| Literature DB >> 33923964 |
Hamdoon A Mohammed1,2, Mohsen S Al-Omar1,3, Salman A A Mohammed4, Ahmad H Alhowail4, Hussein M Eldeeb4,5, Mohammed S M Sajid4, Essam M Abd-Elmoniem6, Osama A Alghulayqeh7, Yasser I Kandil8,9, Riaz A Khan1.
Abstract
Salsola cyclophylla, an edible halophyte, is traditionally used for inflammation and pain. To confirm the claimed anti-inflammatory and analgesic properties, a detailed study on respective pharmacological actions was undertaken. The activities are contemplated to arise from its phytoconstituents. The LC-MS analysis of S. cyclophylla 95% aqueous-ethanolic extract revealed the presence of 52 compounds belonging to phenols, flavonoids, coumarins, and aliphatics class. A high concentration of Mn, Fe, and Zn was detected by atomic absorption spectroscopic analysis. The ethyl acetate extract showed the highest flavonoid contents (5.94 ± 0.04 mg/g, Quercetin Equivalents) and Fe2+-chelation (52%) potential with DPPH radicals-quenching IC50 at 1.35 ± 0.16 mg/mL, while the aqueous ethanolic extract exhibited maximum phenolics contents (136.08 ± 0.12 mg/g, gallic acid equivalents) with DPPH scavenging potential at IC50 0.615 ± 0.06 mg/mL. Aqueous ethanolic extract and standard quercetin DPPH radicals scavenging's were equal potent at 10 mg/mL concentrations. The aqueous ethanolic extract showed highest analgesic effect with pain reduction rates 89.86% (p = 0.03), 87.50% (p < 0.01), and 99.66% (p = 0.0004) after 60, 90, and 120 min, respectively. Additionally, aqueous ethanolic extract exhibited the highest anti-inflammation capacity at 41.07% (p < 0.0001), 34.51% (p < 0.0001), and 24.82% (p < 0.0001) after 2, 3, and 6 h of extract's administration, respectively. The phytochemical constituents, significant anti-oxidant potential, remarkable analgesic, and anti-inflammatory bioactivities of extracts supported the traditionally claimed anti-inflammatory and analgesic plant activities.Entities:
Keywords: LC-MS; Salsola cyclophylla; analgesic activity; anti-inflammatory; anti-oxidant; cytotoxicity; halophyte; toxicity evaluation; trace elements
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2021 PMID: 33923964 PMCID: PMC8073378 DOI: 10.3390/molecules26082384
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Molecules ISSN: 1420-3049 Impact factor: 4.411
LC-MS analysis of the 95%aqueous-ethanolic extract of the S. cyclophylla.
| Serial | ¶ RT (min) | Obtained Mass (amu) | ¶¶ Cal. Mass (amu) | Molecular Formula | Compound’s Identity |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 0.55 | 341.1070 [M − H]+ | 341.1083 | C12H22O11 | Trehalose |
| 2 | 2.21 | 165.0533 [M − H]+ | 165.0551 | C9H10O3 | Phenyl lactic acid |
| 3 | 2.85 | 163.0377 [M − H]+ | 163.0395 | C9H8O3 | 4-Hydroxycinnamic acid * |
| 4 | 2.95 | 353.0859 [M − H]+ | 353.0872 | C16H18O9 | Chlorogenic acid * |
| 5 | 2.97 | 167.0716 [M − H]+ | 167.0708 | C9H12O3 | Homovanillyl alcohol |
| 6 | 3.30 | 179.0725 [M − H]+ | 179.0344 | C₉H₈O₄ | Caffeic acid * |
| 7 | 4.22 | 595.1668 [M + H]+ | 595.1663 | C₂₇H₃₀O₁₅ | Kaempferol-3- |
| 8 | 4.60 | 463.0879 [M + H]+ | 463.0876 | C₂₁H₁₈O₁₂ | Scutellarein-7-glucuronide |
| 9 | 4.76 | 471.1875 [M − H]+ | 471.1866 | C22H32O11 | Eugenol rutinoside |
| 10 | 4.78 | 183.0274 [M − H]+ | 183.0293 | C8H8O5 | 4- |
| 11 | 4.83 | 503.3346 [M + H]+ | 503.3372 | C₃₀H₄₆O₆ | Medicagenic acid |
| 12 | 4.89 | 463.0886 [M − H]+ | 463.0876 | C21H20O12 | Spiraeoside |
| 13 | 4.90 | 611.1975 [M + H]+ | 611.1976 | C₂₈H₃₄O₁₅ | Hesperidin |
| 14 | 4.95 | 447.0890 [M − H]+ | 447.0927 | C21H20O11 | Orientin |
| 15 | 5.12 | 433.1099 [M − H]+ | 433.1134 | C21H22O10 | 3-Glu-3,4’,7-trihydroxyisoflavanone |
| 16 | 5.16 | 193.0551 [M − H]+ | 193.0500 | C₁₀H₁₀O₄ | Ferulic acid * |
| 17 | 5.28 | 739.2096 [M − H]+ | 739.2085 | C33H40O19 | 3- |
| 18 | 5.54 | 593.1488 [M − H]+ | 593.1506 | C27H30O15 | 3,7-Dirhamnosyl quercetin |
| 19 | 5.60 | 609.1427 [M − H]+ | 609.1455 | C27H30O16 | 3-Glu-7-rham quercetin |
| 20 | 5.73 | 463.0861 [M − H]+ | 463.0876 | C21H20O12 | Hyperoside * |
| 21 | 5.90 | 341.1392 [M + H]+ | 341.1389 | C₂₀H₂₀O₅ | 8-Prenyl naringenin |
| 22 | 5.91 | 328.1171 [M − H]+ | 328.1184 | C18H19NO5 | Hernandine |
| 23 | 5.92 | 447.0906 [M − H]+ | 447.0927 | C21H20O11 | Luteolin-7- |
| 24 | 6.32 | 577.1539 [M − H]+ | 577.1557 | C27H30O14 | Isorhoifolin |
| 25 | 6.36 | 593.1472 [M − H]+ | 593.1506 | C27H30O15 | 3- |
| 26 | 6.51 | 607.1670 [M − H]+ | 607.1663 | C28H32O15 | Diosmin |
| 27 | 6.57 | 447.0918 [M − H]+ | 447.0927 | C21H20O11 | Kaempferol-3- |
| 28 | 6.73 | 187.0948 [M − H]+ | 187.0970 | C9H16O4 | Azelaic acid (Nonandioic acid) |
| 29 | 6.81 | 285.0402 [M − H]+ | 285.0399 | C15H10O6 | 3,6,2’,4’-Tetrahydroxyflavone |
| 30 | 6.81 | 447.0935 [M − H]+ | 447.0927 | C21H20O11 | Luteolin-4’- |
| 31 | 6.90 | 431.0985 [M − H]+ | 431.0978 | C21H20O10 | Apigetrin |
| 32 | 7.35 | 325.1416 [M + H]+ | 325.1439 | C₂₀H₂₀O₄ | Isobavachin |
| 33 | 7.65 | 177.0546 [M + H]+ | 177.0551 | C₁₀H₈O₃ | 4-Methyl umbelliferone |
| 34 | 7.72 | 289.1097 [M − H]+ | 289.1076 | C16H18O5 | 5- |
| 35 | 8.06 | 312.1217 [M − H]+ | 312.1235 | C18H19NO4 | Acetyl caranine |
| 36 | 8.51 | 181.0507 [M − H]+ | 181.0500 | C9H10O4 | Homovanillic acid |
| 37 | 8.59 | 301.0335 [M − H]+ | 301.0348 | C15H10O7 | Quercetin * |
| 38 | 8.69 | 437.1944 [M + H]+ | 437.1964 | C₂₆H₂₈O₆ | Artocarpin |
| 39 | 8.80 | 433.1131 [M + H]+ | 433.1134 | C₂₁H₂₀O₁₀ | Genistin |
| 40 | 9.24 | 315.0506 [M − H]+ | 315.0504 | C16H12O7 | 6-Methoxy luteolin |
| 41 | 10.35 | 315.0508 [M − H]+ | 315.0504 | C16H12O7 | Rhamnetin |
| 42 | 11.70 | 329.2309 [M − H]+ | 329.2328 | C18H34O5 | Pinellic acid |
| 43 | 11.96 | 247.1337 [M − H]+ | 247.1334 | C15H20O3 | 3-Oxocostusic acid |
| 44 | 12.71 | 359.1149 [M + H]+ | 359.1130 | C₁₉H₁₈O₇ | Corymbosin |
| 45 | 13.68 | 283.0575 [M + H]+ | 283.0606 | C₁₆H₁₀O₅ | Pseudobaptigenin |
| 46 | 14.25 | 293.1737 [M − H]+ | 293.1752 | C17H26O4 | 6-Gingerol |
| 47 | 14.25 | 285.1129 [M + H]+ | 285.1126 | C₁₇H₁₆O₄ | Caffeic acid phenethyl ester * |
| 48 | 25.50 | 253.2149 [M − H]+ | 253.2167 | C₁₆H₃₀O₂ | Palmitoleic acid |
| 49 | 25.68 | 255.2308 [M − H]+ | 255.2324 | C16H32O2 | Palmitic acid |
| 50 | 27.91 | 279.2304 [M − H]+ | 279.2324 | C18H32O2 | Linoleic acid |
| 51 | 28.23 | 281.2464 [M − H]+ | 281.2480 | C18H34O2 | Oleic acid |
| 52 | 29.94 | 283.2620 [M − H]+ | 283.2637 | C18H36O2 | Octadecanoic acid |
¶ RT Retention Time, ¶¶ Cal. Calculated, * Compounds identified by comparison with their respective standards, rest are tentatively identified. Supplementary File, Figure S1: LC-MS chromatogram.
Trace elements and heavy metals in S. cyclophylla.
| Element | Concentration |
|---|---|
| Magnesium (Mg) | 2.90 g/kg |
| Iron (Fe) | 172.60 mg/kg |
| Zinc (Zn) | 49.66 mg/kg |
| Manganese (Mn) | 9.95 mg/kg |
| Copper (Cu) | 7.81 mg/kg |
| Lead (Pb) | 319.00 µg/kg |
| Cadmium (Cd) | 109.00 µg/kg |
Quantitative analyses of the total phenolics and flavonoids contents in S. cyclophylla.
| Extracts | Total Phenolics * | Total Flavonoids ** |
|---|---|---|
| 32.70 ± 0.01 | 1.68 ± 0.01 | |
| Chloroform | 85.38 ± 0.04 | 5.38 ± 0.00 |
| Ethyl acetate | 32.40 ± 0.02 | 5.94 ± 0.04 |
| Aqueous-Ethanol | 136.08 ± 0.12 | 3.19 ± 0.03 |
* mg gallic acid equivalent/g of the dried extract, ** mg quercetin equivalent/g of the dried extract.
Figure 1Anti-oxidant potentials of S. cyclophylla extracts are expressed as scavenging reactivity towards DPPH free radicals (A) and the iron-chelating effects (B). Statistical significance was performed by two-way ANOVA (p < 0.0001). According to Tukey’s method, the extracts groups at all the measured concentrations were significantly different (p < 0.0001) compared to quercetin in both Figures (A,B).
Analgesic effects of the S. cyclophylla extracts, and% inhibition of pain in mice assessed by hot-plate method ‡.
| Group | 0 min | 30 min | 60 min | 90 min | 120 min |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Olive oil | 10.63 ± 1.28 | 12.33 ± 0.91 | 10.07 ± 0.61 | 11.27 ± 0.26 | 10.13 ± 0.75 |
| Diclofenac | 11.07 ± 0.53 | 12.43 ± 1.31 | 14.37 ± 0.40 * | 14.73 ± 0.16 ** | 13.60 ± 0.88 * |
| 3.75% | 87.16% | 92.86% | 71.23% | ||
| 7.60 ± 0.91 | 12.43 ± 0.18 | 12.43 ± 1.52 | 12.87 ± 0.52 | 13.57 ± 0.90 * | |
| 3.75% | 47.97% | 42.86% | 70.55% | ||
| Chloroform Ext., | 8.87 ± 0.62 | 11.20 ± 1.23 | 12.80 ± 1.39 | 11.93 ± 1.04 | 13.60 ± 0.46 * |
| −42.50% | 55.41% | 17.86% | 71.23% | ||
| Ethyl acetate Ext., | 9.72 ± 0.77 | 8.13 ± 0.67 | 12.07 ± 0.84 | 11.99 ± 0.48 | 12.87 ± 0.73 |
| −157.50% | 40.54% | 19.42% | 56.16% | ||
| Aqueous-ethanolic Ext., | 11.47 ± 1.22 | 11.50 ± 1.11 | 14.50 ± 0.31 * | 14.53 ± 0.29 ** | 14.98 ± 0.01 *** |
| −31.25% | 89.86% | 87.50% | 99.66% |
‡ Latency period values for all the measured groups at different points are denoted as mean ± SEM, n = 6 animals/group. The statistical significance via one-way ANOVA followed by a posthoc test using Tukey’s multi-group comparison: * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, and *** p < 0.001 compared to the olive oil group. Pain inhibition% is compared to the olive oil group at different time points (30, 60, 90, and 120 min). For example, at 120 min compared to the olive group, the inhibition was 71.23%, 99.66%, 70.55%, 56.16%, and 71.23% for the diclofenac aqueous-ethanolic, n-hexane, ethyl acetate, and chloroform extracts, respectively. Supplementary file, Table S2: Analgesic activity’s raw data.
Figure 2Analgesic effects of the S. cyclophylla extracts as assessed by the hot-plate pain-induction method in mice. Values are denoted as mean ± SEM, n = 6 animals/group. The statistical significance was performed via a one-way ANOVA followed by a posthoc test using Tukey’s multi-group comparison: * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, and *** p < 0.001 compared to the olive oil control group. For example, at 120 min compared to the olive oil group, the diclofenac, n-hexane, and chloroform extracts groups were significantly different * p < 0.05.
Inhibition of inflammation by S. cyclophylla extracts following carrageenan-induced paw edema in rats ‡.
| Group | 0 h | 1 h | 2 h | 3 h | 6 h | 24 h |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Olive oil, paw volume (mL) | 1.03 ± 0.01 | 1.07 ± 0.01 | 1.52 ± 0.01 | 1.54 ± 0.02 | 1.54 ± 0.02 | 1.47 ± 0.01 |
| Diclofenac, paw volume, | 0.97 ± 0.01 | 0.98 ± 0.01 | 1.01 ± 0.01 **** | 1.10 ± 0.01 **** | 1.18 ± 0.01 **** | 1.29 ± 0.01 *** |
| 8.39% | 33.60% | 28.82% | 23.23% | 12.26% | ||
| 1.08 ± 0.00 | 1.20 ± 0.04 * | 1.34 ± 0.02 *** | 1.38 ± 0.03 *** | 1.41 ± 0.03 * | 1.17 ± 0.02 **** | |
| −11.92% | 11.71% | 10.37% | 8.59% | 20.44% | ||
| Chloroform Ext., paw volume, % inhibition | 1.06 ± 0.01 | 1.05 ± 0.01 | 1.09 ± 0.02 **** | 1.17 ± 0.04 **** | 1.35 ± 0.07 **** | 1.38 ± 0.06 |
| 2.07% | 28.18% | 24.14% | 12.48% | 5.98% | ||
| Ethyl acetate Ext., paw volume,% inhibition | 1.05 ± 0.01 | 1.20 ± 0.04 * | 1.08 ± 0.04 **** | 1.18 ± 0.04 **** | 1.21 ± 0.07 **** | 1.21 ± 0.03 **** |
| −11.92% | 28.99% | 23.49% | 21.43% | 18.09% | ||
| Aqueous-Ethanolic Ext., paw volume, % inhibition | 1.04 ± 0.01 | 0.89 ± 0.03 *** | 0.89 ± 0.02 **** | 1.01 ± 0.02 **** | 1.16 ± 0.06 **** | 1.33 ± 0.04 ** |
| 16.79% | 41.07% | 34.51% | 24.82% | 9.39% |
‡ Rat paw volume values for all the measured groups at different time-points are denoted as mean ± SEM, n = 6 animals/group. Statistical significance were performed via a one-way ANOVA followed by a posthoc test using Tukey’s multi-group comparison: * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001, and **** p < 0.0001 compared to the olive oil group for the measured time points from 1 to 24 h. Edema inhibition% as compared to the olive oil group at different time points from 1 to 24 h. For example, at 2 h, compared to the olive oil group, the inhibition% was at 33.6%, 41.1%, 11.7%, 29.0%, and 28.2% for the diclofenac aqueous-ethanolic, n-hexane, ethyl acetate, and chloroform extracts, respectively. Supplementary file, Table S1: Anti-inflammatory activity’s raw data.
Figure 3Anti-inflammatory activities of S. cyclophylla extracts assessed via carrageenan-induced paw edema in rats. The values denoted are mean ± SEM, n = 6 animals/group. The statistical significance were performed via a one-way ANOVA followed by a posthoc test using Tukey’s multi-group comparison: ns: not significant, * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001, and **** p < 0.0001 compared to the olive oil group. For example, at 2 h compared to the olive oil control group, the diclofenac, aqueous-ethanolic, ethyl acetate, and chloroform groups were significantly different, * p < 0.0001.
Figure 4The cell vitality of the S. cyclophylla 95% aqueous-ethanolic extract. Values denoted are mean ± SEM. The statistical significance was performed via a one-way ANOVA followed by a posthoc test using Tukey’s multi-group comparison: ns: not significant, * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001, and **** p < 0.0001 compared to fibroblasts. For example, at 50 µg/mL compared to the fibroblasts, the MDA and MCF-7 are not significant, while PANC-1 is significant (** p < 0.01).