| Literature DB >> 28534831 |
Xinhong Wang1, Xiaoguang Wang2, Yuhai Guo3.
Abstract
Quantitative determination of multiple effective components in a given plant usually requires a very large amount of authentic natural products. In this study, we proposed a rapid and non-destructive method for the simultaneous determination of echinacoside, verbascoside, mannitol, sucrose, glucose and fructose in Cistanche tubulosa by near infrared spectroscopy (NIRS). Near infrared diffuse reflectance spectroscopy (DRS) and high performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) were conducted on 116 batches of C. tubulosa samples. The DRS data were processed using standard normal variety (SNV) and multiplicative scatter correction (MSC) methods. Partial least squares regression (PLSR) was utilized to build calibration models for components-of-interest in C. tubulosa. All models were then assessed by calculating the root mean square error of calibration (RMSEC), correlation coefficient of calibration (r). The r values of all six calibration models were determined to be greater than 0.94, suggesting each model is reliable. Therefore, the quantitative NIR models reported in this study can be qualified to accurately quantify the contents of six medicinal components in C. tubulosa.Entities:
Keywords: Cistanche tubulosa; high performance liquid chromatography; near infrared spectroscopy; partial least squares
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28534831 PMCID: PMC6154300 DOI: 10.3390/molecules22050843
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Molecules ISSN: 1420-3049 Impact factor: 4.411
Figure 1Representative chromatograms of the mixed standards using HPLC-UV (upper) and HPLC-ELSD (lower) 1, echinacoside; 2, verbascoside; 3, fructose; 4, mannitol; 5, glucose, 6, sucrose.
Main results of the HPLC method.
| Medicinal Components | Standard Sample Range (mg/g) | Calibration Curve | r | Recovery (%, | Sample Value Range (mg/g) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Echinacoside | 5.79 | 1.00–1000.00 | 0.9998 | 98.5 | 6.50–535.45 | |
| Verbascoside | 8.10 | 1.00–250.00 | 0.9995 | 103.8 | 1.35–212.88 | |
| Fructose | 12.50 | 1.00–250.00 | 0.9999 | 100.5 | 13.36–104.78 | |
| Mannitol | 14.70 | 1.00–100.00 | 0.9990 | 99.6 | 12.52–88.70 | |
| Glucose | 15.70 | 1.00–100.00 | 0.9999 | 100.2 | 15.84–75.36 | |
| Sucrose | 21.60 | 1.00–100.00 | 0.9996 | 98.5 | 16.22–43.43 |
Figure 2Near Infrared spectra of the C. tubulosa samples (A) and the spectra processed with 2nd derivation (B) (n = 116)..
Performance comparison of different wave band choose of calibration models.
| Medicinal Components | Performances of RMSEC and | Wave Band | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 4000–10,000 cm−1 | 4000–7500 cm−1 | ||
| Echinacoside | RMSEC | 27.9 | 136.0 |
| 0.9813 | 0.3431 | ||
| Verbascoside | RMSEC | 6.69 | 11.00 |
| r | 0.9629 | 0.8956 | |
| Mannitol | RMSEC | 3.05 | 12.5 |
| 0.9747 | 0.4029 | ||
| Sucrose | RMSEC | 1.21 | 2.63 |
| 0.9584 | 0.786 | ||
| Glucose | RMSEC | 1.22 | 2.16 |
| 0.9426 | 0.8074 | ||
| Fructose | RMSEC | 1.57 | 6.75 |
| 0.99 | 0.7951 | ||
Figure 3The root mean square errors of cross validation with different number of factors: (A) Echinacoside; (B) Verbascoside; (C) Mannitol; (D) Sucrose; (E) Glucose; and (F) Fructose.
Most suitable pretreatment and performance comparison of results for the calibration models.
| Medicinal Components | Optimum NO. of Factors | Pretreatment Spectral | Calibration Set | Validation Set | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RMSEC | RMSEP | Rp | ||||
| Echinacoside | 7 | MSV, 1st D, SG (7, 3) | 44.00 | 0.9531 | 42.70 | 0.9601 |
| MSV, 2nd D, SG (7, 3) | 27.60 | 0.9808 | 24.53 | 0.9688 | ||
| Verbascoside | 7 | SNV, 1st D, SG (15, 3) | 6.84 | 0.9612 | 7.28 | 0.9637 |
| SNV, 2nd D, SG (15, 3) | 6.76 | 0.9627 | 6.57 | 0.9617 | ||
| mannitol | 9 | SNV, 1st D, SG (7, 3) | 10.50 | 0.6350 | 14.00 | 0.1287 |
| SNV, 2nd D, SG (7, 3) | 2.85 | 0.9775 | 3.32 | 0.9460 | ||
| Sucrose | 9 | MSV, 1st D, SG (7, 3) | 1.63 | 0.9228 | 1.34 | 0.9456 |
| MSV, 2nd D, SG (7, 3) | 1.19 | 0.9597 | 1.02 | 0.9449 | ||
| Glucose | 7 | SNV, 1st D, SG (17, 3) | 1.21 | 0.9437 | 1.09 | 0.9006 |
| SNV, 2nd D, SG (17, 3) | 1.20 | 0.9441 | 1.00 | 0.9336 | ||
| Fructose | 10 | SNV, 1st D, SG (13, 3) | 3.70 | 0.9432 | 4.75 | 0.9252 |
| SNV, 2nd D, SG (13, 3) | 1.55 | 0.9902 | 1.74 | 0.9689 | ||
Figure 4Scatter plots of measured and predicted values for the abundance of six constituents of C. tubulosa in the calibration and validation sets: (A) Echinacoside; (B) Verbascoside; (C) Mannitol; (D) Sucrose; (E) Glucose; and (F) Fructose.