Return to search

Stanovení antioxidačních vlastností extraktů z léčivých a jedlých rostlin v in vitro podmínkách / Assessment of in vitro antioxidant properties of medicinal and edible plant extracts

Identification and characterization of plant-based products with antioxidant and anti-proliferative effects has received much interest over the past few years as possible therapeutic mean for treatment of diseases likely to be associated to oxidative stress (such as atherosclerosis, diabetes, and cancer). This study provides characterization of in vitro antioxidant and/or anti-proliferative potential and phytochemical profile of (i) 39 wine samples of underutilized Georgian grapevine cultivars, (ii) extracts of 22 samples of medicinal plants from Ethiopia and (iii) 23 samples of edible and medicinal plants from Peruvian Amazon. For this purpose, 2,2-diphenyl-1-picrylhydrazyl radical assay (DPPH), oxygen radical absorbance capacity (ORAC) assay, total phenolic content (TPC), and cell viability assay based on metabolization of tetrazolium bromide (MTT) to formazan, together with methods based on high performance liquid chromatography (HPLC-ultra violet/visible spectrometry and HPLC-tandem mass spectrometry) were used. Georgian red wines (particularly Saperavi cultivars) exhibited higher antioxidant capacity (average DPPH and ORAC values at 5.1 and = 10.6 g TE/L wine, respectively) in comparison to Central and West European cultivars [Pinot Noir (DPPH = 3.1 and ORAC = 9.4 g TE/L wine), Cabernet Sauvignon (DPPH = 3.0 and ORAC = 7.3 g TE/L wine) and Cabernet Moravia (DPPH = 2.0 and ORAC = 8.5 g TE/L wine)]. Georgian wines contained significantly greater concentrations of quercetin (between 14.44 and 1.07 ug/mL), kaempferol (between 1.68 and 0.03 ug/mL) and syringic acid (between 12.59 and 4.72 ug/mL), whereas possessed lower quantities of resveratrol (between 5.11 and 0.32 ug/mL) in comparison to Central and West European wines. Amongst edible and medicinal plants from Ethiopia and Peruvian Amazon, only Dodonaea angustifolia (IC50 for DPPH = 22.2 ug/mL, ORAC = 767.6 ug TE/mg extract; IC50 for Hep-G2 = 120.0 ug/mL), Rumex nepalensis (IC50 for DPPH = 5.7 ug/mL, ORAC = 1061.4 ug TE/mg extract; IC50 for Hep-G2 = 50.5 ug/mL), Inga edulis (DPPH and ORAC = 337.0 and 795.7 ug TE/mg extract; IC50 for Hep-G2 and HT-29 = 36.3 and 57.9 ug/mL) and Oenocarpus bataua (DPPH and ORAC = 903.8 and 1024.4 ug TE/mg extract; IC50 for Hep-G2 and HT-29 = 102.6 and 38.8 ug/mL) have demonstrated combinatory antioxidant/anti-proliferative efficacy. Selective anti-proliferative activity was observed for Verbascum sinaiticum (IC50 for Hep-G2 = 80.6 ug/mL) and Annona montana (IC50 for Hep-G2 and HT-29 = 2.7 and 9.0 ug/mL, respectively). Above-mentioned plant material showed only weak or non-toxic effects towards normal cell line. Despite the fact that extracts of Jasminum abyssinicum (IC50 for DPPH = 26.3 ug/mL, ORAC = 1023.7 ug TE/mg extract), Rumex nepalensis (IC50 for DPPH = 5.7 ug/mL, ORAC = 1061.4 ug TE/mg extract), Mauritia flexuosa (DPPH and ORAC = 1062.9 and 645.9 ug TE/mg extract), Myrciaria dubia (DPPH and ORAC = 641.9 and 642.6 ug TE/mg extract) and Theobroma grandiflorum (DPPH and ORAC = 714.8 and 821.9 ug TE/mg extract) have exhibited considerable antioxidant effect, these species were found to possess moderate to low anti-proliferative potential or have shown to be toxic to normal cells line. In all cases it was detected that phenolic compounds content correlated strongly with antioxidant activity, however weakly with anti-proliferative effect. Results suggest above-mentioned species as prospective materials for further development of novel plant-based agents effective against oxidative stress related diseases. However, it is necessary to perform further research which would be focused on detailed characterization of their chemical composition, pharmacological effects and toxicological safety, in order to verify their possible practical use.

Identiferoai:union.ndltd.org:nusl.cz/oai:invenio.nusl.cz:259720
Date January 2016
CreatorsTauchen, Jan
ContributorsKokoška, Ladislav, Jaromír , Jaromír
PublisherČeská zemědělská univerzita v Praze
Source SetsCzech ETDs
LanguageCzech
Detected LanguageEnglish
Typeinfo:eu-repo/semantics/doctoralThesis
Rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/restrictedAccess

Page generated in 0.0021 seconds