| Literature DB >> 31340505 |
Pavel Feduraev1, Galina Chupakhina2, Pavel Maslennikov3, Natalia Tacenko2, Liubov Skrypnik2.
Abstract
The study investigated the accumulation of phenolic compounds and the antioxidant activity of extracts of various parts of R. crispus and R. obtusifolius, collected at the flowering stage and the fruiting stage. Half of the collected plants were divided into root, stem, leaves, and reproductive organs (inflorescence). The other half was used to study the vertical distribution of biologically active components and antioxidants throughout the plant. The samples were analyzed for total catechins content, total proanthocyanidins content, total phenolic content, and total antioxidant activity (1,1-diphenyl-2-picrylhydrazyl (DPPH), 2,2'azinobis(3)ethylbenzthiazoline-6-sulfonic acid (ABTS), and ferric reducing antioxidant power (FRAP) assays). All analyses were performed in four replicates. In general, a similar trend was observed in the distribution of phenolic compounds in the studied species. The maximum content of these secondary metabolites was noted in the reproductive organs, both in the flowering and fruiting period. Stems were characterized by a minimum content of the studied classes of substances. The antioxidant activity of the sorrels studied parts can be arranged in the following order: the generative part (flowers, seeds) > leaves > root > stem (for flowering and fruiting stages). It was found that parts of the root closer to the stem differed in higher activity.Entities:
Keywords: ABTS; DPPH; FRAP; Rumex L.; antioxidant activity; catechins; polyphenols
Year: 2019 PMID: 31340505 PMCID: PMC6680865 DOI: 10.3390/antiox8070237
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Antioxidants (Basel) ISSN: 2076-3921
Figure 1Scheme of the analysis of the vertical distribution of phytocomponents in sorrel plants.
Results of three-factorial analysis of variance (ANOVA) for phenolic compounds and antioxidant activity of sorrel extracts.
| Factor | Factor Level | TCC | PAs | TPC | AOA (DPPH) | AOA (ABTS) | AOA (FRAP) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Main effects | |||||||
| Species (Sp) |
| 3.12 b | 7.5 b | 48.4 b | 37.2 b | 64.3 b | 42.1 a |
|
| 3.43 a | 10.7 a | 62.7 a | 46.4 a | 86.0 a | 40.7 a | |
| Plant part (P) | Roots | 1.93 c | 5.5 c | 15.9 c | 34.3 c | 58.0 c | 12.1 d |
| Stem | 1.09 d | 3.9 c | 19.8 c | 22.9 d | 30.8 d | 29.2 c | |
| Leaves | 4.00 b | 10.4 b | 82.1 b | 47.5 b | 99.6 b | 71.1 a | |
| Flowers/Seeds | 5.95 a | 16.6 a | 104.6 a | 62.5 a | 112.2 a | 53.2 b | |
| Growth stage (GS) | Flowering | 3.03 b | 8.6 a | 63.4 a | 46.6 a | 75.4 a | 40.6 a |
| Ripening | 3.45 a | 9.6 a | 47.7 b | 37.0 b | 74.9 a | 42.2 a | |
| Significance | |||||||
| Sp | 0.046 * | <0.001 * | <0.001 * | 0.024 * | <0.001 * | 0.086 ns | |
| P | <0.001 * | 0.028 * | 0.035 * | <0.001 * | <0.001 * | <0.001 * | |
| GS | <0.001 * | 0.112 ns | <0.001 * | <0.001 * | 0.142 ns | 0.054 ns | |
| Sp*P | <0.001 * | <0.001 * | <0.001 * | <0.001 * | <0.001 * | <0.001 * | |
| Sp*GS | <0.001 * | <0.001 * | 0.008 * | <0.001 * | <0.001 * | 0.032 * | |
| P*GS | <0.001 * | 0.263 ns | <0.001 * | <0.001 * | <0.001 * | <0.001 * | |
| Sp*P*GS | <0.001 * | <0.001 * | 0.018 * | 0.020 * | <0.001 * | 0.046 * |
Data were evaluated via three-way ANOVA, factors: species, plant part, and growth stage, followed by Tukey HSD (honestly significant difference) test (mean, n = 4). Identical letters indicate that values do not differ significantly. Asterisks (*) indicate significantly influential factors. ns, not significant; TCC, total catechins content; PA, proanthocyanidins; TPC, total phenolic content; AOA, total antioxidant activity; DPPH, 1,1-diphenyl-2-picrylhydrazyl; ABTS+, 2,2’azinobis(3)ethylbenzthiazoline-6-sulfonic acid; FRAP, ferric reducing antioxidant power.
Figure 2The content of catechins in different parts of plants R. crispus and R. obtusifolius at the stages of flowering and fruiting (a), and vertical distribution of catechins at flowering stage (b) and at fruiting stage (c). Different lower case letters indicate significant differences among plant parts of R. crispus; upper case letters indicate significant differences among plant parts of R. obtusifolius (p ≤ 0.05); and asterisk * indicates significant differences among sorrel species (p ≤ 0.05) based on post hoc Tukey’s tests separately for each growth stage.
Figure 3The content of proanthocyanidins in different parts of plants R. crispus and R. obtusifolius at flowering and fruiting stages (a), and vertical distribution of proanthocyanidins at flowering stage (b) and at fruiting stage (c). Different lower case letters indicate significant differences among plant parts of R. crispus; upper case letters indicate significant differences among plant parts of R. obtusifolius (p ≤ 0.05); asterisk * indicates significant differences among sorrel species (p ≤ 0.05) based on post hoc Tukey’s tests separately for each growth stage.
Figure 4The content of phenolic compounds in different parts of plants R. crispus and R. obtusifolius at flowering and fruiting stages (a), and vertical distribution of phenolic compounds at flowering stage (b) and at fruiting stage (c). Different lower case letters indicate significant differences among plant parts of R. crispus; upper case letters indicate significant differences among plant parts of R. obtusifolius (p ≤ 0.05); asterisk * indicates significant differences among sorrel species (p ≤ 0.05) based on post hoc Tukey’s tests separately for each growth stage.
Figure 5Antioxidant activity of extracts of various plant parts of R. crispus and R. obtusifolius (according to the 1,1-diphenyl-2-picrylhydrazyl (DPPH) method) at the flowering and fruiting stages (a), antioxidant activity according for vertical distribution at flowering stage (b) and at fruiting stage (c). Different lower case letters indicate significant differences among plant parts of R. crispus; upper case letters indicate significant differences among plant parts of R. obtusifolius (p ≤ 0.05); asterisk * indicates significant differences among sorrel species (p ≤ 0.05) based on post hoc Tukey’s tests separately for each growth stage.
Figure 6Antioxidant activity of extracts of various plant parts of R. crispus and R. obtusifolius (according to the 2,2’azinobis(3)ethylbenzthiazoline-6-sulfonic acid (ABTS) method) at the flowering and fruiting stages (a), antioxidant activity according for vertical distribution at flowering stage (b) and at fruiting stage (c). Different lower case letters indicate significant differences among plant parts of R. crispus; upper case letters indicate significant differences among plant parts of R. obtusifolius (p ≤ 0.05); asterisk * indicates significant differences among sorrel species (p ≤ 0.05) based on post hoc Tukey’s tests separately for each growth stage.
Figure 7Antioxidant activity of extracts of various plant parts of R. crispus and R. obtusifolius (according to the ferric reducing antioxidant power (FRAP) method) at the flowering and fruiting stages (a), antioxidant activity according for vertical distribution at flowering stage (b) and at fruiting stage (c). Different lower case letters indicate significant differences among plant parts of R. crispus; upper case letters indicate significant differences among plant parts of R. obtusifolius (p ≤ 0.05); asterisk * indicates significant differences among sorrel species (p ≤ 0.05) based on post hoc Tukey’s tests separately for each growth stage.
Correlation matrix with the Pearson coefficient values for the phenolic compounds and antioxidant activity of sorrel extracts.
| Parameters | TCC | PAs | TPC | AOA (DPPH) | AOA (ABTS) | AOA (FRAP) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| TCC | 1.0000 | |||||
| PAs | 0.6020 | 1.0000 | ||||
| TPC | 0.6343 | 0.4894 | 1.0000 | |||
| AOA (DPPH) | 0.6255 | 0.4396 | 0.8789 | 1.0000 | ||
| AOA (ABTS) | 0.6859 | 0.3867 | 0.8741 | 0.8125 | 1.0000 | |
| AOA (FRAP) | 0.6803 | 0.6701 | 0.7032 | 0.5523 | 0.6381 | 1.0000 |