Discrimination of Abrus cantoniensis Hance and Abrus mollis Hance using UPLC-Q/TOF-MS and assessment of their in vivo hepatoprotective effects.

ETHNOPHARMACOLOGICAL RELEVANCE

In Guangzhou and Guangxi, China, Abrus cantoniensis Hance (AH) is known for its liver-protective properties and is commonly used in herbal teas and soups. In the herbal market and pharmaceutical preparations, AH and Abrus mollis Hance (AMH) are often used interchangeable. Despite their morphological and usage similarities, distinguishing their differences is essential for scientific research and clinical practice.

AIM OF THE STUDY

This study focuses on the morphological identification, chemical composition, and hepatoprotective effectiveness of AH and AMH. It aims to evaluate their interchangeable use and provide a rationale for this practice. This research helps regulate the market of AH medicinal materials, ensuring clinical safety and effectiveness.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Samples of AH and AMH roots, stems, leaves, and seeds were collected and photographed using a stereoscope and digital imaging system. The chemical components of AH and AMH were qualitatively analyzed using UPLC-Q/TOF-MS. Chemometric techniques, such as PCA and OPLS-DA, were employed to discern the componential differences between the two species. A CCl-induced acute liver injury mouse model was developed to assess hepatoprotective effects. The hepatoprotective properties of AH and AMH were evaluated by analyzing the liver index, H&E staining, changes in serum liver function indicators (TBIL, ALT, AST), and concentrations of SOD, MDA in liver homogenate.

RESULTS

The root color, texture, stem diameter, cross-sectional characteristics, leaf shape, and seed morphology of the two plants were observed. Notable differences were identified, which can be used for accurate identification. The UPLC-Q/TOF-MS identified 50 compounds in both species, which were classified into 3 alkaloids, 22 flavonoids, 2 triterpenes, 10 triterpene saponins, 10 amides, and 3 others, and 20 different compounds between AH and AMH were screened by chemometrics. By improving serum biomarkers (ALT, AST, TBIL) and regulating oxidative stress markers (SOD, MDA), the alleviating effect of AH and AMH extracts on liver injury was confirmed. Notably, AH showed a stronger liver protective effect, significantly reducing ALT and AST levels more than AMH.

CONCLUSION

This study enhances understanding of the morphological identification, chemical profiling, and hepatoprotective effects of AH and AMH. It provides a reference for future scientific research and the clinical application of AH in treating liver damage.