| Literature DB >> 35270111 |
Sarmite Janceva1, Anna Andersone1,2, Liga Lauberte1,2, Oskars Bikovens1, Vizma Nikolajeva3, Lilija Jashina1,2, Natalija Zaharova1,2, Galina Telysheva1, Maris Senkovs3, Gints Rieksts1, Anna Ramata-Stunda3, Jelena Krasilnikova4.
Abstract
For sustainable sea buckthorn (Hippophae rhamnoides) berry production, the task at hand is to find an application for the large amount of biomass waste arising at harvesting. Sea buckthorn (SBT) vegetation is currently poorly studied. The purpose of this research was to assess the composition and potential of SBT twigs as a source of valuable biologically active substances. Water and 50% EtOH extracts of twigs of three Latvian SBT cultivars with a high berry yield and quality, popular for cultivation in many countries (H. rhamnoides 'Maria Bruvele', 'Tatiana', 'Botanicheskaya Lubitelskaya'), were investigated for the first time. The phytochemical composition (UHPLC-ESI-MS/MS analysis) and biological activity of the obtained hydrophilic extracts were determined. The highest yield of polyphenolic compounds and serotonin was observed for 'Maria Bruvele'. Hydrophilic extracts were investigated for radical scavenging activity (DPPH˙ test), antibacterial/antifungal activity against five pathogenic bacteria/yeast, cytotoxicity, and the enzymatic activity of alpha-amylase (via in vitro testing), which is extremely important for the treatment of people with underweight, wasting, and malabsorption. The results showed a high potential of sea buckthorn biomass as a source of valuable biologically active compounds for the creation of preparations for the food industry, nutraceuticals, and cosmetics.Entities:
Keywords: alpha-amylase; antibacterial activity; antioxidant; biological activity; cytotoxicity; plant secondary metabolites; polyphenols; proanthocyanidins; sea buckthorn twigs; serotonin
Year: 2022 PMID: 35270111 PMCID: PMC8912587 DOI: 10.3390/plants11050642
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Plants (Basel) ISSN: 2223-7747
Figure 1Chemical structure of serotonin (A) and B-type procyanidin (B), represented by 4–8 epicatechin dimer.
Figure 2Effect of the extractants on the extract yield from twigs of SBT and selectivity for polyphenolic compounds (single-step extraction, 30 min, 60 °C, biomass and extractant weight ratio 1:8). Data represented as mean ± SD (n = 3).
Figure 3UHPLC-TOF/MS chromatograms of 50% EtOH extracts of SBT samples.
Figure 4UHPLC-TOF/MS chromatograms of the water extracts of SBT samples.
Dominant compounds in the chromatograms of SBT twigs.
| Relative Abundance, % | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Peak No. | tR (min) | [M–H]−(m/z) | Fragments | Identification 1 | Tatiana | Maria Bruvele | Bot. Lub. | |||
| Water | 50% EtOH | Water | 50% EtOH | Water | 50% EtOH | |||||
| 1 | 0.41 | 341 | 179; 161; 143; 119; 113; 101 | Sucrose, fructose, glucose | 9.7 | 9.0 | 10.7 | 8.2 | 10.9 | 9.3 |
| 2 | 0.47 | 191 | 111; 173; 127; 85 | Quinic acid | 5.7 | 4.4 | 6.1 | 5.0 | 5.6 | 4.2 |
| 3 | 0.98 | 175 | 159; 147 | Serotonin 2 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 |
| 4 | 1.84 | 305 | 179; 125 | Gallocatechin or its isomer epigallocatechin | 0.7 | 1.8 | 2.6 | 1.7 | 3.2 | 1.5 |
| 5 | 1.89 | 593 | 407; 425; 305; 467; 289 | (epi)catechin-(epi)gallocatechin | 2.2 | 0.5 | 0.9 | 1.1 | 1.3 | 0.4 |
| 6 | 1.97 | 1185 | 881; 593; 305; 289; 245 | Procyanidin tetramer | 4.1 | 2.2 | 2.6 | 1.0 | 2.8 | 1.7 |
| 7 | 2.06 | 1055 | 881; 593; 305; 289 | Procyanidin tetramer | 4.4 | 1.8 | 4.6 | 2.7 | 4.4 | 2.3 |
| 8 | 2.30 | 865 | 577; 289; 245 | Procyanidin trimer | 4.1 | 4.5 | 5.2 | 4.9 | 4.2 | 3.4 |
| 9 | 2.38 | 289 | 245; 125 | Catechin/Epicatechin | 6.9 | 5.3 | 6.7 | 8.1 | 7.0 | 4.2 |
| 10 | 2.50 | 1153 | 865; 577; 289; 245 | Procyanidin tetramer | 13.5 | 13.0 | 9.6 | 12.2 | 17.2 | 7.0 |
| 11 | 3.51 | 610 | - | Contaminant from solvent—ethanol, nylon filter | 0.1 | 1.4 | 1.7 | 0.7 | 0.1 | 1.1 |
| 12 | 4.28 | 723 | - | Contaminant from solvent—ethanol, nylon filter | 0.6 | 5.2 | 7.2 | 1.3 | 1.0 | 5.6 |
| 13 | 5.04 | 836 | - | Contaminant from solvent—ethanol, nylon filter | 0.6 | 4.6 | 6.5 | 1.8 | 1.4 | 5.2 |
| 14 | 5.77 | 949 | - | Contaminant from solvent—ethanol, nylon filter | 0.3 | 1.1 | 1.8 | 0.6 | 0.4 | 1.3 |
| 15 | 3.28 | 609 | 301; 271 | Quercetin-3-O-rutinoside | - | - | - | 0.01 | - | - |
| 16 | 3.33 | 301 | 286; 109 | Quercetin | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.2 | 0.4 | 0.1 | 0.1 |
| 17 | 7.14 | 487 | 293; 117 | Triterpenoid | - | 2.8 | 3.0 | 2.5 | - | 3.0 |
| 18 | 7.79 | 471 | 452; 265; 117 | Triterpenoid | - | 1.8 | - | 3.1 | - | 2.1 |
| 19 | 7.86 | 471 | 265; 117 | Triterpenoid | - | 1.9 | - | 1.8 | - | 2.4 |
| 20 | 8.07 | 455 | 277; 117 | Triterpenoid | 3.2 | 3.4 | 7.2 | 4.3 | - | - |
| 21 | 8.01 | 617 | 255; 117 | Acylated triterpenoid | - | - | - | - | - | 2.8 |
1 Serotonin showed weak signal in negative ion ESI LC-MS, which was quantified in MRM positive ionization mode. 2 Compounds were tentatively identified compared with those reported in the literature and confirmed through databases, specifically the Dictionary of Natural Products and ChemSpider, focusing on MS/MS fragmentation patterns and accurate mass.
The comparison of relative peak areas of dominant biologically active compounds calculated on mg/mg extract.
| No. | Tentative Identification | Relative Peak Area (Relative Units) | Cultivar | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 50% EtOH | H2O | |||
| 1 | Quinic acid | 25,954 | 31,176 | Tatiana |
| 43,608 | 53,949 | Maria Bruvele | ||
| 38,504 | 44,680 | Bot. Lub. | ||
| 2 | Gallocatechin or its isomer epigallocatechin | 14,917 | 11,890 | Maria Bruvele |
| 2369 | 4476 | Tatiana | ||
| 5291 | 8424 | Bot. Lub. | ||
| 3 | (epi)catechin-(epi)gallocatechin | 6283 | 2855 | Maria Bruvele |
| 4782 | 5539 | Tatiana | ||
| 5314 | 6759 | Bot. Lub. | ||
| 4 | Procyanidin tetramer | 8054 | 3230 | Maria Bruvele |
| 1674 | 4395 | Tatiana | ||
| 5335 | 5841 | Bot. Lub. | ||
| 5 | Procyanidin tetramer | 8879 | 2397 | Maria Bruvele |
| - | 4665 | Tatiana | ||
| - | 7803 | Bot. Lub. | ||
| 6 | Procyanidin trimer | 37,952 | 31,036 | Maria Bruvele |
| 15,879 | 26,104 | Tatiana | ||
| 19,967 | 33,381 | Bot. Lub. | ||
| 7 | Catechin/Epicatehin | 51,282 | 56,089 | Maria Bruvele |
| 24,115 | 34,058 | Tatiana | ||
| 35,098 | 46,065 | Bot. Lub. | ||
| 8 | Procyanidin tetramer | 3004 | 1739 | Maria Bruvele |
| 916 | 3500 | Tatiana | ||
| 1864 | 3656 | Bot. Lub. | ||
| 9 | Procyanidin tetramer | 9768 | 5576 | Maria Bruvele |
| 2897 | 6506 | Tatiana | ||
| 4632 | 7877 | Bot. Lub. | ||
| 10 | Procyanidin tetramer | 635 | 2850 | Maria Bruvele |
| 236 | 619 | Tatiana | ||
| 382 | 751 | Bot. Lub. | ||
| 11 | Procyanidin tetramer | 1348 | 973 | Maria Bruvele |
| 1893 | 1023 | Tatiana | ||
| 2946 | 3040 | Bot. Lub. | ||
| 12 | Quercetin-3-O-rutinoside | 334 | - | Maria Bruvele |
| - | - | Tatiana | ||
| - | - | Bot. Lub. | ||
| 13 | Quercetin | 2759 | 677 | Maria Bruvele |
| 933 | 1003 | Tatiana | ||
| 1287 | 3105 | Bot. Lub. | ||
| 14 | Triterpenoid | 3218 | - | Maria Bruvele |
| 3750 | - | Tatiana | ||
| 4561 | - | Bot. Lub. | ||
| 15 | Triterpenoid | 7631 | - | Maria Bruvele |
| 5000 | - | Tatiana | ||
| 6950 | - | Bot. Lub. | ||
| 16 | Triterpenoid | 7273 | - | Maria Bruvele |
| 5860 | - | Tatiana | ||
| 8651 | - | Bot. Lub. | ||
| 17 | Triterpenoid | 4923 | 14,713 | Maria Bruvele |
| 8978 | 6910 | Tatiana | ||
| - | - | Bot. Lub. | ||
| 18 | Acylated triterpenoid | - | - | Maria Bruvele |
| - | - | Tatiana | ||
| 6808 | - | Bot. Lub. | ||
Antimicrobial activity of the extracts from SBT samples.
| Maria Bruvele | Bot. Lub. | Tatiana | Maria Bruvele | Bot. Lub. | Tatiana | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 50% EtOH Extract, mg/mL | Water Extract, mg/mL | |||||
| 0.20/0.20 | 0.39/0.39 | 0.39/0.39 | 0.39/0.39 | 0.78/50 | 0.39/0.39 | |
| 0.39/0.78 | 0.78/1.56 | 3.13/3.13 | 0.39/3.13 | 0.78/50 | 0.78/1.56 | |
| 0.20/0.39 | 0.39/0.78 | 0.20/0.78 | 0.39/0.78 | 0.39/12.2 | 0.39/0.78 | |
| 0.39/50 | 0.78/>50 | 0.78/50 | 0.78/>50 | 0.78/>50 | 0.78/50 | |
| 0.20/>50 | 0.20/>50 | 0.39/>50 | 0.20/>50 | 0.39/>50 | 0.39/>50 | |
|
| ||||||
|
|
|
| ||||
| 1.00/4.00 | ND | 0.76 | ||||
| 0.25/4.00 | ND | ND | ||||
| 0.25/4.00 | ND | 1.52 | ||||
| ND | ND | 0.76 | ||||
| ND | 32/>256 | ND | ||||
MIC—minimum inhibitory concentration; MBC—minimum bactericidal concentration. MFC—minimum fungicidal concentration; ND—not determined. MIC tests were performed in triplicate for each strain and antimicrobial compound. Confidence interval is ±0.01 at α = 0.05.
Figure 5Cytotoxicity of extracts in Balb/c 3T3 cell line. Results expressed as a relative change compared to untreated control. (A)—50% EtOH extracts: 1—Maria Bruvele; 2—Tatiana; 3—Bot. Lub.; (B)—water extracts: 4—Tatiana; 5—Bot. Lub.; 6—Maria Bruvele. Data represented as mean ± SD (n = 3). Dotted line represents the control level (100%).
Figure 6Radical scavenging activity of SBT biomass extracts by DPPH˙ test. Data represented as mean ± SD (n = 3).
Figure 7Chemical composition of extracts from SBT biomass. Data represented as mean ± SD (n = 3).
Figure 8Effect of carbohydrate content on radical scavenging activity. Confidence intervals for antioxidant activity: CI ≤ 0.1 at α = 0.05, for carbohydrate content: CI ≤ 0.03 at α = 0.05.
Figure 9UHPLC-ELS chromatograms: (a)—50% EtOH extract of ‘Maria Bruvele’ biomass; (b)—low molecular compound rich fraction; (c)—procyanidin trimer rich fraction.
Figure 10Content of serotonin in extracts from SBT biomass. Data presented as mean ± SD (n = 3). CI ≤ 0.04 at α = 0.05.