Bacopa - Bacosides Content (UV-VIS vs HPLC)

jarrellt67

Well-known member
Awards
2
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
I just wanted to post some interesting information I came across on reddit about bacosides content when measured via UV-VIS versus HPLC. Most of you probably know who MYASD from reddit (owner of Natrium Health and Nootropics Depot). Recently there was a post about how most bacopa products (including bacognize and synapsa extracts) were standardized using UV-VIS and how this isn't a very accurate way of measuring bacoside content. Separate testing resulted in the bacognize extract having a bacoside content of only around 13% when using HPLC and synapsa around 9%. This would explain why the bacognize product on many sites was modified to read around 13% bacosides content instead of the previous 45%. Below is a copy of the post explaining it (link - https://www.reddit.com/r/Nootropics/comments/dhrnh8 ). Sorry, it's pretty long but does a good job of explaining the difference and results.

So UV-VIS was the standard for analyzing the content of plant extracts for decades. It was easy and everyone used it. There were USP methods for all sorts of plants that made it easy to analyze the ID and content of the extracts in one go. The big issue is that UV-VIS is not a chromatographic methodology. There is no separation of compounds. Essentially you just shine a light with UV and visible spectrums at a sample of plant material dissolved in a specific solvent, then analyze the graph of either the absorbance or reflectance. Everything absorbs or reflects light differently. The big issue is that you have interferences. Many things absorb or reflect similarly to each other. UV-VIS does NOT separate those things out. There is no chromatography happening. So the numbers you get are inflated 99% of the time, due to other things that reflect or absorb light similarly. In the case of bacopa, we are looking at bacopasides, or triterpene saponins that are the main active ingredients in bacopa. The issue is that there is a lot more stuff in bacopa that reflects/absorbs light in the same way as those triterpene saponins. So the 45%, 50%, 55% numbers you see on most bacopa products are not reality. They are grouping ANYTHING together that reflects or absorbs light in the same way as bacopasides, not just the ones we are interested in. This was industry standard forever. Standardizations were set using an (in my opinion) improper methodology. However, everyone did it, so there was no incentive for someone to correct the bad numbers. Enter HPLC/UPLC.

So HPLC/UPLC is a chromatographic methodology. This means we use chromatography to separate compounds from each other so that we can measure them individually. In HPLC/UPLC's case, that is using specific columns and solvents to separate when certain compounds pass the UV detector on the HPLC/UPLC. We now also do the same thing on our HP-TLC as well. However, HP-TLC uses thin-layer chromatography to separate the compounds. Essentially think of the plate on an HP-TLC as an HPLC column that has been unrolled and flattened out. The same concepts are used. So with an HPLC/UPLC we are developing sample prep with certain solvents at certain concentrations, then developing methods that inject various amounts, ratios, and different solvents with the sample through the column. If you are good at designing the methods, those techniques actually separate the compounds from each other so they leave the column at different times. Then they are measured via their absorbance or reflectance by ultraviolet light. So you can see that the HPLC/UPLC is measuring similar things to the UV-VIS. However, it is measuring them SEPARATELY from each other. This is key, as you remove interferences. Also, everything has a specific response-factor in the UV spectrum. Each bacopaside will have a different response factor to a certain wavelength of light, and that will affect how short/tall the peak is. So if you see two peaks the same size as each other, that does NOT mean they are the same concentration. Ohh no, that would be too easy. That's called area percent calculation, and that is bad chemistry. What you need to do is then run a qualified reference standard through the HPLC/UPLC with the same methods. Then you can calculate the actual concentrations in your sample from the known response factors on your machine, with your methods, at that temperature/pressure. THAT'S how you properly analyze the concentrations of active ingredients in a sample.

So in a very simple sense, UV-VIS measures the absorbance/reflectance of light through a whole sample, and tries to give a general idea of concentrations. It's great for that if your sample is simple. So if there are only a few chemicals in the sample, there will be little interference, and you can run a reference standard on the same machine to account for differing response-factors. It is NOT great for complex samples, which botanicals are. There are hundreds of different things in some plant extracts. You need to separate them if you ever want accurate numbers. We use UV-VIS all the time for mushroom analysis, as it comes AFTER we break the sample down using Megazyme kits. Essentially we are breaking down the specific glucans in the mushrooms so that we can accurately measure the beta-glucans in the sample. If we just ran the mushrooms through the UV-VIS without doing the enzymatic part first, we would get no real useful numbers.

HPLC/UPLC measures the absorbance/reflectance of UV light after things have been separated from each other. Chromatographic methods are always going to be more accurate than either dry techniques or simple non-chromatographic techniques. So our FTIR is an example of another non-chromatographic technique that is great for testing single chemicals, but breaks down when you have a bunch of things combined together. If you don't separate the compounds, you can't accurately measure them. HPLC, and now UPLC, are the gold standard for getting accurate measurements on complex samples. I could talk all day on the complexities of the methodologies, but I will leave that for another time.

So how does this all affect bacopa? Well we have tested a LOT of bacopa from all over the world. We have NEVER gotten HPLC/UPLC results anywhere near 50%. It is likely that everyone out there claiming they are selling that high of a standardization is either referencing bad methodologies, are lying, misinformed, or getting bad data from their labs. The highest we have ever gotten was 24% on our own extract we did. Bacognize is like 12.6%. Synapsa is only coming out at like 8-9%, which is surprising to us. There are people out there claiming to have 50% by HPLC. However, their testing methodology is faulty. Actually, we have found that it's not the methods, it's the reference standard everyone in India is using right now. We just went through this whole thing. A lot of the labs in India are using a reference standard that is degraded, so the results are showing double what they actually are. When you run the same methods on the same machine, but you use Sigma Aldrich's USP reference standard, the numbers come out much lower. That 24% bacopa I mentioned is actually sold to everyone as a 50% extract. However, we have proven now it is not. It took us a while to convince them, and a lot of back and forth with the labs in India. However, they have FINALLY admitted that their reference standard is degraded. So we are about to sell that extract, but we are properly labeling it as a 24% extract. This makes it tough for us, because people are going to see the 24% and compare it to 50% or 55% on other people's product, and think ours is less potent. However, it is literally the most potent bacopa we have ever tested.


edit: Sorry about the reddit link showing up as a large block. I'm not sure why it did that or how I change it to just the link text.
 
nostrum420

nostrum420

Well-known member
Awards
4
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • Best Answer
  • RockStar
That explains some of the wildly varying responses I've had with bacopa products.
 
muscleupcrohn

muscleupcrohn

Legend
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
The good thing is that we have studies using extracts like Bacognize that show they’re effective at the recommended doses, so at least it’s not like we’ve been taking suboptimal amounts this whole time.
 

jarrellt67

Well-known member
Awards
2
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
The good thing is that we have studies using extracts like Bacognize that show they’re effective at the recommended doses, so at least it’s not like we’ve been taking suboptimal amounts this whole time.
True. However, it does make it more difficult to know how much of a non-patented extract (something without product/extract specific studies) to take (to match that used in the studies) since we don't know the true bacoside content. And speaking of studies, it also makes me wonder about older studies done in things like the patented CDRI-08 extract. How was the bacoside content tested for those? It could help explain some of the variance in study (and individual) results between different extracts and doses.

As an example, many people (myself included) say that the synapsa extract doesn't cause as much lethargy as the bacognize extract...even though it's listed as having higher bacoside content. In reality, the synapsa extract has a lower bacoside content. So, that could account for some of the reasons why it doesn't cause as much lethargy at equivalent doses (obviously you also need to also account for the different percentages of bacopasides in each product).

I don't know, I just found the above information interesting and figured it was worth posting.
 
muscleupcrohn

muscleupcrohn

Legend
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
True. However, it does make it more difficult to know how much of a non-patented extract (something without product/extract specific studies) to take (to match that used in the studies) since we don't know the true bacoside content. And speaking of studies, it also makes me wonder about older studies done in things like the patented CDRI-08 extract. How was the bacoside content tested for those? It could help explain some of the variance in study (and individual) results between different extracts and doses.

As an example, many people (myself included) say that the synapsa extract doesn't cause as much lethargy as the bacognize extract...even though it's listed as having higher bacoside content. In reality, the synapsa extract has a lower bacoside content. So, that could account for some of the reasons why it doesn't cause as much lethargy at equivalent doses (obviously you also need to also account for the different percentages of bacopasides in each product).

I don't know, I just found the above information interesting and figured it was worth posting.
Oh, definitely worth posting! And maybe that’s why the old study with 320-640mg noted acute benefits, while most studies using today’s extracts don’t. Maybe that 320-640mg was a HUGE dose of bacosides?
 
muscleupcrohn

muscleupcrohn

Legend
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
True. However, it does make it more difficult to know how much of a non-patented extract (something without product/extract specific studies) to take (to match that used in the studies) since we don't know the true bacoside content. And speaking of studies, it also makes me wonder about older studies done in things like the patented CDRI-08 extract. How was the bacoside content tested for those? It could help explain some of the variance in study (and individual) results between different extracts and doses.

As an example, many people (myself included) say that the synapsa extract doesn't cause as much lethargy as the bacognize extract...even though it's listed as having higher bacoside content. In reality, the synapsa extract has a lower bacoside content. So, that could account for some of the reasons why it doesn't cause as much lethargy at equivalent doses (obviously you also need to also account for the different percentages of bacopasides in each product).

I don't know, I just found the above information interesting and figured it was worth posting.
This paper says that CDRI 08 (KeenMind) is standardized for 55% bacosides (based on spectrophotometry):

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/23958194/?i=5&from=/12404571/related

And another study claims it’s a 25:1 extract, so 300mg would be equivalent to 7.5g of dried herb, while another claims it’s 20:1, so 300mg would be equivalent to 6g of dried herb.

Bacognize, on the other hand, is standardized for 45% bacosides using a UV spectrophotometer, and 11.38% of the four bacosides using HPLC:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5075615/#!po=26.7442

Another studied extract with a 10:1 yield had 5% bacosides (HPLC):

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3537209/#!po=18.7500

So if HPLC is ~1/4 of UV (based on Bacognize’s numbers), then the 55% from CDRI would be roughly 13% HPLC, give or take. And if that’s a 20-25:1 extract, that means you have roughly 0.5-0.65% bacosides in the dried herb. Compare that to the 10:1 extract with 5% HPLC, and you get 0.5% in the dried herb, which checks out.

So this seems logical, that all three extracts (Bacognize, CDRI, and the third studied extract) are all rather similar.

Edit: for clarification, CDRI is KeenMind is Synapsa.
 

jarrellt67

Well-known member
Awards
2
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
This paper says that CDRI 08 (KeenMind) is standardized for 55% bacosides (based on spectrophotometry):

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/23958194/?i=5&from=/12404571/related

And another study claims it’s a 25:1 extract, so 300mg would be equivalent to 7.5g of dried herb, while another claims it’s 20:1, so 300mg would be equivalent to 6g of dried herb.

Bacognize, on the other hand, is standardized for 45% bacosides using a UV spectrophotometer, and 11.38% of the four bacosides using HPLC:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5075615/#!po=26.7442

Another studied extract with a 10:1 yield had 5% bacosides (HPLC):

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3537209/#!po=18.7500

So if HPLC is ~1/4 of UV (based on Bacognize’s numbers), then the 55% from CDRI would be roughly 13% HPLC, give or take. And if that’s a 20-25:1 extract, that means you have roughly 0.5-0.65% bacosides in the dried herb. Compare that to the 10:1 extract with 5% HPLC, and you get 0.5% in the dried herb, which checks out.

So this seems logical, that all three extracts (Bacognize, CDRI, and the third studied extract) are all rather similar.

Edit: for clarification, CDRI is KeenMind is Synapsa.
Great info! Thank you!
 

Similar threads


Top