Next Article in Journal
Biological and Pharmacological Potential of Xylitol: A Molecular Insight of Unique Metabolism
Next Article in Special Issue
The Quality of Greek Oregano (O. vulgare L. subsp. hirtum (Link) Ietswaart) and Common Oregano (O. vulgare L. subsp. vulgare) Cultivated in the Temperate Climate of Central Europe
Previous Article in Journal
Unripe Black Raspberry (Rubus coreanus Miquel) Extract and Its Constitute, Ellagic Acid Induces T Cell Activation and Antitumor Immunity by Blocking PD-1/PD-L1 Interaction
Previous Article in Special Issue
(E)-Piplartine Isolated from Piper pseudoarboreum, a Lead Compound against Leishmaniasis
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Foods
Volume 9
Issue 11
10.3390/foods9111591
foods-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 thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Allelopathic Potential and Active Substances from Wedelia Chinensis (Osbeck)

by
Kawsar Hossen
1,2,
Krishna Rany Das
1,2,3,
Shun Okada
1,2,
Arihiro Iwasaki
4,
Kiyotake Suenaga
4 and
Hisashi Kato-Noguchi
1,2,*
1
Department of Applied Biological Science, Faculty of Agriculture, Kagawa University, Miki, Kagawa 761-0795, Japan
2
The United Graduate School of Agricultural Sciences, Ehime University, 3-5-7 Tarumi, Matsuyama 790-8566, Japan
3
Department of Entomology, Faculty of Agriculture, Bangladesh Agricultural University, Mymensingh 2202, Bangladesh
4
Department of Chemistry, Faculty of Science and Technology, Keio University, 3-14-1 Hiyoshi, Kohoku, Yokohama 223-8522, Japan
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Foods 2020, 9(11), 1591; https://doi.org/10.3390/foods9111591
Submission received: 25 September 2020 / Revised: 29 October 2020 / Accepted: 30 October 2020 / Published: 2 November 2020
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Isolation and Identification of Bioactive Secondary Metabolites)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Wedelia chinensis (Asteraceae) is a wetland herb native to India, China, and Japan. It is a valuable medicinal plant recorded to have pharmaceutical properties. However, the phytotoxic potential of Wedelia chinensis has not yet been examined. Thus, we carried out this study to establish the allelopathic effects of Wedelia chinensis and to identify its phytotoxic substances. Extracts of Wedelia chinensis exhibited high inhibitory activity against the root and shoot growth of cress, alfalfa, rapeseed, lettuce, foxtail fescue, Italian ryegrass, timothy, and barnyard grass. The inhibition was varied with species and was dependent on concentrations. The extracts were separated through several purification steps, and the two effective substances were isolated and characterized as vanillic acid and gallic acid using spectral analysis. Vanillic acid and gallic acid significantly arrested the growth of cress and Italian ryegrass seedlings. The concentrations of vanillic acid and gallic acid needed for 50% inhibition (I50 values) of the seedling growth of the cress and Italian ryegrass were 0.04–15.4 and 0.45–6.6 mM, respectively. The findings suggest that vanillic acid and gallic acid may be required for the growth inhibitory activities of Wedelia chinensis.

Graphical Abstract

1. Introduction

Organic farming emerged at the beginning of the 20th century as an alternative agricultural method to demote the hazardous effect of nonnatural herbicides on the environment and people [1,2]. Natural substances are used in organic farming, and at the same time, the use of synthetic substances is banned or severely restricted [3]. Organic farming needs various types of agricultural crop that help to sustain beneficial microorganisms in the soil and to enhance soil conservation to increase farm production. Accordingly, weeds should be controlled without applying chemical herbicides that cause enormous problems [4]. Thus, searching for nature-based product alternatives to synthetic herbicides is now a pressing issue to control weeds, which is a major impediment to crop production [5,6]. In light of these concerns, allelopathy can be explored and used as alternative weed management over synthetic herbicides [7]. Many studies have reported on the use of phytotoxic substances as a nature-friendly approach to weed management [7,8,9].
The perennial herb Wedelia chinensis from the Asteraceae family is usually named Wedelia in Chinese, bhringraj in Hindi, and manjal karisalanganni in Tamil [10]. Wedelia chinensis is a climbing herb that is introduced in submerged areas in Assam, Uttar, and Andhra Pradesh and in offshore areas of India. It is also grown in the Madras Presidency of India, Japan, and China [11,12]. The herb is a fragile, expanding, and hairy-type plant, with branches usually up to 50 cm long.
The leaf architecture is simple, arranged oppositely with subsessile leaflets and short, white hairs. Its flower is an axillary head and yellow. The fruits are nearly oval with hairs on the surface [13,14,15]. The literature reports that different parts (leaves, stems, and roots) of Wedelia chinensis are applied as hepatoprotection and a cholagogue and as folk medicine to treat various diseases such as diarrhea, jaundice, cough, diphtheria, headache, and pertussis; to help relieve mental stress; and to promote sleep [16,17]. Conventionally, the leaves, stems, and fruits are used in childbirth and to treat bites and stings, kidney dysfunction, fever, amenorrhea, infection, and wounds [18]. Leave extracts are a natural way to generally apply anti-inflammatory medicines such as Dolonex (Piroxicam) Brufen, and Voveran [13].
Pharmacological investigations have revealed that Wedelia chinensis had effects on diterpenoids, sesquiterpenes, triterpenoids, flavonoids, organic acids, and steroids [19,20] and has antioxidant [21,22], anti-inflammatory and antimicrobial [23], and anticancer effects [24]. Moreover, Wedelia chinensis is a common garden herb that tends to form a community, and field investigations have shown that there are few weeds in its community [25]. Although Wedelia chinensis is known to contain many pharmaceutical features, the allelopathic effects of this plant have not yet been recorded in the literature. Therefore, the study was conducted to explore the allelopathy and to identify the allelochemicals from Wedelia chinensis.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Plant Material Collection

The Wedelia chinensis is a perennial climbing-type herb that is grown in the submerged and seashore areas of subtropical regions. The whole plants (except roots) of Wedelia chinensis were collected from the Botanical Garden of Bangladesh Agricultural University (BAU), Mymensingh, Bangladesh in August and September 2016. The species was identified by Sarwar Abul Khayer Mohammad Golam (Department of Crop Botany, BAU) at voucher number BGBAU 16MP-0003 deposited in the Medicinal Plant Herbarium, Botanical Garden, BAU. All of the plant parts were cleaned under running water, dried in the shade to prevent scorching from sunshine, and then ground into powder with a grinder. The plant powder was put into a polybag and kept at 2 °C before extraction.

2.2. Test Plant Species

Eight test plants (including both crop and weed species) were used in this experiment for biological assay: lettuce (Lactuca sativa L.), alfalfa (Medicago sativa L.), cress (Lepidium sativum L.), rapeseed (Brassica napus L.), Italian ryegrass (Lolium multiflorum Lam.), barnyard grass (Echinochloa crus-galli (L.) P. Beauv.), foxtail fescue (Vulpia myuros (L.) C.C. Gmel.), and timothy (Phleum pratense L.). These species were selected based on their noted growth pattern (alfalfa, lettuce, cress, and rapeseed), susceptibility to allelopathic substances, and abundance (Italian ryegrass, foxtail fescue, timothy, and barnyard grass) in crop fields as weeds.

2.3. Extraction

The Wedelia chinensis powder (1.60 kg) was extracted utilizing 8 L of 70% (v/v) aqueous methanol. The plant extracts were filtered onto a single layer of filter paper (No. 2; Toyo Roshi Ltd., Tokyo, Japan). Plant residues were extracted again for one day with the equivalent amount of methanol (100%) and filtered. Both filtrates were mixed and evaporated until dry using a rotary evaporator at 40 °C.

2.4. Growth Bioassay

The extracts of Wedelia chinensis were diluted into 300 mL of methanol to make six test concentrations as 1, 3, 10, 30, 100, and 300 mg DW (dry weight) equivalent extract/mL. Aliquots of the extract were applied to the single sheet of filter paper (No. 02) into Petri dishes (28 mm) at assay concentrations and kept in a draft chamber to desiccate the methanol. The filter paper was then soaked with 0.6 mL (v/v) aqueous solution of Tween 20 (polyoxyethylene sorbitan monolaurate; Nacalai, Kyoto, Japan) in each Petri dish to serve as a surfactant. Ten seeds of lettuce, alfalfa, cress, and, rapeseed, and 10 pre-emergence seeds of timothy, Italian ryegrass, barnyard grass, and foxtail fescue (incubated in dark condition for 68 h, 48 h, 46 h, and 72 h, respectively, at the temperature of 25 °C) were placed onto the filter paper in the Petri dishes. The control treatments were prepared for the seeds and pre-emergence seeds with an aqueous mixture of polyoxyethylene sorbitan monolaurate without the extracts. After two days of incubation in dark condition at 25 °C, the growth of the all tested plants were estimated. The seedling percentage length of seedlings was determined based on the length of the control seedlings. The concentration needed for 50% growth inhibition (I50 values) was determined for each species using a logistic regression equation of the concentration–response curves. Throughout this experiment, the assay was performed with three replications for each model plant and replicated twice (10 seeds or pre-germinated seeds/replication).

2.5. Extract Partitions

The Wedelia chinensis extracts were evaporated at 40 °C with a rotary evaporator to make an aqueous residue, and pH of the residues was modified to 7.0 by using 1 Molar (M) phosphate buffer. The plant extracts were then partitioned eight times with an equivalent amount of EtOAc (ethyl acetate) and divided into H2O (aqueous) and EtOAc fractions. A bioassay was set with cress seeds to measure the phytotoxic effects of H2O and EtOAc fractions.

2.6. Isolation and Purification of the Active Substances

After saturating overnight with sodium sulphate, the EtOAc (ethyl acetate) fraction was evaporated to dryness. The extract residues were loaded into a silica gel column (60 g of silica gel 60, 70–230 mesh; Nacalai Tesque, Kyoto, Japan) and eluted with n-hexane with increasing quantities of EtOAc (increased 10%/step (v/v), in 150 mL/step) and 300 mL methanol. The repressing effects of all fractions were calculated through the cress assay, as previously stated. In the column of silica gel, the most active fractions were obtained from 60, 70, and 80% EtOAc in n-hexane and EtOAc, which were mixed together and then evaporated until complete dryness; purified through a column of Sephadex LH-20 (GE Healthcare Bio-Science AB, SE-75184, Uppsala, Sweden); and rinsed with 20, 30, 40, 50, 60, and 80% (v/v) aqueous methanol (150 mL/step) and 300 mL methanol. The highest active fraction was eluted with 40% aqueous methanol (Figure 1), then evaporated until dry, diluted in 20% (v/v) aqueous methanol, and burdened into a reverse-phase C18 cartridge (YMC Co. Ltd., Kyoto, Japan). The C18 cartridge was rinsed with 20, 30, 40, 50, 60, and 80% (v/v) aqueous methanol and cold methanol. The highest active fraction was rinsed with 50% aqueous methanol, which was then refined with reverse phase high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) (5 µm, 4.6 × 250 mm I.D., Inertsil® ODS-3; GL Science Inc., Tokyo, Japan). The HPLC column was rinsed with 20% (v/v) aqueous methanol at a flow rate of 0.8 mL/min. The active substances were determined at the wavelength of 220 nm and at the oven temperature of 40 °C from 62 to 100 min retention time as a colorless substance (substance 1) and from 65 to 70 min retention time as a whitish substance (substance 2). Both substances were characterized using high resolution electrospray ionisation mass spectrometry (HRESIMS), proton nuclear magnetic resonance (1H-NMR), and specific rotation.

2.7. Bioassay of the Isolated Substances

The extracted compounds were diluted in methanol to make final bioassay concentrations: 0.003, 0.01, 0.03, 0.1, 0.3, and 1 mM of substance 1 and 0.03, 0.1, 0.3, 1, 3, 10, and 30 mM of substance 2 were applied to filter paper (No. 2, 28 mm; Toyo Roshi Ltd., Tokyo, Japan) in Petri dishes (28 mm) and kept in a draft chamber to desiccate the solvent. The growth inhibitory activity of the isolated compounds, as previously described, were calculated using cress and Italian ryegrass. The I50 values for these compounds against the tested plant species were determined as mentioned above.

2.8. Statistics

Each assay experiment was conducted with three replications and replicated twice in a completely randomized block design. The resulting data were analyzed using SPSS software version 16.0 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA). The data that were obtained from each experiment were then subjected to analysis of variance (ANOVA), and the significant differences between the mean of treatments and control were calculated using a post hoc Tukey’s test with least significant difference (LSD) test at 5% level of probability.

3. Results

3.1. Allelopathic Effects of Wedelia chinensis on the Seedling Growth of the Tested Plant Species

The aqueous methanol extracts of Wedelia chinensis suppressed the seedling growth of the tested plants (lettuce, cress, rapeseed, alfalfa, barnyard grass, Italian ryegrass, timothy, and foxtail fescue) at various concentrations (Figure 2). The growth seedlings of all the tested plants (other than barnyard grass) were completely arrested (100%) in the concentration of 300 mg DW equivalent extract of Wedelia chinensis/mL. When the tested plants were exposed to the concentration of 100 mg DW equivalent extract of W. chinensis/mL, the lettuce seedlings were completely inhibited and the shoot and root growth of alfalfa, rapeseed, cress, barnyard grass, Italian ryegrass, timothy, and foxtail fescue were restricted to 9, 2.9, 6, 10.6, 12.1, 14.3, 7.4, and 0.2% growth compared with the control shoots and 8.7, 1.3, 4.1, 4.4, 0.1, 5.7, and 5.6% growth compared with the control roots, respectively. The growth inhibition of the tested plants was different at other concentrations (Figure 2). These findings indicated that the Wedelia chinensis extracts suppressed the seedling growth of both the dicots and monocots species, and the inhibition of growth increased when the concentration of the extracts increased. The I50 values varied at 3.3–42.2 (for shoots) and 8.7–48 mg (for roots) DW equivalent extract/mL for tested species (Table 1). The lettuce seedling was the most susceptible to the extracts based on I50 values, and the least sensitive was the barnyard grass shoots and alfalfa roots. These findings suggest that the growth inhibition by the Wedelia chinensis extract varied among the tested plants. The concentration-dependent and species-specific inhibitory effects of Wedelia chinensis extracts indicate that this plant might contain an allelopathic potential and might therefore possess allelochemicals.

3.2. Identification of the Phytotoxic Substances

In the partitioning purification step, the H2O and EtOAc fraction of the Wedelia chinensis extracts displayed concentration-dependent growth inhibitory effects against the growth of cress seedlings, but a higher inhibitory effect was found in the EtOAc fraction (Figure 3). Thus, the EtOAc fraction was again purified using various chromatographic proceedings (column of silica gel, Sephadex LH-20 column, and reverse-phase C18 cartridges), and for each purification proceeding, the inhibitory activity was measured using a cress bioassay. Using the reverse-phase of HPLC in the bottommost purification step, two phytotoxic compounds were isolated. The phytotoxic substances were identified based on NMR and spectral analysis of the data and by comparison with the previously recorded data.
The molecular formula of substance 1 was determined as C8H7O4 using HRESIMS m/z 167.0348 [M-H]− (calcd for C8H7O4, 167.0348, ∆ = +0.4 mmu); 1H NMR (400 MHz, CD3OD) δH 7.56 (d, J = 1.6 Hz, 1 H, H3), 7.55 (dd, J = 9.4, 1.6 Hz, 1 H, H7), 6.83 (d, J = 9.4 Hz, 1 H, H6), 3.89 (s, 3 H, H8). Substance 1 was identified as vanillic acid (Figure 4) by comparing the data with those of the previously reported in the literature [26].
The molecular formula of substance 2 was determined as C7H5O5 using HRESIMS m/z 169.0749 [M-H]− (calcd for C7H5O5, 169.0749); 1H NMR (400 MHz, CD3OD) δH 7.05 (s, 2 H, H2, 6); 13C NMR (100 MHz, CD3OD) δC 170.4 (C–7), 146.4 (C–3, 5), 139.6 (C–4), 122.0 (C–1), 110.3 (C–2, 6). Substance 2 was identified as gallic acid (Figure 4) by comparing the data with those of the previously reported in the literature [27].

3.3. Biological Activity of the Isolated Substances

The biological activity of vanillic acid and gallic acid were tested against cress and Italian ryegrass. The obtained results of the assay exhibited that the growth of the cress and Italian ryegrass seedlings was significantly impaired by both compounds (Figure 5 and Figure 6). The level of inhibition by the isolated compounds increased with increasing concentration, suggesting that the inhibition was dose dependent. Vanillic acid and gallic acid significantly restricted the growth of the cress seedlings at concentrations of 0.03 and 3 mM, respectively (Figure 5 and Figure 6). Vanillic acid had the highest inhibition (12% of control) against the growth of the cress shoots and roots at a concentration of 1 mM, whereas gallic acid exhibited maximum suppression of the growth of the cress shoots and roots at 12.8 and 7.8% of control growth, respectively, at a concentration of 30 mM (Figure 5 and Figure 6). In contrast, vanillic acid and gallic acid significantly arrested the seedling growth of Italian ryegrass at concentrations of 0.1 and 3 mM, respectively (Figure 5 and Figure 6). At 1 mM, vanillic acid showed maximum inhibition against the growth of the Italian ryegrass shoots and roots at 39.4 and 38.9% of control, respectively, while gallic acid displayed maximum suppression against the growth of the shoots and roots at 16.9 and 2.8%, respectively, compared with control growth at a concentration of 30 mM.
The I50 values of vanillic acid against cress shoot and root were 0.04 and 0.05 mM, respectively, (Table 2) which are about 12- and 9-times higher, respectively than that for the Italian ryegrass shoots (0.47 mM) and roots (0.45 mM). In contrast, the I50 values of gallic acid against Italian ryegrass shoot and root were 6.6 and 2.3 mM, respectively, (Table 2) which are roughly 2.3- and 6-times lower, respectively, than that for the cress shoot (15.4 mM), and root (13.8 mM). The I50 values show that vanillic acid had greater growth inhibitory effects against both tested species compared with gallic acid. In addition, the cress shoot and root displayed greater susceptibility to vanillic acid than that of Italian ryegrass, and the Italian ryegrass showed higher sensitivity to gallic acid than cress.

3.4. Discussion

The present study showed the phytotoxic activities of aqueous methanol extracts of Wedelia chinensis, which significantly restricted the seedlings growth of eight tested species: lettuce, alfalfa, cress, rapeseed, barnyard grass, Italian ryegrass, timothy, and foxtail fescue (Figure 2). Phytotoxic effects increased with increasing extract concentration. Our results corroborate other research studies [28,29,30,31,32,33], which reported the concentration-dependent and species-specific growth inhibitory activities of various plant extracts. These findings suggested that the growth inhibitory effects of the plant extracts indicate the presence of phytotoxic substances. The extracts in this study were subjected to chromatographic fractionations, and two substances were isolated and characterized using spectral analysis as vanillic acid and gallic acid. These two substances are phenolic compounds. Phenolic substances are the most common classes of phytochemicals that have important morphophysiological significance in various plants and exhibit various biological activities like anti-inflammatory, antimicrobial, and antioxidant effects [34]. Phenolic substances are the most significant phytochemicals that are involved in allelopathy [35,36]. The development of secondary metabolites, particularly phenolic substances, is important for the survival of plants and help to improve their self-defense and plant protection [37].
Vanillic acid is present in various fruits, cereal grains, olives, and different plants, along with beer, cider, wine [38,39], Gardeniae fructus [40], potato [41], red propolis [42], palm plant [43], Juglans regia [44], Angelica sinensis [45,46], Chenopodium murale [47], pumpkin seeds [48], Melilotus messanensis [49], orchard grass [50], and Poliomintha longiflora [51]. Vanillic acid is commonly used in different food preservatives, additives and flavoring agents and in the perfume industry [52]. It also plays an important role in protein and fatty acid biosynthesis [53]. Vanillic acid is applied as an antibacterial agent [54,55]; is a natural antioxidant in vegetables, fruits, and other plants [44,56]; is also used in antiapoptotic, hypotensive, hepatoprotective, cardioprotective roles and in the regulation of genes [57,58,59]. It is also commonly used in prescriptive Chinese drug [60]. Although vanillic acid has been identified in different plants and its allelopathic activity is well documented [61,62,63,64,65], this is the first report on vanillic acid from Wedelia chinensis.
Gallic acid is present in fruits and vegetables [66]; gallnuts, grapes, and blackberries [67]; eucalyptus species and Picea schrenkiana [68]; tea [69]; chestnuts and several berries [51]; Myriophyllum spicatum, Cynomorium coccineum, and Microcystis aeruginosa [70,71]; and black tea [72]. It has many medicinal uses such as antimicrobial [73], neuroprotection [74], antioxidant [75,76], anticancer [77,78], and antiulcer [79] uses and for cardiovascular diseases (CVDs) [80]. Furthermore, gallic acid has lipid homeostasis [81] and antihyperglycemic effects [82] and acts as a cardioprotective agent [83,84]. Gallic acid is also used in the food industry; in manufacturing inks, paints, and dyes; and in cinematography [85]. Gallic acid has been identified in various plants, and its allelopathic potential has also been shown in many studies [86,87,88,89], but this is the first report on gallic acid in Wedelia chinensis so far.
The I50 values show that the inhibitory activity of vanillic acid against the growth of cress and Italian ryegrass was stronger than that of gallic acid. The disparity in phytotoxic activity might be due to the difference between their chemical structures as the phytotoxic activity of allelopathic compounds is determined based on their structural variations [90,91]. Vanillic acid and gallic acid (a derivative of benzoic acid) contain a benzene ring. In vanillic acid, an OH group, an OCH3 group, and a COOH group are found on the benzene ring, and gallic acid has three OH groups and one COOH group but no OCH3 group. Research on the relationships between structure and activity showed that the number and location of OH and OCH3 groups determine the phytotoxic effects of benzoic acid [92]. In addition, hydroxy and methoxy substituents in the benzene ring have been reported to either decrease or increase the phytotoxic effects of benzoic acid [93]. However, a compound to drug should have amphipathic characteristics, including aqueous solubility and sufficient lipid solubility. Vanillic acid and gallic acid both have excellent aqueous solubility due to their COOH group. However, the methoxy group in vanillic acid increases more lipid solubility than that of the hydroxyl group present in gallic acid, which may be the reason that vanillic acid shows stronger inhibitory effects compared to the gallic acid.
Therefore, the growth inhibitory potential of vanillic acid and gallic acid lead to the phytotoxicity of Wedelia chinensis. Hence, the phytotoxic effects of Wedelia chinensis allow this plant to develop vigorously with minimal weed infestation because it inhibits nearby plants by releasing allelopathic substances.

4. Conclusions

The obtained results from the study suggested that Wedelia chinensis possesses potent phytotoxic effects, repressing the growth of lettuce, alfalfa, cress, rapeseed, barnyard grass, Italian ryegrass, timothy, and foxtail fescue. Two phytotoxic compounds, vanillic acid and gallic acid, were isolated from the aqueous methanol extracts of Wedelia chinensis. Vanillic acid and gallic acid significantly impeded the growth of cress and Italian ryegrass seedlings. This is the first report on the phytotoxic activity of Wedelia chinensis. Our research indicated that Wedelia chinensis can be used for the biological control of weeds, which may help to develop organic farming.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, K.H. and H.K.-N.; methodology, K.H., A.I., K.S., K.R.D., S.O., and H.K.-N.; software, K.H. and K.R.D.; validation, A.I., K.S., K.R.D., S.O., and H.K.-N.; formal analysis, K.H. and K.R.D.; investigation, K.H.; Resources, H.K.-N.; data curation, H.K.-N.; writing—original draft preparation, K.H.; writing—review and editing, H.K.-N.; visualization, K.H.; supervision, H.K.-N. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This study was funded by a MEXT scholarship, grant number MEXT-193490, from the government of Japan to carry out the research in Japan.

Acknowledgments

The authors are thankful to Dennis Murphy, The United Graduate School of Agricultural Sciences, Ehime University, Japan, for editing the English of the manuscript.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Jabran, K.; Mahajan, G.; Sardana, V.; Chauhan, B.S. Allelopathy for weed control in agricultural systems. Crop. Prot. 2015, 72, 57–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Santos, P.C.; Santos, V.H.M.; Mecina, G.F.; Andrade, A.R.; Fegueiredo, P.A.; Moraes, V.M.O.; Silva, L.P.; Silva, R.M.G. Phytotoxicity of Tegetes erecta L. and Tegetes patula L. on plant germination and growth. S. Afr. J. Bot. 2015, 100, 114–121. [Google Scholar]
  3. Crowder, D.W.; Reganold, J.P. Financial competitiveness of organic agriculture on a global scale. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2015, 112, 7611–7616. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  4. Mahmood, I.; Imadi, S.R.; Shazadi, K.; Gul, A.; Hakeem, K.R. Effects of Pesticides on Environment. In Plant, Soil and Microbes; Springer Science and Business Media LLC: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2016; pp. 253–269. [Google Scholar]
  5. Chai, M.; Zhu, X.; Cui, H.; Jiang, C.; Zhang, J.; Shi, L. Lily Cultivars Have Allelopathic Potential in Controlling Orobanche aegyptiaca Persoon. PLoS ONE 2015, 10, e0142811. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  6. Das, K.R.; Iwasaki, A.; Suenaga, K.; Kato-Noguchi, H. Evaluation of phytotoxic potential and identification of phytotoxic substances in Cassia alata Linn. leaves. Acta Agric. Scand. Sect. B Plant Soil Sci. 2019, 69, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Suwitchayanon, P.; Suenaga, K.; Iwasaki, A.; Kato-Noguchi, H. Myrislignan, a Growth Inhibitor from the Roots of Citronella grass. Nat. Prod. Commun. 2017, 12, 1077–1078. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  8. Gomaa, N.H.; AbdElgawad, H.R. Phytotoxic effects of Echinochloa colona (L.) Link. (Poaceae) extracts on the germination and seedling growth of weeds. Span. J. Agric. Res. 2012, 10, 492. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  9. Asaduzzaman, M.; An, M.; Pratley, J.E.; Luckett, D.J.; Lemerle, D. Canola (Brassica napus) germplasm shows variable allelopathic effects against annual ryegrass (Lolium rigidum). Plant Soil 2014, 380, 47–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Chopra, R.N.; Nayar, S.L.; Chopra, I.C.; Asolkar, L.V.; Kakkar, K.K.; Chakre, O.J.; Varma, B.S. Glossary of Indian Medicinal Plants; Council of Scientific & Industrial Research: New Delhi, India, 1956; p. 258. [Google Scholar]
  11. Kirtikar, K.R.; Basu, B.D. Indian Medicinal Plants; Bishen Singh Mahendra Pal Singh: Dehradun, India, 2006; pp. 1364–1365. [Google Scholar]
  12. Sharma, A.; Anand, K.; Pushpangadan, P.; Chandan, B.; Chopra, C.; Prabhakar, Y.S.; Damodaran, N. Hepatoprotective effects of Wedelia calendulacea. J. Ethnopharmacol. 1989, 25, 93–102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Agarwala, B.; Azam, F.M.S.; Khatun, M.A.; Rahman, F.; Rahmatullah, M. Simultaneous shoot regeneration and rhizogenesis of Wedelia chinensis for In Vitro clonal propagation. Am. Eurasian J. Sustain. Agric. 2010, 4, 65–69. [Google Scholar]
  14. Kumar, R.M.; Suresh, V.; Rajesh, S.V.; Kumar, N.S.; Arunachalam, G. Pharmacognostical studies of the plant Wedelia chinensis (Osbeck) MERR. Int. J. Pharm. Res. Dev. 2011, 2, 53–57. [Google Scholar]
  15. Meena, A.K.; Rao, M.M.; Meena, R.P.; Panda, P. Pharmacological and phytochemical evidences for the plants of Wedelia Genus–A review. Asian J. Pharm. Res. 2011, 1, 7–12. [Google Scholar]
  16. Umasankar, K.; Kumar, R.M.; Suresh, A.; Kumar, N.S.; Arunachalam, G.; Suresh, V. CNS activity of ethanol extract of Wedelia chinensis in experimental animals. Int. J. Pharm. Sci. Nanotechnol. 2010, 3, 881–886. [Google Scholar]
  17. Nomani, I.; Mazumder, A.; Chakrabarthy, G.S. Wedelia chinensis (Asteraceae)—An overview of a potent medicinal herb. Int. J. Pharm. Tech. Res. 2013, 5, 957–964. [Google Scholar]
  18. Mathew, K.M. Flora of Tamilnadu-Carnatic; The Rapinat Herbarium—St. Joseph’s College: Trichirapalli, India, 1983; Volume 2, p. 392. [Google Scholar]
  19. Li, X.; Wang, Y.-F.; Shi, Q.; Sauriol, F. A New 30-Noroleanane Saponin from Wedelia chinensis. Helvetica Chim. Acta 2012, 95, 1395–1400. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Qiu, Q.; Wu, X.; Li, G.Q.; Li, Y.L.; Wang, G.C. Chemical constituents from Wedelia chinensis. Chin. Tradit. Pat. Med. 2014, 36, 1000–1004. [Google Scholar]
  21. Manjamalai, A.; Grace, V.B. Antioxidant Activity of Essential Oils from Wedelia chinensis (Osbeck) In Vitro and In Vivo Lung Cancer Bearing C57BL/6 Mice. Asian Pac. J. Cancer Prev. 2012, 13, 3065–3071. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  22. Talukdar, T.; Talukdar, D. Response of antioxidative enzymes to arsenic-induced phytotoxicity in leaves of a medicinal daisy, Wedelia chinensis Merrill. J. Nat. Sci. Biol. Med. 2013, 4, 383–388. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  23. Manjamalai, A.; Jiflin, G.J.; Grace, V.M.B. Study on the effect of essential oil of Wedelia chinensis (Osbeck) against microbes and inflammation. Asian J. Pharm. Clin. Res. 2012, 5, 155–163. [Google Scholar]
  24. Tsai, C.-H.; Tzeng, S.-F.; Hsieh, S.C.; Lin, C.-Y.; Tsai, C.-J.; Chen, Y.-R.; Yang, Y.-C.; Chou, Y.-W.; Lee, M.-T.; Hsiao, P.-W. Development of a standardized and effect-optimized herbal extract of Wedelia chinensis for prostate cancer. Phytomedicine 2015, 22, 406–414. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Rensen, Z.; Xianglian, L.; Shiming, L.; Qiang, Z.; Huifen, T. Allelopathic potential of Wedelia chinensis and its allelochemicals. Acta Ecol. Sinica 1996, 16, 20–27. [Google Scholar]
  26. Chang, S.W.; Kim, K.H.; Lee, I.K.; Choi, S.U.; Ryu, S.Y.; Lee, K.R. Phytochemical Constituents of Bistorta manshuriensis. Nat. Prod. Sci. 2009, 15, 234–240. [Google Scholar]
  27. Al-Majmaie, S.; Nahar, L.; Sharples, G.P.; Wadi, K.; Sarker, S.D. Isolation and Antimicrobial Activity of Rutin and Its Derivatives from Ruta chalepensis (Rutaceae) Growing in Iraq. Rec. Nat. Prod. 2018, 13, 64–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Kato-Noguchi, H.; Suzuki, M.; Noguchi, K.; Ohno, O.; Suenaga, K.; Laosinwattana, C. A Potent Phytotoxic Substance in Aglaia odorata Lour. Chem. Biodivers. 2016, 13, 549–554. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Islam, S.; Iwasaki, A.; Suenaga, K.; Kato-Noguchi, H. Isolation and identification of two potential phytotoxic substances from the aquatic fern Marsilea crenata. J. Plant Biol. 2017, 60, 75–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Appiah, K.S.; Mardani, H.K.; Omari, R.A.; Eziah, V.Y.; Ofosu-Anim, J.; Onwona-Agyeman, S.; Amoatey, C.A.; Kawada, K.; Katsura, K.; Oikawa, Y.; et al. Involvement of Carnosic Acid in the Phytotoxicity of Rosmarinus officinalis Leaves. Toxins 2018, 10, 498. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  31. Boonmee, S.; Iwasaki, A.; Suenaga, K.; Kato-Noguchi, H. Evaluation of phytotoxic activity of leaf and stem extracts and identification of a phytotoxic substance from Caesalpinia mimosoides Lamk. Theor. Exp. Plant Physiol. 2018, 30, 129–139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Islam, M.S.; Zaman, F.; Iwasaki, A.; Suenaga, K.; Kato-Noguchi, H. Phytotoxic potential of Chrysopogon aciculatus (Retz.) Trin. (Poaceae). Weed Biol. Manag. 2019, 19, 51–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Rob, M.; Hossen, K.; Iwasaki, A.; Suenaga, K.; Kato-Noguchi, H. Phytotoxic Activity and Identification of Phytotoxic Substances from Schumannianthus dichotomus. Plants 2020, 9, 102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  34. Đorđević, T.; Sarić-Krsmanović, M.; Umiljendić, J.G. Phenolic Compounds and Allelopathic Potential of Fermented and Unfermented Wheat and Corn Straw Extracts. Chem. Biodivers. 2019, 16, e1800420. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Chon, S.-U.; Jang, H.-G.; Kim, D.-K.; Kim, Y.-M.; Boo, H.-O. Allelopathic potential in lettuce (Lactuca sativa L.) plants. Sci. Hortic. 2005, 106, 309–317. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Benković, V.; Orsolić, N.; Knezević, A.H.; Ramić, S.; Dikić, D.; Basić, I.; Kopjar, N. Evaluation of the radioprotective effects of propolis and flavonoids in gamma-irradiated mice: The alkaline comet assay study. Biol. Pharm. Bull. 2008, 31, 167–172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  37. ArrayExpress—A Database of Functional Genomics Experiments. Available online: http://www.ebi.ac.uk/arrayexpress/ (accessed on 12 November 2012).
  38. European Medicinal Agency. Assessment Report on Angelica sinensis (Oliv.) Diels, Radix; EMA/HMPC/614586/2012; European Medicinal Agency: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  39. Siriamornpun, S.; Kaewseejan, N. Quality, bioactive compounds and antioxidant capacity of selected climacteric fruits with relation to their maturity. Sci. Hortic. 2017, 221, 33–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Bevilacqua, A.; D’Amato, D.; Sinigaglia, M.; Corbo, M.R. Combination of Homogenization, Citrus Extract and Vanillic Acid for the Inhibition of Some Spoiling and Pathogenic Bacteria Representative of Dairy Microflora. Food Bioprocess Technol. 2012, 6, 2048–2058. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Kim, J.; Soh, S.Y.; Bae, H.; Nam, S. Antioxidant and phenolic contents in potatoes (Solanum tuberosum L.) and micropropagated potatoes. Appl. Biol. Chem. 2019, 62, 17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Espinosa, R.R.; Inchingolo, R.; Alencar, S.M.; Rodriguez-Estrada, M.T.; Castro, I.A. Antioxidant activity of phenolic compounds added to a functional emulsion containing omega-3 fatty acids and plant sterol esters. Food Chem. 2015, 182, 95–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Pacheco-Palencia, L.A.; Mertens-Talcott, S.; Talcott, S.T. Chemical Composition, Antioxidant Properties, and Thermal Stability of a Phytochemical Enriched Oil from Açai (Euterpe oleracea Mart.). J. Agric. Food Chem. 2008, 56, 4631–4636. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Zhang, Z.; Liao, L.; Moore, J.; Wu, T.; Wang, Z. Antioxidant phenolic compounds from walnut kernels (Juglans regia L.). Food Chem. 2009, 113, 160–165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Kim, M.-C.; Kim, S.-J.; Kim, D.-S.; Jeon, Y.-D.; Park, S.J.; Lee, H.S.; Um, J.-Y.; Hong, S.-H. Vanillic acid inhibits inflammatory mediators by suppressing NF-κB in lipopolysaccharide-stimulated mouse peritoneal macrophages. Immunopharmacol. Immunotoxicol. 2011, 33, 525–532. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Zhao, C.; Jia, Y.; Lu, F. Angelica Stem: A Potential Low-Cost Source of Bioactive Phthalides and Phytosterols. Molecules 2018, 23, 3065. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  47. Batish, D.R.; Lavanya, K.; Singh, H.P.; Kohli, R.K. Root-mediated Allelopathic Interference of Nettle-leaved Goosefoot (Chenopodium murale) on Wheat (Triticum aestivum). J. Agron. Crop. Sci. 2007, 193, 37–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Mitić, M.; Janković, S.; Mašković, P.; Arsić, B.; Mitić, J.; Ickovski, J. Kinetic models of the extraction of vanillic acid from pumpkin seeds. Open Chem. 2020, 18, 22–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Macías, F.A.; Simonet, A.M.; Galindo, J.C.G.; Castellano, D. Bioactive phenolics and polar compounds from Melilotus messanensis. Phytochemistry 1999, 50, 35–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Parveen, I.; Winters, A.; Threadgill, M.D.; Hauck, B.; Morris, P.; Shah, I.P. Extraction, structural characterisation and evaluation of hydroxycinnamate esters of orchard grass (Dactylis glomerata) as substrates for polyphenol oxidase. Phytochemistry 2008, 69, 2799–2806. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Zheng, W.; Wang, S.Y. Antioxidant Activity and Phenolic Compounds in Selected Herbs. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2001, 49, 5165–5170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  52. Almeida, I.V.; Cavalcante, F.; Vicentini, V. Different responses of vanillic acid, a phenolic compound, in HTC cells: Cytotoxicity, antiproliferative activity, and protection from DNA-induced damage. Genet. Mol. Res. 2016, 15, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Sethupathy, S.; Ananthi, S.; Selvaraj, A.; Shanmuganathan, B.; Vigneshwari, L.; Balamurugan, K.; Mahalingam, S.; Pandian, S.K. Vanillic acid from Actinidia deliciosa impedes virulence in Serratia marcescens by affecting S-layer, flagellin and fatty acid biosynthesis proteins. Sci. Rep. 2017, 7, 1–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  54. Yemiş, G.P.; Pagotto, F.; Bach, S.; Delaquis, P. Effect of Vanillin, Ethyl Vanillin, and Vanillic Acid on the Growth and Heat Resistance of Cronobacter Species. J. Food Prot. 2011, 74, 2062–2069. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Yemiş, G.P.; Pagotto, F.; Bach, S.; Delaquis, P. Thermal Tolerance and Survival of Cronobacter sakazakiiin Powdered Infant Formula Supplemented with Vanillin, Ethyl Vanillin, and Vanillic Acid. J. Food Sci. 2012, 77, M523–M527. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  56. Robards, K.; Prenzler, P.D.; Tucker, G.; Swatsitang, P.; Glover, W. Phenolic compounds and their role in oxidative processes in fruits. Food Chem. 1999, 66, 401–436. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Huang, S.-M.; Hsu, C.-L.; Chuang, H.-C.; Shih, P.-H.; Wu, C.-H.; Yen, G.-C. Inhibitory effect of vanillic acid on methylglyoxal-mediated glycation in apoptotic Neuro-2A cells. NeuroToxicology 2008, 29, 1016–1022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Itoh, A.; Isoda, K.; Kondoh, M.; Kawase, M.; Kobayashi, M.; Tamesada, M.; Yagi, K. Hepatoprotective Effect of Syringic Acid and Vanillic Acid on Concanavalin A-Induced Liver Injury. Biol. Pharm. Bull. 2009, 32, 1215–1219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  59. Kim, S.-J.; Kim, M.-C.; Um, J.-Y.; Hong, S.-H. The Beneficial Effect of Vanillic Acid on Ulcerative Colitis. Molecules 2010, 15, 7208–7217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Duke, J.A. Handbook of Phytochemical Constituents of Gras Herbs and Other Economic Plants; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 1992; pp. 254–255. [Google Scholar]
  61. Kalinova, J.; Vrchotová, N.; Tříska, J. Exudation of Allelopathic Substances in Buckwheat (Fagopyrum esculentum Moench). J. Agric. Food Chem. 2007, 55, 6453–6459. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Shankar, S.R.M.; Girish, R.; Karthik, N.; Rajendran, R.; Mahendran, V.S. Allelopathic effects of phenolics and terpenoids extracted from Gmelina arborea on germination of black gram (Vigna mungo) and green gram (Vigna radiata). Allelopath. J. 2009, 23, 323–331. [Google Scholar]
  63. Zhang, T.-T.; Zheng, C.-Y.; Hu, W.; Xu, W.-W.; Wang, H.-F. The allelopathy and allelopathic mechanism of phenolic acids on toxic Microcystis aeruginosa. Environ. Boil. Fishes 2009, 22, 71–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Ghareib, H.R.A.; Abdelhamed, M.S.; Ibrahim, O.H. Antioxidative effects of the acetone fraction and vanillic acid from Chenopodium muraleon tomato plants. Weed Biol. Manag. 2010, 10, 64–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Khang, D.T.; Anh, L.H.; Ha, P.T.T.; Tuyen, P.T.; Van Quan, N.; Minh, L.T.; Quan, N.T.; Minh, T.N.; Xuan, T.D.; Khanh, T.D.; et al. Allelopathic Activity of Dehulled Rice and its Allelochemicals on Weed Germination. Int. Lett. Nat. Sci. 2016, 58, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  66. Kawada, M.; Ohno, Y.; Ri, Y.; Ikoma, T.; Yuugetu, H.; Asai, T.; Watanabe, M.; Yasuda, N.; Akao, S.; Takemura, G.; et al. Anti-tumor effect of gallic acid on LL-2 lung cancer cells transplanted in mice. Anti Cancer Drugs 2001, 12, 847–852. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Choubey, S.; Varughese, L.R.; Kumar, V.; Beniwal, V. Medicinal importance of gallic acid and its ester derivatives: A patent review. Pharm. Pat. Anal. 2015, 4, 305–315. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Li, Z.-H.; Wang, Q.; Ruan, X.; Pan, C.-D.; Jiang, D.-A. Phenolics and Plant Allelopathy. Molecules 2010, 15, 8933–8952. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  69. Pandurangan, A.K.; Mohebali, N.; Norhaizan, M.E.; Looi, C.Y. Gallic acid attenuates dextran sulfate sodium-induced experimental colitis in BALB/c mice. Drug Des. Dev. Ther. 2015, 9, 3923–3934. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  70. Zucca, P.; Rosa, A.; Tuberoso, C.I.G.; Piras, A.; Rinaldi, A.; Sanjust, E.; Dessì, M.A.; Rescigno, A.; Sanjust, E. Evaluation of Antioxidant Potential of “Maltese Mushroom” (Cynomorium coccineum) by Means of Multiple Chemical and Biological Assays. Nutrients 2013, 5, 149–161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  71. Liu, Y.; Carver, J.A.; Calabrese, A.N.; Pukala, T.L. Gallic acid interacts with α-synuclein to prevent the structural collapse necessary for its aggregation. Biochim. Biophys. Acta Proteins Proteom. 2014, 1844, 1481–1485. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Souza, M.C.; Santos, M.P.; Sumere, B.R.; Silva, L.C.; Cunha, D.T.; Martínez, J.; Barbero, G.F.; Rostagno, M.A. Isolation of gallic acid, caffeine and flavonols from black tea by on-line coupling of pressurized liquid extraction with an adsorbent for the production of functional bakery products. LWT 2020, 117, 108661. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Chanwitheesuk, A.; Teerawutgulrag, A.; Kilburn, J.D.; Rakariyatham, N. Antimicrobial gallic acid from Caesalpinia mimosoides Lamk. Food Chem. 2007, 100, 1044–1048. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Mansouri, S.M.T.; Farbood, Y.; Sameri, M.J.; Sarkaki, A.; NaghiZadeh, B.; Rafeirad, M. Neuroprotective effects of oral gallic acid against oxidative stress induced by 6-hydroxydopamine in rats. Food Chem. 2013, 138, 1028–1033. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Rafiee, S.A.; Farhoosh, R.; Sharif, A. Antioxidant Activity of Gallic Acid as Affected by an Extra Carboxyl Group than Pyrogallol in Various Oxidative Environments. Eur. J. Lipid Sci. Technol. 2018, 120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Wang, Y.; Wu, C.; Zhou, X.; Zhang, M.; Chen, Y.; Nie, S.; Xie, M. Combined application of gallate ester and α-tocopherol in oil-in-water emulsion: Their distribution and antioxidant efficiency. J. Dispers. Sci. Technol. 2019, 41, 909–917. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Wang, K.; Zhu, X.; Zhang, K.; Zhu, L.; Zhou, F. Investigation of Gallic Acid Induced Anticancer Effect in Human Breast Carcinoma MCF-7 Cells. J. Biochem. Mol. Toxicol. 2014, 28, 387–393. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Kim, S.-H.; Jun, C.-D.; Suk, K.; Choi, B.-J.; Lim, H.; Park, S.; Lee, S.H.; Shin, H.-Y.; Kim, D.-K.; Shin, T.-Y. Gallic Acid Inhibits Histamine Release and Pro-inflammatory Cytokine Production in Mast Cells. Toxicol. Sci. 2005, 91, 123–131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  79. Sen, S.; Asokkumar, K.; Umamaheswari, M.; Sivashanmugam, A.T.; SubhadraDevi, V. Antiulcerogenic Effect of Gallic Acid in Rats and its Effect on Oxidant and Antioxidant Parameters in Stomach Tissue. Indian J. Pharm. Sci. 2013, 75, 149–155. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  80. Akbari, G. Molecular mechanisms underlying gallic acid effects against cardiovascular diseases: An update review. Avicenna J. Phytomed. 2020, 10, 11–23. [Google Scholar]
  81. Chao, J.; Huo, T.-I.; Cheng, H.-Y.; Tsai, J.-C.; Liao, J.-W.; Lee, M.-S.; Qin, X.-M.; Hsieh, M.-T.; Pao, L.-H.; Peng, W.-H. Gallic Acid Ameliorated Impaired Glucose and Lipid Homeostasis in High Fat Diet-Induced NAFLD Mice. PLoS ONE 2014, 9, e96969. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  82. Huang, D.-W.; Chang, W.-C.; Wu, J.S.-B.; Shih, R.-W.; Shen, S.-C. Gallic acid ameliorates hyperglycemia and improves hepatic carbohydrate metabolism in rats fed a high-fructose diet. Nutr. Res. 2016, 36, 150–160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Kee, H.J.; Cho, S.-N.; Kim, G.R.; Choi, S.Y.; Ryu, Y.; Kim, I.K.; Hong, Y.J.; Park, H.W.; Ahn, Y.; Cho, J.G.; et al. Gallic acid inhibits vascular calcification through the blockade of BMP2–Smad1/5/8 signaling pathway. Vasc. Pharmacol. 2014, 63, 71–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Jin, L.; Lin, M.Q.; Piao, Z.H.; Cho, J.Y.; Kim, G.R.; Choi, S.Y.; Ryu, Y.; Sun, S.; Kee, H.J.; Jeong, M.H. Gallic acid attenuates hypertension, cardiac remodeling, and fibrosis in mice with NG-nitro-L-arginine methyl ester-induced hypertension via regulation of histone deacetylase 1 or histone deacetylase 2. J. Hypertens. 2017, 35, 1502–1512. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  85. Saeed, S.; Aslam, S.; Mehmood, T.; Naseer, R.; Nawaz, S.; Mujahid, H.; Firyal, S.; Anjum, A.A.; Sultan, A. Production of Gallic Acid Under Solid-State Fermentation by Utilizing Waste from Food Processing Industries. Waste Biomass Valoris. 2020, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Dziga, D.; Suda, M.; Bialczyk, J.; Lechowski, Z.; Czaja-Prokop, U. The alteration of Microcystis aeruginosa biomass and dissolved microcystin-LR concentration following exposure to plant-producing phenols. Environ. Toxicol. 2007, 22, 341–346. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Techer, D.; Fontaine, P.; Personne, A.; Viot, S.; Thomas, M. Allelopathic potential and ecotoxicity evaluation of gallic and nonanoic acids to prevent cyanobacterial growth in lentic systems: A preliminary mesocosm study. Sci. Total Environ. 2016, 547, 157–165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Liu, Y.; Li, F.; Huang, Q. Allelopathic effects of gallic acid from Aegiceras corniculatum on Cyclotella caspia. J. Environ. Sci. 2013, 25, 776–784. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Vitalini, S.; Orlando, F.; Palmioli, A.; Alali, S.; Airoldi, C.; De Noni, I.; Vaglia, V.; Bocchi, S.; Iriti, M. Different phytotoxic effect of Lolium multiflorum Lam. leaves against Echinochloa oryzoides (Ard.) Fritsch and Oriza sativa L. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2020, 27, 33204–33214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. DellaGreca, M.; Fiorentino, A.; Monaco, P.; Previtera, L.; Temussi, F.; Zarrelli, A. New dimeric phenanthrenoids from the rhizomes of Juncus acutus. Structure determination and antialgal activity. Tetrahedron 2003, 59, 2317–2324. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Macías, F.A.; Marín, D.; Oliveros-Bastidas, A.; Molinillo, J.M.G. Optimization of Benzoxazinones as Natural Herbicide Models by Lipophilicity Enhancement. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2006, 54, 9357–9365. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  92. DellaGreca, M.; Fiorentino, A.; Monaco, P.; Previtera, L.; Zarrelli, A. A new dimeric 9,10-dihydrophenanthrenoid from the rhizome of Juncus acutus. Tetrahedron Lett. 2002, 43, 2573–2575. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Michalowicz, J.; Duda, W. Phenols sources and toxicity. Pol. J. Environ. Stud. 2007, 16, 347–362. [Google Scholar]
Foods 09 01591 g001 550
Figure 1. Effect on the seedling growth of cress of all fractions of the extracts of Wedelia chinensis that has been obtained from the column of Sephadex LH-20: cress seeds were exposed to the concentration equivalent of the extracts gained from 1.2 g DW (dry weight) of Wedelia chinensis/mL for F1 (20% aqueous methanol), F2 (30% aqueous methanol), F3 (40% aqueous methanol), F4 (50% aqueous methanol), F5 (60% aqueous methanol), F6 (80% aqueous methanol), and F7 (methanol). The values are mean ± SE for each treatment from the two independent experiments with 10 seedlings. Asterisks show major variations between treatments and control: *** p < 0.001 (ANOVA one way and least significant difference (LSD) test post hoc).
Figure 1. Effect on the seedling growth of cress of all fractions of the extracts of Wedelia chinensis that has been obtained from the column of Sephadex LH-20: cress seeds were exposed to the concentration equivalent of the extracts gained from 1.2 g DW (dry weight) of Wedelia chinensis/mL for F1 (20% aqueous methanol), F2 (30% aqueous methanol), F3 (40% aqueous methanol), F4 (50% aqueous methanol), F5 (60% aqueous methanol), F6 (80% aqueous methanol), and F7 (methanol). The values are mean ± SE for each treatment from the two independent experiments with 10 seedlings. Asterisks show major variations between treatments and control: *** p < 0.001 (ANOVA one way and least significant difference (LSD) test post hoc).
Foods 09 01591 g001
Foods 09 01591 g002 550
Figure 2. Growth inhibitory effects of Wedelia chinensis plant extracts on the shoot and root growth of lettuce, alfalfa, cress, rapeseed, barnyard grass, timothy, Italian ryegrass, and foxtail fescue: the tested species were exposed to the concentrations of 1, 3, 10, 30, 100, and 300 mg DW equivalent extracts of Wedelia chinensis/mL. The values are mean ± SE for each treatment from the two independent experiments with 3 replications (10 seedlings for each replication) for every experiment (n = 60) that is displayed. Asterisks signify important variations between treatments and control: * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, and *** p < 0.001 (ANOVA one-way and LSD test by post hoc).
Figure 2. Growth inhibitory effects of Wedelia chinensis plant extracts on the shoot and root growth of lettuce, alfalfa, cress, rapeseed, barnyard grass, timothy, Italian ryegrass, and foxtail fescue: the tested species were exposed to the concentrations of 1, 3, 10, 30, 100, and 300 mg DW equivalent extracts of Wedelia chinensis/mL. The values are mean ± SE for each treatment from the two independent experiments with 3 replications (10 seedlings for each replication) for every experiment (n = 60) that is displayed. Asterisks signify important variations between treatments and control: * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, and *** p < 0.001 (ANOVA one-way and LSD test by post hoc).
Foods 09 01591 g002
Foods 09 01591 g003 550
Figure 3. Effect on the seedling growth of cress of the aqueous and ethyl acetate fractions that has been obtained by partitioning of Wedelia chinensis extracts: cress was subjected to concentrations equal to 0.1 and 0.3 g DW extracts of Wedelia chinensis/mL. The values are mean ± SE for each treatment from the two independent experiments with 10 seedlings. Asterisks show major variations between treatments and control: ** p < 0.01 and *** p < 0.001 (ANOVA one way and LSD test post hoc).
Figure 3. Effect on the seedling growth of cress of the aqueous and ethyl acetate fractions that has been obtained by partitioning of Wedelia chinensis extracts: cress was subjected to concentrations equal to 0.1 and 0.3 g DW extracts of Wedelia chinensis/mL. The values are mean ± SE for each treatment from the two independent experiments with 10 seedlings. Asterisks show major variations between treatments and control: ** p < 0.01 and *** p < 0.001 (ANOVA one way and LSD test post hoc).
Foods 09 01591 g003
Foods 09 01591 g004 550
Figure 4. The chemical structures of vanillic acid and gallic acid obtained from the extracts of Wedelia chinensis.
Figure 4. The chemical structures of vanillic acid and gallic acid obtained from the extracts of Wedelia chinensis.
Foods 09 01591 g004
Foods 09 01591 g005 550
Figure 5. Effect of vanillic acid on the seedling’s growth of cress and Italian ryegrass: mean ± SE from the two separate experiments with three replications (10 seedlings for each replication) for every experiment that is displayed. Asterisks signify important variations between treatments and control: *** p < 0.001 (ANOVA one-way and LSD test by post hoc).
Figure 5. Effect of vanillic acid on the seedling’s growth of cress and Italian ryegrass: mean ± SE from the two separate experiments with three replications (10 seedlings for each replication) for every experiment that is displayed. Asterisks signify important variations between treatments and control: *** p < 0.001 (ANOVA one-way and LSD test by post hoc).
Foods 09 01591 g005
Foods 09 01591 g006 550
Figure 6. Effect of gallic acid on the seedling’s growth of cress and Italian ryegrass: mean ± SE from the two separate experiments with three replications (10 seedlings for each replication) for every experiment that is displayed. Asterisks signify important variations between treatments and control: ** p < 0.01, and *** p < 0.001 (ANOVA one-way and LSD test by post hoc).
Figure 6. Effect of gallic acid on the seedling’s growth of cress and Italian ryegrass: mean ± SE from the two separate experiments with three replications (10 seedlings for each replication) for every experiment that is displayed. Asterisks signify important variations between treatments and control: ** p < 0.01, and *** p < 0.001 (ANOVA one-way and LSD test by post hoc).
Foods 09 01591 g006
Table
Table 1. The I50 values of the aqueous methanol extracts of Wedelia chinensis against shoot and root growth of the tested species.
Table 1. The I50 values of the aqueous methanol extracts of Wedelia chinensis against shoot and root growth of the tested species.
Tested SpeciesI50 Values (mg DW Equivalent Extract/mL)
ShootRoot
DicotAlfalfa32.648.0
Cress7.813.9
Lettuce3.38.7
Rapeseed8.913.1
MonocotBarnyard grass42.216.4
Foxtail fescue21.317.3
Italian ryegrass24.723.9
Timothy17.110.4
Table
Table 2. The I50 values of vanillic acid and gallic acid from Wedelia chinensis against the shoot and root growth of cress and Italian ryegrass.
Table 2. The I50 values of vanillic acid and gallic acid from Wedelia chinensis against the shoot and root growth of cress and Italian ryegrass.
Tested SpeciesVanillic AcidGallic Acid
(mM)
CressShoot0.0415.4
Root0.0513.8
Italian ryegrassShoot0.476.6
Root0.452.3
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Hossen, K.; Das, K.R.; Okada, S.; Iwasaki, A.; Suenaga, K.; Kato-Noguchi, H. Allelopathic Potential and Active Substances from Wedelia Chinensis (Osbeck). Foods 2020, 9, 1591. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods9111591

AMA Style

Hossen K, Das KR, Okada S, Iwasaki A, Suenaga K, Kato-Noguchi H. Allelopathic Potential and Active Substances from Wedelia Chinensis (Osbeck). Foods. 2020; 9(11):1591. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods9111591

Chicago/Turabian Style

Hossen, Kawsar, Krishna Rany Das, Shun Okada, Arihiro Iwasaki, Kiyotake Suenaga, and Hisashi Kato-Noguchi. 2020. "Allelopathic Potential and Active Substances from Wedelia Chinensis (Osbeck)" Foods 9, no. 11: 1591. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods9111591

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