3.8 Article

Cytotoxic, antimicrobial activities, and phytochemical investigation of three peach cultivars and acerola leaves

期刊

出版社

WOLTERS KLUWER MEDKNOW PUBLICATIONS
DOI: 10.4103/jrptps.JRPTPS_88_19

关键词

Acerola; antimicrobial; cytotoxicity; GC; MS; HPLC; peach

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Phytoconstituents of Prunus persica Linn. (Peach) and Malpighia glabra Linn. (Acerola) leaves were not thoroughly studied, although they are commonly incorporated in the food industry. Aim: Our aim is to explore metabolites and vitamins in three peach cultivars leaves; Desert red, Florida prince, Swelling and acerola. Material and Methods: Analysis was done using GC/MS (gas chromatography-mass spectrometry), HPLC (high-performance liquid chromatography), and spectrophotometry. Cytotoxicity was performed using MTT assay. Results: Total phenolic and flavonoid content varied from 79.54 to 121.51 mu g gallic acid equivalent/mg dry weight and 31.05 to 39.77 mu g quercetin equivalent/mg dry weight, respectively. Twenty-four flavonoids were identified; hesperidin was the major flavonoid in peach cultivars (3863.4 mg/100 g in Desert red, 2971 mg/100 g in Swelling, and 2624 mg/100g in Florida prince). Glucuronic acid (33.04%) and vitamin C (34 mg/100 g) were major in acerola. Thirty-four metabolites including supraene and sitosterol as well as 24 fatty-acid esters including linoleic and oleic acids were detected in the unsaponifiable and saponifiable matter, respectively. Antimicrobial activity against bacterial and fungal strains was screened in comparison with ampicillin and amphotericin B. All tested extracts significantly decreased cell viability against breast (MCF-7) and colon cell lines (HCT-116). M. glabra showed no significant difference from standard doxorubicin (0.1 mu g/mL) which may suggest a strong anticancer activity against colon cell line. Conclusion: This study may highlight the magnitude of the leaves of these plants as rich sources of important metabolites and vitamin C.

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

3.8
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