| Literature DB >> 36060147 |
Pritam Kundu1, Shovan Lal Debnath1, Hiron Saraj Devnath1, Lopa Saha1, Samir Kumar Sadhu1.
Abstract
Sonneratia caseolaris is a widely distributed mangrove plant having much therapeutic importance in traditional medicine. This plant is reported for possessing numerous compounds that are already used for many therapeutic purposes. After finding the presence of antioxidant components in the qualitative antioxidative assay, we went to conduct quantitative tests where the total contents of phenolics, flavonoids, and tannins were estimated as 122 mg GAE/gm, 613 mg QE/gm, and 30 mg GAE/gm, respectively. In DPPH free radical, H2O2, and superoxide radical scavenging assay, the SC50 values were found to be 87, 66, and 192 μg/ml, respectively. In FeCl3 reducing power assay, the RC50 of SC extract and ascorbic acid were 80 and 28 μg/ml, respectively. This extract revealed a significant peripheral analgesic effect in the acetic acid-induced writhing model in mice by reducing the writhing impulse by about 21% and 39% at 250 and 500 mg/kg doses, respectively, and a central analgesic effect in the tail immersion method by elongating the time up to about 22% and 37% at the same doses. In the anti-inflammatory test in mice, this extract reduced the paw edema size over the observed period in a dose-dependent manner. It also showed a significant reduction in the elevated rectal temperature of mice in the observing period in Brewer's yeast-induced pyrexia model. In silico analysis revealed better binding characteristics of ellagic acid and luteolin among other compounds with various receptors that might be responsible for antioxidative and anti-inflammatory properties. From our observation, we suppose that SC fruits might be a potential source of drug leads for various inflammatory disorders.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 36060147 PMCID: PMC9433288 DOI: 10.1155/2022/1405821
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Biomed Res Int Impact factor: 3.246
Figure 1Photo of S. caseolaris fruits.
Figure 2Schematic diagram of the experimental program.
Presence or absence of phytochemical groups in S. caseolaris extract.
| Phytochemical groups | SC extract |
| + | Reducing sugars |
| + | Tannins |
| + | Flavonoids |
| + | Saponins |
| + | Gums |
| + | Steroids |
| - | Alkaloids |
| + | Glycosides |
| - | Xanthoproteins |
| + | Terpenoids |
| - | Acidic compounds |
“+” indicates the presence, and “-” indicates the absence.
Total content of secondary metabolites and approximate SC50 values of different radicals scavenging assays and RC50 of reducing power assay of S. caseolaris extract.
| Sample | TPC (mg GAE/g) | TFC (mg QE/g) | TTC (mg GAE/g) | DRSA (SC50 | HPSA (SC50 | SRSA (SC50 | RPA (RC50 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SC extract | 122 | 613 | 30 | 87 | 66 | 347 | 80 |
| Ascorbic acid | — | — | — | 15 | 11 | 114 | 28 |
TPC: total phenolic content; TFC: total flavonoid content; TTC: total tannin content; DRSA: DPPH radical scavenging activity; HPSA: hydrogen peroxide scavenging activity; SRSA: superoxide radical scavenging activity; RPA: reducing power assay.
Figure 3Calibration curve of (a) gallic acid for determining total phenolic content, (b) quercetin for determining total flavonoid content, and (c) gallic acid for determining total tannin content.
Figure 4(a) % scavenging of DPPH free radical vs. log concentration of S. caseolaris extract and ascorbic acid, (b) % scavenging of H2O2 vs. log concentration of S. caseolaris extract and ascorbic acid, (c) % scavenging of superoxide radical vs. log concentration of S. caseolaris extract and ascorbic acid, and (d) % reducing of FeCl3 vs. log concentration of S. caseolaris extract and ascorbic acid.
Effects of S. caseolaris extract on tail withdrawal reflexes in tail immersion method in mice.
| Treatment group | Dose (mg/kg) | Before treatment | After treatment | % inhibition of pain |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Negative control | — | 5.02 ± 0.16 | 5.1 ± 0.14 | — |
| Standard (tramadol) | 10 | 5.26 ± 0.31 | 11.55 ± 0.44∗▲∆ | 55.84 |
| SC extract | 250 | 5.05 ± 0.23 | 6.58 ± 0.57∗ | 22.05 |
| SC extract | 500 | 5.02 ± 0.29 | 8.16 ± 0.65∗ | 37.5 |
Data are means of five replicates ± SD; ∗P < 0.05 vs. control (Dunnett's t test); < 0.05 vs. tramadol 10 mg/kg; ▲P < 0.05 vs. SC extract 250 mg/kg; ∆P < 0.05 vs. SC extract 500 mg/kg (pair-wise comparison by post hoc Tukey test).
Effects of S. caseolaris extract on acetic acid-induced writhing in mice.
| Treatment group | Dose (mg/kg) | Mean writhing | % inhibition of writhing |
|---|---|---|---|
| Negative control | — | 27 ± 2.00 | — |
| Standard (diclofenac Na) | 25 | 5.8 ± 0.84∗▲∆ | 78.52 |
| SC extract | 250 | 21.4 ± 1.95∗ | 20.74 |
| SC extract | 500 | 16.4 ± 2.30∗ | 39.26 |
Data are means of five replicates ± SD; ∗P < 0.05 vs. control (Dunnett's t test); < 0.05 vs. diclofenac Na 25 mg/kg; ▲P < 0.05 vs. SC extract 250 mg/kg; ∆P < 0.05 vs. SC extract 500 mg/kg (pair-wise comparison by post hoc Tukey test).
Figure 5Comparison of paw thickness (mm) at different times for control, standard and S. caseolaris extract in the formalin-induced paw edema method.
Figure 6Comparison of rectal temperature (°F) at different times for control, standard, and S. caseolaris extract in Brewer's yeast-induced pyrexia method.
Binding characteristics of ligands against NOX5 proteins.
| Ligands | Protein | Binding affinity (kcal/mol) | Interacting amino acids |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ascorbic acid | NOX5 | –5.3 | Ile538, Phe461, Trp695, Pro460, Thr462, His476, Thr541 |
| Vanillic acid | –6.4 | Thr462, Thr541, Arg478, His476, Ile538, Phe461, Trp695, Pro460, Ile477 | |
| Oleanolic acid | –7.7 | Ile538, Arg478, Phe461, Pro460, Pro694, Val480, Thr484, Trp695 | |
| Maslinic acid | –7.8 | Ile538, Trp695, Phe461, Pro460, Pro694, Arg478, Val480, Thr484 | |
|
| – | Arg478, His476, Thr462, Ile538, Phe461, Ile477, Tyr 445, Pro460, Trp695, Thr484, Val480 | |
|
| – | Thr462, His476, Arg478, His459, Ile477, Ile538, Thr541, Phe461, Pro460, Trp695, Val480, Thr484 | |
|
| – | Arg478, Thr541, Thr462, Ile538, Trp695, Pro460, Tyr 445, Phe461, His476 |
Compounds marked bold showed the best binding affinities.
Binding characteristics of ligands against COX 2.
| Ligands | Protein | Binding affinity (kcal/mol) | Interacting amino acids |
|---|---|---|---|
| Diclofenac Na | 5KIR | –7.1 | Phe518, Val523, Met522, Leu352, Trp387, Ser530, Tyr385, Ala527, Val349, Ser353, Arg120, Tyr355 |
| Ibuprofen | –7.3 | Tyr355, His90, Phe518, Val523, Ala527, Ser530, Tyr385, Gly526, Trp387, Val349, Ser353, Leu352, Arg513 | |
| Rofecoxib | –9.7 | Phe518, Ile517, Ala516, Arg513, His90, Leu352, Trp387, Met522, Ala527, Gly526, Val349, Val523, Ser353, Gln192, Tyr355 | |
| Vanillic acid | –6.3 | Leu390, Ala199, Trp387, Glu203, Ala202, Thr206, His207, His388, Tyr385, His386, Leu391 | |
| Oleanolic acid | – | Gln192, Gly354, His351, Asn350, Asp347, Ile564, Tyr355, His356 | |
| Maslinic acid | –7.7 | Tyr355, His356, Gln192, His351, Phe580, Gly354, Asp347, Ser579, Ile564 | |
| Luteolin | – | Tyr385, Ser530, Val349, Ser353, Trp387, Leu352, Phe518, Tyr355, Val523, His90, Ile517, Ala516, Gln192 | |
| Myricetin | – | Tyr385, Ala527, Gly526, Val349, His90, Ser353, Tyr355, Gln192, Val523, Ile517, Phe518, Leu352, Ala516, Trp387, Leu384, Ser530, | |
| Ellagic acid | – | Phe580, Ser581, His351, Asp347, Tyr355, Asn350, Ser579 |
Compounds marked bold showed the best binding affinities.
Binding characteristics of ligands against mu (μ) opioid receptor.
| Ligands | Protein | Binding affinity (kcal/mol) | Interacting amino acids |
|---|---|---|---|
| Tramadol | 5C1M | –6.4 | His54, Gln124, Met151, Tyr326, Trp293, Asp147, Tyr148, Ile296, Val236, Val300 |
| Vanillic acid | –5.4 | Val300, Ile296, Val236, His297, Trp293, Ile322, Tyr326, Asp147, Met151, Val236 | |
| Oleanolic acid | –6.4 | Ile146, Trp192, Leu116, Tyr149, Leu112, Asn109, Thr153, Asn150 | |
| Maslinic acid | –6.7 | Asn150, Tyr149, Trp192, Asn109, Phe108, Leu112, Leu116, Lle146 | |
| Luteolin |
| Leu232, Lys233, Val300, Val236, Tyr148, Asp147, Ile322, Tyr326, Gln124, Ile296, His297 | |
| Myricetin |
| His297, Ile296, Glu124, Ile322, His54, Ile144, Asp147, Tyr148, Val236, Val300 | |
| Ellagic acid |
| His297, Val300, Ile296, Tyr148, His54, Asp147, Gln124, Tyr326 |
Compounds marked bold showed the best binding affinities.
Figure 7Chemical structures of (a) vanillic acid, (b) oleanolic acid, (c) maslinic acid, (d) luteolin, (e) myricetin, and (f) ellagic acid.
Figure 8Binding of ellagic acid (red) and ascorbic acid (green) with NOX5 protein.
Figure 92D interactions of amino acids with (a) ellagic acid and (b) ascorbic acid.
Figure 10Binding of diclofenac Na (red), ibuprofen (green), paracetamol (blue), and luteolin (yellow) with COX 2 receptor.
Figure 112D interactions of amino acids with (a) diclofenac Na, (b) ibuprofen, (c) paracetamol, and (d) luteolin.
Figure 12Binding of tramadol (green) and ellagic acid (red) with 5C1M protein of mu receptor.
Figure 132D interactions of amino acids with (a) tramadol and (b) ellagic acid.