| Literature DB >> 22822365 |
Xue Yang1, Shi-Lu Zhou2, Ai-Cui Ma1, Hai-Tao Xu2, Hua-Shi Guan1, Hong-Bing Liu1.
Abstract
To compare the chemical differences between the medicinal and cultured oyster shells, their chemical profiles were investigated. Using the ultra performance liquid chromatography-electron spraying ionization-mass spectrometry (UPLC-ESI-MS), combined with principal component analysis (PCA) and orthogonal projection to latent structures discriminant analysis (OPLS-DA), the discrimination of the chemical characteristics among the medicinal and cultured oyster shells was established. Moreover, the chemometric analysis revealed some potential key compounds. After a large-scale extraction and isolation, one target key compound was unambiguously identified as caffeine based on extensive spectroscopic data analysis (1D and 2D NMR, MS, and UV) and comparison with literature data.Entities:
Keywords: caffeine; chemical profile; oyster shell; principal component analysis; traditional Chinese medicine
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2012 PMID: 22822365 PMCID: PMC3397450 DOI: 10.3390/md10051180
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Mar Drugs ISSN: 1660-3397 Impact factor: 6.085
Oyster shellsamples.
| No. | Source | Time | Site | Growth Years | Species |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| A1 | Medicinal materials
| August, 2008 | Anguo, Hebei | unknown
|
|
| A2 | December, 2009 | Bozhou, Anhui | perennial | ||
| A3 | September, 2010 | Bozhou, Anhui | unknown
| ||
| A4 | May, 2010 | Yishui, Shandong | perennial | ||
| A5 | October, 2010 | Heze, Shandong | perennial | ||
| A6 | August, 2009 | Kaifeng, Henan | unknown | ||
| A7 | February, 2010 | Qingdao, Shandong | unknown
| ||
| A8 | September,2009 | Weifang, Shandong | perennial | ||
| A9 | October, 2010 | Beijing | unknown
| ||
| A10 | June, 2010 | Wuhan, Hubei | perennial | ||
| A11 | May, 2010 | Anguo, Hebei | perennial | ||
| A12 | October, 2011 | Anguo, Hebei | perennial | ||
| B1 | Cultured materials
| October, 2009 | Rongcheng, Shandong | 2 |
|
| B2 | October, 2008 | Rongcheng, Shandong | 1 |
| |
| B3 | October, 2009 | Qingdao, Shandong | 1 |
| |
| B4 | October, 2009 | Yantai, Shandong | 1 |
| |
| B5 | October, 2009 | Rushan, Shandong | 1 |
| |
| B6 | October, 2009 | Lianyungang, Jiangsu | 2 |
| |
| B7 | October, 2010 | Rongcheng, Shandong | 2 |
| |
| B8 | October, 2009 | Rongcheng, Shandong | 3 |
| |
| B9 | June, 2010 | Zhanjiang, Guangdong | 2 |
| |
| B10 | June, 2010 | Lianyungang, Jiangsu | 3 |
| |
| B11 | October, 2008 | Rongcheng, Shandong | 1.5 |
| |
| B12 | October, 2009 | Rongcheng, Shandong | 1.5 |
|
Purchased from drugstores; Obtained as crude decoction pieces; Identification not reliable; Purchased from aquatic product markets and farms.
Figure 1Base peak intensity (BPI) chromatogram of sample A11 in positive ion mode. Column: Waters ACQUITYTM UPLC BEH C18 column (50 mm×2.1 mm i.d., 1.7 μm). Flow rate: 0.4 mL·min−1. Column temperature: 35°C. Mobile phase: a linear gradient elution with 0.1% formic acid in water and 0.1% formic acid in acetonitrile. Ion source: electrospray interface (ESI).
Figure 2Principal component analysis (PCA) score plot of oyster shell samples in positive ion mode; for their sources refer to Table 1.
Figure 3Orthogonal projection to latent structures discriminant analysis (OPLS-DA) S-plot of oyster shell samples in positive ion mode (group A: the medicinal group; group B: the cultured group). Each point represents an individual extracted mass-retention time pair (EMRT). The Y-axis denotes confidence of a marker’s contribution to the group differences, and the X-axis denotes the contribution of a particular marker to the group differences. The top 20 VIP variables were marked in the S-plots.
The top 20variant weight parameters (VIP)variables in positive ion mode.
| No. | Retention Time (min) | Mass ( | VIP |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 14.74 | 256.3751 | 16.22 |
| 2 | 12.47 | 482.3632 | 15.23 |
| 3 | 6.98 | 274.2821 | 13.12 |
| 4 | 14.74 | 256.3572 | 13.08 |
| 5 | 10.88 | 318.2416 | 12.49 |
| 6 | 11.73 | 149.1551 | 12.12 |
| 7 | 10.74 | 318.2433 | 12.03 |
| 8 | 21.03 | 891.703 | 11.86 |
| 9 | 15.19 | 369.3002 | 11.48 |
| 10 | 11.68 | 149.0467 | 11.41 |
| 11 | 11.91 | 149.1791 | 11.40 |
| 12 | 11.91 | 149.1523 | 11.20 |
| 13 | 22.61 | 536.1675 | 11.06 |
| 14 | 14.31 | 510.3931 | 11.02 |
| 15 | 20.99 | 891.6757 | 10.99 |
| 16 | 20.96 | 457.3184 | 10.98 |
| 17 | 0.90 | 195.0964 | 10.97 |
| 18 | 22.62 | 541.1272 | 10.83 |
| 19 | 13.85 | 425.2196 | 10.21 |
| 20 | 7.18 | 318.3037 | 10.17 |
Figure 4Relative contents of the potential key compounds in medicinal shells and cultured shells in positive ion mode.
Figure 5The ultraviolet spectrum of compound 1.
Figure 6Key HMBC correlations of compound 1.