Comparative Study on Morphological Structure and Effective Components of Scrophularia ningpoensis from Different Provenances

doi:10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.casb2025-0102

Abstract

Abstract:

This study aimed to establish a preliminary comprehensive evaluation system for Scrophularia ningpoensis, and provide references for selecting high-quality varieties and developing quality assessment criteria. Radix Scrophulariae samples from three main producing areas of Pan’an in Zhejiang, Baoxing in Sichuan and Nanchuan in Chongqing, as well as Enshi ‘Enxuan No.1’ in Hubei were comparatively analyzed on the morphological characteristics and key component contents. External morphology was measured using vernier calipers and electronic balance. Internal texture properties were assessed with a texture analyzer. The content of index component contents was determined by high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC). Principal component analysis (PCA) and comprehensive evaluation were performed on 23 physiological indicators. The results showed that significant variations existed in morphological structures and component contents across producing areas. The comprehensive evaluation ranked as follows: Nanchuan of Chongqing> Baoxing of Sichuan> ‘Enxuan No.1’> Pan’an of Zhejiang. This system reveals the multi-dimensional characteristics of the quality formation of Scrophularia ningpoensis, and provides a scientific reference for the standardized cultivation and variety improvement of Scrophularia ningpoensis.

Key words: Scrophularia ningpoensis, morphological structure, effective components, provenance, principal component analysis

ZHANG Zhexian, QIN Zhanghui, ZHANG Qiaohui, WAN Haiying, YIN Hongqing. Comparative Study on Morphological Structure and Effective Components of Scrophularia ningpoensis from Different Provenances[J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2025, 41(25): 49-53.

Figures/Tables 6

References 26

[1]	国家药典委员会. 中华人民共和国药典[M]. 北京: 中国医药科技出版社,2010:121-122.
[2]	ZHANG J, FANNY C F I, LIANG Y, et al. A new iridoid glycoside and a new cinnamoyl glycoside from Scrophularia ningpoensis Hemsl[J]. Natural product research, 2017, 31(20):2361-2368.
[3]	李亚娟, 刘云, 华晓东, 等. 玄参提取物舒张血管作用及机制研究[J]. 上海中医药杂志, 2014, 48(1):68-73.
[4]	霍玉峰, 詹志来, 王怀立, 等. 中药玄参中化学成分及其抗炎活性研究[J]. 中国药学杂志, 2020, 55(14):1207-1214. doi: 10.11669/cpj.2020.14.016
[5]	ZHU L J, HOU Y L, SHEN X Y, et al. Monoterpene pyridine alkaloids and phenolics from Scrophularia ningpoensis and their cardioprotective effect[J]. Fitoterapia, 2013,88:44-49.
[6]	张宁, 李自辉, 赵洪伟, 等. 玄参提取物对甲亢模型大鼠肝脏代谢组学的影响[J]. 北京中医药大学学报, 2019, 42(1):21-29.
[7]	周梦楠, 刘鹏, 靖淑瑾, 等. 玄参的化学成分及其体外抗肿瘤活性研究[J]. 中国中药杂志, 2022, 47(1):111-121.
[8]	吴普. 神农本草经[M]. 沈阳: 辽宁科学技术出版社,1997:25.
[9]	中国科学院中国植物志编辑委员会. 中国植物志[M]. 北京: 科学出版社,1979:55.
[10]	黄紫妍, 任丹, 王诗语, 等. 玄参的本草考证[J]. 安徽农业科学, 2022, 50(4):176-180.
[11]	邹宗成, 吴双清, 郭杰, 等. 玄参新品种恩玄参1号的选育[J]. 湖北农业科学, 2011, 50(2):325-327.
[12]	钱齐妮, 肖杰易, 申明亮, 等. 不同品种类型玄参的产量比较研究[J]. 现代农业科技, 2012(14):73.
[13]	贾春雷, 尹海波, 王丹, 等. 黄精种子与种苗质量分级标准研究[J]. 时珍国医国药, 2023, 34(8):1969-1973.
[14]	张雪, 陈大霞, 李隆云. 玄参良种的子芽分级标准研究[J]. 种子, 2021, 40(3):141-144.
[15]	陈大霞, 张雪, 李隆云. 栽培措施对玄参子芽产量和等级的影响[J]. 时珍国医国药, 2018, 29(9):2254-2257.
[16]	李文丽, 袁剑龙, 段惠敏, 等. 马铃薯块根质地品质的综合评价[J]. 中国农业科学, 2022, 55(12):2278-2321. doi: 10.3864/j.issn.0578-1752.2022.12.002
[17]	ASGHARIAN P, AFSHAR F H, ASNAASHARI S, et al. Evaluation of various biological activities of the aerial parts of Scrophularia frigida growing in Iran[J]. Iranian journal of pharmaceutical research, 2017, 16(1):277-289.
[18]	ZHOU M N, LIU B, LIU P, et al. New iridoid and phenylethanoid glycosides from the roots of Scrophularia ningpoensis[J]. Tetrahedron, 2021,94.
[19]	康民泰, 杜孝敬, 张燕红, 等. 新疆粳稻耐盐相关性状的主成分分析及综合评价[J]. 中国稻米, 2025, 31(1):79-83. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1006-8082.2025.01.011
[20]	王丹青, 田英, 何军, 等. 基于主成分分析法的不同产区及品种枸杞果实多元化质量评价[J]. 湖北农业科学, 2024, 63(10):85-90.
[21]	徐思思. 玄参饮片规格及其质量评价标准研究[D]. 武汉: 湖北中医药大学, 2014.
[22]	张勇纯, 刘彦玲, 王铭爽, 等. 基于内在成分含量差异辨别玄参药材品质优劣可行性研究[J]. 中草药, 2022, 53(2):544-556.
[23]	董云英, 张红蕊. 影响中药质量的五大因素[J]. 中国医药指南, 2011, 9(14):302-303.
[24]	于恒兰. 综合评价的多元分析方法——主成分分析法[J]. 安徽大学学报, 1993(3):93-97.
[25]	苏键, 陈军, 何洁. 主成分分析法及其应用[J]. 轻工科技, 2012, 28(9):12-13.
[26]	虞晓芬, 傅玳. 多指标综合评价方法综述[J]. 统计与决策, 2004(11):119-121.

种源	株高/cm	茎粗/mm	单株叶片数	叶片长度/mm	叶片宽度/mm	叶绿素含量/SPAD	氮素含量/(mg/g)
浙江磐安	66.62±2.96b	16.36±1.33a	91.50±13.30a	17.56±2.90c	14.85±0.21a	33.77±7.93a	13.45±2.71a
重庆南川	65.17±6.14b	15.17±0.96ab	106.00±17.49a	23.70±1.72a	14.32±0.53ab	35.68±5.29a	13.83±1.87a
四川宝兴	65.88±7.95b	12.95±0.56c	98.00±18.13a	22.00±2.03ab	11.94±1.08c	36.15±7.01a	14.25±2.44a
恩玄1号	82.51±11.97a	14.26±0.90bc	108.60±15.63a	20.36±0.85bc	13.40±0.96b	34.81±5.24a	13.71±1.75a

种源	株高/cm	茎粗/mm	单株叶片数	叶片长度/mm	叶片宽度/mm	叶绿素含量/SPAD	氮素含量/(mg/g)
浙江磐安	66.62±2.96b	16.36±1.33a	91.50±13.30a	17.56±2.90c	14.85±0.21a	33.77±7.93a	13.45±2.71a
重庆南川	65.17±6.14b	15.17±0.96ab	106.00±17.49a	23.70±1.72a	14.32±0.53ab	35.68±5.29a	13.83±1.87a
四川宝兴	65.88±7.95b	12.95±0.56c	98.00±18.13a	22.00±2.03ab	11.94±1.08c	36.15±7.01a	14.25±2.44a
恩玄1号	82.51±11.97a	14.26±0.90bc	108.60±15.63a	20.36±0.85bc	13.40±0.96b	34.81±5.24a	13.71±1.75a

种源	块根长度/cm	块根粗度/mm	单株块根数/个	单株块根质量/g	单个块根质量/g
浙江磐安	13.87±2.09bc	32.16±4.04b	16.00±1.00a	766.54±192.33b	47.55±9.46c
重庆南川	14.13±3.78b	44.78±7.25a	5.67±0.58c	1122.83±124.01a	200.07±34.55b
四川宝兴	19.92±4.41a	36.33±7.34b	4.33±0.58c	1166.32±161.61a	269.87±28.81a
恩玄1号	10.75±2.68c	30.64±6.32b	10.33±2.08b	560.46±56.69b	54.08±7.81c

种源	块根长度/cm	块根粗度/mm	单株块根数/个	单株块根质量/g	单个块根质量/g
浙江磐安	13.87±2.09bc	32.16±4.04b	16.00±1.00a	766.54±192.33b	47.55±9.46c
重庆南川	14.13±3.78b	44.78±7.25a	5.67±0.58c	1122.83±124.01a	200.07±34.55b
四川宝兴	19.92±4.41a	36.33±7.34b	4.33±0.58c	1166.32±161.61a	269.87±28.81a
恩玄1号	10.75±2.68c	30.64±6.32b	10.33±2.08b	560.46±56.69b	54.08±7.81c

种源	子芽长度/cm	子芽粗度/mm	单株子芽数/个	单株子芽质量/g	单个子芽质量/g
浙江磐安	6.37±1.00a	20.77±1.84bc	23.67±4.93b	280.80±93.51b	10.40±3.46ab
重庆南川	5.86±1.13a	22.38±2.54ab	46.67±11.06a	532.07±71.51a	11.61±1.32ab
四川宝兴	5.91±0.64a	19.52±1.88c	47.00±2.00a	426.76±92.09ab	9.05±1.74b
恩玄1号	5.84±0.63a	23.10±2.16a	26.67±8.02b	410.77±75.41ab	15.79±3.37a