**1. Introduction**

Anti-inflammatory and antimicrobial properties have been attributed to a great diversity of plants used in traditional medicine, from which many commercial drugs have been developed [1]. These properties have been related to the presence of secondary metabolites such as tannins, terpenes, and flavonoids, among many others [2]. Currently, medicinal plants are a valuable alternative and, in agreement with the WHO strategies on complementary and traditional medicine, it is necessary to perform studies aimed at identifying their bioactive compounds and confirming their pharmacological activity in order to guarantee their safe, effective, and rational use [3].

Even though there are several alternatives for the treatment of inflammation, some antiinflammatory drugs, such as aspirin, ketorolac, naproxen, or piroxicam, have adverse effects (e.g., the risk of developing intestinal bleeding) [2]; therefore, a constant search for new

**Citation:** Gallegos-García, A.J.; Lobato-García, C.E.; González-Cortazar, M.; Herrera-Ruiz, M.; Zamilpa, A.; Álvarez-Fitz, P.; Pérez-García, M.D.; López-Rodríguez, R.; Ble-González, E.A.; Medrano-Sánchez, E.J.; et al. Preliminary Phytochemical Profile and Bioactivity of *Inga jinicuil* Schltdl & Cham. ex G. Don. *Plants* **2022**, *11*, 794. https://doi.org/10.3390/ plants11060794

Academic Editors: Juei-Tang Cheng, I-Min Liu and Szu-Chuan Shen

Received: 17 February 2022 Accepted: 11 March 2022 Published: 17 March 2022

**Publisher's Note:** MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

**Copyright:** © 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ 4.0/).

anti-inflammatory treatments is critical in order to achieve an increased pharmacological response with the lowest degree of unwanted side effects [4]. The rise of microbial strains resistant to current antibiotics similarly presses the medical field to find new, effective compounds. These issues have led to the search for alternatives derived from natural sources to help in either the prevention or treatment of infectious problems [5].

Related to the above statements, a promissory prospect is the tropical species *Inga jinicuil* Schltdl & Cham. ex G. Don, known in Mexico as "cuijinicuil", "cuajicuil", or "jinicuil", and named in the Maya-Chontal language as "bujte". This plant belongs to the *Leguminosae* family and is classified as a multi-purpose tree in Mesoamerican indigenous communities, where it is mainly used as a shade tree in agroecosystems for cocoa and coffee plantations [6,7]. It is also an ornamental tree present in many gardens, parks, and roads, and it is highly recommended for repopulating watersheds [6]. The cotton pulp that covers the seeds can be consumed fresh or used in jellies and drinks [8]. Some indigenous communities of the Maya-Chontal region in Mexico and in the Amazon boil the seeds in salt water and use it as an appetizer or complement in traditional stews [6,7]. The aerial parts are used for healing purposes for the treatment of parasitic and infectious problems [6,8]. A mixture of seeds and leaves is also used as both an antidiarrheal and antirheumatic remedy [6]; in rural communities of Veracruz and Tabasco, Mexico, this plant is also utilized for gastrointestinal diseases by taking an infusion made from the pod and bark [7,8].

There are few reports on the phytochemical and biological activity of the *Inga* genus. For instance, a recent report highlights the antibacterial activity of the organic extracts from the leaves of *I. semialata*, which had an inhibitory effect on the growth of *Staphylococcus aureus*, *Staphylococcus epidermidis*, *Micrococcus luteus*, and *Klebsiella pneumoniae* associated with recurrent infections; the analysis of the extracts revealed the presence of gallic acid, epicatechin, and rutin [9]. There is also a series of reports aimed at the phytochemical and pharmacological analysis of *I. edulis* and *I. laurina*, where antimicrobial and antioxidant activities have been associated mainly with the presence of phenolic compounds [10–13]. In the case of *I. edulis*, the dichloromethane extract from leaves exerts a moderate antibacterial activity (MIC 7.0 mg/mL) against two strains of *S. aureus*; whereas for *I. laurina*, its effect against some strains of aerobic and anaerobic micro-organisms has been reported. The chemical composition of the active extract was determined by GC-MS, finding terpenoids, fatty acids, and esters [10–13]. Despite the extensive use of *I. jinicuil* in traditional medicine in southeastern Mexico, only the antimicrobial activity of hexanic and chloroform extracts from the seeds has been reported. These extracts proved to be active against *S. aureus* 25,923 and *Listeria monocytogenes* 244, with an MIC of 100 µg/mL for each micro-organism [14]; however, to date, no studies have been found about the phytochemical composition of the bark and leaves of this plant, nor on the evaluation of its anti-inflammatory activity. Therefore, the objectives of this work were to analyze the phytochemical profile of organic extracts from the bark and leaves of *I. jinicuil* via chromatographic methods, to evaluate their anti-inflammatory activity in the phorbol ester (TPA)-induced mouse ear edema test, and to expose its antibacterial activity against strains of clinical importance.

### **2. Results and Discussion**

The yield of the extracts from *Inga jinicuil* are shown in Table 1. Three types of extracts (in order of increasing polarity) were acquired from bark (Hexane **Ij-BH**, Dichloromethane **Ij-BD**, & Hydroalcoholic **Ij-BHac**) and three more from leaves (Hexane **Ij-LH**, Dichloromethane **Ij-LD**, & Hydroalcoholic **Ij-LHac**). It was found that, in general, the extracts from leaves provided higher yields when compared to bark extracts, with the hydroalcoholic extract from leaves being the one with the highest percentage.


**Table 1.** Percentages obtained from *Inga jinicuil* extracts. **Table 1.** Percentages obtained from *Inga jinicuil* extracts.

### *2.1. HPLC and UV-Vis Spectra Analysis of Polar Extracts from Inga jinicuil 2.1. HPLC and UV-Vis Spectra Analysis of Polar Extracts from Inga jinicuil*

HPLC analysis helped to determine the presence of terpenic and flavonoid-type compounds in both the dichloromethane and hydroalcoholic extracts from *I. jinicuil*. The chromatograms of the four polar extracts (**Ij-LD**, **Ij-LHac**, **Ij-BD**, and **Ij-BHac**) are presented in Figure 1. A total of 21 peaks related to terpenic and flavonoid-type compounds were observed. Table 2 presents a summary of the following information: retention times, main absorption bands of the UV-Vis spectra, and the presence of each peak in the four extracts analyzed. HPLC analysis helped to determine the presence of terpenic and flavonoid-type compounds in both the dichloromethane and hydroalcoholic extracts from *I. jinicuil*. The chromatograms of the four polar extracts (**Ij-LD**, **Ij-LHac**, **Ij-BD**, and **Ij-BHac**) are presented in Figure 1. A total of 21 peaks related to terpenic and flavonoid-type compounds were observed. Table 2 presents a summary of the following information: retention times, main absorption bands of the UV-Vis spectra, and the presence of each peak in the four extracts analyzed.

**Figure 1.** HPLC chromatograms of bark (**Ij-BD**, **Ij-BHac**) and leaf (**Ij-LD**, **Ij-LHac**) extracts. The peaks are numbered in ascending order according to their retention times (λ = 270 nm). **Figure 1.** HPLC chromatograms of bark (**Ij-BD**, **Ij-BHac**) and leaf (**Ij-LD**, **Ij-LHac**) extracts. The peaks are numbered in ascending order according to their retention times (λ = 270 nm).

**Table 2.** Preliminary phytochemical profile by HPLC-UV-Vis analysis of polar extracts from bark and leaves of *I. jinicuil.* **Absorption**  As seen in Figure 1, the peaks in the chromatograms can be differentiated into two main groups based on their retention time (*t*R): the first group consists of 14 peaks with *t*<sup>R</sup> between 8 and 12 min, while the second group has 7 peaks with *t*<sup>R</sup> from 26 to 29 min.

**Peak Retention-Time (min) Bands (nm) Extract(s) \* Compound Affinity \*\* Ref.**  1 8.46 220.4, 261.6, 294.7 ■ Protocatechuic acid Standard [15,16] 2 8.58 249.8, 273.6 ● Protocatechuic acid derivative Standard [15,16] 3 8.58 218.1, 276.9 ■ Gallic acid derivative Standard [17,18] Glycosylated Fla-Based on the retention times and the absorption bands in the UV-Vis spectra (Figures S1–S4) of the peaks shown in Table 2, it was possible to perform a preliminary analysis of each of the metabolites present in the extracts by comparing those parameters with known standards and data from the literature. Accordingly, for Peak **1**, the observed absorption bands at 220.4, 261.6, and 294.7 nm were equal with those of the protocatechuic acid standard, which when analyzed in identical chromatographic conditions presented the same *t*<sup>R</sup> (8.46 min). Since Peak **2** showed chromatographic behavior similar to **1** along with the analysis of the UV-Vis bands and the literature, it is inferred that it may be a derivative of protocatechuic acid [15,16].

4 8.66 212.2, 251.5, 352.9 □ vone. Apigenin derivative Standard [19,20] 5 8.75 219.2, 249.8, 273.4 ● Lignane Standard [21,22] Regarding Peaks **3** and **7**, when their *t*<sup>R</sup> and UV-Vis absorption bands were compared with the gallic acid standard (*t*<sup>R</sup> = 7.46 min, λmax = 220.4, 272.2 nm), a good match was found in the UV-Vis spectrum; however, the differences in retention times suggested the presence of gallic acid derivatives [17,18].

6 8.81 215.7, 269.8, 337.4 ○□ Glycosylated Flavone. Apigenin derivative Standard [19,20] The analysis of the UV-Vis bands for Peaks **4**, **6**, and **9** indicated that these compounds may be of the flavonoid type; this inference was strengthened when they were compared with an apigenin standard (*t*<sup>R</sup> = 16.76 min, λmax = 211, 267.5, 338.6 nm) and an identical analyzed.

and leaves of *I. jinicuil.*

ards and literature data.

ards and literature data.

ards and literature data.

ards and literature data.

ards and literature data.

ards and literature data.

ence of gallic acid derivatives [17,18].

protocatechuic acid [15,16].

protocatechuic acid [15,16].

protocatechuic acid [15,16].

protocatechuic acid [15,16].

ence of gallic acid derivatives [17,18].

ence of gallic acid derivatives [17,18].

ence of gallic acid derivatives [17,18].

ence of gallic acid derivatives [17,18].

ence of gallic acid derivatives [17,18].

ence of gallic acid derivatives [17,18].

ence of gallic acid derivatives [17,18].

**Peak Retention-**

analyzed.

analyzed.

analyzed.

analyzed.

analyzed.

analyzed.

analyzed.

analyzed.

analyzed.

analyzed.

analyzed.

analyzed.

analyzed.

analyzed.

analyzed.

analyzed.

analyzed.

analyzed.

analyzed.

analyzed.

analyzed.

analyzed.

analyzed.

analyzed.

analyzed.

analyzed.

analyzed.

analyzed.

analyzed.

analyzed.

analyzed.

*Plants* **2022**, *11*, x 3 of 15

*Plants* **2022**, *11*, x 3 of 15

*Plants* **2022**, *11*, x 3 of 15

*Plants* **2022**, *11*, x 3 of 15

*Plants* **2022**, *11*, x 3 of 15

*Plants* **2022**, *11*, x 3 of 15

*Plants* **2022**, *11*, x 3 of 15

*Plants* **2022**, *11*, x 3 of 15

*Plants* **2022**, *11*, x 3 of 15

*Plants* **2022**, *11*, x 3 of 15

*Plants* **2022**, *11*, x 3 of 15

*Plants* **2022**, *11*, x 3 of 15

*Plants* **2022**, *11*, x 3 of 15

*Plants* **2022**, *11*, x 3 of 15

*Plants* **2022**, *11*, x 3 of 15

*Plants* **2022**, *11*, x 3 of 15

*Plants* **2022**, *11*, x 3 of 15

*Plants* **2022**, *11*, x 3 of 15

*Plants* **2022**, *11*, x 3 of 15

**(% Yield)** 

**(% Yield)** 

**(% Yield)** 

**(% Yield)** 

**(% Yield)** 

*Plants* **2022**, *11*, x 3 of 15

*Plants* **2022**, *11*, x 3 of 15

*Plants* **2022**, *11*, x 3 of 15

*Plants* **2022**, *11*, x 3 of 15

*Plants* **2022**, *11*, x 3 of 15

*Plants* **2022**, *11*, x 3 of 15

*Plants* **2022**, *11*, x 3 of 15

*Plants* **2022**, *11*, x 3 of 15

*Plants* **2022**, *11*, x 3 of 15

**(% Yield)** 

**(% Yield)** 

**(% Yield)** 

**(% Yield)** 

*2.1. HPLC and UV-Vis Spectra Analysis of Polar Extracts from Inga jinicuil* 

*2.1. HPLC and UV-Vis Spectra Analysis of Polar Extracts from Inga jinicuil* 

*2.1. HPLC and UV-Vis Spectra Analysis of Polar Extracts from Inga jinicuil* 

*2.1. HPLC and UV-Vis Spectra Analysis of Polar Extracts from Inga jinicuil* 

**(% Yield)** 

*2.1. HPLC and UV-Vis Spectra Analysis of Polar Extracts from Inga jinicuil* 

**(% Yield)** 

*2.1. HPLC and UV-Vis Spectra Analysis of Polar Extracts from Inga jinicuil* 

*2.1. HPLC and UV-Vis Spectra Analysis of Polar Extracts from Inga jinicuil* 

**(% Yield)** 

*2.1. HPLC and UV-Vis Spectra Analysis of Polar Extracts from Inga jinicuil* 

*2.1. HPLC and UV-Vis Spectra Analysis of Polar Extracts from Inga jinicuil* 

**(% Yield)** 

**(% Yield)** 

**(% Yield)** 

*2.1. HPLC and UV-Vis Spectra Analysis of Polar Extracts from Inga jinicuil* 

**(% Yield)** 

*2.1. HPLC and UV-Vis Spectra Analysis of Polar Extracts from Inga jinicuil* 

**(% Yield)** 

*2.1. HPLC and UV-Vis Spectra Analysis of Polar Extracts from Inga jinicuil* 

**(% Yield)** 

*2.1. HPLC and UV-Vis Spectra Analysis of Polar Extracts from Inga jinicuil* 

*2.1. HPLC and UV-Vis Spectra Analysis of Polar Extracts from Inga jinicuil* 

*2.1. HPLC and UV-Vis Spectra Analysis of Polar Extracts from Inga jinicuil* 

*2.1. HPLC and UV-Vis Spectra Analysis of Polar Extracts from Inga jinicuil* 

*2.1. HPLC and UV-Vis Spectra Analysis of Polar Extracts from Inga jinicuil* 

*2.1. HPLC and UV-Vis Spectra Analysis of Polar Extracts from Inga jinicuil* 

Bark extract 0.095 0.82 0.25 Leaf extract 0.95 1.02 4.65

*2.1. HPLC and UV-Vis Spectra Analysis of Polar Extracts from Inga jinicuil* 

*2.1. HPLC and UV-Vis Spectra Analysis of Polar Extracts from Inga jinicuil* 

*2.1. HPLC and UV-Vis Spectra Analysis of Polar Extracts from Inga jinicuil* 

*2.1. HPLC and UV-Vis Spectra Analysis of Polar Extracts from Inga jinicuil* 

analyzed.

in Figure 1. A total of 21 peaks related to terpenic and flavonoid-type compounds were observed. Table 2 presents a summary of the following information: retention times, main

HPLC analysis helped to determine the presence of terpenic and flavonoid-type compounds in both the dichloromethane and hydroalcoholic extracts from *I. jinicuil*. The chro-

*2.1. HPLC and UV-Vis Spectra Analysis of Polar Extracts from Inga jinicuil* 

**(% Yield)** 

*2.1. HPLC and UV-Vis Spectra Analysis of Polar Extracts from Inga jinicuil* 

**(% Yield)** 

**(% Yield)** 

*2.1. HPLC and UV-Vis Spectra Analysis of Polar Extracts from Inga jinicuil* 

*2.1. HPLC and UV-Vis Spectra Analysis of Polar Extracts from Inga jinicuil* 

*2.1. HPLC and UV-Vis Spectra Analysis of Polar Extracts from Inga jinicuil* 

**(% Yield)** 

*2.1. HPLC and UV-Vis Spectra Analysis of Polar Extracts from Inga jinicuil* 

**(% Yield)** 

*2.1. HPLC and UV-Vis Spectra Analysis of Polar Extracts from Inga jinicuil* 

*2.1. HPLC and UV-Vis Spectra Analysis of Polar Extracts from Inga jinicuil* 

**(% Yield)** 

*2.1. HPLC and UV-Vis Spectra Analysis of Polar Extracts from Inga jinicuil* 

**(% Yield)** 

**(% Yield)** 

**(% Yield)** 

**(% Yield)** 

**(% Yield)** 

**(% Yield)** 

**(% Yield)** 

*Plants* **2022**, *11*, x 3 of 15

*Plants* **2022**, *11*, x 3 of 15

*Plants* **2022**, *11*, x 3 of 15

*Plants* **2022**, *11*, x 3 of 15

*Plants* **2022**, *11*, x 3 of 15

**(% Yield)** 

**(% Yield)** 

*2.1. HPLC and UV-Vis Spectra Analysis of Polar Extracts from Inga jinicuil* 

*2.1. HPLC and UV-Vis Spectra Analysis of Polar Extracts from Inga jinicuil* 

*2.1. HPLC and UV-Vis Spectra Analysis of Polar Extracts from Inga jinicuil* 

, x 3 of 15

Bark extract 0.095 0.82 0.25 Leaf extract 0.95 1.02 4.65

Bark extract 0.095 0.82 0.25 Leaf extract 0.95 1.02 4.65

Bark extract 0.095 0.82 0.25 Leaf extract 0.95 1.02 4.65

Bark extract 0.095 0.82 0.25 Leaf extract 0.95 1.02 4.65

Bark extract 0.095 0.82 0.25 Leaf extract 0.95 1.02 4.65

Bark extract 0.095 0.82 0.25 Leaf extract 0.95 1.02 4.65

Bark extract 0.095 0.82 0.25 Leaf extract 0.95 1.02 4.65

Bark extract 0.095 0.82 0.25 Leaf extract 0.95 1.02 4.65

Bark extract 0.095 0.82 0.25 Leaf extract 0.95 1.02 4.65

Bark extract 0.095 0.82 0.25 Leaf extract 0.95 1.02 4.65

Bark extract 0.095 0.82 0.25 Leaf extract 0.95 1.02 4.65

Bark extract 0.095 0.82 0.25 Leaf extract 0.95 1.02 4.65

Bark extract 0.095 0.82 0.25 Leaf extract 0.95 1.02 4.65

Bark extract 0.095 0.82 0.25 Leaf extract 0.95 1.02 4.65

Bark extract 0.095 0.82 0.25 Leaf extract 0.95 1.02 4.65

Bark extract 0.095 0.82 0.25 Leaf extract 0.95 1.02 4.65

Bark extract 0.095 0.82 0.25 Leaf extract 0.95 1.02 4.65

Bark extract 0.095 0.82 0.25 Leaf extract 0.95 1.02 4.65

Bark extract 0.095 0.82 0.25 Leaf extract 0.95 1.02 4.65

Bark extract 0.095 0.82 0.25 Leaf extract 0.95 1.02 4.65

HPLC analysis helped to determine the presence of terpenic and flavonoid-type compounds in both the dichloromethane and hydroalcoholic extracts from *I. jinicuil*. The chromatograms of the four polar extracts (**Ij-LD**, **Ij-LHac**, **Ij-BD**, and **Ij-BHac**) are presented in Figure 1. A total of 21 peaks related to terpenic and flavonoid-type compounds were observed. Table 2 presents a summary of the following information: retention times, main absorption bands of the UV-Vis spectra, and the presence of each peak in the four extracts

HPLC analysis helped to determine the presence of terpenic and flavonoid-type compounds in both the dichloromethane and hydroalcoholic extracts from *I. jinicuil*. The chromatograms of the four polar extracts (**Ij-LD**, **Ij-LHac**, **Ij-BD**, and **Ij-BHac**) are presented in Figure 1. A total of 21 peaks related to terpenic and flavonoid-type compounds were observed. Table 2 presents a summary of the following information: retention times, main absorption bands of the UV-Vis spectra, and the presence of each peak in the four extracts

HPLC analysis helped to determine the presence of terpenic and flavonoid-type compounds in both the dichloromethane and hydroalcoholic extracts from *I. jinicuil*. The chromatograms of the four polar extracts (**Ij-LD**, **Ij-LHac**, **Ij-BD**, and **Ij-BHac**) are presented in Figure 1. A total of 21 peaks related to terpenic and flavonoid-type compounds were observed. Table 2 presents a summary of the following information: retention times, main absorption bands of the UV-Vis spectra, and the presence of each peak in the four extracts

HPLC analysis helped to determine the presence of terpenic and flavonoid-type compounds in both the dichloromethane and hydroalcoholic extracts from *I. jinicuil*. The chromatograms of the four polar extracts (**Ij-LD**, **Ij-LHac**, **Ij-BD**, and **Ij-BHac**) are presented in Figure 1. A total of 21 peaks related to terpenic and flavonoid-type compounds were observed. Table 2 presents a summary of the following information: retention times, main absorption bands of the UV-Vis spectra, and the presence of each peak in the four extracts

HPLC analysis helped to determine the presence of terpenic and flavonoid-type compounds in both the dichloromethane and hydroalcoholic extracts from *I. jinicuil*. The chromatograms of the four polar extracts (**Ij-LD**, **Ij-LHac**, **Ij-BD**, and **Ij-BHac**) are presented in Figure 1. A total of 21 peaks related to terpenic and flavonoid-type compounds were observed. Table 2 presents a summary of the following information: retention times, main absorption bands of the UV-Vis spectra, and the presence of each peak in the four extracts

HPLC analysis helped to determine the presence of terpenic and flavonoid-type compounds in both the dichloromethane and hydroalcoholic extracts from *I. jinicuil*. The chromatograms of the four polar extracts (**Ij-LD**, **Ij-LHac**, **Ij-BD**, and **Ij-BHac**) are presented in Figure 1. A total of 21 peaks related to terpenic and flavonoid-type compounds were observed. Table 2 presents a summary of the following information: retention times, main absorption bands of the UV-Vis spectra, and the presence of each peak in the four extracts

HPLC analysis helped to determine the presence of terpenic and flavonoid-type compounds in both the dichloromethane and hydroalcoholic extracts from *I. jinicuil*. The chromatograms of the four polar extracts (**Ij-LD**, **Ij-LHac**, **Ij-BD**, and **Ij-BHac**) are presented in Figure 1. A total of 21 peaks related to terpenic and flavonoid-type compounds were observed. Table 2 presents a summary of the following information: retention times, main absorption bands of the UV-Vis spectra, and the presence of each peak in the four extracts

HPLC analysis helped to determine the presence of terpenic and flavonoid-type compounds in both the dichloromethane and hydroalcoholic extracts from *I. jinicuil*. The chromatograms of the four polar extracts (**Ij-LD**, **Ij-LHac**, **Ij-BD**, and **Ij-BHac**) are presented in Figure 1. A total of 21 peaks related to terpenic and flavonoid-type compounds were observed. Table 2 presents a summary of the following information: retention times, main absorption bands of the UV-Vis spectra, and the presence of each peak in the four extracts

HPLC analysis helped to determine the presence of terpenic and flavonoid-type compounds in both the dichloromethane and hydroalcoholic extracts from *I. jinicuil*. The chromatograms of the four polar extracts (**Ij-LD**, **Ij-LHac**, **Ij-BD**, and **Ij-BHac**) are presented in Figure 1. A total of 21 peaks related to terpenic and flavonoid-type compounds were observed. Table 2 presents a summary of the following information: retention times, main absorption bands of the UV-Vis spectra, and the presence of each peak in the four extracts

HPLC analysis to the presence of terpenic and compounds in both the dichloromethane and hydroalcoholic from *I.* The chromatograms of the four extracts (**Ij-LD**, **Ij-LHac**, **Ij-BD**, and **Ij-BHac**) presented in Figure 1. total of 21 peaks related to terpenic and flavonoid-type were observed. Table 2 presents a summary of the following information: retention times, main absorption bands of the UV-Vis spectra, and the presence of each peak in the four extracts

HPLC analysis helped to determine the presence of terpenic and flavonoid-type compounds in both the dichloromethane and hydroalcoholic extracts from *I. jinicuil*. The chromatograms of the four polar extracts (**Ij-LD**, **Ij-LHac**, **Ij-BD**, and **Ij-BHac**) are presented in Figure 1. A total of 21 peaks related to terpenic and flavonoid-type compounds were observed. Table 2 presents a summary of the following information: retention times, main absorption bands of the UV-Vis spectra, and the presence of each peak in the four extracts

HPLC analysis helped to determine the presence of terpenic and flavonoid-type compounds in both the dichloromethane and hydroalcoholic extracts from *I. jinicuil*. The chromatograms of the four polar extracts (**Ij-LD**, **Ij-LHac**, **Ij-BD**, and **Ij-BHac**) are presented in Figure 1. A total of 21 peaks related to terpenic and flavonoid-type compounds were observed. Table 2 presents a summary of the following information: retention times, main absorption bands of the UV-Vis spectra, and the presence of each peak in the four extracts

HPLC analysis helped to determine the presence of terpenic and flavonoid-type compounds in both the dichloromethane and hydroalcoholic extracts from *I. jinicuil*. The chromatograms of the four polar extracts (**Ij-LD**, **Ij-LHac**, **Ij-BD**, and **Ij-BHac**) are presented in Figure 1. A total of 21 peaks related to terpenic and flavonoid-type compounds were observed. Table 2 presents a summary of the following information: retention times, main absorption bands of the UV-Vis spectra, and the presence of each peak in the four extracts

HPLC analysis helped to determine the presence of terpenic and flavonoid-type compounds in both the dichloromethane and hydroalcoholic extracts from *I. jinicuil*. The chromatograms of the four polar extracts (**Ij-LD**, **Ij-LHac**, **Ij-BD**, and **Ij-BHac**) are presented in Figure 1. A total of 21 peaks related to terpenic and flavonoid-type compounds were observed. Table 2 presents a summary of the following information: retention times, main absorption bands of the UV-Vis spectra, and the presence of each peak in the four extracts

**Dichloromethane (% Yield)** 

HPLC analysis helped to determine the presence of terpenic and flavonoid-type compounds in both the dichloromethane and hydroalcoholic extracts from *I. jinicuil*. The chromatograms of the four polar extracts (**Ij-LD**, **Ij-LHac**, **Ij-BD**, and **Ij-BHac**) are presented in Figure 1. A total of 21 peaks related to terpenic and flavonoid-type compounds were observed. Table 2 presents a summary of the following information: retention times, main

HPLC analysis helped to determine the presence of terpenic and flavonoid-type compounds in both the dichloromethane and hydroalcoholic extracts from *I. jinicuil*. The chro-

HPLC analysis helped to determine the presence of terpenic and flavonoid-type compounds in both the dichloromethane and hydroalcoholic extracts from *I. jinicuil*. The chro-

HPLC analysis helped to determine the presence of terpenic and flavonoid-type com-

HPLC analysis helped to determine the presence of terpenic and flavonoid-type compounds in both the dichloromethane and hydroalcoholic extracts from *I. jinicuil*. The chromatograms of the four polar extracts (**Ij-LD**, **Ij-LHac**, **Ij-BD**, and **Ij-BHac**) are presented

HPLC analysis helped to determine the presence of terpenic and flavonoid-type compounds in both the dichloromethane and hydroalcoholic extracts from *I. jinicuil*. The chromatograms of the four polar extracts (**Ij-LD**, **Ij-LHac**, **Ij-BD**, and **Ij-BHac**) are presented in Figure 1. A total of 21 peaks related to terpenic and flavonoid-type compounds were observed. Table 2 presents a summary of the following information: retention times, main absorption bands of the UV-Vis spectra, and the presence of each peak in the four extracts

HPLC analysis helped to determine the presence of terpenic and flavonoid-type compounds in both the dichloromethane and hydroalcoholic extracts from *I. jinicuil*. The chromatograms of the four polar extracts (**Ij-LD**, **Ij-LHac**, **Ij-BD**, and **Ij-BHac**) are presented in Figure 1. A total of 21 peaks related to terpenic and flavonoid-type compounds were observed. Table 2 presents a summary of the following information: retention times, main absorption bands of the UV-Vis spectra, and the presence of each peak in the four extracts

HPLC analysis helped to determine the presence of terpenic and flavonoid-type compounds in both the dichloromethane and hydroalcoholic extracts from *I. jinicuil*. The chromatograms of the four polar extracts (**Ij-LD**, **Ij-LHac**, **Ij-BD**, and **Ij-BHac**) are presented in Figure 1. A total of 21 peaks related to terpenic and flavonoid-type compounds were observed. Table 2 presents a summary of the following information: retention times, main absorption bands of the UV-Vis spectra, and the presence of each peak in the four extracts

HPLC analysis helped to determine the presence of terpenic and flavonoid-type compounds in both the dichloromethane and hydroalcoholic extracts from *I. jinicuil*. The chromatograms of the four polar extracts (**Ij-LD**, **Ij-LHac**, **Ij-BD**, and **Ij-BHac**) are presented in Figure 1. A total of 21 peaks related to terpenic and flavonoid-type compounds were observed. Table 2 presents a summary of the following information: retention times, main

HPLC analysis helped to determine the presence of terpenic and flavonoid-type compounds in both the dichloromethane and hydroalcoholic extracts from *I. jinicuil*. The chromatograms of the four polar extracts (**Ij-LD**, **Ij-LHac**, **Ij-BD**, and **Ij-BHac**) are presented in Figure 1. A total of 21 peaks related to terpenic and flavonoid-type compounds were observed. Table 2 presents a summary of the following information: retention times, main

HPLC analysis helped to determine the presence of terpenic and flavonoid-type compounds in both the dichloromethane and hydroalcoholic extracts from *I. jinicuil*. The chromatograms of the four polar extracts (**Ij-LD**, **Ij-LHac**, **Ij-BD**, and **Ij-BHac**) are presented in Figure 1. A total of 21 peaks related to terpenic and flavonoid-type compounds were

HPLC analysis helped to determine the presence of terpenic and flavonoid-type compounds in both the dichloromethane and hydroalcoholic extracts from *I. jinicuil*. The chromatograms of the four polar extracts (**Ij-LD**, **Ij-LHac**, **Ij-BD**, and **Ij-BHac**) are presented

HPLC analysis helped to determine the presence of terpenic and flavonoid-type compounds in both the dichloromethane and hydroalcoholic extracts from *I. jinicuil*. The chromatograms of the four polar extracts (**Ij-LD**, **Ij-LHac**, **Ij-BD**, and **Ij-BHac**) are presented in Figure 1. A total of 21 peaks related to terpenic and flavonoid-type compounds were observed. Table 2 presents a summary of the following information: retention times, main absorption bands of the UV-Vis spectra, and the presence of each peak in the four extracts

HPLC analysis helped to determine the presence of terpenic and flavonoid-type compounds in both the dichloromethane and hydroalcoholic extracts from *I. jinicuil*. The chromatograms of the four polar extracts (**Ij-LD**, **Ij-LHac**, **Ij-BD**, and **Ij-BHac**) are presented in Figure 1. A total of 21 peaks related to terpenic and flavonoid-type compounds were observed. Table 2 presents a summary of the following information: retention times, main absorption bands of the UV-Vis spectra, and the presence of each peak in the four extracts

Bark extract 0.095 0.82 0.25 Leaf extract 0.95 1.02 4.65

Bark extract 0.095 0.82 0.25 Leaf extract 0.95 1.02 4.65

Bark extract 0.095 0.82 0.25 Leaf extract 0.95 1.02 4.65

Bark extract 0.095 0.82 0.25 Leaf extract 0.95 1.02 4.65

Bark extract 0.095 0.82 0.25 Leaf extract 0.95 1.02 4.65

Bark extract 0.095 0.82 0.25 Leaf extract 0.95 1.02 4.65

Bark extract 0.095 0.82 0.25 Leaf extract 0.95 1.02 4.65

HPLC analysis helped to determine the presence of terpenic and flavonoid-type compounds in both the dichloromethane and hydroalcoholic extracts from *I. jinicuil*. The chromatograms of the four polar extracts (**Ij-LD**, **Ij-LHac**, **Ij-BD**, and **Ij-BHac**) are presented in Figure 1. A total of 21 peaks related to terpenic and flavonoid-type compounds were observed. Table 2 presents a summary of the following information: retention times, main absorption bands of the UV-Vis spectra, and the presence of each peak in the four extracts

HPLC analysis helped to determine the presence of terpenic and flavonoid-type compounds in both the dichloromethane and hydroalcoholic extracts from *I. jinicuil*. The chromatograms of the four polar extracts (**Ij-LD**, **Ij-LHac**, **Ij-BD**, and **Ij-BHac**) are presented in Figure 1. A total of 21 peaks related to terpenic and flavonoid-type compounds were observed. Table 2 presents a summary of the following information: retention times, main absorption bands of the UV-Vis spectra, and the presence of each peak in the four extracts

HPLC analysis helped to determine the presence of terpenic and flavonoid-type compounds in both the dichloromethane and hydroalcoholic extracts from *I. jinicuil*. The chromatograms of the four polar extracts (**Ij-LD**, **Ij-LHac**, **Ij-BD**, and **Ij-BHac**) are presented in Figure 1. A total of 21 peaks related to terpenic and flavonoid-type compounds were observed. Table 2 presents a summary of the following information: retention times, main absorption bands of the UV-Vis spectra, and the presence of each peak in the four extracts

Bark extract 0.095 0.82 0.25 Leaf extract 0.95 1.02 4.65

Bark extract 0.095 0.82 0.25 Leaf extract 0.95 1.02 4.65

Bark extract 0.095 0.82 0.25 Leaf extract 0.95 1.02 4.65

Bark extract 0.095 0.82 0.25 Leaf extract 0.95 1.02 4.65

Bark extract 0.095 0.82 0.25 Leaf extract 0.95 1.02 4.65

Bark extract 0.095 0.82 0.25 Leaf extract 0.95 1.02 4.65

Bark extract 0.095 0.82 0.25 Leaf extract 0.95 1.02 4.65

**Figure 1.** HPLC chromatograms of bark (**Ij-BD**, **Ij-BHac**) and leaf (**Ij-LD**, **Ij-LHac**) extracts. The

**Figure 1.** HPLC chromatograms of bark (**Ij-BD**, **Ij-BHac**) and leaf (**Ij-LD**, **Ij-LHac**) extracts. The

absorption bands of the UV-Vis spectra, and the presence of each peak in the four extracts

observed. Table 2 presents a summary of the following information: retention times, main absorption bands of the UV-Vis spectra, and the presence of each peak in the four extracts

observed. Table 2 presents a summary of the following information: retention times, main absorption bands of the UV-Vis spectra, and the presence of each peak in the four extracts

absorption bands of the UV-Vis spectra, and the presence of each peak in the four extracts

in Figure 1. A total of 21 peaks related to terpenic and flavonoid-type compounds were observed. Table 2 presents a summary of the following information: retention times, main

matograms of the four polar extracts (**Ij-LD**, **Ij-LHac**, **Ij-BD**, and **Ij-BHac**) are presented in Figure 1. A total of 21 peaks related to terpenic and flavonoid-type compounds were

*Plants* **2022**, *11*, x 4 of 15

*2.1. HPLC and UV-Vis Spectra Analysis of Polar Extracts from Inga jinicuil* 

**Table 2.** Preliminary phytochemical profile by HPLC-UV-Vis analysis of polar extracts from bark

**Figure 1.** HPLC chromatograms of bark (**Ij-BD**, **Ij-BHac**) and leaf (**Ij-LD**, **Ij-LHac**) extracts. The

**Figure 1.** HPLC chromatograms of bark (**Ij-BD**, **Ij-BHac**) and leaf (**Ij-LD**, **Ij-LHac**) extracts. The

**Figure 1.** HPLC chromatograms of bark (**Ij-BD**, **Ij-BHac**) and leaf (**Ij-LD**, **Ij-LHac**) extracts. The

HPLC analysis helped to determine the presence of terpenic and flavonoid-type compounds in both the dichloromethane and hydroalcoholic extracts from *I. jinicuil*. The chromatograms of the four polar extracts (**Ij-LD**, **Ij-LHac**, **Ij-BD**, and **Ij-BHac**) are presented in Figure 1. A total of 21 peaks related to terpenic and flavonoid-type compounds were observed. Table 2 presents a summary of the following information: retention times, main absorption bands of the UV-Vis spectra, and the presence of each peak in the four extracts

HPLC analysis helped to determine the presence of terpenic and flavonoid-type compounds in both the dichloromethane and hydroalcoholic extracts from *I. jinicuil*. The chromatograms of the four polar extracts (**Ij-LD**, **Ij-LHac**, **Ij-BD**, and **Ij-BHac**) are presented in Figure 1. A total of 21 peaks related to terpenic and flavonoid-type compounds were observed. Table 2 presents a summary of the following information: retention times, main absorption bands of the UV-Vis spectra, and the presence of each peak in the four extracts

HPLC analysis helped to determine the presence of terpenic and flavonoid-type compounds in both the dichloromethane and hydroalcoholic extracts from *I. jinicuil*. The chromatograms of the four polar extracts (**Ij-LD**, **Ij-LHac**, **Ij-BD**, and **Ij-BHac**) are presented in Figure 1. A total of 21 peaks related to terpenic and flavonoid-type compounds were observed. Table 2 presents a summary of the following information: retention times, main absorption bands of the UV-Vis spectra, and the presence of each peak in the four extracts

**Dichloromethane (% Yield)** 

**Dichloromethane (% Yield)** 

**Dichloromethane (% Yield)** 

**Dichloromethane (% Yield)** 

**Dichloromethane (% Yield)** 

**Dichloromethane (% Yield)** 

**Dichloromethane (% Yield)** 

**Dichloromethane (% Yield)** 

**Dichloromethane (% Yield)** 

**Dichloromethane (% Yield)** 

**Dichloromethane (% Yield)** 

**Dichloromethane (% Yield)** 

**Dichloromethane (% Yield)** 

**Dichloromethane (% Yield)** 

**Dichloromethane (% Yield)** 

**Dichloromethane (% Yield)** 

*Plants* **2022**, *11*, x 3 of 15

**Dichloromethane (% Yield)** 

**Dichloromethane (% Yield)** 

**(% Yield)** 

*2.1. HPLC and UV-Vis Spectra Analysis of Polar Extracts from Inga jinicuil* 

**Dichloromethane (% Yield)** 

**Dichloromethane (% Yield)** 

**Dichloromethane (% Yield)** 

**Dichloromethane (% Yield)** 

**Dichloromethane (% Yield)** 

**Dichloromethane (% Yield)** 

**Table 1.** Percentages obtained from *Inga jinicuil* extracts.

**Dichloromethane (% Yield)** 

**Extract** *n-***Hexane** 

**Dichloromethane (% Yield)** 

**Dichloromethane (% Yield)** 

**Dichloromethane (% Yield)** 

**Dichloromethane (% Yield)** 

**Dichloromethane (% Yield)** 

**Dichloromethane (% Yield)** 

**Dichloromethane (% Yield)** 

**Dichloromethane (% Yield)** 

**Dichloromethane (% Yield)** 

> **Hydroalcoholic (% Yield)**

> **Hydroalcoholic (% Yield)**

> **Hydroalcoholic (% Yield)**

**Hydroalcoholic (% Yield)** 

**Hydroalcoholic (% Yield)** 

**Hydroalcoholic (% Yield)** 

**Hydroalcoholic (% Yield)** 

**Hydroalcoholic (%** 

**Hydroalcoholic (% Yield)** 

**Hydroalcoholic (% Yield)** 

**Hydroalcoholic (% Yield)** 

**Hydroalcoholic (% Yield)** 

**Hydroalcoholic (% Yield)** 

**Hydroalcoholic (% Yield)** 

**Hydroalcoholic (% Yield)** 

**Hydroalcoholic (% Yield)** 

**Hydroalcoholic (% Yield)** 

**Hydroalcoholic (% Yield)** 

**Dichloromethane (% Yield)** 

**Hydroalcoholic (% Yield)** 

**Hydroalcoholic (% Yield)** 

**Hydroalcoholic (% Yield)** 

**Hydroalcoholic (% Yield)** 

**Hydroalcoholic (% Yield)** 

**Hydroalcoholic (% Yield)** 

**Hydroalcoholic (% Yield)** 

**Hydroalcoholic (% Yield)** 

**Hydroalcoholic (% Yield)** 

**Hydroalcoholic (% Yield)** 

**Hydroalcoholic (% Yield)** 

**Hydroalcoholic (% Yield)** 

HPLC analysis helped to determine the presence of terpenic and flavonoid-type compounds in both the dichloromethane and hydroalcoholic extracts from *I. jinicuil*. The chromatograms of the four polar extracts (**Ij-LD**, **Ij-LHac**, **Ij-BD**, and **Ij-BHac**) are presented in Figure 1. A total of 21 peaks related to terpenic and flavonoid-type compounds were observed. Table 2 presents a summary of the following information: retention times, main absorption bands of the UV-Vis spectra, and the presence of each peak in the four extracts

**Hydroalcoholic (% Yield)** 

Bark extract 0.095 0.82 0.25 Leaf extract 0.95 1.02 4.65

**Hydroalcoholic (% Yield)** 

**Hydroalcoholic (% Yield)** 

**Hydroalcoholic (% Yield)** 

**Hydroalcoholic (% Yield)** 

**Hydroalcoholic (% Yield)** 

**Table 1.** Percentages obtained from *Inga jinicuil* extracts.

**Table 1.** Percentages obtained from *Inga jinicuil* extracts.

**Table 1.** Percentages obtained from *Inga jinicuil* extracts.

**Table 1.** Percentages obtained from *Inga jinicuil* extracts.

**Table 1.** Percentages obtained from *Inga jinicuil* extracts.

**Table 1.** Percentages obtained from *Inga jinicuil* extracts.

**Table 1.** Percentages obtained from *Inga jinicuil* extracts.

**Table 1.** Percentages obtained from *Inga jinicuil* extracts.

**Table 1.** Percentages obtained from *Inga jinicuil* extracts.

**Table 1.** Percentages from *Inga jinicuil* 

**Table 1.** Percentages obtained from *Inga jinicuil* extracts.

**Table 1.** Percentages obtained from *Inga jinicuil* extracts.

**Table 1.** Percentages obtained from *Inga jinicuil* extracts.

**Table 1.** Percentages obtained from *Inga jinicuil* extracts.

**Table 1.** Percentages obtained from *Inga jinicuil* extracts.

**Table 1.** Percentages obtained from *Inga jinicuil* extracts.

**Table 1.** Percentages obtained from *Inga jinicuil* extracts.

**Table 1.** Percentages obtained from *Inga jinicuil* extracts.

**(% Yield)** 

**Table 1.** Percentages obtained from *Inga jinicuil* extracts.

**Table 1.** Percentages obtained from *Inga jinicuil* extracts.

**Table 1.** Percentages obtained from *Inga jinicuil* extracts.

**Table 1.** Percentages obtained from *Inga jinicuil* extracts.

**Table 1.** Percentages obtained from *Inga jinicuil* extracts.

**Table 1.** Percentages obtained from *Inga jinicuil* extracts.

**Table 1.** Percentages obtained from *Inga jinicuil* extracts.

**Extract** *n-***Hexane** 

**Extract** *n-***Hexane** 

**Extract** *n-***Hexane** 

**Extract** *n-***Hexane** 

**Extract** *n-***Hexane** 

**Extract** *n-***Hexane** 

**Extract** *n-***Hexane** 

**Extract** *n-***Hexane (% Yield)** 

**Extract** *n-***Hexane** 

**Extract** *n-***Hexane** 

**Extract** *n-***Hexane** 

**Extract** *n-***Hexane** 

**Extract** *n-***Hexane** 

**Extract** *n-***Hexane** 

**Extract** *n-***Hexane** 

**Table 1.** Percentages obtained from *Inga jinicuil* extracts.

**Table 1.** Percentages obtained from *Inga jinicuil* extracts.

**Table 1.** Percentages obtained from *Inga jinicuil* extracts.

**Extract** *n-***Hexane** 

**Extract** *n-***Hexane** 

**Extract** *n-***Hexane** 

**Extract** *n-***Hexane** 

**Extract** *n-***Hexane** 

**Extract** *n-***Hexane** 

**Extract** *n-***Hexane** 

**Table 1.** Percentages obtained from *Inga jinicuil* extracts.

**Table 1.** Percentages obtained from *Inga jinicuil* extracts.

**Table 1.** Percentages obtained from *Inga jinicuil* extracts.

**Table 1.** Percentages obtained from *Inga jinicuil* extracts.

**Extract** *n-***Hexane** 

**Table 1.** Percentages obtained from *Inga jinicuil* extracts.

**Table 1.** Percentages obtained from *Inga jinicuil* extracts.

**Extract** *n-***Hexane** 

*Plants* **2022**, *11*, x 3 of 15

**Extract** *n-***Hexane** 

**Extract** *n-***Hexane** 

**Extract** *n-***Hexane** 

**Extract** *n-***Hexane** 

**Table 1.** Percentages obtained from *Inga jinicuil* extracts.

**Extract** *n-***Hexane** 

**Extract** *n-***Hexane** 

**Extract** *n-***Hexane** 

**Extract** *n-***Hexane** 

**Extract** *n-***Hexane** 

**Extract** *n-***Hexane** 

**Extract** *n-***Hexane** 

match was found in their UV-Vis spectra. The differences in retention times led us to potentially consider these peaks as glycosylated analogs of this flavone [19,20]. **Figure 1.** HPLC chromatograms of bark (**Ij-BD**, **Ij-BHac**) and leaf (**Ij-LD**, **Ij-LHac**) extracts. The peaks are numbered in ascending order according to their retention times (λ = 270 nm). peaks are numbered in ascending order according to their retention times (λ = 270 nm). **Table 2.** Preliminary phytochemical profile by HPLC-UV-Vis analysis of polar extracts from bark **Figure 1.** HPLC chromatograms of bark (**Ij-BD**, **Ij-BHac**) and leaf (**Ij-LD**, **Ij-LHac**) extracts. The **Absorption Bands (nm) Extract(s) \* Compound Affinity**  7 8.85 219.2, 279.3 ■ Gallic acid derivative Standard peaks are numbered in ascending order according to their retention times (λ = 270 nm). **Table 2.** Preliminary phytochemical profile by HPLC-UV-Vis analysis of polar extracts from bark absorption bands of the UV-Vis spectra, and the presence of each peak in the four extracts observed. Table 2 presents a summary of the following information: retention times, main absorption bands of the UV-Vis spectra, and the presence of each peak in the four extracts absorption bands of the UV-Vis spectra, and the presence of each peak in the four extracts in Figure 1. A total of 21 peaks related to terpenic and flavonoid-type compounds were observed. Table 2 presents a summary of the following information: retention times, main

**Table 2.** Preliminary phytochemical profile by HPLC-UV-Vis analysis of polar extracts from bark and leaves of *I. jinicuil*. **Table 2.** Preliminary phytochemical profile by HPLC-UV-Vis analysis of polar extracts from bark and leaves of *I. jinicuil.* and leaves of *I. jinicuil.* **Absorption Bands (nm) Extract(s) \* Compound Affinity**  peaks are numbered in ascending order according to their retention times (λ = 270 nm). **Table 2.** Preliminary phytochemical profile by HPLC-UV-Vis analysis of polar extracts from bark **Time (min) \*\* Ref.**  1 8.46 220.4, 261.6, 294.7 ■ Protocatechuic acid Standard [15,16] peaks are numbered in ascending order according to their retention times (λ = 270 nm). [17,18] 8 8.86 215.7, 308.9 ● Coumaric acid derivative Standard [23] and leaves of *I. jinicuil.* **Peak Retention-Absorption Bands (nm) Extract(s) \* Compound Affinity**  peaks are numbered in ascending order according to their retention times (λ = 270 nm). *Plants* **2022**, *11*, x 4 of 15 **Figure 1.** HPLC chromatograms of bark (**Ij-BD**, **Ij-BHac**) and leaf (**Ij-LD**, **Ij-LHac**) extracts. The peaks are numbered in ascending order according to their retention times (λ = 270 nm). *Plants* **2022**, *11*, x 4 of 15 **Figure 1.** HPLC chromatograms of bark (**Ij-BD**, **Ij-BHac**) and leaf (**Ij-LD**, **Ij-LHac**) extracts. The *Plants* **2022**, *11*, x 4 of 15


[31] \* Extracts: Bark extracts, ● (**Ij-BD**), ■ (**Ij-BHac**); Leaf extracts, ○ (**Ij-LD**), □ (**Ij-LHac**). \*\* Compounds [31] 337.4 ○□ rivative [19,20] 6 8.81 215.7, 269.8, Glycosylated Fla-Standard 19 28.43 201.7, 261.6 ○□●■ Salicylate derivative Standard [31] 6 8.81 215.7, 269.8, 337.4 ○□ vone. Apigenin derivative Standard [19,20] 273.4 ● Lignane Standard [21,22] Glycosylated Fla-327.9 ● Coumarin derivative [25–27] 19 28.43 201.7, 261.6 ○□●■ Salicylate derivative Standard 18 28.21 245.1, 278.1, 327.9 ● Coumarin derivative [25–27] 18 28.21 245.1, 278.1, 327.9 ● Coumarin derivative [25–27] 5 8.75 219.2, 249.8, 273.4 ● Lignane Standard [21,22] rivative 17 28.11 278.1 ● Epigallocatechin Gallate derivative [28] 337.4 ○□ vone. Apigenin derivative [19,20] rivative [19,20] 4 8.66 212.2, 251.5, 352.9 □ Glycosylated Flavone. Apigenin de-Standard 4 8.66 212.2, 251.5, 352.9 □ vone. Apigenin derivative Standard [19,20] 4 8.66 212.2, 251.5, 352.9 □ Glycosylated Flavone. Apigenin de-Standard 15 26.91 219.2, 273.4, 293.5 □ Vanillic acid derivative [29,30] 273.4 ● Lignane Standard [21,22] Glycosylated Fla-[17,18] 4 8.66 212.2, 251.5, Glycosylated Fla-Standard derivative [15,16] 3 8.58 218.1, 276.9 ■ Gallic acid derivative Standard 15 26.91 219.2, 273.4, 293.5 □ Vanillic acid derivative [29,30] 5 8.75 219.2, 249.8, 273.4 ● Lignane Standard [21,22] 3 8.58 218.1, 276.9 ■ Gallic acid derivative Standard [17,18] Glycosylated Fla-2 8.58 249.8, 273.6 ● Protocatechuic acid derivative [15,16] [28] 14 12.30 235.7, 266.3 ○□● Terpene [24] Vanillic acid derivarivative 5 8.75 219.2, 249.8, 273.4 ● Lignane Standard 3 8.58 218.1, 276.9 ■ Gallic acid derivative Standard 2 8.58 249.8, 273.6 ● Protocatechuic acid derivative Standard [15,16] \* Extracts: Bark extracts, derivative [15,16] (**Ij-BD**), 294.7 ■ Protocatechuic acid Standard [15,16] (**Ij-BHac**); Leaf extracts, 13 10.03 276.9 ○ Epigallocatechin Gallate derivative [28] (**Ij-LD**), 4 8.66 212.2, 251.5, 352.9 □ vone. Apigenin derivative (**Ij-LHac**). \*\* Compounds were suggested by a preliminary comparison of retention time (*t*R) and UV-Vis bands with standards and literature data.

vone. Apigenin de-

14 12.30 235.7, 266.3 ○□● Terpene [24]

[19,20]

[17,18]

Standard

[19,20]

Standard

Glycosylated Fla-

were suggested by a preliminary comparison of retention time (*t*R) and UV-Vis bands with standards and literature data. As seen in Figure 1, the peaks in the chromatograms can be differentiated into two main groups based on their retention time (*t*R): the first group consists of 14 peaks with *t*<sup>R</sup> 20 28.65 200.5, 263.9 ○□●■ Salicylate derivative Standard [31] 21 28.81 263.9 ○□●■ Salicylate derivative Standard [31] \* Extracts: Bark extracts, ● (**Ij-BD**), ■ (**Ij-BHac**); Leaf extracts, ○ (**Ij-LD**), □ (**Ij-LHac**). \*\* Compounds 337.4 ○□ rivative [19,20] 20 28.65 200.5, 263.9 ○□●■ Salicylate derivative Standard [31] 21 28.81 263.9 ○□●■ Salicylate derivative Standard [31] 6 8.81 215.7, 269.8, 337.4 ○□ vone. Apigenin derivative Standard [19,20] [31] 20 28.65 200.5, 263.9 ○□●■ Salicylate derivative Standard [31] 21 28.81 263.9 ○□●■ Salicylate derivative Standard 19 28.43 201.7, 261.6 ○□●■ Salicylate derivative Standard [31] 20 28.65 200.5, 263.9 ○□●■ Salicylate derivative Standard [31] 19 28.43 201.7, 261.6 ○□●■ Salicylate derivative Standard [31] 20 28.65 200.5, 263.9 ○□●■ Salicylate derivative Standard [31] 6 8.81 215.7, 269.8, 337.4 ○□ vone. Apigenin derivative Standard [19,20] 18 28.21 245.1, 278.1, 327.9 ● Coumarin derivative [25–27] 19 28.43 201.7, 261.6 ○□●■ Salicylate derivative Standard [31] 5 8.75 219.2, 249.8, 273.4 ● Lignane Standard [21,22] 6 8.81 215.7, 269.8, 337.4 ○□ Glycosylated Flavone. Apigenin derivative Standard [19,20] rivative [19,20] 5 8.75 219.2, 249.8, 273.4 ● Lignane Standard [21,22] Glycosylated Fla-5 8.75 219.2, 249.8, 273.4 ● Lignane Standard [21,22] 6 8.81 215.7, 269.8, 337.4 ○□ Glycosylated Flavone. Apigenin de-Standard [19,20] rivative 5 8.75 219.2, 249.8, 273.4 ● Lignane Standard [21,22] Glycosylated Fla-Standard 16 28.01 204, 248.6 ○□●■ Terpene [24] 17 28.11 278.1 ● Epigallocatechin Gallate derivative [28] 18 28.21 245.1, 278.1, 327.9 ● Coumarin derivative [25–27] 6 8.81 215.7, 269.8, 337.4 ○□ vone. Apigenin derivative [19,20] 352.9 □ vone. Apigenin derivative [19,20] 5 8.75 219.2, 249.8, 273.4 ● Lignane [21,22] [17,18] 4 8.66 212.2, 251.5, 352.9 □ Glycosylated Flavone. Apigenin derivative Standard [19,20] 16 28.01 204, 248.6 ○□●■ Terpene [24] 17 28.11 278.1 ● Epigallocatechin Gallate derivative [28] 6 8.81 215.7, 269.8, 337.4 ○□ Glycosylated Flavone. Apigenin derivative Standard [19,20] 4 8.66 212.2, 251.5, 352.9 □ vone. Apigenin derivative Standard [19,20] 5 8.75 219.2, 249.8, 273.4 ● Lignane Standard [21,22] 3 8.58 218.1, 276.9 ■ Gallic acid derivative Standard [17,18] 4 8.66 212.2, 251.5, 352.9 □ Glycosylated Flavone. Apigenin derivative Standard [19,20] 15 26.91 219.2, 273.4, 293.5 □ tive [29,30] 16 28.01 204, 248.6 ○□●■ Terpene [24] 17 28.11 278.1 ● Epigallocatechin Gallate derivative [28] [21,22] 6 8.81 215.7, 269.8, 337.4 ○□ Glycosylated Flavone. Apigenin derivative Standard [19,20] 4 8.66 212.2, 251.5, 352.9 □ Glycosylated Flavone. Apigenin derivative Standard [19,20] 5 8.75 219.2, 249.8, 3 8.58 218.1, 276.9 ■ Gallic acid derivative Standard [17,18] 4 8.66 212.2, 251.5, 352.9 □ Glycosylated Flavone. Apigenin de-Standard 3 8.58 218.1, 276.9 ■ Gallic acid derivative Standard [17,18] 4 8.66 212.2, 251.5, 352.9 □ Glycosylated Flavone. Apigenin derivative Standard [19,20] 2 8.58 249.8, 273.6 ● Protocatechuic acid derivative [15,16] 3 8.58 218.1, 276.9 ■ Gallic acid derivative Standard [17,18] 4 8.66 212.2, 251.5, Glycosylated Fla-15 26.91 219.2, 273.4, 293.5 □ Vanillic acid derivative [29,30] 16 28.01 204, 248.6 ○□●■ Terpene [24] 5 8.75 219.2, 249.8, 273.4 ● Lignane Standard [21,22] 6 8.81 215.7, 269.8, 337.4 ○□ Glycosylated Flavone. Apigenin de-Standard [19,20] For the case of Peak **5**, its UV-Vis pattern was comparable to those reported for lignane-type compounds. Similarly, Peak **8** presented characteristic bands associated with derivatives of coumaric acid [23]. On the other hand, for Peaks **12** and **18**, their UV-Vis spectra were characteristic of those reported for coumarin-type compounds [25–27].

between 8 and 12 min, while the second group has 7 peaks with *t*R from 26 to 29 min. Based on the retention times and the absorption bands in the UV-Vis spectra (Figures S1–S4) of the peaks shown in Table 2, it was possible to perform a preliminary analysis of each of the metabolites present in the extracts by comparing those parameters with known standards and data from the literature. Accordingly, for Peak **1**, the observed absorption were suggested by a preliminary comparison of retention time (*t*R) and UV-Vis bands with stand-As seen in Figure 1, the peaks in the chromatograms can be differentiated into two main groups based on their retention time (*t*R): the first group consists of 14 peaks with *t*<sup>R</sup> \* Extracts: Bark extracts, ● (**Ij-BD**), ■ (**Ij-BHac**); Leaf extracts, ○ (**Ij-LD**), □ (**Ij-LHac**). \*\* Compounds were suggested by a preliminary comparison of retention time (*t*R) and UV-Vis bands with stand-As seen in Figure 1, the peaks in the chromatograms can be differentiated into two [31] \* Extracts: Bark extracts, ● (**Ij-BD**), ■ (**Ij-BHac**); Leaf extracts, ○ (**Ij-LD**), □ (**Ij-LHac**). \*\* Compounds were suggested by a preliminary comparison of retention time (*t*R) and UV-Vis bands with standards and literature data. 21 28.81 263.9 ○□●■ Salicylate derivative Standard [31] \* Extracts: Bark extracts, ● (**Ij-BD**), ■ (**Ij-BHac**); Leaf extracts, ○ (**Ij-LD**), □ (**Ij-LHac**). \*\* Compounds were suggested by a preliminary comparison of retention time (*t*R) and UV-Vis bands with standards and literature data. 21 28.81 263.9 ○□●■ Salicylate derivative Standard [31] \* Extracts: Bark extracts, ● (**Ij-BD**), ■ (**Ij-BHac**); Leaf extracts, ○ (**Ij-LD**), □ (**Ij-LHac**). \*\* Compounds were suggested by a preliminary comparison of retention time (*t*R) and UV-Vis bands with standards and literature data. 20 28.65 200.5, 263.9 ○□●■ Salicylate derivative Standard [31] 21 28.81 263.9 ○□●■ Salicylate derivative Standard [31] \* Extracts: Bark extracts, ● (**Ij-BD**), ■ (**Ij-BHac**); Leaf extracts, ○ (**Ij-LD**), □ (**Ij-LHac**). \*\* Compounds 6 8.81 215.7, 269.8, 337.4 ○□ vone. Apigenin derivative Standard [19,20] rivative 6 8.81 215.7, 269.8, 337.4 ○□ vone. Apigenin derivative [19,20] 19 28.43 201.7, 261.6 ○□●■ Salicylate derivative Standard [31] 20 28.65 200.5, 263.9 ○□●■ Salicylate derivative Standard [31] 6 8.81 215.7, 269.8, 337.4 ○□ Glycosylated Flavone. Apigenin derivative Standard [19,20] 5 8.75 219.2, 249.8, 273.4 ● Lignane Standard [21,22] 6 8.81 215.7, 269.8, 337.4 ○□ Glycosylated Flavone. Apigenin derivative Standard [19,20] 18 28.21 245.1, 278.1, 327.9 ● Coumarin derivative [25–27] 19 28.43 201.7, 261.6 ○□●■ Salicylate derivative Standard [31] 20 28.65 200.5, 263.9 ○□●■ Salicylate derivative Standard 6 8.81 215.7, 269.8, 337.4 ○□ Glycosylated Flavone. Apigenin derivative Standard [19,20] 5 8.75 219.2, 249.8, 273.4 ● Lignane Standard [21,22] 6 8.81 215.7, 269.8, 337.4 ○□ Glycosylated Flavone. Apigenin de-Standard [19,20] 18 28.21 245.1, 278.1, 327.9 ● Coumarin derivative [25–27] 19 28.43 201.7, 261.6 ○■Standard [31] 273.4 ● Lignane Standard [21,22] 6 8.81 215.7, 269.8, 337.4 ○□ Glycosylated Flavone. Apigenin derivative Standard [19,20] rivative [19,20] 5 8.75 219.2, 249.8, 273.4 ● Lignane Standard [21,22] 6 8.81 215.7, 269.8, Glycosylated Flavone. Apigenin de-Standard 5 8.75 219.2, 249.8, 273.4 ● Lignane Standard [21,22] 6 8.81 215.7, 269.8, 337.4 ○□ Glycosylated Flavone. Apigenin de-Standard [19,20] 352.9 □ vone. Apigenin derivative Standard [19,20] 5 8.75 219.2, 249.8, 273.4 ● Lignane Standard [21,22] 17 28.11 278.1 ● Epigallocatechin Gallate derivative [28] 18 28.21 245.1, 278.1, 327.9 ● Coumarin derivative [25–27] 19 28.43 201.7, 261.6 ○□●■ Salicylate derivative Standard rivative Regarding the analysis of the UV-Vis spectra of Peaks **10**, **11**, **14**, and **16**, it was possible to associate them with previous reports for terpene derivatives [24]. Likewise, Peaks **13** and **17** were consistent with bibliographical data of epigallocatechin gallate derivatives [28], and Peak **15** may be associated with vanillic acid derivatives [29,30]. Finally, the absorption bands of Peaks **19**, **20**, and **21** were associated with salicylate derivatives [31].

bands at 220.4, 261.6, and 294.7 nm were equal with those of the protocatechuic acid standard, which when analyzed in identical chromatographic conditions presented the same *t*<sup>R</sup> (8.46 min). Since Peak **2** showed chromatographic behavior similar to **1** along with the analysis of the UV-Vis bands and the literature, it is inferred that it may be a derivative of protocatechuic acid [15,16]. Regarding Peaks **3** and **7**, when their *t*R and UV-Vis absorption bands were compared with the gallic acid standard (*t*R = 7.46 min, λmax = 220.4, 272.2 nm), a good match was found between 8 and 12 min, while the second group has 7 peaks with *t*R from 26 to 29 min. Based on the retention times and the absorption bands in the UV-Vis spectra (Figures S1–S4) of the peaks shown in Table 2, it was possible to perform a preliminary analysis of each of the metabolites present in the extracts by comparing those parameters with known standards and data from the literature. Accordingly, for Peak **1**, the observed absorption bands at 220.4, 261.6, and 294.7 nm were equal with those of the protocatechuic acid standard, which when analyzed in identical chromatographic conditions presented the same *t*<sup>R</sup> main groups based on their retention time (*t*R): the first group consists of 14 peaks with *t*<sup>R</sup> between 8 and 12 min, while the second group has 7 peaks with *t*R from 26 to 29 min. Based on the retention times and the absorption bands in the UV-Vis spectra (Figures S1–S4) of the peaks shown in Table 2, it was possible to perform a preliminary analysis of each of the metabolites present in the extracts by comparing those parameters with known standards and data from the literature. Accordingly, for Peak **1**, the observed absorption bands at 220.4, 261.6, and 294.7 nm were equal with those of the protocatechuic acid stand-As seen in Figure 1, the peaks in the chromatograms can be differentiated into two main groups based on their retention time (*t*R): the first group consists of 14 peaks with *t*<sup>R</sup> between 8 and 12 min, while the second group has 7 peaks with *t*R from 26 to 29 min. Based on the retention times and the absorption bands in the UV-Vis spectra (Figures S1–S4) of the peaks shown in Table 2, it was possible to perform a preliminary analysis of each of the metabolites present in the extracts by comparing those parameters with known standards and data from the literature. Accordingly, for Peak **1**, the observed absorption As seen in Figure 1, the peaks in the chromatograms can be differentiated into two main groups based on their retention time (*t*R): the first group consists of 14 peaks with *t*<sup>R</sup> between 8 and 12 min, while the second group has 7 peaks with *t*R from 26 to 29 min. Based on the retention times and the absorption bands in the UV-Vis spectra (Figures S1–S4) of the peaks shown in Table 2, it was possible to perform a preliminary analysis of each of the metabolites present in the extracts by comparing those parameters with known As seen in Figure 1, the peaks in the chromatograms can be differentiated into two main groups based on their retention time (*t*R): the first group consists of 14 peaks with *t*<sup>R</sup> between 8 and 12 min, while the second group has 7 peaks with *t*R from 26 to 29 min. Based on the retention times and the absorption bands in the UV-Vis spectra (Figures S1–S4) of the peaks shown in Table 2, it was possible to perform a preliminary analysis of each of the metabolites present in the extracts by comparing those parameters with known were suggested by a preliminary comparison of retention time (*t*R) and UV-Vis bands with stand-As seen in Figure 1, the peaks in the chromatograms can be differentiated into two main groups based on their retention time (*t*R): the first group consists of 14 peaks with *t*<sup>R</sup> between 8 and 12 min, while the second group has 7 peaks with *t*R from 26 to 29 min. Based on the retention times and the absorption bands in the UV-Vis spectra (Figures 21 28.81 263.9 ○□●■ Salicylate derivative Standard [31] \* Extracts: Bark extracts, ● (**Ij-BD**), ■ (**Ij-BHac**); Leaf extracts, ○ (**Ij-LD**), □ (**Ij-LHac**). \*\* Compounds were suggested by a preliminary comparison of retention time (*t*R) and UV-Vis bands with stand-As seen in Figure 1, the peaks in the chromatograms can be differentiated into two [31] 21 28.81 263.9 ○□●■ Salicylate derivative Standard [31] \* Extracts: Bark extracts, ● (**Ij-BD**), ■ (**Ij-BHac**); Leaf extracts, ○ **Ij-LD**), □ (**Ij-LHac**). \*\* Compounds were suggested by a preliminary comparison of retention time (*t*R) and UV-Vis bands with standrivative 20 28.65 200.5, 263.9 ○□●■ Salicylate derivative Standard [31] 21 28.81 263.9 ○□●■ Salicylate derivative Standard [31] \* Extracts: Bark extracts, ● (**Ij-BD**), ■ (**Ij-BHac**); Leaf extracts, ○ **Ij-LD**), □ (**Ij-LHac**). \*\* Compounds were suggested by a preliminary comparison of retention time (*t*R) and UV-Vis bands with stand-337.4 ○□ rivative [19,20] rivative 6 8.81 215.7, 269.8, 337.4 ○□ Glycosylated Flavone. Apigenin derivative Standard [19,20] [31] 20 28.65 200.5, 263.9 ○□●■ Salicylate derivative Standard [31] 21 28.81 263.9 ○□●■ Salicylate derivative Standard [31] \* Extracts: Bark extracts, ● (**Ij-BD**), ■ (**Ij-BHac**); Leaf extracts, ○ (**Ij-LD**), □ (**Ij-LHac**). \*\* Compounds were suggested by a preliminary comparison of retention time (*t*R) and UV-Vis bands with stand-Considering the above information, Peaks **10**, **11**, **16**, **19**, **20**, and **21**, attributed to terpenes and salicylates, were detected in the four extracts analyzed, whereas Peak **14**, which was also recognized as a terpene, was found in three extracts (absent in **Ij-BHac**). The two leaf extracts shared the presence of Peaks **6** and **12**, which were consistent with apigenin and coumarin derivatives, respectively. Despite this, as can be appreciated in Table 2, around 60% of the metabolites identified in the polar extracts of the bark and leaves of *Inga jinicuil* were only found in one extract.

in the UV-Vis spectrum; however, the differences in retention times suggested the presence of gallic acid derivatives [17,18]. The analysis of the UV-Vis bands for Peaks **4**, **6**, and **9** indicated that these compounds may be of the flavonoid type; this inference was strengthened when they were compared with an apigenin standard (*t*R = 16.76 min, λmax = 211, 267.5, 338.6 nm) and an identical match was found in their UV-Vis spectra. The differences in retention times led us to potentially consider these peaks as glycosylated analogs of this flavone [19,20]. (8.46 min). Since Peak **2** showed chromatographic behavior similar to **1** along with the analysis of the UV-Vis bands and the literature, it is inferred that it may be a derivative of protocatechuic acid [15,16]. Regarding Peaks **3** and **7**, when their *t*R and UV-Vis absorption bands were compared with the gallic acid standard (*t*R = 7.46 min, λmax = 220.4, 272.2 nm), a good match was found in the UV-Vis spectrum; however, the differences in retention times suggested the presence of gallic acid derivatives [17,18]. ard, which when analyzed in identical chromatographic conditions presented the same *t*<sup>R</sup> (8.46 min). Since Peak **2** showed chromatographic behavior similar to **1** along with the analysis of the UV-Vis bands and the literature, it is inferred that it may be a derivative of protocatechuic acid [15,16]. Regarding Peaks **3** and **7**, when their *t*R and UV-Vis absorption bands were compared with the gallic acid standard (*t*R = 7.46 min, λmax = 220.4, 272.2 nm), a good match was found in the UV-Vis spectrum; however, the differences in retention times suggested the presbands at 220.4, 261.6, and 294.7 nm were equal with those of the protocatechuic acid standard, which when analyzed in identical chromatographic conditions presented the same *t*<sup>R</sup> (8.46 min). Since Peak **2** showed chromatographic behavior similar to **1** along with the analysis of the UV-Vis bands and the literature, it is inferred that it may be a derivative of protocatechuic acid [15,16]. Regarding Peaks **3** and **7**, when their *t*R and UV-Vis absorption bands were compared with the gallic acid standard (*t*R = 7.46 min, λmax = 220.4, 272.2 nm), a good match was found standards and data from the literature. Accordingly, for Peak **1**, the observed absorption bands at 220.4, 261.6, and 294.7 nm were equal with those of the protocatechuic acid standard, which when analyzed in identical chromatographic conditions presented the same *t*<sup>R</sup> (8.46 min). Since Peak **2** showed chromatographic behavior similar to **1** along with the analysis of the UV-Vis bands and the literature, it is inferred that it may be a derivative of protocatechuic acid [15,16]. Regarding Peaks **3** and **7**, when their *t*R and UV-Vis absorption bands were compared standards and data from the literature. Accordingly, for Peak **1**, the observed absorption bands at 220.4, 261.6, and 294.7 nm were equal with those of the protocatechuic acid standard, which when analyzed in identical chromatographic conditions presented the same *t*<sup>R</sup> (8.46 min). Since Peak **2** showed chromatographic behavior similar to **1** along with the analysis of the UV-Vis bands and the literature, it is inferred that it may be a derivative of protocatechuic acid [15,16]. Regarding Peaks **3** and **7**, when their *t*R and UV-Vis absorption bands were compared S1–S4) of the peaks shown in Table 2, it was possible to perform a preliminary analysis of each of the metabolites present in the extracts by comparing those parameters with known standards and data from the literature. Accordingly, for Peak **1**, the observed absorption bands at 220.4, 261.6, and 294.7 nm were equal with those of the protocatechuic acid standard, which when analyzed in identical chromatographic conditions presented the same *t*<sup>R</sup> (8.46 min). Since Peak **2** showed chromatographic behavior similar to **1** along with the analysis of the UV-Vis bands and the literature, it is inferred that it may be a derivative of main groups based on their retention time (*t*R): the first group consists of 14 peaks with *t*<sup>R</sup> between 8 and 12 min, while the second group has 7 peaks with *t*R from 26 to 29 min. Based on the retention times and the absorption bands in the UV-Vis spectra (Figures S1–S4) of the peaks shown in Table 2, it was possible to perform a preliminary analysis of each of the metabolites present in the extracts by comparing those parameters with known standards and data from the literature. Accordingly, for Peak **1**, the observed absorption bands at 220.4, 261.6, and 294.7 nm were equal with those of the protocatechuic acid stand-As seen in Figure 1, the peaks in the chromatograms can be differentiated into two main groups based on their retention time (*t*R): the first group consists of 14 peaks with *t*<sup>R</sup> between 8 and 12 min, while the second group has 7 peaks with *t*R from 26 to 29 min. Based on the retention times and the absorption bands in the UV-Vis spectra (Figures S1–S4) of the peaks shown in Table 2, it was possible to perform a preliminary analysis of each of the metabolites present in the extracts by comparing those parameters with known standards and data from the literature. Accordingly, for Peak **1**, the observed absorption bands at 220.4, 261.6, and 294.7 nm were equal with those of the protocatechuic acid stand-As seen in Figure 1, the peaks in the chromatograms can be differentiated into two main groups based on their retention time (*t*R): the first group consists of 14 peaks with *t*<sup>R</sup> between 8 and 12 min, while the second group has 7 peaks with *t*R from 26 to 29 min. Based on the retention times and the absorption bands in the UV-Vis spectra (Figures S1–S4) of the peaks shown in Table 2, it was possible to perform a preliminary analysis of each of the metabolites present in the extracts by comparing those parameters with known standards and data from the literature. Accordingly, for Peak **1**, the observed absorption ards and literature data. As seen in Figure 1, the peaks in the chromatograms can be differentiated into two main groups based on their retention time (*t*R): the first group consists of 14 peaks with *t*<sup>R</sup> between 8 and 12 min, while the second group has 7 peaks with *t*R from 26 to 29 min. Based on the retention times and the absorption bands in the UV-Vis spectra (Figures S1–S4) of the peaks shown in Table 2, it was possible to perform a preliminary analysis of each of the metabolites present in the extracts by comparing those parameters with known It should be noted that, to date, no reports have been found on secondary metabolites present in bark or leaves from *I. jinicuil*, so this work represents a first approach for the phytochemical study of these organs of the plant. However, there are reports about the phytochemical composition for other species of the *Inga* genus, where the presence of a high content of polyphenols with an important antioxidant capacity has been demonstrated [31]. For *I. semialata* and *I. edulis*, the analysis of leaf extracts allowed the identification of compounds such as: epicatechin, apigenin C-di-hexoside, myricetin-*O*-hexose-deoxyhexose,

standards and data from the literature. Accordingly, for Peak **1**, the observed absorption

ard, which when analyzed in identical chromatographic conditions presented the same *t*<sup>R</sup> (8.46 min). Since Peak **2** showed chromatographic behavior similar to **1** along with the analysis of the UV-Vis bands and the literature, it is inferred that it may be a derivative of

Regarding Peaks **3** and **7**, when their *t*R and UV-Vis absorption bands were compared with the gallic acid standard (*t*R = 7.46 min, λmax = 220.4, 272.2 nm), a good match was found in the UV-Vis spectrum; however, the differences in retention times suggested the pres-

The analysis of the UV-Vis bands for Peaks **4**, **6**, and **9** indicated that these compounds may be of the flavonoid type; this inference was strengthened when they were compared with an apigenin standard (*t*R = 16.76 min, λmax = 211, 267.5, 338.6 nm) and an identical match was found in their UV-Vis spectra. The differences in retention times led us to potentially consider these peaks as glycosylated analogs of this flavone [19,20].

The analysis of the UV-Vis bands for Peaks **4**, **6**, and **9** indicated that these com-

with the gallic acid standard (*t*R = 7.46 min, λmax = 220.4, 272.2 nm), a good match was found in the UV-Vis spectrum; however, the differences in retention times suggested the pres-

in the UV-Vis spectrum; however, the differences in retention times suggested the pres-

with the gallic acid standard (*t*R = 7.46 min, λmax = 220.4, 272.2 nm), a good match was found

ard, which when analyzed in identical chromatographic conditions presented the same *t*<sup>R</sup> (8.46 min). Since Peak **2** showed chromatographic behavior similar to **1** along with the

ard, which when analyzed in identical chromatographic conditions presented the same *t*<sup>R</sup>

bands at 220.4, 261.6, and 294.7 nm were equal with those of the protocatechuic acid stand-

identical match was found in their UV-Vis spectra. The differences in retention times led us to potentially consider these peaks as glycosylated analogs of this flavone [19,20].

in the UV-Vis spectrum; however, the differences in retention times suggested the pres-

protocatechuic acid [15,16].

compared with an apigenin standard (*t*R = 16.76 min, λmax = 211, 267.5, 338.6 nm) and an identical match was found in their UV-Vis spectra. The differences in retention times led us to potentially consider these peaks as glycosylated analogs of this flavone [19,20].

analysis of the UV-Vis bands and the literature, it is inferred that it may be a derivative of

(8.46 min). Since Peak **2** showed chromatographic behavior similar to **1** along with the analysis of the UV-Vis bands and the literature, it is inferred that it may be a derivative of

pounds may be of the flavonoid type; this inference was strengthened when they were compared with an apigenin standard (*t*R = 16.76 min, λmax = 211, 267.5, 338.6 nm) and an identical match was found in their UV-Vis spectra. The differences in retention times led us to potentially consider these peaks as glycosylated analogs of this flavone [19,20].

The analysis of the UV-Vis bands for Peaks **4**, **6**, and **9** indicated that these compounds may be of the flavonoid type; this inference was strengthened when they were compared with an apigenin standard (*t*R = 16.76 min, λmax = 211, 267.5, 338.6 nm) and an identical match was found in their UV-Vis spectra. The differences in retention times led us to potentially consider these peaks as glycosylated analogs of this flavone [19,20].

Regarding Peaks **3** and **7**, when their *t*R and UV-Vis absorption bands were compared with the gallic acid standard (*t*R = 7.46 min, λmax = 220.4, 272.2 nm), a good match was found in the UV-Vis spectrum; however, the differences in retention times suggested the pres-

Regarding Peaks **3** and **7**, when their R and UV-Vis absorption bands were compared with the gallic acid standard (*t*R = 7.46 min, λmax = 220.4, 272.2 nm), a good match was found in the UV-Vis spectrum; however, the differences in retention times suggested the pres-

The analysis of the UV-Vis bands for Peaks **4**, **6**, and **9** indicated that these compounds may be of the flavonoid type; this inference was strengthened when they were compared with an apigenin standard (*t*R = 16.76 min, λmax = 211, 267.5, 338.6 nm) and an identical match was found in their UV-Vis spectra. The differences in retention times led us to potentially consider these peaks as glycosylated analogs of this flavone [19,20].

Regarding Peaks **3** and **7**, when their *t*R and UV-Vis absorption bands were compared with the gallic acid standard (*t*R = 7.46 min, λmax = 220.4, 272.2 nm), a good match was found in the UV-Vis spectrum; however, the differences in retention times suggested the pres-

The analysis of the UV-Vis bands for Peaks **4**, **6**, and **9** indicated that these compounds may be of the flavonoid type; this inference was strengthened when they were compared with an apigenin standard (*t*R = 16.76 min, λmax = 211, 267.5, 338.6 nm) and an identical match was found in their UV-Vis spectra. The differences in retention times led us to potentially consider these peaks as glycosylated analogs of this flavone [19,20].

The analysis of the UV-Vis bands for Peaks **4**, **6**, and **9** indicated that these compounds may be of the flavonoid type; this inference was strengthened when they were compared with an apigenin standard (*t*R = 16.76 min, λmax = 211, 267.5, 338.6 nm) and an identical match was found in their UV-Vis spectra. The differences in retention times led us to potentially consider these peaks as glycosylated analogs of this flavone [19,20].

The analysis of the UV-Vis bands for Peaks **4**, **6**, and **9** indicated that these compounds may be of the flavonoid type; this inference was strengthened when they were compared with an apigenin standard (*t*R = 16.76 min, λmax = 211, 267.5, 338.6 nm) and an identical match was found in their UV-Vis spectra. The differences in retention times led us to potentially consider these peaks as glycosylated analogs of this flavone [19,20].

ence of gallic acid derivatives [17,18].

The analysis of the UV-Vis bands for Peaks **4**, **6**, and **9** indicated that these compounds may be of the flavonoid type; this inference was strengthened when they were compared with an apigenin standard (*t*R = 16.76 min, λmax = 211, 267.5, 338.6 nm) and an identical match was found in their UV-Vis spectra. The differences in retention times led us to potentially consider these peaks as glycosylated analogs of this flavone [19,20].

myricetin-*O*-deoxyhexose, and vicenin-2 [9,32]. Likewise, other studies on leaf extracts from *I. edulis*, reported the presence of four triterpenes (lupeol, α-amirin, olean-18-ene acid, and frideline), three flavonoids, eight phenolic acids, an anthocyanin derived from delphinidin-3-glycoside, and a mixture of five acylated anthocyanins. It is important to highlight the fact that gallic acid, methyl gallate, protocatechuic acid, and quercetin were also identified [33]. For *I. laurina*, there is a presence of flavonoids 3-O-(2"-O-galloyl)-αrhamnopyranoside and myricetin-3-rhamnoside in leaf extracts [19], as well as gallic acid, myricetin derivatives, quercetin glycoside, and glycoside myricetin-3-O-rhamnosid from ethanolic extracts of leaves from this plant [20].

In view of the above-mentioned studies, our preliminary assessment of the phytochemical profile of *Inga jinicuil* allowed the identification of a chemotaxonomic resemblance with other species of the same genus, since a shared presence of phenolic and terpenic compounds, such as gallates, protocatechuic acid, and its derivatives, as well as flavonoids such as apigenin, can be recognized. It should be emphasized that in published work, the phytochemical research reports on *I semialata*, *I. eludis*, and *I. laurina* refer mainly to polar leaf extracts, whereas the phytochemical analysis of bark has been oriented to non-polar extracts (as discussed below). Therefore, this report also contributes to the identification of secondary metabolites in polar extracts from this organ for a species of the *Inga* genus.

### *2.2. Chemical Profile of Hexane Extracts from Bark and Leaves of I. jinicuil by GC-MS*

The analysis of the GC-MS chromatograms of **Ij-BH** and **Ij-LH** [Figure 2A,B] allowed the identification of 21 compounds, where 7 of them were only found in the bark extracts, 11 compounds only appeared in the analysis of the leaf extracts, and 3 werecommon to the extracts of both organs. Table 3 presents a list of the compounds detected arranged according to their elution order. The most abundant compounds detected for **Ij-BH** were prenol, α-tocopherol (relative abundance: 40.49%), and triterpene 24-methylenecycloartan-3-one (38.61%); these compounds represented approximately 80% of the content of this extract. For the **Ij-LH** extract, the triterpenes included lup-20 (29)-en-3-one (26.74%) and lupeol (16.44%), as well as the aliphatic compound hentriacontane (16.66%), all of which constituted nearly 60% of its metabolic content. The compounds identified in both extracts were hexadecanoic acid methyl ester, hexadecanoic acid ethyl ester, and octadecanoic acid methyl ester. It is worth mentioning that these three compounds were found in greater abundance in **Ij-BH**.

It is worth noting that this is the first report of a CG-MS analysis of hexanic extracts from *Inga jinicuil*. However, similar studies have been documented for other species of the *Inga* genus; such is the case for *I. edulis*, where triterpene compounds including lupeol and stigmasterol, as well as aliphatic compounds, have been identified from extracts of the bark and leaves [33,34]. Likewise, extracts from the bark and leaves of *I. laurina* have shown the presence of terpenes such as phytol, the aliphatic nonacosane, and esterified aliphatic acids [35], whereas in a hexanic fraction obtained from the leaves of *I. semialata*, the main compounds isolated were triterpenes, such as lupeol, α-amyrin, oleanolic acid, and friedelin [30]. In this report, the presence of esterified aliphatic acids was identified and, as in other species of the *Inga* genus, the presence of lupeol has been established. However, the following compounds: hentriacontane, α-tocopherol, lup-20 (29)-en-3-one and 24-methylenecycloartan-3-one, are reported for the first time for this genus.

in greater abundance in **Ij-BH**.

extracts were hexadecanoic acid methyl ester, hexadecanoic acid ethyl ester, and octadecanoic acid methyl ester. It is worth mentioning that these three compounds were found

**Figure 2.** GC chromatograms of the hexanic extracts: (**A**) **Ij-BH** and (**B**) **Ij-LH***.* The peaks are numbered in ascending order according to their retention times. **Figure 2.** GC chromatograms of the hexanic extracts: (**A**) **Ij-BH** and (**B**) **Ij-LH**. The peaks are numbered in ascending order according to their retention times.

### *2.3. Anti-Inflammatory Activity of Organic Extracts from Inga jinicuil*

**Table 3.** Phytochemicals identified in hexanic extracts from the bark (**Ij-BH**) and leaves (**Ij-LH**) of *Inga jinicuil* by GC-MS. **Peak Retention Time (min) Molecular Weight (amu) Extract(s) (% in the Sample) \* Compound \*\***  <sup>22</sup>17.80, 17.75 268.5 ▲ (1.07), △ (1.18) 2-pentadecanone,6,10,14-trimethyl 23 17.80 296.5 ▲ (1.07) 3,7,11,15-Tetramethyl-2-hexadecen-1-ol 24 18.55 270.5 △ (1.04) Hexadecanoic acid, methyl ester 25 18.61 276.3 △ (0.88) 7,9-Di-tert-butyl-1-oxaspiro(4,5)deca-6,9-diene-2,8 dione The results corresponding to the anti-inflammatory study of the organic extracts are presented in Figure 3. At the same dose of 1.0 mg/ear, all of the extracts showed anti-inflammatory activity. For the bark extracts, the percentages of inhibition were: **Ij-BH** 34.6 ± 3.0%, **Ij-BD** 67.3 ± 2.0%, and **Ij-BHac** 24.4 ±1.0%, and for leaf extracts, the corresponding percentages were: **Ij-LH** 34.9 ± 1.3%, **Ij-LD** 23.0 ± 1.0%, and **Ij-LHac** 49.6 ± 1.0%. For indomethacin (**Indo**), which was employed as the reference drug, the inhibition percentage was 75.5 ± 2.2%. As can be seen, the two extracts with the greatest anti-inflammatory activity were **Ij-BD** followed by **Ij-LHac**, and the statistical comparison between the anti-inflammatory activities of the extracts and the reference drug revealed significant differences (*p* < 0.05). No extract reached an effect equal to or greater than that of **Indo** (Indomethacin). However, the comparison using the Tukey test of the effect of the extracts and the reference drug showed that there were no significant differences (*p* < 0.05) between some of the extracts, such as **Ij-BH** compared to **Ij-LH** and **Ij-BHac** compared to **Ij-LD**.

26 18.68, 270.5 ▲ (3.83), Hexadecanoic acid, ethyl ester


The results corresponding to the anti-inflammatory study of the organic extracts are

\* Extracts: Bark extract (▲ (**Ij-BH**) and leaf extract (△ (**Ij-LH**). \*\* Compared with the National In-

*Plants* **2022**, *11*, x 7 of 15

*Plants* **2022**, *11*, x 7 of 15

18.61 △ (0.88)

20.47 298.5 ▲ (3.14),

20.47 298.5 ▲ (3.14),

18.61 △ (0.88)

20.47 298.5 ▲ (3.14),

18.61 △ (0.88)

20.47 298.5 ▲ (3.14),

20.47 298.5 ▲ (3.14),

18.61 (0.88)

18.61 △ (0.88)

*Plants* **2022**, *11*, x 7 of 15

*Plants* **2022**, *11*, x 7 of 15

*Plants* **2022**, *11*, x 7 of 15

32 29.19 518.7 △ (1.02)

32 29.19 518.7 △ (1.02)

*Plants* **2022**, *11*, x 7 of 15

*Plants* **2022**, *11*, x 7 of 15

*Plants* **2022**, *11*, x 7 of 15

*Plants* **2022**, *11*, x 7 of 15

*Plants* **2022**, *11*, x 7 of 15

18.61 △ (0.88)

18.61 △ (0.88)

*Plants* **2022**, *11*, x 7 of 15

<sup>28</sup>20.60,

<sup>28</sup>20.60,

<sup>28</sup>20.60,

<sup>28</sup>20.60,

<sup>28</sup>20.60,

27 20.51 296.5 ▲ (11.74) Phytol

27 20.51 296.5 ▲ (11.74) Phytol

27 20.51 296.5 ▲ (11.74) Phytol

27 20.51 296.5 ▲ (11.74) Phytol

27 20.51 296.5 ▲ (11.74) Phytol

29 22.53 324.5 △ (1.35) 4,8,12,16-tetramethylheptade-

30 24.63 390.6 △ (0.80) 1,2-benzenedicarboxylic acid

29 22.53 324.5 △ (1.35) 4,8,12,16-tetramethylheptade-

31 27.76 380.6 △ (1.62) 15-Tetracosenoic acid, methyl

31 27.76 380.6 △ (1.62) 15-Tetracosenoic acid, methyl

30 24.63 390.6 △ (0.80) 1,2-benzenedicarboxylic acid

29 22.53 324.5 △ (1.35) 4,8,12,16-tetramethylheptade-

29 22.53 324.5 △ (1.35) 4,8,12,16-tetramethylheptade-

31 27.76 380.6 △ (1.62) 15-Tetracosenoic acid, methyl

30 24.63 390.6 △ (0.80) 1,2-benzenedicarboxylic acid

30 24.63 390.6 △ (0.80) 1,2-benzenedicarboxylic acid

29 22.53 324.5 △ (1.35) 4,8,12,16-tetramethylheptade-

30 24.63 390.6 △ (0.80) 1,2-benzenedicarboxylic acid

**Table 3.** Phytochemicals identified in hexanic extracts from the bark (**Ij-BH**) and leaves (**Ij-LH**) of *Inga jinicuil* by GC-MS. ester 33 29.21 410.7 ▲ (5.98) Squalene 34 30.05 408.8 ▲ (12.55) Nonacosane 27 20.51 296.5 ▲ (11.74) Phytol <sup>28</sup>20.60, 20.47 298.5 ▲ (3.14), thyl-3-oxobenz [e] azulen-8-yl ester 18.61 △ (0.88) 27 20.51 296.5 ▲ (11.74) Phytol Tetradecanoic acid, 3,3a,4,6a,7,8,9,10,10a, 10bdecahydro-3a, 10a, dihydroxy-*Plants* **2022**, *11*, x 7 of 15 31 27.76 380.6 △ (1.62) 15-Tetracosenoic acid, methyl ester Tetradecanoic acid, 31 27.76 380.6 △ (1.62) 15-Tetracosenoic acid, methyl ester 27 20.51 296.5 ▲ (11.74) Phytol <sup>28</sup>20.60, 18.61 △ (0.88) 27 20.51 296.5 ▲ (11.74) Phytol 18.61 △ (0.88) 18.61 △ (0.88)

△ (0.44) Octadecanoic acid, methyl ester

△ (0.44) Octadecanoic acid, methyl ester

△ (0.44) Octadecanoic acid, methyl ester

△ (0.44) Octadecanoic acid, methyl ester

△ (0.44) Octadecanoic acid, methyl ester

can-4-olide

diisooctyl ester

can-4-olide

ester

diisooctyl ester

Tetradecanoic acid, 3,3a,4,6a,7,8,9,10,10a, 10bdecahydro-3a, 10a, dihydroxy-5-(hydroxymethyl)-2, 10-dimethyl-3-oxobenz [e] azulen-8-yl

can-4-olide

ester

Tetradecanoic acid, 3,3a,4,6a,7,8,9,10,10a, 10bdecahydro-3a, 10a, dihydroxy-5-(hydroxymethyl)-2, 10-dime-

can-4-olide

diisooctyl ester

can-4-olide

ester

diisooctyl ester

diisooctyl ester

The results corresponding to the anti-inflammatory study of the organic extracts are presented in Figure 3. At the same dose of 1.0 mg/ear, all of the extracts showed anti-It is worth noting that this is the first report of a CG-MS analysis of hexanic extracts *2.3. Anti-Inflammatory Activity of Organic Extracts from Inga jinicuil*  \* Extracts: Bark extract (▲ (**Ij-BH**) and leaf extract (△ (**Ij-LH**). \*\* Compared with the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) 1.7 Library. methylene-, (3β)- \* Extracts: Bark extract (▲ (**Ij-BH**) and leaf extract (△ (**Ij-LH**). \*\* Compared with the National Inand, as in other species of the *Inga* genus, the presence of lupeol has been established. However, the following compounds: hentriacontane, α-tocopherol, lup-20 (29)-en-3-one 41 38.64 412.7 △ (2.27) Stigmast-4-en-3-one 42 41.85 440.7 △ (4.99) 9,19-Cyclolanostan-3-ol,24 the main compounds isolated were triterpenes, such as lupeol, α-amyrin, oleanolic acid, and friedelin [30]. In this report, the presence of esterified aliphatic acids was identified the main compounds isolated were triterpenes, such as lupeol, α-amyrin, oleanolic acid, and friedelin [30]. In this report, the presence of esterified aliphatic acids was identified 39 37.39 426.7 △ (16.43) Lupeol 40 38.35 438.7 △ (38.61) 24-Methylenecycloartan-3-one 38 36.91 424.7 △ (26.74) Lup-20 (29)-en-3-one 39 37.39 426.7 △ (16.43) Lupeol 37 33.07 430.7 ▲ (40.49) α-Tocopherol 38 36.91 424.7 △ (26.74) Lup-20 (29)-en-3-one 36 32.44 436.8 ▲ (16.66) Hentriacontane 37 33.07 430.7 ▲ (40.49) α-Tocopherol 34 30.05 408.8 ▲ (12.55) Nonacosane 35 31.95 416.7 ▲ (3.74) *β*-Tocopherol It is worth noting that this is the first report of a CG-MS analysis of hexanic extracts stitute of Standards and Technology (NIST) 1.7 Library. \* Extracts: Bark extract (▲ (**Ij-BH**) and leaf extract (△ (**Ij-LH**). \*\* Compared with the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) 1.7 Library. methylene-, (3β)- \* Extracts: Bark extract (▲ (**Ij-BH**) and leaf extract (△ (**Ij-LH**). \*\* Compared with the National In-42 41.85 440.7 △ (4.99) 9,19-Cyclolanostan-3-ol,24 methylene-, (3β)- 3,3a,4,6a,7,8,9,10,10a, 10bdecahydro-3a, 10a, dihydroxy-Tetradecanoic acid, 3,3a,4,6a,7,8,9,10,10a, 10bester Tetradecanoic acid, 31 27.76 380.6 △ (1.62) 15-Tetracosenoic acid, methyl ester 31 27.76 380.6 △ (1.62) 15-Tetracosenoic acid, methyl ester \* Extracts: Bark extract ( 37 33.07 430.7 ▲ (40.49) α-Tocopherol 38 36.91 424.7 △ (26.74) Lup-20 (29)-en-3-one (**Ij-BH**) and leaf extract ( 30 24.63 390.6 △ (0.80) 1,2-benzenedicarboxylic acid diisooctyl ester (**Ij-LH**). \*\* Compared with the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) 1.7 Library.

3,3a,4,6a,7,8,9,10,10a, 10b-

Tetradecanoic acid,

inflammatory activity. For the bark extracts, the percentages of inhibition were: **Ij-BH** 34.6 ± 3.0%, **Ij-BD** 67.3 ± 2.0%, and **Ij-BHac** 24.4 ±1.0%, and for leaf extracts, the corresponding percentages were: **Ij-LH** 34.9 ± 1.3%, **Ij-LD** 23.0 ± 1.0%, and **Ij-LHac** 49.6 ± 1.0%. For indomethacin (**Indo**), which was employed as the reference drug, the inhibition percentage was 75.5 ± 2.2%. As can be seen, the two extracts with the greatest anti-inflammatory activity were **Ij-BD** followed by **Ij-LHac**, and the statistical comparison between the anti from *Inga jinicuil*. However, similar studies have been documented for other species of the *Inga* genus; such is the case for *I. edulis*, where triterpene compounds including lupeol and stigmasterol, as well as aliphatic compounds, have been identified from extracts of the bark and leaves [33,34]. Likewise, extracts from the bark and leaves of *I. laurina* have shown the presence of terpenes such as phytol, the aliphatic nonacosane, and esterified aliphatic acids [35], whereas in a hexanic fraction obtained from the leaves of *I. semialata*, the main compounds isolated were triterpenes, such as lupeol, α-amyrin, oleanolic acid, and friedelin [30]. In this report, the presence of esterified aliphatic acids was identified and, as in other species of the *Inga* genus, the presence of lupeol has been established. However, the following compounds: hentriacontane, α-tocopherol, lup-20 (29)-en-3-one and 24-methylenecycloartan-3-one, are reported for the first time for this genus. *2.3. Anti-Inflammatory Activity of Organic Extracts from Inga jinicuil*  The results corresponding to the anti-inflammatory study of the organic extracts are presented in Figure 3. At the same dose of 1.0 mg/ear, all of the extracts showed antiinflammatory activity. For the bark extracts, the percentages of inhibition were: **Ij-BH** 34.6 ± 3.0%, **Ij-BD** 67.3 ± 2.0%, and **Ij-BHac** 24.4 ±1.0%, and for leaf extracts, the corresponding percentages were: **Ij-LH** 34.9 ± 1.3%, **Ij-LD** 23.0 ± 1.0%, and **Ij-LHac** 49.6 ± 1.0%. For indomethacin (**Indo**), which was employed as the reference drug, the inhibition percentage was 75.5 ± 2.2%. As can be seen, the two extracts with the greatest anti-inflammatory acpresented in Figure 3. At the same dose of 1.0 mg/ear, all of the extracts showed antiinflammatory activity. For the bark extracts, the percentages of inhibition were: **Ij-BH** 34.6 ± 3.0%, **Ij-BD** 67.3 ± 2.0%, and **Ij-BHac** 24.4 ±1.0%, and for leaf extracts, the corresponding percentages were: **Ij-LH** 34.9 ± 1.3%, **Ij-LD** 23.0 ± 1.0%, and **Ij-LHac** 49.6 ± 1.0%. For indomethacin (**Indo**), which was employed as the reference drug, the inhibition percentage was 75.5 ± 2.2%. As can be seen, the two extracts with the greatest anti-inflammatory activity were **Ij-BD** followed by **Ij-LHac**, and the statistical comparison between the anti- It is worth noting that this is the first report of a CG-MS analysis of hexanic extracts from *Inga jinicuil*. However, similar studies have been documented for other species of the *Inga* genus; such is the case for *I. edulis*, where triterpene compounds including lupeol and stigmasterol, as well as aliphatic compounds, have been identified from extracts of the bark and leaves [33,34]. Likewise, extracts from the bark and leaves of *I. laurina* have shown the presence of terpenes such as phytol, the aliphatic nonacosane, and esterified aliphatic acids [35], whereas in a hexanic fraction obtained from the leaves of *I. semialata*, the main compounds isolated were triterpenes, such as lupeol, α-amyrin, oleanolic acid, and friedelin [30]. In this report, the presence of esterified aliphatic acids was identified and, as in other species of the *Inga* genus, the presence of lupeol has been established. However, the following compounds: hentriacontane, α-tocopherol, lup-20 (29)-en-3-one and 24-methylenecycloartan-3-one, are reported for the first time for this genus. *2.3. Anti-Inflammatory Activity of Organic Extracts from Inga jinicuil*  The results corresponding to the anti-inflammatory study of the organic extracts are presented in Figure 3. At the same dose of 1.0 mg/ear, all of the extracts showed antiinflammatory activity. For the bark extracts, the percentages of inhibition were: **Ij-BH** 34.6 ± 3.0%, **Ij-BD** 67.3 ± 2.0%, and **Ij-BHac** 24.4 ±1.0%, and for leaf extracts, the corresponding percentages were: **Ij-LH** 34.9 ± 1.3%, **Ij-LD** 23.0 ± 1.0%, and **Ij-LHac** 49.6 ± 1.0%. For indomethacin (**Indo**), which was employed as the reference drug, the inhibition percentage stitute of Standards and Technology (NIST) 1.7 Library. It is worth noting that this is the first report of a CG-MS analysis of hexanic extracts from *Inga jinicuil*. However, similar studies have been documented for other species of the *Inga* genus; such is the case for *I. edulis*, where triterpene compounds including lupeol and stigmasterol, as well as aliphatic compounds, have been identified from extracts of the bark and leaves [33,34]. Likewise, extracts from the bark and leaves of *I. laurina* have shown the presence of terpenes such as phytol, the aliphatic nonacosane, and esterified aliphatic acids [35], whereas in a hexanic fraction obtained from the leaves of *I. semialata*, the main compounds isolated were triterpenes, such as lupeol, α-amyrin, oleanolic acid, friedelin [30]. In this report, the presence of esterified aliphatic acids was identified and, as in other species of the *Inga* genus, the presence of lupeol has been established. However, the following compounds: hentriacontane, α-tocopherol, lup-20 (29)-en-3-one and 24-methylenecycloartan-3-one, are reported for the first time for this genus. *2.3. Anti-Inflammatory Activity of Organic Extracts from Inga jinicuil*  The results corresponding to the anti-inflammatory study of the organic extracts are presented in Figure 3. At the same dose of 1.0 mg/ear, all of the extracts showed antiinflammatory activity. For the bark extracts, the percentages of inhibition were: **Ij-BH** 34.6 ± 3.0%, **Ij-BD** 67.3 ± 2.0%, and **Ij-BHac** 24.4 ±1.0%, and for leaf extracts, the corresponding and 24-methylenecycloartan-3-one, are reported for the first time for this genus. *2.3. Anti-Inflammatory Activity of Organic Extracts from Inga jinicuil*  The results corresponding to the anti-inflammatory study of the organic extracts are presented in Figure 3. At the same dose of 1.0 mg/ear, all of the extracts showed antiinflammatory activity. For the bark extracts, the percentages of inhibition were: **Ij-BH** 34.6 ± 3.0%, **Ij-BD** 67.3 ± 2.0%, and **Ij-BHac** 24.4 ±1.0%, and for leaf extracts, the corresponding percentages were: **Ij-LH** 34.9 ± 1.3%, **Ij-LD** 23.0 ± 1.0%, and **Ij-LHac** 49.6 ± 1.0%. For indomethacin (**Indo**), which was employed as the reference drug, the inhibition percentage was 75.5 ± 2.2%. As can be seen, the two extracts with the greatest anti-inflammatory activity were **Ij-BD** followed by **Ij-LHac**, and the statistical comparison between the anti methylene-, (3β)- \* Extracts: Bark extract (▲ (**Ij-BH**) and leaf extract (△ (**Ij-LH**). \*\* Compared with the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) 1.7 Library. It is worth noting that this is the first report of a CG-MS analysis of hexanic extracts from *Inga jinicuil*. However, similar studies have been documented for other species of the *Inga* genus; such is the case for *I. edulis*, where triterpene compounds including lupeol and stigmasterol, as well as aliphatic compounds, have been identified from extracts of the bark and leaves [33,34]. Likewise, extracts from the bark and leaves of *I. laurina* have shown the presence of terpenes such as phytol, the aliphatic nonacosane, and esterified aliphatic acids [35], whereas in a hexanic fraction obtained from the leaves of *I. semialata*, the main compounds isolated were triterpenes, such as lupeol, α-amyrin, oleanolic acid, and friedelin [30]. In this report, the presence of esterified aliphatic acids was identified and, as in other species of the *Inga* genus, the presence of lupeol has been established. However, the following compounds: hentriacontane, α-tocopherol, lup-20 (29)-en-3-one and 24-methylenecycloartan-3-one, are reported for the first time for this genus. *2.3. Anti-Inflammatory Activity of Organic Extracts from Inga jinicuil*  The results corresponding to the anti-inflammatory study of the organic extracts are presented in Figure 3. At the same dose of 1.0 mg/ear, all of the extracts showed antiand, as in other species of the *Inga* genus, the presence of lupeol has been established. However, the following compounds: hentriacontane, α-tocopherol, lup-20 (29)-en-3-one and 24-methylenecycloartan-3-one, are reported for the first time for this genus. *2.3. Anti-Inflammatory Activity of Organic Extracts from Inga jinicuil*  The results corresponding to the anti-inflammatory study of the organic extracts are presented in Figure 3. At the same dose of 1.0 mg/ear, all of the extracts showed antiinflammatory activity. For the bark extracts, the percentages of inhibition were: **Ij-BH** 34.6 ± 3.0%, **Ij-BD** 67.3 ± 2.0%, and **Ij-BHac** 24.4 ±1.0%, and for leaf extracts, the corresponding percentages were: **Ij-LH** 34.9 ± 1.3%, **Ij-LD** 23.0 ± 1.0%, and **Ij-LHac** 49.6 ± 1.0%. For indomethacin (**Indo**), which was employed as the reference drug, the inhibition percentage was 75.5 ± 2.2%. As can be seen, the two extracts with the greatest anti-inflammatory activity were **Ij-BD** followed by **Ij-LHac**, and the statistical comparison between the anti and, as in other species of the *Inga* genus, the presence of lupeol has been established. However, the following compounds: hentriacontane, α-tocopherol, lup-20 (29)-en-3-one and 24-methylenecycloartan-3-one, are reported for the first time for this genus. *2.3. Anti-Inflammatory Activity of Organic Extracts from Inga jinicuil*  The results corresponding to the anti-inflammatory study of the organic extracts are presented in Figure 3. At the same dose of 1.0 mg/ear, all of the extracts showed antiinflammatory activity. For the bark extracts, the percentages of inhibition were: **Ij-BH** 34.6 ± 3.0%, **Ij-BD** 67.3 ± 2.0%, and **Ij-BHac** 24.4 ±1.0%, and for leaf extracts, the corresponding percentages were: **Ij-LH** 34.9 ± 1.3%, **Ij-LD** 23.0 ± 1.0%, and **Ij-LHac** 49.6 ± 1.0%. For indomethacin (**Indo**), which was employed as the reference drug, the inhibition percentage was 75.5 ± 2.2%. As can be seen, the two extracts with the greatest anti-inflammatory activity were **Ij-BD** followed by **Ij-LHac**, and the statistical comparison between the anti- 41 38.64 412.7 △ (2.27) Stigmast-4-en-3-one 42 41.85 440.7 △ (4.99) 9,19-Cyclolanostan-3-ol,24 methylene-, (3β)- \* Extracts: Bark extract (▲ (**Ij-BH**) and leaf extract (△ (**Ij-LH**). \*\* Compared with the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) 1.7 Library. It is worth noting that this is the first report of a CG-MS analysis of hexanic extracts from *Inga jinicuil*. However, similar studies have been documented for other species of the *Inga* genus; such is the case for *I. edulis*, where triterpene compounds including lupeol and stigmasterol, as well as aliphatic compounds, have been identified from extracts of the bark and leaves [33,34]. Likewise, extracts from the bark and leaves of *I. laurina* have shown the presence of terpenes such as phytol, the aliphatic nonacosane, and esterified aliphatic acids [35], whereas in a hexanic fraction obtained from the leaves of *I. semialata*, the main compounds isolated were triterpenes, such as lupeol, α-amyrin, oleanolic acid, and friedelin [30]. In this report, the presence of esterified aliphatic acids was identified and, as in other species of the *Inga* genus, the presence of lupeol has been established. However, the following compounds: hentriacontane, α-tocopherol, lup-20 (29)-en-3-one and 24-methylenecycloartan-3-one, are reported for the first time for this genus. *2.3. Anti-Inflammatory Activity of Organic Extracts from Inga jinicuil*  40 38.35 438.7 △ (38.61) 24-Methylenecycloartan-3-one 41 38.64 412.7 △ (2.27) Stigmast-4-en-3-one 42 41.85 440.7 △ (4.99) 9,19-Cyclolanostan-3-ol,24 methylene-, (3β)- \* Extracts: Bark extract (▲ (**Ij-BH**) and leaf extract (△ (**Ij-LH**). \*\* Compared with the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) 1.7 Library. It is worth noting that this is the first report of a CG-MS analysis of hexanic extracts from *Inga jinicuil*. However, similar studies have been documented for other species of the *Inga* genus; such is the case for *I. edulis*, where triterpene compounds including lupeol and stigmasterol, as well as aliphatic compounds, have been identified from extracts of the bark and leaves [33,34]. Likewise, extracts from the bark and leaves of *I. laurina* have shown the presence of terpenes such as phytol, the aliphatic nonacosane, and esterified aliphatic acids [35], whereas in a hexanic fraction obtained from the leaves of *I. semialata*, the main compounds isolated were triterpenes, such as lupeol, α-amyrin, oleanolic acid, and friedelin [30]. In this report, the presence of esterified aliphatic acids was identified and, as in other species of the *Inga* genus, the presence of lupeol has been established. However, the following compounds: hentriacontane, α-tocopherol, lup-20 (29)-en-3-one and 24-methylenecycloartan-3-one, are reported for the first time for this genus. 39 37.39 426.7 △ (16.43) Lupeol 40 38.35 438.7 △ (38.61) 24-Methylenecycloartan-3-one 41 38.64 412.7 △ (2.27) Stigmast-4-en-3-one 42 41.85 440.7 △ (4.99) 9,19-Cyclolanostan-3-ol,24 methylene-, (3β)- \* Extracts: Bark extract (▲ (**Ij-BH**) and leaf extract (△ (**Ij-LH**). \*\* Compared with the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) 1.7 Library. It is worth noting that this is the first report of a CG-MS analysis of hexanic extracts from *Inga jinicuil*. However, similar studies have been documented for other species of the *Inga* genus; such is the case for *I. edulis*, where triterpene compounds including lupeol and stigmasterol, as well as aliphatic compounds, have been identified from extracts of the bark and leaves [33,34]. Likewise, extracts from the bark and leaves of *I. laurina* have shown the presence of terpenes such as phytol, the aliphatic nonacosane, and esterified aliphatic acids [35], whereas in a hexanic fraction obtained from the leaves of *I. semialata*, the main compounds isolated were triterpenes, such as lupeol, α-amyrin, oleanolic acid, and friedelin [30]. In this report, the presence of esterified aliphatic acids was identified and, as in other species of the *Inga* genus, the presence of lupeol has been established. However, the following compounds: hentriacontane, α-tocopherol, lup-20 (29)-en-3-one and 24-methylenecycloartan-3-one, are reported for the first time for this genus. 38 36.91 424.7 △ (26.74) Lup-20 (29)-en-3-one 39 37.39 426.7 △ (16.43) Lupeol 40 38.35 438.7 △ (38.61) 24-Methylenecycloartan-3-one 41 38.64 412.7 △ (2.27) Stigmast-4-en-3-one 42 41.85 440.7 △ (4.99) 9,19-Cyclolanostan-3-ol,24 methylene-, (3β)- \* Extracts: Bark extract (▲ (**Ij-BH**) and leaf extract (△ (**Ij-LH**). \*\* Compared with the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) 1.7 Library. It is worth noting that this is the first report of a CG-MS analysis of hexanic extracts from *Inga jinicuil*. However, similar studies have been documented for other species of the *Inga* genus; such is the case for *I. edulis*, where triterpene compounds including lupeol and stigmasterol, as well as aliphatic compounds, have been identified from extracts of the bark and leaves [33,34]. Likewise, extracts from the bark and leaves of *I. laurina* have shown the presence of terpenes such as phytol, the aliphatic nonacosane, and esterified aliphatic acids [35], whereas in a hexanic fraction obtained from the leaves of *I. semialata*, the main compounds isolated were triterpenes, such as lupeol, α-amyrin, oleanolic acid, and friedelin [30]. In this report, the presence of esterified aliphatic acids was identified and, as in other species of the *Inga* genus, the presence of lupeol has been established. However, the following compounds: hentriacontane, α-tocopherol, lup-20 (29)-en-3-one 36 32.44 436.8 ▲ (16.66) Hentriacontane 37 33.07 430.7 ▲ (40.49) α-Tocopherol 38 36.91 424.7 △ (26.74) Lup-20 (29)-en-3-one 39 37.39 426.7 △ (16.43) Lupeol 40 38.35 438.7 △ (38.61) 24-Methylenecycloartan-3-one 41 38.64 412.7 △ (2.27) Stigmast-4-en-3-one 42 41.85 440.7 △ (4.99) 9,19-Cyclolanostan-3-ol,24 methylene-, (3β)- \* Extracts: Bark extract (▲ (**Ij-BH**) and leaf extract (△ (**Ij-LH**). \*\* Compared with the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) 1.7 Library. It is worth noting that this is the first report of a CG-MS analysis of hexanic extracts from *Inga jinicuil*. However, similar studies have been documented for other species of the *Inga* genus; such is the case for *I. edulis*, where triterpene compounds including lupeol and stigmasterol, as well as aliphatic compounds, have been identified from extracts of the bark and leaves [33,34]. Likewise, extracts from the bark and leaves of *I. laurina* have shown the presence of terpenes such as phytol, the aliphatic nonacosane, and esterified aliphatic acids [35], whereas in a hexanic fraction obtained from the leaves of *I. semialata*, the main compounds isolated were triterpenes, such as lupeol, α-amyrin, oleanolic acid, friedelin [30]. In this report, the presence of esterified aliphatic acids was identified from *Inga jinicuil*. However, similar studies have been documented for other species of the *Inga* genus; such is the case for *I. edulis*, where triterpene compounds including lupeol and stigmasterol, as well as aliphatic compounds, have been identified from extracts of the bark and leaves [33,34]. Likewise, extracts from the bark and leaves of *I. laurina* have shown the presence of terpenes such as phytol, the aliphatic nonacosane, and esterified aliphatic acids [35], whereas in a hexanic fraction obtained from the leaves of *I. semialata*, the main compounds isolated were triterpenes, such as lupeol, α-amyrin, oleanolic acid, and friedelin [30]. In this report, the presence of esterified aliphatic acids was identified and, as in other species of the *Inga* genus, the presence of lupeol has been established. However, the following compounds: hentriacontane, α-tocopherol, lup-20 (29)-en-3-one and 24-methylenecycloartan-3-one, are reported for the first time for this genus. *2.3. Anti-Inflammatory Activity of Organic Extracts from Inga jinicuil*  The results corresponding to the anti-inflammatory study of the organic extracts are presented in Figure 3. At the same dose of 1.0 mg/ear, all of the extracts showed antiinflammatory activity. For the bark extracts, the percentages of inhibition were: **Ij-BH** 34.6 ± 3.0%, **Ij-BD** 67.3 ± 2.0%, and **Ij-BHac** 24.4 ±1.0%, and for leaf extracts, the corresponding percentages were: **Ij-LH** 34.9 ± 1.3%, **Ij-LD** 23.0 ± 1.0%, and **Ij-LHac** 49.6 ± 1.0%. For indomethacin (**Indo**), which was employed as the reference drug, the inhibition percentage was 75.5 ± 2.2%. As can be seen, the two extracts with the greatest anti-inflammatory ac-It is worth noting that this is the first report of a CG-MS analysis of hexanic extracts from *Inga jinicuil*. However, similar studies have been documented for other species of the *Inga* genus; such is the case for *I. edulis*, where triterpene compounds including lupeol and stigmasterol, as well as aliphatic compounds, have been identified from extracts of the bark and leaves [33,34]. Likewise, extracts from the bark and leaves of *I. laurina* have shown the presence of terpenes such as phytol, the aliphatic nonacosane, and esterified aliphatic acids [35], whereas in a hexanic fraction obtained from the leaves of *I. semialata*, the main compounds isolated were triterpenes, such as lupeol, α-amyrin, oleanolic acid, and friedelin [30]. In this report, the presence of esterified aliphatic acids was identified and, as in other species of the *Inga* genus, the presence of lupeol has been established. However, the following compounds: hentriacontane, α-tocopherol, lup-20 (29)-en-3-one and 24-methylenecycloartan-3-one, are reported for the first time for this genus. *2.3. Anti-Inflammatory Activity of Organic Extracts from Inga jinicuil*  The results corresponding to the anti-inflammatory study of the organic extracts are presented in Figure 3. At the same dose of 1.0 mg/ear, all of the extracts showed antiinflammatory activity. For the bark extracts, the percentages of inhibition were: **Ij-BH** 34.6 ± 3.0%, **Ij-BD** 67.3 ± 2.0%, and **Ij-BHac** 24.4 ±1.0%, and for leaf extracts, the corresponding percentages were: **Ij-LH** 34.9 ± 1.3%, **Ij-LD** 23.0 ± 1.0%, and **Ij-LHac** 49.6 ± 1.0%. For indomethacin (**Indo**), which was employed as the reference drug, the inhibition percentage It is worth noting that this is the first report of a CG-MS analysis of hexanic extracts from *Inga jinicuil*. However, similar studies have been documented for other species of the *Inga* genus; such is the case for *I. edulis*, where triterpene compounds including lupeol and stigmasterol, as well as aliphatic compounds, have been identified from extracts of the bark and leaves [33,34]. Likewise, extracts from the bark and leaves of *I. laurina* have shown the presence of terpenes such as phytol, the aliphatic nonacosane, and esterified aliphatic acids [35], whereas in a hexanic fraction obtained from the leaves of *I. semialata*, the main compounds isolated were triterpenes, such as lupeol, α-amyrin, oleanolic acid, and friedelin [30]. In this report, the presence of esterified aliphatic acids was identified and, as in other species of the *Inga* genus, the presence of lupeol has been established. However, the following compounds: hentriacontane, α-tocopherol, lup-20 (29)-en-3-one and 24-methylenecycloartan-3-one, are reported for the first time for this genus. *2.3. Anti-Inflammatory Activity of Organic Extracts from Inga jinicuil*  The results corresponding to the anti-inflammatory study of the organic extracts are presented in Figure 3. At the same dose of 1.0 mg/ear, all of the extracts showed antiinflammatory activity. For the bark extracts, the percentages of inhibition were: **Ij-BH** 34.6 ± 3.0%, **Ij-BD** 67.3 ± 2.0%, and **Ij-BHac** 24.4 ±1.0%, and for leaf extracts, the corresponding percentages were: **Ij-LH** 34.9 ± 1.3%, **Ij-LD** 23.0 ± 1.0%, and **Ij-LHac** 49.6 ± 1.0%. For indo-It is worth noting that this is the first report of a CG-MS analysis of hexanic extracts from *Inga jinicuil*. However, similar studies have been documented for other species of the *Inga* genus; such is the case for *I. edulis*, where triterpene compounds including lupeol and stigmasterol, as well as aliphatic compounds, have been identified from extracts of the bark and leaves [33,34]. Likewise, extracts from the bark and leaves of *I. laurina* have shown the presence of terpenes such as phytol, the aliphatic nonacosane, and esterified aliphatic acids [35], whereas in a hexanic fraction obtained from the leaves of *I. semialata*, the main compounds isolated were triterpenes, such as lupeol, α-amyrin, oleanolic acid, and friedelin [30]. In this report, the presence of esterified aliphatic acids was identified and, as in other species of the *Inga* genus, the presence of lupeol has been established. However, the following compounds: hentriacontane, α-tocopherol, lup-20 (29)-en-3-one and 24-methylenecycloartan-3-one, are reported for the first time for this genus. *2.3. Anti-Inflammatory Activity of Organic Extracts from Inga jinicuil*  The results corresponding to the anti-inflammatory study of the organic extracts are presented in Figure 3. At the same dose of 1.0 mg/ear, all of the extracts showed antiinflammatory activity. For the bark extracts, the percentages of inhibition were: **Ij-BH** 34.6 ± 3.0%, **Ij-BD** 67.3 ± 2.0%, and **Ij-BHac** 24.4 ±1.0%, and for leaf extracts, the corresponding stitute of Standards and Technology (NIST) 1.7 Library. It is worth noting that this is the first report of a CG-MS analysis of hexanic extracts from *Inga jinicuil*. However, similar studies have been documented for other species of the *Inga* genus; such is the case for *I. edulis*, where triterpene compounds including lupeol and stigmasterol, as well as aliphatic compounds, have been identified from extracts of the bark and leaves [33,34]. Likewise, extracts from the bark and leaves of *I. laurina* have shown the presence of terpenes such as phytol, the aliphatic nonacosane, and esterified aliphatic acids [35], whereas in a hexanic fraction obtained from the leaves of *I. semialata*, the main compounds isolated were triterpenes, such as lupeol, α-amyrin, oleanolic acid, and friedelin [30]. In this report, the presence of esterified aliphatic acids was identified and, as in other species of the *Inga* genus, the presence of lupeol has been established. However, the following compounds: hentriacontane, α-tocopherol, lup-20 (29)-en-3-one and 24-methylenecycloartan-3-one, are reported for the first time for this genus. *2.3. Anti-Inflammatory Activity of Organic Extracts from Inga jinicuil*  The results corresponding to the anti-inflammatory study of the organic extracts are presented in Figure 3. At the same dose of 1.0 mg/ear, all of the extracts showed antiinflammatory activity. For the bark extracts, the percentages of inhibition were: **Ij-BH** 34.6 ± 3.0%, **Ij-BD** 67.3 ± 2.0%, and **Ij-BHac** 24.4 ±1.0%, and for leaf extracts, the corresponding 5-(hydroxymethyl)-2, 10-dimethyl-3-oxobenz [e] azulen-8-yl ester 33 29.21 410.7 ▲ (5.98) Squalene 34 30.05 408.8 ▲ (12.55) Nonacosane 35 31.95 416.7 ▲ (3.74) *β*-Tocopherol 36 32.44 436.8 ▲ (16.66) Hentriacontane 37 33.07 430.7 ▲ (40.49) α-Tocopherol 38 36.91 424.7 △ (26.74) Lup-20 (29)-en-3-one 39 37.39 426.7 △ (16.43) Lupeol 40 38.35 438.7 △ (38.61) 24-Methylenecycloartan-3-one 41 38.64 412.7 △ (2.27) Stigmast-4-en-3-one 42 41.85 440.7 △ (4.99) 9,19-Cyclolanostan-3-ol,24 methylene-, (3β)- \* Extracts: Bark extract (▲ (**Ij-BH**) and leaf extract (△ (**Ij-LH**). \*\* Compared with the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) 1.7 Library. It is worth noting that this is the first report of a CG-MS analysis of hexanic extracts from *Inga jinicuil*. However, similar studies have been documented for other species of the *Inga* genus; such is the case for *I. edulis*, where triterpene compounds including lupeol and 32 29.19 518.7 △ (1.02) decahydro-3a, 10a, dihydroxy-5-(hydroxymethyl)-2, 10-dimethyl-3-oxobenz [e] azulen-8-yl ester 33 29.21 410.7 ▲ (5.98) Squalene 34 30.05 408.8 ▲ (12.55) Nonacosane 35 31.95 416.7 ▲ (3.74) *β*-Tocopherol 36 32.44 436.8 ▲ (16.66) Hentriacontane 37 33.07 430.7 ▲ (40.49) α-Tocopherol 38 36.91 424.7 △ (26.74) Lup-20 (29)-en-3-one 39 37.39 426.7 △ (16.43) Lupeol 40 38.35 438.7 △ (38.61) 24-Methylenecycloartan-3-one 41 38.64 412.7 △ (2.27) Stigmast-4-en-3-one 42 41.85 440.7 △ (4.99) 9,19-Cyclolanostan-3-ol,24 methylene-, (3β)- \* Extracts: Bark extract (▲ (**Ij-BH**) and leaf extract (△ (**Ij-LH**). \*\* Compared with the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) 1.7 Library. It is worth noting that this is the first report of a CG-MS analysis of hexanic extracts from *Inga jinicuil*. However, similar studies have been documented for other species of the 32 29.19 518.7 △ (1.02) decahydro-3a, 10a, dihydroxy-5-(hydroxymethyl)-2, 10-dimethyl-3-oxobenz [e] azulen-8-yl ester 33 29.21 410.7 ▲ (5.98) Squalene 34 30.05 408.8 ▲ (12.55) Nonacosane 35 31.95 416.7 ▲ (3.74) *β*-Tocopherol 36 32.44 436.8 ▲ (16.66) Hentriacontane 37 33.07 430.7 ▲ (40.49) α-Tocopherol 38 36.91 424.7 △ (26.74) Lup-20 (29)-en-3-one 39 37.39 426.7 △ (16.43) Lupeol 40 38.35 438.7 △ (38.61) 24-Methylenecycloartan-3-one 41 38.64 412.7 △ (2.27) Stigmast-4-en-3-one 42 41.85 440.7 △ (4.99) 9,19-Cyclolanostan-3-ol,24 methylene-, (3β)- \* Extracts: Bark extract (▲ (**Ij-BH**) and leaf extract (△ (**Ij-LH**). \*\* Compared with the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) 1.7 Library. It is worth noting that this is the first report of a CG-MS analysis of hexanic extracts 32 29.19 518.7 (1.02) 3,3a,4,6a,7,8,9,10,10a, 10bdecahydro-3a, 10a, dihydroxy-5-(hydroxymethyl)-2, 10-dimethyl-3-oxobenz [e] azulen-8-yl ester 33 29.21 410.7 ▲ (5.98) Squalene 34 30.05 408.8 ▲ (12.55) Nonacosane 35 31.95 416.7 ▲ (3.74) *β*-Tocopherol 36 32.44 436.8 ▲ (16.66) Hentriacontane 37 33.07 430.7 ▲ (40.49) α-Tocopherol 38 36.91 424.7 △ (26.74) Lup-20 (29)-en-3-one 39 37.39 426.7 △ (16.43) Lupeol 40 38.35 438.7 △ (38.61) 24-Methylenecycloartan-3-one 41 38.64 412.7 △ (2.27) Stigmast-4-en-3-one 42 41.85 440.7 △ (4.99) 9,19-Cyclolanostan-3-ol,24 methylene-, (3β)- \* Extracts: Bark extract (▲ (**Ij-BH**) and leaf extract (△ (**Ij-LH**). \*\* Compared with the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) 1.7 Library. 32 29.19 518.7 (1.02) Tetradecanoic acid, 3,3a,4,6a,7,8,9,10,10a, 10bdecahydro-3a, 10a, dihydroxy-5-(hydroxymethyl)-2, 10-dimethyl-3-oxobenz [e] azulen-8-yl ester 33 29.21 410.7 ▲ (5.98) Squalene 34 30.05 408.8 ▲ (12.55) Nonacosane 35 31.95 416.7 ▲ (3.74) *β*-Tocopherol 36 32.44 436.8 ▲ (16.66) Hentriacontane 37 33.07 430.7 ▲ (40.49) α-Tocopherol 38 36.91 424.7 △ (26.74) Lup-20 (29)-en-3-one 39 37.39 426.7 △ (16.43) Lupeol 40 38.35 438.7 △ (38.61) 24-Methylenecycloartan-3-one 41 38.64 412.7 △ (2.27) Stigmast-4-en-3-one 42 41.85 440.7 △ (4.99) 9,19-Cyclolanostan-3-ol,24 methylene-, (3β)- \* Extracts: Bark extract (▲ (**Ij-BH**) and leaf extract (△ (**Ij-LH**). \*\* Compared with the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) 1.7 Library. 39 37.39 426.7 △ (16.43) Lupeol 40 38.35 438.7 △ (38.61) 24-Methylenecycloartan-3-one 41 38.64 412.7 △ (2.27) Stigmast-4-en-3-one 42 41.85 440.7 △ (4.99) 9,19-Cyclolanostan-3-ol,24 methylene-, (3β)- \* Extracts: Bark extract (▲ (**Ij-BH**) and leaf extract (△ (**Ij-LH**). \*\* Compared with the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) 1.7 Library. It is worth noting that this is the first report of a CG-MS analysis of hexanic extracts from *Inga jinicuil*. However, similar studies have been documented for other species of the *Inga* genus; such is the case for *I. edulis*, where triterpene compounds including lupeol and stigmasterol, as well as aliphatic compounds, have been identified from extracts of the bark and leaves [33,34]. Likewise, extracts from the bark and leaves of *I. laurina* have shown the presence of terpenes such as phytol, the aliphatic nonacosane, and esterified aliphatic acids [35], whereas in a hexanic fraction obtained from the leaves of *I. semialata*, the main compounds isolated were triterpenes, such as lupeol, α-amyrin, oleanolic acid, and friedelin [30]. In this report, the presence of esterified aliphatic acids was identified and, as in other species of the *Inga* genus, the presence of lupeol has been established. However, the following compounds: hentriacontane, α-tocopherol, lup-20 (29)-en-3-one and 24-methylenecycloartan-3-one, are reported for the first time for this genus. 31 27.76 380.6 △ (1.62) 15-Tetracosenoic acid, methyl ester 32 29.19 518.7 △ (1.02) Tetradecanoic acid, 3,3a,4,6a,7,8,9,10,10a, 10bdecahydro-3a, 10a, dihydroxy-5-(hydroxymethyl)-2, 10-dimethyl-3-oxobenz [e] azulen-8-yl ester 33 29.21 410.7 ▲ (5.98) Squalene 34 30.05 408.8 ▲ (12.55) Nonacosane 35 31.95 416.7 ▲ (3.74) *β*-Tocopherol 36 32.44 436.8 ▲ (16.66) Hentriacontane 37 33.07 430.7 ▲ (40.49) α-Tocopherol 38 36.91 424.7 △ (26.74) Lup-20 (29)-en-3-one 39 37.39 426.7 △ (16.43) Lupeol 40 38.35 438.7 △ (38.61) 24-Methylenecycloartan-3-one 41 38.64 412.7 △ (2.27) Stigmast-4-en-3-one 42 41.85 440.7 △ (4.99) 9,19-Cyclolanostan-3-ol,24 methylene-, (3β)- \* Extracts: Bark extract (▲ (**Ij-BH**) and leaf extract (△ (**Ij-LH**). \*\* Compared with the National In-Even when species such as *I. laurina*, *I. edulis*, *I. marginata*, and *I. jinicuil* are employed to treat stomach and inflammatory disorders in traditional medicine, few studies have been conducted to confirm their attributed pharmacological properties. However, recent reports have shown the presence of flavonoids and other phenolic compounds in several of these species that may be associated with pharmacological effects [36]. The present study represents a preliminary approach in the assessment of the anti-inflammatory activity of *I. jinicuil*, with the bark extracts exerting a more consistent effect and **Ij-BD** showing the highest activity. It is noteworthy to mention that the chemical profile of this extract showed the presence of salicylates, terpenoids, and derivatives of epigallocatechin gallate, as well as derivatives of protocatechuic and coumaric acids, which may be associated with its biological effect [24,28,31]. In the case of the extracts from leaves, **Ij-LHac** showed the best inhibitory effect, and the analysis of its metabolic content revealed the presence of polyphenolic compounds, terpenoids, coumarins, vanillic acid derivatives, and flavonoidtype compounds such as apigenin derivatives, all of which have reported anti-inflammatory effects [19,34,37]. Furthermore, previous reports regarding several of the metabolites present in both extracts have postulated an anti-inflammatory activity that proceeds via the inhibition of cyclooxygenase enzymes (COX) [38–40], which happens to be the known mechanism of the reference drug (**Indo**) [40]. Finally, it is important to mention that the two extracts with the highest activity have the presence of terpenes and salicylates in common; these compounds are recognized for their analgesic and anti-inflammatory effects [24,31].

> It is worth noting that this is the first report of a CG-MS analysis of hexanic extracts from *Inga jinicuil*. However, similar studies have been documented for other species of the

> The results corresponding to the anti-inflammatory study of the organic extracts are presented in Figure 3. At the same dose of 1.0 mg/ear, all of the extracts showed antiinflammatory activity. For the bark extracts, the percentages of inhibition were: **Ij-BH** 34.6 ± 3.0%, **Ij-BD** 67.3 ± 2.0%, and **Ij-BHac** 24.4 ±1.0%, and for leaf extracts, the corresponding percentages were: **Ij-LH** 34.9 ± 1.3%, **Ij-LD** 23.0 ± 1.0%, and **Ij-LHac** 49.6 ± 1.0%. For indomethacin (**Indo**), which was employed as the reference drug, the inhibition percentage was 75.5 ± 2.2%. As can be seen, the two extracts with the greatest anti-inflammatory activity were **Ij-BD** followed by **Ij-LHac**, and the statistical comparison between the anti-

> stigmasterol, as well as aliphatic compounds, have been identified from extracts of the bark and leaves [33,34]. Likewise, extracts from the bark and leaves of *I. laurina* have shown the presence of terpenes such as phytol, the aliphatic nonacosane, and esterified aliphatic acids [35], whereas in a hexanic fraction obtained from the leaves of *I. semialata*, the main compounds isolated were triterpenes, such as lupeol, α-amyrin, oleanolic acid, and friedelin [30]. In this report, the presence of esterified aliphatic acids was identified and, as in other species of the *Inga* genus, the presence of lupeol has been established. However, the following compounds: hentriacontane, α-tocopherol, lup-20 (29)-en-3-one

was 75.5 ± 2.2%. As can be seen, the two extracts with the greatest anti-inflammatory activity were **Ij-BD** followed by **Ij-LHac**, and the statistical comparison between the anti-

percentages were: **Ij-LH** 34.9 ± 1.3%, **Ij-LD** 23.0 ± 1.0%, and **Ij-LHac** 49.6 ± 1.0%. For indomethacin (**Indo**), which was employed as the reference drug, the inhibition percentage was 75.5 ± 2.2%. As can be seen, the two extracts with the greatest anti-inflammatory activity were **Ij-BD** followed by **Ij-LHac**, and the statistical comparison between the anti-

methacin (**Indo**), which was employed as the reference drug, the inhibition percentage was 75.5 ± 2.2%. As can be seen, the two extracts with the greatest anti-inflammatory activity were **Ij-BD** followed by **Ij-LHac**, and the statistical comparison between the anti-

and friedelin [30]. In this report, the presence of esterified aliphatic acids was identified and, as in other species of the *Inga* genus, the presence of lupeol has been established. However, the following compounds: hentriacontane, α-tocopherol, lup-20 (29)-en-3-one

and, as in other species of the *Inga* genus, the presence of lupeol has been established. However, the following compounds: hentriacontane, α-tocopherol, lup-20 (29)-en-3-one

inflammatory activity. For the bark extracts, the percentages of inhibition were: **Ij-BH** 34.6 ± 3.0%, **Ij-BD** 67.3 ± 2.0%, and **Ij-BHac** 24.4 ±1.0%, and for leaf extracts, the corresponding percentages were: **Ij-LH** 34.9 ± 1.3%, **Ij-LD** 23.0 ± 1.0%, and **Ij-LHac** 49.6 ± 1.0%. For indomethacin (**Indo**), which was employed as the reference drug, the inhibition percentage was 75.5 ± 2.2%. As can be seen, the two extracts with the greatest anti-inflammatory activity were **Ij-BD** followed by **Ij-LHac**, and the statistical comparison between the anti-

and friedelin [30]. In this report, the presence of esterified aliphatic acids was identified and, as in other species of the *Inga* genus, the presence of lupeol has been established. However, the following compounds: hentriacontane, α-tocopherol, lup-20 (29)-en-3-one

and friedelin [30]. In this report, the presence of esterified aliphatic acids was identified and, as in other species of the *Inga* genus, the presence of lupeol has been established. However, the following compounds: hentriacontane, α-tocopherol, lup-20 (29)-en-3-one

The results corresponding to the anti-inflammatory study of the organic extracts are presented in Figure 3. At the same dose of 1.0 mg/ear, all of the extracts showed antiinflammatory activity. For the bark extracts, the percentages of inhibition were: **Ij-BH** 34.6 ± 3.0%, **Ij-BD** 67.3 ± 2.0%, and **Ij-BHac** 24.4 ±1.0%, and for leaf extracts, the corresponding percentages were: **Ij-LH** 34.9 ± 1.3%, **Ij-LD** 23.0 ± 1.0%, and **Ij-LHac** 49.6 ± 1.0%. For indomethacin (**Indo**), which was employed as the reference drug, the inhibition percentage was 75.5 ± 2.2%. As can be seen, the two extracts with the greatest anti-inflammatory activity were **Ij-BD** followed by **Ij-LHac**, and the statistical comparison between the anti-

The results corresponding to the anti-inflammatory study of the organic extracts are presented in Figure 3. At the same dose of 1.0 mg/ear, all of the extracts showed antiinflammatory activity. For the bark extracts, the percentages of inhibition were: **Ij-BH** 34.6 ± 3.0%, **Ij-BD** 67.3 ± 2.0%, and **Ij-BHac** 24.4 ±1.0%, and for leaf extracts, the corresponding percentages were: **Ij-LH** 34.9 ± 1.3%, **Ij-LD** 23.0 ± 1.0%, and **Ij-LHac** 49.6 ± 1.0%. For indomethacin (**Indo**), which was employed as the reference drug, the inhibition percentage was 75.5 ± 2.2%. As can be seen, the two extracts with the greatest anti-inflammatory activity were **Ij-BD** followed by **Ij-LHac**, and the statistical comparison between the anti-

The results corresponding to the anti-inflammatory study of the organic extracts are presented in Figure 3. At the same dose of 1.0 mg/ear, all of the extracts showed antiinflammatory activity. For the bark extracts, the percentages of inhibition were: **Ij-BH** 34.6 ± 3.0%, **Ij-BD** 67.3 ± 2.0%, and **Ij-BHac** 24.4 ±1.0%, and for leaf extracts, the corresponding percentages were: **Ij-LH** 34.9 ± 1.3%, **Ij-LD** 23.0 ± 1.0%, and **Ij-LHac** 49.6 ± 1.0%. For indomethacin (**Indo**), which was employed as the reference drug, the inhibition percentage was 75.5 ± 2.2%. As can be seen, the two extracts with the greatest anti-inflammatory activity were **Ij-BD** followed by **Ij-LHac**, and the statistical comparison between the anti-

and 24-methylenecycloartan-3-one, are reported for the first time for this genus.

The results corresponding to the anti-inflammatory study of the organic extracts are presented in Figure 3. At the same dose of 1.0 mg/ear, all of the extracts showed antiinflammatory activity. For the bark extracts, the percentages of inhibition were: **Ij-BH** 34.6 ± 3.0%, **Ij-BD** 67.3 ± 2.0%, and **Ij-BHac** 24.4 ±1.0%, and for leaf extracts, the corresponding percentages were: **Ij-LH** 34.9 ± 1.3%, **Ij-LD** 23.0 ± 1.0%, and **Ij-LHac** 49.6 ± 1.0%. For indomethacin (**Indo**), which was employed as the reference drug, the inhibition percentage was 75.5 ± 2.2%. As can be seen, the two extracts with the greatest anti-inflammatory activity were **Ij-BD** followed by **Ij-LHac**, and the statistical comparison between the anti-

The results corresponding to the anti-inflammatory study of the organic extracts are presented in Figure 3. At the same dose of 1.0 mg/ear, all of the extracts showed antiinflammatory activity. For the bark extracts, the percentages of inhibition were: **Ij-BH** 34.6 ± 3.0%, **Ij-BD** 67.3 ± 2.0%, and **Ij-BHac** 24.4 ±1.0%, and for leaf extracts, the corresponding percentages were: **Ij-LH** 34.9 ± 1.3%, **Ij-LD** 23.0 ± 1.0%, and **Ij-LHac** 49.6 ± 1.0%. For indomethacin (**Indo**), which was employed as the reference drug, the inhibition percentage was 75.5 ± 2.2%. As can be seen, the two extracts with the greatest anti-inflammatory activity were **Ij-BD** followed by **Ij-LHac**, and the statistical comparison between the anti-

*2.3. Anti-Inflammatory Activity of Organic Extracts from Inga jinicuil* 

± 3.0%, **Ij-BD** 67.3 ± 2.0%, and **Ij-BHac** 24.4 ±1.0%, and for leaf extracts, the corresponding percentages were: **Ij-LH** 34.9 ± 1.3%, **Ij-LD** 23.0 ± 1.0%, and **Ij-LHac** 49.6 ± 1.0%. For indomethacin (**Indo**), which was employed as the reference drug, the inhibition percentage was 75.5 ± 2.2%. As can be seen, the two extracts with the greatest anti-inflammatory activity were **Ij-BD** followed by **Ij-LHac**, and the statistical comparison between the anti-

shown the presence of terpenes such as phytol, the aliphatic nonacosane, and esterified aliphatic acids [35], whereas in a hexanic fraction obtained from the leaves of *I. semialata*, the main compounds isolated were triterpenes, such as lupeol, α-amyrin, oleanolic acid,

shown the presence of terpenes such as phytol, the aliphatic nonacosane, and esterified aliphatic acids [35], whereas in a hexanic fraction obtained from the leaves of *I. semialata*, the main compounds isolated were triterpenes, such as lupeol, α-amyrin, oleanolic acid, and friedelin [30]. In this report, the presence of esterified aliphatic acids was identified and, as in other species of the *Inga* genus, the presence of lupeol has been established. However, the following compounds: hentriacontane, α-tocopherol, lup-20 (29)-en-3-one

The results corresponding to the anti-inflammatory study of the organic extracts are presented in Figure 3. At the same dose of 1.0 mg/ear, all of the extracts showed anti-

tivity were **Ij-BD** followed by **Ij-LHac**, and the statistical comparison between the anti-

and 24-methylenecycloartan-3-one, are reported for the first time for this genus.

stitute of Standards and Technology (NIST) 1.7 Library.

and 24-methylenecycloartan-3-one, are reported for the first time for this genus.

The results corresponding to the anti-inflammatory study of the organic extracts are presented in Figure 3. At the same dose of 1.0 mg/ear, all of the extracts showed anti-

± 3.0%, **Ij-BD** 67.3 ± 2.0%, and **Ij-BHac** 24.4 ±1.0%, and for leaf extracts, the corresponding percentages were: **Ij-LH** 34.9 ± 1.3%, **Ij-LD** 23.0 ± 1.0%, and **Ij-LHac** 49.6 ± 1.0%. For indomethacin (**Indo**), which was employed as the reference drug, the inhibition percentage was 75.5 ± 2.2%. As can be seen, the two extracts with the greatest anti-inflammatory activity were **Ij-BD** followed by **Ij-LHac**, and the statistical comparison between the anti-

and 24-methylenecycloartan-3-one, are reported for the first time for this genus.

and 24-methylenecycloartan-3-one, are reported for the first time for this genus.

and 24-methylenecycloartan-3-one, are reported for the first time for this genus.

and 24-methylenecycloartan-3-one, are reported for the first time for this genus.

and 24-methylenecycloartan-3-one, are reported for the first time for this genus.

*2.3. Anti-Inflammatory Activity of Organic Extracts from Inga jinicuil* 

stitute of Standards and Technology (NIST) 1.7 Library.

32 29.19 518.7 (1.02)

*2.3. Anti-Inflammatory Activity of Organic Extracts from Inga jinicuil* 

*2.3. Anti-Inflammatory Activity of Organic Extracts from Inga jinicuil* 

*2.3. Anti-Inflammatory Activity of Organic Extracts from Inga jinicuil* 

*2.3. Anti-Inflammatory Activity of Organic Extracts from Inga jinicuil* 

*2.3. Anti-Inflammatory Activity of Organic Extracts from Inga jinicuil* 

*2.3. Anti-Inflammatory Activity of Organic Extracts from Inga jinicuil* 

*2.3. Anti-Inflammatory Activity of Organic Extracts from Inga jinicuil* 

*2.3. Anti-Inflammatory Activity of Organic Extracts from Inga jinicuil* 

inflammatory activity. For the bark extracts, the percentages of inhibition were: **Ij-BH** 34.6 ± 3.0%, **Ij-BD** 67.3 ± 2.0%, and **Ij-BHac** 24.4 ±1.0%, and for leaf extracts, the corresponding percentages were: **Ij-LH** 34.9 ± 1.3%, **Ij-LD** 23.0 ± 1.0%, and **Ij-LHac** 49.6 ± 1.0%. For indo-

and, as in other species of the *Inga* genus, the presence of lupeol has been established. However, the following compounds: hentriacontane, α-tocopherol, lup-20 (29)-en-3-one

from *Inga jinicuil*. However, similar studies have been documented for other species of the *Inga* genus; such is the case for *I. edulis*, where triterpene compounds including lupeol and stigmasterol, as well as aliphatic compounds, have been identified from extracts of the

stigmasterol, as well as aliphatic compounds, have been identified from extracts of the bark and leaves [33,34]. Likewise, extracts from the bark and leaves of *I. laurina* have

It is worth noting that this is the first report of a CG-MS analysis of hexanic extracts from *Inga jinicuil*. However, similar studies have been documented for other species of the *Inga* genus; such is the case for *I. edulis*, where triterpene compounds including lupeol and

It is worth noting that this is the first report of a CG-MS analysis of hexanic extracts from *Inga jinicuil*. However, similar studies have been documented for other species of the

*Inga* genus; such is the case for *I. edulis*, where triterpene compounds including lupeol and stigmasterol, as well as aliphatic compounds, have been identified from extracts of the bark and leaves [33,34]. Likewise, extracts from the bark and leaves of *I. laurina* have

tivity were **Ij-BD** followed by **Ij-LHac**, and the statistical comparison between the anti-

percentages were: **Ij-LH** 34.9 ± 1.3%, **Ij-LD** 23.0 ± 1.0%, and **Ij-LHac** 49.6 ± 1.0%. For indomethacin (**Indo**), which was employed as the reference drug, the inhibition percentage

was 75.5 ± 2.2%. As can be seen, the two extracts with the greatest anti-inflammatory activity were **Ij-BD** followed by **Ij-LHac**, and the statistical comparison between the anti-

percentages were: **Ij-LH** 34.9 ± 1.3%, **Ij-LD** 23.0 ± 1.0%, and **Ij-LHac** 49.6 ± 1.0%. For indomethacin (**Indo**), which was employed as the reference drug, the inhibition percentage was 75.5 ± 2.2%. As can be seen, the two extracts with the greatest anti-inflammatory ac-

methacin (**Indo**), which was employed as the reference drug, the inhibition percentage was 75.5 ± 2.2%. As can be seen, the two extracts with the greatest anti-inflammatory activity were **Ij-BD** followed by **Ij-LHac**, and the statistical comparison between the anti-

percentages were: **Ij-LH** 34.9 ± 1.3%, **Ij-LD** 23.0 ± 1.0%, and **Ij-LHac** 49.6 ± 1.0%. For indomethacin (**Indo**), which was employed as the reference drug, the inhibition percentage was 75.5 ± 2.2%. As can be seen, the two extracts with the greatest anti-inflammatory ac-

was 75.5 ± 2.2%. As can be seen, the two extracts with the greatest anti-inflammatory activity were **Ij-BD** followed by **Ij-LHac**, and the statistical comparison between the anti-

The results corresponding to the anti-inflammatory study of the organic extracts are presented in Figure 3. At the same dose of 1.0 mg/ear, all of the extracts showed antiinflammatory activity. For the bark extracts, the percentages of inhibition were: **Ij-BH** 34.6

The results corresponding to the anti-inflammatory study of the organic extracts are presented in Figure 3. At the same dose of 1.0 mg/ear, all of the extracts showed anti-

The results corresponding to the anti-inflammatory study of the organic extracts are

The results corresponding to the anti-inflammatory study of the organic extracts are

inflammatory activities of the extracts and the reference drug revealed significant differences (*p* < 0.05). No extract reached an effect equal to or greater than that of **Indo** (Indomethacin). However, the comparison using the Tukey test of the effect of the extracts and the reference drug showed that there were no significant differences (*p* < 0.05) between some of the extracts, such as **Ij-BH** compared to **Ij-LH** and **Ij-BHac** compared to **Ij-LD**.

Sample [1 mg/ear]

**Figure 3.** Percentage inhibition of inflammation (%) of **Ij-BH**, **Ij-BD**, **Ij-BHac**, **Ij-LH**, **Ij-LD**, and **Ij-LHac** extracts from *Inga jinicuil* and Indo (Indomethacin) in edema induced by TPA in mouse ear at 1.0 mg/ear. Values are presented as means ± standard error of the means (SEM). *n* = 5. ANOVA, with post-test Dunnet with *\* p* ≤ 0.05 in comparison with Indo and Tukey test, where different letters indicate significant differences among them. **Figure 3.** Percentage inhibition of inflammation (%) of **Ij-BH**, **Ij-BD**, **Ij-BHac**, **Ij-LH**, **Ij-LD**, and **Ij-LHac** extracts from *Inga jinicuil* and Indo (Indomethacin) in edema induced by TPA in mouse ear at 1.0 mg/ear. Values are presented as means ± standard error of the means (SEM). *n* = 5. ANOVA, with post-test Dunnet with \* *p* ≤ 0.05 in comparison with Indo and Tukey test, where different letters indicate significant differences among them.

### Even when species such as *I. laurina*, *I. edulis*, *I. marginata*, and *I. jinicuil* are employed *2.4. Antibacterial Activity of Inga jinicuil Organic Extracts*

to treat stomach and inflammatory disorders in traditional medicine, few studies have been conducted to confirm their attributed pharmacological properties. However, recent reports have shown the presence of flavonoids and other phenolic compounds in several of these species that may be associated with pharmacological effects [36]. The present study represents a preliminary approach in the assessment of the anti-inflammatory activity of *I. jinicuil*, with the bark extracts exerting a more consistent effect and **Ij-BD** showing the highest activity. It is noteworthy to mention that the chemical profile of this extract showed the presence of salicylates, terpenoids, and derivatives of epigallocatechin gallate, The antibacterial activity of bark and leaf *I. jinicuil* extracts were evaluated on clinically important micro-organisms. As showed in Table 4, the three extracts of bark (**Ij-BH**, **Ij-BD**, and **Ij-BHac**) exhibited excellent activity against *Pseudomona aeruginosa* (**Pa**) and methicillinresistant *Staphylococcus aureus* (**Sa1**), with MIC values of <3.12 and 50 µg/mL, respectively. Only **Ij-BH** showed activity against *Staphylococcus epidermidis* (**Se1**). Similarly, **Ij-LD** and **Ij-LHac** had good activity against *Pseudomona aeruginosa* (**Pa;** MIC < 3.12 µg/mL), methicillinresistant *Staphylococcus aureus* (**Sa1**; MIC = 50 µg/mL) and *Staphylococcus epidermidis* (**Se1**; MIC = 200 µg/mL).

as well as derivatives of protocatechuic and coumaric acids, which may be associated with its biological effect [24,28,31]. In the case of the extracts from leaves, **Ij-LHac** showed the best inhibitory effect, and the analysis of its metabolic content revealed the presence of polyphenolic compounds, terpenoids, coumarins, vanillic acid derivatives, and flavonoid-The results obtained are interesting considering that in 2017 the WHO published a list of "priority pathogens" resistant to antibiotics, which include *Pseudomonas aeruginosa* (resistant to carbapenems) and *Staphylococcus aureus* (resistant to methicillin), emphasizing the urgent need for the search for new agents against these micro-organisms [5].

type compounds such as apigenin derivatives, all of which have reported anti-inflammatory effects [19,34,37]. Furthermore, previous reports regarding several of the metabolites present in both extracts have postulated an anti-inflammatory activity that proceeds via The antibacterial activity of bark and leaf extracts against *Pseudomona aeruginosa* (**Pa**) and methicillin-resistant *Staphylococcus aureus* (**Sa1**) can be attributed to the presence of several secondary metabolites: hentriacontane and α-tocopherol in **Ij-BH,** and polyphenols, flavonoids, and terpenoids in both **Ij-BD** and **Ij-BHac** [41]. Special attention may be paid to the presence of gallate and coumarin derivatives, since their antibacterial mechanism has been described at the cell membrane level by repressing the transport system of proteins and inhibiting the biofilm formation in clinical strains of **Sa1** [17,42,43]. Furthermore, coumarin derivatives are considered as potential antibacterial agents that act as inhibitors to several binding proteins of **Sa1** and potential competitive inhibitors of the DNA-gyrase [44,45]. It is worth noting that the chemical moiety responsible for the antibacterial activity of coumarins is the basic structure of benzopyrone, which resembles the structure of benzopyridone

present in antibacterial drugs derived from quinolone [44,45]. Therefore, the wide range of chemical structures found in these extracts may represent a potential source of molecular templates for new antibacterial drugs.


**Table 4.** Antibacterial activity (MIC µg/mL) of extracts from *Inga jinicuil*.

**Sa1**: methicillin-resistant *S. aureus*; **Sa2**: *S. aureus*; **Se1**: *S. epidermis*; **Se2**: *S. epidermis*; **Sh**: clinically isolated *S. haemolyticus*; **Ec1**: *E. coli* **Ec2**: *E. cloacae*; **Ef**: *E. fecalis*; **Kp**: *K. pneumoniae*; **Pa**: *P. aeruginosa*; **C1** and **C2**: controls of viability (\*: bacterial growth); **C+**: positive control (Gentamicine 100 µg/mL; –: not bacterial growth).

### **3. Materials and Methods**

### *3.1. Plant Material and Extraction of Inga jinicuil*

Aerial parts of *Inga jinicuil* Schltdl & Cham. ex G. Don were collected in July 2019, in Libertad, Cunduacán, Tabasco, Mexico (10 m.a.s.l., latitude 18◦10053.06 N, longitude 93◦22028.13 W). A specimen was deposited at the Herbarium of the Academic Division of Biological Sciences of the Universidad Juárez Autónoma de Tabasco for its taxonomic identification (voucher number: 36576).

Plant material was dried at room temperature in the dark for 72 h, with drying and spraying in Pulvex MP300 milled (4–6 mm). The extracts were obtained by maceration with *n*-hexane, dichloromethane, and a 60:40 ethanol:water mixture 1:4; the maceration procedure was performed three times for each solvent in order to ensure an exhaustive extraction. These extracts were filtered, concentrated in a rotary evaporator (Heidolph G3, Schwabach, Germany), and then lyophilized (Heto Drywinner DW3) to give the bark (*n*-Hexane **Ij-BH**, Dichloromethane **Ij-BD**, Hydroalcoholic **Ij-BHac**) and leaf extracts (*n*-Hexane **Ij-LH**, Dichloromethane **Ij-LD**, Hydroalcoholic **Ij-LHac**).

### *3.2. HPLC Analysis*

Chromatographic analysis was carried out in a Waters 2695 separation module system with a Waters 2695 photodiode matrix detector and Empower Pro software (Waters Corporation, Milford, MA, USA). Chemical separation was performed using a Supelcosil LC-F column (4.6 mm × 250 mm i.d., particle size 5 µm) (Sigma-Aldrich, Bellefonte, PA, USA). The mobile acid phase was performed using 0.5% triflouroacetic, aqueous solution (solvent A), and acetonitrile (solvent B) gradient: 0–1 min, 0% of B; 2–3 min, 5% of B; 4–20 min, 30% of B; 21–23 min, 50% of B; 24–25 min, 80% of B; 26–27 min, 100% of B; 28–30 min, 0% of B. The flow rate was 0.9 mL/min with a volume of 10 µL sample. Absorbance was measured at 270 nm [46]. A preliminary identification of the peaks resolved was performed by comparison with *t*<sup>R</sup> and UV-Vis characteristic bands of known standards and literature data.

### *3.3. GC-MS Analysis of Hexane Extracts*

The chemical composition of **Ij-BH** and **Ij -LH** was analyzed on Gas Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry (GC-MS) equipment, consisting of an Agilent 6890 plus gas chromatograph coupled to a simple quadrupole mass spectrometry detector, model 5972N (Agilent Technology, Santa Clara, CA, USA).

Volatile compounds were separated on an HP 5MS capillary column (25 m long, 0.2 mm i.d., with 0.3-µm film thickness). Oven temperature was set at 40 ◦C for 2 min, then programmed at 40–260 ◦C for 10 ◦C/min, and maintained for 20 min at 260 ◦C. Mass detector conditions were as follows: interphase temperature, 200 ◦C, and mass acquisition range, 20–550. Injector and detector temperatures were set at 250 and 280 ◦C, respectively. Splitless injection mode was carried out with 1 µL of each fraction (3 mg/mL solution). The carrier gas was helium at a flow rate of 1 mL/min. The identification of volatiles was performed, comparing their mass spectra with those of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) 1.7 Library and comparing these with data from the literature [47].

### *3.4. Pharmacological Activity*

### 3.4.1. Anti-Inflammatory Activity

Male ICR mice with a weight range of 25–30 g, from Envigo RMS, S.A. de C.V., were used throughout the experiments. These animals were maintained in the Bioterium of Centro de Investigación Biomédica Del Sur (CIBIS-IMSS) under a 12 h light-dark cycle and constant temperature (23–25 ◦C) with free access to food and water. The animals were treated under the Mexican federal regulations for care and use of laboratory animals, NOM-062-ZOO-1999 Guidelines [48], and international ethical guidelines for the care and use of experimental animals [49]; the number of animals (*n* = 5) and the intensity of the noxious stimuli utilized were the minimum necessary to demonstrate the consistent effects of the pharmacological treatments. The animal studies were approved by the Ethics Committee of the Mexican Social Security Institute (R-2020-1702-008).

Auricular inflammation was induced following the method previously described [50]. The dose evaluated for the extracts was 1.0 mg/ear. A control group received acetone as vehicle, and Indomethacin (Indo, Sigma-Aldrich, Toluca, Mexico) 1.0 mg/ear was utilized as an anti-inflammatory positive control. All treatments were dissolved in acetone and applied topically on both ears immediately after the solution of 12-*O*-tetradecanoylphorbol-13-acetate (TPA, Sigma-Aldrich, Toluca, México) as an inflammatory agent. Six hours after the administration of TPA, the animals were euthanized by cervical dislocation.

Circular sections 6 mm in diameter were taken from both the treated (t) and nontreated (nt) ears, which were weighed to determine the inflammation. The percentage of inhibition was obtained employing the expression below:

% Inhibition = [Dw control − Dw treated/Dw control] × [100]

where Dw = wt − wnt; wt is the weight of the section of the treated ear; and wnt the weight of untreated ear section.

### 3.4.2. Antibacterial Activity

The extracts were evaluated against bacterial strains ATCC: methicillin-resistant *Staphylococcus aureus* (**Sa1**; ATCC 43330, *Staphylococcus aureus* (**Sa2**; ATCC 29213), *Staphylococcus epidermis* (**Se1**; ATCC 12228)*, Staphylococcus epidermis* (**Se2**; ATCC 35984), *Enterococcus fecalis* (**Ef**; ATCC 29212), *Escherichia coli* (**Ec1**; ATCC 25922), *Enterobacter cloacae* (**Ec2**; ATCC 700323), *Klebsiella pneumoniae* (**Kp**; ATCC 700603), *Pseudomona aeruginosa* (**Pa**; ATCC 27853), and the clinically isolated *Staphylococcus haemolyticus* (**Sh**; 1038). The strains were reseeded in antibiotic agar No. 1 (Bioxon, Mexico) for 24 h at 37 ◦C. The strain of clinical isolate was provided from the General Hospital of Acapulco, State of Guerrero, Mexico, to the Bacteria Bank of the Autonomous University of Guerrero (UAGro).

For the trials, cultures with 24 h of incubation (37 ◦C) were used and about 3–4 colonies were taken of each strain and diluted in Müeller–Hinton broth (MHb; Bioxon, Toluca, Mexico). The inoculums were adjusted using the 0.5 MacFarland scale (1.5 <sup>×</sup> <sup>10</sup><sup>8</sup> UFC/mL). Subsequently, dilution with distilled water was performed to obtain 1 <sup>×</sup> <sup>10</sup><sup>4</sup> UFC/mL.

The MIC of extracts was determined by the microtiter broth dilution method [51]. Briefly, the samples (50 mg/mL) were dissolved in a DMSO–water mixture (20:80), and the tested concentrations were 3.37, 6.75, 12.5, 25, 50, 100, and 200 µg/mL. The samples were added to sterile microplates of 96 wells, along with 200 µL of MHb and 2 µL of inoculum (1 <sup>×</sup> <sup>10</sup><sup>4</sup> UFC/mL). The viability controls used were: MHb + DMSO + inoculum and MHb+ inoculum; Gentamicin (**C +** , 100 µg/mL; Sigma Aldrich, Mexico) was employed as the reference antibiotic. The plates were incubated at 37 ◦C for 24 h, and after incubation the MIC was determined by adding 30 µL of a solution (0.05%) of 3-(4,5-dimethylthiazol-2-yl)- 2,5, diphenyl tetrazolium bromide (MTT, Sigma-Aldrich, Hong Kong, China) in every well, of which purple development was observed if there was viability of bacteria and colorless if there was no feasibility. All assays were performed in triplicate.

### *3.5. Statistical Analysis*

For the analysis of the anti-inflammatory activity, the data were expressed as the mean ± standard error of the mean (SEM), and statistical significance was determined using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) with a confidence level of 95% (\* *p* ≤ 0.05), followed by the one-tailed Dunnet test compared to Indo and the Tukey test. All analyses was performed using IBM SPSS statistics ver. 23.0 statistical program (GraphPad Software, IBM, San Diego, CA, USA).

### **4. Conclusions**

This report presents the biological activity of organic extracts obtained from the bark and leaves of *I. jinicuil*. The anti-inflammatory activity tests showed moderate to good effects, with the dichloromethane extract from bark showing the highest activity, followed by the hexanic extract from leaves. Based on the findings of anti-inflammatory activity, it is possible to propose the exploration of the potential antinociceptive effect of the tested extracts, using an appropriate pharmacological model. Likewise, it was found that the three extracts from the bark of this plant have excellent antibacterial activity (primarily against methicillin-resistant *Staphylococcus aureus* and *Pseudomonas aeruginosa* strains) and this leads us to consider the possibility of extending antibacterial activity tests to a greater number of microbiological strains of clinical interest. On the other hand, it should be mentioned that, to our knowledge, this is the first approach to the phytochemical profiling of bark and leaves of *I. jinicuil*, which is consistent with the chemotaxonomic profiles reported for other species of *Inga* and suggest the presence of polyphenolic compounds, flavonoids, triterpenes, and lipid prenols, as well as aliphatic and esterified aliphatic lipids; these natural products may be responsible for both bioactivities assessed in this work. These results allow predicting a wide potential for future studies aimed at the isolation and structural characterization of compounds that might serve as molecular templates with specific biological activities. Finally, it is important to highlight that these results systematically contribute to the use in traditional Mexican medicine of a highly important sociocultural and nutritional species such as *Inga jinicuil* Schltdl & Cham. ex G. Don.

**Supplementary Materials:** The following are available online at https://www.mdpi.com/article/ 10.3390/plants11060794/s1, Figure S1: UV-spectra of the main compounds of (Ij-BD) *I. jinicuil*; Figure S2: UV-spectra of the main compounds of (Ij-BHac) *I. jinicuil*; Figure S3: UV-spectra of the main compounds of (Ij-LD) *I. jinicuil*; Figure S4: UV-spectra of the main compounds of (Ij-LHac) *I. jinicuil*.

**Author Contributions:** Conceptualization, M.G.-C., C.E.L.-G. and A.G.-R.; methodology, A.J.G.-G., R.L.-R. and P.Á.-F.; validation, M.H.-R. and M.D.P.-G.; formal analysis, A.Z.; investigation, A.G.-R. and A.B.; resources, A.J.G.-G., R.L.-R. and M.R.F.; data curation, E.J.M.-S. and M.R.F.; writing—original draft preparation, A.J.G.-G., R.L.-R. and E.A.B.-G.; writing—review and editing, A.G.-R., C.E.L.-G. and A.B.; visualization, M.H.-R. and P.Á.-F.; supervision, M.D.P.-G.; project administration, M.G.-C., A.G.-R. and C.E.L.-G.; funding acquisition, A.G.-R., M.G.-C. and A.Z. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

**Funding:** This research was funded by PRODEP, grant number UJAT-EXB-242.

**Institutional Review Board Statement:** The animal studies were approved by the Ethics Committee of the Mexican Social Security Institute (R-2020-1702-008).

**Informed Consent Statement:** Not applicable.

**Data Availability Statement:** Data is contained within the article and Supplementary Material.

**Acknowledgments:** The authors wish to thank Arturo Pérez, Jonathan Orduño, and Ixchel Palacios (CIBIS-IMSS), and Dora Elena Aguilar Dominguez and Wilbert Pérez Fuentes (DACB-UJAT) for technical and analytical assistance; al Consejo Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnologia (CONACYT) por la beca otorgada con No. de CVU: 703106; R.L.-R. (478597) was supported by CONACYT postdoctoral fellowship (866998).

**Conflicts of Interest:** The authors declare no conflict of interest.

### **References**

