| Literature DB >> 31269738 |
María Cruz Juárez-Aragón1, Yolanda Del Rocio Moreno-Ramírez1, Antonio Guerra-Pérez1, Arturo Mora-Olivo1, Fabián Eliseo Olazarán-Santibáñez1, Jorge Ariel Torres-Castillo2.
Abstract
Rhus pachyrrhachis and Rhus virens are medicinal plant species with important uses in northeastern Mexico. They belong to a complex of Rhus species called "lantriscos", which are used for medicinal applications. The medicinal effects of these species are based on traditional use, however, they require phytochemical research to validate their medicinal properties, as well as structural characterization for their correct identification during the collecting practice and uses. The phytochemical potential of aqueous extracts from R. pachyrrhachis and R. virens was analyzed by the quantification of total phenolic content (TPC), free radical-scavenging potential, and total flavonoids, with a comparison of four drying methods, and some phenolic compounds were identified. Furthermore, the stems and leaves of both species were anatomically characterized to establish a differentiation. R. pachyrrhachis and R. virens showed similar values of phytochemical contents, although the TPC content (0.17 mg of gallic acid equivalent per gram of dry weight, GAE/g DW) was higher in R. virens. The drying method used affected the metabolite contents, and this behavior was related to the species. Regarding the phenolic compounds, shikimic acid, galloylquinic acid, and gallic acid were identified in both species, however, quinic acid was only found in Rhus pachyrrhachis, while vanillic acid O-hexoside was identified only in Rhus virens. At the anatomical level, the pubescence associated with trichomes on the leaves of Rhus pachyrrhachis was highlighted as the main differential characteristic.Entities:
Keywords: Rhus; medicinal plants; morphoanatomical characterization; phytochemistry
Year: 2019 PMID: 31269738 PMCID: PMC6651590 DOI: 10.3390/molecules24132438
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Molecules ISSN: 1420-3049 Impact factor: 4.411
Figure 1Marginal means of total phenolic content (TPC) (A), total flavonoid (TF) (B), and free radical-scavenging capacity against 2,2′-azino-bis(3-ethylbenzothiazoline-6-sulfonic acid) (ABTS) (C) and 2,2-diphenyl-1-picrylhydrazyl DPPH (D) radicals of Rhus pachyrrhachis and Rhus virens. Vertical bars represent the Tukey’s honest significant difference (HSD, p ≤ 0.05) appropriated to compare the species in the same drying method.
Global aggregated results of TPC, TF, and free radical-scavenging capacity against ABTS and DPPH radicals of Rhus pachyrrhachis and Rhus virens.
| Species | Free Radical-Scavenging Capacity | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| TPC | TF | ABTS | DPPH | |
|
| 0.13 ± 0.02 b | 1.81 ± 1.21 a | 14.35 ± 2.79 a | 28.74 ± 0.18 a |
|
| 0.17 ± 0.03 a | 1.85 ± 1.03 a | 16.01 ± 2.53 a | 28.66 ± 0.47 a |
| HSD | 0.006 | 0.54 | 0.95 | 0.13 |
TPC expressed in mg gallic acid equivalent per gram of dry weight (GAE/g DW), total flavonoids (TF) expressed in mg of quercetin (Q)/g DW, and values of DPPH and ABTS expressed in mmol TE/g DW. Different letters in the same column indicate significant differences (Tukey’s honest significant difference (HSD)).
Comparison of means between four drying methods for total phenolic content (TPC, mg GAE/g of DW), contents of total flavonoid (TF, mg Q/g DW), and free radical-scavenging capacity against DPPH (mmol TE/g DW) and ABTS (mmol TE/g DW) quantified in leaf extracts of Rhus pachyrrhachis and Rhus virens.
| Drying Method |
|
| ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| TPC | TF | ABTS | DPPH | TPC | TF | ABTS | DPPH | |
| 1. Traditional | 0.16 A | 1.41 B | 11.70 B | 28.54 A | 0.17 b | 1.17 a | 16.50 b | 28.28 b |
| 2. Conventional | 0.12 B | 0.94 B | 16.88 A | 28.81 A | 0.19 a | 2.51 a | 13.66 c | 28.20 b |
| 3. Oven | 0.11 B | 1.32 B | 12.13 B | 28.90 A | 0.12 c | 2.56 a | 14.27 c | 29.23 a |
| 4. Prototype | 0.12 B | 3.57 A | 16.71 A | 28.73 A | 0.18 a | 1.35 a | 19.61 a | 28.94 a |
| HSD | 0.021 | 1.693 | 3.456 | 0.373 | 0.013 | 1.618 | 2.154 | 0.433 |
HSD, honest significant difference. Different letters in the same column show significant differences (Tukey test, p < 0.05).
Compounds from Rhus pachyrrhachis and Rhus virens identified by UPLC–Mse (Ultra performance liquid chromatography–mass spectrometry elevated energy).
| Peak | Rt (min) | [M − H] ( | MS2 Dominant Fragment Ion | Tentative Assignment | Molecular Formula |
|
| References |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 0.846 | 191.0871 | - | Quinic acid | C7H12O6 | * | [ | |
| 2 | 0.913 | 173.0794 | 93.0801, 173.08, | (−)-Shikimic acid | C7H10O5 | * | * | [ |
| 3 | 1.353, 1.319 | 331.0622, 331.0648 | 278.98, 232.98, | Galloyl-hexoside | C13H16O10 | * | * | [ |
| 4 | 1.522, 1.556 | 125.0672, 125.0655 | 169.05, 151.96, | Gallic acid | C7H6O5 | * | * | [ |
| 5 | 1.725, 1.692 | 191.0862, | 365.03, 343.05, | Galloylquinic acid | C14H16O10 | * | * | [ |
| 6 | 2.571 | 109.0727 | 153.05, 108.06 | Protocatechuic acid | C7H6O4 | * | [ | |
| 7 | 3.518, 3.451 | 123.0869, 123.0879 | 331.10, 285.11, | UK | - | * | * | - |
| 8 | 4.973 | 359.1374 (100) | 341.13, 187.10, | UK | - | * | - | |
| 9 | 5.751 | 167.0714 (100) | 191.06, 123.08 | Vanillic acid | C14H18O9 | * | [ |
UK, unknown compound; * indicates presence.
Figure 2Anatomical description of leaflets and stems of Rhus pachyrrhachis and Rhus virens: (A) adaxial epidermis of R. pachyrrhachis observed at 40×; (B) abaxial epidermis of R. pachyrrhachis at 10×; (C) cross-section of R. pachyrrhachis leaflet at 10×; (D) adaxial epidermis of R. virens observed at 40×; (E) abaxial epidermis of R. virens at 40×; (F) cross-section of R. virens leaflet at 10×; (G) cross-section of R. pachyrrhachis stem at 10×, and (H) cross-section of R. virens stem at 10×. Black arrows indicate positions of trichomes.