| Literature DB >> 35161400 |
Giulia Mastellone1, Arianna Marengo1, Barbara Sgorbini1, Federica Scaglia1, Francesca Capetti1, Francesco Gai2, Pier Giorgio Peiretti2, Patrizia Rubiolo1, Cecilia Cagliero1.
Abstract
Currently, there is a renewed interest in cannabis-related products in different fields because of the rich phytocomplex of this plant, together with its fiber and agricultural features. In this context, the current study aims to chemically characterize different samples of fiber-type Cannabis sativa L. grown in Italy as a potential health promoting source. An ultrasound-assisted solid-liquid extraction (UA-SLE) method was first developed and optimized to obtain a fingerprinting of the investigated phytocomplex. Analyses were carried out through an ultra high performance liquid chromatography equipped with a photodiode array detector in series with triple quadrupole system with an electrospray ionization (ESI) interface (UHPLC-UV-ESI-MS/MS) and showed that the phytocomplex mainly includes flavonoids and non-psychotomimetic cannabinoids. The method was then applied to characterize and compare 24 samples of fiber-type Cannabis sativa L. aerial parts (mainly stems and leaves), which differed for the growth stages (from mid-vegetative to early flowering), growth land plots, and methods of drying (forced-draft oven or freeze-drying). The quali-quantitative analysis showed that a freeze-drying method seems to better preserve the chemical composition of the samples, while the location of the land plot and the growth stage of the plant (which did not comprise inflorescences) had minor influences on the chemical pattern. These results were also supported by spectrophotometric in-vitro assays (scavenging of 2,2-diphenyl-1-picrylhydrazyl (DPPH•) and 2,2'-azinobis-3-ethyl-benzthiazoline-6-sulphonate (ABTS+•) radicals and inhibitory activity against tyrosinase and elastase enzymes) to investigate the potential biological activity of these samples and the contribution of non-psychotomimetic cannabinoids.Entities:
Keywords: Cannabis sativa; UHPLC-UV-ESI-MS/MS; antioxidant assays; flavonoids; growth stage; method of drying; non-psychotomimetic cannabinoids; phytochemical fingerprint; tyrosinase inhibition
Year: 2022 PMID: 35161400 PMCID: PMC8838183 DOI: 10.3390/plants11030419
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Plants (Basel) ISSN: 2223-7747
Figure 1Chromatographic profile at 254 nm of methanolic and acetone extraction of fiber-type Cannabis sativa L. aerial parts at 5 mg/mL. For peaks identification, see Section 2.2. *: contaminant.
List of identified and putatively identified compounds in fiber-type Cannabis sativa L. aerial parts. For each analyte, retention time, UV maximum, pseudomolecular ions, and fragment ions were obtained by product ion scan mode (PIS) and identified or tentatively identified compound names are given. Identification confidence values and references are also included. The compounds confirmed with the injection of authentic commercial reference standards and in bold.
| N° | tr | λ max | [M + H]+ | [M − H]− | Mol. Weight | M2+
| M2− | Aglycon | Compound | Identification | Ref. |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 5.0 | 346/252 | 463 | 461 | 462 | 287 | 285 | 286 |
| 1 | [ |
| 2 | 7.2 | 336/266 | 447 | 445 | 446 | 271 | 269 | 270 |
| 1 | [ |
| 3 | 7.5 | 345/250 | 477 | 475 | 476 | 301 | 299 | 300 | Diosmetin glucuronide derivative A | 2 | [ |
| 4 | 8.1 | 345/250 | 477 | 475 | 476 | 301 | 299 | 300 | Diosmetin glucuronide derivative B | 2 | [ |
| 5 | 9.4 | 335/267 | 623 | 621 | 622 | 285 | 283 | 284 | Acacetin glycoside A | 2 | [ |
| 6 | 10.8 | 332/267 | 593 | 591 | 592 | 285 | 283 | 284 | Acacetin glycoside B | 2 | [ |
| 7 | 11.0 | 328/267 | 607 | 605 | 606 | 285 | 283 | 284 | Acacetin glycoside C | 2 | [ |
| 8 | 12.1 | 334/267 | 461 | 459 | 460 | 285 | 283 | 284 | Acacetin glucuronide derivative | 2 | [ |
| 9 | 13.2 | 336/266 | 271 | 269 | 270 | / | / | / |
| 1 | [ |
| 10 | 14.3 | 343/252 | 301 | 299 | 300 | / | / | / |
| 1 | [ |
| 11 | 17.7 | 268/279 | / | / | / | / | / | / | Not identified | / | / |
| 12 | 18.2 | 268/279 | / | / | / | / | / | / | Not identified | / | / |
| 13 | 18.4 | 268/279 | / | / | / | / | / | / | Not identified | / | / |
| 14 | 20.1 | 267/334 | 285 | 283 | 284 | / | / | / |
| 1 | [ |
| 15 | 23.9 | 310 | / | 667 | / | / | 163 | / | Coumaric acid | 2 | [ |
| 16 | 36.4 | 341/274 | 437 | 435 | 436 | 313 | / | / |
| 1 | [ |
| 17 | 36.6 | 220/269/306 | 359 | 357 | 358 | / | / | / |
| 1 | [ |
| 18 | 37.9 | 220/268/305 | 361 | 359 | 360 | 219 | / | / | Cannabigerolic acid (CBGA) | 2 | [ |
| 19 | 38.1 | 263/328 | 327 | 325 | 326 | 191 | / | / | Cannabinoid | 3 | [ |
| 20 | 40.2 | 220/271/305 | 331 | 329 | 330 | 191, 313, 257, 233 | / | / | Varinic derivative A | 2 | [ |
| 21 | 41.8 | 220/272/304 | 331 | 329 | 330 | 191, 257, 233 | / | / | Varinic derivative B | 2 | [ |
| 22 | 42.1 | 220/271/305 | 331 | 329 | 330 | 191, 257, 233 | / | / | Varinic derivative C | 2 | [ |
| 23 | 43.8 | 268/306 | 347 | 345 | 346 | 205, 175 | / | Cannabinoid | 3 | [ | |
| 24 | 44.0 | / | 355 | 353 | 354 | 337, 281 | / | / | Cannabinolic acid (CBNA) | 2 | [ |
| 25 | 46.1 | 220/271/304 | 359 | 357 | 358 | 219, 243 | / | / | Δ9-Tetrahydrocannabinolic acid (Δ9-THCA) | 2 | [ |
| 26 | 47.9 | / | 359 | 357 | 358 | 219, 341, 261 | / | / |
| 1 | [ |
| 27 | 48.5 | 266/305 | 375 | 373 | 374 | 233 | / | / | Cannabinoid | 3 | [ |
§ Identification confidence according to the request of the Chemical Analysis Working Group (CAWG, 2007) [34]: Level 1, identified compound (a minimum of two independent and orthogonal data, such as retention time and mass spectrum) compared directly relative to an authentic commercial reference standard; Level 2, putatively annotated compound (compound identified by analysis of spectral data and/or similarity to data in a public database); and Level 3, putatively characterized compound class level.
Figure 2Representation of the quantification data of hemp methanolic extracts, expressed as µg of compound in 100 mg of sample: (a) distribution of the target analytes in the samples (sample code: 1_4 growth stage; A_C land plot); and (b) violin plot of quantification results for flavonoid glycosides, aglycones and cannabinoids in the freeze-drying (FD) and oven-drying (OD) samples.
Figure 3Main results from multivariate statistical analysis on quantification data: (a) HC based on Pearson distances and heat-map visualization (24 samples × 17 compounds); (b) biplot of the principal component analysis relative to the distribution of the cannabis samples and target compounds according to the methods of drying, growth stages, and land plots (OD and FD samples are highlighted in blue and green, respectively); and (c) score plot of partial least squares discriminant according to the method of drying.
Figure 4Results of the DPPH• and ABTS•+ colorimetric assays: (a) g of hemp matrix to obtain 50% of inhibition per 1 g of radical; and (b) g equivalent of (±)–6-hydroxy-2,5,7,8-tetramethylchromane-2-carboxylic acid (Trolox) that correspond to 1 kg of hemp matrix.
Percentage of peak area reduction (±SD), after the reaction with DPPH• and ABTS+• radicals, for MeOH and acetone extracts.
| Compounds | % Peak Reduction | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| DPPH | ABTS | |||
| MeOH | Acetone | MeOH | Acetone | |
| Luteolin-7- | >95(±0.09) | / | >95(±0.05) | / |
| Apigenin-7- | 19.6(±2.73) | / | 18.3(±1.13) | / |
| Diosmetin glycoside A | 24.7(±2.31) | / | 37.4(±2.24) | / |
| Diosmetin glycoside B | 22.3(±0.15) | / | / | / |
| Acacetin glycoside A | 25.7(±0.54) | / | 89.2(±3.04) | / |
| Varinic derivative A | 27.9(±1.44) | 40(±5.65) | / | 76.5(±5.89) |
| Varinic derivative C | 19.2(±1.38) | 31(±2.28) | / | 36(±4.94) |
| THCA | 22.5(±3.77) | 42.4(±1.11) | / | 72.7(±5.73) |
| CBCA | 42.1(±0.09) | 52.1(±0.21) | / | 35.3(±6.11) |
Figure 5Reaction progress curve for elastase inhibitory activity (a) and tyrosinase inhibitory activity (b) of negative control, ursolic acid and kojic acid (0.2 mg/mL), MeOH hemp extract, and acetone hemp extract (50 mg/mL). The linearity region is indicated by the black rectangle.