Next Article in Journal
Protein Tyrosine Phosphatase 1B Inhibitors of Pueraria lobata Based on the Spectrum–Effect Relationship by Q-Marker Selection
Previous Article in Journal
Thermochemical Research on Furfurylamine and 5-Methylfurfurylamine: Experimental and Computational Insights
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Molecules
Volume 29
Issue 12
10.3390/molecules29122730
molecules-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

Uncovering the Chemical Composition and Biological Potentials of Bupleurum lancifolium Hornem. from Jordan

by
Nezar Al-Bataineh
1,*,
Sultan T. Abu-Orabi
2,
Suhair B. Shannag
3,
Hala I. Al-Jaber
4,
Tareq T. Bataineh
3,
Wael A. Al-Zereini
5 and
Mahmoud A. Al-Qudah
3,*
1
College of Pharmacy, Al Ain University of Science and Technology, Abu Dhabi 112612, United Arab Emirates
2
Department of Medical Analysis, Faculty of Science, Tishk International University, Erbil 44001, Iraq
3
Department of Chemistry, Faculty of Science, Yarmouk University, P.O. Box 566, Irbid 21163, Jordan
4
Department of Chemistry, Faculty of Science, Al-Balqa Applied University, Al-Salt 19117, Jordan
5
Department of Biological Sciences, Faculty of Science, Mutah University, Al-Karak 61710, Jordan
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Molecules 2024, 29(12), 2730; https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules29122730
Submission received: 13 May 2024 / Revised: 3 June 2024 / Accepted: 6 June 2024 / Published: 8 June 2024
(This article belongs to the Topic Natural Products and Drug Discovery)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
The current study was designed to uncover the chemistry and bioactivity potentials of Bupleurum lancifolium growing wild in Jordan. In this context, the fresh aerial parts obtained from the plant material were subjected to hydrodistillation followed by GC/MS analysis. The main components of the HDEO were γ-patchoulene (23.79%), β-dihydro agarofuran (23.50%), α-guaiene (14.11%), and valencene (13.28%). Moreover, the crude thanolic extract was partitioned to afford two main major fractions, the aqueous methanol (BLM) and butanol (BLB). Phytochemical investigation of both fractions, using conventional chromatographic techniques followed by careful inspection of the spectral data for the isolated compounds (NMR, IR, and UV-Vis), resulted in the characterization of five known compounds, including α-spinasteryl (M1), ethyl arachidate (M2), ethyl myristate (M3), quercetin-3-O-β-d-glucopyranosyl-(1-4”)-α-L-rhamnopyranosyl (B1), and isorhamnetin-3-O-β-d-glucopyranosyl-(1-4”)-α-L-rhamnopyranosyl (B2). The TPC, TFC, and antioxidant activity testing of both fractions and HDEO revealed an interesting ABTS scavenging potential of the BLB fraction compared to the employed positive controls, which is in total agreement with its high TP and TF contents. Cytotoxic evaluation tests revealed that BLM had interesting cytotoxic effects on the normal breast cell line MDA-MB-231 (ATCC–HTB-26) and the normal dermal fibroblast (ATCC® PCS-201-012) and normal African green monkey kidney Vero (ATCC-CCL-81) cell lines. Despite both the BLB and BLM fractions showing interesting AChE inhibition activities (IC50 = 217.9 ± 5.3 µg/mL and 139.1 ± 5.6 µg/mL, respectively), the HDEO revealed an interestingly high AChE inhibition power (43.8 ± 2.7 µg/mL) that far exceeds the one observed for galanthamine (91.4 ± 5.2 µg/mL). The HDEO, BLM, and BLB exhbitied no interesting antimicrobial activity against Bacillus cereus, Bacillus subtilis, Staphylococcus aureus, Escherichia coli, or Pseudomonas aeruginosa.

1. Introduction

Umbelliferae (Apiaceae) family, famously known as the carrot family, is the 16th largest family of flowering plants, with more than 3540 species belonging to 446 genera [1,2]. Aromatic flowering plants belonging to this family include economically important foods and spices, like caraway, anise, fennel, coriander, cumin, carrot, and many others. Most umbelliferae plants are annual, biennial, or perennial herbs, and less frequently shrubs or trees, that are known to be distributed worldwide but mostly in temperate climates [1]. Among the different species belonging to this plant family, about 250 species have been reported as medicinally significant apiaceous plants utilized for ages in traditional medicine for treating an assortment of illnesses [3].
The Bupleurum genus is a genera belonging to the Umbelliferae family, comprising about 180–190 species, mostly reported to grow wild in Eurasia, North Africa, and the Mediterranean [2]. In Jordan, there are five species belonging to this genus, including Bupleurum brevicaule Schltdl., Bupleurum Gerardi All., Bupleurum lancifolium Hornem., Bupleurum nodiflorum Sm., and Bupleurum semicompositum L. [4].
Several Bupleurum species, either alone or in combination with additional components, have been included in many pharmaceutical preparations and prescribed for the treatment of different ailments, including the common cold [5], inflammation [6], hepatitis [7], cancer [8], and fever associated with malaria [8]. Additionally, Bupleurum species have been used as analgesics to alleviate persistent abdominal pain in the hypochondriac area of the chest, to prevent amenorrhea, and to treat and protect against chronic hepatitis, nephrotic syndrome, and autoimmune illnesses [9]. Moreover, other uses include the treatment of diabetes, vertigo, vomiting, dry throat, and cholecystitis, as well as the enhancement of wound healing and deafness [10]. The high concentration of polyacetylenes, which have very neurotoxic effects, is thought to be the cause of the poisonous nature of some of this genus’s dangerous species [11].
Phytochemical investigation of several Bupleurum species has resulted in the identification of several classes of secondary metabolites, including flavonoids, coumarins, lignans, triterpenes saikosaponins, and polyacetylenes [12], in addition to the occurrence of free fatty acids, like pinellic acid, angelic acid, petrosylic acid, and lignoceric acid [13]. These bioactive metabolites can operate as key substances in the therapy or avoidance of several severe diseases [14,15].
Bupleurum lancifolium Hornem. is an annual plant; the flowers are bisexual, with yellowish simple leaves having long and slender shapes (Figure 1). The plant has been reported to grow wild in many countries and regions, like Algeria, Cyprus, Egypt, Greece, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Lebanon–Syria, Libya, Madeira, Morocco, Palestine, Sinai, Spain, Tunisia, Turkey, Turkmenistan, and Western Sahara. The plant is reported to have anti-inflammatory, antitussive, hepatoprotective, anti-ulcer and immunomodulatory, antispasmodic, diaphoretic, antioxidant, and antimicrobial activities [16]. Previous phytochemical investigations on the leaves of B. lancifolium resulted in the isolation of two triterpenoid saponins (3-O-[α-l-rhamnopyranosyl (1→4)-β-d-glucopyranosyl] echinocystic acid 28-O-β-d-glucopyranosyl ester and 3-O-[α-L-rhamnopyranosyl (1→4)-β-d-glucopyranosyl] oleanolic acid 28-O-β-d-glucopyranosyl ester) and two other flavonoids, including isorhamnetin 3-rutinoside and rutin [17]. In Turkey, Saraçoğlu et al. (2012) investigated the chemical composition of the essential oil obtained from different organs of several Bupleurum species [18]. The results revealed spathulenol and α-pinene as the primary constituents of the oil obtained from the flowers. Hexacosane and pentacosane dominated the essential oil obtained from fruit oil, while the roots oil contained mainly hexadecanoic acid and heptacosane [18]. Another study reported the fatty acid composition of the oils extracted from B. lancifolium collected from the central Anatolia region of Turkey [19], reporting oleic acid, linoleic acid, and linolenic acids as the main components of the oils [19]. Moreover, hexane extract obtained from B. lancifolium leaves and seeds extract contained ω-3, ω-6, palmitic acid, and γ-linolenic acid and is considered an important source of ω-3 and ω-6 compounds among several Bupleurum species [20].
The main goal of the present study was to uncover the chemistry of B. lancifolium through investigating the composition of its hydrodistilled essential oil (HDEO) and aqueous methanol (BLM) and butanol (BLB) fractions. Furthermore, the two fractions (BLM and BLB) were assayed for their total phenolic contents (TPCs) and total flavonoid contents (TFCs). Both fractions, along with the HDEO, were tested for their antioxidant activity (DPPH and ABTS), antibacterial potentials (against a set of Gram-positive and Gram-negative bacteria), cytotoxic activity, and neuroprotective effects.

2. Results and Discussion

2.1. Chemical Constituents of the Hydrodistilled Essential Oil (HDEO)

The chemical composition of the HDEO obtained from fresh aerial parts of B. lancifolium was analyzed by GC-MS, and the results are shown in Table 1, while Figure S1 displays the obtained GC/MS chromatogram. A total of 48 different components, amounting to 99.76% of the total composition, were identified in this HDEO.
As can be deduced from Table 1, the HDEO obtained from fresh aerial parts of B. lancifolium contained mainly γ-patchoulene (23.79%), β-dihydro agarofuran (23.50%), α- guaiene (14.11%), and valencene (13.28%); the structures of these constituents are shown in Figure 2. The main classes of compounds detected in this oil are shown in Figure 3.
Comparing our current results with those of previous investigations reveals some qualitative and quantitative differences. The essential oil obtained from Turkish B. lancifolium contained mainly oleic acid ω9 (69.36%), linoleic acid ω6 (13.88%), and palmitic acid (10.29%). Other components were detected in lower amounts, such as myristoleic acid ω5 (1.25%), palmitoleic acid ω7 (0.90%), and heptadecanoic acid ω8 (0.02%) [18]. The essential oil obtained from the leaves and seeds of B. lancifolium from Iran contained mainly linolenic acid ω-3 (17.1 and 48.1%, respectively), linoleic acid ω-6 (14.1 and 22.2%), palmitic acid (25.7 and 10.1%), and γ-linolenic acid (21.3 and 8.2%). Other components were detected in lower amounts, such as myristic acid (0.7 and 2.3%), stearic acid (3.1 and 4.8%), and arachidic acid (0.3 and 2.5%) [20].

Chemical Constituents of the BLM and BLB Fractions from B. lancifolium

A phytochemical investigation using conventional chromatographic separation of B. lancifolium’s main fractions resulted in the isolation and identification of five known compounds, three from the BLM (M1–M3) fraction and two from the BLB fraction (B1 and B2). With careful inspection of the spectral data for the isolated compounds (IR, NMR, UV-Vis, and HRESIMS, Figures S2–S20), these compounds are identified as α-spinasteryl (M1), ethyl arachidate (M2), ethyl myristate (M3), quercetin-3-O-β-d-glucopyranosyl-(1-4”)-α-l-rhamnopyranosyl (B1), and isorhamnetin-3-O-β-d-glucopyranosyl-(1-4”)-α-L-rhamnopyranosyl (B2). The structures of the isolated compounds are shown in Figure 4.

2.2. Total Flavonoid (TFC) and Phenol (TPC) Contents and Antioxidant Activity

The results of the TPC, TFC, and antioxidant activity determined for the two fractions (BLB and BLM) are shown in Table 2. The obtained data clearly indicate that BLB had the highest TPC and TFC (849.46 ± 4.37 mg/g gallic acid equivalents; 405.23 ± 1.47 mg/g quercetin equivalents) compared to the BLM fraction. The DPPH• and ABTS•+ scavenging activity of the crude extracts and essential oil were dose dependent and increased with an increasing concentration (Figure S21. As shown in Table 2, both the BLB and BLM fractions showed good DPPH• radical scavenging powers ((IC50 = 8.0 ± 0.79 and 11.3 ± 0.20 μg/mL, respectively), which were less than that observed for HDEO (45.4 ± 0.50 μg/mL) when compared with the two positive controls ascorbic acid and α-tocopherol (1.58 ± 0.035 and 1.79 ± 0.01 μg/mL, respectively). The BLB fraction had the highest ABTS•+ scavenging potential (10.0 ± 0.54 μg/mL) compared to the BLM fraction (18.0 ± 0.35 μg/mL) and HDEO (41.0 ± 0.70 μg/mL). The observed activity for both fractions could be attributed to their TP and TF contents [21,22]. Despite the fact that no phenolic compounds were detected in the GC/MS analysis of the HDEO, the moderate antioxidant potential recorded for the essential oil could be attributed to its terpenoidal content. The main components detected in the HDEO, including γ-patchoulene, 7-epi-α-selinene, β-dihydro agarofuran, and α-guaiene, are known for their antioxidant properties [23,24].

2.3. Antibacterial, AChE Inhibition, and Cytotoxic Activity Assays

The antibacterial effects of the HDEO and the BLM and BLB fractions were evaluated against Bacillus cereus, Bacillus subtilis, Staphylococcus aureus, Escherichia coli, and Pseudomonas aeruginosa. The tested fractions and EO showed no antibacterial potentials at a 2 mg/mL concentration level and, accordingly, were considered inactive against all tested bacterial strains. However, the BLM fraction showed potent cytotoxic activity against the MDA-MB-231 breast cancer cell line at concentrations lower than that effective in inhibiting proliferation of both the normal fibroblast and Vero cell lines with the IC50 (44.7 ± 1.3, 50.8 ± 2.1, and 106.9 ± 2.5 µg/mL, respectively) (Table 3). It is noteworthy that, although both the BLB and HDEO were ineffective against the tested cell lines, both extracts, as well as the BLM, revealed an ability to inhibit the activity of the AChE enzyme and, thereby, have potential roles in improving the cholinergic synapsis.
The anti-AChE activities of the BLB, BLM, and HDEO were concentration dependent. Interestingly, the BLB and BLM displayed moderately weak AChE inhibition powers when compared to the positive control galantamine (IC50 = 217.9 ± 5.3 and 139.1 ± 5.6 vs. 6.4 ± 2.1 µg/mL, respectively). The HDEO showed a stronger AChE inhibition potency compared to the two other fractions (IC50 = 43.8 ± 2.7 µg/mL), which was three- to five-fold more effective than the BLB and BLM (Table 4).
The present study’s findings coincide with the literature on the medical applications of different Bupleurum species [5,6,7,15,16,18,19,20]. The inactivities of the tested BLM, BLB, and HDEO toward all tested bacterial strains have been previously reported by several studies for some Bupleurum species [18], including B. lancifolium; its essential oil [19] and crude extract [25] were devoid of activities against both Gram-negative and -positive bacteria. Intriguingly, the cytotoxic and anticholinergic activities of the BLM crude extract could be attributed to its contents of fatty acids and sterols (i.e., α-spinasteryl). Their activities were attributed to their lipophilic characteristic, which acts directly on biomembranes and affects membrane permeability, deteriorates plasma membrane, and might dissipate mitochondrial membrane potential [16,26,27].
Alpha-spinasterol has demonstrated potent cytotoxic activity on human ovarian, cervical Hela, and colon CACO-2 cell lines [28,29]. Furthermore, this compound was also reported to cause inhibition in the growth of breast MDA-MB-231 and MCF-7 and ovarian SKOV-3 cell lines, acting mainly as an anti-estrogenic compound and possibly exerting its effect by binding to ER receptors and, thus, causing ER+ MCF-7 cells to be more sensitive to α-spinasterol, caused by overexpression of p53 and downregulation in the cell cycle control Cdk4, leading to G0–G1 cell cycle arrest [30]. Moreover, the ability of BLM to antagonize the AChE can also be correlated with the presence of α-spinasterol as a major component in this fraction, which is in total agreement with a previous report on its AChE inhibitory effect (IC50 = 44.19 ± 2.59 µg/mL) [31].
However, the documented anticholinergic activity of HDEO herein could be attributed to its high sesquiterpenes content. The β-dihydro agarofuran derivatives obtained from the seeds of Maytenus disticha and M. magellanica inhibited AChE (IC50 = 17.0 ± 0.016 and 740.0 ± 0.045 µM, respectively) [32]. β-Dihydro agarofuran derivatives in Chilean Celastraceae extract caused an interesting AChE inhibitory effect (IC50 values ranging from 120 ± 0.003 to 740.0 ± 0.035 µM) [33]. The activity of this compound is attributed to its ability to form hydrogen bonds with the peripheral anionic site (PSA) at the entrance of the enzyme. Furthermore, an α-guaiene-rich extract obtained from Xylocarpus moluccensis roots showed anti-AchE potency (IC50 = 21 µg/mL) [34]. On the other hand, the presence of flavonoid glycosides like quercetin-3-O-β-d-glucopyranosyl-(1-4”)-α-l-rhamnopyranosyl and isorhamnetin-3-O-β-d-glucopyranosyl-(1-4”)-α-l-rhamnopyranosyl), as well as isorhamnetin derivatives, could account for the observed moderate AChE inhibitory effects of BLB fraction. Previously, isorhamnetin was reported to cause instability in Aβ aggregate neuroblastoma SH-SY5Y cells [27], and enhance synaptic plasticity and neurogenesis in the prefrontal cortex and hippocampus in scopolamine-induced amnesia mice model by improving the level of brain-derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF) [35]. Moreover, the interaction between the active site of the AChE enzyme and the flavonol skeleton of both the quercetin and isorhamnetin derivatives decreases the activity of AChE [36], with the quercetin derivative being more potent than the isorhamnetin analogs.

3. Materials and Methods

3.1. General

1H-NMR spectra were recorded on a Bruker Avance III 500 MHz spectrometer with TMS as an internal standard. 13C-NMR spectra were recorded at 125 MHz. High-resolution mass spectra (HRESIMS) were acquired by electrospray ionization with the positive-mode technique using a Bruker APEX-4 Mass spectrometer. UV-Vis spectra were recorded on a Shimadzu UV-1800 UV/Visible Scanning Spectrophotometer. TLC was performed on silica gel 60 GF254 precoated glass plates (0.25 or 0.50 mm in thickness, Macherey-Nagel). The compounds were visualized under UV light or spraying with sulfuric acid–anisaldehyde spraying reagent followed by heating. Analysis of the HDEO’s constituents was performed on an Agilent 6890 series II—5973 GC-MS spectrometer interfaced with an HP chemstation.

3.2. Plant Material

B. lancifolium was collected during the full flowering phase (April-2019) in the Zahar region (32.568737°, 35.793078°). The plant material’s identity was certified by Prof. Dr. Jamil N. Lahham (Department of Biology, Faculty of Science, Yarmouk University, Irbid, Jordan). A reference specimen (BL/Ap/2019) was stored in the natural products laboratory—Prof. Mahmoud A. Al-Qudah, Yarmouk University, Irbid, Jordan.

3.3. Hydrodistillation of Essential Oil

Fresh aerial parts of B. lancifolium (200 g) were minced and suspended in distilled water (150 mL) and then subjected to hydrodistillation with a Clevenger apparatus for 3 h [37,38]. The obtained oil was separated by extraction with diethyl ether (2.0 mL) twice. After evaporation of the diethyl ether, the resulting oil was dissolved in GC-grade n-hexane, dried over anhydrous sodium sulfate, and then stored in amber glass vials at 4–6 ºC.
The identification of the separated essential oil components was achieved by comparing their calculated Kovats retention (KI) to (C8–C20) n-alkanes values with a column of identical polarity and under the same chromatographic conditions, as well as matching their recorded mass spectra with those listed in the built-in libraries’ spectra (NIST, Gaithersburg, MD, USA and Wiley Co., Hoboken, NJ, USA). The principal components of the extracts were further identified by injecting authentic standard reference compounds under the same chromatographic conditions and from the literature [39].

3.4. Extraction and Isolation

The plant material was dried and crushed to a fine powder (8.0 kg) and then defatted for 10 days at room temperature using petroleum ether (20 L). Then, the defatted plant material was extracted with ethanol at room temperature (5 times, 7 days each). The combined ethanolic extract was concentrated under reduced pressure by evaporation, and the resulting alcoholic residue (700 g) was partitioned according to the procedure described in the literature [40] to obtain the aqueous methanol (BLM; 73.3 g) and butanol (BLB; 184.73 g) fractions.
The aqueous methanol fraction (BLM; 73.3 g) was adsorbed on 100.91 g of mesh silica gel and then chromatographed in a column (45 × 6 cm, 500 g mesh silica gel) packed in hexane and eluted with a gradient hexane/ethyl acetate mixture of increasing polarity A total of 177 fractions were collected (250 mL each) and then consolidated into 6 main subfractions (BLM-I–BLM-VI) based on their TLC behavior. Isolation and purification from these collective subfractions were then achieved by a combination of CC and TLC utilizing proper solvent systems. Three compounds (M1, M2, and M3) were isolated from the BLM fraction.
Similarly, the butanol fraction (BLB; 184.73 g) was adsorbed on 200.42 g mesh silica gel and then subjected to chromatography in a column (40 × 7 cm, 800 g mesh silica) packed in chloroform (CHCl3) and eluted with a gradient mixture of CHCl3:MeOH of increasing polarity. A total of 213 fractions (250 mL each) were collected and then grouped into 5 major subfractions (BLB-I–BLB-V) according to their TLC behavior. Isolation and purification from these collective subfractions were then achieved by a combination of CC and TLC or a suitable solvent. This whole process resulted in the isolation and characterization of 2 compounds of the butanol fraction.
  • α-Spinasteryl (M1)
  • Fraction BLM-II-2 offered a white solid after being washed with methanol. Compound M1 was identified as α-spinasteryl on the basis of a careful inspection of its spectral data (Figures S2–S4) [41]. IR (KBr) ν (cm−1): 3439 (OH), 1459(C=C). Rf = 0.70 (40% MeOH/CF) and 0.42 (20% EtOAc/hex). 1H–NMR (CDCl3) δ ppm: 3.63 (1H, m, H-3), 5.04 (1H, m, H-22), 5.16 (1H, dd, J = 8.64, 15.12, H-23), and 5.18 (1H, dd, J = 8.64, 15.12, H-7). 13C–NMR (CDCl3) δ ppm: methyls: (12.06, C-18), (12.27, C-29), (19.00, C-19), (21.11, C-27), (21.39, C-26), and (23.02, C-21); methenes: 21.55 (C-11), 25.41 (C-15), 29.64 (C-16), 29.71 (C-6), 31.48 (C-2), 31.88 (C-25), 37.14 (C-1), 37.99 (C-12), and 40.85 (C-4); methine carbons: 28.53 (C28)), 39.46 (C-20), 40.26 (C-5), 49.44 (C-9), 51.26 (C-24), 55.13 (C17), 55.89 (C-14), 71.07 (C-3), 117.47 (C7), 129.43 (C23), 138.19 (C-22), and 138.19 (C-22); quaternary carbons: 34.22 (C-10), 29.64 (C-16),43.29 (C-13), and 139.58 (C-8). HRESIMS m/z = 413.37614 [M + H]+ (calcd. for [C29H48O]+: 412.3705).
  • Ethyl arachidate (M2)
  • A solid was collected from the fraction BLM-II-3. This solid was purified with distilled methanol multiple times to obtain a pure white precipitate that was identified as ethyl arachidate based on its spectral data (Figures S5–S8) [41].
  • IR (KBr) ν (cm−1): 1717 (C=O group), 1113–1288 (C–O group), 1472 (CH2 bending), and 2917 and 2849 (C–H stretching). Rf = 0.43 (10% EtOAc/hex) and 0.14 (100 % CF). 1H-NMR (CDCl3) δ ppm: 0.88 (3H, t, J = 6.52, 7.04 Hz, H-20, and H-2’), 1.43 (32H, m, H-4-H19), 1.59 (2H, m, H-3), 2.27 (2H, m, H-2), 4.01 (2H, m, H1’). 13C-NMR (CDCl3) δ ppm: methyls: 14.15 (C-20, C-2’); methenes: 25.04–31.94 (C-3-C-19), 34.44 (C-2), 64.42 (OCH2, C-1’), and 174.08 (C=O, C-1). EI-MS: M+ (m/z) 340.3128 (C22H44O2).
  • Ethyl myristate (M3)
  • Compound M3 was obtained from the fraction BLMII-1. The obtained solid was purified upon washing several times with distilled methanol, affording ethyl myristate as a pure white solid. (Figures S9–S12) [42,43].
  • IR (KBr) ν (cm−1): 1966 (C=O group), 1116–1246 (C–O group), 1463 (CH2 bending), and 2917 and 2848 (C–H stretching). Rf = 0.5 (10% EtOAc/hex.) and 0.65 (100% CF). 1H-NMR (CDCl3) δ ppm: 0.88 (3H, t, J = 6.64Hz, H-14), 1.25 (20H, br s, H4-H13), 1.61 (2H, m, H-3), 2.33 (2H, t, J = 8.64 Hz, H-2), and 4.11 (2H, q, J = 7.12, H-1’). 13C-NMR (CDCl3) δ (ppm): 14.13 (CH3, C-14), 14.25 (CH2, C-2), 22.70 (CH2, C-13), 29.07–32.77 (CH2, C-4-C12), 25.73 (CH, C-3), 34.33 (CH2, C-2), 60.21(OCH2, C-1’), and 174.0 (C=O, C-1). EI-MS M+ (m/z): 256.2317 (C16H32O2).
  • Quercetin-3-O-β-d-glucopyranosyl-(1-4”)-α-L-rhamnopyranosyl (B1)
  • Treatment of the subfraction BLB-III-4 with distilled methanol resulted in the precipitation of a pure light-yellow-colored solid. Careful investigation of the spectral data led to the identification of this compound as quercetin-3-O-β-d-glucopyranosyl-(1-4”)-α-L-rhamnopyranosyl (Figures S13–S16) [44].
  • IR (KBr) ν (cm−1): 1657 (C=O), 3425 (OH), and 1573, 1505 (aromatic nucleus). Rf = 0.43 (40% MeOH/CF) and 0.1 (30% EtOAc/hexane). 1H-NMR (DMSO-d6) δ ppm: 6.19 (1H, d, J = 1.96, H-6), 6.38 (1H, d, J = 1.96, H-8), 6.85 (1H, d, J = 8.2, H-5’), and 7.55 (1H, d, J = 2.2, H-6’); 1st sugar moiety: 3.04 (1H, m, H-4“), 3.22 (1H, m, H-3”), 3.28 (1H, m, H-2”), 3.30 (1H, m, H-5”), and 3.71 (1H, d, J = 10.2 H-6”); 5.35 (1H, d, J = 7.4, H-1”); 2nd sugar mioety: 0.99 (3H, d, J = 6.2 Hz, H-6‴), 3.07 (1H, M, H-4‴), 3.25 (2H, m, H-2‴,5‴), 3.39 (1H, m, H-3‴), and 4.38 (1H, bs, 5.6, H-1‴); 13C-NMR (DMSO-d6) δ ppm: 93.6 (C-8), 98.7 (C-6), 103.9 (C-10), 115.2 (C-2’), 116.2 (C-5’), 121.1 (C-6’), 121.5 (C-1’), 133.3 (C-3), 144.7 (C-4’), 148.4 (C-3’), 156.4 (C-2), 156.5 (C-9), 161.2 (C-5), 164.2 (C-7), and 177.3 (C-4); 1st sugar moiety: 66.9 (C-6”), 70.0 (C-4”), 74.0 (C-2”), 75.9 (C-5”), 76.40 (C-3”), and 101.2 (C-1”); 2nd sugar moiety: 17.7 (C-6‴), 68.2 (C-5‴), 70.3 (C-2‴), 70.5 (C-3‴), 71.8 (C-4‴), and 100.7 (C-1‴). UV/Vis: UV λmax (MeOH) nm: 359.51 (band I) and 268.62 (band II); +NaOMe: 402.53 (band I) and 272.52 (band II); +AlCl3: 430.76 (Band Ia), 302 (Band IIa), and 272.52 (Band IIb); +HCl: 393.95 (Band Ia), 301 (Band IIa), and 268.62 (Band IIb). HRESIMS m/z = 611.1546 [M + H]+ (calcd. for [C27H30O16]+: 610.1534).
  • Isorhamnetin-3-O-β-d-glucopyranosyl-(1-4”)-α-L-rhamnopyranosyl (B2)
  • Treatment of the subfraction BLB-II-2 with distilled methanol resulted in the precipitation of pure light-yellow-colored solid. Careful investigation of the spectral data led the identification of this compound as isorhamnetin-3-O-β-d-glucopyranosyl-(1-4”)-α-L-rhamnopyranosyl (Figures S17–S20) [44].
  • IR (KBr) ν (cm−1): 1657 (C=O), 3425 (OH groups), 1573, and 1505 (aromatic nucleus). Rf = 0.43 (40%MeOH/CF) and 0.1(30%EtOAc/hexane). 1H-NMR (DMSO-d6) δ ppm: 6.19 (1H, d, J = 2.0, H-6), 6.42 (1H, d, J = 2.0, H-8), 6.92 (1H, d, J = 8.5, H-5’), 7.52 (1H, dd, J = 8.5, 2.0, H-6’), and 7.86 (1H, d, J = 2.2, H-2’); 1st sugar moiety: 3.04 (1H, m, H-4”), 3.22 (1H, m, H-2”), 3.28 (1H, m, H-3”), 3.27 (1H, m, H-5”), and 3.35 (1H, d, J = 10.2 H-6”); 5.43 (1H, d, J = 17.8, H-1”); 2nd sugar moiety: 0.98 (3H, d, J = 6.2 Hz, H-6‴), 3.04 (1H, M, H-4‴), 3.24 (2H, m, H-5‴), 3.26 (2H, m, H-2‴), 3.32 (1H, m, H-3‴), and 4.41 (1H, d, J = 1.0 Hz, H-1‴); 13C-NMR (DMSO-d6) δ ppm: 93.8 (C-8), 98.8 (C-6), 103.9 (C-10), 113.2 (C-2′), 115.2 (C-5′), 122.2 (C-6’), 121.0 (C-1’), 132.9 (C-3), 146.7 (C-4’), 149.4 (C-3’), 156.4 (C-2), 156.5 (C-9), 161.1 (C-5), 164.4 (C-7), and 177.2 (C-4); 1st sugar moiety: 66.8 (C-6”), 70.0 (C-4”), 74.2 (C-2”), 75.9 (C-5”), 76.3 (C-3”), and 101.1 (C-1”); 2nd sugar moiety: 17.7 (C-6‴), 68.3 (C-5‴), 70.3 (C-2‴), 70.5 (C-3‴), 71.7 (C-4‴), and 100.9 (C-1‴). UV/Vis: UV λmax (MeOH) nm: 359.51 (band I) and 268.62 (band II); +NaOMe: 402.53 (band I) and 272.52 (band II); +AlCl3: 430.76 (band Ia), 302 (band IIa), and 272.52 (band IIb); +HCl: 393.95 (band Ia), 301 (band IIa), and 268.62 (band IIb). HRESIMS m/z = 625.1702 [M + H]+ (calcd. for [C28H32O16]+: 624.1690).

3.5. Determination of Total Flavonoid (TFC) and Phenol (TPC) Contents

Both the BLM and BLB fractions were tested for their TFC using Folin–Ciocalteu assay methods according to the procedure described in [37,38] with slight modification. Briefly, a 1.0 mL aliquot of the stock solution prepared from each fraction/EO (1 mg/mL) was diluted in 4.0 mL distilled water; then, 0.30 mL sodium nitrite solution (5% NaNO2, w/v) was added to a 10.0 mL volumetric flask. After 5 min, 0.30 mL of aluminum chloride solution (10% AlCl3, w/v) was added. The resulting solution was incubated for further 6 min and then 2.0 mL of 1.0 M NaOH solution was added to the mixture. The volume of the final solution was adjusted to 10.0 mL with distilled water. After 15 min, the absorbance was measured at 510 nm. Methanol was used as a blank. The TFC is expressed in mg quercetin/g of dry extract.
The TPCs for the BLB and BLM fractions were determined by aluminum chloride assay, as described previously [37,38]. Briefly, 0.5 mL aliquot of each fraction stock solution (1 mg/mL) was treated with 2.5 mL of Folin–Ciocalteu reagent (2N) (diluted ten-fold) and 2 mL of Na2CO3 (75 g/L). The mixture was kept at room temperature for 15 min; then, the absorbance was recorded at 765 nm. Methanol was used as a blank solution. The TPC is reported in mg Gallic acid/g of dry extract.

3.6. Determination of Antioxidant Activity

The antioxidant activity of the two fractions (BLB and BLM) and the HDEO was evaluated by the DPPH• and ABTS•+ assay methods, as described previously [37,38]. Ascorbic acid and α-tocopherol were used as positive controls (Figure S21).

3.7. Evaluation of Biological Activities

3.7.1. Antibacterial Activity

The antibacterial activities of the BLB, BLM, and HDEO were determined as described in the literature [45,46], following the Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute’s guidelines (CLSI, 2012), using the agar diffusion test. Several concentrations of the fractions/EOs (300 µg/disc, 500 µg/disc, 1 mg/disc, and 2 mg/disc) were applied on a surface of 6 mm sterile, blank discs placed on the top of Müller Hinton agar plates containing 106 cells/mL of the tested bacterial strains. The included bacterial strains were Gram-positive (B. cereus ATCC 11778; B. subtilis ATCC 6633; and S. aureus ATCC 43300) and Gram-negative strains (E. coli ATCC 25922 and P. aeruginosa ATCC 13048). The tests were conducted in three independent experiments.

3.7.2. In Vitro Cytotoxicity Assay

The antiproliferative potencies of the BLB, BLM and HDEO were evaluated against three monolayer cell lines, namely, the human breast adenocarcinoma MDA-MB-231 (ATCC–HTB-26), the normal dermal fibroblast (ATCC® PCS-201-012), and the normal African green monkey kidney Vero (ATCC-CCL-81) cell lines following a methodology described previously [46]. The cells were treated with different concentrations (50-200 μg/mL) of the tested samples. Daunorubicin hydrochloride (Sigma-Aldrich, Darmstadt- Germany) was used as a positive control, while untreated cells were regarded as the negative control. Data are expressed as the mean ± SD of three independent experiments; the concentration that caused 50% inhibition in cell proliferation was extrapolated from a dose–response curve plotted for percentage inhibitions against respective sample concentrations.

3.7.3. Acetylcholinesterase (AChE) Inhibition Assay

The potential anti-AChE activities of the BLB, BLM, and HDEO were measured on the basis of Ellman’s method using a 96-well plate, as described previously [46]. The samples were tested at different concentrations (100 and 300 µg/mL) with galantamine used as the positive control. The enzyme inhibition percentage is reported as the mean ± standard deviation (SD for three independent trials). The concentration of the tested sample that caused a 50% inhibition in enzyme activity (IC50) was interpolated from a dose–response curve plotted for the percentage activity inhibitions against the respective sample concentrations.

4. Conclusions

In this study, the chemical composition of the HDEO obtained from the aerial parts of B. lancifolium grown in Jordan was analyzed by GC/MS and is reported here for first time. Oxygenated sesquiterpenes (OS) was the main class of compounds detected in this HDEO. The main components detected were γ-patchoulene, β-dihydro agarofuran, α-guaiene, and valencene. Additionally, phytochemical investigation of the BLM and BLB fractions, using conventional chromatographic techniques followed by careful inspection of the spectral data (NMR, IR, UV-Vis, and EI-MS), resulted in the isolation and characterization of five known compounds, including α-spinasteryl (M1), ethyl arachidate (M2), ethyl myristate (M3), quercetin-3-O-β-d-glucopyranosyl-(1-4”)-α-L-rhamnopyranosyl (B1), and isorhamnetin-3-O-β-d-glucopyranosyl-(1-4”)-α-L-rhamnopyranosyl (B2). The two fractions (BLM and BLB) were assayed for their total phenolic contents (TPCs) and total flavonoid contents (TFCs), and then, along with the HDEO, were tested for their antioxidant activities (DPPH and ABTS), antibacterial potentials (against a set of Gram-positive and Gram-negative bacteria), cytotoxic activities, and neuroprotective effects. B. lancifolium extracts represent potential agents for treating cancer and neurogenerative diseases.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://mdpi.longhoe.net/article/10.3390/molecules29122730/s1. Figure S1: Gas chromatogram for oil derived by hydro-distillation from aerial portions of B. Lancifolium; Figure S2: IR of compound M1; Figure S3: 1H-NMR of compound M1; Figure S4: 13C-NMR of compound M1; Figure S5: IR of compound M2; Figure S6: Mass of compound M2; Figure S7: 1H-NMR of compound M2; Figure S8: 13C-NMR of compound M2; Figure S9: IR of compound M3; Figure S10: Mass of compound M3; Figure S11: 1H-NMR of compound M3; Figure S12: 13C-NMR of compound M3; Figure S13: IR of compound B1; Figure S14: 1H-NMR of compound B1; Figure S15: 13C-NMR of compound B1; Figure S16: UVI-Vis of compound B1; Figure S17: IR of compound B2; Figure S18: 1H-NMR of compound B2; Figure S19: 13C-NMR of compound B2; Figure S20: UV-Vis of compound B2; Figure S21: DPPH and ABTS radical scavenging activity results for the tested fractions and HDEO.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, N.A.-B., S.T.A.-O., and M.A.A.-Q.; Data curation, S.B.S., W.A.A.-Z., and M.A.A.-Q.; Formal analysis, N.A.-B., W.A.A.-Z., and M.A.A.-Q.; Funding acquisition, N.A.-B., and M.A.A.-Q.; Investigation, N.A.-B., S.T.A.-O., and M.A.A.-Q.; Methodology, S.B.S., T.T.B., and W.A.A.-Z.; Project administration, M.A.A.-Q.; Resources, M.A.A.-Q.; Software, N.A.-B., W.A.A.-Z., and M.A.A.-Q.; Supervision, N.A.-B., S.T.A.-O., and M.A.A.-Q.; Validation, N.A.-B., H.I.A.-J., and M.A.A.-Q.; Visualization, N.A.-B., S.T.A.-O., and M.A.A.-Q.; Writing—original draft, M.A.A.-Q.; Writing—review and editing, H.I.A.-J., and M.A.A.-Q. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

The APC was funded by N.A.-B. and M.A.A.-Q.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Data are contained within the article and supplementary materials.

Acknowledgments

The authors extend their appreciation to the Deanship of Scientific Research and Graduate Studies at Yarmouk University for funding this research.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Pimenov, M.G.; Leonov, M.V. The Asian Umbelliferae biodiversity database (ASIUM) with particular reference to South-West Asian taxa. Turk. J. Bot. 2004, 28, 139–145. [Google Scholar]
  2. Burtt, B.L. Umbelliferae of Southern Africa: An introduction and annotated check-list. Edinb. J. Bot. 1991, 48, 133–282. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Yaniv, Z.; Bachrach, U. Handbook of Medicinal Plants; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2005. [Google Scholar]
  4. Al-Eisawi, D.M.H. List of Jordan Vascular Plants; Editeur Inconnu: Munchen, Germany, 1982. [Google Scholar]
  5. Minami, M. Seasonal variation on growth and saikosaponins concentration of Bupleurum falcatum L. Yakugaku Zasshi 1995, 115, 145–155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Benito, P.B.; Martínez, M.A.; Sen, A.S.; Gómez, A.S.; Matellano, L.F.; Contreras, S.S.; Lanza, A.D. In vivo and in vitro anti-inflammatory activity of saikosaponins. Life Sci. 1998, 63, 1147–1156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Motoo, Y.; Sawabu, N. Antitumor effects of saikosaponins, baicalin and baicalein on human hepatoma cell lines. Cancer Lett. 1994, 86, 91–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  8. Wu, J.N. An Illustrated Chinese Materia Medica; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2005. [Google Scholar]
  9. World Health Organization. World Health Organization Monographs on Selected Medicinal Plants; WHO: Geneva, Switzerland, 1999; Volume 2. [Google Scholar]
  10. World Health Organization. Medicinal Plants in the Republic of Korea: Information on 150 Commonly Used Medicinal Plants; WHO: Geneva, Switzerland, 1998. [Google Scholar]
  11. Lin, M.; Zhang, W.; Su, J. Toxic polyacetylenes in the genus Bupleurum (Apiaceae)—Distribution, toxicity, molecular mechanism and analysis. J. Ethnopharmacol. 2016, 193, 566–573. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Yao, R.Y.; Zou, Y.F.; Chen, X.F. Traditional use, pharmacology, toxicology, and quality control of species in genus Bupleurum L. Chin. Herb. Med. 2013, 5, 245–255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Pistelli, L.; Bilia, A.R.; Bertoli, A.; Morelli, I.; Marsili, A. Phenylpropanoids from Bupleurum fruticosum. J. Nat. Prod. 1995, 58, 112–116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Massanet, G.M.; Guerra, F.M.; Jorge, Z.D.; Casalvázquez, L.G. Phenylpropanoids from Bupleurum fruticosum. Phytochemistry 1997, 44, 173–177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Pan, S.L. (Ed.) Bupleurum Species: Scientific Evaluation and Clinical Applications; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2006; p. 111. [Google Scholar]
  16. Ashour, M.L.; Wink, M. Genus Bupleurum: A review of its phytochemistry, pharmacology and modes of action. J. Pharm. Pharmacol. 2011, 63, 305–321. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Achouri, A.; Derbré, S.; Medjroubi, K.; Laouer, H.; Séraphin, D.; Akkal, S. Two new triterpenoid saponins from the leaves of Bupleurum lancifolium (Apiaceae). Nat. Prod. Res. 2017, 31, 2286–2293. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Saraçoğlu, H.T.; Mehtap, A.K.I.N.; Demirci, B.; Basker, K.H.C. Chemical composition and antibacterial activity of essential oils from different parts of endemic Bupleurum L. species. Ank. Üniversitesi Vet. Fakültesi Derg. 2012, 59, 265–270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Saraçoğlu, H.T.; Zengin, G.; Akin, M.; Aktumsek, A. A comparative study on the fatty acid composition of the oils from five Bupleurum species collected from Turkey. Turk. J. Biol. 2012, 36, 527–532. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Shafaghat, A. Antioxidant, antimicrobial activities and fatty acid components of leaf and seed of Bupleurum lancifolium Hornem. J. Med. Plant Res. 2011, 5, 3758–3762. [Google Scholar]
  21. Samanta, A.; Das, G.; Das, S.K. Roles of flavonoids in plants. Carbon 2011, 100, 12–35. [Google Scholar]
  22. Bencheraiet, R.; Kabouche, A.; Kabouche, Z.; Touzani, R.; Jay, M. Flavonol 3-O-glycosides from three Algerian Bupleurum species. Rec. Nat. Prod. 2012, 6, 171–174. [Google Scholar]
  23. Zhang, H.Y.; Gao, Y.; Lai, P.X. Chemical composition, antioxidant, antimicrobial and cytotoxic activities of essential oil from Premna microphylla Turczaninow. Molecules 2017, 22, 381. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Paz, C.; Von Dossow, D.; Tiznado, V.; Suarez, S.; Cukiernik, F.D.; Baggio, R.A. dihydro-β-agarofuran sesquiterpene from Maytenus boaria. Acta Crystallogr. Sect. C Struct. Chem. 2017, 73, 451–457. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Akin, M.; Alataş, Z.; Saraçoğlu, H.T. Bupleurum lancifolium Hornem.’un Antibakteriyel Etkisinin İncelenmesi. KSU J. Agric Nat. 2023, 26, 487–892. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Wink, M. Evolutionary advantage and molecular modes of action of multi-component mixtures used in phytomedicine. Curr. Drug Metab. 2008, 9, 996–1009. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Gong, G.; Guan, Y.Y.; Zhang, Z.L.; Rahman, K.; Wang, S.J.; Zhou, S.; Luan, X.; Zhang, H. Isorhamnetin: A review of pharmacological effects. Biomed. Pharmacother. 2020, 128, 110301. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. Jeon, G.C.; Park, M.S.; Yoon, D.Y.; Shin, C.H.; Sin, H.S.; Um, S.J. Antitumor activity of spinasterol isolated from Pueraria roots. Exp. Mol. Med. 2005, 37, 111–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  29. Ravikumar, Y.S.; Mahadevan, K.M.; Manjunatha, H.; Satyanarayana, N.D. Antiproliferative, apoptotic and antimutagenic activity of isolated compounds from Polyalthia cerasoides seeds. Phytomedicine 2010, 17, 513–518. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  30. Sedky, N.K.; El Gammal, Z.H.; Wahba, A.E.; Mosad, E.; Waly, Z.Y.; El-Fallal, A.A.; Arafa, R.K.; El-Badri, N. The molecular basis of cytotoxicity of α-spinasterol from Ganoderma resinaceum: Induction of apoptosis and overexpression of p53 in breast and ovarian cancer cell lines. J. Cell. Biochem. 2018, 119, 3892–3902. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  31. Lawal, B.A.; Udobre, A.; Elufioye, T.O.; Ahmadu, A.A.; Olanipekun, B. Novel cholinesterase inhibitory effect of α-spinasterol isolated from the leaves of Acacia auriculiformis A. CUNN Ex. Benth (Fabaceae). Trop. J. Pharm. Res. 2020, 19, 1473–1479. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Alarcón-Enos, J.; Muñoz-Núñez, E.; Gutiérrez, M.; Quiroz-Carreño, S.; Pastene-Navarrete, E.; Cespedes, A.C. Dyhidro-β-agarofurans natural and synthetic as acetylcholinesterase and COX inhibitors: Interaction with the peripheral anionic site (AChE-PAS), and anti-inflammatory potentials. J. Enzym. Ihib. Med. Chem. 2022, 37, 1845–1856. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Alarcón, J.; Astudillo, L.; Gutierrez, M. Inhibition of acetylcholinesterase activity by dihydro-β-agarofuran sesquiterpenes isolated from Chilean Celastraceae. Z. Naturforsch. C. 2008, 63, 853–856. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Eldeen, I.M.; Habsah, M.; Tan, W.; Siong, J.Y.; Yosie, A.; Tengku-Muhammad, T.S. Cyclooxygenase, 5-lipoxygenase and acetylcholinesterase inhibitory effects of fractions containing, α-guaiene and oil isolated from the root of Xylocarpus moluccensis. Res. J. Med. Plant 2016, 10, 286–294. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Ishola, I.O.; Osele, M.O.; Chijioke, M.C.; Adeyemi, O.O. Isorhamnetin enhanced cortico-hippocampal learning and memory capability in mice with scopolamine-induced amnesia: Role of antioxidant defense, cholinergic and BDNF signaling. Brain Res. 2019, 1712, 188–196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Olennikov, D.N.; Kashchenko, N.I.; Chirikova, N.K.; Akobirshoeva, A.; Zilfikarov, I.N.; Vennos, C. Isorhamnetin and quercetin derivatives as anti-acetylcholinesterase principles of marigold (Calendula officinalis) flowers and preparations. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2017, 18, 1685. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Al-Humaidi, J.Y.; Al-Qudah, M.A.; Al-Saleem, M.S.; Alotaibi, S.M. Antioxidant activity and chemical composition of essential oils of selected Cleome species growing in Saudi Arabia. JJC 2019, 14, 6256–6266. [Google Scholar]
  38. Abu-Orabi, S.T.; Al-Qudah, M.A.; Saleh, N.R.; Bataineh, T.T.; Obeidat, S.M.; Al-Sheraideh, M.S.; Al-Jaber, H.I.; Tashtoush, H.I.; Lahham, J.N. Antioxidant activity of crude extracts and essential oils from flower buds and leaves of Cistus creticus and Cistus salviifolius. Arab. J. Chem. 2020, 13, 6256–6266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Adams, R.P. Identification of Essential Oils by Ion Trap Mass Spectroscopy; Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  40. Al-Dalahmeh, Y.; Almahmoud, S.A.J.; Al-Bataineh, N.; Alghzawi, T.A.; Alhamzani, A.G.; Al-Mutairi, A.A.; Al-Qudah, M.A. Scrophularia peyronii Post. from Jordan: Chemical composition of essential oil and phytochemical profiling of crude extracts and their in vitro antioxidant activity. Life 2023, 13, 1404. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  41. Yang, X.; Zhou, J.; Wang, T.; Zhao, L.; Ye, G.; Shi, F.; Li, Y.; Tang, H.; Dong, T.; Zhou, X.; et al. A novel method for synthesis of α-spinasterol and its antibacterial activities in combination with ceftiofur. Fitoterapia 2017, 119, 12–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  42. Sokeng, S.D.; Talla, E.; Sakava, P.; Fokam Tagne, M.A.; Henoumont, C.; Sophie, L.; Mbafor, J.T.; Tchuenguem Fohouo, F.N. Anti-inflammatory and analgesic effect of arachic acid ethyl ester isolated from propolis. Biomed Res. Int. 2020, 2020, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Monteiro, C.M.; Lourenço, N.M.; Afonso, C.A. Separation of secondary alcohols via enzymatic kinetic resolution using fatty esters as reusable acylating agents. Tetrahedron Asymmetry 2010, 21, 952–956. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Refaat, J.; Abdel-Lateff, A.; Kamel, M.S.; Ali, A.A.; Ramadan, M.A.; Okino, T.; Nagata, Y. Antifouling alkaloids from Crinum augustum (Amaryllidaceae). Pharmacogn. Res. 2009, 1, 43–52. [Google Scholar]
  45. Al-Zereini, W.A.; Al-Trawneh, I.N.; Al-Qudah, M.A.; TumAllah, H.M.; Abudayeh, Z.H.; Hijazin, T. Antibacterial, antioxidant, and cytotoxic activities of Syzygium aromaticum (L.) Merr. & Perry essential oil with identification of its chemical constituents. Z. Naturforsch. C 2023, 78, 105–112. [Google Scholar]
  46. Al-Qaralleh, O.S.; Al-Zereini, W.A.; Al-Mustafa, A.H. Antibacterial, antioxidant and neuroprotective activities of crude extract from the endophytic fungus Fusarium sp. isolate OQ-Fus-2-F from Euphorbia sp. plant. JPPRes 2021, 9, 755–765. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Molecules 29 02730 g001
Figure 1. Bupleurum lancifolium.
Figure 1. Bupleurum lancifolium.
Molecules 29 02730 g001
Molecules 29 02730 g002
Figure 2. Main components detected in the HDEO of B. Lancifolium.
Figure 2. Main components detected in the HDEO of B. Lancifolium.
Molecules 29 02730 g002
Molecules 29 02730 g003
Figure 3. Chemical groups of essential oil. Monoterpene hydrocarbons (MHs); sesquiterpene hydrocarbons (SHs); oxygenated sesquiterpenes (OS); aliphatic compounds (ACs); diterpene hydrocarbons (DHs); oxygenated diterpenes (ODs); ester and carboxylic acid (EC); and other compounds.
Figure 3. Chemical groups of essential oil. Monoterpene hydrocarbons (MHs); sesquiterpene hydrocarbons (SHs); oxygenated sesquiterpenes (OS); aliphatic compounds (ACs); diterpene hydrocarbons (DHs); oxygenated diterpenes (ODs); ester and carboxylic acid (EC); and other compounds.
Molecules 29 02730 g003
Molecules 29 02730 g004
Figure 4. Chemical constituents of B. lancifolium isolated from the BLM and BLB fractions.
Figure 4. Chemical constituents of B. lancifolium isolated from the BLM and BLB fractions.
Molecules 29 02730 g004
Table 1. Chemical constituents and their percentage of the composition in the HDEO obtained from aerial parts of B. lancifolium.
Table 1. Chemical constituents and their percentage of the composition in the HDEO obtained from aerial parts of B. lancifolium.
No.RtKI aKILit.CompoundType% A bMode of
Identification
14.045800800n-OctaneAC0.11MS c, KI, CoI d
25.788885895(4Z)-HeptenalAC0.19MS, KI
36.869927926TricycleneMH0.37MS, KI
48.132971975SabineneMH0.05MS, KI
58.634988979β-Pinene MH0.06MS, KI
610.33110341029β-Phellandrene MH0.76MS, KI, CoI
713.0341101100UndecaneAC0.16MS, KI
823.3213351338δ-ElemeneSH0.29MS, KI, CoI
925.2413791376α-Copaene SH0.45MS, KI
1025.58213871388β-Bourbonene SH0.07MS, KI
1125.78113921388β-Cubebene SH0.81MS, KI
1226.98614201418Ethyl-(2E)-decanoateEC0.83MS, KI
1327.55314381439α-Guaiene SH14.11MS, KI, CoI
1427.70814381441AromadendreneSH0.64MS, KI
1527.91114431444Guaia-6,9-diene SH0.06MS, KI, CoI
1628.21214501460allo-Aromadendrene SH0.23MS, KI
1728.49714571463cis-Cadina-1(6),4-dieneSH0.33MS, KI, CoI
1828.72414621472Dauca-5,8-dieneSH1.47MS, KI
1930.08614951496ValenceneSH13.28MS, KI
2030.35815021503β-Dihydro agarofuran OS23.50MS, KI
2130.53415061502γ-Patchoulene SH23.79MS, KI
2230.827151415227-epi-α-Selinene SH8.98MS, KI
2330.89115151509Germacrene ASH1.24MS, KI
2431.08315201512δ-AmorpheneSH0.22MS, KI
2531.23115241529ZonareneSH0.46MS, KI
2631.43715291523δ-CadineneSH1.82MS, KI, CoI
2731.53515321534trans-Cadina-1,4-diene SH0.05MS, KI
2831.88815401538α-Cadinene SH0.05MS, KI
2932.0371544153510-epi-CubebolOS0.06MS, KI
3033.91215921595cis-dihydro-Mayurone OS0.91MS, KI
3136.09316501640epi-α-CadinolOS0.08MS, KI
3236.193 1643α-MuurololOS0.25MS, KI, CoI
3336.652166416637-epi-α-EudesmolOS0.48MS, KI
3436.916711669(E)-10,11-Dihydroatlantone OS0.05MS, KI
3537.2191680167014-Hydroxy-9-epi-(E)-caryophyllene OS0.12MS, KI
3638.97817281723Methyl-tetradecanoateEC0.11MS, KI
3739.62417461741Mint sulfideOther0.11MS, KI
3842.93718411868(E)-β-Santalol acetateOS1.45MS, KI
3943.13418461860(Z,Z)-Farnesyl acetoneOS0.38MS, RI
4044.26918801900dihydro-Columellarin OS0.08MS, KI
4144.93518991901epi-LaureneneDH0.19MS, KI
4245.90619291931BeyereneDH0.27MS, KI
4349.68420462036(Z)-Falcarinol AC0.11MS, KI
4551.17820922085Methyl linoleateEC0.20MS, KI
4651.37820982133Linoleic acidEC0.28MS, KI, CoI
4757.138227521891-Docosene AC0.09MS, KI
4862.51524412332Methyl daniellateOD0.18MS, KI
Total identified 99.76
a KI = Kovats retention index experimentally calculated. b % Area of the peak. c MS: Identification by mass spectrum. d CoI: Co-injection with authentic compound.
Table 2. Results for the TPC (mg/g gallic acid equivalents) and TFC (mg/g quercetin equivalents) of the BLM and BLB fractions and the IC50 (μg/mL) of the antioxidant activities of the HDEO and BLM and BLB fractions obtained from B. lancifolium.
Table 2. Results for the TPC (mg/g gallic acid equivalents) and TFC (mg/g quercetin equivalents) of the BLM and BLB fractions and the IC50 (μg/mL) of the antioxidant activities of the HDEO and BLM and BLB fractions obtained from B. lancifolium.
Extract/ReferenceTPCTFCIC50 (µg/mL)
DPPH•ABTS•+
HDEO--45.4 ± 0.5041.0 ± 0.70
BLM790.76 ± 1.86150.61 ± 2.5011.3 ± 0.2018.0 ± 0.35
BLB849.46 ± 4.37405.23 ± 1.478.0 ± 0.7910.0 ± 0.54
Ascorbic acid--1.58 ± 0.031.78 ± 0.06
α-Tocopherol--1.79 ± 0.012.33 ± 0.01
Table 3. Cytotoxic effects of extracts (BLB, BLM, and essential oil) and daunorubicin against the MDA-MB-231, fibroblast, and Vero cancer cell lines.
Table 3. Cytotoxic effects of extracts (BLB, BLM, and essential oil) and daunorubicin against the MDA-MB-231, fibroblast, and Vero cancer cell lines.
SampleIC50 (µg/mL)
MDA MB-231FibroblastVero
BLM44.7 ± 1.3 a50.8 ± 2.1 a106.9 ± 2.5 b
Daunorubicin2.3 ± 0.2 *0.5 ± 0.1 *6.2 ± 1.7 *
IC50 values (µg/mL) with similar letters are not significantly different from each other based on the post hoc Tukey HSD test. Asterisks indicate statistically significant differences in the IC50 values of the positive control to the tested samples (* p ˂ 0.05).
Table 4. Acetylcholine esterase (AChE) enzyme % inhibition activities and IC50 (µg/mL) evaluations of the BLB, BLM, and HDEO compared to the positive control galantamine.
Table 4. Acetylcholine esterase (AChE) enzyme % inhibition activities and IC50 (µg/mL) evaluations of the BLB, BLM, and HDEO compared to the positive control galantamine.
Sample% InhibitionIC50
µg/mL
100300
HDEO66.1 ± 4.172.3 ± 7.343.8 ± 2.7 a
BLB21.1 ± 2.062.9 ± 4.1217.9 ± 5.3 b
BLM39.4 ± 2.473.5 ± 3.4139.1 ± 5.6 c
Galantamine--6.4 ± 2.1 d
IC50 values (µg/mL) with similar letters are not significantly different from each other based on the post hoc Tukey HSD test.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Al-Bataineh, N.; Abu-Orabi, S.T.; Shannag, S.B.; Al-Jaber, H.I.; Bataineh, T.T.; Al-Zereini, W.A.; Al-Qudah, M.A. Uncovering the Chemical Composition and Biological Potentials of Bupleurum lancifolium Hornem. from Jordan. Molecules 2024, 29, 2730. https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules29122730

AMA Style

Al-Bataineh N, Abu-Orabi ST, Shannag SB, Al-Jaber HI, Bataineh TT, Al-Zereini WA, Al-Qudah MA. Uncovering the Chemical Composition and Biological Potentials of Bupleurum lancifolium Hornem. from Jordan. Molecules. 2024; 29(12):2730. https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules29122730

Chicago/Turabian Style

Al-Bataineh, Nezar, Sultan T. Abu-Orabi, Suhair B. Shannag, Hala I. Al-Jaber, Tareq T. Bataineh, Wael A. Al-Zereini, and Mahmoud A. Al-Qudah. 2024. "Uncovering the Chemical Composition and Biological Potentials of Bupleurum lancifolium Hornem. from Jordan" Molecules 29, no. 12: 2730. https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules29122730

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop