## 2 Materials and Methods
### Phenolic Compounds  
The polyphenolic compounds were determined by HPLC using a DAD (Agilent Technologies HPLC series 1200, Santa Clara, CA, USA). The extraction of the polyphenolic compounds was carried out according to the IOC method [43] of direct extraction of phenolic compounds by means of a methanolic solution. The extracted phenolic compounds were separated by injecting 20 \(\mathrm{\SIUnitSymbolMicro m}\) onto a C18 column heated to 30 \({}^{\circ}\)C (Luna 250 mm \(\times\) 4.6 mm, 5 \(\mathrm{\SIUnitSymbolMicro m}\), 100 \(\mathrm{\SIUnitSymbolMicro A}\), Phenomenex, Torrance, CA, USA). A 0.1% formic acid solution in water (mobile phase A) and a 0.1% formic acid solution in methanol (mobile phase B) were used for elution. The following gradient was used at a constant flow rate of 1 mL/min: At the beginning of the analysis, from 0 to 3 min, 10% B; from 3 to 30 min, the percentages changed to 50% B; from 30 to 40 min, the percentages changed to 60% B and in the next 5 min to 100% B; this percentage remained until 50 min; and from 50 to 50.1 min, the percentages returned to their initial values and remained there for another 10 min. The chromatogramswere recorded with the DAD at 280 nm. The quantification of the individual phenolic compounds was carried out according to the IOC method mentioned above.  
The phenolic compounds were identified by comparing their retention times and UV spectra with those of commercially available standards. Identification of the remaining compounds was performed via UHPLC Q-TOF-MS analysis (Agilent 1290 Infinity II, Santa Clara, CA, USA) using a Kinetex Core-Shell C18 column (150 mm \(\times\) 4.6 mm, 2.6 \(\upmu\)m, 100 A, Phenomenex, Torrance, CA, USA) heated to 30 \({}^{\circ}\)C. The volume of phenolic extract injected was 3 \(\upmu\)L. For the separation of the phenolic compounds, the same mobile phases were used as for the HPLC analysis (A--0.1% formic acid solution in water; B--0.1% formic acid solution in methanol) with an adjusted gradient. In the first 3 min, the separation solution consisted of 10% B; from 3 to 15 min, the percentage changed to 50% B; from 15 to 21 min, the percentage changed to 60% B; and in the next 6 min, the percentage changed to 100% B. This percentage remained up until 30 min; from 30 to 30.1 min, the percentages returned to their initial values and remained there for another 5 min to reach equilibrium. A constant flow rate of 0.4 mL/min was used throughout the analysis. Chromatograms were recorded using DAD (at 280 nm) and Q-TOF-MS detectors. Mass spectra were recorded using an Agilent 6550 Series Accurate-Mass-Quadrupole Time-of-Flight (Santa Clara, CA, USA) system in negative ionization mode with \(m/z\) values ranging from 100 to 1600. Nitrogen was used as a sheath and drying gas at a temperature of 250 \({}^{\circ}\)C and a flow rate of 11 L/min and 17 L/min, respectively. The nebulizer pressure was 25 psi, capillary potential was 3500 V, and fragmentor voltage was 380 V. MSMS spectra were recorded in the range of \(m/z\) 50-800 with collision energies of 10-30 V. The phenolic compounds were identified by comparing the obtained mass spectra with those previously published. The compounds detected by UHPLC DAD were identified by comparing the retention times with those of UHPLC Q-TOF-MS. A very good correlation was found between the UHPLC and HPLC retention times with a coefficient of determination of R\({}^{2}\) = 0.997, which was used for the identification of unidentified phenolic compounds determined by the HPLC DAD method (Supplementary Material Tables S1 and S2).