Antioxidant and Anti-inflammatory Activity of Six Halophytes in Korea

Jeong Min Lee; Mi-Jin Yim; Grace Choi; Myeong Seok Lee; Yun Gyeong Park; Dae-Sung Lee

doi:10.20307/nps.2018.24.1.40

Journal List > Nat Prod Sci > v.24(1) > 1060704

Go to TopGo to Top Go to BottomGo to Bottom

TOOLS

Lee, Yim, Choi, Lee, Park, and Lee: Antioxidant and Anti-inflammatory Activity of Six Halophytes in Korea

Original Article

Natural Product Sciences 2018;24(1):40-46.

Published online: 20 January 2018

DOI: https://doi.org/10.20307/nps.2018.24.1.40

Antioxidant and Anti-inflammatory Activity of Six Halophytes in Korea

Jeong Min Lee, Mi-Jin Yim, Grace Choi, Myeong Seok Lee, Yun Gyeong Park, Dae-Sung Lee^∗

Department of Applied Research, National Marine Biodiversity Institute of Korea, Seocheon 33662, Republic of Korea

∗Author for correspondence Dae-Sung Lee, Department of Applied Research, National Marine Biodiversity Institute of Korea, Jangsan-ro 101 beon-gil, Janghang-eup, Seocheon-gun, Chungcheongnam-do 33662, Korea. Tel: +82-41-950-0767; E-mail: daesung@mabik.re.kr

Received 1 September 2017 Revised 26 October 2017 Accepted 27 October 2017

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

The aim of this study was to measure and compare polyphenol content, antioxidant, and antiinflammatory activity of six halophytes (Limonium tetragonum, Suaeda glauca, Suaeda japonica, Salicornia europaea, Triglochin maritimum, and Sonchus brachyotus). Depending on the total polyphenol content, the plants were categorized into two groups: (1) a high total polyphenol content group that included L. tetragonum, S. brachyotus, and S. europaea, and, (2) a low total polyphenol content group consisting of S. glauca, T. maritima, and S. japonica. Antioxidant activity was evaluated using DPPH and hydroxyl radical scavenging assays, and by measuring ROS. Anti-inflammatory activity was evaluated by measuring NO and PGE₂. L. tetragonum and S. brachyotus, that have high polyphenol content, also showed strong antioxidant activity. In addition, L. tetragonum, S. brachyotus, and S. europaea showed good anti-inflammatory activity. Consequently, the total polyphenol content was thought to be related to antioxidant and anti-inflammatory activity. Therefore, S. brachyotus and L. tetragonum are good candidates for use in pharmaceuticals and functional foods.

Go to :

Keywords: Halophytes, DPPH, Polyphenol, NO, PGE₂

References

(1). El Shaer, H. M. Potential of halophytes as animal fodder in Egypt. in: Lieth H.., Mochtchenko M.Part II: Chemical Contents. Cash Crop Halophytes: Recent Studies; Kluwer Academic Publishers: London,. 2003. 111–119.

(2). Kim N. -H.., Heo J. -D.., Kim T. B.., Rho J. -R.., Yang M. H.., Jeong E. J.Biol. Pharm. Bull. 2016. 39:1022–1028.

(3). An R. -B.., Sohn D. -H.., Jeong G. -S.., Kim Y.-C. Arch. Pharm. Res. 2008. 31:594–597.

(4). Lee S. -G.., Kim J. -B.., Kang H.Trop. J. Pharm. Res. 2016. 15:1175–1181.

(5). Choi J. -I.., Kim Y. -J.., Kim J. -H.., Song B. -S.., Yoon Y.., Byun M. -W.., Kwon J. -H.., Chun S. -S.., Lee J. -W. J.Korean Soc. Food Sci. Nutr. 2009. 38:131–135.

(6). Kang H.., Koppula S.., Kim H. -K.., Park T. -K.Trop. J. Pharm. Res. 2013. 12:351–356.

(7). Lellau T. F.., Liebezeit G.Pharm. Biol. 2003. 41:293–300.

(8). Lellau T. F.., Liebezeit G.Mar. Biodivers. 2003. 32:177–181.

(9). Nugroho A.., Kim M. -H.., Lee C. M.., Choi J. S.., Lee S.., Park H.-J. Nat. Prod. Sci. 2012. 18:39–46.

(10). Xia D. -Z.., Yu X. -F.., Zhu Z. -Y.., Zou Z.-D. Nat. Prod. Res. 2011. 25:1893–1901.

(11). Cho J. -Y.., Yang X.., Park K. -H.., Park H. J.., Park S. -Y.., Moon J. -H.., Ham K.-S. Food Sci. Biotechnol. 2013. 22:1547–1557.

(12). Lee J. I.., Kong C. -S.., Jung M. E.., Hong J. W.., Lim S. Y.., Seo Y.Biotechnol. Bioprocess Eng. 2011. 16:992–999.

(13). Qiu P.., Wang Q. -Z.., Yin M.., Wang M.., Zhao Y. -Y.., Shan Y.., Feng X.Zhong Yao Cai. 2015. 38:751–753.

(14). Agati G.., Azzarello E.., Pollastri S.., Tattini M.Plant Sci. 2012. 196:67–76.

(15). Sun L.., Zhang J.., Lu X.., Zhang L.., Zhang Y.Food Chem. Toxicol. 2011. 49:2689–2696.

(16). Hwang Y. P.., Kim H. G.., Choi J. H.., Truong Do M.., Tran T. P.., Chun H. K.., Chung Y. C.., Jeong T. C.., Jeong H. G.Mol. Nutr. Food Res. 2013. 57:471–482.

(17). Kim H. S.., Yoon Y. S.., Cho J. W.Korean J. Med. Crop Sci. 2008. 16:231–237.

(18). Kong C. -S.., Lee J. I.., Kim Y. A.., Kim J. -A.., Bak S. S.., Hong J. W.., Park H. Y.., Yea S. S.., Seo Y.Process Biochem. 2012. 47:1073–1078.

(19). Eyjólfsson R.Phytochemistry. 1970. 9:845–851.

(20). Lee K. S.., Kim A. J.., Lee K. Y. J.East Asian Soc. Diet. Life. 2012. 22:521–526.

(21). Kim E. J.., Choi J. Y.., Yu M.., Kim M. Y.., Lee S.., Lee B. -H.Korean J. Food Sci. Technol. 2012. 44:337–342.

(22). Kim S. J.., Lee G.., Moh S. H.., Park J.., Auh C. -K.., Chung Y.., Ryu T. K.., Lee T. -K. J.Korea Acad. Industr. Coop. Soc. 2013. 14(3081–3088):3081–3088.

(23). Singleton V. L.., Rossi J. A.Am. J. Enol. Viticult. 1965. 16:144–158.

(24). Blois M. S.Nature. 1958. 181:1199–1200.

(25). Rosen G. M.., Rauckman E. J.Mol. Pharmacol. 1980. 17:233–238.

(26). Hansen M. B.., Nielsen S. E.., Berg K. J.Immunol. Methods. 1989. 119:203–210.

(27). Engelmann J.., Volk J.., Leyhausen G.., Geurtsen W. J.Biomed. Mater. Res. B. 2005. 75B:272–276.

(28). Kim Y. -M.., de Vera M. E.., Watkins S. C.., Billiar T. R. J.Biol. Chem. 1997. 272:1402–1411.

(29). Moon J. H.., Kim S. Y.., Lee H. G.., Kim S. U.., Lee Y. B.Exp. Mol. Med. 2008. 40:11–18.

(30). Rhee M. H.., Park H. -J.., Cho J. Y. J.Med. Plants Res. 2009. 3:548–555.

(31). Yang E. -J.., Yim E. -Y.., Song G.., Kim G. -O.., Hyun C.-G. Interdiscip. Toxicol. 2009. 2:245–249.

(32). García-Lafuente A.., Guillamón E.., Villares A.., Rostagno M. A.., Martínez J. A.Inflamm. Res. 2009. 58:537–552.

(33). Read M. A.Am. J. Pathol. 1995. 147:235–237.

Go to :

Fig. 1.

Hydroxyl radical scavenging activity of the extracts from six halophytes. Experiment was performed in triplicate and data are represented as mean ± SD.

undefined

Fig. 2.

ROS generation of extracts from six halophytes. Experiment was performed in triplicate and data are represented as mean ± SD. ∗ p < 0.05; ∗∗ p < 0.01; ∗∗∗ p < 0.001.

undefined

Fig. 3.

Cell viability of extracts from six halophytes. Experiment was performed in triplicate and data are represented as mean ± SD.

undefined

Fig. 4.

Inhibitory effects of NO production for extracts from six halophytes in LPS-RAW 264.7 cells. Experiment was performed in triplicate and data are represented as mean ± SD. ∗ p < 0.05; ∗∗ p < 0.01; ∗∗∗ p < 0.001.

undefined

Fig. 5.

Inhibitory effects of PGE₂ release for extracts from six halophytes in LPS-RAW 264.7 cells. Experiment was performed in triplicate and data are represented as mean ± SD. ∗ p < 0.05; ∗∗ p < 0.01; ∗∗∗ p < 0.001.

undefined

Table 1.

Total polyphenol content of six halophyte extracts expressed as equivalent of gallic acid (mg of GA/g of extract)

Species	Total polyphenol content (mg/100 g dry weight)
Plumbaginaceae
H1	14.27 ± 0.26^a
Asteraceae
H2	59.34 ± 0.32
Chenopodiaceae
H3	54.29 ± 0.15
H4	52.84 ± 0.46
H6	58.71 ± 0.29
Juncaginaceae
H5	53.33 ± 0.37

^a Data are expressed as the mean ± SD (n = 3).

Table 2.

DPPH radical scavenging activity of six halophyte extracts expressed as half maximal inhibitory concentration (IC₅₀)

Species	IC₅₀ (mg/ml)
Plumbaginaceae
H1	0.020 ± 0.001^a
Asteraceae
H2	0.056 ± 0.001
Chenopodiaceae
H3	0.095 ± 0.003
H4	0.510 ± 0.003
H6	0.061 ± 0.001
Juncaginaceae
H5	0.570 ± 0.009
Control
Ascorbic acid^b	0.019 ± 0.004

^a Data are expressed as the mean ± SD (n = 3).

^b Ascorbic acid was used as a positive control.

TOOLS

Similar articles