Next Article in Journal
Root Foraging Capacity in Bambara Groundnut (Vigna Subterranea (L.) Verdc.) Core Parental Lines Depends on the Root System Architecture during the Pre-Flowering Stage
Next Article in Special Issue
Ethnobotany, Phytochemistry and Pharmacological Activity of Kigelia africana (Lam.) Benth. (Bignoniaceae)
Previous Article in Journal
Phenotypic Examination of Camelina sativa (L.) Crantz Accessions from the USDA-ARS National Genetics Resource Program
Previous Article in Special Issue
Pomegranate as a Potential Alternative of Pain Management: A Review
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Plants
Volume 9
Issue 5
10.3390/plants9050646
plants-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Phytochemical Analysis and Biological Investigation of Nepeta juncea Benth. Different Extracts

by
Majid Sharifi-Rad
1,*,
Francesco Epifano
2,
Serena Fiorito
2 and
José M. Álvarez-Suarez
3,4,*
1
Department of Range and Watershed Management, Faculty of Water and Soil, University of Zabol, Zabol 98613-35856, Iran
2
Dipartimento di Farmacia, Università “Gabriele d’Annunzio” Chieti-Pescara, Via dei Vestini 31, 66100 Chieti Scalo (CH), Italy
3
King Fahd Medical Research Center, King Abdulaziz University, Jeddah 21589, Saudi Arabia
4
Grupo de Investigación en Biotecnología Aplicada a Biomedicina (BIOMED). Universidad de Las Américas, Quito 170125, Ecuador
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Plants 2020, 9(5), 646; https://doi.org/10.3390/plants9050646
Submission received: 14 April 2020 / Revised: 10 May 2020 / Accepted: 12 May 2020 / Published: 19 May 2020
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Medicinal Plants)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
This study was carried out to screen the amount and the classes of secondary metabolites and to evaluate the antioxidant, cytotoxic, antifungal, and antibacterial activities of the methanolic, ethanolic, and water extracts of the roots, leaves, and flowers of Nepeta juncea Benth. The results show that the highest total phenol (69.54 ± 0.31 mg gallic acid equivalents (GAE)/g dry weight), total flavonoid (41.37 ± 0.17 mg quercetin equivalents (QE)/g dry weight), anthocyanin (6.52 ± 0.21 mg cyanidin/100 g dry weight), and tannin (47.36 ± 0.33 mg catechin/g dry weight) concentrations were recorded in the methanolic extract of the leaves of N. juncea. The gas chromatography–mass spectrometry (GC–MS) analysis of the extracts showed that 1,8-cineole, 4aα-7α-7aα-nepetalactone, β-pinene, terpinen-4-ol, and α-terpineol were the major compounds, respectively. The best 2, 2-diphenyl-1-picrylhydrazyl (DPPH) radical scavenging and ferric-reducing antioxidant, cytotoxic, antifungal, and antibacterial activities were observed for the methanolic extract of the leaves. For the two latter activities, the best activity was revealed on Staphylococcus aureus, Bacillus cereus, and Candida albicans. The minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) values for the antimicrobial of the methanolic extract from the leaves were in the range of 25–100 µg/mL, whereas the minimum bactericidal concentration (MBC) values were in the range of 50–200 µg/mL. The results reported herein show that, for the first time in the literature, N. juncea is a remarkable source of antioxidant, antifungal, and antibacterial compounds.

1. Introduction

Plants have represented an important source of bioactive compounds (e.g., phenolics, terpenoids, aromatic components, essential oils, sterols, alkaloids, polysaccharides, tannins, and anthocyanin) for centuries [1,2]. Natural compounds play a significant role in drug discovery and in the development of novel therapeutic entities [3]. In recent decades, much attention has been paid to investigating the antioxidant and antibacterial activities of medicinal plants [4,5,6]. It has been proven that the antioxidant properties of medicinal plant products are mainly attributed to the above-mentioned phytochemicals [7]. These natural antioxidants prevent the destructive effects induced by oxidative stress of reactive oxygen species (ROS) [8,9], which are well known to be implicated in aging [10] and many acute and chronic diseases such as diabetes [11], cancer [12], and neurodegenerative disorders [13]. On the other hand, bacterial resistance to synthetic and semi-synthetic antibiotics is a rapidly increasing problem [14]. In addition, these antibiotics cause different adverse drug reactions such as immuno-suppression and hypersensitivity [15]. To overcome this problem, it is vital to find new antimicrobial agents that are not only able to suppress bacterial infections but are also able to have a long-lasting effect by boosting immune functions [16,17]. Likewise, multidrug drug resistance of cancer cells can lead to chemotherapy failure during the course of cancer treatment [18]. Thus, the use of phytotherapeutics is a promising anticancer method with fewer side effects than conventional medicines and is also an interesting strategy to prevent contaminations and infections in medicine and food products [19].
Candidiasis is the most common fungal infection. Candida glabrata and Candida albicans are two species that are usually implicated in the clinical picture. The candidiasis spectrum is vast, from mild symptoms such as the colonization of mucosal tissue to systemic pictures, with the invasion of various organs [20]. These yeasts are common microbiota and can become pathogenic in cases such as acquired or congenital immunodeficiency and immunosuppression due to severe stress [21]. Many extract types have been extensively studied in search of alternative therapies to combat these infections, e.g., Mentha longifolia (L.) Huds. [22], Malva sylvestris L. and Psidium guajava L. [23], and Satureja intermedia C.A.Mey [19].
The Nepeta genus is widely used in traditional medicine and is commonly applied for its anti-Alzheimer, anti-seizure, anti-nociceptive, memory enhancing, neuroprotective, antidepressant, and anti-infective effects in Iranian folk medicine [24]. It belongs to the Lamiaceae family, subfamily Nepetoideae, tribe Mentheae. Nepeta species are widely distributed across North America, Europe, Africa, and Asia; about 76 species of the genus Nepeta are found in Iran and Turkey, 58 in Pakistan, and 35 species in Western Himalaya [24]. Many biological activities have been reported for Nepeta spp., such as antioxidant, antibacterial, antifungal, anti-inflammatory, insecticidal, analgesic, and antidepressant activities, among others [24,25]. According to the phytochemical composition, this genus can be considered as two groups: the first group contains a high percentage of nepetalactone and its isomers, and, in the second group, 1,8-cineole and/or linalool are the main compounds [26]. Nepetalactones are the main compound (50–95%) in N. cataria, N. caesarea, N. racemosa, N. argolica, N. sibirica, N. elliptica, N. x faasenii, N. rtanjensis, N. meyeri, N. nepetella, N. saccharata, N. coerulea, and N. parnassica. A medium percentage of the nepetalactones (14–50%) is reported for N. betonicifolia, N. grandiflora, N. spruneri, N. persica and N. crispa. Finally, there are species that have minor percentage of the nepetalactones (0.5–7%) such as N. pogonosperma, N. leucolaena, and N. sulfuriflora. In these species, 1,8-cineole is the main compound [24]. N. cataria is one of the most investigated species of this genus, the results of which confirm its traditional applications [24]. Recent studies have reported promising activities for the Nepeta binaludensis Jamzad and Nepeta satureioides Boiss extracts, e.g., inhibition of melanogenesis and antioxidant activity [24,27]. The main purpose of this study was to investigate the phytochemical composition and to assess the antioxidant, cytotoxic, antifungal, and antibacterial activities of the methanolic, ethanolic, and water extracts of the roots, leaves, and flowers of N. juncea Benth. To the best of our knowledge, there are no systematic studies on the in vitro antioxidant, cytotoxic, antifungal, and antibacterial activities of N. juncea Benth.

2. Results and Discussion

2.1. Total Phenol Concentration

The results of the total phenolic content determination of the N. juncea extracts are shown in Table 1. In all of the extracts, the total phenolic content was higher in the leaves extracts than in those from the roots and flowers. The highest content of total phenol was measured in the methanolic extract for each part of N. juncea, followed by the ethanol and water extracts, respectively. The methanolic extract of the leaves had the highest value of total phenol content (69.54 ± 0.31 mg gallic acid equivalents (GAE)/g dry weight), and the lowest total phenolic content (13.46 ± 0.26 mg GAE/g dry weight) was observed in the water extract of the roots. The variation in the total phenolic content in the different extracts is related to the different solubility of the phenolic compounds; this change in solubility may be driven by the polarity of the solvent [28]. This is in line with the results of previous literature showing how methanol behaves as a better extraction solvent for phenolic compounds [29,30].

2.2. Total Flavonoid Concentration

The results of the total flavonoid content determination of the N. juncea extracts are shown in Table 1. The methanolic extract of the leaves showed higher values of flavonoid content (41.37 ± 0.17 mg quercetin equivalents (QE)/g dry weight) than the other extracts under investigation. On the contrary, the flavonoid concentration of the water extract of the roots was the lowest (5.23 ± 0.35 mg QE/g dry weight).

2.3. Total Anthocyanin Concentration

As shown in Table 1, the maximum total anthocyanin content (6.52 ± 0.21 mg cyanidin/100 g dry weight) was observed in the methanolic extract of the leaves, and the minimum (1.51 ± 0.14 mg cyanidin/100 g dry weight) was recorded in the ethanolic extract of the roots. Comparing the solvents, the anthocyanin concentration followed the order of methanol > water > ethanol, meaning that methanol is the best solvent for anthocyanin extraction from N. juncea. This result is in accordance with previous findings [31,32].

2.4. Total Tannin Concentration

The results of the total tannin content determination of the N. juncea extracts are shown in Table 1. Among the three extracts, the methanolic extract of the leaves showed the maximum tannin content (47.36 ± 0.33 mg catechin/g dry weight), and the ethanolic extract of the roots showed the minimum tannin content (10.21 ± 0.26 mg catechin/g dry weight). It is reported that the yields of extraction increase with the polarity of the solvent [33]; accordingly, maximum extraction yields are usually achieved using methanol or water as a solvent [34]. Comparing the different plant parts, the tannin content followed the order of leaves > flowers > roots for each solvent.

2.5. Gas Chromatography–Mass Spectrometry Analysis

The chemical composition of the N. juncea extracts is shown in Table 2. The main constituents were 1,8-Cineole, 4aα-7α-7aα-Nepetalactone, β-Pinene, Terpinen-4-ol, and α-Terpineol, respectively (Figure 1). Several reports have described the antioxidant and the antimicrobial activities of these compounds [35,36,37,38]. Shafaghat and Khodamali [37] analyzed the leaf oil of N. persica, in which 4aβ,7α,7aβ-Nepetalactone (62.3%), 4aα,7α,7aβ-Nepetalactone (28.3%), and β-ocimene (3.6%) were the major components, followed by α-pinene (1.8%). The essential oils isolated from the different parts of N. sintenisii Bornm. (i.e., flower, leaf, stem, and root) were analyzed by GC and GC–MS. 4aβ,7α,7aβ-Nepetalactone was characterized in the flower (60.3%), leaf (34.6%), stem (64.2%), and root (61.2%) as the main constituent, and the highest and lowest amounts of nepetalactone isomers were observed in the flower and root, respectively [39].

2.6. Radical Scavenging Activity

The free radical scavenging properties of the extracts were determined by the 2,2-diphenyl-1-picrylhydrazyl (DPPH) assay (Figure 2). The methanolic extract of the leaves had the maximum and the water extract of the roots had the minimum antiradical activities. It was observed that the methanolic extract of N. juncea had the highest activity, followed by the ethanolic and water extracts, respectively. For each solvent, the antioxidant activity decreased according to the following order: leaves > flowers > roots. In this study, as in many other studies [40,41], a direct relationship between antioxidant activity and total phenolic and flavonoid content was observed. The results show that the IC50 (50% inhibitory concentration) of the different extracts varied between 1.19 ± 0.03 and 2.46 ± 0.02 mg/mL.

2.7. Ferric Reducing Antioxidant Power (FRAP) Assay

Figure 3 shows the antioxidant activity of the extracts using the FRAP assay. According to the results, the methanolic extract of the leaves was the most active extract in the FRAP assay, and the water extract of the roots showed the lowest antioxidant activity. In many studies, it has been reported that there is a direct correlation between the antioxidant activity and the content of phenolics, flavonoids, anthocyanin, and tannins of plant extracts [42,43,44]. According to the results, the highest value of phenolic, flavonoid, tannin, and anthocyanin contents was recorded in the methanolic extract of the leaves.

2.8. Cytotoxicity Activity

The cytotoxicity activity results are summarized in Table 3. The N. juncea extracts exhibited a dose-dependent reduction in the survival of both cancer cells. According to the results, the methanolic extracts of N. juncea had the maximum cytotoxicity activity in both cancer cell lines, while the minimum cytotoxicity activity was observed for the water extracts. Skorić et al. [45] studied the cytotoxicity of Nepeta rtanjensis toward the HeLa, K562, A549, LS-174, and MDA-MB-231 cancer cell lines. They reported that the application of N. rtanjensis essential oil led to the emergence of morphological changes in the investigated cancer cell lines, and thus suggested that this oil may be applied as a potential anticancer therapy.

2.9. Antifungal Activity

From the results shown in Table 4, the best antifungal activity against the tested fungi was observed in the N. juncea methanolic extracts with minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) values ranging from 25 to 100 µg/mL. Candida albicans was more sensitive with an MIC value of 25, 50, and 50 µg/mL for the methanolic extracts of the leaves, flowers, and roots, respectively. The minimum fungicidal concentration (MFC) was in the range of 50–100 µg/mL for the methanolic extracts. The antifungal activities of the essential oils isolated from other Nepeta species have been reported elsewhere [46,47]. According to the results of the current study, the main compounds of the N. juncea extracts were 1,8-cineole and 4aα-7α-7aα-Nepetalactone. Regarding previous studies, these compounds could be considered as the active components responsible for the extracts’ antifungal activities [48,49].

2.10. Antibacterial Activity

Determination of the Minimum Inhibitory Concentration (MIC) and the Minimum Bactericidal Concentration (MBC)

The results in Table 5 show that the best antibacterial activity against the tested bacteria was from the N. juncea methanolic extracts with MIC values ranging from 25 to 100 µg/mL. Among them, S. aureus and B. cereus were the most sensitive bacteria with an MIC value of 25, 25, and 50 µg/mL for the methanolic extracts of the leaves, flowers, and roots, respectively. The results show that the MBC was in the range of 50–200 µg/mL for the methanolic extracts. According to the results, the extracts had lower MIC and MBC values against all tested Gram-positive bacteria compared to Gram-negative bacteria. The lower MIC and MBC values indicate the higher antibacterial activity of the extracts on the tested bacteria strains [50].

3. Materials and Methods

3.1. Preparation of the Plant Extracts

The roots, leaves, and flowers of N. juncea Benth. were collected from the Saravan rangelands, Sistan, and Baluchesrtan, Iran. The genus and species of this plant were identified at the Department of Botany, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran, where a voucher specimen (No. 842) was deposited. The different plant parts were dried in an oven at 40 °C for 72 h and then ground to a fine powder using an electric grinder (Pars Khazar, Tehran, Iran). The plant extracts were obtained by magnetic stirring of 2.5 g of powdered dry matter with 50 mL of solvent (methanol, 96% ethanol, and water) for 40 min at room temperature (24 ± 2 °C). The extracts were kept for 24 h at 4 °C, filtered through Whatman filter paper No. 1, and the filtrate evaporated to complete dryness under vacuum. A stock solution of different extracts (1 mg/mL) dissolved in methanol was used for the experiments.

3.2. Total Phenol Concentration

Total phenol concentration was determined using the Folin–Ciocalteu reagent, as described by Dewanto et al. [51]. Briefly, an aliquot of the diluted extract was added to 0.5 mL of distilled water and then completely mixed with 0.125 mL of the Folin–Ciocalteu reagent. After 3 min, 1.25 mL of 5% (w/v) of Na2CO3 was added and the resulting solution mixed thoroughly. For adjusting the final volume to 4 mL, distilled water was added. Finally, the resulting mixture was kept in darkness at room temperature for 2 h, and then the absorbance of the mixture was recorded at 760 nm using a UV-Vis spectrophotometer (UV-1800 240 V, Shimadzu Corporation, Kyoto, Japan). The total phenol value is represented as milligrams of gallic acid equivalents per gram of dry weight (mg GAE/g dry weight). A standard calibration curve was drawn at the same operating conditions using gallic acid (20–200 μg/mL, y = 0.0089x – 0.0003, R² = 0.992) as a positive control.

3.3. Total Flavonoid Concentration

The total flavonoid content was determined based on the colorimetric assay described by Chang et al. [52] with minor modifications. In summary, 0.5 mL of each extract was separately mixed with 1.5 mL of methanol, 0.1 mL of potassium acetate (1 mol/L), 0.1 mL of AlCl3 (10%), and 2.8 mL of distilled water. The resulting mixture was kept at room temperature for 30 min. The absorbance of the mixture was recorded at 415 nm by using a UV-Vis spectrophotometer. Quantitative determination of the flavonoid content was calculated as quercetin from a calibration curve. Quercetin was used as the standard (10–100 μg/mL, y = 0.0092x – 0.034, R² = 0.996), and the results are expressed as milligrams of quercetin equivalents per gram of dry weight (mg QE/g dry weight).

3.4. Total Anthocyanin Concentration

The total anthocyanin concentration was measured based on the pH differential method explained by Vega-Arroy et al. [53] with minor modifications. Ten milliliters of each extract were mixed with hydrochloric acid (1 M) or sodium hydroxide (1 M) to reach a pH of 1 or 4.5. The absorbance was recorded using a UV-Vis spectrophotometer at 520 and 700 nm. Cyanidin-3-glucoside was used as the standard (5–50 μg/mL, y = 0.0201x + 0.0168, R² = 0.991). The concentration of total anthocyanin was determined as cyanidin-3-glucoside equivalents (mg/100 g) using Equations (1) and (2):
A = (A520 nm − A700 nm) pH 1.0 − (A520 nm − A700 nm) pH 4.5
Total anthocyanin (mg/100 g) = (A × MW × DF × 1000)/ε × 1
where A is the difference in absorbance; MW (molecular weight) = 449.2 g/mol for cyanidin-3-glucoside; DF is the dilution factor; 1 = quartz cell pathway (1 cm); and ε is the molar extinction coefficient for cyanidin-3-glucoside (26,900 M−1 cm−1).

3.5. Total Tannin Concentration

The total tannin concentration was determined based on the method of Sun et al. [54]. In brief, 2 mL of vanillin solution (4%) in methanol and 1.5 mL of concentrated HCl were added to 50 μL of the diluted sample. After 25 min, the absorption of the reaction mixture was determined at 500 nm using a UV-Vis spectrophotometer. Methanol was used as the blank, and catechin was used as the standard (20–120 μg/mL, y = 0.0036x + 0.0011, R² = 0.994). The total condensed tannin content is represented as mg (+)-catechin/g dry weight.

3.6. Gas Chromatography–Mass Spectrometry Analysis

Gas chromatography–mass spectrometry analysis was carried out on a GCMS-QP2010 system (Shimadzu, Tokyo, Japan). Hexane (≥99%; Sigma–Aldrich, Germany) was used to dilute 20 μL of each extract to 1 mL. The used column was Rtx-5MS (Restek, Bellefonte, PA, USA) (30 m × 0.25 mm i.d. × 0.25 µL film thickness). The helium flow rate (99.999%; AGA Lithuania) carrier gas was adjusted at 1.23 mL/min. After injection, the temperature of the oven was retained at 40 °C for 2 min; then, it was programmed to increase by 3 °C/min until it reached 210 °C, at which time the column was retained for 10 min. The ratio of the split was 1:10. Detection was performed by 70-eV electron ionization. The compounds were identified using the mass spectra library (NIST 14) and the similarities of the mass spectra with the mass spectral data from the literature [55].

3.7. Antioxidant Activity

The antioxidant activity of the extracts was quantified as radical scavenging capacity against 2,2-diphenyl-1-picrylhydrazyl radical (DPPH) following the method of Sharifi-Rad et al. [56]. Different concentrations of extracts (5, 10, 50, and 100 μg/mL) were added to 0.5 mL of 0.2 mmol L−1 DPPH–methanol solution and left at room temperature (25 ± 2 °C) for 45 min. The absorbance of the resulting solution was recorded using a UV-Vis spectrophotometer at 517 nm. The percentage inhibition of the free radical DPPH was calculated using Equation (3).
Antioxidant Activity (%) = (Ablank – Asample/Ablank) × 100
where Ablank is the absorbance of the control (consisting of the solvent and DPPH) and Asample is the absorbance in the presence of the plant extract. Ascorbic acid solutions (5, 10, 50, and 100 μg/mL) were used as standard and the IC50 values were calculated from the percent inhibition. The results are expressed as IC50 values (e.g., the concentration of the extract required to scavenge 50% of the DPPH radical).

3.8. Ferric Reducing Antioxidant Power (FRAP) Assay

The FRAP assay was performed based on the method explained previously [57]. To prepare the FRAP reagent, 300 mM sodium acetate buffer (pH 3.6, 10 mL) was added to 20 mM iron (III) chloride (1 mL) and 10 mM TPTZ (2,4,6-tripyridyl-S-triazine) solution in 40 mM hydrochloric acid (1 mL). This reagent was used in a water bath at 37 °C. The sample (20 µL) was mixed with the FRAP reagent (150 µL). The absorbance was immediately recorded at 593 nm. The FRAP value was determined using Equation (4).
FARP value (%) = [(As − Ab) / (Ac − Ab)] × 2
where As is the absorbance of the sample; Ab is the absorbance of the blank, reacted with distilled water (20 µL) and FRAP reagent (150 µL); and Ac is the absorbance of the positive control, reacted with ascorbic acid (20 µL) and the FRAP reagent (150 µL).

3.9. Cytotoxicity Activity

3.9.1. Human Cancer Cell Lines

The human breast adenocarcinoma (MCF-7) cells (ATCC® HTB22™) and the human hepatocellular carcinoma (Hep-G2) cell line (ATCC® HB8065™) were purchased from the American Type Culture Collection (ATCC, Rockville, MD, USA). The cells were cultivated in Dulbecco’s modified Eagle’s Medium accompanied by L-glutamine (2%), HEPES (N-2-hydroxyethylpiperazine-N-2-ethane sulfonic acid) buffer, heat-inactivated fetal bovine serum (10%), and 40 μg/mL gentamicin (Sigma-Aldrich, St. Louis, MO, USA). The cells were kept at in a humidified atmosphere with CO2 (5%) at 37 °C and were sub-cultured four times a week.

3.9.2. Cytotoxicity Assay

The cytotoxicity of N. juncea extracts toward the cancer cells was investigated using the crystal violet staining method as explained previously [58]. Briefly, 96-well tissue culture microplates were used for the incubation of the cells (1 × 104 cells per well supplemented with 100 μL of growth medium). Various concentrations of the N. juncea extracts (0, 25, 50, 100, and 200 μg/mL) were added after 24 h of seeding at 37 °C. Two-fold serial dilutions of the extracts were added to confluent cell monolayers into the 96-well microtiter plates. The incubation of the plates was performed at 37 °C for 48 h in a humidified incubator with CO2 (5%). The viable cells were measured by the colorimetric method. In brief, the medium was aspirated and crystal violet solution in methanol (2% v/v) was added to each well. Afterward, 0.2 mL of glacial acetic acid–ethanol solution (1.0 mL glacial acetic acid per 100 mL 70% ethanol) was added to each well and mixed completely. The absorbance was measured using an automatic microplate reader at 595 nm. Vinblastine sulfate (0, 25, 50, 100, and 200 μg/mL) was considered as a standard anticancer drug.

3.10. Antifungal Activity

3.10.1. Strains and Media

The antifungal activity of the N. juncea extracts was evaluated on oral pathogens, including Candida albicans (ATCC 13803) and C. glabrata (ATCC 90030). The strains were cultured under constant shaking (200 rpm) at 30 °C in yeast-extract peptone dextrose (YPD) liquid medium consisting of 1% (w/v) yeast extract, 2% (w/v) peptone, and 2% (w/v) dextrose.

3.10.2. Antifungal Susceptibility Test

The antifungal susceptibility test was carried out on the strains based on the broth microdilution procedure, as explained by Quan et al. [59]. The initial concentration of fungi suspended in RPMI 1640 media (Sigma, St. Louis, MO, USA) was about 103 cells/mL, and the initial concentration of the N. juncea extracts ranged from 25 to 200 µg/mL. The wells that included fungi inoculum without any extracts were considered as negative control, and fluconazole (2–200 µg/mL) was used as a reference or positive control. The 96-well plates were incubated for 24–48 h at 35 °C. The minimum inhibitory concentrations (MICs) were determined using optical density. Finally, 100 μL of the culture from each well showing no visible growth was sub-cultured on Sabouraud dextrose agar (Merck, Darmstadt, Germany) to measure the minimum fungicidal concentrations (MFCs).

3.11. Antibacterial Activity

3.11.1. Bacterial Strain Preparation

Different American-Type Cell Culture (ATCC) reference bacterial strains, including Staphylococcus aureus (ATCC: 25923), Bacillus cereus (ATCC: 11778), Escherichia coli (ATCC: 25922), and Shigella flexneri (ATCC: 12022), were obtained from the Iranian microbial collections of the Pasteur Institute of Iran. The bacterial strains were incubated for 24 h at 37 °C on nutrient broth. All bacteria strains were adjusted to 0.5 McFarland standard by the optical density (OD) method at 620 nm (1.5 × 108 CFU/mL), as described by Sharifi-Rad et al. [60].

3.11.2. Determination of the Minimum Inhibitory Concentration (MIC)

The micro-broth dilution method was used to measure the minimum inhibitory concentrations (MICs) of the extracts against the tested bacteria, as recommended by the Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute [61]. The concentrations of the extracts considered for MICs ranged from 25 to 200 µg/mL. The test was carried out using polystyrene 96-well plates. Two-fold serial dilutions of the extracts were prepared in cation-adjusted Mueller–Hinton broth. Then, 50 µL of Mueller–Hinton broth and 50 µL of the different concentrations of the extracts were used for preparing each inoculum. The starting inoculum for each strain was 1.5 × 108 CFU/mL, and the wells that included bacterial inoculum without any extracts were considered as the control. Plates were incubated for 24 h at 37 °C. The lowest concentration of the extracts at which the microorganisms showed no visible growth was considered as the MIC.

3.11.3. Determination of the Minimum Bactericidal Concentration (MBC)

Determination of the MBC values was performed based on a method described by the Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute [61]. After 24 h of incubation, 100 μL of the culture from each well of the micro-broth test was sub-cultured on Mueller–Hinton agar plates, which were further incubated for 24 h at 37 °C. The MBC was defined as the lowest concentration of the extracts at which there was no sign of bacterial growth.

3.12. Statistical Analysis

All experiments were performed in triplicate. Data were analyzed by the statistical software package SPSS v 11.5 (IBM Corporation, Armonk, NY, USA). The analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Duncan’s multiple range methods were used to compare any significant differences between samples and solvents. The results are presented as means values ± standard deviations (SD).

4. Conclusions

The leaf extracts of N. juncea showed higher antioxidant, cytotoxic, antifungal, and antibacterial activities than the flower and root extracts, and the methanolic extracts of the leaves had the highest of these activities. This extract also showed high phenolic, flavonoid, anthocyanin, and tannin contents. It could be hypothesized that these compounds may be responsible for the extract’s biological activities. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first report on the antioxidant, cytotoxic, antifungal, and antibacterial activities of N. juncea extracts. The results of the current study confirm that N. juncea has antioxidant, cytotoxic, antifungal, and antibacterial activities and that it may be appropriate as a phytopharmaceutical ingredient.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, M.S.-R.; methodology, M.S.-R.; validation, M.S.-R.; formal analysis, M.S.-R.; investigation, M.S.-R.; resources, M.S.-R.; data curation, M.S.-R. and J.M.Á.-S.; writing—original draft preparation, M.S.-R. and J.M.Á.-S.; writing—review and editing, M.S.-R., F.E., S.F., and J.M.Á.-S.; visualization, M.S.-R.; supervision, M.S.-R. and J.M.Á.-S.; project administration, M.S.-R.; and funding acquisition, M.S.-R. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by the University of Zabol, Zabol, Iran (grant number: UOZ-GR-9618-8).

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no financial or other conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Mollica, A.; Costante, R.; Akdemir, A.; Carradori, S.; Stefanucci, A.; Macedonio, G.; Ceruso, M.; Supuran, C.T. Exploring new Probenecid-based carbonic anhydrase inhibitors: Synthesis, biological evaluation and docking studies. Bioorg. Med. Chem. 2015, 23, 5311–5318. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Picot, M.C.; Zengin, G.; Mollica, A.; Stefanucci, A.; Carradori, S.; Mahomoodally, M. In vitro and in silico studies of mangiferin from Aphloia theiformis on key enzymes linked to diabetes type 2 and associated complications. Med. Chem. 2017, 13, 633–640. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Mercy, R.; David Udo, E. Natural products as lead bases for drug discovery and development. Res. Rep. Med. Sci. 2018, 2, 1–2. [Google Scholar]
  4. Nandhakumar, E.; Indumathi, P. In vitro antioxidant activities of methanol and aqueous extract of Annona squamosa (L.) fruit pulp. J. Acupunct. Meridian Stud. 2013, 6, 142–148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  5. Embuscado, M.E. Spices and herbs: Natural sources of antioxidants–a mini review. J. Funct. Foods. 2015, 18, 811–819. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Mollica, A.; Stefanucci, A.; Macedonio, G.; Locatelli, M.; Luisi, G.; Novellino, E.; Zenginc, G. Chemical composition and biological activity of Capparis spinosa L. from Lipari Island. S. Afr. J. Bot. 2019, 120, 135–140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Altemimi, A.; Lakhssassi, N.; Baharlouei, A.; Watson, D.G.; Lightfoot, D.A. Phytochemicals: Extraction, isolation, and identification of bioactive compounds from plant extracts. Plants 2017, 6, 42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Lobo, V.; Patil, A.; Phatak, A.; Chandra, N. Free radicals, antioxidants and functional foods: Impact on human health. Pharmacogn. Rev. 2010, 4, 118–126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  9. Nimse, S.B.; Pal, D. Free radicals, natural antioxidants, and their reaction mechanisms. RSC Adv. 2015, 5, 27986. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  10. Finkel, T.; Holbrook, N.J. Oxidants, oxidative stress and the biology of ageing. Nature 2020, 408, 239–247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Maritim, A.C.; Sanders, R.A.; Watkins, J.B. Diabetes, oxidative stress, and antioxidants: A review. J. Biochem. Mol. Toxicol. 2003, 17, 24–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Klaunig, J.E.; Kamendulis, L.M. The role of oxidative stress in carcinogenesis. Annu. Rev. Pharmacol. Toxicol. 2004, 44, 239–267. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Butterfield, D.A. Amyloid beta-peptide (1-42)-induced oxidative stress and neurotoxicity: Implications for neurodegeneration in Alzheimer’s disease brain. A review. Free Radic. Res. 2002, 36, 1307–1313. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Zhivich, A. Fighting bacterial resistance: Approaches, challenges, and opportunities in the search for new antibiotics. Part 1. Antibiotics used in clinical practice: Mechanisms of action and the development of bacterial resistance. Microbiol. Indep. Res. J. 2017, 4, 31–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  15. Tsuruga, M.; Nakajima, H.; Magae, J. Immunosuppressive activity of 4-O-methylascochlorin. J. Antibiot. 2007, 60, 20–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Rojas, J.J.; Ochoa, V.J.; Ocampo, S.A.; Munoz, J.F. Screening for antimicrobial activity of ten medicinal plants used in Colombian folkloric medicine: A possible alternative in the treatment of non-nosocomial infections. BMC Complement Altern. Med. 2006, 6, 2. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  17. Naqvi, S.A.R.; Nadeem, S.; Komal, S.; Naqvi, S.A.A.; Mubarik, M.S.; Qureshi, S.Y.; Ahmad, S.; Abbas, A.; Zahid, M.; Khan, N.U.H.; et al. Antioxidants: Natural Antibiotics, 1st ed.; IntechOpen: London, UK, 2019; pp. 1–17. [Google Scholar]
  18. Mottamal, M.; Zheng, S.; Huang, T.L.; Wang, G. Histone deacetylase inhibitors in clinical studies as templates for new anticancer agents. Molecules 2015, 20, 3898–3941. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  19. Sharifi-Rad, J.; Sharifi-Rad, M.; Hoseini-Alfatemi, S.M.; Iriti, M.; Sharifi-Rad, M.; Sharifi-Rad, M. Composition, Cytotoxic and Antimicrobial Activities of Satureja intermedia C.A.Mey Essential Oil. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2015, 16, 17812–17825. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  20. Coutinho, H.D.M. Factors influencing the virulence of Candida spp. West Indian Med. J. 2009, 58, 160–163. [Google Scholar]
  21. Dignani, M.C.; Solomkin, J.S.; Anaissie, E. Candida. In Medical Mycology; Anaissie, E., McGinnis, M.R., Pfaller, M.A., Eds.; Churchill Livingstone: Philadelphia, PA, USA, 2003; pp. 195–239. [Google Scholar]
  22. Al-Bayati, F.A. Isolation and identification of antimicrobial compound from Mentha longifolia L. leaves grown wild in Iraq. Ann. Clin. Microbiol. Antimicrob. 2009, 8, 20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  23. Alves, P.M.; Queiroz, L.M.; Pereira, J.V.; Pereira Mdo, S. In vitro antimicrobial, antiadherent and antifungal activity of Brazilian medicinal plants on oral biofilm microorganisms and strains of the genus Candida. Rev. Soc. Bras Med. Trop. 2009, 42, 222–224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  24. Salehi, B.; Valussi, M.; Jugran, A.K.; Martorell, M.; Ramírez-Alarcón, K.; Stojanović-Radić, Z.Z.; Antolak, H.; Kręgiel, D.; Mileski, K.S.; Sharifi-Rad, M.; et al. Nepeta species: From farm to food applications and phytotherapy. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2018, 80, 104–122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Adiguzel, A.; Ozer, H.; Sokmen, M.; Gulluce, M.; Sokmen, A.; Kilic, H.; Sahin, F.; Baris, O. Antimicrobial and antioxidant activity of the essential oil and methanol extract of Nepeta cataria. Pol. J. Microbiol. 2009, 58, 69–76. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  26. Formisano, C.; Rigano, D.; Senatore, F. Chemical constituents and biological activities of Nepeta species. Chem Biodivers. 2011, 8, 1783–1818. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Emami, S.A.; Yazdian-Robati, R.; Sadeghi, M.; Baharara, J.; Amini, E.; Salek, F.; Tayarani Najaran, Z. Inhibitory effects of different fractions of Nepeta satureioides on melanin synthesis through reducing oxidative stress. Res. Pharm. Sci. 2017, 12, 160–167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  28. Marinova, E.M.; Yanishlieva, N.V. Antioxidative activity of extracts from selected species of the family Lamiaceae in sunflower oil. Food Chem. 1997, 58, 245–248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Zarena, A.S.; Sankar, K.U. A study of antioxidant properties from Garcinia mangostana L. pericarp extract. Acta Sci. Poln. Technol. Aliment. 2009, 8, 23–34. [Google Scholar]
  30. Johari, M.A.; Khong, H.Y. Total phenolic content and antioxidant and antibacterial activities of pereskia bleo. Adv. Pharm. Sci. 2019, 7428593, 1–4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  31. Kopjar, M.; Orsolic, M.; Pilizota, V. Anthocyanins, phenols, and antioxidant activity of sour cherry puree extracts and their stability during storage. Int. J. Food Prop. 2014, 17, 1393–1405. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Silva, S.; Costa, E.M.; Calhau, C.; Morais, R.M.; Pintado, M.E. Anthocyanin extraction from plant tissues: A review. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 2017, 57, 3072–3083. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Markom, M.; Hasan, M.; Daud, W.R.W.; Singh, H.; Jahim, J.M. Extraction of hydrolysable tannins from Phyllanthus niruri Linn.: Effects of solvents and extraction methods. Sep. Purif. Technol. 2007, 52, 487–496. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Widyawati, P.S.; Dwi, T.; Budianta, W.; Kusuma, F.A.; Wijaya, E.L. Difference of solvent polarity to phytochemical content and antioxidant activity of Pluchea indicia less leaves extracts. Int. J. Pharmacogn. Phytochem. Res. 2014, 6, 850–855. [Google Scholar]
  35. Şimşek, M.; Duman, R. Investigation of Effect of 1,8-cineole on antimicrobial activity of chlorhexidine gluconate. Pharmacognosy Res. 2017, 9, 234–237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  36. da Silva, A.C.R.; Lopes, P.M.; de Azevedo, M.M.B.; Costa, D.C.M.; Alviano, C.S.; Alviano, D.S. Biological Activities of α-Pinene and β-Pinene Enantiomers. Molecules 2012, 17, 6305–6316. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  37. Shafaghat, A.; Khodamali, O. Nepetalactone content and antibacterial activity of the essential oils from different parts of Nepeta persica. Nat. Prod. Commun. 2009, 5, 625–628. [Google Scholar]
  38. Cox, S.D.; Mann, C.M.; Markham, J.L. Interactions between components of the essential oil of Melaleuca alternifolia. J. Appl. Microbiol. 2001, 91, 492–497. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Shafaghat, A.; Salimi, F.; Akhlaghi, H. Chemical composition of the essential oil isolated from flower, leaf, stem and root of Nepeta sintenisii Bornm. from Iran. J. Essent. Oil-Bear. Plants. 2008, 11, 391–396. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Gruz, J.; Ayaz, F.A.; Torun, H.; Strnad, M. Phenolic acid content and radical scavenging activity of extracts from medlar (Mespilus germanica L.) fruit at different stages of ripening. Food Chem. 2011, 124, 271–277. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Aryal, S.; Baniya, M.K.; Danekhu, K.; Kunwar, P.; Gurung, R.; Koirala, N. Total phenolic content, flavonoid content and antioxidant potential of wild vegetables from western Nepal. Plants 2019, 8, 96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  42. Liu, X.; Zhao, M.; Wang, J.; Yang, B.; Jiang, Y. Antioxidant activity of methanolic extract of emblica fruit (Phyllanthus emblica L) from six regions in China. J. Food Compos. Anal. 2008, 21, 219–228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Tung, Y.T.; Cheng, K.C.; Ho, S.T.; Chen, Y.L.; Wu, T.L.; Hung, K.C.; Wu, J.H. Comparison and characterization of the antioxidant potential of 3 wild grapes–Vitis thunbergii, V. flexuosa, and V. kelungeusis. J. Food Sci. 2011, 76, 701–706. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. George, B.P.; Parimelazhagan, T.; Chandran, R. Anti-inflammatory and wound healing properties of Rubus fairholmianus Gard. Root-An in vivo study. Ind. Crops Prod. 2014, 54, 216–225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Skorić, M.; Gligorijević, N.; Cavić, M.; Todorović, S.; Janković, R.; Ristić, M.; Misić, D.; Radulović, S. Cytotoxic activity of Nepeta rtanjensis Diklić & Milojević essential oil and its mode of action. Ind. Crops Prod. 2017, 100, 163–170. [Google Scholar]
  46. Grbić, M.L.; Stupar, M.; Vukojević, J.; Soković, M.; Mišić, D.; Grubišić, D.; Ristić, M. Antifungal activity of Nepeta rtanjensis essential oil. J. Serb. Chem. Soc. 2008, 73, 961–965. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Kumar, V.; Mathela, C.S.; Tewari, G.; Singh, D. Antifungal activity of Nepeta elliptica Royle ex Benth. oil and its major constituent (7R)-trans, trans-nepetalactone: A comparative study. Ind. Crops Prod. 2014, 55, 70–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Morcia, C.; Malnati, M.; Terzi, V. In vitro antifungal activity of terpinen-4-ol, eugenol, carvone, 1,8-cineole (eucalyptol) and thymol against mycotoxigenic plant pathogens. Food Addit. Contam. A. 2012, 29, 415–422. [Google Scholar]
  49. Taskina, A.; Javan, M.; Sonboli, A.; Semnanian, S. Evaluation of the antinociceptive and anti-inflammatory effects of essential oil of Nepeta pogonosperma Jamzad et Assadi in rats. DARU J. Pharm. Sci. 2012, 20, 48. [Google Scholar]
  50. Sharifi-Rad, J.; Hoseini-Alfatemi, S.M.; Miri, A.; Sharifi-Rad, M.; Soufi, L.; Sharifi-Rad, M.; Setzer, W.N.; Hoseini, M.; Sharifi-Rad, M.; Rokni, M. Phytochemical analysis, antioxidant and antibacterial activities of various extracts from leaves and stems of Chrozaphora tinctoria. Environ. Exp. Biol. 2015, 13, 169–175. [Google Scholar]
  51. Dewanto, X.; Wu, K.; Adom, K.; Liu, R.H. Thermal processing enhances the nutritional value of tomatoes by increasing total antioxidant activity. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2002, 50, 3010–3014. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Chang, C.C.; Yang, M.H.; Wen, H.M.; Chern, J.C. Estimation of total flavonoid content in propolis by two complementary colorimetric methods. J. Food Drug Analysis. 2002, 10, 178–182. [Google Scholar]
  53. Vega-arroy, D.J.; Ruíz-espinosa, H.; Luna-guevara, J.J.; Luna-guevara, M.L.; Hernández-carranza, P.; Ávila-sosa, R.; Ochoa-velasco, C.E. Effect of solvents and extraction methods on total anthocyanins, phenolic compounds and antioxidant capacity of Renealmia alpinia (Rottb.) Maas peel. Czech J. Food Sci. 2017, 35, 456–465. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  54. Sun, B.; Richardo-Da-Silvia, J.M.; Spranger, I. Critical factors of vanillin assay for catechins and proanthocyanidins. J. Agric. Food Chem. 1998, 46, 4267–4274. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Adams, R.P. Identification of Essential Oil Components by Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry; Allured Publishing Corporation: Carol Stream, IL, USA, 1995. [Google Scholar]
  56. Sharifi-Rad, J.; Hoseini-Alfatemi, S.M.; Sharifi-Rad, M.; da Silva, J.A.T. Antibacterial, antioxidant, antifungal and anti-inflammatory activities of crude extract from Nitraria schoberi fruits. 3Biotech. 2015, 5, 677–684. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  57. Benzie, I.F.; Strain, J.J. The ferric reducing ability of plasma (FRAP) as a measure of ‘‘antioxidant power’’: The FRAP assay. Anal. Biochem. 1996, 239, 70–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  58. Saotome, K.; Morita, H.; Umeda, M. Cytotoxicity test with simplified crystal violet staining method using microtiter plates and its application to injection drugs. Toxicol. In Vitro 1989, 3, 317–321. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Quan, H.; Cao, Y.Y.; Xu, Z.; Zhao, J.X.; Gao, P.H.; Qin, X.F.; Jiang, Y.Y. Potent in vitro synergism of fluconazole and berberine chloride against clinical isolates of Candida albicans resistant to fluconazole, Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 2006, 50, 1096–1099. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  60. Sharifi-Rad, M.; Iriti, M.; Sharifi-Rad, M.; Gibbons, S.; Sharifi-Rad, J. Anti-methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) activity of Rubiaceae, Fabaceae and Poaceae plants: A search for new sources of useful alternative antibacterials against MRSA infections. Cell. Mol. Biol. 2016, 62, 39–45. [Google Scholar]
  61. Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI). Reference Method for Dilution Antimicrobial Susceptibility Tests for Bacteria that Grow Aerobically; Approved standard M7-A6, National Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards: Wayne, PE, USA, 2012. [Google Scholar]
Plants 09 00646 g001 550
Figure 1. Chemical structure of the major compounds of the Nepeta juncea extracts.
Figure 1. Chemical structure of the major compounds of the Nepeta juncea extracts.
Plants 09 00646 g001
Plants 09 00646 g002 550
Figure 2. DPPH scavenging activity (expressed as IC50 (50% inhibitory concentration)) of the different extracts of Nepeta juncea. Columns belonging to the same dataset and labeled with different letters are significantly different, p < 0.05 (n = 3).
Figure 2. DPPH scavenging activity (expressed as IC50 (50% inhibitory concentration)) of the different extracts of Nepeta juncea. Columns belonging to the same dataset and labeled with different letters are significantly different, p < 0.05 (n = 3).
Plants 09 00646 g002
Plants 09 00646 g003 550
Figure 3. Ferric reducing antioxidant power (FRAP) values of the different extracts of Nepeta juncea. Columns belonging to the same dataset and labeled with different letters are significantly different, p < 0.05 (n = 3).
Figure 3. Ferric reducing antioxidant power (FRAP) values of the different extracts of Nepeta juncea. Columns belonging to the same dataset and labeled with different letters are significantly different, p < 0.05 (n = 3).
Plants 09 00646 g003
Table
Table 1. The total phenols, total flavonoids, anthocyanin, and tannin concentrations in the different extracts of Nepeta juncea.
Table 1. The total phenols, total flavonoids, anthocyanin, and tannin concentrations in the different extracts of Nepeta juncea.
SolventPlant PartTotal Phenols (mg GAE/g Dry Weight)Total Flavonoids (mg QE/g Dry Weight)Anthocyanin (mg Cyanidin/100 g Dry Weight)Tannin (mg Catechin/g Dry Weight)
MethanolLeaves69.54 ± 0.31 a41.37 ± 0.17 a6.52 ± 0.21 a47.36 ± 0.33 a
Flowers45.61 ± 0.14 c26.42 ± 0.31 c4.35 ± 0.34 c32.16 ± 0.21 c
Roots21.33 ± 0.46 g9.62 ± 0.15 g2.89 ± 0.42 f23.15 ± 0.15 f
EthanolLeaves52.36 ± 0.27 b34.23 ± 0.29 b3.42 ± 0.43 d28.14 ± 0.35 d
Flowers30.22 ± 0.14 e19.81 ± 0.53 e2.45 ± 0.28 g19.31 ± 0.14 g
Roots18.12 ± 0.28 h7.16 ± 0.26 h1.51 ± 0.14 i10.21 ± 0.26 i
WaterLeaves33.17 ± 0.34 d23.25 ± 0.49 d4.63 ± 0.27 b36.21 ± 0.24 b
Flowers24.71 ± 0.12 f14.32 ± 0.13 f3.11 ± 0.18 e24.17 ± 0.16 e
Roots13.46 ± 0.26 i5.23 ± 0.35 i1.96 ± 0.36 h16.11 ± 0.52 h
The mean values within the columns that share different letters are significantly different, p < 0.05 (n = 3). GAE, gallic acid equivalents; QE, quercetin equivalents.
Table
Table 2. Chemical composition of the Nepeta juncea extracts.
Table 2. Chemical composition of the Nepeta juncea extracts.
CompoundRIMolecular FormulaMethanolic ExtractEthanolic ExtractWater Extract
Leaves (%)Flowers (%)Roots (%)Leaves (%)Flowers (%)Roots (%)Leaves (%)Flowers (%)Roots (%)
α-Thujene924C10H160.70.40.20.40.30.20.20.20.1
α-Pinene935C10H161.80.90.31.20.70.10.70.30.1
Sabinene970C10H160.2--0.1-----
β-Pinene976C10H164.31.60.52.70.90.31.10.50.2
Myrcene984C10H160.10.1--0.1----
α-Terpinene1014C10H160.40.20.10.10.10.1-0.10.1
p-Cymene1019C10H140.50.20.10.20.10.10.10.1-
1,8-Cineole1032C10H18O41.620.24.124.315.42.211.28.71.4
γ-Terpinene1053C10H160.1--------
cis-Sabinene hydrate1058C10H18-0.1--0.1--0.1-
Terpinolene1080C10H160.30.20.10.10.20.10.10.10.1
Linalool1085C10H18O0.80.5 0.30.3 0.10.2
trans-Sabinene hydrate1088C10H18O0.3-0.1--0.10.1--
trans-Pinocarveol1127C10H16O-0.1--0.1----
Sabinol1135C10H16O0.90.70.20.50.50.10.20.30.1
Pinocarvone1142C10H14O0.50.40.10.4-0.10.1-0.1
Isopulegol1145C10H18O0.60.7-0.50.5-0.30.2-
Pinocamphone1161C10H16O0.30.3-0.10.2----
Terpinen-4-ol1167C10H18O3.73.40.92.82.60.81.41.50.3
α-Terpineol1177C10H18O2.31.90.81.30.90.50.80.60.2
Geraniol1225C10H18O0.60.50.20.4-0.10.10.1-
Geranial1269C10H16O0.4-0.20.1-0.10.1-0.1
4aα-7α-7aα-Nepetalactone1340C10H14O216.218.49.310.112.47.64.35.33.7
4aα-7α-7aβ-Nepetalactone1365C10H14O20.80.90.40.30.50.10.10.30.1
4aβ-7α-7aβ-Nepetalactone1367C10H14O20.60.80.20.20.40.10.10.2-
Geranyl acetate1384C12H20O20.1-0.1--0.1---
β-Farnesene1449C15H240.1--0.1--0.1--
Germacrene-d1483C15H240.30.1-0.20.1-0.1--
cis-α-Bisabolene1493C15H24-0.1-------
α-Farnesene1497C15H240.2-0.20.1-0.10.1-0.1
Spathulenol1575C15H24O0.10.1-----0.1-
Total identified compounds% 78.852.818.146.536.412.921.418.96.7
RI—retention index.
Table
Table 3. Cytotoxic activity of Nepeta juncea extracts toward human cancer cell lines.
Table 3. Cytotoxic activity of Nepeta juncea extracts toward human cancer cell lines.
Solvent Plant PartConcentration (µg/mL)Viability (%)
MCF-7Hep-G2
MethanolLeaves2586.2 ± 0.288.6 ± 0.4
5075.1 ± 0.576.3 ± 0.2
10062.7 ± 0.364.2 ± 0.3
20055.9 ± 0.158.4 ± 0.1
Flowers0100100
2594.3 ± 0.196.7 ± 0.5
5084.7 ± 0.286.4 ± 0.2
10070.2 ± 0.473.9 ± 0.1
20066.1 ± 0.268.3 ± 0.3
Roots0100100
2595.5 ± 0.598.9 ± 0.2
5093.2 ± 0.695.6 ± 0.4
10089.1 ± 0.492.4 ± 0.3
20087.4 ± 0.289.2 ± 0.2
EthanolLeaves0100100
2591.2 ± 0.192.1 ± 0.3
5082.4 ± 0.384.3 ± 0.2
10070.3 ± 0.272.1 ± 0.5
20062.8 ± 0.565.6 ± 0.4
Flowers0100100
2595.9 ± 0.497.2 ± 0.1
5086.8 ± 0.289.2 ± 0.2
10072.7 ± 0.175.6 ± 0.1
20069.3 ± 0.471.3 ± 0.1
Roots0100100
2596.7 ± 0.399.2 ± 0.2
5094.2 ± 0.296.3 ± 0.1
10091.6 ± 0.694.2 ± 0.2
20089.2 ± 0.592.3 ± 0.6
WaterLeaves0100100
2596.3 ± 0.798.4 ± 0.7
5092.5 ± 0.594.2 ± 0.3
10088.3 ± 0.391.1 ± 0.2
20085.2 ± 0.287.3 ± 0.4
Flowers0100100
2597.6 ± 0.599.1 ± 0.4
5096.2 ± 0.397.6 ± 0.6
10091.4 ±0.793.9 ± 0.1
20087.4 ± 0.389.6 ± 0.3
Roots0100100
2598.8 ± 0.299.7 ± 0.4
5096.2 ± 0.198.1 ± 0.2
10094.1 ± 0.596.3 ± 0.5
20093.8 ± 0.395.2 ± 0.1
Vinblastine0100100
2551.6 ± 0.255.2 ± 0.3
5024.2 ± 0.119.5 ± 0.5
1009.4 ± 0.411.7 ± 0.2
2003.7 ± 0.34.6 ± 0.1
MCF-7, human breast adenocarcinoma cells; Hep-G2, human hepatocellular carcinoma cells.
Table
Table 4. Antifungal activity of the Nepeta juncea extracts.
Table 4. Antifungal activity of the Nepeta juncea extracts.
SolventPlant PartCandida albicansC. glabrata
MIC (µg/mL)MFC
(µg/mL)		MIC
(µg/mL)		MFC
(µg/mL)
MethanolLeaves25505050
Flowers505050100
Roots50100100100
EthanolLeaves5010050100
Flowers100100100200
Roots100200200200
WaterLeaves100200100200
Flowers200200200-
Roots200-200-
Fluconazole25252525
MIC, minimum inhibitory concentration; MFC, minimum fungicidal concentration.
Table
Table 5. Minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) and minimum bactericidal concentration (MBC) values of the Nepeta juncea extracts against the tested bacteria.
Table 5. Minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) and minimum bactericidal concentration (MBC) values of the Nepeta juncea extracts against the tested bacteria.
SolventPlant PartStaphylococcus aureusBacillus cereusEscherichia coliShigella flexneri
MIC (µg/mL)MBC
(µg/mL)		MIC
(µg/mL)		MBC
(µg/mL)		MIC
(µg/mL)		MBC
(µg/mL)		MIC
(µg/mL)		MBC
(µg/mL)
MethanolLeaves255025505010050100
Flowers255025505010050100
Roots5010050100100200100200
EthanolLeaves5010050100100200100200
Flowers5010050100100200100200
Roots100200100200200-200-
WaterLeaves5010050100100200100200
Flowers100200100200200-200-
Roots100200100200200-200-

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Sharifi-Rad, M.; Epifano, F.; Fiorito, S.; Álvarez-Suarez, J.M. Phytochemical Analysis and Biological Investigation of Nepeta juncea Benth. Different Extracts. Plants 2020, 9, 646. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants9050646

AMA Style

Sharifi-Rad M, Epifano F, Fiorito S, Álvarez-Suarez JM. Phytochemical Analysis and Biological Investigation of Nepeta juncea Benth. Different Extracts. Plants. 2020; 9(5):646. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants9050646

Chicago/Turabian Style

Sharifi-Rad, Majid, Francesco Epifano, Serena Fiorito, and José M. Álvarez-Suarez. 2020. "Phytochemical Analysis and Biological Investigation of Nepeta juncea Benth. Different Extracts" Plants 9, no. 5: 646. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants9050646

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop