Discrimination of Zicao Samples Based on DNA Barcoding and HPTLC Fingerprints, and Identification of (22E)-Ergosta-4,6,8(14),22-tetraen-3-one As a Marker Compound.

The unambiguous identification of plant material is a prerequisite of rational phytotherapy. Misidentification can even cause serious health problems, as in the case of the Chinese medicinal herb Zicao. Commercial material labelled "Zicao" may be derived from the roots of Arnebia euchroma (ruan zicao), Lithospermum erythrorhizon (ying zicao), or Onosma paniculata (dian zicao). All of these roots contain shikonin derivatives as main bioactive constituents, but ying zicao and dian zicao contain also hepatotoxic pyrrolizidine alkaloids in high amounts. Therefore, the use of A. euchroma with a very low pyrrolizidine alkaloid content is desirable. Confusions of the species occur quite often, indicating an urgent need for an unambiguous identification method. Discrimination of 23 zicao samples has been achieved by analyses of the nuclear internal transcribed spacer ITS2 and trnL-F intergenic spacer of the chloroplast DNA. Data were analyzed using Bioedit, ClustalX, Mega 11 and BLAST. Results indicate that ITS2 barcoding can accurately distinguish Arnebia euchroma from their adulterants. Subsequently, an HPTLC method has been developed allowing a chemical discrimination of the most widely used species. (22E)-Ergosta-4,6,8(14),22-tetraen-3-one has been identified as characteristic marker compound, allowing an unambiguous discrimination of A. euchroma and L. erythrorhizon.

Influence of silibinin and ß-ß-dimethylacrylshikonin on chordoma cells.

BACKGROUND: Chordoma, slow growing bone tumours originating from remnants of the notochord, leave affected patients with a median survival of six years. The high recurrence rate of chordoma, together with limited treatment options and bad overall prognosis, make the development of new treatment options urgently necessary. PURPOSE: In this study, the potential of two natural products, silibinin and ß-ß-dimethylacrylshikonin (DMAS), was tested on clival (MUG-CC1 and UM-Chor1) as well as sacral (MUG-Chor1 and U-CH2) chordoma cell lines. The treatment was administered both as single- and combined therapy. METHODS: For investigation of cell viability, the Cell Titer 96 Aqueous Non-Radioactive Cell Proliferation Assay Kit was used. Apoptosis induction was studied by flow cytometry, (Annexin V/SYTOX Green, caspase-3) and RT-qPCR. Pathway analyses were performed by western blot. RESULTS: Both drugs were found to reduce cell viability alone as well as in combination in a dose dependent manner, with DMAS being more efficient than silibinin. The mode of cell death was mainly apoptosis in DMAS treated samples, while the combination therapy led to apoptosis as well as late-apoptosis/necrosis. Silibinin therapy alone, although reducing cell viability, did not lead to significant apoptotic effects in the performed assays. Focussing on the molecular mechanism of DMAS induced apoptosis, it was found that major genes of the mitochondrial apoptosis pathway, like NOXA and PUMA were overexpressed. Additionally, western blot experiments showed a decrease of ERK/pERK, STAT3/pSTAT3 (Tyr705) and AKT/pAKT expression/activation levels under DMAS treatment. CONCLUSION: DMAS is a promising new candidate for chordoma therapy, while silibinin or a combination of both is less favourable.