Download Complete Issue - Academic Journals

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Science as Taxillus chinensis (DC.) Danser and the host plants as Salix babylonica Linn. and Morus atropurpurea Roxb., respectively. The samples collected were washed and dried, and their branches and leaves were separated and ground to a 45-mesh powder for use. Instruments and equipment The instruments and equipments used included: high performance liquid chromatograph (Japanese Shimadzu Corporation, LC-20AT), UV detector (Japanese Shimadzu Corporation, SPD-20A), Ultimate®XB-C18 column (250 mm × 4.6 mm, 5 μm), ultrasonic cleaner (Kun Shan Ultrasonic Instruments Co., Ltd, KQ-300DB), analytical balance (AND GH-252), adjustable micro pipette (Thermo), and 0.45 μm microporous membrane. Experimental methods Preparation of the standard solution Accurately weighed 10.12 mg of salicin reference substance was added to the methanol solution and diluted to a constant volume of 25 ml, thus forming the mother liquor of standard solution with the concentration of 404.80 µg·L -1 , which was then kept at a 4°C refrigerator for use. Preparation of the sample solution Accurately weighed 0.2 g of the sample was added to 25 ml of methanol solution. Then the sample solution was ultrasonically extracted for 30 min and finally cooled. After filtration by the 0.45 μm microporous membrane, it was kept at a 4°C refrigerator for use. RESULTS Chromatographic conditions and system adaptability The detection wavelength of the salicin was 269 nm (Hui and Wang., 2004); the mobile phase was methanol 0.1% potassium dihydrogen phosphate (32:68, V/V); the column temperature was room temperature; and the flow rate was 1.0 ml·min -1 . The chromatograms of both the reference substance and the sample are shown in Figure 1. Linear relationship The mother liquor of the reference solution was diluted by methanol to form a series of salicin reference solutions with concentrations of 2.02, 10.12, 50.60, 101.20, 202.40 and 404.80 µg·L -1 in turn. Then, 10 μl of each salicin reference solution with the aforementioned concentrations was injected into the HPLC system to determine the peak areas, which were used for the regression analysis of the salicin concentrations. Finally, standard curves were drawn to calculate the regression equation, which Lu et al. 2475 was Y = 2065.7x + 5046.2, with a correlation coefficient (r) of 1.0000. As a result, it could be concluded that there was a good linear relationship between the concentrations and their corresponding peak areas when the salicin ranged in concentration from 2.02 to 404.80 µg·L -1 . The limit of detection (LOD) was 1.09 µg·L -1 and the limit of quantification was 3.32 µg·L -1 (three times of the noise). Precision testing Accurately weighed 10 μl of the same sample solution was repeatedly injected into the HPLC system for six times to determine the salicin content, respectively. The RSD was 0.26% (n = 6), proving the good precision of the equipments. Stability testing The same sample solution was accurately weighed and injected seven times into the HPLC system at 0, 2, 4, 6, 8, 12 and 24 h, respectively to determine the salicin content. The RSD was 1.36% (n = 7), showing that the salicin sample solution was stable within 24 h. Reproducibility testing First, six portions of sample were accurately weighed. Then after being extracted and injected, they were used to determine the salicin content. The RSD was 0.9% (n = 6), indicating that the current method had a good reproducibility. Average recovery rate testing Five portions of the accurately weighed sample whose salicin content had been determined were added to a certain amount of salicin reference substance. After they had been extracted and injected, the Salicin content was determined again. The average recovery rate was 97.76%, and the RSD was 1.56% (Table 1), proving that the current method had a high recovery rate and met the experimental requirements. Determination of salicin content in samples The samples of taxilli herba and of its host plants were accurately weighed (0.2 g) and used for the preparation of the sample solution by the methods mentioned earlier. Then 10 μl of each sample was injected into the HPLC system to determine the salicin content, whose results are shown in Table 2.
2476 J. Med. Plants Res. Figure 1. Chromatograms of salicin reference substance, taxilli herba, and the host plants. 1: Salicin; A: Chromatograms of salicin reference substance; B: Chromatogram of branches of willow host plants; C: Chromatogram of leaves of willow host plants; D: Chromatogram of branches of taxilli herba (in willow host plants); E: Chromatogram of leaves of taxilli herba (in willow host plants); F: Chromatogram of branches of mulberry host plants; G: Chromatogram of leaves of mulberry host plants; H: Chromatogram of branches of taxilli herba (in mulberry host plants); I: Chromatogram of leaves of taxilli herba (i n mulberry host plants). Table 1. Salicin average recovery rate. Quality of samples (g) DISCUSSION Content of salicin (μg) Amount of added standards (μg) Measured value (μg) Recovery rate (%) 0.1013 158.84 202.40 356.66 97.74 0.1025 160.72 202.40 356.16 96.56 0.1019 159.78 202.40 354.44 96.18 0.1006 157.74 202.40 353.08 100.00 0.1012 158.68 202.40 357.70 98.33 Relative salicin content between taxilli herba and their host plants The taxilli herba medicinal materials recorded in Chinese Pharmacopoeia are the dry leaves and branches of T. chinensis (DC) Danser. The relative salicin content between taxilli herba and their host plants is listed in Table 2. The current experiment results of the salicin content determination show that salicin components inherent in willow host trees can be multiplied by their taxilli herba and the accumulating amount of salicin is different in different parts of the medicinal materials. The ratios of salicin content in the leaves and branches of taxilli herba medicinal materials to their corresponding parts in willow host plants are in the range of 214.29 to 355.17% (2.14 to 3.55 times). Average recovery rate (%) RSD (%) 97.76 1.56 Impact of host plants on the quality of taxilli herba It can be seen from the determined results of the salicin content of the taxilli herba parasitizing in willows and mulberries and its host-plants, that salicin is the inherent component in willow host plants, and that taxilli herba contains salicin because of its parasitizing in willows. However, no salicin component can be found in the taxilli herba parasitizing in mulberries owing to the fact that its mulberry host plants contain no salicin. The experiment results are consistent with one of the authors’ reports that the 1-deoxynojirimycin inherent in mulberry host plants could be accumulated by the taxilli herba parasitizing in them (Hu et al., 2011; Li et al., 2011). The experiment results again indicate that host plants are likely to be the key factors affecting taxilli herba medicinal materials’ quality, and that host trees can affect the medicinal quality of the taxilli herba parasitizing in them by
Page 1 and 2:
Journal of Medicinal Plants Researc
Page 3 and 4:
Editors Prof. Akah Peter Achunike E
Page 5 and 6:
Electronic submission of manuscript
Page 7 and 8:
Fees and Charges: Authors are requi
Page 9 and 10:
Table of Contents: Volume 6 Number
Page 11 and 12:
Page 13 and 14:
Page 15 and 16:
Figure 1. Chuanxiong Rhizoma (http:
Page 17 and 18:
Table 1. Identification of main pea
Page 19 and 20:
Table 3. Pharmacokinetic parameters
Page 21 and 22:
active component study, many invest
Page 23 and 24:
Page 25 and 26:
and 1185 kg ha -1 in the first site
Page 27 and 28:
Table 1. Recommendation for use fer
Page 29 and 30:
Sadanandan AK, Hamza S (1996c). Stu
Page 31 and 32:
and it has been traced to South Ame
Page 33 and 34:
Table 3. Results of phytochemical a
Page 35 and 36:
Page 37 and 38:
(a) (b) (c) Figure 1. (a) Normal ce
Page 39 and 40:
emedies in the south of Brazil. J.
Page 41 and 42:
known fatty acids and terpenoids we
Page 43 and 44:
Table 1. Renal function tests of ra
Page 45 and 46:
Al-Radahe et al. 2271 Figure 3.nnnn
Page 47 and 48:
namely disruption of the vascular e
Page 49 and 50:
Zayachkivska OS, Konturek SJ, Drozd
Page 51 and 52:
β-carotene were purchased from Sig
Page 53 and 54:
Figure 1. Effect of ethanol concent
Page 55 and 56:
Table 3. Climatic and soil factors
Page 57 and 58:
content of polysaccharides. Phospha
Page 59 and 60:
Serge et al. 2285 Table 1. Relative
Page 61 and 62:
Percentage inhibition % of inhibiti
Page 63 and 64:
Page 65 and 66:
Table 1. Result of phytochemical sc
Page 67 and 68:
Table 3. Result of thin layer chrom
Page 69 and 70:
Page 71 and 72:
Table 2. MIC of a compound 1 from c
Page 73 and 74:
Page 75 and 76:
Zirihi et al. 2301 Figure 2. Termin
Page 77 and 78:
Figure 5. T. catappa Linn. (Combret
Page 79 and 80:
Figure 8. A. fumigatus: Aspect of c
Page 81 and 82:
Figure 12. Sensitivity of A. fumiga
Page 83 and 84:
Page 85 and 86:
Noormi et al. 2311 Table 1. Callus
Page 87 and 88:
Table 2. Contd. NoC=No callus. 4.0
Page 89 and 90:
Figure 2. Contd. at 2.0 mg/L yellow
Page 91 and 92:
Page 93 and 94:
Table 1. Biochemical parameters in
Page 95 and 96:
Figure 3. Bcl-xL reactions in inter
Page 97 and 98:
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The authors would l
Page 99 and 100:
Figure 1. The first page of the boo
Page 101 and 102:
Figure 3. The most widely included
Page 103 and 104:
Figure 4. Lithographic print “St.
Page 105 and 106:
Table 1. List of plants included in
Page 107 and 108:
Table 1. Contd. Nedelcheva 2333 Cin
Page 109 and 110:
Table 1. Contd. Nedelcheva 2335 Rhe
Page 111 and 112:
14 7 1 15 1 35 17 16 Imported plant
Page 113 and 114:
Academy of Science Publishing House
Page 115 and 116:
et al., 1996; van Wyk and Gericke,
Page 117 and 118:
DPPH inhibition (%) DPPH % inhibiti
Page 119 and 120:
% Mortality Concentration (µg/ml)
Page 121 and 122:
information on plants used for the
Page 123 and 124:
Table 1. Levels of independent vari
Page 125 and 126:
Arbutin (mg/g) Co-solvent Figure 1.
Page 127 and 128:
Page 129 and 130:
Arbutin (mg/g) Extraction pressure
Page 131 and 132:
Table 3. Arbuitn content of Asian p
Page 133 and 134:
Page 135 and 136:
Arbutin (mg/g) Extraction pressure
Page 137 and 138:
Arbutin (mg/g) Extraction temperatu
Page 139 and 140:
Page 141 and 142:
Table 1. Chemical composition of es
Page 143 and 144:
Darjazi 2369 Table 2. Statistical a
Page 145 and 146:
Table 3. Correlation matrix (number
Page 147 and 148:
Page 149 and 150:
Table 1. Precision test. extraction
Page 151 and 152:
Figure 2. Effect of different alcoh
Page 153 and 154:
Table 6. Results of ANOVA. Nie et a
Page 155 and 156:
Page 157 and 158:
Table 2. Plant data and MIC values
Page 159 and 160:
exhibiting the polar extracts of P.
Page 161 and 162:
Table 3. Contd. AcOEt ++ ++ ++ - Me
Page 163 and 164:
Figure 1. Map of Ladakh region of I
Page 165 and 166:
Warghat et al. 2391 Table 3. Summar
Page 167 and 168:
Table 5. Inter-Population genetic i
Page 169 and 170:
Excoffier L, Smouse PE, Quattro JM
Page 171 and 172:
ice residue is an ideal raw materia
Page 173 and 174:
DPPH• scavenging ratio(%) OD valu
Page 175 and 176:
scavenging effect on free radical a
Page 177 and 178:
our new CL system. Fenton reaction
Page 179 and 180:
1 2 Time (s) Figure 2. Kinetic curv
Page 181 and 182:
Wong et al., 2006). It can be seen
Page 183 and 184:
Pan YM, Liang Y, Wang HS, Liang M (
Page 185 and 186:
2422 J. Med. Plants Res. close cano
Page 187 and 188: 2424 J. Med. Plants Res. Table 1. M
Page 189 and 190: 2426 J. Med. Plants Res. Table 1. C
Page 195 and 196: 2432 J. Med. Plants Res. Table 2. D
Page 197 and 198: 2434 J. Med. Plants Res. Table 6. T
Page 199 and 200: 2436 J. Med. Plants Res. budget dur
Page 201 and 202: Journal of Medicinal Plants Researc
Page 203 and 204: 2440 J. Med. Plants Res. Table 1. R
Page 205 and 206: 2442 J. Med. Plants Res. Stability
Page 207 and 208: 2444 J. Med. Plants Res. production
Page 209 and 210: 2446 J. Med. Plants Res. Figure 2.
Page 213 and 214: 2450 J. Med. Plants Res. Table 2. A
Page 215 and 216: 2452 J. Med. Plants Res. Ghasemi Pi
Page 217 and 218: 2454 J. Med. Plants Res. Table 1. I
Page 219 and 220: 2456 J. Med. Plants Res. Table 3. M
Page 223 and 224: 2460 J. Med. Plants Res. Department
Page 225 and 226: 2462 J. Med. Plants Res. Table 3. E
Page 229 and 230: 2466 J. Med. Plants Res. AOAC (2000
Page 233 and 234: 2470 J. Med. Plants Res. Table 1. F
Page 235 and 236: 2472 J. Med. Plants Res. Table 3. S
Page 237: Journal of Medicinal Plants Researc
Page 243 and 244: 2480 J. Med. Plants Res. Table 1. W
Page 249 and 250: 2486 J. Med. Plants Res. components
Page 253 and 254: 2490 J. Med. Plants Res. Inhibition
Page 257 and 258: 2494 J. Med. Plants Res. can increa
Page 263 and 264: 2500 J. Med. Plants Res. Flowering
Page 265 and 266: 2502 J. Med. Plants Res. harvest in
Page 275 and 276: 2512 J. Med. Plants Res. over-expre
Page 279 and 280: 2516 J. Med. Plants Res. Table 1. P
Page 287 and 288: 2524 J. Med. Plants Res. ACKNOWLEDG
Page 289 and 290:
UPCOMING CONFERENCES 15th European
Page 291:
show all

Download Complete Issue - Academic Journals

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?