| Literature DB >> 35003294 |
Sultan Zahiruddin1, Abida Parveen1,2, Washim Khan1,3, Rabea Parveen1, Sayeed Ahmad1.
Abstract
We aimed to develop a chromatographic method for scientific validation of water extract of some important Indian traditional plants used in AYUSH-based formulation as immunomodulator and to evaluate their bioactive potential. Fruits of Phyllanthus emblica L. and Piper nigrum L., stem of Tinospora cordifolia (Willd.) Miers, rhizome of Curcuma longa L., leaves of Ocimum sanctum L. and Achillea millefolium L., roots of Withania somnifera L., and stem bark of Azadirachta indica A. Juss. were coarsely powdered and extracted in three different solvents (water, ethanol, and hydroethanol). The antioxidant potential was determined through 1, 1-diphenyl-2-picrylhydrazyl and ferric reducing capacity methods. Thin-layer chromatography (TLC) was carried out for the comparative metabolite profiling of the extracts using toluene, ethyl acetate, and formic acid (5 : 4 : 1, v/v/v) as a solvent system. In vitro immunomodulatory activity of the extracts has been tested on splenocyte proliferation and pinocytic assay. Hydroethanolic extract (HEE) of most of the plant materials has the highest phenolic and flavonoid contents, followed by water extract (WE) and ethanolic extract (EE), whereas the water extracts of most of the plant material showed better antioxidant activity. Almost all extract exhibited splenocyte proliferation and pinocytic activity in a dose-dependent manner. But water extract showed significantly higher splenocyte proliferation and pinocytic activity as compared to the other two extracts. TLC analysis resulted in detection of totally 63 and 56 metabolites at 254 nm and 366 nm, respectively. Through principal component analysis (PCA), it was observed that metabolite pattern of different extracts from same plant materials may be different or similar. This preliminary result can be used for quality evaluation and to develop a synergy-based polyherbal combination of water extracts of selected plant materials.Entities:
Year: 2021 PMID: 35003294 PMCID: PMC8741349 DOI: 10.1155/2021/2847440
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Evid Based Complement Alternat Med ISSN: 1741-427X Impact factor: 2.629
Percentage yield of different extracts of plant materials.
| S. no. | Plant sample | Percentage yield (mean ± SD) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| WE | EE | HEE | ||
| 1 |
| 51.42 ± 2.51 | 44.81 ± 3.45ns | 41.51 ± 2.54 |
| 2 |
| 9.60 ± 1.08 | 8.21 ± 1.24ns | 10.83 ± 1.56ns |
| 3 |
| 16.44 ± 1.28 | 11.22 ± 0.47 | 13.62 ± 1.25 |
| 4 |
| 12.61 ± 1.09 | 4.54 ± 0.48 | 7.42 ± 0.08 |
| 5 |
| 13.84 ± 1.04 | 9.84 ± 1.11 | 11.04 ± 2.12ns |
| 6 |
| 8.44 ± 0.87 | 11.81 ± 0.65 | 15.63 ± 1.07 |
| 7 |
| 20.22 ± 1.54 | 8.12 ± 0.07 | 14.04 ± 0.12 |
| 8 |
| 10.41 ± 0.89 | 7.23 ± 0.21 | 12.51 ± 0.47 |
Data are expressed as mean ± SD (n = 3). One-way ANOVA followed by Tukey's multiple comparisons test. Compared to WE (water extract): p < 0.05, p < 0.01, p < 0.001; ns p>0.05. WE = water extract; EE = ethanolic extract; HEE = hydroethanolic extract.
Total phenolic and flavonoid contents of different extracts of plant materials.
| S. no. | Plant sample | TPC (%) | TFC (%) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| WE | EE | HEE | WE | EE | HEE | ||
| 1 |
| 31.25 ± 0.94 | 27.55 ± 0.54 | 42.35 ± 1.70 | 16.24 ± 1.91 | 10.21 ± 1.09 | 20.15 ± 1.22 |
| 2 |
| 12.31 ± 1.21 | 10.54 ± 0.90ns | 20.38 ± 2.16 | 06.44 ± 0.79 | 05.24 ± 0.84ns | 11.56 ± 1.49 |
| 3 |
| 26.25 ± 0.45 | 22.75 ± 1.02ns | 38.42 ± 1.54 | 11.24 ± 1.15 | 09.92 ± 0.99ns | 19.58 ± 1.58 |
| 4 |
| 14.11 ± 1.10 | 11.85 ± 0.94ns | 19.30 ± 1.24 | 06.55 ± 0.62 | 04.18 ± 0.83ns | 14.85 ± 1.88 |
| 5 |
| 09.91 ± 0.17 | 8.12 ± 0.90ns | 12.78 ± 1.10 | 05.87 ± 1.14 | 04.09 ± 0.80ns | 13.77 ± 1.30 |
| 6 |
| 17.21 ± 1.26 | 13.89 ± 0.95 | 26.48 ± 1.55 | 10.45 ± 1.67 | 07.35 ± 0.77ns | 18.08 ± 2.62 |
| 7 |
| 25.54 ± 1.00 | 19.57 ± 0.68 | 34.46 ± 2.99 | 14.45 ± 1.54 | 12.34 ± 1.91ns | 17.64 ± 1.15ns |
| 8 |
| 14.21 ± 1.05 | 13.54 ± 1.15ns | 19.51 ± 2.18 | 06.87 ± 0.86 | 04.28 ± 0.80 | 10.24 ± 0.81 |
Data are expressed as mean ± SD (n = 3). One-way ANOVA followed by Tukey's multiple comparison tests. Compared to WE (water extract): p < 0.05, p < 0.01, p < 0.001; ns p>0.05. TPC = total phenolic content; TFC = total flavonoid content; WE = water extract; EE = ethanolic extract; HEE = hydroethanolic extract.
DPPH free radical scavenging and reducing power capacity of different extracts of plant materials.
| S. no. | Plant sample | DPPH scavenging activity (IC50 ( | Reducing power capacity ( | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| WE | EE | HEE | WE | EE | HEE | ||
| 1 |
| 97.26 ± 1.14 | 124.89 ± 3.45 | 115.45 ± 2.45 | 100 ± 10 | 160 ± 20 | 120 ± 10ns |
| 2 |
| 112.18 ± 2.11 | 222.34 ± 2.36 | 210.89 ± 0.45 | 140 ± 20 | 240 ± 10 | 220 ± 10 |
| 3 |
| 85.96 ± 3.42 | 115.65 ± 3.63 | 91.26 ± 1.11ns | 100 ± 10 | 140 ± 20 | 120 ± 10ns |
| 4 |
| 105.65 ± 3.33 | 185.56 ± 2.56 | 177.23 ± 2.31 | 120 ± 10 | 200 ± 10 | 180 ± 20 |
| 5 |
| 199.15 ± 0.42 | 285.47 ± 4.56 | 205.66 ± 1.75ns | 200 ± 30 | 300 ± 10 | 220 ± 20ns |
| 6 |
| 201.56 ± 1.11 | 245.25 ± 3.21 | 223.45 ± 3.33 | 240 ± 20 | 280 ± 20ns | 220 ± 10ns |
| 7 |
| 156.83 ± 0.88 | 171.22 ± 2.56 | 162.32 ± 2.11 | 160 ± 10 | 200 ± 20ns | 180 ± 30ns |
| 8 |
| 185.65 ± 1.23 | 145.56 ± 2.22 | 152.23 ± 2.56 | 160 ± 20 | 180 ± 20ns | 200 ± 20ns |
| 9 | Ascorbic acid | 55.37 ± 1.25 | 80 ± 10 | ||||
Data are expressed as mean ± SD (n = 3). One-way ANOVA followed by Tukey's multiple comparisons test. Compared to WE (water extract): p < 0.05, p < 0.01, p < 0.001; ns p>0.05.WE = water extract; EE = ethanolic extract; HEE = hydroethanolic extract.
Figure 1Developed TLC plate photograph of WE (water extract), EE (ethanolic extract), and HEE (hydroethanolic extract) of plant materials at 254 nm. (a) P. emblica; (b) P. nigrum; (c) T. cordifolia; (d) W. somnifera; (e) A. indica; (f) C. longa; (g) O. sanctum; (h) A. millefolium.
Figure 2Developed TLC plate photograph of WE (water extract), EE (ethanolic extract), and HEE (hydroethanolic extract) of plant materials at 366 nm. (a) P. emblica; (b) P. nigrum; (c) T. cordifolia; (d) W. somnifera; (e) A. indica; (f) C. longa; (g) O. sanctum; (h) A. millefolium.
Figure 3(a) Principal component analysis (PCA) score plots of variable factor map/correlation circles showing the different clusters of samples based on their metabolite abundance; (b) heatmap analysis based on metabolites present in different extracts of plant materials.
Percentage of common metabolites (gallic acid, quercetin, and ferulic acid) and some specific metabolites present in water extracts of different plant materials.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gallic acid | 4.75 ± 0.46 | 0.26 ± 0.08 | 0.65 ± 0.11 | 0.27 ± 0.08 | 0.40 ± 0.16 | — | — | 0.16 ± 0.08 |
| Quercetin | 0.54 ± 0.09 | 1.68 ± 0.29 | 0.77 ± 0.15 | 0.41 ± 0.10 | 0.95 ± 0.13 | 4.39 ± 0.52 | 2.01 ± 0.28 | — |
| Ferulic acid | 1.08 ± 0.12 | 1.12 ± 0.22 | 0.31 ± 0.07 | 0.38 ± 0.11 | 0.30 ± 0.06 | 1.71 ± 0.31 | 1.13 ± 0.17 | 2.90 ± 0.37 |
| Berberine | — | — | 1.04 ± 0.02 | — | — | — | — | — |
| Piperine | — | 1.62 ± 0.01 | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| Withaferin A | — | — | — | 2.35 ± 0.04 | — | — | — | — |
| Curcumin | — | —— | — | — | — | 0.25 ± 0.05 | — | — |
Figure 4Splenocyte proliferation assay of different extracts of plant materials. (a) O. sanctum; (b) C. longa; (c) T. cordifolia; (d) W. somnifera; (e) P. emblica; (f) P. nigrum; (g) A. indica; (h) A. millefolium.
Figure 5Pinocytic activity of different extracts of plant materials. (a) T. cordifolia; (b) W. somnifera; (c) C. longa; (d) P. emblica; (e) P. nigrum; (f) A. indica; (g) A. millefolium; (h) O. sanctum.