| Literature DB >> 35566303 |
Hui Ma1, Lulu Xiao1, Dongchen Xu1, Yingrui Geng1, Xuesong Liu1, Yong Chen1, Yongjiang Wu1.
Abstract
Quality control methods of current traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) preparation is time-consuming and difficult to assess in terms of overall efficiency of the drug. A non-destructive rapid near-infrared spectroscopy detection system for key chemical components and biological activity of Lanqin oral solution (LOS), one of the best-selling TCM formulations, was established for comprehensive quality evaluation. Near infrared spectral scanning was carried out on 101 batches of commercial LOS under the penetrated vial state and traditional state. RAW 264.7 cells were cultured to detect the anti-inflammatory ability of LOS, and the reference concentrations of epigoitrin, geniposide, and baicalin were obtained by HPLC. The quantitative models were optimized by three kinds of variable selection methods. The correlation coefficients of prediction value of the models were greater than 0.94. The system also passed the external validation. The performance of the non-invasive models was similar to the traditional models. The established non-destructive system can be applied to the rapid quality inspection of LOS to avoid unqualified drugs from entering the market and ensure drug effectiveness. The biological activity index of LOS was introduced and predicted by NIRs for the first time, which provides a new idea about the quality control of TCM formulations.Entities:
Keywords: Chinese medicine formulations; Lanqin oral solution; anti-inflammatory; baicalin; epigoitrin; geniposide; near infrared spectroscopy; non-invasive detection
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35566303 PMCID: PMC9099839 DOI: 10.3390/molecules27092955
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Molecules ISSN: 1420-3049 Impact factor: 4.927
Figure 1The raw NIR absorbance spectra: (a) traditional spectra; (b) spectra that penetrates the vial; (c) spectra of the vial; (d) average spectra.
Figure 2Heat map of 4 chosen targets.
Reference values for 4 indexes in the data sets.
| Data Sets. | Sample | Minimum | Maximum Concentration (% or mg/mL) | Mean | Std | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ANTI-NO | Calibration set | 67 | 33.49 | 87.12 | 62.87 | 0.1626 |
| Prediction set | 23 | 41.13 | 86.33 | 61.93 | 0.1620 | |
| Validation set | 11 | 44.26 | 88.97 | 69.77 | 0.1644 | |
| Epigoitrin | Calibration set | 67 | 0.0156 | 0.0633 | 0.0354 | 0.0138 |
| Prediction set | 23 | 0.0186 | 0.0626 | 0.0334 | 0.0142 | |
| Validation set | 11 | 0.0185 | 0.0702 | 0.0471 | 0.0151 | |
| Geniposide | Calibration set | 67 | 1.537 | 7.413 | 3.609 | 1.539 |
| Prediction set | 23 | 1.668 | 5.840 | 3.424 | 1.609 | |
| Validation set | 11 | 1.421 | 7.032 | 4.602 | 1.842 | |
| Baicalin | Calibration set | 67 | 0.4739 | 3.131 | 1.493 | 0.6037 |
| Prediction set | 23 | 0.4742 | 2.323 | 1.354 | 0.6001 | |
| Validation set | 11 | 0.5729 | 2.820 | 1.746 | 0.7158 | |
Figure 3Crucial variables selected of 4 indexes of interest under traditional state.
Figure 4The scatter plot of reference measurements and NIR predictions using the optimal traditional PLSR model: (a) ANTI-NO; (b) epigoitrin; (c) geniposide; (d) baicalin.
The results of external validation of traditional models.
| Sample No. | ANTI-NO | Epigoitrin | Geniposide | Baicalin | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Reference Value | Predicted Value | Reference Value | Predicted Value | Reference Value | Predicted Value | Reference Value | Predicted Value | |
| 1 | 0.4426 | 0.4917 | 0.0425 | 0.02952 | 2.396 | 2.632 | 0.7825 | 0.8637 |
| 2 | 0.8427 | 0.8541 | 0.0702 | 0.07235 | 5.63 | 5.692 | 2.421 | 2.171 |
| 3 | 0.6185 | 0.5988 | 0.0381 | 0.02531 | 4.221 | 2.897 | 1.303 | 1.421 |
| 4 | 0.5161 | 0.5743 | 0.0305 | 0.02882 | 2.631 | 2.094 | 1.295 | 1.172 |
| 5 | 0.6956 | 0.6698 | 0.0452 | 0.03126 | 4.054 | 3.738 | 1.706 | 1.451 |
| 6 | 0.4594 | 0.4362 | 0.0185 | 0.01739 | 1.421 | 1.239 | 0.5729 | 0.6174 |
| 7 | 0.7785 | 0.8132 | 0.0468 | 0.05402 | 5.027 | 5.152 | 1.608 | 1.712 |
| 8 | 0.8735 | 0.8326 | 0.0616 | 0.06644 | 6.525 | 6.937 | 2.82 | 2.366 |
| 9 | 0.7952 | 0.9022 | 0.0466 | 0.04715 | 6.437 | 6.279 | 2.413 | 2.449 |
| 10 | 0.8897 | 0.7868 | 0.0648 | 0.04770 | 5.248 | 4.650 | 2.014 | 2.020 |
| 11 | 0.7633 | 0.7989 | 0.053 | 0.05547 | 7.032 | 6.399 | 2.269 | 2.652 |
| Rv | 0.9356 | 0.7766 | 0.9516 | 0.9468 | ||||
| RMSEV 1 | 0.055 | 0.009 | 0.540 | 0.220 | ||||
| RSEV | 7.7% | 18.5% | 11.0% | 11.7% | ||||
|
| 0.8955 | 0.7928 | 0.7427 | 1 | ||||
1 RMSEV: the root mean square error of validation.
Reference values for 4 indexes in the data sets.
| Data Sets | Sample | Minimum | Maximum | Mean | Std | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ANTI-NO | Calibration set | 67 | 33.49 | 87.12 | 64.38 | 0.1642 |
| Prediction set | 23 | 41.76 | 84.10 | 57.51 | 0.1453 | |
| Validation set | 11 | 44.26 | 88.97 | 69.77 | 0.1644 | |
| Epigoitrin | Calibration set | 67 | 0.0156 | 0.0633 | 0.0368 | 0.0140 |
| Prediction set | 23 | 0.0167 | 0.0605 | 0.0293 | 0.0119 | |
| Validation set | 11 | 0.0185 | 0.0702 | 0.0471 | 0.0151 | |
| Geniposide | Calibration set | 67 | 1.537 | 7.413 | 3.799 | 1.537 |
| Prediction set | 23 | 1.558 | 5.600 | 2.871 | 1.401 | |
| Validation set | 11 | 1.421 | 7.032 | 4.602 | 1.842 | |
| Baicalin | Calibration set | 67 | 0.4739 | 3.131 | 1.462 | 0.6193 |
| Prediction set | 23 | 0.7137 | 2.286 | 1.443 | 0.5637 | |
| Validation set | 11 | 0.5729 | 2.820 | 1.746 | 0.7158 | |
Figure 5Crucial variables selected of 4 indexes of interest without destroying vial.
Figure 6Scatter plot of reference measurements and NIR predictions using the optimal non-invasive PLSR model.: (a) ANTI-NO; (b) epigoitrin; (c) geniposide; (d) baicalin.
The results of external validation of traditional models.
| Sample No. | ANTI-NO | Epigoitrin | Geniposide | Baicalin | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Reference Value | Predicted Value | Reference Value | Predicted Value | Reference Value | Predicted Value | Reference Value | Predicted Value | |
| 1 | 0.4426 | 0.4728 | 0.0425 | 0.02919 | 2.396 | 2.056 | 0.7825 | 0.979 |
| 2 | 0.8427 | 0.9373 | 0.0702 | 0.07578 | 5.63 | 6.118 | 2.421 | 2.518 |
| 3 | 0.6185 | 0.6515 | 0.0381 | 0.03811 | 4.221 | 3.496 | 1.303 | 1.700 |
| 4 | 0.5161 | 0.5683 | 0.0305 | 0.03752 | 2.631 | 2.755 | 1.295 | 1.557 |
| 5 | 0.6956 | 0.6996 | 0.0452 | 0.04223 | 4.054 | 3.847 | 1.706 | 1.796 |
| 6 | 0.4594 | 0.4520 | 0.0185 | 0.01870 | 1.421 | 1.466 | 0.5729 | 0.629 |
| 7 | 0.7785 | 0.7173 | 0.0468 | 0.03451 | 5.027 | 5.126 | 1.608 | 1.585 |
| 8 | 0.8735 | 0.9306 | 0.0616 | 0.07149 | 6.525 | 6.323 | 2.82 | 2.623 |
| 9 | 0.7952 | 0.8521 | 0.0466 | 0.05203 | 6.437 | 5.420 | 2.413 | 2.427 |
| 10 | 0.8897 | 0.8075 | 0.0648 | 0.04884 | 5.248 | 4.977 | 2.014 | 2.099 |
| 11 | 0.7633 | 0.8206 | 0.053 | 0.05317 | 7.032 | 5.813 | 2.269 | 2.286 |
| Rv | 0.9349 | 0.8069 | 0.9457 | 0.9670 | ||||
| RMSEV | 0.056 | 0.008 | 0.571 | 0.174 | ||||
| RSEV | 7.8% | 17.3% | 11.6% | 9.3% | ||||
|
| 0.6936 | 0.7928 | 0.6458 | 0.6936 | ||||
The optimal PLSR model of 4 indicators.
| Analytes | M. T. 1 | P. M. 2 | V. S. M. 3 | V. N. 4 | LVs 5 | Rc | RMSEC 6 | RSEC | Rp 7 | RMSEP 8 | RSEP | RPD |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ANTI-NO | T 9 | Normalization | RF | 290 | 9 | 0.9526 | 0.049 | 7.6% | 0.9296 | 0.058 | 9.1% | 3.20 |
| N 10 | MSC | SIPLS | 345 | 11 | 0.9658 | 0.042 | 6.4% | 0.9524 | 0.043 | 7.3% | 3.49 | |
| Epigoitrin | T 9 | SG smoothing | RF | 250 | 8 | 0.9434 | 0.005 | 12.0% | 0.9439 | 0.005 | 12.7% | 3.09 |
| N 10 | Normalization | SIPLS | 388 | 11 | 0.9409 | 0.005 | 12.0% | 0.9437 | 0.004 | 12.2% | 3.10 | |
| Geniposide | T 9 | MSC | SIPLS | 345 | 13 | 0.9820 | 0.289 | 7.4% | 0.9791 | 0.320 | 8.5% | 4.95 |
| N 10 | Raw | SIPLS | 208 | 8 | 0.9885 | 0.231 | 5.6% | 0.9814 | 0.263 | 8.3% | 5.29 | |
| Baicalin | T 9 | Normalization | CARS | 47 | 10 | 0.9680 | 0.150 | 9.4% | 0.9669 | 0.150 | 10.1% | 3.92 |
| N 10 | MSC | CARS | 36 | 7 | 0.9735 | 0.141 | 8.9% | 0.9652 | 0.144 | 9.3% | 4.3 |
1 M.T.: model type. 2 P.M.: pretreatment methods. 3 V. S. M.: variables selection methods. 4 V. N.: variable numbers. 5 LVs: latent variables. 6 RMSEC: root mean square error of calibration. 7 Rp: correlation coefficients of prediction. 8 RMSEP: the root mean square error of prediction. 9 T.: traditional model. 10 N.: non-invasive model.
Figure 7HPLC chromatograms of (A) standard solution (1. epigoitrin, 2. geniposide, 3. baicalin) and (B) LOS sample.