3.1. Carotenoid content in whole Aloe leaves extracts
Reversed Phase High Performance Liquid Chromatography (RP-HPLC) is the analytical technique preferred by researchers for the carotenoids separation, quantification and their structural characterization [34]. The specific spectral characteristics were used for individual carotenoid identification, especially when corroborated with the chromatographic behaviour. In all tested samples, β-carotene and lutein were identified (Figure 2), as the predominant β-carotene and xanthophyll compounds, with a varied ratio among species (Table 1).
Table 1. Carotenoid and vitamin C composition of Aloe species
|
Carotenoids
mg/kg FW
|
|
|
Aloe species
|
Lutein
|
ß-Carotene
|
Total carotenoids
|
|
Vitamin C
(mg/100g FW)
|
Aloe aculeata
|
9.02 ± 0.61a
|
7.47 ± 0.41a
|
16.49 ± 1.20a
|
|
1.17 ± 0.03c
|
Aloe africana
|
6.60 ± 0.19b
|
3.56 ± 0.18bc
|
10.19 ± 0.27c
|
|
2.34 ± 0.16b
|
Aloe arborescens
|
5.64 ± 0.38b
|
4.12 ± 0.25b
|
9.77 ± 0.25c
|
|
2.34 ± 0.09b
|
Aloe barbadensis
|
4.00 ± 0.27c
|
2.76 ± 0.14d
|
6.75 ± 0.42d
|
|
1.16 ± 0.07c
|
Aloe ferox
|
9.00 ± 0.34a
|
4.06 ± 0.25b
|
13.06 ± 0.80b
|
|
2.34 ± 1.13b
|
Aloe marlothii
|
8.43 ± 0.38a
|
7.41 ± 0.37a
|
15.84 ± 0.52a
|
|
2.01 ± 0.09b
|
Aloe spectabilis
|
6.00 ± 0.26b
|
3.12 ± 0.13cd
|
9.12 ± 0.28c
|
|
5.85 ± 0.25a
|
FW, fresh weight. SD, standard deviation. Values followed by different letters within each column denote a significant difference and those followed by same letters denote no significant difference at P < 0.05
A. barbadensis leaves proved to have the lowest β-carotene content (2.76 mg/kg) among the other species taken into study, but this content seems to be significantly lower than that observed by Ozsoyet et al. (2009) (15.51 mg/kg) [35]. It has to be taken into account that growing location and some environmental factors could influence the carotenoid composition in Aloe species. In other species as A. arborescesns and A ferox the β-carotene concentrations detected were higher than ⁓4 mg/kg FW, but the species with the highest values for β-carotene concentrations were A. aculeata and A. marlothii of about 9 mg/kg FW.
A similar tendency as that noted for the β-carotene content in leaves extracts of Aloe species tested, was observed for the lutein concentration too, which varied within 4.00 mg/kg (for A. barbadensis) and 9.02 mg/kg (for A. aculeata) range. However, Aloe aculeata and Aloe ferox have the highest lutein content, which make these species remarkable as the richest ones in carotenoids.
3.2. Fatty acid composition in whole Aloe leaves extracts
The data for the total lipid contents of Aloe leaves, expressed on the basis of fresh weight, are summarized in Table 2. GC-MS analysis revealed the presence of 17 fatty acids, which can be found in leaves of each Aloe species analysed (Figure 3 and Table 2). Saturated fatty acids (SFA) were identified in the range of C10-C24. One of the saturated fatty acid found in all leaves of Aloe species was palmitic acid (C16:0). As can be seen in the Table 2, Aloe aculeata and Aloe barbadensis possess in their leaves the highest percent of palmitic acid, of about 24.13, respective 26.48 comparing to other Aloe species. Another saturated fatty acid identified in samples was stearic acid (C18:0) in Aloe africana, respective Aloe spectabilis. The most prominent polyunsaturated fatty acids found in Aloe leaves were linoleic acid (C18:2 n-6) and linolenic acid (C18:3 n-3). In particular, linoleic acid (C18:2 n-6) was found in higher percent in Aloe spectabilis, Aloe arborescens and Aloe ferox leaves, values ranged from 19.61 to 22.5 percent. Regarding linolenic acid (C18:3 n-3), it is highly represented in all species apart of Aloe aculeata, in which it is less represented with about 15-20%. These two polyunsaturated fatty acids comprise about 50% of the fatty acids of Aloe leaves (Table 2).
No
|
Fatty acid (%)*
|
Aloe aculeata
|
Aloe africana
|
Aloe arborescens
|
Aloe barbadensis
|
Aloe ferox
|
Aloe marlothii
|
Aloe spectabilis
|
1
|
Capric acid (C10:0)
|
0.04±0.00e
|
0.17±0.00b
|
0.19±0.01a
|
0.09±0.00d
|
0.02±0.00f
|
0.08±0.00 d
|
0.12±0.01c
|
2
|
Lauric acid (C12:0)
|
0.24±0.01f
|
0.64±0.03b
|
0.56±0.02c
|
0.42±0.02d
|
0.32±0.01e
|
0.51±0.02 c
|
0.73±0.03a
|
3
|
Myristic acid (C14:0)
|
0.83±0.04f
|
2.54±0.12a
|
2.09±0.10b
|
1.01±0.05ef
|
1.44±0.07d
|
1.09±0.05 e
|
1.73±0.08c
|
4
|
Pentadecyclic acid (C15:0)
|
0.26±0.01e
|
0.54±0.01bc
|
0.78±0.05a
|
0.46±0.02d
|
0.51±0.04bcd
|
0.5±0.02 cd
|
0.58±0.02b
|
5
|
Palmitic acid (C16:0)
|
24.13±1.17ab
|
22.42±1.11bc
|
21.70±1.12bc
|
26.48±1.38a
|
20.44±0.99c
|
24.48±1.23ab
|
20.65±0.98c
|
6
|
Palmitoleic acid (C16:1 n-9)
|
0.53±0.02d
|
1.44±0.07b
|
3.25±1.15a
|
0.91±0.04c
|
1.61±0.81b
|
1.08±0.05c
|
1.48±0.72b
|
7
|
Cis-7 hexadecenoic acid (C16:1 n-7)
|
14.16±0.72a
|
0.48±0.02d
|
0.37±0.01d
|
2.81±0.13b
|
0.89±0.04cd
|
1.56±0.08c
|
0.65±0.03d
|
8
|
Margaric acid (C17:0)
|
0.54±0.02f
|
1.14±0.06d
|
0.83±0.04e
|
1.93±0.09a
|
0.85±0.04e
|
1.73±0.08b
|
1.52±0.07c
|
9
|
Stearic acid (C18:0)
|
4.61±0.23c
|
5.72±0.28a
|
5.35±0.27ab
|
4.69±0.22bc
|
4.74±0.23bc
|
4.39±0.22c
|
5.85±0.28a
|
10
|
Oleic acid (C18:1 n-9)
|
18.46±0.94a
|
7.03±0.34b
|
7.08±0.33b
|
7.73±0.39b
|
7.26±0.34b
|
7.53±0.37b
|
7.00±0.35b
|
11
|
Vaccenic acid (C18:1 n-7)
|
5.03±0.24a
|
1.34±0.06b
|
0.55±0.02e
|
1.23±0.06bc
|
0.89±0.04d
|
1.03±0.05cd
|
0.98±0.05cd
|
12
|
Linoleic acid (C18:2 n-6)
|
10.75±0.54e
|
17.37±1.85cd
|
19.92±0.62ab
|
15.67±0.81d
|
19.61±1.00bc
|
17.77±0.93bcd
|
22.25±1.07a
|
13
|
Linolenic acid (C18:3 n-3)
|
19.50±0.97c
|
36.43±1.81ab
|
34.74±1.72b
|
36.94±1.79ab
|
40.55±2.03a
|
37.89±1.95ab
|
33.55±1.68b
|
14
|
Arachidonic acid (C20:0)
|
0.29±0.01c
|
0.57±0.02b
|
0.77±0.04a
|
0.73±0.03a
|
0.23±0.01c
|
0.71±0.03a
|
0.69±0.03a
|
15
|
Behenic acid (C22:0)
|
0.20±0.01d
|
0.65±0.03c
|
1.02±0.04a
|
0.69±0.03bc
|
0.22±0.01cd
|
0.73±0.03bc
|
0.76±0.03b
|
16
|
Tricosylic acid (C23:0)
|
0.09±0.00e
|
0.51±0.02a
|
0.22±0.01c
|
0.41±0.02b
|
0.16±0.01d
|
0.38±0.02b
|
0.52±0.02a
|
17
|
Lignoceric acid (C24:0)
|
0.33±0.02d
|
1.02±0.05a
|
0.60±0.03c
|
0.80±0.03b
|
0.26±0.01d
|
0.75±0.03b
|
0.95±0.05a
|
|
∑SFAs
|
31.57±1.63ab
|
35.91±1.75a
|
34.09±1.63a
|
34.72±1.70a
|
29.21±1.39b
|
35.35±1.76a
|
34.10±1.68a
|
|
∑MUFAs
|
38.18±1.93a
|
10.29±0.52bc
|
11.26±0.55bc
|
12.67±0.62b
|
10.64±0.55bc
|
11.20±0.56bc
|
10.10±0.49c
|
|
∑PUFAs
|
30.25±1.58c
|
53.80±2.68ab
|
54.65±2.73ab
|
52.61±2.52b
|
60.15±3.15a
|
55.69±2.68ab
|
55.80±2.72ab
|
|
PUFAs/SFAs
|
0.96±0.04c
|
1.50±0.08b
|
1.60±0.08b
|
1.52±0.08b
|
2.06±0.10a
|
1.52±0.08b
|
1.64±0.09b
|
|
n-6/n-3 PUFAs
|
0.55±0.02bc
|
0.48±0.02cd
|
0.57±0.03b
|
0.42±0.04d
|
0.48±0.02cd
|
1.64±0.09b
|
0.66±0.03a
|
|
Total lipid content (g/100 g FW)
|
2.768±0.32d
|
3.086±0.81c
|
3.121±0.82c
|
3.173±0.56c
|
4.105±0.49b
|
3.995±0.37b
|
4.323±0.93a
|
Table 2. Fatty acid composition of total lipids extracted from Aloe species
*% of total fatty acids; values are expressed as mean±standard deviation. Values followed by different letters within each column denote a significant difference and those followed by same letters denote no significant difference at P < 0.05.
Cis-7 hexadecenoic acid (C16:1 n-7) and oleic acid (C18:1 n-9) were better represented in Aloeaculeata leaves compared to the other species analyzed. The content of oleic acid (18:1 n-9) was quite similar with that of stearic acid (18:0) in all Aloe species, with average percentage of 7.28 (between 7.00–7.73) and 5.12 (4.39–5.85), respectively.
A. aculeata distinguishes itself from the other species having a different fatty acids profile, with palmitic acid (24.13%) and linolenic acid (19.50%) as the major fatty acids. Interesting is the fact that also oleic acid (C18:1 n-9, 18.46%) and palmitoleic acid (16:1 n-7, 14.16%) were higher represented in A. aculeata, comparing to other species.
Traces of capric acid (C10:0), lauric acid (C12:0), myristic acid (14:0), pentadecanoic acid (C15:0), margaric acid (C17:0), arachidonic acid (C20:0), behenic acid (C22:0), trycosilic acid (C23:0), lignoceric acid (C24:0) were found in all species of Aloe leaves taken into study. It is also interesting to note the relatively high percentage of the very long chain fatty acids (> 20C) in A. africana, A. arborescens, A.barbadensis, A.marlothii and A. spectabilis.
Regarding the saturated fatty acid (SFA) representation, significant differences (P <0.05) between the species can be seen (Table 2). Aloe ferox presented the highest PUFAs percentage 60.15 and the lowest in SFAs 29.20 compared to the other species, all differences being statistically significant. A significant PUFAs, monounsaturated fatty acids (MUFAs), and SFAs percentage were seen in A. africana, A. arborescens, A. barbadensis, A. marlothii, and A. spectabilis, with no significant variations between these species, the medium values being 54.51, 34.83, and 11.10, respectively. The PUFAs/SFAs ratios were ≥1.50 in six out of seven Aloe species, and among all A. ferox ratio being significantly higher. Overall, no major differences were observed in terms of the n-6/n-3 PUFAs ratio. Interestingly, A. aculeata presented a more balanced composition concerning the type of fatty acid. MUFAs had the highest proportion (38.18%), significantly higher than the other species, followed by SFAs (31.57%) and PUFAs (30.25%).
As far as we known, there are no data available regarding the fatty acid composition of Aloe leaves, only few studies were found about fatty acids existence in gel leaves of Aloe. But, in the leaf gel of Aloe ferox was found that the major fatty acid is linoleic acid, which represent a value ~2-fold and ~68-fold higher than that for palmitic acid and α-linolenic acid [36]. In contrast, in the leaf gel of Aloe barbadensis the major fatty acid found was linoleic acid [4], whereas in the flowers of Aloe barbadensis species the representative fatty acids are myristoleic acid (C14:1 n-9, 31.2%) and palmitic acid (C16:0, 22.86%) [37]. The total lipid analysis of eight Aloe gels (including from Aloe barbadensis, Aloe arborescens and Aloe ferox) revealed a difference among species regarding the concentration of fatty acids [38]. Aloe arborescens contains significantly higher concentration of fatty acids than Aloe ferox or Aloe barbadensis, which means that a higher concentration of fatty acids indicate the existence of an efficient coat of the plant working as a barrier toward stress factors [39].
There are several studies which sustain that low values of the dietary n-6/n-3 essential fatty acids (ranging from 1 to 5) and PUFAs/SFAs (ranging from 1 to 1.5) ratios can reduce significantly the risk of cardiovascular disease and cancer [16]. Moreover, among polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFAs), linoleic acid has been shown to be the most potent fatty acid for lowering the plasma triacylglycerols, low-density and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol [17].
3.3. Vitamin C content
A. spectabilis compared with all other species showed the highest content in vitamin C, while other species like A. africana, A. arborescens, and A. ferox presented all similar values (Table 1). Vega-Gálvez et al (2011) in a study done to observe the effects of high pressures (500 MPa) on vitamin C content from Aloe vera gel, measured an initial content of 126.37 mg /100 g dry weight [40].
3.4. PCA analysis
The data resulted from carotenoids, fatty acids and vitamin C analyses were subjected to the Principal Component Analysis (PCA) in order to underline the samples’ similarities and differences based on their specific chemical composition. In this regard a matrix containing the 7 Aloe vera samples and 21 variables for each sample (including concentration values for 17 fatty acids, lutein, β-carotene, vitamin C and total amount of carotenoids) was computed. The calculation was performed using a mean center data model (which allows to subtract the column means from every variable before analysis), with cross validation and single value decomposition algorithm. Thus, using this chemometric method, the two principal components explained 88% of the overall variance (77% and 11% for PC-1 and PC-2, respectively) dividing the studied samples into 3 distinct clusters (Figure 4). The first cluster included A. barbadensis, A. spectabilis, A. arborescens and A. africana, the second A. ferox and A. marlothii and the third one is represented by A. aculeata, which has a very distinctive pattern compared to other Aloe samples.
The correlation loadings bi-plot was also computed in order to point out the correlations between Aloe species and determined bioactive compounds (Figure 5). The compounds within the inner ellipse indicate 50% of explained variance, while the outer ellipse indicates 100% of explained variance. In this way, the importance of individual variables is visualized more clearly. Thus, in the case of A. aculeata, the correlation loading bi-plot (Figure 5) highlighted three marker compounds, namely: C18:1n-7, C18:1n-9 and C16:1n-7 fatty acids.
3.5. Antioxidant activity
Since antioxidant molecules (e.g., ascorbate, carotenoids) could add an extra value in pharmaceutical products for instance, we evaluated the potential antioxidant activity for the Aloe leaves extracts. Three different assays such as DPPH, ORAC, and HPS were used to evaluate the free radical scavenging potential of the Aloe leaves extracts (Figure 6). The scavenging potential against peroxyl radical of Aloe species was assessed by ORAC assay revealed that the highest ORAC values were obtained for Aloe arborescens and Aloe marlothii. Regarding the HPS assay assessment, Aloe arborescens and Aloe marlothii, followed by Aloe ferox and Aloe spectabilis proved to have the highest potential to scavenge hydrogen peroxide, known as toxic by-product of the oxygen metabolism in viable cells.
Based on three different assays, A. arborescens proved to exert the highest scavenging activity (60 µmol TE/g FW for DPPH assay, 2600 µmol TE/g FW for ORAC assay, and 43.35 µmol TE/g FW for HPS assay) followed by A. marlothii (55 µmol TE/g FW, 1876 µmol TE/g FW, and 42.00 µmol TE/g FW). Certainly, both carotenoids and vitamin C contributed to the antioxidant activity of A. arborescens extract. However, there are other compounds with antioxidant potential in the extracts, since Aloe spectabilis and Aloe ferox also have a high carotenoid and vitamin C content, but had a lower antioxidant activity than Aloe arborescens.
Our observations seem to be consistent with those available in scientific literature. For example, in one study the phytochemical profile and the antioxidant activity of different leaf portions of A. arborescens and A. barbadensis were compared. It was found that the ORAC radical scavenging potential was higher for A. arborescens than for A. barbadensis, while the DPPH assay indicated a reversed order, without a statistic significance [3]. When ORAC values of seven Aloe species were compared, the highest value was reported for A. arborescens (2135.1 µmol TE/100 g FW), which was significantly higher than that for A. ferox (525.72 µmol TE/100 g FW), and A. barbadensis (1234.4 µmol TE/100 g FW) [10]. In the study conducted by Cardarelli et al. (2017), the scavenging activity profiles obtained by DPPH and ORAC assays, followed the trend A. marlothii <A. ferox <A.arborescens <A. barbadensis [1]. Similar ORAC radical scavenging activities were obtained for A. barbadensis and A. ferox, when the lyophilized leaf gel and the ethanolic leaf extracts were compared [4,13].
Here, from all analysed species, A. arborescens, A. marlothii, and A. spectabilis had a similar potential to scavenge the hydrogen peroxide by HPS assay, but among this species, A. arborescens had the highest scavenge potential (43.35 µmol TE/g FW). In contrast, a low scavenging activity was observed for A. africana (17.72 µmol TE/g FW) and A. barbadensis (18.43 µmol TE/g FW). In a recent study, it was proved that the agro-climatic conditions could affect phytochemicals, the Total Phenolic Content (TPC) and the antioxidant potential of A. barbadensis. Thus, the antioxidant potential of A. barbadensis was reduced to 58.54 to 81.10% based on HPS assay [18].
The determined antioxidant activity of A. ferox in ethanol, methanol, acetone and aqueous extracts by using the HPS assay, proved that the percentage inhibitions of hydrogen peroxide were dependent on solvent concentration and induced different effects, in the following order: acetone < ethanol < gallic acid < methanol < BHT (butylated hydroxytoluene) < aqueous extract [15]. Apart the solvent used for extraction it is known that there are other factors which could influence the antioxidant capacity in Aloe leaves such as the extraction procedure and the quantity of active compounds which exist in the parts of the plant subjected to analysis. Some authors demonstrated that the leaf skin extract exhibited the highest antioxidant activity as compared to flowers or inner parenchyma and whole leaf extracts [3,35]. Strong correlations were established between the polyphenols and flavonoids content of leaf skin and its scavenging activity [24]. On the other hand, other researchers postulated that polysaccharides from the inner parenchyma were the main contributors to the antioxidant properties of the plant [41].
A relatively reduced radical scavenging activity of A. barbadensis found in this study (Figure 6) might be associated with its lowest total carotenoid and vitamin C contents (Table 1). In a similar way, the highest antioxidant content in A. marlothii is reflected in an increased radical scavenging activity when compared to other species. Amongst all species, A. spectabilis occupy the third rank of the highest antioxidant activities, which might be ascribed also to its higher vitamin C content.