| Literature DB >> 32549193 |
Antonio Vassallo1, Maria Francesca Armentano1,2, Rocchina Miglionico1, Carla Caddeo3, Claudia Chirollo4, Maria Josefina Gualtieri5, Angela Ostuni1,2, Faustino Bisaccia1,2, Immacolata Faraone1,2, Luigi Milella1,2.
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to improve the knowledge on Hura crepitans L., a plant belonging to the Euphorbiaceae family that, on the one hand, is known to be toxic, but on the other, is a source of polyphenols with health-promoting effects. Different green extraction methods were applied, varying solvent, temperature, and duration of extraction, which can influence the phytochemical profile and biological activity of plant extracts, and the extracts were fully characterized. Aqueous extracts exhibited a superior antioxidant activity, as indicated by different spectrophotometric tests, and were cytoprotective to HepG2 cells used as model cells. Liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry analyses were performed to identify the secondary metabolites involved in these effects and demonstrated that solvent, duration, and temperature indeed influenced the extraction of polyphenols. Furthermore, the most promising extract, in terms of antioxidant potential, was incorporated into liposomes with the aim of promoting cell interaction and enhancing the antioxidant activity.Entities:
Keywords: Hura crepitans L.; antioxidant activity; cytoprotective effect; extracts; liposomes
Year: 2020 PMID: 32549193 PMCID: PMC7356585 DOI: 10.3390/pharmaceutics12060553
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Pharmaceutics ISSN: 1999-4923 Impact factor: 6.321
Antioxidant activity of H. crepitans leaf extracts.
| Extract | Solvent | Extraction Temp | TPC § | DPPH §§ | SO §§§ | NO §§§ | FRAP §§ | BCB §§§§ |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| HC-D | H2O | ≥ 100 °C | 317.5 ± 4.2 a | 759.9 ± 46.4 b | 0.02 ± 0.005 a | 0.22 ± 0.02 a | 824.1 ± 74.2 b | 48.5 ± 5.5 a |
| HC-I | H2O | ≤100 °C | 308.5 ± 8.1 a | 1229.3 ± 9.3 a | 0.02 ± 0.001 a | 0.35 ± 0.08 a,b | 7573.3 ± 656.3 a | 49.1 ± 7.7 a |
| HC-M | H2O | ≅ 20 °C | 257.4 ± 5.6 b | 478.8 ± 3.9 c | 0.02 ± 0.001 a | 0.25 ± 0.08 a | 754.3 ± 76.9 b,c | 48.1 ± 1.6 a |
| HC-H | ≅ 20 °C | 46.4 ± 0.8 c | 998.1 ± 15.8 d | nc | nc | 538.5 ± 67.7 b,c | nc | |
| HC-MeOH | MeOH | ≅ 20 °C | 194.6 ± 3.0 d | 1110.3 ± 44.1 e | 0.07 ± 0.008 b | 0.66 ± 0.26 b | 3645.9 ± 436.8 d | 69.1 ± 4.1 a |
| HC-R/H2O | MeOH R/H2O | ≅ 20 °C | 90.8 ± 4.9 e | 332.7 ± 26.3 f | 0.12 ± 0.01 c | 0.21 ± 0.16 a | 1795.2 ± 191.6 e | 54.1 ± 5.8 a |
| HC-R/BuOH | MeOH R/BuOH | ≅ 20 °C | 164.6 ± 15.4 f | 1019.1 ± 13.3 d | 0.06 ± 0.008 b | 1.12 ± 0.23 c | 3801.6 ± 507.7 d | 67.4 ± 5.8 a |
| HC-C | CHCl3 | ≅ 20 °C | 62.4 ± 0.9 c | nc | nc- | nc | 230.0 ± 33.1 b,c | 55.4 ± 3.6 a |
| HC-CM | CHCl3-MeOH | ≅ 20 °C | 40.9 ± 6.6 c | nc | nc- | nc | 333.0 ± 42.6 b,c | 52.9 ± 2.9 a |
Values are expressed as the means ± SD of three replicates from three independent experiments in mg of gallic acid equivalents/g of extract; mg of Trolox equivalents/g of extract; concentration required for 50% inhibition in mg/mL; antioxidant activity% at an initial concentration of 2.5 mg/mL. nc = not calculable at the tested concentrations. Two-way ANOVA followed by Tukey–Kramer post-hoc analysis was used, and differences were considered significant when p < 0.05 and are indicated with superscripts letters: for values with a different letter, the difference is statistically significant (p < 0.05). Extracts were obtained by decoction (HC-D), infusion (HC-I), and maceration (HC-M), or by using n-hexane (HC-H), chloroform (HC-C), chloroform : methanol 9 : 1 (HC-CM), methanol (HC-MeOH) solvents, or by liquid/liquid extraction of HC-MeOH with butanol or water (HC-R/BuOH and HC-R/H2O). TPC: total polyphenolic content; DPPH: 2,2-diphenyl-1-picrylhydrazyl; SO: superoxide anion; NO: nitric oxide radical; FRAP: ferric reducing antioxidant power; BCB: β-carotene bleaching assay.
Figure 1RACI (relative antioxidant capacity index) values obtained by comparing TPC, DPPH, FRAP, BCB, NO, and SO results. TPC: total polyphenolic content; DPPH: DPPH: 2,2-diphenyl-1-picrylhydrazyl; FRAP: ferric reducing antioxidant power; BCB: β-carotene bleaching assay; NO: nitric oxide; SO: superoxide anion.
Figure 2Viability of HepG2 cells treated for 24 and 48 h with different concentrations of (A) HC-R/BuOH, (B) HC-MeOH, (C) HC-D, (D) HC-I, (E) HC-M. Data are expressed as the mean ± SE of three independent experiments (n = 3) and were analyzed by one-way ANOVA followed by Dunnett’s post-hoc test, * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01 and *** p < 0.001 vs. CTRL (100% viability).
Metabolites identified in H. crepitans aqueous extracts by Liquid chromatography–mass spectrometry.
| n | Rt (Min) | Molecular Formula | [M-H]− | MS/MS | Identity |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 1.3 | C9H8O4 | 179.0559 | 161; 151; 135; 133; 117; 97 | Caffeic acid |
| 2 | 5.6 | C7H6O5 | 169.0301 | 151; 141; 125; 83 | Gallic acid |
| 3 | 8.2 | C7H6O4 | 152.9871 | 135; 125; 119; 109; 97; 77 | 3,4-dihydroxybenzoic acid |
| 4 | 14.7 | C9H10O5 | 197.0964 | n.s. | Syringic acid |
| 5 | 15.0 | C15H14O7 | 305.1924 | 288; 261 | Epigallocatechin |
| 6 | 15.3 | C27H30O16 | 609.1616 | 271; 255; 179 | Rutin |
| 7 | 15.9 | C21H20O12 | 463.0917 | 461; 301 | Isoquercetin |
| 8 | 16.2 | C15H10O7 | 301.1122 | 273; 257; 245; 229; 213; 201; 185; 179; 151 | Quercetin |
| 9 | 16.3 | C15H10O8 | 317.1703 | n.s. | Myricetin |
| 10 | 16.7 | C15H14O6 | 288.976 | 245; 205; 203; 123; 109 | Epicatechin |
| 11 | 17.0 | C27H32O14 | 579.2358 | 417; 399; 339; 301; 255; 227; 217; 179 | Naringin |
| 12 | 20.3 | C15H10O6 | 285.0398 | 257; 241; 217; 199; 175; 151; 133 | Luteolin |
| 13 | 24.1 | C14H12O3 | 227.2173 | 183; 181; 159; 143; 115 | Resveratrol |
| 14 | 24.5 | C10H10O4 | 193.1645 | n.s. | Ferulic acid |
n.s.: no signal.
Phenolic compounds (mg/kg) in H. crepitans extracts. Data represent the mean values ± SD from two separate experiments, each performed in triplicate. One-way ANOVA followed by Tukey–Kramer post-hoc analysis was used, and differences were considered significant when p < 0.05 and are indicated with different superscripts letters: for values with a different letter, the difference is statistically significant (p < 0.05).
| Compound | HC-D | HC-I | HC-M |
|---|---|---|---|
| Caffeic acid | 4850.0 ± 131.3 a | 5934.0 ± 158.4 b | 10650.4 ± 256.3 c |
| Gallic acid | 20056.0 ± 491.4 a | 14855.0 ± 333.4 b | 47384.0 ± 644.6 c |
| 3,4-dihydroxybenzoic acid | 3943.0 ± 92.6 a | 3244.0 ± 72.1 b | 3613.0 ± 82.3 c |
| Syringic acid | 969.8 ± 21.2 a | 443.0 ± 10.1 b | 845.0 ± 18.1 c |
| Epigallocatechin | 523.5 ± 12.1 a | 357.2 ± 8.2 b | 356.0 ± 8.3 b |
| Rutin | 47197.6 ± 880.0 a | 39710.5 ± 782.8 b | 44678.0 ± 827.0 a |
| Isoquercetin | 602.1 ± 13.1 a | 377.6 ± 7.4 b | 419.1 ± 8.5 c |
| Quercetin | 9069.8 ± 216.7 a | 5046.6 ± 117.2 b | 11130.8 ± 254.3 c |
| Myricetin | 266.9 ± 5.7 a | 225.6 ± 4.6 a | 428.3 ± 8.7 b |
| Epicatechin | 668.2 ± 14.7 a | 431.2 ± 9.8 b | 388.2 ± 8.7 c |
| Naringin | 6425.5 ± 152.6 a | 8454.6 ± 181.4 b | 8250.0 ± 176.3 b |
| Luteolin | 46.9 ± 1.2 a | 46.4 ± 1.1 a | 119.6 ± 1.9 b |
| Resveratrol | 740.9 ± 13.5 a | 2113.3 ± 42.8 b | 697.1 ± 12.4 a |
| Ferulic acid | TRACE | TRACE | TRACE |
TRACE: minimum amount.
Figure 3Effect of H. crepitans extracts on H2O2-induced intracellular ROS generation in HepG2 cells. The cells were pre-treated with the extracts at different concentrations (200, 400, and 600 μg/mL) for 24 h and subsequently incubated for 1 h with 2 mM H2O2. ROS generation was measured by flow cytometry using DCFH-DA staining. Data are expressed as the mean ± SE of three independent experiments (n = 3) and were analyzed by one-way ANOVA followed by Dunnett’s post-hoc test. ### p < 0.001 vs. CTRL, * p < 0.05 and *** p < 0.001 vs. H2O2-treated cells.
Characteristics of empty liposomes and H. crepitans extract (HC-M) loaded liposomes: intensity-weighted mean hydrodynamic diameter, polydispersity index (P.I.), and zeta potential (ZP). Each value represents the mean ± SD, n > 10; # SD for P.I. values was always <0.03.
| Formulation | Mean Diameter (nm ± SD) | P.I. # | ZP (mV ± SD) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Empty liposomes | 73 ± 7.8 | 0.25 | −54 ± 6.6 |
| HC-M liposomes | 84 ± 7.6 | 0.20 | −46 ± 8.0 |
Figure 4Effect of H. crepitans extract loaded liposomes (LHC-M) on cell viability and H2O2-induced intracellular ROS generation in HepG2 cells. (A) Viability of HepG2 cells treated for 24 h with different concentrations of LHC-M. Untreated cells were used as control (CTRL; 100% viability). Data are expressed as the mean ± SE of three independent experiments (n = 3) and were analyzed by one-way ANOVA followed by Dunnett’s post hoc test, * p < 0.05 and *** p < 0.001 vs. CTRL. (B) Cells were pre-treated for 24 h with LHC-M at different concentrations (3.125, 6.25 and 12.5 μg/mL) and subsequently incubated for 1 h with 2 mM H2O2. ROS generation was measured by flow cytometry using 2′,7′-dichlorodihydrofluorescein diacetate (DCFH-DA) staining. Data are expressed as the mean ± SE of three independent experiments (n = 3) and were analyzed by one-way ANOVA followed by Dunnett’s post hoc test. ### p < 0.001 vs. CTRL (HepG2 cells treated with vehicle), *** p < 0.001 vs. H2O2-treated cells.