Morphological study and DNA fingerprint pattern of Goniothalamus tapis and Goniothalamus umbrosus (Annonaceae) using M13 marker and its taxonomic implication

Abstract

Mahadi I, Fathurrahman F, Sofiyanti N, Susatya A. 2023. Morphological study and DNA fingerprint pattern of Goniothalamus tapis and Goniothalamus umbrosus (Annonaceae) using M13 marker and its taxonomic implication. Biodiversitas 24: 6287-6294. The species of Goniothalamus (Blume) JD Hooker & Thomson (Annonaceae) is widely considered a source of traditional medicine and contains goniothalamin which is used for anti-cancer and anti-bacterial drugs. Goniothalamus tapis and G. umbrosus are respectively used as traditional medicine in Sumatra, Indonesia and Malaysia Peninsula. This plant is used by the community as a source of traditional medicinal ingredients. Clinically, Goniothalamus contains the compound goniothalamin which is used as an anti-cancer and anti-bacterial drug. The existence of this plant is gradually maintained. Goniothalamus tapis is often used as a traditional medicine for the Malay community in Sumatra and Goniothalamus umbrosus is widely used by the Malay community in Malaysian Peninsula. These two plants are morphologically similar but the two species are different. Some researchers consider these plants to be the same. For this reason, it needs to be studied by combining two methods, both molecular and morphological. Goniothalamus tapis and Goniothalamus umbrosus are species of the genus Goniothalamus that are distributed in Sumatra and Peninsular Malaysia. Their taxonomic status needs to be clarifed due to the morphological character similarity. This study aimed to study the morphological characters of Goniothalamus tapis and Goniothlamus umbrosus as well as their DNA fingerprint pattern using M13 Marker. The morphological examination showed that Goniothalamus tapis and Goniothlamus umbrosus are distinguished by leaf, flower and fruit characters. This result is supported by DNA fingerprint pattern using M13 marker. The results show that these two species are different both in terms of morphology and fingerprints. So it can be concluded that these two species are different.