1. Background
2. Objectives
3. Methods
3.1. Chemicals
3.2. Plant Material
3.3. Extraction
3.4. In Vitro Toxicological Evaluation
3.5. In Vitro Enzymatic Inhibition
3.6. Determination of In Vitro Antioxidant Activities
3.6.1. Radical-based Methods
3.6.2. Metal-based Methods
3.7. Chemical Profiling of the Extracts by Liquid Chromatography Coupled with Diode Array Detector (LC-DAD-ESI-MS/MS)
3.8. Statistical Analyses
4. Results and Discussion
4.1. In Vitro Toxicological Evaluation
Effect of the application of 100 µg/mL of different extracts of creta trefoil (L. creticus) on RAW 264.7 and HEK 293 cellular viability. Results are expressed as % of viability relative to the negative control. Solid and error bars represent the average and SEM, respectively (n = 12). Significant differences between positive control and treated cells are indicated as follows; *, P < 0.05; **, P < 0.005. ETH, ethanol extracts; ACE, acetone extracts; WAT, water extracts.
4.2. In Vitro Enzymatic Inhibition
| Samples | AChE, mg GALAE/g | BChE, mg GALAE/g | Tyrosinase, mg KAE/g | Amylase, mmol ACAE/g | Glucosidase, mmol ACAE/g |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aerial organs | |||||
| Ethanol | NA | 1.07 ± 0.09B | 27.84 ± 0.34A | 0.20 ± 0.01B | 2.23 ± 0.01A |
| Acetone | 1.28 ± 0.03A | 1.11 ± 0.06B | 27.01 ± 0.46A | 0.39 ± 0.01A | 1.62 ± 0.23B |
| Water | 0.69 ± 0.02C | NA | 7.79 ± 0.34C | 0.02 ± 0.01 | 0.41 ± 0.01C |
| Fruits | |||||
| Ethanol | 0.70 ± 0.01C | 1.30 ± 0.01A | 12.00 ± 0.01 | 0.24 ± 0.03B | 0.41 ± 0.01C |
| Acetone | 1.07 ± 0.33B | 1.24 ± 0.05A | 28.20 ± 0.89A | 0.28 ± 0.01B | 2.13 ± 0.04A |
| Water | 0.98 ± 0.03B | 0.16 ± 0.08C | 23.53 ± 0.24B | 0.03 ± 0.02C | 2.12 ± 0.02A |
Abbreviation: NA, no activity.
aIn the same column, values followed by the same capital letters (A-C) are not significantly different referring to the Tukey HSD test (P < 0.05).
bValues are expressed as mean ± standard error of the mean (SEM) of at least three experiments made in triplicate (n = 9).
4.3. In Vitro Antioxidant Activity
| Samples | DPPH | ABTS | CCA | ICA | FRAP |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aerial organs | |||||
| Ethanol | 0.91 ± 0.0C | 1.07 ± 0.16C | NR | 0.36 ± 0.06B | |
| Acetone | 4.79 ± 0.21D | 1.82 ± 0.13C | 5.50 ± 0.0D | NR | 0.33 ± 0.04B |
| Water | NR | 5.67 ± 0.70D | NR | 3.09 ± 0.35 | 1.32 ± 0.09D |
| Fruits | |||||
| Ethanol | 0.25 ± 0.0B | 0.41 ± 0.1B | 1.51 ± 0.0AB | NR | 0.22 ± 0.02B |
| Acetone | 4.32 ± 0.76D | 3.06 ± 0.0D | 1.15 ± 0.18B | NR | 0.41 ± 0.02B |
| Water | 0.44 ± 0.01B | 1.89 ± 0.19C | 3.20 ± 0.15C | NR | 0.53 ± 0.01BC |
| BHTd | 0.1 ± 0.02A | 0.06 ± 0.0A | 3.48 ± 0.22C | NR | |
| EDTAd | 0.11 ± 0.0A |
Abbreviation: NR, IC50 value was not reached.
aIn the same column, values followed by the same capital letters (A-D) are not significantly different referring to the Tukey HSD test (P < 0,05).
bThe results represent IC50 values (mg/mL).
cValues are expressed as mean ± standard error of the mean (SEM) of at least three tests, in triplicate (n = 9).
dPositive controls.
4.4. Chemical Characterization
| Samples Number | RT | [M-H]- | Assignment | Major MS2 Signals and Relative Intensity | Fruits | Leaves | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ethanol | Acetone | Water | Ethanol | Acetone | Water | |||||
| Flavonols | ||||||||||
| 1 | 10.8 | 625 | Quercetin-O-dihexoside | 463 (100), 301 (32) | ++ | + | +++ | + | + | ++ |
| 2 | 11.4 | 625 | Quercetin-O-dihexoside | 463 (189), 301 (29) | ++ | - | +++ | - | - | + |
| 3 | 16.8 | 479 | Myricetin-O-hexoside | 317 (98), 316 (100) | +++ | + | ++ | - | - | - |
| 4 | 17 | 479 | Myricetin-O-hexoside | 317 (100), 316 (100) | +++ | + | ++ | - | - | ++ |
| 5 | 19.2 | 463 | Quercetin-O-hexoside | 301 (100) | ++ | + | +++ | + | + | + |
| 6 | 19.4 | 463 | Quercetin-O-hexoside | 301 (100) | +++ | + | ++ | - | - | + |
| 7 | 20.4 | 477 | Isorhamnetin-O-hexoside | 315 (189), 314 (100) | +++ | ++ | +++ | ++ | + | ++ |
| 8 | 23.7 | 301 | Quercetin | 273 (17), 257 (21), 179 (100), 151 (67) | +++ | ++ | + | + | + | + |
| 9 | 25.8 | 315 | Isorhamnetin | 300 (100) | +++ | ++ | + | - | - | - |
| Catechins and Catechin Oligomers | ||||||||||
| 10 | 6.9 | 305 | Gallocatechin | 221 (100), 219 (79), 179 (95), 261 (23), 287 (18), 165 (23) | ++ | + | - | - | - | - |
| 11 | 10 | 305 | Epigallocatechin | 265 (100), 219 (62), 137 (54) | ++ | + | - | - | - | - |
| 12 | 11.3 | 289 | Catechin | 245 (100), 205 (31), 203 (22), 179 (10) | +++ | ++ | + | - | - | - |
| 13 | 13.9 | 289 | Epicatechin | 245 (100), 205 (31), 203 (22), 179 (10) | +++ | ++ | - | - | - | - |
| 14 | 12.1 | 457 | Gallocatechin gallate | 427 (100), 349 (88), 317 (69), 193 (56), 126 (75) | ++ | + | +++ | ++ | + | +++ |
| 15 | 12.8 | 577 | Procyanidin B2 | 407 (100), 451 (36), 425 (44), 559 (12), 289 (35), 145 (7) | +++ | - | - | - | - | - |
Abbreviation: RT, retention times.
aIdentification performed using authentic standards or based on references (Xiao et al., 2012; Francescato et al., 2013).
bThe relative amount of compounds between extracts were labeled +, ++, or +++ for low, medium, and high peak areas, respectively.
The LC-DAD profile at 370 nm of an ethanol extract of creta trefoil (L. creticus) leaves. Assignments; 1, quercetin-O-dihexoside; 2, quercetin-O-dihexoside; 3, myricetin-O-hexoside; 4, yricetin-O-hexoside; 5, quercetin-O-hexoside; 6, quercetin-O-hexoside; 7, isorhamnetin-O-hexoside; 8, quercetin; 9, isorhamnetin (see Table 3).


