| Literature DB >> 29734695 |
Yamin Zuo1,2, Xuehua Deng3, Qing Wu4,5.
Abstract
Discrimination of Gastrodia elata (Entities:
Keywords: Gastrodia elata; geographical origin; multivariate analysis; near infrared spectroscopy; phenolic compounds content; quality evaluation
Mesh:
Year: 2018 PMID: 29734695 PMCID: PMC6100057 DOI: 10.3390/molecules23051088
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Molecules ISSN: 1420-3049 Impact factor: 4.411
The sampling regions of G. eleta.
| Batch No. | Geographic Origin | Sample No. | Site | Harvesting Time |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Yangtse Gorges and shennongjia area | 1–10 | Yichang (Hubei) | 2017.12 |
| 2 | 11–20 | 2018.1 | ||
| 3 | 21–30 | Hanzhong (Shanxi) | 2017.12 | |
| 4 | 31–40 | 2018.1 | ||
| 5 | Southwest provinces area | 41–50 | Zhaotong (Yunnan) | 2017.12 |
| 6 | 51–60 | 2018.1 | ||
| 7 | 61–70 | Dafang (Guizhou) | 2017.12 | |
| 8 | 71–80 | 2018.1 | ||
| 9 | Dabieshan area | 81–90 | Dabieshan (Anhui) | 2017.12 |
| 10 | 91–100 | 2018.1 | ||
| 11 | 101–110 | Funiushan (Henan) | 2017.12 | |
| 12 | 111–120 | 2018.1 | ||
| 13 | Northeast provinces area | 121–130 | Fusong (Jilin) | 2017.12 |
| 14 | 131–140 | 2018.1 | ||
| 15 | 141–150 | Dandong (Liaoning) | 2017.12 | |
| 16 | 151–160 | 2018.1 |
Orthogonal experiment table of G. elata’s extraction technology.
| A (Solvent) | B (Method) | C (Time) | D (Column) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | water | ultrasonic | 30 min | C18 |
| 2 | water | reflux | 40 min | C18 |
| 3 | water | soak at room temperature | 15 min | C18 |
| 4 | methanol | soak at room temperature | 40 min | C18 |
| 5 | methanol | ultrasonic | 15 min | C18 |
| 6 | methanol | reflux | 30 min | C18 |
| 7 | diluted | reflux | 15 min | C8 |
| 8 | diluted | soak at room temperature | 30 min | C8 |
| 9 | diluted | ultrasonic | 40 min | C8 |
Figure 1Typical HPLC chromatogram of sample solution of G. elata (A) and mixed standard solution (B). 1. GA, gastrodin; 2. HA, p-hydroxybenzyl alcohol; 3. PB, parishin B; 4. PA, parishin A.
Contents of four phenolic compounds in 16 batches of G. elata samples (n = 10).
| Batch No. | Site | GA (mg/g) | HA (mg/g) | PB (mg/g) | PA (mg/g) | Total (mg/g) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Yichang (Hubei) | 0.35 ± 0.01 | 3.29 ± 0.11 | 1.09 ± 0.01 | 5.19 ± 0.01 | 9.92 ± 0.02 |
| 2 | 0.40 ± 0.03 | 4.01 ± 0.12 | 1.21 ± 0.02 | 6.01 ± 0.03 | 11.63 ± 0.21 | |
| 3 | Hanzhong (Shanxi) | 0.52 ± 0.03 | 3.11 ± 0.14 | 0.92 ± 0.03 | 6.99 ± 0.16 | 11.54 ± 0.11 |
| 4 | 0.61 ± 0.04 | 4.39 ± 0.10 | 0.96 ± 0.04 | 6.62 ± 0.17 | 12.29 ± 0.12 | |
| 5 | Zhaotong (Yunnan) | 0.59 ± 0.02 | 5.19 ± 0.11 | 1.30 ± 0.07 | 5.20 ± 0.10 | 12.31 ± 0.19 * |
| 6 | 0.51 ± 0.01 | 5.02 ± 0.10 | 1.29 ± 0.01 | 6.33 ± 0.13 | 13.24 ± 0.21 * | |
| 7 | Dafang (Guizhou) | 1.20 ± 0.01 | 6.11 ± 0.09 | 1.49 ± 0.14 | 7.01 ± 0.12 | 15.90 ± 0.31 * |
| 8 | 1.09 ± 0.01 | 6.34 ± 0.05 | 1.32 ± 0.15 | 7.99 ± 0.11 | 16.51 ± 0.22 * | |
| 9 | Dabieshan (Anhui) | 0.45 ± 0.02 | 4.09 ± 0.12 | 1.06 ± 0.01 | 4.29 ± 0.12 | 9.90 ± 0.13 |
| 10 | 0.50 ± 0.07 | 4.21 ± 0.11 | 1.09 ± 0.03 | 4.03 ± 0.03 | 9.87 ± 0.14 | |
| 11 | Funiushan (Henan) | 0.28 ± 0.01 | 3.09 ± 0.01 | 0.99 ± 0.01 | 5.09 ± 0.04 | 9.51 ± 0.15 |
| 12 | 0.39 ± 0.02 | 3.21 ± 0.03 | 0.69 ± 0.01 | 4.69 ± 0.01 | 8.79 ± 0.21 | |
| 13 | Fusong (Jilin) | 0.39 ± 0.01 | 3.29 ± 0.04 | 0.69 ± 0.05 | 3.09 ± 0.06 | 7.32 ± 0.11 ▲ |
| 14 | 0.29 ± 0.02 | 4.01 ± 0.02 | 0.59 ± 0.06 | 3.29 ± 0.17 | 8.23 ± 0.14 ▲ | |
| 15 | Dandong (Liaoning) | 0.39 ± 0.01 | 3.29 ± 0.11 | 1.21 ± 0.04 | 4.09 ± 0.10 | 8.79 ± 0.21 ▲ |
| 16 | 0.29 ± 0.01 | 3.29 ± 0.09 | 0.99 ± 0.06 | 3.29 ± 0.09 | 7.68 ± 0.10 ▲ |
* Compared to other three main-cultivated regions, there was a prominent significance in these groups (p < 0.05). ▲ Compared to Southwest provinces area main-cultivated regions, there was a prominent significance in these groups (p < 0.05). The data showed in table were expressed as Mean ± SD.
Figure 2The clustering analysis of 16 batch G. elata samples.
Figure 3(A) The raw absorbance spectra of G. elata samples from different geographical origins; (B) Preprocessed spectra using Savitzky-Golay (SG) and FD pretreatment of G. elata samples from different geographical origins.
Division and parameters of samples in the calibration and validation set (mg/g).
| Parameters | Subsets | S.N. a | Range | Mean | S.D. b |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| GA | calibration set | 100 | 0.26–1.28 | 0.72 | 2.1 |
| validation set | 60 | 0.22–1.24 | 0.76 | 1.9 | |
| HA | calibration set | 100 | 3.02–6.54 | 4.75 | 2.5 |
| validation set | 60 | 3.01–6.49 | 4.65 | 2.2 | |
| PB | calibration set | 100 | 0.63–1.29 | 0.92 | 1.6 |
| validation set | 60 | 0.60–1.27 | 0.91 | 1.8 | |
| PA | calibration set | 100 | 3.02–8.21 | 5.62 | 2.0 |
| validation set | 60 | 3.01–8.32 | 5.82 | 2.5 | |
| PCC (total) | calibration set | 100 | 7.03–16.98 | 12.91 | 4.6 |
| validation set | 60 | 7.21–16.56 | 12.43 | 4.2 |
a S.N., the number of samples; b S.D., standard deviation.
Figure 4(A) Principal component score plot of PC1 and PC2 based on near infrared (NIR) spectra of G. elata samples from eight different cities: 1. Yichang (Hubei) 2. Dabieshan (Anhui) 3. Zhaotong (Yunnan) 4. Hanzhong (Shanxi) 5. Fusong (Jilin) 6. Dandong (Liaoning) 7. Dafang (Guizhou) 8. Funiushan (Henan); (B) Principal component score plot of PC1 and PC2 based on NIR spectra of G. elata samples from four main-cultivated areas: 1. Yangtse Gorges and Shennongjia area; 2. Northeast provinces area; 3. Dabieshan area; 4. Southwest provinces area; (C) Three-dimensional score plot using PC1, PC2, and PC3 for discriminating G. elata from four main-cultivated areas: 1. Yangtse Gorges and shennongjia area; 2. Northeast provinces area; 3. Dabieshan area; 4. Southwest provinces area.
Figure 5The correlative near infrared spectrum (NIRS) regions used for the classification of four different main-cultivated areas of PC1, PC2 and PC3.
Numbers that had been incorrectly classified for G. elata samples using discriminant analysis (DA) models on the raw spectra and those with various transformation (n = 100).
| Data Pretreatment | Eight Different Cities | Four Main-Cultivate Origins | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Calibration Set | Correct Percent (%) | Calibration Set | Correct Percent (%) | |
| RAW | 35 (5) a | 60 | 28 (7) | 65 |
| MSC | 23 (2) | 75 | 22 (8) | 70 |
| SNV | 20 | 80 | 15 | 85 |
| MSC + FD | 15 | 85 | 10 (9) | 81 |
| SNV + FD | 13 | 87 | 8 | 92 |
| MSC + SD | 2 | 98 | 3 | 97 |
| SNV + SD | 5 | 95 | 10 | 90 |
a The number in brackets represents the number of outlier samples.
Figure 6(A) DA scores plot of G. elata samples marked by different geographical origins from eight differentcities: 1. Yichang (Hubei) 2. Hanzhong (Shanxi) 3. Zhaotong (Yunnan) 4. Dafang (Guizhou) 5. Dabieshan (Anhui) 6. Funiushan (Henan) 7 Fusong (Jilin) 8. Dandong (Liaoning). The red arrows referred to sample that misclassified in calibration sets; (B) DA scores plot of G. elata samples marked by different geographical origins. From four main-cultivated areas: 1. Yangtse Gorges and Shennongjia area; 2. Northeast provinces area; 3. Dabieshan area; 4. Southwest provinces area.
Discrimination results (rate%) of established principal component analysis (PCA) and DA models for the G. elata validation set.
| Geographic Origin | Validation Set (%) | Cities | Validation Set (%) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PCA | DA | PCA | DA | ||
| Yangtse Gorges and shennongjia area | 90 | 98 | Yichang (Hubei) | 90 | 95 |
| Hanzhong (Shanxi) | 93 | 98 | |||
| Southwest provinces area | 91 | 95 | Zhaotong (Yunnan) | 91 | 97 |
| Dafang (Guizhou) | 90 | 98 | |||
| Dabieshan area | 93 | 98 | Dabieshan (Anhui) | 91 | 97 |
| Funiushan (Henan) | 92 | 99 | |||
| Northeast area | 90 | 99 | Fusong (Jilin) | 93 | 98 |
| Dandong (Liaoning) | 92 | 99 | |||
Results of Si-PLS models with selected optimal spectral subintervals for PCC.
| Number of Subintervals | Selected Subintervals | PCs | RC2 | RMSECV | RP2 | RMSEP |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 11 | [1 3] | 8 | 0.8995 | 0.534 | 0.8923 | 0.657 |
| 12 | [3 7] | 7 | 0.8997 | 0.589 | 0.8976 | 0.602 |
| 13 | [4 5] | 8 | 0.9021 | 0.498 | 0.9128 | 0.592 |
| 14 | [3 8] | 6 | 0.9011 | 0.482 | 0.9010 | 0.438 |
| 15 | [2 4] | 6 | 0.9265 | 0.338 | 0.9209 | 0.338 |
| 16 | [3 6 8] | 9 | 0.9162 | 0.432 | 0.9121 | 0.429 |
| 17 | [4 7 9] | 8 | 0.9076 | 0.412 | 0.9056 | 0.403 |
| 18 | [3 9 11] | 7 | 0.9129 | 0.398 | 0.9117 | 0.376 |
| 19 | [2 5 12] | 7 | 0.9245 | 0.388 | 0.9232 | 0.365 |
| 20 | [4 9 15] | 8 | 0.9211 | 0.401 | 0.9121 | 0.398 |
| 21 | [6 8 14] | 9 | 0.9234 | 0.385 | 0.9136 | 0.374 |
| 22 | [3 8 13] | 8 | 0.9019 | 0.376 | 0.9002 | 0.365 |
| 23 | [7 9 14] | 8 | 0.8992 | 0.402 | 0.8945 | 0.398 |
| 24 | [4 9 15] | 6 | 0.9128 | 0.343 | 0.9109 | 0.312 |
| 25 | [5 8 11 14] | 6 | 0.9211 | 0.351 | 0.9145 | 0.326 |
Figure 7The optimal spectral sub-intervals selected for G. elata samples’ Si-PLS model establishment.
Figure 8Reference measured versus NIR prediction by synergy interval partial least squares (Si-PLS) in calibration and prediction set of G. elata samples.
Figure 9Plot of root mean square error of the cross validation (RMSECV) versus number of factors selected by Si-PLS for PCC.