| Literature DB >> 35251203 |
Vuanghao Lim1, Hui Wen Chong1, Nozlena Abdul Samad1, Siti Aisyah Abd Ghafar2, Ida Shazrina Ismail1, Rafeezul Mohamed1, Yoke Keong Yong3, Chee Yuen Gan4, Jun Jie Tan1.
Abstract
Chemical constituents in plants can be greatly affected by postharvest processing, and it is important to identify the factors that lead to significant changes in chemistry and bioactivity. In this study, attenuated total reflectance-Fourier transform infrared (ATR-FTIR) spectroscopy was used to analyze extracts of Clinacanthus nutan (C. nutans) leaves generated using different parameters (solvent polarities, solid-liquid ratios, ultrasonic durations, and cycles of extraction). In addition, the effects of these extracts on the viability of cardiac c-kit cells (CCs) were tested. The IR spectra were processed using SIMCA-P software. PCA results of all tested parameter sets were within acceptable values. Solvent polarity was identified as the most influential factor to observe the differences in chemical profile and activities of C. nutans extracts. Ideal extraction conditions were identified, for two sample groups (G1 and G2), as they showed optimal total phenolic content (TPC) yield of 44.66 ± 0.83 mg GAE/g dw and 45.99 ± 0.29 mg GAE/g dw and CC viability of 171.81 ± 4.06% and 147.53 ± 6.80%, respectively. Validation tools such as CV-ANOVA (p < 0.05) and permutation (R 2 and Q 2 plots were well intercepted to each other) have further affirmed the significance and reliability of the partial least square (PLS) model of solvent polarity employed in extraction. Hence, these approaches help optimize postharvest processes that encourage positive TPC and CCs results in C. nutans extracts.Entities:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35251203 PMCID: PMC8890836 DOI: 10.1155/2022/1967593
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Evid Based Complement Alternat Med ISSN: 1741-427X Impact factor: 2.629
Effect of extraction parameters on TPC and CSCs viability.
| Ethanol concentration (%) | TPC (mg/g) at 5000 | Viability (%) at 100 |
|---|---|---|
| 0 | 44.66 ± 0.83aa,b,c,d | 171.81 ± 4.06aa,b,c,d |
| 25 | 45.99 ± 0.29aa,e,f,h | 147.53 ± 6.80aa,e,f |
| 50 | 34.01 ± 0.50ab,e,i | 136.32 ± 3.77ab,g |
| 75 | 31.19 ± 0.44ac,f,j | 116.75 ± 1.03ac,e,g |
| 100 | 11.40 ± 0.88ad,h,i,j | 115.26 ± 4.93ad,f |
|
| ||
| Solid-liquid ratio (g/mL) | TPC (mg/g) at 5000 | Viability (%) at 100 |
| 1 : 05 | 40.58 ± 1.15ba,b | 150.56 ± 1.67ba,b,c,d |
| 1 : 10 | 44.54 ± 1.75bc,d | 122.07 ± 5.21ba,e,f |
| 1 : 15 | 47.58 ± 0.40ba,e,f | 121.76 ± 3.21bb,g,h |
| 1 : 20 | 36.33 ± 1.06bc,e | 104.21 ± 2.87bc,e,g |
| 1 : 25 | 35.26 ± 0.30bb,d,f | 100.04 ± 0.52bd,f,h |
|
| ||
| Ultrasonic duration (min) | TPC (mg/g) at 5000 | Viability (%) at 100 |
| 10 | 41.17 ± 0.39ca,b,c,d | 141.24 ± 5.12ca,b,c |
| 20 | 49.11 ± 1.62ca,e,f,g | 122.41 ± 5.11 |
| 30 | 58.52 ± 0.74cb,e,h | 117.83 ± 1.67c |
| 40 | 56.46 ± 0.04cc,f,j | 114.88 ± 4.45c |
| 50 | 36.61 ± 0.88cd,g,h,i | 112.16 ± 9.08c |
|
| ||
| Extraction cycle | TPC (mg/g) at 5000 | Viability (%) at 100 |
| 1 | 23.37 ± 0.83da,b,c,d | 154.34 ± 7.98da,b |
| 2 | 35.01 ± 0.86da,e | 140.78 ± 7.36d |
| 3 | 45.49 ± 0.29db,e,f,g | 129.88 ± 2.91 |
| 4 | 36.18 ± 0.93dc,f | 115.53 ± 5.00d |
| 5 | 33.35 ± 0.93dd,g | 105.16 ± 4.72db,c |
Figure 1(a–d) Comparison of cell viability of CSCs after 96 hr treatment with C. nutans extracts against control (DMEM/F12) at different extraction parameters 1–4 (solvent polarity, solid-liquid ratio, extraction duration, and the cycle of extraction). Statistical analysis was conducted using Dunnett's test. indicates that samples were significantly different from control (p < 0.05). Results were expressed in mean ± standard error of the mean (SEM), where n = 3.
List of functional group differences reported in C. nutans aqueous and ethanol extracts along with their tentative identification from parameter 1.
| Test sample wavenumber (cm−1) | Reference wavenumber (cm−1) | Functional group assignment | Tentative identification |
|---|---|---|---|
|
| |||
| 3229 | 3570–3200 |
| Polyhydroxy compound |
| 2928 | 2935–2915 |
| Lipids, protein |
| 1604 | 1615–1580 |
| Aromatic compound |
| 1514 | 1555–1485 |
| Aromatic nitro compound |
| 1402 | 1410–1310 |
| Phenol or tertiary alcohol |
| 1045 | ∼1050 |
| Primary alcohol |
| 934, 903, 871 | 995–850 |
| Aromatic phosphates |
| 836 | 840–815 | Nitrate ions | Nitrate compound |
| 777 | 800–700 |
| Aliphatic chloro compound |
| 651 | 660–630 |
| Thioethers |
|
| |||
|
| |||
| 3273 | 3570–3200 |
| Polyhydroxy compound |
| 2921 | 2935–2915 |
| Lipids, protein |
| 2852 | 2865–2845 |
| Lipids, protein |
| 1726 | 1740–1725 |
| Aldehyde compound |
| 1625 | 1680–1620 |
| Alkenyl |
| 1403, 1370 | 1410–1310 |
| Phenol or tertiary alcohol |
| 1246 | 1270–1230 |
| Aromatic ethers |
| 1050 | ∼1050 |
| Primary alcohol |
| 932, 902, 851 | 995–850 |
| Aromatic phosphates |
| 837 | 840–815 | Nitrate ions | Nitrate compound |
| 777 | 800–700 |
| Aliphatic chloro compound |
note: υ = stretching; δ = bending.
Figure 2(a–d) PCA-X score scatter plots of parameters 1–4 (solvent polarity, solid-liquid ratio, extraction duration, and the cycle of extraction) at PC1 and PC2.
Figure 3(a) PLS biplot showed the distribution of samples from different solvent polarity and their relationship to both TPC and CSCs activities at PC1 and PC2. (b, c) Permutation plot of R2 and Q2 for TPC and CSCs viability, respectively.