| Literature DB >> 35938110 |
Stefania Pagliari1, Chiara Maria Giustra1, Chiara Magoni1, Rita Celano2, Paola Fusi1, Matilde Forcella1, Grazia Sacco1, Davide Panzeri1, Luca Campone1, Massimo Labra1.
Abstract
The food waste generated by small and medium agro-industrial enterprises requires appropriate management and valorization in order to decrease environmental problems and recover high-value products, respectively. In this study, the Camelina sativa seed by-product was used as a source of glucosinolates. To begin, the chemical profile of the extract obtained using an international organization for standardization (ISO) procedure was determined by UPLC-HRMS/MS analysis. In addition, an extraction method based on ultrasound-assisted extraction was developed as an alternative and green method to recover glucosinolates. Main parameters that affect extraction efficiency were optimized using a response surface design. Under optimized conditions, the extract showed an improvement in extraction yield with a reduction in organic solvent amount compared to those obtained using the ISO procedure. Finally, the extract obtained with the ultrasound-assisted method was purified, tested on human colorectal cancer cell lines, and showed promising results.Entities:
Keywords: Camelina sativa L.; experimental design optimization; food by-products; glucosinolates derivatives; human colorectal cancer cell line; recovery bioactive compounds; ultrasound-assisted extraction (USAE)
Year: 2022 PMID: 35938110 PMCID: PMC9355136 DOI: 10.3389/fnut.2022.901944
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Nutr ISSN: 2296-861X
Experimental conditions of the response surface design and experimental values of the response variables.
| Independent variables | Response variables | ||||||
| Experimental condition | EtOH (%) | Volume (mL) | Cycles (n°) | Glucoarabinin (μg/gDM) | Glucocamelinin (μg/gDM) | Homoglucocamelinin (μg/gDM) | Tot EtOH (mL) |
| 1 | 40 | 5 | 3 | 493 | 1047 | 215 | 6 |
| 2 | 60 | 5 | 2 | 911 | 1984 | 387 | 6 |
| 3 | 80 | 10 | 2 | 832 | 1900 | 380 | 16 |
| 4 | 40 | 10 | 4 | 264 | 443 | 178 | 16 |
| 5 | 80 | 5 | 3 | 981 | 2234 | 428 | 12 |
| 6 | 80 | 10 | 4 | 1268 | 2981 | 568 | 32 |
| 7 | 80 | 15 | 3 | 1417 | 3240 | 631 | 36 |
| 8 | 40 | 10 | 2 | 526 | 1181 | 222 | 8 |
| 9 | 60 | 15 | 2 | 1304 | 3046 | 562 | 18 |
| 10 | 60 | 10 | 3 | 1166 | 2722 | 501 | 18 |
| 11 | 60 | 10 | 3 | 1221 | 2773 | 510 | 18 |
| 12 | 60 | 10 | 3 | 1269 | 2855 | 532 | 18 |
| 13 | 40 | 15 | 3 | 274 | 408 | 183 | 18 |
| 14 | 60 | 10 | 3 | 1142 | 2649 | 490 | 18 |
| 15 | 60 | 5 | 4 | 1180 | 2553 | 463 | 12 |
| 16 | 60 | 15 | 4 | 1354 | 2910 | 601 | 36 |
FIGURE 1Glucosinolate peak area vs. organic solvent percentage, ethanol (solid line) and methanol (dashed line).
Analysis of variance of the regression model.
| Sum of squares | Mean square | |||||||
| Glucoarabinin | Glucocamelinin | Homo glucocamelinin | Tot EtOH | Glucoarabinin | Glucocamelinin | Homo glucocamelinn | Tot EtOH | |
| A: EtOH% | 10801.6 | 66195.2 | 1826.8 | 286.8 | 10801.6 | 66195.2 | 1826.8 | 286.8 |
| B: Volume | 769.3 | 3988.1 | 293.5 | 836.4 | 769.3 | 3988.1 | 293.5 | 836.4 |
| C: Cycles | 303.7 | 749.0 | 83.3 | 187.2 | 303.7 | 749.0 | 83.3 | 187.2 |
| A2 | 7626.5 | 40568.0 | 961.2 | 6.8 | 7626.5 | 40568.0 | 961.2 | 6.8 |
| B2 | 31.6 | 4.2 | 4.9 | 5.5 | 31.6 | 4.2 | 4.9 | 5.5 |
| C2 | 66.0 | 539.9 | 10.4 | 5.8 | 66.0 | 539.9 | 10.4 | 5.8 |
| AB | 1073.6 | 6761.8 | 137.5 | 34.2 | 1073.6 | 6761.8 | 137.5 | 34.2 |
| AC | 1218.4 | 8271.0 | 135.3 | 20.3 | 1218.4 | 8271.0 | 135.3 | 20.3 |
| BC | 119.0 | 1241.9 | 3.5 | 109.2 | 119.0 | 1241.9 | 3.5 | 109.2 |
| Lack of fit | 309.1 | 2120.5 | 42.0 | 27.0 | 103.0 | 706.8 | 14.0 | 9.0 |
| Pure error | 97.1 | 224.9 | 9.9 | 0.1 | 32.4 | 75.0 | 3.3 | 0.0 |
| Total | 22415.9 | 130665.0 | 3508.2 | 1519.2 | ||||
| R2 | 98.2 | 98.2 | 98.5 | 98≅0.2 | ||||
| Adj. R2 | 95.5 | 95.5 | 96.3 | 95.5 | ||||
|
|
| |||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| ||||||||
| A: EtOH% | 333.6 | 882.9 | 550.8 | 7821.9 |
|
|
|
|
| B: Volume | 23.8 | 53.2 | 88.5 | 22811.1 |
|
|
|
|
| C: Cycles | 9.4 | 10.0 | 25.1 | 5105.8 | 0.0549 | 0.0508 |
|
|
| A2 | 235.5 | 541.1 | 289.8 | 184.4 |
|
|
|
|
| B2 | 1.0 | 0.1 | 1.5 | 150.6 | 0.3958 | 0.8273 | 0.3131 |
|
| C2 | 2.0 | 7.2 | 3.1 | 157.1 | 0.2486 | 0.0748 | 0.1749 |
|
| AB | 33.2 | 90.2 | 41.5 | 552.3 |
|
|
|
|
| AC | 37.6 | 110.3 | 40.8 | 2978.3 |
|
|
|
|
| BC | 3.7 | 16.6 | 1.1 | 245.4 | 0.151 |
| 0.3812 |
|
| Lack of fit | 3.2 | 9.4 | 4.2 | 0.1836 |
| 0.1338 |
| |
| Pure error | ||||||||
| Total | ||||||||
| R2 | ||||||||
| Adj. R2 | ||||||||
R2, quadratic correlation coefficient.
aSignificant (p < 0.05).
FIGURE 2Desirability plot for total glucosinolate extraction as functions of ethanol percentage and total solvent volume.
FIGURE 3UHPLC full MS chromatograms of ultrasound-assisted solid liquid extraction (USAE) under optimized conditions before (black line) and after (red line) purification by solid phase extraction (SPE).
FIGURE 4MTT viability assays on four cell lines treated with Camelina sativa extracts at two concentrations by 2-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) statistical analysis (ns, not significant, * = p < 0.05, ***p < 0.001, and ****p < 0.0001).
FIGURE 5Fold increase in (A) superoxide dismutase (SOD) and (B) glutathione S-transferase (GST) activity after 48 h of treatment. The statistical analysis used a linear model against a fold control equal to 1 (*p < 0.05, ***p < 0.001, and ****p < 0.0001).