Open Access
Open Peer Review

This article has Open Peer Review reports available.

How does Open Peer Review work?

Antioxidant activity, acetylcholinesterase inhibitory potential and phytochemical analysis of Sarcocephalus latifolius Sm. bark used in traditional medicine in Sudan

BMC Complementary and Alternative MedicineBMC series – open, inclusive and trusted201717:270

https://doi.org/10.1186/s12906-017-1772-6

Received: 16 October 2016

Accepted: 8 May 2017

Published: 18 May 2017

Abstract

Background

Sarcocephalus latifolius is used as a traditional medicine for curing many diseases in Sudan. The main objective of the current study was to determine the antioxidant activity and acetylcholinesterase inhibition (AChEI) of S. latifolius, and to estimate its total phenolic and flavonoid contents.

Methods

Antioxidant activity of the tested plant extracts was carried out by determining their ability to scavenge the 2,2-diphenyl-1-picryl hydrazyl (DPPH) free radical. On the other hand, AChE inhibitory activity was determined spectrophotometrically using the Ellman’s colorimetric method. The levels of total phenols and flavonoids were determined quantitatively using spectrophotometric methods. MTT assay was consumed to assess the cytotoxic effect of the most active fractions. These fractions were subjected to phytochemical analysis using GC-MS techniques to determine thier chemical composition.

Results

Hexane and chloroform fractions exhibited the highest antioxidant activity with IC50 values of (0.098 ± 0.08 and 0.099 ± 0.029 mg/ml) respectively. Standard propyl gallate had the lowest IC50 value of 0.0414 ± 0.11 mg/ml. The ethanolic crude extract showed low AChEI activity with 40.2 ± 0.10%. High concentrations of phenolic and flavonoid contents were observed. GCMS revealed the presence of well-known antioxidants compounds e.g. Vitamin E and caffeic acid.

Conclusion

The ethanolic extract of bark of S. latifolius showed potent antioxidant effects and low AChEI activity, high phenolic and flavonoid contents and presence of pharmacologically active compounds. These findings explain its wide usages in traditional medicine.

Keywords

S. latifolius Antioxidant Acetylcholinesterase Phenolics Flavonoids Gcms

Background

Due to its high reactivity, Oxygen is capable of becoming part of potentially damaging molecules called reactive oxygen species (ROS) [1]. Humans have evolved a highly sophisticated antioxidant protective system, both endogenous and exogenous in origin [2]. Whenever the balance between ROS production and antioxidant effect is disturbed, ‘oxidative stress’ results leading to various pathological conditions [3]. Many researchers have focused on antioxidant activity of phenolic compounds especially flavonoids and a positive correlation was observed [46]. ROS are playing a dangerous role in the pathogenesis of various diseases, including neurodegenerative disorders, cancer and artherosclerosis [7, 8]. Oxidative processes are the pathogens associated with the central nervous system in Alzheimer’s disease (AD). The brain in particular is highly vulnerable to oxidative damage as it consumes about 20% of the body’s total oxygen, with a high content of polyunsaturated fatty acids and lower levels of endogenous antioxidants [9, 10]. The brain of patients suffering from AD is said to be under oxidative stress. [11, 12]. AD is the most common neurodegenerative disorder, characterized clinically by progressive memory deficits and impaired cognitive function [13]. It is a major public health concern due to the increasing number of sufferers, placing strains on caregivers as well as on financial resources [14]. A deficiency in levels of the neurotransmitter acetylcholine (ACh) has been observed in the brains of AD patients, and inhibition of acetylcholinesterase (AChE), the key enzyme which hydrolyses ACh, is a major treatment option for AD [15]. Traditionally plants have been shown to be good options in the search for AChE inhibitors. Recently, several plants have been identified as containing AChEI activity [7]. In this respect, medicinal plants provide a rich source of biologically active constituents with multiple activities. Sarcocephalus latifolius Sm. (family: Rubiaceae), locally known as “Karmadoda”, have many uses in traditional medicine including malaria, dysentery, fever, hypertension and health promotion (antioxidant) [1618].

Methods

Plant materials

Bark samples of S. latifolius were collected from South Kordfan state in February 2015. Identified and authenticated by Prof. Hatel H. Alkamali, Faculty of Science and Technology, Omdurman Islamic University, and confirmed by plant taxonomists at the herbarium of Medicinal and Aromatic Plants Research Institute, National Center for Research. Khartoum, Sudan.

Extraction

The fresh samples were dried in shade for seven days, pulverized then used for extraction. Cold maceration methodology was carried out according to published method of Osama and Awdelkarim, 2015 [19].

Fractionation

The crude extract was fractionated using liquid- liquid extraction methodology, which were carried by dissolving the samples in dist. H2O then partitioned between n-hexane, chloroform, ethyl acetate and n-butanol respectively using separating funnel apparatus.

Qualitative phytochemical evaluation

Phytochemical screening was conducted to determine the presence of natural products in the fractions of selected plants using standard methods [20, 21].

Determination of total phenolic content

Total phenolic content was determined by Folin Ciocalteu method [22]. Calibration curve was constructed using gallic acid standards Fig. 1 and the total phenolic content was expressed as mg gallic acid equivalents (GAE)/g dry weight (DW).

Determination of flavonoid content

The flavonoid content was measured by the aluminium chloride colorimetric assay [23]. Calibration curve was plotted using quercetin standards and flavonoid content was expressed as mg quercetin equivalents (QE)/g DW.

GC-MS analysis

GC-MS analysis was carried out using GCMS instrument (Model GCMS-QP2010 Ultra, Shimadzu Co., Japan) equipped with a capillary column Rtx-5 (0.25 휇m film × 0.25 mm i.d. × 30 m length). The instrument was operated in electron impact mode at ionization voltage (70 eV), injector temperature (250 C), and detector temperature (280 C). The carrier gas used was helium (99.9% purity) at a flow rate of 1.2 mL/min and about one 휇L of the sample was injected. The oven temperature was initially programmed at 110 °C (7 min) to 200 °C at 10 °C/min and from 200 to 280 °C at 5 °C/min withhold time 0 and 9 min respectively. The identification of compounds from the spectral data was based on the available mass spectral records (NIST and WILEY libraries).

Antioxidant activity: 2,2-diphenyl-1-picrylhydrazyl (DPPH) radical scavenging assay

The test samples were prepared in DMSO as 10× stocks from each test concentration (between 0 and 100 μg/ml) and briefly sonicated when necessary in an ultrasonic water bath. Solvents fractions producing radical scavenging activities equal to or higher than 50% at 100 μg/mL in a preliminary screen were further tested and IC50 (concentration of the sample producing 50% scavenging of DPPH radicals) determined using EZ-Fit Enzyme Kinetic Program. propyl gallate was tested in the assay as positive control. The assay method used in the present study was based on Shimada et al., 1992 [24] method. The samples stock solutions (20 μL/well) were dispensed in triplicate onto 96-well plates. The assay was started with the addition of DPPH reagent (300 μM in ethanol, 180 μL/well). Appropriate blanks were prepared using the solvent only in addition to the same amount of DPPH reagent to get rid of any inherent solvent activity. Negative controls were also run in parallel to correct for any non-DPPH absorbance by coloured extracts at the test wavelength. The plate was immediately shaken for 30 s and incubated in the dark for 30 min at room temperature. The remaining DPPH was measured in the microplate reader at 517 nm. Percentage of radical scavenging activity (RSA) was calculated as following:
$$ \%\mathrm{RSA}=100-\left\{\left(\mathrm{Ac}-\mathrm{At}\right)/\mathrm{Ac}\right\}\times 100 $$

Where, At = Absorbance value of test compound; Ac = Absorbance value of control.

The multi-well plate AChE inhibition assay

The AChE inhibitory activity was tested using 96 well micro-plate assay based on Ellmam et al., 1961 [25] method with minor modifications. Each extract (10 μL of 5 mg/mL in ethanol) was dispensed in triplicate onto 96 well microplate and mixed with 190 μL of Ellman’s mixture containing 20 μL of enzyme, 140 μL to phosphate buffer, pH 8, containing 10 μL of 0.5 mM of 5, 5’- dithio-bis-(2-nitrobenzoic acid) (DTNB, Sigma-Aldrich, Germany) and 20 μL acetylthiocholine iodide (ATCI, Sigma-Aldrich, Germany). The control wells contained ethanol instead of the extract. The enzymatic activity was monitored at 412 nm every 30 s intervals for 3 min (linear reaction). The enzyme rate was calculated from the slope of the curve of absorbance vs time. As screening strategy, final concentration of 1000 μg/mL from each extract was examined and the average % inhibition was calculated relative to the enzyme rate at the control wells according to the following equation:
$$ \%\mathrm{Inhibition}=100-\left\{\left(\mathrm{Ac}-\mathrm{At}\right)/\mathrm{Ac}\right\}\times 100 $$

MTT (3-(4, 5-dimethylthazol-2-yl)-2, 5-diphenyl tetrazonium bromide) cytotoxicity assay

In the present investigation, Vero (normal, African green monkey kidney) cell line was used and cytotoxicity on these cells was assessed as described previously [26]. For each experiment, cultures were seeded from frozen stocks. Vero cells were maintained complete medium consisting of 10% fetal bovine serum and 90% minimal essential medium (MEM). The cells were incubated at 37 °C in a 5% CO2 atmosphere and were in the logarithmic phase of growth at the time of the neutral red (NR) and tetrazolium (MTT) assays. Cells were harvested and seeded into 96-well tissue culture plates at a density of 1 × 104 cells per well of aliquots of medium (200 μL). The cells were allowed to adhere to the wells for 24 h at 37 °C in a humid atmosphere optimized with 5% CO2 in air. The next day, the plant fractions were added at the desired final concentrations and incubated for 72 h. All experiments were performed at least four times. Phosphate-buffered saline (PBS) was used as a negative. After the 72 h exposure period, the toxic endpoints were determined at 570 nm. Viability was defined as the ratio (expressed as a percentage) of absorbance of treated cells to untreated cells that served as negative control.

Statistical analysis

All data were expressed as means ± SD for three experiments. P values <0.05 were considered statistically significant. Statistical analyses were performed using Excel software (Microsoft 2010).

Results and discussion

Extraction yield and phytochemical screening

The percentage yield of S. latifolius ethanolic extract was 47.33% of dry weight. The polar fractions (water and butanol) showed the highest percentage yield (Table 2), this could be attributed to the polar nature of the crude extract obtained with polar solvent (ethanol).

The results of preliminary investigation on the phytochemicals present in different solvent fractions are presented in Table 1. Different phytoconstituents such as phenolics, flavonoids, tannins, alkaloids, saponins, quinones, steroids, and terpenoids were detected in the tested fractions. The phytochemicals investigated in the present study are known to be beneficial in industrial and medicinal sciences [27]. Also, this preliminary knowledge can be looked at as a decipher in the search of a new source of economically valued chemical compounds [28, 29].
Table 1

Preliminary screening of secondary metabolites in the fractions of S. latifolius

Family of compound

Type of test

interference

n-hexane

CHCl3

EtOAc

n-BuOH

H2O

Phenols

FeCl3

+v

+v

+v

+v

+v

Tannins

FeCl3

-v

+v

+v

+v

+v

Flavonoids

KOH

+v

+v

+v

+v

+v

Alkaline

+v

+v

+v

+v

+v

Lead acetate

+v

+v

+v

+v

+v

Quinones

H2SO4

-v

+v

+v

+v

+v

Alkaloids

Dragendorff’s

+v

+v

+v

+v

+v

Wagner’s

+v

+v

+v

+v

+v

Triterpenes

Salkowski

+v

+v

+v

+v

+v

Diterpenes

Copper acetate

-v

-v

-v

-v

-v

Steroids

Salkowski

+v

+v

+v

+v

+v

Saponins

Forth

-v

+v

+v

-v

+v

+ve positive -ve negative

Total phenolic and flavonoid contents

Crude natural extracts and compounds purified from these extracts can serve as better herbal drug sources owing to their fewer side effects and nutritional value [30]. As presented in Table 2, the ethanolic crude extract of S. latifolius bark exhibited total phenolic content of 78.21 ± 2.4 mg GAE/g DW. Fig. 2 a similar study carried out using the methanolic leaf and root extracts of S. latifolius, has shown that the total phenolic content present was (0.016 ± 0.03 and 0.036 ± 0.05 mg GAE/g DW) respectively, which is very low compared to the present study [31]. This high variation could be due to many reasons including, the part of plant under study, which contains different chemical composition with different percentage, the method, solvent used for extraction, the origin of plant samples, and the environmental factors. The hexane fraction showed the highest phenolic content (98.78 ± 2.1 mg GAE/g DW), this result indicates the presence of high lipid soluble phenolic compounds such as vitamin E, whose existence was confirmed by GCMS analysis.
Table 2

Yield percentages, Total phenolic and flavonoid contents of ethanolic extract and solvent fractions of S. latifolius

Sample

Extraction yield (w/w% of dry weight)

Phenolic content (mg /g GAE)

Total flavonoid (mg/g QE)

Crude

47.33

78.21 ± 2.4

91.36 ± 0.84

Hexane

6.18

98.78 ± 2.1

81.01 ± 0.012

CHCl3

1.64

71.49 ± 0.5

118.29 ± 0.21

EtOAc

3.09

86.12 ± 0.7

80.23 ± 0.03

BuOH

19.09

56.20 ± 1.23

94.32 ± 0.71

H2O

70.91

83.20 ± 3.7

40.22 ± 0.28

Successful determination of biologically active compounds from plant material is largely dependent on the type of solvent used in the extraction procedure. Higher concentrations of more bioactive flavonoid compounds were detected with 80% ethanol [32]. Therefore, ethanol was chosen for extraction. Plant phenolic compounds especially flavonoids are currently receiving greater interest due to their antioxidants potential [27, 33]. Aluminium chloride colorimetric assay yielded total flavonoid content of (91.36 ± 0.84 mg QE/g DW) for the crude extract. Highest flavonoid contents were observed in chloroform fraction (118.29 ± 0.21 mg QE/g DW), which indicate the high amount of less polar flavonoids (aglycones) such as isoflavones, flavanones, highly methoxylated flavones, and flavonols [34]. These results could give a clue interpreting the observed high bioactivities of this plant.

Antioxidant and AChE inhibitory activities

Recently, interest has increased in naturally occurring antioxidants that can be used to protect human beings from oxidative stress damages [35, 36]. In the current study, the ethanolic crude extract exhibited high antioxidant activity with 87 ± 0.03%. The order of the activity (IC50 mg/ml) was as follow: hexane (0.098 ± 0.08) > chloroform (0.099 ± 0.029) > butanol (0.104 ± 0.19) > ethyl acetate (0.148 ± 0.33) and eventually water fraction (2.015 ± 0.3), Table 3 and Figs. 3, and 4 illustrate these results. The activity of hexane and chloroform fractions (0.098 ± 0.08 and 0.099 ± 0.029 mg/ml) respectively, is comparable values to the standard antioxidant PG (0.0414 ± 0.11 mg/ml); they also showed high amount of phenolic and flavonoid contents, it’s possible that could be the reason of this high antioxidant potential.
Table 3

Antioxidant activity (%RSA and IC50) of solvent fractions of S. latifolius

Sample

% RSA

IC50 (mg/ml)

Hexane

76 ± 0.02

0.098 ± 0.08

CHCl3

86 ± 0.03

0.099 ± 0.029

EtOAc

84 ± 0.03

0.148 ± 0.33

BuOH

83 ± 0.02

0.104 ± 0.19

H2O

79 ± 0.10

2.015 ± 0.3

Fig. 1

Standard curves of (a) Gallic acid and (b) Quercetin shows the absorbance against concentration

Fig. 2

Comparison charts of (a) Total phenolic content. b Total flavonoid content of ethanolic extract and solvent fractions of S. latifolius

Fig. 3

Percentage of RSA of S. latifolius ehanolic extract and solvent fractions

Fig. 4

Comparison Chart of Antioxidant potentials of S. latifolius fractions with the decrease of concentration (IC50 evaluation)

Inhibition of AChE has been considered as a promising strategy for the treatment of neurological disorders such as Alzheimer’s disease, senile dementia, ataxia and myasthenia gravis, in which a deficit in cholinergic neurotransmission is involved [37, 38]. The side effects of anti-AChE drugs such as toxicity, tolerability, and loss of efficiency stimulates the researchers to screen alternative natural anti-AD drugs for medication switch [39]. Ethanolic extract displayed low AChE inhibitory activity with (40.2 ± 0.10). GCMS analysis of chloroform fraction indicates the presence of caffeic acid which has been reported to be a potent inhibitor of both AChE and BChE [40]. It is possible that the solvent used for extraction was not able to isolate the active ingredients with a proper amount.

GCMS analysis

Due to their superior antioxidant activities hexane and chloroform fractions were analyzed with GC-MS, to identify their chemical composition which may be responsible of the measured activities. The GC-MS analysis lead to the identification of a number of compounds. These compounds were identified through mass spectrometry attached with GC. Interpretation of mass spectrum was conducted using the database of National Institute Standard and Technology (NIST). The name, molecular weight and structure of the components of the test materials were ascertained, illustrated in Tables 4, and 5 and Figs. 5, and 6.
Table 4

GC-MS spectral analysis of hexane fraction of S. latifolius bark

Peak no.

R. Time

Area %

Compunde name

Molecular Formula

Mass

1

13.736

1.68

5,5-Dimethyl-1,5-oxasilonan-9-one

C9H18O2Si

186

2

15.467

5.67

Quinic acid

C7 H12 O6

192

3

19.188

0.29

Pentadecanoic acid, methyl ester

C16 H32 O2

256

4

19.425

0.67

Ethyl (2E)-3-(4-hydroxy-3-methoxyphenyl)-2-propenoate

C12H14O4

222

5

19.805

6.89

Pentadecanoic acid

C15H30O2

242

6

20.147

2.20

Palmitic acid ethyl ester

C18 H36 O2

284

7

20.761

0.53

2-Cyclopropylideneadamantane

C13H18

174

8

22.455

16.49

Oleic Acid

C18H34O2

282

9

22.694

3.23

Methyl linoleate

C19 H34 O2

294

10

22.765

1.64

Ethyl octadec-9-enoate

C20H38O2

310

11

22.814

0.48

Linolenic acid methyl ester

C19 H32 O2

292

12

23.122

3.91

Heptadecanoic acid, ethyl ester

C19 H38 O2

298

13

25.920

14.21

Oelic acid amide

C18 H35 N O

281

14

25.994

0.23

Oelic acid amide

C18 H35 N O

281

15

26.187

0.44

Palmitic acid ethyl ester

C18 H36 O2

284

16

26.265

0.60

Stearic acid amide

C18H37NO

283

17

26.509

0.43

2-Pentyl-2-nonenal

C14H26O

210

18

26.761

0.43

Oxirane, hexadecyl-

C18H36O

268

19

28.299

0.48

Octadecanal

C18H36O

268

20

28.665

9.23

Phthalic acid, mono-(2-ethylhexyl) ester

C16H22O4

278

21

29.192

0.97

Ethyl palmitate

C18 H36 O2

284

22

29.881

19.50

Cinchol

C29 H50 O

414

23

32.086

0.57

Ethyl docosanoate

C24H48O2

368

24

32.642

1.64

Spinacene

C30H50

410

25

33.176

0.59

3-[(Trimethylsilyl)oxy]lanosta-8,24-diene

C33H58OSi

498

26

33.343

1.44

Lupenyl acetate

C32H52O2

468

27

35.907

3.46

Stigmast-4-en-3-one

C29H48O

412

28

38.248

1.09

Cholesteryl bromide

C27 H45 Br

448

29

38.974

1.01

Vitamin E

C29H50O2

430

Table 5

GC-MS spectral analysis of chloroform fraction of S. latifolius bark

Number

R. Time

Area %

Compound name

Molecular Formula

Mass

1

13.735

2.97

5,5-Dimethyl-1-oxa-5-silacyclononanone-9

C9H18O2Si

186

2

14.635

0.29

9-Eicosene, (E)-

C20H40

280

3

15.989

1.99

2H–Pyran-2-one, 5-ethylidenetetrahydro-4-(2-hydroxyethyl)-

C9H14O3

170

4

17.029

0.85

4-((1E)-3-Hydroxy-1-propenyl)-2-methoxyphenol

C10H12O3

180

5

17.334

0.35

1-Heptadecene

C17H34

238

6

18.302

0.84

p-Hydroxycinnamic acid, ethyl ester

C11H12O3

192

7

19.187

0.35

9-Octadecenoic acid, 12-(acetyloxy)-, methyl ester, [R-(Z)]-

C21H38O4

354

8

19.361

0.18

7,9-Di-tert-butyl-1-oxaspiro(4,5)deca-6,9-diene-2,8-dione

C17H24O3

276

9

19.422

0.15

alpha.-D-Xylofuranose, 1,2-O-isopropylidene-5-(t-butyldimethylsilyl)-

C14H28O5Si

304

10

19.800

5.89

Pentadecanoic acid

C15 H30 O2

242

11

20.115

0.30

9-Tricosene, (Z)-

C23H46

322

12

20.360

7.84

2H-1-Benzopyran-2-one, 7-hydroxy-6-methoxy-

C10 H8 O4

192

13

20.761

0.62

Bicylo[4.1.0]heptane, 7-bicyclo[4.1.0]hept-7-ylidene-

C14H20

188

14

21.139

0.22

Trimethylsilyl 3-methoxy-4-(trimethylsilyloxy)cinnamate

C16H26O4Si2

338

15

21.769

0.31

9-Octadecenoic acid (Z)-, methyl ester

C19H36O2

296

16

21.996

25.46

2-Propenoic acid, 3-(3,4-dihydroxyphenyl)-

C9 H8 O4

180

17

22.450

9.78

Oleic Acid

C18H34O2

282

18

22.762

3.28

Octadecanoic acid

C18H36O2

284

19

23.104

1.19

1-Hexadecene

C16 H32

224

20

23.740

0.61

9,12-Octadecadienoic acid (Z,Z)-

C18H32O2

280

21

25.816

0.39

O O′-BIPHENOL, 4,4’,6,6’-TETRA-T-BUTYL-

C28 H42 O2

410

22

25.909

1.08

9-Octadecenamide, (Z)-

C18 H35 N O

281

23

26.155

0.93

1-Nonadecene

C19H38

266

24

28.301

0.19

Oxirane, heptadecyl-

C19H38O

282

25

28.662

1.17

1,2-Benzenedicarboxylic acid, mono(2-ethylhexyl) ester

C16H22O4

278

26

29.163

1.28

1-Nonadecene

C19H38

266

27

29.732

1.15

gamma.-Sitosterol

C29H50O

414

28

32.053

1.83

1-Triacontanol

C24H50O

354

29

35.350

1.02

17-Pentatriacontene

C35H70

490

30

35.848

5.09

Methyl commate C

C31 H50 O4

486

31

38.123

22.40

Lup-20 (29)-en-3-ol, acetate, (3.beta.)-

C32H52O2

468

Fig. 5

GC-MS chromatogram for hexane fraction of S. latifolius bark

Fig. 6

GC-MS chromatogram for chloroform fraction of S. latifolius bark

GC-MS spectrum of the hexane and chloroform fractions revealed the presence of 29 and 31 compounds respectively. Two phenolic compounds (Ethyl (2E)-3-(4-hydroxy-3-methoxyphenyl)-2-propenoate and Vitamin E) were observed in hexane fraction. Fat soluble vitamin E is one of the most active natural antioxidants, it is the most effective chain-breaking antioxidant within the cell membrane where it protects membrane fatty acids from lipid peroxidation. The supplemental intakes of this powerful antioxidant have been documented to be useful against cancer [41]. Vitamin E also acts in the prevention of free radical formation.

chloroform fraction declared the presence of five phenolic substances (4-((1E)-3-Hydroxy-1-propenyl)-2-methoxyphenol; p-Hydroxycinnamic acid, ethyl ester; 2H-1-Benzopyran-2-one, 7-hydroxy-6-methoxy; Caffeic acid, O O’-biphenol, 4,4’,6,6’-tetra-T-butyl) these phenolic compounds are known antioxidants, therefore the antioxidant potentials of this plant could be justified. However, further studies on the isolation, characterization, and biological evaluation of these identified compounds are necessary to confirm their potential benefits.

Cytotoxicity study

MTT assay reveled that, all tested fractions have no toxic effects on Vero cells with IC50 more than 200 μg/ml, these results are shown in (Table 6).
Table 6

The cytotoxic effect (expressed as % inhibition and IC50 values) of hexane and chloroform fractions of S. latifolius tested at 125, 250 and 500 μg/ml against Vero cells

Code of extract

Concentration (μg/ml)

IC50 (μg/ml)

IC50

Inhibition % ± SD

500

250

125

Hexane

55.3 ± 0.04

50.4 ± 0.02

40.9 ± 0.03

277.8

>100

Chloroform

67.6 ± 0.08

55.0 ± 0.01

35.9 ± 0.05

224.9

>100

Control

95.3 ± 0.00

<30

IC50 < 30 μg/ml: High toxic. Control = triton was used as positive control at 0.2 μg/ml. the maximum concentration used was 500 μg/ml

The MTT assay is a test of metabolic competence based upon assessment of mitochondrial performance relying on the conversion of yellow MTT to the purple formazan derivative by mitochondrial succinate dehydrogenase in viable cells [42]. Increasing concentrations of the tested fractions did not affect mitochondrial respiration as measured by the MTT cytotoxicity assay. However, the results of this assay measuring cell integrity showed that these solvent fractions are not toxic over this concentration range tested.

Conclusion

S. latifolius is a Sudanese medicinal plants commonly used as herbal medicine for several purposes. In the present study, the selected plant was investigated in vitro for AChEI and antioxidant properties. In addition, the total phenolic and flavonoids contents were measured. GC-MS analysis of S. latifolius (hexane and chloroform) fractions reveled the presence of well known antioxidant compound such as Vitamin E and Caffeic acid. According to these findings it could be suggested that S. latifolius (hexane and chloroform) fractions might be potent and safe antioxidant materials in medicine or food industry.

Abbreviations

Abs: 

Absorbance

Ac: 

Absorbance value of Control

Ach: 

Acetylcholine

AChE: 

Acetylcholinesterase

AChEI: 

Acetylcholinesterase Inhibitory

AD: 

Alzheimer’s Disease

At: 

Absorbance value of Test compound

BuOH: 

Butanol

DMSO: 

Dimethyl sulfoxide

DPPH: 

2,2-diphenyl-1-picryl hydrazyl

DTNB: 

5,5’-Dithiobs (2-nitro benzoic acid)

EI: 

Electron Ionization

EtOAc: 

Ethyl Acetate

FBS: 

Fetal Bovine Serum

GAE: 

Gallic Acid Equivalent

GC: 

Gas Chromatography

GC-MS: 

Gas Chromatography- Mass Spectrometer

MEM: 

Minimal Essential Medium

MTT: 

Microculture tetrazolium

NIST: 

National Institute of Standards and Technology

PG: 

Propyl Gallate

QE: 

Quercetin Equivalent

RSA: 

Radical Scavenging Activity

Declarations

Acknowledgements

We would like to express our deep gratitude to Prof. Hatel H. Alkamali, Dean of Faculty of Science and Technology, Omdurman Islamic University, and Prof. Asaad Khalid, Medical Biochemistry Research Department, Medicinal and Aromatic Plants Research Institute, National Center for Research, Khartoum, Sudan, for their advices.

Funding

These analyses were done with self-funding.

Availability of data and materials

All data and materials used in this research are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Authors’ contributions

AO Conduct the extraction, fractionation, phytochemical screening, total phenolic and total flavonoid content as well as the GCMS analysis and wrote the first draft. SA Supervised all the experimental work and data interpretation and also corrects the first draft. AA Conduct the antioxidant and anti- AChE inhibitory activities and the cytotoxicity experiment. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Declaration

The experimental work described in this article was conducted in the Chemical Laboratories Complex, Department of Chemistry, Faculty of Sciences and Technology, Omdurman Islamic University, and Research Lab, Medical Biochemistry Department, Medicinal and Aromatic Plants Research Institute, National Center for Research. Khartoum, Sudan, from December 2014 to September 2015. These studies are the result of our own investigations, except where the work of others is acknowledged and have not been submitted in any other form to another journal.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Chemistry Department, Omdurman Islamic University
(2)
Medical Biochemistry Research Unit, Medicinal and Aromatic Plants Research Institute, National Centre for Research

References

  1. Bandyopudya U. ROS: oxidative damage and pathogenesis. Curr Sci. 1999;77:658–66.Google Scholar
  2. Percival M. Antioxidants. Clin Nutr Insights. 1998;31:01–4.Google Scholar
  3. Chitra KP, Pillai KS. Antioxidants in health. Ind J Physiol Pharmacol. 2002;46(1):01–5.Google Scholar
  4. Cai Y, Luo Q, Sun M, Corke H. Antioxidant activity and phenolic compounds of 112 traditional Chinese medicinal plants associated with anticancer. Life Sci. 2004;74:2175–84.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  5. Djeridane A, Yousfi M, Nadjemi B, Boutassouna D, Stocher P, Vidal N. Antioxidant activity of some Algerian medicinal plants extracts containing phenolic compounds. Food Chem. 2006;97:654–60.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  6. Sroka Z, Cisowski W. Hydrogen peroxide scavenging, antioxidant and anti-radical activity of some phenolic acids. Food Chem Toxicol. 2002;41:753–8.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  7. Winrow VR, Winyard PG, Morris CJ, Blake DR. Free radicals in inflammation: second messengers and mediators of tissue destruction. Brit Med Bull. 1993;49(3):506–22.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Confortia F, Sosa S, Marrelli M, Menichini F, Statti G, Uzunov D. In vivo anti-inflammatory and in vitro antioxidant activities of Mediterranean dietary plants. J Ethnopharmacol. 2007;116(1):144–51.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  9. Halliwell B, Gutteridge JMC. Oxygen radicals and the nervous system. Trends Neuro Sc. 1985;8:22–6.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  10. Shulman RG, Rothman DL, Behar KL, Hyder F. Energetic basis of brain activity: implications for neuroimaging. Trends Neurosci. 2004;27:489–95.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Emilien G, Beyreuther K, Master CL, Maloteaux JM. Prospects for pharmacological intervention in Alzheimer’s disease. Arch Neurol. 2000;57(4):454–9.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Tabet N. Acetylcholinesterase inhibitors for Alzheimer’s disease: anti-inflammatories in acetylcholine clothing. Age Ageing. 2006;35(4):336–8.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Mattson MP. Pathways towards and away from Alzheimer’s disease. Nature. 2004;430:631–9.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  14. Houghton PJ, Howes MJ. Natural products and derivatives affecting neurotransmission relevant to Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s disease. Neurosignals. 2005;14:6–22.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Şenol FS, Orhan İ, Yilmaz G, Çiçek M, Şener B. Acetylcholinesterase, butyrylcholinesterase, and tyrosinase inhibition studies and antioxidant activities of 33 Scutellaria L. taxa from Turkey. Food Chem Toxicol. 2010;48:781–8.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Amos S, Abba J, Chindo B, Edmond I, Binda L, Adzu B, Buhari S, Odutola AA, Wambebe C, Gamaniel K. Neuropharmacological effects of the aqueous extract of Nauclea latifolia root back in rats and mice. J Ethnopharmacol. 2005;97(1):53–7.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Ngo Bum E, Taiwe GS, Motto FC, Ngoupaye GT, Nkantchoua GC, Pelanken MM, Rakotonirina SV, Rakotonirina A. Anticonvulsant, nxiolytic and sedative properties of the roots of Nauclea latifolia smith in mice. Epilepsy Behav. 2009;15(4):434–40.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Abbah J, Amos S, Chindoc B, Ngazalc I, Vongtaue HO, Adzuc B, Faridad T, Odutolad AA, Wambebec C, Gamaniel KS. Pharmacological evidence favouring the use of Nauclea latifolia in malaria ethnopharmacy: effects against nociception, inflammation, and pyrexia in rats and mice. J Ethnopharmacol. 2010;127:85–90.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Osama A, Awdelkarim S. Phytochemical screening of Ficus sycomorus L. bark and Cleome gynandra L. aerial parts. J. Pharmacog. and. Phytochemistry. 2015;4(4):24–7.Google Scholar
  20. Trease GE and Evans MD. A text book of Pharmacognosy. 13th ed. London: Bailliere Tindall; 1989.144–48.Google Scholar
  21. Odebiyi O, Sofowora EA. Phytochemical screening of Nigerian medicinal plants. L Coydia. 1978;41:41–234.Google Scholar
  22. Wolfe K, Wu X, Liu RH. Antioxidant activity of apple peels. J Agric Food Chem. 2003;51(3):609–14.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Kim DO, Chun OK, Kim YJ, Moon HY, Lee CY. Quantification of polyphenolics and their antioxidant capacity in fresh plums. J Agric Food Chem. 2003;516:509–6515.Google Scholar
  24. Shimada K, Fujikawa K, Yahara K, Nakamura T. Antioxidative properties of xanthan on the antioxidation of soybean oil in cyclodextrin emulsion. J Agric Food Chem. 1992;40:945–8.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  25. Ellman G, Diane C, Valentino A, Robert M. Biochemical pharmacolog. Pergamon P press Ltd. 1961;7:88–95.Google Scholar
  26. Patel S, Gheewala N, Suthar A, Saha A. In- vitro cytotoxicity activity of Solanum Nigerian extract aginst Hela cell line and Vero cell line. In J pharm Pharmac Sci. 2009;1(1):38–46.Google Scholar
  27. Rauha JP, Remes S, Herinonen W, Hopia M, Kgjala T, Pitinlaja K, Vaorela H, Vaorela P. Antimicrobial effects of finished plant extract containing flavanoids and other phenolic compounds. Int J Food Microbiol. 2000;56:3–12.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Gezahegn Z, Akhtar MS, Woyessa D. And TarikuY. Antibacterial potential of Thevetia peruviana leaf extracts against food associated bacterial pathogens. J Coastal Life Med. 2015;3(2):150–7.Google Scholar
  29. Mohanty SK. MalappaK, Godavarthi a, Subbanarasiman B and Maniyam a. Evaluation of antioxidant, in vitro cytotoxicity of micropropagated and naturally grown plants of Leptadenia reticulata (Retz.) Wight & Arn.-an endangered medicinal plant. Asian Pac J Trop Med. 2014;7(1):S267–71.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  30. Saetung A, Itharat A, Dechsukum C, Wattanapiro-msakul C, Keaprodub N, Ratansuwa P. Cytotoxic activity of Thai medicinal plants for cancer treatment. Sci Technol. 2005;27(2):469–78.Google Scholar
  31. Dhalwal K, Shinde VM, Namdeo AG. Antioxidant profile and HPTLC densitometric analysis of umbelliferone and psoralen in Aegle marmelos. Pharm Biol. 2008;46:266–72.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  32. Bimakr M. Comparison of different extraction methods for the extraction of major bioactive flavonoid compounds from spearmint (Mentha spicata L.) leaves. Food Bioprod Process. 2010;89(1):1–6.Google Scholar
  33. Oise IE, Adesina AB, Oluwasegun AA. Comparative phytochemical, cytotoxic and growth inhibitory effects of the leaf and root barks of Sarcocephalus Latifolius (J.E. Smith) E.A. Bruce (Rubiaceae). Inter J Biosci. 2014;4(4):162–9.Google Scholar
  34. Waksmundzka-Hajnos M, Sherma J, Kowalska T. Thin Layer Chromatography in Phytochemistry. CRC Press is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group. 2008;99:334–36.Google Scholar
  35. Aruoma OI, Halliwell B, Aeschbach R, Löligers J. Antioxidant and prooxidant properties of active rosemary constituents: Carnosol and carnosic acid. Xenobiotica. 1992;22:257–68.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Scalbert A, Manach C, Morand C, Remesy C. Dietary polyphenols and the prevention of diseases. Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr. 2005;45:287–306.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. López MD, Pascual-Villalobos MJ. Mode of inhibition of acetylcholinesterase by monoterpenoids and implications for pest control. Ind Crop Prod. 2010;31:284–8.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  38. Mukherjee PK, Kumar V, Mal M, Houghton PJ. Acetylcholinesterase inhibitors from plants. Phytomedicine. 2007;14:289–300.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Gauthier S, Emre M, Farlow MR, Bullock R, Grossberg GT, Potkin SG. Strategies for continued successful treatment of Alzheimer’s disease: switching cholinesterase inhibitors. Curr Med Res Opin. 2003;19(8):707–14.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Oboh G, Agunloye OM, Akinyemi AJ, Ademiluyi AO, Adefegha SA. Comparative study on the inhibitory effect of caffeic and chlorogenic acids on key enzymes linked to Alzheimer’s disease and some pro-oxidant induced oxidative stress in rats’ brain-in vitro. Neurochem Res. 2013;38(2):413–9.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. White E, Shannon JS, Patterson RE. Relationship between vitamin and calcium supplement use and colon cancer. Cancer Epidemiol Biomark Prev. 1997;6:769–74.Google Scholar
  42. Mesaik MA, Zaheer Ul H, Murad S. Biological and molecular docking studies on coagulin-H: human IL-2 novel natural inhibitor. Mol Immunol. 2006;3(11):1855–163.View ArticleGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© The Author(s). 2017

Advertisement