Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Fingerprint Comparison Between Gegen Qinlian Preparations of Three Different Pharmaceutical Forms Including Decoction, Dispensing Granule and Pill

  • Full Short Communication
  • Published:
Chromatographia Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Gegen Qinlian decoction, a favorite composite formula of Chinese medicine, has been made into various formulations. Pill and dispensing granule are currently very popular dosage forms for oral application. To ensure consistent therapeutic effects, fingerprint comparison between Gegen Qinlian preparations of three pharmaceutical forms including decoction, dispensing granule and pill is carried out to investigate influence of dosage forms on patterns of components in the composite formula. The fingerprint analysis demonstrates that, in relationship to baicalin with its area set to 1, most of the area ratios of 20 common peaks in decoction and dispensing granule vary little except the area ratio of puerarin (0.805 in decoction vs. 0.593 in dispensing granule), berberine (0.400 in dispensing granule vs. 0.283 in decoction) and the peak of baicalein, which originally observed in dispensing granule decrease substantially in decoction. However, in pills the area ratios of the common peaks are significantly different from those in dispensing granule except for peak 29. The inconsistencies among patterns of components in three types of Gegen Qinlian preparations, especially between dispensing granule and pill, may result in different pharmacological effects.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Normile D (2003) Science 299:188–190. doi:10.1126/science.299.5604.188

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Wen KC, Huang CY, Lu FL (1993) J Chromatogr A 631:241–250. doi:10.1016/0021-9673(93)80528-G

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Bent S, Ko R (2004) Am J Med 116:478–485. doi:10.1016/j.amjmed.2003.10.036

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Wang LC, Cao YH, Xing XP, Ye JN (2005) Chromatographia 62:283–288. doi:10.1365/s10337-005-0624-6

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Gong F, Liang YZ, Xie PS, Chau FT (2003) J Chromatogr A 1002:25–40. doi:10.1016/S0021-9673(03)00648-4

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Gong F, Liang YZ, Fung YS, Chau FT (2004) J Chromatogr A 1029:173–183. doi:10.1016/j.chroma.2003.12.049

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. State Drug Administration of China (2000) Chin Trad Pat Med 22:671–672

    Google Scholar 

  8. Ong ES (2002) J Sep Sci 25:825–831. doi:10.1002/1615-9314(20020901)25:13<825::AID-JSSC825>3.0.CO;2-I

    Google Scholar 

  9. Xie PS (2001) Trad Chin Drug Res Clin Pharm 12:141–151

    Google Scholar 

  10. Xie PS, Chen SB, Liang YZ, Wang XH, Tian RT, Upton R (2006) J Chromatogr A 1112:171–180. doi:10.1016/j.chroma.2005.12.091

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Bao YW, Li C, Shen HW, Nan FJ (2004) Anal Chem 76:4208–4216. doi:10.1021/ac0499423

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Xie PS (2005) The chromatographic fingerprint of Traditional Chinese Medicine (in Chinese). People’s Health Publishing House, Beijing

    Google Scholar 

  13. Li SY, Li GQ, Li Z, Han FM, Chen Y (2000) J Hubei Univ (Nat Sci Ed) 22:282–285

    Google Scholar 

  14. Tian HZ, Wang H, Guan YF (2005) Chin J Chromatogr A 23:477–481

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Guo JF, Chen SP, Qiao SY, Yang M, Zhao YM (2005) Chin J Pharm Anal 25:267–269

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Sun J, Ma JS, Jin J, Wang HS, Wen QH, Zhang HG et al (2006) Acta Pharmacol Sin 41(6):380–384

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Wang DW, Liu ZQ, Guo MQ, Li L, Xing JP, Song FR et al (2003) Chin J Anal Chem 9:1101–1104

    Google Scholar 

  18. Liu SM, Hu P, Luo GA, Wang YM, Chen LX (2005) Acta Pharmacol Sin 40:846–849

    Google Scholar 

  19. Cong JX, Lin BC (2005) Fine Chem 22:912–915

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Zhou Y, Wang MK, Liao X, Zhu XM, Peng SL, Ding LS (2004) Chin J Anal Chem 32:174–178

    CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Jiangsu Key Laboratory for TCM Formulae Research, Nanjing University of Chinese Medicine, Nanjing, 210046, China

    Lihong Chen

  2. Nanjing Institute of Environmental Sciences, SEPA, Nanjing, 210042, China

    Jining Liu

  3. Department of Chinese Meteria Medica Analysis, China Pharmaceutical University, Nanjing, 210009, China

    Qiang Wang

  4. Simcere Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd, Nanjing, 210042, China

    Jiahui Chen

Authors
  1. Lihong Chen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jining Liu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Qiang Wang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Jiahui Chen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Qiang Wang.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Chen, L., Liu, J., Wang, Q. et al. Fingerprint Comparison Between Gegen Qinlian Preparations of Three Different Pharmaceutical Forms Including Decoction, Dispensing Granule and Pill. Chroma 69, 123–127 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1365/s10337-008-0824-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1365/s10337-008-0824-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation