| Literature DB >> 28053654 |
H P Cheung1, S W Wang1, T B Ng2, Y B Zhang1, L X Lao1, Z J Zhang1, Y Tong1, F W S Chung1, S C W Sze1.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Identification of bioactive standard chemicals is a major challenge in the study of the Chinese medicinal formula. In particular, the chemical components may interact differently depending on the preparative methods, therefore affecting the amounts of bioactive components and their pharmacological properties in the medicinal formula. With the use of Erxian decoction (EXD) as a study model-a well-known Chinese medicinal formula for treating menopausal symptoms, a novel and rapid approach in seeking standard chemicals has been established by differentially comparing the HPLC profiles and the menopause-related biochemical parameters of combined decoction of EXD (EXD-C) and mixtures of the decoctions of its individual herbs (EXD-S).Entities:
Keywords: Chinese medicine formula; Erxian decoction; Menopause; Novel approach; Standard chemicals
Year: 2017 PMID: 28053654 PMCID: PMC5209811 DOI: 10.1186/s13020-016-0123-8
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Chin Med ISSN: 1749-8546 Impact factor: 5.455
Fig. 1Overlaid HPLC chromatograms of a EXD-S [4] and b EXD-C from three repeated injections extracted at 345 nm. The peaks of six standard chemicals were annotated as mangiferine, ferulic acid, icariin, jatrorrhizine, palmatine and berberine, in a chorological order of retention time
The contents of six standard chemicals of EXD in three injections of EXD-S and EXD-C
| Injection | Mangiferin (mg/g) | Ferulic acid (mg/g) | Icariin (mg/g) | Jatrorrhizine (mg/g) | Palmatine (mg/g) | Berberine (mg/g) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| EXD-S1 | 1.368 | 0.4871 | 1.731 | 0.1004 | 1.083 | 1.615 |
| EXD-S2 | 1.371 | 0.4896 | 1.744 | 0.1010 | 1.090 | 1.617 |
| EXD-S3 | 1.382 | 0.4996 | 1.745 | 0.1014 | 1.092 | 1.628 |
| Mean | 1.374 | 0.4921 | 1.740 | 0.1010 | 1.089 | 1.620 |
| RSD (%) | 0.57 | 1.34 | 0.46 | 0.48 | 0.46 | 0.43 |
| EXD-C1 | 0.6581 | 0.1983 | 1.498 | 0.02865 | 0.03577 | 1.000 |
| EXD-C2 | 0.6610 | 0.1980 | 1.493 | 0.03009 | 0.03661 | 1.001 |
| EXD-C3 | 0.6583 | 0.2034 | 1.479 | 0.02947 | 0.03592 | 1.003 |
| Mean | 0.6591 | 0.1999 | 1.490 | 0.02940 | 0.03610 | 1.001 |
| RSD (%) | 0.24 | 1.53 | 0.65 | 2.45 | 1.23 | 0.17 |
| Mean ratio | 2.085 | 2.462 | 1.168 | 3.435 | 30.17 | 1.618 |
The results are expressed as mg or chemicals per g of EXD extract. RSD values were calculated for each chemical from three injections and the mean ratio represents the ratio of amount of chemicals in EXD-S to that of EXD-C
Fig. 2The ratio of six standard markers in EXD-S and EXD-C
Fig. 3The fold differences of standard markers in EXD-S/EXD-C
Fig. 4The relative expression of Cyp19 gene at transcriptional level in ovaries of SD-rats treated with different EXD decoctions. Data were normalized by control group and expressed as mean ± SEM. Control: control group (fed with water); EXD-S: SD-rats treated with separate decoction of EXD at 0.76 g/kg (low) and 1.52 g/kg (high); EXD-C: SD-rats treated with combined decoction of EXD at 0.76 g/kg (low) and 1.52 g/kg (high). ***p < 0.001 compared with Control;###p < 0.001 compared with EXD-C (low);+++p < 0.001 compared with EXD-C (high) (Tukey’s Multiple Comparison Test following One-way ANOVA) (n = 3)
Fig. 5The relative expression of CAT gene at transcriptional level in livers of SD-rats treated with different EXD decoctions. Data were normalized by control group and expressed as mean ± SEM. Control: control group (fed with water); EXD-S: SD-rats treated with separate decoction of EXD at 0.76 g/kg (low) and 1.52 g/kg (high); EXD-C: SD-rats treated with combined decoction of EXD at 0.76 g/kg (low) and 1.52 g/kg (high). No statistical significances were detected among groups (Tukey’s Multiple Comparison Test following One-way ANOVA) (n = 3)
Fig. 6The relative expression of SOD-1 gene at transcriptional level in livers of SD-rats treated with different EXD decoctions. Data were normalized by control group and expressed as mean ± SEM. Control: control group (fed with water); EXD-S: SD-rats treated with separate decoction of EXD at 0.76 g/kg (low) and 1.52 g/kg (high); EXD-C: SD-rats treated with combined decoction of EXD at 0.76 g/kg (low) and 1.52 g/kg (high).# p < 0.05 compared with EXD-C (low) (Tukey’s Multiple Comparison Test following One-way ANOVA) (n = 3)
Fig. 7The relative expression of GPx-1 gene at transcriptional level in livers of SD-rats treated with different EXD decoctions. Data were normalized by control group and expressed as mean ± SEM. Control: control group (fed with water); EXD-S: SD-rats treated with separate decoction of EXD at 0.76 g/kg (low) and 1.52 g/kg (high); EXD-C: SD-rats treated with combined decoction of EXD at 0.76 g/kg (low) and 1.52 g/kg (high).+ p < 0.05 compared with EXD-C (high) (Tukey’s Multiple Comparison Test following One-way ANOVA) (n = 3)