4.7 Article

Metabolic networks of Cucurbita maxima phloem

期刊

PHYTOCHEMISTRY
卷 62, 期 6, 页码 875-886

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/S0031-9422(02)00715-X

关键词

metabolite profiling; sieve elements; companion cells; GC/MS; mass spectrometry; extrafascicular phloem; LC/MS; Cucurbita maxima; Cucurbitaceae

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Metabolomic analysis aims at a comprehensive characterization of biological samples. Yet, biologically meaningful interpretations are often limited by the poor spatial and temporal resolution of the acquired data sets. One way to remedy this is to limit the complexity of the cell types being studied. Cucurbita maxima Duch. vascular exudates provide an excellent material for metabolomics in this regard. Using automated mass spectral deconvolution, over 400 components have been detected in these exudates, but only 90 of them were tentatively identified. Many amino compounds were found in vascular exudates from leaf petioles at concentrations several orders of magnitude higher than in tissue disks from the same leaves, whereas hexoses and sucrose were found in far lower amounts. In order to find the expected impact of assimilation rates on sugar levels, total phloem composition of eight leaves from four plants was followed over 4.5 days. Surprisingly, no diurnal rhythm was found for any of the phloem metabolites that was statistically valid for all eight leaves. Instead, each leaf had its own distinct vascular exudate profile similar to leaves from the same plant, but clearly different from leaves harvested from plants at the same developmental stage. Thirty to forty per cent of all metabolite levels of individual leaves were different from the average of all metabolite profiles. Using metabolic co-regulation analysis, similarities and differences between the exudate profiles were more accurately characterized through network computation, specifically with respect to nitrogen metabolism. (C) 2003 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

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