## 4 Discussion  
In this work, the powdered and unpowdered fresh infloresences and leaves of Chinook hops were subjected to a thorough investigation for the characterization of their chemical profile using different techniques which allowed us to identify a large number of metabolites belonging to different chemical classes. In terms of volatile content, the greatest number of works in the literature concern the characterization of dried hops infloresences, while little has been conducted on the fresh material and even less on the leaves. [PERSON] et al. [19] identified \(\beta\)-myrcene, methyl octanoate, geraniol and linalool as major compounds in five fresh Cascade and Chinook hops harvested from different locations in Virginia, by gas chromatography-mass spectrometry-olfactometry (GC-MS-O) and aroma extract dilution analysis (AEDA). HS-SPME-GC-MS-O was also employed to compare the aroma profiles in five hops dried by different strategies. The obtained results revealed aroma content differences from three drying methods [20]. However, most of the work carried out on fresh hops was aimed at determining the content of \(\alpha\)-acids. For example, [PERSON] et al. [21] quantified, by high performance liquid chromatography (HPLC), the resinous compounds in fresh Cascade cv. hops, while [PERSON] and colleagues [22] identified the phenolic compounds in the dried hops pellets from Australia by an LC-ESI-QToF/MS technique. Other papers showed the chemical volatile composition of essential oils (EOs) obtained from hops. EOs obtained from Cascade, Chinook and Comet grown in southern Italy were investigated to assess the adaptability of these American hops varieties to the Mediterranean environment. Myrcene, \(\beta\)-caryophyllene and \(\alpha\)-humulene were the main components in all Eos, although Chinook EO differed from others for its sesquiterpene content [23]. In general, hops EOs chemical composition is responsible of the characteristic aroma of beer and the many positive effects on human health [24]. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Extracts**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**DPPH**} \\ \cline{2-3}  & **RSA (\%)** & **mM TE** \\ \hline IAE & 15.6 \(\pm\) 1.1 & 0.05 \(\pm\) 0.0 \\ \hline LAE & 37.4 \(\pm\) 0.7 & 0.13 \(\pm\) 0.0 \\ \hline IME & 84.8 \(\pm\) 0.5 & 0.30 \(\pm\) 0.0 \\ \hline LME & 81.7 \(\pm\) 1.0 & 0.29 \(\pm\) 0.0 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}  
* IAE: infloresences aqueous extract; LAE: leaves aqueous extract; IME: infloresences methanol extract; LAE: leaves methanol extract; RSA: radical scavenging activity; TE: Irolox equivalents.  
\end{table} 
Table 8: RSA% and mM Trolox values of Chinook hops extracts in DPPH assays. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Cell Lines**} & **LME** & **IME** \\  & **(IC\({}_{50}\), \(\mathrm{\SIUnitSymbolMicro g}\)/mL)** & **(IC\({}_{50}\), \(\mathrm{\SIUnitSymbolMicro g}\)/mL)** \\ \hline H1299 & 220 \(\pm\) 10 & 180 \(\pm\) 20 \\ \hline A375 & 240 \(\pm\) 25 & 210 \(\pm\) 16 \\ \hline MCF7 & 190 \(\pm\) 30 & 190 \(\pm\) 22 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}  
* IC\({}_{50}\) values were calculated after 72 h exposure to the extracts.  
\end{table} 
Table 9: IC\({}_{50}\) values of LME and IME in human cancer cell lines. Regarding the studies conducted on the leaves, a metabolomic analysis by UPLC-QTOF-MSE was carried out to determine the metabolite changes in the leaves of the plants of three hops cultivars (Cascade, Sultana, and the wild cv. Neomexicanus) subjected to varying degrees of drought stress. The results showed some chemicals, such as monoacylated lipid compounds, as markers of drought tolerance [25]. A similar study concerned the effect of water supply, in particular drought stress, on the content of xanthohumol, polyphenols and \(\alpha\)-acids in the leaves and cones of nine hops cultivars grown in Slovenia in a pot experiment under three regimes with different water sources.