| Literature DB >> 34073499 |
Bagda Sagynaikyzy Zhumakanova1, Izabela Korona-Głowniak2, Krystyna Skalicka-Woźniak3, Agnieszka Ludwiczuk3, Tomasz Baj4, Krzysztof Kamil Wojtanowski4, Aleksandra Józefczyk4, Karlygash Altynbekovna Zhaparkulova1, Zuriyadda Bektemirova Sakipova1, Anna Malm2.
Abstract
The chemical composition of the hydroethanolic extracts (60% v/v) from the aerial parts of Thymus marschallianus Willd (TM) and Thymus seravschanicus Klokov (TS) from Southern Kazakhstan flora was analyzed together with their hexane fractions. Determination of antibacterial, antifungal and antioxidant activities of both extracts was also performed. RP-HPLC/PDA and HPLC/ESI-QTOF-MS showed that there were some differences between the composition of both extracts. The most characteristic components of TM were rosmarinic acid, protocatechuic acid, luteolin 7-O-glucoside, and apigenin 7-O-glucuronide, while protocatechuic acid, luteolin 7-O-glucoside, luteolin 7-O-glucuronide, and eriodictyol predominated in TS. The content of polyplenols was higher in TS than in TM. The GC-MS analysis of the volatile fraction of both examined extracts revealed the presence of thymol and carvacrol. Additionally, sesquiterpenoids, fatty acids, and their ethyl esters were found in TM, and fatty acid methyl esters in TS. The antioxidant activity of both extracts was similar. The antibacterial activity of TS extract was somewhat higher than TM, while antifungal activity was the same. TS extract was the most active against Helicobacter pylori ATCC 43504 with MIC (minimal inhibitory concentration) = 0.625 mg/mL, exerting a bactericidal effect. The obtained data provide novel information about the phytochemistry of both thyme species and suggest new potential application of TS as a source of bioactive compounds, especially with anti-H. pylori activity.Entities:
Keywords: Helicobacter pylori; Kazakh flora; Thymus species; antimicrobial activity; antioxidant activity; phytochemical analysis
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34073499 PMCID: PMC8198081 DOI: 10.3390/molecules26113193
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Molecules ISSN: 1420-3049 Impact factor: 4.411
Results of the HPLC/ESI-QTOF-MS analysis of the hydroethanolic extracts from the aerial parts of T. marschallianus (TM) and T. seravschanicus (TS).
| No | Tentative Assignment | tR [min] | Formula | Molecular Ion [ | MS/MS Fragments [ | TM | TS |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Organic acids | |||||||
| 1 | Quinic acid + hexose2 | 1.594 | C19H34O17 | 533.1738 | 191.0577 | + | + |
| 2 | Quinic acid | 2.000 | C7H12O6 | 191.0577 | 179.0577 | + | + |
| Phenolic acids | |||||||
| 3 | Protocatechuic acid 3- | 6.906 | C13H16O9 | 315.0727 | 153.0108; 109.0290 | + | - |
| 4 | Hydroxybenzoic acid | 9.885 | C7H6O3 | 137.0249 | 109.0311 | + | + |
| 5 | Caffeic acid | 17.440 | C9H8O4 | 179.0350 | 135.0437 | + | + |
| 6 | 5-Methoxysalicyllic acid | 19.207 | C8H8O4 | 167.0350 | 108.0217 | - | + |
| 7 | Rosmarinic acid hydrate | 19.897 | C18H18O9 | 377.0878 | 359.0761; 197.0455; 161.0244 | - | + |
| 8 | Ferulic acid | 25.803 | C10H10O4 | 193.0516 | 133.0322; 115.0209 | + | + |
| 9 | Rosmarinic acid | 27.082 | C18H16O8 | 359.0780 | 179.0431; 161.0311; 133.0317 | + | + |
| Flavonoids | |||||||
| 10 | Luteolin 7- | 23.493 | C27H30O15 | 593.1512 | 285.0412; 133.0255 | + | + |
| 11 | Luteolin 7- | 24.233 | C21H20O11 | 447.0937 | 285.0405; 133.0289 | + | + |
| 12 | Luteolin 7- | 25.252 | C21H18O12 | 461.0743 | 285.0407; 133.0279 | + | + |
| 13 | Apigenin 7- | 25.986 | C21H20O10 | 431.0991 | 268.0402; 151.0024 | + | - |
| 14 | Luteolin 7- | 26.396 | C25H26O14 | 549.1267 | 418.1281; 285.0578 | + | - |
| 15 | Apigenin 7- | 27.440 | C21H18O11 | 445.0781 | 269.0459; 135.0431; 117.0320 | + | + |
| 16 | Diosmetin glucuronide | 27.909 | C22H20O12 | 475.0885 | 299.0519; 284.0310; 255.0179; 151.0052; 133.0259 | + | + |
| 17 | Luteolin-7- | 28.386 | C27H28O15 | 591.1355 | 549.1358; 531.1091; 285.0405 | + | + |
| 18 | Eriodictyol | 30.001 | C15H12O6 | 287.0579 | 151.0035; 135.0439 | + | + |
| 19 | Apigenin 7- | 30.551 | C27H28O14 | 575.1406 | 515.1170; 269.0467 | + | - |
| 20 | Luteolin | 31.453 | C15H10O6 | 285.0408 | 133.0290; 107.0119 | + | - |
| 21 | Naringenin | 33.346 | C15H12O5 | 271.0617 | 151.0037; 119.0536 | + | + |
| 22 | Apigenin | 34.269 | C15H10O5 | 269.0462 | 135.0432; 117.0335 | + | - |
| Coumarins | |||||||
| 23 | Umbeliferone derivative 1 | 33.598 | C17H14O6 | 313.0722 | 161.0250; 133.0310; 105.0347 | + | - |
| 24 | Umbeliferone derivative 2 | 34.294 | C17H14O6 | 313.0722 | 161.0200; 133.0284; 105.0331 | + | - |
(+)—present; (-)—absent.
The content of polyphenols in the hydroethanolic extracts from the aerial parts of Thymus marschallianus (TM) and Thymus seravschanicus (TS).
| No | Identified Compounds | Content (mg/g Dry Extract) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| TM | TS | ||
| 1 | protocatechuic acid | 2.08 ± 0.01 | 3.06 ± 0.01 |
| 2 | nd | 0.16 ± 0.00 | |
| 3 | caffeic acid | 1.08 ± 0.01 | 1.92 ± 0.01 |
| 4 | ferulic acid | 0.13 ± 0.00 | 0.18 ± 0.01 |
| 5 | rosmarinic acid hydrate | nd | 1.29 ± 0.01 |
| 6 | rosmarinic acid | 1.05 ± 0.01 | 3.33 ± 0.01 |
| 7 | luteolin 7- | 0.62 ± 0.01 | 2.10 ± 0.01 |
| 8 | luteolin 7- | 7.77 ± 0.14 | 20.17 ± 0.12 |
| 9 | luteolin 7- | nd | 16.84 ± 0.05 |
| 10 | apigenin-7- | 7.22 ± 0.01 | 6.81 ± 0.06 |
| 11 | eriodictyol | 2.29 ± 0.02 | 13.54 ± 0.4 |
| 12 | luteolin | 0.17 ± 0.01 | nd |
| 13 | naringenin | 0.32 ± 0.01 | 0.28 ± 0.01 |
Mean values ± SD were presented (n = 3).
Comparison of the volatile compounds occurring in the hexane fractions of hydroethanolic extracts of the aerial parts of Thymus marschallianus (TM) and Thymus seravschanicus (TS).
| No. | Identified Compounds | RIa | RIb | TM | TS |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 1023 | 1015 | + | ||
| 2 | Limonene | 1027 | 1025 | + | |
| 3 | Carvone | 1244 | 1243 | + | |
| 4 | Thymoquinone | 1250 | 1249 | + | |
| 5 | Thymol | 1296 | 1267 | ++ | ++ |
| 6 | Carvacrol | 1304 | 1278 | + | + |
| 7 | Eugenol | 1351 | 1331 | + | |
| 8 | α-Bisabolene | 1505 | 1503 | + | |
| 9 | Spathulenol | 1578 | 1572 | + | |
| 10 | Viridiflorol | 1606 | 1592 | + | |
| 11 | Methyl hexadecanoate | 1920 | 1909 | ++ | |
| 12 | Hexadecanoic acid | 1961 | 1951 | ++ | ++ |
| 13 | Ethyl hexadecanoate | 1987 | 1978 | + | + |
| 14 | Methyl linoleate | 2086 | 2066 | + | |
| 15 | Methyl α-linolenate | 2092 | 2092 | ++ | |
| 16 | Phytol | 2103 | 2099 | + | + |
| 17 | Linoleic acid | 2131 | 2130 | + | + |
| 18 | α-Linolenic acid | 2138 | 2113 | ++ | ++ |
| 19 | Ethyl linoleate | 2152 | 2153 | + | |
| 20 | Ethyl α-linolenate | 2158 | 2166 | + | |
| 21 | Stearic acid | 2162 | 2174 | + |
RI—retention index on HP-5MS column; RI—retention index based on the data available in from Mass Finder 2.1 and NIST 2011 libraries. The relative content of identified compounds was indicated as high (++) and low (+) based on the peak’s surface area in corresponding chromatograms.
Figure 1The total polyphenol content (TPC) in the hydroethanolic extracts from the aerial parts of Thymus marschallianus (TM) and Thymus seravschanicus (TS), together with their antioxidant activity. Mean values ± SD were presented (n = 3).
Antimicrobial activity in vitro of the hydroethanolic extracts from the aerial parts of Thymus marschallianus (TM) and Thymus seravschanicus (TS).
| Microbial Species | TM | TS | Apigenin | Luteolin | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MIC 1 | MBC 2 or MFC 3
| MIC | MBC or | MIC | MIC | |
| Antibacterial activity | ||||||
| 2.5 | 5 | 1.25 | 2.5 | 10 | 0.625 | |
| 5 | 5 | 1.25 | 2.5 | 10 | 0.156 | |
| 20 | 20 | 2.5 | 2.5 | 10 | 0.625 | |
| 5 | 10 | 2.5 | 2.5 | 10 | 0.313 | |
| 5 | 20 | 5 | 10 | 10 | 1.25 | |
| 5 | >20 | 2.5 | >20 | 10 | 0.625 | |
| 10 | 20 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 | |
| 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 | |
| 10 | 10 | 2.5 | 5 | 10 | 10 | |
| 5 | 5 | 1.25 | 5 | 10 | 10 | |
| 10 | 10 | 5 | 10 | 10 | 10 | |
| 2.5 | 2.5 | 0.625 | 0.625 | 1.25 | 0.625 | |
| Antifungal activity | ||||||
| 5 | 10 | 5 | 10 | 5 | 0.625 | |
| 5 | 20 | 5 | 10 | 5 | 0.625 | |
| 5 | 10 | 5 | 10 | 0.625 | 2.5 | |
1 MIC (minimal inhibitory concentration), 2 MBC (minimal bactericidal concentration), 3 MFC (minimal fungicidal concentration). The representative values (mode) were presented (n = 3).