4.6 Article

A network pharmacology-integrated metabolomics strategy for clarifying the difference between effective compounds of raw and processed Farfarae flos by ultra high-performance liquid chromatography-quadrupole-time of flight mass spectrometry

期刊

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.jpba.2018.05.003

关键词

Metabolomics methods; Effective compounds; Honey-fried products; Network pharmacology; Farfarae flos; UHPLC-Q-TOF/MS

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [81374050, 81503213]
  2. Special Science and Technology Foundation Project [2014FY111100]
  3. Tianjin Research Program of Application Foundation and Advanced Technology [15JCYBJC29300]
  4. Special Program of Talents Development for Excellent Youth Scholars in Tianjin of China
  5. PCSIRT [IRT-14R41]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study aimed to clarify the difference between the effective compounds of raw and processed Farfarae flos using a network pharmacology-integrated metabolomics strategy. First, metabolomics data were obtained by ultra high-performance liquid chromatography-quadrupole-time of flight mass spectrometry (UHPLC-Q-TOF/MS). Then, metabolomics analysis was developed to screen for the influential compounds that were different between raw and processed Farfarae flos. Finally, a network pharmacology approach was applied to verify the activity of the screened compounds. As a result, 4 compounds (chlorogenic acid, caffeic acid, rutin and isoquercitrin) were successfully screened, identified, quantified and verified as the most influential effective compounds. They may synergistically inhibit the p38, JNK and ERK-mediated pathways, which would induce the inhibition of the expression of the IFA virus. The results revealed that the proposed network pharmacology-integrated metabolomics strategy was a powerful tool for discovering the effective compounds that were responsible for the difference between raw and processed Chinese herbs. (C) 2018 Elsevier B.V. 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

4.6
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