| Literature DB >> 33036491 |
Eui-Jeong Doh1, Guemsan Lee2, Hyun-Jong Jung3, Kang-Beom Kwon4, Jung-Hoon Kim5.
Abstract
Amomi Fructus is widely used to treat digestive disorders, and Amomum villosum, A. villosum var. xanthioides, and A. longiligulare are permitted medicinally in national pharmacopeias. However, there are a variety of adulterants present in herbal markets owing to their morphological similarities to the genuine Amomum species. Forty-two Amomi Fructus samples from various origins were identified using internal transcribed spacer and chloroplast barcoding analyses, and then their chromatographic profiles were compared using chemometric analysis for chemotaxonomic monitoring. Among the Amomi Fructus samples, A. villosum, A. longiligulare, A. ghaticum, and A. microcarpum were confirmed as single Amomum species, whereas a mixture of either these Amomum species or with another Amomum species was observed in 15 samples. Chemotaxonomic monitoring results demonstrated that two medicinal Amomum samples, A. villosum and A. longiligulare, were not clearly distinguished from each other, but were apparently separated from other non-medicinal Amomum adulterants. A. ghaticum and A. microcarpum samples were also chemically different from other samples and formed their own species groups. Amomum species mixtures showed diverse variations of chemical correlations according to constituent Amomum species. Genetic authentication-based chemotaxonomic monitoring methods are helpful in classifying Amomi Fructus samples by their original species and to distinguish genuine Amomum species from the adulterants.Entities:
Keywords: Amomi Fructus; HPLC chromatographic profiling; chemometric analysis; chemotaxonomic monitoring; phylogenetic identification
Mesh:
Year: 2020 PMID: 33036491 PMCID: PMC7583901 DOI: 10.3390/molecules25194581
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Molecules ISSN: 1420-3049 Impact factor: 4.411
Amomi Fructus samples identified using DNA barcode analysis of the internal transcribed spacer (ITS) region.
| Code | Geographic Origin | Sample Type | Species Identification | Re-Code |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| AF01 | China | F |
| ALS01 |
| AF02 | China | F |
| AGS01 |
| AF03 | China | F |
| ALS02 |
| AF11 | Myanmar | S.P. |
| AGS02 |
| AF12 | China | F |
| AVS01 |
| AF14 | Myanmar | F |
| AGS03 |
| AF15 | Vietnam | S |
| SM01 |
| AF16 | Vietnam | S |
| SM02 |
| AF17 | Myanmar | S |
| AGS04 |
| AF21 | China | F |
| ALS03 |
| AF23 | Myanmar | S |
| AGS05 |
| AF24 | Myanmar | S |
| SM03 |
| AF25 | Myanmar | S |
| AMS01 |
| AF26 | Myanmar | S |
| AGS06 |
| AF27 | Myanmar | S.P. |
| SM04 |
| AF28 | Myanmar | S |
| ALS04 |
| AF29 | China | S |
| AVS02 |
| AF30 | Myanmar | S |
| AMS02 |
| AF31 | Myanmar | S |
| AGS07 |
| AF32 | Myanmar | S |
| AGS08 |
| AF33 | Myanmar | S |
| AMS03 |
| AF34 | Myanmar | S |
| AGS09 |
| AF35 | Vietnam | P | SM05 | |
| AF41 | Vietnam | F |
| SM06 |
| AF42 | Vietnam | F | SM07 | |
| AF43 | Vietnam | F |
| SM08 |
| AF44 | Vietnam | F | SM09 | |
| AF45 | Vietnam | F |
| SM10 |
| AF46 | Vietnam | F |
| SM11 |
| AF47 | Vietnam | F |
| SM12 |
| AF48 | Vietnam | F |
| SM13 |
| AF50 | China | F |
| AVS07 |
| AF51 | China | F |
| AVS08 |
| AF52 | China | F |
| ALS05 |
| AF53 | China | F |
| AVS03 |
| AF54 | China | F |
| AVS04 |
| AF55 | Myanmar | S.P. |
| SM14 |
| AF56 | China | F |
| AVS05 |
| AF57 | China | F |
| AVS06 |
| AF58 | China | F |
| ALS06 |
| AF59 | Vietnam | S | SM15 | |
| AF60 | China | S |
| AMS04 |
F: whole fruits with pericarp; S: whole seeds without pericarp; S.P.: crushed seeds without pericarp; P: finely grinded seeds without pericarp.
List of reference samples compared with Amomi Fructus and its adulterants.
| No. | Accession Code | Scientific Name | Medicinal Name |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | AV01 | Amomi Fructus a | |
| 2 | AV02 | ||
| 3 | AV03 | ||
| 4 | AL01 | Amomi Fructus b | |
| 5 | AL02 | ||
| 6 | AL03 | ||
| 7 | AK01 | Amomi Fructus Rotundus | |
| 8 | AK02 | ||
| 9 | AC01 | ||
| 10 | AC02 | ||
| 11 | ATK01 | ||
| 12 | ATK02 | ||
| 13 | AH01 | ||
| 14 | AH02 | ||
| 15 | AO01 | ||
| 16 | AO02 | ||
| 17 | AOR01 | ||
| 18 | AOR02 | ||
| 19 | ACC01 |
| jie bian shan jiang c |
| 20 | ACC02 | ||
| 21 | AZ01 |
| yan shan jiang c |
| 22 | AZ02 | ||
| 23 | AM01 | mao ban shan jiang c | |
| 24 | AG01 | Galangae Fructus | |
| 25 | EC01 | Cardamomi Fructus | |
| 26 | EC02 |
a The Korean Pharmacopoeia, 11th edition, b Pharmacopoeia of the Peoples Republic of China and Taiwan Herbal Pharmacopeia, c Flora of China.
Amplicon size of plastid loci and nuclear barcode region in Amomi Fructus and adulterants species and the sequence characteristics (single and in different multilocus combination).
| Barcode Target | Amplicon Size (bp) | Aligned Length (bp) | Conserved Sites | Variable Sites | Parsimony Informative Sites | Singleton Site |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 21 |
|
| 940 | 933 | 885 | 48 | 48 | none |
|
| 750 | 743 | 657 | 86 | 12 | 74 |
|
| 830 | 800–836 | 820 | 49 | 35 | 14 |
| 420 | 395–415 | 368 | 55 | 19 | 36 | |
| - | 1676 | 1542 | 134 | 60 | 74 | |
| - | 1195-1251 | 1188 | 104 | 54 | 50 | |
| - | 2479–2512 | 2362 | 183 | 95 | 88 | |
| - | 2071–2091 | 1910 | 189 | 79 | 110 | |
| Four plastid | - | 2874–2927 | 2730 | 238 | 114 | 124 |
Figure 1Maximum likelihood-based inference of phylogenetic tree with smart model selection constructed based on concatenated nucleotide sequences of an ITS (internal transcribed spacer) and four chloroplast genome-based DNA barcode regions. AX01: Amomum villosum var. xanthioides nucleotide sequence of KJ151892 and MH161417. The box indicates the species-mixed samples.
Figure 2Overlapped chromatograms of the single species of Amomi Fructus samples at 280 nm of detection wavelength (diode array detector (DAD)). (A), Amomum villosum samples (AVS01–08); (B), A. longiligulare samples (ALS01–06); (C), A. ghaticum samples (AGS01–09); and (D), A. microcarpum samples (AMS01–04).
Figure 3Score plot of principal components (PC1 vs. PC2) on the variables (absolute area of reference peaks) with Amomi Fructus samples. PC1 and PC2 represent 21% and 15% of the total variance, respectively. PC, principal component.
Figure 4Dendrogram of Amomi Fructus samples from the hierarchical clustering analysis.
Figure 5Clustered heatmap of Amomi Fructus samples and profiling peaks.
Figure 6Average coefficients of the Pearson’s correlation coefficient of Amomi Fructus samples.
Summary of Pearson’s correlation coefficients of Amomi Fructus samples.
| Sample | Value | AVS | ALS | AGS | AMS | SM |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AVS | Mean | 0.785 | ||||
| Median | 0.888 | |||||
| Max | 0.987 | |||||
| Min | 0.303 | |||||
| ALS | Mean | 0.829 | 0.895 | |||
| Median | 0.870 | 0.934 | ||||
| Max | 0.995 | 0.988 | ||||
| Min | 0.385 | 0.769 | ||||
| AGS | Mean | 0.767 | 0.883 | 0.980 | ||
| Median | 0.802 | 0.911 | 0.982 | |||
| Max | 0.949 | 0.963 | 0.995 | |||
| Min | 0.436 | 0.680 | 0.950 | |||
| AMS | Mean | 0.449 | 0.352 | 0.199 | 0.802 | |
| Median | 0.514 | 0.323 | 0.197 | 0.827 | ||
| Max | 0.711 | 0.645 | 0.271 | 0.958 | ||
| Min | 0.059 | 0.187 | 0.154 | 0.631 | ||
| SM | Mean | 0.427 | 0.466 | 0.474 | 0.267 | 0.306 |
| Median | 0.474 | 0.464 | 0.507 | 0.180 | 0.091 | |
| Max | 0.959 | 0.985 | 0.992 | 0.874 | 0.994 | |
| Min | −0.049 | −0.053 | −0.048 | −0.060 | −0.065 |