| Literature DB >> 36235558 |
Thanchanok Limcharoen1,2, Phisit Pouyfung2,3, Ngamrayu Ngamdokmai1,2, Aruna Prasopthum4,5, Aktsar Roskiana Ahmad6, Wisdawati Wisdawati6, Woraanong Prugsakij7, Sakan Warinhomhoun1,2.
Abstract
Kratom (Mitragyna speciosa (Korth.) Havil.) has been used to reduce blood sugar and lipid profiles in traditional medicine, and mitragynine is a major constituent in kratom leaves. Previous data on the blood sugar and lipid-altering effects of kratom are limited. In this study, phytochemical analyses of mitragynine, 7-hydroxymitragynine, quercetin, and rutin were performed in kratom extracts. The effects on α-glucosidase and pancreatic lipase activities were investigated in kratom extracts and mitragynine. The LC-MS/MS analysis showed that the mitragynine, quercetin, and rutin contents from kratom extracts were different. The ethanol extract exhibited the highest total phenolic content (TPC), total flavonoid content (TFC), and total alkaloid content (TAC). Additionally, compared to methanol and aqueous extracts, the ethanol extract showed the strongest inhibition activity against α-glucosidase and pancreatic lipase. Compared with the anti-diabetic agent acarbose, mitragynine showed the most potent α-glucosidase inhibition, with less potent activity of pancreatic lipase inhibition. Analysis of α-glucosidase and pancreatic lipase kinetics revealed that mitragynine inhibited noncompetitive and competitive effects, respectively. Combining mitragynine with acarbose resulted in a synergistic interaction with α-glucosidase inhibition. These results have established the potential of mitragynine from kratom as a herbal supplement for the treatment and prevention of diabetes mellitus.Entities:
Keywords: Mitragyna speciosa; anti-diabetes mellitus; kratom; pancreatic lipase; α-glucosidase
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 36235558 PMCID: PMC9572452 DOI: 10.3390/nu14193909
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Nutrients ISSN: 2072-6643 Impact factor: 6.706
Figure 1Mitragyna speciosa (Korth.) Havil. or Kratom.
TPC (mg GAE/g extract), TFC (mg QE/g extract), and TAC (mg ATR/g extract) of kratom leaf extracts.
| Samples | TPC | TFC | TAC |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ethanol | 252.92 ± 1.15 * | 26.07 ± 0.01 * | 88.04 ± 0.15 * |
| Methanol | 159.30 ± 2.01 | 13.15 ± 0.09 | 52.82 ± 0.85 |
| Aqueous | 130.58 ± 0.68 | 0.82 ± 0.02 | 5.61 ± 0.13 |
Results are expressed as means ± SDs, n = 3. * p < 0.05 compared to methanol and aqueous extracts of each group.
Figure 2Total ion chromatograms (TIC) from LC-MS/MS of (A) the reference standard (mitragynine) concentration at 1 ug/mL, (B) ethanol extract, (C) methanol extract, and (D) aqueous extract from kratom leaves. The peaks of four major constituents were identified by comparison with the reference standards, their retention times, and mass fragmentation patterns (B1–D1) as rutin, quercetin, mitragynine, and 7-hydroxymitragynine.
MS/MS data of compounds identified tentatively in kratom ethanol, methanol, and aqueous leaf extracts using UHPLC and LC-MS/MS.
| Identification | Calculated | Precursor ion Experimental | Major Ion in | Ethanol | Methanol | Aqueous |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mitragynine | 399.2278 | 399.20 | 174.10 | 3.284 | 3.224 | 3.224 |
| 7-hydroxymitragynine | 415.2227 | 415.2 | 190.10 | 3.286 | 3.212 | 3.212 |
| Rutin | 611.1602 | 611.16 | 303.10 | 1.209 | 1.175 | 1.175 |
| Quercetin | 303.0508 | 303.05 | 229.00 | 1.217 | 1.223 | 1.223 |
Quantitative analysis of mitragynine, quercetin, and rutin of kratom extracts.
| Compounds | Amount (mg/g) ± SD | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Ethanol Extract | Methanol Extract | Aqueous Extract | |
| Mitragynine | 58.75 ± 0.21 * | 35.87 ± 1.01 | 3.85 ± 0.17 |
| Quercetin | 19.10 ± 0.85 * | 5.90 ± 0.14 | 1.28 ± 0.02 |
| Rutin | 11.36 ± 0.11 * | 3.19 ± 0.22 | 1.22 ± 0.05 |
Results are expressed as means ± SDs, n = 3. * p < 0.05 compared to methanol and aqueous extracts of each group.
The IC50 values of kratom extracts and mitragynine for α-glucosidase and pancreatic lipase inhibitory activities.
| Samples | α-Glucosidase | Pancreatic Lipase | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| IC50 (µM) | IC50 (µg/mL) | IC50 (µM) | IC50 (µg/mL) | |
| Ethanol extract | - | 15.90 ± 1.34 * | - | 14.15 ± 1.71 * |
| Methanol extract | - | 42.12 ± 1.76 * | - | 28.38 ± 2.34 * |
| Aqueous extract | - | 69.48 ± 2.67 * | - | 41.43 ± 3.32 * |
| Mitragynine | 205.04 ± 15.11 * | 81.68 ± 1.70 * | 24.9 ± 1.38 * | 9.86 ± 0.45 * |
| Acarbose | 1121.09 ± 67.01 | 728.20 ± 7.01 | - | - |
| Orlistat | - | - | 0.84 ± 0.10 | 0.42 ± 0.05 |
Results are expressed as means ± SDs, n = 3. * p < 0.05 compared to positive controls (acarbose and orlistat).
Figure 3Inhibitory effect of the kratom extracts and mitragynine against α-glucosidase (A,B) and pancreatic lipase (C,D). Inhibition curves of acarbose (B) and orlistat (D) were used as positive controls.
Figure 4Lineweaver–Burk plots of α-glucosidase (A–D) and pancreatic lipase (E–H) in the presence and absence of kratom extracts, mitragynine, and positive controls (acarbose and orlistat).
Kinetic parameters in α-glucosidase and pancreatic lipase in the presence of mitragynine and positive controls.
| Inhibitors | α-Glucosidase | Pancreatic Lipase | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ki (mM) | Mode | Ki (µM) | Mode | |
| Mitragynine | 0.10 | noncompetitive | 14.94 | competitive |
| Acarbose | 0.28 | mixed-type | - | - |
| Orlistat | - | - | 0.24 | competitive |
Figure 5The IC50 values α-glucosidase of combinatorial kratom extracts and mitragynine with acarbose. The results are expressed as the means ± SDs, n = 3. * p < 0.05 compared to acarbose alone.