4.5 Article

Quantitative variation of amino acids in Sutherlandia frutescens (Cancer bush)-towards setting parameters for quality control

期刊

SOUTH AFRICAN JOURNAL OF BOTANY
卷 82, 期 -, 页码 46-52

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.sajb.2012.06.009

关键词

Amino acid; D-pinitol; L-canavanine; Lessertia; Sutherlandia frutescens

资金

  1. Tshwane University of Technology
  2. National Research Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Sutherlandia frutescens (L.) R.Br. is extensively used in South Africa to treat a broad range of ailments such as the common cold and cancers and, recently, as adjunct therapy in HIV/AIDS. However, scientific studies focusing on the phytochemical profile and variation within and between populations of this ethnomedicinally important species are lacking. The amino acids GABA, L-canavanine, L-asparagine, and L-arginine and a glycan, D-pinitol, have been proposed as being responsible for the pharmacological activity ascribed to S. frutescens. Aerial parts of S. frutescens were collected from several natural populations and cultivation sites. All 20 naturally occurring amino acids together with GABA, L-canavanine and D-pinitol were quantified by LC-MS. Amino acids collectively constituted between 10% and 15% (w/w) of dried plant material. Proline, L-asparagine and alanine were the most abundant amino acids identified and collectively represent approximately 60% of total amino acid content; however, not all samples contained all the amino acids. The yields of the various compounds showed tremendous variation both within and between populations. For example, L-canavanine (a non-protein amino acid) ranged from 0.14 to 13.58 mg/g. This is the first report on the variation of phytoconstituents claimed to contribute to the pharmacological properties of Cancer bush. This information could be of value to select specific chemotypes for cultivation and for developing guidelines for quality control purposes. (c) 2012 SAAB. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据