| Literature DB >> 31827680 |
Gulsim Zhumashova1, Wirginia Kukula-Koch2, Wojciech Koch3, Tomasz Baj1, Galiya Sayakova1, Alma Shukirbekova4, Kazimierz Głowniak5, Zuriyadda Sakipova1.
Abstract
An optimisation of extraction towards an increased antioxidant capacity and the study on the extracts' composition by HPLC-ESI-Q-TOF-MS were performed on different organs of a rarely studied plant: Rheum cordatum Losinsk (Polygonaceae) growing in Kazakhstan. More than 20 compounds from anthraquinones and phenolics were identified in an optimised method. The plant was proven to contain a wide variety of phenolic compounds (catechins, flavonoids, and their glucosides and phenolic acids) in contrast to the anthraquinone composition, which was mainly represented by emodin and its analogues. The results of the studies could determine the plant as a rich source of pharmacologically precious polyphenols. It was evidenced that the extracting solvents, the time of collection, and the organs tested affected both the chemical content and the antioxidant potential of the extracts. Ethanol : water (50 : 50 v/v) was selected as the most beneficial extractant for all metabolites, and based on the principal component analysis of raw data, the radical scavenging potential of the plant was strictly related to the presence of epicatechin gallate (ECG), kaempferol glucoside, and epigallocatechin gallate (EGCG) occurring in this extract at the concentration of 1.69-5%, 0.16-0.47%, and 0.001-2.93%, respectively.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31827680 PMCID: PMC6885188 DOI: 10.1155/2019/5465463
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Oxid Med Cell Longev ISSN: 1942-0994 Impact factor: 6.543
The list of tentatively identified and traced molecules in the analysed Rheum cordatum ethanol : water (50 : 50 v/v) extracts together with a relative comparison of their content in the studied plant organs.
| Ionisation mode | Rt (min) | Molecular formula |
|
| Delta (ppm) | DBE | MS/MS fragments | Tentative compound | Root | Leaf | Seed | Stem | References |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| |||||||||||||
| [M-H]− | 24.99 | C21H20O10 | 431.0971 | 431.0984 | 2.94 | 12 | 413, 269 | Emodin 1-glucoside | ++++ | ++ | ++ | ++++ | [ |
| [M-H]− | 25.29 | C28H24O14 | 583.1083 | 583.1093 | 1.76 | 17 | 435, 269, 169 | Emodin galloyl-hexose | + | — | — | + | [ |
| [M-H]− | 25.36 | C23H22O11 | 473.1084 | 473.1089 | 1.13 | 13 | 269, 186 | Emodin acetyl-hexose | ++ | ++ | + | +++ | [ |
| [M-H]− | 25.46 | C24H22O13 | 517.1019 | 517.0988 | -6.05 | 14 | 473, 431, 269 | Emodin-8- | ++ | ++ | + | ++++ | [ |
| [M-H]− | 26.025 | C15H10O4 | 253.0505 | 253.2506 | 0.52 | 11 | 225 | Chrysophanol | + |
|
| + | [ |
| [M-H]− | 28.00 | C17H12O6 | 311.0561 | 311.0561 | 0.04 | 12 | 269, 224, 169 | Acetyl-aloe-emodin | + | — | — | + | [ |
| [M-H]− | 30.4 | C15H10O5 | 269.0.454 | 269.0455 | 0.54 | 11 | 225, 180 | Aloe-emodin | + |
| — | +++ | [ |
| [M-H]− | 33.7 | C15H10O5 | 269.0436 | 269.0455 | 7.21 | 10.5 | 225 | Emodin | ++++ | ++ | +++ | ++++ | [ |
|
| |||||||||||||
| [M-H]− | 19.59, 24.6 and 22.67 | C28H24O14 | 583.1073 | 583.1093 | 3.47 | 17 | 269, 169, | Apigenin galloyl-glucoside analogues | + |
|
| + | [ |
| [M-H]− | 3.55 | C7H6O5 | 169.0140 | 169.0142 | 1.45 | 5 | 125 | Gallic acid | ++ | ++ | +++ | + | [ |
| [M-H]− | 4.75 | C13H16O10 | 331.0673 | 331.0671 | -0.69 | 6 | 169, 125 | Gallic acid glucoside | ++++ | ++++ | ++ | +++ | [ |
| [M-H]− | 13.5 | C15H14O6 | 289.0698 | 289.0718 | 6.76 | 9 | 245, 203 | Catechin (CA) | ++ | ++ | ++ | +++ | [ |
| [M-H]− | 16.05 | C15H14O6 | 289.0699 | 289.0718 | 6.42 | 9 | 245, 205 | Epicatechin (ECA) | ++ | +++ | +++ | +++ | [ |
| [M-H]− | 16.3 | C22H18O11 | 457.0808 | 457.0776 | -6.91 | 14 | 305, 169 | Epigallocatechin gallate (EGCG) | +++ | +++ | ++++ | +++ | [ |
| [M-H]− | 18.58 | C21H20O10 | 431.0978 | 431.0984 | 1.32 | 12 | 311, 283, 269 | Apigenin glucoside | — | +++ | + | ++ | [ |
| [M-H]− | 19.0 | C22H18O10 | 441.0835 | 441.0827 | -1.76 | 14 | 289, 169 | Epicatechin gallate (ECG) | ++++ | ++++ | ++++ | ++++ | [ |
| [M-H]− | 20.56 | C15H12O5 | 269.0616 | 269.0612 | -1.48 | 10 | — | Apigenin | tr | — | — | — | [ |
| [M-H]− | 22.78 | C14H12O3 | 227.0702 | 227.0714 | 5.12 | 9 | — |
| + | tr | tr |
| [ |
| [M-H]− | 24.2 | C15H10O7 | 301.0343 | 301.0354 | 3.56 | 11 | 273, 178, 151 | Quercetin | + | ++++ | ++++ | ++ | [ |
| [M-H]− | 24.63 | C22H24O10 | 447.1289 | 447.1297 | 1.72 | 11 | 285, 242, 227 | Tetrahydroxystilbene- | + | — | — | + | [ |
| [M-H]− | 26.9 | C15H10O6 | 285.0386 | 285.0405 | 6.51 | 11 | 213, 151 | Kaempferol | + | +++ | + | ++ | [ |
| [M-H]− | 29.5 | C21H24O11 | 451.1231 | 451.1246 | 3.28 | 10 | 407, 305, 179 | Epicatechin glucoside | + | Tr | — | + | [ |
DBE: double bond equivalent, delta: error of measurement in ppm; Rt: retention time; tr: traced; +, ++, +++: the relative quantity in the extracts.
Figure 1Matrix for grouping objects and features (data standardized by the Z-score method) (the codes applied: 1: ethanol; 2: 50% ethanol; 3: DCM; 4: H2O; 5: CHCl3: R: Rheum; ST: stem; SE: seed; LE: leaf; RO: root).
Figure 2Variability of rutoside (a), aloe-emodin (b), and epicatechin (ECA) (c) contents depending on the harvesting season and the solvent used (the codes applied: 1: ethanol; 2: 50% ethanol; 3: DCM; 4: H2O; 5: CHCl3; R: Rheum; SU: summer—the root collected at the end of May; SP: spring—the root collected at the beginning of April; AU: autumn—the root collected in October; 18 and 17: 2018 and 2017, respectively).
Figure 3The effect of selecting the solvent on the extracted compounds presented as a projection of cases on a plane.
Figure 4The effect of selecting the solvent on the extracted compounds was presented as a projection of cases on a plane.