| Literature DB >> 35458651 |
Yingbin Shen1, Liyou Zheng2, Yao Peng1, Xucheng Zhu1, Fu Liu3, Xinquan Yang1, Haimei Li1.
Abstract
Chenopodium quinoa Willd. is recognized to be an excellent nutrient with high nutritional content. However, few genotypes of quinoa were analyzed, so we found a knowledge gap in the comparison of quinoa seeds of different genotypes. This study aims to compare the physicochemical, antioxidant, and anticancer properties of seed oil from three C. quinoa genotypes. Seeds of three genotypes (white, red, and black) were extracted with hexane and compared in this study. The oil yields of these quinoa seeds were 5.68-6.19% which contained predominantly polyunsaturated fatty acids (82.78-85.52%). The total tocopherol content ranged from 117.29 to 156.67 mg/kg and mainly consisted of γ-tocopherol. Total phytosterols in the three oils ranged from 9.4 to 12.2 g/kg. Black quinoa seed oil had the highest phytosterols followed by red and white quinoas. The chemical profile of quinoa seed oils paralleled by their antioxidant and anticancer activities in vitro was positively correlated with the seed coat color. Black quinoa seed oil had the best antioxidant and anti-proliferation effect on HCT 116 cells by the induction of apoptosis in a dose-dependent manner, which may play more significant roles in the chemoprevention of cancer and other diseases related to oxidative stress as a source of functional foods.Entities:
Keywords: anticancer; antioxidant; fatty acid; quinoa seeds; seed oil
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35458651 PMCID: PMC9025313 DOI: 10.3390/molecules27082453
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Molecules ISSN: 1420-3049 Impact factor: 4.927
Comparisons of physical and chemical characteristics of seed oils of three quinoa genotypes.
| Oil Parameters | White | Red | Black |
|---|---|---|---|
| Oil content (g/100g) | 6.19 ± 0.08 a | 5.73 ± 0.02 b | 5.68 ± 0.04 b |
| Oil stability (induction period)/h | 1.57 ± 0.01 b | 7.56 ± 0.00 a | 7.50 ± 0.01 a |
| Oil color/(units) | |||
| Red | 4.8 | 5.0 | 4.0 |
| Yellow | 70.4 | 70.0 | 73.6 |
| Fatty acid profile (%) | |||
| C14:0 | 0.42 ± 0.00 a | 0.21 ± 0.03 b | 0.15 ± 0.00 b |
| C16:0 | 13.16 ± 0.14 a | 11.14 ± 0.02 b | 9.77 ± 0.04 c |
| C16:1 | 1.17 ± 0.02 a | 0.18 ± 0.01 b | - |
| C17:1 | - | 0.17 ± 0.00 b | 0.26 ± 0.00 a |
| C18:0 | 0.85 ± 0.04 b | 1.25 ± 0.03 a | 0.69 ± 0.03 c |
| C18:1 | 25.14 ± 0.07 a | 23.91 ± 0.07 b | 25.79 ± 0.01 a |
| C18:2 Trans | 0.90 ± 0.07 b | 1.13 ± 0.02 a | 0.91 ± 0.01 b |
| C18:2 | 43.74 ± 0.01 c | 49.17 ± 0.07 b | 51.75 ± 0.09 a |
| C18:3 | 8.24 ± 0.02 a | 7.09 ± 0.00 b | 4.59 ± 0.02 c |
| C20:0 | 0.56 ± 0.02 | - | - |
| C20:1 | 1.45 ± 0.03 b | 1.50 ± 0.00 b | 1.69 ± 0.00 a |
| C20:4 | 0.55 ± 0.04 a | 0.46 ± 0.00 b | 0.53 ± 0.00 a |
| C23:0 | 1.14 ± 0.02 b | 1.51 ± 0.02 a | 1.54 ± 0.01 a |
| C24:0 | 2.67 ± 0.11 a | 2.28 ± 0.13 a | 2.34 ± 0.03 a |
| SFA | 18.87 ± 0.10 a | 16.4 ± 0.13 ab | 14.48 ± 0.09 b |
| PUFA | 52.53 ± 0.07 b | 56.72 ± 0.07 ab | 56.87 ± 0.11 a |
| sn-2 Fatty acid composition (%) | |||
| C16:0 | 1.89 | 2.93 | 2.39 |
| C18:0 | 0.59 | 1.15 | 1.39 |
| C18:1 | 21.69 | 22.2 | 19.97 |
| C18:2 | 59.35 | 67.79 | 71.87 |
| C18:3 | 6.21 | 5.93 | 3.54 |
| C21:0 | - | - | 0.84 |
| C22:6 | 7.89 | - | - |
| C24:1 | 2.39 | - | - |
-: not detected. Values reported as means ± SD of three replicate analyses (n = 3). SFA = total saturated fatty acids, PUFA = total polyunsaturated fatty acids. a,b,c: different letters in the same column indicated significant statistical differences (p < 0.05).
Comparisons of Fat, TAGs, Tocopherols, and Phytosterols of three types of Chenopodium quinoa Wild seed oil.
| White | Red | Black | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Fat compositions/% | |||
| TAG | 88.57 ± 1.51 ab | 81.98 ± 0.9 b | 91.42 ± 0.22 a |
| 1,3-DAG | 0.98 ± 0.12 c | 4.33 ± 0.54 a | 2.11 ± 0.17 b |
| 1,2(2,3)-DAG | 6.56 ± 0.19 a | 1.85 ± 0.34 c | 2.26 ± 0.10 b |
| FFA | 3.89 ± 1.58 b | 11.84 ± 0.02 a | 4.21 ± 0.28 b |
| TAG compositions/% | |||
| LLLn | 3.42 ± 0.10 | 2.81 ± 0.03 | 0.87 ± 0.01 |
| PLnLn | 1.26 ± 0.04 | 1.04 ± 0.17 | 0.33 ± 0.04 |
| MLLn | 0.22 ± 0.05 | - | - |
| PLnL | 7.01 ± 0.56 | 9.27 ± 0.36 | 8.50 ± 0.24 |
| LLL | 10.78 ± 0.96 | 10.13 ± 0.42 | 6.09 ± 0.35 |
| LnLO | 1.31 ± 0.08 | 1.35 ± 0.03 | 0.41 ± 0.06 |
| LLO | 33.45 ± 0.21 | 31.15 ± 0.09 | 40.08 ± 0.13 |
| LLP | 8.46 ± 0.10 | 12.38 ± 0.09 | 10.01 ± 0.05 |
| OOL | 18.63 ± 0.14 | 14.48 ± 0.05 | 17.48 ± 0.12 |
| PLO | 9.25 ± 0.22 | 11.64 ± 0.01 | 10.78 ± 0.02 |
| PPL | 0.61 ± 0.03 | 1.02 ± 0.05 | 0.69 ± 0.04 |
| OOP | 1.09 ± 0.00 | 1.44 ± 0.02 | 1.44 ± 0.16 |
| LOS | 2.73 ± 0.03 | 1.63 ± 0.19 | 1.74 ± 0.15 |
| OOO | 1.81 ± 0.10 | 1.66 ± 0.06 | 1.59 ± 0.00 |
| Tocopherols (mg/kg) | |||
| α-tocopherol | 38.05 ± 4.44 a | 33.52 ± 1.06 b | 34.09 ± 0.64 b |
| β-tocopherol | 2.40 ± 0.21 b | 1.93 ± 0.40 c | 3.34 ± 0.07 a |
| γ-tocopherol | 66.10 ± 1.96 c | 72.65 ± 0.88 b | 105.75 ± 0.85 a |
| δ-tocopherol | 16.53 ± 1.63 | 9.19 ± 1.42 | 13.49 ± 1.16 |
| Total tocopherols | 123.09 ± 4.32 ab | 117.29 ± 1.64 b | 156.67 ± 2.58 a |
| Phytosterols (mg/kg) | |||
| Campesterol | 160.82 ± 8.87 b | 221.39 ± 21.08 a | 236.08 ± 1.04 a |
| Stigmasterol | 3488.37 ± 500.12 b | 4291.21 ± 43.64 ab | 4914.16 ± 177.27 a |
| β-Sitosterol | 5797.71 ± 822.15 b | 7664.25 ± 141.76 a | 7095.52 ± 32.69 a |
| Total phytosterols | 9446.91 ± 1331.14 b | 12176.85 ± 206.49 a | 12245.77 ± 208.93 a |
TAG, triacylglycerols; DAG, diacylglycerol; FFA, free fatty acids; P, palmitic acid; S, stearic; O, oleic; L, linoleic acid; Ln, linolenic acid. -: not detected; a,b,c: various lowercase letters in the same column represented significant statistical differences (p < 0.05).
Figure 1Structures of detected compounds in three QSOs.
Figure 2Infrared spectra of seed oils obtained from three types of Chenopodium quinoa Wild seed oils ((A) white; (B) red; (C) black).
Antioxidant activity and anticancer properties of three types of Chenopodium quinoa Wild seed oil.
| Samples | Antioxidant Activity (IC50, mg/mL) | Cytotoxicity (IC50, μg/mL) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| DPPH | ABTS | HCT116 | |
| White | 102.3 a | 72.1 a | 647.4 a |
| Red | 74.5 b | 63.2 b | 381.3 b |
| Black | 24.6 c | 40.4 c | 281.9 c |
a,b,c: Various lowercase letters in the same column represented significant statistical differences (p < 0.05).
Figure 3Effects of BSO (black Chenopodium quinoa Wild seed oil) on HCT116 cell morphology. HCT116 cells were treated with different concentrations of BSO for 36 h, and cell morphology was observed and photographed by microscopy (magnification, ×400).
Figure 4Control and BSO-treated (36 h) HCT116 cells stained with Hoechst 33258, and arrow marks indicate apoptotic cells. Hoechst 33342 staining was used to record cell apoptosis. HCT116 cells were handled with BSO at 0 (A), 62.5 (B), 125 (C), and 250 μg/mL (D) for 36 h. Apoptotic cells showed transformation in morphology in the nuclei typical apoptosis. A fluorescence microscope (200×, original magnification) was employed to photograph. Arrow-marked points are apoptotic cells.
Figure 5The influence of BSO on HCT116 cell apoptosis. Cells were collected after treatment and then stained with antibodies to annexin V and propidium iodide. After that, flow cytometry proceeded. BSO (125, 250 μg/mL) significantly promoted cell apoptotic. (A–C) Dot plot stained with annexin V and propidium iodide. (D) The percentages of apoptotic cells. As ± 3 replicate experiments were performed and the results were demonstrated in the form of means ± SD. * p < 0.05 versus control; * p < 0.05, versus negative control group. Q1, dead cells; Q2, dead/late apoptotic cells; Q3, normal cells;Q4, early apoptotic cells; Q2 + Q4, total apoptotic cells.