| Literature DB >> 32530961 |
Razia Khurshid1, Muhammad Asad Ullah1, Duangjai Tungmunnithum2,3, Samantha Drouet2,4, Muzamil Shah1, Afifa Zaeem1, Safia Hameed1, Christophe Hano2,4, Bilal Haider Abbasi1.
Abstract
Eclipta alba L., also known as false daisy, is well known and commercially attractive plant with excellent hepatotoxic and antidiabetic activities. Light is considered a key modulator in plant morphogenesis and survival by regulating important physiological cascades. Current study was carried out to investigate growth and developmental aspects of E. alba under differential effect of multispectral lights. In vitro derived callus culture of E. alba was exposed to multispectral monochromatic lights under controlled aseptic conditions. Maximum dry weight was recorded in culture grown under red light (11.2 g/L) whereas negative effect was observed under exposure of yellow light on callus growth (4.87 g/L). Furthermore, red light significantly enhanced phenolics and flavonoids content (TPC: 57.8 mg/g, TFC: 11.1 mg/g) in callus cultures compared to rest of lights. HPLC analysis further confirmed highest accumulation of four major compounds i.e. coumarin (1.26 mg/g), eclalbatin (5.00 mg/g), wedelolactone (32.54 mg/g) and demethylwedelolactone (23.67 mg/g) and two minor compounds (β-amyrin: 0.38 mg/g, luteolin: 0.39 mg/g) in red light treated culture whereas stigmasterol was found optimum (0.22 mg/g) under blue light. In vitro based biological activities including antioxidant, antidiabetic and lipase inhibitory assays showed optimum values in cultures exposed to red light, suggesting crucial role of these phytochemicals in the enhancement of the therapeutic potential of E. alba. These results clearly revealed that the use of multispectral lights in in vitro cultures could be an effective strategy for enhanced production of phytochemicals.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32530961 PMCID: PMC7292357 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0233963
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Fig 1Morphological variation in callus culture placed under different monochromatic lights.
(A = . Control; B = Green; C = Red; D = White; E = Yellow; F = Blue; G = Dark).
Fig 2a) Fresh biomass accumulation of callus culture b) Dry weight accumulation of callus culture in response to monochromatic lights.
Fig 3Differential effect of lights on a) TPC (mg/g DW): b) TPP (mg/L): c) TFC (mg/g DW): d) TFP (mg/L) accumulation in callus cultures.
Error bar represents means deviation of triplicates.
Fig 4In vitro antioxidant activities of callus culture of E. alba a) DPPH (%), b) ABTS and FRAP assay (TEAC: Trolox C equivalent antioxidant activity, expressed in μM.
Fig 5Differential effect of multispectral lights on a) Antidiabetic Activity (% inhibition) and b) Lipase Activity (% inhibition) in callus cultures of E. alba.
% inhibition of advance glycation end products formation (AGEs) in callus culture of E. alba.
Values represent means ± standard errors from triplicates.
| Lights Treatment | Inhibition of Advanced Glycation End Products Formation (AGEs) | |
|---|---|---|
| Vesperlysine-like AGEs (% Inhibition) | Pentosidine-like AGEs (% Inhibition) | |
| 26.77 ± 1.942 | 36.89 ± 2.339 | |
| 32.54 ± 0.943 | 47.54 ± 1.994 | |
| 29.83 ± 2.266 | 42.53 ± 1.338 | |
| 36.53 ± 1.053 | 54.94 ± 0.951 | |
| 39.23 ± 0.683 | 59.94 ± 1.031 | |
| 36.65 ± 1.395 | 55.16 ± 0.499 | |
| 42.66 ± 2.039 | 66.36 ± 2.045 | |
Fig 6a) Structures of the main phytochemicals detected at 204 nm in methanolic extract of E. alba callus [(1): Coumarin; (2): Luteolin; (3): Eclalbatin; (4): demethylWedelolactone; (5): Wedelolactone; (6): β-amyrin; (7): Stigmasterol]; b) Typical HPLC chromatogram recorded at 204 nm of methanolic extract of E. alba callus.
Secondary metabolites accumulation under multi spectral lights in callus culture of E. alba.
Values represent means ± standard errors from triplicates.
| Lights Treatment | Phytochemical Profile of | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| B-Amyrin | Stigmasterol | Luteolin | Coumarin | Eclalbatin | Wedelolactone | dmWedelolactone | |
| 0.09 ± 0.004 | 0.07 ± 0.003 | 0.18 ± 0.002 | 0.41 ± 0.03 | 3.15 ± 0.84 | 20.50 ± 1.05 | 14.92 ± 1.95 | |
| 0.08 ± 0.006 | 0.07 ± 0.001 | 0.25 ± 0.006 | 0.65 ± 0.01 | 3.64 ± 0.22 | 23.67 ± 0.94 | 14.52 ± 1.37 | |
| 0.07 ± 0.001 | 0.12 ± 0.02 | 0.22 ± 0.003 | 0.40 ± 0.09 | 2.43 ± 0.39 | 15.81 ± 1.73 | 10.74 ± 0.11 | |
| 0.38 ± 0.003 | 0.11 ± 0.009 | 0.39 ± 0.008 | 1.26 ± 0.04 | 5.00 ± 0.83 | 32.54 ± 1.04 | 23.67 ± 1.29 | |
| 0.15 ± 0.008 | 0.22 ± 0.03 | 0.30 ± 0.003 | 0.92 ± 0.03 | 4.52 ± 0.94 | 29.38 ± 1.68 | 19.24 ± 1.38 | |
| 0.09 ± 0.002 | 0.17 ± 0.008 | 0.34 ± 0.001 | 1.10 ± 0.07 | 4.92 ± 0.37 | 32.05 ± 2.46 | 21.09 ± 1.06 | |
| 0.23 ± 0.005 | 0.16 ± 0.007 | 0.30 ± 0.005 | 0.85 ± 0.04 | 4.05 ± 0.41 | 26.35 ± 1.62 | 17.34 ± 0.94 | |
Correlation analysis between phytochemicals and biological activities using Pearson correlation coefficient (PCC).
| Variables | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| DPPH | 0.708 | 0.632 | 0.701 | 0.499 | 0.401 | ||
| ABTS | 0.537 | 0.496 | 0.608 | 0.606 | 0.488 | 0.352 | |
| FRAP | 0.652 | 0.547 | |||||
| α-glucosidase | 0.624 | 0.645 | 0.609 | 0.608 | 0.452 | 0.266 | |
| α-amylase | 0.679 | 0.683 | 0.569 | 0.507 | 0.725 | ||
| Lipase | 0.725 | 0.586 | 0.562 | 0.750 | |||
| vesp-AGE | 0.709 | 0.722 | 0.586 | 0.519 | 0.734 | ||
| pent-AGE | 0.708 | 0.721 | 0.586 | 0.519 | 0.734 |
(1): Coumarin; (2): Luteolin; (3): Eclalbatin; (4): demethylWedelolactone; (5): Wedelolactone; (6): β-amyrin; (7): Stigmasterol; Significance level:
* p < 0.05;
** p < 0.01;
*** p < 0.001.