| Literature DB >> 32213823 |
Rosa Mariana Montiel-Ruiz1, Marcos Córdova-de la Cruz2, Manasés González-Cortázar1, Alejandro Zamilpa1, Abraham Gómez-Rivera2, Ricardo López-Rodríguez2, Carlos Ernesto Lobato-García2, Ever A Blé-González2.
Abstract
Aristolochia odoratissima L. is employed for the treatment of pain and as an antidote against the poison of venomous animals in traditional medicine. However, reports have not been found, to our knowledge, about the evaluation of the antinociceptive activity of extracts nor about the presence of compounds associated with this activity. Thus, the purpose of this work was to evaluate the antinociceptive activity of extracts and compounds isolated from the stems of Artistolochia odoratissima L. The extracts were obtained with solvents of increasing polarity and the compounds were isolated and characterized by column chromatography, HPLC, and NMR. The antinociceptive activity was carried out by the formalin test in mice. Ethyl acetate (AoEA) and methanolic (AoM) extracts decreased the paw licking in both phases of the formalin test. The isolated compounds (kaurenoic acid and hinokinin) from AoEA showed the highest antinociceptive activity in both phases of the formalin test. These results confirmed the analgesic effect of this specie described in traditional medicine and provided a base for a novel analgesic agent. They also allowed an approach for the development of standardized plant extracts with isolated metabolites.Entities:
Keywords: Aristolochia odoratissima L.; antinociception; formalin test; hinokinin; kaurenoic acid
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32213823 PMCID: PMC7145305 DOI: 10.3390/molecules25061454
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Molecules ISSN: 1420-3049 Impact factor: 4.411
Figure 1Effect of the ethyl acetate extract of Aristolochia odoratissima (AoEA, 30 and 100 mg/kg, i.p.) in the formalin test (2.5%, 25 µL/paw) in mice. The data are expressed with the mean ± sem. One-way ANOVA + Dunnett test, * p < 0.05 and ** p < 0.001. Veh: Vehicle; Dic: Diclofenac, Tra: Tramadol.
Figure 2Effect of the methanolic extract of Aristolochia odoratissima (AoM, 30 and 100 mg/kg, i.p.) in the formalin test (2.5%, 25 µL/paw) in mice. The data are expressed with the mean ± sem. One-way ANOVA + Dunnett test, * p < 0.05 and ** p < 0.001. Veh: Vehicle; Dic: Diclofenac, Tra: Tramadol.
Figure 3Effect of the aqueous extract of Aristolochia odoratissima (AoA, 30 and 100 mg/kg, i.p.) in the formalin test (2.5%, 25 µL/paw) in mice. The data are expressed with the mean ± sem. One-way ANOVA + Dunnett test, * p < 0.05 and ** p < 0.001. Veh: Vehicle; Dic: Diclofenac, Tra: Tramadol.
Figure 4Effect of the kaurenoic acid and hinokinin (5 and 15 mg/kg, i.p.) from Aristolochia odoratissima in the formalin test (2.5%, 25 µL/paw) in mice. The data are expressed with the mean ± sem. One-way ANOVA + Dunnett test, * p < 0.05 and ** p < 0.001. Veh: Vehicle; Dic: Diclofenac, Tra: Tramadol.
Figure 5Chemical structure of kaurenoic acid (1).
NMR spectroscopy data (1H and 13C, in CDCl3) of compounds 2 and 3.
| Position | δ 13C | δ 1H ( | δ 13C | δ 1H ( |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 131.5 | 134.6 | ||
| 2 | 109.3 | 6.63 (1H, d, 1.4) | 109.5 | 6.58 (1H, s, br) |
| 3 | 147.8 | 147.9 | ||
| 4 | 146.4 | 146.1 | ||
| 5 | 108.2 | 6.73 (1H, d, 7.7) | 108.3 | 6.69 (1H, d, 7.7) |
| 6 | 122.1 | 6.60 (1H, dd, 1.4, 7.7) | 122.1 | 6.55 (1H, d, br, 7.7) |
| 7 | 38.3 | a 3.0 (1H, dd, 5.1, 14.3) | 39.3 | a 2.53 (1H, dd, 6.2, 13.9) |
| 8 | 46.4 | 2.53 (1H, ddd, 5.1,7.7, 8.0) | 52.6 | 2.12 (1H, m) |
| 9 | 178.3 | 104.6 | 5.14 (1H, d, 1.6) | |
| 1′ | 131.2 | 133.8 | ||
| 2′ | 108.7 | 6.47 (1H, d, 1.8) | 109.2 | 6.51 (1H, s, br) |
| 3′ | 147.8 | 147.9 | ||
| 4′ | 146.2 | 146.1 | ||
| 5′ | 108.1 | 6.7 (1H, d, 8.4) | 108.4 | 6.69 (1H, d, 7.7) |
| 6′ | 121.4 | 6.47 (1H, dd, 2.2, 8) | 121.7 | 6.50 (1H, d, br, 8.0) |
| 7′ | 34.7 | a 2.60 (1H, dd, 9.9, 17.2) | 38.7 | a 2.64 (1H, dd, 7.7, 13.9) |
| 8′ | 41.2 | 2.46 (1H, m) | 46.0 | 2.12 (1H, m) |
| 9′ | 71.0 | a 4.13 (1H, dd, 6.9, 9.5) | 72.3 | a 3.92 (1H, dd, 7.3, 8.4) |
| 1-O-CH2-O | 100.9 | 5.93 (2H, m) | 101.1 | 5.93 (2H, m) |
| 2-O-CH2-O | 100.9 | 5.93 (2H, m) | 101.1 | 5.90 (2H, m) |
Figure 6Chemical structure of hinokinin (2).
Figure 7Chemical structure of 8,8′ trans-cubebin (3).