4.7 Article

Influences of Four Different Light-Emitting Diode Lights on Flowering and Polyphenol Variations in the Leaves of Chrysanthemum (Chrysanthemum morifolium)

期刊

JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL AND FOOD CHEMISTRY
卷 60, 期 39, 页码 9793-9800

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/jf302272x

关键词

Chrysanthemum morifolium; light emitting diode; high-performance liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry; principal component analysis biplot; polyphenols

资金

  1. KBSI Grant [T32710]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Light-emitting diodes (LEDs) are an efficient alternative to traditional lamps for plant growth. To investigate the influence of LEDs on flowering and polyphenol biosynthesis in the leaves of chrysanthemum, the plants were grown under supplemental blue, green, red, and white LEDs. Flower budding was formed even after a longer photoperiod than a critical day length of 13.5 h per day under blue light illumination. The weights of leaves and stems were highest under the white light illumination growth condition, whereas the weight of roots appeared to be independent of light quality. Among nine polyphenols characterized by high-performance liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectroscopy, three polyphenols were identified for the first time in chrysanthemum. A quantitation and principal component analysis biplot demonstrated that luteolin-7-O-glucoside (2), luteolin-7-O-glucuronide (3), and quercetagetin-trimethyl ether (8) were the highest polyphenols yielded under green light, and dicaffeoylquinic acid isomer (4), dicaffeoylquinic acid isomer (5), naringenin (7), and apigenin-7-O-glucuronide (6) were greatest under red light. Chlorogenic acid (1) and 1,2,6-trihydroxy-7,8-dimethoxy-3-methylanthraquinone (9) were produced in similar concentrations under both light types. The white and blue light appeared inefficient for polyphenol production. Taken together, our results suggest that the chrysanthemum flowering and polyphenol production are influenced by light quality composition.

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