4.7 Article

From models to crop species: caveats and solutions for translational metabolomics

期刊

FRONTIERS IN PLANT SCIENCE
卷 2, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

FRONTIERS MEDIA SA
DOI: 10.3389/fpls.2011.00061

关键词

plant metabolomics; sample preparation; ion suppression; chemical diversity; translational biology; LC-MS

资金

  1. German Federal Ministry of Education and Research
  2. FORSYS BMBF [GoFORSYS]
  3. Max-Planck Society (MPG)
  4. Alexander von Humboldt Foundation
  5. Internationa lMax-PlanckResearch School (IMPRS)
  6. Australian Research Council Centre of Excellence in Plant Energy Biology

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Although plant metabolomics is largely carried out on Arabidopsis it is essentially genome-independent, and thus potentially applicable to a wide range of species. However, transfer between species, or even between different tissues of the same species, is not facile. This is because the reliability of protocols for harvesting, handling and analysis depends on the biological features and chemical composition of the plant tissue. In parallel with the diversification of model species it is important to establish good handling and analytic practice, in order to augment computational comparisons between tissues and species. Liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry (LC-MS)-based metabolomics is one of the powerful approaches for metabolite profiling. By using a combination of different extraction methods, separation columns, and ion detection, a very wide range of metabolites can be analyzed. However, its application requires careful attention to exclude potential pitfalls, including artifactual changes in metabolite levels during sample preparation under variations of light or temperature and analytic errors due to ion suppression. Here we provide case studies with two different LC-MS-based metabolomics platforms and four species (Arabidopsis thaliana, Chlamydomonas reinhardtii, Solanum lycopersicum, and Oryza sativa) that illustrate how such dangers can be detected and circumvented.

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