4.5 Article

Phytochemical Profile, Chemotaxonomic Studies, and In Vitro Antioxidant Activities of Two Endemisms from Madeira Archipelago: Melanoselinumdecipiens and Moniziaedulis (Apiaceae)

期刊

CHEMISTRY & BIODIVERSITY
卷 13, 期 10, 页码 1290-1306

出版社

WILEY-V C H VERLAG GMBH
DOI: 10.1002/cbdv.201600039

关键词

Melanoselinumdecipiens; Moniziaedulis; Polyphenols; Chemotaxonomy; Antioxidant activities

资金

  1. Fundacao para a Ciencia e a Tecnologia (FCT, Portugal) [SFRH/BD/84672/2012]
  2. FCT
  3. Portuguese Government [PEst-OE/QUI/UI0674/2013]
  4. Portuguese National Mass Spectrometry Network [RNEMREDE/1508/REM/2005]
  5. POCI (FEDER)
  6. Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia [SFRH/BD/84672/2012] Funding Source: FCT

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Melanoselinumdecipiens and Moniziaedulis (Apiaceae) are two endemic plants from Madeira archipelago, phytochemical compositions of which remains little explored, despite their use in folk medicine. Using liquid chromatography with diode array and electrospray ionization/mass spectrometry analysis, their polyphenolic profile was established for the first time. Fifty-six compounds were identified with 5-O-caffeoylquinic acid, quercetin-O-(malonyl)hexoside, luteolin diacetyl, and quercetin-O-hexoside being the major constituents in the leaves of both plant species (0.76mg/g of dry extract). Principal component analysis provided a suitable tool to differentiate targeted plants. Naringenin-6,8-di-C-glucoside, quercetin 3-O-pentosylhexoside, and 1,5-O-dicaffeoylquinic acid can be used as discriminatory taxonomic/geographical markers for M.edulis subspecies from Madeira and Porto Santo populations. This methodology of using polyphenols as chemotaxonomic markers proved to be useful for identification of plant species since the results are consistent with previous taxonomical data. The free-radical scavenging activities of the M.decipiens extracts proved to be higher than those of M.edulis, which correlated well with their phenolic content (R-2>0.906).

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