| Literature DB >> 35662919 |
Ashwani Arya1, Deepak Kaushik1, Rafa Almeer2, Simona G Bungau3, Amany A Sayed4, Mohamed M Abdel-Daim5, Saurabh Bhatia6,7, Vineet Mittal1.
Abstract
Background: The Celastrus paniculatus (CP), commonly known as Jyotishmati, is considered as "elixir of life" by Indian people for the prevention or management of many ailments. The seed powder and its extract have widely used commercially for the preparation of various Ayurvedic formulations for the improvement of memory. CP seeds were generally extracted by conventional extraction methods (CEMs) which are assumed to impact environment burden and also produce low extract yield. Green extraction with possible improvement in extract yield has always been the need of hour for selected medicinal plant. Objective: In the present research, we aimed to optimize the different extraction factors in microwave and ultrasound-based extraction. The various extracts obtained in conventional and green methods are also evaluated for the possible improvement in memory enhancing potential. Materials andEntities:
Keywords: Box-Behnken design; Celastrus paniculatus; anti-cholinesterase; antioxidant; gas chromatography; green approach; response surface methodology; scanning electron microscopy
Year: 2022 PMID: 35662919 PMCID: PMC9158750 DOI: 10.3389/fnut.2022.871183
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Nutr ISSN: 2296-861X
Actual and predicted EY at different extraction conditions in MAE.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
| |||||
| 1 | 200.00 | 5.50 | 50.00 | 27.50 | 7.8 | 8.26 |
| 2 | 200.00 | 1.00 | 80.00 | 27.50 | 18.1 | 17.38 |
| 3 | 300.00 | 1.00 | 50.00 | 27.50 | 10.1 | 11.95 |
| 4 | 300.00 | 5.50 | 20.00 | 27.50 | 13.9 | 12.63 |
| 5 | 200.00 | 5.50 | 50.00 | 27.50 | 9 | 8.26 |
| 6 | 100.00 | 5.50 | 80.00 | 27.50 | 20.5 | 20.71 |
| 7 | 200.00 | 5.50 | 20.00 | 50.00 | 9 | 9.45 |
| 9 | 100.00 | 5.50 | 50.00 | 5.00 | 5.5 | 5.02 |
| 10 | 300.00 | 5.50 | 50.00 | 5.00 | 1.2 | 0.53 |
| 11 | 200.00 | 5.50 | 20.00 | 5.00 | 6 | 6.64 |
| 12 | 300.00 | 10.00 | 50.00 | 27.50 | 7.5 | 7.70 |
| 13 | 200.00 | 5.50 | 50.00 | 27.50 | 8.1 | 8.26 |
| 14 | 200.00 | 5.50 | 80.00 | 5.00 | 8.2 | 9.14 |
| 15 | 100.00 | 10.00 | 50.00 | 27.50 | 9 | 8.54 |
| 16 | 200.00 | 10.00 | 50.00 | 50.00 | 7 | 7.08 |
| 17 | 200.00 | 1.00 | 50.00 | 5.00 | 0.5 | 0.4 |
| 18 | 200.00 | 10.00 | 20.00 | 27.50 | 5.5 | 5.88 |
| 19 | 200.00 | 5.50 | 80.00 | 50.00 | 25.1 | 25.85 |
| 20 | 200.00 | 5.50 | 50.00 | 27.50 | 7.9 | 8.26 |
| 21 | 100.00 | 5.50 | 20.00 | 27.50 | 10.2 | 9.41 |
| 22 | 100.00 | 1.00 | 50.00 | 27.50 | 7.2 | 8.39 |
| 23 | 300.00 | 5.50 | 80.00 | 27.50 | 20.5 | 20.23 |
| 24 | 200.00 | 1.00 | 20.00 | 27.50 | 12.6 | 13.18 |
| 25 | 200.00 | 10.00 | 80.00 | 27.50 | 21.5 | 20.58 |
| 26 | 200.00 | 10.00 | 50.00 | 5.00 | 2.5 | 3.21 |
| 27 | 200.00 | 1.00 | 50.00 | 50.00 | 16.8 | 15.03 |
| 28 | 200.00 | 5.50 | 50.00 | 27.50 | 8.5 | 8.26 |
| 29 | 100.00 | 5.50 | 50.00 | 50.00 | 8.6 | 8.93 |
Figure 1Diagnostic plots to confirm the fitness of developed model in MAE (A) normal plot of residual (B) predicted vs. actual value.
Figure 2Pareto chart indicating magnitude of different variables/terms on EY (A) MAE (B) UAE.
Figure 33 D diagram indicating the effect of different variables (X1, X2, X3, X4) on the response, % EY (Y) in MAE. (A) Power (X1) and S/S ratio (X4). (B) Time (X2) and Solvent concentration (X3). (C) Time (X2) and S/S ratio (X4). (D) Solvent concentration (X3) and S/S ratio (X4).
Actual and predicted EY at different extraction conditions in UAE.
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
| ||||
| 1 | 5.00 | 50.00 | 20.00 | 8.41 | 8.66 |
| 2 | 12.50 | 90.00 | 30.00 | 37.88 | 37.53 |
| 3 | 12.50 | 70.00 | 20.00 | 26.90 | 26.94 |
| 4 | 5.00 | 70.00 | 30.00 | 24.9 | 24.81 |
| 5 | 12.50 | 70.00 | 20.00 | 26.39 | 26.94 |
| 6 | 12.50 | 70.00 | 20.00 | 26.81 | 26.94 |
| 7 | 20.00 | 70.00 | 10.00 | 21.55 | 21.64 |
| 8 | 12.50 | 50.00 | 10.00 | 10.61 | 10.97 |
| 9 | 20.00 | 50.00 | 20.00 | 16.65 | 16.21 |
| 10 | 20.00 | 70.00 | 30.00 | 28.72 | 29.32 |
| 11 | 5.00 | 90.00 | 20.00 | 31.61 | 32.05 |
| 12 | 5.00 | 70.00 | 10.00 | 19.18 | 18.59 |
| 13 | 12.50 | 70.00 | 20.00 | 26.94 | 24.94 |
| 14 | 12.50 | 50.00 | 30.00 | 15.74 | 15.59 |
| 15 | 20.00 | 90.00 | 20.00 | 32.29 | 32.05 |
| 16 | 12.50 | 70.00 | 20.00 | 27.66 | 26.94 |
| 17 | 12.50 | 90.00 | 10.00 | 28.09 | 28.25 |
Figure 4Diagnostic plots to confirm the fitness of developed model in UAE (A) normal plot of residual (B) predicted vs. actual value.
Figure 53 D diagram indicating the effect of different variables (X1, X2, X3) on the response, % EY (Y) in UAE. (A) Sonication time (X l) and Solvent concentration (X2). (B) Solvent concentration (X2) and volume of solvent (X3).
Comparative evaluation of different extracts of CP Willd for EY, TPC, and TFC.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| OMCP | 268.9 | 6.83 (min) | 41.43 | 80 | 25.1 ± 1.5 | 57.5 ± 2.8 | 28.5 ± 1.1 |
| OUCP | —– | 11.81 (min) | 27.31 | 90 | 36.5 ± 2.3 | 56.5 ± 3.1 | 26 ± 1.8 |
| SXCP | 300 | 9 (Hr) | 50 | 100 | 15.93 ± 0.9 | 21.16 ± 1.52 | 11.66 ± 0.76 |
| MCP | …… | 8 days | 50 | 100 | 12.53 ± 0.8 | 13.33 ± 0.76 | 8.16 ± 0.57 |
Figure 6Scanning electron micrographs of different samples (A) untreated (B) after maceration (C) after percolation (D) after UAE (E) after MAE.
Figure 7GC-MS chromatogram of different extracts (A) MCP (B) SXCP (C) OMCP (D) OUCP.
Possible constituents reported in different extracts of CP Willd by GC-MS analysis.
|
|
|
|
|
| ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| Palmitic acid | 14.834 | 0.98 | 14.838 | 1.75 | 14.844 | 2.36 | 14.853 | 6.15 |
| Hexanoic acid, pentadecyl ester | 20.041 | 1.36 | 19.699 | 1.52 | 19.709 | 2.95 | 19.710 | 3.06 |
| 9-Octadecenoic acid (Z)-, hexadecyl ester | 21.023 | 5.14 | 21.002 | 9.38 | 21.021 | 12.16 | 21.027 | 10.23 |
| Squalene | 21.151 | 3.89 | 21.144 | 5.27 | 21.151 | 3.05 | …. | …. |
| Cholan-24-oic acid, 3-(acetyloxy)-12-oxo-, methyl ester, (3 alpha.,5 beta.) | 21.372 | 1.04 | 21.365 | 0.87 | 21.021 | 12.16 | 21.382 | 1.15 |
| 3,9-epoxypregn-16-en-14-ol-20-one, 11,18-diacetoxy-3-methoxy | 21.648 | 1.07 | 21.637 | 0.64 | 21.651 | 1.56 | 21.659 | 1.77 |
| Tribenzoyl-d-mannosan | 22.655 | 11.16 | 22.618 | 7.54 | 22.649 | 12.16 | 22.680 | 13.61 |
| 1,5-Anhydro-D-glucitol | 23.106 | 1.08 | 23.083 | 0.46 | 23.102 | 0.58 | 23.130 | 2.15 |
| Sitosterol | 23.217 | 4.13 | 23.189 | 2.67 | 23.214 | 4.52 | 23.240 | 5.90 |
| Lupan-3-ol, benzoate | 23.591 | 3.63 | 24.266 | 1.43 | 23.596 | 4.44 | 23.612 | 4.50 |
| (1S,4S,5S,6R,7R,9S,10S)-4,9-dibenzoyloxy-1,6,15-triacetoxy-dihydrto.beta.-agarofuran | 23.846 | 3.16 | 23.828 | 2.05 | 23.847 | 2.63 | 23.867 | 4.07 |
| Oleyl oleate | 24.277 | 2.28 | 23.573 | 2.58 | 24.284 | 2.39 | 24.298 | 2.94 |
| Ursa-9(11),12-dien-28-oic acid, 3-(acetyloxy)-, methyl ester, (3.beta.) | 25.070 | 1.12 | 25.065 | 0.44 | 25.090 | 1.30 | ||
| Pilocarpine | 26.616 | 0.73 | 26.616 | 0.84 | 26.638 | 1.35 | 26.636 | 0.42 |
| 11-(benzoyloxy)-3-isopropyl-1,2,3,3A,4,5,6,6A,7,12-decahydrocyclopenta[D]anthracen-8-yl benzoate | 27.984 | 1.99 | 27.975 | 1.86 | 28.006 | 3.75 | 28.006 | 2.42 |
| N,1-Dibenzoyl-5-Amino-6-(Benzyloxy)-2-Methylindole-3-Carboxylic Acid Methyl Ester | 33.972 | 3.04 | 33.947 | 1.92 | 33.993 | 3.17 | 34.034 | 3.60 |
| 6-Ethyl-3-decanol, TMS derivative | 19.256 | 0.22 | 20.358 | 1.13 | ||||
| Estradiol 17-benzoate-3-p-phenylazobenzoate | 30.079 | 0.99 | 30.078 | 0.83 | 30.113 | 1.14 | ||
| 1,3-cyclohexadecanedione | 25.330 | 2.30 | 20.064 | 1.04 | ||||
| Celorvicol | 27.800 | 0.20 | - | - | - | - | 27.836 | 0.35 |
| O-benzyl-n,n-dibenzoyl-2,5-diamino-4-(1-(methoxycarbonyl)-2-oxopropyl)phenol | 32.581 | 0.22 | 31.797 | 0.39 | 31.474 | 0.52 | ||
| Pseudotigogenin diacetate | 22.884 | 4.76 | 22.854 | 4.41 | 22.881 | 6.59 | 22.897 | 5.24 |
Figure 8Effects of CP seed extracts on TL.
Figure 9Effects of CP seed extracts on SDL.
Figure 10Biochemical estimation of different anti-oxidant stress parameters (A) reduced glutathione (B) SOD (C) catalase (D) nitrite content in various groups.
Figure 11AChE inhibitory potential of different extracts and standard drugs.