| Literature DB >> 32337241 |
Dinh-Chuong Pham1, Hoang-Chinh Nguyen1, Thanh-Hang Le Nguyen1, Hoang-Linh Ho1, Thien-Kim Trinh1, Jirawat Riyaphan2, Ching-Feng Weng2.
Abstract
Celastrus hindsii is a potential source of flavonoids with biological activities. This study aimed to develop an ultrasound-assisted technique for extracting flavonoids from leaves of C. hindsii. Response surface methodology was employed to optimize the extraction conditions for maximizing the total flavonoid content (TFC). A maximum TFC of 23.6 mg QE/g was obtained under the extraction conditions of ultrasonic power of 130 W, extraction temperature of 40°C, extraction time of 29 min, and ethanol concentration of 65%. The flavonoid-rich extracts were then studied for their antioxidant and anticancer activities. The results showed that the C. hindsii leaf extract exhibited potent radical scavenging activities against DPPH (IC50 of 164.85 μg/mL) and ABTS (IC50 of 89.05 μg/mL). The extract also significantly inhibited the growth of 3 cancer cell lines MCF7, A549, and HeLa with the IC50 values of 88.1 μg/mL, 120.4 μg/mL, and 118.4 μg/mL, respectively. Notably, the extract had no cytotoxicity effect on HK2 normal kidney cell line. This study suggests that flavonoid-rich extract is a promising antioxidant and anticancer agent and that ultrasound-assisted extraction is an efficient method for extracting flavonoids from C. hindsii leaves.Entities:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32337241 PMCID: PMC7155760 DOI: 10.1155/2020/3497107
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Biomed Res Int Impact factor: 3.411
Coded and uncoded values of the variables for RSM optimization.
| Variables | Symbols | Variable levels | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| −1 | 0 | 1 | ||
| Ultrasonic power (W) |
| 100 | 150 | 200 |
| Extraction temperature (°C) |
| 30 | 40 | 50 |
| Extraction time (min) |
| 20 | 30 | 40 |
| Ethanol concentration (%) |
| 50 | 70 | 90 |
Box–Behnken design matrix in coded values and experimental results.
| Run | Variable | Response, | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
| ||
| 1 | 1 | –1 | 0 | 0 | 20.55 ± 1.13 |
| 2 | 1 | 0 | –1 | 0 | 19.44 ± 1.13 |
| 3 | 1 | 0 | 0 | –1 | 21.41 ± 1.01 |
| 4 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 20.70 ± 0.87 |
| 5 | –1 | 0 | 0 | –1 | 23.13 ± 1.27 |
| 6 | 0 | –1 | –1 | 0 | 19.44 ± 0.28 |
| 7 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 19.87 ± 0.21 |
| 8 | –1 | 0 | –1 | 0 | 21.13 ± 1.01 |
| 9 | –1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 21.41 ± 1.36 |
| 10 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 17.80 ± 0.63 |
| 11 | 0 | 1 | –1 | 0 | 21.23 ± 0.87 |
| 12 | 0 | –1 | 0 | –1 | 21.59 ± 1.76 |
| 13 | 0 | 0 | –1 | 1 | 20.20 ± 0.65 |
| 14 | 0 | 0 | 1 | –1 | 19.80 ± 0.38 |
| 15 | –1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 21.63 ± 0.53 |
| 16 | –1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 20.88 ± 0.45 |
| 17 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 19.16 ± 0.48 |
| 18 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 19.84 ± 0.70 |
| 19 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 18.87 ± 1.04 |
| 20 | –1 | –1 | 0 | 0 | 21.48 ± 0.84 |
| 21 | 0 | –1 | 1 | 0 | 20.66 ± 0.65 |
| 22 | 0 | –1 | 0 | 1 | 21.05 ± 1.16 |
| 23 | 0 | 0 | –1 | –1 | 20.62 ± 0.77 |
| 24 | 0 | 1 | 0 | –1 | 21.37 ± 1.34 |
| 25 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 23.56 ± 1.49 |
| 26 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 23.52 ± 1.41 |
| 27 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 23.49 ± 1.56 |
Analysis of variance for the RSM model.
| Source | DFb | SSb | MSb |
| Probability ( |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Modela | 14 | 51.39 | 3.67 | 25.87 | <0.0001 |
| Residual (error) | 12 | 1.70 | 0.14 | ||
| Total | 26 | 53.09 |
aCoefficient of determination (R2) = 0.97; adjusted R2 = 0.93. bDF, degree of freedom; SS, sum of squares; MS, mean square.
Figure 1Correlation between predicted and experimental TFC extracted from C. hindsii leaves.
Significance of the coefficients in the empirical model.
| Model term | Parameter estimate | Standard error |
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| 23.52 | 0.22 | 108.17 | 0.001b |
|
| −0.79 | 0.11 | −7.30 | 0.001b |
|
| −0.35 | 0.11 | −3.26 | 0.007b |
|
| −0.32 | 0.11 | −2.98 | 0.011b |
|
| −0.39 | 0.11 | −3.55 | 0.004b |
|
| −1.09 | 0.16 | −6.69 | 0.001b |
|
| −1.65 | 0.16 | −10.14 | 0.001b |
|
| −2.29 | 0.16 | −14.01 | 0.001b |
|
| −0.91 | 0.16 | −5.60 | 0.001b |
|
| −0.40 | 0.19 | −2.14 | 0.054 |
|
| −0.01 | 0.19 | −0.04 | 0.969 |
|
| 0.20 | 0.19 | 1.05 | 0.315 |
|
| −1.16 | 0.19 | −6.17 | 0.001b |
|
| −0.25 | 0.19 | −1.31 | 0.213 |
|
| 0.12 | 0.19 | 0.65 | 0.528 |
a t = t0.025,12 = 2.18. bp < 0.05 indicates that the model terms are significant.
Figure 2Combined effects of the ultrasonic power and temperature on TFC at an extraction time (30 min) and ethanol concentration (70%).
Figure 3Combined effects of the temperature and extraction time on the TFC at constant ultrasonic power (150 W) and ethanol concentration (70%).
Figure 4Combined effects of the extraction time and ethanol concentration on the TFC at constant ultrasonic power (150 W) and temperature (40°C).
Figure 5Effect of various concentrations of C. hindsii leaf extract (a and c) and Trolox (b and d) in free radical scavenging tests: (a and b) DPPH assay and (c and d) ABTS assay.
Cytotoxic activity of C. hindsii leaf extract.
| IC50 values of antitumor effect of | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sample | MCF7 | A549 | HeLa | HK2 |
|
| 88.1 ± 2.1 | 120.4 ± 4.1 | 118.4 ± 2.4 | >200 |
| Cisplatin | >20 | 2.3 ± 0.4 | 6.7 ± 0.9 | 1.9 ± 0.7 |
The results are expressed as mean ± SD of three independent experiments (n = 3).