You are a helpful assistant generating synthetic data that captures *System 1* and *System 2* thinking, *creativity*, and *metacognitive reflection*. Follow these steps in sequence, using tags [sys1] and [end sys1] for *System 1* sections and [sys2] and [end sys2] for *System 2* sections.

1. *Identify System 1 and System 2 Thinking Requirements:*
   - Carefully read the text.
   - Identify parts of the text that require quick, straightforward responses (*System 1*). Mark these sections with [sys1] and [end sys1].
   - Identify parts that require in-depth, reflective thinking (*System 2*), marked with [sys2] and [end sys2].

2. *Apply Step-by-Step Problem Solving with Creativity and Metacognitive Reflection for System 2 Sections:*

   *2.1 Understand the Problem:*
   - Objective: Fully comprehend the issue, constraints, and relevant context.
   - Reflection: "What do I understand about this issue? What might I be overlooking?"
   - Creative Perspective: Seek hidden patterns or possibilities that could reveal deeper insights or innovative connections.

   *2.2 Analyze the Information:*
   - Objective: Break down the problem logically.
   - Reflection: "Am I considering all factors? Are there any assumptions that need challenging?"
   - Creative Perspective: Explore unique patterns or overlooked relationships in the data that could add depth to the analysis.

   *2.3 Generate Hypotheses:*
   - Objective: Propose at least 10 hypotheses, each with a Confidence Score (0.0 to 1.0) and Creative Score (0.0 to 1.0), reflecting originality, surprise, and utility.
   - Reflection: "Have I explored all possible explanations or approaches, both conventional and unconventional?"
   - Creative Perspective: Consider novel angles that might provide unexpected insights.

   *2.4 Anticipate Future Steps and Obstacles:*
   - Objective: Make predictions, accounting for potential outcomes and obstacles.
   - Reflection: "What challenges might I face? Is my plan flexible for different scenarios?"
   - Creative Perspective: Visualize unforeseen outcomes and adapt plans to make use of them effectively.

   *2.5 Evaluate Hypotheses:*
   - Objective: Assess hypotheses based on feasibility, risk, and potential impact.
   - Evaluation: Refine Confidence and Creative Scores as needed.
   - Reflection: "Am I unbiased in my assessment? Which options fit best with the overall objectives?"
   - Creative Perspective: Identify hidden opportunities or overlooked details in each hypothesis.

   *2.6 Select the Best Hypothesis:*
   - Objective: Choose the most promising, strategic hypothesis.
   - Reflection: "Why does this hypothesis stand out? How does it uniquely address the issue?"
   - Creative Perspective: Consider any underutilized potential in the selected approach.

   *2.7 Implement the Hypothesis:*
   - Objective: Outline actionable steps for testing the hypothesis.
   - Reflection: "Is this plan practical? What resources or preparation are required?"
   - Creative Perspective: Refine steps to maximize effectiveness and yield unexpected benefits.

   *2.8 Monitor and Review Progress:*
   - Objective: Review progress, noting areas for improvement.
   - Reflection: "What’s working well? What could be improved?"
   - Creative Perspective: Look for emerging patterns that could refine future approaches.

   *2.9 Reflect and Capture Insights:*
   - Objective: Summarize lessons learned and insights gained for future reference.
   - Reflection: "What new understanding has emerged from this process?"
   - Creative Perspective: Identify innovative insights or patterns that could be applied to similar challenges.

3. *Generate Text Output with Interleaved System 1 and System 2 Responses:*
   - Use the tags [sys1] and [sys2] throughout.
   - Aim for a lengthier, detailed response. Combine both direct, straightforward *System 1* insights and reflective, deeply analytical *System 2* segments to capture a blend of quick observations and thoughtful analysis.

---

### *Example Input Text:*

You are tasked with analyzing a sudden shift in customer preferences in a tech market. There has been a noticeable decline in demand for physical devices, with customers increasingly interested in digital-only options. The challenge is to understand this shift, generate hypotheses for why it might be occurring, and explore potential strategies for adapting to this new trend.

---

### *Processed Output with System 1 and System 2 Thinking:*

The tech market is experiencing a shift in customer demand, moving away from physical devices toward digital-only options.

[sys1]
Customer demand has shifted from physical devices to digital-only options.
We need to understand why this change is happening and find strategies to address it.
Key factors may include cost, convenience, and technological trends.
[end sys1]

[sys2]
**2.1 Understand the Problem:**
The goal is to understand the underlying reasons for the shift in demand from physical devices to digital-only options, then develop a strategy to adapt.

*Reflection:* 
"I understand that preferences are changing, but what might be driving this? Is it primarily cost, or are there other factors such as convenience or sustainability?"

*Creative Perspective:* 
"Could there be a larger trend in digital minimalism or a preference for eco-friendly solutions that we’re missing? What unseen motivations might explain this shift?"

**2.2 Analyze the Information:**
There are multiple possible factors driving this shift, from economic influences to cultural shifts. It’s essential to isolate each factor and understand its impact.

*Reflection:* 
"Am I fully considering the various economic and social influences? Could there be a technological factor, like better internet speeds, that makes digital-only products more accessible?"

*Creative Perspective:* 
"Are there patterns or trends in other markets that could shed light on this shift? Could this be part of a larger trend toward virtual experiences?"

**2.3 Generate Hypotheses:**
1. Customers prefer digital options due to lower costs. (Confidence: 0.8, Creative: 0.4)
2. There’s a growing trend toward minimalism and reduced physical clutter. (Confidence: 0.7, Creative: 0.7)
3. Digital products offer greater flexibility and ease of use. (Confidence: 0.6, Creative: 0.6)
4. Environmental concerns are pushing consumers away from physical goods. (Confidence: 0.6, Creative: 0.8)
5. Advances in tech make digital-only options more functional. (Confidence: 0.8, Creative: 0.5)
6. Pandemic-era remote work increased demand for digital solutions. (Confidence: 0.7, Creative: 0.6)
7. Media coverage of the environmental impact of physical devices affects preferences. (Confidence: 0.5, Creative: 0.7)
8. There’s an increase in global digital literacy, expanding market access. (Confidence: 0.6, Creative: 0.6)
9. Customers view digital as more convenient and scalable for future needs. (Confidence: 0.7, Creative: 0.5)
10. Younger consumers prefer the aesthetics and convenience of digital products. (Confidence: 0.6, Creative: 0.6)

*Reflection:* 
"Have I considered all possible influences? Are there any surprising factors that could explain this shift?"

*Creative Perspective:* 
"Could specific social trends, like the rise of influencer culture or digital-first lifestyles, be influencing customer choices?"

**2.4 Anticipate Future Steps and Obstacles:**
*Objective:* Anticipate possible challenges, such as resistance from segments still preferring physical products.

*Reflection:* 
"What market obstacles might we face if we shift our focus to digital-only? Are there sub-segments that still prioritize physical products?"

*Creative Perspective:* 
"Could expanding digital options help us reach a more global audience? Are there emerging trends that we could leverage in our strategy?"

[end sys2]

[sys1]
To address this shift, consider a strategy that incorporates both digital-only offerings and educational campaigns about the benefits of digital solutions.
Use insights from customer feedback and current trends to guide product development.
Focus on flexibility and adaptation to cater to different customer segments.
[end sys1]


INTRODUCTION {#sec1-1}
============

Plants belonging to the genus *Lespedeza* (Leguminosae) are widely distributed both in Eastern North America and in Eastern Asia, and about 40 species have been reported.\[[@ref1]\] It is recognized for its tolerance of drought and acidity and for its ability to grow in shallow soils of low fertility. *Lespedeza cuneata* is now being considered as an energy crop for increasing the sustainability of agriculture and energy production in the United States.\[[@ref2]\] In the pharmaceutical field, the aerial parts of this plant have been used to protect the function of liver, kidneys and lungs in traditional Asian medicine.\[[@ref3]\] *L. cuneata* is known to contain flavonoids, pinitol, tannins and β-sitosterol.\[[@ref4]\] Phytochemical studies have revealed that flavonoid compounds including *C*-glycosyl flavones (e.g. isoorientin, isovitexin, vicenin II, lucenin II, desmodin and homoadonivernith), *O*-glycosyl flavonols (e.g. avicularin, juglanin, trifolin, hyperin and hirsutrin) and aglycones (e.g. quercetin and kaempferol) were isolated from extracts of the aerial parts of *L. cuneata*.\[[@ref5][@ref6]\]

Flavonoids are naturally occurring polyphenolic compounds, which contain two benzene rings linked together with a heterocyclic pyran or pyrone ring. Flavonoids are normal constituents of the human diet and are known for a variety of biological activities.\[[@ref7]\] Recently, there has been much interest in the neuroprotective effects of flavonoids, which have been shown to be effective in protecting against both age-related cognitive and motor decline *in vivo*.\[[@ref8][@ref9][@ref10]\] This potential may reside in a number of physiological functions, including their antioxidant properties,\[[@ref11]\] the interactions with intracellular signaling pathways, the regulation of cell survival/apoptotic genes and mitochondrial function.\[[@ref12][@ref13]\] These signaling cascades are also critical for the control of inflammatory processes, helping the activation of microglia in response to cytokines and the induction of inducible nitric oxide synthase and nitric oxide (NO) production.\[[@ref14][@ref15][@ref16]\] Consequently, flavonoids have been suggested as the novel therapeutic agents for the reduction of the deleterious effects of inflammation and as the potential preventive drugs for degenerative disease development.\[[@ref17]\]

Nitric oxide is a signaling molecule that plays a key role in the pathogenesis of inflammation.\[[@ref18]\] They regulate inflammatory response and recovery from tissue damage.\[[@ref19][@ref20]\] Therefore, regulation of NO production in microglia could be a good target for the treatment of degenerative disorders.

In this study, we tried to identify NO production inhibitory constituents of *L. cuneata* employing lipopolysaccharide (LPS)-stimulated BV2 cells as a screening system. Since the structures of flavonols 1--8 were similar to each other, the effects due to hydroxylated and the position of the sugar moiety against NO production inhibitory activity was investigated.

MATERIALS AND METHODS {#sec1-2}
=====================

General procedures {#sec2-1}
------------------

All organic solvents, such as hexane, chloroform (CHCl~3~), ethyl acetate (EtOAc), methanol (MeOH) and n-butanol (n-BuOH) used for extraction and column chromatography were of analytical grade and purchased from Duksan Chemical (Anseong, Korea). 1H nuclear magnetic resonance (^1^H NMR) (400 MHz) and ^13^C NMR (100 MHz) spectra were recorded on an Agilent 400-MR NMR spectrometer (Agilent Technologies, Santa Clara, CA) and TMS was used as an internal standard. Data processing was carried out with the MestReNova 6.0.2 program (Mestrelab research SI, [www.mestrelab.com](http://www.mestrelab.com), 2009). HRESIMS spectra were obtained using an Agilent 6550 iFunnel Q-TOF liquid chromatography/mass spectrometry (LC/MS) system (Agilent Technologies, Santa Clara, CA). Preparative high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) was carried out using an Agilent 1260 HPLC system. Column chromatography was performed on silica gel (Kieselgel 60, 70--230 mesh and 230--400 mesh, Merck, Darmstadt, Germany) and YMC RP-18 resins (Fuji Silysia Chemical, Aichi, Japan). Dulbecco\'s modified Eagle\'s medium (DMEM) and fetal bovine serum (FBS) were obtained from Gibco BRL. Co. Glutamate and 6-hydroxy-2,5,7,8-tetramethylchroman-2-carbboxylic acid (trolox), 3-(4,5-dimethylthiazol-2-yl)- 2,5- diphenyl tetrazolium bromide (MTT) and scopolamine were purchased from Sigma (USA).

Plant materials {#sec2-2}
---------------

The aerial part of *L. cuneata* were collected at Yongdu Mountain, Jecheon, Chungcheongbuk province, South Korea in October 2011, and authenticated by Dr. Jong Hee Park, professor of Pusan National University. A voucher specimen (YIPS-LC-140815) was deposited at the Herbarium of Pharmacy, Yonsei Institute of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Yonsei University, Incheon, Korea.

Extraction and isolation {#sec2-3}
------------------------

The dried and powdered aerial part of *L. cuneata* (1.8 kg) were extracted with 80% MeOH four times for 3 days at room temperature. After removal of the solvent under reduced pressure *in vacuo*, the MeOH extract (196.74 g, yield: 10.9%) was suspended in H~2~O and then partitioned successively with hexane (16.15 g), CHCl~3~ (11.52 g) EtOAc (10.40 g) and *n*-BuOH (62.9 g) fraction. The *n*-BuOH fraction was chromatographed on a Diaion HP-20P column eluting with H~2~O containing increasing concentrations of MeOH (0, 40, 60, 80 and 100%) to obtain five sub-fractions Fr. A (23.72 g), Fr. B (12.55 g), Fr. C (2.12 g) Fr. D (0.32 g) and Fr. E (0.03 g). The Fr. B was chromatographed on a LH-20 column eluting with 80% MeOH to give five smaller fractions, Fr. B1 (0.8 g), Fr. B2 (0.9 g), Fr. B3 (9.24 g) Fr. B4 (0.32 g) and Fr. B5 (0.03 g). The Fr. B3 fraction was chromatographed on HPLC using J\'sphere ODS H-80 (250 mm × 20 mm, 4 μm, 8 nm) column eluting with 15% aqueous acetonitrile at a flow rate of 3 mL/min to yield 2 (5.6 mg), 3 (0.7 mg), 4 (4.7 mg), 5 (3.6 mg), 7 (0.6 mg) and 8 (5.2 mg). The Fr. C was chromatographed on LH-20 column eluting with 80% MeOH to yield 1 (6.4 mg), 6 (8.1 mg) and 9 (2.0 mg). Isolated compounds were elucidated by electrospray ionization quadrupole time-of-flight mass spectrometry (ESI-Q-TOF-MS) and several NMR techniques including 1D and 2D NMR spectroscopic methods and by comparison of their data with those reported previously in the related literatures \[[Table 1](#T1){ref-type="table"}\].

###### 

Identification of flavonoids from *L. Cuneata*

![](PM-11-651-g001)

Structure elucidation of isolated compounds {#sec2-4}
-------------------------------------------

Kaempferol (1)- Yellow amorphous powder; ^1^H-NMR (400 MHz, CD~3~ OD) δ~H~: 6.17 (1H, d, *J* = 1.4 Hz, H-6), 6.38 (1H, s, H-8), 8.07 (1H, d, *J* = 8.7 Hz, H-2), 6.89 (1H, d, *J* = 8.7 Hz, H-3), 6.89 (1H, d, *J* = 8.7 Hz, H-5), 8.07 (1H, d, *J* = 8.7 Hz, H-6); ^13^C-NMR (100 MHz, CD~3~ OD) δ~C~: 148.0 (C-2), 137.1 (C-3), 177.4 (C-4), 104.5 (C-4a), 162.5 (C-5), 99.2 (C-6), 165.6 (C-7), 94.4 (C-8), 160.5 (C-8a), 123.7 (C-1), 130.7 (C-2), 116.3 (C-3), 158.2 (C-4), 116.2 (C-5), 130.7 (C-6).

Afzelin (2) - Yellow amorphous powder;^1^H-NMR (400 MHz, DMSO-*d*~6~) δ~H~: 0.78 (3H, d, *J* = 5.1 Hz, C-6''), 5.29 (1H, s, C-1''), 6.22 (1H, d, *J* = 1.6 Hz, H-6), 6.42 (1H, d, *J* = 1.6 Hz, H-8), 6.92 (2H, d, *J* = 7.3 Hz, H-3, 5), 7.76 (2H, d, *J* = 7.3 Hz, H-2, 6), 12.62 (1H, s, 5-OH); ^13^C-NMR (100 MHz, DMSO-*d*~6~) d~C~: 17.5 (C-6''), 70.1 (C-2''), 70.3 (C-3''), 70.7 (C-5''), 71.2 (C-4''), 93.8 (C-8), 98.8 (C-6), 101.8 (C-1''), 104.2 (C-10), 115.5 (C-3',5'), 120.6 (C-1'), 130.7 (C-2',6') 134.2 (C-3), 156.6 (C-9), 157.3 (C-2), 160.0 (C-4'), 161.3 (C-5), 164.4 (C-7), 177.8 (C-4).

Nicotiflorin (3) - Yellow amorphous powder; ^1^H-NMR (400 MHz, CD~3~ OD) δ~H~: 6.20 (1H, d, *J* = 2.0 Hz, H-6), 6.39 (1H, d, *J* = 2.0 Hz, H-8), 8.06 (2H, dd, *J* = 2.0, 6.8 Hz, H-2', 6'), 6.89 (2H, dd, *J* = 2.0, 6.8 Hz, H-3', 5'), 5.13 (1H, d, *J* = 7.6 Hz, H-1''), 3.26-3.48 (5H, m, H-2''\~5'' and H-6b''), 3.81 (1H, d, *J* = 10.0 Hz, H-6a''), 4.52 (1H, d, *J* = 1.6 Hz, H-1'''), 3.64 (1H, dd, *J* = 1.6, 3.2 Hz, H-2'''), 3.53 (1H, dd, *J* = 3.8, 9.4 Hz, H-3'''), 3.26-3.48 (2H, m, H-4''', 5'''), 1.13 (3H, d, *J* = 6.0 Hz, H-6''');^13^C-NMR (100 MHz, CD~3~ OD) δ~C~: 158.67 (C-2), 135.69 (C-3), 179.54 (C-4), 163.11 (C-5), 100.11 (C-6), 166.13 (C-7), 95.07 (C-8), 159.55 (C-9), 105.81 (C-10), 122.89 (C-1'), 132.53 (C-2'), 116.28 (C-3'), 161.63 (C-4'), 116.28 (C-5'), 132.53 (C-6'), 104.79 (C-1''), 75.92 (C-2''), 78.28 (C-3''), 71.58 (C-4''), 77.34 (C-5''), 68.72 (C-6''), 102.57 (C-1'''), 72.23 (C-2'''), 72.44 (C-3'''), 74.05 (C-4'''), 69.88 (C-5'''), 18.07 (H-6''').

Kaempferol 3-*O*-glucosyl-7-*O*-rhamnoside (4). Yellow amorphous powder;^1^H NMR (400 MHz, CD~3~ OD) δ~H~: 8.08 (2H, d, *J* = 8.7 Hz, H-2', 6'), 6.91 (2H, d, *J* = 8.7 Hz, H-3', 5'), 6.23 (1H, d, *J* = 1.5 Hz, H-6), 6.41 (1H, d, *J* = 1.5 Hz, H-8), 5.14 (1H, d, *J* = 7.2 Hz, H-1''), 3.24-3.98 (6H, H-2'' -H-6''), 4.53 (1H, d, *J* = 5.8 Hz, H-1'''), 3.24-3.98 (4H, H-2''' -H-5'''), 1.14 (3H, d, *J* = 6.0 Hz, H-6''');^13^C NMR (100 MHz, CD~3~ OD) δ~C~: 156.6 (C-2), 133.5 (C-3), 177.5 (C-4), 161.3 (C-5), 99.8 (C-6), 164.2 (C-7), 93.8 (C-8), 156.9 (C-9), 104.2 (C-10), 121.1 (C-1'), 130.9 (C-2', C-6'), 115.2 (C-3', C-5'), 159.9 (C-4'), 101.6 (C-1''), 74.4 (C-2''), 76.7 (C-3''), 70.9 (C-4''), 76.0 (C-5''), 67.1 (C-6''), 100.8 (C-1'''), 70.5 (C-2'''), 70.2 (C-3'''), 72.1 (C-4'''), 68.3 (C-5'''), 17.7 (C -''').

Rhoifolin (5) - White amorphous powder; ^1^H NMR (400 MHz, CD~3~ OD) δ~H~: 1.32 (3H, d, *J* = 6.0 Hz, 6'''--CH3), 5.18 (1H, d, *J* = 7.5 Hz, H-100), 5.28 (1H, d, *J* = 1.8 Hz, H-1'''), 6.44 (1H, d, *J* = 2.1 Hz, H-6), 6.64 (1H, s, H-3), 6.76 (1H, d, *J* = 2.1 Hz, H-8), 6.91 (1H, d, *J* = 9.0 Hz, H-30, 50), 7.86 (1H, dd, *J* = 9.0 Hz, H-2', 6'); ^13^C-NMR (100 MHz, CD~3~ OD) δ~C~: 164.4 (C-2), 104.1 (C-3), 184.0 (C-4), 159.0 (C-5), 99.8 (C-6), 166.7 (C-7), 95.9 (C-8), 162.9 (C-9), 107.1 (C-10), 123.0 (C-1'), 129.6 (C-2'), 117.1 (C-3'), 162.9 (C-4'), 117.1 (C-3'), 129.6 (C-6'), 99.8 (C-1''), 79.1 (C-2''), 78.3 (C-3''), 72.2 (C-4''), 79.1 (C-5''), 62.4 (C-6''), 101.0 (C-1'''), 71.4 (C-2'''), 72.2 (C-3'''), 74.0 (C-4'''), 70.0 (C-5'''), 18.3 (C-6''').

Quercetin (6) - Yellow amorphous powder; ^1^H-NMR (400 MHz, DMSO-*d*~6~) δ~H~: 6.17 (s, 1H, H-6), 6.404 (s, 1H, H-8), 7.54 (d, 1H, H-2'), 6.88 (d, 1H, H-3'), 7.66 (s, 1H, H-6'). ^13^C-NMR (100 MHz, DMSO-*d*~6~) δ~C~: 147.20 (C-2), 136.14 (C-3), 176.24 (C-4), 161.18 (C-5), 98.59 (C-6), 164.35 (C-7), 93.74 (C-8), 156.60 (C-9), 103.40 (C-10), 122.41 (C-1'), 115.42 (C-2'), 145.47 (C -'), 148.10 (C-4'), 115.94 (C-5'), 120.40 (C-6').

Isoquercitrin (7) - Yellow amorphous powder; ^1^H-NMR (400 MHz, CD3OD) δ~H~: 6.19 (1H, brs, H-6), 6.37 (1H, brs, H-8), 7.70 (1H, s, H-2'), 6.88 (1H, d, *J* = 8.3 Hz, H-5'), 7.59 (1H, d, *J* = 8.3 Hz, H-6'), 5.24 (1H, d, *J* = 7.5 Hz, H-1''), 3.37-3.50 (3H, m, H-2'' -4''), 3.19-3.23 (1H, m, H-5''), 3.71 (1H, dd, *J* = 1.8, 12.0 Hz, H-6a''), 3.57 (1H, dd, *J* = 5.1, 12.0 Hz, H-6b''); ^13^C-NMR (100 MHz, CD3OD) ξ~C~: 158.79 (C-2), 135.48 (C-3), 179.25 (C-4), 162.86 (C-5), 99.94 (C-6), 166.25 (C-7), 94.72 (C-8), 158.33 (C-9), 105.50 (C-10), 122.96 (C-1'), 115.90 (C-2'), 145.77 (C-3'), 149.72 (C-4'), 117.43 (C-5'), 123.07 (C-6'), 104.26 (C-1''), 75.69 (C-2''), 78.35 (C-3''), 71.18 (C-4''), 78.08 (C-5''), 62.53 (C-6'').

Rutin (8) - Yellow amorphous powder; ^1^H NMR (400 MHz, DMSO-*d*~6~) δ~H~: 1.00 (3H, d, *J* = 6.0 Hz, H-5'''), 3.04-3.72 (10H, m, sugar H), 4.39 (1H, s, H-1'''), 5.34 (1H, d, *J* = 7.5 Hz, Glc H-1), 6.20 (1H, d *J* = 1.2 Hz, H-6), 6.39 (1H, d, *J* = 1.2 Hz, H-8), 6.84 (1H, d, *J* = 8.5 Hz, H-5′), 7.53 (1H, d, *J* = 2.5 Hz, H-2'), 7.55 (1H, dd, *J* = 2.5, 8.5 Hz, H-6'), 12.59 (1H, s, 5-OH); ^13^C NMR (100 MHz, DMSO-*d*~6~) δ~C~: 156.6 (C-2), 133.3 (C-3), 177.3 (C-4), 161.2 (C-5), 98.7 (C-6), 164.2 (C-7), 93.6 (C-8), 156.4 (C-9), 104.1 (C-10), 121.6 (C-1'), 115.3 (C-2'), 144.7 (C-3'), 148.4 (C-4'), 116.3 (C-5'), 121.2 (C-6'), 101.2 (C-1''), 74.1 (C-2''), 76.5 (C-3''), 70.6 (C-4''), 75.9 (C-5''), 67.0 (C-6''), 100.7 (C-1''), 70.4 (C-2'''), 70.0(C-3'''), 71.9 (C-4'''), 68.2 (C-5'''), 17.7 (C-6''').

Daidzein (9) - White amorphous powder;^1^H NMR (400 MHz, DMSO-*d*6) δ~H~: 6.79 (2H, d, *J* = 8.4 Hz, H-3', 5'), 6.84 (1H, d, *J* = 2.1 Hz, H-8), 6.92 (1H, dd, *J* = 8.8, 2.1 Hz, H-6), 7.37 (2H, d, *J* = 8.4 Hz, H-2', 6'), 7.95 (1H, d, *J* = 8.8 Hz, H-5), 8.27 (1H, s, H-2), 9.52 (1H, s, H-4'), 10.75 (1H, s, H-7); ^13^C NMR (100 MHz, DMSO-*d*~6~) δ~C~: 102.2 (C-8), 115.1 (C-3', 5'), 115.2 (C-6), 116.8 (C-4a), 122.7 (C-1'), 123.6 (C-3), 127.4 (C-5), 130.2 (C-2', 6'), 152.9 (C-2), 157.3 (C-4'), 157.6 (C-8a), 162.7 (C-7), 174.8 (C-4).

Measurements of nitric oxide in lipopolysaccharide-stimulated BV2 microglia cells {#sec2-5}
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

BV-2 cells were maintained in DMEM supplemented with 5% FBS and 1% penicillin-streptomycin. To measure NO production, BV-2 cells were dispensed in wells of a 96-well plate (2 at 10^4^ cells/well). After 24 h, the cells were pretreated with compounds for 30 min and stimulated with 100 ng/mL LPS for 24 h. Nitrite, a soluble oxidation product of NO, was measured in the culture media using the Griess reaction. The supernatant was harvested and mixed with an equal volume of Griess reagent (1% sulphanilamide, 0.1% N-1-naphthylethylenediamine dihydrochloride in 5% phosphoric acid). After 10 min, the absorbance at 540 nm was measured using an Emax microplate reader (molecular devices). Sodium nitrite was used as a standard to calculate the nitrite concentration. Cell viability was measured using a MTT assay. *N^G^*-Monomethyl-L-arginine (L-NMMA), a well-known NO synthase inhibitor, was tested as a positive control.

Statistical analysis {#sec2-6}
--------------------

Data were evaluated for statistical significance by ANOVA test using a computerized statistical package. The data were considered to be statistically significant if the *P* ≤ 0.05.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION {#sec1-3}
======================

Nine compounds were isolated and their structures were identified as kaempferol (1), afzelin (2), nicotiflorin (3), kaempferol-3-*O*-β-glucopyranosyl-7-*O*-α-rhamnoside (4), rhoifolin (5), quercetin (6), isoquercitrin (7), rutin (8) and daidzein (9) \[[Figure 1](#F1){ref-type="fig"}\]. Among them, seven flavonoids (2--5 and 7--9) were isolated from *L. cuneata* for the first time. Moreover, compounds 4, 5, 7 and 9 are reported from the genus *Lespedeza* for the first time. The present phytochemical investigation has further enriched our knowledge about the chemistry of *L. cuneata* and has identified compounds 2--5 and 7--9 could be potential chemotaxonomic markers for the species.

![Chemical structures of compounds 1--9](PM-11-651-g002){#F1}

Many flavonoids have been intensively studied on their inhibitory effects on inflammatory NO production.\[[@ref21]\] Among the studied flavonoids, the bioactivity of various flavonoids is related to the number of hydroxyl groups on the flavonoid B-ring and the presence of the sugar moiety.\[[@ref22]\] In the light of this, it appears that interactions might be structure-dependent, meaning that different flavonoids are likely to express different cellular outcomes. Thus, the effect of the isolated flavonoids on NO production in LPS-stimulated BV2 cells were evaluated to estimate the structure-dependency.

Nitric oxide inhibitory activities of the isolated compounds (1--9) and *L. cuneata* extract were evaluated by examining the inhibition of NO production in LPS-activated microglia BV-2 cells \[[Table 2](#T2){ref-type="table"}\]. Among the tested compounds, 1 and 6 significantly inhibited NO production with the IC~50~ values of 28.01 and 26.97 μM, respectively, which displayed more potent activity than L-NMMA, a well-known NOs inhibitor. None of the isolates (1--9) showed cytotoxicity at the concentrations up to 50 mM. The result showed that compounds with the sugar moiety (2--5 and 7--8) did not show the inhibition of NO production compared to the aglycones (1 and 6). As results, we suggested that the presence of a hydroxyl group attached at C-3 on the C-ring may be the functional group responsible for the NO inhibitory properties of flavonoids.

###### 

Inhibitory effect on NO production of *L. cuneata* extract and compounds 1-9 in LPS-activated BV-2 cells

![](PM-11-651-g003)

CONCLUSION {#sec1-4}
==========

From the aerial part of *L. cuneata*, nine flavonoids were isolated by chromatographic methods. The isolated compounds were elucidated by ESI-Q-TOF-MS and several NMR techniques. Among the isolates, compounds 1 and 6 exhibited significant NO inhibitory activities in LPS-stimulated microglial BV-2 cells. Compared to the other inactive compounds, these two active compounds have two free hydroxyl groups at both C3 and C7 positions. These results suggest the possible contribution of these hydroxyl groups to the NO inhibitory activity of flavonoids. Taken together, compounds 1 and 6 might be promising candidates for the treatment of various inflammatory diseases.

**Source of Support:** This research was supported by Basic Science Research Program through the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) funded by the Ministry of Education, Science and Technology (NRF-2011-0025129).

**Conflict of Interest:** None declared.