| Literature DB >> 36009215 |
Ilaria Burò1, Valeria Consoli1, Angela Castellano2, Luca Vanella1,3, Valeria Sorrenti1,3.
Abstract
The awareness of the large amount of waste produced along the food chain, starting in the agricultural sector and continuing across industrial transformation to the domestic context, has in recent years also aroused strong concern amongst the public, who are ing about the possible consequences that this could have on environmental sustainability, resource waste and human health. The aim of the present research is the recovery of substances with high added value from waste and by-products typical of the Mediterranean area, such as the residue from the industrial processing of red oranges, called pastazzo (peels, pulps and seeds), which is particularly rich in anthocyanins, flavanones and hydroxycinnamic acids, and has numerous nutraceutical properties, as well as the olive leaves coming from olive-tree pruning, which are rich in substances such as oleuropein, elenolic acid, hydroxytyrosol, tyrosol and rutin. The effect of Red Orange Extract (ROE) and Olive Leaf Extract (OLE) on HepG2 fatty storage capacity was assessed performing Oil Red O' staining, and antioxidant properties of the extracts were evaluated following the steatosis model onset. Based on the results obtained, the preparation of natural extracts that are derived from these waste products can be useful for preventing, counteracting or delaying the onset of the complications of fatty liver disease, such as hepatic steatosis.Entities:
Keywords: agri-food products; heme oxygenase; hepatic steatosis; nutraceuticals; waste products
Year: 2022 PMID: 36009215 PMCID: PMC9404712 DOI: 10.3390/antiox11081496
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Antioxidants (Basel) ISSN: 2076-3921
Chemical composition of ROE and OLE used in this study. Results are expressed as: a g of gallic acid equivalents (GAE)/100 g of OLE; b g of oleuropein equivalents/100 g of OLE; c g of cyanidin 3-glucoside equivalents/100g of ROE; d g of ferulic acid equivalents/100 g of ROE; e g of hesperidin equivalents/100 g of ROE.
| Compounds | ROE | OLE |
|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
| Hydroxytyrosol | absent | 0.10 g/100 g |
| Tyrosol | absent | 0.05 g/100 g |
| Oleuropein | absent | 0.40 g/100 g |
|
|
|
|
| Cyanidin 3,5-diglucoside | 0.06 g/100 g | absent |
| Delphinidin 3-glucoside | 0.02 g/100 g | absent |
| Cyanidin 3-glucoside | 0.31 g/100 g | absent |
| Cyanidin 3-rutinoside | 0.02 g/100 g | absent |
| Petunidin 3-glucoside | 0.02 g/100 g | absent |
| Delphinidin 3-(6″-malonyl)glucoside | 0.02 g/100 g | absent |
| Peonidin 3-glucoside | 0.02 g/100 g | absent |
| Petunidin 3-(6″-malonyl)glucoside | 0.03 g/100 g | absent |
| Cyanidin derivative | 0.03 g/100 g | absent |
| Cyanidin 3-(6″-malonyl)glucoside | 0.27 g/100 g | absent |
| Cyanidin 3-(6″-dioxalyl)glucoside | 0.06 g/100 g | absent |
| Pelargonidin derivative | 0.02 g/100 g | absent |
| Peonidin 3-(6″-malonyl)glucoside | 0.02 g/100 g | absent |
| Cyanidin derivative | 0.03 g/100 g | absent |
| Peonidin derivative | 0.01 g/100 g | absent |
| Cyanidin derivative | 0.03 g/100 g | absent |
| Cyanidin derivative | 0.02 g/100 g | absent |
| Cyanidin derivative | 0.03 g/100 g | absent |
|
| 1.02 g/100 g c |
|
| 0.17 g/100 g | absent | |
| Ferulic acid | 0.62 g/100 g | absent |
| Sinapic acid | 0.24 g/100 g | absent |
|
| 1.03 g/100 g d |
|
| Narirutin | 3.17 g/100 g | absent |
| Hesperidin | 10.1 g/100 g | absent |
| Didymin | 1.13 g/100 g | absent |
|
| 14.4 g/100 g e | absent |
Figure 1DPPH radical scavenging activity of (A) ROE and (B) OLE at different concentrations. Results are expressed as a percentage of inhibition. Evaluation of HepG2 cell viability in the absence or presence of (C) ROE and (D) OLE at different concentrations for 72 h. Results are expressed as mean ± SEM. Significant vs CTRL: ** p < 0.005; *** p < 0.0005.
Figure 2Measurement of HO-1 levels after 24 h of treatment with ROE and OLE at different concentrations. Results are expressed as mean ± SEM. Significant vs CTRL: * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.005; *** p < 0.0005.
Figure 3(A) Evaluation of lipid droplets formation after 72 h of treatment with FFA (0.75–1 mM) and (B) representative images of Oil Red O’ staining on steatosis model. Results are expressed as mean ± SEM. Significant vs CTRL: * p < 0.05. (C,E) Effect of ROE and OLE treatments on lipid droplets accumulation in presence of FFA 0.75 mM and 1 mM. Results are expressed as mean ± SEM. Significant vs FFA (0.75 mM): * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.005. Significant vs FFA (1 mM): * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.005. (D,F) Representative images of Oil Red O’ staining on HepG2 treated for 72 h with FFA 0.75 Mm and 1 mM in the absence or presence of a higher concentration (3 mg/mL) of each extract.
Figure 4(A) Representative images of Oil Red O’ staining on HepG2 treated for 72 h with FFA 0.75 mM and different 1:1 combination of ROE and OLE (B,C). Effect of 1:1 combinations of ROE and OLE on lipid droplets accumulation in the presence of FFA 0.75 mM and 1 mM. Significant vs CTRL: * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.005; *** p < 0.0005.
Figure 5(A) Fluorescence images of JC-1 staining after 6 h of treatment. (B) Effect of ROE and OLE combinations on mitochondrial membrane potential. Significant vs FFA: * p < 0.05; *** p < 0.0005.
Figure 6Evaluation after 72 h of different 1:1 combination of ROE and OLE effect on (A) RSH levels; (B) LOOH; (C) HO-1 levels. Significant vs FFA: * p < 0.05; *** p < 0.0005. (D) Measurement of HMG-CoA reductase inhibiting activity of ROE and OLE (0.5 mg/mL) and 1:1 combination of them. Results are expressed as mean ± SEM.