| Literature DB >> 36136531 |
Mercedes López-Rodríguez1, Lorenzo López-Rosales1,2, Giullia Diletta1, María Del Carmen Cerón-García1,2, Elvira Navarro-López1,2, Juan José Gallardo-Rodríguez1,2, Ana Isabel Tristán2,3, Ana Cristina Abreu2,3, Francisco García-Camacho1,2.
Abstract
The two main methods for partitioning crude methanolic extract from Amphidinium carterae biomass were compared. The objective was to obtain three enriched fractions containing amphidinols (APDs), carotenoids, and fatty acids. Since the most valuable bioproducts are APDs, their recovery was the principal goal. The first method consisted of a solid-phase extraction (SPE) in reverse phase that, for the first time, was optimized to fractionate organic methanolic extracts from Amphidinium carterae biomass using reverse-phase C18 as the adsorbent. The second method consisted of a two-step liquid-liquid extraction coupled with SPE and, alternatively, with solvent partitioning. The SPE method allowed the recovery of the biologically-active fraction (containing the APDs) by eluting with methanol (MeOH): water (H2O) (80:20 v/v). Alternatively, an APD purification strategy using solvent partitioning proved to be a better approach for providing APDs in a clear-cut way. When using n-butanol, APDs were obtained at a 70% concentration (w/w), whereas for the SPE method, the most concentrated fraction was only 18% (w/w). For the other fractions (carotenoids and fatty acids), a two-step liquid-liquid extraction (LLE) method coupled with the solvent partitioning method presented the best results.Entities:
Keywords: amphidinol; carotenoids; dinoflagellate; fatty acids; liquid-liquid extraction; solid-phase extraction
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 36136531 PMCID: PMC9504921 DOI: 10.3390/toxins14090593
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Toxins (Basel) ISSN: 2072-6651 Impact factor: 5.075
Figure 1(A) Effect of different cell disruption methods on the extraction of APDs from A. carterae biomass, expressed in terms of hemolytic activity relative to the control. CTRL: control; UT: ultrasound; MP: mortar and pestle without alumina. (B) Effect of the ultrasound time (min) on the extraction of APDs. (C) Influence of the biomass-to-extractant ratio on hemolytic activity (ESP: equivalent saponin potency) of methanolic extracts produced from A. carterae biomass and treated with UT for 15 min. Data points are averages and vertical bars are the standard deviations for triplicate samples. The lowercase letters represent significant differences, with a p-value < 0.05.
Figure 2(A) Determination of the breakthrough curves in terms of the ESPeffluent-to-ESPcrude ratio versus the extract-to-adsorbent ratios for 1-g reverse-phase C18 cartridges (black points) using crude MeOH extracts, and for 10-g reverse-phase C18 cartridges (red points) using an extract from the clear phase obtained in Figure 4, Step 2. (B) Optimization of the elution volume with 100% MeOH to completely elute all the compounds adsorbed. (C) Distribution of the hemolytic compounds recovered in the fractionation process using a 1-g reverse-phase C18 cartridge. The recovery of hemolytic compounds was calculated from the ESPeluted-to-ESPcrude measurements. Data points and bars are averages and vertical bars are standard deviations for triplicate samples. The lowercase letters in Figure 2B represent significant differences, with a p-value < 0.05.
Figure 3The direct fractionation by SPE approach using 1–10-g reverse-phase C18 cartridges.
Figure 4Flowsheet of the proposed process based on liquid-liquid extraction coupled with the SPE approach (Option A) using a reverse-phase 10-g C18 cartridge and 80-g C18 column, and an alternative APD purification strategy by solvent partitioning (Option B).
Figure 5(A) Percentage distribution of the three metabolite groups and (B) the predominant groups of polar metabolome components in the fractionation step (direct fractionation by SPE) outlined in Figure 4, using a 10-g C18 cartridge. APDs: amphidinols; FAs: Fatty acids; CRs: Carotenoids; AA: amino acids; OA: organic acids; SA: sugars; QAC: quaternary ammonium compounds; PA: polyhydric alcohols; NB: nitrogenous bases. Percentages are relative to the content in the initial crude methanolic extracts.
Figure 6Distribution of the main metabolite groups throughout the two phases formed (the clear phase; 70:30 v/v MeOH: H2O, and the dark phase; CH2Cl2) following the liquid-liquid extraction of the crude methanolic extract outlined in Figure 4, Step 2. APDs: amphidinols; FAs: fatty acids; CRs: carotenoids; AA: amino acids; OA: organic acids; SA: sugars; QAC: quaternary ammonium compounds; PA: polyhydric alcohols; NB: nitrogenous bases. Data bars are averages and vertical bars are standard deviations for duplicates samples.
Figure 7(A) Distribution of hemolytic compounds recovered by the fractionation process using the reverse-phase 10-g C18 cartridge (red bars) and the 80-g C18 column (green bars) and (B) the main polar metabolite groups recovered by the fractionation process using the 10-g reverse-phase C18 cartridges via the process outlined in Figure 4, Step 6, Option A. Percentages are relative to the content in the initial clear phase. (C) Distribution of the main metabolite groups over the two phases obtained from the two purification options outlined in Figure 4 (red bars, clear phase fractionation step procedure; orange bars, solvent-partitioning with n-BuOH). (D) Percentage of each compound with respect to the total of compounds present in the clear phase, n-BuOH phase, and H2O phase. AA: amino acids; OA: organic acids; SA: sugars; QAC: quaternary ammonium compounds; PA: polyhydric alcohols; NB: nitrogenous bases; APDs: amphidinols. Data bars are averages and vertical bars are standard deviations for duplicates samples.
Recovery percentages of the free carotenoids and fatty acids recovered by liquid-liquid extraction and the simultaneous saponification procedure outlined in Figure 4, Stream 3. Recovery yield (% d.w.): Percentage of carotenoids and fatty acids extracted with respect to the compounds present in the initial dark phase (Figure 4, Step 2).
| Fatty Acids (%, Recovery Yield) | Carotenoids (%, Recovery Yield) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| KOH (% | CH2Cl2 Phase | MeOH:H2O 30:70 Phase | CH2Cl2 Phase | MeOH:H2O 30:70 Phase |
| 5% KOH | 100 ± 5 | - | 98 ± 5 | 2 ± 0 |
| 10% KOH | 91 ± 5 | 9 ± 0 | 127 ± 6 | - |
| 20% KOH | 80 ± 4 | 20 ± 1 | 130 ± 6 | - |
| 40% KOH | 60 ± 3 | 40 ± 2 | 86 ± 4 | - |
| 60% KOH | 40 ± 2 | 60 ± 3 | 46 ± 2 | - |
| 80% KOH | 19 ± 1 | 81 ± 4 | 6 ± 0 | - |