| Literature DB >> 32908638 |
Mariana Roxo1, Herbenya Peixoto1, Pille Wetterauer1, Emerson Lima2, Michael Wink1.
Abstract
In a context of rising demand for sustainable antiaging interventions, fruit processing by-products are a promising source of bioactive compounds for the production of antiaging dietary supplements. Piquiá (Caryocar villosum) is a native Amazonian fruit consisting of 65% nonedible shells. In the present study, the phytochemical profile of a hydroalcoholic extract of piquiá shells (CV) was characterized by LC-MS/MS analysis. Its antioxidant and antiaging activities were investigated using the nematode Caenorhabditis elegans as an in vivo model. CV is mainly composed by hydrolysable tannins and triterpenoid saponins. The extract enhanced stress resistance of wild-type and mutant worms by reducing the intracellular levels of reactive oxygen species (ROS) and by increasing their survival against a lethal dose of the prooxidant juglone. These effects involved the upregulation of sod-3 and downregulation of gst-4 and hsp-16.2, studied through the GFP fluorescent reporter intensity and at the transcriptional level by qRT-PCR analysis. CV extended the lifespan of wild-type worms in a DAF-16/FoxO- and SKN-1/Nrf-dependent manner. Taken together, our findings indicate piquiá shells as potential candidates for nutraceutical applications. Further studies are needed to validate the relevance of our findings to antiaging interventions in humans.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32908638 PMCID: PMC7468659 DOI: 10.1155/2020/7590707
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Oxid Med Cell Longev ISSN: 1942-0994 Impact factor: 6.543
Figure 1Chromatogram (PDA) and total ion current (TIC) of the hydroalcoholic extract of Caryocar villosum fruit shells obtained by LC-MS/MS in negative (ESI -) and positive (ESI +) mode. Peak numbers correspond to the tentatively identified compounds presented in Tables 1 and 2 (NL: normative level).
Tentative identification of polyphenols from a hydroalcoholic extract of Caryocar villosum fruit shells by LC-MS/MS analysis (ESI -).
| Peaka | Tentative identification |
|
| [M-H+]− ( | MS/MS fragments ( | MS3 fragments ( | Reference |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Chebulic acid | 4.8 | 284 | 355 | 337 | [ | |
| 2 | Monogalloyl hexoside | 6.8 | 278 | 331 | 271, 241, 211, 193, 169, 125 | [ | |
| 3 | Gallic acid | 7.5 | 264 | 169 | 125 | Standard | |
| 4 | HHDP-hexoside | 7.8 | 272 | 481 | 463, 319, 301, 275 | 445, 301, 275 | [ |
| 5 | Digalloyl hexoside | 9.5 | 280 | 483 | 331, 313, 271, 241, 169 | 313, 271, 241, 211, 169, 125 | [ |
| 6 | Unknown | 10.2 | 269 | 355 | 337, 311, 293, 267, 205 | 293, 267, 223, 205, 179, 149 | — |
| 7 | Unknown | 12.0 | 273 | 353 | 334, 308, 265, 221, 177 | — | |
| 8 | Valoneic acid dilactone | 15.1 | 254; 373 | 469 | 425 | 425, 407, 301, 300, 299 | [ |
| 9 | Galloyl-valoneoyl-glucoside isomer | 18.1 | 266 | 801 | 757, 756, 633, 631, 613 | [ | |
| 10 | Brevifolin carboxylic acid | 18.8 | 276; 353 | 291 | 247 | [ | |
| 11 | Unknown | 19.5 | 273 | 1083 | 935 | — | |
| 12 | Galloyl-HHDP-hexoside (corilagin) | 20.3 | 263 | 633 | 615, 481, 463, 419, 301, 275 | [ | |
| 13 | HHDP-valoneoyl-glucoside isomer | 22.1 | 271 | 951 | 933, 907, 799, 737, 301 | 863, 755, 737, 633, 605, 453, 435, 301 | [ |
| 14 | Galloyl-HHDP-DHHDP-hexoside | 23.2 | 258; 363 | 951 | 933, 915, 613, 301 | [ | |
| 15 | Galloyl-valoneoyl-glucoside isomer | 24.4 | 265 | 801 | 757 | 633, 632, 631, 613, 605, 603, 587, 463, 425, 301 | [ |
| 16 | Phyllanthusiin C | 28.7 | 273 | 925 | 907, 633, 615, 605, 453, 435, 301, 273 | [ | |
| 17 | Phyllanthusiin B | 29.9 | 272 | 969 | 951, 925, 907, 895, 851, 755, 633, 301 | [ | |
| 18 | Chebulagic acid | 31.9 | 272 | 953 | 935, 909, 801, 783, 757, 633, 481, 463, 319, 301, 275 | [ | |
| 19 | Digalloyl-HHDP-glucose | 32.7 | 258; 360 | 785 | 633, 615, 589, 463, 419, 301, 275, 249 | [ | |
| 20 | HHDP-valoneoyl-glucoside isomer | 33.2 | 271 | 951 | 933, 907, 836, 737, 435, 301 | [ | |
| 21 | Unknown | 33.4 | 252; 362 | 894 | 875, 806, 725, 653, 506, 447, 300, 293 | — | |
| 22 | Ellagic acid | 33.6 | 252; 364 | 301 | 301, 257, 229, 185 | [ | |
| 23 | HDDP-decarboxy-valoneoyl-glucoside | 34.8 | 272; 353 | 907 | 755, 737, 633, 605, 587, 453, 435, 291, 273 | — | |
| 24 | Unknown | 36.2 | 273 | 939 | 785 | — | |
| 25 | Unknown | 37.5 | 272 | 917 | 747, 721, 615, 445, 301 | — | |
| 26 | HHDP-valoneoyl-glucoside isomer | 37.7 | 271 | 951 | 907, 737, 649, 615, 587, 479, 435, 335, 301 | [ |
aPeak numbers refer to the peaks presented in Figure 1. bRt: retention time in TIC. cThe ion shown in bold face was the precursor for MS3 fragmentation. dThe MS3 spectra were obtained by MS/MS of ions of the source fragmentation. HHDP: hexahydroxydiphenoyl; DHHDP: dehydroxyhexahydroxydiphenoyl.
Tentative identification of triterpenoid saponins from a hydroalcoholic extract of Caryocar villosum fruit shells by LC-MS/MS analysis (ESI +).
| Peaka | Tentative identification |
| [M+H+]+ ( | Source fragmentation | MS/MS fragments of [M + H+]+ | Reference |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 27 | Caryocaroside III-16 | 45.5 | 1431 | 1269, 1137, 975, 813, 651 | 1431, 1412, 1142, 957, 929, 826, 453 | [ |
| 28 | Caryocaroside III-14 | 45.9 | 1269 | 1107, 975, 813, 651 | 1251, 1240, 1074, 743 | [ |
| 29 | Caryocaroside III-13 | 46.1 | 1137 | 975, 813, 651 | 1138, 939, 691, 530 | [ |
| 30 | Caryocaroside III-12 | 46.4 | 1107 | 945, 813, 651 | 704, 404, 321 | [ |
| 31 | Caryocaroside III-2/III-3 | 46.7 | 975 | 813, 651 | 956, 842, 806, 738, 674 | [ |
| 32 | Caryocaroside II-16 | 47.2 | 1415 | 1253, 1121, 959, 797 | 1418, 1404, 1370, 1356, 1312, 1275, 1235, 1021, 727 | [ |
| 33 | Unknown caryocaroside | 47.8 | 1253 | 1091, 959, 797 | 1253, 1009 | — |
| 34 | Caryocaroside II-13 | 48.1 | 1121 | 959, 797, 635 | 1122, 583 | [ |
| 35 | Caryocaroside II-12 | 48.7 | 1091 | 929, 797, 635 | 1074, 833 | [ |
| 36 | Caryocaroside II-2/II-3 | 49.2 | 959 | 797, 635 | 930, 856, 831, 734 | [ |
| 37 | Caryocaroside IV-21 | 49.9 | 1429 | 1267, 1135, 973, 811, 649 | 1427, 1414, 1376, 1370, 1326, 1267, 1134, 1115, 1069, 869 | [ |
| 38 | Unknown caryocaroside | 50.4 | 1135 | 973, 811, 649 | — | |
| 39 | Unknown caryocaroside | 50.7 | 1267 | 1105, 973, 811, 649 | 1239, 1071, 1000 | — |
| 40 | Unknown caryocaroside | 51.2 | 1135 | 973, 797, 635 | — | |
| 41 | Caryocaroside IV-17 | 51.5 | 1105 | 943, 811, 649 | [ | |
| 42 | Caryocaroside II-9/IV-9/II-11/IV-11/III-22 | 52.9 | 973 | 811 | 974, 928, 852, 786, 762, 657 | [ |
| 43 | Caryocaroside IV-7 | 58.8 | 811 | 649 | [ |
aPeak numbers refer to the peaks presented in Figure 1. bRt: retention time in TIC.
In vitro antioxidant activity of Caryocar villosum shells extract (CV).
| Sample | DPPH | TEAC/ABTS |
|---|---|---|
| CV | 3.01 ± 0.10 | 4.76 ± 0.14 |
| Ascorbic acid | 3.06 ± 0.14 | 5.73 ± 0.42 |
| Gallic acid | 1.12 ± 0.05 | 13.27 ± 0.82 |
DPPH: 2,2-diphenyl-1-picrylhydrazyl; TEAC: trolox equivalent antioxidant capacity; ABTS: 2,2'-azino-bis(3-ethylbenzothiazoline-6-sulfonic acid).
Figure 2Intracellular ROS accumulation under basal stress conditions of wild-type (a) and mutant worms for daf-16 (b), skn-1 (c), and hsp-16.2 (d) treated with Caryocar villosum fruit shells (CV). The results are expressed as mean percentage of control ± SEM from at least three independent experiments, calculated from DCF intensity of the worm's whole body (∗∗∗∗p < 0.0001, compared to the untreated control).
Figure 3Effect of Caryocar villosum fruit shells (CV) on the survival rate of wild-type (N2) and mutant worms for daf-16 (b), skn-1 (c), and hsp-16.2 (d), exposed to 80 μM juglone to induce lethal oxidative stress. Survival rate is expressed as mean percentage survival ± SEM of at least four independent experiments (∗p < 0.05, ∗∗p < 0.01, and ∗∗∗p < 0.001, compared to juglone).
Figure 4Effect of Caryocar villosum fruit shells (CV) on the intracellular localization of DAF-16 and SKN-1. (a) Representative images of TJ356 worms with nuclear, intermediate, and cytosolic DAF-16::GFP localization. (b) Representative images of LD1 worms with intermediate and cytosolic SKN-1::GFP localization. (c) Intracellular localization of DAF-16. (d) Intracellular localization of SKN-1. The results are presented as mean percentage of worms showing each pattern of localization of at least three independent experiments. For DAF-16::GFP, error bars show the mean percentage of worms exhibiting nuclear localization ± SEM, and the statistical differences also refer to this pattern of localization (∗p < 0.05, ∗∗p < 0.01, compared to the untreated control). For SKN-1::GFP, error bars show the mean percentage of worms exhibiting intermediate localization ± SEM.
Figure 5Effect of Caryocar villosum fruit shells (CV) on superoxide dismutase 3 (sod-3) expression under basal and mild oxidative stress, induced by a dose of 20 μM juglone. (a) sod-3::GFP expression levels under basal stress conditions. (b) sod-3::GFP expression levels under juglone-induced oxidative stress. (c) Relative sod-3 mRNA levels of wild-type worms under basal stress conditions. (d) Relative sod-3 mRNA levels of wild-type worms under 20 μM juglone-induced oxidative stress. Data are representative of three independent experiments. GFP expression levels are expressed as mean percentage of untreated control (basal stress) or juglone (induced stress) ± SEM (∗∗p < 0.01, ∗∗∗p < 0.001, and ∗∗∗∗p < 0.0001, compared to the respective control) (##p < 0.01, compared to the untreated control). Relative mRNA levels are presented as mean fold relative mRNA levels, calculated from ΔΔCt values normalized to cdc-42 as a reference gene (∗∗p < 0.01, ∗∗∗∗p < 0.0001, compared to juglone).
Figure 6Effect of Caryocar villosum fruit shells (CV) on heat-shock protein 16.2 (hsp-16.2) and glutathione S-transferase 4 (gst-4) expression under mild oxidative stress, induced by a dose of 20 μM juglone. (a) Representative images of CL2166 (gst-4::GFP) and TJ375 (hsp-16.2::GFP) worms. (b) Relative mRNA levels of gst-4 and hsp-16.2 of untreated and juglone treated wild-type worms. (c) gst-4::GFP expression levels. (d) hsp-16.2::GFP expression levels. (e) Relative gst-4 mRNA levels of wild-type worms. (f) Relative hsp-16.2 mRNA levels of wild-type worms. Data are representative of three independent experiments. GFP expression levels are expressed as mean percentage of juglone ± SEM (∗∗∗∗p < 0.001, compared to juglone). Relative mRNA levels are presented as mean fold relative mRNA levels in comparison to the juglone treatment ± SEM, normalized to cdc-42 as a reference gene (∗∗p < 0.01, ∗∗∗∗p < 0.001, compared to juglone).
Figure 7Lifespan of wild-type (a) and mutant worms for daf-16 (b) and skn-1 (c) treated with Caryocar villosum fruit shells (CV). Lifespan is expressed as mean percentage of survival of at least three independent experiments.
Mean and median lifespan of wild-type (N2) and mutant worms for daf-16 (CF1038) and skn-1 (EU1) treated with Caryocar villosum fruit shells (CV).
| Strain | Treatment ( | Mean lifespan ± SE (days) | Median lifespan ± SE (days) |
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| N2 | Untreated control | 21.77 ± 0.29 | 23.00 ± 0.29 | 501 | — |
| EGCG 50 | 23.75 ± 0.30 | 25.00 ± 0.27 | 470 | <0.0001 | |
| CV 50 | 23.92 ± 0.30 | 25.00 ± 0.24 | 488 | <0.0001 | |
| CV 100 | 24.17 ± 0.30 | 25.00 ± 0.27 | 437 | <0.0001 | |
| CV 200 | 24.68 ± 0.34 | 27.00 ± 0.28 | 449 | <0.0001 | |
|
| |||||
| CF1038 | Untreated control | 15.46 ± 0.27 | 17.00 ± 0.25 | 339 | — |
| EGCG 50 | 14.75 ± 0.30 | 17.00 ± 0.49 | 334 | 0.63 | |
| CV 200 | 15.61 ± 0.30 | 17.00 ± 0.30 | 304 | 0.27 | |
|
| |||||
| EU1 | Untreated control | 13.88 ± 0.20 | 15.00 ± 0.27 | 409 | — |
| EGCG 50 | 14.08 ± 0.19 | 15.00 ± 0.25 | 415 | 0.54 | |
| CV 200 | 13.93 ± 0.12 | 15.00 ± 0.33 | 385 | 0.69 | |
a p values (treatment vs. untreated control) were determined by the log-rank test.
Figure 8Impact of Caryocar villosum fruit shells (CV) on the feeding behavior, development, and reproduction of wild-type worms. (a) E. coli OP50 growth and food intake by means of bacterial clearance. (b) Body area of wild-type worms on the first day of adulthood. (c) Brood size. Data are representative of three independent experiments. Bacterial growth and intake are presented as fold calculated from the absorbance at day 0. Body area is expressed as percentage compared to the untreated control (mean ± SEM). Brood size represents the number of eggs laid per worm during the reproductive period (mean ± SEM).