qiao lin 2012. 04.18
DESCRIPTION
A novel “target constituent knock-out” strategy coupled with TLC, UPLC–ELSD and microcalorimetry for preliminary screening of antibacterial constituents in Calculus bovis. Qiao lin 2012. 04.18. Introduction Experiment Methods and results Discussions. Introduction. - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
![Page 1: Qiao lin 2012. 04.18](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022081502/568163c5550346895dd4f27c/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
A novel “target constituent knock-out” strategy coupled with TLC, UPLC–ELSD
and microcalorimetry for preliminary screening of antibacterial constituents in
Calculus bovis
Qiao lin 2012. 04.18
![Page 2: Qiao lin 2012. 04.18](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022081502/568163c5550346895dd4f27c/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
Introduction Experiment Methods and results Discussions
![Page 3: Qiao lin 2012. 04.18](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022081502/568163c5550346895dd4f27c/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
Introduction
Calculus bovis (Niuhuang in Chinese), dried pigment gallstones of cattle, a valuable Chinese materia medica (CMM) with multiple pharmacodynamic actions.
rare natural resources artificial product——CA,DCA,HDCA and other substances
HO
H H
H
H
OH
O
DCAHO
H
OH
H
H
H
OH
O
CA
OH HOH
OH
O
OH HDCA
![Page 4: Qiao lin 2012. 04.18](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022081502/568163c5550346895dd4f27c/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
Introduction
“target constituent knock-out” strategy
1.who is (are) responsible for the whole effect of the CMM?
compare the target constituent to the total extract of the CMM.2.who is (are) good or bad? compare the target constituent to the minus extract (knocking out the target constituent from the total extract).3.what composition of KPCs (key pharmacodynamic
constituents) is optimal?
![Page 5: Qiao lin 2012. 04.18](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022081502/568163c5550346895dd4f27c/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
Experiment
(1) single constituents (A–F) samples were knocked out by TLC.
(2) A–F identified by UPLC–ELSD.(3) antibacterial activities of A–F and C. bovis samples on S. aureus were evaluated by microcalorimetry combined
with principal component analysis(PCA).(4) the interaction properties between A–F and the total
extract were elucidated.
![Page 6: Qiao lin 2012. 04.18](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022081502/568163c5550346895dd4f27c/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
![Page 7: Qiao lin 2012. 04.18](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022081502/568163c5550346895dd4f27c/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
Methods and results1. TLC separation of constituents in C. bovis
preparative TLC
![Page 8: Qiao lin 2012. 04.18](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022081502/568163c5550346895dd4f27c/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
Methods and results
2. UPLC–ELSD analysis
mixed standard ( TCANa CA UDCA HDCA DCA ) C. bovis sample the knocked-out constituents
constituent A——TCANa constituents B and C —— unknown compounds constituent D—— CA constituent E—— UDCA constituent F ——HDCA and DCA
![Page 9: Qiao lin 2012. 04.18](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022081502/568163c5550346895dd4f27c/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
![Page 10: Qiao lin 2012. 04.18](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022081502/568163c5550346895dd4f27c/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
Methods and results3. Microcalorimetric measurement HFP–time curves
for S. aureus growth at 37 C◦ Quantitative thermo-kinetic parameters P1, P2, k1, k2, t1, t2 , Qt
![Page 11: Qiao lin 2012. 04.18](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022081502/568163c5550346895dd4f27c/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
Methods and resultsPCA ( principal component analysis ) distribution of P1, P2, k1, k2, t1, t2 , Qt
![Page 12: Qiao lin 2012. 04.18](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022081502/568163c5550346895dd4f27c/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
Methods and results
k2 and P2 values : (control) > constituent D > constituent C > constituent E > constituent B > constituent A > C. bovis > constituent F.
![Page 13: Qiao lin 2012. 04.18](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022081502/568163c5550346895dd4f27c/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
Methods and results
Screening of antibacterial constituents these samples all had antibacterial activities on S. aureus the potency of antibacterial activities : constituent F > C.
bovis > constituent A > constituent B > constituent E > constituent C > constituent D.
constituent F ( HDCA , DCA ) > C. Bovis constituents A–E< C. bovis constituents D ( CA ) might not be the antibacterial
component of C. bovis.
![Page 14: Qiao lin 2012. 04.18](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022081502/568163c5550346895dd4f27c/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
Methods and results4. Interaction properties of these antibacterial
constituents
(1). the strongest antibacterial activities of constituents F and A I : 30–43% the strong antibacterial activities of constituents B and E I : 16–24% the poorest antibacterial activities of constituents C and D I : 8–11%
![Page 15: Qiao lin 2012. 04.18](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022081502/568163c5550346895dd4f27c/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
Methods and results
(2). the total I value of constituents A–F (202.0%) was 5-fold of the I value of C. bovis sample (38.01%)——strong antagonistic effects each other in C. bovis sample.
(3). the I value of constituents F was larger than that of C. bovis sample——constituents A–E could antagonize the antibacterial activity of constituent F.
(4). the total I value (1.28%) of isolated DCA and HDCA on S. aureus was 1/33 of I value (42.27%) of constituent F on S.
aureus —— DCA had strong synergistic effect with HDCA in constituent F.
![Page 16: Qiao lin 2012. 04.18](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022081502/568163c5550346895dd4f27c/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
Discussions
The “target constituent knock-out” strategy provides a novel and useful strategy for screening the KPCs
of C. bovis or other CMMs, further provides some help for quality assessment to meet the criteria need for their worldwide use.
quantity–activity relationships