| Literature DB >> 35630702 |
Tomasz Tuzimski1, Anna Petruczynik2.
Abstract
Neurodegenerative diseases, among which one of the more common is Alzheimer's disease, are the one of the biggest global public health challenges facing our generation because of the increasing elderly population in most countries. With the growing burden of these diseases, it is essential to discover and develop new treatment options capable of preventing and treating them. Neurodegenerative diseases, among which one of the most common is Alzheimer's disease, are a multifactorial disease and therefore demand multiple therapeutic approaches. One of the most important therapeutic strategies is controlling the level of acetylcholine-a neurotransmitter in cholinergic synapses-by blocking the degradation of acetylcholine using acetylcholinesterase inhibitors such as tacrine, galantamine, donepezil and rivastigmine. However, these drugs can cause some adverse side effects, such as hepatotoxicity and gastrointestinal disorder. Thus, the search for new, more effective drugs is very important. In the last few years, different active constituents from plants have been tested as potential drugs in neurodegenerative disease therapy. The availability, lower price and less toxic effects of herbal medicines compared with synthetic agents make them a simple and excellent choice in the treatment of neurodegenerative diseases. The empirical approach to discovering new drugs from the systematic screening of plant extracts or plant-derived compounds is still an important strategy when it comes to finding new biologically active substances. The aim of this review is to identify new, safe and effective compounds that are potential candidates for further in vivo and clinical tests from which more effective drugs for the treatment of Alzheimer's disease could be selected. We reviewed the methods used to determine anti-Alzheimer's disease activity. Here, we have discussed the relevance of plant-derived compounds with in vitro activity. Various plants and phytochemical compounds have shown different activity that could be beneficial in the treatment of Alzheimer's disorders. Most often, medicinal plants and their active components have been investigated as acetylcholinesterase and/or butyrylcholinesterase activity inhibitors, modifiers of β-amyloid processing and antioxidant agents. This study also aims to highlight species with assessed efficacy, usable plant parts and the most active plant components in order to identify species and compounds of interest for further study. Future research directions are suggested and recommendations made to expand the use of medicinal plants, their formulations and plant-derived active compounds to prevent, mitigate and treat Alzheimer's disease.Entities:
Keywords: IC50 values; anti-Alzheimer’s disease activity; enzyme activity inhibition; plant extract components
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35630702 PMCID: PMC9147832 DOI: 10.3390/molecules27103222
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Molecules ISSN: 1420-3049 Impact factor: 4.927
Figure 1Schematic diagram showing five of the most important therapeutic targets in Alzheimer’s disease. Reprinted with permission from Ref. [2]. Copyright 2021 Elsevier.
Figure 2General scheme of the cholinergic hypothesis for AChE inhibition. (A) Low concentrations of acetylcholine in the synaptic gap. (B) Increase in concentration after inhibition of AChE. Reprinted with permission from Ref. [13]. Copyright 2020 Elsevier.
Figure 3Molecular docking results: (A) walujewine (cyanic sticks) in complex with acetylcholinesterase (gray fragments); (B) tortifoline (cyanic sticks) in complex with acetylcholinesterase (gray fragments). Reprinted with permission from Ref. [28]. Copyright 2021 Elsevier.
Figure 4HPLC-IMER-MS bioanalytical device. Immobilized AChE (() continuously converts ACh () into Cho () when no AChE inhibitors are eluted from the HPLC column (Equation (1)); when AChE inhibitors () are present in the eluate, they bind to the immobilized AChE, resulting in an increase in remaining ACh and a decrease in detected Cho (Equation (2)). Reprinted with permission from Ref. [25]. Copyright 2017 Elsevier.
Figure 5HPTLC chromatograms of methanolic and dichloromethane (DCM) extracts from cherimoya peel on silica gel 60 F254 plates using a mobile phase composed of chloroform/methanol/ethyl acetate (80:14:6, v/v/v). HPTLC-acetylcholinesterase bioassay photo-documented under white light of dichloromethane (A) and methanolic extract (B); photo-documentation at 366 nm-fluorescence (C) and 254 nm-UV (D); selected bands marked with soft pencil for elution to MS via TLC-MS interface (E) and ESI-MS spectra of selected bands (F,G). Reprinted with permission from Ref. [44]. Copyright 2019 Wiley.
Acetylcholinesterase inhibition by plant extracts.
| Compounds | Plant Material | Acetylcholinesterase Inhibition Investigation Methods | Determination of Plant Extract Components Method | IC50 | Reference |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gigantelline, gigantellinine and gigancrinine, cherylline- and crinine-type | Ellman method with the application of 96-well microplate | Separation by preparative TLC and identification by NMR | From 1.83 μM for gigantellinine to 174.90 μM for sanguinine | [ | |
| Flavonol triglycosides | Ellman method with the application of 96-well microplate and docking study | TLC, LC-UV-Vis, LC-MS | [ | ||
| Oxoprotoberberine alkaloid and flavone | Ellman method with the application of 96-well microplate and docking study | Separation by TLC and column chromatography and identification by NMR and MS | - | [ | |
| Diterpenoid alkaloids | Ellman method with the application of 96-well microplate | Separation by column chromatography and identification by NMR | From 0.065 μM for hetisinone to >100 μM for anthoroisine H | [ | |
| Monoterpene indole alkaloids | Ellman method with the application of 96-well microplate and docking study | Separation by TLC, column chromatography and identification by NMR | From 16.39 μM for rauvomitorine III to 186.62 μM for normacusine B | [ | |
| Polymethylated acylphloroglucinols | Ellman method with the application of 96-well microplate | Separation by semi-preparative HPLC and identification by NMR | From 8.68 μM for rhotomentosone E to 46.58 μM for rhodomentone A | [ | |
| Acylphloroglucinols | Ellman method with the application of 96-well microplate and docking study | Separation by semi-preparative HPLC and identification by NMR | From 2.55 μM for eucalyprobusones E and F to >40 μM for eucalyprobusal A–E and eucalyprobusone B | [ | |
| Flavanonol glucosides | Ellman method with the application of 96-well microplate | Separation by column chromatography and semi-preparative HPLC, identification by NMR | From 76.59 μM for (2S,3R)-dihydrokaempferol 3-O-b-D-glucoside to 97.53 μM for (2R,3S)-taxifolin 3-O-b- | [ | |
| Phenolic compounds | Ellman method with the application of 96-well microplate | LC/MS | - | [ | |
| Phenolic compounds, triterpenes | Ellman method with the application of 96-well microplate | UPLC–MS | From 2.571 mg/mL for | [ | |
| Alkaloids: galantamine, pseudolycorine, sanguinine and narciclasine | Ellman method with the application of 96-well microplate | UPLC- MS and NMR | From 4.9 to 33.7 μg/mL for the different harvest time | [ | |
| Phenolic compounds | Ellman method | LC-MS/MS | 119.8 μg/mL for methanolic and 150.1 μg/mL for water extracts | [ | |
| Phenolic compounds | Ellman method | LC-MS/MS and NMR | - | [ | |
| Phenolic compounds | Ellman method with the application of 96-well microplate | GC-MS | - | [ | |
| Stilbenoids | Ellman method with the application of 96-well microplate | Semi-preparative HPLC, NMR | From 2.18 μM for 4′-methoxy-scirpusin A l to 1709 μM for resveratrol | [ | |
| (E)-β-caryophyllene, | Ellman method | GC-MS | - | [ | |
| Coumarins, flavonoids and b-sitosterol | Ellman method with the application of 96-well microplate | TLC, column chromatography, NMR | For 39.64 μM for xanthotoxin to 854.05 μM for suberosin | [ | |
| Alkaloids | Ellman method with the application of 96-well microplate and molecular docking study | GC-MS, NMR | From 0.33 μg/mL for | [ | |
| Phenolic compounds | Ellman method with the application of 96-well microplate | GC-MS | From 4.46 μg/mL for water extract to 7.55 μg/mL for chloroformic extract | [ | |
| Gallic acid derivative, | Ellman method | HPLC–DAD | 33.2 μg/mL for crude methanolic extract | [ | |
| Phytol derivative and cinnamic acid ester | Ellman method with the application of 96-well microplate | TLC | 22.26 μg/mL for eluptol and 6.51 μg/mL for omifoate A | [ | |
| Lycorine | Ellman method | HPLC–DAD | 386.00 μg/mL for ethanol extracts obtained from dry leaves of plantlets produced | [ | |
| Chlorogenic acid, limonene | Ellman method with the application of 96-well microplate | HPLC–DAD | - | [ | |
| Polyphenols | Ellman method with the application of 96-well microplate | LC-MS/MS | 138.61 μg/mL for water extract and 94.93 μg/mL for methanol extracts | [ | |
| Phytol, neophytadiene, | Ellman method | GC-MS | From 44 μg/mL for n-hexane extract to 1035 μg/mL for chloroform extract | [ | |
| Phenylpropanoids, | Ellman method with the application of 96-well microplate | TLC, HPLC-DAD-MS/MS | From 142 μg/mL for hydroalcoholic extract to 346 μg/mL for hexane extract | [ | |
| Phenolic compounds | Ellman method | GC-MS | - | [ | |
| Carvacrol, | Ellman method with the application of 96-well microplate | GC-MS | 98.84 μg/mL for | [ | |
| Chlorogenic acid, cynarin and arzanol | Ellman method and molecular docking study | LC-MS/MS | 260.7 μg/mL for flover extract and 654.8 7 μg/mL for stem/leaves extract | [ | |
| Phenolic compounds | Ellman method | LC-MS/MS | 0.88 mg/mL for phenolic yields of seeds extract | [ | |
| 1,8-Cineole, l-Borneol and β-Pinène | Ellman method | GC-MS | 13.80 μg/mL for essential oil, 180.70 μg/mL for chloroform extract and >200 μg/mL for butanolic extract | [ | |
| Flavonoids, phenolic acids | Ellman method with the application of 96-well microplate | UHPLC–MS/MS | From 7.72 μg/mL for root extract to 25.58 μg/mL for leaf extract | [ | |
| Phenolic compounds | Ellman method | HPLC-DAD | 347.22 μg/mL | [ | |
| Furanocoumarins | Ellman method with the application of 96-well microplate | NMR | From 0.30 μg/mL for | [ | |
| γ-terpinene, carvacrol, p-cymene and | Ellman method | GC-MS | 4.17 μg/mL for | [ | |
| Coumarins and flavonoids | Ellman method with the application of 96-well microplate and molecular docking study | UHPLC–MS/MS | - | [ | |
| Salvigenin, fumaric acid, and quercetagetin-3.6-dimethylether | Ellman method | LC-MS/MS | 15.06 μg/mL for water extract and 9.91 μg/mL for methanol extract | [ | |
| Phenolic compounds | Ellman method | HPLC-DAD | 0.26 mg/mL | [ | |
| Phenolic compounds | Ellman method | HPLC-UV-Vis | 107.64 μg/mL | [ | |
| Phenolic compounds | Ellman method | GC-MS | 51.33 μg/mL for flower | [ | |
| Alkaloids: epiberberine, skimmianine, palmatine, columbamine, jatrorrhizine | Ellman method | HPLC-UV-MS | 62.34 μg/mL for crude extract, 1745.34 μg/mL for ethanol extract and from 3.12 μg/mL for epiberberine to 34.82 μg/mL for jatrorrhizine | [ | |
| Phenolic compounds | Ellman method with the application of 96-well microplate | HPLC | - | [ | |
| Flavonoids |
| Ellman method with the application of 96-well microplate | Spectrophotometric method | 0.58 mg/mL | [ |
| Phenolic compounds | Ellman method | HPLC-DAD | 0.27 mg/mL | [ | |
| α-pinene, β-pinene, limonene, | Ellman method with the application of 96-well microplate | GC-MS | 57.31 μg/mL for Chinese accession and 74.64 μg/mL | [ | |
| Polymethylated phloroglucinol meroterpenoids | Ellman method with the application of 96-well microplate | Column chromatography, NMR | 22.9 μM for most active compound rhotomentodione D | [ | |
| Flavonoids | Ellman method with the application of 96-well microplate | Column chromatography, HPTLC-EDA-Vis, NMR | 404.4 μg/mL for ethyl acetate leaf extract to 1848.7 μg/mL for n-hexane fruit extract | [ | |
| Phenolic compounds | Ellman method with the application of 96-well microplate | HPLC-DAD | 1581 μg/L for aqueous extract | [ | |
| Catechins | Ellman method with the application of 96-well microplate | HPLC-DAD, NMR | 42.38 μM for (−)-6-(5″R)-2″-ethoxy-3″,4″-dihydro-2H-pyrrole-epicatechin-3-gallate, 19.5 μM for epicatechin-3-gallate and 78.79 μM for epigallocatechin-3-gallate | [ | |
| Flavoalkaloids | Ellman method with the application of 96-well microplate | LC-DAD-MS | From 10.81 μM to 34.82 μM for most active compounds | [ |
Butyrylcholinesterase inhibition by plant extracts.
| Compounds | Plant | Butyrylcholinesterase Inhibition Investigation Methods | Determination of Plant Extract Components Method | IC50 | Reference |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Phenolic compounds | Ellman method | LC-MS/MS and NMR | - | [ | |
| Gallic acid derivative, | Ellman method | HPLC–DAD | 55.36 μg/mL for crude methanolic extract | [ | |
| Phytol derivative and cinnamic acid ester | Ellman method with the application of 96-well microplate | TLC | 34.61 μg/mL for eluptol and 9.07 μg/mL for omifoate A | [ | |
| Polyphenols | Ellman method with the application of 96-well microplate | LC-MS/MS | 99.13 μg/mL for water extract and 69.05 μg/mL for methanol extracts | [ | |
| Phytol, neophytadiene, | Ellman method | GC-MS | From 44 μg/mL for methanolic extract to 750 μg/mL for chloroform extract | [ | |
| Phenolic compounds | Ellman method | GC-MS | - | [ | |
| Carvacrol, | Ellman method with the application of 96-well microplate | GC-MS | 124.09 μg/mL for | [ | |
| 1,8-Cineole, l-Borneol and β-Pinène | Ellman method | GC-MS | 148.67 μg/mL for essential oil, 10.03 μg/mL for chloroform extract and 73.94 μg/mL for butanolic extract | [ | |
| Phenolic compounds | Ellman method | HPLC-DAD | 378.79 μg/mL | [ | |
| γ-terpinene, carvacrol, p-cymene and | Ellman method | GC-MS | 3.20 μg/mL for | [ | |
| Salvigenin, fumaric acid and quercetagetin-3.6-dimethylether | Ellman method | LC-MS/MS | 10.82 μg/mL for water extract and 95.17 μg/mL for methanol extract | [ | |
| Phenolic compounds | Ellman method | HPLC-DAD | 0.18 mg/mL | [ |
Antioxidant activity of plant extracts.
| Compounds | Plant | Antioxidant Activity Investigation Methods | Determination of Plant Extract Components Method | IC50 | Reference |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Phenolic compounds | ABTS radical scavenging assay, DPPH radical scavenging assay, ferric reducing antioxidant power assay and cupric ion reducing/antioxidant power assay and metal chelating activity | LC-MS/MS and NMR | - | [ | |
| Phenolic compounds | DPPH radical scavenging assay | GC-MS | From 0.098 mg/mL for hexane extract to 0.148 mg/mL for ethyl acetate extract | [ | |
| Phenolic compounds | DPPH radical scavenging assay and ferric reducing antioxidant power assay | GC-MS | Obtained by DPPH assay from 52.43 μg/mL for water extract to 117.45 μg/mL for petroleum ether extract; obtained by FRAP assay from 41.58 μg/mL for water extract to 115.72 μg/mL for petroleum ether extract | [ | |
| Gallic acid derivative, | DPPH radical scavenging assay, ABTS radical scavenging assay, hydrogen peroxide free radical scavenging assays | HPLC–DAD | 71.46 μg/mL by DPPH assay, 72.55 μg/mL by ABTS assay and 92.33 μg/mL by free radical assay | [ | |
| Chlorogenic acid, limonene | DPPH radical scavenging assay, peroxide free radical scavenging assays and the ability of samples to stop the oscillations in Briggs– | HPLC–DAD | - | [ | |
| Polyphenols | DPPH radical scavenging assay, ABTS radical scavenging assay and N,N-dimethyl-p-phenylenediamine | LC-MS/MS | 8.56 μg/mL for water extract and 7.05 μg/mL for methanol extracts obtained by DPPH assay; 4.76 μg/mL for water extract and 3.52 μg/mL for methanol extracts obtained by ABTS assay; 30.95 μg/mL for water extract and 28.92 μg/mL for methanol extracts obtained by DMPD+ | [ | |
| Phytol, neophytadiene, |
| DPPH radical scavenging assay, ABTS radical scavenging assay, total reducing power assay | GC-MS | 3, 5, 93 and 120 μg/mL for aqueous, chloroform, n-hexane and methanolic extracts, respectively, obtained by DPPH assay; | [ |
| Phenylpropanoid, | DPPH radical scavenging assay | TLC, HPLC-DAD-MS/MS | From 43 μg/mL for hydroalcoholic extract to 60 μg/mL for chloroform extract | [ | |
| Phenolic compounds | DPPH radical scavenging assay, ABTS radical scavenging assay | GC-MS | 76.24 μg/mL for methanol extract and 168.64 μg/mL for water extract obtained by DPPH assay; | [ | |
| Carvacrol, | DPPH radical scavenging assay, ABTS radical scavenging assay, β-Carotene-linoleic acid bleaching assay, cupric ion reducing antioxidant capacity assay and total reducing power assay | GC-MS | For | [ | |
| Phenolic compounds | DPPH radical scavenging assay and ferric reducing antioxidant power assay | LC-MS/MS | 0.000067 mg/mL by DPPH assay, 2039.60 mg GAE/100 g by ferric reducing antioxidant power assay | [ | |
| 1,8-Cineole, l-Borneol and β-Pinène | DPPH radical scavenging assay, ABTS radical scavenging assay, superoxide radical scavenging assay by alkaline DMSO, reducing power assay, β-carotene/linoleic Acid bleaching assay, cupric reducing antioxidant capacity and ferrous ions chelating assay | GC-MS | 129.28 to μg/mL by ferrous ions chelating assay and 314.13 μg/mL by β-carotene assay to >200 by other methods for essential oil, from 9.67 μg/mL by β-carotene assay to >200 μg/mL by ferrous ions chelating assay for chloroform extract and from 7.99 μg/mL by β-carotene assay to >200 μg/mL by ferrous ions chelating assay for butanolic extract | [ | |
| Phenolic compounds | DPPH radical scavenging assay, ABTS radical scavenging assay, hydroxyl radical scavenging assay, ferric reducing antioxidant power assay, NO radical scavenging assay and ferrous ions chelating assay | HPLC-DAD | 78.25 μg/mL by ABTS, 92.08 μg/mL by DPPH, 22.3 μg/mL by hydroxyl radical scavenging assay, 127.23 μg/mL by NO radical scavenging assay, 118.76 μg/mL by ferrous ions chelating assay | [ | |
| Furanocoumarins | DPPH radical scavenging assay, ABTS radical scavenging assay | NMR | From 0.58 μg/mL for | [ | |
| γ-terpinene, carvacrol, p-cymene and | DPPH radical scavenging assay, ABTS radical scavenging assay, hydroxyl radical scavenging assay, ferric reducing antioxidant power assay, NO radical scavenging assay and metal chelating assay, cupric ion reducing assay | GC-MS | 169.68 μg/mL for | [ | |
| Salvigenin, fumaric acid, and quercetagetin-3.6-dimethylether | DPPH radical scavenging assay, ABTS radical scavenging assay, N,N-Dimethyl-p-phenylenediamine radical scavenging assay (DMPD) | LC-MS/MS | 9.94 μg/mL for water extract and 9.21 μg/mL for methanol extract by DPPH assay; 6.58 μg/mL for water extract and 6.03 μg/mL for methanol extract by ABTS assay; 38.10 μg/mL for water extract and 36.82 μg/mL for methanol extract by DMPD assay | [ | |
| Phenolic compounds | DPPH radical scavenging assay, NO radical scavenging assay and superoxide radical scavenging assay | HPLC-UV-Vis | 36.73 μg/mL by DPPH assay, 144.13 μg/mL by NO radical scavenging assay and 54.15 μg/mL by superoxide radical scavenging assay | [ | |
| Flavonoids |
| DPPH radical scavenging assay, superoxide radical scavenging assay, reducing antioxidant power assay and ferric reducing antioxidant power assay | Spectrophotometric method | 37.13 μg/mL by DPPH assay, 19.62 μg/mL by superoxide radical scavenging assay, 81.22 μg/mL, 24.72 μg/mL by ferric reducing antioxidant power assay | [ |
| Phenolic compounds | DPPH radical scavenging assay, hydroxyl radical scavenging assay, free radical scavenging assays, ferrous ions chelating assay | HPLC-DAD | 0.88 mg/mL by DPPH, 0.23 mg/mL by hydroxyl radical scavenging assay, 0.24 mg/mL by ferrous ions chelating assay | [ | |
| α-pinene, β-pinene, limonene, | DPPH radical scavenging assay, free radical scavenging assays, ABTS radical scavenging assay, ferric reducing antioxidant power assay, β-carotene/linoleic acid bleaching assay, oxygen radical absorbance capacity assay | GC-MS | 495.49 μg/mL for Chinese accession and 453.9 μg/mL | [ | |
| Flavonoids | DPPH radical scavenging assay, free radical scavenging assays, ABTS radical scavenging assay, hydroxyl radical scavenging assay | column chromatography HPTLC-EDA-Vis, NMR | From 9.0 μg/mL for ethyl acetate leaf extract to 589.8 μg/mL for n-hexane fruit extract by DPPH assay; from 187.3 μg/mL for ethyl acetate leaf extract to 1332.0 μg/mL for n-hexane fruit extract by ABTS assay; from 187.3 μg/mL for ethyl acetate leaf extract to 1332.0 μg/mL for aqueous methanol leaf extract by ABTS assay; from 10.2 μg/mL for crude extract leaf extract to 249.2 μg/mL for aqueous n-butanol fruit extract by hydroxyl radical scavenging assay | [ | |
| Phenolic compounds | DPPH radical scavenging assay, ferric reducing antioxidant power assay, inhibition of lipids and protein oxidation assays | HPLC-DAD | 35.71 μg/mL for aqueous extract, | [ |
Figure 6Produced amyloid fibrils (%) at different concentrations (0–8 mg/mL) of Citrus aurantium extract. Inhibition of amyloid fibrils is completely obvious in electron micrographs. Reprinted with permission from Ref. [19]. Copyright 2019 Elsevier.
Figure 7Fluorescence suppression spectra of AChE at 25 °C (a), 30 °C (b) and 35 °C (c) (kexc. = 290 nm), in 0.5 mol/L Tris-HCl buffer pH 8.0, in presence of S. guianensis essential oil. The enzyme from E. electricus was kept in a concentration of 0.67 mg/mL, and the essential oil was titrated separately (as background to subtract) at concentrations from 1.8 to 9 mmol/L. Reprinted with permission from Ref. [50]. Copyright 2021 Elsevier.
Figure 81H RMN titration of essential oil of S. guianensis with AChE (0.67 mg/mL) in DMSO d6. Titrations were performed with AChE of 0 (red line), 10 (green line), 20 (blue line) and 30 uL (purple line) [49].
Figure 9Lineweaver–Burk (A,E), Dixon (B,F) and secondary (C,D,G,H) plots of glycitein for acetylcholinesterase and butyrylcholinesterase inhibition, respectively. Reprinted with permission from Ref. [59]. Copyright 2021 ACS Publications.
Figure 10High-performance liquid chromatography profile of the chemical constituents of Astragalus membranaceus extract obtained by ultrafiltration. (A) Astragalus membranaceus extract (the concentration of the extract was the same as that in the ultrafiltration experiment); (B) compounds bound to acetylcholinesterase; (C) compounds bound to denatured acetylcholinesterase. 1, calycosin-7-O-β-D-glucoside; 2, pratensein-7-O-β-D-glucoside; 3, formononetin-7-O-β-Dglucoside; 4, calycosin; 5, genistein; 6, formononetin. Reprinted with permission from Ref. [64]. Copyright 2021 Wiley.