蜥蜴及其伪品石龙子鉴别方法比较

目的比较蜥蜴Eremias argus Peters及其伪品石龙子Eumeces chinensis(Gray)的鉴别方法。方法采用薄层色谱法(TLC)、十二烷基硫酸钠聚丙烯酰胺凝胶电泳法(SDS-PAGE)和非变性聚丙烯酰胺凝胶电泳法(Native-PAGE)对不同来源的10批蜥蜴药材和3批石龙子药材进行对比研究。结果不同来源蜥蜴药材及其伪品石龙子薄层色谱在相同位置出现相同颜色的斑点,不能对两者进行区分;SDS-PAGE结果显示,不同来源的蜥蜴有3条共有谱带,其中1条是区别于石龙子的特征谱带,且3批石龙子样品在14.6 kDa处的蛋白条带染色程度明显高于蜥蜴;Native-PAGE结果显示,10批蜥蜴样品3条共有谱带中1条是区别于石龙子的特征谱带,3批石龙子样品7条共有谱带中有3条特征谱带,二者特征谱带位置差别很大,进行遗传距离聚类分析,SDS-PAGE法不能将蜥蜴和石龙子完全分开,Native-PAGE法可将2种药材聚为2类。结论 Native-PAGE法可作为中药蜥蜴与其伪品石龙子的快速鉴别方法。

Comparison of identification methods of Eremias argus and its adulteration Eumeces chinensis

AIM To Compare the identification methods of Eremias argus Peters and its adulteration Eumeces chinensis(Gray).METHODS Thin layer chromatography(TLC), sodium dodecyl sulfate-polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis(SDS-PAGE) and native-polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis(Native-PAGE) were used to compare ten batches of E. argus and three batches of E. chinensis from different sources.RESULTS E. argus and E. chinensis could not be distinguished by TLC, because of the same spots appeared at the same position. The results of SDS-PAGE showed that there were three common bands in different sources of E. argus, one of which was different from the bands of E. chinensis and was identified as a characteristic band. The protein band at 14.6 kDa of three batches of E. chinensis was significantly darker than that of E. argus. The Native-PAGE results showed that there were three common bands in ten batches of E. argus, one of which was different from the bands of E. chinensis and was indnetified as a characteristic band. Three characteristic bands could be identified in seven common bands of the three batches of E. chinensis. Positions of the characteristic bands of these two Chinese medicine were very different. These two kinds of Chinese medicine could be classified into two categories by Native-PAGE instead of SDS-PAGE.CONCLUSION The Native-PAGE can be used as a rapid method for identification of E. argus from its adulterant E. chinensis.