| Literature DB >> 25978064 |
Rafael Melo Palhares1, Marcela Gonçalves Drummond2, Bruno Dos Santos Alves Figueiredo Brasil3, Gustavo Pereira Cosenza4, Maria das Graças Lins Brandão5, Guilherme Oliveira6.
Abstract
Medicinal plants are used throughout the world, and the regulations defining their proper use, such as identification of the correct species and verification of the presence, purity and concentration of the required chemical compounds, are widely recognized. Herbal medicines are made from vegetal drugs, the processed products of medicinal species. These processed materials present a number of challenges in terms of botanical identification, and according to the World Health Organization (WHO), the use of incorrect species is a threat to consumer safety. The samples used in this study consisted of the dried leaves, flowers and roots of 257 samples from 8 distinct species approved by the WHO for the production of medicinal herbs and sold in Brazilian markets. Identification of the samples in this study using DNA barcoding (matK, rbcL and ITS2 regions) revealed that the level of substitutions may be as high as 71%. Using qualitative and quantitative chemical analyses, this study identified situations in which the correct species was being sold, but the chemical compounds were not present. Even more troubling, some samples identified as substitutions using DNA barcoding contained the chemical compounds from the correct species at the minimum required concentration. This last situation may lead to the use of unknown species or species whose safety for human consumption remains unknown. This study concludes that DNA barcoding should be used in a complementary manner for species identification with chemical analyses to detect and quantify the required chemical compounds, thus improving the quality of this class of medicines.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2015 PMID: 25978064 PMCID: PMC4433216 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0127866
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Species analyzed in this study and their therapeutical recommendations.
| Species | Recommended uses | Number of samples | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| Topically for minor skin lesions, bruises and sprains, local inflammation of the skin and mucous membranes, hemorrhoids and varicose veins [ | 32 | ||
|
|
|
| ||
|
| Symptomatic treatment of digestive ailments, treatment of restlessness and insomnia due to nervous disorders [ | Inflammation and irritations of the skin and mucosa, including irritations and infections of the mouth and gums, and hemorrhoids [ | Symptomatic relief on irritations of the respiratory tract due to common cold [ | 31 |
|
| Treatment of dyspepsia, gastritis and gastroduodenal ulcer [ | 33 | ||
|
| Bronchodilatador and expectorant [ | 31 | ||
|
| Prophylactic and restorative agent for enhancement of mental and physical capacities, in cases of weakness, exhaustion, tiredness, and loss of concentration, and during convalescence [ | 31 | ||
|
| Mild sedative for nervous restlessness, insomnia and anxiety. Treatment of gastrointestinal disorders of nervous origins [ | 30 | ||
|
| Treatment of functional dyspepsia and gastrointestinal disorders, cholagogue and choleretic [ | 34 | ||
|
| Mild sedative and sleep promoting agent. Often used as a milder alternative or a possible substitute for stronger synthetic sedatives in treatment of nervous excitation and anxiety-induced sleep disturbances [ | 35 | ||
Conditions used for the chemical analyses.
| Species | TLC | TLC | HPLC | UV |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mobile phase | Developer solution | Mobile phase | Diluent and absorbancy | |
|
| Formic acid anidrous: water: ethyl acetate (10:10:80) | Ferric chloride | - | Phosphomolybdotungistc 760 nm |
|
| Ethyl acetate: toluene (5:95) | Anisaldehyde | Phase A (Phosphoric acid: water) 0,5:99,5 Phase B (Phosphoric acid: acetonitrile) 0,5:99,5 | - |
|
| Ethyl acetate: Formic acid: water (90:5:5) | Vanillin sulfuric | Phase A (water: trifluoroacetic acid 0,05%) Phase B (Acetonitrile: trifluoroacetic acid 0,05%) | - |
|
| Toluene: dicholomethane: acetone (45:25:30) | Ethanolic KOH (50%) | Methanol: water (47:53) | - |
|
| Butyl alcohol: ethyl acetate: water (10:2,5:5) | Anisaldehyde in glacial acetic acid plus methanol | Phase A (water) Phase B (Acetonitrile: water) 4:1 | - |
|
| Anhydrous formic acid: water: methyl ethyl ketone: ethyl acetate (10:10:30:50) | Diphenyl boric acid amino ethyl ester in methanol plus macrogol in methanol | - | Methanol (10 volumes): Glacial acetic acid (100 volumes): Boric acid 25 g/L (10 mL): oxalic acid (20 g/L) in formic acid anidrous 401nm |
|
| Diethylamine: metanol: toluene (10:10:80) | Potassium iodobismutate | Phase A (0,2 mL Diethylamine: 99,8 mL acetonitrile) Phase B (0,2 mL Diethylamine: 99,8 mL water) | - |
|
| Glacial acetic acid: ethyl acetate: cyclohexane (2:38:60) | Anisaldehyde | Phase A (Acetonitrile R1 + Phosphoric acid solution 5 g/L) 20:80 Phase B (Phosphoric acid solution 5 g/L + Acetonitrile R1) 20:80 | - |
Fig 1Percentage of samples analyzed according to species and genetic marker.
Fig 2Identification levels for the analyzed samples when using each or a combination of the chosen markers.
No sequence: samples for which the DNA barcoding protocol did not work. Unidentified: samples that could not be identified. The sequences from these samples did not show similarity levels above 98% to any of the sequences within the databases. Family: samples that could be identified at the family level. The sequences from these samples showed equal similarity levels to database sequences from multiple species belonging to the same family. Genus: samples that could be identified to the genus level. The sequences from these samples showed equal similarity levels to database sequences from multiple species belonging to the same genus. Species: samples that could be identified to the species level. The sequences from these samples showed similarity levels above 98% to database sequences from a unique species.
Barcode gap analyses.
| SPECIES | MAXIMUM INTRASEPECIFIC DIVERGENCE | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 0,026 | X | 0,019 | 0,026 | 0,033 |
|
| 0,00042 | 0,00068 | 0,0058 | 0,00024 | 0,0014 |
|
| X | 0,016 | X | 0,028 | X |
|
| 0,0017 | 0,0005 | 0,02 | 0,0005 | 0,0058 |
|
| 0,024 | 0,021 | X | 0,028 | 0,046 |
|
| X | X | X | 0,035 | 0,038 |
|
| Not applicable | ||||
|
| X | X | 0,08 | X | 0,046 |
The numbers represent the maximum intra-specific divergence. Values above this number were considered as a different species.
X—The Barcode Gap was not calculated because there was no clear division between intra- and interspecific genetic divergence.
*The genus Peumus possess only one specie, which makes the Barcode Gap not applicable.
Fig 3DNA final barcode identification of the analyzed samples.
Fig 4Comparison between the DNA barcode and TLC findings.
ID: sample number. Green: samples that were identified as the expected medicinal species using DNA barcoding and that contained the expected chemical marker from the medicinal species according to TLC. Yellow: samples that were not identified within the genus of the medicinal species using DNA barcoding. Red: samples that were identified using DNA barcoding as a genus or family that varied from the expected one and that did not contain the chemical marker according to TLC. X: samples that did not generate any sequence using DNA barcoding or that could not be tested using TLC. -: absent samples.
Molecular identification versus TLC, HPLC and UV analyses.
| Species, minimal [] of chemical markers and method of dosage | Samples | Molecular identification | Chemical TLC | Markers Content |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| 01 |
| Present | 3,59% |
| 02 |
| Not Present | 0,57% | |
| 07 |
| Not Present | 0,23% | |
| 08 |
| Present | 4,22% | |
| 09 | Unidentified | Not Present | 0,61% | |
| 12 |
| Present | 4,04% | |
| 17 |
| Present | 4,43% | |
| 22 |
| Not Present | 0,84% | |
| 23 |
| Not Present | 0,20% | |
| 28 |
| Present | 4,13% | |
|
| 05 |
| Present | 0,005% |
| 20 |
| Present | 0,001% | |
| 24 |
| Present | 0,001% | |
| 27 |
| Present | 0,002% | |
|
| 06 |
| Present | 26,32 mg/g |
| 10 |
| Present | 79,80 mg/g | |
| 22 |
| Not Present | - | |
| 24 | Fabaceae | Not Present | - | |
| 28 |
| Present | 107,44 mg/g | |
|
| 04 |
| Present | 0,038% |
| 15 |
| Present | 0,020% | |
| 26 |
| Present | 0,011% | |
|
| 05 |
| Not Present | - |
| 08 |
| Not Present | - | |
| 10 | Amaranthaceae | Not Present | - | |
| 13 |
| Not Present | - | |
| 25 |
| Not Present | - | |
|
| 01 |
| Not Present | 0,126% |
| 03 |
| Present | 1,614% | |
| 08 |
| Present | 1,58% | |
| 13 |
| Present | 0,833% | |
| 18 |
| Not Present | 0,154% | |
| 21 |
| Present | 0,97% | |
| 29 |
| Not Present | 0,229% | |
|
| 06 |
| Not Present | - |
| 08 |
| Present | 0,33% | |
| 26 |
| Present | 0,72% | |
| 31 |
| Present | 0,29% | |
|
| 02 |
| Not present | - |
| 04 | No sequence | Not present | - | |
| 06 |
| Not present | - | |
| 09 | Unidentified | Not present | - | |
| 22 |
| Not present | - | |
| 24 |
| Present | 0,037% | |
| 25 |
| Present | 0,023% | |
| 29 |
| Present | 0,050% | |
| 32 |
| Not present | - |