Plant Foods for Human Nutrition

, Volume 74, Issue 3, pp 364–369 | Cite as

Sorbus umbellata (Desf.) Fritsch var. umbellata Leaves: Optimization of Extraction Conditions and Investigation Antimicrobial, Cytotoxic, and β-Glucuronidase Inhibitory Potential

  • Dilek Demirbuker KavakEmail author
  • Bilge Akdeniz
Original Paper


This study aimed to optimize the extraction conditions for Sorbus umbellata (Desf.) Fritsch var. umbellata leaves to maximize the phenolic content and their antioxidant activity and to investigate β-glucuronidase (GUS) enzyme inhibitory, antimicrobial and cytotoxic potentials of the extracts obtained under optimum conditions. The optimum extraction conditions were found to be 78.2 and 79.7% solvent, 73.1 and 71.5 °C, and 89.9 and 88.8 min to maximize phenolic content and antioxidant activity, respectively. Low values of coefficient of variations indicate the high reliability and reproducibility of the conducted extraction experiments. Bioactivity results showed that extracts had cytotoxic effect on the MCF-7 and A549 cells where the highest cell proliferation inhibition was observed for the A549 cell line (71.8% at 150 μg/mL). Staphylococcus aureus showed highest zone of inhibition (19.3 mm) in all bacteria followed by Escherichia coli. Additionally, extracts displayed potential GUS inhibitory activity. In conclusion, Sorbus umbellata leaf extract can be obtained by optimized cost-saving extraction and has a potential bioactivity to be utilized as a food ingredient for high value-added products and/or nutraceuticals development where it can combat oxidative stress and GUS mediated reactive metabolite formation.


Extraction Optimization Sorbus umbellata Antioxidant Antibacterial Cytotoxicity 



The authors gratefully acknowledge the financial support of the Afyon Kocatepe University Scientific Research Projects Coordinatory Unit (Project No: 12.TEMATIK.05).

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

Authors have no conflict of interest to declare.

Supplementary material

11130_2019_743_MOESM1_ESM.docx (19 kb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 18 kb)
11130_2019_743_MOESM2_ESM.docx (13 kb)
ESM 2 (DOCX 13 kb)
11130_2019_743_MOESM3_ESM.docx (17 kb)
ESM 3 (DOCX 17 kb)
11130_2019_743_MOESM4_ESM.docx (14 kb)
ESM 4 (DOCX 13 kb)
11130_2019_743_MOESM5_ESM.docx (12 kb)
ESM 5 (DOCX 12 kb)
11130_2019_743_Fig1_ESM.png (4.1 mb)

Response surface for the effects of independent variables on total phenolic content TP (R1) and radical scavenging activity AA% (R2). (a) R1 according to solvent concentration and extraction temperature, (b) R1 according to extraction temperature and time, (c) R2 according to extraction temperature and time, (d) R2 according to solvent concentration and extraction temperature (PNG 4166 kb)

11130_2019_743_MOESM6_ESM.tif (376 kb)
High Resolution (TIF 375 kb)
11130_2019_743_MOESM7_ESM.docx (18 kb)
ESM 7 HPLC chromatogram of Sorbus leaf extract (3:catechin hydrate, 5:chlorogenic acid, 6:caffeic acid, 7:epicatechin, 10:p-coumaric acid, 11:ferulic acid, 15: rutin, 21:quercetin) (DOCX 18 kb)
11130_2019_743_Fig2_ESM.png (1 mb)

β-Glucuronidase inhibitory effects of Sorbus leaf extract (5–150 μg/mL) (PNG 1050 kb)

11130_2019_743_MOESM8_ESM.tif (413 kb)
High Resolution (TIF 413 kb)
11130_2019_743_Fig3_ESM.png (1.3 mb)

Cytotoxicity results in terms of cell proliferation inhibiton (%) of Sorbus leaf extract (5–150 μg/mL) against MCF-7 breast adenocarcinoma cell line, and 549 lung adenocarcinoma cell line (PNG 1370 kb)

11130_2019_743_MOESM9_ESM.tif (457 kb)
High Resolution (TIF 456 kb)


  1. 1.
    Korkut S, Güller B, Aytın A, Kök MS (2009) Turkey’s native wood species: physical and mechanical characterization and surface roughness of rowan. (Sorbus aucuparia L). Wood Res 54:19–30Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Gültekin HC, Alan M (2007) Türkiye’nin üvezleri. Floraplus Dergisi 12:76–82 in TurkishGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Fakir H, Korkmaz M, Güller B (2009) Medicinal plant diversity of Western Mediterrenean region in Turkey. J App Bio Sci 3(2):30–40Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kültür Ş (2007) Medicinal plants used in Kırklareli Province (Turkey). J Ethnopharmacol 111:341–364CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Janghu S, Bera MB, Nanda V, Rawson A (2017) Study on power ultrasound optimization and its comparison with conventional thermal processing for treatment of raw honey. Food Technol Biotech 55:570–579. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Akdeniz B, Kavak DD, Bağdatlıoğlu N (2012) Use of factorial experimental design for analyzing the effect of storage conditions on color quality of sun-dried tomatoes. Sci Res Essays 7:477–489. Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Demir H, Sezer S, Süfer Ö (2017) Determination of factors affecting total color change of onion slices during drying using response surface methodology. Gıda 42(6):731–742. Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Wijangaard HH, Brunton N (2010) The optimization of solid-liquid extraction of antioxidants from apple pomace by response surface methodology. J Food Eng 96:134–140. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Pompeu DR, Silva EM, Rogez H (2009) Optimisation of the solvent extraction of phenolic antioxidants from fruits of Euterpe oleracea using response surface methodology. Bioresour Technol 100:6076–6082. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Spigno G, De Faveri DM (2007) Antioxidants from grape stalks and marc: influence of extraction procedure on yield, purity and antioxidant power of the extracts. J Food Eng 78:793–801. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Çam M, Aaby K (2010) Optimization of extraction of apple pomace phenolics with water by response surface methodology. J Agric Food Chem 58:9103–9111. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Singleton VL, Orthofer R, Lamuela-Raventós RM (1999) Analysis of total phenols and other oxidation substrates and antioxidants by means of Folin-Ciocalteu reagent. Method Enzymol 299:152–178. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kavak DD (2017) Optimization of extraction time, temperature and solvent concentration for the antioxidant activity and total phenolic content of the Cydonia oblonga mill. leaves. Am-Eurasian J Sustain Agric 11(6):1–6Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Sekikawa C, Kurihara H, Goto K, Takahashi K (2002) Inhibition of β-Glucuronidase by extracts of Chondria crassicaulis. Bulletin of the Faculty of Fisheries, Hokkaido University 53(1):27–30Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Wu Y, Wang X, Xue J, Fan E (2017) Plant phenolics extraction from Flos chrysanthemi: response surface methodology based optimization and the correlation between extracts and free radical scavenging activity. J Food Sci 82:2726–2733. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Montgomery DC (2001) Design and analysis of experiments. John Wiley and Sons Inc, 5th Ed, New York, USA, pp 218–276Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Aslan N, Cebeci Y (2007) Application of Box–Behnken design and response surface methodology for modeling of some Turkish coals. Fuel 86:90–97. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Khajeh M, Moghaddam MG, Danesh AZ, Khajeh B (2015) Response surface modeling of betulinic acid pre-concentration from medicinal plant samples by miniaturized homogenous liquid–liquid extraction and its determination by high performance liquid chromatography. Arab J Chem 8:400–406. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Majd MH, Rajaei A, Bashi DS, Mortazavi SA, Bolourian S (2014) Optimization of ultrasonic-assisted extraction of phenolic compounds from bovine pennyroyal (Phlomidoschema parviflorum) leaves using response surface methodology. Ind Crop Prod 57:195–202. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Hukkanen AT, Pölönen SS, Karenlampi SO, Kokko HI (2006) Antioxidant capacity and phenolic content of sweet rowanberries. J Agric Food Chem 54:112–119. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Olszewska MA, Presler A, Michel P (2012) Profiling of phenolic compounds and antioxidant activity of dry extracts from selected Sorbus species. Molecules 17:3093–3113. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Olszewska MA (2011) In vitro antioxidant activity and total phenolic content of the inflorescences, leaves and fruits of Sorbus torminalis (L.) Crantz. Acta Pol Pharm 68:945–953Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Shang YF, Kim SM, Um BH (2014) Optimisation of pressurised liquid extraction of antioxidants from black bamboo leaves. Food Chem 154:164–117. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Başpınar Y, Üstündaş M, Bayraktar O, Sezgin C (2017) Response surface methodology for extraction of curcumin from turmeric and piperine from black pepper. CBU J Sci 13(3):747–754. Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Samuagam L, Sia CM, Akowuah GA, Okechukwu PN, Yim HS (2013) The effect of extraction conditions on total phenolic content and free radical scavenging capacity of selected tropical fruits’ peel. Health Environ J 4:80–102Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Rostagno MA, Palma M, Barroso CG (2004) Pressurized liquid extraction of isoflavones from soybeans. Anal Chim Acta 522:169–177. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Radojkovic M, Zekovic Z, Jokic S, Vidovic S (2012) Determination of optimal extraction parameters of mulberry leaves using response surface methodology (RSM). Rom Biotech Lett 17:7295–7308Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Kavak DD, Ülkü S (2015) Kinetic and equilibrium studies of adsorption of β-glucuronidase by clinoptilolite-rich minerals. Process Biochem 50:221–229. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Cacace JE, Mazza G (2003) Mass transfer process during extraction of phenolic compounds from milled berries. J Food Eng 59:379–389. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Jimenez P, Cabrero P, Basterrechea JE, Tejero J, Cordoba-Diaz D, Cordoba-Diaz M, Girbes T (2014) Effects of short-term heating on total polyphenols, anthocyanins antioxidant activity and lectins of different parts of dwarf elder (Sambucus ebulus L.). Plant Foods Hum Nutr 69:168–174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Dong J, Liu Y, Liang Z, Wang W (2010) Investigation on ultrasound-assisted extraction of salvianolic acid B from Salvia miltiorrhiza root. Ultrason Sonochem 17:61–65. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Olszewska MA (2008) Separation of quercetin, sexangularetin, kaempferol and isorhamnetin for simultaneous HPLC determination of flavonoid aglycones in inflorescences, leaves and fruits of three Sorbus species. J Pharmaceut Biomed 48:629–635. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Rutkowska M, Owczarek A, Kolodziejczyk-Czepas J, Michel P, Piotrowska DG, Kapusta P, Nowak P, Olszewska MA (2019) Identification of bioactivity markers of Sorbus domestica leaves in chromatographic, spectroscopic and biological capacity tests: application for the quality control. Phytochem Lett 30:278–287CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Ji L, Jiang P, Lu B, Sheng Y, Wang X, Wang Z (2013) Chlorogenic acid, a dietary polyphenol, protects acetaminophen-induced liver injury and its mechanism. J Nutr Biochem 24:1911–1919CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Marcela A. Vazquez-Prieto MA, Bettaieb A, . Haj FG, Fraga CG,, Oteiza PI, (2012) Epicatechin prevents TNFα-induced activation of signaling cascades involved in inflammation and insulin sensitivity in 3T3-L1 adipocytes. Arch Biochem Biophy 527:113-118CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Engineering Faculty, Food Engineering DepartmentAfyon Kocatepe UniversityAfyonkarahisarTurkey

Personalised recommendations