| Literature DB >> 29751518 |
Xiangsheng Zhao1, Jianhe Wei2,3, Meihua Yang4,5.
Abstract
Morinda officinalis is an important herbal medicine and functional food, and its main constituents include anthraquinone and iridoid glycosides. Quantification of the main compounds is a necessary step to understand the quality and therapeutic properties of M. officinalis, but this has not yet been performed based on liquid chromatography/tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS). Analytes were extracted from M. officinalis by reflux method. Ultrahigh-performance liquid chromatography coupled with a triple quadrupole mass spectrometry (UPLC-QqQ-MS) using multiple reaction monitoring (MRM) mode was applied for quantification. Fragmentation pathways of deacetyl asperulosidic acid and rubiadin were investigated based on UPLC with quadrupole time-of-flight tandem mass spectrometry (Q/TOF-MS) in the MSE centroid mode. The method showed a good linearity over a wide concentration range (R² ≥ 0.9930). The limits of quantification of six compounds ranged from 2.6 to 27.57 ng/mL. The intra- and inter-day precisions of the investigated components exhibited an RSD within 4.5% with mean recovery rates of 95.32⁻99.86%. Contents of selected compounds in M. officinalis varied significantly depending on region. The fragmentation pathway of deacetyl asperulosidic and rubiadin was proposed. A selective and sensitive method was developed for determining six target compounds in M. officinalis by UPLC-MS/MS. Furthermore, the proposed method will be helpful for quality control and identification main compounds of M. officinalis.Entities:
Keywords: LC-MS/MS; Morinda officinalis; anthraquinones; fragmentation behaviors; iridoid glycosides
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2018 PMID: 29751518 PMCID: PMC6100404 DOI: 10.3390/molecules23051070
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Molecules ISSN: 1420-3049 Impact factor: 4.411
Figure 1Chemical structures of the six compounds and jaceosidin (internal standard, IS).
Figure 2UPLC-MS/MS multiple reaction mode (MRM) chromatograms of (a) mixed standards and (b) M. officinalis samples. 1, monotropein; 2, deacetyl asperulosidic acid; 3, asperulosidic acid; 4, asperuloside; 5, rubiadin-1-methyl ether; 6, rubiadin; IS, jaceosidin. Analyte numbering in the test is the same as in this figure.
MS parameters of the target analytes and jaceosidin.
| Analytes | Retention Time (min) | Parent ( | Daughter ( | Cone Voltage (V) | Collision Energy (eV) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Monotropein | 4.03 | 388.98 | 146.95/190.95 | 47 | 20/25 |
| Deacetyl asperulosidic acid | 4.98 | 389.12 | 118.93/164.95 | 45 | 24/21 |
| Asperulosidic acid | 10.96 | 431.05 | 251.03/165.01 | 48 | 22/20 |
| Asperuloside | 11.41 | 413.03 | 146.95/190.94 | 51 | 18/23 |
| Rubiadin-1-methyl ether | 17.42 | 267.02 | 223.99/251.95 | 50 | 25/25 |
| Rubiadin | 20.29 | 252.97 | 224.01/209.96 | 50 | 30/26 |
| Jaceosidin (IS) | 13.73 | 328.98 | 313.95/298.96 | 50 | 22/22 |
a Q: transitions for quantification; I: transitions for identification.
Figure 3Effects of (a) method (SE, sonication extraction; RE, refluxing extraction); (b) solvent volume; (c) extraction time; and (d) extraction repetition on the extraction efficiency of target analytes in S13 M. officinalis sample from Hainan province.
Calibration curves, test range, limit of detection (LOD), limit of quantification (LOQ), precision, and repeatability for the six analytes.
| Analytes | Calibration Curves | R2 | Linear Range (μg/mL) | Precision (RSD, %) | LOQ ng/mL | LOD ng/mL | Repeatability (RSD, %, | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Intra-Day | Inter-Day | |||||||
| Monotropein | 0.9981 | 0.015–79.65 | 1.71 | 3.80 | 13.87 | 4.20 | 2.89 | |
| Deacetyl asperulosidic acid | 0.9990 | 0.030–96.00 | 2.80 | 3.83 | 26.63 | 8.07 | 3.92 | |
| Asperulosidic acid | 0.9956 | 0.042–21.00 | 1.12 | 2.56 | 27.57 | 9.19 | 2.54 | |
| Asperuloside | 0.9987 | 0.018–37.50 | 2.71 | 2.74 | 11.06 | 3.35 | 3.17 | |
| Rubiadin-1-methyl ether | 0.9930 | 0.008–21.75 | 2.50 | 4.21 | 6.74 | 2.04 | 4.02 | |
| Rubiadin | 0.9949 | 0.003–22.50 | 0.75 | 2.72 | 2.60 | 0.87 | 2.35 | |
Recoveries of the six compounds.
| Analytes | Sample (g) | Origin (μg) | Spiked (μg) | Found (μg) | Mean Recovery (%) (RSD, %) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Monotropein | 0.5 | 1848.45 | 1480 | 3304.33 | 98.37 (3.23) |
| 1850 | 3680.69 | 99.04 (2.15) | |||
| 2220 | 4059.13 | 99.58 (3.06) | |||
| Deacetyl asperulosidic acid | 0.5 | 1883.74 | 1500 | 3351.19 | 97.83 (4.07) |
| 1880 | 3731.03 | 98.26 (2.38) | |||
| 2260 | 4113.01 | 98.64 (1.95) | |||
| Asperulosidic acid | 0.5 | 174.43 | 140 | 310.70 | 97.33 (2.84) |
| 175 | 346.00 | 98.04 (3.37) | |||
| 210 | 384.14 | 99.86 (3.69) | |||
| Asperuloside | 0.5 | 56.32 | 45 | 100.61 | 98.41 (4.23) |
| 55 | 110.13 | 97.83 (3.94) | |||
| 67.5 | 122.63 | 98.23 (2.78) | |||
| Rubiadin-1-methyl ether | 0.5 | 69.53 | 55 | 122.58 | 96.47 (2.94) |
| 70 | 136.56 | 95.77 (2.62) | |||
| 84 | 149.59 | 95.32 (3.15) | |||
| Rubiadin | 0.5 | 17.62 | 14 | 31.27 | 97.48 (1.75) |
| 17.5 | 34.63 | 97.17 (2.77) | |||
| 21 | 37.88 | 96.48 (3.28) |
Quantitative analytical results of M. officinalis (μg/g, n = 3).
| No. | Origins | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| S1 | Guangdong | 2497.58 | 2766.00 | 246.94 | 33.95 | 113.49 | 11.15 |
| S2 | Guangdong | 2125.89 | 2179.01 | 171.42 | 8.44 | 184.22 | 21.64 |
| S3 | Guangdong | 1861.98 | 1771.73 | 83.22 | ND | 116.76 | 7.95 |
| S4 | Guangdong | 2141.90 | 2162.22 | 175.05 | 5.98 | 107.61 | 15.67 |
| S5 | Guangdong | 1016.25 | 817.64 | ND | ND | 42.93 | 3.80 |
| S6 | Guangdong | 1590.15 | 1510.59 | 93.76 | 7.38 | 57.04 | 19.31 |
| S7 | Guangdong | 1540.68 | 1593.63 | 46.14 | 1.09 | 146.63 | 17.58 |
| S8 | Guangdong | 1513.27 | 1458.78 | 67.97 | 6.04 | 143.97 | 208.70 |
| S9 | Guangdong | 1827.98 | 1695.86 | 86.50 | 3.08 | 87.69 | 12.79 |
| S10 | Hainan | 2310.95 | 1990.72 | 91.30 | 15.19 | 81.43 | 28.17 |
| S11 | Hainan | 1907.49 | 1697.96 | 151.21 | 15.03 | 118.81 | 38.88 |
| S12 | Hainan | 3020.44 | 3308.44 | 234.72 | 19.95 | 65.85 | 7.01 |
| S13 | Hainan | 3696.90 | 3767.48 | 348.87 | 112.64 | 139.05 | 35.25 |
| S14 | Guangxi | 2046.66 | 1838.41 | 50.22 | 1.13 | 116.43 | 10.84 |
| S15 | Guangxi | 1521.74 | 1784.73 | 116.21 | 11.25 | 167.85 | 24.15 |
| S16 | Fujian | 1940.38 | 1805.78 | 33.05 | 2.07 | 172.22 | 20.89 |
| S17 | Fujian | 1266.58 | 1199.37 | ND | ND | 123.04 | 11.40 |
ND: not detected.
Mass data of the six analytes from M. officinalis by UPLC-Q/TOF-MS.
| Analyte | Molecular Formula | Theoretical Mass (Da) | Measured Mass (Da) | Error (ppm) | Fragment Ions (ESI−, |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Monotropein | C16H22O11 | 389.1084 [M − H]− | 389.1066 [M − H]− | −4.62 | 226.9712, 190.9609, 164.9873, 146.9802 |
| Deacetyl asperulosidic acid | C16H22O11 | 389.1084 [M − H]− | 389.1072 [M − H]− | −3.08 | 146.9305, 165.0189, 227.0082, 190.9921 |
| Asperulosidic acid | C18H24O12 | 431.1190 [M − H]− | 431.1184 [M − H]− | −1.39 | 146.9305, 165.0189, 251.0062, 119.0033 |
| Asperuloside | C18H22O11 | 413.1084 [M − H]− | 413.1092 [M − H]− | 1.94 | 146.9926, 190.9722, 233.0963, 369.1387 |
| Rubiadin-1-methyl ether | C16H12O4 | 267.0657 [M − H]− | 267.0653 [M − H]− | 1.50 | 224.0036, 252.9935 |
| Rubiadin | C15H10O4 | 253.0501 [M − H]− | 253.0503 [M − H]− | 0.79 | 225.0101, 209.0170, 181.0270 |
Figure 4MS/MS spectra (a) and the proposed fragmentation pathway (b) of deacetyl asperulosidic acid.
Figure 5MS/MS spectra (a) and the proposed fragmentation pathway (b) of rubiadin.