| Literature DB >> 34068911 |
Mattia Spano1, Giacomo Di Matteo1, Cinzia Ingallina1, Bruno Botta1, Deborah Quaglio1, Francesca Ghirga1, Silvia Balducci1, Silvia Cammarone1, Enio Campiglia2, Anna Maria Giusti3, Giuliana Vinci4, Mattia Rapa4, Salvatore Ciano4, Luisa Mannina1, Anatoly P Sobolev5.
Abstract
The chemical profile of the female inflorescence extracts from seven Cannabis sativa L. dioecious cultivars (Carmagnola, Fibranova, Eletta Campana, Antal, Tiborszallasi, Kompolti, and Tisza) was monitored at three harvesting stages (4, 14, and 30 September), reaching from the beginning of flowering to end of flowering/beginning of seed formation, using untargeted nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) and targeted (ultra-high-performance liquid chromatography (UHPLC) and spectrophotometry) analyses. The tetrahydrocannabinol content was always below the legal limits (<0.6%) in all the analyzed samples. The NMR metabolite profile (sugars, organic acids, amino acids, and minor compounds) subjected to principal components analysis (PCA) showed a strong variability according to the harvesting stages: samples harvested in stage I were characterized by a high content of sucrose and myo-inositol, whereas the ones harvested in stage II showed high levels of succinic acid, alanine, valine, isoleucine, phenylalanine, and threonine. Samples harvested in stage III were characterized by high levels of glucose, fructose, choline, trigonelline, malic acid, formic acid, and some amino acids. The ratio between chlorophylls and carotenoids content indicated that all plants grew up exposed to the sun, the Eletta Campana cultivar having the highest pigment amount. Tiborszallasi cultivar showed the highest polyphenol content. The highest antioxidant activity was generally observed in stage II. All these results suggested that the Cannabis sativa L. inflorescences of each analyzed dioecious hemp cultivar presented a peculiar chemical profile affected by the harvesting stage. This information could be useful for producers and industries to harvest inflorescences in the appropriate stage to obtain samples with a peculiar chemical profile suitable for proper applications.Entities:
Keywords: antioxidant activity; cannabinoids; dioecious cultivars; industrial hemp; inflorescences; metabolite profile; multimethodological analysis; phenological growth stages
Year: 2021 PMID: 34068911 PMCID: PMC8156653 DOI: 10.3390/molecules26102912
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Molecules ISSN: 1420-3049 Impact factor: 4.411
Cannabinoid concentrations by ultra-high-performance liquid chromatography (UHPLC analysis (% (w/w) ± SD) reported for each cultivar at three harvesting stages (stage I = 4 September, stage II = 14 September, stage III = 30 September). Analyses were carried out in triplicate.
| Cultivar | Harvesting Stage | (–)-Δ9-THC | CBD | (–)-Δ9-THCA | CBDA | CBG | CBDV | CBC | CBN |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Carmagnola | stage I | 0.24 ± 0.02 | 3.10 ± 0.40 | - | 2.02 ± 0.30 | 0.13 ± 0.01 | - | 0.19 ± 0.02 | - |
| stage II | 0.23 ± 0.01 | 3.12 ± 0.21 | - | 1.52 ± 0.02 | 0.17 ± 0.01 | - | 0.18 ± 0.01 | - | |
| stage III | 0.16 ± 0.01 | 3.82 ± 0.82 | - | - | 0.16 ± 0.01 | - | 0.13 ± 0.01 | - | |
| Fibranova | stage I | 0.19 ± 0.01 | 2.05 ± 0.03 | - | 0.88 ± 0.04 | 0.18 ± 0.01 | - | 0.21 ± 0.01 | - |
| stage II | 0.26 ± 0.01 | 2.97 ± 0.13 | - | 1.57 ± 0.07 | 0.18 ± 0.01 | 0.41 ± 0.01 | 0.33 ± 0.01 | - | |
| stage III | 0.11 ± 0.01 | 2.31 ± 0.30 | - | - | - | - | - | 0.11 ± 0.03 | |
| Kompolti | stage I | 0.28 ± 0.01 | 2.90 ± 0.20 | - | 1.40 ± 0.10 | 0.15 ± 0.01 | - | 0.18 ± 0.01 | - |
| stage II | 0.30 ± 0.01 | 5.09 ± 0.06 | - | 1.55 ± 0.02 | 0.18 ± 0.02 | - | 0.31 ± 0.01 | - | |
| stage III | 0.14 ± 0.01 | 4.64 ± 0.65 | - | - | 0.23 ± 0.01 | - | 0.15 ± 0.04 | - | |
| Tisza | stage I | 0.193 ± 0.005 | 2.400 ± 0.100 | - | 1.280 ± 0.040 | 0.210 ± 0.010 | - | 0.17 ± 0.01 | - |
| stage II | 0.250 ± 0.010 | 4.160 ± 0.220 | - | 1.910 ± 0.010 | 0.160 ± 0.010 | - | 0.21 ± 0.01 | - | |
| stage III | 0.061 ± 0.001 | 4.600 ± 0.090 | - | - | 0.091 ± 0.002 | - | - | - | |
| Antal | stage I | 0.25 ± 0.01 | 4.30 ± 0.40 | - | 1.60 ± 0.30 | 0.22 ± 0.01 | - | - | - |
| stage II | 0.14 ± 0.01 | 1.55 ± 0.15 | - | 1.11 ± 0.10 | 0.12 ± 0.01 | - | - | - | |
| stage III | 0.12 ± 0.01 | 1.96 ± 0.15 | - | - | 0.10 ± 0.01 | 0.09 ± 0.01 | 0.03 ± 0.01 | - | |
| Tiborszallasi | stage I | 0.21 ± 0.01 | 2.76 ± 0.04 | - | 1.24 ± 0.03 | 0.24 ± 0.01 | - | 0.18 ± 0.01 | - |
| stage II | 0.51 ± 0.07 | 4.54 ± 0.22 | 0.09 ± 0.01 | 1.87 ± 0.06 | 0.21 ± 0.01 | - | 0.22 ± 0.02 | - | |
| stage III | 0.13 ± 0.01 | 3.79 ± 0.41 | - | - | 0.12 ± 0.02 | - | 0.15 ± 0.02 | - | |
| Eletta | stage I | 0.17 ± 0.01 | 1.50 ± 0.10 | - | 1.00 ± 0.10 | 0.13 ± 0.01 | - | - | - |
| stage II | 0.190 ± 0.01 | 2.04 ± 0.01 | - | 1.12 ± 0.02 | 0.12 ± 0.01 | - | 0.11 ± 0.01 | - | |
| stage III | 0.06 ± 0.01 | 1.37 ± 0.12 | - | - | 0.04 ± 0.01 | - | 0.05 ± 0.01 | 0.04 ± 0.01 |
Chlorophyll a, chlorophyll b, and total carotenoid concentrations by spectrophotometric analysis (mg/g of fresh inflorescences ± SD) reported for each cultivar at three harvesting stages (stage I = 4 September, stage II = 14 September, stage III = 30 September). Chl a/b and Chl (a+b)/car ratios are also reported. Analyses were carried out in triplicate.
| Cultivar | Harvesting Stage | Chlorophyll a | Chlorophyll b | Chl. a/b | Total Caroteoids | Chl. (a+b)/Car |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Carmagnola | stage I | 0.527 ± 0.050 §,e,c | 0.337 ± 0.071 §,b,d,f | 1.83 §,f | 0.210 ± 0.023 | 4.03 |
| stage II | 0.519 ± 0.004 | 0.272 ± 0.002 | 1.93 | 0.176 ± 0.002 §,f | 4.49 §,c,d,f,g | |
| stage III | 0.425 ± 0.008 * | 0.235 ± 0.002 | 1.81 | 0.158 ± 0.002 | 4.16 §,c,d,e,f,g | |
| Fibranova | stage I | 0.540 ± 0.011 §,c,e | 0.275 ± 0.004 | 2.27 §,f,g | 0.201 ± 0.004 | 3.79 |
| stage II | 0.683 ± 0.011 §,a,c,d,e,f,g | 0.362 ± 0.004 §,a,c,d,e,f | 1.89 | 0.223 ± 0.003 §,a,c,e,f | 4.68 *,§,a,c,d,f,g | |
| stage III | 0.271 ± 0.006 | 0.154 ± 0.001 | 1.76 | 0.106 ± 0.002 | 4.03 #,§,f | |
| Kompolti | stage I | 0.618 ± 0.002 §,a,b,d,e,f | 0.330 ± 0.009 §,a,b,d,e,f | 1.87 | 0.220 ± 0.001 | 4.32 |
| stage II | 0.525 ± 0.004 §,f | 0.290 ± 0.001 | 1.79 | 0.196 ± 0.002 §,a,f | 4.15 | |
| stage III | 0.394 ± 0.002 | 0.219 ± 0.007 | 1.80 | 0.161 ± 0.001 | 3.81 *,#,§,f | |
| Tisza | stage I | 0.484 ± 0.003 | 0.241 ± 0.005 | 2.01 §,c,f,g | 0.176 ± 0.001 | 4.13 |
| stage II | 0.631 ± 0.006 *,§,a,c,e,f | 0.324 ± 0.004 *,§,a,e,f | 1.97 * | 0.223 ± 0.003 *,§,a,c,e,f | 4.29 | |
| stage III | 0.261 ± 0.004 *,# | 0.161 ± 0.001 *,# | 1.62 * | 0.111 ± 0.002 *,# | 3.79 *,#,§,f | |
| Antal | stage I | 0.565 ± 0.008 §,c,e | 0.303 ± 0.008 §,d,f | 1.86 §,f,g | 0.218 ± 0.001 §,e,c | 3.98 |
| stage II | 0.580 ± 0.001 §,a,c,f | 0.304 ± 0.003 §,a,f | 1.93 | 0.188 ± 0.001 | 4.70 §,a,c,d,f,g | |
| stage III | 0.354 ± 0.002 *,# | 0.192 ± 0.003 *,# | 1.84 | 0.142 ± 0.001 | 3.85 §,f | |
| Tiborszallasi | stage I | 0.335 ± 0.002 | 0.175 ± 0.003 | 1.91 | 0.129 ± 0.001 | 3.97 |
| stage II | 0.449 ± 0.010 * | 0.256 ± 0.002 * | 1.73 | 0.162 ± 0.003 * | 4.34 *,§,c | |
| stage III | 0.218 ± 0.001 *,# | 0.122 ± 0.001 *,# | 1.79 | 0.106 ± 0.000 *,# | 3.20 *,# | |
| Eletta | stage I | 0.861 ± 0.010 §,a,b,c,d,e,f | 0.432 ± 0.004 §,a,b,c,d,e,f | 1.99 | 0.317 ± 0.003 §,d,e,f | 4.08 |
| stage II | 0.637 ± 0.001 *,§,a,c,e,f | 0.366 ± 0.002 *,§,a,c,d,e,f | 1.73 | 0.232 ± 0.001 *,§,a,c,e,f | 4.32 * | |
| stage III | 0.516 ± 0.004 *,#,§,d,f | 0.275 ± 0.004*,#,§,d,f | 1.88 | 0.205 ± 0.001 *,#,§,f | 3.86 * |
* p < 0.001, significantly different from the level in the same cultivar in stage I; # p < 0.001, significantly different from the level in the same cultivar in stage II; § p < 0.001, significantly different than the other cultivars in the same stage; a vs. Carmagnola; b vs. Fibranova; c vs. Kompolti; d vs. Tisza; e vs. Antal; f vs. Tiborszallasi; g vs. Eletta Campana (one-way ANOVA, followed by Bonferroni’s Multiple Comparison Post Test).
Total phenolic content (TPC) and antioxidant activity by spectrophotometric analysis (mg/g of fresh inflorescences or inhibition rate (I%) ± SD) reported for each cultivar in different harvesting stages (stage I = 4 September, stage II = 14 September, stage III = 30 September). Analyses were carried out in triplicate.
| Cultivar | Harvesting Time | TPC | DPPH | ABTS |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Carmagnola | stage I | 1.95 ± 0.06 | 72.87 ± 0.17 | 88.03 ± 0.39 |
| stage II | 2.00 ± 0.06 | 78.74 ± 0.07 | 90.63 ± 0.74 §,c,f | |
| stage III | 1.88 ± 0.08 | 75.38 ± 0.37 | 86.54 ± 0.89 | |
| Fibranova | stage I | 1.65 ± 0.06 | 72.27 ± 0.17 | 85.56 ± 0.75 §,e |
| stage II | 2.38 ± 0.12 | 78.68 ± 0.15 | 92.68 ± 0.82 §,c,f | |
| stage III | 2.01 ± 0.10 | 71.67 ± 0.43 | 86.66 ± 0.21 | |
| Kompolti | stage I | 2.55 ± 0.08 | 75.42 ± 3.52 | 86.91 ± 0.39 |
| stage II | 2.57 ± 0.10 §,e | 75.57 ± 0.62 | 87.89 ± 0.69 * | |
| stage III | 2.11 ± 0.06 | 72.63 ± 0.76 | 81.88 ± 0.33 # | |
| Tisza | stage I | 2.16 ± 0.09 | 73.17 ± 1.16 | 85.98 ± 0.29 §,e,c |
| stage II | 2.30 ± 0.10 | 75.29 ± 0.15 | 95.24 ± 0.16 *,§,c,d | |
| stage III | 2.02 ± 0.06 | 71.97 ± 0.57 | 84.36 ± 0.42 * | |
| Antal | stage I | 1.84 ± 0.04 | 76.03 ± 1.34 | 95.35 ± 0.42 |
| stage II | 1.67 ± 0.07 | 75.08 ± 0.81 | 84.84 ± 0.90 §,c,d,f | |
| stage III | 1.54 ± 0.08 | 74.56 ± 0.52 | 84.56 ± 0.17 §,a,b,c,d,f | |
| Tiborszallasi | stage I | 2.41 ± 0.08 | 75.39 ± 0.86 | 87.32 ± 0.31 |
| stage II | 2.68 ± 0.13 §,e | 80.68 ± 1.07 §,d | 88.03 ± 1.05 * | |
| stage III | 2.42 ± 0.09 §,a,e | 79.86 ± 0.79 | 84.18 ± 0.74 # | |
| Eletta | stage I | 1.80 ± 0.0985.63 | 74.40 ± 0.51 | 91.67 ± 1.19 §,e |
| stage II | 2.10 ± 0.07 | 77.32 ± 0.44 | 93.05 ± 1.12 §,c,f | |
| stage III | 2.05 ± 0.10 | 70.44 ± 3.66 | 92.40 ± 0.46 §,a,b,c,d,f |
* p < 0.001, significantly different from the level in the same cultivar in stage I; # p < 0.001, significantly different from the level in the same cultivar in stage II; § p < 0.001, significantly different than the other cultivars in the same stage; a vs. Carmagnola; b vs. Fibranova; c vs. Kompolti; d vs. Tisza; e vs. Antal; f vs. Tiborszallasi (one-way ANOVA, followed by Bonferroni’s Multiple Comparison Post Test).
Figure 1Principal components analysis (PCA) maps obtained using NMR data of inflorescences samples: (A) scores plot and (B) loadings plot relative to PC1 and PC2 (PCs); (C) score plot relative to PC1, PC2, and PC3. PC1, PC2, and PC3 represent 35.9%, 27.3%, and 9.3% of the total variance, respectively.
Compounds, with relative 1H NMR signals (ppm), quantified in Cannabis sativa L. inflorescences Bligh–Dyer hydroalcoholic extracts. Analyses were carried out in triplicate.
| Compound | ppm | Compound | ppm |
|---|---|---|---|
| Isoleucine | 1.02 | Choline | 3.21 |
| Valine | 1.05 | Myo-inositol | 3.30 |
| Threonine | 1.34 | Fructose | 4.04 |
| Alanine | 1.49 | Malic acid | 4.30 |
| Proline | 2.00 | β-Glucose | 4.66 |
| Glutamic acid | 2.07 | α-Glucose | 5.25 |
| GABA | 2.30 | Sucrose | 5.42 |
| Succinic acid | 2.41 | Phenylalanine | 7.43 |
| Glutamine | 2.46 | Tryptophan | 7.53 |
| Aspartic acid | 2.83 | Formic acid | 8.47 |
| Asparagine | 2.89 | Trigonelline | 9.12 |
Figure 2Free amino acids content in hydroalcoholic extracts of Cannabis sativa L. fresh inflorescences at three harvesting stages. C (Carmagnola), F (Fibranova), K (Kompolti), Ts (Tisza), A (Antal), Ti (Tiborszallasi), E (Eletta Campana).
Figure 3Sugars (A), organic acids (B), and miscellaneous compounds (C) content in hydroalcoholic extracts of Cannabis sativa L. fresh inflorescences at different harvesting stages. C (Carmagnola), F (Fibranova), K (Kompolti), Ts (Tisza), A (Antal), Ti (Tiborszallasi), E (Eletta Campana).