Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33154455›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2020

Genome skimming and NMR chemical fingerprinting provide quality assurance biotechnology to validate Sarsaparilla identity and purity.

Prasad Kesanakurti, Arunachalam Thirugnanasambandam, Subramanyam Ragupathy, Steven G Newmaster

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Prasad KesanakurtiNHP Research Alliance, College of Biological Sciences, University of Guelph, Guelph, ON, Canada. kesanakv@uoguelph.ca.
Arunachalam ThirugnanasambandamNHP Research Alliance, College of Biological Sciences, University of Guelph, Guelph, ON, Canada.ORCID 0000-0001-7948-2257
Subramanyam RagupathyNHP Research Alliance, College of Biological Sciences, University of Guelph, Guelph, ON, Canada.
Steven G NewmasterNHP Research Alliance, College of Biological Sciences, University of Guelph, Guelph, ON, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Sarsaparilla is a popular natural health product (NHP) that has been reported to be one of the most adulterated botanicals in the marketplace. Several plausible explanations are documented including economically motivated product substitution, unintentional errors due to ambiguous trade name associated with several different taxa, and wild harvesting of incorrect non-commercial plants. Unfortunately, this includes the case of an adulterant species Decalepis hamiltonii, a Red listed medicinal plant species by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) and declared as a species with high conservation concern by the National Biodiversity Authority of India (NBA). This study provides validated genomic (genome skimming & DNA probes) and metabolomic (NMR chemical fingerprints) biotechnology solutions to prevent adulteration on both raw materials and finished products. This is also the first use of Oxford Nanopore on herbal products enabling the use of genome skimming as a tool for quality assurance within the supply chain of botanical ingredients. The validation of both genomics and metabolomics approach provided quality assurance perspective for both product identity and purity. This research enables manufactures and retailers to verify their supply chain is authentic and that consumers can enjoy safe, healthy products.

Indexed as

Genome, PlantQuality ControlDNA Barcoding, TaxonomicDrug ContaminationGenomicsMetabolomicsPhytotherapyPlants, MedicinalSmilax

Identifiers

PMID33154455
PMCPMC7645426

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.