| Literature DB >> 35161275 |
Pandaree Sirichai1, Suwapat Kittibunchakul1, Sirinapa Thangsiri1, Nattira On-Nom1, Chaowanee Chupeerach1, Piya Temviriyanukul1, Woorawee Inthachat1, Onanong Nuchuchua2, Amornrat Aursalung1, Yuraporn Sahasakul1, Somsri Charoenkiatkul1, Uthaiwan Suttisansanee1.
Abstract
Thailand has vast areas of tropical forests with many indigenous plants, but limited information is available on their phytochemical profile and in vitro inhibitions of enzymatic and nonenzymatic reactions. This study investigated phenolic profiles using liquid chromatography-electrospray ionization tandem mass spectrometry (LC-ESI-MS/MS), antioxidant activities, and in vitro inhibitory activities of 10 indigenous plants on key enzymes related to obesity (lipase), diabetes (α-amylase and α-glucosidase), and Alzheimer's disease (cholinesterases and β-secretase). The nonenzymatic anti-glycation reaction was also investigated. The 10 indigenous plants were Albizia lebbeck (L.) Benth, Alpinia malaccensis (Burm.) Roscoe, Careya arborea Roxb., Diplazium esculentum (Retz.) Swartz, Kaempferia roscoeana Wall., Millettia brandisiana Kurz., Momordica charantia, Phyllanthusemblica L., Zingiber cassumunar Roxb, and Zingiber citriodorum J. Mood & T. Theleide. Preparations were made by either freeze-drying or oven-drying processes. Results suggested that the drying processes had a minor impact on in vitro inhibitions of enzymatic and nonenzymatic reactions (<4-fold difference). P. emblica was the most potent antioxidant provider with high anti-glycation activity (>80% inhibition using the extract concentration of ≤6 mg/mL), while D. esculentum effectively inhibited β-secretase activity (>80% inhibition using the extract concentration of 10 mg/mL). C. arborea exhibited the highest inhibitory activities against lipase (47-51% inhibition using the extract concentration of 1 mg/mL) and cholinesterases (>60% inhibition using the extract concentration of 2 mg/mL), while Mi. brandisiana dominantly provided α-amylase and α-glucosidase inhibitors (>80% inhibition using the extract concentration of ≤2 mg/mL). Information obtained from this research may support usage of the oven-drying method due to its lower cost and easier preparation step for these studied plant species and plant parts. Furthermore, the information on in vitro inhibitions of enzymatic and nonenzymatic reactions could be used as fundamental knowledge for further investigations into other biological activities such as cell culture or in vivo experiments of these health-beneficial plants.Entities:
Keywords: antioxidant capacity; enzyme inhibition; in vitro health properties; noncommunicable diseases; phenolics; wild edible plants
Year: 2022 PMID: 35161275 PMCID: PMC8838347 DOI: 10.3390/plants11030294
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Plants (Basel) ISSN: 2223-7747
Phenolic profiles of 10 indigenous plant extracts determined using liquid chromatography-electrospray ionization tandem mass spectrometry (LC–ESI-MS/MS).
| Samples | Phenolic Profile (mg/100 g Dry Weight) | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Flavonoids | Phenolic Acids | |||||||
| Quercetin | Kaempferol | Naringenin | Luteolin | Apigenin | Isorhamnetin | Gallic Acid | Rosmarinic Acid | |
|
| 61.87 ± 1.83 c, C | 36.39 ± 3.30 c,D | ND | 134.20 ± 8.00 a,A | 105.11 ± 7.63 a,B | 8.05 ± 0.27 d,E | ND | ND |
|
| ND | ND | ND | ND | ND | 0.58 ± 0.03 e,A | ND | ND |
|
| 151.35 ± 8.29 a,B | 212.73 ± 10.22 b,A | ND | ND | ND | ND | 63.65 ± 1.63 b,C | ND |
|
| 1.81 ± 0.10 e,C | 2.21 ± 0.16 e,C | ND | 7.36 ± 0.42 b,B | ND | ND | ND | 13.27 ± 0.49 A |
|
| 135.45 ± 2.57 b,B | 15.46 ± 0.73 d,C | ND | ND | ND | 229.64 ± 1.83 a,A | ND | ND |
|
| <LOD | ND | <LOD | 6.40 ± 0.08 b,A | ND | 0.37 ± 0.02 e,B | ND | ND |
|
| ND | ND | ND | ND | ND | ND | ND | ND |
|
| 18.97 ± 0.07 d,B | 4.51 ± 0.45 e,C | 9.21 ± 0.84 b,C | ND | ND | ND | 252.55 ± 13.65 a,A | ND |
|
| ND | 237.09 ± 8.15 a,A | 15.73 ± 1.10 a,B | ND | ND | 15.16 ± 0.19 c,B | ND | ND |
|
| 0.98 ± 0.06 e,C | ND | ND | 6.41 ± 0.08 b,B | ND | 25.00 ± 1.19 b,A | ND | ND |
All data are expressed as the mean ± standard deviation (SD) of triplicate experiments (n = 3). Lowercase letters indicate significantly different contents of the same phenolic in different plant extracts, while capital letters indicate significantly different contents of different phenolics in the same plant extracts at p < 0.05 using one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Duncan’s multiple comparison test. ND: not detected; LOD: limit of detection (as shown in Table S2).
Total phenolic contents (TPCs) of 10 indigenous plant extracts prepared from freeze-drying and oven-drying processes.
| Samples | Total Phenolic Contents (mg GAE/g Dry Weight) | |
|---|---|---|
| Freeze-Dried | Oven-Dried | |
|
| 28.89 ± 0.61 d,* | 24.18 ± 0.64 D |
|
| 6.68 ± 0.38 g,* | 6.12 ± 0.26 H |
|
| 107.00 ± 3.73 b,* | 96.69 ± 1.31 B |
|
| 30.08 ± 0.56 d,* | 8.91 ± 0.13 F,G |
|
| 15.36 ± 0.24 e,* | 14.86 ± 0.34 E |
|
| 39.10 ± 0.71 c,* | 34.69 ± 0.90 C |
|
| 6.11 ± 0.11 g | NA |
|
| 193.51 ± 6.59 a,* | 184.82 ± 5.91 A |
|
| 10.11 ± 0.45 f,* | 9.55 ± 0.21 F |
|
| 5.37 ± 0.10 g,* | 5.15 ± 0.06 I |
All data are expressed as the mean ± standard deviation (SD) of triplicate experiments (n = 3). Lowercase and capital letters indicate significantly different total phenolic contents of freeze-dried and oven-dried plant extracts, respectively, at p < 0.05 using one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Duncan’s multiple comparison test; * significantly different total phenolic contents at p < 0.05 between freeze-dried and oven-dried plant extracts in the same measurements according to an unpaired t-test. GAE: gallic acid equivalent; NA: not available.
Antioxidant activities of 10 indigenous plant extracts that prepared from freeze-drying and oven-drying processes.
| Samples | Antioxidant Activities (µmol TE/g Dry Weight) | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| DPPH Radical-Scavenging Assay | FRAP Assay | ORAC Assay | ||||
| Freeze-Dried | Oven-Dried | Freeze-Dried | Oven-Dried | Freeze-Dried | Oven-Dried | |
|
| 0.055 ± 0.001 d,* | 0.052 ± 0.001 D | 135.32 ± 2.58 d,* | 102.53 ± 1.92 D | 516.84 ± 90.12 c,d | 473.85 ± 61.77 C |
|
| 0.039 ± 0.001 f,* | 0.038 ± 0.001 G | 43.05 ± 0.61 h,* | 41.82 ± 0.49 F | 196.78 ± 15.90 f,* | 166.01 ± 3.49 E |
|
| 0.059 ± 0.001 b,* | 0.059 ± 0.000 B | 1078.32 ± 66.18 b,* | 1005.69 ± 33.96 B | 1218.98 ± 151.56 b | 1077.60 ± 130.48 B |
|
| 0.018 ± 0.001 h,* | 0.014 ± 0.001 I | 75.57 ± 1.98 g,* | 40.30 ± 1.22 F | 236.87 ± 30.76 f,* | 89.42 ± 5.52 F |
|
| 0.045 ± 0.001 e,* | 0.042 ± 0.001 F | 109.11 ± 2.77 e,* | 99.12 ± 2.28 D | 509.56 ± 8.02 c,d | 489.36 ± 39.46 C |
|
| 0.058 ± 0.001 c,* | 0.056 ± 0.001 C | 197.12 ± 3.14 c,* | 166.44 ± 2.21 C | 554.78 ± 69.21 c | 517.55 ± 54.95 C |
|
| 0.018 ± 0.001 h | NA | 30.93 ± 0.91 h,i | NA | 86.35 ± 6.23 g | NA |
|
| 0.064 ± 0.001 a,* | 0.063 ± 0.000 A | 2101.53 ± 37.10 a,* | 2054.77 ± 23.20 A | 2737.43 ± 191.95 a,* | 2465.73 ± 166.60 A |
|
| 0.045 ± 0.001 e | 0.044 ± 0.000 E | 78.00 ± 1.82 f | 76.46 ± 1.82 E | 349.18 ± 35.02 e | 325.26 ± 18.50 D |
|
| 0.022 ± 0.001 g,* | 0.020 ± 0.001 H | 17.39 ± 0.44 i,* | 16.07 ± 0.24 G | 83.98 ± 11.19 g | 79.36 ± 6.06 F |
All data are expressed as the mean ± standard deviation (SD) of triplicate experiments (n = 3). Lowercase and capital letters indicate significantly different antioxidant activities of freeze-dried and oven-dried plant extracts, respectively, at p < 0.05 using one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Duncan’s multiple comparison test; * significantly different antioxidant activities at p < 0.05 between freeze-dried and oven-dried plant extracts in the same measurements according to an unpaired t-test. DPPH: 2,2-diphenyl-1-picrylhydrazyl; FRAP: ferric ion reducing antioxidant power; ORAC: oxygen radical absorbance capacity; TE: Trolox equivalent; NA: not available.
In vitro inhibitory activities of 10 indigenous plant extracts prepared from freeze- and oven-drying processes against the key enzymes relevant to obesity (lipase) and diabetes (α-amylase and α-glucosidase).
| Samples | Inhibitory Activity (%) | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 Lipase | 2 α–Amylase | 3 α–Glucosidase | ||||
| Freeze-Dried | Oven-Dried | Freeze-Dried | Oven-Dried | Freeze-Dried | Oven-Dried | |
|
| ND | ND | 6.79 ± 0.70 e,* | 4.80 ± 0.47 E | 25.88 ± 2.04 c,* | 19.10 ± 1.38 C |
|
| 82.92 ± 2.70 a | 84.03 ± 0.15 A | 6.80 ± 0.07 e | 6.59 ± 0.90 D | 81.41 ± 0.55 a | 80.90 ± 0.78 A |
|
| 46.89 ± 4.45 # | 51.27 ± 4.16 # | ND | ND | ND | ND |
|
| 45.75 ± 3.05 b | 47.49 ± 1.73 B | 85.35 ± 9.02 # | 75.63 ± 8.22 # | 97.63 ± 0.17 #,* | 95.03 ± 0.96 # |
|
| 34.73 ± 3.70 c | 36.20 ± 2.45 C | 9.88 ± 1.28 d | 8.90 ± 1.24 C | 5.48 ± 0.64 f | ND |
|
| 6.79 ± 0.74 e,* | 8.21 ± 0.91 E | 87.65 ± 7.30 # | 82.57 ± 5.10 # | 96.56 ± 0.28 #,* | 95.05 ± 1.24 # |
|
| 37.22 ± 2.46 c | NA | 15.87 ± 1.56 c | NA | 19.12 ± 1.22 d | NA |
|
| 5.57 ± 0.59 e,* | 7.39 ± 0.92 E | 61.30 ± 2.68 a | 59.16 ± 1.67 A | 81.86 ± 3.23 ##,* | 77.12 ± 3.16 ## |
|
| 20.60 ± 2.30 d,* | 25.69 ± 3.03 D | 19.26 ± 1.63 b | 18.11 ± 1.50 B | 63.05 ± 0.93 b,* | 57.25 ± 0.56 B |
|
| 34.82 ± 2.28 c | 36.35 ± 0.78 C | 10.07 ± 0.95 d | 9.15 ± 0.91 C | 11.61 ± 1.02 e,* | 9.29 ± 1.01 D |
All data are expressed as the mean ± standard deviation (SD) of triplicate experiments (n = 3). Lowercase and capital letters indicate significantly different inhibitory activities of freeze-dried and oven-dried plant extracts, respectively, at p < 0.05 using one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Duncan’s multiple comparison test; * significantly different inhibitory activities at p < 0.05 between freeze- and oven-dried plant extracts in the same enzyme assay according to an unpaired t-test. 1 Final concentration of all extracts was 10 mg/mL except #, which indicated a final concentration of 1 mg/mL; 2 final concentration of all extracts was 10 mg/mL except #, which indicated a final concentration of 2 mg/mL; 3 final concentration of all extracts was 10 mg/mL except #, which indicated a final concentration of 0.5 mg/mL, and ##, which indicated a final concentration of 1 mg/mL. ND: not detected; NA: not available.
In vitro inhibitory activities of 10 indigenous plant extracts prepared from freeze- and oven-drying processes against the key enzymes relevant to Alzheimer’s disease: acetylcholinesterase (AChE), butyrylcholinesterase (BChE), and β–secretase (BACE–1).
| Samples | Inhibitory Activity (%) | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 AChE | 1 BChE | 1 BACE-1 | ||||
| Freeze-Dried | Oven-Dried | Freeze-Dried | Oven-Dried | Freeze-Dried | Oven-Dried | |
|
| 40.72 ± 1.86 b,* | 38.10 ± 2.22 B | 74.67 ± 1.92 a,b,* | 68.77 ± 1.93 B | ND | ND |
|
| 34.43 ± 1.43 c | 33.64 ± 1.88 C | 45.12 ± 1.69 e,d | 42.46 ± 3.10 C | ND | ND |
|
| 75.07 ± 1.53 #,* | 69.44 ± 1.86 # | 69.64 ± 2.96 #,* | 62.46 ± 2.27 # | 18.11 ± 1.28 c,* | 12.81 ± 0.37 C |
|
| 33.15 ± 2.18 c,* | 31.27 ± 2.44 D | 74.70 ± 1.91 a,b,* | 68.02 ± 2.25 B | 90.82 ± 0.18 a,* | 83.70 ± 1.10 A |
|
| 27.12 ± 1.37 e,* | 22.10 ± 1.17 G | 37.19 ± 2.37 f | 35.81 ± 2.17 D | 25.23 ± 1.46 b | 17.46 ± 3.29 B |
|
| 29.56 ± 1.22 d,* | 28.08 ± 1.57 E | 46.30 ± 2.49 d,* | 43.87 ± 2.09 C | ND | ND |
|
| 20.76 ± 1.39 g | NA | 55.10 ± 0.89 c | NA | ND | NA |
|
| 53.84 ± 3.45 a,* | 46.95 ± 2.45 A | 76.20 ± 2.32 a,* | 73.95 ± 1.37 A | ND | ND |
|
| 30.51 ± 1.36 d | 29.57 ± 0.93 D,E | 44.44 ± 0.17 e,d,* | 43.49 ± 0.99 C | ND | ND |
|
| 25.28 ± 0.77 f,* | 24.01 ± 1.23 F | 73.85 ± 1.20 b | 72.77 ± 2.82 A | ND | ND |
All data are expressed as the mean ± standard deviation (SD) of triplicate experiments (n = 3). Lowercase and capital letters indicate significantly different inhibitory activities of freeze- and oven-dried plant extracts, respectively, at p < 0.05 using one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Duncan’s multiple comparison test; * significantly different inhibitory activities at p < 0.05 between freeze- and oven-dried plant extracts in the same enzyme assay according to an unpaired t-test. 1 Final concentration of all extracts was 10 mg/mL except #, which indicated a final concentration of 2 mg/mL. ND: not detected; NA: not available.
Anti-glycation activities of 10 indigenous plant extracts prepared from freeze-drying and oven-drying processes.
| Samples | Anti-Glycation Reaction (%Inhibition) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 Methylglyoxal Induction | |||
| Freeze-Dried | Oven-Dried | Freeze-Dried | Oven-Dried | |
|
| 60.89 ± 1.46 g,h,* | 55.65 ± 1.25 G | 33.57 ± 0.59 g,f,* | 30.07 ± 0.85 E |
|
| 62.14 ± 0.62 g,* | 58.53 ± 0.55 F | 33.85 ± 1.11 g,f,* | 31.78 ± 0.36 E |
|
| 84.28 ± 1.36 b | 81.19 ± 1.68 B | 83.67 ± 0.18 a,* | 80.56 ± 0.61 A |
|
| 66.41 ± 0.10 e,f,* | 54.80 ± 1.37 G | 42.79 ± 2.96 e,* | 35.04 ± 1.62 D |
|
| 71.13 ± 1.84 d,* | 65.63 ± 1.48 D | 54.10 ± 0.90 c,* | 49.40 ± 0.51 C |
|
| 77.82 ± 0.68 c,* | 74.39 ± 1.23 C | 59.88 ± 2.19 b,* | 53.09 ± 3.14 B |
|
| 33.49 ± 1.10 i | NA | 22.79 ± 0.80 h | NA |
|
| 88.93 ± 0.49 a,* | 85.84 ± 0.18 A | 85.57 ± 1.17 a,* | 82.77 ± 0.36 A |
|
| 68.05 ± 2.53 e,* | 62.35 ± 1.70 E | 51.39 ± 2.97 c,d | 49.22 ± 2.78 C |
|
| 64.67 ± 0.47 f,* | 57.01 ± 4.30 F,G | 34.86 ± 0.49 f,* | 30.96 ± 2.23 E |
All data are expressed as the mean ± standard deviation (SD) of triplicate experiments (n = 3). Lowercase and capital letters indicate significantly different inhibitory activities of freeze-dried and oven-dried plant extracts, respectively, at p < 0.05 using one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Duncan’s multiple comparison test; * significantly different inhibitory activities at p < 0.05 between freeze-dried and oven-dried plant extracts in the same enzyme assay according to an unpaired t-test. 1 Final concentration of all extracts was 2 mg/mL; 2 final concentration of all extracts was 6 mg/mL; NA: not available.
Figure 1Principal component analysis (PCA) from mean values of tested variables including TPCs, antioxidant activities (determined by 2,2-diphenyl-1-picrylhydrazyl (DPPH) radical-scavenging, ferric reducing antioxidant power (FRAP), and oxygen radical antioxidant capacity (ORAC) assays), enzyme-inhibitory activities (against α-amylase, α-glucosidase, lipase, acetylcholinesterase (AChE), butyrylcholinesterase (BchE), and β-secretase (BACE-1)), and anti-glycation activities (methylglyoxal (MG) and sugar induction) (freeze-dried and oven-dried plant extracts): (a) observations between PC1 and PC2; (b) observations between PC1 and PC3.
Figure 2Principal component analysis (PCA) from mean values of tested variables including TPCs, antioxidant activities (determined by 2,2-diphenyl-1-picrylhydrazyl (DPPH) radical-scavenging, ferric reducing antioxidant power (FRAP), and oxygen radical antioxidant capacity (ORAC) assays), enzyme-inhibitory activities (against α-amylase, α-glucosidase, lipase, acetylcholinesterase (AChE), butyrylcholinesterase (BChE), and β-secretase (BACE-1)), and anti-glycation activities (methylglyoxal (MG) and sugar induction) of observations (freeze-dried and oven-dried plant extracts): (a) biplot between PC1 and PC2; (b) biplot between PC1 and PC3.