| Literature DB >> 33081333 |
Jenny Chun-Ling Kuo1, Li-Jie Zhang2, Hung-Tse Huang2,3, Chia-Ching Liaw2,4, Zhi-Hu Lin2, Min Liu5, Yao-Haur Kuo2,6.
Abstract
Eleven compounds, including nine known flavonoid glycosides (1-4, 6-8, and 10-11), one isoflavone glycoside (5), and a glansreginic acid (9), were isolated from the 80% ethanol extract of commercial Astragali Complanati Semen (ACS). All chemical structures were determined by spectroscopic analyses, including 1D and 2D NMR. Compounds 2, 4, 5, 6, 9, and 10 were isolated and identified from the title plant for the first time. Biological evaluation revealed that all the isolates showed promising anti-NO production, and 1, 2, 3, and 8 were more potent in antioxidant activity than vitamin E. The major peaks in the UPLC and HPLC profiles identified their chemical structures by comparing their retention time and UV spectra with those of the reference substances. Furthermore, nine of the eleven samples collected from North, Middle, and South regions of Taiwan possessed similar HPLC fingerprints and were identified as Astragali Complanati Semen, whereas the other two samples from southern Taiwan would be the adulterants due to the different fingerprinting patterns. In addition, an HPLC-UV method was employed to determine the content of target compound complanatuside (11) with good linear regression (R2 = 0.9998) for ACS in the Taiwanese market. Of the isolates, flavonol glycosides 1 and 3 were the major peaks in HPLC/UPLC, and showed more potent antioxidant and anti-NO production activities than that of 11, revealing that these compounds can be the available agents for the quality control of ACS.Entities:
Keywords: Astragali Complanati Semen; UHPLC fingerprint; anti-oxidation; complanatuside; flavanol glycosides
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2020 PMID: 33081333 PMCID: PMC7587559 DOI: 10.3390/molecules25204762
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Molecules ISSN: 1420-3049 Impact factor: 4.927
Figure 1The chemical structures of compounds 1–11 isolated from Astragali Complanati Semen (ACS).
13C NMR spectroscope data of compounds 1–8 and 10–11.
| No. | 1 a | 2 a | 3 b | 4 a | 5 b | 6 a | 7 a | 8 b | 10 b | 11 b |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2 | 158.4 | 159.4 | 156.5 | 158.4 | 153.8 | 158.3 | 158.3 | 146.6 | 156.7 | 156.6 |
| 3 | 135.3 | 135.8 | 133.7 | 135.1 | 124.6 | 135.6 | 135.0 | 136.3 | 133.5 | 134.2 |
| 4 | 179.5 | 179.4 | 177.6 | 179.6 | 175.1 | 179.3 | 179.6 | 176.1 | 177.8 | 177.9 |
| 4a | 105.8 | 105.6 | 104.1 | 105.8 | 118.7 | 105.7 | 105.7 | 103.3 | 104.3 | 105.3 |
| 5 | 163.1 | 163.0 | 161.4 | 163.1 | 127.3 | 162.9 | 163.1 | 164.2 | 161.5 | 161.1 |
| 6 | 99.7 | 100.0 | 98.8 | 99.8 | 115.9 | 99.8 | 99.9 | 98.5 | 99.1 | 98.2 |
| 7 | 165.8 | 166.4 | 164.3 | 165.9 | 161.7 | 165.9 | 166.1 | 164.2 | 164.4 | 165.5 |
| 8 | 94.5 | 94.9 | 93.6 | 94.6 | 103.7 | 94.7 | 94.7 | 93.90 | 94.0 | 92.6 |
| 8a | 158.4 | 158.5 | 156.5 | 158.3 | 157.3 | 158.6 | 158.5 | 156.4 | 156.7 | 156.2 |
| 1′ | 122.1 | 122.3 | 120.2 | 123.2 | 123.9 | 121.9 | 122.8 | 121.3 | 121.2 | 123.8 |
| 2′ | 109.9 | 110.3 | 108.7 | 116.1 | 116.6 | 106.7 | 135.0 | 107.7 | 115.5 | 116.0 |
| 3′ | 146.5 | 146.4 | 145.6 | 146.1 | 146.2 | 148.9 | 116.2 | 146.6 | 131.3 | 130.9 |
| 4′ | 137.9 | 138.0 | 136.8 | 149.7 | 147.9 | 138.7 | 161.5 | 137.5 | 160.2 | 159.5 |
| 5′ | 146.5 | 146.4 | 145.6 | 117.3 | 112.2 | 146.1 | 116.2 | 146.6 | 131.3 | 130.9 |
| 6′ | 109.9 | 110.3 | 108.7 | 123.4 | 120.1 | 111.1 | 135.0 | 110.9 | 115.5 | 116.0 |
| OCH3 | 55.9 | 57.0 | 56.4 | |||||||
| 1″ | 101.0 | 102.4 | 101.0 | 100.9 | 100.2 | 103.8 | 100.8 | 102.9 | 101.2 | 101.0 |
| 2″ | 82.2 | 75.7 | 74.1 | 82.3 | 73.3 | 75.9 | 82.4 | 73.5 | 74.5 | 74.4 |
| 3″ | 76.9 | 78.2 | 76.7 | 77.0 | 76.6 | 78.1 | 77.1 | 76.1 | 767 | 76.7 |
| 4″ | 70.9 | 71.4 | 70.0 | 71.0 | 69.9 | 71.4 | 71.1 | 69.9 | 70.2 | 70.1 |
| 5″ | 78.2 | 77.2 | 77.7 | 78.2 | 77.4 | 78.4 | 78.2 | 77.4 | 77.7 | 77.7 |
| 6″ | 62.3 | 68.6 | 61.2 | 62.4 | 60.9 | 62.5 | 62.4 | 60.9 | 61.1 | 61.0 |
| 1‴ | 105.2 | 104.8 | 105.4 | 105.5 | 100.1 | |||||
| 2‴ | 74.8 | 72.1 | 74.9 | 75.0 | 73.4 | |||||
| 3‴ | 78.3 | 72.1 | 78.4 | 78.4 | 76.6 | |||||
| 4‴ | 70.5 | 74.0 | 71.0 | 71.0 | 69.8 | |||||
| 5‴ | 66.5 | 69.7 | 66.6 | 66.7 | 77.2 | |||||
| 6‴ | 17.9 | 60.8 |
a Data were measured at 100 MHz in MeOD-d4; b Data were measured at 100 MHz in DMSO-d6.
Figure 2The key HMBC and 1H-1H COSY correlations of compounds 2, 4, 5, 8, and 9.
Method validation of complanatuside quantification by HPLC.
| Method Validation Item | Complanatuside (11) | |
|---|---|---|
| Concentration (μg/mL) | RSD % | |
| Injection precision (n = 5) | 15.0 | 1.35 |
| Intraday (n = 3) | 60.0 | 0.80 |
| 15.0 | 1.35 | |
| 1.9 | 1.00 | |
| Inter-day (n = 9) | 60.0 | 1.18 |
| 15.0 | 2.01 | |
| 1.9 | 2.99 | |
| Reproducibility (n = 5) | SF (0.5 g) | 4.25 |
| Stability (n = 5) | SF (0.5 g) | 1.04 |
| LOD (S/N = 3 μg/mL, n = 1) | 0.019 | - |
| LOQ (S/N = 10 μg/mL, n = 1) | 0.038 | - |
Figure 3The UPLC profile of Astragali Complanati Semen (254 nm).
Figure 4The HPLC-UV profile of Astragali Complanati Semen (254 nm). Blue line: The extract dissolved in MeOH was freshly prepared. Black line: The extract dissolved in MeOH was stored at room temperature for 3 weeks.
Figure 5HPLC chromatograph comparison of extraction times (Blue: the first extract, black: the second extract).
Figure 6HPLC profiles of Astragali Complanati Semen samples collected from the North, Middle, and south of Taiwan (254 nm).
Analysis of the recovery of complanatuside (n = 5).
| No. | Original (mg) | Addition (mg) | Detection (mg) | Recovery (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 0.6001 | 0.389 | 1.0051 | 104.12 |
| 2 | 0.6006 | 0.389 | 0.9870 | 99.34 |
| 3 | 0.6013 | 0.389 | 0.9983 | 102.07 |
| 4 | 0.6002 | 0.389 | 0.9930 | 100.99 |
| 5 | 0.6001 | 0.389 | 1.0208 | 108.14 |
| Average | 0.6005 | 0.389 | 1.0009 | 102.93 |
| RSD (%) | 0.085 | - | 1.30 | 3.30 |
The complanatuside content of 11 batches of commercial Astragali Complanatus Semen.
| Samples | Complanatuside (%) | Samples | Complanatuside (%) |
|---|---|---|---|
| NF | 0.106 ± 0.004 * | SC | 0 # |
| NH | 0.098 ± 0.001 * | SE | 0.115 ± 0.004 ** |
| NI | 0.095 ± 0.002 * | SF | 0.120 ± 0.002 ** |
| NJ | 0.134 ± 0.002 ** | SG | 0# |
| CD | 0.116 ± 0.006 * | SH | 0.109 ± 0.003 ** |
| OR | 0.062 ± 0.002 | THP/CHP | 0.06 |
THP: Taiwan Herbal Pharmacopeia; CHP: Pharmacopoeia of the People’s Republic of China. One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) followed by Dunnett’s test were used to analyze the data. The statistical analysis was performed with SPSS (* p < 0.01, ** p < 0.001). # not detected.
Antioxidant activity of DPPH scavenging a* for the extract, fractions, and the isolates 1–11.
| The Extract | Removal Effect | ED50 (μg/mL) | Compound | Removal Effect | ED50 (μM) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 80E | 53.34 ± 1.26 | 180.42 ± 5.22 |
| 98.93 ± 0.01 a | 14.34 ± 0.59 ab |
| 80EH | 10.67 ± 1.17 | (-) b* |
| 98.39 ± 0.00 a | 16.59 ± 0.85 b |
| 80ED0 | 13.12 ± 0.72 | (-) b* |
| 99.73 ± 0.13 a | 19.27 ± 0.46 b |
| 80ED25 | 99.23 ± 0.33 | 37.39 ± 0.33 |
| 94.54 ± 0.13 b | 39.36 ± 1.26 d |
| 80ED50 | 96.20 ± 3.00 | 50.89 ± 0.13 |
| 58.77 ± 0.13 c | 200.06 ± 0.63 g |
| 80ED75 | 57.31 ± 1.18 | 164.29 ± 3.58 |
| 97.23 ± 0.13 ab | 33.18 ± 1.64 c |
| 80ED95 | 64.61 ± 1.64 | 139.74 ± 3.39 |
| 1.97 ± 1.01 f | (-) c* |
| 80EDEA | 34.29 ± 0.62 | (-) b* |
| 99.55 ± 0.13 a | 14.77 ± 0.44 a |
|
| 5.37 ± 3.79 e | (-) c* | |||
|
| 31.57 ± 1.39 d | (-) c* | |||
|
| 0.15 ± 0.28 g | (-) c* | |||
| Vitamin C | - d* | 4.34 ± 0.28 | Vitamin C | - | 24.64 ± 1.58 d |
| Vitamin E | - | 12.67 ± 0.09 | Vitamin E | - | 29.42 ± 0.21 f |
a* All values are presented as mean ± SD (n = 3). b* ED50 value > 200 μg/mL. c* ED50 value > 200 μM. d* not tested. The significant difference was analyzed by one-way ANOVA with Duncan’s test in SPSS. Each group used different letters (a–g) to show statistical significance at p < 0.05.
Figure 7Anti-NO production activities (black column) and cell viability (red square) of the isolated compounds 1–11 (20 μg/mL). Cells were treated with LPS (1 μg/mL) or in combination with tested isolates (20 μg/mL) for 24 h. All values are presented as mean ± SD (n = 3). CTL: Control group. LPS: Treatment with LPS. The significant difference was analyzed by one-way ANOVA with Duncan’s test in SPSS. Each group used different letters (a–f) to show statistical significances (p < 0.05) in anti-NO activity.