| Literature DB >> 35050121 |
Gokhan Zengin1, Gunes Ak1, Ramazan Ceylan1, Sengul Uysal2,3, Eulogio Llorent-Martínez4, Simonetta Cristina Di Simone5, Monica Rapino6, Alessandra Acquaviva5, Maria Loreta Libero5, Annalisa Chiavaroli5, Lucia Recinella5, Sheila Leone5, Luigi Brunetti5, Amelia Cataldi5, Giustino Orlando5, Luigi Menghini5, Claudio Ferrante5, Marwa Balaha5,7, Viviana di Giacomo5.
Abstract
Mentha spicata is one of the most popular species in the genus, and it is of great interest as a gastrointestinal and sedative agent in the folk medicine system. In this study, different M. spicata extracts, obtained by the use of four solvents (hexane, chloroform, acetone and acetone/water) were chemically characterized using HPLC-ESI-MS n, which allowed for identification of 27 phenolic compounds. The extracts' antioxidant and enzyme inhibitory properties were investigated. In addition, neuroprotective effects were evaluated in hypothalamic HypoE22 cells, and the ability of the extracts to prevent the hydrogen peroxide-induced degradation of dopamine and serotonin was observed. The best antioxidant effect was achieved for all the extraction methods using acetone/water as a solvent. These extracts were the richest in acacetin, eriodictyol, hesperidin, sagerinic acid, naringenin, luteolin, chlorogenic acid, chrysoeriol and apigenin. The intrinsic antioxidant and enzyme inhibition properties of the acetone/water extract could also explain, albeit partially, its efficacy in preventing prostaglandin E2 overproduction and dopamine depletion (82.9% turnover reduction) in HypoE22 cells exposed to hydrogen peroxide. Thus, our observations can provide a scientific confirmation of the neuromodulatory and neuroprotective effects of M. spicata.Entities:
Keywords: Mentha spicata; antioxidants; enzyme inhibitor; neuromodulators; sagerinic acid
Year: 2022 PMID: 35050121 PMCID: PMC8779166 DOI: 10.3390/plants11020233
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Plants (Basel) ISSN: 2223-7747
Total phenolic and flavonoid contents in the tested extracts.
| Extraction Method | Solvent | Total Phenolic Content | Total Flavonoid Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| (mg GAE/g) | (mg RE/g) | ||
| HAE | Hexane | 32.75 ± 0.42 c,* | nd |
| Chloroform | 27.39 ± 0.95 d | 16.44 ± 0.30 b | |
| Acetone | 52.19 ± 0.67 b | 14.43 ± 0.70 c | |
| Acetone/Water | 129.68 ± 1.43 a | 92.20 ± 0.69 a | |
| UAE | Hexane | 11.88 ± 0.29 d | nd |
| Chloroform | 28.71 ± 1.15 c | 18.16 ± 0.66 b | |
| Acetone | 55.95 ± 1.12 b | nd | |
| Acetone/Water | 142.62 ± 3.52 a | 84.95 ± 0.76 a | |
| MAC | Hexane | 13.15 ± 0.05 d | 1.02 ± 0.13 b |
| Chloroform | 30.99 ± 0.25 c | nd | |
| Acetone | 58.62 ± 1.12 b | nd | |
| Acetone/Water | 87.69 ± 0.38 a | 84.42 ± 1.56 a |
* Values are reported as mean ± SD of three parallel measurements. GAE: Gallic acid equivalent; RE: Rutin equivalent. HAE: Homogenizer assisted extraction; UAE: Ultrasound assisted extraction; MAC: Maceration. nd: not detected. Different superscript letters within columns indicate significant differences in the tested extracts for the extraction methods (p < 0.05).
Characterization of the compounds found in the analyzed extracts of Mentha spicata.
| No. | t | [M-H]− | Assigned Identification | HAE-Hexane | HAE-Chloroform | HAE-Acetone | HAE-Aceton/Water | UAE-Hexane | UAE-Chloroform | UAE-Acetone | UAE-Aceton/Water | MAC-Hexane | MAC-Chloroform | MAC-Acetone | MAC-Aceton/Water | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| (min) | ||||||||||||||||
| 1 | 1.8 | 341 | MS2 [341]: 179 (100), 161 (37), 149 (14), 143 (12), 131 (10), 119 (9), 113 (15), 101 (8) | Disaccharide | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + |
| 2 | 2.7 | 191 | MS2 [191]: 173 (29), 129 (6), 111 (100) | Citric acid * | + | + | + | − | + | + | + | − | + | + | + | + |
| 3 | 3.8 | 315 | MS2 [315]: 153 (100) | Dihydroxybenzoic acid- | - | − | + | + | − | − | − | + | − | − | − | + |
| MS3 [315→153]: 123 (100) | ||||||||||||||||
| 4 | 9.0 | 353 | MS2 [353]: 191 (25), 179 (60), 173 (100) | Chlorogenic acid * | − | − | + | + | − | − | + | + | − | − | + | + |
| 5 | 9.8 | 305 | MS2 [305]: 225 (100) | Unknown | − | − | − | + | − | − | − | + | − | − | − | + |
| MS3 [305→225]: 163 (100) | ||||||||||||||||
| 6 | 11.2 | 179 | MS2 [179]: 135 (100) | Caffeic acid * | - | − | + | − | − | − | − | − | − | − | − | + |
| 7 | 17.9 | 595 | MS2 [595]: 287 (100) | Eriodictyol- | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + |
| MS3 [595→287]: 151 (100), 135 (8) | ||||||||||||||||
| 8 | 19.1 | 449 | MS2 [449]: 287 (100), 151 (7) | Eriodictyol- | − | − | + | + | − | − | + | + | − | − | + | + |
| MS3 [449→287]: 151 (100), 135 (12) | ||||||||||||||||
| 9 | 19.8 | 497 | MS2 [497]: 451 (100) | Unknown | + | + | + | − | + | + | + | − | + | + | + | − |
| MS3 [497→451]: 225 (100) | ||||||||||||||||
| 10 | 20.1 | 609 | MS2 [609]: 301 (100) | Rutin * | − | − | + | + | − | − | − | + | − | − | − | + |
| MS3 [609→301]: 179 (100), 151 (85) | ||||||||||||||||
| 11 | 20.4 | 593 | MS2 [593]: 285 (100) | Luteolin- | + | + | + | + | + | − | + | + | + | + | + | + |
| MS3 [593→285]: 285 (100), 243(17), 241 (38) | ||||||||||||||||
| 12 | 21.5 | 447 | MS2 [447]: 285 (100) | Luteolin- | + | + | + | + | − | − | + | + | + | + | + | + |
| MS3 [447→285]: 285 (100), 243 (24), 241 (18) | ||||||||||||||||
| 13 | 21.5 | 461 | MS2 [461]: 285 (100) | Luteolin- | + | − | + | + | − | − | − | + | + | + | − | + |
| MS3 [461→285]: 285 (100), 241 (15) | ||||||||||||||||
| 14 | 22.1 | 579 | MS2 [579]: 271 (100) | Naringenin- | + | − | + | + | − | − | + | + | − | − | + | + |
| MS3 [579→271]: 177 (25), 151 (100) | ||||||||||||||||
| 15 | 24.0 | 577 | MS2 [577]: 269 (100) | Apigenin- | + | − | + | + | − | + | + | + | + | + | + | + |
| MS3 [577→269]: 225 (100) | ||||||||||||||||
| 16 | 24.3 | 609 | MS2 [609]: 301 (100) | Hesperidin * | + | + | + | + | − | + | + | + | − | + | + | + |
| MS3 [609→301]: 286 (34), 283 (57), 241 (100), 227 (58), 125 (58) | ||||||||||||||||
| 17 | 25.1 | 717 | MS2 [717]: 537 (38), 519 (100) | Salvianolic acid B/E/L | − | − | − | + | − | − | − | + | − | − | − | + |
| MS3 [717→519]: 339 (100), 321 (14), 295 (7), 277 (7) | ||||||||||||||||
| 18 | 25.4 | 431 | MS2 [431]: 269 (100)MS3 [431→269]: 225 (100), 151 (49) | Apigenin- | + | − | − | + | − | + | + | + | + | + | + | + |
| 19 | 25.5 | 607 | MS2 [607]: 299 (100), 284 (43) | Chrysoeriol- | + | − | + | + | − | − | + | + | − | − | + | + |
| MS3 [607→299]: 284 (100) | ||||||||||||||||
| 20 | 26.1 | 719 | MS2 [719]: 359 (100) | Sagerinic acid | + | − | + | + | − | − | + | + | − | − | + | + |
| MS3 [719→359]: 197 (18), 179 (25), 161 (100), 135 (2) | ||||||||||||||||
| 21 | 29.6 | 537 | MS2 [537]: 493 (100), 359 (25) | Salvianolic acid I | − | − | − | + | − | + | + | + | − | + | + | + |
| MS3 [537→493]: 359 (100), 179 (12), 161 (10) | ||||||||||||||||
| 22 | 33.5 | 591 | MS2 [591]: 283 (100), 268 (16) | Acacetin- | − | − | + | + | − | − | + | + | − | − | + | + |
| 23 | 36.0 | 285 | MS2 [285]: 285 (100), 243 (28), 241 (8) | Luteolin * | − | − | + | + | − | − | + | − | − | − | + | + |
| 24 | 37.3 | 299 | MS2 [299]: 284 (100) | Chrysoeriol | − | + | + | − | − | + | + | − | − | + | + | + |
| 25 | 38.2 | 551 | MS2 [551]: 519 (100), 359 (60) | Monomethyl lithospermate | − | − | + | + | − | − | + | + | − | − | + | + |
| MS3 [551→519]: 339 (100), 179 (28), 161 (23) | ||||||||||||||||
| 26 | 39.1 | 327 | MS2 [327]: 291 (31), 229 (100), 221 (16), 211 (46), 171 (52) | Oxo-dihydroxy-octadecenoic acid | − | + | + | + | − | + | + | + | + | + | + | − |
| 27 | 40.5 | 329 | MS2 [329]: 311 (23), 293 (35), 229 (100), 211 (58) | Trihydroxy-octadecenoic acid | − | + | + | + | − | + | + | + | + | + | + | − |
* Identified by comparison with analytical standards. HAE: Homogenizer assisted extraction; UAE: Ultrasound assisted extraction; MAC: Maceration. −: not detected; +: detected.
Figure 1Venn diagram showing the number of common compounds found in the tested extracts. (A): Extracts obtained by homogenizer assisted extraction; (B): Extracts obtained by ultrasound assisted extraction; (C): Extracts obtained by maceration technique; (D): Comparison of acetone/water extracts obtained by the three different extraction methods.
Quantification of the main compounds detected in Mentha spicata (mg g−1 DE).
| N° | Assigned Identification | HAE-Acet | HAE-Acet: H2O | UAE-Acet | UAE-Acet: H2O | MAC-Acet | MAC-Acet: H2O |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| |||||||
| 4 | Chlorogenic acid | 0.19 ± 0.01 | 3.4 ± 0.2 | 0.15 ± 0.01 | 2.9 ± 0.2 | 0.14 ± 0.01 | 2.4 ± 0.2 |
| 20 | Sagerinic acid | 4.2 ± 0.3 | 30 ± 2 | 2.4 ± 0.2 | 29 ± 2 | 8.7 ± 0.5 | 17 ± 1 |
| Total | 4.4 ± 0.3 | 33 ± 2 | 2.6 ± 0.2 | 32 ± 2 | 8.8 ± 0.5 | 19 ± 1 | |
|
| |||||||
| 7 | Eriodictyol- | 26 ± 2 | 74 ± 5 | 14.8 ± 0.9 | 75 ± 4 | 62 ± 3 | 69 ± 4 |
| 8 | Eriodictyol- | 0.35 ± 0.03 | 12.6 ± 0.9 | 0.42 ± 0.03 | 15 ± 1 | 5.9 ± 0.4 | 15 ± 1 |
| 11 | Luteolin- | 1.3 ± 0.1 | 7.4 ± 0.5 | 0.47 ± 0.03 | 7.5 ± 0.5 | 2.4 ± 0.2 | 6.8 ± 0.5 |
| 12+13 | Luteolin glycosides | 2.1 ± 0.1 | 25 ± 2 | 0.65 ± 0.04 | 25 ± 2 | 3.1 ± 0.2 | 26 ± 1 |
| 14 | Naringenin- | 6.4 ± 0.4 | 6.8 ± 0.5 | 0.22 ± 0.02 | 9.4 ± 0.6 | 14 ± 1 | 8.2 ± 0.5 |
| 15 | Apigenin- | 1.5 ± 0.1 | 4.3 ± 0.3 | 0.84 ± 0.05 | 4.2 ± 0.3 | 3.0 ± 0.2 | 4.6 ± 0.3 |
| 16 | Hesperidin | 1.7 ± 0.1 | 9.8 ± 0.7 | 0.21 ± 0.01 | 11.8 ± 0.7 | 5.4 ± 0.3 | 10.1 ± 0.7 |
| 18+19 | Apigenin+ chrysoeriol glycosides | 1.2 ± 0.1 | 3.1 ± 0.2 | 0.57 ± 0.04 | 3.3 ± 0.2 | 2.2 ± 0.1 | 3.4 ± 0.2 |
| 22 | Acacetin- | 0.54 ± 0.04 | 0.97 ± 0.07 | 0.36 ± 0.02 | 0.91 ± 0.06 | 0.91 ± 0.06 | 0.89 ± 0.06 |
| 23 | Luteolin | 0.72 ± 0.05 | 0.88 ± 0.06 | 0.36 ± 0.02 | 0.82 ± 0.05 | 0.71 ± 0.05 | 1.2 ± 0.1 |
| 24 | Chrysoeriol | 0.68 ± 0.05 | 0.33 ± 0.02 | 0.45 ± 0.03 | 0.30 ± 0.02 | 0.61 ± 0.04 | 0.28 ± 0.02 |
| Total | 43 ± 2 | 145 ± 6 | 19 ± 1 | 153 ± 5 | 100 ± 3 | 145 ± 4 | |
| TIPC | 47 ± 2 | 178 ± 6 | 22 ± 1 | 185 ± 5 | 109 ± 3 | 164 ± 4 |
TIPC = Total Individual Phenolic Content (sum of all quantified compounds by HPLC-UV). HAE: Homogenizer assisted extraction; UAE: Ultrasound assisted extraction; MAC: Maceration.
Antioxidant properties of the tested extracts *.
| Extraction Methods | Solvent | DPPH (mg TE/g) | ABTS (mg TE/g) | CUPRAC (mg TE/g) | FRAP (mg TE/g) | PBD (mmol TE/g) | Metal Chelating (mg EDTAE/g) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| HAE | Hexane | 33.15 ± 0.69 c | 38.16 ± 1.13 c | 82.87 ± 1.67 c | 41.71 ± 0.57 c | 3.23 ± 0.15 a | 24.09 ± 3.37 a |
| Chloroform | 11.84 ± 0.70 d | 29.63 ± 1.12 c | 94.12 ± 0.76 c | 37.34 ± 1.25 c | 2.14 ± 0.11 c | 3.30 ± 0.29 b | |
| Acetone | 84.88 ± 0.62 b | 84.43 ± 1.62 b | 200.27 ± 3.38 b | 100.15 ± 1.45 b | 2.67 ± 0.14 b | 21.80 ± 1.00 a | |
| Acetone/Water | 419.18 ± 1.52 a | 348.78 ± 6.48 a | 678.48 ± 17.75 a | 458.51 ± 8.09 a | 2.91 ± 0.02 b | 7.98 ± 1.19 b | |
| UAE | Hexane | 7.33 ± 0.25 d | 9.11 ± 0.83 d | 37.72 ± 0.81 d | 22.69 ± 0.50 d | 0.76 ± 0.07 d | na |
| Chloroform | 17.46 ± 0.67 c | 32.71 ± 2.30 c | 102.70 ± 0.53 c | 42.45 ± 0.63 c | 1.97 ± 0.05 c | 11.32 ± 0.96 b | |
| Acetone | 90.29 ± 0.12 b | 100.54 ± 2.11 b | 248.13 ± 4.83 b | 123.43 ± 2.55 b | 2.64 ± 0.11 b | 21.54 ± 2.58 a | |
| Acetone/Water | 427.29 ± 2.35 a | 392.44 ± 14.91 a | 782.24 ± 9.99 a | 492.27 ± 14.05 a | 3.48 ± 0.36 a | 8.86 ± 3.84 b | |
| MAC | Hexane | 7.53 ± 0.40 d | 8.38 ± 1.34 d | 42.32 ± 1.38 d | 24.16 ± 0.84 d | 1.03 ± 0.03 c | 15.49 ± 1.04 b |
| Chloroform | 12.99 ± 0.76 c | 32.03 ± 1.92 c | 101.13 ± 1.11 c | 41.59 ± 0.83 c | 2.38 ± 0.17 a | na | |
| Acetone | 89.71 ± 0.22 b | 99.70 ± 1.41 b | 239.91 ± 2.05 b | 119.14 ± 3.25 b | 2.54 ± 0.19 a | 20.18 ± 0.92 a | |
| Acetone/Water | 266.60 ± 3.09 a | 228.82 ± 8.90 a | 456.73 ± 3.56 a | 302.10 ± 5.33 a | 1.90 ± 0.04 b | 9.53 ± 1.80 c |
* Values are reported as mean ± SD of three parallel measurements. TE: Trolox equivalent. EDTAE: EDTA equivalent. HAE: Homogenizer assisted extraction; UAE: Ultrasound assisted extraction; MAC: Maceration. na: not active. Different superscript letters within columns indicate significant differences in the tested extracts for the extraction method (p < 0.05).
Figure 2Pearson’s correlation values (R) in the biological activity assays performed; AChE, acetylcholinesterase; BChE, butyrylcholinesterase; CUPRAC, cupric ion reducing antioxidant capacity; DPPH, 1,1-diphenyl-2-picrylhydrazyl; FRAP, ferric ion reducing antioxidant power; MCA, metal chelating activity; PBD, phosphomolybdenum assay; TFC, total flavonoid content; TPC, total phenolic content.
Enzyme inhibitory effects of the tested extracts *.
| Extraction Methods | Solvent | AChE (mg GALAE/g) | BChE (mg GALAE/g) | Tyrosinase (mg KAE/g) | Amylase (mmol ACAE/g) | Glucosidase (mmol ACAE/g) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| HAE | Hexane | 3.77 ± 0.27 ab | 8.70 ± 1.29 a | 95.99 ± 4.83 ab | 0.83 ± 0.01 a | 0.62 ± 0.06 d |
| Chloroform | 4.18 ± 0.39 a | 6.50 ± 0.24 b | 91.82 ± 3.81 ab | 0.71 ± 0.03 b | 1.40 ± 0.03 b | |
| Acetone | 4.30 ± 0.36 a | 5.61 ± 0.77 b | 87.41 ± 7.58 b | 0.86 ± 0.03 a | 0.90 ± 0.03 c | |
| Acetone/Water | 3.11 ± 0.28 b | 2.12 ± 0.13 c | 101.08 ± 1.78 a | 0.61 ± 0.04 c | 1.66 ± 0.01 a | |
| UAE | Hexane | na | 4.36 ± 0.80 b | 85.33 ± 9.38 b | 0.57 ± 0.01 b | 1.27 ± 0.03 bc |
| Chloroform | 4.84 ± 0.20 a | 7.62 ± 0.97 a | 98.81 ± 3.10 ab | 0.80 ± 0.01 a | 1.39 ± 0.03 ab | |
| Acetone | 4.30 ± 0.20 b | 5.24 ± 0.18 b | 107.67 ± 4.34 a | 0.83 ± 0.01 a | 1.20 ± 0.01 c | |
| Acetone/Water | 4.21 ± 0.03 b | 1.33 ± 0.11 c | 100.75 ± 1.06 a | 0.57 ± 0.02 b | 1.52 ± 0.12 a | |
| MAC | Hexane | na | 7.49 ± 0.44 a | 96.03 ± 5.33 bc | 0.54 ± 0.01 b | 1.29 ± 0.03 c |
| Chloroform | 4.82 ± 0.36 a | 6.69 ± 0.61 ab | 95.03 ± 1.93 c | 0.75 ± 0.01 a | 1.49 ± 0.02 b | |
| Acetone | 2.85 ± 0.16 b | 5.46 ± 0.76 b | 103.61 ± 2.81 ab | 0.74 ± 0.01 a | 1.45 ± 0.03 b | |
| Acetone/Water | 3.37 ± 0.20 b | na | 108.38 ± 1.52 a | 0.52 ± 0.01 b | 1.62 ± 0.01 a |
* Values are reported as mean ± SD of three parallel measurements. GALAE: Galatamin equivalent; KAE: Kojic acid equivalent; ACAE: Acarbose equivalent; HAE: Homogenizer assisted extraction; UAE: Ultrasound assisted extraction; MAC: Maceration. na: not active. Different superscript letters within columns indicate significant differences in the tested extracts for the extraction methods (p < 0.05).
Figure 3MTT assay of HypoE22 hypothalamic cell line exposed different concentrations (10–1000 μg/mL) of different M. spicata extracts for 24 and 48 h. Extracts with HAE (A), UAE (B) and MAC (C) methods are shown. The data graph bars are the mean ± SD (n = 3). * p < 0.05 vs. 24 h C; • p < 0.05 vs. 24 h H2O2; ¢ p < 0.05 vs. 48 h C; ¥ p < 0.05 vs. 48 h H2O2.
Figure 4Effect of the HAE acetone water extract (1–100 µg/mL) on serotonin turnover, measured as 5HIIA/5-HT ratio, in hypothalamic HypoE22 cells exposed to H2O2 (µM). ANOVA p < 0.01; * p < 0.05 vs. H2O2.
Figure 5Effect of the HAE acetone water extract (1–100 µg/mL) on dopamine turnover, measured as DOPAC/DA ratio, in hypothalamic HypoE22 cells exposed to H2O2 (µM). ANOVA p < 0.0001; ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001 vs. H2O2.
Figure 6Effect of the HAE acetone water extract (1–100 µg/mL) on L-dopa level (ng/mL), in hypothalamic HypoE22 cells exposed to H2O2 (µM). ANOVA p < 0.01; * p < 0.05 vs. H2O2.
Figure 7Effect of the HAE acetone water extract (1–100 µg/mL) on COX-2 gene expression in hypothalamic HypoE22 cells exposed to H2O2 (µM). ANOVA p < 0.0001; *** p < 0.001 vs. H2O2.
Figure 8ELISA assay for PGE2 secretion of cultures at 48 h. The secretion levels are reported as pg/mL. The data shown are the mean (±SD) (n = 3). * p < 0.5 vs H2O2, • p < 0.05 vs. 1 µg/mL + H2O2; ¢ p < 0.05 vs. 10 µg/mL + H2O2.
Figure 9Structure of eriodictyol, acacetin, hesperidin, sagerinic acid, naringenin, luteolin, chlorogenic acid, chrysoeriol and apigenin.
Figure 10Pharmacological profile of phytocompounds identified through chromatographic analysis in the HAE acetone/water extract of M. spicata. Molecular targets were predicted through the SwissTargetPrediction platform and a components-targets analysis was carried out through Cytoscape software (3.7.2 version) on acacetin, eriodictyol, hesperidin, sagerinic acid, naringenin, luteolin, chlorogenic acid, chrysoeriol and apigenin.