| Title |
Botanical origin of Mei-gui Hua in Chinese markets
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Natural Medicines, November 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11418-017-1153-y |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Ochir Sarangowa, Makoto Nishizawa, Takao Myoda, Chunjie Ma, Takashi Yamagishi |
| Abstract |
The petals or buds of Rosa species have been used as an important Chinese crude drug called "Mei-gui Hua" and also an ingredient for herbal tea in China. The 15 flavonol glycosides in 34 commercially available "Mei-gui Hua" were quantitatively determined by UPLC, and the data were compared with those of known Rosa sp. belong to Cinnamomeae, Gallicanae, Caninae and Synstylae by principal component analysis for the estimation of original plants of these "Mei-gui Hua". Seven samples were classified into two groups (Types A and B) composed of species in Gallicae and Synstilae and 11 samples into a group (Type D) composed of species in Cinnamomeae. Six samples were plotted among Types B, C and D. However, nine samples were shown to form a new group (Type F), and the original plants of these samples were assumed to be more complex hybrids of Rosa species including other sections than Cinnamomeae, Gallicanae, Caninae and Synstylae. This method must be useful and convenient to estimate the origin of crude drug "Mei-gui Hua" commercially available in markets. The results of this study also demonstrated that "Mei-gui Hua" commercially available in Chinese market must be prepared from hybrids of various species of Rosa, and it is not reasonable to assign only R. rugosa as scientific name of the origin plants. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 14 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 14 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Professor > Associate Professor | 2 | 14% |
| Librarian | 1 | 7% |
| Student > Master | 1 | 7% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 1 | 7% |
| Researcher | 1 | 7% |
| Other | 1 | 7% |
| Unknown | 7 | 50% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 3 | 21% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 1 | 7% |
| Environmental Science | 1 | 7% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 7% |
| Social Sciences | 1 | 7% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 7 | 50% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 29 November 2017.
All research outputs
#18,577,751
of 23,009,818 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Natural Medicines
#303
of 533 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#326,134
of 438,545 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Natural Medicines
#11
of 17 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,009,818 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 533 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.0. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 438,545 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 17 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.