Journal List > Nat Prod Sci > v.22(1) > 1060607

TOOLS
Thao, Luyen, Lee, Jang, and Kim: Anti-osteoporotic and Antioxidant Activities by Rhizomes of Kaempferia parviflora Wall. ex Baker
Original Article

Natural Product Sciences 2016;22(1):13-19.

Published online: 17 December 2016

DOI: https://doi.org/10.20307/nps.2016.22.1.13

Anti-osteoporotic and Antioxidant Activities by Rhizomes of Kaempferia parviflora Wall. ex Baker

Nguyen Phuong Thao1, 2, Bui Thi Thuy Luyen1, Sang Hyun Lee3, Hae Dong Jang3, ∗, Young Ho Kim1, ∗

1College of Pharmacy, Chungnam National University, Daejeon 305-764, Republic of Korea

2Institute of Marine Biochemistry (IMBC), Vietnam Academy of Science and Technology (VAST),18 Hoang Quoc Viet, Cau Giay, Hanoi, Vietnam

3Department of Food and Nutrition, Hannam University, Daejeon 305-811, Republic of Korea

∗Author for correspondence Prof. Young Ho Kim, College of Pharmacy, Chungnam National University, Daejeon 305-764, Korea Tel: +82-42-821-5933; E-mail: yhk@cnu.ac.kr, Prof. Hae Dong Jang, Department of Food and Nutrition, Hannam University, Daejeon 305-811, Korea Tel: +82-42-629-8805; E-mail: haedong@hnu.kr

Received 10 June 2015       Revised 20 July 2015       Accepted 22 July 2015

Copyright © 2016 The Korean Society of Pharmacognosy

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract

In this report, we investigated the antioxidant (peroxyl radical-scavenging and reducing capacities) and anti-osteoporotic activities of extracts and isolated constituents (1–16) from the rhizomes of Kaempferia parviflora Wall. ex Baker on pre-osteoclastic RAW 264.7 cells. Compound 5 exhibited significant peroxyl radical-scavenging capacity, with TE value of 8.47 ± 0.52 µM, while compound 13 showed significant reducing capacity, with CUPRAC value of 5.66 ± 0.26 µM, at 10.0 µM. In addition, flavonoid compounds 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, and terpene compound 15 showed significant inhibition of tartrate-resistant acid phosphatase (TRAP) in NF-κB ligand-induced osteoclastic RAW 264.7 cells, with values ranging from 16.97 ± 1.02 to 64.67 ± 2.76%. These results indicated that K. parviflora could be excellent sources for the antioxidant and anti-osteoporotic traditional medicinal plants.

Keywords: Kaempferia parviflora, Zingiberaceae, Antioxidant, Anti-osteoporosis, TRAP

REFERENCES

(1). Hu F. B., Willett W. C. J.Am. Med. Assoc. 2002; 288:2569–2578.
(2). Pietta P. G. J.Nat. Prod. 2000; 63:1035–1042.
(3). Kong Y. Y., Yoshida H., Sarosi I., Tan H. L., Timms E., Capparelli C., Morony S., Oliveira-dos-Santos A. J., Van G., Itie A., Khoo W., Wakeham A., Dunstan C. R., Lacey D. L., Mak T. W., Boyle W. J., Penninger J. M.Nature. 1999; 397:315–323.
(4). Yenjai C., Prasanphen K., Daodeeb S., Wongpanich V., Kittakoop P.Fitoterapia. 2004; 75:89–92.
(5). Sutthanut K., Sripanidkulchai B., Yenjai C., Jay M. J.Chromatogr. A. 2007; 1143:227–233.
(6). Chaipech S., Morikawa T., Ninomiya K., Yoshikawa M., Pongpiriyadacha Y., Hayakawa T., Muraoka O.Chem. Pharm. Bull. 2012; 60:62–69.
(7). Azuma T., Kayano S. I., Matsumura Y., Konishi Y., Tanaka Y., Kikuzaki H.Food Chem. 2011; 125:471–475.
(8). Sawasdee P., Sabphon C., Sitthiwongwanit D., Kokpol U.Phytother. Res. 2009; 23:1792–1794.
(9). Patanasethanont D., Nagai J., Yumoto R., Murakami T., Sutthanut K., Sripanidkulchai B. O., Yenjai C., Takano M. J.Pharma. Sci. 2007; 96:223–233.
(10). Wattanapitayakul S. K., Suwatronnakorn M., Chularojmontri L., Herunsalee A., Niumsakul S., Charuchongkolwongse S., Chansuvanich N. J.Ethnopharmacol. 2007; 110:559–562.
(11). Akase T., Shimada T., Terabayashi S., Ikeya Y., Sanada H., Aburada M. J.Nat. Med. 2011; 65:73–80.
(12). Wong C. S., Tansakul P., Tewtrakul S. J.Ethnopharmacol. 2009; 124:576–580.
(13). Tewtrakul S., Subhadhirasakul S., Kummee S. J.Ethnopharmacol. 2008; 116:191–193.
(14). Wattanapitayakul S. K., Chularojmontri L., Herunsalee A., Charuchongkolwongse S., Chansuvanich N.Fitoterapia. 2008; 79:214–216.
(15). Patanasethanont D., Nagai J., Matsuura C., Fukui K., Sutthanut K., Sripanidkulchai B.O., Yumoto R., Takano M.Eur. J. Pharmacol. 2007; 566:67–74.
(16). Yenjai C., Wanich S.Bioorg. Med. Chem. Lett. 2010; 20:2821–2823.
(17). Aruoma O. I., Deiana M., Jenner A., Halliwell B., Kaur H., Banni S., Corongiu F. P., Dessí M. A., Aeschbach R. J.Agric. Food Chem. 1998; 46:5181–5187.
(18). Kurihara H., Fukami H., Asami S., Toyoda Y., Nakai M., Shibata H., Yao X. S.Biol. Pharm. Bull. 2004; 27:1093–1098.
(19). van de Loosdrecht A. A., Beelen R. H. J., Ossenkoppele G. J., Broekhoven M. G., Langenhuijsen M. M. A.C. J. Immunol. Methods. 1994; 174:311–320.
(20). Lee S. H., Ding Y., Yan X. T., Kim Y. H., Jang H. D. J.Nat. Prod. 2013; 76:615–620.
(21). Vichitphan S., Vichitphan K., Sirikhansaeng P.KMITL Sci. Tech. J. 2007; 7:97–105.
(22). Horikawa T., Shimada T., Okabe Y., Kinoshita K., Koyama K., Miyamoto K. I., Ichinose K., Takahashi K., Aburada M.Biol. Pharm. Bull. 2012; 35:686–692.

Fig. 1.
Chemical structures of compounds 1–16 from K. parviflora (Glc: glucosyl).
nps-22-13f1.tif
Fig. 2.
Inhibitory effects of compounds 1–16 on TRAP activity in RANKL-induced osteoclastic RAW 264.7 cells. TRAP activity was measured from cultures after 5 days of treatment with RANKL and test compounds (10.0 µM). The treated control was obtained from RAW 264.7 cells cultured with RANKL stimulation and without test compounds. Data are expressed as percentages of the treated control (mean ± SD, n = 3,∗P < 0.05 and∗∗P < 0.01 vs TC. C: control, which was not treated; TC: treated control, which was treated with RANKL). Daidzein (10.0 µM) was use as a positive control (Pos.).
nps-22-13f2.tif
Table 1.
Antioxidant activities of the extracts and isolated compounds (1–16) from K. parviflora
Comps. Peroxyl radical-scavenging capacity (TE, µ M) Reducing capacity [Copper(I) ions, µ M]
1.0 µ M 10.0 µ M 1.0 µ M 10.0 µ M
1 0.21 ± 0.06 0.94 ± 0.12 0.50 ± 0.17 0.84 ± 0.36
2 ND 1.26 ± 0.10 ND 0.08 ± 0.06
3 1.01 ± 0.04 3.59 ± 0.16 ND 0.80 ± 0.11
4 0.08 ± 0.03 1.11 ± 0.14 0.29 ± 0.30 0.00 ± 0.17
5 2.23 ± 0.05 8.47 ± 0.52 ND 0.17 ± 0.11
6 0.71 ± 0.03 1.51 ± 0.05 ND 0.17 ± 0.11
7 0.05 ± 0.03 1.01 ± 0.04 0.17 ± 0.11 0.17 ± 0.00
8 0.50 ± 0.03 1.01 ± 0.04 0.17 ± 0.11 0.34 ± 0.17
9 0.02 ± 0.06 0.95 ± 0.11 0.34 ± 0.06 0.04 ± 0.11
10 0.17 ± 0.01 0.79 ± 0.13 ND 0.00 ± 0.86
11 0.44 ± 0.14 2.66 ± 0.16 0.29 ± 0.11 1.05 ± 0.11
12 0.27 ± 0.04 1.70 ± 0.17 0.08 ± 0.06 0.00 ± 0.17
13 0.79 ± 0.09 3.85 ± 0.22 0.63 ± 0.06 5.66 ± 0.26
14 1.12 ± 0.09 7.04 ± 0.33 0.29 ± 0.11 1.05 ± 0.11
15 0.03 ± 0.09 1.26 ± 0.10 0.29 ± 0.11 0.34 ±0.06
16 0.46 ± 0.02 0.01 ± 0.02 ND ND
CH2 Cl2 fraction 1.43 ± 0.10 7.85 ± 0.08 0.67 ± 0.17 3.35 ± 0.19
MeOH extract 1.50 ± 0.02 9.11 ± 0.18 0.80 ± 0.13 4.53 ± 0.06

All data are expressed as the mean ± SD of three individual experiments. Values are expressed as µ M of TE. ND: Not determined. One ORAC unit is equivalent to the net protection area provided by 1.0 µ M of Trolox.

TOOLS
Similar articles