| Literature DB >> 34770836 |
Sandra Gonçalves1, Inês Mansinhos1, Raquel Rodríguez-Solana1,2, Gema Pereira-Caro2, José Manuel Moreno-Rojas2, Anabela Romano1.
Abstract
Nanoparticles (NPs) recently emerged as new chemical elicitors acting as signaling agents affecting several processes in plant metabolism. The aim of this work was to investigate the impact of the addition of copper oxide (CuO), zinc oxide (ZnO) and iron oxide (Fe3O4) NPs (<100 nm) at different concentrations (1, 5 and 10 mg/L) to the culture media on several morphological, physiological and -biochemical parameters of in vitro shoot cultures of Lavandula viridis L'Hér and Thymus lotocephalus G. López and R. Morales (Lamiaceae), as well as on phenolic profile and bioactivity (antioxidant and enzyme inhibition capacities). Although some decreases in shoot number and length were observed in response to NPs, biomass production was not affected or was improved in both species. Most NPs treatments decreased total chlorophyll and carotenoid contents and increased malondialdehyde levels, an indicator of lipid peroxidation, in both species. HPLC-HR-MS analysis led to the identification of thirteen and twelve phenolic compounds, respectively, in L. viridis and T. lotocephalus extracts, being rosmarinic acid the major compound found in all the extracts. ZnO and Fe3O4 NPs induced an increase in total phenolic and rosmarinic acid contents in T. lotocephalus extracts. Additionally, some NPs treatments also increased antioxidant activity in extracts from this species and the opposite was observed for L. viridis. The capacity of the extracts to inhibit tyrosinase, acetylcholinesterase and butyrylcholinesterase enzymes was not considerably affected. Overall, NPs had a significant impact on different parameters of L. viridis and T. lotocephalus in vitro shoot cultures, although the results varied with the species and NPs type.Entities:
Keywords: antioxidant activity; enzymes inhibition; in vitro culture; nanoparticles; phenolics; rosmarinic acid
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34770836 PMCID: PMC8587770 DOI: 10.3390/molecules26216427
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Molecules ISSN: 1420-3049 Impact factor: 4.411
Shoot growth and total chlorophyll (Cltotal), carotenoids (Crt) and malondialdehyde (MDA) contents in Lavandula viridis L’Hér and Thymus lotocephalus G. López and R. Morales shoots cultured in media with 0 (control), 1, 5 or 10 mg/L of CuO, ZnO and Fe3O4 nanoparticles.
| Treatment | NP Concentration (mg/L) | No. Shoots | Length of the Longest Shoot (mm) | Fresh Weight | Dry Weight (mg) | Cltotal (mg/gfresh weight) | Crt (mg/gfresh weight) | MDA (nmol/gfresh weight) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| ||||||||
| Control | 0 | 4.26 ± 0.23 a | 33.5 ± 1.10 a | 1277 ± 196 b | 167 ± 19 b | 1.40 ± 0.08 a | 0.30± 0.02 a | 20.8 ± 1.5 d |
| CuO | 1 | 3.46 ± 0.22 b,c | 28.3 ± 0.9 b | 1836 ± 257 a,b | 207 ± 19 a,b | 1.40 ± 0.08 a | 0.30 ± 0.01 a | 24.0 ± 1.2 d |
| 5 | 2.90 ± 0.18 e,f | 24.4 ± 0.9 c | 2103 ± 451 a,b | 220 ± 29 a,b | 0.97 ± 0.02 b | 0.21 ± 0.01 b | 29.2 ± 1.6 c | |
| 10 | 2.84 ± 0.19 f | 21.4 ± 0.8 d | 1275 ± 152 b | 167 ± 16 b | 0.71 ± 0.05 c | 0.06 ± 0.01 e | 31.8 ± 2.4 b,c | |
| ZnO | 1 | 3.07 ± 0.21 c,d | 24.6 ± 1.01 c | 2711 ± 364 a | 282 ± 27 a | 0.87 ± 0.07 b,c | 0.19 ± 0.01 b,c | 19.9 ± 0.8 d |
| 5 | 2.68 ± 0.21 c,d,e | 28.7 ± 1.4 b | 2198 ± 366 a,b | 234 ± 32 a,b | 0.74 ± 0.05 b,c | 0.16 ± 0.01 c,d | 19.4 ± 1.6 d | |
| 10 | 2.33 ± 0.17 c,d,e | 20.6 ± 0.6 d | 2782 ± 330 a | 277 ± 25 a | 0.40 ± 0.05 d | 0.13 ± 0.01 d | 20.7 ± 1.0 d | |
| Fe3O4 | 1 | 4.41 ± 0.28 a | 27.5 ± 1.1 b,c | 2249 ± 356 a,b | 260 ± 29 a | 0.69 ± 0.04 c | 0.16 ±.0 01 c,d | 39.9 ± 2.2 a |
| 5 | 4.24 ± 0.29 a | 26.1 ± 1.3 b,c | 2787 ± 425 a | 251 ± 31 a,b | 0.75 ± 0.08 b,c | 0.15 ± 0.01 c,d | 36.6 ± 2.4 a,b | |
| 10 | 3.92 ± 0.24 a,b | 29.3 ± 1.3 b | 2761 ± 394 a | 268 ± 31 a | 0.77 ± 0.06 b,c | 0.19 ± 0.01 b,c | 41.2 ± 2.0 a | |
|
| ||||||||
| Control | 0 | 16.28 ± 2.83 b,c | 38.30 ± 2.34 a | 1902.07 ± 443.18 b,c,d | 174.43 ± 29.21 b,c,d | 1.35 ± 0.05 b | 0.29 ± 0.02 b | 23.92 ± 1.86 e |
| CuO | 1 | 8.19 ± 1.02 d | 29.44 ± 1.55 b | 1397.72 ± 374.06 c,d | 214.41 ± 80.99 b,c,d | 1.57 ± 0.11 a | 0.34 ± 0.03 a | 21.76 ± 0.63 e |
| 5 | 8.66 ± 1.67 d | 17.54 ± 0.81 c | 1211.88 ± 292.58 d | 138.55 ± 21.28 c,d | 1.24 ± 0.09 b,c | 0.27 ± 0.02 b,c | 29.20 ± 1.73 d | |
| 10 | 11.19 ± 1.78 c,d | 20.79 ± 1.11 c | 1086.10 ± 193.89 d | 132.59 ± 20.65 d | 1.03 ± 0.07 c,d,e | 0.23 ± 0.01 c,d,e | 20.55 ± 2.00 e | |
| ZnO | 1 | 19.70 ± 2.35 b | 36.76 ± 2.11 a | 2254.67 ± 443.50 b,c,d | 252.42 ± 30.06 a,b,c | 0.81 ± 0.05 e,f | 0.22 ± 0.01 d,e | 40.07 ± 1.83 a,b |
| 5 | 17.93 ± 2.12 b,c | 38.63 ± 2.03 a | 2597.08 ± 455.25 b,c | 255.58 ± 31.63 a,b,c | 1.10 ± 0.04 c,d | 0.26 ± 0.01 b,c,d | 43.42 ± 1.55 a | |
| 10 | 16.80 ± 2.04 b,c | 41.86 ± 2.57 a | 2661.83 ± 349.44 b,c | 261.49 ± 21.18 a,b | 0.94 ± 0.07 d,e,f | 0.18 ± 0.01 e,f | 36.17 ± 1.83 b,c | |
| Fe3O4 | 1 | 17.69 ± 1.76 b,c | 40.30 ± 2.02 a | 2366.82 ± 391.22 b,c,d | 220.85 ± 27.78 b,c,d | 1.13 ± 0.08 c,d | 0.22 ± 0.02 d,e | 32.92 ± 1.70 c,d |
| 5 | 31.62 ± 2.98 a | 38.08 ± 1.93 a | 4854.29 ± 769.03 a | 343.31 ± 39.90 a | 0.72 ± 0.05 f | 0.14 ± 0.01 f | 23.67 ± 1.58 e | |
| 10 | 26.35 ± 3.85 a | 41.95 ± 1.73 a | 3116.72 ± 381.17 b | 271.61 ± 27.06 a,b | 0.83 ± 0.07 e,f | 0.18 ± 0.01 e,f | 23.21 ± 2.04 e |
Values are expressed as mean ± standard error. For each variable and plant species values followed by different letters (a to f) are significantly different at p < 0.05 (Duncan’s New Multiple Range Test).
Concentration (mg/kg of extract, mean ± standard error) of phenolic compounds present in the extracts from Lavandula viridis L’Hér and Thymus lotocephalus G. López and R. Morales shoots cultured in media with 0 (control), 1, 5 or 10 mg/L of CuO, ZnO and Fe3O4 nanoparticles.
| Compound | Treatment | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Control | CuO (mg/L) | ZnO (mg/L) | Fe3O4 (mg/L) | |||||||
| 1 | 5 | 10 | 1 | 5 | 10 | 1 | 5 | 10 | ||
|
| ||||||||||
| 81 ± 8 a | 92 ± 7 a | 83 ± 0 a | 80.6 ± 0.7 a | 97 ± 7 a | 101 ± 2 a | 100 ± 5 a | 83 ± 10 a | 83 ± 3 a | 91 ± 8 a | |
| Caffeic acid hexoside isomer I | 1039 ± 80 b | 1229 ± 85 a,b | 583 ± 32 c | 1400 ± 71 a | 171 ± 126 d | 144 ± 1 d | 221 ± 7 d | 221 ± 13 d | 325 ± 27 d | 231 ± 13 d |
| Caffeic acid hexoside isomer II | 159 ± 3 b | 1866 ± 16 b | 1091 ± 29 c | 2269 ± 170 a | 258 ± 207 d,e | 212 ± 7 e | 331.1 ± 0.5 d,e | 341 ± 35 d,e | 564 ± 96 d | 369 ± 55 d,e |
| Fertaric acid | 227 ± 16 a | 119 ± 5 b | 70 ± 3 c | 233 ± 9 a | 52 ± 2 c,d | 27.6 ± 0.4 e | 23.0 ± 0.1 e | 38 ± 1 d,e | 50 ± 4 c,d | 35 ± 1 d,e |
| Caffeic acid | 147.2 ± 0.5 | <LOQ | <LOQ | <LOQ | <LOD | <LOD | <LOD | <LOD | <LOQ | <LOD |
| Ferulic acid | 2996 ± 134 a | 2336 ± 173 b | 1328 ± 14 d | 1650 ± 29 c | 1247 ± 48 d | 291 ± 3 f | 499 ± 36 f | 827 ± 44 e | 1352 ± 8 d | 751 ± 16 e |
| Rosmarinic acid | 59874 ± 1040 b | 59183 ± 1429 b | 49922 ± 772 c | 64501 ± 2858 a | 27262 ± 47 e | 9450± 2 g | 20505 ± 250 f | 17086 ± 483 f | 32747 ± 1317 d | 19656 ± 587 f |
| Salvianolic acid A isomer I | 287 ± 24 c | 415 ± 24 b | 484 ± 23 a | 108 ± 1 e | 169 ± 6 d | 86 ± 2 e | 206 ± 8 d | 118.0 ± 0.4 e | 197 ± 4 d | 106 ± 3 e |
| Salvianolic acid A isomer II | <LOQ | 50 ± 8 | 52 ± 10 | <LOQ | <LOQ | <LOD | <LOQ | <LOD | <LOQ | <LOD |
| Salvianolic acid I | <LOQ | 49.0 ± 0.1 | 45.2 ± 0.2 | <LOQ | <LOQ | <LOQ | <LOD | <LOQ | <LOQ | <LOD |
| Salvianolic acid B | 7281 ± 534 c | 11035 ± 654 a | 9545 ± 449 b | 3673 ± 55 d | 3344 ± 63 d | 1181 ± 44 e | 1612 ± 34 e | 2093 ± 61 e | 4078 ± 2 d | 2072 ± 91 e |
|
| 73522 ± 1818 a | 76374 ± 2371 a | 63203 ± 1253 b | 73916 ± 3196 a | 32599 ± 489 d | 11494 ± 51 f | 23498 ± 330 e | 20808 ± 651 e | 39396 ± 1433 c | 23311 ± 741 e |
| Apigenin | <LOQ | <LOQ | <LOQ | 63.78 ± 2.17 | <LOD | <LOD | <LOD | <LOD | <LOQ | <LOD |
| Herniarin | 519 ± 26 b | 733 ± 7 a | 521 ± 31 b | 142 ± 17 e | 259 ± 5 d | 71 ± 4 f | 238 ± 5 d | 147 ± 8 e | 361 ± 4 c | 177 ± 2 e |
|
| 74042 ± 1845 a | 77107 ± 2378 a | 63725 ± 1284b | 74122 ± 3214 a | 32858 ± 494 d | 11565 ± 55 f | 23735 ± 325 e | 20955 ± 659 e | 39758 ± 1437 c | 23489 ± 739 e |
|
| ||||||||||
| O-Caffeoylquinic acid | <LOQ | 64 ± 5 | <LOQ | <LOQ | <LOQ | <LOQ | n.d. | <LOQ | <LOQ | <LOQ |
| Caffeic acid hexoside isomer I | <LOQ | <LOQ | <LOQ | <LOQ | <LOQ | <LOQ | <LOQ | <LOQ | <LOQ | 77 ± 3 |
| Caffeic acid hexoside isomer II | <LOQ | <LOQ | <LOQ | <LOQ | <LOQ | <LOQ | <LOQ | <LOQ | <LOQ | 74.2 ± 0.5 |
| Caffeic acid | <LOQ | <LOD | 91 ± 6 b | <LOD | <LOQ | <LOQ | 110 ± 9 b | 113 ± 3 b | <LOQ | 149 ± 3 a |
| Rosmarinic acid | 30326 ± 1453 e | 10413 ± 512 f | 31285 ± 3028 d,e | 15743 ± 1239 f | 31395 ± 697 d,e | 40635 ± 331 c,d | 64658 ± 6034 a | 55268 ± 5250 b | 46136 ± 851 b,c | 65998 ± 2478 a |
| Salvianolic acid A isomer I | 225 ± 5 e | 217 ± 8 e | 1387 ± 200 a | 755 ± 96 b,c | 203 ± 12 e | 207 ± 6 e | 234 ± 22 e | 561 ± 51 c,d | 434 ± 5 d,e | 891.2 ± 0.72 b |
| Salvianolic acid A isomer II | 57 ± 8 f,g | 55 ± 7 f,g | 303 ± 6 a | 158 ± 2 b | 56 ± 2 f,g | 50 ± 1 g | 70 ± 4 e,f | 96 ± 4 d | 75 ± 3 e | 123 ± 8 c |
| Salvianolic acid I | 116 ± 6 d | 113 ± 4 d | 666 ± 91 a | 339 ± 45 b | 129 ± 7 c,d | 119 ± 2 d | 182 ± 17 c,d | 238 ± 24 b,c | 178 ± 2 c,d | 294.6 ± 0.4 b |
| Salvianolic acid B | 53 ± 4 e | 45 ± 1 e | 240 ± 33 a | 146 ± 16 b,c | 52 ± 2 e | 77 ± 2 d,e | 69 ± 7 e | 132 ± 13 c | 111.7 ± 0.3 c,d | 184 ± 3 b |
| Salvianolic acid A isomer III | 78 ± 4 e,f | 45 ± 3 f | 156 ± 22 a,b | 75 ± 10 e,f | 91 ± 4 d,e | 120 ± 2 c,d | 182 ± 14 a | 170 ± 11 a,b | 77 ± 1 e,f | 144 ± 5 b,c |
|
| 30855 ± 1481 e | 10952 ± 540 f | 34128 ± 3375 d,e | 17216 ± 1408 f | 31927 ± 719 d,e | 41208 ± 344 c,d | 65506 ± 6090 a,b | 56578 ± 5355 b | 47013 ± 839 c | 67936 ± 2461 a |
| Luteolin-7- | 133 ± 2 d | 81 ± 4 e | 215 ± 21 b | 83 ± 8 e | 134 ± 6 d | 167 ± 6 c,d | 209 ± 23 b | 301 ± 20 a | 193.3 ± 0.6 b,c | 315 ± 3 a |
| Herniarin | 76 ± 6 e | <LOQ | 120 ± 16 c | 49 ± 4 f | 88 ± 2 d,e | 107 ± 3 c,d | 174 ± 3 b | 163 ± 9 b | 157 ± 3 b | 204 ± 12 a |
|
| 31064 ± 1488 e | 11033 ± 544 f | 34463 ± 3412 d,e | 17348 ± 1421 f | 32149 ± 724 d,e | 41483 ± 352 c,d | 65889 ± 6070 a,b | 57042 ± 5366 b | 47363 ± 842 c | 68456 ± 2469 a |
Notes: n.d.—not detected; LOD—limit of detection; LOQ—limit of quantification. The results were analysed using one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) followed by Duncan’s New Multiple Range Test. Different letters (a to g) in each row and for each phenolic compound mean significant differences (p < 0.05) among treatments.
Figure 1Antioxidant activity determined by ABTS, DPPH, FRAP, and ORAC assays of extracts from Lavandula viridis L’Hér and Thymus lotocephalus G. López and R. Morales shoots cultured in media with 0 (control), 1, 5 or 10 mg/mL of CuO, ZnO and Fe3O4 nanoparticles. Values are expressed as mean ± SE (n = 3). In each graph bars followed by different letters (a–f) are significantly different at p < 0.05 (Duncan’s New Multiple Range Test). ABTS: 2,2′-azino-bis(3-ethylbenzothiazoline-6-sulfonic acid); DPPH: 2,2-diphenyl-1-picrylhydrazyl; FRAP: ferric reducing antioxidant power; ORAC: oxygen radical absorbance capacity.
Pearson’s correlation coefficients between antioxidant activity measured by the different assays (DPPH, FRAP, ABTS, and ORAC), enzyme inhibitory activities (AChE, BChE, and Tyr), total and individual phenolic compounds determined by HPLC-HR-MS.
| Phenolic Compounds | Antioxidant Activity | Enzyme Inhibitory Activity | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ABTS | DPPH | FRAP | ORAC | Tyr | AChE | BChE | |
|
| |||||||
| −0.492 * | −0.519 * | −0.443 | −0.432 | −0.517 * | −0.177 | −0.542 * | |
| Caffeic acid hexoside isomer I | 0.778 ** | 0.879 ** | 0.941 ** | 0.766 ** | 0.440 * | 0.475 * | 0.897 ** |
| Caffeic acid hexoside isomer II | 0.783 ** | 0.903 ** | 0.942 ** | 0.788 ** | 0.501 * | 0.515 * | 0.910 ** |
| Fertaric acid | 0.674 ** | 0.824 ** | 0.853 ** | 0.631 ** | 0.284 | 0.605 ** | 0.785 ** |
| Ferulic acid | 0.702 ** | 0.841 ** | 0.881 ** | 0.712 ** | 0.402 | 0.392 | 0.733 ** |
| Rosmarinic acid | 0.811 ** | 0.975 ** | 0.985 ** | 0.876 ** | 0.632 ** | 0.508 * | 0.927 ** |
| Salvianolic acid A isomer I | 0.576 ** | 0.613 ** | 0.591 ** | 0.669 ** | 0.655 ** | −0.025 | 0.552 * |
| Salvianolic acid B | 0.669 ** | 0.776 ** | 0.791 ** | 0.817 ** | 0.645 ** | 0.102 | 0.745 ** |
| Herniarin | 0.614 ** | 0.662 ** | 0.704 ** | 0.698 ** | 0.540 * | 0.026 | 0.577 ** |
| Total phenolic contents | 0.815 ** | 0.973 ** | 0.988 ** | 0.890 ** | 0.642 ** | 0.462 * | 0.926 ** |
|
| |||||||
| Caffeic acid | 0.910 ** | 0.970 ** | 0.932 ** | 0.032 | 0.310 | −0.049 | −0.203 |
| Rosmarinic acid | 0.928 ** | 0.873 ** | 0.891 ** | 0.794 ** | 0.888 ** | −0.178 | 0.147 |
| Salvianolic acid A isomer I | 0.243 | 0.172 | 0.255 | 0.394 | 0.065 | 0.269 | 0.851 ** |
| Salvianolic acid A isomer II | 0.061 | −0.032 | 0.032 | 0.306 | −0.011 | 0.289 | 0.845 ** |
| Salvianolic acid I | 0.132 | 0.020 | 0.104 | 0.382 | 0.037 | 0.221 | 0.842 ** |
| Salvianolic acid B | 0.362 | 0.293 | 0.390 | 0.514 * | 0.214 | 0.232 | 0.828 ** |
| Salvianolic acid A isomer III | 0.770 ** | 0.591 ** | 0.650 ** | 0.875 ** | 0.739 ** | 0.035 | 0.436 |
| Luteolin-7- | 0.914 ** | 0.858 ** | 0.887 ** | 0.795 ** | 0.693 ** | 0.214 | 0.401 |
| Herniarin | 0.901 ** | 0.864 ** | 0.851 ** | 0.745 ** | 0.793 ** | −0.055 | 0.289 |
| Total phenolic contents | 0.935 ** | 0.877 ** | 0.898 ** | 0.808 ** | 0.887 ** | −0.165 | 0.183 |
DPPH: 2.2-diphenyl-1-picrylhydrazyl; FRAP: ferric reducing antioxidant power; ABTS: 2.2′-azino-bis(3-ethylbenzothiazoline-6-sulfonic acid); ORAC: oxygen radical absorbance capacity; Tyr: tyrosinase; AChE: acetylcholinesterase; BChE: butyrylcholinesterase. * Correlation is significant (p < 0.05). ** Correlation is significant (p < 0.01).
Enzymes inhibitory capacity of extracts from Lavandula viridis L’Hér and Thymus lotocephalus López and Morales shoots cultured in media with 0 (control), 1, 5 or 10 mg/L of CuO, ZnO and Fe3O4 nanoparticles.
| Treatment | NP Concentration (mg/L) | TYR (mgKAE/gextract) | AChE (mgGE/gextract) | BChE (mgGE/gextract) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| ||||
| Control | 0 | 13.27 ± 0.08 c | 4.43 ± 0.08 a | 9.74 ± 0.89 b |
| CuO | 1 | 14.90 ± 0.66 b,c | 3.44 ± 0.19 b | 10.71 ± 0.56 b |
| 5 | 17.49 ± 0.36 a | 3.65 ± 0.37 b | 10.26 ± 0.26 b | |
| 10 | 15.87 ± 0.36 a,b | 4.58 ± 0.26 a | 12.33 ± 0.31 a | |
| ZnO | 1 | 13.99 ± 0.47 c | 3.42 ± 0.15 b | 4.04 ± 0.21 d,e |
| 5 | 10.31 ± 0.34 d | 3.30 ± 0.21 b | 2.49 ± 0.51 f | |
| 10 | 13.35 ± 0.31 c | 3.34 ± 0.23 b | 2.96 ± 0.44 e,f | |
| Fe3O4 | 1 | 13.64 ± 0.41 c | 3.29 ± 0.19 b | 5.12 ± 0.52 c,d |
| 5 | 14.60 ± 0.66 b,c | 3.75 ± 0.19 b | 4.95 ± 0.23 c,d | |
| 10 | 13.39 ± 0.08 c | 3.63 ± 0.26 b | 6.13 ± 0.65 c | |
|
| ||||
| Control | 0 | 13.18 ± 0.58 d,e | 3.28 ± 0.19 a,b,c | 5.00 ± 0.20 d |
| CuO | 1 | 11.46 ± 0.67 e | 3.25 ± 0.28 a,b,c | 5.32 ± 0.32 c,d |
| 5 | 14.51 ± 0.97 b,c,d | 3.44 ± 0.12 a,b | 8.75 ± 0.60 a | |
| 10 | 14.16 ± 0.31 c,d,e | 3.05 ± 0.12 b,c | 6.36 ± 0.28 c | |
| ZnO | 1 | 13.88 ± 0.60 c,d,e | 2.86 ± 0.21 c | 3.38 ± 0.30 e |
| 5 | 15.49 ± 0.70 a,b,c,d | 3.05 ± 0.11 b,c | 4.92 ± 0.29 d | |
| 10 | 18.36 ± 1.51 a | 2.90 ± 0.18 b,c | 6.51 ± 0.67 b,c | |
| Fe3O4 | 1 | 17.39 ± 0.74 a,b | 3.74 ± 0.13 a | 4.92 ± 0.61 d |
| 5 | 15.68 ± 1.36 a,b,c,d | 2.90 ± 0.11 b,c | 5.27 ± 0.09 c,d | |
| 10 | 16.81 ± 1.04 a,b,c | 3.22 ± 0.12 a,b,c | 7.70 ± 0.32 b |
Values are expressed as mean ± standard error. For each variable and plant species values followed by different letters (a to e) are significantly different at p < 0.05 (Duncan’s New Multiple Range Test). TYR: tyrosinase; AChE: acetylcholinesterase; BChE: butyrylcholinesterase; KAE: kojic acid equivalents; GE: galantamine equivalents.
Figure 2Score plot (A) and loading plot (B) of principal component analysis (PCA) of extracts from Lavandula viridis L’Hér (LV) and Thymus lotocephalus G. López and R. Morales (TL) shoots cultured in media with 0 (control), 1, 5 or 10 mg/mL of CuO, ZnO and Fe3O4 nanoparticles.