| Literature DB >> 31394879 |
Paola Poma1, Manuela Labbozzetta1, Pietro Zito1, Rosa Alduina1, Aro Vonjy Ramarosandratana2, Maurizio Bruno1, Sergio Rosselli3, Maurizio Sajeva4, Monica Notarbartolo5.
Abstract
Drug resistance is a major obstacle in antibiotic and antitumor chemotherapy. In response to the necessity to find new therapeutic strategies, plant secondary metabolites including essential oils (EOs) may represent one of the best sources. EOs in plants act as constitutive defenses against biotic and abiotic stress, and they play an important role in the pharmacology for their low toxicity, good pharmacokinetic and multitarget activity. In this context, natural products such as EOs are one of the most important sources of drugs used in pharmaceutical therapeutics. The aim of this paper was to identify the chemical composition of the essential oil of Alluaudia procera leaves, obtained by hydrodistillation and analysed by gas chromatography-mass spectrometry, and to verify its biological activities on acute myeloid leukemia cancer cell HL60 and its multidrugresistant variant HL60R and the Gram-positive Staphylococcus aureus exhibiting multi-antibiotic resistance. We speculate that cytotoxic and antibiotic effects observed in the tested resistant models may be due to the coordinate activities of forty compounds detected or to the C16 macrocyclic lactones which are the major ones (30%). Our data confirm the possibility of using EOs as therapeutic strategies in resistant models is due to the heterogeneous composition of the oils themselves.Entities:
Keywords: Didiereaceae; acute myeloid leukemia cell; essential oil; succulent plants
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31394879 PMCID: PMC6720003 DOI: 10.3390/molecules24162871
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Molecules ISSN: 1420-3049 Impact factor: 4.411
Figure 1Alluaudia procera growing at the Botanical Garden of the University of Palermo.
Chemical composition of A. procera essential oil.
| LRI a | LRI b | Compound | % | Id c | Class d |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1069 | 1435 | 0.2 | 1, 2 | OM | |
| 1085 | 1436 | 0.1 | 1, 2 | OM | |
| 1099 | 1551 | Linalool | 0.2 | 1, 2, 3 | OM |
| 1186 | 1693 | α-Terpineol | 0.3 | 1, 2, 3 | OM |
| 1253 | 1463 | 0.3 | 1, 2 | C13 | |
| 1272 | 1508 | Vitispirane (isomer not identified) | 3.7 | 1, 2 | C13 |
| 1309 | 1595 | 0.9 | 1, 2 | C13 | |
| 1345 | 1734 | 1,1,6-Trimethyl-1,2-dihydronaphthalene | 0.2 | 1, 2 | C13 |
| 1380 | 1807 | 0.1 | 1, 2 | C13 | |
| 1383 | 1804 | 1,4,6-trimethyl-1,2-dihydronaphthalene | 0.2 | 1, 2 | C13 |
| 1411 | 1569 | 0.5 | 1, 2 | SH | |
| 1508 | 1735 | ( | 0.3 | 1, 2 | SH |
| 1634 | 2032 | 1- | 0.3 | 1, 2 | OS |
| 1700 | 1700 | Heptadecane | 0.2 | 1, 2, 3 | H |
| 1738 | 2492 | γ-Costol | 1.0 | 1, 2 | OS |
| 1756 | 2606 | Benzyl benzoate | 0.5 | 1, 2, 3 | O |
| 1800 | 1800 | Octadecane | 0.4 | 1, 2, 3 | H |
| 1838 | 1926 | Neophytadiene (isomer not identified) | 5.6 | 1, 2 | DH |
| 1863 | 1955 | Neophytadiene (isomer not identified) | 1.1 | 1, 2 | DH |
| 1880 | 1982 | Neophytadiene (isomer not identified) | 3.7 | 1, 2 | DH |
| 1900 | 1900 | Nonadecane | 0.9 | 1, 2, 3 | H |
| 1906 | 2418 | Ambrettolide isomer | 7.4 | 1, 2 | ML |
| 1914 | 2385 | Ambrettolide [( | 18.1 | 1, 2, 3 | ML |
| 1919 | 2414 | Ambrettolide isomer | 15.2 | 1, 2 | ML |
| 1924 | 2373 | Ambrettolide isomer | 10.8 | 1, 2 | ML |
| 1928 | 2393 | Ambrettolide isomer | 3.8 | 1, 2 | ML |
| 2000 | 2000 | Eicosane | 0.5 | 1, 2, 3 | H |
| 2100 | 2100 | Heneicosane | 0.6 | 1, 2, 3 | H |
| 2111 | 2614 | 8.0 | 1, 2, 3 | OD | |
| 2114 | 2586 | 14-Methyl-8-hexadecyn-1-ol | 1.2 | 1, 2 | O |
| 2119 | 2575 | Oxacyclononadec-10-en-2-one (isomer not identified) | 1.3 | 1, 2 | ML |
| 2128 | 2610 | Oxacyclononadec-10-en-2-one (isomer not identified) | 2.1 | 1, 2 | ML |
| 2200 | 2200 | Docosane | 0.3 | 1, 2, 3 | H |
| 2300 | 2300 | Tricosane | 0.4 | 1, 2, 3 | H |
| 2400 | 2400 | Tetracosane | 0.1 | 1, 2, 3 | H |
| 2500 | 2500 | Pentacosane | 0.8 | 1, 2, 3 | H |
| 2600 | 2600 | Hexacosane | 0.5 | 1, 2, 3 | H |
| 2700 | 2700 | Heptacosane | 3.1 | 1, 2, 3 | H |
| 2800 | 2800 | Octacosane | 0.4 | 1, 2, 3 | H |
| 2900 | 2900 | Nonacosane | 1.1 | 1, 2, 3 | H |
|
| |||||
| Oxygenated Monoterpene | 0.8 | ||||
| Sesquiterpene Hydrocarbons | 0.8 | ||||
| Oxygenated Sesquiterpene | 1.3 | ||||
| Diterpene Hydrocarbons | 10.4 | ||||
| Oxygenated Diterpene | 8.0 | ||||
| Aliphatic Hydrocarbons | 9.3 | ||||
| C13 Norisoprenoids | 5.4 | ||||
| Macrolactones | 58.7 | ||||
| Others | 1.7 | ||||
| Total | 96.4 |
a Linear Retention Index on a HP-5 MS column; b linear Retention Index on a Supelcowax 10 column; c 1: retention index; 2: MS, mass spectrum; 3: co-injection with authentic compound; d OM: oxygenated monoterpenes, SH: sesquiterpene hydrocarbons, OS: oxygenated sesquiterpenes, DH: diterpene hydrocarbons, H: hydrocarbons, C13: C13 norisoprenoids, ML: macrolactones, O: others.
Figure 2Mass spectrum and chemical structure of (Z)-Oxacycloheptadec-8-en-2-one (LRI 1914–2385) found in the present study.
Figure 3Cytotoxic activity of A. procera essential oil on HL60 (A) and HL60 R (B) cell lines. Cell viability was assessed by MTS. Data are expressed as mean ± standard error (SE) of at least three different experiments performed in triplicate. Different letters represent significant differences in cytotoxic activity among the concentrations of each cell line (Tukey test, p < 0.05).
Cell growth inhibition in HL60 and its multidrug resistant variant HL60R following treatment with essential oil of A. procera and doxorubicin (Doxo) or a combination of these.
| Cell Lines and Treatments | Cell Viability (%) | Expected (%) |
|---|---|---|
|
| ||
| Essential oil of | 100.0 ± 0.0 | |
| Essential oil of | 82.0 ± 2.1 | |
| Doxo 1 ng/mL | 90.0 ± 0.7 | |
| Doxo 2 ng/mL | 84.5 ± 3.9 | |
| Essential oil of | 100.0 ± 0.5 | 90.0 ± 0.7 |
| Essential oil of | 93.0 ± 3.1 | 84.5 ± 3.9 |
| Essential oil of | 80.0 ± 1.7 | 74.0 ± 1.4 |
| Essential oil of | 71.0 ± 2.2 | 69.0 ± 1.4 |
|
| ||
| Essential oil of | 100.0 ± 0.0 | |
| Essential oil of | 70.5 ± 3.2 | |
| Doxo 100 ng/mL | 87.5 ± 3.9 | |
| Doxo 500 ng/mL | 76.5 ± 4.6 | |
| Essential oil of | 95.0 ± 2.2 | 87.5 ± 3.9 |
| Essential oil of | 88.0 ± 3.8 | 76.5 ± 4.6 |
| Essential oil of | 70.0 ± 1.9 | 62.0 ± 5.6 |
| Essential oil of | 61.0 ± 5.9 | 54.0 ± 5.6 |
Data are expressed as the mean ± standard error of three independent experiments. There are not statistical differences among expected (%) and cell viability (%). Expected value: Sum of the effects of the agents alone minus that of the untreated cells.
Figure 4Antibacterial activity of the essential oil (EO) against S. aureus ATCC25923 (A) and E. coli K12 (B). The presence of the halo around the disk, previously soaked with the EO, demonstrates the antibacterial activity against S. aureus ATCC25923. C: Negative control.
Figure 5Effect of EO on S. aureus ATCC25923 growth. A: determination of total bacterial count. Data are average from triplicate experiments. Bars represent standard deviations of triplicate incubations. B: determination of vital bacterial count when 10 μg/mL of EO were added. Negative control represents the bacterial culture incubated with DMSO.
Figure 6Effect of EO on growth of two MDR S. aureus isolates (A—S. aureus strain 11; B—S. aureus strain 5). Data are average from triplicate experiments. Bars represent standard deviations of triplicate incubations.
Results of the disc diffusion antibiotic sensitivity assays. The diameter of the inhibition halos around the disk, previously soaked with EO and EO+Ery, is reported.
| Incubation of Bacteria in Presence of | Diameter (cm) of the Inhibition Halo |
|---|---|
| EO | 0.8 ± 0.05 |
| EO + Ery | 0.8 ± 0.03 |
| Ery | 0 ± 0.01 |