Next Article in Journal
Impact of Selective Renal Afferent Denervation on Oxidative Stress and Vascular Remodeling in Spontaneously Hypertensive Rats
Next Article in Special Issue
Identification of Modulators of the C. elegans Aryl Hydrocarbon Receptor and Characterization of Transcriptomic and Metabolic AhR-1 Profiles
Previous Article in Journal
Metabolic Shades of S-D-Lactoylglutathione
Previous Article in Special Issue
Oxidation of Polyunsaturated Fatty Acids as a Promising Area of Research in Infertility
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Phytochemical Characterization, Antioxidant and Anti-Proliferative Properties of Rubia cordifolia L. Extracts Prepared with Improved Extraction Conditions

1
Department of Technology, Savitribai Phule Pune University, Ganeshkhind, Pune 411007, India
2
Institute of Chemical Technology Mumbai, Marathwada Campus, Jalna, BT-6/7, Biotechnology Park, Additional MIDC Area, Aurangabad Road, Jalna 431203, India
3
Department of Botany, Savitribai Phule Pune University, Ganeshkhind, Pune 411007, India
4
Maharashtra Arogya Kendra’s Sane Guruji Arogya Kendra, Pune 411028, India
5
Department of Biomolecular Sciences, University of Urbino Carlo Bo, 61029 Urbino, Italy
6
Center for Nanofibers and Nanotechnology, Department of Mechanical Engineering, National University of Singapore, Singapore 119260, Singapore
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Submission received: 30 March 2022 / Revised: 18 May 2022 / Accepted: 18 May 2022 / Published: 20 May 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue The 10th Anniversary of Antioxidants: Past, Present and Future)

Abstract

:
Rubia cordifolia L. (Rubiaceae) is an important plant in Indian and Chinese medical systems. Extracts prepared from the root, stem and leaf have been used traditionally for the management of various diseases. Some of the known effects are anti-inflammation, neuroprotection, anti-proliferation, immunomodulation and anti-tumor. A comparative account of the extracts derived from different organs that lead to the identification of the most suitable solvent is lacking. We explored the presence of phytochemicals, antioxidant activity and anti-proliferative properties of a variety of solvent-based extracts of root, and methanol extracts of stem and leaf of R. cordifolia L. The antioxidant potential was determined by DPPH, hydrogen peroxide, nitric oxide and total antioxidant assays. The anti-proliferative nature was evaluated by MTT assay on HeLa, ME-180 and HepG2 cells. The composition of the extracts was determined by UPLC-UV-MS. We found that the root extracts had the presence of higher amounts of antioxidants over the stem and leaf extracts. The root extracts prepared in methanol exhibited the highest cytotoxicity in HepG2 cells. The main compounds identified through UPLC-UV-MS of the methanol extract give credibility to the previous results. Our comprehensive study corroborates the preference given to the root over the stem and leaf for extract preparation. In conclusion, we identified the methanol extract of the root to be the most suited to have bioactivity with anti-cancer potential.

1. Introduction

Various chemotherapeutic drugs inherently induce side effects due to a lack of non-specificity towards cancer cells. The search for newer molecules has led to a refreshed look at complementary and alternative medicinal practices [1,2]. A plant-derived anti-cancer molecule is expected to provide a solution owing to its natural source. Hence, many plants are being investigated in view of this vital necessity. Extracts from traditional medicinal plants, such as Rubia cordifolia L. may be one of the alternatives available to fill this lacuna.
Geographically, R cordifolia L. is a widely distributed member of the Rubiaceae family. It is traditionally referred to as Indian Madder or Manjith or Manjistha in India and Qiancao in China. The inherent red color of the root is used as a food coloring agent and dye for fiber. Its usage as a phytomedicine has been documented in the traditional Indian medicine systems of Ayurveda and Siddha and traditional Chinese medicine. Broadly, the extracts have been used for the treatment of blood-related conditions, such as hematemesis, epistaxis, spotting, traumatic bleeding and amenorrhea [3]. The extract preparation may be water-based (aqueous) and organic-solvent-based (such as methanol, ethanol, chloroform and dichloromethane). The aqueous extract of the aerial parts effectively controls diarrhea and inflammation in male Swiss albino mice [4]. The aqueous extract of the whole plant limits the rotavirus multiplication in MA-104 cells [5]. Methanol extracts prepared from the root have cardioprotective [6] and anti-cancer activities, as determined in the human epidermoid laryngeal carcinoma cell line (HEp-2) [7], anti-human lymphoma cells (U937) and malignant skin melanoma (A375) [8]. The ethanol extract of the root has been evaluated to be anti-thrombotic and pro-angiogenic [9]. Animal studies using chloroform extract of the whole plant did not disclose any significant anti-tumor activity [10].
Many compounds have been identified from R. cordifolia that may be responsible for such therapeutic actions [9,11]. The compounds present in the R. cordifolia are reviewed by Shan et al. [3], and those with a PubChem ID are consolidated in Table 1.
Quinones, terpenoids, alkaloids and their derivatives form a major class of compounds with considerable bioactivities. These components are responsible for the various anti-oxidation, anti-inflammation and anti-proliferative bioactivities, among others. Mollugin (derivative of anthraquinone) inhibits pro-inflammatory chemocytokine production [12]. Purpurin is another anthraquinone that gives R. cordifolia L antioxidant properties [13]. Alizarin, 6-hydroxyrubiadin, purpurin and rubiadin are expected to be key constituents responsible for analgesic and anti-inflammatory properties [14]. The mode of action of the exhaustive list of compounds has not been elucidated completely as many compounds are solvent-specific and are not available in large quantities.
Quantified research that directs to the therapeutic usage of specific extraction solvents for different plant organs is still lacking. Further, a comparison among the different extracts prepared from different R. cordifolia plant organs remains unattempted so far. Within this frame of reference, we have focused our attention on the antioxidant and anti-proliferative activities of various extracts prepared from R. cordifolia and have identified methanol as the most suitable solvent [15]. An in vitro analysis on the cancer cell lines confirmed the methanol extract of the root as the most suitable for pertinent pre-clinical studies.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Plant Collection

The stems and leaves of R. cordifolia were freshly collected from Torna fort (18°16′33.86″ N 73°37′21.78″ E) and Mahabaleshwar Forest (17°55′51″ N 73°38′52″ E) located in Maharashtra State, India. Air-dried leaves and stems were separated. The dried samples were pulverized into a coarse powder and stored for further use. The plant was authenticated at Botanical Survey of India, Pune, India center with specimen number MGJRC-1 and a voucher specimen is deposited at the BSI herbarium.

2.2. Preparation of Extracts

All solvents, reagents and standards used were of analytical grade (HiMedia, Mumbai, India). Extracts of powders were prepared in methanol, ethanol or distilled water as described previously [16]. In brief, powders of different plant parts of R. cordifolia were extracted with solvent individually by conventional Soxhlet apparatus (Goel Scientific, Vadodara, India) extraction procedure. After the exhaustive extraction, each extract was evaporated to dryness by rotary evaporator (Aditya Scientific, Hyderabad, India). We quenched the polyphenols using polyvinylpolypyrrolidone (PVPP) to determine if antioxidant activity is exclusive to the polyphenols present in the extract. To remove polyphenols from the extracts, they were treated with 10% (w/v) PVPP made in respective solvents and kept on a shaking incubator (238019, Thermo Fisher, Waltham, MA, USA) at 37 °C overnight. The polyphenols bind with PVPP and settle at the bottom, while the supernatant contains the polyphenol-free extract [17].

2.3. Qualitative Phytochemical Screening of R. cordifolia Constituents

The preliminary screening of different classes of natural plant constituents was performed. The presence of secondary metabolites viz. alkaloids, saponins, tannins, phenols, glycosides, terpenes, carotenoids and quinones was detected using the standard tests as described below [16,18].

2.3.1. Alkaloid Detection

Mayer’s test for alkaloids was performed by treating equivalent volumes of extract with Mayer’s reagent (in-house prepared by dissolving 1.36 g of mercuric chloride (GRM1067, HiMedia, Mumbai, India) and 5 g of potassium iodide (GRM252, HiMedia, Mumbai, India) in 100 mL distilled water), and the subsequent development of cream-colored precipitate implied existence of alkaloid. Dragenforff’s reagent was prepared by dissolving 8 g of bismuth nitrate (RM1221, HiMedia, Mumbai, India) in 20 mL of concentrated nitric acid (GRM6105, HiMedia, Mumbai, India) and 27.2 g of potassium iodide (KI) in 50 mL of distilled water. Both the solutions were kept standing till KIO3 crystallized out. The supernatant was decanted, and final volume was adjusted to 100 mL with distilled water. Dragendorff’s test for alkaloids was accomplished by treating equivalent volumes of extract with Dragendorff’s reagent. Subsequent generation of red-colored precipitate suggested presence of alkaloid. Wagner’s reagent was prepared by dissolving 2 g of iodine (GRM1064, HiMedia, Mumbai, India) and 6 g of potassium iodide in 100 mL of distilled water. Wagner’s test for alkaloids was performed by treating equivalent volumes of extract with Wagner’s reagent. Subsequent development of reddish-brown-colored precipitate indicated existence of alkaloid. Hager’s reagent was prepared by dissolving 1 g of picric acid (S026, HiMedia Mumbai, India) in 100 mL of distilled water. Hager’s test for alkaloids was performed by treating equivalent volumes of extract with Hager’s reagent. Subsequent development of yellow-colored precipitate suggested presence of alkaloid.

2.3.2. Saponin Detection

Saponin was detected by dissolving equivalent quantity of extract in water followed by vigorous shaking. Formation of honeycomb-shaped persistent froth indicated the existence of saponins in the sample.

2.3.3. Tannin Detection

Tannins were determined by mixing extract with 0.5% aqueous ferric chloride (GRM165-500G, HiMedia, Mumbai, India), and dark green/bluish-green coloration of the sample indicated presence of tannins.

2.3.4. Phenol Detection

Phenols were determined by adding equivalent volumes of extract to Folin–Ciocalteu reagent (RM10822, HiMedia, Mumbai, India), and blue coloration of sample indicated presence of phenols.

2.3.5. Glycoside Detection

Glycosides were identified by treating equivalent volumes of extract with glacial acetic acid (AS001, HiMedia, Mumbai, India) and some drops of 5% aqueous ferric chloride (FeCl3) and concentrated sulphuric acid (H2SO4) (AS016-500ML, HiMedia, Mumbai, India). This is known as Keller-Kiliani test. Reddish-brown coloration at the confluence and bluish-green color in top layer solution indicated presence of glycosides.

2.3.6. Flavonoids Detection

Flavonoids were detected by Shinoda test when to 1 ml of extract, few Mg turnings were added followed by a few drops of concentrated hydrochloric acid (HCl). Development of reddish pink coloration indicated presence of flavonoids.

2.3.7. Terpene Detection

Terpenes were detected by mixing equivalent volumes of extract with chloroform and concentrated sulphuric acid. Reddish-brown coloration at the junction of two solutions suggested the occurrence of terpenes.

2.3.8. Steroid Detection

Steroids were detected by formation of orange color in solution consisting of equivalent volumes of extract with chloroform, glacial acetic acid and concentrated sulphuric acid.

2.3.9. Quinone Detection

Presence of quinone was determined by formation of green color upon addition of concentrated hydrogen chloride (RM5955-500ML, HiMedia, Mumbai, India) to the extract [19].

2.3.10. Carotenoids Detection

Carotenoids were detected by formation of deep blue color in solution consisting of equivalent volumes of extract with concentrated sulphuric acid (H2SO4) and a few crystals of iodine.

2.4. Quantification of Phenols

Phenolic content was determined according to the method reported earlier [17]. Briefly, 1 mL of 1 mg/mL extract and gallic acid with the concentrations of 20, 40, 60, 80 and 100 µg/mL was mixed with 0.5 mL of 1N Folin–Ciocalteu reagent and incubated for 5 min, followed by addition of 1 mL of 20% sodium carbonate. After 10 min incubation at room temperature, absorbance was measured at 730 nm. Gallic acid was used as the standard and the phenolic content was expressed as gallic acid equivalent (GAE). The equation of the curve: y = mx + c with R2 > 0.99. The limit of detection (LOD) and limit of quantification (LOQ) were based on the standard deviation of the blank and calculated using following equations:
L O D = 3.3 × σ / S  
L O Q = 10 × σ / S  
where σ is the standard deviation of y-intercepts of the regression line, and S is the slope of the calibration curve.

2.5. Quantification of Flavonoids

Flavonoid content in the extract was determined in accordance with the reported method [20]. In brief, 1 mL of extract and quercetin with the concentration of 100, 200, 300, 400 and 500 µg/mL was mixed with 1.25 mL of distilled water and 75 µL of 5% of sodium nitrite solution incubated for 5 min; subsequently, 150 µL of 10% aluminum chloride (Sigma-Aldrich, Burlington, MA, USA) solution was added. After incubation for 6 min, 500 µL of 1 M sodium hydroxide and 275 µL of distilled water were added to prepare the mixture. The absorbance was recorded at 510 nm. Quercetin was used as the standard, and the flavonoid content is expressed as quercetin equivalent (QE). The equation of the curve: y = mx + c with R2 > 0.99. The LOD and LOQ were based on the standard deviation of the blank and calculated as described by equations 1 and 2, respectively.

2.6. Antioxidant Assays

2.6.1. DPPH Free Radical Scavenging Assay

DPPH (2,2-diphenyl-1-picrylhydrazyl) scavenging activity was measured with spectrophotometric method as described previously [21]. To 0.5 mL extract solution made in respective solvents of concentration ranging from 20 to 100 µg/mL, 1 mL of 0.2 mM DPPH (RM2798, HiMedia, Mumbai, India) made in methanol was added and volume was made up to 2 mL with methanol and incubated for 30 min at room temperature. The absorbance was measured at 517 nm against blank. Ascorbic acid was used as the standard control. The antioxidant activity was presented as IC50 value (µg/mL) based on percentage of inhibition of DPPH as calculated in accordance with Equation (3).
P e r c e n t   s c a v e n g i n g   a c t i v i t y = ( ( A c o n t r o l A s a m p l e ) × 100 ) A c o n t r o l

2.6.2. Hydrogen Peroxide Scavenging Assay

The scavenging effect of hydrogen peroxide was determined as described earlier [22]. Briefly, 1 mL of extract solution of concentration ranging from 20 to 100 µg/mL was treated with 0.6 mL, 40 mM of hydrogen peroxide (Fisher Scientific, Pittsburgh, PA, USA) prepared in phosphate buffer (pH 7.4) for 10 min. The absorbance was read at 230 nm against blank of hydrogen peroxide. Ascorbic acid was used as standard, and the antioxidant activity was presented as IC50 value (µg/mL) based on percentage of inhibition of hydrogen peroxide (Equation (3)).

2.6.3. Scavenging Activity of Nitric Oxide

Nitric oxide was generated from sodium nitroprusside, and its scavenging effect was determined as described previously [16]. Briefly, different concentrations ranging from 20 to 100 µg/mL of 1 mL of extract solution and 1 mL (pH 7.4) phosphate buffer were used to prepare 0.5 mL of 10 mM sodium nitroprusside. After incubation for 5 h at 25 °C, 0.5 mL of supernatant liquid was removed and 0.5 mL of Griess reagent (G7921, Thermo Fisher, Waltham, MA, USA) (1 mM) prepared in distilled water was added. The absorbance of the chromophore formed during diazotization of nitric oxide with sulphanilamide and its subsequent coupling with N-(1-naphthyl) ethylene–diamine was determined at 546 nm. Ascorbic acid was used as standard, and the antioxidant activity was presented as IC50 value (µg/mL) based on percentage of inhibition of nitric oxide (Equation (3)).

2.6.4. Determination of Total Antioxidant Capacity

The total antioxidant capacity was determined by phosphomolybdate assay [23]. In brief, 1 mL of extract of concentrations ranging from 20 to 100 μg/mL prepared in respective solvents was taken and mixed with 1 mL of reagent containing 0.6 M sulphuric acid, 28 mM sodium phosphate (MB047-250G, Thermo Fisher, Waltham, MA, USA) and 4 mM ammonium molybdate (A7302-100G, Sigma-Aldrich, Burlington, MA, USA). The solution formed was incubated at 95 °C for 90 min, cooled to room temperature and absorbance was noted at 695 nm. Ascorbic acid was used as the standard, and the total antioxidant capacity was calculated as percentage scavenging activity (refer Equation (3)).

2.7. Principal Component Analysis

Principal component analysis (PCA) was performed to point out the clustering of data into two separated groups, namely PVPP untreated (−PVPP) and treated (+PVPP) extracts. The PCA is a procedure aiming at reducing the dimensionality of the data and allowing the visualization of a large number of variables in a two-dimensional plot [24]. The input data were obtained from quantification of phenol and flavonoid and antioxidant activity (phenol content expressed as mg GAE/g of plant extract; flavonoid content expressed as mg QE/g of plant extract; antioxidant potential by DPPH free radical scavenging expressed as IC50; antioxidant potential by hydrogen peroxide scavenging expressed as IC50; antioxidant potential by nitric oxide scavenging assay expressed as IC50 and total antioxidant capacity expressed as IC50) in root-methanol, root-ethanol, root-aqueous, leaf-methanol and stem-methanol extracts. A diagram of the values obtained from each treatment condition was plotted in the bidimensional space, defined by the 1st and 2nd principal component functions (PC1 and PC2, respectively).

2.8. Cell Culture and Cytotoxicity

Authenticated cell lines ME-180, HeLa and HepG2 were procured from National Centre for Cell Science, Pune, India. The cells were grown in Roswell Park Memorial Institute-1640, Eagle’s Minimal Essential Medium and Dulbecco’s Modified Eagle Medium media, respectively, and 10% FBS (16000044, Thermo Fisher, Waltham, MA, USA) and 1% antibiotic solution were used for supplementation. Cells were grown in T-25 flasks and were passaged upon confluence using trypsin-EDTA [16]. Nearly 5000 cells were seeded per well in 96-well plate and incubated at 37 °C in 5% CO2 incubator and left overnight to enable surface attachment. Cells were treated with extracts (methanol, ethanol and aqueous) with concentrations of 50, 25, 10, 5, 1, 0.5, 0.1, 0.05 mg/mL and left overnight in incubator. 5 mg/mL of MTT per well was added and incubated for 2 h at 37 °C. Formazan crystals were solubilized with 100 μL DMSO and incubated for 10 min. The absorbance was measured at 570 nm and reference at 630 nm.

2.9. UPLC-UV-MS Analysis

UPLC-UV-MS phytochemical profiling of root methanol extract (1 mg/ml) was performed on an Agilent 6540 UHD Accurate Mass QTOF MS system (Agilent Technologies, Santa Clara, CA, USA). The separation was performed using a Zorbax 2.1 × 50 mm 1.8 μm column. The gradient applied was: 0.1% formic acid in water (A), acetonitrile (B); 0 min 95% B; 5 min 95% B; 6 min 5% B; 8 min 5% B. Injection volume was 10 μL; flow-rate was 0.2 mL/min. ESI-Q-TOF-MS analysis was performed in the positive and negative ionization modes using the following parameters: mass range 70–1600 m/z; gas temperature 270 °C; nitrogen flow 11 L/min; nebulizer pressure 45 psig; skimmer 45 V; capillary voltage 4000 V; fragmentor 150 V, fixed collision energy 40 V. Data were processed with Agilent MassHunter 6200 series TOF/6500 series Q-TOF B.09.00 (B9044.0) (Agilent Technologies, Santa Clara, CA, USA).

2.10. Statistical Analysis

All experiments were performed in triplicate and the values were expressed as mean ± standard error of mean (SEM). The data were analyzed by Student–Newman–Keuls test using Sigma Plot version 14 (Systat Software Inc., Palo Alto, CA, USA), and IC50 values were calculated using OriginPro, version 2021 (OriginLab Corporation, Northampton, MA, USA).

3. Results

3.1. Qualitative Analysis of Secondary Metabolites of R. cordifolia Extracts

The methanol extract of R. cordifolia root had alkaloids, tannins, phenols, flavonoids and terpenes (Table 2). In comparison, while the ethanol extract lacked tannins, the aqueous extract had saponins and glycosides. Considering the maximally reported usage of methanol extracts for roots, we evaluated methanol extracts of leaves and stems in the same way. In contrast to the methanol extracts of roots, the methanol extracts of leaves had glycosides and quinones, while the stem-methanol extracts had quinones and carotenoids.

3.2. Quantification of Phenols and Flavonoids in Extracts

Standard calibration curves were plotted for the quantification of phenols in extracts. The plot for standard gallic acid for both PVPP-untreated and -treated was linear, with correlation coefficients (R2) equal to 0.9916 and 0.99, respectively. The regression equations for PVPP-untreated and -treated were y = 0.0093x + 0.0436 and y = 0.0062x + 0.0335, respectively, with an LOD under 10 mg/g and LOQ under 30 mg/g for both. Similarly, standard quercetin calibration plots were obtained as linear with R2 of 0.9986 and 0.991, and regression equations of y = 0.0014x + 0.0067 and y = 0.0012x + 0.0308 for PVPP-untreated and -treated, respectively. The LODs were under 20 mg/g and LOQs were under 40 mg/g for both.
Significant levels of difference were observed in all the root extracts post-PVPP treatment for the phenols and flavonoids. The ethanol and methanol extracts of roots had the highest phenol and flavonoid content, respectively, compared to the other extracts for 1 mg/mL concentrations of extracts (Table 3). The roots had the highest phenol and flavonoid content among the methanol extracts of different organs of R. cordifolia L.

3.3. Root Extracts Have Better Antioxidant Activity Than Leaf and Stem Extracts

The percentage of scavenging activity of the root-ethanol extract in 2,2-diphenyl-1-picrylhydrazyl (DPPH) and hydrogen peroxide assays is less in absence of the PVPP treatment, while higher IC50 values were obtained in the presence of PVPP in nitric oxide and total antioxidant assays (Figure 1 and Table 4). With the post-treatment of root extracts by PVPP, the aqueous extract was found to be 84%, 81% and 84% more potent in DPPH, hydrogen peroxide and total antioxidant assay, respectively. The methanol extracts of leaf and stem showed higher IC50 in all the assays. Considering the absence of significant levels of antioxidant activities in the methanol extracts of leaves and stems, we continued with the extracts of root for further assays.

3.4. Principal Component Analysis of R. cordifolia Phenol, Flavonoid and Antioxidant Levels in PVPP Untreated and Treated Extracts

The data obtained by the quantification of the phenols and flavonoids with antioxidant levels of R. cordifolia among PVPP-untreated and -treated extracts have been used to perform a principal components analysis (PCA) (Table 5).
As shown in Table 6, the first principal component was highly correlated with flavonoid content and antioxidant levels by H2O2 scavenging activity (Antioxidant_H2O2) variables, while the second principal component was highly correlated with antioxidant levels by NO scavenging activity (Antioxidant_NO) variable (highest score coefficients in absolute value).
The first and the second principal components explain together 77.44% of the total observed variance, which is a considerable value. The PCA showed a clear separation between the -PVPP and +PVPP data (Figure 2), as better evidenced by the dotted line added in the plot.
Negative PC1 values correlated to the flavonoid content and Antioxidant_H2O2 variables were mostly associated with the root samples (blue symbols). On the other hand, PVPP-untreated (empty symbols) and -treated (solid plain symbols) roots were markedly separated by the dotted line, indicating that the flavonoid content, H2O2 and NO antioxidant activities are different. The stem samples (green symbols) have different PC2 values correlated to Antioxidant_NO scavenging activity, and leaf samples (red symbols) have different PC1 and PC2 values since they are separated by the dotted line.
The methanol extracts (circle symbols) have mostly positive PC1 values but different PC2 values, indicating a difference in the Antioxidant_NO activity related to the PVPP treatment. The aqueous extracts (square symbols) have negative PC1 and similar PC2 values, indicating a similar Antioxidant_NO activity independent from the PVPP treatment. The ethanol extracts (triangle symbols) have both PC1 and PC2 values, indicating different flavonoid content, Antioxidant_H2O2 and NO activities related to the PVPP treatment.

3.5. Plant Extracts Are Cytotoxic to Cancer Cells

Cancer cell lines ME-180, HeLa and HepG2 were exposed to various concentrations of extracts and standard drug (5-Flurouracil) to determine the cell viability by MTT cell proliferation assay. HeLa and HepG2 cells were susceptible to any of the extracts at similar concentrations (Figure 3 and Figure 4). The root-methanol extract was more potent than other extracts for HeLa (IC50 of 0.29 ± 0.23 mg/mL) and HepG2 (IC50 of 0.39 ± 0.26 mg/mL) (Table 7). 5-Flurouracil (5-FU) was most toxic to HepG2 cells (IC50 of 1.51 ± 0.38μM), and the levels of toxicity were significantly lower than those in the other cell lines evaluated.

3.6. UPLC-UV-MS Phytochemical Profiling of Methanol Extract of R. cordifolia

To identify the compounds responsible for anti-proliferative potential, the composition of the root methanol extract was evaluated by UPLC-UV-MS analysis. A number of secondary metabolites were detected (Supplementary Table S1). Out of them, the structures of two of the signature compounds from R. cordifolia L. were used to compare with the existing PubChem database (Figure 5 and Figure 6). In addition, the formula, score, mass and CAS numbers with retention time are listed in Table 8.

4. Discussion

The utility of secondary metabolites for human health has achieved high recognition owing to their promising usage in traditional knowledge-based medication for centuries. R. cordifolia L produces a range of secondary metabolites that have been evaluated for various illnesses. In the present study, we have evaluated three solvent systems for roots and methanol as a solvent for stems and leaves to extract secondary metabolites from R. cordifolia L. The suitability of methanol extracts in antioxidant assays prompted us to evaluate methanol extracts of stems and leaves for phytochemical analysis. Nevertheless, the antioxidant levels of roots were noticed to be higher than stems and leaves.
Phenols are a major antioxidant group present in plants. We detected significant amounts of phenols in the ethanol extract of root, followed by the methanol extract of leaf. Flavonoids are the largest group of natural phenolics that possess tremendous free radical scavenging properties and, hence, antioxidant potential. Our method of Soxhlet extraction led to an increased release of phenols and flavonoids.
The presence of antioxidants in the extract is crucial for usage as an anti-proliferative agent. The results of the DPPH assay for the ethanol extract of root reported by Zhang et al. [25] were in the range of 23.88 to 65.23 µg/mL. They used an ultrasonic-assisted extraction process. These values are much lower than the presently reported values in the range of 88.5 to 98.26 µg/mL. We believe the suitability of the extraction method and the mother plant selection are the drivers of differential results. Basu and Hazra [26] reported a range of 153.7 to 310.3 µg/mL for methanol and aqueous extracts of root as evaluated by a nitric oxide assay. They used the filtrate of the directly solubilized extracts in the respective solvents. Our results have a different range, possibly due to our choice of method of the Soxhlet exhaustive extraction process.
The antioxidant activity of the plant extract is attributed to various secondary metabolites, including polyphenols. Studies pertaining to the significance of polyphenols have emphasized their influence on the antioxidant results [27,28,29]. We propose to present the case that the antioxidant activity observed in R. cordifolia L. is not entirely due to polyphenols. To prove that the determined antioxidant activity is not exclusive to the polyphenols present in the extract and is contributed to by other secondary metabolites as well, we quenched the polyphenols using PVPP. Rantunge et al., 2017 have demonstrated the quenching effect of PVPP on different polyphenols, and it clearly shows remarkable differences [17]. The precipitation allows the removal of any complex of PVPP-polyphenols. A comparison of the PVPP-untreated and -treated extracts by the same antioxidant assays proved that there are other compounds responsible for antioxidant properties as well. We are reporting for the first time the results pertaining to R. cordifolia root extracts (ethanol, methanol and aqueous) treated with PVPP for antioxidant assays. Even after the removal of phenols and flavonoids, the antioxidant activity of the extract is not hampered. This suggests the involvement of other non-phenolic secondary metabolites in bringing about the antioxidant potential. The PCA correlated the phenol, flavonoid and antioxidant levels, as evaluated by hydrogen peroxide and nitric oxide scavenging assays. Our evaluation of R. cordifolia leaves and stems demonstrates that the root is more suited to be used for antioxidant properties. The high prevalence of antioxidant compounds in root extracts may be utilized for the anti-proliferative process in certain cancers [30,31]. The anti-proliferative assay corroborated the suitability of the methanol extract of the root for anti-cancer activity. The sensitivity of HepG2 towards 5-Flurouracil as compared to other cell lines was not reflected for plant extracts as similar toxicity was observed in the ME180 and HeLa for cell lines, suggesting its usage for the management of multiple cancers. The cytotoxicity may be mediated by reactive oxygen species, as indicated in laryngeal squamous cell carcinoma HEp-2 cells [7]. However, the apoptotic pathway responsible for cell toxicity needs further elucidation. The isolation of suitable cancer-specific bioactive compounds is necessary, or else it may yield a negative result [10].
Our results of UPLC-UV-MS identified some previously reported compounds and some new compounds from Rubia plants. Pseudopurpurin (anthraquinone) is a characteristic natural red-color compound present in the roots of R. cordifolia and Rubiaceae family members. It is a derivative of purpurin (pseudopurpurin is purpurin 3-carboxylic acid). It improves bone geometry [32] and selectively exhibits tumor inhibitory potential [33]. Morindaparvin A is reported to be an antileukemic anthraquinone and is chemically derived from alizarin (1,2-methylenedioxyanthraquinone by synthesis from alizarin) [34]. We report its presence in R. cordifolia for the first time. It is possible that its presence was not detected previously or was not considered as it is a derivative of alizarin. These preliminary findings require a detailed supplemental study for verification before confirmation.
The presence of multiple compounds in the methanol extract that are established to be cytotoxic to cancer cells supports our results. However, the validation of cytotoxic activities requires independent assays.

5. Conclusions

R. cordifolia L. is a widely used plant for its significant medicinal value. This is attributed to the presence of unique secondary metabolites in R. cordifolia L. Exhaustive methods of extraction lead to an increase in the retrieval of secondary metabolites, as observed in our research endeavor. This work provides the initial steps required in selecting the suitable solvents for R. cordifolia extract preparations. Our study has revealed the presence of a high quantity of antioxidants in the root, stem and leaf extracts of R. cordifolia. The antioxidant levels in the root, stem and leaf provide a comparative benchmark for further exploration. The results obtained for the antiproliferative assay make the extracts valuable to medicinal practitioners. Identification of different compounds may help in determining a metabolite signature characteristic of R. cordifolia. The individual compounds need to be evaluated to verify the extent of the utility of the antioxidant nature for identifying a potential anti-cancer agent. In summary, the medicinal value imparted by the extracts is comprehensively documented for its usage in anti-cancer research.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://0-www-mdpi-com.brum.beds.ac.uk/article/10.3390/antiox11051006/s1. The following supporting information: Table S1. UPLC-UV-MS identification of possible compounds from Rubia cordifolia L. root extract prepared in methanol. ID source: DBSearch.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, J.S., A.A.K., S.H.D. and S.C.K.; Data curation, R.B.H., M.G.J. and S.C.K.; Formal analysis, R.B.H., J.S., A.A.K., M.G.J., M.C.A., M.B.L.R. and S.C.K.; Funding acquisition, J.S., A.A.K., S.H.D., M.C.A, S.C.K. and S.R.; Investigation, R.B.H., J.S., A.A.K., M.G.J., M.C.A., M.B.L.R. and S.C.K.; Methodology, J.S., A.A.K., S.H.D. and S.C.K.; Project administration, S.C.K.; Resources, J.S., A.A.K., S.H.D. and S.C.K.; Supervision, J.S., A.A.K. and S.C.K.; Validation, S.C.K.; Visualization, S.C.K.; Writing—Original draft, J.S., A.A.K., M.C., M.C.A., M.B.L.R. and S.C.K.; Writing—Review & editing, J.S., A.A.K., D.A., M.C., M.C.A., S.C.K. and S.R. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was partially funded by J.S. by Science and Engineering Research Board, Grant/Award Number: PDF/2017/000886, departmental research funds of A.A.K. and Departmental funds to S.C.K. The APC was funded by M.C.A and S.R.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available within the article and supplementary material.

Acknowledgments

A.A.K. acknowledges plant material provided by P.S. Joshi and B. Shigwan, Pune, India. S.C.K. acknowledges the facility provided by Sheo Mohan Singh, International Centre for Stem Cell and Cancer Biology, Pune, India and Kisan Kodam, Department of Chemistry, Savitribai Phule Pune University, Pune, India. S.C.K. acknowledges the support provided by Mrunal Sali, Pune, India in some antioxidant assays.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Abbreviations

DPPH2:2-diphenyl-1-picrylhydrazyl
PVPPPolyvinylpolypyrrolidone

References

  1. Raghunath, K.; Sumathi, C.; Rajappa, S.J.; Mohan, M.V.T.K.; Kumar, U.; Shaik, U.; Botlagunta, M. Impact of naturopathy, yoga, and dietary interventions as adjuvant chemotherapy in the management of stage II and III adenocarcinoma of the colon. Int. J. Colorectal Dis. 2020, 35, 2309–2322. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Gras, M.; Vallard, A.; Brosse, C.; Beneton, A.; Sotton, S.; Guyotat, D.; Fournel, P.; Daguenet, E.; Magné, N.; Morisson, S. Use of Complementary and Alternative Medicines among Cancer Patients: A Single-Center Study. Oncology 2019, 97, 18–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Shan, M.; Yu, S.; Yan, H.; Chen, P.; Zhang, L.; Ding, A. A Review of the Botany, Phytochemistry, Pharmacology and Toxicology of Rubiae Radix et Rhizoma. Molecules 2016, 21, 1747. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  4. Gong, X.-P.; Sun, Y.-Y.; Chen, W.; Guo, X.; Guan, J.-K.; Li, D.-Y.; Du, G. Anti-diarrheal and anti-inflammatory activities of aqueous extract of the aerial part of Rubia cordifolia. BMC Complement. Altern. Med. 2017, 17, 20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  5. Sun, Y.; Gong, X.; Tan, J.Y.; Kang, L.; Li, D.; Vikash; Yang, J.; Du, G. In vitro antiviral activity of Rubia cordifolia aerial part extract against Rotavirus. Front. Pharmacol. 2016, 7, 308. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  6. Chandrashekar, B.; Prabhakara, S.; Mohan, T.; Shabeer, D.; Bhandare, B.; Nalini, M.; Sharmila, P.; Meghana, D.; Reddy, S.; Hanimantha Rao, H.; et al. Characterization of Rubia cordifolia L. root extract and its evaluation of cardioprotective effect in Wistar rat model. Indian J. Pharmacol. 2018, 50, 12–21. [Google Scholar]
  7. Shilpa, P.N.; Sivaramakrishnan, V.; Devaraj, S.N. Induction of Apoptosis by Methanolic Extract of Rubia Cordifolia Linn in HEp-2 Cell Line is Mediated by Reactive Oxygen Species. Asian Pac. J. Cancer Prev. 2012, 13, 2753–2758. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  8. Ghosh, S.; Sarma, M.D.; Amarendra, P.; Hazra, B. Anti-inflammatory and anticancer compounds isolated from Ventilago madraspatana Gaertn., Rubia cordifolia Linn. and Lantana camara Linn. J. Pharm. Pharmacol. 2010, 62, 1158–1166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Chen, Y.; Chen, P.-D.; Bao, B.-H.; Shan, M.-Q.; Zhang, K.-C.; Cheng, F.-F.; Cao, Y.-D.; Zhang, L.; Ding, A.-W. Anti-thrombotic and pro-angiogenic effects of Rubia cordifolia extract in zebrafish. J. Ethnopharmacol. 2018, 219, 152–160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Adwankar, M.K.; Chitnis, M.P. In vivo anti-cancer activity of RC-18: A plant isolate from Rubia cordifolia, Linn. against a spectrum of experimental tumour models. Chemotherapy 1982, 28, 291–293. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Chang, L.C.; Chavez, D.; Gills, J.J.; Fong, H.H.S.; Pezzuto, J.M.; Kinghorn, D.A. Rubiasins A-C, new anthracene derivatives from the roots and stems of Rubia cordifolia. Tetrahedron Lett. 2000, 41, 7157–7162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Li, J.; Zhang, J.L.; Gong, X.P.; Xiao, M.; Song, Y.Y.; Pi, H.F.; Du, G. Anti-inflammatory Activity of Mollugin on DSS-induced Colitis in Mice. Curr. Med. Sci. 2020, 40, 910–916. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Singh, J.; Hussain, Y.; Luqman, S.; Meena, A. Purpurin: A natural anthraquinone with multifaceted pharmacological activities. Phytother. Res. 2020, 35, 2418–2428. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Shen, C.H.; Liu, C.T.; Song, X.J.; Zeng, W.Y.; Lu, X.Y.; Zheng, Z.L.; Pan, J.; Zhan, R.T.; Ping, Y. Evaluation of analgesic and anti-inflammatory activities of Rubia cordifolia L. by spectrum-effect relationships. J. Chromatogr. B Analyt. Technol. Biomed. Life Sci. 2018, 1090, 73–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Kamble, S.C.; Humbare, R.B.; Sarkar, J.; Kulkarni, A.A. Assessment of Phytochemicals and Antioxidant Properties of Root Extracts of Rubia cordifolia L. in Different Solvent Systems. Biol. Life Sci. Forum 2020, 4, 100. [Google Scholar]
  16. Humbare, R.B.; Sarkar, J.; Kulkarni, A.A.; Kamble, S.C. Evaluation of Free Radical Scavenging with in vitro Antiproliferative Properties of Different Extracts of Pluchea lanceolata (DC.) Oliv. and Hiern in Cancer Cell Lines. Pharmacogn. Mag. 2021, 17, 886–892. [Google Scholar]
  17. Ranatunge, I.; Adikary, S.; Dasanayake, P.; Fernando, C.D.; Soysa, P. Development of a Rapid and Simple Method to Remove Polyphenols from Plant Extracts. Int. J. Anal. Chem. 2017, 2017, 7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  18. Pochapski, M.T.; Fosquiera, E.C.; Esmerino, L.A.; Dos Santos, E.; Farago, P.; Santos, F.; Groppo, F. Phytochemical screening, antioxidant, and antimicrobial activities of the crude leaves’ extract from Ipomoea batatas (L.) Lam. Pharmacogn. Mag. 2020, 7, 165–170. [Google Scholar]
  19. Evans, W.C.; Evans, D.; Trease, G.E. Trease and Evans Pharmacognosy, 16th ed.; Evans, W.C., Evans, D., Eds.; Saunders: Edinburgh, UK; Elsevier: New York, NY, USA, 2009; ISBN 9780702029349. [Google Scholar]
  20. Zhishen, J.; Mengcheng, T.; Jianming, W. The determination of flavonoid contents in mulberry and their scavenging effects on superoxide radicals. Food Chem. 1999, 64, 555–559. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Rahman, M.M.; Islam, M.B.; Biswas, M.; Khurshid Alam, A.H.M. In vitro antioxidant and free radical scavenging activity of different parts of Tabebuia pallida growing in Bangladesh. BMC Res. Notes 2015, 8, 621. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  22. Ruch, R.J.; Cheng, S.; Klaunig, J.E. Prevention of cytotoxicity and inhibition of intercellular communication by antioxidant catechins isolated from Chinese Green Tea. Carcinogenesis 1989, 10, 1003–1008. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Prieto, P.; Pineda, M.; Aguilar, M. Spectrophotometric Quantitation of Antioxidant Capacity through the Formation of a Phosphomolybdenum Complex: Specific Application to the Determination of Vitamin E. Anal. Biochem. 1999, 269, 337–341. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Teodori, L.; Accorsi, A.; Uguccioni, F.; Rocchi, M.B.L.; Baldoni, F.; Piatti, E.; Albertini, M.C. Erythrocyte morphology automated analysis: Proposal for a new prediction tool of essential hypertension diagnosis. Cytom. Part B-Clin. Cytom. 2007, 72, 211–214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  25. Zhang, X.; Liu, L.-J.; Song, T.-T.; Wang, Y.-Q.; Yang, X. An approach based on antioxidant fingerprint–efficacy relationship and TLC bioautography assay to quality evaluation of Rubia cordifolia from various sources. J. Nat. Med. 2014, 68, 448–454. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Basu, S.; Hazra, B. Evaluation of Nitric Oxide Scavenging Activity, In Vitro and Ex Vivo, of Selected Medicinal Plants Traditionally Used in Inflammatory Diseases. Phyther. Res. 2006, 20, 896–900. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Nikolova, M. Screening of Radical Scavenging Activity and Polyphenol Content of Bulgarian Plant Species. Pharmacogn. Res. 2011, 3, 256–259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  28. Piluzza, G.; Bullitta, S. Correlations between phenolic content and antioxidant properties in twenty-four plant species of traditional ethnoveterinary use in the Mediterranean area. Pharm. Biol. 2011, 49, 240–247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Jerez-Martel, I.; García-Poza, S.; Rodríguez-Martel, G.; Rico, M.; Afonso-Olivares, C.; Gómez-Pinchetti, J.L. Phenolic profile and antioxidant activity of crude extracts from microalgae and cyanobacteria strains. J. Food Qual. 2017, 2017, 2924508. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  30. Verma, A.; Kumar, B.; Alam, P.; Singh, V.; Kumar Gupta, S. Rubia cordifolia—A Review on Pharmaconosy and Phytochemistry. Int. J. Pharm. Sci. Res. 2016, 7, 2720. [Google Scholar]
  31. Joharapurkar, A.A.; Zambad, S.P.; Wanjari, M.M.; Umathe, S.N. In vivo evaluation of antioxidant activity of alcoholic extract of Rubia cordifolia Linn. and its influence on ethanol-induced immunosuppression. Indian J. Pharmacol. 2003, 35, 232–236. [Google Scholar]
  32. Wu, C.C.; Li, X.B.; Han, T.S.; Li, P.; Wang, J.G.; Liu, G.W.; Wang, Z.; Ge, C.R.; Gao, S.Z. Dietary pseudopurpurin improves bone geometry architecture and metabolism in red-bone Guishan goats. PLoS ONE 2012, 7, e37469. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  33. Lajkó, E.; Bányai, P.; Zámbó, Z.; Kursinszki, L.; Szoke, É.; Kohidai, L. Targeted tumor therapy by Rubia tinctorum L.: Analytical characterization of hydroxyanthraquinones and investigation of their selective cytotoxic, adhesion and migration modulator effects on melanoma cell lines (A2058 and HT168-M1). Cancer Cell Int. 2015, 15, 119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  34. Chang, P.; Lee, K.H.; Shingu, T.; Hirayama, T.; Hall, I.H.; Huang, H.C. Antitumor agents 50. 1 Morindaparvin-A, a new antileukemic anthraquinone, and alizarin-1-methyl ether from Morinda parvifolia, and the antileukemic activity of the related derivatives. J. Nat. Prod. 1982, 45, 206–210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Figure 1. In vitro antioxidant assays (A) DPPH assay, (B) hydrogen peroxide scavenging assay, (C) nitric oxide scavenging assay, (D) total antioxidant assay of R. cordifolia root without (i) and with (ii) polyvinylpolypyrrolidone (PVPP), where: blue—ethanol extract, red—methanol extract, dark green—aqueous extract, black—ascorbic acid and (iii) leaf and stem, where: green—leaf-methanol extract (−PVPP), orange—methanol extract (+PVPP), red—stem-methanol extract (−PVPP), blue—stem-methanol extract (+PVPP).
Figure 1. In vitro antioxidant assays (A) DPPH assay, (B) hydrogen peroxide scavenging assay, (C) nitric oxide scavenging assay, (D) total antioxidant assay of R. cordifolia root without (i) and with (ii) polyvinylpolypyrrolidone (PVPP), where: blue—ethanol extract, red—methanol extract, dark green—aqueous extract, black—ascorbic acid and (iii) leaf and stem, where: green—leaf-methanol extract (−PVPP), orange—methanol extract (+PVPP), red—stem-methanol extract (−PVPP), blue—stem-methanol extract (+PVPP).
Antioxidants 11 01006 g001
Figure 2. Principal components analysis (PCA) of R. cordifolia L antioxidant activity in PVPP untreated (–PVPP, empty symbols) and treated (+PVPP, solid plain symbols) extracts. The different samples and extractions conditions have been indicated with different shape and color symbols: methanol = circle; ethanol = triangle; aqueous = square; root = blue; leaf = red and stem = green.
Figure 2. Principal components analysis (PCA) of R. cordifolia L antioxidant activity in PVPP untreated (–PVPP, empty symbols) and treated (+PVPP, solid plain symbols) extracts. The different samples and extractions conditions have been indicated with different shape and color symbols: methanol = circle; ethanol = triangle; aqueous = square; root = blue; leaf = red and stem = green.
Antioxidants 11 01006 g002
Figure 3. Comparative cell viability assay on three cell lines: HeLa (blue intermittent line with square marker), ME-180 (green continuous line with triangle marker) and HepG2 (red dotted line with diamond marker) using R. cordifolia extracts (A) methanol extract, (B) ethanol extract, (C) aqueous extract and (D) 5-Flurouracil. The cell viability is relative to the vehicle control (cells treated with solvent in equivalent amounts of respective extract). Results were expressed as the mean ± SD of three independent experiments.
Figure 3. Comparative cell viability assay on three cell lines: HeLa (blue intermittent line with square marker), ME-180 (green continuous line with triangle marker) and HepG2 (red dotted line with diamond marker) using R. cordifolia extracts (A) methanol extract, (B) ethanol extract, (C) aqueous extract and (D) 5-Flurouracil. The cell viability is relative to the vehicle control (cells treated with solvent in equivalent amounts of respective extract). Results were expressed as the mean ± SD of three independent experiments.
Antioxidants 11 01006 g003
Figure 4. Comparison among the IC50 of HeLa (blue), ME-180 (green) and HepG2 (red) cells upon treatment with R. cordifolia root extracts of methanol, ethanol, aqueous extract and 5-Flurouracil (5-FU). Results were expressed as the mean ± SD of three independent experiments, test of significance by ANOVA, wherein * and *** represent statistical significance of p < 0.05 and p < 0.001, respectively.
Figure 4. Comparison among the IC50 of HeLa (blue), ME-180 (green) and HepG2 (red) cells upon treatment with R. cordifolia root extracts of methanol, ethanol, aqueous extract and 5-Flurouracil (5-FU). Results were expressed as the mean ± SD of three independent experiments, test of significance by ANOVA, wherein * and *** represent statistical significance of p < 0.05 and p < 0.001, respectively.
Antioxidants 11 01006 g004
Figure 5. UPLC-UV-MS analysis on positive node for methanol extract with identified peaks of 1. Pseudopurpurin, 2. Morindaparvin A.
Figure 5. UPLC-UV-MS analysis on positive node for methanol extract with identified peaks of 1. Pseudopurpurin, 2. Morindaparvin A.
Antioxidants 11 01006 g005
Figure 6. Chromatograms and structure (inset) of compounds identified by UPLC-UV-MS.
Figure 6. Chromatograms and structure (inset) of compounds identified by UPLC-UV-MS.
Antioxidants 11 01006 g006
Table 1. Selected compounds identified from R. cordifolia L.
Table 1. Selected compounds identified from R. cordifolia L.
No.Chemical CompoundsPubChem IDMolecular Formula Molecular Weight (g/mol)Isolated from
16-methoxygeniposidic acid50998059C17H24O11404.4Root
2Rubiprasin A21594201 C32H52O5516.799 Root
3Rubiprasin B21594133 C32H52O4 500.8 Root
4Rubiarbonol A12019473 C30H50O4 474.7 Root
5Rubiarbonol B 12019474 C30H50O3 458.7 Root
6Rubiarbonol C 21672545 C32H52O5 516.799 Root
7Rubiarbonol D21672546 C32H52O5 516.799 Root
8Rubiarbonol E21582934 C30H50O4 474.7 Root
9Rubiarbonol F21582935 C30H50O5 490.7 Root
101,8-dihydroxyanthraquinone2950 C14H8O4 240.21 Root
111-hydroxy 2-methoxy anthraquinone80103C15H10O4254.24Root
121,3- dimethoxy 2- carboxy anthraquinone129670266 C17H12O6 312.27 Root
131, 5-dihydroxy 2- methylanthraquinone182449C15H10O4254.24Root
14Pseudopurpurin442765 C15H8O7 300.22 Root
15Dihydromollugin10779560 C17H18O4 286.32 Root
16Munjistin160476 C15H8O6 284.22
171-hydroxy-2-hydroxymethyl-9,10-anthraquinone32209C15H10O4254.24Root
18Mollugin124219 C17H16O4 284.31 Root
192-methyl-1,3,6-trihydroxy-9,10-anthraquinone 5319801C15H10O5270.24 Root
20Rubioncolin B14777446C31H24O10 556.5Root
21Rubilactone132415 C15H10O5 270.24 Root
221- hydroxy-2 carboxy 3-methoxyanthraquinone129670276 C16H10O6 298.25 Root
23Oleanolic acid acetate6708573 C32H50O4 498.7 Root
24Hederagenin73299 C30H48O4472.7
25Β-sitosterol222284C29H50O414.7Root
26Rubiasin A101064500C15H16O2 228.29Root, Stem Root, Stem
27Rubiasin B101064501 C15H16O2 228.29
28Rubiasin C101064502 C15H16O2 228.29
291-hydroxy-2-methylanthraquinone160817 C15H10O3238.24 Root
301,4-dihydroxy-2-methylanthraquinone99300C15H10O4254.24Root
312-methylanthraquinone6773 C15H10O2 222.24 Root
32Alizarin6293 C14H8O4 240.21 Root
33Rubiadin124062 C15H10O4 254.24 Root
34Purpurin6683 C14H8O5 256.209 Root
351,4-dihydroxy-2-methyl-5-methoxyanthraquinone12714658 C16H12O5284.26 Root
36Ruberythric acid92101 C25H26O13 534.5 Root
37Lucidine primeveroside 160180C26H28O14564.5Root
382,3-dihydroxyanthraquinone11391150 C15H10O4254.24Root
391,3-dimethoxyanthraquinone361511 C16H12O4268.26 Root
403-methoxymollugin46187191 C18H18O5 314.3 Root
41Xanthopurpurin196978 C14H8O4 240.21 Root
42Methyl 1,4-bisglucosyloxy-3-prenyl-2-naphthoate10031663C29H38O14610.6Root
43Physcion10639 C16H12O5 284.26 Root
44Nordamnacanthal160712 C15H8O5 268.22 Root
45Quinizarin (1,4-dihydroxy-6-methyl-anthraquinone)6688 C14H8O4 240.21 Root
461,4-dihydroxy-2- naphthoic acid 671 C11H8O4 204.18 Root
47Furomollugin10354359C14H10O4242.23Root
482-methyl-1, 3, 6-trihydroxy-9, 10-anthraquinone5319801 C15H10O5 270.24 Root
49RA-I14390137 C40H48N6O10 772.8 Root
50[Gly-1]ra-vii10440096 C40H48N6O9 756.8 Root
51[Gly-2]ra-vii12098468 C40H48N6O9 756.8 Root
52RA-III14390141 C41H50N6O10786.9 Root
53RA-V13361282C40H48N6O9756.8Root
54RA-XXIV24881308 C42H51N7O10 813.9 Root
55RA-VIII152772187C41H50N6O10786.9Root
56RA-X6444175 C43H52N6O11 828.9 Root
57RA-XI131676023 C42H50N6O11814.9 Root
58RA-XII10373581 C46H58N6O14 919 Root
59RA-XIII14999350 C48H60N6O16977Root
60RA-XVI5320896C47H58N6O16963Root
61RA-XVII 102355358 C41H50N6O9 770.9 Root
62RA-XVIII25033039 C41H50N6O10 786.9 Root
63RA-XIX24829365 C44H56N6O9 812.9 Root
64RA-XX24829366 C42H52N6O9784.9 Root
65RA-XXI24861920 C41H50N6O9770.9 Root
66RA-XXII24862183 C41H50N6O10 786.9 Root
67Rubicoumaric acid 5377693 C39H54O6 618.8 Whole Plant
68Rubifolic acid91895456 C30H48O4 472.7 Whole Plant
691-hydroxy-9,10-anthraquinone8512 C14H8O3 224.21Root
702-carbamoyl-3-methoxy-1,4- naphthoquinone91825839 C11H7NO4217.18 Root
71N-nonadecane12401C19H40 268.5Root
722,6-dihydroxyanthraquinone6776 C14H8O4 240.21 Root
73N-heptadecane12398 C17H36 240.5 Root
74Rubiatriol21582929 C30H50O3 458.7 Root
75Epoxymollugin24814354 C17H16O5 300.3 Root
761,6-dihydroxy-2-methyl-9,10-anthraquinone124063 C15H10O4 254.24 Root
77Citric acid311C6H8O7192.12
78Malic acid525C4H6O5134.09
79Palmitic acid 985C16H32O2256.42
801-hydroxy-2, 7- dimethylanthraquinone1382C16H12O3252.26
81Emodin3220C15H10O5270.24
82Eugenol3314C10H12O2164.2
83Alizarin 6293C14H8O4240.21
84Quinic acid6508C7H12O6192.17
852-methyl anthraquinone6773C15H10O2222.24
86Vanillic acid8468C8H8O4168.15
871-hydroxyanthraquinone8512C14H8O3224.21
88Lucidin 10163C15H10O5270.24
89Naphthohydroquinone11305C10H8O2160.17
90Tricosanoic acid 17085C23H46O2354.6
91Ursolic acid 64945C30H48O3456.7
92Atraric acid78435C10H12O4196.2
93Friedelinol101341C30H52O428.7
94Soranjidiol 124063C15H10O4254.24
95Lariciresinol 332427C20H24O6360.4
96Naphthaquinone377214C13H11NO4245.23
97Anethole 637563C10H12O148.2
98Geraniol637566C10H18O154.25
99Geranyl acetate1549026C12H20O2196.29
100Scopoletol5280460C10H8O4192.17
101Rosmarinic acid5281792C18H16O8360.3
102Daucosterol5742590C35H60O6576.8
1031-hydroxy 2-methyl anthraquinone10250776C25H26O5406.5
104Rubicordifolin11786393C33H28O9568.6
105Oleanolic acid 12313704C30H46O3454.7
1061, 4-dihydroxy 2- methylanthraquinone12488527C16H12O5284.26
1071-Hydroxy-2-(methoxycarbonyl)-3-[(methoxycarbonyl)methyl]-9,10-anthraquinone13793380C19H14O7354.3
108Rubiatriol 21582929C30H50O3458.7
109Rubiprasin B 21594133C32H52O4500.8
110Rubiprasin A 21594201C32H52O5516.8
111Rubiarbonol C21672545C32H52O5516.8
1121, 4- dihydroxy 2- methyl 5-methoxy anthraquinone23626543C20H16O7368.3
1132′-hydroxymollugin46187192C17H16O5 300.3
114Methyl 6-hydroxy-3-methoxy-2,2-dimethyl-3,4-dihydrobenzo[h]chromene-5-carboxylate5319476C18H18O5316.3
115Methyl 3,6-dihydroxy-4-methoxy-2,2-dimethyl-3,4-dihydrobenzo[h]chromene-5-carboxylate5319446C18H20O6332.3
1162-methyl-1, 3, 6-trihydroxy-9, 10- anthraquinone70698136C29H32O15620.6
117Rubifolic acid 72994727C30H48O4472.7
1182-Acetoxy-1,5-dihydroxy-7-methylanthraquinone100994924C17H12O6312.27
1191, 3- dimethoxy 2-carboxy anthraquinone129670266C17H12O6312.27
120Rubicordin A132553188C46H60N6O14921
121Rubicordin B132553189C47H62N6O14935
122Rubicordin C132553190C42H54N6O9786.9
1232, 6-methylanthraquinone155490709C25H28O6424.5
124Sitosteryl acetate348285530C29H50O414.71
125Sitostenone 60123241C29H48O412.7
Table 2. Phytochemical screening of root, leaf and stem extracts of R. cordifolia.
Table 2. Phytochemical screening of root, leaf and stem extracts of R. cordifolia.
S.No.Detection AssaysRootLeafStem
Methanol
Extract
Ethanol
Extract
Aqueous
Extract
Methanol
Extract
Methanol
Extract
1AlkaloidsMayer’s test++
2AlkaloidsDragendorff’s test+++++
3AlkaloidsWagner’s test+++
4AlkaloidsHager’s test++
5SaponinsFoam test+
6TanninsFerric chloride test++
7PhenolsFolin–Ciocalteu reagent test+++++
8GlycosidesKeller–Kiliani test++
9FlavonoidsShinoda test+++++
10TerpenesChloroform-Sulphuric acid test+++++
11SteroidsLiebermann–Burchard test
12QuinonesHydrochloride test++
13CarotenoidsIodine crystal test+
+ Present; − absent.
Table 3. Quantification of phenol and flavonoid contents in extracts of R. cordifolia.
Table 3. Quantification of phenol and flavonoid contents in extracts of R. cordifolia.
Extracts in SolventPVPP
‘+’ = presence of PVPP, ‘−‘ = absence of PVPP
Phenol Content
(mg GAE/g of Plant Extract)
Flavonoid Content
(mg QE/g of Plant Extract)
Root-Methanol43.34 ± 0.27 a,b,c369.69 ± 1.49 a,b,c
+6.59 ± 0.7355.28 ± 2.7
Root-Ethanol74.31 ± 0.16 a,d334.9 ± 1.8 a,d
+5.46 ± 0.2549.64 ± 3.11
Root-Aqueous67.14 ± 0.11 a177.05 ± 3.6 a
+6.80 ± 0.2537.08 ± 1.54
Leaf-Methanol35.12 ± 0.3255.1 ± 0.46 a
+##
Stem-Methanol26.87 ± 0.2349.19 ± 0.61
+##
Phenol content (gallic acid equivalent, GAE) and flavonoid content (quercetin equivalent, QE) is expressed as mean ± SEM (n = 3); a–d column-wise values with different superscripts of this type indicate significant difference (p < 0.001) a between −PVPP and +PVPP for same solvent, b–d for −PVPP for different solvents, b between methanol and ethanol, c between methanol and aqueous d and between ethanol and aqueous. # post-PVPP values were not detectable by spectrophotometer at the concentration tested.
Table 4. IC50 values of DPPH, hydrogen peroxide, nitric oxide and total antioxidant assay of R. cordifolia. Results were expressed as the mean ± SD of three independent experiments. Significant difference between without PVPP and with PVPP representing p < 0.001, p < 0.01, p < 0.05 is by ***, ** and *, respectively. R. cordifolia extracts were tested at concentrations of 20, 40, 60, 80, 100 μg/mL.
Table 4. IC50 values of DPPH, hydrogen peroxide, nitric oxide and total antioxidant assay of R. cordifolia. Results were expressed as the mean ± SD of three independent experiments. Significant difference between without PVPP and with PVPP representing p < 0.001, p < 0.01, p < 0.05 is by ***, ** and *, respectively. R. cordifolia extracts were tested at concentrations of 20, 40, 60, 80, 100 μg/mL.
DPPHHydrogen Peroxide Scavenging ActivityNitric Oxide Scavenging ActivityTotal Antioxidant Capacity
ExtractsIC50 (µg/mL) IC50 (µg/mL)IC50 (µg/mL) IC50 (µg/mL) IC50 (µg/mL) IC50 (µg/mL) IC50 (µg/mL) IC50 (µg/mL)
PVPP-+-+-+-+
Root-Methanol79.1 ± 1.92 **89.47 ± 0.7974.5 ± 1.38 ***97.71 ± 1.6994.53 ± 1.84 **78.46 ± 0.788.62 ± 1.05 **97.52 ± 0.88
Root-Ethanol88.5 ± 2.68 **98.26 ± 0.7361.2 ± 2.12 ***101.14 ± 1.5295.11 ± 0.74 ***82.17 ± 0.51101.15 ± 1.77 **85.92 ± 0.74
Root-Aqueous99.97 ± 2.09 **85.53 ± 1.0192.97 ± 2.3180.85 ± 1.8985.49 ± 0.8284.23 ± 0.7571.86 ± 0.3 **85.14 ± 0.81
Leaf-Methanol115.76± 0.85 *84.63 ± 0.0396.35 ± 1.62 **146.98 ± 7.13126.86 ± 1.14118.99 ± 2.1691.84 ± 4.24 *117.95 ± 0.58
Stem-Methanol153.12± 1.19 112.75 ± 0.09109.02 ± 1.62138.41 ± 0.69111.16 ± 1.3686.17 ± 0.53134.83 ± 2.05103.91 ± 0.78
Ascorbic Acid159.34 ± 3.41 ***100.42 ± 1.2564.49 ± 0.51 *99.12 ± 2.7100.01 ± 0.6 *86.35 ± 0.39104.26 ± 0.62 *100.29 ± 1.4
Results were expressed as the mean ± SD of three independent experiments, test of significance among PVPP untreated and treated extracts by ANOVA, wherein *, ** and *** represent statistical significance of p < 0.05, p < 0.01 and p < 0.001, respectively.
Table 5. Consolidated data used for PCA.
Table 5. Consolidated data used for PCA.
Extracts in SolventPVPP
‘+’ = presence of PVPP, ‘−‘ = absence of PVPP
Phenol ContentFlavonoid ContentDPPH Free Radical
Scavenging Assay
H2O2
Scavenging Activity
NO
Scavenging Activity
Total
Antioxidant
Capacity
mg GAE/g of Plant Extractmg QE/g of Plant ExtractIC50 (µg/mL)IC50 (µg/mL)IC50 (µg/mL)IC50 (µg/mL)
Root-
Methanol
43.34 ± 0.27369.69 ± 1.4979.1 ± 1.9274.5 ± 1.3894.53 ± 1.8488.62 ± 1.05
+6.59 ± 0.7355.28 ± 2.789.47 ± 0.7997.71 ± 1.6978.46 ± 0.797.52 ± 0.88
Root-
Ethanol
74.31 ± 0.16334.9 ± 1.888.49 ± 2.6861.2 ± 2.1295.11 ± 0.74101.15 ± 1.77
+5.46 ± 0.2549.64 ± 3.1198.26 ± 0.73101.14 ± 1.5282.17 ± 0.5185.92 ± 0.74
Root-
Aqueous
67.14 ± 0.11177.05 ± 3.699.976 ± 2.0192.97 ± 2.3185.49 ± 0.8271.86 ± 0.3
+6.80 ± 0.2537.08 ± 1.5485.53 ± 1.0180.85 ± 1.8984.23 ± 0.7585.14 ± 0.81
Leaf-
Methanol
35.12 ± 0.3255.1 ± 0.46115.76 ± 0.8596.35 ± 1.62126.86 ± 1.1491.84 ± 4.24
+##84.63 ± 0.03146.98 ± 7.13118.99 ± 2.16117.95 ± 0.58
Stem-
Methanol
26.87 ± 0.2349.19 ± 0.61153.12 ± 1.19 109.02 ± 1.62111.16 ± 1.36134.83 ± 2.05
+##112.75 ± 0.09138.41 ± 0.6986.17 ± 0.53103.91 ± 0.78
Ascorbic AcidNANA159.34 ± 3.4164.49 ± 0.51100.01 ± 0.6104.26 ± 0.62
+NANA100.42 ± 1.2599.12 ± 2.786.35 ± 0.39100.29 ± 1.4
# post-PVPP values were not detectable by spectrophotometer at the concentration tested. NA—Not Applicable.
Table 6. Component score coefficient matrix (coefficients by which variables are multiplied to obtain factor scores). The highest score coefficients in absolute value are marked in bold.
Table 6. Component score coefficient matrix (coefficients by which variables are multiplied to obtain factor scores). The highest score coefficients in absolute value are marked in bold.
Variables1st Principal
Component (PC1)
2nd Principal
Component (PC2)
Phenol content −0.7790.517
Flavonoid content 0.8120.447
Antioxidant_DPPH Assay0.7060.435
Antioxidant_H2O2 scavenging activity0.817−0.276
Antioxidant_NO scavenging activity0.4300.692
Antioxidant_Total antioxidant capacity0.7350.526
Table 7. IC50 of R. cordifolia extracts on viability of HeLa, ME-180 and HepG2 cells.
Table 7. IC50 of R. cordifolia extracts on viability of HeLa, ME-180 and HepG2 cells.
Methanol Extract
(mg/mL)
Ethanol Extract
(mg/mL)
Aqueous Extract (mg/mL)5-FU (μM)
HeLa0.29 ± 0.23 a, c1.41 ± 0.370.51 ± 0.34 b34.73 ± 10.02
ME-1801.68 ± 0.39 a2.37 ± 0.96 d1.78 ± 0.55 b13.68 ± 2.04
HepG20.38 ± 0.260.45 ± 0.070.57 ± 0.311.51 ± 0.38
For all the experiments, n = 3. a–d Column-wise values with different superscripts of this type indicate significant difference as determined by Student–Newman–Keuls method (p < 0.05); a between 5FU and methanol extract for same solvent; b–d for –PVPP for different solvents; b between 5-FU and aqueous; c between methanol and ethanol d and between 5-FU and ethanol.
Table 8. UPLC-UV-MS identification of major compounds from Rubia cordifolia L. root extract prepared in methanol. ID source: DBSearch.
Table 8. UPLC-UV-MS identification of major compounds from Rubia cordifolia L. root extract prepared in methanol. ID source: DBSearch.
No.NameFormulaScoreMassCASRT
1PseudopurpurinC15H8O797.4300.0275476-41-59.442
2Morindaparvin AC15H8O484.38252.042141621-32-310.821
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Humbare, R.B.; Sarkar, J.; Kulkarni, A.A.; Juwale, M.G.; Deshmukh, S.H.; Amalnerkar, D.; Chaskar, M.; Albertini, M.C.; Rocchi, M.B.L.; Kamble, S.C.; et al. Phytochemical Characterization, Antioxidant and Anti-Proliferative Properties of Rubia cordifolia L. Extracts Prepared with Improved Extraction Conditions. Antioxidants 2022, 11, 1006. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/antiox11051006

AMA Style

Humbare RB, Sarkar J, Kulkarni AA, Juwale MG, Deshmukh SH, Amalnerkar D, Chaskar M, Albertini MC, Rocchi MBL, Kamble SC, et al. Phytochemical Characterization, Antioxidant and Anti-Proliferative Properties of Rubia cordifolia L. Extracts Prepared with Improved Extraction Conditions. Antioxidants. 2022; 11(5):1006. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/antiox11051006

Chicago/Turabian Style

Humbare, Ravikiran B., Joyita Sarkar, Anjali A. Kulkarni, Mugdha G. Juwale, Sushil H. Deshmukh, Dinesh Amalnerkar, Manohar Chaskar, Maria C. Albertini, Marco B. L. Rocchi, Swapnil C. Kamble, and et al. 2022. "Phytochemical Characterization, Antioxidant and Anti-Proliferative Properties of Rubia cordifolia L. Extracts Prepared with Improved Extraction Conditions" Antioxidants 11, no. 5: 1006. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/antiox11051006

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

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop