Skip to content

Advertisement

International Journal of Phytomedicine and Phytotherapy

Clinical Phytoscience Cover Image
  • Short communication
  • Open Access

Screening of phytoconstituents and antibacterial activity of leaves and bark of Quercus leucotrichophora A. Camus from Uttarakhand Himalaya

  • 1Email author,
  • 1,
  • 1 and
  • 2
Clinical PhytoscienceInternational Journal of Phytomedicine and Phytotherapy20184:30

https://doi.org/10.1186/s40816-018-0090-y

  • Received: 15 June 2018
  • Accepted: 9 October 2018
  • Published:

Abstract

Background

Quercus leucotrichophora A. Camus (QL) belongs to the family Fagaceae, commonly known as Banj oak in the Garhwal region of Himalaya, where it is the principal source of fuel, fodder, and medicine.

Methods

In the present study, GC-MS analysis has been performed for profiling the chemical composition of methanolic extracts of leaves and bark of QL. The antibacterial activity was evaluated by using the disk diffusion method against five bacterial strains.

Results

Total 23 components in bark and 62 components in leaves extracts of QL were identified. The major components identified in the bark extracts were Linoleic acid (19.77%), Lupeol (17.91%), Epi-psi-Taraxastanonol (14.20), and cis-Vaccenic acid (13.10%), while others were present in relatively small amounts. For the leaves extract, the major components were Linoleic acid (17.09%), Simiarene (15.29%), Flavone 4′-oh, 5-oh,7-di-o-glucoside (15.26%), and D-Quinic acid (9.29%), respectively. As far as antibacterial assays are concerned, it was observed that both the extracts are active against most of the tested bacterial strains with the zone of inhibition ranging between 8.53 ± 0.50 to 19.07 ± 0.31 mm, respectively.

Conclusion

The GC-MS results revealed the presence of several phytochemical compounds in leaves and bark of QL extract and are recommended as a plant of pharmaceutical importance. The antibacterial analysis showed that both the extracts (leaves and bark) of QL have antibacterial activity against all gram positive (S. aureus, B. subtilis and S. pyogenes) and gram negative (E. coli, P. aeruginosa) bacterial strains.

Keywords

  • Antibacterial activity
  • Chemical composition
  • Himalaya
  • Quercus leucotrichophora

Background

Use of plants and plant extracts as a source of medicine has been inherited and is an important component of the health care system in the world. India is the largest producer of medicinal herbs and is known as the botanical garden of the world [1]. The Himalayan region is well known for its huge diversity of flora with more than 10,000 natural plant species, especially medicinal plants. Banj oak (Quercus leucotrichophora A. Camus) belonging to the family Fagaceae is an evergreen tree of approximately 40 m height and commonly found throughout the Himalayan region with a latitudinal range from 800 to 2300 m [2]. Several species of Quercus genus possess immense medicinal properties and therapeutic applications [36]. Banj oak is the principal source of fuel supply as well as the main fodder tree in the Himalayan region [7]. The leaves, seeds and bark of QL are used in human health care system as well as for livestock health care [8, 9]. Gum of the tree is traditionally used for the treatment of gonorrhoeal and digestive disorders, especially in children [10, 11]. The seeds act as astringent and diuretic agents and are also used in the treatment of indigestion, diarrhoea and asthma in humans [12]. Previously, active compounds like, quercetin and kaempferol were isolated from the ethanolic stem bark extract of QL, whereas the antimicrobial activity of the extract showed highest activity against E. coli followed by S. aureus, P. auroginosa and B. subtilis, respectively [13]. Further, the presence of twenty-three phytoconstituents (major phytocomponent: monoterpenoids) in the volatile extract of bark of QL were analyzed by GC-MS analysis [14]. The fruit extract of QL revealed the presence of higher amount of saturated fatty acid compared to unsaturated fatty acid. The bark and fruit extract of QL possess antimicrobial activity [14, 15]. The QL is used in traditional system of medicine, but still there are not many scientific reports to confirm its phytochemical activity and medicinal properties [16]. Thus, the present study was aimed to investigate the chemical composition and antibacterial activity of methanolic leaves and bark extracts of QL.

Methods

Plant collection and preparation of crude extracts

Leaves and bark of QL were collected from the Uttarakhand Himalaya (Tehri district), India and voucher specimens (BSI/NRC-115222) have been kept in the herbarium of Botanical Survey of India (BSI/NRC-Dehradun), Uttarakhand, India. Plant samples (leaves and bark) of QL were cleansed, shade dried and coarsely powdered. Crude powdered material (500 g) was extracted with methanol (80%) using a Soxhlet extractor. The extracts obtained were filtered and concentrated using a rotary vacuum evaporator (Strike-12, Steroglass, Italy) and used for further analysis (GC-MS and antibacterial analysis).

GC-MS analysis

GC-MS analysis was performed at University Science Instrumentation Centre, Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU), Delhi (India). The analyses of the methanolic extracts were carried out on a GCMS-QP2010 Plus (Shimadzu, Kyoto, Japan). The system was equipped with an auto injector (AOC-20i), head space sampler (AOC-20s), a mass selective detector with an ion source (220 °C) and an interface (260 °C). Rtx-5 MS capillary column (Restek Company, Bellefonte, USA) having 30 m (length) × 0.25 mm (diameter) × 0.25 μm (film thickness) was used for GC-MS analyses. The mass range of 40–650 m/z with 1000 ev of threshold was used. The injector was set in the split injection mode having 250 °C of temperature. The starting temperature was adjusted to 80 °C (3 min), which afterwards increased to 280 °C with a ramp rate of 10 °C/min. Helium (> 99.99%) with 40.5 cm/s of linear velocity was employed as a carrier gas. The system was programmed with 16.3 ml/min of total flow rate and 1.21 ml/min of column flow according to stranded methods [17, 18]. The bark and leaves extract components were identified on the basis of retention time (RT) by gas chromatography and interpretation of mass spectrum was performed by comparing spectral fragmentation obtained, to the database provided by NIST11.LIB and Wiley8.LIB [17, 18].

Antibacterial activity

Five pathogenic bacterial strains were used in this study for assessing the antibacterial activity of QL, including the Gram-negative and Gram-positive strains namely; Escherichia coli (MTCC-582); Pseudomonas aeruginosa (MTCC-2295); Staphylococcus aureus (MTCC-3160); Bacillus subtilis (MTCC-441); and Streptococcus pyogenes (MTCC-1924). The reference bacterial strains were obtained from the Institute of Microbial Technology (IMTECH), Chandigarh (India) and were maintained at 4 °C on slants of nutrient agar (NA) (Merck, Germany). The antibacterial activity of plant extracts was carried out using the disk diffusion method [19]. The methanolic bark and leaves extracts were dissolved in 10% of dimethyl sulfoxide (DMSO). The concentration and volume of the extracts used for the analysis of antibacterial activity were 5 mg/ml and 20 μl (extract soaked by each disc), respectively. The antibacterial activity was assessed by measuring the zone of inhibition surrounding the disks and each experiment was carried out in triplicate. In the present study, DMSO (10%) and ampicillin (1 mg/ml) were used as negative and positive controls, respectively.

Results and discussion

This study focused on the chemical composition and antibacterial screening of QL extracts. The yield of bark and leaves extracts were found to be 9.7% and 13.6%, respectively. A range of volatile phytoconstituents have been identified by GC-MS in different Quercus species other than QL [20, 21]. In the present study, the percentages (area per cent) and the retention time (RT) of the components are listed in Tables 1 and 2. In leaves extract of QL, 62 components were identified, representing 94.54% of the total plant extract, in which Linoleic acid (17.09%), Simiarene (15.29%), and Flavone 4’-OH,5-OH,7-di-O-glucoside (15.26%) were the major components, however, in bark extract of QL, 23 components were identified, representing 91.91% of the total plant extract, in which Linoleic acid (19.77%), Lupeol (17.91%), Epi-psi-Taraxastanonol (14.20%), and cis-Vaccenic acid (13.00%) were the major compounds. Linoleic acid is an omega-6-fatty acid and is enormously used in cosmetic industries, whereas the conjugated linoleic acid was accounted to have anticarcinogenic, fat reducing, antiatherogenic and immune enhancing activity [22]. Lupeol is a triterpenoid which possess anticancer and anti-inflammatory activities [23]. Flavone 4’-OH,5-OH,7-di-O-glucoside is a isoflavonoid and possess antioxidant activity [24]. Cis-vaccenic acid is a omega-7 fatty acid is known for its antibacterial activity and hypolipidemic effect in rats [24]. Epi-psi-Taraxastanonol is a terpenoid and is known for its therapeutic activity against cardiovascular diseases [25]. A total of seven components were found to be the common for both extracts of QL. Previous studies on Quercus genus suggested that the species are rich in monounsaturated fatty acids, mostly oleic acid and also essential fatty acids such as linoleic (ω-6) and linolenic (ω-3) fatty acids, sesquiterpenes, terpenoids, flavonoids and phenolic acid [20, 21, 26] and in the present study same pattern of phytoconstituents were observed in the leaves and bark extracts of QL. Differences in quantity and quality of chemical components of any plant extract are highly influenced by several genetic and environmental factors, such as the genetic and seasonal variation, geographical origin, and the part of the plant used for the study, even agronomic conditions, developmental stage, time of collection, extraction method and solvent system [27].
Table 1

GC-MS analysis of Quercus leucotrichophora (Bark) extract

SN

Retention time

Area per cent

Name of compounds

1

10.086

0.19

Beta-Himachalene

2

11.992

0.14

.Alpha.-Eudesmol

3

12.152

0.62

Myristyl acrylate

4

13.239

0.08

1-Octadecene

5

14.150

0.10

Phthalychloride

6

14.643

0.14

Methyl Palmitate

7

15.067

4.53

Pentadecanoic acid

8

16.030

0.11

Heptadecanoic acid

9

16.318

0.24

Linoleic acid methyl ester

10

16.772

19.77

Linoleic acid

11

16.803

13.10

cis-Vaccenic acid

12

16.860

4.13

Ambrettolide

13

16.974

2.92

Octadecanoic acid

14

17.566

0.67

10,12-Hexadecadien-1-ol

15

20.814

0.41

Lignoceric alcohol

16

24.147

0.28

Nonadecyl pentafluoropropionate

17

26.641

0.31

2,3-Oxidosqualene

18

36.274

2.59

Taraxerone

19

36.631

1.45

Clionasterol

20

37.952

6.21

Simiarene

21

38.517

14.20

Epi-psi-Taraxastanonol

22

39.357

17.91

Lupeol

23

41.461

1.81

Sitostenone

Total

91.91

Unidentified

0.34

Table 2

GC-MS analysis of Quercus leucotrichophora (Leaves) extract

SN

Retention time

Area percent

Name of compounds

1

5.184

0.23

2,3-Dihydro-3,5-dihydroxy-6-methyl-4 h-pyran-4-one

2

8.397

0.26

4-Propylphenol

3

10.625

0.07

Lauric acid

4

11.354

0.36

.beta.-Methylglucoside

5

11.750

9.29

D-Quinic acid

6

11.924

0.14

2H-Indeno[1,2-b]furan-2-one, 3,3a,4,5,6,7,8,8b-octahydro-8,8-dimethyl

7

12.111

0.87

Tetradecyl acrylate

8

12.367

0.12

Methoxyeugenol

9

12.533

0.08

2-Hydroxy-5-isopropyl-2,4,6-cycloheptatrienone

10

12.733

0.25

Methyl-(4-hydroxy-3-methoxyphenyl) acetat

11

12.856

1.44

Coniferol

12

13.200

0.07

Cyclopentadecane

13

13.283

0.26

(−)-Loliolide

14

13.453

0.84

2-Cyclohexen-1-one, 4-hydroxy-3,5,6-trimethyl-4-(3-oxo-1-butenyl)-

15

13.711

0.67

Oleic acid

16

13.970

0.15

Neophytadiene

17

14.093

0.05

Caprylone

18

14.164

0.25

E-2-Tetradecen-1-ol

19

14.458

0.20

3,5-Dimethoxy-4-hydroxyphenethylamine

20

14.596

0.27

Methyl palmitate

21

15.020

5.04

Pentadecanoic acid

22

15.254

0.18

5,9-Dimethyl-2-(1-methylethyl)cyclodecane-1,4-dione

23

15.405

0.11

2,4,4-Trimethyl-3-(3-oxobutyl)cyclohex-2-enone

24

15.490

0.20

Benzenepropanoic acid, 2,5-dimethoxy-

25

15.996

0.37

4-Oxazolecarboxylic acid, 4,5-dihydro-2-phenyl-, 1-methylethyl ester

26

16.270

0.17

Methyl linoleate

27

16.317

0.14

Methyl oleate

28

16.456

1.21

Phytol

29

16.726

17.09

Linoleic acid

30

16.919

1.43

Octadecanoic acid

31

18.527

0.42

Methyl hexadecadienoate

32

18.718

0.11

11-Eicosenoic acid

33

18.978

0.62

Arachidic acid

34

19.279

0.12

cis-9-Hexadecenal

35

20.133

0.13

Methyl tetrahydroionol

36

21.618

0.50

cis-Vaccenic acid

37

23.680

0.11

Ethyl linoleate (JAN)

38

23.807

0.09

1,1’-Biphenyl, 2-formyl-4′,5′,6′-trimethoxy-

39

24.061

2.93

1-Heptacosanol

40

25.631

0.10

5-Hydroxymethyl-1,1,4a-trimethyl-6-methylenedecahydronaphthalen-2-ol

41

25.889

0.56

Octadecanal

42

26.567

0.41

2,8-Dimethyl-2-(4,8,12-trimethyltridecyl)-6-chromanol

43

26.915

0.44

Butanedioic acid, di-9-dodecyn-1-yl ester

44

27.372

0.49

2,6,6-Trimethylcyclohex-1-enylmethanesulfonyl)benzene

45

27.673

0.45

Tocopherol

46

28.406

0.56

3-Hydroxycholest-4-en-6-one

47

29.332

0.47

.beta.-Tocopherol

48

29.583

0.24

.gamma.-Tocopherol

49

30.461

1.17

Baccharane

50

31.294

2.78

Vitamin E

51

32.319

1.25

(+)-γ-Tocopherol, O-methyl-

52

33.809

0.47

1H-Indole

53

36.231

15.29

Simiarene

54

36.396

0.74

Clionasterol

55

36.793

0.82

Verticiol

56

37.508

0.49

.beta.-Amyrin

57

37.714

0.45

Methyl ursolate

58

39.351

0.67

D:C-Friedo-B′:A’-neogammacer-9(11)-en-3-one

59

40.473

0.62

9,19-Cyclolanost-23-en-3-ol, 25-methoxy-, acetate, (3.beta.,23e)-

60

40.807

0.16

-Heptadecyloxirane

61

41.130

3.81

Stigmast-4-en-3-one

62

44.451

15.26

Flavone 4’-OH,5-OH,7-di-o-glucoside

Total

94.54

Unidentified

1.10

The quantification of antibacterial activity for methanolic extracts of QL has been evaluated against five bacterial species by means of the agar disk diffusion method. The results of antibacterial activity of QL extracts are expressed as the diameter of the inhibition zone in millimetre (shown in Table 3). QLB and QLL extracts showed zone of inhibition (ZOI) from a range of 9.37 ± 0.65 to 19.07 ± 0.31 mm and 8.53 ± 0.50 to 17.03 ± 0.55 mm, respectively. Both the extracts showed the maximum and minimum zone of inhibition (ZOI) against B. subtilis and E. coli, respectively. Ampicillin showed ZOI from a range of 21.2 ± 0.46 to 23.3 ± 0.70 mm for all the bacterial strains, and DMSO was used as a negative control, which showed no zone of inhibition. Previously, the antimicrobial profile of the volatile extract of QLB was recorded against three microbial cultures, namely; Streptococcus pyogenes, Streptococcus aureus, and Escherichia coli. The volatile extract of QLB exhibited a potential antimicrobial activity against Streptococcus pyogenes, compared to Streptococcus aureus, and Escherichia coli [14]. The antibacterial activity of the fatty acid methyl ester (FAME) extract of QL fruits was recorded against four bacterial stains namely; Bacillus subtilis, Staphylococcus aureus, Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Escherichia coli from a range of 7.8 to 15.9 mm [15]. The extract of FAME showed dissimilar activity against different bacterial strains due to the chemical nature, antimicrobial agents, and their mode of action on different microorganism [28]. In the present study, both the extracts of QL demonstrated better antibacterial activity compared to previous studies.
Table 3

Antibacterial profile of QL extracts

Bacterial strains

QLB (ZOI)

QLL (ZOI)

DMSO (ZOI)

QLB (Ave ± SD) mm

Ampi (Ave ± SD) mm

QLL (Ave ± SD) mm

Ampi (Ave ± SD) mm

E. coli

9.37 ± 0.65

22.7 ± 0.65

8.53 ± 0.50

21.5 ± 0.62

0.00

P. aeruginosa

13.97 ± 0.42

23.2 ± 0.74

13.27 ± 0.25

23.3 ± 0.70

0.00

S. aureus

16.97 ± 0.25

22.6 ± 0.62

13.80 ± 1.51

20.7 ± 0.56

0.00

S. pyogenes

15.97 ± 0.65

21.2 ± 0.46

15.83 ± 0.29

22.4 ± 0.52

0.00

B. subtilis

19.07 ± 0.31

22.2 ± 0.51

17.03 ± 0.55

20.6 ± 0.57

0.00

Note: QLB Quercus leucotrichophora bark, QLL Quercus leucotrichophora Leaves, ZOI Zone of inhibition, Ampi Ampicillin, DMSO Dimethyl sulfoxide

Conclusion

The GC-MS analysis of methanolic extract of bark and leaves of QL revealed the presence of highly composite profiles of medicinally important bioactive components. This study also revealed the antibacterial activity of QLB and QLL against pathogenic microbes. Therefore, it can be concluded that the methanolic leaf and bark extracts of QL have shown the presence of active compounds having pharmacological and industrial importance.

Abbreviations

Ampi: 

Ampicillin

B. subtilis

Bacillus subtilis

DMSO: 

Dimethyl sulfoxide

E. coli

Escherichia coli

GC-MS: 

Gas Chromatography- Mass spectrometry

P.aeruginosa

Pseudomonas aeruginosa

QL: 

Quercus leucotrichophora

QLB: 

Quercus leucotrichophora bark

QLL: 

Quercus leucotrichophora leaves

RT: 

Retention time

S. aureus

Staphylococcus aureus

S. pyogenes

Streptococcus pyogenes

ZOI: 

Zone of inhibition

Declarations

Acknowledgements

Help and support received from the Graphic Era University, Dehradun, India and Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU), Delhi, India are gratefully acknowledged.

Availability of data and materials

All data generated or analysed during this study are included in this article.

Authors’ contributions

PS, SP and HB reviewed the literature, collected the samples, performed all the experiments, and drafting the manuscript with RKB. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Department of Biotechnology, Graphic Era University, 566/6 Bell Road, Clement Town, Dehradun, Uttarakhand, 248002, India
(2)
Department of Industrial Chemistry, College of Applied Science, Addis Ababa Science and Technology University, Akaky Kaliti subcity, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia

References

  1. Ahmedulla M, Nayar MP. Red data book for Indian plants. Calcutta: Botanical Survey of India; 1999.Google Scholar
  2. Singh JS. Forests of the Himalaya: structure, functioning and impact of man. India: Gyanodaya Prakashan; 1992.Google Scholar
  3. Hayouni EA, Abedrabba M, Bouix M, Hamdi M. The effects of solvents and extraction method on the phenolic contents and biological activities in vitro of Tunisian Quercus coccifera L. and Juniperus phoenicea L. fruit extracts. Food Chem. 2007;105:1126–34.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  4. Berahou A, Auhmani A, Fdil N, Benharref A, Jana M, et al. Antibacterial activity of Quercus ilex bark's extracts. J Ethnopharmacol. 2007;112:426–9.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  5. Sánchez-Burgos JA, Ramírez-Mares MV, Larrosa MM, Gallegos-Infante JA, González-Laredo RF, et al. Antioxidant, antimicrobial, antitopoisomerase and gastroprotective effect of herbal infusions from four Quercus species. Ind Crop Prod. 2013;42:57–62.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  6. Jamil M, Ul Haq I, Mirza B, Qayyum M. Isolation of antibacterial compounds from Quercus dilatata L. through bioassay guided fractionation. Ann Clin Microbiol Antimicrob. 2012;11:11.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  7. Singh SP, Singh JS. Structure and function of the central Himalayan oak forests. Proc Indian Acad Sci. 1986;96:159–89.Google Scholar
  8. Pande PC, Tiwari L, Pande HC. Folk-medicine and aromatic plants of Uttaranchal Dehradun. India: Bishen Singh Mahendra Pal Singh; 2006.Google Scholar
  9. Al-Rousan WM, Ajo RY, Al-Ismail KM, Attlee A, Shaker RR, Osaili TM. Characterization of acorn fruit oils extracted from selected Mediterranean Quercus species. Grasas Aceites. 2013;64:554–60. https://doi.org/10.3989/gya.023313.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  10. Gaur RD. Flora of the district Garhwal north west Himalaya. Srinagar: trans media, media house. New Delhi: Council of Scientific and Industrial Research, India; 1999.Google Scholar
  11. Soni PL, Sharma H, Gharia MM. Physicochemical properties of Quercus leucotrichophora (oak) starch. Starch-Stärke. 1993;45:127–30.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  12. Chopra RN, Nayar SL, Chopra IC. Glossary of Indian medicinal plants (including the supplement). 1986.Google Scholar
  13. Sati SC, Sati N, Sati OP. Chemical investigation and screening of antimicrobial activity of stem bark of Qurecus leucotrichophora. Int J Pharm Pharm Sci. 2011;3:89–91.Google Scholar
  14. Sati SC, Sati N, Sati OP, Biswas D, Chauhan BS. Analysis and antimicrobial activity of volatile constituents from Quercus leucotrichophora (Fagaceae) bark. Nat Pro Res: Formerly Nat Pro Lett. 2012;26:869–72. https://doi.org/10.1080/14786419.2011.564584.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  15. Sati A, Sati SC, Sati N, Sati OP. Chemical composition and antimicrobial activity of fatty acid methyl ester of Quercus leucotrichophora fruits. Nat Prod Res. 2016. https://doi.org/10.1080/14786419.2016.1217202.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  16. Joshi AK, Juyal D. Traditional and ethnobotanical uses of Quercus leucotrichophora a. Camus (Quercus oblongata D. Don) in Kumaun and Garhwal regions of Uttarakhand, India: a review. Int. J Herb Med. 2017;5:06–8.Google Scholar
  17. Das S, Vasudeva N, Sharma S. Chemical composition of ethanol extract of Macrotyloma uniflorum (lam.) Verdc. Using GC-MS spectroscopy. Org Med Chem Lett. 2014;4:13. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13588-014-0013-y.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  18. Painuli S, Rai N, Kumar N. GC-MS analysis of methanolic extract of leaves of Rhododendron campanulatum. Int J Pharm Pharm Sci. 2015;7:299–303.Google Scholar
  19. Zellagui A, Gherraf N, Ladjel S, Hameurlaine S. Chemical composition and antibacterial activity of the essential oils from Launaea resedifolia L. Org Med Chem Lett. 2012;2:2. https://doi.org/10.1186/2191-2858-2-2.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  20. Hameed IH, Jasim H, Kareem MA, Hussein AO. Alkaloid constitution of Nerium oleander using gas chromatography-mass spectroscopy (GC-MS). J Med Plants Res. 2015;9:326–34. https://doi.org/10.5897/JMPR2015.5746.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  21. Hussein AO, Mohammed GJ, Hadi MY, Hameed IH. Phytochemical screening of methanolic dried galls extract of Quercus infectoria using gas chromatography-mass spectrometry (GC-MS) and Fourier transform-infrared (FT-IR). J Pharmacognosy Phytother. 2016;8:49–59. https://doi.org/10.5897/JPP2015.0368.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  22. Aydin R. Conjugated linoleic acid: chemical structure sources and biological properties. Turk J Vet Anim Sci. 2005;29:189–95.Google Scholar
  23. Saleem M. Lupeol, a novel anti-inflammatory and anti-cancer dietary triterpene. Cancer Lett. 2009;285:109–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.canlet.2009.04.033.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  24. Hamazaki K, Suzuki N, Kitamura KI, Hattori A, Nagasawa T, Itomura M, Hamazaki T. Is vaccenic acid (18:1t n-7) associated with an increased incidence of hip fracture? An explanation for the calcium paradox. Prostaglandins Leukot Essent Fatty Acids. 2016;109:8–12.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  25. Ansarali S, Manikandan S, Lakshmanan GMA. Identification of biological components from potential bone healer medicinal plants. J Drug Deliv Ther. 2018;8:32–41. https://doi.org/10.22270/jddt.v8i3.1762.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  26. Akcan T, Gökçe R, Asensio M, Estevez M, Morcuende D. Acorn (Quercus spp.) as a novel source of oleic acid and tocopherols for livestock and humans: discrimination of selected species from Mediterranean forest. J Food Sci Technol. 2017;54:3050–7. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13197-017-2740-3.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  27. Tejerina D, Garcı’a-Torres S, Cabeza de Vaca M, Va’zquez FM, Cava R. Acorns (Quercus rotundifolia lam.) and grass as natural sources of antioxidants and fatty acids in the montanera feeding of Iberian pig: intra- and inter-annual variations. Food Chem. 2011;124:997–1004. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2010.07.058.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  28. Barbour EK, Al Sharif M, Sagherian VK, Habre AN, Talhouk RS, et al. Screening of selected indigenous plants of Lebanon for antimicrobial activity. J Ethnopharmacol. 2004;93:1–7.View ArticleGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© The Author(s). 2018

Advertisement