| Literature DB >> 28684790 |
Rong Chen1,2,3, Jiayu Wang1, Yi Yuan1, Yun Deng4, Xianrong Lai2, Feng Du1, Juan Dong1, Xin Huang1, Xin Cui1, Zhuo Tang5,6.
Abstract
What's on the label is not what's in the bottle, from food products to herbal medicinal products (HMPs), economically-motivated biomaterials adulteration is a long-term problem affecting the food and drug industry. Accurate identification of the biomaterial ingredients in processed commodities is highly desirable. In this field, DNA-based techniques have proved to be powerful tools to overcome qualitative challenges. However, is it possible to quantify the weight of biological materials with PCR? Therefore, a basic scientific question needs to be answered: what's the relationship between DNA content and the mass of biological materials? Is DNA content directly proportional to the mass of biological materials as most of the researchers previously thought? In this study, we firstly found that there exists a linear relation between DNA contents and the weight of biomaterials indeed when the analytical practices are fully controlled. In this case, the mass of targeted biomaterials in the highly processed commercial products can also be calculated by quantifying the species-specific DNA through classic real-time PCR with a good reproducibility.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28684790 PMCID: PMC5500521 DOI: 10.1038/s41598-017-05083-9
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sci Rep ISSN: 2045-2322 Impact factor: 4.379
Figure 1(a) Amplification plot generated by Crocus sativus and its possible adulterants. (b) Amplification plot and calibration curve generated by known concentration of saffron DNA extracts.
Figure 2(a) Regression curves generated by known amount of Crocus sativus. Two regression curves from top to bottom: the DNA was extracted by commercially available direct plant DNA extraction solution (yellow), silica-based spin column DNA isolation kit (green). (b) Ct values of saffron samples from fifteen different batch numbers.
Quantitative analysis of saffron in crude drug mixtures-original data of Fig. 3a.
| saffron (mg) | model adulterant (mg) | Day1 (mg) | Day2 (mg) | Day3 (mg) | Mean | RSD | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 3 | (mg) | (%) | ||
| 1 | 9 | 1.45 | 1.18 | 1.24 | 1.33 | 1.30 | 1.19 | 1.11 | 1.07 | 0.93 | 1.20 | 12.77 |
| 3 | 7 | 2.97 | 3.34 | 3.52 | 3.65 | 3.57 | 3.83 | 3.38 | 3.70 | 4.07 | 3.56 | 8.85 |
| 5 | 5 | 4.78 | 4.96 | 5.13 | 4.81 | 5.25 | 5.34 | 4.92 | 5.81 | 6.10 | 5.23 | 8.72 |
| 7 | 3 | 7.47 | 7.86 | 7.05 | 7.26 | 7.89 | 7.05 | 7.46 | 6.10 | 6.97 | 7.23 | 7.50 |
| 9 | 1 | 9.28 | 9.31 | 8.59 | 9.00 | 9.62 | 9.91 | 9.36 | 11.11 | 9.35 | 9.50 | 7.44 |
Note: Model adulterants were mixed by equal amount of C. tinctorius, Z. may and N. nucifera powder.
Figure 3(a) Quantitative analysis of saffron in crude drug mixtures. The ratios of saffron to model adulterant in crude drug mixtures are 1 mg/9 mg, 3 mg/7 mg, 5 mg/5 mg, 7 mg/3 mg, 9 mg/1 mg respectively. Each color represents one day (independent weighing and DNA extraction) analytical results (day1, green; day2, blue; day3, red). Error bars represent ± s.e.m. (b) Photos of Tibetan medicine “Ershiwuwei Shanhu Wan”.
Figure 4Workflow for quantitative detection of saffron in crude drugs or in Tibetan medicine “Ershiwuwei Shanhu Wan”. Step 1. Dry the saffron samples or coarse powder of “Ershiwuwei Shanhu Wan” at 60 °C for 2 hours to remove excessive water. Step 2. Grind the dried samples into powder. Step 3. Pass the powder through a 100 mesh sieve (saffron powder used for Ershiwuwei Shanhu Wan recovery test was passed through a 200 mesh sieve as it was used in the industrial production) to get homogenized samples. Step 4. Extract the DNA by direct plant DNA extraction solution. Step 5. Determine the saffron in crude drugs or Tibetan medicine “Ershiwuwei Shanhu Wan” by quantifying species-specific DNA through real-time PCR.
Recovery test for saffron in Ershiwuwei Shanhu Wan.
| Sample ID | original (mg/10 mg) | Added (mg) | Found (mg) | △m (mg) | recovery (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 0.04 | 0.50 | 0.60 | 0.56 | 111.96 |
| 2 | 0.12 | 0.50 | 0.69 | 0.57 | 113.67 |
| 3 | 0.16 | 0.50 | 0.71 | 0.55 | 109.91 |
Note: Recovery [%] = 100 × (amount found-original amount)/amount added; RSD [%] = 100 × SD/mean.