 2-diphenyl-1-picrylhydrazyl radical (DPPH) and trolox equivalent antioxidant capacity assays and was strongly correlated with phenolic compounds. The leaf extracts of the selected plants also exhibited potent α-amylase inhibition (~71%) and were significantly higher than their root counterparts. Thus, the study findings concluded that the investigated plants were good sources of fiber, protein, mineral, natural antioxidant compounds and α-amylase inhibitors, and their increased intake could provide health benefits. The principal component analysis (PCA) of analyzed variables divided the samples into three clear groups, and the first two principal components accounted for 86.05% of the total data set variance.Entities:
Keywords: Bangladesh; antioxidants; nutritional profile; total phenolic content; wild plants; α-amylase
Year: 2019 PMID: 31266183 PMCID: PMC6680810 DOI: 10.3390/antiox8070203
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Antioxidants (Basel) ISSN: 2076-3921
Figure 1Photograph of selected samples.
Proximate composition (g/100g dry weight (DW)), and macro minerals and micro minerals (DW basis) of selected wild plants.
| Wild Plants | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Leaves | Roots | Leaves | Roots | Leaves | Roots | |
| Proximate composition (g/100 g sample) | ||||||
| Moisture | 83.71 ± 1.33 | 61.23 ± 1.01 | 88.13 ± 1.55 | 55.44 ± 2.22 | 82.78 ± 2.68 | 70.41 ± 2.11 |
| Protein | 18.13 ± 1.67 | 7.08 ± 0.33 | 21.56 ± 1.10 | 13.21 ± 0.93 | 19.27 ± 0.85 | 11.35 ± 1.05 |
| Fat | 1.88 ± 0.20 | 0.89 ± 0.07 | 2.17 ± 0.11 | 0.94 ± 0.05 | 3.13 ± 0.51 | 1.12 ± 0.10 |
| Fiber | 18.65 ± 1.23 | 22.26 ± 0.56 | 20.28 ± 0.92 | 16.56 ± 0.52 | 19.70 ± 0.90 | 13.78 ± 1.34 |
| Ash | 21.43 ± 0.33 | 13.42 ± 0.88 | 19.78 ± 0.42 | 17.37 ± 0.51 | 20.15 ± 0.75 | 8.21 ± 0.61 |
| Carbohydrate (CHO) | 39.91 ± 1.85 | 56.35 ± 1.46 | 36.21 ± 0.63 | 51.92 ± 1.50 | 37.75 ± 0.75 | 65.54 ± 1.78 |
| Mineral Composition | ||||||
| Macro minerals (mg/100 g sample) | ||||||
| Sodium (Na) | 497.51 ± 3.66 | 135.20 ± 1.03 | 345.33 ± 1.25 | 100.50 ± 0.70 | 577.82 ± 2.23 | 202.72 ± 1.08 |
| Potassium (K) | 4866.45 ± 5.78 | 1185.37 ± 1.75 | 5174.82 ± 5.74 | 2359.90 ± 4.01 | 3345.20 ± 4.65 | 1058.39 ± 5.05 |
| Magnesium (Mg) | 333.51 ± 2.43 | 164.38 ± 0.96 | 274.20 ± 3.98 | 148.21 ± 2.22 | 315.15 ± 2.45 | 190.80 ± 0.70 |
| Calcium (Ca) | 1493.45 ± 3.73 | 842.16 ± 2.02 | 2221.33 ± 6.83 | 523.91 ± 1.13 | 1786.24 ± 7.88 | 1090.90 ± 1.10 |
| Micro minerals (mg/100 g sample) | ||||||
| Iron (Fe) | 31.61 ± 0.70 | 19.83 ± 1.33 | 45.22 ± 1.12 | 16.13 ± 0.80 | 62.05 ± 1.01 | 23.40 ± 0.9 |
| Zinc (Zn) | 6.03 ± 0.09 | 3.51 ± 0.05 | 5.82 ± 0.96 | 2.80 ± 0.09 | 5.88 ± 0.44 | 4.35 ± 0.65 |
| Copper (Cu) | 1.13 ± 0.02 | 0.51 ± 0.01 | 2.33 ± 0.07 | 0.67 ± 0.03 | 1.08 ± 0.04 | 0.84 ± 0.02 |
Total phenolic, flavonoid, TEAC, and FRAP contents of the selected samples.
| Scientific Name | Family | Local Name | TPC 1 (mg GAE/g DW) | TFC 2 (mg QE/g DW) | TEAC 3 (µmol trolox/g DW) | FRAP 4 (µmol Fe2+/g DW) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Leaves | Roots | Leaves | Roots | Leaves | Roots | Leaves | Roots | |||
| Amaranthaceae | Upat Lengra | 68.84 ± 0.61a | 4.55 ± 0.11b | 80.23 ± 0.55a | 2.23 ± 0.19b | 250.18 ± 1.08a | 12.13 ± 0.28b | 505.19 ± 1.56a | 65.22 ± 0.70b | |
| Asteraceae | Kalokeshi | 55.32 ± 0.47b | 8.45 ± 0.15a | 31.55 ± 0.25c | 4.88 ± 0.31a | 184.31 ± 1.42b | 18.58 ± 0.20a | 474.35 ± 1.88b | 81.05 ± 0.55a | |
| Nirgundi | 72.11 ± 0.73a | 2.46 ± 0.06c | 51.07 ± 0.88b | 1.22 ± 0.09b | 282.41 ± 1.25a | 7.50 ± 0.10b | 554.41 ± 2.38a | 53.78 ± 0.98c | ||
Values in the same column having different letters differ significantly (p < 0.05). 1 Total phenolic content; 2 Total flavonoid content; 3 Trolox equivalent antioxidant capacity; 4 Ferric reducing antioxidant power. FRAP: ferric-reducing antioxidant power; TEAC: trolox equivalent antioxidant capacity; TPC: total phenolic content: GAE: gallic acid equivalent; TFC: total flavonoid content; QE: quercetin equivalent.
Figure 2(%) inhibition of 2, 2-diphenyl-1-picrylhydrazyl radical (DPPH) free radical (a) and IC50 (b) value of the samples.
Pearson correlation and corresponding p-values among variables.
|
| ||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| TPC | 0.916 | 0.996 | 0.906 | 0.996 | 0.974 | |
| TFC | 0.916 | 0.916 | 0.829 | 0.884 | 0.876 | |
| TEAC | 0.996 | 0.916 | 0.914 | 0.988 | 0.966 | |
| DPPH | 0.906 | 0.829 | 0.914 | 0.883 | 0.963 | |
| FRAP | 0.996 | 0.884 | 0.988 | 0.883 | 0.967 | |
| α-amylase | 0.974 | 0.876 | 0.966 | 0.963 | 0.967 | |
|
| ||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| TPC | <0.0001 | <0.0001 | <0.0001 | <0.0001 | <0.0001 | |
| TFC | <0.0001 | <0.0001 | <0.0001 | <0.0001 | <0.0001 | |
| TEAC | <0.0001 | <0.0001 | <0.0001 | <0.0001 | <0.0001 | |
| DPPH | <0.0001 | <0.0001 | <0.0001 | <0.0001 | <0.0001 | |
| FRAP | <0.0001 | <0.0001 | <0.0001 | <0.0001 | <0.0001 | |
| α-amylase | <0.0001 | <0.0001 | <0.0001 | <0.0001 | <0.0001 | |
Figure 3α-amylase inhibitory activity (%) of acarbose and the selected plant samples. Means that do not share a letter among samples are significantly different. * p < 0.05 compared to acarbose.
Figure 4Score (a) and loading (b) plots of PCA analysis for the first and second components of selected plants.