| Literature DB >> 35478822 |
Kuncheng Qiu1, Zunjiang Li1, Yingxin Long1, Zhongyu Lu1, Wei Zhu1,2.
Abstract
Traditional Chinese medicine PaoTianXiong (PTX) is a processed product of Aconitum carmichaeli Debx. with polysaccharide as the main ingredient. The properties of PTX polysaccharide (PTXP) may be affected by different extraction methods. To develop and utilize PTXP better, it is of great significance to study the extraction methods of PTXP. Thus, we extracted PTXPs with dilute alkaline water extraction, ultrasound-assisted extraction, cellulase-assisted extraction, and hot water extraction (HWE), respectively. The characterizations of PTXPs extracted by different methods were analyzed based on purity determination, infrared analysis, molecular weight and monosaccharide composition. And antioxidant experiments of PTXPs were conducted. The results showed that PTXPs extracted by the four extraction methods were all glucan. After purification, the PTXPs showed similar antioxidant activity in vitro. The molecular weight of polysaccharides extracted by the cellulase-assisted method was different from that extracted by the other three methods. Our results showed that not only the yield but also the effect of extraction methods on the properties of PTXP should be considered when selecting the best extraction method. Therefore, HWE was considered to be the best extraction method of PTXP. The yield and purity of purified PTXP were 24.5% and 97.1%, respectively. The optimized extraction conditions were: an extraction temperature of 90 °C, extraction time of 2.17 h, solid-liquid ratio of 1 : 29 (g mL-1), and number of extractions of 2. This journal is © The Royal Society of Chemistry.Entities:
Year: 2021 PMID: 35478822 PMCID: PMC9034042 DOI: 10.1039/d1ra03628a
Source DB: PubMed Journal: RSC Adv ISSN: 2046-2069 Impact factor: 4.036
Yield and purity of PTXPs (%, x̄ ± s, n = 3)a
|
|
|
|
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| DAE | 29.4 ± 2.9*### | 15.3 ± 2.5# | 52.1 ± 5.1ΔΔΔ | 95.6 ± 0.9 |
| UAE | 28.4 ± 1.9*# | 18.1 ± 4.0 | 63.8 ± 14.3ΔΔΔ | 96.5 ± 3.0 |
| CAE | 25.2 ± 2.3** | 20.3 ± 1.9 | 80.4 ± 4.5∇∇ | 96.7 ± 0.9 |
| HWE | 38.7 ± 2.0### | 24.5 ± 4.7 | 63.3 ± 9.0ΔΔΔ | 97.1 ± 2.5 |
W 1 compared with W2: *P < 0.05, **P < 0.01; DAE, UAE, CAE compared with HWE: #P < 0.05, ##P < 0.01, ###P < 0.001; W3 compared with W4: ΔP < 0.05, ΔΔP < 0.01, ΔΔΔP < 0.001; DAE, UAE, HWE compared with CAE: ∇P < 0.05, ∇∇P < 0.01, ∇∇∇P < 0.001.
Fig. 1Molecular weight of purified PTXPs. (A) Dilute alkaline extraction-polysaccharide of PaoTianXiong (DAE-PTXP); (B) ultrasonic-assisted extraction-polysaccharide of PaoTianXiong (UAE-PTXP); (C) hot water extraction-polysaccharide of PaoTianXiong (HWE-PTXP); (D) cellulase-assist extraction-polysaccharide of PaoTianXiong (CAE-PTXP).
Fig. 2The infrared spectrums of purified PTXPs. (A) Dilute alkaline extraction-polysaccharide of PaoTianXiong (DAE-PTXP); (B) ultrasonic-assisted extraction-polysaccharide of PaoTianXiong (UAE-PTXP); (C) hot water extraction-polysaccharide of PaoTianXiong (HWE-PTXP); (D) cellulase-assist extraction-polysaccharide of PaoTianXiong (CAE-PTXP).
Fig. 3Mass spectrogram of monosaccharide composition. (A) mixed standers; (B) purified dilute alkaline extraction-polysaccharide of PTX (PDAE-PTXP); (C) purified ultrasonic-assisted extraction -polysaccharide of PTX (PUAE-PTXP); (D) purified hot water extraction-polysaccharide of PTX (PHWE-PTXP); (E) purified cellulase-assist extraction-polysaccharide of PTX (PCAE-PTXP).
Fig. 4DPPH and ABTS radical scavenging activity of crude PTXPs and purified PTXPs. (A) and (B) are about DPPH; (C) and (D) are about ABTS. PDAE-PTXP: purified dilute alkaline extraction-polysaccharide of PTX; PCAE-PTXP: purified cellulase-assist extraction-polysaccharide of PTX PUAE-PTXP: purified ultrasonic-assisted extraction-polysaccharide of PTX; PHWE-PTXP: purified hot water extraction-polysaccharide of PTX.
Fig. 5Effects of different independent factors on extraction yield of purified hot water extraction-polysaccharide of PTX (PHWE-PTXP).
Coding of Box–Behnken test design factors and levels
| Independent variables | Factor levels | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| −1 | 0 | 1 | |
| Extraction temperature (°C) | 70 | 80 | 90 |
| Extraction time (h) | 2 | 2.5 | 3 |
| Solid–liquid ratio (mL : g) | 1 : 20 | 1 : 25 | 1 : 30 |
| Number of extraction | 1 | 2 | 3 |
Response surface experiment design and results
| Run | Extraction temperature (°C) | Extraction time (h) | Solid–liquid ratio (g : mL) | Number of extraction | Extraction yield (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | −1 | 0 | 0 | −1 | 33.6 |
| 2 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 60.1 |
| 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 56.9 |
| 4 | 0 | −1 | 0 | 1 | 60.4 |
| 5 | 0 | −1 | 1 | 0 | 55.3 |
| 6 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 60.2 |
| 7 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 57.5 |
| 8 | 0 | −1 | −1 | 0 | 51.3 |
| 9 | −1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 56.1 |
| 10 | −1 | 0 | −1 | 0 | 53.8 |
| 11 | 0 | 1 | −1 | 0 | 51.8 |
| 12 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 55.6 |
| 13 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 57.9 |
| 14 | 0 | −1 | 0 | −1 | 33.3 |
| 15 | −1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 52.4 |
| 16 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 62.3 |
| 17 | −1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 57.3 |
| 18 | 1 | −1 | 0 | 0 | 60.4 |
| 19 | −1 | −1 | 0 | 0 | 51.9 |
| 20 | 1 | 0 | −1 | 0 | 56.7 |
| 21 | 0 | 0 | −1 | 1 | 58.4 |
| 22 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 54.7 |
| 23 | 1 | 0 | 0 | −1 | 45.5 |
| 24 | 0 | 1 | 0 | −1 | 39.0 |
| 25 | 0 | 0 | 1 | −1 | 35.9 |
| 26 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 60.3 |
| 27 | 0 | 0 | −1 | −1 | 34.4 |
F-test and ANOVA analysis of the response surface quadratic model
| Source | Sum of squares | df | Mean square |
|
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Model | 2081.269 | 14 | 148.662 | 27.340 | <0.0001 | Significant |
|
| 100.920 | 1 | 100.920 | 18.560 | 0.0010 | |
|
| 0.701 | 1 | 0.701 | 0.129 | 0.7258 | |
|
| 33.668 | 1 | 33.668 | 6.192 | 0.0285 | |
|
| 1536.803 | 1 | 1536.803 | 282.627 | <0.0001 | |
|
| 9.610 | 1 | 9.610 | 1.767 | 0.2084 | |
|
| 0.003 | 1 | 0.003 | 0.000 | 0.9832 | |
|
| 8.122 | 1 | 8.122 | 1.494 | 0.2451 | |
|
| 0.722 | 1 | 0.722 | 0.133 | 0.7218 | |
|
| 9.000 | 1 | 9.000 | 1.655 | 0.2225 | |
|
| 0.023 | 1 | 0.023 | 0.004 | 0.9498 | |
|
| 1.080 | 1 | 1.080 | 0.199 | 0.6638 | |
|
| 14.741 | 1 | 14.741 | 2.711 | 0.1256 | |
|
| 6.021 | 1 | 6.021 | 1.107 | 0.3134 | |
|
| 322.403 | 1 | 322.403 | 59.292 | <0.0001 | |
| Residual | 65.251 | 12 | 5.438 | |||
| Lack of fit | 62.591 | 10 | 6.259 | 4.706 | 0.1879 | Not significant |
| Pure error | 2.660 | 2 | 1.330 | |||
| Cor total | 2146.520 | 26 | ||||
|
| 0.9696 |
Fig. 6Response surface (3D) showing the interactive effects of independent variables.