Abstract
Botanical drug products consist of complex phytochemical constituents that vary based on various factors that substantially produce different pharmacological activities and possible side effects. Marantodes pumilum (Blume) Kuntze (Primulaceae) is one of the most popular Malay traditional botanical drugs and widely recognized for its medicinal use. Many studies have been conducted focusing on the identification of bioactive substances, pharmacological and toxicological activities in its specific varieties but less comprehensive study on M. pumilum authentication. Lack of quality control (QC) measurement assessment may cause different quality issues on M. pumilum containing products like adulteration by pharmaceutical substances, substitution, contamination, misidentification with toxic plant species, which may be detrimental to consumers’ health and safety. This systematic literature review aims to provide an overview of the current scenario on the quality control of botanical drug products as determined by pharmacopoeia requirements specifically for M. pumilum authentication or identification. A systematic search for peer-reviewed publications to document literature search for M. pumilum authentication was performed using four electronic databases: Web of Science, PubMed, Scopus and ScienceDirect for related studies from January 2010 to December 2021. The research studies published in English and related articles for identification or authentication of M. pumilum were the main inclusion criteria in this review. A total 122 articles were identified, whereby 33 articles met the inclusion criteria. Macroscopy, microscopy, chemical fingerprinting techniques using chromatography, spectroscopy and hyphenated techniques, and genetic-based fingerprinting using DNA barcoding method have been used to identify M. pumilum and to distinguish between different varieties and plant parts. The study concluded that a combination of approaches is necessary for authenticating botanical drug substances and products containing M. pumilum to assure the quality, safety, and efficacy of marketed botanical drug products, particularly those with therapeutic claims.
Introduction
Since ancient times, botanical drugs have been employed in the daily lives of the world population due to their medicinal efficacy in promoting well-being and health. Around 80% of the world’s population consumes botanical drugs as health supplements since they are thought to be effective in disease management and have been recognized as safe for decades owing to their natural origin. Despite the widespread use of botanical drug products for a long time, problems with quality control persist. The increased demand for botanical drug products may expose them to various types of adulteration, such as substitution, contamination, or the use of fillers, all of which represent a threat to the health and safety of consumers (; ). In fact, different countries define botanical drug products differently and use different systems for registering, licensing, dispensing, manufacturing, and trading them to ensure their safety, efficacy, and quality. As a result, there is a disparity in registration requirements between countries and variation in the botanical drugs quality.
Recognizing the need, for the past few decades, WHO has consistently issued various guidelines and policies related to botanical drugs, such as Guidelines for the Assessment of Herbal Medicines, Good Agricultural and Collection Practices (GACP) and Quality Control Methods for Medicinal Plant Materials, with the goal of standardizing and harmonizing botanical drugs regulation globally (). Currently, botanical drug products must meet pharmacopoeia identification requirements for organoleptic evaluation (touch, smell, sight, and taste), macroscopic evaluation (shape, color, and texture), microscopic assessment and chemical fingerprint techniques such as chromatography and spectroscopy (). Additionally, the British Pharmacopoeia has included DNA barcoding as a means of identifying botanical drugs (). In fact, Malaysia’s regulatory body has consistently adopted various international guidelines issued by the World Health Organization (WHO), Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA), European Medicines Agency (EMA), Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA), and Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to strengthen the registration requirements for botanical drug products since 1992. It is vital to identify and authenticate botanical drugs and products utilizing a variety of approaches, whether during the final product phase for clinical study evaluation or throughout product development for the market ().
Due to the open online market, the botanical drug-based industry has also piqued the interest of Asian countries. Malaysia’s forest is home to a diverse array of medicinal plants with a great potential for use in the botanical drugs industry. Malaysia’s botanical drugs domestic market was expected to grow at a 15% annual rate from RM7 billion in 2010 to around RM29 billion by 2020 (). The increase in the number of botanical drug products registered with the National Pharmaceutical Regulatory Agency (NPRA) demonstrates the growing demand for botanical drug products (). Realizing the huge economic opportunities in the local botanical drugs industry and the requirements that need to be complied with, the agricultural National Key Economic Areas (NKEA) Entry Point Project 1 (EPP1) was focused on potential growth that might contribute to Malaysia’s gross national income (GNI). Due to their potential therapeutic properties, Malaysia’s government has identified 11 important plants, including Eurycoma longifolia Jack (Simaroubaceae), Marantodes pumilum (Blume) Kuntze (Primulaceae), Andrographis paniculata (Burm.f.) Nees (Acanthaceae), and others, to be commercialized as high-value botanical drug products. M. pumilum, locally known as Kacip Fatimah, is widely spread in Southeast Asian tropical forests and is well-known for its medicinal properties. It is a member of the Primulaceae family and was formally recognized as a member of the family Myrsinaceae and known as Labisia pumila (Blume) Fern.-Vill (). In various parts of Malaysia, M. pumilum is referred to as kachip patimah, selusuh fatimah, rumput siti fatimah, akar fatimah, kachit fatimah, pokok pinggang, rumput palis, tadah matahari, mata pelandok rimba, bunga belangkas hutan () and sangkoh (Iban) (). There are eight M. pumilum varieties and only three varieties; var. alata (Scheff.) Mez., var. pumila and var. lanceolata (Scheff.) Mez. are widely distributed in Malaysia rain forest and have attracted the researcher’s interest thus far (; ). The three varieties can be distinguished by their petioles and leaf characteristics. M. pumilum var. alata has red veins and broad winged petioles, whereas var. pumila has an emarginate winged petiole and an ovate leaf blade, and var. lanceolata has a long, non-winged or terete petiole (Figure 1). However, due to the close macromorphological features, it was extremely difficult to visually separate them based on petiole characteristics, particularly when the petioles were not fully formed ().
FIGURE 1
Traditionally, indigenous women of the Malay Archipelago consumed water decoctions of M. pumilum to aid in labor and delivery, while the botanical drug is believed to tone the abdominal muscles, assist in tightening the birth canal, and enhance overall body strength during postpartum (). Additionally, ancient communities employed the M. pumilum to treat diarrhoea, rheumatism, gonorrhea and flatulence (). Numerous research has shown that M. pumilum has a wide range of pharmacological activities, including antibacterial, antifungal, anti-inflammatory, cytotoxicity, antioxidative, xanthine oxidase inhibitory, phytoestrogenic, anticarcinogenic, anti-aging, anti-hyperuricemia, anti-osteoporotic, anti-obesity, cardioprotective effect, and uterotonic (; ; , ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ).
Phytochemical constituents found in M. pumilum varieties include flavonoids, phenolics, methyl gallate, carotenoids, ascorbic acids, fatty acids, saponins, alkenyl compounds and benzoquinone derivatives (). Many variables influence the phytochemical constituents, such as environmental factors, species varieties and plant parts. The variation in phytochemical contents between batches often results in markedly variable pharmacological actions and probable side effects (; ). According to , the phytochemical constituent presence and abundance differs between M. pumilum varieties and plant parts. The study indicated that gallic acid was highest in var. alata leaves, followed by var. lanceolata leaves and var. pumila leaves. Several studies have established that different M. pumilum species and plant parts possess distinct pharmacological properties, including phytoestrogenic activity of var. alata leaves (; ), xanthine oxidase inhibitory activity of var. pumila leaves () and anti-inflammatory effect of var. pumila roots ().
Due to the wide range of phytochemicals found in this plant that can contribute to different pharmacological effects and side effects, majority of research on M. pumilum has focused on the bioactive substances, pharmacological and toxicological activities and less studies conducted specifically on its identification and authentication. As such, the aim of this review is to present an overview of the current state of authentication for M. pumilum in the global botanical drug products industry.
Materials and Methods
Search Strategy
A systematic review of the literature was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guideline (). A search strategy based on a combination of relevant keywords and Boolean operators was used [ALL = (authentication or identification or quality control or chemical profiling or fingerprint) and (marantodes pumilum or labisia pumila or kacip fatimah)] for Web of Science database and [(“authentication” OR “identification” OR “quality control” OR “chemical profiling” OR “fingerprint”) AND (“marantodes pumilum” OR “labisia pumila” OR “kacip Fatimah”)] for PubMed, Scopus and ScienceDirect databases. Following the search conducted on 18 November 2021, the option “search alert” was selected to receive weekly updates for all four literature databases. All the selected articles were saved in Mendeley Desktop Version 1.19.8 (2008–2020) reference manager.
Selection Process and Criteria
Identification: Database searches identified 606 records (WoS = 22, PubMed = 4, Scopus = 499 and ScienceDirect = 81).
Screening: Articles were screened manually in four stages. Initially, articles that were published as a review, book chapter, or conference proceeding were excluded. Secondly, articles that were published between January 2010 and December 2021 were considered. Thirdly, articles without data or information on the identification or authentication of Marantodes pumilum (Kacip Fatimah) as botanical drug substances or botanical drug products were omitted. Following screening, 552 articles were deleted. Finally, duplicate entries were removed from the databases, leaving 37 eligible articles.
: A total of 37 full-text papers were evaluated and screened for eligibility using the following criteria:
1. The tested sample was required to be made up of botanical drug substances or botanical drug products. A variety of scientific names, that is, Labisia pumila (synonym), Marantodes pumilum, and the common name Kacip Fatimah were accepted for the review.
2. The details of the tested sample, including the collection site, plant species, plant parts and sample processing, were clearly documented and described.
3. All pertinent methodologies within the scope of the studies were accepted. The tested samples were authenticated using several techniques, including macroscopic and microscopic methods, chemical fingerprinting, genetic fingerprinting, and phytochemical analysis.
Included: 33 peer-reviewed articles were included in the systematic review of the literature, as described in Figure 2. The flowchart was made in accordance with PRISMA guidelines ().
FIGURE 2
Results
All selected articles were published between January 2010 and December 2021 (Table 1). Thirty-three full-text articles met the inclusion criteria and were classified as research articles in this review. Majority of the included full-text articles were conducted locally at various universities and institutions in Malaysia, while six were conducted abroad in China (study 24), Sweden (studies 1 and 5), the United States of America (studies 6 and 7) and India (study 2). Even though the genus Labisia was reclassified as Marantodes in 2012, 81% (n = 27) of publications cited Labisia pumila rather than Marantodes pumilum. Four studies were conducted on all three common varieties of M. pumilum var. alata, var. pumila, and var. lanceolata; one study used M. pumilum var. alata and var. pumila, sixteen studies focused exclusively on M. pumilum var. alata, one study used only M. pumilum var. pumila and ten studies made no mention of the M. pumilum variety. On average, 70% of publications indicated the variety used in the study, with the remaining 30% of articles lacking identification at variety level. Apart from that, 60.6% (n = 20) studies used M. pumilum leaves, whereas other studies used whole plants (21.2%, n = 7), leaves and stem/roots (15.15%, n = 5), and stem-roots (3%, n = 1). According to the review, (72.7%, n = 24) majority of the researchers used wild plant sources rather than cultivated sources.
TABLE 1
| No. | Study | Species and sources | Voucher specimen | Identification/Authentication Methods |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Whole plant of L. pumila var. alata, (Wild plant from rainforest of Peninsular Malaysia) | Not available | Not available | |
| 2 | Leaf of L. pumila, (Wild plant from Perak) | 21648 | Morphology | |
| 3 | Leaf of L. pumila, [Wild plant (unkown source)] | Not available | GCMS | |
| 4 | Leaf of L. pumila var. alata, L. pumila var. pumila, [Cultivated plant from Forest Research Institute Malaysia (FRIM)] | FRI 59810 | Phytochemical screening, UPLC/ESI/MS/MS, chemometrics | |
| 5 | Whole plant of L. pumila var. alata, (Wild plant from Pahang) | FRI54816 | Morphology | |
| 6 | Root of L. pumila, (Cultivated plant supplied by Holista Biotech Sdn. Bhd.) | PID26 | Morphology, NMR, IR, TLC, HPLC | |
| 7 | Leaf and stem-root of L. pumila var. alata, (Cultivated plant supplied by Holista Biotech Sdn. Bhd.) | 3809, 3810, 8400, 5002, 5003, 5004 (United States ) | TLC, IR, HPLC/UV/ELSD, LC/ESI/TOF, NMR, HRESI/MS | |
| 8 | Leaf of L. pumila, (Wild plant from Pahang) | ACP0084/08 | UV, IR, NMR | |
| 9 | Leaf of L. pumila var. alata, L. pumila var. pumila and L. pumila var. lanceolata, (Wild plant from Negeri Sembilan, Johor, Pahang, and Kedah) | Not available | IR, chemometric analysis | |
| 10 | Whole plant of L. pumila, (Wild plant from Perak) | I/LP/3547 | Morphology, HPLC | |
| 11 | Leaf of L. pumila var. alata, (Cultivated plant from FRIM) | Not Available | HPLC | |
| 12 | Whole plant of L. pumila var. alata, (Wild plant from Kedah) | Not available | Morphology, phytochemical screening | |
| 13 | Leaf of L. pumila var. alata, var. pumila and var. lanceolata, (Wild plant from Pasoh Forest Reserve, Negeri Sembilan) | KEP 223663—223665 | Morphology, DNA barcoding | |
| 14 | Whole plant of L. pumila var. alata, [Wild plant (unknown source)] | Not available | HPLC | |
| 15 | Leaf of L. pumila var. alata, L. pumila var. pumila and L. pumila var. lanceolata, (Wild plant from Sungkai, Perak; Hulu Langat, Selangor; and Kota Tinggi, Johor) | Not available | Phytochemical screening | |
| 16 | M. pumilum var. alata, M. pumilum var. pumila and M. pumilum var. lanceolata, (Wild plant from Bujang Melaka Forest Reserve, Kampar, Perak) | UKMB 30006/SM 2622, UKMB 30007/SM s.n., UKMB 30008/SM s.n, respectively | Morphology, microscopy, HPTLC, HPLC, ATR-FTIR | |
| 17 | Whole plant of L. pumila var. alata, (Wild plant from Perak] | UKMB 30010 | Morphology, HPLC | |
| 18 | Leaf of L. pumila var. alata, [Cultivated plant from Universiti Putra Malaysia (UPM)] | Stone 6030 (KLU) (UPM) | Morphology, HPLC, GC and GC/MS | |
| 19 | Leaf of M. pumilum, (Wild plant from Perak) | KLU49047 (UM) | Morphology, LC/MS | |
| 20 | Leaf of L. pumila var. alata, (Cultivated plant from FRIM) | FRI 59810 | Morphology, LC/MS/MS | |
| 21 | Leaf of M. pumilum, (Wild plant from Tapah, Perak) | KLU 46767 | Morphology, UPLC/MS/MS | |
| 22 | Leaf of L. pumila, (Wild plant from forest reserves, botanical gardens and medicinal plant nurseries in Peninsular Malaysia and commercial products) | Not available | Morphology, DNA barcoding | |
| 23 | Leaf and stem-root of M. pumilum var. alata, (Wild plant from Simpang Empat, Kedah) | UKM-HF131 | Morphology, LC/MS | |
| 24 | Leaf and stem of L. pumila, (Cultivated plant from FRIM) | Not available | UPLC/MS/MS | |
| 25 | Leaf of M. pumilum, (Wild plant from Tapah, Perak) | KLU49047 (UM) | Morphology, LC/MS/MS | |
| 26 | Leaf of L. pumila var. alata, (Wild plant from Tapah, Perak) | FF/UiTM/KF/02/13 | Morphology, LC/MS | |
| 27 | Leaf of M. pumilum var. alata, (Wild plant from Tapah, Perak) | KLU49047 (UM) | Morphology, LC/MS | |
| 28 | Leaf and stem-root of L. pumila var. alata, (Wild plant supplied by Delima Jelita Herbs, Kedah) | UKMHF131 | Morphology, LC/MS/MS | |
| 29 | Leaf of L. pumila var. alata, (Wild plant from Alor Setar, Kedah) | Not available | LC/MS Q-TOF | |
| 30 | Leaf of L. pumila var. pumila, ((unknown) from Batu Pahat, Johor) | UKMB 30007/SM sn | Morphology, HPLC | |
| 31 | Aerial part and leaf of L. pumila, (Wild plant from Sungai Siput Utara, Perak) | 11632 | Morphology, HPLC | |
| 32 | Whole plant of L. pumila var. alata, (Wild plant from Bentong, Pahang) | PIIUM 0321 | Morphology, UPLC/PDA, UPLC/QTOF/MS | |
| 33 | Labisia pumila var. alata and L. pumila var. pumila (red and green leaf) (Cultivated plant from Batu Pahat, Johor) | PID 250817-17 (LPPG), PID 260817-17 (LPPR), PID 270817-17 (LPA) | Morphology, HPLC, DNA barcoding |
Authentication and identification methods of Marantodes pumilum botanical drug substances and commercial products.
Notably, all investigations included in this review employed at least one approach for identifying or authenticating M. pumilum. Generally, about (66.70%, n = 22) of the study conducted morphological tests on the M. pumilum samples and 67.7% (n = 23) of the 33 study included the voucher specimen number for the test samples except for studies 1, 3, 9, 11, 12, 14, 15, 22, 24, and 29. Multiple sources of M. pumilum from different areas in Malaysia were used in 18.2% (n = 6) of research conducted abroad. Botanists authenticated most test samples based on morphological identification, except for those used in studies 1 and 24 that were conducted in China and Sweden, respectively, due to the lack of information on morphological identification and voucher specimen for M. pumilum in the articles compared to other studies. Qualified botanists in public educational institutions and government research institutions performed the plant authentication.
The researchers’ choice of approaches for detecting phytochemical characteristics varies according to the sensitivity of the procedures. Most studies employed chemical fingerprinting techniques (58.46%, n = 38), followed by macroscopic and microscopic techniques (33.85%, n = 22), genetic fingerprinting techniques (4.6%, n = 3) and chemical tests (3.07%, n = 2) (Figure 3). Less sensitive techniques such as ultraviolet (UV) spectroscopy, thin layer chromatography (TLC), high performance thin layer chromatography (HPTLC) and Fourier transform infrared (FTIR) spectroscopy were complemented by high-end instruments such as liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry (LC/MS/MS) or nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR). Among the chromatographic techniques, HPLC is the mostly used method (30.30%, n = 10), followed by HPTLC/TLC (12.12%, n = 4) and gas chromatography (GC) (3.03%, n = 1). Over the past 10 years, a total of 36.6% (n = 12) studies have applied the hyphenated chromatographic and mass spectrometric techniques in their research.
FIGURE 3

Marantodes pumilum identification and authentication techniques reported between 2010 and 2021.
Two studies (12 and 15) used phytochemical screening, whereas study 4 combined phytochemical analysis with a more advanced instrument, ultra-performance liquid chromatography coupled with electrospray ionization tandem mass spectrometry (UPLC/ESI/MS/MS), to identify the nine flavanols and nine phenolics in various fractions of M. pumilum. Additionally, the study 4 used a chemometric approach such as principal component analysis (PCA) to demonstrate the similarities and differences in phytochemical profiles of different fractions. Chemometrics was also used in conjunction with the chemical fingerprinting technique in study 9, which reported on the use of macroscopy, IR spectroscopy, and chemometric analysis as a powerful technique for differentiating 84 test samples from seven different locations in Peninsular Malaysia. The first method for simultaneous determination of triterpenes, saponins and alkenated-phenolics in the leaves, stems, and roots of M. pumilum var. alata was developed in study 7 using high performance liquid chromatography-ultraviolet-evaporative light scattering detector (HPLC-UV-ELSD) in conjunction with other structure elucidation techniques such as TLC, IR, liquid chromatography coupled with electrospray ionization quadrupole time of flight mass spectrometry (LC/ESI/TOF), NMR and high resolution electrospray ionization mass spectrometry (HRESI/MS). Spectroscopic and chemical analyses were used in study 6 to elucidate the structures of alkyl phenols and saponins found in the roots of M. pumilum. Three investigations (studies 13, 22. and 33) used DNA fingerprinting to identify M. pumilum.
Table 2 summarises selected characteristic features derived from the 33 articles used to distinguish M. pumilum varities using various analytical techniques.
TABLE 2
| No. | Techniques | Plant Parts | Analysis | M. pumilum var. alata | M. pumilum var. pumila | M. pumilum var. lanceolata | References | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Microscopic analysis (anatomy) | Leaf epidermis | Type of trichome | Adaxial epidermis | Absent | Simple, 2-armed, scale | Absent | |
| Abaxial epidermis | Scale, capitate glandular | Scale | Scale | |||||
| Type of stomata | Adaxial epidermis | Absent | Absent | Absent | ||||
| Abaxial epidermis | Anisocyatic, staurocytic | Anisocyatic, diacytic | Anisocyatic | |||||
| Pattern of anticlinal walls | Adaxial epidermis | Straight to curved | Straight to curved | Straight to curved | ||||
| Abaxial epidermis | Straight to wavy | Straight to wavy | Straight to wavy | |||||
| Leaf venation | Marginal venation | Incomplete | Incomplete | Marginal venation | ||||
| Areolar venation | Closed, a few opened, minority free ending veinlets | Closed, free ending veinlets | Areolar venation | |||||
| Leaf lamina and margin | Main mascular bundle | Equidistant to abaxial and adaxial epidermis | Equidistant to abaxial and adaxial epidermis | Close to the adaxial epidermis | ||||
| Marginal outline | Rounded | Rounded | Tapering | |||||
| Marginal direction | 10–30° upwards | 10–30° upwards | 30–45° downwards | |||||
| Midrib | Outline | Adaxial | Slightly convex | Flat/straight | Flat/straight | |||
| Abaxial | U-shaped | ¾ of circle | ¾ of circle | |||||
| Cell inclusion | Solitary crystal calcium oxalate (rectangular), druses, scattered starch grains | Solitary crystal calcium oxalate (cubic), clustered starch grains | Solitary crystal calcium oxalate (cubic), druses, scattered starch grains | |||||
| Type of trichome | Scale, capitate glandular | Scale, capitate glandular | Scale | |||||
| Petiole | Outline | Wing presence at the left and right of adaxial side, ¾ of oval at abaxial side | Wing presence at the left and right of adaxial side, ¾ of oval at abaxial side | Oval | ||||
| Cell inclusion | Brachyscelereids, solitary crystals calcium oxalate (cubic), druses | Brachyscelereids, starch grains, solitary crystals calcium oxalate (cubic), druses | Starch grains, solitary crystals calcium oxalate (cubic), druses | |||||
| Stem | Type of trichome | Scale | Scale, capitate glandular | Scale | ||||
| Outline | Circular | Circular | Circular | |||||
| Parenchyma cortex | Ca. 10–20 | Ca. 8–10 | Ca. 8–10 | |||||
| Number of additional vascular bundle in cortex | 6 | 6 | 5 | |||||
| Pith | Relatively wide | Relatively medium | Relatively medium | |||||
| Cell inclusion | Brachyscelereids, solitary crystals, druses, starch grains | Brachyscelereids, solitary crystals, druses, starch grains | Brachyscelereids, solitary crystals, druses, starch grains | |||||
| Type of trichome | Scale | Scale, capitate glandular | Scale, capitate glandular | |||||
| Secretory canals | Present in pith parenchyma | Present in pith and parenchyma cortex | Present in pith and parenchyma cortex | |||||
| 2 | FTIR with KBR disk | Leaf | IR spectra | 1733 (C = O stretching) | 1733 (C = O stretching) | Absent | ||
| 1204 (C-H in plane deformation) | ||||||||
| Second derivative IR spectra | 1597 (C = C stretching) | Present | Absent | Absent | ||||
| 1331 (O-H bending) | Absent | Absent | Present | |||||
| 2D correlation IR spectra | 1660 (C = O vibration) | Present | Absent | Present | ||||
| 1559 and 1600 | More intense | Low intensity | Low intensity | |||||
| Cross-peaks at (1600, 1640), (1560, 1640) and (1560, 1600) | Strong intensity | Low intensity | Low intensity | |||||
| Cross-peaks at (545–688, 662–740) | Strong broad | Weak | Narrow | |||||
| Principal component analysis (PCA) | The varieties are clustered differently | |||||||
| 3 | ATR-FTIR | Leaf | IR spectra | 3341 (O-H stretching) | 3340 (O-H stretching) | 3285 (O-H stretching) | ||
| 1242 (C-O stretching) | 1235 (C-O stretching) | 1237 (C-O stretching) | ||||||
| 1157 (C-O stretching) | 1159 (C-O stretching) | |||||||
| Stem-root | 3326 (O-H stretching) | 3329 (O-H stretching) | 3330 (O-H stretching) | |||||
| 1614 (C-C stretching) | 1615 (C-C stretching) | 1611 (C-C stretching) | ||||||
| 1021 (C-O stretching) | 1021 (C-O stretching) | 1021 (C-O stretching) | ||||||
| 4 | HPTLC | Leaf | Fingerprint chromatogram | Presence of peaks at Rf 0.20–0.70 | ||||
| Stem-root | Presence of peaks at Rf 0.22 at different intensities | |||||||
| 5 | HPLC | Whole plant | Detection of phytochemical compounds on chromatogram | • Ardisicrenoside B | No information | No information | ||
| • Ardisiacrispin A | ||||||||
| • 3-O-α-l-rhamnopyranosyl-(1 → 2)-β-d-glucopyranosyl-(1 → 4)-αl-arabinopynanosyl cyclamiretin A | ||||||||
| • Ardisimamilloside H | ||||||||
| • Irisresorcinol | ||||||||
| • Belamcandol B | ||||||||
| • Demethylbelamcan-daquinone B | ||||||||
| Leaf | • Gallic acid | • Gallic acid | No information | |||||
| • Rutin | • Rutin | |||||||
| No information | • Gallic acid | No information | ||||||
| • Methyl gallate | ||||||||
| • Caffeic acid | ||||||||
| • Belamcandol B, 5-pentadec-10′-(Z)-enyl resorcinol | No information | No information | ||||||
| • 1,3-dihydroxy-5- pentadecylbenzene, 5-(heptadec-12′-(Z)-enyl) resorcinol | ||||||||
| • Demethylbelamcanda-quinone B | ||||||||
| • Quercetin | No information | No information | ||||||
| • Myricetin | ||||||||
| • Gallic acid | No information | No information | ||||||
| • Pyrogallol | ||||||||
| • Myricetin | ||||||||
| • Quercetin | ||||||||
| • Naringin | ||||||||
| • Daidzein | ||||||||
| • Catechin | ||||||||
| • Epicatechin | ||||||||
| • Gallic acid | No information | No information | ||||||
| • Gallic acid | No information | No information | ||||||
| 6 | LCMS | Whole plant | Detection of phytochemical compounds on chromatogram | • Gallic acid | No information | No information | ||
| • Caffeic acid | ||||||||
| • Ellagic acid | ||||||||
| • Apigenin | ||||||||
| • Kaempferol | ||||||||
| • Quercetin | ||||||||
| • Myricetin | ||||||||
| Whole plant | • Ardisicrenoside B | No information | No information | |||||
| • Ardisiacrispin A, 3-O-α-l-rhamnopyranosyl-(1 → 2)-β-d-glucopyranosyl-(1 → 4)-αl-arabinopynanosyl cyclamiretin A | ||||||||
| • Ardisimamilloside H | ||||||||
| • Belamcandol B | ||||||||
| • Demethylbelamcanda-quinone B | ||||||||
| • Irisresorcinol | ||||||||
| Leaf | • Benzoic acid | No information | No information | |||||
| • Gallic acid | ||||||||
| • Vanillic acid | ||||||||
| • Syringic acid | ||||||||
| • Salicylic acid | ||||||||
| • Cinnamic acids | ||||||||
| • Protocatechuic acid | ||||||||
| • Coumaric acid | ||||||||
| • Caffeic acid | ||||||||
| • Chlorogenic acid | ||||||||
| • Quercetin | ||||||||
| • Myricetin | ||||||||
| • Kaempferol | ||||||||
| • Catechin | ||||||||
| • Epigallocatechin | ||||||||
| 7 | DNA Genetic Fingerprinting | Leaf | DNA References barcode | ITS2 (MK249864) rbcL (MH828448) | ITS2 (MK249864) rbcL (MH838008) | ITS2 (MH749147) rbcL (MH766971) | ||
| rbcL | ||||||||
| trnH-psbA | ||||||||
| Microsatellites | 84 alleles | 48 alleles | 66 alleles | |||||
Characteristic features to distinguish Marantodes pumilum varieties based on different analytical techniques.
Discussion
Between 2016 and 2020, almost 3,000 botanical drug products were registered, increasing by 16% and accounting for 50% of all registered products in Malaysia within 5 years (
The systematic review assessed current quality control trends for M. pumilum in the botanical drug research and development setting, as described by pharmacopoeia. In general, the 33 peer-reviewed articles demonstrate that a variety of techniques have been used to identify and authenticate different varieties and plant parts of M. pumilum. Most of the articles reviewed collected wild M. pumilum specimens. The continued reliance on raw materials derived from wild resources, whether for research or commercial purposes, will eventually deplete the supply of M. pumilum. This has become a source of concern for botanical drugs suppliers, as wild M. pumilum is known to grow slowly in its natural habitat. As a result, several research institutions have conducted extensive tissue culture breeding for M. pumilum to keep up with the expanding market demand (
Additionally, it is discovered that most of the reviewed studies employed at least one method of identification, and that awareness of the requirement has gradually increased since 2010. Effective identification and authentication tools are critical for monitoring the source of high-demand raw materials to avoid undesirable activities such as adulteration of raw materials, which negatively impacts the quality of botanical drug products. As recently reported, this approach was widely used for ginseng products, supplements, commercial botanical drug products, and Kadsura crude drugs (
Organoleptic evaluation, macroscopy, and microscopy are the first three fundamental principal methods of identification and authentication used to ensure the quality of botanical drugs (
TABLE 3
| Techniques | Strengths | Limitations | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Organoleptic, macroscopy and microscopy | • Quick physical evaluation for adulteration, contamination, and substitution ( | • Conventional method, imprecise and inconsistent result ( | |
| Chemical fingerprinting | IR/NIR Spectroscopy | • Quick, non-destructive, and high throughput method with minimal sample preparation ( | • Affected by variables such as moisture, particle size and homogeneity of test samples ( |
| • Able to generate chemical fingerprint to differentiate plant varieties and plant parts ( | |||
| TLC | • Manual, rapid, simple, flexible, low-cost, and minimal sample preparation ( | • Issues with reproducibility, resolutions, sensitivity and difficulty to detect trace phytochemical components ( | |
| • Test sample and References standard can be analysed simultaneously ( | |||
| HPTLC | • Automated sample application allows for improved separation, band resolution and reproducibility of results ( | ||
| • High throughput and screen multiple samples in a single assay ( | |||
| HPLC | • High selectivity, sensitivity, resolution, and fully automatable operation ( | • Unable to distinguish between closely related species or non-target species that have similar chemical profiles ( | |
| • Enable qualitative and quantitative analysis ( | • Affected by factors related to variation in climate, phenotype, storage condition, age, and cultivation time (Mohammed et al., 2017) | ||
| MS hyphenated techniques | • Powerful for rapid identification of phytochemical constituents in plant extracts ( | • High cost | |
| • High resolution, high speed, accurate mass-measurement and able to retrieve more information in a complex botanical drug substance ( | |||
| Biological fingerprinting | DNA Barcode | • Rapid, sensitive, and effective tool for identification of species ( | • Unable to identify extracted form or processed botanical drugs ( |
| • Widely used to differentiate individual plant, genus, homogeneity analysis, and detection of adulterants ( | • Highly dependent on the availability of References standard data sequences ( | ||
| • Less affected by plant age, physiological conditions, environmental factors, harvest, storage, and processing methods ( | • Unable to provide information related to concentration of compounds with therapeutic value ( | ||
| • Genome information only as a complement tool of other quality control techniques ( | |||
Strengths and limitations of analytical techniques for Marantodes pumilum authentication.
Numerous papers describe the use of fingerprint profiling for botanical drugs identification and authentication by spectroscopy and chromatography.
The phytochemical fingerprint profile of botanical drugs generates a large amount of data in the form of chromatograms or spectra, making it nearly impossible for the analyst to visually inspect each data point and exploit the useful chemical information contained in the fingerprint data via univariate analysis. As a result, a multivariate data analysis technique was developed to analyze chemical fingerprinting data to eliminate or reduce undesired sources of variation caused by various variables or instrumental responses from the analytical techniques, as well as to extract useful and meaningful information from the fingerprint data (
TLC technique has been widely recognized as a preliminary screening approach to HPLC, owing to its ability to rapidly generate a fingerprint of varied plant materials in a single, simple, and low-cost analysis while producing high sample throughput. TLC is used for preliminary screening or identification of phytochemical components that provide the plant’s unique fingerprint (
Liquid chromatography is one of the most efficient analytical techniques for phytochemical profiling since the stationary phase column, mobile phase gradient system and detector can all be modified to suit the analysis of a variety of phytochemical components. For the development of a validated analytical method, statistically significant representative set of plant samples from multiple populations is used to establish a fingerprint profile, whereas reference standards, whether commercially available, extracted, or isolated, are necessary (
The researchers are currently interested in the other tool for botanical drugs authentication using genetic fingerprinting techniques. DNA barcoding enabled a rapid examination of the botanical drugs composition and was found to be an effective technique for authenticating dried and powdered plant materials for quality control purposes (
The various techniques used to identify M. pumilum varieties and plant parts in the articles reviewed in this study (Table 1, 2), such as macroscopy, microscopy, chromatography, spectroscopy and chemometrics, suggest that a combination of approaches is required to authenticate botanical drug substances and products. However, the existing reports did not address phytochemical variation of a plant variety or plant part collected from various locations, differences between those collected from the wild sources and those collected from cultivated sources, as well as adulteration with other plant parts or varieties. When producing a standardized botanical drug product, obtaining botanical drug substance from a cultivated plantation location rather than the wild will assure plant homogeneity. Phytochemical indicators are frequently used to standardize botanical drug products. A guideline for selecting marker substances for quality control of botanical drug is provided by the
FIGURE 4

Proposed flow chart for authentication of Marantodes pumilum varieties.
Conclusion
This review found that no one technique for authenticating M. pumilum botanical drug substances and products can be used. Each technique has its own distinct interpretation of the plant, ranging from simple morphological characteristics to a more comprehensive comprehension of the M. pumilum’s phytochemical constituents. Developing proper authentication procedures is critical for the development and manufacturing of botanical drugs, whether for clinical trials or before the product reaches the consumer. Thus, additional research is necessary to determine the most effective authentication techniques for differentiating the varieties of M. pumilum and their plant parts to ensure that the correct species is used in the manufacturing process of botanical drug products and to avoid adulterations that could pose a health risk to consumers.
Statements
Data availability statement
The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the authors, without undue reservation.
Author contributions
II is a Phd. candidate who conducted a systematic literature search, assessed the findings and prepared a systematic literature review draft. JJ, MS, and NZ contributed ideas for the systematic literature review design and reviewed the manuscript. JJ is the project leader and revised the manuscript.
Funding
The study was supported by the UKM research grant scheme (GUP 2021-007).
Acknowledgments
We would like to express our gratitude to Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia for the financial support and the usage of library facilities.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Publisher’s note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
References
1
AbdahS. N. M.SarmidiM. R.YaakobH. Y.WareI. (2014). Fractionation of Labisia pumila Using Solid-phase Extraction for Extraction of Gallic Acid. J. Teknol.69 (4), 65–68. 10.11113/jt.v69.3176
2
AbdullahF.LingS. K.ManS.TanA. L.TanH. P.AbdullahZ. (2012). Characterization and Identification of Labisia pumila by Multi-Steps Infrared Spectroscopy. Vib. Spectrosc.62, 200–206. 10.1016/j.vibspec.2012.06.004
3
AbdullahN.ChermahiniS. H.ChuaL. S.SarmidiM. R. (2013). Labisia pumila: A Review on its Traditional, Phytochemical and Biological Uses. World Appl. Sci. J.27 (10), 1297–1306. 10.5829/idosi.wasj.2013.27.10.1391
4
AbubakarB. M.SallehF. M.Shamsir OmarM. S.WagiranA. (2018). Assessing Product Adulteration of Eurycoma longifolia (Tongkat Ali) Herbal Medicinal Product Using DNA Barcoding and HPLC Analysis. Pharm. Biol.56 (1), 368–377. 10.1080/13880209.2018.1479869
5
AdamS. H.GiribabuN.BakarN. M. A.SallehN. (2017). Marantodes pumilum (Kacip Fatimah) Enhances Iin-Vvitro Glucose Uptake in 3T3-L1 Adipocyte Cells and Reduces Pancreatic Complications in Streptozotocin-Nicotinamide Induced Male Diabetic Rats. Biomed. Pharmacother.96, 716–726. 10.1016/j.biopha.2017.10.042
6
AhmadS. U.AzamA.ShuidA. N.MohamedI. N. (2018). Antioxidant and Anti-inflammatory Activities of Marantodes pumilum (Blume) Kuntze and Their Relationship with the Phytochemical Content. Rec. Nat. Prod.12 (6), 518–534. 10.25135/rnp.58.17.11.188
7
Al-MekhlafiN. A.ShaariK.AbasF.KneerR.JeyarajE. J.StanslasJ.et al (2012). Alkenylresorcinols and Cytotoxic Activity of the Constituents Isolated from Labisia pumila. Phytochemistry80, 42–49. 10.1016/j.phytochem.2012.04.008
8
AladdinN.-A.JamalJ. A.TalipN.HamsaniN. A. M.RahmanM. R. A.SabandarC. W.et al (2016). Comparative Study of Three Marantodes pumilum Varieties by Microscopy, Spectroscopy and Chromatography. Rev. Bras. Farmacogn.26 (1), 1–14. 10.1016/j.bjp.2015.10.002
9
AladdinN. A.HusainK.JalilJ.SabandarC. W.JamalJ. A. (2020). Xanthine Oxidase Inhibitory Activity of a New Isocoumarin Obtained from Marantodes pumilum var. pumila Leaves. BMC Complement. Med. Ther.20 (1), 324–412. 10.1186/s12906-020-03119-8
10
AliZ.KhanI. A. (2011). Alkyl Phenols and Saponins from the Roots of Labisia pumila (Kacip Fatimah). Phytochemistry72 (16), 2075–2080. 10.1016/j.phytochem.2011.06.014
11
AvulaB.WangY. H.AliZ.SmillieT. J.KhanI. A. (2011). Quantitative Determination of Triperpene Saponins and Alkenated-Phenolics from Labisia pumila Using an LC-UV/ELSD Method and Confirmation by LC-ESI-TOF. Planta Med.77 (15), 1742–1748. 10.1055/s-0030-1271037
12
BurkillI. H. (1966). A Dictionary of the Economic Products of the Malay Peninsula. Kuala Lumpur: Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives.
13
ChoiH. K.KimD. H.KimJ. W.NgadiranS.SarmidiM. R.ParkC. S. (2010). Labisia pumila Extract Protects Skin Cells from Photoaging Caused by UVB Irradiation. J. Biosci. Bioeng.109 (3), 291–296. 10.1016/j.jbiosc.2009.08.478
14
ChuaL. S.LatiffN. A.LeeS. Y.LeeC. T.SarmidiM. R.AzizR. A. (2011). Flavonoids and Phenolic Acids from Labisia pumila (Kacip Fatimah). Food Chem.127, 1186–1192. 10.1016/j.foodchem.2011.01.122
15
ChuaL. S.LeeS. Y.AbdullahN.SarmidiM. R. (2012). Review on Labisia pumila (Kacip Fatimah): Bioactive Phytochemicals and Skin Collagen Synthesis Promoting Herb. Fitoterapia83 (8), 1322–1335. 10.1016/j.fitote.2012.04.002
16
DharmaniM.KamarulzamanK.GiribabuN.ChoyK. W.ZuhaidaM. Z.AladdinN. A.et al (2019). Effect of Marantodes pumilum Blume (Kuntze) var.Alata on β-cell Function and Insulin Signaling in Ovariectomised Diabetic Rats. Phytomedicine65, 153101. 10.1016/j.phymed.2019.153101
17
DianitaR.JantanI.JalilJ.AmranA. Z. (2016). Effects of Labisia pumila var. alata Extracts on the Lipid Profile, Serum Antioxidant Status and Abdominal Aorta of High-Cholesterol Diet Rats. Phytomedicine23 (8), 810–817. 10.1016/j.phymed.2016.04.004
18
EffendyN. M.KhamisM. F.SoelaimanI. N.ShuidA. N. (2014). The Effects of Labisia pumila on Postmenopausal Osteoporotic Rat Model: Dose and Time-dependent Micro-CT Analysis. J. Xray Sci. Technol.22 (4), 503–518. 10.3233/XST-140441
19
EhsanK.HawaZ. E. J.SahidaA. (2011). Phytochemical Analysis and Antimicrobial Activities of Methanolic Extracts of Leaf, Stem and Root from Different Varieties of Labisia pumila Benth. Molecules16, 4438–4450.
20
EisenmanS. W.TuckerA. O.StruweL. (2012). Voucher Specimens Are Essential for Documenting Source Material Used in Medicinal Plant Investigations. JAMP1 (1), 30–43.
21
FadzilN. F.WagiranA.SallehF. M.ShamsiahA.IzhamN. H. M. (2018). Authenticity Testing and Detection of Eurycoma longifolia in Commercial Herbal Products Using Bar-High Resolution Melting Analysis. Genes9 (8), 408. 10.3390/genes9080408
22
FazlianaM.RamosN. L.LuthjeP.SekikuboM.HolmA. (2011). Labisia pumila var. alata Reduces Bacterial Load by Inducing Uroepithelial Cell Apoptosis. J. Ethnopharmacol.136 (1), 111–116. 10.1016/jep.2011.04.01810.1016/j.jep.2011.04.018
23
GadH. A.El-AhmadyS. H.Abou-ShoerM. I.Al-AziziM. M. (2013). Application of Chemometrics in Authentication of Herbal Medicines: A Review. Phytochem. Anal.24 (1). 10.1002/pca.2378
24
Gesto-BorrotoR.Medina-JiménezK.LorenceA.VillarrealM. L. (2021). Application of DNA Barcoding for Quality Control of Herbal Drugs and Their Phytopharmaceuticals. Rev. Bras. Farmacogn.31, 127–141. 10.1007/s43450-021-00128-7
25
GiazeT. R.ShuidA. N.SoelaimanI. N.MohamedN.JamalJ. A.FauziM. B. (2019). Comparative Anti-osteoporotic Properties of the Leaves and Roots of Marantodes pumilum var. alata in Postmenopausal Rat Model. J. Tradit. Complement. Med.9 (4), 393–400. 10.1016/j.jtcme.2019.01.002
26
GiazeT. R.ShuidA. N.SoelaimanI. N.MuhammadN.FauziM. B.ArlamsyahA. Z. (2018). Marantodes pumilum Leaves Promote Repair of Osteoporotic Fracture in Postmenopausal Sprague-Dawley Rats. Int. J. Pharmacol.14 (7), 973–980. 10.3923/ijp.2018.973.980
27
GiribabuN.KarimK.SallehN. (2018). Effects of Marantodes pumilum (Kacip Fatimah) on Vaginal pH and Expression of Vacoular ATPase and Carbonic Anhydrase in the Vagina of Sex-Steroid Deficient Female Rats. Phytomedicine49, 95–105. 10.1016/j.phymed.2018.05.018
28
GoodarziM.RusselP. J.HeydenY. V. (2013). Similarity Analyses of Chromatographic Herbal Fingerprints: A Review. Anal. Chim. Acta804, 16–28. 10.1016/j.aca.2013.09.017
29
GuoD. (2017). Quality Marker Concept Inspires the Quality Research of Traditional Chinese Medicines. Chin. Herb. Med.9 (1), 1–2. 10.1016/S1674-6384(17)60069-8
30
HairiH. A.JamalJ. A.AladdinN. A.HusainK.SofiN. S. M.MohamedN. I.et al (2018). Demethylbelamcandaquinone B (Dmcq B) Is the Active Compound of Marantodes pumilum var. alata (Blume) Kuntze with Osteoanabolic Activities. Molecules23 (7), 1–19. 10.3390/molecules23071686
31
HeinrichM.AnagnostouS. (2017). From Pharmacognosia to DNA-Based Medicinal Plant Authentication – Pharmacognosy through the Centuries. Planta Med.83 (14-15), 1110–1116. 10.1055/s-0043-108999
32
HuangY.WuZ.SuR.RuanG.DuF.LiG. (2016). Current Application of Chemometrics in Traditional Chinese Herbal Medicine Research. J. Chromatogr. B Anal. Technol. Biomed. Life Sci.1026, 27–35. 10.1016/j.jchromb.2015.12.050
33
IchimM. C.de BoerH. J. (2021). A Review of Authenticity and Authentication of Commercial Ginseng Herbal Medicines and Food Supplements. Front. Pharmacol.11, 2185. 10.3389/fphar.2020.612071
34
IchimM. C.HasserA.NickP. (2020). Microscopic Authentication of Commercial Herbal Products in the Globalized Market: Potential and Limitations. Front. Pharmacol.11, 876. 10.3389/fphar.2020.00876
35
JamalJ. A.RamliN.StanslasJ.HusainK. (2012). Estrogenic Activity of Selected Myrsinaceae Species in MCF-7 Human Breast Cancer Cells. Int. J. Pharm. Pharm. Sci.4 (4), 547–553.
36
KarimiE.JaafarH. Z. E.AhmadS. (2013). Antifungal, Anti-inflammatory and Cytotoxicity Activities of Three Varieties of Labisia pumila Benth: From Microwave Obtained Extracts. BMC Complement. Altern. Med.13, 1–20. 10.1186/1472-6882-13-20
37
KarimiE.JaafarH. Z. E.AhmadS. (2011). Phytochemical Analysis and Antimicrobial Activities of Methanolic Extracts of Leaf, Stem and Root from Different Varieties of Labisa pumila Benth. Molecules16 (6), 4438–4450. 10.3390/molecules16064438
38
KarimiE.JaafarH. Z. E.GhasemzadehA. (2016). Chemical Composition, Antioxidant and Anticancer Potential of Labisia pumila Variety alata under CO2 Enrichment. NJAS - Wagen. J. Life Sci.78, 85–91. 10.1016/j.njas.2016.05.002
39
KarimiE.JaafarH. Z. E.GhasemzadehA.EbrahimiM. (2015). Fatty Acid Composition, Antioxidant and Antibacterial Properties of the Microwave Aqueous Extract of Three Varieties of Labisia pumila Benth. Biol. Res.48, 1–6. 10.1186/0717-6287-48-9
40
LatiffN. A.ChuaL. S.SarmidiM. R.WareI.RashidS. N. A. A. (2018). Liquid Chromatography Tandem Mass Spectrometry for the Detection and Validation of Quercetin-3-O-Rutinoside and Myricetin from Fractionated Labisia pumila var. alata. Malays. J. Anal. Sci.22 (5), 817–827.
41
LiY.ShenY.YaoC. L.GuoD-A. (2020). Quality Assessment of Herbal Medicines Based on Chemical Fingerprints Combined with Chemometrics Approach: A Review. J. Pharm. Biomed. Anal.185, 113215. 10.1016/j.jpba.2020.22321510.1016/j.jpba.2020.113215
42
LiangY. Z.PeishanX.ChanK. (2004). Quality Control of Herbal Medicines. J. Chromatogr. B Anal. Technol. Biomed. Life Sci.812, 53–70. 10.1016/j.jchromb.2004.08.041
43
LiuJ.WeiX.ZhangX.QiY.ZhangB.LiuH.et al (2019). A Comprehensive Comparative Study for the Authentication of the Kadsura Crude Drug. Front. Pharmacol.9, 1576. 10.3389/fphar.2018.01576
44
MamatN.JamalJ. A.JantanI.HusainK. (2014). Xanthine Oxidase Inhibitory and DPPH Radical Scavenging Activities of Some Primulaceae Species. Sains Malays43 (12), 1827–1833. 10.17576/jsm-2014-4312-03
45
ManneråsL.FazlianaM.NazaimoonW. M. W.LonnM.GuH. F.OstensonC. G. (2010). Beneficial Metabolic Effects of the Malaysian Herb Labisia pumila var. alata in a Rat Model of Polycystic Ovary Syndrome. J. Ethnopharmacol.127 (2), 346–351. 10.1016/j.jep.2009.10.032
46
ManshorN. M.RazaliN.JusohR. R.AsmawiM. Z.MohamedN.ZainolS. (2020). Vasorelaxant Effect of Water Fraction of Labisia pumila and its Mechanisms in Spontaneously Hypertensive Rats Aortic Ring Preparation. Int. J. Cardiol. Hypertens.4, 100024. 10.1016/j.ijchy.2020.100024
47
MoherD.LiberatiA.TetzlaffJ.AltmanD. G.The PRISMA Group (2009). Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement. PLoS Med.6 (7). 10.1371/journal.pmed.100009710.1136/bmj.b2535
48
MuhamadM.ChooC. Y.HasudaT.HitotsuyanagiY. (2019). Estrogenic Phytochemical from Labisia pumila (Myrsinaceae) with Selectivity towards Estrogen Receptor Alpha and Beta Subtypes. Fitoterapia137, 104256. 10.1016/j.fitote.2019.104256
49
NorhaizaM.MaziahM.HakimanM. (2009). Antioxidative Properties of Leaf Extracts of a Popular Malaysian Herb, Labisia pumila. J. Med. Plants Res.3 (4), 217–223.
50
NorhayatiM. N.GeorgeA.HazlinaN. H. N.AzidahA. K.IndianaH. I.LawK. S. (2014). Efficacy and Safety of Labisia pumila var. alata Water Extract Among Pre- and Postmenopausal Women. J. Med. Food17 (8), 929–938. 10.1089/jmf.2013.2953
51
NPRA (2020). Annual Report 2020. Published on the Internet. Avilable from https://npra.gov.my/index.php/en/informationen/annual-reports/npra-annual-reports.html. Accessed at 03 June 2021
52
PanY.TiongK. H.RashidB. A. A.IsmailZ.IsmailR.MakJ. W. (2012). Inhibitory Effects of Cytochrome P450 Enzymes CYP2C8, CYP2C9, CYP2C19 and CYP3A4 by Labisia pumila Extracts. J. Ethnopharmacol.143 (2), 586–591. 10.1016/j.jep.2012.07.024
53
PandeyA.BaniS.SangwanP.KoulS. (2010). Selective Th1 Upregulation by Ethyl Acetate Fraction of Labisia pumila. J. Ethnopharmacol.132 (1), 309–315. 10.1016/j.jep.2010.08.039
54
PandeyA.SarangB.SangwanP. L. (2014). Anti-obesity Potential of Gallic Acid from Labisia pumila, through Augmentation of Adipokines in High Fat Diet Induced Obesity in C57BL/6 Mice. Adv. Res.2 (10), 556–570. 10.9734/air/2014/10182
55
PattiramP. D.LasekanO.TanC. P.ZaidulI. S. M. (2011). Identification of the Aroma-Active Constituents of the Essential Oils of Water Dropwort (Oenanthe javanica) and “Kacip Fatimah” (Labisia pumila). Int. Food Res. J.18 (3), 1021–1026.
56
PihieA. H. L.OthmanF.ZakariaZ. A. (2011). Anticarcinogenic Activity of Labisia pumila against 7,12- Dimethylbenz (A) Anthracene (DMBA)/croton Oil-Induced Mouse Skin Carcinogenesis. Afr. J. Pharm. Pharmacol.5 (7), 823–832. 10.5897/AJPP11.140
57
RadzaliS. A.MarkomM.SalehN. M. (2020). Co-solvent Selection for Supercritical Fluid Extraction (SFE) of Phenolic Compounds from Labisia pumila. Molecules25 (24), 1–15. 10.3390/molecules25245859
58
RahmiE. P.KumolosasiE.JalilJ.HusainK.BuangF.Abd. RazakA. F.et al (2020). Anti-hyperuricemic and Anti-inflammatory Effects of Marantodes pumilum as Potential Treatment for Gout. Front. Pharmacol.11, 289. 10.3389/fphar.2020.00289
59
SalehanN. A. M.NailaA.AjitA.SulaimanA. Z. (2020). Effect of Solid to Water Ratio, Time and Temperature on Aqueous Extraction of Gallic Acid from Labisia pumila var. alata of Malaysia. Pak. J. Sci. Ind. Res. B Biol. Sci.63 (2), 93–99. 10.52763/pjsir.biol.sci.63.2.2020.93.99
60
SiyumbwaS.KamranS.AkowuahG.TeoS. S.AminiF.PatrickN. (2015). The HPTLC Validated Method Development for the Quantification of Naringin from the Partially Purified Labisia pumila Dichloromethane Extract. J. Chromatogr. Sep. Tech.6 (4), 271–274. 10.4172/2157-7064.1000271
61
SmillieT. J.KhanI. A. (2010). A Comprehensive Approach to Identifying and Authenticating Botanical Products. Clin. Pharmacol. Ther.87 (2), 175–185. 10.1038/clpt.2009.287
62
SriramaR.KumarJ. U. S.SeethapathyG. S.NewmasterS. G.RagupathyS.GaneshaiahK. N. (2017). Species Adulteration in the Herbal Trade: Causes, Consequences and Mitigation. Drug Saf.40 (8), 651–661. 10.1007/s40264-017-0527-0
63
SunarnoB. (2005). Revision of the Genus Labisia (Myrsinaceae). Blumea J. Plant Taxon. Plant Geogr.50 (3), 579–597. 10.3767/000651905x622879
64
TanN. A. S.GiribabuN.KarimK.NymathullaS.SallehN. (2019). Intravaginal Treatment with Marantodes pumilum (Kacip Fatimah) Ameliorates Vaginal Atrophy in Rats with Post-menopausal Condition. J. Ethnopharmacol.236, 9–20. 10.1016/j.jep.2019.02.027
65
TarmiziA. A. A.WagiranA.Mohd SallehF.ChuaL. S.AbdulllahF. I.HashamR. (2021). Integrated Approach for Species Identification and Quality Analysis for Labisia pumila Using DNA Barcoding and HPLC. Plants10, 717. 10.3390/plants10040717
66
TechenN.ParveenI.ZhiqiangP.KhanI. A. (2014). DNA Barcoding of Medicinal Plant Material for Identification. Curr. Opin. Biotechnol.25, 103–110. 10.1016/j.copbio.2013.0901010.1016/j.copbio.2013.09.010
67
TnahL. H.LeeC. T.LeeS. L.NgC. H.NgK. K. S. (2014). Development of Microsatellites in Labisia pumila (Myrsinaceae), an Economically Important Malaysian Herb. Appl. Plant Sc.2 (6), 1400019. 10.3732/apps.1400019
68
TnahL. H.LeeS. L.TanA. L.LeeC. T.NgK. K. S.NgC. H. (2019). DNA Barcode Database of Common Herbal Plants in the Tropics: a Resource for Herbal Product Authentication. Food control.95, 318–326. 10.1016/j.foodcont.2018.08.022
69
UptonR.DavidB.StefanG.GlaslS. (2020). Botanical Ingredient Identification and Quality Assessment: Strengths and Limitations of Analytical Techniques. Phytochem. Rev.19 (5), 1157–1177. 10.1007/s11101-019-09625-z
70
Wan OmarW. F. N.GiribabuN.KarimK.SallehN. (2019). Marantodes pumilum (Blume) Kuntze (Kacip Fatimah) Stimulates Uterine Contraction in Rats in Post-partum Period. J. Ethnopharmacol.245, 112175. 10.1016/j.jep.2019.112175
71
WeiX. C.CaoB.LuoC. H.HuangH. Z.TanP.XuX. R.et al (2020). Recent Advances of Novel Technologies for Quality Consistency Assessment of Natural Herbal Medicines and Preparations. Chin. Med. (United Kingdom)15 (1), 1–24. 10.1186/s13020-020-00335-9
72
WFO (2022). Marantodes pumilum (Blume) Kuntze. Available at: http://www.worldfloraonline.org/taxon/wfo-0001039157 (Accessed on Apr 21, 2022).
73
World Health Organization (2017). “WHO Guidelines for Selecting Marker Substances of Herbal Origin for Quality Control of Herbal Medicines,” in WHO Expert Committee on Specifications for Pharmaceutical Preparation: Fifty First Report. Annex 1. WHO Technical Report Series, No. 1003 (Geneva: World Health Organization).
74
World Health Organization (2011).Quality Control Methods for Herbal Materials. Geneva: World Health Organization.
75
WuH.XiH.LaiF.MaJ.ChenW.LiuH. (2019). Cellular Antioxidant Activity and Caco-2 Cell Uptake Characteristics of Flavone Extracts from Labisia pumila. Int. J. Food Sci. Technol.54 (2), 536–549. 10.1111/ijfs.13968
76
WuH.XiH.LaiF.MaJ.LiuH. (2018). Chemical and Cellular Antioxidant Activity of Flavone Extracts of Labisia pumila before and after In Vitro Gastrointestinal Digestion. RSC Adv.8, 12116–12126. 10.1039/c8ra00142a
77
XieP.ChenS.LiangY.WangX.TianR.UptonR. (2006). Chromatographic Fingerprint Analysis-A Rational Approach for Quality Assessment of Traditional Chinese Herbal Medicine. J. Chromatogr. A1112 (1–2), 171–180. 10.1016/j.chroma.2005.12.091
78
YadavN. P.DixitV. K. (2008). Recent Approaches in Herbal Drug Standardization. Int. J. Integr. Biol.2 (3), 195–203.
79
YeopA.SandanasamyJ.PangS. F.GimbunJ. (2021). Stability and Controlled Release Enhancement of Labisia pumila’s Polyphenols. Food Biosci.41, 101025. 10.1016/j.fbio.2021.101025
80
YongyuZ.ShujunS.WenyuW.HuijuanC.JianbingW. (2011). Quality Control Method for Herbal Medicine - Chemical fingerprint Analysis. Quality Control of Herbal Medicines and Related Areas, 171–194.
81
ZakariaM.MohdM. A. (1994). Traditional Malay Medicinal Plants. Kuala Lumpur: Fajar Bakti.
82
ZhanW.YangX.LuG.DengY.YangL. (2022). A Rapid Quality Grade Discrimination Method for Gastrodia elata Powder Using ATR-FTIR and Chemometrics. Spectrochim. Acta A Mol. Biomol. Spectrosc.264, 120189. 10.1016/j.saa.2021.120189
83
ZhuJ.FanX.ChengY.AgarwalR.MooreC. M. V.ChenS. T. (2014). Chemometric Analysis for Identification of Botanical Raw Materials for Pharmaceutical Use: A Case Study Using Panax notoginseng. PLoS ONE9 (1), 1–10. 10.1371/journal.pone.0087462
84
ZouP.HongY.KohH. L. (2005). Chemical Fingerprinting of Isatis indigotica Root by RP-HPLC and Hierarchical Clustering Analysis. J. Pharm. Biomed. Anal.38 (3), 514–520. 10.1016/j.jpba.2005.01.022
Summary
Keywords
authentication, identification, fingerprinting, Marantodes pumilum, quality control
Citation
Ibrahim IS, Mohd Said M, Mohammad Zainoor N and Jamal JA (2022) Authentication of Marantodes pumilum (Blume) Kuntze: A Systematic Review. Front. Pharmacol. 13:855384. doi: 10.3389/fphar.2022.855384
Received
15 January 2022
Accepted
27 April 2022
Published
08 June 2022
Volume
13 - 2022
Edited by
Abdul Rohman, Gadjah Mada University, Indonesia
Reviewed by
Faezah Mohd Salleh, University of Technology Malaysia, Malaysia
Kwabena F.M. Opuni, University of Ghana, Ghana
Updates

Check for updates
Copyright
© 2022 Ibrahim, Mohd Said, Mohammad Zainoor and Jamal.
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Jamia Azdina Jamal, jamia@ukm.edu.my
This article was submitted to Ethnopharmacology, a section of the journal Frontiers in Pharmacology
Disclaimer
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.