In this study, an acute toxicity test with a pharmacological procedure was used for the determination of LD50 and the selection of safe dosage range of LOE used in this study. Results showed no mortality or sign of toxicity at 5000 mg/kg was caused by acute administration of LOE after 72 h. Hence, the LD50 of LOE is above this value and the recent applied doses of LOE (100, 300 and 500 mg/kg) can be considered safe.
It is well established that plant extracts possess different bioactive substances which lead to their different properties, so, here, we performed phytochemical analysis of LOE in order to determine what the extract contains. Qualitative phytochemical screening of LOE showed the presence of flavonoids, phenols, tannins, glycosides, steroids, and phytosterols. Also, according to quantitative approaches, the phenol and flavonoid content in the LOE were 69.78 ± 9.3 and 36.17 ± 4.19 mg/g of extract dry weight, respectively, based on the Gallic acid and catechin concentration/absorption curves. In addition, HPLC analysis of LOE revealed the presence of 188.73 ± 2 mg/g CGA, 0.26 ± 0.01 mg/g rosmarinic acid, 0.028 ± 0.003 mg/g caffeic acid as phenolic acids and 0.36 ± 0.05 mg/g quercetin and 0.21 ± 0.005 mg/g luteoin as flavonoids (
Figure 1 A-H). Moreover, in the GC-MS analysis, the mass spectra of identified chemical compounds from LOE were matched with those found in the NIST/Wiley libraries are listed in
Table 1 and the associated chromatogram is depicted in
Figure 1, M. However, in this, the peaks at 15.53 min and 18.39 min are related to the solvents. Results of this analysis of LOE revealed the presence of phytochemical compounds like phthalides, thymol, phytol, hexanoic acid, carene and menthofuran which include important medicinal properties.
Regarding the literature, phytochemical analysis of essential oils of different parts of
L. officinale determined the presence of monoterpenic hydrocarbons as β-phellandrene and α-Terpinyl acetate (
31), Curzerene γ-Cadinene, Sabinene (
10), 6-butyl-cyclohepta-1,4-diene and 7-formyl-4-methyl-cumarine (
12), pentyl cyclohexa-1,3-diene, Z-ligustilide, neocnidilide, Z-β-ocimene, p-menth-1-en-8-ol acetate and pentyl cyclohexa-1,3-diene (
11,
31). Besides, Tomsone et al. reported that there are the highest content of phenolic and flavonoid compounds in root, seeds and especially in lovage leaves ethanolic extract and confirm partly some of our above results (
13). Thereby, even though there are informations about the composition of
L. officinale essential oil, this was the first study to describe and partially quantify phytochemical components of hydroalcoholic extract of stems and leaves of lovage (LOE) with above valid methods.
In DM, disturbances in body metabolic regulatory mechanisms caused by insulin deficiency or insulin resistance led to dyslipidemia due to recruitment of free fatty acids from peripheral fat stores. This increases the production of triglyceride-rich lipoproteins in the liver were accompanied by a decrease in HDL-C (
32). An increase in serum ALT and AST levels is mainly caused by leakage of these enzymes from liver cells into the blood stream and indicates the loss of hepatocyte integrity in DM (
33). In the present study, anti-diabetic properties of different doses of LOE (100, 300 and 500 mg/kg) were determined. Results showed that LOE (500 mg/kg) administration, for 14 days significantly decreased serum glucose level (24.97%) and increased insulin serum level compared to the diabetic rats. Also, LOE treatment (300 and 500 mg/kg) significantly decreased the level of serum cholesterol, triglycerides, LDL, creatinine, ALT, AST and increased the HDL levels. Moreover, LOE (100 mg/kg) caused a decrease in the total cholesterol, LDL and creatinine serum levels compared with the control diabetic rats (
Table 2).
Moreover, in the current experiment, administration of LOE (100, 300 and 500 mg/kg) and glibenclamide as a reference drug (20 mg/kg) on the glucose tolerance in normal rats are shown in
Table 3. At 90 min after glucose loading or 120 min after LOE administration (500 mg/kg), the blood glucose level had decreased significantly by 13% when compared with the control rats.
These results can be attributed to above extract ingredients because, it has been shown that CGA exerts hypoglycemic and hypolipidemic effects (
34) and it is able to modulate glucose uptake and stimulate insulin secretion from rat Langerhans islets (
35). Moreover, rosmarinic acid (RA) has a significant hypoglycemic effect and insulin secreting activity in diabetic rats (
36). Also, quercetin is able to regenerate the pancreatic islets and induce insulin release. Additionally a significant decrease in glucose, cholesterol, triglycerides, and glucose absorption levels have been observed in quercetin-treated diabetic rats (
37). Furthermore, thymol and phytol have antihyperglycemic and antihyperlipidemic properties (
38,
39) and hexanoic or caproic acid improves insulin stimulated glucose uptake (
40).
It is known that glucose uptake increases in DM. SGLT1 in the apical membrane and GLUT2 in the basal membrane of enterocytes in the small intestine are mainly involved in the glucose absorption after carbohydrate digestion. Moreover, glucose transporters in the proximal tubule of kidney (SGLT2 and GLUT2) are critical to glucose reabsorption. In uncontrolled diabetes, adaptive changes caused by hyperglycemia increase the flux of transepithelial glucose through renal (
41) and intestinal glucose transporters (
42).
Here the effect of LOE (500 mg/kg) on glucose transporter gene expression in the jejunum and kidney tissue of diabetic rats were investigated in order to find out the antihyperglycemic mechanism of extract more, Results showed that renal SGLT2 and GLUT2 (
Figure 2 A, B) as well as jejunum SGLT1 and GLUT2 gene expression levels (
p < 0.05) (
Figure 2 C, D) increased significantly in the diabetic rats compared to the control groups and LOE (500 mg/kg) administration significantly decreased the renal SGLT2 (
p < 0.01), GLUT2 (
p < 0.001), and jejunum GLUT2 mRNA levels (
p < 0.001) (
Figure 2).
It has been reported that CGA maintains glucose homeostasis by modulating the expression of SGLT-1 and GLUT2 in the intestinal segments of rats fed with a high-fat diet (
43).
Moreover, a decrease in glucose absorption by caffeic acid (CA) through the inhibition of intestinal SGLT1 and GLUT2 has been reported (
44). Moreover, quercetin acts as an antidiabetic agent through glucose absorption reduction in quercetin-treated diabetic rats (
37). It has been reported that inhibition of glucose absorption by quercetin can occur through competitive inhibition of SGLTs or by noncompetitive inhibition of intestinal transporter GLUT2 (
45).
One of the other therapeutic strategies to decrease the blood glucose levels in DM is inhibition of the oligo and disaccharides breakdown to absorbable monosacarides. This could be done by inhibition of the carbohydrate-hydrolysing enzymes like α-amylase (Αα). Pancreatic α-amylase enzyme catalyzes carbohydrate breakdown to oligosaccharides and disaccharides in the intestine. It is previously justified that α-amylase inhibitors can improve hyperglycemia in diabetic conditions (
46). It is well documented that plant polyphenoles are inhibitors of this enzyme which can reduce glucose absorption and blunt the plasma glucose rise (
47,
48).
Recent findings showed that LOE has 14% ± 2% α-amylase inhibitory activity at a concentration of 10 mg/ml compared to the inhibitory effect of acarbose (94% ± 3%) as a reference drug. This result can be attributed to the presence of phytochemical compounds especially phenolic compounds in the extract with well known α-amylase inhibitory effect as
previous findings reports that RA (
49), luteolin and quercetin (
47) have pancreatic α-amylase inhibitory effect. Also, Komaki et al. reported that luteolin glucosides have anti- human pancreatic α-amylase property (
50). Finally, our recent
in silico study investigated the probable α- amylase enzyme inhibitory activity of 11 known phytochemical compounds of LOE to predict possible antihyperglycemic potency of them. Regarding the resultant docking scores (
Table 4), among LOE docked compounds, luteolin, quercetin, rosmarinic, caffeic, and hexanoic acids had the greatest interaction probability with α- amylase enzyme then, thymol, carene, phthalides, and phytol showed enzyme interactions more weakly, respectively. Also, chlorogenic acid and menthofuran as the other LOE ingredients show no interaction through a molecular docking simulation (
Table 4).
As shown in this table, molecular docking output revealed that quercetin, rosmarinic, and hexanoic acids have a similar interaction core with αA enzyme. Also, luteolin and caffeic acid are the same in interaction loci with this enzyme. The α- amylase enzyme is a single-chain protein which has three structural domains and amino acids residues 1-99 and 69-404 in domain A houses its active site. The active site of it includes catalytic residues: Asp197, Glu233, and Asp300 (
51). Intermolecular interactions obtained from docking algorithms structural analysis were presented in
Figure 3.
Regarding this, Asp197 and Glu233 at catalytic active site of αA are critical amino acid residues which get involved in at least five of the ligands (luteolin, quercetin, rosmarinic, caffeic and hexanoic acids) which have the strongest interaction with αA. Then, Arg346 in thymol and phthalides and His305 in quercetin and phytol also, can consider as important interacting residues.
In line with our molecular docking results, Rasouli
et al. demonstrated possible α- amylase enzyme inhibitory activity of caffeic acid, luteolin and quercetin by virtual screening method and described that the αA inhibitory activity of luteolin was stronger than luteolin glucoside (
52). Thus, according to these in silico results, we can confirm antihyperglycemic property of luteolin, quercetin, rosmarinic acid, and suggest caffeic and hexanoic acids, thymol, carene, phthalides, and phytol as potential eligible lead components to inhibit α- amylase enzyme and predict an effective antihyperglycemic potential for them. However, complementary experimental studies needed to verify this. In addition, molecular dynamic results from recent work can be helpful for future studies about drug design against DM.
There are a lot of reports include interactions between diabetes and oxidative stress. A decrease in SOD and CAT activity in the liver and pancreas of diabetic rats has been reported (
53). SOD and CAT enzymes are major components of the antioxidant defense system of the body. Decreased activity in antioxidant enzymes increases accumulation of free radicals, which in turn leads to lipid peroxidation. This is determined by the elevation of MDA content. MDA can damage body organs such as the liver and pancreas (
54).
In this study, the enzymatic SOD and CAT activities in the pancreas and liver tissues decreased significantly (p < 0.05) in the diabetic rats and LOE administration (500 mg/kg) increased these tissue enzymes activities in the diabetic treated rats in comparison with the untreated ones (p < 0.01;
Table 5). Diabetic animals exhibited a significant increase in the plasma, pancreas and liver tissues MDA levels (p < 0.001) and LOE (500 mg/kg) significantly decreased the MDA levels over that of the controls (p < 0.001;
Table 5).
As mentioned above, there are many polyphenolic compounds with antioxidant activity in the extract which mediate these properties. Kono
et al. (
55) had shown that chlorogenic acid and caffeic acids exert antioxidant property. Also, luteolin as another flavonoid in LOE possess antioxidant and anti-inflammatory properties (
56) and menthofuran is an antioxidant with radical scavenging activity (
57). Rosmarinic acid (RA) is a phenolic acid known as a potent antioxidant (
58).
Thus, these substances are closely associated to antioxidant effect of LOE.
HPLC chromatograms obtained from standards including A: caffeic acid, B: chlorogenic acid, C: rosmarinic acid, D: quercetin, E: luteolin and LOE samples (F, G, H). GC-MS spectral chromatogram of LOE (M).
The effect of LOE on SGLT1 (A), and GLUT2 (B) mRNA relative expression in the kidney tissue and SGLT2 (C) and GLUT2 (D) mRNA relative expression in the jejunum tissue of diabetic rats. Data were presented as mean ± SEM (𝑛 = 6).
Schematic illustration of specific interactions between LOE constituents and human pancreatic α- amylase (PDB ID: 5U3A). Graphics obtained using Ligplot+..
| NO. | Retention Time (min) | Compounds | Peak area (%) |
|---|
| 1 | 11.843 | Hexanoic acid | 29.81 |
| 2 | 14.667 | Thymol | 1.69 |
| 3 | 15.434 | Carene | 2.79 |
| 4 | 19.395 | Isobutylidenphthalide | 1.27 |
| 5 | 19.882 | Cyclopropane, 1-ethenyl-2-hexeny | 2.25 |
| 6 | 20.289 | Butylidene Phthalide | 0.37 |
| 7 | 21.045 | Isobutylidenphthalide | 35.89 |
| 8 | 21.135 | n Butyl Phthalide | 11.92 |
| 9 | 21.833 | Menthofuran | 0.56 |
| 10 | 21.976 | n Butyl Phthalide | 11.5 |
| 11 | 26.080 | Phytol | 1.9 |
| Groups | Glucose(mg/dl) | Insulin (µmol/ml) | Triglycerides (mg/dl) | Totalcholesterol (mg/dl) | HDL(mg/dl) | LDL(mg/dl) | Creatinine (mg/dl) | AST(IU/L) | ALT(IU/L) |
|---|
| Control | 85.6 ± 2.4 | 4.4 ± 0.01 | 67.5 ± 3 | 77 ± 3.2 | 41.1 ± 2.2 | 22.5 ±2 | 0.9 ± 0.0 | 137 ± 6 | 74 ± 4.7 |
| Diabetic (D) | 467 ± 6a*** | 1.08.0 ± 0.02a*** | 93.0 ± 6a** | 108 ± 3.7a*** | 24.1 ± 1.5a*** | 65.4 ± 3a*** | 1.3 ± 0.01a*** | 238 ± 15a*** | 188 ± 6a*** |
| D + Extract(100 mg/kg) | 453 ± 6 | 2.0 ± 0.02 | 80.7 ± 1 | 82 ± 3.8b*** | 29.2 ± 0.8 | 36.86 ± 2.4b** | 0.9 ± 0.0b** | 235 ± 3 | 190 ± 3.8 |
| D + Extract(300 mg/kg) | 430 ± 6.7 | 2.0 ± 0.0 | 61.7 ± 6b** | 44.5 ±3.5b*** | 32.5 ± 2.9b* | 19.66 ± 3.2b*** | 0.5 ± 0.01b*** | 173 ± 4b** | 147 ± 16b* |
| D + Extract(500 mg/kg) | 350 ± 16b*** | 2.1 ± 0.01b* | 72.3 ± 1b* | 48.6 ± 3.3b*** | 38 ± 3.4b** | 16.14 ± 1.7b*** | 0.5 ± 0.02b*** | 144 ± 10b*** | 57 ± 6.8b*** |
| D + Gliben.(20 mg/kg) | 179 ± 13b*** | 2.3 ± 0.01b*** | 62.0 ± 2b** | 52.2 ± 1.7b*** | 38 ± 1.2b** | 11.8 ± 2.2b*** | 0.6 ± 0.03b*** | 127 ± 3b*** | 66 ± 1.3b*** |
| Groups | | Glucose (mg/dl)
|
|---|
| 0 min | 30 min | 60 min | 90 min | 120 min | 240 min |
|---|
| Control | 92.6 ± 4.0 | 133.0 ± 1.1 | 136 ± 2.0 | 127 ± 1.5 | 113 ± 3.2 | 92.3 ± 5.4 |
| Extract (100 mg/kg) | 92.0 ± 4.3 | 143.3 ± 3.8 | 141 ± 2.7 | 140 ± 2.8 | 137 ± 2.6 | 100±4.1** |
| Extract(300 mg/kg) | 89.3 ± 4.6 | 135.3 ± 10.8 | 136 ± 2.0 | 130 ± 1.7 | 120 ± 9.3 | 105 ± 8.0 |
| Extract (500 mg/kg) | 80.3 ± 3.7 | 125.0 ± 13.5 | 125 ± 7.6 | 110 ± 5.7* | 107 ± 4.9 | 95 ± 2.6 |
| Glibenclamide(20 mg/kg) | 74.0 ± 3.0* | 105 ± 2.5** | 101 ± 0.8** | 97 ± 2.0*** | 95.6 ± 2.9 | 84 ± 3.3 |
| Extract ingredients
|
|---|
| Rosmarinic acid | Quercetin | Hexanoic acid | Luteolin | Caffeic acid | Thymol | Carene | Phthalide | Phytol | Menthofuran | Chlorogenic acid |
|---|
| Docking score | -7.85 | -7.85 | -7.65 | -7.6 | -7.4 | -3.4 | -3.2 | -2.9 | -1.84 | - | - |
|---|
| Interaction(Type,Distance,Site) | H-bonddistance:1.92His305H-bonddistance:1.78Glu233H-bonddistance:1.68Asp197Salt bridjedistance:2.72Glu233Salt bridjedistance:3.93Asp197 | H-bonddistance:1.64Asp197H-bonddistance:2.42His299H-bonddistance:2.03Gln63H-bonddistance:2.02Tyr62Pi-Pi stackingdistance:4.19Trp59 | H-bonddistance:2.07Arg346 | Mild | H-bonddistance:1.9Arg346 | H-bonddistance:1.85Asp356 | - | - |
| Groups | SODactivity(U/mg protein)
| CATactivity(U/g protein)
| MDA(nmol/g tissue)
| Plasma MDA (nmol/mL) |
|---|
| Pancreas | Liver | Pancreas | Liver | Pancreas | Liver | |
|---|
| Control | 16.7±0.4 | 11.2±0.2 | 48.4±2 | 209.9±1.7 | 0.4±0.0 | 3.2±0.2 | 0.9±0.0 |
| Diabetic (D) | 11.2±0.6a*** | 8.0±0.8a* | 28.8±1.3a*** | 103.5±15.4a*** | 1.7±0.0a*** | 12.8±0.6a*** | 5.6±0.1a*** |
| D + Extract (500 mg/kg) | 16.6±0.5b*** | 14.8±0.4b*** | 43.0±1.9b** | 163.6±1.7b** | 0.6±0.0b*** | 3.6±0.1b*** | 1.7±0.1b*** |
| D + Glibenclamide (20 mg/kg) | 16.9±0.3b*** | 16.2±0.7b*** | 44.6±1.4b** | 167.4±1b** | 0.5±0.0b*** | 3.4±0.1b*** | 1.6±0.1b*** |