| Literature DB >> 27367654 |
Bili Su1,2, Yongjun Kan3, Jianwei Xie4, Juan Hu5,6, Wensheng Pang7.
Abstract
The complexity of traditional Chinese medicines (TCMs) is related to their multi-component system. TCM aqueous decoction is a common clinical oral formulation. Between molecules in solution, there exist intermolecular strong interactions to form chemical bonds or weak non-bonding interactions such as hydrogen bonds and Van der Waals forces, which hold molecules together to form "molecular aggregates". Taking the TCM Puerariae lobatae Radix (Gegen) as an example, we explored four Gegen decoctions of different concentration of 0.019, 0.038, 0.075, and 0.30 g/mL, named G-1, G-2, G-3, and G-4. In order of molecular aggregate size (diameter) the four kinds of solution were ranked G-1 < G-2 < G-3 < G-4 by Flow Cell 200S IPAC image analysis. A rabbit vertebrobasilar artery insufficiency (VBI) model was set up and they were given Gegen decoction (GGD) at a clinical dosage of 0.82 g/kg (achieved by adjusting the gastric perfusion volume depending on the concentration). The HPLC fingerprint of rabbit plasma showed that the chemical component absorption into blood in order of peak area values was G-1 < G-2 > G-3 > G-4. Puerarin and daidzin are the major constituents of Gegen, and the pharmacokinetics of G-1 and G-2 puerarin conformed with the two compartment open model, while for G-3 and G-4, they conformed to a one compartment open model. For all four GGDs the pharmacokinetics of daidzin complied with a one compartment open model. FQ-PCR assays of rabbits' vertebrobasilar arterial tissue were performed to determine the pharmacodynamic profiles of the four GGDs. GGD markedly lowered the level of AT₁R mRNA, while the AT₂R mRNA level was increased significantly vs. the VBI model, and G-2 was the most effective. In theory the dosage was equal to the blood drug concentration and should be consistent; however, the formation of molecular aggregates affects drug absorption and metabolism, and therefore influences drugs' effects. Our data provided references for the rational use of Chinese medicines in the clinic, such as the best oral preparation and decoction concentration.Entities:
Keywords: Puerariae lobatae Radix decoction; molecular aggregation; pharmacodynamic profiles; pharmacokinetic profiles
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27367654 PMCID: PMC6274100 DOI: 10.3390/molecules21070845
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Molecules ISSN: 1420-3049 Impact factor: 4.411
Figure 1Diagram of the focus of this paper.
Figure 2Images taken by the Flow-Cell: (A) G-1 solution; (B) G-2 solution; (C) G-3 solution; (D) G-4 solution; scale bar 100 µm.
Figure 3Analysis of the particle convexity and size of (A) G-1 decoction; (B) G-2 decoction; (C) G-3 decoction; (D) G-4 decoction.
Figure 4The HPLC fingerprint of rabbit plasma of G-2 decoction at different times.
Figure 5The HPLC chromatogram of Gegen decoction: (A) Blank rabbit plasma sample; (B) blank rabbit plasma samples piked with puerarin (10 µg/mL), 3′-methoxypuerarin (3.6 µg/mL) and daidzin (7 µg/mL); (C) rabbit plasma sample at 35 min after their stomachs were perfused with 0.82 mg/kg G-2 solution. The chromatographic peaks were identical between standards and sample. The three structures are shown above.
Figure 6The plasma concentration-time curves of puerarin and daidzin after rabbit stomachs were perfused with four kind of GGD with dosages equal of 0.82 g/kg (n = 4, ). (A) The plasma concentration-time curves of puerarin; (B) mean plasma concentration-time curves of daidzin.
Pharmacokinetic parameters of puerarin after rabbit stomachs were perfused with four kinds of GGD of dosage equal to 0.82 g/kg (n = 4, )R.
| Parameter | Unit | G-1 | G-2 | G-3 | G-4 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| t1/2 | min | 69.32 ± 3.58 | 65.28 ± 4.93 | ||
| t1/2α | min | 5.15 ± 2.01 ▼▼ | 17.79 ± 9.82 | ||
| t1/2β | min | 69.32 ± 1.82 | 69.32 ± 2.88 | ||
| V1/F | L/kg | 446.1 ± 8.53 **,▼▼ | 192.9 ± 9.22 ** | 527.4 ± 7.23 **,▼▼ | 975.1 ± 10.28 **,▼▼ |
| CL/F | L/min/kg | 8.38 ± 6.38 **,▼▼ | 1.74 ± 0.19 ** | 5.27 ± 0.74 **,▼▼ | 10.46 ± 1.96 **,▼▼ |
| Tmax | min | 21.32 ± 1.35 **,▼▼ | 26.45 ± 5.77 ** | 91.12 ± 3.80 **,▼▼ | 157.5 ± 1.67 **,▼▼ |
| Cmax | mg/L | 0.69 ± 0.16 **,▼▼ | 2.62 ± 0.61 ** | 0.62 ± 0.05 **,▼▼ | 0.038 ± 0.063 **,▼▼ |
| AUC0–t | mg/L·min | 106.9 ± 5.96 **,▼▼ | 357.9 ± 5.25 ** | 110.5 ± 6.34 **,▼▼ | 60.00 ± 10.88 **,▼▼ |
| AUC0–∞ | mg/L·min | 147.5 ± 9.85 **,▼▼ | 474.6 ± 7.58 ** | 158.1 ± 2.65 **,▼▼ | 80.34 ± 1.11 **,▼▼ |
Remarks: t-Test (Two Populations); G-1, G-3, G-4 vs. G-2, ▼▼p < 0.01; Comparisons among four groups were tested by one-way ANOVA analysis ** p < 0.01; no significant differences between groups—no label.
Pharmacokinetic parameters of daidzin after rabbit stomachs were perfused with four kinds of GGD of dosage equal to 0.82 g/kg (n = 4, )R.
| Parameter | Unit | G-1 | G-2 | G-3 | G-4 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| t1/2α | min | 56.29 ± 2.55 ** | 25.29 ± 4.44 ** | 10.56 ± 2.44 ** | 8.02 ± 0.80 ** |
| t1/2β | min | 69.31 ± 2.35 | 68.62 ± 1.20 | 69.31 ± 1.82 | 69.31 ± 3.12 |
| V1/F | L/kg | 676.4 ± 15.63 **,▼▼ | 220.8 ± 7.98 ** | 238.5 ± 8.71 ** | 369.3 ± 6.22 **,▼▼ |
| CL/F | L/min/kg | 7.81 ± 1.55 | 6.93 ± 1.60 | 5.72 ± 2.99 | 11.32 ± 0.54 ▼ |
| Tmax | min | 20.00 ± 4.08 | 22.50 ± 2.30 | 22.50 ± 3.22 | 20.00 ± 2.06 |
| Cmax | min | 0.91 ± 0.10 | 1.24 ± 0.38 | 1.12 ± 0.24 | 0.78 ± 0.14 ▼ |
| AUC0–t | mg/L·min | 82.79 ± 7.33 ▼ | 104.8 ± 3.05 | 102.9 ± 2.66 | 65.54 ± 3.71 ▼ |
| AUC0–∞ | mg/L·min | 108.1 ± 3.99 ▼ | 122.7 ± 8.40 | 115.82 ± 7.58 | 72.54 ± 3.45 ▼▼ |
Remarks: t-Test (Two Populations); G-1, G-3, G-4 vs. G-2, ▼▼p < 0.01, ▼p < 0.05. Comparisons among four groups were tested by one-way ANOVA analysis ** p < 0.01; no significant differences between groups—no label.
Figure 7The diagram for blood flow (Vm) determined by means of a Transcranial Doppler (TCD) instrument. (A) Blank control and (B) VBI model in the vertebral artery; (C) blank control and (D) VBI model in the basilar artery.
Different concentrations of GGDs’ effect on blood flow data and AT1R mRNA/AT2R mRNA expression (, n = 4).
| Groups | Vm (dm/s) | BA (dm/s) | 2−△△ct(AT1R) | 2−△△ct(AT2R) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Blank control | 21.84 ± 0.036 | 16.02 ± 1.47 | 1.02 ± 0.070 | 1.02 ± 0.033 |
| Model control | 5.60 ± 0.24 ** | 6.99 ± 0.081 ** | 2.81 ± 0.20 ** | 0.29 ± 0.061 ** |
| G-1 | 6.92 ± 1.33 | 7.73 ± 0.32 | 2.42 ± 0.24 | 0.49 ± 0.12 * |
| G-2 | 18.38 ± 0.79 ▲▲ | 14.16 ± 1.47 ▲▲ | 1.29 ± 0.33 ▲▲ | 1.06 ± 0.17 ▲▲ |
| G-3 | 17.29 ± 1.36 ▲▲ | 15.63 ± 0.95 ▲▲ | 1.51 ± 0.26 ▲▲ | 0.99 ± 0.14 ▲▲ |
| G-4 | 10.14 ± 1.28 ▲ | 10.42 ± 1.56 ▲ | 2.21 ± 0.34 | 0.31 ± 0.022 |
Model control vs. control group: ** p < 0.01, * p < 0.05; GGD group vs. model group: ▲▲ p < 0.01, ▲ p < 0.05.
Figure 8The amplification plots and dissociation curves of AT1R and AT2R: (A,B) amplification plots of AT1R and AT2R; (C,D) dissociation curves of AT1R and AT2R.
HPLC method conditions for the analyses.
| Solvent/% | ||
|---|---|---|
| Acetonitrile | 0.2% Formic Acid | |
| 0 | 8 | 92 |
| 13 | 15 | 85 |
| 14 | 20 | 80 |
| 16 | 20 | 80 |
| 18 | 25 | 75 |
| 25 | 30 | 70 |
| 30 | 15 | 85 |