| Literature DB >> 31997905 |
Ali S Alqahtani1,2, Omar M Noman2, Md Tabish Rehman1, Nasir A Siddiqui1, Mohamed F Alajmi1, Fahd A Nasr2, Abdelaaty A Shahat1,2,3, Perwez Alam1.
Abstract
Myrrh is an oleo-gum-resin produced in the stem of Commiphora myrrha (Burseraceae) and used for centuries for different medicinal purposes. The present work was designed to evaluate the cytotoxic and antioxidant properties of seventeen myrrh samples (S1-S17) obtained from different retail markets of Saudi Arabia and Yemen regions, along with two furanosesquiterpenoids (CM-1 and CM-2). The cytotoxicity assay was carried out on HepG2, MCF-7 and HUVEC cell lines. S2, S5, S10, S12, CM-1, CM-2 exhibited significant cytotoxicity against HepG2/MCF-7 cell lines [IC50 (μg/mL): 13.8/10, 14/10, 14.5/11.3, 18/13.2, 9.5/12.5, 10/15.8, respectively) compare to vinblastin (IC50 (μg/mL): 2/2.5) whereas the remaining samples were found as mild active or inactive. The antioxidant properties of the samples were tested by β-carotene-bleaching and DPPH free radical scavenging methods where the samples S8 (1000 μg/mL) exhibited the highest β-carotene bleaching (76.2%) and free radical scavenging activity (79.8%). The HPTLC analysis was performed on NP-HPTLC plate using toluene, chloroform and glacial acetic acid as mobile phase in ratio of 7:2.9:0.1 (V/V/V). The validated HPTLC method furnished sharp, intense and compact peaks of CM-1 and CM-2 at Rf = 0.39 and 0.44, respectively. The highest/lowest content of CM-1 and CM-2 were found in S12/S5 and S5/S17, respectively. The molecular docking studies of CM-1 and CM-2 with human DNA topoisomerase IIα have shown that both the compounds were bound the active sites of the respective enzymes. Molecular dynamics simulation studies further confirmed that the interactions of CM-1 and CM-2 with topoisomerase were stable in nature. This study will help us in selection of appropriate myrrh sample for the greater benefits of the population in the Middle East region.Entities:
Keywords: Antioxidant; Cytotoxicity; Furanosesquiterpenoids; HPTLC; Molecular docking; Myrrh
Year: 2019 PMID: 31997905 PMCID: PMC6978635 DOI: 10.1016/j.jsps.2019.07.007
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Saudi Pharm J ISSN: 1319-0164 Impact factor: 4.330
Fig. 1Chemical structures of furanosesquiterpenoids (CM-1 and CM-2).
Sample codes and collection sites of different myrrh specimens.
| Sample No. | Location | Place of purchase | Date of purchase |
|---|---|---|---|
| S1 | Sana’a, Yemen | Bon Alyaman Spices | June 2017 |
| S2 | Sana’a Spices | June 2017 | |
| S3 | Al-Arabiya Spices | August 2017 | |
| S4 | Bn-Khaldon Spices | August 2017 | |
| S5 | Socatra Spices | June 2017 | |
| S6 | Al-Baha, Saudi Arabia | Banda Hypermarket | September 2018 |
| S7 | Al-zahrani Spices | September 2018 | |
| S8 | Riyadh, Saudi Arabia | Alothim Market | June 2016 |
| S9 | Banda Hypermarket | June 2016 | |
| S10 | Aletkhan Spices | August 2016 | |
| S11 | Alhomikani Spices | August 2016 | |
| S12 | A’ali alkef Spices | September 2016 | |
| S13 | Almarwani Spices | September 2016 | |
| S14 | Bin Shalan Spices | October 2016 | |
| S15 | Almanar Spices | October 2016 | |
| S16 | Nora Spices | November 2016 | |
| S17 | November 2016 |
Fig. 2Chromatogram of CM-1 and CM-2 in S1–S17 [mobile phase: toluene: chloroform: glacial acetic (7:2.9:0.1, v/v/v)]. (A) Chromatogram of standards CM-1 (Rf = 0.39 ± 0.001) and CM-2 (Rf = 0.44 ± 0.001) at λmax = 530 nm; (B) Pictogram of derivatized TLC plate in day light; (C) Spectral comparison of all tracks at 530 nm.
Rf, Linear regression data for the calibration curve of CM-1 and CM-2 (n = 6).
| Parameters | CM-1 | CM-2 |
|---|---|---|
| Linearity range (ng/spot) | 100–700 | 100–700 |
| Regression equation | Y = 2.183X + 780.563 | Y = 1.001X + 36.465 |
| Correlation ( | 0.9943 | 0.9926 |
| Slope ± SD | 2.183 ± 0.02 | 1.001 ± 0.007 |
| Intercept ± SD | 780.563 ± 28.73 | 36.465 ± 2.75 |
| Standard error of slope | 0.08 | 0.003 |
| Standard error of intercept | 11.72 | 1.12 |
| Rf | 0.39 ± 0.001 | 0.44 ± 0.001 |
| LOD (ng) | 31.53 | 25.24 |
| LOQ (ng) | 95.57 | 76.49 |
HPTLC analysis of CM-1 and CM-2 in different myrrh extracts (S1–S17).
| S. No. | Sample code | CM-1 content (µg/mg of dried weight of extract) | CM-2 content (µg/mg of dried weight of extract) |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. | S1 | 15.89 ± 0.75 | 37.32 ± 0.79 |
| 2 | S2 | 131.01 ± 2.31 | 550.46 ± 3.91 |
| 3 | S3 | 15.61 ± 0.38 | 35.03 ± 0.48 |
| 4 | S4 | 18.65 ± 0.54 | 175.70 ± 1.89 |
| 5 | S5 | 141.02 ± 2.55 | 674.18 ± 5.12 |
| 6 | S6 | 133.06 ± 1.98 | 234.02 ± 2.32 |
| 7 | S7 | 50.91 ± 1.84 | 192.95 ± 1.58 |
| 8 | S8 | 187.85 ± 2.03 | 132.47 ± 1.96 |
| 9 | S9 | 107.08 ± 1.73 | 277.25 ± 2.96 |
| 10 | S10 | 136.33 ± 1.49 | 323.75 ± 2.30 |
| 11 | S11 | 91.87 ± 0.88 | 125.12 ± 1.49 |
| 12 | S12 | 211.50 ± 1.93 | 227.15 ± 1.13 |
| 13 | S13 | 101.05 ± 2.01 | 203.04 ± 1.28 |
| 14 | S14 | 78.54 ± 0.97 | 122.41 ± 1.14 |
| 15 | S15 | 9.32 ± 0.22 | 130.25 ± 1.73 |
| 16 | S16 | 82.53 ± 1.06 | 94.60 ± 1.18 |
| 17 | S17 | 49.36 ± 1.53 | 23.61 ± 0.69 |
Fig. 3Quantification of CM-1 and CM-2 in different myrrh samples (S1–S17) by HPTLC using toluene: chloroform: glacial acetic (7:2.9:0.1, v/v/v) as mobile phase. (A) Chromatogram of S5 [CM-1, spot 8, Rf = 0.39; CM-2, spot 9, Rf = 0.44)]; (B) Chromatogram of S2 [CM-1, spot 4, Rf = 0.39; CM-2, spot 5, Rf = 0.44)]; (C) Chromatogram of S10 [CM-1, spot 4, Rf = 0.39; CM-2, spot 5, Rf = 0.44)]; (D) Chromatogram of S12 [CM-1, spot 5, Rf = 0.39; CM-2, spot 6, Rf = 0.44)].
Cytotoxicity in terms of IC50 value (µg/mL) of different myrrh extracts (S1–S17).
| Sample name | HepG2 | MCF-7 | HUVEC |
|---|---|---|---|
| S1 | 33.6 ± 0.6 | 71.3 ± 2.5 | 40.5 ± 1.9 |
| S2 | 14.0 ± 0.9 | 9.8 ± 0.4 | 46.5 ± 1.0 |
| S3 | 36.5 ± 1.6 | 68.8 ± 2.4 | 36.3 ± 2.0 |
| S4 | 36.5 ± 0.8 | 31.3 ± 1.6 | 65.0 ± 2.4 |
| S5 | 13.8 ± 0.2 | 9.5 ± 0.69 | 47.0 ± 0.9 |
| S6 | 38.8 ± 1.1 | 33.2 ± 2.0 | 50.4 ± 1.7 |
| S7 | 24.0 ± 0.9 | 26.0 ± 0.4 | 46.5 ± 1.0 |
| S8 | 29.2 ± 0.5 | 20.7 ± 0.4 | 88.0 ± 2.0 |
| S9 | 38.0 ± 0.5 | 47.9 ± 1.0 | 77.3 ± 1.5 |
| S10 | 14.5 ± 0.5 | 11.3 ± 0.7 | 66.5 ± 1.8 |
| S11 | 28.3 ± 0.6 | 23.5 ± 0.9 | 35.2 ± 1.0 |
| S12 | 18.0 ± 0.5 | 13.2 ± 0.4 | 72.3 ± 1.4 |
| S13 | 42.0 ± 0.9 | 32.2 ± 0.3 | 79.0 ± 1.5 |
| S14 | 33.6 ± 0.6 | 71.3 ± 2.5 | 40.5 ± 1.9 |
| S15 | 33.8 ± 0.6 | 33.0 ± 0.6 | 84.7 ± 0.8 |
| S16 | 24.5 ± 0.7 | 21.3 ± 0.5 | 59.7 ± 1.3 |
| S17 | 33.4 ± 0.8 | 35.5 ± 0.7 | 63.0 ± 2.0 |
| CM-1 | 9.5 ± 0.5 | 12.5 ± 0.6 | 20.2 ± 0.8 |
| CM-2 | 10.0 ± 0.4 | 15.8 ± 0.6 | 28.6 ± 0.8 |
| Vinblastine | 2.0 ± 0.3 | 2.5 ± 0.4 | 5.0 ± 0.4 |
β-Carotene-linoleic acid assay and DPPH free radical scavenging activities myrrh extracts (S1–S17).
| Sample codes | β-carotene-linoleic acid test (% inhibition) | DPPH-radical scavenging activity (% inhibition) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1000 µg/mL | 10 µg/mL | 50 µg/mL | 100 µg/mL | 500 µg/mL | 1000 µg/mL | |
| S1 | 69.1 ± 0.9 | 31.9 ± 3.2 | 40.2 ± 2.1 | 50.4 ± 1.4 | 63.6 ± 2.4 | 71.2 ± 1.7 |
| S2 | 45.8 ± 1.3 | 17.8 ± 0.8 | 24.5 ± 1.7 | 34.3 ± 0.9 | 44.3 ± 1.7 | 58.9 ± 2.6 |
| S3 | 74.2 ± 2.0 | 30.2 ± 0.6 | 40.2 ± 1.3 | 51.3 ± 2.4 | 65.8 ± 2.0 | 76.5 ± 1.7 |
| S4 | 70.1 ± 2.2 | 23.2 ± 1.2 | 30.1 ± 1.3 | 42.9 ± 0.7 | 56.8 ± 1.6 | 72.1 ± 1.2 |
| S5 | 51.5 ± 1.9 | 2.4 ± 3.4 | 10.4 ± 4.3 | 21.6 ± 3.6 | 35.9 ± 3.5 | 54.4 ± 2.7 |
| S6 | 68.2 ± 3.2 | 26.2 ± 2.5 | 32.7 ± 3.1 | 42.3 ± 2.1 | 59.2 ± 1.4 | 73.4 ± 0.7 |
| S7 | 68.3 ± 1.5 | 27.3 ± 2.6 | 36.3 ± 1.4 | 47.1 ± 3.7 | 65.7 ± 2.1 | 74.4 ± 1.6 |
| S8 | 76.2 ± 1.7 | 21.2 ± 3.1 | 37.1 ± 0.5 | 51.9 ± 3.2 | 70.6 ± 3.3 | 79.8 ± 2.8 |
| S9 | 73.1 ± 1.2 | 29.2 ± 1.2 | 35.4 ± 1.5 | 44.8 ± 2.1 | 56.1 ± 2.3 | 75.4 ± 1.5 |
| S10 | 57.2 ± 2.8 | 3.9 ± 0.8 | 11.5 ± 1.2 | 25.7 ± 1.4 | 40.8 ± 2.1 | 61.4 ± 1.3 |
| S11 | 56.1 ± 2.3 | 4.8 ± 4.2 | 18.3 ± 3.1 | 37.1 ± 3.7 | 53.9 ± 2.8 | 62.4 ± 2.4 |
| S12 | 65.2 ± 1.0 | 21.3 ± 0.4 | 27.8 ± 3.1 | 38.9 ± 1.1 | 50.9 ± 2.3 | 69.5 ± 1.2 |
| S13 | 73.2 ± 2.7 | 11.4 ± 1.9 | 23.4 ± 0.4 | 43.1 ± 1.2 | 61.8 ± 2.7 | 76.7 ± 2.8 |
| S14 | 44.2 ± 2.1 | 2.9 ± 4.3 | 17.4 ± 3.6 | 20.8 ± 1.3 | 33.2 ± 2.8 | 49.6 ± 3.7 |
| S15 | 58.2 ± 1.6 | 7.4 ± 2.4 | 18.4 ± 1.8 | 24.2 ± 2.8 | 39.9 ± 1.5 | 61.4 ± 2.3 |
| S16 | 41.2 ± 2.3 | 9.1 ± 4.1 | 14.2 ± 2.3 | 26.1 ± 3.1 | 31.2 ± 2.2 | 47.4 ± 2.1 |
| S17 | 44.2 ± 3.1 | 10.3 ± 3.1 | 10.6 ± 3.1 | 21.6 ± 2.7 | 29.6 ± 3.1 | 44.7 ± 3.1 |
| Ascorbic acid | NT | 80.7 ± 2.5 | 86.1 ± 1.3 | 91.6 ± 1.2 | 93.7 ± 1.7 | 94.7 ± 0.4 |
| Rutin | 89.3 | NT | NT | NT | NT | NT |
NT means not tested. In the columns, means ± SD with different letters notification are significant at (P < 0.05) (n = 3).
Fig. 4Molecular docking of CM-1 (panel A) and CM-2 (panel B) with human DNA topoisomerase IIα.
Molecular docking parameters for the interaction between ligands (CM-1 and CM-2) and protein (human DNA topoisomerase IIα).
| Ligands | Hydrogen bonds | Hydrophobic interactions | Other residues | Docking energy (kcal mol−1) | Docking affinity (M−1) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Control Ligand (phosphoamino phosphonic acid-adenylate ester, ANP) | Glu87, Asn91, Asn120, | −13.03 | 3.60 × 109 | ||
| CM-1 | – | −5.76 | 1.68 × 104 | ||
| CM-2 | −6.12 | 3.08 × 104 |
Residues in bold are commonly involved in the interaction with ligands (control, CM-1 and CM-2).
One salt bridge.
Two salt bridges.
Fig. 5Molecular dynamic (MD) simulation of CM-1 and CM-2 with proteins showing variation in root mean square deviations (RMSDs) and radius of gyration (rGyr) with simulation time. Panels A and B show RMSD and rGyr of human DNA topoisomerase IIα respectively.