| Literature DB >> 31666837 |
Santun Bhekti Rahimah1,2, Dhiah Dianawaty Djunaedi3, Arto Yuwono Soeroto4, Tatang Bisri5.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The popular commercially cultivated Pleurotus ostreatus mushroom contains very high nutrients and bioactive compounds with high antioxidant activity. The ethanolic extract seems to be the most active in preparation. AIM: This study has an aim to compare the phytochemical analysis of a fresh, dry and ethanolic extract of Pleurotus ostreatus, to measure the total phenolic content and antioxidant activities in vitro of ethanolic extracts of Pleurotus ostreatus.Entities:
Keywords: Antioxidant activity; Ethanolic extract; Phytochemical; Pleurotus ostreatus; Total phenolic content
Year: 2019 PMID: 31666837 PMCID: PMC6814466 DOI: 10.3889/oamjms.2019.741
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Open Access Maced J Med Sci ISSN: 1857-9655
Comparison of phytochemical preparations for white oyster mushrooms
| Phytochemical analysis | Sample | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Coumpoud/ class | Methode/ Test | Fresh Plant Materials (FPM) | Dry Plant materials (DPM) | Ethanolic extraction mixed with 70% ethanol (EE70) | Ethanolic extraction mixed with 96% ethanol (EE96) |
| Alkaloid | Dragendroff | ± | + | + | + |
| Meyer | - | - | + | + | |
| Steroid | Sawkosky | + | + | + | ++ |
| Lieberman | + | + | + | + | |
| Triterpenoid | Lieberman | - | - | - | - |
| Flavonoid | Ammonium Test | ± | + | + | ++ |
| Shinoda Test | - | - | - | - | |
| Saponin | Foam Test | + | ++ | ++ | ± |
| Quinone | NaOH | - | - | - | - |
| Tanin | Gelatin | + | + | + | + |
| FeCl3 | - | ± | - | - | |
| Phenolic coumpouds | Gelatin test | + | + | + | + |
| FeCl3 | + | + | + | + | |
Information: (± ◊ weak, + ◊ strong, ++ ◊ very strong).
Results of the Analysis of Total Phenol of Oyster Mushroom Extractions
| Final | Total Phenol | Average | Total Phenol (µg sample extraction/mg GAE) | Average | SD | RSD | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Conc. (μg/ml) | 1 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 3 | ||||
| 2000 | 10.64 | 10.81 | 10.89 | 10.78 | 5.32 | 5.41 | 5.45 | 5.39 | 0.06 | 1.18 |
| 1000 | 6.56 | 6.81 | 6.80 | 6.72 | 6.56 | 6.81 | 6.80 | 6.72 | 0.14 | 2.12 |
| 500 | 3.74 | 4.09 | 4.01 | 3.95 | 7.49 | 8.19 | 8.02 | 7.90 | 0.37 | 4.64 |
ABTS Reduction Activities of EE96 (Average Tukey HSD Post HocTest Results)
| Concentrations (μg/mL) | Average ABTS Reduction Activity (%) |
|---|---|
| EE96 | |
| 400 | 90.98 ± 1.04g |
| 200 | 77.22 ± 0.08f |
| 100 | 52.13 ± 1.37e |
| 50 | 35.96 ± 2.14d |
| 25 | 22.54 ± 1.45c |
| 12.5 | 12.09 ± 0.31a |
| 6.25 | 15.43 ± 0.02b |
Figure 1Dosage curve for inhibition presets of EE96 with a correlation coefficient (R2) of 0.98
IC50 value of ABTS reduction from EE96
| Sample of EE96 | Equation | R2 | IC50 (µg/mL) | IC50 (µg/mL) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 test | Y = 0.3339x + 14.084 | 0.97 | 107.57 | 108.07 ± 1.28 |
| 2nd test | Y = 0.3331x + 14.323 | 0.96 | 107.11 | |
| 3nd test | Y = 0.3300x + 13.857 | 0.98 | 109.32 | |
| Average | Y = 0.3323x + 14.088 | 0.97 | 108.07 |
Data Analysis of ABTS Reduction Activities from EE96
| Sample | Final Conc. (μg/ml) | Reduction of ABTS (%) | Average | SD | RSD | IC50 Rata -rata - R2 | IC50 Ul. 1 - R2 | IC50 Ul. 2 - R2 | IC50 Ul. 3 - R2 | Rata-rata IC50 | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | ||||||||||
| EE96 | 400 | 92.10 | 90.05 | 90.78 | 90.98 | 1.04 | 1.14 | 108.07 | 107.57 | 107.11 | 109.52 | 108.07 |
| 200 | 77.28 | 77.13 | 77.26 | 77.22 | 0.08 | 0.10 | 108.07 ± 1.28 | |||||
| 100 | 52.99 | 52.84 | 50.55 | 52.13 | 1.37 | 2.63 | ||||||
| 50 | 35.78 | 38.19 | 33.92 | 35.96 | 2.14 | 5.96 | ||||||
| 25 | 22.13 | 21.35 | 24.16 | 22.54 | 1.45 | 6.43 | ||||||
| 12.5 | 12.37 | 12.13 | 11.75 | 12.09 | 0.31 | 2.58 | ||||||
| 6.25 | 15.41 | 15.46 | 15.43 | 15.43 | 0.02 | 0.14 | 0.97 | 0.97 | 0.96 | 0.98 | 1.28 | |
H2O2 Capture of Ethanolic extractions of Pleurotus ostreatus (EE96)
| Concentrations (µg/mL) | Average Scavenging activity of H2O2 (%) |
|---|---|
| EE96 | |
| 400 | 73.01 ± 2.58f |
| 200 | 47.88 ± 1.03e |
| 100 | 34.54 ± 2.59d |
| 50 | 26.25 ± 1.70c |
| 25 | 18.96 ± 2.37b |
| 12.5 | 16.26 ± 0.10ab |
| 6.25 | 13.61 ± 0.20a |
*) Data is presented in the form of a mean ± standard deviation; Lowercase differences in the same column show the significance of the data of P < 0.05 (Tukey HSD Post hoc Test).
Figure 2The dose-response curve for the percentage of the EE96 roaming activity with a correlation coefficient (R2) of 0.98
Analysis of H2O2 Roaming Activities for EE96
| Sample | Final Conc. (µg/ml) | Roaming activities of H2O2 (%) | Average | SD | RSD | IC50 Rata -rata - R2 | IC50 Ul. 1 - R2 | IC50 Ul. 2 - R2 | IC50 Ul. 3 - R2 | Rata-rata IC50 | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | ||||||||||
| EE96 | 400 | 70.55 | 72.79 | 75.69 | 73.01 | 2.58 | 3.53 | 229.17 | 231.40 | 231.12 | 225.41 | 229.31 |
| 200 | 48.20 | 48.71 | 46.73 | 47.88 | 1.03 | 2.16 | 229.31 ± 3.38 | |||||
| 100 | 37.45 | 32.48 | 33.68 | 34.54 | 2.59 | 7.51 | ||||||
| 50 | 27.64 | 26.75 | 24.36 | 26.25 | 1.70 | 6.47 | ||||||
| 25 | 21.25 | 16.51 | 19.11 | 18.96 | 2.37 | 12.52 | ||||||
| 12.5 | 16.31 | 16.33 | 16.15 | 16.26 | 0.10 | 0.59 | ||||||
| 6.25 | 13.68 | 13.38 | 13.76 | 13.61 | 0.20 | 1.49 | 0.98 | 0.96 | 0.98 | 0.99 | 3.38 | |
IC50 Value of Capturing of H2O2 from EE96
| Sample of EE96 | Equation | R2 | IC50 (µg/mL) | IC50 (µg/mL) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 Test | Y = 0.1391x + 17.812 | 0.96 | 231.40 | 229.31±3.38 |
| 2nd Test | Y = 0.1493x + 15.494 | 0.98 | 231.12 | |
| 3nd Test | Y = 0.1537x + 15.354 | 0.99 | 225.41 | |
| Average | Y = 0.1474x + 16.220 | 0.98 | 229.17 |