HPTLC-based quantification of camptothecin in Ophiorrhiza species of the southern Western Ghats in India

Figures & data

Figure 1. Camptothecin.

Figure 2. HPTLC profile of the (a) MeOH extract of O. mungos (52748) collected from Brymore, Thiruvananthapuram in Kerala, (b) CPT standard (0.003 μg/spot).

Table 1. Estimation of CPT in Ophiorrhiza species/varieties by HPTLC-densitometry

Accession No.	Species	Location	District	CPT ± SD (μg/g, dr. wt.)^a
69998	Ophiorrhiza barnesii	Kadalar	Idukki	0.00 ± 0.00
52740	O. caudata	Thattekadu	Ernakulam	0.00 ± 0.00
52722	O. eriantha	Chemmunji	Thiruvananthapuram	0.00 ± 0.00
69943	O. eriantha	Attayar	Thiruvananthapuram	0.00 ± 0.00
69982	O. eriantha	Pandimotta	Kollam	0.06 ± 0.02
52720	O. grandiflora	Chummunji	Thiruvananthapuram	0.00 ± 0.00
52732	O. hirsutula	Periya	Wayanadu	17.14 ± 4.42
52733	O. incarnata	Periya	Wayanadu	0.00 ± 0.00
52727	O. mungos^b	Silent Valley	Palakkad	396.54 ± 0.81
52744	O. mungos	Pooyamkutty	Ernakulam	354.55 ± 12.95
52748	O. mungos	Brymore	Thiruvananthapuram	303.32 ± 6.35
52750	O. mungos	Idinjar	Thiruvananthapuram	276.66 ± 4.53
52751	O. mungos	Palode	Thiruvananthapuram	227.47 ± 6.29
52753	O. mungos	Aluvamkudi	Pathanamthitta	148.33 ± 3.20
52755	O. mungos	Konni	Pathanamthitta	215.37 ± 6.99
69923	O. mungos	Kunthirikkapalam	Idukki	339.98 ± 28.65
52734	O. mungos var. angustifolia	Periya	Wayanadu	373.19 ± 0.04
52746	O. mungos var. angustifolia	Pooyamkutty	Ernakulam	211.07 ± 14.50
69918	O. mungos var. angustifolia	Bonacaud	Thiruvananthapuram	214.05 ± 5.84
69961	O. mungos var. angustifolia	Plappally	Pathanamthitta	110.13 ± 7.98
52745	O. pectinata	Pooyamkutty	Ernakulam	0.09 ± 0.01
52752	O. pectinata	Aluvamkudi	Pathanamthitta	0.04 ± 0.01
69926	O. pectinata	Thekkadi	Idukki	2.84 ± 0.02
69935	O. pectinata	Anakulam	Idukki	0.26 ± 0.01
69936	O. pectinata	Anakulam	Ernakulam	0.24 ± 0.016
69956	O. pectinata	Angamoozhi	Pathanamthitta	0.67 ± 0.02
52736	O. radicans	Rosemala	Thiruvananthapuram	0.00 ± 0.00
52724	O. rugosa var. decumbens	Silent Valley	Palakkad	18.55 ± 0.02
52725	O. rugosa var. prostrata	Silent Valley	Palakkad	1.51 ± 0.00
52735	O. rugosa var. prostrata	Rosemala	Thiruvananthapuram	0.00 ± 0.00
52747	O. rugosa var. prostrata	Pooyamkutty	Ernakulam	0.47 ± 0.01
52754	O. rugosa var. prostrata	Aluvamkudi	Pathanamthitta	0.59 ± 0.01
52749	O. rugosa var. prostrata	Brymore	Thiruvananthapuram	0.24 ± 0.02
69917	O. rugosa var. prostrata	Bonacaud	Thiruvananthapuram	0.00 ± 0.00
52737	O. trichocarpon	Rosemala	Thiruvananthapuram	0.00 ± 0.00
69959	O. trichocarpon	Plappally	Pathanamthitta	0.32 ± 0.01
69965	O. trichocarpon	Pampa	Pathanamthitta	0.97 ± 0.02
52721	O. villosa	Chemmunji	Thiruvananthapuram	0.00 ± 0.00

^a Each CPT ± SD data is an average of six values.

^b Ophiorrhiza mungos var. mungos (Deb & Mondal, 2001) is commonly termed as Ophiorrhiza mungos (Lorence & Nessler, 2004; Rehman et al., 2009), and thus counted as a species (not as a variety) in our data (Renjith et al., 2013).

Table 2. Recovery data

Accession No.	CPT + extract (μg)	CPT added (μg)	CPT in extract (measured, μg)	% Recovery
52753 (O. mungos)	0.001291	–	0.001291	–
52753 + CPT 1	0.001638	0.00035	0.001641	100.16
52753 + CPT 2	0.001703	0.00045	0.001741	99.79
52753 + CPT 3	0.001923	0.00065	0.001941	101.29
52755 (O. mungos)	0.002286	–	0.002286	–
52755 + CPT 1	0.002632	0.00035	0.002636	100.17
52755 + CPT 2	0.002762	0.00045	0.002736	99.07
52755 + CPT 3	0.002933	0.00065	0.002936	100.11
				100.10 ± 0.72

Table 3. Distribution of camptothecin in different parts of O. mungos var. angustifolia

Accession No.	Species	Location	District	CPT ± SD (μg/g, dr. wt.)
52734 whole plant	O. mungos var. angustifolia	Periya	Wayanadu	373.19 ± 0.04
52734 leaf	O. mungos var. angustifolia	Periya	Wayanadu	192.47 ± 0.07
52734 stem	O. mungos var. angustifolia	Periya	Wayanadu	216.35 ± 0.61
52734 root	O. mungos var. angustifolia	Periya	Wayanadu	403.64 ± 0.09

Table 4. Repeatability (precision) data

Accession No.	Area						Average area	SD	% RSD
	1	2	3	4	5	6
52725	400.5	408.2	405.2	412.8	416.3	401.8	407.46	6.21	1.52
52744	1,054.2	1,043.1	1,055.2	1,022.9	1,060.2	1,032.2	1,044.63	14.66	1.40
69956	2,130.2	2,169.1	2,192.3	2,145.5	2,122.8	2,132.5	2,148.73	26.84	1.24

Note: 52725: O. rugosa var. prostrate; 52744: O. mungos; 69956: O. pectinata.

Deb, D. B., & Mondal, D. C. (2001). Taxonomic revision of the genus Ophiorrhiza L. (Rubiaceae) in Indian subcontinent. Bulletin of the Botanical Survey of India, 39, 1–148.

 Google Scholar

Lorence, A., & Nessler, C. L. (2004). Camptothecin, over four decades of surprising findings. Phytochemistry, 65, 2735–2749.10.1016/j.phytochem.2004.09.001

 Google Scholar

Rehman, S., Shawl, A. S., Kour, A., Sultan, P., Ahmad, K., Khajuria, R., & Qazi, G. N. (2009). Comparative studies and identification of camptothecin produced by an endophyte at shake flask and bioreactor. Natural Product Research, 23, 1050–1057.10.1080/14786410902750944

 Google Scholar

Renjith, R., Sibi, C. V., Rajani, K., Roja, G., Venkataraman, R., Satheeshkumar, K., & Sabulal, B. (2013). Search for camptothecin-yielding Ophiorrhiza species from southern Western Ghats in India: A HPTLC-densitometry study. Industrial Crops and Products, 43, 472–476.

 Google Scholar