Coptidis Rhizoma 传统煎剂与冲剂颗粒的体内和体外化学成分及生物活性比较研究:比较研究。

IF 1.8 4区 医学 Q4 BIOCHEMICAL RESEARCH METHODS
Panpan Wang, Xinjing Gui, Manwen Xu, Fengyu Dong, Yuanyuan Li, Qi Wang, Yanli Wang, Jing Yao, Lu Lu, Ruixin Liu
{"title":"Coptidis Rhizoma 传统煎剂与冲剂颗粒的体内和体外化学成分及生物活性比较研究:比较研究。","authors":"Panpan Wang,&nbsp;Xinjing Gui,&nbsp;Manwen Xu,&nbsp;Fengyu Dong,&nbsp;Yuanyuan Li,&nbsp;Qi Wang,&nbsp;Yanli Wang,&nbsp;Jing Yao,&nbsp;Lu Lu,&nbsp;Ruixin Liu","doi":"10.1002/bmc.5960","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Coptidis Rhizoma (CR) holds significant clinical importance. In this study, we conducted a comparative analysis of CR's dispensing granule decoction (DGD) and traditional decoction (TD) to establish a comprehensive evaluation method for the quality of DGD. We selected nine batches of DGD (three from each of manufacturers A, B and C) and 10 batches of decoction pieces for analysis. We determined the content of representative components using high-performance liquid chromatography and assessed the content of blood components <i>in vivo</i> post-administration using ultra-performance liquid chromatography–mass spectrometry. The antibacterial activity was measured using the drug-sensitive tablet method. To evaluate the overall consistency of DGD and TD, we employed the CRITIC method and Grey relational analysis method. Our CRITIC results indicated no significant difference between the CRITIC scores of DGD-B and TD, with DGD-B exhibiting the highest consistency and overall quality. However, DGD-A and DGD-C showed variations in CRITIC scores compared with TD. After equivalent correction, the quality of DGD-A and DGD-C approached that of TD. Furthermore, our Grey relational analysis results supported the findings of the CRITIC method. This study offers a novel approach to evaluate the consistency between DGD and TD, providing insights into improving the quality of DGD.</p>","PeriodicalId":8861,"journal":{"name":"Biomedical Chromatography","volume":"38 9","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"In vivo and in vitro chemical composition and biological activity of traditional vs. dispensing granule decoctions of Coptidis Rhizoma: A comparative study\",\"authors\":\"Panpan Wang,&nbsp;Xinjing Gui,&nbsp;Manwen Xu,&nbsp;Fengyu Dong,&nbsp;Yuanyuan Li,&nbsp;Qi Wang,&nbsp;Yanli Wang,&nbsp;Jing Yao,&nbsp;Lu Lu,&nbsp;Ruixin Liu\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/bmc.5960\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>Coptidis Rhizoma (CR) holds significant clinical importance. In this study, we conducted a comparative analysis of CR's dispensing granule decoction (DGD) and traditional decoction (TD) to establish a comprehensive evaluation method for the quality of DGD. We selected nine batches of DGD (three from each of manufacturers A, B and C) and 10 batches of decoction pieces for analysis. We determined the content of representative components using high-performance liquid chromatography and assessed the content of blood components <i>in vivo</i> post-administration using ultra-performance liquid chromatography–mass spectrometry. The antibacterial activity was measured using the drug-sensitive tablet method. To evaluate the overall consistency of DGD and TD, we employed the CRITIC method and Grey relational analysis method. Our CRITIC results indicated no significant difference between the CRITIC scores of DGD-B and TD, with DGD-B exhibiting the highest consistency and overall quality. However, DGD-A and DGD-C showed variations in CRITIC scores compared with TD. After equivalent correction, the quality of DGD-A and DGD-C approached that of TD. Furthermore, our Grey relational analysis results supported the findings of the CRITIC method. This study offers a novel approach to evaluate the consistency between DGD and TD, providing insights into improving the quality of DGD.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":8861,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Biomedical Chromatography\",\"volume\":\"38 9\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-11\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Biomedical Chromatography\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/bmc.5960\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"BIOCHEMICAL RESEARCH METHODS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Biomedical Chromatography","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/bmc.5960","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"BIOCHEMICAL RESEARCH METHODS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

黄连(Coptidis Rhizoma,CR)具有重要的临床意义。在本研究中,我们对中药配方颗粒煎剂(DGD)和传统煎剂(TD)进行了对比分析,以建立一种全面的 DGD 质量评价方法。我们选取了九个批次的点滴(A、B、C 三家生产商各生产三个批次)和十个批次的煎煮片进行分析。我们使用高效液相色谱法测定了代表性成分的含量,并使用超高效液相色谱-质谱法评估了服用后体内血液成分的含量。抗菌活性采用药敏片剂法测定。为了评估 DGD 和 TD 的整体一致性,我们采用了 CRITIC 法和格雷关系分析法。CRITIC 结果表明,DGD-B 和 TD 的 CRITIC 分数没有明显差异,其中 DGD-B 的一致性和整体质量最高。然而,与 TD 相比,DGD-A 和 DGD-C 的 CRITIC 分数出现了差异。经过等效校正后,DGD-A 和 DGD-C 的质量接近 TD。此外,我们的灰色关系分析结果也支持 CRITIC 方法的结论。这项研究为评估 DGD 和 TD 之间的一致性提供了一种新方法,为提高 DGD 的质量提供了启示。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
In vivo and in vitro chemical composition and biological activity of traditional vs. dispensing granule decoctions of Coptidis Rhizoma: A comparative study

Coptidis Rhizoma (CR) holds significant clinical importance. In this study, we conducted a comparative analysis of CR's dispensing granule decoction (DGD) and traditional decoction (TD) to establish a comprehensive evaluation method for the quality of DGD. We selected nine batches of DGD (three from each of manufacturers A, B and C) and 10 batches of decoction pieces for analysis. We determined the content of representative components using high-performance liquid chromatography and assessed the content of blood components in vivo post-administration using ultra-performance liquid chromatography–mass spectrometry. The antibacterial activity was measured using the drug-sensitive tablet method. To evaluate the overall consistency of DGD and TD, we employed the CRITIC method and Grey relational analysis method. Our CRITIC results indicated no significant difference between the CRITIC scores of DGD-B and TD, with DGD-B exhibiting the highest consistency and overall quality. However, DGD-A and DGD-C showed variations in CRITIC scores compared with TD. After equivalent correction, the quality of DGD-A and DGD-C approached that of TD. Furthermore, our Grey relational analysis results supported the findings of the CRITIC method. This study offers a novel approach to evaluate the consistency between DGD and TD, providing insights into improving the quality of DGD.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Biomedical Chromatography
Biomedical Chromatography 生物-分析化学
CiteScore
3.60
自引率
5.60%
发文量
268
审稿时长
2.3 months
期刊介绍: Biomedical Chromatography is devoted to the publication of original papers on the applications of chromatography and allied techniques in the biological and medical sciences. Research papers and review articles cover the methods and techniques relevant to the separation, identification and determination of substances in biochemistry, biotechnology, molecular biology, cell biology, clinical chemistry, pharmacology and related disciplines. These include the analysis of body fluids, cells and tissues, purification of biologically important compounds, pharmaco-kinetics and sequencing methods using HPLC, GC, HPLC-MS, TLC, paper chromatography, affinity chromatography, gel filtration, electrophoresis and related techniques.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信