Qualitative and Quantitative Analysis of Rhizoma Smilacis glabrae by Ultra High Performance Liquid Chromatography Coupled with LTQ OrbitrapXL Hybrid Mass Spectrometry
1
The Second College of Clinic Medicine, Guangzhou University of Chinese Medicine, Guangzhou 510000, China
2
Guangdong Provincial Hospital of Chinese Medicine, Guangzhou 510000, China
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Molecules 2014, 19(7), 10427-10439; https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules190710427
Submission received: 3 June 2014
/
Revised: 10 July 2014
/
Accepted: 11 July 2014
/
Published: 17 July 2014
(This article belongs to the Section Natural Products Chemistry)
Abstract
:Rhizoma Smilacis glabrae, a traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) as well as a functional food, has been commonly used for detoxification treatments, relieving dampness and as a diuretic. In order to quickly define the chemical profiles and control the quality of Smilacis glabrae, ultra high performance liquid chromatography coupled with electrospray ionization hybrid linear trap quadrupole orbitrap mass spectrometry (UHPLC-ESI/LTQ-Orbitrap-MS) was applied for simultaneous identification and quantification of its bioactive constituents. A total of 56 compounds, including six new compounds, were identified or tentatively deduced on the basis of their retention behaviors, mass spectra, or by comparison with reference substances and literature data. The identified compounds belonged to flavonoids, phenolic acids and phenylpropanoid glycosides. In addition, an optimized UHPLC-ESI/LTQ-Orbitrap-MS method was established for quantitative determination of six marker compounds from five batches. The validation of the method, including linearity, sensitivity (LOQ), precision, repeatability and spike recoveries, was carried out and demonstrated to be satisfied the requirements of quantitative analysis. The results suggested that the established method would be a powerful and reliable analytical tool for the characterization of multi-constituent in complex chemical system and quality control of TCM.
1. Introduction
The rhizome of Smilacis glabrae Roxb (family Smilacaceae) is a well-known traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) with great medicinal values. It is officially listed in the Chinese Pharmacopoeia and has been widely used for detoxification treatments, relieving dampness and as a diuretic [1]. It was also consumed as a functional food. People in China like to use it to boil soup or tea for clearing damp. Besides, it is one of the main ingredients of turtle jelly (Gui-ling-gao), a traditional functional food popular in Southern China and Hong Kong. Phytochemical studies have shown the presence of abundant compounds in S. glabrae, such as flavonoids, phenolic acids and phenylpropanoid glycosides [2,3], among which flavonoids were considered to be the primary bioactive constituents of the herbal medicine. Astilbin, neoastilbin, isoastilbin, neoisoastilbin, engeletin and isoengeletin were considered as marker constituents included in S. glabrae. These six flavonoids were reported to possess various biological activities, involving anti-inflammatory, antioxidative, antibacterial and antitumor properties [4,5,6,7,8,9,10]. Some analytical methods have been used for qualitative or quantitative analysis of some of these bioactive constituents in S. glabrae. Li et al. identified the main constituents in Rhizoma Smilacis glabrae by means of UHPLC-DAD-MS [3]. Chen et al. established an HPLC method for determination of five compounds in Rhizoma Smilacis glabrae [11]. Although these methods have made significant contributions to the studies of the quality control of Smilacis glabrae, they have limitations, such as taking a long time to perform or being either qualitative or quantitative. Less effort has been dedicated to further characterize minor new components or the rapid determination of active components, so a new method is required to address the limitations of the previous techniques.
The present work aimed at developing a rapid and simple UHPLC-ESI-MS method for analyzing and discovering minor new constituents, and quantifying the active components in Smilacis glabrae. The advantages of this method comprised high-speed detection, excellent peak shapes, and less solvent usage. With the new method it took less than 10 min to detect 56 compounds of Smilacis glabrae, including six new compounds. Further, six marker flavonoids were quantitatively determined in negative ionization mode and five batches of Smilacis glabrae were analyzed for assessment of quality consistence. This is the first time for determination of multiple components in Smilacis glabrae using UHPLC-ESI/LTQ-Orbitrap-MS.
2. Results and Discussion
2.1. Optimization of Chromatographic Conditions
To improve the resolution and sensitivity of the analysis but reduce the analytical time, the mobile phase system was optimized. To inhibit ionization of the acidic ingredients in Smilacis glabrae extract, formic acid was added to the mobile phase. Two mobile phase systems, methanol-aqueous solution and acetonitrile-aqueous solution were compared. Both negative and positive modes were examined. Generally, in positive mode, low abundance of [M+H]+, [M+NH4]+ ions and few product ions were observed, while, in negative ion mode, a series of [M-H]− ions and/or adduct ions ([M+HCOOH-H]−) appeared with sufficient abundance. Thus the negative ion mode was chosen and the [M-H]−/([M+HCOOH-H]−) ions were further subjected to LC-MSn analysis.
2.2. Identification of Chemical Constituents in Smilacis glabrae Extract
The reference standards and Smilacis glabrae sample were analyzed by using the optimized UHPLC-ESI-MSn method. The TIC chromatograms of the six reference standards and the extract of Smilacis glabrae in negative ESI mode were shown in Figure 1. Fifty six peaks were observed. The MS data showed high precision with all the mass accuracies within 5 ppm. For most of the constituents, a [M-H]− peak was observed. Due to the use of formic acid in mobile phase, there were additional ions of [M+46-H]− corresponding to [M+HCOOH-H]− in negative ion mode. These results provided valuable information for confirming accurate molecular weights and composition of the constituents. The 56 compounds including six new ones were tentatively identified on the basis of their retention behaviors, accurate molecular weight and MSn fragment data, or by comparison with reference standards or literature data (chemical structures of the compounds corresponding to the peaks shown in Figure 1 below can be found in Figure 1 in the Supplementary). The corresponding quasimolecular ions and their fragment ions in the MSn spectra are listed in Table 1.
Figure 1.
UHPLC-(-) ESI-MS total ion chromatograms of a mixture of six standards (A) and the extract of Smilacis glabrae (B).
Figure 1.
UHPLC-(-) ESI-MS total ion chromatograms of a mixture of six standards (A) and the extract of Smilacis glabrae (B).
The identified compounds can be classified into three classes, namely flavonoids, phenolic acids and phenylpropanoid glycosides. Four flavanonol isomers (compounds 30, 31, 34 and 35) were unambiguously identified by the same deprotonated ions at m/z 449 (C21H21O11) and the same product ions at m/z 303 and m/z 285, and they could be distinguished through their UV absorption and elution order when compared to reference standards. Neoastilbin (30) with 2S,3S configuration and astilbin (31) with 2R,3R configuration had the same UVmax absorption at 290 nm, while neoisoastilbin (34) with 2S,3R configuration and isoastilbin (35) with 2R,3S configuration had the same UV absorption at 295–296 nm (see Figure 2 in the Supplementary), the latter caused a red shift of 5–6 nm, and the elution order of the four flavanonol isomers were 2S,3S > 2R,3R > 2S,3R > 2R,3S. The four flavanonols were the main constituents of S. glabrae. To our surprise, compounds 19, 21, 25 and 29 had the same deprotonated ions at m/z 629 (C30H29O15) and the same fragment ions (Figure 2), which demonstrated they were also diastereomers. In the MS2 spectra, the product ions at m/z 449 [M-H-C9H8O4] and m/z 303 [M-H-C9H8O4-rhamnose] suggested the four diastereomers were the derivatives of the four configurationally different astilbins. In addition, two prominent MS2 product ions were observed at m/z 475 and m/z 483, respectively, for the neutral loss of CO2 + C6H6O2 and for the loss of a rhamnose, which indicated they had the same substituent group and substituent site. The four isomers could also be distinguished through their UV absorption. Compounds 19 and 21 had the same UV absorption at 289 nm, while compounds 25 and 29 had the same UV absorption at 295 nm (see Figure 2 in the Supplementary), which indicated that compounds 19 and 21 had the 2S,3S or 2R,3R configuration, while compounds 25 and 29 had the 2S,3R or 2R,3S configuration. As the elution order was 2S,3S > 2R,3R > 2S,3R > 2R,3S, thus compounds 19, 21, 25 and 29 were tentatively identified as 8-[β-(3,4-dihydroxyphenyl)-α-carboxyl-3-oxopropyl]-substituted neoastilbin, 8-[β-(3,4-dihydroxyphenyl)-α-carboxyl-3-oxopropyl]-substituted astilbin, 8-[β-(3,4-dihydroxyphenyl)-α-carboxyl-3-oxopropyl]-substituted neoisoastilbin and 8-[β-(3,4-dihydroxyphenyl)-α-carboxyl-3-oxopropyl]-substituted isoastilbin, respectively. Similarly, compounds 38 and 42 were unambiguously identified as engeletin (38) and isoengeletin (42) based on reference standards, and compounds 24 and 28 were tentatively identified as 8-[β-(3,4-dihydroxyphenyl)-α-carboxyl-3-oxopropyl]-substituted engeletin and 8-[β-(3,4-dihydroxyphenyl)-α-carboxyl-3-oxopropyl]-substituted isoengeletin, respectively (Figure 3 in the Supplementary). Compounds 19, 21, 24, 25, 28 and 29 were identified as new compounds, but their absolute configurations could not be determined.
2.3. Method Validation of the Quantitative Analysis
The calibration curves, linear ranges, limit of quantification (LOQ) and repeatability of six analytes were performed using the above-developed UHPLC-ESI-MS method (Table 2). Reasonable correlation coefficient values (r2 ≥ 0.9981) indicated good correlations between investigated standards concentrations and their peak areas within the ranges tested. The ranges of LOQ for all the analytes were from 0.011 to 0.067 μg/mL, respectively. The repeatability present as RSD (n = 6) was between 1.77% and 2.37% of the 6 analytes. The overall intra- and inter-day precisions (RSD) of the six analytes were in the range from 1.03% to 3.19%, and 0.76% to 3.91% (Table 2), respectively. The developed method had good accuracy with the RSD of the recoveries were between 1.49% and 4.73% (Table 2). Therefore, the results demonstrated that the UHPLC-ESI-MS method was sensitive, precise, and accurate enough for quantitative evaluation of Smilacis glabrae.
| Peak No. | tR (min) | Selected Ion | Observed Mass (m/z) | Calculated Mass (m/z) | Formula | MS/MS Fragmentation Patterns | Identifieation | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 a | 1.15 | [M-H]− | 173.0457 | 173.0450 | C7H9O5 | 173→155, 129, 111 | shikimic acid | ||||||||||
| 2 | 1.62 | [M-H]− | 117.0195 | 117.0188 | C4H5O4 | 117→99, 73 | succinic acid | ||||||||||
| 3 | 2.32 | [M-H]− | 359.0984 | 359.0978 | C15H19O10 | 359→197, 182 | syringic acid-4-O-β-d-glucopyranoside | ||||||||||
| 4 | 2.34 | [M+COOH]− | 255.0512 | 255.0505 | C11H11O7 | 255→209, 193, 179, 165 | 3,4-dihydroxy-5-methoxycinnamic acid | ||||||||||
| 5 | 2.47 | [M+COOH]− | 345.1191 | 345.1186 | C15H21O9 | 345→299 | rhodioloside | ||||||||||
| 6 a | 2.70 | [M-H]− | 153.0194 | 153.0188 | C7H5O4 | 153→109 | protocatechuic acid | ||||||||||
| 7 | 2.91 | [M+COOH]− | 197.0458 | 197.0450 | C9H9O5 | 197→153 | syringic acid | ||||||||||
| 8 | 2.97 | [M-H]− | 387.1296 | 387.1291 | C17H23O10 | 387→207, 177 | 3-(β-d-glucopyranosyloxy)-1-(4-hydroxy-3,5-dimethoxyphenyl)-1-propanone | ||||||||||
| 9 | 3.08 | [M-H]− | 577.1346 | 577.1346 | C30H25O12 | 577→559, 451, 425, 407, 289 | procyanidin B | ||||||||||
| 10 a | 3.13 | [M-H]− | 289.0720 | 289.0712 | C15H13O6 | 289→271, 245, 205,179,151 | catechin | ||||||||||
| 11 | 3.19 | [M-H]− | 239.0564 | 239.0556 | C11H11O6 | 239→221, 195, 179, 177, 149 | syringic acid acetate | ||||||||||
| 12 | 3.36 | [M-H]− | 315.1074 | 315.1080 | C14H19O8 | 315→153 | 3,4-dihydroxyphenethyl glucoside | ||||||||||
| 13 a | 3.45 | [M-H]− | 469.1141 | 469.1135 | C24H21O10 | 469→315, 289 | (2 R,3S)-8-[β-(3,4-dihydroxyphenyl)-α-carboxyl-3-oxopropyl]-substituted catechin | ||||||||||
| 14 a | 3.55 | [M-H]− | 335.0777 | 335.0767 | C16H15O8 | 335→291, 179, 135 | 3-O-caffeoylshikimic acid | ||||||||||
| 15 a | 3.58 | [M-H]− | 561.1397 | 561.1397 | C30H25O11 | 561→543, 435, 289 | 3',4',5,7-tetrahydroxyflavan(4°8)-3,3',4',5,7-pentahydroxyflavan | ||||||||||
| 16 a | 3.61 | [M-H]− | 289.0722 | 289.0712 | C15H13O6 | 289→271, 245, 205, 179, 151 | epicatechin | ||||||||||
| 17 a | 3.74 | [M-H]− | 335.0777 | 335.0767 | C16H15O8 | 335→291, 179, 135 | 4-O-caffeoylshikimic acid | ||||||||||
| 18 a | 3.76 | [M-H]− | 179.0350 | 179.0344 | C9H7O4 | 179→161, 135 | caffeic acid | ||||||||||
| 19 b | 3.93 | [M-H]− | 629.1514 | 629.1506 | C30H29O15 | 629→483, 475, 449, 303, 285 | 8-[β-(3,4-dihydroxyphenyl)-α-carboxyl-3-oxopropyl]-substituted neoastilbin | ||||||||||
| 20 | 4.04 | [M-H]− | 465.1041 | 465.1033 | C21H21O12 | 465→421, 297 | 4-O-β-d-(6-O-gentisoylglucopyranosyl)-vanillic acid | ||||||||||
| 21 b | 4.20 | [M-H]− | 629.1514 | 629.1506 | C30H29O15 | 629→483, 475, 449, 303, 285 | 8-[β-(3,4-dihydroxyphenyl)-α-carboxyl-3-oxopropyl]-substituted astilbin | ||||||||||
| 22 | 4.23 | [M-H]− | 339.0721 | 339.0716 | C15H15O9 | 339→193 | smiglanin | ||||||||||
| 23 a | 4.39 | [M-H]− | 335.0777 | 335.0767 | C16H15O8 | 335→291, 179, 135 | 5-O-caffeoylshikimic acid | ||||||||||
| 24 b | 4.44 | [M-H]− | 613.1565 | 613.1557 | C30H29O14 | 613→467, 459, 433, 287 | 8-[β-(3,4-dihydroxyphenyl)-α-carboxyl-3-oxopropyl]-substituted engeletin | ||||||||||
| 25 b | 4.56 | [M-H]− | 629.1514 | 629.1506 | C30H29O15 | 629→483, 475, 449, 303, 285 | 8-[β-(3,4-dihydroxyphenyl)-α-carboxyl-3-oxopropyl]-substituted neoisoastilbin | ||||||||||
| 26 | 4.84 | [M-H]− | 301.0354 | 301.0348 | C15H9O7 | 301→283, 255, 215, 175, 151 | quercetin | ||||||||||
| 27 | 4.97 | [M+COOH]− | 435.1297 | 435.1291 | C21H23O10 | 435→389, 227,195 | polydatin | ||||||||||
| 28 b | 5.06 | [M-H]− | 613.1565 | 613.1557 | C30H29O14 | 613→467, 459, 433, 287 | 8-[β-(3,4-dihydroxyphenyl)-α-carboxyl-3-oxopropyl]-substituted isoengeletin | ||||||||||
| 29 b | 5.12 | [M-H]− | 629.1514 | 629.1506 | C30H29O15 | 629→483, 475, 449, 303 | 8-[β-(3,4-dihydroxyphenyl)-α-carboxyl-3-oxopropyl]-substituted isoastilbin | ||||||||||
| 30 c | 5.29 | [M-H]− | 449.1099 | 449.1084 | C21H21O11 | 449→303, 285 | neoastilbin | ||||||||||
| 31 c | 5.63 | [M-H]− | 449.1099 | 449.1084 | C21H21O11 | 449→303, 285 | astilbin | ||||||||||
| 32 a | 5.72 | [M-H]− | 193.0511 | 193.0501 | C10H9O4 | 193→178, 161, 134 | ferulic acid | ||||||||||
| 33 a | 6.10 | [M-H]− | 303.0513 | 303.0505 | C15H11O7 | 303→285, 177, 125 | taxifolin | ||||||||||
| 34 c | 6.55 | [M-H]− | 449.1099 | 449.1084 | C21H21O11 | 449→303, 285 | neoisoastilbin | ||||||||||
| 35 c | 6.81 | [M-H]− | 449.1099 | 449.1084 | C21H21O11 | 449→303, 285 | isoastilbin | ||||||||||
| 36 | 6.86 | [M-H]− | 243.0665 | 243.0657 | C14H11O4 | 243→225, 201, 199, 175 | piceatannol | ||||||||||
| 37 | 7.27 | [M-H]− | 433.1149 | 433.1135 | C21H21O10 | 433→287, 269 | neoengeletin | ||||||||||
| 38 c | 7.43 | [M-H]− | 433.1149 | 433.1135 | C21H21O10 | 433→287, 269 | engeletin | ||||||||||
| 39 a | 7.49 | [M-H]− | 359.0771 | 359.0767 | C18H15O8 | 359→341, 291, 239, 197 | rosmarinic acid | ||||||||||
| 40 | 7.53 | [M-H]− | 433.1149 | 433.1135 | C21H21O10 | 433→287,269 | neoisoengeletin | ||||||||||
| 41 | 8.16 | [M-H]− | 693.2029 | 693.2031 | C32H37O17 | 693→517, 337 | helonioside A | ||||||||||
| 42 c | 8.20 | [M-H]− | 433.1149 | 433.1135 | C21H21O10 | 433→287,269 | isoengeletin | ||||||||||
| 43 a | 8.23 | [M-H]− | 451.1038 | 451.1029 | C24H19O9 | 451→341 | cinchonain Ia | ||||||||||
| 44 | 8.25 | [M-H]− | 693.2029 | 693.2031 | C32H37O17 | 693→357 | securoside A | ||||||||||
| 37 | 7.27 | [M-H]− | 433.1149 | 433.1135 | C21H21O10 | 433→287, 269 | neoengeletin | ||||||||||
| 45 a | 8.30 | [M-H]− | 451.1035 | 451.1029 | C24H19O9 | 451→341 | cinchonain Ib | ||||||||||
| 46 | 8.32 | [M-H]− | 227.0717 | 227.0708 | C14H11O3 | 227→209,185, 183, 159, 157, 143 | resveratrol | ||||||||||
| 47 a | 8.35 | [M-H]− | 809.2293 | 809.2293 | C40H41O18 | 809→767, 663, 633 | smilaside G | ||||||||||
| 48 a | 8.36 | [M-H]− | 839.2408 | 839.2398 | C41H43O19 | 839→797, 693, 663, 517 | smilaside J | ||||||||||
| 49 a | 8.38 | [M-H]− | 869.2502 | 869.2504 | C42H45O20 | 869→827, 693, 675 | smilaside L | ||||||||||
| 50 | 8.40 | [M-H]− | 777.2248 | 777.2242 | C36H41O19 | 777→735, 717, 601, 559 | (3,6-di-O-feruloyl)-β-d-fructofuranosyl-(3,6-di-O-acetyl)-α-d-glucopyranoside | ||||||||||
| 51 | 8.42 | [M-H]− | 819.2354 | 819.2348 | C38H43O20 | 819→777, 643, 601, 513 | smilaside C | ||||||||||
| 52 | 8.44 | [M-H]− | 923.2604 | 923.2610 | C45H47O21 | 923→881, 863, 747, 601, 483 | smilaside E | ||||||||||
| 53 | 8.45 | [M-H]− | 953.2712 | 953.2715 | C46H49O22 | 953→911, 777, 735, 717, 289 | smilaside B | ||||||||||
| 54 a | 8.48 | [M-H]− | 271.0614 | 271.0606 | C15H11O5 | 271→177, 151 | naringenin | ||||||||||
| 55 | 8.52 | [M-H]− | 965.2719 | 965.2715 | C47H49O22 | 965→923, 905, 789, 747, 483 | smilaside D | ||||||||||
| 56 | 8.55 | [M-H]− | 995.2829 | 995.2821 | C48H51O23 | 995→953, 819, 777, 513 | smilaside A | ||||||||||
a Compared with reference [3]; b Identified as new compound; c Compared with reference standards.
Figure 2.
Proposed fragmentation pathways for compounds 19, 21, 25 and 29.
2.4. Quantitative Analysis
The newly established analytical method was subsequently applied to determine the six compounds of Smilacis glabrae. The target compounds were identified based on comparison of retention time and mass information obtained from UHPLC-ESI-MS analysis of the reference standards. Table 3 showed the content determined for each compound. The results indicated that the amount of most components determined was similar in the five different batches.
Table 2.
Summary of calibration curves, linear range, LOQ, repeatability, intra-day and inter-day precisions and recoveries for six analytes analyzed with the LC-MS system
| Analyte | Linear Range (μg/mL) | Calibration Curve (n = 7) | r2 | LOQ (μg/mL) | Repeatability RSD (%) | Intra-day (RSD, %) (n = 6) | Inter-day (RSD, %) (n = 3) | Recoveries (n = 3) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Initial (μg) | Spiked (μg) | Detected (μg) | Recoveries (%) | RSD (%) | ||||||||
| Neoastilbin | 0.82−32.8 | y = 8593.3 x + 281942 | 0.9993 | 0.016 | 2.37 | 3.19 | 3.05 | 3.470 | 2.628 | 5.872 | 96.27 | 3.51 |
| 3.284 | 6.890 | 101.99 | 3.16 | |||||||||
| 3.940 | 7.085 | 95.63 | 1.65 | |||||||||
| Astilbin | 3.10−124.1 | y = 8921.6 x + 16423 | 0.9991 | 0.062 | 1.86 | 1.03 | 0.76 | 13.677 | 9.932 | 22.963 | 97.27 | 2.57 |
| 12.416 | 25.468 | 97.60 | 3.86 | |||||||||
| 14.900 | 27.916 | 97.69 | 2.66 | |||||||||
| Neoisoastilbin | 0.33−13.3 | y = 8299.7 x + 165713 | 0.9988 | 0.067 | 1.91 | 2.43 | 2.49 | 1.517 | 1.064 | 2.342 | 90.77 | 4.73 |
| 1.340 | 2.426 | 91.94 | 3.39 | |||||||||
| 1.606 | 3.205 | 102.65 | 3.83 | |||||||||
| Isoastilbin | 1.78–71.2 | y = 8479.3 x + 161354 | 0.9981 | 0.018 | 2.15 | 1.07 | 0.79 | 7.188 | 5.702 | 12.485 | 96.86 | 1.80 |
| 7.128 | 14.153 | 98.86 | 2.83 | |||||||||
| 8.555 | 15.011 | 95.35 | 2.30 | |||||||||
| Engeletin | 0.86–34.4 | y = 4620.5 x − 107846 | 0.9992 | 0.017 | 1.77 | 2.00 | 3.91 | 4.110 | 2.756 | 7.038 | 102.51 | 2.14 |
| 3.444 | 7.300 | 96.59 | 1.49 | |||||||||
| 4.132 | 8.271 | 100.39 | 2.37 | |||||||||
| Isoengeletin | 0.28–11.1 | y = 4472.8 x − 12397 | 0.9991 | 0.011 | 1.94 | 2.83 | 2.86 | 1.237 | 0.896 | 2.152 | 100.95 | 2.34 |
| 1.120 | 2.368 | 100.37 | 3.09 | |||||||||
| 1.134 | 2.506 | 97.18 | 4.50 | |||||||||
| Analyte | Content (μg/g) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Batch 1 | Batch 2 | Batch 3 | Batch 4 | Batch 5 | |
| Neoastilbin | 2173.1 | 2735.9 | 2356.9 | 2537.4 | 2253.7 |
| Astilbin | 8548.2 | 8996.1 | 9262.1 | 10,962.2 | 9988.6 |
| Neoisoastilbin | 948.3 | 1046.4 | 971.2 | 1188.7 | 1097.3 |
| Isoastilbin | 4493.2 | 4189.5 | 4257.9 | 2800.9 | 3461.3 |
| Engeletin | 2587.2 | 2494.3 | 2682.1 | 1821.6 | 2047.6 |
| Isoengeletin | 771.6 | 727.6 | 834.9 | 594.3 | 488.5 |
3. Experimental Section
3.1. Chemicals and Materials
HPLC grade acetonitrile and methanol were purchased from Fisher Chemicals (Fairlawn, NJ, USA). Formic acid of HPLC grade was purchased from Sigma Aldrich (St. Louis, MO, USA). Water (18.2 MΩ) was from a Milli-Q water system (Millipore, Bedford, MA, USA). Neoastilbin (30), astilbin (31), neoisoastilbin (34), isoastilbin (35), engeletin (38) and isoengeletin (42) were provided by Dr. Lixiong from the Guangdong Provincial Hospital of Chinese Medicine. Three batches of Smilacis glabrae originating from Guangdong Province, China were supplied by Kangmei Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd. (Puning, China). Two batches of Smilacis glabrae from the Hunan and Guangxi provinces of China were purchased from Er-tian-tang Pharmacy (Guangzhou, China). Voucher samples were deposited in the Laboratory of Chinese Materia Medica Preparation, Second Affiliated Hospital, Guangzhou University of Traditional Chinese Medicine.
3.2. Standard Solutions and Sample Preparation
The standard solution mixture of the six flavonoids was prepared by dissolving the reference substances in methanol to final concentration of 32.8 μg/mL for neoastilbin, 124.1 μg/mL for astilbin, 13.3 μg/mL for neoisoastilbin, 71.2 μg/mL for isoastilbin, 34.4 μg/mL for engeletin and 11.1 μg/mL for isoengeletin, respectively. Then, the standard solution mixture was diluted to 80%, 60%, 40%, 20%, 10%, 5% and 2.5% of the concentration of the original solution. All the standard solutions were stored at 4 °C.
The dried rhizome (0.2 g, 60 mesh) was accurately weighed and ultrasonically extracted by infusion with 25 mL water for 30 min. The extracted solution was centrifuged at 10,000 rpm for 10 min, and then filtered through a 0.22 m nylon membrane filter prior to injection for UHPLC-MS analysis.
3.3. Analytical System
Chromatographic separation was performed on an Accela™ ultra high pressure liquid chromatography (UHPLC) system (Thermo Fisher Scientific, San Jose, CA, USA) comprising a UHPLC pump, a PDA detector, scanning from 200 to 400 nm, and an autosampler settled to 30 °C. The LC conditions were as follows: column: Agilent Eclipse Plus C18 (100 mm × 3.0 mm, 1.7 μm); mobile phase: acetonitrile (A) and water (B) both containing 0.1% (v/v) formic acid; gradient: 0 min, 10: 90; 1 min, 20: 80; 3–6.5 min, 23: 77; 7 min, 80: 20; 9–10 min, 100: 0 (A: B, v/v); flow rate: 0.3 mL/min; injection volume: 10 μL.
3.4. Qualitative Characteristic of Chemical Constituents
Identification of chemical constituents in Smilacis glabrae extract was performed by UHPLC-ESI-MSn analysis. MS analysis was performed using an LTQ OrbitrapXL hybrid mass spectrometer (Thermo Fisher Scientific), fitted with an ESI source, and operated in negative ion mode, with a mass range of 100–1500 with resolution set at 30000 using the normal scan rate.
The data-dependent MS/MS events were always performed on the most intense ions detected in full scan MS. The MS/MS isolation width was 1 amu, and the normalized collision energy was 35% for all compounds. Nitrogen was used as sheath gas and helium served as the collision gas. The key optimized ESI parameters were as follows: source voltage: 3.8 kV; sheath gas (nitrogen): 50 L/min; auxiliary gas flow: 10 L/min; capillary voltage: –35.0 V; capillary temperature: 300.0 °C; tube lens: –110.0 V. The ion injection time used was 50.0 ms. MS scan functions and HPLC solvent gradients were controlled by the Xcalibur data system (Thermo Fisher Scientific). Data was collected and analyzed with Xcalibur 2.0.7 software (Thermo Fisher Scientific). The Orbitrap mass analyzer was calibrated according to the manufacturer’s directions using a mixture of caffeine, methionine-arginine-phenylalanine-alanine-acetate (MRFA), sodium dodecyl sulfate, sodium taurocholate and Ultramark 1621 in an acetonitrile-methanol-water solution containing 1% acetic acid by direct injection at a flow rate of 5 μL/min in negative mode before analysis.
3.5. Validation of the Quantitative Analysis
A calibration curve was used to determine the calculated concentration of the samples. The calibration curve of each compound was performed with at least six appropriate concentrations. The limit of quantification (LOQ) under the present chromatographic conditions was determined at signal-to-noise ratios (S/N) of 10.
Intra- and inter-day variations were chosen to determine the precision of the developed method. The precision was examined by five repetitive injections in the same day and in three consecutive days, respectively. The relative standard deviation (R.S.D.) was considered as the measure of precision.
The accuracy was evaluated by calculating the mean recoveries of six reference standards from the spiked standard solutions. A known amount of Smilacis glabrae sample was spiked with the standard solution at three different concentration levels. The high spiked amount was 1.2 times of the known amount sample, the middle spiked amount was 1.0 times of the known amount sample and the low spiked amount was 0.8 times of the known amount sample. The recovery percentages were calculated using to the following equation: (total detected amount – original amount)/added amount ×100%.
4. Conclusions
In this study, a total of 56 compounds, including six minor new ones, were simultaneously detected and identified by UHPLC-LTQ-Orbitrap-MS. Based on the qualitative analysis, a rapid method was established for quantitative analysis of six marker components in Smilacis glabrae extract. This is the first report on the comprehensive determination of chemical constituents in S. glabrae by UHPLC-LTQ-Orbitrap-MS. The results would provide the chemical support for the further pharmacokinetic studies and for the improvement of quality control of Smilacis glabrae and its preparations. The study also suggested that UHPLC-ESI/LTQ-Orbitrap mass spectrometry would be a powerful and reliable analytical tool for the characterization of chemical profile in complex chemical system, such as TCM preparations.
Supplementary Materials
Supplementary materials can be accessed at: https://www.mdpi.com/1420-3049/19/7/10427/s1.
Acknowledgments
This research was financially supported by Guangdong Natural Science Fund (S2013030011515), Guangdong Financial Industry Technology Research Development Fund [2011(285)05], Guangdong Science and Technology Department-Guangdong Provincial Hospital of Chinese Medicine Joint Special Fund (2011B032200009) and Guangdong Provincial Hospital of Chinese Medicine Special Fund (YK2013B1N11).
Author Contributions
C.-J. Lu and R.-Z. Zhao designed the experiments and provided critical advice on operation of the analytical equipment. S.-D. Chen was responsible for performing most of the experiment and analysis, and preparing the draft of the manuscript.
Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
References
- Chinese Pharmacopoeia Commission. Pharmacopoeia of People’s Republic of China; China Medical Pharmaceutical Science and Technology Publishing Press: Beijing, China, 2010; Volume 1, p. 15. [Google Scholar]
- Xu, S.; Shang, M.Y.; Liu, G.X.; Xu, F.; Wang, X.; Shou, C.C.; Cai, S.Q. Chemical constituents from the rhizomes of Smilax glabra and their antimicrobial activity. Molecules 2013, 18, 5265–5287. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, X.; Zhang, Y.F.; Yang, L.; Feng, Y.; Deng, Y.H.; Liu, Y.M.; Zeng, X. Chemical profiling of constituents of Smilacis glabrae using ultra-high pressure liquid chromatography coupled with LTQ Orbitrap mass spectrometry. Nat. Prod. Commun. 2012, 7, 181–184. [Google Scholar]
- Huang, H.Q.; Cheng, Z.H.; Shi, H.M.; Xin, W.B.; Wang, T.T.Y.; Yu, L.L. Isolation and characterization of two flavonoids, engeletin and astilbin, from the leaves of Engelhardia roxburghiana and their potential anti-inflammatory properties. J. Agric. Food. Chem. 2011, 59, 4562–4569. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Haraguchi, H.; Mochida, Y.; Sakai, S.; Masuda, H.; Tamura, Y.; Mizutani, K. Protection against oxidative damage by dihydroflavonols in Engelhardtia chrysolepis. Biosci. Biotechnol. Biochem. 1996, 60, 945–948. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Igarashi, K.; Uchida, Y.; Murakami, N.; Mizutani, K.; Masuda, H. Effect of astilbin in tea processed from leaves of Engelhardtia chrysolepis on the serum and liver lipid concentrations and on the erythrocyte and liver antioxidative enzyme activities of rats. Biosci. Biotechnol. Biochem. 1996, 60, 513–515. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nia, R.; Adesanya, S.A.; Okeke, I.N.; Illoh, H.C.; Adesina, S.K. Antibacterial constituents of Calliandra haematocephala. Niger. J. Natur. Prod. Med. 1999, 3, 58–60. [Google Scholar]
- Mizutani, K.; Kambara, T.; Masuda, H.; Tamura, Y.; Tanaka, O.; Tokuda, H.; Nishino, H.; Kozuka, M. Food Factors for Cancer Prevention; Springer: Tokyo, Japan, 1995; pp. 607–612. [Google Scholar]
- Wirasathien, L.; Pengsuparp, T.; Suttisri, R.; Ueda, H.; Moriyasu, M.; Kawanishi, K. Inhibitors of aldose reductase and advanced glycation end-products formation from the leaves of Stelechocarpus cauliflorus R.E. Fr. Phytomedicine 2007, 14, 546–550. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ruangnoo, S.; Jaiaree, N.; Makchuchit, S.; Panthong, S.; Thongdeeying, P.; Itharat, A. An in vitro inhibitory effect on RAW 264.7 cells by anti-inflammatory compounds from Smilax corbularia Kunth. Asian Pac. J. Allergy Immunol. 2012, 30, 268–274. [Google Scholar]
- Chen, L.; Yin, Y.; Yi, H.W.; Xu, Q.; Chen, T. Simultaneous quantification of five major bioactive flavonoids in RhizomaSmilacis Glabrae by high–performance liquid chromatography. J. Pharm. Biomed. Anal. 2007, 43, 1715–1720. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sample Availability: Samples of the compounds 30, 31, 34, 35, 38 and 42 are available from the authors.
© 2014 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution license ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
MDPI and ACS Style
Chen, S.-D.; Lu, C.-J.; Zhao, R.-Z. Qualitative and Quantitative Analysis of Rhizoma Smilacis glabrae by Ultra High Performance Liquid Chromatography Coupled with LTQ OrbitrapXL Hybrid Mass Spectrometry. Molecules 2014, 19, 10427-10439. https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules190710427
AMA Style
Chen S-D, Lu C-J, Zhao R-Z. Qualitative and Quantitative Analysis of Rhizoma Smilacis glabrae by Ultra High Performance Liquid Chromatography Coupled with LTQ OrbitrapXL Hybrid Mass Spectrometry. Molecules. 2014; 19(7):10427-10439. https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules190710427
Chicago/Turabian StyleChen, Shao-Dan, Chuan-Jian Lu, and Rui-Zhi Zhao. 2014. "Qualitative and Quantitative Analysis of Rhizoma Smilacis glabrae by Ultra High Performance Liquid Chromatography Coupled with LTQ OrbitrapXL Hybrid Mass Spectrometry" Molecules 19, no. 7: 10427-10439. https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules190710427
