Identification of bioactive compounds in leaves and fruits of Actinidia arguta accessions from northeastern China and assessment of their antioxidant activity with a radical-scavenging effect

Figures & data

Figure 1. Four types of leaves, petioles and fruits of A. arguta accessions. (A) Mature leaves (ML); (B) Leaves expanded to 1/2–2/3 of the full leaf size (HL); (C) Leaves expanded to 1/4–1/3 of the full leaf size (QL); (D) Young apical leaves (YAL); (E) Petioles of young apical leaves (P); (F) Fruits (F).

Table 1. Geographical description of the eight Actinidia arguta accessions examined in this study.

Accessions	Accessions sources	Latitude and longitude	Altitude (m)	Plant sex
CJ-1	Shenyang, Liaoning	123°43′E, 41°80′N	55	Female
HY-1	Benxi, Liaoning	125°35′E, 41°27′N	282	Female
BYS-13	Zhuanghe, Liaoning	122°98′E, 39°70′N	1078	Male
CBS-3	Changbaishan, Jilin	100°12′E, 40°15′N	2579	Female
CBS-6	Changbaishan, Jilin	100°13′E, 40°18′N	2623	Female
CBS-11	Changbaishan, Jilin	100°11′E, 40°15′N	2637	Male
CBS-8	Changbaishan, Jilin	100°13′E, 40°17′N	2583	Female
BYS-5	Zhuanghe, Liaoning	122°97′E, 39°73′N	1074	Female

Figure 2. Four types of leaves of eight A. arguta accessions used in LC–MS/MS.

Figure 3. Comparison of vitamin C content of different tissues in eight A. arguta accessions. YAL, young apical leaves; QL, leaves expanded to 1/4–1/3 of the full leaf size; HL, leaves expanded to 1/2 to 2/3 of the full leaf size; ML, mature leaves; P, petioles of young apical leaves; F, fruits.

Figure 4. Comparison of soluble sugar content of different tissues in eight A. arguta accessions. YAL, young apical leaves; QL, leaves expanded to 1/4–1/3 of the full leaf size; HL, leaves expanded to 1/2–2/3 of the full leaf size; ML, mature leaves; P, petioles of young apical leaves; F, fruits.

Figure 5. Comparison of free amino acid content of different tissues in eight A. arguta accessions. YAL, young apical leaves; QL, leaves expanded to 1/4–1/3 of the full leaf size; HL, leaves expanded to 1/2–2/3 of the full leaf size; ML, mature leaves; P, petioles of young apical leaves; F, fruits.

Figure 6. Comparison of total phenolic content of different tissues in eight A. arguta accessions. YAL, young apical leaves; QL, leaves expanded to 1/4–1/3 of the full leaf size; HL, leaves expanded to 1/2–2/3 of the full leaf size; ML, mature leaves; P, petioles of young apical leaves; F, fruits.

Figure 7. Comparison of total flavonoids content of different tissues in eight A. arguta accessions. YAL, young apical leaves; QL, leaves expanded to 1/4–1/3 of the full leaf size; HL, leaves expanded to 1/2–2/3 of the full leaf size; ML, mature leaves; P, petioles of young apical leaves; F, fruits.

Figure 8. Comparison of ABTS⁺ antioxidant activity of different tissues in eight A. arguta accessions. YAL, young apical leaves; QL, leaves expanded to 1/4–1/3 of the full leaf size; HL, leaves expanded to 1/2–2/3 of the full leaf size; ML, mature leaves; P, petioles of young apical leaves; F, fruits.

Figure 9. Comparison of DPPH antioxidant activity of different tissues in eight A. arguta accessions. YAL, young apical leaves; QL, leaves expanded to 1/4–1/3 of the full leaf size; HL, leaves expanded to 1/2–2/3 of the full leaf size; ML, mature leaves; P, petioles of young apical leaves; F, fruits.

Table 2. Correlation analysis between main bioactive substances and free radical-scavenging ability of Actinidia arguta.

Parameter	Vitamin C content	Soluble sugar content	Free amino acid content	Total phenolic content	Total flavonoids content	ABTS^+·
Soluble sugar	−0.936
Free amino acid	0.957*	−0.969*
Total phenolic	0.997**	−0.917	0.933
Total flavonoids	0.999**	−0.943	0.968*	0.993**
ABTS+·	0.943	−0.905	0.849	0.956*	0.932
DPPH·	0.989*	−0.967*	0.952*	0.986*	0.987*	0.970*

Note: Data were statistically analyzed using Pearson’s correlation coefficient test. The correlation coefficient r value in the table; r > 0 is positive correlation, r < 0 is negative correlation.

* Significant correlation at a = .05 level (both sides).

** Significant correlation at a = .01 level (both sides).

Table 3. Chromatographic and spectraldata of flavonoid glycosides from Actinidia arguta leaves.

Constituent	Retention time (min)	λ max in the visible region (nm)	Molecular ion [M + H]^+	Fragment ions (m/z)	M.W. (Da)
F1	12.188	266,350	595	287	594
F2	13.276	266,350	595	287	594
F3	13.693	267,354	595	287	594
F4	10.772	256,356	757	317	756
F5	11.339	257,358	757	317	756
F6	14.363	266,350	625	317	624
F7	14.602	254,358	625	317	624
F8	14.915	263,356	625	317	624
F9	14.609	259,357	653	317	652
F10	21.799	260,359	579	301	578

Table 4. Contents of flavonoids in different parts of leaves in CJ-1.

Type	YAL (µg/g)	QL (µg/g)	HL (µg/g)	ML (µg/g)	P (µg/g)	F (µg/g)
Kaempferol-3-O-rutinoside (+) (F1)	121.19 ± 8.53 f	—	397.11 ± 24.59 c	7.36 ± 0.52 d	—	–
Kaempferol-3-O-rutinoside (−) (F2)	775.95 ± 45.80 c	456.45 ± 28.86 cd	—	14.33 ± 1.07 cd	0.56 ± 0.03 e	–
Kaempferol-3-O-neohesperidoside (P)(F3)	1999.91 ± 125.80 b	1326.07 ± 82.84 b	990.58 ± 59.92 a	24.05 ± 2.19 c	10.68 ± 0.62 cd	3.23 ± 0.19 c
Isorhamnetin-3-O-α-L-rhamnopyranosyl-(1 → 3)-α-L-rhamnopyranosyl-(1 → 6)-β-D-galactopyranoside (F4)	572.36 ± 34.78 cd	499.85 ± 29.61 c	1101.83 ± 70.97 a	56.44 ± 4.58 b	13.53 ± 0.81 c	5.65 ± 0.33 c
Isorhamnetin-3-O-α-L-rhamnopyranosyl-(1 → 3)-α-L-rhamnopyranosyl-(1 → 6)-β-D-galactopyranoside (F5)	401.43 ± 24.92 def	323.55 ± 20.53 de	697.98 ± 43.18 b	57.35 ± 4.03 b	1.32 ± 0.01 e	0.95 ± 0.05 c
Isorhamnetin-3-O-neohesperidoside(P)(+) (F6)	212.87 ± 13.58 ef	—	28.36 ± 1.89 d	8.59 ± 0.59 d	—	–
Isorhamnetin-3-O-neohesperidoside(P)(−) (F7)	2103.58 ± 133.21 b	592.69 ± 36.25 c	115.43 ± 9.24 d	53.39 ± 3.59 b	30.46 ± 1.75 b	12.36 ± 0.74 b
Isorhamnetin-3-O-rutinoside (F8)	446.09 ± 31.49 de	210.33 ± 13.04 ef	62.35 ± 4.23 d	11.27 ± 0.93 d	5.69 ± 0.32 de	–
Isorhamnetin-3-O-neohespeidoside (F9)	252.63 ± 16.26 ef	89.95 ± 5.65 f	—	7.05 ± 0.45 d	—	–
Quercetin-3-O-rhamnoglycoside (F10)	3333.83 ± 221.73 a	1478.94 ± 86.92a	593.31 ± 44.91 b	110.72 ± 7.69 a	89.38 ± 5.16 a	56.55 ± 3.32 a
TF contents (µg g^-1)	10219.84 ± 1136.36	4977.83 ± 526.03	3986.94 ± 448.49	350.55 ± 44.39	151.63 ± 15.07	78.75 ± 8.04

Note: YAL, young apical leaves; QL, leaves expanded to 1/4–1/3 of the full leaf size; HL, leaves expanded to 1/2–2/3 of the full leaf size; ML, mature leaves; P, petioles of young apical leaves; F, fruits; – not detected.Values are expressed as mean ± SD of triplicate and different letters within the same column are significantly different at P <0.05.

Data availability statement

All data that support the findings reported in this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.