| Literature DB >> 35336031 |
Nikola Martić1, Jana Zahorec2, Nebojša Stilinović1, Bojana Andrejić-Višnjić3, Branimir Pavlić2, Nebojša Kladar4, Dragana Šoronja-Simović2, Zita Šereš2, Miodrag Vujčić1,5, Olga Horvat1, Aleksandar Rašković1.
Abstract
To examine antioxidant capacity and the hepatoprotective effect of carob pulp flour, microwave-assisted extraction was performed. The influence of ethanol concentration (0-40% w/w), extraction time (5-25 min) and irradiation power (400-800 W) on DPPH, FRAP and ABTS antioxidant activity of carob pulp flour extract was evaluated. The strongest influence was that of the ethanol concentration, followed by extraction time. Optimal process parameters for maximizing total antioxidant activity were determined, using response surface methodology: ethanol concentration 40%, time 25 min and power 800 W. Carob extract obtained at optimal conditions (CE) was analyzed in vivo using a paracetamol-induced hepatotoxicity model in mice. Treatment with CE attenuated the parameters of liver injury, especially aspartate and alanine aminotransferase activity, and prevented paracetamol-induced increase in malondialdehyde levels. Pretreatment with CE reversed the activities of superoxide dismutase, catalase, glutathione peroxidase and glutathione S-transferase enzymes after the high dose of paracetamol in the liver. Hepatotoxicity induced using a toxic dose of paracetamol was also seen through histopathological alterations, which were significantly reduced in the groups treated with CE prior to paracetamol. Still, the number of Kupffer cells and macrophages did not differ among groups. Finally, pretreatment of mice with CE and paracetamol significantly decreased the expression of cytochrome P450 2E1 (CYP2E1) in hepatocytes.Entities:
Keywords: CYP2E1; antioxidant activity; carob pulp flour; microwave-assisted extraction; paracetamol-induced hepatotoxicity; response surface methodology
Year: 2022 PMID: 35336031 PMCID: PMC8950939 DOI: 10.3390/pharmaceutics14030657
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Pharmaceutics ISSN: 1999-4923 Impact factor: 6.321
Box–Behnken experimental design with natural and coded MAE conditions and experimentally obtained values of antioxidative activity (DPPH, FRAP and ABTS).
| Run | Independent Variables | Investigated Responses | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| X1-Ethanol Concentration (%) | X2-Extraction | X3-Irradiation Power (W) | DPPH | FRAP | ABTS | |
| 1 | 40 (1) | 15 (0) | 400 (−1) | 85.00 | 44.49 | 181.50 |
| 2 | 20 (0) | 15 (0) | 600 (0) | 71.05 | 43.30 | 142.82 |
| 3 | 20 (0) | 25 (1) | 800 (1) | 68.92 | 37.96 | 165.54 |
| 4 | 0 (−1) | 5 (−1) | 600 (0) | 65.52 | 26.70 | 100.00 |
| 5 | 20 (0) | 25 (1) | 400 (−1) | 58.37 | 41.04 | 163.39 |
| 6 | 40 (1) | 15 (0) | 800 (1) | 103.79 | 51.45 | 167.69 |
| 7 | 40 (1) | 5 (−1) | 600 (0) | 80.66 | 46.25 | 144.67 |
| 8 | 0 (−1) | 25 (1) | 600 (0) | 67.98 | 32.65 | 149.12 |
| 9 | 20 (0) | 5 (−1) | 800 (1) | 58.54 | 38.33 | 131.16 |
| 10 | 0 (−1) | 15 (0) | 800 (1) | 54.89 | 29.81 | 103.23 |
| 11 | 40 (1) | 25 (1) | 600 (0) | 106.85 | 51.22 | 185.64 |
| 12 | 20 (0) | 5 (−1) | 400 (−1) | 56.25 | 41.07 | 131.16 |
| 13 | 20 (0) | 15 (0) | 600 (0) | 65.09 | 40.94 | 142.79 |
| 14 | 20 (0) | 15 (0) | 600 (0) | 64.58 | 35.17 | 135.77 |
| 15 | 20 (0) | 15 (0) | 600 (0) | 65.77 | 31.19 | 143.02 |
| 16 | 20 (0) | 15 (0) | 600 (0) | 73.26 | 39.14 | 148.90 |
| 17 | 0 (−1) | 15 (0) | 400 (−1) | 49.87 | 27.44 | 85.73 |
Analysis of variance (ANOVA) of the investigated responses.
| Source | DPPH | FRAP | ABTS |
|---|---|---|---|
| Model | 0.0013 * | 0.0329 * | 0.0040 * |
| X1-EtOH (%) | <0.0001 ** | 0.0005 ** | 0.0002 ** |
| X2-Time (min) | 0.0364 * | 0.4286 | 0.0020 ** |
| X3-Power (W) | 0.0550 | 0.7869 | 0.8634 |
| X12 | 0.0733 | 0.9149 | 0.7355 |
| X13 | 0.2611 | 0.6194 | 0.2180 |
| X23 | 0.4880 | 0.9706 | 0.9286 |
| X11 | 0.0025 * | 0.8676 | 0.3585 |
| X22 | 0.9215 | 0.5723 | 0.2124 |
| X33 | 0.0353 * | 0.6381 | 0.6603 |
| Lack of fit | 0.1314 | 0.6249 | 0.0155 * |
| Mean value | 70.38 | 38.71 | 142.48 |
| Std. Dev. | 5.64 | 4.43 | 11.57 |
| CV | 8.01 | 11.43 | 8.12 |
|
| 0.945 | 0.848 | 0.922 |
* significant (p < 0.05), ** highly significant (p < 0.01).
Figure 1Response surface plots showing combined effect of investigated independent variables on: (a–c) DPPH; (d–f) FRAP; and (g–i) ABTS.
Optimal MAE conditions for carob flour extraction.
| Optimized Conditions | Ethanol Concentration (%) | Extraction Time (min) | Irradiation Power (W) |
|---|---|---|---|
| DPPH | 40 | 22.4 | 400 |
| FRAP | 40 | 25.0 | 800 |
| ABTS | 40 | 23.7 | 600 |
| Total antioxidant activity | 40 | 25.0 | 800 |
Figure 2Chromatogram of optimized carob pulp extract with detection at 280, 330 and 350 nm. Identified compounds: 1—caffeic acid; 2—p-coumaric acid; 3—quercetin; 4—chlorogenic acid; 5—gallic acid; 6—rutin; 7—quercitrin.
Chemical characterization of optimized carob pulp extract—phenolic profile.
| Compound | Content (mg/g of Dry Extract) * |
|---|---|
| Caffeic acid | 0.05353 ± 0.00268 |
| 0.02386 ± 0.00239 | |
| Quercetin | 0.00318 ± 0.00022 |
| Trans-cinnamic acid | <LOD |
| Chlorogenic acid | 0.01667 ± 0.00083 |
| Rosmarinic acid | <LOD |
| Gallic acid | 0.46424 ± 0.06964 |
| Rutin | 0.01883 ± 0.00151 |
| Quercitrin | 0.03967 ± 0.00198 |
| Ferulic acid | <LOD |
* The results were expressed as X ± SD,
Serum activity of alanine aminotransferase (ALT); aspartate aminotransferase (AST); direct bilirubin level; urea; creatinine; and uric acid (mean ± SD; n = 7) in animals treated with saline and carob extract.
| ConS | ConP | CE100 | CE100 + P | CE200 | CE200 + P | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ALT (U/I) | 68.00 ± 12.06 | 100.67 ± 8.39 a | 46.17 ± 12.98 b | 60.17 ± 18.02 b | 55.67 ± 10.35 b | 53.00 ± 7.90 b |
| AST (U/I) | 237.25 ± 72.06 | 348.00 ± 51.83 a | 187.80 ± 47.28 b | 204.67 ± 59.91 b | 193.33 ± 46.68 b | 190.83 ± 32.01 b |
| Direct bilirubin | 1.28 ± 0.31 | 1.45 ± 0.26 | 1.12 ± 0.08 | 1.17 ± 0.16 | 1.22 ± 0.10 | 1.14 ± 0.14 |
| Urea (mmol/L) | 7.12 ± 0.86 | 7.17 ± 1.94 | 7.18 ± 2.05 | 7.65 ± 1.22 | 7.28 ± 2.33 | 7.99 ± 0.42 |
| Creatinine (μmol/L) | 21.80 ± 2.28 | 24.00 ± 2.51 | 18.40 ± 3.65 b | 24.40 ± 2.61 | 19.33 ± 4.32 | 19.29 ± 2.43 b |
| Uric acid (μmol/L) | 181.00 ± 25.35 | 182.40 ± 27.40 | 174.00 ± 34.87 | 108.33 ± 24.81 a,b | 134.4 ± 30.21 | 63.57 ± 11.21 a,b |
ap < 0.05 significantly different from ConS group; b p < 0.05 significantly different from ConP group.
Figure 3Effects of carob extract on paracetamol-induced oxidative stress (* p < 0.05 significantly different from ConS; # p < 0.05 significantly different from ConP).
Figure 4Histological and immunohistochemical analysis of liver tissue of healthy animals and animals with paracetamol-induced liver injury (40×, H&E—hematoxylin and eosin; PAS—Periodic acid-Schiff; anti-CYP450—monoclonal antibody, clone 2E1; anti-Iba1—monoclonal antibody). Legend: H&E—(A) normal liver histology of ConS group animals; (B) centrolobular necrosis and inflammatory infiltrate in ConP animals; (C) normal liver histology in CE100 animals; (D) moderate to mild parenchymatous degeneration in CE100+P animals; (E) unchanged liver histology in CE200 animals; (F) almost annulled paracetamol-induced changes (rare, solitary swollen hepatocytes) of CE200+P animals: PAS—(A) even distribution of glycogen in ConS group; (B) central depletion of glycogen in ConP group; (C) even, diffuse disptribution of glycogen of CE100 group; (D) mild centolobular depletion of glycogen in CE100+P group; (E) regular, diffuse glycogen distribution in CE200 group; (F) glycogen present in the level of the ConS group in CE200+P group. anti-CYP450—(A) smaller fraction of positive cells in cenrolobular areas of ConS group; (B) increased population of positive cells diffuselly trough lobule in ConP; (C) CE100 group has rare, centrolobular positive cells similar to ConS; (D) CE100+P showing centrilobular and periportal positive cells, but less than ConP; (E) rare, mildly positive, diffuse cells in CE200; (F) CE200+P showing rare centrilobular and periportal positive cells, less than ConP. anti-Iba1—(A) diffuse, solitary postive cells in ConS; (B) predominantly centrolobular positivity in ConP; (C) diffuse, solitary moderatelly postive cells in CE100; (D) diffuse, solitary strongly postive cells in CE100+P; (E) rare, diffuse, solitary mildly postive cells in CE200 (F) diffuse, solitary strongly postive cells in CE200+P.
Figure 5Morphometric analysis of liver tissue of healthy animals and animals with paracetamol-induced liver injury (# p < 0.05 significantly different from ConP).