| Literature DB >> 34771130 |
Merly de Armas-Ricard1,2, Francisco Quinán-Cárdenas1,3, Harold Sanhueza1, Rodrigo Pérez-Vidal1, Cristina Mayorga-Lobos1,4, Oney Ramírez-Rodríguez1.
Abstract
The genus Nothofagus is one of the most abundant in the subantarctic Patagonian forests. Five species inhabit these ecosystems, three evergreen (Nothofagus betuloides, Nothofagus dombeyi, and Nothofagus nitida) and two deciduous (Nothofagus pumilio and Nothofagus antarctica). This is the first report on the levels of secondary metabolites and the antioxidant capacity of Patagonian tree species growing in natural environments. The aim of this work was to carry out a phytochemical screening, to determine the antioxidant capacity, the sun protection factor, and the α-glucosidase and tyrosinase inhibitory activity of foliar extracts of the five previous species. Besides, Aristotelia chilensis and Berberis microphylla, two species of Patagonian shrubs growing in the same forests, were used as reference. N. dombeyi was the Nothofagus with the best antioxidant capacity. B. microphylla differed from all studied species. Moreover, the Nothofagus was split into two groups. N. betuloides and N. dombeyi are the most similar species to A. chilensis. The α-glucosidase was completely inhibited by all studied extracts. Furthermore, N. antarctica, N.pumilio, and N. nitida inhibited about 70% of the tyrosinase activity. All the results found in this study for the species of the genus Nothofagus support further research on their potential beneficial properties for human health.Entities:
Keywords: Aristotelia chilensis; Berberis microphylla; Nothofagus; antioxidant capacity; polyphenols; sun protector factor; tyrosinase inhibitors; α-glucosidase inhibitors
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34771130 PMCID: PMC8587661 DOI: 10.3390/molecules26216722
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Molecules ISSN: 1420-3049 Impact factor: 4.411
Figure 1Phytochemical screening of the studied species. Data are expressed as means ± SD (n = 9). (a) Total phenolic content, expressed as gallic acid equivalent (GAE) per gram of dry extract. (b) Total flavonoid content, expressed as catechin equivalent (CE) per gram of dry extract. (c) Total hydroxycinnamic acids derivatives content, expressed as caffeic acid equivalents (CAEs) per gram of dry extract. (d) Total coumarin content, expressed as esculetin equivalents (EEs) per gram of dry extract. (e) Total monomeric anthocyanin content, expressed as cyanidin 3-O-glucoside per gram of dry extract. The different letters on the bars indicate significant differences with an average value of p < 0.05, Tuckey’s test.
Figure 2Antioxidant capacity of the studied species. Data are expressed as means ± SD (n = 9). (a) DPPH radical scavenging activity (IC50 μg/mL). (b) ABTS radical scavenging activity (IC50 μg/mL). (c) FRAP (IC50 μg/mL). (d) CUPRAC expressed as equivalents of trolox (TEAC) per gram of dry extract. The different letters on the bars indicate significant differences with an average value of p < 0.05, Tuckey’s test.
Figure 3Pearson’s correlation between secondary metabolites and antioxidant capacities. The blue color represents positive correlations. The red color represents negative correlations. Boxed figures are statistically significant correlations (p < 0.05). The circle diameter is proportional to the Pearson’s correlation coefficient (r), specified in each case with the number.
Figure 4Biplot from the principal component analysis model between all studied variables.
Analysis of similarity (ANOSIM), R values.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| 0.7778 | 0.8519 | 1 | 1 | 0.9259 | 1 | |
|
| 0.7778 | 0.2963 | 1 | 1 | 0.963 | 1 | |
|
| 0.8519 | 0.2963 | 1 | 1 | 0.9259 | 1 | |
|
| 1 | 1 | 1 | 0.5926 | 0.7778 | 1 | |
|
| 1 | 1 | 1 | 0.5926 | 0.03704 | 1 | |
|
| 0.9259 | 0.963 | 0.9259 | 0.7778 | 0.03704 | 1 | |
|
| 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
Sun protection factor of the extracts.
| Species | SPF | SD | Extract Concentration in the Assay (μg/mL) | Extract Mass in the Assay (μg) | SPF/mg of Dry Extract |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| 19.32 | 0.66 | 179 | 35.8 | 539 ± 16 |
|
| 10.03 | 0.22 | 189 | 37.8 | 266 ± 5 |
|
| 8.39 | 0.12 | 219 | 43.8 | 191 ± 2 |
|
| 8.31 | 0.45 | 252 | 50.4 | 165 ± 5 |
|
| 7.81 | 0.05 | 206 | 41.2 | 190 ± 1 |
|
| 5.79 | 0.06 | 236 | 47.2 | 123 ± 1 |
|
| 3.10 | 0.12 | 190 | 37.9 | 82 ± 3 |
α-glucosidase and tyrosinase inhibitory activity of plant extracts.
| α-Glucosidase | Tyrosinase | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| Inhibition (%) | SD | Inhibition (%) | SD | Concentration in the Assay (μg/mL) |
|
| 100 | 0 | 72.7 | 3.9 | 84 |
|
| 100 | 0 | 68.5 | 4.2 | 118 |
|
| 100 | 0 | 40.8 | 4.5 | 98 |
|
| 100 | 0 | 69.3 | 2.7 | 95 |
|
| 100 | 0 | 18.4 | 1.7 | 103 |
|
| 99.0 | 0.4 | 31.7 | 4.8 | 94 |
|
| 98.4 | 0.3 | 52.3 | 3.6 | 90 |
| Acarbose | 70.3 | 3.7 | - | - | 616 |
| Kojic acid | - | - | 100 | 0 | 45 |
Normalized EE (λ) x I (λ) values reported.
| λ (nm) |
|
|---|---|
| 290 | 0.0150 |
| 295 | 0.0817 |
| 300 | 0.2874 |
| 305 | 0.3278 |
| 310 | 0.1864 |
| 315 | 0.0839 |
| 320 | 0.0180 |