净厚朴与姜厚朴水煎液主要药理学比较.pdfVIP

2007 27 11 Chin Hosp Pharm J, 2007 Nov, Vol 27, No. 11 1503 : [ 3] , , , . [ 1] . [ S] . 2005: 198. [J] . . 2007, 4: 4445. [2] , , . [J] . [] , 2005, 7( 8) : 3032. 许腊英,胡静, 翁德会,李霞,李凯, 万芳 ( , 4 300 61) [ ] :观察净厚朴和姜厚朴的主要药理学变化: 小鼠灌 数天后, 利用经典的小肠推进盐酸性溃疡番泻叶 致泻二甲苯耳肿胀实验来比较炮制前后厚朴的双向调节 肠活动和抗炎作用的变化: 以上4 项作用, 小肠推进作用 净厚朴 姜厚朴,抗盐酸性溃疡作用净厚朴 姜厚朴, 抗番泻叶腹泻和抗炎作用二者无明显差异: 中药厚朴的炮制是 有必要的本实验简单易行, 易出结果 [ ] 厚朴; 制剂; 药理 [ ] R285. 6 [ ] A [ ] 100152 13( 2007) Comparison between Houpo and ginger Houpo in main pharmacology XU Laying, HU Jing, WENG ehui,LI Xia,LI Kai ,WAN Fang ( Hubeicollege of T raditional Chinese medicine ) ABSTRACT:OBJECTI E To observe the main pharmacologic variety of Houpo and ginger Houpo. METHODS After few days of infuseing the drugs to rats, the classic experiments, such as intestinal propulsion, ulceration caused by hydrochloric acid, diarrhoea caused by Fanxieye, ear swelling resulted by the xylene were used, then compared the variety of functions.RE SULTS The function of intesties propulsion is stronger in Houpo Houpo group than that in ginger Houpo group ,the function of against ulceration caused by hydrochloric acid is stronger in ginger Houpo group, and there is no obvious difference between the groups in the functions of agaist diarrhoea and inflammation. CONCLUSION M agnolia officinalis paozhi integrant. KEY WORDS:Houpo; preparation;pharmacology (M ag noli a of f ic inal is () , 500 g / L; Rehd.et Wils) ( M ag nol ia of f ic inal is ( , 0509035, - 1 Rehd. et Wils. Var. biloba Rehd. et wils) 5 gL ) ; ( ( ) ( ) , , 051223, 2 g - 1 , L ) ; ( , - 1 ,, , ,