ORIGINAL RESEARCH article

Front. Plant Sci., 16 September 2022

Sec. Plant Metabolism and Chemodiversity

Volume 13 - 2022 | https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2022.988352

A comprehensive phytochemical, biological, and toxicological studies of roots and aerial parts of Crotalaria burhia Buch.-Ham: An important medicinal plant

  • 1. Department of Pharmacology and Toxicology, College of Pharmacy, University of Hail, Hail, Saudi Arabia

  • 2. Institute of Pharmaceutical Sciences (IPS), University of Veterinary and Animal Sciences (UVAS), Lahore, Pakistan

  • 3. Department of Pharmacy, The University of Chenab, Gujrat, Pakistan

  • 4. Department of Pharmaceutical Chemistry, Faculty of Pharmacy, The Islamia University of Bahawalpur, Bahawalpur, Pakistan

  • 5. Akhtar Saeed College of Pharmacy, Canal Campus, Lahore, Pakistan

  • 6. Department of Pharmacology, Faculty of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Government College University, Faisalabad, Pakistan

  • 7. Department of Pharmaceutics, College of Pharmacy, University of Hail, Hail, Saudi Arabia

  • 8. Jeffrey Cheah School of Medicine and Health Sciences, Neuropharmacology Research Laboratory, Monash University Malaysia, Bandar Sunway, Selangor, Malaysia

  • 9. Department of Pharmacy, University “G. d’Annunzio” of Chieti-Pescara, Chieti, Italy

  • 10. School of Pharmacy, Monash University Malaysia, Bandar Sunway, Selangor, Malaysia

Article metrics

View details

9

Citations

5,3k

Views

2,4k

Downloads

Abstract

This study was designed to seek the phytochemical analysis, antioxidant, enzyme inhibition, and toxicity potentials of methanol and dichloromethane (DCM) extracts of aerial and root parts of Crotalaria burhia. Total bioactive content, high-performance liquid chromatography-photodiode array detector (HPLC-PDA) polyphenolic quantification, and ultra-high performance liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry (UHPLC-MS) analysis were utilized to evaluate the phytochemical composition. Antioxidant [including 2,2-diphenyl-1-picryl-hydrazyl-hydrate (DPPH)], 2,2′-azino-bis[3-ethylbenzothiazoline-6-sulfonic acid (ABTS), ferric reducing antioxidant power assay (FRAP), cupric reducing antioxidant capacity CUPRAC, phosphomolybdenum, and metal chelation assays] and enzyme inhibition [against acetylcholinesterase (AChE), butyrylcholinesterase (BChE), α-glucosidase, α-amylase, and tyrosinase] assays were carried out for biological evaluation. The cytotoxicity was tested against MCF-7 and MDA-MB-231 breast cell lines. The root-methanol extract contained the highest levels of phenolics (37.69 mg gallic acid equivalent/g extract) and flavonoids (83.0 mg quercetin equivalent/g extract) contents, and was also the most active for DPPH (50.04 mg Trolox equivalent/g extract) and CUPRAC (139.96 mg Trolox equivalent /g extract) antioxidant assays. Likewise, the aerial-methanol extract exhibited maximum activity for ABTS (94.05 mg Trolox equivalent/g extract) and FRAP (64.23 mg Trolox equivalent/g extract) assays. The aerial-DCM extract was noted to be a convincing cholinesterase (AChE; 4.01 and BChE; 4.28 mg galantamine equivalent/g extract), and α-glucosidase inhibitor (1.92 mmol acarbose equivalent/g extract). All of the extracts exhibited weak to modest toxicity against the tested cell lines. A considerable quantities of gallic acid, catechin, 4-OH benzoic acid, syringic acid, vanillic acid, 3-OH-4-MeO benzaldehyde, epicatechin, p-coumaric acid, rutin, naringenin, and carvacrol were quantified via HPLC-PDA analysis. UHPLC-MS analysis of methanolic extracts from roots and aerial parts revealed the tentative identification of important phytoconstituents such as polyphenols, saponins, flavonoids, and glycoside derivatives. To conclude, this plant could be considered a promising source of origin for bioactive compounds with several therapeutic uses.

Introduction

Plants are genetically very diverse and vital to human existence, shelter, food, and medicine. Among plants, the study of medicinal plants has gained worldwide attention in recent years. A substantial amount of research demonstrates the intriguing potential of medicinal plants employed in traditional, complementary, and alternative methods of treating human ailments (Fitzgerald et al., 2020; Erdinc et al., 2021; Tamer et al., 2021). The investigation of medicinal plants as a unique source of enzyme inhibitors, natural antioxidant components, and treatments for a variety of common illnesses has attracted considerable interest (Phumthum et al., 2018). Phytochemicals, also known as secondary metabolites, are bioactive plant molecules and the source of the majority of currently accessible pharmaceuticals. 77% of antibiotics and 547 medicines approved by the FDA by the end of 2013 were derived from natural products, according to a survey (Patridge et al., 2016). Natural products play a major role in medication development; therefore, screening plants for substantial active ingredients can be viewed as a first step toward producing more effective treatments against a broader range of ailments (Bibi Sadeer et al., 2022). Herbal applications are now a rapidly expanding market, with the goal of creating new pharmaceutical and nutraceutical materials with herbal ingredients. Lifestyle diseases such as obesity, cancer, and diabetes mellitus are to blame for the current state of affairs (Ceylan et al., 2016; Yener et al., 2018).

Crotalaria belongs to the family Fabaceae. Approximately 700 species are make up this family disseminated throughout the world’s tropical and subtropical regions (Lewis, 2005). In the desert regions of West Pakistan, India, and Afghanistan, C. burhia, or Khip, is found as a shrub and fibrous plant. The ancient Indian Ayurvedic system, identified this plant as having great medicinal potential. Anticancer and soothing properties are found in the leaves, roots, and branches of C. burhia, while fresh plant juice can be used to treat eczema, gout, hydrophobia, pain, and edema. Roots extract with sugar is used to alleviate chronic kidney pain and to treat typhoid fever. It has a wide range of medical properties (Talaviya et al., 2018), Cooling medication can be made from the plant’s leaves, branches, and roots. Gout, eczema, hydrophobia, pain and swelling, wounds and cuts, infection, renal pain, stomach disorders, rheumatism, and joint pain can all be treated using plant juice in traditional medicine (Katewa and Galav, 2006; Sandeep et al., 2010; Bibi et al., 2015). There are several active compounds in this plant, including triterpenoids, flavonoids, anthraquinones, phenols, polyphenols, steroids, alkaloids, and tannins (Kataria et al., 2011; Kumar et al., 2011; Bibi et al., 2015). Additionally, C. burhia’s antibacterial, anti-inflammatory, and antinociceptive properties are supported by its traditional applications (Kataria et al., 2010; Kataria et al., 2012; Soni, 2014; Talaviya et al., 2014; Bibi et al., 2015). Crotalaria burhia is a highly important medicinal plant used to treat different ailments. Some researchers also mentioned that the whole plant, as well as its different parts like its branches, roots, leaves, and stem applied for the cure of diseases (Talaviya et al., 2018). Fresh plant juices have magical ethnobotanical values and are reported to treat different disorders. Crotalaria burhia is a valuable plant used to treat cancer, infections, pain, swelling, inflammation, hydrophobia, and skin diseases (Kataria et al., 2010). This plant is well known for the useful cure of general contaminations in the Thal Desert of Punjab (Niaz et al., 2013). Previous literature exposed that it is also utilized as a good soil binder, as food for goats, and in the desert to make sheds for animals and ropes (Soni, 2014). Some phytochemical studies reported the isolation of secondary metabolites from Crotalaria burhia are identified as toxicarol, elliptone, rotenone, sumatrol, deguelin, and tephrosin (Uddin and Khanna, 1979), crotalarine (Ali and Adil, 1973), crosemperine (Ahmad and Fatima, 1986), quercetin, β-sitosterol (Soni, 2014). However, many species of the Crotalaria genus are yet to be explored scientifically.

Polyphenol compounds, which include flavonoids and phenolic acids, are widely distributed throughout the plant kingdom. Over 6,000 different flavonoid species have been discovered so far. In the fight against microbial and insect attacks, they play an important role (Boǧa et al., 2016; Bouhafsoun et al., 2018; Bakir et al., 2020). The biological activities of C. burhia, a species of the Crotalaria genus, was examined in this study with regard to enzymes targeted for the treatment of diabetes type II, Alzheimer’s disease, and skin hyperpigmentation problems. Methanol and DCM were used to extract the aerial and root sections of C. burhia, and ultra-high performance liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry (UHPLC-MS) profiling, HPLC poly-phenolic quantification, and total bioactive contents were used to determine the phytochemical composition of each extract. Several in vitro bio-assays were used to measure the antioxidant capacity of each extract, including the phosphomolybdenum assay, DPPH and ABTS assays for radical scavenging, FRAP and CUPRAC for reducing power, and total antioxidant capacity. The inhibition potential of all the extracts was studied against a panoply of clinically important enzymes, including AChE, BChE, glucosidase, amylase, and tyrosinase. Furthermore, statistical correlation of all the activities by principal component analysis (PCA) was also studied.

Materials and methods

Plant material and extraction

Dr. H. Waris, Taxonomist of the Cholistan Institute of Desert Studies, The Islamia University of Bahawalpur, recognized C. burhia aerial and root parts obtained from Bahawalpur, Pakistan. For future reference, the herbarium of the Department of Pharmacy and Alternative Medicine, also deposited a voucher specimen number. For 15 days, the plant material was kept in the shade to dry. Using a combination of DCM and methanol, the powdered dried plant was extracted over the course of 72 h and further concentrated using rotary evaporator.

Phytochemical composition

Total bioactive contents

Standard Folin-Ciocalteu and aluminum chloride techniques (Slinkard and Singleton, 1977; Zengin et al., 2016) with minor modifications were used to assess the total phenolic (TPC) and flavonoid (TFC) concentrations. Gallic acid equivalents (mg GAE/g extract) and quercetin equivalents (mg QE/g extract) were used to measure phenolic and flavonoid content, respectively.

High-performance liquid chromatography-photodiode array detector polyphenolic quantification

High-performance liquid chromatography-photodiode array detector (HPLC-PDA) analysis was used to determine the presence of 22 distinct polyphenolic standards in each sample. Waters liquid chromatograph with a model 600 solvent pump and a 2996 PDA detector was used for the analysis. The data was collected using Empower v.2 Software (Waters Spa, Milford, MA, United States) (Locatelli et al., 2017). The details of HPLC instrumentation are provided in “Supplementary Material” section. The gradient profiles and calibration parameters of the quantified phenolic standards are provided in Supplementary Tables 1, 2, respectively.

Ultra-high performance liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry analysis

RP-UHPLC-MS was used to profile secondary metabolites. An Agilent 6,520 was used to perform UHPLC-MS analysis of methanolic extracts of aerial and root portions (negative ionization mode) on the Agilent 1,290 Infinity LC system (Khurshid et al., 2019). In order to make some tentative predictions about the presence of various secondary metabolites in the samples, we turned to the METLIN database. The details of UHPLC-MS instrumentation are provided in “Supplementary Material” section.

Biological activities

Antioxidant assays

According to already adopted methods by Grochowski et al. (2017), DPPH and ABTS radical scavenging, reducing power (FRAP, CUPRAC), total antioxidant capacity (phosphomolybdenum), and metal chelating power of the investigated extracts were evaluated. The antioxidant activity of all assays was measured in terms of Trolox equivalents (mg TE/g extract) while the metal chelating activity was assessed in terms of mg EDTAE/g extract. The details of antioxidant assays are provided in “Supplementary Material” section.

Enzyme inhibition assays

The enzyme inhibition potential of plant extracts against cholinesterases (AChE and BChE), tyrosinase, α-amylase, and α-glucosidase was evaluated using previously established in vitro standard methods (Grochowski et al., 2017; Mollica et al., 2017). Galantamine equivalents per gram of extract (GALAE/g) were used to measure AChE and BChE inhibitory activities. On the other hand, millimoles of acarbose equivalents (ACAE/g) and milligram of kojic acid equivalents (KAE/g) were used to measure inhibition of α-amylase, α-glucosidase, and tyrosinase, respectively. The details of enzyme inhibition assays are provided in “Supplementary Material” section.

Cytotoxicity assay

Using the previously published approach, the cytotoxicity of the tested products was assessed against two breast cancer cell lines, MDA-MB 231 and MCF-7 cells, using the MTT [3-(4,5-dimethylthiazol-2-yl)-2,5-diphenyltetrazolium bromide] assay (Nemudzivhadi and Masoko, 2014). The cell viability percentage (%) was calculated.

Statistical analysis

Three separate experiments were conducted for each of the assays. Mean standard deviation was used to express results (SD). SPSS v.17.0 was employed for data analysis. ANOVA and Tukey’s test were used to examine the differences between the means. Statistical significance was defined as a p-value of 0.05 or less. A link between bioactive content and evaluated biological assays was obtained using PCA and Pearson linear correlation.

Results and discussion

Phytochemical profiling

When it comes to plant secondary metabolites, phytochemicals, such as phenols and flavonoids, are regarded to be the most bioactive secondary metabolites (Rahman et al., 2018). Table 1 lists the TPC and TFC values of methanol and DCM extracts of C. burhia’s aerial and root portions, respectively. The methanolic root extract had the highest TPC concentration (37.69 mg GAE/g), whilst the DCM aerial extract had the lowest (27.62 mg GAE/g). The flavonoid content determination followed a similar trend to that of the TPC, with TFC values of 83.11 and 12.64 mg QE/g extract for both methanol root and DCM aerial extracts, respectively.

TABLE 1

ExtractsTotal bioactive contents
Antioxidant assays
Total phenolic content (mg GAE/g)Total flavonoid content (mg QE/g)Radical scavenging activity
Reducing power
Total antioxidant capacity (TAC)
Ferrous chelating
DPPH (mgTE/g extract)ABTS (mgTE/g extract)FRAP (mgTE/g extract)CUPRAC (mgTE/g extract)Phosphomolybdenum (mgTE/g extract)Metal chelating (mgEDTAE/g)
CbA-M28.35 ± 0.5621.76 ± 0.8341.25 ± 0.8694.05 ± 2.9464.23 ± 1.74107.62 ± 3.658.60 ± 0.211.40 ± 0.06
CbA-D27.62 ± 1.1412.64 ± 0.1621.05 ± 0.4848.22 ± 0.8148.54 ± 3.03106.01 ± 2.7560.46 ± 1.742.24 ± 0.11
CbR-M37.69 ± 1.1383.11 ± 0.9350.04 ± 1.8586.21 ± 0.9353.87 ± 1.81139.96 ± 5.2112.47 ± 0.451.40 ± 0.05
CbR-D29.58 ± 0.3626.68 ± 0.2248.13 ± 1.4464.67 ± 2.8148.11 ± 1.9398.66 ± 2.0121.02 ± 0.412.07 ± 0.17

Total bioactive contents and antioxidant properties of C. burhia aerial and root extracts.

CbA-M, C. burhia aerial methanol; CbA-D, C. burhia aerial DCM; CbR-M, C. burhia root methanol; CbR-D, C. burhia root DCM.

Data from three repetitions, with mean ± standard deviation. GAE, gallic acid equivalent; QE, quercetin equivalent; TE, trolox equivalent; EDTAE, EDTA equivalent. All values expressed are means ± SD. of three parallel measurements.

Similarly, HPLC-PDA polyphenolic quantification was performed in order to quantify the phenolic standards in the studied extracts and the results are presented in Table 2, while, the HPLC-PDA chromatograms of the quantified phenolics in the tested extracts are given in Supplementary Figures 1, 2. In comparison to the other extracts, C. burhia methanol root extract comprised a significant quantity of phenolics (4.28 μg/mg), with the highest amounts of epicatechin (0.71 μg/mg extract) and p-coumaric acid (0.68 μg/mg extract), while rutin (0.33 μg/mg extract) was quantified in lesser amount. Likewise, aerial methanol extract presented the highest quantities of epicatechin (1.89 μg/mg extract), while DCM root extract displayed the lowest amounts of carvacrol (0.65 μg/g extract). Both roots and aerial DCM extracts accounted for the least amounts of phenolic standards (0.65 and 0.36 μg/g extract, respectively), which could be due to the extracts being nonpolar. Further investigations of plant extracts/fractions can be done to separate bioactive compounds with potentially important functions as a result of this phenolic profiling.

TABLE 2

Tested samplesPolyphenolics quantified (μg/mg dry extract)
Gallic acidCatechin4-OH benzoic acidVanillic acidEpicatechinSyringic acid3-OH-4-MeO benzaldehydep-coumaric acidRutinNaringeninCarvacrolTotal (μg/mg)
CbA-MndndBLDnd1.89 ± 0.24ndndndndBLD0.42 ± 0.032.32
CbA-DndndndndndndBLDndndnd0.36 ± 0.030.36
CbR-M0.49 ± 0.040.57 ± 0.060.51 ± 0.040.53 ± 0.050.71 ± 0.060.45 ± 0.04nd0.68 ± 0.070.33 ± 0.03ndnd4.28
CbR-Dndndndndndndndndndnd0.65 ± 0.050.65

HPLC-PDA quantification (μg/mg) of phenolics in C. burhia samples.

CbA-M, C. burhia aerial methanol; CbA-D, C. burhia aerial DCM; CbR-M, C. burhia root methanol; CbR-D, C. burhia root DCM.

Nd, not detected; Chlorogenic acid, 3-OH benzoic acid, sinapinic acid, t-ferulic acid, naringin, 2,3-diMeO benzoic acid, benzoic acid, o-coumaric acid were not detected in any of the tested plant extracts.

Additionally, methanolic extracts of C. burhia roots and aerial parts were subjected to UHPLC-MS analysis in order to get thorough profiles of individual secondary metabolites. Figures 1A,B depict standard total ion chromatograms with mass spectrometric peaks for both extracts. Tables 3, 4 give a preliminary list of secondary metabolites found in aerial and root extracts, respectively. A total of 36 distinct secondary metabolites were detected in the methanolic aerial extract. A preliminary analysis of the root extract identified 53 distinct chemicals. Majority of the compounds belonged to phytoconstituents’ phenols, flavonoid, saponin, coumarin, and glycoside classes. Polyphenols, notably flavonoids and coumarins, have been discovered to possess a wide range of health benefits, including antibacterial, enzyme inhibitory and antioxidant capabilities (Dilworth et al., 2017), whereas glycosides, tannins, alkaloids, and resins have been shown to have antibacterial activities (Rascon-Valenzuela et al., 2017). According to our research, this is the first time this plant has been profiled in such detail.

FIGURE 1

FIGURE 1

Total ion chromatograms (TICs) of C. burhia aerial (A) and root (B) extracts.

TABLE 3

No.RT (min)Mol. massTentative identificationChemical formulaCompound classB. peak (m/z)
10.643216.0412IsobergapteneC12 H8 O4Coumarin215.0412
27.182294.1315Ethyl (S)-3-hydroxybutyrate glucosideC12 H22 O8Glycosides293.1315
47.635640.1647Isorhamnetin 3-glucosyl-(1- > 6)-galactosideC28 H32 O17Flavonoid639.1647
57.747154.02653,4-Dihydroxybenzoic acidC7 H6 O4Antioxidant153.0265
67.759328.0796BergeninC14 H16 O9Phyto327.0796
77.792432.1279Apiosylglucosyl 4-hydroxybenzoateC18 H24 O12Glycoside431.1279
88.027682.1747Isorhamnetin 3-(6′′′-acetylglucosyl)(1- > 3)-galactosideC30 H34 O18Flavonoid681.1747
98.482226.120612-hydroxyjasmonic acidC12 H18 O4Carboxylic acid225.1206
108.509330.1307(±)-3-(4-Hydroxyphenyl)-1,2-propanediol 4′-O-glucosideC15 H22 O8Phenolic glycosides329.1307
118.642218.11543-hydroxy-sebacic acidC10 H18 O5Fatty acids217.1154
139.35286.04825,7,2′,3′-TetrahydroxyflavoneC15 H10 O6Flavone285.0482
159.864270.0534DemethyltexasinC15 H10 O5Flavonoid269.0534
1710.039300.064KaempferideC16 H12 O6Flavone299.064
1910.249200.1047Decenedioic acidC10 H16 O4Fatty acids199.1047
2010.42254.05817,4′-DihydroxyflavoneC15 H10 O4Flavone253.0581
2110.509286.04795,7,2′,3′-TetrahydroxyflavoneC15 H10 O6Flavone285.0479
2210.917268.0373CoumestrolC15 H8 O5Phytoestrogens267.0373
2311.211298.04788-MethoxycoumestrolC16 H10 O6Coumestans297.0478
2411.45624.2635Kanokoside DC27 H44 O16Glycoside623.2635
2611.574314.079Luteolin 5,3′-dimethyl etherC17 H14 O6Flavonoid313.079
2711.815370.1053NeouralenolC20 H18 O7Flavonoid369.1053
2811.877354.11052,3-DehydrokievitoneC20 H18 O6Iso flavone353.1105
2911.883288.23019,16-dihydroxy-palmitic acidC16 H32 O4Hydroxy fatty acid287.2301
3012.137562.262719-Hydroxycinnzeylanol 19-glucosideC26 H42 O13Glycoside561.2627
3413.574452.1087Cinchonain IbC24 H20 O9Flavonolignan451.1087
3514.603336.0987IsosojagolC20 H16 O5Coumestans335.0987
3618.507272.23522-Hydroxyhexadecanoic acidC16 H32 O3Fatty acids271.2352

UPHLC-MS analysis tentative identification of the secondary metabolites from C. burhia aerial methanol extract (negative ionization mode).

RT, retention time; B. Peak, base peak.

TABLE 4

No.RT (min)MassTentative identificationChemical formulaCompound classB. peak (m/z)
17.794432.1273Apiosylglucosyl 4-hydroxybenzoateC18 H24 O12Glycoside431.1273
28.287207.0894PhenylpropionylglycineC11 H13 NO3Acyl glycine208.0894
38.49462.1168Tricin 4′-apiosideC22 H22 O11Flavone461.1168
48.871416.11033′,4′-Dihydroxyflavone 4′-glucosideC21 H20 O9Flavone415.1103
59.213372.12147,8,3′,4′,5′-PentamethoxyflavoneC20 H20 O7flavone371.1214
69.351286.04815,7,2′,3′-TetrahydroxyflavoneC15 H10 O6Flavone285.0481
79.507370.1056NeouralenolC20 H18 O7Flavone369.1056
89.614406.09055,6,3′,5′-Tetrahydroxy-3,7,8,4′-tetramethoxyflavoneC19 H18 O10Flavonoids405.0905
109.856270.0536DemethyltexasinC15 H10 O5Isoflavonoe269.0536
119.942138.0316p-Salicylic acidC7 H6 O3Phenol137.0316
1310.034300.0636KaempferideC16 H12 O6Flavone299.0636
1410.25200.1051Decenedioic acidC10 H16 O4Phyto199.1051
1510.358584.2616PubescenolC32 H40 O10Withanolide583.2616
1610.424254.05847,4′-DihydroxyflavoneC15 H10 O4Flavone253.0584
1710.553284.0683TexasinC16 H12 O5Phyto283.0683
1810.756390.09555,7,2′-Trihydroxy-3,6,4′,5′-tetramethoxyflavoneC19 H18 O9Flavone389.0955
1910.822354.11032,3-DehydrokievitoneC20 H18 O6Phyto353.1103
2010.921268.0373CoumestrolC15 H8 O5Coumestans267.0373
2111.214454.16325,2′,4′,5′-Tetrahydroxy-3-(3-hydroxy-3-methylbutyl)-6″,6″ dimethylpyrano[2″,3″:7,8]flavoneC25 H26 O8Flavone453.1632
2211.217298.0488-MethoxycoumestrolC16 H10 O6Coumestans297.048
2311.293352.06073′-O-Methyl-(-)-epicatechin-5-O-sulfateC16 H16 O7SFlavonoids351.0607
2411.448624.2634Kanokoside DC27 H44 O16Terpene glycoside623.2634
2511.476578.2573Withaperuvin HC30 H42 O9 SWithanolide577.2573
2611.515400.116Torosaflavone AC21 H20 O8Flavonoids399.116
2711.52468.1045Gyrophoric acidC24 H20 O10Phyto467.1045
2811.561330.2415,8,12-trihydroxy-9-octadecenoic acidC18 H34 O5Fatty acids329.241
2911.63352.0947Psoralidin oxideC20 H16 O6Coumestans351.0947
3011.787314.0793Luteolin 5,3′-dimethyl etherC17 H14 O6Flavonoids313.0793
3112.099256.07386-DemethylvignafuranC15 H12 O4Isoflavonoid255.0738
3212.141562.262519-Hydroxycinnzeylanol 19-glucosideC26 H42 O13Glycosides561.2625
3312.638354.11012,3-DehydrokievitoneC20 H18 O6Flavanone353.1101
3413.249220.0737PolygonolideC12 H12 O4Coumarins219.0737
3513.368322.12085,7-Dihydroxy-8-prenylflavoneC20 H18 O4Flavone321.1208
3613.375368.1228AurmilloneC21 H20 O6Isoflavonoe367.1228
3713.512438.1681Morusignin LC25 H26 O7Flavones437.1681
3813.572676.2315Artonin DC40 H36 O10Chalcones675.2315
3913.573452.11Cinchonain IbC24 H20 O9Phyto451.11
4013.581338.1163(-)-Glyceollin IC20 H18 O5Phytoalexins337.1163
4113.991336.1001IsosojagolC20 H16 O5Coumestans335.1001
4214.229440.1835Exiguaflavanone CC25 H28 O7Flavanone439.1835
4314.474354.11022,3-DehydrokievitoneC20 H18 O6Flavanone353.1102
4414.607450.0928ExserohiloneC20 H22 N2 O6 S2Indoles449.0928
4514.721342.11045,7,2′,5′-tetramethoxyflavoneC19 H18 O6Flavone341.1104
4614.82334.0844Sophoracoumestan AC20 H14 O5Coumeston333.0844
4715.079340.0952Methylophiopogonone AC19 H16 O6Flavonoid339.0952
4815.08324.1364IsobavachalconeC20 H20 O4Chalcones323.1364
4915.283390.1831Paratocarpin BC25 H26 O4Chalcones389.1831
5015.494340.0946Methylophiopogonone AC19 H16 O6Flavonoid339.0946
5115.641406.1783HonyucitrinC25 H26 O5Flavanone405.1783
5217.708296.235412-oxo-10Z-octadecenoic acidC18 H32 O3Fatty acids295.2354
5318.511272.23552-Hydroxyhexadecanoic acidC16 H32 O3Fatty acids271.2355

UPHLC-MS analysis tentative identification of the secondary metabolites from C. burhia root methanol extract (negative ionization mode).

RT, retention time; B. Peak, base beak.

Antioxidant potential

Metabolic processes typically produce reactive oxygen species (ROS). Excessive accumulation of ROS causes tissue injury and inflammation by damaging fatty acids, DNA, and proteins. As a result of these illnesses, plant extracts have been examined for their possible function in reducing the oxidative stress burden (Zengin et al., 2022).

Antioxidant activity of C. burhia extracts was tested using six different assays, the findings of which may be found in Table 1. To sum up, it was shown that the roots and aerial methanolic extracts had the highest radical scavenging and reducting power assays’ maximum values. Bioactive components with reducing power and anti-oxidant activity have been shown to have a favorable correlation with the amount of phenols and flavonoids found in this extract (Khan et al., 2019). Antioxidant activity was found in phenolic compounds quantified through HPLC-PDA, including 4-OH benzoic acid, vanillic acid, syringaldehyde, p-coumaric acid, and carvacrol (Verma et al., 2008). As mentioned in Table 1, the root-methanol extract was the most active for DPPH radical scavenging (50.04 mg TE/g extract) and CUPRAC reducing power potential (139.96 mg TE/g extract). Likewise, the aerial-methanol extract exhibited maximum ABTS radical scavenging (94.05 mg TE/g extract) and FRAP reducing power potential (64.23 mg TE/g extract). The DCM aerial extract exhibited the highest potential for phosphomolybdenum assay at 60.46 mg TE/g and metal chelation activity at 2.24 mg EDTAE/g. Previous studies have shown that this plant has significant antioxidant activity which validates our current findings (Talaviya et al., 2014; Ahmed, 2018). Rutin and naringenin, two important flavonoids with antioxidant potential, were also found in the current study’s HPLC polyphenol quantification and UHPLC-MS analysis (Yang et al., 2008; Cavia-Saiz et al., 2010).

Enzyme inhibition activities

Enzyme inhibition is gaining popularity as a therapeutic technique for various global health challenges, including type 2 diabetes, neurodegenerative diseases, and dermatological disorders. This phenomenon illustrates the strategy of inhibiting certain enzymes from treating specific diseases. Neurodegenerative diseases like Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s have been linked to butyrylcholinesterase (BChE) and Acetylcholinesterase (AChE) (Zengin et al., 2018). Some research has shown that isolated compounds and plant extracts can both inhibit cholinesterase activity (Ballard et al., 2005). Galantamine, an alkaloid extracted from the Galanthus woronowii plant, is one example. Treatment for mild to moderate Alzheimer’s disease with the AChE inhibitor galantamine (Colovic et al., 2013). Previously, significant AChE inhibition potential has been reported in ethanolic extract of C. hebecarpa leaves (IC50: 208.6 μg/mL) (Rao et al., 2017). As presented in Table 5, the aerial DCM aerial showed maximum inhibition for AChE (4.01 mg GALAE/g extract) and BChE (4.28 mg GALAE/g extract). While, DCM root extract and methanolic aerial extract displayed the lowest inhibition potential against AChE and BChE (2.07 and 2.93 mg GALAE/g extract), respectively.

TABLE 5

ExtractsAChE (mg GALAE/g
extract)
BChE (mg GALAE/g
extract)
Tyrosinase (mg KAE/g
extract)
Amylase (mmol ACAE/g
extract)
Glucosidase (mmol ACAE/g
extract)
CbA-M3.79 ± 0.272.93 ± 0.07131.72 ± 0.520.63 ± 0.031.86 ± 0.04
CbA-D4.01 ± 0.414.28 ± 0.19124.95 ± 0.350.67 ± 0.021.92 ± 0.01
CbR-M3.29 ± 0.343.37 ± 0.12128.51 ± 1.350.60 ± 0.011.89 ± 0.01
CbR-D2.07 ± 0.163.22 ± 0.24120.76 ± 0.400.70 ± 0.03na

Enzyme inhibition effects of C. burhia aerial and root extracts.

GALAE, galatamine equivalent; KAE, kojic acid equivalent; ACAE, acarbose equivalent; na, not active. All values expressed are means ± S.D. of three parallel measurements.

The enzyme tyrosinase catalyzes human melanin biosynthesis, also known as melanogenesis, a physiological process that results in the production of melanin (Muddathir et al., 2017). Considering that the inhibition of tyrosinase activity can control melanin formation, dermatological conditions, such as those characterized by excessive melanin pigmentation, could benefit from tyrosinase inhibitor treatment (Jdey et al., 2017). Tyrosinase inhibition can also be used in the food industry. Fruits and vegetables can gain a lot from the inhibition of tyrosinase. Enzyme tyrosine catalyzes the decomposition of phenolic compounds, which results in undesirable color and taste (Zaidi et al., 2014). C. burhia methanol aerial extract showed maximum tyrosinase inhibition, i.e., 131.72 mg KAE/g extract. In comparison, the methanolic root extract showed inhibition of 128.51 mg KAE/g extract, followed by DCM aerial and DCM root extracts124.95 and 120.76 mg KAE/g extract, respectively (Table 5). According to previous studies, different phenolics and flavonoids have been shown to have anti-tyrosinase properties, which may explain why the methanolic extract rich in phenolic and flavonoid compounds was found active against mushroom tyrosinase (Zielinska et al., 2017; Choi et al., 2021). Significant tyrosinase inhibition potential of ethanolic extract of another Crotalaria species C. hebecarpa (IC50: 40.15 μg/mL), has been reported previously (Rao et al., 2017). Similarly, another study reported the methanol and aqueous extracts of C. juncea shoots to show moderated tyrosinase inhibition (16.12 and 22.45%) at 1 mg/mL (Ketprayoon and Chaicharoenpong).

Hyperglycemia occurs when the pancreas produces less insulin or the cells’ insulin sensitivity decreases. According to the World Health Organization, approximately 422 million individuals worldwide have been diagnosed with diabetes. Although synthetic medications have advanced, the number of people with diabetes continues to rise at an alarming rate. Several medicinal herbs, including curcumin, have been demonstrated to be beneficial in the diabetes (Choudhury et al., 2018; Obih et al., 2019). The alpha-amylase and alpha-glucosidase inhibitors acarbose, miglitol, and viglibose have been established. Acarbose is derived from plants. Bloating, flatulence, and other gastrointestinal discomforts have been linked to an excess inhibition of -amylase (Figueiredo-González et al., 2016). As a result, the mild inhibition of α-amylase and the significant inhibition of α-glucosidase were preferred (Kazeem et al., 2013).

In light of these findings, the enzyme inhibition capability of C. burhia extract and fractions was assessed against the clinically significant enzymes involved in diabetes, namely α-glucosidase and α-amylase. The current investigations have revealed (Table 5) that C. burhia extracts a mild inhibitor of α-glucosidase and α-amylase enzymes. The DCM root extract displayed the highest inhibitory potential against α-amylase (0.70 mmol ACAE/g extracts) while DCM aerial extract presented maximum potential against α-glucosidase (1.92 mmol ACAE/g extracts). The α-amylase inhibition results of C. burhia extracts were ordered as follows: CbR-D > CbA-D > CbA-M > CbR-M.

Cytotoxic activity

Two breast cancer cell lines, MCF-7 and MDA-MD-231, were tested for cytotoxicity of C. burhia extracts, as shown in Table 6. The results show that none of the extracts presented significant toxicity to the breast cell line used in the study. For MCF-7 and MDA-MB-231 cell lines, the CbA-M extract was found to be the most effective, with a percentage viability of 74.29 and 70%, respectively. Likewise, the CbR-M extract was also found to be considerably active against the MDA-MB-231 cell line, likewise, the CbA-D extract was also active against this cell line. The CbR-D extract was less toxic to either of the cell lines that were tested. In-vivo toxicity studies are recommended following this preliminary toxicity testing of the plant extract studied.

TABLE 6

Extracts% Viability (200 μg/mL)
MCF-7MDA-MB-231
CbA-M74.2970.56
CbA-D4.029761.06
CbR-M23.9884.04
CbR-D14.5462.69

Cytotoxicity of C. burhia samples against breast cell lines.

CbA-M, C. burhia aerial methanol; CbA-D, C. burhia aerial DCM; CbR-M, C. burhia root methanol; CbR-D, C. burhia root DCM. Data from three repetitions, with mean ± standard deviation.

Principal component analysis

Data from multiple tests can be analyzed using PCA. To accomplish this, we used PCA to analyze the tested extracts. Correlation, clustering, and PCA were used to show how aerial and root extracts interacted with the biological assays. The results are summarized in Figure 2. Three dimensions summarizing, respectively, 50.6, 32.3, and 11.1% of the biological activities variability were obtained (Figure 2A1). It was noted that the two principal components were built by PCA, explaining 88.9% of the total variability, with dimension 1 (56.6%) and dimension 2 (32.3%) (Figure 2A2). Moreover, it was seen that the variables DPPH, ABTS, CUPRAC, tyrosinase, glucosidase, and AChE were strongly associated with the origination of axis 1 (56.6%), whereas, the variables inclusive of amylase, phosphomolybdenum, and BChE were strongly contributed to the formation of axis 2 (32.3%). The TPC was noted to be highly positive co-related with the CUPRAC, while a positive moderate co-relation was noted for the DPPH, and ABTS activities, whereas, a weak positive relationship was observed for the tyrosinase and glucosidase. Likewise, a moderate to weak negative correlation was observed among TPC and FRAP, PPBD, MCA, AChE, and BChE, while a strong negative co-relation occurred for the TPC and amylase. Similarly, the TFC presented a considerable positive relationship for CUPRAC, DPPH, ABTS, moderate to weak positive correlation for the tyrosinase, glucosidase, and FRAP, and a weak relationship for the PPBD, MCA, and amylase. These results are further verified from the heatmap.

FIGURE 2

FIGURE 2

Statistical evaluations, (A1) eigenvalues and percentage of variability expressed by the factors; (A2) representation of biological activities on the correlation circle based on PCA; (B) correlation coefficients between total bioactive compounds and biological activities [Pearson Correlation Coefficient (R), p < 0.05]; (C) heat map of extracts in according to bioactive compounds and biological activities.

Conclusion

The specific phytochemical and biological composition of several extracts of the C. burhia plant has emphasized the possible consequences of these extracts. Secondary metabolites in the phenolic, flavonoid, and glycoside classes were identified through HPLC-PDA and UHPLC-MS analysis. It was found that the most polar solvent extracts had the highest bioactive content. All of the tested extracts had varying antioxidant and enzyme-inhibiting potential. In addition, statistical studies confirm the link between the contents and the apparent biological activities. C. burhia plant extracts can be used as a natural source of bioactive compounds, according to the findings of this comprehensive report. However, more exploration is required for better insight in terms of isolation and characterization studies.

Statements

Data availability statement

The original contributions presented in this study are included in the article/Supplementary material, further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author/s.

Author contributions

SA, HS, and UK: writing and editing. MF, IP, NAk, KAm, and MH: data curation. KAl, FA, MS, ML, and NAh: supervision. All authors contributed to the article and approved the submitted version.

Funding

The authors extended their appreciation to the Research Deanship Project Fund number (RG-21 0131), University of Hail, Hail, Saudi Arabia.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Publisher’s note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Supplementary material

The Supplementary Material for this article can be found online at: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpls.2022.988352/full#supplementary-material

References

  • 1

    AhmadV.FatimaI. (1986). Isolation and c-13 nmr of crosemperine from crotalaria-burhia buch-ham.J. Chem. Soc. Pakistan88990.

  • 2

    AhmedA. B. (2018). Phytochemical and Biological Studies on Crotalaria burhia (Fabaceae).Paderborn: DSpace.

  • 3

    AliM.AdilG. (1973). Isolation and structure of crotalarine, a new alkaloid from Crotalaria burhia.Pak. J. Sci. Indust. Res.16227229.

  • 4

    BakirD.AkdenizM.ErtasA.YilmazM. A.YenerI.FiratM.et al (2020). A GC–MS method validation for quantitative investigation of some chemical markers in Salvia hypargeia Fisch. & CA Mey. of Turkey: enzyme inhibitory potential of ferruginol.J. Food Biochem.44:e13350. 10.1111/jfbc.13350

  • 5

    BallardC. G.GreigN. H.Guillozet-BongaartsA. L.EnzA.DarveshS. (2005). Cholinesterases: roles in the brain during health and disease.Curr. Alzheimer Res.2307318. 10.2174/1567205054367838

  • 6

    BibiY.ArshadM.AhmadN.RiazI.ChaudhariS. K. (2015). An insight into medicinal and ethnopharmacological potential of Crotalaria burhia.Asian Pacific J. Trop. Disease5511514. 10.1016/S2222-1808(15)60826-X

  • 7

    Bibi SadeerN.SinanK. I.CziákyZ.JekõJ.ZenginG.JeewonR.et al (2022). Towards the pharmacological validation and phytochemical profiling of the decoction and maceration of Bruguiera gymnorhiza (L.) lam.—a traditionally used medicinal halophyte.Molecules27:2000. 10.3390/molecules27062000

  • 8

    BoǧaM.ErtaşA.YılmazM. A.KızılM.ÇekenB.HaşimiN.et al (2016). UHPLC-ESI-MS/MS and GC-MS analyses on phenolic, fatty acid and essential oil of Verbascum pinetorum with antioxidant, anticholinesterase, antimicrobial and DNA damage protection effects.Iran. J. Pharmaceutical Res. IJPR15:393.

  • 9

    BouhafsounA.YilmazM. A.BoukelouaA.TemelH.HarcheM. K. (2018). Simultaneous quantification of phenolic acids and flavonoids in Chamaerops humilis L. using LC–ESI-MS/MS.Food Sci. Technol.38242247. 10.1590/fst.19917

  • 10

    Cavia-SaizM.BustoM. D.Pilar-IzquierdoM. C.OrtegaN.Perez-MateosM.MuñizP. (2010). Antioxidant properties, radical scavenging activity and biomolecule protection capacity of flavonoid naringenin and its glycoside naringin: a comparative study.J. Sci. Food Agriculture9012381244. 10.1002/jsfa.3959

  • 11

    CeylanR.KataniæJ.ZenginG.MatiæS.AktumsekA.BorojaT.et al (2016). Chemical and biological fingerprints of two Fabaceae species (Cytisopsis dorycniifolia and Ebenus hirsuta): are they novel sources of natural agents for pharmaceutical and food formulations?Industrial Crops Products84254262. 10.1016/j.indcrop.2016.02.019

  • 12

    ChoiJ. Y.LeeJ. W.JangH.KimJ. G.LeeM. K.HongJ. T.et al (2021). Quinic acid esters from Erycibe obtusifolia with antioxidant and tyrosinase inhibitory activities.Nat. Prod. Res.3530263032. 10.1080/14786419.2019.1684285

  • 13

    ChoudhuryH.PandeyM.HuaC. K.MunC. S.JingJ. K.KongL.et al (2018). An update on natural compounds in the remedy of diabetes mellitus: a systematic review.J. Traditional Complementary Med.8361376. 10.1016/j.jtcme.2017.08.012

  • 14

    ColovicM. B.KrsticD. Z.Lazarevic-PastiT. D.BondzicA. M.VasicV. M. (2013). Acetylcholinesterase inhibitors: pharmacology and toxicology.Curr. Neuropharmacol.11315335. 10.2174/1570159X11311030006

  • 15

    DilworthL.RileyC.StennettD. (2017). “Plant constituents: carbohydrates, oils, resins, balsams, and plant hormones,” in Pharmacognosy, edsBadalS.DelgodaR. (Amsterdam: Elsevier), 6180. 10.1016/B978-0-12-802104-0.00005-6

  • 16

    ErdincC.EkincialpA.TuranS.KocakM.BalochF. S.ŞensoyS. (2021). The first report about genetic diversity analysis among endemic wild rhubarb (Rheum ribes L.) populations through iPBS markers.Turkish J. Agriculture Forestry45784796. 10.3906/tar-2102-12

  • 17

    Figueiredo-GonzálezM.GrossoC.ValentãoP.AndradeP. B. (2016). α-Glucosidase and α-amylase inhibitors from Myrcia spp.: a stronger alternative to acarbose?.J. Pharmaceutical Biomed. Anal.118322327. 10.1016/j.jpba.2015.10.042

  • 18

    FitzgeraldM.HeinrichM.BookerA. (2020). Medicinal plant analysis: a historical and regional discussion of emergent complex techniques.Front. Pharmacol.10:1480. 10.3389/fphar.2019.01480

  • 19

    GrochowskiD. M.UysalS.AktumsekA.GranicaS.ZenginG.CeylanR.et al (2017). In vitro enzyme inhibitory properties, antioxidant activities, and phytochemical profile of Potentilla thuringiaca.Phytochem. Lett.20365372. 10.1016/j.phytol.2017.03.005

  • 20

    JdeyA.FallehH.JannetS. B.HammiK. M.DauvergneX.KsouriR.et al (2017). Phytochemical investigation and antioxidant, antibacterial and anti-tyrosinase performances of six medicinal halophytes.South African J. Botany112508514. 10.1016/j.sajb.2017.05.016

  • 21

    KatariaS.ShrivastavaB.KaurD.SharmaP. (2012). Anti-inflammatory and antinociceptive activities of Crotalaria burhia Buch.-Ham. whole plant.Indian J. Nat. Products Resources3189196.

  • 22

    KatariaS.ShrivastavaB.KhajuriaR.SuriK.SharmaP. (2010). Antimicrobial activity of Crotalaria burhia Buch.-Ham. root.Ind. J. Nat. Products Resources1481484.

  • 23

    KatariaS.ShrivastavaB.KhajuriaR.SuriK.SharmaP. (2011). Pharmacognostic evaluation of Crotalaria burhia buch.-Ham.Ind. J. Traditional Knowledge10629635.

  • 24

    KatewaS.GalavP. (2006). Additions to the traditional folk herbal medicines from Shekhawati region of Rajasthan.Ind. J. Traditional Knowledge5494500.

  • 25

    KazeemM.AdamsonJ.OgunwandeI. (2013). Modes of inhibition of α-amylase and α-glucosidase by aqueous extract of Morinda lucida Benth leaf.BioMed. Res. Int.2013:527570. 10.1155/2013/527570

  • 26

    Provide the complete details for the following reference “Ketprayoon and Chaicharoenpong”..KetprayoonT.ChaicharoenpongC.Tyrosinase inhibitory activity of some edible plants,” in Proceedings of the international conference on biochemistry and molecular biology.

  • 27

    KhanS.NazirM.RaizN.SaleemM.ZenginG.FazalG.et al (2019). Phytochemical profiling, in vitro biological properties and in silico studies on Caragana ambigua stocks (Fabaceae): a comprehensive approach.Industrial Crops Products131117124. 10.1016/j.indcrop.2019.01.044

  • 28

    KhurshidU.AhmadS.SaleemH.NawazH. A.ZenginG.LocatelliM.et al (2019). Phytochemical composition and in vitro pharmacological investigations of Neurada procumbens L. (Neuradaceae): a multidirectional approach for industrial products.Industrial Crops Products142:111861. 10.1016/j.indcrop.2019.111861

  • 29

    KumarG. G.GaliV.DwiwediS. (2011). Phytochemical investigation of Crotalaria burhia Hamilt.Int. J. Res. Pharmaceut. Biomed. Sci.217211724.

  • 30

    LewisG. P. (2005). Legumes of the World.Richmond: Royal Botanic Gardens Kew.

  • 31

    LocatelliM.ZenginG.UysalA.CarradoriS.De LucaE.BellagambaG.et al (2017). Multicomponent pattern and biological activities of seven Asphodeline taxa: potential sources of natural-functional ingredients for bioactive formulations.J. Enzyme. Inhib. Med. Chem.326067. 10.1080/14756366.2016.1235041

  • 32

    MollicaA.ZenginG.LocatelliM.StefanucciA.MocanA.MacedonioG.et al (2017). Anti-diabetic and anti-hyperlipidemic properties of Capparis spinosa L.: in vivo and in vitro evaluation of its nutraceutical potential.J. Funct. Foods353242. 10.1016/j.jff.2017.05.001

  • 33

    MuddathirA.YamauchiK.BatubaraI.MohieldinE.MitsunagaT. (2017). Anti-tyrosinase, total phenolic content and antioxidant activity of selected Sudanese medicinal plants.South African J. Botany109915. 10.1016/j.sajb.2016.12.013

  • 34

    NemudzivhadiV.MasokoP. (2014). In vitro assessment of cytotoxicity, antioxidant, and anti-inflammatory activities of Ricinus communis (Euphorbiaceae) leaf extracts.Evidence-Based Complementary Alternative Med.2014:625961. 10.1155/2014/625961

  • 35

    NiazS.BokhariT.SherwaniS.YounisU.DastiA. (2013). Ethnobotanical study of some medicinal plants of thal desert Punjab. Pakistan.Int. J. Pharm. Res. Biosci.23141. 10.4314/ajtcam.v11i3.39

  • 36

    ObihP.ObihJ.-C.AromeO. (2019). Is alpha-glucosidase inhibition a mechanism of the antidiabetic action of garlic (Allium sativum)?J. Biosci. Med.74249. 10.4236/jbm.2019.710004

  • 37

    PatridgeE.GareissP.KinchM. S.HoyerD. (2016). An analysis of FDA-approved drugs: natural products and their derivatives.Drug Discov. Today21204207. 10.1016/j.drudis.2015.01.009

  • 38

    PhumthumM.SrithiK.IntaA.JunsongduangA.TangjitmanK.PongamornkulW.et al (2018). Ethnomedicinal plant diversity in Thailand.J. Ethnopharmacol.2149098. 10.1016/j.jep.2017.12.003

  • 39

    RahmanM. J.AmbigaipalanP.ShahidiF. (2018). Biological activities of camelina and sophia seeds phenolics: Inhibition of LDL oxidation, DNA damage, and pancreatic lipase and α-glucosidase activities. J. Food Sci.83, 237245. 10.1111/1750-3841.14007

  • 40

    RaoA. S.SahebS. B.MallikarjunaK. (2017). Pharmacological evaluation of leaf ethanol extract of Crotalaria hebecarpa (DC) Rudd.Curr. Trends Biotechnol. Pharmacy113442.

  • 41

    Rascon-ValenzuelaL.Torres MorenoH.VelazquezC.Garibay-EscobarA.Robles-ZepedaR. (2017). Triterpenoids: synthesis, uses in cancer treatment and other biological activities.Adv. Med. Biol.106:41.

  • 42

    SandeepK.BirendraS.KhajuriaR.SuriK.PiushS. (2010). Antimicrobial activity of Crotalaria burhia Buch.-Ham. root.Indian J. Nat. Products Resources1481484.

  • 43

    SlinkardK.SingletonV. L. (1977). Total phenol analysis: automation and comparison with manual methods.Am. J. Enol. Viticulture284955.

  • 44

    SoniB. (2014). Preliminary phytochemical screening and antimicrobial activity of methanol extract of Crotalaria burhia.Pharma Tutor2115118.

  • 45

    TalaviyaP. A.VyasB. M.RaoS. K.PatelV.GhadiyaS. (2018). Evaluation of antitumor activity of Crotalaria burhia buch.-ham. roots against ehrlich’s ascites carcinoma treated mice.Indian J. Physiol. Pharmacol.62259266.

  • 46

    TalaviyaP. A.VyasB. M.SharmaD.IndoriaS. P.SumanR. K. (2014). Anti-inflammatory activity of four fractions of ethanolic extract of Crotalaria burhia buch.-ham. root in rats.Natl. J. Physiol. Pharmacy Pharmacol.4213217. 10.5455/njppp.2014.4.120420141

  • 47

    TamerC. E.TemelŞG.SunaS.KarabacakA. ÖÖzcanT.ErsanL. Y.et al (2021). Evaluation of bioaccessibility and functional properties of kombucha beverages fortified with different medicinal plant extracts.Turkish J. Agriculture Forestry451332. 10.3906/tar-2003-75

  • 48

    UddinA.KhannaP. (1979). Rotenoids in tissue cultures of Crotalaria burhia.Planta Med.36181183. 10.1055/s-0028-1097261

  • 49

    VermaB.HuclP.ChibbarR. N. (2008). Phenolic content and antioxidant properties of bran in 51 wheat cultivars.Cereal Chem.85544549. 10.1094/CCHEM-85-4-0544

  • 50

    YangJ.GuoJ.YuanJ. (2008). In vitro antioxidant properties of rutin.LWT-Food Sci. Technol.4110601066. 10.1016/j.lwt.2007.06.010

  • 51

    YenerÝÖlmezÖT.ErtasA.YilmazM. A.FiratM.KandemirS. Ýet al (2018). A detailed study on chemical and biological profile of nine Euphorbia species from Turkey with chemometric approach: remarkable cytotoxicity of E. fistulasa and promising tannic acid content of E. eriophora.Industrial Crops Products123442453. 10.1016/j.indcrop.2018.07.007

  • 52

    ZaidiK. U.AliA. S.AliS. A.NaazI. (2014). Microbial tyrosinases: promising enzymes for pharmaceutical, food bioprocessing, and environmental industry.Biochem. Res. Int.2014:854687. 10.1155/2014/854687

  • 53

    ZenginG.AkG.CeylanR.UysalS.Llorent-MartínezE.Di SimoneS. C.et al (2022). Novel perceptions on chemical profile and biopharmaceutical properties of mentha spicata extracts: adding missing pieces to the scientific puzzle.Plants11:233. 10.3390/plants11020233

  • 54

    ZenginG.NithiyananthamS.LocatelliM.CeylanR.UysalS.AktumsekA.et al (2016). Screening of in vitro antioxidant and enzyme inhibitory activities of different extracts from two uninvestigated wild plants: Centranthus longiflorus subsp. longiflorus and Cerinthe minor subsp. auriculata.Eur. J. Int. Med.8286292. 10.1016/j.eujim.2015.12.004

  • 55

    ZenginG.UysalA.DiuzhevaA.GunesE.JekõJ.CziákyZ.et al (2018). Characterization of phytochemical components of Ferula halophila extracts using HPLC-MS/MS and their pharmacological potentials: a multi-functional insight.J. Pharm. Biomed. Anal.160374382. 10.1016/j.jpba.2018.08.020

  • 56

    ZielinskaM.RopelewskaE.MarkowskiM. (2017). Thermophysical properties of raw, hot-air and microwave-vacuum dried cranberry fruits (Vaccinium macrocarpon).LWT-Food Sci. Technol.85204211. 10.1016/j.lwt.2017.07.016

Summary

Keywords

Crotalaria burhia, secondary metabolites, antioxidant, enzyme inhibition, toxicity

Citation

Anwar S, Faisal Nadeem M, Pervaiz I, Khurshid U, Akmal N, Aamir K, Haseeb ur Rehman M, Almansour K, Alshammari F, Shaikh MF, Locatelli M, Ahemad N and Saleem H (2022) A comprehensive phytochemical, biological, and toxicological studies of roots and aerial parts of Crotalaria burhia Buch.-Ham: An important medicinal plant. Front. Plant Sci. 13:988352. doi: 10.3389/fpls.2022.988352

Received

09 July 2022

Accepted

28 July 2022

Published

16 September 2022

Volume

13 - 2022

Edited by

Sezai Ercisli, Atatürk University, Turkey

Reviewed by

Gülçe Ilhan, Atatürk University, Turkey; Mustafa Abdullah Yilmaz, Dicle University, Turkey

Updates

Copyright

*Correspondence: Sirajudheen Anwar, Umair Khurshid, Hammad Saleem,

This article was submitted to Plant Metabolism and Chemodiversity, a section of the journal Frontiers in Plant Science

Disclaimer

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Outline

Figures

Cite article

Copy to clipboard


Export citation file


Share article

Article metrics