| Literature DB >> 26065638 |
Kuan-Ming Lai1, Yung-Yi Cheng2, Tung-Hu Tsai3,4,5,6.
Abstract
The herbal decoction process is generally inconvenient and unpleasant. To avoid using herbal medicine decoctions, various high-quality industrial and pharmaceutical herbal decoction products have been used in clinical applications for more than ten years in Taiwan. However, the consistency and standardization of the quality of these herbal medicines are goals that remain to be achieved. The aim of study was to develop a validated liquid chromatography-tandem electrospray ionization mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) method to determine the biomarkers astragaloside I, astragaloside IV, formononetin, cinnamic acid, paeoniflorin and gingerol in the herbal preparation known as Huangqi-Guizhi-Wuwu (HGW). To investigate the physical quality of HGW, methods such as scanning electron microscopy, light microscopy with Congo red and potassium iodine staining, solubility measurements, swelling power tests, and crude fiber analysis were used to identify additives in commercial pharmaceutical products. The optimal LC-MS/MS multiple reaction-monitoring system included a gradient program using 5 mM ammonium acetate buffer with 0.05% formic acid/methanol. The results demonstrate deviations in biomarker content across different brands. In addition to the herbal extract, starch and excipients in the pharmaceutical granule, and crushed crude herb powder was added to the pharmaceutical products to increase their herbal ingredient content. In conclusion, a rigorous examination should be performed to certify the quality of the herbal products.Entities:
Keywords: Traditional Chinese Medicine; herbal analysis; quality control; traditional herbal formulation
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2015 PMID: 26065638 PMCID: PMC6272244 DOI: 10.3390/molecules200610641
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Molecules ISSN: 1420-3049 Impact factor: 4.411
Figure 1The mass spectra and structures of six active components in HGW and two internals: (a) astragaloside I; (b) astragaloside IV; (c) formononetin; (d) cinnamic acid; (e) paeoniflorin; (f) gingerol; (g) carvedilol and (h) tolbutamide.
The LC-MS/MS conditions for the identification of the six active components and two internal standards.
| MW a | Ion Mode | RT b | CE c | Q1 Mass d | Q3 Mass d | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Astragaloside I | 868.4 | + | 5.8 | −19 | 869.3 [M + H]+ | 143.0 |
| Astragaloside IV | 784.9 | + | 6.4 | −21 | 785.3 [M + H]+ | 143.3 |
| Formononetin | 268.3 | + | 5.2 | −42 | 269.1 [M + H]+ | 197.0 |
| Paeoniflorin | 480.2 | + | 3.6 | −26 | 498.3 [M + NH4]+ | 179.1 |
| Gingerol | 294.3 | + | 5.2 | −25 | 312.0 [M + NH4]+ | 137.2 |
| Cinnamic acid | 148.1 | − | 3.4 | 15 | 147.1 [M − H]− | 103.0 |
| Carvedilol (IS) | 406.4 | + | 4.9 | −35 | 407.1 [M + H]+ | 100.1 |
| Tolbutamide (IS) | 270.3 | − | 4.4 | 20 | 269.0 [M − H]− | 170.0 |
MW: molecular weight (unit: a.m.u); RT: retention time (unit: minute); CE: collision energy (unit: electron volt); Theunit is m/z.
Intra-day and inter-day precision and accuracy of the six active components of HGW.
| Nominal Concentration (ng/mL) | Intra-Day | Inter-Day | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Observed Concentration (ng/mL) | Accuracy (%) | Precision (%) | Observed Concentration (ng/mL) | Accuracy (%) | Precision (%) | |
| Astragaloside I | ||||||
| 25 | 25.21 ± 1.49 | 0.86 | 5.90 | 23.83 ± 0.85 | −4.68 | 3.55 |
| 50 | 47.68 ± 3.93 | −4.64 | 8.24 | 48.78 ± 1.73 | −2.44 | 3.56 |
| 250 | 259.48 ± 5.70 | 3.79 | 2.20 | 237.78 ± 5.93 | −4.89 | 2.49 |
| 500 | 488.38 ±15.04 | −2.32 | 3.08 | 512.51 ± 13.76 | 2.50 | 2.69 |
| 1000 | 987.19 ± 9.88 | −1.28 | 1.00 | 983.27 ± 22.24 | −1.67 | 2.26 |
| Astragaloside IV | ||||||
| 10 | 9.23 ± 0.46 | −7.72 | 4.98 | 9.82 ± 1.34 | −1.84 | 13.61 |
| 50 | 23.64 ± 1.44 | 5.43 | 6.08 | 49.21 ± 3.29 | −1.58 | 6.68 |
| 250 | 50.21 ± 1.14 | 0.41 | 2.26 | 250.03 ± 7.69 | 0.01 | 3.08 |
| 500 | 246.48 ± 8.80 | −1.41 | 3.57 | 515.21 ± 5.45 | 3.04 | 1.06 |
| 1000 | 517.22 ± 6.27 | 3.44 | 1.21 | 997.18 ± 0.68 | −0.28 | 0.07 |
| Formononetin | ||||||
| 25 | 22.81 ± 1.33 | −8.75 | 5.82 | 22.08 ± 0.47 | −11.67 | 2.12 |
| 50 | 46.01 ± 1.93 | −7.98 | 4.19 | 46.77 ± 2.34 | −6.46 | 5.01 |
| 250 | 253.44 ± 10.43 | 1.38 | 4.11 | 254.42 ± 5.85 | 1.77 | 2.30 |
| 500 | 506.04 ± 10.04 | 1.21 | 1.98 | 509.04 ± 15.79 | 1.81 | 3.10 |
| 1000 | 995.55 ± 2.29 | −0.44 | 0.23 | 994.74 ± 6.45 | −0.53 | 0.65 |
| Cinnamic acid | ||||||
| 25 | 27.69 ± 1.95 | 10.74 | 7.05 | 26.32 ± 1.53 | 5.29 | 5.83 |
| 50 | 53.33 ± 1.62 | 6.65 | 3.04 | 49.83 ± 3.40 | −0.33 | 6.82 |
| 250 | 243.41 ± 5.31 | −2.64 | 2.18 | 236.01 ± 11.10 | −5.60 | 4.70 |
| 500 | 497.55 ± 10.83 | −0.49 | 2.18 | 487.97 ± 23.74 | −2.41 | 4.87 |
| 1000 | 1001.63 ± 5.97 | 0.16 | 0.60 | 997.47 ± 8.11 | −0.25 | 0.81 |
| Paeoniflorin | ||||||
| 25 | 24.99 ± 1.55 | −0.04 | 6.21 | 24.50 ± 3.31 | −2.01 | 13.50 |
| 50 | 49.44 ± 3.38 | −1.13 | 6.83 | 51.09 ± 4.00 | 2.17 | 7.84 |
| 250 | 257.68 ± 16.41 | 3.07 | 6.37 | 245.60 ± 10.78 | −1.76 | 4.39 |
| 500 | 501.05 ± 7.91 | 0.21 | 1.58 | 505.76 ± 1.82 | 1.15 | 0.36 |
| 1000 | 993.47 ± 9.92 | −0.65 | 1.00 | 998.49 ± 0.90 | −0.15 | 0.09 |
| Gingerol | ||||||
| 10 | 9.58 ± 0.84 | −4.25 | 8.82 | 9.26 ± 0.47 | 7.38 | 5.10 |
| 50 | 49.13 ± 1.79 | −1.74 | 3.65 | 50.31 ± 2.26 | 0.61 | 4.49 |
| 250 | 251.93 ± 2.66 | 0.77 | 1.05 | 251.84 ± 7.15 | 0.73 | 2.84 |
| 500 | 500.08 ± 7.34 | 0.02 | 1.47 | 497.17 ± 8.01 | −0.57 | 1.61 |
| 1000 | 999.65 ± 3.05 | −0.04 | 0.31 | 1000.92 ± 2.27 | 0.09 | 0.23 |
Each value is expressed as the mean ± S.E.M (n = 3).
The content of astragaloside I, astragaloside IV, formononetin, cinnamic acid, paeoniflorin, gingerol in lab-made herbal extract (EX) and five brands (A–E) of HGW herbal pharmaceutical products.
| Components | EX | A | B | C | D | E |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Astragaloside I | 0.46 ± 0.024 | 0.31 ± 0.007 | 0.52 ± 0.005 | 0.81 ± 0.004 | 0.39 ± 0.006 | 0.36 ± 0.001 |
| Astragaloside IV | 0.09 ± 0.002 | 0.12± 0.005 | 0.16 ± 0.003 | 0.10 ± 0.003 | 0.08± 0.002 | 0.07 ± 0.001 |
| Formononetin | 0.83 ± 0.021 | 0.31 ± 0.004 | 0.68 ± 0.010 | 0.46 ± 0.006 | 0.54 ± 0.006 | 0.34 ± 0.002 |
| Cinnamic acid | 0.24 ± 0.010 | 0.32 ± 0.009 | 0.34 ± 0.005 | 0.19 ± 0.006 | 0.31 ± 0.007 | 0.17 ± 0.004 |
| Paeoniflorin | 4.15 ± 0.044 | 2.26 ± 0.013 | 3.72 ± 0.003 | 2.09 ± 0.047 | 2.97 ± 0.002 | 1.67 ± 0.016 |
| Gingerol | 0.08 ± 0.003 | 0.91 ± 0.006 | 0.25 ± 0.007 | 0.36 ± 0.010 | 0.30 ± 0.007 | 0.80 ± 0.001 |
Each value is expressed as the mean ± S.E.M (n = 3) and the unit is mg/g.
Figure 2Scanning electron microscope images: (a) brand A; (b) brand B; (c) brand C; (d) brand D; (e) brand E; (f) herbal powder; (g) herbal powder:brand A = 1:1; (h) corn starch:herbal powder = 1:1 and (i) corn starch.
Figure 3(a) Light microscopy images of Congo red stained samples: (a) brand A; (b) brand B; (c) brand C; (d) brand D; (e) brand E; (f) herbal powder; (g) herbal powder:brand A = 1:1, (h) corn starch:herbal powder = 1:1 and (i) corn starch.
Figure 4Light microscopy images of iodine-KI stained samples: (a) brand A; (b) brand B; (c) brand C; (d) brand D; (e) brand E; (f) herbal powder; (g) herbal powder:brand A = 1:1; (h) corn starch:herbal powder = 1:1 and (i) corn starch.
Solubility analysis of the herbal pharmaceutical products at different temperatures.
| Sample Brand | 55 °C | 65 °C | 75 °C | 85 °C | 95 °C |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 38.73 ± 2.77 | 38.84 ± 0.72 | 40.82 ± 3.60 | 42.59 ± 0.19 | 45.74 ± 2.07 | |
| 45.95 ± 4.84 | 47.78 ± 2.61 | 46.18 ±0.62 | 50.13 ± 0.94 | 52.97 ± 2.93 | |
| 40.97 ± 2.58 | 42.19 ± 1.47 | 43.62 ± 1.31 | 42.76 ± 1.32 | 48.81 ± 3.95 | |
| 33.67 ± 2.31 | 35.20 ± 0.97 | 39.95 ± 2.94 | 38.77 ± 1.68 | 40.64 ± 3.89 | |
| 39.51 ± 0.19 | 41.33 ± 3.22 | 42.51 ± 2.85 | 41.63 ± 5.62 | 45.49 ± 1.56 |
Each value is expressed as the mean ± S.E.M (n = 3).
Swelling analysis of the herbal pharmaceutical products at different temperatures.
| Sample Brand | 55 °C | 65 °C | 75 °C | 85 °C | 95 °C |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 4.99 ± 0.71 | 6.26 ± 0.31 | 6.22 ± 0.82 | 7.41 ± 0.28 | 6.86 ± 1.14 | |
| 5.96 ± 1.64 | 7.44 ± 1.38 | 8.83 ± 0.21 | 8.79 ± 1.44 | 6.69 ± 1.19 | |
| 6.43 ± 0.57 | 6.15 ± 1.09 | 8.93 ± 0.35 | 7.45 ± 1.99 | 4.74 ± 0.71 | |
| 4.78 ± 0.31 | 5.37 ± 0.71 | 5.42 ± 1.58 | 5.59 ± 0.53 | 7.71 ± 1.54 | |
|
| 4.04 ± 0.41 | 4.57 ± 0.89 | 5.81 ± 0.43 | 5.25 ± 0.85 | 6.60 ± 0.60 |
Each value is expressed as the mean ± S.E.M (n = 3).