A Multi-Layered Approach to Botanical Authenticity Fosters Good Research Practices

Botanical authenticity (i.e., “of undisputed origin”, “validity”) is best determined by a multi-layered approach that goes beyond botanical identity (i.e., “character”) by integrating phytochemical analyses and traceability documentation. Botanical or taxonomical identity has its roots in the anatomic description and genomic information of the plant material. Macroscopic, microscopic, and sensory analyses enable the identification and description of the part of the plant utilized for a certain therapeutic potential. Genomic identification methods (e.g., DNA barcoding) offer additional assurance of botanical identity, notably when morphologic descriptions are ambiguous [1].

While commercial botanicals usually refer to a defined amount of plant material(s), the concentration of phytochemical constituents imparting the desired health effects is less often declared. Efforts towards rigorous botanical standardization are challenged by the inherent phytochemical variability of genetically identical plant materials. Hence, our approach involves comprehensive phytochemical analyses, assessing as many phytochemical variables as possible. Particularly, untargeted metabolomic techniques (e.g., NMR, IR) and chemometric models (e.g. PCA, SIMCA) can integrate the statistics of multiple phytochemical variables, thereby describing a set of genetically identical plant materials that collectively represent an authentic botanical. This approach can also facilitate the detection of adulteration [2 – 3]. Finally, the interpretation of metabolomic results can be supported by the documentation of traceability, ultimately encouraging supply chain transparency and good research practices (GRPs).

Representing fundamental quality control measures, identification methods should go hand in glove with suitable chemical analyses, including untargeted metabolomics [4], to determine simultaneously the authenticity of a botanical material and the parameters allowing the detection of adulteration.

Acknowledgements: This work was supported by grants U41 AT008706 and P50 AT000155, co-funded by NCCIH and ODS/NIH.

References: [1] Smillie TJ et al. (2010) Clin. Pharmacol. Ther.87:175 – 186 [2] Simmler C. et al. (2015)J Nat Prod 78:2007 – 2022, [3] Petrakis EA., et al. (2015) Food Chem 173:890 – 896. [4] Dhami J. et al. (2015)J. Herb Med 5:118 – 127