| 林雀跃,张荣林,甘勇强,黄清泉,唐琳娜,郑健,过立农,昝珂,谢培德.壮药材滇桂艾纳香及其易混品种东风草和高艾纳香比较研究[J].中国药事,2020,34(2):169-183 |
| 壮药材滇桂艾纳香及其易混品种东风草和高艾纳香比较研究 |
| Comparative Study of Zhuang Medicine Blumea riparia and its Adulterants Blumea megacephala and Blumea repanda |
| 投稿时间：2019-07-25 |
| DOI：10.16153/j.1002-7777.2020.02.006 |
| 中文关键词: 滇桂艾纳香 东风草 高艾纳香 性状鉴别 显微鉴别 薄层鉴别 分子生物学 特征图谱 |
| 英文关键词: Blumea riparia Blumea megacephala Blumea repanda morphological identification microscopic identification thin-layer chromatography identification molecular biology chromatographic fingerprint |
| 基金项目:国家药监局药化注册司专项"特色民族药材检验方法示范性研究"；广西重点研发计划"广西常用壮瑶药药材质量标准研究"（桂科AB17292069） |
|
| 摘要点击次数: 1367 |
| 全文下载次数: 305 |
| 中文摘要: |
| 目的： 建立壮药材滇桂艾纳香专属性检验方法。方法： 采用基原鉴别、性状鉴别、显微鉴别、薄层鉴别、分子生物学及特征图谱等方法对滇桂艾纳香及其易混品种东风草和高艾纳香进行对比研究。结果： 三者的根、茎、叶性状基本相同，区别点在于滇桂艾纳香头状花序小（直径0.5~0.8 cm），东风草头状花序大（直径1.5~2 cm），高艾纳香头状花序具密集的长绒毛；三者的根、茎横切面，粉末显微特征基本相同，高艾纳香具基部膨大的非腺毛；薄层鉴别（1）中高艾纳香比滇桂艾纳香和东风草少1个斑点；薄层鉴别（2）中滇桂艾纳香比东风草和高艾纳香少1个特征斑点；ITS2序列N-J树聚类分析显示三者具有良好的单系性，三者种间最小遗传距离均大于种内最大遗传距离；与滇桂艾纳香对照图谱相比，东风草平均相似度为0.962，高艾纳香平均相似度仅为0.789。结论： 高艾纳香与滇桂艾纳香区别较大，不宜混用，在日常使用中应注意甄别；东风草与滇桂艾纳香在性状、显微、薄层、分子生物学、特征图谱等方面相似度较高，在对二者进行充分的药理活性以及临床试验等基础上，可考虑作为滇桂艾纳香的替代品使用，以缓解药用资源不足的问题。 |
| 英文摘要: |
| Objective: To establish a testing method with specificity for Zhuang medicine Blumea riparia. Methods: Origin identification, morphological identification, microscopic identification, thin-layer chromatography (TLC) identification, molecular biology and chromatographic fingerprint were used to compare Blumea riparia and its adulterants Blumea megacephala and Blumea repanda. Results: The roots, stems and leaves characteristics of Blumea riparia and its adulterants Blumea megacephala and Blumea repanda were basically the same. The difference were as follows:the capitula of Blumea riparia were smaller (0.5~0.8 cm in diameter); the capitula of Blumea megacephala were bigger (1.5~2 cm in diameter); the capitula of Blumea repanda were with dense and long villi. The cross-sections of roots and stems, microscopic characteristics of the powders of Blumea riparia, Blumea megacephala and Blumea repanda were basically the same. The base of onglandular hair of Blumea repanda was swollen. The characteristic spots in TLC identification (1) of Blumea repanda had one less spot than those of Blumea riparia and Blumea megacephala. The characteristic spots in TLC identification (2) of Blumea riparia had one less than the two others. The neighbor joining (N-J) tree clustering analysis of ITS2 sequence of Blumea riparia, Blumea megacephala and Blumea repanda showed that all had good genetic relationships, and the minimum genetic distance between the three species was greater than the maximum genetic distance within the species. Compared with the chromatographic fingerprint of Blumea riparia, the average similarity of Blumea megacephala was 0.962, the average similarity of Blumea repanda was only 0.789. Conclusion: Blumea repanda was obviously different from Blumea riparia, and should not be used as a substitute for Blumea riparia. The Characteristics of trait identification, morphological identification, microscopic identification, TLC identification, molecular biology and chromatographic fingerprint of Blumea megacephala and Blumea riparia were highly similar. In the future, with the support of sufficient research of pharmacological activity and clinical trials, Blumea megacephala can be considered as a substitute for Blumea riparia so as to alleviate the shortage of medicinal resource of the crude drug. |
|
查看全文
查看/发表评论 下载PDF阅读器 |
| 关闭 |
|
|
|