Main content area

Iriflophenone-3-C-glucoside from Cyclopia genistoides: Isolation and quantitative comparison of antioxidant capacity with mangiferin and isomangiferin using on-line HPLC antioxidant assays

Malherbe, Christiaan J., Willenburg, Elize, de Beer, Dalene, Bonnet, Susan L., van der Westhuizen, Jan H., Joubert, Elizabeth
Journal of Chromatography B 2014 v.951-952 pp. 164-171
2,2-diphenyl-1-picrylhydrazyl, Cyclopia genistoides, benzophenone, countercurrent chromatography, fluorescein, free radical scavengers, free radicals, high performance liquid chromatography, oxygen radical absorbance capacity, xanthones
The benzophenone, iriflophenone-3-C-glucoside, was isolated from Cyclopia genistoides using a combination of fluid-fluid extraction, high performance counter-current chromatography (HPCCC) and semi-preparative high performance liquid chromatography (HPLC). The microplate oxygen radical absorbance capacity (ORAC) assay, with fluorescein as probe, was adapted for use in an on-line HPLC configuration. The method was validated using a mixture of authentic standards including iriflophenone-3-C-glucoside, and the xanthones, mangiferin and isomangiferin. Trolox (6-hydroxy-2,5,7,8-tetramethylchroman-2-carboxylic acid) was included in the mixture for calculation of Trolox equivalent antioxidant capacity (TEAC) values. Using the on-line HPLC-ORAC assay, as well as 2,2-diphenyl-1-picrylhydrazyl (DPPH) and 2,2′-azinobis-(3-ethylbenzothiazoline-6-sulfonic acid) (ABTS+) on-line assays, the antioxidant activity of iriflophenone-3-C-glucoside and isomangiferin was demonstrated for the first time. Iriflophenone-3-C-glucoside presented no radical scavenging ability against DPPH, but scavenged ABTS+ and peroxyl radicals (TEACABTS of 1.04 and TEACORAC of 3.61). Isomangiferin showed slightly lower antioxidant capacity than mangiferin against DPPH (TEACDPPH of 0.57 vs. 0.62), but higher capacity against ABTS+ (TEACABTS of 1.82 vs. 1.67) and peroxyl radical (TEACORAC of 4.14 vs. 3.69) than mangiferin. The on-line HPLC-ORAC assay was shown to be more sensitive for radical scavengers, but at the same time less selective for rapid radical scavengers than the DPPH assay.