Skip to main content
Download PDF

Chemical composition, cholinesterase, and α-glucosidase inhibitory activity of the essential oils of some Iranian native Salvia species

BMC Complementary Medicine and Therapies volume 23, Article number: 184 (2023) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

The plants from Salvia genus contain widely distributed species which have been used in folk medicine as well as pharmaceutical and food industries.

Methods

The chemical composition of 12 native Iranian Salvia species (14 plants) was identified using gas chromatography-mass spectrometry (GC–MS). Also, the inhibitory activity of all essential oils (EOs) was evaluated toward α-glucosidase and two types of cholinesterase (ChE) using spectrophotometric methods. The in vitro α-glucosidase inhibition assay was performed by the determination of p-nitrophenol (pNP) obtained from the enzymatic dissociation of p-nitrophenol-α-D-glucopyranoside (pNPG) as the substrate. In vitro ChE inhibitory assay was conducted based on the modified Ellman’s procedure using the measurement of 5-thio-2-nitrobenzoic acid produced from the hydrolysis of thiocholine derivatives as the substrate, in the presence of acetylcholinesterase (AChE) and butyrylcholinesterase (BChE).

Results

Totally, 139 compounds were detected and caryophyllene oxide and trans-β-caryophyllene were the most abundant compounds in all EOs. The yield of EOs extracted from the plants were also calculated in the range of 0.06 to 0.96% w/w. Herein, α-glucosidase inhibitory activity of 8 EOs was reported for the first time and among all, S. spinosa L. was found to be the most potent inhibitor (90.5 inhibition at 500 μg/mL). Also, the ChE inhibitory activity of 8 species was reported for the first time and our results showed that the BChE inhibitory effect of all EOs was more potent than that of AChE. The ChE inhibition assay indicated that S. mirzayanii Rech.f. & Esfand. collected from Shiraz was the most potent inhibitor (72.68% and 40.6% at the concentration of 500 μg/mL, toward AChE and BChE, respectively).

Conclusions

It seems that native Salvia species of Iran could be considered in the development of anti-diabetic and anti-Alzheimer's disease supplements.

Peer Review reports

Background

Plants and their extracts, essential oils (EOs), and secondary metabolites have been widely used in the pharmaceutical, food, cosmetic, and perfume industries due to valuable medicinal, flavoring, and preserving properties. Among them, Salvia species have attracted a lot of attention [1]; for example, Salvia officinalis L. (sage) is used for food preservation, particularly meat and cheese [2]. In this respect, Salvia sclarea L., Salvia hispanica L., and Salvia divinorum Epling & Játiva are cultivated in many parts of the world due to their commercial interests [3, 4].

Salvia is one of the most important and largest genera of the Lamiaceae family containing approximately 900 distinct species worldwide (tropical, temperate, and arctic regions) [5] and widely distributed in Iran. Out of 58 different species existing in Iran, 17 are endemic [6]. The extracts and EOs of Salvia have depicted a wide range of biological activities including antibacterial, carminative, diuretic, spasmolytic, anti-inflammatory, antioxidant, anti-cancer, anti-diabetic, anxiolytic, and sedative properties. Also, the genus has long been considered in folk medicine to deal with different ailments such as epilepsy, cancer, malaria, bronchitis, tuberculosis, hepatitis, anti-diabetic, dementia, and dysmenorrhea [6-10]. Furthermore, Salvia plants have been extensively used for different therapeutic purposes in Persian medicine. For example, S. officinalis has been used as a diuretic, carminative, wound healing, and asthma-treating agent [11-13]. Today, the sale and production of sage have resulted in significant income benefits for several Asian nations due to its several applications in aromatherapy and promoting general health as well as food industry [14].

Diabetes Mellitus (DM) is an endocrine disease which can impair carbohydrate metabolism due to insulin deficiency or insulin resistance [15]. The global diabetes prevalence is worrying, and it is estimated that over 700 million people will suffer from the disease, by the year 2045 [16]. Sulfonylureas, biguanides, and other drugs possessing various mechanisms of action are used to treat type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), which is the most common type of DM. Delaying the uptake of glucose by inhibiting α-glucosidase, has been an efficient therapeutic tool for the treatment of T2DM [17]. α-Glucosidase is the key enzyme which is located in the brush border of the intestine, catalyses dietary carbohydrates to glucose monomers and prepares them for absorption. Thus, post-prandial blood glucose can be controlled by inhibiting the enzyme [3]. However, continuous use of approved drugs causes adverse effects such as hypoglycemia, nausea, and dizziness [18, 19]. Recently, many studies have focused on plant-derived natural products which are safer and more affordable than the common medications. Also, various plants have been used as anti-diabetic agents in folk medicine, their EOs and extracts can be regarded as extremely valuable natural resources for the treatment of DM [20, 21]. In an in vivo study, S. officinalis EO exhibited anti-diabetic properties by reducing blood glucose up to 60% and elevating stored glycogen in the liver up to 43.7% [22]. Assaggaf et al. evaluated the chemical composition and α-glucosidase inhibitory activity of S. officinalis EO in the full flowering stage which inhibited the enzyme with an IC50 = 22.24 μg/mL, compared to acarbose as a standard (IC50 = 12.31 μg/mL) [23].

Salvia species have also been linked to neuroprotective characteristics. Generally, the small size and lipophilicity of EOs constituents allow them to easily pass the blood–brain barrier and therefore could be suggested as a potential strategy for the treatment of neurodegenerative disease [24]. Nowadays, approximately 50 million people suffer from Alzheimer’s disease (AD) worldwide and a three-fold increase in the incidence of the disease is estimated by 2050 [25]. The cholinesterases (ChEs) including AChE and BChE are responsible for the hydrolysis of acetylcholine (ACh) in the brain. Thus, reduction of the level of ACh can be terminated by the inhibition of ChEs. Currently, FDA-approved ChE inhibitors such as donepezil, rivastigmine, and galantamine are important medicines for controlling the symptoms of AD. The EOs of medicinal plants are rich sources of valuable phytochemicals which have been widely considered for the treatment of various neurodegenerative diseases such as AD [26]. In this regard, based on a clinical study, the EOs of Salvia lavandulifolia Vahl. and S. officinalis significantly improved memory performance and thereby, could be considered in aromatherapy [27]. Furthermore, S. lavandulifolia EO was found to be a selective AChE inhibitor with an IC50 value of 3 µg/mL while inhibiting BChE by 22% at 0.5 mg/mL [28]. Also, S. lavandulifolia EO reduced the activity of AChE in the striatum of rats, however, not in their hippocampus or cortex [29]. Moreover, in vitro evaluation of Salvia potentillifolia Boiss. & Heldr. ex Benth. EO indicated inhibitory activity against the BChE by 65.7% inhibition at the concentration of 200 µg/mL and the corresponding activity on AChE was obtained as 21.9% inhibition at the same concentration, compared with galantamine as a reference (75.5% and 81.4% inhibition at 200 μM, respectively) [30].

Unlike synthetic substances, which are often based on a single active component, EOs include a variety of compounds that interact synergistically or additively with each other to either reduce the risk of drug resistance or boost the effectiveness of the treatment [31]. Several studies have reported the chemical composition of different species of Salvia genus EOs and α-pinene, β-pinene, germacrene D, spathulenol, bicyclogermacrene, 1,8-cineole, camphor, borneol, α-thujone and β-thujone, thymol, caryophyllene, and caryophyllene oxide have been commonly determined as the most prominent components [6, 32].

The scientific research of numerous plant species to find new natural bioactive agents is a time-consuming and resource-intensive procedure. As a result, researchers are now receiving assistance in their quest to identify active pharmaceutical ingredients in medicinal plants, which were previously used to treat illnesses in a simple and cost-effective manner. In this study, constituents of EOs of 14 plants from 12 Iranian native Salvia species were investigated, and they were evaluated for their α-glucosidase and ChE inhibitory activity to develop dual natural anti-diabetic and anti-AD agents as AD has been considered as type 3 diabetes and the role of insulin resistance in inducing impaired brain glucose metabolism, neurodegeneration, and cognitive impairment has been comprehensively discussed in the literature [33].

Methods

Chemicals

α-Glucosidase (from Saccharomyces cerevisiae; EC3.2.1.20, 20 U/mg), acetylcholinesterase (AChE, E.C. 3.1.1.7, Type V-S, lyophilized powder, from electric eel, 1000 unit), butyrylcholinesterase (BChE, E.C. 3.1.1.8, from equine serum), p-nitrophenyl α-D-glucopyranoside (p-NPG), 5,5′-dithio-bis-(2-nitrobenzoic acid) (DTNB), acetylthiocholine iodide (ATCI), and butyrylthiocholine iodide (BTCI) were provided from Sigma-Aldrich.

Plant material

Aerial parts of 14 native Iranian medicinal plants from 12 distinct species of the Salvia genus were collected from different parts of Iran during the flowering stage. After verification by the botanist Sedighe Khademian at Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, voucher specimens were deposited in the herbarium of the Faculty of Pharmacy, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran (Table 1, Fig. 1). Comparing the identified herbarium and flora specimens with the identified plant species enabled for reliable plant identification. Experimental research and field studies on plants (either cultivated or wild), including the collection of plant material, complies with relevant institutional, national, and international guidelines and legislation.

Table 1 EOs obtained from aerial parts of some Salvia spp., collected from different parts of Iran
Full size table
Fig. 1
figure 1

Geographical distribution of  14 studied plants from Salvia genus

Full size image

Extraction of the essential oils

The aerial parts of plants were collected and dried at room temperature away from direct sunlight. To isolate the corresponding EO, each milled dried plant (100 g) was hydro-distilled for 4 h using a Clevenger-type apparatus according to European Pharmacopoeia (2020). Anhydrous sodium sulfate was added to the isolated EO to remove the water. All EOs were stored in a dark sealed vial at 4 °C for further experiments. The yield of extraction was reported as w/w%.

GC–MS analysis

GC–MS analysis was performed on a 7890B Agilent gas chromatograph including a DB-5 column (60 cm, 0.25 µ) and a 5977A Agilent mass spectrometer. 1 μL of diluted samples (with ethyl acetate) was injected into the injection site. The temperature program was scheduled as follows: the initial temperature of the oven was 40˚C (held for 7 min) and programmed to reach 140˚C with a rate of 10 ˚C /min, eventually reached 250˚C with a rate of 3˚C /min and held for 7 min at this temperature. Helium with 99.99% purity was utilized as a carrier gas (flow rate: 1 mL/min). Also, the ionization voltage of the detector was set at 70 eV. To determine the components, normal alkanes (C7–C21) were injected in the same manner to compare calculated retention indices with those in authentic references. For more accurate identification, the mass spectra of each compound were reconciled with the NIST database [34] and Adams's book [35].

α-Glucosidase inhibition assay

The α-glucosidase inhibitory activity of EOs was evaluated based on the previously described method [20] using α-glucosidase (from Saccharomyces cerevisiae).

Cholinesterase inhibition assay

Inhibitory activity against AChE (E.C. 3.1.1.7, Type V-S, lyophilized powder, from electric eel, 1000 unit) and BChE (E.C. 3.1.1.8, from equine serum) was performed using modified Ellman's method [36].

Statistical analysis

The GraphPad Prism software was used to carry out statistical analysis. Data comparisons were performed by one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) with Tukey’s multiple comparisons as the post-hoc test. P values < 0.05 were considered statistically significant.

Results

Yield of isolation of essential oils

The yield of isolation of EOs from each species was reported in Table 1. They were obtained in the range of 0.06–0.92 w/w%. The lowest and highest values were related to S. reuterana and S. mirzayanii (Jahrom region), respectively.

Chemical composition of essential oils

According to the GC–MS analysis, 139 components were identified in the isolated EOs from 14 plants as recorded in Table 2. They were categorized into monoterpenes, sesquiterpenes, oxygenated diterpenes, carbonyl compounds, alcohols, acids, esters, alkanes, and phenolic compounds. As reported in Table 2, sesquiterpenes were the major compounds in the series of Salvia spp. EOs. However, in the case of S. multicaulis, monoterpenes were the most abundant components.

Table 2 Chemical composition of EOs (%) of some native Iranian Salvia spp.a
Full size table

The GC–MS analysis also revealed that among all EOs components (Table 2), sclareol oxide (24.56%), and trans-β-caryophyllene (24.12%) (entries 137 and 66, respectively) were the highest in value. It is worth mentioning that caryophyllene oxide was detected as the main compound in 7 Salvia spp. S. sharifii and S. sclarea EOs contained the corresponding compound as 21.11 and 22.26%, respectively, which were more significant than the others. Moreover, linalool, α-terpineol, trans-β-caryophyllene, spathulenol, and caryophyllene oxide were ubiquitous in all isolated EOs.

Biological activity of essential oils

The percentage inhibition values for α-glucosidase and ChE inhibitory activity of the Salvia EOs were reported in Table 3.

Table 3 Enzyme inhibitory activity of Salvia spp. EOs at the concentration of 500 μg/mLa
Full size table

α-Glucosidase inhibitory activity

It was perceived that 8 EOs expressed a notable inhibitory effect toward α-glucosidase at 500 μg/mL, compared with acarbose. More specifically, S. spinosa EO exhibited the strongest activity (90.5% inhibition) and EOs of S. virgata and S. reuterana were also able to block the enzyme with high percentage inhibition (89.7% inhibition). Additionally, the EOs of S. mirzayanii collected from Darab and S. hypoleuca showed a weak α-glucosidase inhibitory activity with percentage inhibition values of 25.5%, and 22.7%, respectively, while S. mirzayanii from Jahrom displayed no activity.

Cholinesterase inhibitory activity

In vitro ChE inhibitory assay of the 14 investigated EOs indicated moderate to remarkable activity toward both AChE and BChE at 500 μg/mL, however, they were less active than donepezil (Table 3).

S. mirzayanii collected from Shiraz revealed the highest inhibitory effect on AChE and BChE (40.6% and 72.68%, respectively), and S. mirzayanii collected from Jahrom (30.81% and 64.76%) and Darab (23.86% and 63.02%), as well as S. syriaca (15.8% and 52.1%), showed good activity. S. verticillata and S. multicaulis had a negligible effect toward AChE (0.5% and 1.1% respectively) and S. palaestina and S. hypoleuca had no significant inhibitory effect on BChE (7% and 11.3%, respectively). Furthermore, S. sharifii (42%), S. santolinifolia (44.1%), and S. multicaulis (44.1%) were found to be moderate inhibitors of BChE.

Finally, the selectivity index (SI) of the tested EOs in the inhibition of BChE over AChE showed that S. multicaulis EO was the most selective BChE inhibitor (SI = 88.2). Meanwhile, the three populations of S. mirzayanii EOs exhibited no noticeable selectivity in the inhibition of ChEs.

Discussion

GC–MS analysis indicated that monoterpenes and sesquiterpenes were the predominant components of EOs. Even though significant components were similar in the isolated EOs, some constituents such as viridiflorene, trans-γ-bisabolene, β-copaen-4-α-ol, and valeranone were detected only in the specific species. However, caryophyllene oxide, spathulenol, linalool, α-terpineol, and trans-β-caryophyllene were detected in all EOs. Additionally, caryophyllene oxide (0.38–22.26%), trans-β-caryophyllene (0.72–24.12%), spathulenol (0.94–17.62%), germacrene D (0–16.33%), and δ-cadinene (0–11.72%) were generally found to be the main components in this series of EOs. Comparing the major components of the studied Salvia spp. with those reported in the literature (Table 4), revealed the significant variation in the EOs components of different Salvia species. Genetic composition, environmental and climate factors, and developmental stages are important reasons that may contribute to this diversity [4, 37].

Table 4 Comparison of major components of studied Salvia spp. with those reported in the literature
Full size table

According to the literature review, α-glucosidase inhibitory activity of S. syriaca, S. spinosa, S. virgata, and S. sclarea EOs have been previously recorded. Bahadori et al. reported that the α-glucosidase inhibitory activity of S. syriaca EO (IC50 = 1.2 mg/mL) was more potent than acarbose (IC50 = 9.6 mg/mL) [58] which is in contrary with our findings. In another study, the α-glucosidase inhibitory activity of S. spinosa EO was evaluated, which demonstrated moderate inhibitory activity with an IC50 value of 43.79 µg/mL, compared with acarbose (IC50 = 17.1 µg/mL) [49]. On the contrary, another study indicated that neither S. virgata nor S. sclarea EOs were active toward α-glucosidase [7].

EOs possessing high amounts of p-cymene, borneol, γ-terpinene, and phytol have shown good inhibitory effect on α-glucosidase. For example, Carum carvi L. and Coriandrum sativum L. EOs containing high amounts of these compounds showed very potent α-glucosidase inhibitory activity, compared with acarbose [59] which is in alignment with our results. Although no study was reported on the inhibitory activity of β-eudesmol, α-humulene, and camphene, which are present in high concentration in the S. santolinifolia, S. verticillata and S. multicaulis EOs, respectively; they may be effective in inducing α-glucosidase inhibitory activity.

AChE accounts for roughly 80% of cholinesterase activity in the normal brain, with BChE making up the remaining 20%. However, in severe AD, AChE activity may decline to 55–67% of baseline levels in particular brain regions, whereas BChE activity rises. Also, BChE may contribute to the accumulation of β-amyloid plaques that occur in the early phases of AD progression [60]. Therefore, nowadays there is a considerable deal of interest in discovering compounds that can precisely inhibit the BChE.

To the best of our knowledge, cholinesterase inhibitory activity of the S. sharifii, S. santolinifolia, S. reuterana, S. spinosa, S. palaestina, S. virgata, S. hypoleuca, and S. mirzayanii EOs are reported for the first time and those of S. sclarea, S. verticillata, S. multicaulis, and S. syriaca EOs were previously investigated [58, 61-63].

Orhan et al. [63] studied the BChE inhibitory activity of two populations of cultivated S. sclarea which were exposed to different fertilizers. The EOs of plants treated with organic and chemical fertilizers were able to inhibit the enzyme with the percentage inhibition of 76.0% and 45.1%, respectively at the concentration of 1 mg/mL. However, S. sclarea EO exhibited 32.8% inhibition toward BChE at the concentration of 500 μg/mL, in our study. On the other hand, only the plant EO treated with chemical fertilizers were able to inhibit the AChE (11.6%, at 1 mg/mL), while in our study, S. sclarea EO inhibited this enzyme less than 10% at 500 μg/mL.

Kunduhoglu et al. reported the cholinesterase inhibitory activity of S. verticillata and S. wiedemannii EOs. In agreement with our results, S. verticillata EO had a weak inhibitory effect on the ChEs (20.4% and 1.8% against AChE and BChE, respectively), however, inconsistent with our results, the EO inhibited the AChE more strongly than the BChE [62].

S. syriaca EO demonstrated AChE and BChE inhibitory activity stronger than the reference (galantamine) [58], while compared to other understudied EOs in our survey, S. syriaca EO showed significant inhibition on the ChEs, but they couldn't exceed donepezil as the standard.

As reported by Akdeniz et al., S. multicaulis EO was able to inhibit AChE and BChE by 25.6% and 71.2%, respectively, at the concentration of 100 μg/mL [61], but the EO inhibited BChE by 44.1% with no inhibitory activity on AChE, in our study (at 500 μg/mL).

According to the study of Loizzo et al. on the EO of S. leriifolia, α-pinene and 1,8-cineole showed BChE inhibitory activity with IC50 values of 0.87 and 0.93 mM, respectively [64]. Also, good AChE inhibitory activity has been reported for α-pinene, however, 1,8-cineole has not been active [63]. Although these results were in good agreement with ours in some cases, the α-pinene content was not found to be important for inducing desired AChE inhibitory activity in isolated EOs.

According to the Chowdhury and Kumar report, α-terpinyl acetate was introduced as a natural monoterpenoid with potent ChE inhibitory activity (IC50 values of 54.7 and 47.5 µM against AChE and BChE, compared with donepezil with IC50 values of 0.15 and 5.8 µM, respectively) [65]. These results were also supported by ours indicating that S. mirzayanii and S. syriaca EOs have α-terpinyl acetate in higher amounts than other EOs, which induced higher ChEs inhibitory properties particularly more potent BChE inhibitory activity.

Orhan et al. showed that geraniol inhibited the BChE by 55.4% over 15.3% for AChE [63]. However, the amount of geraniol was not found to be a remarkable factor associated with the ChE inhibitory activity, in our investigations.

It seems that the presence of δ-cadinene is also important for inducing BChE inhibitory activity as S. mirzayanii and S. syriaca EOs containing high levels of that compound, showed good activity against BChE. Also, the amount of mesitylene as one of the main components of S. syriaca EO (9.13%) was found to be important for higher BChE inhibitory activity. However, further study is needed to determine whether these compounds are responsible for BChE inhibitory property.

On the other hand, no correlation was detected between the ChE inhibitory activity of the EOs and limonene, trans-β-caryophyllene, spathulenol, caryophyllene oxide, and linalool. Bonesi et al. studied the ChE inhibitory activity of Cordia gilletii De Wild. EO suggesting that trans-β-caryophyllene is playing an important role in BChE inhibitory activity [66]. Moreover, Sadaoui et al. suggested limonene as a strong BChE inhibitor (IC50 values of 51.6 and 66.7 µg/mL against AChE and BChE, respectively) [67]. However, the amount of these compounds was not found to be effective on the desired ChE inhibitory activity, in this study. As EOs of plants are complex mixtures, their inhibitory effects depend on the synergistic or antagonistic interactions.

According to the literature, AChE and BChE have approximately 65% amino acid sequence identity [68]. However, the substrate selectivity and sensitivity to the inhibitors of these enzymes, which are encoded by different genes, clearly vary. The primary distinction between the AChE and BChE relates to the acyl bonds and peripheral anionic sites where the substrate is linked to the enzyme. AChE has two aromatic amino acids, Phe295 and Phe297 in the acyl binding site whereas these amino acids have been replaced by linear ones, Leu286 and Val288 in the BChE [69]. The structural difference between these two enzyme active sites can explain why various compounds have different inhibitory activity. As stated earlier, AChE plays a greater role than BChE in the normal brain. However, in severe AD, the ratio between these two enzymes rises from 0.5 to 11 as the BChE effect grows [60]. Therefore, it is crucial to find a compound that could more efficiently inhibit the BChE. The acquired SI (selectivity index) from this study indicated that all the investigated EOs were able to inhibit the BChE more than the AChE, which makes them remarkable in treating AD in the advanced stages. Herein, the highest selectivity for BChE over AChE was obtained by S. multicaulis EO possessing high amounts of trans-β-caryophyllene (19.02%), borneol (12.52%), α-pinene (9.43%), and carvacrol (5.66%).

Comparing wild plants with cultivated ones, demonstrated that cultivated counterparts offer numerous advantages to the pharmaceutical industry, including fewer chemical changes, a more manageable supply chain, minimized batch variations, and stable raw material prices, albeit still higher than those for wild plants [70]. Because of factors such as changing climate conditions and depleting natural resources, traditional methods of growing aromatic plants do not always produce EOs with the appropriate quantity and quality of secondary metabolites. As a result, it is possible to optimize plant growth, EO efficiency, and EO constituents for cultivated herbs by using methods such as fertilizer or programmed temperature conditions and water supply.

In this work, the EO of S. mirzayanii cultivated in Shiraz, showed the strongest activity toward ChEs while the S. spinosa EO was the most potent inhibitor of α-glucosidase. It seems that they can be a potential and guaranteed source for the industrial production of new medicinal agents to control T2DM and AD.

Conclusions

This study aimed to find natural and safe resources for the treatment of two common diseases; T2DM and AD, as many people with Type 2 diabetes have shown a higher risk of developing AD and anti-diabetic agents have been recently found to be active in the treatment of AD. Evaluation of 14 Salvia species EOs by GC–MS led to the identification of 139 compounds. The S. spinosa EO showed high inhibitory activity toward α-glucosidase, while three S. mirzayanii EOs exhibited the strongest inhibitory effects on ChEs. Plants in the genus Salvia, especially S. mirzayanii and S. spinosa which were cultivated in Shiraz, can be considered as natural resources for industrial production of important supplements to be effective as a treatment for AD and T2DM. However, it should be mentioned that further studies are required to determine the responsible bioactive components for desired biological activities. Also, the toxicology and bioavailability profile of EOs are in high demand.

Availability of data and materials

All relevant data are included within the manuscript. However, data are available from the corresponding author on reasonable requests.

Abbreviations

ChE:

Cholinesterase

EO:

Essential oil

GC–MS:

Gas chromatography-mass spectrometry

BChE:

Butyrylcholinesterase

AChE:

Acetylcholinesterase

DM:

Diabetes Mellitus

AD:

Alzheimer’s Disease

DMSO:

Dimethyl sulfoxide

pNPG:

para-Nitrophenol-α-D-glucopyranoside

DTNB:

5,5′-Dithio-bis-(2-nitrobenzoic acid)

ATCI:

Acetylthiocholine iodide

BTCI:

Butyrylthiocholine iodide

SI:

Selectivity index

T2DM:

Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus

References

  1. Yadav A, Joshi A, Kothari S, Kachhwaha S, Purohit S. Medicinal, nutritional and industrial applications of Salvia species: A revisit. Int J Pharm Sci Rev Res. 2017;43:27–37.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Daniela T. Salvia officinalis l. I Botanic characteristics, composition, use and cultivation. Cesk Farm. 1993;42(3):111–6.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Bahadori MB, Salehi P, Sonboli A. Comparative study of the essential oil composition of Salvia urmiensis and its enzyme inhibitory activities linked to diabetes mellitus and Alzheimer’s disease. Int J Food Prop. 2017;20(12):2974–81.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Karik U, Çinar O, Tuncturk M, Sekeroglu N, Gezici S. Essential oil composition of some sage (Salvia spp.) species cultivated in İzmir (Turkey) ecological conditions. Indian J Pharm Educ. 2018;52(4):102–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Sharifi-Rad M, Ozcelik B, Altın G, Daşkaya-Dikmen C, Martorell M, Ramírez-Alarcón K, et al. Salvia spp. plants-from farm to food applications and phytopharmacotherapy. Trends Food Sci Technol. 2018;80:242–63.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Askari SF, Avan R, Tayarani-Najaran Z, Sahebkar A, Eghbali S. Iranian Salvia species: a phytochemical and pharmacological update. Phytochemistry. 2021;183:112619.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Gad HA, Mamadalieva RZ, Khalil N, Zengin G, Najar B, Khojimatov OK, et al. GC-MS Chemical Profiling, Biological Investigation of Three Salvia Species Growing in Uzbekistan. Molecules. 2022;27(17):5365.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Lim Ah, Tock MJ, Kamatou GPP, Combrinck S, Sandasi M, Viljoen AM. A chemometric assessment of essential oil variation of three Salvia species indigenous to South Africa. Phytochemistry. 2020;172:112249.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Temel HE, Demirci B, Demirci F, Celep F, Kahraman A, Doğan M, et al. Chemical characterization and anticholinesterase effects of essential oils derived from Salvia species. J Essent Oil Res. 2016;28(4):322–31.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Villalta G, Salinas M, Calva J, Bec N, Larroque C, Vidari G, et al. Selective BuChE inhibitory activity, chemical composition, and enantiomeric content of the essential oil from Salvia leucantha Cav. collected in Ecuador. Plants. 2021;10(6):1169.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Menichini F, Tundis R, Loizzo MR, Bonesi M, Marrelli M, Statti GA, et al. Acetylcholinesterase and butyrylcholinesterase inhibition of ethanolic extract and monoterpenes from Pimpinella anisoides V Brig. (Apiaceae). Fitoterapia. 2009;80(5):297–300.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Szwajgier D, Baranowska-Wójcik E. Terpenes and phenylpropanoids as acetyl-and butyrylcholinesterase inhibitors: a comparative study. Curr Alzheimer Res. 2019;16(10):963–73.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Kontogianni VG, Tomic G, Nikolic I, Nerantzaki AA, Sayyad N, Stosic-Grujicic S, et al. Phytochemical profile of Rosmarinus officinalis and Salvia officinalis extracts and correlation to their antioxidant and anti-proliferative activity. Food Chem. 2013;136(1):120–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Taarit MB, Msaada K, Hosni K, Hammami M, Kchouk ME, Marzouk B. Plant growth, essential oil yield and composition of sage (Salvia officinalis L.) fruits cultivated under salt stress conditions. Ind Crops Prod. 2009;30(3):333–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Majouli K, Besbes Hlila M, Hamdi A, Flamini G, Ben Jannet H, Kenani A. Antioxidant activity and α-glucosidase inhibition by essential oils from Hertia cheirifolia (L.). Ind Crops Prod. 2016;82:23–8.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Aschner P, Karuranga S, James S, Simmons D, Basit A, Shaw JE, et al. The International Diabetes Federation’s guide for diabetes epidemiological studies. Diabetes Res Clin Pract. 2021;172:108630.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Mahnashi M, Alqahtani Y, Alyami B, Alqarni A, Ayaz M, Ghufran M, et al. Phytochemical Analysis, α-Glucosidase and Amylase Inhibitory, and Molecular Docking Studies on Persicaria hydropiper L. Leaves Essential Oils. Evid Based Complementary Altern Med. 2022;2022:11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Chaudhury A, Duvoor C, Reddy Dendi VS, Kraleti S, Chada A, Ravilla R, et al. Clinical review of antidiabetic drugs: implications for type 2 diabetes mellitus management. Front Endocrinol. 2017;8:6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. El-Nashar HA, Eldehna WM, Al-Rashood ST, Alharbi A, Eskandrani RO, Aly SH. GC/MS Analysis of Essential Oil and Enzyme Inhibitory Activities of Syzygium cumini (Pamposia) Grown in Egypt: Chemical Characterization and Molecular Docking Studies. Molecules. 2021;26(22):6984.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Elyasi Ghahfarrokhi A, Saeedi M, Khanavi M, Mojtabavi S, Kobarfard F, Faramarzi M. Chemical composition and biological effects of Pistacia atlantica Desf. oleoresin essential oil. Res J Pharmacogn. 2022;9(3):25–33. Elyasi Ghahfarrokhi A et al. 2022;26:25-33.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Mechchate H, Es-Safi I, Haddad H, Bekkari H, Grafov A, Bousta D. Combination of Catechin, Epicatechin, and Rutin: optimization of a novel complete antidiabetic formulation using a mixture design approach. J Nutr Biochem. 2021;88:108520.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Belhadj S, Hentati O, Hammami M, Ben Hadj A, Boudawara T, Dammak M, et al. Metabolic impairments and tissue disorders in alloxan-induced diabetic rats are alleviated by Salvia officinalis L. essential oil. Biomed Pharmacother. 2018;108:985–95.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Assaggaf HM, Naceiri Mrabti H, Rajab BS, Attar AA, Alyamani RA, Hamed M, et al. chemical analysis and investigation of biological effects of Salvia officinalis essential oils at three phenological stages. Molecules. 2022;27(16):5157.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Savelev SU, Okello EJ, Perry EK. Butyryl-and acetyl-cholinesterase inhibitory activities in essential oils of Salvia species and their constituents. Phytother Res. 2004;18(4):315–24.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Zhang XX, Tian Y, Wang ZT, Ma YH, Tan L, Yu JT. The epidemiology of Alzheimer’s disease modifiable risk factors and prevention. J Prev Alzheimer’s Dis. 2021;8(3):313–21.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Dabaghian F, Azadi A, Zarshenas MM. Design, reformulation, and standardization of a traditional-based memory enhancer herbal preparation originated from Persian medicine. J Medicinal Plants. 2022;21(82):93–110.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Moss M, Rouse M, Moss L. Aromas of Salvia Species Enhance Everyday Prospective Memory Performance in Healthy Young Adults. Adv Chem Engineer Sci. 2014;04:339–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Kennedy DO, Dodd FL, Robertson BC, Okello EJ, Reay JL, Scholey AB, et al. Monoterpenoid extract of sage (Salvia lavandulaefolia) with cholinesterase inhibiting properties improves cognitive performance and mood in healthy adults. J Psychopharmacol. 2011;25(8):1088–100.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Perry NSL, Houghton PJ, Jenner P, Keith A, Perry EK. Salvia lavandulaefolia essential oil inhibits cholinesterase in vivo. Phytomedicine. 2002;9(1):48–51.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Kivrak İ, Duru ME, Öztürk M, Mercan N, Harmandar M, Topçu G. Antioxidant, anticholinesterase and antimicrobial constituents from the essential oil and ethanol extract of Salvia potentillifolia. Food Chem. 2009;116(2):470–9.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Laborda R, Manzano I, Gamón M, Gavidia I, Perez-Bermudez P, Boluda R. Effects of Rosmarinus officinalis and Salvia officinalis essential oils on Tetranychus urticae Koch (Acari: Tetranychidae). Ind Crops Prod. 2013;48:106–10.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Bisio A, Ciarallo G, Romussi G, Fontana N, Mascolo N, Capasso R, et al. Chemical composition of essential oils from some Salvia species. Phytother Res. 1998;12(S1):S117–20.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Lynn J, Park M, Ogunwale C, Acquaah-Mensah GK. A tale of two diseases: Exploring mechanisms linking diabetes mellitus with Alzheimer’s disease. J Alzheimer’s Dis. 2022;85(2):485–501.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. The NIST Database: https://webbook.nist.gov/chemistry/. Accessed 15 Mar 2022.

  35. Adams R. Identification of Essential Oil Components by Gas Chromatography/Quadrupole Mass Spectroscopy. Carol Stream. 2005;16:65–120.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Ellman GL, Courtney KD, Andres V Jr, Featherstone RM. A new and rapid colorimetric determination of acetylcholinesterase activity. Biochem Pharmacol. 1961;7(2):88–95.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Rajabi Z, Ebrahimi M, Farajpour M, Mirza M, Ramshini H. Compositions and yield variation of essential oils among and within nine Salvia species from various areas of Iran. Ind Crops Prod. 2014;61:233–9.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Bilel H, Boubakri L, Zagrouba F, Hamdi N. Chemical composition, antimicrobial and antioxidant activities of the essential oils from flowers of Salvia Sharifii. Eur J Org Chem. 2015;6:301–4.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Aghaee Z, Alizadeh A, Honarvar M, Babadaei Samani R. Phytochemical screening and antimicrobial activity of Salvia sharifii Rech. & Esfand from Iran. Nat Prod Res. 2022;36(10):2585–90.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Raafat K, Habib J. Phytochemical Compositions and Antidiabetic Potentials of Salvia sclarea L. Essential Oils. J Oleo Sci. 2018;67:1015–25.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Shanaida M, Hudz N, Białoń M, Kryvtsowa M, Svydenko L, Filipska A, et al. Chromatographic profiles and antimicrobial activity of the essential oils obtained from some species and cultivars of the Mentheae tribe (Lamiaceae). Saudi J Biol Sci. 2021;28(11):6145–52.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  42. Pitarokili D, Tzakou O, Loukis A. Essential oil composition of Salvia verticillata, S. verbenaca, S. glutinosa and S. candidissima growing wild in Greece. Flavour Fragr J. 2006;21:670–3.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  43. Karamian R, Asadbegy M, Pakazad R. Essential Oil Compositions, Antioxidant and Antibacterial Activities of Two Salvia Species (S. grossheimii Bioss. and S. syriaca L.) Growing in Iran. J Essent Oil Bear Plants. 2014;17(2):331–45.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  44. Arslan Ş, Kocabıyık K, Mutlu D, Semiz G. Assessment of Cytotoxic and Apoptotic Effects of Salvia syriaca L. in Colorectal Adenocarcinoma Cell Line (Caco-2). Iran J Pharm Res. 2021;20(3):235.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  45. Bahadori MB, Valizadeh H, Farimani M. Chemical Composition and Antimicrobial Activity of the Volatile Oil of Salvia santolinifolia Boiss. From Southeast of Iran. Pharm Sci. 2016;22:42–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Fattahi B, Nazeri V, Kalantari S, Bonfill M, Fattahi M. Essential oil variation in wild-growing populations of Salvia reuterana Boiss. collected from Iran: Using GC-MS and multivariate analysis. Ind Crops Prod. 2016;81:180–90.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  47. Talebi SM, Askary M, Khalili N, Matsyura A, Ghorbanpour M, Kariman K. Genetic structure and essential oil composition in wild populations of Salvia multicaulis Vahl. Syst Ecol. 2021;96: 104269.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  48. Gharenaghadeh S, Karimi N, Forghani S, Nourazarian M, Gharehnaghadeh S, Jabbari V, et al. Application of Salvia multicaulis essential oil-containing nanoemulsion against food-borne pathogens. Food Biosci. 2017;19:128–33.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  49. Bahadori MB, Valizadeh H, Asghari B, Dinparast L, Moridi Farimani M, Bahadori S. Chemical composition and antimicrobial, cytotoxicity, antioxidant and enzyme inhibitory activities of Salvia spinosa L. J Funct Foods. 2015;18:727–36.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  50. Flamini G, Cioni PL, Morelli I, Bader A. Essential oils of the aerial parts of three Salvia species from Jordan: Salvia lanigera, S. spinosa and S. syriaca. Food Chem. 2007;100(2):732–5.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  51. Al-Jaber HI, Al-Qudah MA, Barhoumi LM, Abaza IF, Afifi FU. Essential oil composition of the aerial parts of fresh and air-dried Salvia palaestina Benth. (Lamiaceae) growing wild in Jordan. Nat Prod Res. 2012;26(13):1179–87.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Baharfar R, Tajbakhsh M, Azimi R, Khalilzadeh MA, Eslami B. Chemical Constituents of Essential Oils From the Leaves, Stems and Aerial Parts of Salvia virgata Jacq. From Iran. J Essent Oil Res. 2009;21(5):448–50.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  53. Sonboli A, Salehi P, Gharehnaghadeh S. Chemical variability in the essential oil composition of Salvia hypoleuca, an endemic species from Iran. J Essent Oil Res. 2016;28(5):421–7.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  54. Nickavar B, Mojab F, Asgarpanah J. Volatile composition of the essential oil of Salvia hypoleuca Benth. Int J Aromather. 2005;15(1):51–3.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  55. Asadollahi M, Firuzi O, Heidary Jamebozorgi F, Alizadeh M, Jassbi AR. Ethnopharmacological studies, chemical composition, antibacterial and cytotoxic activities of essential oils of eleven Salvia in Iran. J Herb Med. 2019;17–18:100250.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Zomorodian K, Moein M, Pakshir K, Karami F, Sabahi Z. Chemical composition and antimicrobial activities of the essential oil from Salvia mirzayanii leaves. J Evid Based Complementary Altern Med. 2017;22(4):770–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  57. Yamini Y, Khajeh M, Ghasemi E, Mirza M, Javidnia K. Comparison of essential oil compositions of Salvia mirzayanii obtained by supercritical carbon dioxide extraction and hydrodistillation methods. Food Chem. 2008;108(1):341–6.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  58. Bahadori MB, Dinparast L, Zengin G, Sarikurkcu C, Bahadori S, Asghari B, et al. Functional components, antidiabetic, anti-Alzheimer’s disease, and antioxidant activities of Salvia syriaca L. Int J Food Prop. 2017;20(8):1761–72.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  59. Hajlaoui H, Arraouadi S, Noumi E, Aouadi K, Adnan M, Khan MA, et al. Antimicrobial, Antioxidant, Anti-Acetylcholinesterase, Antidiabetic, and Pharmacokinetic Properties of Carum carvi L. and Coriandrum sativum L. Essential Oils Alone and in Combination. Molecules. 2021;26(12):3625.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  60. Greig NH, Utsuki T, Yu QS, Zhu X, Holloway HW, Perry T, et al. A New Therapeutic Target in Alzheimer’s Disease Treatment: Attention to Butyrylcholinesterase. Curr Med Res Opin. 2001;17(3):159–65.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Akdeniz M, Yener I, Yilmaz MA, Irtegun Kandemir S, Tekin F, Ertas A. A potential species for cosmetic and pharmaceutical industries: Insight to chemical and biological investigation of naturally grown and cultivated Salvia multicaulis Vahl. Ind Crops Prod. 2021;168:113566.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  62. Kunduhoğlu B, Kurkcuoglu M, Duru M, Baser KHC. Antimicrobial and anticholinesterase activities of the essential oils isolated from Salvia dicroantha Stapf., Salvia verticillata L. subsp. amasiaca (Freyn and Bornm.) Bornm. and Salvia wiedemannii Boiss. J Med Plant Res. 2011;5:6484–90.

    Google Scholar 

  63. Orhan I, Kartal M, Kan Y, Sener B. Activity of essential oils and individual components against acetyl- and butyrylcholinesterase. Z Naturforsch C J Biosci. 2008;63(7–8):547–53.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. Loizzo MR, Menichini F, Tundis R, Bonesi M, Conforti F, Nadjafi F, et al. In vitro biological activity of Salvia leriifolia Benth. essential oil relevant to the treatment of Alzheimer’s disease. J Oleo Sci. 2009;58(8):443–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  65. Chowdhury S, Kumar S. Alpha-terpinyl acetate: A natural monoterpenoid from Elettaria cardamomum as multi-target directed ligand in Alzheimer’s disease. J Funct Foods. 2020;68:103892.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  66. Bonesi M, Okusa PN, Tundis R, Loizzo MR, Menichini F, Stévigny C, et al. Chemical composition, antioxidant properties and anti-cholinesterase activity of Cordia gilletii (Boraginaceae) leaves essential oil. Nat Prod Commun. 2011;6(2):1934578X1100600225.

    Google Scholar 

  67. Sadaoui N, Bec N, Barragan-Montero V, Kadri N, Cuisinier F, Larroque C, et al. The essential oil of Algerian Ammodaucus leucotrichus Coss. & Dur. and its effect on the cholinesterase and monoamine oxidase activities. Fitoterapia. 2018;130:1–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  68. Lane RM, Potkin SG, Enz A. Targeting acetylcholinesterase and butyrylcholinesterase in dementia. Int J Neuropsychopharmacol. 2006;9(1):101–24.

  69. Tundis R, Leporini M, Bonesi M, Rovito S, Passalacqua NG. Salvia officinalis L. from Italy: A comparative chemical and biological study of its essential oil in the mediterranean context. Molecules. 2020;25(24):5826.

  70. Lubbe A, Verpoorte R. Cultivation of medicinal and aromatic plants for specialty industrial materials. Ind crops prod. 2011;34(1):785–801.

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors thank Tehran University of Medical Sciences for supporting the research.

Funding

This work was supported by the Tehran University of Medical Sciences by grant number 1401–4-104–63710.

Author information

Author notes

  1. Houra Jazayeri Gharehbagh and Masoud Ebrahimi contributed equally to this work.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Pharmacognosy, Faculty of Pharmacy, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran

    Houra Jazayeri Gharehbagh, Masoud Ebrahimi, Farid Dabaghian & Mahnaz Khanavi

  2. Department of Pharmaceutical Biotechnology, Faculty of Pharmacy, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran

    Somayeh Mojtabavi & Mohammad Ali Faramarzi

  3. Department of Medicinal Chemistry, Faculty of Pharmacy, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran

    Roshanak Hariri

  4. Medicinal Plants Research Center, Faculty of Pharmacy, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran

    Mina Saeedi

  5. Persian Medicine and Pharmacy Research Center, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran

    Mina Saeedi

  6. Faculty of Land and Food Systems, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada

    Mahnaz Khanavi

Authors
  1. Houra Jazayeri Gharehbagh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Masoud Ebrahimi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Farid Dabaghian
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Somayeh Mojtabavi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Roshanak Hariri
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Mina Saeedi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Mohammad Ali Faramarzi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Mahnaz Khanavi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

HJG and ME isolated the EOs, characterized their chemical components and wrote the manuscript. FD designed the whole study and contributed to the preparation of the manuscript. SM and RH performed biological assays. MS interpreted the data and contributed to the preparation of the manuscript. MAF supervised biological assays. MK designed the whole study and supervised all steps of the project. All authors reviewed the manuscript. The author(s) read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mahnaz Khanavi.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable

Consent for publication

Not applicable

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Gharehbagh, H.J., Ebrahimi, M., Dabaghian, F. et al. Chemical composition, cholinesterase, and α-glucosidase inhibitory activity of the essential oils of some Iranian native Salvia species. BMC Complement Med Ther 23, 184 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12906-023-04004-w

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12906-023-04004-w

Keywords

BMC Complementary Medicine and Therapies

ISSN: 2662-7671

Contact us