背景：马尾藻（MTC），一种流行的中药，已广泛应用于肿瘤疾病的治疗。仙女草（PSC），这在外观上与MTC相似，是一种常见的假冒产品。传统方法难以有效区分MTC和PSC。因此,迫切需要一种快速准确的方法来识别MTC和PSC。
目的：目的是通过分析非挥发性有机化合物（NVOC）的差异来区分MTC和PSC，味道,气味,和挥发性有机化合物(VOCs)。
方法:利用液相色谱-质谱(LC-MS)分析MTC和PSC的NVOCs。分别使用电子舌（E-t舌）和电子鼻（E-nose）分析其味道和气味。采用气相色谱-离子迁移谱(GC-IMS)技术对VOCs进行分析。最后,进行了多变量统计分析，以进一步研究MTC和PSC之间的差异，包括主成分分析，正交偏最小二乘判别分析，判别式因子分析,类分析的软独立建模。
结果：这项研究的结果表明，LC-MS的综合策略，电子舌,电子鼻,GC-IMS,多变量统计分析可以有效地区分MTC和PSC。使用LC-MS,在MTC中鉴定出25种NVOCs，而在PSC中鉴定出18种NVOCs。MTC中的主要化合物是类固醇，而PSC中的主要化合物是环烯醚萜苷。同样，E舌准确揭示了MTC和PSC之间明显的味觉差异。具体来说,PSC中明显的苦味被证明是源于环烯醚萜苷，而MTC中明显的苦味与类固醇密切相关。电子鼻在MTC中检测到八种气味成分，在PSC中检测到六种气味成分，分别。随后的统计分析揭示了它们的气味特征的显著差异。GC-IMS提供了MTC和PSC之间VOC差异的视觉表示。结果表明，MTC中82种VOCs的相对含量相对较高，与PSC中表现出类似高相对含量的32种VOC形成对比。
结论：在这项研究中，第一次,联合使用LC-MS，电子舌,电子鼻,GC-IMS,和多元统计分析已被证明是从多个角度区分MTC和PSC的有效方法。该方法为其他视觉相似中药的鉴别提供了有价值的参考。
BACKGROUND: Marsdeniae tenacissimae Caulis (MTC), a popular traditional Chinese medicine, has been widely used in the treatment of tumor diseases. Paederiae scandens Caulis (PSC), which is similar in appearance to MTC, is a common counterfeit product. It is difficult for traditional methods to effectively distinguish between MTC and PSC. Therefore, there is an urgent need for a rapid and accurate method to identify MTC and PSC.
OBJECTIVE: The aim is to distinguish between MTC and PSC by analyzing the differences in nonvolatile organic compounds (NVOCs), taste, odor, and volatile organic compounds (VOCs).
METHODS: Liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry (LC-MS) was utilized to analyze the NVOCs of MTC and PSC. Electronic tongue (E-tongue) and electronic nose (E-nose) were used to analyze their taste and odor respectively. Gas chromatography-ion mobility spectrometry (GC-IMS) was applied to analyze VOCs. Finally, multivariate statistical analyses were conducted to further investigate the differences between MTC and PSC, including principal component analysis, orthogonal partial least squares discriminant analysis, discriminant factor analysis, and soft independent modeling of class analysis.
RESULTS: The results of this study indicate that the integrated strategy of LC-MS, E-tongue, E-nose, GC-IMS, and multivariate statistical analysis can be effectively applied to distinguish between MTC and PSC. Using LC-MS, 25 NVOCs were identified in MTC, while 18 NVOCs were identified in PSC. The major compounds in MTC are steroids, while the major compounds in PSC are iridoid glycosides. Similarly, the distinct taste difference between MTC and PSC was precisely revealed by the E-tongue. Specifically, the pronounced bitterness in PSC was proven to stem from iridoid glycosides, whereas the bitterness evident in MTC was intimately tied to steroids. The E-nose detected eight odor components in MTC and six in PSC, respectively. The subsequent statistical analysis uncovered notable differences in their odor profiles. GC-IMS provided a visual representation of the differences in VOCs between MTC and PSC. The results indicated a relatively high relative content of 82 VOCs in MTC, contrasted with 32 VOCs exhibiting a similarly high relative content in PSC.
CONCLUSIONS: In this study, for the first time, the combined use of LC-MS, E-tongue, E-nose, GC-IMS, and multivariate statistical analysis has proven to be an effective method for distinguishing between MTC and PSC from multiple perspectives. This approach provides a valuable reference for the identification of other visually similar traditional Chinese medicines.
