| Literature DB >> 28911594 |
Zhenzuo Jiang1,2, Jing Yang1,2, Yujiao Jiao1,2, Wayne Li3, Xin Chai1,2, Lei Zhang1,2, Miaomiao Jiang1,2, Yuefei Wang1,2.
Abstract
The objective of the present study was to develop the selection criteria of proton signals for the determination of scutellarin using quantitative nuclear magnetic resonance (qNMR), which is the main bioactive compound in breviscapine preparations for the treatment of cerebrovascular disease. The methyl singlet signal of 3-(trimethylsilyl)propionic-2,2,3,3-d4 acid sodium salt was selected as the internal standard for quantification. The molar concentration of scutellarin was determined by employing different proton signals. To obtain optimum proton signals for the quantification, different combinations of proton signals were investigated according to two selection criteria: the recovery rate of qNMR method and quantitative results compared with those obtained with ultra-performance liquid chromatography. As a result, the chemical shift of H-2' and H-6' at δ 7.88 was demonstrated as the most suitable signal with excellent linearity range, precision, and recovery for determining scutellarin in breviscapine preparations from different manufacturers, batch numbers, and dosage forms. Hierarchical cluster analysis was employed to evaluate the determination results. The results demonstrated that the selection criteria of proton signals established in this work were reliable for the qNMR study of scutellarin in breviscapine preparations.Entities:
Keywords: breviscapine preparations; hierarchical cluster analysis; quantitative nuclear magnetic resonance; scutellarin; selection criteria of proton signals
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2016 PMID: 28911594 PMCID: PMC9339572 DOI: 10.1016/j.jfda.2015.12.004
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Food Drug Anal Impact factor: 6.157
Figure 1Proton nuclear magnetic resonance spectra of breviscapine tablets in (A) dimethyl sulfoxide DMSO-d6 and (B) DMSO-d6 + deuterium oxide.
The linearity, precision, repeatability, and stability of the different proton signals and the result of ultra-performance liquid chromatography (UPLC).
| Proton signal | Regression equation | R2 | Precision RSDs (%) | Repeatability | Stability RSDs (%) | UPLC Mean % (mg/mg) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
| |||||||
| Intra-d | Inter-d | Mean %(mg/mg) | RSDs (%) | |||||
| 1H | 0.9996 | 1.0 | 1.6 | 28.13 | 1.9 | 0.8 | 28.48 | |
| 2H | 0.9998 | 1.8 | 2.5 | 28.25 | 2.8 | 1.5 | ||
| 3H | 0.9998 | 1.4 | 2.2 | 29.44 | 2.2 | 1.7 | ||
| 1H+2H | 0.9998 | 1.1 | 1.8 | 28.19 | 1.9 | 1.0 | ||
| 1H+3H | 0.9997 | 1.0 | 1.7 | 28.79 | 2.0 | 1.1 | ||
| 2H+3H | 0.9998 | 1.5 | 2.2 | 28.85 | 2.2 | 1.3 | ||
| 1H+2H+3H | 0.9998 | 1.1 | 1.9 | 28.61 | 1.9 | 1.0 | ||
RSDs = relative standard deviations.
1H represented one proton (H-3) with a singlet peak at δ 6.69, 2H represented two protons (H-2′, H-6′) with doublet peaks at δ 7.88, and 3H represented three protons with peaks in the range of δ 6.96–6.98 (H-3′, H-5′, and H-8).
The results of recovery test of different proton signals (n = 6).
| No. | Weight (mg) | Spiked (mg) | 1H | 2H | 3H | 1H+2H | 1H+3H | 2H+3H | 1H+2H+3H | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ||||||||||
| Found (mg) | Recovery (%) | Found (mg) | Recovery (%) | Found (mg) | Recovery (%) | Found (mg) | Recovery (%) | Found (mg) | Recovery (%) | Found (mg) | Recovery (%) | Found (mg) | Recovery (%) | |||
| 1 | 10.41 | 2.92 | 5.96 | 101.80 | 5.97 | 101.40 | 5.82 | 92.29 | 5.96 | 101.60 | 5.89 | 97.02 | 5.90 | 96.87 | 5.92 | 98.49 |
| 2 | 10.43 | 2.92 | 5.99 | 102.60 | 5.90 | 98.97 | 5.87 | 93.82 | 5.95 | 100.80 | 5.93 | 98.23 | 5.89 | 96.40 | 5.92 | 98.47 |
| 3 | 10.40 | 2.92 | 5.87 | 98.88 | 5.91 | 99.48 | 5.89 | 94.65 | 5.89 | 99.18 | 5.88 | 96.77 | 5.90 | 97.06 | 5.89 | 97.66 |
| 4 | 10.41 | 2.92 | 5.88 | 99.20 | 5.86 | 97.52 | 5.92 | 95.48 | 5.87 | 98.36 | 5.90 | 97.34 | 5.89 | 96.50 | 5.88 | 97.39 |
| 5 | 10.39 | 2.92 | 5.88 | 99.48 | 5.87 | 98.13 | 5.84 | 93.10 | 5.88 | 98.80 | 5.86 | 96.29 | 5.86 | 95.61 | 5.86 | 96.89 |
| 6 | 10.45 | 2.92 | 5.84 | 97.48 | 5.90 | 98.74 | 5.85 | 92.87 | 5.87 | 98.11 | 5.85 | 95.18 | 5.88 | 95.80 | 5.87 | 96.35 |
| Mean | — | — | — | 99.91 | — | 99.05 | — | 93.70 | — | 99.48 | — | 96.80 | — | 96.37 | — | 97.54 |
| RSDs (%) | — | — | — | 1.9 | — | 1.4 | — | 1.3 | — | 1.4 | — | 1.1 | — | 0.6 | — | 0.9 |
RSDs = relative standard deviations.
1H represented one proton (H-3) with a singlet peak at δ 6.69, 2H represented two protons (H-2′, H-6′) with doublet peaks at δ 7.88, and 3H represented three protons with peaks in the range of δ 6.96–6.98 (H-3′, H-5′, and H-8).
Figure 2Box plot of the recovery obtained (A) by proton nuclear magnetic resonance and (B) scatter plot of the deviations of scutellarin between proton nuclear magnetic resonance and ultra-performance liquid chromatography (UPLC). qNMR = quantitative nuclear magnetic resonance; ref. = reference.
Figure 3Representative ultra-performance liquid chromatography chromatogram of T-BV sample. AU = absorbance unit.
Figure 4The overlay nuclear magnetic resonance spectra of all breviscapine preparations.
The percentage contents of scutellarin in breviscapine preparations quantified using proton nuclear magnetic resonance signals at δ 7.88 (2H; n = 3).
| Sample | Mean ± SD, %(mg/mg) |
|---|---|
| T-BV | 28.25 ± 0.9 |
| T-BVLK-1 | 30.07 ± 0.2 |
| T-BVLK-2 | 28.56 ± 0.3 |
| T-XZ-1 | 9.82 ± 0.2 |
| T-XZ-2 | 9.98 ± 0.3 |
| T-YX-1 | 13.57 ± 0.7 |
| T-YX-2 | 13.95 ± 0.7 |
| I-SY | 405.89 ± 8.1 |
SD = standard deviation.
Breviscapine injection %(mg/mL).
Figure 5Dendrogram: (A) All breviscapine preparations and (B) all breviscapine tablets.