1338
The seeds (1.2 kg) of Bupleurum falcatum L. used for cultivating at
Vol. 59, No. 11
(Ref.), 10, 30, 90, 200, 500 mM were 31.50ꢆ0.6, 33.00ꢆ0.5, 30.00ꢆ1.4,
30.50ꢆ1.0, 30.00ꢆ, 25.25ꢆ0.5 (IU/l), respectively. The value of 8 at 0
(Ref.), 10, 30, 90, 200, 500 mM were 33.25ꢆ2.1, 33.00ꢆ2.1, 32.00ꢆ0.8,
31.75ꢆ1.5, 31.25ꢆ2.0, 29.00ꢆ1.2 (IU/l), respectively. The control value 4,
10, 11, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 and 21 was 9.17ꢆ1.4 (IU/l). The value of 4 at
0 (Ref.), 10, 30, 90, 200, 500 mM were 17.25ꢆ1.4, 23.25ꢆ2.9, 22.00ꢆ1.7,
21.25ꢆ1.8, 19.50ꢆ3.3, 26.00ꢆ1.0 (IU/l), respectively. The value of 10 at 0
(Ref.), 10, 30, 90, 200, 500 mM were 26.25ꢆ2.7, 28.00ꢆ15, 27.50ꢆ1.7,
30.25ꢆ3.3, 26.75ꢆ2.1, 72.25ꢆ3.0 (IU/l), respectively. The value of 11 at 0
(Ref.), 10, 30, 90, 200, 500 mM were 19.00ꢆ2.4, 23.25ꢆ1.3, 20.75ꢆ2.6,
20.00ꢆ3.8, 18.25ꢆ1.5, 20.00ꢆ2.8 (IU/l), respectively. The value of 15 at 0
(Ref.), 10, 30, 90, 200, 500 mM were 33.25ꢆ3.0, 28.00ꢆ6.1, 27.25ꢆ1.9,
34.25ꢆ5.3, 37.75ꢆ4.1, 32.00ꢆ1.8 (IU/l), respectively. The value of 16 at 0
(Ref.), 10, 30, 90, 200, 500 mM were 21.00ꢆ2.2, 22.50ꢆ1.0, 26.25ꢆ4.2,
23.00ꢆ1.4, 16.25ꢆ0.5, 23.50ꢆ1.3 (IU/l), respectively. The value of 17 at 0
(Ref.), 10, 30, 90, 200, 500 mM were 18.75ꢆ2.2, 21.75ꢆ1.7, 22.25ꢆ3.2,
23.00ꢆ1.8, 20.25ꢆ0.9, 21.00ꢆ1.8 (IU/l), respectively. The value of 18 at 0
(Ref.), 10, 30, 90, 200, 500 mM were 19.00ꢆ1.8, 24.75ꢆ4.3, 23.00ꢆ3.4,
21.75ꢆ3.3, 20.00ꢆ1.2, 15.00ꢆ1.8 (IU/l), respectively. The value of 19 at 0
(Ref.), 10, 30, 90, 200, 500 mM were 23.2ꢆ1.0, 23.25ꢆ0.5, 21.25ꢆ2.1,
22.00ꢆ1.2, 20.25ꢆ1.3, 18.75ꢆ3.1 (IU/l), respectively. The value of 20 at 0
(Ref.), 10, 30, 90, 200, 500 mM were 19.75ꢆ3.0, 24.25ꢆ2.5, 22.75ꢆ2.2,
22.00ꢆ1.4, 21.00ꢆ3.0, 15.25ꢆ3.0 (IU/l), respectively. The value of 21 at 0
(Ref.), 10, 30, 90, 200, 500 mM were 16.50ꢆ3.0, 19.25ꢆ1.7, 20.00ꢆ2.7,
18.75ꢆ1.3, 16.75ꢆ1.7, 14.50ꢆ1.7 (IU/l), respectively. The control value 24
and 25 was 17.54ꢆ1.4 (IU/l). The value of 24 at 0 (Ref.), 10, 30, 90, 200,
500 mM were 38.75ꢆ2.5, 35.50ꢆ1.3, 31.75ꢆ1.7, 22.00ꢆ3.2, 27.00ꢆ2.2,
27.25ꢆ5.0 (IU/l), respectively. The value of 25 at 0 (Ref.), 10, 30, 90, 200,
500 mM were 30.25ꢆ1.5, 29.50ꢆ0.6, 29.50ꢆ1.3, 29.75ꢆ1.3, 30.25ꢆ2.2,
27.50ꢆ1.3 (IU/l), respectively. Reference (ref.) value treated with the anti-
serum and not treated with the tested sample. The percent of protection is
calculated as {1ꢂ(substanceꢂcontrol)/(ref.ꢂcontrol)}ꢅ100. The percent of
protection of glycyrrhizin (positive control) was 32% at 500 mM.
Determination of Hepatotoxicity of Saponins toward Hepatocytes
(without Anitiserum) In the same way as above, the cultured cells were
exposed to the above-prepared medium (300 ml) containing the DMSO solu-
tion (4 ml) of the test samples [final concentration 0 (Ref.), 10, 30, 90, 200,
500 mM]. Forty minute after the test samples were administered, the medium
was withdrawn for determination of ALT. The value of 1 at 0 (Ref.), 10, 30,
90, 200, 500 mM were 24.80ꢆ2.1, 23.80ꢆ5.5, 78.50ꢆ5.0, 122.00ꢆ3.7,
112.80ꢆ1.9, 96.75ꢆ3.9 (IU/l), respectively. The value of 13 at 0 (Ref.), 10,
30, 90, 200, 500 mM were 19.25ꢆ5.7, 21.25ꢆ4.8, 116.5ꢆ4.4, 135.80ꢆ13.7,
124.80ꢆ4.8, 122.80ꢆ5.3 (IU/l), respectively. The value of 14 at 0 (Ref.), 10,
30, 90, 200, 500 mM were 20.50ꢆ3.7, 20.75ꢆ2.2, 24.50ꢆ0.6, 103.30ꢆ13.3,
132.00ꢆ7.0, 143.30ꢆ12.0 (IU/l), respectively. The value of 3 at 0 (Ref.), 10,
30, 90, 200, 500 mM were 14.00ꢆ2.0, 15.50ꢆ0.6, 14.75ꢆ2.4, 16.00ꢆ0.9,
14.75ꢆ1.5, 18.00ꢆ1.6 (IU/l), respectively. The value of 8 at 0 (Ref.), 10, 30,
90, 200, 500 mM were 12.50ꢆ2.1, 14.75ꢆ1.0, 17.00ꢆ2.8, 13.00ꢆ1.7,
15.50ꢆ1.3, 17.25ꢆ2.1 (IU/l), respectively. The value of 4 at 0 (Ref.), 10, 30,
90, 200, 500 mM were 17.25ꢆ1.4, 23.25ꢆ2.9, 22.00ꢆ1.7, 21.25ꢆ1.8,
19.50ꢆ3.3, 26.00ꢆ1.0 (IU/l), respectively. The value of 10 at 0 (Ref.), 10,
30, 90, 200, 500 mM were 26.25ꢆ2.7, 28.00ꢆ1.5, 27.50ꢆ1.7, 30.25ꢆ3.3,
26.75ꢆ3.0, 27.25ꢆ1.7 (IU/l), respectively. The value of 16 at 0 (Ref.), 10,
30, 90, 200, 500 mM were 21.00ꢆ2.2, 22.50ꢆ1.0, 26.25ꢆ4.2, 23.00ꢆ1.4,
16.25ꢆ0.5, 23.5ꢆ1.7 (IU/l), respectively. The value of 18 at 0 (Ref.), 10, 30,
90, 200, 500 mM were 19.00ꢆ1.8, 24.75ꢆ4.3, 23.00ꢆ3.4, 21.75ꢆ3.3,
20.00ꢆ1.2, 15.00ꢆ0.8 (IU/l), respectively. The percent of cytotoxicity is
calculated as (sample/reference)ꢅ100. Reference is the value of hepatocytes
which were not treated with the tested samples. The value of 24 at 0 (Ref.),
10, 30, 90, 200, 500 mM were 20.75ꢆ2.5, 20.50ꢆ1.3, 20.25ꢆ1.7,
17.25ꢆ3.2, 18.50ꢆ2.2, 23.75ꢆ5.0 (IU/l), respectively. The value of 25 at 0
(Ref.), 10, 30, 90, 200, 500 mM were 19.00ꢆ1.5, 25.25ꢆ0.6, 23.75ꢆ1.3,
18.00ꢆ1.3, 21.25ꢆ2.2, 20.25ꢆ1.3 (IU/l), respectively. The percent of cyto-
toxicity is calculated as (sample/reference)ꢅ100. Reference is the value of
hepatocytes which were not treated with the tested samples. The percent of
cytotoxicity is calculated as (sample/reference)ꢅ100. Reference is the value
of hepatocytes which were not treated with the tested samples.
Kikka-cho were smashed and extracted with MeOH for 1 h, and usual work-
up gave the extractive (84.7 g), which was subjected to Diaion HP-20 with
water–MeOH, gradiently, finally recovered with acetone) to provide seven
fractions. The fr. 5 (23.2 g) eluted by 80% MeOH was chromatographed on
silica gel with CHCl3–MeOH–waterꢀ9 : 1 : 0.1—7 : 3 : 0.5 to afford fr. 5-1—
fr. 5-8. The fr. 5-1 (3.0 g) was further purified by silicagel with CHCl3–
MeOHꢀ50 : 1 and prepaartive TLC with CHCl3–MeOHꢀ15 : 1 to give
BFS-8 (9, 8 mg). The fr. 5-4 (1.5 g) was chromatographed by HPLC to give
BAS-9 (1, 13 mg), BAS-10 (12, 31 mg), and BAS-11 (10, 34 mg). From fr.
5-5 (14.6 g), fr. 5-6 (1.3 g), and fr. 5-8 (1.4 g), the respective BAS-13 (4,
28 mg), BAS-14 (11, 15 mg), and BAS-1 (2, 30 mg) were obtained by using
HPLC with 80% MeOH. The fr. 6 (9.5 g) eluted by MeOH was chro-
matographed on silica gel with CHCl3–MeOH–waterꢀ8 : 2 : 0.2 to give
BAS-16 (8, 15 mg).
The aerial parts (1.4 kg) of Bupleurum rotundifolium L. cultivated at
Oyano, Kumamoto prefecture, was cutted and refluxed with MeOH for 7 h.
Evaporation of MeOH gave the extractive (152.1 g), which was defatted with
n-hexane. The insoluble residue was passed through Diaion HP-20 eluted
with water–MeOH, gradiently, to give five fractions. A part (2.3 g) of the fr.
4 (6.6 g) eluted by 80% MeOH was various chromatographed on silica gel
with CHCl3–MeOH–waterꢀ8 : 2 : 0.2, Chromatorex ODS with 50—100%
MeOH, gradiently, and HPLC with 60% MeOH to give BRA-11 (19,
36 mg), BRA-14 (24, 69 mg), BRA-16 (20, 12 mg), BRA-17 (21, 11 mg),
BRA-22 (18, 22 mg), BRA-18 (25, 38 mg), BRA-19 (23, 6 mg), and BRA-
20 (22, 5 mg). From a part (6.5 g) of the fr. 5 (22.3 g) eluted by MeOH,
BRA-2 (15, 19 mg), BRA-3 (13, 19 mg), BRA-4 (16, 35 mg), BRA-5 (14,
60 mg), BRA-7 (17, 14 mg) by using silica gel and ODS column chro-
matographies with CHCl3–MeOH–waterꢀ8 : 2 : 0.2—7 : 3 : 0.5, and ODS
with 60—100% MeOH, gradiently.
Identification of Component Monosaccharide of the Glycosides
A
glycoside (5 mg) was dissolved in 1 N HCl–MeOH (0.5 ml) and heated at
90 °C for 1 h. The acidic solution was neutralized with an ion exchanger
resin (Amberlite IR-410) and concentrated in vacuo. The residue was
trimethylsilyalted and checked by gas–liquid chromatography (GLC). Au-
thentic sugar samples were treated in the same manner and tR values were
compared with those of the tetramethylsilyl derivatives of the metahnolysate
of the glycoside.
The absolute configurations of the component monosaccharides were de-
termined according to the method reported by Hara et al. Thus, a glycoside
(5 mg) was hydrolyzed with 1 N HCl. After neutralization with Amberliet IR-
410, the free sugars in the hydrolysate were converted into the thiazolidine
derivatives and checked by GLC after trimethylsilylation. Authentic sugar
samples were treated in the same manner and an unknown sugar was identi-
fied by comparison of its tR value with those of the authentic sugar deriav-
tives.
Animals Male Wistar rats (6 weeks old, body weight 150—160 g) and a
male New Zealand white rabbit (body weight 3 kg) were used.
Preparation of Primary Cultured Rat Hepatocytes Liver cells were
isolated to a procedure developed by Berry and Friend.23)
Preparation of Antiserum against Rat Hepatocytes The antiserum
was prepared according to the method of Shiki et al.24) An antibody to rat
hepatocytes was raised in rabbits, first by injection of 1ꢅ108 cells, followed
by four injections of 5ꢅ107 cells over a period of 4 weeks. The antiserum to
the rat hepatocytes was prepared by the method of Harboe and Ingild.25)
Determination of Hepatoprotective Activity of Compounds toward in
Vitro Immunological Liver Injury One day after the isolated rat hepato-
cytes were plated, the cultured cells were exposed to the above medium
(300 ml) containing the antiserum against rat plasma membranes (80 ml/ml)
and a dimethyl sulfoxide (DMSO) solution (4 ml) of the test samples [final
concentration 0 (reference; Ref.), 10, 30, 90, 200, 500 mM]. Forty min after
the antiserum was administered, the medium was withdrawn for determina-
tion of alanine aminotransferase (ALT). Control is the value of hepatocytes
which were not administered the antiserum. The control was hepatocytes not
treated with antiserum. The control value 1, 2, 13 and 14 was 6.48ꢆ1.4
(IU/l). The value of 1 at 0 (Ref.), 10, 30, 90, 200, 500 mM were 27.50ꢆ4.1,
24.75ꢆ2.9, 29.25ꢆ3.0, 34.50ꢆ2.2, 33.75ꢆ1.0, 33.25ꢆ1.7 (IU/l), respec-
tively. The value of 2 at 0 (ref.), 10, 30, 90, 200, 500 mM were 27.50ꢆ0.6,
24.75ꢆ1.7, 27.00ꢆ0.8, 24.75ꢆ1.0, 23.25ꢆ1.0, 18.75ꢆ0.5 (IU/l), respec-
tively. The value of 13 at 0 (Ref.), 10, 30, 90, 200, 500 mM were 26.25ꢆ4.9,
26.50ꢆ, 36.50ꢆ10.2, 36.25ꢆ3.1, 39.00ꢆ5.1, 41.00ꢆ1.5 (IU/l), respec-
tively. The value of 14 at 0 (Ref.), 10, 30, 90, 200, 500 mM were 26.00ꢆ4.9,
25.00ꢆ4.5, 26.00ꢆ1.0, 39.00ꢆ3.1, 41.00ꢆ5.1, 44.25ꢆ1.5 (IU/l), respec-
tively. The control value 3 and 8 was 17.54ꢆ1.4 (IU/l). The value of 3 at 0
Instrument and Assay Method The activities of ALT were assayed by
autoanalyzer COBAS MIRA (Roche) using commercial kits based on the
ALT assay method.26)
Statistical Analysis The data are shown as the meanꢆS.D. (nꢀ4). After
analysis of variances, Sheffe’s test was employed to determine the signifi-
cance of differences between reference and experimental samples.