Molecules (Jul 2022)

Phytochemical Profile and Herbicidal (Phytotoxic), Antioxidants Potential of Essential Oils from <i>Calycolpus goetheanus</i> (Myrtaceae) Specimens, and in Silico Study

  • Celeste de Jesus Pereira Franco,
  • Oberdan Oliveira Ferreira,
  • Jorddy Neves Cruz,
  • Everton Luiz Pompeu Varela,
  • Ângelo Antônio Barbosa de Moraes,
  • Lidiane Diniz do Nascimento,
  • Márcia Moraes Cascaes,
  • Antônio Pedro da Silva Souza Filho,
  • Rafael Rodrigues Lima,
  • Sandro Percário,
  • Mozaniel Santana de Oliveira,
  • Eloisa Helena de Aguiar Andrade

DOI
https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules27154678
Journal volume & issue
Vol. 27, no. 15
p. 4678

Abstract

Read online

The essential oil (EO) of Calycolpus goetheanus (Myrtaceae) specimens (A, B, and C) were obtained through hydrodistillation. The analysis of the chemical composition of the EOs was by gas chromatography coupled with mass spectrometry CG-MS, and gas chromatography coupled with a flame ionization detector CG-FID. The phytotoxic activity of those EOs was evaluated against two weed species from common pasture areas in the Amazon region: Mimosa pudica L. and Senna obtusifolia (L.) The antioxidant capacity of the EOs was determined by (DPPH•) and (ABTS•+). Using molecular docking, we evaluated the interaction mode of the major EO compounds with the molecular binding protein 4-hydroxyphenylpyruvate dioxygenase (HPPD). The EO of specimen A was characterized by β-eudesmol (22.83%), (E)-caryophyllene (14.61%), and γ-eudesmol (13.87%), while compounds 1,8-cineole (8.64%), (E)-caryophyllene (5.86%), δ-cadinene (5.78%), and palustrol (4.97%) characterize the chemical profile of specimen B’s EOs, and specimen C had α-cadinol (9.03%), δ-cadinene (8.01%), and (E)-caryophyllene (6.74%) as the majority. The phytotoxic potential of the EOs was observed in the receptor species M. pudica with percentages of inhibition of 30%, and 33.33% for specimens B and C, respectively. The EOs’ antioxidant in DPPH• was 0.79 ± 0.08 and 0.83 ± 0.02 mM for specimens A and B, respectively. In the TEAC, was 0.07 ± 0.02 mM for specimen A and 0.12 ± 0.06 mM for specimen B. In the results of the in silico study, we observed that the van der Waals and hydrophobic interactions of the alkyl and pi-alkyl types were the main interactions responsible for the formation of the receptor–ligand complex.

Keywords