| Literature DB >> 36082326 |
Wang Bing1, Sun Yan-Tao1, Pei Wen-Han2, Zhang Hui1, Kang Ting-Guo1.
Abstract
Aim of the study: The research group proposed that the mechanism of "Feature Identification based Quality Assessment" (FIQA) of Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) can be explained according to the relationship between the "Feature" of TCM and the Pharmacodynamic Components representing the holistic effect of TCM. Gastrodiae Rhizoma (GR) was selected as the research object to reveal the close relationship between "Feature" and the quality of TCM. Materials and methods: In this study, the "Feature" such as "Shape", "Color", "Odour" and "Taste" of GR are quantified by the electronic nose, electronic tongue, and other instruments. Then, the Pharmacodynamic Components Group (PCG) of GR was determined which could reflect the holistic effect of GR by spectrum effect relationship analysis. By analyzing the correlation between the "Feature" and the content of PCG, the mechanism of FIQA of GR was determined.Entities:
Keywords: Feature; Feature identification based quality assessment; Pharmacodynamic components group; Quality; Relevance
Year: 2022 PMID: 36082326 PMCID: PMC9445276 DOI: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2022.e10354
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Heliyon ISSN: 2405-8440
Figure 3Protective effects of components in GR on OGD/R injury of SH-SY5Y. (∗: P < 0.05 was a significant difference between treatment groups and the model group. ∗∗: P < 0.01 was a significant difference between treatment groups and the model group.)
Figure 1Quantitative analysis of “Feature” of GR.
Figure 2Screening of PCG of GR.
Figure 4Schematic diagram of active components of GR (No. 1–12 were the identified 12 fingerprint common peaks).
Content results of PCG (n = 3, mg·g−1).
| No. | Adenosine | Gastrodin | p-Hydroxybenzyl alcohol | Parishin B | Parishin C | Parishin A |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 0.0180 | 0.867 | 0.0893 | 0.904 | 0.0649 | 9.17 |
| 2 | 0.0138 | 0.980 | 0.0864 | 0.737 | 0.0519 | 8.20 |
| 3 | 0.0205 | 1.38 | 0.0408 | 0.843 | 0.0495 | 8.71 |
| 4 | 0.0191 | 1.29 | 0.111 | 1.12 | 0.0736 | 13.2 |
| 5 | 0.0131 | 1.26 | 0.0541 | 0.744 | 0.0520 | 8.07 |
| 6 | 0.00891 | 1.08 | 0.0751 | 0.934 | 0.0813 | 12.6 |
| 7 | 0.0144 | 1.28 | 0.0669 | 0.774 | 0.0701 | 7.22 |
| 8 | 0.0127 | 0.962 | 0.0847 | 0.724 | 0.0527 | 7.81 |
| 9 | 0.0116 | 1.57 | 0.0822 | 1.15 | 0.0813 | 15.7 |
| 10 | 0.0113 | 1.11 | 0.0799 | 0.739 | 0.0488 | 8.34 |
| 11 | 0.00973 | 0.694 | 0.0654 | 0.628 | 0.0476 | 7.81 |
| 12 | 0.0129 | 0.966 | 0.0416 | 0.658 | 0.0468 | 6.95 |
| 13 | 0.0112 | 0.759 | 0.0604 | 0.619 | 0.0513 | 8.32 |
| 14 | 0.00927 | 0.432 | 0.0828 | 0.492 | 0.0474 | 4.94 |
| 15 | 0.0200 | 1.25 | 0.183 | 1.44 | 0.113 | 15.1 |
| 16 | 0.0103 | 1.41 | 0.0554 | 0.834 | 0.0734 | 9.08 |
| 17 | 0.0105 | 1.18 | 0.0559 | 0.765 | 0.0688 | 9.30 |
| 18 | 0.0152 | 1.20 | 0.0486 | 0.754 | 0.0648 | 9.62 |
| 19 | 0.0138 | 1.65 | 0.0974 | 1.27 | 0.113 | 15.3 |
| 20 | 0.0150 | 1.84 | 0.103 | 1.14 | 0.0991 | 16.7 |
| 21 | 0.0226 | 1.88 | 0.0455 | 1.06 | 0.0923 | 11.7 |
| 22 | 0.0107 | 1.09 | 0.0870 | 0.805 | 0.0784 | 12.1 |
| 23 | 0.0151 | 1.13 | 0.102 | 0.969 | 0.0668 | 11.9 |
| 24 | 0.0186 | 1.28 | 0.0931 | 1.26 | 0.0865 | 18.8 |
| 25 | 0.0182 | 0.922 | 0.0896 | 0.888 | 0.0622 | 8.55 |
| 26 | 0.00981 | 1.99 | 0.0402 | 1.34 | 0.0682 | 11.3 |
| 27 | 0.00716 | 1.97 | 0.0991 | 1.35 | 0.0299 | 19.5 |
| 28 | 0.0142 | 0.697 | 0.0742 | 0.794 | 0.623 | 10.3 |
| 29 | 0.0133 | 1.06 | 0.0825 | 0.825 | 0.0719 | 10.5 |
| 30 | 0.0202 | 1.20 | 0.0458 | 0.852 | 0.0753 | 9.94 |
Remarks: 1–30 were GR from different sources.
Figure 5Results of neuroprotective efficacy (%, Comparative value of composition and overall efficacy of GR) of PCG and remaining components of 30 batches of GR in vitro.
Figure 6Neuroprotective efficacy (%, Comparative value of composition and overall efficacy of GR) results of PCG and remaining components of GR 5 (1–5 are the concentration of the extract 0.04, 0.08, 0.008, 0.004, 0.002 g/mL, respective.).
Figure 7Comparison of the neuroprotective effect between the PCG and GR on cerebral infarction in rats of GR 5 (%).
Correlation between the “Shape” of GR and PCG.
| Component | Macro “Shape” | Microcosmic “Shape” | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pearson correlation | Significance (P) | Pearson correlation | Significance (P) | |
| Adenosine | -0.096 | 0.046 | 0.031 | 0.036 |
| Gastrodin | -0.344 | 0.026 | 0.842∗∗ | 0.000 |
| p-Hydroxybenzyl alcohol | -0.093 | 0.038 | -0.053 | 0.045 |
| Paliscin B | -0.404 | 0.027 | 0.620∗ | 0.047 |
| Paliscin C | 0.419∗ | 0.021 | -0.161 | 0.028 |
| Paliscin A | -0.345 | 0.042 | 0.444∗ | 0.020 |
Remarks: ∗and∗∗ indicate that P < 0.05 and P < 0.01 respectively.
Gastrodin was highly correlated with the MCI of thick-walled cells of GR, while Paliscin B was moderately correlated. According to the MCI, the contents of Gastrodin and Paliscin B can be predicted.
Correlation between the “Color” of GR and PCG.
| form | Response value | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| surface | ΔL∗ | 0.192 | -0.069 | 0.022 | -0.135 | -0.386∗ | -0.017 |
| Δa∗ | 0.174 | 0.047 | -0.265 | -0.175 | -0.256 | -0.211 | |
| Δb∗ | 0.071 | 0.027 | -0.184 | -0.23 | -0.329∗ | -0.221 | |
| ΔE∗ | -0.153 | 0.079 | -0.083 | 0.08 | 0.323∗ | -0.044 | |
| section | ΔL∗ | 0.032 | 0.075 | 0.051 | -0.047 | -0.430∗ | -0.141 |
| Δa∗ | 0.162 | 0.192 | 0.056 | 0.029 | -0.331∗ | -0.183 | |
| Δb∗ | 0.151 | -0.079 | 0.095 | -0.174 | -0.358∗ | -0.213 | |
| ΔE∗ | 0.052 | -0.133 | -0.042 | 0.005 | 0.474∗ | 0.101 | |
| powder | ΔL∗ | -0.113 | 0.322∗ | -0.159 | -0.049 | -0.189 | -0.09 |
| Δa∗ | -0.076 | 0.467∗∗ | -0.055 | 0.157 | -0.137 | 0.194 | |
| Δb∗ | -0.134 | -0.312∗ | 0.12 | -0.017 | -0.015 | -0.012 | |
| ΔE∗ | -0.129 | 0.491∗∗ | -0.015 | 0.211 | -0.093 | 0.268 |
Remarks: 1–6 were Adenosine, Gastrodin, p-Hydroxybenzyl alcohol, Paliscin B, Paliscin C, Paliscin A respectively, ∗and∗∗ indicate that P < 0.05 and P < 0.01 respectively.
Correlation between the “Odour” of GR and PCG.
| components | F1 | F2 | F3 | F4 | F5 | F6 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Adenosine | 0.354 | 0.028 | 0.093 | -0.131 | 0.197 | -0.079 |
| Gastrodin | -0.111 | -0.269 | -0.28 | 0.247 | -0.144 | 0.100 |
| p-Hydroxybenzyl alcohol | 0 | -0.017 | 0.02 | 0.070 | -0.156 | -0.077 |
| Paliscin B | -0.022 | -0.170 | -0.106 | 0.116 | -0.076 | -0.084 |
| Paliscin C | -0.136 | 0.747∗∗ | 0.87∗∗ | -0.411∗ | 0.551∗ | -0.736∗∗ |
| Paliscin A | -0.079 | -0.107 | -0.078 | 0.069 | -0.119 | -0.160 |
Remarks: F1–F6 were the six principal components of GR flavor by principal component analysis respectively, ∗and∗∗ indicate that P < 0.05 and P < 0.01 respectively.
Correlation between the “Taste” of GR and PCG.
| No. | Adenosine | Gastrodin | p-Hydroxybenzyl alcohol | Paliscin B | Paliscin C | Paliscin A |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | -0.106 | -0.370∗ | -0.030 | -0.412∗ | -0.257 | -0.424∗ |
| 2 | 0.183 | 0.415∗ | 0.086 | 0.491∗∗ | 0.283 | 0.518∗∗ |
| 3 | 0.102 | 0.338∗ | 0.035 | 0.416∗ | 0.285 | 0.437∗ |
| 4 | -0.204 | -0.360∗ | -0.063 | -0.438∗ | -0.281 | -0.442∗ |
| 5 | 0.194 | 0.358∗ | 0.069 | 0.440∗ | 0.272 | 0.451∗ |
| 6 | 0.209 | 0.363∗ | 0.094 | 0.466∗∗ | 0.272 | 0.464∗∗ |
| 7 | -0.081 | 0.303∗ | 0.057 | 0.347∗ | 0.239 | 0.404∗ |
Remarks: 1–7 were AHS_sourness, PKS, CTS_saltiness, -NMS_umami, CPS, ANS, SCS respectively, ∗and∗∗ indicate that P < 0.05 and P < 0.01 respectively.