| Literature DB >> 36235346 |
Yoshihiro Nomura1, Kwame Sarpong Appiah1,2, Yoko Suzuki3, Yoshiharu Fujii1, Qile Xia4.
Abstract
Pharmaceutical plants contain several phytochemicals that are sources of myriad biological activities. These biological activities can be explored in multiple fields for the benefit of mankind. Pharmaceutical plants with high ethnobotanical indices (i.e., use value and relative frequency of citation) were reported with the potential to inhibit lettuce elongation through leachates and volatiles. The focus of the study was to assess Chinese pharmaceutical plants for both antioxidants, as well as allelopathic potentials to explore any underlying relationship. The estimation of antioxidative capacity and content of total phenolics (TPC) for the 55 Chinese pharmaceutical plants was conducted by the assays of DPPH radical scavenging activity (DPPH-RSA), oxygen radical absorbance capacity (ORAC) and the means of Folin-Ciocalteu. The estimation of the activity of allelopathy for collected medicinal plants was done by adopting the sandwich method for plant leachates and the dishpack method for volatile constituents, respectively. The fruits of sea buckthorn (Hippophae rhamnoides) had the most remarkable ORAC value (168 ± 7.04 μmol TE/g) and DPPH radical scavenging activity (440 ± 7.32 μmol TE/g) and contained the highest contents of total phenolic compounds (236 ± 7.62 mg GAE/g) in the 55 pharmaceutical plant species according to the results. In addition, sea buckthorn showed dominant allelopathic potential through plant leachates evaluated by using the sandwich method. Star anise (Illicium verum Hook. f.) showed conspicuous allelopathic activity through plant volatiles assessed by the dishpack bioassay method. Among the same plant species, antioxidative ability and total phenolics, in comparison with potential allelopathy of medicinal herbs indicated that volatile allelochemical had a weak active effect (r = 0.407 to 0.472, p < 0.01), with antioxidant capacity by the dishpack method. However, the evaluation by the sandwich method showed a significant positive correlation (r = 0.718 to 0.809, p < 0.001) with antioxidant capacity. Based on these results, a new hypothesis is that the antioxidant activity of plants may have an involvement with the potential allelopathic activity.Entities:
Keywords: DPPH-RSA; ORAC; allelopathic activity; antioxidant activity; dishpack method; sandwich method; total phenolics
Year: 2022 PMID: 36235346 PMCID: PMC9570548 DOI: 10.3390/plants11192481
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Plants (Basel) ISSN: 2223-7747
ORAC, DPPH-RSA and total phenolic contents of 55 Chinese pharmaceutical plants.
| Scientific Name | Plant Part Used | ORAC | DPPH-RSA | Total Phenolic Contents |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| fruit | 168 ± 7.04 | 420 ± 7.15 | 236 ± 7.62 | |
| leaf | 166 ± 6.05 | 440 ± 7.32 | 232 ± 7.40 | |
| fruit | 159 ± 5.38 | 426 ± 7.02 | 224 ± 7.51 | |
| peel | 149 ± 5.62 | 399 ± 6.40 | 221 ± 6.48 | |
| fruit | 148 ± 5.23 | 386 ± 5.17 | 217 ± 7.33 | |
| fruit | 141 ± 5.01 | 387 ± 5.21 | 187 ± 6.04 | |
| fruit | 138 ± 5.21 | 352 ± 4.58 | 162 ± 4.01 | |
| fruit | 136 ± 4.20 | 376 ± 5.04 | 181 ± 6.20 | |
| fruit | 135 ± 3.80 | 315 ± 4.20 | 162 ± 3.98 | |
| leaf | 131 ± 4.05 | 241 ± 3.80 | 116 ± 2.75 | |
| fruit | 129 ± 3.52 | 237 ± 3.63 | 179 ± 5.31 | |
| fruit | 125 ± 3.74 | 243 ± 2.15 | 162 ± 1.52 | |
| root | 125 ± 2.10 | 249 ± 1.81 | 164 ± 2.30 | |
| root | 122 ± 2.15 | 290 ± 2.40 | 145 ± 2.13 | |
| fruit | 121 ± 3.22 | 157 ± 2.78 | 133 ± 3.44 | |
| fruit | 120 ± 3.10 | 239 ± 3.35 | 184 ± 4.86 | |
| leaf | 117 ± 2.18 | 211 ± 3.21 | 148 ± 3.67 | |
| fruit | 112 ± 2.12 | 206 ± 3.10 | 170 ± 4.53 | |
| fruit | 110 ± 1.67 | 208 ± 4.11 | 104 ± 2.25 | |
| leaf | 107 ± 0.94 | 217 ± 1.51 | 110 ± 1.40 | |
| fruit | 105 ± 0.51 | 200 ± 1.75 | 113 ± 1.30 | |
| leaf | 104 ± 1.73 | 184 ± 2.33 | 97.3 ± 2.07 | |
| root | 104 ± 2.03 | 85.3 ± 1.60 | 76.4 ± 0.75 | |
| fruit | 104 ± 1.62 | 109 ± 2.46 | 74.0 ± 0.42 | |
| fruit | 104 ± 1.28 | 187 ± 2.35 | 121 ± 3.27 | |
| root | 103 ± 2.30 | 185 ± 1.40 | 112 ± 1.80 | |
| fruit | 100 ± 1.37 | 173 ± 2.26 | 87.5 ± 2.05 | |
| leaf | 98.4 ± 0.85 | 140 ± 1.60 | 93.0 ± 1.75 | |
| fruit | 95.4 ± 0.70 | 166 ± 3.01 | 102 ± 2.04 | |
| fruit | 93.8 ± 0.92 | 124 ± 1.52 | 83.5 ± 1.23 | |
| leaf | 93.7 ± 1.03 | 139 ± 1.30 | 94.7 ± 1.44 | |
| fruit | 93.5 ± 2.41 | 151 ± 0.97 | 95.3 ± 1.37 | |
| root | 92.3 ± 0.68 | 118 ± 1.83 | 85.4 ± 1.90 | |
| fruit | 92.0 ± 0.77 | 147 ± 1.64 | 118 ± 2.90 | |
| root | 90.7 ± 0.55 | 171 ± 1.75 | 84.3 ± 1.82 | |
| fruit | 90.6 ± 1.2 | 100 ± 2.40 | 106 ± 1.51 | |
| leaf | 90.5 ± 2.10 | 110 ± 0.85 | 92.4 ± 1.32 | |
| root | 88.2 ± 1.30 | 100 ± 0.82 | 73.4 ± 1.60 | |
| fruit | 86.5 ± 0.48 | 90.6 ± 1.21 | 98.7 ± 2.30 | |
| leaf | 86.0 ± 0.45 | 92.4 ± 1.03 | 74.8 ± 0.91 | |
| leaf | 84.5 ± 0.37 | 151 ± 1.32 | 93.1 ± 2.13 | |
| fruit | 82.7 ± 0.90 | 94.2 ± 1.41 | 87.5 ± 1.73 | |
| fruit | 81.0 ± 0.27 | 96.7 ± 0.97 | 56.3 ± 0.26 | |
| root | 80.7 ± 1.50 | 102 ± 2.10 | 83.4 ± 2.03 | |
| root | 80.3 ± 1.73 | 90.6 ± 0.91 | 97.5 ± 4.23 | |
| root | 79.3 ± 0.70 | 102 ± 0.91 | 79.3 ± 1.43 | |
| leaf | 77.4 ± 0.26 | 81.5 ± 0.80 | 75.6 ± 0.87 | |
| fruit | 77.4 ± 0.22 | 126 ± 0.76 | 80.3 ± 1.04 | |
| fruit | 75.2 ± 0.30 | 76.9 ± 0.72 | 57.0 ± 0.41 | |
| fruit | 75.0 ± 0.27 | 101 ± 0.51 | 80.0 ± 1.03 | |
| fruit | 69.3 ± 0.13 | 71.3 ± 0.55 | 77.6 ± 0.95 | |
| fruit | 68.7 ± 0.25 | 72.2 ± 0.64 | 59.6 ± 0.47 | |
| leaf | 64.8 ± 0.14 | 105 ± 0.72 | 83.7 ± 1.64 | |
| leaf | 58.8 ± 0.17 | 83.7 ± 0.42 | 74.7 ± 0.80 | |
| leaf | 56.3 ± 0.12 | 75.1 ± 0.38 | 58.3 ± 0.30 |
Results are averages of three replications (M ± SD).
Radicle growth of 55 Chinese Pharmaceutical plants by sandwich method and dishpack method.
| Scientific Name | Plant Part Used | Radicle Growth by | Radicle Growth by | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| (% to Control) | Criteria * | (% to Control) | Criteria * | ||
| fruit | 7.30 ± 0.35 | *** | 57.7 ± 2.51 | * | |
| leaf | 10.0 ± 0.52 | *** | 54.0 ± 1.75 | * | |
| fruit | 14.0 ± 0.48 | *** | 16.0 ± 0.14 | *** | |
| root | 19.3 ± 0.21 | *** | 78.3 ± 1.03 | ||
| fruit | 21.0 ± 0.70 | *** | 72.0 ± 4.38 | ||
| root | 22.3 ± 0.65 | *** | 75.3 ± 4.71 | ||
| fruit | 24.3 ± 0.73 | ** | 71.0 ± 4.13 | ||
| leaf | 26.3 ± 0.78 | ** | 48.0 ± 1.28 | ** | |
| leaf | 33.0 ± 0.83 | ** | 64.3 ± 2.30 | * | |
| peel | 34.0 ± 0.81 | ** | 49.3 ± 1.86 | ** | |
| fruit | 35.3 ± 0.90 | ** | 46.3 ± 1.90 | ** | |
| fruit | 41.7 ± 0.95 | * | 77.3 ± 4.26 | ||
| fruit | 43.3 ± 1.03 | * | 78.0 ± 3.97 | ||
| leaf | 45.0 ± 1.20 | * | 38.0 ± 0.82 | *** | |
| fruit | 46.3 ± 1.08 | * | 80.3 ± 4.66 | ||
| leaf | 52.3 ± 1.27 | 75.3 ± 5.10 | |||
| fruit | 53.0 ± 1.30 | 51.0 ± 1.90 | ** | ||
| root | 54.0 ± 1.42 | 70.7 ± 4.40 | |||
| leaf | 56.3 ± 1.10 | 84.0 ± 2.10 | |||
| fruit | 57.7 ± 0.81 | 63.0 ± 2.03 | * | ||
| fruit | 58.7 ± 1.47 | 80.1 ± 4.11 | |||
| root | 59.3 ± 2.03 | 82.3 ± 3.50 | |||
| leaf | 61.0 ± 3.70 | 65.7 ± 1.53 | |||
| fruit | 61.7 ± 2.10 | 88.0 ± 5.42 | |||
| root | 62.3 ± 2.70 | 56.1 ± 3.01 | ** | ||
| fruit | 65.3 ± 1.80 | 89.0 ± 0.73 | |||
| fruit | 66.7 ± 2.70 | 65.0 ± 1.53 | |||
| fruit | 67.0 ± 1.10 | 69.1 ± 1.81 | |||
| fruit | 70.0 ± 2.30 | 98.5 ± 4.30 | |||
| root | 70.7 ± 1.85 | 36.2 ± 1.13 | *** | ||
| leaf | 71.0 ± 1.60 | 85.2 ± 3.23 | |||
| root | 71.7 ± 3.24 | 29.1 ± 0.81 | *** | ||
| root | 74.7 ± 2.51 | 87.3 ± 4.15 | |||
| fruit | 76.7 ± 3.20 | 56.0 ± 1.70 | * | ||
| fruit | 78.0 ± 4.05 | 112 ± 10.5 | |||
| fruit | 78.3 ± 5.20 | 69.3 ± 3.34 | |||
| fruit | 78.7 ± 5.35 | 91.0 ± 6.55 | |||
| fruit | 80.3 ± 6.24 | 110 ± 10.4 | |||
| fruit | 81.3 ± 7.40 | 58.3 ± 2.62 | * | ||
| fruit | 81.0 ± 6.58 | 108 ± 9.22 | |||
| fruit | 85.0 ± 6.93 | 89.7 ± 6.90 | |||
| root | 87.0 ± 7.56 | 69.0 ± 3.72 | |||
| fruit | 88.3 ± 8.03 | 102 ± 3.95 | |||
| root | 88.7 ± 7.78 | 91.3 ± 7.31 | |||
| root | 89.0 ± 8.31 | 87.0 ± 6.70 | |||
| fruit | 90.3 ± 9.04 | 94.3 ± 8.11 | |||
| fruit | 92.0 ± 8.61 | 101 ± 6.45 | |||
| fruit | 93.7 ± 9.30 | 95.0 ± 7.44 | |||
| root | 96.0 ± 9.22 | 101 ± 3.02 | |||
| fruit | 101 ± 9.23 | 106 ± 9.63 | |||
| leaf | 102 ± 9.64 | 96.3 ± 7.80 | |||
| leaf | 104 ± 9.70 | 97.3 ± 8.90 | |||
| fruit | 106 ± 10.0 | 101 ± 8.86 | |||
| leaf | 107 ± 9.85 | 105 ± 10.2 | |||
| leaf | 108 ± 10.10 | 104 ± 9.31 | |||
R% = radicle elongation rate (% compared to untreated control) when applying the sandwich method or the dishpack method. More [*] indicates more excellent ability of radicle growth inhibition when the standard deviation variance (SDV) adopted, where: * = M-0.5 SD, ** = M-1.0 SD, *** = M-1.5 SD, M = Average of R%, SD = Standard deviation of R%.
Figure 1Normal distribution of radicle elongation (a) and hypocotyl elongation (b) of lettuce on 55 pharmaceutical plants treated by 10 mg sample using the sandwich method. R: Radicle and H: Hypocotyl.
Figure 2Normal distribution of radicle elongation (a) and hypocotyl elongation (b) of lettuce using dishpack method with 250 mg plant of the 55 medicinal plants.
Figure 3Correlation among ORAC antioxidant ability (3a), DPPH-RSA antioxidant ability (3b), total phenols content (3c) and lettuce elongation inhibition using the sandwich method for Chinese pharmaceutical plants. [***] indicates significant correlation when 0.5 ≤ |r| < 1.
Figure 4Correlation among ORAC antioxidant ability (4a), DPPH-RSA antioxidant ability (4b), total phenols content (4c) and lettuce elongation inhibition using the dishpack method for Chinese pharmaceutical plants. [**] indicates weak correlation when 0.3 ≤ |r| < 0.5.