Open Access

Rapid differentiation of Xihuangcao from the three Isodon species by UPLC-ESI-QTOF-MS/MS and chemometrics analysis

Chinese Medicine201611:48

DOI: 10.1186/s13020-016-0120-y

Received: 13 September 2016

Accepted: 17 November 2016

Published: 15 December 2016

Abstract

Background

Isodon lophanthoides, I. lophanthoides var. graciliflorus and I. serra are the three botanical sources of Xihuangcao, which are often used indiscriminately in herbal products. The aim of this study was to develop a rapid and accurate analytical method to identify the three different botanical sources of Xihuangcao by combining UPLC-ESI-QTOF-MS with chemometrics analysis.

Methods

Fifteen batches of plants were collected as reference materials and their chemical profiles were analyzed by UPLC-ESI-QTOF-MS. These data were subsequently processed by statistical methods, including principal component analysis (PCA), hierarchical cluster analysis (HCA) and orthogonal partial least squared discriminant analysis (OPLS-DA). An automated sample class prediction model was also built using Naive Bayes as a class prediction algorithm to rapidly determine the source species of twenty-seven batches of commercial Xihuangcao samples.

Results

The base peak chromatograms of the three authenticated species showed different patterns and twenty-seven peaks were chosen, including six diterpenoids, one phenolic acid and two glycosides to distinguish among these three species. The results showed good differentiation among the three species by PCA, HCA and OPLS-DA. Isodon lophanthoides var. graciliflorus was found to be the major botanical source of the commercial samples.

Conclusion

UPLC-ESI-QTOF-MS and subsequent chemometrics analysis were demonstrated effective to differentiate among the three different species of plants used as Xihuangcao.

Background

Xihuangcao is a folk medicine that is commonly used in southern China as a dampness-draining, antiicteric and liver protection herb [1]. Furthermore, clinical research has highlighted the beneficial effects of Xihuangcao for the treatment of hepatitis with jaundice, leading to the development and commercialization of numerous proprietary medicines and functional food products based on Xihuangcao [1]. Four different plants have been recorded as sources of Xihuangcao, including Isodon lophanthoides (Buch.-Ham. ex D. Don) Hara (IL), I. lophanthoides var. graciliflorus (Benth.) H. Hara (ILG), I. lophanthoides var. gerardianus (Benth.) H. Hara and I. serra (Maxim.) Kudo (IS) [2]. According to a taxonomic revision, the plants in this genus have been much confused, especially for the varieties of I. lophanthoides. A new classification of I. lophanthoides and its varieties was suggested in 2004, in which I. lophanthoides var. gerardianus and I. lophanthoides var. graciliflorus were merged as I. lophanthoides var. graciliflorus (ILG) [3]. However, some experts believe that IS should not be used as Xihuangcao because its leaves do not have yellow juice when they are rubbed, which is recorded as a major characteristic of Xihuangcao in several ancient herbal medicine books [4]. Recent studies have also demonstrated the chemical compositions of IL, ILG and IS are different, which diterpenoids in IL and ILG are mainly abietane and tricyclic types and that of IS are ent-kaurane type; thus, they should not be used as one herb [1, 4].

Although Xihuangcao has multiple botanical sources, most of the Xihuangcao-based products do not specify the species used. The development of an analytical method to identify the three different source species of Xihuangcao is therefore strongly desired to ensure the safe and effective use of these herbal products. IL and its variety ILG are difficult to distinguish based on their morphological or microscopic features [5, 6]. In contrast, IS can be readily distinguished from IL and ILG based on its microscopic features, but this method cannot be applied to differentiate between samples of different sources in their extracted forms. It is noteworthy that Xihuangcao has not yet been recorded in The Pharmacopoeia of the People’s Republic of China. The only official method available for the analysis of Xihuangcao is recorded in the Guangdong Chinese Materia Medica Standards. According to this method, samples for analysis are compared with a reference material (I. lophanthoides var. graciliflorus) by thin-layer chromatography with no provision for differentiating between the three species [2]. Although numerous studies have been conducted in recent years concerning Xihuangcao, most of these studies have limited to the chemical separation or pharmacological evaluation [710]. A few chemical analytical studies have been published, but each study analyzed a single species only [11, 12].

Chromatographic fingerprinting is an effective analytical method for identifying samples based on a comparison of their chemical profiles. Ultra-performance liquid chromatography (UPLC) can be used to separate a wide variety of compounds with superior resolution over a short period of time, and can also be coupled with mass spectrometry (MS). The major drawback of this method is that it can be time consuming to analyze all the MS data generated from a large number of samples. Chemometrics solves this problem by statistical analysis to distinguish between different species, thereby avoiding the manual comparison of huge amounts of raw MS data. Furthermore, class prediction models, which can be built based on the statistical interpretation of known reference samples can be used for automated classification of unknown samples.

The aim of this study was to identify the three botanical sources of Xihuangcao by ultra-performance liquid chromatography coupled with electrospray ionization quadrupole time-of-flight mass spectrometry (UPLC-ESI-QTOF-MS) in combination with chemometrics analysis.

Methods

Chemicals and reference standards

All chemicals and reference standards used in this study were purchased as the HPLC grade. Oridonin (purity ≥98%) and rosmarinic acid (purity ≥98%) were purchased from Chengdu Must Bio-Technology Co., Ltd (Chengdu, China). Schaftoside (purity ≥98%) was purchased from Chengdu Biopurify Phytochemicals Ltd (Chengdu, China). Methanol and acetonitrile were purchased from E. Merck (Darmstadt, Germany). Formic acid (purity 96.0%) was purchased from Tedia Company Inc. (Fairfield, OH, USA). Water was obtained from a Milli-Q water purification system (Millipore, Bedford, MA, USA).

Plant materials and sample preparation

Fifteen batches of plant samples were collected in southern China as reference materials, including four batches of I. lophanthoides var. lophanthoides, seven batches of I. lophanthoides var. graciliflorus and four batches of I. serra (Table 1; Fig. 1). These samples were authenticated by Prof. Zhongzhen Zhao (School of Chinese Medicine, Hong Kong Baptist University, Hong Kong) based on their morphological characteristics [3, 13]. Twenty-seven samples of commercial batches of Xihuangcao were collected from retail markets in Guangdong and Guangxi (Table 2; Fig. 2).
Table 1

Plant samples of Xihuangcao collected

Sample no.

Species

Source

Date of collection

IL-01

Isodon lophanthoides

Baiyun, Guangdong Province (transplant from Fujian)

July 2012

IL-02

Isodon lophanthoides

Baiyun, Guangdong Province

July 2012

IL-03

Isodon lophanthoides

Yingde, Guangdong Province

July 2012

IL-04

Isodon lophanthoides

Yingde, Guangdong Province

July 2012

ILG-01

Isodon lophanthoides var. graciliflora

Pingyuan, Guangdong Province

July 2012

ILG-02

Isodon lophanthoides var. graciliflora

Pingyuan, Guangdong Province

July 2012

ILG-03

Isodon lophanthoides var. graciliflora

Heping, Guangdong Province

July 2012

ILG-04

Isodon lophanthoides var. graciliflora

Baiyun, Guangdong Province

July 2012

ILG-04

Isodon lophanthoides var. graciliflora

Shatin, Hong Kong

August 2013

ILG-05

Isodon lophanthoides var. graciliflora

Meizhou, Guangdong Province

September 2013

ILG-06

Isodon lophanthoides var. graciliflora

Panyu, Guangdong Province

February 2014

IS-01

Isodon serra

Yingde, Guangdong Province

July 2012

IS-02

Isodon serra

Baiyun, Guangdong Province

July 2012

IS-03

Isodon serra

Zhaoqing, Guangdong Province

July 2012

IS-04

Isodon serra

Panyu, Guangdong Province

February 2014

Fig. 1

The botanical sources of Xihuangcao: a I. lophanthoides, b I. lophanthoides var. graciliflorus and c I. serra

Table 2

Commercial Xihuangcao samples collected and the identification result

Sample no.

Producing area

Usage

Species identified

Sample 01

Shangsha, Guangdong

Ingredient of soup

Isodon lophanthoides var. graciliflorus

Sample 02

Meizhou, Guangdong

Ingredient of soup

Isodon lophanthoides var. graciliflorus

Sample 03

Guangxi

Herb tea

Ampelopsis grossedentata

Sample 04

Huizhou, Guangdong

Herb tea

Ampelopsis grossedentata

Sample 05

Yulin, Guangxi

Decoction pieces

Isodon serra

Sample 06

Yulin, Guangxi

Herb tea

Ampelopsis grossedentata

Sample 07

Shaoguan, Guangdong

Herb tea

Isodon serra

Sample 08

Meizhou, Guangdong

Ingredient of soup

Isodon lophanthoides var. graciliflorus

Sample 09

Taiping, Guangxi

Herb tea

Ampelopsis grossedentata

Sample 10

Wengyuan, Guangdong

Herb tea

Isodon serra

Sample 11

Wengyuan, Guangdong

Herb tea

Ampelopsis grossedentata

Sample 12

Guangdong

Herb tea

Isodon serra

Sample 13

Meizhou, Guangdong

Ingredient of soup

Isodon lophanthoides var. graciliflorus

Sample 14

Heyuan, Guangdong

Herb tea

Ampelopsis grossedentata

Sample 15

Guangdong

Herb tea

Ampelopsis grossedentata

Sample 16

Meizhou, Guangdong

Ingredient of soup

Isodon lophanthoides var. graciliflorus

Sample 17

Meizhou, Guangdong

Ingredient of soup

Unknown

Sample 18

Jiangxi

Decoction pieces

Isodon serra

Sample 19

Meizhou, Guangdong

Ingredient of soup

Isodon lophanthoides var. graciliflorus

Sample 20

Huizhou, Guangdong

Herb tea

Ampelopsis grossedentata

Sample 21

Meizhou, Guangdong

Ingredient of soup

Isodon lophanthoides var. graciliflorus

Sample 22

Meizhou, Guangdong

Ingredient of soup

Isodon lophanthoides var. graciliflorus

Sample 23

Longyan, Fujian

Herb tea

Isodon lophanthoides var. graciliflorus

Sample 24

Meizhou, Guangdong

Ingredient of soup

Isodon lophanthoides var. graciliflorus

Sample 25

Meizhou, Guangdong

Ingredient of soup

Isodon lophanthoides var. graciliflorus

Sample 26

Meizhou, Guangdong

Decoction pieces

Isodon serra

Sample 27

Meizhou, Guangdong

Decoction pieces

Isodon lophanthoides var. graciliflorus

Fig. 2

Photos of some of the commercial Xihuangcao samples collected in this study: a, b I. lophanthoides var. graciliflorus, c I. serra and d Ampelopsis grossedentata

For the preparation of the reference materials, the roots were removed from the plants together with any foreign matter, and the remaining materials were dried under the sun. All of the dried samples were then powdered in a blender. A sample (0.5 g) of the powdered material was then accurately weighed into a centrifuge tube followed by 10 mL of methanol, and the resulting mixture was sonicated for 30 min at room temperature. The supernatant was then centrifuged at 25,920×g for 10 min on an Eppendorf 5810 centrifuge (Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany). The extract (0.2 mL) was then diluted with 0.8 mL of methanol and transferred into a brown HPLC vial for injection.

UPLC-ESI-QTOF-MS analysis

UPLC-ESI-QTOF-MS analysis was performed on an Agilent 6540 accurate mass Q-TOF LC/MS system (Agilent Technologies, Santa Clara, CA, USA). Chromatography was performed on a UPLC C18 analytical column (2.1 ×  5 mm, I.D. 1.7 μm, ACQUITY UPLC® BEH, Waters, Milford, MA, USA). The mobile phase used for the elution of the column consisted of 0.1% (v/v) formic acid in water (solvent A) and 0.1% (v/v) formic acid in acetonitrile (solvent B). A gradient elution was performed as follows: 0–15 min, 10–45% B; 15–23 min, 45–70% B; 23–25 min, 70–100% B. The flow rate was set at 0.4 mL/min with an injection volume of 2 μL, whilst the column temperature was maintained at 40 °C.

Detection by ESI-QTOF-MS/MS was performed in positive ion mode. The source parameters were set as follows: gas temperature, 300 °C; gas flow, 8.0 L/min; nebulizer pressure, 45 psi; sheath gas temperature, 350 °C; sheath gas flow, 8.0 L/min. The scan source parameters were set as follows: VCap, 3500; nozzle voltage, 500 V; fragmentation voltage, 120 V. Reference masses were used at m/z 121.0508 (purine) and 922.0097 (hexakisphosphazine). Automatic MS/MS was performed using a fixed collision energy of 15 eV.

Qualitative analysis

Data were analyzed using the Agilent MassHunter Workstation Software-Qualitative Analysis software (version B.06.00, build 6.0.633.0, Agilent Technologies Inc., 2012) with the following settings: extraction restrict retention time, 2–25 min; peak height, ≥100 counts; charge state, 1; peck spacing tolerance, 0.0025 m/z plus 7.0 ppm; compound relative height,   ≥2.5%; absolute height,   ≥2000 counts; elements of C, H, O from 3 to 60, 0 to 120 and 0 to 30, respectively, for generating the formulae.

Statistical analysis

Statistical analyses and class prediction of the UPLC-MS/MS results were carried out using the Agilent MassHunter Mass Profiler Professional Software (version B.02.02, Agilent Technologies Inc., 2011). Data were initially exported from the Mass Hunter Workstation before being imported into the Mass Profiler Professional Software with the following settings: abundance filtering with minimum absolute abundance, 5000 counts; all charge states permitted; retention time (RT) correction with a maximum of 0.5% plus 0.5 min; mass window 5.0 ppm plus 2.0 mDa; compound alignment with RT window 0.1% plus 0.15 min. One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used with a P value of 0.05 to further filter these data. A 3D principal component analysis (PCA) was conducted on all of the samples. A hierarchical cluster analysis (HCA) was also conducted with the following settings: cluster on conditions, Euclidean as the distance metric, centroid as the linkage rule. An automated sample class prediction model was built based on the UPLC-MS/MS results of the reference plants with the following settings: Naive Bayes as the class prediction algorithm; validation type, N-fold; number of folds, 3; number of repeats, 10.

SIMCA (version 13.0.3.0, Umetrics AB 2013) was used to analyze selected peaks. The peak volumes were manually imported as X-variables, with the sample number as a primary ID, peak number as a secondary ID and sample speciation as a class ID. The model type was set using orthogonal partial least squared discriminant analysis (OPLS-DA), where the significant components were calculated using an “Autofit” function.

Results and discussion

Chromatographic profiling of the reference plants

The UPLC-ESI-QTOF-MS/MS chromatograms revealed the chemical profiles of the three different Isodon species, and typical base peak chromatograms (BPC) of these three species are shown in Fig. 3. The chemical profiles of IL and ILG were similar, whereas the chemical profile of IS was considerably different. By comparing the samples of the different batches of IS, IL and IL, we were able to select 11, 17 and 13 common peaks for each species, respectively. One common peak (peak 5) was found in all three species. Thirteen common peaks were found in the chromatograms of IL and ILC, namely peaks 1, 2, 5, 13, 14, 19, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26 and 27. The main difference between IL and ILG was that peaks 4, 16, 17 and 20 only appeared in IL. Moreover, peak 13 was absent or only detected in small quantities in ILG, but was distinct in IL; peak 14 was absent or only detected in small quantities in IL, but was distinct in ILG; peak 22 was present in much higher quantities in IL than ILG; and peak 27 was detected in higher quantities than peak 26 in IL, and vice versa in ILG. However, 10 specific peaks (peaks 3, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 15 and 18) were only detected in the chromatogram of IS.
Fig. 3

Typical BPC chromatograms of a I. lophanthoides, b I. lophanthoides var. graciliflorus and c I. serra

All of the raw UPLC-MS data for the reference plants were examined using the Agilent MassHunter Mass Profiler Professional Software to further validate the differences between the three Isodon species. PCA was conducted, which exposed the variance between the samples by converting the numerous variables into principal components. The UPLC-MS data for the plants were imported for the calculation. Following the reduction of these data by statistical means, including ANOVA and the use of a frequency filter, three principal components were calculated. The PCA plot with principal components 1 (41.20%), 2 (22.26%) and 3 (7.42%) is shown in Fig. 4. The samples were distinctively clustered in three groups, which were correlated with the three species. The UPLC-MS features of the three species were different and these data could be used to distinguish between the three species. HCA was also used to interpret the relationships between the three different species. By comparing the detected m/z signals and signal intensities of the UPLC-MS data, samples were organized into clusters based on the similarity in their MS profiles. Figure 5 shows the dendrogram of hierarchical clustering, where the samples have been grouped into three branches correlating to the three species. These data highlighted the closer relationship between IL and ILG compared with IS. The HCA results therefore supported those of the PCA, and revealed the phylogenetic relationships between the three Isodon species.
Fig. 4

3D PCA plot of the samples

Fig. 5

Hierarchical cluster analysis heat map for the association of compounds detected in samples. Each line represents an m/z signal detected in MS, whereas the color indicates the log2-transformed m/z signal intensities

Twenty-seven different peaks were selected from the chromatograms of the three different species to allow for their differentiation. Furthermore, the ability of these peaks to distinguish between the different species was verified by OPLS-DA. A 3D OPLS-DA is shown in Fig. 6, where the samples were separated into three groups by species. The consistency observed between these results and those obtained using the MS data highlighted the representative nature of the selected peaks.
Fig. 6

The OPLS-DA plot of samples using the selected peaks

Peak assignments and the interpretation of MS/MS spectra

Peak assignments for the three species were conducted according to the references, standard compounds and possible fragmentation pathways. The details of the peaks identified from the three Isodon species are summarized in Table 3, and the structures of the identified compounds are shown in Fig. 7.
Table 3

Identification information of the selected peaks

Peak no.

Retention time (min)

MS1 m/z (relative abundance)

MS2 m/z of the molecular ion (relative abundance)

Identity/classification

Calculated formula

Calculated mass

Mass accuracy (ppm)

1

3.47

587.1347 [M+Na]+ (30), 565.1537 [M+H]+ (100)

565.1522 [M+H]+(59), 547.1419 [M+H–H2O]+(100), 529.1325 [M+H–2H2O]+(47), 511.1227 [M+H–3H2O]+(28), 499.1208 [M+H–2H2O–CH2O]+(42), 493.1086 [M+H–4H2O]+(13), 481.1106 [M+H–3H2O–CH2O]+(17), 469.1112 [M+H–2H2O–C2H4O2]+(31), 457.1105 [M+H–H2O–C3H6O3]+(33), 445.1118 [M+H–5H2O–CH2O]+(40)

Schaftoside

C26H28O14

564.1479

−2.66

2

3.54

587.1347 [M+Na]+ (24), 565.1538 [M+H]+ (100)

565.1538 [M+H]+(100), 547.1428 [M+H–H2O]+(71). 529.1332 [M+H–2H2O]+(64), 511.1213[M+H–3H2O]+ (56), 499.1217 [M+H–2H2O–CH2O]+(28), 481.1108 [M+H–3H2O–CH2O]+(17), 445.1111 [M+H–5H2O–CH2O]+(14), 427.1012 [M+H–H2O–C4H8O4]+(86), 409.0906 [M+H–2H2O–C4H8O4]+(38)

Isoschaftoside

C26H28O14

564.1479

−2.48

3

5.98

387.1765 [M+Na]+ (100), 365.1949 [M+H]+ (70), 347.1843 [M+H–H2O]+ (35)

347.1843 [M+H–H2O]+ (100), 329.1744 [M+H–2H2O]+(46), 311.1631 [M+H–3H2O]+ (84), 299.1637 [M+H–2H2O–CH2O]+(64), 283.1685 [M+H–3H2O–CO]+(37), 281.1524 [M+H–3H2O–CH2O]+(61), 265.1568 [M+H–4H2O–CO]+(21), 253.1568 [M+H–3H2O–CH2O–CO]+(14)

Lasiodonin

C20H28O6

364.1886

−2.75

4

6.21

629.1450 [M+Na]+ (2), 607.1645 [M+H]+ (100)

607.1634[M+H]+ (100), 589.1527 [M+H–H2O]+(54), 571.1417 [M+H–2H2O]+(35), 553.1315 [M+H–3H2O]+(29), 541.1323 [M+H–2H2O–CH2O]+(14), 523.1222[M+H–3H2O–CH2O]+(13), 469.1110 [M+H–H2O–C4H8O4]+ (12), 427.1011 [M+H–2H2O–C2H4O2]+(45), 409.0902 [M+H–3H2O–C2H4O2]+ (22)

Glycoside

C28H30O15

606.1584

−1.48

5

6.22

383.0724 [M+Na]+ (20), 343.0805 [M+H–H2O]+ (11), 163.0385 [M+H–C9H10O5]+ (100)

163.0385 [M+H–C9H10O5]+(100), 145.0287 [M+H–C9H12O6]+(6)a

Rosmarinic acid

C18H16O8

360.0845

−1.94

6

7.55

387.1765 [M+Na]+ (100), 365.1950 [M+H]+ (49), 347.1841 [M+H–H2O]+ (22)

347.1838 [M+H–H2O]+(16), 329.1739 [M+H–2H2O]+(30), 311.1631 [M+H–3H2O]+(100), 299.1637 [M+H–2H2O–CH2O]+(23), 283.1680 [M+H–3H2O–CO]+(23), 281.1528 [M+H–3H2O–CH2O]+(30)

C-20 oxygenated ent-kaurane diterpenoids

C20H28O6

364.1886

−2.47

7

7.67

387.1771 [M+Na]+ (100), 365.1942 [M+H]+ (7), 347.1847 [M+H–H2O]+ (73)

347.1834 [M+H–H2O]+(14), 329.1740 [M+H–2H2O]+(22), 311.1630 [M+H–3H2O]+ (20), 301.1789 [M+H–2H2O–CO]+(100), 299.1630 [M+H–2H2O–CH2O]+(23), 283.1685 [M+H–3H2O–CO]+(68), 281.1528 [M+H–3H2O–CH2O]+(59)a

Oridonin

C20H28O6

364.1886

−1.92

8

8.27

747.3332 [2 M+Na]+ (100), 385.1610 [M+Na]+ (85), 363.1794 [M+H]+ (44)

363.1788 [M+H]+(18), 345.1686 [M+H–H2O]+(32), 327.1577 [M+H–2H2O]+(58), 309.1490 [M+H–3H2O]+(25), 299.1627 [M+H–2H2O–CO]+(73), 281.1529 [M+H–2H2O–COOH]+(100), 253.1569 [M+H–2H2O–COOH–CO]+(20)a

Ponicidin

C20H26O6

362.1729

−1.10

9

8.39

385.1613 [M+Na]+ (100), 367.1510 [M–H2O + Na]+ (11), 345.1688 [M+H–H2O]+ (52)

345.1681 [M+H–H2O]+(100), 327.1576 [M+H–2H2O]+(13), 309.1474 [M+H–3H2O]+(35), 299.1620 [M+H–2H2O–CO]+(23), 281.1530 [M+H–2H2O–COOH]+(67), 271.1678 [M+H–2H2O–2CO]+(15), 253.1559 [M+H–2H2O–COOH–CO]+(12)

ent-kaurane diterpenoids

C20H26O6

362.1729

−2.21

10

10.41

429.1878 [M+Na]+ (100), 407.2065 [M+H]+ (23), 389.1957 [M+H–H2O]+ (3)

389.1956 [M+H–H2O]+(18), 329.1725 [M+H–H2O–AcOH]+(36), 311.1162 [M+H–2H2O–AcOH]+(13), 299.1629 [M+H–H2O–AcOH–CH2O]+ (100), 281.1529 [M+H–2H2O–AcOH–CH2O]+ (30),253.1572 [M+H–2H2O–AcOH–CH2O–CO]+(45)

Lasiokaurin

C22H30O7

406.1991

0.25

11

10.96

429.1875 [M+Na]+ (100), 407.2058 [M+H]+ (3), 389.1956 [M+H–H2O]+ (42)

371.8261 [M+H–2H2O]+(14), 343.1874 [M+H–2H2O–CO]+ (11), 329.1751 [M+H–H2O–AcOH]+(85), 311.1630 [M+H–2H2O–AcOH]+(64), 299.1615 M+H–H2O–AcOH–CH2O]+(72), 283.1686 [M+H–2H2O–AcOH–CO]+(89), 281.1526 [M+H–2H2O–AcOH–CH2O]+(100), 265.1580 [M+H–3H2O–AcOH–CO]+(46), 253.1576 [M+H–2H2O–AcOH–CH2O–CO]+ (61)

C-20 oxygenated ent-kaurane diterpenoids

C22H30O7

406.1991

−1.97

12

11.47

471.1983 [M+Na]+ (100), 449.2159 [M+H]+ (47)

389.1948 [M+H–AcOH]+(12), 371.1841 [M+H–H2O–AcOH]+(21), 329.1743 [M+H–2AcOH]+(22), 311.1633 [M+H–H2O–2AcOH]+(100), 293.1531 [M+H–2H2O–2AcOH]+(15), 283.1688 [M+H–H2O–2AcOH–CO]+(24), 281.1527 [M+H–H2O–2AcOH–CH2O]+(66)

Shikokianin

C24H32O8

448.2097

−2.45

13

12.07

353.1714 [M+Na]+ (100), 313.1794 [M+H–H2O]+ (14)

295.1669 [M+H–2H2O]+ (4), 277.1590 [M+H–3H2O]+(23), 237.1273 [M+H–3H2O–C3H4]+(100), 209.0948 [M+H–3H2O–C5H8] (17)

Abietane diterpenoids

C20H26O4

330.1831

−2.73

14

12.45

353.1714 [M+Na]+ (38), 331.1889 [M+H]+ (4), 313.1798 [M+H–H2O]+ (100)

253.1219 [M+H–2H2O–C3H6]+(9), 227.1056 [M+H–2H2O–C5H8]+(100), 212.0822[M+H–2H2O–C5H8–CH3]+(14), 209.0955 [M+H–3H2O–C5H8]+(16), 199.1114 M+H–2H2O–C5H8–CO]+(21)

Abietane diterpenoids

C20H26O4

330.1831

−2.73

15

12.73

413.1925 [M+Na]+ (100), 391.2103 [M+H]+ (16), 373.1998 [M+H–H2O]+ (10)

391.2000 [M+H]+(6), 373.2000 [M+H–H2O]+(50), 313.1781 [M+H–H2O–AcOH]+(66), 295.1673 [M+H–2H2O–AcOH]+(50), 283.1678 [M+H–H2O–AcOH–CH2O]+(100), 267.1730 [M+H–2H2O–AcOH–CO]+(57), 265.1576 [M+H–2H2O–AcOH–CH2O]+(22)

C-20 oxygenated ent-kaurane diterpenoids

C22H30O6

390.2042

-2.31

16

14.53

417.2266 [M+H]+ (100), 357.2056 [M+H–AcOH]+ (91)

315.1940 [M+H–AcOH–CH2=CO]+(100), 297.1841 [M+H–2AcOH]+(75), 279.1726 [M+H–H2O–2AcOH]+(26), 255.1369 [M+H–2AcOH–C3H6]+(48), 229.1214 [M+H–2AcOH–C5H8]+(26)

Abietane diterpenoids

C24H32O6

416.2199

−1.44

17

14.89

375.2161 [M+H]+ (100), 315.1947 [M+H–AcOH]+ (27)

315.1946 [M+H–AcOH]+(87), 297.1846 [M+H–H2O–AcOH]+(68), 287.1998 [M+H–AcOH–CO]+(22), 279.1723 [M+H–2H2O–AcOH]+(13), 273.1468 [M+H–AcOH–C3H6](16), 255.1369 [M+H–3H2O–AcOH]+(19), 229.1220 [M+H–H2O–AcOH–C5H8]+(100), 205.1215 [M+H–AcOH–C7H10O]+(48)

Abietane diterpenoids

C22H30O5

374.2093

−1.34

18

15.07

513.2076 [M+Na]+ (100), 508.2521 [M+NH4]+ (4), 491.2253 [M+H]+ (3)

431.2025 [M+H–AcOH]+(8), 389.1976 [M+H–AcOH–CH2=CO]+(22), 371.1830 [M+H–2AcOH]+(49), 329.1740 [M+H–2AcOH–CH2=CO]+(100), 311.1634 [M+H–H2O–2AcOH–CH2=CO]+(38), 283.1708 [M+H–H2O–2AcOH–CH2=CO–CO]+(29)b

Shikokianidin

C26H34O9

490.2203

−3.88

19

15.28

411.1765 [M+Na]+ (17), 389.1946 [M+H]+ (100)

371.1847 [M+H–H2O]+(15), 311.1633[M+H–H2O–AcOH]+ (38), 269.1164 [M+H–H2O–AcOH–C3H6]+ (34), 243.1015 [M+H–H2O–AcOH–C5H8]+(100), 225.0903[M+H–2H2O–AcOH–C5H8]+ (11)

Abietane diterpenoids

C22H28O6

388.1886

−3.35

20

16.78

455.2022 [M+Na]+ (13), 433.2203 [M+H]+ (100)

331.1889 [M+H–AcOH–CH2=CO]+(19), 313.1785 [M+H–2AcOH]+(100), 271.1332 [M+H–2AcOH–C3H6]+(13), 245.1164 [M+H–2AcOH–C5H8]+(19), 219.1012[M+H–2AcOH–C7H10]+(37), 205.0855[M+H–2AcOH–C8H12]+ (37)

Abietane diterpenoids

C24H32O7

432.2148

−4.16

21

17.42

353.1716 [M+Na]+ (22), 331.1894 [M+H]+ (100)

313.1793 [M+H–H2O]+(100), 257.1168 [M+H–H2O–C4H8]+(11), 243.1014 [M+H–H2O–C5H10]+(74)

Abietane diterpenoids

C20H26O4

330.1831

−2.12

22

18.32

395.1816 [M+Na]+ (26), 373.2015 [M+H]+ (100), 355.1896 [M+H–H2O]+ (10)

355.1892 [M+H–H2O]+ (9), 337.1791 [M+H–2H2O]+(14), 295.1684 [M+H–2H2O–CH2=CO]+(42), 277.1578 [M+H–2H2O–AcOH]+(26), 253.1219 [M+H–2H2O–CH2=CO–C3H6]+(87), 239.1059 [M+H–2H2O–CH2=CO–C4H8]+(34), 227.1066 [M+H–2H2O–CH2=CO–C5H8]+(100), 211.1112 [M+H–2H2O–CH2=CO–C4H8–CO]+(24), 209.0956 [M+H–2H2O–AcOH–C5H8]+(50)

Abietane diterpenoids

C22H28O5

372.1937

1.34

23

18.52

381.2025 [M+Na]+ (100), 359.2210 [M+H]+ (20)

299.1999 [M+H–AcOH]+(100), 271.1680 [M+H–AcOH–C2H4]+(25)

Diterpenoids

C22H30O4

358.2144

−1.95

24

19.23

435.1745 [M + 2Na]+ (7), 413.1926 [M+Na]+ (100), 373.2005 [M+H–H2O]+ (8), 313.1793 [M+H–H2O–AcOH]+ (10)

355.1857 [M+H–2H2O]+(7), 313.1798 [M+H–H2O–AcOH]+(93), 295.1678 [M+H–2H2O–AcOH]+(25), 285.1827 [M+H–H2O–CO]+(9), 280.1427 [M+H–2H2O–AcOH–CH3]+(13), 271.1673 [M+H–H2O–AcOH–CH2=CO]+(61), 253.1232 [M+H–2H2O–AcOH–C3H6]+(44), 243.1749 (13), 227.1038 [M+H–2H2O–AcOH–C5H8]+(17)a

Abietane diterpenoids

C22H30O6

390.2042

−2.05

25

19.61

647.3333 [2 M+Na]+ (100), 335.1610 [M+Na]+ (94), 313.1794 [M+H]+ (17)

295.1685 [M+H–H2O]+(13), 277.1583 [M+H–2H2O]+(43), 237.1271 [M+H–2H2O–C3H4]+(100), 227.1062[M+H–H2O–C5H8]+ (25), 209.0953 [M+H–2H2O–C5H8]+(15)

Abietane diterpenoids

C20H24O3

312.1725

−1.28

26

21.22

337.1765 [M+Na]+ (40), 315.1950 [M+H]+ (2), 297.1856 [M+H–H2O]+ (100)

297.1843 [M+H–H2O]+(17), 279.1736 [M+H–2H2O]+ (10), 227.1061 [M+H–H2O–C5H10]+(100), 212.0830 [M+H–H2O–C5H10–CH3]+(18), 199.1117 [M+H–H2O–C5H10–CO]+(19)

Diterpenoids

C20H26O3

314.1882

−1.59

27

21.5

455.2033 [M+Na]+ (100), 450.2478 [M+NH4]+ (8)

373.1997 [M+H–AcOH]+ (8), 313.1788 [M+H–2AcOH]+(100), 295.1682 [M+H–H2O–2AcOH]+(31), 253.1201 [M+H–H2O–2AcOH–C3H6]+ (4)b

Abietane diterpenoids

C24H32O7

432.2148

−1.62

aTandem MS/MS spectra of the [M+H–H2O]+ was listed as the amount of [M+H]+ ion is too low

bTandem MS/MS spectra of the [M+NH4]+ was listed as the amount of [M+H]+ ion is too low

Fig. 7

Chemical structures of the identified compounds. a Schaftoside; b Isoschaftoside; c Rosmarinic acid; d Lasiodonin; e Oridonin; f Ponicidin; g Lasiokaurin; h Shikokianin; i Shikokianidin

Peak 5 was common to all three species. The dominant mass ion for peak 5 had an m/z value of 163.0392, which was consistent with the MS data of rosmarinic acid resulted from the cleavage of its ester bond, weak m/z 383.0724 [M+Na]+ and m/z 343.0814 [M+H–H2O]+ ions also found, which provided evidence that this peak could be attributed to rosmarinic acid [12, 14].

Diterpenoids are the major active compounds in Isodon species [15]. More than 500 diterpenoids have been isolated from plants belonging to this genus and a number of them have been reported to exhibit strong antibacterial, anti-inflammatory and anticancer activities [15]. Six ent-kaurane type diterpenoids were identified from IS in this study, including lasiodonin (peak 3), oridonin (peak 7), ponicidin (peak 8), lasiokaurin (peak 10), shikokianin (peak 13) and shikokianidin (peak 18) [11, 16]. Their chemical structures are shown in Fig. 7. The loss of H2O (−18 Da) from a hydroxyl group, AcOH (−60 Da) or CH2=CO (−42 Da) from an acetate group, CO (−28 Da) from the D ring and CH2O (−30 Da) from the C-20 oxygenated B ring were identified as the dominant fragmentation processes in the tandem MS/MS spectra of these compounds.

Abietane and tricyclic diterpenoids have been reported to be the major diterpenoids found in IL and ILG. Diterpenoids of this type have only ever been found in a few Isodon species, including I. grandifolia and I. forrestii [17]. Information pertaining to diterpenoids of this type is therefore limited. Based on the fragmentation pattern of salvialeriafone, which is a diterpenoid found in the genus Salvia with a similar skeletal structure to those found in IL and ILG, the proposed fragmentation of the diterpenoids was the loss of CO (−28 Da) and H2O (−18 Da) from their C ring after the removal of their side chains or other functional groups [18]. Although more than thirty diterpenoids were isolated from IL, ILG, I. lophanthoides var. gerardianus and I. lophanthoides var. micranthus [6, 810, 19], none of them showed identical molecular weight and possible fragmentation pathways to the peaks in this study. However, the calculated formulae and MS/MS fragments –C3H4 (−40 Da), –C3H6 (−42 Da) and –C5H8 (−68 Da) (removal of side chain from C ring) indicated that most of the peaks could be attributed to abietane-type diterpenoids. Furthermore, two of the peaks in the chromatograms for IL and ILG were identified as glycosides schaftoside (peak 1) and isoschaftoside (peak 2) based on comparisons with standards and references [13, 20].

Identification of commercial samples

Based on the UPLC-MS data generated using the reference plants, we proceeded to investigate the identification of the 27 batches of commercial Xihuangcao. Fundamental morphologic and microscopic identification of Xihuangcao and several related species were done in our previous study. In terms of the morphological features of the 27 samples evaluated in this study, eight of the samples (samples 03, 04, 06, 09, 11, 14, 15, and 20) obviously did not contain plants belonging to the genus Isodon, which have white powders on their surface and leaves 1- or 2-pinnate (Fig. 2d). The microscopic features of these samples were also different from those of the Isodon species according to our preliminary studies. These samples were therefore identified as Ampelopsis grossedentata (Hand.-Mazz.), which is a common adulterant of Xihuangcao [21]. Preliminary analysis of A. grossedentata by UPLC-MS showed its chemical composition differed considerably from those of the Isodon species (Additional file 1: Figure S1), hence the UPLC-MS data for these eight batches were excluded from the automated sample class prediction.

A prediction model was initially built using the UPLC-MS data generated form the 15 reference plants. Significant signals were identified via a series of statistical calculations and filtration processes, followed by a statistical validation step, which showed the accuracy of the prediction for each class. The model was finally visualized by PCA. In this model, naive Bayesian classifier, which is a multi-class parameter-based statistical classifier, was used. The UPLC-MS data of the remaining 19 commercial samples were imported and classified using the prediction model. Twelve samples were predicted as ILG (samples 01, 02, 08, 13, 16, 19, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 and 27), whereas six samples were predicted as IS (samples 05, 07, 10, 12, 18 and 26) with a high confidence measure of 1.000 in both cases. The only major exception was sample 17, which was predicted to be IS with a low confidence measure of 0.692. A representative prediction report is shown in Fig. 8. The UPLC-MS data for this sample was converted into three principal components and compared with those of the model. Manual identification of the samples using the 27 characteristic peaks was also conducted to further confirm the result. All of these results were consistent with those of the automated prediction, except for sample 17, which showed a low confidence measure. This sample could not be identified as one of the three Isodon species.
Fig. 8

Prediction report of sample 02

According to the species identification results, ILG was the major source of Xihuangcao, whereas IS was found in approximately one-quarter of the samples (22%) and IL was not used at all. Xihuangcao is mainly sold as a special local product in the markets for the preparation of soup or herbal tea. IS has a very bitter taste, whereas IL and ILG are only slightly bitter, which could explain why IS was found in small quantities in the Xihuangcao samples in this market investigation. IL is an annual or short-lived perennial herb, whereas its variety ILG is an undershrub capable of reaching more than 1 m in height [3]. ILG is therefore more desirable for cultivation in terms of its production yield. The large proportion of adulterant (44%) found in this study also raises concerns about the quality of the Xihuangcao being sold in retail markets.

Conclusion

UPLC-ESI-QTOF-MS and subsequent chemometrics analysis were demonstrated effective to differentiate among the three different species of plants used as Xihuangcao.

Abbreviations

BPC: 

base peak chromatogram

HCA: 

hierarchical cluster analysis

IL: 

Isodon lophanthoides

ILG: 

Isodon lophanthoides var. graciliflorus

IS: 

Isodon serra

MS: 

mass spectrometry

ANOVA: 

one-way analysis of variance

OPLS-DA: 

orthogonal partial least squared discriminant analysis

PCA: 

principal component analysis

UPLC: 

ultra-performance liquid chromatography

UPLC-ESI-QTOF-MS: 

ultra-performance liquid chromatography coupled with electrospray ionization quadrupole time-of-flight mass spectrometry

Declarations

Authors’ contributions

HBC and ZZZ conceived the study. LLW and ZTL designed the study. LLW, ZTL collected the plant materials and samples. LLW conducted the sample preparation, UPLC analysis, and analyzed the data. LLW, ZTL wrote the manuscript. ZTL revised the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Ms. Qiaohua Deng and Mr. Weiliang Zhang form Hutchison Whampoa Guangzhou Baiyunshan Chinese Medicine Company Limited for the help in the collection of reference plants, also Mr. Alan Ho from the School of Chinese Medicine, Hong Kong Baptist University for his kind technical support.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
School of Chinese Medicine, Hong Kong Baptist University
(2)
Research Center for Pharmacognosy, Institute of Chinese Materia Medica, Academy of Chinese Medical Sciences

References

  1. Wu JF. Literature review of Xihuangcao. Shi Zhen Guo Yi Guo Yao. 2003;14(8):498–500.Google Scholar
  2. Guangdong Food and Drug Administration. Guangdong Chinese Materia Medica Standards, vol. 2. Guangdong: Guangdong Science & Technology Press; 2011. p. 347–53.Google Scholar
  3. Suddee S, Paton AJ, Parnell JAN. A taxonomic revision of tribe Ocimeae Dumorts. (Lamiaceae) in continental South East Asia. Kew Bull. 2004;59(3):379–414.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  4. Fu L, Deng QH, Ceng FY, Yr YS. Research of the name of Chinese medicine Xihuangcao. Zhong Yao Cai. 2012;35(3):493–5.Google Scholar
  5. Chen JN, Jiang DX, Zhao AG, Lai XP. Microscopic identification of medicinal material of Herba Rabdosiae Serrae. Guang Zhou Zhong Yi Yao Da Xue Xue Bao. 2006;23:52–5.Google Scholar
  6. Zhang Q, Pan CM. The comparative studies on the morphology of I. serra, I. lophanthoides, I. lophanthoides var. geradiana and I. lophanthoides var. graciliflorus. Pharm Today. 2012;22(1):21–4.Google Scholar
  7. Liang YG, Xie HH, Wu P, Jiang YM, Wei XY. Podocarpane, isopimarane, and abietane diterpenoids from Isodon lophanthoides var. graciliflorus. Food Chem. 2013;136:1177–82.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Yang LB, Li L, Huang SX, Pu JX, Zhao Y, Ma YB, Chen JJ, Leung CH, Tao ZM, Sun HD. Anti-hepatitis B virus and cytotoxic diterpenoids from Isodonlophanthoides var. gerardianus. Chem Pharm Bull (Tokyo). 2011;59(9):1102–5.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  9. Zhao AH, Li SH, Li YW, Huan QB, Zhao QS, Lin ZW, Sun HD. Two New Abietane Quinones from Isodon lophanthoides var micranthus. Chin Chem Lett. 2003;14(6):591–3.Google Scholar
  10. Zhou W, Xie H, Wu P, Wei X. Abietane diterpenoids from Isodon lophanthoides var. graciliflorus and their cytotoxicity. Food Chem. 2013;136:1110–6.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Liu PW, Du TF, Zhang XW, Sheng XN, Shi XW, Zhai CC, Zhu H, Wang N, Zhang LT. Rapid analysis of 27 components of Isodon Serra by LC-ESI-MS-MS. Chromatographia. 2010;72:265–73.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  12. Flora of China: TaxonId 210000832—Isodon serra. Beijing: Flora of China Editorial Board. 2013. http://foc.eflora.cn/content.aspx?TaxonId=210000832. Accessed 12 Jun 2014.
  13. Kuang YH, Liang S, Yao XH, Huang L, Lin Q. Determination of isoschaftoside, schaftoside and romarinic acid in Isodon lophanthoides var. graciliflora by HPLC. Zhong Cheng Yao. 2013;35(3):570–3.Google Scholar
  14. MassBank Record: PR040220—Rosmarinic acid. Tokyo: MassBank Project. 2014. http://www.massbank.jp/jsp/Dispatcher.jsp?type=disp&id=PR040220&site=1. Accessed 12 Jun 2014.
  15. Sun HD, Huang SX, Han QB. Diterpenoids from Isodon species and their biological activities. Nat Prod Rep. 2006;23:673–98.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Sun HD, Xu YL, Jiang B. Diterpenoids from Isodon species. Beijing: Science Publishing House; 2001. p. 245.Google Scholar
  17. Zhang L, Zhou GX, Li Q, Dai Y, Ye WC, Yao XS. Chemical constituents of Isodon lophanthoides (Buch. –Ham. ex D. Don) Hara var. gerandianus (Benth.) Hara. Shen Yang Yao Ke Da Xue Xue Bao. 2006;23(12):768–70.Google Scholar
  18. Musharraf SG, Goher M, Hussain A, Choudhary ML. Electrospray tandem mass spectrometric analysis of a dimeric conjugate, salvialeriafone and related compounds. Chem Cent J. 2012;6:120.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  19. Sun HD, Xu YL, Jiang B. Diterpenoids from Isodon species. Beijing: Science Publishing House; 2001. p. 119.Google Scholar
  20. Colombo R, Yariwake JH, McCullaghb M. Study of C- and O-glycosylflavones in sugarcane extracts using liquid chromatography—exact mass measurement mass spectrometry. J Braz Chem Soc. 2008;19(3):483–90.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  21. Deng QH. Study on distribution and development of Herbra Isodonis Lophanthoidis. Jin Ri Yao Xue. 2009;19(9):21–5.Google Scholar

Copyright

© The Author(s) 2016

Advertisement