| Literature DB >> 32276402 |
Federico Berti1, Luciano Navarini2, Silvia Colomban2, Cristina Forzato1.
Abstract
The synthesis of five hydroxycinnamoyl amides (HCAs) was accomplished and their identification and quantification in the green coffee bean samples of Coffea arabica, Coffea canephora, and Coffea liberica was performed. The HCAs p-coumaroyl-N-tyrosine 1b, caffeoyl-N-phenylalanine 2b, caffeoyl-N-tyrosine 3b, and p-coumaroyl-N-tryptophan 4b were characteristic of the C. canephora species while caffeoyl-N-tryptophan 5b was present in both C. canephora and C. arabica, but with higher content in C. canephora. The HCAs presence was also analyzed in C. liberica for the first time and none of the targeted compounds was found, indicating that this species is very similar to C. arabica species. Between C. canephora samples from various origins, significant differences were observed regarding the presence of all the HCAs, with C. canephora from Tanzania containing all five derivatives.Entities:
Keywords: LC-MS; coffee beans; hydroxycinnamoyl amides
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32276402 PMCID: PMC7180836 DOI: 10.3390/molecules25071704
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Molecules ISSN: 1420-3049 Impact factor: 4.411
Figure 1Chemical structures of 1a–5a and 1b–5b.
Scheme 1Synthesis of the hydroxycinnamoyl amides.
Figure 2CD spectra of hydroxycinnamoyl amides 1b–5b.
HPLC retention times, MS analysis, and specific rotation.
| Compound | tR (min) | [M + H] ( | Dimer + Na | Specific Rotation |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 26.9 | 328.1 | 677.1 (positive mode) | ||
| caffeoyl- | 30.6 | 328.0 | 677.2 (positive mode) | |
| caffeoyl- | 24.6 | 344.1 | 709.2 (positive mode) | |
| 33.0 | 351.0 | 723.2 (positive mode) | ||
| caffeoyl- | 31.1 | 367.1 | 731.1 (negative mode) |
Figure 3Mass spectra of cinnamoyl amides 1b–5b.
Figure 4Structure of 1b dimer.
Concentrations of cinnamoyl amides in green coffee beans (mg/kg of DW, standard deviation in brackets).
| Sample | Species | 1b | 2b | 3b | 4b | 5b | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | <LOD | <LOD | <LOD | <LOD | 117 | 117 | |
| 2 | <LOD | <LOD | <LOD | <LOD | <LOD | - | |
| 3 | <LOD | <LOD | <LOD | <LOD | 51 | 51 | |
| 4 | <LOD | <LOD | <LOD | <LOD | <LOD | - | |
| 5 | <LOD | <LOD | <LOD | <LOD | 125 | 125 | |
| 6 | <LOD | <LOD | <LOD | <LOD | 37 | 37 | |
| 7 | <LOD | <LOD | <LOD | <LOD | 97 | 97 | |
| 8 | <LOD | <LOD | <LOD | <LOD | 59 | 59 | |
| 9 | <LOD | <LOD | <LOD | <LOD | 75 | 75 | |
| 10 | <LOD | <LOD | <LOD | <LOD | 40 | 40 | |
| 11 | n.q. a | n.q. b | <LOD | 119 | 878 | 997 | |
| 12 | <LOD | n.q. b | <LOD | 116 | 712 | 828 | |
| 13 | n.q. a | n.q. b | 348 | 319 | 1042 | 1709 | |
| 14 | <LOD | <LOD | <LOD | 113 | 590 | 703 | |
| 15 | <LOD | n.q. b | <LOD | 103 | 790 | 893 | |
| 16 | <LOD | n.q. b | <LOD | 212 | 1205 | 1417 | |
| 17 | <LOD | n.q. b | <LOD | 128 | 780 | 908 | |
| 18 | n.q. a | 47 | 182 | <LOD | 470 | 699 | |
| 19 | n.q. a | n.q. b | 140 | 195 | 717 | 1052 | |
| 20 | <LOD | n.q. b | <LOD | 136 | 702 | 838 | |
| 21 | <LOD | <LOD | <LOD | <LOD | <LOD | - | |
| 22 | <LOD | <LOD | <LOD | <LOD | <LOD | - | |
| 23 | <LOD | <LOD | <LOD | <LOD | <LOD | - |
n.q.: not quantifiable: a overlapped with unknown compound with m/z 557, 499, and 279; b overlapped with unknown compound with m/z 513 and 186; DW: dry weight; LOD: limit of detection.
Figure 5Mass spectra of overlapped peaks of 1b (A) and 2b (B) with unknown compounds.
Figure 6Chromatograms of samples from Arabica India (A), Robusta Tanzania (B), and Liberica lot 1 (C).
HPLC gradient method.
| % A (H2O + 0.1% FA) | % B (CH3CN + 0.1% FA) | Time (min) |
|---|---|---|
| 97 | 3 | 0 |
| 85 | 15 | 10 |
| 60 | 40 | 30 |
| 60 | 40 | 40 |
| 97 | 3 | 45 |