| Literature DB >> 32230740 |
Lijun Song1, Li Zhang2, Long Xu1, Yunjian Ma1, Weishuai Lian1, Yongguo Liu3, Yonghua Wang1.
Abstract
Triterpenoid compounds are one of the main functional components in jujube fruit. In this study, the optimal process for ultrasound-assisted extraction (UAE) of total triterpenoids from jujube fruit was determined using response surface methodology (RSM). The optimal conditions were as follows: temperature of 55.14 °C, ethanol concentration of 86.57%, time of 34.41 min, and liquid-to-solid ratio of 39.33 mL/g. The triterpenoid yield was 19.21 ± 0.25 mg/g under optimal conditions. The triterpenoid profiles and antioxidant activity were further analyzed. Betulinic acid, alphitolic acid, maslinic acid, oleanolic acid, and ursolic acid were the dominant triterpenoid acids in jujube fruits. Correlation analysis revealed a significant positive correlation between the major triterpenic acids and antioxidant activities. The variations of triterpenoid profiles and antioxidant activity within the jujube fruits and the degree of variation were evaluated by hierarchical cluster analysis (HCA) and principal component analysis (PCA), respectively. The results provide important guidance for the quality evaluation and industrial application of jujube fruit.Entities:
Keywords: Ziziphus jujuba; hierarchical cluster analysis; principal component analysis; triterpenic acid; ultrasound-assisted extraction
Year: 2020 PMID: 32230740 PMCID: PMC7238538 DOI: 10.3390/plants9040412
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Plants (Basel) ISSN: 2223-7747
The experimental results.
| Run | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 40 | 90 | 35 | 35 | 16.60 |
| 2 | 50 | 80 | 40 | 35 | 18.68 |
| 3 | 40 | 85 | 35 | 25 | 14.13 |
| 4 | 60 | 85 | 40 | 35 | 17.72 |
| 5 | 50 | 85 | 30 | 25 | 16.82 |
| 6 | 40 | 85 | 35 | 45 | 16.40 |
| 7 | 50 | 85 | 35 | 35 | 19.25 |
| 8 | 40 | 85 | 30 | 35 | 16.13 |
| 9 | 50 | 80 | 35 | 25 | 17.18 |
| 10 | 60 | 80 | 35 | 35 | 17.96 |
| 11 | 50 | 85 | 35 | 35 | 19.18 |
| 12 | 50 | 90 | 40 | 35 | 18.58 |
| 13 | 60 | 90 | 35 | 35 | 18.08 |
| 14 | 50 | 90 | 35 | 45 | 18.93 |
| 15 | 50 | 85 | 35 | 35 | 19.12 |
| 16 | 50 | 85 | 40 | 25 | 16.78 |
| 17 | 50 | 80 | 35 | 45 | 18.81 |
| 18 | 50 | 90 | 30 | 35 | 18.84 |
| 19 | 40 | 80 | 35 | 35 | 16.15 |
| 20 | 60 | 85 | 35 | 45 | 18.01 |
| 21 | 50 | 80 | 30 | 35 | 18.64 |
| 22 | 50 | 90 | 35 | 25 | 17.04 |
| 23 | 50 | 85 | 30 | 45 | 18.73 |
| 24 | 50 | 85 | 35 | 35 | 19.05 |
| 25 | 60 | 85 | 30 | 35 | 17.95 |
| 26 | 40 | 85 | 40 | 35 | 16.42 |
| 27 | 50 | 85 | 35 | 35 | 19.08 |
| 28 | 50 | 85 | 40 | 45 | 18.69 |
| 29 | 60 | 85 | 35 | 25 | 16.38 |
Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for the response surface quadratic model.
| Source | Sum of Squares | df | Mean Square | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Model | 45.29 | 14 | 3.24 | 229.64 | <0.0001 |
| 8.79 | 1 | 8.79 | 623.9 | <0.0001 | |
| 0.035 | 1 | 0.035 | 2.5 | 0.1362 | |
| 0.0048 | 1 | 0.0048 | 0.34 | 0.5687 | |
| 10.53 | 1 | 10.53 | 747.33 | <0.0001 | |
|
| 0.027 | 1 | 0.027 | 1.93 | 0.1862 |
|
| 0.068 | 1 | 0.068 | 4.8 | 0.0459 |
|
| 0.1 | 1 | 0.1 | 7.27 | 0.0174 |
|
| 0.023 | 1 | 0.023 | 1.6 | 0.2269 |
|
| 0.017 | 1 | 0.017 | 1.2 | 0.2919 |
|
| 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
|
| 21.3 | 1 | 21.3 | 1512.04 | <0.0001 |
|
| 0.089 | 1 | 0.089 | 6.32 | 0.0248 |
|
| 0.61 | 1 | 0.61 | 43.09 | <0.0001 |
|
| 7.37 | 1 | 7.37 | 523.14 | <0.0001 |
| Residual | 0.2 | 14 | 0.014 | ||
| Lack of Fit | 0.17 | 10 | 0.017 | 2.67 | 0.1785 |
| Pure Error | 0.026 | 4 | 0.00643 | ||
| Cor Total | 45.49 | 28 | |||
| Adeq Precision | 56.589 | ||||
| R2 = 0.9957; Adj R2 = 0.9913; Pred R2 = 0.9774 | |||||
ANOVA can fully reflect the significance and reliability of the response surface quadratic regression model [23,24]; as indicated in Table 2, the model was highly significant (F = 229.64, p < 0.0001). The p-value for the lack of fit was not significant (F = 2.67, p = 0.1785), which indicates the adequate predictive relevance of the model to explain the associations of independent variables with dependent variables. The linear coefficients (X1, X4), quadratic coefficients (X12, X22, X32, and X42), and interaction coefficients (X1 X3, X1 X4) were significant (p < 0.05). The R2 value of 0.9957 indicates a reasonable fit of the model to the experimental data. An R2 value (multiple correlation coefficient) closer to one denotes better correlation between the observed and predicted values. In this study, the values of R2 (0.9957), Pred R2 (0.9774), and Adj R2 (0.9913) indicate a good correlation between the experimental and predicted values, which shows that the model was significant. In addition, “Adeq Precision” (a measure of the signal-to-noise ratio) of 56.589 indicates an adequate signal. It can be concluded that the model was statistically credible and reliable.
Figure 1Contour plot (a,c) and three-dimensional (3D) surface plot (b,d) showing the interaction effects of the process variables on the total triterpenoid yield. (a,b): the interaction between temperature (X1) and time (X3) on total triterpenoid yield (Y); (c,d): the interaction between temperature (X1) and liquid-to-solid ratio (X4) on total triterpenoid yield (Y).
Figure 2Ultra-performance liquid chromatography (UPLC) chromatograms of mixed standards (a) and sample (b). 1: Maslinic acid isomer-1 (Ma1); 2: Maslinic acid isomer-2 (Ma2); 3: Maslinic acid isomer-3 (Ma3); 4: Maslinic acid isomer-4 (Ma4); 5: Alphitolic acid (Aa); 6: Maslinic acid (Ma); 7: 2α-hydroxy ursolic acid (2αHa); 8: Maslinic acid isomer-5 (Ma5); 9: Oleanolic acid isomer-1 (Oa1); 10: Maslinic acid isomer-6 (Ma6); 11: Maslinic acid isomer-7 (Ma7); 12: Betulinic acid (Ba); 13: Oleanolic acid (Oa); 14: Ursolic acid (Ua); 15: Betulonic acid (Ba’); 16: Oleanonic acid + Ursonic acid (Oa’ + Ua’).
The retention time, mass spectrum (MS) parameters, and regression equations of standards and isomers.
| Peak | Retention Time | Compound | [M + H]− | Regression Equation | R2 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 1.72 | Maslinic acid isomer-1 | 471.34 | — | — |
| 2 | 2.16 | Maslinic acid isomer-2 | 471.34 | — | — |
| 3 | 2.56 | Maslinic acid isomer-3 | 471.34 | — | — |
| 4 | 2.76 | Maslinic acid isomer-4 | 471.34 | — | — |
| 5 | 3.29 | Alphitolic acid | 471.34 | y = 138799x + 1595.7 | 0.9994 |
| 6 | 3.99 | Maslinic acid | 471.34 | y = 140553x + 1065.1 | 0.9996 |
| 7 | 4.34 | 2α-hydroxy ursolic acid | 471.34 | — | — |
| 8 | 5.04 | Maslinic acid isomer-5 | 471.34 | — | — |
| 9 | 5.41 | Oleanolic acid isomer-1 | 455.35 | — | — |
| 10 | 5.72 | Maslinic acid isomer-6 | 471.34 | — | — |
| 11 | 6.3 | Maslinic acid isomer-7 | 471.34 | — | — |
| 12 | 7.64 | Betulinic acid | 455.35 | y = 125572x + 1121.5 | 0.9991 |
| 13 | 9.17 | Oleanolic acid | 455.35 | y = 90033x - 1164.7 | 0.9992 |
| 14 | 9.49 | Ursolic acid | 455.35 | y = 113372x + 1035.8 | 0.9997 |
| 15 | 11.09 | Betulonic acid | 455.35 | — | — |
| 16 | 12.59 | Oleanonic acid + Ursonic acid | 455.35 | — | — |
Figure 3Contents (µg/g dry weight (DW)) of triterpenic acids in different jujube samples.
Figure 4The antioxidant activities of the extracts of different jujube samples. ABTS = 2,2-azinobis (3-ethylbenzothiazoline-6-sulphonic acid) FRAP = ferric reducing antioxidant power kit.
Correlation coefficients (r) of the studied triterpenic acids and the antioxidant activity of jujube cultivars.
| Ma1 | Ma 2 | Ma3 | Ma4 | Aa | Ma | 2αHa | Ma5 | Oa1 | Ma6 | Ma7 | Ba | Oa | Ua | Ba’ | Oa’ + Ua’ | Total | ABTS | DPPH | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ABTS | 0.1274 | 0.1943 | –0.0398 | 0.2576 a | 0.9285 b | 0.5205 b | 0.0146 | 0.1462 | –0.0792 | –0.0141 | –0.051 | 0.4838 b | 0.1736 | 0.3378 b | 0.464 b | –0.009 | 0.694 b | - | 0.5205 b |
| FRAP | 0.1174 | 0.0713 | 0.2629 | 0.1938 | 0.5549 b | 0.9475 b | 0.1955 | –0.1852 | 0.0911 | –0.013 | –0.0387 | 0.3508 b | 0.6123 b | 0.2048 a | 0.0111 | 0.1888 | 0.583 b | 0.4993 b | - |
a Significant at p < 0.05. b Significant at p < 0.01.
Figure 5Hierarchical cluster analysis (HCA) of 99 cultivars of jujube samples. Cultivar lines with the same color are in the same cluster.
The mean values of the detected compounds in different clusters.
| Variables | Cluster 1 | Cluster 2 | Cluster 3 | Cluster 4 | Cluster 5 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Maslinic acid isomer-1 |
| 0.022 | 0.040 |
| 0.020 |
| Maslinic acid isomer-2 | 0.355 | 1.706 |
| 0.332 |
|
| Maslinic acid isomer-3 | 25.352 | 17.883 |
|
| 65.097 |
| Maslinic acid isomer-4 |
| 2.839 | 2.802 | 0.655 |
|
| Alphitolic acid |
| 1245.100 | 1189.970 |
| 826.015 |
| Maslinic acid |
| 203.267 | 328.307 |
| 287.112 |
| 2α-hydroxy ursolic acid | 40.014 | 29.682 |
|
| 127.938 |
| Maslinic acid isomer-5 | 82.301 | 149.580 |
| 79.385 |
|
| Oleanolic acid isomer-1 |
| 8.929 | 7.839 |
| 8.074 |
| Maslinic acid isomer-6 | 49.880 | 74.380 |
| 51.110 | 38.100 a |
| Maslinic acid isomer-7 |
| 9.938 |
| 3.801 | 16.411 |
| Betulinic acid | 1827.349 | 1909.479 |
|
| 1411.514 |
| Oleanolic acid | 317.869 | 217.850 |
|
| 308.816 |
| Ursolic acid |
|
|
| 112.549 | 216.542 |
| Betulonic acid | 78.186 |
| 107.236 | 48.038 |
|
| Oleanonic acid + Ursonic acid | 40.246 | 33.499 |
|
| 50.759 |
| Total | 4572.323 | 4104.121 |
|
| 3448.962 |
| ABTS | 3.346 | 2.938 |
|
| 2.132 |
| FRAP |
| 2.645 | 3.172 |
| 3.208 |
Extreme values are in bold; a the element with the lowest mean value among the five clusters; b the highest mean value.
Total variance explained by principal component analysis (PCA).
| Component | Eigenvalue | Percentage of Variance (%) | Cumulative (%) |
|---|---|---|---|
| PC1 | 6.04 | 31.79 | 31.79 |
| PC2 | 3.89 | 20.46 | 52.25 |
| PC3 | 2.70 | 14.23 | 66.49 |
| PC4 | 1.34 | 7.04 | 73.53 |
Figure 6The 3D plots (a) and biplots (b) of PCA. Groups 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 are the classified clusters of jujube by HCA. The ellipses with different colors represent the 95% confidence ellipse for different clusters.
Independent variable codes and levels in experimental design.
| Code | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| −1 | 40 | 80 | 30 | 25:1 |
| 0 | 50 | 85 | 35 | 35:1 |
| +1 | 60 | 90 | 40 | 45:1 |