4.7 Article

Quantitative analysis of phenolic metabolites from different parts of Angelica keiskei by HPLC-ESI MS/MS and their xanthine oxidase inhibition

Journal

FOOD CHEMISTRY
Volume 153, Issue -, Pages 20-27

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.foodchem.2013.12.026

Keywords

Angelica keiskei; MRM; Chalcone; Coumarin; Xanthine oxidase

Funding

  1. National Research Foundation Grant founded by Korea government (MEST) [2013M3A9A6003180]
  2. Next-Generation BioGreen 21 program (SSAC), Rural Development Administration, Republic of Korea [PJ009571]
  3. BK21 plus program
  4. National Research Foundation of Korea [2013M3A9A6003180] Funding Source: Korea Institute of Science & Technology Information (KISTI), National Science & Technology Information Service (NTIS)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Angelica keiskei is used as popular functional food stuff. However, quantitative analysis of this plant's metabolites has not yet been disclosed. The principal phenolic compounds (1-16) within A. keiskei were isolated, enabling us to quantify the metabolites within different parts of the plant. The specific quantification of metabolites (1-16) was accomplished by multiple reaction monitoring (MRM) using a quadruple tandem mass spectrometer. The limit of detection and limit of quantitation were calculated as 0.4-44 mu g/kg and 1.5-148 mu g/kg, respectively. Abundance and composition of these metabolites varied significantly across different parts of plant. For example, the abundance of chalcones (12-16) decreased as follows: root bark (10.51 mg/g) > stems (8.52 mg/g) > leaves (2.63 mg/g)> root cores (1.44 mg/g). The chalcones were found to be responsible for the xanthine oxidase (XO) inhibition shown by this plant. The most potent inhibitor, xanthoangelol inhibited XO with an IC50 of 8.5 mu M. Chalcones (12-16) exhibited mixed-type inhibition characteristics. (C) 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available