| Literature DB >> 31801290 |
Patrícia A B Ramos1,2, Catarina Moreirinha1, Sara Silva3, Eduardo M Costa3, Mariana Veiga3, Ezequiel Coscueta3, Sónia A O Santos1, Adelaide Almeida4, M Manuela Pintado3, Carmen S R Freire1, Artur M S Silva1,2, Armando J D Silvestre1.
Abstract
Salix spp. have been exploited for energy generation, along with folk medicine use of bark extracts for antipyretic and analgesic benefits. Bark phenolic components, rather than salicin, have demonstrated interesting bioactivities, which may ensure the sustainable bioprospection of Salix bark. Therefore, this study highlights the detailed phenolic characterization, as well as the in vitro antioxidant, anti-hypertensive, Staphylococcus aureus growth inhibitory effects, and biocompatibility of Salix atrocinerea Brot., Salix fragilis L., and Salix viminalis L. bark polar extracts. Fifteen phenolic compounds were characterized by ultra-high-performance liquid chromatography-ultraviolet detection-mass spectrometry analysis, from which two flavan-3-ols, an acetophenone, five flavanones, and a flavonol were detected, for the first time, as their bark components. Salix bark extracts demonstrated strong free radical scavenging activity (5.58-23.62 µg mL-1 IC50 range), effective inhibition on angiotensin-I converting enzyme (58-84%), and S. aureus bactericidal action at 1250-2500 µg mL-1 (6-8 log CFU mL-1 reduction range). All tested Salix bark extracts did not show cytotoxic potential against Caco-2 cells, as well as S. atrocinerea Brot. and S. fragilis L. extracts at 625 and 1250 µg mL-1 against HaCaT and L929 cells. These valuable findings can pave innovative and safer food, nutraceutical, and/or cosmetic applications of Salix bark phenolic-containing fractions.Entities:
Keywords: Salix spp. bark polar extracts; anti-hypertensive potential; antibacterial effect; antioxidant activity; bioeconomy-based value chain; phenolic compounds
Year: 2019 PMID: 31801290 PMCID: PMC6943414 DOI: 10.3390/antiox8120609
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Antioxidants (Basel) ISSN: 2076-3921
Standard data used for the HPLC-UV quantification of phenolic compounds present in methanol/water/acetic acid (49.5:49.5:1) extracts of Salix spp. bark.
| Standard Compound | λ (nm) A | Concentration Range (µg mL−1) | Linear Regression Equation B |
| LOD (µg mL−1) | LOQ (µg mL−1) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Catechin | 280 | 0.10–30.29 | 0.9998 | 0.52 | 1.74 | |
| 235 | 0.51–30.89 | 0.9929 | 3.42 | 11.40 | ||
| Naringenin | 280 | 0.11–21.17 | 0.9990 | 0.87 | 2.89 | |
| Piceol | 280 | 0.30–18.23 | 0.9992 | 0.68 | 2.25 | |
| Quercetin | 370 | 0.10–19.21 | 0.9989 | 0.85 | 2.83 |
A Wavelength used in the quantitative analysis; B y = peak area, x = concentration in µg mL−1. LOD, limit of detection; LOQ, limit of quantification.
Extractive yield (EY) and total phenolic content (TPC) of methanol/water/acetic acid (49.5:49.5:1) extracts of Salix atrocinerea Brot., Salix fragilis L., and Salix viminalis L. barks.
| EY (% of Dry Bark, | TPC (g GAE kg−1 of Dry Bark) | TPC (mg GAE g−1 of Extract) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 15.1 ± 1.7 b | 44.47 ± 6.68 b | 293.36 ± 19.52 b | |
| 9.7 ± 0.3 a | 17.47 ± 3.19 a | 179.06 ± 30.64 a | |
| 10.1 ± 0.8 a | 24.76 ± 0.82 a | 246.44 ± 16.58 a,b |
The results represent the mean ± standard deviation. Means with different superscript minor case letters (a, b) within the same column are statistically different (one-way ANOVA, followed by Tukey’s HSD test, p < 0.05). GAE, gallic acid equivalents.
Figure 1UHPLC-UV chromatograms of methanol/water/acetic acid (49.5:49.5:1) extracts, derived from (A) Salix atrocinerea Brot., (B) Salix fragilis L., and (C) Salix viminalis L. barks, recorded at 280 nm. The peak numbers correspond to those represented in Table 3 and Table 4 and Figure 2.
UHPLC-DAD-MS data of phenolic compounds detected in methanol/water/acetic acid (49.5:49.5:1) extracts of Salix atrocinerea Brot., Salix fragilis L. and Salix viminalis L. barks.
| No. | RT (min) | Compound | λmax (nm) | [M−H]− ( | MS | Id. |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 3.79 | (Epi)gallocatechin-(epi)catechin dimer isomer | 233, 273 | 593 | MS2: 575, 525, 467, 441, 425, 423, 407, 303, | [ |
| 2 | 6.68 | B-type procyanidin dimer isomer 1 | 237, 277 | 577 | MS2: 559, 451, 425, 407, | [ |
| 3 | 6.77 | Picein | 229, 264 | 343 A | MS2: 297, 135, 120 | [ |
| 4 | 7.19 | Procyanidin B1 | 236, 278 | 577 | MS2: 559, 451, 425, 407, | Co |
| 5 | 7.37 | Catechin | 235, 278 | 289 | MS2: 271, 245, 205, 203, 179 | Co |
| 6 | 7.61 | B-type procyanidin dimer isomer 2 | 237, 278 | 577 | MS2: 559, 451, 425, 407, | [ |
| 7 | 10.10 | Piceol | 229, 274 | 135 | MS2: 93 | Co |
| 8 | 12.24 | B-type procyanidin dimer isomer 3 | 241, 279 | 577 | MS2: 559, 451, 425, 407, | [ |
| 9 | 12.27 | Salicylic acid | 241, 299 | 137 | MS2: 93 | [ |
| 10 | 13.86 | Naringenin- | 241, 277 | 433 | MS2: 433, 416, 365, 313, | [ |
| 11 | 14.52 | Naringenin- | 241, 274 | 433 | MS2: 313, | [ |
| 12 | 14.88 | Quercetin 3- | 241, 268, 346 | 463 | MS2: 417, 395, 379, 343, | Co |
| 13 | 18.09 | Eriodictyol- | 238, 282, 330sh | 449 | MS2: 431, 413, 403, 381, 297; | [ |
| 14 | 19.88 | Eriodictyol | 238, 284, 330sh | 287 | MS2: 287, 151, 135, 125, 107 | Co |
| 15 | 23.23 | Naringenin | 237, 279 | 271 | MS2: 227, 177, 151, 119, 107 | Co |
A Compound 3 was detected as a formate adduct ([M+HCOO]− ion). B m/z underlined was subjected to MS analysis. The numbers (No.) of phenolic compounds correspond to the chromatographic peaks assigned in Figure 1, and the proposed chemical structures illustrated in Figure 2. Co, co-injection of a commercial standard; Id., identification; RT, retention time; sh, shoulder wavelength.
Figure 2Proposed chemical structures for main phenolic compounds detected in the Salix atrocinerea Brot., Salix fragilis L., and Salix viminalis L. barks. Glc, glucosyl.
Abundance of phenolic compounds in the methanol/water/acetic acid extracts (49.5:49.5:1) of Salix atrocinerea Brot., Salix fragilis L., and Salix viminalis L. barks.
| No. | Compound | λ (nm) | mg kg−1 of Dry Weight | mg g−1 of Extract | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | (Epi)gallocatechin-(epi)catechin dimer isomer A | 280 | 213 | − | − | 1.40 | − | − |
| 2 | B-type procyanidin dimer isomer 1 A | 280 | − | − | 19 | − | − | 0.19 |
| 4 | Procyanidin B1A | 280 | 404 F(4+5) | − | 159 F(4+5+6) | 2.70 F(4+5) | − | 1.55 F(4+5+6) |
| 5 | Catechin A | 280 | F(4+5) | 146 | F(4+5+6) | F(4+5) | 1.51 | F(4+5+6) |
| 6 | B-type procyanidin dimer isomer 2 A | 280 | − | − | F(4+5+6) | − | − | F(4+5+6) |
| 8 | B-type procyanidin dimer isomer 3 B | 235 | − | − | F(8+9), G | − | − | F(8+9), G |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ||
| 3 | Picein C | 280 | 797 | 27 | − | 5.32 | 0.28 | − |
| 7 | Piceol C | 280 | 1358 | 1537 | − | 9.10 | 15.87 | − |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ||
| 9 | Salicylic acid B | 235 | traces | 58 | 200 F(8+9), G | traces | 0.59 | 2.00 F(8+9), G |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ||
| 10 | Naringenin- | 280 | 6 | − | − | 0.04 | − | − |
| 11 | Naringenin- | 280 | 13 | − | − | 0.09 | − | − |
| 13 | Eriodictyol- | 280 | − | − | 51 | − | − | 0.50 |
| 14 | Eriodictyol D | 280 | − | − | 52 | − | − | 0.51 |
| 15 | Naringenin D | 280 | 44 | 5 | − | 0.30 | 0.05 | − |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ||
| 12 | Quercetin 3- | 370 | 35 | 6 | 10 | 0.23 | 0.06 | 0.09 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ||
The results represent the means obtained from Salix spp. bark extracts injected in triplicate (standard deviation less than 5%). Standard curves used for the quantification of phenolic compounds: A catechin; B m-hydroxybenzoic acid; C piceol; D naringenin; E quercetin. F The abundance of co-eluting compounds 4, 5, and 6 was determined at 280 nm, using the calibration curve of catechin. G The abundance of co-eluting compounds 8 and 9 was assayed at 235 nm, through the calibration curve of m-hydroxybenzoic acid, as the maximum absorbance was higher at 235 nm than at 280 nm.
Antioxidant activity of methanol/water/acetic acid extracts (49.5:49.5:1) of Salix atrocinerea Brot., Salix fragilis L., and Salix viminalis L. bark, through DPPH• and ABTS•+ scavenging effects.
| DPPH• Scavenging Effect | ABTS•+ Scavenging Effect | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| IC50 (µg mL−1) | IC50 (mg AAE g−1 of Dry Bark) | AAI | IC50 (µg mL−1) | |
| 10.98 ± 0.77 a,b | 54.41 ± 8.22 b | 5.64 | 5.58 ± 0.72 a,b | |
| 23.62 ± 4.82 c | 16.79 ± 3.54 a | 2.62 | 10.24 ± 1.54 c | |
| 14.06 ± 1.73 b | 28.63 ± 4.34 a | 4.40 | 7.82 ± 0.45 b,c | |
| Ascorbic acid | 3.92 ± 0.08 a | ˗ | - | 3.37 ± 0.06 a |
The results represent the mean ± standard deviation (n = 9). Means with different superscript minor case letters (a–c) within the same column are statistically different (one-way ANOVA, followed by Tukey’s HSD test, p < 0.05). AAE, ascorbic acid equivalents; AAI, antioxidant activity index; IC50, inhibitory concentration at 50%.
Figure 3Inhibitory effect of 625 µg mL−1 Salix atrocinerea Brot., Salix fragilis L., and Salix viminalis L. bark extracts against the angiotensin I-converting enzyme (ACE). Each column and bar represents the mean and the standard deviation, respectively (n = 4). Columns with different minor case letters (a, b) are statistically different (one-way ANOVA, followed by Tukey’s HSD test, p < 0.05).
Figure 4Bacterial density expressed as log CFU mL−1 of Staphylococcus aureus ATCC® 6538, after 24 h of incubation with 625, 1250, and 2500 µg mL−1 of Salix atrocinerea Brot., Salix fragilis L., and Salix viminalis L. bark polar extracts. Growth bacterial control is also depicted. Each column and bar represents the mean and the standard deviation, respectively (n = 6). Columns with the symbol * are statistically different from the growth control (one-way ANOVA, followed by Tukey’s HSD test, p < 0.05). CFU, colony forming unit.
Figure 5Metabolic inhibition of Salix atrocinerea Brot., Salix fragilis L., and Salix viminalis L. bark polar extracts at 625, 1250, and 2500 µg mL−1 for 24 h against three mammalian cell lines, namely: (A) human colorectal adenocarcinoma Caco-2 cells; (B) human keratinocyte HaCaT cells; and (C) mouse fibroblast L929 cells. Each column and bar represents the mean and the standard deviation, respectively (n = 5). Columns with different minor case letters (a–e) are statistically different (one-way ANOVA, followed by Tukey’s HSD test, p < 0.05).