| Literature DB >> 31952109 |
Larissa Gabrielly Barbosa Lima1, Julia Montenegro1, Joel Pimentel de Abreu1, Millena Cristina Barros Santos2,3, Talita Pimenta do Nascimento2,3, Maiara da Silva Santos4, Antônio Gilberto Ferreira5, Luiz Claudio Cameron3, Mariana Simões Larraz Ferreira2,3, Anderson Junger Teodoro1.
Abstract
The metabolite profiling associated with the antioxidant potential of Amazonian fruits represents an important step to the bioactive compound's characterization due to the large biodiversity in this region. The comprehensive bioactive compounds profile and antioxidant capacities of mamey apple (Mammea americana), camapu (Physalis angulata), and uxi (Endopleura uchi) was determined for the first time. Bioactive compounds were characterized by ultra-performance liquid chromatography coupled to high resolution mass spectrometry (UPLC-MSE) in aqueous and ethanolic extracts. Globally, a total of 293 metabolites were tentatively identified in mamey apple, campau, and uxi extracts. The main classes of compounds in the three species were terpenoids (61), phenolic acids (58), and flavonoids (53). Ethanolic extracts of fruits showed higher antioxidant activity and total ion abundance of bioactive compounds than aqueous. Uxi had the highest values of phenolic content (701.84 mg GAE/100 g), ABTS (1602.7 μmol Trolox g-1), and ORAC (15.04 μmol Trolox g-1). Mamey apple had the highest results for DPPH (1168.42 μmol TE g-1) and FRAP (1381.13 μmol FSE g-1). Nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) spectroscopy results showed that sugars and lipids were the substances with the highest amounts in mamey apple and camapu. Data referring to chemical characteristics and antioxidant capacity of these fruits can contribute to their economic exploitation.Entities:
Keywords: Amazonian fruits; UPLC-MSE; antioxidant; bioactive compounds; phenolic compounds
Year: 2020 PMID: 31952109 PMCID: PMC7024372 DOI: 10.3390/molecules25020342
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Molecules ISSN: 1420-3049 Impact factor: 4.411
Figure 1Total phenolic content in aqueous mamey apple (MAW), ethanolic mamey apple (MAE), aqueous camapu (CW), ethanolic camapu (CE), aqueous uxi (UW), and ethanolic uxi (UE) extracts. Results are expressed by mean ± SD (n = 3) and were compared by the one-way ANOVA test with post-test Tukey′s (* p < 0.01; ** p < 0.001).
Number of bioactive compounds distributed by classes and other compounds identified in aqueous (W) and ethanolic (E) extracts of mamey apple, camapu, and uxi.
| Compounds (%) | Mamey Apple | Camapu | Uxi | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| W | E | W | E | W | E | |
|
| 43 (20.57%) | 37 (19.68%) | 44 (24.04%) | 40 (21.51%) | 38 (23.17%) | 35 (21.21%) |
|
| 36 (17.22%) | 30 (15.96%) | 33 (18.03%) | 29 (15.59%) | 24 (14.63%) | 27 (16.36%) |
|
| 2 (0.96%) | 2 (1.06%) | 2 (1.09%) | 2 (1.08%) | 3 (1.83%) | 3 (1.82%) |
|
| 16 (7.66%) | 15 (7.98%) | 14 (7.65%) | 14 (7.53%) | 8 (4.88) | 9 (5.45%) |
|
| 27 (12.92%) | 25 (13.30%) | 23 (12.57%) | 30 (16.13%) | 20 (12.20%) | 26 (15.76%) |
|
| 17 (8.13%) | 14 (7.45%) | 17 (9.29%) | 20 (10.75%) | 18 (10.98%) | 15 (9.09%) |
|
| 22 (10.53%) | 22 (11.70%) | 11 (6.01%) | 12 (6.45%) | 14 (8.54%) | 15 (9.09%) |
|
| 46 (22.01%) | 43 (22.87%) | 39 (21.31%) | 39 (20.97%) | 39 (23.78%) | 35 (21.21%) |
|
| 209 (100%) | 188 (100%) | 183 (100%) | 186 (100%) | 164 (100%) | 165 (100%) |
Flavonoids tentatively identified in mamey apple, camapu, and uxi extracts.
| Possible Identifications | CAS | RT (min) | Fragment | Error (ppm) | Mamey | Camapu | Uxi | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| W | E | W | E | W | E | ||||||
|
| 529-59-9 | 431.0978 | 4.55 |
| −1.23 | − | − | − | − | X | X |
|
| 552-58-9 | 287.0552 | 3.05 | 81.0338 (5.46); 93.0339 (78.57); 119.0496 (100); 155.0342 (10.19); 163.0395 (60.20) | −2.86 | X | X | − | − | − | − |
|
| 520-26-3 | 609.1875 | 0.43 | 79.0188 (0.66); 369.0671 (50.27); 488.1618 (10.04) | 8.37 | X | X | X | X | X | X |
|
| 14259-46-2 | 579.1775 | 0.43 | 72.9924 (78.62); 79.0188 (0.58); 117.0187 (26.50); 135.0294 (87.65); 357.1033 (3.92); 369.0671 (44.06); 535.1514 (21.08) | 9.66 | X | X | X | X | X | X |
|
| 572-03-2 | 419.1505 | 2.62 | nd | 1.21 | X | X | X | X | X | X |
|
| 486-62-4 | 429.1170 | 2.02 | nd | −4.89 | X | X | X | X | ||
|
| 18483-64-2 | 405.1677 | 4.01 | 109.0653 (0.46); 154.0615 (0.72) | −7.30 | X | X | ||||
|
| 522-12-3 | 447.0923 | 3.48 | 151.0030 (2.20); 285.0393 (5.36) | −2.09 | X | X | X | |||
|
| 482-36-0 | 463.0875 | 3.47 | 151.0030 (2.97); 255.0291 (5.58); 271.0241 (16.99); 285.0393 (7.25); 300.0266 (31.67) | −1.44 | X | X | X | X | X | X |
|
| 520-18-3 | 285.0396 | 4.90 | nd | −2.70 | X | X | X | |||
|
| 480-18-2 | 303.0505 | 1.42 | 147.0120 (100) | −1.65 | X | X | ||||
|
| 24897-98-1 | 289.0733 | 0.56 | 109.0289 (12.30) | 5.54 | X | X | X | X | X | X |
Figure 2Relative abundance based on total ion counting of identified compounds from aqueous mamey apple (MAW), ethanolic mamey apple (MAE), aqueous camapu (CW), ethanolic camapu (CE), aqueous uxi (UW), and ethanolic uxi (UE) extracts. Results are expressed by mean ± SD (n = 3) and were compared by the one-way ANOVA test with post-test Tukey′s (* p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01; *** p < 0.001).
Figure 3Principal component analysis (PCA) biplot (loadings and scores) of the bioactive compounds tentatively identified (loadings, empty circles) in the mamey (squares), camapu (triangles), and uxi (diamonds) fruits extracted with aqueous (W) and ethanolic (E) solvents.
Figure 4Hierarchical cluster analysis (HCA) and heatmap of the bioactive compounds in the mamey apple, camapu, and uxi fruits extracted with aqueous (W) and ethanolic (E) solvents, which showed maximum variance (eigenvectors) among extracts.
Antioxidant activity of the mamey apple, camapu, and uxi samples by ABTS, DPPH, FRAP, and ORAC assays.
| Assay | Mamey Apple | Camapu | Uxi | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aqueous | Ethanolic | Aqueous | Ethanolic | Aqueous | Ethanolic | |
|
| 263.67 ± 23.90 a | 937.66 ± 218.49 b | 432.74 ± 16.17 c | 419.43 ± 18.55 c | 271.86 ± 22.14 a | 1602.7 ± 30.16 d |
|
| 336.60 ± 3.05 a | 1168.42 ± 218.56 b | 386.24 ± 116.99 c | 705.77 ± 100.74 d | 46.95 ± 17.17 e | 509.27 ± 26.95 f |
|
| 564.18 ± 18.90 a | 1381.13 ± 189.95 b | 970.60 ± 28.92 c | 1183.98 c ± 46.62 b | 376.66 ± 1.81 d | 448.68 ± 41.97 e |
|
| 5.17 ± 0.56 a | 8.88 ± 0.52 b | 12.30 ± 1.15 c | 11.15 ± 0.42 c | 14.33 ± 1.36 d | 15.04 ± 0.84 d |
Results are expressed as mean ± standard deviation. Different letters on the same line show significant difference. Results were compared by the One-way ANOVA test with Tukey post-test (p < 0.05).
NMR fingerprinting identification and quantification of mamey apple, camapu, and uxi.
| Fruit | Compound | Multiplicity (J) | Mass (mg/g) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| Formic acid | 8.44 | s | 0.01 ± 0.00 |
| Shikimic acid | 6.48 | m | 0.11 ± 0.01 | |
| Sucrose | 5.42 | d (3.88) | 1.51 ± 0.11 | |
| α-glucose | 5.22 | d (3.76) | 0.49 ± 0.02 | |
| β-glucose | 4.64 | d (7.94) | 0.40 ± 0.02 | |
| Fructose | 4.10 | d (3.42) | 0.85 ± 0.04 | |
| Choline | 3.19 | s | 0.01 ± 0.00 | |
| Ethanol | 1.18 | t (7.09) | 0.01 ± 0.00 | |
|
| Formic acid | 8.44 | s | 0.01 ± 0.00 |
| Sucrose | 5.42 | d (3.91) | 4.09 ± 0.46 | |
| α-glucose | 5.23 | d (3.73) | 0.04 ± 0.01 | |
| β-glucose | 4.65 | d (7.92) | 0.04 ± 0.01 | |
| Fructose | 4.11 | d (3.42) | 0.12 ± 0.01 | |
| Choline | 3.20 | s | 0.01 ± 0.00 | |
| Aspartic acid | 2.82 | dd (17.4; 3.78) | 0.04 ± 0.01 | |
| Acetic acid | 1.94 | S | 0.01 ± 0.00 | |
| GABA | 1.89 | quin (7.44) | 0.02 ± 0.01 | |
| Alanine | 1.47 | d (7.2) | 0.02 ± 0.01 | |
| Lactic acid | 1.33 | d (6.68) | 0.01 ± 0.00 | |
| Ethanol | 1.18 | t (7.09) | 0.02 ± 0.001 | |
| Valine | 1.04 | d (7.07) | 0.01 ± 0.00 | |
|
| Linoleic acid | 5.32 | M | 1.79 ± 0.11 |
| Acetic acid | 1.94 | S | 0.16 ± 0.01 | |
| Alanine | 1.45 | d (7.20) | 0.04 ± 0.01 | |
| Ethanol | 1.16 | t (7.10) | 0.15 ± 0.02 | |
| Valine | 1.05 | d (7.05) | 0.05 ± 0.001 |