| Literature DB >> 35009102 |
Valentina Macchioni1, Valentina Picchi2, Katya Carbone1.
Abstract
In hop cultivation, one-third of the crop is a valuable product (hop cones), and two-thirds is unexploited biomass, consisting mainly of leaves and stems, which, in a circular economy approach, can be recovered and, once stabilized, supplied to industrial sectors, such as cosmetics, pharmaceuticals and phytotherapy, with high added value. In this regard, this study aimed to investigate the effects of two different drying methods: oven drying (OD) at 45 °C and freeze-drying (FD), on the overall nutraceutical profile (i.e., total phenols, total flavans and total thiols), pigment content (i.e., carotenoids and chlorophylls) and the antioxidant potential of leaves from five different Humulus lupulus varieties grown in central Italy. Moreover, attenuated total reflectance infrared (ATR-FTIR) spectroscopy was applied to dried leaf powders to study the influence of both the variety and treatment on their molecular fingerprints. The spectral data were then analyzed by principal component analysis (PCA), which was able to group the samples mainly based on the applied treatment. Considering the overall phytochemical profile, FD appeared to be the most suitable drying method, while OD provided higher carotenoid retention, depending on the genotype considered. Finally, unsupervised chemometric tools (i.e., PCA and hierarchical clustering) revealed that the two main clusters contained subclusters based on the drying treatment applied; these subgroups were related to the susceptibility of the variety to the drying conditions studied.Entities:
Keywords: Humulus lupulus L.; bioactive compounds; circular economy; drying methods
Year: 2021 PMID: 35009102 PMCID: PMC8747731 DOI: 10.3390/plants11010099
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Plants (Basel) ISSN: 2223-7747
List of samples analyzed.
| Hop Variety | Code |
|---|---|
| Chinook | V1 |
| Centennial | V2 |
| Comet | V3 |
| Columbus | V4 |
| Cascade | V5 |
Figure 1Average IR spectra of samples analyzed. Red line indicates freeze-dried (FD) samples, and blue line indicates oven-dried (OD) ones.
Figure 2Average IR spectra of Humulus lupulus leaves from different varieties: influence of genotype on the applied treatment. FD—freeze-dried samples; OD—oven-dried samples. V1—Chinook hop leaves; V2—Centennial hop leaves; V3—Comet hop leaves; V4—Columbus hop leaves; V5—Cascade hop leaves.
Figure 3Principal component analysis (PCA) performed on the FTIR spectral dataset in the range 4000–800 cm−1: (a) score plot of PC1 and PC2; (b) loading plot of PC1 and PC2. OD samples are clustered in the red ellipse, while FD ones are in the green ellipse.
Factorial analysis based on phytochemical traits of leaf samples from different hop varieties subjected to different drying treatments.
| DF | TPC | FLC | ACABTS | ACDPPH | Chl | Chl | Chl tot | TC | Thl | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Variety (V) | 4 | 131.6 ** | 4.6 ** | 15.5 ** | 1566.9 ** | 1806.1 *** | 6477.6 *** | 80349 *** | 4148.5 *** | 5751.4 ** |
| Treatment (T) | 1 | 6267.5 *** | 715.7 *** | 1283.7 *** | 162,002 *** | 12,301 ** | 29,401 ** | 1105 ** | 470 ** | 26,191.2 *** |
| V × T | 4 | 103.2 ** | 6.3 ** | 15.9 ** | 1313.7 ** | 1871.3 ** | 6566.9 ** | 1120 ** | 456 ** | 1575.7 ** |
| Error | 30 | 0.35 | 0.01 | 0.01 | 206.4 | 1.4 | 4.4 | 5.2 | 1.8 | 50.3 |
DF—degrees of freedom; TPC—total phenolic content; FLC—total flavan content; ACABTS—antiradical capacity (ABTS in vitro test); ACDPPH—antiradical capacity (DPPH in vitro test); Chl a—chlorophyll a; Chl b—chlorophyll b; Chl tot—total chlorophyll; TC—total carotenoids; Thl—total thiols. ** p < 0.01; *** p < 0.001.
Figure 4Influence of genotype and drying treatment on the phytochemical composition of samples analyzed: (a) total phenol content (TPC); (b) total flavan content (FLC); (c) total thiol content (Thl); (d) total antiradical capacity (AC) evaluated by DPPH• and ABTS•+ in vitro assays. OD—oven-dried samples; FD—freeze-dried samples. V1—Chinook hop leaves; V2—Centennial hop leaves; V3—Comet hop leaves; V4—Columbus hop leaves; V5—Cascade hop leaves. Different letters indicate significant differences in the mean (p < 0.05). Within each graph different letters indicate significant differences in the mean (p < 0.05). In (d), lowercase letters indicate significant differences in the mean (p < 0.05) among ACDPPH• values, while uppercase letters indicate significant differences in the mean (p < 0.05) among ACABTS•+.
Pigment content (mean ± SD) of Humulus lupulus leaf extracts.
| Sample | Chlorophyll | Chlorophyll | Total Chlorophyll | Total Carotenoids |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| V1_FD | 320 ± 2c | 367 ± 3e | 687 ± 5e | 191 ± 2e |
| V2_FD | 360 ± 2e | 389 ± 1g | 749 ± 3g | 182 ± 2d |
| V3_FD | 433 ± 1f | 883 ± 5l | 1316 ± 6i | 166 ± 2c |
| V4_FD | 441 ± 3g | 857 ± 5i | 1298 ± 8h | 131 ± 1b |
| V5_FD | 266 ± 2b | 285 ± 3a | 551 ± 5b | 222 ± 1f |
| V1_OD | 104 ± 1a | 376 ± 2f | 480 ± 3a | 91 ± 3a |
| V2_OD | 352 ± 1d | 339 ± 2c | 692 ± 3e | 218 ± 3f |
| V3_OD | 319 ± 1c | 316 ± 2b | 635 ± 3c | 231 ± 1g |
| V4_OD | 108 ± 1a | 557 ± 2h | 665 ± 3d | 95 ± 2a |
| V5_OD | 363 ± 2e | 358 ± 6d | 721 ± 8f | 266 ± 4h |
FD—freeze-dried samples; OD—oven-dried samples. a V1—Chinook hop leaves; b V2—Centennial hop leaves; c V3—Comet hop leaves; d V4—Columbus hop leaves; e V5—Cascade hop leaves. Different letters in a column indicate significant differences in the mean (p < 0.05).
Figure 5Hierarchical cluster analysis for the Humulus lupulus leaf extracts analyzed. OD—oven-dried samples; FD—freeze-dried samples. V1—Chinook hop leaves; V2—Centennial hop leaves; V3—Comet hop leaves; V4—Columbus hop leaves; V5—Cascade hop leaves.
ANOVA results of hierarchical cluster analysis (mean ± SD).
| Variable | Cluster 1 | Cluster 2 | Cluster 3 | Cluster 4 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| TPC | 30.9 ± 0.7b | 30.2 ± 0.2b | 7.3 ± 0.4a | 4.5 ± 0.4a |
| FLC | 9.4 ± 0.4b | 8.4 ± 0.2b | 0.52 ± 0.03a | 0.62 ± 0.01a |
| Chl | 315.3 ± 0.4b | 437.1 ± 0.4c | 105.9 ± 0.5a | 345.1 ± 0.1b |
| Chl | 347 ± 5a | 870 ± 3b | 466 ± 2a | 337 ± 3a |
| Chl tot | 662 ± 2a | 1307 ± 4b | 573 ± 3a | 683 ± 2a |
| TC | 198 ± 2b | 149 ± 1a | 93 ± 1a | 238 ± 3c |
| ACDPPH | 118.1 ± 0.6a | 120.6 ± 0.4a | 250.5 ± 0.5b | 243.6 ± 0.7b |
| ACABTS | 1.3 ± 0.1a | 1.2 ± 0.1a | 13.2 ± 0.3b | 12.2 ± 0.2b |
TPC—total phenolic content, data are expressed as mg GAE g−1; FLC—total flavan content, data are expressed as mg CTE g−1; ACABTS—antiradical capacity (ABTS in vitro test), data are expressed as EC50 in µg mL−1; ACDPPH—antiradical capacity (DPPH in vitro test), data are expressed as EC50 in µg mL−1; Chl a—chlorophyll a, data are expressed as µg g−1; Chl b—chlorophyll b, data are expressed as µg g−1; Chl tot—total chlorophyll, data are expressed as µg g−1; TC—total carotenoids, data are expressed as µg g−1. Different letters in a row indicate significant differences in the mean (p < 0.05).
Loadings of the significant measured variables on the two principal components (PCs) *.
| Variables | Components | |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | |
| TPC | 0.913 | |
| FLC | 0.946 | |
| ACABTS | −0.965 | |
| ACDPPH | −0.960 | |
| Chl | 0.680 | 0.449 |
| Chl | 0.441 | −0.582 |
| TC | 0.983 | |
| Eigenvalues | 4.3 | 1.5 |
| % of variance | 60.9 | 22.1 |
Extraction method: principal component analysis. * Rotation method: varimax with Kaiser normalization. Component loadings with absolute values less than 0.4 have been left out of the table for ease of comparison. TPC—total phenolic content; FLC—total flavan content; ACABTS—antiradical capacity (ABTS in vitro test); ACDPPH—antiradical capacity (DPPH in vitro test); Chl a—chlorophyll a; Chl b—chlorophyll b; TC—total carotenoid content.
Figure 6Biplot obtained by combining information from nutraceutical and antioxidant properties of samples analyzed. OD—oven-dried samples; FD—freeze-dried samples. V1—Chinook hop leaves; V2—Centennial hop leaves; V3—Comet hop leaves; V4—Columbus hop leaves; V5—Cascade hop leaves. TPC—total phenolic content; FLC—total flavan content; Chl a—chlorophyll a; Chl b—chlorophyll b; Chl tot—total chlorophyll; ACABTS•+—antiradical capacity (ABTS in vitro test); ACDPPH•—antiradical capacity (DPPH in vitro test).