| Literature DB >> 33829063 |
Yuqi Fan1,2, Dongyue Yang2, Xuhua Huang2, Guangzhe Yao2, Wei Wang2, Mengyuan Gao2, Xiaohua Jia2, Huizi Ouyang1,2, Yanxu Chang2, Jun He2.
Abstract
Asarum is a traditional medicine and has been widely used as remedies for inflammatory diseases, toothache, headache, local anesthesia, and aphthous stomatitis in China, Japan, and Korea. Our previous research found that safrole and methyl eugenol were vital compounds that contribute to distinguish the different species and raw Asarum and its processed products apart. The pharmacokinetics of safrole and methyl eugenol after oral administration of Asarum extract has not been reported yet. In this study, a rapid and simple gas chromatography-mass spectroscopy (GC-MS) method that has a complete run time of only 4.5 min was developed and validated for the simultaneous determination and pharmacokinetic study of safrole and methyl eugenol in rat plasma after administration of Asarum extracts. The chromatographic separation was realized on a DB-17 column (30 m × 0.25 mm × 0.25 μm). And detection was carried out under selected ion monitoring (SIM) mode. Plasma samples were pretreated by n-hexane. The pharmacokinetic parameters provided by this study will be beneficial for further developments and clinical applications of Asarum.Entities:
Year: 2021 PMID: 33829063 PMCID: PMC8004375 DOI: 10.1155/2021/6699033
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Biomed Res Int Impact factor: 3.411
Figure 1The chemical structures of (a) safrole, (b) methyl eugenol, and (c) IS.
Figure 2Mass spectrums of (a) safrole, (b) methyl eugenol, and (c) IS.
Figure 3The typical chromatograms of (1) IS, (2) safrole, and (3) methyl eugenol: (a) blank plasma, (b) blank plasma spiked with analytes and IS, and (C) plasma sample.
Calibration curves, correlation coefficients, linear ranges LLOD, and LLOQ of the 2 analytes.
| Compounds | Calibration curves | Correlation coefficients ( | Linear range (ng/mL) | LLOD (ng/mL) | LLOQ (ng/mL) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Safrole |
| 0.999 | 70–14000 | 10.5 | 35 |
| Methyl eugenol |
| 0.999 | 50–10000 | 7.5 | 25 |
Precision and accuracy of 2 analytes in rat plasma (n = 6).
| Compounds | Spiked concentration (ng/mL) | Intraday | Interday | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Measured concentration (ng/mL) | Accuracy (RE, %) | Precision (RSD, %) | Measured concentration (ng/mL) | Accuracy (RE, %) | Precision (RSD, %) | ||
| Safrole | 120 | 131.1 ± 9.9 | 9.2 | 7.6 | 133.7 ± 8.2 | 11.4 | 6.1 |
| 1200 | 1302.3 ± 14.2 | 8.5 | 1.1 | 1329.3 ± 28.7 | 10.8 | 2.2 | |
| 12000 | 12658.9 ± 83.5 | 5.5 | 0.7 | 12769.7 ± 185.2 | 6.4 | 1.5 | |
| Methyl eugenol | 80 | 86.6 ± 8.5 | 8.2 | 9.8 | 75.6 ± 6.0 | -5.5 | 8.0 |
| 800 | 746.0 ± 13.8 | -6.8 | 1.9 | 742.4 ± 14.4 | -7.2 | 1.9 | |
| 8000 | 7365.0 ± 46.9 | -7.9 | 0.6 | 7493.9 ± 172.4 | -6.3 | 2.3 | |
Matrix effect and extraction recovery of 2 analytes (n = 6).
| Compounds | Spiked concentration (ng/mL) | Extraction recovery (%) | RSD (%) | Matrix effect (%) | RSD (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Safrole | 120 | 91.8 ± 2.6 | 2.8 | 80.6 ± 2.2 | 2.7 |
| 1200 | 90.7 ± 3.6 | 4.0 | 90.9 ± 7.6 | 8.3 | |
| 12000 | 84.6 ± 5.6 | 6.6 | 88.0 ± 3.5 | 3.9 | |
| Methyl eugenol | 80 | 92.5 ± 3.6 | 3.9 | 88.6 ± 3.5 | 3.9 |
| 800 | 87.9 ± 4.4 | 5.0 | 97.6 ± 5.7 | 5.9 | |
| 8000 | 97.6 ± 5.5 | 5.6 | 104.8 ± 7.4 | 7.1 |
Stability of 2 analytes in rat plasma (n = 6).
| Compounds | Spiked concentration (ng/mL) | Room temperature for 4 h | Three freeze-thaw cycles | Auto-sampler for 12 h | -80°C for 7 days | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Measured concentration (ng/mL) | RSD (%) | Measured concentration (ng/mL) | RSD (%) | Measured concentration (ng/mL) | RSD (%) | Measured concentration (ng/mL) | RSD (%) | ||
| Safrole | 120 | 132.5 ± 12.4 | 9.3 | 137.0 ± 10.6 | 7.8 | 136.3 ± 11.8 | 8.7 | 135.1 ± 11.0 | 8.2 |
| 1200 | 1306.7 ± 15.7 | 1.2 | 1319.7 ± 21.2 | 1.6 | 1271.1 ± 3.3 | 0.3 | 1348.1 ± 41.4 | 3.1 | |
| 12000 | 12751.7 ± 38.6 | 0.3 | 12526.3 ± 331.5 | 2.7 | 12065.2 ± 210.7 | 1.8 | 12741.7 ± 103.1 | 0.8 | |
| Methyl eugenol | 80 | 89.6 ± 8.8 | 9.9 | 78.5 ± 6.5 | 8.2 | 73.9 ± 6.1 | 8.2 | 81.0 ± 5.2 | 6.5 |
| 800 | 751.7 ± 7.8 | 1.0 | 708.5 ± 16.2 | 2.3 | 727.7 ± 6.0 | 0.8 | 749.8 ± 40.7 | 5.4 | |
| 8000 | 7418.6 ± 62.9 | 0.9 | 7287.0 ± 522.7 | 7.2 | 7100.8 ± 230.4 | 3.2 | 7367.9 ± 638.7 | 8.7 | |
Figure 4Mean plasma concentration–time curves of safrole and methyl eugenol after oral administration of Asarum extract (mean ± SD, n = 6).
Main pharmacokinetic parameters of 2 analytes in rat plasma (n = 6, mean ± SD).
| Parameters | Safrole | Methyl eugenol |
|---|---|---|
|
| 1979.5 ± 267.1 | 823.0 ± 123.8 |
|
| 13.00 ± 1.10 | 6.67 ± 2.07 |
|
| 2.44 ± 2.72 | 3.67 ± 1.60 |
| AUC(0 − | 52974.6 ± 5289.0 | 15226.2 ± 2761.3 |
| AUC(0 − ∞) (h ng/mL) | 53006.3 ± 5264.2 | 15276.2 ± 2785.4 |
| MRT(0 − | 18.40 ± 0.64 | 10.61 ± 0.63 |
| MRT(0 − ∞) (h) | 18.39 ± 0.63 | 10.61 ± 0.63 |