| Literature DB >> 29567258 |
Wei Xiang1, Tong-Chuan Suo2, Hua Yu1, An-Ping Li3, Shou-Qing Zhang3, Chun-Hua Wang1,2, Yan Zhu1, Zheng Li2.
Abstract
Due to its chemical complexity, proper quality control for a Chinese medical preparation (CMP) has been a great challenge. Choosing the appropriate quality markers (Q-markers) for quality control of CMP is an important work. Best of all, the chosen Q-markers are the main chemical compounds from the herbals as well as the active constituents of this CMP. Only in this way the established quality control system can really achieve the purpose of controlling the quality of CMP and ensuring the safely and effectively use of CMP. To achieve the purpose, network pharmacology combined with the contents of chemical compounds in the CMP has been used in this research. We took an anti-arrhythmic CMP, Shenxian-Shengmai oral liquid (SSOL), as an example. Firstly, UPLC-QTOF-MS/MS method was used to analyze the main components of SSOL. A total of 64 compounds were unambiguously or tentatively identified and 32 of them were further validated by reference compounds. Secondly, the network was constructed based on the identified compounds to predict the effective compounds related to cardiac arrhythmias. Based on the existing database and the operation method of topology, a method of double network analysis (DNAA) was proposed, from which 10 important targets in the pathway of arrhythmia were screened out, and 26 compounds had good antiarrhythmic activity. Based on the prediction results of network pharmacology along with the contents of the compounds in this CMP, ten representative compounds were chosen as the Q-markers for the quality control of SSOL. We find that five of these ten compounds, including danshensu, rosmarinic acid, salvianolic acid A, epimedin A and icariin, have antiarrhythmic activity. Then, the UPLC-DAD method was established as the control method for SSOL.Entities:
Keywords: Network pharmacology; Quality control; Quality marker; Shenxian Shengmai oral liquid
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2017 PMID: 29567258 PMCID: PMC9322248 DOI: 10.1016/j.jfda.2017.10.003
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Food Drug Anal Impact factor: 6.157
Fig. 1The representative BPI total ion chromatogram from a prepared sample of SSOL based on UPLC-QTOF-MS.
Fig. 2The DT network of the main components in SSOL which composed of the nodes of the 53 candidate ingredients (rectangles) and the 8 directly related targets (ellipses).
Fig. 3The DT network of the effective components in SSOL which composed of the nodes of the 26 effective ingredients (rectangles) and the 8 directly related targets (ellipses) and the 2 indirectly related targets (ellipses).
Regression equation, R2, linear ranges, LODs and LOQs, intraday and interday precisions, stability, repeatability and recovery for 10 compounds.
| Compounds | Regression equation | LOD | LOQ | Intraday (RSD, %) ( | Interday (RSD, %) ( | Stability (RSD, %) | Repeatability ( | Recovery ( | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
| |||||||||||||
| Mean (μg/mL) | RSD (%) | Original (μg) | Spiked (μg) | Detected (μg) | Recovery (%) | RSD (%) | ||||||||
| Danshensu | 0.9999 6.94–111.00 | 0.69 | 3.08 | 0.71 | 0.81 | 0.68 | 1337.44 ± 5.65 | 0.42 | 668.72 | 666.00 | 1332.06 | 99.60 | 2.53 | |
| Protocatechuic aldehyde | 1.0000 1.03–16.40 | 0.10 | 0.46 | 0.57 | 0.64 | 0.26 | 258.17 ± 1.70 | 0.66 | 129.08 | 131.20 | 251.15 | 93.04 | 1.89 | |
| Psoralenoside | 0.9999 25.25–404.00 | 0.17 | 0.68 | 0.06 | 0.46 | 0.18 | 5180.42 ± 17.58 | 0.34 | 2590.21 | 2828.00 | 5173.96 | 91.36 | 1.51 | |
| Isopsoralenoside | 0.9995 28.21–451.40 | 0.13 | 0.50 | 0.09 | 0.64 | 0.13 | 3852.62 ± 13.77 | 0.36 | 1926.31 | 1805.60 | 3897.14 | 109.15 | 0.77 | |
| Rosmarinic acid | 0.9998 0.57–9.10 | 0.25 | 0.58 | 0.67 | 0.78 | 1.16 | 141.42 ± 1.65 | 1.16 | 70.71 | 72.80 | 146.13 | 103.60 | 4.04 | |
| Salvianolic acid A | 0.9993 2.93–46.90 | 0.43 | 1.37 | 0.88 | 2.83 | 1.19 | 627.83 ± 20.75 | 3.30 | 313.91 | 281.40 | 580.38 | 94.69 | 4.60 | |
| Epimedin A1 | y = 17512x + 440.33 | 1.0000 3.41–54.5 | 0.27 | 1.36 | 0.44 | 2.74 | 0.41 | 701.70 ± 12.70 | 1.81 | 350.85 | 327.00 | 669.77 | 97.53 | 4.66 |
| Epimedin A | 0.9993 0.0.44–7.00 | 0.17 | 0.44 | 0.58 | 1.25 | 1.28 | 69.04 ± 1.00 | 1.45 | 34.52 | 42.00 | 75.66 | 97.96 | 3.38 | |
| Epimedin C | 0.9999 1.11–17.80 | 0.22 | 0.56 | 0.17 | 0.35 | 0.21 | 220.17 ± 2.55 | 1.16 | 110.08 | 106.80 | 212.12 | 95.54 | 3.92 | |
| Icariin | 0.9998 1.49–23.90 | 0.30 | 0.99 | 0.23 | 0.23 | 0.14 | 355.19 ± 1.19 | 0.33 | 177.60 | 191.2 | 360.16 | 95.48 | 1.51 | |
The regressive equations are presented as y = ax + b. y is the peak area, x is the concentration of compound.
LOD, limit of detection, S/N = 3.
LOQ, limit of quantification, S/N = 10.
Contents of the 10 compounds in 10 batches.
| No. | Contents (μg/mL) | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| ||||||||||
| Danshensu | Protocatechuic aldehyde Psoralenoside | Isopsoralenoside Rosmarinic acid Salvianolic acid A Epimedin A1 | Epimedin A | Epimedin C | Icariin | |||||
| Lot.1 | 1329.48 | 259.21 | 5184.24 | 3940.92 | 144.79 | 605.88 | 654.02 | 69.73 | 220.77 | 353.14 |
| Lot.2 | 1047.99 | 186.36 | 4288.40 | 3422.60 | 120.45 | 477.39 | 559.41 | 60.54 | 196.19 | 313.92 |
| Lot.3 | 1135.04 | 208.18 | 4725.56 | 3839.58 | 127.01 | 586.37 | 582.91 | 57.83 | 211.89 | 303.81 |
| Lot.4 | 1200.33 | 209.22 | 4686.14 | 3600.00 | 122.31 | 482.11 | 639.02 | 62.83 | 204.42 | 336.68 |
| Lot.5 | 1245.06 | 231.65 | 4873.31 | 3818.90 | 135.73 | 559.34 | 615.73 | 63.32 | 214.62 | 339.43 |
| Lot.6 | 1189.02 | 218.76 | 4602.29 | 3635.48 | 118.90 | 506.44 | 594.88 | 59.87 | 240.05 | 342.99 |
| Lot.7 | 1234.93 | 248.48 | 4946.83 | 3907.56 | 129.34 | 558.82 | 621.27 | 65.45 | 243.56 | 356.30 |
| Lot.8 | 1306.64 | 243.83 | 4729.74 | 3720.76 | 131.08 | 551.87 | 598.12 | 53.28 | 231.11 | 304.97 |
| Lot.9 | 1179.56 | 185.98 | 4360.10 | 3449.39 | 112.36 | 527.08 | 580.58 | 61.91 | 190.01 | 302.62 |
| Lot.10 | 1139.49 | 175.75 | 4626.03 | 3531.57 | 124.16 | 701.04 | 693.34 | 66.46 | 311.16 | 371.03 |
| Average | 1200.75 ± 83.61 | 216.74 ± 28.77 | 4702.26 ± 263.29 | 3686.68 ± 187.29 | 126.61 ± 9.23 | 555.63 ± 66.18 | 613.93 ± 39.81 | 62.12 ± 4.64 | 226.38 ± 34.62 | 332.49 ± 24.66 |
| RSD% | 6.96 | 13.27 | 5.61 | 5.08 | 7.29 | 11.91 | 6.48 | 7.47 | 15.29 | 7.42 |
Fig. 4The fingerprint of ten batches of SSOL (280 nm).
Fig. 5UPLC-DAD chromatograms of (a) the blank reference solution, (b) the mixed reference solution and (c) the SSOL sample solution of 280 nm (4: danshensu, 12: protocatechuic aldehyde, 17: psoralenoside, 18: isopsoralenoside, s27: rosmarinic acid, 34: salvianolic acid A, 35: epimedin A1, 36: epimedin A, 39: epimedin C, 41: icarin).