4.7 Article

Can Hedysari Radix replace Astragali Radix in Danggui Buxue Tang, a Chinese herbal decoction for woman aliment?

期刊

PHYTOMEDICINE
卷 20, 期 12, 页码 1076-1081

出版社

ELSEVIER GMBH, URBAN & FISCHER VERLAG
DOI: 10.1016/j.phymed.2013.04.016

关键词

Astragali Radix; Hedysari Radix; Danggui Buxue Tang; Traditional Chinese medicine

资金

  1. Research Grants Council of Hong Kong [HKUST 6419/06M, N_HKUST629/07, 662608, 661110]
  2. Croucher Foundation [CAS-CF07/08.SC03]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Astragali Radix (AR) has been used for over 2000 years in China for the enrichment of Qi. Hedysari Radix (HR), a herb having similar chemical composition with AR, has been commonly used as a substitute of AR in herbal decoction. In order to evaluate the possible replacement of HR for AR in Chinese herbal decoction, systematic comparison of AR and HR was done by chemical and biological assessments. The water extract of AR contained higher levels of calycosin, calycosin-glucoside, ononin, astragaloside III and astragaloside IV, while higher amount of formononetin was found in the HR extract. The estrogenic, erythropoetic and osteogenic effects were compared between the water extracts of AR and HR, and in all cases AR extract showed higher biological activities. Danggui Buxue Tang (DBT) is a very common herbal decoction for woman aliment, and which contains AR and Angelica Sinensis Radix. Here, we generated two forms of DBT having either AR or HR as the major herbs. Chemically, AR-contained DBT showed higher amounts of various active chemicals, except formononetin that was higher in HR-contained DBT. In parallel, the estrogenic, osteogenic and erythropoetic effects of DBT containing AR showed better activities than that of DBT having HR. Thus, AR and HR showed distinct differences in terms of chemical and biological properties. In order to achieve the best therapeutical effect, as well as to guarantee the safety, AR is recommended here to be used for making DBT. (C) 2013 Published by Elsevier GmbH.

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