| Literature DB >> 35520118 |
Saliha Dassamiour1,2, Selsabil Meguellati2, Hdouda Lamraoui2, Mohamed Sabri Bensaad1,3, Rokayya Sami4, Garsa Alshehry4, Eman Hillal Althubaiti5, Areej Suliman Al-Meshal6.
Abstract
The date palm (Phoenix dactylifera L.) is one of the most important crops in arid and semi-arid zones. Date fruit occupies a good place in traditional medicine among the Saharan residents, due to its therapeutic virtues; although there may be several therapeutic virtues yet to be discovered. The aim of this study was to investigate the phytochemical and pharmacological properties of the hexanic (EHx), chloroformic (ECh), ethyl acetate (EAc) and aqueous (EAq) extracts of Tanteboucht pulp. The phytochemical characterization and estimation of phenolic compounds were done based on an HPLC-DAD approach. The antioxidant activity was evaluated by a DPPH scavenging effect test. The sensitivity of 7 bacterial strains and Candida albicans to Tanteboucht extracts was tested using the diffusion disc on agar medium method. The membrane stabilization test was used to determine the in vitro anti-inflammatory effect of the fruit extracts. Fourteen phenolic compounds were detected in organic extracts and EAc was the richest followed by ECh and finally EHx which was very poor in these molecules. All extracts showed antioxidant, anti-inflammatory and antimicrobial properties which differ in rate. Indeed, ECh had the greatest scavenging effect on DPPH, followed by EAc and then EAq. EAc was the most potent inhibitor of microbial strains. EAc and ECh were more efficient at membrane stabilization followed by EAq and the three extracts had more anti-inflammatory capacity than the positive control acetyl salicylic acid. The obtained considerable activities were significantly correlated with flavonoid and tannin contents in the extracts. This journal is © The Royal Society of Chemistry.Entities:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35520118 PMCID: PMC9066423 DOI: 10.1039/d2ra01630c
Source DB: PubMed Journal: RSC Adv ISSN: 2046-2069 Impact factor: 4.036
Fig. 1Tanteboucht date.
Contents of detected phenolic compoundsa
| Phenolic compounds | Content (μg g−1) of EHx | Content (μg g−1) of ECh | Content (μg g−1) of EAc | En μg/100 g of FFw |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gallic acid | — | 11.27 ± 0.35 | 8.91 ± 1.33 | 60.38 ± 5.72 |
| Caffeic acid | — | 12.89 ± 0.16 | 5.94 ± 0.79 | 53.58 ± 3.27 |
| Chlorogenic acid | — | 40.28 ± 2.79 | 32.47 ± 3.75 | 218.08 ± 20.55 |
| 4-Hydroxybenzoic acid | — | 26.87 ± 1.77 | 4051.10 ± 71.98 | 14 812.63 ± 266.4 |
| Coumaric acid | — | — | — | |
|
| — | — | ||
| Salicylic acid | — | — | — | |
| Vanillin | 1.83 ± 0.17 | 29.68 ± 1.39 | — | 95.16 ± 3.60 |
| Coumarin | 50.59 ± 5.74 | 22.58 ± 2.02 | — | 107.64 ± 10.42 |
| Rutin | — | 21.02 ± 1.60 | — | 52.13 ± 3.96 |
| Quercetin | — | — | 207.05 ± 25.55 | 753.66 ± 93.02 |
| Catechin | — | 19.69 ± 2.91 | 17.01 ± 2.62 | 110.75 ± 16.75 |
| Epicatechin | — | 14.65 ± 2.02 | — | 36.33 ± 5.02 |
| Luteolin | — | — | 12.69 ± 1.85 | 46.19 ± 6.74 |
| Cyanidine chloride | — | 20.02 ± 4.48 | 4.26 ± 1.75 | 65.16 ± 17.50 |
| Tannic acid | — | 7.25 ± 2.15 | 8.11 ± 1.61 | 47.5 ± 11.20 |
| Procyanidine B2 | — | 6.85 ± 0.78 | 4.20 ± 0.49 | 32.28 ± 3.73 |
‘—’: absent; FFW: fruit fresh weight.
Fig. 2Maximum rate of anti-free radical activity of Tanteboucht extracts and standards.
Results of IC50 and antiradical efficiency (AE) of Tanteboucht extracts versus antioxidant standards
| Extracts/standards | IC50 (mg mL−1) | AE |
|---|---|---|
| EAc | 1.19 ± 0.02 | 0.83 ± 0.02 |
| ECh | 0.86 ± 0.08 | 1.16 ± 0.11 |
| EAq | 2.84 ± 0.90 | 0.37 ± 0.12 |
| EHx | — | — |
| Quercetin | 0.07 ± 0.01 | 14.48 ± 0.32 |
| Ascorbic acid | 0.25 ± 0.02 | 4.01 ± 2.09 |
1st letter: comparison (p <0.001) of all samples to quercetin standard.
2nd letter: comparison (p <0.001) of all samples to ascorbic acid standard.
Fig. 3Major effects of Tanteboucht extracts on the sensitivity of the microbial studied strains; 1: EAc, 2: ECh, 3: EHx, 4: EAq, 5: DMSO, 6: Sterile distilled water.
Means diameters (mm) of inhibition zones of studied microbial strains by Tanteboucht date's extracts (200 mg mL−1) and standards
| Extract/strain | EAc | EHx | ECh | EAq | Standards |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| 10.55 ± 0.20 | — | 6.60 ± 0.35 | 6.55 ± 0.41 | — |
|
| 7.75 ± 0.37 | — | 6.70 ± 0.43 | — | — |
|
| 10.90 ± 0.33 | 8.00 ± 0.05 | 9.50 ± 0.11 | — | — |
|
| 7.30 ± 0.21 | — | 9.20 ± 0.26 | 16.75 ± 0.30 | 19 (cefoxitine) |
| 22 (imipenem) | |||||
|
| 19.75 ± 0.45 | — | 8.00 ± 0.15 | — | — |
|
| 20.00 ± 0.32 | — | 8.50 ± 0.45 | — | 20 (amoxicilline) |
| 25(Gentamycine) | |||||
|
| 22.00 ± 0.38 | 8.00 ± 0.5 | 9.00 ± 0.16 | — | 19 (oxacilline) |
| 19 (vancomycine) | |||||
|
| 10.60 ± 0.15 | — | — | — | — |
|
| 22.00 ± 0.37 | — | 9.00 ± 0.35 | — | 10 (tetracycline) |
| 20 (Gentamycine) | |||||
|
| 10.00 ± 0.18 | 8.50 ± 0.13 | 8.50 ± 0.18 | — | — |
Diameters of inhibition zones (mm) of Staphylococcus aureus, Escherichia coli and C.albicans obtained at different concentrations of the ethyl acetate extract (EAc)
| Strain/dilution | 50 | 25 | 12.5 | 6.25 | 3.12 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| 18.2 ± 0.1 | 12.9 ± 0.16 | 10.75 ± 0.08 | 10.00 ± 0.01 | 6.5 ± 0.01 |
|
| 17.78 ± 0.47 | 14.22 ± 0.02 | 11.93 ± 0.10 | 10.53 ± 0.20 | 6.75 ± 0.02 |
|
| 15.55 ± 0.04 | 11.02 ± 0.02 | 06.73 ± 0.09 | — | — |
Fig. 4Rate of anti-inflammatory activities of Tanteboucht extracts vs. standard (Salicylic acid). Results are the average of three measurements; the bars with different letters indicate significantly different activities (p <0.001).