Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Background

Guggulutiktam Kashayam (GTK) is a water decoction used in Ayurveda for the treatment of various diseases like skin diseases, ulcers, anemia, thyroid problems, stress, liver disease, and leucorrhoea. It is a polyherbal formulation prepared from specific parts of 28 medicinal plants.

Objectives

The study aimed at a comparative phytochemical evaluation of an important polyherbal formulation with its ingredient plants.

Materials and Methods

Chemical profiling of GTK has been carried out in comparison with its ingredient plants. Spectrophotometric estimation of major class compounds and high-performance thin-layer chromatography (HPTLC) profiling were done using a standardized protocol.

Results

The results of the study showed that the phytochemical contents of the finished formulation are different from those of the ingredient plants, which might be due to the numerous synergistic and antagonistic interactions of numerous chemical components extracted from different ingredient drugs. HPTLC-based comparative chromatograms showed the differences and similarities in certain compounds that are specific to some of the plant ingredients.

Conclusion

The study established the cumulative chemical interactions of various phytochemicals during the preparation of an important polyherbal formula used in Ayurveda.

Keywords

Chemical profiling polyherbal formulation phytochemistry HPTLC

Introduction

The majority of Ayurvedic formulations are polyherbal in nature and contain several ingredients in specific proportions, as prescribed in the ancient Ayurvedic classics. Polyherbal formulations (PHFs) are considered to be more active due to the presence of multiple ingredients, which is commonly known as polyherbalism (Sulaiman et al., 2021). Guggulutiktam Kashayam (GTK) is one of the well-known classical PHFs used to treat skin diseases, ulcers, anemia, thyroid problems, stress, liver disease, and leucorrhoea. Many phytochemicals, including phenolics, flavonoids, coumarins, and catechins, have been reported from this formulation (Sulaiman et al., 2020). The phytochemicals present in the finished PHFs are cumulative chemical entities after many synergistic and antagonistic chemical interactions. The chemical pattern of any finished formulation is different from that of its individual ingredient plants due to the herb–herb interaction that normally leads to the synergistic chemical transformation of many of the phytochemicals extracted from the various ingredient raw drugs. The range of such interactions depends on the nature of the raw drugs used and the method of preparation. In most cases, Ayurvedic formulations are prepared by prolonged heating of the different raw drugs in boiling water. Another phenomenon, antagonism, in which the effect of some compounds is nullified by other constituents, is also happening during the PHF preparation (Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, 2003).

The therapeutic efficacy of any herbal preparation depends on the various chemical constituents present in it that are capable of possessing the desired biological action. Chemical profiling of finished PHFs is one of the most reliable methods to correlate their active constituents with their pharmacological activities. Comparative phytochemical profiling with raw ingredient drugs may provide a preliminary understanding of the synergism and antagonism occurring during the preparation of the formulation. High-performance thin-layer chromatography (HPTLC) is a strong analytical tool for the comparative profiling of PHFs with their raw drugs. Chromatograms with good resolution can be used to distinguish the presence or absence of individual chemical constituents in PHF with respect to the individual ingredient plants. HPTLC techniques have been widely used for the comparative chemical profiling of plants and herbal products (Akhtar et al., 2022; Parasuraman et al., 2014; Singh et al., 2014). In this study, a comparative chemical evaluation of an Ayurvedic PHF has been carried out by various spectrophotometric and HPTLC analyses. The study has been conducted to ensure the quality of the selected finished formulation with respect to its ingredients. A comparative phytochemical evaluation of this formulation with its ingredient drugs has not yet been reported.

Materials and Methods

GTK was obtained from the Product Development Department of the institute. Aluminium-backed precoated HPTLC plates Si 60F₂₅₄, and all the analytical-grade solvents were procured from Merck India Pvt. Ltd. Gallic acid was procured from Sigma Aldrich Chemicals.

Ingredient plant materials for GTK were obtained from the Materials Department of the institute, and all the materials were authenticated by the Pharmacognosy Division of the institute. Voucher specimens were deposited in the Raw Drug Repository (Table 1).

Table 1.

List of Ingredient Plants of GTK.

Ingredient Plants	Sample Code	Raw Drug Repository Number
Aconitum heterophyllum Wall. ex. Royle	AH	RDR/AYUSHCOE/26
Aconitum palmatum D. Don	AP	RDR/AYUSHCOE/27
Acorus calamus L.	AC	RDR/AYUSHCOE/22
Azadirachta indica A. Juss.	AI	RDR/AYUSHCOE/01
Cedrus deodara (Roxb. ex Lamb.) G.Don	CD	RDR/AYUSHCOE/08
Cissampelos pareira L.	CP	RDR/AYUSHCOE/06
Commiphora wightii (Arn.) Bhandari	CW	RDR/AYUSHCOE/29
Curcuma longa L.	CL	RDR/AYUSHCOE/11
Dolomiaea costus (Falc.) Kasana & A.K. Pandey	DC	RDR/AYUSHCOE/14
Embelia tsjeriam-cottam (Roem. & Schult.) A. DC.	ET	RDR/AYUSHCOE/07
Foeniculum vulgare Mill.	FV	RDR/AYUSHCOE/12
Holarrhena pubescens Wall. ex G.Don	HP	RDR/AYUSHCOE/17
Justicia adhatoda L.	JA	RDR/AYUSHCOE/03
Picrorhiza kurroa Royle ex Benth.	PK	RDR/AYUSHCOE/20
Piper longum L.	PL	RDR/AYUSHCOE/23
Piper nigrum L.	PN	RDR/AYUSHCOE/16
Piper retrofractum Vahl	PR	RDR/AYUSHCOE/13
Pluchea lanceolata (DC.) C.B. Clarke	PLT	RDR/AYUSHCOE/24
Plumbago zeylanica L.	PZ	RDR/AYUSHCOE/19
Rubia cordifolia L.	RC	RDR/AYUSHCOE/25
Scindapsus officinalis (Roxb.) Schott	SO	RDR/AYUSHCOE/09
Semecarpus anacardium L.f.	SA	RDR/AYUSHCOE/21
Solanum virginanum L.	SV	RDR/AYUSHCOE/05
Tinospora cordifolia (Willd.) Hook.f. & Thomson	TC	RDR/AYUSHCOE/02
Trachyspermum ammi (L.) Sprague	TA	RDR/AYUSHCOE/28
Trichosanthes dioica Roxb.	TD	RDR/AYUSHCOE/04
Zanthoxylum armatum DC.	ZA	RDR/AYUSHCOE/15
Zingiber officinale Roscoe	ZO	RDR/AYUSHCOE/10

Abbreviations: GTK, guggulutiktam kashayam.

Preparation of Extracts

Ten grams of each of the shade-dried materials were ground into coarse powder and refluxed with 100 mL of distilled water for 6 h. It was then filtered and kept in the refrigerator until various phytochemical analyses.

Physicochemical Screening

Physicochemical tests such as total ash, acid-insoluble ash, water-insoluble ash, sulfated ash, alcohol-soluble extractive, and water-soluble extractive of all the ingredient plants were done as per the standard procedures of the Ayurvedic Pharmacopeia of India (The Ayurvedic Pharmacopoeia of India, 2001).

Estimation of Phenolics

Major phytochemicals were estimated using an ultraviolet (UV)-visible spectrophotometer (Shimadzu, Japan). Total phenolic content was estimated for GTK and its ingredient plants. The Folin-Ciocalteu method was used for the total phenol estimation (Singleton & Rossi, 1965; Sulaiman & Balachandran, 2012; Sulaiman et al., 2014; Sulaiman et al., 2020). The values were calculated with respect to standard gallic acid.

HPTLC Profiling

HPTLC analysis was performed using a CAMAG HPTLC system (Switzerland) equipped with an automatic sample applicator (CAMAG ATS-IV) on an aluminium-backed, precoated silica gel 60F₂₅₄ HPTLC plate (Merck India). The stock solution of GTK was prepared by sonicating 2 g in 10 mL of distilled water using an ultrasound bath. The mobile phase was optimized as per the previous method with slight modifications (Sulaiman et al., 2020; Sulaiman et al., 2022). Ideal separation was obtained with the mobile phase containing toluene, ethyl acetate, and methanol in the ratio 7:3:1. Comparative HPTLC profiling of aqueous extracts of ingredient plants along with GTK was done in triplicate with the same mobile phase. The chromatogram was developed in a twin-trough glass chamber presaturated for 5 min at room temperature with the optimized mobile phase. After development, the plates were dried and scanned using CAMAG HPTLC Scanner-III at UV-254, UV-366, and in visible light after derivatizing with anisaldehydesulphuric acid reagent. All the developed plates were documented by the CAMAG HPTLC photo-documentation system.

Results

This study was carried out to identify the major class of chemical compounds in the extracts and distinguish the presence or absence of individual chemical constituents in PHF with respect to the individual ingredient plants.

Physicochemical Screening

Physicochemical properties such as total ash, acid-insoluble ash, water-insoluble ash, sulfated ash, water-soluble extractive, and alcohol-soluble extractive were evaluated in all the ingredient drugs of GTK, and the results are presented in Table 2. The physicochemical parameters of raw herbal drugs are an important set of quality markers as they ensure the required quality of raw materials (Jeevitha et al., 2021). The Ayurvedic Pharmacopoeia of India (API) is the regulatory document that fixes the quality parameters of raw drugs. All the samples were analyzed to confirm their authenticity and quality.

Table 2.

Physicochemical Parameters of Ingredient Plants of GTK.

Sample	Total Ash (%)	Water-insoluble Ash (%)	Acid-insoluble Ash(%)	Sulfated Ash (%)	Water Extractive Value (%)	Alcohol Extractive Value (%)
AH	0.94	1.42	0.51	3.65	33.32	10.90
AP	7.89	5.58	2.5	12.04	31.17	8.75
AC	6.59	2.42	0.59	8.6	36.09	18.16
AI	4.82	4.2	0.579	6.79	9.57	10.2
CD	0.33	0.1914	0.1097	0.54	5.77	7.61
CP	7.5	6.38	3.66	9.43	14.61	10.28
CW	7.57	6.27	2.81	10.93	93.53	3.22
CL	6.19	3.47	1.1	7.7	15.76	6.6
DC	4.2	2.9	1.9	6.07	32.2	25.47
ET	4.1392	1.1	0.152	5.75	9.28	10.1
FV	7.74	4.2	0.316	12.51	18.86	7.94
HP	6.24	3.68	0.2	8.69	15.15	9.73
JA	2.09	5.54	0.92	3.08	5.86	3.17
PK	4.66	3.17	1.34	6.01	38.94	31.84
PL	8.56	4.766	0.2076	10.81	24.98	16.68
PN	5.15	1.73	0.18	7.49	12.31	9.92
PR	6.55	3.75	0.89	9	11.41	6.609
PLT	16.75	5.27	2.25	19.77	30.47	10.04
PZ	3.17	1.9	0.89	4.76	13.37	12.08
RC	6.89	3.04	0.22	8.87	21.33	14.44
SO	11.509	4.1	0.08	17.01	20.53	4.29
SA	7.20	6.48	3.43	11.26	1.40	6.43
SV	10	7.37	0.245	13.88	11.89	5.22
TC	9.39	7.21	0.568	11.68	11.52	5.86
TA	7.57	4.163	0.243	9.57	31.22	6.27
TD	19.46	10.60	0.49	21.38	28.76	7.07
ZA	9.94	3.18	0.38	9.58	12.28	10.66
ZO	6.01	2.89	1.3	8.86	19.99	5.64

Abbreviations: GTK, guggulutiktam kashayam.

Estimation of Major Phytochemicals

Medicinal plants are rich sources of polyphenols with diverse biological properties. Quantitative estimation of total polyphenols provides the preliminary chemical pattern of the plant extracts. Spectrophotometric methods have been employed for the estimation of total polyphenols in herbal drugs and finished formulations (Dinakaran et al., 2018; Sulaiman et al., 2021). The total phenolics (TPC) of all the ingredient plants, along with GTK, were estimated. The TPC was calculated from the calibration curve of gallic acid (R² = 0.999, Figure 1). The TPC contents of GTK and its ingredient plants are given in Table 3.

Figure 1.

Calibration of Curve of Gallic Acid Standard.

Table 3.

Spectrophotometric Estimation of TPC in GTK and its Ingredient Drugs.

Plant/Formulation	Phenolic Content
GTK	2.46 ± 0.02
AH	3.25 ± 0.10
AP	6.36 ± 0.13
AC	3.46 ± 0.02
AI	2.23 ± 0.10
CD	2.89 ± 0.01
CP	7.64 ± 0.07
CW	6.69 ± 0.36
CL	2.93 ± 0.03
DC	4.13 ± 0.10
ET	7.995 ± 0.02
FV	5.277 ± 0.11
HP	9.177 ± 0.05
JA	39.42 ±0.46
PK	16.05 ± 0.10
PL	2.133 ± 0.12
PN	9.355 ± 0.07
PR	5.0072 ± 0.05
PLT	17.821 ± 0.10
PZ	13.531 ± 0.06
RC	2.20 ± 0.01
SO	37.29 ±1.24
SA	2.609 ± 0.07
SV	2.74 ± 0.01
TC	4.75 ± 0.09
TA	5.176 ± 0.05
TD	3.28 ± 0.04
ZA	7.93 ± 0.05
ZO	23.50 ±0.31

Abbreviations: TPC, total phenolics; GTK, guggulutiktam Kashayam.

The highest TPC was shown by Justicia adhatoda (JA) (39.42 ± 0.468), followed by Scindapsus officinalis (SO) (37.29 ± 1.248), Zingiber officinale (ZO) (23.50 ± 0.316), and Pluchea lanceolata (PLT) (17.821 ± 0.1010). The lowest value was observed for Piper longum (PL) (2.133 ± 0.008), followed by Rubia cordifolia (RC) (2.20 ± 0.010), and Azadirachta indica (AI) (2.23 ± 0.104). The TPC of GTK was found to be 2.46 ± 0.028, and the value is much lower compared to that of other ingredient plants. This might be due to the chemical transformations that occurred due to the synergistic and antagonistic interactions of various polyphenols extracted from the ingredient plants. Variations in phenolics with respect to the herbal drug samples have been reported earlier (Mehmood et al., 2022; Siddiqui et al., 2017; Tungmunnithum et al., 2018); however, no previous reports are available on the comparative estimation of the polyphenols with respect to the finished formulation. Synergistic interactions of polyphenols with respect to the ratio of plant materials have been reported earlier (Aslam et al., 2017). More studies are required to establish the effect of various raw drugs on the total phenolic composition of finished PHFs.

HPTLC Profiling

HPTLC has emerged as an important analytical tool for the qualitative and quantitative phytochemical analysis of herbal raw drugs and PHFs (Lalhriatpuii, 2020). Comparative HPTLC profiling has been carried out for GTK with all the ingredient plants. The chromatogram documented under various UV visualizations was compared with respect to the R _f values. Chemical quenching at UV-254 nm and fluorescence at UV-366 nm have complied, and the data is presented in Table 4. On evaluating under UV-254, bands with R _f 0.03, 0.09, 0.11, 0.17, 0.22, 0.29, 0.47, 0.57, 0.70, and 0.77 have been observed in GTK, and out of these compounds with R _f 0.03 (AP, AC, PN, RC), 0.09 (PK, SA, ZA, SO, TC, TD), 0.11 (AH, PK, JA, ZO), 0.17 (PN, RC), 0.29 (SA, CL), 0.70 (SA, ZA), and 0.77 (CD) are identified. On evaluating under UV-366 nm, bands with R _f 0.06, 0.12, 0.20, 0.21, 0.28, 0.31, 0.37, 0.40, 0.47, 0.50, 0.53, 0.57, 0.64, 0.69, 0.77, and 0.82 have been observed in GTK. Out of these compounds with R _f 0.06 (PN, CD, SA), 0.12 (PTA, TA), 0.28 (CL), 0.31 (CW), 0.37 (SA), 0.50 (SA), 0.64 (CD, PN, PR), 0.69 (PZ), and 0.82 (SA) are identified (Figure 2).

Table 4.

HPTLC R _f Values of Various Compounds Separated from GTK and its Ingredient Plants.

Plant/Formulation	254 nm	366 nm
GTK	0.03, 0.09, 0.11, 0.17, 0.22, 0.29, 0.47, 0.57, 0.70, 0.77	0.06, 0.12, 0.20, 0.21, 0.28, 0.31, 0.37, 0.40, 0.47, 0.50, 0.53, 0.57, 0.64, 0.69, 0.77, 0.82
AH	0.04, 0.06, 0.08, 0.11, 0.16, 0.24, 0.27, 0.81	0.02, 0.09, 0.11, 0.26, 0.31, 0.49
AP	0.03, 0.06, 0.23, 0.26	0.03, 0.05, 0.08, 0.13, 0.25, 0.48
AC	0.03, 0.05	0.04, 0.11, 0.17, 0.20, 0.31, 0.36, 0.72
AI	0.10, 0.16, 0.26	0.05, 0.08, 0.16, 0.26
CD	0.12, 0.14, 0.18, 0.24, 0.27, 0.3, 0.35, 0.38, 0.45, 0.52, 0.65, 0.67, 0.77	0.06, 0.17, 0.22, 0.33, 0.64
CP		0.09, 0.13, 0.15
CW	0.65, 0.72, 0.76	0.05, 0.07, 0.12, 0.18, 0.2, 0.24, 0.31, 0.50, 0.56, 0.61, 0.74, 0.8, 0.89
CL	0.04, 0.10, 0.23, 0.29, 0.36, 0.42, 0.60, 0.65	0.04, 0.24, 0.28, 0.42, 0.60, 0.68
DC		0.07, 0.09, 0.10, 0.28, 0.40
ET	0.07	0.07 , 0.10, 0.35, 0.89
FV	0.23, 0.27, 0.39	0.05 , 0.10, 0.18, 0.21, 0.46, 0.58
HP	0.04, 0.10, 0.24	0.10, 0.19, 0.22, 0.31, 0.44
JA	0.04, 0.11	0.04, 0.11, 0.31, 0.41, 0.65
PK	0.09, 0.11, 0.27, 0.61	0.07, 0.11, 0.15, 0.24, 0.30, 0.33, 0.43, 0.52, 0.67, 0.9
PL	0.08, 0.15, 0.18	0.04, 0.06, 0.08, 0.14, 0.19
PN	0.03, 0.04, 0.17, 0.32, 0.44, 0.64	0.03, 0.06, 0.09, 0.17, 0.19, 0.25, 0.44, 0.64, 0.74
PR	0.04, 0.16	0.06, 0.64
PLT	0.12, 0.21	0.12, 0.15, 0.17, 0.21, 0.44, 0.89
PZ	0.15, 0.25, 0.69	0.04, 0.09, 0.16, 0.18, 0.25, 0.31, 0.69
RC	0.03, 0.13, 0.21, 0.76	0.03, 0.04, 0.06, 0.09, 0.20, 0.23, 0.26, 0.35, 0.45, 0.67, 0.76
SO	0.09, 0.16,
SA	0.05, 0.09, 0.13, 0.20, 0.25, 0.29, 0.39, 0.49, 0.63, 0.70, 0.80, 0.89	0.06, 0.14, 0.29, 0.63, 0.82, 0.88
SV	0.12	0.02, 0.14
TC	0.01, 0.09, 0.13, 0.16, 0.25	0.26, 0.9
TA	0.12, 0.19, 0.26	0.05, 0.12, 0.24, 0.45, 0.52, 0.66
TD	0.09, 0.14, 0.23
ZA	0.07, 0.09, 0.11, 0.14, 0.18, 0.24, 0.27, 0.34, 0.41	0.04, 0.14, 0.21, 0.25,0.30, 0.35, 0.39, 0.45, 0.55, 0.67, 0.74
ZO	0.11, 0.14, 0.19

Abbreviations: HPTLC, high-performance thin-layer chromatography; GTK, guggulutiktam kashayam.

Figure 2.

Abbreviations: HPTLC, high-performance thin-layer chromatography; JA, justicia adhatoda; SO, scindapsus officinalis; ZO, zingiber officinale; PLT, pluchea lanceolata; PL, piper longum; RC, rubia cordifolia; AI, azadirachta indica; CD, cedrus deodara; CP, cissampelos pareira; CW, commiphora wightii; CL, curcuma longa; DC, dolomiaea costus; ET, embelia tsjeriam-cottam; FV, foeniculum vulgare; HP, holarrhena pubescens; PK, picrorhiza kurroa; PN, piper nigrum; PR, piper retrofractum; PZ, plumbago zeylanica; SA, semecarpus anacardium; SV, solanum virginianum; TC, tinospora cordifolia; TA, trachyspermum ammi; TD, trichosanthes dioica; ZA, zanthoxylum armatum; AH, aconitum heterophyllum; AP, aconitum palmatum; AC, acorus calamus; GTK, guggulutiktam kashayam.

Comparative chemical profiling showed that there are differences in the chemical pattern of the finished formulation with respect to the chemical constituents of all the ingredient plants. The changes might be due to the chemical interactions of various phytochemicals extracted from the different raw drugs. Evidence is reported to support the occurrence of synergy within a total extract of a single herb as well as between different herbs in a formulation. Positive and negative aspects of interactions, including antagonistic reactions, have also been reported (Hemaiswarya et al., 2022; Williamson, 2001; Zhou et al., 2016). The present study also supports the previous reports on the herb-herb interaction and synergistic and antagonistic chemical reactions possibly happening during the preparation of PHFs.

Discussion

The majority of the herbal formulations used in Ayurveda are polyherbal in nature and contain multiple ingredient plants. Quality standardization of each ingredient drug is very important as it directly affects the quality and safety of the finished formulation. The phytochemical standardization achieved by multiple chemical profiling, along with preliminary screening and quantification of marker compounds, can assure the reproducibility of the activity of the PHFs. The clinically pertinent scientific data to support the asserted synergistic therapeutic effects of Ayurvedic PHFs needs to be established (Tungmunnithum et al., 2018). Phytochemical studies have been reported in some other finished formulations like Pathyashadangam Kwath, Trikatu Churna, and so on (Govindarajan et al., 2016; Abraham et al, 2020; Karigar, 2021; Kurian et al., 2021). In this study, a comparative phytochemical evaluation of the ingredient plants of an important PHF has been carried out using various chromatographic and spectrophotometric techniques. Quality standardization has been ensured with the API (Dinakaran et al., 2019). Major classes of compounds, such as TPC and flavonoids, were estimated by photometric assays. Chemical fingerprints have been compared by HPTLC analysis. Comparative evaluation of PHFs with respect to their ingredient plants is a novel analytical method to ensure their quality and to understand chemical transformations happening during the preparation of the product. The chemical constituents of the finished formulations are the cumulative compounds extracted after several interactions among the various phytoconstituents from different ingredient plants (Sulaiman et al., 2021). The present study also confirms the synergistic and antagonistic reactions occurring in polyherbal preparations. In the case of TPC and flavonoids, the value of GTK is much lower compared to that of individual drugs. The banding pattern of HPTLC also confirms the possibility of such interactions in the formulation. Certain specific compounds from individual plants were also identified in the formulation, and some other bands were found to be absent in the formulation. This might be due to the chemical transformations and interactions that happened during the preparation.

Conclusion

The phytochemical evaluation of PHF is the very first step in the correlation of their biological properties with the active compounds identified. In the case of Ayurvedic formulations, all the compounds are important, irrespective of their abundance. Hence, comparative chromatographic fingerprinting is a useful tool to understand the chemical pattern of formulations along with ingredient drugs. In this study, comparative phytochemical studies have been carried out in an important Ayurvedic formulation with respect to all of the ingredient drugs. Quality standardization of all the raw materials was done as per the pharmacopoeial standards. Major groups of chemicals, such as total phenols and total flavonoids, have been estimated, and chromatographic comparison was done by HPTLC profiling. The result of the study showed the differences in the chemical constituents of the finished formulation when compared to its ingredient drugs, which provide a lead for further studies to confirm the synergy and antagonism in the selected formulation.

Footnotes

Summary

GTK is an important Ayurvedic PHF that contains a variety of phytoconstituents with numerous biological properties.

Abbreviations

GTK: guggulutiktam kashayam; HPTLC: high-performance thin-layer chromatography; API: ayurvedic pharmacopoeia of India; TPC: total phenolic content; GaE: gallic acid equivalent; PHF: poly herbal formulation; ATS: automatic TLC sampler; AH: aconitum heterophyllum; AP: aconitum palmatum; AC: acorus calamus; AI: azadirachta indica; CD: cedrus deodara; CP: cissampelos pareira; CW: commiphora wightii; CL: curcuma longa; DC: dolomiaea costus; ET: embelia tsjeriam-cottam; FV: foeniculum vulgare; HP: holarrhena pubescens; JA: justicia adhatoda; PK: picrorhiza kurroa; PL: piper longum; PN: piper nigrum; PR: piper retrofractum; PLT: pluchea lanceolata; PZ: plumbago zeylanica; RC: rubia cordifolia; SO: scindapsus officinalis; SA: semecarpus anacardium; SV: solanum virginianum; TC: tinospora cordifolia; TA: trachyspermum ammi; TD: trichosanthes dioica; ZA: zanthoxylum armatum; ZO: zingiber officinale.

Acknowledgment

The authors are thankful to the Ministry of AYUSH, Government of India for financial assistance.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

This work is based on the research funded by the Ministry of AYUSH, Government of India under the Centre of Excellence component of Ayurswasthyayojana.

ORCID iD

Cheruthazhakkat Sulaiman

References

Abraham

, Samuel

, & Mathew

(2020). Phytochemical analysis of Pathyashadangam kwath and its standardization by HPLC and HPTLC. Journal of Ayurveda and Integrative Medicine , 11(2), 153–158. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaim.2017.10.011

Akhtar

M. S.

, Rafiullah

, Shehata

W. A.

, Hossain

, & Ali

(2022). Comparative phytochemical, thin layer chromatographic profiling and antioxidant activity of extracts from some Indian herbal drugs. Journal of Bioresources and Bioproducts , 7(2), 128–134. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobab.2022.01.001

Aslam

, Jahan

, Rahman

, Zafar

, & Ashraf

M. Y.

(2017). Synergistic interactions of polyphenols and their effect on antiradical potential. Pakistan Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences , 30(4), 1297–1304.

Dinakaran

S. K.

, Chelle

, & Avasarala

(2018). Profiling and determination of phenolic compounds in poly herbal formulations and their comparative evaluation. Journal of Traditional and Complementary Medicine , 9(4), 319–327. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtcme.2017.12.001

Govindarajan

, Chinnapillai

, Balasundaram

, Narasimhaji

C. V.

, Ganji

, & Raju

(2016). Pharmacognostical and phytochemical evaluation of a polyherbal ayurvedic formulation trikatu Churna. Journal of Ayurveda Medical Sciences , 1(1), 34–40. https://doi.org/10.5530/jams.2016.1.5

Hemaiswarya

, Prabhakar

P. K.

, & Doble

(2022). Future prospects on synergistic herb-drug interactions. In: Herb-drug combinations (pp. 265−272). Singapore: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-5125-1_18

Jeevitha

, Ravi

P. V.

, Subramaniyam

, Pichumani

, & Sripathi

S. K.

(2021). Exploring the phyto- and physicochemical evaluation, fluorescence characteristics, and antioxidant activities of Acacia ferruginea DC: An endangered medicinal plant. Future Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences , 7(1), 228. https://doi.org/10.1186/s43094-021-00375-4

Karigar

S. B.

(2021). Classical utility of Panchatikta Guggulu Ghrita in its indications- literary review. International Ayurvedic Medical Journal , 9(6), 1266–1273. https://doi.org/10.46607/iamj1909062021

Kurian

, George

, & Thomas

(2021). A review on phytochemical characterization of Kwatha–ayurvedic polyherbal formulation. Journal of Natural Remedies , 21(2), 87–98. https://doi.org/10.18311/jnr/2021/25730

10.

Lalhriatpuii

(2020). HPTLC fingerprint in herbal drug formulations. In: Sen

& Chakraborty

(Eds.), Herbal medicine in India . Singapore: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-7248-3_22

11.

Mehmood

, Javid

, Khan

M. F.

, Ahmad

K. S.

, & Mustafa

(2022). In vitro total phenolics, total flavonoids, antioxidant and antibacterial activities of selected medicinal plants using different solvent systems. BMC Chemistry , 16(1), 64. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13065-022-00858-2

12.

Ministry of Health and Family Welfare. (2003). The ayurvedic formulary of India Part I (2nd rev. English ed., p. 91). Government of India.

13.

Parasuraman

, Thing

G. S.

, & Dhanaraj

S. A.

(2014). Polyherbal formulation: Concept of Ayurveda. Pharmacognosy Reviews , 8(16), 73–80. https://doi.org/10.4103/0973-7847.134229

14.

Siddiqui

, Rauf

, Latif

, & Mahmood

(2017). Spectrophotometric determination of the total phenolic content, spectral and fluorescence study of the herbal Unani drug Gul-e-Zoofa (Nepeta bracteata Benth). Journal of Taibah University Medical Sciences , 12(4), 360–363.

15.

Singh

, Kaur

, & Paul

A. T.

(2014). Physicochemical standardization, HPTLC profiling, and biological evaluation of Aśvagandhādyariṣṭa: A comparative study of three famous commercial brands. Ancient Science of Life , 33(3), 165–171. https://doi.org/10.4103/0257-7941.144621

16.

Singleton

V. L.

, & Rossi

J. A.

(1965). Colorimetry of total phenolics with phosphomolybdic-phosphotungstic acid reagents. American Journal of Enology and Viticulture , 16(3), 144–158. https://doi.org/10.5344/ajev.1965.16.3.144

17.

Sulaiman

C. T.

, & Balachandran

(2012). Total phenolics and total flavonoids in selected Indian medicinal plants. Indian Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences , 74(3), 258–260. https://doi.org/10.4103/0250-474X.106069

18.

Sulaiman

C. T.

, Anju

, Anandan

E. M.

, & Balachandran

(2021). Synergistic interactions of phytochemicals in polyherbal formulation enhance the chemical transformations of active constituents. Journal of Applied Spectroscopy , 88(1), 181–186. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10812-021-01156-w

19.

Sulaiman

C. T.

, Jyothi

C. K.

, Unnithan

J. K.

, Prabhukumar

K. M.

, & Balachandran

(2020a). Identification of suitable substitute for Sarpagandha (Rauvolfia serpentina (L.) Benth. exKurz) by phytochemical and pharmacological evaluation. Beni-Suef University Journal of Basic and Applied Sciences , 9(1), 42. https://doi.org/10.1186/s43088-020-00069-5

20.

Sulaiman

C. T.

, Ramesh

P. R.

, Mahesh

, Madhu

K. M.

, Anandan

E. M.

, Praveen

, & Balachandran

(2020b). Chemical profiling of a Polyherbal formulation by tandem mass spectroscopic analysis with multiple ionization techniques. Future Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences , 6(1), 40. https://doi.org/10.1186/s43094-020-00062-w

21.

Sulaiman

C. T.

, Jyothi

C. K.

, Unnithan

J. K.

, Prabhukumar

K. M.

, & Balachandran

(2022). Phytochemical characterization and evaluation of Antiurolithiatic activity of selected source plants of Pashanabheda. Clinical Phytoscience , 8(1), 12. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40816-022-00344-1

22.

Sulaiman

C. T.

, Thushar

K. V.

, Satheesh

, & Balachandran

(2014). Phenolic characterization of selected Salacia species using LC-ESI-MS/MS analysis. Natural Product Research , 28(13), 1021–1024, https://doi.org/10.1080/14786419.2014.905562

23.

The ayurvedic pharmacopoeia of India. (2001). Government of India Ministry of Health and family welfare . Department of Ayush.

24.

Tungmunnithum

, Thongboonyou

, Pholboon

, & Yangsabai

(2018). Flavonoids and other phenolic compounds from medicinal plants for pharmaceutical and medical aspects: An overview. Medicines , 5(3), 93. https://doi.org/10.3390/medicines5030093

25.

Williamson

E. M.

(2001). Synergy and other interactions in Phytomedicines. Phytomedicine , 8(5), 401–409. https://doi.org/10.1078/0944-7113-00060

26.

Zhou

, Seto

S. W.

, Chang

, Kiat

, Razmovski-Naumovski

, Chan

, & Bensoussan

(2016). Synergistic effects of Chinese herbal medicine: A comprehensive review of methodology and current research. Frontiers in Pharmacology , 7, 201. https://doi.org/10.3389/fphar.2016.00201

Comparative Chemical Profiling of a Polyherbal Formulation with Respect to its Ingredient Plants Using Spectrophotometric and High-performance Thin-layer Chromatographic Techniques

Abstract

Background

Objectives

Materials and Methods

Results

Conclusion

Keywords

Introduction

Materials and Methods

List of Ingredient Plants of GTK.

Preparation of Extracts

Physicochemical Screening

Estimation of Phenolics

HPTLC Profiling

Results

Physicochemical Screening

Physicochemical Parameters of Ingredient Plants of GTK.

Estimation of Major Phytochemicals

Calibration of Curve of Gallic Acid Standard.

Spectrophotometric Estimation of TPC in GTK and its Ingredient Drugs.

HPTLC Profiling

HPTLC R f Values of Various Compounds Separated from GTK and its Ingredient Plants.

Discussion

Conclusion

Footnotes

Summary

Abbreviations

Acknowledgment

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

Funding

ORCID iD

References

HPTLC R _f Values of Various Compounds Separated from GTK and its Ingredient Plants.