Phenolic compounds and antioxidant activities of some Hypericum species: A comparative study with H. perforatum

Figures & data

Table 1.  The extraction yields, contents of the total phenols, flavonoids and flavonols in various extracts of H. montbretii (HM), H. origanifolium (HO) and reference plant H. perforatum (HP).

Extracts	Extraction yield (%)^a	Total phenolic compounds (mg/g ± SD) (in GAE)	Total flavonoids (mg/g ± SD) (in RE)	Total flavonols (mg/g ± SD) (in RE)
HOF-ME	29.4	278.63 ± 1.25	16.30 ± 0.37	2.58 ± 0.05
HOF-EA	7.3	302.67 ± 1.25	50.04 ± 0.81	6.92 ± 0.83
HOF-W	21.5	154.52 ± 1.49	2.13 ± 0.36	0.19 ± 0.01
HOL-ME	34.9	172.09 ± 0.72	12.01 ± 0.60	2.02 ± 0.17
HOL-EA	7.5	451.33 ± 4.81	54.77 ± 0.63	7.15 ± 0.03
HOL-W	23.5	104.91 ± 5.78	1.16 ± 0.45	0.14 ± 0.02
HMF-ME	24.8	199.19 ± 1.86	19.30 ± 0.31	3.31 ± 0.18
HMF-EA	15.5	442.41 ± 6.16	55.30 ± 0.65	7.32 ± 0.11
HMF-W	28.2	192.22 ± 1.63	1.87 ± 0.30	0.41 ± 0.04
HML-ME	25.8	336.91 ± 0.59	10.48 ± 0.23	0.96 ± 0.07
HML-EA	7.3	394.30 ± 0.53	16.00 ± 0.55	1.90 ± 0.01
HML-W	23.0	216.03 ± 0.82	2.86 ± 0.21	0.24 ± 0.01
HPF-ME	39.6	319.34 ± 2.46	10.33 ± 0.00	2.51 ± 0.03
HPF-EA	12.2	385.98 ± 1.23	25.37 ± 0.60	5.75 ± 0.04
HPF-W	27.9	257.78 ± 1.82	4.59 ± 0.15	0.78 ± 0.15
HPL-ME	35.7	328.70 ± 0.99	12.72 ± 0.09	2.82 ± 0.31
HPL-EA	7.8	443.43 ± 2.32	38.48 ± 0.54	7.49 ± 0.23
HPL-W	25.9	271.91 ± 3.13	6.67 ± 0.41	1.51 ± 0.02

^a%, w/w on dry weight basis, results are represented as means ± standard deviation (n = 3).

L, leaves; F, flowers; ME, methanol extract; EA, ethyl acetate extract; W, water extracts.

Figure 1.  The chromatogram of ethyl acetate extract obtained from H. montbretti leaves in the conditions as mentioned in experimental. GA (1), pro-CA (2), CA (4), ChA (5), SA (6), p-COU (7), FA (8), tr-CIN (10), IS (11).

Table 2.  The contents of phenolic acids (as a percentage) in various extracts of studied Hypericum species.

	Phenolic acids (%)
	GA (1)	protoCA (2)	p-hydBA (3)	CA (4)	ChA (5)	SA (6)	p-COU (7)	FA (8)	o-COU (9)	tr-CIN (10)
HOF-ME		0.07		0.08	0.88		0.04	0.11		0.45
HOF-EA		0.04		0.08	0.54		0.05	0.12	0.05	0.83
HOF-W		0.03		0.06	0.23			0.05		0.04
HOL-ME	0.03	0.05			2.31			0.14	0.07	0.11
HOL-EA		0.21			3.83		0.02	0.07	0.22	0.35
HOL-W		0.04			0.86
HMF-ME		0.38			5.03				0.11	0.2
HMF-EA	0.04	0. 76	0.24		5.63	0.12			0.27	0.56
HMF-W	0.02	0.22	0.09		2.13				0.06	0.04
HML-ME	0.04	0.09			18.39	0.11	0.24	0.6		0.22
HML-EA	0.07	1.01		0.21	20.48	0.20	0,30	0.05		0.15
HML-W				0.04	7.44	0.09	0.01	0.04		0.04
HPF-ME	0.03	0.36	0.25		0.30		0.09	0.07	0.03	0.07
HPF-EA		0.44	0.51		0.42		0.17	0.09	0.32	0.2
HPF-W		0.08	0.16		0.22		0.07	0.04	0.04	0.21
HPL-ME		0.54	0.49		0.48	0.09	0.03	0,10	0.06	0.05
HPL-EA		0.88	0.47		0.73		0.08	0.10	0.14
HPL-W		0.25			0.48		0.01	0.08

HO, H. origanifolium; HM, H. montbretii; HP, H. perforatum; L, leaves; F, flowers; ME, methanol extract; EA, ethyl acetate extract; W, water extract.

Table 3.  Radical scavenging and antioxidant activities of extracts obtained from studied Hypericum species.

Extracts	Radical scavenging activity^a,b	Oxidative Stability^b,c
HOF-ME	4.72 ± 0.47	1.15 ± 0.03
HOF-EA	5.22 ± 0.84	3.14 ± 0.95
HOF-W	9.24 ± 0.90	0.96 ± 0.01
HOL-ME	6.68 ± 0.49	1.50 ± 0.04
HOL-EA	3.37 ± 0.26	7.10 ± 0.60
HOL-W	13.7 ± 0.88	0.96 ± 0.09
HMF-ME	5.49 ± 0.22	1.24 ± 0.03
HMF-EA	3.82 ± 0.02	1.60 ± 0.00
HMF-W	7.50 ± 0.36	0.96 ± 0.05
HML-ME	3.53 ± 0.07	1.27 ± 0.01
HML-EA	2.84 ± 0.07	2.16 ± 0.11
HML-W	6.54 ± 0.07	1.05 ± 0.07
HPF-ME	3.63 ± 0.01	1.05 ± 0.12
HPF-EA	2.63 ± 0.01	2.62 ± 0.03
HPF-W	4.71 ± 0.04	0.92 ± 0.07
HPL-ME	3.73 ± 0.07	0.87 ± 0.05
HPL-EA	2.57 ± 0.12	1.72 ± 0.03
HPL-W	5.11 ± 0.22	1.07 ± 0.04
BHT	4.39 ± 0.43	2.74 ± 0.15

^aValues expressed as IC₅₀; ^bResults are represented as means ± standard deviation (n = 3); ^cValues expressed as induction index.

Figure 2.  Comparisons of radical-scavenging activities (IC₅₀) and total phenolic contents of studied Hypericum extracts.

Figure 3.  Comparisons of Induction Index values in Rancimat method and total phenolic contents of studied Hypericum extracts.