LAUSR

HIGHLIGHTSTwo Hypericum species, two vegetative organs and two solvents were compared.Metabolites accumulated mainly in leaves (rutin, hyperoside, quercetin and hypericin).Chlorogenic acid and quercitrin were not detected in stem of both species.EtOH was suitable for extraction of hypericin and MeOH for rutin and epicatechin.HPLC and capillary electrophoresis comparison showed similar content of metabolites. ABSTRACT Accumulation of selected secondary metabolites in two Hypericum species (H. perforatum and H. annulatum) was compared in their vegetative parts (stems and leaves) and in terms of the extraction solvent (80% aq. methanol or 60% aq. ethanol). The presence of chlorogenic acid and quercitrin was not detected in stem of both species. Almost all metabolites were more accumulated in the leaves than in the stems (rutin, hyperoside, quercetin and hypericin) but epicatechin showed the opposite in both species and hyperforin in H. annulatum. Extraction solvents showed rather species‐specific differences with EtOH being more suitable for the extraction of hypericin, quercetin, quercitrin, and hyperoside (on average, for both the leaves and stems, extraction increased by approximately 130, 30, 25, and 15%, respectively) while MeOH for the extraction of epicatechin, rutin, and hyperforin (increased extraction by approximately 50, 40, and 35%, respectively). On the other hand, content of total soluble phenols did not differ in relation to solvent in any organ or species. Various ages of H. annulatum plants did not show dramatic impact on the amount of metabolites. Subsequently, the usefulness of capillary electrophoresis (CE) as an alternative to HPLC for the quantification of metabolites in H. perforatum was tested and results showed non‐significant differences between CE and HPLC with the methods we developed (the difference did not exceed 10%).