Extractions
Grewia flava roots and twigs were extracted using various solvents, and it was found that distilled water produced the highest extractible material from both plant parts (29.88% and 15.72% for the roots and twigs respectively), whereas acetone resulted in the lowest yield in both scenarios (Table 1). When choosing an extraction method, extractive yield should be considered because low yield is a drawback in natural products research. Non-polar compounds were extracted at higher yield from the twigs (6.97%) than from the root (0.38%) in hexane. The percentage yield of the extracting solvent showed that water was the best extraction solvent for both twig and roots, followed by 80% methanol, hexane and acetone.
Table 1 Grewia flava twig and root extracts yields, Total phenolic and flavonoid contents
Sample
|
Plant
part
|
Extract yield (%)
|
Total phenolics
(mg GAE/ g)
|
Total Flavonoids
(mg QUE/ g)
|
Hexane
|
Root
|
0.38
|
28 ± 1f
|
5.64 ± 0.01f
|
Twig
|
6.97
|
43.1 ± 0.2b
|
9.106 ± 0.005b
|
Acetone
|
Root
|
0.17
|
80 ± 0.8c
|
16.22 ± 0.09g
|
Twig
|
0.53
|
86.9 ± 0.8c
|
20.01 ± 0.05c
|
80% methanol
|
Root
|
19.39
|
217 ± 2e
|
56.16 ± 0.02e
|
Twig
|
10.32
|
250 ± 2a
|
64.54 ± 0.04a
|
Distilled water
|
Root
|
29.88
|
230 ± 3g
|
51.15± 0.03h
|
Twig
|
15.72
|
192 ± 2d
|
48. 86 ± 0.09d
|
All the results are represented as means of three individual experiments ± SEM (n=3). Results under each test that have a distinct superscript letter are statistically different (p ≤ 0.05).
Phytochemical analysis
Phytochemical analysis was carried out on G. flava 80% methanol twig and root extracts. The screening exhibit the presence of alkaloids, flavonoids, saponins, steroids, glycosides, anthraquinones and tannins in both extracts.
Total phenolic content and flavonoid content
The biological activities of plant extracts have been linked to phenolic compounds and flavonoids (Akwu et al., 2019; Kumar et al., 2022) that constitutes plant extracts, hence why it was imperative to estimate the total phenolic content (TPC) and total flavonoid content (TFC) presented in Table 2. The aqueous methanol and distilled water recorded high concentrations of both TFC and TPC. For the twig extracts, methanol extract (250 ± 2 GAE/g) exhibited high concentration of phenolic compounds followed by distilled water extract (192 ± 2 mg GAE/g), with the hexane extract (43.1 ± 0.2 mg GAE/g) exhibiting the lowest TPC value, and for the root extracts similar trend was observed except for the aqueous extract showing the high TPC compared to methanol extract. The same trend was also observed for the flavonoid estimation where 80% methanol extracts exhibited highest flavonoid content (Table 1).
Antioxidant activities
The study examined the ability G. flava extracts to scavenge free DPPH radicals. The results showed that all the extracts had a dose-dependent radical scavenging ability, with 80% methanol extracts showing the strongest ability under each plant part with IC50 values of 14.5 ± 0.7 and 98 ± 7 µg/mL for the twig and root extract respectively (Table 2).
Table 2 Antioxidant activities of Grewia flava crude extracts.
Sample
|
Plant part
|
Metal chelation ability, IC50 (µg/mL)
|
DPPH radical scavenging ability, IC50 (µg/mL)
|
Reducing power capacity (mg AAE/g)
|
Hexane
|
Root
|
286 ± 1a
|
382 ± 42f
|
252 ± 1a
|
Twig
|
428 ± 15a
|
70 ± 1e
|
450 ± 6g
|
Acetone
|
Root
|
268 ± 2b
|
199 ± 42b
|
281 ± 1c
|
Twig
|
208 ± 21b
|
88.4 ± 0.9f
|
433 ± 3f
|
80% methanol
|
Root
|
179 ± 2c
|
98 ± 7c
|
637 ± 3b
|
Twig
|
110 ± 24c
|
14.5 ± 0.7g
|
745 ± 1e
|
Distilled water
|
Root
|
265 ± 3b
|
196 ± 16b
|
247 ± 3a
|
Twig
|
141 ±11d
|
495.0 ± 0.7h
|
183 ± 2d
|
Ascorbic acid
|
-
|
-
|
23 ± 1d
|
-
|
EDTA
|
-
|
70 ± 4e
|
-
|
-
|
All the results are represented as means of three individual experiments ± SEM (n=3). Values with different superscript letters under each test are significantly different (p ≤ 0.05), -: indicate not applicable.
The n-hexane and acetone twig extracts showed better activity, despite having relatively low concentrations of compounds (Table 1 and 2), which suggests that the antiradical activity was not exclusive to compounds.
The study employed the FRAP assay to evaluate the extracts' capability to donate electrons and convert ferric iron to ferrous iron. The FRAP results are presented in Table 2. The outcomes indicated that the aqueous methanol extracts had a stronger electron donating ability, with the twig extract exhibiting a reducing power of 745 ± 1 mg AAE/g, while the root extract displayed a reducing ability of 637 ± 3 mg AAE/g. This trend was expected as the extract’s ability to reduce ions depends on the availability of phytochemicals that perform their antioxidant function by donating hydrogen or electrons, thus neutralizing free radicals. The observed pattern in electron donating ability was similar to the trend in DPPH scavenging ability, indicating a comparable mechanism for both.
The chelating ability of plant extracts and the reference standard tested are shown in Table 2. Antioxidants from the plant extract compete with O-phenanthroline to form complexes with Fe2+ ions. O-phenanthroline forms red-coloured complexes with Fe2+ which can be quantified spectrophotometrically. The assay showed that all extracts and EDTA had a dose-dependent response, with increased concentration leading to increased chelation ability. The aqueous methanol extracts showed strong chelation ability with IC50 values of 98 ± 7 and 110 ± 24 µg/mL for the twig and root extracts respectively. However, EDTA had a stronger chelation ability. Twig extracts exhibited higher chelation ability than root extracts in all scenarios except for the aqueous extract.
The DPPH radical scavenging abilities of the 80% methanol twig extract column fractions are displayed in Table 3. Fraction 14, ethyl acetate (EtOAc, 100%) demonstrated the most effectiveness in DPPH radical quenching, (IC50 of 10.6 ± 0.3 µg/mL) which was better than the parent extract. Fractions 1, 23, and 24 also showed significant radical quenching capacity (IC50 of 15 ± 0.6 to 18 ± 2 µg/mL) in comparison to the reference standard (23 ± 1 µg/mL). All the fractions, except fraction 9, displayed a concentration dependent ability to scavenge DPPH radicals.
Table 3 Antioxidant activity of the twigs methanol extract column fractions
Column fraction
|
Eluent composition*
|
IC50 (µg/mL)
|
Fraction 1
|
Hex (100%)
|
18 ± 2a
|
Fraction 2-13
|
Hex: EtOAc (4:1, 4:2, 4:3, 4:4
|
119-848± 1-4b,c,d,f,g,h,m
|
Fraction 14
|
EtOAc (100%)
|
10.6 ± 0.3k
|
Fraction 15-18
|
EtOAc: MeOH (4:1, 4:2)
|
44-491 ± 2-4m,g,n,o
|
Fraction 19
|
EtOAc: MeOH (4:2)
|
77 ± 2o
|
Fraction 20
|
EtOAc: MeOH (4:2)
|
27 ± 2i
|
Fraction 21
|
EtOAc: MeOH (4:3)
|
37 ± 2p
|
Fraction 22
|
EtOAc: MeOH (4:3)
|
49 ± 1l
|
Fraction 23
|
EtOAc: MeOH (4:3)
|
15.1 ± 0.6a, k
|
Fraction 24
|
EtOAc: MeOH (1:1)
|
18 ± 2a, k
|
Ascorbic acid
|
|
23 ± 1q
|
*Solvent system ratio was volume/volume
All the results are represented as means of three individual experiments ± SEM (n=3).
Significant differences exist between values with distinct superscript letters (p < 0.05).
Biological activities of the extracts and column fractions
The MIC was determined for samples with zones of inhibition ≥15 mm only. Samples with zones of inhibition ˂15 mm were considered intermediate.
Antimicrobial activity
The antimicrobial activity of methanol extracts of the twigs and roots of G. flava showed that both crude extracts were active against all organisms tested (Table 4 and 5).
The column fractions exhibited different degrees of activity against the microorganisms tested, with fractions 14 and 24 being the most effective. MIC values ranged from 0.02 to 1.70 mg/mL and extracts with MIC values less than 0.1 mg/mL exhibit good antibacterial activity (Malada et al. 2023). P. aeruginosa was susceptible to more column fractions compared to other bacterial strains. Gram-negative bacteria were resistant to plant extracts and this was due to their complex and multi-layered cell wall which acts as a barrier to many environmental substances including synthetic and natural antibiotics as previously reported (Rakholiya and Chanda 2014).
Table 4 Antibacterial activity of Grewia flava crude extracts and twig extract column fractions
Extracts
|
Zone of Inhibition (mm)
|
Bacterial strains
|
Fungal strains
|
S. aureus
|
E. coli
|
B. subtilis
|
P. aeruginosa
|
A.niger
|
R. oryzae
|
80% MeOH twig extract
|
30.0 ±0.6a
|
31 ±2a
|
28.3 ±0.3a
|
20.3 ±0.7a
|
24.3±0.3a
|
22.7 ±0.7a
|
80% MeOH root extract
|
27 ±1a, b
|
24.3 ±0.9b
|
18.3 ±0.7b
|
24 ±2a, b
|
16.0± 0.6b
|
21.3 ±0.3a, b
|
10% DMSO
|
ND
|
ND
|
ND
|
ND
|
ND
|
ND
|
Chloramphenicol
|
35.3 ±0.9c
|
34.3 ±0.9a
|
28.7±0.9a
|
31.3 ±0.3c
|
NT
|
NT
|
Fraction 1
|
ND
|
9.0± 0.6c
|
ND
|
ND
|
ND
|
9.0± 0.6c
|
Fraction 2
|
ND
|
19 ±2b
|
ND
|
ND
|
14.0±0.7b, c
|
14.3±0.7d
|
Fraction 3
|
22.7 ±0.9b, d
|
21.3 ±0.3b
|
ND
|
ND
|
13.5±0.5c, d
|
15.2±0.4d, e
|
Fraction 4
|
20.3 ±0.9d
|
19.3 ±0.9b
|
ND
|
ND
|
15.2±0.4b, f
|
15.5±0.3d, e
|
Fraction 5
|
ND
|
9.3± 0.3c
|
ND
|
ND
|
ND
|
10.7±0.3c, f
|
Fraction 7
|
ND
|
ND
|
ND
|
ND
|
11.3±0.3d, e
|
12.3± 0.3d, f
|
Fraction 8
|
ND
|
ND
|
ND
|
ND
|
8.3± 0.3d
|
9.3± 0.7c, f
|
Fraction 9
|
ND
|
ND
|
ND
|
ND
|
ND
|
8.3± 0.3c
|
Fraction 10
|
ND
|
ND
|
ND
|
ND
|
11.7± 0.3c, d, e
|
10.7± 0.3c, f
|
Fraction 12
|
ND
|
ND
|
ND
|
ND
|
8.3± 0.3d
|
ND
|
Fraction 14
|
29 ±2a
|
24 ±2b
|
25 ±0c
|
28±1b, c, d
|
23±1a
|
15.7±0.4d, h
|
Fraction 15
|
ND
|
ND
|
ND
|
ND
|
14.7±0.7b
|
11.5±0.3f
|
Fraction 16
|
ND
|
ND
|
ND
|
19 ±2a
|
ND
|
19±2b, e, h, i
|
Fraction 6, 11, 13, 17-19, 21
|
ND
|
ND
|
ND
|
ND
|
ND
|
ND
|
Fraction 20
|
ND
|
ND
|
ND
|
20.2 ±0.6a
|
ND
|
20.0±0.6a, i
|
Fraction 22
|
8.7±0.3e
|
10.7 ± 0.3c
|
8± 0e
|
ND
|
8.3± 0.3d
|
ND
|
Fraction 23
|
10.7± 0.3e
|
8±0c
|
12.0± 0.6f
|
8.7± 0.7e
|
13.0± 0.6c, e
|
ND
|
Fraction 24
|
30.7 ±0.3a, c
|
21 ±2b
|
23.3 ±0.3c
|
25 ±2a, d
|
21.3±0.7a, f
|
20.2±0.4a, i
|
The values in bold shows susceptibility (zone of inhibition ≥15 mm), ND: Not detectable at the tested concentrations. Negative control = 10% DMSO, Positive control = chloramphenicol. Significant differences exist between values with distinct superscript letters (p ≤ 0.05). Fractions 1-24 were from the Twig 80% MeOH crude extract column chromatography.
GC-MS analysis
The study analyzed the n-hexane twig and root extract of G. flava using GC-MS and several bioactive compounds such as lupeol, hexadecenoic acid, β-sitosterol, α-amyrin, betulin, and phytol were identified, Table 6 and 7. The root extract contained 23 compounds, while the twig extract contained 28 compounds, with fatty acids being the major constituents in both the twig and root extracts, followed by triterpenes and fatty acid esters. The predominant phytochemical constituents in the root extract were lupeol (23.58%), n-hexadecanoic acid (14.58%), oleic acid (10.14%), hexadecanoic acid, methyl ester (9.75%), (Z)-9-O-octadecenamide (7.87%). From the twig extract major compounds were 9,12-octadecadienoic acid (25.85%), octacosane (17.98%), n-hexadecanoic acid (17.34%), hentriacontane (7.88%), hexadecanoic acid, and methyl ester (5.15%). Lupeol and γ-sitosterol were present in both plant part extracts, while phytol was only identified in the twig extract.
Table 5 MIC of methanol extracts and column fractions from Grewia flava.
Extracts
|
MIC (mg/mL)
|
Bacterial strains
|
Fungal strains
|
S. aureus
|
E. coli
|
B. subtilis
|
P. aeruginosa
|
A. Niger
|
R. Oryzae
|
80% MeOH twig extract
|
0.52± 0.06a
|
0.26 ± 0.04a
|
0.13±0.01a
|
0.96± 0.02a
|
0.17± 0.00a
|
0.20± 0.02a
|
80% MeOH root extract
|
0.52 ± 0.00a
|
0.30± 0.03a
|
0.11±0.00a
|
0.86 ±0.13a
|
0.18± 0.01a
|
0.27± 0.01a, b
|
Fraction 2
|
NT
|
0.7± 0.2b
|
NT
|
NT
|
0.15± 0.00a
|
0.56± 0.02c
|
Fraction 3
|
0.47 ± 0.01b
|
1.70 ± 0.06c
|
NT
|
NT
|
0.42 ± 0.06b
|
0.40± 0.01b, d
|
Fraction 4
|
1.03 ± 0.06c
|
1.4 ±0.2c
|
NT
|
NT
|
0.49± 0.06b
|
0.50±0.05c, d
|
Fraction 14
|
0.30 ± 0.04d
|
0.28 ± 0.02a
|
0.02 ± 0.00b
|
0.31± 0.04b
|
0.29± 0.03c
|
0.21± 0.03a
|
Fraction 15
|
NT
|
NT
|
NT
|
NT
|
0.42± 0.05b
|
NT
|
Fraction 16
|
NT
|
NT
|
NT
|
0.52± 0.01c
|
NT
|
0.18± 0.08a
|
Fraction 20
|
NT
|
NT
|
NT
|
0.921± 0.15a
|
NT
|
NT
|
Fraction 24
|
0.25± 0.03e
|
0.34± 0.02a
|
0.06± 0.01b
|
0.09 ±0.01d
|
0.26± 0.02a, c
|
0.03± 0.00e
|
MIC values are average values of three individual determinations ±SEM. NT: “not tested”. Significant differences exist between values with distinct superscript letters (p ≤ 0.05).