Phytochemicals and antioxidant properties of eleven wild edible plants from Assam, India
Abstract
The aim of this study was to examine the phytochemicals and antioxidant properties of eleven wild edible plants from Assam of North-East India. The phytochemical study indicated the presence of several medicinally active compounds in the methanolic extracts of plants. Evaluation of antioxidant activities were done by DPPH, ABTS, H2O2 and FRAP assays. The investigation revealed antioxidant activities with DPPH IC50 value ranging from 135.0±1.49 μg/mL (L. javanica) to 516.34±2.52 μg/mL (B. lanceolaria), ABTS IC50 value from 74.3±0.29 μg/mL (T. angustifolium) to 437.77±3.93 μg/mL (D. cordata), H2O2 IC50 value from 20.37±0.01 μg/mL (B. lanceolaria) to 376.75±14.12 μg/mL (P. perfoliatum), and the FRAP value from 64.76±7.43 μM TE/g (D. cordata) to 799.28±7.14 μM TE/g (L. javanica). The maximum total phenolic content (TPC) was obtained in the extract of E. fluctuans (269.49±2.96 mg GAE/g dry extract) and the lowest being in C. sinensis (26.96±9.81 mg GAE/g dry extract). S. media extract had the lowest (0.23±0.10 mg QE/g dry extract) total flavonoid content (TFC) and the maximum being in P. perfoliatum (4.34±1.03 mg QE/g dry extract). Pearson’s correlation study of the plants indicated a strong positive correlation of DPPH assay with ABTS assay. A positive correlation of FRAP with TFC, H2O2 with FRAP, TPC and TFC, and TPC with TFC were also seen in this study. These plants could be supportive in stopping or slowing the growth of oxidative stress related diseases.
1Introduction
Plants contain many phytochemical constituents which have various activities like antioxidant, antidiabetic, anthelmintic and many more [1, 2]. Antioxidant compounds are the group of compounds which prevent the oxidation of certain molecules present in the living system as well as in the food stuff or in the industrial products. These compounds help in the inhibition of generating reactive oxygen species (ROS) in the living systems including oxygen free radical species viz. superoxide anion (O2. –), hydroxyl (OH.), peroxyl (ROO.), peroxynitrite and nitric oxide (NO.) radicals as well as non-free radicals viz. H2O2, HNO2 and singlet oxygen (1O2). Generation of such species in the body leads to oxidative stress which ultimately damage the cells by reacting with biomolecules leading to a number of diseases viz. stroke, diabetes, cancer, heart disease, cataracts, rheumatoid arthritis, Alzheimer’s disease, and also premature aging [3–5]. The antioxidants protect the cells in our body against reactive oxygen species and hence, antioxidant supplements are essential to fight oxidative cellular damage [6, 7].
Wild edible plants have played an important role in human lives from ancient times. They are consumed by ethnic people as traditional vegetables and also used for medicinal purposes. Plant food contains many phytochemicals including phenolic compounds along with nutrients such as proteins, fats, carbohydrates, vitamins, and minerals. Phytochemicals are potent antioxidants against ROS and have several potential health benefits. Many phytochemicals have been identified in plant foods and just one plant may contain more than 100 different phytochemicals [8, 9]. The study on less-utilized vegetables in different areas exposed that most of the wild plant species contain rich nutritional and strong antioxidant properties which are even analogous to those vegetables produced commercially [10–13]. Hence, the recent research should be emphasized on wild plant species for their potential food and medicinal properties to widen the variety of foodstuff for human consumption.
Assam (89°50/ E to 96°10/ E and 24°30/ N to 28°10/ N), one of the states of North-East (NE) India, is rich in biodiversity and the total area of Assam is 78,438 sq. km out of which 26,832 sq. km is outlined as forest area [14]. There is extensive study on antioxidant properties of cultivated vegetables and plants. Many researchers have studied and reported the functional properties of different wild edible plants from different areas. The same author reported nutritional value and vitamin C contents of some selected wild plants from Assam [15]. The nutritional, anti-nutritional and mineral compositions of eight locally available leafy vegetables of Sonitpur district of Assam were reported by Saha et al. [16]. Saikia et al. [17] reported mineral content of some wild green leafy vegetables of North-East India. Borah et al. [18] also reported mineral content in commonly consumed leafy vegetables used by the people of Assam. However, some of the wild plants consumed by the indigenous people of Assam of NE India are still not studied and very little informations are available about the functional properties of wild edible plants. The main objective of this study was to determine the antioxidant potentials of some commonly consumed wild plants growing in Assam of NE India. Therefore, eleven most prominently utilized wild plant species growing in Kokrajhar District of Assam of NE India viz. Blumea lanceolaria (Roxb.) Druce, Tetrastigma angustifolium (Roxb.), Oenanthe javanica (Blume) DC., Drymaria cordata (L.) Willd.ex Schult., Cryptolepis sinensis (Lour) Merr., Stellaria media (L.), Antidesma acidum Retz., Eryngium foetidum L., Lippia javanica (Burm.f.) Spreng., Polygonum perfoliatum L., and Enhydra fluctuans Lour were selected for the present study.
2Materials and methods
2.1Chemicals
Quercetin, 2, 2′-Azinobis (3-ethylbenothiazoline-6-sulfonic acid) diammonium salt (ABTS) and 1, 1-diphenyl-2-picrylhydrazyl (DPPH) were purchased from Himedia Laboratories Pvt. Ltd., Nashik, Mumbai, India, ascorbic acid, hydrogen peroxide and Folin-Ciocalteu’s reagent from Merck, Mumbai, India, gallic acid from Central Drug House Pvt. Ltd., Daryaganj, New Delhi, India, and trolox was obtained from Sigma Aldrich, Bangalore, India. Other solvents and chemicals were of analytical grade and used as obtained.
2.2Collection of plants and sample preparation
A total of eleven fresh wild edible plants viz. B. lanceolaria, T. angustifolium, O. javanica, D. cordata, C. sinensis, S. media, A. acidum, E. foetidum, L. javanica, P. perfoliatum, and E. fluctuans were collected from Kokrajhar District of Assam during their seasonal availability in the year 2014. All these plants were identified by Botanical Survey of India (BSI), Shillong. The collected samples were washed properly with water, rinsed with distilled water, dried in hot air oven at 55°C, crushed into powder by mixture grinder and stored in the air-tight plastic container for further use. For the preparation of extract, the powder material was mixed with methanol in 1 : 10 ratio (w/v), stirred, kept for 72 h, filtered with Whatman No. 1 filter paper and the solvent evaporated to dryness using Buchi Rotavapor R-215 (Switzerland) and the dry extract was kept in a container at 4°C for further analysis.
2.3Phytochemical screening
The methanol extracts of the plants were analyzed for the detection of phytochemicals by using standard procedures [19, 20].
2.4Determination of antioxidant property
2.4.1DPPH free radical scavenging assay
The free radical scavenging activities of plant methanolic extracts were evaluated by DPPH method [21]. 1 mL of extract in different concentration (2, 5, 10, 50, 100, 200, 500 μg/mL) was added to 3 mL working DPPH solution (0.1 mM DPPH in methanol). The mixture was shaken and allowed to stand for 30 min in dark, and then the absorbance was read at 517 nm with UV-VIS spectrophotometer (Lambda 35, Perkin Elmer, USA) and it was compared with standard ascorbic acid using similar concentrations. 1 mL methanol and 3 mL working DPPH solution served as the blank. The percentage inhibition was calculated as:
2.4.2ABTS radical scavenging assay
Antioxidant activities of methanol extracts were investigated by ABTS method [22]. ABTS radical cation (ABTS. +) generated using 7 mM ABTS solution and 2.45 mM potassium persulphate was kept in the dark for 12–16 h at room temperature. The radical cation solution was again diluted to 1 : 60 (v/v) with methanol until the initial absorbance becomes 0.706±0.02 at 734 nm. 1 mg/mL extract or standard was diluted in different concentration from 20–300 μg/mL and to this, 2 mL diluted ABTS. + working solution was added and the absorbance was measured at 734 nm after 6 min using Perkin Elmer UV-Vis Spectrophotometer (Lambda 35, USA). A graph was plotted using inhibition (%) against concentration of standard trolox. The methanol was taken as blank and IC50 was obtained from the linear regression equation from the graph of percentage inhibition and the results were expressed in μg/mL of dry extract. The % inhibition was calculated as:
2.4.3H2O2 scavenging assay
Hydrogen peroxide scavenging activities of samples were determined spectrophotometrically at 230 nm [23]. A solution of 20 mM H2O2 was made from 30% H2O2 by diluting 226 μL in 99.8 mL phosphate buffer saline (pH 7.4). Various concentration of sample ranging from 5–25 μg/mL was prepared and 2 mL of H2O2 was added, incubated for 10 min and the absorbance was taken at 230 nm using Perkin Elmer UV-Vis spectrophotometer (Lambda 35, USA). Phosphate buffer saline was taken as blank for zeroing and ascorbic acid as positive control. The IC50 value was determined from the graph obtained from the percentage of inhibition and the results were presented in μg/mL of dry extract.
2.4.4Ferric reducing antioxidant power (FRAP) assay
FRAP value was evaluated using the method of Benzie et al. [24]. The stock solution contains 300 mM acetate buffer (pH 3.6), 10 mM 2,4,6-tris (1-pyridyl)-5-triazine (TPTZ) solution in 40 mM HCl and 20 mM FeCl3.6H2O. The working solution was prepared by mixing 25 mL acetate buffer, 2.5 mL TPTZ and 2.5 mL FeCl3.6H2O. 40 μL of the sample was allowed to react with 3960 μL of FRAP solution and incubated in the dark for 30 min. The absorbance was taken at 593 nm using Perkin Elmer UV-Vis spectrophotometer (Lambda 35, USA) and standard trolox was taken in different concentration starting from 25-1000 μM for obtaining calibration curve. The data were expressed in μM trolox equivalent (TE)/g of extract.
2.5Evaluation of total phenolic content (TPC)
Total phenolic content was evaluated using Folin-Ciocalteu’s reagent spectrophotometrically [21]. Different concentrations (10, 20, 40, 60, 80, 100 μg/mL) of standard gallic acid were prepared and to each 2.5 mL of 10% Folin-Ciocalteu’s reagent was added and incubated for 5 min. After 5 min, 2 mL of 7.5% Na2CO3 solution was added to the mixture, incubated in the dark for 30 min, and the absorbance was taken at 765 nm using Perkin Elmer UV-VIS spectrophotometer (Lambda 35, USA). For analysis of samples, 40 μL was taken and all the reagents were added as in standard. The reagent blank was prepared by adding 1 mL methanol, 2.5 mL of 10% Folin-Ciocalteu’s reagent and 2 mL of 7.5% Na2CO3 solution. The values were obtained using the calibration curve of gallic acid and the total phenolic content was presented as milligrams of gallic acid equivalents per gram dry extract (mg GAE/g dry extract).
2.6Evaluation of total flavonoid content (TFC)
Total flavonoid content of plant extract was also evaluated spectrophotometrically at 510 nm [25]. A methanol solution (1 mL) of extract (1 mg/mL) or solutions of standard quercetin (10, 20, 40, 60, 80, 100 μg/mL) was taken in 0.5 mL of 5% NaNO2 solution and 0.5 mL of 10% AlCl3 solution. After 5 min, 2 mL of NaOH solution (4%) was added and incubated for 15 min at room temperature and the absorbance was read against the blank at 510 nm using Perkin Elmer UV-VIS spectrophotometer (Lambda 35, USA). Blank solution was made by adding the entire reagent except sample or standard. A calibration curve was being made using standard quercetin and the value of total flavonoid was presented as milligrams of quercetin equivalents per gram extract (mg QE/g dry extract).
2.7Statistical analysis
The results of all the experiments were expressed as mean of triplicate readings±standard deviation. Standard deviations were calculated at Microsoft Excel. Relative significant differences among the means were determined by one-way ANOVA t-test at p < 0.05 using OriginPro 8.5 software (OriginLab Corporation, MA 01060 USA). Pearson’s correlation study was done using SPSS 13.0 software.
3Results and discussion
3.1Phytochemical screening
Phytochemicals are bioactive organic compounds which are found naturally in the plants. Plants are very good sources of biomolecules that differ extensively in their structure, mechanisms of action, and biological properties [26, 27]. The screening of phytochemical constituents present in the eleven wild edible plants was performed using the methanol extract. The phytochemical constituents investigated were alkaloid, saponin, cardiac glycoside, steroid, anthraquinone, coumarin, phenolic compounds, tannin, flavonoid, anthocyanins, phlobatannins, lignin, proteins and starch. The results are presented in Table 1 which showed the presence of many biologically active compounds and considered to have medicinal properties like antimicrobial, antioxidant, anthelmintic and also exhibit other biological activities. These plants could be considered as value-added products for various pharmacological uses and could serve as potent starting materials in formulation of various dietary supplements.
3.2Antioxidant properties
In the present study, DPPH, ABTS, H2O2 and FRAP assays were used to assess the in vitro antioxidant capacities in the methanol extracts of eleven wild edible plants. DPPH method is an easy, rapid, sensitive and routinely used method for the determination of antioxidant activity. The radical scavenging activity in plant extract is determined based on its ability to quench the DPPH free radical. Antioxidants in the plant extracts react with DPPH, a stable free radical and convert 1, 1-diphenyl-2-picrylhydrazyl to a stable molecule 1, 1-diphenyl-2-picrylhydrazine by accepting hydrogen radical or an electron leading to a decrease absorbance at 517 nm [14]. IC50 value is the inhibitory concentration of the crude extract that could scavenge 50% ROS or inhibit oxidation by 50%. IC50 value is inversely related to the activity and lower IC50 value means higher antioxidant activity. The DPPH free radical scavenging activity of the plant species is shown in Table 2. In this investigation, all the plant extracts were compared with standard ascorbic acid and the methanol extract of the plants exhibited DPPH free radical scavenging activity. All the methanol extracts of the plants showed noticeable free radical scavenging activities in concentration-dependent manner and scavenging activity increased with increasing the concentration of each individual plant extract (Table 2). Similar to this study, Ng et al. [10] also reported that the plant extract is capable of trapping the DPPH free radical in a dose-dependent manner. The results of present study (Table 2) showed that L. javanica (94.11±0.21%) had the highest DPPH radical scavenging activity with an IC50 value of 135.0±1.49 μg/mL followed by P. perfoliatum (IC50 = 160.14±0.39 μg/mL), T. angustifolium (IC50 = 171.21±0.57 μg/mL), C. sinensis (IC50 = 205.62±0.99 μg/mL) and A. acidum (IC50 = 189.67±0.22 μg/mL), and B. lanceolaria (48.13±0.15%) exhibited the lowest antioxidant activity with IC50 value of 516.34±2.52 μg/mL. While the standard ascorbic acid displayed 98.84±0.10% inhibition at the concentration of 500 μg/mL and showed an IC50 value of 25.01±0.52 μg/mL.
ABTS+ radical is a stable free radical species which accepts an electron or hydrogen radical from antioxidant compounds to become a stable molecule and thus prevents initiation or propagation of free-radical chain reaction or oxidation of other molecules. The ABTS assay is routinely used for evaluation of antioxidant capacity of plant extracts to scavenge free radicals [28]. ABTS radical scavenging activity of the plant species is shown in Table 3 and the highest activity was found in the extract of T. angustifolium (94.62±0.14%) followed by P. perfoliatum (94.08±0.31%) and L. javanica (92.62±0.18%) with an IC50 value of 74.3±0.29 μg/mL, 81.67±0.28 μg/mL and 86.99±0.27 μg/mL respectively, whereas D. cordata (31.90±0.30%) displayed the lowest scavenging activity among the selected plant species with an IC50 value of 437.77±3.93 μg/mL. Trolox was used as standard in ABTS assay and showed an IC50 value 73.67±0.74 μg/mL (Table 3). This study revealed concentration-dependent scavenging activity and it was observed that the methanol extract of T. angustifolium (74.3±0.29 μg/mL) and the standard trolox (73.67±0.74 μg/mL) showed almost similar activity. Hence, T. angustifolium can be considered as a powerful antioxidant. It was reported that the high molecular weight phenolic compounds have more ability to quench ABTS free radicals and their effectiveness depends on the molecular weight, number of aromatic rings, and nature of hydroxyl group’s substitution than the specific functional groups [29, 30].
H2O2 scavenging activity of methanolic extract of the plants is shown in Table 4 and this activity was compared with the standard ascorbic acid. The study showed the highest percentage of scavenging activity in B. lanceolaria extract with an IC50 value of 20.37±0.01 μg/mL, while standard ascorbic acid revealed an IC50 value of 19.02±0.01 μg/mL. P. perfoliatum extract showed the lowest H2O2 scavenging activity exhibiting an IC50 value of 376.75±14.12 μg/mL. Hydrogen peroxide is a non-radical reactive oxygen species and is not a very reactive, but sometimes it is toxic to the cells in living organisms as it has the ability to penetrate cell membranes which may give rise to hydroxyl radicals and singlet oxygen, and thus initiation of oxidation takes place in the cells [31]. Therefore, neutralizing H2O2 by natural antioxidant sources is very essential for protection of biological or food systems. Food polyphenols have been shown to protect mammalian and bacterial cells from cytotoxicity induced by H2O2 particularly the compounds with the orthodihydroxy phenolic structure, catechin, quercetin, caffeic acid ester, and gallic acid ester [32].
FRAP assay is another method which is used to determine the antioxidant property of the plant extracts. It is also a simple, inexpensive and widely employed method for the evaluation of antioxidant activity and is based on the power of antioxidants to reduce ferric (III) ions to ferrous (II) ions [33]. Higher FRAP value indicates the stronger antioxidant capacity. The results of FRAP assay of the plants studied are presented in Table 5 and the values were calculated from the linear regression equation of standard trolox (y = 0.0007x + 0.1272; r2 = 0.9903). The FRAP values of methanol extracts of the plants (Table 5) varied from 64.76±7.43 to 799.28±7.14 μM TE/g dry extract showing the strongest antioxidant activity in L. javanica extract, while D. cordata revealed the lowest activity. The high activity of the extract may be due to the presence of antioxidant compounds in the plants which could react with free radicals to stabilize and terminate radical chain reactions by donating an electron. However, lower levels of FRAP value was reported by Wong et al. [34] in some selected Malaysian wild edible plants. Generally, the values obtained in FRAP method indicate all the electron-donating reductants in the sample extracts [35].
3.3Total phenolic and flavonoid contents
Total phenolic and flavonoid contents of the plants are presented in Table 5. The phenolic contents in the methanol extracts were determined through a linear curve of standard gallic acid (y = 0.0212x + 0.3098; r2 = 0.9971) and flavonoid contents through a linear curve of standard quercetin (y = 0.0014x + 0.0799; r2 = 0.9859). The TPC in the methanol extract of plants varied from 26.96±9.81 to 269.49±2.96 mg GAE/g dry extract. E. fluctuans extract showed the highest phenolic content (269.49±2.96 mg GAE/g) followed byP. perfoliatum (265.95±4.76 mg GAE/g) and the lowest being in C. sinensis (26.96±9.81 mg GAE/g). Higher amounts of phenolic contents were also found in O. javanica and E. foetidum which were 171.22±8.90 and 105.18±3.11 mg GAE/g dry extract, respectively. While the flavonoid content was found the lowest in S. media (0.23±0.10 mg QE/g dry extract) and the highest being in P. perfoliatum (4.34±1.03 mg QE/g dry extract). However, Xia et al. [36] reported higher phenolic content in six edible wild plants which was found ranging from 278.7±24.4 to 417.3±38.3 mg GAE/g dry weight. The phenolic contents of selected wild edible plants reported by Wong et al. [32] was found varying from 0.69 to 19.65 mg GAE/g dry weight and the flavonoid content from 0.19±0.02 to 8.37±2.62 mg catechin equivalent per gram of dry weight. Similarly, Ng et al. [10] also reported phenolic content of selected tropical wild vegetables that ranged from 1.8 to 4.1 mg GAE/g fresh weight and flavonoid content varied from 0.4 to 1.4 mg rutin equivalents/g fresh weight. Phenolic compounds are widely distributed in plants. Phenolic compounds such as phenolic acids, flavonoids, tocopherols etc. are natural antioxidants obtained from plants and they possess antioxidant, anticarcinogenic, antimicrobial, antiallergic, antimutagenic, and anti-inflammatory properties [14, 34, 37, 38]. It was reported that the antioxidant property of phenolic compounds is due to their redox properties, hydrogen donating abilities, and singlet oxygen quenchers [14, 21, 29]. Higher amount of phenolic and flavonoid compounds corresponds to their stronger antioxidant capacity. Therefore, phenolics and flavonoids have many essential roles in decreasing the risk of various human diseases [7].
3.4Correlation
Pearson’s correlation study of antioxidant property of the plant extracts showed that there was a strong positive correlation significantly at p < 0.01 between DPPH and ABTS radical scavenging assays (Table 6) and this can be attributed to the fact that both methods are based on the similar reaction mechanism. This is in agreement with other study reported by Bunea et al. [39]. The present study also showed a positive correlation between FRAP assay and H2O2 assay. FRAP assay was positively correlated with TFC significantly at p < 0.05. Similar to this study, Ku et al. [40] also reported a positive correlation between FRAP assay and flavonoids. Positive correlations were also observed between TPC and TFC with antioxidant activity assayed by H2O2 radical scavenging assay. Several studies showed that the antioxidant capacity of plant material is very well-correlated with total phenolic compounds and the contribution of phenolic compounds to the overall antioxidant activity is mainly due to their redox properties involved in the plant materials [39, 41, 42]. In this investigation, a positive correlation was also seen between TPC and TFC which was in agreement with the study reported by Ku et al. [40]. It is well-known that phenolic and flavonoid compounds with certain structures particularly with the hydroxyl group in the molecule can act as proton donating and exhibit antioxidant property [42].
4Conclusion
The study of eleven wild edible plants showed the presence of several important phytochemical constituents in the methanol extracts which are associated with various biological activities. The results of DPPH, ABTS, H2O2 and FRAP assays exhibited potent antioxidant properties. Both DPPH and FRAP methods showed the strongest antioxidant activity in the extract of L. javanica. ABTS and H2O2 assays indicated the highest antioxidant activities in T. angustifolium and B. lanceolaria, respectively. The TPC was found maximum in the extract of E. fluctuans and P. perfoliatum displayed the highest TFC. The evaluation of TPC and TFC established the food values of plants which are linked to free radical scavenging activities. A positive correlation of DPPH with ABTS, FRAP with TFC, H2O2 with FRAP, TPC and TFC, and TPC with TFC were also seen in this study. The antioxidant properties of the plants that revealed in this study indicate their role towards various oxidative stress related diseases and could be supportive in stopping or slowing the growth of various types of human diseases. These plants are good sources of natural antioxidants and would act as a food supplement.
Acknowledgments
The authors are thankful to the University Grants Commission, New Delhi, for the award of Rajiv Gandhi National Fellowship to HN, the Botanical Survey of India, Shillong for identification of plants and Institutional Level Biotech-Hub, Bodoland University, Kokrajhar for providing necessary facilities for this study.
REFERENCES
[1] | Forbes-Hernandez TY , Giampieri F , Gasparrini M , Mazzoni L , Quiles JL , Alvarez-Suarez JM , Battino M . The effects of bioactive compounds from plant foods on mitochondrial function: A focus on apoptotic mechanisms. Food and Chemical Toxicology. (2014) ;68: :154–82. |
[2] | Gomes-Rochette NF , Vasconcelos MDS , Nabavi SM , Mota EF , Nunes-Pinheiro DCS , Daglia M , Melo DFD . Fruit as potent natural antioxidants and their biological effects. Current Pharmaceutical Biotechnology. (2016) ;17: (11):986–93. |
[3] | Kant K , Walia M , Agnihotri VK , Pathania V , Singh B . Evaluation of antioxidant activity of Picrorhiza kurroa (leaves) extracts. Indian J Pharm Sci. (2013) ;75: (3):324–9. |
[4] | Amudha M , Rani S . Evaluation of in vitro antioxidant potential of Cordia retusa. Indian J Pharm Sci. (2016) ;78: (1):80–86. |
[5] | Wong SP , Leong LP , Koh JHW . Antioxidant activities of aqueous extracts of selected plants. Food Chem. (2006) ;99: :775–83. |
[6] | Giampieri F , Forbes-Hernandez TY , Gasparrini M , Alvarez-Suarez JM , Afrin S , Bompadre S , Quiles JL , Mezzetti B , Battino M . Strawberry as a health promoter: An evidence based review. Food and Function. doi: 10.1039/C5FO00147A |
[7] | Afzal M , Safer AM , Menon M . Green tea polyphenols and their potential role in health and disease. Inflammopharmacol. (2015) ;23: :151–61. |
[8] | Chipurura B , Muchuweti M , Kasiyamhuru A . Wild leafy vegetables consumed in Buhera district of Zimbabwe and their phenolic compounds content. Ecology Food Nutrition. (2013) ;52: :178–89. |
[9] | Akindahunsi AA , Salawu SO . Phytochemical screening and nutrient–antinutrient composition of selected tropical green leafy vegetables. Afr J Biotechnol. (2005) ;4: :497–501. |
[10] | Ng XN , Chye FY , Ismail MA . Nutritional profile and antioxidative properties of selected tropical wild vegetables. International Food Research Journal. (2012) ;19: (4):1487–96. |
[11] | Afolayan AJ , Jimoh FO . Nutritional quality of some wild leafy vegetables in South Africa. International Journal of Food Science and Nutrition. (2009) ;60: (5):424–31. |
[12] | Glew R , Vanderjagt D , Chuang LT , Huang YS , Millson M , Glew R . Nutrient content of four edible wild plants from west Africa. Plant Foods Human Nutrition. (2005) ;60: (4):187–93. |
[13] | Maisuthisakul P , Suttajit M , Pongsawatmanit R . Assessment of phenolic content and free radical-scavenging capacity of some Thai indigenous plants. Food Chem. (2007) ;100: (4):1409–18. |
[14] | Islary A , Sarmah J , Basumatary S . Proximate composition, mineral content, phytochemical analysis and in vitro antioxidant activities of a wild edible fruit (Grewia sapida Roxb. ex DC.) found in Assam of North-East India. J Invest Biochem. (2016) ;5: (1):21–31. |
[15] | Narzary H , Swargiary A , Basumatary S . Proximate and vitamin C analysis of wild edible plants consumed by Bodos of Assam, India. J Mol Pathophysiol. (2015) ;4: (4):128–33. |
[16] | Saha J , Biswal AK , Deka SC . Chemical composition of some underutilized green leafy vegetables of Sonitpur district of Assam, India. International Food Research Journal. (2015) ;22: (4):1466–73. |
[17] | Saikia P , Deka DC . Mineral content of some wild green leafy vegetables of North-East India. J Chem Pharm Res. (2013) ;5: (3):117–21. |
[18] | Borah S , Baruah AM , Das AK , Borah J . Determination of mineral content in commonly consumed leafy vegetables. Food Anal Methods. (2009) ;2: :226–30. |
[19] | Kokate CK . A Textbook for Practical Pharmacognosy. 5th ed. New Delhi: Vallabh Prakashan; (2005) . |
[20] | Ben IO , Woode E , Abotsi WKM , Boakye-Gyasi E . Preliminary phytochemical screening and in vitro antioxidant properties of Trichilia monadelpha (Thonn.) J. J. de Wilde (Meliaceae). Journal of Medical and Biomedical Sciences. (2013) ;2: (2):6–15. |
[21] | Shukla RK , Painuly D , Porval A , Shukla A . Proximate analysis, nutritional value, phytochemical evaluation, and biological activity of Litchi chinensis Sonn. leaves. Journal of Herbs, Spices & Medicinal Plants. (2014) ;20: :196–208. |
[22] | Re R , Pellegrini N , Proteggente A , Pannala A , Yang M , Rice-Evans C . Antioxidant activity applying an improved ABTS radical cation decolorization assay. Free Radical Biology and Medicine. (1999) ;26: (9-10):1231–7. |
[23] | Ruch RJ , Cheng SJ , Klaunig JE . Prevention of cytotoxicity and inhibition of intercellular communication by antioxidant catechins isolated from Chinese green tea. Carcinogenesis. (1989) ;10: :1003–8. |
[24] | Benzie IFF , Strain JJ . The ferric reducing ability of plasma (FRAP) as measure of antioxidant power: The FRAP assay. Analytic Biochemistry. (1996) ;239: :70–6. |
[25] | Jia Z , Tang M , Wu J . The determination of flavonoid contents in mulberry and their scavenging effects on superoxide radicals. Food Chem. (1999) ;64: :555–9. |
[26] | Pistollato F , Battino M . Role of plant-based diets in the prevention and regression of metabolic syndrome and neurodegenerative diseases. Trends in Food Science & Technology. (2014) ;40: (1):62–81. |
[27] | Oh YS . Bioactive compounds and their neuroprotective effects in diabetic complications. Nutrients. (2016) ;8: :472. doi: 10.3390/nu8080472 |
[28] | Pellegrini N , Serafini M , Colombi B , Rio DD , Salvatore S , Bianchi M , Brighenti F . Total antioxidant capacity of plant foods, beverages and oils consumed in Italy assessed by three different in vitro assays. J Nutr. (2003) ;133: (9):2812–9. |
[29] | Arunachalam K , Parimelazhagan T . Evaluation of phenolic content, antioxidant activity, and nutritional composition of Cordia evolutior (Clarke) Gamble. International Journal of Food Properties. (2014) ;17: :226–38. |
[30] | Kuntze O , Shanmugapriya K , Nityanandi D , Saravana PS . Evaluation of antioxidant, anti-inflammatory and antimicrobial activities of two different extracts of Camellia sinensis (L.). Int J Drug Dev Res. (2013) ;5: (3):155–68. |
[31] | Zhang A , Fang Y , Wang H , Li H , Zhang Z . Free-radical scavenging properties and reducing power of grape cane extracts from 11 selected grape cultivars widely grown in China. Molecules. (2011) ;16: :10104–22. |
[32] | Arunachalam K , Murugan R , Parimelazhagan T . Evaluation of antioxidant activity, and nutritional and chemical composition of Ficus amplissima Smith fruit. International Journal of Food Properties. (2014) ;17: :454–68. |
[33] | Fu L , Xu BT , Xu XR , Qin XS , Gan RY , Li HB . Antioxidant capacities and total phenolic contents of 56 wild fruits from South China. Molecules. (2010) ;15: :8602–17. |
[34] | Wong JY , Matanjun P , Ooi YBH , Chia KF . Evaluation of antioxidant activities in relation to total phenolics and flavonoids content of selected Malaysian wild edible plants by multivariate analysis. International Journal of Food Properties. (2014) ;17: :1763–78. |
[35] | Bakar MFA , Mohamed M , Fry J . Phytochemicals and antioxidant activity of different parts of bambangan (Mangifera pajang) and tarap (Artocarpus odoratissimus). Food Chem. (2009) ;113: :479–83. |
[36] | Xia DZ , Yu XF , Zhu ZY , Zou ZD . Antioxidant and antibacterial activity of six edible wild plants (Sonchus s) in China. Natural Product Research. (2011) ;25: (20):1893–901. |
[37] | Yao LH , Jiang YM , Shi J , Tomás-Barberán FA , Datta NN , Singanusong R , Chen SS . Flavonoids in food and their health benefits. Plant Foods Human Nutrition. (2004) ;59: :113–22. |
[38] | Najafabad AM , Jamei R . Free radical scavenging capacity and antioxidant activity of methanolic and ethanolic extracts of plum (Prunus domestica L.) in both fresh and dried samples. Avicenna J Phytomed. (2014) ;4: (5):343–53. |
[39] | Bunea A , Rugină DO , Pintea AM , Sconţa Z , Bunea CI , Socaciu C . Comparative polyphenolic content and antioxidant activities of some wild and cultivated blueberries from Romania Not Bot Horti Agrobo. (2011) ;39: (2):70–6. |
[40] | Ku KM , Kim HS , Kim SK , Kang YH . Correlation analysis between antioxidant activity and phytochemicals in Korean colored corns using principal component analysis. Journal of Agricultural Science. (2014) ;6: (4):1–9. |
[41] | Velioglu YS , Mazza G , Oomah BD . Antioxidant activity and total phenolics in selected fruits, vegetables, and grain products. J Agric Food Chem. (1998) ;46: :4113–7. |
[42] | Maisarah AM , Amira BN , Asmah R , Fauziah O . Antioxidant analysis of different parts of Carica papaya. International Food Research Journal. (2013) ;20: (3):1043–8. |
Figures and Tables
Table 1
Phytochemical screening of methanolic extracts of eleven wild edible plants
| Phytochemical constituents | Test | B. lanceolaria | T. angustifolium | O. javanica | D. cordata | C. sinensis | S. media | A. acidum | E. foetidum | L. javanica | P. perfoliatum | E. fluctuans |
| Alkaloids | Wagner’s reagent | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + |
| Dragendroff’s reagent | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | |
| Saponins | Frothing test | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + |
| Cardiac glycosides | Keller-Killiani’s test | + | + | – | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + |
| Steroids | Liebermann-Burchard test | – | – | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + |
| Salkowski’s test | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | |
| Anthraquinones | Modified Borntrager’s test | – | – | – | – | – | + | + | – | + | + | + |
| Coumarins | – | – | + | + | – | – | + | + | + | + | + | |
| Phenols | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | |
| Tannins | Gelatine | + | + | + | + | + | – | + | + | – | + | + |
| Flavonoids | Shinoda’s test | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + |
| Anthocyanins | + | + | – | – | + | + | + | – | + | + | – | |
| Phlobatannins | – | + | + | – | + | + | + | – | – | + | – | |
| Lignin | Lignin test | + | + | + | – | + | + | – | – | + | + | – |
| Proteins | Ninhydrin test | + | – | + | + | – | – | – | + | + | + | – |
| Millon’s test | + | + | – | – | + | – | + | – | – | + | – | |
| Starch | Iodine test | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – |
Negative (–) indicates absent and positive (+) indicates present.
Table 2
DPPH free radical scavenging activity of methanolic extract of wild edible plants
| Plant extract/ | Concentration (μg/mL) and its inhibition (%) | IC50 value | ||||||
| Standard | 2 | 5 | 10 | 50 | 100 | 200 | 500 | (μg/mL) |
| B. lanceolaria | 13.70±0.04a | 14.24±0.11a | 16.56±0.11a | 19.50±0.18a | 20.58±0.14a | 30.56±0.22a | 48.13±0.15a | 516.34±2.52a |
| T. angustifolium | 13.32±0.16a | 18.23±0.24b | 22.24±0.15b | 32.25±0.19b | 48.87±0.19b | 73.31±0.23b | 90.94±0.12b | 171.21±0.57b |
| O. javanica | 7.99±0.15b | 8.78±0.15c | 11.85±0.16c | 15.25±0.19c | 17.07±0.16c | 41.64±0.15c | 65.39±0.15c | 345.80±1.07c |
| D. cordata | 12.29±0.25c | 13.93±0.07a | 14.27±0.12d | 17.76±0.12d | 19.97±0.16d | 27.39±0.15d | 48.71±0.19d | 516.04±2.50a |
| C. sinensis | 13.88±0.19a | 15.20±0.15d | 15.54±0.19e | 26.97±0.24e | 38.87±0.15e | 59.17±0.19e | 90.89±0.15b | 205.62±0.99d |
| S. media | 13.77±0.18a | 14.29±0.13a | 15.07±0.18e | 20.66±0.18f | 23.79±0.13f | 29.51±0.18f | 60.86±0.22e | 391.04±1.11e |
| A. acidum | 14.71±0.18d | 15.19±0.13d | 17.41±0.18f | 34.35±0.18g | 47.62±0.22g | 68.08±0.22g | 85.92±0.18f | 189.67±0.22f |
| E. foetidum | 12.36±0.18c | 13.73±0.09a | 15.34±0.18e | 18.41±0.27h | 20.33±0.22a,d | 35.28±0.18h | 57.12±0.18g | 407.54±0.65g |
| L. javanica | 17.21±0.17e | 20.63±0.21e | 22.34±0.26b | 40.63±0.21i | 64.55±0.30h | 78.60±0.17i | 94.11±0.21h | 135.00±1.49h |
| P. perfoliatum | 16.08±0.17f | 19.82±0.15f | 20.78±0.17g | 31.07±0.13j | 48.26±0.17i | 80.08±0.17j | 93.39±0.17i | 160.14±0.39i |
| E. fluctuans | 15.44±0.21f | 16.69±0.17g | 18.37±0.13h | 21.01±0.21k | 29.71±0.13j | 40.49±0.10k | 75.42±0.21j | 283.40±1.15j |
| Ascorbic acid | 15.94±0.14f | 26.93±0.19h | 36.57±0.28i | 83.11±0.23l | 90.04±0.23k | 93.03±0.47l | 98.84±0.10k | 25.01±0.52k |
Results are expressed as mean of 3 replicates±standard deviation. The values with different letters in a column are significantly different from each other at p < 0.05.
Table 3
ABTS radical scavenging activity of methanolic extract of wild edible plants
| Plant extract/ | Concentration (μg/mL) and its inhibition (%) | IC50 value | ||||||
| Standard | 20 | 50 | 100 | 150 | 200 | 250 | 300 | (μg/mL) |
| B. lanceolaria | 14.07±0.57a | 21.25±0.28a | 25.29±0.35a | 37.70±0.21a | 45.12±0.21a | 55.63±0.28a | 63.95±21.0a | 222.69±0.96a |
| T. angustifolium | 26.49±0.22b | 44.19±0.30b | 61.94±0.29b | 76.25±0.29b | 85.49±0.22b | 88.98±0.22b | 94.62±0.14b | 74.3±0.29b |
| O. javanica | 10.05±0.32c | 18.97±0.31c | 23.22±0.39c | 27.63±0.17c | 42.19±0.32c | 46.91±0.23c | 57.80±0.39c | 261.14±1.44c |
| D. cordata | 3.78±0.51d | 9.67±0.30d | 11.14±0.30d | 21.89±0.22d | 28.91±0.22d | 30.28±0.30d | 31.90±0.30d | 437.77±3.93d |
| C. sinensis | 21.17±0.29e | 33.43±0.22e | 48.43±0.30e | 61.27±0.16e | 74.90±0.37e | 78.43±0.22e | 81.96±0.22e | 120.8±0.55e |
| S. media | 15.96±0.31f | 25.52±0.30f | 29.65±0.38f | 66.51±0.38f | 73.21±0.31f | 80.51±0.30f | 82.27±0.23f | 139.96±0.61f |
| A. acidum | 24.85±0.43g | 30.71±0.22g | 42.53±0.22g | 58.91±0.36g | 80.71±0.22g | 82.21±0.30g | 89.19±0.22 g | 118.93±0.63g |
| E. foetidum | 15.63±0.30f | 30.47±0.45g | 39.79±0.37h | 43.80±0.37h | 48.37±0.31h | 52.88±0.31h | 60.35±0.22h | 213.77±1.57h |
| L. javanica | 22.61±0.15h | 36.99±0.24h | 57.96±0.15i | 80.09±0.15i | 86.57±0.09i | 90.92±0.15i | 92.62±0.18i | 86.99±0.27i |
| P. perfoliatum | 24.14±0.31g | 42.88±0.23i | 61.57±0.23b | 70.66±0.32j | 87.90±0.39j | 89.82±0.23j | 94.08±0.31b | 81.67±0.28j |
| E. fluctuans | 23.13±0.22 h,g | 30.33±0.22g | 49.57±0.22j | 65.31±0.22k | 76.76±0.14k | 87.50±0.31k | 89.05±0.29g | 112.23±0.14k |
| Trolox | 11.41±0.22i | 47.98±0.14j | 69.10±0.22k | 87.89±0.29l | 92.17±0.17l | 94.76±0.14l | 96.46±0.22j | 73.67±0.74l |
Results are expressed as mean of 3 replicates±standard deviation. The values with different letters in a column are significantly different from each other at p < 0.05.
Table 4
Hydrogen peroxide scavenging activity of methanolic extract of wild edible plants
| Plant extract/ | Concentration (μg/mL) and its inhibition (%) | IC50 value | ||||
| Standard | 5 | 10 | 15 | 20 | 25 | (μg/mL) |
| B. lanceolaria | 2.99±0.04a | 11.64±0.04a | 23.46±0.07a | 44.74±0.07a | 73.52±0.04a | 20.37±0.01a |
| T. angustifolium | 7.18±0.06b | 13.95±0.08b | 14.89±0.11b | 16.12±0.06b | 18.48±0.11b | 87.39±0.67b |
| O. javanica | 3.42±0.11c | 7.34±0.08c | 15.12±0.08b | 17.54±0.09c | 18.88±0.13b | 60.63±0.52c |
| D. cordata | 0.88±0.11d | 7.24±0.13c | 8.04±0.13c | 9.84±0.06d | 15.09±0.11c | 82.37±0.23d |
| C. sinensis | 4.54±0.16e | 6.52±0.27d | 7.71±0.07c | 8.68±0.09e | 10.41±0.09d | 167.65±1.93e |
| S. media | 0.38±0.07f | 1.32±0.11e | 2.90±0.11d | 8.03±0.11f | 22.96±0.11e | 56.32±0.17f |
| A. acidum | 9.06±0.12g | 10.60±0.15f | 13.50±0.12e | 14.48±0.06g | 15.69±0.13f | 123.83±1.14g |
| E. foetidum | 4.83±0.11e | 5.92±0.04g | 6.27±0.05f | 7.05±0.02h | 8.61±0.07g | 265.37±9.85h |
| L. javanica | 3.93±0.11c | 4.68±0.07h | 5.10±0.11g | 7.39±0.11 h,i | 8.63±0.09g | 196.91±0.45i |
| P. perfoliatum | 6.11±0.04h | 6.49±0.07d | 7.02±0.07h | 7.58±0.07i | 8.53±0.07g | 376.75±14.12j |
| E. fluctuans | 6.00±0.09h | 7.41±0.06c | 7.59±0.11c | 8.97±0.04e | 9.51±0.06h | 260.35±7.62k |
| Ascorbic acid | 10.73±0.02i | 27.91±0.04i | 41.96±0.07i | 51.42±0.07j | 64.86±0.07i | 19.02±0.01l |
Results are expressed as mean of 3 replicates±standard deviation. The values with different letters in a column are significantly different from each other at p < 0.05.
Table 5
Ferric reducing antioxidant power (FRAP) and phytochemical contents of wild edible plants
| Plant extract | FRAP value | Total phenolic content | Total flavonoid content |
| (μM TE/g extract) | (mg GAE/g dry extract) | (mg QE/g dry extract) | |
| B. lanceolaria | 308.80±8.98a | 36.39±2.96a | 1.01±0.10a |
| T. angustifolium | 581.42±10.71b | 54.08±7.20b | 1.36±1.03a |
| O. javanica | 98.09±5.45c | 171.22±8.90c | 0.47±0.10b |
| D. cordata | 64.76±7.43d | 29.71±5.40d | 0.77±1.03b |
| C. sinensis | 457.61±7.43e | 26.96±9.81e | 0.77±0.10b |
| S. media | 406.42±7.14f | 67.45±7.07f | 0.23±0.10b,c |
| A. acidum | 423.09±8.98g | 30.11±2.96g | 1.19±0.10a |
| E. foetidum | 127.85±7.14h | 105.18±3.11h | 1.30±0.10a |
| L. javanica | 799.28±7.14i | 91.43±4.14i | 2.55±0.10d |
| P. perfoliatum | 621.90±7.43j | 265.95±4.76j | 4.34±1.03e |
| E. fluctuans | 156.42±7.14k | 269.49±2.96k | 0.83±0.10a,b |
Results are expressed as mean of 3 replicates±standard deviation. The values with different letters in a column are significantly different from each other at p < 0.05.
Table 6
Pearson’s correlation coefficients of antioxidant activity (DPPH, ABTS, H2O2, FRAP), TPC and TFC in eleven wild edible plants
| DPPH | ABTS | H2O2 | FRAP | TPC | TFC | |
| DPPH | 1 | |||||
| ABTS | 0.82a | 1 | ||||
| H2O2 | –0.48 | –0.41 | 1 | |||
| FRAP | –0.76a | –0.74a | 0.23 | 1 | ||
| TPC | –0.25 | –0.27 | 0.69b | –0.07 | 1 | |
| TFC | –0.54 | –0.41 | 0.73b | 0.62b | 0.46 | 1 |
a, Correlation is significant at p < 0.01; b, Correlation is significant at p < 0.05.
