10.8
CiteScore
 
5.3
Impact Factor
Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
Search in posts
Search in pages
Filter by Categories
Corrigendum
Current Issue
Editorial
Erratum
Full Length Article
Full lenth article
Original Article
Research article
Retraction notice
Review
Review Article
SPECIAL ISSUE: ENVIRONMENTAL CHEMISTRY
10.8
CiteScore
5.3
Impact Factor
Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
Search in posts
Search in pages
Filter by Categories
Corrigendum
Current Issue
Editorial
Erratum
Full Length Article
Full lenth article
Original Article
Research article
Retraction notice
Review
Review Article
SPECIAL ISSUE: ENVIRONMENTAL CHEMISTRY
View/Download PDF

Translate this page into:

Original article
03 2024
:17;
105613
doi:
10.1016/j.arabjc.2024.105613

A comprehensive strategy integrating metabolomics with DNA barcoding for discovery of combinatorial discriminatory quality markers: A case of Cimicifuga foetida and Cimicifuga dahurica

State Key Laboratory of Component-based Chinese Medicine, Tianjin University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Tianjin 301617, China
Tianjin Key Laboratory of Phytochemistry and Pharmaceutical Analysis, Tianjin University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Tianjin 301617, China
Haihe Laboratory of Modern Chinese Medicine, Tianjin 301617, China

⁎Corresponding authors at: State Key Laboratory of Component-based Chinese Medicine, Tianjin University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Tianjin 301617, China. dkztcm@tjutcm.edu.cn (Kunze Du), Tcmcyx@tjutcm.edu.cn (Yanxu Chang)

Disclaimer:
This article was originally published by Elsevier and was migrated to Scientific Scholar after the change of Publisher.
The author contributes equally to first author in this work.

Abstract

The multiple species characteristics of traditional Chinese medicines (TCMs) are crucial for expanding TCMs sources, meeting the needs of the pharmaceutical industry and ensuring clinical requirements. It’s also one of the significant factors affecting the quality control of TCMs. Systematic differential analysis of original species in TCMs is an important link in achieving comprehensive quality control, ensuring the effectiveness and safety of clinical medication. The study aims to establish a reliable and efficient approach to screen combinatorial discriminatory quality markers for rapid differentiation of original species by metabolomics coupled with DNA barcoding as a case of Cimicifugae Rhizoma. DNA barcoding is used to identify the origin of Cimicifugae Rhizoma. The data-dependent acquisition mode integrated with the computerized intelligent filtering system was established for in-depth characterization of metabolites from Cimicifugae Rhizoma using ultra-high performance liquid chromatography to quadrupole time-of-flight mass spectrometry (UHPLC-Q-TOF-MS). The untargeted metabolomics combined with multivariate statistical analysis was performed to screen and identify the potential combinatorial discriminatory quality markers. Finally, quantitative analysis and predictive model of these markers were employed to validate the feasibility of this strategy to distinguish the original species. Based on the scores of variable importance in projection greater than 1.0 and t-test (p < 0.05) in chemometric analysis, caffeic acid, cimifugin, ferulic acid and isoferulic acid were authenticated as combinatorial discriminatory quality markers for the two original species of Cimicifugae Rhizoma. In addition, the Fisher discriminant model successfully classified 56 batches of Cimicifugae Rhizoma with an accuracy of 94.4 %, showcased the practicality and scientific validity of this method. This study has provided a comprehensive strategy for efficient discrimination of multiple species of medicinal materials.

Keywords

Cimicifuga foetida
Cimicifuga dahurica
Data-dependent acquisition
Metabolomics
DNA barcoding

Abbreviations

AdaBoost

Adaptive boosting algorithm

C. dahurica, XSM

Cimicifuga dahurica

C. foetida, SM

Cimicifuga foetida

CIF

computerized intelligent filtering

CR

Cimicifugae Rhizoma

DDA

data-dependent acquisition

DIA

data-independent acquisition

FA

formic acid

HPLC-DAD

High Performance Liquid Chromatography with Diode-Array Detection

KNN

K-Nearest Neighbor

K2P

Kimura 2-parameter

LC/MS

Liquid chromatography/mass spectrometry

NJ

Neighbor-Joining

PCA

Principal Component Analysis

PILs

precursor ion lists

OPLS-DA

Orthogonal Partial Least Squares-Discriminant Analysis

RSDs

relative standard deviations

TCMs

traditional Chinese medicines

UHPLC-Q-TOF-MS

ultra-high performance liquid chromatography to quadrupole time-of-flight mass spectrometry

1

1 Introduction

The application of traditional Chinese medicines (TCMs) in clinical practice is gradually expanding due to its abundant species resources, high efficacy, low cost and low toxicity (Wang et al., 2021). However, the quality control standards of TCMs have not been fully unified because of the differences in national, ministerial and local drug inspection standards. The plant species is an important influential factor of TCMs quality. Accurate identification of plant species of TCMs is the primary link in TCMs quality control. The quality can be evaluated to further ensure the efficacy and safety of clinical medication by clearly differentiating the plant species of TCMs (Zhang et al., 2022). Therefore, it is required to establish an efficient and practical approach for investigating the chemical differences of the plant species used as the same TCM.

Cimicifugae Rhizoma (CR), belonging to the Ranunculaceae family, is one of the widely used TCMs for relieving oral ulcers, herpes zoster, chronic pulmonary heart disease and menopause symptoms (Zheng et al., 2013, Zhang et al., 2014). Currently, the reported components of CR mainly include triterpenoid saponins (Pang et al., 2021), phenylpropanoids (Lu et al., 2019), chromones (Duan et al., 2021), alkaloids (Thao et al., 2017) and terpenoids (Ma et al., 2013). The CR cultivars are broadly distributed throughout China, encompassing Cimicifuga foetida L., Cimicifuga dahurica (Turcz.) Maxim. and Cimicifuga heracleifolia Kom. (Chinese Pharmacopoeia Commission, 2020). The use of multiple species of herbal medicines is convenient for accessing materials from local sources and addressing resource scarcity. The CR species have high similarity in appearance. However, the current method had rarely been reported according to morphological evaluation without objectivity and reliable methods for differentiating the species. In addition, the chemical compositions of CR often vary from varieties and they serve as the basis for its therapeutic effects in clinic. Therefore, it is imperative to develop a new method to investigate the accurate chemical differences of CR species.

DNA barcoding is an effective and accurate technique that identifies the plant species using one or several short DNA gene fragments. Due to the stability of DNA sequence, this technique remains unaffected by variables such as plant growth years, growth environment or plant parts. Therefore, it is widely recognized and applied for identifying the origin (Wang et al., 2021), adulteration (Shi et al., 2017) and authenticity of medicinal herbs (Guo et al., 2017). ITS2, as a non-coding nuclear DNA, can effectively distinguish species in close phylogenetic relationships with the characteristics of easy sequence amplification, high success rate and strong universality. Therefore, the ITS2 was used as the most suitable region for discriminating species. Based on this, a system for TCMs identification was established to facilitate rapid differentiation between the plant species (Gao et al., 2019).

Plant metabolomics is the qualitative and quantitative research of small molecules of secondary metabolites in different species, genotypes or ecological environment at growth stages (Li et al., 2021, Meng et al., 2023). Due to its high applicability and specificity, metabolomics had been employed extensively to quest for the species authentication (Bielecka et al., 2021), the quality evaluation (Yue et al., 2019), the analytical origins (Cao et al., 2021), the bioactivity screening (Qu et al., 2021) and research on mechanism (Fu et al., 2022, Wurihan et al., 2022) in TCMs. A comprehensive insight into the secondary metabolites of various species in TCMs is vital for further differential components analysis. Ultra-high performance liquid chromatography to quadrupole time-of-flight mass spectrometry (UHPLC-Q-TOF-MS) offers high sensitivity, high resolution and high accuracy, making it an increasingly important tool for characterizing complex components and uncovering unknown metabolites in TCMs (Li et al., 2020, Chen et al., 2022, Qu et al., 2023). Nowadays, the most commonly used method for untargeted metabolites characterization is Data Dependent Acquisition (DDA). The interference of unrelated ions is evidently reduced and high-quality fragments are obtained favoring the elucidation of structural information in DDA method (Rudt et al., 2023). Premised on this, a segmented collection mode with limited mass range was constructed and a computerized intelligent filtering (CIF) platform was established during the data processing stage to analyze and characterize the chemical components. Therefore, an in-depth metabolites characterization strategy was proposed based on DDA mode and CIF system in this study.

The strategy integrating metabolomics with DNA barcoding was applied to screen combinatorial discriminatory quality markers of Cimicifuga foetida (C. foetida) and Cimicifuga dahurica (C. dahurica) on the basis of the phylogenetic relationships and chemical constituents. Firstly, the ITS2 sequences were completely gained by DNA barcoding to distinguish the two species of CR. Secondly, the in-depth and global characterization of CR was conducted using a combination of DDA and CIF techniques by UHPLC-Q-TOF-MS. Thirdly, the combinatorial discriminatory quality markers were confirmed eventually using metabolomic combined with chemometric methods, including caffeic acid, cimifugin, ferulic acid and isoferulic acid. A comprehensive strategy combining metabolomics with DNA barcoding was applied for the first time in Cimicifugae Rhizoma to screen combinatorial discriminatory quality markers for rapid differentiation. The established strategy showed the ability to distinguish original plants and also provided significant guide for the quality control in TCMs. The schematic diagram illustrates the strategy of screening combinatorial discriminatory quality markers in CR (Fig. 1).

The schematic diagram of the strategy of discriminational investigation in CR.
Fig. 1
The schematic diagram of the strategy of discriminational investigation in CR.

2

2 Materials and methods

2.1

2.1 Plant material and pretreatment

A total of 56 batches of CR (Table S1 in Supplementary materials) were from two species, of which 44 batches were purchased from the markets and 12 batches were collected from wild plants. The purchased batches were mainly from Sichuan, Inner Mongolia and the three northeast provinces of China while the collected batches were obtained from Heilongjiang. All samples were identified by Prof Yanxu Chang (Tianjin University of Traditional Chinese Medicine) using morphological authentication. The voucher specimens were deposited in State Key Laboratory of Component-based Chinese Medicine (Tianjin, China). The CR samples were powdered with a pulverizer and filtered through a 50-mesh sieve. Each sample powder (0.100 g) was weighed accurately and extracted by an ultrasonator with 4.0 mL of 50 % methanol (v/v) for 40 min at 50 Hz. The extract was centrifuged at 7300 rpm for 10 min. All the supernatant were filtered through a 0.22 µm filter membrane before UHPLC analysis.

2.2

2.2 Chemicals and reagents

HPLC-grade methanol and acetonitrile (Fisher, Pittsburg, PA, USA), HPLC-grade formic acid (FA) (Anaqua™, Wilmington, DE, USA), and ultrapure water was prepared by Milli-Q academic ultra-pure water system (Millipore, Milford, MA, USA). Other reagents were analytical grade. Eleven reference standards, including caffeic acid, ferulic acid, isoferulic acid, cimifugin, cimicifugoside, cimifugin-4′-O-β-D-glucopyranoside, cimigenol xyloside, cimigenol-3-O-α-L-arabinoside, cimicidanol-3-O-α-L-arabinoside, acetylcimigenol-3-O-α-L-arabinopyranside, 26-deoxycimicifugoside were purchased from Chengdu Desite Bio-Technology Co., Ltd (Chengdu, China). 2 × Taq PCR Mix, Plant Genomic DNA kit, ddH2O were obtained from Tiangen Biochemical Technology Co., Ltd (Beijing, China). DNA marker, 6 × loading buffer and GoldView™ were supplied from Takara Biomedical Technology (Beijing) Co., Ltd. The primer was synthesized by Sangon Co., Ltd (Shanghai, China).

2.3

2.3 DNA barcoding analysis

Each sample was sprayed by 75 % ethanol solution and gently wiped with degreased cotton to remove impurities. Each sample (0.080 g) was powdered for 10 min at 70 Hz in a tissue grinder (Servicebio, China). After transferring the sample to a new centrifuge tube, the genomic DNA extraction was isolated by Tiangen Plant Genomic DNA kit (Tiangen Biotech, China) with minor modifications. The extracted samples were quantitatively analyzed by NanoDrop spectrometer (Thermo Fischer Scientific, USA) and stored at −20 °C for later use.

The ITS2 sequences were amplified from genomic DNA by polymerase chain reaction (PCR) using universal primers of ITS2F (5′-GCGATACTTGGTGTGAAT-3′) and ITS3R (5′-GACGCTTCTCCAGACTACAAT-3′) (Ren et al., 2014). The PCR was performed in a total volume of 50 μL, containing approximately 50–200 ng template DNA, forward primer (2.5 mM, 2 μL), reverse primer (2.5 mM, 2 μL), 2 × Taq PCR Mix (25 μL), ddH2O added to 50 μL. The PCR conditions were as follows: 94 °C for 5 min; 40 cycles at 94 °C for 30 s, 56 °C for 30 s and 72 °C for 45 s; 72 °C for 10 min. PCR products (5 μL of each) were detected by electrophoresis on 1.5 % agarose gel in 1 × TAE buffer for 40 min at 80 V. Purified PCR products were sequenced in both directions.

Sequences were assembled by Geneious 9.0.2. Then, the complete ITS2 sequences were annotated and cut based on the ITS2 Database (https://its2.bioapps.biozentrum.uni-wuerzburg.de/). After final alignment in MEGA 6.0, 56 ITS2 sequences were imported into NCBI (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/) to preliminarily determine the species attribution. Genetic distance was calculated based on Kimura 2-parameter (K2P) model to evaluate intraspecific and interspecific variation. The phylogenetic tree was constructed by Neighbor-joining (NJ) method with 1000 bootstrap replications to summarize the genetic relationships.

2.4

2.4 UHPLC-Q-TOF-MS analysis

The metabolic characteristics and composition characterization of herbal samples were collected on a 1290 UHPLC system together with a 6520 Q-TOF mass spectrometer (Agilent, Santa Clara, CA, USA). The samples were separated on a ZORBAX Eclipse Plus C18 column (4.6 × 100 mm, 1.8 μm, Agilent Technologies, MD, USA) at 35 °C. The mobile phase consisted of solvent A (0.1 % FA-water) and solvent B (acetonitrile) with a gradient elution. The elution gradient of metabolomics was as follows: 0–8 min, 5 %–35 % B; 8–20 min, 35 %–57 % B; 20–40 min, 57 %–81 % B; 40–42 min, 81 %–90 % B. The flow rate was 0.3 mL/min and the injection volume was 3 μL. The other ion source parameters were set as follows: source temperature, 550 °C; drying gas temperature, 325 °C; skimmer voltage, 65 V; fragmentor voltage, 120 V; capillary voltage, 3.5 kV; ion spray voltage, −4.5 kV; collision energy (CE), 10, 35 and 40 V; nebulizer gas pressure, 40 psig; drying gas, N2; gas flow rate, 10 L/min; detection range, m/z 50–1500 in both positive and negative mode.

The DDA mode containing mass range, precursor ion lists (PILs) and static exclusion range lists were used for component characterization. The main different parameters were as follows. According to the organized compounds database, the mass range were set to 100–400 Da, 400–600 Da, 600–700 Da, 700–800 Da, 800–1200 Da in positive mode in order to acquire as much as possible mass spectrometric information, respectively. Furthermore, the molecular weight of the components in CR was mainly concentrated in the range of 400–800 Da, so 400–600 Da, 600–700 Da and 700–800 Da were set to obtain more compound information. The PILs mainly consist of those with low response and the static exclusion range lists were interfering ions (collected in Table S2). The optimal gradient including 0–15 min, 5 %–100 % B; 15–18 min, 100 % B was adopted for component characterization due to its good peak separation effect and more time-saving.

2.5

2.5 Quantitative analysis of chemical markers

The quantitative analysis of the herbal samples were acquired by an Ultimate 3000 High Performance Liquid Chromatography with Diode-Array Detection (HPLC-DAD) (Thermo Fisher Scientific, United States). An Agilent Ultimate AQ-C18 (4.6 × 250 mm, 5 μm, Agilent) was used for subsequent analysis. The mobile phase consisted of 0.1 % FA-water (A) and acetonitrile (B), and the optimal gradient conditions were as follows: 0–10 min, 5 %–20 % B; 10–18 min, 20 %–26 % B, 18–28 min, 26 %B; 28–29 min, 26 %–30 % B, 29–35 min, 30 %B; 35–45 min, 30 %–50 %B. The flow rate was set at 1.0 mL/min, the injection volume was 10.0 μL, the column temperature of 30 °C and the detection wavelength was 310 nm.

The quantification method of the potential markers was validated for linearity, precision, repeatability and recovery according to the guiding principle of the validation of analytical methods of Chinese Pharmacopoeia (Yan et al., 2022). The mixed standard solutions of different concentrations were adopted to gain the standard curves. The precision was evaluated by injecting six consecutive needles of the XSM-14 sample. The repeatability of the method was investigated by inspecting six duplicate samples of the XSM-14. The stability of the samples were computed within 24 h. Furthermore, the recovery was measured by adding half amount of the mixed standard solutions into the samples.

2.6

2.6 Multivariate statistical analysis

The multivariate statistical analysis mainly included Principal Component Analysis (PCA), Orthogonal Partial Least Squares-Discriminant Analysis (OPLS-DA), K-Nearest Neighbor (KNN), Adaptive boosting algorithm (AdaBoost) and Fisher discriminant analysis. Firstly, the data processing and analysis of UHPLC-Q-TOF-MS were carried out by the Agilent MassHunter software B.07.00. Agilent Mass Profinder software (version B.10.00) was applied to peak identify, peak match and then metabolomics variable information was obtained. Secondly, total metabolic variants were used for PCA and OPLS-DA analysis by SIMCA (14.1 version) to classify the 56 batches. Further screening the differential components between C. foetida and C. dahurica (Han et al., 2022). Thirdly, AdaBoost and KNN algorithms were served to calculate the grouping accuracy of the selected markers. Finally, these markers were performed by Fisher discriminant analysis using SPSS software. This model would be applied to distinguish and identify C. foetida and C. dahurica with unknown origin.

3

3 Results and discussion

3.1

3.1 Discrimination of C. foetida and C. dahurica using ITS2 barcoding

PCR amplification was performed after extracting DNA fragments. The PCR results showed that the ITS2 regions of 56 samples were successfully amplified by the universal primers ITS2F/ITS3R (Fig. S1) and high-quality bidirectional sequencing trace files were obtained. After removing the 5.8 s and 28 s rRNA gene sequences at both ends, a total of 56 ITS2 sequences were acquired. Among them, 16 of 56 batches of CR were identified as C. foetida and the rest were C. dahurica. All the sequences were 219 bp in length. According to the analysis of variable sites, C. foetida can be classified into four main haplotypes (F1 ∼ F4), while C. dahurica has three main haplotypes (D1 ∼ D3) (Table 1). The GC-content of C. foetida and C. dahurica were 51.8 %∼53.0 % and 50.2 %∼50.7 %, respectively (Table S3).

Table 1 The inteaspecific variable sites in the ITS2 sequences of C. foetida and C. dahurica.
Latin name Haplotype variable sites/bp
3 17 32 70 97 105 117 131 146 162 171 175 210
/ Reference C T G C G C C T G C A C T
C. foetida F1 * * * * * * * * * * * * *
F2 * * * * * * * * * * * T *
F3 * * Y * A * * * * * * * *
F4 * * * * * * * C * * * * *
C.dahurica D1 * C A R A T T * A A C A G
D2 T C A * A T T * A A C A G
D3 * C A * A T T * A A C A G

Note: * it indicated the same base as the first row. Referring to Molecular identification of DNA barcoding in traditional Chinese medicine.

In order to construct a consensus phylogenic tree with bootstrap percentages, the Neighbor-Joining (NJ) algorithm was applied to the ITS2 regions using MEGA 6.0 software (Fig. S2). C. foetida and C. dahurica could be clearly distinguished into two groups. Meanwhile, K2P Genetic distance within and between species were calculated by this software. The intra specific distance of C. foetida and C. dahurica from different regions were 0 ∼ 0.0046 and 0 ∼ 0.0093, with an average intra specific distance of 0.0013 and 0.0021, respectively. It indicated that there was a little variation in the genetic process between different regions and also proved that ITS2 sequence, as a DNA barcoding of CR, exhibited good stability. The interspecific distance between the two cultivars of CR was 0.0485, which was far greater than the intraspecific difference (Table S3).

This study requires correct species identification of C. foetida and C. dahurica to ensure accurate elucidation of the chemical differences between the two plants and to discover the impact of species on the quality of medicinal materials. It is usually difficult for inexperienced researchers to employ morphological authentication methods to confirm the original plant species of CR. Recently, DNA barcoding was used to identify accurately the plant species unaffected by external conditions (Gao et al., 2019). Here, the ITS2 regions of 56 samples were successfully amplified and the sequences were obtained. The results showed that the ITS2 could authenticate the original plant species of CR with 100 % success rate. The ITS2 region had the potential to be a good DNA barcoding for identification of medicinal species of CR. It could not provide differences in composition and its content between the two species. Subsequently, the differential components were screened and verified to lay the foundation for further improvement on the quality evaluation of CR based on metabolomics and chemometrics.

3.2

3.2 Identification of chemical composition in CR

3.2.1

3.2.1 Strategy for the rapid discovery and identification of compounds

The integrated DDA method (limited mass range, PILs and static exclusion) with CIF system was applied to thoroughly characterize a variety of compounds from CR using UHPLC-Q-TOF-MS. Firstly, the database about the components of CR was established. This allows for the rapid filtration of potential compounds in CR due to the higher matching score between molecular ions and the database. Next, in order to obtain as much as possible mass spectrometric information on the CR, DDA method was conducted. Subsequently, an intelligent data matching platform was created through node server to achieve automatic output of target data. The obtained mass spectrum information were matched with the self-built database through the platform. Following this, the molecular ions were unequivocally screened using the error formula with ppm less than 20. Finally, the screening results were further validated and the structural characterization was accomplished by characteristic diagnostic ion and neutral loss comparing with in-house library (Huang et al., 2022). The total ion chromatograms (TIC) of CR were obtained both in positive and negative ion mode using UHPLC-Q-TOF-MS (Fig. S3). The information of compounds including accurate mass measurements, molecular ions, fragmentation behavior and retention time were shown in Table 2.

Table 2 Identification of the phytochemical compounds in CR by UHPLC-Q-TOF-MS in positive and negative ion mode.
No. Adduct tR (min) Formula Mass m/z Error (ppm) MS/MS Fragments Identification
c1 [M−H]- 1.77 C11H12O8 272.0532 271.0459 5.66 253.0345,191.0341,179.0334,135.0426 Fukiic acid
c2 [M−H]- 2.23 C11H12O7 256.0583 255.051 3.23 255.0502,211.0620,193.0492,179.0337,165.0468 Piscidic acid
c3 [M + H]+ 2.36 C32H42O16 682.2473 683.2546 8.01 682.2683,641.2519,524.2118 (+)-pinoresinol di-O-β-D-allopyranoside
c4 [M−H]- 2.38 C14H20O8 316.1158 315.1085 −4.93 315.1101,153.0543,123.0446 Cimidahurine
c5 [M−H]- 2.51 C14H20O8 316.1158 315.1085 0.45 315.1084,153.0210,123.0441 3,5-dihydroxy-2-[(4-hydroxy phenyl)methyl]butanedioic acid
c6 [M−H]- 2.52 C15H18O9 342.0951 341.0878 2.94 341.0868,179.0343,135.0433 Caffeic acid 4-O-β-D-glucopyranoside
c7 [M−H]- 2.59 C11H12O7 256.0583 255.051 0.49 225.0509,117.0344 (2R,3S)-2,3-dihydroxy-2-(4-hydroxybenzyl)succinic acid
c8 [M−H]- 2.97 C13H16O8 300.0845 299.0772 6.14 299.0654,137.0271 4-hydroxybenzoic acid 4-O-β-D-glucoside
c9 [M + H]+ 3.35 C31H41NO15 667.2476 668.2549 −5.1 668.2583,506.2126,177.0543,163.0655 Aristomanoside
c10 [M−H]- 3.38 C16H20O9 356.1107 355.1035 8.58 355.1004,193.0455,149.0577 trans-isoferulic acid 3-O-β-D-allopyranoside
c11 [M−H]- 3.42 C8H8O4 168.0423 167.035 0.49 167.0349,139.8804,65.0400 2-methoxy-5-hydroxybenzoic acid
c12 [M + H]+ 3.52 C24H29NO9 475.1842 476.1915 −0.82 476.1919,314.1280,177.0532 trans-feruloyl tyramine-4-O-β-D-glucopyranoside
c13 [M−H]- 3.53 C9H8O4 180.0423 179.035 4.35 179.0342,135.0428 Caffeic acid
c14 [M + H]+ 3.62 C25H31NO10 505.1948 506.2021 1.33 506.2014,237.0759,177.0524,149.0623 Isocimicifugamide
c15 [M + H]+ 3.66 C24H29NO10 491.1791 492.1864 −7.69 492.1902,330.1590,177.0542 Cimicifugamide A
c16 [M + Na]+ 3.75 C14H20O8 316.1158 339.105 −8.1 339.1076,177.0551,149.0579 Cimidaurinine
c17 [M + H]+ 3.87 C22H28O11 468.1632 469.1704 0.51 469.1072,307.1164,289.1061,261.1194,235.0616 Cimifugin-4′-O-β-D- glucopyranosude
c18 [M−H]- 3.89 C16H20O9 356.1107 355.1035 −1.81 355.1041,193.0507,147.0587 trans-isoferulic acid 3-O-β-D-glucopyranosude
c19 [M + H]+ 3.96 C26H30O12 534.1737 535.181 −6.17 535.1843,517.2064,491.2913,163.0660 Cimicifugaside F
c20 [M−H]- 4.02 C27H30O15 594.1585 593.1512 6.55 593.1473,355.0981,193.0494,165.0538 Shomaside G
c21 [M−H]- 4.04 C34H46O18 742.2684 741.2611 5.04 741.2574,579.2155,417.1555 (-)-syringaresinol 4,4′-di-O-β-D-allopyranoside
c22 [M−H]- 4.12 C27H30O15 594.1585 593.1512 −4.22 593.1537,193.0476 Shomaside C
c23 [M + H]+ 4.12 C24H29NO10 491.1791 492.1864 −0.77 492.1868,330.1425,177.0520,137.0643 Cimicifugamide B
c24 [M + H]+ 4.19 C22 H28 O11 468.1632 469.1704 0.51 469.1702,307.1153,259.0920,235.0565 Cimicifugoside
c25 [M + Na]+ 4.35 C32H38O17 694.2109 717.2001 −0.4 717.2004,555.1467,523.1406,699.2299,604.3766 Cimicifugaside A
c26 [M + H]+ 4.36 C25H31NO10 505.1948 506.2021 −6.19 506.2052,344.1099,177.0519,145.0289 trans-Feruloyl-(3-O-methyl) dopamine-4-O-β-D allopyranoside
c27 [M−H]- 4.38 C27H30O15 594.1585 593.1512 5.88 593.1477,355.0967,237.0345,193.0502 Shomaside B
c28 [M + H]+ 4.54 C20H20O7 372.1209 373.1282 −3.82 373.1296,355.2019,325.1049,293.0848,277.1420,265.0941,233.0808,201.0539 Cimicifugic acid
c29 [M + H]+ 4.55 C24H29NO9 475.1842 476.1915 −5.67 476.1969,314.1358,177.0515,163.0391 trans-Feruloyl tyramine-4-O-β-D-allopyranoside
c30 [M + H]+ 4.60 C16H18O6 306.1103 307.1176 1.68 307.1156,289.1059,259.0592,235.0587,221.0432,177.0531 Cimifugin
c31 [M + H]+ 4.61 C25H31NO10 505.1948 506.2021 −8.37 506.2063,344.1337,177.0487,163.0329,145.0227 Cimicifugamide
c32 [M−H]- 4.65 C10H10O4 194.0579 193.0506 4.29 193.0491,178.0257,149.0604,134.0364 Ferulic acid
c33 [M−H]- 4.69 C10H10O4 194.0579 193.0506 8.93 193.0489,167.0357 methyl caffeate
c34 [M + H]+ 4.69 C21H26O11 454.1475 455.1548 1.07 455.1543,293.1050,275.1577 prim-O-glucosylangelicain
c35 [M + H]+ 4.71 C25H31NO10 505.1948 506.2021 0.34 506.2019,489.0139,344.1506,177.0545,163.0378 (2E)-3-[4-(β-D-allopyranosyl)-3-methoxy-phenyl]-N-[2-(4-hydroxy-3-methoxyphenyl) ethyl]-2-propenamide
c36 [M−H]- 4.72 C10H10O4 194.0579 193.0506 2.23 193.0502,178.0258,149.0610,134.0863 Isoferulic acid
c37 [M−H]- 4.87 C20H18O10 418.09 417.0827 −7.37 417.0858,237.0412,193.0492,165.0548,149.0615 Cimicifugic acid C
c38 [M−H]- 4.98 C20H18O10 418.09 417.0827 0.53 417.0825,237.0417,193.0490,165.0537, Cimicifugic acid D
c39 [M−H]- 5.25 C21H20O11 448.1006 447.0933 1.31 447.0927,253.0352,235.0254,209.0442,191.0347,181.0497,165.0547 Cimicifugic acid A
c40 [M−H]- 5.33 C21H20O11 448.1006 447.0933 −2.27 447.0943,253.0355,235.0234,209.0455,191.0345,181.0502,165.0550 Cimicifugic acid B
c41 [M + H]+ 5.44 C20H18O10 418.09 419.0973 −4.85 419.0993,401.0775,373.0912,329.0935,257.0742 2-caffeoyl piscidic acid
c42 [M + Na]+ 5.57 C41H64O15 796.4245 819.4137 −0.57 819.4142,559.0613,503.3338 Heracleifolinoside C
c43 [M−H]- 5.59 C21H20O10 432.1056 431.0984 2.94 431.0971,237.0387,209.0438,193.0493,178.0257,165.0550,149.0597 Cimicifugic acid E
c44 [M + H]+ 5.63 C15H16O6 292.0947 293.102 3.3 293.1010,275.0821,245.0328,233.0495,221.0452,219.0558,207.0241 Norcimifugin
c45 [M−H]- 5.66 C21H20O10 432.1056 431.0984 0.86 431.0980,237.0387,209.0441,193.0495,165.0551,149.0597 Cimicifugic acid F
c46 [M + Na]+ 5.67 C35H54O11 650.3666 673.3558 4.97 673.3526,615.3017 15α-hydroxycimicidol-3-O-β-D-xyloside
c47 [M + H]+ 5.72 C32H36O14 644.2105 645.2178 −7.32 645.2225,509.1534,469.1760,307.11122,177.0426 cimifugin-4′-O-[6″-feruloyl]-β-D-glucopyranoside
c48 [M + H]+ 5.83 C21H20O10 432.1056 433.1129 −4.57 433.1149,389.1560,355.1377,177.0479 2-feruloyl piscidic acid
c49 [M−H]- 5.90 C27H30O16 610.1534 609.1461 6.08 609.1424,193.0474 Shomaside A
c50 [M + H]+ 5.92 C18H19NO4 313.1314 314.1387 2.82 314.1378,177.0465,163.0222,149.0488,145.0189,117.0250 Ferulyltyramine
c51 [M + Na]+ 5.98 C41H64O15 796.4245 819.4137 0.81 819.4131,559.1653,541.2964,467.2981 Heracleifolinoside A
c52 [M + H]+ 6.05 C24H29NO8 459.1893 460.1966 3.47 460.1950,417.1166,298.1331,177.0596 Cimicifugamide D
c53 [M + H]+ 6.37 C37H56O11 676.3823 677.3895 7.01 677.3848,467.3134,377.2423 Cimiracemoside A
c54 [M + H]± 6.42 C35H52O9 616.3611 617.3684 −1.44 617.3693,545.3123,467.3172,395.2528,251.1780 cimicidanol-3-O-α-L-arabinoside
c55 [M + H]+ 6.45 C32H48O9 576.3298 577.3371 3.83 577.3349,559.3140,517.1793,445.2995, 427.2795 Cimicifugoside H-3
c56 [M−H]- 6.46 C22H22O10 446.1213 445.114 8.12 445.1104,207.0608,193.0439,165.0531,149.0622 Cimicifugic acid L
c57 [M−H]- 6.53 C18H16O7 344.0896 343.0823 2.69 343.0814,193.0496,178.0262,160.0136,149.0267134.0342 4′-Methoxyl-3′-hydroxy-carboxybenzoyl isoferulic acid anhydride
c58 [M + H]+ 6.55 C32H48O9 576.3298 577.3371 2.1 577.3359,559.3140,541.2952,429.2795,517.1793,427.2939 Cimicifugoside H-4
c59 [M−H]- 6.55 C11H12O4 208.0736 207.0663 0.4 207.0662,163.1955 Methyl ferulate
c60 [M + H]+ 6.56 C35H54O10 634.3717 635.379 1.38 635.3781,485.0014,467.3081,449.3117,377.2644 Cimicifugoside H-2
c61 [M + H]+ 6.56 C30H42O5 482.3032 483.3105 8.09 483.3066,467.3124,449.3060,411.2396,395.2576,377.2521 (20R,24R)-24,25-epoxy-11β-hydroxy-7-en-9,19-cyclolanost-3,16,23-trione
c62 [M−H]- 6.59 C19H18O7 358.1053 357.098 5.24 357.0961,193.0462 Cimiracemate B
c63 [M−H]- 6.61 C19H18O7 358.1053 357.098 6.08 357.0958,193.0473 Cimiracemate A
c64 [M + H]+ 6.71 C35H54O10 634.3717 635.379 −1.14 635.3797,485.3227,467.3017,395.2483 12β-hydroxy-7,8-didehydro-cimigenol 3-O-β-D-xylranoside
c65 [M + H]+ 6.76 C35H54O9 618.3768 619.3841 1.23 619.3833,469.3291,451.3236,379.2673 (23R,24R)-16β,23;16α,24-diepoxy-cycloart-7-en-3β,11β,25-triol 3-O-β-D-xylranoside
c66 [M−H]- 7.02 C37H58O12 694.3928 693.3856 −0.79 693.3861,651.3833,633.3667 Cimidahuside C
c67 [M + H]+ 7.03 C35H54O10 634.3717 635.379 0.59 635.3786,485.3494,467.3076 Tetrahydroxy-9,19-cycloart-7-en-16,23-dione 3-O-β-D-xylopyranoside
c68 [M + H]+ 7.04 C37H56O11 676.3823 677.3895 0.35 677.3893,599.3612,581.3361,467.3121,449.3043,431.2786,421.2654 Actein
c69 [M + H]+ 7.11 C35H54O10 634.3717 635.379 2.95 635.3771,599.3557,485.3288,467.3103,395.2479 12β-hydroxy-7,8-didehydrocimi-genol3-O-α-L-arabinopyranoside
c70 [M + H]+ 7.25 C35H54O10 634.3717 635.379 −1.62 635.3800,485.3217,467.3205,395.0831 Cimiside A
c71 [M + Na]+ 7.27 C37H58O12 694.3928 717.382 6.26 717.3823,587.3430,543.3204,483.3728 24-acetoxy-15,16-seco-cycloar-tane 3-O-xylopyranoside
c72 [M + H]+ 7.45 C22H22O10 446.1213 447.1286 0.61 447.1283,429.1161,385.0902,349.0769,177.0519 2-feruloyl-piscidicacid-1-Methyl-ester
c73 [M + Na]+ 7.47 C43H70O16 842.4664 865.4556 −1.65 865.4570,601.3193 3-arabinosyl-24-O-acetylhydroxyshengmanol-15-glucoside
c74 [M + H]+ 7.48 C32H48O7 544.34 545.3473 5.48 545.3443,485.3156,467.3100,449.2808,413.2753,395.2456,335.0841 Acetylacteol
c75 [M + H]+ 7.50 C37H56O11 676.3823 677.3895 0.8 677.3954,617.3755,599.3394,467.3147,449.3014 Cimiracemoside G
c76 [M + H]+ 7.51 C37H56O11 676.3823 677.3895 −1.57 677.3906,659.3783,617.3655,599.3597,467.3135,449.3044 Acetylacteol 3-O-α-L-arabinopyranoside
c77 [M + Na]+ 7.59 C37H60O11 680.4136 703.4028 1.3 703.4019,645.3986,513.3467,495.3471,435.3216,399.2261 24-epi-O-acetylhydro-shengmanol-3-O-α-L-arabinopyranoside
c78 [M + H]+ 7.66 C37H56O10 660.3873 661.3946 0.19 661.3945,529.3335,469.3305,451.3191,397.2725,379.2655 23-O-aectyl-7,8-didehydroshengmanol 3-O-α-L-arabinopyranoside
c79 [M + Na]+ 7.69 C43H68O16 840.4507 863.44 3.88 863.4367,803.4186,641.2327,623.3464 Cimdalglnoside E
c80 [M + Na]+ 7.77 C41H64O14 780.4296 803.4188 0.42 803.4185,561.3389,543.3059 Heracleifolinoside B
c81 [M + Na]+ 7.78 C37H60O12 696.4085 719.3977 −0.58 719.3981,643.3837,511.3358,493.3408,433.3139,397.2802,379.2629 24-epi-7β-hydroxy-24-O-acetylhydroshengmanol-3-O-xylopyranoside
c82 [M + Na]+ 7.85 C43H70O16 842.4664 865.4556 2.5 865.4535,583.1544 3-xylosyl-24-O-acetylhydroxyshengmanol-15-glucoside
c83 [M + H]+ 7.86 C39H58O11 702.3979 703.4052 −3.15 703.4074,643.3759,583.6599 15,23-O-diacetyl-7(8)-ene-shengmanol-3-O-α-L-arabinopyranoside
c84 [M + H]+ 7.93 C35H54O9 618.3768 619.3841 1.71 619.3830,451.3103,379.2558 7,8-didehydroshengmanol 3-O-α-L-arabinopyranoside
c85 [M−H]- 7.93 C35H56O10 636.3873 635.3801 −1.46 635.381,577.3372 7β-hydroxycimigenol-3-O-β-D-xylopyranoside
c86 [M + Na]+ 8.03 C30H48O6 504.3451 527.3343 9.14 527.3297,469.3289,451.3100 11β-hydroxy-24-epi-cimigenol
c87 [M + Na]+ 8.05 C35H56O10 636.3873 659.3766 −3.82 659.3790,469.3275,451.3184,433.3022 (22R)-22β-hydroxycimigenol 3-O-β-D-xylopyranoside
c88 [M + Na]+ 8.05 C43H70O16 842.4664 865.4556 2.26 865.4537,825.5850 Cimiside C
c89 [M + H]+ 8.07 C39H58O11 702.3979 703.4052 0.27 703.4050,643.3757,451.3096,379.2580 Cimiricaside C
c90 [M + H]+ 8.12 C37H56O10 660.3873 661.3946 0.79 661.3941,469.3013,451.3275,379.2492 Cimiricaside A
c91 [M + Na]+ 8.13 C28H42O5 458.3032 481.2924 0.54 481.2953,399.1479,281.4802,363.1518 Cimilactone C
c92 [M + H]+ 8.15 C30H42O6 498.2981 499.3054 −0.57 499.3057,483.3125,481.2667,465.2915,409.2915 1-en-cimigenol-3,11-dione
c93 [M + H]+ 8.22 C35H54O9 618.3768 619.3841 0.42 619.3838,583.3763,451.3201,379.2619 7,8-didehydroshengmanol-3-O-β-D-xylranoside
c94 [M + Na]+ 8.23 C35H56O10 636.3873 659.3766 −1.46 659.3775,601.3691,583.3649,451.3247,433.3106 12β-hydroxycimigenol 3-O-β-D-xylopyranoside
c95 [M + Na]+ 8.25 C41H66O14 782.4453 805.4345 0.48 805.4341,487.3041,379.0277 Cimifoetiside A
c96 [M + Na]+ 8.35 C41H66O14 782.4453 805.4345 −0.54 805.4349,729.7225 Cimifoetiside B
c97 [M + Na]+ 8.36 C37H58O11 678.3979 701.3871 2.26 701.3856,643.3735,529.2819,397.2894 12β-Acetylcimigenol-3-O-β-D-xylopyranoside
c98 [M + H]+ 8.39 C37H54O10 658.3717 659.379 0.87 659.3784,599.3584,467.3139 26-dedoxycimifugoside
c99 [M + Na]+ 8.40 C43H68O16 840.4507 863.44 5.78 863.4351,643.2825,469.3335,451.3321 Heracleifolinoside F
c100 [M + H]+ 8.41 C13H13NO 199.0997 200.107 7.99 200.1054,158.0579,130.0633 (E)/(Z)-3-(3′-methyl-2′-butenylidene)-2-indolinone
c101 [M + Na]+ 8.43 C35H56O10 636.3873 659.3766 −4.76 659.3796,583.3684,451.3172,433.3026 12β-hydroxycimigenol 3-O-α-L-arabinopyranoside
c102 [M + Na]+ 8.46 C41H66O14 782.4453 805.4345 6.36 805.4295,673.8314,511.3910 Cimifoetiside A
c103 [M + H]+ 8.47 C38H58O11 690.3979 691.4052 −3.78 691.4078,659.4617,599.3723,559.8526,511.7646,163.1092 25-O-acetylcimigenol-galactopyranoside
c104 [M + H]+ 8.52 C32H48O6 528.3451 529.3524 2.02 529.3513,511.3381,469.3312,493.3319,451.3220,397.2712 27-deoxyacetylacteol
c105 [M + H]+ 8.62 C37H56O10 660.3873 661.3946 −0.87 661.3952,583.3620,529.3126,469.3300,451.3209 27-deoxyactein
c106 [M + Na]+ 8.64 C35H56O9 620.3924 643.3817 1.54 643.3773,585.3712,453.3242,435.3182 Cimigenol-3-O-α-L-arabinoside
c107 [M + Na]+ 8.65 C37H58O11 678.3979 701.3871 1.67 701.3875,433.3021 Cimiracemoside D
c108 [M + Na]+ 8.72 C41H70O15 802.4715 825.4607 0.49 825.4603,663.4025,441.1997 Foetidinoside E
c109 [M + H]+ 8.74 C37H54O9 642.3768 643.3841 −1 643.3847,583.3607,451.3196,73.0299 Asiaticoside B
c110 [M + H]+ 8.81 C35H56O9 620.3924 621.3997 8.24 621.3946,603.3767,531.6037,399.7340 Cimidahuside G
c111 [M + Na]+ 8.89 C35H56O9 620.3924 643.3817 −4.59 643.3845,511.3371,493.3290,433.3077 9,19-cyclolanostan-15-one,16,23-epoxy-24,25-dihydroxy-3-O-β-D-xylopyranosyloxy
c112 [M + Na]+ 8.93 C30H46O6 502.3294 525.3187 −5.25 525.3213,467.3202,449.7901 12β-hydroxy-7(8)-ene-cimigenol
c113 [M + H]+ 9.05 C37H56O11 676.3823 677.3895 2.72 677.3877,659.3754,467.3147,395.2513 (23R,24R)-16β;16α,24-diepoxy-3β,15α,24,25-tetrahydroxy-cycloart-7-en-16-one 3-O-β-D-xylranoside
c114 [M + Na]+ 9.06 C38H62O12 710.4241 733.4133 0.63 733.4129,521.2268,274.0174 24-O-acetylhydroshengmanol-15-O-β-D-glucopyranoside
c115 [M + Na]+ 9.23 C35H54O9 618.3768 641.366 −1.61 641.3670,583.3652,451.3157,433.3131 7,8-didehydrocimigenol-3-O-β-D-xyloside
c116 [M−H]- 9.31 C35H56O10 636.3873 635.3801 −0.52 635.3804,577.3451 7β-hydroxycimigenol-3-O-α-L-arabinopyranoside
c117 [M + Na]+ 9.34 C35H54O9 618.3768 641.366 0.65 641.3656,583.3589,451.3095,433.1967 24-epi-7,8-didehydrocimigenol-3-O-β-D-xyloside
c118 [M + H]+ 9.40 C35H54O8 602.3819 603.3891 2.07 603.3879,471.3451,453.3358 cimiside E
c119 [M + H]+ 9.43 C37H58O10 662.403 663.4103 −1.4 663.4112,585.3743,453.3183,381.2805 25-O-acetylcimigenol-3-O-α-L-arabinoside
c120 [M + H]+ 9.52 C35H54O9 618.3768 619.3841 −0.87 619.3846,583.3537,469.3257,451.3184,379.2622 24-epi-7,8-didehydroshengmanol 3-O-β-D-xylranoside
c121 [M + Na]+ 9.56 C37H58O11 678.3979 701.3871 −2.01 701.3885,583.3498,451.3028 9,19-cyclocholest-7-en-16-one,23–(acetyloxy)-15,24,25-trihydroxy-4,4,14-trimethyl-3-(β-D-xylopyranoside)
c122 [M + H]+ 9.58 C35H52O8 600.3662 601.3735 −0.67 601.3739,469.3987,451.3113 7,8-didehydro-25-anhydrocimigenol-3-O-β-D-xyloside
c123 [M + Na]+ 9.61 C37H60O11 680.4136 703.4028 −0.91 703.4034,645.3696,471.7697 24-epi-O-acetylhydroshengmanol-3-O-β-D-xylopyranoside
c124 [M + H]+ 9.62 C37H56O10 660.3873 661.3946 −2.54 661.3963,529.3515,397.2755,379.2629 23-O-aectyl-7,8-didehydroshengmanol 3-O-β-D-xylranoside
c125 [M + Na]+ 9.64 C35H54O9 618.3768 641.366 1.79 641.3649,583.3639,451.3110,433.2977,361.2561 Cimiaceroside A
c126 [M + Na]+ 9.64 C35H56O9 620.3924 643.3814 0.41 643.3773,585.3744,453.3264,435.3205 Cimigenol-3-O-β-D-xylopyranoside
c127 [M + Na]+ 9.67 C30H48O5 488.3502 511.3394 −4.31 511.3415,453.3361,381.2701 Cimiacerin B
c128 [M + Na]+ 9.80 C37H58O11 678.3979 701.3871 −3.49 701.3895,643.3696,625.3705,583.3683,469.2717,433.3019,397.2851 24-O-acetyl-7,8-didehydroshengmanol-3-O-β-D-xylopyranoside
c129 [M + H]+ 9.83 C37H58O10 662.403 663.4103 −1.4 663.4112,435.3290 25-O-acetylcimigenol-3-O-β-D-xyloside
c130 [M + Na]+ 9.98 C37H58O11 678.3979 701.3871 2.41 701.3855,643.3840,625.3740,583.3918,511.2949,451.3176,433.3107 24-epi-24-O-acetyl-7,8-didehydroshengmanol-3-O-β-D-xylopyranoside
c131 [M + H]+ 9.99 C35H54O8 602.3819 603.3891 2.9 603.3874,471.3447,453.3337 25-anhydrocimigenol 3-O-α-L-arabinopyranoside
c132 [M + Na]+ 9.99 C38H60O12 708.4085 731.3977 3.95 731.3949,671.3772,437.2936 Shengmaxinside C
c133 [M + H]+ 10.10 C40H58O13 746.3877 747.395 0.69 747.3945,729.3976,663.6121,645.2409,585.1133,399.2086,459.1257 23-O-acetyl-7,8-didehydroshengmanol-3-O-(2′-O-malonyl)-xylopyranoside
c134 [M + Na]+ 10.14 C37H60O11 680.4136 703.4028 1.89 703.4015,513.6137,453.3278,435.3353 24-O-acetylhydroshengmanol 3-O-β-D-xylranoside
c135 [M + Na]+ 10.15 C37H58O10 662.403 685.3922 −3.14 685.3943,417.3166 23-O-aectylshengmanol 3-O-α-L-arabinopyranoside
c136 [M + H]+ 10.17 C37H56O10 660.3873 661.3946 0.34 611.3944,511.3401,451.3112 25-O-aectyl-7,8-didehydroshengmanol 3-O-β-D-xylranoside
c137 [M + Na]+ 10.22 C30H48O6 504.3451 527.3343 −0.77 527.3347,451.3041,379.2504 12β-hydroxycimigenol
c138 [M + Na]+ 10.25 C30H46O6 502.3294 525.3187 −1.07 525.3192,509.2741,469.3266,451.3043,395.2541,377.2413 25-O-methylisodahurinol
c139 [M + Na]+ 10.47 C37H58O10 662.403 685.3922 −0.42 685.3925,585.2524,453.0838,435.3009 23-O-aectylshengmanol 3-O-β-D-xylopyranoside
c140 [M + H]+ 10.69 C39H60O11 704.4136 705.4208 0.91 705.4202,687.4135,672.9728,663.4734,654.9314,576.4683,175.0611,97.0278 Cimicifoetiside B
c141 [M + H]+ 10.95 C30H46O5 486.3345 487.3418 −1.85 487.3427,451.3097 Acerinol
c142 [M + Na]+ 10.98 C38H60O12 708.4085 731.3977 5.22 731.3940,709.3753,671.3772 24-epi-24-O-acetyl-7,8-didehydroshengmanol-3-O-β-D-galactopyranoside
c143 [M + Na]+ 11.12 C30H46O5 486.3345 509.3237 4.41 509.3216,487.7508,451.3296 7,8-didehydrocimigenol
c144 [M + Na]+ 11.32 C30H46O5 486.3345 509.3237 2.36 509.3226,451.3224,433.3098 24-epi-7,8-didehydrocimigenol
c145 [M + H]+ 11.32 C37H56O10 660.3873 661.3946 2.01 661.3933,583.3693,511.3364,451.3220,397.2752,379.2606 25-O-aectyl-7,8-didehydroshengmanol 3-O-α-L-arabinopyranoside
c146 [M + Na]+ 11.47 C30H48O5 488.3502 511.3394 4.5 511.3372,453.3105 Cimigenol
c147 [M + H]+ 11.52 C30H46O4 470.3396 471.3469 4.65 471.3447,453.3372,435.3134,399.5863 25-dehydrocimigenol
c148 [M + H]+ 11.55 C37H58O10 662.403 663.4103 −1.4 663.4112,585.3681,435.3177,399.2918,363.2552 23-O-acetylcimigenol-3-O-α-L-arabinoside
c149 [M + Na]+ 11.57 C30H46O5 486.3345 487.3418 0.62 487.3415,433.2859 24-epi-acerinol
c150 [M + Na]+ 11.60 C33H52O7 560.3713 583.3605 0.76 583.3601,565.3556,451.3165,433.3082,415.2965 24-O-acetyl-25-O-methyl-7,8-didehydrohydroshengmanol
c151 [M + H]+ 11.87 C30H44O5 484.3189 485.3262 4.65 485.3239,467.3118,449.2977,431.2894,413.2660,395.2549 Cimicidanol
c152 [M + H]+ 12.42 C32H48O6 528.3451 529.3524 0.88 529.3519,511.3238,451.3170,379.2641 24-O-acetylshengmanol-7(8)-en-isodahurinol
c153 [M + Na]+ 12.77 C30H48O5 488.3502 511.3394 −1.85 511.3403,453.3288 24-epi-cimigenol
c154 [M + H]+ 13.22 C30H46O5 486.3345 487.3418 −1.85 487.3427,451.3375,433.3026,379.2639,361.2381 Cimigenol-3-one
c155 [M + H]+ 13.52 C32H48O6 528.3451 529.3524 −0.25 529.3525,511.4804,493.2909,469.3150,451.3273,379.2400 25-O-acetyl-7,8-didehydrocimigenol
c156 [M + Na]+ 13.52 C32H50O7 546.3557 569.3449 0.69 569.3445,551.3723,491.4781 12β-acetoxycimigenol
c157 [M + Na]+ 14.13 C32H50O6 530.3607 553.35 0.3 553.3481,493.3280,439.3307 25-O-acetylcimigenol

3.2.2

3.2.2 Identification of triterpenoid saponins

Triterpenoid saponins were the primary bioactive components of CR. Up to date, approximately 400 triterpenoid saponins (mostly 9,19-cycloartane type) had been discovered and characterized from the Cimicifuga genus. In our study, total 101 constituents had been identified by means of UHPLC-Q-TOF-MS based on the above approach. Most triterpenoid saponins were liable to form [M + H]+ ion and [M + Na]+ ion in positive mode. The main cleavage pathways of triterpenoid saponins were prone to lose water, acetyl groups, dimethylethylene oxide and the glycosyl groups, resulting in neutral losses of 18.01 Da, 60.02 Da, 72.01 Da, 132.05 Da, 162.05 Da. The following were examples of the conventional fragmentation pathways for triterpenoid saponins.

The main cleavage pathway of cimigenol-type of triterpenoid saponins was to lose water, the glycosyl groups and was prone to twist to form dimethylethylene oxide. Compound c106 cimigenol-3-O-α-L-arabinoside had a [M + Na]+ peak at m/z 643.38 (1.54 ppm). Then m/z 585.37 ([M + H − 2H2O]+) and m/z 453.32 ([M + H − 2H2O − Ara]+) were formed after successively removing two molecules of water (36.02 Da) and arabinose (132.05 Da). And m/z 435.31 ([M + H − 3H2O − Ara]+) was also detected after removing a molecule of water (Fig. 2). In the positive mode, the precursor ion of compound c126 cimigenol-3-O-β-D-xyloside was m/z 643.38 [M + Na]+, and the molecular formula was presumed to be C35H56O9. m/z 567.36, m/z 495.35, m/z 363.26 were generated successively with continuous water loss, dimethylethylene oxide and xylopyranose. Compound c69 12β-hydroxy-7,8-didehydrocimigenol 3-O-α-L-arabinopyranoside had a [M + H]+ at m/z 635.37 (2.95 ppm). In the secondary mass spectrometry, fragments of m/z 617.37 [M + H − H2O]+, m/z 599.36 [M + H − 2H2O]+, m/z 545.31 [M + H − H2O − C4H8O]+, m/z 467.31 m/z [M + H − 2H2O − Ara]+ and m/z 377.26 [M + H − 3H2O − Ara − C4H8O]+ were produced (Pang et al., 2021).

Illustration for the structural elucidation of triterpenoid saponins CR.
Fig. 2
Illustration for the structural elucidation of triterpenoid saponins CR.

The main feature of 16,23-diketo-type is that the C-16 and C-23 positions both are oxidized to carbonyls, and partially dehydrated to form a ternary oxygen ring structure at C-24 and C-25 positions. Therefore, this type of compounds is extremely easy to remove dimethylethylene oxide and produce highly responsive m/z 73 [C4H8O + H]+. The [M + H]+ peak of compound c54 cimicidanol-3-O-α-L-arabinoside was at m/z 617.36 (−1.44 ppm). Aglycones were produced with dimethylethylene oxide, arabinose and continuous water losses to generate fragments of m/z 545.31 [M + H − C4H8O]+, m/z 467.31 [M + H − H2O − Ara]+, m/z 395.25 [M + H − H2O − C4H8O − Ara]+ and m/z 251.17 [M + H − 3H2O − C4H8O − Ara − C7H8O]+ (Fig. 2). From above, compound c151 was speculated as cimicidanol according to the fragments of m/z 485.32 [M + H]+, m/z 413.27 [M + H − C4H8O]+, m/z 395.25 [M + H − H2O − C4H8O]+. Compound c60 was identified as cimicifugoside H-2 (tR = 6.561, C35H54O10), as lost a xylopyranose (132.05 Da) and a molecule of dimethylethylene oxide (72.01 Da) and continuous water (n∙18.01 Da) at positive conditions (Cao et al., 2005, Li et al., 2007).

Shengmanol-type of Cimicifugae Rhizoma contains acetyl groups and dimethylethylene oxide at the end of carbon chain, which are easily lost in secondary mass spectrometry. The MS2 spectrum of 23-O-acetylcimigenol-3-O-α-L-arabinoside (consistent with peak 148, tR = 11.55 min) was showed the precursor ion at m/z 663.41 [M + H]+. The fragments at m/z 585.36 and 435.31 indicated the elimination of C2H4O2, Ara and three molecules of water. A serious of fragments at m/z 529.3, 469.3, 451.3, 397.2 were both found in peak 78 and 152, indicating that those two compounds had the same skeleton and highly similar in structures. Therefore, they were identified as 23-O-aectyl-7,8-didehydroshengmanol 3-O-α-L-arabinopyranoside and 24-O-acetylshengmanol-7(8)-en-isodahurinol, respectively.

3.2.3

3.2.3 Identified of phenylpropanoids

A total of 49 phenylpropanoids were tentatively identified in the positive and negative mode. The compound of c13, c32 and c36 were orderly identified as caffeic acid, ferulic acid and isoferulic acid by comparing the authentic standards, which cleavage pathways were specified in Fig. 3. The fragment of phenolic acids was characterized by neutral losses of 15.02 Da (–CH3), 18.01 Da (–H2O) and 44.01 Da (–CO2). Based on the same fragment ions m/z 179.03,135.04 as caffeic acid, peak 6 (tR = 2.518 min, C15H18O9) was characterized as caffeic acid 4-O-β-D-glucopyranoside.

Illustration for the structural elucidation of phenylpropanoids and chromones from CR.
Fig. 3
Illustration for the structural elucidation of phenylpropanoids and chromones from CR.

Cimicifugic acids mainly generate signal responses in positive ion mode and were prone to neutral losses such as CO2, CO, H2O, and CH3. Due to the carbon chains of these components contained hydroxyl and carboxyl groups, they were easy to fracture on the carboxyl group oxygen in collision energy spectra. A fragment response at m/z 177 was likely to occur when methoxy group was present on the benzene ring at the same time. Peak 19 (tR = 3.96, C26H30O12) was regarded as cimicifugaside F attributing to the fragment ions m/z 535.18, m/z 517.21, m/z 491.29 and m/z 163.07. According to the ions m/z 433.11, m/z 389.16, m/z 355.14, m/z 177.05, peak 48 (tR = 5.83, C21H20O10) was identified as 2-feruloyl piscidic acid. Compared with the literature, peaks 1, 2, 39 and 40 were successively identified as fukiic acid, piscidic acid, cimicifugic acid A and cimicifugic acid B (Werner and Petersen, 2019).

3.2.4

3.2.4 Identification of chromones

The primary type of chromones was furan chromones with methoxy, hydroxyl and glucose substituents. Compound c30 was regarded as cimifugin, displayed a precursor ion [M + H]+ at m/z 307.12; the main fragment ions were observed at m/z 289.11 [M + H − H2O]+, m/z 259.06 [M + H − H2O − 2CH3]+ and m/z 235.06 [M + H − C4H8O]+. The derivatives of cimifugin were liable to remove a molecule of sugar to produce m/z 307. According to the fragment ions m/z 307, m/z 289, m/z 259, m/z 235, peak 17 and 24 were identified as cimifugin-4′-O-β-D-glucose and cimicifugoside consistent with the standards’ ions. In the meantime, 14 Da difference was detected between cimifugin and peak 43 (C15H16O6). It was explicitly identified as norcimifugin with the same natural losses H2O, C3H6O, C2H2, CH2.

3.2.5

3.2.5 Identification of compounds in C. foetida and C. dahurica

The chemical compositions identification of C. foetida and C. dahurica was a basis for screening potential differential components. The TIC of the two species both in positive and negative modes were shown in Fig. 4. In this work, a total of 88 chemical components were ultimately authenticated in the methodology of metabolomics referring to the above qualitative analysis, including 65 from C. foetida and 75 from C. dahurica (Table S4). According to the constituents identified from the two species, there were significant differences in composition and content between them.

The total ion chromatograms (TIC) of the two species in positive and negative modes. (A) TIC of C. dahurica in positive MS mode; (B) TIC of C. dahurica in negative MS mode; (C) TIC of C. foetida in positive MS mode; and (D) TIC of C. foetida in negative MS mode.
Fig. 4
The total ion chromatograms (TIC) of the two species in positive and negative modes. (A) TIC of C. dahurica in positive MS mode; (B) TIC of C. dahurica in negative MS mode; (C) TIC of C. foetida in positive MS mode; and (D) TIC of C. foetida in negative MS mode.

A comprehensive insight into the secondary metabolites of various species in TCMs is vital for further metabolomics analysis. The DDA mode could maximize the MSn information collection, greatly reducing the difficulty of acquiring low abundant components (Zuo et al., 2019). And the CIF platform was established to rapidly analyze and match a compound from a large amount of MSn information during the data processing stage. Based on this, a total of 157 compounds were tentatively characterized in CR, including 101 triterpenoid saponins, 44 phenylpropanoids and 7 chromones. Compared with previous composition analysis methods, this strategy is more rapid, accurate and efficient, which could become the principal method to identify compounds soon. Furthermore, strengthening this method development and application to provide a practical strategy for characterizing non-targeted metabolites in TCMs.

3.3

3.3 Metabolomic analysis for discrimination of C. foetida and C. dahurica

The retention time and peak area of ten randomly selected ion pairs in QC samples were acquired to verify the UHPLC-Q-TOF-MS method. The relative standard deviations (RSDs) of them were less than 5.0 %, indicating the accuracy and reliability of this analytical method. All QC samples were closely clustered into a group in PCA, demonstrating the reproducibility of the analytical system (Fig. 5A and B).

Multivariate statistical analyses of the two species: PCA score plot in positive mode (A); PCA score plot in negative mode (B); OPLS-DA score plot (C: 2955 ionic characteristic variables in positive mode, D: 2976 ionic characteristic variables in negative mode, E: 48 compounds characteristic variables, F: 4 combinatorial discriminatory quality markers); heat-map in two species(G).
Fig. 5
Multivariate statistical analyses of the two species: PCA score plot in positive mode (A); PCA score plot in negative mode (B); OPLS-DA score plot (C: 2955 ionic characteristic variables in positive mode, D: 2976 ionic characteristic variables in negative mode, E: 48 compounds characteristic variables, F: 4 combinatorial discriminatory quality markers); heat-map in two species(G).

Metabolomics analysis exhibited excellent properties on screening the differential components in natural products. Total 2955 and 2976 ionic characteristic variables were obtained in positive and negative mode, respectively. The unsupervised model PCA and supervised model OPLS-DA were performed to differentiate the two species in metabolite levels with high fitting and prediction degree. The results showed that the samples from the two species were successfully separated into two distinct clusters in PCA with high fitting and predictive abilities both in positive and negative mode (Fig. 5A and B). The 2955 metabolic variables in positive mode were evidently classified the samples into two groups with a goodness-of-fit R2Y = 0.983 and goodness-of-prediction Q2 = 0.95 (Fig. 5C). The 2976 metabolic variables in negative mode had the similar result with R2Y = 0.972 and Q2 = 0.935 (Fig. 5D). To better classify and account for the two species, variable importance in projection (VIP) combined with t-test were applied in OPLS-DA mode for significance testing. In this work, about 48 distinctive components were screened and identified between the two species based on analyzing the criteria of VIP > 1 and p < 0.05, including triterpenoid saponins, phenylpropanoids and chromones (Table 3). The 48 compounds characteristic variables could distinguish the samples into two groups in OPLS-DA model (Fig. 5E) and the results were visualized in the Heatmap (Fig. 5G). Among these compounds, the content of 12 components, such as cimifugin-4′-O-β-D-glucose (4), cimicifugoside (5), caffeic acid (7), cimifugin (10), norcimifugin (17) and 26-dedoxycimifugoside (31) were generally higher in C. foetida, while others were higher in C. dahurica. All of the above highlighted significant differences in composition and content between C. foetida and C. dahurica. In addition, relevant studies have shown that C. foetida has significant effects in antidiarrheal, anticomplementary and menopausal syndrome effects (Qiu et al., 2006, Zheng et al., 2013, Zhang et al., 2016), while C. dahurica has better antioxidant, neuroprotective and antibacterial effects (Qin et al., 2016, Lee et al., 2020, Li et al., 2023). Therefore, it is necessary to conduct differential analysis between the two species in order to apply it more clearly in clinical practice.

Table 3 The differential compounds were identified between SM and XSM based on the VIP and p values.
No. Component VIP p values
1 Fukiic acid 5.36 2.35E-06
2 Methyl caffeate 1.11 1.97E-04
3 Shomaside A 1.47 2.70E-06
4 Cimifugin-4′-O-β-D-glucose 2.39 6.58E-07
5 Cimicifugoside 5.32 1.28E-07
6 Shomaside G 3.06 4.35E-11
7 Caffeic acid 3.08 4.91E-21
8 Isocimicifugamide 1.35 4.61E-10
9 Shomaside B 1.05 1.05E-03
10 Cimifugin 9.99 1.06E-14
11 Cimicifugic acid A/B 3.57 6.83E-03
12 2-feruloyl fukinolic acid-1-metyl ester 1.63 9.27E-06
13 Ferulic acid 3.49 8.31E-06
14 Isoferulic acid 4.03 1.57E-10
15 Cimicifugic acid E/F 7.70 8.67E-16
16 Cimicifugic acid E/F 2.70 1.76E-13
17 Norcimifugin 3.13 2.36E-11
18 12β-acetylcimigenol-3-O-β-D-xylopyranoside 2.18 3.01E-08
19 Cimicifugic acid L 2.28 4.62E-17
20 9,19-cyclocholest-7-en-16-one,23–(acetyloxy)-15,24,25-trihydroxy-4,4,14-trimethyl-3-(β-D-xylopyranoside) 2.04 7.58E-07
21 Cimicifugoside H-2 3.10 1.06E-08
22 23-O-aectyl-7,8-didehydroshengmanol 3-O-α-L-arabinopyranoside 1.67 4.18E-07
23 Actein 2.19 1.43E-07
24 Cimiracemoside A 1.26 1.87E-02
25 7β-hydroxycimigenol-3-O-β-D-xylopyranoside 5.34 2.21E-05
26 12β-hydroxycimigenol-3-O-β-D-xylopyranoside 5.96 8.52E-08
27 24-epi-24-O-acetyl-7,8-didehydroshengmanol-3-O-β-D-galactopyranoside 1.43 1.38E-13
28 7,8-didehydrocimigenol 3-O-β-D-xyloside 4.53 5.59E-09
29 7β-hydroxycimigenol-3-O-α-L-arabinopyranoside 2.60 1.65E-05
30 (22R)-22β-hydroxycimigenol 3-O-β-D-xylopyranoside 2.12 6.39E-03
31 26-dedoxycimifugoside 3.15 1.14E-08
32 7,8-didehydroshengmanol-3-O-β-D-xylranoside 1.09 1.56E-02
33 Cimiricaside A 5.43 1.26E-12
34 12β-hydroxycimigenol-3-O-α-L-arabinopyranoside 1.06 2.22E-06
35 asiaticoside B 6.55 8.90E-08
36 25-O-acetylcimigenol-3-O-β-D-xyloside 2.69 2.56E-02
37 25-O-acetylcimigenol-3-O-α-L-arabinoside 2.26 8.11E-08
38 Cimiside E 2.24 1.06E-02
39 7,8-didehydro-25-anhydrocimigenol-3-O-β-D-xyloside 5.18 2.00E-02
40 Cimiricaside C 1.78 2.93E-09
41 24-O-acetyl-7,8-didehydroshengmanol-3-O-β-D-xylopyranoside 4.72 2.59E-07
42 23-O-aectyl-7,8-didehydroshengmanol 3-O-β-D-xylranoside 1.27 1.06E-12
43 23-O-acetyl-7,8-didehydroshengmanol-3-O-(2′-O-malonyl)-xylopyranoside 6.43 1.19E-06
44 15,23-O-diacetyl-7(8)-ene-shengmanol-3-O-α-L-arabinopyranoside 2.25 1.55E-03
45 11β-hydroxy-24-epi-cimigenol 1.13 2.87E-02
46 24-O-acetylshengmanol-7(8)-en-isodahurinol 2.09 1.56E-02
47 25-O-acetylcimigenol 1.45 9.47E-03
48 12β-acetoxycimigenol 1.40 2.18E-03

Considering the above content differences and the screening principle of biomarkers: 1) the markers are convenient to obtain and quantify; 2) the markers can clearly distinguish between the two original CR; 3) the specific components in CR (Cui et al., 2022, Lu et al., 2022). Caffeic acid, cimifugin, ferulic acid and isoferulic acid were ultimately screened as potential combinatorial discriminatory quality markers. The two species were significantly divided into two groups by the four markers in OPLS-DA model with high fitting and predictive abilities (Fig. 5F). Furthermore, the grouping accuracy were verified based on AdaBoost and KNN algorithms by Matlab R2022A software. The sample SM-1, 4–14, XSM-1, 2, 7–25 were screened as the training set while others were the testing set at random. The accuracy of variables in different groups were above 83.3 %, which proved the correctness of OPLS-DA model grouping and verified the existence of differences between the two Cimicifuga species (Table 4).

Table 4 The accuracies of different variables by AdaBoost and KNN algorithms.
Algorithms Different amounts of variables
2955 (+) 2976 (−) 48 4
AdaBoost 87.5 % 95.8 % 83.3 % 95.8 %
KNN 91.7 % 91.7 % 100 % 91.7 %

3.4

3.4 The verification of the potential bioactive markers

Four combinatorial discriminatory quality markers were quantitatively analyzed by HPLC-DAD with high efficiency and generality. It was indicated that the contents of the four markers from 56 batches were totally different, which may contribute to the differentiation of the species. The repeatability, stability and precision of the four compounds were less than 5.0 % and recoveries were between 96.1 % and 103 % with all RSD values less than or equal to 5.55 %. The correlation coefficients of the linear equations higher than 0.99 and the lower limit of quantitation (LOQ) were 0.08 μg/mL of caffeic acid and cimifugin, 0.048 μg/mL of ferulic acid and 0.16 μg/mL of isoferulic acid, respectively (Table S5). It demonstrated a good linear relationship between these four compounds within their respective concentration ranges. The content of four combinatorial discriminatory quality markers of 56 batches were obtained (Table S6) and the intuitive chart was shown in Fig. 6. In summary, the established HPLC-DAD quantitative analysis for four markers was unequivocally accurate and reliable.

The contents chart of four markers in all batches of samples.
Fig. 6
The contents chart of four markers in all batches of samples.

Fisher discriminant model was established to classify unknown samples using SPSS software in terms of the above contents of four combinatorial discriminatory quality markers. The twenty batches (including SM-2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 13, 14, XSM-2, 10, 14, 15, 17, 18, 21, 22, 24, 28) were randomly chosen as training sets and the fifteen batches (SM-1, 10, 15, XSM-1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 16, 19, 23, 25) were test sets. The discriminant equation was derived as follows: Y = 7.029X1 + 1.637X2 − 0.193X3 − 0.125X4 − 3.613 (Y: discriminant score; X1: caffeic acid; X2: cimifugin; X3: ferulic acid; X4: isoferulic acid). The unknown samples will be classified as C. foetida when the discriminant score is higher than the determination value 0 (the average of 3.188 and −3.188 at the group centroids), if not it will be considered as C. dahurica. In addition, the other 21 batches were utilized to the test sets in order to verify the discrimination ability. The results displayed that the accuracy of classification was 94.4 % in cross-validation group demonstrating high feasibility of this model. The batches were correctly grouped by the discriminant model except two samples. Apart from a little higher content of isoferulic acid, the other three components are generally lower in the two batches.

It was suggested that the four combinatorial discriminatory quality markers could distinguish C. foetida and C. dahurica with high accuracy. The content of ferulic acid in C. foetida was higher than that in C. dahurica, while isoferulic acid was the opposite. Caffeic acid was three times higher in C. foetida than in C. dahurica. Moreover, cimifugin was significantly different between the two species, and it was nearly 16 times higher in C. foetida than in C. dahurica. These differences in the composition of secondary metabolites might be attributed to genetic nuances. Consequently, the contents of four markers will be measured and substituted into the discrimination model so as to differentiate the unknown samples. All above indicated that metabolomics techniques can be applied to distinguish different species from the perspective of compositional differences.

4

4 Conclusion

This study presented an integrated technique to differentiate closely related TCMs as a case of C. foetida and C. dahurica cultivars based on DNA barcoding and metabolomics by UHPLC-Q-TOF-MS. After obtaining the useable DNA sequences, the sequence similarity of ITS2, genetic distance and phylogenetic tree were examined using DNA barcoding technology. As a result, C. foetida and C. dahurica were identified by the variation sites of ITS2 in terms of genetic features. One hundred and fifty-seven chemical components were characterized by UHPLC-Q-TOF-MS in DDA scanning mode. There were forty-eight differential components between C. foetida and C. dahurica. Four of them were totally screened and validated as combinatorial discriminatory quality markers for the differentiation of the two species. It was concluded that the DNA barcoding combined with metabolomics technique was verified to discriminate the original plant species of CR. The technique provides a method to comprehensively and accurately screen differential components of the similar species of CR, and is expected to play an extremely important role in the classification and identification of TCMs in future research.

CRediT authorship contribution statement

Qianqian Zhang: Investigation, Methodology, Writing – original draft, Data curation. Shujing Chen: Methodology, Software. Jiake Wen: Conceptualization, Data curation. Rui Wang: Validation, Visualization. Jin Lu: Conceptualization. Abdulmumin Muhammad-Biu: Methodology. Shaoxia Wang: Resources. Kunze Du: Investigation, Writing – review & editing, Project administration. Wei Wei: Formal analysis. Xiaoxuan Tian: Resources. Jin Li: Resources. Yanxu Chang: Conceptualization, Resources, Writing – review & editing, Project administration.

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by the Science and Technology Program of Tianjin in China (23ZYJDSS00030), and Special Program of Talents Development for Excellent Youth Scholars in Tianjin

Declaration of competing interest

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

References

  1. , , , . Metabolomics and DNA-based authentication of two traditional asian medicinal and aromatic species of Salvia subg. Perovskia. Cells. 2021;10
    [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  2. , , , . Non-target metabolomics based on high-resolution mass spectrometry combined with chemometric analysis for discriminating geographical origins of Rhizoma Coptidis. Microchem. J.. 2021;160
    [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  3. , , , . Characterization and quantification of ginsenosides from the root of Panax quinquefolius L. by integrating untargeted metabolites and targeted analysis using UPLC-Triple TOF-MS coupled with UFLC-ESI-MS/MS. Food Chem.. 2022;384
    [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  4. Chinese Pharmacopoeia Commission (the first part), 2020. Chinese Pharmacopoeia. PRC. Chinese Medical Science and Techn, Beijing, pp. 75–76.
  5. , , , . A comprehensive strategy integrating metabolomics with multiple chemometric for discovery of function related active markers for assessment of foodstuffs: A case of hawthorn (Crataegus cuneata) fruits. Food Chem.. 2022;383:132464
    [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  6. , , , . Cimifugin suppresses NF-kappa B Signaling to prevent osteoclastogenesis and periprosthetic osteolysis. Front. Pharmacol.. 2021;12
    [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  7. , , , . Metabolomics investigation on antiobesity effects of Corydalis bungeana on high-fat high-sugar diet-induced obese rats. Chin. Herb. Med.. 2022;14:414-421.
    [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  8. , , , . DNA mini-barcoding: A derived barcoding method for herbal molecular identification. Front. Plant Sci.. 2019;10:987.
    [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  9. , , , . Inspecting the true identity of herbal materials from Cynanchum using ITS2 barcode. Front. Plant Sci.. 2017;8
    [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  10. , , , . Qualitative and quantitative evaluation of Flos Puerariae by using chemical fingerprint in combination with chemometrics method. J. Pharm. Anal.. 2022;12:489-499.
    [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  11. , , , . Comprehensive profiling of Lingzhihuang capsule by liquid chromatography coupled with mass spectrometry-based molecular networking and target prediction. Acupunct. Herb. Med.. 2022;2:58-67.
    [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  12. , , , . Protective effects of compounds from Cimicifuga dahurica against amyloid beta production in vitro and scopolamine-induced memory impairment in vivo. J. Nat. Prod.. 2020;83:223-230.
    [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  13. , , , . Triterpenoids from Cimicifugae rhizoma, a novel class of inhibitors on bone resorption and ovariectomy-induced bone loss. Maturitas. 2007;58:59-69.
    [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  14. , , , . Antibacterial actions of Ag nanoparticles synthesized from Cimicifuga dahurica (Turcz.) Maxim. and their application in constructing a hydrogel spray for healing skin wounds. Food Chem.. 2023;418:135981
    [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  15. , , , . Characterization of chemical components of Periplocae Cortex and their metabolites in rats using ultra-performance liquid chromatography coupled with quadrupole time-of-flight mass spectrometry. Biomed. Chromatogr.. 2020;34
    [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  16. , , , . Discovery of potential Q-marker of traditional Chinese medicine based on plant metabolomics and network pharmacology: Periplocae Cortex as an example. Phytomedicine. 2021;85
    [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  17. , , , . Multimodal integrated strategy for the discovery and identification of quality markers in traditional Chinese medicine. J. Pharm. Anal.. 2022;12:701-710.
    [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  18. , , , . New phenylpropanoid allopyranosides from the rhizomes of Cimicifuga dahurica. ACS Med. Chem. Lett.. 2019;29:1774-1778.
    [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  19. , , , . New monoterpene lactones from Actaea cimicifuga. Planta Med.. 2013;79:308-311.
    [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  20. , , , . Analysis of chemotypes and their markers in leaves of core collections of Eucommia ulmoides using metabolomics. Front. Plant Sci.. 2023;13
    [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  21. , , , . Three new cycloart-7-ene triterpenoid glycosides from Cimicifuga dahurica and their anti-inflammatory effects. Nat. Prod. Res.. 2021;35:3634-3643.
    [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  22. , , , . Systematically identifying the anti-inflammatory constituents of Cimicifuga dahurica by UPLC-Q/TOF-MS combined with network pharmacology analysis. Biomed. Chromatogr.. 2021;35
    [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  23. , , , . Polyphenolic compounds with antioxidant potential and neuro-protective effect from Cimicifuga dahurica (Turcz.) Maxim. Fitoterapia. 2016;115:52-56.
    [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  24. , , , . Anticomplement activity of cycloartane glycosides from the rhizome of Cimicifuga foetida. Phytother. Res.. 2006;20:945-948.
    [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  25. , , , . Analysis of antidepressant activity of Huang-Lian Jie-Du decoction through network pharmacology and metabolomics. Front. Pharmacol.. 2021;12
    [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  26. , , , . Combining multidimensional chromatography-mass spectrometry and feature-based molecular networking methods for the systematic characterization of compounds in the supercritical fluid extract of Tripterygium wilfordii Hook F. Analyst. 2023;148:61-73.
    [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  27. , , , . Identification of Cimicifugae Rhizoma and its adulterants using ITS2 sequence. China J. Chinese Mater. Med.. 2014;39:2184-2188.
    [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  28. , , , . Comparison of data-dependent acquisition, data-independent acquisition, and parallel reaction monitoring in trapped ion mobility spectrometry–time-of-flight tandem mass spectrometry-based lipidomics. Anal. Chem.. 2023;95:9488-9496.
    [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  29. , , , . Rapidly discriminate commercial medicinal Pulsatilla chinensis (Bge.) Regel from its adulterants using ITS2 barcoding and specific PCR-RFLP assay. Sci. Rep.. 2017;7
    [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  30. , , , . Soluble epoxide hydrolase inhibitors of indolinone alkaloids and phenolic derivatives from Cimicifuga dahurica (Turcz.) Maxim. ACS Med. Chem. Lett.. 2017;27:1874-1879.
    [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  31. , , , . Authentication of Zingiber species based on analysis of metabolite profiles. Front. Plant Sci.. 2021;12
    [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  32. , , , . Current policies and measures on the development of Traditional Chinese Medicine in China. Pharmacol. Res.. 2021;163:105187
    [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  33. , , . A BAHD hydroxycinnamoyltransferase from Actaea racemosa catalyses the formation of fukinolic and cimicifugic acids. Planta. 2019;250:475-485.
    [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  34. Wurihan, Aodungerle, Bilige, et al., 2022. Metabonomics study of liver and kidney subacute toxicity induced by garidi-5 in rats. Chin Herbal Med. 14, 422-431. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chmed.2022.05.003.
  35. , , , . Difference analysis of different parts of chicory based on HPLC fingerprint and multi-component content determination. Chin. Herb. Med.. 2022;14:317-323.
    [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  36. , , , . Non-targeted metabolomics reveals distinct chemical compositions among different grades of Bai Mudan white tea. Food Chem.. 2019;277:289-297.
    [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  37. , , , . Experimental studies of the anti-diarrhea effect of Cimicifuga foetida. Acta Chin. Med. Pharm.. 2016;44:21-23.
    [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  38. , , , . Shengxian decoction in chronic heart failure treatment and synergistic property of platycodonis radix: a metabolomic approach and its application. Mol. Biosyst.. 2014;10
    [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  39. , , , . Research progress on quality markers of traditional Chinese medicine. J. Pharm. Biomed. Anal.. 2022;211:114588
    [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  40. , , , . Efficacy and safety of Cimicifuga foetida extract on menopausal syndrome in Chinese women. Chin. Med. J.. 2013;126:2034-2038.
    [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  41. , , , . Data-dependent acquisition and database-driven efficient peak annotation for the comprehensive profiling and characterization of the multicomponents from compound Xueshuantong capsule by UHPLC/IM-QTOF-MS. Molecules. 2019;24
    [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

Appendix A

Supplementary material

Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arabjc.2024.105613.

Appendix A

Supplementary material

The following are the Supplementary data to this article:

Supplementary data 1

Supplementary data 1

Show Sections