| Literature DB >> 35047048 |
Ulrich Membe Femoe1,2, Joseph Bertin Kadji Fassi1,2, Hermine Boukeng Jatsa1,2, Yannick Leonel Tchoffo1,2, David Carel Amvame Nna1,2, Blaise Cédric Kamdoum3, Steven Collins Njonte Wouamba4, Billy Toussie Tchegnitegni5, Bonaventure Tchaleu Ngadjui3, Norbert Sewald5, Bruno Ndjakou Lenta4, Louis-Albert Tchuem Tchuente1,2, Theophile Dimo1.
Abstract
Despite the global efforts, schistosomiasis remains a public health problem in several tropical and subtropical countries. One of the major challenges in the fight against schistosomiasis is the interruption of the parasite life cycle. Here, we evaluated the anticercarial, cytotoxicity, and phytochemical profiles of Sida acuta (HESa) and Sida rhombifolia (HESr) hydroethanolic extracts (Malvaceae). Schistosoma mansoni cercaria was collected from fifteen Biomphalaria pfeifferi-infected snails. Twenty-five cercariae were incubated in duplicate with different concentrations (31.25-1,000 μg/mL) of HESa or HESr. The cercaria viability was monitored at 30 min time intervals for 150 min, and the concentration-response curve of each plant extract was used to determine their respective lethal concentration 50 (LC50). Additionally, the cytotoxicity profile of each plant extract was evaluated on the Hepa 1-6 cell line at a concentration range of 15.625-1,000 µg/mL using the WST-8 assay method and its inhibitory concentration 50 (IC50) was calculated. Moreover, phytochemical characterization of each plant extract was carried out by HPLC-MS. Both extracts exhibited cercaricidal activity in a time- and concentration-dependent manner. At 30 min time point, HESa (LC50 = 28.41 ± 3.5 µg/mL) was more effective than HESr (LC50 = 172.42 ± 26.16 µg/mL) in killing S. mansoni cercariae. Regarding the cytotoxicity effect of both extracts, the IC50 of HESa (IC50 = 109.67 µg/mL) was lower than that of HESr (IC50 = 888.79 µg/mL). The selectivity index was 3.86 and 5.15 for HESa and HESr, respectively. Fifteen compounds were identified from HESa and HESr after HPLC-MS analysis. N-Feruloyltyramine, a polyphenol, and thamnosmonin, a coumarin, were identified in both extracts. HESa and HESr displayed cercaricidal activity and were not toxic on Hepa 1-6 cell line. Based on the selectivity index of these extracts, S. rhombifolia extract could be more effective on S. mansoni cercariae than S. acuta extract. This study could provide baseline information for further investigations aiming to develop plant-based alternative drugs against S. mansoni.Entities:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35047048 PMCID: PMC8763507 DOI: 10.1155/2022/7281144
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Evid Based Complement Alternat Med ISSN: 1741-427X Impact factor: 2.629
Figure 1Aerial parts of (a) Sida acuta and (b) Sida rhombifolia.
Figure 2Effect of Sida acuta hydroethanolic extract on Schistosoma mansoni cercariae viability (a) and mortality rate (b). All bars are expressed as mean ± SEM. p < 0.05 and p < 0.001, significantly different from controls (distilled water). #p < 0.05 and ###p < 0.001, significantly different from reference control (niclosamide).
Figure 3Effect of Sida rhombifolia hydroethanolic extract on Schistosoma mansoni cercariae viability (a) and mortality rate (b). All bars are expressed as mean ± SEM. p < 0.05 and p < 0.001, significantly different from controls (distilled water). ###p < 0.001, significantly different from reference control (niclosamide).
LC50 values of Sida acuta and Sida rhombifolia hydroethanolic extracts on Schistosoma mansoni cercariae at different time points.
| LC50 ( | ||
|---|---|---|
| Time (min) | HE | HE |
| 30 | 28.41 ± 3.45 | 172.42 ± 26.16 |
| 60 | 18.63 ± 0.28 | 56.60 ± 4.07 |
| 90 | 18.74 ± 0.59 | 32.29 ± 4.05 |
| 120 | 18.15 ± 0.00 | 21.95 ± 1.54 |
| 150 | 18.15 ± 0.00 | 18.15 ± 0.00 |
Figure 4Concentration-response curve of the effect of Sida acuta and Sida rhombifolia hydroethanolic extracts on Hepa 1–6 cells.
Inhibition rates of the Sida acuta and Sida rhombifolia hydroethanolic extracts on the growth of the Hepa 1–6 cells.
| Percentage of inhibition | ||
|---|---|---|
| Concentrations | HE | HE |
| 15.625 | 12.42 ± 1.54 | 12.42 ± 0.54 |
| 31.25 | 28.69 ± 1.33 | 14.78 ± 0.73 |
| 62.5 | 44.20 ± 2.33 | 23.11 ± 1.33 |
| 125 | 51.66 ± 1.12 | 29.91 ± 0.91 |
| 250 | 64.53 ± 1.21 | 36.12 ± 1.41 |
| 500 | 75.62 ± 1.80 | 41.11 ± 1.44 |
| 1000 | 85.69 ± 0.41 | 51.49 ± 0.45 |
Secondary metabolites of Sida acuta and Sida rhombifolia hydroethanolic extracts.
| Phytochemicals | HE | HE |
|---|---|---|
| Anthocyanins | + | − |
| Triterpenes | + | + |
| Sterols | + | − |
| Flavonoids | + | + |
| Polyphenols | + | + |
| Saponins | + | + |
| Essential oils | − | − |
| Anthraquinones | + | − |
| Alkaloids | + | + |
| Tannins | − | + |
| Coumarins | + | + |
| Reducing sugar | − | + |
| Cardiac glycosides | + | + |
(+): presence; (−): absence.
Figure 5UPLC-DAD-MS UV profile of Sida rhombifolia hydroethanolic extract, identified peaks (1–16), and each identified compound spectrum (a–p).
Figure 6UPLC-DAD-MS UV profile of Sida acuta hydroethanolic extract, identified peaks, and each identified compound spectrum (a–i).
Main signals exhibited in the LC-DAD-MS spectra of compounds detected in the hydroethanolic extract from Sida rhombifolia aerial parts and proposed attribution.
| RT (min) | Exp. mass | Cald. mass | Molecular formula | Identified compounds | Structure |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0.34 | 203.0527; [M + Na]+ | 203.0526 | C6H12O6Na | Glucose (sugar) |
|
| 3.06 | 219.0986; [M + H]+ | 219.0922 | C15H11N2 | Quindoline (alkaloid) |
|
| 3.13 | 503.2959; [M + Na]+ | 503.2979 | C27H44O7Na | 20-Hydroxyecdysone (steroid) |
|
| 3.50 | 314.1371; [M + H]+ | 314.1387 | C18H20NO4 | N-Feruloyltyramine (polyphenol) |
|
| 3.91 | 353.2281; [M + Na]+ | 353.2298 | C20H34O5Na | NI | 5 |
| 3.98 | 239.1246; [M + Na]+ | 239.1254 | C11H20O4Na | NI | 6 |
| 4.20 | 259.1693; [M + Na]+ | 259.1669 | C15H24O2Na | NI | 7 |
| 4.39 | 617.1259; [M + Na]+ | 617.1271 | C30H26O13Na | Tiliroside (flavonoid) |
|
| 4.77 | 277.1409; [M + H]+ | 277.0895 | C15H17O5 | Thamnosmonin (coumarin) |
|
| 4.94 | 319.2227; [M + H]+ | 319.2227 | C15H31N2O5 | NI (alkaloids) | 10 |
| 5.01 | 207.0982; [M + H]+ | 207.0657 | C11H11O4 | Scoparone (coumarin) |
|
| 5.07 | 463.2637; [M + Na]+ | 463.2626 | C19H40N2O9 | NI (alkaloid) | 12 |
| 5.25 | 363.2484; [M + H]+ | 363.2490 | C17H35N2O6 | NI (alkaloid) | 13 |
| 5.38 | 635.4454; [M + Na]+ | 635.4453 | C30H64N2O10Na | NI (alkaloid) | 14 |
| 5.57 | 377.2641; [M + H]+ | 377.2646 | C18H37N2O6 | NI (alkaloid) | 15 |
| 6.30 | 413.2643; [M + Na]+ | 413.2663 | C24H38O4Na | Di-(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate |
|
NI: not identified.
Main signals exhibited in the LC-DAD-MS spectra of compounds detected in the hydroethanolic extract from Sida acuta the whole plant and proposed attribution.
| RT (min) | Exp. mass | Cald. mass | Molecular formula | Identified compounds | Structure |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 4.80 | 277.0977; [M + Na]+ | 277.24 | C15H10O4Na | Chrysin (flavonoid) |
|
| 5.19 | 233.1090; [M + H]+ | 233.28 | C16H12N2 | Cryptolepine (alkaloid) |
|
| 5.61 | 287.0545; [M + H]+ | 287.24 | C15H10O6 | Kaempferol (flavonoid) |
|
| 6.05 | 229.0828; [M + H]+ | 229.24 | C14H13O3 | Xanthyletin (coumarin) |
|
| 6.48 | 314.1371; [M + H]+ | 314.13 | C18H21NO4 | N-Feruloyltyramine (polyphenol) |
|
| 7.48 | 277.2147; [M + H]+ | 277.14 | C11H20O4 | Thamnosmonin (coumarin) |
|
| 7.75 | 249.1035; [M + H]+ | 249.28 | C16H13N2O | Cryptolepinone (alkaloid) |
|
| 8.26 | 309.2067; [M + Na]+ | 309.24 | C15H10O6Na | Luteolin (flavonoid) |
|
| 12.30 | 284.2629; [M + Na]+ | 284.26 | C16H12O5Na | Acacetin (flavonoid) |
|
Figure 7Chemical structures of identified compounds from Sida acuta and Sida rhombifolia hydroethanolic extracts.