| Literature DB >> 35807645 |
Karina Caballero-Gallardo1,2, Patricia Quintero-Rincón1,2, Elena E Stashenko3, Jesus Olivero-Verbel1.
Abstract
Photoprotective agents obtained from plants provide benefits for the health of the skin. The present study aims to assess the total phenolic content (TPC) and in vitro UV-protective properties of twelve essential oils (EOs) from plants grown in Colombia and to evaluate the antioxidant and cytotoxic potential of two species identified as photoprotective potentials: Cymbopogon flexuosus and Tagetes lucida. The composition of EOs was studied by GC/MS. The cytotoxicity of both EOs was examined using an MTT assay, and an H2-DCFDA probe was employed to estimate the intracellular production of ROS in HepG2 and Calu-1 cells. Major constituents (≥10%) were neral, geranial, geranyl acetate in C. flexuosus and estragole in T. lucida. The TPC for C. flexuosus and T. lucida EOs were ≥10 mg GAE/g of byproduct. Both EOs showed photoprotective properties (SPFin vitro: 13-14), and long-wavelength UVA protection (λc > 370 nm). HepG2 and Calu-1 cells exposed to C. flexuosus exhibited antiproliferative activity (˂50%) at 125 µg/mL, while T. lucida was at 250 and 500 µg/mL. The IC50 values for C. flexuosus were 75 and 100 µg/mL in HepG2 and Calu-1 cells, respectively, whereas those for T. lucida were >250 µg/mL. These EOs achieved significant inhibitory effects (between 15.6 and 40.4%) against H2O2-induced oxidative stress. The results showed that EO compounds recognized as antioxidants could counteract the effects elicited by H2O2.Entities:
Keywords: critical wavelength; cytotoxic potential; essential oils; oxidative stress; sun protective factor
Year: 2022 PMID: 35807645 PMCID: PMC9269283 DOI: 10.3390/plants11131693
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Plants (Basel) ISSN: 2223-7747
Quantification of total phenolic content in essential oils.
| Essential Oil | Mean ± SEM |
|---|---|
| Phenolic Content (mg GAE/g of ByProduct) | |
|
| 24.4 ± 0.4 |
|
| 13.8 ± 0.9 |
|
| 26.6 ± 0.3 |
|
| 10.6 ± 0.1 |
|
| 13.6 ± 0.1 |
|
| 18.6 ± 0.2 |
|
| 12.7 ± 0.1 |
|
| 16.4 ± 0.1 |
| 21.9 ± 0.1 | |
| 26.9 ± 0.1 | |
|
| 12.7 ± 0.1 |
|
| 19.0 ± 0.1 |
In vitro assessment of UV protective properties of essential oils.
| Essential Oils | In vitro Measurements of Sunscreen Protection (Mean ± SEM), | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SPF a | λc | UVA/UVB Ratio | Transmission of Erythema (%) | Transmission of Pigmentation (%) | |
|
| 8.7 ± 0.0 | ND | 0.4 ± 0.0 | 4.4 ± 0.0 | 43.3 ± 0.2 |
|
| 3.2 ± 0.0 | ND | 1.1 ± 0.1 | 17.0 ± 0.1 | 71.9 ± 0.4 |
|
| 10.0 ± 0.2 | 360.9 ± 1.8 | 1.2 ± 0.0 | 3.5 ± 0.2 | 23.5 ± 0.7 |
|
| 13.4 ± 0.3 | 391.1 ± 1.9 | 0.7 ± 0.0 | 1.4 ± 0.1 | 20.3 ± 0.6 |
|
| 5.2 ± 0.0 | ND | 0.6 ± 0.0 | 10.0 ± 0.1 | 55.9 ± 0.2 |
|
| 4.5 ± 0.0 | ND | 0.7 ± 0.0 | 12.0 ± 0.2 | 59.8 ± 0.3 |
|
| 4.7 ± 0.0 | ND | 0.7 ± 0.0 | 11.3 ± 0.2 | 57.5 ± 0.5 |
|
| 9.6 ± 0.1 | 346.7 ± 1.5 | 1.0 ± 0.0 | 3.4 ± 0.0 | 29.8 ± 0.0 |
| 3.6 ± 0.0 | ND | 0.3 ± 0.0 | 15.5 ± 0.4 | 70.4 ± 0.9 | |
| 11.7 ± 0.2 | 351.4 ± 0.0 | 0.1 ± 0.0 | 1.9 ± 0.0 | 63.9 ± 0.9 | |
|
| 14.7 ± 0.0 | 393.5 ± 0.2 | 0.7 ± 0.0 | 1.2 ± 0.0 | 12.5 ± 0.1 |
|
| 4.8 ± 0.0 | ND | 0.5 ± 0.0 | 11.1 ± 0.0 | 58.1 ± 0.1 |
| Trolox b | 3.6 ± 0.0 | 371.6 ± 0.5 | 0.1 ± 0.0 | 38.3 ± 0.1 | 71.3 ± 0.2 |
| Vanillin b | 56.4 ± 0.9 | 375.1 ± 0.0 | 0.6 ± 0.0 | 0.0 ± 0.0 | 5.5 ± 0.1 |
| Gallic acid b | 34.7 ± 0.1 | 348.2 ± 0.4 | 0.0 ± 0.0 | 0.0 ± 0.0 | 45.3 ± 0.5 |
| Body lotion c | 36.3 ± 0.1 | 392.6 ± 0.3 | 0.4 ± 0.1 | 0.02 ± 0.2 | 11.7 ± 0.1 |
| Sun protector c | 54.3 ± 0.2 | 393.1 ± 0.1 | 2.7 ± 0.2 | 0.0 ± 0.0 | 0.0 ± 0.0 |
a Values at a concentration of 0.75 mg/mL. b Standard reagent (0.75 mg/mL). c Commercial product (sunscreen). ND, not determined (indices outside the valuated range).
Figure 1Cytotoxicity in HepG2 (A) and Calu-1 (B) cell lines exposed to C. flexuosus and T. lucida EOs for 24 h. * Significant difference in viability when compared to control group (C) (p < 0.05). Data are the mean ± SEM (n = 3).
Cytotoxic potential of C. flexuosus and T. lucida EOs on HepG2 and Calu-1 cells.
| Essential Oil | Cytotoxic Potential Derived from MTT Viability Assay (24 h) | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| HepG2 | Calu-1 | |||||
| IC50 | R2 | IC50 | R2 | |||
|
| 75 | 0.986 | <0.001 | 100 | 0.865 | 0.007 |
|
| 270 | 0.912 | <0.001 | 381 | 0.856 | 0.001 |
IC50: Half-maximal inhibitory concentration (µg/mL).
Figure 2Early intracellular ROS assessment of concentrations based on MTT assays of C. flexuosus and T. lucida EOs on HepG2 (A) and Calu-1 (B) human cell lines. Culture medium and hydrogen peroxide (200 μM) served as negative (C-) and positive controls (C+), respectively. Significant differences were not observed when compared to the negative control group.
Figure 3Protective effect at 15.6 µg/mL of C. flexuosus and T. lucida EOs against H2O2-induced ROS in HepG2 (A) and Calu-1 (B) cell lines. Cells were pretreated with each EO for 24 h. Culture medium and H2O2 (200 μM) served as negative (C-), and positive control (C+), respectively. * Significant difference when compared to the positive control (p < 0.05).
List of the specimens studied. For each plant’s essential oils, the major constituents (>10%) are shown.
| Plant | Family | Major Constituents (%) | Reference |
|---|---|---|---|
|
| Annonaceae | Ethyl benzoate (18.2), linalool (14.0), benzyl benzoate (12.3), methyl benzoate (10.0) | [ |
|
| Rutaceae | Limonene (71.3) | [ |
|
| Poaceae | Geranial (34.4), neral (28.4), geraniol (11.5) | [ |
|
| Poaceae | Neral (28.2), geranial (28.2), geranyl acetate (10.0) | [ |
|
| Poaceae | Geraniol (83.9) | [ |
|
| Poaceae | Citronellal (25.3), citronellol (17.9), geraniol (11.6) | [ |
|
| Zingiberaceae | 1,8-Cineole (30.9), terpinyl acetate (26.4) | [ |
|
| Verbenaceae | Carvone (38.3), limonene (31.8), bicyclo- | [ |
| Verbenaceae | Limonene (15.0), | [ | |
| Verbenaceae | Carvacrol (50.6), thymol (11.5) | [ | |
|
| Asteraceae | Estragole (95.7) | [ |
|
| Lamiaceae | Thymol (42.0), | [ |