| Literature DB >> 29295657 |
Qian Zhang1, Ya-Li Wang1, Die Gao2, Liang Cai1, Yi-Yao Yang1, Yuan-Jia Hu3, Feng-Qing Yang1, Hua Chen1, Zhi-Ning Xia1.
Abstract
CONTEXT: Selaginella tamariscina (P. Beauv.) Spring (Selaginellaceae) (ST) has been widely used in China as a medicine for improving blood circulation. However, its processed product, S. tamariscina carbonisatus (STC), possesses opposite haemostatic activity.Entities:
Keywords: Haemorheology and plasma coagulation system; activity transformation; amentoflavone; dihydrocaffeic acid; natural products
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2018 PMID: 29295657 PMCID: PMC6130545 DOI: 10.1080/13880209.2017.1421673
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Pharm Biol ISSN: 1388-0209 Impact factor: 3.503
Figure 1.Effects of ST and STC on bleeding time. Data are shown as mean ± SD from six independent experiments (n = 6). #p < 0.05, ##p < 0.01 vs. control group. *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01 vs. model group.
Effects of ST and STC on WBV and plasma viscosity at various shear rates (n = 6).
| WBV (mPa | PV (mPa | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Group | 150 s−1 | 80 s−1 | 10 s−1 | 100 s−1 |
| Control | 4.79 ± 0.04 | 5.80 ± 0.04 | 9.77 ± 0.08 | 0.63 ± 0.08 |
| Model | 4.04 ± 0.10 | 4.82 ± 0.08 | 8.39 ± 0.41 | 0.43 ± 0.03 |
| YNBY | 4.78 ± 0.15 | 5.80 ± 0.20 | 9.68 ± 0.20 | 0.58 ± 0.08 |
| ST | 4.19 ± 0.25 | 5.04 ± 0.25 | 8.56 ± 0.53 | 0.45 ± 0.07 |
| STC | 4.81 ± 0.16 | 5.88 ± 0.24 | 10.09 ± 0.62 | 0.52 ± 0.03 |
Data represent mean ± SD; n = 6.
p < 0.05.
p < 0.01 vs. control group.
p < 0.05.
p < 0.01 vs. model group.
Figure 2.Effects of ST and STC on (A) erythrocyte sedimentation rate blood an d (B) packed cell volume . Data are shown as mean ± SD from six independent experiments (n = 6). #p < 0.05, ##p < 0.01 vs. control group. *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01 vs. model group.
Effects of ST and STC on plasma coagulation parameters (n = 6).
| Group | PT (INR) | APTT (S) | TT (S) | FIB (g/L) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Control | 1.32 ± 0.02 | 12.23 ± 0.21 | 21.70 ± 0.26 | 3.16 ± 0.39 |
| Model | 3.00 ± 0.18 | 26.10 ± 2.05 | 26.77 ± 0.23 | 2.74 ± 0.12 |
| YNBY | 1.10 ± 0.10 | 10.47 ± 0.15 | 20.70 ± 0.79 | 4.24 ± 0.24 |
| ST | 2.68 ± 0.03 | 21.78 ± 0.73 | 24.57 ± 0.91 | 1.93 ± 0.10 |
| STC | 2.70 ± 0.16 | 20.70 ± 0.87 | 25.17 ± 2.83 | 4.61 ± 0.10 |
Data represent mean ± SD; n = 6.
p < 0.05.
p < 0.01 vs. control group.
p < 0.05.
p < 0.01 vs. model group.
Figure 3.The representative HPLC-DAD chromatograms of (a) ST and (b) STC.
Peak area of each common peak and their difference according to the percentage of the peak area (n = 3).
| Average peak area (mAu*s) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Peak No. | RT (min) | ST | STC | Relative peak area (%) |
| 1 | 5.80 | 13.708 | 84.068 | 513.3 |
| 2 | 6.62 | 0 | 130.509 | - |
| 3 | 6.86 | 0 | 54.734 | - |
| 4 | 8.30 | 23.411 | 62.233 | 165.8 |
| 5 | 9.38 | 0 | 35.127 | - |
| 6 | 10.10 | 0 | 216.239 | - |
| 7 | 12.92 | 589.492 | 1437.932 | 143.9 |
| 8 | 14.21 | 49.023 | 291.345 | 494.3 |
| 9 | 14.55 | 134.170 | 385.475 | 187.3 |
| 10 | 16.28 | 57.813 | 218.027 | 277.1 |
| 11 | 17.75 | 76.123 | - | - |
| 12 | 18.06 | 82.090 | - | - |
| 13 | 18.50 | 24.553 | 173.790 | 607.8 |
| 14 | 38.44 | 4060.629 | 1111.537 | −72.6 |
| 15 | 40.15 | 290.058 | 162.276 | −44.1 |
| 16 | 43.20 | 13,261.2 | 2829.810 | −78.7 |
| 17 | 45.84 | 695.155 | 125.190 | −455.3 |
| 18 | 50.15 | 283.666 | 120.318 | −135.8 |
| 19 | 52.75 | 360.707 | 130.619 | −176.2 |
| 20 | 54.33 | 445.917 | 111.570 | −299.7 |
| 21 | 56.19 | 617.787 | 196.478 | −214.4 |
| 22 | 56.97 | 2281.816 | 379.666 | −83.4 |
| 23 | 58.47 | 321.651 | 84.189 | −282.1 |
| 24 | 64.89 | 1481.749 | 470.781 | −68.2 |
| 25 | 71.75 | 495.447 | 209.253 | −136.8 |
Data are shown as mean from three independent experiments, n = 3.
Value cannot be calculated accurately.
The value is approximate infinity.
Figure 4.Total ion chromatograms of STC in (A) positive mode and (B) negative mode.
Identification of constituents in ST and STC by HPLC–IT-TOF–MS in positive and negative ion mode.
| Peak No. | tR | UV | M + H+ | MS2 | M − H− | MS2 | Molecular formula | Plausible identity |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 11 | 16.87 | 264.1011 | 236.1047; 170.0607 | Unknown | ||||
| 13 | 17.89 | 220, 280 | 183.0639 | 155.0719; 123.0416 | 181.0576 | C9H10O4 | Dihydrocaffeic acid | |
| 14 | 37.65 | 265, 295 | 513.1727 | 467.1767; 419.1286; 378.1252 | 511.157 | 404.1059; 375.0987 | C34H24O5 | Selaginellin J |
| 15 | 39.22 | 265, 300 | 513.1818 | 419.1394; 285.0859 | 511.156 | 481.1415; 404.1079; 389.1165; 375.1059; 297.0898; 197.0651 | C34H24O5 | Selaginellin I or iso |
| 16 | 42.31 | 270, 335 | 539.1008 | 497.0921; 403.0459; 377.0677; 335.056 | 537.0825 | 443.041; 375.0514; 331.0612 | C30H18O10 | Amentoflavone |
| 17 | 45.81 | 270, 340 | 537.0847 | 443.0397; 375.0515; 309.0396; 251.0327 | C30H18O10 | Hinokiflavone | ||
| 18 | 49.45 | 511.1557 | 417.1129; 323.0679 | 509.1425 | 467.1301; 416.105; 374.0966 | Unknown | ||
| 19 | 51.92 | 265, 340 | 553.1165 | 521.0859; 401.1019; 376.0581; 255.0584 | 551.0993 | 519.0731; 457.0557; 431.085 | C31H20O10 | 4′-O-Methyl robustaflavone |
| 20 | 53.86 | 295, 430 | 483.1603 | 484.1625; 389.117; 371.1135; 271.0742 | 481.146 | 388.1095; 359.1099; 295.0751; 184.0481 | C33H22O4 | Selaginellin A |
| 21 | 55.44 | 270, 340 | 553.116 | 511.11; 417.0598; 361.0703; 270.0549 | 551.1009 | 457.0565; 389.0664; 375.051 | C31H20O10 | 7-O-Methyl robustaflavone |
| 22 | 56.20 | 270, 340 | 539.0972 | 493.0933; 417.0628; 375.0536; 269.0474 | 537.0856 | 387.0858; 375.0557; 270.0507; 241.0449 | C30H18O10 | Robustaflavone |
| 23 | 57.99 | 300, 430 | 497.1771 | 403.1332; 385.1223; 309.0901; 199.0748 | 495.1629 | 401.1186; 373.1207; 161.0425 | C34H24O4 | Selaginellin B or Selaginellin N |
| 24 | 64.09 | 270, 340 | 553.12096 | 536.0734; 492.0879; 255.0304 | 551.0981 | 554.1175; 521.0884; 401.1039; 375.0468; 299.0553; 255.064; 135.0013 | C31H20O10 | 7-O-Methyl amentoflavone |
| 25 | 70.66 | 270, 330 | 581.1497 | 549.1209; 449.081; 431.0764; 298.0776 | 579.1302 | 547.1020; 403.0823 | C33H24O10 | Heveaflavone |
Figure 5.Effects of dihydrocaffeic acid on New Zealand rabbit platelet aggregation induced by collagen and trap-6. Data are expressed as mean ± SD of six measurements (n = 6). **p < 0.01 as compared to control group; *p < 0.05 as compared to control group.
Effects of dihydrocaffeic acid on New Zealand rabbit platelet plasma TT, APTT, PT (INR) (n = 6).
| Coagulation parameter | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Compound (concentration μM) | TT (S) | APTT (S) | PT (INR) |
| Control | 10.00 ± 0.96 | 15.47 ± 0.83 | 1.00 ± 0.01 |
| Dihydrocaffeic acid (85.9 μM) | 11.33 ± 0.80 | 13.80 ± 1.32 | 1.03 ± 0.02 |
| Dihydrocaffeic acid (171.7 μM) | 9.63 ± 1.03 | 10.63 ± 0.58 | 0.90 ± 0.05 |
| Dihydrocaffeic acid (343.4 μM) | 9.37 ± 0.12 | 8.77 ± 0.35 | 0.87 ± 0.03 |
Data were expressed as mean ± SD, n = 6.
p < 0.01 as compared to control group.
p < 0.05 as compared to control group.
Figure 6.Effects of amentoflavone on New Zealand rabbit platelet aggregation induced by THR, ADP and AA. Data are expressed as mean ± SD of six measurements (n = 6). **p < 0.01 as compared to control group; *p < 0.05 as compared to control group.