This article was downloaded by: [Mohamed Elyes Kchouk]On: 11 August 2014, At: 01:28Publisher: Taylor & FrancisInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Natural Product Research: FormerlyNatural Product LettersPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/gnpl20

Effect of bioclimatic area on thecomposition and bioactivity of TunisianRosmarinus officinalis essential oilsMariem Ben Jemiaa, Rosa Tundisb, Alessandro Puglieseb, FrancescoMenichinib, Felice Senatorecd, Maurizio Brunoe, Mohamed ElyesKchouka & Monica Rosa Loizzob

a Laboratoire des Plantes Extremophiles – Biotechnologic CenterBorj-Cedria Technopark, B.P. 901, 2050 Hammam-Lif, Tunisiab Department of Pharmacy, Health Sciences and Nutrition,University of Calabria, I-87036 Rende (CS), Italyc Department of Chemistry of Natural Products, University ofNaples “Federico II”, Via D. Montesano, 49-80131 Naples, Italyd Department of Pharmacy, University of Naples “Federico II”, ViaD. Montesano, 49-80131, Naples, Italye Department STEBICEF, University of Palermo, Viale delleScienze, Parco d'Orleans II, 90128 Palermo, ItalyPublished online: 07 Aug 2014.

To cite this article: Mariem Ben Jemia, Rosa Tundis, Alessandro Pugliese, Francesco Menichini,Felice Senatore, Maurizio Bruno, Mohamed Elyes Kchouk & Monica Rosa Loizzo (2014): Effect ofbioclimatic area on the composition and bioactivity of Tunisian Rosmarinus officinalis essential oils,Natural Product Research: Formerly Natural Product Letters, DOI: 10.1080/14786419.2014.942305

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14786419.2014.942305

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,

proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to orarising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [M

oham

ed E

lyes

Kch

ouk]

at 0

1:28

11

Aug

ust 2

014

Effect of bioclimatic area on the composition and bioactivity of TunisianRosmarinus officinalis essential oils

Mariem Ben Jemiaa, Rosa Tundisb*, Alessandro Puglieseb, Francesco Menichinib,Felice Senatorecd, Maurizio Brunoe, Mohamed Elyes Kchouka and Monica Rosa Loizzob

aLaboratoire des Plantes Extremophiles – Biotechnologic Center Borj-Cedria Technopark, B.P. 901, 2050Hammam-Lif, Tunisia; bDepartment of Pharmacy, Health Sciences and Nutrition, University of Calabria,I-87036 Rende (CS), Italy; cDepartment of Chemistry of Natural Products, University of Naples “FedericoII”, Via D. Montesano, 49-80131 Naples, Italy; dDepartment of Pharmacy, University of Naples “FedericoII”, Via D. Montesano, 49-80131 Naples, Italy; eDepartment STEBICEF, University of Palermo, Vialedelle Scienze, Parco d’Orleans II, 90128 Palermo, Italy

(Received 6 June 2014; final version received 3 July 2014)

The chemical composition of eight Tunisian Rosmarinus officinalis L. populations(A–H) from different bioclimatic areas has been examined by gas chromatography(GC) and GC-mass spectrometry. The essential oils are characterised by high amountsof oxygenated monoterpenes (58.2–71.7%) followed by monoterpene hydrocabons(15.1–26.7%). 1,8-Cineole, camphor, a-pinene and borneol are the mainrepresentative components. The antioxidant activity was investigated by 2,2-diphenyl-1-picrylhydrazyl radical (DPPH), ferric reducing ability power assay andb-carotene bleaching test. Samples showed antiradical activity by inhibiting DPPHradical with IC50 values ranging from 375.3 to 592.8mgmL21 for samples F and A,respectively. Sample A also showed the most promising activity in b-carotenebleaching test (IC50 of 31.9mgmL21). The essential oils were also screened foracetylcholinesterase (AChE) and butyrylcholinesterase (BChE) inhibitory activity.Sample G showed the highest activity against AChE (IC50 of 64.7mgmL21) whilesample D (IC50 of 29.5 mgmL21) exhibited the most potent activity against BChE.

Keywords: Rosmarinus officinalis; essential oil; GC-MS analysis; antioxidantproperties; cholinesterase inhibitory activity

1. Introduction

Rosmarinus officinalis L. (Lamiaceae) is an aromatic evergreen shrub widely distributed in theMediterranean area. Several factors, such as place of collection, time of harvest, environmentaland agronomic conditions and method of extraction, affect the chemical composition ofR. officinalis essential oil (Jordan et al. 2013). The Tunisian R. officinalis essential oil chemicalcomposition was previously investigated (Zaouali et al. 2010; Jordan et al. 2011, 2013; Yosret al. 2013).

However, these studies did not highlight significantly differences among varieties orpopulation or distribution. In Tunisia, R. officinalis grows mainly in sub-humid, semi-aridsuperior and arid superior bioclimatic stages according to Emberger’s classification (Emberger1996). Several works reported the ability of rosemary essential oil as a memory enhancer and totreat cognitive disorders, including neurodegenerative diseases such as Alzheimer’s disease(AD) (Adsersen et al. 2006; Posadas et al. 2009). The current treatment for AD is restricted to

q 2014 Taylor & Francis

*Corresponding author. Email: rosa.tundis@unical.it

Natural Product Research, 2014

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14786419.2014.942305

Dow

nloa

ded

by [M

oham

ed E

lyes

Kch

ouk]

at 0

1:28

11

Aug

ust 2

014

drugs whose principal action is to augment the availability of the neurotransmitter acetylcholinevia the inhibition of either the cholinesterase group of enzymes (acetylcholinesterase, AChE,and butyrylcholinesterase, BChE). Many human diseases including AD are caused by oxidativestress and several essential oils have been shown to be effective as natural antioxidants (Beal1995; Loizzo et al. 2009a). In this study we screened the chemical composition, antioxidantproperties and cholinesterase inhibitory activity of eight essential oils obtained fromR. officinalis representative of the global distribution area of the species in Tunisia. Theknowledge of the Tunisian rosemary could help to promote additional resources to ruralpopulations according to their local natural resources.

2. Results and discussion

R. officinalis analysed in this work was collected in different bioclimatic stages according toEmberger’s rainfall temperature coefficient, Q2 ¼ 2000P/M 2 2 m 2, in which P is the mean ofannual rainfall (mm),M is the mean of maximal temperatures for the hottest month and m is themean of minimal temperatures for the coldest month (Emberger 1996).

Qualitative and quantitative differences in the composition of R. officinalis essential oil wereobserved (Table 1). Seventy-two compounds were identified which represent 94.9–97.7% of thevolatile components. The oxygenated monoterpenes represent the most abundant fraction in allanalysed samples with percentage in the range of 58.2–71.7% followed by monoterpenehydrocarbons (15.1–26.7%). Among monoterpene hydrocarbons, a-pinene is the mainrepresentative component. In the oxygenated fraction, 1,8-cineole is the most abundantcompound followed by camphor. 1,8-Cineole was identified as the main abundant compound inall samples except sample F that was characterised by the presence of camphor as principalconstituent. In all samples the main components of the sesquiterpene fraction were trans-caryophyllene and d-cadinene. Other identified compounds are a-humulene and g-muurolene.According to previous studies, the yield of oil extraction and the total content of volatiles are notaffected by the different bioclimatic area in which plants are collected (Zaouali et al. 2010;Jordan et al. 2011, 2013; Yosr et al. 2013). Zaouali et al. (2010) described the variation inessential oil yielded from Tunisian R. officinalis var. typicus and R. officinalis var.troglodytorum, growing in different bioclimatic areas. In disagreement with our results thatdid not evidence modification, the oil yield for the variety typicus was higher in upper semi-aridzones than that obtained from sub-humid regions. The same author evidenced that variations inthe chemical composition of the oil should be attributed almost exclusively to varieties ratherthan bioclimatic conditions. On the contrary, Tigrine-Kordjani et al. (2012), who analysed thechemical composition of 32 R. officinalis samples collected at the same time from different sitesin the north of Algeria, highlighted a strong correlation between the chemical composition andthe place of collection. Elamrani et al. (2000) studied the R. officinalis essential oils fromMorocco finding three different chemotypes: a-pinene-chemotype, camphor-chemotype and the1,8-cineole-chemotype. Eight-seventy populations of rosemary collected in Spain wereinvestigated (Varela et al. 2009). Among these samples, 38 showed 1,8-cineole contentof . 24%, 6 showed high 1,8-cineole/linalool ratio and 3 samples had high linalool content. Amore recent study reported the chemical variability of R. officinalis samples collected in south-eastern part of Spain, identifying three major chemotypes: 1,8-cineol-a-pinene-camphor;camphor-1,8-cineole-a-pinene and 1,8-cineole-camphor-a-pinene (Jordan et al. 2011). Thesame trend was observed in our samples. Papageorgiou et al. (2008) investigated the chemicalcomposition of Greece R. officinalis oil. 1,8-Cineole, borneol and a-terpineol were the principalconstituents.

The antioxidant activity of R. officinalis essential oils was analysed by: 2,2-diphenyl-1-picrylhydrazyl radical (DPPH), ferric reducing ability power (FRAP) assay and b-carotene

2 M. Ben Jemia et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [M

oham

ed E

lyes

Kch

ouk]

at 0

1:28

11

Aug

ust 2

014

Table

1.Chem

ical

constituentsoftheessential

oilsfrom

eightR.officinalispopulation.

RIa

RIb

Compound

AB

CD

EF

GH

I.m.c

928

1014

Tricyclene

0.1

trtr

trtr

0.5

0.4

0.4

1,2

931

1023

a-Thujene

trtr

trtr

trtr

tr1,2

938

1032

a-Pinene

7.1

9.5

8.3

8.0

9.1

10.4

10.1

9.4

1,2,3

953

1076

Cam

phene

2.1

3.2

3.0

2.9

3.0

11.1

10.4

9.1

1,2,3

980

1118

b-Pinene

3.0

2.5

3.2

1.7

2.1

0.8

0.9

0.8

1,2,3

993

1174

Myrcene

0.7

0.6

0.7

0.6

0.7

0.4

0.4

0.5

1,2,3

1005

1150

a-Phellandrene

trtr

trtr

tr0.2

tr1,2

1011

1159

d-3-Carene

t1,2

1012

1189

a-Terpinene

0.5

0.5

0.5

tr0.6

0.5

0.6

0.6

1,2,3

1020

1187

o-Cymene

0.2

1,2

1025

1278

p-Cymene

0.2

1.4

2.1

0.2

2.7

1,2,3

1038

1045

(Z)-b-ocimene

tr1,2

1049

1265

(E)-b-O

cimene

trtr

tr1,2

1057

1256

g-Terpinene

0.6

0.5

0.7

0.5

0.5

0.6

0.8

0.7

1,2,3

1086

1265

Terpinolene

1.0

0.3

0.3

t0.3

0.3

0.3

1,2,3

Monoterpenes

15.1

19.3

16.7

15.1

16.3

26.7

24.5

24.2

1034

1213

1,8-Cineole

52.6

44.9

51.4

39.1

50.3

23.2

25.9

26.0

1,2,3

1063

1555

cis-Sabinenehydrate

tr0.2

trtr

tr0.2

tr1,2

1086

1474

trans-Sabinenehydrate

trtr

trtr

tr1,2

1098

1553

Linalool

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.6

tr1,2,3

1120

1592

Fenchylalcohol

trtr

trtr

1,2

1128

1498

a-Cam

pholenal

tr1,2

1145

1532

Cam

phor

7.8

8.0

7.2

12.0

10.5

27.5

21.1

24.3

1,2,3

1167

1719

Borneol

4.1

6.2

5.9

10.0

5.9

3.3

6.0

4.4

1,2,3

1176

1611

Terpinen-4-ol

0.8

0.7

0.8

0.8

0.8

1.0

1.1

1.2

1,2,3

1189

1706

a-Terpineol

3.5

2.6

3.1

3.1

3.3

1.7

1.6

2.1

1,2,3

1286

1567

Bornylacetate

0.6

2.1

0.9

1.3

0.3

3.5

4.2

2.1

1,2,3

Oxygenated

monoterpenes

69.4

65.2

69.9

67.0

71.7

58.2

60.1

60.0

1352

1466

a-Cubebene

tr0.3

0.4

0.4

0.3

1,2

1373

1493

a-Y

langene

trtr

trtr

0.1

trtr

1,2

1377

1497

a-Copaene

0.4

0.5

0.6

tr0.6

1,2

1415

1612

trans-Caryophyllene

4.1

7.7

3.5

4.1

4.3

1.1

2.1

2.4

1,2,3

1422

1565

b-Y

langene

trtr

trtr

tr1,2

(Continued

)

Natural Product Research 3

Dow

nloa

ded

by [M

oham

ed E

lyes

Kch

ouk]

at 0

1:28

11

Aug

ust 2

014

Table

1.(Continued

)

RIa

RIb

Compound

AB

CD

EF

GH

I.m.c

1437

1628

Aromadendrene

tr0.1

tr1,2

1455

1689

a-H

umulene

0.6

1.1

1.0

0.7

0.7

tr0.2

0.3

1,2

1466

1656

9-epi-(E)-Caryophyllene

trtr

1,2

1475

1715

b-Selinene

0.1

tr1,2

1476

1669

g-G

urjunene

trtr

tr1,2

1478

1704

g-M

uurolene

0.4

0.4

0.6

0.6

0.5

0.5

0.2

1,2

1487

1679

a-A

morphene

trtr

tr1,2

1490

1612

b-G

uaiene

trtr

1,2

1493

1698

d-Selinene

trtr

tr0.2

1,2

1494

1740

Valencene

0.3

trtr

tr1,2

1503

1740

a-M

uurolene

trtr

trtr

trtr

1,2

1509

1746

cis-(Z)-a-Bisabolene

tr1,2

1515

1776

g-Cadinene

0.3

0.2

0.6

1.0

0.4

1,2

1526

1773

d-Cadinene

1.1

1.0

1.5

1.8

1.3

1.2

0.8

1.7

1,2

1533

1802

Cadina-1,4-diene(Cubenene)

0.1

trtr

trtr

tr1,2

1535

2093

a-Cadinene

0.1

trtr

tr1,2

1542

1918

a-Calacorene

trtr

trtr

0.1

0.2

0.1

0.3

1,2

1629

1611

Calarene

trtr

0.6

1,2

Sesquiterpenes

7.5

10.8

7.7

8.8

7.3

4.1

3.9

5.8

1578

2150

Spathulenol

0.3

tr1,2,3

1580

2008

Caryophylleneoxide

1.4

1.2

1.7

0.8

0.5

0.4

1,2,3

1632

2371

Caryophylla-3,8(13)-dien-5a-ol

0.3

1.0

tr0.7

0.4

1,2

1638

2185

g-Eudesmol

0.9

0.8

1,2

1640

2316

Caryophylla-4(12),8(13)-dien-5b-ol;

CaryophylladienolI

0.4

0.2

tr0.6

0.4

t1,2

1640

2185

t-Cadinol

0.7

0.5

1.2

tr0.8

0.6

1,2

1642

2209

t-Muurolol

trtr

trtr

0.3

0.3

1,2

1645

2145

Torreyol

tr0.1

t1,2

1648

2258

b-Eudesmol

0.2

1.1

1.3

1.0

1,2

1649

2255

a-Cadinol

trtr

tr0.1

1,2

1653

2252

a-Eudesmol

0.3

0.2

1.7

3.0

1.5

1,2

Oxygenated

sesquiterpenes

3.3

2.5

0.7

4.2

1.2

4.4

5.8

4.6

1293

2198

Thymol

trtr

trtr

tr0.2

0.3

1,2,3

1299

2239

Carvacrol

0.2

trtr

trtr

0.3

0.1

1,2,3

4 M. Ben Jemia et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [M

oham

ed E

lyes

Kch

ouk]

at 0

1:28

11

Aug

ust 2

014

1353

2186

Eugenol

tr0.2

trtr

0.2

0.2

tr1,2,3

1396

2296

Isoeugenol

tr1,2

1405

2031

Methyleugenol

0.4

0.3

0.5

tr0.5

1.1

0.8

1.0

1,2

Phenols

0.6

0.5

0.5

t0.5

1.3

1.5

1.4

1287

1593

2-U

ndecanone

tr0.1

trtr

0.1

tr1,2

1302

1797

40 -Methoxyacetophenone

trtr

trtr

tr0.2

tr1,2,3

1908

7-Ethenyl-1,2,3,4,4a,5,6,7,

8,9,10,10a-dodecahydro-1,1,4a,7-

tetram

ethylphenanthrene

tr0.2

1,2

1943

2185

Cem

brene

0.1

tr0.4

1,2

1989

2393

Manoyloxide

0.3

1,2

2054

2524

Abietatriene

0.3

0.2

0.4

0.3

0.1

tr1,2

2329

trans-Ferruginol

0.3

0.4

0.4

0.4

0.4

0.2

0.3

0.2

1,2

Others

1.0

0.9

1.2

0.4

0.7

0.2

0.7

0.2

Total

96.9

97.3

96.7

95.7

97.7

94.9

96.5

96.2

aRetentionindices

relativeto

C8–C24n-alkanes

ontheHP5MScolumn.

bRetentionindices

relativeto

C8–C24n-alkanes

ontheHPInnowax

column.

c1,Com

parisonofretentiontimes;2,ComparisonofmassspectrawithMSlibraries;3,Com

parisonwithauthenticcompounds;tr,trace(,

0.05%).

Natural Product Research 5

Dow

nloa

ded

by [M

oham

ed E

lyes

Kch

ouk]

at 0

1:28

11

Aug

ust 2

014

bleaching test (Table 2). All the oils showed antiradical activity by inhibiting DPPH radicalswith IC50 values ranging from 375.3 to 592.8mgmL21 for samples F and A, respectively.Previously, Beretta et al. (2011) analysed the DPPH radical scavenging activity of ItalianR. officinalis at the flowering, post-flowering and vegetative stages finding IC50 values of 36.78,79.69 and 111.94mgmL21, respectively.

In b-carotene bleaching test, overall results were better than those provided by the radicalscavenging activity. Sample A exhibited the most promising activity with an IC50 value of31.9mgmL21. Wang et al. (2008) investigated the antioxidant activity of the main constituentpresent in R. officinalis essential oil. In the DPPH test, free radical scavenging activity ofR. officinalis essential oil, 1,8-cineole, a-pinene and b-pinene, was determined to be 62.45, 42.7,45.61 and 46.21% (v/v), respectively. In the b-carotene bleaching test system, IC50 values weredetermined as 2.04, 4.05, 2.28 and 2.56% (v/v) for R. officinalis essential oil, 1,8-cineole,a-pinene and b-pinene, respectively. A concentration–response relationship was observed forall samples in the FRAP assay. Values ranging from 1.0 to 23.0mM Fe(II) g21 for E and Fsamples, respectively, were found.

A variety of plants have been reported to show cholinesterase inhibitory activity and so maybe relevant to the treatment of neurodegenerative disorders such as AD (Loizzo et al. 2008).

The inhibition of the two key enzymes in AD treatment, AChE and BChE, was herein testedby Ellman’s colorimetric assay. Rosemary oils showed a concentration– responserelationship. As reported in Table 2, sample G exhibited the most promising activity againstAChE with an IC50 of 64.7mgmL21 followed by sample B (IC50 of 98.2mgmL21). Theinvestigation on the activity on BChE is of certain interest since in late stages of AD, levels ofAChE decline by up to 85% and BChE represents the predominant cholinesterase in the brain sois the isoform that will be inhibited to obtain a pro-cholinergic effect. In our study, oils exhibitedlower inhibitory activity against BChE than against AChE, except for sample D (IC50 of29.5mgmL21). Moss et al. (2003) reported that rosemary essential oil produced a significantenhancement of memory performance and overall quality of memory in healthy adult volunteers.These pieces of evidence moved several researchers to investigate the cholinesterase inhibitoryactivity of R. officinalis from different geographical areas. Mata et al. (2007) investigated theAChE inhibitory activity of R. officinalis oil from Portugal finding an IC50 of 69.8mgmL21

while Orhan et al. (2008) investigated the cholinesterase inhibitory effect of TurkishR. officinalis oil finding a higher inhibition towards BChE than towards AChE with a percentageof inhibition of 63.7 and 74%, respectively, at 1mgmL21. A moderate cholinesterase activitywas observed by Perry et al. (1996) who reported an AChE percentage of inhibition of 16.8% at0.1ml mL21. A recent study demonstrated that rosemary powder at the dose nearest normalculinary consumption had positive effects on speed of memory (Pengelly et al. 2012). Althoughmany of the major identified compounds were found to be active against AChE and BChE(Satomi et al. 2009; Bonesi et al. 2010), these compounds are in low concentration and areaffected by synergistic or antagonistic interaction (Savelev et al. 2003). The findings revealedthat the bioactivity is a result of a complex interaction between oil constituents, which produceboth synergistic and antagonistic responses between the main components. Understanding suchinteractions is important in comparing species on the basis of chemical composition.

3. Experimental

3.1. Chemicals and reagents

Solvents of analytical grade were purchased from VWR International s.r.l. (Milan, Italy). DPPH,ascorbic acid, ABTS solution, Trolox, b-caroten, linoleic acid, Tween 20, propyl gallate,tripyridyltriazine (TPTZ), FeCl3, FeSO4, butylated hydroxytoluene (BHT), 5,50-dithiobis (2-nitrobenzoic-acid), butyrylthiocholine iodide, acetylthiocholine iodide, physostigmine, AChE

6 M. Ben Jemia et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [M

oham

ed E

lyes

Kch

ouk]

at 0

1:28

11

Aug

ust 2

014

Table

2.AntioxidantactivityofR.officinalisessential

oils.

DPPH

assay

(IC50mgmL21)

b-Carotene

bleachingtest

(IC50mgmL21)

FRAP

assay

(mM

Fe(II)g21)

AChE

BChE

SI

(BChE/AChE)

Essential

oil

A592.8^

2.2

a31.9^

1.3a

16.1^

2.4

a498.9^

2.8

a924.2^

4.8

a1.9

B582.7^

2.4

a98.4^

2.2a

3.4^

2.7

a98.2^

1.9

a346.7^

3.8

a3.5

C435.5^

3.1

a76.7^

1.2a

10.5^

1.0

a200.5^

2.1

a697.8^

4.9

a3.5

D343.1^

2.0

a.

100

7.8^

0.8

a122.8^

1.4

a29.5^

1.5

a0.2

E520.1^

3.3

a97.0^

1.8a

1.0^

0.2

a478.0^

2.3

a918.2^

5.3

a1.9

F375.7^

1.9

a90.7^

2.2a

23.0^

2.3

a108.8^

1.5

a122.7^

1.7

a1.1

G471.4^

3.5

a98.7^

2.0a

15.9^

1.0

a64.7^

1.2

a353.1^

2.9

a5.4

H375.3^

2.0

a86.2^

2.5a

14.9^

0.9

a227.2^

2.6

a647.4^

3.8

a0.3

Positivecontrol

Ascorbic

acid

5.0^

0.07

Propylgallate

1.0^

0.04

BHT

63.2^

2.3

Physostigmine

0.2^

0.02

2.4^

0.04

12

Notes:Dataareexpressed

asmeans

^S.D.(n¼

3).DPPH:one-way

ANOVA***p

,0.0001(F

¼76,260,R

2¼

1.0)followed

byamulti-comparisonDunnett’stest:ap,

0.01compared

withascorbicacid;b-Carotenebleachingtest:one-way

ANOVA***p

,0.0001(F

¼1084,R

2¼

0.998)followed

byamulti-comparisonDunnett’stest:ap,

0.01compared

withpropyl

gallate;FRAP:One-way

ANOVA***p

,0.0001(F

¼535.5,R

2¼

0.996)followed

byamulti-comparison

Dunnett’stest:ap,

0.01compared

withBHT.AChE,acetylcholinesterase

Assay;BChE,butyrylcholinesterase

assay.A

ChE:one-way

ANOVA***p

,0.0001(F

¼41,600,R

2¼

0.999)followed

byamulti-comparisonDunnett’stest:ap,

0.01compared

with

physostigmine,BChE:one-way

ANOVA

***p,

0.0001(F

¼189,100,R

2¼

1.0)followed

byamulti-comparisonDunnett’stest:ap,

0.01compared

withphysostigmine.

Natural Product Research 7

Dow

nloa

ded

by [M

oham

ed E

lyes

Kch

ouk]

at 0

1:28

11

Aug

ust 2

014

from Electrophorus electricus (EC 3.1.1.7, Type VI-S) and BChE from equine serum(EC 3.1.1.8) were purchased from Sigma-Aldrich S.p.A. (Milan, Italy).

3.2. Plant material and extraction procedure

R. officinalis populations were collected in different bioclimatic areas and are representative ofthe global distribution of the species in Tunisia. Plant samples were identified by Prof. M.E.Kchouk (Centre of Biotechnologie of Borj Cedria Technopark. Tunisia) (Table 3). The essentialoils were obtained by hydrodistillation for 3 h, using a Clevenger-type apparatus (Clevenger1928). The oils were dried and stored under N2 at þ48C in brown bottles until they wereanalysed and tested.

3.3. GC and GC-MS analyses

Analytical gas chromatography (GC) was carried out on a Perkin-Elmer Sigma 115 gaschromatograph fitted with a HP-5 MS capillary column as previously described (Zito et al.2013). GC-MS analysis was performed on an Agilent 6850 Ser. II apparatus (AgilentTechnologies, Inc., Santa Clara, CA, USA), as described elsewhere (Zito et al. 2013).

3.4. DPPH radical scavenging activity assay

Radical scavenging capacity was determined as previously reported (Loizzo et al. 2009b).Decolourisation of DPPH was determined at 517 nm. Ascorbic acid was used as positive control.

3.5. b-Carotene bleaching test

Antioxidant activity was determined as previously described (Loizzo et al. 2009a). Propylgallate was used as positive control. The measurement was carried out at initial time (t ¼ 0) andsuccessively at 30 and 60min.

3.6. Ferric reducing ability power assay

The FRAP method measures the reduction of (2,4,6-tripyridyl-s-triazine (TPTZ))-Fe3þ to theTPTZ-Fe2þ in the presence of antioxidants. Briefly, FRAP reagent containing 2.5mL of 10mM

Table 3. Place of collection and essential oil % yield of Tunisian R. officinalis populations selected for thestudy.

Samples Place of collectionBioclimaticzone Q2

a Latitude LongitudeAltitude(m)

Essentialoil % yield

A Fadj Atfal Sh 70–110 358210N 98150E 763 1.32B Dj. Zaghouan Sh 70–110 368260N 108190E 1295 1.71C Dj. Fragha Sh 70–110 358520N 98010E 742 1.33D Dj. Khamess Sh 70–110 358990N 98460E 143 1.56E Dj. Chaambi Usa 45–70 358160N 98 060E 935 1.36F El Aamra Usa 45–70 338520N 108120E 291 1.38G Matmata (Bni Zoltan) Ua 10–45 338550N 108100E 202 1.01H Toujane Ua 10–45 338460N 108140E 720 0.71

Note: Bioclimatic zones were defined according to Emberger’s classification [12].a Pluviothermic coefficient Q2 ¼ 2000P/M2 2 m 2 where P is the average of annual rainfall (mm), M is the mean ofmaximal temperature (K) for the warmest month (July) and m is the average of minimal temperature (K) for the coldestmonth (February). Sh, sub-humid; Usa, upper semi-arid; Ua, upper arid.

8 M. Ben Jemia et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [M

oham

ed E

lyes

Kch

ouk]

at 0

1:28

11

Aug

ust 2

014

TPTZ solution in 40m mol L21 of HCl plus 2.5mL of 20mM of FeCl3 and 25mL of 0.3Macetate buffer was freshly prepared. BHT was used as positive control.

3.7. Cholinesterase inhibition assay

Cholinesterase (AChE and BChE) inhibiting activities were measured by slightly modifyingEllman’s method (Loizzo et al. 2009a). Physostigmine was used as positive control. Results arereported in Table 2.

3.8. Statistical analysis

The concentration giving 50% inhibition (IC50) was calculated by nonlinear regression with theuse of Prism GraphPad version 4.0 for Windows (GraphPad Software, San Diego, CA, USA).The concentration–response curve was obtained by plotting the percentage inhibition versusconcentration. Differences within and between groups were evaluated by one-way analysis ofvariance (ANOVA) test followed by a multi-comparison Dunnett’s test compared with thepositive controls.

4. Conclusions

Eight R. officinalis essential oils were investigated for their chemical composition andbioactivity. Samples were obtained from three different bioclimatic zones of Tunisia. Seventy-two compounds were identified. Oxygenated monoterpenes represent the most abundantfraction. Our results are in agreement with several works reported in the literature that evidencedhow the yield of oil extraction and the total content of volatiles are not affected by the differentbioclimatic areas in which plants are collected. Essential oils showed in vitro cholinesteraseinhibitory activities and antioxidant effects. Our results confirm that food plant-derived naturalcompounds are an important source for the development of cholinesterase inhibitors useful in thetreatment of neurodegenerative diseases.

Acknowledgements

The GC and GC-MS analyses were performed at the ‘C.S.I.A.S.’ of the University ‘Federico II’, Napoli.The assistance of the staff is gratefully appreciated.

References

Adsersen A, Gauguin B, Gudiksen L, Jager AK. 2006. Screening of plants used in Danish folk medicine to treat memory

dysfunction for acetylcholinesterase inhibitory activity. J Ethnopharmacol. 104:418–422.

Beal MF. 1995. Aging, energy, and oxidative stress in neurodegenerative diseases. Ann Neurol. 38:357–366.

Beretta G, Artali R, Facino RM, Gelmini F. 2011. An analytical and theoretical approach for the profiling of theantioxidant activity of essential oils: the case of Rosmarinus officinalis L. J Pharm Biomed Anal. 55:1255–1264.

Bonesi M, Menichini F, Tundis R, Loizzo MR, Conforti F, Passalacqua NG, Statti G, Menichini F. 2010.

Acetylcholinesterase and butyrylcholinesterase inhibitory activity of Pinus species essential oils and theirconstituents. J Enz Inhib Med Chem. 25:622–628.

Clevenger JF. 1928. Apparatus for the determination of volatile oils. J Am Pharm Assoc. 17:341–346.

Elamrani A, Zrira S, Benjilali B. 2000. A study of Moroccan rosemary oils. J Ess Oil Res. 12:487–495.

Emberger L. 1996. Une classification biogeographique des climats. Recherches et Travaux des Laboratoires de Geologie,Botanique et Zoologie. Faculte des Science Montpellier (France). 7:1–43.

Jordan MJ, Lax V, Martınez C, Aouissat M, Sotomayor JA. 2011. Chemical intraspecific variability and chemotypes

determination of Rosmarinus officinalis L. in the region of Murcia. Acta Hort. 925:109–114.

Jordan MJ, Lax V, Rota MC, Loran S, Sotomayor JA. 2013. Effect of bioclimatic area on the essential oil compositionand antibacterial activity of Rosmarinus officinalis L. Food Control. 30:463–468.

Natural Product Research 9

Dow

nloa

ded

by [M

oham

ed E

lyes

Kch

ouk]

at 0

1:28

11

Aug

ust 2

014

Loizzo MR, Menichini F, Conforti F, Tundis R, Bonesi M, Saab AM, Statti GA, de Cindio B, Houghton PJ, Menichini F,

Frega NG. 2009a. Chemical analysis, antioxidant, antiinflammatory and anticholinesterase activities ofOriganum

ehrenbergii Boiss and Origanum syriacum L. essential oils. Food Chem. 117:174–180.

Loizzo MR, Said A, Tundis R, Hawas UW, Rashed K, Menichini F, Frega NG, Menichini F. 2009b. Antioxidant andantiproliferative activity of Diospyros lotus L. extract and isolated compounds. Plant Foods Hum Nutr.

64:264–270.

LoizzoMR, Tundis R, Menichini F, Menichini F. 2008. Natural products and their derivatives as cholinesterase inhibitorsin the treatment of neurodegenerative disorders: an update. Curr Med Chem. 15:1209–1228.

Mata AT, Proenc C, Ferreira AR, Serralheiro MLM, Nogueira JMF, Araujo MEM. 2007. Antioxidant and

antiacetylcholinesterase activities of five plants used as Portuguese food spices. Food Chem. 103:778–786.

Moss M, Cook J, Wesnes K, Duckett P. 2003. Aromas of rosemary and lavender essential oils differently affect cognitionand mood in healthy adults. Int J Neurosci. 113:15–38.

Orhan I, Aslan S, Kartal M, Sener B, Husnu Can Basser K. 2008. Inhibitory effect of Turkish Rosmarinus officinalis L. on

acetylcholinesterase and butyrylcholinesterase enzymes. Food Chem. 108:663–668.

Papageorgiou V, Gardeli C, Mallouchos A, Papaioannou M, Komaitis M. 2008. Variation of the chemical profile andantioxidant behavior of Rosmarinus officinalis L. and Salvia fruticosa Miller grown in Greece. J Agric Food

Chem. 56:7254–7264.

Pengelly A, Snow J, Mills SY, Scholey A, Wesnes K, Butler LR. 2012. Short-term study on the effects of rosemary oncognitive function in an elderly population. J Med Food. 15:10–17.

Perry NSL, Court G, Bidet N, Court J, Perry EK. 1996. European herbs with cholinergic activities: potential in dementia

therapy. Int J Geriatr Psychiatry. 11:1063–1069.

Posadas SJ, Caz V, Largo C, De la Gandara B, Matallanas B, Reglero G, De Miguel E. 2009. Protective effect ofsupercritical fluid rosemary extract, Rosmarinus officinalis, on antioxidants of major organs of aged rats. Exp

Gerontol. 44:383–389.

Satomi D, Masanori T, Masakazu M. 2009. Acetylcholinesterase inhibitory activity and chemical composition of

commercial essential oils. J Agric Food Chem. 57:4313–4318.Savelev S, Okello E, Perry NSL, Wilkins RM, Perry EK. 2003. Synergistic and antagonistic interactions of

anticholinesterase terpenoids in Salvia lavandulaefolia essential oil. Pharmacol Biochem Behav. 75:661–668.

Tigrine-Kordjani N, Meklati BY, Chemat F, Guezil FZ. 2012. Kinetic investigation of rosemary essential oil by twomethods: solvent-free microwave extraction and hydrodistillation. Food Anal Methods. 5:596–603.

Varela F, Navarrete P, Cristobal R, Fanlo M, Melero R, Sotomayor JA, Jordan MJ, Cabot P, Sanchez de Ron D, Calvo R,

Cases A. 2009. Variability in the chemical composition of wild Rosmarinus officinalis L. Acta Hort.

826:167–174.Wang W, Wu N, Zu YG, Fu YJ. 2008. Antioxidative activity of Rosmarinus officinalis L. essential oil compared to its

main components. Food Chem. 108:1019–1022.

Yosr Z, Hnia C, Rim T, Mohamed B. 2013. Changes in essential oil composition and phenolic fraction in Rosmarinus

officinalis L. var. typicus Batt. organs during growth and incidence on the antioxidant activity. Ind Crops Prod.43:412–419.

Zaouali Y, Bouzaine T, Boussaid M. 2010. Essential oils composition in two Rosmarinus officinalis L. varieties and

incidence for antimicrobial and antioxidant activities. Food Chem Toxicol. 48:3144–3152.

Zito P, Sajeva M, Scirica E, BrunoM, Rosselli S, Maggio A, Senatore F. 2013. Essential oils of Chiliadenus lopadusanusBrullo (Asteraceae). Nat Prod Commun. 8:1159–1162.

10 M. Ben Jemia et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [M

oham

ed E

lyes

Kch

ouk]

at 0

1:28

11

Aug

ust 2

014