Journal of Traditional Chinese Medicine ›› 2026, Vol. 46 ›› Issue (5): 1240-1247.DOI: 10.19852/j.cnki.jtcm.2026.05.016
• Original Articles • Previous Articles Next Articles
BAI Donghan1, XING Zi2, CHEN Shumin3, HUANG Nanxi4, WANG Qiaochu5, ZHANG Zihao5, XIN Xueying6, LUO Lu7,8(
)
Received:2024-12-24
Accepted:2025-07-11
Online:2026-10-15
Published:2026-10-09
Contact:
Dr. LUO Lu, Institute of Chinese Materia Medica, China Academy of Chinese Medical Sciences, Beijing 100700, China. lluo@icmm.ac.cn, Telephone: +86-17319300018
Supported by:BAI Donghan, XING Zi, CHEN Shumin, HUANG Nanxi, WANG Qiaochu, ZHANG Zihao, XIN Xueying, LUO Lu. Role of Longgu (Os Draconis) in the compatibility of Chaihu Longgu Muli decoction (chaihulonggudulitang)[J]. Journal of Traditional Chinese Medicine, 2026, 46(5): 1240-1247.
Figure 1 Appearance characteristics and Tyndall effect A: appearance characteristics. A1: CL; A2: CLM; A3: CM); A4: CH; A5: LG; A6: deionized water; A7: ML; B: light-scattering effect; B1: CH; B2: LG; B3: ML; B4: CM; B5: CL; B6: CLM; B7: absence of visible light scattering in deionized water. CH: Chaihu decoction; CL: Chaihu Longgu decoction; CLM: Chaihu-Longgu-Muli decoction; CM: Chaihu-Muli decoction; LG: Longgu decoction; ML: Muli decoction.
| ID | Average particle size (nm) | PDI | Zeta potential (mV) | |||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1st | 2nd | 3rd | Average | 1st | 2nd | 3rd | Average | 1st | 2nd | 3rd | Average | |||
| CH | 988.9 | 974.3 | 989.1 | 984.1 | 0.637 | 0.688 | 0.715 | 0.680 | -14.3 | -14.6 | -13.8 | -14.2 | ||
| CL | 785.9 | 802.2 | 784.3 | 790.8 | 0.677 | 0.607 | 0.601 | 0.628 | -19.9 | -21.2 | -20.8 | -20.6 | ||
| CLM | 652.8 | 667.8 | 698.6 | 673.1 | 0.557 | 0.667 | 0.591 | 0.605 | -17.8 | -17.3 | -17.2 | -17.4 | ||
| CM | 801.2 | 800.6 | 801.1 | 801.0 | 0.673 | 0.674 | 0.601 | 0.649 | -19.6 | -19.1 | -19.9 | -19.5 | ||
Table 1 Particle size, polydispersity index, and zeta potential of decoctions
| ID | Average particle size (nm) | PDI | Zeta potential (mV) | |||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1st | 2nd | 3rd | Average | 1st | 2nd | 3rd | Average | 1st | 2nd | 3rd | Average | |||
| CH | 988.9 | 974.3 | 989.1 | 984.1 | 0.637 | 0.688 | 0.715 | 0.680 | -14.3 | -14.6 | -13.8 | -14.2 | ||
| CL | 785.9 | 802.2 | 784.3 | 790.8 | 0.677 | 0.607 | 0.601 | 0.628 | -19.9 | -21.2 | -20.8 | -20.6 | ||
| CLM | 652.8 | 667.8 | 698.6 | 673.1 | 0.557 | 0.667 | 0.591 | 0.605 | -17.8 | -17.3 | -17.2 | -17.4 | ||
| CM | 801.2 | 800.6 | 801.1 | 801.0 | 0.673 | 0.674 | 0.601 | 0.649 | -19.6 | -19.1 | -19.9 | -19.5 | ||
Figure 2 Scanning electron microscopy of different decoctions A: scanning electron micrographs at × 300; B: scanning electron micrographs at × 1000; C: scanning electron micrographs at × 2000; A1, B1, C1: micrograph of CH; A2, B2, C2: micrograph of CL; A3, B3, C3: micrograph of CLM; A4, B4, C4: micrograph of CM. CH: Chaihu decoction; CL: Chaihu Longgu decoction; CLM: Chaihu Longgu Muli decoction; CM: Chaihu Muli decoction.
| ID | Component | 1st | 2nd | Average | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Temperature (℃) | pH | Temperature (℃) | pH | ||||
| 1 | Deionized water | 22.9 | 6.56 | 22.9 | 6.58 | 6.57 | |
| 2 | Longgu (Os Draconis) | 23.9 | 9.55 | 24.0 | 9.56 | 9.56 | |
| 3 | Chaihu (Radix Bupleuri Chinensis) | 23.0 | 5.29 | 23.1 | 5.29 | 5.29 | |
| 4 | Muli (Concha Ostreae) | 23.9 | 9.32 | 24.0 | 9.32 | 9.32 | |
| 5 | Chaihu (Radix Bupleuri Chinensis) | 23.7 | 7.96 | 23.7 | 7.96 | 7.96 | |
| Longgu (Os Draconis) | |||||||
| 6 | Chaihu (Radix Bupleuri Chinensis) | 23.3 | 7.65 | 23.3 | 7.66 | 7.66 | |
| Longgu (Os Draconis) | |||||||
| Muli (Concha Ostreae) | |||||||
| 7 | Chaihu (Radix Bupleuri Chinensis) Muli (Concha Ostreae) | 23.2 | 7.23 | 23.3 | 7.22 | 7.23 | |
Table 2 pH values of decoctions
| ID | Component | 1st | 2nd | Average | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Temperature (℃) | pH | Temperature (℃) | pH | ||||
| 1 | Deionized water | 22.9 | 6.56 | 22.9 | 6.58 | 6.57 | |
| 2 | Longgu (Os Draconis) | 23.9 | 9.55 | 24.0 | 9.56 | 9.56 | |
| 3 | Chaihu (Radix Bupleuri Chinensis) | 23.0 | 5.29 | 23.1 | 5.29 | 5.29 | |
| 4 | Muli (Concha Ostreae) | 23.9 | 9.32 | 24.0 | 9.32 | 9.32 | |
| 5 | Chaihu (Radix Bupleuri Chinensis) | 23.7 | 7.96 | 23.7 | 7.96 | 7.96 | |
| Longgu (Os Draconis) | |||||||
| 6 | Chaihu (Radix Bupleuri Chinensis) | 23.3 | 7.65 | 23.3 | 7.66 | 7.66 | |
| Longgu (Os Draconis) | |||||||
| Muli (Concha Ostreae) | |||||||
| 7 | Chaihu (Radix Bupleuri Chinensis) Muli (Concha Ostreae) | 23.2 | 7.23 | 23.3 | 7.22 | 7.23 | |
| ID | Component | 1st | 2nd | Average | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Temperature (℃) | Viscosity coefficient (mPa·s) | Temperature (℃) | Viscosity coefficient (mPa·s) | ||||
| 1 | Deionized water | 21.2 | 2.68 | 21.1 | 2.68 | 2.68 | |
| 2 | Longgu (Os Draconis) | 21.1 | 2.89 | 21.2 | 2.89 | 2.89 | |
| 3 | Chaihu (Radix Bupleuri Chinensis) | 21.1 | 2.99 | 21.1 | 2.99 | 2.99 | |
| 4 | Muli (Concha Ostreae) | 21.2 | 2.89 | 21.3 | 2.89 | 2.89 | |
| 5 | Chaihu (Radix Bupleuri Chinensis) | 21.1 | 3.04 | 21.1 | 3.04 | 3.04 | |
| Longgu (Os Draconis) | |||||||
| 6 | Chaihu (Radix Bupleuri Chinensis) | 21.1 | 3.02 | 21.2 | 3.02 | 3.04 | |
| Longgu (Os Draconis) | |||||||
| Muli (Concha Ostreae) | |||||||
| 7 | Chaihu (Radix Bupleuri Chinensis) | 21.0 | 3.04 | 21.1 | 3.04 | 3.02 | |
| Muli (Concha Ostreae) | |||||||
Table 3 Viscosity coefficients of decoctions
| ID | Component | 1st | 2nd | Average | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Temperature (℃) | Viscosity coefficient (mPa·s) | Temperature (℃) | Viscosity coefficient (mPa·s) | ||||
| 1 | Deionized water | 21.2 | 2.68 | 21.1 | 2.68 | 2.68 | |
| 2 | Longgu (Os Draconis) | 21.1 | 2.89 | 21.2 | 2.89 | 2.89 | |
| 3 | Chaihu (Radix Bupleuri Chinensis) | 21.1 | 2.99 | 21.1 | 2.99 | 2.99 | |
| 4 | Muli (Concha Ostreae) | 21.2 | 2.89 | 21.3 | 2.89 | 2.89 | |
| 5 | Chaihu (Radix Bupleuri Chinensis) | 21.1 | 3.04 | 21.1 | 3.04 | 3.04 | |
| Longgu (Os Draconis) | |||||||
| 6 | Chaihu (Radix Bupleuri Chinensis) | 21.1 | 3.02 | 21.2 | 3.02 | 3.04 | |
| Longgu (Os Draconis) | |||||||
| Muli (Concha Ostreae) | |||||||
| 7 | Chaihu (Radix Bupleuri Chinensis) | 21.0 | 3.04 | 21.1 | 3.04 | 3.02 | |
| Muli (Concha Ostreae) | |||||||
| ID | Component | 1st | 2nd | Average | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Temperature (℃) | Surface tension (mN·s) | Temperature (℃) | Surface tension (mN·s) | ||||
| 1 | Deionized water | 21.8 | 72.5 | 21.8 | 72.5 | 72.5 | |
| 2 | Longgu (Os Draconis) | 21.7 | 72.2 | 21.8 | 72.2 | 72.2 | |
| 3 | Chaihu (Radix Bupleuri Chinensis) | 21.8 | 71.9 | 21.7 | 71.9 | 71.9 | |
| 4 | Muli (Concha Ostreae) | 21.7 | 42.5 | 21.8 | 42.5 | 42.5 | |
| 5 | Chaihu (Radix Bupleuri Chinensis) | 21.8 | 38.1 | 21.7 | 38.1 | 38.1 | |
| Longgu (Os Draconis) | |||||||
| 6 | Chaihu (Radix Bupleuri Chinensis) | 21.9 | 36.9 | 21.8 | 36.9 | 36.9 | |
| Longgu (Os Draconis) | |||||||
| Muli (Concha Ostreae) | |||||||
| 7 | Chaihu (Radix Bupleuri Chinensis) Muli (Concha Ostreae) | 21.7 | 41.2 | 21.8 | 41.2 | 41.2 | |
Table 4 Surface tension of decoctions
| ID | Component | 1st | 2nd | Average | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Temperature (℃) | Surface tension (mN·s) | Temperature (℃) | Surface tension (mN·s) | ||||
| 1 | Deionized water | 21.8 | 72.5 | 21.8 | 72.5 | 72.5 | |
| 2 | Longgu (Os Draconis) | 21.7 | 72.2 | 21.8 | 72.2 | 72.2 | |
| 3 | Chaihu (Radix Bupleuri Chinensis) | 21.8 | 71.9 | 21.7 | 71.9 | 71.9 | |
| 4 | Muli (Concha Ostreae) | 21.7 | 42.5 | 21.8 | 42.5 | 42.5 | |
| 5 | Chaihu (Radix Bupleuri Chinensis) | 21.8 | 38.1 | 21.7 | 38.1 | 38.1 | |
| Longgu (Os Draconis) | |||||||
| 6 | Chaihu (Radix Bupleuri Chinensis) | 21.9 | 36.9 | 21.8 | 36.9 | 36.9 | |
| Longgu (Os Draconis) | |||||||
| Muli (Concha Ostreae) | |||||||
| 7 | Chaihu (Radix Bupleuri Chinensis) Muli (Concha Ostreae) | 21.7 | 41.2 | 21.8 | 41.2 | 41.2 | |
| Group | 1st | 2nd | Average Freeze-dried powder Yield (%) | 1 g Freeze-dried powder to original materials (g) | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CH | Freeze-dried powder (g) | Freeze-dried powder yield (%) | 1 g Freeze-dried powder to CH (g) | CH | Freeze-dried powder (g) | Freeze-dried powder Yield (%) | 1 g Freeze-dried powder to CH (g) | ||||
| CL | 8.0030 | 1.40 | 17.49 | 5.72 | 8.0053 | 1.44 | 17.99 | 5.56 | 17.74 | 5.64 | |
| CM | 8.0084 | 1.30 | 16.23 | 6.16 | 8.0025 | 1.26 | 15.75 | 6.35 | 15.99 | 6.26 | |
| CLM | 8.0058 | 1.31 | 16.36 | 6.11 | 8.0041 | 1.27 | 15.87 | 6.30 | 16.12 | 6.21 | |
| C | 8.0023 | 1.25 | 15.62 | 6.40 | 8.0068 | 1.29 | 16.11 | 6.21 | 15.87 | 6.30 | |
Table 5 Freeze-dried powder yields of combined decoctions
| Group | 1st | 2nd | Average Freeze-dried powder Yield (%) | 1 g Freeze-dried powder to original materials (g) | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CH | Freeze-dried powder (g) | Freeze-dried powder yield (%) | 1 g Freeze-dried powder to CH (g) | CH | Freeze-dried powder (g) | Freeze-dried powder Yield (%) | 1 g Freeze-dried powder to CH (g) | ||||
| CL | 8.0030 | 1.40 | 17.49 | 5.72 | 8.0053 | 1.44 | 17.99 | 5.56 | 17.74 | 5.64 | |
| CM | 8.0084 | 1.30 | 16.23 | 6.16 | 8.0025 | 1.26 | 15.75 | 6.35 | 15.99 | 6.26 | |
| CLM | 8.0058 | 1.31 | 16.36 | 6.11 | 8.0041 | 1.27 | 15.87 | 6.30 | 16.12 | 6.21 | |
| C | 8.0023 | 1.25 | 15.62 | 6.40 | 8.0068 | 1.29 | 16.11 | 6.21 | 15.87 | 6.30 | |
| Sample | Linear regression equations | r | Linear ranges (μg/mL) |
|---|---|---|---|
| SSb2 | y=324008x+3954.8 | 1 | 0.2150-1.0748 |
| SSb1 | y=357040x+5651.8 | 0.9999 | 0.2253-1.1266 |
| SSc | y=63217x+335 | 0.9998 | 0.2424-1.2120 |
| SNF | y=849243x-26124 | 0.9999 | 0.1822-0.9110 |
| SSa | y=58741x+1042.3 | 1 | 0.1967-0.9833 |
| SSd | y=73593x+1540.9 | 0.9999 | 0.2116-1.0579 |
Table 6 Linear regression equations and linear ranges of analytes
| Sample | Linear regression equations | r | Linear ranges (μg/mL) |
|---|---|---|---|
| SSb2 | y=324008x+3954.8 | 1 | 0.2150-1.0748 |
| SSb1 | y=357040x+5651.8 | 0.9999 | 0.2253-1.1266 |
| SSc | y=63217x+335 | 0.9998 | 0.2424-1.2120 |
| SNF | y=849243x-26124 | 0.9999 | 0.1822-0.9110 |
| SSa | y=58741x+1042.3 | 1 | 0.1967-0.9833 |
| SSd | y=73593x+1540.9 | 0.9999 | 0.2116-1.0579 |
| Sample | Sample amount (g) | Test sample content (mg) | Amount of reference substance added (mg) | Measured total amount (mg) | Recovery rate (%) | Average recovery rate (%) | RSD (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SSa | 0.2521 | 0.8042 | 0.8031 | 1.5973 | 98.7548 | 98.72 | 0.97 |
| 0.2510 | 0.8007 | 0.8031 | 1.5998 | 99.5019 | |||
| 0.2534 | 0.8083 | 0.8031 | 1.5881 | 97.0987 | |||
| 0.2539 | 0.8099 | 0.8031 | 1.6002 | 98.4062 | |||
| 0.2517 | 0.8029 | 0.8031 | 1.5960 | 98.7548 | |||
| 0.2503 | 0.7985 | 0.8031 | 1.6002 | 99.8257 | |||
| SSd | 0.2521 | 0.7840 | 0.7776 | 1.5672 | 100.7202 | 101.63 | 1.63 |
| 0.2510 | 0.7806 | 0.7776 | 1.5637 | 100.7073 | |||
| 0.2534 | 0.7881 | 0.7776 | 1.5829 | 102.2119 | |||
| 0.2539 | 0.7896 | 0.7776 | 1.5726 | 100.6944 | |||
| 0.2517 | 0.7828 | 0.7776 | 1.5975 | 104.7711 | |||
| 0.2503 | 0.7784 | 0.7776 | 1.5611 | 100.6559 | |||
| SSc | 0.2521 | 0.3454 | 0.3359 | 0.6914 | 103.0068 | 103.16 | 2.40 |
| 0.2510 | 0.3439 | 0.3359 | 0.7001 | 106.0435 | |||
| 0.2534 | 0.3472 | 0.3359 | 0.6952 | 103.6023 | |||
| 0.2539 | 0.3478 | 0.3359 | 0.7008 | 105.0908 | |||
| 0.2517 | 0.3448 | 0.3359 | 0.6882 | 102.2328 | |||
| 0.2503 | 0.3429 | 0.3359 | 0.6754 | 98.9878 | |||
| SNF | 0.2521 | 0.0227 | 0.0221 | 0.0431 | 92.3077 | 95.32 | 3.27 |
| 0.2510 | 0.0226 | 0.0221 | 0.0429 | 91.8552 | |||
| 0.2534 | 0.0228 | 0.0221 | 0.0439 | 95.4751 | |||
| 0.2539 | 0.0228 | 0.0221 | 0.0441 | 96.3801 | |||
| 0.2517 | 0.0227 | 0.0221 | 0.0449 | 100.4525 | |||
| 0.2503 | 0.0225 | 0.0221 | 0.0436 | 95.4751 | |||
| SSb2 | 0.2521 | 0.3933 | 0.4154 | 0.8021 | 98.4112 | 97.87 | 1.80 |
| 0.2510 | 0.3916 | 0.4154 | 0.7907 | 96.0761 | |||
| 0.2534 | 0.3953 | 0.4154 | 0.8150 | 101.0351 | |||
| 0.2539 | 0.3961 | 0.4154 | 0.7987 | 96.9186 | |||
| 0.2517 | 0.3927 | 0.4154 | 0.7993 | 97.8816 | |||
| 0.2503 | 0.3905 | 0.4154 | 0.7929 | 96.8705 | |||
| SSb1 | 0.2521 | 0.0958 | 0.1068 | 0.1991 | 96.7228 | 96.25 | 2.63 |
| 0.2510 | 0.0954 | 0.1068 | 0.1957 | 93.9139 | |||
| 0.2534 | 0.0963 | 0.1068 | 0.2024 | 99.3446 | |||
| 0.2539 | 0.0965 | 0.1068 | 0.1962 | 93.3521 | |||
| 0.2517 | 0.0956 | 0.1068 | 0.1973 | 95.2247 | |||
| 0.2503 | 0.0951 | 0.1068 | 0.2008 | 98.9700 |
Table 7 Recovery experiment of analytes (n = 6)
| Sample | Sample amount (g) | Test sample content (mg) | Amount of reference substance added (mg) | Measured total amount (mg) | Recovery rate (%) | Average recovery rate (%) | RSD (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SSa | 0.2521 | 0.8042 | 0.8031 | 1.5973 | 98.7548 | 98.72 | 0.97 |
| 0.2510 | 0.8007 | 0.8031 | 1.5998 | 99.5019 | |||
| 0.2534 | 0.8083 | 0.8031 | 1.5881 | 97.0987 | |||
| 0.2539 | 0.8099 | 0.8031 | 1.6002 | 98.4062 | |||
| 0.2517 | 0.8029 | 0.8031 | 1.5960 | 98.7548 | |||
| 0.2503 | 0.7985 | 0.8031 | 1.6002 | 99.8257 | |||
| SSd | 0.2521 | 0.7840 | 0.7776 | 1.5672 | 100.7202 | 101.63 | 1.63 |
| 0.2510 | 0.7806 | 0.7776 | 1.5637 | 100.7073 | |||
| 0.2534 | 0.7881 | 0.7776 | 1.5829 | 102.2119 | |||
| 0.2539 | 0.7896 | 0.7776 | 1.5726 | 100.6944 | |||
| 0.2517 | 0.7828 | 0.7776 | 1.5975 | 104.7711 | |||
| 0.2503 | 0.7784 | 0.7776 | 1.5611 | 100.6559 | |||
| SSc | 0.2521 | 0.3454 | 0.3359 | 0.6914 | 103.0068 | 103.16 | 2.40 |
| 0.2510 | 0.3439 | 0.3359 | 0.7001 | 106.0435 | |||
| 0.2534 | 0.3472 | 0.3359 | 0.6952 | 103.6023 | |||
| 0.2539 | 0.3478 | 0.3359 | 0.7008 | 105.0908 | |||
| 0.2517 | 0.3448 | 0.3359 | 0.6882 | 102.2328 | |||
| 0.2503 | 0.3429 | 0.3359 | 0.6754 | 98.9878 | |||
| SNF | 0.2521 | 0.0227 | 0.0221 | 0.0431 | 92.3077 | 95.32 | 3.27 |
| 0.2510 | 0.0226 | 0.0221 | 0.0429 | 91.8552 | |||
| 0.2534 | 0.0228 | 0.0221 | 0.0439 | 95.4751 | |||
| 0.2539 | 0.0228 | 0.0221 | 0.0441 | 96.3801 | |||
| 0.2517 | 0.0227 | 0.0221 | 0.0449 | 100.4525 | |||
| 0.2503 | 0.0225 | 0.0221 | 0.0436 | 95.4751 | |||
| SSb2 | 0.2521 | 0.3933 | 0.4154 | 0.8021 | 98.4112 | 97.87 | 1.80 |
| 0.2510 | 0.3916 | 0.4154 | 0.7907 | 96.0761 | |||
| 0.2534 | 0.3953 | 0.4154 | 0.8150 | 101.0351 | |||
| 0.2539 | 0.3961 | 0.4154 | 0.7987 | 96.9186 | |||
| 0.2517 | 0.3927 | 0.4154 | 0.7993 | 97.8816 | |||
| 0.2503 | 0.3905 | 0.4154 | 0.7929 | 96.8705 | |||
| SSb1 | 0.2521 | 0.0958 | 0.1068 | 0.1991 | 96.7228 | 96.25 | 2.63 |
| 0.2510 | 0.0954 | 0.1068 | 0.1957 | 93.9139 | |||
| 0.2534 | 0.0963 | 0.1068 | 0.2024 | 99.3446 | |||
| 0.2539 | 0.0965 | 0.1068 | 0.1962 | 93.3521 | |||
| 0.2517 | 0.0956 | 0.1068 | 0.1973 | 95.2247 | |||
| 0.2503 | 0.0951 | 0.1068 | 0.2008 | 98.9700 |
| Sample | SSa concentration | SSd concentration | SSc concentration | SNF concentration | SSb2 concentration | SSb1 concentration |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CH (purified from methanol) | 0.319 | 0.311 | 0.137 | 0.009 | 0.156 | 0.038 |
| CH (purified from water) | 0.019 | 0.001 | 0.013 | 0 | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| CL (purified from water) | 0.033 | 0.007 | 0.019 | 0.001 | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| CLM (purified from water) | 0.021 | 0.002 | 0.023 | 0.001 | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| CM (purified from water) | 0.016 | 0.001 | 0.019 | 0.001 | 0.005 | 0.006 |
Table 8 Contents of six analytes determined by high-performance liquid chromatography
| Sample | SSa concentration | SSd concentration | SSc concentration | SNF concentration | SSb2 concentration | SSb1 concentration |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CH (purified from methanol) | 0.319 | 0.311 | 0.137 | 0.009 | 0.156 | 0.038 |
| CH (purified from water) | 0.019 | 0.001 | 0.013 | 0 | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| CL (purified from water) | 0.033 | 0.007 | 0.019 | 0.001 | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| CLM (purified from water) | 0.021 | 0.002 | 0.023 | 0.001 | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| CM (purified from water) | 0.016 | 0.001 | 0.019 | 0.001 | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| [1] | National Administration of Traditional Chinese Medicine Editorial Board of Chinese Materia Medica. Chinese materia medica. Shanghai: Shanghai Scientific and Technical Publishers, 1999: 317. |
| [2] | Kang TG editor. The 13th Five-Year Plan: undergraduate Chinese medicine, pharmacy, pharmaceutical engineering, new century. 4th ed. Beijing: China Traditional Chinese Medicine Publishing House, 2016: 493. |
| [3] | Chen YZ, Lin S. Analysis of components in Os Draconis and Oyster Shells. Fujian Yi Ke Da Xue Xue Bao 1999; 33: 432-4. |
| [4] | Li GH, Yu W, Liu HM. Discussion on trace elements in keel and their functions and medicinal uses. Shanxi Zhong Yi 2003; 19: 44-5. |
| [5] | Wang JB, Gao H, Chen SH, et al. Determination of heavy metal elements in Os Draconis and their typical processed products. Hubei Zhong Yi Yao Da Xue Xue Bao 2020; 22: 39-42. |
| [6] | Li C, He JG. Radioactivity of dragon’s bone and dragon’s tooth. Zhong Guo Zhong Yi Ji Zheng 2007; 7: 460-1. |
| [7] | Huang YM, Liu JH. Comparison of trace elements and pharmacological effects of keel, dragon tooth and ophiolite. Zhong Cheng Yao 1990; 12: 31-2. |
| [8] | Li GH, Zhou X, He Y, et al. Experimental study on immune function of keel. Jiangsu Zhong Yi Yao 2003; 24: 54-5. |
| [9] | Zhang M. Treating 60 cases of post-stroke depression with Chaihu Jia Longgu Muli decoction. Zhong Yi Lin Chuang Yan Jiu 2019; 11: 99-100. |
| [10] | He RR, Xia BM, Liu J, et al. Clinical observation on 30 cases of postpartum depression treated by Chaihu Longgu Muli decoction. Hunan Zhong Yi Za Zhi 2017; 33: 79-81. |
| [11] | Tu YF, Cai J, Guo JC, et al. Treatment of 34 cases of Parkinson’s disease with depression by Chaihu Longgu Muli decoction. Guang Ming Zhong Yi 2017; 32: 520-3. |
| [12] | He JC. Treatment of 41 cases of post-tumor depression with Chaihu Longgu Muli decoction. Guang Ming Zhong Yi 2018; 33: 386-8. |
| [13] | Xu GL, Xie XZ, Wu B. Clinical observation of Chaihu Longgu Muli decoction in treatment of coronary artery disease complicated with depression and anxiety. Hebei Yi Xue 2016; 22: 500-2. |
| [14] | Jin HH, Huang LX, Hou JQ, et al. Mechanisms of Chaihu Longgu Muli decoction for treating different diseases with the same method in coronary heart disease and anxiety disorder based on network pharmacology. Zhong Xi Yi Jie He Xin Nao Xue Guan Bing Za Zhi 2021; 19: 1238-47. |
| [15] | Ning B, Tan XS, He HW, et al. Chaihu Longgu Muli decoction in treatment of coronary heart disease complicated with anxiety and depression: a review. Zhong Guo Shi Yan Fang Ji Xue Za Zhi 2023; 29: 218-28. |
| [16] | Lyu GL. Effect of modified Chaihu Longgu Muli decoction in treatment of insomnia with syndrome of liver depression transforming into fire. Zhong Guo Shi Yong Yi Yao 2023; 18: 25-8. |
| [17] | Wen LM. Clinical effect of modified Chaihu Jia Longgu Muli decoction in treatment of insomnia with liver-Qi stagnation syndrome. Zhong Guo Shi Yong Yi Yao 2021; 16: 185-7. |
| [18] | Chen H, Ding H. Clinical observation of Chaihu Longgu Muli decoction in treating insomnia of stagnated liver Qi transforming into fire type. Guangzhou Zhong Yi Yao Da Xue Xue Bao 2021; 38: 1809-14. |
| [19] | Hong F, Yao M, Shen B. Clinical effect of Chaihu Longgu Muli decoction in treating insomnia of liver-Qi stagnation. Zhong Yi Yao Xin Xi 2021; 49: 75-8. |
| [20] | Wang S, Chen J, Yang N, et al. Clinical studies of 30 cases of severe depression with insomnia treated by Chaihu (Radix Bupleuri) and Longgu Muli decoction combined with Western Medicine. Jiangsu Zhong Yi Yao 2020; 52: 27-9. |
| [21] | Li LF, Lu J, Li XM, et al. Antidepressant-like effects of the saponins extracted from Chaihu-jia-longgu-muli-tang in a rat unpredictable chronic mild stress model. Fitoterapia 2012; 83: 93-103. |
| [22] | Li C, Li B, Liu H, et al. Mechanism of Chaihu Longgu oyster adjusted decoction for treatment of depression based on network pharmacology and molecular docking technology. Ann Transl Med 2023; 11: 172. |
| [23] | Xia S, Yang P, Li F, et al. Chaihu Longgu Muli decoction exerts an antiepileptic effect in rats by improving pyroptosis in hippocampal neurons. J Ethnopharmacol 2021; 270: 113794. |
| [24] | Wang X, Ju J, Li J, et al. Chaihu Longgu Muli decoction, a Chinese herbal formula, for treatment of insomnia: a systematic review and Meta-analysis. Medicine (Baltimore) 2020; 99: e22462. |
| [25] | Yu M, Jia HM, Zhang T, et al. Gut microbiota is the key to the antidepressant effect of Chaihu-Shu-Gan-San. Metabolites 2020; 10: 63. |
| [26] | Yi SM. Clinical application of keel oyster preparation in Japan. Zhong Cheng Yao 1993; 15: 44. |
| [27] | Oguri K, Kawase M, Harada K, et al. Longgu (Fossilia Ossis Mastodi) alters the profiles of organic and inorganic components in Keishikaryukotsuboreito. J Nat Med 2016; 70: 483-91. |
| [28] | Chen YY, Liu C, Liu JJ, et al. Knowledge graph construction and visualization analysis of hotspots and frontiers of Bupleuri Radix in the 21st-century global perspective. Zhong Cao Yao 2023; 54: 6763-76. |
| [29] | Ashour ML, Wink M. Genus Bupleurum: a review of its phytochemistry, pharmacology and modes of action. J Pharm Pharmacol 2011; 63: 305-21. |
| [30] | Feng YM, Li HZ, Ai ZF, et al. Systematic analysis of shared material basis and its biological mechanism for prevention and treatment of psychoneurological disorders by Bupleuri Radix. Zhong Cao Yao 2024; 55: 307-19. |
| [31] | Huang W, Zhao Y, Sun R. Research development on hepatoprotective effect and hepatotoxicity based on Bupleurum saikosaponin components. Zhong Guo Yao Wu Jing Jie 2011; 8: 38-41. |
| [32] | Jin GT, Li B, Wang SR. Research on the mechanism, effects and material foundation of Chaihu in relieving fever. Xi Bu Zhong Yi Yao 2014; 27: 20-2. |
| [33] | Yu LQ, Jia AM, Song YY. Progress in the study of saikosaponins on anti-inflammation, anti-oxidation and lipid-lowering effects. Zhong Guo Dong Mai Ying Hua Za Zhi 2020; 28: 87-92. |
| [34] | Liu D, Wang JH. Research progress on antitumor mechanisms of saikosaponin. Yao Pin Ping Jia 2018; 33: 2038-43. |
| [35] | Luo L, Li C, Huang N, et al. Traditional mineral medicine realgar and Realgar-Indigo naturalis formula potentially exerted therapeutic effects by altering the gut microbiota. Front Microbiol 2023; 14: 1143173. |
| [36] | Zhang ZH, Li RR, Chen Y, et al. Integration of traditional, complementary, and alternative medicine with modern biomedicine: the scientization, evidence, and challenges for integration of Traditional Chinese Medicine. Acupunct Herb Med 2024; 4: 68-78. |
| [37] | Luo L, Xin XY, Wang QC, et al. Characterization and comparison of toxicity between natural realgar and artificially optimized realgar. Front Pharmacol 2024; 15: 1476139. |
| [1] | YANG Xirui, ZHAO Hui, SHAN Muhammad, DONG Feixue, ZHANG Dandan, WANG Jixue, YUAN Xingxing. Efficacy of bioactive compounds of Chaihu (Radix Bupleuri Chinensis) on glaucomatous optic atrophy through interleukin-6/hypoxia inducible factor-1α signal pathway [J]. Journal of Traditional Chinese Medicine, 2023, 43(6): 1219-1226. |
| Viewed | ||||||
|
Full text |
|
|||||
|
Abstract |
|
|||||
Sponsored by China Association of Chinese Medicine
& China Academy of Chinese Medical Sciences
16 Nanxiaojie, Dongzhimen Nei, Beijing, China. 100700 Email: jtcmen@126.com
Copyright 2020 Journal of Traditional Chinese Medicine. All rights reserved.
