MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2041562458 · doi:10.1055/s-2009-1216507

Extraction and Analysis of Alkaloids from Roots of Goldenseal and Dietary Supplements by Using UPLC-UV-MS Methods

2009· article· en· W2041562458 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Bharathi Avula, YH Wang, TJ Smillie, IA Khan

Bibliographic record

VenuePlanta Medica · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGinseng Biological Effects and Applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institute on Drug AbuseAgricultural Research ServiceUniversity of British ColumbiaUniversity of Illinois at Urbana-ChampaignChinese Academy of SciencesKurukshetra UniversityUniversity of Illinois at ChicagoNational Oceanic and Atmospheric AdministrationU.S. Food and Drug AdministrationNational Science Foundation of Sri LankaUniversity of ColomboU.S. Department of AgricultureWestern Carolina UniversityInternational Science CouncilNational Center for Complementary and Alternative MedicineChina Academy of Traditional Chinese MedicineNational Institutes of HealthNational Center for Research ResourcesNational Institute of Allergy and Infectious DiseasesTürkiye Bilimsel ve Teknolojik Araştırma KurumuHong Kong Polytechnic UniversityNational Science FoundationDeutsche KrebshilfeNational Natural Science Foundation of ChinaTata TrustsUniversity Grants CommissionWake Forest University
KeywordsJatrorrhizinePalmatineBerberineCoptisineChromatographyChemistryHigh-performance liquid chromatographyBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The roots of Hydrastis candense (goldenseal) are popular phytomedicines for the treatment of gastrointestinal disorders and upper respiratory tract infections [1–2]. Simple and fast UPLC-UV-MS methods were developed for the quantification of the major constituents, berberine and hydrastine from roots of Hydrastis canadensis L. and dietary supplements containing goldenseal and Echinacea purpurea /goldenseal combination formulations. The extraction (with acidified water and methanol) and analysis were applied to several other alkaloids including canadine, hydrastinine, palmatine, coptisine, and jatrorrhizine by a UPLC method with PDA and MS, C18 column. The mobile phase consisted of solvent A (50 mM ammonium formate, pH 3.3) and solvent B (acetonitrile with 0.05% formic acid). The developed method was validated for all the parameters tested and successfully applied to the identification of seven alkaloids in plant sample and ten dietary supplements. The plant material and ten dietary supplements were found to contain major alkaloids, hydrastine and berberine. One commercial product also contained palmatine, coptisine and jatrorrhizine, thus indicating that the material was not pure goldenseal. LC-mass spectrometry coupled with electrospray ionization (ESI) method is described for the identification of seven alkaloids in plant sample and dietary supplements. This method involved the use of the [M] + ions for coptisine, jatrorrhizine, palmatine and berberine, [M+H] + ions for hydrastine and canadine, [M+H-18] + ions for hydrastinine in the positive ion mode with selective ion recording (SIR). Acknowledgements: This research is funded in part by “Science Based Authentication of Dietary Supplements” Funded by the Food and Drug Administration grant number 2 U01 FD 002071-07. The authors would like to thank Annette Ford, University of Mississippi for extraction of samples. References: [1] Brown PN, Roman MR (2008), J. AOAC International, 91(4): 694–701. [2] Abourashed EA, Khan IA, (2001), J. Pharm. Sceinces, 90(7): 817–822. Fig. 1 UPLC Chromatograms of a mixture of standards (A), roots of goldenseal (B) and dietary supplements (C–D) at 290 nm. 1 hydrastinine, 2 hydrastine, 3 coptisine, 4 jatrorrhizine, 5 canadine, 6 palmatine and 7 berberine.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.002

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.019
GPT teacher head0.348
Teacher spread0.328 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePlanta MedicaSame topicGinseng Biological Effects and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207