4.6 Article

Development and validation of a UFLC-MS/MS method for simultaneous quantification of sixty-six saponins and their six aglycones: Application to comparative analysis of red ginseng and white ginseng

Journal

JOURNAL OF PHARMACEUTICAL AND BIOMEDICAL ANALYSIS
Volume 159, Issue -, Pages 153-165

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.jpba.2018.06.048

Keywords

Red ginseng; UFLC-MS/MS; Ginsenoside markers; Quantification

Funding

  1. Guiding Foundation of Pharmaceutical Industry Development Project of Jilin Province [20150311022YY]
  2. National Natural Science Foundation of China [81530097]
  3. National Key Technology R & D Program of China [2011BAI07B08]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

A new and sensitive ultra fast liquid chromatography coupled with electrospray ionization triple quadrupole tandem mass spectrometry (UFLC-MS/MS) method was developed to evaluate the quality of Red ginseng (RG) and to find out its chemical markers by comparing with multi-batches of RG and white ginseng (WG). This innovative method could quantify sixty-six saponins and their six aglycones including 10 pairs of 20(5) and 20(R) epimers within 35 min simultaneously. All compounds could be determined in individual multiple-reaction monitoring channel without interference, and the optimized method was rapid, accurate, precise, reproducible and efficient. Using the orthogonal partial least squared discriminant analysis, ginsenosides Rg(5), Rh-4, Rk(1), Rs(4), F-4, and 20(S)-Rg(3) were found to be the characteristic components of RG, the six compounds should be suggested as quality control markers to distinguish RG from WG. These findings will be significant for standardizing the processing procedures of RG and ensuring the consistent quality, as well as consequently the efficacy of RG in clinical applications. Results will be helpful in providing crucial chemical profiles of RG. (C) 2018 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

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