ABSTRACT
Ornithogalum yesilyurtense Yıld. & Kılıç is a newly described endemic geophyte from Türkiye. This study offers the first comprehensive phytochemical and pharmacological profile of the plant. Methanol extracts taken from the aerial and bulb parts were assessed for antioxidant and antimicrobial properties. LC–MS/MS and GC–MS were used to further examine the phenolic and fatty acid contents. The aerial parts showed higher total phenolic content (TPC: 0.194 mg GAE/g), and antioxidant activity (more ferric reducing power [FRAP]: 0.784 µM Fe2+/g, and a lower DPPH IC50: 1.645 µg/mL) than that of the bulbs (TPC: 0.148 mg GAE/g; FRAP: 0.285 µM Fe2+/g; DPPH IC50: 2.17 µg/mL). Palmitic, linolenic, and γ‐linolenic acids predominated in the aerial parts, while cis‐linoleic and palmitic acids were dominant in bulbs. Resveratrol, hydroxycinnamic acid, and vanillic acid were the main phenolics in aerial parts, whereas ellagic, hydroxycinnamic, and gallic acids were abundant in bulbs. Both exhibited notable antioxidant, antimicrobial, and antifungal activities. Overall, O. yesilyurtense represents a promising new source of bioactive compounds with potential applications in pharmaceutical and functional food formulations.
Keywords: antimicrobial activity, antioxidant activity, fatty acid profile, LC–MS/MS, Ornithogalum yesilyurtense, phenolic compounds
1. Introduction
Medicinal and aromatic plants are recognized as rich sources of secondary metabolites including steroids, saponins, alkaloids, terpenes and phenolic compounds and exhibit many pharmacological effects, including antimicrobial, antifungal, antioxidant, anticancer, and anti‐inflammatory [1, 2, 3]. Owing to these biological effects, many plants have found applications as raw materials in the pharmaceutical, food, and cosmetic industries [4]. Today, many drugs used for disease treatment are derived either entirely from synthetic components or partly from plant‐based sources. In recent years, the investigation of medicinal plants and the phytochemicals responsible for these effects has gained increasing in importance in both biology and pharmaceutical science [5]. Many plant species consumed for disease prevention have been reported to exhibit antimicrobial, antioxidant, antiviral, and anti‐inflammatory effects. Ornithogalum L. taxa have been also used for medicinal purposes due to their antimicrobial, anticarcinogenic, antioxidant, and cytotoxic properties [6]. The genus Ornithogalum L. (Asparagaceae) comprises more than 150 bulbous species distributed across temperate regions of Europe, Asia, and Africa [7]. More than 70 species of Ornithogalum have been identified in Turkey, and certain species' aerial and bulb components are traditionally eaten, especially in the Eastern Black Sea region [8]. Ornithogalum species are known to be rich in bioactive secondary metabolites, including saponins, cholestanes, cardenolides, and phenolic compounds [9]. These components have a variety of pharmacological properties, such as antioxidant, anticancer, anti‐inflammatory, and antibacterial effects [10]. Several studies on different Ornithogalum species have reported antitumor activity against various cancer types and investigated the potential therapeutic mechanisms of their therapeutic effects [10, 11, 12, 13]. Notably, steroidal glycoside compounds isolated from the Ornithogalum saundersiae have exhibited significant antiproliferative activity against A549 lung adenocarcinoma cells. These compounds demonstrated stronger antitumoral effects than known chemotherapeutic agents such as calprotectin, doxorubicin and paclitaxel, making O. saundersiae‐derived compounds in the development of novel cancer therapies [13]. There has been a recent surge in interest in novel pharmaceutical compounds and therapeutic approaches developed from Ornithogalum species. Yıldırımlı and Kılıç formally presented Ornithogalum yesilyurtense, an indigenous geophyte species, to the literature [14]. This study aimed to perform the first comprehensive characterization of the phenolic and fatty acid profiles of O. yesilyurtense and to evaluate its antioxidant and antimicrobial properties. It was hypothesized that O. yesilyurtense possesses notable bioactive potential, making it a promising candidate for applications in pharmaceutical and functional food formulations.
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Plant Materials
O. yesilyurtense is a newly described and endemic geophyte species collected from rocky habitats (at altitude 1500–1700 m) near the town of Yeşilyurt. The species was identified by Dr. Ömer Kılıç [14, 15]. A voucher specimen (Herbarium no. 1314) is deposited in the Department of Pharmaceutical Botany, Faculty of Pharmacy, Adıyaman University. Aerial parts and bulbs were separated carefully using herbarium techniques and air‐dried at room temperature. Each part was then ground into a fine powder using a blender.
2.2. Chemicals and Reagents
All the chemicals and standards were analytical or HPLC grade. methanol, acetonitrile, formic acid, and trifluoroacetic acid (HPLC grade) were obtained from Sigma‐Aldrich (Merck); Folin–Ciocalteu reagent and gallic acid (≥ 98%) from Sigma‐Aldrich; DPPH (≥ 95%), butylated hydroxyanisole (BHA), butylated hydroxytoluene (BHT), and Trolox from Sigma‐Aldrich; potassium ferricyanide, potassium chloride, trichloroacetic acid (TCA) (analytical grade) from Merck; dimethyl sulfoxide (DMSO, cell‐culture grade) from Thermo Fisher Scientific. Phenolic standards and fatty acid methyl ester (FAME) standards (for gas chromatography [GC]) were purchased from Sigma‐Aldrich or Merck (certified reference standards, ≥ 95%). Microbial media (Mueller–Hinton broth/agar, Sabouraud dextrose) and antibiotics (ampicillin) were from Oxoid/Thermo Fisher.
2.3. Extraction and Sample Preparation
Dried and powdered plant materials (aerial parts and bulbs) of O. yesilyurtense (20 g each) were weighed separately and extracted with 100 mL of 80% methanol (v/v) by maceration at room temperature for 48 h. After extraction the mixtures were filtered through Whatman filter paper, and the filtrates were collected in polyethylene bottles. The solvents were evaporated under reduced pressure using a rotary evaporator, and the crude extracts were subsequently lyophilized. The dried extracts were stored at 4°C in airtight containers until further analyses [16].
2.4. Determination of Total Phenolic Contents
The total phenolic content (TPC) was determined by the Folin–Ciocalteu method [17, 18], with modifications. A stock solution was prepared from plant parts, and 0.5 mL of this stock solution was mixed with 2.5 mL of Folin reagent and 7.5 mL of Na2CO3 solution. The mixtures were left at room temperature for two hours. Gallic acid was used to construct the standard calibration curve. The absorbance of the samples was measured at 760 nm using a UV/VIS spectrophotometer. The TPC assay was performed in triplicate (n = 3), and the results were expressed as mg gallic acid equivalent per gram dry weight (mg GAE/g DW). Calibration curve linear regression: equation y = 716.24x + 0.069, R 2 = 0.9881.
2.5. DPPH Radical Scavenging Assay
Radical scavenging activity was determined using a modified version of the Sanchez–Moreno method [19, 20]. In brief, 1.0 mL of the plant extract was added to a 0.1 mM DPPH solution. The mixture was incubated in the dark at room temperature for 30 min, after which the absorbance was measured at 517 nm. BHA and BHT were used as positive controls. The DPPH radical scavenging activity was measured in three independent replicates (n = 3). The results are presented as IC50 values (mg/mL) or as % inhibition.
2.6. Ferric‐Reducing Antioxidant Power (FRAP) Assay
The reducing power of the extracts was determined according to the method of Oyaizu (1986), with modifications [21, 22]. One milliliter of plant extract was mixed with 1 mL of phosphate buffer (0.2 M, pH 6.6), and 2.5 mL of 1% potassium ferricyanate [K3Fe(CN)6]. The mixture was shaken vigorously and incubated in a water bath at 50°C for 30 min. After incubation, 2.5 mL of 10% TCA was added, and the mixture was centrifuged. From the supernantant, 2.5 mL was mixed with 2.5 mL of deionized water and 0.5 mL of 0.1% FeCl3. The absorbance was measured at 700 nm. BHT, BHA, and Trolox were used as reference antioxidants. Results are expressed as µM Fe2+ equivalents per g dry weight (µM Fe2+/g DW) or converted to Trolox equivalents specify which in Results. The ferric‐reducing antioxidant power (FRAP) assay was conducted in triplicate (n = 3).
2.7. Phenolic Profile Analysis by LC–MS/MS
Phenolic compounds were analyzed using a liquid chromatography‐mass spectrometry system (Shimadzu LC‐MS/MS‐8030) equipped with a CBM‐20Alite system controller at the Harran University Science and Technology Application and Research Center. Chromatographic separation was achieved using an Inertsil ODS‐4 column (2 µm, 2.1 × 50 mm) maintained at 40°C. The mobile phase consisted of 0.1% formic acid in water (A) and 0.1% formic acid in methanol (B) using the following gradient program: 5% B (0–4 min), increasing to 95% B (4–7 min), maintained at 95% B (7 min), then returning to 5% B (7.01 min) and held until 12 min. The flow rate was 0.4 mL/min and the injection volume was 5 µL. Mass spectrometric detection was performed in both positive and negative ionization modes with selective reaction monitoring (SRM). The specific MS parameters for each compound, including precursor/product ion transitions and retention times, are provided in Table 1. Quantification was achieved using external standards for 26 phenolic compounds. Calibration data and validation parameters are presented in Table 1.
TABLE 1.
Detection limits (LOD), quantitation limits (LOQ), and ion transitions (m/z) of the phenolic standard used in LC–MS/MS.
| Compound name | CR | RT | LOD (ppb) | LOQ (ppb) | QT (m/z) | Secondary ion (m/z) | Tertiary ion (m/z) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Acetohydroxamic acid | 10–750 | 0.406 | 6.90 | 23.01 | 76.15 > 58.00 | 76.15 > 44.00 | — |
| Catechinhydrate | 10–750 | 2.532 | 2.05 | 6.84 | 291.00 > 139.10 | 291.00 > 123.10 | — |
| Vanilic acid | 100–1000 | 2.762 | 84.78 | 282.61 | 168.95 > 65.00 | 168.95 > 109.00 | — |
| Syringic acid | 10–500 | 3.001 | 2.88 | 9.61 | 199.10 > 140.10 | — | — |
| Thymoquinone | 20–500 | 3.337 | 7.64 | 25.47 | 165.00 > 137.00 | — | — |
| Resveratrol | 250–1000 | 3.606 | 41.83 | 139.43 | 229.00 > 135.00 | 229.00 > 107.20 | — |
| Fumaric acid | 40–750 | 0.809 | 7.91 | 26.38 | 115.20 > 71.10 | 115.20 > 45.00 | — |
| Gallic acid | 10–750 | 1.278 | 3.92 | 13.06 | 169.10 > 124.90 | — | — |
| Caffeic acid | 10–750 | 2.836 | 2.87 | 9.58 | 179.00 > 135.00 | — | — |
| Hydroxycinnamic acid | 40–500 | 3.489 | 7.33 | 24.44 | 162.90 > 119.00 | — | — |
| Hydroxybenzoic acid | 60–750 | 3.555 | 8.92 | 29.74 | 137.20 > 93.10 | 137.20 > 65.00 | — |
| Protocatechuic acid | 10–500 | 3.556 | 2.76 | 9.20 | 181.00 > 108.00 | — | — |
| Salicylic acid | 100–500 | 3.558 | 22.88 | 76.25 | 137.20 > 93.00 | 137.20 > 65.00 | — |
| Oleuropein | 40–750 | 3.567 | 7.17 | 23.90 | 539.10 > 275.10 | 539.10 > 377.00 | 539.10 > 275.10 |
| Phloridzin dihydrate | 40–750 | 3.594 | 81.80 | 272.67 | 435.10 > 273.10 | 435.10 > 122.70 | — |
| 2‐Hydroxy‐1,4‐naphthoquinone | 20–500 | 3.664 | 2.07 | 6.91 | 173.10 > 145.00 | — | — |
| Myricetin | 20–500 | 3.644 | 4.34 | 14.45 | 317.00 > 150.90 | 317.00 > 179.10 | 317.00 > 136.90 |
| Ellagic acid | 100–1000 | 3.681 | 237.42 | 791.40 | 301.10 > 145.10 | 301.10 > 228.90 | — |
| Quercetin | 10–500 | 3.891 | 7.79 | 25.98 | 301.10 > 150.90 | 301.10 > 178.90 | — |
| Bütein | 100–750 | 3.935 | 38.50 | 128.20 | 271.00 > 134.90 | 271.00 > 119.00 | — |
| Naringenin | 250–750 | 3.952 | 68.40 | 228.10 | — | — | — |
| Silymarin | 40–750 | 3.996 | 8.00 | 26.70 | 481.10 > 125.00 | 481.10 > 301.00 | 481.10 > 453.10 |
| Luteolin | 40–1000 | 4.069 | 6.40 | 21.40 | 285.00 > 133.00 | 285.00 > 150.90 | — |
| Kaempferol | 20–1000 | 4.298 | 3.90 | 13.00 | 285.00 > 117.00 | — | — |
| Alizarin | 250–1000 | 4.594 | 15.30 | 51.10 | 239.00 > 211.00 | — | — |
| Curcumin | 20–1000 | 4.672 | 12.80 | 42.70 | 367.10 > 149.00 | 367.10 > 216.90 | 367.10 > 133.90 |
Note: Hydroxycinnamic acid (isomer mixture); hydroxybenzoic acid (isomer mixture).
Abbreviations: CR, calibration range (ppb); RT, retention time (min); QT, quantifier transition (m/z).
2.8. Gas Chromatography–Mass Spectrometry Analysis of Fatty Acid Composition
The fatty acid composition of the plant samples was determined using GC. Analyses were performed with a Shimadzu Nexis GC‐2030 equipped with a Teknokroma TR‐CN100 capillary column (100‐m length, 0.25‐mm internal diameter, 0.20‐µm film thickness). The oven temperature program was set as follows: initial temperature 100°C (held for 4 min), increased at 4°C/min to 200°C, and then at 3°C/min to 230°C with a final hold time of 15 min. The injection volume was 1 µL, operated in split mode (ratio 20:1), with an injector temperature of 240°C. Helium (He) was used as the carrier gas under linear velocity mode (18.10 cm/s) with a purge flow of 3.0 mL/min. Detection was performed using a flame ionization detector (FID) set at 240°C. The makeup gas (He) flow rate was 30 mL/min, hydrogen flow 40 mL/min, and air flow 400 mL/min. The total run time was 55 min.
2.9. Antimicrobial Activity
The antimicrobial activity of the extracts was evaluated using the microdilution broth method [23]. The methanol extracts were tested against Gram‐positive (Staphylococcus aureus ATCC 29213, Enterococcus faecalis ATCC 29212), Gram‐negative (Pseudomonas aeruginosa ATCC 10231, Escherichia coli ATCC 25912) bacteria, and the fungus Candida albicans ATCC 90028). The microbial strains used for antimicrobial testing were procured from Department of Medical Microbiology, Faculty of Medicine, Malatya University (Malatya, Türkiye). The plant extracts (from the aerial parts and the bulb) were dissolved in DMSO. A stock solution of 200 µg/mL was prepared and subjected to a seven‐step, two‐fold serial dilution, yielding eight different concentrations for testing. The final concentration of DMSO in the wells did not exceed 1% (v/v), which has been reported to have no inhibitory effect on microbial growth [24].
Microbial suspensions were adjusted to 0.5 McFarland standard (∼1–2 × 108 CFU/mL) and diluted to reach ∼5 × 105 CFU/mL in each well. Ampicillin was used as the standard antimicrobial agent, and same experimental procedures were applied. The microplates were incubated at 37°C for 24 h, after which optical densities were read at 600 nm using a Thermo 3001 ELISA microplate reader. The antimicrobial tests were performed in three independent replicates (n = 3), and minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) values (µg/mL). Control experiments with standard antibiotics (positive control) and uninoculated medium (negative control) were conducted in parallel.
2.10. Statistical Analysis
All experiments were performed in triplicate, and the results are expressed as mean ± standard deviation (SD). IC50 values were calculated by linear or nonlinear regression using GraphPad Prism (version 9) and Microsoft Excel. Differences between groups were analyzed by one‐way analysis of variance (ANOVA) followed by Tukey's post hoc test. Differences were considered statistically significant at p < 0.05.
3. Results
3.1. Antioxidant Activity
The TPCs, FRAP, and DPPH radical scavenging capacity (IC50) of the bulb and aerial parts of O. yesilyurtense are presented in Table 2. The aerial parts of O. yesilyurtense exhibited slightly higher TPC (0.1939 mg GAE/g) than the bulb (0.1477 mg GAE/g). In the DPPH assay, the bulb extract parts showed greater radical scavenging activity (IC50: 2.174 mg/mL) compared to the aerial extract (IC50: 1.645 mg/mL). However, both plant extracts were less effective than BHA (IC50: 0.699 mg/mL) but comparable to BHT (IC50: 1.788 mg/mL).
TABLE 2.
Total phenolic contents (TPC), FRAP value, and DPPH radical scavenging activity (IC50) of the aerial parts (S1) and bulbs (T1) of Ornithogalum yesilyurtense.
| Sample | TPC (mg GAE/g) | FRAP (µM Fe2+/g) | DPPH (IC50 mg/mL) |
|---|---|---|---|
| S1 | 0.1477 ± 0.005b | 0.285 ± 0.008b | 2.174 ± 0.857a |
| T1 | 0.1939 ± 0.008a | 0.784 ± 0.020a | 1.645 ± 0.947b |
| BHA | — | 0.986 ± 0.010a | 0.699 ± 0.940c |
| BHT | — | 1.082 ± 0.015a | 1.788 ± 0.539b |
| Trolox | — | 1.000 ± 0.012a | — |
Note: All values are expressed as mean ± standard deviation (SD) of three independent determinations (n = 3); superscript letters indicate significant differences (p < 0.05, ANOVA–Tukey).
Regarding ferric‐reducing power, the FRAP value the aerial extract (0.784 µM Fe2+/g) was significantly (p < 0.05) higher than that of the bulb (0.285 µM Fe2+/g). The higher phenolic content of the aerial parts likely accounts for their superior antioxidant performance.
3.2. Phenolic Profile Analysis by LC–MS/MS
The parameters of the phenolic standards used in the LC–MS/MS analysis, calibration range, retention time(min), including limits of detection (LOD), limits of quantification (LOQ), and ion fragmentation patterns, are presented in Table 1.
A total of 11 phenolic compounds were detected in the extracts of O. yesilyurtense (Table 3). These included vanillic acid, syringic acid, resveratrol, gallic acid, hydroxycinnamic acid, hydroxybenzoic acid, salicylic acid, oleuropein, ellagic acid, naringenin, and luteolin. The absence of other standards (e.g., catechin hydrate, caffeic acid, protocatechuic acid, quercetin, and curcumin) suggests they were either not present or below detection limits.
TABLE 3.
Detected phenolic compounds of Ornithogalum yesilyurtense extracts.
| Phenolic compounds | S1 (µg/g) | T1 (µg/g) |
|---|---|---|
| Vanilic acid | 19.807 | 105.663 |
| Syringicacid | 3.709 | nd |
| Resveratrol | 16.537 | 176.219 |
| Gallicacid | 50.461 | nd |
| Hydoxycinamic | 78.73 | 163.568 |
| Hydroxyben | 3.395 | 5.426 |
| Salisilikasid | 5.99 | 8.023 |
| Oleuropein | 2.765 | 2.899 |
| Ellagicacid | 124 | 78.48 |
| Naringenin | 7.129 | 6.852 |
| Luteolin | 1.043 | 1.268 |
Abbreviations: nd, not detected; S1, O. yesilyurtense bulbs; T1: O. yesilyurtense aerial parts.
High concentrations of resveratrol (176.219 µg/g), hydroxycinnamic acid (163.567 µg/g), and vanillic acid (105.663 µg/g) were detected in the aerial parts. The aerial parts also contained significant levels of ellagic acid (78.48 µg/g) and salicylic acid (8.23 µg/g). In the bulb extract, high levels of ellagic acid (124 µg/g), hydroxycinnamic acid (78.73 µg/g), and gallic acid (50.461 µg/g) were observed. Resveratrol (16.537 µg/g) was detected only in the bulb. These differences in phenolic profiles between plant parts may explain variations in their antioxidant properties.
3.3. Fatty Acid Composition
GC–MS was utilized which identified a total of 16 fatty acids in the bulb and nine in the aerial parts (ΣFA ≈ 97%–99% of total extractable lipids). The fatty acid compositions bulb and of the aerial parts are given in Tables 4 and 5, respectively. The GC–MS chromatograms of the bulb fraction are presented in Figure 1, while those of the aerial parts are shown in Figure 2. The aerial parts were rich in palmitic acid (24.2%), linolenic acid (15.2%), and γ‐linolenic acid (14.1%). In contrast, the bulb contained higher levels of cis‐linoleic acid (28.2%) and palmitic acid (25.7%). The bulb also exhibited notable levels of cis‐linoleic acid (11.8%) and cis‐oleic acid (10.3%), indicating a substantial presence of polyunsaturated fatty acids.
TABLE 4.
Fatty acid composition (%) in bulb (S1) extract of Ornithogalum yesilyurtense.
| Peak | fatty acid | Common name | Ret. time | Area | Area% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Butyric acid | C4:0 | 10.982 | 1848 | 1.51 |
| 2 | Caproic acid | C6:0 | 12.424 | 1591 | 1.30 |
| 3 | Myristic acid | C14:0 | 28.395 | 2169 | 1.77 |
| 4 | Myristoleic acid | C14:1 | 29.167 | 1276 | 1.04 |
| 5 | Pentadecanoic acid | C15:0 | 30.752 | 9130 | 7.44 |
| 6 | cis‐10‐Pentadecanoic acid | C15:1 | 31.355 | 3748 | 3.06 |
| 7 | Palmitic acid | C16:0 | 31.890 | 1544 | 25.72 |
| 8 | Stearic acid | C18:0 | 35.423 | 5615 | 4.58 |
| 9 | cis‐Oleic acid | C18:1n9c | 36.435 | 10 085 | 8.22 |
| 10 | cis‐Linoleic acid | C18:2n6c | 38.012 | 34 531 | 28.15 |
| 11 | γ‐Linolenic acid | C18:3n6 | 38.804 | 2819 | 1.58 |
| 12 | Linolenic acid | C18:3n6 | 39.191 | 1939 | 2.28 |
| 13 | Arachidic acid | C20:0 | 39.860 | 2798 | 2.30 |
| 14 | Behenic acid | C22:0 | 41.974 | 4271 | 3.48 |
| 15 | Tricosanoic acid | C23:0 | 44.257 | 3563 | 2.91 |
| 16 | Lignoceric acid | C24:0 | 45.770 | 5728 | 4.67 |
| Σ FA % | 12 2654 | 100.00 a |
aAnalytical coverage: The identified fatty acids account for 100% of the total identified fatty acid fraction detected by GC–MS.
TABLE 5.
Fatty acid composition (%) in aerial parts (T1) extract of Ornithogalum yesilyurtense.
| Peak | Fatty acid | Common name | Ret. time | Area | Area% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Butyric acid | C4:0 | 10.987 | 2523 | 2.656 |
| 2 | Myristic acid | C14:0 | 27.257 | 14 045 | 14.785 |
| 3 | Palmitic acid | C16:0 | 31.888 | 22940 | 24.149 |
| 4 | Stearic acid | C18:0 | 35.422 | 5571 | 5.865 |
| 5 | cis‐Oleic acid | C18:1n9c | 36.435 | 9791 | 10.307 |
| 6 | cis‐Linoleic acid | C18:2n6c | 38.009 | 11 224 | 11.815 |
| 7 | γ‐Linolenic acid | C18:3n6 | 39.200 | 13 383 | 14.088 |
| 8 | Linolenic acid | C18:3n6 | 39.861 | 14 412 | 15.171 |
| 9 | Docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) | C22:6n3 | 50.322 | 1105 | 1.163 |
| Σ FA % | 94 993 | 100.000 a |
aAnalytical coverage: The identified fatty acids account for 100% of the total identified fatty acid fraction detected by GC–MS.
FIGURE 1.
Fatty acid GC–MS chromatograms of the bulb part of Ornithogalum yesilyurtense.
FIGURE 2.
Fatty acid GC–MS chromatograms of the aerial part of Ornithogalum yesilyurtense.
Interestingly, a trace amount of docosahexaenoic acid (DHA, 1.163%) was detected in the aerial parts; this is an unusual finding for Ornithogalum species. Overall, the aerial parts of O. yesilyurtense were rich in both saturated and polyunsaturated fatty acids, supporting its potential application in nutritional and therapeutic contexts. Future studies under varying ecological conditions and developmental stages are recommended to better understand its lipid composition variability.
3.4. Antimicrobial Activity
The MICs of the plant extracts against selected microbial strains are presented in Table 6. As a result, the lower the MIC value, the higher the antimicrobial effect. Both extracts showed antimicrobial activity against all tested organisms. The aerial extract (T1) exhibited the strongest inhibition against E. faecalis, while the bulb extract (S1) showed highest effectiveness against E. coli and C. albicans. These results indicate that both plant parts possess broad‐spectrum antimicrobial properties, though their potency varies depending on the target organism.
TABLE 6.
MIC values (µg/mL) of Ornithogalum yesilyurtense extract.
| Plant part | Staphylococcus aureus | Escherichia coli | Enterococcus faecalis | Pseudomonas aeruginosa | Candida albicans |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| T1 (µg/mL) | 25 | 50 | 1.6 | 200 | 12.5 |
| S1 (µg/mL) | 0.1 | 1.6 | 125 | 62.5 | 100 |
| Ampicillin | 2 | 2 | 1 | > 16 | 1.563 |
| Fluconazole | — | — | — | — | 0.5 |
Abbreviations: S1, O. yesilyurtense bulbs; T1, O. yesilyurtense aerial parts.
4. Discussion
This study presents the first comprehensive investigation of the phenolic composition, antioxidant activity, fatty acid profile, and antimicrobial properties of methanol extracts obtained from both the aboveground and bulb parts of O. yesilyurtense. The findings indicate that the species is rich in bioactive compounds and possesses noteworthy biological activities. Secondary metabolites produced during the environmental adaptation process in Ornithogalum species are responsible for the majority of the observed biological activities [5]. While glucosinolates among these metabolites play a protective role against pathogens and pests, carotenoids, anthocyanins, and flavonols reduce oxidative stress caused by ultraviolet radiation, diseases, and parasites [25].
The total phenolic content was found to be significantly higher in the above‐ground parts compared to the bulb (p < 0.05). This indicates that phenolic biosynthesis increases in plant tissues directly exposed to light and environmental stress. This increase can be linked to the activation of phenylalanine ammonia lyase (PAL), the key enzyme in the phenylpropanoid pathway. Although the phenolic content is lower than in some Ornithogalum species such as Ornithogalum nutans and O. sigmoideum, the observed strong antioxidant activity can be explained by the presence of specific potent compounds such as resveratrol and hydroxycinnamic acid rather than the total phenolic amount [9, 26].
The DPPH free radical scavenging and FRAP results complement each other, indicating higher antioxidant potential in the aerial parts. This may be attributed to the higher concentrations of phenolic acids involved in redox regulation. While IC50 values are higher compared to O. sigmoideum or O. nutans, the presence of resveratrol and hydroxycinnamic acids contributes to the observed activity [6, 26, 27]. It is known that these compounds act as hydrogen donors, stabilizing free radicals and protecting cellular components from oxidative damage. Resveratrol levels are particularly high in the above‐ground parts (176.2 µg/g), which distinguishes O. yesilyurtense from other Ornithogalum species. This compound has generally been reported in low amounts [6, 9, 26]. Ellagic acid (124 µg/g), which is found in higher amounts in onions, also contributes significantly to the antioxidant profile. Both compounds are multifunctional antioxidants that can regulate oxidative pathways, inhibit microbial enzymes, and strengthen cell wall defense [28, 29, 30]. Furthermore, the presence of luteolin, naringin, and salicylic acid in both extracts supports the role of phenolic diversity in biological activity. Instead of stating that these compounds are “non‐mutagenic or non‐hepatotoxic.” It should be noted that they are generally considered safe at natural concentrations in the literature. While palmitic acid (24.15%), linoleic acid (15.17%), and γ‐linolenic acid (14.09%) were found to be high in the above‐ground parts, cis‐linoleic acid (28.18%) and cis‐oleic acid (10.31%) were predominant in the onion. The detection of γ‐linolenic acid and DHA, which are long‐chain omega‐3 fatty acids, supports the nutritional value of the species [31]. However, the DHA result must be evaluated with caution; this finding may be due to possible co‐elution or derivatization artifacts in GC analysis. Therefore, GC–MS or LC–MS validation is recommended for future studies.
In antimicrobial analyses, both extracts were found to be effective against the tested microorganisms (S. aureus, E. faecalis, E. coli, P. aeruginosa, and C. albicans), with the above‐ground extract showing the strongest activity against E. faecalis (MIC: 1.6 µg/mL). These findings are consistent with the broad‐spectrum antimicrobial effects reported in O. umbellatum and O. narbonense species [5, 32]. Phenolic acids thought to exert antimicrobial effects by disrupting the microbial cell membrane or inhibiting enzyme systems. It should be noted that ecological and seasonal factors may influence the phytochemical composition of O. yesilyurtense. Environmental parameters such as altitude, soil properties, temperature, and UV exposure can directly affect secondary metabolite biosynthesis. Therefore, future studies should evaluate these variations by sampling at different times and locations. Conclusively O. yesilyurtense stands out as a potential source of natural antioxidant and antimicrobial compounds. Its phenolic‐rich aerial extracts can be industrially evaluated as medicines, food supplements, or natural preservative additives. However, advanced bioavailability, toxicity, and in vivo studies are required to validate this potential.
5. Conclusion
The first comprehensive biochemical, oxidative, and antibacterial characterization of the newly discovered endemic geophyte O. yesilyurtense reveals an abundance of bioactive compounds with significant antibacterial and antioxidant efficacy. Methanol extracts from aerial parts exhibited higher levels of phenolic metabolites and fatty acids as well as superior antioxidant capacity compared to onions as demonstrated by total phenolic content, DPPH radical scavenging, and FRAP analyses. Broad‐spectrum antimicrobial activity was shown by both extracts, especially against E. coli, S. aureus as well as C. albicans. Overall O. yesilyurtense shows promise as a natural source of antimicrobial and antioxidant compounds that may find use in the food, pharmaceutical, and nutraceutical sectors.
Author Contributions
Melek Demir Perçin: conceptualization, methodology, formal analysis and investigation, data management, conceptualization, writing – original draft preparation, writing – review and editing, writing – review and editing, funding acquisition. Abuzer Çelekli: conceptualization, methodology, formal analysis and investigation, data management, conceptualization, writing – original draft preparation, writing – review and editing, writing – review and editing, funding acquisition, supervision. Yener Tekeli: methodology, formal analysis and investigation, data management, conceptualization, writing – original draft preparation, writing – review and editing, writing – review and editing. Ömer Kılıç: writing – original draft preparation, writing – review and editing, supervision. All authors made substantial contributions to the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of the data. All authors critically revised the work for content and approved the version to be published.
Ethics Statement
The authors have nothing to report.
Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
Acknowledgments
This study was carried out with the support of Gaziantep University Scientific Research Projects Unit (Project No: FEF.DT.21.05). We thank Dr. Şinasi Yıldırımlı for his contributions to the plant description.
Data Availability Statement
The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.
References
- 1. Varlı M., Hancı H., and Kalafat G., “Production Potential and Bioavailability of Medicinal and Aromatic Plants,” Research Journal of Biomedical and Biotechnology 1 (2020): 24–32. [Google Scholar]
- 2. Mandal S., Borah D., Boruah D., Kumar N., Shrivastav A. K., and Singh A., “Plant Secondary Metabolites: Their Impact on Human Health Within the Context of Harnessing NanoOmics and Nanozymes,” in Harnessing NanoOmics and Nanozymes for Sustainable Agriculture (2024): 297–318, 10.4018/979-8-3693-1890-4.ch015. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 3. Sakure A. A., Thounaojam A. S., Kumar S., and Patel D. A., “Biotechnological Approaches for Medicinal and Aromatic Plant‐Based Products,” in Biosynthesis of Bioactive Compounds in Medicinal and Aromatic Plants: Manipulation by Conventional and Biotechnological Approaches (2023): 1–39, 10.1007/978-3-031-35221-8_1. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 4. Göktaş B. and Gıdık B., “Consumption of Medicinal and Aromatic Plants Collected From Nature in Bayburt,” R&S‐Research Studies Anatolia Journal 2 (2019): 303–311, 10.33723/rs.596673. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 5. Akgeyik A. U., Yalçın E., and Çavuşoğlu K., “Determination of Phytochemical Content‐Related Antimicrobial Activity of Ornithogalum umbellatum L. Extract,” Gaziosmanpaşa Bilimsel Araştırma Dergisi 10 (2021): 188–200. [Google Scholar]
- 6. Aliyazıcıoğlu R., Kanbolat Ş., Badem M., et al., “The Antioxidative, Antimicrobial Activity and HPLC Analysis of Ornithogalum pyrenaicum ,” Pharmedicine Journal 1 (2024), 10.62482/pmj.2. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 7. Akgeyik A. U., Yalçın E., and Çavuşoğlu K., “Phytochemical Fingerprint and Biological Activity of Raw and Heat‐Treated Ornithogalum umbellatum ,” Scientific Reports 13 (2023): 13733, 10.1038/s41598-023-41057-w. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8. Ejder N., Sökmen M., Tunalı F., Kolaylı S., and Kılıç A. O., “Antioxidant and Anti‐Proliferative Effects of Ornithogalum balansae Extracts Collected in Black Sea Region Against Lung Cancer Cells,” Life 14 (2024), 10.3390/life14111365. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9. Yalçın C. Ö., Sarıaltın S. Y., and Polat D. Ç., “Quantification of Phenolic and Flavonoid Contents and Some Biological Activities of Ornithogalum sigmoideum Freyn & Sint,” Journal of Research in Pharmacy 24 (2020): 487–496, 10.35333/jrp.2020.197. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 10. Sharafi‐Badr P., Karoobi S., Monsef‐Esfahani H. R., Ghahremani M. H., and Adhami H.‐R., “In Vitro Cytotoxic Screening of Different Parts From Ornithogalum bungei on Selected Cancer Cells,” Iranian Journal of Medical Sciences 47 (2022): 63, 10.30476/ijms.2021.89521.2037. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11. Koyuncu I., Gönel A., Akdağ A., and Yilmaz M. A., “Identification of Phenolic Compounds, Antioxidant Activity and Anti‐Cancer Effects of the Extract Obtained From the Shoots of Ornithogalum narbonense L.,” Cellular and Molecular Biology 64 (2018): 75–83, 10.14715/cmb/2018.64.1.14. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12. Ejder N., Eksi S., Yazici Z. A., Beris F. S., Makbul S., and Uzunok B., “Antiproliferative Effect of Ornithogalum balansae on Human Cancer Cell Lines,” Indian Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences 82 (2020), 10.36468/pharmaceutical-sciences.653. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 13. Zhan Z., Liu Z., Lai J., Zhang C., Chen Y., and Huang H., “Anticancer Effects and Mechanisms of OSW‐1 Isolated From Ornithogalum saundersiae: A Review,” Frontiers in Oncology 11 (2021): 747718, 10.3389/fonc.2021.747718. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14. Yıldırımlı Ş. and Kılıç Ö., “A New Subgenus and Four New Species of Ornithogalum L. (Asparagaceae/Liliaceae), O. nitidum, O. plurifolium, O. sancakense and O. yesilyurtense From Turkey,” Ot Sistematik Botanik Dergisi 26 (2019): 9–31. [Google Scholar]
- 15. Kılıç Ö. and Yildirimli S., “Contributions to the Flora of Çelikhan District (Adıyaman),” Adıyaman University Journal of Science 12 (2022): 203–229, 10.37094/adyujsci.1143607. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 16. Şen N., Kar Y., and Tekeli Y., “Antioxidant Activities of Black Cumin (Nigella sativa L.) Seeds Cultivating in Different Regions of Turkey,” Journal of Food Biochemistry 34 (2010): 105–119, 10.1111/j.1745-4514.2009.00309.x. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 17. Gámez‐Meza N., Noriega‐Rodríguez J. A., Medina‐Juárez L. A., Ortega‐García J., Cázarez‐Casanova R., and Angulo‐Guerrero O., “Antioxidant Activity in Soybean Oil of Extracts From Thompson Grape Bagasse,” Journal of the American Oil Chemists' Society 76 (1999): 1445–1447, 10.1007/s11746-999-0182-4. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 18. Tekeli Y., Özkaya A., Tel A. Z., Deniz Sönmez G., and Akocak S., “Düzeltme: Adıyaman'da Yetişen Endemik Serratula olygocephala'nın Moleküler Karakterizasyonu ve Bazı Biyokimyasal Özelliklerini Belirlenmesi,” Commagene Journal of Biology 5 (2021): 222–222, 10.31594/commagene.1033243. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 19. Tekeli Y., Özkaya A., Tel A. Z., Sönmez G. D., and Akocak S., “Molecular Characterization and Determination of some Biochemical Properties of Endemic Serratula olygocephala Growing in Adıyaman,” Commagene Journal of Biology 3 (2019): 32–36, 10.31594/commagene.559626. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 20. Sánchez‐Moreno C., Larrauri J. A., and Saura‐Calixto F., “A Procedure to Measure the Antiradical Efficiency of Polyphenols,” Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 76 (1998): 270–276, 10.1002/(SICI)1097-0010(199802)76:2. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 21. Oyaizu M., “Studies on Products of Browning Reaction. Antioxidative Activities of Products of Browning Reaction Prepared From Glucosamine,” Japanese Journal of Nutrition and Dietetics 44 (1986): 307–315, 10.5264/eiyogakuzashi.44.307. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 22. Danahaliloğlu H., Tekeli Y., and Güzel Y., “Some Chemical and Biological Properties of Verbascum tripolitanum Growing in Hatay,” Commagene Journal of Biology 3 (2019): 79–82, 10.31594/commagene.598450. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 23. Tekeli T., Lolak N., Tekeli Y., et al., “Bis‐Ureido‐Substituted Benzenesulfonamides: Evaluation of Their Antibacterial, Anticholinesterase, and Cytotoxicity Properties,” ChemistrySelect 9 (2024): e202400485, 10.1002/slct.202400485. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 24. Summer K., Browne J., Hollanders M., and Benkendorff K., “Out of Control: The Need for Standardised Solvent Approaches and Data Reporting in Antibiofilm Assays Incorporating Dimethyl‐sulfoxide (DMSO),” Biofilm 4 (2022): 100081, 10.1016/j.bioflm.2022.100081. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25. Yang W., Zhang L., Yang Y., Xiang H., and Yang P., “Plant Secondary Metabolites‐Mediated Plant Defense Against Bacteria and Fungi Pathogens,” Plant Physiology and Biochemistry 217 (2024): 109224, 10.1016/j.plaphy.2024.109224. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26. Atay M. Ö., Cengaver G., Güzel Y., and Mammadov R., “Investigation of Antioxidant, Enzyme Inhibitory Effects and Total Secondary Metabolite Quantification of Ornithogalum nutans L. Methanol,” Balıkesir Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü Dergisi 26 (2024): 305–315, 10.25092/baunfbed.1242438. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 27. Renda G., Özel A., Akyüz Turumtay E., et al., “Comparison of Phenolic Profiles and Antioxidant Activity of Three Ornithogalum L. Species,” Turkish Journal of Biochemistry 44 (2019): 299–306, 10.1515/tjb-2018-0011. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 28. Baur J. A. and Sinclair D. A., “Therapeutic Potential of Resveratrol: The In Vivo Evidence,” Nature Reviews Drug Discovery 5 (2006): 493–506, 10.1038/nrd2060. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 29. Mannino F., Imbesi C., Bitto A., et al., “Anti‐Oxidant and Anti‐Inflammatory Effects of Ellagic and Punicic Acid in an In Vitro Model of Cardiac Fibrosis,” Biomedicine & Pharmacotherapy 162 (2023): 114666, 10.1016/j.biopha.2023.114666. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 30. Chauhan A., Yadav M., Chauhan R., et al., “Exploring the Potential of Ellagic Acid in Gastrointestinal Cancer Prevention: Recent Advances and Future Directions,” Oncology and Therapy 12 (2024): 685–699, 10.1007/s40487-024-00296-1. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 31. Simopoulos A. P., “Essential Fatty Acids in Health and Chronic Disease,” American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 70 (1999): 560S–569S, 10.1093/ajcn/70.3.560s. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 32. Ozturk D., Ozguven A., Yonten V., and Ertas M., “Green Synthesis, Characterization and Antimicrobial Activity of Silver Nanoparticles Using Ornithogalum narbonense L,” Inorganic and Nano‐Metal Chemistry 52 (2022): 329–341, 10.1080/24701556.2021.1978496. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.
Data Availability Statement
The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.