| Literature DB >> 33898157 |
Eman A El-Fayoumy1, Sanaa M Shanab1, Omnia M A Hassan2, Emad A Shalaby3.
Abstract
The current work aims to investigate the effect of abiotic stresses (nitrogen (N) and sulfur (S) [0.0 g/l, 1.5 g/l, 3 g/l, 6 g/l, and 12 g/l N and 0.0 g/l, 0.07 g/l, 0.15 g/l, 0.3 g/l, and 0.6 g/l S] and their combination [0.3 g/l S + 6 g/l N]) of axenic culture of Nostoc linckia on the production of secondary metabolites which induce different biological activities. Growth rate was measured by dry weight (DW) and optical density (OD)550 nm. Additionally, phytochemical compounds, defense enzymes as well as antioxidant activity against 2,2-diphenyl-1-picrylhydrazyl (DPPH) and 2,2'-azino-bis(ethylbenzthiazoline-6-sulfonic acid) (ABTS·+) radical assays of crude extracts (methylene chloride:methanol, 1:1) were evaluated. Based on antioxidant activity, four promising extracts were subjected to different biological activities such as anticancer, antimicrobial, and antiviral activities. The obtained results revealed that supplementation of external nitrogen source in the form of sodium nitrate was found to increase the total phycobiliprotein content by fivefold. Also, nitrogen depletion provoked significantly highest quantities of phenolic and flavonoid content and this has effects on biological activities of Nostoc linckia. Moreover, 0.3 g/l S was found to be the most effective extract exhibiting a significant increase in antioxidant activity based on DPPH and ABTS assays, respectively (88.18 ± 0.64% and 84.20 ± 1.01%). Furthermore, it recorded anticancer activity against HCT 116 cell line with IC50 of 155 μg/ml. Moreover, this extract possessed a noticeable antibacterial potency (21.0 ± 1.0 as mm inhibition zone against Staphylococcus aureus and 19.3 ± 0.6 against Streptococcus mutans). In addition, its antiviral activity against H5N1 virus as a percentage of inhibition was 50% and 63.6% at a concentration of 7 μg/ml and 28 μg/ml, respectively, with cytotoxicity less than 7 μg/μl. GC-MS analysis recorded the presence of bioactive compounds exhibiting different biological activities. Therefore, the obtained results can represent valuable bioactive compounds with variable biological potencies.Entities:
Keywords: Anticancer; Antioxidant; Antiviral; Cyanobacteria; Defense enzymes; GC-MS analysis; Nostoc linckia; Phytochemicals
Year: 2021 PMID: 33898157 PMCID: PMC8053234 DOI: 10.1007/s13399-021-01509-7
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Biomass Convers Biorefin ISSN: 2190-6815 Impact factor: 4.050
Fig. 1a–f Growth curves of N. linckia (DW (g/l) and OD) during 30 days of cultivation under different nitrogen and sulfur concentrations and their combination
Phycobiliprotein pigment contents as μg/g for N. linckia cultivated under different concentrations of nitrogen and sulfur
| Stress conditions | Phycocyanin | Allophycocyanin | Phycoerythrin | Total phycobiliprotein |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nitrogen (g/l) | ||||
| 0 | 60.64 ± 3.42b | 17.80 ± 2.15c | 123.05 ± 4.59b | 200.49 ± 5.361b |
| 1.5 | 90.32 ± 2.41c | 18.61 ± 2.14c | 123.05 ± 0.52d | 211.98 ± 4.71d |
| 3 | 76.28 ± 4.61a | 37.19 ± 2.44a | 146.82 ± 4.11a | 276.29 ± 5.45a |
| 6 | 27.36 ± 2.52d | 15.61 ± 1.09d | 35.66 ± 2.12e | 78.63 ± 3.14e |
| 12 | 7.63 ± 1.03e | 4.09 ± 1.05e | 10.09 ± 0.002f | 21.83 ± 2.02f |
| 6 g/l (NaNO3) + 0.3 g/l (MgSO4·7H2O) | 67.37 ± 3.47b | 22.50 ± 2.40b | 88.01 ± 4.49c | 177.88 ± 7.48c |
| Sulfur (g/l) | ||||
| 0 | 14.52 ± 1.05d | 9.341 ± 1.04e | 16.39 ± 1.32f | 39.25 ± 2.40e |
| 0.07 | 60.64 ± 3.42c | 17.80 ± 2.15f | 123.05 ± 4.59a | 200.49 ± 5.36c |
| 0.15 | 66.47 ± 3.46b | 30.43 ± 2.39c | 102.30 ± 3.37d | 199.20 ± 6.39c |
| 0.3 | 62.37 ± 3.43c | 41.28 ± 2.48b | 105.62 ± 4.35c | 209.27 ± 7.36b |
| 0.6 | 71.60 ± 3.26a | 54.19 ± 3.53a | 113.95 ± 4.33b | 239.74 ± 7.18a |
| 6 g/l (NaNO3) + 0.3 g/l (MgSO4·7H2O) | 67.37 ± 3.47b | 22.50 ± 2.40d | 88.01 ± 4.49e | 177.88 ± 7.48d |
Data are presented as means ± SD (n = 3) in each column, and for each concentration, means with different letters are significantly different (p < 0.05)
Phenolic, flavonoid, tannin, and proline contents of N. linckia cultivated under different concentrations of nitrogen and sulfur (and combined nitrogen and sulfur)
| Stress conditions | Phenolic contents (mg gallic acid equivalent/g DW) | Flavonoids (mg of rutin/g DW) | Tannins (mg tannic acid equivalent/g DW) | Proline contents (mg/g) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nitrogen (g/l) | ||||
| 0 | 27.00 ± 1.0b | 21.14 ± 0.80a | 6.54 ± 0.43a | 4.77 ± 0.47cd |
| 1.5 | 24.25 ± 1.39bc | 18.13 ± 1.02b | 5.45 ± 0.47b | 3.56 ± 0.40d |
| 3 | 22.35 ± 1.46c | 10.26 ± 0.64c | 2.17 ± 0.29d | 5.06 ± 0.30bc |
| 6 | 17.90 ± 1.15d | 6.10 ± 0.85d | 2.39 ± 0.44cd | 6.23 ± 0.58b |
| 12 | 13.00 ± 1.9e | 9.30 ± 1.08c | 1.73 ± 0.11d | 10.92 ± 0.61a |
| 6 g/l N + 0.3 g/l S | 41.00 ± 1.0a | 2.90 ± 0.65e | 3.19 ± 0.35c | 4.43 ± 0.51cd |
| Sulfur (g/l) | ||||
| 0 | 34.74 ± 0.63c | 15.90 ± 0.39b | 1.81 ± 0.51f | 12.15 ± 0.58a |
| 0.07 | 24.25 ± 1.39d | 18.13 ± 1.03a | 5.45 ± 0.47d | 3.57 ± 0.40bc |
| 0.15 | 44.94 ± 0.96a | 14.56 ± 0.51b | 8.53 ± 0.41c | 4.52 ± 0.47b |
| 0.3 | 47.32 ± 0.58a | 10.91 ± 0.72c | 13.77 ± 0.58b | 2.95 ± 0.18c |
| 0.6 | 25.00 ± 1.00d | 15.22 ± 0.59b | 19.00 ± 0.99a | 3.50 ± 0.50bc |
| 6 g/l N + 0.3 g/l S | 41.00 ± 1.00b | 2.90 ± 0.65e | 3.19 ± 0.35e | 4.20 ± 0.85bc |
Data are presented as means ± SD (n = 3) in each column, and for each concentration, means with different letters are significantly different (p < 0.05)
Phenolic, flavonoid, tannin, and proline contents of N. linckia cultivated under different concentrations of nitrogen and sulfur (and combined N and S)
| Stress conditions | Lipid peroxidation (MDA nmol/g) | Protein concentration as mg/g | Glutathione | Catalase activity (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nitrogen (g/l) | ||||
| 0 | 195.85 ± 5.53c | 178.61 ± 1.33c | 89.32 ± 2.58d | 55.44 ± 2.86c |
| 1.5 | 109.67 ± 4.91f | 252.58 ± 1.23b | 81.04 ± 3.73e | 40.90 ± 2.52e |
| 3 | 128.10 ± 3.75e | 287.30 ± 1.30a | 92.66 ± 3.35c | 60.08 ± 3.18b |
| 6 | 227.65 ± 6.74b | 152.44 ± 0.97d | 101.56 ± 5.40b | 62.85 ± 3.54b |
| 12 | 666.22 ± 9.07a | 55.66 ± 1.52f | 375.62 ± 7.35a | 72.99 ± 3.00a |
| 6 g/l N + 0.3 g/l S | 143.57 ± 5.50d | 140.06 ± 1.03e | 89.86 ± 3.80d | 44.77 ± 4.57d |
| Sulfur (g/l) | ||||
| 0 | 328.79 ± 7.90a | 207.78 ± 1.35e | 246.86 ± 0.51a | 40.84 ± 2.46c |
| 0.07 | 109.67 ± 4.91f | 252.58 ± 1.23d | 81.04 ± 3.73e | 40.90 ± 2.52c |
| 0.15 | 170.12 ± 5.42d | 270.24 ± 1.02c | 147.06 ± 4.40c | 41.10 ± 2.35c |
| 0.3 | 185.97 ± 5.53c | 310.84 ± 0.92b | 151.07 ± 5.59c | 42.22 ± 3.59c |
| 0.6 | 209.89 ± 7.37b | 319.80 ± 0.77a | 178.97 ± 5.54b | 51.04 ± 3.14a |
| 6 g/l N + 0.3 g/l S | 143.57 ± 5.50e | 140.06 ± 1.03f | 89.86 ± 3.80d | 44.77 ± 4.57b |
Data are presented as means ± SD (n = 3) in each column, and for each concentration, means with different letters are significantly different (p < 0.05)
Antioxidant activity (%) of N. linckia extracts (200 ppm) cultivated under different nitrogen concentrations (and combined effect with sulfur), using DPPH radical scavenging activity (after 30 min and 60 min) and ABTS assay compared to synthetic antioxidant (BHT)
| Stress conditions | DPPH (%), 30 min | DPPH (%), 60 min | ABTS (%) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Nitrogen (g/l) | |||
| 0 | 93.03 ± 1.00a | 91.18 ± 0.42b | 69.76 ± 0.68d |
| 1.5 | 91.25 ± 1.09b | 94.26 ± 0.80a | 61 ± 1.00f |
| 3 | 63.14 ± 0.79f | 65.51 ± 0.42f | 43.34 ± 0.65f |
| 6 | 71.64 ± 0.53e | 78.27 ± 0.54d | 67.42 ± 0.84e |
| 12 | 87.08 ± 0.77c | 89.10 ± 0.65c | 84.03 ± 0.94b |
| 6 g/l N + 0.3 g/l S | 63.973 ± 1.00f | 69.19 ± 0.72e | 82.27 ± 0.82c |
| BHT | 85.63 ± 0.55d | 89.50 ± 0.55c | 90.82 ± 0.68a |
| Sulfur (g/l) | |||
| 0 | 81.12 ± 0.82e | 89.02 ± 0.26b | 55.29 ± 0.61g |
| 0.07 | 91.25 ± 1.09a | 94.26 ± 0.80a | 61 ± 1.00f |
| 0.15 | 68.17 ± 0.65f | 69.04 ± 1.03d | 86.34 ± 0.83b |
| 0.3 | 89.063 ± 0.50b | 88.18 ± 0.64b | 84.20 ± 1.01c |
| 0.6 | 83.56 ± 0.51d | 83.18 ± 1.04c | 66.03 ± 0.84e |
| 6 g/l N + 0.3 g/l S | 63.97 ± 1.00g | 69.19 ± 0.72d | 82.27 ± 0.82d |
| BHT | 85.63 ± 0.55c | 89.50 ± 0.55b | 90.82 ± 0.68a |
Data are presented as means ± SD (n = 3) in each column, and for each treatment, means with different letters are significantly different (p < 0.05)
Fig. 2IC50 as μg/ml of algal extracts against four cell lines
Antimicrobial activity as mm inhibition zone of the selected promising extracts (according to antioxidant activity result) of N. linckia against different bacterial and fungal strains using disc diffusion assay
| Microorganism | Extracts | Standard antibiotic | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0.3 g S | 0.3 g S + 6 g N | 0.15 g S | 12 g N | Gentamicin | Ampicillin | Nystatin | |
| Gram-negative bacteria | |||||||
|
| NA | 14.6 ± 0.6c | NA | 16.6 ± 0.5b | 27 ± 0.5a | NT | NT |
|
| NA | NA | NA | NA | 25 ± 0.5a | NT | NT |
| Gram-positive bacteria | |||||||
|
| 21.0 ± 1.0b | 14.6 ± 0.5d | 19.0 ± 1.0c | NA | NT | 22 ± 0.1a | NT |
|
| 19.3 ± 0.6b | 19.6 ± 0.6b | 13.3 ± 0.5c | NA | NT | 30 ± 0.5a | NT |
| Fungi | |||||||
|
| 11.0 ± 1.0d | 13.6 ± 0.5c | 14.6 ± 0.6b | NA | NT | NT | 21 ± 0.5a |
|
| NA | NA | NA | NA | NT | NT | 20 ± 0.5a |
Data are presented as means ± SD (n = 3) in each column, and for each extract, means with different letters are significantly different (p < 0.05)
NA no activity, NT not tested
Antiviral activity (as % and IC50) of different algal extracts against H5N1 virus using plaque reduction assay
| Algal sample | Conc. (μg/ml) | Initial viral count (PFU/ml) | Viral count (PFU/ml) | % of inhibition | Cytotoxicity IC50 (μg/μl) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 12 g/l N | 7 | 4.4 × 108 | 2.7 × 108 | 38.6 | 19.5 |
| 28 | 4.4 × 108 | 2.3 × 108 | 47.7 | ||
| 0.3 g/l S | 7 | 4.4 × 108 | 2.2 × 108 | 50 | Less than 7 μg/μl |
| 28 | 4.4 × 108 | 1.6 × 108 | 63.6 | ||
| 0.3 g/l S + 6 g/l N | 7 | 4.4 × 108 | 3.7 × 108 | 16 | Less than 7 μg/μl |
| 28 | 4.4 × 108 | 2.7 × 108 | 38.6 | ||
| 0.15 g/l S | 7 | 4.4 × 108 | 3.1 × 108 | 29.5 | 29.5 |
| 28 | 4.4 × 108 | 1.5 × 108 | 66 |
GC-MS analysis of the most promising N. linckia extract (0.3 g/l S) as antioxidant, anticancer, antimicrobial, and antiviral as referred from available literatures
| No. | Compound name | M.wt. | Relative percentage | Biological activity | References |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Androstane-11,17-dione,3-[(trimethylsilyl)oxy]-, 17-[ | 481 | 3.3 | Antioxidant and antimicrobial activities; cancer enzyme inhibitors in pharmaceutical | Sayik et al. [ |
| 2 | Cyclohexasiloxane, dodecamethyl- | 444 | 2.00 | Antibacterial, antifungal, and antitumor activities | Patil and Jadhav [ |
| 3 | Cycloheptasiloxane, tetradecamethyl | 518 | 3.77 | Antibacterial, antifungal, and antitumor activities | Patil and Jadhav [ |
| 4 | Cyclooctasiloxane, hexadecamethyl- | 592 | 1.45 | Antimicrobial activity | Mebude and Adeniyi [ |
| 5 | Cyclononasiloxane, octadecamethyl- | 578 | 0.98 | Antioxidant activity | Kadri et al. [ |
| 6 | 6,7-Dimethoxy-2-methyl-3,4-dihydro[1- | 207 | 1.32 | ||
| 7 | Phenol, 2,4-bis(1,1-dimethylethyl)- | 206 | 2.05 | Antioxidant and antiviral activities | Prakash and Vuppu [ |
| 8 | 4h-1-Benzopyran-4-one,2-(3,4-dimethoxyphenyl)-3,5-dihydroxy-7-methoxy- | 344 | 4.94 | Antioxidant and antimicrobial activities; cancer enzyme inhibitors in pharmaceutical | Sayik et al. [ |
| 9 | 1-Nonadecene | 266 | 0.99 | Antimicrobial activity | Cherchi et al. [ |
| 10 | 1Monolinoleoylglyceroltrimethylsilyl ether | 498 | 0.68 | ||
| 11 | 2-Hexadecanol | 242 | 3.13 | Anticancer, anti-inflammatory, antimicrobial, and antioxidant activities | Kalaisezhiyen and Sasikumar [ |
| 12 | Adgalactopyranoside,methyl-2,3-bis- | 362 | 0.95 | ||
| 13 | Dotriacontane | 450 | 0.97 | Antimicrobial activity | Cherchi et al. [ |
| 14 | 6-Ethyl-5-hydroxy-2,3,7-trimethoxynaphthoquinone | 292 | 1.31 | ||
| 15 | Hexadecanoic acid, methyl ester | 270 | 16.79 | Antioxidant and antimicrobial activities; 5-alpha reductase inhibitor cancer enzyme inhibitors in pharmaceutical | Sayik et al. [ |
| 16 | 2-Hexadecen-1-ol, 3,7,11,15-tetramethyl-,[r-[r*,r*-(e)]]- | 296 | 13.38 | Anticancer, anti-inflammatory, antimicrobial, and antioxidant activities | Mohamed et al. [ |
| 17 | 9-Octadecenoic acid (z)-, methyl ester | 296 | 17.2 | Antioxidant and antimicrobial activities; cancer enzyme inhibitors in pharmaceutical | Sayik et al. [ |
| 18 | 4h-1-Benzopyran-4-one,2-(3,4-dihydroxyphenyl)-6,8-di-á-d-glucopyranosyl-5,7-dihydroxy- | 610 | 1.16 | ||
| 19 | 6,9,12,15-Docosatetraenoic acid, methyl ester | 346 | 2.84 | Phytopharmaceutical importance | Srivastava et al. [ |
| 20 | 9,12,15-Octadecatrienoic acid,2,3bis[(trimethylsilyl)oxy]propyl ester, ( | 496 | 1.19 | ||
| 21 | 1,2-Benzenedicarboxylic acid, diisooctyl ester | 390 | 8.18 | Antioxidant and antimicrobial activities; cancer enzyme inhibitors in pharmaceutical | Sayik et al. [ |
| 22 | Decanedioic acid, bis(2-ethylhexyl) ester | 426 | 5.47 | Antioxidant and antimicrobial activities; cancer enzyme inhibitors in pharmaceutical | Sayik et al. [ |
| 23 | .psI.,.psI.carotene,1,1′,2,2′-tetrahydro-1,1′-dimethoxy- | 600 | 1.33 | Antioxidant activity | Abd El-Aty et al. [ |
| 24 | Tetrakis (dimethylsilylcarbodiimide) | 392 | 2.61 | Antioxidant and antibacterial activities | Abd El-Aty et al. [ |
| 25 | Ergosta-14,22-dien-3-ol,acetate, (3á,5à)- | 440 | 1.99 |