4.0 Article

Identification of Crocus sativus and its Adulterants from Chinese Markets by using DNA Barcoding Technique

Journal

IRANIAN JOURNAL OF BIOTECHNOLOGY
Volume 13, Issue 1, Pages 36-42

Publisher

NATL INST GENETIC ENGINEERING & BIOTECHNOLOGY
DOI: 10.15171/ijb.1034

Keywords

Adulterant identification; Classification; Crocus sativus; DNA barcoding

Funding

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [31161140345]
  2. Ministry of Education of China [B08044, MUC 2015MDTD16C, YLDX01013]
  3. Ministry of Science and Technology of China [2012FY110300]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: Saffron (Crocus sativus L.) is a common but very expensive herbal medicine. As an important traditional medicine, it has an outstanding effect in treating irregular and painful menstruation. Recently, the over-demand tendency of saffron results in an unusual phenomenon in the medicinal markets. Adulterants and saffron-like substitutes are intentionally mixed into medicinal markets and pharmacies or online stores, affecting drug safety and food quality. Objectives: Our study aimed to identify saffron from its adulterants via DNA barcoding. Materials and Methods: Samples (13 saffron + 4 others containing Carthamus tinctorius or Chrysanthemum x morifolium) obtained from 12 different provinces of China. Through DNA barcoding, samples were compared using three candidate markers, trnH-psbA, rbcL-a and ITS2. Results: trnH-psbA and rbcL-a were capable of distinguishing different accessions. ITS2 could identify samples even at intra-specific level. According to these three barcodes, four samples were identified saffron-like substitutes. Conclusions: The adulterant rate in Chinese markets reaches as high as 33.33% that may cause health risks and further may reduce saffron efficacy once is being used as herbal remedy. In order to make a distinction between C. sativus with other genera as adulterants, DNA barcoding is suggested.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.0
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available