| Literature DB >> 32290396 |
Lorenzo Candela1, Marialuisa Formato1, Giuseppina Crescente1, Simona Piccolella1, Severina Pacifico1.
Abstract
Marketed green teas (GTs) can highly vary in their chemical composition, due to different origins, processing methods, and a lack of standardization of GT-based products. Consequently, biological activities become difficult to correlate to the presence/content of certain constituents. Herein, ultra-high-performance liquid chromatography (UHPLC) combined with high-resolution tandem mass spectrometry (HR MS/MS) was successfully applied to six commercial GT products, extracted by ethanol sonication, to disclose their polyphenol profile beyond the well-known catechins. The relative abundance of each class of metabolites was correlated to antiradical and antilipoperoxidant data through hierarchical clustering analysis, since it reasonably affects the beneficial properties of the product that reaches the consumer. The thiobarbituric acid reactive substances (TBARS) assay demonstrated that GT extracts effectively counteracted the UV-induced lipoperoxidation of hemp oil, which is highly rich in Polyunsaturated Fatty Acids (PUFAs), and therefore highly unstable. The Relative Antioxidant Capacity Index (RACI) comprehensively emphasized that gunpower and blend in filter GTs appeared to be the less active matrices, and except for a GT-based supplement, the Sencha GT, which was particularly rich in flavonol glycosides, was the most active, followed by Bancha GT.Entities:
Keywords: UHPLC-HRMS metabolic profile; coumaroyl flavonol glycosides; marketed green tea; ultrasound assisted maceration
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32290396 PMCID: PMC7221963 DOI: 10.3390/molecules25081765
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Molecules ISSN: 1420-3049 Impact factor: 4.411
Figure 1Extraction scheme applied on selected green tea matrices.
TOF-MS and TOF-MS/MS of tentatively identified non-flavonoid compounds in investigated green tea extracts. Compounds are numbered based on their RT in the whole total ion current chromatogram. RT = Retention Time; RDB = Ring Double Bond equivalent value.
| Peak | RT | Tentative Assignment | Formula | [M − H]− calc. | [M − H]− Found | Error | RDB | Fragment Ions |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| 0.304 | pentosylhexoside | C11H20O10 | 311.0984 | 311.0992 | 2.7 | 2 | 311.1004; 179.0560; 161.0453; 87.0086 |
|
| 0.310 | theanin | C7H14N2O3 | 173.0932 | 173.0932 | 0.2 | 2 | 155.0836; 93.0350; 84.0459; 82.0313 |
|
| 0.316 | quinic acid | C7H12O6 | 191.0561 | 191.0564 | 1.5 | 2 | 191.0564; 173.0451; 171.0292; 127.0399; 111.0451; 93.0347; 87.0087; 85.0298; 83.0500; 81.0344 |
|
| 0.319 | trihexoside | C18H32O16 | 503.1618 | 503.1637 | 3.7 | 3 | 503.1654; 341.1097; 323.0983; 281.0891; 251.0789; 221.0667; 179.0558; 161.0451; 119.0349; 113.0246; 89.0242 |
|
| 0.324 | dihexoside | C12H22O11 | 341.1089 | 341.1102 | 3.7 | 2 | 341.1095; 179.0556; 161.0452; 149.0446; 143.0345; 131.0352; 119.0348; 113.0244; 101.0245; 95.0140; 89.0247 |
|
| 0.873 | gallic acid | C7H6O5 | 169.0142 | 169.0148 | 3.3 | 5 | 125.0242 |
|
| 1.049 | theogallin | C14H16O10 | 343.0671 | 343.0671 | 0.1 | 7 | 191.0561; 127.0397; 85.0290 |
|
| 2.515 | 5- | C16H18O9 | 353.0877 | 353.0878 | −0.3 | 8.0 | 191.0558; 179.0345; 173.0459; 135.0448; 85.0291 |
|
| 2.734 | coumaroyl quinic acid | C16H18O8 | 337.0931 | 337.0929 | 0.6 | 8.0 | 191.0561; 173.0452; 163.0401; 119.0497; 93.0344 |
TOF-MS and TOF-MS/MS of tentatively identified flavanols in investigated green tea extracts. Compounds are numbered based on their RT in the whole total ion current chromatogram. RT = Retention Time; RDB = Ring Double Bond equivalent value.
| Peak | RT | Tentative Assignment | Formula | [M − H]− calc. | [M − H]− Found | Error | RDB | Fragment Ions |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| 1.400 | gallocatechin | C15H14O7 | 305.0667 | 305.0671 | 1.4 | 9 | 305.0678; 221.0463; 219.0672; 177.0561; 167.0356; 139.0407; 137.0251; 125.0253; 109.0300 |
|
| 1.771 | prodelphinidin B | C30H26O14 | 609.1250 | 609.1265 | 2.5 | 18 | 609.1294; 483.0950; 441.0835; 423.0733; 355.0804; 305.0665; 255.0305; 221.0454; 179.0340; 177.0180; 125.0236 |
|
| 2.094 | epigallocatechin | C15H14O7 | 305.0667 | 305.0671 | 1.4 | 9 | 305.0671; 219.0667; 167.0353; 139.0403; 137.0248; 125.0248; 109.0299 |
|
| 2.320 | catechin | C15H14O6 | 289.0718 | 289.0722 | 1.5 | 9 | 289.0727; 245.0825; 221.0821; 205.0514; 203.0719; 187.0402; 179.0353; 151.0407; 137.0251; 125.0248; 123.0457; 109.0300 |
|
| 2.904 | epicatechin | C15H14O6 | 289.0718 | 289.0722 | 1.5 | 9 | 289.0733; 245.0830; 221.0831; 205.0515; 203.0723; 187.0409; 179.0358; 151.0405; 137.0250; 125.0247; 123.0456; 109.0299 |
|
| 3.074 | (epi)gallocatechin gallate 1 | C22H18O11 | 457.0776 | 457.0786 | 2.1 | 14 | 331.0463; 305.0673; 219.0668; 193.0148; 169.0146; 161.0245; 137.0245; 125.0246 |
|
| 3.357 | (epi)gallocatechin gallate 2 | C22H18O11 | 457.0776 | 457.0788 | 2.5 | 14 | 331.0476; 305.0678; 219.0668; 193.0148; 169.0151; 161.0249; 137.0246; 125.0250 |
|
| 3.606 | epigallocatechin methylgallate | C23H20O11 | 471.0943 | 471.0933 | 2.2 | 14 | 305.0678; 219.0667; 183.0308; 179.0355; 168.0070; 161.0251; 125.0249 |
|
| 3.691 | epicatechin gallate | C22H18O10 | 441.0827 | 441.0836 | 2.0 | 14 | 441.0841; 331.0461; 303.0508; 289.0715; 245.0811; 203.0707; 193.0137; 169.0138; 151.0393; 137.0236; 125.0241; 124.0162; 109.0291 |
|
| 4.008 | epicatechin methylgallate | C23H20O10 | 455.0995 | 455.0984 | 2.5 | 14 | 289.0724; 245.0819; 183.0301; 168.0070; 125.0242 |
|
| 4.018 | epiafzelechin gallate | C22H18O9 | 425.0881 | 425.0883 | 0.7 | 14 | 425.0910; 287.0574; 273.0777; 255.0666; 243.0690; 211.0760; 169.0144; 125.0246; 97.0297 |
Figure 2TOF-MS/MS spectra of [M − H]− ion of compounds (A) 11 and (B) 14. The structure of the main fragment ions is highlighted. The relative abundance of the ions [M − H-CO2]− and [M − H-CO2-C2H2O]−, as well as of ions from benzofuran-forming fission (BFF, in purple), heterocyclic ring fission (HRF, in blue), and retro Diels–Alder (RDA, in light orange) reactions allowed the geometrical isomers to be distinguished.
TOF-MS and TOF-MS/MS of tentatively identified flavonol glycosides in investigated green tea extracts. Compounds are numbered based on their RT in the whole total ion current chromatogram. RT = Retention Time; RDB = Ring Double Bond equivalent value.
| Peak | tR | Tentative Assignment | Formula | [M − H] − calc. | [M − H]− Found | Error | RDB | Fragment Ions |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| 3.191 | apigenin 6-C-hexosyl-8-C-hexoside | C27H30O15 | 593.1512 | 593.1520 | 1.4 | 13 | 593.1555; 575.1398; 545.1276; 503.1207; 473.1109; 395.0780; 383.0779; 353.0672; 325.0715; 297.0771; 221.0452; 191.0357 |
|
| 3.377 | myricetin galloyl hexoside | C28H24O17 | 631.0941 | 631.0950 | 1.5 | 17 | 631.0979; 479.0853; 317.0294; 316.0225; 287.0192; 271.0239; 178.9978; 169.0135 |
|
| 3.480 | apigenin 6-C-hexosyl-8-C-pentoside | C26H28O14 | 563.1406 | 563.1418 | 2.2 | 13 | 563.1442; 545.1324; 503.1225; 473.1113; 443.1004; 413.0889; 383.0782; 353.0672; 325.0722; 297.0771; 296.0685 |
|
| 3.497 | myricetin deoxyhexosyl hexoside | C27H30O17 | 625.1410 | 625.1422 | 1.9 | 13 | 625.1468; 463.0914; 317.0314; 316.0237; 300.0286; 271.0263; 214.0264; 178.9990; 151.0039 |
|
| 3.503 | myricetin hexoside | C21H20O13 | 479.0831 | 479.0847 | 3.3 | 12 | 479.0867; 317.0309; 316.0238; 287.0201; 271.0256; 214.0274; 178.9993 |
|
| 3.567 | myricetin dihexoside | C27H30O18 | 641.1373 | 641.1359 | 2.1 | 13 | 641.1404; 479.0857; 317.0308; 316.0226; 271.0239; 178.9983; 151.0023 |
|
| 3.633 | quercetin trihexoside | C33H40O21 | 771.1989 | 771.2004 | 1.9 | 14 | 771.2031; 609.1496; 343.0461; 301.0356; 300.0278; 271.0247; 255.0298; 178.9990; 151.0036 |
|
| 3.681 | quercetin galloyl hexoside | C28H24O16 | 615.0992 | 615.0998 | 1.0 | 17 | 615.1061; 463.0920; 313.0598; 301.0369; 300.0287; 271.0258; 255.0315; 179.0003 |
|
| 3.703 | rutin | C27H30O16 | 609.1461 | 609.1469 | 1.3 | 13 | 609.1504; 343.0473; 301.0364; 300.0286; 271.0256; 255.0304; 178.9988; 169.0146; 151.0043 |
|
| 3.819 | Isoquercetrin | C21H20O12 | 463.0888 | 463.0887 | 12 | 463.0919; 301.0367; 300.0290; 299.0200; 271.0262; 255.0309; 243.0310; 178.9987; 151.0038; 121.0291 | |
|
| 3.825 | kaempferol dihexosyl deoxyhexoside | C33H40O20 | 755.2040 | 755.2046 | 0.8 | 14 | 755.2111; 285.0411; 284.0327; 255.0304; 229.0507; 151.0023 |
|
| 3.842 | quercetin hexoside | C21H20O12 | 463.0882 | 463.0887 | 1.1 | 12 | 463.0928; 301.0373; 300.0293; 271.0262; 255.0310; 243.0305; 151.0040 |
|
| 3.939 | kaempferol hexoside | C21H20O11 | 447.0933 | 447.0941 | 2.0 | 12 | 285.0405; 284.0331; 255.0305; 227.0351; 211.0395; 183.0449 |
|
| 3.959 | kaempferol hexosyl deoxyhexoside | C27H30O15 | 593.1531 | 593.1512 | 3.2 | 13 | 593.1553; 285.0407; 284.0329; 255.0301; 227.0349 |
|
| 4.007 | methylkaempferol deoxyhexoside | C21H20O11 | 447.0933 | 447.0942 | 2.0 | 12 | 300.0291; 285.0409; 284.0333; 255.0303; 227.0353 |
|
| 4.386 | camelliquercitoside B | C42H46O23 | 917.2357 | 917.2361 | 0.4 | 20 | 917.2433; 771.2075; 753.1915; 301.0355; 300.0277; 299.0198; 271.0246; 178.9977 |
|
| 4.419 | camelliquercitoside A | C47H54O27 | 1049.2780 | 1049.2789 | 0.9 | 21 | 1049.2868; 903.2491; 885.2401; 301.0361; 300.0285; 299.0200 |
|
| 4.420 | quercetin coumaroyl hexoside | C30H26O14 | 609.1250 | 609.1258 | 1.3 | 18 | 609.1308; 463.0900; 301.0358; 300.0278; 271.0240; 255.0319; 227.0371; 179.0004; 151.0030 |
|
| 4.447 | camelliquercitoside C | C41H44O22 | 887.2251 | 887.2263 | 1.3 | 20 | 887.2336; 741.1947; 723.1846; 573.1334; 301.0361; 300.0282; 299.0196; 271.0260; 255.0289; 178.9988; 151.0039 |
|
| 4.550 | camelliquercitoside D | C36H36O18 | 755.1829 | 755.1838 | 1.2 | 19 | 755.1883; 609.1495; 591.1391; 301.0359; 300.0276; 299.0193; 271.0242; 255.0292; 178.9979; 151.0033 |
|
| 4.553 | camellikaempferoside C | C42H46O22 | 901.2408 | 901.2419 | 1.2 | 20 | 901.2487; 755.2105; 737.2002; 615.1976; 285.0412; 284.0333; 283.0251; 229.0525; 187.0387; 145.0297 |
|
| 4.654 | kaempferol coumaroylhexoside | C30H26O13 | 593.1301 | 593.1325 | 4.1 | 18 | 593.1322; 447.0948; 285.0394; 284.0322; 255.0289; 227.0334; 145.0279 |
Figure 3TOF-MS/MS spectra of [M − H]− ion of myricetin glycosides (A) 18, (B) 20, (C) 21, and (D) 22. The structure of the deprotonated molecular ion is reported on the left, whereas the main neutral losses are evidenced by green arrays.
Figure 4TOF-MS/MS spectra of [M − H]− ion of quercetin glycosides (A) 24, (B) 25, (C) 27, (D) 28, and (E) 30.
Figure 5TOF-MS/MS spectra of [M − H]− ion of some of tentatively identified quercetin coumaroyl glycosides (A) 36, (B) 37, (C) 38, (D) 39, and (E) 40.
Figure 6TOF-MS/MS spectra of [M − H]− ion of some of kaempferol triglycosides (A) 29 and (B) 41. In the B panel, the presence of a coumaroyltryglycosyl moiety was highlighted by detecting the ion at m/z 615.1976.
Figure 7Radical Scavenging Capacity (RSC, %) of green tea extracts vs. 2,2′-diphenyl-1-picrylhydrazyl) (DPPH) radical (A) and 2,2’-azino-bis(3-ethylbenzothiazoline-6-sulfonic acid (ABTS) radical cation (B). Inhibition of thiobarbituric acid reactive substances (TBARS) species formation (%; C). Values are the mean ± SD of two independent experiments performed in triplicate. *p < 0.05 vs. blank. (D) Fluorescein fluorescence decay induced by the 2,2′-azobis-(2-amidinopropane)-dihydrochloride (AAPH) radical generator. The decay is strongly delayed by the co-presence of the extracts already at 0.78 µg/mL dose.
Antioxidant activity of green tea extracts expressed as ID50 (μg/mL) and TEAC (Trolox® Equivalent Antioxidant Capacity values, ID50 Trolox® /ID50 sample) vs. DPPH and ABTS+ radicals. ID50 and Trolox® Equivalent Antioxidant Capacity (TEAC) values from TBARS inhibition assay, as well as oxygen radical absorbance capacity (ORAC) values (Trolox® Eq μM) are also reported. Relative Antioxidant Capacity Index (RACI) values, which were calculated taking into account the average of the standard scores obtained from the ID50 raw data for the various methods and ORAC values, are also given in the last column. TeaCEC: green tea catechins-enriched supplement, TeaTWF: Chinese green tea blend in filter, TeaSNC: Japanese Sencha green tea, TeaBNC: Japanese Bancha green tea, TeaMTC: Matcha green tea, TeaGNP: gunpowder green tea.
| ID50 DPPH (μg/mL) | ID50 ABTS (μg/mL) | ID50 TBARS (μg/mL) | ORAC (Trolox® Eq μM) | RACI | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| 3.83 ± 0.25 | 1.13 ± 0.12 | 0.17 ± 0.01 | 3.71 ± 0.16 | 9.96 |
|
| 66.52 ± 0.25 | 5.28 ± 0.72 | 3.14 ± 0.61 | 2.72 ± 0.16 | −0.16 |
|
| 15.37 ± 0.51 | 2.26 ± 0.32 | 0.28 ± 0.01 | 3.57 ± 0.63 | 5.62 |
|
| 19.71 ± 0.38 | 2.44 ± 0.44 | 0.55 ± 0.04 | 2.53 ± 0.79 | 2.36 |
|
| 31.15 ± 0.25 | 3.35 ± 0.53 | 1.79 ± 0.12 | 2.72 ± 0.32 | 0.32 |
|
| 83.11 ± 0.15 | 7.80 ± 1.39 | 2.90 ± 0.56 | 2.02 ± 0.21 | −0.44 |
Figure 8Heatmap (A) of compounds tentatively identified in alcoholic tea extracts; (B) relative content of each class of compounds (S = Sugars, SP = Simple Phenols; CA = Chlorogenic Acids; CAT = Catechins; FG = Flavonol Glycosides; “others” is for theanin and quinic acid). Annotations on top of the heatmap show clustering of the tea samples. In the ClustVis hierarchical clustering tool, both rows and columns are clustered using correlation distance and average linkage [59].