| Literature DB >> 35164352 |
Jefferson Romáryo Duarte da Luz1,2, Eder A Barbosa3, Thayse Evellyn Silva do Nascimento2,4, Adriana Augusto de Rezende1,4, Marcela Abbott Galvão Ururahy4, Adriana da Silva Brito5, Gabriel Araujo-Silva6, Jorge A López2, Maria das Graças Almeida1,2,4.
Abstract
The anti-inflammatory properties of Turnera subulata have been evaluated as an alternative drug approach to treating several inflammatory processes. Accordingly, in this study, aqueous and hydroalcoholic extracts of T. subulata flowers and leaves were analyzed regarding their phytocomposition by ultrafast liquid chromatography coupled to mass spectrometry, and their anti-inflammatory properties were assessed by an in vitro inflammation model, using LPS-stimulated RAW-264.7 macrophages. The phytochemical profile indicated vitexin-2-O-rhamnoside as an important constituent in both extracts, while methoxyisoflavones, some bulky amino acids (e.g., tryptophan, tyrosine, phenylalanine), pheophorbides, and octadecatrienoic, stearidonic, and ferulic acids were detected in hydroalcoholic extracts. The extracts displayed the ability to modulate the in vitro inflammatory response by altering the secretion of proinflammatory (TNF-α, IL-1β, and IL-6) and anti-inflammatory (IL-10) cytokines and inhibiting the PGE-2 and NO production. Overall, for the first time, putative compounds from T. subulata flowers and leaves were characterized, which can modulate the inflammatory process. Therefore, the data highlight this plant as an option to obtain extracts for phytotherapic formulations to treat and/or prevent chronic diseases.Entities:
Keywords: anti-inflammatory; chromatography; natural compounds; plant
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35164352 PMCID: PMC8839466 DOI: 10.3390/molecules27031084
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Molecules ISSN: 1420-3049 Impact factor: 4.411
Figure 1LC–MS/MS fingerprint of Turnera subulata extracts: (A) T. subulata aqueous flower extract (AFETS); (B) T. subulata aqueous leaf extract (ALETS); (C) T. subulata hydroethanolic flower extract (HEFTS); (D) T. subulata hydroethanolic leaf extract (HELTS). 2×, 5×, and 10× denote the magnification applied in dotted areas of the chromatogram; na = not available.
Phytocomponents identified in Turnera subulata flower and leaf extracts by LC–MS/MS analyses.
| Peak. | Phytocomponents Matched with GNPS Data Base | Cosine | Mass Diff | Mass | Molecular | Ion Fragments a | Adduct | Extract |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 0.86 | 0.001 | 165.054 | C9H8O3 | 147.04, 123.05, 119.05, 95.05, 91.06 | [M − NH3 + H]+ | AFETS | |
| 2 | Phenylalanine | 0.95 | 0 | 166.086 | C9H11NO2 | 149.06, 131.05, 120.08, 103.05, 53.04 | [M + H]+ | AFETS |
| 3 | 7- | 0.89 | 0 | 447.129 | C22H22O10 | 285.08, 270.05, 213.05, 152.01 | [M + H]+ | AFETS |
| 4 | Vitexin-2- | 0.95 | 0.002 | 579.172 | C27H30O14 | 433.11, 415.10, 397.09, 313.07, 283.06 | [M + H]+ | AFETS |
| 1 | 0.95 | 0.001 | 182.081 | C9H11N1O3 | 165.06, 147.04, 136.07, 123.05, 119.05 | [M + H]+ | ALETS | |
| 2 | 0.97 | 0 | 166.086 | C9H11NO2 | 149.06, 131.05, 120.08, 103.05, 53.04 | [M + H]+ | ALETS | |
| 3 | 0.95 | 0.001 | 205.096 | C11H12N2O2 | 188.07, 159.09, 146.06, 144.08, 118.06 | [M + H]+ | ALETS | |
| 4 | Ferulate/isoferulate | 0.93 | 0 | 177.054 | C10H8O3 | 149.06, 145.03, 117.03, 89.04 | M − H2O + H | ALETS |
| 5 | Vitexin-2- | 0.94 | 0 | 579.17 | C27H30O14 | 433.11, 415.10, 397.09, 313.07, 283.06 | [M + H]+ | ALETS |
| 1 | 0.95 | 0 | 136.076 | C8H9NO1 | 119.05, 118.06, 107.05, 91.06, 64.04 | [M − H2O + H]+ | HEFTS | |
| 2 | 0.94 | 0.001 | 165.054 | C9H8O3 | 147.04, 123.05, 119.05, 95.05, 91.06 | [M − NH3 + H]+ | HEFTS | |
| 3 | Phenylalanine | 0.96 | 0 | 166.086 | C9H11NO2 | 149.06, 131.05, 120.08, 103.05, 53.04 | [M + H]+ | HEFTS |
| 4 | 0.94 | 0.001 | 188.07 | C11H9N1O2 | 170.06, 146.06, 144.08, 143.07, 118.07 | [M − NH3 + H]+ | HEFTS | |
| 5 | Adenosine, 5_- | 0.91 | 0.004 | 298.097 | C11H15N5O3S | 145.03, 136.06, 97.03, 61.01 | [M + H]+ | HEFTS |
| 6 | Ferulate/isoferulate | 0.89 | 0 | 177.054 | C10H8O3 | 149.06, 145.03, 117.03, 89.04 | [M − H2O + H]+ | HEFTS |
| 7 | 7- | 0.91 | 0.001 | 447.13 | C22H22O10 | 285.08, 270.05, 213.05, 152.01 | [M + H]+ | HEFTS |
| 8 | Vitexin-2- | 0.97 | 0.003 | 579.173 | C27H30O14 | 433.11, 415.10, 397.09, 313.07, 283.06 | [M + H]+ | HEFTS |
| 1 | Phenylalanine | 0.94 | 0 | 166.086 | C9H11NO2 | 149.06, 131.05, 120.08, 103.05, 53.04 | [M + H]+ | HELTS |
| 2 | Ferulate/isoferulate | 0.94 | 0 | 177.054 | C10H8O3 | 149.06, 145.03, 117.03, 89.04 | [M − H2O + H]+ | HELTS |
| 3 | Vitexin-2- | 0.94 | 0.001 | 579.171 | C27H30O14 | 433.11, 415.10, 397.09, 313.07, 283.06 | [M + H]+ | HELTS |
| 4 | Loliolide | 0.94 | 0 | 197.117 | C11H16O3 | 179.11, 161.09, 135.12, 133.10, 107.09 | [M + H]+ | HELTS |
| 5 | 9 | 0.86 | 0 | 277.216 | C18H28O2 | 259.20, 149.13, 135.12, 121.10, 93.07 | [M − H2O + H]+ | HELTS |
| 6 | 9(10)-EpOME | 0.91 | 0.002 | 279.233 | C18H30O2 | 173.13, 109.10, 95.09, 81.07, 67.06 | [M − H2O + H]+ | HELTS |
| 7 | Stearidonic acid Ethyl ester | 0.86 | 0.001 | 305.248 | C20H32O2 | 259.20, 149.13, 135.12, 121.10, 93.07 | [M + H]+ | HELTS |
| 8 | Pheophorbide A | 0.87 | 0.005 | 593.274 | C35H36N4O5 | 533.25, 460.23, 447.22, 433.24, 431.18 | [M + H]+ | HELTS |
Turnera subulata aqueous flower extract (AFETS); T. subulata aqueous leaf extract (ALETS); T. subulata hydroethanolic flower extract (HEFTS); T. subulata hydroethanolic leaf extract (HELTS). a The most intense fragment ions are described.
Figure 2Cytotoxicity effects of AFETS, ALETS, HEFTS, and HELTS on RAW 264.7 murine macrophage cells: (A) cell viability measured by MTT assay; (B) cell viability measured by Alamar Blue assay. Culture medium DMEM was used as a negative control for cytotoxicity.
Figure 3Effect of Turnera subulata extracts on the TNF-α cytokine release: (A) AFETS; (B) ALETS; (C) HEFTS; (D) HELTS. The cytokine content was released in RAW 264.7 cells and stimulated by LPS after 24 h. Release of cytokines was performed using ELISA assays. Data represent the mean ± SEM from three independent experiments. One-way ANOVA followed by the post hoc Tukey test. * p < 0.05 vs. the control group; # p < 0.05 vs. the LPS-stimulated cells; ** p < 0.05 between the concentrations of the extract; *** p < 0.05 between the higher concentrations (100 and 500 µg/mL).
Figure 4Effect of Turnera subulata extracts on the IL-1β cytokine release: (A) AFETS; (B) ALETS; (C) HEFTS; (D) HELTS. The cytokine content was released in RAW 264.7 cells and stimulated by LPS after 24 h. Release of cytokines was performed using ELISA assays. Data represent the mean ± SEM from three independent experiments. One-way ANOVA followed by the post hoc Tukey test. * p < 0.05 vs. the control group; # p < 0.05 vs. the LPS-stimulated cells; ** p < 0.05 between the concentrations of the extract.
Figure 5Effect of Turnera subulata extracts on the IL-6 cytokine release: (A) AFETS; (B) ALETS; (C) HEFTS; (D) HELTS. The cytokine content was released in RAW 264.7 cells and stimulated by LPS after 24 h. Release of cytokines was performed using ELISA assays. Data represent the mean ± SEM from three independent experiments. One-way ANOVA followed by the post hoc Tukey test. * p < 0.05 vs. the control group; # p < 0.05 vs. the LPS-stimulated cells.
Figure 6Effect of Turnera subulata extracts on the anti-inflammatory IL-10 cytokine release: (A) AFETS; (B) ALETS; (C) HEFTS; (D) HELTS. The cytokine content was released in RAW 264.7 cells and stimulated by LPS after 24 h. Release of cytokines was performed using ELISA assays. Data represent the mean ± SEM from three independent experiments. One-way ANOVA followed by the post hoc Tukey test. * p < 0.05 vs. the control group; # p < 0.05 vs. the LPS-stimulated cells.
Figure 7Inhibitory effects of Turnera subulata extracts on LPS-stimulated PGE-2 production in RAW 264.7 macrophages: (A) AFETS; (B) ALETS; (C) HEFTS; (D) HELTS. The level of PGE-2 in the culture medium was quantified using enzyme-linked immunoassay (ELISA) kits. Data represent the mean ± SEM from three independent experiments. One-way ANOVA followed by the post hoc Tukey test. * p < 0.05 vs. the control group; # p < 0.05 vs. the LPS-stimulated cells; ** p < 0.05 between the concentrations of the extract; *** p < 0.05 between the higher concentrations (100 and 500 µg/mL).
Figure 8Inhibitory effects of Turnera subulata extracts on LPS-stimulated nitric oxide (NO) production in RAW 264.7 macrophages: (A) AFETS; (B) ALETS; (C) HEFTS; (D) HELTS. The level of NO in the culture medium was quantified using Griess reagent. Data represent the mean ± SEM from three independent experiments. One-way ANOVA followed by the post hoc Tukey test. * p < 0.05 vs. the control group; # p < 0.05 vs. the LPS-stimulated cells; *** p < 0.05 between the higher concentrations (100 and 500 µg/mL).