| Literature DB >> 32932931 |
Siyuan Luo1, Chen Zeng1, Jiajia Li1, Shiling Feng1, Lijun Zhou1, Tao Chen1, Ming Yuan1, Yan Huang1, Hongyu Yang1, Chunbang Ding1.
Abstract
This study was the first designed to evaluate the extraction and antioxidant ability of triterpenes from Bergenia emeiensis rhizomes. The yield of triterpenes from B. emeiensis was mainly affected by the concentration of ethanol, followed by the extraction time, solvent to sample ratio, and the power of ultrasound. Thus, the response surface method was applied to investigate the interaction between the two factors and to optimize the extraction process. The optimal extraction conditions were 210 W, 75% ethanol, 40 min and 25 mL/g with a maximum yield of 229.37 ± 7.16 mg UAE/g. Moreover, the antioxidant ability of triterpenes from B. emeiensis (TBE) was evaluated by determining the scavenging capacity on free radicals and the protection on CHO cells and Caenorhabditis elegans against oxidative stress. The results showed the triterpenes could clear 2,2-Diphenyl-1-picryl-hydrazyl (DPPH) radicals well and had a strong reducing power. In addition, the survival of CHO cells was higher than that of the control group as a result of reducing the reactive oxygen species (ROS) level and promoting the activities of antioxidant enzymes. In addition, TBE could also enhance the survival of C. elegans under H2O2 conditions. Therefore, triterpenes from B. emeiensis could be developed into a beneficial potential for antioxidants.Entities:
Keywords: Bergenia emeiensis; CHO cells; antioxidant; response surface method; triterpenes
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32932931 PMCID: PMC7570829 DOI: 10.3390/molecules25184159
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Molecules ISSN: 1420-3049 Impact factor: 4.411
Figure 1The effects of single factors on the yield of triterpenes. (A) ultrasonic power; (B) concentration of ethanol; (C) extraction time; (D) solvent to sample ratio.
The response surface method (RSM) design and results.
| Run | A-Ultrasonic Power (W) | B-Concentration of Ethanol (%) | C-Extraction Time (min) | D-Solvent to Sample Ratio (mL/g) | Yield of Triterpenes (mg UAE/g) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 180 | 70 | 30 | 30 | 223.73 |
| 2 | 210 | 80 | 30 | 30 | 227.19 |
| 3 | 210 | 90 | 30 | 20 | 171.88 |
| 4 | 180 | 80 | 15 | 30 | 208.80 |
| 5 | 210 | 80 | 15 | 40 | 201.34 |
| 6 | 240 | 70 | 30 | 30 | 220.68 |
| 7 | 240 | 80 | 30 | 20 | 220.98 |
| 8 | 240 | 90 | 30 | 30 | 176.82 |
| 9 | 240 | 80 | 45 | 30 | 208.13 |
| 10 | 210 | 90 | 15 | 30 | 146.69 |
| 11 | 210 | 80 | 15 | 20 | 186.76 |
| 12 | 240 | 80 | 15 | 30 | 181.84 |
| 13 | 180 | 80 | 30 | 20 | 195.72 |
| 14 | 210 | 70 | 15 | 30 | 197.70 |
| 15 | 210 | 80 | 30 | 30 | 200.20 |
| 16 | 240 | 80 | 30 | 40 | 185.27 |
| 17 | 210 | 90 | 30 | 40 | 141.10 |
| 18 | 210 | 70 | 30 | 40 | 209.50 |
| 19 | 180 | 80 | 30 | 40 | 201.15 |
| 20 | 210 | 70 | 30 | 20 | 218.47 |
| 21 | 210 | 80 | 30 | 30 | 224.45 |
| 22 | 210 | 70 | 45 | 30 | 219.19 |
| 23 | 210 | 80 | 30 | 30 | 224.44 |
| 24 | 210 | 80 | 45 | 20 | 218.04 |
| 25 | 180 | 80 | 45 | 30 | 225.76 |
| 26 | 180 | 90 | 30 | 30 | 156.42 |
| 27 | 210 | 90 | 45 | 30 | 172.03 |
| 28 | 210 | 80 | 30 | 30 | 228.06 |
| 29 | 210 | 80 | 45 | 40 | 200.44 |
| pred | 217.61 | 75.39 | 40.72 | 25.01 | 232.01 |
| exp | 210 | 75 | 40 | 25 | 229.37 ± 7.16 |
ANOVA for response surface quadratic model.
| Source | Sum of Squares | Mean Square | F Value | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Model | 15651.6 | 1117.97 | 10.43 | <0.0001 *** |
| A | 26.62 | 26.62 | 0.25 | 0.626 |
| B | 8765.46 | 8765.46 | 81.74 | <0.0001 *** |
| C | 1209.16 | 1209.16 | 11.28 | 0.0047 ** |
| D | 444.57 | 444.57 | 4.15 | 0.0611 |
| AB | 137.38 | 137.38 | 1.28 | 0.2767 |
| AC | 21.76 | 21.76 | 0.2 | 0.6592 |
| AD | 423.28 | 423.28 | 3.95 | 0.0669 |
| BC | 3.7 | 3.7 | 0.035 | 0.8553 |
| BD | 118.88 | 118.88 | 1.11 | 0.3102 |
| CD | 258.84 | 258.84 | 2.41 | 0.1426 |
| A2 | 170.29 | 170.29 | 1.59 | 0.2282 |
| B2 | 3739.29 | 3739.29 | 34.87 | <0.0001 *** |
| C2 | 641.6 | 641.6 | 5.98 | 0.0283 * |
| D2 | 927.26 | 927.26 | 8.65 | 0.0107 * |
| Residual | 1501.22 | 107.23 | ||
| Lack of fit | 956.54 | 95.65 | 0.7 | 0.7044 |
| Pure error | 544.67 | 136.17 | ||
| Cor total | 17152.82 |
Note: * means p < 0.05; ** means <0.01 and *** means p < 0.001.
Figure 2The response surface plots of the four factors interaction on the triterpenes yield (A) concentration of ethanol and ultrasonic power; (B) ultrasonic power and extraction time; (C) ultrasonic power and solvent to sample ratio; (D) extraction time and concentration of ethanol; (E) concentration of ethanol and solvent to sample ratio; and (F) extraction time and solvent to sample ratio.
Figure 3The antioxidant ability of triterpenes from B. emeiensis (TBE). (A) The clearance rate on 2,2-Diphenyl-1-picryl-hydrazyl (DPPH) radicals and (B) the total reducing power. (C) The oxidative damage model of CHO cells induced by H2O2. (D) The cell viability of CHO cells after treated with different concentrations TBE for 48 h. (E) The injury protection of TBE on CHO cells against on H2O2. (F) The fluorescence intensity of CHO cells after dying with 10 μM 2′7′-dichlorofluorescin diacetate (DCFH-DA). (G) The food clearance result and (H) the survival of worms under antioxidant stress. Note: * means <0.05 and ** means <0.01, and “ns” means not significant.
The activities of antioxidant enzymes and content of Malondialdehyde (MDA) as well as total antioxidant capacity.
| 0 | 25 μg/mL + H2O2 | 50 μg/mL + H2O2 | H2O2 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CAT | 41.11 ± 1.72 | 68.55 ± 5.87 *** | 76.47 ± 10.01 *** | 47.43 ± 2.35 |
| SOD | 86.77 ± 5.18 | 160.88 ± 4.23 *** | 157.89 ± 7.16 *** | 132.33 ± 6.05 |
| T-AOC | 4.57 ± 0.84 | 7.40 ± 1.46 ** | 9.81 ± 0.81 *** | 3.11 ± 1.89 |
| MDA | 145.69 ± 16.39 | 237.02 ± 15.52 *** | 213.44 ± 19.43 *** | 300.88 ± 16.60 |
Note: ** means p < 0.01 and *** means p < 0.001 compared with the group of H2O2.