| Literature DB >> 31731582 |
Valentina Amodeo1, Mariangela Marrelli1, Veronica Pontieri1, Roberta Cassano1, Sonia Trombino1, Filomena Conforti1, Giancarlo Statti1.
Abstract
Spontaneous edible plants have an old history of use in popular traditions all around the world, and the rediscovery of these species could also be useful for the search of new drugs. Chenopodium album L. (Amaranthaceae) and Sisymbrium officinale (L.) Scop. (Brassicaceae) are two annual plants traditionally used both as food and herbal remedies against inflammatory disorders. In this work, the potential anti-inflammatory and anti-arthritic activities of these plant species have been investigated, together with their antioxidant potential. The phytochemical composition was assessed as well by means of gas chromatography coupled to mass spectrometry (GC-MS) and high performance thin layer chromatography (HPTLC). The antioxidant properties were assessed using the DPPH and β-carotene bleaching test. The ability of extracts to protect against lipid peroxidation was also examined in rat-liver microsomal membranes. All the samples showed a preservation of antioxidant activity up to 60 min. A significant inhibitory activity on the production of the pro-inflammatory mediator nitric oxide was induced in lipopolysaccharide (LPS)-stimulated RAW 264.7 cells by the dichloromethane fraction of C. album extract, with an IC50 value equal to 81.7 ± 0.9 μg/mL. The same sample showed also a concentration-dependent anti-denaturation effect on heat-treated bovine serum albumin (IC50 = 975.6 ± 5.5 μg/mL), even if the best in vitro anti-arthritic activity was observed for the dichloromethane fraction of S. officinale extract, with an IC50 value of 680.9 ± 13.2 μg/mL.Entities:
Keywords: Chenopodium; Sisymbrium; anti-arthritic; anti-denaturation property; antioxidant; bovine serum albumin; nitric oxide
Year: 2019 PMID: 31731582 PMCID: PMC6918386 DOI: 10.3390/plants8110505
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Plants (Basel) ISSN: 2223-7747
Investigated plants: Extraction yields and total phenolic and flavonoid contents.
| Botanical Name | Family | Voucher Number | Yield (%) | TP 1 | TF 2 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Amaranthaceae | 26247 | 23.2 | 12.8 ± 1.6 | 0.77 ± 0.01 | |
| Brassicaceae | 26236 | 10.6 | 8.1 ± 0.1 | 0.50 ± 0.01 |
1 Total phenolic content. 2 Total flavonoid content. Data are expressed as mean ± SE (n = 3). Results were expressed as mg of chlorogenic acid or quercetin equivalent per g of dry plant material, respectively.
Phytochemical profile of n-hexane fractions of Chenopodium album L. and Sisymbrium officinale (L.) Scop.
| Compound 1 | Rt 2 | RAP 3 | |
|---|---|---|---|
|
| |||
| Caprylic acid | 10.106 | Tr 4 | Tr |
| Pelargonic acid | 12.00 | - | 0.1 |
| Lauric acid | 15.044 | Tr | 0.1 |
| Myristic acid | 16.799 | 0.7 | 0.3 |
| 4,8,12-Trimethyltridecanoic acid | 16.930 | - | 0.1 |
| Pentadecanoic acid | 17.616 | Tr | 0.2 |
| Tetradecanoic acid, 5,9,13-trimethyl- | 17.708 | Tr | - |
| Palmitelaidic acid | 18.096 | Tr | - |
| Palmitic acid | 18.159 | 15.7 | 10.0 |
| Oleic acid | 18.531 | Tr | - |
| Margaric acid | 18.902 | 0.3 | - |
| Isooleic acid | 19.456 | 0.8 | - |
| Stearic acid | 19.634 | 1.3 | 1.0 |
| Arachidic acid | 20.988 | 0.8 | 1.0 |
| Linoleic acid | 21.051 | - | 0.5 |
| Behenic acid | 22.274 | 0.9 | 0.8 |
| Tricosylic acid | 22.966 | Tr | 0.4 |
| Lignoceric acid | 23.731 | - | 0.6 |
| Pentacosylic acid | 24.696 | - | 0.3 |
| Cerotic acid | 25.829 | - | 0.9 |
| Montanic acid | 28.847 | - | tr |
|
| |||
| Dihydroactinidiolide | 14.987 | 0.9 | 0.4 |
| Neophytadiene | 17.473 | 0.7 | - |
|
| |||
| β-Sitosterol | 33.882 | 3.2 | - |
1 Compounds listed in order of elution from SE30 MS column. 2 Retention time (as min). 3 Relative area percentage (peak area relative to total peak area in total ion current (TIC) %). 4 Tr: Traces percentages < 0.1%.
Chemical composition of dichloromethane fractions of Chenopodium album L. and Sisymbrium officinale (L.) Scop. methanolic extracts.
| Compound 1 | Rt 2 | RAP 3 | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Phenol | 7.677 | - | Tr 4 |
| Benzoic acid | 10.758 | 1.0 | - |
| Methylethylmaleimide | 11.575 | 1.4 | 0.3 |
| 2,4-Di-tert-butylphenol | 14.621 | - | Tr |
| Loliolide | 17.073 | 1.7 | - |
| Coniferyl alcohol | 17.250 | - | 1.2 |
| Ferulic acid | 17.565 | - | 0.7 |
1 Compounds listed in order of elution from SE30 MS column. 2 Retention time (as min). 3 Relative area percentage (peak area relative to total TIC peak area %). 4 Tr: Traces percentages < 0.1%.
Figure 1(A) High performance thin-layer chromatography (HPTLC) analysis of the ethyl acetate fractions of investigated plants. Mobile phase: Ethyl acetate/dichloromethane/acetic acid/formic acid/water (100:25:10:10:11, v/v/v/v/v). Visualization—366 nm, derivatization—Natural Product Reagent (NPR). Tracks: 1, C. album L.; 2, S. officinale (L.) Scop.; 3, rutin; 4, chlorogenic acid. (B) Rutin. (C) Chlorogenic acid.
Figure 2HPTLC chromatograms of analyzed samples and standards. (A) C. album L.; (B) S. officinale (L.) Scop.; (C) rutin (Rf = 0.16).; (D) chlorogenic acid (Rf = 0.32).
In vitro antioxidant activity of plants extract and fractions.
| Species | Sample | IC50 (µg/mL) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| DPPH Test | β-carotene Bleaching Test | |||
| 30 min | 60 min | |||
| Raw extract | 172.70 ± 2.18 d | 60.51 ± 2.34 e | ˃100 | |
| ˃1000 | ˃100 | ˃100 | ||
| CH2Cl2 | 435.60 ± 12.97 f | ˃100 | ˃100 | |
| EtOAc | 140.40 ± 4.36 c | 12.07 ± 0.04 b | 38.03 ± 1.88 d | |
| H2O | ˃1000 | ˃100 | ˃100 | |
| Raw extract | 143.00 ± 2.61 c | 2.61 ± 0.06 a,b | 8.53 ± 0.27 b | |
| ˃1000 | ˃100 | ˃100 | ||
| CH2Cl2 | ˃1000 | 61.02 ± 2.31 e | ˃100 | |
| EtOAc | 60.11 ± 1.79 b | 12.62 ± 0.75 b | 30.49 ± 1.17 c | |
| H2O | 262.9 ± 0.93 e | ˃100 | ˃100 | |
| Ascorbic acid 1 | 2.00 ± 0.01 a | - | - | |
| Propyl gallate 1 | - | 1.00 ± 0.02 a | 1.00 ± 0.02 a | |
Data are expressed as mean ± SEM (n = 3). Different letters along column (DPPH test) or between columns (β-carotene bleaching test) indicate statistically significant differences at P < 0.05 (Bonferroni post-hoc test). 1 Positive controls.
Figure 3Effects of Chenopodium album L. (a) and Sisymbrium officinale (L.) Scop. extract (b) on malondialdehyde (MDA) production induced by tert-butyl hydroperoxide (tert-BOOH) in rat liver microsomal membranes. Results represent the mean ± SEM of four separate experiments. Overall P < 0.01.
Figure 4(a) Nitric oxide production inhibition induced by Chenopodium album L. (b) Non-linear regression analyses: ● raw extract, ▲ CH2Cl2 fraction. (c) Nitric oxide production inhibition induced by Sisymbrium officinale (L.) Scop. and (d) non-linear regression analyses: ● raw extract, ◊ n-hexane fraction. Data were expressed as means ± S.E.M. (n = 4). *** P < 0.001 compared to control (Dunnett’s test).
In vitro inhibitory activity on NO production and anti-arthritic potential.
| Species | Sample | IC50 (µg/mL) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| NO Inhibition | BSA Denaturation Inhibition | ||
| Raw extract | 483.2 ± 6.4 c | n.a. | |
| n.a. | n.a. | ||
| CH2Cl2 | 81.7 ± 0.9 a | 975.6 ± 5.5 c | |
| EtOAc | n.a. | n.a. | |
| H2O | n.a. | n.a. | |
| Raw extract | 734.4 ± 21.2 d | n.a. | |
| 142.0 ± 5.5 b | n.a. | ||
| CH2Cl2 | n.a. | 680.9 ± 13.2 b | |
| EtOAc | n.a. | n.a. | |
| H2O | n.a. | n.a. | |
| Indomethacin 1 | 58.0 ± 0.9 a | - | |
| L-NAME 1 | 45.9 ± 0.5 a | - | |
| Diclofenac 1 | - | 15.73 ± 0.2 a | |
Data are expressed as mean ± SEM (n = 4, NO inhibition; n= 3, Bovine serum albumin (BSA) denaturation). Different letters along columns indicate statistically significant differences at P < 0.05 (Bonferroni post-hoc test). n.a. = not active. 1 Positive controls.
Figure 5(a) Concentration-dependent anti-denaturation effects on heat-treated BSA induced by the dichloromethane fractions of investigated plant extracts. (b) Non-linear regression analyses: ● C. album CH2Cl2 fraction, ▲ S. officinale CH2Cl2 fraction.