| Literature DB >> 26890416 |
Wei Liu1,2, Dongmei Wang1, Jianjun Liu3, Dengwu Li1, Dongxue Yin4.
Abstract
The present study was performed to assess the quality of Potentilla fruticosa L. sampled from distinct regions of China using high performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) fingerprinting coupled with a suite of chemometric methods. For this quantitative analysis, the main active phytochemical compositions and the antioxidant activity in P. fruticosa were also investigated. Considering the high percentages and antioxidant activities of phytochemicals, P. fruticosa samples from Kangding, Sichuan were selected as the most valuable raw materials. Similarity analysis (SA) of HPLC fingerprints, hierarchical cluster analysis (HCA), principle component analysis (PCA), and discriminant analysis (DA) were further employed to provide accurate classification and quality estimates of P. fruticosa. Two principal components (PCs) were collected by PCA. PC1 separated samples from Kangding, Sichuan, capturing 57.64% of the variance, whereas PC2 contributed to further separation, capturing 18.97% of the variance. Two kinds of discriminant functions with a 100% discrimination ratio were constructed. The results strongly supported the conclusion that the eight samples from different regions were clustered into three major groups, corresponding with their morphological classification, for which HPLC analysis confirmed the considerable variation in phytochemical compositions and that P. fruticosa samples from Kangding, Sichuan were of high quality. The results of SA, HCA, PCA, and DA were in agreement and performed well for the quality assessment of P. fruticosa. Consequently, HPLC fingerprinting coupled with chemometric techniques provides a highly flexible and reliable method for the quality evaluation of traditional Chinese medicines.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2016 PMID: 26890416 PMCID: PMC4758616 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0149197
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Fig 1Locations of P. fruticosa samples in different regions sampled for this study.
Maps generated using ArcGIS 10.0 (ESRI Inc. 2014).
P. fruticosa samples collected from different regions of China.
| No. | Locations | Population | Code | Coordinates | Number of samples | Altitude (m) | Group |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| S1 | Mei county, Shaanxi | Pingansi | PAS | E107°43′N34°1′ | 5 | 2815 | B |
| Mingxingsi | MXS | E107°44′N34°0′ | 5 | 2637 | |||
| Yuhuangmiao | YHM | E107°22′N34°5′ | 5 | 1780 | |||
| Liulingou | LLG | E108°10′N33°52′ | 5 | 1013 | |||
| S2 | Diebu, Gansu | Zemo | ZM | E103°21′N33°45′ | 5 | 2728 | B |
| Dalong | DL | E103°14′N35°2′ | 5 | 2620 | |||
| Dalagou | DLG | E103°22′N33°52′ | 5 | 2677 | |||
| Nagai | NG | E103°14′N33°51′ | 5 | 2963 | |||
| S3 | Huzhu, Qinghai | Zhalongkou | ZLK | E102°34′N36°53′ | 5 | 2264 | C |
| Zhalonggou | ZLG | E102°37′N36°47′ | 5 | 2698 | |||
| Yuanlongogu | YLG | E102°27′N36°54′ | 5 | 3069 | |||
| Lalagou | LL | E102°42′N36°44′ | 5 | 3169 | |||
| S4 | Jingyuan, Ningxia | Baiyunshan | BYS | E106°15′N35°37′ | 5 | 2232 | C |
| Yehegu | YHG | E106°13′N35°31′ | 5 | 2370 | |||
| Zhiwuyuan | ZWY | E106°18′N35°22′ | 5 | 2080 | |||
| Qiaozigou | QZG | E106°22′N35°15′ | 5 | 2564 | |||
| S5 | Yongdeng, Gansu | Suoergou | SEG | E102°43′N36°40′ | 5 | 2389 | C |
| Xiahe | XH | E102°43′N36°35′ | 5 | 2733 | |||
| Dachang | DC | E102°44′N36°44′ | 5 | 2449 | |||
| Datanzigou | DTZ | E102°46′N36°33′ | 5 | 2530 | |||
| S6 | Shangri-la, Yunnan | Rime | RM | E99°37′N27°51′ | 5 | 3528 | C |
| Naipi | NP | E99°36′N28°2′ | 5 | 3432 | |||
| Xiaozhongdian | XZD | E99°56′N27°28′ | 5 | 3590 | |||
| Mugaocun | MGC | E99°34′N27°30′ | 5 | 2250 | |||
| S7 | Nyingchi, Tibet | Zhangmaicun | ZMC | E94°20′N29°40′ | 5 | 3097 | C |
| Selong | SL | E94°11′N29°44′ | 5 | 3173 | |||
| Pula | PL | E94°22′N29°27′ | 5 | 3256 | |||
| Duosongba | DSB | E94°13′N29°37′ | 5 | 3855 | |||
| S8 | Kangding, Sichuan | Yajaigeng | YJG | E101°57′N30°0′ | 5 | 2946 | A |
| Laoyulin | LYL | E101°59′N29°55′ | 5 | 3788 | |||
| Shengkangcun | SKC | E102°1′N30°4′ | 5 | 3207 | |||
| Zhonggucun | ZGC | E101°54′N30°16′ | 5 | 3554 |
Fig 2IC50 values of tested samples for DPPH radical scavenging activity.
Fig 3Reducing power of tested samples for ferric reducing activity power (FRAP) assay.
Fig 4ABTS values of tested samples for ABTS·+ radical scavenging activity.
Method validation for the quantitative determination of three compounds using RP-HPLC.
| Peak No. | Compounds | Regression equations | Test range (μg mL-1) | LOD (ng mL-1) | LOQ (ng mL-1) | Precision experiment (n = 7) | Repeatability experiment (n = 6) | Recovery experiment (n = 6) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Area of peak | RSD (%) | Area of peak | RSD (%) | Average recovery rate (%) | RSD (%) | ||||||
| 2 | Rutin | y = 59142.31x−135.4 R2 = 0.9998 | 1.0–100.0 | 2.89 | 9.98 | 1125.26 | 1.56 | 185.23 | 1.94 | 99.85± 0.02 | 1.72 |
| 3 | quercetin | y = 2143.57x+ 1.6 R2 = 0.9999 | 10.0–500.0 | 1.87 | 8.14 | 2957.79 | 2.93 | 278.59 | 2.72 | 102.91± 0.01 | 2.23 |
| 8 | kaempferol | y = 24726.38x−12.86 R2 = 0.9997 | 5.0–500.0 | 3.04 | 10.33 | 386.93 | 0.23 | 24.43 | 1.31 | 96.36± 0.02 | 1.16 |
LOD—Limit of Detection, LOQ—Limit of Quantitation, RSD—Relative Standard Deviation.
Each values represented in table are means ± SD (n = 7 for precision, n = 6 for repeatability and recovery experiment, respectively.).
Three compounds were identified by their relative retention time (RRT) (min): rutin (6.24, peak 2), quercetin (11.68, peak 3), kaempferol (31.57, peak 8).
Fig 5The HPLC fingerprinting profiles of P. fruticosa from different regions.
Fig 6Differences of active ingredient contents in P. fruticosa samples from different regions.
S1: Mei county, Shaanxi; S2: Diebu, Gansu; S3: Huzhu, Qinghai; S4: Jingyuan, Ningxia; S5: Yongdeng, Gansu; S6: Shangri-la, Yunnan; S7: Ningchi, Tibet; S8: Kangding, Sichuan.
Similarities of the chromatograms of P. fruticosa samples based on the correlation coefficients.
| No. | S1 | S2 | S3 | S4 | S5 | S6 | S7 | S8 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| S1 | 1.00 | |||||||
| S2 | 0.67 | 1.00 | ||||||
| S3 | 0.63 | 0.63 | 1.00 | |||||
| S4 | 0.72 | 0.58 | 0.81 | 1.00 | ||||
| S5 | 0.54 | 0.72 | 0.92 | 0.88 | 1.00 | |||
| S6 | 0.74 | 0.33 | 0.37 | 0.67 | 0.71 | 1.00 | ||
| S7 | 0.37 | 0.51 | 0.52 | 0.42 | 0.83 | 0.61 | 1.00 | |
| S8 | 0.29 | 0.43 | 0.21 | 0.53 | 0.71 | 0.32 | 0.62 | 1.00 |
Fig 7Visual assortment for HPLC chromatograms of P. fruticosa species.
Fig 8Dendrograms of hierarchical cluster analysis (HCA) for the analytes.
Correlation coefficients between individual chromatograms within a group and the group simulative mean chromatogram, and between the group simulative mean chromatograms.
| Group | Group1 | Group2 | Group3 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Group1 | 1.000 | 0.561 | 0.534 |
| Group2 | 0.954±0.005 | 0.585 | |
| Group3 | 0.971±0.000 |
a Correlation coefficient of individual chromatograms to the simulative mean chromatogram of the corresponding group. Values are the mean ± SD.
b Correlation coefficient between simulative mean chromatograms.
Fig 9The scores plot generated from principal component analysis (PCA) of all the analytes (A) and the loadings plot of variables (peaks 1–10) (B).
Fig 10Discrimination analysis (DA) for P. fruticosa samples.