4.7 Article

Crataegus monogyna buds and fruits phenolic extracts: Growth inhibitory activity on human tumor cell lines and chemical characterization by HPLC-DAD-ESI/MS

Journal

FOOD RESEARCH INTERNATIONAL
Volume 49, Issue 1, Pages 516-523

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.foodres.2012.07.046

Keywords

Crataegus monogyna; Phenolic profiles; Human tumor cell lines; Antiproliferative activity

Funding

  1. Fundacao para a Ciencia e a Tecnologia (FCT, Portugal) [PEst-OE/AGR/UI0690/2011]
  2. FCT, POPH-QREN
  3. FSE [SFRH/BPD/68344/2010, SFRH/BPD/72802/2010]
  4. Programa Ramon y Cajal
  5. Spanish Government [CSD2007-00063]
  6. Junta de Castilla y Leon (Grupo de Investigacion de Excelencia, GR133)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Crataegus monogyna has been extensively studied due to its various alleged health benefits. This study aimed to determine the human tumor cells growth inhibitory activity of phenolic extracts of its flower buds and fruits in three phenological stages, and further characterize the extracts by HPLC-DAD-ESI/MS. Flower bud extract showed the highest antiproliferative activity as indicated by the lowest GI(50) values obtained in all the tested cell lines: MCF-7, breast adenocarcinoma; NCI-H460. non-small cell lung cancer; HeLa, cervical carcinoma; HepG2, hepatocellular carcinoma. Furthermore, porcine liver primary cell culture (PLP2) was used to evaluate toxicity to non-tumor cells. Flavonoids, particularly flavonols and flavones (higher in flower buds) and proanthocyanidins (higher in unripe fruits) were the main classes in the studied samples. Phenolic acids (mainly hydroxycinnamic acid derivatives) were also detected in significant amounts, especially in flower bud extract. Regarding anthocyanins, over ripened fruits gave the highest content. The higher bioactivity observed in flower buds might be related with its higher content in phenolic compounds. (C) 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available