| Literature DB >> 29861483 |
Naima Rahmouni1,2, Diana C G A Pinto3, Noureddine Beghidja4, Samir Benayache5, Artur M S Silva6.
Abstract
The phenolic profile of Scabiosa stellata L., a species used in Moroccan traditional medicine, is disclosed. To obtain that profile the species extract was analyzed by ultra-high-performance chromatography coupled to photodiode-array detection and electrospray ionization/ion trap mass spectrometry (UHPLC-DAD-ESI/MSn). Twenty-five phenolic compounds were identified from which isoorientin and 4-O-caffeoylquinic acid can be highlighted because they are the major ones. The antioxidant activity was significantly controlled by the fraction type, with the n-butanol fraction showing the highest antioxidant activity (FRS50 = 64.46 µg/mL in the DPPH assay, FRS50 = 27.87 µg/mL in the ABTS assay and EC50 = 161.11 µg/mL in the reducing power assay). A phytochemical study of the n-butanol fraction was performed, and some important flavone glycosides were isolated. Among them the tamarixetin derivatives-the less common ones-can be emphasized. This phytochemical study and polyphenolic profile can be correlated with S. stellata extracts in vitro antioxidant activity. Moreover, it can be regarded as an evidence of its medicinal use and can incentivize its consumption.Entities:
Keywords: NMR; Scabiosa stellata L.; UHPLC-MS; antioxidant activity; flavone glycosides; phenolic profile
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2018 PMID: 29861483 PMCID: PMC6100036 DOI: 10.3390/molecules23061285
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Molecules ISSN: 1420-3049 Impact factor: 4.411
Extraction yields and antioxidant capacity of S. stellata ethanolic extract fractions.
| Fraction | Mass a | Total Phenolic Content b | DPPH (FRS50) c | ABTS Assay (FRS50) c | Reducing Power (EC50) c |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| DCMF | 12.3 | <1.00 | >250 | >250 | >50 |
| EAF | 5.3 | 4.74 ± 0.01 * | 71.82 ± 0.04 * | 40.41 ± 0.02 * | 202.41 ± 0.10 * |
| 51.7 | 11.86 ± 0.05 * | 64.46 ± 0.01 * | 27.87 ± 0.01 *,# | 161.11 ± 0.08 *,# | |
| Reference | - | - | 8.21 ± 0.03 d | 12.07 ± 0.04 e | 18.03 ± 0.01 f |
Table Data represent the mean values ± SD of three independent assays performed in triplicate (n = 3). a % of dry weight. b mg GA/g DF. c μg/mL. d Reference used was ascorbic acid. e Reference used was trolox. f Reference used was BHA. * Statistically significant different with respect to the reference (Tukey’s test), p < 0.05. # Statistically significant different with respect to EAF (unpaired Student’s t-test), p < 0.05.
Figure 1Structures of isolated compounds: β-sitosterol-β-d-glucoside 1, apiginin 2, caffeic acid 3, ethyl caffeate 4, luteolin 5, isoorientin 6, lucenin 2 7, tiliroside 8, 4,5-O-dicaffeoylquinic acid 9, 1-O-ethyl-β-d-glucoside 10, myo-inositol 11, β-d-fructofuranosyl-(2→1)-α-d-glucoside 12 and tamarixetin 3-β-l-rhamnosyl-(1→2)[β-l-rhamnosyl-(1→6)]β-d-glucoside] 13.
Figure 2UHPLC chromatogram of S. stellata ethanolic extract recorded at 305 nm.
Identification of UHPLC/DAD/ESI-MSn data, and quantification of the most relevant compounds from the ethanolic extract of S. stellata (Retention time (Rt), wavelength of maximum absorption in the UV-Vis region (λmax), pseudomolecular and MSn fragment ions, quantification (mean ± SD) and identification of the phenolic compounds).
| Rt (min) | λmax | [M − H]− ( | ESI-MS2; (MS3) ( | Quantity ♣ | Compound |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1.38 | 191, 267 | 387 | 341, 369; (179, 143, 161) | 8.24 ± 0.03 | 1-Caffeoylglucose derivative (b) |
| 1.74 | 193, 202 | 128 | 85, 109 | 4.30 ± 0.02 | Cyanuric acid (a) |
| 4.35 | 204, 324 | 353 | 191, 179, 135; (173, 127, 109) | nq | 1- |
| 5.30 | 211, 278, 323 | 223 | 205, 115, 143, 159 | 0.26 ± 0.01 | Sinapic acid (a) |
| 6.66 | 217, 298, 325 | 353 | 191, 179, 173, 135; (111, 93) | 26.41 ± 0.30 | 4- |
| 7.12 | 216, 299, 325 | 353 | 191, 179; (173, 127, 85) | 8.93 ± 0.12 | 3- |
| 8.40 | 206, 269, 348 | 609 | 489, 447, (357, 327, 285) | 1.84 ± 0.03 | Luteolin-6- |
| 8.55 | 199, 214, 270, 304 | 353 | 191, 179, 135; (173, 127, 85) | 1.47 ± 0.01 | 5- |
| 8.83 | 220, 274, 310 | 337 | 191, 173; (127, 110, 93) | tr | 5- |
| 9.83 | 230, 326 | 367 | 191; (173, 85) | 0.97 ± 0.02 | 5- |
| 10.14 | 209, 269, 350 | 447 | 429, 357, 327; (309, 297, 285) | 66.31 ± 0.30 | Isoorientin (luteolin-6- |
| 10.40 | 211, 269, 350 | 579 | 561, 447, 357, 327; (309, 297, 285) | 9.78 ± 0.26 | Luteolin-2″- |
| 10.65 | 211, 270, 346 | 461 | 371, 341, 313; (299, 231) | 13.97 ± 0.11 | Diosmetin-6(or 8)- |
| 11.90 | 225, 270, 338 | 563 | 443, 431; (311, 283, 269) | 2.82 ± 0.01 | Apigenin-2″- |
| 12.38 | 232, 256, 353 | 463 | 301; (268, 179, 151) | 0.97 ± 0.04 | Quercetin-3- |
| 13.99 | 220, 241, 327 | 515 | 353; (191, 173) | 16.03 ± 0.03 | 4,5- |
| 14.21 | 237, 267, 337 | 609 | 489, 369; (298, 285, 231) | 1.23 ± 0.01 | Lucenin 2 (luteolin-6,8-di- |
| 14.38 | 242, 326 | 515 | 353, 335; (173,111) | tr | 3,4- |
| 14.93 | 240, 268, 314 | 639 | 616, 315 | tr | Tamarixetin- |
| 15.18 | 242, 326 | 515 | 353; (191, 171, 127) | 3.74 ± 0.02 | 3,5-O-Dicaffeoylquinic acid (c) |
| 18.26 | 239, 270, 351 | 613 | 489, 447, 429; (369, 309, 285) | 0.43 ± 0.02 | Luteolin-6- |
| 19.02 | 243, 267, 314 | 593 | 447, 285 | 0.37±0.02 | Tiliroside (b) |
| 20.86 | 237, 267, 314 | 635 | 477, 315 | 14.49 ± 0.02 | Tamarixetin derivative (b) |
| 20.94 | 237, 267, 313 | 769 | 623, 477, 315 | nq | Tamarixetin glycoside (a) |
| 21.30 | 243, 269, 313 | 739 | 593, 447, 285 | 10.85 ± 0.01 | Kaempferol-3- |
| 57.55 ± 0.11 ♥ | Total chlorogenic acids | ||||
| 108.20 ± 0.17 ♥ | Total flavonoids |
♦ molecular ion; ♠ main fragments; ♣ mg of compound/g dried extract; nq—not quantified; tr—traces; ♥ obtained by propagation. Compounds were identified by (a) comparison with pure standards, commercially available or isolated; (b) comparison with pure aglycone and literature data; (c) comparison with pure cinnamic acid derivative and literature data.