The presence of specific gut microflora limits the biotransformation of Pueraria mirifica isoflavone (PMI) glycosides into absorbable aglycones, thus limiting their health benefits. Cellulolytic enzyme-assisted extraction (CAE) potentially solves this issue; however, solvent extraction requires recovery of the hydrophobic products. Here, we established the simultaneous transformation and extraction of PMIs using cellulolytic enzymes and natural deep eutectic solvents (NADESs). The NADES compositions were optimized to allow the use of NADESs as CAE media, and the extraction parameters were optimized using response surface methodology (RSM). The optimal conditions were 14.7% (v/v) choline chloride:propylene glycol (1:2 mol ratio, ChCl:PG) at 56.1 °C for the cellulolytic enzyme (262 mU/mL) reaction in which daidzin and genistin were extracted and wholly transformed to their aglycones daidzein and genistein. The extraction of PMIs using ChCl:PG is more efficient than that using conventional solvents; additionally, biocompatible ChCl:PG enhances cellulolytic enzyme activity, catalyzing the transformation of PMIs into compounds with higher estrogenicity and absorbability.

Introduction: Miroestrol (Mi) and deoxymiroestrol (Dmi) are trace, yet potent, phytooestrogens found in white Kwao Krua [Pueraria candollei var. mirifica (Airy Shaw & Suvat.) Niyomdham, PM]. However, the analysis of these substances is difficult because of complex matrix effects and their various analogues. In addition, alteration in the cross-reactivity of a gold nanoparticle (AuNP)-based immunochromatographic assay (ICA) resulting from the electrostatic adsorption between antibodies and AuNPs has not yet been evaluated.Objectives: This study aims to develop, characterise, and validate ICA with a monoclonal antibody exhibiting similar reactivity against Mi and Dmi (MD-mAb). Materials and Methods:The ICA performance was validated for cross-reactivity and performance in comparison with those of indirect competitive enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (icELISAs) with MD-mAb and mAb exhibiting specificity against Mi (Mi-mAb).Results: The ICA showed a limit of detection (LOD) at 1 and 16 μg/mL for Mi and Dmi, respectively. The cross-reactivity of the ICA with Dmi was lower (6.25%) than that observed with the icELISA (120%). Cross-reactivity of ICA against other compounds of the PM was also correlated with those of icELISA; no false-positive/ negative results were observed. The repeatability and reproducibility of the ICA were confirmed. The results obtained using ICA in samples of PM are correlated with the concentrations determined through icELISAs. Conclusion:An ICA with MD-mAb was constructed and validated. However, direct conjugation via the electrostatic adsorption of mAb-AuNPs was expected to alter the cross-reactivity of ICA, especially that of the analyte analogue Dmi.

In the original publication of the article (Makkliang et al. 2020) the reference "Phaisan et al. 2020" was incorrect and should have been mentioned as "Yusakul et al. 2020".The corrected reference is given in this Correction article.