| Literature DB >> 30915149 |
Yongsong Xu1, Sha Wu1, Yanchuan Wu2, Muxin Gong1, Zhimin Wang3.
Abstract
Wuzhuyu decoction (WZYD) has been clinically used to treat migraine effectively since Eastern Han Dynasty of ancient China. However, its antimigrainic ingredients remain unclear. In present study, the antimigrainic ingredients of WZYD were explored and optimized in nitroglycerin-induced migraine rats through correlation analysis of decoction spectra-pharmacological effects and absorption spectra-pharmacological using entropy-weighted partial least squares regression method. The decoction spectra and absorption spectra were obtained through the determination of nine main ingredients in ten kinds of WZYDs and WZYDs' single-pass intestinal perfusion samples using high performance liquid chromatography-diode array detector. The pharmacodynamics indexes related to migraine model rats were detected using high performance liquid chromatography method and kits after oral administration of WZYDs. Then, the key ingredients influencing indexes were achieved through the correlation analysis. And the optimization of key ingredients was acquired through uniform design experiment. The pharmacodynamic verification test was used to clarify the advantages of the optimized sample. The results showed that the final optimized sample, in which the concentrations of rutaecarpine, evodiamine, ginsendside Rb1, 6-gingerol, ginsendside Rg1, rutaevine, and limonin were 0.081, 0.565, 1.455, 0.159, 0.871, 0.178, and 0.009 mg·mL-1, respectively, provided the best comprehensive effect than another optimized sample and the best uniform design sample. Therefore, a new reliable method for rapidly recognizing and optimizing the effective constituents of WZYD treating migraine was established.Entities:
Year: 2019 PMID: 30915149 PMCID: PMC6409069 DOI: 10.1155/2019/6156754
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Evid Based Complement Alternat Med ISSN: 1741-427X Impact factor: 2.629
The experimental design schemes and the concentrations of ingredients in UDS and OS (mg·mL−1).
| Decoction | X1 | X2 | X3 | X4 | X5 | X6 | X7 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Rb1 | Rv | Ev | Ru | Rg1 | Li | 6-Gi | |
| UDS-1 | 0.059 | 0.078 | 0.279 | 0.055 | 0.639 | 3.620 | 0.030 |
| UDS-2 | 0.186 | 0.216 | 0.565 | 0.023 | 0.329 | 2.473 | 0.037 |
| UDS-3 | 0.313 | 0.354 | 0.231 | 0.074 | 0.019 | 1.325 | 0.060 |
| UDS-4 | 0.440 | 0.493 | 0.517 | 0.042 | 0.717 | 0.178 | 0.101 |
| UDS-5 | 0.567 | 0.631 | 0.183 | 0.010 | 0.407 | 4.003 | 0.159 |
| UDS-6 | 0.694 | 0.769 | 0.470 | 0.061 | 0.096 | 2.855 | 0.147 |
| UDS-7 | 0.821 | 0.009 | 0.136 | 0.029 | 0.794 | 1.708 | 0.043 |
| UDS-8 | 0.948 | 0.147 | 0.422 | 0.080 | 0.484 | 0.560 | 0.036 |
| UDS-9 | 1.074 | 0.285 | 0.088 | 0.048 | 0.174 | 4.385 | 0.120 |
| UDS-10 | 1.201 | 0.424 | 0.374 | 0.017 | 0.872 | 3.238 | 0.079 |
| UDS-11 | 1.328 | 0.562 | 0.040 | 0.068 | 0.562 | 2.090 | 0.113 |
| UDS-12 | 1.455 | 0.700 | 0.326 | 0.036 | 0.251 | 0.943 | 0.103 |
| OS-1 | 1.455 | 0.009 | 0.565 | 0.081 | 0.871 | 1.964 | 0.159 |
| OS-2 | 1.455 | 0.009 | 0.565 | 0.081 | 0.871 | 0.178 | 0.159 |
The composition and crude drug concentrations of the WZYD.
| Group | Drug concentration | Lcs | Rg1 | Re | Rb1 | Rv | Li | 6-Gi | Ev | Ru |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| g·mL−1 | mg·mL−1 | |||||||||
| WZYD-1 | 0.70 | 0.123 | 0.389 | 0.375 | 0.769 | 0.260 | 0.647 | 0.138 | 0.196 | 0.038 |
| WZYD-2 | 0.70 | 0.153 | 0.089 | 0.079 | 0.543 | 0.211 | 2.048 | 0.179 | 0.111 | 0.026 |
| WZYD-3 | 0.35 | 0.146 | 0.218 | 0.220 | 0.314 | 0.140 | 0.384 | 0.088 | 0.113 | 0.018 |
| WZYD-4 | 0.35 | 0.010 | 0.019 | 0.044 | 0.116 | 0.009 | 1.082 | 0.059 | 0.061 | 0.014 |
| WZYD-5 | 0.70 | 0.271 | 0.373 | 0.533 | 0.406 | 0.208 | 0.514 | 0.169 | 0.115 | 0.054 |
| WZYD-6 | 0.70 | 0.313 | 0.387 | 0.404 | 0.447 | 0.387 | 1.235 | 0.172 | 0.314 | 0.047 |
| WZYD-7 | 0.35 | 0.224 | 0.344 | 0.106 | 0.059 | 0.066 | 0.178 | 0.074 | 0.077 | 0.018 |
| WZYD-8 | 1.40 | 0.557 | 0.841 | 0.990 | 0.875 | 0.769 | 3.401 | 0.323 | 0.565 | 0.080 |
| WZYD-9 | 1.40 | 0.271 | 0.872 | 0.598 | 1.455 | 0.351 | 4.385 | 0.267 | 0.230 | 0.055 |
| WZYD-10 | 0.35 | 0.011 | 0.033 | 0.061 | 0.143 | 0.011 | 1.025 | 0.052 | 0.040 | 0.010 |
| UNOS | 0.70 | 0.125 | 0.329 | 0.095 | 0.109 | 0.107 | 0.069 | 0.046 | 0.035 | 0.017 |
The absorbed quantities of 9 ingredients in WZYD , n=6, μg·cm−2).
| Group | Lcs | Rg1 | Re | Rb1 | Rv | Li | 6-Gi | Ev | Ru |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| WZYD-1 | 4.29±2.47 | 2.94±1.38 | 1.59±1.04 | 2.10±2.30 | 3.80±0.93 | 2.79±0.80 | 0.81±0.20 | 0.47±0.12 | 0.29±0.06 |
| WZYD-2 | 7.75±3.36 | 1.63±0.85 | 0.58±0.40 | 2.10±0.45 | 2.10±0.32 | 2.67±0.57 | 0.95±0.09 | 0.19±0.10 | 0.05±0.01 |
| WZYD-3 | 4.82±1.85 | 3.18±1.29 | 2.11±0.38 | 0.90±0.56 | 2.10±0.59 | 0.90±0.26 | 0.45±0.08 | 0.10±0.04 | 0.05±0.01 |
| WZYD-4 | 1.90±0.78 | 0.56±0.19 | 0.73±0.24 | 0.30±0.21 | 0.05±0.02 | 0.53±0.20 | 0.59±0.18 | 0.08±0.10 | 0.03±0.01 |
| WZYD-5 | 10.16±2.95 | 3.55±1.35 | 1.59±0.92 | 1.50±0.81 | 1.45±0.39 | 2.39±0.40 | 0.62±0.12 | 0.08±0.02 | 0.07±0.03 |
| WZYD-6 | 0.39±0.22 | 3.17±0.81 | 2.10±0.57 | 2.34±1.19 | 4.21±0.94 | 3.04±0.53 | 0.54±0.10 | 0.52±0.15 | 0.11±0.02 |
| WZYD-7 | 3.32±1.30 | 3.17±0.53 | 1.12±0.15 | 0.74±0.21 | 0.66±0.18 | 0.26±0.08 | 0.40±0.05 | 0.06±0.01 | 0.04±0.01 |
| WZYD-8 | 5.20±3.88 | 2.50±1.08 | 0.38±0.35 | 2.12±1.34 | 2.72±1.42 | 1.12±0.96 | 0.27±0.15 | 0.09±0.07 | 0.10±0.04 |
| WZYD-9 | 18.21±9.48 | 16.93±7.12 | 10.81±4.03 | 5.77±3.70 | 4.21±2.99 | 6.61±4.81 | 0.89±0.53 | 0.34±0.27 | 0.14±0.14 |
| WZYD-10 | 1.39±0.45 | 1.82±0.24 | 0.46±0.06 | 1.02±0.37 | 0.49±0.06 | 0.41±0.25 | 0.43±0.11 | 0.09±0.01 | 0.03±0.00 |
Figure 1The pharmacodynamic results of screening experiments. (a, b, c) The contents of monoamine neurotransmitters determined by electrochemical detector. (d, e) The contents of NO-b and NO-p determined by NO assay kit. Data are shown as mean ± SEM (Fold change of normal group). ∗P < 0.05 and ∗∗P < 0.01 versus Normal group; #P < 0.05 and ##P < 0.01 versus Model group. Data were analysed by one-way ANOVA followed by least significant difference or Tambane's T2 analysis (n = 6 animals per group).
The regression coefficients of partial least squares regression between the contents of the nine ingredients in WZYD and the values of pharmacodynamic indices and the comprehensive effect between decoction spectrum, absorption spectrum, and pharmacodynamic effects.
| Ingredient | Unnormalized coefficients | Comprehensive effect | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| NE | 5-HT | 5-HIAA | NO-p | NO-b | Decoction spectra-effects | Absorption spectra-effects | |
| Lcs | 68.92 | 283.04 | -16.91 | -36.91 | -2.87 | 21.77 | -2.33 |
| Rg1 | 4.24 | -162.32 | -27.68 | 12.66 | -1.46 | -31.25 | -5.64 |
| Re | -38.73 | 8.31 | -6.16 | 26.65 | 0.47 | 5.69 | 5.85 |
| Rb1 | 21.08 | 135.46 | 9.91 | 11.03 | 0.34 | 11.82 | 6.01 |
| Rv | 7.69 | -537.48 | 26.35 | 35.12 | 0.34 | -75.33 | 1.82 |
| Li | -10.35 | -19.46 | -2.88 | 1.41 | 0.04 | -0.49 | 5.40 |
| 6-Gi | 73.89 | 167.61 | 65.15 | 35.72 | 1.48 | 7.60 | 6.73 |
| Ev | -35.77 | 524.10 | 20.20 | 12.37 | 0.35 | 82.31 | -71.36 |
| Ru | -14.12 | 345.56 | 203.52 | -501.13 | 11.40 | 193.08 | 36.92 |
Notes: ∗the cost indices including NE, NO-p, and NO-b that needed to change the sign.
Figure 2The pharmacodynamic results of uniform design experiments. (a, b, c) The contents of monoamine neurotransmitters determined by electrochemical detector. (d, e) The contents of NO-b and NO-p determined by NO assay kit. Data are shown as mean ± SEM (Fold change of normal group). ∗P < 0.05 and ∗∗P < 0.01 versus Normal group; #P < 0.05 and ##P < 0.01 versus Model group. Data were analysed by One-way ANOVA followed by least significant difference or Tambane's T2 analysis (n = 6 animals per group).
Figure 3The pharmacodynamic results of uniform verification test. (a, b, c) The contents of monoamine neurotransmitters determined by electrochemical detector. (d, e) The contents of NO-b, NO-p determined by NO assay kit. (f) The Y calculated through the entropy-weighted partial least squares method. Data are shown as mean ± SEM (fold change of normal group). ∗P < 0.05 and ∗∗P < 0.01 versus Normal group; #P < 0.05 and ##P < 0.01 versus Model group; P < 0.05 and P < 0.01 versus UNOS group; P < 0.05 and P < 0.01 versus UDS-10 group; ★P < 0.05 and ★★P < 0.01 versus OS-1 group. Data were analysed by One-way ANOVA followed by least significant difference or Tambane's T2 analysis (n = 6 animals per group).