| Literature DB >> 35209125 |
Nashwah G M Attallah1, Suzy A El-Sherbeni2, Aya H El-Kadem3, Engy Elekhnawy4, Thanaa A El-Masry3, Elshaymaa I Elmongy1, Najla Altwaijry1, Walaa A Negm2.
Abstract
The acute inflammation process is explained by numerous hypotheses, including oxidative stress, enzyme stimulation, and the generation of pro-inflammatory cytokines. The anti-inflammatory activity of Yucca gigantea methanol extract (YGME) against carrageenan-induced acute inflammation and possible underlying mechanisms was investigated. The phytochemical profile, cytotoxic, and antimicrobial activities were also explored. LC-MS/MS was utilized to investigate the chemical composition of YGME, and 29 compounds were tentatively identified. In addition, the isolation of luteolin-7-O-β-d-glucoside, apigenin-7-O-β-d-glucoside, and kaempferol-3-O-α-l-rhamnoside was performed for the first time from the studied plant. Inflammation was induced by subcutaneous injection of 100 μL of 1% carrageenan sodium. Rats were treated orally with YGME 100, 200 mg/kg, celecoxib (50 mg/kg), and saline, respectively, one hour before carrageenan injection. The average volume of paws edema and weight were measured at several time intervals. Levels of NO, GSH, TNF-α, PGE-2, serum IL-1β, IL-6 were measured. In additionally, COX-2 immunostaining and histopathological examination of paw tissue were performed. YGME displayed a potent anti-inflammatory influence by reducing paws edema, PGE-2, TNF-α, NO production, serum IL-6, IL-1β, and COX-2 immunostaining. Furthermore, it replenished the diminished paw GSH contents and improved the histopathological findings. The best cytotoxic effect of YGME was against human melanoma cell line (A365) and osteosarcoma cell line (MG-63). Moreover, the antimicrobial potential of the extract was evaluated against bacterial and fungal isolates. It showed potent activity against Gram-negative, Gram-positive, and fungal Candida albicans isolates. The promoting multiple effects of YGME could be beneficial in the treatment of different ailments based on its anti-inflammatory, antimicrobial, and cytotoxic effects.Entities:
Keywords: LC-MS/MS; MIC; NO; PGE-2; TNF-α; Yucca elephantipes; carrageenan
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35209125 PMCID: PMC8878216 DOI: 10.3390/molecules27041329
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Molecules ISSN: 1420-3049 Impact factor: 4.411
Phytochemical profiling of YGME by LC-ESI-MS/MS in negative mode.
| No. | Rt (min.) | [M − H]− | MS2 | Formula | Idenification |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 1.128 | 115.000 | 115.001, 89.023, 71.012 | C4H4O4 | Maleic acid |
| 2 | 1.348 | 449.085 | 449.088, 269.015, 113.019 | C21H22O11 | Okanin-4′- |
| 3 | 1.398 | 129.019 | 129.019 | C5H6O4 | Citraconic acid |
| 4 | 1.411 | 141.018 | 141.020, 97.028 | C6H6O4 | Muconic acid |
| 5 | 4.37 | 739.790 | 739.792, 577.415 | C39H61O13 | Spirostan-3-ol-glucoside-galactoside |
| 6 | 4.77 | 429.171 | 429.171 | C27H42O4 | Hecogenin |
| 7 | 4.901 | 593.152 | 593.156, 473.105, 341.111, 285,251 | C27H30O15 | Kaempferol-7- |
| 8 | 5.64 | 431.192 | 431.163, 392.918, 385.182, 341.164, 324.942 | C21H20O10 | Kaempferol-3- |
| 9 | 6.22 | 739.790 | 739.792, 577.415 | C39H61O13 | Spirostan-3-ol-diglucoside |
| 10 | 6.239 | 447.09 | 447.090, 285.214, 248.960 | C27H30O16 | Luteolin-7- |
| 11 | 6.276 | 577.156 | 577.160, 413.081, 311.048, 293.046 | C27H30O14 | Vitexin-2″- |
| 12 | 6.495 | 609.147 | 609.143, 301.023 | C28H34O15 | Hesperetin-7- |
| 13 | 6.659 | 315.135 | 315.197, 287.198 | C16H12O7 | 3′-Methoxy-4′,5,7-trihydroxyflavonol (Isorhamnetin) |
| 14 | 6.817 | 463.085 | 463.089, 354.916, 326.930, 301.041, 286.936 | C21H20O12 | Quercetin-4′- |
| 15 | 6.978 | 623.197 | 623.159, 577.163, 315.049 | C28H32O16 | Isorhamnetin-3- |
| 16 | 7.093 | 593.519 | 593.149, 285.030, 241.042 | C30H26O13 | Kaempferol-3- |
| 17 | 7.263 | 593.265 | 593.149, 570.246, 547.242, 285.038 | C28H34O14 | Isosakuranetin-7- |
| 18 | 8.182 | 285.077 | 285.071, 179.037, 165.016, 119.049 | C15H10O6 | 4′,5,7-Trihydroxyflavonol |
| 19 | 9.458 | 301.069 | 301.073, 273.072, 139.048 | C16H14O6 | Hesperetin |
| 20 | 10.199 | 271.060 | 271.064, 196.049, 165.024, 151.005 | C15H12O5 | Naringenin |
| 21 | 10.488 | 431.17 | 431.170, 269.040, 253.054 | C15H10O5 | Apigenin-7- |
| 22 | 10.876 | 285.039 | 285.065, 256.039, 179.033, 145.030 | C15H10O6 | Luteolin |
| 23 | 10.992 | 179.033 | 179.037, 135.042 | C9H8O4 | Caffeic acid |
| 24 | 11.313 | 283.060 | 283.064, 211.070, 189.021, 177.014 | C15H12O6 | Acacetin |
| 25 | 11.531 | 315.092 | 315.086, 297.075, 193.009, 179.033, 152.010 | C16H12O7 | 3,3′,4′,5-tetrahydroxy-7-methoxyflavone |
| 26 | 12.594 | 299.093 | 299.090, 193.049, 149.058 | C16H12O6 | 3,5,7-Trihydroxy-4′-methoxyflavone |
| 27 | 13.760 | 461.260 | 461.262 | C27H44O3 | 25 R or S-Spirostanol-3-ol |
| 28 | 14.034 | 223.171 | 223.163, 113.991 | C11H12O5 | 3-(4-Hydroxy-3,5-dimethoxyphenyl)-2-propenoic acid |
| 29 | 19.75 | 277.197 | 277.218, 276.367, 259.204, 233.224, 205.203 | C18H30O2 | gamma-Linolenic acid |
Figure 1(a) Structures of flavonols and flavonol glycosides identified in YGME (Neo = neohesperidoside, Rha = rhamnose, Glu = glucose); (b) Structures of hydroxylated and/or methoxylated flavonols and flavonol glycosides identified in YGME (Rut = Rutinoside); (c) Structures of flavones and flavone glycosides identified in YGME; (d) Structures of flavanones and flavanone glycosides identified in YGME.; (e) Structures of saponin and saponin glycosides identified in YGME (5 R = Glu-Gal, 9 R = Glu-Glu, 27 R = OH).; (f) Structures of organic, phenolic acids, and other compounds identified in YGME.
Figure 2Chemical structures of the compounds isolated from YGME. Compound I: Luteolin-7-O-glucoside, II: Apigenin-7-O-β-d-glucoside, and III: Kaempferol-3-O-α-l-rhamnoside.
Figure 3SRB cell viability assay for determination of the cytotoxicity of YGME, at different concentrations, on (A) A375; (B) Hep-2; (C) HSF; (D) A431 and (E) MG-63 cell lines. Values are presented as mean ± SD of 3 independent experiments.
Figure 4The values of IC50 of YGME against different investigated cell lines.
The antimicrobial potential of YGME against different microbial isolates.
| Pathogenic Bacterial Isolate | Inhibition Zone Diameter (mm) | MIC Values (µg/mL) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| YGME | Chlorhexidine | ||
| Gram-negative bacteria | |||
|
| 12.5 ± 0.41 | 27.5 ± 1.35 | 106.67 ± 30.1 |
|
| 13.3 ± 0.65 | 28.5 ± 1.50 | 85.3 ± 30.0 |
|
| 10.2 ± 0.69 | 23.4 ± 0.77 | 42.6 ± 15.0 |
|
| 14.8 ± 0.33 | 26.4 ± 0.89 | 74.67 ± 39.9 |
|
| 10.5 ± 0.42 | 23.3 ± 0.85 | 53.3 ± 15.08 |
|
| 10.2 ± 0.69 | 23.4 ± 0.77 | 42.6 ± 15.0 |
| Gram-positive bacteria | |||
|
| 14.46 ± 1.14 | 24.9 ± 1.40 | 85.3 ± 30.0 |
|
| 16.5 ±0.75 | 26.6 ± 0.98 | 106.67 ± 30.1 |
| Fungi | |||
|
| 12 ± 1.3 | 17.8 ± 2.1 | 21.3 ± 7.5 |
The average change in the edema volume at different time intervals over 4 h.
| Time (h) | The Average Change in Edema Volume (mm) * | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Group II | Group III | Group IV | Group V | |
| 1 | 0.36 ± 0.05 | 0.3508 ± 0.031 | 0.32 ± 0.08 | 0.3703 ± 0.012 |
| 2 | 0.62 ± 0.12 | 0.208 ± 0.061 | 0.24 ± 0.031 | 0.2307 ± 0.02 |
| 3 | 0.81 ± 0.04 | 0.1108 ± 0.011 | 0.18 ± 0.04 | 0.1303 ± 0.03 |
| 4 | 1.20 ± 0.11 | 0.01 ± 0.001 | 0.12 ± 0.013 | 0.01 ± 0.001 |
* Data are represented as mean ± SD at significant level of p < 0.05.
Effects of YGME on the average paw edema weight, NO, GSH, and MPO activity in carrageenan-induced acute inflammation in rats.
| Average Paw Weight (g) | Paw NO Content (nmol/g Tissue) | Paw GSH Content (µmol/g Tissue) | Paw MPO Activity (µM/min/g Tissue) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Group I | 0.03 ± 0.001 | 10.6 ± 0.89 | 13.94 ± 1.1 | 2.73 ± 0.39 |
| Group II | 0.37 ± 0.01 a | 20.2 ± 1.30 a | 9.74 ± 0.81 a | 13.36 ± 0.77 a |
| Group III | 0.15 ± 0.012 b | 10.8 ± 0.83 b | 15 ± 1.1 b | 4.48 ± 0.94 b |
| Group IV | 0.17 ± 0.014 b | 13.6 ± 1.1 b | 16.8 ± 1.3 b | 5.97 ± 0.0.39 b |
| Group V | 0.07 ± 0.002 bc | 10.5 ± 0. 5 bc | 23.2 ± 1.48 bc | 6.21 ± 0.16 bc |
Data are expressed as mean ± SD. Significant difference vs. a respective control saline, b respective carrageenan group, c respective YGME 100 group, each at p ˂ 0.05.
Figure 5Drug treatment effects on (A) paw PGE-2 level, (B) paw TNF-α level, (C) serum IL-1β level, (D) serum IL-6 level. Data expressed as mean ± SD (n = 8/group). Significant difference vs. * respective control saline, # respective carrageenan group, $ respective YGME 100 group, each at p ˂ 0.05.
Figure 6Effects of different treatments on histopathological examination of paw tissues. (A): Section in paw skin of the normal control group showed normal skin consisting of epidermis of average thickness (red arrow) lined with thick keratin (green arrow) and underlying normal dermis (blue arrow) and normal muscles (black arrow) [H&E × 100]. (B1): section in paw tissue of Carrageenan group [positive control group] showed deep, dense dermal infiltration with chronic inflammatory cells (blue arrows) with congested vessel (red arrow) [H&E × 100]. (B2): section in paw tissue of Carrageenan group [positive control group] showed severe interstitial inflammatory reaction (blue arrows) between muscle bundles (red arrow) [H&E × 200]. (C): section in paw tissue of celecoxib-50-treated group showed no inflammation. Muscles are normal (green arrow); however, the epidermis was thickened and covered with excessive keratosis (red arrow) with underlying excessive collagenosis (blue arrow) [H&E × 200]. (D): Section in paw tissue of YGME 100 showed superficial dermal mild chronic inflammation (blue arrows) with mild edema (red arrows) and mild vascular congestion (black arrow); the epidermis was covered with excessive keratosis (green arrow) [H&E ×200]. (E): Section in paw tissue of YGME 200 Group showed normal skin without inflammation or collagenosis, with normal epidermis lined with thick keratin (blue arrow) and dermis (red arrow) [H&E × 200].
Figure 7Effects of different treatments on immune histochemical staining of COX-2 in paw tissues. (A): Section in paw tissue of normal control group showed negative COX2 immunostaining [×100]. (B): Section in paw tissue of Carrageenan group [positive control group] showed positive strong COX-2 immunostaining score 3 [×100]. (C): Section in paw tissue of Celecoxib-treated group showed positive mild COX-2 immunostaining score 1 [×100]. (D): Section in paw tissue of YGME 100-treated group showed moderate, positive COX-2 immunostaining score 2 [×100]. (E): Section in paw tissue of YGME-200-treated group showed negative COX2 immunostaining [×100].