| Literature DB >> 34336357 |
Ali S Alqahtani1, Rashed N Herqash1, Omar M Noman1, Md Tabish Rehman1, Abdelaaty A Shahat1, Mohamed F Alajmi1, Fahd A Nasr1.
Abstract
The oleo-gum-resin ofEntities:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34336357 PMCID: PMC8289610 DOI: 10.1155/2021/5525173
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Anal Methods Chem ISSN: 2090-8873 Impact factor: 2.193
Figure 1Structures of the two furanosesquiterpenes compounds. (a) 2-Methoxyfuranodiene (CM-1). (b) 2-Acetoxyfuranodiene (CM-2).
Figure 2Effect of the dispersing sorbents on extraction yields.
Figure 3Effect of the sample sorbent mass ratio.
Figure 4Effect of elution volume on extraction yields.
Figure 5HPLC chromatograms of standard of two furanodiene compounds.
Calibration parameters and sensitivity data for two compounds using the proposed HPLC method.
| Compound | Retention time (min) | Range ( | Linearity ( | LOD ( | LOQ ( |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CM-1 | 17.126 ± 0.03 | 0.5–25.00 | 0.9965 | 0.60 | 1.82 |
| CM-2 | 13.382 ± 0.05 | 0.5–25.00 | 0.9963 | 0.62 | 1.87 |
Analytical results of repeatability and intermediate precision for two compounds in the C. myrrha sample.
| Analyte | Conc. ( | Intradaya (% RSD) ( | Interdayb (% RSD) ( |
|---|---|---|---|
| CM-1 | 0.5 | 0.28 | 1.30 |
| 5 | 3.91 | 4.00 | |
| 25 | 0.81 | 0.36 | |
|
| |||
| CM-2 | 0.5 | 0.29 | 0.45 |
| 5 | 4.01 | 0.93 | |
| 25 | 1.05 | 1.15 | |
aRepeatability. bIntermediate precision.
Analytical recovery data of the two analysts during quantification (n = 6).
| Analyte | Cadded ( | Mean recovery (%) | RSD (%) ( |
|---|---|---|---|
| CM-1 | 0.5 | 97.11 | 0.47 |
| 5 | 98.24 | 0.36 | |
| 25 | 96.43 | 0.79 | |
|
| |||
| CM-2 | 0.5 | 98.34 | 1.23 |
| 5 | 95.13 | 1.41 | |
| 25 | 100.39 | 0.89 | |
Minimal inhibitory concentrations, minimal bactericidal concentrations (MBC), and minimal fungicidal concentrations (MFC) of the crude extracts of C. myrrha.
| Activity |
|
|
|
|
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CM-sonication | MIC | 312.5 | 312.5 | 625 | 625 | 156.25 |
| MBC | 625 | 625 | 1250 | 1250 | — | |
| MFC | NT | NT | NT | NT | 312.5 | |
|
| ||||||
| CM-Soxhlet | MIC | 312.5 | 312.5 | 625 | 625 | 156.25 |
| MBC | 625 | 625 | 1250 | 1250 | — | |
| MFC | NT | NT | NT | NT | 312.5 | |
|
| ||||||
| CM-MSPD | MIC | 156.25 | 156.25 | 625 | 625 | 156.25 |
| MBC | 312.5 | 312.5 | 1250 | 1250 | — | |
| MFC | NT | NT | NT | NT | 312.5 | |
|
| ||||||
| Gentamycin | MIC | 7.8 | 7.8 | 3.9 | 3.9 | NT |
| MBC | 15.6 | 15.6 | 7.8 | 7.8 | NT | |
|
| ||||||
| Nystatin | MIC | NT | NT | NT | NT | 3.5 |
| MFC | — | — | — | — | 7.0 | |
Comparison of MSPD with other extraction methods for the extraction of main furanosesquiterpenoids from C. myrrha.
| MSPD | Soxhlet | Sonication | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Total extraction yield (mg/g) | 38.7 | 33.75 | 29.3 |
| Sample (g) | 0.1 | 0.5 | 0.25 |
| Solvent | 15 mL MeOH | 100 mL MeOH | 30 mL MeOH |
| Time | 15 min | 3.5 h | 0.5 h |
| Special apparatus | None | Soxhlet | Ultrasonicator |
Figure 6HPLC chromatograms of C. myrrh. (a) MSPD extraction method. (b) Soxhlet extraction method. (c) Sonication extraction method.
Figure 7Molecular docking and interaction between DNA gyrase B and control ligand, CM-1 and CM-2. (a) Binding of control ligand (golden color), CM-1 (teal color), and CM-2 (green color) at the ATP binding domain of DNA gyrase B. Interaction between DNA gyrase B and control ligand (b), CM-1 (c), and CM-2 (d).
Molecular docking parameters for the interaction of CM-1 and CM-1 with the ATP binding domain of bacterial DNA Gyrase B.
| Donor-acceptor pair | Distance (Å) | Nature of interaction | Docking energy (kcal m−1) | Binding affinity, |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| ||||
| LIG:H–ASP73:OD1 | 1.9066 | Conventional H-bond | −9.3 | 6.62 × 106 |
| LIG:H–ASP73:OD1 | 1.9014 | Conventional H-bond | ||
| LIG:C–GLY77:O | 3.3299 | Carbon H-bond | ||
| LIG:C–ASN46:OD1 | 3.5462 | Carbon H-bond | ||
| LIG:C–VAL71:O | 3.6145 | Carbon H-bond | ||
| ASN46:CG–LIG:F | 3.6104 | Halogen bond | ||
| THR165:CG2–LIG | 3.8251 | Hydrophobic (pi-sigma) | ||
| ASN46:C, O; ALA47:N–LIG | 4.4879 | Hydrophobic (amide-pi) | ||
| ASN46:C, O; ALA47:N–LIG | 4.5389 | Hydrophobic (amide-pi) | ||
| GLY77:C, O; ILE78:N–LIG | 4.7710 | Hydrophobic (amide-pi) | ||
| LIG–ILE78 | 5.1181 | Hydrophobic (pi-alkyl) | ||
| LIG–ILE78 | 4.6140 | Hydrophobic (pi-alkyl) | ||
| LIG–ILE78 | 4.3432 | Hydrophobic (pi-alkyl) | ||
|
| ||||
| CM-1 | ||||
| ARG76:NH1–LIG | 4.0868 | Electrostatic (pi-cation) | −7.5 | 3.17 × 105 |
| GLU50:OE1–LIG | 4.3017 | Electrostatic (pi-anion) | ||
| GLY77:C, O; ILE78:N–LIG | 4.4654 | Hydrophobic (amide-pi) | ||
| ILE78–LIG | 4.0246 | Hydrophobic (alkyl) | ||
| LIG:C–ILE78 | 4.5502 | Hydrophobic (alkyl) | ||
| LIG:C–ILE90 | 3.8908 | Hydrophobic (alkyl) | ||
| LIG:C–PRO79 | 4.3208 | Hydrophobic (alkyl) | ||
| LIG–ARG76 | 5.0625 | Hydrophobic (pi-alkyl) | ||
| LIG–PRO79 | 4.6901 | Hydrophobic (pi-alkyl) | ||
|
| ||||
| CM-2 | ||||
| ARG76:HH12–LIG:O | 2.6933 | Conventional H-bond | −7.9 | 6.23 × 105 |
| ILE78–LIG | 4.1178 | Hydrophobic (alkyl) | ||
| LIG:C–ILE90 | 4.1266 | Hydrophobic (alkyl) | ||
| LIG:C–ILE78 | 5.0569 | Hydrophobic (alkyl) | ||
| LIG:C–ILE78 | 5.1356 | Hydrophobic (alkyl) | ||
| LIG:C–VAL167 | 4.6831 | Hydrophobic (alkyl) | ||
| LIG–ILE78 | 5.0433 | Hydrophobic (pi-alkyl) | ||