Proteogenomic investigation of plant constituents in herbal beverages

1. Gardner, J. M., Grant, D., Hutchinson, S. & Wilks, R. The use of herbal teas and remedies in Jamaica. West Indian Med. J. 49, 331–335 (2000).

   Google Scholar 

2. Malongane, F., McGAW, L. J. & Mudau, F. N. The synergistic potential of various teas, herbs and therapeutic drugs in health improvement: a review. J. Sci. Food Agric. 97, 4679–4689 (2017).

   Google Scholar 

3. Chandrasekara, A. & Shahidi, F. Herbal beverages: bioactive compounds and their role in disease risk reduction-A review. J. Tradit. Complement. Med. 8, 451–458 (2018).

   Google Scholar 

4. Das, C. et al. Clove based herbal tea: development, phytochemical analysis and evaluation of antimicrobial property. J. Pharm. Sci. Res. 11, 3122–3129 (2019).

   Google Scholar 

5. Pathaw, N. et al. A comparative review on the anti-nutritional factors of herbal tea concoctions and their reduction strategies. Front. Nutr. 9, 988964 (2022).

   Google Scholar 

6. Fu, Y. et al. A billion cups: the diversity, traditional uses, safety issues and potential of Chinese herbal teas. J. Ethnopharmacol. 222, 217–228 (2018).

   Google Scholar 

7. Poswal, F. S. et al. Herbal teas and their health benefits: a scoping review. Plant Foods Hum. Nutr. 74, 266–276 (2019).

   Google Scholar 

8. Kumari, A. & Kumar, D. Evaluation of antioxidant and cytotoxic activity of herbal teas from Western Himalayan region: a comparison with green tea (Camellia sinensis) and black tea. Chem. Biol. Technol. Agric. 9, 33 (2022).

   Google Scholar 

9. Parveen, I., Gafner, S., Techen, N., Murch, S. J. & Khan, I. A. DNA barcoding for the identification of botanicals in herbal medicine and dietary supplements: strengths and limitations. Planta Med. 82, 1225–1235 (2016).

   Google Scholar 

10. Skalicka-Woźniak, K., Georgiev, M. I. & Orhan, I. E. Adulteration of herbal sexual enhancers and slimmers: the wish for better sexual well-being and perfect body can be risky. Food Chem. Toxicol. 108, 355–364 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

11. Ichim, M. C. The DNA-based authentication of commercial herbal products reveals their globally widespread adulteration. Front. Pharmacol. 10, 1227 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

12. Başaran, N., Paslı, D. & Başaran, A. A. Unpredictable adverse effects of herbal products. Food Chem. Toxicol. 159, 112762 (2022).

    Google Scholar 

13. Hassen, G. et al. Clinical implications of herbal supplements in conventional medical practice: a US perspective. Cureus 14, e26893 (2022).

14. Speranskaya, A. S. et al. Comparative analysis of Illumina and Ion Torrent high-throughput sequencing platforms for identification of plant components in herbal teas. Food Control 93, 315–324 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

15. Omelchenko, D. O. et al. Improved protocols of ITS1-based metabarcoding and their application in the analysis of plant-containing products. Genes 10, 122 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

16. Chen, S. et al. Validation of the ITS2 region as a novel DNA barcode for identifying medicinal plant species. PloS ONE 5, e8613 (2010).

    Google Scholar 

17. China Plant, B. O. L. et al. Comparative analysis of a large dataset indicates that internal transcribed spacer (ITS) should be incorporated into the core barcode for seed plants. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 108, 19641–19646 (2011).

    Google Scholar 

18. De Boer, H. J. et al. DNA metabarcoding of orchid-derived products reveals widespread illegal orchid trade. Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 284, 20171182 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

19. Barbosa, C., Nogueira, S., Gadanho, M. & Chaves, S. Study on commercial spice and herb products using next-generation sequencing (NGS). J. AOAC Int. 102, 369–375 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

20. Bruno, A. et al. Food tracking perspective: DNA metabarcoding to identify plant composition in complex and processed food products. Genes 10, 248 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

21. Cottenet, G. et al. A DNA metabarcoding workflow to identify species in spices and herbs. J. AOAC Int. 106, 65–72 (2023).

    Google Scholar 

22. Kireev, D. et al. Evaluating the accuracy and sensitivity of detecting minority HIV-1 populations by Illumina next-generation sequencing. J. Virol. Methods 261, 40–45 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

23. Hrnčírová, Z., Bergerová, E. & Siekel, P. Effects of technological treatment on DNA degradation in selected food matrices of plant origin. J. Food Nutr. Res. 47, 23–28 (2008).

    Google Scholar 

24. Gryson, N. Effect of food processing on plant DNA degradation and PCR-based GMO analysis: a review. Anal. Bioanal. Chem. 396, 2003–2022 (2010).

    Google Scholar 

25. Godalova, Z., Bergerová, E. & Siekel, P. Effect of high temperature and pressure on quantification of MON 810 maize. Czech J. Food Sci. 31, 376–381 (2013).

    Google Scholar 

26. Valdés, A. et al. Foodomics: analytical opportunities and challenges. Anal. Chem. 94, 366–381 (2021).

    Google Scholar 

27. Haider, A. et al. Food authentication, current issues, analytical techniques, and future challenges: A comprehensive review. Compr. Rev. Food Sci. Food Saf. 23, e13360 (2024).

    Google Scholar 

28. Ortea, I., O’Connor, G. & Maquet, A. Review on proteomics for food authentication. J. Proteom. 147, 212–225 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

29. Fan, R. et al. Identification markers of goat milk adulterated with bovine milk based on proteomics and metabolomics. Food Chem. X 17, 100601 (2023).

    Google Scholar 

30. Windarsih, A. et al. Untargeted metabolomics and proteomics approach using liquid chromatography-Orbitrap high resolution mass spectrometry to detect pork adulteration in Pangasius hypopthalmus meat. Food Chem. 386, 132856 (2022).

    Google Scholar 

31. Ma, Y. et al. Integrated proteomics and metabolomics analysis of tea leaves fermented by Aspergillus niger, Aspergillus tamarii and Aspergillus fumigatus. Food Chem. 334, 127560 (2021).

    Google Scholar 

32. Lu, W., Liu, J., Gao, B., Lv, X. & Yu, L. L. Technical note: nontargeted detection of adulterated plant proteins in raw milk by UPLC-quadrupole time-of-flight mass spectrometric proteomics combined with chemometrics. J. Dairy Sci. 100, 6980–6986 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

33. Nesvizhskii, A. I. Proteogenomics: concepts, applications and computational strategies. Nat. Methods 11, 1114–1125 (2014).

    Google Scholar 

34. Ruiz Orduna, A., Husby, E., Yang, C. T., Ghosh, D. & Beaudry, F. Detection of meat species adulteration using high-resolution mass spectrometry and a proteogenomics strategy. Food Addit. Contam. Part A 34, 1110–1120 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

35. Castellana, N. & Bafna, V. Proteogenomics to discover the full coding content of genomes: a computational perspective. J. Proteom. 73, 2124–2135 (2010).

    Google Scholar 

36. Bartfay, W. J., Bartfay, E. & Johnson, J. G. Gram-negative and gram-positive antibacterial properties of the whole plant extract of willow herb (Epilobium angustifolium). Biol. Res. Nurs. 14, 85–89 (2012).

    Google Scholar 

37. Constantin, D., Coste, A. & Mircea, T. Epilobium sp. (Willow Herb): micropropagation and production of secondary metabolites. in Biotechnology for Medicinal Plants: Micropropagation and Improvement 149–170 (Springer, 2012).

38. Vitalone, A. & Allkanjari, O. Epilobium spp: pharmacology and phytochemistry. Phytother. Res. 32, 1229–1240 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

39. Battinelli, L., Tita, B., Evandri, M. G. & Mazzanti, G. Antimicrobial activity of Epilobium spp. extracts. Il Farm 56, 345–348 (2001).

    Google Scholar 

40. Schepetkin, I. A. et al. Therapeutic potential of polyphenols from Epilobium angustifolium (Fireweed). Phytother. Res. 30, 1287–1297 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

41. Turner, N. J. A gift for the taking: the untapped potential of some food plants of North American Native Peoples. Can. J. Bot. 59, 2331–2357 (1981).

    Google Scholar 

42. Rogers, R. Fireweed–a treasured medicine of the boreal forest. phytomedicine 1, 10 (2014).

    Google Scholar 

43. Rosebay willowherb or fireweed: UK foraging. https://www.foragingcoursecompany.co.uk/post/foraging-guide-rosebay-willowherb (2024).

44. Thompson, P. Rosebay willowherb. https://www.gwct.org.uk/wildlife/species-of-the-month/2018/rosebay-willowherb (2018).

45. Hoch, P. C. & Gandhi, K. Nomenclatural changes in onagraceae. PhytoKeys 145, 57 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

46. Granica, S., Piwowarski, J. P., Czerwińska, M. E. & Kiss, A. K. Phytochemistry, pharmacology and traditional uses of different Epilobium species (Onagraceae): a review. J. Ethnopharmacol. 156, 316–346 (2014).

    Google Scholar 

47. Bazylko, A., Kiss, A. K. & Kowalski, J. High-performance thin-layer chromatography method for quantitative determination of oenothein B and quercetin glucuronide in aqueous extract of Epilobii angustifolii herba. J. Chromatogr. A 1173, 146–150 (2007).

    Google Scholar 

48. Bar-On, Y. M. & Milo, R. The global mass and average rate of rubisco. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 116, 4738–4743 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

49. Grácio, M., Oliveira, S., Lima, A. & Ferreira, R. B. RuBisCO as a protein source for potential food applications: a review. Food Chem. 419, 135993 (2023).

    Google Scholar 

50. Peltier, J.-B. et al. Proteomics of the chloroplast: systematic identification and targeting analysis of lumenal and peripheral thylakoid proteins. Plant Cell 12, 319–341 (2000).

    Google Scholar 

51. Camacho, C. et al. BLAST+: architecture and applications. BMC Bioinform. 10, 1–9 (2009).

    Google Scholar 

52. Sayers, E. W. et al. Database resources of the national center for biotechnology information. Nucleic Acids Res. 50, D20–D26 (2022).

    Google Scholar 

53. Banchi, E. et al. PLANiTS: a curated sequence reference dataset for plant ITS DNA metabarcoding. Database 2020, baz155 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

54. Ivanova, N. V., Kuzmina, M. L., Braukmann, T. W., Borisenko, A. V. & Zakharov, E. V. Authentication of herbal supplements using next-generation sequencing. PloS ONE 11, e0156426 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

55. Pawlaczyk, I. et al. An anticoagulant effect and chemical characterization of Lythrum salicaria L. glycoconjugates. Carbohydr. Polym. 86, 277–284 (2011).

    Google Scholar 

56. Manayi, A. et al. Biological activity and microscopic characterization of Lythrum salicaria L. DARU J. Pharm. Sci. 21, 1–7 (2013).

    Google Scholar 

57. Piwowarski, J. P., Granica, S. & Kiss, A. K. Lythrum salicaria L—Underestimated medicinal plant from European traditional medicine. A review. J. Ethnopharmacol. 170, 226–250 (2015).

    Google Scholar 

58. Safta, D. A. et al. Optimized Sambucus nigra L., Epilobium hirsutum L., and Lythrum salicaria L. extracts: biological effects supporting their potential in wound care. Antioxidants 14, 521 (2025).

    Google Scholar 

59. Lo, Y. T. & Shaw, P. C. Application of next-generation sequencing for the identification of herbal products. Biotechnol. Adv. 37, 107450 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

60. Travadi, T. et al. A combined approach of DNA metabarcoding collectively enhances the detection efficiency of medicinal plants in single and polyherbal formulations. Front. Plant Sci. 14, 1169984 (2023).

61. Sgamma, T. et al. DNA barcoding for industrial quality assurance. Planta Med. 83, 1117–1129 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

62. Krinitsina, A. A. et al. Aerobiological monitoring and metabarcoding of grass pollen. Plants 12, 2351 (2023).

    Google Scholar 

63. Morozov, A., Galachyants, Y., Marchenkov, A., Zakharova, Y. & Petrova, D. Revealing the differences in ulnaria acus and fragilaria radians distribution in lake baikal via analysis of existing metabarcoding data. Diversity 15, 280 (2023).

    Google Scholar 

64. Zhang, P. et al. Full-length multi-barcoding: DNA barcoding from single ingredient to complex mixtures. Genes 10, 343 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

65. Raclariu, A. C. et al. What’s in the box? Authentication of Echinacea herbal products using DNA metabarcoding and HPTLC. Phytomedicine 44, 32–38 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

66. Raclariu, A. C. et al. Veronica officinalis Product Authentication Using DNA metabarcoding and hplc-ms reveals widespread adulteration with veronica chamaedrys. Front. Pharmacol. 8, 378 (2017).

67. Raclariu, A. C. et al. Comparative authentication of Hypericum perforatum herbal products using DNA metabarcoding. TLC and HPLC-MS. Sci. Rep. 7, 1291 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

68. Cheng, L.-T., Wang, Z.-L., Zhu, Q.-H., Ye, M. & Ye, C.-Y. A long road ahead to reliable and complete medicinal plant genomes. Nat. Commun. 16, 2150 (2025).

    Google Scholar 

69. Carrera, M. et al. Proteins and peptides: proteomics approaches for food authentication and allergen profiling. Curr. Opin. Food Sci. 57, 101172 (2024).

    Google Scholar 

70. Shi, J. et al. Integrated proteomic and metabolomic analyses reveal the importance of aroma precursor accumulation and storage in methyl jasmonate-primed tea leaves. Hortic. Res. 8, 95 (2021).

    Google Scholar 

71. Yan, S., Bhawal, R., Yin, Z., Thannhauser, T. W. & Zhang, S. Recent advances in proteomics and metabolomics in plants. Mol. Hortic. 2, 17 (2022).

    Google Scholar 

72. Qiaoyun, C. et al. Optimization of protein extraction and decoloration conditions for tea residues. Hortic. Plant J. 3, 172–176 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

73. Li, N. et al. Advancement of foodomics techniques for honey botanical origins authentication: past decade (2013–2023) and future perspectives. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 147, 104458 (2024).

74. Wu, X., Gong, F. & Wang, W. Protein extraction from plant tissues for 2DE and its application in proteomic analysis. Proteomics 14, 645–658 (2014).

    Google Scholar 

75. Jin, X. et al. An improved protein extraction method applied to cotton leaves is compatible with 2-DE and LC-MS. BMC Genom. 20, 1–11 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

76. Chandran, A. S., Suri, S. & Choudhary, P. Sustainable plant protein: an up-to-date overview of sources, extraction techniques and utilization. Sustain. Food Technol. 1, 466–483 (2023).

    Google Scholar 

77. Wessel, D. & Flügge, U. A method for the quantitative recovery of protein in dilute solution in the presence of detergents and lipids. Anal. Biochem. 138, 141–143 (1984).

    Google Scholar 

78. Rice, R. H., Means, G. E. & Brown, W. D. Stabilization of bovine trypsin by reductive methylation. Biochim. Biophys. Acta BBA-Protein Struct. 492, 316–321 (1977).

    Google Scholar 

79. Martin, M. Cutadapt removes adapter sequences from high-throughput sequencing reads. EMBnet J. 17, 10–12 (2011).

    Google Scholar 

80. Straub, D. et al. Interpretations of environmental microbial community studies are biased by the selected 16S rRNA (gene) amplicon sequencing pipeline. Front. Microbiol. 11, 550420 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

81. Ewels, P. A. et al. The nf-core framework for community-curated bioinformatics pipelines. Nat. Biotechnol. 38, 276–278 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

82. Di Tommaso, P. et al. Nextflow enables reproducible computational workflows. Nat. Biotechnol. 35, 316–319 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

83. Callahan, B. J. et al. DADA2: High-resolution sample inference from Illumina amplicon data. Nat. Methods 13, 581–583 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

84. Bolyen, E. et al. Reproducible, interactive, scalable and extensible microbiome data science using QIIME 2. Nat. Biotechnol. 37, 852–857 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

85. Romiti, M. & Cooper, P. Entrez Help. (Citeseer, 2005).

86. Goloborodko, A. A., Levitsky, L. I., Ivanov, M. V. & Gorshkov, M. V. Pyteomics—a Python framework for exploratory data analysis and rapid software prototyping in proteomics. J. Am. Soc. Mass Spectrom. 24, 301–304 (2013).

    Google Scholar 

87. Levitsky, L. I., Klein, J. A., Ivanov, M. V. & Gorshkov, M. V. Pyteomics 4.0: five years of development of a python proteomics framework. J. Proteome Res. 18, 709–714 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

88. Fabian, P. Scikit-learn: Machine learning in python Fabian. J. Mach. Learn. Res. 12, 2825 (2011).

    Google Scholar 

89. Buitinck, L. et al. API design for machine learning software: experiences from the scikit-learn project. Preprint at https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1309.0238 (2013).

90. da Veiga Leprevost, F. et al. Philosopher: a versatile toolkit for shotgun proteomics data analysis. Nat. Methods 17, 869–870 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

91. Harris et al. Array programming with NumPy. Nature 585, 357–362 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

92. McKinney, W., van der Walt, S. & Millman, J. SciPy. In Proc. 9th Python in Science Conference, (NumFOCUS, 2010).

93. Reback, J. et al. pandas-dev/pandas: Pandas 1.0. 5. Zenodo (2020).

94. Hunter, J. D. Matplotlib: A 2D graphics environment. Comput. Sci. Eng. 9, 90–95 (2007).

    Google Scholar 

95. Waskom, M. L. Seaborn: statistical data visualization. J. Open Source Softw. 6, 3021 (2021).

    Google Scholar 

96. Perez-Riverol, Y. et al. The PRIDE database at 20 years: 2025 update. Nucleic Acids Res. 53, D543–D553 (2025).

    Google Scholar 

97. Yu, F., Haynes, S. E. & Nesvizhskii, A. I. IonQuant enables accurate and sensitive label-free quantification with FDR-controlled match-between-runs. Mol. Cell. Proteom. 20, 100077 (2021).

    Google Scholar 

98. Cox, J. et al. Accurate proteome-wide label-free quantification by delayed normalization and maximal peptide ratio extraction, termed MaxLFQ *. Mol. Cell. Proteom. 13, 2513–2526 (2014).

    Google Scholar 

Download references