| Literature DB >> 34942963 |
Taghreed S Alnusaire1, Ahmed M Sayed2, Abeer H Elmaidomy3, Mohammad M Al-Sanea4, Sarah Albogami5, Mha Albqmi6, Bassam F Alowaiesh1, Ehab M Mostafa7,8, Arafa Musa7,8, Khayrya A Youssif9, Hesham Refaat10, Eman M Othman11,12, Thomas Dandekar12, Eman Alaaeldin10,13, Mohammed M Ghoneim14, Usama Ramadan Abdelmohsen15,16.
Abstract
The olive tree is a venerable Mediterranean plant and often used in traditional medicine. The main aim of the present study was to evaluate the effect of Olea europaea L. cv. Arbosana leaf extract (OLE) and its encapsulation within a spanlastic dosage form on the improvement of its pro-oxidant and antiproliferative activity against HepG-2, MCF-7, and Caco-2 human cancer cell lines. The LC-HRESIMS-assisted metabolomic profile of OLE putatively annotated 20 major metabolites and showed considerable in vitro antiproliferative activity against HepG-2, MCF-7, and Caco-2 cell lines with IC50 values of 9.2 ± 0.8, 7.1 ± 0.9, and 6.5 ± 0.7 µg/mL, respectively. The encapsulation of OLE within a (spanlastic) nanocarrier system, using a spraying method and Span 40 and Tween 80 (4:1 molar ratio), was successfully carried out (size 41 ± 2.4 nm, zeta potential 13.6 ± 2.5, and EE 61.43 ± 2.03%). OLE showed enhanced thermal stability, and an improved in vitro antiproliferative effect against HepG-2, MCF-7, and Caco-2 (IC50 3.6 ± 0.2, 2.3 ± 0.1, and 1.8 ± 0.1 µg/mL, respectively) in comparison to the unprocessed extract. Both preparations were found to exhibit pro-oxidant potential inside the cancer cells, through the potential inhibitory activity of OLE against glutathione reductase and superoxide dismutase (IC50 1.18 ± 0.12 and 2.33 ± 0.19 µg/mL, respectively). These inhibitory activities were proposed via a comprehensive in silico study to be linked to the presence of certain compounds in OLE. Consequently, we assume that formulating such a herbal extract within a suitable nanocarrier would be a promising improvement of its therapeutic potential.Entities:
Keywords: Olea; antiproliferative; docking; encapsulation; metabolomic profiling; molecular dynamics simulation; nanocarrier; olive; pro-oxidant; spanlastic
Year: 2021 PMID: 34942963 PMCID: PMC8698813 DOI: 10.3390/antiox10121860
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Antioxidants (Basel) ISSN: 2076-3921
Dereplicated metabolites from LC-HRESIMS analysis of Olea europaea L. cv. Arbosana.
| Nu. | Metabolite Name | Original Source | MF | RT (min.) |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| Halleridone |
| C8H10O3 | 3.78010 | 155.0708 |
|
| Elenolide |
| C11H12O5 | 2.20205 | 223.06055 |
|
| Olenoside A |
| C11H14O5 | 2.27261 | 227.09206 |
|
| Elenaic acid |
| C11H14O6 | 4.18760 | 243.0869 |
|
| 11-Octadecen-9-ynoic acid |
| C18H30O2 | 6.73612 | 277.2167 |
|
| Heneicosanoic acid |
| C21H42O2 | 6.01750 | 327.3263 |
|
| 9,10,18-Trihydroxyoctadecanoic acid |
| C18H36O5 | 4.09611 | 331.24803 |
|
| 6,7-Dihydroxy-2H-1-benzopyran-2-one; 6- |
| C15H16O9 | 2.37151 | 341.08660 |
|
| 6,7-Dihydroxy-2H-1-benzopyran-2-one |
| C9H6O4 | 3.78010 | 178.0264 |
|
| 7,9′:7′,9-Diepoxy-8,8′-lignan-3,3′,4,4′,8-pentol, 3,3′-Di-Me ether |
| C20H22O7 | 2.01432 | 375.1444 |
|
| 7,9′:7′,9-Diepoxy-8,8′-lignan-3,3′,4,4′,8-pentol, 3,3′,4′-Tri-Me ether |
| C21H24O7 | 2.01740 | 389.1600 |
|
| 3,3′,4,4′,8-Pentahydroxy-7,9′:7′,9-diepoxylignan, 3,3′-Di-Me ether, 8-Ac |
| C22H24O8 | 3.23649 | 417.15389 |
|
| 12-Oleanene-3,28-diol |
| C30H50O2 | 5.90870 | 443.3889 |
|
| 2,3-Dihydroxy-13(18)-oleanen-28-oic acid |
| C30H48O4 | 5.96396 | 473.36213 |
|
| 6- |
| C22H36O13 | 2.49208 | 509.22142 |
|
| 7,9′:7′,9-Diepoxy-8,8′-lignan-3,3′,4,4′,8-pentol, 3,3′-Di-Me ether, 4- |
| C26H32O12 | 2.40519 | 537.1972 |
|
| Oleuropein |
| C25H32O13 | 3.02400 | 541.1921 |
|
| Oleuropein; 4″;-Me ether |
| C26H34O13 | 3.02300 | 555.2078 |
|
| 7,9′:7′,9-Diepoxy-8,8′-lignan-3,3′,4,4′,5,8-hexol, 3,3′,5-Tri-Me ether, 8- |
| C27H34O13 | 2.53020 | 567.2078 |
|
| 3,3′,4,4′,8-Pentahydroxy-7,9′:7′,9-diepoxylignan, 3,3′-Di-Me ether, 8-Ac, 4- |
| C28H34O13 | 2.75095 | 579.20783 |
MF: molecular formula; RT (min.): retention time per mint, m/z: mass to charge.
Figure 1LC-HRESIMS chromatogram of the dereplicated metabolites of Olea europaea (Positive).
Figure 2LC-HRESIMS chromatogram of the dereplicated metabolites of Olea europaea (Negative).
Figure 3Dereplicated metabolites from LC-HRESIMS analysis of Olea europaea. Orange-colored structures were predicted to bind to GR’s active site, while the green-colored structures were predicted to bind to SOD’s active site.
Figure 4TEM image for Olea europaea ethanolic extract-containing spanlastics.
Figure 5TGA spectra of olive extract and spanlastics of olive.
Figure 6FTIR spectra of blank spanlastics, olive extract, and spanlastics of olive.
In vitro antiproliferative activity of Olea europaea ethanolic crude extract shown as IC50 ± (SD) µM.
| IC50 (µM) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Code | HepG-2 | MCF-7 | Caco-2 | WI-38 |
|
| 9.2 ± 0.8 | 7.1 ± 0.9 | 6.5 ± 0.7 | >50 |
|
| 3.6 ± 0.2 *** | 2.3 ± 0.1 *** | 1.8 ± 0.1 *** | 44 ± 0.2 |
|
| 4.2 ± 0.3 | 3.8 ± 0.2 | 3.4 ± 0.1 | 27.32 ± 0.2 |
The IC50 value of OLE crude extract and its derived spanlastics (OLE-spanlastic) against three human cancer cell lines, along with normal human fibroblasts (i.e., WI-38), described as the concentration (µM) that led to in vitro inhibition of cell growth in a percentage of 50%. Data were given as mean ± SEM (n = 3), *** p < 0.001 compared to crude unprocessed extract.
Figure 7Cell viability of olive spanlastics and empty spanlastics against HepG-2. MCF-7, and Caco-2.
Figure 8(A) RMSDs of compounds 3, 4, and 8 inside the active site of GR, and compounds 10, 11, and (B) 12 inside the active site of SOD over 50 ns of MDS.
Figure 9Binding mode of compounds 3, 4, and 8 inside the active site of GR ((A–C), respectively; brick-red-colored), Scheme 10, 11, and 12 ((D–F), respectively; brick red-colored structures) inside the active site of SOD, in addition to the binding mode of SOD and GR co-crystalized ligands ((G) and (H), respectively).
Figure 10Free radical production induced by OLE and OLE-spanlastics in Caco-2 cells. The test cells were treated (n = 3) with 7 µg/mL from each test material. Intracellular free radical levels were determined after 1 min and 10 min by using the DCFDA fluorescent method, and the results were expressed as the % produced fluorescence in respect of that of the control (% Control). Bar graphs represent the mean of 3 independent experiments, where the small letters (a, b, c, d, and e) indicate significance between groups (p < 0.001).