| Literature DB >> 32148801 |
Yujie Wang1, Lei Zhao1, Ruoyu Zhang1, Xiushi Yang2, Yanghua Sun1, Longlong Shi1, Peng Xue1.
Abstract
The anthocyanins contents from red rice bran were characterized by HPLC/MS. Response surface methodology was used to optimize the ultrasound-assisted extraction of red rice bran anthocyanin. The antioxidant activities were evaluated in terms of IC50. The tyrosinase inhibitory activities of the anthocyanin samples from red rice bran and the standard substances were determined by a spectrophotometric method. According to mass spectrometry information, the main component of anthocyanins is paeoniflorin (m/z = 480). The optimized anthocyanin level was 5.80 mg/g under the following conditions: solid-liquid ratio of 1:17.46; ethanol concentration of 78.37%; ultrasonication time of 55.23 min; and pH of 2.31. The IC50 value of the DPPH radical scavenging and the superoxide anion scavenging activities of the sample were 53.51 and 2,375 μg/ml; those of the standard were 14.60 and 64.74 μg/ml; and those of vitamin C were 24.45 and 136.25 μg/ml, respectively. The IC50 values of the tyrosinase inhibition activities of the sample and Vc were 4.26 and 2.18 μg/ml, respectively. There is a significant difference (p < .05) between the activities of the three, which may be caused by the purity of the extract. Red rice bran anthocyanins have valuable research and development prospects as skin whiteners and healthcare products.Entities:
Keywords: anthocyanins; antioxidant activity; red rice bran; response surface methodology; tyrosinase inhibitory activity
Year: 2020 PMID: 32148801 PMCID: PMC7020273 DOI: 10.1002/fsn3.1371
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Food Sci Nutr ISSN: 2048-7177 Impact factor: 2.863
Figure 1Flowchart of extraction process of red rice bran anthocyanins
Figure 3(a) Absorption spectrum of red rice bran anthocyanins. (b) The standard curve of paeoniflorin
The experimental design for assay of scavenging DPPH
| AC | ACB | AS | ASB | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sample solution(ml) | 0 | 0 | 2.0 | 2.0 |
| DPPH solution(ml) | 2.0 | 0 | 2.0 | 0 |
| Distilled water (ml) | 2.0 | 4.0 | 0 | 2.0 |
AC: sample free, with DPPH. ACB: sample free, DPPH free. AS: with sample and DPPH. ASB: with sample, DPPH free.
The experimental design for assay of scavenging O2 −
| AC | ACB | AS | ASB | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tris‐HCl buffer (ml) | 1.0 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 1.0 |
| EDTA solution(ml) | 1.0 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 1.0 |
| Distilled water (ml) | 0.4 | 1.4 | 0 | 1.0 |
| Sample solution(ml) | 0 | 0 | 0.4 | 0.4 |
| Pyrogallol solution (ml) | 1.0 | 0 | 1.0 | 0 |
AC: sample free, with PR. ACB: sample free, PR free. AS: with sample and PR. ASB: with sample, PR free.
The experimental design for assay of tyrosinase inhibition
| AC | ACB | AS | ASB | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Phosphate buffer (ml) | 0.8 | 0.9 | 0.6 | 0.7 |
| Sample solution (ml) | 0 | 0 | 0.2 | 0.2 |
| Tyrosinase solution (ml) | 0.1 | 0 | 0.1 | 0 |
| L‐Dopa (ml) | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 |
AC: sample free, with TYR. ACB: sample free, TYR free. AS: with sample and TYR. ASB: with sample, TYR free.
Figure 2The total ion chromatogram of alcohol extract (a) and water extract (c); fragment ion peak of alcohol extract (b) and water extract (d)
Figure 4(a) The effect of solid–liquid ratio on the yield of anthocyanin in red rice bran. (b) The effect of ultrasonic time on the yield of anthocyanin in red rice bran. (c) The effect of ethanol concentration on the yield of anthocyanin in red rice bran. (d) The effect of acidity on the yield of anthocyanin in red rice bran
Coded values of variables in the study
| Variable | Nomenclature | Value | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| (−1) | 0 | (1) | |||
| Solid–liquid ratio |
| (g/ml) | 1:10 | 1:15 | 1:20 |
| Ethanol concentration |
| (%) | 65 | 75 | 85 |
| Ultrasonic time |
| (min) | 40 | 60 | 80 |
| pH value |
| 2 | 3 | 4 | |
Response surface experimental design and results
| Run | Solid–liquid ratio (g/ml) | Ethanol (%) | Time (min) | pH | Anthocyanins yield (mg/g) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | −1 | 1 | 0 | −1 | 2.70 |
| 2 | −1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 2.69 |
| 3 | −1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 2.61 |
| 4 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 4.89 |
| 5 | −1 | 0 | −1 | 1 | 2.52 |
| 6 | 1 | 0 | −1 | 0 | 4.78 |
| 7 | −1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 2.69 |
| 8 | 0 | 0 | −1 | −1 | 4.94 |
| 9 | 0 | 0 | −1 | 0 | 4.79 |
| 10 | 0 | 1 | −1 | 1 | 3.47 |
| 11 | 0 | 1 | 1 | −1 | 3.79 |
| 12 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 4.51 |
| 13 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 4.45 |
| 14 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 4.91 |
| 15 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 4.07 |
| 16 | 0 | −1 | −1 | 0 | 4.12 |
| 17 | 0 | −1 | 1 | −1 | 4.49 |
| 18 | 0 | −1 | 0 | −1 | 4.02 |
| 19 | 0 | −1 | 0 | 0 | 4.11 |
| 20 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 5.69 |
| 21 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 5.59 |
| 22 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 5.59 |
| 23 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 5.87 |
| 24 | −1 | −1 | 0 | 0 | 3.46 |
| 25 | 1 | −1 | 0 | 0 | 5.17 |
| 26 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 4.71 |
| 27 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 4.39 |
| 28 | 1 | 0 | 1 | −1 | 4.46 |
| 29 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 5.16 |
The variance analysis results of the quadratic regression model
| Source | Sum of squares | Degree of freedom | Mean square |
|
| Significant |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Model | 24.18 | 14 | 1.73 | 9.47 | ˂.0001 | ** |
|
| 6.54 | 1 | 6.54 | 35.84 | ˂.0001 | ** |
|
| 0.87 | 1 | 0.87 | 4.20 | .0623 | |
|
| 0.44 | 1 | 0.44 | 2.43 | .1416 | |
|
| 0.67 | 1 | 0.67 | 3.70 | .0751 | |
|
| 0.23 | 1 | 0.23 | 1.24 | .2834 | |
|
| 7.51E‐03 | 1 | 7.51E‐03 | 0.04 | .8421 | |
|
| 2.23E‐03 | 1 | 2.23E‐03 | 0.01 | .9134 | |
|
| 0.48 | 1 | 0.48 | 2.63 | .1273 | |
|
| 0.39 | 1 | 0.39 | 2.13 | .1661 | |
|
| 0.10 | 1 | 0.10 | 0.55 | .4700 | |
|
| 4.72 | 1 | 4.72 | 25.90 | .0002 | |
|
| 1.82 | 1 | 1.82 | 9.96 | .0070 | |
|
| 1.78 | 1 | 1.78 | 9.79 | .0074 | |
|
| 0.60 | 1 | 0.60 | 3.28 | .0915 | |
| Total error | 2.55 | 14 | 0.18 | |||
| Lack of fit | 2.26 | 8 | 0.28 | 5.80 | .0530 | |
| Pure error | 0.29 | 6 | 0.05 | |||
| Total SS | 26.73 | 28 |
Predicted R 2 = .9045 CV = 9.95%.
Figure 5Residual model diagram
Figure 6Response surface and contour plots for the effects of the interactions of the solid–liquid ratio and ethanol concentration (a and b), solid–liquid ratio and ultrasonic time (c and d), solid–liquid ratio and pH (e and f), ultrasonic time and pH (g and h), and pH and ethanol concentration (i and j) on the yield of anthocyanin from red rice bran
Figure 7The reducing of anthocyanin sample, standard, and vitamin C
IC50 values of anthocyanin sample, standard and vitamin C (μg/ml)
| DPPH radical scavenging activity | Superoxide anion scavenging activity | Tyrosinase inhibition | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Anthocyanin sample | 53.51 ± 1.69 | 2,375 ± 35.46 | 4.26 ± 0.59 |
| Anthocyanin standard | 14.60 ± 0.89 | 64.74 ± 1.06 | 2.60 ± 0.16 |
| vitamin C | 24.45 ± 1.57 | 136.25 ± 2.86 | 2.18 ± 0.42 |