| Literature DB >> 33924005 |
Ayoub Khalfaoui1, Emira Noumi2,3, Soumia Belaabed1, Kaïss Aouadi4,5, Bouslama Lamjed6, Mohd Adnan2, Andrea Defant7, Adel Kadri8,9, Mejdi Snoussi2,10, Mushtaq Ahmad Khan11, Ines Mancini7.
Abstract
Asphodelus tenuifolius Cav. (A. tenuifolius) is a medicinal plant with a long history of traditional use to treat ailments. In this study, total phenolic and flavonoid content evaluation using LC-ESI/MS analysis and various biological activities (antioxidant, antibacterial, antifungal, antiviral and cytotoxicity) of organic extracts from the aerial parts of A. tenuifolius were analyzed. ADME tools were used to predict the potential of the identified compounds from the most potent extract as specific drugs. As shown, LC-ESI/MS results of chloroformic extract allowed the tentative identification of 12 compounds. Chloroformic extract was rich in polyphenols and flavonoids and exhibited the highest antioxidant activity given by DPPH (IC50 = 25 µg/mL) as compared to the BHT standard (11.5 µg/mL) and β-carotene bleaching assays (IC50 = 95.692 µg/mL). Antibacterial activity results showed that chloroformic extract has a highest activity against Gram-positive and -negative bacteria, especially against Salmonella Typhimurium DT104 (IZ = 19.3 mm, MIC = 18.75 mg/mL, MBC = 37.5 mg/mL). The MBC/MIC ratio was evaluated to interpret the activity that was bacteriostatic rather than bactericidal. Conversely, weaker antifungal activity was registered, and no antiviral activity was observed for all extracts against Herpes Simplex Virus type 2 and Coxsakievirus B-3 viruses. Cytotoxic activity on VERO cell line results revealed that butanol extract was not toxic, with CC50 value of 1430 µg/mL, while chloroformic extract showed moderate cytotoxicity. Additionally, in silico studies performed proved promising pharmacokinetic and drug-likeness properties of the main compounds from the chloroformic extract. Taken together, this work highlights the potent bioactivity and acceptable drug-likeness of this plant, which supports its further preclinical development.Entities:
Keywords: ADME; Asphodelus tenuifolius; LC-ESI/MS; antibacterial; antifungal; antioxidants; antiviral; phenolic compounds
Year: 2021 PMID: 33924005 PMCID: PMC8072772 DOI: 10.3390/antiox10040628
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Antioxidants (Basel) ISSN: 2076-3921
Total phenolic and flavonoid contents expressed as gallic acid and catechin equivalents, in mg/g dry sample, respectively, DPPH radical-scavenging activity and β-carotene bleaching capacity.
| Extracts | Total Phenolic | Total Flavonoids | DPPH | β-Carotene |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CHE | 40.99 ± 0.41 c | 213.07 ± 1.72 c | 25 ± 4.36 a | 95.692 ± 0.027 b |
| EAE | 24.04 ± 0.55 b | 202.89 ± 6.15 b | 45 ± 2.88 b | 73.581 ± 0.087 a |
| BE | 10.54 ± 0.20 a | 62.85 ± 1.33 a | 92 ± 4.05 c | 97.775 ± 0.007 b |
| BHT | - | - | 11.5 ± 0.01 | 75 ± 0.2 |
Data were presented as mean of triplicate determinations ± standard deviation (n = 3). The letters (a–c) indicate a significant difference between the different antioxidant methods according to the Duncan test (p < 0.05).
Figure 1DAD-HPLC profile detected at 254 nm (a) and 330 nm (b) of LC–MS analysis on CHE. Legends: (1): Apigenin-7-O-glucoside, (3): Tamgermanetin, (5): Luteolin, (6): Apigenin, (7): Ramosin, (8): Aloe-emodin, (10): (P,10′S)-oxanthrone-10′-β-glucopyranosyl asphodelin, (12): (M,10′S)-oxanthrone-10′-β-glucopyranosyl asphodelin, (13): (10′R)-oxanthrone-10′-β-D-xylopyranoside asphodelin, (14): (10′S)-oxanthrone-10′-β-D-xylopyranoside asphodelin, (15): (10′S)-oxanthrone-10′-β-L-arabinopyranoside asphodelin, (17): Asphodeline. Peaks 2, 4, 9, 11 and 16 are still unidentified.
Phenolic profile by LC-ESI/MS analysis in negative ion mode of compounds 1–17 from CHE. Rt, retention time of the peaks detected in the chromatogram reported in Figure 1. NI = not identified.
| Peaks | Rt (min) | MW | Molecular Formula | λ max | Probable Compounds | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 8.9 | 432 | 431.3 | C21H20O10 | 254, 330 | Apigenin-7- |
| 2 | 14.5 | 207 | 206.1 | NI | 254 | NI |
| 3 | 37.6 | 313 | 312.2 | C18H19O4N | 254, 330 | Tamgermanetin |
| 4 | 38.2 | 584 | 583.0 | NI | 254, 330 | NI |
| 5 | 39.0 | 286 | 284.9 | C15H10O6 | 254, 330 | Luteolin |
| 6 | 41.6 | 270 | 269.0 | C15H10O5 | 254, 330 | Apigenin |
| 7 | 44.5 | 672 | 671.0 | C36H32O13 | 254, 330 | Ramosin |
| 8 | 45.3 | 270 | 269.2 | C15H10O5 | 254 | Aloe-emodin |
| 9 | 46.1 | 670 | 668.9 | C36H30O13 | 254, 330 | NI |
| 10 | 46.5 | 670 | 668.9 | C36H30O13 | 254, 330 | ( |
| 11 | 47.6 | 670 | 668.9 | C36H30O13 | 254, 330 | NI |
| 12 | 48.0 | 670 | 668.9 | C36H30O13 | 254, 330 | ( |
| 13 | 48.6 | 640 | 639.0 | C35H28O12 | 254, 330 | (10′ |
| 14 | 48.9 | 640 | 639.1 | C35H28O12 | 254, 330 | (10′ |
| 15 | 50.1 | 640 | 638.8 | C35H28O12 | 254, 330 | (10′ |
| 16 | 52.9 | 594 | 593.3 | NI | 254 | NI |
| 17 | 59.2 | 506 | 505.0 | C30H18O8 | 254 | Asphodelin |
Figure 2Chemical structures of the tentatively identified compounds.
Antibacterial and antifungal activities (expressed as diameter of IZ ± SD, on mm), MIC and MBC values (mg/mL) of A. tenuifolius organic extracts.
|
|
|
|
|
| ||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| 13 ± 2 b | 0.58 | 2.34 | 6 ± 0 a | 25 | >50 | 6 ± 0 a | 50 | >50 | 21.33 ± 0.57 c | 0.078 | 0.625 | |
| 9.67 ± 0.58 b | 2.34 | 9.37 | 9.67 ± 0.58 b | 3.12 | 6.25 | 6 ± 0 a | 25 | >50 | 26.66 ± 0.57 c | 0.078 | 0.625 | |
| 8.67 ± 1.15 b | 18.75 | 75 | 6 ± 0 a | 25 | >50 | 6 ± 0 a | 50 | >50 | 13.33 ± 0.57 c | 0.011 | 3 | |
| 6 ± 0 a | 37.5 | >75 | 6 ± 0 a | 0.39 | 1.56 | 6 ± 0 a | 0.78 | 3.125 | 12.33 ± 0.57 b | 0.023 | 0.093 | |
| 6 ± 0 a | 4.68 | 18.75 | 6 ± 0 a | 25 | >50 | 6 ± 0 a | 50 | >100 | 26 ± 1 b | 0.078 | 0.625 | |
| 19.3 ± 1.15 c | 18.75 | 37.5 | 10.7 ± 2.08 b | 3.12 | 6.25 | 6 ± 0 a | 50 | >50 | * | * | * | |
| 6 ± 0 a | 18.75 | 75 | 6 ± 0 a | 12.5 | >25 | 6 ± 0 a | 50 | >50 | 18 ± 1 b | 0.023 | 0.093 | |
| 6 ± 0 a | 9.37 | 37.5 | 6 ± 0 a | 25 | >50 | 6 ± 0 a | 50 | >50 | 12.33 ± 0.57 b | 0.023 | 0.093 | |
|
|
|
|
|
| ||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| 6 ± 0 a | 37.5 | >75 | 6 ± 0 a | 25 | >50 | 6 ± 0 a | 25 | >50 | 12 ± 0 b | 0.097 | 0.195 | |
| 6 ± 0 a | 18.75 | 75 | 6 ± 0 a | 12.5 | 25 | 6 ± 0 a | 25 | >50 | 12.66 ± 0.57 b | 0.024 | 0.781 | |
| 6 ± 0 a | 37.5 | >75 | 6 ± 0 a | 25 | >50 | 6 ± 0 a | 25 | >50 | 10.33 ± 0.57 b | 0.195 | 0.39 | |
| 6 ± 0 a | 37.5 | >75 | 6 ± 0 a | 25 | >50 | 6 ± 0 a | 25 | >50 | 12 ± 0 b | 0.39 | 6.25 | |
Inhibition Zone. Data are presented as mean of triplicate determinations ± standard deviation (n = 3). MIC: Minimal Inhibitory Concentration. MBC: Minimal Bactericidal Concentration. MFC: Minimal Fungicidal Concentration. The letters (a–c) indicate a significant difference between the different extracts inhibition zone according to the Duncan test (* p < 0.05). *: Not tested.
Physicochemical properties, pharmacokinetics and drug-likeness of identified compounds according to SwissADME software.
| Entry | 1 | 3 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 10 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 17 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| GI absorption | Low | High | High | High | Low | High | Low | Low | Low | Low | Low | Low |
| BBB permeant | No | No | No | No | No | No | No | No | No | No | No | No |
| P-gp substrate | Yes | No | No | No | No | No | No | No | No | No | No | No |
| CYP1A2 inhibitor | No | No | Yes | Yes | No | Yes | No | No | No | No | No | No |
| CYP2C19 inhibitor | No | No | No | No | No | No | No | No | No | No | No | Yes |
| CYP2C9 inhibitor | No | No | No | No | Yes | No | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| CYP2D6 inhibitor | No | Yes | Yes | Yes | No | No | No | No | No | No | No | No |
| CYP3A4 inhibitor | No | Yes | Yes | Yes | No | Yes | No | No | No | No | No | No |
| Log Kp (cm/s) | −7.65 | −6.72 | −6.25 | −5.80 | −8.95 | −6.66 | −8.39 | −8.39 | −8.16 | −8.16 | −8.16 | −5.24 |
| Lipinski’s Rule | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | No | No | No | No | No | Yes |
| Bioavailability Score | 0.55 | 0.55 | 0.55 | 0.55 | 0.55 | 0.55 | 0.17 | 0.17 | 0.17 | 0.17 | 0.17 | 0.55 |
Figure 3Bioavailability radar of (A) the top drug like phytoconstituents based on their suitable physicochemical indices ideal for oral bioavailability and boiled-egg model, (B) top bioavailable phytoconstituents using Swiss ADME predictor. LIPO, Lipophilicity: −0.7 < XLOGP3 < þ5; SIZE, Molecular size: 150 g/mol < mol. wt. < 500 g/mol; POLAR, Polarity: 20 Å2 < TPSA < 130 Å2; INSOLU, Insolubility: 0 < Log S (ESOL) < 6; INSATU, Instauration: 0.25 < Fraction Csp3 < 1; FLEX, Flexibility: 0 < Number of rotatable bonds < 9. The colored zone is the suitable physicochemical space for oral bioavailability.