| Literature DB >> 31416140 |
Samantha Drouet1,2, Emilie A Leclerc1,2, Laurine Garros1,2, Duangjai Tungmunnithum1,2,3, Atul Kabra4,5, Bilal Haider Abbasi1,2,6, Éric Lainé1,2, Christophe Hano7,8.
Abstract
Silybum marianum (L.) Gaertn. (aka milk thistle) constitutes the source of silymarin (SILM), a mixture of different flavonolignans and represents a unique model for their extraction. Here we report on the development and validation of an ultrasound-assisted extraction (UAE) method of S. marianum flavonolignans follow by their quantification using LC system. The optimal conditions of this UAE method were: aqueous EtOH 54.5% (v/v) as extraction solvent, with application of an ultrasound (US) frequency of 36.6 kHz during 60 min at 45 °C with a liquid to solid ratio of 25:1 mL/g dry weight (DW). Following its optimization using a full factorial design, the extraction method was validated according to international standards of the association of analytical communities (AOAC) to ensure precision and accuracy in the quantitation of each component of the SILM mixture. The efficiency of this UAE was compared with maceration protocol. Here, the optimized and validated conditions of the UAE allowed the highest extraction yields of SILM and its constituents in comparison to maceration. During UAE, the antioxidant capacity of the extracts was retained, as confirmed by the in vitro assays CUPRAC (cupric ion reducing antioxidant capacity) and inhibition of AGEs (advanced glycation end products). The skin anti-aging potential of the extract obtained by UAE was also confirmed by the strong in vitro cell-free inhibition capacity of both collagenase and elastase. To summarize, the UAE procedure presented here is a green and efficient method for the extraction and quantification of SILM and its constituents from the fruits of S. marianum, making it possible to generate extracts with attractive antioxidant and anti-aging activities for future cosmetic applications.Entities:
Keywords: Silybum marianum; Silymarin; anti-aging; antioxidant; design of experiment; flavonolignans; ultrasound-assisted extraction
Year: 2019 PMID: 31416140 PMCID: PMC6721202 DOI: 10.3390/antiox8080304
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Antioxidants (Basel) ISSN: 2076-3921
Figure 1(a) Representative pictures of a flowering capitulum (a.1), of an open mature capitulum bearing mature fruit (achenes) (a.2); and of a mature fruit (achene) (a.3) of milk thistle (S. marianum) (b) Structures of the six flavonolignans (silychristin (SILC), silydianin (SILD), silybin A (SILA), silybin B (SILB), isosilybin A (ISILA) and isosilybin B (ISILB)) and one flavonoid (*, taxifolin, TAX)) from the silymarin (SILM) mixture extracted from milk thistle (S. marianum) mature fruit (achene).
Identity, code unit, coded level and experimental values of the 3 independent variables.
| Independent Variable | Code Unit | Coded Variable Levels | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| −1 | 0 | +1 | ||
| aqEtOH concentration (% v/v) 1 | X1 | 25 | 50 | 75 |
| US frequency (kHz) | X2 | 15 | 30 | 45 |
| Extraction duration (min) | X3 | 20 | 40 | 60 |
1 % of aqEtOH concentration in mixture with HPLC grade ultrapure water.
Results of full factorial design experiments for the extraction of silymarin (SILM) from mature fruits of S. marianum.
| Run ID | Run Order | X1 | X2 | X3 | SILM (mg/g DW) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Run ID#1 | 17 | −1 | −1 | −1 | 2.24 ± 1.80 |
| Run ID#2 | 24 | 0 | −1 | −1 | 6.99 ± 4.11 |
| Run ID#3 | 26 | +1 | −1 | −1 | 4.33 ± 3.09 |
| Run ID#4 | 21 | −1 | 0 | −1 | 2.55 ± 4.61 |
| Run ID#5 | 22 | 0 | 0 | −1 | 9.66 ± 1.44 |
| Run ID#6 | 6 | +1 | 0 | −1 | 6.51 ± 3.06 |
| Run ID#7 | 10 | −1 | +1 | −1 | 4.37 ± 1.72 |
| Run ID#8 | 27 | 0 | +1 | −1 | 8.45 ± 4.48 |
| Run ID#9 | 7 | +1 | +1 | −1 | 6.88 ± 4.82 |
| Run ID#10 | 18 | −1 | −1 | 0 | 3.21 ± 0.34 |
| Run ID#11 | 12 | 0 | −1 | 0 | 12.12 ± 1.57 |
| Run ID#12 | 8 | +1 | −1 | 0 | 6.15 ± 1.08 |
| Run ID#13 | 25 | −1 | 0 | 0 | 1.80 ± 1.50 |
| Run ID#14 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 14.25 ± 0.51 |
| Run ID#15 | 16 | +1 | 0 | 0 | 9.79 ± 2.47 |
| Run ID#16 | 23 | −1 | +1 | 0 | 2.49 ± 1.59 |
| Run ID#17 | 11 | 0 | +1 | 0 | 12.88 ± 3.35 |
| Run ID#18 | 14 | +1 | +1 | 0 | 9.13 ± 1.80 |
| Run ID#19 | 15 | −1 | −1 | +1 | 2.49 ± 0.33 |
| Run ID#20 | 3 | 0 | −1 | +1 | 16.00 ± 0.35 |
| Run ID#21 | 13 | +1 | −1 | +1 | 7.27 ± 0.36 |
| Run ID#22 | 9 | −1 | 0 | +1 | 4.20 ± 0.30 |
| Run ID#23 | 5 | 0 | 0 | +1 | 16.71 ± 0.19 |
| Run ID#24 | 19 | +1 | 0 | +1 | 10.05 ± 0.48 |
| Run ID#25 | 4 | −1 | +1 | +1 | 4.04 ± 0.30 |
| Run ID#26 * | 20 | 0 | +1 | +1 | 17.98 ± 0.66 |
| Run ID#27 | 2 | +1 | +1 | +1 | 8.54 ± 0.94 |
Values are the mean ± RSD of 3 independent replicates except for *, which correspond to the highest SILM content here determined by 6 independent experiments to confirm this value.
Figure 2Silymarin (SILM) contents extracted from mature fruits of S. marianum as of function of (a) aqEtOH concentration (% (v/v)), (b) US frequency (kHz), (c) extraction duration (min), (d) extraction temperature (°C) and (e) liquid to solid ratio (mL/g DW). The complete description of each extraction conditions is presented in the text. Values are means ± SD of 6 independent replicates. Different letters (a–d) represent significant differences between the various extraction conditions (p < 0.05).
Figure 3Representative HPLC chromatogram of an extract prepared by UAE of a mature fruits (achenes) of a milk thistle (S. marianum) commercial cultivar. The main compounds considered in this study are the flavonoid taxifolin (TAX) and the flavonolignans: silychristin (SILC), silydianin (SILD), silybin A (SILA), silybin B (SILB), isosilybin A (ISILA) and isosilybin B (ISILB). Int Std: internal standard (6-methoxyflavone).
Values, standard deviations and statistical analysis of the regression coefficients for the SILM extraction yield (YSILM) from mature fruits of S. marianum as a function of the 3 different variables (X1: aqEtOH concentration, X2: US frequency and X3: extraction duration).
| Source | Value | SD |
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Constant | 13.52 | 1.0 | 13.75 | <0.0001 *** |
| X1 | 2.29 | 0.5 | 5.04 | 0.0001 *** |
| X2 | 0.78 | 0.5 | 1.70 | 0.11 ns |
| X3 | 1.96 | 0.5 | 4.31 | 0.0004 *** |
| X12 | −7.45 | 0.8 | −9.44 | <0.0001 *** |
| X22 | −0.86 | 0.8 | −1.09 | 0.29 ns |
| X32 | −0.25 | 0.8 | −0.31 | 0.76 ns |
| X1X2 | 0.32 | 0.6 | 0.58 | 0.57 ns |
| X1X3 | 0.55 | 0.6 | 0.98 | 0.34 ns |
| X2X3 | −0.11 | 0.6 | −0.20 | 0.84 ns |
SD standard error; *** significant p < 0.001; ** significant p < 0.01; * significant p < 0.05; ns not significant.
ANOVA of the SILM extraction model.
| Source | Sum of Square | df | Mean of Square | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Model | 517.0 | 9 | 57.4 | 15.4 | <0.0001 |
| Lack of fit | 63.4 | 17 | 3.7 | 0.060 | ns |
| Residual | 58.5 | 17 | 3.4 | - | - |
| Pure Error | 4.9 | 0 | - | - | - |
| Cor. Error | 580.4 | 26 | - | - | - |
|
| 0.891 | ||||
| adj | 0.833 | ||||
| CV % | 0.238 |
df: degree of freedom; Cor. Error: corrected error; R: determination coefficient; R adj: adjusted R; CV variation coefficient value; ns: non-significant.
Figure 43D plots from the model predicted SILM extracted quantities from mature fruits of S. marianum as a function of (a) aqEtOH concentration and US frequency, (b) aqEtOH concentration and extraction duration, and (c) US frequency and extraction duration.
Precision, repeatability and stability validation parameters of the method.
| Compound | Precision ( | Repeatability ( | Stability ( | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| SILM | 20.28 ± 2.02 | 2.02 | 19.12 ± 0.88 | 4.62 | 20.16 ± 0.43 | 2.16 |
| SILC | 1.93 ± 0.06 | 3.00 | 1.71 ± 0.10 | 5.72 | 2.02 ± 0.07 | 3.40 |
| SILD | 2.40 ± 0.13 | 5.57 | 2.63 ± 0.08 | 3.20 | 2.56 ± 0.10 | 3.94 |
| SILA | 1.06 ± 0.03 | 3.11 | 1.02 ± 0.02 | 2.47 | 1.17 ± 0.04 | 3.68 |
| SILB | 8.43 ± 0.13 | 1.54 | 7.96 ± 0.28 | 3.58 | 8.17 ± 0.33 | 4.02 |
| ISILA | 4.17 ± 0.14 | 3.24 | 3.89 ± 0.36 | 9.25 | 4.14 ± 0.11 | 2.64 |
| ISILB | 2.29 ± 0.13 | 5.48 | 1.91 ± 0.15 | 7.83 | 2.10 ± 0.07 | 3.26 |
RSD: relative standard deviation (expressed in %).
Figure 5Heatmap showing the phytochemical composition and biological activities relevant to cosmetic of the 27 extracts from S. marianum mature fruit following UAE. Two antioxidant assays were conducted: CUPRAC (expressed as ascorbic acid equivalent antioxidant capacity (AEAC, in µM AEAC)) and the inhibition of advanced glycation end product (AGE) formation (expressed in % of inhibition relative to a control obtained by measuring the activity of the corresponding extraction solvent). Two anti-aging assays were conducted by determining the inhibition activity of each extracts toward collagenase (COL) and elastase (ELA) enzymes (expressed in % of inhibition relative to a control obtained by measuring the activity of the corresponding extraction solvent).
Pearson coefficient correlation (PCC) linking SILM and its constituents to the in vitro antioxidant and in vitro cell-free anti-aging activities.
| Assay | SILM | TAX | SILC | SILD | SILA | SILB | ISILA | ISILB |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CUPRAC | 0.862 *** | 0.500 * | 0.768 * | 0.776 * | 0.806 * | 0.887 * | 0.827 ** | 0.697 * |
| AGE | 0.997 *** | 0.604 * | 0.930 ** | 0.942 ** | 0.976 * | 0.979 *** | 0.960 ** | 0.766 * |
| COLA | 0.976 ** | 0.659 ** | 0.957 ** | 0.927 ** | 0.968 ** | 0.928 *** | 0.908 ** | 0.801 * |
| ELA | 0.922 ** | 0.702 ** | 0.893 ** | 0.843 * | 0.910 ** | 0.894 * | 0.830 * | 0.843 * |
*** significant p < 0.001; ** significant p < 0.01; * significant p < 0.05.
Comparison between conventional the present optimized ultrasound-assisted extraction (UAE) vs conventional heat reflux method (MAC).
| Compound | UAE | Maceration (MAC) | Ratio UAE/MAC |
|---|---|---|---|
| SILM | 20.28 ± 0.41 | 3.40 ± 0.14 | 5.96 *** |
| SILC | 2.40 ± 0.13 | 0.94 ± 0.04 | 2.56 *** |
| SILD | 1.93 ± 0.06 | 0.68 ± 0.04 | 2.84 *** |
| SILA | 1.06 ± 0.03 | 0.11 ± 0.02 | 9.32 *** |
| SILB | 8.43 ± 0.13 | 1.31 ± 0.04 | 6.41 *** |
| ISILA | 4.17 ± 0.13 | 0.30 ± 0.01 | 13.84 *** |
| ISILB | 2.29 ± 0.12 | 0.06 ± 0.01 | 40.37 *** |
Values are the mean ± RSD of three independent replicates expressed in mg/g DW. *** indicate significant differences (p < 0.001) between conditions.
Contents of SILM constituents of 4 French milk thistle cultivars.
| Cultivars | SILM | TAX | SILC | SILD | SILA | SILB | ISILA | ISILB |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| APM | 35.40 ± 1.31 | 1.27 ± 0.18 | 1.79 ± 0.32 | 9.67 ± 1.45 | 6.10 ± 0.40 | 5.30 ± 1.37 | 1.40 ± 0.10 | 0.67 ± 0.25 |
| AJN |
| 1.58 ± 0.13 |
|
|
| 6.46 ± 1.67 | 1.23 ± 0.27 | 0.63 ± 0.10 |
| AJQ | 20.28 ± 0.41 | 0.82 ± 0.05 | 2.40 ± 0.13 | 1.93 ± 0.06 | 1.06 ± 0.03 |
|
|
|
| 11E | 43.25 ± 1.60 |
| 2.14 ± 0.10 | 11.35 ± 1.71 | 6.78 ± 1.56 | 7.43 ± 1.92 | 1.65 ± 0.30 | 0.60 ± 0.16 |
Values are the mean ± RSD of three independent replicates expressed in mg/g DW. Maximum contents are in bold.