4.1 Article

Chemical and pharmacological evaluations on the extract of Scutellaria baicalensis Georgi (Huang-Qin) prepared by various extraction methods

Journal

SPRINGERPLUS
Volume 5, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

SPRINGER INTERNATIONAL PUBLISHING AG
DOI: 10.1186/s40064-016-3115-3

Keywords

Scutellaria baicalensis Georgi; Extraction efficiency; Antioxidant properties; Herb-drug interaction

Funding

  1. Health and Health Services Research Fund (Food and Health Bureau, Hong Kong SAR, PR of China) [08090471]
  2. Shenzhen Basic Research Program (Shenzhen, PR of China) [JCYJ20140819153305694]
  3. National Science Foundation of China Program (PR of China) [81503222]
  4. Faculty of Science and Technology, Technological and Higher Education Institute of Hong Kong (Hong Kong SAR, PR of China)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: This study reported a comprehensive approach (comparing the extraction yields, chemical profiles, antioxidant properties and CYP450-inhibitory effects) to evaluated the effectiveness of various extraction methods [microwave-assisted extraction using water (MAE-W), heat reflux extraction using water (HRE-W), ultrasonic extraction using 70 % ethanol and ultrasonic extraction using ethanol (UE-E)] for Huang-Qin (HQ), the dried root of Scutellaria baicalensis Georgi. Results: The HQ extraction efficiency by MAE-W was the best. The chemical profiles of extracts obtained using HRE-W and MAE-W were similar; whereas more flavones but less flavone glycosides were detected in the UE-E extract. There was no difference in the antioxidant properties among different extracts. In vitro human liver microsome assays illustrated that all extracts possessed herb-drug interaction potentials but the UE-E extract are shown with a potent interaction with CYP3A4-metabolized drugs. Conclusion: MAE-W is a favorable method for the preparation of HQ extracts based on extraction yield, pharmacological properties and safety.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available