Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32684945›Full record

ArticleChinese medicine2020

Integrated assessment of medicinal rhubarb by combination of delayed luminescence and HPLC fingerprint with emphasized on bioactivities based quality control.

Mengmeng Sun, Hongwei Wu, Min He, Yusheng Jia, Lixue Wang, Ting Liu, Lianqiang Hui, Li Li, Shengli Wei, Eduard Van Wijk and 4 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Chinese medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Exploration of biophoton characteristics of freshFrontiers in plant science · 2025
    Article
  3. Synergistic Inhibiting Effect of Phytochemicals inMolecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

14 authors.

Mengmeng SunLU-European Center for Chinese Medicine and Natural compounds, Institute of Biology, Leiden University, Sylviusweg 72, 2333 BE Leiden, The Netherlands.
Hongwei WuInstitute of Chinese Materia Medica, China Academy of Chinese Medical Sciences, Beijing, 100700 China.
Min HeChangchun University of Chinese Medicine, No. 1035, Boshuo Rd, Jingyue Economic Development District, Changchun, 130117 China.
Yusheng JiaLU-European Center for Chinese Medicine and Natural compounds, Institute of Biology, Leiden University, Sylviusweg 72, 2333 BE Leiden, The Netherlands.
Lixue WangInstitute of Chinese Materia Medica, China Academy of Chinese Medical Sciences, Beijing, 100700 China.
Ting LiuInstitute of Chinese Materia Medica, China Academy of Chinese Medical Sciences, Beijing, 100700 China.
Lianqiang HuiInstitute of Chinese Materia Medica, China Academy of Chinese Medical Sciences, Beijing, 100700 China.
Li LiCapital Medical University subsidiary Beijing Hospital of Traditional Chinese Medicine, No. 23 Backstreet of Art Gallery, Dongcheng District, Beijing, 100010 China.
Shengli WeiSchool of Chinese Pharmacy, Beijing University of Chinese Medicine, No. 6 Wangjing Zhonghuan South Street, Chaoyang District, Beijing, 100102 China.
Eduard Van WijkMeluna Research, Koppelsedijk 1-a, 4191LC, Geldermalsen, The Netherlands.
Roeland Van WijkMeluna Research, Koppelsedijk 1-a, 4191LC, Geldermalsen, The Netherlands.
Karl Wah-Keung TsimDivision of Life Science and Center for Chinese Medicine R&D,, Kowloon, Hong Kong, China, The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, Kowloon, Hong Kong China.
Chun LiInstitute of Chinese Materia Medica, China Academy of Chinese Medical Sciences, Beijing, 100700 China.
Mei WangLU-European Center for Chinese Medicine and Natural compounds, Institute of Biology, Leiden University, Sylviusweg 72, 2333 BE Leiden, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-7714-1002

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTo promote herbal medicine depends largely on its quality. Chromatographic fingerprint is a frequent approach for quality assessment of herbs however with challenges on robust and reproducibility. To develop rapid, cheap and comprehensive measurements as complementary tools for herbal quality control are still urgently needed. Moreover, biological activities are essential for herbal quality, and should be taken into consideration with emphasized in quality control.

methodsIn this research, HPLC fingerprint and delayed luminescence (DL, a rapid and systematic tool) were used to measure the rhubarb samples of multiple species. Statistics were explored to classify these rhubarb samples using data obtained from two analytic methods. In addition, DL properties were linked to specific chemical components which may reflect bioactivities of rhubarb using Spearman's rank correlation. Moreover, mice model was used to evaluate the cathartic effect between rhubarb samples stratifying by two analytic methods.

resultsWe found that there was no significant difference of chemical fingerprints and DL signals among the different species of medicinal rhubarb. However, our results show a high similarity between HPLC fingerprint analysis and DL measurements in classification of these rhubarb samples into two sub-groups. In addition, the two sub-groups of rhubarb samples that may have different cathartic activities.

conclusionThis approach provides new leads for development of herbal quality assessment based on bioactivity. In conclusion, integrated assessment by measuring HPLC fingerprint and DL with emphasized on bioactivity may provide novel strategy for herbal quality control.

Indexed as

Cathartic activityDelayed luminescenceFingerprintQuality controlRhubarb

Identifiers

PMID32684945
PMCPMC7362467

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.