| Literature DB >> 35516188 |
Enas E Eltamany1, Mohamed S Nafie2, Dina M Khodeer3, Aya H H El-Tanahy4, Maged S Abdel-Kader5,6, Jihan M Badr1, Reda F A Abdelhameed1.
Abstract
The chemical and biological profiling of the root extracts of Rubia tinctorum was performed. The activities of different extracts were determined considering the antidiabetic effect against type II diabetes mellitus together with anti-obesity and hepatoprotective effects and lipid profile. The methanolic extract of Rubia tinctorum exhibited significant results in decreasing body weight, improving lipid profile, normalizing hyperglycaemia, insulin resistance, hyperinsulinemia. Additionally, it showed enhancement of liver tissue structure and function. The methanolic extract, being the most significant one, was subjected to LC-HRMS analysis to determine its chemical constituents. Finally, the chemical constituents were evaluated by molecular docking study that was carried out to identify the interaction of a panel of 45 compounds in silico and to correlate the structures to their anti-diabetic activity. Among the tested compounds, 1-hydroxy-2-hydroxymethyl anthra-quinone and naringenin-7-O-glucoside showed the most potent activity as α-amylase inhibitors. This journal is © The Royal Society of Chemistry.Entities:
Year: 2020 PMID: 35516188 PMCID: PMC9055131 DOI: 10.1039/d0ra03442h
Source DB: PubMed Journal: RSC Adv ISSN: 2046-2069 Impact factor: 4.036
Effect of different R. tinctorum extracts and pioglitazone (10 mg kg−1) on percent change in body weight and obesity index in the experimental groups of type II diabetic ratsa
| Group | Base line body weight (g) | Final body weight (g) | % change in body weight | Obesity index |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Normal | 147.5 ± 2.5 | 210 ± 10 | 42.5 ± 9 | 0.83 ± 0.07 |
| Diabetic | 140 ± 5 | 352 ± 7.5a | 152 ± 14.1a | 5.9 ± 0.5a |
| Diabetic + pioglitazone (10 mg kg−1) | 143.5 ± 1.5 | 227.5 ± 17.6b | 58 ± 13.6b | 2 ± 0.36b |
| Diabetic + RM (200 mg kg−1) | 167.5 ± 7.5 | 308 ± 8a,b,c | 84 ± 3.4a,b | 2.5 ± 0.89a,b |
| Diabetic + RH (200 mg kg−1) | 140 ± 2 | 333.5 ± 16.6a,c,e | 138 ± 8.2a,c,d | 5.1 ± 0.17a,c,d |
| Diabetic + RC (200 mg kg−1) | 141 ± 4 | 291.5 ± 18.6a–c | 106 ± 7.1a–c | 3.7 ± 0.1a–c |
| Diabetic + RE (200 mg kg−1) | 145 ± 10 | 297.3 ± 3a–c | 106 ± 15.9a–c | 5.3 ± 0.03a,c–e |
Results are expressed as mean ± S. E. M. and analysed using one-way ANOVA followed by Bonferroni's test for multiple comparisons. aP ≤ 0.05 versus normal group. bP ≤ 0.05 versus diabetic group. cP ≤ 0.05 versus diabetic + pioglitazone (10 mg kg−1) group. dP ≤ 0.05 diabetic + RM (200 mg kg−1) group, eP ≤ 0.05 diabetic + RH (200 mg kg−1) group. n = 5.
Effect of different R. tinctorum extracts and pioglitazone (10 mg kg−1) on blood glucose level (mM L−1), serum insulin (ng L−1), homeostatic model assessment of insulin resistance (HOMA-IR) and serum leptin level (ng L−1) in the experimental groups of type II diabetic ratsa
| Group | Blood glucose level (mM L−1) | Serum insulin (ng L−1) | HOMA-IR | Serum leptin (ng L−1) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Normal | 97 ± 3.9 | 2.4 ± 0.05 | 14.3 ± 0.87 | 3.8 ± 0.3 |
| Diabetic | 172 ± 24a | 7.6 ± 0.29a | 74.79 ± 16.7a | 14 ± 1a |
| Diabetic + pioglitazone (10 mg kg−1) | 110 ± 5.6b | 3.9 ± 0.02a,b | 26.5 ± 1.5b | 4.9 ± 0.3b |
| Diabetic + RM (200 mg kg−1) | 99 ± 2b | 4 ± 0.06a,b | 29.8 ± 0.99b | 5.6 ± 0.1b |
| Diabetic + RH (200 mg kg−1) | 125 ± 7.6b | 4.1 ± 0.1a,b | 34.6 ± 2.8b | 10.5 ± 0.5a–d |
| Diabetic + RC (200 mg kg−1) | 111 ± 2.0b | 4.2 ± 0.16a,b | 30.14 ± 1.6b | 8.8 ± 0.7a–d |
| Diabetic + RE (200 mg kg−1) | 102 ± 0.66b | 4 ± 0.6a,b | 25.5 ± 0.58b | 8.8 ± 0.15a–d |
Results are expressed as mean ± S. E. M. and analysed using one-way ANOVA followed by Bonferroni's test for multiple comparisons. aP ≤ 0.05 versus normal group. bP ≤ 0.05 versus diabetic group. cP ≤ 0.05 versus diabetic + pioglitazone (10 mg kg−1) group. dP ≤ 0.05 diabetic + RM (200 mg kg−1) group. n = 5.
Effect of different R. tinctorum extracts and pioglitazone (10 mg kg−1) on liver index, serum liver enzymes level alanine transaminase (ALT) and aspartate transaminase (AST) in the experimental groups of type II diabetic ratsa
| Group | Liver index | AST (U L-1) | ALT (U L-1) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Normal | 2.3 ± 0.1 | 39 ± 1 | 34.5 ± 1.5 |
| Diabetic | 3.5 ± 0.2a | 92.5 ± 0.5a | 78 ± 2.02a |
| Diabetic + pioglitazone (10 mg kg−1) | 2.5 ± 0.3b | 50.5 ± 1.5a,b | 26.5 ± 2.5b |
| Diabetic + RM (200 mg kg−1) | 2.5 ± 0.02b | 35 ± 1.01b,c | 30 ± 1.01b |
| Diabetic + RH (200 mg kg−1) | 3.9 ± 0.07a,c,d | 72 ± 1.01a–d | 55 ± 1.01a–d |
| Diabetic + RC (200 mg kg−1) | 3.07 ± 0 0.04a,c–e | 65.5 ± 2.5a–e | 46.5 ± 1.5a–e |
| Diabetic + RE (200 mg kg−1) | 3.35 ± 0.02a,c–e | 66 ± 1.01a–e | 46 ± 1.01a–e |
Results are expressed as mean ± S. E. M. and analyzed using one-way ANOVA followed by Bonferroni's test for multiple comparisons. aP ≤ 0.05 versus normal group. bP ≤ 0.05 versus diabetic group. cP ≤ 0.05 versus diabetic + pioglitazone (10 mg kg−1) group. dP ≤ 0.05 diabetic + RM (200 mg kg−1) group, eP ≤ 0.05 diabetic + RH (200 mg kg−1) group. n = 5.
Fig. 1Histopathological picture for hepatic specimens stained with hematoxylin and eosin with magnification power 40×. (A) Histopathology images for liver sections from normal group uniform hepatocytes arranged in plates radiating from central vein (black arrows) (H&E, 40×). (B) Diabetic group in which hepatocytes show evidence of injury; hydropic degeneration (black arrows) and steatosis (red arrows) (H&E, 40×). (C) Diabetic + pioglitazone (10 mg kg−1) shows mild histopathological changes (H&E, 40×). (D) Diabetic + RM (200 mg kg−1) group which shows mild hitopathological changes. (E) Diabetic + RH (200 mg kg−1) group which shows mild hydropic degeneration of hepatocytes (black arrows) and many hepatocytes show uniform morphology (red arrows) (H&E, 40×). (F) Diabetic + RC (200 mg kg−1) which shows moderate degeneration in hepatocytes (black arrows) (H&E, 40×). (G) Diabetic + RE (200 mg kg−1) which shows moderate hydropic degeneration of hepatocytes (black arrows). Congested sinusoids are seen (red arrows) (H&E, 40×). (H) Effect of different extracts of Rubia tinctorum and pioglitazone (10 mg kg−1) on percent of liver steotosis. (A) Normal group. (B) Diabetic group. (C) Diabetic + pioglitazone (10 mg kg−1). (D) Diabetic + RM (200 mg kg−1). (E) Diabetic + RH (200 mg kg−1). (F) Diabetic + RC (200 mg kg−1). (G) Diabetic + RE (200 mg kg−1). Results are expressed as mean ± S. E. M. and analyzed using one-way ANOVA followed by Bonferroni's test for multiple comparisons. aP ≤ 0.05 versus normal group. bP ≤ 0.05 versus diabetic group. n = 5.
Effect of different R. tinctorum extracts and pioglitazone (10 mg kg−1) on lipid profile, serum triglycerides (TG), total cholesterol (TC), high-density lipoprotein (HDL) and low-density lipoprotein (LDL) in the experimental groups of type II diabetes in ratsa
| Group | Serum TG (mg dL−1) | Serum TC (mg dL−1) | HDL (mg dL−1) | LDL (mg dL−1) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Normal | 54.5 ± 3.5 | 63 ± 3.03 | 45 ± 11 | 24.5 ± 0.5 |
| Diabetic | 161 ± 16.1a | 116.5 ± 3.5a | 20 ± 2.02a | 55.5 ± 4.5a |
| Diabetic + pioglitazone (10 mg kg−1) | 42.5 ± 2.5b | 88.5 ± 1.6a,b | 40.5 ± 3.5b | 30 ± 2.02b |
| Diabetic + RM (200 mg kg−1) | 68 ± 1.01b,c | 72 ± 1.01a–c | 36 ± 0.5b | 23 ± 1.01b |
| Diabetic + RH (200 mg kg−1) | 98.5 ± 0.5a–d | 89.5 ± 0.5a,b,d | 30.5 ± 0.5a | 46.5 ± 0.5a–d |
| Diabetic + RC (200 mg kg−1) | 85 ± 2.02a–c | 82.5 ± 0.5a–e | 26 ± 1.01a,c | 45.5 ± 3.5a–d |
| Diabetic + RE (200 mg kg−1) | 80.5 ± 0.5a–c | 76.5 ± 0.5a–c,e | 26.5 ± 0.5a | 39.5 ± 0.5a–d |
Results are expressed as mean ± S. E. M. and analyzed using one-way ANOVA followed by Bonferroni's test for multiple comparisons. aP ≤ 0.05 versus normal group. bP ≤ 0.05 versus diabetic group. cP ≤ 0.05 versus diabetic + pioglitazone (10 mg kg−1) group. dP ≤ 0.05 diabetic + RM (200 mg kg−1) group, eP ≤ 0.05 diabetic + RH (200 mg kg−1) group. n = 5.
Fig. 2Chromatogram of methanolic root extract of Rubia tinctorum in positive mode ion.
Anthraquinones previously isolated from Rubia tinctorum root and detected in the extract by LC-HRMS analysis (positive mode)a
|
| ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| Molecular formula |
| Name of the compound | Substituents | ||||
| R1 | R2 | R3 | R4 | R5 | ||||
| 7.18 | C26H28O14 | 565.1557 | Lucidin-3- | OH | CH2OH |
| H | |
| 8.82 | C25H26O13 | 535.1451 | Ruberythric acid | OH |
| H | H | |
| 8.92 | C15H8O7 | 301.0348 | Pseudopurpurin | OH | COOH | OH | OH | H |
| 9.57 | C15H8O6 | 285.0399 | Munjistin | OH | COOH | OH | H | |
| 10.08* | C14H8O5 | 257.045 | Purpurin | OH | OH | H | OH | H |
| 10.28* | C14H8O5 | 257.045 | Anthragallol | OH | OH | OH | H | H |
| 12.29** | C14H8O4 | 241.0501 | Alizarin | OH | OH | H | H | H |
| 12.31** | C14H8O4 | 241.0501 | Xanthopurpurin | OH | H | OH | H | H |
| 12.64 | C15H10O5 | 271.0606 | 1,4-Dihydroxy-2-hydroxymethyl anthraquinone | OH | CH2OH | H | OH | H |
| 12.64 | C14H8O3 | 225.0551 | 2-Hydroxy anthraquinone | H | OH | H | H | H |
| 13.31 | C15H10O4 | 255.0657 | Rubiadin | OH | CH3 | OH | H | H |
| 13.96 | C17H14O5 | 299.0919 | 1,4-Dihydroxy-2-ethoxymethyl anthraquinone | OH | CH2OC2H5 | H | OH | H |
| 13.77*** | C15H10O5 | 271.0606 | Anthragallol-3-methylether | OH | OH | OCH3 | H | H |
| 13.83*** | C15H10O5 | 271.0606 | Lucidin | OH | CH2OH | OH | H | H |
| 18.08**** | C15H10O3 | 239.0708 | 1-Hydroxy-2-methyl AQ | OH | CH3 | H | H | H |
| 18.75**** | C15H10O3 | 239.0708 | 7-Hydroxy-2-methyl AQ | H | CH3 | H | H | OH |
| 18.80# | C15H10O4 | 255.0657 | Xanthopurpurin-3-methylether | OH | H | OCH3 | H | H |
| 19.02# | C15H10O4 | 255.0657 | Alizarin-1-methyl ether | OCH3 | OH | H | H | H |
| 19.53# | C15H10O4 | 255.0657 | Alizarin -2-methyl ether | OH | OCH3 | H | H | H |
| 19.77# | C15H10O4 | 255.0657 | Xanthopurpurin-1-methylether | OCH3 | H | OH | H | H |
| 20.16 | C15H10O4 | 255.0657 | 1-Hydroxy-2-hydroxymethyl anthraquinone | OH | CH2OH | H | H | H |
| 20.5 | C16H12O5 | 285.0763 | Anthragallol-2,3-dimethylether | OH | OCH3 | OCH3 | H | H |
| 20.84 | C15H10O3 | 239.0708 | 2-Methoxy- anthraquinone | H | OCH3 | H | H | H |
| 21.30## | C16H12O4 | 269.0814 | Alizarin-dimethyl ether | OCH3 | OCH3 | H | H | H |
| 21.40## | C16H12O4 | 269.0814 | Xanthopurpurin dimethylether | OCH3 | H | OCH3 | H | H |
| 23.9### | C16H12O3 | 253.0864 | 1-Methoxy methyl anthraquinone | CH2OCH3 | H | H | H | H |
| 24.12### | C16H12O3 | 253.0864 | 1-Methoxy-2-methyl anthraquinone | OCH3 | CH3 | H | H | H |
| 25.52 | C17H14O3 | 266.0943 | 2-Ethoxymethyl anthraquinone | H | CH2OC2H5 | H | H | H |
*, **, ***, ****, #, ##, ###: interchangeable values.
Flavonoids of Rubia tinctorum root extract identified by LC-HRMS analysis (positive mode)
|
| |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| Molecular formula |
| Name of the compound | Substituents | |||||
| R1 | R2 | R3 | R4 | R5 | R6 | ||||
| 7.44 | C27H30O16 | 609.1456 | Luteolin-3-7-diglucoside | H | OH | H |
|
| OH |
| 8.67 | C27H30O15 | 593.1507 | Kaempferol-7-neohesperidoside | H | OH | H |
| OH | OH |
| 9.41 | C28H32O15 | 607.1663 | Hesperetin-7- | H | OH | H |
| OH | OCH3 |
| 10.89 | C28H32O14 | 591.1714 | Acacetin 7-rutinoside | H | OH | H |
| H | OH |
| 11.30 | C21H18O11 | 445.0771 | Baicalein-7- | H | OH | OH |
| H | H |
| 11.59 | C21H20O11 | 447.0928 | Luteolin-7- | H | OH | H |
| OH | OH |
| 11.60 | C21H22O10 | 433.1135 | Naringenin-7- | H | OH | H |
| H | OH |
| 12.30 | C20H18O11 | 433.0771 | Quercetin-3-D-xyloside |
| OH | H | OH | OH | OH |
| 12.36 | C21H20O11 | 447.0928 | Quercitrin |
| OH | H | OH | OH | OH |
| 13.63 | C21H20O10 | 431.0978 | Kaempferol-3- |
| OH | H | OH | H | OH |
| 13.77 | C22H22O12 | 477.1033 | Isorhamnetin-3- |
| OH | H | OH | OCH3 | OH |
| 13.83 | C15H10O6 | 285.0399 | Luteolin | H | OH | H | OH | OH | OH |
| 14.77 | C15H12O5 | 271.0607 | Naringenin | H | OH | H | OH | H | OH |
| 14.90 | C15H10O5 | 269.045 | Apigenin | H | OH | H | OH | H | OH |
| 15.84 | C16H12O6 | 299.0556 | Hesperetin | H | OH | H | OH | OH | OCH3 |
| 15.61 | C16H12O5 | 283.0607 | Acacetin | H | OH | H | OH | H | OCH3 |
| 9.82 | C28H36O15 | 611.1976 | Neohesperidin dihydrochalcon |
| |||||
Docking results of the tested compounds with high and mild inside 1HX0 binding site as α-amylase inhibitor compared to AC1 as the co-crystallized ligand. Co-crystallized ligand (AC1) inside the binding site of 1HX0 forms 2 HB with the key amino acids Gly 106 and Val 163a
| Group | Binding affinity | Identified compound | Binding energy (kcal mol−1) | Ligand–receptor interactions with |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Anthraquinone* | High | 1-Hydroxy-2-hydroxymethyl AQ# | −13.92 | 2 HB with Gly 106 and Val 163 |
| Ruberythric acid | −21.03 | 2 HB with Val 163 | ||
| Mild | 1,4-Dihydroxy-2-ethoxymethyl anthraquinone | −9.05 | 1 HB with either Val 163 or Gly 106 | |
| 2-Hydroxy anthraquinone | −9.36 | |||
| 2-Methoxy-anthraquinone | −10.43 | |||
| Lucidin-3- | −24.9 | |||
| Lucidin | −11.9 | |||
| Purpurin | −14.78 | |||
| Xanthopurpurin dimethylether | −11.34 | |||
| Xanthopurpurin | −11.68 | |||
| Rubiadin | −15.45 | |||
| Flavonoids* | High | Baicalein-7- | −19.66 | 2 HB with Val 163 |
| Kaempferol-3- | −20.95 | 2 HB with Val 163 | ||
| Naringenin-7- | −16.16 | 2 HB with Gly 106 and Val 163 | ||
| Neohesperidin dihydrochalcon | −23.56 | 2 HB with Gly 106 | ||
| Mild | Acacetin 7-rutinoside | −21.21 | 1 HB with either Val 163 or Gly 106 | |
| Apigenin | −16.59 | |||
| Hesperetin | −20.98 | |||
| Hesperetin-7- | −25.20 | |||
| Isorhamnetin-3- | −22.21 | |||
| Kaempferol-7-neohesperidoside | −17.04 | |||
| Luteolin | −18.08 | |||
| Luteolin-3-7-diglucoside | −18.38 | |||
| Luteolin-7- | −27.45 | |||
| Naringenin | −17.67 | |||
| Quercetin-3-D-xyloside | −19.95 | |||
| Quercetin | −20.89 |
#Highly-bonded interactive docked compounds in the same way like AC1. *The rest of compounds of both groups weren't able to bind with the receptor pocket.
Fig. 3Binding disposition and ligand–receptor interactions of (A) co-crystallized ligand (AC1), and the two high affinity. Docked compounds; (B) 1-hydroxy-2-hydroxymethyl AQ, and (C) naringenin-7-O-glucoside inside the 1HX0 binding site as alpha-amylase inhibitor. Co-crystallized ligand (orange), and docked compounds (green).