Next Article in Journal
The Positive Allosteric Modulation of alpha7-Nicotinic Cholinergic Receptors by GAT107 Increases Bacterial Lung Clearance in Hyperoxic Mice by Decreasing Oxidative Stress in Macrophages
Next Article in Special Issue
Neurophysiological Effects of Whole Coffee Cherry Extract in Older Adults with Subjective Cognitive Impairment: A Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled, Cross-Over Pilot Study
Previous Article in Journal
Preharvest Methyl Jasmonate Treatment Increased the Antioxidant Activity and Glucosinolate Contents of Hydroponically Grown Pak Choi
Previous Article in Special Issue
Natural Food Supplements Reduce Oxidative Stress in Primary Neurons and in the Mouse Brain, Suggesting Applications in the Prevention of Neurodegenerative Diseases
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Antioxidants
Volume 10
Issue 1
10.3390/antiox10010133
antioxidants-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

(−)-Epicatechin—An Important Contributor to the Antioxidant Activity of Japanese Knotweed Rhizome Bark Extract as Determined by Antioxidant Activity-Guided Fractionation

by
Urška Jug
1,2,
Katerina Naumoska
1,* and
Irena Vovk
1,*
1
Department of Food Chemistry, National Institute of Chemistry, Hajdrihova 19, SI-1001 Ljubljana, Slovenia
2
Faculty of Chemistry and Chemical Technology, University of Ljubljana, Večna pot 113, SI-1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Antioxidants 2021, 10(1), 133; https://doi.org/10.3390/antiox10010133
Submission received: 27 December 2020 / Revised: 12 January 2021 / Accepted: 14 January 2021 / Published: 18 January 2021
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Dietary Polyphenols and Neuroprotection)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
The antioxidant activities of Japanese knotweed rhizome bark extracts, prepared with eight different solvents or solvent mixtures (water, methanol, 80% methanol(aq), acetone, 70% acetone(aq), ethanol, 70% ethanol(aq), and 90% ethyl acetate(aq)), were determined using a 2,2-diphenyl-1-picrylhydrazyl (DPPH) free radical-scavenging assay. Low half maximal inhibitory concentration (IC50) values (2.632–3.720 µg mL−1) for all the extracts were in the range of the IC50 value of the known antioxidant ascorbic acid at t0 (3.115 µg mL−1). Due to the highest extraction yield (~44%), 70% ethanol(aq) was selected for the preparation of the extract for further investigations. The IC50 value calculated for its antioxidant activity remained stable for at least 14 days, while the IC50 of ascorbic acid increased over time. The stability study showed that the container material was of great importance for the light-protected storage of the ascorbic acid(aq) solution in a refrigerator. Size exclusion–high-performance liquid chromatography (SEC-HPLC)–UV and reversed phase (RP)-HPLC-UV coupled with multistage mass spectrometry (MSn) were developed for fractionation of the 70% ethanol(aq) extract and for further compound identification, respectively. In the most potent antioxidant SEC fraction, determined using an on-line post-column SEC-HPLC-DPPH assay, epicatechin, resveratrol malonyl hexoside, and its in-source fragments (resveratrol and resveratrol acetyl hexoside) were tentatively identified by RP-HPLC-MSn. Moreover, epicatechin was additionally confirmed by two orthogonal methods, SEC-HPLC-UV and high-performance thin-layer chromatography (HPTLC) coupled with densitometry. Finally, the latter technique enabled the identification of (−)-epicatechin. (−)-Epicatechin demonstrated potent and stable time-dependent antioxidant activity (IC50 value ~1.5 µg mL−1) for at least 14 days.

Graphical Abstract

1. Introduction

Japanese knotweed (Fallopia japonica Houtt.; synonyms: Polygonum cuspidatum Siebold & Zucc., Reynoutria japonica Houtt., Polygonum reynoutria Houtt., Pleuropterus cuspidatus (Siebold and Zucc.) H. Gross, Tiniaria japonica (Houtt.) Hedberg), which is native to East Asia, is an invasive plant species in Europe and North America [1]. The Japanese knotweed rhizome has already been tested in various biological studies [2], and its extract or existing compounds showed antioxidant [3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11], estrogenic [12], antiproliferative [3], antibacterial [13], antiviral (anti-human immunodeficiency virus) [14], anti-inflammatory [15], antiatherosclerotic [16] activities, etc. A lot of health benefits of Japanese knotweed rhizome extract were correlated with the content of some antioxidant compounds [4].
Mechanisms of antioxidant activity, such as free radical scavenging, singlet oxygen quenching, transition metal chelation, enzyme mimetic activity, and enzyme inhibition, have been described [17]. There are several methods for evaluating antioxidant activity [18,19] that are based on different mechanisms and can give results that are not comparable. A universal test does not exist; therefore, the use of at least two different methods is strongly recommended [18]. The methods can be classified according to their performance (“in vitro” and “in vivo”) [19], the type of the measurement (e.g., spectrophotometric [3,5,6,7,8,9,10,11], electrochemical [20,21], chromatographic (gas chromatography [22], HPLC [20,21], HPTLC [23,24,25,26])), and the type of the reaction used for the assay (hydrogen atom transfer (HAT)-based assays and electron transfer (ET)-based assays) [18,21].
Among the free radical-scavenging methods, the DPPH assay is the fastest, the most straightforward, relatively inexpensive, efficient, and, therefore, the most frequently employed. Many studies on DPPH assay-guided fractionation of various plant materials have already been performed [27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40], including on-line methods with pre-column [27] or post-column [28,29,30,31,32,33,41] DPPH reactions. On-line methods for measurement of the free radical-scavenging activity indicate the antioxidant fractions/compounds in a fast and inexpensive way, without the need to isolate and test them off-line, which is time consuming, as described in [28].
The antioxidant activity of the Japanese knotweed rhizome has been tested and confirmed using various assays: DPPH radical-scavenging capacity [3,4,5,7,8,9,10,11]; superoxide-scavenging (nitroblue tetrazolium (NBT) reduction) capacity [4]; 2′-azinobis-[3-ethylbenzthiazolin-6-sulfonic acid] (ABTS) radical-scavenging capacity [5,6]; electron spin resonance spectrometry (ESR) [3]; oxygen radical absorption capacity (ORAC) [6]; ferric-reducing antioxidant power (FRAP) [9]; chemiluminescence [5]; phosphomolybdenum reduction [10]; lipid peroxidation inhibition performed on linoleic acid [10] and on mouse brain tissue [4]; DNA strand scission assay [3,4]; and superoxide dismutase (SOD) inhibition assay–water-soluble tetrazolium salt-1 (WST-1) [8].
Tests for determining the total polyphenol content, such as the Folin–Ciocalteu assay [4,5,9,10] have also been frequently used to estimate the antioxidant capacity of Japanese knotweed rhizomes, as the polyphenol content is generally significantly correlated to the sample’s total antioxidant activity [9,18,42,43]. Phenolic compounds act as reducing agents, hydrogen donors, singlet oxygen quenchers, and metal chelators [44].
The antioxidant activities of the extracts obtained from the rhizome of Japanese knotweed and from two other knotweed species, giant knotweed (Fallopia sachalinensis Schm.) and their hybrid Bohemian knotweed (Fallopia×bohemica Chrtek & Chrtková), using different solvents, have already been compared [10]. The choice of solvent was shown to be of great importance for the extraction of antioxidants [10]. The relationship between the antioxidant activity and the chemical content was determined using principal component analysis (PCA) [10], showing that proanthocyanidins are the most important contributors to the total antioxidant capacity [10].
Japanese knotweed rhizome extract is already commercially available as food supplements, marketed as a source of resveratrol as an antioxidant from the stilbenes. Analyses of the bioactive compounds of Japanese knotweed rhizome extract were predominantly performed by (ultra)high-performance liquid chromatography coupled with a UV detector and (multistage) mass spectrometry ((U)HPLC-UV-MS(n)) [6,8,10,45,46,47,48,49,50,51] using RP stationary phase, although HPLC-UV [11,12], HPTLC [52,53,54,55], HPTLC-MSn [52,53], and capillary electrophoresis [56,57] were also used.
The objectives of our work were: (1) to select the most suitable solvent or solvent mixture for the extraction of antioxidants from Japanese knotweed rhizome bark; (2) to determine the antioxidant activity of Japanese knotweed rhizome bark extract; (3) to determine the stability of the antioxidant activity of the selected extract over time; (4) to fractionate the extract by a new SEC-HPLC method and to determine its most potent antioxidant fraction by an on-line post-column reaction with DPPH; and (5) to further identify the compounds present in the isolated antioxidant SEC fraction(s) by RP-HPLC-MS and HPTLC.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Chemicals and Materials

All solvents were at least of analytical grade. Methanol (HPLC and LC-MS grade), acetone, and acetonitrile (LC-MS grade) were obtained from Honeywell Reagents (Seelze, Germany). Ethanol (absolute anhydrous) was purchased from Carlo Erba Reagents (Val de Reuil, France). Ethyl acetate, acetic acid (glacial (100%) and glacial (100%) LC-MS grade), concentrated hydrochloric acid (37%), and 4-(dimethylamino)cinnamaldehyde (DMACA) were acquired from Merck (Darmstadt, Germany). Ammonium acetate, 2,2-diphenyl-1-picrylhydrazyl (DPPH), (−)-epicatechin (90%), and (−)-catechin (98%) were acquired from Sigma-Aldrich (Steinheim, Germany). Ascorbic acid was obtained from Fluka, Sigma-Aldrich (Steinheim, Germany). (−)-Epicatechin (of high purity) was purchased from Fluka Chemie (Buchs, Switzerland), while (+)-catechin (98%) was obtained from Carl Roth (Karlsruhe, Germany). A Milli-Q water purification system (18 MΩ cm−1; Millipore, Bedford, MA, USA) was used to obtain ultrapure water. Disposable plastic cuvettes were purchased from Brand (Wertheim, Germany).

2.2. The Preparation, Extraction Yield, and Antioxidant Activity of Various Extracts

Japanese knotweed (Fallopia japonica Houtt.) rhizomes were harvested in Ljubljana, Slovenia (Vrhovci, by a bridge over the Mali Graben, N 46°02′33.9″; E 14°27′00.9″). A voucher specimen was deposited in the Herbarium LJU (LJU10143477). After the rhizomes were cleaned with tap water, the bark was peeled and lyophilized at −50 °C for 24 h (Micro Modulyo, IMAEdwards, Bologna, Italy). The obtained dry material was frozen using liquid N2 and pulverized by a Mikro-Dismembrator S (Sartorius, Göttingen, Germany) for 1 min at a frequency of 1700 min−1. The lyophilized and pulverized rhizome bark (200 mg; eight replicates) was extracted with 2 mL of the following solvents or solvent mixtures: water, methanol, 80% methanol(aq), acetone, 70% acetone(aq), ethanol, 70% ethanol(aq), and 90% ethyl acetate(aq), followed by 5 min vortexing, 15 min ultrasonication, and 5 min centrifugation at 6700× g.
The supernatants were transferred into pre-weighted glass storage vials, where the solvents were evaporated under N2 flow. The vials with obtained dry extracts of Japanese knotweed rhizome bark (JKRB) were weighed to calculate the extraction yield. The dry extracts were further dissolved in methanol (stock solutions, which also served as first working solutions: 400 µg mL−1) and diluted with the same solvent to obtain additional working solutions with the following concentrations (µg mL−1): 200, 100, 50, 25, 12.5, 6.25, 3.125, 1.563, 0.781, 0.391, and 0.195. Immediately after dilution, they were tested using the DPPH assay described in [58]. The DPPH reagent (1 mL of 200 µM methanolic solution of DPPH) was added to 3 mL of each working solution in triplicate (solution A) [59].
To prepare the sample blanks, 1 mL of methanol was added to 3 mL of separate working solutions (solution B) [59]. A control sample (for DPPH) was prepared by the addition of 1 mL of DPPH reagent to 3 mL of methanol in triplicate (solution C) [59]. All prepared solutions were vortexed for 5 s and stored in amber glass storage vials for 30 min in the dark at room temperature. Spectrophotometric measurements of the absorbances of solutions A, B, and C (named AA, AB, and AC, respectively; Equation (1)) were performed at 517 nm using a Lambda 45 UV/Vis spectrometer (Perkin Elmer, Waltham, MA, USA) with methanol as a blank solvent for the instrument. The IC50 values were calculated and the curves were plotted in GraphPad Prism 7 [60].
Calculation of the DPPH scavenging effect [59]:
DPPH scavenging effect (%) = 100 − ((AA − AB) × 100/AC)
in which AB is included in the case of yellow-colored working solutions to exclude their absorbance contributions [59].

2.3. Comparison between the Antioxidant Activities of the 70% Ethanol(aq) Extract of Japanese Knotweed Rhizome Bark and Ascorbic Acid over Time

A DPPH assay of the selected dry 70% ethanol(aq) extract, re-dissolved in methanol (400 µg mL−1) and diluted to the concentrations (µg mL−1): 200, 100, 50, 25, 12.5, 6.25, 3.125, 1.563, 0.781, 0.391, and 0.195, and a DPPH assay of ascorbic acid dissolved in methanol (1000 µM) and diluted to the concentrations (µM): 500, 250, 100, 50, 40, 30, 20, 10, and 1, were performed at t = 0, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 24, and 50 h, 7 and 14 days (at T = 25 °C) after the preparation of solutions.
The influence of glass vs. plastic storage containers on the stability of ascorbic acid was studied by a 24 h aging of 50 µM aqueous ascorbic acid solutions stored in the refrigerator (T = 4 °C) or at room temperature (T = 25 °C) and: (i) protected from light in plastic centrifuge tubes (T = 4 °C), (ii) protected from light in glass storage vials (T = 4 °C), (iii) exposed to daylight in plastic centrifuge tubes (T = 25 °C), and (iv) exposed to daylight in glass flasks (T = 25 °C). HPLC-UV analyses of ascorbic acid solutions were performed at t = 0 h and at t = 24 h after solution preparation using an in-house HPLC method (confidential) at 254 nm. As ascorbic acid degrades very quickly, three fresh ascorbic acid solutions were prepared at t = 24 h to confirm the intermediate precision of the method (n = 6; tR = 3.1 min).

2.4. SEC-HPLC-UV Fractionation of the 70% Ethanol(aq) JKRB Extract Guided by an On-Line Post-Column Reaction with DPPH

The SEC-HPLC-UV method was developed for the fractionation of the 70% ethanol(aq) extract of JKRB using an Agilent Bio SEC-3 column (150 mm × 4.6; 3 µm, 100 Å) on an HPLC-PDA Agilent Technologies 1260 Infinity system (Santa Clara, California, USA), equipped with a fraction collector (Agilent 1260 Infinity II). OpenLAB CDS ChemStation software (Agilent) was used for data collection and analysis. A pre-mixed mobile phase was prepared with 150 mM ammonium acetate buffer and ethanol in the ratio 75:25 (v/v).
The ammonium acetate buffer was prepared by dissolving 5.778 g of ammonium acetate in 500 mL ultrapure water, and acetic acid was used to adjust the pH value to 4.8. An isocratic elution was performed with a flow rate of 0.325 mL min−1 and a run time of 40 min. The temperatures of the column and autosampler were set to 40 °C and 25 °C, respectively. The dry 70% ethanol(aq) extract of JKRB was re-dissolved in the mobile phase to achieve a concentration of 0.5 mg mL−1 and was filtered through a 0.45 µm polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF) membrane filter before injection (5 µL). Chromatograms were recorded at different wavelengths (280, 300, and 360 nm), and absorption spectra were acquired as well.
To determine the antioxidant fractions, an on-line post-column reaction was performed using DPPH solution (400 µM in 80% methanol(aq)) delivered at a flow rate of 5 µL min−1 through a syringe pump, leading to one inlet of a T-unit. The second inlet of the T-unit was connected to the column effluent capillary, while the outlet led to a 3.5 m long reaction coil (0.13 mm internal diameter (I.D.)) and later to the photodiode array (PDA) detector. The chromatographic conditions were as explained above. The reaction coil allowed a longer contact time between the eluting fractions’ compounds and the DPPH reagent, thus enabling radical scavenging reactions before reaching the PDA detector. UV/Vis spectra were acquired, and the chromatograms were recorded at 280 and 517 nm.
The decrease in absorbance at 517 nm indicated the antioxidant activity of the fractions, visible as negative peaks on the chromatogram. The on-line post-column reaction of the SEC fractions was performed in triplicate. Blank and control analyses were executed as follows: (i) injection of the sample extract and post-column introduction of 80% methanol(aq); (ii) injection of the procedural blank (the mobile phase filtered through a 0.45 µm PVDF membrane filter) and post-column reaction with DPPH; and (iii) injection of the procedural blank and post-column introduction of 80% methanol(aq).
As expected, the reaction coil led to a shift of the retention times (tRs) to higher values. Therefore, it was used for all analyses, including fraction collection, although the reaction with DPPH was not applied during this step.
Fourteen fractions, detected at 280 nm, were selected for retention time-based collection (Section 3.4). The temperature of the fraction collector was maintained at 4 °C. The collected fractions were pooled, the solvent was evaporated under N2 flow, and the solid residues were stored in a freezer at −20 °C.

2.5. Analyses of SEC Fractions and Determination of the Strongest Antioxidant by RP-HPLC-MS

The compounds of the isolated SEC fractions were analyzed using a UHPLC-UV-MS system (Accela 1250, coupled to an LTQ Velos MS, Thermo Fisher Scientific, Waltham, MA, USA). A new HPLC-UV-MS method was developed for the separation and characterization of the compounds from the 70% ethanol(aq) extract of JKRB using a Hypersil ODS column (150 × 4.6 mm; 5 µm I.D., Thermo A). SEC fractions (FRs) obtained from 122 (FRs 1–7, 9, and 14), 96 (FRs 10–13), and 77 (FR 8) runs were dried under a N2 flow, dissolved in 150 (FRs 2, 5, and 7), 200 (FRs 1, 3, and 4), 250 (FRs 6 and 9), 300 (FR 8), 500 (FR 14), and 1000 µL (FRs 10–13) of solvent (water:ethanol, 3:1, v/v) and injected in different volumes (5 µL: FRs 10–13; 10 µL: FRs 1, 6, 9, and 14; 15 µL: FRs 2–5, 7, and 8).
These values were adapted to the peak heights and widths of the SEC fractions. The mobile phase, consisting of 0.1% acetic acid(aq) (A) and acetonitrile (B), and a linear gradient elution with a flow rate of 0.7 mL min−1 of 10–100% B (0–30 min), were used. The column and autosampler temperatures were maintained at 25 °C and 10 °C, respectively. Chromatograms were recorded at 280, 300, and 360 nm, and absorption spectra were acquired as well. For the ionization of compounds, heated electrospray ionization (HESI) in negative ion mode was used, and the MS parameters were as follows: heater and capillary temperatures of 400 and 350 °C, respectively, sheath gas 30 arbitrary units (a.u.), auxiliary gas 5 a.u., sweep gas 0 a.u., spray voltage 4 kV, and S-Lens RF level 69.0%.
To optimize the MS parameters, a methanolic standard solution of (−)-epicatechin (0.1 mg mL−1, 10 μL min−1) was combined with the column effluent (55% B, 0.7 mL min−1) using a T-unit, thus directing the combined flow into the MS source. The MS spectra were recorded in the m/z range of 50–2000, while the precursor ions of interest were fragmented in MSn using a collision energy of 35%. Xcalibur software (version 2.1.0, Thermo Fisher Scientific) was used to evaluate the collected chromatograms and spectra.

2.6. Identification of the Compounds in the Antioxidant Fraction by Orthogonal Methods and Confirmation of Their Antioxidant Activity by DPPH Assay

To confirm the presence of (−)-epicatechin in the isolated antioxidant fraction, commercially available standards of flavan-3-ols were used. Standards of (+)-catechin and (−)-epicatechin were used for the SEC-HPLC-UV and RP-HPLC-UV-MS analyses, while for the HPTLC analysis performed on an HPTLC cellulose stationary phase, which enables separation of enantiomers, a (−)-catechin standard was also applied. Standards were prepared in concentrations of 0.01 mg mL−1 (in water:ethanol (3:1, v/v) for SEC-HPLC-UV) and 0.1 mg mL−1 (in methanol for RP-HPLC-UV-MS and HPTLC). The injection volume was 5 µL for both HPLC methods.
The antioxidant fraction FR 8, collected from 77 runs (by SEC-HPLC method; Section 2.4), was dissolved in 200 µL of methanol. All standards (4 µL, 0.4 µg) and the antioxidant fraction (40 µL) were applied on an HPTLC cellulose plate (Merck, Art. No. 1.05786.0001, cut to 10 cm × 10 cm) as 8 mm bands, 8 mm from the bottom of the plate using a Linomat 5 (Camag, Muttenz, Switzerland). The plate was developed up to 90 mm (45 min) in a normal developing chamber (for 10 cm × 10 cm plates, Camag) using water as a developing solvent [23,61,62] and dried with a stream of warm air for 3 min after development.
Post-chromatographic derivatization was performed by immersing the plate for 1 s into DMACA detection reagent, prepared by dissolving 60 mg of DMACA in 13 mL of concentrated hydrochloric acid (37%) and diluted with ethanol to make up a total volume of 200 mL [61]. The plate was then dried with warm air for 2 min. The DigiStore 2 documentation system in conjunction with Reprostar 3 (Camag) was used for the documentation of the chromatograms at 254 nm, 366 nm, and white light illumination after development and 10 min after post-chromatographic derivatization with DMACA reagent.
After derivatization, the plate was also scanned with a slit-scanning densitometer (TLC Scanner 3, Camag) set in absorption/reflectance mode at 655 nm. The selected wavelength was derived from our previously published studies [61,63]. The other settings were as follows: slit length 6 mm, slit width 0.30 mm, and scanning speed 20 mm s−1. Both instruments were controlled using winCATS software (version 1.4.9.2001).
As in Section 2.2 and Section 2.3, the spectrophotometric DPPH assay of methanolic solutions of the (−)-epicatechin standard (Sigma-Aldrich; 1000, 500, 250, 100, 50, 40, 30, 20, 10, 1, and 0.1 µM) was performed at t = 0, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 24, and 50 h, 7 and 14 days (storage at T = 25 °C) after solution preparation to determine its IC50 value for the radical scavenging activity, as well as the stability of its antioxidant activity.

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Extraction Yields and Antioxidant Activity of Various Extracts

The extraction of JKRB was performed with water, polar organic solvents (methanol, acetone, and ethanol), and aqueous solutions thereof (80% methanol(aq), 70% acetone(aq), 70% ethanol(aq), and 90% ethyl acetate(aq)). The highest extraction yield was achieved by 70% ethanol(aq), and a slightly lower yield was achieved by 70% acetone(aq) (Table 1). Significantly lower extraction yields were obtained with pure ethanol and acetone. The difference between the extraction yields obtained with methanol and 80% methanol(aq) was not significant. Water gave a higher extraction yield than did pure acetone. The lowest extraction yield was obtained using 90% ethyl acetate(aq) (Table 1).
The antioxidant activities of all dry extracts, re-dissolved in methanol, were tested using a DPPH assay. Re-dissolving all dry extracts in the same solvent (methanol) was preferred (providing equal polarity and pH of the reaction medium for all extracts) to enable comparison of the obtained DPPH assay results, as discussed in [58]. As all dry extracts and DPPH were soluble in methanol, this was selected as a reaction medium.
The obtained results of the DPPH radical scavenging assay are expressed as IC50 values, which represent the concentration of the antioxidant required to scavenge 50% of the DPPH free radicals and consequently lead to a 50% decrease in the DPPH absorption [64,65,66].
As different protocols of the same antioxidant assay may lead to incomparable results, a known antioxidant, ascorbic acid, was used as a reference. The IC50 values of all JKRB extracts (Figure 1) prepared by different extraction solvents and solvent mixtures were very low (2.632–3.715 µg mL−1; Table 1) and in the range of the IC50 value of ascorbic acid at t0 (3.115 µg mL−1; Table 2). This indicates the high antioxidant potential of JKRB extracts, which may be attributed to the activity of the various phenolic compounds present in JKRB [67]. A JKRB extract prepared with 70% ethanol(aq) was used for further analyses due to the highest extraction yield (only 70% acetone(aq) resulted in a comparable yield) (Table 1). Additional reasons for the selection of this green extraction solvent include that ethanol is considered less harmful than other solvents when present as a residual solvent in pharmaceutical formulations [68], 70% ethanol(aq) is suitable for the preparation of tinctures, and ethanol is commercially available as a “food grade” solvent.
The logarithmic curves representing the radical scavenging activity of the extracts of JKRB with different concentrations are shown in Figure 1.
A time-dependent decrease in the antioxidant activity (increase in the IC50 value) of the ascorbic acid solutions was observed, which is most likely a consequence of its oxidation, which can particularly be promoted by light, heat, and heavy metal cations [69]. Therefore, the preparation of the ascorbic acid solutions was carried out very quickly, and the time from their preparation to exposure to DPPH was kept as short as possible (10 min in the worst-case scenario). The addition of the chelating agent ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA) to ascorbic acid solution was previously found to have an indirect stabilizing effect on the ascorbic acid molecule through the chelation of traces of heavy metals residing on the surface of glass containers [70]. To examine the influence of glass vs. plastic storage containers on the stability of ascorbic acid in solution, its content after storage in different containers was determined by the use of the HPLC-UV method (Section 3.2).

3.2. Antioxidant Activity over Time—Ascorbic Acid Compared to the JKRB 70% Ethanol(aq) Extract

The antioxidant activity of ascorbic acid continuously decreased over time (IC50 value increased from 3.115 up to 62.787 µg mL−1, Table 2, Figure 2A), while the antioxidant activity of the JKRB 70% ethanol(aq) extract remained constant during the same time interval (0 h to 14 days) (Table 2, Figure 2B). These results suggest a potential use of the JKRB 70% ethanol(aq) extract as a strong antioxidant material. The potential applications might include the formulation of food supplements (e.g., tincture, powder, and solid dosage forms) or its utilization as a food antioxidant. On the other hand, the stability of ascorbic acid (and its antioxidant effect) in various beverages (bottled and left standing) rich in or enriched with ascorbic acid remains questionable.
As the mobile phase used for the HPLC quantification of ascorbic acid was aqueous based, ascorbic acid for the HPLC analyses was dissolved in water. After 24 h of aging in daylight and at room temperature, practically all ascorbic acid was lost (ascorbic acid <1%), regardless of the container material used for storage. On the other hand, the container material was of great importance for the light-protected storage of the ascorbic acid(aq) solution in the refrigerator. After 24 h of aging (dark, refrigerator) in a plastic container, the content of ascorbic acid(aq) was 65.19% of the initial concentration, while storage in a glass container resulted in a loss (<1% of the initial concentration) comparable to that reported for the room conditions (room temperature and daylight).
Based on these results, the combination of light and temperature, as well as trace metals on the glass surface, influence the stability of ascorbic acid in aqueous solution (Figure 3). On the other hand, the JKRB extract showed stable antioxidant activity for at least 14 days in the worst-case scenario conditions for ascorbic acid (light, room temperature, glass container). The flavan-3-ols, proanthocyanidins, and anthraquinones, which represent major groups of compounds in the JKRB extract [67], are proven chelating agents of glass surface ions [71,72], acting through their hydroxyl or both carbonyl and hydroxyl groups, located on the vicinal or peri positions [71]. This supports our findings regarding the stability of the measured antioxidant activity of the JKRB extract.

3.3. SEC-HPLC Fractionation of the JKRB 70% Ethanol(aq) Extract, On-Line Post-Column Reaction of the SEC Fractions with DPPH and Determination of the Antioxidant Fractions

A SEC-HPLC-UV method was developed for the first time to separate the compounds from the Japanese knotweed rhizome extract. A SEC column with a pore size of 100 Å was used to enable better separation of the smaller molecules from the extract. A high concentration of the buffer (150 mM) was used to reduce the secondary interactions on the column. Ethanol as a co-solvent, mixed with the buffer in a ratio of 25:75 (v/v), improved the solubility of JKRB compounds in the mobile phase. A higher percentage of ethanol in the mobile phase causes precipitation of the ammonium acetate buffer. The chromatograms were recorded at 280 nm, where the highest sensitivity for most of the compounds was achieved. Fourteen of the most abundant fractions (FR 1–FR 14) were selected for isolation.
The antioxidant potential of the Japanese knotweed rhizome bark was tested for the first time using the SEC-HPLC-UV/Vis method with an on-line post-column DPPH assay. Finding the right concentration, flow rate, and solvent for the DPPH reagent (insoluble in water and soluble in methanol) to be introduced into the mobile phase (buffer insoluble in methanol) was challenging. However, a 400 µM DPPH solution in 80% methanol(aq), delivered at a flow rate of 5 µL min−1, proved to be a good choice as it did not cause precipitations in the system upon contact with the mobile phase. The isocratic elution of the SEC method enabled the constant solubility of the DPPH reagent in the mobile phase and equal chemical reaction conditions throughout the whole run, thus ensuring more relevant results related to the antioxidant activity in comparison to gradient mode chromatography (e.g., RP in the gradient mode).
The noisy baseline of the chromatogram at 517 nm (Figure 4) was most probably due to the imperfections of the in-house built equipment for on-line post-column derivatization. Therefore, some antioxidant fractions might have been overlooked, due to a potentially too low decrease in the baseline at 517 nm. However, FR 8, eluting at tR 16.8–18 min (Figure 4), was undoubtedly determined as the most potent antioxidant (a clear baseline drop at 517 nm). Although only FR 8 showed antioxidant activity, all fractions (FR 1–FR 14, Figure 4) were collected and screened using RP-HPLC.

3.4. Characterization of the Compounds in the Isolated SEC Fractions, Identification of the Antioxidant Fraction Compounds by Orthogonal Methods, and their Antioxidant Activity over Time

An RP-HPLC-MSn method was developed to analyze the compounds in the isolated SEC fractions. The compounds were tentatively identified by comparing the obtained and literature MS and MS2 data (Table 3). For the antioxidant fraction FR 8, MS3 was also performed. Although expected, the size distribution of the SEC eluting compounds (from larger to smaller molecular masses) was not obvious (Table 3). One of the possible explanations relates to the content of the organic solvent (25%) in the mobile phase, which might promote secondary interactions and might subsequently impact the distribution of the compounds.
The presence of flavan-3-ol monomer, as the main representative in the antioxidant fraction FR 8, was suspected based on the mass spectra and fragmentation patterns, which were compared to those of the (−)-epicatechin standard (Figure 5) and to the literature data [52,53,67]. MS signals of resveratrol malonyl hexoside, resveratrol, and resveratrol acetyl hexoside were also observed in FR 8, where the last two most likely corresponded to in-source fragments of resveratrol malonyl hexoside [67]. Additional MS signals (Table 3) were not identified due to their low abundance.
In our previous study [67], (+)-catechin and (−)-epicatechin were identified as the two main flavan-3-ol monomers in JKRB. Therefore, both standards were analyzed using the developed RP-HPLC-MS method, which resulted in the separation of (−)-epicatechin (tR 6.4 min) and (+)-catechin (tR 5.6 min) (Figure 6). The presence of epicatechin (Figure 6) was thus confirmed in FR 8 (Figure 5 and Figure 6).
The (−)-epicatechin and (+)-catechin standards were also analyzed using the SEC-HPLC method and the tR of (−)-epicatechin (17.2 min) matched the tR range of the antioxidant fraction FR 8 (16.8–18.0 min) (Figure 7), while (+)-catechin (tR 19.8 min) eluted at the tR range of FR 9 (19.4–19.8 min). MS signals of flavan-3-ols at m/z 289 were observed by RP-HPLC-MS in both fractions (Table 3). Unexpectedly, catechin and epicatechin diastereoisomers were separated by SEC-HPLC (Figure 7), likely due to their conformational differences or as a consequence of secondary interactions in the column. However, C18-RP-HPLC and SEC-HPLC methods do not enable distinguishing between the enantiomers ((+)-catechin and (−)-catechin; (+)-epicatechin and (−)-epicatechin). According to our previous study [67], the presence of diastereoisomer (−)-epicatechin in FR 8 and (+)-catechin in FR 9, was suspected.
Matching UV spectra of the isolated epicatechin in FR 8 and (−)-epicatechin standard obtained by RP-HPLC and SEC-HPLC methods (λmax at 230 and 280 nm—data not shown) showed that epicatechin is the main compound of the most potent antioxidant fraction, FR 8.
To confirm the presence of (−)-epicatechin, HPTLC analysis of FR 8 and three standards, (−)-epicatechin, (+)-catechin, and (−)-catechin, was performed on the cellulose stationary phase, which acts as a chiral selector. (+)-Epicatechin was not applied on the plate as it is not commercially available. Derivatization of the chromatograms with the DMACA detection reagent (flavan-3-ol-specific reagent) confirmed the presence of (−)-epicatechin in FR 8 (matching RF values of the bands of FR 8 and the (−)-epicatechin standard; Figure 8). In addition to the band for (−)-epicatechin, another poorly resolved band appeared in FR 8 (Figure 8, track 1), which also showed a positive reaction with DMACA. The presence of the two peaks was also confirmed densitometrically (Figure 9).
Resveratrol malonyl hexoside, which was also detected in the antioxidant fraction, was reported for the first time in the Japanese knotweed rhizome in our previous study [67]. Unfortunately, the standard of this compound is not commercially available, thus, an additional confirmation of its presence in the antioxidant fraction was not possible (too low an amount for nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) spectroscopy).
The antioxidant potential of resveratrol, an aglycone moiety of resveratrol malonyl hexoside, is already well known, and resveratrol’s presence has also been linked to the antioxidant potential of the Japanese knotweed rhizome [8,73]. Resveratrol may cause synergistic or additive antioxidant effects in combination with epicatechin or other extract constituents (Table 3). Recently, an important contribution to the high antioxidant potential of this plant material was attributed to flavan-3-ols and proanthocyanidins [10]. Epicatechin was confirmed in the antioxidant fraction by three orthogonal methods, SEC-HPLC, RP-HPLC-MS, and HPTLC, among which the latter enabled the identification of (−)-epicatechin, which was already recognized as an antioxidant [18,29,42].
We also compared the antioxidant activities of (−)-epicatechin and trans-resveratrol standards by DPPH assay. The results showed that (−)-epicatechin is a stronger DPPH radical scavenger than trans-resveratrol (higher IC50; 7.08 µg/mL or 31.02 µM). Moreover, (−)-epicatechin was shown to be present in higher quantities in Japanese knotweed rhizome bark in comparison to trans-resveratrol [11].
As in previous experiments with 70% ethanolic(aq) JKRB extract and ascorbic acid methanolic solutions (Section 3.1 and Section 3.2), a spectrophotometric DPPH assay was performed to determine the IC50 value of the free radical scavenging potential of the methanolic solutions of (−)-epicatechin and to test the stability of its antioxidant activity over time (t = 0, 2, 4, 6, 8, 24, and 50 h, and 7 and 14 d). The IC50 value of the radical scavenging of (−)-epicatechin was ~1.56 µg mL−1, which indicated a higher antioxidant activity compared to that of ascorbic acid. Surprisingly, the antioxidant activity of the (−)-epicatechin standard remained constant over time (0 h to 14 days; ~1.56 µg mL−1) (Figure 10, Table 4).
The low IC50 value of (−)-epicatechin’s radical scavenging potential and the stability of its antioxidant activity for at least 14 days indicated that (−)-epicatechin could represent one of the most important contributors to the antioxidant activity of the JKRB extract. The reaction of antioxidants with DPPH is influenced by steric hindrance, with a preference for small antioxidant molecules [18]. Therefore, the antioxidant potential of fractions composed of different molecules is only indicative [18]. The results of the radical scavenging activity of JKRB extract, ascorbic acid, and (−)-epicatechin could not be directly compared to the results of other antioxidant assays.
The antioxidant potential of the whole extract may be the result of a synergistic or additive effect of different matrix compounds, which may be even more potent compared to the isolated single compounds’ effect either in the human body [18] or as food antioxidants [76,77]. In the current study, a high time-dependent stability (up to 14 days) of the antioxidant activities of the JKRB extract and (−)-epicatechin (standard solution) was observed.

4. Conclusions

Antioxidant activities of Japanese knotweed rhizome bark extracts prepared with water, methanol, 80% methanol(aq), acetone, 70% acetone(aq), ethanol, 70% ethanol(aq), and 90% ethyl acetate(aq) were measured using a DPPH free radical-scavenging assay (IC50 = 3.561, 3.715, 3.469, 2.632, 3.350, 2.893, 3.503, and 2.786 µg mL−1, respectively). Due to the highest extraction yield, the 70% ethanol(aq) extract was selected for further fractionation.
A SEC method was developed for the first time for fractionation of the Japanese knotweed rhizome (bark) extract. Its antioxidant potential was tested for the first time using the SEC-HPLC-UV/Vis method with an on-line post-column DPPH assay. This approach can also be used for the isolation of other plant bioactive constituents. The compounds in the isolated SEC fractions were determined with a new RP-HPLC-UV-MSn method. Epicatechin was confirmed in the antioxidant fraction by three orthogonal methods, SEC-HPLC-UV, RP-HPLC-MS, and HPTLC, among which the latter enabled the identification of (−)-epicatechin. The antioxidant activity of the (−)-epicatechin standard was additionally proven with a DPPH free radical-scavenging assay.
The IC50 values of the antioxidant activity of the selected extract (~3.7 µg mL−1) and of (−)-epicatechin (~1.6 µg mL−1) remained constant for 14 days, while the IC50 values of ascorbic acid increased over time (3.115–62.787 µg mL−1). The antioxidant activity of the extract was comparable to that of ascorbic acid at t0, while the antioxidant activity of (−)-epicatechin was even higher.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, U.J. and K.N.; methodology, U.J. and K.N.; validation, U.J. and K.N.; formal analysis, U.J.; investigation, U.J. and K.N.; resources, I.V.; data curation, U.J.; writing—original draft preparation, U.J.; writing—review and editing, K.N. and I.V.; visualization, U.J.; supervision, K.N. and I.V.; project administration, I.V.; funding acquisition, I.V. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by the Slovenian Research Agency (research core funding No. P1-0005 and “Young Researchers” program.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available in this article.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank the Slovenian Research Agency (research core funding No. P1-0005 and “Young Researchers” program), Kaja Loboda Bergant for the help with the preparation of graphics in GraphPad Prism 7, Andreja Krušič and Tinka Palkovič for their help with the experimental work, and Jure Zekič for the discussions regarding the protocol for the analysis of ascorbic acid.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript, or in the decision to publish the results.

References

  1. Balogh, L. Japanese, Giant and Bohemian knotweed. In The Most Important Invasive Plants in Hungary; Botta-Dukat, Z., Balogh, L., Eds.; HAS Institute of Ecology and Botany: Budapest, Hungary, 2008; pp. 13–33. [Google Scholar]
  2. Zhang, H.; Li, C.; Kwok, S.-T.; Zhang, Q.-W.; Chan, S.-W. A review of the pharmacological effects of the dried root of Polygonum cuspidatum (Hu Zhang) and its constituents. Evid. Based Complementary Altern. Med. 2013. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  3. Lin, Y.-W.; Yang, F.-J.; Chen, C.-L.; Lee, W.-T.; Chen, R.-S. Free radical scavenging activity and antiproliferative potential of Polygonum cuspidatum root extracts. J. Nat. Med. 2010, 64, 146–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Hsu, C.-Y.; Chan, Y.-P.; Chang, J. Antioxidant activity of extract from Polygonum cuspidatum. Biol. Res. 2007, 40, 13–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  5. Pogačnik, L.; Rogelj, A.; Ulrih, N.P. Chemiluminescence method for evaluation of antioxidant capacities of different invasive knotweed species. Anal. Lett. 2015, 49, 350–363. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Lachowicz, S.; Oszmianski, J. Profile of bioactive compounds in the morphological parts of wild Fallopia japonica (Houtt) and Fallopia sachalinensis (F. Schmidt) and their antioxidative activity. Molecules 2019, 24, 1436. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  7. Ardelean, F.; Moacă, E.A.; Păcurariu, C.; Antal, D.S.; Dehelean, C.; Toma, C.-C.; Drăgan, S. Invasive Polygonum cuspidatum: Physico-chemical analysis of a plant extract with pharmaceutical potential. Stud. Univ. Vasile Goldis Arad Seria Stiintele Vietii 2016, 26, 415–421. [Google Scholar]
  8. Kurita, S.; Kashiwagi, T.; Ebisu, T.; Shimamura, T.; Ukeda, H. Content of resveratrol and glycoside and its contribution to the antioxidative capacity of Polygonum cuspidatum (Itadori) harvested in Kochi. Biosci. Biotechnol. Biochem. 2014, 78, 499–502. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Chan, C.-L.; Gan, R.-Y.; Corke, H. The phenolic composition and antioxidant capacity of soluble and bound extracts in selected dietary spices and medicinal herbs. Int. J. Food Sci. Technol. 2016, 51, 565–573. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Nawrot-Hadzik, I.; Ślusarczyk, S.; Granica, S.; Hadzik, J.; Matkowski, A. Phytochemical diversity in rhizomes of three Reynoutria species and their antioxidant activity correlations elucidated by LC-ESI-MS/MS analysis. Molecules 2019, 24, 1136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  11. Pogačnik, L.; Bergant, T.; Skrt, M.; Poklar Ulrih, N.; Viktorová, J.; Ruml, T. In vitro comparison of the bioactivities of Japanese and Bohemian knotweed ethanol extracts. Foods 2020, 9, 544. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Zhang, C.; Zhang, X.; Zhang, Y.; Xu, Q.; Xiao, H.; Liang, X. Analysis of estrogenic compounds in Polygonum cuspidatum by bioassay and high performance liquid chromatography. J. Ethnopharmacol. 2006, 105, 223–228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Shan, B.; Cai, Y.-Z.; Brooks, J.D.; Corke, H. Antibacterial properties of Polygonum cuspidatum roots and their major bioactive constituents. Food Chem. 2008, 109, 530–537. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Lin, H.-W.; Sun, M.-X.; Wang, Y.-H.; Yang, L.-M.; Yang, Y.-R.; Huang, N.; Xuan, L.-J.; Xu, Y.-M.; Bai, D.-L.; Zheng, Y.-T.; et al. Anti-HIV activities of the compounds isolated from Polygonum cuspidatum and Polygonum multiflorum. Planta Med. 2010, 76, 889–892. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  15. Fan, P.; Zhang, T.; Hostettmann, K. Anti-inflammatory activity of the invasive neophyte Polygonum cuspidatum Sieb. and Zucc. (Polygonaceae) and the chemical comparison of the invasive and native varieties with regard to resveratrol. J. Tradit. Complement. Med. 2013, 3, 182–187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  16. Xue, Y.; Liang, J. Screening of bioactive compounds in rhizoma Polygoni cuspidati with hepatocyte membranes by HPLC and LC-MS. J. Sep. Sci. 2014, 37, 250–256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Cos, P.; De Bruyne, T.; Hermans, N.; Apers, S.; Vanden Berge, D.; Vlietinck, A.J. Proanthocyanidins in health care: Current and new trends. Curr. Med. Chem. 2004, 11, 1345–1359. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Apak, R.; Gorinstein, S.; Böhm, V.; Schaich, K.M.; Özyürek, M.; Güçlü, K. Methods of measurement and evaluation of natural antioxidant capacity/activity (IUPAC Technical Report). Pure Appl. Chem. 2013, 85, 957–998. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  19. Alam, M.N.; Bristi, N.J.; Rifiquzzaman, M. Review on in vivo and in vitro methods evaluation of antioxidant activity. Saudi Pharm. J. 2013, 21, 143–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  20. Pisoschi, A.M.; Negulescu, G.P. Methods for total antioxidant activity determination: A review. Biochem. Anal. Biochem. 2011, 1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  21. Ojha, K.; Dubey, S.; Chandrakar, J.; Minj, R.A.; Dehariya, R.; Dixit, A.K. A review on different methods of determination of antioxidant activity assay of herbal plants. Res. J. Life Sci. Bioinf. Pharm. Chem. Sci. 2018, 4, 707–730. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Koleva, I.I.; Van Beek, T.A.; Linssen, J.P.H.; De Groot, A.; Evstatieva, L.N. Screening of Plant Extracts for Antioxidant Activity: A Comparative Study on Three Testing Methods. Phytochem. Anal. 2002, 13, 8–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Vovk, I.; Simonovska, B.; Andrenšek, S.; Vuorela, H.; Vuorela, P. Rotation planar extraction and rotation planar chromatography of oak (Quercus robur L.) bark. J. Chromatogr. A 2003, 991, 267–274. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Orsini, F.; Vovk, I.; Glavnik, V.; Jug, U.; Corradini, D. HPTLC, HPTLC-MS/MS and HPTLC-DPPH methods for analyses of flavonoids and their antioxidant activity in Cyclanthera pedata leaves, fruits and dietary supplement. J. Liq. Chromatogr. Relat. Technol. 2019, 42, 290–301. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Simonovska, B.; Vovk, I.; Andrenšek, S.; Valentova, K.; Ulrichová, J. Investigation of phenolic acids in yacon (Smallanthus sonchifolius) leaves and tubers. J. Chromatogr. A 2003, 1016, 89–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Cieśla, Ł.; Kryszeń, J.; Stochmal, A.; Oleszek, W.; Waksmundzka-Hajnos, M. Approach to develop a standardized TLC-DPPH test for assessing free radical scavenging properties of selected phenolic compounds. J. Pharm. Biomed. Anal. 2012, 70, 126–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Meda, N.R.; Fraisse, D.; Gnoula, C.; Vivier, M.; Felgines, C.; Senejoux, F. Characterization of antioxidants from Detarium microcarpum Guill. et Perr. leaves using HPLC-DAD coupled with pre-column DPPH assay. Eur. Food Res. Technol. 2017, 243, 1659–1666. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Wu, J.-H.; Huang, C.-Y.; Tung, Y.-T.; Chang, S.-T. On-line RP-HPLC-DPPH screening method for detection of radical-scavenging phytochemicals from flowers of Acacia confuse. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2008, 56, 328–332. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Zhang, Y.; Li, Q.; Xing, H.; Lu, X.; Zhao, L.; Qu, K.; Bi, K. Evaluation of antioxidant activity of ten compounds in different tea samples by means of an on-line HPLC-DPPH assay. Food Res. Int. 2013, 53, 847–856. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Koleva, I.I.; Niederländer, H.A.G.; Van Beek, T.A. An on-line HPLC method for detection of radical scavenging compounds in complex mixtures. Anal. Chem. 2000, 72, 2323–2328. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Bandoniene, D.; Murkovic, M. On-line HPLC-DPPH screening method for evaluation of radical scavenging phenols extracted from apples (Malus domestica L.). J. Agric. Food Chem. 2002, 50, 2482–2487. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Burnaz, N.A.; Küçük, M.; Akar, Z. An on-line HPLC system for detection of antioxidant compounds in some plant extracts by comparing three different methods. J. Chromatogr. B 2017, 1052, 66–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Pravadali-Cekic, S.; Kocic, D.; Hua, S.; Jones, A.; Dennis, G.R.; Shalliker, R.A. Tuning a parallel segmented flow column and enabling multiplexed detection. J. Visualized Exp. 2015. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  34. Sharma Avasthi, A.; Bhatnagar, M.; Sarkar, N.; Kitchlu, S.; Ghosal, S. Bioassay guided screening, optimization and characterization of antioxidant compounds from high altitude wild edible plants of Ladakh. J. Food Sci. Technol. 2016, 53, 3244–3252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  35. Sudha, A.; Srinivasan, P. Bioassay-guided isolation and antioxidant evaluation of flavonoid compound from aerial parts of Lippia nodiflora L. BioMed Res. Int. 2014. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  36. Jothy, S.L.; Saito, T.; Kanwar, J.R.; Kavitha, S.; Herng, L.C.; Chen, Y.; Yin-Hui, L.; Sasidharan, S. Bioassay-guided isolation and antioxidant evaluation of rutin from leaf of Polyalthia longifolia. Asian J. Appl. Sci. 2017, 5, 138–148. [Google Scholar]
  37. Lin, H.-Y.; Kuo, Y.-H.; Lin, Y.-L.; Chiang, W. Antioxidative effect and active components from leaves of lotus (Nelumbo nucifera). J. Agric. Food Chem. 2009, 57, 6623–6629. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Chin, Y.-W.; Chai, H.-B.; Keller, W.J.; Douglas Kinghorn, A. Lignans and other constituents of the fruits of Euterpe oleracea (Açai) with antioxidant and cytoprotective activities. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2008, 56, 7759–7764. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  39. Sunil, J.; Janapati, Y.K.; Bramhachari, P.V. Bioassay guided isolation and identification of the antioxidant constituent from Holostemma ada-kodien shcult. Int. J. Pharma Bio Sci. 2017, 8, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Lelono, R.A.A.; Tachibana, S. Bioassay-guided isolation and identification of antioxidative compounds from the bark of Eugenia polyantha. Pak. J. Biol. Sci. 2013, 16, 812–818. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  41. Luo, Y.; Wang, H.; Li, Y.; He, T.; Wang, D.; Wang, W.; Jia, W.; Lin, Z.; Chen, S. One injection to profile the chemical composition and dual-antioxidation activities of Rosa chinensis Jacq. J. Chromatogr. A 2000, 1613. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Soobrattee, M.A.; Neergheen, V.S.; Luximon-Ramma, A.; Aruoma, O.I.; Bahorun, T. Phenolics as potential antioxidant therapeutic agents: Mechanism and actions. Mutat. Res. 2005, 579, 200–213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Proteggente, A.R.; Pannala, A.S.; Paganga, G.; Van Buren, L.; Wagner, E.; Wiseman, S.; Van de Put, F.; Dacombe, C.; Rice-Evans, C.A. The antioxidant activity of regularly consumed fruit and vegetables reflects their phenolic and vitamin C composition. Free Radic. Res. 2002, 36, 217–233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Liang, T.; Yue, W.; Li, Q. Comparison of the phenolic content and antioxidant activities of Apocynum venetum L. (Luo-Bu-Ma) and two of its alternative species. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2010, 11, 4452–4464. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Yi, T.; Zhang, H.; Cai, Z. Analysis of rhizoma Polygoni cuspidati by HPLC and HPLC-ESI/MS. Phytochem. Anal. 2007, 18, 387–392. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Fan, P.; Hay, A.-E.; Marston, A.; Lou, H.; Hostettmann, K. Chemical variability of the invasive neophytes Polygonum cuspidatum Sieb. and Zucc and Polygonum sachalinensis F. Schmidt ex Maxim. Biochem. Syst. Ecol. 2009, 37, 24–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Beňová, B.; Adam, M.; Pavlíková, P.; Fischer, J. Supercritical fluid extraction of piceid, resveratrol and emodin from Japanese knotweed. J. Supercrit. Fluids 2010, 51, 325–330. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Zhao, Y.; Chen, M.X.; Kongstad, K.T.; Jäger, A.K.; Staerk, D. Potential of Polygonum cuspidatum root as an antidiabetic food: Dual high-resolution α-glucosidase and PTP1B inhibition profiling combined with HPLC-HRMS and NMR for identification of antidiabetic constituents. J. Agric. Food. Chem. 2017, 65, 4421–4427. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Fu, J.; Wang, M.; Guo, H.; Tian, Y.; Zhang, Z.; Song, R. Profiling of components of rhizoma et radix Polygoni cuspidati by high-performance liquid chromatography with ultraviolet diode-array detector and ion trap/time-of-flight mass spectrometric detection. Pharmacogn. Mag. 2015, 11, 486–501. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  50. Nawrot-Hadzik, I.; Granica, S.; Domaradzki, K.; Pecio, Ł.; Matkowski, A. Isolation and determination of phenolic glycosides and anthraquinones from rhizomes of various Reynoutria species. Planta Med. 2018, 84, 1118–1126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  51. Lachowicz, S.; Oszmiański, J.; Wojdyło, A.; Cebulak, T.; Hirnle, L.; Siewiński, M. UPLC-PDA-Q/TOF-MS identification of bioactive compounds and on-line UPLC-ABTS assay in Fallopia japonica Houtt and Fallopia sachalinensis (F. Schmidt) leaves and rhizomes grown in Poland. Eur. Food. Res. Technol. 2019, 245, 691–706. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  52. Glavnik, V.; Vovk, I.; Albreht, A. High performance thin-layer chromatography-mass spectrometry of Japanese knotweed flavan-3-ols and proanthocyanidins on silica gel plates. J. Chromatogr. A 2017, 1482, 97–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Glavnik, V.; Vovk, I. High performance thin-layer chromatography-mass spectrometry methods on diol stationary phase for the analyses of flavan-3-ols and proanthocyanidins in invasive Japanese knotweed. J. Chromatogr. A 2019, 1598, 196–208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  54. Zhao, R.-Z.; Liu, S.; Zhou, L.-L. Rapid quantitative HPTLC analysis, on one plate, of emodin, resveratrol, and polydatin in the Chinese herb Polygonum cuspidatum. Chromatographia 2005, 61, 311–314. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Hawrył, M.A.; Waksmundzka-Hajnos, M. Two-dimensional thin-layer chromatography of selected Polygonum sp. extracts on polar-bonded stationary phases. J. Chromatogr. A 2011, 1218, 2812–2819. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  56. Vaher, M.; Koel, M. Separation of polyphenolic compounds extracted from plant matrices using capillary electrophoresis. J. Chromatogr. A 2003, 990, 225–230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Koyama, J.; Morita, I.; Kawanishi, K.; Tagahara, K.; Kobayashi, N. Capillary electrophoresis for simultaneous determination of emodin, chrysophanol, and their 8-β-D-glucosides. Chem. Pharm. Bull. 2003, 51, 418–420. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  58. Sharma, O.P.; Bhat, T.K. DPPH antioxidant assay revisited. Food Chem. 2009, 113, 1202–1205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Oldoni, T.L.C.; Melo, P.S.; Massarioli, A.P.; Moreno, I.A.M.; Bezerra, R.M.N.; Rosalen, P.L.; Da Silva, G.V.J.; Nascimento, A.M.; Alencar, S.M. Bioassay-guided isolation of proanthocyanidins with antioxidant activity from peanut (Arachis hypogaea) skin by combination of chromatography techniques. Food Chem. 2016, 192, 306–312. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  60. GraphPad Prism; Version 700 for Windows; GraphPad Software: La Jolla/San Diego, CA, USA, 2016.
  61. Glavnik, V.; Simonovska, B.; Vovk, I. Densitometric determination of (+)-catechin and (-)-epicatechin by 4-dimethylaminocinnamaldehyde reagent. J. Chromatogr. A 2009, 1216, 4485–4491. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Vovk, I.; Simonovska, B.; Vuorela, H. Separation of eight selected flavan-3-ols on cellulose thin-layer chromatographic plates. J. Chromatogr. A 2005, 1077, 188–194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Glavnik, V.; Vovk, I. Analysis of dietary supplements. In Instrumental Thin-Layer Chromatography; Poole, C., Ed.; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2015; pp. 589–635. [Google Scholar]
  64. Akar, Z.; Küçük, M.; Doğan, H. A new colorimetric DPPH scavenging activity method with no need for a spectrophotometer applied on synthetic and natural antioxidants and medicinal herbs. J. Enzyme Inhib. Med. Chem. 2017, 32, 640–647. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  65. Brand-Williams, W.; Cuvelier, M.E.; Berset, C. Use of a free radical method to evaluate antioxidant activity. LWT Food Sci. Technol. 1995, 28, 25–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Kurechi, T.; Kikugawa, K.; Kato, T. Studies on the antioxidants. XIII. Hydrogen donating capability of antioxidants to 2,2-diphenyl-1-picrylhydrazyl. Chem. Pharm. Bull. 1980, 28, 2089–2093. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  67. Jug, U.; Glavnik, V.; Vovk, I.; Makuc, D.; Naumoska, K. Off-line multidimensional high performance thin-layer chromatography for fractionation of Japanese knotweed rhizome bark extract and isolation of flavan-3-ols, proanthocyanidins and anthraquinones. J. Chromatogr. A 2021, 1637, 461802. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Grodowska, K.; Parczewski, A. Organic solvents in the pharmaceutical industry. Acta Pol. Pharm. 2010, 67, 3–12. Available online: https://www.ptfarm.pl/wydawnictwa/czasopisma/acta-poloniae-pharmaceutica/110/-/12992 (accessed on 10 September 2020).
  69. Wawrzyniak, J.; Ryniecki, A.; Zembrzuski, W. Application of voltammetry to determine vitamin C in apple juices. Acta Sci. Pol. Technol. Aliment. 2005, 4, 5–16. [Google Scholar]
  70. Adepoju, T.S.; Olasehinde, E.F.; Aderibigbe, A.D. Effect of sodium metabisulphite and disodium ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA) on the stability of ascorbic acid in vitamin C syrup. Researcher 2014, 6, 6–9. [Google Scholar]
  71. Hider, R.C.; Liu, Z.D.; Khodr, H.H. Metal chelation of polyphenols. Methods Enzymol. 2001, 335, 190–203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Yen, G.-C.; Duh, P.-D.; Chuang, D.-Y. Antioxidant activity of anthraquinones and anthrone. Food Chem. 2000, 70, 437–441. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Matkowski, A.; Jamiołkowska-Kozlowska, W.; Nawrot, I. Chinese medicinal herbs as source of antioxidant compounds-where tradition meets the future. Curr. Med. Chem. 2013, 20, 984–1004. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Glavnik, V.; Vovk, I. Extraction of anthraquinones from Japanese knotweed rhizomes and their analyses by high performance thin-layer chromatography and mass spectrometry. Plants 2020, 9, 1753. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  75. Ha Lai, T.N.; Herent, M.-F.; Quetin-Leclercq, J.; Thuy Nguyen, T.B.; Rogez, H.; Larondelle, Y.; André, C.M. Piceatannol, a potent bioactive stilbene, as major phenolic component in Rhodomyrtus tomentosa. Food Chem. 2013, 138, 1421–1430. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  76. Kranl, K.; Schlesier, K.; Bitsch, R.; Hermann, H.; Rohe, M.; Böhm, V. Comparing antioxidative food additives and secondary plant products—Use of different assays. Food Chem. 2005, 93, 171–175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Miguel, M.G. Antioxidant activity of medicinal and aromatic plants. A review. Flavour Fragrance J. 2010, 25, 291–312. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Antioxidants 10 00133 g001 550
Figure 1. Logarithmic curves of the antioxidant activities of extracts of Japanese knotweed rhizome bark (JKRB) (n = 3) prepared with the following solvents and solvent mixtures: water (A), methanol (B), 80% methanol(aq) (C), acetone (D), 70% acetone(aq) (E), ethanol (F), 70% ethanol(aq) (G), and 90% ethyl acetate(aq) (H). The calculated values of IC50 are 3.561 (A), 3.715 (B), 3.469 (C), 2.632 (D), 3.350 (E), 2.893 (F), 3.503 (G), and 2.786 (H) µg mL−1 (obtained by GraphPad Prism 7 [60]).
Figure 1. Logarithmic curves of the antioxidant activities of extracts of Japanese knotweed rhizome bark (JKRB) (n = 3) prepared with the following solvents and solvent mixtures: water (A), methanol (B), 80% methanol(aq) (C), acetone (D), 70% acetone(aq) (E), ethanol (F), 70% ethanol(aq) (G), and 90% ethyl acetate(aq) (H). The calculated values of IC50 are 3.561 (A), 3.715 (B), 3.469 (C), 2.632 (D), 3.350 (E), 2.893 (F), 3.503 (G), and 2.786 (H) µg mL−1 (obtained by GraphPad Prism 7 [60]).
Antioxidants 10 00133 g001
Antioxidants 10 00133 g002 550
Figure 2. Logarithmic curves plotting the 2,2-diphenyl-1-picrylhydrazyl (DPPH) scavenging effect (%) of ascorbic acid (A) and JKRB 70% ethanol(aq) extract (B) against the concentration, measured over time.
Figure 2. Logarithmic curves plotting the 2,2-diphenyl-1-picrylhydrazyl (DPPH) scavenging effect (%) of ascorbic acid (A) and JKRB 70% ethanol(aq) extract (B) against the concentration, measured over time.
Antioxidants 10 00133 g002
Antioxidants 10 00133 g003 550
Figure 3. Ascorbic acid(aq) (50 µM) analyzed immediately after preparation (A) was subjected to 24 h of aging (B–E), stored in the refrigerator and protected from light (B,C) in plastic (B) and glass containers (C) or stored in daylight at room temperature (D,E) in plastic (D) and glass containers (E). The peak areas corresponding to ascorbic acid (tR 3.1 min, 254 nm) in aged solutions were compared to the peak area of ascorbic acid in the fresh solution. The intermediate precision of the method was 3% (n = 6).
Figure 3. Ascorbic acid(aq) (50 µM) analyzed immediately after preparation (A) was subjected to 24 h of aging (B–E), stored in the refrigerator and protected from light (B,C) in plastic (B) and glass containers (C) or stored in daylight at room temperature (D,E) in plastic (D) and glass containers (E). The peak areas corresponding to ascorbic acid (tR 3.1 min, 254 nm) in aged solutions were compared to the peak area of ascorbic acid in the fresh solution. The intermediate precision of the method was 3% (n = 6).
Antioxidants 10 00133 g003
Antioxidants 10 00133 g004 550
Figure 4. SEC-HPLC-UV/Vis chromatogram at 280 nm (without post-column reaction) and at 517 nm (after post-column reaction with DPPH). The fractions and time intervals selected for fraction collection are marked. Fraction 8 was determined to be the strongest antioxidant due to the decrease in the absorbance at 517 nm.
Figure 4. SEC-HPLC-UV/Vis chromatogram at 280 nm (without post-column reaction) and at 517 nm (after post-column reaction with DPPH). The fractions and time intervals selected for fraction collection are marked. Fraction 8 was determined to be the strongest antioxidant due to the decrease in the absorbance at 517 nm.
Antioxidants 10 00133 g004
Antioxidants 10 00133 g005 550
Figure 5. The flavan-3-ol monomer identified by (−)ESI-MS based on the mass spectra and fragmentation patterns obtained for the signal at tR 6.4 min in the antioxidant fraction (FR 8) (A) and confirmed by (−)-epicatechin standard (B). Figure abbreviations: selected ion monitoring (SIM), and total ion current (TIC).
Figure 5. The flavan-3-ol monomer identified by (−)ESI-MS based on the mass spectra and fragmentation patterns obtained for the signal at tR 6.4 min in the antioxidant fraction (FR 8) (A) and confirmed by (−)-epicatechin standard (B). Figure abbreviations: selected ion monitoring (SIM), and total ion current (TIC).
Antioxidants 10 00133 g005
Antioxidants 10 00133 g006 550
Figure 6. RP-HPLC-MS chromatograms of the antioxidant fraction (FR 8) in SIM mode (m/z 289), (−)-epicatechin and (+)-catechin standards (both in TIC mode; m/z 50–2000).
Figure 6. RP-HPLC-MS chromatograms of the antioxidant fraction (FR 8) in SIM mode (m/z 289), (−)-epicatechin and (+)-catechin standards (both in TIC mode; m/z 50–2000).
Antioxidants 10 00133 g006
Antioxidants 10 00133 g007 550
Figure 7. Matching the tRs of the antioxidant fraction FR 8 (A) and (−)-epicatechin (B), and the tRs of FR 9 (A) and (+)-catechin (B). Chromatograms were acquired at 280 nm using the SEC-HPLC method.
Figure 7. Matching the tRs of the antioxidant fraction FR 8 (A) and (−)-epicatechin (B), and the tRs of FR 9 (A) and (+)-catechin (B). Chromatograms were acquired at 280 nm using the SEC-HPLC method.
Antioxidants 10 00133 g007
Antioxidants 10 00133 g008 550
Figure 8. Chromatogram of FR 8 (track 1, 40 µL), (+)-catechin (track 2, 400 ng), (−)-catechin (track 3, 400 ng), and (−)-epicatechin (track 4, 400 ng) applied as 8 mm bands on the HPTLC cellulose plate developed with water, derivatized with DMACA reagent, and documented with illumination with white light.
Figure 8. Chromatogram of FR 8 (track 1, 40 µL), (+)-catechin (track 2, 400 ng), (−)-catechin (track 3, 400 ng), and (−)-epicatechin (track 4, 400 ng) applied as 8 mm bands on the HPTLC cellulose plate developed with water, derivatized with DMACA reagent, and documented with illumination with white light.
Antioxidants 10 00133 g008
Antioxidants 10 00133 g009 550
Figure 9. Densitograms of FR 8 (40 µL) and monomeric flavan-3-ol standards (400 ng) scanned at 655 nm in the absorption/reflectance mode on the HPTLC cellulose plate developed with water and derivatized with DMACA.
Figure 9. Densitograms of FR 8 (40 µL) and monomeric flavan-3-ol standards (400 ng) scanned at 655 nm in the absorption/reflectance mode on the HPTLC cellulose plate developed with water and derivatized with DMACA.
Antioxidants 10 00133 g009
Antioxidants 10 00133 g010 550
Figure 10. Logarithmic curves plotting the DPPH scavenging effect (%) of (−)-epicatechin against the concentration, measured over time.
Figure 10. Logarithmic curves plotting the DPPH scavenging effect (%) of (−)-epicatechin against the concentration, measured over time.
Antioxidants 10 00133 g010
Table
Table 1. The extraction yields and the calculated values of the half maximal inhibitory concentrations (IC50) of antioxidant activity (GraphPad Prism 7 [60]) of extracts prepared with different solvents or solvent mixtures tested in the concentration range of 0.195–400 µg mL−1.
Table 1. The extraction yields and the calculated values of the half maximal inhibitory concentrations (IC50) of antioxidant activity (GraphPad Prism 7 [60]) of extracts prepared with different solvents or solvent mixtures tested in the concentration range of 0.195–400 µg mL−1.
Extraction Solvents
WaterMethanolAcetoneEthanolEthyl Acetate
100%80% (aq)100%70% (aq)100%70% (aq)90% (aq)
Extraction yield (w/w %)25.838.137.221.142.629.344.314.9
IC50 (µg mL−1)3.5613.7153.4692.6323.3502.8933.5032.786
LogIC500.5520.5700.5400.4200.5250.4610.5440.445
LogIC50 std. error0.0160.0140.0220.0180.0170.0160.0140.020
Hillslope1.6071.8841.6691.9111.6651.9241.7891.756
Hillslope std. error0.0830.1050.1250.1360.0970.1230.0930.124
Table
Table 2. The calculated IC50 values of the antioxidant activity of ascorbic acid (AA, in the range 1–1000 µM or 0.176–176.12 µg mL−1) and JKRB 70% ethanol(aq) extract (in the range 0.195–400 µg mL−1) over time.
Table 2. The calculated IC50 values of the antioxidant activity of ascorbic acid (AA, in the range 1–1000 µM or 0.176–176.12 µg mL−1) and JKRB 70% ethanol(aq) extract (in the range 0.195–400 µg mL−1) over time.
0 h2 h4 h6 h8 h24 h50 h7 d14 d
IC50 AA (µM)17.6853.130.52437.66245.84656.612~96.886164.933~219.382356.495
IC50 AA (µg mL−1)155.3766.6338.0759.971~17.06429.049~38.63762.787
LogIC50 (µM)1.2481.4851.5761.6611.753~1.9862.217~2.3412.552
LogIC50 std. error0.0110.0050.0030.0060.006~1.2930.020~33.8740.015
Hillslope2.6065.3446.4926.0605.673~17.6407.444~16.2689.400
Hillslope std. error0.1490.3040.2540.5660.383~1659.4930.771~9712.6110.938
IC50 JKRB (µg mL−1)3.5033.6843.6623.8763.9473.5303.7593.7313.325
LogIC500.5440.5660.5640.5880.5960.5480.5750.5720.522
LogIC50 std. error0.0140.0130.0150.0170.0210.0160.0110.0140.024
Hillslope1.7891.8151.8581.7961.7362.0441.9331.7371.531
Hillslope std. error0.0930.0860.1060.1170.1280.1400.0850.0880.118
Table
Table 3. RP-HPLC-MS analysis of the compounds in the SEC-HPLC-UV fractions (FR 1–FR 14), corresponding to the SEC tR ranges (FR 1: 7.7–8.0, FR 2: 8.3–8.6, FR 3: 9.3–9.8, FR 4: 11.0–11.7, FR 5: 13.0–13.4, FR 6: 13.6–15.0, FR 7: 16.1–16.6, FR 8: 16.8–18.0, FR 9: 19.4–19.8, FR 10: 20.8–22.9, FR 11: 24.0–25.5, FR 12: 26.4–27.8, FR 13: 28.7–30.2, and FR 14: 32.0–32.9). Different numbers of collection runs were performed to isolate the SEC fractions: 122 (FRs 1–7, 9, 14), 96 (FRs 10–13), and 77 (FR 8). Fractions were dissolved in different volumes of water:ethanol (3:1, v/v): 150 (FRs 2, 5, 7), 200 (FRs 1, 3, 4), 250 (FRs 6, 9), 300 (FR 8), 500 (FR 14), and 1000 µL (FRs 10–13) and injected in different volumes (5 (FRs 10–13), 10 (FRs 1, 6, 9, 14), and 15 µL (FRs 2–5, 7, 8)) into the RP-HPLC-MS system.
Table 3. RP-HPLC-MS analysis of the compounds in the SEC-HPLC-UV fractions (FR 1–FR 14), corresponding to the SEC tR ranges (FR 1: 7.7–8.0, FR 2: 8.3–8.6, FR 3: 9.3–9.8, FR 4: 11.0–11.7, FR 5: 13.0–13.4, FR 6: 13.6–15.0, FR 7: 16.1–16.6, FR 8: 16.8–18.0, FR 9: 19.4–19.8, FR 10: 20.8–22.9, FR 11: 24.0–25.5, FR 12: 26.4–27.8, FR 13: 28.7–30.2, and FR 14: 32.0–32.9). Different numbers of collection runs were performed to isolate the SEC fractions: 122 (FRs 1–7, 9, 14), 96 (FRs 10–13), and 77 (FR 8). Fractions were dissolved in different volumes of water:ethanol (3:1, v/v): 150 (FRs 2, 5, 7), 200 (FRs 1, 3, 4), 250 (FRs 6, 9), 300 (FR 8), 500 (FR 14), and 1000 µL (FRs 10–13) and injected in different volumes (5 (FRs 10–13), 10 (FRs 1, 6, 9, 14), and 15 µL (FRs 2–5, 7, 8)) into the RP-HPLC-MS system.
FRtR a
[min]		MS
[M-H]−		MS2 and MS3 bTentatively Identified Compounds
16.9395[395]: 215 c
10.2, 9.41005[1005]: 713, 917, 961, 458derivative of emodin bianthrone-hexose-malonic acid [10]
27.3521 [521]: 359c
7.3581 [581]: 521, 522, 544, 563, 499, 483, 417c
7.3603[603]: 543, 521c
310.2919 [919]: 713, 671, 875, 458, 509, 416emodin bianthrone-hexose-(malonic acid)-hexose [10]
10.2941 No datac
11.4, 12.2933[933]: 889, 458, 727methyl derivative of emodin bianthrone-hexose-(malonic acid)-hexose [10]
410.2919 [919]: 713, 671, 875, 458, 416, 509emodin bianthrone-hexose-(malonic acid)-hexose [10]
10.21005 [1005]: 917, 961, 875, 713, 458derivative of emodin bianthrone-hexose-malonic acid [10]
10.2, 12.01027 [1027]: 939, 983, 735 (10.2 min)c
[1027]: 389, 489, 533, 449, 744, 862, 939, 983, c
994 (12.0 min)
12.31009 [1009]: 471, 389, 515, 921, 965c
12.3987 [987]: 449, 943c
12.3449[449]: 245torachrysone 8-O-(6′-O-acetyl)-glucoside [67]
56.6, 10.6473[473]: 455, 413 (6.6 min)c
[473]: 269 (10.6 min)emodin-O-(acetyl)-hexoside [67]
6.6, 10.6605[605]: 587c
6.6, 10.6665 [665]: 647, 605, 589, 545, 501, 567c
10.6, 20.6269 [269]: 225, 269, 251, 241, 187emodin [67,74]
611.2265No datac
11.2297No datac
11.2, 11.81005, 502, 458[1005]: 713, 917, 458derivative of emodin bianthrone-hexose-malonic acid [10]
11.2, 11.81027[1027]: 781, 863, 699, 715, 945, 617c
13.71019, 975[1019]: 691, 773, 855, 609, 527, 937derivative of bianthrone [10]
11.2265No datac
711.6407[407]: 245torachrysone-8-O-glucoside/procyanidin degradation product [67]
13.5933[933]: 889, 685, 416methyl derivative of emodin bianthrone-hexose-(malonic acid)-hexose [10]
13.51019No datac
85.6, 6.3289[289]: 245, 205, 179, 203; (−)-epicatechin (6.32 min) [67], (−)-epicatechin standard
[289➔245] b: 203, 227, 161, 175, 187, 217, 245
9.2, 8.3431[431]: 227, 389resveratrol acetyl hexoside [67]
9.7, 9.0, 8.3445[445]: 385 (9.7 min)c
[445]: 281, 325, 369, 427, 263, 211 (9.0, 8.3 min)c
9.2, 8.3 475[475]: 431resveratrol malonyl hexoside [67]
9.2, 8.3491[491]: 431c
9.2, 8.3227[227]: 185, 183, 159, 157, 227, 209, 143resveratrol [67,52]
5.6, 6.3289[289]: 245, 205, 179, 203; (−)-epicatechin (6.32 min) [67], (−)-epicatechin standard
95.6289[289]: 245, 205, 203, 179catechin [67]
9.9431[431]: 269emodin-O-hexoside [67]
9.9, 20.5269[269]: 269, 225, 241, 251, 209, 271emodin [67,74]
9.9385No datac
107.1, 8.9389[389]: 227polydatin (piceid)/resveratroloside [67]
7.1, 8.9425d[425]: 389polydatin (piceid) (dihydrate)/resveratroloside (dihydrate) [67]
7.1449d[449]: 389, 227resveratrol acetyl hexoside (hydrate) [67]
7.1, 8.9227[227]: 185, 183, 159, 157, 209, 143, 165resveratrol [67]
10.8473[473]: 269, 311emodin-O-(acetyl)-hexoside [67]
10.8517[517]: 473, 431emodin-O-(6′-O-malonyl)-hexoside [67]
116.6, 8.3405[405]: 243piceatannol-3-O-glucoside [10]
6.6, 8.3243[243]: 225, 201, 199, 175, 215, 159piceatannol [75]
127.9, 9.1389[389]: 227polydatin (piceid)/resveratroloside [67]
7.9, 9.1227[227]: 185, 183, 209, 159, 157, 165, 143resveratrol [67]
7.9, 9.1425 d[425]: 389, 227polydatin (piceid) (dihydrate)/resveratroloside (dihydrate) [67]
1311.6431 [431]: 269, 311, 413 emodin-O-hexoside [67]
11.6269 [269]: 225, 269, 241, 251emodin [67,74]
4.9565No datac
147.2, 9.5245 [245]: 230 (7.2 min)c [67]
[245]: 229 (230) (9.5 min)c [67]
7.2, 9.5325 d[325]: 245 (7.2 min)catechin dihydrate/unknown [67]
7.2, 9.5245 [325]: 244 (245), 203, 283 (9.5 min)catechin dihydrate/unknown [67]
atR obtained by RP-HPLC-ESI-MS; b MS3; c Not identified; d [M-H+(2)H2O].
Table
Table 4. The calculated IC50 values of the antioxidant activity of (−)-epicatechin tested in the range of 0.1–1000 µM or 0.029–290 µg mL−1 over time.
Table 4. The calculated IC50 values of the antioxidant activity of (−)-epicatechin tested in the range of 0.1–1000 µM or 0.029–290 µg mL−1 over time.
0 h2 h4 h6 h8 h24 h50 h7 d14 d
IC50 (µM)6.2984.9674.7385.5396.3934.9495.1296.2804.190
IC50 (µg mL−1)1.8281.4421.3751.6081.8561.4361.4891.8231.216
LogIC500.7990.6960.6760.7440.8060.6950.7100.7980.622
LogIC50 std. error0.0390.0400.0470.0450.0430.0440.0410.0520.039
Hillslope1.6901.4271.2821.4411.6691.3151.3671.3751.538
Hillslope std. error0.1760.1100.1060.1340.1880.1070.1090.1530.112
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Jug, U.; Naumoska, K.; Vovk, I. (−)-Epicatechin—An Important Contributor to the Antioxidant Activity of Japanese Knotweed Rhizome Bark Extract as Determined by Antioxidant Activity-Guided Fractionation. Antioxidants 2021, 10, 133. https://doi.org/10.3390/antiox10010133

AMA Style

Jug U, Naumoska K, Vovk I. (−)-Epicatechin—An Important Contributor to the Antioxidant Activity of Japanese Knotweed Rhizome Bark Extract as Determined by Antioxidant Activity-Guided Fractionation. Antioxidants. 2021; 10(1):133. https://doi.org/10.3390/antiox10010133

Chicago/Turabian Style

Jug, Urška, Katerina Naumoska, and Irena Vovk. 2021. "(−)-Epicatechin—An Important Contributor to the Antioxidant Activity of Japanese Knotweed Rhizome Bark Extract as Determined by Antioxidant Activity-Guided Fractionation" Antioxidants 10, no. 1: 133. https://doi.org/10.3390/antiox10010133

APA Style

Jug, U., Naumoska, K., & Vovk, I. (2021). (−)-Epicatechin—An Important Contributor to the Antioxidant Activity of Japanese Knotweed Rhizome Bark Extract as Determined by Antioxidant Activity-Guided Fractionation. Antioxidants, 10(1), 133. https://doi.org/10.3390/antiox10010133

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop