4.7 Article

Teaching (and learning from) metabolomics:: The 2006 PlantMetaNet ETNA Metabolomics Research School

期刊

PHYSIOLOGIA PLANTARUM
卷 132, 期 2, 页码 136-149

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1399-3054.2007.00990.x

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Under the auspices of the European Training and Networking Activity programme of the European Union, a 'Metabolic Profiling and Data Analysis' Plant Genomics and Bioinformatics Summer School was hosted in Potsdam, Germany between 20 and 29 September 2006. Sixteen early career researchers were invited from the European Union partner nations and the so-called developing nations (Appendix). Lectures from invited leading European researchers provided an overview of the state of the art of these fields and seeded discussion regarding major challenges for their future advancement. Hands-on experience was provided by an example experiment - that of defining the metabolic response of Arabidopsis to treatment of a commercial herbicide of defined mode of action. This experiment was performed throughout the duration of the course in order to teach the concepts underlying extraction and machine handling as well as to provide a rich data set with which the required computation and statistical skills could be illustrated. Here we review the state of the field by describing both key lectures given at and practical aspects taught at the summer school. In addition, we disclose results that were obtained using the four distinct technical platforms at the different participating institutes. While the effects of the chosen herbicide are well documented, this study looks at a broader number of metabolites than in previous investigations. This allowed, on the one hand, not only to characterise further effects of the herbicide than previously observed but also to detect molecules other than the herbicide that were obviously present in the commercial formulation. These data and the workshop in general are all discussed in the context of the teaching of metabolomics.

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