Fig.1 Positive and negative ion mode ion current chromatograms of Pulsatilla Decoction standard decoction (SD) and formula granules (FG). A: Positive ion mode ion current chromatogram of Pulsatilla Decoction SD. B: Positive ion mode ion current chromatogram of Pulsatilla Decoction FG. C: Negative ion mode ion current chromatogram of Pulsatilla Decoction SD. D: Negative ion mode ion current chromatogram of Pulsatilla Decoction FG.

Fig.2 Identification of chemical components in Pulsatilla Decoction. A: Positive ion mode ion current chromatogram of Pulsatilla Decoction SD. B: Negative ion mode ion current chromatogram of Pulsatilla Decoction SD.

Fig.3 Reference characteristic chromatogram of PD and chromatographic fingerprints of different batches of SD and FG. A: Reference characteristic chromatogram of PD. B: Chromatographic fingerprints of different batches of SD and FG. 3: Esculin; 7: Fraxin; 8: Esculetin; 10: Phellodendrine; 13: Columbamine; 14: Epiberberine; 15: Jatrorrhizine; 16: Coptisine; 17: Palmatine; 18: Berberine; 19: Pulsatilla saponin B4; 20: Pulsatilla saponin B5; 21: Obaculactone. S1-S15 are the chromatograms of 15 batches of standard decoction, S16-S18 are the chromatograms of 3 batches of formula granules, and R is the reference chromatogram.

Fig.4 HPLC specificity control chromatogram of Pulsatilla decoction (200 nm). a: Test solution; b: Negative control solution without Fraxini Cortex; c: Negative control solution without Pulsatillae Radix; d: Negative control solution without Phellodendri Chinensis Cortex; e: Negative control solution without Coptidis Rhizoma; f: Mixed reference solution; 1: Esculin; 2: Fraxin; 3: Esculetin; 4: Phellodendrine; 11: Pulsatilla saponin B4; 12: Pulsatilla saponin B5; 13: Obaculactone.

Fig.5 HPLC specificity control chromatogram of Pulsatilla decoction (226 nm). a: Test solution; b: Negative control solution without Fraxini Cortex; c: Negative control solution without Pulsatillae Radix; d: Negative control solution without Phellodendri Chinensis Cortex; e: Negative control solution without Coptidis Rhizoma; f: Mixed reference solution; 5: Columbamine, 6: Epiberberine, 7: Jatrorrhizine, 8: Coptisine, 9: Palmatine, 10: Berberine.

Fig.6 Comparison of the contents of 13 marker components. A: Low-content component comparison (n=3); B: High-content component comparison (n=3). **P<0.01 vs standard decoction.

Fig.7 Comparison of basic physical conditions of mice of each group. A: Body weight change (n=8). B: DAI score (n=8). C: Representative images of colon. D: Colon length (n=8). Comparisons were performed using one-way ANOVA for multiple groups, ##P<0.01 vs N group; **P<0.01 vs M group.

Fig.8 Comparison of colonic histopathology of the mice in each group. A: HE staining. B: Pathological score (n=8). ##P<0.01 vs NC group; **P<0.01 vs M group.

Fig.9 Comparison of serum inflammatory cytokine levels among the groups (n=6). A: IL-4. B: IL-10. C: TNF-α. D: IL-6. E: IL-1β. ##P<0.01 vs NC group; *P<0.05, **P<0.01 vs M group.

Fig.10 Representative immunohistochemical images and quantitative analysis of tight junction protein claudin-1 in intestinal tissues of mice in different groups. A: Representative immunohistochemical images of claudin-1; B: Protein expression of claudin-1 (n=3). ##P<0.01 vs NC group; **P<0.01 vs M group.

Fig.11 Representative immunohistochemical images and quantitative analysis of tight junction protein ZO-1 in intestinal tissues of mice in different groups. A: Representative immunohistochemical images of ZO-1. B: Protein expression of ZO-1 (n=3). ##P<0.01 vs NC group; *P<0.05, **P<0.01 vs M group.