Abstract
Background: Plants of the genus Rubus (family Rosaceae) have been used for diverse medicinal purposes for centuries. We hypothesized that the scarcely investigated R. canescens DC., like other species of the genus Rubus, exhibit prominent antioxidant activity.
Objective: The present study investigates the in vitro and in vivo antioxidant activity of fruit juice as well as aqueous and methanolic extracts of the areal parts of Rubus canescens DC., and deciphers the phytochemical profile of the methanolic extracts by GC-MS.
Methods: The in vitro antioxidant activity was assessed by DPPH radical scavenging assay and β- carotene bleaching assays. The in vivo antioxidant activity of the extracts was evaluated by measuring ALT, AST, CAT, and SOD levels in CCl4-challenged mice in two experimental models (chronic exposure and preventive). Histological analysis was conducted on H&E stained liver sections, and the phytochemical profile of methanolic extracts was investigated by GC-MS.
Results: DPPH radical scavenging assay revealed that the methanolic leaves extract exhibited the highest activity, while the juice was the most active in terms of the β-carotene bleaching assay. The in vivo experiments suggested that the extracts have promising antioxidant potential and hepatoprotective effects capable of promoting liver functions. Histological analysis of liver sections revealed that administrating juice extract regenerated hepatocytes while reducing inflammation. GC-MS analysis indicated the presence of squalene, β-amyrin, and γ-sitosterol that may have contributed to the observed activity.
Conclusion: The current study provided the first in vivo evidence supporting the antioxidative and hepatoprotective effects of R. canescens DC. growing wild in Lebanon.
Keywords: Rubus canescens DC., antioxidant, hepatoprotective, GC-MS, Lebanon, methanolic extracts.
Graphical Abstract
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1039/c2np20091k PMID: 23037777]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biotechadv.2015.08.001 ] [PMID: 26281720]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11101-014-9367-z]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jep.2005.06.004 PMID: 16006081]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-05-0616 ] [PMID: 16024595]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/jf2039839 PMID: 22264130]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09537104.2016.1235689 ] [PMID: 27778523]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.carbpol.2015.06.068 PMID: 26256339]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.indcrop.2015.03.022]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2007.06.055]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jfca.2004.11.003]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13880200902962731]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.12991/mpj.201519392830]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s13197-011-0389-x PMID: 24425970]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s13197-011-0447-4 PMID: 24426024]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fct.2012.10.014 PMID: 23099505]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.2042-7158.1993.tb05576.x ] [PMID: 8099967]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0306-3623(98)00238-9 ] [PMID: 10401991]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0021-9258(18)63504-5 PMID: 5389100]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0076-6879(84)05016-3 PMID: 6727660]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/jf0502698 PMID: 15884874]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09637480701602530 PMID: 19382350]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/jf9908345 PMID: 10691606]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijms161024673 PMID: 26501271]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/antiox5020017 PMID: 27258314]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.17221/300/2010-CJFS]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/carcin/7.4.595 PMID: 2870820]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1386-6346(99)00085-6 ] [PMID: 10838037]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0003-9861(90)90510-6 PMID: 2191627]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01926230290166724 PMID: 12512863]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jep.2004.09.051 PMID: 15652272]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/0974-8490.122919 PMID: 24497744]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s13197-013-1105-9 PMID: 25694742]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.toxrep.2014.08.012 PMID: 28962280]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14786419.2018.1539978 ] [PMID: 30450958]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ejlt.200900102]
[PMID: 30465617]