| Literature DB >> 32370268 |
Cássia H Barbosa1, Mariana A Andrade1,2, Fernanda Vilarinho1, Isabel Castanheira1, Ana Luísa Fernando3, Monica Rosa Loizzo4, Ana Sanches Silva5,6.
Abstract
Cardoon, Cynara cardunculus L., is a perennial plant whose flowers are used as vegetal rennet in cheese making. Cardoon is native from the Mediterranean area and is commonly used in the preparation of salads and soup dishes. Nowadays, cardoon is also being exploited for the production of energy, generating large amount of wastes, mainly leaves. These wastes are rich in bioactive compounds with important health benefits. The aim of this review is to highlight the main properties of cardoon leaves according to the current research and to explore its potential uses in different sectors, namely the food industry. Cardoon leaves are recognized to have potential health benefits. In fact, some studies indicated that cardoon leaves could have diuretic, hepato-protective, choleretic, hypocholesterolemic, anti-carcinogenic, and antibacterial properties. Most of these properties are due to excellent polyphenol profiles, with interesting antioxidant and antimicrobial activities. These findings indicate that cardoon leaves can have new potential uses in different sectors, such as cosmetics and the food industry; in particular, they can be used for the preparation of extracts to incorporate into active food packaging. In the future, these new uses of cardoon leaves will allow for zero waste of this crop.Entities:
Keywords: Cynara cardunculus L.; antimicrobial activity; antioxidant activity; by-products; cardoon leaves
Year: 2020 PMID: 32370268 PMCID: PMC7278730 DOI: 10.3390/foods9050564
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Foods ISSN: 2304-8158
Figure 1Cardoon flower [34].
Main bioactive compounds of cardoon leaves.
| Species/Variety | Presentation form and Extraction Procedure | Main Bioactive Compounds and Levels Found | Main Conclusion | Reference |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Hydroethanolic extract: 1 g of dried samples was added to 30 mL of solvent (ethanol:water, 80:20, | 3-O-Caffeoylquinic acid (0.48 ± 0.01 mg/g of extract) | The authors concluded that the hydroethanolic was more effective than the infusion preparation in the extraction of active compounds. | [ | |
| 5-Hydroxyferuloylglycoside (1.3 ± 0.1 mg/g of extract) | ||||
| 4-O-Caffeoylquinic acid (13.6 ± 0.1 mg/g of extract) | ||||
| 5-O-Caffeoylquinic acid (0.179 ± 0.001 mg/g of extract) | ||||
| 3-O-Feruloylquinic acid (0.32 ± 0.01 mg/g of extract) | ||||
| 5-O-Feruloylquinic acid (0.53 ± 0.01 mg/g of extract) | ||||
| Luteolin-O-hexoside (5.5 ± 0.1 mg/g of extract) | ||||
| Pinoresinol-O-hexoside (0.37 ± 0.01 mg/g of extract) | ||||
| 3,4-O-Dicaffeoylquinic acid (6.492 ± 0.002 mg/g of extract) | ||||
| 3,5-O-Dicaffeoylquinic acid (0.331 ± 0.001 mg/g of extract) | ||||
| Luteolin-O-malonylhexoside (7.39 ± 0.02 mg/g of extract) | ||||
| Acetylapigenin-O-hexoside (1.85 ± 0.01 mg/g of extract) | ||||
| Total phenolic acids (23.6 ± 0.2 mg/g of extract) | ||||
| Total flavonoids (14.7 ± 0.1 mg/g of extract) | ||||
| Total phenolic compounds (38.3 ± 0.3 mg/g of extract) | ||||
| Infusion preparation: 1 g of dried samples was added to 100 mL of boiling distilled water, left to stand for 5 min, filtered, and then frozen and lyophilized. | 3-O-Caffeoylquinic acid (0.66 ± 0.01 mg/g of extract) | |||
| 5-Hydroxyferuloylglycoside (0.95 ± 0.01 mg/g of extract) | ||||
| 4-O-Caffeoylquinic acid (10.2 ± 0.1 mg/g of extract) | ||||
| 5-O-Caffeoylquinic acid (0.185 ± 0.003 mg/g of extract) | ||||
| 3-O-Feruloylquinic acid (0.25 ± 0.1 mg/g of extract) | ||||
| 5-O-Feruloylquinic acid (0.39 ± 0.01 mg/g of extract) | ||||
| Luteolin-O-hexoside (1.6 ± 0.1 mg/g of extract) | ||||
| 3,4-O-Dicaffeoylquinic acid (3.5 ± 0.2 mg/g of extract) | ||||
| 3,5-O-Dicaffeoylquinic acid (0.319 ± 0.001 mg/g of extract) | ||||
| Luteolin-O-malonylhexoside (5.8 ± 0.2 mg/g of extract) | ||||
| Acetylapigenin-O-hexoside (4.73 ± 0.04 mg/g of extract) | ||||
| Total phenolic acids (16.0 ± 0.3 mg/g of extract) | ||||
| Total flavonoids (12.1 ± 0.2 mg/g of extract) | ||||
| Total phenolic compounds (29 ± 1 mg/g of extract) | ||||
| Dried samples were extracted in 1 mL of 70% methanol, containing butylated hydroxytoluene and hesperetin, for 1 h at room temperature with shaking. After centrifugation, the supernatant was transferred to a microfuge tube, and the sample was centrifuged once more with 0.25 mL of 70% methanol. The supernatants were combined and kept at −20 °C until analysis. | Luteolin glucoside (0.8 g/kg DM) | Both wild and cultivated cardoon presented a good profile of polyphenols, but the cultivated cardoon profile was richer and more variable than the wild cardoon. The apigenin derivates were the most abundant compounds in both cases. | [ | |
| Luteolin glucuronide (1.9 ± 0.1 g/kg DM) | ||||
| Luteolin (0.3 g/kg DM) | ||||
| Total luteolin (3.2 g/kg DM) | ||||
| Apigenin rutinoside (0.2 g/kg DM) | ||||
| Apigenin glucuronide (3.3 ± 0.1 g/kg DM) | ||||
| Apigenin (1.3 g/kg DM) | ||||
| Total apigenin (4.8 g/kg DM) | ||||
| Total measured polyphenols (8.0 g/kg DM) | ||||
| 5-Caffeoylquinic acid (0.3 g/kg DM) | ||||
| Total caffeoylquinic acid (0.3 g/kg DM) | ||||
| Luteolin glucoside (0.1 g/kg DM) | ||||
| Luteolin glucuronide (2.4 ± 0.3 g/kg DM) | ||||
| Luteolin (0.9 ± 0.1 g/kg DM) | ||||
| Total luteolin (3.4 g/kg DM) | ||||
| Apigenin rutinoside (0.5 g/kg DM) | ||||
| Apigenin glucuronide (3.3 ± 0.3 g/kg DM) | ||||
| Apigenin malonylglucoside (0.4 g/kg DM) | ||||
| Apigenin (1.3 ± 0.2 g/kg DM) | ||||
| Total apigenin (5.6 g/kg DM) | ||||
| Total measured polyphenols (9.3 g/kg DM) | ||||
|
| Leaves were dried at room temperature for two weeks. The extract was made with 2.5 g of dry powder with 25 mL of solvent (methanol) under stirring for 30 min. Then the extract was filtered, evaporated to dryness under vacuum, and stored at 4 °C until analysis. | Polyphenol content (14.79 (mg/GAE g DW) | The sample exhibit a very good bioactive compounds profile, greater than several other species, mainly due to the hard climate conditions of development. | [ |
| Flavonoid content (9.08 mg/CE g DW) | ||||
| Tannin content (1.96 mg/CE g DW) | ||||
| The samples were lyophilized, after comminuted to a powder. The powder was extracted in quadruplicate with 3 × 50 mL of ethanol (70% | 1-O-Caffeoylquinic acid (8.23 ± 0.68 µmol/g d wt) | Both wild and cultivated cardoon presented a good profile of polyphenols, but the wild cardoon profile was richer and more variable than the cultivated cardoon. The samples were both rich in different flavonoids compounds, and the authors emphasized their role in the protection of the plant against UV-radiation. | [ | |
| Chlorogenic acid (61.84 ± 2.09 µmol/g d wt) | ||||
| Luteolin 7-O-rutinoside (1.10 ± 0.21 µmol/g d wt) | ||||
| Luteolin 7-O-glucoside (27.29 ± 1.87 µmol/g d wt) | ||||
| Dicaffeoylquinic acids (114.57 ± 4.25 µmol/g d wt) | ||||
| Luteolin 7-O-malonylglucoside (14.62 ± 0.41 µmol/g d wt) | ||||
| Apigenin 7-O-rutinoside (1.11 ± 0.11 µmol/g d wt) | ||||
| Luteolin (0.80 ± 0.01 µmol/g d wt) | ||||
| Luteolin 7-O-glucuronide (34.61 ± 1.48 µmol/g d wt) | ||||
| Apigenin 7-O-glucuronide (23.72 ± 0.06 µmol/g d wt) | ||||
| Apigenin (4.74 ± 0.14 µmol/g d wt) | ||||
| Total polyphenols (292.63 µmol/g d wt) | ||||
| 1-O-Caffeoylquinic acid (9.53 ± 2.63 µmol/g d wt) | ||||
| Chlorogenic acid (73.68 ± 4.83 µmol/g d wt) | ||||
| Luteolin 7-O-glucoside (33.55 ± 8.21 µmol/g d wt) | ||||
| Dicaffeoylquinic acids (29.17 ± 9.26 µmol/g d wt) | ||||
| Succinyldicaffeoylquinic acid (8.67 ± 0.41 µmol/g d wt) | ||||
| Luteolin 7-O-malonylglucoside (43.00 ± 0.50 µmol/g d wt) | ||||
| Succinyldicaffeoylquinic acid (2.20 ± 0.16 µmol/g d wt) | ||||
| Luteolin (1.68 ± 0.08 µmol/g d wt) | ||||
| Luteolin 7-O-glucuronide (13.70 ± 2.40 µmol/g d wt) | ||||
| Total polyphenols (215.18 µmol/g d wt) | ||||
| Infusion: 20 g of dried chopped leaves was added to 1000 mL of ultra-pure water at 95 °C, and the mixture was left to stand for 10 min and then filtered through cotton. Extract were frozen and freeze-dried. | Chlorogenic acid (64 ± 2 mg/g extract) | All extracts presented good phenolic content. The infusion extract presented higher phenolic content. Chlorogenic acid was the major phenolic compound identified in all extracts. | [ | |
| 5-Feruloylquinic acid (1.6 ± 0.3 mg/g extract) | ||||
| Luteolin-7-rutinoside (7.6 ± 0.1 mg/g extract) | ||||
| Luteolin-7-glucoside (cynaroside) (3.0 ± 0.1 mg/g extract) | ||||
| 3,4-Dicaffeoylquinic acid (2.1 ± 0.1 mg/g extract) | ||||
| 1,3-Dicaffeoylquinic acid (cynarin) (22.4 ± 0.1 mg/g extract) | ||||
| Luteolin-7-malonyl-hexoside (1.7 ± 0.1 mg/g extract) | ||||
| 4,5-Dicaffeoylquinic acid (5.1 ± 0.1 mg/g extract) | ||||
| Phenolic contents (108 ± 2 mg/g extract) | ||||
| Decoction: The dried chopped leaves (20 g) were added to 1000 mL of ultrapure water, heated, and boiled for 10 min, and then the mixture was removed from the heat and left to stand for 5 min to be filtered through cotton. The extract was frozen and freeze-dried. | Chlorogenic acid (40 ± 3 mg/g extract) | |||
| 5-Feruloylquinic acid (0.9 ± 0.1 mg/g extract) | ||||
| Luteolin-7-rutinoside (7.4 ± 0.8 mg/g extract) | ||||
| Luteolin-7-glucoside (cynaroside) (2.9 ± 0.4 mg/g extract) | ||||
| 3,4-Dicaffeoylquinic acid (0.9 ± 0.3 mg/g extract) | ||||
| 1,3-Dicaffeoylquinic acid (cynarin) (6.5 ± 0.5 mg/g extract) | ||||
| Luteolin-7-malonyl-hexoside (1.3 ± 0.1 mg/g extract) | ||||
| 4,5-Dicaffeoylquinic acid (1.9 ± 0.4 mg/g extract) | ||||
| Phenolic content (63 ± 5 mg/g extract) | ||||
| Hydroalcoholic extract: 20 g of dried chopped leaves was added to 1000 mL of a mixture of ethanol/water (70:30, | Chlorogenic acid (43 ± 2 mg/g extract) | |||
| 5-Feruloylquinic acid (0.6 ± 0.1 mg/g extract) | ||||
| Luteolin-7-rutinoside (9.3 ± 0.4 mg/g extract) | ||||
| Luteolin-7-glucoside (cynaroside) (3.8 ± 0.3 mg/g extract) | ||||
| 3,4-Dicaffeoylquinic acid (0.03 ± 0.01 mg/g extract) | ||||
| 1,3-Dicaffeoylquinic acid (cynarin) (14 ± 1 mg/g extract) | ||||
| Luteolin-7-malonyl-hexoside (1.0 ± 0.1 mg/g extract) | ||||
| 4,5-Dicaffeoylquinic acid (1.1 ± 0.1 mg/g extract) | ||||
| Phenolic content (73 ± 4 mg/g extract) | ||||
| Bidistilled water extract: Dried leaves were soaked in bidistilled water in the ratio 1:10 | 5-O-caffeoylquinic acid (51.3 ± 0.2 mg/L) | Caffeoylquinic acid represents more than 50% of the total phenolic compounds present in the extracts. The methanolic extract was more efficient in extracting the compounds, followed by the ethanolic and water extracts. | [ | |
| 1,5-O-dicaffeoylquinic acid (119.3 ± 33.3 mg/L) | ||||
| Monosuccinildicaffeoylquinic acid (37.6 ± 1.0 mg/L) | ||||
| Total caffeoylquinic acid (208 mg/L) | ||||
| Luteolin 7-O-glucoronide (10.9 ± 0.4 mg/L) | ||||
| Luteolin (53.2 ± 0.4 mg/L) | ||||
| Total luteolin (64 mg/L) | ||||
| Cynaropicrin (5.4 ± 0.2 mg/L) | ||||
| Total measured polyphenols (272 mg/L) | ||||
| Ethanolic extract: Dried leaves were soaked in 80% ethanol in the ratio 1:10 | 5-O-caffeoylquinic acid (340.0 ± 0.9 mg/L) | |||
| 1,5-O-dicaffeoylquinic acid (230.5 ± 1.5 mg/L) | ||||
| Monosuccinildicaffeoylquinic acid (36.4 ± 0.3 mg/L) | ||||
| Total caffeoylquinic acid (607 mg/L) | ||||
| Luteolin 7-O-glucoronide (189.4 ± 0.06 mg/L) | ||||
| Luteolin 7-O-malonylglucoside (50.5 ± 0.01 mg/L) | ||||
| Total luteolin (240 mg/L) | ||||
| Apigenin 7-O-glucoside (45.4 ± 0.4 mg/L) | ||||
| Apigenin 7-O-glucoronide (87.7 ± 0.8 mg/L) | ||||
| Apigenin malonylglucoside (62.0 ± 1.6 mg/L) | ||||
| Apigenin (3.8 ± 0.1 mg/L) | ||||
| Total apigenin (199 mg/L) | ||||
| Cynaropicrin (10.7 ± 0.9 mg/L) | ||||
| Total measured polyphenols (1046 mg/L) | ||||
| Methanolic extract: Dried leaves were soaked in 70% methanol in the ratio 1:10 | 5-O-caffeoylquinic acid (632.0 ± 0.1 mg/L) | Caffeoylquinic acid represents more than 50% of the total phenolic compounds present in the extracts. The methanolic extract was more efficient in extracting the compounds, followed by the ethanolic and water extract. | [ | |
| 1,5-O-dicaffeoylquinic acid (206.4 ± 0.3 mg/L) | ||||
| Monosuccinildicaffeoylquinic acid (59.4 ± 0.01 mg/L) | ||||
| Total caffeoylquinic acid (898 mg/L) | ||||
| Luteolin 7-O-glucoronide (22.7 mg/L) | ||||
| Luteolin 7-O-malonylglucoside (83.3 ± 0.01 mg/L) | ||||
| Total luteolin (106 mg/L) | ||||
| Apigenin 7-O-glucoside (61.7 ± 0.04 mg/L) | ||||
| Apigenin 7-O-glucoronide (115.0 ± 0.2 mg/L) | ||||
| Apigenin malonylglucoside (72.1 ± 0.04 mg/L) | ||||
| Total apigenin (249 mg/L) | ||||
| Cynaropicrin (15.8 ± 0.1 mg/L) | ||||
| Total measured polyphenols (1253 mg/L) |
CE—catechin equivalent; DM—dry matter; DW—dry weight; GAE—gallic acid equivalent.
Main antimicrobial activity of cardoon leaves.
| Species/Variety | Presentation form and Extraction Procedure | Main Bioactive Compounds and Levels Found | Main Conclusion | Reference |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Hydroethanolic extract: 1 g of dried samples in 30 mL of solvent (ethanol:water, 80:20, | Both extracts were demonstrated to have good antimicrobial activities, with low MIC values. The authors’ concluded that the ethanolic extract was more effective when compared with other results obtained in this study. | [ | ||
| MRSA (MIC = 5 mg/mL) | ||||
| MSSA (MIC = 5 mg/mL) | ||||
| Infusion preparation: 1 g of dried samples was added to 100 mL of boiling distilled water, left to stand for 5 min, filtered, and then frozen and lyophilized. | ||||
| MRSA (MIC = 5 mg/mL) | ||||
| MSSA (MIC = 5 mg/mL) | ||||
|
| Extract: Leaves were dried at room temperature for two weeks. The extract was made with 2.5 g of dry powder with 25 mL of solvent (methanol), under stirring for 30 min. Then the extract was filtered and evaporated to dryness under vacuum and stored at 4 °C until analysis. | The extract was effective against several human pathogenic bacteria but unfortunately had no activity against | [ | |
|
| ||||
| Bidistilled water extract: Dried leaves were soaked in bidistilled water in the ratio 1:10 | Water extract was effective against Gram-positive bacteria, although methanolic and ethanolic extracts controlled the growth more effectively. Regarding Gram-negative bacteria, the methanolic extract was not effective, and the ethanolic extract showed detectable antibacterial activity. Overall, the ethanolic extract was more efficient against the studied bacteria when compared to the other two extracts. | [ | ||
| Ethanolic extract: Dried leaves were soaked in ethanol 80% in the ratio 1:10 | ||||
| Methanolic extract: Dried leaves were soaked in methanol 70% in the ratio 1:10 | ||||
DGI—diameter of growth inhibition; ESBL—extended spectrum β-lactamases; MIC values correspond to the minimal extract concentration that inhibited the bacterial growth; MRSA—methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus; MSSA—methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus.