Next Article in Journal
Agro-Climatic Variation in Wheat Growth, Yield, and Grain Quality Across South Korea
Previous Article in Journal
Domestication Enhances the Plastic Response of Root Economic Traits to Soil Variation in the Perennial Crop Cnidoscolus aconitifolius
Previous Article in Special Issue
Exploring the Anti-Inflammatory Potential of Daucus carota L. subsp. carota Seed Extracts: Phytochemical Profiling, In Vitro Antioxidant Activity and Modulation of the Arachidonic Acid Cascade
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Plants
Volume 15
Issue 18
10.3390/plants15182851
plants-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Evaluation of Phytochemistry, Toxicity and Radical-Scavenging Capacity of Two Erigeron Species (E. annuus (L.) Pers. and E. strigosus Muhl. ex Willd.) Extracts

by
Asta Judžentienė
1,2,* and
Jurga Būdienė
1
1
Center for Physical Sciences and Technology, Department of Organic Chemistry, Sauletekio Avenue 3, LT-10257 Vilnius, Lithuania
2
Institute of Biosciences, Life Sciences Center, Vilnius University, Saulėtekio Avenue 7, LT-10257 Vilnius, Lithuania
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Plants 2026, 15(18), 2851; https://doi.org/10.3390/plants15182851 (registering DOI)
Submission received: 4 August 2026 / Revised: 9 September 2026 / Accepted: 15 September 2026 / Published: 18 September 2026
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Bioactive Natural Products from Plants: Extraction, Characterization and Application)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

Erigeron sp. has been employed for medicinal purposes in the ethnopharmacology of numerous countries worldwide, as well as in modern-day herbal applications. Their healing capacity is determined by their bioactive compound content, with polyphenols playing a predominant role. Phytochemistry of two alien species in Lithuania, E. annuus (L.) Pers. and E. strigosus Muhl. ex Willd. was investigated. The phytochemicals in the extracts of flowers, leaves and roots were identified by the HPLC/DAD/TOF technique. Some acids, such as fumaric, succinic, quinic, malic, protocatechuic, p-coumaric, gelseminic and (iso-, neo-) chlorogenic, were found in the extracts of both investigated Erigeron species. Additionally, flavonoids and other constituents were tentatively identified in the plant extracts. Umbelliferone, loliolide, kaempferol/luteolin, erigeside I, baicalin, quercetin and its glucoside, apigenin and its glucuronide, apigenin-7-O-glucuronide-6′-ethyl ester, astragalin/quercitrin, scutellarin, caffeoylshikimic acid glucoside, sesquiterpene hydrocarbon(s) and rutin were found to be common compounds in all extracts. A toxicity test using brine shrimp Artemia sp. larvae revealed that the activity order between both fleabane organs was as follows: leaves > flowers > roots. E. strigosus extracts exhibited slightly stronger toxic effects than E. annuus. Total phenolic content (TPC) varied from 11.88 ± 1.27 to 304.94 ± 3.81 (mg/L, expressed in gallic acid equivalent (GAE)) in aqueous E. annuus root and methanolic E. strigosus leaf extracts, respectively. TPC and antioxidant ability differed significantly between the plant organs of both fleabanes. ABTS●+ and DPPH● scavenging capacity was detected for aqueous extracts of both Erigeron species, ranging from 0.16 ± 0.02 (ABTS●+) to 17.55 ± 0.07 (DPPH●) (mmol/L, TROLOX equivalent) for E. strigosus roots and E. annuus leaves, respectively. A strong positive correlation between TPC and ABTS●+ scavenging capacity was determined (p = 0.01996 and p = 0.01171 for E. annus and E. strigosus extracts, respectively), while the correlation between TPC and DPPH● assay values was also positive, but did not reach statistical significance (p > 0.05). For the first time, the data concerning the phytochemistry, toxicity and radical-scavenging capacity of E. strigosus have been documented. The present study makes a substantial contribution to studies already existing on bioactive phytochemicals of E. annuus, with a particular focus on E. strigosus plants.

1. Introduction

Two species of fleabane were investigated in the research, namely E. annuus (L.) Pers. (Desf.) and E. strigosus Muhl. ex Willd. (Bigelow), which are attributed to the genus Erigeron (f. Asteraceae) along with more than 450 others [1,2].
E. annuus (L.) Pers., otherwise known as daisy fleabane and annual fleabane, is categorized as an annual herb, although it may sporadically grow as a biennial, with growing habitats primarily in the temperate biome; it typically produces flowers with white petals and yellow centres [2]. This species is native to North America, spanning from Eastern Canada to the Central and Eastern USA [2,3]. It is considered to be a medicinal and aromatic plant in indigenous habitats [4]. Annual fleabane exhibits numerous biological features that enable its capacity for widespread growth, inhabiting a broad spectrum of environmental conditions. According to data from the Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF [5]), E. annuus (L.) Pers. has been introduced into 43 countries or islands, and the most prevalent distribution has been recorded in Switzerland and France, with 153,280 and 62,900 occurrences, respectively [3]. A limited number of growing habitats are indicated in Costa Rica, Asian countries (Kazakhstan, Japan, China, Nepal, Korea, India, Vietnam, etc.), and some islands, such as Newfoundland, Ireland, Corse, Sicilia, Réunion, Kuril, etc. [2,3]. Up to 6 July 2022, 325 occurrences of annual fleabane were identified in Lithuania [3], where it is considered an invasive species [6,7]. However, the annual fleabane poses a considerable threat to the native plants of numerous countries as well as to agricultural activities. A global occurrence of E. annuus (L.) Pers. (Desf.) plants is shown in Figure 1.
E. strigosus Muhl. ex Willd. is known by common names, like common eastern fleabane, rough fleabane, prairie fleabane, or vergerette rude; and at least 33 homotypic synonyms of this species have been reported in the international networks [2,3]. As the rough fleabane (E. strigosus) is morphologically very similar to the annual fleabane (E. annuus), it has had synonymic names such as Erigeron annuus subsp. strigosus (Muhl. ex Willd.) Wagenitz; Erigeron annuus var. ramosus (Walter) Hyl. or Erigeron ramosus var. discoideus Britton, Sterns & Poggenb [2,3]. E. strigosus can be distinguished from E. annuus by the fact that all of E. strigosus’ parts are covered in close-lying hairs that are antrorse strigose, and its achenes are smaller, with shorter ligulate flowers. Rough fleabane is a plant that is characterized by its basal leaves; white, bluish or pinkish flowerets; an erect or ascending stem that is tall (30–80 cm) and covered in many fine white hairs; and the fibrous root system. E. strigosus is a shrub that can be found in different growth forms: as an annual, biennial or short-lived perennial, and has the ability to produce a multitude of flower heads [8]. Flora of North America (FNA) recognizes four distinct varieties of E. strigosus: septentrionalis, strigosus, dolomiticola and calcicole [8]. Rough fleabane, being native to Canada and the USA, grows in temperate regions [9]. Nonetheless, the species is regarded as an alien plant in numerous regions across Asia, including West Siberia, Tibet, China, Korea, Japan and Sakhalin, as well as in various parts of Europe [2]. GBIF recorded E. strigosus as an introduced species in 14 countries or islands [3]. The largest number of occurrences (1328) of E. strigosus were documented in Romania, whereas the species was only registered in five growing locations in Lithuania from 2013 to 2024 [3]. E. strigosus Muhl. ex Willd. has been recorded as an alien weed in Lithuania [7,10]. The worldwide spread of E. strigosus Muhl. ex Willd. plants is demonstrated in Figure 2.
Historically, indigenous North Americans have used rough fleabane for various medicinal purposes, primarily as an anti-inflammatory and digestive remedy [11], and preparations of annual fleabane have been used against tuberculosis, diarrhea, dysentery, to treat coughs and respiratory illnesses, cardiovascular problems, reduce or stop bleeding, etc. [12]. E. annuus has a long history in traditional Chinese medicine, where it is widely used in diverse formulations for the treatment of various ailments, including malaria, enteritis, indigestion, hepatitis, diabetes and obesity [12]. A literature review of E. annuus (L.) phytochemistry [12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40] revealed that various extracts of the plant contain a huge variability of pharmacological important compounds, such as terpenoids [12,13,14,15,16,17,18], phenolic and organic acids [12,13,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29], flavonoids [12,18,19,22,23,25,26,27,29,30,31,32,33,34], lactones [12,15,16], coumarins [12,18], sterols [12,17,18,35], polysaccharides [26,36,37], amino acids [38], etc.
Numerous modern scientific studies have revealed evidence of the many ethnopharmacological applications, indicating that extracts or active compounds derived from E. annuus possess antioxidant properties [12,19,22,24,25,26,34,41,42], anti-inflammatory effects (through NF-κB inactivation [43,44] and heme oxygenase-1 induction [41,45]) [12,41,43,44,45]; this includes protein glycation inhibitory (against cataractogenesis, aldose reductase and formation of advanced glycation products) [20,21,24,30], neuroprotective [12,19], anti-obesity [12,27,42], antidiabetic (alleviation of insulin resistance) [28], anti-atherosclerotic [12,35], antiproliferative and anti-fungal [12,13,16], cytoprotective [31,41], anti-tumour (to human cells of leukemia (HL-60), hepatoma (SMMC-7721) and embryo liver (L-02)) [39], and antiviral (against the respiratory syncytial virus) [32] activity. However, germination inhibitory effects and allelopathic properties (on major crop species) were revealed for E. annuus [23,46].
To the best of our knowledge, data in the literature related to the phytochemistry and bioactivities of E. strigosus are very limited [47,48,49,50,51,52]. Crude organic extracts of rough fleabane showed remarkable antimicrobial activity against Mycobacterium tuberculosis H37Rv and Mycobacterium avium (using the BACTEC 460 radiorespirometric assay) [48]. Among the ethnomedicinal properties of wild plants from Pakistan (South Punjab), E. strigosus preparations (juice, decoctions, powder and tea) were documented as a remedy against fever, liver disorders, skin issues and as a blood purifier [49]. Due to anti-inflammatory and analgesic properties, Aboriginal people of the Canadian boreal forest have used rough fleabane to treat chronic pain syndromes of headache and migraine [50]. No sensitization was revealed for E. strigosus using patch tests in order to detect contact allergy and/or dermatitis [51]. Ethanolic extracts of rough fleabane (including leaves, flowers, stems and fruits) collected in the USA did not show any antimicrobial effects against C. albicans, E. coli, S. aureus and P. aeruginosa [52].
Both species, E. annuus (L.) Pers. and E. strigosus Muhl. ex Willd. are considered alien plants in Lithuania. E. annuus is also an invasive plant. Due to its aggressiveness, the alien species is able to oust other plants from their native growing localities, thereby reducing biodiversity and altering the entire ecosystem. Knowledge of the phytochemistry of non-indigenous flora is important for two primary reasons: firstly, it helps us to control their aggressive propagation, and secondly, it enables the development of bioherbicides based on the phytotoxic compounds present in them.
The objective of the study was to facilitate a comparison of two alien Erigeron species with the following specific aims: (i) to evaluate the phytochemical composition of different plant organs (flowers, leaves and roots, and during the full flowering stage) of E. annuus (L.) Pers. (annual fleabane) and E. strigosus Muhl. ex Willd. (rough fleabane and herbal material collected over two years from the same growing habitat, limited in area) extracts; (ii) to reveal their preliminary toxicity by in vivo tests, using larvae of Artemia salina brine shrimps; (iii) to determine total phenolic content (TPC) in the extracts; and iv) to determine their antioxidant potential employing the spectrophotometric radical (ABTS●+ and DPPH●) scavenging assay.

2. Results

2.1. Chemical Composition of Erigeron annuus (L.) Pers. (Annual Fleabane) Extracts

At least 36 compounds (among them 13 phenolic acids) were identified tentatively by DAD and TOF (Table 1) in aqueous and methanolic (MeOH:H2O, 1:1, v/v) extracts from various organs (inflorescences, leaves and roots) of E. annuus plants.
Eleven constituents, such as (neo)chlorogenic and isochlorogenic (A and B) acids, umbelliferone, matricaria lactone, erigeroflavanone, baicalin, apigenin-7-O-glucuronide, scutellarin and quercetin 3′-O-glucoside, were detected by both (positive and negative) ionizations. The rest of the compounds provided m/z ions only in a positive or negative ionization mode.

2.2. Chemical Composition of Erigeron strigosus Muhl. ex Willd. (Rough Fleabane) Extracts

In total, at least 45 compounds (among them 18 acids) were detected in E. strigosus inflorescence, leaf and root extracts (both aqueous and methanolic (MeOH:H2O, 1:1, v/v)) by DAD and TOF (in positive or negative ionization mode) (Table 2).
p-Coumaric; linolenic; 9,12,13-trixydroxy-10E-octadecenoic; chlorogenic, neo- and isochlorogenic (A and B) acids; lachnophyllum ester; 5,7-dihydroxychromone; loliolide; baicalein; apigenin; (epi)catechin; quercetin; quercetin 3′,4′,7-trimethyl ether; erigeside I; baicalin; apigenin-7-O-(methyl)glucuronide; quercetin 3′-O-glucoside and (-)-syringaresinol-4-O-β-D-glucopyranoside were detected under both negative and positive ionization conditions. The remaining constituents provided m/z ions only in one (positive or negative) ionization mode.

2.3. Toxic Activity of Erigeron annuus (L.) Pers. and Erigeron strigosus Muhl. ex Willd. Aqueous Extracts

A toxicity test, engaging brine shrimp Artemia salina (L.) (Anostraca: Artemiidae) larvae and aqueous extracts of E. annuus and E. strigosus, revealed that the activity order between fleabane organs is as follows: leaves > flowers > roots (Table 3). Leaf extracts of both Erigeron species exhibited similar toxicity. Rough fleabane flower and root extracts were slightly more toxic than annual fleabane corresponding extracts.

2.4. Total Phenolic Content (TPC) of Erigeron annuus (L.) Pers. and Erigeron strigosus Muhl. ex Willd. Extracts

A significant variation in TPC (determined by the standard Folin–Ciocalteu method, n = 5, where n indicates the number of measurements performed using the same extract) was observed between the various plant organs in both fleabanes; the order of TPC values was as follows: leaves > flowers > roots (Figure 3 and Figure 4, Tables S1 and S2). However, there are significant differences (p ≤ 0.05, using Welch’s t-test) between TPC values of aqueous flower and leaf extracts of E. annuus and E. strigosus (Figure 3, Table S1). The TPC values varied from 11.88 ± 1.27 to 228.79 ± 18.88 (mg/L, GAE, mean ± SD (n = 5)) in aqueous E. annuus root and E. strigosus leaf extracts, respectively (Figure 3, Table S1, herbal material collected in 2024).
It is important to note that the population under investigation of E. strigosus Muhl. ex Willd. is confined to a limited area. Consequently, datasets were not generated from a single year’s collection. For this reason, raw material of this fleabane was harvested over two years (2024 and 2025).
For the case of E. strigosus plants collected in 2025, the TPC values were found to be higher in methanolic extracts than in aqueous ones, and they varied from 17.17 ± 2.29 to 304.94 ± 3.81 (mg/L, GAE, mean ± SD (n = 5)) in aqueous root and methanolic leaf extracts, respectively (Figure 4, Table S2); significant differences were determined among values of water and water/methanol extracts from flowers and leaves.

2.5. Antioxidant Ability (AA) of Erigeron annuus (L.) Pers. and Erigeron strigosus Muhl. ex Willd. Extracts

The free radical-scavenging capacity of both Erigeron sp. extracts was determined by the ABTS●+ and DPPH● assays. The AA of aqueous E. annuus and E. strigosus (plant material collected in 2024) extracts, tested by the spectroscopic ABTS●+ scavenging method, is presented in Figure 5 and Table S3.
Significant differences were determined between ABTS●+ scavenging capacity values of aqueous extracts from various plant organs in each species, and between the two fleabane flower extracts (Figure 5, Table S3).
The AA of aqueous and methanolic E. strigosus (herbal material collected in 2025) extracts, tested by the spectroscopic ABTS●+ scavenging method, is presented in Figure 6 and Table S4.
Significant differences were observed between ABTS●+ scavenging capacity values of extracts from various plant organs of E. strigosus and between leaf and root extracts in water and in water/methanol (Figure 6, Table S4).
The AA of aqueous E. annuus and E. strigosus (plant material collected in 2024) extracts, tested by the spectroscopic DPPH● scavenging method, is presented in Figure 7 and Table S3.
Significant differences were determined in the DPPH● scavenging capacity values of aqueous extracts from various plant organs within each species, as well as between leaf and root extracts of each fleabane species (Figure 7, Table S3). The AA of aqueous and methanolic E. strigosus (collected in 2025) extracts, tested by the spectroscopic DPPH● scavenging method, is shown in Figure 8 and Table S4.
Significant differences were revealed between the DPPH● scavenging capacity values of both types of extracts (in water and water/methanol) from E. strigosus roots (Figure 8, Table S4).
Pearson correlation analysis of the aqueous extracts of E. annuus and E. strigosus revealed a significant and strong positive correlation between total phenolic content (TPC) and antioxidant ability (AA) determined by the ABTS●+ assay (E. annus: r2 = 0.999, p = 0.01996; E. strigosus: r2 = 0.9997, p = 0.01171), whereas the correlation between TPC and AA, assessed by the DPPH● assay, was also positive (E. annus: r2 = 0.9845, p = 0.1124; E. strigosus: r2 = 0.9765, p = 0.1383), but not statistically significant (p > 0.05).

3. Discussion

Tentative identification of numerous compounds was achieved in aqueous and methanolic (MeOH:H2O, 1:1, v/v) extracts of E. annuus (L.) Pers. and E. strigosus Muhl. ex Willd. (Table 1 and Table 2). Some phenolic acids, such as fumaric, succinic, malic, protocatechuic, p-coumaric, gelseminic, chlorogenic, quinic, neochlorogenic, isochlorogenic A and B were identified in the extracts of both investigated Erigeron species. Additionally, umbelliferone, loliolide, kaempferol/luteolin, erigeside I, baicalin, quercetin and its glucoside, apigenin and its glucuronide, apigenin-7-O-glucuronide-6′-ethyl ester, astragalin/quercitrin, scutellarin, caffeoyl shikimic acid glucoside, sesquiterpene hydrocarbon(s) and rutin were found to be the common compounds in all investigated fleabane extracts.
Most of the acids, such as succinic, quinic, betulinic, ursolonic, protocatechuic, p-coumaric, chlorogenic, and isochlorogenic acid A and B, found in annual fleabane extracts under study were also reported previously in E. annuus extracts [18,20,23,24,27,28].
A list of the same compounds identified by us as those reported in the literature reports of E. annuusis is as follows: coumarin, umbelliferone [18]; flavonoids, kaempferol [18,33], quercetin [18,33], apigenin [17,21,22,39], apigenin-7-O-glucuronide [17,21], astragalin [21], erigeside I [21,29,39], quercetin 3′-O-glucoside [22,33], hispidulin [29], erigeroflavanone [30,31], luteolin [27,33], apigenin-7-O-glucuronide-6′-ethyl ester [39]; and lactone loliolide [29] (Table 1). It should be mentioned that caffeic acid [19,20,22,27] and pyromeconic acid [21,23,26,29], frequently determined by other researchers in E. annuus extracts, were not found by us (or their quantities were below detection limits) in annual fleabane extracts (Table 1). It is well known that γ-pyranone derivatives are characteristic of E. anuuus [12,39]. We identified arenol and arzanol (Table 1), α-pyrone derivatives, which are common constituents of Helichrysum sp. [53,54].
There is very limited data in the literature regarding the phytochemistry of E. strigosus extracts [47]. Compounds such as oleanolic [18] and pyromeconic [17,21,23,26,29,47] acid, 5,7-dihydroxychromone [29], catechin [18], (-)-syringaresinol-4-O-β-D-glucopyranoside [39], and apigenin 7-O-methylglucuronide [32] documented previously in the reports of E. annuus were determined in our E. strigosus extracts (Table 2). Scutellarin, baicalin, and baicalein, identified in both fleabane extracts, are known as characteristic phytochemicals in Scutellaria sp. [55,56,57]. However, matricaria lactone, lachnophyllum ester and sesquiterpene hydrocarbons (Table 1 and Table 2) have been identified earlier in Erigeron species [12,13,14,15,16].
To the best of our knowledge, a number of documented reports related to the in vivo and/or in vitro toxic capacity of both Erigeron species (E. anuuus and E. strigosus) are very limited. The cytotoxicity tests performed by Thakur et al. (using 3-(4,5-dimethylthiazol-2-yl)-2,5-diphenyltetrazolium bromide (MTT) assay) revealed that 50% viability of the HEK293 cell was observed at a 50 μg/mL concentration of ethyl acetate fraction for the annual fleabane extract [34]. Additionally, investigations into the in vitro phytotoxic activity of E. anuuus were reported [23,46]. The germination inhibitory potential of methanolic extracts from E. annuus flowers on lettuce seeds was tested by Oh et al., and the results showed that the ethyl acetate-soluble fraction had the most significant inhibitory effects (at the 6000 ppm concentration) [23]. Liu et al. [46] examined the effects of water extracts from Erigeron canadensis L. and Erigeron annuus (L.) Desf. plants at various concentrations on the germination and seedling growth of three major food crops, including wheat (Triticum aestivum L.), rice (Oryza sativa L.), and corn (Zea mays L.), using the Petri dish method. Results obtained in the above study showed that E. annuus extracts at a 100 g/L concentration completely suppressed the germination of wheat and rice [46]. The data obtained in the study on the in vivo toxicity of aqueous E. anuuus and E. strigosus extracts (dosages ranging from 100 μL to 4.5 mL), using brine shrimp (Artemia sp.) larvae tests, are of significant importance and have filled a considerable gap in this area of research. It was revealed that the extracts from the leaves of both Erigeron species were the most toxic when compared to other organs (flowers and roots) (Table 3). The toxicity of rough fleabane flower and root extracts was found to be slightly higher than that of annual fleabane corresponding extracts.
Another biological property that can be used to evaluate the pharmacological potential of plants is antioxidant ability (AA). AA test results, using spectrophotometric radical (ABTS●+ and DPPH●) scavenging assays, are presented in Figure 5, Figure 6, Figure 7 and Figure 8 (Tables S3 and S4). The majority of the phenolic constituents (predominantly acids and flavonoids), identified in the extracts in this study (Table 1 and Table 2), have the capacity to demonstrate different levels of antioxidant potential. Typically, AA tests are accompanied by TPC, and a positive correlation is frequently observed between these two variables.
Many scientific studies have improved the method used to prepare extracts, the characteristics of the herbal material, the type of solvents or their mixtures, and the temperature and duration of the extraction procedure, etc., all of which strongly influence the qualitative as well as quantitative extraction of bioactive compounds from herbal material [19,22,24,26,34,58,59,60]. However, the findings of different antioxidant tests in the existing literature with regard to E. annuus [12,19,22,24,25,26,34,41,42] are not always commensurable, owing to the varying methodologies and formats in which these data are presented. In the current research, aqueous leaf E. annuus extracts (prepared in ultrasound for 30 min at room temperature) containing 196.92 ± 16.69 (mg/L, GAE) of TPC (Figure 3, Table S1) showed the highest values 14.83 ± 0.25 and 17.55 ± 0.07 (mmol/L, TROLOX equivalent) of ABTS and DPPH radical-scavenging potential, respectively (Figure 5 and Figure 7, Table S3). It is evident that a comparison of the results obtained with those of very different data in the literature is complicated. For example, TPC in the butanol fraction, prepared from crude E. annuus leaf extract (which was made at 70 °C in methanol for 2 h), was the highest (396.49 mg of GAE/g), followed by the water and chloroform fractions (241.87 and 107.34 mg of GAE/g, respectively) [19]. Moreover, this fraction exhibited the highest antioxidant effects in the ABTS radical-scavenging and ferric-reducing antioxidant power (FRAP) assays in the above study. In other studies, the fractions of the crude extract of E. annuus in methanol and butanol showed significant scavenging effects on DPPH● and peroxynitrite [22]. Extracts of whole annual fleabane, prepared in ethanol/water (50:50, v/v for 2 h at room temperature three times) containing an average of 187.12  mg/g (of residue) of TPC, exhibited IC50 (μg/mL) values of 125 ± 1.06 and 146 ± 14.3 for ABTS decolorization and DPPH scavenging, respectively [24]. Zhang et al. [26] determined that TPC in E. annuus flowers using different solvents (extraction with heating for 6 h) varied from 31.6 to 152.8 mg (GAE/g dry extract) and the aqueous extracts exhibited the highest TPC values (an average of 152.8 mg/g), followed by acetone, chloroform, ethanol and methanol (115.5, 103.7, 92.6 and 89.9 mg/g, respectively); by contrast, the methanol extract showed the strongest ability to scavenge DPPH radicals [26]. In other study, it was revealed that the ethyl acetate fraction of the annual fleabane crude extract (prepared by methanol in an orbital shaker at 40 °C for 72 h) containing the highest TPC (77.29 ± 0.11 mg/g, expressed in GAE mg/g of crude extract and dry weight of fraction) demonstrated the strongest DPPH radical-scavenging ability (46.71 ± 0.67 μg/mL) and FRAP effects; there is a high potential of polyphenols to reduce α-amylase activity [34].
It should be mentioned that there is a lack of available data related to E. strigosus. In the present research, aqueous extracts of rough fleabane leaves, containing 228.79 ± 18.88 (mg/L, GAE) of TPC (Figure 3, Table S1), exhibited the highest values of 15.22 ± 0.13 and 16.45 ± 0.04 (mmol/L, TROLOX equivalent) for ABTS and DPPH radical-scavenging activities, respectively (Figure 5 and Figure 7, Table S3). Additionally, it was revealed that methanolic extracts of E. strigosus leaves, containing 304.94 ± 3.81 (mg/L, GAE) of TPC (Figure 4, Table S2), exhibited the strongest ABTS●+ and DPPH● scavenging potential (17.15 ± 0.43 and 17.50 ± 0.20 (mmol/L, TROLOX equivalent), respectively) (Figure 6 and Figure 8, Table S4). For the first time, toxicity, TPC, ABTS and DPPH radical-scavenging ability have been determined for E. strigosus extracts, and the latter results cannot be compared because there is no data already published on this subject.

4. Materials and Methods

4.1. Plant Material

The raw plant material of E. annuus (L.) Pers. and E. strigosus Muhl. ex Willd. (fresh weight up to 1 kg) was collected in the full blooming stage (at the end of July 2024 and 2025) in Lithuania (Alytus County, Lazdijai district, Šlavantai and Kaunas County, Prienai district, Būdvietis). Harvesting locations are indicated in Figure S1. The population of E. strigosus Muhl. ex Willd. is limited in this area. To avoid reducing or even destroying the population, it was necessary to harvest as little as possible of the raw material. For these reasons, we did not have enough plant material for the experiments from a single year’s harvest; therefore, it was necessary to collect it over two years (2024 and 2025). The entire plant of fleabane was gathered in a randomized manner, and afterward three morphological organs, including the roots, leaves, and inflorescences, were separated prior to drying. The collection and identification of the herbal material of E. strigosus Muhl. ex Willd. and E. annuus (L.) Pers. was performed under supervision of plant taxonomist Dr. Z. Gudžinskas (Laboratory of Flora and Geobotany, Nature Research Centre, Vilnius, Lithuania). Images of both Erigeron sp. plants are presented in Figure S2. The plant material was transferred to the laboratory as soon as possible for drying at room temperature (20–25 °C) in the shade with ventilation for 3 weeks (until a constant moisture content was achieved). A traceable humidity metre (8709 Pen type hydrometer, Fisher Scientific, Webster, TX, USA) was used to measure the humidity level of herbal material. The whole herbal material was stored in tightly closed paper bags at a temperature of 20 ± 2 °C and a low level of humidity until analysis (up to 6 months).

4.2. Preparation of Extracts for HPLC/DAD/TOF Analysis, Toxicity Tests and TPC Determination

Samples of air-dried inflorescences and the leaves and roots of E. strigosus and E. annuus were ground into a homogeneous powder. Extracts were made from 2.5 g of crushed herbal material and 25 mL of distilled water (ratio of herbal material to water, 1:10 w/w); the extraction duration was 30 min at room temperature (23.0 ± 3.0 °C). For toxicity tests, the ratio 1:20 of dried herbal material to water was used at a concentration of 0.05 g/L (dry plant material). Afterward, the mixtures were filtered through filter paper (11 μm pore size filter paper (Whatman) and then through nylon syringe filters (0.22 mm) before chromatographic analysis. Additionally, 50% methanolic extracts were prepared by the same procedure, using a mixture of methanol and water (1:1, v/v).

4.3. HPLC-DAD-MS (TOF) Analysis

Chemical composition of aqueous and methanolic extracts of Erigeron sp. (E. annuus and E. strigosus) inflorescences, leaves, and roots was identified using HPLC (High-Performance Liquid Chromatography)/DAD (Diode Array Detector)/TOF (Time of Flight Mass Spectrometer) (Agilent 1260 Infinity (Agilent Technologies, Waldbronn, Germany) and the Agilent 6224 TOF (Agilent Technologies, Santa Clara, CA, USA)) technique. A column Hypersil GOLDTM (particle size of 1.9 µm; column parameters of 150 × 2.1 mm) (Thermo Scientific, Vilnius, Lithuania) was applied. Column temperature was set to 40 °C during the analysis. The gradient system was applied as follows: A (deionized water, containing 0.1% formic acid) and B (acetonitrile, containing 0.1% formic acid). Chromatographic separation was performed at a flow rate of 0.3 mL/min in the HPLC system using the following stepwise gradient elution method presented in Table S5. The ionization interface (ESI) provided ionization in positive and negative modes. Samples were injected by an autosampler at a volume of 4 to 8 µL. DAD spectra were recorded in a range from 210 to 400 nm. MS (TOF) acquisition parameters were identical to those in our previous research [61]. Acetonitrile and formic acid were purchased from Honeywell (Seelze, Hanover, Germany). Standards of main phenolic acids (fumaric, succinic, caffeic, syringic, gallic, chlorogenic, etc., with purity ≥ 95–99%) and flavonoids, including quercetin-3-O-glucoside and apigenin-7-O-glucoside, were purchased from Merck and Sigma-Aldrich Solutions (Darmstadt, Germany). References of flavanols, (-)-epicatechin and (+)-catechin hydrate were bought from Fisher Scientific (Loughborough, Leicestershire, UK), and rutin (97+%) was received from Acros Organics (Geel, Belgium). Baicalin (98% purity) (glycoside flavonoid) and baicalein (5,6,7-trihydroxyflavone) (flavone) were obtained from Lonza Bioscience (Walkersville, MD, USA). Apigenin and quercitrin dihydrate were purchased from Fluka AG (Buchs, SG, Switzerland). Total ion chromatograms of E. annuus and E. strigosus leaf extracts in both positive and negative ionization modes are included in Figures S3 and S4, respectively.

4.4. Toxicity Tests

Toxic activity was tested in vivo, using brine shrimp Artemia salina (larvae) [62]. The eggs of shrimps hatched within 48 h to provide larvae (nauplii) in seawater (32 g/L NaCl in water) at 20–25 °C; the number of shrimps varied from 11 to 16 in a 5 mL volume. For the toxicity assay, different volumes of E. strigosus and E. annuus aqueous extracts were used: 100 and 500 μL, and 1–4.5 mL (2, 3 and 4.5 mL of extracts also contained ≈2.5% NaCl). The salinity employed in the assay was maintained at a level that was found to be compatible with the hatching and survival conditions for A. salina. Control tests were performed in salt water. Survivors were counted after 24 h. At least three repetitions were carried out for each different extract amount.

4.5. Spectrophotometric ABTS●+ and DPPH● Scavenging Assays

The AA of aqueous E. strigosus and E. annuus extracts was determined by the spectroscopic methods described in detail in the literature [63]. The calibration curve for TPC determination (in a range from 0 to 500 mg/L GAE) is presented in Figure S5. Calibration curves for AA determination by ABTS●+ and DPPH● scavenging assays (with a range up to 200 m–mol/L TROLOX equivalent) are shown in Figures S6 and S7, respectively.

4.6. Statistical Data Analysis

All data obtained during the study were statistically analyzed using the Analyse-it add-in for Microsoft Excel (free trial version). The results are presented as an average value with standard deviation (SD). The correlation coefficient r between TPC and free radical-scavenging capacity was calculated using Pearson’s correlation method. Significant differences between samples were calculated using a two-sample t-test (Welch’s t-test), and p-values less than 0.05 were considered significantly different.

5. Conclusions

The present research contributes to our knowledge of the phytochemistry, toxicity and biological properties (including antioxidant activity) of two species of Erigeron plants, E. annuus (L.) Pers. and E. strigosus Muhl. ex Willd., collected from the wild flora. As in numerous countries worldwide, both species are considered alien to Lithuania, and even more so, E. annuus is regarded as an invasive, aggressive weed. An intraspecific diversity of Erigeron species was revealed in rather limited growing areas. To the best of our knowledge, until now, research data regarding this subject have been extremely limited.
A list of various compounds, such as phenolic acids, lactones, coumarins, pyrone derivatives and flavonoids, present in E. annuus and E. strigosus extracts was documented in the present research. Our study has reduced the shortage in the phytochemistry of E. annuus, with a particular focus on E. strigosus plants. To the best of our knowledge, up to now, there are very limited data regarding the phytochemistry and bioactivity of E. strigosus extracts.
Data obtained during the study on the toxicity of E. annuus and E. strigosus aqueous extracts, using brine shrimp (Artemia sp.) larvae tests, is of great importance, filling a gap in the research related to the toxicity of Erigeron species. TPC was found to be 11.88 ± 1.27–304.94 ± 3.81 (mg/L, GAE) in aqueous E. annuus roots and methanolic E. strigosus leaf extracts, respectively. A positive correlation was observed between TPC and ability of the extracts to scavenge free radicals. Average values of ABTS●+ and DPPH● scavenging capacity were determined to be 0.17–14.83 and 3.06–17.55 (mmol/L TROLOX equivalent) for E. annuus aqueous extracts from different plant organs, respectively. In the case of E. strigosus aqueous and methanolic extracts from different plant organs, ABTS radical-scavenging activity ranged from 0.16 ± 0.02 to 17.15 ± 0.43, and DPPH● scavenging ability varied from 2.83 ± 0.01 to 17.50 ± 0.20 (mmol/L, TROLOX equivalent). The order of toxicity, TPC and antioxidant ability for the various fleabane plant organs was found as follows: leaves > flowers > roots. Significant differences were observed between the values. A strong positive correlation between TPC and ABTS●+ scavenging capacity was revealed, while the correlation between TPC and DPPH● assay values was also positive, but did not reach statistical significance (p > 0.05).
This paper elucidates the gaps in research related to the phytochemistry and bioactivity of Erigeron species, thus contributing significantly to the advancement of knowledge in this field. Moreover, the study revealed the importance of investigating phytochemistry to improve our understanding of its role in the spread of alien and invasive species. Further investigations on primary and secondary metabolites of wild-growing Erigeron sp. for pharmacological purposes are promising.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/plants15182851/s1. Figure S1: Geographical indication of sampling sites of E. annuus (L.) Pers. (Alytus County, Lazdijai district, Šlavantai) and E. strigosus Muhl. ex Willd. (Kaunas County, Prienai district, Būdvietis) in Lithuania; Figure S2: Images of E. annuus (L.) Pers. (a) and E. strigosus Muhl. ex Willd. (b) plants; Figure S3: Total ion chromatogram of E. annuus leaf extract in a positive (a) and negative (b) ionization mode; Figure S4: Total ion chromatogram of E. strigosus leaf extract in a positive (a) and negative (b) ionization mode; Figure S5: Gallic acid standard calibration curve, using Folin–Ciocalteu method; Figure S6: Calibration curves for AA determination by ABTS●+ scavenging assay; Figure S7: Calibration curves for AA determination by DPPH● scavenging assay; Table S1: Total phenolic content (TPC, mg/L, expressed in gallic acid equivalent (GAE), n = 5, five replicates were conducted in total for the measurement) in aqueous extracts of E. annuus (L.) Pers. and E. strigosus Muhl. ex Willd. flowers, leaves and roots (plant material collected in 2024); Table S2: Total phenolic content (TPC, mg/L, expressed in gallic acid equivalent (GAE), n = 5) in aqueous and methanolic (MeOH:H2O, 1:1, v/v) extracts of E. strigosus Muhl. ex Willd. flowers, leaves and roots (plant material collected in 2025); Table S3: ABTS●+ and DPPH● scavenging activity (mmol/L, TROLOX equivalent, n = 5, n indicates a number of measurements conducted using the same extract) of aqueous extracts from E. annuus (L.) Pers and E. strigosus Muhl. ex Willd. flowers, leaves and roots (plant material collected in 2024); Table S4: ABTS●+ and DPPH● scavenging activities (TROLOX (mmol/L)) of aqueous and methanolic (1:1, v/v) extracts from E. strigosus Muhl. ex Willd. flowers, leaves and roots (plant material collected in 2025); Table S5: Chromatographic separation conditions of Erigeron annuus (L.) Pers. and Erigeron strigosus Muhl. ex Willd. extracts by gradient elution method (equilibration was for 5 min between runs; max pressure limit was 400 bar).

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, methodology, design of experiments, formal analysis and investigation, A.J. and J.B.; software, J.B.; resources, A.J.; writing—original draft preparation, A.J.; supervision, A.J.; writing—review and editing, A.J. and J.B. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Data Availability Statement

Data are contained within the article and Supplementary Materials.

Acknowledgments

We thank Z. Gudžinskas (Nature Research Centre, Vilnius, Lithuania) for Erigeron species identification and D. Stancelytė (Vilnius University, Vilnius, Lithuania) for herbal material collecting from wild populations.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Abbreviations

The following abbreviations are used in this manuscript:
HPLC/DAD/TOFHigh-performance liquid chromatography/diode array detector/time of flight mass spectrometry
TROLOX6-Hydroxy-2,5,7,8-tetramethylchroman-2-carboxylic acid (C14H18O4)
ABTS2,2’-Azino-bis-(3-ethylbenzotiazoline-6-sulfonic acid) diammonium salt
DPPH2,2-Diphenyl-1-picrylhydrazyl
GAEGallic acid equivalent

References

  1. World Flora Online. WFO Plant List. Available online: https://www.worldfloraonline.org (accessed on 2 June 2026).
  2. Plants of the World Online (POWO). Royal Botanical Gardens, Kew, UK. Available online: https://powo.science.kew.org (accessed on 25 May 2026).
  3. Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF). Available online: https://www.gbif.org/occurrence/map?taxon_key=3642949&occurrence_status=present (accessed on 1 June 2026). [CrossRef]
  4. Fitzgerald, H.; Helpdesk, G.N. Nordic Crop Wild Relative (CWR) Checklist, version 1.16; Nordic Genetic Resource Center (NORDGEN): Lomma, Sweden, 2020; Available online: https://www.gbif.org/dataset/8027d8d5-c8bc-4d54-bee9-f854f141b442 (accessed on 3 June 2026). [CrossRef]
  5. Bánki, O.; Roskov, Y.; Döring, M.; Ower, G.; Robles, H.D.R.; Corredor, P.C.A.; Jeppesen, S.T.; Örn, A.; Pape, T.; Hobern, D. Catalogue of Life (2026-08-26 XR); Catalogue of Life Foundation: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2026; Available online: https://doi.org/10.48580/dgyy9 (accessed on 1 June 2026).
  6. Patamsytė, J.; Rančelis, V.; Čėsnienė, T.; Kleizaitė, V.; Tunaitienė, V.; Naugžemys, D.; Vaitkūnienė, V.; Žvingila, D. Clonal structure and reduced diversity of the invasive alien plant Erigeron annuus in Lithuania. Cent. Eur. J. Biol. 2013, 8, 898–911. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  7. Gudžinskas, Z.; Petrulaitis, L.; Uogintas, D.; Vaitonis, G.; Balčiauskas, L.; Rakauskas, V.; Arbačiauskas, K.; Butkus, R.; Karalius, S.; Janulaitienė, L.; et al. Invasive and Alien Species in Lithuania; Gudžinskas, Z., Rašomavičius, V., Eds.; Nature Research Centre: Vilnius, Lithuania, 2023; pp. 44–45. ISBN 978-609-8255-32-4. [Google Scholar]
  8. Nesom, G.L. Erigeron (Asteraceae). In Flora of North America (FNA) Volume 20; Editorial Committee, Ed.; Oxford University Press: New York, NY, USA; Oxford, UK, 2006; pp. 262, 320, 344, 345, 346, 347. Available online: http://www.efloras.org/florataxon.aspx?flora_id=1&taxon_id=242416508 (accessed on 3 June 2026).
  9. Nature Reserve Explorer. Available online: https://explorer.natureserve.org/Taxon/ELEMENT_GLOBAL.2.132001/Erigeron_strigosus (accessed on 3 June 2026).
  10. Regarding the Amendment of the Minister of the Environment of the Republic of Lithuania “Regarding the Approval of the List of Species of Invasive Organisms in Lithuania and the Recognition of Some Orders of the Minister of the Environment as Having Lost Their Validity”. Available online: https://e-seimas.lrs.lt/portal/legalAct/lt/TAD/0754e1b0b56011e6a3e9de0fc8d85cd8 (accessed on 12 June 2026).
  11. Anonymous. Fleabane Benefits: Medicinal, Garden & Ecological Uses [Power Weed]. Available online: https://scicentric.org/fleabane-benefits-medicinal-ecological-uses (accessed on 14 September 2026).
  12. Rana, R.; Pundir, S.; Lal, U.R.; Chauhan, R.; Upadhyay, S.K.; Kumar, D. Phytochemistry and biological activity of Erigeron annuus (L.) Pers. Naunyn-Schmiedeb. Arch. Pharmacol. 2023, 396, 2331–2346. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  13. Sharma, R.K.; Verma, N.; Jha, K.K.; Singh, N.K.; Kumar, B. Phytochemistry, pharmacological activity, traditional and medicinal uses of Erigeron species: A review. IJARI 2014, 2, 274–280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  14. Li, X.; Yang, M.; Han, Y.F.; Gao, K. New sesquiterpenes from Erigeron annuus. Planta Med. 2005, 71, 268–272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  15. Judžentienė, A. Compositional variability of essential oils and their bioactivity in native and invasive Erigeron species. Molecules 2025, 30, 2989. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  16. Nazaruk, J.; Kalemba, D. Chemical Composition of the essential oils from the roots of Erigeron acris L. and Erigeron annuus (L.) Pers. Molecules 2009, 14, 2458–2465. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  17. Yoo, N.H.; Jang, D.S.; Kim, J.S. Phytochemical constituents of the roots of Erigeron annuus. J. Appl. Biol. Chem. 2008, 51, 305–308. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  18. El-Razek, A.M.H. A new flavan from the aerial part of Erigeron annuus. Chin. Pharm. J. 2006, 58, 95–104. [Google Scholar]
  19. Jeong, C.H.; Jeong, H.R.; Choi, G.N.; Kim, D.O.; Lee, U.; Heo, H.J. Neuroprotective and anti-oxidant effects of caffeic acid isolated from Erigeron annuus leaf. Chin. Med. 2011, 6, 25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  20. Jang, D.S.; Yoo, N.H.; Lee, Y.M.; Yoo, J.L.; Kim, Y.S.; Kim, J.S. Constituents of the flowers of Erigeron annuus with inhibitory activity on the formation of advanced glycation end products (AGEs) and aldose reductase. Arch. Pharm. Res. 2008, 31, 900–904. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  21. Jang, D.S.; Yoo, N.H.; Kim, N.H.; Lee, Y.M.; Kim, C.S.; Kim, J.; Kim, J.H.; Kim, J.S. 3,5-Di-O-caffeoyl-epi-quinic acid from the leaves and stems of Erigeron annuus inhibits protein glycation, aldose reductase, and cataractogenesis. Biol. Pharm. Bull. 2010, 33, 329–333. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  22. Lee, H.J.; Seo, Y. Antioxidant properties of Erigeron annuus extract and its three phenolic constituents. Biotechnol. Bioprocess Eng. 2006, 11, 13–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  23. Oh, H.; Lee, S.; Lee, H.S.; Lee, D.H.; Lee, S.Y.; Chung, H.T.; Kim, T.S.; Kwon, T.O. Germination inhibitory constituents from Erigeron annuus. Phytochemistry 2002, 61, 175–179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  24. Kim, H.Y.; Kim, K. Protein glycation inhibitory and antioxidative activities of some plant extracts in vitro. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2003, 51, 1586–1591. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  25. Yusuf, E.H. Total phenolic content and antioxidant activities of invasive Erigeron annuus Pers. (Asteraceae) from different localities. Int. J. Agric. Environ. Food Sci. 2021, 5, 173–178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  26. Zhang, L.; Xu, Q.; Li, L.; Lin, L.; Yu, J.; Zhu, J.; Zhang, H.; Xia, G.; Zang, H. Antioxidant and enzyme-inhibitory activity of extracts from Erigeron annuus flower. Ind. Crops Prod. 2020, 148, 112283. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  27. Zheng, Y.; Choi, Y.-H.; Lee, J.-H.; Lee, S.-Y.; Kang, I.-J. Anti-obesity effect of Erigeron annuus (L.) Pers. extract containing phenolic acids. Foods 2021, 10, 1266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  28. Lee, H.K.; Nam, Y.H.; Shin, S.W.; Kim, M.C.; An, J.I.; Kim, N.W.; Shim, J.H.; Srinath, S.; Hong, B.N.; Kwak, J.H.; et al. Erigeron annuus extract alleviates insulin resistance via regulating the expression of mitochondrial damage and endoplasmic reticulum stress-related genes. Nutrients 2023, 15, 2685. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  29. Song, K.; Zheng, X.K.; Zhang, J.K.; Zhang, Y.L.; Li, M.; Wang, J.C.; Zou, Z.M.; Feng, W.S. Chemical constituents of Erigeron annuus (L.). Pers. Chin. Pharm. J. 2016, 51, 1462–1466. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Yoo, N.H.; Jang, D.S.; Yoo, J.L.; Lee, Y.M.; Kim, Y.S.; Cho, J.H.; Kim, J.S. Erigeroflavanone, a flavanone derivative from the flowers of Erigeron annuus with protein glycation and aldose reductase inhibitory activity. J. Nat. Prod. 2008, 71, 713–715. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  31. Kim, O.S.; Kim, Y.S.; Jang, D.S.; Yoo, N.H.; Kim, J.S. Cytoprotection against hydrogen peroxide-induced cell death in cultured mouse mesangial cells by erigeroflavanone, a novel compound from the flowers of Erigeron annuus. Chem. Biol. Interact. 2009, 180, 414–420. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  32. Zhang, X.; Zhou, S.; Yu, H.; Zhu, Y.; Zhang, L.; Niu, F.; Zhou, C.; Wan, X.; Gao, L. Investigating the antiviral activity of Erigeron annuus (L.) pers extract against RSV and examining its active components. J. Ethnopharmacol. 2024, 334, 118581. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  33. Kovalev, S.V.; Golovach, A.R.; Kovalev, V.N.; Khilya, V.P. Flavonoids from Erigeron annuus. Chem. Nat. Compd. 2023, 59, 776–777. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  34. Thakur, M.; Verma, R.; Kumar, D.; Sivakumar, M.; Malik, T. Investigation into the impact of solvents on the phytochemical composition, antioxidant capacities, and antihyperglycemic activities of Erigeron annuus (L.) Pers. BioMed Res. Int. 2025, 1, 2314–6133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  35. Kim, D.H.; Jung, S.J.; Chung, I.S.; Lee, Y.-H.; Kim, D.-K.; Kim, S.-H.; Kwon, B.-M.; Jeong, T.-S.; Park, M.-H.; Seoung, N.-S.; et al. Ergosterol peroxide from flowers of Erigeron annuus L. as an anti-atherosclerosis agent. Arch. Pharm. Res. 2005, 28, 541–545. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  36. Kovalev, S.V.; Golovach, A.R.; Kovalev, V.N.; Poleszak, E.; Akhmedov, E.; Bobrytska, O. Study and determination of fructan-type polysaccharide content in Erigeron annuus L. Curr. Issues Pharm. Med. Sci. 2022, 35, 95–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  37. Kovalev, S.V.; Golovach, A.R.; Kovalev, V.M.; Deviatkina, N. Determination of carbohydrates in the herb Erigeron annuus. Fr.-Ukr. J. Chem. (FUJC) 2024, 12, 39–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  38. Kovalev, S.V.; Golovach, A.R.; Kovalev, V.M. An identification and study of amino acids of Erigeron annuus herb. Methods Objects Chem. Anal. 2021, 16, 88–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  39. Li, X.; Pan, J.; Gao, K. Gamma-pyranone derivatives and other constituents from Erigeron annuus. Pharmazie 2006, 61, 474–477. Available online: https://storage.imrpress.com/IMR/pharmazie/application/61_05_S474_477.pdf (accessed on 16 July 2026).
  40. Iijima, T.; Yaoita, Y.; Kikuchi, M. Two new cyclopentenone derivatives and a new cyclooctadienone derivative from Erigeron annuus (L.) PERS., Erigeron philadelphicus L., and Erigeron sumatrensis RETZ. Chem. Pharm. Bull. 2003, 51, 894–896. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  41. Jeong, M.; Kwon, H.; Kim, Y.; Jin, H.; Choi, G.-E.; Hyun, K.-Y. Erigeron annuus extract improves DNCB-induced atopic dermatitis in a mouse model via the Nrf2/HO-1 pathway. Nutrients 2024, 16, 451. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  42. Choi, Y.H.; Lee, O.H.; Zheng, Y.; Kang, I.J. Erigeron annuus (L.) Pers. extract inhibits reactive oxygen species (ROS) production and fat accumulation in 3T3-L1 cells by activating an AMP-dependent kinase signaling pathway. Antioxidants 2019, 8, 139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  43. Kim, S.C.; Cho, I.J.; Kim, Y.W. Roots of Erigeron annuus inhibits acute inflammatory response through NF-κB inactivation. Toxicol. Lett. 2013, 221, S152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  44. Jo, M.J.; Lee, J.R.; Cho, I.J.; Kim, Y.W.; Kim, S.C. Roots of Erigeron annuus attenuate acute inflammation as mediated with the inhibition of NF- κ B-associated nitric oxide and prostaglandin E2 production. Evid. Based Complement. Altern. Med. 2013, 2013, 297427. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  45. Sung, M.S.; Kim, Y.H.; Choi, Y.M.; Ham, H.M.; Jeong, H.S.; Lee, J.S. Anti-Inflammatory effect of Erigeron annuus L. flower extract through heme oxygenase-1 induction in RAW264.7 macrophages. J. Korean Soc. Food Sci. Nutr. 2011, 40, 1507–1511. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  46. Liu, J.; Liu, X.; Fu, S.; Wang, H.; Mu, L. Allelopathic Impact of Erigeron canadensis and Erigeron annuus on major crop species. Diversity 2025, 17, 318. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  47. Tak, H.; Fronczek, F.R.; Fischer, N.H. Molecular structure of 3-hydroxy-4-pyrone. Spectrosc. Lett. 1994, 27, 1431–1435. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  48. Cantrell, C.L.; Fischer, N.H.; Urbatsch, L.; McGuire, M.S.; Franzblau, S.G. Antimycobacterial crude plant extracts from South, Central, and North America. Phytomedicine 1998, 5, 137–145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  49. Anwar, T.; Qureshi, H.; Sarwar, G.; Siddiqi, E.H.; Ashraf, T. Preserving ethnomedicinal knowledge: Revealing the therapeutic potential of wild indigenous flora. Ecol. Front. 2024, 44, 1079–1089. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  50. Uprety, Y.; Lacasse, A.; Asselin, H. Traditional uses of medicinal plants from the Canadian boreal forest for the management of chronic pain syndromes. Pain Pract. 2015, 16, 459–466. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  51. Kanerva, L.; Estlander, T.; Alanko, K.; Jolanki, R. Patch test sensitization to Compositae mix, sesquiterpene-lactone mix, Compositae extracts, laurel leaf, chlorophorin, mansonone A, and dimethoxydalbergione. Am. J. Contact Dermat. 2001, 12, 18–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  52. Borchardt, J.R.; Wyse, D.L.; Sheaffer, C.C.; Kauppi, K.L.; Fulcher, R.G.; Ehlke, N.J.; Biesboer, D.D.; Bey, R.F. Antimicrobial activity of native and naturalized plants of Minnesota and Wisconsin. J. Med. Plants Res. 2008, 2, 98–110. Available online: https://www.scopus.com/pages/publications/73449149012 (accessed on 16 June 2026). [CrossRef]
  53. Judzentiene, A.; Budiene, J.; Nedveckyte, I.; Garjonyte, R. Antioxidant and toxic Activity of Helichrysum arenarium (L.) Moench and Helichrysum italicum (Roth) G. Don essential oils and extracts. Molecules 2022, 27, 1311. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  54. Voynikov, Y. Arzanol: A review of chemical properties and biological activities. Plants 2025, 14, 3474. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  55. Bajek-Bil, A.; Chmiel, M.; Włoch, A.; Stompor-Gorący, M. Baicalin—Current trends in detection methods and health-promoting properties. Pharmaceuticals 2023, 16, 570. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  56. Ozma, M.A.; Khodadadi, E.; Pakdel, F.; Kamounah, F.S.; Yousefi, M.; Yousefi, B.; Asgharzadeh, M.; Ganbarov, K.; Kafil, H.S. Baicalin, a natural antimicrobial and anti-biofilm agent. J. Herb. Med. 2021, 27, 100432. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  57. Meng, X.; Ning, C.; Kang, M.; Wang, X.; Yu, Z.; Hao, X.; Guo, H. Baicalin: Natural sources, extraction techniques, and therapeutic applications against bacterial infections. Molecules 2025, 30, 3464. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  58. Ložienė, K.; Petraitytė, E. The Influence of water extraction methods on the isolation of polyphenols and tannins from various Ericaceae and Rosaceae species. Plants 2026, 15, 808. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  59. Xu, L.; Wang, X. A Comprehensive review of phenolic compounds in horticultural plants. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2025, 26, 5767. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  60. Ložienė, K.; Chochlovaitė, I. Effect of phenological stage and leaf age on changes of chlorophyll and carotenoid contents in some weeds and invasive species. Molecules 2025, 30, 3788. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  61. Judžentienė, A.; Kundrotaitė, A.; Charkova, T.; Nedveckytė, I. Phytochemistry and allelopathic properties of invasive Heracleum sosnowskyi aqueous extracts against lettuce (Lactuca sativa L.), perennial ryegrass (Lolium perenne L.), timothy (Phleum pratense L.) and white clover (Trifolium repens L.). Plants 2026, 15, 346. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  62. McLaughlin, J.L.; Rogers, L.L.; Anderson, J.E. The use of biological assays to evaluate botanicals. Drug Inform. J. 1998, 32, 513–524. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  63. Judžentienė, A.; Būdienė, J. Low-Thujone A. absinthium L. (Wormwood) essential oils and extracts with potential antioxidative/prooxidant activity. Molecules 2026, 31, 1551. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
Plants 15 02851 g001
Figure 1. An illustration of the worldwide distribution of Erigeron annuus (L.) Pers. plants. The image was created by applying data from Plants of the World Online (POWO) [2] and the Canva design platform (https://www.canva.com).
Figure 1. An illustration of the worldwide distribution of Erigeron annuus (L.) Pers. plants. The image was created by applying data from Plants of the World Online (POWO) [2] and the Canva design platform (https://www.canva.com).
Plants 15 02851 g001
Plants 15 02851 g002
Figure 2. A visual indication of Erigeron strigosus Muhl. ex Willd. global occurrence. The picture was created using the POWO (Plants of the World Online) database [2] and the Gemini software (Gemini Web Application) (https://gemini.google.com/app (accessed on 4 June 2026)).
Figure 2. A visual indication of Erigeron strigosus Muhl. ex Willd. global occurrence. The picture was created using the POWO (Plants of the World Online) database [2] and the Gemini software (Gemini Web Application) (https://gemini.google.com/app (accessed on 4 June 2026)).
Plants 15 02851 g002
Plants 15 02851 g003
Figure 3. Total phenolic content (TPC, mg/L, expressed in gallic acid equivalent (GAE), n = 5) in E. annuus (L.) Pers. (Series1) and E. strigosus Muhl. ex Willd. (Series2) aqueous extracts (plant material was collected in 2024). Letters (a, b, c and d, e, f) in the columns demonstrate significant differences between TPC values of various plant organs within each species, whereas asterisks (* and **) and apostrophes (′ and ″) indicate significant differences between the same plant organs (flowers and leaves, respectively) of E. annuus and E. strigosus (p ≤ 0.05, using Welch’s t-test).
Figure 3. Total phenolic content (TPC, mg/L, expressed in gallic acid equivalent (GAE), n = 5) in E. annuus (L.) Pers. (Series1) and E. strigosus Muhl. ex Willd. (Series2) aqueous extracts (plant material was collected in 2024). Letters (a, b, c and d, e, f) in the columns demonstrate significant differences between TPC values of various plant organs within each species, whereas asterisks (* and **) and apostrophes (′ and ″) indicate significant differences between the same plant organs (flowers and leaves, respectively) of E. annuus and E. strigosus (p ≤ 0.05, using Welch’s t-test).
Plants 15 02851 g003
Plants 15 02851 g004
Figure 4. Total phenolic content (TPC, mg/L, expressed in gallic acid equivalent (GAE), n = 5) in E. strigosus Muhl. ex Willd. aqueous (Series1) and methanolic (1:1, v/v) (Series2) extracts (plant material was collected in 2025). The letters (a, b, c and d, e, f) in the columns demonstrate significant differences among the TPC values of various plant organs within the species, whereas asterisks (* and **) and apostrophes (′ and ″) indicate significant differences between the aqueous and methanolic extracts of E. strigosus (p ≤ 0.05, using Welch’s t-test).
Figure 4. Total phenolic content (TPC, mg/L, expressed in gallic acid equivalent (GAE), n = 5) in E. strigosus Muhl. ex Willd. aqueous (Series1) and methanolic (1:1, v/v) (Series2) extracts (plant material was collected in 2025). The letters (a, b, c and d, e, f) in the columns demonstrate significant differences among the TPC values of various plant organs within the species, whereas asterisks (* and **) and apostrophes (′ and ″) indicate significant differences between the aqueous and methanolic extracts of E. strigosus (p ≤ 0.05, using Welch’s t-test).
Plants 15 02851 g004
Plants 15 02851 g005
Figure 5. ABTS●+ scavenging activity (mmol/L, TROLOX equivalent, n = 5) of E. annuus (L.) Pers. (Series1) and E. strigosus Muhl. ex Willd. (Series2) aqueous extracts. The letters (a, b, c and d, e, f) in the columns indicate significant differences among the ABTS●+ scavenging activity values of various plant organs within each species, whereas asterisks (* and **) show significant differences between the aqueous flower extracts of E. annuus and E. strigosus (p ≤ 0.05, using the Welch’s t-test).
Figure 5. ABTS●+ scavenging activity (mmol/L, TROLOX equivalent, n = 5) of E. annuus (L.) Pers. (Series1) and E. strigosus Muhl. ex Willd. (Series2) aqueous extracts. The letters (a, b, c and d, e, f) in the columns indicate significant differences among the ABTS●+ scavenging activity values of various plant organs within each species, whereas asterisks (* and **) show significant differences between the aqueous flower extracts of E. annuus and E. strigosus (p ≤ 0.05, using the Welch’s t-test).
Plants 15 02851 g005
Plants 15 02851 g006
Figure 6. ABTS●+ scavenging activity (mmol/L, TROLOX equivalent, n = 5) of E. strigosus Muhl. ex Willd. aqueous (Series1) and methanolic (1:1, v/v) (Series2) extracts. The letters (a, b, c and d, e, f) in the columns show significant differences among the ABTS●+ scavenging activity values of various plant organs within the species, whereas asterisks (* and **) and apostrophes (′ and ″) indicate significant differences between the aqueous and methanolic E. strigosus leaf and root extracts (p ≤ 0.05, using the Welch’s t-test).
Figure 6. ABTS●+ scavenging activity (mmol/L, TROLOX equivalent, n = 5) of E. strigosus Muhl. ex Willd. aqueous (Series1) and methanolic (1:1, v/v) (Series2) extracts. The letters (a, b, c and d, e, f) in the columns show significant differences among the ABTS●+ scavenging activity values of various plant organs within the species, whereas asterisks (* and **) and apostrophes (′ and ″) indicate significant differences between the aqueous and methanolic E. strigosus leaf and root extracts (p ≤ 0.05, using the Welch’s t-test).
Plants 15 02851 g006
Plants 15 02851 g007
Figure 7. DPPH● scavenging activity (mmol/L, TROLOX equivalent, n = 5) of E. annuus (L.) Pers. (Series1) and E. strigosus Muhl. ex Willd. (Series2) aqueous extracts. The letters (a, b, c and d, e, f) in the columns indicate significant differences among the DPPH● scavenging activity values of various plant organs within each species, whereas asterisks (* and **) and apostrophes (′ and ″) demonstrate significant differences between the aqueous leaf extracts of E. annuus and E. strigosus (p ≤ 0.05, using the Welch’s t-test).
Figure 7. DPPH● scavenging activity (mmol/L, TROLOX equivalent, n = 5) of E. annuus (L.) Pers. (Series1) and E. strigosus Muhl. ex Willd. (Series2) aqueous extracts. The letters (a, b, c and d, e, f) in the columns indicate significant differences among the DPPH● scavenging activity values of various plant organs within each species, whereas asterisks (* and **) and apostrophes (′ and ″) demonstrate significant differences between the aqueous leaf extracts of E. annuus and E. strigosus (p ≤ 0.05, using the Welch’s t-test).
Plants 15 02851 g007
Plants 15 02851 g008
Figure 8. DPPH● scavenging activity (mmol/L, TROLOX equivalent, n = 5)) of E. strigosus aqueous (Series1) and methanolic (1:1, v/v) (Series2) extracts. The letters (a, b, c and d, e, f) in the columns demonstrate significant differences among the DPPH● scavenging activity values of various plant organs within the species, whereas asterisks (* and **) indicate significant differences between the aqueous and methanolic root extracts of E. strigosus (p ≤ 0.05, using the Welch’s t-test).
Figure 8. DPPH● scavenging activity (mmol/L, TROLOX equivalent, n = 5)) of E. strigosus aqueous (Series1) and methanolic (1:1, v/v) (Series2) extracts. The letters (a, b, c and d, e, f) in the columns demonstrate significant differences among the DPPH● scavenging activity values of various plant organs within the species, whereas asterisks (* and **) indicate significant differences between the aqueous and methanolic root extracts of E. strigosus (p ≤ 0.05, using the Welch’s t-test).
Plants 15 02851 g008
Table 1. Tentative identification of compounds in inflorescence, leaf and root extracts of Erigeron annuus (L.) Pers. analyzed by HPLC-DAD-TOF technique.
Table 1. Tentative identification of compounds in inflorescence, leaf and root extracts of Erigeron annuus (L.) Pers. analyzed by HPLC-DAD-TOF technique.
ConstituentsFormulaMolecular Weightm/z ESI+
(Da)		m/z ESI−
(Da)		UV Absorb., λmax, nmLiterature **
Acids:
* Fumaric LC4H4O4116.1116.072 210
* Succinic LC4H6O4118.1118.084 220[24]
Glutaric FC5H8O4132.1133.061 210
Malic RC4H6O5134.1 133.018340
Protocatechuic RC7H6O4154.1155.975 260; 290[20]
p-Coumaric FC9H8O3164.2166.086 260[23]
Quinic acid F, L, RC7H12O6192.2 191.017195[27]
Gelseminic (Scopoletin) LC10H8O4192.2 190.986340
* Chlorogenic (3-O-caffeoylquinic) L, F, RC16H18O9354.3355.106353.092210; 315[27,28]
Neochlorogenic (5-O-caffeoylquinic) L, F, RC16H18O9354.3355.097353.089210; 315
Betulinic/Ursolonic LC30H48O3456.7 456.885210[18]
Isochlorogenic (3,5-Dicaffeoylquinic) acid A L, FC25H24O12516.5517.134515.123325[20,21,27]
Isochlorogenic (3,4-Dicaffeoylquinic) acid B RC25H24O12516.5517.134515.148325[21,27]
Other:
Umbelliferone F, LC9H6O3162.1163.039160.981300[18]
Matricaria lactone F, LC10H10O2162.2163.039160.981 [15,16]
Loliolide F, L, RC11H16O3196.2 195.055 [29]
Isoscutellarein F, LC15H10O6286.2 285.043275[12]
Kaempferol/Luteolin FC15H10O6286.2 285.046265; 360[18,27,33]
Sesquiterpene hydrocarbon(s) F, LC15H24204.4205.096 [12,14,15,16]
Apigenin FC15H10O5270.2 269.048210; 325[17,21,22,39]
Acacetin (Linarigenin;
5,7-Dihydroxy-4′-methoxyflavone) F		C16H12O5284.3 282.942
Hispidulin (Scutellarein 6-methyl ether;
4′,5,7-Trihydroxy-6-methoxyflavone) L		C16H12O6300.3 298.918 [29]
* Quercetin FC15H10O7302.2 301.038225; 255; 370[18,32]
Arenol FC21H24O7388.4 386.926
Arzanol F, LC22H26O7402.4 401.026
Erigeroflavanone F, LC19H18O10406.3407.033405.031 [30,31]
Erigeside I (6′-O-Caffeoylerigeroside) F, LC20H20O11436.4 435.008 [21,29,39]
* Baicalin (7-D-Glucuronic acid-5,6-dihydroxyflavone) F, LC21H18O11446.4447.099444.968275; 315
Apigenin-7-O-glucuronide F, L, RC21H18O11446.4447.099445.083 [17,21]
Astragalin (Kaempferol 3-O-glucoside)/Quercitrin (Quercetin 3-rhamnoside) FC21H20O11448.4 446.956265; 346[21]
Scutellarin
(Scutellarein-7-O-glucuronide; Breviscapin) F, L, R		C21H18O12462.4463.084461.078285, 335
Quercetin 3′-O-glucoside RC21H20O12464.4465.104463.084255; 365[22,33]
Apigenin-7-O-glucuronide-6′-ethyl ester L, RC23H22O11474.4475.084 [39]
Isorhamnetin 3-O-glucoside FC22H22O12478.4 476.954
Caffeoylshikimic acid glucoside F, LC22H26O13499.1499.12
Rutin FC27H30O16610.5 609.130255; 355
* Additional identification with a reference compound. F, L, R indicate inflorescence (F), leaf (L) and root (R) extracts, respectively. ** Previously reported in the literature related to Erigeron annuus (L.).
Table 2. Tentative identification of main compounds in Erigeron strigosus Muhl. ex Willd. inflorescence, leaf and root extracts analyzed by HPLC-DAD-TOF technique.
Table 2. Tentative identification of main compounds in Erigeron strigosus Muhl. ex Willd. inflorescence, leaf and root extracts analyzed by HPLC-DAD-TOF technique.
CompoundsFormulaMolar Massm/z ESI+,
(Da)		m/z ESI−
(Da)		UV Absorb., λmax, nm
Acids:
Pyromeconic (3-hydroxy-pyran-4-one) FC5H4O3112.1113.022 210; 270
* Fumaric FC4H4O4116.1116.072 210
* Succinic FC4H6O4118.1118.084 220
Malic F, L, RC4H6O5134.1 133.018340
Protocatechuic FC7H6O4154.1156.042 260; 295
p-Coumaric F, L, RC9H8O3164.2166.040163.081260
* Caffeic acid FC9H8O4180.2181.122 220; 295–325
Gelseminic (scopoletin) F, LC10H8O4192.2 191.061340
Quinic F, RC7H12O6192.2 191.108195
* Syringic RC9H10O5198.2199.061 210; 260
Linolenic (9,12,15-octadecatrienoic) F, L, RC18H30O2278.5279.157277.225210
9,12,13-Trixydroxy-10E-octadecenoic F, RC18H34O5330.5331.189329.238
* Chlorogenic (3-O-caffeoylquinic) F, L, RC16H18O9354.3355.108353.092210; 315
Neochlorogenic (5-O-caffeoylquinic) L, F, RC16H18O9354.3355.097353.089210; 315
3-O-Feruloylquinic L, RC17H20O9368.3 367.145
Oleanolic RC30H48O3456.7 455.236195; 230
Isochlorogenic (3,5-dicaffeoylquinic) acid A F, L, RC25H24O12516.5517.155515.148325
Isochlorogenic (3,4-dicaffeoylquinic) acid B FC25H24O12516.5517.134515.124325
Other:
Coumaran (2,3-dihydrobenzofuran) F, L, RC8H8O120.2121.052 210
Isoamyl butyrate L, RC9H18O2158.2158.996 210
Umbelliferone L, RC9H6O3162.1163.039 300
Lachnophyllum ester F, LC11H12O2176.1177.092175.10
5,7-Dihydroxychromone LC9H6O4178.1179.108177.025
Loliolide F, LC11H16O3196.2197.118195.055
Sesquiterpene hydrocarbon(s) LC15H24204.4205.096
* Baicalein F, LC15H10O5270.2271.228269.051270; 330
Apigenin F, LC15H10O5270.2271.228269.051210; 230; 325
Kaempferol/Luteolin LC15H10O6286.2 285.046265; 364
* Epicatechin F, L, RC15H14O6290.3291.098 280
* Catechin F, RC15H14O6290.3291.233 280
* Quercetin FC15H10O7302.2303.233301.040225; 255; 370
Quercetin 3′,4′,7-trimethyl ether F, LC18H16O7344.3346.259343.042
Erigeside I (6′-O-Caffeoylerigeroside) F, L, RC20H20O11436.4437.104435.096
Erigerol LC25H40O6436.6 435.094
* Baicalin F, LC21H18O11446.4447.099445.083275; 315
Apigenin-7-O-glucuronide F, LC21H18O11446.4447.099445.083
Astragalin/Quercitrin LC21H20O11448.4 447.229265; 345
(-)-Epigallocatechin gallate RC22H18O11458.4 457.251275
Apigenin 7-O-methylglucuronide F, RC22H20O11460.4461.281459.148
Scutellarin (scutellarein-7-O-glucuronide) F, LC21H18O12462.4463.085 285; 335
* Quercetin 3′-O-glucoside F, LC21H20O12464.4465.104463.094255; 365
Apigenin-7-O-glucuronide-6′-ethyl ester F, LC23H22O11474.4475.085
Caffeoylshikimic acid glucoside L,C22H26O13498.5499.124
(-)-Syringaresinol-4-O-β-D-glucopyranoside F, RC28H36O13580.6582.145579.182
* Rutin RC27H30O16610.5611.426 255; 355
L, F, R Presence of compounds in leaf (L), inflorescence (F) and root (R) extracts. * Additional identification using compound standards.
Table 3. Brine shrimp Artemia salina nauplii lethality (average ± SD (standard deviation), n = 3, n refers to the number of measurements taken at the same extract dose) in flower, leaf and root extracts of E. annuus (L.) Pers. and E. strigosus Muhl. ex Willd.
Table 3. Brine shrimp Artemia salina nauplii lethality (average ± SD (standard deviation), n = 3, n refers to the number of measurements taken at the same extract dose) in flower, leaf and root extracts of E. annuus (L.) Pers. and E. strigosus Muhl. ex Willd.
Artemia salina Nauplii Mortality, %
Dosage *E. annuusE. strigosus
Volume, mLFlowersLeavesRootsFlowersLeavesRoots
0.10.0 ± 0.06.1 ± 8.60.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.0
0.534.8 ± 10.772.3 ± 2.40.0 ± 0.047.2 ± 5.066.7 ± 4.30.0 ± 0.0
1.038.6 ± 3.982.8 ± 1.34.8 ± 6.787.7 ± 9.097.9 ± 2.915.2 ± 4.3
2.080.1 ± 5.4100 ± 0.051.5 ± 5.1100 ± 0.0100 ± 0.075.4 ± 2.4
3.0100 ± 0.0 90.2 ± 2.0 91.8 ± 6.3
4.5 100 ± 0.0 100 ± 0.0
* Concentrations of dried herbal material (µg/mL) in 5 mL saline water and the added corresponding extract volume (indicated in brackets) were the following: 9.8 (0.1); 45.5 (0.5); 83.3 (1.0); 142.9 (2.0); 187.5 (3.0) and 236.8 (4.5).
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.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Judžentienė, A.; Būdienė, J. Evaluation of Phytochemistry, Toxicity and Radical-Scavenging Capacity of Two Erigeron Species (E. annuus (L.) Pers. and E. strigosus Muhl. ex Willd.) Extracts. Plants 2026, 15, 2851. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants15182851

AMA Style

Judžentienė A, Būdienė J. Evaluation of Phytochemistry, Toxicity and Radical-Scavenging Capacity of Two Erigeron Species (E. annuus (L.) Pers. and E. strigosus Muhl. ex Willd.) Extracts. Plants. 2026; 15(18):2851. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants15182851

Chicago/Turabian Style

Judžentienė, Asta, and Jurga Būdienė. 2026. "Evaluation of Phytochemistry, Toxicity and Radical-Scavenging Capacity of Two Erigeron Species (E. annuus (L.) Pers. and E. strigosus Muhl. ex Willd.) Extracts" Plants 15, no. 18: 2851. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants15182851

APA Style

Judžentienė, A., & Būdienė, J. (2026). Evaluation of Phytochemistry, Toxicity and Radical-Scavenging Capacity of Two Erigeron Species (E. annuus (L.) Pers. and E. strigosus Muhl. ex Willd.) Extracts. Plants, 15(18), 2851. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants15182851

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop