| Literature DB >> 35222807 |
Amir Shahbaz1, Javed Iqbal2, Banzeer Ahsan Abbasi2, Wasim Akhtar3, Iram Fatima4, Syeda Anber Zahra1, Sobia Kanwal5, Javad Sharifi-Rad6, Hassan Sher7, Tariq Mahmood1, William C Cho8.
Abstract
Present study established the biological potential of Schweinfurthia papilionacea, Tricholepis glaberrima and Viola stocksii extracts for their potential applications in drug formulations. Initially, FTIR was performed to ascertain functional groups and then plant extracts were prepared using five solvents depending on the polarity. Total phenolic contents were observed in the range of 36.36 ± 1.08 mg GAE/g to 95.55 ± 2.46 mg GAE/g while flavonoid contents were found in the range of 10.51 ± 0.25 mg QE/g to 22.17 ± 1.79 mg QE/g. Antioxidant activity was determined using TRP, CUPRAC, TAC and DPPH assays and was recorded highest in S. papilionacea followed by T. glaberrima extracts. TPC and TFC were found to be strongly correlated with TRP (r > 0.50), CUPRAC (r > 0.53) and DPPH (r = 0.31 and 0.72) assay while weakly correlated with TAC (r = 0.08 and 0.03) as determined by Pearson correlation analysis. Anticancer activity showed that S. papilionacea chloroform extracts possess highest cell viability (85.04 ± 4.24%) against HepG2 cell lines while T. glaberrima chloroform extracts exhibited highest activity (82.80 ± 2.68%) against HT144 cell lines. Afterwards, highest PXR activation was observed in T. glaberrima (3.49 ± 0.34 μg/mL fold) at 60 μg/mL and was correlated with increase in CYP3A4 activity (15.0 ± 3.00 μg/mL IC50 value). Furthermore, antimalarial activity revealed >47600 IC50 value against P. falciparum D6 and P. falciparum W2 and antimicrobial assay indicated highest activity (32 ± 2.80 mm) in S. papilionacea against C. neoformans. At the end, GC-MS analysis of n-hexane plant extracts showed 99.104% of total identified compounds in T. glaberrima and 94.31% in V. stocksii. In conclusion, present study provides insight about the different biological potentials of S. papilionacea and T. glaberrima extracts that rationalize the applications of these extracts in functional foods and herbal drugs for the management of oxidative-stress related diseases, antimicrobial infections and liver and skin cancer.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35222807 PMCID: PMC8865984 DOI: 10.1155/2022/9366223
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Oxid Med Cell Longev ISSN: 1942-0994 Impact factor: 6.543
Figure 1FTIR spectra indicating the presence of various functional groups (a) S. papilionacea (b) T. glaberrima (c) V. stocksii.
Figure 2Total phenolic and flavonoid contents observed in five different extracts of S. papilionacea, T. glaberrima and V. stocksii. Data represents the mean of three replicates and each letter (a-h) indicates significance at P < 0.05.
Figure 3Antioxidant assays of different extracts of S. papilionacea, T. glaberrima and V. stocksii. Data represents the mean of three replicates and standard deviation is indicated by the error bars (a) Total reducing power assay (b) CUPRAC assay (c) Total antioxidant capacity (d) DPPH radical scavenging assay.
Figure 4Pearson correlation analysis of antioxidant assays and phytochemicals (a) Total reducing power assay and phytochemical contents (b) CUPRAC assay and phytochemicals (c) Total antioxidant capacity and phytochemicals (d) DPPH radical scavenging assay of methanolic and chloroform extracts of three species and phytochemicals (r = Correlation coefficient).
Figure 5Percentage viabilities observed in different extracts of S. papilionacea, T. glaberrima and V. stocksii against (a) HepG2 and (b) HT144 cells in comparison to the control. Pearson correlation analysis of phytochemicals with (c) HepG2 cell lines assay and (d) HT144 cell lines assay. Data represents the mean ± SD of two independent experiments and each letter (a-i) indicates significant difference at p < 0.05 as determined by LSD using statistix 8.1. ‘r' represents correlation co-efficient.
PXR activation and CYP3A4 enzyme inhibition observed in cancer cell lines after treating with selected plant extracts.
| Plant extracts | Fold increase in PXR at different concentrations | Inhibition of CYP3A4 enzyme [IC50 value ( | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 60 | 20 | 6.7 | ||
|
| 2.29 ± 0.20 | 1.47 ± 0.33 | 1.19 ± 0.28 | 27.5 ± 0.50 |
|
| 3.49 ± 0.34 | 1.98 ± 0.32 | 1.25 ± 0.15 | 15.0 ± 3.00 |
|
| 2.70 ± 0.42 | 1.93 ± 0.40 | 1.28 ± 0.35 | 26.5 ± 1.50 |
| Concentrations used for standard |
|
|
| |
| Fold induction by standard | 2.70 ± 0.42 | 2.12 ± 0.15 | 1.89 ± 0.08 | 0.008 ± 0.001 |
Data represents mean ± SD (n = 2). Rifampicin was used as a positive control for PXR assay and Ketoconazole was used as a positive control for CYP3A4 enzyme inhibition assay. IC50 values were calculated using Graphpad Prism software.
IC50 values and selectivity indices of selected plant extracts tested against malarial parasites.
| Plant extracts |
|
| VERO | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| IC50 | SI | IC50 | SI | IC50 | |
|
| > 47600 | 1 | > 47600 | 1 | > 47600 |
|
| > 47600 | 1 | > 47600 | 1 | > 47600 |
|
| > 47600 | 1 | > 47600 | 1 | > 47600 |
IC50: 50% inhibitory concentration; SI: Selectivity indices.
Inhibition zones determined by the antibacterial and antifungal activity of selected methanolic plant extracts.
| Plant extracts | ZOI (mm) observed against bacterial strains | ZOI (mm) observed against fungal strains | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| Vancomycin-resistant |
|
|
| |
|
| 8 ± 2.8 | 0 ± 0 | 12 ± 2.8 | 32 ± 2.8 | 2 ± 0 |
|
| 9 ± 0 | 11 ± 1.4 | 12 ± 1.4 | 22 ± 1.4 | 4 ± 2.1 |
|
| 10 ± 0.7 | 2 ± 0 | 13 ± 1.4 | 29 ± 3.5 | 3 ± 1.4 |
| Standard | 29 ± 1.5 | 28 ± 1.8 | 30 ± 1.5 | 32 ± 2.7 | 28 ± 2.0 |
Data represents means ± SD (n = 2) and bacterial species which remain completely inactive (P. aeruginosa, K. pneumoniae and methicillin-resistant S. aureus) against selected extracts are not presented in the table. Oxytetracycline was used as a standard for antibacterial activity and chloramphenicol was used for antifungal activity; ZOI: zone of inhibitions.
Figure 6Chromatograms indicating the presence of total identified compounds (TIC) eluted at different retention times in the selected species (a) T. glaberrima (b) V. stocksii.
Concentration (%) of compounds identified in T. glaberrima and V. stocksii at different retention times by using GC-MS method.
| RT | Names of compounds | Molecular weight | Concentration (%) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
| |||
| 7.18 | Heptane | 100.125 | 0.575 | 1.176 |
| 46.24 | 2-Pentadecanone, 6,10,14-trimethyl- | 268.277 | 0.378 | 0.388 |
| 46.4 | Neophytadiene | 278.297 | 13.226 | 5.274 |
| 46.66 | 2-Hexadecene, 3,7,11,15-tetramethyl-, [R-[R∗,R∗-(E)]]- | 280.313 | 1.626 | 0.614 |
| 47.01 | Cyclohexanol, 1-ethynyl- | 124.089 | 2.294 | 0.605 |
| 47.47 | 3-Eicosyne | 278.297 | — | 1.517 |
| 47.48 | 1-Tridecyne | 180.188 | 3.951 | — |
| 48.48 | Dibutyl phthalate | 278.152 | — | 0.654 |
| 48.9 | n-Hexadecanoic acid | 256.240 | 3.858 | 16.096 |
| 49.87 | Acetic acid, 2-[4-(4-oxo-2-thioxothiazol-5-ylidenemethyl)phenoxy]-, ethyl ester | 256.096 | — | 0.465 |
| 52.10 | 9,12-Octadecadienoic acid, methyl ester, (E,E)- | 294.256 | — | 0.318 |
| 52.91 | 9,12-Octadecadienoic acid (Z,Z)- | 280.240 | 3.214 | 17.501 |
| 52.98 | 9,12,15-Octadecatrienoic acid, (Z,Z,Z)- | 278.225 | 2.444 | — |
| 53.08 | 9,12-Octadecadienoic acid (Z,Z)- | 280.240 | 5.582 | 23.464 |
| 57.03 | Nonadecane | 268.313 | 0.972 | — |
| 57.59 | 4,8,12,16-Tetramethylheptadecan-4-olide | 324.303 | — | 0.719 |
| 59.31 | Cyclotrisiloxane, hexamethyl- | 222.056 | 0.498 | 0.754 |
| 60.05 | 1-methyl-4-phenyl-5-thioxo-1,2,4-triazolidin-3-one | 207.047 | 1.933 | — |
| 60.45 | Cyclotrisiloxane, hexamethyl- | 222.056 | 0.475 | — |
| 61.01 | Hexadecane | 266.266 | 0.812 | — |
| 61.21 | Tetrasiloxane, decamethyl- | 310.127 | 0.482 | — |
| 61.21 | Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate | 390.277 | — | 1.237 |
| 61.60 | Tetrasiloxane, decamethyl- | 310.127 | — | 0.693 |
| 62.53 | Tetracosane | 338.391 | — | 5.243 |
| 62.88 | Cyclotrisiloxane, hexamethyl- | 222.056 | 2.371 | — |
| 64.87 | Nonadecane | 268.313 | 3.984 | — |
| 67.13 | Cyclotrisiloxane, hexamethyl- | 222.056 | 0.429 | — |
| 68.64 | Cyclotrisiloxane, hexamethyl- | 222.056 | — | 1.286 |
| 67.89 | 2-Hydroxy-4-methoxybenzaldehyde, butyl ether | 208.110 | — | 5.664 |
| 69.77 | Eicosane | 282.329 | 12.849 | — |
| 72.90 | Cyclotrisiloxane, hexamethyl- | 222.056 | 1.813 | 1.737 |
| 73.05 | Cyclotrisiloxane, hexamethyl- | 222.056 | 0.772 | 1.664 |
| 75.47 | Cyclotrisiloxane, hexamethyl- | 222.056 | 2.809 | 2.116 |
| 76.68 | Cyclotrisiloxane, hexamethyl- | 222.056 | — | 4.395 |
| 76.70 | Eicosane | 282.329 | 31.757 | — |
| 76.88 | Cyclotrisiloxane, hexamethyl- | 222.056 | — | 0.739 |
|
| 99.104 | 94.319 | ||
∗Compounds are mentioned as detected from minimum to maximum retention time; RT: Retention time.