4.7 Article

Antioxidant and Antiproliferative Activities of Phenolic Extracts of Eriobotrya japonica (Thunb.) Lindl. Fruits and Leaves

期刊

PLANTS-BASEL
卷 12, 期 18, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/plants12183221

关键词

loquat; Eriobotrya japonica; Rhaphiolepis bibas; fruits; leaves; antioxidant activity; antiproliferative activity; polyphenols

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study evaluated the phenolic constituents of loquat fruits and leaves from Tuscany, Italy and their in vitro antioxidant and chemopreventive activities. The results showed that loquat leaves had higher antioxidant and anticancer potential compared to the fruits, and contained multiple phenolic compounds.
Increasing interest in new sources of secondary metabolites as biologically active substances has resulted in an advanced study of many plant species. Loquat (Eriobotrya japonica (Thunb.) Lindl. = Rhaphiolepis bibas (Lour.) Galasso & Banfi, Rosaceae family), an evergreen, subtropical fruit tree, native to China and Japan, but cultivated in southern countries of Europe, is a species commonly used in folk medicine and may be an excellent source of bioactive compounds. Therefore, the aim of the present study was to evaluate the profile of the phenolic constituents of E. japonica fruits and leaves originating from Tuscany (Italy), as well as their in vitro antioxidant and chemopreventive activities on human cancer cell lines breast adenocarcinoma (MCF-7), colon adenocarcinoma (Caco-2 and HT-29), and glioblastoma (U87MG). Results revealed that the extract of leaves displayed higher antioxidant and anticancer potential than the fruit extract and contained 25 individual phenolic compounds that have been characterized and quantified by the UPLC-PDA-MS method. The antiproliferative activity was correlated with the content of polyphenolic compounds indicating that both fruits and leaves are a good source of antioxidants and may be exploited as nutraceuticals enriching food or as components for the cosmetic/pharmaceutical industry.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据