13 research outputs found

    Comparison of Quercetin derivatives in ethanolic extracts of red raspberry (Rubus idaeus L.) leaves

    No full text
    Ethanol extracts from 41 raspberry leaf accessions were studied. The plants of Rubus idaeus L. were collected in different natural habitats of Lithuania located in 26 districts and replanted in the experimental field of the Institute of Botany, Lithuania. The total amount of phenolic compounds in leaves varied from 0.3 to 2.2 mg of gallic acid equivalents (GAE) in 1 g of dry leaves. Quercetin glucuronide, quercetin-3-glucoside and quercetin glucosylrhamnoside (rutin) were identified in the extracts by HPLC/UV/MS. Remarkable differences in the composition of the extracts were observed indicating that herbal tea preparations containing Rubus idaeus leaves, which are used for phytotherapeutic purposes need more detailed examination in order to standardise their possible functional properties and pharmacological effects

    Radical scavenging activity of raspberry (Rubus idaeus L.) fruit extracts

    No full text
    Thirty-one raspberry (Rubus idaeus L.) plants were collected in different natural habitats of Lithuania located in 17 districts and replanted in the experimental field. The fruits from different accessions were extracted with ethanol and the extracts were tested for their antioxidant activity (AA) by using ABTS·+ radical cation decolourisation and DPPH·radical scavenging methods. All tested raspberry fruit extracts were antioxidatively active; their radical scavenging capacity at the applied concentrations varied from 52.9 to 92.6% in DPPH·reaction system and from 52.5 to 97.8% in ABTS·+system. The total amount of phenolic compounds in fruits varied from 5.6 to 13.7 mg of gallic acid equivalents in 1 g of plant extract. However, strong correlation between the radical scavenging capacity and the total amount of phenolic compounds in the fruit extracts was not observed, which indicates remarkable differences in the composition and antioxidant power of phenolic compounds present in the fruits harvested from raspberry accessions collected from different natural habitats. Most likely, environmental conditions and genetic factors should play an important role for the accumulation of active compounds in raspberry fruits

    Variation in contents of hypericin and flavonoids in Hypericum maculatum (Hypericaceae) from Lithuania

    No full text
    This study, carried out in 2004–2005, describes the variation of hypericin and flavonoid contents in different samples of Hypericum maculatum . Flowering tops of H. maculatum were collected and analysed for hypericin and flavonoids using HPLC. The contents of hypericin ranged from 0.35–0.95 mg/g; flavonoid contents varied as follows: hyperoside — 16.66–40.89 mg/g, quercitrin — 0.00 to 1.07 mg/g and quercetin — 1.46–4.96 mg/g. The study indicated that flavonoid rutin was absent from the flavonoid pattern of H. maculatum , or present only in trace amounts (0.00–0.67 mg/g), however, H. maculatum is one of the most important sources of hyperoside. The samples of H. maculatum which accumulated high levels of flavonoids seem to be promising for further propagation

    Development of national crop wild relative conservation strategies in European countries

    No full text
    To generate European-wide information to contribute to the improvement of national and regional crop wild relative (CWR) conservation planning and the development of effective CWR conservation strategies, a questionnaire was sent to the members of the Wild Species Conservation in Genetic Reserves Working Group of the European Cooperative Programme for Plant Genetic Resources (ECPGR) to collate information on progress in developing and implementing national CWR conservation strategies and action plans. Responses from 30 countries were analysed and literature sources were consulted to fill some information gaps. Results showed that 13 countries were in the preparation stage of their national strategies, i.e. having no drafts prepared yet, 14 in higher stages (from the first draft prepared to the published and approved ones), and three have not yet started the planning process. Twelve countries included all categories of species autochthony (i.e., native, archaeophyte and neophyte) in their priority CWR lists. Wild relatives of human and animal food crops were selected as the highest priorities by 23 and 22 countries, respectively. Relative level of threat was identified as the most important prioritization criterion by 23 countries. Italy reported the highest number of CWR in its national checklist (10,779 taxa) and priority list (1118 taxa), whereas Ireland reported the lowest number of CWR in its checklist (171 taxa) and Portugal reported the lowest number in its priority list (20 taxa). Regarding the percentages of prioritized CWR, the strictest approach was applied in Portugal—only 20 out of 2262 CWR taxa, or &lt; 1%, were selected as priorities for conservation action, whereas in Spain 578 out of 929 CWR taxa, or about 62% were prioritized. Eleven countries have proposed the establishment of genetic reserves, from one per country (Israel) to an extended network (Germany and the Netherlands). Only the UK had a formally established genetic reserve. The highest number of priority CWR taxa that occur in existing protected areas was reported by Spain—472 species, or 82% of the national priority list, whereas the lowest number—14 species, or 70% of the national priority list—in Portugal. Israel reported the highest number of priority CWR taxa (319 or 98%) conserved in gene banks. Among the limitations in the development of national CWR strategies highlighted by countries, was the lack of an EU agency responsible for genetic resources. The development of CWR conservation strategies is mostly within the domains of agriculture (13 countries) and environment (12 countries), although both domains are involved in eight countries. The most successful results in the development and implementation of CWR conservations strategies are achieved in the countries where multiple stakeholders, including ministries, research institutions, NGOs, local communities, protected area authorities and national PGR committees are involved. Some discussion and conclusions regarding further developments are provided.</p
    corecore