| Literature DB >> 35518081 |
Maria Clara da Silva Goersch1, Laura Schäfer2, Marina Tonial2, Viviani Ruffo de Oliveira3, Alexandre de Barros Falcão Ferraz4, Jean Fachini1, Juliana Bondan da Silva1, Liana Appel Boufleur Niekraszewicz5, Carlos Eduardo Rodrigues2,6, Giancarlo Pasquali6, Johnny Ferraz Dias5, Tarso B Ledur Kist2, Jaqueline Nascimento Picada1.
Abstract
Eragrostis teff is an Ethiopian native grass plant (Poaceae or Gramineae family) whose importance as a crop grain has increased in recent years. The aim of this study is to analyze the nutritional composition of its seeds and the mutagenic/antimutagenic activity of the hydroalcoholic extract of the seed flour. Chemical elements (colloquially known as minerals) were determined using Particle-Induced X-ray Emission (PIXE) and Flame Atomic Absorption Spectroscopy (FAAS), while the content of amino acids (aminogram) and fatty acids (profile of fatty acids) were quantified by HPLC. Mutagenic activities were tested using Salmonella/microsome assay. Mutagens doxorubicin, 4-nitroquinolin N-oxide, methylmethanosulphonate, and aflatoxin B-1 were used in Salmonella typhimurium TA98 and TA100 strains to assess antimutagenic activities. The major elements observed were K, P, S, Mg, and Ca. Almost all essential amino acids were observed and the predominance of unsaturated fatty acids in the total oil content of 2.72% (w/w) is also noted, including the two essential fatty acids alpha-linolenic acid (an omega-3 fatty acid) and linoleic acid (an omega-6 fatty acid). Hydroalcoholic extract of E. teff seed flour showed antimutagenic activity, protecting against frameshift and base pair substitution mutations. These findings provide valuable information for further development of healthier foods that can be produced with increasing yields and minimal environmental impact. This journal is © The Royal Society of Chemistry.Entities:
Year: 2019 PMID: 35518081 PMCID: PMC9060251 DOI: 10.1039/c8ra09733j
Source DB: PubMed Journal: RSC Adv ISSN: 2046-2069 Impact factor: 3.361
Chemical inorganic elements in E. teff seeds ranked by average concentration in mg/100 g
| This work | This work | Bultosa and Taylor 2004 | El-Alfy | Hager | Average | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Variety | Brown | Brown | Not ment. | Not ment. | Not ment. | |
| Sample | Dry seeds | Dry seeds | Not ment. | Dry seeds | Fresh seeds | |
| Method | PIXE | FAAS | Not ment. | SEM-EDX | ICP/AES | |
| Units | mg/100 g | mg/100 g | mg/100 g | mg/100 g | mg/100 g | mg/100 g |
| K | 638 ± 146 | 594 ± 6 | 380 | 1921.3 | 382.77 ± 0.45 | 783 |
| S | 322 ± 19 | 609.0 | 465 | |||
| P | 421 ± 52 | 425.4 | 52.78 | 361.70 ± 1.10 | 315 | |
| Ca | 213 ± 26 | 71.9 ± 6 | 165.2 | 571.1 | 154.30 ± 0.20 | 235 |
| Mg | 311 ± 62 | 188 ± 6 | 181 | 47.44 | 168.97 ± 1.45 | 179 |
| Cl | 52.7 ± 4.0 | 171.19 | 48.10 ± 3.91 | 91 | ||
| Si | 70.7 ± 13.8 | 70.7 | ||||
| Fe | 31.5 ± 6.9 | 24.3 ± 0.6 | 15.7 | 25.50 | 8.53 ± 0.20 | 21 |
| Na | 15.9 | 59.30 | 5.98 ± 0.21 | 27 | ||
| Mn | 10.3 ± 1.4 | 3.8 | 3.45 ± 0.04 | 5.9 | ||
| Al | 5.8 ± 1.9 | 5.8 | ||||
| Zn | 4.72 ± 0.79 | 4.5 ± 1.9 | 4.8 | 4.15 ± 0.01 | 4.5 | |
| Ti | 3.99 ± 1.18 | 4.0 | ||||
| Cu | 1.40 ± 0.50 | <0.5 | 2.6 | 0.93 ± 0.01 | 1.6 | |
| Br | 1.39 ± 0.11 | 1.4 | ||||
| Ni | <0.1 | <0.1 | ||||
| Se | <0.1 | <0.1 | ||||
| Co | <0.1 | <0.1 |
Analysis by flame atomic emission spectroscopy instead of FAAS.
Analysis by FAAS with the aid of a hydride generator.
These numbers (mg of each element/100 g of dry seeds) were calculated using the factor 59.3. El-Alfy et al. (2012) expressed their results of element concentration as % (w/w) in the ashes, which were calculated considering that dry seeds yielded 5.93% ash (or 5.93 g ash/100 g of dry seeds).
SEM-EDX = Scanning Electron Microscopy with Energy-Dispersive X-ray Spectroscopy.
ICP/AES, Inductively Coupled Plasma/Atomic Emission Spectroscopy. Method EN ISO 11885 E22.
Amino acids content in E. teff seeds ranked by average concentration in g/100 g
| Present work | El-Alfy | Average | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Variety | Brown | Red | |
| Sample | Dry seeds | Dry seeds | |
| Method | HPLC | Not ment. | |
| Units | g/100 g | g/100 g | g/100 g |
| Glutamate + glutamine | 3.88 | 3.86 | 3.87 |
| Leucine + isoleucine | 2.29 | 2.67 | 2.48 |
| Aspartate + asparagine | 1.39 | 2.17 | 1.78 |
| Tryptophan | ND | ND | 1.30 |
| Proline | ND | 1.28 | 1.28 |
| Arginine | 0.80 | 1.66 | 1.23 |
| Threonine | 1.41 | 1.01 | 1.21 |
| Lysine | 0.87 | 1.35 | 1.11 |
| Valine | 1.09 | 1.11 | 1.10 |
| Glycine | 0.68 | 1.44 | 1.06 |
| Alanine | 1.04 | 1.03 | 1.04 |
| Serine | 0.93 | 1.02 | 0.98 |
| Phenylalanine | 0.99 | 0.85 | 0.92 |
| Tyrosine | 0.70 | ND | 0.70 |
| Histidine | 0.51 | 0.72 | 0.62 |
| Cystine | ND | 0.45 | 0.45 |
| Methinonine | 0.06 | 0.44 | 0.25 |
Fig. 1Chromatogram of fluorescent derivatives formed by the reaction between free amino acids with NDA. Standard of amino acids (A) and a sample (B) from E. teff seed hydrolyzed proteins. Numbers above chomatographic peaks are referred to the following amino acids: (1) histidine; (2) arginine; (3) serine; (4) aspartic acid/asparagine; (5) glutamic acid/glutamine; (6) threonine; (7) glycine; (8) tyrosine; (9) alanine; (10) dl-2-aminobutyric acid (internal standard); (11) methionine; (12) valine; (13) phenylalanine; (14 + 15) leucine/isoleucine; (16) lysine.
Fatty acids content in E. teff seeds ranked by average profiles (%)
| This work | El-Alfy | Hager | Averages | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Variety | Brown | Not ment. | Not ment. | |
| Sample | Dry seeds | Not ment. | Fresh seeds | |
| Method | HPLC | GC | GC | |
| Units | Profile (%) | Profile (%) | Profile (%) | Profile (%) |
| Linoleic – C18:2 | 33.42 | 12.94 | 49.99 | 35.75 |
| Oleic – C18:1 | 27.53 | 32.41 | 29.47 | 29.80 |
| Palmitic – C16:0 | 14.91 | 14.52 | 10.86 | 13.43 |
| α-Linolenic – C18:3 | 5.97 | 23.83 | 2.29 | 7.07 |
| Stearic – C18:0 | 12.21 | 4.20 | 4.14 | 6.85 |
| Arachidonic – C20:4 | ND | 3.14 | ND | 3.14 |
| Erucic – C22:1 | 1.82 | ND | ND | 1.82 |
| Arachidic – C20:0 | 1.74 | ND | ND | 1.74 |
| Myristic – C14:0 | 1.27 | 0.47 | 0.22 | 0.65 |
| Lauric – C12:0 | 1.13 | 0.17 | ND | 0.65 |
| Butyric – C4:0 | ND | 0.32 | ND | 0.32 |
| Lauric – C12:0 | ND | 0.17 | ND | 0.17 |
| Palmitoleic – C16:1 | ND | 0.14 | ND | 0.14 |
| Caprylyc – C8:0 | ND | 0.12 | ND | 0.12 |
| Caproic – C6:0 | ND | 0.13 | ND | 0.13 |
| Capric – C10:0 | <0.04 | 0.08 | ND | 0.08 |
| Other fatty acids | ND | 3.85 | 0.78 | 2.32 |
| Total | 100 | 92.47 | 97.75 |
Fig. 2Chromatogram of fatty acid-MPAC-Br derivatives. Standard of fatty acids (A) and a sample (B). Samples of E. teff seed flour had the oils extracted and enzymatically hydrolyzed to deliver the fatty acids. These fatty acids were derivatized with MPAC-Br. The following fatty acids were found in the sample: C13:0, tridecanoic acid (internal standard, I.S.); C18:3, linolenic acid; C18:2, linoleic acid; C16:0, palmitic acid; C18:1, oleic acid; C18:0, stearic acid. Detection was performed with LIF at 405 nm.
Fatty acids content in E. teff seeds ranked by average profile (%)
| This work | Hager | Bultosa and Taylor 2004 | Average | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Variety | Brown | Not ment. | Not ment. | |
| Sample | Dry seeds | Fresh seeds | Fresh seeds | |
| Method | Soxhlet (hexan) | AACCI method 30-10.01 | Soxhlet | |
| Units | g/100 g | g/100 g | 5/100 g | g/100 g |
| Oil content | 2.72 | 4.39 | 2.5 | 3.20 |
Induction of his + revertants in S. typhimurium strains by E. teff seed hydroalcoholic extracts with and without metabolic activation
| Substance | Concentration (μg per plate) | TA98 | MI | TA97a | MI | TA100 | MI | TA1535 | MI | TA102 | MI |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| |||||||||||
| NC | — | 32.7 ± 3.1 | — | 106.3 ± 3.5 | — | 106.0 ± 1.0 | — | 9.0 ± 4.0 | — | 394.7 ± 19.4 | — |
|
| 250 | 21.3 ± 1.5 | 0.65 | 96.7 ± 12.5 | 0.91 | 97.7 ± 19.0 | 0.92 | 10.0 ± 1.7 | 1.11 | 421.7 ± 80.9 | 1.06 |
| 500 | 23.0 ± 2.6 | 0.70 | 73.7 ± 5.5 | 0.69 | 101.3 ± 26.2 | 0.95 | 13.3 ± 2.9 | 1.48 | 424.3 ± 23.5 | 1.07 | |
| 1000 | 24.7 ± 8.0 | 0.75 | 84.7 ± 26.3 | 0.79 | 106.7 ± 17.8 | 1.00 | 14.3 ± 1.5 | 1.59 | 541.7 ± 58.1* | 1.37 | |
| 2000 | 23.7 ± 1.5 | 0.72 | 69.3 ± 11.7 | 0.65 | 102.0 ± 3.6 | 0.96 | 15.3 ± 1.5 | 1.70 | 601.3 ± 43.6** | 1.52 | |
| 5000 | 26.0 ± 5.6 | 0.79 | 71.0 ± 18.3 | 0.67 | 111.3 ± 10.8 | 1.05 | 16.3 ± 6.7 | 1.81 | 671.3 ± 74.3*** | 1.70 | |
| PC | 0.5 (4NQO), 1.0 (NaN3) | 185.7 ± 25.0*** | 5.68 | 278.0 ± 57.7*** | 2.61 | 1084.0 ± 94.5*** | 10.22 | 505.0 ± 38.0*** | 56.10 | 4658.0 ± 584.0*** | 11.80 |
|
| |||||||||||
| NC | — | 29.7 ± 2.1 | — | 99.2 ± 17.8 | — | 107.7 ± 18.9 | — | 12.7 ± 5.1 | — | 452.6 ± 29.2 | — |
|
| 250 | 26.0 ± 7.6 | 0.88 | 77.7 ± 11.6 | 0.78 | 98.0 ± 11.4 | 0.91 | 10.7 ± 3.2 | 0.84 | 472.4 ± 33.5 | 1.04 |
| 500 | 23.3 ± 5.1 | 0.78 | 96.7 ± 4.0 | 0.97 | 103.7 ± 10.3 | 0.96 | 14.0 ± 2.6 | 1.10 | 408.8 ± 32.7 | 0.90 | |
| 1000 | 26.3 ± 5.5 | 0.89 | 109.0 ± 2.6 | 1.10 | 109.3 ± 23.1 | 1.01 | 9.7 ± 4.0 | 0.76 | 405.2 ± 93.0 | 0.90 | |
| 2000 | 27.3 ± 5.1 | 0.92 | 94.7 ± 15.1 | 0.95 | 112.0 ± 9.2 | 1.04 | 19.7 ± 7.1 | 1.55 | 428.4 ± 80.1 | 0.95 | |
| 5000 | 36.3 ± 11.1 | 1.22 | 109.3 ± 9.5 | 1.10 | 115.0 ± 12.1 | 1.07 | 27.3 ± 4.1* | 2.15 | 474.4 ± 40.8 | 1.05 | |
| PC | 1.0 (AFB-1) | 571.0 ± 48.1*** | 19.23 | 270.0 ± 7.1*** | 2.72 | 1206.0 ± 118.1*** | 11.20 | 70.0 ± 11.3 *** | 5.51 | 1466.0 ± 55.9*** | 3.24 |
Number of revertants/plate: mean ± SD.
MI: mutagenic index (no of his + induced in the sample/no of spontaneous his + in the negative control).
NC: negative control (70% dimethylsulfoxide in distillated water, 10 μL, used as a solvent of the extract).
PC: positive control: (−S9) NaN3 (sodium azide) to TA100 and TA1535; 4-NQO (4-nitroquinoline N-oxide) to TA97a, TA98 and TA102; (+S9) AFB-1 (aflatoxin -B1); significantly different in relation to the negative control. *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001 (ANOVA, Dunnett's test).
Antimutagenicity of E. teff seed hydroalcoholic extracts on S. typhimurium TA98 strain in the absence of S9 mix
| HA-Et concentrations (μg per plate) | Revertants/plate (mean ± SD) | Revertants/plate | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Pre-treatment | — | NC | NC |
| 0 | 25.7 ± 8.1 | 26.7 ± 2.1 | |
| — | DOX | 4-NQO | |
| 0 | 189.3± 39.4 | 273.3 ± 23.9 | |
| 250 | 155.7 ± 32.8 | 258.7 ± 32.6 | |
| 500 | 175.5 ± 69.9 | 282.3 ± 56.7 | |
| 1000 | 154.5 ± 87.1 | 247.0 ± 77.2 | |
| 2000 | 128.5 ± 52.1 | 337.0 ± 11.3 | |
| 5000 | 173.3 ± 98.1 | 267.0 ± 15.6 | |
| Co-treatment | — | NC | NC |
| 0 | 29.0 ± 4.6 | 25.0 ± 4.5 | |
| — | DOX | 4-NQO | |
| 0 | 388.0 ± 18.4 | 337.2 ± 30.6 | |
| 250 | 233.7 ± 94.2 | 316.0 ± 41.0 | |
| 500 | 477.3 ± 70.0 | 287.7 ± 16.3 | |
| 1000 | 344.3 ± 21.8 | 165.7 ± 70.7 ** (54.9) | |
| 2000 | 345.0 ± 17.0 | 173.3 ± 54.4 ** (52.5) | |
| 5000 | 252.3 ± 34.6 *(37.8) | 157.7 ± 79.0 ** (57.5) |
Negative control: 70% dimethylsulfoxide in distillated water, 10 μL, used as a solvent of the extract.
Doxorubicin at 1 μg per plate.
4-Nitroquinoline N-oxide at 0.5 μg per plate.
Percentage inhibition = [1 − (B/A)] × 100, where A represents the number of revertants on the plate containing mutagen only and B represents the number of revertants on the plate containing mutagen and HA-Et. The number of revertants on the NC plate was subtracted from each of A and B. Significant difference in relation to mutagen: *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01 (ANOVA, Dunnett's test).
Antimutagenicity of E. teff seed hydroalcoholic extract on S. typhimurium TA100 strain in the absence of S9 mix
| HA-Et concentrations (μg per plate) | Revertants/plate | Revertants/plate (mean ± SD) (I%) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Pre-treatment | — | NC | NC |
| 0 | 93.7 ± 8.1 | 115.0 ± 11.8 | |
| — | DOX | MMS | |
| 0 | 214.3 ± 36.1 | 353.3 ± 37.9 | |
| 250 | 138.0 ± 6.9** (63.3) | 293.0 ± 14.0* (25.3) | |
| 500 | 96.7 ± 14.3*** (97.5) | 273.7 ± 16.1** (33.4) | |
| 1000 | 128.0 ± 15.6*** (71.6) | 287.3 ± 14.9* (27.7) | |
| 2000 | 140.7 ± 20.7** (61.0) | 265.0 ± 27.1** (37.1) | |
| 5000 | 143.7 ± 9.6** (58.5) | 334.0 ± 29.6 | |
| Co-treatment | — | NC | NC |
| 0 | 99.7 ± 10.7 | 127.3 ± 16.9 | |
| — | DOX | MMS | |
| 0 | 209.3 ± 59.7 | 426.0 ± 15.5 | |
| 250 | 204.8 ± 28.7 | 463.7 ± 41.7 | |
| 500 | 174.6 ± 38.7 | 376.7 ± 28.9 | |
| 1000 | 177.2 ± 14.7 | 388.7 ± 45.8 | |
| 2000 | 197.8 ± 13.7 | 346.7 ± 21.1* (26.6) | |
| 5000 | 183.5 ± 21.3 | 365.3 ± 28.9 |
Negative control: 70% dimethylsulfoxide in distillated water, 10 μL, used as a solvent of the extract.
Doxorubicin at 1 μg per plate.
Methylmethanesulfonate at 100 μg per plate.
Percentage inhibition = [1 − (B/A)] × 100, where A represents the number of revertants on the plate containing mutagen only and B represents the number of revertants on the plate containing mutagen and HA-Et. The number of revertants on the NC plate was subtracted from each of A and B. Significant difference in relation to mutagen *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001 (ANOVA, Dunnett's test).
Antimutagenicity of E. teff seed hydroalcoholic extract on S. typhimurium TA98 and TA100 strains in the presence of S9 mix
| HA-Et concentrations (μg per plate) | TA98 | TA100, revertants/plate (mean ± SD) (I%) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Pre-treatment | — | NC | NC |
| 0 | 25.8 ± 4.9 | 101.0 ± 1.7 | |
| — | AFB-1 | AFB-1 | |
| 0 | 529.0 ± 56.5 | 686.0 ± 158.0 | |
| 250 | 617.7 ± 42.9 | 854.3 ± 30.7 | |
| 500 | 459.7 ± 105.0 | 560.0 ± 150.9 | |
| 1000 | 532.0 ± 97.6 | 462.7 ± 62.7 | |
| 2000 | 297.3 ± 41.0** (46.1) | 507.7 ± 104.7 | |
| 5000 | 184.0 ± 5.7*** (68.6) | 303.7 ± 23.6** (65.4) | |
| Co-treatment | — | NC | NC |
| 0 | 33.0 ± 3.5 | 111.8 ± 11.9 | |
| — | AFB-1 | AFB-1 | |
| 0 | 670.0 ± 71.1 | 1116.0 ± 2.1 | |
| 250 | 626.7 ± 19.0 | 1021.0 ± 30.4 | |
| 500 | 640.3 ± 35.4 | 862.0 ± 82.3 | |
| 1000 | 627.0 ± 18.4 | 915.0 ± 67.1 | |
| 2000 | 545.3 ± 121.8 | 820.3 ± 64.8* (29.5) | |
| 5000 | 194.3 ± 54.0*** (74.7) | 1082.0 ± 136.1 |
Negative control: 70% dimethylsulfoxide in distillated water, 10 μL, used as a solvent of the extract.
Aflatoxin-B1 at 1 μg per plate.
Percentage inhibition = [1 − (B/A)] × 100, where A represents the number of revertants on the plate containing mutagen only and B represents the number of revertants on the plate containing mutagen and HA-Et. The number of revertants on the NC plate was subtracted from each of A and B. Significant difference in relation to mutagen *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001 (ANOVA, Dunnett's test).