Antioxidant capacity of Typha angustifolia extracts and two active flavonoids

Figures & data

Figure 1. The chromatograph chart at 354 nm (A) and the (−)-ESI total ion current (B) of Typha angustifolia.

Table 1. The identification of flavone compounds in Typha angustifolia.

Peak No.	tR/min	[M-H]^−	λmax(nm) Identification
1	8.05	755,133	255,354 Quercetin -3-O-(2^G-α-L-rhamnosyl)-rutinoside
2	8.25	609,483,363,155	255,354 Quercetin -3-O-neohesperidoside
3	8.92	769,269,113	254,354 Typhaneoside
4	9.16	593,329,209,187	264,351 Kaempferol -3-O-neohesperidoside
5	9.18	623,593,463	253,354 Isorhamnetin -3-O-neohesperidoside
6	12.20	301,249,155,113	255,366 Quercetin
7	12.70	271,177,151	287 Naringenin
8	13.89	285,273,175,155	255,366 Kaempferol
9	4.30	315,300	254,371 Isorhamnetin

Figure 2. The DPPH scavenging activity (A) and Fe³⁺ absorbance (B) of the extract of Typha angustifolia.

Figure 3. Effect of typhaneoside and I3ON on the activities of normal HUVECs (n = 5).

Figure 4. Effect of typhaneoside and I3ON on HUVECs stimulated with LPS. (A) normal control. (B) HUVECs was treated with of LPS (100 μg/mL) stimulation for 24 h. (C) HUVECs induced by LPS was treated with typhaneoside (70 μmol/L). (D) HUVECs induced by LPS was treated with I3ON (70 μmol/L), magnification ×200. Data are expressed as the means ± SD. (standard deviation, n = 5). #p < 0.05, ##p < 0.01 vs. sham control; *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01 vs. LPS group. Con: sham control group, LPS: LPS group.

Figure 5. NO, SOD and MDA levels in all groups on HUVECs injury induced by LPS. Data are expressed as the means ± SD (n = 5). #p < 0.05, ##p < 0.01 vs. sham control; *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01 vs. LPS group. Con: sham control group, LPS: LPS group.