Journal of Analytical Methods in Chemistry
Volume 2020 (2020), Article ID 8832736, 15 pages
https://doi.org/10.1155/2020/8832736

Research Article

Establishment of a UPLC-MS/MS Method for Studying the Effect of Salt-Processing on Tissue Distribution of Twelve Major Bioactive Components of Qing’e Pills in Rats

Jingxia Hou,1,2 Shangyang Lin,1,2 Jinlan Lu,1,2 Yu Wu,1,2 Li Wu,¹ Zhipeng Chen,1,2 and Weidong Li1,2

¹College of Pharmacy, Nanjing University of Chinese Medicine, Nanjing 210023, China
²Engineering Center of State Ministry of Education for Standardization of Chinese Medicine Processing, Nanjing University of Chinese Medicine, Nanjing 210023, China

Correspondence should be addressed to Jingxia Hou; 20171498@njucm.edu.cn and Weidong Li; liweidong0801@163.com

Received 29 April 2020; Accepted 3 September 2020; Published 17 September 2020

Academic Editor: Núria Fontanals

Copyright © 2020 Jingxia Hou et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract.

Qing’e pills is clinically used for treating osteoporosis in postmenopausal women in China. Eucommiae Cortex and Psoraleae Fructus are the main herbs of Qing’e pills and are both required to be salt-processed. In order to study the influence of salt-processing on the tissue distribution of Qing’e pills, a UPLC-MS/MS method was established for studying the tissue distribution of 12 main bioactive ingredients of Qing’e pills in rats. The linear relationships of the 12 compounds in each tissue were good. The method was fully validated for its selectivity, accuracy, precision, stability, matrix effect, and extraction recovery. Then, the validated method was successfully applied for simultaneous determination of the 12 chemical components in Qing’e pills in tissues for the first time. Areas under the curve (AUC) results showed that, except for pinoresinol diglucoside, psoralen, and isopsoralen, the distribution of the other components was increased in the kidney, uterus, ovary, and testes. Relative targeting efficiency (RTE) results showed that all 12 chemical components targeted the kidney and sexual organs. The results indicated that the Eucommiae Cortex and Psoraleae Fructus after salt-processing could significantly increase the distribution of components to the kidney and generative organs.

1. Introduction

Qing’e pills is included in the 2015 edition of the Chinese Pharmacopoeia, which has the effect of strengthening the kidney and waist [1]. It is clinically used for the treatment of osteoporosis in postmenopausal women. The causes of osteoporosis in postmenopausal women are mainly ascribed to estrogen deficiency, endocrine dysfunction, and metabolic disorder. Moreover, the postmenopausal osteoporosis is characterized by an imbalance in bone formation and bone resorption. Because bone resorption function is superior to bone formation, an imbalance occurs in bone remodeling. Qing’e pills consist of Eucommiae Cortex (salt-processed), Psoraleae Fructus (salt-processed), Juglandis Semen (fried), and Allii Sativi Bulbus [1], of which Eucommiae Cortex and Psoraleae Fructus represent the main components. Modern pharmacological studies have shown that Eucommiae Cortex increases bone density, improves trabecular microstructure, and inhibits bone mass reduction and bone strength decrease [2]. Psoraleae Fructus plays a role in hormone regulation [3] and bone strengthening [4].

Through HPLC, LC-MS/MS, and other modern instrumental analysis, it was found that the chemical components in Qing’e pills were complex, and diverse ingredients were identified mainly including chlorogenic acid, geniposidic acid, pinoresinol diglucoside, psoralen, isopsoralen, imperatorin, bergapten, trioxsalen, bavachin, neobavaisoflavone, psoralidin, isobavachalcone, bavachinin A, corylifol A, and bakuchiol [5–12]. Geniposidic acid, chlorogenic acid, and pinoresinol diglucoside are representative components of Eucommiae Cortex, belonging to iridoids, phenylpropanoids, and lignans, respectively [13]. The other 12 components are all from Psoraleae Fructus, and the main active components are coumarins, flavonoids, and monoterpenoid phenols [14, 15]. Latest literature reported that 15 kinds of main ingredients were tested in Qing’e pills by HPLC, which were geniposidic acid, pinoresinol diglucoside, psoralenoside, isopsoralenoside, psoralen, isopsoralen, isobavachin, neobavaisoflavone, bavachin, bavachalcone, psoralidin, isobavachalcone, bavachinin, corylifol A, and bakuchiol [16]. However, isopsoralenoside, corylifol A, and bakuchiol were not determined in tissues by UPLC-MS/MS.

Meridian tropism theory is one of the basic theories of traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) and plays an important role in the choice of TCM in clinical syndrome differentiation [17]. According to this theory, TCM has a special targeting effect on certain organs and meridian systems of the human body and has special therapeutic effects on diseases of these systems or organs [18, 19]. TCM processing refers to the traditional methods and techniques for processing Chinese herbal medicines into TCM samples according to the requirements of TCM. Drug processing does not only improve the drug effects and change the meridian orientation of the original drug but also reduce the toxic side effects and facilitate storage. Salt-frying is one of the TCM processing methods. The theory of meridian tropism in TCM includes the “Salt-processed drugs improving target to the kidney,” in which “kidney” refers to the kidney and sexual organs (uterus, ovary, and testes).

This paper developed a UPLC-MS/MS method for studying the tissues distribution of bioactive ingredients of Qing’e pills in rats. Twelve bioactive compounds in Eucommiae Cortex and Psoraleae Fructus were selected including pinoresinol diglucoside, geniposidic acid, psoralenoside, psoralen, isopsoralen, bavachin, isobavachin, bavachalcone, isobavachalcone, neobavaisoflavone, bavachinin, and psoralidin. The distribution of 12 bioactive ingredients in different tissues was determined by the validated UPLC-MS/MS method.

2. Experimental

2.1. Reagents and Chemicals

Eucommiae Cortex and Psoraleae Fructus were purchased from Nanjing Haichang Chinese Medicinal Decoction Pieces Factory (Nanjing, China) and authenticated by Professor Jianwei Chen (Nanjing University of Chinese Medicine, Nanjing, China). Voucher specimens (number NJUTCM-20180816) were deposited at the Chinese Medicinal Herbarium of Jiangsu Key Laboratory of Chinese Medicine Processing (Nanjing, China). Standards of geniposidic acid, pinoresinol diglucoside, psoralenoside, psoralen, isopsoralen, isobavachin, neobavaisoflavone, bavachin, bavachalcone, psoralidin, isobavachalcone and bavachinin, scoparone, and rhein (internal standard (IS)) were purchased from Nanjing Shizhou Biotechnology Co., Ltd. (Nanjing, China). The purities of all the standards were above 98%. HPLC-grade methanol and acetonitrile were purchased from Calepure Company Ltd. (Canada). HPLC-grade formic acid was a product of E. Merck (Merck, Darmstadt, Germany). Ultrapure water was prepared by the Milli-Q ultrapure water purification system (Millipore Corporation, Bedford, MA, USA). All of the other relative reagents were of analytical grade. The molecular structures of the investigated compounds are shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1: Chemical structures of 12 standard compounds.

2.2. UPLC-MS/MS Instruments and Analytical Conditions

The UPLC-MS/MS system consisted of a Shimadzu UPLC system, which was equipped with a LC-10 ATvp binary pump (Shimadzu Corporation UFLC XR, Kyoto, Japan) and a 5,500 triple quadrupole mass spectrometer. The latter was equipped with an electrospray ionization (ESI) source (AB SCIEX, Foster City, CA, USA). The separation of the analytes was achieved on a Waters BEH-C₁₈ column (100 mm × 2.1 mm, 1.7 μm). The chromatographic conditions in negative and positive ionization modes were as follows: injection volume of 2 μL; column temperature at 40°C; and flow rate at 0.3 mL/min. The mobile phase was composed of 0.1% formic acid aqueous solution (A)-acetonitrile (B). The gradient elution procedures in the negative ionization mode were as follows: 0-1 min, 5% B; 1–1.5 min, 5–15% B; 1.5–2.5 min, 15–90% B; 2.5–4.5 min, 90% B; 4.5–5 min, 90–5% B; and 5–5.5 min, 5% B. The positive ionization mode elution conditions were as follows: 0-1 min, 15–34% B; 1–3 min, 34–35% B; 3–3.7 min, 35–45% B; 3.7–4.2 min, 45–50% B; 4.2–8.2 min, 50–65% B; 8.2–9.2 min, 65–85% B; 9.2–9.7 min, 85–15% B; and 9.7–10.2 min, 15% B. The optimized parameters were as follows: ion source temperature (TEM), 550°C; curtain gas (CUR), 35 psi; ion source gas 1 (GAS1), 55 psi; ion source gas 2 (GAS2), 55 psi; and ion spray voltage (IS), 5,500 V. The multiple reaction monitoring (MRM) was chosen for the quantification of the components. The precursor ions, product ions, declustering potential (DP), and collision energy (CE) for each analyte and IS in negative and positive ionization modes are shown in Table 1.

Table 1: The precursor ions, product ions, declustering potential (DP), and collision energy (CE) for each analyte and internal standard (IS) in negative and positive ionization modes.

Compounds
Molecular weight
Ionization mode
Monitoring ion
Parent ion
Daughter ion
DP (V)
CE (V)

Rhein (IS)
284.22
ESI⁻
[M − H]⁻
283.2
238.9
−59.15
−19.01

Geniposidic acid
374.34
ESI⁻
[M − H]⁻
373.0
211.3
−126.4
−18.65

Psoralidin
336.34
ESI⁻
[M − H]⁻
335.0
280.0
−127.91
−35.4

Neobavaisoflavone
322.37
ESI⁻
[M − H]⁻
321.0
264.8
−113.91
−38.92

Bavachinin
338.40
ESI⁻
[M − H]⁻
337.1
119.0
−59.91
−27.28

Escoparone (IS)
206.19
ESI⁺
[M + H]⁺
207.2
151.1
93.08
27.23

Psoralenoside
366.32
ESI⁺
[M + H]⁺
187.2
131.0
82.75
33.1

Psoralen
186.16
ESI⁺
[M + H]⁺
187.2
131.0
82.75
33.1

Isopsoralen
186.16
ESI⁺
[M + H]⁺
187.2
131.0
82.75
33.1

Bavachin
324.37
ESI⁺
[M + H]⁺
325.4
149.0
79.14
30.73

Isobavachin
324.37
ESI⁺
[M + H]⁺
325.4
149.0
79.14
30.73

Bavachalcone
324.37
ESI⁺
[M + H]⁺
325.4
149.0
79.14
30.73

Isobavachalcone
324.37
ESI⁺
[M + H]⁺
325.4
149.0
79.14
30.73

Pinoresinol diglucoside
682.67
ESI⁺
[M + H₂O]⁺
700.5
234.9
86.44
19.14

2.3. Preparation of Crude and Salt-Processed Qing’e Pills Extracts

Crude (500.0 g) and salt-processed (500.0 g) Qing’e pills were soaked in 4,000 mL 95% ethanol and pure water, heated, and refluxed twice for 1 h. The extracts were combined and condensed to 500 mL separately to yield crude and salt-processed Qing’e pills extracts. 1 mL of concentrated liquid was equivalent to 1 g of Qing’e pills. Final solutions were stored at 4°C before use.

2.4. Preparation of Calibration Standards and Quality Control Samples

The stock solutions of geniposidic acid, pinoresinol diglucoside, psoralenoside, psoralen, isopsoralen, isobavachin, neobavaisoflavone, bavachin, bavachalcone, isobavachalcone, and bavachinin were prepared by dissolving accurately the weighed reference substance in methanol at a concentration of 1 mg/mL. Psoralidin was prepared at a concentration of 0.5 mg/mL. The stock solutions were diluted into serial standard solutions. The stock solution of IS, including rhein (negative ionization mode) and scoparone (positive ionization mode), were prepared by dissolving rhein (2.5 mg) and scoparone (5.0 mg) in methanol at concentrations of 50 μg/mL and 1 mg/mL, respectively. Working solutions of IS were prepared by serial dilution of the stock solutions with methanol at a concentration of 500 ng/mL for rhein and 100 ng/mL for scoparone.

Calibration samples were prepared by using 90 μL of blank tissue, 10 μL of standard serial solution, and 10 μL of IS (50 ng/mL rhein and 100 ng/mL scoparone) to make the equivalent concentration of 1, 5, 10, 50, 250, 500, and 1,000 ng/m L of various tissue samples. Quality control (QC) solutions of the 12 compounds were prepared by adding standard solution with specified concentration into blank tissue, the samples with low, medium, and high concentrations according to the operation under “2.2.” All solutions were stored at 4°C before use.

2.5. Method Validation

Method validation was performed according to FDA’s Guidance for Industry on Bioanalytical Method Validation [20].

2.5.1. Specificity

The specificity of the method was investigated by comparing chromatograms of blank tissue homogenate samples, blank tissue homogenate samples spiked with standard solution and IS, and treated tissue homogenate samples.

2.5.2. Linearity and Quantification

Various concentrations of 12 active ingredient calibration standard solutions with IS rhein (50 ng/m L, negative ionization ion mode) and scoparone (100 ng/m L, positive ionization ion mode) were added to blank tissue treated as tissue samples and assayed by using UPLC-MS/MS. The calibration curve was established via the 1/x² weighted linear least squares regression model. LLOQ had the lowest concentrations with signal-to-noise ratio ≥10, evaluated by analyzing samples in six replicates. The lower limit of detection (LLOD) was defined as the amount that could be detected with a signal-to-noise ratio ≥3.

2.5.3. Precision and Accuracy

Accuracy and precision of the method were determined by repeated analyses of QC and LLOQ samples. The intraday precision and accuracy of the method were assessed by determining QC samples six times within a single day, while the intraday precision and accuracy were estimated by determining QC samples over three consecutive days.

2.5.4. Recovery and Matrix Effects

The extract recovery was calculated by comparing the peak areas of extracted QC samples with peak areas of 12 active ingredients reference standard solutions. Matrix effects of the method were determined by comparing peak areas of blank tissue extracts spiked with standard samples with peak areas of neat standard solution.

2.5.5. Stability

The stability of analytes in tissues was evaluated by measuring three concentrations of the QC samples (n = 6) under different conditions. The short-term stability was investigated by exposing the QC samples at 25°C for 4 h. The long-term stability was assessed after storing the QC samples at −20°C for 30 days. Freezing-thawing stability was determined after QC samples underwent three freezing-thawing cycles by freezing at −20°C and thawing at 37°C in a waterbath.

2.6. Tissue Distribution Study

A total of 84 Sprague-Dawley rats, half male and half female, were randomly divided into two groups (crude and salt-processed Qing’e pills groups). The rats were fed for a week and fasted for 12 h before the experiment. This experiment has been approved by the Animal Ethics Committee of Nanjing University of Chinese Medicine, license Number: 201903A011. These two groups of rats were orally administered raw and salt-processed extracts at the same dose of 1.2 mL/200 g of body weight. The rats were sacrificed at 10, 30, 90, 180, 360, 480, and 720 min (for each time point, 6 rats were sacrificed for each group, half male and half female). The heart, liver, spleen, lung, kidney, ovary, uterus, and testicular tissue samples were collected from the rats, the surface blood was washed with 0.9% normal saline solution, and the tissues were dried with filter paper. Different organ tissues were weighed, and two volumes of iced normal saline solution were added to obtain the homogenates, which were stored at −20°C for further analysis.

Each tissue homogenate (90 μL) was placed in a 1.5 mL centrifuge tube, and 10 μL of the internal standard solution was added. Acetonitrile (300 μL) was added, vortexed for 5 min, and centrifuged at 11308.75 ×g for 5 min. The supernatants were transferred into the 1.5 mL Eppendorf tube, and after centrifugal concentration, 100 μL methanol was added and centrifuged at 11308.75 ×g for 5 min before being vortexed for 5 min. Finally, 80 μL of the supernatants was used for UPLC-MS/MS.

2.7. Targeting Efficiency Evaluation

The purpose of salt-processing of Qing’e pills in TCM theory is somewhat similar to modern drug target-delivery theory. AUC and RTE were utilized to investigate the effect of salt-processing on tissue distribution of Qing’e pills compounds. The relevant parameters were calculated according to previously described equations [21, 22]:

In these equations, AUCsum involves the sum of AUC of all tissues in salt-processed and crude groups, respectively.

2.8. Data Analysis

Data analysis was performed using DAS 2.0 software and SPSS 16.0 software. AUC was obtained using the DAS 2.0 software noncompartment model by the obtained concentration of each time point component. The AUC salt group data in the data analysis were subjected to composition conversion and compared to the raw product. The calculation formula is as the following equation:

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Method Optimization of UHPLC-MS/MS Conditions

3.1.1. Specificity

As shown in Figure 2, the peak shapes measured under experimental conditions did not affect each other, and the endogenous substances in the heart, liver, spleen, lung, kidney, ovary, uterus, and testes did not interfere with the peaks of the detected components in each group.

(a)

(b)

(c)

(d)

Figure 2: SIM chromatograms of 12 active ingredients and IS in rat tissue. (a) Blank tissue; (b) blank tissue spiked with standard solution and IS; (c) kidney tissue samples after intragastric administration of crude Qing’e pills; and (d) kidney tissue samples of oral administration of salt-processed Qing’e pills (1. Escoparone, 2. psoralenoside, 3. psoralen, 4. Isopsoralen, 5. isobavachin, 6. bavachin, 7. bavachalcone, 8. isobavachalcone, 9. pinoresinol diglucoside, 10. rhein, 11. geniposidic acid, 12. psoralidin, 13. neobavaisoflavone, and 14. bavachinin).

3.1.2. Linearity and Sensitivity

Under UPLC-MS/MS conditions, the equations for the calibration curves, correlation coefficient, linear range, and lower limit of quantification (LLOQ) of 12 bioactive ingredients are shown in Table 2. The results showed that the linear relationships of the 12 compounds in the linear range of the methanol solution and each tissue were good, and the ranges of concentrations and limits were suitable for the determination of Qing’e pills extract content and tissue distribution.

Table 2: Calibration curves, correlation coefficient, linear range, and LLOQ of 12 compounds.

Compound
Tissue
Linear regression equation
Correlation coefficient (r)
Linear range (ng/mL)
LLOQ (ng/mL)

Psoralen
Heart
Y = 7.77 × 10⁻³X + 2.23 × 10⁻²
1.0000
1–1000
1.0

Liver
Y = 3.60 × 10⁻³X + 1.03 × 10⁻¹
1.0000
5–1000
5.0

Spleen
Y = 5.71 × 10⁻³X + 2.92 × 10⁻²
0.9995
5–1000
5.0

Lung
Y = 2.44 × 10⁻³X + 3.33 × 10⁻²
0.9980
5–1000
5.0

Kidney
Y = 3.44 × 10⁻³X + 1.21 × 10⁻¹
0.9996
2–1000
2.0

Uterus
Y = 8.62 × 10⁻³X + 8.86 × 10⁻³
1.0000
1–1000
1.0

Ovary
Y = 6.53 × 10⁻³X + 1.79 × 10⁻²
1.0000
5–1000
5.0

Testes
Y = 5.04 × 10⁻³X + 4.89 × 10⁻²
1.0000
1–1000
1.0

Isopsoralen
Heart
Y = 8.57 × 10⁻³X + 3.61 × 10⁻²
1.0000
1–1000
1.0

Liver
Y = 1.65 × 10⁻³X + 1.74 × 10⁻¹
0.9986
5–1000
5.0

Spleen
Y = 4.55 × 10⁻³X + 3.50 × 10⁻²
0.9981
5–1000
5.0

Lung
Y = 1.48 × 10⁻³X + 5.62 × 10⁻²
0.9970
5–1000
5.0

Kidney
Y = 2.34 × 10⁻³X + 1.77 × 10⁻¹
0.9994
2–1000
2.0

Uterus
Y = 6.23 × 10⁻³X + 2.86 × 10⁻²
1.0000
1–500
1.0

Ovary
Y = 6.12 × 10⁻³X + 5.19 × 10⁻²
1.0000
5–1000
5.0

Testes
Y = 4.27 × 10⁻³X + 7.24 × 10⁻²
0.9997
5–1000
5.0

Bavachin
Heart
Y = 2.31 × 10⁻²X − 6.13 × 10⁻³
1.0000
0.4–50
0.4

Liver
Y = 3.17 × 10⁻²X + 8.99 × 10⁻²
0.9977
1–500
1.0

Spleen
Y = 2.61 × 10⁻²X + 3.94 × 10⁻²
1.0000
1–200
1.0

Lung
Y = 4.07 × 10⁻²X + 2.90 × 10⁻²
0.9976
0.5–200
0.5

Kidney
Y = 2.19 × 10⁻²X + 6.66 × 10⁻³
0.9999
1–500
1.0

Uterus
Y = 2.11 × 10⁻²X − 4.30 × 10⁻²
0.9997
1–200
1.0

Ovary
Y = 3.70 × 10⁻²X − 1.14 × 10⁻²
1.0000
1–50
1.0

Testes
Y = 2.14 × 10⁻²X − 2.71 × 10⁻²
0.9897
1–50
1.0

Isobavachin
Heart
Y = 4.07 × 10⁻²X + 8.55 × 10⁻³
0.9996
0.3–50
0.3

Liver
Y = 5.35 × 10⁻²X + 5.28 × 10⁻²
0.9999
1–250
1.0

Spleen
Y = 3.82 × 10⁻²X + 8.21 × 10⁻²
0.9995
0.5–100
0.5

Lung
Y = 5.94 × 10⁻²X + 3.32 × 10⁻²
0.9976
0.5–100
0.5

Kidney
Y = 4.62 × 10⁻²X + 1.85 × 10⁻²
1.0000
0.1–250
0.1

Uterus
Y = 3.93 × 10⁻²X + 3.14 × 10⁻³
1.0000
0.1–50
0.1

Ovary
Y = 7.17 × 10⁻²X − 7.18 × 10⁻²
0.9999
1–50
1.0

Testes
Y = 3.94 × 10⁻²X + 7.50 × 10⁻²
0.9887
0.5–50
0.5

Pinoresinol diglucoside
Heart
Y = 6.50 × 10⁻⁴X − 2.98 × 10⁻⁴
1.0000
0.5–100
0.5

Liver
Y = 8.57 × 10⁻⁴X + 6.87 × 10⁻⁵
0.9999
0.5–250
0.5

Spleen
Y = 4.46 × 10⁻⁴X + 5.35 × 10⁻⁴
1.0000
0.5–100
0.5

Lung
Y = 6.95 × 10⁻⁴X + 1.26 × 10⁻³
1.0000
0.5–500
0.5

Kidney
Y = 3.45 × 10⁻⁴X + 5.16 × 10⁻⁴
0.9998
1–1000
1.0

Uterus
Y = 6.24 × 10⁻⁴X + 6.35 × 10⁻⁴
0.9996
0.5–100
0.5

Ovary
Y = 7.81 × 10⁻⁴X − 3.66 × 10⁻⁴
0.9997
0.5–100
0.5

Testes
Y = 6.90 × 10⁻⁴X + 6.48 × 10⁻⁴
0.9999
0.5–50
0.5

Psoralenoside
Heart
Y = 6.99 × 10⁻⁴X + 2.09 × 10⁻³
0.9993
5–1000
5.0

Liver
Y = 4.63 × 10⁻⁴X + 1.21 × 10⁻²
0.9996
5–1000
5.0

Spleen
Y = 5.56 × 10⁻⁴X + 2.73 × 10⁻³
0.9975
5–1000
5.0

Lung
Y = 9.26 × 10⁻⁴X + 2.96 × 10⁻²
0.9998
1–1000
1.0

Kidney
Y = 3.61 × 10⁻⁴X + 8.94 × 10⁻³
0.9991
5–2000
5.0

Uterus
Y = 9.86 × 10⁻⁴X + 3.82 × 10⁻²
0.9994
5–2000
5.0

Ovary
Y = 6.00 × 10⁻⁴X + 1.93 × 10⁻²
0.9998
5–2000
5.0

Testes
Y = 5.16 × 10⁻⁴X + 1.57 × 10⁻²
0.9973
5–1000
5.0

Isobavachalcone
Heart
Y = 4.89 × 10⁻²X − 5.05 × 10⁻²
0.9997
1–50
1.0

Liver
Y = 8.17 × 10⁻²X + 9.05 × 10⁻²
0.9973
1–100
1.0

Spleen
Y = 4.86 × 10⁻²X + 6.15 × 10⁻²
0.9998
0.5–250
0.5

Lung
Y = 4.93 × 10⁻²X + 1.59 × 10⁻³
0.9998
0.5–250
0.5

Kidney
Y = 3.18 × 10⁻²X + 2.75 × 10⁻²
0.9993
1–500
1.0

Uterus
Y = 3.47 × 10⁻²X − 4.89 × 10⁻²
0.9995
1–50
1.0

Ovary
Y = 2.29 × 10⁻²X + 1.08 × 10⁻²
0.9999
0.5–50
0.5

Testes
Y = 2.88 × 10⁻²X + 2.11 × 10⁻²
1.0000
0.5–50
0.5

Bavachalcone
Heart
Y = 2.47 × 10⁻²X − 8.09 × 10⁻³
0.9967
0.3–25
0.3

Liver
Y = 2.83 × 10⁻²X + 1.88 × 10⁻²
0.9999
0.5–250
0.5

Spleen
Y = 2.83 × 10⁻²X + 2.61 × 10⁻²
0.9996
0.5–50
0.5

Lung
Y = 3.05 × 10⁻²X + 3.49 × 10⁻²
0.9997
0.5–100
0.5

Kidney
Y = 3.01 × 10⁻²X + 2.78 × 10⁻²
0.9992
0.5–100
0.5

Uterus
Y = 3.25 × 10⁻²X − 2.93 × 10⁻²
0.9998
0.5–250
0.5

Ovary
Y = 2.17 × 10⁻²X + 1.12 × 10⁻²
1.0000
0.5–50
0.5

Testes
Y = 2.63 × 10⁻²X − 1.85 × 10⁻²
0.9996
0.5–50
0.5

Geniposidic acid
Heart
Y = 1.11 × 10⁻³X + 4.13 × 10⁻⁴
0.9996
1–500
1.0

Liver
Y = 6.88 × 10⁻⁴X + 3.58 × 10⁻³
0.9993
1–1000
1.0

Spleen
Y = 1.31 × 10⁻³X + 1.03 × 10⁻³
0.9990
1–500
1.0

Lung
Y = 8.89 × 10⁻⁴X + 1.78 × 10⁻³
0.9986
1–1000
1.0

Kidney
Y = 8.11 × 10⁻⁴ X - 1.72 × 10⁻³
0.9992
1–2000
1.0

Uterus
Y = 5.08 × 10⁻³X + 1.48 × 10⁻²
0.9995
0.5–500
0.5

Ovary
Y = 8.04 × 10⁻⁴X + 7.50 × 10⁻⁴
0.9990
1–1000
1.0

Testes
Y = 5.83 × 10⁻⁴X + 3.28 × 10⁻⁴
0.9956
1–250
1.0

Psoralidin
Heart
Y = 9.87 × 10⁻³X − 2.03 × 10⁻³
0.9999
1–250
1.0

Liver
Y = 7.80 × 10⁻³X + 1.11 × 10⁻²
0.9997
1–500
1.0

Spleen
Y = 2.43 × 10⁻²X − 2.60 × 10⁻³
0.9998
1–500
1.0

Lung
Y = 1.54 × 10⁻²X + 1.70 × 10⁻²
0.9993
1–500
1.0

Kidney
Y = 6.92 × 10⁻²X + 3.91 × 10⁻³
0.9996
1–1000
1.0

Uterus
Y = 3.96 × 10⁻²X − 6.48 × 10⁻²
0.9996
1–250
1.0

Ovary
Y = 2.11 × 10⁻²X + 1.84 × 10⁻²
0.9999
0.5–100
0.5

Testes
Y = 1.56 × 10⁻²X + 1.59 × 10⁻²
0.9996
0.5–50
0.5

Neobavaisoflavone
Heart
Y = 1.39 × 10⁻²X − 5.15 × 10⁻³
0.9994
0.5–50
0.5

Liver
Y = 7.88 × 10⁻³X + 5.31 × 10⁻²
0.9991
1–1000
1.0

Spleen
Y = 2.06 × 10⁻²X + 4.61 × 10⁻²
0.9998
1–500
1.0

Lung
Y = 1.43 × 10⁻²X + 3.16 × 10⁻²
1.0000
1–300
1.0

Kidney
Y = 1.26 × 10⁻²X − 4.05 × 10⁻³
0.9994
1–1000
1.0

Uterus
Y = 6.00 × 10⁻²X − 1.22 × 10⁻¹
0.9997
1–50
1.0

Ovary
Y = 1.81 × 10⁻²X + 1.16 × 10⁻²
0.9996
1–100
1.0

Testes
Y = 1.40 × 10⁻²X + 1.36 × 10⁻²
0.9998
1–50
1.0

Bavachinin
Heart
Y = 2.72 × 10⁻³X − 2.72 × 10⁻³
0.9999
1–100
1.0

Liver
Y = 1.48 × 10⁻³X + 3.93 × 10⁻³
0.9998
1–1000
1.0

Spleen
Y = 7.85 × 10⁻³X − 2.00 × 10⁻²
0.9995
1–1000
1.0

Lung
Y = 4.39 × 10⁻³X − 7.75 × 10⁻⁴
0.9994
1–500
1.0

Kidney
Y = 3.51 × 10⁻³X − 3.14 × 10⁻³
0.9992
1–500
1.0

Uterus
Y = 1.21 × 10⁻²X − 1.96 × 10⁻²
0.9997
1–50
1.0

Ovary
Y = 6.56 × 10⁻³X − 9.65 × 10⁻⁴
0.9997
1–50
1.0

Testes
Y = 2.72 × 10⁻³X − 2.72 × 10⁻³
0.9999
1–100
1.0

3.1.3. Precision and Accuracy

The precision and accuracy of the assay were evaluated using QC samples at low, medium, and high concentrations. The results for kidneys are shown in Table 3. The accuracy and precision of the method were within the specified range, meeting the relevant requirements for biological sample determination.

Table 3: Intraassay and interassay precision and the accuracy of 12 kinds of compounds in rat kidney (n = 6).

Compound
Concentrations (ng/mL)
Intra-day
Inter-day

Measured (ng/mL)
Precision (%)
Accuracy (RE%)
Measured (ng/mL)
Precision (%)
Accuracy (RE%)

Psoralen
5
4.70 ± 0.26
5.46
−6.04
4.86 ± 0.26
5.45
−2.83

500
490.30 ± 17.05
3.48
−1.94
492.03 ± 14.95
3.04
−1.59

800
792.43 ± 11.80
1.49
−0.95
787.82 ± 19.49
2.47
−1.52

Isopsoralen
5
4.75 ± 0.25
5.22
−5.01
4.84 ± 0.25
5.25
−3.14

500
493.60 ± 20.35
4.12
−1.28
492.37 ± 16.57
3.37
−1.53

800
782.55 ± 18.84
2.41
−2.18
782.18 ± 14.21
1.82
−2.23

Psoralenoside
12.50
12.37 ± 0.16
1.33
−1.05
12.40 ± 0.13
1.02
−0.78

1000
956.47 ± 40.02
4.18
−4.35
958.53 ± 37.30
3.89
−4.15

1600
1565.77 ± 40.30
2.57
−2.14
1551.71 ± 40.97
2.64
−3.02

Bavachin isobavachin
2.50
2.38 ± 0.12
4.86
−4.74
2.41 ± 0.08
3.27
−3.51

250
243.32 ± 5.69
2.34
−2.67
241.75 ± 4.40
1.82
−3.30

400
382.78 ± 7.18
1.88
−4.30
388.75 ± 6.77
1.74
−2.81

0.25
0.24 ± 0.01
2.21
−3.73
0.24 ± 0.01
3.34
−4.56

125
123.55 ± 1.42
1.15
−1.16
123.13 ± 1.29
1.04
−1.50

200
190.00 ± 4.23
2.23
−5.00
192.54 ± 4.00
2.08
−3.73

Bavachalcone
1.25
1.23 ± 0.02
1.55
−1.76
1.23 ± 0.02
1.31
−1.72

50
46.32 ± 1.68
3.63
−7.36
46.79 ± 1.39
2.96
−6.41

80
74.58 ± 2.14
2.86
−6.78
72.93 ± 3.19
4.38
−8.84

Isobavachalcone
2.50
2.39 ± 0.03
1.30
−4.23
2.38 ± 0.07
2.75
−4.96

250
247.43 ± 1.24
0.50
−1.03
246.79 ± 3.16
1.28
−1.28

400
392.60 ± 3.72
0.95
−1.85
394.44 ± 3.11
0.79
−1.39

Pinoresinol diglucoside
2.50
2.29 ± 0.12
5.08
−8.39
2.31 ± 0.18
7.89
−7.79

50
47.09 ± 1.60
3.41
−5.83
46.35 ± 2.48
5.34
−7.29

80
75.09 ± 2.48
3.31
−6.14
76.13 ± 2.96
3.88
−4.83

Geniposidic acid
2.50
2.42 ± 0.09
3.87
−3.30
2.36 ± 0.17
7.36
−5.56

1000
958.65 ± 41.85
4.37
−4.14
966.33 ± 43.26
4.48
−3.37

1600
1571.00 ± 43.79
2.79
−1.81
1,565.67 ± 43.84
2.80
−2.15

Psoralidin
2.50
2.44 ± 0.09
3.79
−2.55
2.41 ± 0.08
3.45
−3.59

500
487.13 ± 3.63
0.75
−2.57
483.34 ± 6.97
1.44
−3.33

800
783.10 ± 9.70
1.24
−2.11
787.11 ± 7.81
0.99
−1.61

Neobavaisoflavone
2.50
2.40 ± 0.03
1.23
−3.97
2.42 ± 0.05
2.04
−3.25

500
471.82 ± 19.17
4.06
−5.64
478.96 ± 14.06
2.94
−4.21

800
773.13 ± 14.56
1.88
−3.36
772.81 ± 23.72
3.07
−3.40

Bavachinin
2.50
2.27 ± 0.15
6.68
−9.13
2.33 ± 0.15
6.42
−6.68

250
246.35 ± 5.10
2.07
−1.46
244.05 ± 6.15
2.52
−2.38

400
387.50 ± 17.19
4.44
−3.13
385.87 ± 12.18
3.16
−3.53

3.1.4. Extract Recovery and Matrix Effect

The extract recoveries and matrix effects in kidney are presented in Table 4. The extract recoveries of QC samples at low, medium, and high concentrations were 81.59–90.84%, while the matrix effects of QC samples were 90.85–96.38%. The RSD of extract recoveries was less than 7.28%, and the matrix effects were less than 9.39%. The results indicated that the method was suitable for the treatment of kidney tissue samples in this experiment.

Table 4: The extract recoveries and matrix effect of 12 compounds in rat kidney (n = 6).

Compound
Concentrations (ng/mL)
Extract recovery (%)
RSD (%)
Matrix effect (%)
RSD (%)

Psoralen
5
87.98 ± 6.41
7.28
94.20 ± 4.04
4.29

500
87.93 ± 4.88
5.56
93.42 ± 8.77
9.39

800
85.67 ± 5.13
5.99
90.85 ± 5.01
5.51

Isopsoralen
5
88.74 ± 2.73
3.08
93.86 ± 5.75
6.12

500
88.60 ± 2.99
3.38
91.92 ± 2.66
2.90

800
88.99 ± 1.58
1.78
92.27 ± 2.95
3.19

Psoralenoside
12.50
89.79 ± 4.10
4.56
92.47 ± 2.24
2.42

1000
89.19 ± 0.94
1.06
94.75 ± 0.56
0.59

1600
85.34 ± 1.60
1.87
94.75 ± 0.71
0.75

Bavachin
2.50
87.75 ± 3.23
3.69
93.05 ± 2.06
2.22

250
88.84 ± 1.47
1.66
93.96 ± 3.26
3.47

400
89.48 ± 0.96
1.07
93.99 ± 1.15
1.22

Isobavachin
0.25
88.02 ± 1.93
2.19
93.64 ± 3.13
3.34

125
85.59 ± 3.12
3.64
95.01 ± 3.74
3.93

200
88.69 ± 3.70
4.17
96.38 ± 2.98
3.09

Bavachalcone
1.25
89.55 ± 1.41
1.58
94.90 ± 0.60
0.64

50
88.41 ± 1.30
1.46
91.19 ± 2.13
2.34

80
89.15 ± 1.08
1.21
91.98 ± 1.05
1.14

Isobavachalcone
2.50
88.16 ± 0.91
1.03
92.54 ± 1.10
1.19

250
89.37 ± 0.98
1.10
94.42 ± 1.04
1.10

400
89.85 ± 0.76
0.85
94.79 ± 0.78
0.82

Pinoresinol diglucoside
2.50
84.65 ± 4.01
4.74
94.00 ± 3.43
3.65

50
88.75 ± 1.09
1.23
94.73 ± 1.00
1.06

80
88.27 ± 1.42
1.61
93.94 ± 1.45
1.55

Geniposidic acid
2.50
88.32 ± 2.99
3.39
93.39 ± 2.75
2.94

1000
89.17 ± 0.71
0.79
94.66 ± 1.53
1.62

1600
90.84 ± 0.97
1.06
98.15 ± 1.89
1.93

Psoralidin
2.50
88.35 ± 2.61
2.95
94.17 ± 1.91
2.03

500
88.98 ± 1.01
1.14
94.74 ± 1.24
1.31

800
87.13 ± 3.36
3.85
95.96 ± 0.35
0.36

Psoralen
2.50
88.45 ± 2.73
3.09
93.34 ± 2.25
2.41

500
81.59 ± 4.60
5.63
88.22 ± 7.30
8.27

800
85.60 ± 4.27
4.99
94.39 ± 1.09
1.16

Isopsoralen
2.50
89.51 ± 2.68
2.99
91.45 ± 2.94
3.22

250
87.68 ± 3.15
3.59
94.97 ± 3.76
3.96

400
85.32 ± 6.02
7.05
93.64 ± 1.86
1.99

3.1.5. Stability

The results of stability in the kidney tissue under different storage conditions are presented in Table 5. The samples were all stable, and the storage conditions did not affect the determination of the chemical components in the experimental tissue samples.

Table 5: The stability of 12 compounds in rat kidney (n = 6).

Compound
Concentrations (ng/mL)
Freeze-thaw stability
Short-term stability
Long-term stability
Preinjection stability

Measured (ng/mL)
RE (%)
Measured (ng/mL)
RE (%)
Measured (ng/mL)
RE (%)
Measured (ng/mL)
RE (%)

Psoralen
5
4.90 ± 0.36
−2.00
4.87 ± 0.12
−2.57
4.96 ± 0.21
−0.90
5.08 ± 0.20
1.60

500
493.95 ± 11.02
−1.21
493.47 ± 13.04
−1.31
501.57 ± 12.64
0.30
497.57 ± 13.3
−0.40

800
752.75 ± 14.76
−5.91
793.47 ± 13.04
−0.82
802.77 ± 13.39
0.35
787.15 ± 23.6
−1.61

Isopsoralen
5
4.88 ± 0.27
−2.50
4.84 ± 0.16
−3.23
4.93 ± 0.21
−1.40
4.98 ± 0.12
−0.37

500
493.12 ± 9.04
−1.38
493.47 ± 13.04
−1.31
498.57 ± 10.47
−0.29
495.07 ± 11.99
−0.99

800
759.58 ± 18.59
−5.05
790.80 ± 13.58
−1.15
801.77 ± 8.19
0.22
792.32 ± 12.03
−0.96

Psoralenoside
12.50
12.30 ± 0.29
−1.60
12.40 ± 0.10
−0.81
12.27 ± 0.10
−1.85
12.37 ± 0.12
−1.03

1000
988.95 ± 11.05
−1.11
990.13 ± 6.60
−0.99
973.80 ± 16.36
−2.62
977.79 ± 12.29
−2.22

1600
1577.75 ± 16.66
−1.39
1586.80 ± 7.10
−0.83
1578.47 ± 7.69
−1.35
1581.0 ± 8.50
−1.19

Bavachin
2.50
2.41 ± 0.06
−3.67
2.36 ± 0.09
−5.45
2.40 ± 0.05
−4.00
2.45 ± 0.05
−2.00

250
243.18 ± 4.68
−2.73
242.37 ± 8.80
−3.05
239.33 ± 7.01
−4.27
247.38 ± 3.65
−1.05

400
384.08 ± 12.05
−3.98
386.93 ± 10.07
−3.27
386.17 ± 5.17
−3.46
391.00 ± 5.33
−2.25

Isobavachin
0.25
0.24 ± 0.01
−3.67
0.24 ± 0.01
−5.37
0.24 ± 0.00
−4.4
0.24 ± 0.01
−4.42

125
123.35 ± 1.13
−1.32
124.37 ± 0.52
−0.51
123.50 ± 0.98
−1.20
123.38 ± 1.89
−1.29

200
197.08 ± 2.84
−1.46
195.08 ± 3.07
−2.46
193.33 ± 2.61
−3.33
196.00 ± 4.29
−2.00

Bavachalcone
1.25
1.24 ± 0.01
−0.73
1.23 ± 0.02
−1.87
1.24 ± 0.01
−1.17
1.23 ± 0.01
−1.27

50
48.40 ± 1.00
−3.2
46.37 ± 1.93
−7.27
45.33 ± 1.97
−9.33
47.32 ± 1.82
−5.37

80
77.08 ± 2.84
−3.65
76.42 ± 2.77
−4.84
75.00 ± 2.63
−6.25
78.50 ± 3.02
−1.88

Isobavachalcone
2.50
2.42 ± 0.03
−3.01
2.45 ± 0.05
−2.09
2.43 ± 0.05
−2.93
2.46 ± 0.05
−1.80

250
242.18 ± 2.93
−3.13
244.85 ± 5.63
−2.06
242.83 ± 3.72
−2.87
247.78 ± 3.67
−0.89

400
388.97 ± 7.41
−2.76
391.27 ± 6.48
−2.18
390.72 ± 6.54
−2.32
391.50 ± 5.85
−2.13

Pinoresinol diglucoside
2.50
2.40 ± 0.07
−4.13
2.43 ± 0.03
−2.67
2.46 ± 0.09
−1.73
2.39 ± 0.12
−4.53

50
49.28 ± 0.59
−1.43
49.30 ± 0.77
−1.40
48.90 ± 1.09
−2.20
49.57 ± 1.35
−0.87

80
77.25 ± 1.68
−3.44
79.23 ± 0.64
−0.97
79.34 ± 0.85
−0.82
78.98 ± 1.60
−1.27

2.5
2.31 ± 0.19
−7.41
2.26 ± 0.11
−0.95
2.28 ± 0.16
−0.87
2.26 ± 0.18
−0.64

1000
969.67 ± 32.73
−3.03
942.67 ± 22.73
−5.73
980.50 ± 24.99
−1.95
923.63 ± 25.24
−7.64

1600
1562.83 ± 39.05
−2.32
1575.83 ± 39.84
−1.51
1570.33 ± 37.45
−1.85
1583.33 ± 24.27
−1.04

Psoralidin
2.50
2.42 ± 0.04
−3.27
2.46 ± 0.04
−1.53
2.45 ± 0.05
−2.20
2.45 ± 0.05
−2.20

500
493.12 ± 8.33
−1.37
494.30 ± 7.37
−1.14
497.23 ± 14.14
−0.55
498.57 ± 12.55
−0.29

800
777.75 ± 9.36
−2.78
797.47 ± 5.18
−0.32
801.10 ± 8.14
0.14
791.62 ± 16.58
−1.05

Psoralen
2.50
2.42 ± 0.06
−3.02
2.27 ± 0.13
−9.19
2.36 ± 0.10
−5.73
2.38 ± 0.11
−4.63

500
467.93 ± 17.07
−6.41
470.27 ± 25.24
−5.95
485.50 ± 19.43
−2.90
466.13 ± 28.44
−6.77

800
760.12 ± 25.96
−4.99
782.12 ± 22.41
−2.24
776.95 ± 17.25
−2.88
768.48 ± 19.69
−3.94

Isopsoralen
2.50
2.40 ± 0.09
−3.87
2.27 ± 0.16
−9.02
2.39 ± 0.13
−4.31
2.42 ± 0.09
−3.26

250
243.68 ± 5.47
−2.53
246.87 ± 18.29
−1.25
235.50 ± 10.69
−5.80
246.55 ± 8.19
−1.38

400
379.92 ± 27.37
−5.02
382.93 ± 24.86
−4.27
384.83 ± 12.14
−3.79
389.33 ± 12.53
−2.67

3.2. Tissue Distribution Studies

The AUC profiles of 12 compounds in crude and salt-processed Qing’e pills are shown in Figure 3. The psoralenoside, bavachin, isobavachalcone, and neobavaisoflavone were mainly distributed in the kidney and liver. After salt-processing, the distribution of psoralenoside, bavachin, isobavachalcone, and neobavaisoflavone increased in the kidney, uterus, ovary, and testes (). Bavachalcone was mainly distributed in the liver, uterus, and testes, and the distribution in the uterus, kidney, and ovary increased after salt-processing (). The crude bavachinin and isobavachin were mainly distributed in the liver, kidney, spleen, and lung. After salt-processing, distribution of them increased in the uterus, testes, and heart (). Geniposidic acid and psoralidin were mainly distributed in the kidney, ovary, and liver. After salt-processing, distribution of them in the liver and spleen increased (). Pinoresinol diglucoside and psoralen were mainly distributed in the kidney, lung, liver, uterus, and ovary before salt-processing. Compared to crude products, the distribution of them were decreased after salt-processing. Isopsoralen was mainly distributed in the kidney and liver tissues, and there was no significant change in the distribution after salt-processing ().

(a)

(b)

(c)

(d)

(e)

(f)

(g)

(h)

(i)

(j)

(k)

(l)

Figure 3: The AUC profiles of 12 kinds of compounds in crude and salt-processed Qing’e pills in rat tissues (n = 3 for sexual organs and n = 6 for other tissues). The salt-processed group compared to the crude group, ; . (a) Geniposidic acid, (b) pinoresinol diglucoside, (c) psoralen, (d) isopsoralen, (e) psoralenoside, (f) bavachin, (g) isobavachin, (h) bavachalcone, (i) isobavachalcone, (j) neobavaisoflavone, (k) psoralidin, and (l) bavachinin.

RTE indicates the proportion of drug distribution of the salt-processed product relative to the crude product. RTE > 0 indicates that the component of the salt-processed product enters the tissue. The larger the RTE, the more effective the targeting effect. The RTE of 12 components is shown in Figure 4. The target of geniposidic acid was the liver (0.50), testes (0.32), and uterus (0.14). The target of pinoresinol diglucoside was the lung (1.30), liver (0.81), spleen (0.66), uterus (0.31), heart (0.27), and ovary (0.20). The target of psoralen was the testes (0.17), liver (0.09), and kidney (0.07). The target of isopsoralen was the heart (0.09), liver (0.03), spleen (0.03), kidney (0.02), and testes (0.02). The target of psoralenoside was the uterus (0.43), lung (0.18), heart (0.13), and liver (0.02). The target of bavachin was the lung (0.86), ovary (0.82), heart (0.40), kidney (0.20), testes (0.17), and spleen (0.16). The target of isobavachin was the testes, kidney (0.55), spleen (0.18), and liver (0.14). The target of bavachalcone was the ovary, lung, kidney (1.02), and liver (0.21). The target of isobavachalcone was the lung (0.52), uterus (0.33), heart (0.19), kidney (0.07), and testes (0.01). The target of neobavaisoflavone was the uterus (0.40), ovary (0.25), kidney (0.10), spleen (0.07), and lung (0.05). The target of psoralidin was the spleen (0.39), uterus (0.14), lung (0.04), kidney (0.002), and ovary (0.006). The target of bavachinin was the uterus (0.40), ovary (0.30), spleen (0.19), heart (0.15), and lung (0.08).

(a)

(b)

(c)

(d)

(e)

(f)

(g)

(h)

(i)

(j)

(k)

(l)

Figure 4: The RTE profiles of 12 kinds of compounds in crude and salt-processed Qing’e pills in rat tissue (n = 3 for sexual organs and n = 6 for other tissues). (a) Geniposidic acid, (b) pinoresinol diglucoside, (c) psoralen, (d) isopsoralen, (e) psoralenoside, (f) bavachin, (g) isobavachin, (h) bavachalcone, (i) isobavachalcone, (j) neobavaisoflavone, (k) psoralidin, and (l) bavachinin.

3.3. Discussion

Except for pinoresinol diglucoside, psoralen, and isopsoralen, the tissue distribution of other nine ingredients were increased after salt-processing in general. The distribution of psoralenoside, bavachin, isobavachin, bavachalcone, isobavachalcone, neobavaisoflavone, and bavachinin into the kidney increased. The distribution of geniposidic acid in the liver increased after salt-processing. The distribution of psoralidin into the spleen increased after salt-processing. Since the difference between the salt-processed group and the crude group was deducted from the in vitro content determination, the increase in the distribution of these nine components in the organs after salt-processing was not related to the concentration difference. The increased distribution of most components in the organs of the salt-processed group may be related to the high osmotic pressure caused by salt [23]. The decreased distribution of pinoresinol diglucoside and psoralen in organs may be due to the transformation of salt and other chemicals in vivo.

RTE showed that all twelve chemical components targeted the kidney or sexual organs (uterus, ovary, and testes) to some extent. After salt-processing, the components targeting the kidney were psoralen, isopsoralen, bavachin, isobavachin, bavachalcone, isobavachalcone, neobavaisoflavone, and psoralidin. The components targeting the uterus, ovary, and testes were geniposidic acid, pinoresinol diglucoside, psoralen, isopsoralen, psoralenoside, bavachin, isobavachin, bavachalcone, isobavachalcone, neobavaisoflavone, psoralidin, and bavachinin. Bavachalcone, isobavachin, bavachinin, psoralenoside, neobavaisoflavone, and psoralen targeted the kidney and sexual organs the most.

The results of AUC and RTE indicated that salt-processing in Qing’e pills not only can enhance the dissolution of the effective ingredients but also increase the targeting of drugs into the kidney and sexual organs, which may be the potential reason for Qing’e pills to play the role of tonifying the liver and kidney and strengthening muscles and bones.

One of the main functions of TCM salt-processing was to tonify the kidney, and from the perspective of TCM syndrome differentiation and treatment, the main bone of the kidney gave birth to marrow, which was the innate basis, so salt-processing plays an important role in the treatment of osteoporosis [24, 25]. The bioactive ingredients in Qing’e pills have certain pharmacological activities. Bavachalcone can inhibit osteoclastogenesis by interfering with the ERK and Akt signaling pathways and the induction of c-Fos and NFATc1 during differentiation [26]. Isobavachin, bavachinin, psoralenoside, neobavaisoflavone, and psoralen may be associated with isopentenyl and estrogen-like activity in the treatment of osteoporosis [3, 27–29]. Pinoresinol diglucoside, bavachin, and isobavachalcone targeted the lung. Geniposidic acid, pinoresinol diglucoside, isobavachin, and bavachalcone targeted the liver. The results indicated that salt-processing could strengthen the estrogen-like activity of salt. This enhances Qing’e pills’s antiosteoporosis effect.

4. Conclusion

A sensitive and accurate UPLC-MS/MS for simultaneous determination of 12 bioactive components of Qing’e pills in different tissues of rats. This study investigated the effects of salt-processing on the tissue distribution of 12 main bioactive ingredients. After salt-processing, the tissue distribution of bavachalcone, isobavachin, bavachinin, psoralenoside, neobavaisoflavone, and psoralen were increased in the kidney and sexual organs. The result provided a basis for clinical usage of Qing’e pills.

Abbreviations

TEM: | Ion source temperature
CUR: | Curtain gas
GAS: | Ion source gas
MRM: | Multiple reactions monitoring
DP: | Declustering potential
CE: | Collision energy
AUC: | Area under the curve
ESI: | Information-dependent acquisition
IS: | Internal standard
LLOD: | The lower limit of detection
LLOQ: | The lower limit of quantitation
QC: | Quality control
RTE: | Relative targeting efficiency
SD: | Sprague-Dawley
TCM: | Traditional Chinese medicine
UHPLC-MS/MS: | Ultrahigh-performance liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry.

Data Availability

The main data used to support the findings of this study are included within the article. The methodological data for organs other than kidney’s data used to support the findings of this study are included within the supplementary information file.

Disclosure

Jingxia Hou and Shangyang Lin contributed equally to the project and are considered as the co-first authors.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Authors’ Contributions

J. H., S. L., and J. L. designed the experiments. J. H. and S. L. performed the experiments together. L. W. and Z. C. helped interpreting the results. W. L., L. S., J. H., and J. L. contributed to the writing and the revision of this manuscript.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank the National Natural Science Foundation of China (81773902 and 81973484) and Scientific Research Open Fund of Zhejiang Chinese Medicine University (Yao2016001) for their support.

Supplementary Materials

The supplementary material [23] we submitted is methodological data of 12 compounds in the heart, liver, spleen, lung, uterus, testes, and ovary. The results of precision and accuracy for the heart, liver, spleen, lung, uterus, ovary, and testes are shown in Tables 1–7. The extract recoveries and matrix effect in the heart, liver, spleen, lung, uterus, ovary, and testes are shown in Tables 8–14. The results of compound stability in the heart, liver, spleen, lung, uterus, ovary, and testes tissue under different storage conditions are presented in Tables 15–21. (Supplementary Materials)

References

C P Commission, Pharmacopoeia of People’s Republic of China, China Medical Science and Technology Press, Beijing, China, 10th edition, 2015.

N. D. Zhang, T. Han, B. K. Huang et al., “Traditional Chinese medicine formulas for the treatment of osteoporosis: implication for antiosteoporotic drug discovery,” Journal of Ethnopharmacology, vol. 189, pp. 61–80, 2016.

D. Xin, H. Wang, J. Yang et al., “Phytoestrogens from Psoralea corylifolia reveal estrogen receptor-subtype selectivity,” Phytomedicine, vol. 17, no. 2, pp. 126–131, 2010.

Y. G. Li, J. Hou, S. Y. Li et al., “Fructus Psoraleae contains natural compounds with potent inhibitory effects towards human carboxylesterase 2,” Fitoterapia, vol. 101, pp. 99–106, 2015.

X. F. Wang, X. W. Huang, M. X. Liu, and Y. Q. Zhu, “Simultaneous determination of 7 components in Qing’e pills by HPLC,” China Pharmacy, vol. 33, pp. 4728–4731, 2017.

H. Wang, W. D. Li, Q. Q. Gao et al., “Changes of 12 index components in Qing’e pills mixed with different processed products,” New Chinese Medicine and Clinical Pharmacology, vol. 25, no. 5, pp. 684–688, 2016.

G. X. Ma, Y. Jia, P. F. Guo, S. Z. Huang, and X. J. Su, “Determination of three active ingredients in Qing’e pills by LC-MS/MS method,” Chinese Journal of Pharmaceutical Industry, vol. 44, no. 4, pp. 382–385, 2013.

J. Chen, Y. Xu, Z. J. Zhang, L. P. Liao, and Z. T. Wang, “Study on quality standard of Qing’e pills-determination of Eucommiae Cortex content in Junyao,” Chinese Journal of Experimental Formulae, vol. 20, pp. 112–115, 2012.

Z. Zhang, J. Chen, J. Zhao et al., “Determination of pinoresinol diglucoside in Qing’e pills by ultraperformance liquid chromatography,” Chinese Journal of Chromatography, vol. 28, no. 8, pp. 805–808, 2010.

L. Ai, Q. Ma, L. Qiu, W. Zhang, and Y. G. Liu, “Determination of psoralen and isopsoralen in Jiawei Qing’e pills by HPLC,” World Science and Technology (Modernization of Traditional Chinese Medicine), vol. 5, pp. 808–810, 2010.

L. Q. Cheng and X. Y. Zhou, “Determination of Psoraleae in Qing’e pills by HPLC,” West China Pharmaceutical Journal, vol. 4, pp. 499-500, 2008.

G. X. Ma and P. F. Guo, “Comparison of the pharmacodynamic components in Qing’e pills by LC-MS/MS method and HPLC,” Hebei Medical Science, vol. 4, pp. 537–540, 2014.

J. J. Wang, X. M. Qin, X. X. Gao et al., “Current research progress on chemical components, pharmacological activities and quality control of Eucommiae Cortex,” Chinese Herbal Medicine, vol. 48, no. 15, pp. 3228–3237, 2017.

D. Xin, D. M. Yan, Y. F. Wang, Y. F. Su, H. Wang, and X. M. Gao, “Progress in pharmacology and toxicology of Psoraleae fructus and its related chemical components,” Journal of Liaoning University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, vol. 7, pp. 70–72, 2009.

D. M. Yan and X. M. Gao, “Research progress on the chemical constituents of Psoraleae fructus,” Journal of Liaoning University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, vol. 9, pp. 96–99, 2012.

L. Liu, X. Y. Zhu, J. L. Lu, Z. P. Chen, L. Wu, and W. D. Li, “Effect of salt processing on the dissolution of main components of Qing’e pills,” Chinese Patent Medicine, vol. 40, no. 12, pp. 2714–2718, 2018.

Y. Zhao, Y. Li, X. Wang, and W. Sun, “The experimental study of cortex Eucommiae on meridian tropsim: the distribution study of aucubin in rat tissues,” Journal of Pharmaceutical and Biomedical Analysis, vol. 46, no. 2, pp. 368–373, 2008.

F. Q. Xu, H. S. Guan, and Y. Y. Feng, “Meridian tropism of polygoni avicularis herbal by tissue distribution of avicularin in rats,” Chinese Herbal Medicines, vol. 4, no. 3, pp. 201–204, 2012.

S. N. Xu, “Investigating modern research on meridian-reaching actions of traditional Chinese medicinal herbs,” Chinese Pharmacological Bulletin, vol. 20, pp. 598–600, 2004.

FDA, Guidance for Industry Bioanalytical Method Validation, FDA, White Oak, MD, USA, 2013.

P. K. Gupta and C. T. Hung, “Quantitative evaluation of targeted drug delivery systems,” International Journal of Pharmaceutics, vol. 56, no. 3, pp. 217–226, 1989.

R. Z. Zhao, D. Yuan, S. J. Liu, Y. J. Chen, L. J. Liu, and Y. Zhao, “Liver targeting effect of vinegar-baked radix Bupleuri on rhein in rats,” Journal of Ethnopharmacology, vol. 132, no. 2, pp. 421–428, 2010.

G. H. Zhao, C. P. Yan, Z. S. Xu, Q. Q. Gao, Z. P. Chen, and W. D. Li, “The effect of salt-processed Psoralea corylifolia on generative organ targeting,” Journal of Analytical Methods in Chemistry, vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 1–12, 2016.

C. J. Hu, “Research idea of salt broiling into kidney,” Chinese Association of Traditional Chinese Medicine, pp. 46–48, 2006.

M. Song, K. Wang, H. N. Wen, Y. L. Gong, and Y. X. Hai, “Study on the correlation between OPG/RANK/RANKL signaling pathway and senile osteoporosis based on the theory of spleen main meat, kidney main bone,” Chinese Journal of Traditional Chinese Medicine Information, vol. 27, no. 5, pp. 1–4, 2020.

C. K. Park, Y. Lee, E.-J. Chang et al., “Bavachalcone inhibits osteoclast differentiation through suppression of NFATc1 induction by RANKL,” Biochemical Pharmacology, vol. 75, no. 11, pp. 2175–2182, 2008.

X. Liu, J.-W. Nam, Y. S. Song et al., “Psoralidin, a coumestan analogue, as a novel potent estrogen receptor signaling molecule isolated from Psoralea corylifolia,” Bioorganic & Medicinal Chemistry Letters, vol. 24, no. 5, pp. 1403–1406, 2014.

J.-W. Park, D.-H. Kim, H.-N. Ahn, Y.-S. Song, Y.-J. Lee, and J.-H. Ryu, “Activation of estrogen receptor by bavachin from Psoralea corylifolia,” Biomolecules and Therapeutics, vol. 20, no. 2, pp. 183–188, 2012.

H. Lee, H. Li, M. Noh, and J.-H. Ryu, “Bavachin from Psoralea corylifolia improves insulin-dependent glucose uptake through insulin signaling and AMPK activation in 3T3-L1 adipocytes,” International Journal of Molecular Sciences, vol. 17, no. 4, pp. 527–535, 2016.