Phytochemical and biological evaluations of Arum hygrophilum boiss. (Araceae)

Abstract

Background:Arum hygrophilum is a traditional medicinal plant indigenous to Jordan. The present study explores its phytochemistry, antioxidative, antidiabesity, and antiproliferative potentialities.Materials and Methods:Column chromatography and HPLC-MS analysis were used for its phytochemical evaluation. Using leaf crude water and ethanol extracts, the antioxidative capacities, their modulation of pancreatic β-cell proliferation, and insulin secretion as well as glucose diffusion and enzymatic bioassays were evaluated.Results:Three flavonoids (luteolin, isoorientin, and vitexin) and β-sitosterol have been isolated and their structures determined. HPLC-MS analysis of the ethanol extract further revealed the presence of caffeic, ferulic, gallic, and rosmarinic acids and quercetine-3-O-rhamnoside. The ethanol extract exhibited DPPH and ABTS radical scavenging and antioxidative capacities. A. hygrophilum (1), vitexin (2), and rosmarinic acid (3) inhibited pancreatic lipase (PL) dose dependently with PL-IC50 (µg/mL) values in an ascending order: (3); 51.28 ± 7.55 < (2); 260.9 ± 21.1 < (1); 1720 ± 10. Comparable to GLP-1-enhanced β-cell proliferation in 2-day treatment wells, a dose-dependent augmentation of BrdU incorporation was obtained with the A. hygrophilum aqueous extract (AE) (0.5 and 1 mg/mL, with respective 1.33- and 1.41-folds, P < 0.001). A. hygrophilum AE was identified as an inhibitor of α-amylase/α-glucosidase with IC50 value of 30.5 ± 2.1 mg/mL but lacked antiproliferative effects in colorectal cancer cell lines (HT29, HCT116, and SW620) and insulinotropic effects in β-cell line MIN6.Conclusion:A. hygrophilum extracts inhibited gastrointestinal enzymes involved in carbohydrate and lipid digestion and absorption.SUMMARY Phytochemical evaluation of Arum hygrophilum recovered flavonoids (luteolin, isoorientin and vitexin) and β-sitosterolHPLC-MS analysis of its antioxidative ethanol extract further revealed the presence of caffeic-, ferulic-, gallic- and rosmarinic acids and quercetine-3-O-rhamnosideA. hygrophilum inhibited α-amylase/α-glucosidase and pancreatic lipase dose-dependentlyA. hygrophilum augmented β-cell proliferation dose dependently, but it lacked antiproliferative effects in colorectal cancer cell lines (HT29, HCT116, and SW620) and insulinotropic effects in β-cell line MIN6 Abbreviations used: ABTS: 2,2’-Azino-Bis-3-Ethylbenzothiazoline-6-Sulfonic Acid, AE: Aqueous Extract, ANOVA: Analysis Of Variance, AUC: Area Under Curve, BrdU: 5-Bromo-2’-Deoxyuridine, DPPH: 2,2-Diphenyl -1-Pycriylhydrazyl, ELISA: Enzyme Linked Immunosorbent Assay, GLP1: Glucagon Like Peptide 1, GSIS: Glucose Stimulated Insulin Secretion, HPLC-MS: High Performance Liquid Chromatography –Mass Spectrometry, IC50: 50% Inhibitory Concentration, KRH: Krebs/Ringer/Hepes, MTT: 3-(4,5-Dimethylthiazol-2-Yl)-2,5-Diphenyltetrazolium Bromide, OGTT: Oral Glucose Tolerance Test, ORAC: Oxygen Radical Antioxidant Capacity, OSTT: Oral Starch Tolerance Test, PL: Pancreatic Lipase, SEM: Standard Error Of The Mean, SRB: Sulforhodamine B, TE...

Identification of isoflavonoids in antioxidant effective fraction of Arum rupicola Boiss. leaves

“…Various flavonoids and phenolic compounds have been identified and reported in different species of Arum [20,21], but no phytochemical studies have been performed on A. rupicola. In this study, antioxidant effects, cytotoxicity as well as purification and identification of secondary metabolites of A. rupicola leaves were investigated using different chromatographic and spectroscopic methods.…”

“…20, No. 79: [14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23] In the T47D cell line, the fractions of chloroform, hexane, and total methanol extract as well as water residue showed cytotoxicity with IC50 of 113.8 ± 1.25, 122.8 ± 0.2, 249.08 ± 0.14, 399.3 ± 0.6 µg/ml), respectively. In this cell line, etoposide showed cytotoxicity with IC50 of 23.3 ± 0.096 μg/ml.…”

UPLC-MS Profile and Anti-Proliferative Activity of the Berries of an Aggressive Wild-Growing Weed: Solanum elaeagnifolium Cav. (Solanaceae)

“…For the cytotoxicity assay, each 100 mg of the hydro-alcoholic extract was dissolved in 10 mL dimethyl sulphoxide (DMSO) for the preparation of the stock solutions. 9,10 Phytochemical Analysis of S. elaeagnifolium berries extracts Ultra-performance-liquid-chromatography high-resolution mass spectrometric (UPLC-HR-ESI-MS) evaluation of hydro-alcoholic extracts of S. elaeagnifolium unripe and ripe berries Phytochemical screening of the hydro-alcoholic extracts of S. elaeagnifolium unripe and ripe berries was carried out using UPLC-HR-ESI-MS as described earlier. 21 The QExactive Plus was adjusted to collect data from 150 to 2000 m/z at a resolution of 70 000.…”

“…The cytotoxicity screening and mechanism of reduction of cell viability were performed according to. 9,10 The validation of selective cytotoxicity was tested using human periodontal fibroblasts (PDL). Cisplatin [Sigma-Aldrich, purity: ≥ 99%] in concentrations (0.1-200 μg/mL) was used as robust positive control.All the assays were in three independent experiments and the calculated cytotoxic properties were calculated and reported as the IC50 mean values ± Standard deviation (n = 3).…”

“…According to the National Cancer Institute guidelines, crude extracts that have IC50 less than 100μg/mL in the initial assay are considered active while crude extracts with IC50 value less than 30μg/mL are considered cytotoxic. 9,10 The obtained results of the anti-proliferative activities of the tested extracts and the control drug cisplatin, against the four colorectal carcinoma cell lines and Human periodontal fibroblasts (PDL), are given in Table 1 and the dose-response curves for both extracts were generated (Figure 4). Both hydro-alcoholic extracts showed cytotoxic activities over 72h incubations against HT29, HCT116, SW620 and CACO2 cell lines and the extracts lacked selective cytotoxicity in PDL fibroblasts (P<0.05) with a significant difference between both extracts against SW620 cell line at P< 0.05.Nevertheless, it should be taken into consideration that extracts are mixtures of numerous compounds while the control is a pure compound, making direct comparison difficult.…”