| Literature DB >> 34084078 |
Varee Tyagi1, Chakkaravarthi Saravanan1, Yixiang Wang2, Bhaswati Bhattacharya1.
Abstract
RESEARCHEntities:
Keywords: antibacterial activity; antioxidant activity; ionic liquid; phytochemicals; sorghum bran
Year: 2021 PMID: 34084078 PMCID: PMC8157095 DOI: 10.17113/ftb.59.01.21.6878
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Food Technol Biotechnol ISSN: 1330-9862 Impact factor: 3.918
Fig. S1Influence of pH on the anhydrous methanolic extract of sorghum bran
Fig. 1Liquid chromatography with tandem mass spectrometry analysis of sorghum bran extracts: a) acidified methanol, b) methanol, c) ionic liquid, and d) distilled water
Total phenol content (TPC), total flavonoid content (TFC) and total condensed tannin (TCT) content in sorghum bran extracts
| Sample | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| WE | (15.2±0.2)a | (7.4±0.4)a | (83.1±2.9)a |
| ANME | (9.0±0.8)b | (6.9±0.3)a | (35.3±1.2)b |
| AME | (26.78±1.0)c | (14.2±0.4)b | (58.6±2.4)c |
| ILE | (7.4±0.7)b | (3.0±0.1)c | (63.2±2.1)d |
Mean value±S.D. (N=3). Letters in the same column indicate the significant differences (p<0.05).
GAE=gallic acid equivalent, QE=quercetin equivalent, CE=catechin equivalent, WE=water extract, ANME=anhydrous methanol extract, AME=acidified methanol extract, ILE=ionic liquid extract
Fig. S2Absorption spectra of the sorghum bran extracts and standards (apigenin and luteolin, γ=0.1 mg/mL)
Total anthocyanin concentration (TAC) of sorghum bran extracts expressed as concentration of apigenin and luteolin
| Sample | ||
|---|---|---|
| AME | (269.7±9.1)a | (373.9±12.5)a |
| ANME | (235.6±5.1)b | (326.6±7.1)b |
| WE | (178.0±7.2)c | (246.9±10.0)c |
| ILE | (168.9±7.2)c | (234.1±10.0)c |
Mean value±S.D. (N=3). Letters in the same column indicate the significant differences (p<0.05). AME=acidified methanol extract, ANME=anhydrous methanol extract, WE=water extract, ILE=ionic liquid extract
Antioxidant activity of sorghum bran extracts, apigenin and luteolin measured with DPPH, ABTS and CUPRAC assays
| Sample | DPPH | ( | CUPRAC |
|---|---|---|---|
| Water extract | (62.9±0.7)a | (115.0±0.8)a | (87.6±0.7)a |
| ANME | (23.1±0.7)b | (75.6±1.3)b | (24.6±1.3)b |
| AME | NA | (88.8±2.5)c | (106.8±1.8)c |
| ILE | (85.2±1.2)c | (100.8±0.9)d | (63.2±1.9)d |
| Apigenin | (0.004±0.006)d | (0.2±0.02)e | (0.1±0.1)e |
| Luteolin | (6.3±0.1)e | (7.7±0.8)f | (6.1±0.5)f |
Mean value±S.D. (N=3). Letters in the same column indicate significant differences (p<0.05).
NA=not applicable, WE=water extract, ANME=anhydrous methanol extract, AME=acidified methanol extract, ILE=ionic liquid extract
Fig. 2Influence of HCl (φ=0.01) on the absorption spectra of DPPH. AM=acidified methanol, M=methanol
Fig. 3Zone of inhibition of acidified methanolic sorghum bran extract against S. aureus and E. coli
Fig. 4Minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) assay for acidified methanolic extract against S. aureus and E. coli respectively