聚酰胺树脂纯化竹壳类黄酮工艺的研究

采用聚酰胺吸附树脂对竹笋壳黄酮类化合物分离纯化,确定了聚酰胺吸附树脂对竹笋壳黄酮分离纯化的最佳工艺条件:制备5mg/mL的竹笋壳黄酮提取液90mL,调节pH=5,用1.8mL/min的流速上样后,用160mL的去离子水冲洗大量杂质,随后用120mL的60%乙醇溶液洗脱120mL。在此条件下,竹笋壳黄酮的纯度为58.4%,与大孔树脂纯化方法相比,该方法更具有良好的分离纯化效果。     

黑果枸杞色素的提取和精制工艺研究

本文采用正交实验法对黑果枸杞色素的提取和精制工艺进行了研究。结果表明,黑果枸杞色素的最佳提取条件为:以pH 3.0的80%乙醇作浸提剂,提取温度50℃,提取时间3 h,固液配比1:40;用X-5大孔吸附树脂对色素进行精制,以树脂柱径高比1:15、流速3 mL/minp、H 3.0、色素液浓度1 g/L为最佳吸附条件,色素的吸附量可达0.03715 g/mL湿树脂体积;而以95%乙醇做洗脱液,在pH 2.0、流速5 mL/min、3倍于柱床体积的洗脱液条件下解吸附效果最佳,色素回收率达到97.78%;制取的色素产品外观呈紫红色,色价为36.7。     

大孔吸附树脂纯化海红果黄酮工艺的研究

通过采用大孔吸附树脂对海红果黄酮粗提液的静态吸附和解吸试验,从10种大孔吸附树脂中筛选出海红果黄酮纯化的最优树脂,考察了该树脂对诲红果黄酮的静态、动态吸附与解吸性能并对吸附与洗脱的最佳条件进行了研究.结果表明:NKA-9树脂对海红果黄酮有很好的吸附和解吸性能,其最优的动态吸附工艺条件为:上样液pH值为4.0,浓度5.15 mg/mL,上样量为4 BV,流速控制在2 BV/h.最优的解吸工艺条件为:洗脱剂为80％乙醇溶液,洗脱液用量为3 BV,洗脱流速控制在1 BV/h.在此优化条件下,海红果黄酮的吸附率、解析率、收率、纯度的平均值分别达到为(79.39±0.13)％,(84.14±0.11)％,(68.20±0.15)％和(28.81 ±0.06)％ (n=5).     

大孔树脂纯化赶黄草黄酮工艺及体外抗氧化活性

本研究以赶黄草地上部分为材料,研究大孔树脂纯化赶黄草黄酮的工艺,并评价体外抗氧化活性。根据大孔树脂对赶黄草黄酮的吸附和解吸性能,从7种不同类型的大孔树脂中筛选出适宜的树脂,进一步优化其纯化工艺,并比较纯化前后黄酮的体外抗氧化活性。试验结果表明,DM130大孔树脂对赶黄草黄酮有较好的吸附和解吸效果,其最佳纯化工艺参数:上样液黄酮浓度为1.0 mg/mL、pH为5、上样速度为1.0 mL/min、上样量为110 mL、洗脱液为70%乙醇、洗脱速度为1.0 mL/min和洗脱体积为40 mL。该工艺条件下,黄酮的纯度由20.04%提高至43.93%,提高了23.89%,表明DM130树脂对赶黄草黄酮的纯化效果较好。另外,纯化后赶黄草黄酮的DPPH自由基清除能力和还原力均显著提高。     

大孔吸附树脂分离虎杖中白藜芦醇的研究

目的:采用大孔吸附树脂对虎杖粗提物中白藜芦醇进行初步富集、分离和纯化.方法:考察18种树脂对白藜芦醇的吸附量和解吸率,选择吸附量大、解吸率高的数种树脂进行吸附动力学研究,确定最佳的脱附工艺.结论:HPD-500树脂对白藜芦醇的吸附量可达58.67mg/g,解吸率为92.6%,经大孔吸附树脂的吸附与解吸,白藜芦醇的含量由粗提物中9.25%提高至39.5%.     

桑椹中黄酮类物质的大孔树脂纯化工艺

以桑椹中黄酮类物质的吸附量和解吸率为指标,对比分析HZ-801、HZ-816、HZ-818等12种大孔吸附树脂对桑椹提取液的分离纯化效果,优选出最佳树脂HZ-801并通过对上样液pH、上样液质量浓度、上样量、吸附流速、洗脱剂质量浓度、洗脱剂用量、洗脱流速等影响因素的考察,确定最优工艺:吸附阶段上样液pH=4,上样液质量浓度0.45mg/mL,上样量420mL,吸附流速120mL/h,动态吸附量(干树脂)25.34mg/g,吸附率84.25%;洗脱阶段的洗脱剂体积分数为60%乙醇,洗脱剂用量270mL,洗脱流速120mL/h。此优化工艺条件下的洗脱率为85.78%,总黄酮纯度从23.64%提高到82.36%。     

大孔吸附树脂对金银花叶茎藤总黄酮的吸附性能

从金银花叶茎藤中提取总黄酮并用D-101大孔吸附树脂进行纯化,研究了D-101大孔吸附树脂对总黄酮的吸附及解吸附特性。结果表明,D-101树脂对金银花叶茎藤总黄酮分离纯化的最佳工艺参数为:上样液黄酮浓度0.538 mg/mL,静置吸附时间80 min,料液比1∶5(g∶mL),pH 2,流速为2 mL/min,以60 mL 75%的乙醇溶液洗脱,黄酮解吸率为94.5%,纯化后黄酮纯度为84.5%,是粗提液黄酮含量(16.8%)的5倍。金银花叶茎藤总黄酮在D-101树脂上的吸附等温线符合Langmuir等温吸附方程。吸附热力学参数表明吸附过程为自发、放热过程,吸附动力学可用Pseudo-second-order模型较好地拟合,30℃时其表观吸附速率常数为1.034×10-2g/mg.min。     

大孔吸附树脂分离富集苜蓿皂甙的研究

本项工作以对苜蓿皂甙的吸附量和解吸率为指标筛选大孔吸附树脂。研究结果表明,X-5吸附树脂具有较好的吸附性能和解吸效果。研究应用正交试验方法进一步对大孔吸附树脂分离纯化苜蓿皂甙的工艺条件进行试验分析,确定苜蓿皂甙分离富集的最佳操作条件为:上样浓度8mg/mL,色谱柱的径高比1∶7,药材-树脂比例1∶3;吸附完全后,先以水洗脱,除去杂质,再以50%乙醇洗脱,可以得到纯度较好的苜蓿皂甙。     

AB-8大孔树脂吸附分离红花桑寄生总黄酮的影响因子研究

AB-8大孔吸附树脂对红花桑寄生总黄酮静态吸附和动态洗脱的效果,受提取液质量浓度、pH值及环境温度、振速以及洗脱剂乙醇浓度、流速等因素影响。试验表明,提取液质量浓度和pH值对AB-8树脂的吸附效果有显著影响,其吸附分离总黄酮的工艺条件为:浓度为1.2~2.0 mg/ml、pH 3.0~4.0的红花桑寄生提取液,置于摇床上,于室温条件下振荡(振速160 r/min)吸附2~3 h,然后用5倍于树脂体积(5BV)的50%乙醇以1.5 ml/min流速进行柱上动态解吸。AB-8树脂对红花桑寄生总黄酮的饱和吸附量可达29.0 mg/g,动态洗脱率达95.0%,获得产品中黄酮纯度为46.0%,得率为5.5%。     

胡芦巴中两种芪类成分的纯化工艺研究

本文运用高效液相色谱(HPLC)含量分析方法,以胡芦巴种子中土大黄苷和丹叶大黄素为目标化合物,以其总回收率和总含量为指标,采用单因素和响应面分析法,优化了大孔吸附树脂纯化胡芦巴中这两种芪类成分的工艺条件和参数。结果表明,在11种大孔吸附树脂中,HPD300型树脂的纯化效果最佳,最佳纯化工艺条件为:以25.0 mL、pH 5.0的胡芦巴种子粗提液上柱,流速0.5 mL/min,充分吸附后用3 BV去离子水洗柱,然后用27.0 mL 50%乙醇溶液以流速0.6 mL/min进行解吸。此工艺的平均回收率为91.76%;经HPD300树脂纯化后提取物中芪类成分(包括土大黄苷和丹叶大黄素)总含量从15.5%提高到56.94%。     

On the ontogeny of the haptor and the evolution of the Monogenea

Data on the ontogeny of the posterior haptor of monogeneans were obtained from more than 150 publications and summarised. These data were plotted into diagrams showing evolutionary capacity levels based on the theory of a progressive evolution of marginal hooks, anchors and other attachment components of the posterior haptor in the Monogenea (Malmberg, 1986). 5 + 5 unhinged marginal hooks are assumed to be the most primitive monogenean haptoral condition. Thus the diagrams were founded on a 5 + 5 unhinged marginal hook evolutionary capacity level, and the evolutionary capacity levels of anchors and other haptoral attachement components were arranged according to haptoral ontogenetical sequences. In the final plotting diagram data on hosts, type of spermatozoa, oncomiracidial ciliation, sensilla pattern and protonephridial systems were also included. In this way a number of correlations were revealed. Thus, for example, the number of 5 + 5 marginal hooks correlates with the most primitive monogenean type of spermatozoon and with few sensillae, many ciliated cells and a simple protonephridial system in the oncomiracidium. On the basis of the reviewed data it is concluded that the ancient monogeneans with 5 + 5 unhinged marginal hooks were divided into two main lines, one retaining unhinged marginal hooks and the other evolving hinged marginal hooks. Both main lines have recent representatives at different marginal hook evolutionary capacity levels, i.e. monogeneans retaining a haptor with only marginal hooks. For the main line with hinged marginal hooks the name Articulon-choinea n. subclass is proposed. Members with 8 + 8 hinged marginal hooks only are here called Proanchorea n. superord. Monogeneans with unhinged marginal hooks only are here called Ananchorea n. superord. and three new families are erected for its recent members: Anonchohapteridae n. fam., Acolpentronidae n. fam. and Anacanthoridae n. fam. (with 7 + 7, 8 + 8 and 9 + 9 unhinged marginal hooks, respectively). Except for the families of Articulonchoinea (e.g. Acanthocotylidae, Gyrodactylidae, Tetraonchoididae) Bychowsky's (1957) division of the Monogenea into the Oligonchoinea and Polyonchoinea fits the proposed scheme, i.e. monogeneans with unhinged marginal hooks form one old group, the Oligonchoinea, which have 5 + 5 unhinged marginal hooks, and the other group form the Polyonchoinea, which (with the exception of the Hexabothriidae) has a greater number (7 + 7, 8 + 8 or 9 + 9) of unhinged marginal hooks. It is proposed that both these names, Oligonchoinea (sensu mihi) and Polyonchoinea (sensu mihi), will be retained on one side and Articulonchoinea placed on the other side, which reflects the early monogenean evolution. Except for the members of Ananchorea [Polyonchoinea], all members of the Oligonchoinea and Polyonchoinea have anchors, which imply that they are further evolved, i.e. have passed the 5 + 5 marginal hook evolutionary capacity level (Malmberg, 1986). There are two main types of anchors in the Monogenea: haptoral anchors, with anlages appearing in the haptor, and peduncular anchors, with anlages in the peduncle. There are two types of haptoral anchors: peripheral haptoral anchors, ontogenetically the oldest, and central haptoral anchors. Peduncular anchors, in turn, are ontogenetically younger than peripheral haptoral anchors. There may be two pairs of peduncular anchors: medial peduncular anchors, ontogentically the oldest, and lateral peduncular anchors. Only peduncular (not haptoral) anchors have anchor bars. Monogeneans with haptoral anchors are here called Mediohaptanchorea n. superord. and Laterohaptanchorea n. superord. or haptanchoreans. All oligonchoineans and the oldest polyonchoineans are haptanchoreans. Certain members of Calceostomatidae [Polyonchoinea] are the only monogeneans with both (peripheral) haptoral and peduncular anchors (one pair). These monogeneans are here called Mixanchorea n. superord. Polyonchoineans with peduncular anchors and unhinged marginal hooks are here called the Pedunculanchorea n. superord. The most primitive pedunculanchoreans have only one pair of peduncular anchors with an anchor bar, while the most advanced have both medial and lateral peduncular anchors; each pair having an anchor bar. Certain families of the Articulonchoinea, the Anchorea n. superord., also have peduncular anchors (parallel evolution): only one family, the Sundanonchidae n. fam., has both medial and lateral peduncular anchors, each anchor pair with an anchor bar. Evolutionary lines from different monogenean evolutionary capacity levels are discussed and a new system of classification for the Monogenea is proposed.In agreeing to publish this article, I recognise that its contents are controversial and contrary to generally accepted views on monogenean systematics and evolution. I have anticipated a reaction to the article by inviting senior workers in the field to comment upon it: their views will be reported in a future issue of this journal. EditorIn agreeing to publish this article, I recognise that its contents are controversial and contrary to generally accepted views on monogenean systematics and evolution. I have anticipated a reaction to the article by inviting senior workers in the field to comment upon it: their views will be reported in a future issue of this journal. Editor     

On the origin of the Hirudinea and the demise of the Oligochaeta

The phylogenetic relationships of the Clitellata were investigated with a data set of published and new complete 18S rRNA gene sequences of 51 species representing 41 families. Sequences were aligned on the basis of a secondary structure model and analysed with maximum parsimony and maximum likelihood. In contrast to the latter method, parsimony did not recover the monophyly of Clitellata. However, a close scrutiny of the data suggested a spurious attraction between some polychaetes and clitellates. As a rule, molecular trees are closely aligned with morphology-based phylogenies. Acanthobdellida and Euhirudinea were reconciled in their traditional Hirudinea clade and were included in the Oligochaeta with the Branchiobdellida via the Lumbriculidae as a possible link between the two assemblages. While the 18S gene yielded a meaningful historical signal for determining relationships within clitellates, the exact position of Hirudinea and Branchiobdellida within oligochaetes remained unresolved. The lack of phylogenetic signal is interpreted as evidence for a rapid radiation of these taxa. The placement of Clitellata within the Polychaeta remained unresolved. The biological reality of polytomies within annelids is suggested and supports the hypothesis of an extremely ancient radiation of polychaetes and emergence of clitellates.