| Literature DB >> 35889279 |
Alexandre F C Galvão1, Morgana de S Araújo2, Valdenizia R Silva1, Luciano de S Santos1, Rosane B Dias1,3, Clarissa A Gurgel Rocha1,3, Milena B P Soares1,4, Felipe M A da Silva2, Hector H F Koolen5, Gokhan Zengin6, Emmanoel V Costa2, Daniel P Bezerra1.
Abstract
Guatteria olivacea R. E. Fries (synonym Guatteria punctata (Aubl.) R.A. Howard) is a tree of 10-27 m tall popularly known as "envira-bobó", "envira-fofa", "envireira", "embira", "embira-branca", "embira-preta", envira-branca", and "envira-preta", which can be found in the Brazilian Amazon biome. In this study, we evaluated the cytotoxic and antitumor effects of the essential oil (EO) obtained from the leaves of G. olivacea against liver cancer using HepG2 cells as a model. EO was obtained using a hydrodistillation Clevenger-type apparatus and was qualitatively and quantitatively characterized using GC-MS and GC-FID, respectively. The alamar blue assay was used to assess the cytotoxic potential of EO in a panel of human cancer cell lines and human non-cancerous cells. In HepG2 cells treated with EO, YO-PRO-1/propidium iodide staining, cell cycle distribution, and reactive oxygen species (ROS) were examined. In C.B-17 SCID mice with HepG2 cell xenografts, the efficacy of the EO (20 and 40 mg/kg) was tested in vivo. GC-MS and GC-FID analyses showed germacrene D (17.65%), 1-epi-cubenol (13.21%), caryophyllene oxide (12.03%), spathulenol (11.26%), (E)-caryophyllene (7.26%), bicyclogermacrene (5.87%), and δ-elemene (4.95%) as the major constituents of G. olivacea leaf EO. In vitro cytotoxicity of EO was observed, including anti-liver cancer action with an IC50 value of 30.82 μg/mL for HepG2 cells. In HepG2 cells, EO treatment increased apoptotic cells and DNA fragmentation, without changes in ROS levels. Furthermore, the EO inhibited tumor mass in vivo by 32.8-57.9%. These findings suggest that G. olivacea leaf EO has anti-liver cancer potential.Entities:
Keywords: Guatteria olivacea; antitumor; essential oil; liver cancer
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35889279 PMCID: PMC9319081 DOI: 10.3390/molecules27144407
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Molecules ISSN: 1420-3049 Impact factor: 4.927
Chemical composition of G. olivacea leaf EO.
| Compound | RI a | RI b | Peak Area % | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| α-Pinene | 930 | 932 | 0.92 ± 0.25 |
|
| β-Pinene | 972 | 974 | 1.83 ± 0.38 |
|
| δ-Elemene | 1335 | 1335 | 4.95 ± 0.33 |
|
| α-Cubebene | 1347 | 1348 | 0.45 ± 0.06 |
|
| Cyclosativene | 1364 | 1369 | 0.25 ± 0.03 |
|
| α-Ylangene | 1368 | 1373 | 0.32 ± 0.04 |
|
| α-Copaene | 1372 | 1374 | 1.69 ± 0.18 |
|
| β-Bourbonene | 1381 | 1387 | 0.92 ± 0.09 |
|
| β-Cubebene | 1387 | 1387 | 0.27 ± 0.07 |
|
| β-Elemene | 1389 | 1389 | 1.48 ± 0.14 |
|
| Cyperene | 1395 | 1398 | 0.53 ± 0.06 |
|
| α-Gurjunene | 1406 | 1409 | 1.06 ± 0.10 |
|
| ( | 1415 | 1417 | 7.26 ± 0.71 |
|
| β-Copaene | 1425 | 1430 | 0.37 ± 0.10 |
|
| γ-Elemene | 1431 | 1434 | 0.47 ± 0.07 |
|
| α-Guaiene | 1435 | 1437 | 0.26 ± 0.05 |
|
| 6,9-Guaiadiene | 1440 | 1442 | 0.23 ± 0.09 |
|
| α-Humulene | 1450 | 1452 | 1.02 ± 0.08 |
|
| 1457 | 1458 | 0.83 ± 0.06 | |
|
| γ-Muurolene | 1474 | 1478 | 0.88 ± 0.12 |
|
| Germacrene D | 1478 | 1480 | 17.65 ± 0.32 |
|
| 1488 | 1493 | 0.46 ± 0.07 | |
|
| Bicyclogermacrene | 1493 | 1500 | 5.87 ± 0.39 |
|
| α-Muurolene | 1497 | 1500 | 0.80 ± 0.07 |
|
| δ-Amorphene | 1504 | 1511 | 0.57 ± 0.04 |
|
| γ-Cadinene | 1511 | 1513 | 0.61 ± 0.06 |
|
| δ-Cadinene | 1521 | 1522 | 2.08 ± 0.23 |
|
| 1529 | 1533 | 0.30 ± 0.07 | |
|
| α-Calacorene | 1540 | 1544 | 0.47 ± 0.09 |
|
| Elemol | 1546 | 1548 | 0.96 ± 0.26 |
|
| Germacrene B | 1553 | 1559 | 1.19 ± 0.14 |
|
| Spathulenol | 1574 | 1577 | 11.26 ± 0.48 |
|
| Caryophyllene oxide | 1579 | 1582 | 12.03 ± 0.95 |
|
| Guaiol | 1594 | 1600 | 0.87 ± 0.01 |
|
| Humulene epoxide II | 1605 | 1608 | 0.69 ± 0.18 |
|
| 1- | 1618 | 1627 | 13.21 ± 0.57 |
|
| Cubenol | 1639 | 1645 | 0.64 ± 0.08 |
|
| α-Cadinol | 1651 | 1652 | 0.80 ± 0.12 |
|
| Bulnesol | 1664 | 1670 | 0.40 ± 0.12 |
| Total monoterpenes | 2.75 | |||
| Total sesquiterpenes | 94.10 | |||
| Total not identified | 3.15 | |||
| Total identified | 96.85 | |||
RI a (retention indices) calculated on TR-5MS capillary column (30 m × 0.25 mm × 0.25 µm) according to Van Den Dool and Kratz [21], based on a homologous series of normal alkanes. RI b (retention indices) according to Adams [22]. Data are presented as mean ± S.D. of three analyses.
Figure 1Main compounds identified in G. olivacea leaf EO.
Cytotoxic activity of G. olivacea leaf EO.
| Cells | Histological Type | IC50 and 95% CI (in μg/mL) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| DOX | EO | ||
|
| |||
| HepG2 | Human hepatocellular carcinoma | 0.09 | 30.82 |
| MCF-7 | Human breast adenocarcinoma | 1.45 | 22.03 |
| HCT116 | Human colon carcinoma | 0.06 | 24.11 |
| CAL27 | Human oral squamous cell carcinoma | 0.65 | 32.23 |
| HSC-3 | Human oral squamous cell carcinoma | 0.66 | 30.06 |
| SCC-4 | Human oral squamous cell carcinoma | 0.01 | 4.46 |
| KG-1a | Human myeloid leukemia | 0.01 | 26.75 |
| HL-60 | Human acute promyelocytic leukemia | 0.05 | 23.46 |
| NB4 | Human acute promyelocytic leukemia | 0.05 | 33.65 |
| THP-1 | Human monocytic leukemia | 0.08 | 36.93 |
| JURKAT | Human acute T cell leukemia | 0.03 | 26.44 |
| K562 | Human chronic myelogenous leukemia | 0.70 | 45.98 |
| B16-F10 | Mouse melanoma | 0.28 | 28.30 |
|
| |||
| BJ | Human foreskin fibroblast | 0.55 | >50 |
| MRC-5 | Human lung fibroblast | 0.91 | 47.77 |
| PBMC | Human peripheral blood mononuclear cells | 0.67 | >50 |
Doxorubicin (DOX) was used as a positive control.
Figure 2Effect of G. olivacea leaf EO on apoptosis induction in HepG2 cells after 48 h of treatment. (A) Quantification of apoptotic cells. (B) Quantification of dead cells (dead cells without identifying the type of cell death). Negative control (NC) was treated with vehicle (0.5% DMSO) used for diluting EO, and doxorubicin (0.5 µg/mL) was used as positive control (PC). Data are presented as mean ± S.E.M. of at least three independent experiments. * p < 0.05 compared with negative control by ANOVA, followed by Student–Newman–Keuls test.
Figure 3Effect of G. olivacea leaf EO in HepG2 cell morphology, as determined by light-scattering features detected by flow cytometry after 48 h of treatment. (A) Forward scatter. (B) Side scatter. Negative control (NC) was treated with vehicle (0.5% DMSO) used for diluting EO, and doxorubicin (0.5 µg/mL) was used as positive control (PC). Data are presented as mean ± S.E.M. of at least three independent experiments. * p < 0.05 compared with negative control by ANOVA, followed by Student–Newman–Keuls test.
Figure 4Effect of G. olivacea leaf EO in the DNA fragmentation of HepG2 cells after 48 h of treatment. Negative control (NC) was treated with vehicle (0.5% DMSO) used for diluting EO, and doxorubicin (0.5 µg/mL) was used as positive control (PC). Data are presented as mean ± S.E.M. of three independent experiments performed in duplicate. * p < 0.05 compared with negative control by ANOVA, followed by Student–Newman–Keuls test.
Figure 5In vivo anti-liver cancer effect of G. olivacea leaf EO in C.B-17 SCID mice with HepG2 cell xenografts. (A) Tumor weight (g) after treatment. (B) Tumor inhibition (%) after treatment. (C) Representative photomicrographs of HepG2 tumors, stained with hematoxylin and eosin and analyzed by light microscopy. Asterisks represent areas of tissue necrosis. Negative control (NC) was treated with vehicle (5% DMSO) used for diluting EO, and doxorubicin (0.8 mg/kg) was used as positive control (PC). Data are presented as mean ± S.E.M. of 8–17 animals. * p < 0.05 compared with negative control by ANOVA, followed by Student–Newman–Keuls test.
Figure 6Effect of G. olivacea leaf EO on body and relative organ weight from C.B-17 SCID mice with HepG2 cell xenografts. (A) Initial body weight. (B) Final body weight. (C) Liver. (D) Heart. (E) Lung. (F) Kidney. Negative control (NC) was treated with vehicle (5% DMSO) used for diluting EO, and doxorubicin (0.8 mg/kg) was used as positive control (PC). Data are presented as mean ± S.E.M. of 8–17 animals.