| Literature DB >> 32858862 |
Diana Lopes1,2,3, Tânia Melo1,3, Felisa Rey1,3, Joana Meneses1, Fátima Liliana Monteiro4, Luisa A Helguero4, Maria Helena Abreu5, Ana Isabel Lillebø2, Ricardo Calado2, Maria Rosário Domingues1,3.
Abstract
Marine edible macroalgae have functional proprieties that might improve human health and wellbeing. Lipids represent a minor fraction of macroalgae, yet with major interest as main carriers of omega 3 polyunsaturated fatty acids and intrinsic bioactive properties. In this study, we used lipid extracts from the green macroalgae Ulva rigida and Codium tomentosum; the red Gracilaria gracilis,Palmaria palmata and Porphyra dioica; and the brown Fucus vesiculosus, produced in a land-based integrated multitrophic aquaculture (IMTA) system. We determined the lipid quality indices based on their fatty acid profiles and their bioactivities as putative antioxidant, anti-inflammatory and antiproliferative agents. The results reveal to be species-specific, namely U. rigida displayed the lowest atherogenicity and thrombogenicity indices. Palmaria palmata and F. vesiculosus lipid extracts displayed the lowest inhibitory concentration in the free radical scavenging antioxidant assays. Ulva rigida, C. tomentosum, P. palmata and P. dioica inhibited COX-2 activity by up to 80%, while P. dioica and P. palmata extracts showed the highest cytotoxic potential in the MDA-MB-231 breast cancer cells. This work enhances the valorization of macroalgae as functional foods and promising ingredients for sustainable and healthy diets and fosters new applications of high-valued algal biomass, in a species-specific context.Entities:
Keywords: anti-inflammatory; antioxidant; antiproliferative; bioactivities; fatty acids; functional foods; lipids
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32858862 PMCID: PMC7504498 DOI: 10.3390/molecules25173883
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Molecules ISSN: 1420-3049 Impact factor: 4.411
Fatty acids (FA) profile of green Ulva rigida and Codium tomentosum; red Gracilaria gracilis, Palmaria palmata and Porphyra dioica; and brown Fucus vesiculosus macroalgae. Abundances are expressed in relative abundance (%) and values are means of five samples (n = 5) ± standard deviation.
| FA |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 14:0 | 3.7 ± 0.4 | 3.2 ± 0.3 | 5.3 ± 0.4 | 9.3 ± 0.6 | 9.3 ± 0.5 | |
| 16:0 | 20.2 ± 0.4 | 22.3 ± 1.2 | 27.1 ± 1.2 | 24.4 ± 1.1 | 23.3 ± 1.1 | 11.9 ± 0.5 |
| 16:1 | 1.3 ± 0.1 | 4.9 ± 0.2 | 2.8 ± 0.8 | 2 ± 0.4 | 18.3 ± 0.7 | 1 ± 0.0 |
| 16:1 | 2.1 ± 0.1 | 0.8 ± 0.0 | 0.9 ± 0.1 | |||
| 16:2 | 0.9 ± 0.1 | |||||
| 16:2 | 0.8 ± 0.1 | 1.8 ± 0.1 | ||||
| 16:3 | 1.7 ± 0.1 | 1.3 ± 0.1 | ||||
| 16:3 | 1.4 ± 0.1 | |||||
| 16:3 | 10.3 ± 0.4 | |||||
| 16:4 | 1.5 ± 0.1 | 3.5 ± 0.3 | ||||
| 16:4 | 19 ± 0.6 | |||||
| 18:0 | 2.9 ± 1 | 2.6 ± 0.6 | 4.6 ± 0.8 | 12.5 ± 6.8 | 4.9 ± 1 | 3.6 ± 1.1 |
| 18:1 * | 9.5 ± 0.3 | 11.1 ± 0.4 | 9.7 ± 0.4 | 2.8 ± 0.5 | 3.3 ± 0.2 | 22.2 ± 1.3 |
| 18:2 | 1.5 ± 0.1 | 3.4 ± 0.1 | 2 ± 0.4 | 1.7 ± 0.1 | 8.5 ± 0.2 | |
| 18:2 | 3.6 ± 0.1 | |||||
| 18:3 | 0.4 ± 0.1 | 2 ± 0.1 | 0.8 ± 0.0 | |||
| 18:3 | 10.9 ± 0.4 | 14 ± 0.6 | 2.7 ± 0.2 | 6.7 ± 0.3 | ||
| 18:4 | 24.4 ± 0.4 | 4.4 ± 0.1 | 7 ± 0.2 | 3.4 ± 0.2 | 6.2 ± 0.3 | |
| 20:3 | 2.4 ± 0.5 | 0.9 ± 0.1 | ||||
| 20:4 | 4.5 ± 0.4 | 35.4 ± 1.5 | 0.9 ± 0.2 | 2.7 ± 0.3 | 16.7 ± 0.7 | |
| 20:4 | 1.2 ± 0.1 | 0.6 ± 0.1 | ||||
| 20:5- | 1.4 ± 0.1 | 7.9 ± 0.8 | 5.5 ± 0.2 | 51.9 ± 6.5 | 20.5 ± 2.3 | 10.3 ± 0.5 |
| 22:0 | 1 ± 0.1 | 1.7 ± 0.4 | 0.3 ± 0.0 | |||
| 22:5 | 4.1 ± 0.1 |
* The 18:1 value is represented by the normalized sum of two peaks corresponding to C18:1 but whose unsaturation position was not clear to identify for all macroalgae.
Fatty acids indicators of green Ulva rigida and Codium tomentosum; red Gracilaria gracilis, Palmaria palmata and Porphyra dioica; and brown Fucus vesiculosus macroalgae. Values correspond to relative abundances (except for AI and TI calculation) and are presented as average of five samples (n = 5) ± standard deviation. Different letters indicate statistically significant differences between macroalga species (q < 0.05, Kruskal–Wallis test followed by Dunn’s post-hoc comparisons).
| Indicators |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SFA | 24.1 ± 1.4 | 30.2 ± 1.6 | 34.9 ± 0.9 | 42.3 ± 7.3 | 37.5 ± 2.4 | 25.2 ± 2 |
| MUFA | 13 ± 0.3 | 16.8 ± 0.3 | 12.5 ± 0.7 | 4.9 ± 0.9 | 22.5 ± 0.7 | 23.3 ± 1.2 |
| PUFA | 62.9 ± 1.1 | 53 ± 1.4 | 52.6 ± 1.4 | 52.8 ± 6.7 | 40 ± 3 | 51.6 ± 1.5 |
| PUFA omega-6 | 2 ± 0.1 | 8.7 ± 0.4 | 37.4 ± 1.3 | 0.9 ± 0.2 | 10.7 ± 0.8 | 28.3 ± 0.7 |
| PUFA omega-3 | 60.9 ± 1.1 | 40.2 ± 1.3 | 15.1 ± 0.3 | 51.9 ± 6.5 | 24.5 ± 2.5 | 23.3 ± 0.9 |
| AI | 0.3 ± 0.0 a | 0.6 ± 0.1 a,b | 0.6 ± 0.0 a,c,d | 0.8 ± 0.1 c,e | 1.1 ± 0.1 e | 0.7 ± 0.1 b,d,e |
| TI | 0.1 ± 0.0 a | 0.2 ± 0.0 a,b | 0.5 ± 0.0 c | 0.2 ± 0.1 a,d | 0.4 ± 0.1 b,c | 0.3 ± 0.0 b,c,d |
SFA, saturated fatty acids; MUFA, monounsaturated fatty acids; PUFA, polyunsaturated fatty acids; AI, Atherogenicity index; TI, Thrombogenicity index. a There are no significant differences between Ulva rigida, Codium tomentosum and Gracilaria gracilis; b there are no significant differences between Codium tomentosum and Fucus vesiculosus; c there are no significant differences between Gracilaria gracilis and Palmaria palmate; d there are no significant differences between Gracilaria gracilis and Fucus vesiculosus; e there are no significant differences between Palmaria palmata, Porphyra dioica and Fucus vesiculosus.
Lipid extract concentration (μg/mL) that provided inhibition of 50% (IC50) and 20% (IC20) for ABTS●+ and DPPH● assays, respectively. Trolox equivalent (TE) [μmol of Trolox/g lipid] for radical scavenging activity. Values are presented as average of three assays (n = 3) ± standard deviation. Different letters in the same line represent significant differences among macroalgae (q < 0.05, Kruskal–Wallis test followed by Dunn’s post-hoc comparisons).
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ABTS●+ | IC50 | 30.7 ± 0.1 a,b | 48.1 ± 0.0 a,c | 86.4 ± 3.4 a | 23.7 ± 0.6 b,d | 41.1 ± 2.5 a,d | 27.3 ± 0.2 b,c,d |
| TE | 500.5 ± 1.7 a,b | 327.9 ± 0.2 a,b | 183.0 ± 7.1 a | 606.1 ± 14.6 b | 338.8 ± 20.5 a,b | 507.1 ± 3.5 b | |
| DPPH● | IC20 | 120.8 ± 3.8 a,b | 249.9 ± 66.7 a | 119.5 ± 1.8 a,b | 119.6 ± 8.0 a,b | 212.5 ± 7.0 a | 106.0 ± 5.6 b |
| TE | 88.0 ± 2.8 | 249.9 ± 66.7 | 89.2 ± 1.3 | 89.5 ± 6.3 | 44.9 ± 1.5 | 89.7 ± 4.6 |
Figure 1Inhibition of COX-2 activity (expressed in percentage, %) demonstrated by the lipid extracts of Ulva rigida, Codium tomentosum, Palmaria palmata, Porphyra dioica and Fucus vesiculosus at a concentration of 500 µg/mL. Values are averages of three assays (n = 3) ± standard deviation. In the case of Gracilaria gracilis, no inhibition was obtained. Different letters indicate significant differences between species (p < 0.05, ANOVA followed by Tukey’s HSD post hoc analysis).
Figure 2Antiproliferative effect in MDA-MB-231 cell viability of the lipid extracts of Ulva rigida, Codium tomentosum, Gracilaria gracilis, Palmaria palmata, Porphyra dioica and Fucus vesiculosus at five distinct concentrations. Control values obtained for cell culture without lipid extract correspond to cell viability of 100% and are not represented in the bar graphs. Values are presented as the average of three assays (n = 3) ± standard deviation (Tukey’s HSD post hoc analysis, p < 0.05). Different letters in the same graph represent significant differences among concentrations.
Polar lipid extract concentration (µg/mL] that induced 50% inhibition (IC50) of MDA-MB-231 cells. Values are means of three assays ± standard deviation.
| Macroalgae | IC50 |
|---|---|
|
| 82.7 ± 19.1% |
|
| 66.4 ± 12.0% |
|
| 74.7 ± 19.1% |
|
| 40.4 ± 19.2% |
|
| 35.5 ± 10.5% |
|
| 52.5 ± 10.9% |