4.6 Article

Polyphenols Content, Antioxidant Activity, and Cytotoxicity Assessment of Taraxacum officinale Extracts Prepared through the Micelle-Mediated Extraction Method

期刊

MOLECULES
卷 24, 期 6, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/molecules24061025

关键词

antioxidants; cytotoxicity; micelle-mediated extraction; xCELLigence system; UHPLC-MS; MS

资金

  1. National Reference Laboratory for Pesticides of the University of Veterinary Medicine and Pharmacy in Kosice
  2. project VEGA [1/0408/17]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This experiment was conducted with extracts prepared from dandelion (Taraxacum officinale F. H. Wigg) leaves and flowers, using the micelle-mediated extraction method, with the surface active compound Triton X-100 and water-acetone as the extraction solvents. Extracts were, first, examined for the content of total phenols and the antioxidant capacity. All extracts showed good anti-radical properties, especially for leaves, in comparison to the flower samples. Flavonoids (mainly luteolin derivatives) and phenolic acids, predominated among the determined polyphenols. Quantitative analyses indicated acetone extract to be the richest in phenols (up to 0.535 mg/mL), in the case of dandelion leaves, and Triton X-100 extract in the case of flowers (0.385 mg/mL). Extracts were also evaluated for cytotoxicity to the model cell line (epithelial rabbit kidney cells RK13), using the colorimetric 3-[4,5-dimethylthiazole-2-yl]-2,5-diphenyltetrazolium bromide (MTT) test and the real-time cell analysis method ((RTCA); xCELLigence system). The obtained results indicated that surfactants, especially non-ionic ones, can be effectively used as modifiers in the aqueous extraction of phenolic compounds from plant materials. An advantage over the traditional organic solvents is their non-flammability. Furthermore, surfactants might also be used at low concentrations. Studies on cell lines, however, indicated the cytotoxic effect of this type of compound, even in the trace amounts present in the extracts.

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

4.6
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