4.3 Article

Metabolomics reveals variation and correlation among different tissues of olive (Olea europaea L.)

期刊

BIOLOGY OPEN
卷 6, 期 9, 页码 1317-1323

出版社

COMPANY OF BIOLOGISTS LTD
DOI: 10.1242/bio.025585

关键词

Metabolome; Olive; Different tissue; ANOVA; Metabolite-metabolite; Correlation

类别

资金

  1. Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Non-profit Research Institution of the Chinese Academy of Forestry (CAF) [CAFYBB2016SY001, CAFYBB2014QB028, RIF2013-11]
  2. National Natural Science Foundation of China [31400569]
  3. Collaborative Innovation Plan of Jiangsu Higher Education

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Metabolites in olives are associated with nutritional value and physiological properties. However, comprehensive information regarding the olive metabolome is limited. In this study, we identified 226 metabolites from three different tissues of olive using a non-targeted metabolomic profiling approach, of which 76 named metabolites were confirmed. Further statistical analysis revealed that these 76 metabolites covered different types of primary metabolism and some of the secondary metabolism pathways. One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) statistical assay was performed to calculate the variations within the detected metabolites, and levels of 65 metabolites were differentially expressed in different samples. Hierarchical cluster analysis (HCA) dendrograms showed variations among different tissues that were similar to the metabolite profiles observed in new leaves and fruit. Additionally, 5776 metabolite-metabolite correlations were detected by a Pearson correlation coefficient approach. Screening of the calculated correlations revealed 3136, 3025, and 5184 were determined to metabolites and had significant correlations in three different combinations, respectively. This work provides the first comprehensive metabolomic of olive, which will provide new insights into understanding the olive metabolism, and potentially help advance studies in olive metabolic engineering.

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

4.3
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