| Literature DB >> 33921703 |
Katarzyna Klimek1, Katarzyna Tyśkiewicz2, Malgorzata Miazga-Karska1, Agnieszka Dębczak2, Edward Rój2, Grazyna Ginalska1.
Abstract
Given the health-beneficial properties of compounds from hop, there is still a growing trend towards developing successful extraction methods with the highest yield and also receiving the products with high added value. The aim of this study was to develop efficient extraction method for isolation of bioactive compounds from the Polish "Marynka" hop variety. The modified two-step supercritical fluid extraction allowed to obtain two hop samples, namely crude extract (E1), composed of α-acids, β-acids, and terpene derivatives, as well as pure xanthohumol with higher yield than that of other available methods. The post-extraction residues (R1) were re-extracted in order to obtain extract E2 enriched in xanthohumol. Then, both samples were subjected to investigation of their antibacterial (anti-acne, anti-caries), cytotoxic, and anti-proliferative activities in vitro. It was demonstrated that extract (E1) possessed more beneficial biological properties than xanthohumol. It exhibited not only better antibacterial activity against Gram-positive bacteria strains (MIC, MBC) but also possessed a higher synergistic effect with commercial antibiotics when compared to xanthohumol. Moreover, cell culture experiments revealed that crude extract neither inhibited viability nor divisions of normal skin fibroblasts as strongly as xanthohumol. In turn, calculated selectivity indexes showed that the crude extract had from slightly to significantly better selective anti-proliferative activity towards cancer cells in comparison with xanthohumol.Entities:
Keywords: Humulus lupulus L.; Marynka strain; anti-proliferative activity; antibacterial activity; cytotoxicity; hop; supercritical extraction; xanthohumol
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2021 PMID: 33921703 PMCID: PMC8073632 DOI: 10.3390/molecules26082366
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Molecules ISSN: 1420-3049 Impact factor: 4.411
The quality profile (% peak area) of crude extract (E1) obtained from Polish “Marynka” hop variety.
| Compound | Retention Time, min | Peak Area Percentage, % |
|---|---|---|
| citronelol | 11.87 | 0.58 ± 0.04 |
| myrcene | 12.33 | 20.51 ± 0.27 |
| linalool | 16.01 | 0.39 ± 0.03 |
| copaene | 22.09 | 0.21 ± 0.02 |
| α-Bergamotene | 23.32 | 0.35 ± 0.11 |
| β-caryophyllene | 23.72 | 4.88 ± 0.66 |
| β-farnesene | 23.77 | 4.69 ± 0.09 |
| humulene | 24.74 | 18.3 ± 0.38 |
| α-cedrene | 24.87 | 0.45 ± 0.09 |
| β-guajen | 24.98 | 0.23 ± 0.21 |
| valencen | 25.58 | 0.29 ± 0.08 |
| δ-cadinene | 26.52 | 0.98 ± 0.08 |
| humulen epoxy | 29.45 | 0.45 ± 0.05 |
The chemical composition of obtained extract (E1 and E2) and CPC fraction.
| Parameter | 1 Step Extraction | 2 Step Extraction | CPC Fractionation |
|---|---|---|---|
| α-acids, % | 42.48 ± 0.68 | n.a. a | n.a. a |
| β-acids, % | 19.07 ± 0.30 | n.a. a | n.a. a |
| xanthohumol, wt%, | n.a. a | 4.80 ± 0.58 c | 81.70 ± 0.66 |
| n.a. a | 6.50 ± 0.43 b [ | n.a a | |
| TPC, mgGAE/g | n.a. a | 52.19 ± 1.11 c | n.a. a |
| n.a. a | 48.71 ± 0.76 b | n.a. a | |
| extraction yield, wt% | 11.40 | 4.64 b | n.a. a |
| 10.76 c | n.a. a |
a n.a.—not applicable; b CO2—extraction with pure carbon dioxide; c CO2/EtOH—extraction with carbon dioxide modified with EtOH (96%) (99:1, v/w).
Zones of bacterial growth inhibition of compounds from Marynka hop variety and selected antibiotics.
| Bacteria | Zones of Bacterial Growth Inhibition [mm] | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Crude Extract (E1) | XN | Gentamicin | Ceftriaxone | Cefepime | Sparfloxacin | Ciprofloxacin | |
|
| 27 | 13 | 36 | 30 | 37 | 39 | 34 |
|
| 35 | 17 | 38 | 44 | 46 | 47 | 47 |
|
| 6 | 0 | 30 | 37 | 38 | 36 | 35 |
|
| 0 | 0 | 41 | 28 | 10 | 38 | 40 |
|
| 29 | 13 | 36 | 30 | 29 | 30 | 43 |
|
| 28 | 21 | 30 | 44 | 42 | 44 | 44 |
|
| 26 | 13 | 36 | 36 | 37 | 34 | 40 |
|
| 29 | 15 | 38 | 36 | 39 | 30 | 37 |
Minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) of compounds from Marynka hop variety and selected antibiotics.
| Bacteria | Minimum Inhibitory Concentration (MIC) [μg/mL] | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Crude Extract (E1) | XN | Gentamicin | Ceftriaxone | Cefepime | Sparfloxacin | Ciprofloxacin | |
|
| 0.195 | 0.195 | 0.098 | 0.195 | 0.781 | 0.049 | 0.049 |
|
| 0.098 | 0.098 | 0.098 | 0.195 | 0.195 | 0.098 | 0.049 |
|
| NTa | NT a | 1.563 | 15.63 | 15.63 | 15.63 | 15.63 |
|
| NTa | NT a | 0.049 | 12.5 | 1.563 | 1.563 | 1.563 |
|
| 0.391 | 0.391 | 0.098 | 6.25 | 0.195 | 0.049 | 1.96 |
|
| 0.781 | 15.625 | 0.049 | 6.25 | 0.195 | 0.098 | 0.781 |
|
| 15.625 | 62.5 | 0.049 | 3.12 | 1.563 | 0.098 | 0.049 |
|
| 15.625 | 31.25 | 0.049 | 3.12 | 0.195 | 1.96 | 0.781 |
a NT—not tested due to weak or no activity during agar disc diffusion assay.
Figure 1The ratio between minimal bactericidal concentration (MBC) and minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) for compounds from Marynka hop variety.
Interactions between compounds from Marynka hop variety and selected antibiotics.
| FICI a Index of Different Combination of Antibiotics and Hop Compounds | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Crude Extract (E1) | Xanthohumol (XN) | |||||||||
| Bacteria | gentamicin | cefepime | ceftriaxone | ciprofloxacin | sparfloxacin | gentamicin | cefepime | ceftriaxone | ciprofloxacin | sparfloxacin |
|
| 1.5 | 0.5 | 0.562 | 0.5 | 0.562 | 1.06 | 2 | 1.06 | 1.5 | 1.5 |
|
| 1.5 | 0.5 | 0.562 | 0.562 | 0.5 | 1.5 | 1.06 | 1.06 | 1.5 | 1.06 |
|
| 1.5 | 0.562 | 0.375 | 0.5 | 0.375 | 1.06 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.562 | 1.06 |
|
| 1.06 | 0.5 | 0.375 | 0.375 | 0.562 | 1.5 | 0.5 | 0.375 | 0.562 | 1.06 |
|
| 2 | 0.562 | 0.562 | 0.562 | 0.562 | 1.5 | 0.562 | 0.562 | 1.06 | 1.06 |
|
| 1.5 | 0.5 | 0.375 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 1.5 | 0.5 | 0.562 | 1.06 | 1.06 |
a Fractional inhibitory concentration index. FICI Index range: ≤0.5—synergy; 0.5 to 1.0—additivity; 1.0 to 4.0—indifference; >4.0—antagonism.
Cytotoxicity and therapeutic index of compounds from Marynka hop variety.
| Bacteria | Crude Extract (E1) | Xanthohumol (XN) |
|---|---|---|
| TI b | ||
|
| 789 | 136 |
|
| 1589 | 271 |
|
| 398 | 67.90 |
|
| 199 | 1.69 |
|
| 9.96 | 0.42 |
|
| 9.96 | 0.84 |
a CC50—cytotoxic concentration that caused reduction of fibroblast viability to 50%. b TI- therapeutic index denotes potential safety of plant samples. It is calculated as a ratio between CC50 and MIC (based on data from Table 4).
The anti-proliferative activity and selectivity index of compounds from Marynka hop variety.
| Cell Line | Crude Extract (E1) | Xanthohumol (XN) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| IC50
a | SI b | IC50
a | SI b | |
| A549 | 45.17 ± 3.58 | 2.30 | 7.39 ± 2.99 | 2.33 |
| HepG2 | 26.27 ± 1.56 | 3.97 | 36.36 ± 3.48 | 0.47 |
| MCF-7 | 66.48 ± 2.97 | 1.56 | 12.18 ± 2.89 | 1.42 |
| BJ | 104.30 ± 4.16 | - | 17.25 ± 1.35 | - |
a IC50—concentration of compound required to inhibit cell proliferation to 50%. b SI- selective index. The value was calculated as a ratio between IC50 for normal cells (BJ) and IC50 for cancer cells (A549, HepG2 or MCF-7).
Figure 2The scheme of the separation and purification of bioactive compounds from Marynka hop cones scCO2 extract. Abbreviations: E—extract, CPC—centrifugal partition chromatography, R—residue, SFE—Supercritical fluid extraction.