| Literature DB >> 34069597 |
Elma Vuko1, Valerija Dunkić1, Mirko Ruščić1, Marija Nazlić1, Nela Mandić1, Barbara Soldo2, Matilda Šprung2, Željana Fredotović1.
Abstract
The chemical profile, antiproliferative, antioxidant and antiphytoviral activities of the species Hypericum perforatum ssp. veronense (Schrank) H. Lindb. (Clusiaceae) were investigated. Free volatiles were isolated and the chemical composition was determined in the lipophilic fraction (essential oil) and for the first time in the water fraction (hydrosol). The aim is to provide phytochemical data for H. perforatum ssp. veronense useful for distinguishing ssp. veronense from ssp. angustifolium, as there are taxonomic disagreements between them and the composition of the secretory products may be helpful in this respect. In the essential oil, the most abundant compounds identified were α-pinene and n-nonane, while in the hydrosol, myrtenol, carvacrol and α-pinene were the most abundant. Overall, the class of monoterpenes and oxygenated monoterpenes dominated in the EO and hydrosol samples. The essential oil showed high antioxidant activity, in contrast to the antiproliferative activity, where the hydrosol showed exceptional activity against three cancer cell lines: Hela (cervical cancer cell line), HCT116 (human colon cancer cell line) and U2OS (human osteosarcoma cell line). Both the essential oil and hydrosol showed antiphytoviral activity against tobacco mosaic virus infection on the local host plants. This is the first report dealing with biological activities of hydrosol of H. perforatum ssp. veronense, and the obtained results suggest that this traditional medicinal plant is a valuable source of volatiles with promising antiproliferative, antioxidant and antiphytoviral activities.Entities:
Keywords: Hypericum perforatum ssp. veronense; antioxidant and antiphytoviral activity; antiproliferative; essential oil; hydrosol
Year: 2021 PMID: 34069597 PMCID: PMC8161325 DOI: 10.3390/plants10051014
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Plants (Basel) ISSN: 2223-7747
Phytochemical composition (% ± SD) of the essential oil (EO) and hydrosol (H) from aerial parts of Hypericum perforatum ssp. veronense.
| Component | RIs | RI a | RIs | RI b | EO (Yield in %) | H (Yield in %) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| 24.59 | 15.38 | ||||
| 932 | 938 | 1027 | 1025 | 16.58 ± 0.01 a | 8.69 ± 0.01 b | |
| Camphene * | 946 | 962 | 1053 | 1048 | 0.59 ± 0.01 a | 0.29 ± 0.05 b |
| Sabinene | 969 | 971 | 1110 | 1095 | 1.22 ± 0.01 | - |
| 974 | 982 | 1113 | 1109 | 3.67 ± 0.01 a | 0.34 ± 0.01 b | |
| Myrcene | 988 | 992 | 1167 | 1167 | 0.26 ± 0.02 b | 2.55 ± 0.01 a |
| α-Terpinene | 1014 | 1016 | 1179 | 1182 | 0.79 ± 0.01 | - |
| 1020 | 1021 | 1265 | 1268 | 0.17 ± 0.01 | - | |
| Limonene | 1024 | 1032 | 1196 | 1204 | 0.65 ± 0.01 | 2.63 ± 0.01 a |
| 1032 | 1052 | 1224 | 1218 | - | 0.88 ± 0.02 | |
| 1054 | 1057 | 1238 | 1255 | 0.66 ± 0.01 | - | |
|
| 10.84 | 25.7 | ||||
| Linalool * | 1095 | 1099 | 1547 | 1548 | 0.45 ± 0.01 b | 4.56 ± 0.01 a |
| 1112 | 1121 | 1435 | 1438 | 3.24 ± 0.01 | - | |
| Camphor | 1141 | 1151 | 1515 | 1499 | 0.97 ± 0.01 b | 2.17 ± 0.01 a |
| Pinocarvone | 1160 | 1160 | 1543 | 1540 | 0.68 ± 0.01 | - |
| Borneol * | 1165 | 1176 | 1700 | 1719 | 0.55 ± 0.01 | - |
| Terpinen-4-ol | 1174 | 1184 | 1610 | 1611 | 1.26 ± 0.01 | - |
| 1186 | 1186 | 1661 | 1646 | 0.37 ± 0.02 b | 3.57 ± 0.01 a | |
| Myrtenol | 1194 | 1197 | 1776 | 1782 | 0.89 ± 0.01 b | 12.33 ± 0.0 a |
| Verbenone | 1204 | 1204 | 1720 | 1705 | - | 0.69 ± 0.02 |
| 1217 | 1223 | 1610 | 1629 | 0.15 ± 0.01 b | 2.38 ± 0.01 a | |
| Linalyl acetate | 1254 | 1252 | 1553 | 1553 | 0.61 ± 0.03 | - |
| Bornyl acetate | 1287 | 1285 | 1572 | 1570 | 0.94 ± 0.01 | - |
| Piperitone oxide | 1366 | 1366 | - | - | 0.75 ± 0.01 | - |
|
| 17.27 | 5.95 | ||||
| 1374 | 1377 | 1482 | 1484 | 0.23 ± 0.01 b | 0.84 ± 0.01 a | |
| 1387 | 1383 | 1500 | 1508 | 0.73 ± 0.05 | - | |
| ( | 1417 | 1424 | 1598 | 1585 | 9.52 ± 0.01 a | 2.25 ± 0.01 b |
| allo-Aromadendrene | 1458 | 1465 | 1660 | 1662 | - | 1.56 ± 0.01 |
| Germacrene D | 1484 | 1481 | 1708 | 1692 | 1.83 ± 0.01 | - |
| Viridiflorene | 1496 | 1496 | 1698 | 1697 | 1.67 ± 0.01 a | 0.37 ± 0.03 b |
| Bicyclogermacrene | 1500 | 1500 | 1734 | 1718 | 1.47 ± 0.01 a | 0.54 ± 0.01 b |
| 1505 | 1494 | 1728 | 1729 | 0.85 ± 0.01 a | 0.39 ± 0.01 b | |
| 1522 | 1517 | 1757 | 1745 | 0.97 ± 0.01 | - | |
|
| 12.51 | 7.54 | ||||
| Spathulenol | 1577 | 1577 | 2106 | 2101 | 2.28 ± 0.01 b | 4.93 ± 0.01 a |
| Caryophyllene oxide * | 1582 | 1581 | 1954 | 1955 | 7.69 ± 0.01 a | 0.76 ± 0.01 b |
| 1630 | 1632 | 2166 | 2135 | 0.87 ± 0.01 a | 0.47 ± 0.02 b | |
| 1652 | 1655 | 2210 | 2208 | 0.67 ± 0.05 | - | |
| 1685 | 1688 | 2168 | 2116 | 0.76 ± 0.02 | - | |
| 1749 | 1748 | - | 2511 | 0.24 ± 0.02 b | 1.38 ± 0.01 a | |
|
| 1.69 | 13.35 | ||||
| Thymol * | 1289 | 1290 | 2198 | 2198 | 0.14 ± 0.01 b | 3.48 ± 0.01 a |
| Carvacrol * | 1298 | 1298 | 2239 | 2239 | 1.37 ± 0.01 b | 9.87 ± 0.01 a |
| Eugenol * | 1356 | 1370 | 2173 | 2175 | 0.18 ± 0.03 | - |
|
| 13.86 | 4.29 | ||||
| 900 | 900 | - | 1011 | 13.59 ± 0.01 a | 4.29 ± 0.01 b | |
| 974 | 974 | 1442 | 1452 | 0.27 ± 0.01 | - | |
|
| 0.26 | - | ||||
| Phytol | 1942 | 1964 | 2622 | 2622 | 0.26 ± 0.03 | - |
|
| 4.23 | - | ||||
| Hexadecanoic acid | 1959 | 1959 | - | 2476 | 1.28 ± 0.01 | - |
| Docosane * | 2200 | 2200 | 2200 | 2200 | 0.57 ± 0.02 | - |
| Hexacosane * | 2600 | 2600 | 2600 | 2600 | 1.59 ± 0.01 | - |
| Heptacosane * | 2700 | 2700 | 2700 | 2700 | 0.79 ± 0.01 | - |
|
| 85.25 | 72.21 |
Retention indices (RIs) were determined relative to a series of n-alkanes (C8–C40) on capillary columns VF5-ms (RI a) and CP Wax 52 (RI b); RI, identification by comparison of RIs with those listed in a homemade library, reported in the literature and/or authentic samples; comparison of mass spectra with those in NIST02 and Wiley 9 mass spectral libraries [36,37]; * co-injection with reference compounds; - not identified; SD standard deviation of triplicate analysis; significant differences were determined using multiple t-test. a, b Mean values with different superscripts indicate a statistically significant difference between the data from EO and the H sample (p < 0.05).
Figure 1Antiproliferative activity of H. perforatum ssp. veronense determined by MTS-based cell proliferation assay. Statistical analysis was performed using one-way ANOVA followed by Turkey’s multiple comparison test. Error bars indicate the standard deviation of triplicate analyses.
Antioxidant potential of Hypericum perforatum ssp. veronense essential oil and hydrosol determined by ORAC and DPPH method.
| Antioxidant Assay | Essential Oil | Hydrosol |
|---|---|---|
| ORAC (Trolox eq) | 2347.65 ± 119.28 a | 240.34 ± 7.59 b |
| DPPH (% inhibition) | 44.03 ± 0.74 a | 11.88 ± 1.4 b |
| DPPH (IC50) | 23.07 ± 0.49 | - |
ORAC, oxygen radical absorbance capacity, results for EOs expressed as μmol of Trolox equivalents (TE) per g of EO (10 mg/mL) and for hydrosols as μmol of Trolox equivalents (TE) per L of the total (undiluted) tested hydrosol sample; DPPH, IC50 expressed in mg/mL for EOs; “-“ could not be calculated. a, b Mean values with different superscripts indicate statistically significant difference between control and essential oil/hydrosol treatment data (p < 0.05).
Number of local lesions (LLN) on leaves of treated host plants inoculated with tobacco mosaic virus and on leaves of control plants (C) on days 3, 5, and 7 postinoculation (dpi). Prior to inoculation, treated plants were sprayed with essential oil (EO) or hydrosol (H) of H. perforatum ssp. veronense for two consecutive days. SD, standard deviation of triplicate analysis; significant differences were determined by t-test. a, b Mean values with different superscripts indicate statistically significant difference between control and essential oil/hydrosol treatment data (p < 0.05).
| dpi | LLN ± SD | LLN ± SD | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 3rd | C | 6.05 ± 2.19 a | C | 9.65 ± 3.77 a |
| EO | 0.72 ± 0.33 b | H | 4.93 ± 2.29 b | |
| 5th | C | 16.64 ± 3.25 a | C | 19.00 ± 3.24 a |
| EO | 6.24 ± 0.64 b | H | 12.05 ± 1.60 b | |
| 7th | C | 19.38 ± 6.05 a | C | 28.55 ± 3.82 a |
| EO | 9.50 ± 2.32 b | H | 17.34 ± 4.50 b | |
Figure 2Percentage of inhibition (IP) of local lesions on leaves of tretaed host plants inoculated with tobacco mosaic virus compared with control plants on days 3, 5, and 7 postinoculation (dpi). Prior to inoculation, treated plants were sprayed with essential oil (EO) or hydrosol (H) of H. perforatum ssp. veronense for two consecutive days. Error bars show the standard deviation of triplicate analyses; significant differences were determined by t-test and marked with *.