Li Shuya, Rahimjan Bumarya, Jie Hang, Wang Yiwu, Shen Yuan, Yu Jialing, Yang Lin, He Dan
College of Pharmacy, Chongqing Medical University, 1 # Yixueyuan Road, Yuzhong District, Chongqing, 400016, China.
Bio-Resource Research and Utilization Joint Key Laboratory of Sichuan and Chongqing, Chongqing Institute of Medicinal Plant Cultivation, Nanchuan, 408435, Chongqing, China.
Sci Rep. 2025 Jul 1;15(1):20450. doi: 10.1038/s41598-025-00968-6.
In this study, we conducted a comprehensive comparative analysis of the physicochemical properties of natural musk (NM) and artificial musk (AM), focusing on their ultrastructure, volatile constituents, alcohol-soluble compounds, amino acid composition, inorganic element content and anti-inflammatory activity. Advanced analytical techniques such as scanning electron microscopy (SEM), gas chromatography-mass spectrometry (GC-MS), liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry (LC-MS), amino acid auto analyzer (AAA), and inductively coupled plasma-mass spectrometry (ICP-MS) were utilized to evaluate the differences in their physicochemical properties. The results of the study showed that SEM could distinguish NM and AM based on their surface morphology. GC-MS and LC-MS results identified 15 volatile compounds and 25 alcohol-soluble compounds in NM, whereas AM contained 8 volatile compounds and 22 alcohol-soluble compounds, indicating a more complex chemical constituent in NM. Amino acid analysis revealed that AM contained 787.1 mg/g total amino acids, significantly higher than the 156.4 mg/g found in NM. The determination of inorganic elements highlighted the differences in elemental content and identified the characteristic elements in both musks Specifically, K, Al, Ni, As, and Hg were characteristic of NM, while Na, Fe, Al, Co, Cu, Ag, Ba, and Pb were characteristic of AM. In addition, the results of in vitro anti-inflammatory tests showed the starting concentration of NM (0.025 mg/mL) and AM (0.05 mg/mL), indicating that NM and AM cannot be used interchangeably in clinical applications. This study provides a valuable reference for differentiating between NM and AM, providing insights into their utilization and development.
在本研究中，我们对天然麝香（NM）和人工麝香（AM）的理化性质进行了全面的比较分析，重点关注它们的超微结构、挥发性成分、醇溶性化合物、氨基酸组成、无机元素含量和抗炎活性。利用扫描电子显微镜（SEM）、气相色谱 - 质谱联用仪（GC - MS）、液相色谱 - 质谱联用仪（LC - MS）、氨基酸自动分析仪（AAA）和电感耦合等离子体质谱仪（ICP - MS）等先进分析技术来评估它们理化性质的差异。研究结果表明，SEM可根据表面形态区分NM和AM。GC - MS和LC - MS结果鉴定出NM中有15种挥发性化合物和25种醇溶性化合物，而AM含有8种挥发性化合物和22种醇溶性化合物，这表明NM的化学成分更为复杂。氨基酸分析显示，AM的总氨基酸含量为787.1mg/g，显著高于NM中的156.4mg/g。无机元素的测定突出了元素含量的差异，并确定了两种麝香中的特征元素。具体而言，K、Al、Ni、As和Hg是NM的特征元素，而Na、Fe、Al、Co、Cu、Ag、Ba和Pb是AM的特征元素。此外，体外抗炎试验结果显示了NM（0.025mg/mL）和AM（0.05mg/mL）的起始浓度，表明NM和AM在临床应用中不能相互替代。本研究为区分NM和AM提供了有价值的参考，为它们的利用和开发提供了见解。
