4.7 Article

Metabolite Profiling of Angelica gigas from Different Geographical Origins Using 1H NMR and UPLC-MS Analyses

期刊

JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL AND FOOD CHEMISTRY
卷 59, 期 16, 页码 8806-8815

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/jf2016286

关键词

metabolite profiling; Angelica gigas; geographical origin; H-1 NMR; UPLS-MS; chemometric analysis

资金

  1. Korean government (MEST)
  2. Korea Basic Science Institute [T3173]
  3. National Research Council of Science & Technology (NST), Republic of Korea [T31500] Funding Source: Korea Institute of Science & Technology Information (KISTI), National Science & Technology Information Service (NTIS)
  4. National Research Foundation of Korea [2009008146] Funding Source: Korea Institute of Science & Technology Information (KISTI), National Science & Technology Information Service (NTIS)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Angelica gigas obtained from different geographical regions was characterized using H-1 nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) spectroscopy and ultraperformance liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry (UPLC-MS) followed by multivariate data analyses. Principal component analysis (PCA) and orthogonal partial least-squares-discriminant analysis (OPLS-DA) score plots from H-1 NMR and UPLC-MS data sets showed a clear distinction among A. gigas from three different regions in Korea. The major metabolites that contributed to the discrimination factor were primary metabolites including acetate, choline, citrate, 1,3-dimethylurate, fumarate, glucose, histamine, lactose, malate, N-acetylglutamate, succinate, and valine and secondary metabolites including decursin, decursinol, nodakenin, marmesin, 7-hydroxy-6-(2R-hydroxy-3-methylbut-3-ethyl)coumarin in A. gigas roots. The results demonstrate that H-1 NMR and UPLC-MS-based metabolic profiling coupled with chemometric analysis can be used to discriminate the geographical origins of various herbal medicines and to identify primary and secondary metabolites responsible for discrimination.

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