| Literature DB >> 31590754 |
Md Al Mamun1, Tania Valdes Gonzalez2, Ariful Islam1, Tomohito Sato1, Shumpei Sato1, Takashi K Ito1, Makoto Horikawa1, Fumiyoshi Yamazaki1, Rolando Contreras Alarcon3, Tatsuo Ido4, Mitsutoshi Setou1,5,6.
Abstract
Aging has been established as a major risk factor for prevalent diseases and hence, the development of anti-aging medicines is of great importance. Recently, herbal fermented beverages have emerged as a promising source of potential anti-aging drug. Pru, a traditional Cuban refreshment produced by decoction and fermentation of multispecies plants with sugar, has been consumed for many years and is claimed to have multiple medicinal properties. Besides the traditional method, Pru is also manufactured industrially. The present study analyzed the major components of both traditional Pru (TP) and industrial Pru (IP) to reveal their potential application in promoting the health span. We performed desorption electrospray ionization-mass spectrometry (DESI-MS) and acquired mass spectra by scanning over the 50-1200 m/z range in both positive and negative ion modes. Fourier transform ion cyclotron resonance (FTICR) tandem mass spectrometry (MS/MS) was performed for validating the compound assignments. Three important compounds were identified by comparing the MS and MS/MS spectra with reported literature and the online database. One of the identified compounds, gluconic acid, was found to be the most abundant shared metabolite between TP and IP whereas the other two compounds, magnoflorine and levan were exclusively detected in TP. The present study is the first report of component profiling in Cuban traditional and industrial Pru using DESI-MS and FTICR MS/MS, and reveals the potential application of Pru as a health-promoting agent.Entities:
Keywords: Anti-aging; Cuban traditional beverage; DESI-MS; FTICR MS/MS; Pru
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31590754 PMCID: PMC9306984 DOI: 10.1016/j.jfda.2019.05.004
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Food Drug Anal Impact factor: 6.157
Fig. 1DESI-MS workflow for Pru analysis. (i) Acquisition of an optical image of a glass slide marked with a circle in the center. (ii) Application of sample droplet within the circle and (iii) air-dried. (iv) Defining the measurement area centering the droplet (droplet area ~2.5 mm2 plus surroundings). (v) DESI-MS events, (vi) mass spectra, and (vii) two representative ion images of TP showing the distinctions between background and sample area ions.
FTICR MS/MS data obtained from TP and IP along with molecular assignments.
| TP | IP | Error (ppm) | MS/MS fragments (observed) | MS/MS fragments (reported) | Molecular assignments | Molecular formula | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| ||||||||
| 342.1692 | ○ | × | 342.1705 [M]+ | 4 | 265.08, 297.11, 282.08 | 297.11, 265.08, 282.08 [ | Magnoflorine |
|
| 365.1055 | ○ | ○ | 365.1054 [M+Na]+ | 0 | 203.05 | 203.05 [ | Sucrose | C12H22O11 |
| 527.1590 | ○ | × | 527.1583 [M+Na]+ | 1 | 365.10, 347.09 | 365.1, 347.09 [ | Levan | C18H32O16 |
|
| ||||||||
| 195.0518 | ○ | ○ | 195.0510 [M–H]− | 3 | 177.04, 159.03, 129.01 | 177.04, 159.03, 129.01, 75.0 [ | Gluconic acid | C6H12O7 |
○: Observed; ×: Not observed.
Fig. 2DESI-MS spectra of traditional Pru (TP) and industrial Pru (IP). (a) Positive and (b) negative ion mode spectra are shown in the left and right panel, respectively. In the positive ion mode, two ions at m/z 342 and m/z 527, proposed as magnoflorine and levan, respectively, were exclusively observed in traditional Pru. In the negative ion mode, the ion at m/z 195, proposed as gluconic acid, was the most abundant in both traditional and industrial Pru. a.u: arbitrary unit.
List of m/z values of precursor ions along with their MS/MS fragments obtained from TP and IP by FTICR MS/MS analyses (Molecular identities were not confirmed).
| Precursor ion ( | MS/MS fragments (observed) | Molecular assignments | TP | IP |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| ||||
| 203.05 | – | – | ○ | ○ |
| 290.07 | 200.04, 201.05 | – | ○ | × |
| 380.11 | – | – | ○ | ○ |
| 383.11 | 203.05, 290.07 | – | ○ | ○ |
| 543.13 | 272.06 | – | ○ | × |
| 595.13 | 415.07 | – | ○ | × |
|
| ||||
| 179.09 | – | – | ○ | ○ |
| 191.05 | – | – | ○ | × |
| 215.03 | 179.06 | – | ○ | ○ |
| 219.05 | – | – | ○ | × |
| 269.08 | 179.05, 267.07, 68.06, 125.27 | – | ○ | ○ |
| 277.03 | – | – | ○ | ○ |
| 297.08 | 267.07 | – | ○ | ○ |
| 315.01 | – | – | ○ | × |
| 359.12 | 179.06, 161 | – | ○ | ○ |
| 375.11 | 195.05 | – | ○ | ○ |
| 391.11 | 195.05, 213.01, 341.1, 387.11, 359.12, 207.05 | – | ○ | ○ |
| 539.14 | 503.16 | – | ○ | ○ |
| 595.13 | 415.07 | – | ○ | ○ |
○: Observed; ×: Not observed.
Fig. 3FTICR MS/MS spectra of a) gluconic acid, b) magnoflorine, c) levan, and d) sucrose. Gluconic acid and sucrose were detected in both TP and IP, whereas, magnoflorine and levan were exclusively detected in TP. CE: Collision Energy.