4.7 Article

Phytochemical Diversity in Tubers of Potato Cultivars and Landraces Using a GC-MS Metabolomics Approach

期刊

JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL AND FOOD CHEMISTRY
卷 56, 期 21, 页码 10280-10291

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/jf801370b

关键词

Gas chromatography-mass spectrometry; metabolic profiling; metabolomics; potato; Solanum tuberosum; tubers

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Phytochemical diversity with respect to a range of polar (including amino acids, organic acids, sugars, and sugar alcohols) and nonpolar (including fatty acids, alkanols, and sterols) metabolites was examined within tubers from a total of 29 genetically diverse potato cultivars and Chilean landraces using a metabolomics approach by gas chromatography-mass spectrometry. From principal component analysis of the polar and nonpolar metabolite data there was insufficient variation to differentiate the majority of cultivars and landraces. Analysis of all polar metabolite profiles revealed separation of two cultivars (Glenna and Morag) from the other cultivars and landraces and a separate cluster of one landrace line, largely due to higher levels of sugars. Pentland Javelin was distinct in containing high levels of many amino acids. The two Solanurn tuberosum group phureja cultivars (Inca Sun and Mayan Gold) were not particularly similar and were not separated from the S. tuberosum group tuberosum cultivars. Analysis of the nonpolar metabolite data revealed partial separation of two landrace lines and, on the basis of some minor fatty acids, Mayan Gold was distinct. The differences in metabolite profiles are considered in terms of the taxonomy and breeding history of the cultivars and possible influences from other factors such as developmental stage of the tuber. With a view to exploring biosynthetic links between metabolites, a pairwise correlation analysis was performed on all metabolites. The significance of high correlations between many amino acids and between several nonpolar metabolites is discussed.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据