RESUMO
Twenty-eight compounds were isolated and purified from Clinopodium chinense by Sephedax LH-20, ODS, MCI and preparative HPLC. Their structures were identified as apigenin (1), apigenin-7-O-β-D-glucopyranoside (2), apigenin-7-O-β-D-glucuronopyranoside (3), thellungianol (4), apigenin-7-O-β-D-rutinoside (5), luteolin (6), luteolin-4'-O-β-D-glucopyranoside (7), apigenin-7-O-β-D-pyranglycuronate butyl ester (8), luteolin-7-O-β-D-rutinoside (9), luteolin-7-O-β-D-noehesperidoside (10), acacetin (11), acacetin-7-O-β-D-glucuronopyranoside (12), buddleoside (13), naringenin (14), pruning (15), nairutin (16), isosakuranetin (17), isosakuranin (18), didymin (19), hesperidin (20), kaempferol (21), quercetin (22), kaempferol-3-O-α-L-rahmnoside (23), p-hydroxycinnamic acid (24), caffeic acid (25), cis-3-[2-[1-(3,4-dihydroxy-phenyl)-1 -hydroxymethyl]-1,3-ben-zodioxol-5-yl]-(E)-2-propenoic acid (26), mesaconic acid (27), gentisic acid 5-O-β-D-(6'-salicylyl)-glucopyranoside (28). Among them, compounds 7, 9-10, 12, 23, 26-28 were isolated from the Clinopodium for the first time. The protective effects of compounds 1-6, 8-17 and 19 against H2O2-induced H9c2 cardiomyocyte injury were tested, compounds 15 exhibited significantly protective effects. Compared with the cell viability of (62.12±6.18)% in the model, pruning exhibited viabilities of (84.25±7.36)% at 25.0 mg•L⁻¹, respectively, using quercetin as a positive control [cell viability of (84.55±8.26)%, 20 mg•L⁻¹].
RESUMO
OBJECTIVE: To establish the UPLC fingerprint of Cistanche deserticola Y.C. Ma and Cistanche tubulosa (Schrenk) Wight. METHODS: The UPLC fingerprints of 10 batches of C. deserticola and C. tubulosa were determined on an ACQUITY UPLC® BEH C18 column (2.1 mm×50 mm, 1.7 μm) eluted with the mobile phase consisting of 0.2% formic acid solution and acetonitrile in gradient mode at a flow rate of 0.4 mL·min-1, the column temperature was 40℃, and the detection wavelength was set at 240 nm. The chemical attribution of the fingerprint was determined by reference substance comparison method. RESULTS: The common mode of the UPLC fingerprint of C. deserticola and C. tubulosa was set up under the established conditiom. There were 15 common peaks in the fingerprints of 10 samples, five of which were identified. The similarities varied from 0.667 to 0.905 and from 0.249 to 0.991 for Cistanche deserticola Y.C. Ma and Cistanche tubulosa (Schrenk) Wight, respectively. There was significant difference in the fingerprints between C. deserticola and C. tubulosa. CONCLUSION: The method is simple and reliable, which can be readily utilized for distinguishing C. deserticola from C. tubulosa and their quality control.