| Literature DB >> 32714411 |
Metar Siriwattanasatorn1, Arunporn Itharat2, Pakakrong Thongdeeying2, Buncha Ooraikul3.
Abstract
Skin ensures that a constant internal environment can be maintained in an ever-changing external environment. When a wound occurs on the skin, the inflammatory and proliferative phases are initiated in response to injury. Thai traditional medicine (TTM), using medicinal plants and ancient knowledge, has been used to treat wounds. Eight Thai medicinal plants, most commonly used to treat wounds, were evaluated for their in vitro biological activities such as antioxidation by NBT assay, anti-inflammation by production inhibition of NO, promoting fibroblast cell proliferation, and wound closure activities. Plant materials were extracted with 95% ethanol or distilled water and then concentrated and dried. Statistical analysis of data was done using one-way ANOVA at p value of 0.05. The ethanolic extracts of Garcinia mangostana L., Glycyrrhiza glabra L., and Nigella sativa L. could inhibit the production of superoxide anion with the IC50 values of 13.97 ± 0.38, 28.62 ± 1.91, and 71.54 ± 3.22 μg/ml and nitric oxide with the IC50 values of 23.97 ± 0.91, 46.35 ± 0.43, and 78.48 ± 4.46 μg/ml, respectively. These extracts could promote cell proliferation and accelerate wound recovery at the rate of 2.02 ± 0.03, 2.12 ± 0.03, and 2.65 ± 0.05% per hour, respectively. Three established markers from these three plants were selected according to the selection criteria. Alpha-mangostin, glycyrrhizin, and thymoquinone were found to be the active markers for wound closure activities. The ethanolic extracts of G. mangostana, G. glabra, and N. sativa could scavenge superoxide anion and inhibit the production of nitric oxide; therefore these extracts could assist in surpassing the inflammatory phase and protected the cells surrounding the wound area. Most importantly, these extracts also increased the proliferation and accelerated wound closure, indicating that these plant extracts could be promoting wound healing processes and support the use of TTM.Entities:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32714411 PMCID: PMC7341384 DOI: 10.1155/2020/6795383
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Evid Based Complement Alternat Med ISSN: 1741-427X Impact factor: 2.629
Ethnobotanical data, specimen voucher number, and percentage of yield by maceration and decoction methods.
| No. | Scientific name | Common name | Family name | Part used | Specimen voucher number | % yield | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Maceration | Decoction | ||||||
| 1 |
| Mangosteen | Clusiaceae | Pericarp | SKP 214 09 13 01 | 23.81 | 12.73 |
| 2 |
| Licorice | Fabaceae | Root | SKP 072 07 07 01 | 6.08 | 15.33 |
| 3 |
| Bullet wood | Sapotaceae | Bark | SKP 171 13 05 01 | 1.23 | 0.62 |
| 4 |
| Black cumin | Ranunculaceae | Seed | SKP 160 14 19 01 | 22.07 | 13.31 |
| 5 |
| Indian gooseberry | Euphorbiaceae | Dry fruit | SKP 071 16 05 01 | 13.11 | 22.11 |
| 6 |
| Indian nightshade | Solanaceae | Dry fruit | SKP 180 19 09 01 | 6.77 | 12.98 |
| 7 |
| Thai nightshade | Solanaceae | Dry fruit | SKP 180 19 20 01 | 7.67 | 19.64 |
| 8 |
| Clove | Myrtaceae | Bud | SKP 123 19 01 01 | 18.79 | 13.15 |
Figure 1Flow chart of study.
Effectiveness of medicinal plant extracts on HL-60 and RAW 264.7 cell lines in inhibiting superoxide anions and nitric oxide.
| No. | Type of extract | Medicinal plant extracts and chemical compounds | NBT | NO | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| IC50 ± SEM ( |
| IC50 ± SEM ( |
| |||
| 1 | — | Prednisolone | — | — | 1.30 ± 0.05 | (Ref) |
| 2 | — | Propyl gallate | 6.48 ± 1.06 | (Ref) | — | — |
| 3 | Ethanolic |
| 11.30 ± 0.66 | 0.630 | >100 | — |
| 4 | Aqueous |
| 12.03 ± 0.79 | 0.355 | >100 | — |
| 5 | Ethanolic |
| 13.97 ± 0.38 | 0.062 | 23.97 ± 0.91 | <0.001 |
| 6 | Aqueous |
| 14.59 ± 1.15 | 0.039 | >100 | — |
| 7 | Aqueous |
| 16.89 ± 1.26 | 0.005 | >100 | — |
| 8 | Ethanolic |
| 26.83 ± 1.24 | <0.001 | >100 | — |
| 9 | Ethanolic |
| 28.62 ± 1.91 | <0.001 | 46.35 ± 0.43 | <0.001 |
| 10 | Ethanolic |
| 71.30 ± 3.29 | <0.001 | 78.48 ± 4.46 | <0.001 |
| 11 | Ethanolic |
| 71.54 ± 3.22 | <0.001 | >100 | — |
| 12 | — |
| 2.65 ± 0.52 | 0.203 | 15.15 ± 0.14 | <0.001 |
| 13 | — | Thymoquinone | 9.56 ± 1.11 | 0.341 | 1.55 ± 0.14 | 0.796 |
| 14 | — | Glycyrrhizin | 40.85 ± 2.30 | <0.001 | >100 | <0.001 |
Note: plant extracts with negative results were not shown.
Effectiveness of medicinal plant extracts on cell viability, proliferation, and wound closure activities on 3T3 CCL-92 cells.
| No. | Type of extract | Medicinal plant extracts and chemical compounds | Toxicity IC50 ± SEM ( | Proliferation | Wound closure | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Conc. ( | % ± SEM |
| % ± SEM | Acceleration (% recovery/hour) |
| ||||
| 1 | — | 0.2% DMSO in DMEM | >100 | — | 0 ± 0 | <Ref.> | 39.67 ± 1.15 | 1.57 ± 0.03 | <Ref.> |
|
| |||||||||
| 2 | Ethanolic |
| 44.63 ± 0.30 | 1 | 2.01 ± 0.40 | 0.953 | 40.21 ± 0.76 | — | — |
| 2.5 | 23.38 ± 2.42 | <0.001 | 48.42 ± 1.26 | 2.02 ± 0.03 | <0.001 | ||||
| 5 | 52.68 ± 1.99 | <0.001 | 42.94 ± 1.10 | — | — | ||||
| 10 | 33.99 ± 5.08 | <0.001 | 32.75 ± 2.51 | — | — | ||||
|
| |||||||||
| 3 | Ethanolic |
| 52.58 ± 1.45 | 1 | 4.51 ± 1.58 | 0.453 | 43.79 ± 1.36 | — | — |
| 5 | 12.08 ± 1.35 | 0.011 | 47.73 ± 0.61 | — | — | ||||
| 10 | 22.38 ± 2.23 | <0.001 | 50.72 ± 0.78 | 2.12 ± 0.03 | <0.001 | ||||
| 25 | 52.13 ± 3.95 | <0.001 | 35.54 ± 1.94 | — | — | ||||
|
| |||||||||
| 4 | Ethanolic |
| >100 | 1 | 2.80 ± 0.77 | 0.058 | 42.36 ± 0.49 | — | — |
| 10 | 5.27 ± 0.56 | 0.01 | 41.44 ± 0.41 | — | — | ||||
| 50 | 12.45 ± 0.91 | <0.001 | 51.67 ± 1.33 | — | — | ||||
| 100 | 15.47 ± 0.87 | <0.001 | 60.60 ± 2.31 | 2.65 ± 0.05 | <0.001 | ||||
|
| |||||||||
| 5 | — |
| 5.31 ± 0.02 | 0.01 | 0.96 ± 0.27 | 0.948 | 39.73 ± 1.92 | — | — |
| 0.1 | 1.30 ± .76 | 0.870 | 42.70 ± 1.44 | — | — | ||||
| 1 | 5.05 ± 1.48 | 0.052 | 51.63 ± 1.02 | 2.18 ± 0.03 | <0.001 | ||||
| 2.5 | 26.72 ± 2.21 | <0.001 | 36.76 ± 2.52 | — | — | ||||
|
| |||||||||
| 6 | — | Glycyrrhizin | 42.71 ± 0.59 | 0.1 | 0.59 ± 0.96 | 0.962 | 40.79 ± 0.66 | — | — |
| 1 | −0.26 ± 0.93 | 0.998 | 41.57 ± 2.73 | — | — | ||||
| 5 | −0.04 ± 0.66 | 0.999 | 49.99 ± 0.65 | — | — | ||||
| 10 | −1.47 ± 1.14 | 0.567 | 51.87 ± 1.28 | 2.18 ± 0.02 | <0.001 | ||||
|
| |||||||||
| 7 | — | Thymoquinone | 7.29 ± 0.11 | 0.01 | −0.63 ± 1.12 | 0.994 | 45.68 ± 0.55 | — | — |
| 0.1 | −0.11 ± 1.50 | 0.999 | 57.88 ± 0.34 | 2.35 ± 0.05 | <0.001 | ||||
| 1 | −0.74 ± 0.76 | 0.989 | 50.10 ± 0.72 | — | — | ||||
| 2.5 | −2.33 ± 1.67 | 0.655 | 38.81 ± 0.71 | — | — | ||||
|
| |||||||||
| 8 | — | Asiaticoside | >100 | 1 | 1.75 ± 1.31 | 0.614 | 43.55 ± 1.70 | — | — |
| 10 | 3.35 ± 1.39 | 0.145 | 42.91 ± 0.90 | — | — | ||||
| 50 | 8.24 ± 1.32 | 0.001 | 54.85 ± 1.19 | — | — | ||||
| 100 | 13.71 ± 0.51 | <0.001 | 58.80 ± 1.11 | 2.42 ± 0.03 | <0.001 | ||||
Figure 2Recovery area of 3T3-CCL92 cell line at 0 and 24 hours with ethanolic extracts of Garcinia mangostana (GME), Glycyrrhiza glabra (GGE), Nigella sativa (NSE), and their major compounds, α-mangostin, glycyrrhizin, and thymoquinone, at the concentrations of 2.5, 10, 100, 1, 10, and 0.1 μg/ml, respectively. 0.2% DMSO in basic media and asiaticoside at the concentration of 100 μg/ml were used as negative control (Ctrl.) and positive control, respectively.
Figure 3HPLC chromatograms of 3 markers mixture (a), glycyrrhizin in G. glabra (b), thymoquinone in N. sativa (c), and α-mangostin in G. mangostana (d) with UV spectra.