Next Article in Journal
Identification of Tomato Ve1 Homologous Proteins in Flax and Assessment for Race-Specific Resistance in Two Fiber FlaxCultivars against Verticillium dahliae Race 1
Next Article in Special Issue
Integrated Approach for Species Identification and Quality Analysis for Labisia pumila Using DNA Barcoding and HPLC
Previous Article in Journal
Comparative Transcriptome Analysis Provides New Insights into the Molecular Regulatory Mechanism of Adventitious Root Formation in Ramie (Boehmeria nivea L.)
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Plants
Volume 10
Issue 1
10.3390/plants10010161
plants-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Differentiation of Hedyotis diffusa and Common Adulterants Based on Chloroplast Genome Sequencing and DNA Barcoding Markers

by
Mavis Hong-Yu Yik
1,†,
Bobby Lim-Ho Kong
1,2,†,
Tin-Yan Siu
2,
David Tai-Wai Lau
1,2,
Hui Cao
3 and
Pang-Chui Shaw
1,2,4,*
1
Li Dak Sum Yip Yio Chin R & D Center for Chinese Medicine, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Shatin, N.T., Hong Kong, China
2
Shiu-Ying Hu Herbarium, School of Life Sciences, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Shatin, N.T., Hong Kong, China
3
Research Center for Traditional Chinese Medicine of Lingnan (Southern China) and College of Pharmacy, Jinan University, Guangzhou 510632, China
4
State Key Laboratory of Research on Bioactivities and Clinical Applications of Medicinal Plants (CUHK), The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Shatin, N.T., Hong Kong, China
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
†
The authors contributed equally.
Plants 2021, 10(1), 161; https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/plants10010161
Submission received: 15 December 2020 / Revised: 5 January 2021 / Accepted: 13 January 2021 / Published: 15 January 2021
(This article belongs to the Special Issue DNA Barcoding for Herbal Medicines)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Chinese herbal tea, also known as Liang Cha or cooling beverage, is popular in South China. It is regarded as a quick-fix remedy to relieve minor health problems. Hedyotis diffusa Willd. (colloquially Baihuasheshecao) is a common ingredient of cooling beverages. H. diffusa is also used to treat cancer and bacterial infections. Owing to the high demand for H. diffusa, two common adulterants, Hedyotis brachypoda (DC.) Sivar and Biju (colloquially Nidingjingcao) and Hedyotis corymbosa (L.) Lam. (colloquially Shuixiancao), are commonly encountered in the market. Owing to the close similarity of their morphological characteristics, it is difficult to differentiate them. Here, we sequenced the complete chloroplast genomes of the three species of Hedyotis using next-generation sequencing (NGS). By comparing the complete chloroplast genomes, we found that they are closely related in the subfamily Rubioideae. We also discovered that there are significant differences in the number and repeating motifs of microsatellites and complex repeats and revealed three divergent hotspots, rps16-trnQ intergenic spacer, ndhD and ycf1. By using these species-specific sequences, we propose new DNA barcoding markers for the authentication of H. diffusa and its two common adulterants.

1. Introduction

Chinese herbal tea, also known as Liang Cha or cooling beverage, is a decoction of multiple herbs popular in South China and tropical Asia [1]. It is used to treat minor illnesses, including flu symptoms. Owing to its popularity, herbal tea was inscribed into the first National List of Intangible Cultural Heritage in 2006 by the State Council of the People’s Republic of China.
Species of Hedyotis, a genus of approximately 500 species in the family Rubiaceae [2], are annual or perennial herbs that are mainly distributed in tropical and subtropical regions [3]. Many species of Hedyotis, for example, H. biflora [4], H. herbacea [5] and H. chrysotricha [6], are used as folk medicine or as ingredients in herbal products for health maintenance. H. diffusa is a well-known ingredient in cooling beverages, which are consumed daily to quench thirst and to modulate the immune system [7], to prevent inflammatory diseases and to maintain good health. H. diffusa also possesses the pharmacological effects of anti-oxidation, anti-tumor and anti-inflammatory properties for treating different kinds of cancers, such as colorectal cancer, leukemia and multiple myeloma [8,9,10].
The surging demand for H. diffusa has resulted in the emergence of two common adulterants, H. brachypoda (DC.) Sivar and Biju (colloquially Nidingjingcao) and H. corymbosa (L.) Lam. (colloquially Shuixiancao) in the market. Although the morphological characteristics of these three species are only slightly different, they have distinct phytochemicals, for example, Hedyotiscone A is found only in H. corymbosa [11] and, 6-O-(E)-p-coumaroyl scandoside methyl ester and 10(S)-hydroxypheophytin only in H. diffusa [12]. There have been studies on the authentication of H. diffusa using distinctive chemical markers. However, the use of chloroplast genomes for comparing this species with its common adulterants have not been available. To further enhance the quality assurance and quality control of Hedytois species in the herbal industry, we set forth to sequence the complete chloroplast genomes of these three species of Hedyotis. Besides analyzing their genome organization and features for understanding their phylogenetic relationship, we also found DNA barcoding markers for authenticating them effectively.

2. Results

2.1. Chloroplast Genome Organization

For the three species of Hedyotis, paired-end reads with 150 bp in average length were generated by Illumina sequencing. In Genbank, the only available Hedyotis chloroplast genome is Hedyotis ovata (MK203877). It was used as reference for mapping reads. The sizes of chloroplast genomes of H. diffusa, H. brachypoda and H. corymbosa were 153,653, 153,617 and 152,327 bp, respectively (Figure 1, Table 1). They had a typical quadripartite structure including one large single-copy region (LSC) (83,609 to 83,863 bp), one small single-copy region (SSC) (17,195 to 18,146 bp), and a pair of inverted repeat regions (IRa and IRb) (25,286 to 26,321 bp). The GC contents among the three species were similar with a value around 37%.
Apart from the basic characteristics of the three chloroplast genomes, the genes in the chloroplast genomes were analyzed. The total number of genes encoded in H. diffusa, H. brachypoda and H. corymbosa was 130, 129 and 128, respectively. The encoded genes were classified into four functional categories: protein synthesis and DNA-replication, photosynthesis, miscellaneous group and unknown functions. Genes were classified into different gene groups of the categories (Table 2). The genes containing introns and pseudogenes were analyzed. In addition, there were 19 genes located within the IR regions and therefore were duplicated in the genome.

2.2. Analysis of Repeat Sequences

There are variations among the three species of Hedyotis in the number of simple sequence repeats and dispersed repeats. The number of simple sequence repeats (SSRs) in H. diffusa, H. brachypoda and H. corymbosa was 47, 42 and 48 respectively. The number of mono-, di-, tri-, tetra-, penta-, and hexa-nucleotides were analyzed (Figure 2). Mono-nucleotide repeats were the most abundant. They accounted for over 50% of the total SSRs, while hexa-nucleotides were the rarest, with only one repeat in H. diffusa but none in the others.
The number of dispersed repeats in H. diffusa, H. brachypoda and H. corymbosa was 19, 20 and 22 respectively. Forward match, reverse match, complement match and palindromic match with repeat length ranging from 21 to 70 bp were analyzed (Figure 3). Most occurring repeats were palindromic matches, followed by forward match, reverse match and complement match.

2.3. Genome Sequence Divergence Analysis

Nucleotide diversity in the chloroplast genome and highly variable regions can be revealed through sliding window analysis [13]. Comparing the three species of Hedyotis, the nucleotide diversity values (Pi) ranged from 0 to 0.095, with an average value of 0.00246. Obviously, sequence divergence was concentrated in the LSC and SSC regions, but showed less variability in the IR regions (Figure 4). Three divergent hotspots rps16-trnQ intergenic spacer, ndhD and ycf1, with distinctive high Pi values of 0.095, 0.089 and 0.083 respectively were revealed. The rps16-trnQ intergenic spacer is located in the LSC region, while ndhD and ycf1 are in the SSC and IRb regions respectively.
Insertions/deletions (indels) and single nucleotide polymorphism (SNPs) were also considered (Table 3) for further analyzing the genome sequence divergence. Using the H. diffusa chloroplast genome as reference, indels and SNP of the other two chloroplast genomes were compared. The number of SNP and indels of H. corymbosa were around 4 and 3 times higher than in H. brachypoda when compared to H. diffusa, indicating that the genomic difference of H. corymbosa is much greater than H. brachypoda when compared with H. diffusa.

2.4. Phylogenetic Analysis

The phylogenetic relationship among plant lineages can be elucidated through the analysis of chloroplast genome sequences [14,15]. Figure 5 shows the phylogenetic relationship of the four species of Hedyotis and other species of Rubiaceae. The tree revealed that H. diffusa is closer to H. brachypoda than H. corymbosa. Nevertheless, they all belong in the subfamily of Rubioideae. The phylogenetic tree was highly supported with bootstrap values of 100.

2.5. Development of DNA Barcoding Markers

Owing to the short amplicon size and the presence of common region in the ndhD and rps16-trnQ intergenic spacer among the three Hedyotis species, primers were designed for species identification. The ycf1 region was not chosen as the barcoding region as it is too long and too variable to permit the design of universal primers. This phenomenon for ycf1 has also been found in Nicotiana tabacum [16]. PCR was first performed by using the designed primers on the ten samples. Amplicons were then sequenced, and DNA sequences were aligned with the corresponding regions in the chloroplast genomes we have obtained. Ten samples of Hedyotis species were obtained from the market for molecular authentication. Their identities were also identified by morphological characterization. Both approaches give consistent authentication results (Table 4). Sequences of the primers and the amplicons are shown in Tables S1 and S2.

3. Discussion

3.1. Chloroplast Genome Features

Chloroplasts are vital cell organelles in plants, playing an important role in energy production in photosynthesis and in plant growth and development [17,18]. Same as nucleus and mitochondria, chloroplast has its own genetic material. The basal genomic information helps in addressing phylogenetic and authentication problems [19].
Among the three Hedyotis species, the number of protein-coding genes differed, while the number of tRNA and rRNA genes, gene order and clusters were conserved, perhaps due to long-term evolution under environmental pressures, similar to the case of Robinia [20]. Genomic differences also derived from the presence of different pseudogenes. ycf1 is a common one, and its presence may be due to the incomplete duplication of the normal copy between the SSC and IRb regions [21]. There are three other pseudogenes, rps19 and ycf2 in H. brachypoda and rps19 and infA in H. corymbosa. Their existence is due to the occurrence of internal stop codons and results in a massive deletion. These pseudogenes have also been found in other plants, for example, ycf2 in maize [22], infA in Oenothera elata [23] and rps19 in Malpighiaceae [24]. In addition, the start codon of the ndhD gene, which functions in photosynthesis, had been altered from the common initiation codon AUG to ACG. This may be due to a post transcriptional RNA editing process that induced substitution or indel mutation [25]. The C-to-U RNA editing in plant chloroplasts is common in flowering plants [26].
Repeat sequences contribute to genomic rearrangement, recombination, and sequence divergence [27]. In this study, H. corymbosa had the largest number of repeats (70), including both simple sequence repeats and dispersed repeats, while H. brachypoda had the fewest (62). The analysis indicated that the genetic variation and diversity may mainly be due to (1) simple sequence repeats—mainly mono-nucleotides, but also hexa-nucleotides—and (2) dispersed repeats: palindromic match with 31–40 repeat lengths. Moreover, over 70% of the simple repeats were located in the LSC region, followed by the SSC region and the IR region, suggesting that the IR regions are less variable than the other two regions [28].

3.2. Sequence Divergence, Phylogenetic Relationships and Molecular Markers for Authentication

The sequence divergence was clearly indicated by the sliding window and indels/SNPs analysis. The nucleotide diversity in IR regions is low, with Pi values less than 0.02, which means less genetic variation among the three species of Hedyotis in the IR regions. This phenomenon was consistent with findings in other chloroplast genome studies [29,30], which suggests the low sequence variation in IR regions was by virtue of gene conversion for copy correction of IR sequences [31]. The three hotspot regions discovered with Pi values higher than 0.08 have potential to develop DNA barcoding markers [16]. Moreover, the indels/SNPs results revealed that the genomic difference of H. corymbosa is much higher than H. brachypoda when compared with H. diffusa. This showed a consistent conclusion with the phylogenetic relationship of the three species of Hedyotis.
With the genetic variation discovered, we analyzed the phylogenetic relationship of the four species of Hedyotis and other species of Rubiaceae using complete chloroplast genomes for the determination of their phylogenetic relationship. From the phylogenetic analysis, all the Rubiaceae species were basically divided into two branches. One branch consisted of species in the subfamily of Rubioideae, while another consisted of species in subfamilies of Ixoroideae and Cinchonoideae. All four species of Hedyotis belonged to the subfamily of Rubioideae. The analytical result revealed that H. diffusa and H. brachypoda are closer to each other with the same branching point; however, they are less close to H. corymbosa as well as H. ovata. The phylogenetic analysis is consistent with the classification of Flora Republicae Popularis Sinicae. Both the H. diffusa and H. corymbosa belong to the section Euoldenlandia, while H. ovata belongs to section Diplophragma. According to Flora of China, H. brachypoda is commonly circumscribed as H. diffusa, although the taxonomy of these two species is unsolved. As expected, H. diffusa and H. brachypoda had a closer relationship in our phylogenetic analysis. H. ovata was also successfully classified into a different lineage with the other three Hedyotis species.
Recently, the use of whole chloroplast genomes in developing specific barcodes for distinguishing closely related plant species has been proposed [32,33]. DNA barcoding is a widely used tool for species identification and authentication [34]. It has also been used to identify material present in processed seafood products for promoting food safety [35]. In this study, we designed primers with amplicon size 200–300 bp from the two identified hotspot regions ndhD and rps16-trnQ intergenic spacer. DNA from dried herbs are always degraded during manufacturing processes [36]. The proposed specific barcodes are superior to universal barcodes because (1) the specific primers are designed from hotspot regions with great variations among target species, which is good for identification, and (2) the amplicons are small enough, which is more appropriate for processed herbal products. With the specific barcodes, the quality control of Hedyotis-containing herbal beverages can be enhanced.

4. Materials and Methods

4.1. Collection of Plant Samples

Fresh plants of H. diffusa, H. brachypoda and H. corymbosa were collected at various locations in the Chinese University of Hong Kong. The samples with voucher specimens were deposited in the Shiu-Ying Hu Herbarium, Chinese University of Hong Kong. The specimens were collected based on the delimitation of the three species according to the treatment of Sivarajan and Biju [37]. The identification of H. diffusa was based on the taxonomic treatment characterizing species with 3 to 7 flowered cymes or 1 to 2 flowered cymes and without a ring of hairs in the corolla. H. brachypoda was characterized as being 1 to 2 flowered and lacking a ring of hairs in the corolla. H. corymbosa was characterized by having 3 to 8 flowered cymes or rarely with solitary flower, and with a ring of hairs in the corolla.

4.2. DNA Extraction

For DNA extraction, 200 mg of fresh plant samples were ground by liquid nitrogen for DNA extraction using DNeasy plant mini kit (Qiagen, Germany), and 400 μL AP1 extraction buffer, 4% Polyvinylpyrrolidone (PVPP), 2% β-mercaptoethanol and 4 μL RNase A (100 mg/mL) were added to the samples and incubated at 65 °C for 10 min. The protocol of the manufacturer was then followed. Fifty microliters elution buffer was used to collect the purified DNA.

4.3. Chloroplast Genome Sequencing, Assembling and Annotation

The three samples of extracted genomic DNA were sequenced by Novogene Corporation Inc., China. Libraries were generated using NEBNext DNA Library Prep Kit (NEB, Ipswich, MA, USA) and sequenced using the Illumina NovaSeq 6000 platform (Illumina, USA). The number of pair-end reads of H. diffusa, H. brachypoda and H. corymbosa were 169,465, 174,248 and 169,635 respectively, with 150 bp read length. The raw data were trimmed and assembled into contigs using CLC assembly cell v4.21.104315 and SOAPdenovo v. 3.23, with default parameters set. Gapcloser module in SOAP package was used for gap filling. A reference genome of H. ovata (MK203877) was downloaded for contigs alignment and chloroplast genome assembly. All paired-end reads were mapped to the assembled chloroplast genomes with over 150 × coverage. Two other reference genomes, Galium aparine (NC036969) and Galium mollugo (NC036970), were also downloaded for gene annotation using the Geseq platform. Annotated genes were manually verified and adjusted. The circular plastid genome maps were then drawn using OrganellarGenomeDRAW [38] (Figure 1). The three annotated chloroplast genomes were deposited in GenBank (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov) with corresponding accession numbers.

4.4. Repeat Elements Analysis

MISA PERL script [39] was used to detect the SSRs in the chloroplast genomes. For the SSR search parameters, the minimum number of repetitions of mono-, di-, tri-, tetra-, penta-, and hexa-nucleotides was 10, 5, 4, 3, 3 and 3, respectively. REPuter [40] was used to detect the size and location of repeats in the genome sequences. Four types of repeats: forward match, reverse match, complement match and palindromic match, were searched and analyzed. Parameters were set as three of hamming distance, 100 of maximum computed repeats and 30 of minimal repeat size.

4.5. Sequence Divergence Analysis

The chloroplast genomic sequences of the three species of Hedyotis were aligned by MAFFT [41]. DnaSP (DNA Sequences Polymorphism v6.12.03) [42] was used to analyze the nucleotide polymorphisms from the three aligned DNA sequences. The parameters for sliding window analysis were set as 600 sites of window length and 200 sites of step size. Nucleotide diversity (Pi) of each mid-point was computed for constructing a DNAsp graph indicating the sequence variation among the three species of Hedyotis (Figure 4). In-house python coding developed by Seoul National University was used to determine the number and position of indels and SNPs.

4.6. Phylogenetic Analysis

Phylogenetic analysis was conducted using the complete chloroplast genomic sequences of the three Hedyotis species in this study and 21 species of Rubiaceae available in NCBI, including Hedyotis ovata (MK203877), Leptodermis scabrida (MN686284), Paederia scandens (MN567112), Dunnia sinensis (MN883829), Rubia cordifolia (NC047470), Galium mollugo (NC036970), Galium aparine (NC036969), Saprosma merrillii (MK203879), Morinda officinalis (NC028009), Morinda citrifolia (NC047302), Coffea arabica (NC008535), Coffea canephora (NC030053), Gardenia jasminoides (CM023130), Scyphiphora hydrophyllacea (MN390972), Emmenopterys henryi (NC036300), Mussaenda hirsutula (MK203878), Antirhea chinensis (NC_044102), Mitragyna speciosa (NC034698), Uncaria rhynchophylla (MN723865), Neolamarckia cadamba (NC041149) and Neolamarckia macrophylla (MN877388). Gentiana officinalis (MH261261) was used as an outgroup. The complete chloroplast genomic sequences were aligned by MAFFT [41]. The best nucleotide substitution model (GTR + G +I) was tested. Mega-X software [43] was used to construct the maximum likelihood (ML) with 1000 bootstrap replicates.

4.7. Development of DNA Barcoding Markers

The genomic sequences of the three Hedyotis species were first aligned by MAFFT. Primers were designed (Table S1) from the hotspot divergence regions concluded from the sequence divergence analysis session. The designed primers were subjected to OligoAnalyzer 3.1 (Integrated DNA Technologies, Inc., Coralville, IA, USA) for evaluation. Ten Hedyotis samples were collected from herbal shops in Hong Kong. DNA was extracted and amplified by polymerase chain reaction (PCR). The PCR products were purified and sequenced by Sanger sequencing (BGI, Hong Kong, China). Sequenced amplicons were aligned with our chloroplast genomes by MAFFT.

5. Conclusions

In this study, the complete chloroplast genomes of H. diffusa, H. brachypoda and H. corymbosa were constructed and analyzed. The genome size ranged from 152,327 bp to 153,653 bp. Different comparative analyses showed that the genomic differences were derived from: (1) the number of protein-coding genes, (2) the presence of various pseudogenes, (3) the number and distribution of simple and dispersed repeats and (4) the distinct species-specific sequences. These findings enhanced our knowledge and understanding of the chloroplast genomes and the phylogenetic relationship of the four Hedyotis species and other species of Rubiaceae. The phylogenetic tree indicated that the four species of Hedyotis were closely related. This study also developed DNA barcoding markers from ndhD and rps16-trnQ for species authentication. Proper authentication of herbal material is of the utmost importance. The correct use of herbal ingredients in cooling beverages helps to enhance quality assurance and quality control in the herbal industry and safeguard the safety of consumers. We anticipate that the two unique DNA markers generated in this study can be used for quality control and authentication of H. diffusa in the herbal industry.

Supplementary Materials

The following are available online at https://0-www-mdpi-com.brum.beds.ac.uk/2223-7747/10/1/161/s1, Table S1: Sequences and parameters of the designed primers. Table S2: The amplified sequences from the ten sample.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, M.H.-Y.Y., B.L.-H.K. and P.-C.S.; investigation, T.-Y.S. and D.T.-W.L.; methodology, M.H.-Y.Y. and B.L.-H.K.; software, M.H.-Y.Y. and B.L.-H.K.; supervision, P.-C.S.; writing—original draft, M.H.-Y.Y. and B.L.-H.K.; writing—review and editing, T.-Y.S., D.T.-W.L., H.C. and P.-C.S. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The chloroplast genomes presented in this study are openly available in GenBank with reference number MT767006-MT767008.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Yang, Y.-C.; Lu, F.-H.; Wu, J.-S.; Wu, C.-H.; Chang, C.-J. The Protective Effect of Habitual Tea Consumption on Hypertension. Arch. Intern. Med. 2004, 164, 1534–1540. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  2. Chen, T.; Taylor, C.M. Hedyotis. Flora China 2011, 19, 147–174. [Google Scholar]
  3. Groeninckx, I.; Dessein, S.; Ochoterena, H.; Persson, C.; Motley, T.J.; Kårehed, J.; Bremer, B.; Huysmans, S.; Smets, E. Phylogeny of the Herbaceous Tribe Spermacoceae (Rubiaceae) Based on Plastid DNA Data1. Ann. Mo. Bot. Gard. 2009, 96, 109–132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Nimal Christhudas, I.V.; Praveen Kumar, P.; Sunil, C.; Vajravijayan, S.; Lakshmi Sundaram, R.; Jenifer Siril, S.; Agastian, P. In vitro studies on alpha-glucosidase inhibition, antioxidant and free radical scavenging activities of Hedyotis biflora L. Food Chem. 2013, 138, 1689–1695. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Ahmad, R.; Ali, A.M.; Israf, D.A.; Ismail, N.H.; Shaari, K.; Lajis, N.H. Antioxidant, radical-scavenging, anti-inflammatory, cytotoxic and antibacterial activities of methanolic extracts of some Hedyotis species. Life Sci. 2005, 76, 1953–1964. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Ye, M.; Su, J.J.; Liu, S.T.; Cao, L.; Xiong, J.; Zhao, Y.; Fan, H.; Yang, G.X.; Xia, G.; Hu, J.F. (24S)-ergostane-3beta,5alpha,6beta-triol from Hedyotis chrysotricha with inhibitory activity on migration of SK-HEP-1 human hepatocarcinoma cells. Nat. Prod. Res. 2013, 27, 1136–1140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Shan, B.E.; Zhang, J.Y.; Du, X.N. Immunomodulatory activity and anti-tumor activity of Oldenlandia diffusa in vitro. Zhongguo Zhong xi yi jie he za zhi Zhongguo Zhongxiyi jiehe zazhi Chin. J. Integr. Tradit. West. Med. 2001, 21, 370–374. [Google Scholar]
  8. Yan, Z.; Feng, J.; Peng, J.; Lai, Z.; Zhang, L.; Jin, Y.; Yang, H.; Chen, W.; Lin, J. Chloroform extract of Hedyotis diffusa Willd inhibits viability of human colorectal cancer cells via suppression of AKT and ERK signaling pathways. Oncol. Lett. 2017, 14, 7923–7930. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  9. Yue, G.G.-L.; Lee, J.K.-M.; Chan, B.C.-L.; Kwok, H.-F.; Hoi, S.W.-H.; Sze, D.M.-Y.; Fung, K.-P.; Leung, P.-C.; Lau, C.B.-S. An innovative anti-cancer Chinese herbal formula exhibited multi-targeted efficacies in metastatic breast cancer mouse model. Chin. Med. 2018, 13, 64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  10. Li, Q.; Lai, Z.; Yan, Z.; Peng, J.; Jin, Y.; Wei, L.; Lin, J. Hedyotis diffusa Willd inhibits proliferation and induces apoptosis of 5FU resistant colorectal cancer cells by regulating the PI3K/AKT signaling pathway. Mol. Med. Rep. 2018, 17, 358–365. [Google Scholar]
  11. Lau, C.B.S.; Cheng, L.; Cheng, B.W.H.; Yue, G.G.L.; Wong, E.C.W.; Lau, C.-P.; Leung, P.-C.; Fung, K.-P. Development of a simple chromato-graphic method for distinguishing between two easily confused species, Hedyotis diffusa and Hedyotis corymbosa. Nat. Prod. Res. 2012, 26, 1446–1450. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Li, M.; Jiang, R.-W.; Hon, P.-M.; Cheng, L.; Li, L.-L.; Zhou, J.-R.; Shaw, P.-C.; But, P.P.-H. Authentication of the anti-tumor herb Baihuash-eshecao with bioactive marker compounds and molecular sequences. Food Chem. 2010, 119, 1239–1245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Song, Y.; Chen, Y.; Lv, J.; Xu, J.; Zhu, S.; Li, M. Comparative Chloroplast Genomes of Sorghum Species: Sequence Divergence and Phylogenetic Relationships. BioMed Res. Int. 2019, 2019, 5046958. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  14. Dong, W.; Xu, C.; Wu, P.; Cheng, T.; Yu, J.; Zhou, S.-L.; Hong, D.-Y. Resolving the systematic positions of enigmatic taxa: Manipulating the chloroplast genome data of Saxifragales. Mol. Phylogenetics Evol. 2018, 126, 321–330. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Moore, M.J.; Bell, C.D.; Soltis, P.S.; Soltis, D.E. Using plastid genome-scale data to resolve enigmatic relationships among basal angi-osperms. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2007, 104, 19363–19368. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  16. Dong, W.; Liu, J.; Yu, J.; Wang, L.; Zhou, S. Highly Variable Chloroplast Markers for Evaluating Plant Phylogeny at Low Taxonomic Levels and for DNA Barcoding. PLoS ONE 2012, 7, e35071. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Dong, W.; Xu, C.; Cheng, T.; Lin, K.; Zhou, S. Sequencing Angiosperm Plastid Genomes Made Easy: A Complete Set of Universal Primers and a Case Study on the Phylogeny of Saxifragales. Genome Biol. Evol. 2013, 5, 989–997. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  18. Raman, G.; Park, S. The Complete Chloroplast Genome Sequence of Ampelopsis: Gene Organization, Comparative Analysis, and Phylogenetic Relationships to Other Angiosperms. Front. Plant Sci. 2016, 7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  19. Zhou, T.; Wang, J.; Jia, Y.; Li, W.; Xu, F.; Wang, X. Comparative Chloroplast Genome Analyses of Species in Gentiana section Cruciata (Gentianaceae) and the Development of Authentication Markers. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2018, 19, 1962. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  20. Yu, X.; Zuo, L.; Lu, D.; Lu, B.; Yang, M.; Wang, J. Comparative analysis of chloroplast genomes of five Robinia species: Genome comparative and evolution analysis. Gene 2019, 689, 141–151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Lu, R.-S.; Li, P.; Qiu, Y. The Complete Chloroplast Genomes of Three Cardiocrinum (Liliaceae) Species: Comparative Genomic and Phylogenetic Analyses. Front. Plant Sci. 2017, 7, 2054. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Maier, R.M.; Neckermann, K.; Igloi, G.L.; Kössel, H. Complete Sequence of the Maize Chloroplast Genome: Gene Content, Hotspots of Divergence and Fine Tuning of Genetic Information by Transcript Editing. J. Mol. Biol. 1995, 251, 614–628. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Hupfer, H.; Swiatek, M.; Hornung, S.; Herrmann, R.G.; Maier, R.M.; Chiu, W.-L.; Sears, B. Complete nucleotide sequence of the Oenothera elata plastid chromosome, representing plastome I of the five distinguishable Euoenothera plastomes. Mol. Genet. Genom. 2000, 263, 581–585. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Menezes, A.P.A.; Resende-Moreira, L.C.; Buzatti, R.S.O.; Nazareno, A.G.; Carlsen, M.; Lobo, F.P.; Kalapothakis, E.; Lovato, M.B. Chloroplast genomes of Byrsonima species (Malpighiaceae): Comparative analysis and screening of high divergence sequences. Sci. Rep. 2018, 8, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  25. Raman, G.; Park, S. Analysis of the Complete Chloroplast Genome of a Medicinal Plant, Dianthus superbus var. longicalyncinus, from a Comparative Genomics Perspective. PLoS ONE 2015, 10, e0141329. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  26. Gray, M.W.; Covello, P.S. RNA editing in plant mitochondria and chloroplasts. FASEB J. 1993, 7, 64–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Weng, M.L.; Blazier, J.C.; Govindu, M.; Jansen, R.K. Reconstruction of the ancestral plastid genome in Geraniaceae reveals a corre-lation between genome rearrangements, repeats, and nucleotide substitution rates. Mol. Biol. Evol. 2014, 31, 645–659. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  28. Xu, C.; Dong, W.; Li, W.; Lu, Y.; Xie, X.; Jin, X.; Shi, J.; He, K.; Suo, Z. Comparative Analysis of Six Lagerstroemia Complete Chloroplast Genomes. Front. Plant Sci. 2017, 8, 15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  29. Nazareno, A.G.; Carlsen, M.; Lohmann, L.G. Complete Chloroplast Genome of Tanaecium tetragonolobum: The First Bignoniaceae Plastome. PLoS ONE 2015, 10, e0129930. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  30. Zhang, Y.; Du, L.; Liu, A.; Chen, J.; Wu, L.; Hu, W.; Zhang, W.; Kim, K.; Lee, S.C.; Yang, T.J.; et al. The Complete Chloroplast Genome Se-quences of Five Epimedium Species: Lights into Phylogenetic and Taxonomic Analyses. Front Plant Sci. 2016, 7, 306. [Google Scholar]
  31. Khakhlova, O.; Bock, R. Elimination of deleterious mutations in plastid genomes by gene conversion. Plant J. 2006, 46, 85–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  32. Li, X.; Yang, Y.; Henry, R.J.; Rossetto, M.; Wang, Y.; Chen, S. Plant DNA barcoding: From gene to genome. Biol. Rev. Camb. Philos. Soc. 2015, 90, 157–166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Yang, J.-B.; Tang, M.; Li, H.; Zhang, Z.; Li, D.Z. Complete chloroplast genome of the genus Cymbidium: Lights into the species identification, phylogenetic implications and population genetic analyses. BMC Evol. Biol. 2013, 13, 84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  34. Hollingsworth, P.; Graham, S.W.; Little, D.P. Choosing and Using a Plant DNA Barcode. PLoS ONE 2011, 6, e19254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. But, G.W.-C.; Wu, H.-Y.; Shaw, P.C. Identification of fish species of sushi products in Hong Kong. Food Control 2019, 98, 164–173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Lo, Y.-T.; Li, M.; Shaw, P.C. Identification of constituent herbs in ginseng decoctions by DNA markers. Chin. Med. 2015, 10, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  37. Sivarajan, V.V.; Biju, S.D. Taxonomic and nomenclatural notes on the Hedyotis corymbosa-diffusa complex (Rubiaceae) in India. Taxonomy 1990, 39, 665–674. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Lohse, M.; Drechsel, O.; Kahlau, S.; Bock, R. OrganellarGenomeDRAW—a suite of tools for generating physical maps of plastid and mitochondrial genomes and visualizing expression data sets. Nucleic Acids Res. 2013, 41, W575–W581. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Beier, S.; Thiel, T.; Münch, T.; Scholz, U.; Mascher, M. MISA-web: A web server for microsatellite prediction. Bioinformatics 2017, 33, 2583–2585. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  40. Kurtz, S.; Choudhuri, J.V.; Ohlebusch, E.; Schleiermacher, C.; Stoye, J.; Giegerich, R. REPuter: The manifold applications of repeat analysis on a genomic scale. Nucleic Acids Res. 2001, 29, 4633–4642. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  41. Katoh, K.; Standley, D.M. MAFFT Multiple Sequence Alignment Software Version 7: Improvements in Performance and Usability. Mol. Biol. Evol. 2013, 30, 772–780. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  42. Rozas, J.; Ferrer-Mata, A.; Sánchez-DelBarrio, J.C.; Guirao-Rico, S.; Librado, P.; Ramos-Onsins, S.E.; Sánchez-Gracia, A. DnaSP 6: DNA Sequence Polymorphism Analysis of Large Data Sets. Mol. Biol. Evol. 2017, 34, 3299–3302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Kumar, S.; Stecher, G.; Li, M.; Knyaz, C.; Tamura, K. MEGA X: Molecular Evolutionary Genetics Analysis across Computing Plat-forms. Mol. Biol. Evol. 2018, 35, 1547–1549. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Plants 10 00161 g001 550
Figure 1. Gene maps of the chloroplast genomes of the three Hedyotis species. (a) Hedyotis diffusa; (b) Hedyotis brachypoda; (c) Hedyotis corymbosa. The genes shown inside and outside of the circles are transcribed clockwise and counterclockwise, respectively. Genes belonging to different functional groups are color-coded. The darker gray area and the lighter gray area in the inner circle represent the GC and AT content of the chloroplast genome.
Figure 1. Gene maps of the chloroplast genomes of the three Hedyotis species. (a) Hedyotis diffusa; (b) Hedyotis brachypoda; (c) Hedyotis corymbosa. The genes shown inside and outside of the circles are transcribed clockwise and counterclockwise, respectively. Genes belonging to different functional groups are color-coded. The darker gray area and the lighter gray area in the inner circle represent the GC and AT content of the chloroplast genome.
Plants 10 00161 g001
Plants 10 00161 g002 550
Figure 2. Analysis of simple sequence repeats (SSRs) in the six categories of SSRs in four different regions of the chloroplast genomes. HD: H. diffusa, HB: H. brachypoda, HC: H. corymbosa.
Figure 2. Analysis of simple sequence repeats (SSRs) in the six categories of SSRs in four different regions of the chloroplast genomes. HD: H. diffusa, HB: H. brachypoda, HC: H. corymbosa.
Plants 10 00161 g002
Plants 10 00161 g003 550
Figure 3. Analysis of four kinds of complex sequence repeats in the three chloroplast genomes. HD: H. diffusa, HB: H. brachypoda, HC: H. corymbosa.
Figure 3. Analysis of four kinds of complex sequence repeats in the three chloroplast genomes. HD: H. diffusa, HB: H. brachypoda, HC: H. corymbosa.
Plants 10 00161 g003
Plants 10 00161 g004 550
Figure 4. Sliding window analysis of the three chloroplast genomes. Analytic parameters: 600 bp of window length and 200 bp of step size. X-axis: Midpoint of a window; Y-axis: Nucleotide diversity of each window (Pi).
Figure 4. Sliding window analysis of the three chloroplast genomes. Analytic parameters: 600 bp of window length and 200 bp of step size. X-axis: Midpoint of a window; Y-axis: Nucleotide diversity of each window (Pi).
Plants 10 00161 g004
Plants 10 00161 g005 550
Figure 5. Phylogenetic relationships of the four Hedyotis species and other species of Rubiaceae with available complete chloroplast genome sequences using maximum likelihood (ML).
Figure 5. Phylogenetic relationships of the four Hedyotis species and other species of Rubiaceae with available complete chloroplast genome sequences using maximum likelihood (ML).
Plants 10 00161 g005
Table
Table 1. The basic characteristics of the chloroplast genomes of the three Hedyotis species.
Table 1. The basic characteristics of the chloroplast genomes of the three Hedyotis species.
CharacteristicsHedyotis diffusa (MT767008)Hedyotis brachypoda (MT767007)Hedyotis corymbosa (MT767006)
Specimen VoucherH2200H2174H2106
Total Size (bp)153,653153,617152,327
Large Single Copy (LSC, bp)83,86383,78083,609
Small Single Copy (SSC, bp)17,21817,19518,146
Inverted Repeat (IR, bp)26,28626,32125,286
Total number of genes130129128
Protein-coding genes858483
tRNA genes373737
rRNA genes888
GC content (%)37.6237.6137.41
Table
Table 2. List of genes in the chloroplast genomes of the three Hedyotis species.
Table 2. List of genes in the chloroplast genomes of the three Hedyotis species.
CategoryGene GroupGene Name
Protein synthesis and DNA-replicationRibosomal RNA genesrrn4.5, rrn5, rrn16, rrn23
Transfer RNA genestrnH-GUG, trnL-UAG, trnQ-UUG, trnS-GCU, trnR-UCU, trnC-GCA, trnD-GUC, trnY-GUA, trnE-UUC, trnT-GGU, trnS-UGA, trnfM-CAU, trnS-GGA, trnT-UGU, trnF-GAA, trnM-CAU, trnW-CCA, trnP-UGG, trnV-UAC, trnL-UAA *, trnK-UUU *, trnG-GCC *, trnI-CAU, trnL-CAA, trnV-GAC, trnI-GAU *, trnA-UGC *, trnR-ACG, trnN-GUU
Small subunit of ribosomerps2, rps3, rps4, rps7, rps8, rps11, rps12 *, rps14, rps15, rps16 *, rps18, rps19 δ
Large subunit of ribosomerpl2 *, rpl14, rpl16, rpl20, rpl22, rpl23, rpl32, rpl36
RNA polymerase subunitsrpoA, rpoB, rpoC1 *, rpoC2
PhotosynthesisNADH dehydrogenasendhA *, ndhB *, ndhC, ndhD, ndhE, ndhF, ndhG, ndhH, ndhI, ndhJ, ndhK
Photosystem IpsaA, psaB, psaC, psaI, psaJ, ycf3 **
Photosystem IIpsbA, psbB, psbC, psbD, psbE, psbF, psbH, psbI, psbJ, psbK, psbL, psbM, psbN, psbT, psbZ
Cytochrome b/f complexpetA, petB, petD, petG, petL, petN
ATP synthaseatpA, atpB, atpE, atpF, atpH, atpI
Large subunit of rubiscorbcL
Miscellaneous groupMaturasematK
ProteaseclpP **
Envelope membrane proteincemA
Subunit of acetyl-CoA-carboxylaseaccD
c-type cytochrome synthesisccsA
Component of TIC complexycf1Ψ
Translation initiation factorinfA ω
Hypothetical chloroplast reading framesycf2σ
Pseudogene unknown functionORFsycf4
* Genes containing one introns; ** Genes containing two introns; Ψ Pseudogene in H. diffusa, H. brachypoda and H. corymbosa; δ Pseudogene in H. brachypoda and H. corymbosa only; σ Pseudogene in H. brachypoda only; ω Pseudogene in H. corymbosa only; Genes in bold are located within the IR and therefore are duplicated.
Table
Table 3. Comparison of insertions/deletions (indels) and single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) of the three Hedyotis species. The upper and lower triangles show the number of SNPs and indels in the complete chloroplast genomes respectively.
Table 3. Comparison of insertions/deletions (indels) and single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) of the three Hedyotis species. The upper and lower triangles show the number of SNPs and indels in the complete chloroplast genomes respectively.
Hedyotis diffusaHedyotis brachypodaHedyotis corymbosa
Hedyotis diffusa 10514996
Hedyotis brachypoda198 5061
Hedyotis corymbosa684677
Table
Table 4. Molecular authentication of Hedyotis samples from the market.
Table 4. Molecular authentication of Hedyotis samples from the market.
Specimen VoucherPercentage Identity with ndhD in Chloroplast GenomePercentage Identity with rps16-trnQ in Chloroplast GenomeSample Identity
H. corymbosaH. brachypodaH. diffusaH. corymbosaH. brachypodaH. diffusa
T5084100%97%97%99%85%85%H. corymbosa
T508997%100%99%86%97%96%H. brachypoda
T5093100%97%97%99%87%86%H. corymbosa
T5097100%97%97%99%87%87%H. corymbosa
T510197%100%99%87%98%97%H. brachypoda
T5106100%97%97%100%87%87%H. corymbosa
T511097%100%99%87%98%97%H. brachypoda
T511497%100%99%87%98%97%H. brachypoda
T512197%100%99%87%98%97%H. brachypoda
T512697%100%99%87%98%97%H. brachypoda
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Yik, M.H.-Y.; Kong, B.L.-H.; Siu, T.-Y.; Lau, D.T.-W.; Cao, H.; Shaw, P.-C. Differentiation of Hedyotis diffusa and Common Adulterants Based on Chloroplast Genome Sequencing and DNA Barcoding Markers. Plants 2021, 10, 161. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/plants10010161

AMA Style

Yik MH-Y, Kong BL-H, Siu T-Y, Lau DT-W, Cao H, Shaw P-C. Differentiation of Hedyotis diffusa and Common Adulterants Based on Chloroplast Genome Sequencing and DNA Barcoding Markers. Plants. 2021; 10(1):161. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/plants10010161

Chicago/Turabian Style

Yik, Mavis Hong-Yu, Bobby Lim-Ho Kong, Tin-Yan Siu, David Tai-Wai Lau, Hui Cao, and Pang-Chui Shaw. 2021. "Differentiation of Hedyotis diffusa and Common Adulterants Based on Chloroplast Genome Sequencing and DNA Barcoding Markers" Plants 10, no. 1: 161. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/plants10010161

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop