LC-MS/MS-Analysis and Biological Evaluation of Hop (Humulus lupulus): Antioxidant, Antidiabetic, Anticholinergic and Antiglaucoma Activities

This study investigates the antioxidant, enzyme inhibitory, and antimicrobial activities of water (WEHL) and ethanol (EEHL) extracts of hop (Humulus lupulus) cones. Phytochemical analyses revealed higher total phenolic content in EEHL (271.52 ± 0.13 mg GAE/g) than in WEHL (251.84 ± 0.06 mg GAE/g), as well as higher total flavonoid content (182.56 ± 0.45 mg QE/g for EEHL versus 179.39 ± 0.46 mg QE/g for WEHL). Antioxidant activity, determined by DPPH and ABTS assays, showed that EEHL had stronger radical scavenging capacity with IC50 values of 19.13 ± 4.66 μg/mL (DPPH) and 12.66 ± 1.94 μg/mL (ABTS), compared to WEHL (DPPH: 20.90 ± 2.39 μg/mL; ABTS: 32.41 ± 4.29 μg/mL). In reducing assays, EEHL also showed better absorbance values in FRAP (0.77 ± 0.01), CUPRAC (2.09 ± 0.05), and Fe3+ reducing (1.95 ± 0.01) tests. EEHL likely outperformed WEHL due to solvent polarity and extraction efficiency. Moderately polar ethanol extracts a broader range of phenolics and flavonoids, including fewer polar bioactive compounds that contribute to antioxidant capacity and enzyme inhibition. This matches higher TPC/TFC in EEHL and explains stronger radical scavenging, reducing power, and multi-enzyme inhibition. Enzyme inhibition studies revealed that EEHL inhibited acetylcholinesterase (IC50: 26.06 μg/mL), butyrylcholinesterase (IC50: 44.00 μg/mL), α-glycosidase (IC50: 119.31 μg/mL), and carbonic anhydrase isoenzymes hCA I (IC50: 59.78 μg/mL) and hCA II (IC50: 21.19 μg/mL). LC–MS/MS analysis identified major phenolic compounds such as isoquercitrin (3.14 ng/mL), rutin (0.60 ng/mL), and hesperidin (0.43 ng/mL) in EEHL. Antimicrobial screening showed selective activity against Staphylococcus aureus with an inhibition zone of 18.50 ± 0.58 mm, while no inhibition was observed against Escherichia coli and Candida albicans. These findings provide a solvent-dependent in vitro profile that can guide extraction strategies, support antioxidant and multi-enzyme screening (including hCA I and II), and identify candidates for selective antimicrobial evaluation and further preclinical investigation. Despite extensive use of hop extracts, comparative solvent-dependent profiling that links LC–MS/MS phenolic composition with a broad multi-enzyme inhibition panel, including the less frequently evaluated hCA I/II isoenzymes, remains limited. Therefore, the objective of this study was to systematically compare WEHL and EEHL in terms of phytochemical content and in vitro antioxidant, enzyme inhibitory, and antimicrobial activities. Overall, these results provide a solvent-dependent, comparative in vitro profile of WEHL vs. EEHL that can support antioxidant, multi-enzyme screening (including hCA I and II), and selective antimicrobial assays.