4.6 Article

An Integrated LC-MS-Based Strategy for the Quality Assessment and Discrimination of Three Panax Species

Journal

MOLECULES
Volume 23, Issue 11, Pages -

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/molecules23112988

Keywords

qualitative analysis; quantitative analysis; ginsenosides; panax species; UHPLC-Q-Exactive; HRMS

Funding

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [81274013, 81473315]
  2. CAMS Innovation Fund for Medical Sciences (CIFMS) [2016-I2M-3-015]
  3. Key Projects in the National Science and Technology Pillar Program [2011BAI07B08]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The quality assessment and discrimination of Panax herbs are very challenging to perform due to the complexity and variability of their chemical compositions. An integrated strategy was established using UHPLC-Q-Exactive/HRMS and HPLC-ESI-MS/MS to achieve an accurate, rapid, and comprehensive qualitative and quantitative analysis of Panax japonicas (PJ), Panax japonicus var. major (PM), and Panax zingiberensis (PZ). Additionally, discrimination among the three species was explored with partial least squares-discriminant analysis (PLS-DA) and orthogonal partial least squares-discriminant analysis (OPLS-DA) score plots. A total of 101 compounds were plausibly or unambiguously identified, including 82 from PJ, 78 from PM, and 67 from PZ. Among them, 16 representative ginsenosides were further quantified in three herbs. A clear discrimination between the three species was observed through a multivariate statistical analysis on the quantitative data. Nine compounds that allowed for discrimination between PJ, PM, and PZ were discovered. Notably, ginsenoside Rf (G-Rf), ginsenoside F3 (G-F3), and chikusetsu saponin IV (CS-IV) were the three most important differential compounds. The research indicated that the integrated LC-MS-based strategy can be applied for the quality assessment and discrimination of the three Panax herbs.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available