4.7 Article

Metabolomics by UHPLC-Q-TOF Reveals Host Tree-Dependent Phytochemical Variation in Viscum album L.

期刊

PLANTS-BASEL
卷 10, 期 8, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/plants10081726

关键词

Viscum album; mistletoe; host tree; metabolite fingerprinting; multivariate analysis

资金

  1. Capes [88881.119813/2016-01]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study compared the metabolic profiles of European mistletoe from different host trees, showing that the compounds in mistletoe vary depending on the host tree. Analysis revealed seven compounds that may serve as host-specific biomarkers for mistletoe.
Viscum album L., commonly known as European mistletoe, is a hemi-parasitic plant of the Santalaceae family. The in vitro and in vivo effects of V. album differ, according to its host tree. However, little is known about the host-dependent phytochemical diversity in V. album. In this study, the metabolic profiles of V. album ssp. album from Malus domestica Bork., Quercus robur L., and Ulmus carpinifolia Gled were compared. Leaves, stems, and berries were collected in Switzerland, by the same procedure, in September 2016 and 2017. The methanolic extracts were analyzed by ultra-performance liquid chromatography, coupled to electrospray quadrupole time-of-flight mass spectrometry in positive ionization mode. The data were submitted to partial-least square discriminant analysis (PLS-DA) and the results showed that the V. album ssp. album samples were clustered into three groups, according to the three distinct host trees. Seven compounds, with high VIP scores (variable importance in projection), were responsible for this differentiation. The following four compounds were detected in both the harvest years: arginine, pipecolic acid or lysine, dimethoxycoumarin, and sinapyl alcohol, suggesting their use as host specific V. album biomarkers. The present work highlights the importance of standardized harvest and analytical procedures for the reproducibility of the chemical results of herbal materials.

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