| Literature DB >> 36014384 |
Paulina Machała1, Oleksandra Liudvytska1, Agnieszka Kicel2, Angela Dziedzic1, Monika A Olszewska2, Halina Małgorzata Żbikowska1.
Abstract
Leaves of Olea europaea are a by-product of the olive oil industry and a dietary supplement with acknowledged antioxidant and anti-inflammatory activity but underestimated photoprotective potential. We investigated the protective effects of the LC-PDA-MS/MS standardized ethanol-water extract of olive leaves (OLE), containing 26.2% total phenols and 22.2% oleuropein, with underlying mechanisms against the UVA-induced oxidative damage in human dermal fibroblasts. Hs68 cells were pre-treated (24 h) with OLE (2.5-25 μg/mL) or the reference antioxidants, quercetin and ascorbic acid (25 μg/mL), followed by irradiation (8 J/cm2). OLE significantly reduced the UVA-induced DNA damage and reactive oxygen species (ROS) overproduction and increased the thioredoxin reductase (TrxR) expression and post-radiation viability of fibroblasts by inhibiting their apoptosis. Both intrinsic and extrinsic apoptotic signaling pathways appeared to be inhibited by OLE, but the activity of caspase 9 was the most reduced. We hypothesized that the TrxR up-regulation by OLE could have prevented the UVA-induced apoptosis of Hs68 cells. In addition, a significant decrease in UVA-induced secretion levels of tumor necrosis factor (TNF-α) and interleukin-2 (IL-2) was shown in human lymphocyte culture in response to OLE treatment. In summary, our results support the beneficial effect of OLE in an in vitro model and indicate its great potential for use in the cosmetic and pharmaceutical industry as a topical photoprotective, antioxidant, and anti-inflammatory agent.Entities:
Keywords: ROS; UVA; caspases; human skin fibroblast; interleukin-2; oleuropein; olive leaf extract; thioredoxin reductase
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 36014384 PMCID: PMC9415354 DOI: 10.3390/molecules27165144
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Molecules ISSN: 1420-3049 Impact factor: 4.927
Figure 1Representative UHPLC-UV chromatogram of the O. europaea leaf extract at 254 nm. The peak numbers refer to those presented in Table 1.
UHPLC-PDA-ESI-MS3 data of polyphenols identified in the commercial O. europaea leaf extract.
| Peak | Analyte | tR (min) | UV | Molecular Formula | [M − H]− | MS2 ** | MS3 | Lit. |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| ||||||||
|
| Hydroxytyrosol hexoside | 3.6 | 280 | C14H20O8 | 315 | 153(1.4), 123(1.2), 95(0.2) | [ | |
|
| Oleaoside | 4.2 | 235 | C16H22O11 | 389 | 345(20), 227(100), 183(74), 165(60) | [ | |
|
| Oleaoside isomer | 10.7 | 235 | C16H22O11 | 389 | 345(100), 227(3.0), 209(32), 165(12) | [ | |
|
| Elenolic acid hexoside | 12.7 | 245, 280 | C17H24O11 | 403 | 371(21), 223(100), 179(40), 121(4.0) | [ | |
|
| Oleuropein aglycone | 15.0 | 235, 280 | C19H22O8 | 377 | 197(100), 153(11) | [ | |
|
| Elenolic acid hexoside isomer | 18.8 | 245, 280 | C17H24O11 | 403 | 371(100), 223(56), 179(37), 121(3.4) | [ | |
|
| Hydroksyoleuropein | 24.5 | 235, 280 | C23H31O14 | 555 | 537(100), | 371(25), 223(100), 179(52) | [ |
|
| Oleuropein hexoside | 27.5 | 235, 280 | C31H42O18 | 701 | 539(32), 469(40), 437(21), 315(100) | [ | |
|
| Oleuropein hexoside | 33.5 | 235, 280 | C31H42O18 | 701 | 377(40), 307(100), 275(76) | [ | |
|
| Oleuropein isomer | 34.4 | 235, 280 | C25H32O13 | 539 | 403(37), 223(100), 179(32) | [ | |
|
| Methoxyoleuropein | 35.0 | 235, 280 | C26H34O14 | 569 | 537(100), 403(88), 223(13) | [ | |
|
| Oleuropein hexoside | 35.9 | 235, 280 | C31H42O18 | 701 | 539(100), 377(11), 307(10) | [ | |
|
| Oleuropein * | 36.2 | 235, 280 | C25H32O13 | 539 | 377(100), 345(11), 307(84), 275(74) | [ | |
|
| Oleuropein isomer | 40.0 | 235, 280 | C25H32O13 | 539 | 377(44), 345(11), 307(100), 275(99) | [ | |
|
| Ligstroside | 42.3 | 230, 280 | C25H32O12 | 523 | 361(100), 291(40), 259(24) | [ | |
|
| ||||||||
|
| Verbascoside * | 29.7 | 235, 329 | C29H36O15 | 623 | 315(100), 135(36) | [ | |
|
| Verbascoside isomer | 31.9 | 235, 329 | C29H36O15 | 623 | 315(100), 135(37) | [ | |
|
| ||||||||
|
| Luteolin dihexoside | 21.7 | 340 | C27H30O16 | 609 | 285(100) | [ | |
|
| Luteolin rhamnoside-hexoside | 28.1 | 350 | C27H30O15 | 593 | 447(2.0), 285(100) | [ | |
|
| Luteolin 7- | 28.5 | 340 | C21H19O11 | 447 | 285(100) | [ | |
|
| Apigenin hexoside | 33.1 | 340 | C21H20O10 | 431 | 269(100) | [ | |
|
| Luteolin* | 43.9 | 370 | C15H10O6 | 285 | 255(76), 175(30) | [ | |
* Analytes identified with authentic standards; ** in bold—ions subjected to MS3 fragmentation.
Figure 2The effects of different concentrations of OLE on the viability of human skin fibroblasts. Cells cultured (24 h) in the presence of OLE (2.5–25 μg/mL), vehicle (0), or the reference antioxidants AA and QU (25 μg/mL) not irradiated (A) or exposed to UVA-irradiation (8 J/cm2) (B) were cultured for an additional 24 h, and then subjected to CCK-8 assay. The cytotoxicity of OLE and fibroblast survival were expressed as a percentage of control, where the absorbance of untreated and of corresponding non-irradiated cells were taken as 100%, respectively. The post-radiation viability of fibroblasts evaluated by the Annexin V-FITC/PI staining (flow cytometry) assay (C). A representative dot-plot histogram is shown (D), cell populations in II, I and III/IV quadrants represent alive, undergoing necrosis and undergoing apoptosis Hs68 cells, respectively. The figure shows mean results from 3–6 independent experiments. Error bars denote ±SD. * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01; *** p < 0.001 compared to control (0).
Effects of OLE treatment on UVA-induced apoptosis of Hs68 cells.
| Groups | Apoptotic Index |
|---|---|
| Control | 0.11 ± 0.009 |
| UVA | 0.54 ± 0.103 *** |
| OLE5+UVA | 0.28 ± 0.024 *** |
| OLE25+UVA | 0.24 ± 0.013 *** |
| QU25+UVA | 0.25 ± 0.009 *** |
Data are shown as the means ± SD of six independent experiments. Pre-treatment with OLE decreased the cellular apoptosis compared to the UVA group (*** p < 0.001).
Figure 3Inhibitory effect of OLE on UVA-induced activation of caspase-3 (A), -8 (B) and -9 (C) in human skin fibroblasts. Caspase activities are expressed as % of control, where the caspase activity in untreated and UVA-irradiated cells were taken as 100%. The figure shows mean results from 3 independent experiments. Error bars denote ±SD. * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001 compared to cells irradiated in the absence of OLE or the reference antioxidants (UVA).
Figure 4DNA damage, measured as the mean comet tail DNA (%) of human skin fibroblasts, untreated (UVA) or pre-incubated (24 h) with OLE (5–25 μg/mL) or the reference antioxidants AA and QU (25 μg/mL) followed by exposure to UVA (8 J/cm2). The values of comet tail DNA were reduced by the values obtained in comet assay for non-irradiated Hs68 cells (without or with the appropriate plant compounds); the extent of this endogenous DNA damage for control (not displayed in the figure), expressed as a percentage of tail DNA, was 1.61 ± 0.32%. The number of cells in each treatment was 100. The figure shows mean results from 3 independent experiments. Error bars denote ±SD. *** p < 0.001 compared to cells irradiated in the absence of OLE or antioxidants (UVA).
Figure 5Changes of the intracellular ROS production in human skin fibroblasts, untreated (control) or pre-incubated (24 h) with OLE (2.5–25 μg/mL) or reference antioxidants AA and QU (25 μg/mL) followed by exposure to UVA (8 J/cm2). The figure shows mean results from 5 independent experiments. Error bars denote ± SD. * p < 0.05; *** p < 0.001 compared to cells irradiated in the absence of OLE (UVA).
Figure 6The level of thioredoxin reductase (TxnR) in human skin fibroblasts untreated (0) or pre-incubated (24 h) with OLE (5 and 25 μg/mL) or reference antioxidants (25 μg/mL) and exposed (or not exposed) to UVA (8 J/cm2). Mean values ± SD of three independent experiments is presented. Statistically significant differences vs. non-treated group (control); * p < 0.05; *** p < 0.001.
Figure 7The effects of OLE on the concanavalin A (A) or UVA-induced (B) secretion of TNF-α and UVA-induced IL-2 release (C) by human peripheral blood polymorphonuclear cells. The results are expressed as % of control, where the cytokine level in untreated stimulated with ConA (10 μg/mL) or UVA (8 J/cm2) cells were taken as 100%. The figure shows mean results from 3 independent experiments. Error bars denote ±SD. *** p < 0.001 compared to stimulated cells in the absence of OLE (UVA). Indomethacin (25 μg/mL) was used as a reference.