| Literature DB >> 33222580 |
Peng Ji1, Chenchen Li1, Yanming Wei1, Fanlin Wu1, Shengli Liu1, Yongli Hua1, Wanling Yao1, Xiaosong Zhang1, Ziwen Yuan1, Yanqiao Wen1.
Abstract
CONTEXT: Angelica sinensis (Oliv.) Diels (Apiaceae) (syn. Angelica polymorpha Maxim var. sinensis Oliver) processed with yellow rice wine (WAS) has a blood-supplementing effect.Entities:
Keywords: Traditional Chinese medicine; components analysis; fraction screening
Year: 2020 PMID: 33222580 PMCID: PMC7877401 DOI: 10.1080/13880209.2020.1844760
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Pharm Biol ISSN: 1388-0209 Impact factor: 3.503
Figure 1.(A, B) Chromatogram of ferulic acid standard and sample (A: ferulic acid standard; B: sample).
Figure 2.The results of single factor experiments.
Factors and levels in the RSM design.
| Factors (symbol, units) | Levels | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| −1 | 0 | 1 | |
| Liquid–solid ratio (A, mL/g) | 7:1 | 8:1 | 9:1 |
| Soaking time (B, min) | 90 | 120 | 150 |
| Extraction time (C, min) | 130 | 150 | 170 |
Experimental design scheme of RSM and response value of OD.
| Serial number | Liquid-solid ratio ratio (A, mL/g) | Soaking time (B, min) | Extraction time (C, min) | OD |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | −1 | −1 | 0 | 0.7588 |
| 2 | 1 | −1 | 0 | 0.6965 |
| 3 | −1 | 1 | 0 | 0.4811 |
| 4 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0.5142 |
| 5 | −1 | 0 | −1 | 0.7134 |
| 6 | 1 | 0 | −1 | 0.4102 |
| 7 | −1 | 0 | 1 | 0.0000 |
| 8 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0.6621 |
| 9 | 0 | −1 | −1 | 0.4050 |
| 10 | 0 | 1 | −1 | 0.6253 |
| 11 | 0 | −1 | 1 | 0.0000 |
| 12 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0.4020 |
| 13 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.7711 |
| 14 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.9496 |
| 15 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.8168 |
| 16 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.8960 |
| 17 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.7043 |
Analysis of variance for the RSM model and regression coefficients.
| Source of variation | Sum of square | Degree of freedom | Mean square | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Model | 0.99 | 9 | 0.11 | 3.71 | 0.0488 |
| A-A | 0.014 | 1 | 0.014 | 0.46 | 0.5194 |
| B-B | 3.293 × 10−3 | 1 | 3.293 × 10−3 | 0.11 | 0.7483 |
| C-C | 0.15 | 1 | 0.15 | 5.03 | 0.0599 |
| AB | 2.275 × 10−3 | 1 | 2.275 × 10−3 | 0.077 | 0.7894 |
| AC | 0.23 | 1 | 0.23 | 7.89 | 0.0262 |
| BC | 8.254 × 10−3 | 1 | 8.254 × 10−3 | 0.28 | 0.6134 |
| A2 | 0.017 | 1 | 0.017 | 0.57 | 0.4746 |
| B2 | 0.097 | 1 | 0.097 | 3.28 | 0.1132 |
| C2 | 0.43 | 1 | 0.43 | 14.40 | 0.0068 |
| Residual | 0.21 | 7 | 0.030 | ||
| Missing item | 0.17 | 3 | 0.056 | 5.91 | 0.0595 |
| Net error | 0.038 | 4 | 9.5194 × 10−3 | ||
| Total deviation | 1.19 | 18 |
Note: A represents liquid-solid ratio (mL/g); B represents the soaking time (min); C represents the extraction time (min).
Figure 3.(A,B) The RSM results for the effects of the soaking time and the liquid-solid ratio on the OD value (a: response surface map; b: contour map).
Figure 4.(a, b) The RSM results for the effects of the liquid–solid ratio and the extraction time on the OD value (a: response surface map; b: contour map).
Figure 5.(a, b) The RSM results for the effects of the soaking time and the extraction time on the OD value (a: response surface map; b: contour map).
Figure 6.The observation results of body mass of mice.
Effects of various fractions of WASD on main organs indexes in blood deficiency mice.
| Group | Spleen index (%) | Thymus index (%) |
|---|---|---|
| NC | 0.0049 ± 0.0013 | 0.0035 ± 0.0003 |
| M | 0.0035 ± 0.0009* | 0.0020 ± 0.0005* |
| EAL | 0.0039 ± 0.0012 | 0.0021 ± 0.0003 |
| EAH | 0.0046 ± 0.0006# | 0.0023 ± 0.0006# |
| NBL | 0.0043 ± 0.0013 | 0.0026 ± 0.0009 |
| NBH | 0.0055 ± 0.0008#△◆ | 0.0029 ± 0.0008#△◆ |
| WL | 0.0050 ± 0.0017 | 0.0026 ± 0.0008 |
| WH | 0.0056 ± 0.0010#△▲ | 0.0034 ± 0.0007#△▲ |
Note. NC represents the normal control group; M represents the model group; EAL and EAH represent the intervention groups with low and high doses of ethyl acetate fraction, respectively; NBL and NBH represent the intervention groups with low and high doses of n-butanol fraction respectively; WL and WH represent the intervention groups with low and high doses of water fraction respectively; *represents the comparison with the NC; #represents the comparison with M; △represents the comparison with EAH; ▲represents the comparison with WL; ◆represents the comparison with NBL.
The trend of blood routine changes in each group of mice (mean ± SD).
| Group | WBC (109/L) | RBC (1012/L) | Hb (g/L) |
|---|---|---|---|
| NC | 3.38 ± 1.23 | 9.98 ± 0.75 | 146.33 ± 10.77 |
| M | 1.07 ± 0.7* | 5.09 ± 1.1* | 82.67 ± 14.38* |
| NBH | 2.35 ± 0.6# | 9.42 ± 0.7#△◆ | 153 ± 7.31#△◆ |
| NBL | 2.38 ± 0.12 | 8.11 ± 0.81 | 136.2 ± 14.88 |
| EAH | 2.47 ± 1.45# | 8.40 ± 0.45# | 135.67 ± 5.73# |
| EAL | 2.03 ± 0.53 | 7.99 ± 0.65 | 133.5 ± 13.46 |
| WH | 2.7 ± 0.57#▲ | 9.61 ± 0.65#△▲ | 151.75 ± 4.97#△▲ |
| WL | 2.07 ± 0.78 | 8.53 ± 0.23 | 134.67 ± 1.7 |
Note. NC represents the normal control group; M represents the model group; EAL and EAH represent the intervention groups with low and high doses of ethyl acetate fraction respectively; NBL and NBH represent the intervention groups with low and high doses of n-butanol fraction respectively; WL and WH represent the intervention groups with low and high doses of water fraction respectively; RBC represents the red blood cells; WBC represents the white blood cells; Hb represents haemoglobin; *represents the comparison with NC; #represents the comparison with M; △represents the comparison with EAH; ▲represents the comparison with WL; ◆represents the comparison with NBL.
Figure 7.The thymus tissue observation of mice in each group (400×).