| Literature DB >> 35624692 |
Javier Quero1, Lina F Ballesteros2,3, Pedro Ferreira-Santos2,3, Gustavo R Velderrain-Rodriguez4,5, Cristina M R Rocha2,3, Ricardo N Pereira2,3, José A Teixeira2,3, Olga Martin-Belloso5, Jesús Osada6,7,8, María Jesús Rodríguez-Yoldi1,7,8.
Abstract
Olive pomace (OP) is the main residue that results from olive oil production. OP is rich in bioactive compounds, including polyphenols, so its use in the treatments of diseases related to oxidative stress, such as cancer, could be considered. The present work aimed to study the biological properties of different OP extracts, obtained by ohmic heating-assisted extraction and conventional heating, using water and 50% ethanol, in the treatment and prevention of colorectal cancer through Caco-2 cell models. Additionally, an in-silico analysis was performed to identify the phenolic intestinal absorption and Caco-2 permeability. The extracts were chemically characterized, and it was found that the Ohmic-hydroethanolic (OH-EtOH) extract had the highest antiproliferative effect, probably due to its higher content of phenolic compounds. The OH-EtOH induced potential modifications in the mitochondrial membrane and led to apoptosis by cell cycle arrest in the G1/S phases with activation of p53 and caspase 3 proteins. In addition, this extract protected the intestine against oxidative stress (ROS) caused by H2O2. Therefore, the bioactive compounds present in OP and recovered by applying a green technology such as ohmic-heating, show promising potential to be used in food, nutraceutical, and biomedical applications, reducing this waste and facilitating the circular economy.Entities:
Keywords: Caco-2 cells; ROS; apoptosis; ohmic heating; olive pomace waste
Year: 2022 PMID: 35624692 PMCID: PMC9137791 DOI: 10.3390/antiox11050828
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Antioxidants (Basel) ISSN: 2076-3921
Chemical composition of olive pomace.
| Proximate Composition (g/100 g Dry OP) | Mineral Element (mg/Kg Dry OP) | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Cellulose a | 16.16 ± 0.78 | Potassium | 2798.44 ± 29.64 |
| Hemicellulose | 18.96 ± 1.79 | Calcium | 352.03 ± 23.01 |
| Xylose | 15.32 ± 0.45 | Magnesium | 145.41 ± 16.54 |
| Arabinose | 3.64 ± 0.20 | Iron | 12.24 ± 2.71 |
| Acetyl group | 3.75 ± 0.73 | Sodium | 16. 42 ± 0.67 |
| Lignin | 31.69 ± 1.40 | Aluminum | 16.93 ± 2.08 |
| Insoluble | 20.47 ± 1.31 | Manganese | 1.56 ± 0.22 |
| Soluble | 11.22 ± 0.13 | Zinc | 2.92 ± 0.36 |
| Protein | 5.66 ± 0.31 | Copper | 2.73 ± 0.29 |
| Fat | 12.06 ± 0.79 | Boron | 4.02 ± 0.52 |
| Ashes | 4.55 ± 0.22 | Barium | 0.18 ± 0.03 |
| Total extractives b | 25.23 ± 1.88 | ||
a Glucose content; b Water and ethanol extractives. Results are expressed as mean ± SD (n = 3).
Total phenolic content (TPC), antioxidant activity (DPPH and FRAP assay) and extraction yield of the aqueous and hydroethanolic olive pomace extracts obtained by ohmic heating (OH) and conventional heating (CH) techniques.
| Method | Solvent | TPC | Antioxidant Activity | Yield | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| DPPH * | FRAP | ||||
| OH | H2O | 12.08 ± 1.52 a | 3.23 ± 0.10 b | 80.41 ± 1.12 a | 28.54 ± 0.14 a |
| EtOH 50% | 17.67 ± 3.12 b | 3.82 ± 0.04 a | 150.16 ± 9.29 b | 27.39 ± 1.54 ac | |
| CH | H2O | 12.24 ± 0.88 a | 3.36 ± 0.03 b | 80.45 ± 2.45 a | 24.70 ± 0.27 b |
| EtOH 50% | 16.89 ± 0.76 b | 3.56 ± 0.05 c | 130.34 ± 2.39 c | 25.60 ± 0.19 bc | |
* DPPH inhibition concentration at 50% (IC50). Values are expressed as mean ± SD (n = 3). Different letters in the same column correspond to statistically different between samples for a 95% confidence level.
Identification and quantification of individual phenolic compounds in the aqueous and hydroethanolic olive pomace extracts obtained by ohmic heating (OH) and conventional heating (CH) techniques.
| Phenolic | OH | CH | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| H2O | EtOH 50% | H2O | EtOH 50% | |
| Hydroxytyrosol and | ||||
| Hydroxytyrosol | 28.71 ± 0.42 a | 33.36 ± 0.57 b | 31.20 ± 0.29 c | 33.49 ± 0.40 b |
| Tyrosol | 10.63 ± 0.06 a | 21.09 ± 0.12 b | 11.13 ± 0.15 a | 11.09 ± 0.99 a |
| Oleuropein | n.d. | 254.38 ± 13.24 a | n.d. | 369.05 ± 23.00 b |
| Phenolic acids | ||||
| Caffeic acid | n.d. | 2.59 ± 0.47 a | n.d. | 2.27 ± 0.35 a |
| Cinnamic acid | 18.45 ± 0.95 a | 19.99 ± 0.46 b | n.d. | n.d. |
| 44.99 ± 3.01 a | 48.41 ± 2.84 a | 20.91 ± 0.91 b | 48.76 ± 1.49 a | |
| 23.26 ± 1.24 a | 69.81 ± 1.14 b | 25.45 ± 0.41 a | 48.93 ± 1.02 c | |
| Ferulic acid | 22.31 ± 1.38 a | 13.83 ± 1.28 b | 23.60 ± 1.22 a | 22.40 ± 0.51 a |
| Vanillic acid | 39.51 ± 0.48 a | 72.77 ± 1.11 b | 43.96 ± 1.79 c | 59.41 ± 0.50 d |
| 3,4-Dihidroxibenzoic acid | 14.20 ± 0.28 a | 17.61 ± 0.94 b | 15.60 ± 0.37 ac | 16.61 ± 0.39 bc |
| Syringic acid | n.d. | 42.98 ± 3.74 a | n.d. | n.d. |
| Ellagic acid | 142.93 ± 4.49 a | 147.82 ± 3.40 a | 162.01 ± 0.61 b | 148.40 ± 3.85 a |
| Homovanillic acid | 103.45 ± 6.24 a | 75.54 ± 0.56 b | 118.62 ± 5.56 c | n.d. |
| Rosmarinic acid | 22.05 ± 0.80 a | 62.79 ± 2.27 b | n.d. | n.d. |
| Flavonoids | ||||
| Apigenin | n.d. | 43.13 ± 1.28 a | n.d. | 42.48 ± 1.31 a |
| Rutin | 21.33 ± 0.62 a | 31.46 ± 2.68 b | n.d. | n.d. |
| Taxifolin | 83.10 ± 2.23 a | 94.44 ± 4.01 b | 85.82 ± 3.40 a | 89.03 ± 2.42 a |
| Naringenin | 125.11 ± 0.56 a | 247.42 ± 10.19 b | 99.96 ± 4.62 c | 137.67 ± 10.14 a |
| Hesperidin | 137.30 ± 5.22 a | 93.15 ± 4.24 b | 62.77 ± 1.46 c | 85.75 ± 2.44 b |
| Quercetin | 168.62 ± 15.47 a | 134.94 ± 0.89 b | 206.01 ± 6.29 c | 134.14 ± 2.85 b |
| Catechin | 63.15 ± 2.39 a | 77.68 ± 1.06 b | 55.29 ± 1.58 c | 49.04 ± 0.78 d |
| Stilbene | ||||
| Resveratrol | 6.68 ± 1.02 a | 10.34 ± 0.29 b | n.d. | n.d. |
| Total | 1075.88 | 1615.54 | 962.23 | 1298.53 |
All the results are expressed as mean ± SD (n = 3) and reported as milligrams of phenolic compound per 100 g of dry material (mg/100 g OP). Different letters in the same row correspond to a statistical difference (95% confidence level) between the samples with respect to analyzed compound; n.d.: not detected.
Figure 1Fourier transform infrared spectra (FTIR) of the OP untreated and the extracts obtained from olive pomace (OP) waste by using ohmic heating (OH) and conventional heating (CH) techniques.
Theoretical absorption percentage based on Lipinski parameters of OP phenolic compounds.
| Phenolic | MW | TPSA | Log P | No. atoms | Hydrogen Bonds Acceptors | Hydrogen Bonds Donors | Rotatable Bonds | Molecular Volume (Å3) | Violations to LIRF | % ABS | Log Papp |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Hydroxytyrosol and | |||||||||||
| Hydroxytyrosol | 154.16 | 60.68 | 0.52 | 11 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 141.70 | 0 | 88.07 | 1.09 |
| Tyrosol | 138.17 | 40.46 | 1.00 | 10 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 133.68 | 0 | 95.04 | 1.69 |
| Oleuropein | 540.52 | 201.68 | −0.36 | 38 | 13 | 6 | 11 | 466.31 | 3 | 39.42 | 0.06 |
| Phenolic acids | |||||||||||
| Caffeic acid | 180.16 | 77.75 | 0.94 | 13 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 154.50 | 0 | 82.18 | 0.63 |
| Cinnamic acid | 148.16 | 37.30 | 1.91 | 11 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 138.46 | 0 | 96,13 | 1.71 |
| 164.16 | 57.53 | 1.43 | 12 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 146.48 | 0 | 89.15 | 1.21 | |
| o-coumaric acid | 164.16 | 57.53 | 1.67 | 12 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 146.48 | 0 | 89.15 | 1.21 |
| Ferulic acid | 194.19 | 66.76 | 1.25 | 14 | 4 | 2 | 3 | 172.03 | 0 | 85.97 | 0.17 |
| Vanillic acid | 168.15 | 66.76 | 1.19 | 12 | 4 | 2 | 2 | 144.61 | 0 | 85.97 | 0.33 |
| 3,4-Dihidroxibenzoic acid | 154.12 | 77.75 | 0.88 | 11 | 4 | 3 | 1 | 127.08 | 0 | 82.17 | 0.49 |
| Syringic acid | 198.17 | 76 | 1.20 | 14 | 5 | 2 | 3 | 170.15 | 0 | 82.78 | 0.49 |
| Ellagic acid | 302.19 | 141.33 | 0.94 | 22 | 8 | 4 | 0 | 221.78 | 0 | 60.24 | 0.33 |
| Homovanillic acid | 182.18 | 66.76 | 0.70 | 13 | 4 | 2 | 3 | 161.41 | 0 | 85.96 | 0.26 |
| Rosmarinic acid | 360.32 | 144.52 | 1.63 | 26 | 8 | 5 | 7 | 303.54 | 0 | 59.14 | −0.93 |
| Flavonoids | |||||||||||
| Apigenin | 270.24 | 90.89 | 2.46 | 20 | 5 | 3 | 1 | 224.05 | 0 | 90.89 | 1.00 |
| Rutin | 610.52 | 269.43 | −1.06 | 43 | 16 | 10 | 6 | 496.07 | 3 | 16.04 | −0.94 |
| Taxifolin | 304.25 | 127.44 | 0.71 | 22 | 7 | 5 | 1 | 246.32 | 0 | 65.03 | 0.92 |
| Naringenin | 272.26 | 86.99 | 2.12 | 20 | 5 | 3 | 1 | 230.26 | 0 | 78.99 | 1.02 |
| Hesperidin | 610.57 | 234.30 | −0.55 | 43 | 15 | 8 | 7 | 511.79 | 3 | 28.16 | 0.50 |
| Quercetin | 302.24 | 131.35 | 1.68 | 22 | 11 | 7 | 1 | 240.08 | 0 | 63.68 | −0.22 |
| Catechin | 290.27 | 110.37 | 1.37 | 21 | 6 | 5 | 1 | 244.14 | 0 | 70.92 | −0.28 |
| Stilben | |||||||||||
| Resveratrol | 228.25 | 60.68 | 2.99 | 17 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 206.92 | 0 | 88.06 | 1.17 |
MW = Molecular weight; TPSA = total polar surface area; Log p = octanol–water partition coefficient; Violations to LIRF = Violations to Lipinski’s rule of five; % ABS = Theoretical absorption percentage; log Papp = logarithm of the apparent permeability coefficient.
Figure 2Cell viability in Caco-2 cells after incubation with olive pomace extracts (0, 312, 625, 1250, 2500, and 5000 μg/mL) for 72 h. Conventional H2O extract (CH-H2O), conventional EtOH extract (CH-EtOH), ohmic heating H2O extract (OH-H2O), and ohmic heating EtOH extract (OH-EtOH).
IC50 (μg/mL) values of olive pomace extracts on Caco-2 undifferentiated and differentiated cells upon 72 h incubation.
| Extract | Caco-2 Undifferentiated | Caco-2 Differentiated |
|---|---|---|
| CH-H2O | 2256.1 ± 237.56 a | >5000 a |
| CH-EtOH | 747.99 ± 140.97 b | >5000 a |
| OH-H2O | 2817.10 ± 53.28 a | >5000 a |
| OH-EtOH | 692.32 ± 63.58 b | 4026 ± 274 b |
Different letters in the same column correspond to a statistical difference (95% confidence level) between treatment.
Figure 3Analysis of the type of cell death induced on Caco-2 cells after 72 h incubation in Control (untreated cells) and OH-EtOH olive pomace extract at IC50 (692.32 μg/mL). Alive (A3), necrotic (A1), early apoptotic (A4), and late apoptotic (A2) cells are indicated in percentages.
Figure 4Analysis of mitochondrial membrane potential (∆Ψm) after 72 h incubation with OH-EtOH olive pomace extract at IC50 (692.32 μg/mL). Different letters correspond to a statistical difference (95% confidence level) between treatments.
Figure 5Caco-2 cells with the presence of active Caspase 3: (A) and P53 (B) after 72 h incubation with OH and OH olive pomace extract at IC50 (692.32 μg/mL). Different letters correspond to a statistical difference (95% confidence level) between treatments.
Figure 6Histograms of PI stained Caco-2 cells after 72 h treatment with OH-EtOH olive pomace extract at IC50 (692.32 μg/mL) by flow cytometry.
Figure 7Measurements of ROS levels on undifferentiated cells in the presence or absence of H2O2 (80 mM, 20 min) after 24 h incubation with OH-EtOH olive pomace extract at IC50 (692.32 μg/mL). Different letters correspond to a statistical difference (95% confidence level) between treatments.
Figure 8Measurements of ROS levels on Caco-2 differentiated cells in the presence or absence of H2O2 (80 mM, 20 min) with OH-EtOH olive pomace extract at IC50 (692.32 μg/mL) after 24 h incubation. Different letters correspond to a statistical difference (95% confidence level) between treatments.