Next Article in Journal
Effects of Different Seedless Treatments on Fruit Quality and Coloring of ‘Jumeigui’ Grapes
Previous Article in Journal
Multi-Target Herbicidal Effects of Agave lechuguilla Torr. Extract on Chenopodium album L.: Germination Inhibition, Metabolic Disruption, and Morpho-Physiological Alterations
Previous Article in Special Issue
Production of Bioactive Compounds in Grammatophyllum speciosum Blume Using Bioreactor Cultures Under Elicitation with Sodium Chloride
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Plants
Volume 15
Issue 5
10.3390/plants15050746
plants-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
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Conifer Bark Extracts as Modulators of Endothelial Function: Evidence from Abies alba and Cedrus brevifolia

by
Alexandra Barsan (Bujor)
1,
Valeriu B. Cismasiu
2,
Sevinci Pop
2,*,
Corine Girard
3,
Perle Totoson
3,
Simon Vlad Luca
4,
Krystyna Skalicka-Woźniak
5,
Mihaela Lipovanu
1,
Cristina Lungu
1,
Lacramioara Ochiuz
1 and
Anca Miron
1,*
1
Grigore T. Popa University of Medicine and Pharmacy Iasi, 700115 Iasi, Romania
2
Victor Babes National Institute of Pathology and Biomedical Sciences, 050096 Bucharest, Romania
3
Marie et Louis Pasteur University, EFS, INSERM UMR1098 RIGHT, 25000 Besançon, France
4
Institute of Organic and Analytical Chemistry, University of Orléans, CNRS, UMR 7311, 45067 Orléans, France
5
Department of Natural Products Chemistry, Medical University of Lublin, 20-093 Lublin, Poland
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Plants 2026, 15(5), 746; https://doi.org/10.3390/plants15050746
Submission received: 5 January 2026 / Revised: 22 February 2026 / Accepted: 24 February 2026 / Published: 28 February 2026
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Applications of Plant Physiology and Pharmacognosy in the Production of Bioactive Compounds)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

Conifer bark extracts have attracted growing interest for their potential to protect and support endothelial function. The objective of this study was to evaluate the effects of Abies alba Mill. and Cedrus brevifolia (Hook. f.) Henry bark extracts on vascular endothelial function. The bark extracts were characterized by liquid chromatography coupled to high-resolution mass spectrometry. Bioactivity studies were first conducted in EA.hy926 endothelial cells to investigate the effects of bark extracts on cell viability and proliferation, nitric oxide production, oxidative stress, and angiogenesis. The vasorelaxant effects of bark extracts in rat aortic rings, as well as their impact on in vitro arginase activity, were further assessed. Abies alba bark extract was more effective in enhancing nitric oxide production (8.8-fold vs. 7.4-fold at 0.1 mg/mL), reducing oxidative stress (by 33% vs. 26% at 0.1 mg/mL), and inhibiting angiogenesis in EA.hy926 endothelial cells. It also exhibited stronger arginase inhibitory activity (IC50 = 68.30 µg/mL vs. 115.31 µg/mL). Both bark extracts showed marked vasorelaxant activity (EC50 < 15 µg/mL), mainly mediated by an endothelial nitric oxide synthase-related mechanism, with the Cedrus brevifolia bark extract being more active. Overall, our findings indicate that both bark extracts are promising candidates for supporting endothelial function.

1. Introduction

Conifer bark extracts exhibit a wide range of effects that contribute to the prevention and treatment of cardiovascular diseases. Numerous in vitro, in vivo, and clinical studies have highlighted their antioxidant capacity, anti-atherosclerotic, and cholesterol-lowering properties, as well as their abilities to protect the vascular endothelium function and to induce vasorelaxant and antihypertensive effects [1,2]. These beneficial activities are largely attributed to their high content of polyphenolic compounds, which play a key role in the modulation of vascular tone and endothelial homeostasis [3].
Several standardized conifer bark extracts, mainly derived from species of the genus Pinus, are currently commercially available in the form of capsules, tablets, and chewing gums. Enzogenol®, a water-soluble powdered extract obtained from the bark of Pinus radiata D. Don and standardized to contain more than 80% proanthocyanidins, was reported to reduce blood pressure following oral administration of 480 mg/day in a 12-week open label pilot study conducted on healthy people [4,5,6].
Oligopin® is an aqueous extract obtained from the Pinus pinaster Aiton bark containing 65–75% oligomeric proanthocyanidins, together with catechin, taxifolin, and phenolic acids, including ferulic, gallic, and caffeic acids [7,8]. Due to its high content in soluble oligomers and low proportion of insoluble components, Oligopin® is considered one of the most purified pine bark extracts on the market [7,9]. In a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover trial, daily supplementation with 150 mg Oligopin® for five weeks led to improvements in cardiovascular risk factors, evidenced by reduced systolic blood pressure and low-density lipoprotein (LDL) oxidation, as well as increase in high-density lipoprotein (HDL) and apolipoprotein A1 levels in patients with stage 1 hypertension [10].
Pycnogenol®, another standardized and purified extract derived from Pinus pinaster bark, has been extensively investigated in both clinical and preclinical studies. This extract is standardized to contain 70 ± 5% procyanidins, mainly composed of catechin and epicatechin subunits [11]. Apart from its antioxidant capabilities, Pycnogenol® has been shown to enhance constitutive endothelial nitric oxide synthase (eNOS) activity, thereby elevating nitric oxide (NO) bioavailability in isolated rat aortic rings [12,13]. Clinical studies in patients with diabetes mellitus have demonstrated that daily supplementation with 25 mg Pycnogenol® for 12 weeks reduced LDL and maintained blood pressure within normal limits, allowing the use of lower doses of angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors. At the same time, serum endothelin-1 (ET-1) levels, a vasoconstrictive peptide, exhibited a significant reduction [14]. The capacity of Pycnogenol® to enhance endothelium-dependent vasodilation through the upregulation of NO production was also noted after two weeks of oral administration (180 mg/day) in a double-blind, randomized study [15]. It is well recognized that NO produced by endothelial cells regulates blood pressure, and its reduced levels are associated with hypertension and other cardiovascular disorders [2]. Additionally, following the administration of 200 mg Pycnogenol® daily for eight weeks to patients with coronary artery disease, an improvement in endothelial function was observed. The vascular protective role of Pycnogenol® was correlated with its antioxidant properties, as evidenced by a decrease in the oxidative stress biomarker 15-F2t-isoprostane [16].
Another commercially available extract obtained from Pinus pinaster bark is Flavangenol®, whose chemical composition differs from that of Pycnogenol® and Oligopin®, owing to a distinct standardization process. Flavangenol® is produced by hot-water extraction of the bark and contains 72.5% polyphenols, including procyanidin B1, catechin, and epicatechin [16,17]. This extract has been shown to activate the eNOS-NO-soluble guanylate cyclase (sGC) signaling pathway, resulting in pronounced vasorelaxant effects, associated with an upregulation of phosphorylated-eNOS (Ser1177) protein [18].
Beyond these commercially available Pinus species, antihypertensive effects have also been reported for bark extracts from other Pinus species. In a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial, daily administration of 1322 mg of Pinus massoniana Lamb. bark extract (equivalent to 432 mg of polyphenols) for 12 weeks resulted in a significant reduction in systolic blood pressure in healthy adults [19]. Similarly, administration of an aqueous bark extract from Pinus densiflora Sieb. et Zucc. (Korean red pine) to hypertensive rats, at doses of 50 and 150 mg/kg/day for seven weeks, significantly reduced blood pressure due to the downregulation of renin–angiotensin system components and malondialdehyde (MDA) levels [20,21].
In contrast to the extensive literature on Pinus bark extracts, other members of the Pinaceae family remain comparatively underexplored. Abies alba Mill. (silver fir) and Cedrus brevifolia (Hook. f.) Henry (Cyprus cedar) are two such species whose bark has demonstrated promising bioactivities with potential pharmaceutical applications [22,23,24,25,26,27]. Cedrus brevifolia is a narrowly endemic conifer species native to the island of Cyprus [28]. Charalambous et al. identified several bioactive compounds in the methanolic bark extract (quercitrin hydrate, vanilloyl hexoside, taxifolin, dihydromyricetin, matairesinol), that contributed to the notable antioxidant activity in 2,2-diphenyl-1-picrylhydrazyl (DPPH) radical scavenging assay (IC50 = 0.011 ± 0.001 mg/mL) [29]. On the other hand, Leone et al. showed that an ethyl-acetate soluble fraction of an aqueous bark extract of Abies alba (Abigenol®/AlbiPhenol®) reduced the production of reactive oxygen species (ROS) and glutathione oxidation in human umbilical vein endothelial cells (HUVEC) and hepatocytes (HepG2 cells), as well as superoxide dismutase (SOD) activity in H9c2 rat myoblasts [30]. This ethyl-acetate fraction, rich in phenolic acids, flavonoids and lignans, also reduced HDL and LDL oxidation in vitro, suggesting a potential protective effect against atheromatous plaque formation [1,30]. An additional noteworthy property of Abigenol®/AlbiPhenol® was demonstrated in the H9c2 cardiomyocyte cell model, where the highest non-toxic concentration (700 µg/mL) significantly reduced ACE activity, exhibiting a stronger inhibitory effect than lisinopril. This outcome highlights its potential in modulating key factors associated with cardiovascular disorders, including vasorelaxant properties, likely mediated through endothelium-dependent mechanisms and NO production, which could be linked to a reduced risk of hypertension in vivo [30].
Given the high phenolic content of conifer bark extracts and the well-established involvement of phenolic compounds in endothelial regulation, we hypothesized that phenolic-rich, tannin-depleted extracts from Abies alba and Cedrus brevifolia bark may modulate endothelial function by affecting NO bioavailability, oxidative stress, angiogenesis-related processes, and vascular reactivity. To investigate this hypothesis, we performed phytochemical characterization of the extracts, followed by in vitro endothelial cell-based assays and ex vivo vascular reactivity studies.

2. Results

2.1. Phytochemical Analysis of Bark Extracts

Abies alba bark extract (AABE) and Cedrus brevifolia bark extract (CBBE) were obtained with yields of 7.55% and 4.34%, respectively. Their total phenolic, flavonoid, and proanthocyanidin contents are presented in Table 1. AABE exhibited a higher total phenolic content than CBBE (659.55 vs. 589.33 mg chlorogenic acid equivalents/g of extract), whereas CBBE had a higher total flavonoid content (246.26 vs. 167.92 mg catechin equivalents/g of extract). Regarding proanthocyanidin content, the values were comparable between the two extracts (98.2 mg vs. 101.6 mg cyanidin equivalents/g of extract).
Twenty-five compounds were tentatively identified in the two bark extracts by liquid chromatography coupled to high-resolution mass spectrometry (LC-HRMS/MS) by comparing their mass spectral data and fragmentation with those found in the literature and KNApSacK database [31] (Figure 1, Table 2). A total of 21 compounds were detected in AABE, of which seven were simple phenolics, including glycosides of methoxy-dihydroxybenzoic acid (2), hydroxy-methoxybenzyl alcohol (3), hydroxybenzoic acid (4, 9), and methoxyhydroxy-benzaldehyde (17), as well as homovanillic acid (5). Among flavonoids, glycosides of kaempferol (12), isorhamnetin (13, 24), and taxifolin (21) were identified. Additionally, several flavan-3-ols such as epigallocatechin (10), gallocatechin (15), catechin (16), and epicatechin (19), were observed. Proanthocyanidin dimers were also observed, with peaks 8, 11, and 14, possibly corresponding to prodelphinidins and procyanidins. Lastly, two lignan glycosides, taxiresinol (20) and (iso)lariciresinol (22), were proposed. In contrast, CBBE displayed a slightly lower compound diversity, with many compounds also identified in AABE. Glycosides of vanillic acid (7), dimethoxybenzaldehyde (18), dihydro-isorhamnetin (23), and quercetin (25) were detected only in CBBE. Overall, both extracts shared a substantial number of common metabolites.

2.2. Effects of Bark Extracts on Proliferation of EA.hy926 Endothelial Cells

In order to evaluate the effects of bark extracts (0.01–0.20 mg/mL) on the proliferation of EA.hy926 cells, real-time experiments were performed to monitor cell growth for five days; untreated cells (0.00 mg/mL) were used as the control (Figure 2). The assay relies on the continuous recording of cellular impedance, with the generation of time- and concentration-dependent cellular profiles. These profiles reflect cellular proliferation, growth, and morphological changes, corresponding to alterations in cell physiology [56,57]. The addition of AABE at 0.01 mg/mL did not change the shape of the proliferation curve compared to the control during the first 48 h of treatment. A slight decrease in the cell index (CI) values of the treated cells was observed after 72–96 h of treatment, indicating a reduced proliferation rate. However, when treated with higher concentrations of AABE (0.05, 0.1, and 0.2 mg/mL), the cell response curves indicated time- and concentration-dependent alterations in cell physiology after 24 h of treatment. The proliferation curve of cells treated with AABE at 0.05 mg/mL suggested an antiproliferative effect, with CI values decreasing to approximately half of those recorded for the control. For the cells treated with AABE at 0.1 and 0.2 mg/mL, the CI values were significantly lower and the cellular profiles indicated a possible cell death process, which might occur after long-time incubation with AABE (Figure 2A). The proliferation curves of EA.hy926 cells treated with CBBE at all tested concentrations (0.01–0.2 mg/mL) had similar shapes to those of untreated cells. Treatment with increasing concentrations of CBBE appeared to slightly reduce the proliferation rate, as shown by decreasing CI values in a time-dependent manner (Figure 2B). However, the CI values for cells treated with either bark extracts at concentrations of 0.01, 0.05, and 0.1 mg/mL were similar to untreated cells, during the first 24 h of treatment. The results suggest no significant cytotoxicity of bark extracts at indicated concentrations in this time frame. Based on these findings, a 24 h treatment period was selected for all subsequent cell-based assays to ensure biological relevance while minimizing potential cytotoxic effects.

2.3. Effects of Bark Extracts on Cell Viability and Cytotoxic Activity in Endothelial EA.hy926 Cells

To confirm the absence of significant cytotoxicity, cell viability and cytotoxic assays were performed in EA.hy926 cells following 24 h incubation with the bark extracts (0.01–0.20 mg/mL) (Figure 3). The viability of EA.hy926 cells, assessed by 3-(4,5-dimethylthiazol-2-yl)-5-(3-carboxymethoxyphenyl)-2-(4-sulfophenyl)-2H-tetrazolium (MTS) assay, was not significantly affected by treatment with bark extracts at 0.01 and 0.05 mg/mL. A slight reduction in cell viability was observed at 0.10 mg/mL, with cell viability decreasing to 92.83 ± 2.42% and 90.50 ± 2.93% following treatment with AABE and CBBE, respectively (p < 0.01). EA.hy926 cell viability decreased to 74.07 ± 3.70% (p < 0.001) in response to treatment with AABE at 0.2 mg/mL. The impact of CBBE at the same concentration was less pronounced, resulting in a cell viability of 82.00 ± 4.02% (p < 0.001). The cytotoxic potential of AABE and CBBE was evaluated by the lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) release assay. The latter confirmed the MTS assay results, showing no cytotoxicity for either bark extract, except for AABE at 0.2 mg/mL. At this concentration, cytotoxicity, evaluated as LDH release, was higher (17.91 ± 2.03%) compared to the control (13.73 ± 2.81%) (p < 0.05), likely explaining the reduction in cell viability below 80%. The results confirm the data provided by real-time experiments, indicating that EA.hy926 cells remain viable after treatment with bark extracts at 0.01–0.10 mg/mL for 24 h.

2.4. Effects of Bark Extracts on NO Production in Endothelial EA.hy926 Cells

The intracellular NO level in EA.hy926 cells, treated with bark extracts and untreated (control), was detected using 4-amino-5-methylamino-2′,7′-difluorofluorescein diacetate (DAF-FM DA), a non-fluorescent compound that reacts with NO to generate fluorescent triazolofluorescein [58]. The highest NO production was detected in EA.hy926 cells treated overnight (18 h) with bark extracts at 0.10 mg/mL and 1 μM DAF-FM DA. Under these conditions, NO levels in cells treated with AABE showed an approximately 8.8-fold increase compared to the control. Treatment with CBBE induced slightly lower NO production under identical conditions (7.4-fold increase compared to the control) (Figure 4A). The histograms support these findings (Figure 4B). Untreated EA.hy926 cells (control) showed a main peak (grey) corresponding to non-fluorescent cells (NO-negative cells) and a minor peak (green) representing fluorescent cells (NO-positive cells). Histograms of treated cells displayed well-defined peaks corresponding to fluorescent cells. The capacity of bark extracts to stimulate NO production in EA.hy926 cells was further confirmed by fluorescence microscopy. Under the same experimental conditions, AABE-treated cells exhibited a slightly higher proportion of NO-positive cells (fluorescent cells) compared with those exposed to CBBE (Figure 4C).

2.5. Effects of Bark Extracts on ROS Production in Endothelial EA.hy926 Cells

Treatment with bark extracts for 24 h dose-dependently reduced H2O2-induced ROS production in EA.hy926 cells. AABE was more effective in reducing ROS generation at all three tested concentrations. At 0.10 mg/mL, it reduced ROS level to 67%, whereas CBBE decreased ROS level to 74% (Figure 5A,B). The higher antioxidant potency of AABE was confirmed by fluorescence microscopy (Figure 5C).

2.6. Effects of Bark Extracts on Angiogenesis in Endothelial EA.hy926 Cells

The angiogenesis process involves several stages such as cell proliferation, migration, and sprouting, followed by the formation of tight cell–cell junctions. The final stage is characterized by the development of complex capillary structures forming tubular networks [59]. Both bark extracts dose-dependently reduced EA.hy926 cell migration compared to the control. Control cells nearly closed the wound within 24 h, whereas cells treated with bark extracts exhibited reduced wound closure, indicating impaired cell migration. AABE was more effective, causing wound area closure of 68% at 0.05 mg/mL and 46% at 0.10 mg/mL. At the same concentrations, CBBE was less active, inducing wound area closure of 77% and 61%, respectively (Figure 6).
The capacity of bark extracts to modulate the differentiation of EA.hy926 cells into capillary-like structures on Matrigel is illustrated in Figure 7. Morphological analysis revealed that both bark extracts inhibited the angiogenic organization of human epidermal growth factor (hEGF)-stimulated EA.hy926 cells in a dose-dependent manner. While the control group formed a dense, interconnected tubular lattice, treated cells exhibited a progressive breakdown of network connectivity. Specifically, treatment with AABE at 0.05 and 0.1 mg/mL resulted in a prevalence of shortened tube fragments, isolated cell aggregates, and numerous individual non-aligned cells, indicating a potent inhibition of endothelial differentiation. CBBE at 0.1 mg/mL also reduced the complexity of the tubular network compared to the control. However, the anti-angiogenic effect of CBBE was notably less pronounced than that of AABE at the same concentration, as evidenced by a lower frequency of isolated individual cells. Overall, the prevalence of isolated cell aggregates and fragmented tubular structures at high extract concentrations correlates with the anti-migratory effects observed in the wound healing assays.

2.7. Effects of Bark Extracts on Arginase Activity

As shown in Table 3, the initial screening showed that AABE and CBBE inhibited bovine arginase I by more than 45% at 100 µg/mL. After plotting the logarithm of bark extract concentration vs. the percentage of arginase inhibition (Figure 8), the calculated inhibitory concentration 50% (IC50) value was significantly lower for AABE (68.30 ± 3.92 µg/mL) compared with CBBE (115.31 ± 4.32 µg/mL). The area under the curve (AUC) across the tested concentration range indicated the superior potency of AABE. In the present study, S-(2-boronoethyl)-L-cysteine (BEC) served as the positive control, given its high potency as an arginase inhibitor, characterized by an IC50 value lower than 1 µg/mL and an AUC value of 205.9. Regarding the maximal effect (Emax), all samples achieved >95% inhibition, indicating full inhibitory efficacy.

2.8. Vasorelaxant Activity of Bark Extracts in Rat Aortic Rings

As shown in Figure 9 and Table 4, AABE and CBBE induced concentration-dependent vasorelaxation of rat aortic rings precontracted with phenylephrine (PE) (10−6 M), with efficient concentration 50% (EC50) values of 13.88 ± 0.95 and 7.06 ± 0.77 µg/mL, respectively. The maximal relaxation response was obtained at 100 µg/mL for CBBE and 1000 µg/mL for AABE (90.08 ± 1.28% and 92.54 ± 0.96% respectively). Removal of the endothelium completely abolished the vasorelaxant effect of AABE at concentrations ranging from 0.01 to 100 µg/mL. At concentrations above 100 µg/mL, AABE was still able to relax the aortic rings, reaching a steady-state with a maximum relaxation of 90.15 ± 2.19% at 3000 µg/mL. Treatment with N(ω)-nitro-L-arginine methyl ester (L-NAME) suppressed the vasodilatory response to AABE, similar to the effect of endothelial removal. Notably, significant vasorelaxation was still observed at concentrations between 1000 and 3000 µg/mL, with a maximal relaxation of 91.53 ± 1.15% at 3000 µg/mL, closely matching that of endothelium-intact aortic rings. In addition, under endothelium-denuded condition, AABE-induced relaxation was slightly reduced by tetraethylammonium (TEA), a non-selective potassium channel blocker, but only at the concentration of 300 µg/mL. At all other concentrations, the concentration–response curves for endothelium-denuded rings and those treated with TEA were nearly superimposable, indicating that potassium channel activation contributes minimally to the endothelium-independent component of AABE-induced relaxation (Figure 9A). Similarly, endothelium removal and pretreatment of aortic rings with L-NAME markedly suppressed the vasorelaxant activity of CBBE, except at 1000 µg/mL, where a modest relaxation was still observed (35.16 ± 3.12% and 13.68 ± 1.64%, respectively). In contrast to AABE, preincubation with TEA in endothelium-denuded rings markedly reduced the vasorelaxant response to CBBE (1000 µg/mL) at 12.59 ± 1.84%. This partial inhibition indicates that activation of potassium channels contributes substantially to the vasorelaxant effect of CBBE, although additional mechanisms are likely involved (Figure 9B).
To understand the mechanisms involved in the endothelium-independent relaxation effect of AABE, especially at higher concentration, the contribution of extracellular calcium ion influx was investigated. In the presence of dimethyl sulfoxide (DMSO) 1% (control), aortic ring contraction induced by CaCl2 and KCl reached 46.99 ± 2.14%, whereas contraction induced by CaCl2 and PE attained 74.95 ± 2.94%. In contrast, AABE (1000 µg/mL) nearly abolished aortic ring contraction, lowering it to 0.58 ± 0.04% when induced by KCl (a stimulator of voltage-dependent calcium channels) and 0.55 ± 0.02% when induced by PE (a stimulator of receptor-operated calcium channels) (Figure 10).

3. Discussion

The present study provides the first experimental evidence of the vascular activity of two purified extracts obtained from the bark of Abies alba and Cedrus brevifolia (AABE and CBBE, respectively). By combining optimized extraction and purification procedures with complementary cellular and vascular assays, this work highlights the vasculoprotective potential of the two Pinaceae species.
AABE, obtained by ultrasound-assisted extraction using acetone–water–acetic acid and subsequently purified on polyamide, exhibited a high phenolic content (659.55 mg chlorogenic acid equivalents/g of dry extract), reflecting the efficiency of the extraction and purification protocols. By comparison, previous studies reported total phenolic contents of 298.6 mg gallic acid equivalents/g in the crude hydromethanolic extract [23] or 1520.12 ± 111.63 μg gallic acid equivalents/mL in the aqueous extract [60] of Abies alba bark. A similar enrichment was observed for CBBE, which reached 589.3 mg chlorogenic acid equivalents/g, whereas the crude hydromethanolic and aqueous Cedrus brevifolia bark extracts contained 248.9 mg gallic acid equivalents/g [24] and 38.4 mg gallic acid equivalents/g, respectively [29]. The phytochemical profiles of AABE and CBBE were consistent with previously reported compositions of Abies alba and Cedrus brevifolia bark extracts. Compounds tentatively identified in AABE such as catechin, epicatechin, proanthocyanidin dimers, homovanillic acid, derivatives of hydroxybenzoic acid, taxiresinol, lariciresinol, taxifolin, and isorhamnetin have been previously described in other Abies alba bark extracts [1,25,33,61,62]. Compounds similar to those identified in CBBE such as kaempferol, epicatechin, catechin, and taxifolin derivatives have been reported in other Cedrus brevifolia bark extracts [24,29]. The absence of higher-degree polymerized proanthocyanidins in the MS/MS spectra of both extracts is likely attributable to polyamide purification step, which preferentially retains low-molecular-weight flavan-3-ols, while limiting the recovery of high oligomeric and polymeric proanthocyanidins [63,64]. In addition, higher oligomers and polymers have poor ionization capacity, which impedes their detection by MS [65].
Functional bioassays demonstrated that AABE and CBBE exert vasodilatory, vasculoprotective, and anti-angiogenic effects, likely attributable to key phytochemicals, particularly phenolics. Phenolic compounds are well known to regulate endothelial NO production, oxidative stress, and angiogenesis, thereby playing a central role in vascular homeostasis [3].
NO is a key regulator of vascular tone and endothelial integrity. Under physiological conditions, eNOS converts L-arginine into NO, promoting vasodilation, inhibiting platelet aggregation, and protecting the vascular wall from inflammatory and oxidative injury. However, excessive arginase activity disrupts this balance by competing with eNOS for their common substrate, L-arginine, thereby reducing NO synthesis and promoting eNOS uncoupling. This results in decreased NO bioavailability and increased production of highly reactive species such as superoxide anion radicals and peroxynitrite anions. These species promote endothelial dysfunction and vascular inflammation, contributing to the pathogenesis of cardiovascular diseases [3,66]. In parallel, ornithine generated by arginase serves as a precursor for other metabolic pathways that exacerbate vascular remodeling. Through the action of ornithine decarboxylase (ODC), ornithine is converted into polyamines (putrescine, spermidine, and spermine), which promote vascular smooth muscle cell proliferation. Alternatively, ornithine aminotransferase (OAT) transforms ornithine into proline, a key amino acid for collagen synthesis and extracellular matrix deposition. Both pathways contribute to vascular hypertrophy, fibrosis, and structural remodeling [67].
In the present study, immortalized EA.hy926 endothelial cells were used due to important advantages over primary endothelial cells, such as high proliferative capacity, passage stability, ease of handling, and enhanced reproducibility [68]. Both AABE and CBBE increased NO production in EA.hy926 endothelial cells; however, AABE elicited a markedly stronger response, enhancing NO levels by more than eightfold compared to the control. This effect may be associated with the phenolic content of the extracts. For instance, taxifolin enhanced NO production in rat thoracic aorta in a concentration-dependent manner, inducing an almost threefold increase in NO levels and upregulating eNOS expression, with more pronounced effects in spontaneously hypertensive rats [69]. Similarly, epicatechin exhibited cardioprotective effects through eNOS-mediated NO production in endothelial cells [70]. In our study, cellular proliferation, MTS, and LDH assays indicated that AABE and CBBE are generally non-cytotoxic to EA.hy926 endothelial cells at concentrations up to 0.10 mg/mL after 24 h of treatment. Overall, both bark extracts maintained acceptable endothelial biocompatibility within the concentration range of 0.01–0.10 mg/mL, supporting their safe use in further studies.
Bark extracts significantly and dose-dependently reduced H2O2-induced ROS production in endothelial cells. Compared to CBBE, AABE was more effective across all tested concentrations, consistent with its higher total phenolic content. Catechin and epicatechin, present in both bark extracts, have been reported to protect endothelial cells from H2O2-induced oxidative injury through direct radical-scavenging activity [71].
Both AABE and CBBE also inhibited endothelial cell migration and their differentiation into tube-like structures, in a dose-dependent manner, indicating anti-angiogenic activity, with AABE exerting stronger effect. The anti-migratory activity is linked to phenolic compounds, particularly flavonoids, which downregulate pro-angiogenic signaling pathways. Kaempferol, quercetin, catechins, procyanidins, and taxifolin inhibit endothelial proliferation, migration, and tube formation by modulating vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF)-mediated phosphoinositide 3-kinase (PI3K)/protein kinase B (Akt), mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK), VEGF receptor-2 (VEGFR-2)/PI3K/Akt, and integrin signaling pathways [72,73,74,75]. Functionally, such anti-migrating effect is beneficial in pathological conditions characterized by excessive neovascularization within atherosclerotic plaques, or tumor-associated angiogenesis, while preserving endothelial integrity under oxidative stress conditions.
A particularly novel finding of this study is the demonstration that both extracts inhibit bovine arginase I in a concentration-dependent manner, with AABE being approximately twice as potent as CBBE. Anti-arginase activity represents a key mechanism for improving endothelial function and protecting against cardiovascular disorders, as it results in enhanced NO bioavailability [3,66]. To our knowledge, no previous studies have reported arginase inhibition by Abies alba or Cedrus brevifolia bark extracts. Phenolic compounds identified in AABE and CBBE, such as epicatechin, taxifolin, quercetin, and kaempferol, have been reported to inhibit bovine liver arginase I with IC50 values of 19.9, 23.2, 31.2, and 179.1 µM, respectively [76]. In another study, catechin and epicatechin displayed notable inhibitory activity against rat liver arginase (IC50 = 0.77 and 1.8 µM, respectively). Kinetic analyses demonstrated that catechin and epicatechin are competitive inhibitors of rat liver arginase, directly competing with L-arginine for the active site [77].
In isolated rat aortic rings, both bark extracts exhibited dose-dependent vasorelaxant effects, acting mainly through endothelium-dependent mechanisms at concentrations of 0.01–300 µg/mL. In the presence of L-NAME (an eNOS inhibitor), the vasorelaxation induced by each bark extract was blunted, suggesting the involvement of eNOS-dependent, downstream vasorelaxant signaling pathways [78,79]. The activation of potassium channels, an endothelium-independent mechanism, was found to contribute to the vasorelaxation induced by CBBE at 1000 µg/mL. On the other hand, at 1000 µg/mL, AABE induced marked vasorelaxation in endothelium-denuded aortic rings by inhibiting calcium ion influx through voltage-dependent and receptor-operated calcium ion channels. A dual, concentration-dependent mechanism of activity, similar to that observed for AABE and CBBE, has been previously described for gallic acid [80]. This highlights the multifaceted pharmacological nature of phenolic compounds, which can activate distinct molecular pathways depending on their local concentration and the cellular redox environment. Activation of eNOS has been reported for the phenolic compounds identified in AABE and CBBE. Epicatechin, taxifolin, kaempferol, and proanthocyanidins activated eNOS in various experimental models, including in vitro endothelial cell assays, ex vivo isolated rat aortic rings or porcine arteries, and in vivo in mice with high-fat-diet-induced endothelial dysfunction [69,70,81,82,83,84].
The consistently stronger effects observed with AABE compared to CBBE across multiple tests may be attributed to both quantitative and qualitative differences in their phenolic composition. AABE demonstrated superior activity in enhancing NO production, scavenging ROS, reducing angiogenesis, and stimulating arginase, consistent with its significantly higher total phenolic content. Beyond total phenolic levels, differences in the relative abundance of specific phenolic compounds may also contribute to the divergent biological profiles of the two bark extracts.
The effective concentrations determined in our assays fall within the µg/mL range. However, these values cannot be translated into expected human blood levels without pharmacokinetic studies. Following oral administration of conifer bark extracts, the native compounds attain very low plasma levels as a result of extensive gut and liver metabolism; their metabolites, often markedly different from the parent compounds, predominate in plasma. This limits direct extrapolation of effective experimental concentrations to in vivo conditions. For instance, after three weeks of oral supplementation with Pycnogenol® (200 mg/day), catechin was detected in serum at mean concentrations of 48–53 ng/mL, while taxifolin was present at approximately 0.20 ng/mL. Ferulic and caffeic acid were detected at mean serum concentrations of 3.0 and 9–10 ng/mL, respectively [85]. Following a single 300 mg dose of Pycnogenol®, catechin reached plasma levels of 60 ng/mL at 0.5 h and 100 ng/mL at 4 h, remaining detectable throughout the 14 h sampling period. After repeated oral intake of Pycnogenol® (200 mg/day for five days), catechin was detected in plasma at total concentrations of 48.6 ± 16.7 ng/mL [86]. The poor oral bioavailability of conifer bark-derived compounds does not necessarily limit their therapeutic application, since bioavailability can be improved through various strategies, including formulation-based approaches, co-administration with absorption enhancers, or alternative routes of administration [87,88]. In addition, in the case of many phenolic compounds (proanthocyanidins, flavonoids, and phenolic acids), reduced oral bioavailability does not necessarily translate into reduced bioactivity. This is attributable to their metabolites that exhibit similar or even higher biological effects compared with the parent compounds. The bioactive metabolites account for the health benefits of plant-derived products despite low oral bioavailability of their components [89].
Limitations of the study. The present study has several limitations that should be acknowledged. The endothelial protective effects were evaluated in vitro in EA.hy926 endothelial cells and the vasorelaxant effects were assessed ex vivo in isolated rat aortic rings. Arginase inhibition was demonstrated in vitro using the isolated enzyme. Although arginase inhibition may contribute to increased NO bioavailability and improved vasorelaxation, a direct causal relationship in intact vascular tissue would require additional ex vivo determinations, such as measurement of arginase activity or expression in isolated aortic rings. Therefore, the involvement of arginase is discussed as a plausible contributing mechanism rather than a definitively established mediator of the vasorelaxant response. Overall, the in vivo validation of our results in experimental models of endothelial dysfunction or cardiovascular disease, as well as pharmacokinetic studies are essential to confirm the therapeutic relevance of the observed effects. Despite these limitations, the integrative approach combining phytochemical characterization, endothelial cell assays, enzyme inhibition and vascular reactivity studies, provides a coherent and robust first evaluation of the endothelial and vasorelaxant effects of Abies alba and Cedrus brevifolia bark extracts and supports further in vivo investigations.

4. Materials and Methods

4.1. Chemicals and Reagents

Acetone, acetic acid, diethyl ether, dimethyl sulfoxide (DMSO), chlorogenic acid, (+)-catechin hydrate, quinic acid, p-hydroxybenzoic acid, epicatechin, phenylephrine (PE), N(ω)-nitro-L-arginine-methyl-ester (L-NAME), tetraethylammonium (TEA), and S-(2-boronoethyl)-L-cysteine (BEC) were acquired from Sigma-Aldrich (Steinheim, Germany). Polyamide CC6 (particle size 0.05–0.16 mm) was purchased from Macherey-Nagel GmbH (Düren, Germany). Purified bovine liver arginase I was obtained from MP Biomedicals (Illkirch-Graffenstaden, France). Folin–Ciocalteu’s phenol reagent was from Merck (Darmstadt, Germany). Dulbecco’s modified Eagle medium (DMEM) was obtained from Capricorn Scientific (Ebsdorfergrund, Hessen, Germany). Fetal bovine serum (FBS) and 1% solution of penicillin-streptomycin were from Hyclone (Logan, UT, USA). CellTiter 96® AQueous One Solution Cell Proliferation Assay kit (MTS test) and CytoTox 96® Non-Radioactive Cytotoxicity Assay Kit (LDH release test) were procured from Promega Corporation (Madison, WI, USA). 4-Amino-5-methylamino-2′,7′-difluorofluorescein diacetate (DAF-FM DA), ProLong™ Gold Antifade, calcein AM, and hydrogen peroxide 35% wt.% solution in water, stabilized, were acquired from ThermoFisher Scientific (Waltham, MA, USA). CellROX Green reagent was from Invitrogen (Carlsbad, CA, USA). Corning® Matrigel® Basement Membrane Matrix was purchased from Sigma-Aldrich (St. Louis, MO, USA). Human epidermal growth factor (hEGF) was from Gibco (Billings, MT, USA). All other chemicals and reagents were of analytical grade.

4.2. Plant Material and Isolation of Bark Extracts

Details on the plant material, including source, drying, and storage conditions, have been described previously [22,23,24]. The taxonomic identity of the plant material was authenticated by Lecturer Dr. Cristina Lungu (Department of Pharmaceutical Botany, Grigore T. Popa University of Medicine and Pharmacy Iasi, Romania). The dried bark material was ground and sieved to obtain a powder with particle size below 250 µm (60 mesh). The bark powder (25 g) was extracted in an ultrasonic bath (3 × 20 min, 40 kHz, 80 W) with 3 × 60 mL solvent mixture (acetone/water/acetic acid (80/19.5/0.5, v/v/v); solid-to-liquid ratio 1:7.2, w/v). The combined extracts were delipidated with diethyl ether and freeze-dried, as previously described [35]. The resulting extracts were further purified by open column chromatography on polyamide 6. In brief, 1 g of each extract was suspended in 3 mL of methanol and applied to a polyamide 6 column (55 × 15 mm), followed by elution with water (200 mL), 50% methanol (200 mL), and methanol (200 mL). The eluates were combined, concentrated under reduced pressure at 40 °C, and freeze-dried to yield purified bark extracts which were subsequently subjected to chemical and biological assays. The extracts were stored at −20 °C until use.

4.3. Total Phenolic, Flavonoid, and Proanthocyanidin Contents

Total phenolic content was determined using the Folin–Ciocalteu method, with chlorogenic acid as the calibration standard. The calibration curve was linear over the tested concentration range (2–15 µg/mL) and described by the equation y = 0.0684x + 0.044, with a coefficient of determination R2 = 0.9992. Results were expressed as mg chlorogenic acid equivalents per g of extract [90,91]. Total flavonoid content was assessed using the aluminium chloride colorimetric assay, with catechin as the calibration standard. The calibration curve followed the equation y = 0.0217x − 0.0344, with R2 = 0.9997, and results were expressed as mg catechin equivalents per g of extract [90,91]. Total proanthocyanidin content was determined using the acid-butanol assay. The concentration of proanthocyanidins, expressed as mg cyanidin equivalents per g of extract, was estimated based on the molar absorptivity (ε = 17,360 L·mol−1·cm−1) and relative molecular mass (Mr = 287.24 g·mol−1) of cyanidin, using the equation M = A/(ε × l), where M is the molar concentration of the sample, A is the absorbance, and l is the cuvette path length (1 cm) [90,91].

4.4. Phenolic Profile Analysis by LC-HRMS/MS

The phenolic profile in bark extracts was analyzed by LC-HRMS/MS. The analysis was performed on an Agilent 1200 HPLC system (Agilent Technologies, Santa Clara, CA, USA) equipped with auto-sampler (G1329B), degasser (G1379B), binary pump (G1312C), thermostat (G1316A), DAD detector (G1315D), Agilent ESI-Q-TOF mass spectrometer (G6530B), nitrogen generator (Parker Hannifin Corp., Cleveland, OH, USA), and compressed air generator (Jun-Air Oxymed, Łódź, Poland). Analyses were performed on a Phenomenex Gemini C18 column (2 × 100 mm, 3 μm) maintained at 20 °C. The mobile phase consisted of 0.1% formic acid in water (A) and 0.1% formic acid in acetonitrile (B). The gradient program was as follows: 5% B at 0 min, increased linearly to 60% B over 45 min, then raised to 95% B between 45 and 55 min. The flow rate was set to 0.2 mL/min, and a 10 μL sample volume was injected. Mass spectrometric detection was performed in negative ion mode over an m/z range of 70–1000. Source conditions included a nitrogen gas temperature of 275 °C with a flow rate of 10 L/min, a nebulizer pressure of 35 psi, sheath gas at 325 °C and 12 L/min, a capillary voltage of 4000 V, nozzle voltage of 1000 V, skimmer voltage of 65 V, and fragmentor voltage of 140 V. Collision-induced dissociation was conducted at fixed energies of 10 and 30 V [60]. Data were processed using MassHunter Qualitative Analysis Navigator software version B.08.00 (Agilent Technologies, Santa Clara, CA, USA).

4.5. Cell Culture

Immortalized human endothelial cell line, EA.hy926 (CRL-2922™), was purchased from American Tissue Culture Collection (ATCC, Rockville, MD, USA). EA.hy926 cells were cultured in DMEM with high glucose content (4.5 g/L) and supplemented with 10% FBS and 1% solution of penicillin-streptomycin. The cells were grown in humidified atmosphere with 5% CO2 at 37 °C before use. Experiments were performed on cells within a passage range of 5–20.

4.6. Real-Time Cell Proliferation Assay

EA.hy926 cell proliferation was monitored using the Real-Time Cell Analysis (RTCA) system (Agilent Technologies, Santa Clara, CA, USA), following the method described by Albulescu et al. [57] and Ke et al. [92], except that 8000 of EA.hy926 cells were plated on each well and CI was recorded every 30 min for the mentioned period of time. Bark extracts were used at concentrations of 0.01–0.2 mg/mL. RTCA software version 2.0 (Agilent Technologies, Santa Clara, CA, USA) was used to generate and compare the growth curves of treated and control cells.

4.7. Cell Viability and Cytotoxicity Assays

EA.hy926 cells were seeded in 96-well plates at a density of 8000 cells per well and allowed to adhere overnight in an incubator. Cells were then exposed for 24 h to bark extracts (0.01–0.20 mg/mL) or to corresponding concentrations of vehicle (50% ethanol); untreated EA.hy926 cells served as the control.

4.7.1. Cell Viability Assay

The MTS assay was performed as previously described. The results were expressed as percentages by normalizing the optical density at 490 nm of the treated cells to that of the control (untreated cells) [57].

4.7.2. LDH Release Assay

After incubation, the supernatant was collected and LDH release was measured using the CytoTox 96® Non-Radioactive Cytotoxicity Assay Kit, according to the manufacturer’s instructions. The amount of LDH released into the culture medium reflects cell membrane integrity. Maximum LDH release (positive control) was achieved by exposing untreated cells to a lysis solution provided in the assay kit. Absorbance was measured at 490 nm using a BIOBASE-EL10 microplate reader (BIOBASE Group, Jinan, China). Cytotoxicity was expressed as a percentage of LDH released from treated EA.hy926 cells relative to that in the lysed cell culture medium [57].

4.8. Evaluation of Intracellular NO Level

NO production in EA.hy926 cells was measured by fluorescent staining with DAF-FM DA, a cell-permeable NO sensitive indicator at 1 µM, using flow cytometry and fluorescence microscopy, according to previously published protocols [58], with slight modifications. The cells were serum-starved for 8 h prior to overnight incubation with bark extracts.

4.8.1. Flow Cytometry

A total of 2.5 × 105 EA.hy926 cells were seeded in each well of a 12-well plate. In brief, after serum starvation, the culture medium was replaced with bark extracts diluted in complete medium at 0.1 mg/mL or with medium alone for control cells. Fluorescence intensity was measured using a MoFlo Astrios EQ cell sorter (Beckman-Coulter, Brea, CA, USA) equipped with a 488 nm blue laser for excitation. DAF-FM DA fluorescence from at least 20,000 cells was collected through a 530/40 nm band-pass filter (fluorescein isothiocyanate [FITC] channel), after excluding debris and doublets using forward scatter/side scatter (FSC/SSC) and pulse-width gating [93]. Instrument voltages and thresholds were set using unstained cells and cells not treated with DAF-FM DA. Data were acquired and analyzed using Summit software version 6.3.1 (Beckman-Coulter, Brea, CA, USA).

4.8.2. Fluorescence Microscopy

A total of 40,000 EA.hy926 cells were plated on 16 mm glass coverslips and incubated overnight to allow adherence. The next day, the cells were serum-starved for 8 h and then treated with bark extracts at 0.1 mg/mL for 18 h. The cells were further stained with DAF-FM DA and fixed in 4% paraformaldehyde solution for 30 min; the coverslips were mounted with ProLong™ Gold Antifade. The fluorescence images were acquired using an EVOS® FL Auto Imaging System for Fluorescence (Thermo Fisher Scientific, Waltham, MA, USA) with excitation/emission wavelengths of 495/515 nm [58]. Green channel images were collected for at least 100 cells per experimental condition. The images were analyzed using ImageJ program (version 1.50i, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA).

4.9. Evaluation of Intracellular ROS Level

4.9.1. Cellular Antioxidant Activity Assay

The antioxidant activity of bark extracts was assessed using the OxiSelect™ Cellular Antioxidant Assay Kit (Cell Biolabs, San Diego, CA, USA), following a previously published protocol with some modifications [57]. Oxidative stress was induced by adding H2O2 to the culture media at a final concentration of 500 µM [94]. After stimulation, fluorescence intensity was measured using a Microplate Multimode Detector Zenyth 3100 (Anthos Labtec Instruments GmbH, Salzburg, Austria) at excitation and emission wavelengths of 485 and 535 nm, respectively [57,95]. For data normalization, the fluorescence values of cells pretreated with bark extracts but unexposed to H2O2 were subtracted from the fluorescence values of cells pretreated with bark extracts and exposed to H2O2. Results were expressed as ROS production (%) relative to control (untreated cells).

4.9.2. Fluorescence Microscopy

The intracellular ROS levels were also measured by fluorescence microscopy using the CellROX Green reagent, (Invitrogen, Carlsbad, CA, USA) following the protocol provided by manufacturer with slight modifications. In brief, a number of 40,000 EA.hy926 cells were seeded on 16 mm glass coverslips and allowed to adhere for 24 h. The cells were pre-treated with bark extracts at concentrations of 0.01, 0.05, and 0.1 mg/mL for 24 h, followed by exposure to 500 µM H2O2 for 1 h. The cells were then washed with 1× PBS and stained with 5 µM CellROX Green reagent for 45 min, followed by fixation in 4% paraformaldehyde for 30 min at room temperature. Quercetin (20 µM) was used as reference antioxidant to validate the sensitivity of the method [96]. The fluorescence images were acquired using an EVOS® FL Auto Imaging System for Fluorescence (Thermo Fisher Scientific, Waltham, MA, USA) for at least 100 cells per experimental condition. The images were analyzed using ImageJ program (version 1.50i, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA).

4.10. Angiogenesis Assays

4.10.1. Scratch Migration Assay

To evaluate endothelial cell migration, a scratch migration assay was performed using double-well silicone culture inserts (Ibidi GmbH, Gräfelfing, Germany). Each insert was placed in a 24-well plate, and 3.5 × 104 cells were seeded into both wells of each insert with 70 μL of medium containing 10% FBS. When the cells reached confluence, the silicone inserts were gently removed, and the cells were incubated either with 1% FBS medium (control, untreated cells) or with bark extracts diluted in the same low-serum medium. The use of low-serum conditions is essential to ensure that cell migration measurements are not confounded by cell proliferation. Each well was photographed immediately after insert removal (T0) and after 24 h (T24) using a 10× objective on an EVOS® FL Auto Imaging System for transmitted light (Thermo Fisher Scientific, Waltham, MA, USA). The wound closure was quantified using Wound Healing Size Tool, an ImageJ/Fiji® plugin (ImageJ software version 1.50i, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA), as described by Suarez-Arnedo et al. [97].

4.10.2. Tube Formation Assay

A previously reported method [98] with minor modifications was used to investigate the effect of bark extracts on the differentiation of EA.hy926 cells into tubular structures on a Matrigel matrix. hEGF was used as positive angiogenic stimulus [99]. A volume of 50 µL of Corning® Matrigel® Basement Membrane Matrix (4.5 mg/mL) was added to each well of a 96-well plate and incubated for 1 h at 37 °C to allow polymerization. Suspensions of EA.hy926 cells (30,000 cells/50 µL) in complete medium supplemented with 10 ng/mL hEGF were seeded into each coated well. Solutions of 2 × concentrated bark extracts, prepared in the same medium, were added in a volume of 50 µL to each test well to reach final concentrations of 0.01, 0.05, and 0.1 mg/mL. Untreated cells served as control. Cells were stained with 1 µM calcein AM prior to observation under a fluorescence microscope. Calcein AM-labeled cells were visualized and photographed using the EVOS® FL Auto Imaging System (Thermo Fisher Scientific, Waltham, MA, USA), with excitation at 485 nm and emission at 520 nm [100]. Qualitative morphological analysis was performed to evaluate the degree of network complexity ranging from isolated cells to a fully developed, continuous tubular lattice [101]. Images were analyzed using ImageJ software (version 1.50i, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA).

4.11. Arginase Inhibition Assay

The experimental protocol was performed as previously described in our publications [35,102], with minor changes. For the calculation of the IC50 values, stock solutions of 14 mg/mL were used for both bark extracts. The stock solutions were successively diluted with ultrapure water to obtain final well concentrations of 2000, 600, 200, 60, 20, 6, 2, 0.6, and 0.2 µg/mL. For CBBE, the concentration range was extended up to 6000 µg/mL in order to reach the maximal inhibitory plateau. For the reference arginase inhibitor (BEC), the screening was performed at concentrations of 10 and 100 µM. IC50 values were determined by nonlinear regression analysis using sigmoidal dose–response curves.

4.12. Vascular Reactivity Studies

Experiments were performed in isolated aorta from male Sprague Dawley rats (8–9-week-old, obtained from Janvier Labs, Le Genest Saint Isle, France). We used experimental protocols (no. 2015/001-CD/5) detailed in our previous publications [35,102] that were approved by the local Ethics Committees and adhered to the ARRIVE (Animal Research: Reporting In Vivo Experiments) guidelines (ethical approval: CEBEA no. 58/18 June 2017. Rats were sedated with sodium pentobarbital (60 mg/kg, i.p.), and euthanasia was performed via exsanguination of the abdominal aorta. Then, the thoracic aorta was excised, cleaned of connective tissue, and cut into rings of approximately 2 mm in length, yielding up to 10 aortic rings per animal, which were randomly allocated to the different experimental groups. In total, vascular reactivity experiments were performed using 8 animals. In some rings, the endothelium was mechanically removed. Aortic ring viability was first assessed by vasoconstriction with 100 mM KCl in Krebs solution. Endothelial integrity was confirmed by more than 80% relaxation induced by the endothelium-dependent agonist acetylcholine (10−6 M) in aortic rings precontracted with α1-adrenergic agonist PE (10−6 M). Less than 10% relaxation response to acetylcholine indicated the absence of endothelium in denuded rings [35,102].
To investigate the vasodilatory effects, endothelium-intact and endothelium-denuded rings were precontracted with PE (10−6 M, a concentration inducing submaximal contraction) until a contractile plateau was reached. The rings were then exposed to cumulative concentrations of the bark extracts to achieve concentrations of 10−2–3·103 µg/mL for AABE and 10−2–103 µg/mL for CBBE. Cumulative concentration–response curves were generated by the stepwise addition of increasing concentrations of the extract to the same ring, without intermediate washout or subsequent exposure to any other extract or treatment. Concentrations were applied at intervals of 3–5 min, depending on the time required to reach a stable relaxation plateau before the addition of the next concentration [35,102].
To evaluate the contribution of the NO pathway to extract-induced vasorelaxation, some experiments were conducted in the presence of the eNOS inhibitor L-NAME (10−4 M). The involvement of vascular smooth muscle cell potassium channels in vasorelaxation was assessed using TEA (10−3 M) as non-selective potassium channel blocker, applied prior to PE induced-contraction in endothelium-denuded aortic rings. For AABE at 1000 µg/mL, the effects on extracellular calcium ion influx were evaluated in endothelium-denuded aortic rings previously depleted of calcium ions. Calcium influx was induced by CaCl2 (10−2 M) and assessed via receptor-operated or voltage-dependent calcium channels in the presence of PE (10−6 M) or KCl (60 mM), respectively [35,102].
EC50 values in vascular reactivity studies were calculated from cumulative concentration–response curves and represent the concentration of extract inducing 50% of the maximal vasorelaxant effect (Emax). Curve fitting and parameter estimation were performed by nonlinear regression analysis using GraphPad Prism [35,102].

4.13. Data Analysis

All experiments were performed with a minimum of three independent biological replicates, and each sample was measured in technical triplicate. Data are shown as mean ± standard error of the mean (SEM). The statistical differences in the phytochemical contents of the extracts were assessed using an unpaired Student’s t-test. Statistical differences between vasorelaxation curves were analyzed using two-way ANOVA for repeated measures. In arginase inhibition assay, differences between two groups were analyzed using Student’s t-test or the Mann–Whitney test when data were not normally distributed. For comparisons among multiple groups, one-way ANOVA was used, followed by Tukey’s post hoc test. Statistical significance was accepted at least at p < 0.05. When applicable, different levels of statistical significance are indicated in the figures. All statistical analyses were performed using GraphPad Prism version 5 (GraphPad Software, San Diego, CA, USA).

5. Conclusions

In conclusion, our study provides the first evidence that two purified extracts obtained from the bark of Abies alba and Cedrus brevifolia (AABE and CBBE, respectively) exhibit beneficial vascular activity, which is associated with increased NO production in endothelial cells, protection of endothelial cells from oxidative stress, suppression of angiogenesis, inhibition of arginase, and vasorelaxation mediated predominantly by the eNOS pathway. Together, these findings support the relevance of Abies alba and Cedrus brevifolia bark extracts in supporting endothelial function. Mechanistic investigations and in vivo validation are essential to harness the potential of these bark extracts.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, A.B., L.O. and A.M.; methodology, A.B., V.B.C., S.P., C.G., P.T., S.V.L. and K.S.-W.; formal analysis, A.B., V.B.C., S.P. and C.L.; investigation, A.B., V.B.C., S.P., S.V.L. and M.L.; resources, C.G., P.T., K.S.-W., L.O. and A.M.; writing—original draft preparation, A.B., V.B.C., S.P., S.V.L., M.L. and C.L.; writing—review and editing, A.B., V.B.C., S.P., C.G., P.T., S.V.L., M.L. and A.M.; visualization, A.B., V.B.C., S.P., M.L. and C.L.; supervision, C.G., P.T., K.S.-W., L.O. and A.M.; funding acquisition, S.P. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This work was partially supported by a grant of the Romanian Ministry of Research, Innovation and Digitization, CCCDI—UEFISCDI, project number PN-IV-P7-7.1-PED-2024-2526 within PNCDI IV.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The animal study protocol was approved by Besançon Ethics Committee for Animal Experimentation (Franche-Comté University, Besançon, France) (CEBEA no. 58/18 June 2017).

Data Availability Statement

The original contributions presented in this study are included in the article. Further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding authors.

Acknowledgments

The authors are grateful to Céline Demougeot (Marie et Louis Pasteur University, EFS, INSERM UMR1098 RIGHT, 25000 Besançon, France) for kindly supporting this research.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Abbreviations

The following abbreviations are used in this manuscript:
LDLLow-density lipoprotein
HDLHigh-density lipoprotein
eNOSEndothelial nitric oxide synthase
NONitric oxide
ACEAngiotensin-converting enzyme
ET-1Endothelin-1
DPPH2,2-Diphenyl-1-picrylhydrazyl
ROSReactive oxygen species
HUVECHuman umbilical vein endothelial cells
SODSuperoxide dismutase
AABEAbies alba bark extract
CBBECedrus brevifolia bark extract
LC-HRMS/MSLiquid chromatography coupled to high-resolution mass spectrometry
RTRetention time
MFMolecular formula
CICell index
RTCAReal-Time Cell Analysis
MTS3-(4,5-Dimethylthiazol-2-yl)-5-(3-carboxymethoxyphenyl)-2-(4-sulfophenyl)-2H-tetrazolium
SDStandard deviation
LDHLactate dehydrogenase
SEMStandard error of the mean
DAF-FM DA4-Amino-5-methylamino-2′,7′-difluorofluorescein diacetate
hEGFHuman epidermal growth factor
AUCArea under the curve
BECS-(2-Boronoethyl)-L-cysteine
IC50Inhibitory concentration 50%
EmaxMaximal effect
PEPhenylephrine
L-NAMEN(ω)-Nitro-L-arginine methyl ester
TEATetraethylammonium
EC50Effective concentration 50%
DMSODimethyl sulfoxide
MSMass spectrometry
ODCOrnithine decarboxylase
OATOrnithine aminotransferase
VEGFVascular endothelial growth factor
PI3KPhosphoinositide 3-kinase
TLR4-NF-κBToll-like receptor 4-nuclear factor-kappa B
AktProtein kinase B
PKAProtein kinase A
MAPKMitogen-activated protein kinase
VEGFR-2Vascular endothelial growth factor receptor-2
VCAM-1Vascular cell adhesion molecule-1
ICAM-1Intercellular adhesion molecule-1
PGF1αProstaglandin F1α
PGI2Prostacyclin
sGCSoluble guanylate cyclase
MDAMalondialdehyde
MICMinimum inhibitory concentration
DAPI4′,6-Diamidino-2-phenylindole
EDHFEndothelium-derived hyperpolarizing factor
cGMPcCyclic guanosine monophosphate
COX-2Cyclooxygenase-2
DMEMDulbecco’s modified Eagle medium
FBSFetal bovine serum
FITCFluorescein isothiocyanate
FSC/SSCForward scatter/side scatter

References

  1. Benković, E.T.; Grohar, T.; Žigon, D.; Švajger, U.; Janeš, D.; Kreft, S.; Štrukelj, B. Chemical composition of the silver fir (Abies alba) bark extract Abigenol® and its antioxidant activity. Ind. Crops Prod. 2014, 52, 23–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Jiang, W.; Hattori, Y.; Lee, W.; Zhang, Y.; Zhang, K.; Hishiyama, S.; Shimokawa, T.; Miyazaki, H.; Yoshida, S. Isolation and identification of a bioactive compound from Japanese red pine (Pinus densiflora) tea and its antioxidative effects on vascular endothelial cells. NFS J. 2023, 33, 100153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Bujor, A.; Miron, A.; Trifan, A.; Luca, S.V.; Gille, E.; Miron, S.-D.; Aprotosoaie, A.C. Phytochemicals and endothelial dysfunction: Recent advances and perspectives. Phytochem. Rev. 2020, 20, 653–691. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Shand, B.; Strey, C.; Scott, R.; Morrison, Z.; Gieseg, S. Pilot study on the clinical effects of dietary supplementation with Enzogenol®, a flavonoid extract of pine bark and vitamin C. Phytother. Res. 2003, 17, 490–494. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Bhardwaj, K.; Silva, A.S.; Atanassova, M.; Sharma, R.; Nepovimova, E.; Musilek, K.; Sharma, R.; Alghuthaymi, M.A.; Dhanjal, D.S.; Nicoletti, M.; et al. Conifers Phytochemicals: A Valuable Forest with Therapeutic Potential. Molecules 2021, 26, 3005. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Lee, E.L.; Barnes, J. Pine bark. J. Prim. Health Care 2023, 15, 192–194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Segal, L.; Penman, M.G.; Piriou, Y. Evaluation of the systemic toxicity and mutagenicity of OLIGOPIN®, procyanidolic oligomers (OPC) extracted from French Maritime Pine Bark extract. Toxicol. Rep. 2018, 5, 531–541. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  8. Piriou, Y.; Sirvent, A.; Natalizio, A.; Girard Ory, F. Skin-lightening and anti-ageing effect of a food supplement containing Pinus pinaster extract. Nutrafoods 2014, 13, 123–131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Majidi, Z.; Ansari, M.; Maghbooli, Z.; Ghasemi, A.; Ebrahimi, S.S.S.; Hossein-Nezhad, A.; Emamgholipour, S. Oligopin® Supplementation Mitigates Oxidative Stress in Postmenopausal Women with Osteopenia: A Randomized, Double-blind, Placebo-Controlled Trial. Phytomedicine 2021, 81, 153417. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Valls, R.M.; Llauradó, E.; Fernández-Castillejo, S.; Puiggrós, F.; Solà, R.; Arolam, L.; Pedret, A. Effects of low molecular weight procyanidin rich extract from french maritime pine bark on cardiovascular disease risk factors in stage-1 hypertensive subjects: Randomized, double-blind, crossover, placebo-controlled intervention trial. Phytomedicine 2016, 23, 1451–1461. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Bayer, J.; Högger, P. Review of the pharmacokinetics of French maritime pine bark extract (Pycnogenol®) in humans. Front. Nutr. 2024, 11, 1389422. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Fitzpatrick, D.F.; Bing, B.; Rohdewald, P. Endothelium-dependent vascular effects of Pycnogenol. J. Cardiovasc. Pharmacol. 1998, 32, 509–515. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Weichmann, F.; Rohdewald, P. Pycnogenol® French maritime pine bark extract in randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled human clinical studies. Front. Nutr. 2024, 11, 1389374. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Zibadi, S.; Rohdewald, P.J.; Park, D.; Watson, R.R. Reduction of cardiovascular risk factors in subjects with type 2 diabetes by Pycnogenol supplementation. Nutr. Res. 2008, 28, 315–320. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Nishioka, K.; Hidaka, T.; Nakamura, S.; Umemura, T.; Jitsuiki, D.; Soga, J.; Goto, C.; Chayama, K.; Yoshizumi, M.; Higashi, Y. Pycnogenol, French maritime pine bark extract, augments endothelium-dependent vasodilation in humans. Hypertens. Res. 2007, 30, 775–780. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Mármol, I.; Quero, J.; Jiménez-Moreno, N.; Rodríguez-Yoldi, M.J.; Ancín-Azpilicueta, C. A systematic review of the potential uses of pine bark in food industry and health care. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2019, 88, 558–566. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Shimada, T.; Tokuhara, D.; Tsubata, M.; Kamiya, T.; Kamiya-Sameshima, M.; Nagamine, R.; Takagaki, K.; Sai, Y.; Miyamoto, K.; Aburada, M. Flavangenol (pine bark extract) and its major component procyanidin B1 enhance fatty acid oxidation in fat-loaded models. Eur. J. Pharmacol. 2012, 677, 147–153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Ohkita, M.; Kiso, Y.; Matsumura, Y. Pharmacology in health foods: Improvement of vascular endothelial function by French maritime pine bark extract (Flavangenol). J. Pharmacol. Sci. 2011, 115, 461–465. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. Ferguson, J.J.A.; Oldmeadow, C.; Bentley, D.; Eslick, S.; Garg, M.L. Effect of a polyphenol-rich dietary supplement containing Pinus massoniana bark extract on blood pressure in healthy adults: A parallel, randomized placebo-controlled trial. Complement. Ther. Med. 2022, 71, 102896. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Kim, K.J.; Hwang, E.S.; Kim, M.J.; Park, J.H.; Kim, D.O. Antihypertensive Effects of Polyphenolic Extract from Korean Red Pine (Pinus densiflora Sieb. et Zucc.) Bark in Spontaneously Hypertensive Rats. Antioxidants 2020, 9, 333. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Kim, K.J.; Nam, T.G.; Kim, D.O. Major phenolic compounds in Korean red pine (Pinus densiflora Sieb. et Zucc.) bark and their potential health benefits. Food Sci. Biotechnol. 2025, 35, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Cretu, E.; Trifan, A.; Aprotosoaie, A.C.; Miron, A. 15-Lipoxygenase inhibition, superoxide and hydroxyl radicals scavenging activities of Cedrus brevifolia bark extracts. Rev. Med. Chir. Soc. Med. Nat. Iasi 2013, 117, 250–256. [Google Scholar]
  23. Vasincu, A.; Cretu, E.; Geangalau, I.; Amalinei, R.L.; Miron, A. Polyphenolic content and antioxidant activity of an extractive fraction from Abies alba bark. Rev. Med. Chir. Soc. Med. Nat. Iasi 2013, 117, 545–550. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  24. Cretu, E.; Salminen, J.P.; Karonen, M.; Miron, A.; Charalambous, C.; Constantinou, A.I.; Aprotosoaie, A.C. In vitro antioxidant activity and phenolic content of Cedrus brevifolia bark. Nat. Prod. Commun. 2014, 9, 481–482. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Ancuceanu, R.; Hovanet, M.V.; Miron, A.; Anghel, A.I.; Dinu, M. Phytochemistry, Biological, and Pharmacological Properties of Abies alba Mill. Plants 2023, 12, 2860. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Geana, E.I.; Ciucure, C.T.; Tamaian, R.; Marinas, I.C.; Gaboreanu, D.M.; Stan, M.; Chitescu, C.L. Antioxidant and Wound Healing Bioactive Potential of Extracts Obtained from Bark and Needles of Softwood Species. Antioxidants 2023, 12, 1383. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Lyggitsou, G.; Barda, C.; Anagnostou, M.; Douros, A.; Statha, D.; Karampasi, C.; Papantonaki, A.I.; Svoliantopoulos, I.; Sfiniadakis, I.; Vitsos, A.; et al. Wound Healing Potential of Herbal Hydrogel Formulations of Cedrus brevifolia Extracts in Mice. Gels 2024, 10, 750. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. Eliades, N.G.H.; Fady, B.; Gailing, O.; Leinemann, L.; Finkeldey, R. Significant patterns of fine-scale spatial genetic structure in a narrow endemic wind-dispersed tree species, Cedrus brevifolia Henry. Tree Genet. Genomes 2018, 14, 15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Charalambous, D.; Eliades, N.G.H.; Christoforou, M.; Kakouri, E.; Kanakis, C.; Tarantilis, P.A.; Pantelidou, M. Chemical Characterization, Antioxidant and Antimicrobial Properties of Different Types of Tissue of Cedrus brevifolia Henry Extracts. Molecules 2022, 27, 2717. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Leone, K.; Micheletto, M.; Di Maira, G.; Tedesco, E.; Benetti, F.; Zaloker, U. Role of a Novel Silver Fir (Abies alba) Extract, Abigenol®/AlbiPhenol®, in Modulating Cardiovascular Disorders: Key Factors. Antioxidant 2022, 11, 618. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Available online: https://www.knapsackfamily.com/knapsack_core/top.php (accessed on 10 January 2025).
  32. Zhang, J.Y.; Zhang, Q.; Li, N.; Wang, Z.J.; Lu, J.Q.; Qiao, Y.J. Diagnostic fragment-ion-based and extension strategy coupled to DFIs intensity analysis for identification of chlorogenic acids isomers in Flos Lonicerae Japonicae by HPLC-ESI-MSn. Talanta 2013, 104, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Macovei, I.; Luca, S.V.; Skalicka-Woźniak, K.; Sacarescu, L.; Pascariu, P.; Ghilan, A.; Doroftei, F.; Ursu, E.L.; Rimbu, C.M.; Horhogea, C.E.; et al. Phyto-Functionalized Silver Nanoparticles Derived from Conifer Bark Extracts and Evaluation of Their Antimicrobial and Cytogenotoxic Effects. Molecules 2021, 27, 217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Ravasi, J.M.; Negri, G.; Salatino, A.; Salatino, M.L.F.; Mayworm, M.A.S. GC-MS and HPLC-ESI-MS-MS Characterization of Sanchezia oblonga (Acanthaceae) Extracts. J. Food Res. 2020, 9, 57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Bujor, A.; Miron, A.; Luca, S.V.; Skalicka-Wozniak, K.; Silion, M.; Ancuceanu, R.; Dinu, M.; Girard, C.; Demougeot, C.; Totoson, P. Metabolite profiling, arginase inhibition and vasorelaxant activity of Cornus mas, Sorbus aucuparia and Viburnum opulus fruit extracts. Food Chem. Toxicol. 2019, 133, 110764. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Tala, V.R.S.; Da Silva, V.C.; Rodrigues, C.M.; Nkengfack, A.E.; Dos Santos, L.C.; Vilegas, W. Characterization of Proanthocyanidins from Parkia biglobosa (Jacq.) G. Don. (Fabaceae) by Flow Injection Analysis—Electrospray Ionization Ion Trap Tandem Mass Spectrometry and Liquid Chromatography/Electrospray Ionization Mass Spectrometry. Molecules 2013, 18, 2803–2820. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Montero, L.; Sáez, V.; von Baer, D.; Cifuentes, A.; Herrero, M. Profiling of Vitis vinifera L. canes (poly)phenolic compounds using comprehensive two-dimensional liquid chromatography. J. Chromatogr. A 2018, 1536, 205–215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Teixeira, N.; Azevedo, J.; Mateus, N.; de Freitas, V. Proanthocyanidin screening by LC-ESI-MS of Portuguese red wines made with teinturier grapes. Food Chem. 2016, 190, 300–307. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Mekky, R.H.; Contreras, M.D.M.; El-Gindi, M.R.; Abdel-Monem, A.R.; Abdel-Sattar, E.; Segura-Carretero, A. Profiling of phenolic and other compounds from Egyptian cultivars of chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) and antioxidant activity: A comparative study. RSC Adv. 2015, 5, 17751–17767. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Sun, J.; Liang, F.; Bin, Y.; Li, P.; Duan, C. Screening Non-colored Phenolics in Red Wines using Liquid Chromatography/Ultraviolet and Mass Spectrometry/Mass Spectrometry Libraries. Molecules 2007, 12, 679–693. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Carvalho, A.A.; dos Santos, L.R.; de Freitas, J.S.; de Sousa, R.P.; de Farias, R.R.S.; Júnior, G.M.V.; Rai, M.; Chaves, M.H. First report of flavonoids from leaves of Machaerium acutifolium by DI-ESI-MS/MS. Arab. J. Chem. 2022, 15, 103765. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Kerebba, N.; Oyedeji, A.O.; Byamukama, R.; Kuria, S.K.; Oyedeji, O.O. UHPLC-ESI-QTOF-MS/MS Characterisation of Phenolic Compounds from Tithonia diversifolia (Hemsl.) A. Gray and Antioxidant Activity. ChemistrySelect 2022, 7, e202104406. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Papetti, A.; Maietta, M.; Corana, F.; Marrubini, G.; Gazzani, G. Polyphenolic profile of green/red spotted Italian Cichorium intybus salads by RP-HPLC-PDA-ESI-MSn. J. Food Compos. Anal. 2017, 63, 189–197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Pan, H.; Lundgren, L.N. Phenolic extractives from root bark of Picea abies. Phytochemistry 1995, 39, 1423–1428. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Yuzuak, S.; Ballington, J.; Xie, D.Y. HPLC-qTOF-MS/MS-Based Profiling of Flavan-3-ols and Dimeric Proanthocyanidins in Berries of Two Muscadine Grape Hybrids FLH 13-11 and FLH 17-66. Metabolites 2018, 8, 57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. Auger, C.; Mullen, W.; Hara, Y.; Crozier, A. Bioavailability of Polyphenon E Flavan-3-ols in Humans with an Ileostomy. J. Nutr. 2008, 138, 1535S–1542S. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  47. Dias, L.; Milheiro, J.; Ribeiro, M.; Fernandes, C.; Neves, N.; Filipe-Ribeiro, L.; Cosme, F.; Nunes, F.M. Fast and simple UPLC–Q-TOF MS method for determination of bitter flavan-3-ols and oligomeric proanthocyanidins: Impact of vegetable protein fining agents on red wine composition. Foods 2023, 12, 3313. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Sánchez-Rabaneda, F.; Jáuregui, O.; Casals, I.; Andrés-Lacueva, C.; Izquierdo-Pulido, M.; Lamuela-Raventós, R.M. Liquid chromatographic/electrospray ionization tandem mass spectrometric study of the phenolic composition of cocoa (Theobroma cacao). J. Mass Spectrom. 2003, 38, 35–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Patyra, A.; Dudek, M.K.; Kiss, A.K. LC-DAD–ESI-MS/MS and NMR Analysis of Conifer Wood Specialized Metabolites. Cells 2022, 11, 3332. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Bednarska, K.; Kuś, P.; Fecka, I. Investigation of the Phytochemical Composition, Antioxidant Activity, and Methylglyoxal Trapping Effect of Galega officinalis L. Herb In Vitro. Molecules 2020, 25, 5810. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  51. Okazawa, A.; Kusunose, T.; Ono, E.; Kim, H.J.; Satake, H.; Shimizu, B.I.; Mizutani, M.; Seki, H.; Muranaka, T. Glucosyltransferase activity of Arabidopsis UGT71C1 towards pinoresinol and lariciresinol. Plant Biotechnol. 2014, 31, 561–566. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Lee, S.H.; Kim, H.W.; Lee, M.K.; Kim, Y.J.; Asamenew, G.; Cha, Y.S.; Kim, J.B. Phenolic profiling and quantitative determination of common sage (Salvia plebeia R. Br.) by UPLC-DAD-QTOF/MS. Eur. Food Res. Technol. 2018, 244, 1637–1646. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Marcelino, S.; Mandim, F.; Taofiq, O.; Pires, T.C.S.P.; Finimundy, T.C.; Prieto, M.A.; Barros, L. Valorization of Punica granatum L. Leaves Extracts as a Source of Bioactive Molecules. Pharmaceuticals 2023, 16, 342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Zhao, Z.; Zhu, J.; Xie, Y.; Dou, Z. Analysis of flavonoids and hydroxycinnamic acid derivatives in Feng Liao of Chinese herbal medicine using UPLC-PDA-ESI(-)-HRMSn method. Asian J. Org. Med. Chem. 2017, 2, 9–17. [Google Scholar]
  55. Mendoza García, Y.; Coeli, A.L.; Ramos, C.; Henrique De Oliveira Júnior, A.; Clemente, A.C.; Ferreira De Paula, F.; Cristine De Melo, A.; Andrino, A.; Silva, M.R.; Augusti, R.; et al. Physicochemical Characterization and Paper Spray Mass Spectrometry Analysis of Myrciaria floribunda (H. West ex Willd.) O. Berg Accessions. Molecules 2021, 26, 7206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Fu, H.; Fu, W.; Sun, M.; Shou, Q.; Zhai, Y.; Cheng, H.; Teng, L.; Mou, X.; Li, Y.; Wan, S.; et al. Kinetic Cellular Phenotypic Profiling: Prediction, Identification, and Analysis of Bioactive Natural Products. Anal. Chem. 2011, 83, 6518–6526. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Albulescu, L.; Suciu, A.; Neagu, M.; Tanase, C.; Pop, S. Differential Biological Effects of Trifolium pratense Extracts—In Vitro Studies on Breast Cancer Models. Antioxidants 2024, 13, 1435. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  58. Paul, D.M.; Vilas, S.P.; Kumar, J.M. A flow-cytometry assisted segregation of responding and non-responding population of endothelial cells for enhanced detection of intracellular nitric oxide production. Nitric Oxide 2011, 25, 31–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  59. Flournoy, J.; Ashkanani, S.; Chen, Y. Mechanical regulation of signal transduction in angiogenesis. Front. Cell Dev. Biol. 2022, 10, 933474. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  60. Macovei, I.; Luca, S.V.; Skalicka-Woźniak, K.; Horhogea, C.E.; Rimbu, C.M.; Sacarescu, L.; Vochita, G.; Gherghel, D.; Ivanescu, B.L.; Panainte, A.D.; et al. Silver nanoparticles synthesized from Abies alba and Pinus sylvestris bark extracts: Characterization, antioxidant, cytotoxic, and antibacterial effects. Antioxidants 2023, 12, 797. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  61. Morar, I.M.; Stefan, R.; Dan, C.; Sestras, R.E.; Truta, P.; Medeleanu, M.; Ranga, F.; Sestras, P.; Truta, A.M.; Sestras, A.F. FT-IR and HPLC analysis of silver fir (Abies alba Mill.) bark compounds from different geographical provenances. Heliyon 2024, 10, e26820. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Hrovatič, P.; Poljanšek, I.; Osolnik, U.; Oven, P.; Vek, V. Changes in the content of extractives in silver fir (Abies alba Mill.) bark due to different storage conditions. Eur. J. Wood Wood Prod. 2025, 83, 186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Köhler, N.; Wray, V.; Winterhalter, P. Preparative isolation of procyanidins from grape seed extracts by high-speed counter-current chromatography. J. Chromatogr. A 2008, 1177, 114–125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Luca, S.V.; Bujor, A.; Miron, A.; Aprotosoaie, A.C.; Skalicka-Woźniak, K.; Trifan, A. Preparative separation and bioactivity of oligomeric proanthocyanidins. Phytochem. Rev. 2020, 19, 1093–1140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Fulcrand, H.; Mané, C.; Preys, S.; Mazerolles, G.; Bouchut, C.; Mazauric, J.P.; Souquet, J.M.; Meudec, E.; Li, Y.; Cole, R.B.; et al. Direct mass spectrometry approaches to characterize polyphenol composition of complex samples. Phytochemistry 2008, 69, 3131–3138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  66. Li, Z.; Wang, L.; Ren, Y.; Huang, Y.; Liu, W.; Lv, Z.; Qian, L.; Yu, Y.; Xiong, Y. Arginase: Shedding light on the mechanisms and opportunities in cardiovascular diseases. Cell Death Discov. 2022, 8, 413. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  67. Durante, W. Role of arginase in vessel wall remodeling. Front. Immunol. 2013, 4, 111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  68. Abdelgawad, I.Y.; Agostinucci, K.; Ismail, S.G.; Grant, M.K.O.; Zordoky, B.N. EA.hy926 Cells and HUVECs Share Similar Senescence Phenotypes but Respond Differently to the Senolytic Drug ABT-263. Cells 2022, 11, 1992. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  69. Wang, X.; Xu, X.; Tew, W.Y.; Ouyang, L.; Yang, X.; Loh, H.W.; Xu, W.; Xu, W.; Yam, M.F. In vivo antihypertensive and ex vivo vasodilatory studies of taxifolin. Pharmaceuticals 2025, 18, 1420. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Ramirez-Sanchez, I.; Maya, L.; Ceballos, G.; Villarreal, F. (−)-Epicatechin activation of endothelial cell endothelial nitric oxide synthase, nitric oxide, and related signaling pathways. Hypertension 2010, 55, 1398–1405. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Ruijters, E.J.B.; Weseler, A.R.; Kicken, C.; Haenen, G.R.M.M.; Bast, A. The flavanol (−)-epicatechin and its metabolites protect against oxidative stress in primary endothelial cells via a direct antioxidant effect. Eur. J. Pharmacol. 2013, 715, 147–153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Subbaraj, G.K.; Kumar, Y.S.; Kulanthaivel, L. Antiangiogenic role of natural flavonoids and their molecular mechanism: An update. Egypt. J. Intern. Med. 2021, 33, 29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Kumar, R.; Deep, G.; Wempe, M.; Agarwal, R.; Agarwal, C. Procyanidin B2 3,3″-di-O-gallate inhibits endothelial cells growth and motility by targeting VEGFR2 and integrin signaling pathways. Curr. Cancer Drug Targets 2015, 15, 14–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  74. Kondo, T.; Ohta, T.; Igura, K.; Hara, Y.; Kaji, K. Tea catechins inhibit angiogenesis in vitro, measured by human endothelial cell growth, migration and tube formation, through inhibition of VEGF receptor binding. Cancer Lett. 2002, 180, 139–144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  75. Verma, S.; Singh, A.; Mishra, A. Taxifolin acts as type I inhibitor for VEGFR-2 kinase: Stability evaluation by molecular dynamic simulation. J. Appl. Pharm. Sci. 2012, 2, 41–46. [Google Scholar]
  76. Bordage, S.; Pham, T.N.; Zedet, A.; Gugglielmetti, A.S.; Nappey, M.; Demougeot, C.; Girard-Thernier, C. Investigation of Mammal Arginase Inhibitory Properties of Natural Ubiquitous Polyphenols by Using an Optimized Colorimetric Microplate Assay. Planta Med. 2016, 83, 647–653. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Dos Reis, M.B.G.; Manjolin, L.C.; Maquiaveli, C.D.C.; Santos-Filho, O.A.; Da Silva, E.R. Inhibition of Leishmania (Leishmania) amazonensis and Rat Arginases by Green Tea EGCG, (+)-Catechin and (−)-Epicatechin: A Comparative Structural Analysis of Enzyme-Inhibitor Interactions. PLoS ONE 2013, 8, e78387. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Caldwell, R.B.; Toque, H.A.; Narayanan, S.P.; Caldwell, R.W. Arginase: An old enzyme with new tricks. Trends Pharmacol. Sci. 2015, 36, 395–405. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Panthiya, L.; Pantan, R.; Tocharus, J.; Nakaew, A.; Suksamrarn, A.; Tocharus, C. Endothelium-dependent and endothelium-independent vasorelaxant effects of tiliacorinine 12′-O-acetate and mechanisms on isolated rat aorta. Biomed. Pharmacother. 2019, 109, 2090–2099. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. de Oliveira, L.M.; de Oliveira, T.S.; da Costa, R.M.; de Souza Gil, E.; Costa, E.A.; de Cassia Aleixo Tostes Passaglia, R.; Filgueira, F.P.; Ghedini, P.C. The vasorelaxant effect of gallic acid involves endothelium-dependent and -independent mechanisms. Vascul. Pharmacol. 2016, 81, 69–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Ramirez-Sanchez, I.; Rodriguez, A.; Moreno-Ulloa, A.; Ceballos, G.; Villarreal, F. (−)-Epicatechin-induced recovery of mitochondria from simulated diabetes: Potential role of endothelial nitric oxide synthase. Diab. Vasc. Dis. Res. 2016, 13, 201–210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Xu, Y.C.; Yeung, D.K.Y.; Man, R.Y.K.; Leung, S.W.S. Kaempferol enhances endothelium-independent and dependent relaxation in the porcine coronary artery. Mol. Cell. Biochem. 2006, 287, 61–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  83. Byun, E.B.; Sung, N.Y.; Yang, M.S.; Song, D.S.; Byun, E.H.; Kim, J.K.; Park, J.H.; Song, B.S.; Lee, J.W.; Park, S.H.; et al. Procyanidin C1 causes vasorelaxation through activation of the endothelial NO/cGMP pathway in thoracic aortic rings. J. Med. Food 2014, 17, 742. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Kawakami, K.; Aketa, S.; Sakai, H.; Watanabe, Y.; Nishida, H.; Hirayama, M. Antihypertensive and Vasorelaxant Effects of Water-Soluble Proanthocyanidins from Persimmon Leaf Tea in Spontaneously Hypertensive Rats. Biosci. Biotechnol. Biochem. 2011, 75, 1435–1439. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Mülek, M.; Seefried, L.; Genest, F.; Högger, P. Distribution of Constituents and Metabolites of Maritime Pine Bark Extract (Pycnogenol®) into Serum, Blood Cells, and Synovial Fluid of Patients with Severe Osteoarthritis: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Nutrients 2017, 9, 443. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  86. Grimm, T.; Skrabala, R.; Chovanová, Z.; Muchová, J.; Sumegová, K.; Liptáková, A.; Duracková, Z.; Högger, P. Single and multiple dose pharmacokinetics of maritime pine bark extract (pycnogenol) after oral administration to healthy volunteers. BMC Clin. Pharmacol. 2006, 6, 4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Tan, O.J.; Loo, H.L.; Thiagarajah, G.; Palanisamy, U.D.; Sundralingam, U. Improving oral bioavailability of medicinal herbal compounds through lipid-based formulations—A Scoping Review. Phytomedicine 2021, 90, 153651. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  88. Hegde, M.; Girisa, S.; Bharathwaj Chetty, B.; Vishwa, R.; Kunnumakkara, A.B. Curcumin Formulations for Better Bioavailability: What We Learned from Clinical Trials Thus Far? ACS Omega 2023, 8, 10713–10746. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Luca, S.V.; Macovei, I.; Bujor, A.; Miron, A.; Skalicka-Woźniak, K.; Aprotosoaie, A.C.; Trifan, A. Bioactivity of dietary polyphenols: The role of metabolites. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 2020, 60, 626–659. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  90. Bujor, A.; Ochiuz, L.; Sha’at, M.; Stoleriu, I.; Iliuţa, S.M.; Luca, S.V.; Miron, A. Chemical, antioxidant and in vitro permeation and penetration studies of extracts obtained from Viburnum opulus and Crataegus pentagyna. Farmacia 2020, 68, 672–678. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Giurescu Bedreag, F.C.; Trifan, A.; Bucur, A.L.; Arcus, M.; Tebrencu, C.; Miron, A.; Costache, I. Chemical and antioxidant studies on Crataegus pentagyna leaves and flowers. Rom. Biotechnol. Lett. 2014, 9, 9859–9867. [Google Scholar]
  92. Ke, N.; Wang, X.; Xu, X.; Abassi, Y.A. The xCELLigence system for real-time and label-free monitoring of cell viability. Methods Mol. Biol. 2011, 740, 33–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  93. Capellini, V.K.; Restini, C.B.; Bendhack, L.M.; Evora, P.R.; Celotto, A.C. The effect of extracellular pH changes on intracellular pH and nitric oxide concentration in endothelial and smooth muscle cells from rat aorta. PLoS ONE 2013, 8, e62887. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Xie, F.; Cai, W.; Liu, Y.; Li, Y.; Du, B.; Feng, L.; Qiu, L. Vaccarin attenuates the human EA.hy926 endothelial cell oxidative stress injury through inhibition of Notch signaling. Int. J. Mol. Med. 2015, 35, 135–142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  95. Kichi, Z.A.; Natarelli, L.; Sadeghian, S.; Boroumand, M.A.; Behmanesh, M.; Weber, C. Orphan GPR26 counteracts early phases of hyperglycemia-mediated monocyte activation and is suppressed in diabetic patients. Biomedicines 2022, 10, 1736. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Touil, Y.S.; Fellous, A.; Scherman, D.; Chabot, G.G. Flavonoid-induced morphological modifications of endothelial cells through microtubule stabilization. Nutr. Cancer 2009, 61, 310–321. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Suarez-Arnedo, A.; Torres Figueroa, F.; Clavijo, C.; Arbeláez, P.; Cruz, J.C.; Muñoz-Camargo, C. An image J plugin for the high throughput image analysis of in vitro scratch wound healing assays. PLoS ONE 2020, 15, e0232565. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Arnaoutova, I.; Kleinman, H.K. In vitro angiogenesis: Endothelial cell tube formation on gelled basement membrane extract. Nat. Protoc. 2010, 5, 628–635. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Buharalioglu, C.K.; Song, C.Y.; Yaghini, F.A.; Ghafoor, H.U.B.; Motiwala, M.; Adris, T.; Estes, A.M.; Malik, K.U. Angiotensin II-induced process of angiogenesis is mediated by spleen tyrosine kinase via VEGF receptor-1 phosphorylation. Am. J. Physiol. Heart Circ. Physiol. 2011, 301, H1043–H1055. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  100. Yadav, U.C.; Srivastava, S.K.; Ramana, K.V. Prevention of VEGF-induced growth and tube formation in human retinal endothelial cells by aldose reductase inhibition. J. Diabetes Complicat. 2012, 26, 369–377. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed][Green Version]
  101. Aranda, E.; Owen, G.I. A semi-quantitative assay to screen for angiogenic compounds and compounds with angiogenic potential using the EA.hy926 endothelial cell line. Biol. Res. 2009, 42, 377–389. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Bujor, A.; Miron, A.; Luca, S.V.; Skalicka-Woźniak, K.; Silion, M. Vasorelaxant effects of Crataegus pentagyna: Links with arginase inhibition and phenolic profile. J. Ethnopharmacol. 2020, 252, 112559. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Plants 15 00746 g001
Figure 1. Base peak chromatograms of Abies alba bark extract (AABE) and Cedrus brevifolia bark extract (CBBE).
Figure 1. Base peak chromatograms of Abies alba bark extract (AABE) and Cedrus brevifolia bark extract (CBBE).
Plants 15 00746 g001
Plants 15 00746 g002
Figure 2. Representative profiles of cellular proliferation recorded in real time using the RTCA system. Endothelial EA.hy926 cells were treated with AABE (A) or CBBE (B) at 0.01, 0.05, 0.10, and 0.20 mg/mL; untreated cells (0.00 mg/mL) represented the control. Normalized cell index of three different experiments. RTCA—Real-Time Cell Analysis, AABE—Abies alba bark extract, CBBE—Cedrus brevifolia bark extract.
Figure 2. Representative profiles of cellular proliferation recorded in real time using the RTCA system. Endothelial EA.hy926 cells were treated with AABE (A) or CBBE (B) at 0.01, 0.05, 0.10, and 0.20 mg/mL; untreated cells (0.00 mg/mL) represented the control. Normalized cell index of three different experiments. RTCA—Real-Time Cell Analysis, AABE—Abies alba bark extract, CBBE—Cedrus brevifolia bark extract.
Plants 15 00746 g002
Plants 15 00746 g003
Figure 3. Cell viability (%) and cytotoxicity (%) in endothelial EA.hy926 cells treated with AABE (A) and CBBE (B) at 0.01, 0.05, 0.10, and 0.20 mg/mL for 24 h; untreated cells represented the control. Results are expressed as mean ± SEM of at least three independent experiments. Statistical significance compared to control: p < 0.05 (*), p < 0.01 (**), and p < 0.001 (***). Completely lysed cells (bar Lysis) represent the positive control in cytotoxicity experiments. AABE—Abies alba bark extract, CBBE—Cedrus brevifolia bark extract.
Figure 3. Cell viability (%) and cytotoxicity (%) in endothelial EA.hy926 cells treated with AABE (A) and CBBE (B) at 0.01, 0.05, 0.10, and 0.20 mg/mL for 24 h; untreated cells represented the control. Results are expressed as mean ± SEM of at least three independent experiments. Statistical significance compared to control: p < 0.05 (*), p < 0.01 (**), and p < 0.001 (***). Completely lysed cells (bar Lysis) represent the positive control in cytotoxicity experiments. AABE—Abies alba bark extract, CBBE—Cedrus brevifolia bark extract.
Plants 15 00746 g003
Plants 15 00746 g004
Figure 4. NO production in endothelial EA.hy926 cells treated with bark extracts. Cells were stained with DAF-FM DA after treatment with AABE or CBBE at 0.1 mg/mL for 18 h. (A) Quantitative representation of flow cytometry data for NO positive cells. The results represent the mean ± SEM of at least three independent experiments. Statistical significance compared to control (untreated cells): p < 0.05 (*) and p < 0.01 (**). (B) Representative flow cytometry plots. Grey peaks represent NO-negative cells, while green peaks correspond to NO-positive cells. (C) Representative images of fluorescence microscopy experiments. The initial images were captured with a 10× objective on an EVOS® FL auto fluorescence microscope. The yellow squares are highlighting the selected area (the upper squares depict images at 30× magnification). AABE—Abies alba bark extract, CBBE—Cedrus brevifolia bark extract, DAF-FM DA—4-amino-5-methylamino-2′,7′-difluorofluorescein diacetate.
Figure 4. NO production in endothelial EA.hy926 cells treated with bark extracts. Cells were stained with DAF-FM DA after treatment with AABE or CBBE at 0.1 mg/mL for 18 h. (A) Quantitative representation of flow cytometry data for NO positive cells. The results represent the mean ± SEM of at least three independent experiments. Statistical significance compared to control (untreated cells): p < 0.05 (*) and p < 0.01 (**). (B) Representative flow cytometry plots. Grey peaks represent NO-negative cells, while green peaks correspond to NO-positive cells. (C) Representative images of fluorescence microscopy experiments. The initial images were captured with a 10× objective on an EVOS® FL auto fluorescence microscope. The yellow squares are highlighting the selected area (the upper squares depict images at 30× magnification). AABE—Abies alba bark extract, CBBE—Cedrus brevifolia bark extract, DAF-FM DA—4-amino-5-methylamino-2′,7′-difluorofluorescein diacetate.
Plants 15 00746 g004
Plants 15 00746 g005
Figure 5. Evaluation of antioxidant potential of bark extracts. EA.hy926 cells were treated with bark extracts at 0.01, 0.05, and 0.1 mg/mL for 24 h, followed by exposure to H2O2 for 1 h. ROS levels in EA.hy926 cells treated with AABE (A) and CBBE (B). The results represent the mean ± SEM of at least three independent experiments. Statistical significance compared to control (untreated cells exposed to H2O2): p < 0.05 (*), p < 0.01 (**), and p < 0.001 (***). (C) Representative images of ROS detection using CellROX Green reagent in EA.hy926 cells pretreated with bark extracts at 0.1 mg/mL and quercetin at 20 μM. The fluorescent images were captured with a 10× objective on an EVOS® FL auto fluorescence microscope in the green channels. Scale bar: 100 μm. AABE—Abies alba bark extract, CBBE—Cedrus brevifolia bark extract, ROS—reactive oxygen species.
Figure 5. Evaluation of antioxidant potential of bark extracts. EA.hy926 cells were treated with bark extracts at 0.01, 0.05, and 0.1 mg/mL for 24 h, followed by exposure to H2O2 for 1 h. ROS levels in EA.hy926 cells treated with AABE (A) and CBBE (B). The results represent the mean ± SEM of at least three independent experiments. Statistical significance compared to control (untreated cells exposed to H2O2): p < 0.05 (*), p < 0.01 (**), and p < 0.001 (***). (C) Representative images of ROS detection using CellROX Green reagent in EA.hy926 cells pretreated with bark extracts at 0.1 mg/mL and quercetin at 20 μM. The fluorescent images were captured with a 10× objective on an EVOS® FL auto fluorescence microscope in the green channels. Scale bar: 100 μm. AABE—Abies alba bark extract, CBBE—Cedrus brevifolia bark extract, ROS—reactive oxygen species.
Plants 15 00746 g005
Plants 15 00746 g006
Figure 6. Scratch migration assay on endothelial EA.hy926 cells. Scratch migration images were recorded at 0 h and 24 h. (A) Representative images of wounded areas in EA.hy926 cells treated with bark extracts at 0.01, 0.05 and 0.1 mg/mL; untreated cells (0.00 mg/mL) served as control. Images were captured with a 10× objective on an EVOS® FL auto fluorescence microscope. The measurements of wounded areas in EA.hy926 treated with AABE (B) and CBBE (C) for 24 h. Data represent the mean ± SEM from at least three independent experiments. Statistical significance compared to control: p < 0.01 (**) and p < 0.001 (***). AABE—Abies alba bark extract, CBBE—Cedrus brevifolia bark extract.
Figure 6. Scratch migration assay on endothelial EA.hy926 cells. Scratch migration images were recorded at 0 h and 24 h. (A) Representative images of wounded areas in EA.hy926 cells treated with bark extracts at 0.01, 0.05 and 0.1 mg/mL; untreated cells (0.00 mg/mL) served as control. Images were captured with a 10× objective on an EVOS® FL auto fluorescence microscope. The measurements of wounded areas in EA.hy926 treated with AABE (B) and CBBE (C) for 24 h. Data represent the mean ± SEM from at least three independent experiments. Statistical significance compared to control: p < 0.01 (**) and p < 0.001 (***). AABE—Abies alba bark extract, CBBE—Cedrus brevifolia bark extract.
Plants 15 00746 g006
Plants 15 00746 g007
Figure 7. Tube formation assay performed on endothelial EA.hy926 cells stimulated with human epidermal growth factor (hEGF). Representative fluorescence images of tube formation in EA.hy926 cells treated with bark extracts at 0.01, 0.05, and 0.1 mg/mL for 20 h and untreated control cells. Cells were further stained with 1 μM calcein AM. Images were captured in the green channel using a 10× objective on an EVOS® FL auto fluorescence microscope. Scale bar: 100 μm. AABE—Abies alba bark extract, CBBE—Cedrus brevifolia bark extract.
Figure 7. Tube formation assay performed on endothelial EA.hy926 cells stimulated with human epidermal growth factor (hEGF). Representative fluorescence images of tube formation in EA.hy926 cells treated with bark extracts at 0.01, 0.05, and 0.1 mg/mL for 20 h and untreated control cells. Cells were further stained with 1 μM calcein AM. Images were captured in the green channel using a 10× objective on an EVOS® FL auto fluorescence microscope. Scale bar: 100 μm. AABE—Abies alba bark extract, CBBE—Cedrus brevifolia bark extract.
Plants 15 00746 g007
Plants 15 00746 g008
Figure 8. Sigmoidal arginase inhibition curves for Abies alba (A), Cedrus brevifolia bark extracts (B), and the reference inhibitor (C). AABE—Abies alba bark extract, CBBE—Cedrus brevifolia bark extract, BEC—S-(2-boronoethyl)-L-cysteine.
Figure 8. Sigmoidal arginase inhibition curves for Abies alba (A), Cedrus brevifolia bark extracts (B), and the reference inhibitor (C). AABE—Abies alba bark extract, CBBE—Cedrus brevifolia bark extract, BEC—S-(2-boronoethyl)-L-cysteine.
Plants 15 00746 g008
Plants 15 00746 g009
Figure 9. Cumulative concentration-vasorelaxant response curves for AABE (A) and CBBE (B) in the endothelium-intact (E+) and endothelium-denuded (E−) rat aortic rings precontracted with PE (10−6 M). Effects of L-NAME (10−4 M) and TEA (10−3 M) on each extract-induced vasorelaxation were evaluated. Values represent mean ± SEM of n individual aortic rings from different rats. Statistical annotations: p < 0.05 vs. endothelium-intact (E+) induced vasorelaxation (a), p < 0.05 vs. endothelium-denuded (E−) induced vasorelaxation (b). AABE—Abies alba bark extract, CBBE—Cedrus brevifolia bark extract, PE—phenylephrine, L-NAME—N(ω)-nitro-L-arginine-methyl-ester, TEA—tetraethylammonium, n—number of individual aortic rings.
Figure 9. Cumulative concentration-vasorelaxant response curves for AABE (A) and CBBE (B) in the endothelium-intact (E+) and endothelium-denuded (E−) rat aortic rings precontracted with PE (10−6 M). Effects of L-NAME (10−4 M) and TEA (10−3 M) on each extract-induced vasorelaxation were evaluated. Values represent mean ± SEM of n individual aortic rings from different rats. Statistical annotations: p < 0.05 vs. endothelium-intact (E+) induced vasorelaxation (a), p < 0.05 vs. endothelium-denuded (E−) induced vasorelaxation (b). AABE—Abies alba bark extract, CBBE—Cedrus brevifolia bark extract, PE—phenylephrine, L-NAME—N(ω)-nitro-L-arginine-methyl-ester, TEA—tetraethylammonium, n—number of individual aortic rings.
Plants 15 00746 g009
Plants 15 00746 g010
Figure 10. Effects of Abies alba bark extract on extracellular calcium influx via receptor-operated calcium channels (A) and voltage-dependent calcium channels (B). Values represent mean ± SEM. *** p < 0.001, AABE—Abies alba bark extract, n—number of individual aortic rings.
Figure 10. Effects of Abies alba bark extract on extracellular calcium influx via receptor-operated calcium channels (A) and voltage-dependent calcium channels (B). Values represent mean ± SEM. *** p < 0.001, AABE—Abies alba bark extract, n—number of individual aortic rings.
Plants 15 00746 g010
Table 1. Total phenolic, flavonoid, and proanthocyanidin contents in bark extracts.
Table 1. Total phenolic, flavonoid, and proanthocyanidin contents in bark extracts.
ExtractTotal Phenolic Content
(mg Chlorogenic Acid Equivalents/g)		Total Flavonoid
Content
(mg Catechin Equivalents/g)		Total Proanthocyanidin Content
(mg Cyanidin Equivalents/g)
AABE659.55 ± 4.21167.92 ± 1.4598.2 ± 0.63
CBBE589.33 ± 3.44 a246.26 ± 1.56 a101.6 ± 0.35 a
AABE—Abies alba bark extract, CBBE—Cedrus brevifolia bark extract, p < 0.05 vs. AABE (a); values are expressed as mean ± SD of three independent measurements of the same extract.
Table 2. Compounds tentatively identified in bark extracts.
Table 2. Compounds tentatively identified in bark extracts.
No.Proposed IdentityClassRT
(min)		[M−H]−
(m/z)		MFMS/MS Fragments (m/z)Level#AABECBBERef.
1Quinic acid *Organic acid1.8191.0549C7H12O6173.0364, 127.0364, 111.04561++[32,33]
2Methoxy dihydroxybenzoic acid-O-hexosidePhenolic acid2.5345.1573C16H26O8183. 1613++[33]
3Hydroxy-methoxybenzyl alcohol-O-hexosidePhenolic3.1315.1076C14H20O8153.02163++[34]
4Hydroxybenzoic acid-O-hexosidePhenolic acid4.9299.0755C13H16O8137.02602++[33]
5Homovanillic acidPhenolic acid7.7181.0527C9H10O4151.0393, 133.0283, 105.03343++[1]
6p-Hydroxybenzoic acid *Phenolic acid9.8137.0257C7H6O3123.0041, 111.04901+−[1]
7Vanillic acid-O-hexosidePhenolic acid11.6329.0883C14H18O9167.0349, 152.007, 123.0448, 108.02422−+[35]
8(Epi)gallocatechin-(epi)catechinProantho
cyanidin		12.1593.1337C30H26O13467.1206, 425.0931, 407.0817, 303.0635, 289.0779, 177.0204, 149.0305, 125.072733+−[36,37,38]
9Hydroxybenzoic acid-O-hexoside pentosidePhenolic acid12.2431.1235C18H24O12299.0881, 203.1589, 137.02653+−[39]
10EpigallocatechinFlavanol12.7305.0698C15H14O7287.0537, 261.0805, 243.0775, 219.0706, 201.0520, 167.04343, 125.0252, 111.04192+−[40]
11(Epi)gallocatechin-
(epi)catechin		Proantho
cyanidin		13.8593.1306C30H26O13467.1042, 425.0922,
407.0865, 337.0837,
289.0704, 177.0340,
125.0298		2+−[36,37,41]
12Kaempferol-di-O-hexosideFlavonol15.1609.1403C27H30O16483.0980, 465.0953, 441.0966, 423.0834, 361.0658, 305.07802++[42]
13Isorhamnetin-O-rhamnosideFlavonol16.0461.1073C22H22O11315.1233, 205.0709, 161.0457, 111.00783++[43]
14(Epi)catechin-(epi)catehinProantho
cyanidin		16.3577.1345C30H26O12451.1102, 425.0924, 407.0972, 289.0786, 245.0760, 187.03553++[33,44]
15GallocatechinFlavanol16.6305.0675C15H14O7289.1106, 261.0739, 237.0678, 221.0496, 179.0376, 167.0332, 137.0254, 125.02522++[45,46]
16Catechin *Flavanol17.3289.0723C15H14O6245.0611, 231.0353, 203.0728, 179.0210, 167.0267, 151.0222, 139.0324, 125.02161++[33,44]
17Methoxyhydroxy-benzaldehyde-O-hexoside-O-pentosidePhenolic17.7445.1359C19H26O12293.0856, 151.04283+−[44]
18Dimethoxybenzaldehyde-O-hexosidePhenolic19.1327.1067C15H20O8222.0370, 191.0281, 165.0537, 108.01713−+[44]
19Epicatechin *Flavanol19.5289.0723C15H14O6231.0344, 151.0251, 125.02811++[47,48]
20Taxiresinol-O-rhamnosideLignan21.3491.1926C25H32O10445.1601, 345.1340, 315.1248, 165.05342+−[1]
21Taxifolin-O-hexosideFlavanonol22.0465.1029C21H22O12303.0530, 285.0405, 259.0603, 169.0148, 151.0004, 125.02362++[49,50]
22(Iso)lariciresinol-O-hexosideLignan22.3
24.0		521.2015C26H34O11503.1507, 467.2099, 359.1124, 341.1048, 179.0529, 135.04663++[51]
23Dihydro-isorhamnetin-O-hexosideFlavanone26.0479.1179C22H24O12451.1089, 317.0633, 287.0051, 299.0452, 139.03663−+[52]
24Isorhamnetin-O-pentosideFlavonol27.1447.0949C21H20O11315.1757, 161.04063+−[53,54]
25Quercetin-O-hexosideFlavonol27.1463.0893C21H20O12301.0340, 273.0363, 151.00122−+[55]
AABE—Abies alba bark extract, CBBE—Cedrus brevifolia bark extract, RT—retention time, MF—molecular formula, * identified by standard injection; # Level 1: Confirmed structure by reference standard; Level 2: Probable structure by diagnostic evidence; Level 3: Tentative candidate(s) based on structure, substituent, or compound class.
Table 3. Arginase inhibitory activity of bark extracts.
Table 3. Arginase inhibitory activity of bark extracts.
Extract/
Positive Control		Arginase Inhibition (%)
at 10 µg/mL		Arginase Inhibition (%)
at 100 µg/mL		IC50 (µg/mL)AUCEmax (%)
AABE29.12 ± 1.6875.70 ± 1.4268.30 ± 3.92190.297.91
CBBE20.79 ± 1.80 a45.91 ± 1.90 a115.31 ± 4.32 a161.195.77
BEC90.08 ± 0.45 *98.92 ± 0.25 *0.77 ± 0.09205.996.85
Values represent mean of percentage inhibition ± SEM of three different experiments performed in triplicate. Significant differences between extracts are indicated by letter: p < 0.05 vs. AABE (a). * The reference arginase inhibitor BEC was tested in concentrations of 10 and 100 µM. AABE—Abies alba bark extract, CBBE—Cedrus brevifolia bark extract, IC50—inhibitory concentration 50%, AUC—area under the curve, Emax—maximal effect, BEC—S-(2-boronoethyl)-L-cysteine.
Table 4. EC50, Emax, and AUC values of bark extracts-induced relaxation in endothelium-intact (E+) aortic rings in the presence and absence of L-NAME and in endothelium-denuded (E−) aortic rings in the presence and absence of TEA.
Table 4. EC50, Emax, and AUC values of bark extracts-induced relaxation in endothelium-intact (E+) aortic rings in the presence and absence of L-NAME and in endothelium-denuded (E−) aortic rings in the presence and absence of TEA.
Extract/VehicleEC50 (µg/mL)Emax (%)AUCn
Endothelium-intact aortic rings
AABE13.88 ± 0.9592.54 ± 0.96278.2 ± 3.0412
CBBE7.06 ± 0.77 c90.08 ± 1.28254.8 ± 5.40 c10
Extract + L-NAME
AABE879.4 ± 11.6 a91.53 ± 1.15109.12 ± 4.27 a9
CBBE-13.68 ± 1.64 a,c6.26 ± 1.28 a,c9
Endothelium-denuded aortic rings
AABE537.7 ± 9.15 a90.15 ± 2.19124.11 ± 5.15 a9
CBBE-35.16 ± 3.12 a,c11.61 ± 1.07 a,c9
Extract + TEA
AABE825.2 ± 1 2.1 a,b92.88 ± 2.18112.10 ± 2.18 a,b7
CBBE-12.59 ± 0.54 a,b,c3.33 ± 0.14 a,b,c7
Values represent means ± SEM of n individual aortic rings from different rats. AABE—Abies alba bark extract, CBBE—Cedrus brevifolia bark extract, EC50—effective concentration 50%, Emax—maximal relaxation in phenylephrine-induced contraction, AUC—area under the curve, L-NAME—N(ω)-nitro-L-arginine-methyl-ester, TEA—tetraethylammonium, n—number of individual aortic rings. EC50 values not reported when maximal relaxation did not reach 50%, precluding reliable curve fitting. Statistical annotations: p < 0.05 vs. corresponding values on endothelium-intact aortic rings (a), p < 0.05 vs. corresponding values on endothelium-denuded aortic rings (b), p < 0.05 vs. AABE (c).
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Barsan, A.; Cismasiu, V.B.; Pop, S.; Girard, C.; Totoson, P.; Luca, S.V.; Skalicka-Woźniak, K.; Lipovanu, M.; Lungu, C.; Ochiuz, L.; et al. Conifer Bark Extracts as Modulators of Endothelial Function: Evidence from Abies alba and Cedrus brevifolia. Plants 2026, 15, 746. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants15050746

AMA Style

Barsan A, Cismasiu VB, Pop S, Girard C, Totoson P, Luca SV, Skalicka-Woźniak K, Lipovanu M, Lungu C, Ochiuz L, et al. Conifer Bark Extracts as Modulators of Endothelial Function: Evidence from Abies alba and Cedrus brevifolia. Plants. 2026; 15(5):746. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants15050746

Chicago/Turabian Style

Barsan (Bujor), Alexandra, Valeriu B. Cismasiu, Sevinci Pop, Corine Girard, Perle Totoson, Simon Vlad Luca, Krystyna Skalicka-Woźniak, Mihaela Lipovanu, Cristina Lungu, Lacramioara Ochiuz, and et al. 2026. "Conifer Bark Extracts as Modulators of Endothelial Function: Evidence from Abies alba and Cedrus brevifolia" Plants 15, no. 5: 746. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants15050746

APA Style

Barsan, A., Cismasiu, V. B., Pop, S., Girard, C., Totoson, P., Luca, S. V., Skalicka-Woźniak, K., Lipovanu, M., Lungu, C., Ochiuz, L., & Miron, A. (2026). Conifer Bark Extracts as Modulators of Endothelial Function: Evidence from Abies alba and Cedrus brevifolia. Plants, 15(5), 746. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants15050746

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