ArticleMolecules (Basel, Switzerland)2023
Quality Evaluation of Peony Petals Based on the Chromatographic Fingerprints and Simultaneous Determination of Sixteen Bioactive Constituents Using UPLC-DAD-MS/MS.
Article in Molecules (Basel, Switzerland), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Protective Effect of Peony (Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Metabolic Dynamics and Sensory Impacts of Aging on Peony Mead: Insights into Nonenzymatic Reactions.Foods (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Comprehensive chemical and bioactive investigation of Chinese peony flower: a case of valorization of by-products as a new food ingredient from Chinese herb.Frontiers in plant science · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
Abstract
In this study, a validated quality evaluation method with peony flower fingerprint chromatogram combined with simultaneous determination of sixteen bioactive constituents was established using UPLC-DAD-MS/MS. The results demonstrated that the method was stable, reliable, and accurate. The UPLC chemical fingerprints of 12 different varieties of peonies were established and comprehensively evaluated by similarity evaluation (SE), hierarchical cluster analysis (HCA), principal component analysis (PCA), and quantification analysis. The results of SE indicated that similar chemical components were present in these samples regardless of variety, but there were significant differences in the content of chemical components and material basis characteristics. The results of HCA and PCA showed that 12 varieties of samples were divided into two groups. Four flavonoids (11, 12, 13, and 16), five monoterpenes and their glycosides (3, 4, 6, 14, and 15), three tannins (7, 9, and 10), three phenolic acids (1, 2, and 5), and one aromatic acid (8) were identified from sixteen common peaks by standards and liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry (LC-MS). The simultaneous quantification of six types of components was conducted with the 12 samples, it was found that the sum contents of analytes varied obviously for peony flower samples from different varieties. The content of flavonoids, tannins, and monoterpenes (≥19.34 mg/g) was the highest, accounting for more than 78.45% of the total compounds. The results showed that the flavonoids, tannins, and monoterpenes were considered to be the key indexes in the classification and quality assessment of peony flower. The UPLC-DAD-MS/MS method coupled with multiple compounds determination and fingerprint analysis can be effectively applied as a feature distinguishing method to evaluate the compounds in peony flower raw material for product quality assurance in the food, pharmaceutical, and cosmetic industries. Moreover, this study provides ideas for future research and the improvement of products by these industries.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.