Antioxidant and acetylcholinesterase-inhibitory properties of long-term stored medicinal plants

  • Stephen O Amoo1,

    Affiliated with

    • Adeyemi O Aremu1,

      Affiliated with

      • Mack Moyo1 and

        Affiliated with

        • Johannes Van Staden1Email author

          Affiliated with

          BMC Complementary and Alternative MedicineThe official journal of the International Society for Complementary Medicine Research (ISCMR)201212:87

          DOI: 10.1186/1472-6882-12-87

          Received: 3 April 2012

          Accepted: 7 July 2012

          Published: 7 July 2012

          Abstract

          Background

          Medicinal plants are possible sources for future novel antioxidant compounds in food and pharmaceutical formulations. Recent attention on medicinal plants emanates from their long historical utilisation in folk medicine as well as their prophylactic properties. However, there is a dearth of scientific data on the efficacy and stability of the bioactive chemical constituents in medicinal plants after prolonged storage. This is a frequent problem in African Traditional Medicine.

          Methods

          The phytochemical, antioxidant and acetylcholinesterase-inhibitory properties of 21 medicinal plants were evaluated after long-term storage of 12 or 16 years using standard in vitro methods in comparison to freshly harvested materials.

          Results

          The total phenolic content of Artemisia afra, Clausena anisata, Cussonia spicata, Leonotis intermedia and Spirostachys africana were significantly higher in stored compared to fresh materials. The flavonoid content were also significantly higher in stored A. afra, C. anisata, C. spicata, L. intermedia, Olea europea and Tetradenia riparia materials. With the exception of Ekebergia capensis and L. intermedia, there were no significant differences between the antioxidant activities of stored and fresh plant materials as measured in the β-carotene-linoleic acid model system. Similarly, the EC50 values based on the 2,2-diphenyl-1-picrylhydrazyl (DPPH) free radical scavenging assay were generally lower for stored than fresh material. Percentage inhibition of acetylcholinesterase was generally similar for both stored and fresh plant material. Stored plant material of Tetradenia riparia and Trichilia dregeana exhibited significantly higher AChE inhibition than the fresh material.

          Conclusions

          The current study presents evidence that medicinal plants can retain their biological activity after prolonged storage under dark conditions at room temperature. The high antioxidant activities of stable bioactive compounds in these medicinal plants offer interesting prospects for the identification of novel principles for application in food and pharmaceutical formulations.

          Keywords

          Antioxidants Acetylcholinesterase inhibition Long-term storage Medicinal plants Radical scavenging activity

          Background

          The detrimental effects of oxidative stress to human tissues and cells caused by reactive oxygen species (ROS) arising from aging and disease pathogenesis is well documented. Though the human body has inherent antioxidative mechanisms to counteract the damaging effects of free radicals, there is often a need to use dietary and/or medicinal antioxidant supplements, particularly during instances of disease attack. An imbalance between ROS such as singlet oxygen, superoxide anion radical, hydroxyl radical and hydrogen peroxide, and the natural detoxification capacity of the body in favour of the oxidant molecules causes oxidative stress leading to cellular and DNA damage as well as oxidation of low-density lipoproteins [1, 2]. Oxidative stress disorders caused by the actions of ROS are associated with many acute and chronic diseases such as inflammation and neurodegenerative conditions including Alzheimer’s disease (AD) [3]. Alzheimer’s disease, an age-related neurological disorder, is characterised by progressive loss of cognitive ability primarily memory loss, leading to dementia. The main strategy in the clinical treatment of AD involves the maintenance of adequate levels of acetylcholine (ACh) at neurotransmission sites [4]. Thus, the inhibition of acetylcholinesterase (AChE) prevents the hydrolysis of ACh thereby maintaining normal memory function. The consumption of antioxidants is highly correlated with lower incidences of AD [5, 6]. As a result, the use of natural compounds with high levels of antioxidants has been proposed as an effective therapeutic approach for AD [5].

          Against a background of growing concerns about the toxicity and side effects of many synthetic therapeutic agents, there has been a renewed interest globally, in the search for antioxidants and AChE inhibitory compounds from natural sources, particularly medicinal plants [1, 2, 714]. Medicinal plants have long been used to treat cognitive memory dysfunction symptoms [4, 5, 1519]. The growing relevance of medicinal plants as possible sources for the discovery of novel antioxidant molecules is often based on their long historical utilisation in folk medicine, especially in developing countries. In addition, the recognised health benefits of medicinal plants emanate from their prophylactic properties [6]. Most notably, traditional practices in the Ayurvedic, Chinese and African medicinal systems are strongly based on prevention and the promotion of good health; hence plant extracts and herbal preparations are regularly consumed as rejuvenators, tonics and/or nutritional supplements [8]. Traditional medicine practitioners and gatherers often store plants before they are eventually consumed. However, there is a dearth of scientific data on the stability and efficacy of the bioactive compounds in medicinal plants after prolonged storage. In the present study, 21 commonly used South African medicinal plants (Table 1) were investigated for their phytochemical, antioxidant and AChE-inhibitory properties after 12 or 16 years storage in comparison to freshly harvested material. These plants are used in traditional medicine to prevent and/or treat pain-related ailments and infections [2023]. Fresh materials were harvested from the same locations and season as the stored materials [21, 23] to minimise any differences due to geographical and seasonal effects [24].
          Table 1

          Effect of long-term storage on the total iridoid, phenolic and flavonoid contents of 21 South African medicinal plants

          Plant name

          Family

          Voucher number

          Plant part(s)

          Total iridoids (μg HE/g DW)

          Total phenolics (mg GAE/g DW)

          Total flavonoids (mg CE/g DW)

          Stored

          Fresh

          Stored

          Fresh

          Stored

          Fresh

          Acokanthera oppositifolia (Lam.) Coddδ

          Apocynaceae

          A. Aremu 1 NU

          Roots

          264.6 ± 4.82 **

          134.5 ± 5.51

          7.5 ± 0.37 *

          9.3 ± 0.44

          4.8 ± 0.12 *

          5.4 ± 0.17

          Artemisia afra Jacq. ex Willd#

          Asteraceae

          S. Amoo 15 NU

          Aerial parts

          356.9 ± 22.72 ns

          341.7 ± 19.97

          28.5 ± 1.15 ns

          25.8 ± 0.03

          18.3 ± 0.65 ns

          16.7 ± 0.34

          Artemisia afra Jacq. ex Willdδ

          Asteraceae

          S. Amoo 15 NU

          Aerial parts

          195.1 ± 63.35 ns

          341.7 ± 19.97

          34.7 ± 1.79 **

          25.8 ± 0.03

          19.7 ± 0.87 *

          16.7 ± 0.34

          Buddleja salviifolia (L.) Lam#

          Buddlejaceae

          S. Amoo 16 NU

          Leaves

          60.8 ± 15.84 **

          409.9 ± 13.77

          9.0 ± 0.36 ***

          20.0 ± 0.81

          6.6 ± 0.28 ***

          14.6 ± 0.32

          Buddleja salviifolia (L.) Lam#

          Buddlejaceae

          S. Amoo 16 NU

          Twigs

          111.1 ± 9.64 **

          400.3 ± 27.54

          8.3 ± 0.25 ***

          11.1 ± 0.24

          5.0 ± 0.25 *

          5.9 ± 0.11

          Clausena anisata (Willd.) Hook. F. ex Benth#

          Rutaceae

          S. Amoo 18 NU

          Leaves & Twigs

          3019.6 ± 63.35 ns

          3264.7 ± 96.40

          31.3 ± 0.05 *

          28.1 ± 0.99

          11.7 ± 0.17 ***

          7.6 ± 0.20

          Cussonia spicata Thunb. #

          Araliaceae

          S. Amoo 09 NU

          Leaves

          82.8 ± 39.25 ns

          38.8 ± 11.71

          11.4 ± 0.16 **

          7.6 ± 0.69

          9.1 ± 0.53 ***

          3.4 ± 0.27

          Dombeya rotundifolia Hochst. #

          Malvaceae

          S. Amoo 11 NU

          Leaves

          7076.6 ± 177.64 **

          9499.6 ± 117.75

          45.3 ± 0.89 ns

          47.3 ± 1.94

          29.7 ± 3.05 ns

          35.4 ± 0.87

          Ekebergia capensis Sparrmδ

          Meliaceae

          S. Amoo 23 NU

          Leaves & Twigs

          547.6 ± 22.03 ***

          2221.5 ± 53.02

          31.7 ± 1.29 ***

          44.9 ± 0.78

          22.8 ± 1.25 ns

          26.0 ± 0.29

          Leonotis intermedia Lindl.δ

          Lamiaceae

          S. Amoo 08 NU

          Leaves

          56.0 ± 1.38 *

          72.5 ± 2.75

          15.1 ± 0.57 **

          11.6 ± 0.23

          12.1 ± 0.38 ***

          6.8 ± 0.10

          Leonotis leonurus (L.) R.Br. δ

          Lamiaceae

          S. Amoo 12 NU

          Leaves

          51.8 ± 1.38 ns

          171.0 ± 30.99

          10.5 ± 0.22 ***

          18.2 ± 0.76

          6.6 ± 0.23 ***

          10.3 ± 0.01

          Merwilla plumbea (Lindl.) Septaδ

          Hyacinthaceae

          S. Amoo 21 NU

          Bulbs

          64.2 ± 8.26 ns

          207.5 ± 75.74

          7.8 ± 0.29 **

          9.8 ± 0.25

          1.4 ± 0.09 ns

          1.7 ± 0.37

          Ocotea bullata (Burch.) Baill.δ

          Lauraceae

          S. Amoo 13 NU

          Bark

          3060.9 ± 121.19 **

          6112.6 ± 207.95

          32.7 ± 0.82 **

          46.4 ± 2.00

          18.4 ± 0.62 ***

          26.8 ± 0.50

          Olea europaea L.#

          Oleaceae

          S. Amoo 14 NU

          Leaves

          0 ns

          283.2 ± 79.87

          17.2 ± 0.41 *

          18.7 ± 0.06

          13.1 ± 0.31 ***

          9.7 ± 0.28

          Pittosporum viridiflorum Sims#

          Pittosporaceae

          S. Amoo 24 NU

          Leaves & Twigs

          63.6 ± 8.95 ns

          194.4 ± 65.41

          10.6 ± 0.20 ***

          26.0 ± 0.91

          5.3 ± 0.12 ***

          15.6 ± 0.22

          Plumbago auriculata Lam.δ

          Plumbaginaceae

          S. Amoo 06 NU

          Leaves

          9.8 ± 7.57 **

          521.4 ± 50.95

          7.6 ± 0.66 ***

          15.0 ± 0.46

          1.3 ± 0.15 **

          5.5 ± 0.64

          Protorhus longifolia (Bernh.) Engl.δ

          Anacardiaceae

          S. Amoo 19 NU

          Leaves

          1034.4 ± 47.51 **

          7787.2 ± 290.57

          51.8 ± 1.27 ***

          114.4 ± 7.83

          10.1 ± 0.65 ***

          18.3 ± 0.10

          Solanum mauritianum Scop.δ

          Solanaceae

          S. Amoo 07 NU

          Leaves

          71.1 ± 6.89 *

          14.0 ± 11.71

          8.0 ± 0.11 ***

          13.9 ± 0.24

          2.0 ± 0.21 ns

          1.5 ± 0.05

          Spirostachys africana Sond.#

          Euphorbiaceae

          S. Amoo 26 NU

          Leaves & Twigs

          553.8 ± 3.44 ns

          527.6 ± 11.71

          86.2 ± 1.91 **

          69.1 ± 2.13

          8.5 ± 0.09 ***

          26.7 ± 0.57

          Synadenium copulare (Boiss.) L.C. Wheeler δ

          Euphorbiaceae

          S. Amoo 25 NU

          Leaves

          11.9 ± 11.02 ns

          273.6 ± 71.61

          8.5 ± 0.37 ***

          15.2 ± 0.33

          4.2 ± 0.15 ns

          4.3 ± 0.15

          Tetradenia riparia (Hochst.) Coddδ

          Lamiaceae

          S. Amoo 20 NU

          Leaves

          46.3 ± 9.64 *

          0

          6.1 ± 0.20 ns

          7.2 ± 0.38

          2.7 ± 0.08 ***

          1.5 ± 0.02

          Trichilia dregeana Sond.δ

          Meliaceae

          S. Amoo 22 NU

          Leaves & Twigs

          431.9 ± 16.53 ns

          412.0 ± 50.27

          34.4 ± 10.26 ns

          32.6 ± 1.17

          8.7 ± 0.61 ***

          20.2 ± 0.19

          Ziziphus mucronata Willd.#

          Rhamnaceae

          S. Amoo 17 NU

          Leaves

          314.2 ± 37.87 ns

          412.7 ± 22.03

          23.6 ± 1.61 **

          33.4 ± 0.62

          7.1 ± 0.10 ***

          9.0 ± 0.09

          Ziziphus mucronata Willd.δ

          Rhamnaceae

          S. Amoo 17 NU

          Leaves

          90.4 ± 1.38 **

          412.7 ± 22.03

          19.7 ± 0.42 ***

          33.4 ± 0.62

          6.9 ± 0.34 **

          9.0 ± 0.09

          ns = not significant; P = 0.05 (*); P = 0.01 (**); P = 0.001 (***).

          HE = harpagoside equivalents; GAE = gallic acid equivalents; CE = catechin equivalents.

          δ = Voucher number of plant material stored for 16 years was as described by Jäger et al. (1996); # = Voucher number of plant material stored for 12 years was as described by McGaw et al. (2000).

          Merwilla plumbea (Lindl.) Speta was formerly known as Scilla natalensis Planch.

          Methods

          Chemicals and reagents

          Acetylcholine iodide, AChE from electric eel (type VI-S lyophilized powder), β-carotene, 2,2-diphenyl-1-picrylhydrazyl (DPPH), 5,5-dithiobis-2-nitrobenzoic acid (DTNB), galanthamine, gallic acid, catechin and linoleic acid were obtained from Sigma-Aldrich (Steinheim, Germany); butylated hydroxytoluene (BHT) from BDH Chemicals Ltd. (Poole, England); and harpagoside from Extrasynthèse (France). All chemicals and reagents used were of analytical grade.

          Plant material and preparation of extracts

          Table 1 shows the scientific names, and voucher specimen numbers of the evaluated plant materials. Following oven-drying at 50 °C, plant materials were stored at room temperature (25 °C) in brown paper bags in the dark for 12 or 16 years. Fresh plant materials collected from the same locations and season as the stored ones were similarly oven-dried at 50 °C. The plants were identified by Dr C. Potgieter and voucher specimens deposited in The Bews Herbarium, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Pietermaritzburg, South Africa.

          Dried plant materials were ground to fine powders and extracted with 50% methanol at 20 ml/g in a sonication bath containing ice-cold water for 1 h for antioxidant and AChE assays. Extracts were then filtered through Whatman No. 1 filter paper, concentrated in vacuo at 40 °C and completely air-dried at room temperature in glass vials.

          The extraction method described by Makkar [25] was used for phytochemical analysis. Dried plant materials, ground to fine powders (0.2 g), were extracted with 50% aqueous methanol (10 ml) in a sonication bath containing ice-cold water for 20 min. The extracts were then centrifuged at approximately 3000 U/min for 5 min using a Hettich Universal 1200 01 Centrifuge. The supernatants were collected and kept on ice for phytochemical analysis.

          Phytochemical analysis

          Total iridoid content of the plant material was quantified using the method described by Levieille and Wilson [26]. The calibration curve was plotted using harpagoside as the standard. Total iridoid content for each plant material was expressed in μg harpagoside equivalents (HE) per g dry weight (DW).

          For the determination of total phenolic content, the Folin & Ciocalteu [27] method was used with slight modifications [28]. Gallic acid was used as the standard for plotting the calibration curve. Total phenolic content was expressed in mg gallic acid equivalents (GAE) per g DW.

          The flavonoid content of the plant materials were quantified using the aluminium chloride colorimetric method [29]. Catechin was used as a standard for the calibration curve. Flavonoid content was expressed in mg catechin equivalents (CE) per g DW.

          The butanol-HCl method [25] was used to quantify condensed tannin (proanthocyanidin) content of the plant materials. Condensed tannins (% in dry matter) were expressed as leucocyanidin equivalents were calculated using the formula:
          http://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1186%2F1472-6882-12-87/MediaObjects/12906_2012_1060_Equ1_HTML.gif

          where A 550nm is the absorbance of the sample at 550 nm. The formula assumes that the effective http://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1186%2F1472-6882-12-87/MediaObjects/12906_2012_1060_IEq1_HTML.gif of leucocyanidin is 460 [30].

          Free gallic acid and gallotannin contents were evaluated using the rhodanine assay [25, 31]. The calibration curves were plotted using gallic acid as a standard. Free gallic acid and gallotannin contents were expressed in μg GAE per g DW.

          Antioxidant activity

          DPPH free radical scavenging activity

          The DPPH assay [32] was used to evaluate the free radical scavenging activity of the plant extracts. Methanol was used as a negative control while ascorbic acid and BHT were used as positive controls. Any absorbance due to extract colour was removed by including a background solution with methanol in place of DPPH solution for each extract. Each sample was evaluated in triplicate. The radical scavenging activity (RSA) was calculated using the equation:
          http://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1186%2F1472-6882-12-87/MediaObjects/12906_2012_1060_Equ2_HTML.gif
          where А extract A background and A control are the absorbance readings of the extract, background solution and negative control, respectively at 517 nm. The EC50, which is the extract concentration required to scavenge 50% of DPPH free radical, was determined for each extract. Antioxidant activity index (AAI) for each extract was calculated using the equation [33]:
          http://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1186%2F1472-6882-12-87/MediaObjects/12906_2012_1060_Equ3_HTML.gif

          β-Carotene-linoleic acid model system

          The assay was done following the method described by Moyo et al. [34]. Methanol and BHT were used as negative and positive controls, respectively. Each sample was prepared in triplicate. The plant extracts and BHT were evaluated at a final assay concentration of 200 μg/ml. Antioxidant activity (%), measured at t = 120 min, was calculated using the following equations:
          http://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1186%2F1472-6882-12-87/MediaObjects/12906_2012_1060_Equ4_HTML.gif
          http://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1186%2F1472-6882-12-87/MediaObjects/12906_2012_1060_Equ5_HTML.gif

          where At = 0 is the initial absorbance at t = 0 min, At = t is the absorbance at time t = 120 min, t = 120 min and R is the rate of β-carotene bleaching.

          Acetylcholinesterase inhibitory activity

          The AChE assay was performed using the colorimetric method [35]. Each extract was evaluated in triplicate at a final assay concentration of 1.0 mg/ml. Galanthamine at a final assay concentration of 20 μM was used as a positive control. The rate of reaction was calculated for each of the plant extracts, the blank (methanol) and positive control (galanthamine). The percentage inhibition by each plant extract was calculated using the formula:
          http://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1186%2F1472-6882-12-87/MediaObjects/12906_2012_1060_Equ6_HTML.gif

          Data analysis

          The levels of significant difference between the mean values of stored and fresh plant materials were determined using the t-test (SigmaPlot version 8.0). Regression analysis and the determination of EC50 values were done using GraphPad Prism software (version 4.03).

          Results and discussion

          Phytochemical analysis

          The effects of long-term storage on the total iridoid, phenolic and flavonoid content of the plant materials evaluated are presented in Table 1. Of the 21 fresh and stored plant materials evaluated, the levels of total iridoid present in nine plants were significantly higher in fresh compared to the stored plant materials. The total iridoid contents of stored materials in Acokanthera oppositifolia, Solanum mauritanum and Tetradenia riparia were significantly higher than those of fresh ones. There was no significant difference between the iridoid content of fresh and stored plant materials in approximately 50% of the evaluated plants.

          The total phenolic contents of Artemisia afra Clausena anisata Cussonia spicata Leonotis intermedia and Spirostachys africana stored materials were significantly higher than in freshly collected material. With the exceptions of A. afra D. rotundifolia T. riparia and T. dregeana (where there was no significant difference between the stored and fresh materials), the phenolic contents of the remaining 15 fresh plant materials were significantly higher than in the stored material. Similarly, a comparison of fresh material and herbarium specimens of three Quillaja species revealed non-significant differences in their phenolic constituents [36]. Remarkably, one of the tested herbarium specimens in the Bate-Smith [36] study was 100 years old.

          The flavonoid content was significantly higher in stored A. afra C. anisata C. spicata L. intermedia T. riparia and Olea europea materials when compared to their corresponding fresh materials. It is noteworthy that the stored materials of the former four species had higher total phenolic contents than their fresh materials perhaps due to their higher flavonoid content compared to the fresh materials. Higher flavonoid contents were observed in 12 fresh plant materials when compared to their respective stored materials. Previous studies comparing the phenolic constituents of some Dillenia species showed differences in the flavonoid profiles of fresh and herbarium materials as some flavonoids were not detected in the latter [37]. The results suggested that some flavonoids are easily oxidised during the drying process [37].

          Table 2 presents the condensed tannin, free gallic acid and gallotannin contents of both the stored and fresh materials of plant species evaluated in this study. No condensed tannins were detected in both fresh and stored materials of A. oppositifolia Pittosporum viridiflorum and Merwilla plumbea. With the exceptions of Buddleja salviifolia (leaves), Plumbago auriculata and Ziziphus mucronata, the condensed tannin content in the stored plant materials was either significantly higher or not different when compared to the fresh materials. Unlike the stored materials, no condensed tannins were detected in fresh material of A. afra C. spicata L. intermedia Leonotis leonurus and O. europea. Among the 21 species evaluated, free gallic acid was detected in 15 fresh and/or stored plant materials. In most cases, there was no significant difference in the free gallic acid contents of the fresh materials when compared to the stored ones. With the exceptions of A. oppositifolia A. afra and Ekebergia capensis, the gallotannin content of the stored plant materials was either higher or not significantly different when compared to the fresh ones. It has been shown that phytochemical constituents of medicinal plants, such as alkaloids, flavonoids, volatile oils and amino acids are sufficiently stable to even be detected in herbarium specimens [38]. However, based on the results of the present study, the degree of stability of phenolic compounds seems to be species dependent.
          Table 2

          Effect of long-term storage on the condensed tannin, free gallic acid and gallotannin contents of 21 South African medicinal plants

          Plant name

          Plant part(s)

          Condensed tannins (% in dry matter)

          Free gallic acid (μg GAE/g DW)

          Gallotannins (μg GAE/g DW)

          Stored

          Fresh

          Stored

          Fresh

          Stored

          Fresh

          Acokanthera oppositifolia δ

          Roots

          0

          0

          2.996 ± 2.9963 ns

          1.284 ± 1.2841

          32.960 ± 0.4281 *

          60.355 ± 6.4207

          Artemisia afra #

          Aerial parts

          0.078 ± 0.0005 ***

          0

          0

          0

          76.621 ± 6.4207 ns

          97.167 ± 10.7012

          Artemisia afra δ

          Aerial parts

          0.004 ± 0.0002 *

          0

          0

          0

          27.823 ± 11.5573 *

          97.167 ± 10.7012

          Buddleja salviifolia #

          Leaves

          0.011 ± 0.0002 *

          0.056 ± 0.0073

          29.535 ± 20.1183 ns

          0

          80.720 ± 17.0557 ns

          41.949 ± 1.7122

          Buddleja salviifolia #

          Twigs

          0.017 ± 0.0047 ns

          0.005 ± 0.0050

          17.122 ± 3.4244 ns

          8.133 ± 5.5646

          14.982 ± 8.1329 ns

          38.096 ± 17.5500

          Clausena anisata #

          Leaves & Twigs

          1.394 ± 0.0318 ns

          1.329 ± 0.0159

          0

          0

          68.488 ± 5.1366 **

          0

          Cussonia spicata #

          Leaves

          0.012 ± 0.0016 *

          0

          138.260 ± 41.5208 ns

          12.842 ± 12.8415

          397.377 ± 55.8931 ns

          468.758 ± 81.3346

          Dombeya rotundifolia #

          Leaves

          1.804 ± 0.0116 **

          0.973 ± 0.0529

          0

          0

          41.949 ± 19.6903 ns

          0

          Ekebergia capensis δ

          Leaves & Twigs

          0.654 ± 0.0040 ns

          0.523 ± 0.0706

          0

          0

          0 **

          19.690 ± 2.5683

          Leonotis intermedia δ

          Leaves

          0.008 ± 0.0007 **

          0

          0 ns

          3.424 ± 3.4244

          17.550 ± 5.5646 ns

          11.129 ± 4.2805

          Leonotis leonurus δ

          Leaves

          0.011 ± 0.0002 ***

          0

          0 ***

          47.085 ± 1.7122

          24.827 ± 0.8561 *

          5.565 ± 3.8524

          Merwilla plumbea δ

          Bulbs

          0

          0

          8.133 ± 8.1329 ns

          23.971 ± 7.7049

          167.367 ± 13.2695

          ND

          Ocotea bullata δ

          Bark

          1.154 ± 0.0162 **

          0.699 ± 0.0354

          0

          0

          68.060 ± 8.9890 *

          14.982 ± 7.2768

          Olea europaea #

          Leaves

          0.010 ± 0.0019 *

          0

          0

          0

          127.559 ± 4.2805 ns

          121.566 ± 1.7122

          Pittosporum viridiflorum #

          Leaves & Twigs

          0

          0

          5.565 ± 5.5646 ns

          0

          75.337 ± 0.8561 ns

          66.776 ± 6.8488

          Plumbago auriculata δ

          Leaves

          0.003 ± 0.0011 **

          0.024 ± 0.0013

          3.852 ± 3.8524 ns

          0

          20.118 ± 5.5646 ns

          4.7085 ± 4.7085

          Protorhus longifolia δ

          Leaves

          0.400 ± 0.0127 ns

          0.724 ± 0.0885

          2398.787 ± 112.1485 ns

          1901.394 ± 137.8318

          2726.245 ± 615.9627 ns

          4039.926 ± 1368.0443

          Solanum mauritianum δ

          Leaves

          0.013 ± 0.0013 ns

          0.005 ± 0.005

          32.103 ± 4.7085 ns

          23.971 ± 0.8561

          183.047 ± 75.6858

          ND

          Spirostachys africana #

          Leaves & Twigs

          0.348 ± 0.0083 ns

          0.365 ± 0.0311

          1107.363 ± 228.1501 *

          0

          2445.016 ± 118.1414 **

          16.266 ± 16.2659

          Synadenium cupulare #

          Leaves

          0.010 ± 0.0002 **

          0.004 ± 0.0004

          0 ns

          8.561 ± 8.5610

          20.546 ± 4.2805 ns

          54.362 ± 21.8305

          Tetradenia riparia δ

          Leaves

          0.002 ± 0.0004 ns

          0.005 ± 0.0022

          0 ***

          14.982 ± 0.4280

          11.985 ± 1.7122 ns

          22.259 ± 13.6976

          Trichilia dregeana δ

          Leaves & Twigs

          0.198 ± 0.0099 ns

          0.138 ± 0.0148

          118.998 ± 5.1366 **

          0

          442.603 ± 65.0634 *

          13.270 ± 1.2841

          Ziziphus mucronata #

          Leaves

          0.008 ± 0.0000 ***

          0.046 ± 0.0013

          0

          0

          38.953 ± 12.4134 ns

          28.679 ± 1.2842

          Ziziphus mucronata δ

          Leaves

          0.077 ± 0.0003 **

          0.046 ± 0.0013

          0

          0

          47.085 ± 17.1220 ns

          28.679 ± 1.2842

          ns = not significant; P = 0.05 (*); P = 0.01 (**); P = 0.001 (***); ND = not determined; GAE = Gallic acid equivalents.

          δ = Plant material stored for 16 years.

          # = Plant material stored for 12 years.

          Antioxidant properties

          The effect of long-term storage on the radical scavenging activity of 21 plant materials is presented in Table 3. The lower the EC50 value, the higher the antioxidant activity index and the free radical scavenging activity. At 100 μg/ml concentration, the radical scavenging activity of all stored plant materials (with the exception of Protorhus longifolia) was either significantly higher or not different when compared to the freshly harvested materials. A comparison based on the EC50 values and antioxidant activity indices revealed a significantly higher radical scavenging activity in 58% of the stored plant materials. With the exception of A. oppositifolia and B. salviifolia (leaves), the radical scavenging activity of the remaining stored plant materials based on their EC50 values was not significantly different when compared to the fresh materials. The DPPH radical acts as both the probe and oxidant by accepting electrons from antioxidant compounds in the extract. There is a direct correlation between degree of hydroxylation of the bioactive compounds and DPPH radical scavenging activity [11]. Potent DPPH radical scavenging activities of medicinal plants have also been reported in other studies [11, 13, 14]. However, the significance of the present study lies in the observed high DPPH radical scavenging activity of aqueous methanol extracts obtained from medicinal plant material after prolonged storage.
          Table 3

          Effect of long-term storage on the free radical scavenging activity of 21 South African medicinal plants

          Plant species

          Plant part

          Radical scavenging activity (%) at 100 μg/ml

          EC50(μg/ml)

          Antioxidant activity index

          Stored

          Fresh

          Stored

          Fresh

          Stored

          Fresh

          Acokanthera oppositifolia δ

          Roots

          93.3 ± 0.03 **

          92.6 ± 0.10

          26.8 ± 2.43 *

          18.0 ± 0.34

          0.7 ± 0.06 **

          1.1 ± 0.02

          Artemisia afra #

          Aerial parts

          93.8 ± 0.11 *

          92.7 ± 0.34

          9.3 ± 0.07 ***

          12.4 ± 0.15

          2.1 ± 0.02 ***

          1.6 ± 0.02

          Artemisia afra δ

          Aerial parts

          94.0 ± 0.07 *

          92.7 ± 0.34

          6.8 ± 0.50 ***

          12.4 ± 0.15

          2.9 ± 0.21 **

          1.6 ± 0.02

          Buddleja salviifolia #

          Leaves

          96.2 ± 0.06 ***

          93.0 ± 0.40

          15.5 ± 0.47 **

          10.0 ± 0.61

          1.3 ± 0.04 **

          2.0 ± 0.12

          Buddleja salviifolia #

          Twigs

          94.2 ± 0.13 ns

          94.3 ± 0.15

          17.2 ± 0.32 ns

          17.5 ± 0.40

          1.1 ± 0.02 ns

          1.1 ± 0.03

          Clausena anisata #

          Leaves & Twigs

          70.8 ± 0.28 ns

          72.6 ± 6.21

          33.2 ± 3.89 ns

          26.8 ± 2.06

          0.6 ± 0.07 ns

          0.7 ± 0.06

          Cussonia spicata #

          Leaves

          93.7 ± 0.07 ***

          61.6 ± 1.67

          14.3 ± 0.22 **

          43.6 ± 5.73

          1.4 ± 0.02 ***

          0.5 ± 0.07

          Dombeya rotundifolia #

          Leaves

          96.5 ± 0.56 **

          93.6 ± 0.27

          5.9 ± 0.12 ns

          6.1 ± 0.32

          3.3 ± 0.07 ns

          3.2 ± 0.16

          Ekebergia capensis δ

          Leaves & Twigs

          94.2 ± 0.42 *

          92.8 ± 0.30

          4.7 ± 0.37 **

          25.5 ± 4.99

          4.3 ± 0.32 ***

          0.8 ± 0.14

          Leonotis intermedia δ

          Leaves

          93.3 ± 0.09 *

          88.5 ± 1.73

          10.6 ± 0.37 ***

          51.7 ± 0.32

          1.9 ± 0.06 ***

          0.4 ± 0.00

          Leonotis leonurus δ

          Leaves

          93.7 ± 0.18 **

          91.6 ± 0.43

          16.8 ± 0.06 ***

          30.3 ± 0.92

          1.2 ± 0.00 ***

          0.7 ± 0.02

          Merwilla plumbea δ

          Bulbs

          8.2 ± 0.61 **

          2.6 ± 0.97

          ND

          ND

          ND

          ND

          Ocotea bullata δ

          Bark

          95.0 ± 0.25 **

          93.8 ± 0.02

          3.2 ± 0.14 **

          4.3 ± 0.10

          6.3 ± 0.28 **

          4.6 ± 0.11

          Olea europaea #

          Leaves

          94.9 ± 0.20 **

          93.2 ± 0.09

          14.0 ± 0.48 ***

          20.0 ± 0.16

          1.4 ± 0.05 ***

          1.0 ± 0.01

          Pittosporum viridiflorum #

          Leaves & Twigs

          93.6 ± 0.10 ns

          93.8 ± 0.29

          17.9 ± 0.25 ns

          17.5 ± 0.27

          1.1 ± 0.02 ns

          1.1 ± 0.02

          Plumbago auriculata δ

          Leaves

          50.6 ± 3.97 ns

          54.6 ± 1.15

          ND

          ND

          ND

          ND

          Protorhus longifolia δ

          Leaves

          95.8 ± 0.24 **

          97.3 ± 0.21

          2.2 ± 0.16 ns

          2.3 ± 0.14

          9.1 ± 0.71 ns

          8.5 ± 0.49

          Solanum mauritianum δ

          Leaves

          34.4 ± 0.73 ***

          19.8 ± 1.53

          ND

          ND

          ND

          ND

          Spirostachys africana #

          Leaves & Twigs

          96.6 ± 0.06 ***

          91.8 ± 0.34

          2.0 ± 0.07 ***

          14.4 ± 0.58

          10.0 ± 0.35 ***

          1.4 ± 0.06

          Synadenium cupulare δ

          Leaves

          90.9 ± 0.70 ***

          46.0 ± 5.30

          55.7 ± 0.35

          ND

          0.4 ± 0.02

          ND

          Tetradenia riparia δ

          Leaves

          68.5 ± 1.39 ***

          23.8 ± 2.44

          41.0 ± 5.29

          ND

          0.5 ± 0.06

          ND

          Trichilia dregeana #

          Leaves & Twigs

          95.8 ± 0.46 **

          92.3 ± 0.16

          5.3 ± 0.02 ***

          14.6 ± 0.24

          3.7 ± 0.01 ***

          1.3 ± 0.02

          Ziziphus mucronata #

          Leaves

          90.7 ± 0.42 ns

          89.0 ± 2.20

          29.7 ± 1.02 ns

          30.9 ± 1.94

          0.7 ± 0.02 ns

          0.6 ± 0.04

          Ziziphus mucronata δ

          Leaves

          91.1 ± 0.18 ns

          89.0 ± 2.20

          18.1 ± 0.29 **

          30.9 ± 1.94

          1.1 ± 0.02 ***

          0.6 ± 0.04

          Ascorbic acid

          96.6 ± 0.04

           

          2.1 ± 0.05

           

          9.4 ± 0.23

           

          Butylated hydroxytoluene

          93.2 ± 0.34

           

          3.0 ± 0.04

           

          6.5 ± 0.09

           

          ns = not significant; P = 0.05 (*); P = 0.01 (**); P = 0.001 (***).

          ND = not determined.

          δ = Plant material stored for 16 years.

          # = Plant material stored for 12 years.

          Table 4 presents the effect of long-term storage on the antioxidant activity of medicinal plant materials evaluated based on β-carotene bleaching model. The β-carotene bleaching assay simulates the oxidation of membrane lipid components and measures antioxidant activity towards linoleic acid [16]. The antioxidant activity of E. capensis stored plant material was significantly higher (almost two-fold) compared to the fresh material. On the other hand, the antioxidant activity of L. intermedia fresh plant material was significantly higher than that of the stored materials. With the exception of E. capensis and L. intermedia, there were no significant differences between the antioxidant activities recorded in both the stored and fresh plant materials. The retention of antioxidant activity in stored plant material suggests the stability of bioactive chemicals during prolonged storage. The detected bioactivity in the stored plant material provides interesting prospects in the future development of stable food additive compounds. In previous studies, high antioxidant activity from polar extracts of some plants has been attributed to hydrogen-donating phenolic compounds and flavonoids [2, 16]. However, the identification of specific phenolic compounds responsible for the high antioxidant activity of long-term stored plant materials remains a challenge for future research.
          Table 4

          Effect of long-term storage on antioxidant activity based on β -carotene bleaching model and acetylcholinesterase inhibitory properties of 21 South African medicinal plants

          Plant species

          Plant part(s)

          Antioxidant activity (%) at 200 μg/ml

          AChE inhibition (%) at 1.0 mg/ml

          Stored

          Fresh

          Stored

          Fresh

          Acokanthera oppositifolia δ

          Roots

          54.7 ± 3.4 ns

          40.0 ± 7.71

          81.0 ± 12.11 ns

          80.5 ± 1.99

          Artemisia afra #

          Aerial parts

          45.8 ± 3.34 ns

          39.8 ± 4.94

          83.2 ± 2.28 ns

          89.6 ± 7.44

          Artemisia afra δ

          Aerial parts

          44.4 ± 7.20 ns

          39.8 ± 4.94

          89.8 ± 0.57 ns

          89.6 ± 7.45

          Buddleja salviifolia #

          Leaves

          39.1 ± 7.69 ns

          58.3 ± 3.04

          64.9 ± 11.42 ns

          72.5 ± 10.17

          Buddleja salviifolia #

          Twigs

          58.0 ± 3.92 ns

          53.8 ± 8.22

          73.0 ± 15.63 ns

          63.9 ± 4.05

          Clausena anisata #

          Leaves & Twigs

          23.6 ± 4.06 ns

          49.8 ± 11.19

          77.0 ± 6.86 ns

          82.2 ± 3.74

          Cussonia spicata #

          Leaves

          55.7 ± 6.45 ns

          41.8 ± 4.70

          72.1 ± 12.6 ns

          86.5 ± 5.56

          Dombeya rotundifolia #

          Leaves

          51.8 ± 4.13 ns

          58.9 ± 1.40

          84.1 ± 5.54 ns

          87.6 ± 2.88

          Ekebergia capensis δ

          Leaves & Twigs

          93.5 ± 7.05 **

          52.1 ± 4.97

          73.8 ± 7.24 ns

          89.7 ± 6.08

          Leonotis intermedia δ

          Leaves

          32.6 ± 5.34 *

          52.9 ± 4.09

          68.8 ± 3.12 *

          87.8 ± 3.83

          Leonotis leonurus δ

          Leaves

          40.8 ± 2.32 ns

          58.6 ± 7.13

          78.1 ± 3.67 ns

          73.2 ± 0.43

          Merwilla plumbea δ

          Bulbs

          57.0 ± 6.42 ns

          45.1 ± 4.06

          58.7 ± 6.52 ns

          81.5 ± 2.11

          Ocotea bullata δ

          Bark

          57.8 ± 7.33 ns

          62.3 ± 8.83

          84.8 ± 3.98 ns

          87.1 ± 2.63

          Olea europaea #

          Leaves

          48.8 ± 2.84 ns

          48.2 ± 0.59

          69.2 ± 5.99 ns

          85.4 ± 3.39

          Pittosporum viridiflorum #

          Leaves & Twigs

          62.9 ± 6.65 ns

          39.1 ± 6.80

          96.2 ± 0.71 ns

          70.5 ± 8.36

          Plumbago auriculata δ

          Leaves

          62.2 ± 10.87 ns

          52.8 ± 1.99

          82.3 ± 5.54 ns

          87.3 ± 2.20

          Protorhus longifolia δ

          Leaves

          90.9 ± 8.88 ns

          72.9 ± 2.62

          51.8 ± 9.07 ns

          40.07 ± 2.60

          Solanum mauritianum δ

          Leaves

          38.9 ± 10.07 ns

          49.4 ± 4.92

          78.5 ± 5.84 ns

          85.9 ± 3.94

          Spirostachys africana #

          Leaves & Twigs

          62.1 ± 4.40 ns

          58.3 ± 3.24

          90.4 ± 5.57 ns

          82.4 ± 3.51

          Synadenium cupulare δ

          Leaves

          54.5 ± 5.06 ns

          45.3 ± 2.04

          75.3 ± 4.07 ns

          81.1 ± 2.77

          Tetradenia riparia δ

          Leaves

          67.2 ± 4.89 ns

          64.5 ± 8.38

          80.8 ± 1.73 *

          65.4 ± 4.85

          Trichilia dregeana #

          Leaves & Twigs

          65.2 ± 7.46 ns

          50.6 ± 8.81

          94.8 ± 2.82 *

          81.1 ± 3.99

          Ziziphus mucronata #

          Leaves

          54.5 ± 3.65 ns

          42.6 ± 6.62

          84.8 ± 6.78 ns

          87.2 ± 10.04

          Ziziphus mucronata δ

          Leaves

          24.1 ± 11.13 ns

          42.6 ± 6.62

          90.4 ± 4.09 ns

          87.2 ± 10.04

          Galanthamine

             

          84.1 ± 1.45

           

          Butylated hydroxytoluene

           

          94.5 ± 1.71

             

          ns = not significant; P = 0.05 (*); P = 0.01 (**); P = 0.001 (***).

          δ = Plant material stored for 16 years.

          # = Plant material stored for 12 years.

          Galanthamine (20 μM) was used as a positive control in acetylcholinesterase assay.

          Acetylcholinesterase inhibition activity

          Table 4 presents the effect of long-term storage on AChE inhibitory properties of the evaluated plant materials. Stored plant materials of T. riparia and T. dregeana showed a significantly higher AChE inhibition than the fresh ones. There was no significant difference between the percentage AChE inhibition by the stored and fresh materials of the remaining plant species. In general, the evaluated plant species exhibited high AChE inhibitory activity. Interestingly, medicinal plant materials retained AChE inhibitory activity even after prolonged storage (12 or 16 years). The results of the present study confirm the therapeutic value of stored medicinal plants in the pharmacotherapy of AD disease. The AChE inhibitory properties of plant-derived extracts obtained from freshly harvested material have been previously reported [16, 32]. Recent studies have demonstrated a direct association between AD and antioxidant activity [16]. However, this is the first report on the antioxidant and AChE inhibitory properties of long-term stored medicinal plants. The present findings are important for traditional systems which are characterised by an holistic approach to health provision, based on the prophylactic properties of medicinal plants [6].

          Conclusions

          The current study presents evidence that dried medicinal plants stored under dark conditions at room temperature remain biologically active after long-term storage. Extracts of the stored plant material still exhibited potent antioxidant and AChE-inhibitory properties. These findings are significant as some medicinal plants may be utilised long after their time of harvesting. In addition, the prevention strategies practised in the Ayurvedic, Chinese and African medicinal systems often involve regular intake of medicinal plant extracts and/or herbal preparations, which are responsible for counteracting the oxidative stress effects caused by ROS. The high antioxidant activity and stability of the bioactive compounds in these medicinal plants offer interesting prospects for the identification of novel principles for application in food and pharmaceutical formulations. However, in vitro and in vivo safety evaluation of the stored medicinal plants is required.

          Abbreviations

          ACh: 

          Acetylcholine

          AChE: 

          Acetylcholinesterase

          AD: 

          Alzheimer’s disease

          AAI: 

          Antioxidant activity index

          BHT: 

          Butylated hydroxytoluene

          CE: 

          Catechin equivalents

          DPPH: 

          2,2-diphenyl-1-picrylhydrazyl

          DTNB: 

          5,5-dithiobis-2-nitrobenzoic acid

          DW: 

          Dry weight

          GAE: 

          Gallic acid equivalents

          HE: 

          Harpagoside equivalents

          RSA: 

          Radical scavenging activity

          ROS: 

          Reactive oxygen species.

          Declarations

          Acknowledgements

          We are grateful to Mrs A. Young of University of KwaZulu-Natal Botanical Garden, as well as Dr M.E. Light and Mr B. Ncube of the Research Centre for Plant Growth and Development for assistance in the collection of plant material. The University of KwaZulu-Natal and National Research Foundation provided financial support.

          Authors’ Affiliations

          (1)
          Research Centre for Plant Growth and Development, School of Life Sciences, University of KwaZulu-Natal Pietermaritzburg

          References

          1. Bouayed J, Piri K, Rammal H, Dicko A, Desor F, Younos C, Soulimani R: Comparative evaluation of the antioxidant potential of some Iranian medicinal plants. Food Chem 2007, 104:364–368.View Article
          2. Atmani D, Chaher N, Berboucha M, Ayouni K, Lounis H, Boudaoud H, Debbache N, Atmani D: Antioxidant capacity and phenol content of selected Algerian medicinal plants. Food Chem 2009, 112:303–309.View Article
          3. Hoozesmans JJM, Veerhuis R, Rozemuller JM, Eikelenboom P: Neuroinflammation and regeneration in the in the early stages of Alzheimer’s disease pathology. Int J Dev Neurosci 2006, 24:157–165.View Article
          4. Ndhlala AR, Aremu AO, Moyo M, Amoo SO, Van Staden J: Acetylcholineterase inhibitors from plant sources: friends or foes? In Cholinesterase: Production, Uses and Health Effects. Edited by: White CJ, Tait JE. Nova, New York; 2012. in press. ISBN: 978–1-62100–673–2
          5. Howes MJ-R, Houghton PJ: Plants used in Chinese and Indian traditional medicine for improvement of memory and cognitive function. Pharmacol Biochem Behav 2003, 75:513–527.PubMedView Article
          6. Houghton PJ, Howes M-J, Lee CC, Steventon G: Uses and abuses of in vitro tests in ethnopharmacology: visualizing an elephant. J Ethnopharmacol 2007, 110:391–400.PubMedView Article
          7. Wong C-C, Li H-B, Cheng K-W, Chen F: A systematic survey of antioxidant activity of 30 Chinese medicinal plants using the ferric reducing antioxidant power assay. Food Chem 2006, 97:705–711.View Article
          8. Surveswaran S, Cai Y-Z, Corke H, San H: Systematic evaluation of natural phenolic antioxidants from 133 Indian medicinal plants. Food Chem 2007, 102:938–953.View Article
          9. Lizcano LJ, Bakkali F, Ruiz-Larrea MB, Ruiz-Sanz JI: Antioxidant activity and polyphenol content of aqueous extracts from Colombian Amazonian plants with medicinal use. Food Chem 2010, 119:1566–1570.View Article
          10. Roy N, Laskar RA, Sk I, Kumari D, Ghosh T, Begum NA: A detailed study on the antioxidant activity of the stem bark of Dalbergia sissoo Roxb., an Indian medicinal plant. Food Chem 2011, 126:1115–1121.View Article
          11. Awah FM, Uzoegwu PN, Ifeonu P, Oyugi JO, Rutherford J, Yao X, Fehrmann F, Fowke KR, Eze MO: Free radical scavenging activity, phenolic contents and cytotoxicity of selected Nigerian medicinal plants. Food Chem 2012, 131:1279–1286.View Article
          12. Dutta RK, Maharia RS: Antioxidant responses of some common medicinal plants grown in copper mining areas. Food Chem 2012, 131:259–265.View Article
          13. Inayatullah S, Prenzler PD, Obied HK, Rehman A, Mirza B: Bioprospecting traditional Pakistani medicinal plants for potent antioxidants. Food Chem 2012, 132:222–229.View Article
          14. Sharififar F, Moshafi MH, Shafazand E, Koohpayeh A: Acetyl cholinesterase inhibitory, antioxidant and cytotoxic activity of three dietary medicinal plants. Food Chem 2012, 130:20–23.View Article
          15. Oh MH, Houghton PJ, Whang WK, Cho JH: Screening of Korean herbal medicines used to improve cognitive function for anti-cholinesterase activity. Phytomedicine 2004, 11:544–548.PubMedView Article
          16. Ferreira A, Proença C, Serralheiro MLM, Araújom MEM: The in vitro screening for acetylcholinesterase inhibition and antioxidant activity of medicinal plants from Portugal. J Ethnopharmacol 2006, 108:31–37.PubMedView Article
          17. Houghton PJ, Ren Y, Howes M-J: Acetylcholinesterase inhibitors from plants and fungi. Nat Prod Rep 2006, 23:181–189.PubMedView Article
          18. Mukherjee PK, Kumar V, Mal M, Houghton PJ: Acetlycholinesterase inhibitors from plants. Phytomedicine 2007, 14:289–300.PubMedView Article
          19. Adewusi EA, Moodley N, Steenkamp V: Medicinal plants with cholinesterase inhibitory activity: a review. Afr J Biotechnol 2010, 9:8257–8276.
          20. Hutchings A, Scott AH, Lewis G, Cunningham AB: Zulu Medicinal Plants: An Inventory. University of Natal Press, Pietermaritzburg; 1996.
          21. Jäger AK, Hutchings A, Van Staden J: Screening of Zulu medicinal plants for prostaglandin-synthesis inhibitors. J Ethnopharmacol 1996, 52:95–100.PubMedView Article
          22. Duncan CA, Jäger AK, Van Staden J: Screening of Zulu medicinal plants for angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors. J Ethnopharmacol 1999, 68:63–70.PubMedView Article
          23. McGaw LJ, Jäger AK, Van Staden J: Antibacterial, anthelmintic and anti-amoebic activity in South African medicinal plants. J Ethnopharmacol 2000, 72:247–263.PubMedView Article
          24. Eloff JN: It is possible to use herbarium specimens to screen for antibacterial components in some plants. J Ethnopharmacol 1999, 67:355–360.PubMedView Article
          25. Makkar HPS: Quantification of tannins in tree foliage: A laboratory manual for the FAO/IAEA co-ordinated research project on ‘Use of Nuclear and Related Techniques to Develop Simple Tannin Assays for Predicting and Improving the Safety and Efficiency of Feeding Ruminants on Tanniniferous Tree Foliage’. Joint FAO/IAEA Division of Nuclear Techniques in Food and Agriculture, Vienna, Austria; 2000.
          26. Levieille G, Wilson G: In vitro propagation and iridoid analysis of the medicinal species Harpagophytum procumbens and H. zeyheri. Plant Cell Rep 2002, 21:220–225.View Article
          27. Singleton VL, Rossi JA: Colorimetry of total phenolics with phosphotungstic acid reagents. Am J Enol Vitic 1965, 16:144–158.
          28. Fawole OA, Ndhlala AR, Amoo SO, Finnie JF, Van Staden J: Anti-inflammatory and phytochemical properties of twelve medicinal plants used for treating gastro-intestinal ailments in South Africa. J Ethnopharmacol 2009, 123:237–243.PubMedView Article
          29. Zhishen J, Mengcheng T, Jianming W: The determination of flavonoid contents in mulberry and their scavenging effects on superoxide radicals. Food Chem 1999, 64:555–559.View Article
          30. Porter LJ, Hrstich LN, Chan BG: The conversion of procyanidins and prodelphinidins to cyanidin and delphinidin. Phytochemistry 1986, 25:223–230.View Article
          31. Inoue KH, Hagerman AE: Determination of gallotannins with rhodanine. Anal Biochem 1988, 169:363–369.PubMedView Article
          32. Fawole OA, Amoo SO, Ndhlala AR, Light ME, Finnie JF, Van Staden J: Anti-inflammatory, anticholinesterase, antioxidant and phytochemical properties of medicinal plants used for pain-related ailments in South Africa. J Ethnopharmacol 2010, 127:235–241.PubMedView Article
          33. Scherer R, Godoy HT: Antioxidant activity index (AAI) by the 2,2-diphenyl-1-picrylhydrazyl method. Food Chem 2009, 112:654–658.View Article
          34. Moyo M, Ndhlala AR, Finnie JF, Van Staden J: Phenolic composition, antioxidant and acetylcholinesterase inhibitory activities of Sclerocarya birrea and Harpephyllum caffrum (Anacardiaceae) extracts. Food Chem 2010, 123:69–76.View Article
          35. Eldeen IMS, Elgorashi EE, Van Staden J: Antibacterial, anti-inflammatory, anti-cholinesterase and mutagenic effects of extracts obtained from some trees used in South African traditional medicine. J Ethnopharmacol 2005, 102:457–464.PubMedView Article
          36. Bate-Smith EC: Investigation of the chemistry and taxonomy of sub-tribe Quillajeae of the Rosaceae using comparisons of fresh and herbarium material. Phytochemistry 1965, 4:535–539.View Article
          37. Bate-Smith EC, Harborne JB: Differences in flavonoid content between fresh and herbarium leaf tissue in Dillenia. Phytochemistry 1971, 10:1055–1058.View Article
          38. Phillipson JD: Chemical investigations of herbarium material for alkaloids. Phytochemistry 1982, 21:2441–2456.View Article
          39. Pre-publication history

            1. The pre-publication history for this paper can be accessed here:http://​www.​biomedcentral.​com/​1472-6882/​12/​87/​prepub

          Copyright

          © Amoo et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2012

          This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://​creativecommons.​org/​licenses/​by/​2.​0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.