4.7 Review

Saponins in the genus Panax L. (Araliaceae): A systematic review of their chemical diversity

期刊

PHYTOCHEMISTRY
卷 106, 期 -, 页码 7-24

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.phytochem.2014.07.012

关键词

Panax genus; Panax ginseng; Panax quinquefolius; Panax notoginseng; Araliaceae; Saponins; Chemical diversity; Subtype classification

资金

  1. Program for New Century Excellent Talents in University from China Ministry of Education [BMU20110269]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The Panax genus is a crucial source of natural medicines that has benefited human health for a long time. Three valuable medicinal herbs, namely Panax ginseng, Panax quinquefolius, and Panax notoginseng, have received considerable interest due to their extensive application in clinical therapy, healthcare products, and as foods and food additives world-wide. Panax species are known to contain abundant levels of saponins, also dubbed ginsenosides, which refer to a series of dammarane or oleanane type triterpenoid glycosides. These saponins exhibit modulatory effects to the central nervous system and beneficial effects to patients suffering from cardiovascular diseases, and also have anti-diabetic and anti-tumor properties. To the end of 2012, at least 289 saponins were reported from eleven different Panax species. This comprehensive review describes the advances in the phytochemistry of the genus Panax for the period 1963-2012, based on the 134 cited references. The reported saponins can be classified into protopanaxadiol, protopanaxatriol, octillol, oleanolic acid, C17 side-chain varied, and miscellaneous subtypes, according to structural differences in sapogenins. The investigational history of Panax is also reviewed, with special attention being paid to the structural features of the six different subtypes, together with their H-1 and C-13 NMR spectroscopic characteristics which are useful for determining their structures and absolute configuration. (C) 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据