Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2024 Jun 12:15:1421008.
doi: 10.3389/fpls.2024.1421008. eCollection 2024.

Exploration of chemical components and metabolite synthesis pathways in eight Ephedra species based on HS-GC-MS and UPLC-Q-TOF-MS

Bing Guo #  1   2 , Lina Yang #  1   2 , Hengyang Li  1   2 , Qi An  3 , Yongli Liu  3 , Jie Cheng  4 , Fangjie Hou  1   2 , Long Guo  1   2 , Dan Zhang  1   2
Affiliations

Exploration of chemical components and metabolite synthesis pathways in eight Ephedra species based on HS-GC-MS and UPLC-Q-TOF-MS

Bing Guo et al. Front Plant Sci. .

Abstract

Objective: Ephedra, widely used in clinical practice as a medicinal herb, belongs to the genus Ephedra in the family Ephedraceae. However, the presence of numerous Ephedra varieties and variants requires differentiation for accurate identification.

Methods: In this study, we employed headspace gas chromatography mass spectrometry (HS-GC-MS), ultra-high performance liquid chromatography coupled with quadrupole time-of-flight mass spectrometry (UPLC-Q-TOF-MS), and global natural products social molecular networking (GNPS) for chemical component identification. Chemometric analysis was used to analyze the differential components. Metabolic analysis and Kyoto encyclopedia of genes and genomes (KEGG) enrichment were utilized to explore the synthesis pathways of different components.

Result: A total of 83 volatile and 79 non-volatile components were identified in Ephedra species. Differential analysis revealed that among the eight Ephedra stems, 18 volatile and 19 non-volatile differential compounds were discovered, whereas Ephedra roots exhibited 21 volatile and 17 non-volatile markers. Volatile compounds were enriched in four synthetic pathways, while non-volatile components were enriched in five pathways among the differentiated components.

Conclusion: This study is the first to conduct a comparative analysis of chemical components in different Ephedra species and parts. It provides a foundational reference for authenticating Ephedra herbs, evaluating medicinal resources, and comparing quality in future studies.

Keywords: Ephedra species; HS-GC-MS; UPLC-Q-ToF-MS; chemical component; molecular network; synthetic route.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Distribution of different categories of volatile components in MHS (A) and MHR (B), and comparison of volatile components in MHS (C) and MHR (D) from eight Ephedra species.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Total ion flow diagrams of MHS (A) and MHR (B) for various species.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Multivariate statistical analysis of volatile components in MHS and MHR using PCA and OPLS-DA. (A) PCA and OPLS-DA with R2X, R2Y values of 0.970, 0.944 for MHS. (B) PCA and OPLS-DA with R2X, R2Y values of 0.887, 0.760 for MHR. (C) PCA and OPLS-DA with R2X, R2Y values of 0.784, 0.989 for MHS and MHR.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Relative content of differential components in MHS (A) and MHR (B).
Figure 5
Figure 5
Distribution of chemical component types and total ion flow diagrams in MHS (A) and MHR (B).
Figure 6
Figure 6
Chemical components identified through molecular networking. (A) MHS, (B) MHR.
Figure 7
Figure 7
Multivariate statistical analysis, including PCA and OPLS-DA, was conducted on the UPLC-MS data of non-volatile components. (A, B) represent the analysis of MHS and MHR, respectively, with R2X and R2Y values of 0.937, 0.727 for MHS, and 0.887 and 0.761 for MHR. (C) displays PCA and OPLS-DA results (R2X, R2Y values of 0.916, 0.991) for MHS and MHR.
Figure 8
Figure 8
Relative abundance of major chemical constituents and differentiated components in MHS (A) and MHR (B).
Figure 9
Figure 9
Synthetic pathways enriched with differential components.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Abourashed E. A., El-Alfy A. T., Khan I. A., Walker L. (2003). Ephedra in perspective–a current review. Phytotherapy Res. 17, 703–712. doi: 10.1002/ptr.1337 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Al-Rimawi F., Abu-Lafi S., Abbadi J., Alamarneh A. A., Sawahreh R. A., Odeh I. (2017). Analysis of phenolic and flavonoids of wild Ephedra alata plant extracts by LC/PDA and LC/MS and their antioxidant activity. Afr. J. Traditional Complementary Altern. Medicines 14, 130–141. doi: 10.21010/ajtcam.v14i2.14 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Chen W.-L., Tsai T.-H., Yang C. C., Kuo T. B. (2010). Effects of ephedra on autonomic nervous modulation in healthy young adults. J. ethnopharmacology 130, 563–568. doi: 10.1016/j.jep.2010.05.056 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Commission C. P. (2020). Pharmacopoeia of the people's Republic of China (Beijing: China Medical Science Press; ).
    1. Cottiglia F., Bonsignore L., Casu L., Deidda D., Pompei R., Casu M., et al. . (2005). Phenolic constituents from Ephedra nebrodensis. Natural Product Res. 19, 117–123. doi: 10.1080/14786410410001704714 - DOI - PubMed