白木香树干中的黄酮类成分

从白木香[Aquilaria smensis(Lour.)Gilg]树干的乙醇提取物中分离得到5个黄酮类化合物,经波谱分析,分别鉴定为:洋芹素-7,4'-二甲醚(1)、5-羟基-7,3',4'-三甲氧基黄酮(2)、木犀草素-7,4'-二甲醚p)、芫花素(4)和4',5-二羟基-3',7-二甲氧基黄酮(5).以上化合物均为首次从该种植物树干中分离得到.     

艾纳香化学成分的研究

从艾纳香(Blumea balsamifera DC.)中分离得到12个化合物,通过理化性质和波谱数据分析分别鉴定为;商路素(1),花椒油素(2),2,4-二羟基-6-甲氧基苯乙酮(3),5,7-二羟基色原酮(4),金丝桃苷(5),异槲皮苷(6),3′,4′,5,7-四羟基-3-甲氧基黄酮(7),槲皮素(8),槲皮素-3′-甲氧基-3-O-β-D-半乳吡喃糖苷(9),4′,5,7-三羟基-3,3′-二甲氧基黄酮(10),3,5,7-三羟基-3′,4′-二甲氧基黄酮(11),木犀草素(12).其中,化合物3-7和9- 11为首次从该属植物中分离得到.     

艾纳香黄酮类化学成分的研究(英文)

从艾纳香(Blumea balsamiferaDC.)的地上部分中分离得到13个黄酮类化合物,经鉴定分别为5,7-二羟基-3,3′,4′-三甲氧基黄酮(1),3,5,3′,4′-四羟基-7-甲氧基黄酮(2),4,2′,4′-三羟基双氢查尔酮(3),儿茶素(4),阿亚黄素(5),davidioside(6),二氢槲皮素-7,4′-二甲醚(7),艾纳香素(8),二氢槲皮素-4′-甲醚(9),3,5,3′-三羟基-7,4′-二甲氧基黄酮(10),5,7,3′,5′-四羟基二氢黄酮(11),木犀草素(12),槲皮素(13)。其中化合物1和3~6为首次从该植物中分离得到。     

地菍的化学成分(英文)

为了研究野牡丹科药用植物地菍(Melastoma dodecandrum)的化学成分,采用柱层析方法分离鉴定了15个化合物,通过波谱分析及对比文献等方法鉴定为4-O-β-D-吡喃葡萄糖基-3,3',4'-三甲氧基鞣花酸(1),槲皮素3-O-刺槐二糖苷(2),8-C-吡喃葡萄糖基-5,7,3',4'-四羟基黄酮(3),3-O-β-D-吡喃葡萄糖基-4',5,7-三羟基黄酮(4),6-C-吡喃葡萄糖基-4',5,7-三羟基黄酮(5),3-hydroxy-22(29)-hopen-23-oic acid(6),2,3-dihydroxy-9(11)-fernen-23-oic acid(7),3β-sitosterol laminaribioside(8),姜糖酯B(9),3-O-β-D-galactopyranoside-glycerol1-alkanoates(10),胡萝卜苷(11),β-谷甾醇(12),二十八烷醇(13),二十四烷酸(14)以及三十四烷(15)化合物结构。所有化合物均为首次从该植物中分离得到。     

蒙药多叶棘豆中的黄酮类化学成分

为了进一步研究多叶棘豆的化学成分,本文采用正相硅胶柱、Sephadex LH-20柱色谱法及制备高效液相色谱法,从蒙药多叶棘豆中分离纯化10个黄酮类化合物。经各种波谱分析法鉴定其结构分别为:4,4'-二甲氧基-2'-羟基查尔酮(1)、2',4'-二羟基-4-甲氧基查尔酮(2)、7,8-二羟基二氢黄酮(3)、4,2',4'-三羟基查尔酮(4)、2',4'-二羟基二氢查尔酮(5)、4'-羟基二氢黄酮-7-O-β-D-葡萄糖苷(6)、2',4'-二羟基查尔酮(7)、芹菜素(8)、芹菜素-7-O-β-D-葡萄糖醛酸苷(9)和3',7-二羟基-2',4'-二甲氧基异黄烷(10)。其中,化合物1~9均为首次从该植物中分离。     

蒙药漏芦花中黄酮类化合物的研究北大核心CSCD

采用大孔树脂柱色谱法及制备高效液相色谱法等分离手段从漏芦花中分离得到10个化合物,通过理化性质及波谱分析并结合文献对照分别鉴定为5,7,3'-三羟基-6,4'-二甲氧基黄酮(1)、5,7,3'-三羟基-4'-甲氧基黄酮(2)、芹菜素(3)、木犀草素(4)、槲皮素(5)、木犀草素-7-O-α-D-葡萄糖苷(6)、槲皮素-3-O-α-D-鼠李糖苷(7)、芹菜素-7-O-α-D-葡萄糖苷(8)、芦丁(9)、芹菜素-7-O-α-D-葡萄糖醛酸苷(10)。除化合物5外,其余化合物均为首次从该植物中分离得到。     

蒙药漏芦花中黄酮类化合物的研究

采用大孔树脂柱色谱法及制备高效液相色谱法等分离手段从漏芦花中分离得到10个化合物,通过理化性质及波谱分析并结合文献对照分别鉴定为5,7,3'-三羟基-6,4'-二甲氧基黄酮(1)、5,7,3'-三羟基-4'-甲氧基黄酮(2)、芹菜素(3)、木犀草素(4)、槲皮素(5)、木犀草素-7-O-α-D-葡萄糖苷(6)、槲皮素-3-O-α-D-鼠李糖苷(7)、芹菜素-7-O-α-D-葡萄糖苷(8)、芦丁(9)、芹菜素-7-O-α-D-葡萄糖醛酸苷(10)。除化合物5外,其余化合物均为首次从该植物中分离得到。     

粘叶莸的化学成分研究

综合利用多种色谱方法从粘叶莸(Caryopteris glutinosa)的乙醇提取物中分离得到13个化合物,并通过多种波谱学手段鉴定它们的结构分别为:caryopterpene J(1)、5-羟基-7,3',4'-三甲氧基黄酮(2)、5-羟基-7,8,4'-三甲氧基黄酮(3)、5-羟基-7,4'-二甲氧基黄酮(4)、8-甲氧基芹菜素(5)、5,4'-二羟基-7,8,3'-三甲氧基黄酮(6)、5,4'-二羟基-7,8-二甲氧基黄酮(7)、5-羟基-7,8,3',4'-四甲氧基黄酮(8)、acteoside(9)、N-trans-feruloyl 3-O-methyldopamine(10)、secoisolariciresinol(11)、isolariciresinol(12)和dehydroconiferyl alcohol(13)。其中,化合物1为新化合物,其它化合物除9以外均为首次从莸属植物中分离得到。     

连香树树皮化学成分的研究

从连香树（CercidiphyllumjaponicumSieb.etZucc.）树皮中分离到8个化合物。其中7个为黄酮醇,l个为酚酸类成分。经理化测定和波谱解析,分别鉴定为：5,7-二羟基-3,8,4'-三甲氧基黄酮（Ⅰ）、3,5,7-三羟基-8,4'-二甲氧基黄酮（Ⅱ）、5,7,4'-三羟基-3,8-二甲氧基黄酮（Ⅲ）、3,5,7,4'-四羟基-8-甲氧基黄酮（Ⅳ）、3,5,7,4'-四羟基黄酮（Ⅴ）、5,7-二羟基-8,4'－二甲氧基黄酮-3-O-葡萄糖甙（Ⅶ）、5,7,4'-三羟基-8-甲氧基黄酮-3－O-葡萄糖甙（Ⅷ）和没食子酸乙酯（Ⅵ）。其中化合物Ⅶ为未见报道的新化合物。除化合物Ⅴ外,其余化合物均为首次从该属植物中分得。     

黄芫花有效成分的研究

从黄芫花叶中所含黄酮类化合物中分离得5、7-二羟基,3'-甲氧基黄酮,4'-O-D 葡萄糖甙、5、7、4'-三羟基黄酮,3'-O-β-D 葡萄糖甙、5,7、3'、4'-四羟基黄酮,3-O-β-D 葡萄糖甙、5、7、3'、4'-四羟基黄酮-8-C-β-D 葡萄糖甙等四种黄酮甙;在醚溶性成分中分离得正三十一烷、三十烷醇、二十八烷醇及29-羟基二十九烷酮-3等四种成分。     

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.