Skip to Content
MDPIMDPI
MoleculesMolecules
PDF
  • Article
  • Open Access

12 February 2026

Phytochemical Analysis, Mineral Composition and GC-MS Profiling of Three Iris Species from the Southeastern Part of Kazakhstan

,
,
,
,
,
,
,
and
1
Plant Resource Laboratory, Institute of Botany and Phytointroduction, Almaty 050040, Kazakhstan
2
Laboratory of Medical Problems of Chemical Safety Department of Toxicology, Golikov S.N. National Research Centre of Toxicology, FMBA of Russia, Saint Petersburg 197022, Russia
3
Analytical Phytochemistry Laboratory, Komarov V.L. Botanical Institute of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Saint Petersburg 197022, Russia
4
Center for Molecular and Cell Technologies, Research Park, St. Petersburg State University, Saint Petersburg 199034, Russia
Molecules2026, 31(4), 643;https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules31040643
Version Notes
Order Reprints

Abstract

This study examined the phytochemical profiles and bioactive potential of Iris alberti, I. pallasii, and I. sogdiana collected from southeastern Kazakhstan. GC-MS analysis identified fatty acids, sterols, long-chain alcohols, and hydrocarbons in each species. The key phytosterols β-sitosterol, stigmasterol, and campesterol were present in all three. I. alberti showed the highest sterol content of γ-sitosterol (28.49%) and campesterol (6.51%). I. pallasii contained significant amounts of hexacosanol (19.74%) and γ-sitosterol (13.24%), while I. sogdiana was notable for octacosanol (22.87%) and γ-sitosterol (12.18%). Fatty acid composition varied: I. sogdiana was rich in α-linolenic acid (4.77%) and palmitic acid (2.77%), I. pallasii had 3.96% and (3.48%). I. alberti contained dodecanoic acid (3.83%) and branched-chain fatty acids. Tannin content was highest in I. alberti (1.88%), while alkaloid levels were moderate across species (0.63–0.77%). Mineral analysis showed I. pallasii had the highest Ca (586.62 mg/100 g), Mg and K, whereas I. sogdiana had the highest potassium (538.36 mg/100 g). HPLC-DAD analysis revealed distinct phenolic profiles. Water–alcohol extracts from rhizomes of I. alberti had an IC50 of 16.90 ± 6.04 µg/mL in DPPH and were inactive in ABTS. I. pallasii exhibited IC50 values of 28.77 ± 2.93 µg/mL (DPPH) and 10.93 ± 7.29 µg/mL (ABTS), while I. sogdiana showed negligible activity in both assays. Ethyl acetate extracts displayed higher IC50 values, consistent with lower phenolic content.

1. Introduction

The genus Iris Tourn. ex L. (Iridaceae Juss.) encompasses over 300 species, many of which remain poorly explored chemically, particularly in Central Asia [1,2,3,4]. These species are cosmopolitan and have significant horticultural, medicinal (homoeopathy), cosmetic (perfumery), food, and ecological importance, and served as templates for hydrophobic surfaces [5,6,7,8,9,10,11]. Floristic studies indicate that Kazakhstan has 19–22 Iris species distributed across all natural zones and ecosystems [2,3,4,12,13,14,15]. Three rare species—Iris alberti Regel, I. ludwigii Maxim., and I. tigridia Bunge are listed in the Red Book of Kazakhstan (2014) [16], and only eight have been used in folk and experimental medicine [17].
Among Kazakhstan’s Iris flora, Iris alberti Regel, I. pallasii Fisch. ex Trevir., and I. sogdiana Bunge occur in southeastern Kazakhstan and represent ecologically distinct taxa adapted to different environmental conditions [18]. Long-term phytocenotic introduction of wild-growing iris species in this region began in 2018 and is ongoing [19,20,21], although comprehensive comparative chemical analysis of these species is limited. According to the herbarium collections of the Institute of Botany and Phytointroduction (IBPh), I. sogdiana is found across various floristic regions, whereas I. pallasii and I. alberti exhibit a more restricted yet ecologically distinct distribution.
Taxonomic revisions within the genus Iris complicate comparisons of previously reported chemical data. Iris alberti is consistently assigned to the subgenus and section Iris [22,23,24,25,26]. Central Asian Iris, based on both morphological and molecular evidence, places I. sogdiana and I. pallasii in the subgenus Limniris [26]. Consequently, chemical and pharmacological data are dispersed across different species names, limiting direct comparability.
Phytochemical studies of the genus Iris indicate that its representatives are rich sources of structurally diverse secondary metabolites, including isoflavonoids, xanthones, stilbenoids, quinones, phenolic acids, and triterpenoids, many of which exhibit pronounced biological activity [27,28]. However, research has predominantly focused on species such as I. lactea, I. ensata, I. pseudacorus, and I. tenuifolia, while data on I. alberti, I. pallasii, and I. sogdiana remain fragmentary or indirect [29,30,31,32,33,34].
Despite limited data, Iris alberti has a phytochemical profile primarily characterised by vitamin C and phenolic acids (sinapic and ferulic) in the leaves, and its roots and leaves are rich in tannins (2.99 and 3.52% [29]) and xanthones (mangiferin and isomangiferin) [28]. Traditionally, the roots are used for digestive issues, and the flowers serve as a source of natural green dye [17,29]. In contrast, I. pallasii (I. lactea s.l. or I. pallasii var. chinensis) exhibits a diverse secondary metabolite profile that includes benzoquinones, C-glycosylflavones, xanthones, stilbenoids, phenolic acids, and a significant proportion of unsaturated fatty acids in its seeds [30] (Appendix A, Table A1). This chemical diversity suggests adaptability for harsh environments. The presence of anticancer benzoquinones, such as irisquinone and pallasone, within the Iridaceae family likely functions as potent defence agents against biotic stressors. The pronounced antiviral activity of oligostilbenes, including vitisin B and C, further emphasises the pharmacological significance of this species [27,28,29]. Iris sogdiana accumulates carbohydrates and polysaccharides in roots (0.62–0.63%) and leaves (1.8–2.4%), with seeds containing glucomannans [30]. Iris sogdiana is considered a synonym of I. spuria [25], which is characterised by glycosylated iridals, and iso-iridal type of triterpenes, and isoflavonoids (peltogynoids and rotenoid). Likewise, I. pallasii is frequently treated as I. lactea Pall. or I. pallasii var. chinensis; thus, all phytochemical and pharmacological findings published under these names are integrated to provide a consistent comparative framework [27,32,33,34].
Considering the ecological heterogeneity of southeastern Kazakhstan and the sensitivity of plant secondary metabolism to environmental factors, a targeted comparative phytochemical study of these species is justified. In this context, the present comparison of I. alberti, I. pallasii and I. sogdiana provides important insights into their phytochemical profiles.
Therefore, the objective of this study was to undertake a comparative phytochemical and biological assessment of Iris alberti, I. pallasii, and I. sogdiana collected from southeastern Kazakhstan, thereby contributing novel chemical data for underexplored taxa. The species nomenclature is provided in accordance with the floristic summary [2,3,4].

2. Results

2.1. Collection Sites

The studied plants were collected during expedition trips in April–May 2023 in different phases of vegetation in the valleys of the desert rivers Ili (Iris pallasii, I. sogdiana) and Karatal (I. sogdiana) and in the downhill of the gorges Kasquelen, Shamalgan ridge of Zayliskiy Alatau (I. alberti) (Figure 1). All collected species specimens were submitted to the herbarium of AA belonging to the Institute of Botany and Phytointroduction, under numbers AA0042423, AA0042424, AA0042425. The species was identified using key signs [2,3,4,12,13,14] by Ramazanova M.S. and Prof. Gemejiyeva N.G.
Figure 1. Locations of Field Collection for the Investigated Iris species: in the valleys of the desert rivers Ili (Iris pallasii, I. sogdiana) and Karatal (I. sogdiana) and in the downhill of the gorges Kasquelen, Shamalgan ridge of Zayliskiy Alatau (I. alberti). (Map prepared by Rybakov I.A.).

2.2. Qualitative and Quantitative Analysis

Phytochemical screening provides a preliminary basis for identifying bioactive natural compounds and assessing their potential. The leaves and rhizomes of the three Iris species examined were screened for flavonoids, alkaloids, terpenoids, and tannins, and all these bioactive classes were confirmed. However, qualitative analysis was performed on rhizomes, as these parts are most significant for therapeutic value and are widely used in folk medicine. Additionally, moisture and ash content were calculated (Table 1).
Table 1. Qualitative and quantitative analysis of Iris species from the south-eastern part of Kazakhstan.
Quantitative phytochemical analysis of three Iris samples revealed significant variation in the measured parameters. Flavonoid content was relatively uniform across samples, ranging from 0.29% to 0.33%. Tannin level illustrates considerable variability, with the highest concentration in I.alberti (1.88%) and the lowest in I.sogdiana (1.06%). Alkaloid content remained moderate and comparable across the three samples (0.63–0.77%).

2.2.1. Extract Yield (%)

The extract yield was isolated from creeping rhizomes of three Iris species by solvent extraction. Water–ethanol mixture (50–70%) was applied as a solvent in the extraction process. In all cases, 50% ethanol solution yielded higher extractive values than a 70% ethanol solution, indicating better solubility of the major constituents in the polar solvent system. For I. pallasii the extractive value decreased from 18.9% with 50% water–ethanol to 15.5% (70% w–ethanol). A similar trend was observed for I. alberti (36.7% to 30.3%) and I. sogdiana (31.2% to 29.1%). Among the studied species, the abundance of ethanol-soluble constituents follows the order I. alberi > I. sogdiana > I. pallasii.

2.2.2. Mineral Composition (mg/100 g)

Quantitative analysis of minerals in rhizomes of the three Iris species revealed interspecific differences (Table 2). All samples contained higher levels of macronutrients (Ca, Mg, Na, K) compared to trace elements (Fe, Mn), indicating a consistent trend of decreasing content from major to minor elements across species. However, notable species-specific differences were observed.
Table 2. Elemental composition of rhizomes (roots) of selected Iris species from the south-eastern part of Kazakhstan.
Across species, a tendency toward accumulation of Ca, K, and Na was observed. Iris pallasii accumulates the highest levels of Ca (586.62 mg/100 g), Mg (167.99 mg/100 g), and Na (267.97 mg/100 g), considerably surpassing both I. alberti and I. sogdiana. In contrast, potassium content is highest in I. sogdiana (538.36 mg/100 g), followed by I. pallasii (385.63 mg/100 g) and I. alberti (200.76 mg/100 g). Among trace elements, iron concentration is highest in I. alberti at 22.11 mg/100 g. Manganese levels are relatively low and consistent across all species, with I. pallasii showing a slight increase at 1.16 mg/100 g.

2.3. GC-MS Analysis of the Native Nonpolar Extracts from the Leaves

GC–MS analysis of native CH2Cl2 leaf extracts from Iris alberti, I. pallasii, and I. sogdiana showed complex yet similar metabolite profiles dominated by lipophilic compounds. Compounds were identified using retention time, linear retention indices (LRIs), and mass spectral matching. Relative abundances were reported as percentage peak areas. Figure 2 compares compounds identified in native and TMS-derivatised extracts. Derivatisation significantly influenced the number of detected metabolites in a species-specific manner, reflecting differences in derivatisable functional groups. In I. alberti, TMS derivatisation increased detectable compounds from 54 to 77, indicating a higher proportion of hydroxylated or carboxyl-containing metabolites. In contrast, I. pallasii showed a decrease (74 to 48), while I. sogdiana had a slight increase (70 to 74), highlighting species-specific differences in metabolite composition.
Figure 2. Comparison of the number of compounds identified by GC–MS in CH2Cl2 extracts and TMS-derivatised leaf extracts of the investigated Iris species.
Sterols, triterpenoids, fatty acids, and fatty acid esters were the dominant chemical classes in all three species. Quantities of identified compounds varied; many compounds had consistent retention times across species, demonstrating analytical reliability and a conserved core lipophilic metabolome in Iris. For instance, dodecanoic acid and squalene were present in all samples with nearly identical retention times, confirming accurate compound identification.
Identified compounds in CH2Cl2 leaf extracts from three Iris species were classified according to the chemical classes (Figure 3). Fatty acid esters and fatty acids were the most abundant chemical classes in all three species. Iris sogdiana had the highest number of fatty acid esters, while I. pallasii showed a similar but slightly lower diversity in this class. Sterols and terpenes/terpenoids were especially prominent in I. pallasii, which contained the highest number of these compounds among the species analysed. Aliphatic hydrocarbons were another major class, with I. sogdiana containing more identified compounds than I. alberti. In contrast, polyphenols and flavonoids, aromatic heterocycles (benzofuran, 2,3-dihydro-; 1,1,5-trimethyl-1,2-dihydronaphthalene; naphthalene, 1,2,3,4-tetrahydro-1,1,6-trimethyl-), alcohols, aldehydes, and ketones were present in limited quantity across all species, with only minor interspecies differences observed and grouped in the other category. In the other category, different classes of compounds were listed, including isoprenoid γ-lactone (4,8,12,16-Tetramethylheptadecan-4-olide), simple ethers, and unidentified compounds.
Figure 3. Identified compounds by major chemical class in CH2Cl2 leaf extracts of three Iris species.
The following list comprises the 26 compounds that were found in all three samples (Table 3), and full peak assignments are provided in Supplementary Tables S1, S3 and S5.
Table 3. Recurring compounds identified in the CH2Cl2 extracts of leaf samples from the studied Iris species (retention time, LRI, relative peak area, %).
Sterols and terpenoids were the most prominent compound classes identified across all analysed species. Among these, γ-sitosterol was the dominant constituent, accounting for 12.18% in I. sogdiana, 13.24% in I. pallasii, and 28.49% in I. alberi. Saturated and unsaturated fatty acids were found in the analysed species. Among the saturated fatty acids, n-hexadecanoic acid was particularly notable, comprising up to 2.29% and 1.68%, while tetradecanoic acid accounted for up to 1.24%. Dodecanoic acid was also detected in significant amounts in I. alberti at 3.83%. The presence of polyunsaturated fatty acids and their esters was exceptionally high. 9,12,15-octadecatrienoic acid reached concentrations of 4.77% in the I.sogdiana and 1.88% in the I.pallasii, whereas 9,12-octadecadienoic acid represented 2.77% and 0.92%. Their ethyl esters were also abundant; for example, the ethyl ester of 9,12,15-octadecatrienoic acid accounted for 2.32% in I.sogdiana and 0.85% and 1.04% across the other species. Other significant sterols included stigmasterol, which comprised 3.84% and 6.49% in I. sogdiana and I. pallasii, and campesterol, which contributed 1.48%, 3.28%, and 26.51% in I. alberti.
The study also considered hydrocarbons and aldehydes, such as pentacosane, heptacosane, nonacosane, octacosane, and triacontanal, as well as esters such as phytyl decanoate. A total of sterols, triterpenoids, tocopherols, and isoprenoid-type compounds were identified across all three analysed samples (Table 3 and Table 4). While the overall qualitative composition was broadly similar, the relative proportions of individual metabolites varied considerably. Sterols were the predominant class of compounds across all species. γ-Sitosterol and stigmasterol accounted for a substantial portion of the sterol profile, with the highest concentration in I. alberti (28.49% and 3.67%), nearly double that in I. sogdiana and I. pallasii. Campesterol increased from 1.48% in I.sogdiana to 3.28% in I. pallasii, peaking at 6.51% in I.alberti. Ergostan series sterols were observed in the studied species: γ-ergostenol (I. sogdiana, 0.63%), ergostanol (I. pallasii, 0.62%), and ergosta-4,6,22-trien-3α-ol (I. alberti, 0.69%) (Supplementary Tables S1–S6).
Table 4. Comparative Analysis of Sterols, Terpenes, and Tocopherols in the CH2Cl2 extracts of leaf samples from the studied Iris species (RT, LRI and area, %).
Tocopherol accounted for 3.58–5.75% of the total GC–MS profiles among the three Iris species. The highest tocopherol level was observed in I. sogdiana and was approximately 1.6 times greater than in I. pallasii, indicating moderate interspecific variation in tocopherol accumulation within the genus. Triterpenoids, including lupeol and lup-20(29)-en-3-one, have been identified as exclusive to I. sogdiana.

GC-MS Analysis of the TMS Derivatives of Nonpolar Leaf Extracts from Three Iris Species

The analysis showed that all three species possess complex but variable chemical profiles, comprising more than 70 identified compounds (Supplementary Tables S2, S4 and S6). These compounds predominantly belong to the fatty acids, sterols, long-chain alcohols, and hydrocarbons.
The studied species contain key phytosterols, including β-sitosterol, stigmasterol, and campesterol, as well as a wide range of common saturated fatty acids, such as palmitic, stearic, and myristic acids. Additionally, all samples contain long-chain alkanes (e.g., nonacosane and heptacosane) and alcohols such as 1-octacosanol. For example, the sterol composition differed significantly among the three species. I. alberti exhibited the highest overall sterol content, with β-sitosterol, which represents the main peak (16.85%) of the GC–MS profile. Furthermore, campesterol had the highest relative abundance (2.95%), and stigmasterol was present at 0.30%. In comparison, I. pallasii also contained substantial amounts of β-sitosterol (12.08%) and showed the highest relative concentration of octacosanol among the studied species (28.23%) (Figure 4). Meanwhile, I. sogdiana displayed the lowest relative abundance of β-sitosterol (3.39%). This species was characterised by the presence of stigmast-8(14)-en-3β-ol (0.30%) and lup-20(29)-en-3-one (0.25%).
Figure 4. Percentage distribution of identified compounds by major chemical classes in three Iris species (TMS-derivatised of native CH2Cl2 extracts): (a)—I. alberti; (b)—I. sogdiana; (c)—I. pallasii.
A comparative analysis of fatty acids (FAs) and their derivatives revealed notable differences between species in both the amount and types of fatty acids present, although several key fatty acids were shared among all three species. Iris sogdiana showed the highest accumulation of unsaturated fatty acids, with α-linolenic acid as the main component of the fatty acid profile (17.45%), along with palmitic acid (9.37%) and a significant amount of fatty acid esters, suggesting active fatty acid metabolism. In contrast, I. pallasii had relatively low levels of α-linolenic acid (3.96%) and palmitic acid (3.48%), which aligns with the dominance of long-chain alcohols in this species. Iris alberti consistently contained dodecanoic acid (7.73%), and unique to this species were branched-chain (iso-) fatty acids, including iso-pentadecanoic and iso-palmitoleic acids, as well as oleic acid (Supplementary Table S2).

2.4. HPLC Analysis of Extracts from Rhizomes

The phytochemical profiling of the summary 70% water–alcohol extracts from rhizomes belonging to the species of I. alberti, I. pallasii, and I. sogdiana, as well as ethyl acetate extracts from I. pallasii (EA-IP) and I.sogdiana (EA-IS), revealed significant qualitative and quantitative variations in their phenolic composition. Only 11 compounds were identified across the analysed samples (Table 5). While certain marker compounds were consistently present, the extracts exhibited distinct chemical signatures, especially in the distribution of simple phenolics, flavonoids, and phenolic esters. These compositional differences were also evident in the antioxidant activities assessed through DPPH and ABTS assays.
Table 5. Retention times, calibration parameters (R2 = 0.99), linearity ranges, limits of detection (LOD), recoveries, and phenolic composition were determined for rhizome extracts from three Iris species using HPLC–DAD at 254 nm (mg/g extract). Analyses were conducted on 70% water–alcohol extracts of I. alberti, I. pallasii, and I. sogdiana.
The HPLC-DAD analysis revealed that I. alberi exhibited a profile dominated by coumarin (35.92 mg/g) and trans-2-hydroxycinnamic acid (15.82 mg/g), which together represent the highest concentration of simple phenolics across all samples. Additionally, the presence of genistein (3.84 mg/g) introduces a flavonoid component to the overall profile, although at comparatively low levels.
In contrast, I. pallasii was characterised by flavan-3-ols, most notably catechin (4.72 mg/g) and epicatechin (1.98 mg/g), which were absent from other extracts. These compounds, commonly associated with potent radical scavenging activity, suggest a mechanistic basis for the observed antioxidant potency of this extract.
Iris sogdiana showed an extraordinarily high propyl gallate content (250.83 mg/g), a well-known synthetic phenolic antioxidant often encountered as a natural artefact or an extraction-derived constituent. Its overwhelming abundance suggests either deliberate enrichment during sample processing or an intrinsic conversion of native gallic acid derivatives during extraction. The presence of trace amounts of genistein further supports the notion that the extract retains limited native phenolic diversity.
Among the ethanol extracts, samples EA-IP and EA-IS showed broader but lower-intensity phenolic profiles. EA-IP contained protocatechuic and vanillic acids, as well as caffeic acid in trace amounts, while both incorporated genistein in concentrations of 0.58 mg/g and 7.76 mg/g, respectively. Sample EA-IS additionally contained low levels of vanillic acid, caffeic acid, and ferulic acid, indicating partial hydrolysis of phenolic glycosides or liberation of bound phenolics during ethanol extraction.
Overall, the phenolic landscape clearly demonstrates that the samples differ not only in specific phenols present but also in the structural classes they represent—simple phenolic acids in the extracts of I. alberti and EA-IP, flavan-3-ols in sample 2, phenolic esters in I. sogdiana, and mixed phenolics with flavonoids in EA-IS.

Correlation Between Phenolic Composition and Antioxidant Activity

The antioxidant assays revealed significant differences in activity across samples, with IC50 values closely correlating with the presence of specific phenolic groups (Table 5). In the DPPH assay, Iris alberti exhibited the lowest IC50 value among the native extracts (16.90 ± 6.04 µg/mL), whereas I. pallasii showed a slightly higher IC50 (28.77 ± 2.93 µg/mL), and I. sogdiana demonstrated negligible activity (IC50 > 400 µg/mL). In the ABTS assay, I. pallasii displayed the lowest IC50 (10.93 ± 7.29 µg/mL), I. sogdiana showed moderate activity (114.42 ± 3 µg/mL), and I. alberti was inactive under the tested conditions (NA).
Ethyl acetate (EA) extracts generally exhibited lower radical scavenging potential than the native extracts. EA–I. pallasii had IC50 values of 64.38 µg/mL (DPPH) and 150.21 µg/mL (ABTS), while EA–I. sogdiana ranged from 120 to >300 µg/mL in both assays. These results are consistent with the lower total phenolic content in the EA fractions.
Across all samples, IC50 values corresponded with the relative abundance of phenolic compounds. Extracts enriched in flavan-3-ols, coumarins, and cinnamic acid derivatives generally had lower IC50 values, reflecting higher radical scavenging potential, whereas extracts with lower phenolic content or dominated by other compounds showed higher IC50 values and reduced activity. Differences between DPPH and ABTS assays indicate that both hydrogen-atom transfer and electron-transfer mechanisms contribute to the observed antioxidant activity, depending on each extract’s phenolic composition.
Taken together, these results demonstrate that antioxidant profiles are species-dependent and influenced by both the type and abundance of phenolic constituents. Native extracts consistently exhibited higher radical scavenging potential than the EA fractions, highlighting the importance of the complete phenolic matrix. All IC50 values were higher than those of the reference antioxidant BHA (5.09 ± 0.22 µg/mL for DPPH, 2.21 ± 0.09 µg/mL for ABTS), indicating lower activity than the standard.

3. Discussion

The complex taxonomy of Iris Tourn. ex L. remains a critical consideration when interpreting phytochemical data [28,34]. Notably, Iris sogdiana Bunge is frequently treated as a synonym of I. halophila var. sogdiana or I. spuria L. [25,35], while I. pallasii Fisch. ex Trevir. is often regarded as a synonym of I. lactea Pall. [25,28]. Despite these taxonomic ambiguities, and while retaining the species names as recognised in the flora of Kazakhstan [2,3,4,12,15], these species exhibit pronounced adaptations to local eco-geographical conditions, as evidenced by their successful acclimatisation at the MBG and the Ili Botanical Garden (IBG) [19,36].
A herbarium review of Iris collections from southeastern Kazakhstan at the Institute of Botany and Phytointroduction (herbarium AA) confirmed at least 65 species across five floristic regions: Balkhash-Alakol, Dzungarian Alatau, Zailiysky and Kungey Alatau, Ketmen and Terskey Alatau, and Chu-Ili mountains. I. sogdiana was found in eight floristic regions. I. pallasii was recorded in Dzungar Alatau, Zailiysky Alatau, Toraygyr mountains, and Balkhash-Alakol. I. alberti was identified in Zailiysky Alatau, the Kazakh part of the Western Tien-Shan, and other Tien-Shan regions in Kyrgyzstan (Appendix B, Table A2). These studies independently verify species identity and geographic distribution, supporting the relevance of the phytochemical and antioxidant analyses presented here.
This study is the first report on the quantitative (flavonoids, tannins, and alkaloids) and phytochemical profiles of CH2Cl2 extracts and their TMS derivatives from leaves, along with HPLC-DAD analysis of phenolic compounds and the antioxidant potential of summary extracts from rhizomes for the Kazakhstani three Iris species.
Quantitative analysis of rhizome extracts revealed relatively low total flavonoid content (0.29–0.33%) and tannin content (1.06–1.88%) across all three species, whereas their qualitative profiles exhibited clear species-specific differences.
This research provides the first detailed phytochemical profile of I. alberti rhizomes and leaves. HPLC-DAD analysis revealed that simple phenols, particularly coumarin (35.92 mg/g) and trans-2-hydroxycinnamic acid (15.82 mg/g), are the predominant compounds. According to [27,29], the leaves of I. alberti contain xanthones (mangiferin and isomangiferin) and phenolic acids (sinapic and ferulic), along with elevated tannin [29]. While GC-MS analysis showed that the leaves contain saturated fatty acids (dodecanoic acid, n-hexadecanoic acid) and the unsaturated fatty acid 9,12,15-octadecatrienoic acid, a profile characteristic of the lipophilic fractions of numerous Iris species, such as I. lactea and I. sibirica [28,37]. Squalene, terpenes and phytosterols, including campesterol (6.51%) and γ-sitosterol (28.49%), were also detected in I. alberti. Analysis of sterols in other species, including I. lactea, I. germanica, and I. pallida, revealed the presence of stigmasterol-3-O-β-D-glucopyranoside and β-sitosterol [30]. The occurrence of β-amyrin in I. alberti aligns with previous reports of this pentacyclic triterpenoid in the rhizomes of I. germanica [38]. Additionally, α-iron (0.11%) was detected in the lipophilic fraction of I. alberti; irons, including α-, β-, and γ-isomers, are characteristic of irises in the Iris section (bearded irises such as I. germanica and I. florentina) and contribute to their distinctive violet aroma [27,39].
While the literature on Iris spuria (a syn. I. sogdiana) has focused on isoflavonoids (tectorigenin, irisolone) and rotenoids (12α-hydroxirotenoid) [27,34], our analysis revealed an exceptionally high content of propyl gallate (250.83 mg/g) in the summary extract of I. sogdiana. Additionally, in the EA extract, six phenolic compounds were identified and quantified: vanillic acid (0.92 mg/g), caffeic acid (0.64 mg/g), ferulic acid (0.61mg/g), and genistein (7.76 mg/g). Furthermore, I. sogdiana exhibited the highest potassium content (538.36 mg/100 g) among the studied species. GC-MS analysis of the non-polar extracts confirmed that sterols and triterpenoids are the predominant classes of compounds across all three species, with γ-sitosterol (53.24%) and stigmasterol (16.77%).
In the literature, Iris lactea s.l. is the most frequently described species, and, if considered a synonym of I. pallasii, it is among the most extensively studied taxa within the genus (Appendix A). Nevertheless, the studied phenolic profile reveals the presence of catechin (4.72 mg/g) and epicatechin (1.98 mg/g). The EA extracts contained protocatechuic, vanillic, and caffeic acids, which have also been identified in other species of the genus [17,28]. Compared to the sterol and terpenes profiles of the rhizome, which contains only stigmasterol derivatives according to [28], we semi-quantified the presence of campesterol (1.17–3.30%), γ-, β-sitostrol (1.29 and 16.85%), and fucosterol (0.66%).
This study presents the first comprehensive phytochemical and quantitative analysis of Kazakhstani Iris species, examining flavonoids, tannins, alkaloids, phenolic compounds, and antioxidant activity in rhizomes and leaves. Comparative analysis of I. albertii, I. pallasii, and I. sogdiana identifies both shared structural compounds characteristic of the genus and unique metabolites reflecting species-specific ecological adaptations. Sterols, triterpenoids, fatty acids, and phenolic compounds emerged as the dominant constituents across all studied species.

4. Materials and Methods

Quantitative analyses were performed in accordance with the protocols described in the State Pharmacopoeia of the Republic of Kazakhstan [40] and procedures described in [41].

4.1. Sample Preparation

The dried, ground leaves of the studied samples (0.2 g) were extracted with 2 mL of dichloromethane. Extraction was carried out for 2 h at room temperature, consisting of two ultrasonic treatments (5 min each) at 25 °C. The extract was decanted and evaporated to dryness without heating; the dry residue was redissolved in dichloromethane and analysed by GC–MS. The extractive yield was 10.33%.

4.2. Summary Extract Preparation

The summary extracts were prepared using 50% water–ethanol, and each sample underwent three extractions to ensure maximal recovery of phenolic constituents. The combined extracts were concentrated to a minimal volume and then sequentially partitioned with chloroform and ethyl acetate to obtain the corresponding solvent fractions.
Silylation: To the dry extract obtained using the previously described method, add 50 μL of N, O-bis(trimethylsilyl)acetamide (BSA). Incubate the mixture at 50 °C with constant stirring using a magnetic stirrer until the residue has fully dissolved and the silylation reaction is complete. Once the reaction is finished, dilute the resulting solution of silylated derivatives with dichloromethane and analyse it using GC–MS.

4.3. GC-MS Analysis

GC–MS analysis was performed using a Maestro gas chromatograph (“Interlab”, Moscow, Russia) coupled with a quadrupole mass spectrometer detector (Agilent 5975) and a capillary quartz column (HP-25, 30 m, “Interlab”, Moscow, Russia). The carrier gas was helium (1 mL/min), and the oven temperature was programmed from 50 °C (3 min) to 280 °C over 10 min, followed by 20 min isothermal at 280 °C (total run time 45 min). The injector temperature was 270 °C, injection volume 1 µL, with electron-impact ionisation at 70 eV. Components were identified using the NIST-2011 and Wiley-2008 libraries (match factor ≥ 85%) and confirmed by calculating linear retention indices (LRIs) from a homologous series of n-alkanes (C8–C37) under the same chromatographic conditions. The LRI for each compound was determined according to the Van den Dool and Kratz equation:
LRI   =   100 × n + 100 × t x − t n t n + 1 − t n
Here, tx is the retention time of the compound, tn and t(n+1) are the retention times of the n-alkanes eluting immediately before and after the compound, and n is the carbon number of the preceding n-alkane. LRIs, together with mass spectral data, were used to confirm compound identities by comparing them with literature values and reference databases. Relative abundances were expressed as the percentage of peak area in the total ion chromatogram (TIC), providing a semi-quantitative comparison of constituents within and between samples.

4.4. HPLC–DAD Analysis

Phenolic compounds in the extract were analysed together with 43 standard phenolics [42] using a Shimadzu HPLC–DAD system (Shimadzu, Kyoto Japan) consisting of an LC-20AT pump and an SPD-M20A diode array detector, controlled by LC-Solution software 5.117 software (CBM-20A). Separation was achieved on an Inertsil ODS-3 column (GL Sciences Inc., Shinjuku-ku, Tokyo, 163-1130 Japan) (4 μm, 4.0 × 150 mm) with a guard column at 35 °C. The mobile phase comprised 0.1% acetic acid in water (A) and 0.1% acetic acid in methanol (B) and was applied in gradient mode at a flow rate of 1.0 mL/min. Samples and standards (8 mg/mL) were filtered through a 0.45 μm MN filter, and 20 μL was injected. Detection was performed at 254 nm. Phenolic compounds were identified by comparing retention times, and results were expressed as mg/g dry extract.

4.5. Antioxidant Activities

The antioxidant activity of the extracts was evaluated spectrophotometrically using DPPH free radical scavenging and ABTS cation radical scavenging assays with a 96-well microplate reader (SpectraMax 340PC384, Molecular Devices, Silicon Valley, CA, USA). SoftMax Pro v5.2 software (Molecular Devices, Silicon Valley, CA, USA) was used for data analysis and bioactivity calculations. Stock solutions of the samples were prepared at a concentration of 4000 μg/mL. Radical scavenging activity was calculated using the following formula:
Scavenging activity (%) = [(Abs control − Abs sample)/Abs control] × 100,
where Abs control represents the initial absorbance of DPPH or ABTS, and Abs sample represents the absorbance of the remaining radicals in the presence of the extract or positive control. Antioxidant activity was expressed as IC50 values (µg/mL), defined as the concentration of the extract required to inhibit 50% of DPPH or ABTS radicals. BHA was used as a positive control.

4.6. DPPH Radical Scavenging Assay

The free radical scavenging activity of the extracts was evaluated using the DPPH assay [43]. A 0.1 mM DPPH solution was prepared by dissolving 39.4 mg of DPPH in methanol. Aliquots of 40 μL of the extracts at various concentrations were mixed with 160 μL of DPPH solution. After incubation in the dark at room temperature for one hour, absorbance was measured at 517 nm. Butylated hydroxyanisole (BHA) was used as the reference antioxidant. All measurements were performed in triplicate.

4.7. ABTS Cation Radical Scavenging Assay

ABTS cation radical scavenging activity was determined according to [44] with slight modifications [45]. The ABTS cation radical was generated by reacting 7.0 mM ABTS with 2.45 mM potassium persulfate and incubating the mixture in the dark at room temperature for 12 h. Prior to analysis, the solution was diluted with distilled water to an absorbance of 0.70 ± 0.01 at 734 nm. In each well, 160 μL of ABTS solution was mixed with 40 μL of the extract at different concentrations. Solvent for the extract served as the negative control, and BHA as the standard antioxidant. Absorbance was recorded at 734 nm after 10 min of incubation at room temperature. All analyses were conducted in triplicate.

4.8. Statistical Analyses

HPLC and activity assay data represent the mean of three independent replicates and are expressed as mean ± SEM. Statistical analysis was performed using ANOVA, and significant differences between means were determined by Student’s t-test (p < 0.05).

5. Conclusions

The taxonomy of Iris species remains complex, with I. sogdiana and I. pallasii often considered synonyms of other taxa. Nevertheless, all studied species demonstrate clear local adaptations to Kazakhstani conditions. This study provides the first comprehensive phytochemical and quantitative analysis of these species, encompassing flavonoids, tannins, alkaloids, phenolic compounds, and antioxidant activity in rhizomes and leaves.
The results reveal species-specific phytochemical profiles: I. alberti is rich in xanthones, phenolic acids, fatty acids, squalene, terpenes, and phytosterols, including β-amyrin and α-iron, contributing to its aroma; I. sogdiana exhibits exceptionally high propyl gallate, multiple phenolic acids, and elevated potassium, with sterols and triterpenoids predominant in non-polar extracts; I. pallasii contains diverse phenolics and rhizome sterols, including campesterol, γ- and β-sitosterol, and fucosterol.
Overall, sterols, triterpenoids, fatty acids, and phenolic compounds are the dominant constituents across all Kazakhstani Iris species studied, reflecting both common genus-level features and species-specific adaptations to their ecological environments.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/molecules31040643/s1, Table S1: GC–MS peak assignments of native leaves extract of Iris alberti (RT, compound name, peak area %); Table S2: GC–MS peak assignments of TMS -derivatized extract of Iris alberti (RT, compound name, peak area %); Table S3: GC–MS peak assignments of native leaves extract of Iris pallasii (RT, compound name, peak area %); Table S4: GC–MS peak assignments of TMS-derivatized extract of Iris pallasii (RT, compound name, peak area %); Table S5: GC–MS peak assignments of native leaves extract of Iris sogdiana (RT, compound name, peak area %); Table S6: GC–MS peak assignments of TMS-derivatized extract of Iris sogdiana (RT, compound name, peak area %).

Author Contributions

Conceptualisation, Z.K.; methodology, M.R., A.M., K.K., D.K., D.C. and Z.K.; software, K.K., A.S., D.C. and M.O.; validation, A.M., K.K., A.S., M.O. and Z.K.; formal analysis, N.G. and Z.K.; investigation, M.R., N.G., A.M., D.K. and Z.K.; resources, M.R. and N.G.; data curation Z.K.; writing—original draft preparation, N.G., M.R., A.M., M.O. and Z.K.; writing—review and editing, Z.K.; visualisation, Z.K.; supervision, N.G. and Z.K.; project administration, N.G. and Z.K.; funding acquisition, N.G. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by the Science Committee of the Ministry of Science and Higher Education of the Republic of Kazakhstan, Program BR21882180 Development of a program for the conservation and expansion of a resource base of prospective medicinal and veterinary plants of Kazakhstan in terms of climate changes” (2023–2025).

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the authors on request.

Acknowledgments

The first author would like to thank the Komarov V.L. Botanical Institute of the Russian Academy of Sciences for providing access to their laboratory facilities and analytical equipment and the Centre for Molecular and Cell Technologies (Research Park, St. Petersburg State University) for technical assistance. The authors have reviewed and edited the output and take full responsibility for the content of this publication.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Appendix A

Table A1. Component composition and biological activity of the species Iris L.
Table A1. Component composition and biological activity of the species Iris L.
SpeciesSpecies
(syn.)		Plant PartCompoundsRef.
Iris alberti RegelI. albertiLeavesPhenolic acids: sinapic and ferulic; vitamin C; tannins (2.99 and 3.52%)[29,30]
RhizomeXanthones: mangiferin, and isomangiferin
Iris sogdiana BungeI. halophila Pall.LeavesAscorbic acid 250–950.6 mg%.[30,31,34]
SeedsStilbenes: halophilol A, halophilol B, resveratrol, ε-viniferin, γ-2-viniferin.
Iris spuriaRhizome RootsIridals: Oxo-23-hydroxyiridal-3-[β-D-Glcp-(1→6)-β-D-Glcp]-16-β-D-Glcp, Oxo-23-hydroxyiridal-3,16-di-β-D-Glcp, Oxo-23-isoiridal-3,16,23-tri-β-D-Glcp, Oxo-23-hydroxy-isoiridal-3-[β-D-Glcp-(1→6)-β-D-Glcp]-16-β-D-Glcp, Oxo-23-hydroxy-isoiridal-3,16-di-β-D-Glcp, Dihydroxy-iridal-3,16-di-β-D-Glcp, 22,23-Dihydroxy-isoiridal-3,16-di-β-D-Glcp; isoflavonoes: 7-O-,4′-O—D-glucopyranosylisoflavones; 7-O-β-D-Glcp(tectoridin), isoflavone-4′-O-β-D-Glcp;
isoflavone disaccharides: 5,4′-dihydroxy-6,7-dimethoxyisoflavone(7-methyltectorigenin); IF-7-O-β-Glcp-(1→6)-β-Glcp; 7-O-β-D-Glcp-4′-O-β-D-Glcp; Rotenoid, 1,11-dihydroxy-9,10-methylenedioxy-12a − dehydrorotenoid; tectorigenin-7-O-β-glucosyl-4′-O-β-glucoside		[35,36,37]
Iris halophila var. sogdianaIsoflavones: irilin A; iristectorigenin B; iristectorigenin B 4′-O-β-D-glucopyranoside; iristectorigenin B 4′-[O-β-D-glucopyranosyl-(1‴→6″)—β-D-glucopyranoside;
flavonoids alpinone; sterol: β-daucosterol 		[36]
Flavonoids and isoflavanoid: 5,7,3′-Trihydroxy-6,4′-dimethoxyflavanone; 5,8,2′-Trihydroxy-7-methoxyflavanone; Tectorigenin; 7-O-glucoside; Iristectorigenin A.[29]
Iris pallasii Fisch. ex Trevir.I. lactea
Pall.		Rhizomes
Roots		Xanthones: mangiferin and isomangiferin;
Flavonoids (including C-glycosylflavones): apigenin- and luteolin-type compounds (orientin, isoorientin/homoorientin, embinin and acetylated derivatives, swertiajaponin);
Phenolic acids: hydroxybenzoic and hydroxycinnamic acids (gallic, protocatechuic, vanillic, syringic, caffeic, chlorogenic, ferulic, p-coumaric, trans-cinnamic). (C12–C18).		[30,32,33]
Aerial partsXanthones: mangiferin and isomangiferin;
Flavonoids (including C-glycosylflavones): apigenin- and luteolin-type compounds (orientin, isoorientin/homoorientin, embinin and acetylated derivatives, swertiajaponin);
Phenolic acids: hydroxybenzoic and hydroxycinnamic acids (gallic, protocatechuic, vanillic, syringic, caffeic, chlorogenic, ferulic, p-coumaric, trans-cinnamic).
LeavesXanthones (iriflophenone and mangiferin derivatives), quinones (irisquinone and irisoquin types), flavonoids and isoflavonoids (luteolin, apigenin, kaempferol, tectorigenin and their C- and O-glycosides), phenolic acids (hydroxybenzoic and hydroxycinnamic acids); terpenoids (iridal-type triterpenoids and sesquiterpenes), steroids (stigmasterol derivatives), and fatty acids (C12–C18).
I. oxypetala Bunge
(= I. lactea var. chinensis (Fisch.) Koidz., I. lactea pallasii Fischer var. chinensis,
I. pallasii Fisch. var. chinensis Fisch.)		Seeds Alkylphenols and alkylbenzenes (irisphenol and belamcandaphenol derivatives), benzofuran derivatives (belamcandone type), quinones (irisquinone and pallasone derivatives), flavan-3-ols and proanthocyanidins (catechin/epicatechin oligomers), oligostilbenes (viniferin-, vitisin-, and hopeaphenol-type compounds), and fatty acids, dominated by linoleic and oleic acids with minor saturated and long-chain components.

Appendix B

Most herbarium specimens of the studied species were collected in the Zailiysky and Dzungarian Alatau regions, indicating that the greatest species diversity of irises in southeastern Kazakhstan is concentrated in the mountainous areas (Zailiysky, Kungey, and Dzungarian Alatau).
Table A2. The collection of iris species examined in this study, gathered from southeastern Kazakhstan and stored in the institute’s herbarium AA.
Table A2. The collection of iris species examined in this study, gathered from southeastern Kazakhstan and stored in the institute’s herbarium AA.
SpeciesFloristic Region, GorgesNumber of
Specimens		Year of
Collection		Herbarium
Specimen
Iris alberti
Regel		25. Zailiysky Alatau51888, 1930, 1933, 1950, 2018Molecules 31 00643 i001
Iris pallasii
Fisch. ex Trevir.		18. Balkhash—Alakol41939, 1966, 2013, 2014Molecules 31 00643 i002
24. Dzungarian Alatau11964
25. Zailiysky Kungey Alatau 31951
25a. Ketmen, Terskey Alatau12013
Iris sogdiana Bunge 18. Balkhash -Alakol31930, 1949, 1956Molecules 31 00643 i003
24. Dzungarian Alatau (6)61927, 1950,1956, 1959
25. Zailiysky Kungey Alatau231937–1975, 1891, 1920
25a. Ketmen, Terskey Alatau71961, 1962, 1972, 2013
26. Chu-Ili mountains11940

References

  1. Plants of the World Online (POWO). Iris Taxon Record. Available online: https://powo.science.kew.org/taxon/urn:lsid:ipni.org:names:326330-2 (accessed on 10 October 2025).
  2. Pavlov, N.V. (Ed.) Flora of Kazakhstan; Academy of Sciences of the Kazakh SSR: Almaty, Kazakhstan, 1956; Volume 1, pp. 31–33. (In Russian) [Google Scholar]
  3. Pavlov, N.V. (Ed.) Flora of Kazakhstan; Academy of Sciences of the Kazakh SSR: Almaty, Kazakhstan, 1958; Volume 2, pp. 233–246. (In Russian) [Google Scholar]
  4. Pavlov, N.V. (Ed.) Flora of Kazakhstan; Academy of Sciences of the Kazakh SSR: Almaty, Kazakhstan, 1961; Volume 5, pp. 496–497. (In Russian) [Google Scholar]
  5. Uvarova, E.I. Ornamental properties of Iris × hybrida hort. varieties introduced in Almaty. In Proceedings of the IV Moscow International Symposium on the Genus “Iris-2022”, Moscow, Russia, 14–17 June 2022; Moscow Botanical Garden, Lomonosov Moscow State University: Moscow, Russia, 2022; pp. 195–199. [Google Scholar]
  6. Uvarova, E.I. Introductory study of dwarf bearded irises in Almaty. Subtrop. Ornam. Hortic. 2019, 69, 84–88. (In Russian) [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Alexeeva, N.B. Iris L. (Iridaceae Juss.) of Russia; Komarov Botanical Institute RAS: St. Petersburg, Russia, 2020; p. 232. (In Russian) [Google Scholar]
  8. Crișan, I. The genus Iris Tourn. ex L.: Updates on botany, cultivation, novel niches and impactful applications. Plants 2025, 14, 2870. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  9. Santos, M.; Nunes, P.; Fernandes, M.; Soares, F.M.; Cruz, R.; Bacelar, E.; Casal, S.; Rocha, J.; Maia, A.; Pais, P.J.; et al. Iris sibirica leaf surface: From plant adaptation to biomimetic replication. Surf. Interfaces 2025, 75, 107805. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Oztas, F.; Turkmen, A.; Oztas, H.; Turkmen, M. The medical properties of Iris and its usage in pharmaceutical, perfumery and cosmetic industries. Med. Res. Appl. 2024, 4, 114–124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Tayler, M. Therapeutic Index of Homeopathic Preparations; Homoeopathic Medicine: Moscow, Russia, 2024; p. 416. (In Russian) [Google Scholar]
  12. Baitenov, M.S. Flora of Kazakhstan; Gilim: Almaty, Kazakhstan, 2001; Volume 2, p. 54. (In Russian) [Google Scholar]
  13. Polyakov, P.P. Family iridaceae lindl. In Flora of Kazakhstan; Pavlov, N.V., Ed.; Academy of Sciences of the Kazakh SSR: Almaty, Kazakhstan, 1958; Volume 2, pp. 232–246. (In Russian) [Google Scholar]
  14. Kovalevskaya, S.S. (Ed.) Identification of Plants of Central Asia. Critical Summary of Flora; FAN Publishing House: Tashkent, Uzbekistan, 1971; Volume 2, pp. 124–132. (In Russian) [Google Scholar]
  15. Abdulina, S.A. Checklist of Vascular Plants of Kazakhstan; Kamelin, R.V., Ed.; Steka: Almaty, Kazakhstan, 1999; pp. 106–107. (In Russian) [Google Scholar]
  16. Red Book of Kazakhstan, 2nd ed.; ArtPrintXXI: Astana, Kazakhstan, 2014; Volume 2, pp. 335–337. (In Russian)
  17. Grudzinskaya, L.M.; Gemejiyeva, N.G.; Nelina, N.V.; Karzhaubekova, Z.Z. Annotated List of Medicinal Plants of Kazakhstan; Meda-Alliance Publishing House: Almaty, Kazakhstan, 2014; pp. 86–87. (In Russian) [Google Scholar]
  18. Ivaschenko, A.A. On the number and current state of rare plant populations in the Kazakh part of the Western Tien Shan. In Biodiversity Conservation and Plant Introduction; FLP Tarasenko V.P: Kharkov, Ukraine, 2014; pp. 95–103. [Google Scholar]
  19. Grudzinskaya, L.M.; Ramazanova, M.S.; Arysbayeva, R.B. Features of seed reproduction of wild Iris species in the Botanical Garden of Almaty. In Proceedings of the World Scientific Conference, Tomsk, Russia, 14–16 November; Tomsk State University: Tomsk, Russia, 2023; pp. 220–223. [Google Scholar]
  20. Sitpaepva, G.T.; Grudzinskaya, L.M.; Epiktetov, V.G. (Eds.) Catalogue of the Living Plant Collection of the Main Botanical Garden; LuxeMediaPublishing: Almaty, Kazakhstan, 2021; p. 115. [Google Scholar]
  21. Syedina, I.A.; Otradnykh, I.G. Introduction of wild Iris species of the Northern Tien Shan under botanical garden conditions in Almaty. In Proceedings of the IV Moscow International Symposium “Iris-2022”, Moscow, Russia, 14–17 June 2022; pp. 189–194. [Google Scholar]
  22. Rodionenko, G.I. The Genus Iris L.: Morphology, Biology, Evolution and Systematics; The British Iris Society: London, UK, 1987; p. 222. [Google Scholar]
  23. Mathew, B. The Iris; B.T. Batsford Ltd.: London, UK, 1981; p. 202. [Google Scholar]
  24. Wilson, C.A. Subgeneric classification in Iris re-examined using chloroplast sequence data. Taxon 2011, 60, 27–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Sennikov, A.; Khassanov, F.; Ortikov, E.; Kurbonaliyeva, M.; Tojibaev, K.S. The genus Iris L. s.l. in the mountains of the Central Asia biodiversity hotspot. Plant Divers. Cent. Asia 2023, 2, 1–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Nikitina, E.V.; Ortikov, E.; Yu, B.N.; Khalbekova, K.U. Molecular authentication of some rare Iris (Iridaceae) species from Uzbekistan. Plant Sci. Today 2023, 10, 444–454. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Iwashina, T.; Mizuno, T. Flavonoids and xanthones from the genus Iris: Phytochemistry, flower color relationships, taxonomy, and bioactivities. Nat. Prod. Commun. 2020, 15, 1934578X20937151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Alexeeva, N.B.; Dorofeeva, M.M.; Varfolomeeva, E.A.; Mironova, L.N. The genus Iris (Iridaceae) in Russia: Phytochemistry, biological activity and traditional medicine use. Rastit. Resur. 2023, 59, 3–29. (In Russian) [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Sokolov, P.D. Plant Resources of Russia and Neighbouring States: Flowering Plants, Chemical Composition and Use; Nauka: Saint Petersburg, Russia, 1994; Volume 8, p. 272. (In Russian) [Google Scholar]
  30. Hoang, L.; Beneš, F.; Fenclová, M.; Kronusová, O.; Švarcová, V.; Řehořová, K.; Baldassarre Švecová, E.; Vosatka, M.; Hajšlová, J.; Kaštánek, P.; et al. Phytochemical composition and in vitro biological activity of Iris spp.: Inhibition of oral bacterial biofilms. Antibiotics 2020, 9, 403. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Wu, S.J.; Yang, Q.Z. Chemical studies on Iris pallasii fisch. var. chinensis fisch. Acta Chim. Sin. 1981, 38, 156–161. [Google Scholar]
  32. Kaššák, P. Secondary metabolites of selected Iris species. Acta Univ. Agric. Silvic. Mendel. Brun. 2012, 60, 269–280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Marner, F.J.; Singab, A.N.B.; Al-Azizi, M.M.; El-Emary, N.A.; Schäfer, M. Iridal glycosides from Iris spuria cultivated in Egypt. Phytochemistry 2002, 60, 301–307. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Yang, Y.; Chen, J.-J.; Wang, H.; Zhao, C.-Q. Chemical constituents from Iris scariosa and Iris halophila var. sogdiana. Chin. Tradit. Herb. Drugs 2013, 44, 1371–1375. [Google Scholar]
  35. Khatib, S.; Faraloni, C.; Bouissane, L. Exploring the use of Iris species: Antioxidant properties, phytochemistry, medicinal and industrial applications. Antioxidants 2022, 11, 526. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Isabaev, S.O.; Arysbaeva, R.B.; Sembinov, B.R. Collection of Medicinal Plants in the Ili Botanical Garden. In Botany and botanist in the Changing World; Revushkin, A.S., Ed.; Tomsk State University Publishing House: Tomsk, Russia, 2023; p. 395. [Google Scholar]
  37. Mykhailenko, O.; Kovalyov, V.; Kovalyov, S.; Toryanik, E.; Osolodchenko, T.; Buidin, Y. Fatty acid composition of lipids of Iris sibirica. Čes. Slov. Farm. 2018, 66, 220–226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Ali, A.A.; El-Emary, N.A.; El-Moghazi, M.A.; Darwish, F.M.; Frahm, A.W. Three isoflavonoids from Iris germanica. Phytochemistry 1983, 22, 2061–2063. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Brenna, E.; Fuganti, C.; Serra, S. From Commercial Racemic Fragrances to Odour Active Enantiopure Compounds: The Ten Isomers of Irone. C. R. Chim. 2003, 6, 529–546. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Ministry of Health of the Republic of Kazakhstan. State Pharmacopoeia of the Republic of Kazakhstan; Zhibek Zholy Publishing House: Almaty, Kazakhstan, 2008; Volume 1, p. 592. (In Russian)
  41. Korulkin, D.Y.; Muzychkina, R.A. Methodology for the Study of Plant Metabolites; MV-Print: Almaty, Kazakhstan, 2012; p. 40. ISBN 9965-784-85-X. (In Russian) [Google Scholar]
  42. Tokul-Ölmez, Ö.; Şahin, B.; Çakır, C.; Öztürk, M. Rapid and easy method for simultaneous measurement of 27 compounds in natural products and foods. J. Chem. Metrol. 2020, 14, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Blois, M.S. Antioxidant determinations by the use of a stable free radical. Nature 1958, 181, 1199–1200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Yıldırım, G.B.; Gürer, Ç.Ü.; Yener, I.; Akdeniz, M.; Yigitkan, S.; Yılmaz, M.A.; Tireki, S.; Ertas, A.; Demirkoz, A.B. Comparative evaluation of antioxidant and enzyme inhibition activities of pomegranate vinegars and extracts. Rec. Agric. Food Chem. 2025, 5, 1–10. [Google Scholar]
  45. Re, R.; Pellegrini, N.; Proteggente, A.; Pannala, A.; Yang, M.; Rice-Evans, C. Antioxidant activity applying an improved ABTS radical cation decolorization assay. Free Radic. Biol. Med. 1999, 26, 1231–1237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Article Metrics

Citations

Article Access Statistics

Journal Statistics
Multiple requests from the same IP address are counted as one view.
Research on Low-Damage CO2 Foam Flooding System: Review and Outlook
Previous
Comparative Analysis of Schisandra Fruit Extracts and Polysaccharides from Different Origins: Chemical Composition and Prebiotic and Antimicrobial Activity
Next