论文部分内容阅读
目的:比较乌头母根(生川乌)与子根(生附片)化学成分的差异,为阐明川乌与附子功效不同的科学内涵提供依据。方法:采用超高效液相色谱-质谱联用技术(UPLC-MS),静电场轨道阱组合式高分辨质谱仪,ACQUITY UPLC BEH C_(18)色谱柱(150 mm×2.1 mm,1.7μm),以乙腈-0.1%甲酸为流动相,梯度洗脱,质谱在正离子模式下进行检测。结果:生川乌中指认65个成分,生附片中指认60个成分,其中两者共有成分56个,生川乌具有黄草乌碱丁、10-羟基焦乌头碱、印乌头碱等9个特有成分,生附片具有10-羟基焦乌头原碱、14-苯甲酰尼奥灵等4个特有成分。结论:乌头的母根(生川乌)与子根(生附片)的化学成分存在较大差异,该差异可能与川乌和附子的功效不同有关。
OBJECTIVE: To compare the differences of the chemical constituents between the roots of Radix Aconiti Kusnezoffii and the root of Radix Aconiti Kusnezoffii, and to provide evidence for elucidating the different scientific connotations of Radix Aconiti Kusnezoffii and Radix Aconiti Lateralis. Methods: High-performance liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry (UPLC-MS), electrostatic field orbitrap combined high-resolution mass spectrometry, ACQUITY UPLC BEH C 18 column (150 mm × 2.1 mm, 1.7 μm) Acetonitrile - 0.1% formic acid as mobile phase, gradient elution, mass spectrometry in positive mode detection. Results: Sixty-five components were identified in Radix Scutellariae and 60 components were identified in Radix Rehmanniae Preparata, of which 56 were common components. Radix Scutellariae had five compounds, And other 9 unique ingredients, raw with a film with 10-hydroxy caaconitine alkali, 14-benzoyl Neo Ling four unique components. Conclusion: There is a big difference in the chemical composition between the root of Aconitum kusnezoffii (Radix Aconiti Kusnezoffii) and the root of Radix Aconiti Kusnezoffii, which may be related to the different efficacy of Radix Aconitum and Radix Aconiti Lateralis.