4.7 Article

Identification and differentiation of Panax ginseng, Panax quinquefolium, and Panax notoginseng by monitoring multiple diagnostic chemical markers

Journal

ACTA PHARMACEUTICA SINICA B
Volume 6, Issue 6, Pages 568-575

Publisher

INST MATERIA MEDICA, CHINESE ACAD MEDICAL SCIENCES
DOI: 10.1016/j.apsb.2016.05.005

Keywords

Panax species; Ginsenoside; LC-MS fingerprinting; Chemical marker; TCM compound preparation

Funding

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [81222054]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

To differentiate traditional Chinese medicines (TCM) derived from congeneric species in TCM compound preparations is usually challenging. The roots of Panax ginseng (PG), Panax quinquefolium (PQ) and Panax notoginseng (PN) are used as popular TCM. They contain similar triterpenoid saponins (ginsenosides) as the major bioactive constituents. Thus far, only a few chemical markers have been discovered to differentiate these three species. Herein we present a multiple marker detection approach to effectively differentiate the three Panax species, and to identify them in compound preparations. Firstly, 85 batches of crude drug samples (including 32 PG, 30 PQ, and 23 PN) were analyzed by monitoring 40 major ginsenosides in the extracted ion chromatograms (EICs) using a validated LC MS fingerprinting method. Secondly, the samples were clustered into different groups by pattern recognition chemometric approaches using PLS-DA and OPLS-DA models, and 17 diagnostic chemical markers were discovered. Aside from the previously known Rf and p-F11, ginsenoside Rsi could be a new marker to differentiate PG from PQ. Finally, the above multiple chemical markers were used to identify the Panax species in 60 batches of TCM compound preparations. (C) 2016 Chinese Pharmaceutical Association and Institute of Materia Medica, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences. Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available