Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Phytochemistry
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/phytochem
Department of Technological Sciences and Development (DCTD), University of Azores, 9501-801 Ponta Delgada, Portugal
Research Center for Agricultural Technology (CITA-A), University of Azores, 9700-042, Angra do Herosmo, Portugal
Instituto de Tecnologia Qumica e Biolgica, Universidade Nova de Lisboa, Avenida da Repblica, 2780-157 Oeiras, Portugal
d
Centre for the Research and Technology of Agro-Environmental and Biological Sciences (CITAB), University of Trs-os-Montes e Alto Douro, 5001-801 Vila Real, Portugal
e
Department of Biology, Faculty of Science, University of Porto, 4169-007 Porto, Portugal
f
Mapprod Lda, Rua Antnio de Mariz, 22, 4715-278 Braga, Portugal
b
c
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history:
Received 7 June 2012
Received in revised form 7 October 2012
Available online 7 November 2012
Keywords:
Wavy St. Johns Wort
Free radical scavenging activity
Reducing power
Total phenolics
Electrospray ionization mass spectrometry
a b s t r a c t
LCUV and LCMS analysis were used to study the phenolic composition of water extracts of Hypericum
undulatum (HU) shoot cultures and wild-growing (WG) plants. Total phenolic content (TPC), determined
using the FolinCiocalteu assay, and the antioxidant activity measured by two complementary methods
were also performed for each sample. Mass spectrometry revealed several phenolics acids with quinic
acid moieties, avonols, mostly quercetin, luteolin and apigenin glycosides, avan-3-ols (catechin and
epicatechin) and the xanthonoid mangiferin. Differences in phenolic composition prole and TPC were
found between the samples. The major phenolic in HU culture-growing (CG) samples is chlorogenic acid,
followed by epicatechin, quercitrin and isoquercitrin. The WG plants presents hyperoside as the main
phenolic, followed by isoquercitrin, chlorogenic acid and quercetin. The TPC and antioxidant activity
were higher in samples from WG plants.
2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
Hypericum (Guttiferae) is a large genus of herbs or shrubs (ca
450 species) used for centuries as traditional medicinal plants at
several parts of the world (Robson, 2003). Hypericum perforatum
L., also known as St. Johns Wort (SJW), is the best-documented
and most studied species due to its many therapeutic applications,
including neuralgic, vulnerary, diuretic conditions, sciatica and
poisonous reptile bites (Bilia et al., 2002). The success and economic relevance of H. perforatum as a natural alternative for
mild-to-moderate depression therapy was observed, for instance,
in Germany, in which the prescription of Hypericum-based products was approximately 20 times higher than uoxetine hydrochloride (Prozac), one of the most prescribed antidepressants
(Greeson et al., 2001).
Studies of etnopharmacology in Portugal report the use of several Hypericum species for therapeutic purposes (Novais et al.,
2004; Rivera and Obn, 1995). Hypericum undulatum Schousb. ex.
Willd (HU), also known as Wavy St. Johns Wort, is one of the three
Corresponding author at: Centre for the Research and Technology of AgroEnvironmental and Biological Sciences (CITAB), University of Trs-os-Montes e Alto
Douro, 5001-801 Vila Real, Portugal. Tel.: +351 220 402 732.
E-mail address: manuel.ferreira@fc.up.pt (M. Fernandes-Ferreira).
0031-9422/$ - see front matter 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.phytochem.2012.10.006
84
85
Compound
H. undulatum
a
Peak number
RT (min)
[M+H] m/z
[MH] m/z
CG samples
WG sample
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
9.1
13.2
13.8
16.4
17.1
17.8
19.4
20.7
24.2
26.1
27.7
32.1
33.0
33.6
35.1
35.4
36.8
37.0
37.5
37.6
39.5
41.1
42.1
355
355
355
353
353
338
353
415, 355
367
289
421
577
289
609
381
477
463
463
447
433
447
447
432
263
301
173, 179
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
422
579
291
355
479
551, 465
465
449
435
449
449;
303
245, 205
245, 205
301
301
284
301
284
301
179, 151
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
et al., 2005). Since, the method developed by us and used in previous studies of the chemical composition of Hypericum species
(Rainha et al., 2011) using a reversed phase C12 column was adequate to study the chemical composition of these HU samples separating all the relevant peaks in less than 45 min.
The quantitative variation of the major phenolic compounds of
HU water extracts are shown in Table 2. Chlorogenic acid (1) was
found to be the major phenolic in HU CG samples with an average
amount of 13.04 1.56 mg g1 dE which is slightly lower than the
amount determined for HU WG plants (15.09 0.77 mg g1 dE).
However samples HU10 and HU12 presented higher amounts of
(1) as compared to HU WG samples. These results are in accordance with those published elsewhere reporting that (1) and its
positional isomers are the major phenolic acids present in Hypericum species.
Hypericum species are widely known for its richness in avonoids especially by the avonols derived from quercetin glycosilation. As expected for HU WG plants, the major avonols found
were hyperoside (15), isoquercitrin (16) and quercetin (23) with
32.97, 15.38 and 6.61 mg g1 dE, respectively. Low amounts of
quercitrin (20) were also detected but not quantied since the
peak was not completely separated from the neighbor peaks. In
comparison with HU CG plants the avonoid distribution was completely different from that found for HU WG plants. The amounts of
(15) varied between 0.50 and 0.88 mg g1 dE which is two orders
of magnitude lower than the amount found in HU WG samples.
Compound (16) was also found in lower levels (average value of
2.10 0.46 mg g1 dE) than those of HU WG plants. The major avonol of HU CG samples was (20) with an average amount of
4.76 0.75 mg g1 dE but with some signicant variations between the HU CG group. Other avonols such as the identied
guaijaverin and luteolin hexoside were also detected, but their
amounts are lower than those of the referred compounds.
The second main phenolic detected in HU CG samples is epicatechin (10) a compound from the avonoid class avan-3-ols or
sometimes referred to as avanols. Epicatechin was determined
in an average amount of 5.03 0.80 mg g1 dE also with signicant
differences between the HU CG group. Epicatechin was also
detected in HU WG samples by LC/MS/ESI, although its levels are
86
[M-H]-
2500
m/z = 353.08
Intensity
2000
1500
[M-Na]-
m/z = 354.08
m/z = 375.07
[M-K]m/z = 391.03
1000
354.08
500
332.93 334.94
336.91 339.04 340.96 3 4 2 .9 5 344.93
335
340
345
375.07
355.07
3 4 8 .9 3 351.02
350
391.03
373.02
3 56 .2 4 3 59 .0 0 360.90
355
360
365
376.09
368.92 370.93
364.90366.91
370
m/z
379.93
375
392.98
380
385
390
396.90 398.91
395
401.01
400
191.05
700
MS2
m/z = 191.05
600
500
Intensity
[M]
m/z = 179.04
400
179.04
m/z = 135.03
300
200
100
135.03
105.98
0
100
110
120
130
172.99
155.00 161.05
134.11 137.23
140
150
160
170
180
190
200
236.84247.15
210
220
230
240
254.82
250
m/z
270
280
290
300
353.08
900
320
330
340
350
360
370
380
390
400
m/z = 353.08
800
Intensity
310
[M-H]-
1000
308.78
260
[M]
700
[M-Na]-
[M-K]-
m/z = 375.02
m/z = 390.96
m/z = 354.11
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
317.03
314.97
302.92
306.97
305
310
332.88
321.00
311.04
315
373.06
354.11
318.90
320
325.01
325
330.93
330
375.02
334.92
335
340.97
340
346.94
345
348.91
350
355.05
355
m/z
358.97 360.96
360
365
370
390.96
379.96
366.91 368.94376.94
375
392.93
384.98 386.91
380
385
390
398.92 400.98
395
402.91
400
408.93
405
410
173.06
120
MS2
m/z = 179.04
m/z = 173.06
Intensity
100
80
m/z = 191.05
179.06
m/z = 135.05
60
40
191.05
20
135.05
151.02 154.96
127.06
110
120
130
140
150
160
188.95
170
180
190
199.47
200
2 2 0 .8 8
m/z
210
220
230
240
2 4 9 .12 252.94
259.96
250
260
269.15
270
276.83
280
284.86
293.93
290
300
Fig. 2. Full mass spectrum of (A) 3-O-Caffeyolquinic acid and (B) 4-O-Caffeyolquinic acid and their respective MS/MS spectrum in negative mode from precursor ion m/z 353.
below the limits of quantication. Its epimer catechin was also detected in HU water extracts but also below the limits of quantication by HPLC/UV.
Person correlation matrix was applied to identify possible
chemical composition correlations within the HU CG samples. It
was determined a correlation between chlorogenic acid and
quercitrin (R2 = 0.421, P < 0.05). A strong correlation was observed
between avonols hyperoside and isoquercitrin (R2 = 0.740,
P < 0.01), and hyperoside and quercitrin (R2 = 0.763, P < 0.01). Isoquercitrin and quercitrin were also correlated (R2 = 0.395,
P < 0.05). Such correlations were also observed by Kusari et al.
(2009) for different Hypericum species from Slovakia.
87
Table 2
HPLC quantitative variations of the major phenolic compounds identied in water extracts of H. undulatum (HU) wild growing (WG) and culture growing (CG, referred as HU1 to
HU12) samplesa.
H. undulatum
HU1
HU2
HU3
HU4
HU5
HU6
HU7
HU8
HU9
HU10
HU11
HU12
WG HU
13.29 0.88
12.39 0.43
11.90 0.48
12.66 0.30
10.39 0.15
13.55 0.37
12.92 0.45
12.33 1.23
12.32 0.34
15.39 0.71
12.93 0.11
16.37 0.20
15.09 0.77
Epicatechin
abc
ad
ad
ad
d
abc
ab
ad
ad
ce
ab
e
bce
4.41 0.26
4.42 0.24
5.34 0.33
6.36 0.07
3.93 0.38
4.53 0.46
6.31 0.39
5.50 0.10
5.64 0.08
4.23 0.54
4.85 0.30
4.80 0.27
tr
Hyperoside
abc
abc
bcde
e
a
abcd
e
cde
de
ab
abcd
abcd
f
0.64 0.02
0.50 0.07
0.87 0.07
0.66 0.03
0.71 0.01
0.67 0.01
0.82 0.04
0.80 0.03
0.87 0.06
0.88 0.03
0.65 0.02
0.80 0.02
32.97 1.05
Isoquercitrin
ab
a
e
b
bce
bc
de
cde
e
e
b
cde
f
1.96 0.13
1.53 0.01
3.20 0.07
2.13 0.13
1.99 0.01
1.89 0.10
1.95 0.06
2.06 0.09
2.65 0.09
2.31 0.24
1.51 0.05
1.97 0.08
15.38 0.67
Quercitrin
ab
cd
e
ab
ab
d
ab
ab
f
bf
c
ab
g
4.54 0.24
3.94 0.14
4.86 0.41
3.50 015
4.47 0.05
4.23 0.09
4.67 0.29
5.64 0.18
5.54 0.22
5.72 0.05
4.34 0.12
5.66 0.04
tr
Quercetin
ab
ac
b
c
ab
ab
b
d
d
d
ab
d
e
n.d.
n.d.
n.d.
n.d.
n.d.
n.d.
n.d.
n.d.
n.d.
n.d.
n.d.
n.d.
6.61 0.53
Values marked with different letters within a column are signicantly different (P < 0.05). Data are mean SD, n = 3. tr, trace; n.d., not determined.
a
The HPLC analytical conditions as referred in Section 4.4.2.
et al., 2012). The use of DPPH assay is routinely practiced for FRSA
assessment of extracts and it is considered as one of the standard
and easy colorimetric methods for the evaluation of antioxidant
properties. The results of the FRSA for HU samples are summarised
in Table 3. The average IC50 for HU CG samples was
24.51 3.42 lg ml1 with the IC50 varying from 19.35 to
29.60 lg ml1. The majority of FRSA values are not statistically different (P < 0.05) from that found for HU WG samples
(IC50 = 20.81 lg ml1).
An extract is considered to have high antioxidant activity based
on the comparison, under the same assay conditions, with natural
or synthetic antioxidant standards such as ascorbic acid
(IC50 = 5.85 lg ml1) or BHT (butylhydroxytoluene, IC50 = 19.4 lg ml1) (Mishra et al., 2012). As any of these compounds reect
the chemical composition of the HU extracts, four of the major
phenolics (compounds 1, 15, 16, and 20) identied on HU extracts
were assayed on the same conditions as the extracts to verify if
they were responsible for such activity. The results are also summarised in Table 3. The FRSA was more prominent in hyperoside
(15) followed by isoquercitrin (16), chlorogenic acid (1) and
quercitrin (20). All the four standards tested presented the FRSA
higher than all the HU extract in study, revealing that these
Table 3
Free radical scavenging activity (IC50), reducing power and total phenolic content of water extracts of H. undulatum (HU) WG (wild growing) and CG (culture growing) (referred as
HU1 to HU12) samples. Comparison of the antioxidant activities with pure standards.
Plant material and standards
HU1
HU2
HU3
HU4
HU5
HU6
HU7
HU8
HU9
HU10
HU11
HU12
WG HU
Chlorogenic acid
Hyperoside
Isoquercitrin
Quercitrin
26.13
20.92
22.86
26.58
29.60
25.33
28.25
24.98
26.48
n.d.
19.35
19.61
20.81
3.90
2.77
3.10
6.10
66.66
69.38
68.30
72.96
70.11
74.19
59.45
68.19
64.44
69.55
73.42
73.68
53.84
9.70
12.31
18.43
15.82
119.90 6.86
148.81 6.02
159.10 8.86
146.69 12.23
140.97 2.14
138.20 9.99
151.43 11.76
161.06 0.98
147.34 4.49
147.18 4.71
145.71 5.57
142.93 3.06
191.77 6.87
(23.0129.96)
(17.7324.49)
(19.5326.85)
(23.0230.80)
(25.6034.81)
(21.9729.32)
(24.5332.71)
(21.3629.42)
(24.1929.17)
n.d.
(16.4223.06)
(17.1422.79)
(18.0324.01)
(3.404.60)
(2.413.21)
(2.713.69)
(5.407.15)
Data are mean SD, n = 3. n.d., not determined; GAE, gallic acid equivalents.
a
Values marked with different letters are signicantly different (P < 0.05).
(58.3271.94)
(63.7874.45)
(65.2171.32)
(69.6675.25)
(65.8874.97)
(70.8677.03)
(57.1863.29)
(65.2372.18)
(61.0267.38)
(66.1473.53)
(70.2676.31)
(68.4979.12)
(48.7155.89)
(8.2010.31)
(11.5212.98)
(17.5019.63)
(13.8517.96)
a
ab
ab
ab
ab
ab
ab
ab
ab
ab
ab
ab
c
88
4. Experimental
4.1. Plant material
Wild-growing (in vivo) plants of Hypericum undulatum Schousb.
ex Willd (HU) and shoot cultures (twelve samples, referred as HU1
to HU12) were supplied by a Portuguese medicinal and aromatic
plant company, MAPPROD Lda., which multiplied and kept them
growing in land plots located near Braga (Northern Portugal).
HU1 to HU12 correspond to 12 accessions (aseptic in vitro plants
growing together in each one of 12 culture asks) of the same
micropropagated clone of H. undulatum. Micropropagation started
from one only nodal stem segment of one plant from the same in
nature WG H. undulatum population used in this study. The clone
was kept in vitro over four years, through subcultures, with three
months interval, on MS (Murashige and Skoog, 1962) medium,
containing sucrose (2%) and devoid of growth regulators. The pH
of the medium was adjusted to 5.7 and it was solidied with
0.8% agar prior to autoclaving at 15 psi for 20 min at 121 C. Sterile
primary explants were incubated at 25 2 C under a photoperiod
16 h light/8 h dark. Illumination was supplied by cool white uorescent tubes with a light intensity of 52 lmol m2s1. The present
culture conditions were reported by Guedes (2009) in which all the
plantlets grown and acclimatized in the described conditions survived, showing higher physiological development in comparison
to other different culture mediums. All HU1 to HU12 CG plant
accessions were harvested at the end of 85 days since the last subculture and dried in shady environmental conditions before processing for extraction. Voucher specimens were deposited at the
Department of Technological Sciences and Development, University of Azores (voucher numbers UAc-DCTD 165 and UAc-DCTD
166177, for HU and HU1 to HU12, respectively).
4.2. Chemicals
Butylated
hydroxyltoluene
(BHT),
2,2-diphenyl-1-picrylhydrazyl (DPPH), trichloroacetic acid, potassium ferricyanide,
ferric chloride, gallic acid, sodium carbonate, FolinCiocalteu reagent (2 N), the HPLC grade and LCMS grade solvents (methanol
and acetonitrile) and the standard compounds chlorogenic acid
(1), epicatechin (10), quercitrin (20) and quercetin (23) were obtained from SigmaAldrich Chemical Co. (St. Louis, MO, USA).
Hyperoside (15) was acquired from Extrasynthese (Lyon, France)
and isoquercitrin (16) was obtained from Fluka Chemicals (Buchs,
Switzerland). Ammonium acetate, sodium dihydrogen phosphate,
glacial acetic acid were purchased from E. Merck (Darmstad, Germany). Deionised water with 0.050 lS cm1 conductivity was obtained with an in-house Milli-Q water purication system
(Millipore, Molsheim, France).
4.3. Sample preparation
The infusions were prepared by boiling 200 mg of nely powdered dry plant material in 25 ml of water for 5 min with manual
agitation. After cooling for 10 min at room temperature, the extracts were ltered through a Whatman No. 1 lter, concentrated
under reduced pressure and then lyophilized. After quantication,
the residue was stored (under N2) in dark at 4 C until further analysis. The extraction procedure was performed as far as possible under daylight protection. Prior to HPLC analysis, 2 mg of each
sample was dissolved in 1 ml of deionised water using an ultrasonic bath for a few minutes. Then, they were submitted to centrifugation (10g for 15 min) and ltered through a type HA 0.45 lm
membrane lter (Millipore, Molsheim, France) before injected into
the HPLC system.
89
Table 4
Calibration data for the standard compounds found in H. undulatum water extracts, including regression equation, linearity range, average retention time and relative standard
deviationa (SD).
Compound
y = ax + bb
Average RT (min)
RSD of RT (%)
0.9995
0.9993
0.9993
0.9996
0.9987
0.9973
3.930125.750
1.563306.000
1.09449.500
1.18847.000
1.75040.000
3.37550.000
3.779 0.042
10.669 0.109
19.782 0.239
20.492 0.295
24.575 0.340
37.055 0.309
1.11
1.02
1.21
1.44
1.38
0.83
Slope a
Chlorogenic acid (1)
Epicatechin (10)
Hyperoside (15)
Isoquercitrin (16)
Quercitrin (20)
Quercetin (23)
28.262
15.693
45.380
49.286
57.812
44.523
90
Dias, A., Seabra, R., Andrade, P., Ferreres, F., Fernandes-Ferreira, M., 2001. Xanthone
production in calli and suspended cells of Hypericum perforatum. J. Plant
Physiol. 158, 821827.
Erdelmeier, C., Koch, E., Hoerr, R., 2000. Hypericum perforatum St. Johns wort
chemical, pharmacological and clinical aspects. Stud. Nat. Prod. Chem. 22, 643
716.
Exarchou, V., Fiamegos, Y.C., van Beek, T.A., Nanos, C., Vervoort, J., 2006. Hyphenated
chromatographic techniques for the rapid screening and identication of
antioxidants in methanolic extracts of pharmaceutically used plants. J.
Chromatogr. A 1112, 293302.
Fang, N., Yu, S., Prior, R.L., 2002. LC/MS/MS characterization of phenolic constituents
in dried plums. J. Agric. Food Chem. 50, 35793585.
Ferreira, A., Proena, C., Serralheiro, M.L.M., Arajo, M.E.M., 2006. The in vitro
screening for acetylcholinesterase inhibition and antioxidant activity of
medicinal plants from Portugal. J. Ethnopharmacol. 108, 3137.
Gadzovska, S., Maury, S., Ounnar, S., Righezza, M., Kascakova, S., Refregiers, M.,
Spasenoski, M., Joseph, C., Hagge, D., 2005. Identication and quantication of
hypericin and pseudohypericin in different Hypericum perforatum L. in vitro
cultures. Plant Physiol. Biochem. 43, 591601.
Gioti, E., Fiamegos, Y.C., Skalkos, D., Stalikas, C., 2009. Antioxidant activity and
bioactive components of the aerial parts of Hypericum perforatum L. from Epirus.
Greece. Food Chem. 117, 398404.
Greeson, J., Sanford, B., Monti, D., 2001. St. Johns wort (Hypericum perforatum): a
review of the current pharmacological, toxicological, and clinical literature.
Psychopharmacology 153, 402414.
Guedes, A., 2009. Essential oils from plants and in vitro shoot cultures of Hypericum
androsaemum L., H. perforatum L. and H. undulatum Schousboe ex Wild. PhD
thesis, Minho University.
Hernandez, M., Fal, P., Arajo, M., Serralheiro, M., 2010. Acetylcholinesterase
inhibition and antioxidant activity of the water extracts of several Hypericum
species. Food Chem. 120, 10761082.
Jrgenlienmk, G., Nahrstedt, A., 2002. Phenolic compounds from Hypericum
perforatum. Planta Med. 68, 8891.
Khknen, M., Hopia, A., Vuoreka, H., Rauha, J., Pihlaja, K., Kujala, T., Heinonen, M.,
1999. Antioxidant activity of plant extracts containing phenolic compounds. J.
Agric. Food Chem. 47, 39543962.
Karppinen, K., Hokkanen, J., Tolonen, A., Mattila, S., Hohtola, A., 2007. Biosynthesis
of hyperforin and adhyperforin from amino acid precursors in shoot cultures
of Hypericum perforatum. Phytochemistry 68, 10381045.
Kusari, S., Zhlke, S., Borsch, T., Spiteller, M., 2009. Positive correlations between
hypericin and putative precursors detected in the quantitative secondary
metabolite spectrum of Hypericum. Phytochemistry 70, 12221232.
Mauri, P., Pietta, P., 2000. High performance liquid chromatography/electrospray
mass spectrometry of Hypericum perforatum extracts. Rapid Commun. Mass
Spectrom. 14, 9599.
Meir, S., Kanner, J., Akiri, B., Philosoph-Hadas, S., 1995. Determination and
involvement of aqueous reducing compounds in oxidative defense systems of
various senescing leaves. J. Agri. Food Chem. 43, 18131819.
Mishra, K., Ojha, H., Chaudhury, N., 2012. Estimation of antiradical properties of
antioxidants using DPPH assay: A critical review and results. Food Chem. 130,
10361043.
Murashige, T., Skoog, F., 1962. A revised medium for rapid growth and bio assays
with tobacco tissue cultures. Physiol. Plantarum 15, 473497.
Novais, M.H., Santos, I., Mendes, S., Pinto-Gomes, C., 2004. Studies on
pharmaceutical ethnobotany in Arrabida Natural Park (Portugal). J.
Ethnopharmacol. 93, 183195.
Nogueira, T., 2000. O gnero Hypericum L. em Portugal continental. Contribuio
para o estudo quimiotaxonmico. PhD thesis, Universidade Tcnica de Lisboa,
Instituto Superior de Agronomia, Lisboa.
Nunes, J.M., Pinto, P.S., Bordignon, S.A.L., Rech, S., von Poser, G., 2010. Phenolic
compounds in Hypericum species from the Trigynobrathys section. Biochem. Sys.
Ecol. 38, 224228.
Oyaizu, M., 1986. Studies on products of browning reactions: Antioxidative
activities of products of browning reaction prepared from glucosamine. Jap. J.
Nutr. 44, 307315.
Pavlk, M., Vacek, J., Klejdus, B., Kubn, V., 2007. Hypericin and hyperforin
production in St. Johns Wort in vitro culture: inuence of saccharose,
polyethyele glycol, methyl jasmonate and Agrobacterium tumefaciens. J. Agric.
Food Chem. 55, 61476153.
Plazonic, A., Bucar, F., Males, Z., Mornar, A., Nigovic, B., Kujundzic, N., 2009.
Identication and quantication of avonoids and phenolic acids in Burr
Parsley (Caucalis platycarpos L.), using high-performance liquid chromatography
with diode array detection and electrospray ionization mass spectrometry.
Molecules 14, 24662490.
Ploss, O., Petereit, F., Nahrstedt, A., 2001. Procyanidins from the herb of Hypericum
perforatum. Pharmazie 56, 509511.
Pellati, F., Benvenuti, S., Melegari, M., 2005. Chromatographic performance of a new
polar poly(ethylene glycol) bonded phase for the phytochemical analysis of
Hypericum perforatum L. J. Chromatogr. A 1088, 205217.
Rainha, N., Lima, E., Baptista, J., 2011. Comparison of the endemic Azorean
Hypericum foliosum with other Hypericum species. Antioxidant activity and
phenolic prole. Nat. Prod. Res. 25, 123135.
Rainha, N., Lima, E., Baptista, J., Fernandes-Ferreira, M., 2012. Content of hypericins
from plants and in vitro shoots of Hypericum undulatum Schousb. ex Willd. Nat.
Prod. Res.. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14786419.2012.688051.
91
Seabra, R.M., Vasconcelos, M.H., Costa, M.A.C., Alves, A.C., 1992. Phenolic
compounds from Hypericum perforatum and Hypericum undulatum. Fitoterapia
68, 473474.
Waterhouse, A.L., 2001. Determination of total phenolics. In: Wrolstad, R.E. (Ed.),
Current Protocols in Food Analytical Chemistry. John Wiley & Sons,
New York.