Analysis of Brazilian Plant Extracts as Potential Source of Antioxidant Natural Products Using Bench-Top Assays

Marin, Cavarsan, Díaz, Paciencia, Frana, and Suffredini: Analysis of Brazilian Plant Extracts as Potential Source of Antioxidant Natural Products Using Bench-Top Assays

Authors

https://s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/jourdata/fra/FreeRadAntiox-8-2-120-g000.jpg

INTRODUCTION

Naturally occurring antioxidants play an important hole in therapeutics. Curcumin, a diarylheptanoid compound, has shown to be effective against some types of cancer due to its antiproliferative effect caused by inhibiting angiogenesis and by inducing apoptosis, in vitro.1 Also, curcumin was shown to have neuroprotective properties that may postpone or even prevent diseases as Alzheimer’s, due ti its anti-inflammatory and antioxidant properties.2 Recent studies described the screening of Brazilian plant extracts for the antioxidant activity, as was made with six plant extracts aiming their antioxidant and photoprotective activity, which showed that the extract from Dalbergia monetaria is a potentially source of new antioxidants to be used in photoprotective formulations.3 The alcoholic extract from the rhizomes of Aristolochia cymbifera and the aqueous extracts of the leaves of Caesalpinia pyramidalis and Cocos nucifera were evaluated against micro-organisms related to oral diseases, as well as their antioxidant activity was assessed and showed to be more effective than those observed to Ziziphus joazeiro, a well known antibacterial traditional plant.4

Amazon rain forest is the biggest in the world, as it is the richest in terms of biodiversity, both for plants and animals,5 although much of it remains unknown from the pharmacological point-of-view. Such biological richness corresponds to a chemical diversity that is of interest to the prospection of new drugs to be introduced to therapeutics,6 particularly those aiming the antioxidant preventive and therapeutic potentiality. Still, high-throughput assays are the fastest, inexpensive and easily expanding way of analyzing the vast Amazon rain forest diversity that remains unexploited to today.7

Our group aimed at the chemical screening of 895 organic and aqueous extracts obtained from plants found in the Amazon rain forest that have been preciously screened for their biological,8-10 pharmacological and toxicological activities.11-16 The extracts were tested for their free radical scavenging and antioxidant activities, as well as screened for the presence of alkaloids, anthraquinones and cardenolides, some of the most active classes of phytochemicals.12

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Plant collection

Plant material was collected under Brazilian Government law, according to official documents #14895 [MMA/ICMBio/SISBIO] and #012A-2008 [IBAMA/MMA/CGen]. Plants were collected in the Amazon rain forest, (02° 23’ 41” S 60° 55’ 14” O); Manaus and Novo Airão, Amazonas, Brazil, and in the Atlantic Rain Forest, (24° 35’ 30” S 47° 27’ 7” O), Southern coast of the State of São Paulo, Brazil. Different parts of the plants were obtained (stem, leaf, flowers, fruits or roots), according to their biomass availability. Botanical material (i.e., vouchers) was collected and stored following the standard recommendations for botanical collections. Vouchers numbers are given in Table 1; all vouchers are deposited at the Herbarium UNIP. The botanical determinations were done in laboratory, with aid of taxonomic keys and specialist expertise.

Extract preparation

Each plant part was separatedly dried in an air-circulating stove (Fanem, Diadema, São Paulo, Brazil) at 40°C (i.e., a temperature that is usually used to dry crude plant material). Each plant part has provided an organic and an aqueous extract, made by a 24 h maceration with a 1:1 (v/v) mixture of dichloromethane (DCM) and methanol (MeOH), followed by 24 h maceration with distilled water.13 Solvents were removed under vacuum or lyophilized. Three hundred milligrams of each extract were weighed in a 5 mL vial and diluted with 3.0 mL of DCM/MeOH or water to obtain a concentration of 100 mg/mL.14

Thin layer chromatography analysis

Thin layer chromatography silica gel GF254 plates (Merck®) were used in the analysis. Two mobile phases were chosen to be used12 ethyl acetate: formic acid: acetic acid: water (100:11:11:26) and ethyl acetate: methanol: water (100:35:10). β-carotene,15 (B) 2,2-diphenyl-1-picrylhydrazyl (DPPH) were used as reagents. The evaluation of the free radical scavenging analyses were made by the establishment of scores as strong (++++), very good (+++), good (++), weak (+) and absence of free radical scavenge activity (0).16 The following reagents were used in the chemical analysis:11 (C) Dragendorff’s reagent, (D) 5% KOH diluted in ethanol for checking the presence of anthraquinones; (E) Kedde’s reagent.

Statistical analyses of antioxidant and free radical scavenging potential activity of extracts

Pearson’s χ2 test was applied to evaluate the occurrence of antioxidant activity and free radical scavenging activity for both the organic and aqueous extracts, with α = 5%.17 The analysis of free radical scavenging activity was performed to determine different grades of intensities with scores from 0 (absence of free radical scavenging activity) to 4 (strong free radical scavenging activity; Figure 1). The chemical results are expressed as percentages.

Figure 1

DPPH free radical scavenging activity of the 895 plant extracts tested in by thin layer chromatography analysis.

https://s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/jourdata/fra/FreeRadAntiox-8-2-120-g001.jpg

RESULTS

In the present work, 895 plant extracts divided in to 450 organic extracts (50.28%) and 445 aqueous extracts (49.72%) were analyzed. It was observed that 77 (8.60%) of 895 plant extracts showed antioxidant activity in the β-carotene/bleaching assay (Table 1). Beta-carotene/bleaching assay tends to identify compounds that can chain-break free radical reactions, particularly initiated by light exposition and that consequently protect β-carotene from suffer radical reaction, such as compounds having phenolic rings and hydroxyl groups.

Table 1

Botanical identification of the plant material used to obtain the extracts tested for alkaloids (Dragendorff’s reagent), anthraquinones (KOH reagent) and cardenolides (Kedde’s reagent),).Legend: RA=roots; CA=stem; CS=stem bark; FO=leaves; AO=aerial organs; FR=fruits; PL=entire plant; LI=liana; odd numbers= organic extracts; even numbers= aqueous extracts.

FamilySpeciesVoucher numberOrgansExtract #Dragendorff’s reagentKOH ragentKedde's reagentedde's reDPPH
RubiaceaePsychotria sp.PSC250RAN23---+2
EuphorbiaceaeCroton grandulosusPSC398CAN87+---4
ApocynaceaeMicroplumeria anomalaPSC136FON97+---3
ApocynaceaeMicroplumeria anomalaPSC136FON98+---3
ApocynaceaeMicroplumeria anomalaPSC136CAN127+--+3
ApocynaceaeMicroplumeria anomalaPSC136CAN128+---3
ApocynaceaeAspidosperma excelsumPSC360FO e CAN131---+0
ApocynaceaeAspidosperma excelsumPSC360CAN133+--+0
ApocynaceaeAspidosperma pachypterumAAO3263FO and CAN136+---2
ApocynaceaeAspidosperma pachypterumAAO3263CAN137+--+4
ApocynaceaeAspidosperma pachypterum1CAN138+--+1
ApocynaceaeAspidosperma pachypterumAAO3263CSN139+--+4
ApocynaceaeAspidosperma pachypterumAAO3263CSN140+--+1
ApocynaceaeAspidosperma pachypterumAAO3263RAN141+--+1
ApocynaceaeAspidosperma pachypterumAAO3263RAN142+--+1
AnnonaceaeDuguetia unifloraPSC357CSN145+---4
ApocynaceaeMalouetia tamaquarinaIBS10CAN147+---3
AnnonaceaeGuatteria ripariaPSC115CAN151+---3
RubiaceaePalicourea corymbiferaPSC298CAN153+---3
RubiaceaePalicourea corymbiferaPSC298CAN154+--+2
RubiaceaeRemijia tenuifloraAAO3264AON163+---3
MelastomataceaeMiconia sp.AAO3284OAN167---+3
AnnonaceaeDuguetia unifloraPSC357WDN193+--+4
CalophyllaceaeHaploclathra paniculataAAO3275CAN217+---2
CalophyllaceaeHaploclathra paniculataAAO3275CAN218+---2
LauraceaeOcotea cf. cymbarumIBS5CAN249+--+1
CapparaceaeCapparidastrum solumIBS2CAN259+---2
Fabaceae FaboideaeAeschynomene sensitivaPSC415CAN267+---2
RubiaceaeSipanea cf. pratensisAAO3283OAN281---+3
AnnonaceaeDuguetia unifloraPSC357FO e CAN305+--+3
AnnonaceaeGuatteria foliosaAAO3328FON315+--+2
Fabaceae FaboideaeDalbergia inundataPSC188OAN317++--3
PeraceaePera distichophyllaPSC403CAN319+--+3
PeraceaePera distichophyllaPSC403CAN320---+2
Fabaceae FaboideaeAldina sp.PSC123CAN342--+-3
FamilySpeciesVoucher numberOrgansExtract #Dragendorff’s reagentKOH ragentKedde's reagentedde's reDPPH
ProteaceaeRoupala montanaPSC144FON365---+3
RubiaceaePsychotria sp.PSC250FO e CAN375+--+1
EuphorbiaceaeHevea microphyllaPSC196CAN377+---3
CelastraceaeSalacia impressifoliaPSC125CAN389---+2
CelastraceaeSalacia impressifoliaPSC125CAN390---+2
FabaFabaceae FaboideaeAcosmium sp.PSC143CAN395+---3
Fabaceae FaboideaeAcosmium sp.PSC143CAN396+---2
Fabaceae FaboideaeOrmosia sp.PSC116CAN400+---1
Fabaceae FaboideaeClathrotropis macrocarpaPSC114CAN405+---1
Fabaceae FaboideaeOrmosia sp.PSC205FO and FRN433+-+-2
Fabaceae FaboideaeOrmosia sp.PSC205FO and FRN434+---2
Fabaceae FaboideaeOrmosia sp.PSC205CAN435+---1
Fabaceae FaboideaeOrmosia sp.PSC205CAN436+---1
Fabaceae CaesalpinioideaeMacrolobium multijugumPSC396CAN439--+-3
Fabaceae CaesalpinioideaeMacrolobium multijugumPSC396CAN440--+-3
CombretaceaeBuchenavia suaveolensPSC118OAN441---+3
CombretaceaeBuchenavia suaveolensPSC118OAN442---+3
CombretaceaeBuchenavia suaveolensPSC378OAN443---+3
CombretaceaeBuchenavia suaveolensPSC378OAN444---+3
HypericaceaeVismia guianensisPSC98FO e FRN446--+-3
LauraceaeOcotea cymbarumIBS5FON451--+-3
LauraceaeOcotea cymbarumIBS5FON452--+-3
SimaroubaceaeSimaba cf. paraenesisPSC131CAN459---+1
SapindaceaeToulicia cf. pulvinataPSC106CAN469+--+2
Fabaceae FaboideaeOrmosia sp.PSC135OAN471+--+0
Fabaceae FaboideaeOrmosia sp.PSC135OAN472+--+0
Fabaceae FaboideaeClathrotropis macrocarpaPSC114FON479+-+-3
Fabaceae FaboideaeClathrotropis macrocarpaPSC114FON480--+-3
AnacardiaceaeTapirira guianensisPSC107CAN489--+-3
MyrtaceaeEugenia sp.PSC99FON497--+-3
Fabaceae FaboideaeOrmosia sp.PSC116FO and FRN501+-+-3
Fabaceae FaboideaeOrmosia sp.PSC116FO and FRN502+-+-3
Fabaceae MimosoideaePithecellobium sp.PSC204FON509--+-3
CelastraceaeSalacia sp.PSC102FON525---+2
CelastraceaeSalacia sp.PSC102FON526---+1
FamilySpeciesVoucher numberOrgansExtract #Dragendorff’s reagentKOH ragentKedde's reagentedde's reDPPH
Fabaceae MimosoidaeZygia truncifloraPSC97-ACA e FON527--+-3
Fabaceae FaboideaeDioclea malacocarpaPSC82FO e CAN533--+-3
MeliaceaeTrichilia cf. pleeanaPSC92OAN535--+-3
MeliaceaeTrichilia cf. pleeanaPSC92OAN536--+-3
Fabaceae MimosoideaePithecellobiumPSC267OAN537--+-3
SapotaceaePouteria sp.PSC126FON557---+3
SapotaceaePouteria sp.PSC126FON558---+4
-PSC109FO and CAN560+---4
Fabaceae CaesalpinioideaeCassia sp.AAO3306FON563---+4
Fabaceae CaesalpinioideaeCassia sp.AAO3306FON564---+4
ApocynaceaeMandevilla scabraAAO3354OAN569---+4
BignoniaceaePachyptera kererePSC366FO e CAN574---+3
LauraceaeEndlicheria cf. macrophyllaAAO3333FON575---+4
LauraceaeEndlicheria cf. macrophyllaAAO3333FON576---+4
RubiaceaePsychotria lupulinaAAO3298FO e CAN585+--+2
RubiaceaePsychotria lupulinaAAO3298FO e CAN586++--2
RubiaceaePsychotria lupulinaAAO3298OAN593---+1
RubiaceaePsychotria lupulinaAAO3298OAN594+---2
BignoniaceaeAmphilophium mansoanumPSC402FO and CAN595+---3
CelastraceaeSalacia sp.PSC102CAN600+---2
RutaceaeZanthoxylum compactumAAO3299CAN631++-+1
Fabaceae FaboideaeSwartzia macrocarpaAAO3347FON643+---2
Fabaceae FaboideaeSwartzia macrocarpaAAO3347FON644+---2
CapparaceaeCapparidastrum solumIBS2CAN647+---2
CapparaceaeCapparidastrum solumIBS2CAN648+---0
AnnonaceaeGuatteria foliosaAAO3328CAN655+---3
ApocynaceaeMacoubea spruceiAAO3373FRN657+-+-3
PrimulaceaeCybianthus spicatusAAO3350FRN660---+2
ChrysobalanaceaeLicania sp.PSC89OAN661---+3
ChrysobalanaceaeLicania sp.PSC89OAN662---+2
Fabaceae CaesalpinioideaeHymenaea courbarilAAO3356FON665--+-3
ClusiaceaeClusia columnarisAAO3357PON667--+-3
ApocynaceaeMacoubea spruceiAAO3406FON676--+-2
DilleniaceaeTetracera tiguareaAAO3361LIN677---+3
FamilySpeciesVoucher numberOrgansExtract #Dragendorff’s reagentKOH ragentKedde's reagentedde's reDPPH
GentianaceaeCoutoubea ramosaAAO3340PLN679--+-2
GentianaceaeCoutoubea ramosaAAO3340PLN680--+-2
EbenaceaeDiospyros guianensisAAO3362FON681---+1
Fabaceae CaesalpinioideaeHymenaea courbarilAAO3356CAN687--+-4
Fabaceae CaesalpinioideaeHymenaea courbarilAAO3356CAN688--+-4
Fabaceae MimosoideaeAbarema auriculataAAO3353CAN689+--+4
AnnonaceaeAnnona sericeaAAO3405OAN695--+-3
ApocynaceaeMacoubea spruceiAAO3402CAN697++-+3
ApocynaceaeMacoubea spruceiAAO3402CAN698---+2
ChrysobalanaceaeLicania lataAAO3348CAN699+--+3
ChrysobalanaceaeLicania lataAAO3348CAN700---+2
PrimulaceaeCybianthus spicatusAAO3350CAN701---+3
PrimulaceaeCybianthus spicatusAAO3350CAN702---+4
MalpighiaceaeBurdachia sp.PSC405OAN703---+3
MalpighiaceaeBurdachia sp.PSC405OAN704---+2
ApocynaceaeMesechites trifidusAAO3385OAN706---+2
ApocynaceaeForsteronia laurifoliaAAO3400FO e CAN707--++3
ApocynaceaeForsteronia laurifoliaAAO3400FO e CAN708--++4
CombretaceaeBuchenavia sp.AAO3379FO e CAN712----3
OlacaceaeHeisteria spruceanaAAO3390OAN713+---3
OlacaceaeHeisteria spruceanaAAO3390OAN714---+3
EuphorbiaceaeCroton cuneatusAAO3382FO e CAN721--+-3
EuphorbiaceaeCroton cuneatusAAO3382FO e CAN722--+-3
ConvolvulaceaeMaripa repensAAO3384OAN723+---3
ApocynaceaeHimatanthus attenuatusAAO3396CAN729---+3
ApocynaceaeMicroplumeria anomalaAAO3393FON735+---2
ApocynaceaeMicroplumeria anomalaAAO3393FON736+---2
Fabaceae FaboideaePterocarpus santalinoidesAAO3429OAN749-+--2
ClusiaceaeGarcinia madrunoAAO3422FON751+---2
ApocynaceaeHimatanthus attenuatusAAO3396FON771---+2
ApocynaceaeHimatanthus attenuatusAAO3396FON772---+1
PiperaceaePiper arboreumAAO3454OAN783+---3
SolanaceaeBrunfelsia cf. paucifloraAAO3466PLN795+--+2
Fabaceae FaboideaeDegelia negrensisPSC133FO e CAN808--+-2
FamilySpeciesVoucher numberOrgansExtract #Dragendorff’s reagentKOH ragentKedde's reagentedde's reDPPH
AnnonaceaeUnonopsis stipitataAAO3449FON817+---3
AnnonaceaeUnonopsis stipitataAAO3449FON818+---3
ClusiaceaeClusia spathulaefoliaAAO3407CAN823+---2
RubiaceaePagamea coriaceaAAO3488FON857-+-+2
RubiaceaePagamea coriaceaAAO3488FON858---+2
LauraceaeOcotea cymbarumAAO3525FO e FRN860-+--3
Fabaceae FaboideaeTaralea sp.AAO3501LIN861---+4
RubiaceaePagamea coriaceaAAO3488CAN881---+2
AsteraceaePiptocarpha notataAAO3455OAN891---+3
RubiaceaePsychotria amplectansAAO3494OAN897----2
ChrysobalanaceaeHirtella rodriguesiiAAO3497CAN905+--+2
RhizophoraceaeCassiporea guianensisAAO3512OAN907---+2
RhizophoraceaeCassiporea guianensisAAO3512OAN908---+2
ApocynaceaeAmbelania acidaAAO3510FON910--+-2
ChrysobalanaceaeLicania lataAAO3513OAN911---+3
Fabaceae FaboideaeDalbergia riedeliiAAO3514OAN915--+-4
RubiaceaeWarszewiczia coccineaAAO3500CAN917+--+2
RubiaceaePsychotria amplectansAAO3494RAN921---+1

Moreover, 860 of 895 plant extracts showed radical scavenge (RS) activity in DPPH assay (Table 1), and astonishingly, it represents 96.09% of the tested extracts. Only 35 extracts showed absence of RS activity in the present assay, from those 25 were organic (71.42%) and ten were aqueous (28.57%). Although not possible to be quantified by the adopted TLC method, the level of RS activity of the extracts received scored so as to conduct chi-square analyses. So, 169 out of 860 (19.65%) plant extracts showed strong (++++) RS activity, while 325 (37.79%) showed a very good (+++) RS activity, 229 (26.62%) showed a good (++) RS activity and 137 (15.93%) showed weak (+) RS activity (Figure 1). Among the strong RS extracts scored with (++++), 78 (46.15%) of them are organic extracts and 91 (53.85%) are aqueous extracts. Among the extracts scored with (+++), 206 (63.38%) are organic extracts and 119 (36.62%) are aqueous extracts. Among the extracts scored with (++), 94 (41.05%) are organic extracts, while 135 (58.95%) are aqueous extracts. Finally, among the extracts scored with (+), 47 (34.31%) are organic extracts, and 90 (65.69%) are aqueous extracts. It was possible to observe that the 860 plant extracts with RS activity was split into two groups of 425 organic extracts (49.42%) and 435 AE (50.58%) each. It was also observed that the group of active extracts that has been tested in the present work showed important RS activity, for their responsiveness was mostly scored as (++++) or (+++) (Figure 1).

Table 2 shows χ2 analyses based on the scores obtained in the antioxidant and in the radical scavenge analyses. The null hypothesis (H0) represents the equality of radical scavenge activity in both organic and aqueous. Pearson’s χ2 test was performed for both organic and aqueous extracts, and the hypothesis H0, that both extracts would have an equal distribution of (1) activity and (2) no activity in the β-carotene/bleaching assay (χ2 (1) = 831.40, p = 0.05; quantiles of the χ2 distribution with degrees of freedom [df] =1 and α = 5% were 3.84), indicating that hypothesis H0 could be rejected; so both extracts did not behaved the same. Pearson’s χ2 analysis was performed for both organic and aqueous extracts, showing that although the hypothesis was that both extracts would show an equal distribution of activity and no activity in the DPPH assay, a significant difference was found between these types of extracts (χ2(4) = 527.53, p < 0.05; quantiles of the χ2 distribution with df = 1 and α = 5% were 9.49), indicating that hypothesis H0 could be rejected, meaning that the organic and aqueous extracts behaved differently, and the organic extracts were more likely to present free radical scavenging activity than the aqueous extracts.

Table 2

Contingency table related to Pearson’s χ2 test conducted with plant extracts submitted to the evaluation of antioxidant activity in the β-carotene assay and to the DPPH free radical scavenging assay.

β-carotene assayDPPH assay
negativepositiveTotalExtract01+2+3+4+
39951450Organic25479420678
41926445Aqueous109013511991
81877895Total35137229325169

Seventy three plant extracts, or 8.16%, presented alkaloids (Table 2). According to a chemosystematic approach, some groups of plants are more likely to biosynthesize alkaloids. So, in the present work alkaloids were found in the following families, which has been shown to present this class of compounds as cited: Annonaceae, Apocynaceae, Bignoniaceae, Capparidaceae, Chrysobalanaceae, Clusiaceae, Convolvulaceae, Euphorbiaceae, Celastraceae, Lauraceae, Fabaceae, Olacaceae, Piperaceae, Rubiaceae, Rutaceae, Sapindaceae and Solanaceae.

Eight (0.89%) plant extracts obtained from plants of the families Apocynaceae, Capparidaceae, Lauraceae, Fabaceae, Rubiaceae and Rutaceae, showed positive reactivity to KOH reagent, indicating the presence of anthraquinones (Table 2), which has been shown to present this class of compounds as cited.

Lastly, 35 (3.89%) plant extracts obtained from plants of the families Anacardiaceae, Apocynaceae, Clusiaceae (including Vismia - Hypericaceae), Combretaceae, Euphorbiaceae, Gentianaceae, Lauraceae, Fabaceae (subfamily Caesalpinioideae), Fabaceae (subf. Faboideae), Fabaceae (subf. Mimosoideae), Meliaceae and Myrtaceae that showed positive reaction to Kedde’s reactive, indicating the possible presence of cardenolides (Table 2), which has been shown to present this class of compounds as cited.

DISCUSSION

The search for new medicines from natural sources has developed rapidly in the last half century due to the introduction of high-throughput biological and phytochemical screening assays that enabled analyses of large amounts of samples bypassing traditional time-consuming techniques.14 In the present work, plant extracts were obtained from Brazilian plants. The collection strategy was based on chemotaxonomic approach, as well as an eventual collection of a random species, especially if they were in the reproductive phenophase. As a general rule, plants used in traditional medicine were not our main target, but eventually they were collected in the field. Also, plant parts can vary in terms of their chemical constituents, and for that reason, collecting different organs of the same plant was done in order to obtain a significant amount of the chemical substances produced by the plant. Collection of terra firme trees are hard to perform as it depends on safety equipments and training in climbing techniques, so it is likely to have aerial parts being collected, once trees canopies can eventually reach 50 m tall. For that reason, aerial parts have been collected for trees. Also, in terms of ethics in accessing the Brazilian genetic patrimony, collections have to be performed in order to keep physiology of the plant as functional as possible, so, a limited portion of each plant material was collected, rarely the roots of the plants.

The Amazon rain forest, one of the tropical rain forests located in Brazil, is under the constant influence of sun radiation all the year around, in contrast, temperate forests perceivethe clear temperature change depending on seasonality. Also, there is an elevated amount of precipitation in tropical forests. As a result, such climate conditions favours a warm and umid climate that prepossess the occurrence of high levels of biodiversity, including all organisms, particularly the plants. It is expected that the constant high levels of sunlight irradiation, including UV wavelengths, particularly UV-B, may produce free radicals within the plant tissues, and in a direct response to this phenomenon the plant organism is stimulated to produce more enzimes related to the production of specific secondary metabolites, as phenolic compounds and flavonoids to work as antioxidant molecules protecting noble molecules as DNA, RNA and lipoproteins.18 For that reason, the Amazon rain forest is one of the main spots on the planet where chemical and biological screening programs are the easiest and cheap ways of identifying plants as a potential source of new medicines. The present work reports the chemical screening of 895 plant extracts aiming the identification of their antioxidant potential, as well as to look for alkaloids, quinones19-20 and cardenolides derivatives,21 which are compounds already related to antioxidant activity.

wo chi-square (χ2) analyses were performed to evaluate the occurrence of antioxidant and radical scavenge activities in both groups of organic and aqueous extracts. The H0 was considered as the equal distribution of antioxidant activity or radical scavenge activity in both organic and aqueous extracts. As our results for antioxidant ((χ2(1) = 8.58, p = 0.05; quantiles of the χ2 distribution with degrees of freedom [df] =1 and α = 5% were 3.84) and radical scavenge activities ((χ2(4) = 51.53, p < 0.05; quantiles of the χ2 distribution with df = 4 and α = 5% were 9.49) respectively, and when such results are compared to given quantiles (χ2 = 3.84 and 9.49 respectively, for df = 1 and 4 respectively, and α=0.05% for both analyses), it is easily noticed that the nule hypothesis can not be confirmed, and we can state that the occurrence of antioxidant and radical scavenge activities are different between organic and aqueous extracts. The present findings suggest that plant extracts made with organic solvents are more likely to present a wide range of possible antioxidant and radical scavenging active compounds, and are in accordance with previous results,22 who evaluated the effect of the use of methanol, ethanol and water in different compositions to extract phenolic compounds from plants and compared the efficacy of these extracts in antioxidant and radical scavenge in vitro models.

In the present work, TLC techniques were adopted. Despite limitations of TLC assays being applied to screen for antioxidant and to prospect for the presence of phytochemicals, it is easily established in any laboratory and is approved by the World Health Organization for the quality control of plant-derived drugs.

Alkaloids is a group of substances that can exert antioxidant properties, depending on the presence of a phenolic ring in their structure.23 In our report, we have found that 8.16% of the tested extracts contained alkaloids, mostly observed in Fabaceae and Apocynaceae, although their occurrence in Annonaceae and in Rubiaceae was somewhat expressive. From the 73 alkaloidic extracts only four did not show radical scavenge activity, but three of them have shown β-carotene/bleaching response. According to our results, families showing alkaloids can indeed be considered as a target group to undergo antioxidant and chemical screening of molecules to be tested in biological screening,

Anthraquinones were found in a few plant extracts belonging to Apocynacae, Lauraceae, Fabaceae, Rubiaceae and Rutaceae. All the extracts have also shown a good radical scavenge activity. Cardenolides were found mainly in the extracts that belong to Fabaceae, followed by the extracts belonging to Apocynaceae. These extracts have also shown significant radical scavenge activity. A β-carotene/bleaching response was found in 77 plant extracts. Eighteen extracts belong to Apocynaceae, and have also showed an expressive radical scavenge activity.

CONCLUSION

Present findings described that Amazon plant extracts have a huge potential to be a source of antioxidant compounds to be used in preventive medicine, as well as the chemical screening revealed that their plants can be strategically assessed as a source of alkaloids to be tested in further biological assays, both aiming treatment and prevention of diseases.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

The authors thank Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo – FAPESP for grant #2008/58706-8.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

All authors have none to declare.

ABBREVIATIONS

TLC

Thin Layer hromatography

DPPH

2,2-diphenyl-1-picrylhydrazyl; KOH: potassium hydroxide

DCM

dichloromethane

MeOH

methanol

mg

milligram(s); mLmilliliter(s)

IBAMA

Instituto Brasileiro do Meio Ambiente e dos Recursos Naturais Renováveis

MMA

Ministério do Meio Ambiente

ICMBio

Instituto Chico Mendes de Conservação da Biodiversidade

CGen

Conselho de Gestão do Patrimônio Genético

v/v

volume/volume

UNIP

Universidade Paulista

RS

radical scavenge

df

degrees of freedom

RA

roots

CA

stem

FO

leaves

CS

stem bark

FR

fruits

UV

ultraviolet ray

UVB

ultraviolet-B ray

DNA

desoxyribonucleic acid

RNA

ribonucleic acid.

REFERENCES

1. 

Bimonte S, Barbieri A, Leongito M, Piccirillo M, Giudice A, Pivonello C , authors. et al. Curcumin AntiCancer Studies in Pancreatic Cancer. Nutrients. 2016;8(7):E433

2. 

Goozee KG, Shah TM, Sohrabi HR, Rainey-Smith SR, Brown B, Verdile G , authors. et al. Examining the potential clinical value of curcumin in the prevention and diagnosis of Alzheimer’s disease. Br J Nutr. 2016;115(3):449–65

3. 

Martins FJ, Caneschi CA, Vieira JL, Barbosa W, Raposo NR , authors. Antioxidant activity and potential photoprotective from amazon native flora extracts. J Photochem Photobiol B. 2016;161:34–9

4. 

Alviano WS, Alviano DS, Diniz CG, Antoniolli AR, Alviano CS, Farias LM, et al. , authors. In vitro antioxidant potential of medicinal plant extracts and their activities against oral bacteria based on Brazilian folk medicine. Arch Oral Biol. 2008;53(6):545–52

5. 

Turner IM , author. The Ecology of Trees in the Tropical Rain Forest. Cambridge University Press; Cambridge, UK: 2001

6. 

Ramesha BT, Gertsch J, Ravikanth G, Priti V, Ganeshaiah KN, Uma Shaanker R , authors. Biodiversity and chemodiversity: future perspectives in bioprospecting. Curr Drug Targets. 2011;12(11):1515–30

7. 

De Luca V, Salim V, Atsumi SM, Yu F , authors. Mining the biodiversity of plants: a revolution in the making. Science. 2012;336(6089):1658–61

8. 

Camargo LRP, Suffredini IB , authors. Atividade anti-Escherichia coli de extratos de plantas brasileiras. Novas tendências em pesquisa veterinária. Arq Bras Med Vet Zootec. 2014;66(2):617–20

9. 

Cunha MPV, Alves Neto AF, Suffredini IB, Abel LJC , authors. Avaliação da atividade anti-helmíntica de extratos brutos de plantas da Floresta Amazônica e Mata Atlântica brasileira sobre Haemonchus contortus. Arq Bras Med Vet Zootec. 2014;66(2):374–80

10. 

Silva JPC, Castilho AL, Saraceni CHC, Diaz IEC, Paciencia MLB, Varella AD , authors. et al. Anti-Streptococcal activity of Brazilian Amazon Rain Forest plant extracts present discloses a potential to preventive strategies against dental caries. J Appl Oral Sci. 2014;22(2):91–7

11. 

Barrella GE, Suffredini IB, Ribeiro FV, Cirano FR, Pimentel SP , authors. Evaluation of the effect of the organic extract obtained from Ipomoea alba L. on experimental periodontitis. Braz Oral Res. 2012;2(2):158–64

12. 

Estork DM, Gusmão DF, Paciencia MLB, Díaz IEC, Varella AD, Younes RN , authors. et al. First chemical and toxicological evaluation of Casinga-cheirosa in Balb-c male mice. Molecules. 2014;19(4):3973–87

13. 

Estork DM, Gusmão DF, Paciencia MLB, Frana SF, Díaz IEC, Varella AD , authors. et al. Casinga-cheirosa organic extract impairment over Balb-c male mice behavioral phenotype. Rev Bras Farmacogn. 2016;26(2):216–24

14. 

Gusmão DF, Estork DM, Paciencia MLB, Díaz IEC, Suffredini IB, Varella AD , authors. et al. Influence of the intraperitoneal administration of antitumor Abarema auriculata extract on mice behavior. Rev Bras Farmacogn. 2013a;23(6):903–12

15. 

Gusmão DF, Estork DM, Paciencia MLB, Diaz IEC, Frana SA, Rodrigues PA , authors. et al. Preliminary evaluation of the acute toxicity related to Abarema auriculata to mice and investigation of cytotoxicity of isolated flavonones. Pharmacologyonline (Salerno). 2013b;1:113–27

16. 

Ozi JM, Suffredini IB, Paciencia M, Frana SA, Dib LL , authors. In vitro cytotoxic effects of Brazilian plant extracts on squamous cell carcinoma of the oral cavity. Braz Oral Res. 2011;25(6):519–25

17. 

Wagner H, Bladt S , authors. Plant drug analysis. 2. Berlin: Springer Verlag; 1996

18. 

Suffredini IB, Paciencia MLB, Frana SA, Varella AD, Younes RN , authors. In vitro breast cancer cell lethality by Brazilian plant extracts. Pharmazie. 2007;62(10):798–800

19. 

Younes RN, Varella AD, Suffredini IB , authors. Discovery of new antitumoral and antibacterial drugs from Brazilian plant extracts using high throughput screening. Clinics (São Paulo). 2007;62(6):763–8

20. 

Pratt DE, Miller EE , authors. A flavonoid antioxidant in Spanish peanuts (Arachia hypogoea). JAOCS. 1984;61(6):1064–7

21. 

Filho HS, Pacheco LC, Andrade ES, Correa MJ, Araújo RN, Guilhon GM , authors. et al. Xanthones from the roots of Moutabea guianensis Aubl. Molecules. 2014;20(1):127–34

22. 

Zar JH , author. Biostatistical Analysis. 5. New Jersey: Pearson Prentice Hall; 2010. p. 944

23. 

Mewis I, Schreiner M, Nguyen CN , authors. UV-B irradiation changes specifically the secondary metabolite profile of broccoli sprouts: induced signaling overlaps with defense to biotic stressors. Plant and Cell Physiol. 2012;53(9):1546–60

24. 

Farag M, Abdel-Mageed WM, Basudan O, El-Gamal A, Persicaline , authors. A New Antioxidant Sulphur-Containing Imidazoline Alkaloid from Salvadora persica Roots. Molecules. 2018;23(2):E483

25. 

Jeremic S, Amic A, Stanojevic-Pirkovic M, Markovic Z , authors. Selected anthraquinones as potential free radical scavengers and P-glycoprotein inhibitors. Org Biomol Chem. 2018;16(11):1890–902

26. 

Silva LND, Pessoa MTC, Alves SLG, Venugopal J, Cortes VF, Santos HL , authors. et al. Differences of lipid membrane modulation and oxidative stress by digoxin and 21-benzylidene digoxin. Exp Cell Res. 2017;359(1):291–8

27. 

Sultana B, Anwar F, Ashraf M , authors. Effect of Extraction Solvent/Technique on the Antioxidant Activity of Selected Medicinal Plant Extracts. Molecules. 2009;14(6):2167–80

28. 

Zahari A, Ablat A, Omer N, Nafiah MA, Sivasothy Y, Mohamad J , authors. et al. Ultraviolet-visible study on acid-base equilibria of aporphine alkaloids with antiplasmodial and antioxidant activities from Alseodaphne corneri and Dehaasia longipedicellata. Sci Rep. 2016;6:21517

GRAPHICAL ABSTRACT

https://s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/jourdata/fra/FreeRadAntiox-8-2-120-g002.jpg

SUMMARY

- 895 Brazilian Amazon aqueous and organic plant extracts were evaluated by their free radical scavenging and antioxidant activities;-plants were also evaluated for the presence of alkaloids, cardenolides and anthraquinones;-present findings described that Amazon plant extracts have a huge potential to be a source of antioxidant compounds and a source of alkaloids to be tested in further biological assays.

ABOUT AUTHORS

https://s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/jourdata/fra/FreeRadAntiox-8-2-120-g003.jpg

MsC Lucyana C. Marin, Universidade Paulista – UNIP, São Paulo, Brazil

https://s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/jourdata/fra/FreeRadAntiox-8-2-120-g004.jpg

MsC Ellen C.M. Cavarsan, Universidade Paulista – UNIP, São Paulo, Brazil

https://s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/jourdata/fra/FreeRadAntiox-8-2-120-g005.jpg

Dr. Ingrit E.C. Días, Universidad Nacional de Ingeniería, Lima, Peru

https://s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/jourdata/fra/FreeRadAntiox-8-2-120-g006.jpg

Dr. Mateus L. B. Paciencia, Universidade Paulista – UNIP, São Paulo, Brazil

https://s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/jourdata/fra/FreeRadAntiox-8-2-120-g007.jpg

Mr. Sergio A. Frana, Universidade Paulista – UNIP, São Paulo, Brazil

https://s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/jourdata/fra/FreeRadAntiox-8-2-120-g008.jpg

Dr. Ivana B. Suffredini, Universidade Paulista – UNIP, São Paulo, Brazil