Objective:To prepare IL-12 modified with polyethylene glycol derivatives and determine its modification sites,and to evaluate it in vitro in terms of stability,hemogram recovery,anti-tumor effects and other aspects.Methods:IL-12 was modified with polyethylene glycol propionaldehyde and maleimide imide derivatives,and modified sites of two different derivatives were deter-mined by ultra performance liquid chromatography(UPLC).Recombinant human IL-12 and PEG-IL-12 were used to stimulate NK92 cells,activity and cytotoxicity of IFN-γ were evaluated by kits.CD34+was stimulated to evaluate its blood picture recovery potential.NK cell killing was stimulated to evaluate its effectiveness in improving immunity and anti-tumor effects.Results:Compared with recombinant human IL-12,PEG-IL-12 had higher stability,blood picture recovery potential and anti-tumor effects.Conclusion:PEG-IL-12 can effectively overcome many drawbacks of recombinant human IL-12,greatly improving possibility of its widespread applica-tion in clinical trials.

OBJECTIVE To analyze the compositional differences between Fructus Tritici Levis and Triticum aestivum， and to provide reference for identification and quality control of both. METHODS Twenty batches of Fructus Tritici Levis and three batches of T. aestivum were collected， and their fingerprints were acquired by high-performance liquid chromatography and the similarities were evaluated by the Evaluation System of Similarity of Chromatographic Fingerprints of Traditional Chinese Medicine （2012 version）. Cluster analysis （CA）， principal component analysis （PCA） and orthogonal partial least squares-discriminant analysis （OPLS-DA） were performed to analyze the difference of Fructus Tritici Levis and T. aestivum from different regions， and the differential components were screened. The contents of the six identified components in Fructus Tritici Levis and T. aestivum were determined. RESULTS The similarities of the fingerprints of Fructus Tritici Levis ranged from 0.928 to 0.996， and the relative similarities of T. aestivum with Fructus Tritici Levis ranged from 0.761 to 0.773. A total of 19 common peaks were calibrated， and six components including linolenic acid， linoleic acid， 5-heptadecylresorcinol， 5-nonadodecylresorcinol， 5- heneicosylresorcinol， and 5-tricosylresorcinol were identified. The results of CA and PCA showed that Fructus Tritici Levis and T. aestivum could be clearly distinguished； the distribution of Fructus Tritici Levis from Anhui province was relatively concentrated. The results of OPLS-DA showed that linolenic acid， linoleic acid， and other six unknown compounds were the differential components between Fructus Tritici Levis and T. aestivum. The average contents of the six identified components in Fructus Tritici Levis were 0.100 9， 1.094 0， 0.005 1， 0.030 9， 0.098 2，and 0.024 8 mg/g， respectively； the contents of linolenic acid and linoleic acid in Fructus Tritici Levis were significantly higher than those in T. aestivum （P＜0.05）.CONCLUSIONS The established qualitative and quantitative methods are simple and reliable， and can be used for the identification and quality evaluation of Fructus Tritici Levis and T. aestivum. The identified differential components， such as linolenic acid and linoleic acid， can also provide clues for the differentiation and pharmacological study of Fructus Tritici Levis and T. aestivum.

OBJECTIVE To analyze the compositional differences between Fructus Tritici Levis and Triticum aestivum， and to provide reference for identification and quality control of both. METHODS Twenty batches of Fructus Tritici Levis and three batches of T. aestivum were collected， and their fingerprints were acquired by high-performance liquid chromatography and the similarities were evaluated by the Evaluation System of Similarity of Chromatographic Fingerprints of Traditional Chinese Medicine （2012 version）. Cluster analysis （CA）， principal component analysis （PCA） and orthogonal partial least squares-discriminant analysis （OPLS-DA） were performed to analyze the difference of Fructus Tritici Levis and T. aestivum from different regions， and the differential components were screened. The contents of the six identified components in Fructus Tritici Levis and T. aestivum were determined. RESULTS The similarities of the fingerprints of Fructus Tritici Levis ranged from 0.928 to 0.996， and the relative similarities of T. aestivum with Fructus Tritici Levis ranged from 0.761 to 0.773. A total of 19 common peaks were calibrated， and six components including linolenic acid， linoleic acid， 5-heptadecylresorcinol， 5-nonadodecylresorcinol， 5- heneicosylresorcinol， and 5-tricosylresorcinol were identified. The results of CA and PCA showed that Fructus Tritici Levis and T. aestivum could be clearly distinguished； the distribution of Fructus Tritici Levis from Anhui province was relatively concentrated. The results of OPLS-DA showed that linolenic acid， linoleic acid， and other six unknown compounds were the differential components between Fructus Tritici Levis and T. aestivum. The average contents of the six identified components in Fructus Tritici Levis were 0.100 9， 1.094 0， 0.005 1， 0.030 9， 0.098 2，and 0.024 8 mg/g， respectively； the contents of linolenic acid and linoleic acid in Fructus Tritici Levis were significantly higher than those in T. aestivum （P＜0.05）.CONCLUSIONS The established qualitative and quantitative methods are simple and reliable， and can be used for the identification and quality evaluation of Fructus Tritici Levis and T. aestivum. The identified differential components， such as linolenic acid and linoleic acid， can also provide clues for the differentiation and pharmacological study of Fructus Tritici Levis and T. aestivum.