4.7 Article

Metabolic Differentiation of Diamondback Moth (Plutella xylostella (L.)) Resistance in Cabbage (Brassica oleracea L. ssp capitata)

Journal

JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL AND FOOD CHEMISTRY
Volume 61, Issue 46, Pages 11222-11230

Publisher

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/jf403441t

Keywords

cabbage; diamondback moth; FT-IR; GC-TOF/MS; metabolic profiling

Funding

  1. Cabbage Genomics Assisted Breeding Supporting Center (CGsC) [610008-05-4-WT111]
  2. Golden Seed Project [2013003-04-1-SB330]
  3. Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, Republic of Korea
  4. Institute of Planning & Evaluation for Technology in Food, Agriculture, Forestry & Fisheries (iPET), Republic of Korea [213003041SB110] Funding Source: Korea Institute of Science & Technology Information (KISTI), National Science & Technology Information Service (NTIS)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The diamondback moth, Plutella xylostella (L.), is a major pest responsible for destroying cabbage and other Brassica vegetable crops. A diamondback moth-resistant cabbage line was studied by comparing its metabolite profiles with those of a susceptible cabbage. Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy analysis revealed that carbohydrates, aromatic compounds, and amides were the major factors that distinguished the resistant and susceptible genotypes. Gas chromatography time-of-flight mass spectrometry profiled 46 metabolites, including 19 amino acids, 15 organic acids, 8 sugars, 3 sugar alcohols, and 1 amine in two genotypes and F-1 hybrid cabbages. The levels of glycolic acid, quinic acid, inositol, fumaric acid, glyceric acid, trehalose, shikimic acid, and aspartic acid were found to be very significantly different between the resistant and susceptible genotypes with a P value of <0.0001. These results will provide a foundation for further studies on diamondback moth resistance in cabbage breeding and for the development of other herbivore-resistant crops.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available