Next Article in Journal
Sweet Cherry Diversity and Relationships in Modern and Local Varieties Based on SNP Markers
Next Article in Special Issue
Exploring the Ecological Preferences and Essential Oil Variability in Wild-Growing Populations of the Endangered Local Greek Endemic Thymus holosericeus (Lamiaceae)
Previous Article in Journal
Variations in Grain Traits among Local Rice Varieties Collected More Than Half-Century Ago in Indochinese Countries
Previous Article in Special Issue
Phytochemicals and Their Correlation with Molecular Data in Micromeria and Clinopodium (Lamiaceae) Taxa
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Plants
Volume 12
Issue 1
10.3390/plants12010134
plants-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Phytochemical Composition, Antioxidant and Antiproliferative Activities of Citrus hystrix, Citrus limon, Citrus pyriformis, and Citrus microcarpa Leaf Essential Oils against Human Cervical Cancer Cell Line

by
Haneen Ibrahim Al Othman
1,
Huda Hisham Alkatib
2,
Atiqah Zaid
1,
Sreenivasan Sasidharan
2,
Siti Sarah Fazalul Rahiman
3,
Tien Ping Lee
4,*,
George Dimitrovski
5,
Jalal T. Althakafy
6 and
Yong Foo Wong
1,*
1
Centre for Research on Multidimensional Separation Science, School of Chemical Sciences, Universiti Sains Malaysia, George Town 11800, Penang, Malaysia
2
Institute for Research in Molecular Medicine (INFORMM), Universiti Sains Malaysia, George Town 11800, Penang, Malaysia
3
School of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Universiti Sains Malaysia, George Town 11800, Penang, Malaysia
4
RCSI & UCD Malaysia Campus, 4 Jalan Sepoy Lines, George Town 10450, Penang, Malaysia
5
Ajoya Capital Limited, World Trade Centre 1, Jl. Jenderal Sudirman Kav. 29-31, Jakarta 12920, Indonesia
6
Department of Chemistry, Faculty of Applied Science, Umm Al-Qura University, Makkah 21955, Saudi Arabia
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Plants 2023, 12(1), 134; https://doi.org/10.3390/plants12010134
Submission received: 14 November 2022 / Revised: 19 December 2022 / Accepted: 21 December 2022 / Published: 27 December 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Phytochemistry of Aromatic and Medicinal Plants)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
The essential oil derived from Citrus plants has long been used for medicinal purposes, due to its broad spectrum of therapeutic characteristics. To date, approximately 162 Citrus species have been identified, and many investigational studies have been conducted to explore the pharmacological potential of Citrus spp. oils. This study investigated the volatile constituents of essential oil distilled from the leaves of C. hystrix, C. limon, C. pyriformis, and C. microcarpa, using gas chromatography–quadrupole mass spectrometry. A total of 80 secondary compounds were tentatively identified, representing 84.88–97.99% of the total ion count and mainly comprising monoterpene (5.20–76.15%) and sesquiterpene (1.36–27.14%) hydrocarbons, oxygenated monoterpenes (3.91–89.52%) and sesquiterpenes (0.21–38.87%), and other minor chemical classes (0.10–0.52%). In particular, 27 compounds (1.19–39.06%) were detected across all Citrus species. Principal component analysis of the identified phytoconstituents and their relative quantities enabled differentiation of the Citrus leaf oils according to their species, with the loading variables contributing to these metabolic differences being identified. The Citrus leaf oils were tested for their antioxidant and antiproliferative activities using 2,2-diphenyl-1-picryl-hydrazylhydrate (DPPH) and 3-(4,5-dimethylthiazol-2-yl)-2,5-diphenyltetrazolium bromide (MTT) assays. The results indicated that C. limon displayed the highest DPPH radical scavenging ability (IC50 value of 29.14 ± 1.97 mg/mL), while C. hystrix exhibited the lowest activity (IC50 value of 279.03 ± 10.37 mg/mL). On the other hand, all the Citrus oils exhibit potent antiproliferative activities against the HeLa cervical cancer cell line, with IC50 values of 11.66 μg/mL (C. limon), 20.41 μg/mL (C. microcarpa), 25.91 μg/mL (C. hystrix), and 87.17 μg/mL (C. pyriformis).

1. Introduction

The genus Citrus belongs to the Rutaceae family, which is comprised of about 160 genera and approximately 162 species (according to the Tanaka classification system), which are distributed throughout the world [1,2]. Apart from culinary uses, Citrus spp. plants have been cultivated and exploited for their nutritional and therapeutic value. In particular, the aromatic oil extracted from these plants is valued due to its medicinal properties and economic significance, with potential applications in the food, perfume, cosmetic, and pharmaceutical industries [3,4]. Citrus spp. essential oils (EO) have reportedly exhibited various therapeutic properties and/or beneficial pharmacological effects, such as antibacterial [5,6], anticancer [7,8], anti-inflammatory [9,10], and antioxidant [11,12,13] activities. It is worth noting that these associated bioactivities and their organoleptic properties are attributed to the complex pool of phytoconstituents in Citrus EO, which vary according to genetic variability and diversity, origin, climate, seasonal factors, and others [14].
The phytochemistry of Citrus spp. EOs is comprised of monoterpenic and sesquiterpenic hydrocarbons, as well as their oxygenated derivatives, which include alcohols, aldehydes, ketones, esters, and others [15]. The characteristic EO profiles of Citrus spp. have been reported to identify species/cultivars, determine genetic diversity, and interpret sensory attributes [16]. Given the availability of Citrus plants around the world and their associated pharmacological potentials, numerous studies have targeted investigating the chemical composition of EOs derived from different Citrus species and/or varieties that confer distinct pharmacological properties [17]. Notably, cancer has become a focus of attention, as one of the most critical diseases and the second highest cause of death after heart disease [18]. There are many reported causes of cancer (e.g., physiological and biochemical factors), which include ultraviolet rays, smoke, poisoning by bacteria and fungi, and the presence of free radicals that cause oxidative damage to vital biomolecules [19]. Therefore, the search for cures from plant-derived products (e.g., essential oil) has become an important subject [20,21]. Considerable evidence has demonstrated that selected Citrus spp. EOs exhibit an antioxidant potential that can eliminate excess free radicals (e.g., hydroxyl radicals, peroxide radicals, and super oxygen radicals) in the human body [22]. Some recent studies have also highlighted the chemopreventive potential of some Citrus spp. EOs that displayed cytotoxicity effects against cervical (HeLa), breast (MCF-7), kidney (HEK-293), colon (HT-29), and liver (HepG2, BEL-7402) cancer cell lines [23,24,25,26].
To our knowledge, reports that have comprehensively examined the chemical constituents and pharmacological potential of EOs derived from the leaf of Citrus spp. plants are still lacking. Considering these points, this study aimed to (i) profile steam-distilled leaf essential oil from four commercially cultivated Citrus species (C. hystrix, C. limon, C. pyriformis, and C. microcarpa) in Malaysia; (ii) determine the antioxidant activities of Citrus spp. EOs using the 2,2-diphenyl-1-picryl-hydrazylhydrate (DPPH) radical scavenging method; and (iii) evaluate the in vitro antiproliferative activities of these oils against human adenocarcinoma cervical cancer (HeLa) cell line. The phytocomplexity and variation of the secondary compounds within different Citrus spp. leaf oils that may contribute to different biological effects are discussed. Discriminations based on chemometrics analyses, to objectively compare the fundamental similarities and differences among the different Citrus spp. are presented.

2. Results and Discussion

2.1. Phytochemical Compositions

GC-MS analysis enabled the tentative identification of 80 secondary compounds (46 in C. hystrix, 52 in C. microcarpa, 54 in C. pyriformis, and 45 in C. limon), which represented between 84.88% and 97.99% of the total ion count within the four Citrus spp. leaf EOs. The chromatographic profiles of secondary compounds in the different Citrus spp. leaf oils are presented in Figure 1, highlighting distinctive chemical patterns. These tentatively identified compounds are distributed into 15 monoterpene hydrocarbons, 22 oxygenated monoterpenes, 16 sesquiterpene hydrocarbons, 19 oxygenated sesquiterpenes, 1 diterpenes, 1 oxygenated diterpene, and others (6). A total of 26 compounds were detected in common across all species, comprising mainly monoterpene hydrocarbons (0.01–70.40%). Table S1 (Supplementary Information) summarizes the identified secondary compounds and their relative abundance based on total ion counts. The degree of variation in the metabolic compositions (Figure 1 and Table S1) corresponding to different Citrus spp. EOs is noteworthy, which could be translated into differences in the expression of their pharmacological potential.
The identified major compounds (relative abundance > 1%) for different species of Citrus leaf oils are detailed in Table 1, while the relative composition of the classified chemical groups is illustrated in Figure 2. Notably, monoterpenic compounds predominated in C. hystrix, C. limon, and C. pyriformis, with total ion count abundances of 94.7%, 91.4%, and 89.7%, respectively. Interestingly, the content of monoterpenes (18.4%) in C. microcarpa was much lower compared to the other species (≥89.7%). Monoterpenic hydrocarbons constituted the highest proportion in C. limon (48.6%) and C. pyriformis (76.1%), as compared to C. hystrix (5.2%) and C. microcarpa (14.5%). Limonene was the major compound in C. limon and C. pyriformis, accounting for 33.6% and 70.4% of the total ion count, but only constituting a relatively small amount in C. microcarpa (1.7%) and C. hystrix (0.2%). C. hystrix had the highest content of oxygenated monoterpenes (89.5%), with citronellal being the principal constituent for C. hystrix (77.7%), while C. microcarpa showed the lowest amount of oxygenated monoterpenes (3.9%). Apart from C. hystrix, Eucalyptus citriodora leaf and Litsea cubeba fruit EOs have also been reported to contain significant amounts of citronellal, with relative composition > 50% [27,28]. This monoterpenoid aldehyde is appreciated for its effective mosquito-repelling properties [29]. Interestingly, sabinene (3.0%) and citronellol acetate (2.8%) were only present in C. hystrix, while β-myrcene (1.8%), 3-carene (5.4%), terpinolene (1.5%), and nerol acetate (3.6%) were only found in C. limon. Other identified major monoterpenes include β-pinene (0.1–7.1%), β-ocimene (0.5–2.4%), β-citronellol (0.02–5.9%), linalool (0.7–3.2%), and others.
The sesquiterpenic profiles revealed notable differences between the four Citrus spp. leaf oils. The contents of sesquiterpene hydrocarbons (1.4–6.6%) and oxygenated sesquiterpenes (0.2–1.7%) were relatively low in all Citrus spp. EOs, except C. microcarpa (27.1% and 38.9%, respectively). Caryophyllene (1.5%) and β-bisabolene (0.2%) were the main sesquiterpenoids in C. limon, while bicyclogermacrene (0.3%) and caryophyllene (0.5%) were major contributors of sesquiterpenes for C. hystrix. β-elemene (2.8%) and α-farnesene (0.7%) were the main compounds of these C15 fractions in C. pyriformis. The major sesquiterpenes identified in C. microcarpa were elemol (16.7%), germacrene D (13.0%), β-eudesmol (8.6%), γ-eudesmol (5.7%), α-eudesmol (3.6%), caryophyllene (3.3%), δ-elemene (3.2%), β-selinene (2.4%), bicyclogermacrene (2.0%), and nerolidol (1.5%). Interestingly, α-, β- and γ-eudesmol were not found in other Citrus leaf EOs, suggesting the possibility of differentiation using the presence of these secondary compounds. Phytol was identified as the only oxygenated diterpenes detected across all Citrus leaf oils, with relative composition of 0.2–1.6%. Overall, the phytochemical compositions of the major compounds agreed with previously reported studies [16,30]; however, variations were observed for the minor constituents across all species. This observed discrepancy may be due to the influence of several factors, such as geographical origins, climate, and others [14]. Although bioactivity is generally attributed to the major plant constituents, studies have shown that it can be enhanced by the synergistic effects of other phytoconstituents [31].

2.2. Discrimination via Principal Component Analysis

In order to examine the metabolic differences among the different species of Citrus leaf oils, principal component analysis (PCA) was applied to the chemical abundances of the 80 compounds identified in respective species. Figure 3A illustrates a score plot for the different Citrus spp. leaf oils, highlighting the potential for chemotaxonomic classification based on species. PC-1 produced the highest variation (48%) of data, followed by PC-2 (31%), which cumulatively explained 79% of the variance in the dataset. The analyzed leaf oils were segregated into four different groups, revealing discriminating secondary compounds according to the Citrus species, which could be explained by the loading plot (Figure 3B). It is worth noting that PC-2 separated C. limon and C. pyriformis from C. hystrix, and the proximity of C. limon and C. pyriformis as situated in the same quadrant (negative PC-2 axis) suggests a certain degree of similarity with respect to their secondary compounds. The main explanatory variables were trans-linalool oxide, 4-thujanol, citronellal, and citronellol acetate for C. hystrix; cosmene, α-thujene, camphene, β-pinene, and humulene for C. microcarpa; geranyl propionate, β-bisabolene, 3-carene, terpinolene, trans-β-ocimene, geranyl acetate, and phytol for C. limon; and trans-sesquisabinene hydrate, p-vinylguaiacol, and α-farnesene for C. pyriformis.

2.3. Antioxidant Activity

The antioxidant capacity of the Citrus leaf EOs was investigated by evaluating their DPPH free-radical scavenging ability. The citrus oils displayed a dose-dependent scavenging activity against DPPH. Based on the linear curve plotted between the scavenging activity inhibition percentage and the EO concentrations, C. limon exhibited the highest antioxidant activity (IC50 value of 29.14 ± 1.97 mg/mL), while C. hystrix had the lowest antioxidant activity (IC50 value of 279.03 ± 10.37 mg/mL). Additionally, C. limon and C. pyriformis leaf oils showed the highest DPPH radical scavenging ability, as compared to the positive control (ascorbic acid). The IC50 values of the antioxidant activity of Citrus oils and values reported from previous studies are shown in Table 2. The current results demonstrated that the antioxidant potential of Citrus oils might be attributed to the variations in their phytoconstituents [32]. A few studies have reported that antioxidant activity might be correlated to the level or proportion of limonene within Citrus EOs [11,33,34]. Overall, the current findings indicated that the antioxidant activity was higher in oils containing a higher proportion of limonene. However, the inter-relation of the limonene content and antioxidant potential of Citrus oil necessitates further investigation, as conflicting reports have been made [35]. Thus, it is difficult to explain how Citrus oil functions as an antioxidant, due to the intricacy of their multicomponent mixes and insufficient studies on their molecular mechanisms.

2.4. Antiproliferative Evaluation

The 3-(4,5-dimethylthiazol-2-yl)-2,5-diphenyltetrazolium bromide (MTT) assay was used to evaluate the cytotoxicity of Citrus spp. EOs against a human adenocarcinoma cervical cancer (HeLa) cell line, with a concentration range of 2.3 to 75.0 μg/mL. Figure 4 indicates that all Citrus oils decreased the viability of the Hela cells in a dose-dependent manner (p < 0.01). After 24 h of treatment, C. limon oil (IC50 = 11.7 μg/mL) exhibited the most significant effect, followed by C. microcarpa (IC50 = 20.4 μg/mL) and C. hystrix (IC50 = 25.9 μg/mL), while the least potent was C. pyriformis (IC50 = 87.2 μg/mL). To our knowledge, this is the first study to report a comparative investigation of the antiproliferative activities in C. microcarpa, C. hystrix, and C. pyriformis leaf oils. Interestingly, the results indicated no correlation was observed between the antioxidant activity (C. hystrix < C. microcarpa < C. pyriformis < C. limon) and the antiproliferative effects (C. pyriformis < C. hystrix < C. microcarpa < C. limon) against HeLa cells. The cytotoxicity of C. limon oil was observed to be notably higher compared to previous studies concerning different plant parts and origins. For instance, the in vitro cytotoxicity activity of C. limon peel oil from Northern Egypt against the HeLa cell line resulted in an IC50 value of 51.0 μg/mL, and Iranian C. limon peel oil displayed an IC50 value of 17.0 μg/mL [23,40]. On the contrary, C. limon leaf oil from India presented a much higher cytotoxicity (IC50 = 4.75 μg/mL) compared to the current study [41]. Interestingly, the antiproliferative activities of the analyzed Citrus leaf EOs were comparable to cytotoxic studies using Citrus spp. peel EOs with IC50 values <100 μg/mL. For instance, C. hystrix peel EO displayed potent cytotoxic activity against human melanoma cells (WM793, A375, and HTB140) with IC50 values of 59.2–88.4 μg/mL, while C. limon peel EO was found to be cytotoxic to HepG2 cells and HCT-116 colorectal carcinoma cells (IC50 value of 48.2 and 72.6 μg/mL, respectively) [42,43]. It is known that Citrus spp. oils contain high quantities of terpenes, especially limonene, a well-established chemopreventive and therapeutic agent against numerous tumor cells [44,45,46,47]. Our findings indicated that C. limon oils that contained high relative amount of limonene (33.6%) exhibited the highest cytotoxicity against HeLa cells, which agreed with a previous finding, where limonene demonstrated potential cytotoxicity (22.1 μg/mL) against HeLa cells [48]. Surprisingly, C. pyriformis, which contained the highest proportion of limonene (70.4%), displayed the lowest antiproliferative activity. A few studies have highlighted that limonene might not be a primary contributor to the cytotoxicity of essential oils [49,50,51]. On the other hand, several other terpenes that are found in Citrus spp. oils were reported to exhibit a better cytotoxic potential against HeLa cells. For instance, citral demonstrate the ability to suppress cell proliferation, through the increment of intracellular reactive oxygen species and dissipation of mitochondrial membrane potential in HeLa cells [52]. Linalool can induce apoptosis in HeLa cells through cyclin-dependent kinase inhibitors and src kinases [53]. Other compounds with a cytotoxicity effect against various cancer cell lines include phytol, nerolidol, α-humulene, geraniol, β-caryophyllene, and β-elemene [54,55,56,57,58,59]. These findings suggest that different constituents in Citrus EOs may synergistically contribute to their antiproliferative activity against HeLa cells, instead of being the sole contribution of a single bioactive compound.

3. Materials and Methods

3.1. Chemicals and Reagents

HPLC-grade methanol, acetone, and hexane were purchased from Elite Advanced Materials Sdn. Bhd. (Selangor, Malaysia). Ethanol was purchased from Merck (Darmstadt, Germany). High-purity (≥99%) n-alkanes (heptane, octane, nonane, decane, undecane, dodecane, tridecane, tetradecane, pentadecane, hexadecane, heptadecane, octadecane, nonadecane, eicosane, heneicosane, docosane, tricosane, tetracosane, pentacosane, hexacosane, octacosane, and triacontane) and 2,2-diphenylpicrylhydrazyl (DPPH) were purchased from Sigma-Aldrich (St. Louis, MO, USA). Ultra-pure water (18.2 MΩ cm−1) was produced using a Millipore Milli-Q ultrapure water purification system (Bedford, MA, USA).

3.2. Plant Material and Isolation of Essential Oil

Citrus spp. leaf samples were collected from selected orchards located at Gemencheh, Negeri Sembilan—C. hystrix and C. limon; Batu Ferringhi, Penang—C. pyriformis; and Gelugor, Penang—C. microcarpa in March 2021. Approximately 400 g of fresh leaves was subjected to steam distillation (Figure S1) for 3 h. The yields for the steam-distilled Citrus spp. leaf EOs ranged from 0.28 to 0.72% (w/w) on fresh weight basis (Table S2; Supplementary Information). The essential oil layer was collected and stored at 4 °C in glass vials, until further being analyzed, and were then diluted in 2% v/v acetone prior to being injected into the GC system.

3.3. Gas Chromatography–Quadrupole Mass Spectrometry System

Chemical profiling of the Citrus spp. leaf EOs was conducted on an Agilent Technologies 7890B gas chromatography system (Agilent Technologies, Santa Clara, CA, USA) equipped with a 5977B GC/MSD quadrupole mass spectrometer, 7693A autosampler, and a split/splitless inlet. The separation was effected using a nonpolar (HP-5ms (5% phenyl-methylpolysiloxane)) capillary column of dimensions 30 m × 0.25 mm I.D. × 0.25 μm df. The GC conditions used were oven temperature program, 40 °C (hold 2 min) at 3 °C min−1 to 220 °C, 2 °C min−1 to 300 °C; injector temperature of 250 °C; helium (purity of 99.999%) at a flow rate of 1.0 mL min−1; and injection volume of 1 μL, and using a split ratio of 5:1. The quadrupole MS was operated in 70 eV electron ionization mode, ion source temperature of 230 °C, solvent delay time of 3.0 min, deactivated fused-silica capillary as the transfer line (0.8 m × 0.1 mm I.D.) thermostated at 280 °C, and a mass scan range of 45–600 Da.

3.4. Data Handling

GC-QMS data acquisition and processing were performed using Agilent Mass Hunter Qualitative Analysis 10.0 (Agilent Technologies). The chemical constituents of the EOs were tentatively identified using their retention indices (RI) (relative to n-alkanes C7–C30), which were calculated using the Van den Dool and Kratz equation and mass spectrum matching, according to the NIST 14.0 MS library database (National Institute of Standards and Technology; Gaithersburg, MD, USA), and compared with previously reported RI values [60,61]. A matching score ≥ 80 in conjunction with consistent RI values within ±10 when compared to reported RI, were employed as criteria for the tentative identification of the chromatographically separated compounds. The relative concentration of tentatively identified compounds was calculated based on the acquired TICs and presented as the mean ± standard deviation from three repeated samples injections. Principal component analysis (PCA) was performed using Unscrambler X 10.3 (CAMO Software, Oslo, Norway) to identify differences for the obtained chemical profiles. All data were presented using Excel software (Microsoft Corporation, Washington, DC, USA) and Origin 8 (Origin Lab Corporation, Northampton, MA, USA). One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed using MS Excel software (Version 2211 Build 16.0.15831.20098).

3.5. Antioxidant Activity by DPPH Assay

The scavenging activity of four Citrus spp. leaf essential oils was determined using the DPPH method, as reported by Gursoy et al. [62], with slight modifications. Briefly, C. limon, C. pyriformis, and C. microcarpa EOs were prepared in methanol at different concentrations (3.12, 6.25, 12.50, 25.00, 50.00, and 100 mg/mL), while C. hystrix was prepared in a concentration range of 3.12–400 mg/mL. Subsequently, 50 µL of oil was added to 150 µL of the methanolic DPPH solution (0.1 mM), incubated in 96-well microplate for 30 min, and protected from light. Ascorbic acid solutions in methanol were prepared and used as a positive reference standard; as a negative control, methanol solution was used. At the end of the incubation period, the absorbance was immediately measured at 517 nm using an Epoch microplate UV-Vis spectrophotometer (BioTek Instruments Inc., Winooski, VT, USA). The assay was conducted in triplicate. The DPPH free-radical scavenging ability was calculated using the following equation:
DPPH   scavenging   activity   ( % ) = ( Abs control − Abs sample Abs control ) × 100

3.6. HeLa Cell Culture

The HeLa cell line was purchased from the American Type Culture Collection (Manassas, VA, USA). The HeLa cells were cultured in Dulbecco’s modified Eagle’s medium—high glucose (DMEM; Sigma-Aldrich), with 10% fetal bovine serum and 1% penicillin or streptomycin at a temperature of 37 °C and with 5% CO2.

3.7. Antiproliferative Activity with 3-(4,5-Dimethylthiazol-2-yl)-2,5-diphenyltetrazolium Bromide (MTT) Assay

Cells were seeded in 96 well plates at a density of 3000 cells/well supplemented DMEM (Dulbecco’s modified Eagle’s medium) and incubated for 24 h in a humified atmosphere (37 °C and 5% CO2). Citrus leaf EOs were re-dissolved in ethanol at a final concentration of 50 mg/mL, and the medium was removed, and each well was supplemented with different concentrations of EOs (2.34 to 150.00 μg/mL) diluted with DMEM. The ethanol concentration in each well was ≤0.3%. An MTT assay was conducted after the 24 h incubation period, to determine cell viability via the measurement of color alterations, which gauge the activity of the enzyme that reduces MTT to formazan, giving a purple color [54]. The plates were measured for optical density at 540 nm using a SkanIT absorbance micro-plate reader (Thermo Scientific, St. Peters, MO, USA). Media containing cells were used as a positive control, while media containing no cells were used as a negative control. Cells and medium with 0.3% ethanol were used as the vehicle control. All the assays were conducted in triplicate. The percentage of cell viability was determined using the following equation:
Cell   viability   ( % ) = ( Mean   absorbance   in   test   well Mean   absorbance   in   vehicle   control   well ) × 100

4. Conclusions

The present study detailed the metabolic profiling of secondary compounds in leaf essential oils of C. hystrix, C. limon, C. pyriformis, and C. microcarpa sourced in Malaysia. The metabolic profiles revealed notable differences for phytoconstituents within the four Citrus spp. leaf oils. C. hystrix was dominated by oxygenated monoterpenes (89.5%), C. microcarpa was dominated by oxygenated sesquiterpenes (38.9%), and C. pyriformis and C. limon were dominated by monoterpene hydrocarbons (≥48.6%). PCA specifically revealed the discriminating metabolites and allowed chemotaxonomical classification according to Citrus species. All EOs showed DPPH radical scavenging ability, with C. limon and C. pyriformis exhibiting higher antioxidant activities (IC50 < 40 mg/mL). Additionally, all the analyzed oils displayed potent antiproliferative activities against the HeLa cell line, with C. limon showing the highest antiproliferative activity, with an IC50 value of 11.7 μg/mL. The discrepancies observed in the antioxidant and antiproliferative activities of the leaf oils extracted from different Citrus spp. suggest an inter-relation of metabolic diversities in effecting these bioactivities via specific molecular mechanisms, which will require further investigations. Nevertheless, this study can serve as an a priori reference for the development of bioactive foods and nutraceuticals incorporated with Citrus leaf oil that can provide health-promoting properties.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/plants12010134/s1, Figure S1. Steam distillation equipment used for the extraction of Citrus spp. leaf essential oils. Table S1. Secondary compounds identified in different Citrus spp. leaf oils using GC-MS. Table S2. Yields of four Citrus spp. leaf essential oils.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, Y.F.W. and T.P.L.; methodology, H.I.A.O. and H.H.A.; formal analysis, H.I.A.O. and A.Z.; resources, Y.F.W. and S.S.; data curation, H.I.A.O. and H.H.A.; writing—original draft preparation, H.I.A.O.; writing—review and editing, Y.F.W., S.S.F.R., T.P.L., J.T.A., G.D. and S.S.; supervision, Y.F.W., S.S.F.R. and S.S.; funding acquisition, Y.F.W. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by Universiti Sains Malaysia for Research University Grant Scheme with Grant No.: 1001/PKIMIA/8011123.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Acknowledgments

The support and assistance provided by Agilent Technologies (Malaysia) to Y.F.W. are acknowledged.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analysis, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript; or in the decision to publish the results.

References

  1. Talon, M.; Wu, G.A.; Gmitter, F.G., Jr.; Rokhsar, D.S. The Origin of Citrus. In The Genus Citrus; Talon, M., Caruso, M., Gmitter, F.G., Jr., Eds.; Woodhead Publishing: Duxford, UK, 2020; pp. 9–32. ISBN 012812217X. [Google Scholar]
  2. Tanaka, T. Fundamental Discussion of Citrus Classification. Stud. Citrol. 1977, 14, 1–6. [Google Scholar]
  3. Palazzolo, E.; Laudicina, V.A.; Germanà, M.A. Current and Potential Use of Citrus Essential Oils. Curr. Org. Chem. 2013, 17, 3042–3049. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Reddy, D.N. Essential Oils Extracted from Medicinal Plants and Their Applications. In Natural Bio-Active Compounds; Springer: Singapore, 2019; pp. 237–283. [Google Scholar]
  5. Klimek-szczykutowicz, M.; Szopa, A.; Ekiert, H. Citrus limon (Lemon) Phenomenon—A Review of the Chemistry, Pharmacological Properties, Applications in the Modern Pharmaceutical, Food, and Cosmetics Industries, and Biotechnological Studies. Plants 2020, 9, 119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  6. Lin, X.; Cao, S.; Sun, J.; Lu, D.; Zhong, B.; Chun, J. The Chemical Compositions, and Antibacterial and Antioxidant Activities of Four Types of Citrus Essential Oils. Molecules 2021, 26, 3412. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Raut, J.S.; Karuppayil, S.M. A Status Review on the Medicinal Properties of Essential Oils. Ind. Crops Prod. 2014, 62, 250–264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Spadaro, F.; Circosta, C.; Costa, R.; Pizzimenti, F.; Palumbo, D.R.; Occhiuto, F. Volatile Fraction Composition and Biological Activity of Lemon Oil (Citrus limon L. Burm.): Comparative Study of Oils Extracted from Conventionally Grown and Biological Fruits. J. Essent. Oil Res. 2012, 24, 187–193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Alinejhad, D.; Asayesh, M.; Asayesh, M. Determination of the Anti-Inflammatory Property of Tannins from the Rind of Calamansi (Citrus Microcarpa, Rutaceae). J. Int. Oral Health 2016, 8, 546–553. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Hamdan, D.; El-Readi, M.Z.; Tahrani, A.; Herrmann, F.; Kaufmann, D.; Farrag, N.; El-Shazly, A.; Wink, M. Secondary Metabolites of Ponderosa Lemon (Citrus Pyriformis) and Their Antioxidant, Anti-Inflammatory, and Cytotoxic Activities. Z. Für Naturforsch. C 2011, 66, 385–393. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  11. Frassinetti, S.; Caltavuturo, L.; Cini, M.; Croce Della, C.M.; Maserti, B.E. Antibacterial and Antioxidant Activity of Essential Oils from Citrus spp. J. Essent. Oil Res. 2011, 23, 27–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Bertuzzi, G. Antioxidative Action of Citrus limonum Essential Oil on Skin. Eur. J. Med. Plants 2013, 3, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  13. Nguyen, T.N.T.; Huynh, T.N.N.; Tran, V.T.; Dang, C.H.; Hoang, T.K.D.; Nguyen, T.D. Physicochemical Characterization and Bioactivity Evaluation of Essential Oils from Citrus microcarpa Bunge Leaf and Flower. J. Essent. Oil Res. 2018, 30, 285–292. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Hosni, K.; Zahed, N.; Chrif, R.; Abid, I.; Medfei, W.; Kallel, M.; Ben Brahim, N.; Sebei, H. Composition of Peel Essential Oils from Four Selected Tunisian Citrus Species: Evidence for the Genotypic Influence. Food Chem. 2010, 123, 1098–1104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Butnariu, M. Plants as Source of Essential Oils and Perfumery Applications. In Bioprospecting of Plant Biodiversity for Industrial Molecules; John Wiley & Sons Ltd.: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2021; pp. 261–292. [Google Scholar]
  16. Ferrer, V.; Costantino, G.; Paoli, M.; Paymal, N.; Quinton, C.; Ollitrault, P.; Tomi, F.; Luro, F. Intercultivar Diversity of Sour Orange (Citrus aurantium L.) Based on Genetic Markers, Phenotypic Characteristics, Aromatic Compounds and Sensorial Analysis. Agronomy 2021, 11, 1084. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Koziol, A.; Stryjewska, A.; Librowski, T.; Salat, K.; Gawel, M.; Moniczewski, A.; Lochynski, S. An Overview of the Pharmacological Properties and Potential Applications of Natural Monoterpenes. Mini-Rev. Med. Chem. 2014, 14, 1156–1168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Koene, R.J.; Prizment, A.E.; Blaes, A.; Konety, S.H. Shared Risk Factors in Cardiovascular Disease and Cancer. Circulation 2016, 133, 1104–1114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  19. Paz-Elizur, T.; Sevilya, Z.; Leitner-Dagan, Y.; Elinger, D.; Roisman, L.C.; Livneh, Z. DNA Repair of Oxidative DNA Damage in Human Carcinogenesis: Potential Application for Cancer Risk Assessment and Prevention. Cancer Lett. 2008, 266, 60–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  20. Mittal, R.P.; Rana, A.; Jaitak, V. Essential Oils: An Impending Substitute of Synthetic Antimicrobial Agents to Overcome Antimicrobial Resistance. Curr. Drug Targets 2018, 20, 605–624. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  21. Kokoska, L.; Kloucek, P.; Leuner, O.; Novy, P. Plant-Derived Products as Antibacterial and Antifungal Agents in Human Health Care. Curr. Med. Chem. 2019, 26, 5501–5541. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Akhtar, M.; Iqbal, L.; Lateef, M.; Nawab, B.; Saleem, M.; Afza, N. Bio-Reactive Properties of Citrus Waste: An Investigation of Antioxidant and Tyrosinase Inhibitory Activities. Pak. J. Bot. 2011, 43, 2881–2883. [Google Scholar]
  23. Elansary, H.O.; Abdelgaleil, S.A.M.; Mahmoud, E.A.; Yessoufou, K.; Elhindi, K.; El-Hendawy, S. Effective Antioxidant, Antimicrobial and Anticancer Activities of Essential Oils of Horticultural Aromatic Crops in Northern Egypt. BMC Complement. Altern. Med. 2018, 18, 214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Saengha, W.; Karirat, T.; Katisart, T.; Ma, N.L.; Luang-in, V. Cytotoxicity and Antiproliferative Activity of Essential Oils from Lemon, Wild Orange and Petitgrain against MCF-7, HepG2 and HeLa Cancer Cells. Not. Bot. Horti Agrobot. Cluj-Napoca 2022, 50, 12713. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Jayaprakasha, G.K.; Murthy, K.N.C.; Uckoo, R.M.; Patil, B.S. Chemical Composition of Volatile Oil from Citrus Limettioides and Their Inhibition of Colon Cancer Cell Proliferation. Ind. Crops Prod. 2013, 45, 200–207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Yan, H.C.; Hong, P.; Yu, Z.Z.; Jing, S. Evaluation of Antioxidant and Antitumour Activities of Lemon Essential Oil. J. Med. Plants Res. 2010, 4, 1910–1915. [Google Scholar]
  27. Almas, I.; Innocent, E.; Machumi, F.; Kisinza, W. Effect of Geographical Location on Yield and Chemical Composition of Essential Oils from Three Eucalyptus Species Growing in Tanzania. Asian J. Tradit. Med. 2019, 14, 1–12. [Google Scholar]
  28. Hammid, S.A.; Ahmad, F. Chemotype of Litsea Cubeba Essential Oil and Its Bioactivity. Nat. Prod. Commun. 2015, 10, 1301–1304. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  29. Maia, M.F.; Moore, S.J. Plant-Based Insect Repellents: A Review of Their Efficacy, Development and Testing PMD from Lemon Eucalyptus (Corymbia Citriodora) Extract. Malar. J. 2011, 10, S11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  30. Javed, S.; Javaid, A.; Nawaz, S.; Saeed, M.K.; Mahmood, Z.; Siddiqui, S.Z.; Ahmad, R. Phytochemistry, GC-MS Analysis, Antioxidant and Antimicrobial Potential of Essential Oil from Five Citrus Species. J. Agric. Sci. 2014, 6, 201–208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  31. Nerio, L.S.; Olivero-Verbel, J.; Stashenko, E. Repellent Activity of Essential Oils: A Review. Bioresour. Technol. 2010, 101, 372–378. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  32. Smeriglio, A.; Alloisio, S.; Raimondo, F.M.; Denaro, M.; Xiao, J.; Cornara, L.; Trombetta, D. Essential Oil of Citrus Lumia Risso: Phytochemical Profile, Antioxidant Properties and Activity on the Central Nervous System. Food Chem. Toxicol. 2018, 119, 407–416. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Denkova-Kostova, R.; Teneva, D.; Tomova, T.; Goranov, B.; Denkova, Z.; Shopska, V.; Slavchev, A.; Hristova-Ivanova, Y. Chemical Composition, Antioxidant and Antimicrobial Activity of Essential Oils from Tangerine (Citrus reticulata L.), Grapefruit (Citrus paradisi L.), Lemon (Citrus lemon L.) and Cinnamon (Cinnamomum zeylanicum Blume). Z. Fur Naturforsch.-Sect. C J. Biosci. 2021, 76, 175–185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Ambrosio, C.M.S.; Diaz-Arenas, G.L.; Agudelo, L.P.A.; Stashenko, E.; Contreras-Castillo, C.J.; da Gloria, E.M. Chemical Composition and Antibacterial and Antioxidant Activity of a Citrus Essential Oil and Its Fractions. Molecules 2021, 26, 2888. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Choi, H.S.; Sun Song, H.; Ukeda, H.; Sawamura, M. Radical-Scavenging Activities of Citrus Essential Oils and Their Components: Detection Using 1,1-Diphenyl-2-Picrylhydrazyl. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2000, 48, 4156–4161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Wungsintaweekul, J.; Sitthithaworn, W.; Putalun, W.; Pfeifhoffer, H.W.; Brantner, A. Antimicrobial, Antioxidant Activities and Chemical Composition of Selected Thai Spices. Songklanakarin J. Sci. Technol. 2010, 32, 589–598. [Google Scholar]
  37. Loizzo, M.R.; Tundis, R.; Bonesi, M.; Sanzo, G.D.; Verardi, A.; Lopresto, C.G.; Pugliese, A.; Menichini, F.; Balducchi, R.; Calabrò, V. Chemical Profile and Antioxidant Properties of Extracts and Essential Oils from Citrus × Limon (L.) Burm. Cv. Femminello Comune. Chem. Biodivers. 2016, 13, 571–581. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Hamdan, D.; El-Readi, M.Z.; Nibret, E.; Sporer, F.; Farrag, N.; El-Shazly, A.; Wink, M. Chemical Composition of the Essential Oils of Two Citrus Species and Their Biological Activities. Pharmazie 2010, 65, 141–147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Viuda-Martos, M.; Navajas, Y.R.; Zapata, E.S.; Fernánde, L. Antioxidant activity of essential oils of five spice plants widely used in a mediterranean diet. Flavour Fragr. J. 2010, 25, 13–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Monajemi, R.; Oryan, S.; Haeri-Roohani, A.; Ghannadi, A.; Jafarian, A. Cytotoxic Effects of Essential Oils of Some Iranian Citrus Peels. Iran. J. Pharm. Res. 2005, 3, 183–187. [Google Scholar]
  41. Raji, P.; Samrot, A.V.; Dharani, D.; Alexander, B. In Vitro and In Silico Approaches to Study the Bioactivity of Citrus Limon Leaf Extracts. J. Young Pharm. 2017, 9, 290–295. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  42. Elgendy, E.M.; Ibrahim, H.S.; Elmeherry, H.F.; Sedki, A.G.; Mekhemer, F.U. Chemical and Biological Comparative in Vitro Studies of Cinnamon Bark and Lemon Peel Essential Oils. Food Nutr. Sci. 2017, 08, 110–125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  43. Kulig, M.; Galanty, A.; Grabowska, K.; Podolak, I. Assessment of Safety and Health-Benefits of Citrus Hystrix DC. Peel Essential Oil, with Regard to Its Bioactive Constituents in an in Vitro Model of Physiological and Pathological Skin Conditions. Biomed. Pharmacother. 2022, 151, 113151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Gyawali, R.; Kim, K.S. Anticancer Phytochemicals of Citrus Fruits—A Review. J. Anim. Res. 2014, 4, 85–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Dosoky, N.S.; Setzer, W.N. Biological Activities and Safety of Citrus spp. Essential Oils. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2018, 19, 1966. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  46. Bora, H.; Kamle, M.; Mahato, D.K.; Tiwari, P.; Kumar, P. Citrus Essential Oils (CEOs) and Their Applications in Food: An Overview. Plants 2020, 9, 357. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  47. Saini, R.K.; Ranjit, A.; Sharma, K.; Prasad, P.; Shang, X.; Gowda, K.G.M.; Keum, Y.S. Bioactive Compounds of Citrus Fruits: A Review of Composition and Health Benefits of Carotenoids, Flavonoids, Limonoids, and Terpenes. Antioxidants 2022, 11, 239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Zapata, B.; Durán, C.; Stashenko, E.; Correa-Royero, J.; Betancur-Galvis, L. Actividad Citotóxica de Aceites Esenciales de Lippia Origanoides H.B.K. y Componentes Mayoritarios. Salud UIS 2009, 41, 215–222. [Google Scholar]
  49. Gómez, L.A.; Stashenko, E.; Ocazionez, R.E. Comparative Study on in Vitro Activities of Citral, Limonene and Essential Oils from Lippia Citriodora and L. Alba on Yellow Fever Virus. Nat. Prod. Commun. 2013, 8, 249–252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  50. Si, C.; Ou, Y.; Ma, D.; Hei, L.; Wang, X.; Du, R.; Yang, H.; Liao, Y.; Zhao, J. Cytotoxic Effect of the Essential Oils from Erigeron Canadensis L. on Human Cervical Cancer HeLa Cells in Vitro. Chem. Biodivers. 2022, 19, e202200436. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  51. Basholli-Salihu, M.; Schuster, R.; Hajdari, A.; Mulla, D.; Viernstein, H.; Mustafa, B.; Mueller, M. Phytochemical Composition, Anti-Inflammatory Activity and Cytotoxic Effects of Essential Oils from Three Pinus spp. Pharm. Biol. 2017, 55, 1553–1560. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  52. Ghosh, K. Anticancer Effect of Lemongrass Oil and Citral on Cervical Cancer Cell Lines. Pharmacogn. Commun. 2013, 3, 41–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Chang, M.Y.; Shieh, D.E.; Chen, C.C.; Yeh, C.S.; Dong, H.P. Linalool Induces Cell Cycle Arrest and Apoptosis in Leukemia Cells and Cervical Cancer Cells through CDKIs. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2015, 16, 28169–28179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  54. Anuchapreeda, S.; Chueahongthong, F.; Viriyaadhammaa, N.; Panyajai, P.; Anzawa, R.; Tima, S.; Ampasavate, C.; Saiai, A.; Rungrojsakul, M.; Usuki, T.; et al. Antileukemic Cell Proliferation of Active Compounds from Kaffir Lime (Citrus hystrix) Leaves. Molecules 2020, 25, 1300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  55. Pejin, B.; Kojic, V.; Bogdanovic, G. An Insight into the Cytotoxic Activity of Phytol at in Vitro Conditions. Nat. Prod. Res. 2014, 28, 2053–2056. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  56. Chan, W.K.; Tan, L.T.H.; Chan, K.G.; Lee, L.H.; Goh, B.H. Nerolidol: A Sesquiterpene Alcohol with Multi-Faceted Pharmacological and Biological Activities. Molecules 2016, 21, 529. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  57. Špičáková, A.; Bazgier, V.; Skálová, L.; Otyepka, M.; Anzenbacher, P. β-Caryophyllene Oxide and Trans-Nerolidol Affect Enzyme Activity of CYP3A4—In Vitro and in Silico Studies. Physiol. Res. 2019, 68, s51–s58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Legault, J.; Dahl, W.; Debiton, E.; Pichette, A.; Madelmont, J.C. Antitumor Activity of Balsam Fir Oil: Production of Reactive Oxygen Species Induced by α-Humulene as Possible Mechanism of Action. Planta Med. 2003, 69, 402–407. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Legault, J.; Pichette, A. Potentiating Effect of β-Caryophyllene on Anticancer Activity of α-Humulene, Isocaryophyllene and Paclitaxel. J. Pharm. Pharmacol. 2010, 59, 1643–1647. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Adam, R.P. Identification of Essential Oil Components by Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry, 4th ed.; Allured Publishing Corporation: Carol Stream, IL, USA, 2007; pp. 10–788. [Google Scholar]
  61. NIST Chemistry WebBook. Available online: https://webbook.nist.gov/chemistry/ (accessed on 9 September 2022).
  62. Gursoy, N.; Tepe, B.; Sokmen, M. Evaluation of the Chemical Composition and Antioxidant Activity of the Peel Oil of Citrus Nobilis. Int. J. Food Prop. 2010, 13, 983–991. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Plants 12 00134 g001 550
Figure 1. Total ion chromatograms (TICs) of four Citrus spp. leaf essential oils. (A) C. limon; (B) C. hystrix; (C) C. microcarpa; and (D) C. pyriformis. The numbering of the phytoconstituents is provided in Table S1 (Supplementary Information).
Figure 1. Total ion chromatograms (TICs) of four Citrus spp. leaf essential oils. (A) C. limon; (B) C. hystrix; (C) C. microcarpa; and (D) C. pyriformis. The numbering of the phytoconstituents is provided in Table S1 (Supplementary Information).
Plants 12 00134 g001
Plants 12 00134 g002 550
Figure 2. Relative phytochemical compositions (%) of the analyzed Citrus spp. leaf essential oils: C. limon (CL), C. hystrix (CH), C. microcarpa (CM), and C. pyriformis (CP). The constituents included monoterpenic hydrocarbon (MH), oxygenated monoterpenes (OM), sesquiterpenic hydrocarbon (SH), oxygenated sesquiterpene (OS), oxygenated diterpenes (OD), other subgroups of metabolites (OT), and unidentified compounds (UN).
Figure 2. Relative phytochemical compositions (%) of the analyzed Citrus spp. leaf essential oils: C. limon (CL), C. hystrix (CH), C. microcarpa (CM), and C. pyriformis (CP). The constituents included monoterpenic hydrocarbon (MH), oxygenated monoterpenes (OM), sesquiterpenic hydrocarbon (SH), oxygenated sesquiterpene (OS), oxygenated diterpenes (OD), other subgroups of metabolites (OT), and unidentified compounds (UN).
Plants 12 00134 g002
Plants 12 00134 g003 550
Figure 3. Principal component analysis (PCA) of the identified volatile compounds in leaf essential oils derived from four Citrus species. (A) Score plot, and (B) loading plot. C. hystrix (CH), C. limon (CL), C. pyriformis (CP), and C. microcarpa (CM). The peak numbering refers to Table S1 (Supplementary Information).
Figure 3. Principal component analysis (PCA) of the identified volatile compounds in leaf essential oils derived from four Citrus species. (A) Score plot, and (B) loading plot. C. hystrix (CH), C. limon (CL), C. pyriformis (CP), and C. microcarpa (CM). The peak numbering refers to Table S1 (Supplementary Information).
Plants 12 00134 g003
Plants 12 00134 g004 550
Figure 4. Antiproliferative activity of the four Citrus spp. leaf oils against the HeLa cervical cancer cell line. C. hystrix (CH), C. limon (CL), C. pyriformis (CP), and C. microcarpa (CM). Values are means of three replicates ± standard deviation. p-values < 0.01, as determined using one-way ANOVA.
Figure 4. Antiproliferative activity of the four Citrus spp. leaf oils against the HeLa cervical cancer cell line. C. hystrix (CH), C. limon (CL), C. pyriformis (CP), and C. microcarpa (CM). Values are means of three replicates ± standard deviation. p-values < 0.01, as determined using one-way ANOVA.
Plants 12 00134 g004
Table
Table 1. Major secondary compounds tentatively identified in Citrus spp. leaf EOs using GC-MS.
Table 1. Major secondary compounds tentatively identified in Citrus spp. leaf EOs using GC-MS.
NoCompoundsCASRNMolecular FormulaMolecular Weighta Classb Match Factor
(Reverse Match Factor)		RIrefcm/z of Significant Ions (Relative Ion Abundance)d RIcal
e (Relative Percentage Abundance, %)
CLCHCMCP
1Pinene, α-80-56-8C10H16136.13MH948 (949);
940 (943);
952 (954);
945 (948)		93593.1 (100), 91.1 (48.75), 92.1 (39.17);
93.1 (100), 91.1 (48.10), 92.1 (36.00);
93.1 (100), 91.1 (49.53), 92.1 (38.79);
93.1 (100), 91.1 (47.73), 92.1 (38.09)		930 (0.67 ± 0.01) 930 (0.14 ± 0.01)931 (1.41 ± 0.03)930 (0.60 ± 0.01)
2Sabinene3387-41-5C10H16136.13MH941 (948);
949 (955);
949 (957)		97193.1 (100), 91.1 (50.15), 77.1 (38.85);
93.1 (100), 91.1 (51.67), 77.1 (39.52);
93.1 (100), 91.1 (49.63), 77.1 (38.47)		971 (0.69 ± 0.03)972 3.02 ± 0.06)NA971 0.89 ± 0.01)
3Pinene, β-18172-67-3C10H16136.13MH948 (948);
936 (936);
941 (941);
940 (943)		97393.1 (100), 91.1 (33.03), 79.1 (26.68);
93.1 (100), 91.1 (33.43), 79.1 (26.28);
93.1 (100), 91.1 (33.39), 79.1 (26.96);
93.1 (100), 91.1 (34.28), 79.1 (25.15)		973 (1.83 ± 0.02)973 (0.16 ± 0.05)978 (7.12 ± 0.23) 973 (0.12 ± 0.02)
4Myrcene, β-123-35-3C10H16136.13MH939 (953);
949 (964);
940 (956);
949 (962)		99193.1 (100), 69.1 (61.56), 91.1 (27.58);
93.1 (100), 69.1 (60.67), 91.1 (27.67);
93.1 (100), 69.1 (60.51), 91.1 (27.26);
93.1 (100), 69.1 (60.26), 91.1 (27.74)		992 (1.78 ± 0.02)991 (0.80 ± 0.01)991 (0.28 ± 0.01)992 (1.63 ± 0.01)
53-Carene13466-78-9C10H16136.13MH934 (934);
926 (933);
904 (921);
897 (906)		100893.1 (100), 91.1 (56.18), 77.1 (35.85);
93.1 (100), 91.1 (55.54), 77.1 (44.27);
93.1 (100), 91.1 (51.84), 77.1 (33.96);
93.1 (100), 91.1 (47.73), 77.1 (35.68)		1010 (5.42 ± 0.08)1008 (0.05 ± 0.01)1008 (0.38 ± 0.01)1008 (0.03 ± 0.01)
6Limonene138-86-3C10H16136.13MH952 (953);
905 (905);
935 (936);
955 (956)		103393.1 (100), 68.2 (98.59), 67.2 (82.02);
93.1 (100), 68.2 (62.14), 67.1 (53.19);
93.1 (100), 68.1 (73.71), 67.2 (63.04);
93.2 (99.09), 68.2 (100), 67.2 (80.60)		1033 (33.57 ± 0.54)1026 (0.21 ± 0.02)1027 (1.70 ± 0.03)1038 (70.40 ± 0.46)
7Ocimene, β-13877-91-3C10H16136.13MH946 (946);
939 (939);
952 (952);
945 (945)		105093.1 (100), 91.1 (56.62), 79.1 (46.19);
93.1 (100), 91.1 (53.24), 79.1 (44.57);
93.1 (100), 91.1 (53.72), 79.1 (44.23);
93.1 (100), 91.1 (55.17), 79.1 (44.64)		1050 (1.96 ± 0.02)1048 (0.48 ± 0.01)1050 (2.36 ± 0.03)1051 (1.91 ± 0.01)
8Terpinolene586-62-9C10H16136.13MH926 (942);
919 (922);
939 (944);
922 (925)		1087121.1 (100), 93.1 (99.35), 136.2 (87.49);
121.1 (100), 136.1 (93.82), 93.1 (89.14);
121.1 (100), 93.1 (99.73), 136.1 (91.90);
121.1 (100), 93.1 (95.15), 136.2 (82.49)		1087 (1.54 ± 0.02)1086 (0.13 ± 0.01)1086 (0.13 ± 0.01)1087 (0.08 ± 0.01)
9Linalool78-70-6C10H18O154.14OM932 (932);
912 (913);
946 (946);
946 (946)		110171.1 (100), 93.1 (97.92), 55.2 (55.40);
71.1 (100), 93.1 (98.28), 55.1 (54.53);
71.1 (100), 93.1 (98.79), 55.1 (53.45);
71.1 (100), 93.1 (97.83), 55.1 (55.05)		1100 (0.73 ± 0.01)1101 (3.20 ± 0.01)1103 (2.90 ± 0.04)1101 (1.24 ± 0.01)
10Citronellal106-23-0C10H18O154.14MA925 (925);
920 (931);
909 (909);
923 (923)		115769.2 (100), 95.1 (83.95), 55.1 (47.81);
69.2 (100), 95.1 (85.86), 121.2 (48.93);
69.1 (100), 95.1 (84.22), 121.1 (47.39);
69.2 (100), 95.1 (87.03), 121.1 (48.31)		1155 (1.54 ± 0.01)1169 (77.69 ± 0.37)1154 (0.28 ± 0.01)1157 (5.64 ± 0.02)
11Isogeranial55722-59-3C10H16O152.12MA937 (959)
931 (932)		118481.1 (100), 67.1 (84.07), 109.1 (76.29);
81.1 (100), 67.1 (84.18), 109.1 (74.65)		1184 (1.20 ± 0.01) NANA1184 (0.22 ± 0.01)
12Citronellol, β-106-22-9C10H20O156.15OM937 (937);
936 (937);
905 (905);
948 (950)		123669.1 (100), 67.1 (47.78), 81.1 (36.60);
69.1 (100), 67.1 (71.79), 81.1 (66.00);
69.1 (100), 67.1 (56.05), 81.2 (59.75);
69.1 (100), 67.1 (70.83), 81.1 (65.03)		1236 (5.89 ± 0.04)1233 (3.75 ± 0.06)1229 (0.02 ± 0.01)1231 (0.64 ± 0.01)
13Citral, β-106-26-3C10H16O152.12MA949 (950);
942 (943)		124269.2 (100), 109.1 (48.27), 94.1 (38.81);
69.2 (100), 109.1 (45.21), 94.1 (37.45)		1247 (9.11 ± 0.04) NANA1243 (1.60 ± 0.01)
14Citral, α-141-27-5C10H16O152.12MA949 (949);
942 (942)		128769.2 (100), 84.1 (27.65), 94.1 (19.55);
69.2 (100), 84.1 (28.80), 94.1 (20.16)		1280 (12.02 ± 0.07) NA NA 1275 (2.03 ± 0.02)
15EIemene, δ- 20307-84-0C15H24204.19SH942 (950);
943 (951);
913 (917)		1338121.1 (100), 93.1 (53.09), 107.1 (41.12);
121.1 (100), 93.1 (65.01), 136.2 (58.35);
121.2 (100), 93.1 (67.04), 136.2 (58.88)		NA1336 (0.03 ± 0.01)1338 (3.22 ± 0.01)1337 (0.11 ± 0.01)
16Citronellol acetate150-84-5C12H22O2198.17MAc954 (954);
950 (950);
872 (881);
908 (908)		135581.1 (100), 95.1 (97.44), 69.1 (90.52);
95.1 (100), 81.1 (98.43), 69.1 (83.91);
81.1 (100), 95.1 (92.44), 69.1 (87.26);
81.1 (100), 95.1 (96.81), 69.1 (94.12)		1355 (0.14 ± 0.03)1357 (2.81 ± 0.06)1355 (0.02 ± 0.01)1355 (0.19 ± 0.01)
17Nerol acetate141-12-8C12H20O2196.15MAc934 (935);
906 (908);
907 (907);
932 (932)		136769.2 (100), 93.1 (55.87), 68.2 (38.06);
69.2 (100), 93.2 (53.09), 68.1 (34.91);
69.2 (100), 93.2 (59.57), 68.1 (38.53);
69.1 (100), 93.1 (61.17), 68.1 (41.17)		1369 (3.57 ± 0.10)1366 (0.25 ± 0.03)1366 (0.03 ± 0.01)1367 (0.73 ± 0.01)
18Geranyl acetate16409-44-2C12H20O2196.15MAc951 (958);
916 (926);
914 (914)		138669.2 (100), 68.2 (36.97), 93.1 (34.17);
69.1 (100), 68.2 (38.07), 93.1 (35.94);
69.2 (100), 68.2 (36.12), 93.1 (35.08)		1376 (2.92 ± 0.04) 1386 (0.96 ± 0.02)NA1384 (0.39 ± 0.03)
19Elemene, β-515-13-9C15H24204.19SH918 (918);
919 (921);
929 (931)		139393.1 (100), 81.1 (86.08), 67.1 (83.02);
93.1 (100), 81.1 (82.01), 107.1 (72.88);
93.1 (100), 81.1 (82.01), 107.1 (74.12)		NA1391 (0.05 ± 0.01)1392 (1.32 ± 0.01)1392 (2.78 ± 0.08)
20Caryophyllene87-44-5C15H24204.19SH923 (923);
952 (952);
937 (937);
950 (950)		141891.1 (100), 133.1 (94.72), 93.1 (83.53);
133.1 (100), 91.1 (92.12), 93.1 (87.47);
133.1 (100), 91.1 (95.02), 93.1 (82.61);
133.1 (100), 91.1 (91.34), 93.1 (85.56)		1418 (1.48 ± 0.02)1418 (0.45 ± 0.01)1419 (3.29 ± 0.01) 1418 (1.64 ± 0.03)
21Germacrene D23986-74-5C15H24204.19SH888 (902);
946 (959);
922 (936)		1480161.2 (100), 105.1 (50.92), 91.1 (47.97);
161.2 (100), 105.1 (49.83), 91.1 (47.17);
161.2 (100), 105.1 (49.62), 91.1 (47.63)		NA1479 (0.04 ± 0.01)1486 (13.04 ± 0.25)1479 (0.36 ± 0.01)
22Selinene, β-17066-67-0C15H24204.19SH948 (958);
931 (935)		1489105.1 (100), 93.2 (93.51), 107.1 (89.08);
93.2 (100), 105.1 (97.15), 107.1 (84.76)		NANA1489 (2.42 ± 0.17)1484 (0.10 ± 0.01)
23Bicyclogermacrene24703-35-3C15H24204.19SH920 (921);
920 (920);
923 (924);
918 (918)		1495
121.2 (100), 93.1 (65.23), 107.1 (48.60);
121.2 (100), 93.1 (67.06), 107.1 (51.53);
121.1 (100), 93.1 (67.78), 107.1 (51.70);
121.1 (100), 93.1 (86.30), 107.1 (52.65)		1495 (0.13 ± 0.01)1495 (0.33 ± 0.17)1497 (2.03 ± 0.38)1495 (0.14 ± 0.01)
24Elemol639-99-6C15H26O222.19OS943 (950);
950 (958);
933 (940)		154993.1 (100), 161.2 (97.07), 59.1 (93.10);
93.1 (100), 161.2 (94.41), 59.1 (82.73);
93.1 (100), 161.2 (89.99), 59.1 (88.31)		NA1548 (0.42 ± 0.05)1557 (16.67 ± 0.10)1548 (0.19 ± 0.01)
25Nerolidol40716-66-3C15H26O222.19OS863 (863);
931 (938);
941 (950);
906 (911)		156469.2 (100), 93.1 (84.83), 107.1 (51.52);
69.2 (100), 93.1 (97.66), 107.1 (66.85);
69.2 (100), 93.1 (93.98), 107.1 (64.33);
69.2 (100), 93.1 (96.15), 107.2 (66.52)		1564 (0.02 ± 0.01)1564 (0.80 ± 0.10)1567 (1.53 ± 0.01)1564 (0.09 ± 0.01)
26Eudesmol, epi-γ- 117066-77-0C15H26O222.19OS933 (951)1620189.2 (100), 162.1 (72.76), 204.2 (61.03)NANA1520 (1.70 ± 0.04) NA
27Eudesmol, γ-1209-71-8C15H26O222.19OS932 (933)1635189.2 (100), 161.2 (95.46), 204.2 (78.66)NANA1635 (5.69 ± 0.20)NA
28Eudesmol, β-473-15-4C15H26O222.19OS952 (960)1656149.2 (100), 59.2 (78.76), 164.2 (44.78)NANA1656 (8.58 ± 0.05)NA
29Eudesmol, α-473-16-5C15H26O222.19OS940 (951)1659149.2 (100), 161.2 (98.27), 204.2 (87.13)NANA1659 (3.62 ± 0.04)NA
30Phytol150-86-7C20H40O296.31OD929 (931);
911 (913);
922 (923);
929 (931)		211371.1 (100), 123.2 (43.38), 81.1 (33.37);
71.1 (100), 123.1 (44.94), 57.1 (38.08);
71.1 (100), 123.1 (44.15), 81.2 (38.00);
71.1 (100), 123.2 (47.34), 81.2 (39.51)		2113 (1.62 ± 0.12)2113 (0.21 ± 0.02)2112 (0.39 ± 0.01)2113 (0.78 ± 0.04)
a Class of chemical compounds: MH monoterpenic hydrocarbon, MA monoterpenic aldehyde, OM monoterpenic alcohol, MAc monoterpenic acetate, SH sesquiterpenic hydrocarbon, OS sesquiterpenic alcohol, OD oxygenated diterpene. b Matching scores of compounds reported at 80%, based on the mass spectra in NIST library database and in the order C. limon (CL), C. hystrix (CH), C. microcarpa (CM), and C. pyriformis (CP). c Fragmentation patterns reported in order C. limon, C. hystrix, C. microcarpa, and C. pyriformis. d Retention index (RI) values calculated using the Van Den Dool and Kratz equation with reference to the reported RI values within the range of ±10. e Relative percentage abundance calculated on the basis of the TIC area, as the percentage of the total TIC area.
Table
Table 2. Antioxidant activity of Citrus spp. leaf essential oils.
Table 2. Antioxidant activity of Citrus spp. leaf essential oils.
Citrus spp.IC50 (mg/mL)IC50 (mg/mL) *References
C. hystrix279.03 ± 10.34>0.25 [36]
C. limon29.14 ± 1.976.47 [37]
C. pyriformis39.99 ± 0.7328.91 [38]
C. microcarpa59.42 ± 1.77~0.05[13]
Ascorbic acid (control)0.43 ± 1.700.42[39]
* Values reported from previous studies.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Othman, H.I.A.; Alkatib, H.H.; Zaid, A.; Sasidharan, S.; Rahiman, S.S.F.; Lee, T.P.; Dimitrovski, G.; Althakafy, J.T.; Wong, Y.F. Phytochemical Composition, Antioxidant and Antiproliferative Activities of Citrus hystrix, Citrus limon, Citrus pyriformis, and Citrus microcarpa Leaf Essential Oils against Human Cervical Cancer Cell Line. Plants 2023, 12, 134. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants12010134

AMA Style

Othman HIA, Alkatib HH, Zaid A, Sasidharan S, Rahiman SSF, Lee TP, Dimitrovski G, Althakafy JT, Wong YF. Phytochemical Composition, Antioxidant and Antiproliferative Activities of Citrus hystrix, Citrus limon, Citrus pyriformis, and Citrus microcarpa Leaf Essential Oils against Human Cervical Cancer Cell Line. Plants. 2023; 12(1):134. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants12010134

Chicago/Turabian Style

Othman, Haneen Ibrahim Al, Huda Hisham Alkatib, Atiqah Zaid, Sreenivasan Sasidharan, Siti Sarah Fazalul Rahiman, Tien Ping Lee, George Dimitrovski, Jalal T. Althakafy, and Yong Foo Wong. 2023. "Phytochemical Composition, Antioxidant and Antiproliferative Activities of Citrus hystrix, Citrus limon, Citrus pyriformis, and Citrus microcarpa Leaf Essential Oils against Human Cervical Cancer Cell Line" Plants 12, no. 1: 134. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants12010134

APA Style

Othman, H. I. A., Alkatib, H. H., Zaid, A., Sasidharan, S., Rahiman, S. S. F., Lee, T. P., Dimitrovski, G., Althakafy, J. T., & Wong, Y. F. (2023). Phytochemical Composition, Antioxidant and Antiproliferative Activities of Citrus hystrix, Citrus limon, Citrus pyriformis, and Citrus microcarpa Leaf Essential Oils against Human Cervical Cancer Cell Line. Plants, 12(1), 134. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants12010134

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