| Literature DB >> 32164186 |
Khaoula Hellal1, M Maulidiani2, Intan Safinar Ismail3,4, Chin Ping Tan5, Faridah Abas1,3.
Abstract
Claims of effective therapy against diabetes using plants including Peganum harmala L., Zygophyllum album, Anacyclus valentinus L., Ammodaucus leucotrichus, Lupinus albus, and Marrubium vulgare in Algerian empirical medicine prompted our interest in evaluating their antidiabetic activity by screening their free radical scavenging (DPPH), α-glucosidase, and nitric oxide (NO) inhibitory activities as well as the total phenolic content (TPC). Extracts of the selected plants were prepared using different ratios of ethanol (0, 50, 80, and 100%). In this study, 100%, and 80% ethanol extracts of L. albus were found to be the most potent, in inhibiting α-glucosidase activity with IC50 values of 6.45 and 8.66 μg/mL, respectively. The 100% ethanol extract of A. leucotrichus exhibited the highest free radical scavenging activity with an IC50 value of 26.26 μg/mL. Moreover, the highest TPC of 612.84 μg GAE/mg extract was observed in M. vulgare, extracted with 80% ethanol. Metabolite profiling of the active extract was conducted using 1H-NMR metabolomics. Partial least square analysis (PLS) was used to assess the relationship between the α-glucosidase inhibitory activity of L. albus and the metabolites identified in the extract. Based on the PLS model, isoflavonoids (lupinoisoflavone G, lupisoflavone, lupinoisolone C), amino acids (asparagine and thiamine), and several fatty acids (stearic acid and oleic acid) were identified as metabolites that contributed to the inhibition of α-glucosidase activity. The results of this study have clearly strengthened the traditional claim of the antihyperglycemic effects of L. albus.Entities:
Keywords: Lupinus albus; diabetes; medicinal plants; metabolomics; α-glucosidase
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32164186 PMCID: PMC7179409 DOI: 10.3390/molecules25051247
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Molecules ISSN: 1420-3049 Impact factor: 4.411
Figure 1Total phenolic content of the six Algerian plants extracted by four ethanol ratios. (E1) 100% ethanol extracts; (E2) 80% ethanol extracts; (E3) 50% ethanol extracts; (D) aqueous extracts. Values are the means ± standard deviation based on six replicates. The subscripts represent the comparison between different ethanol ratios in the same species. The superscripts represent the comparison between the same ethanol ratios in the different species. Means with different subscripts and superscripts letters are significantly different (p < 0.05).
2,2-Diphenyl-1-picrylhydrazyl (DPPH) free radical scavenging, α-glucosidase and nitric oxide inhibitory activities of the extracts.
| Species | Ethanol Ratio | DPPH Activity | α-Glucosidase Inhibition Activity | Nitric Oxide Inhibition Activity | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| % Inhibition | IC50 | % Inhibition | IC50 | % Inhibition | Cell Viability | ||
| 100 | 10.89 ± 2.62 De | ND | ND | ND | 6.44 ± 0.76 De | 83.63 ± 0.48 | |
| 80 | 15.42 ± 1.82 Cf | ND | ND | ND | 8.65 ± 0.93 Ce | 90.65 ± 0.65 | |
| 50 | 28.13 ± 1.56 Bc | ND | ND | ND | 11.82 ± 1.22 Bd | 97.43 ± 0.78 | |
| 0 | 44.72 ± 2.56 Ab | ND | ND | ND | 39.73 ± 0.94 Aa | 91.34 ± 0.36 | |
|
| 100 | 45.99 ± 1.02 Bb | ND | 8. 13 ± 1.07 BCd | ND | 28.87 ± 1.33 Cc | 67.29 ± 0.38 |
| 80 | 65.57 ± 1.32 Ab | 25.17 ± 1.62 | 47.01 ± 2.88 Ab | ND | 40.29 ± 1.14 Ab | 93.11 ± 0.40 | |
| 50 | 31.89 ± 1.12 Cb | ND | 10.13 ± 1.26 Bb | ND | 32.12 ± 1.57 Bb | 97.35 ± 0.61 | |
| 0 | 25.79 ± 1.24 Dc | ND | 7.67 ± 0.07 Cd | ND | 22.06 ± 1.93 Db | 94.28 ± 0.44 | |
|
| 100 | 21.44 ± 1.27 Bd | ND | ND | ND | 27.95 ± 1.34 Ac | 38.79 ± 0.55 |
| 80 | 19.26 ± 0.88 Ce | ND | ND | ND | 18.37 ± 1.55 ABd | 96.48 ± 0.63 | |
| 50 | 15.89 ± 0.72 Dd | ND | ND | ND | 13.77 ± 2.04 Bd | 95.81 ± 0.75 | |
| 0 | 48.10 ± 0.66 Aa | ND | ND | ND | 38.28 ± 0.84 ABb | 67.76 ± 0.71 | |
|
| 100 | 81.60 ± 0.56 Aa | 26.26 ± 1.22 | 16.66 ± 1.62 Bc | ND | 50.53 ± 0.62 Aa | 34.52 ± 0.68 |
| 80 | 50.39 ± 1.76 Cc | ND | 26.60 ± 1.87 Ac | ND | 41.12 ± 1.78 Cb | 99.09 ± 0.22 | |
| 50 | 43.73 ± 2.10 Ba | ND | 4.85 ± 1.15 Cc | ND | 44.94 ± 1.58 Ba | 90.24 ± 0.56 | |
| 0 | 49.80 ± 1.84 Da | ND | 16.27 ± 0.86 Bc | ND | 39.67 ± 1.88 Ca | 78.55 ± 0.46 | |
|
| 100 | 75.84 ± 2.95 Aa | 19.67 ± 1.33 | 31.93 ± 2.39 Cb | ND | 48.55 ± 1.46 Ab | 41.74 ± 0.38 |
| 80 | 78.57 ± 1.88 Aa | 24.08 ± 2.62 | 68.06 ± 2.15 Aa | 12.66 ± 2.30 | 49.87 ± 1.32 Aa | 99.63 ± 0.40 | |
| 50 | 35.55 ± 2.38 Bb | ND | 43.43 ± 0.10 Ba | ND | 21.76 ± 0.93 Bc | 98.54 ± 0.39 | |
| 0 | 14.21 ± 1.78 Cd | ND | 20.00 ± 3.00 Db | ND | 7.77 ± 0.84 Cc | 99.56 ± 0.29 | |
|
| 100 | 39.59 ± 2.49 Ac | ND | 96.78 ± 1.75 Aa | 6.45 ± 1.30 | 22.56 ± 0.92 ABd | 41.74 ± 0.38 |
| 80 | 36.23 ± 1.67 Bd | ND | 64.57 ± 1.96 Ba | 8.66 ± 1.88 | 20.44 ± 1.06 BCc | 99.63 ± 0.40 | |
| 50 | 39.87 ± 1.55 Cc | ND | 45.59 ± 2.76 Ca | ND | 23.04 ± 1.23 Ac | 98.54 ± 0.39 | |
| 0 | 25.70 ± 1.89 Cc | ND | 43.59 ± 2.44 Ca | ND | 19.67 ± 1.56 Cb | 92.43 ± 0.77 | |
| - | - | - | - | - | 10.97 ± 0.81 | - | |
|
| - | 74.84 ± 0.67 | 12.27 ±1.20 | 60.80 ± 1.21 | 8.47 ± 1.57 | - | - |
Values are the means ± standard deviation based on six replicates. The subscripts represent the comparison between different ethanol ratios in the same species. The superscripts represent the comparison between the same ethanol ratios in the different species. Means with different subscripts and superscripts letters are significantly different (p < 0.05). The mean ± standard deviation for DPPH inhibition of standard, quercetin at 50 μg/mL was 74.84 ± 0.67% (IC50 = 12.27 ± 1.20 μg/mL). The mean ± standard deviation for α-glucosidase inhibition of standard, quercetin at 50 μg/mL was 60.80 ± 1.21% (IC50 = 8.47 ± 1.57 μg/mL). The mean ± standard deviation for NO inhibition of standard, curcumin was (IC50 = 10.97 ± 0.81 μg/mL). GAE: gallic acid equivalent; dw: dry weight. ND: not determined.
Figure 2Representative 1H-NMR spectra of the four different ethanol ratios of L. albus extracts. (A) Spectra of 100% ethanol extract of L. albus; (B) Spectra of 80% ethanol extract of L. albus; (C) Spectra of 50% ethanol extract of L. albus; (D) Spectra of aqueous extract of L. albus.
Assignments of compounds obtained from the 100% ethanol extract of L. albus (s: singlet, d: doublet, t: triplet, dd: doublet of doublet, br s: broad singlet, br t: broad triplet).
| Compounds | Chemical Shift | References |
|---|---|---|
| (1) Formic acid | 8.45 (s) | Erbaş et al., 2005 |
| (2) Adenosine | 8.37 (s), 8.23 (s) | - |
| (3) Hydroxybutyrate | 3.58 (m), 2.26 (m), 1.78 (m) | - |
| (4) Asparagine | 2.96 (m), 2.88 (m), 4.02 (dd, 7.5, 4) | - |
| (5) Proline | 4.11 (m), 3.35 (m), 3.30 (m), 2.06 (m), 1.98 (m) | - |
| (6) Thiamine | 9.47 (s), 8.03 (s), 5.47 (s), 3.87 (t, 5.8), 3.20 (t, 5.5), 2.55 (d, 15.5) | - |
| (7) Epicatechin | 7.05 (br s), 6.96 (m), 6.12 (d, 1.5), 6.08 (d,1.5) | - |
| (8) Caprate | 2.15 (br s), 1.46 (br s), 1.25 (br s), 0.86 (br s) | - |
| (9) Kaempferol | 8.02 (d, 8.0), 6.92 (d, 8.0), 6.35 (d, 2.0), 6.20 (d, 2.0) | - |
| (10) Methoxy flavone | 7.16 (d, 2.0), 6.90 (d, 8.5) | - |
| (11) α-Tocopherol | 1.24 (s), 2.05 (m), 1.80 (m), 1.65 (m), 1.52 (m), 1.40 (m), 1.17 (m), 0.88 (d, 6.5) | - |
| (12) Stearic acid | 0.93 (t, 6.5), 1.79 (tt, 7.0), 2.43 (t, 7.5) | - |
| (13) Palmitic acid | 2.37 (t, 4.0), 1.70 (m), 1.47 (m), 0.89 (t, 18.0) | - |
| (14) Oleic acid | 5.35 (m), 2.40 (t, 4.0), 2.03 (m), 1.60 (m), 0.89 (t, 20) | - |
| (15) Linoleic acid | 5.44 (m), 2.91 (t, 6.0), 2.28 (t, 7.0), 2.02 (m), 1.70 (m), 1. 45 (m), 0.93 (t, 6.5) | - |
| (16) Oleanolic acid | 5.14 (br s), 2.89 (m), 2.73 (m), 1.95 (m), 1.84 (d, 6.0), 1.47 (m), 1.32 (m), 1.09 (m), 0.86 (t,12.5) | - |
| (17) Betulinic acid | 4.94 (s), 3.55 (m), 2.75 (m), 2.27 (m), 1.78 (m) | - |
| (18) Lupeol | 1.64 (s), 4.55 (s), 4.66 (s), 2.37 (m), 3.2 (m), 2.22 (d, 5.5) | - |
| (19) Gallic acid | 7.00 (s) | - |
| (20) Hydroxyiso lupalbigenin | 1.65 (s), 1.78 (s), 1.86 (s), 6.68 (s), 8.29 (s), 12.50 (s), 6.56 (d, 8.30), 5.32 (br t,7.0) | - |
| (21) Wighteon | 1.65 (s), 1.78 (s), 6.49 (s), 5.28 (br t), 3.37 (br d) | - |
| (22) Luteone | 1.78 (s), 1.65 (s), 5.32 (br t, 7.0), 3.44 (d, 7.0) | - |
| (23) Lupisoflavone | 3.88 (m), 7.27 (d, 2.0), 6.88 (d, 8.2) | - |
| (24) Lupinisoflavone A | 6.63 (s), 13.30 (s), 8.35 (s), 7.24 (d, 9.0) | - |
| (25) Lupinoisolone A | 1.25 (br s), 1.36 (s), 1.70 (br s), 6.33 (s), 8.18 (s), 13.40 (s), 3.89 (m), 6.88 (d), (5.33 br t, 7.0), 3.38 (br d, 6.8) | - |
| (26) Lupinoisolone C | 1.28 (s), 1.62 (s), 1.77 (br s), 7. 94 (s), 13.41 (s), 6.41 (d,8.0), 6.44 (br s), 7.03 (d, 8.2), 5.31 (br t, 7.1), 3.75 (br t, 7.0), 3.35 (br d, 7.0) | |
| (27) Lupinisol A | 1.72 (s), 1.89 (s), 6.45 (s), 7.33 (s), 8.12 (s), 13.58 (s), 4.72 (brs), 4.95 (br s), 3.00 (m), 4.4 (m), 7.29 (dd, 8.3, 2.0), 6.89 (d, 8.3), 5.35 (br t,7.0), 3.35 (br d, 7.0) | Tahara et al., 1984 |
| (28) Lupinisol B | 6.52 (s), 8.18 (s), 13.00 (s), 4.77 (br s), 4.94 (br s), 6.95 (d, 8.0), 5.32 (br t, 7.0), 4.48 (dd, 7.0,4.0), 3.48(br d,5.0) | |
| (29) Lipinisol C | 8.14 (s), 6.56 s, 13.01 (s), 4.85 (br s), 5.04 (br s), 7.05 (d, 7.0), 5.28 (br t, 7.3), 4.37 (br d, 5.0), 3.38 (br d, 5.0) | - |
| (30) Chandalone | 1.47 (s), 6.32 (s), 8.14 (s), 13.46 (s),1.25 (br s), 7.35 (d, 2.0), 7.29 (dd, 2.0, 7.0) 6.88 (d, 2.0), 6.69 (d, 9.0), 5.79 (d, 10.0), 5.33 (br t), 3.38 (br, 5.5) | |
| (31) Isoderrone | 1.41 (s), 8.25 (s), 13.00 (s), 7.29 (d, 2.0), 6.48 (d, 2.0), 6.44 (d, 1.5) 6.31 (d, 1.5), 5.77 (d, 5.0) | - |
| (32) Lupinalbin F | 1.72 (s), 1.89 (s), 7.33 (s), 8.12 (s), 13.58 (s), 4.72 (br s), 4.95 (br s), 3.00 (m), 4.40 (m), 7.29 (dd, 8.3, 2.0), 6.89 (d, 8.3), 6.45 (s), 5.35 (br t, 7.0), 3.35 (br d, 7.0) | |
| (33) Lupinoisoflavone G | 1.25 (s), 1.29 (s), 6.37 (s), 8.14 (s), 1.73 (br s), 7.35 (d, 2.0), 7.29 (dd, 8.0,2.0). 5.33 (br t, 7.1), 3.18 (br d, 8.0) | - |
| (34) Genistein | 6.39 (s), 7.69 (s), 7.32 (d, 7.0), 6.33 (s), 6.95 (d, 7.5) | |
| (35) Unknown | 1.24 (s) | - |
| (36) Unknown | 5.22 (s) |
Figure 3(a) Principal component analysis score plot. (b) Loading scatter plot of the four extracts of L. albus with different solvent ratios (100% ethanol, 80% ethanol, 50% ethanol, and water).
Figure 4The Partial least squares (PLS) biplot showed the correlation of metabolite variations with the selected test bioactivities in the L. albus extracts. The numbering of signals is according to the metabolites listed in Table 2.
Figure 5Relative quantification of the identified metabolites in L. albus extracts with different ethanolic solvent ratios. (a) 3, hydroxybutyrate (δ 3.58); 5, proline (δ 3.3); 8, caprate (δ 0.86); 11, alpha-tocopherol (δ 1.26); 14, oleic acid (δ 5.35m); 15, linoleic acid (δ 2.3); 16, oleanolic acid (δ 1.3); 17, betulinic acid (δ 3.54); 18, lupeol (δ 3.22); 22, luteone (δ 3.44); 36, unknown (δ 1.24). (b) 6, thiamine (δ 5.46); 12, stearic acid (δ 2.42); 20, hydroxyiso-lupalbigenin (δ 6.66); 23, lupisoflavone (δ 6.86); 25, Lupinoisolone A (δ 6.33); 26, Lupinoisolone C (δ 13.41); 27, lipinisol A (δ 5.38); 28, lupinisol B (δ 4.46); 32, lupinalbin F (δ 4.74); 33, lupinoisoflavone G (δ 6.38); 35, unknown (δ 5.22). Values are expressed as the mean ± standard deviation (n = 6). Means with different letters are significantly different (p ≤ 0.001).