, Volume 56, Issue 1, pp S19–S23 | Cite as

Comparative analysis of the underground parts ofGentiana species by HPLC with diode-array and mass spectrometric detection

  • Z. Szucs
  • B. Dános
  • Sz. Nyiredy
Originals Column Liquid Chromatography


The aim of this work was to compare the chemical composition of the underground parts (roots and rhizomes) ofGentiana cruciata L.,Gentiana pneumonanthe L., andGentiana asclepiadea L.— the three gentians native to Hungary—with that of the widely used stomachicGentiana lutea L., to determine which of the three Hungarian species could be used as a substitute forGentiana lutea in pharmaceutical preparations. The four gentians were compared by means of RPHPLC with diode-array detection (DAD) and electrospray ionization-mass spectrometric detection (ESI-MSD). The quantities of the lead compounds, the secoiridoid-glycosides, in 220 samples of the underground parts of gentians originating from several locations in Hungary, were determined by a more economical RPHPLC-DAD method. The occurrence of the characteristic compounds investigated—bitter principles and xanthones—in the underground parts of the speciesGentiana asclepiadea L. suggest it might be a potential replacement forGentiana lutea L. in pharmaceutical products.

Key Words

Column liquid chromatography-DAD-MSD Electrospray ionization Bitter principles Xanthones Gentiana species 


  1. [1]
    Hegnauer, R., Ed.,Chemotaxonomie der Pflanzen, Birkhäuser, Basel,1989.Google Scholar
  2. [2]
    Hansel, R.; Rimpler, H.; Keller, K.; Schneider, G.,Hagers Handbuch, der Pharmazeutischen Praxis, Springer, Berlin,1993.Google Scholar
  3. [3]
    Kondo, Y.; Takano, F.; Hojo, H.Planta Med. 1994,60, 414–416.Google Scholar
  4. [4]
    Hostettmann, K.; Wagner, H.Phytochemistry 1977,16, 821–829.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. [5]
    Niessen, W.M.A.; van der Greef, J.Liquid Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry, Principles and Applications, Marcel Dekker, New York,1992.Google Scholar
  6. [6]
    Whitehouse, R.C.; Dreyer, R.N.; Yamashita, M.; Fenn, J.B.Anal. Chem. 1985,57, 675.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. [7]
    Wolfender, J.-L.; Rodriguez, S.; Hostettmann, K.Chromatographia 2001,54, 274–277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. [8]
    Chevalley, I.; Marston, A.; Hostettmann K.J. Chromatogr. A 1998,794, 299–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. [9]
    Sticher, O.; Meier, B.Planta Med. 1980,40, 55–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. [10]
    Takino, Y.; Koshioka, M.; Kawaguchi, M.; Miyahara, T.; Tanizawa, H.; Ishii, Y.; Higashino, M.; Hayashi, T.Planta Med. 1980,38, 344–350.Google Scholar
  11. [11]
    Keller, F.J. Plant Phys. 1986,122, 473–476.Google Scholar
  12. [12]
    Schaufelberger, D.; Hostettmann, K.J. Chromatogr. 1985,346, 396–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Friedr. Vieweg & Sohn Verlagsgesellschaft mbH 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • Z. Szucs
    • 1
  • B. Dános
    • 1
    • 2
  • Sz. Nyiredy
    • 1
  1. 1.Research Institute for Medicinal PlantsBudakalászHungary
  2. 2.Department of Plant AnatomyEötvös UniversityBudapestHungary

Personalised recommendations